Hello Helen

 nice topic indeed. Recently there was a similar thread on BESIG yahoogroup as well.

I d support  English as lingua franca ELF up to a point  and the changes it is
undergoing, me being a NNST but not Globish if it is a sign of insufficient learning,
laziness  and complete disinterest in
language intricacies, subtleties and nuances of meaning

I cannot really understand Nerriere's Globish "dadaistic" and
superficial approach. It works in ephemeral encounters and small talk
on an occasional airplane, hotel lobby or train station but that is
where it should stay :)

 Natasha

Hi Helen/all!

To answer your first question

As I see it, Globish is more or less a sort of telegraphic-like means of communication- if any!

The formulas or chuncks used by a non-native speaker when speaking to a native would never lead to successful communication when it comes to topic loaded with cultural information/content. Also the lack of conversational strategies and the reduced grammar+vocabulary+phonology would certainly lead to a breakdown in comuunication.

This pseudo lingua-franca can only serve the purposes stated in Olwyn's posting -the case of non-native/non-native communication.

Cheerio;)

tarik Boussetta

Hello dear Olwyn and all

 Yes, perfectly agree with you all

 "Talking is one of the supreme achievement of humanity. Even Darwin who believed that humankind was simply another animal species said: " The lower animals differ from man solely in his almost infinitely larger power of associating together the most diversified sounds and ideas"  /the quote is from Dr Helen Fisher 's book/

 Natasha

Hi all,

Standardizing English would be, as I see it, undermining the human and anthroplogical assets language is always associated with. Standardizing will dehumanise and devaluate human communication, which will seem robotic!

By so doing language will be devoid of its cultural implications.

Cheers

I've just read Barack Obama's inauguration speech in Globish on the website Helen mentions. The sad thing is that it can be done! That seminal speech of the most mighty man in the world can be reduced to 1500 words. Didn't Shakespeare need 25000 words? Doesn't my Dictionary of Contemporary English (and there are thicker ones) count 200 000 English words? And what about grammar, syntax etc. - How did the "translators" manage it?

On the other hand, there are millions of people out there who have learnt English in school for years just because it was on the curriculum and at the end of it all very little sticks. Wouldn't it be better for the sort of people who are never going to want to carry on an academic discussion (even one like ours!) or to differentiate their thoughts in a foreign language at all to learn a simplified sort of English such as Globish or Bad Simple English from the outset ?? Then they could at least communicate on a simple level and it would probably take less time.

I have always thought that if you learn just twelve terms in the language before you go to a new country, you can "talk" in a very basic way to the people there. These twelve terms are things like a greeting, an apology, a refusal, a sign of sympathy etc. If you learn them beforehand you are equipped for the basic situations of interpersonal relationships. So in this context 1500 words doesn't sound too bad!

Has anyone any experience in teaching Globish or another simplified "English"? I'd love to hear about it!

Diana

Hi dear Diana/all!

The funny thing is that the date mentioned is July 2009!!! see  http://www.globish.com/

Too futuristic isn't it?

Let's compare the "globish" version of Obama's speech with the original one http://www.asksam.com/ebooks/releases.asp?file=Obama-Speeches.ask&dn=Obama%20Inaugural%20Address

The questions I'd like to ask are:

Was it possible for a non-native (who advocates this neo-English)  to fully understand Obama's speech (as it was given) when he/she was before his/her TV set on January 20?

Is it enough to simplify (paraphrase) things for learners?

Don't you think that some leaners would find it sufficient to learn this "lingua franca" and feel lazy to learn more?

...

Cheerio;)

Tarik BOUSSETTA

 Dear Diana

 yes, I guess it again boils down or "melts down " :) to needs- analysis. I can recall Nik Peachey's very same benign approach on Exeter online last year. But then again I do recall reading that now world wide there is not that many courses needed at beginners levels in language schools for instance since NN Ss progressed to higher levels over the past decades

I guess Globish works fine especially with mathematical intelligence/competence and those reticent Ss who can articulate their thoughts perfectly well for instance in equations. I call that binome 0 - 1 precision with no recourse to verbosity and loquatiousness, which I guess is fine. I guess what SAT/GRE/GMAT  tests for instance in USA try to do is to ellicit both verbal and quantitive skills in learners in its full potential. Literature takes that to one extreme.

Btw, I dont think highly of the exams I ve just mentioned :( since there is far too much in them which requires re -doing

Natasha 

Hello everyone,

Many thanks for the contributions which have already been made to this topic. Based on the discussion so far, so some further questions occur to me:

1. How easy is it for native speakers of English to understand ELF?

2. Is it motivational for beginning level students to see that real communication is possible with a fairly limited vocabulary, or does this idea present unrealistic expectations?

3. Does the existence of a simplified form of English encourage laziness in learners, or is use of simplified English just one step in the learning process?

If you have found this thread interesting, you might also be interested in this session, which I noticed takes place on Wednesday 1st April:

http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2009/sessions/62/i-speak-elf-eil-wsse-and-offshore-english

Helen

This thread caught my attention as I have recently been doing some reading on the advantages and disadvantages of teaching a "standardised" variety of English.

While I agree that there could be an appeal, especially in the beginning stages of learning English, to be able to communicate with limited vocabulary, I don't think that Globish would serve the purpose of a truly global language. I suspect, though I don't have the statistics to back this up, that most people needing the use of a "lingua franca" would want to be able to do more than just "get by". Yes, it would allow speakers to communicate the main point, but that seems to be very superficial. I, for one, have been with students that can relate something to me in basic terms but are frustrated as they don't have the means to express the true depths of what they want me to understand.

As for a simplified English - does this not then lead to learners only being able to understand material that is produced in this standardised language? Will this require international newspapers and publications, international news broadcats, etc. to conform to this standard? Will todays English speakers, NS and NNS, have to learn a "new" English to be part of the global community? And what about those that want to learn English for purposes such as moving to an English speaking country, watching English language movies, reading English literature... will they need to learn different Englishes? (Could bring a whole new meaning to ESP) Perhaps I am going to the other extreme here, but the fact that English is clearly on the international language path is, in my opinion, a lot to do with its already widespread use in its many varieties. On the whole, I think it would be fair to say that most proficient English speakers can understand a variety of Englishes and while it maybe easier to learn a simplified English, it kind of dismisses what is already there.

And that's my tuppence worth... for now

Georgina.

Nerrière is correct when he states that English is too complicated for international communication. However, the idea of using simplified English is not new. Many types of simplified English are used in business and commerce. For example:

Voice of America's 'Special English' has 1500 basic words. Broadcasts in Special English started in 1959 (www.voanews.com/specialenglish/about_special_english.cfm).

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English uses 2000 words to define approximately 200,000 terms (www.pearsonlongman.com/ldoce/).

ASD Simplified Technical English (www.asd-ste100.org) has a vocabulary of approximately 850 words and it restricts the grammar that a writer can use. AST STE has been used since 1986. (Admittedly, ASD STE is designed for technical documentation. However, the principles apply to business texts. For an example, see www.international-english.co.uk.)

Wycliffe Associates (UK) uses EasyEnglish for its Christian literature. A translation of the Bible uses 1200 basic words and a subset of English grammar (www.easyenglish.info/eewhatis.htm).

Mike Unwalla
TechScribe
www.techscribe.co.uk

You can read a couple of chapters of the real thing -- IN Globish -- from the new book  Globish The World Over now at www.globish.com or read reviews Eyrolles publishers.