[powercf]

My problem is that, as time goes by, English use will become more common, and Icelandic less. The spread of the English language (e.g. the children in the article who '“know what the word is” for something they are being shown on the flashcard, but not in Icelandic.') is accompanied by the spread of US culture (TV, film, music). While US culture isn't neccessarily better or worse than any other, I get a lot of enjoyment from visiting places where English isn't spoken, and where one can see different traditions, greetings etc. I see the spread of the English language a step in the Americanization of the world, which is a shame.

[curun1r]

I find the debate over English superseding other languages to be somewhat comical. On the one hand, sure, there are parts of different cultures being lost. But they're being replaced by possibly the best example there is of a language evolving over time due to power dynamics.

The accusation is often leveled against American cultural imperialism. But the language being imposed isn't a Native American language...it isn't Navajo that's being spread across the globe, it's the language that replaced so many Native American languages when the American continent was conquered. And while American English has undergone some cosmetic changes, it's largely the same language that was brought over by the colonists/invaders. So if it's an English language, it must have originated in England, right? But no, it's derived from the Germanic and Norman conquests with a smattering of classical Greek and the original Anglo-Saxon language. And its Latin origins even come by way of the Roman conquest of Gaul. Even the alphabet used comes from the subset of English characters used in German printing presses.

This notion that languages are something that need to be preserved is antithetical to the purpose of language and the history of the development of languages. We have many languages because, historically, we had many groups that didn't have regular contact with each other. And whenever there were groups that had regular contact with each other, language adapted to that fact and evolved. And now with globalization and the internet, we're beginning a phase where everyone has regular contact with everyone else. It's silly to think that language won't do what it's done every time you mix people who speak different languages throughout history. It isn't a process that happens overnight, but over the course of generations, languages that cannot impose a power dynamic will be lost to history or rendered irrelevant in the way that, say, Welsh is today.

We can be sad about it or try to fight it, but it's an inevitability and fighting that is ultimately futile.

[icebraining]

But the language being imposed isn't a Native American language..

If a Frenchman shoots someone with a bullet made in Germany, would you say the victim was killed by a German?

The origins of the language don't matter to the point being made, which is that having one's native language adopted by everyone else provides massive benefits in spreading one's culture and values, while weakening and even killing off others.

This notion that languages are something that need to be preserved is antithetical to the purpose of language and the history of the development of languages. We have many languages because, historically, we had many groups that didn't have regular contact with each other.

This is not the whole story, languages were and are created for the purpose of demarcating and separating a subculture from the majority. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cant_(language)

[curun1r]

> The origins of the language don't matter to the point being made, which is that having one's native language adopted by everyone else provides massive benefits in spreading one's culture and values, while weakening and even killing off others.

And that point is irrelevant. Now that everyone is communicating with everyone else, a common language is an inevitability. And that language isn't going to be chosen democratically or designed, it's going to flow from a power dynamic. That's what's going to happen because that's what's always happened. Arguing that it shouldn't happen or is wrong is like arguing against gravity, evolution or any other fact of life.

That doesn't mean that other languages will just go away (just look at how many other languages are alive in some form in the UK, despite English having been dominant there for centuries), it just means that they won't be as ubiquitous as they once were because people will have the option not to learn them.

[intopieces]

> Now that everyone is communicating with everyone else

Where did you get this idea? Only 47% of the world is using the Internet [0]. Only 20% speaks English [1]. Hell, even the "most commonly spoken language" Mandarin consists of dialects that vary between mutually intelligible to total unintelligible.

If AI allows us to convincingly translate among languages when speaking to each other, it would remove any need for people to learn a common language. Given how much research is going into that problem, we might see that problem solved faster than the time when "everyone is communicating with everyone else."

[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/22... [1]https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/how-many-people-speak-eng...

[pennaMan]

>This is not the whole story, languages were and are created for the purpose of demarcating and separating a subculture from the majority.

This is also why the most hardcore language persevering fanatics tend to also be hardcore xenophobes.

[jacobolus]

> Germanic and Norman conquests

Whether there was an Anglo–Saxon “conquest” per se is a controversial and fairly interesting historical question. Wikipedia has a summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Brit...

[intopieces]

>But they're being replaced by possibly the best example there is of a language evolving over time due to power dynamics.

Why does the power dynamic of the language speakers (and therefore their linguistic dominance) provide a counterbalance to the loss of culture? That is, why do you specifically value one over the other, and in what sense is this comical?

[curun1r]

It's not that I value one over the other. It's that I observe a dynamic that has persisted throughout human history and see people trying to fight it. Why is right now the time that we should "freeze" language adaptation to save culture? If that's the perspective, why aren't we also trying resurrect Ancient Egyptian language to preserve that culture as well?

Growing up in an area with rip tides, it was always drilled into my head that if I got caught in one and started getting dragged out to sea, I shouldn't fight it. Instead, I should swim parallel to shore until I'm out of the current and can more easily swim back to shore. Just like a rip current, language adaptation due to power dynamics is a reality. You can either accept that and try to make the best of that situation or you can put up a futile resistance.

There's no value system at play just like there's no value system in gravity or rip currents. They're just facts that you accept and integrate into whatever plan you're making.

[lugg]

First of all I fully agree with your sentiment and have similar views (re comical and more)

But

I don't think it is wrong to want to preserve culture and or language. I actually have really strong views that we MUST preserve language and everything that stems from it.

Not necessarily in the sense that we must all be able to speak it - English is going to dominate no matter what you do - but from a purely academic stand point it gives us an incredible insight into how humans have developed historically and may even help explain some of our misgivings in the future. Recording language is something we should be doing in the same way we are creating seed vaults in the arctic.

Language is what I believe truly defines us as humans. People who speak multiple languages often have completely different personalities [1] when speaking each language.

The language you speak can also alter many things including the way you view and reason about:

- Time [2]

- Color [3]

- Direction / left and right / forward and back [3]

- And even whether you know your own gender [3]

The list probably doesn't stop there but it shows you that losing these languages means we lose a completely different way of viewing the world - I think that would be kind of sad, I'm just glad we at least learned this before they're all lost.

> It's that I observe a dynamic that has persisted throughout human history and see people trying to fight it. Why is right now the time that we should "freeze" language adaptation to save culture?

I don't think "right now" is the time - I suspect all lost languages have struggled with losing their place and would have had people attempt to fight it and preserve the language.

Remember, our history likely doesn't cover the languages that have been lost and the struggle to preserve them specifically because they have been lost.

> If that's the perspective, why aren't we also trying resurrect Ancient Egyptian language to preserve that culture as well?

I'm glad you bought that up - it is a perfect example because we know how to read and write the language but we can only begin[4] to imagine how it actually sounds - and what ways it may have altered our views.

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-bilingual/201111/c...

[2] http://theconversation.com/language-alters-our-experience-of...

[3] https://ideas.ted.com/5-examples-of-how-the-languages-we-spe...

[4] https://www.connectsavannah.com/savannah/how-do-we-know-how-...

[SEJeff]

You know that the English language doesn't originate in America, right? Equating the spread of English as a step in the Americanization of the world (to me) is a bit silly.

I can reword your statement to use Spanish and Peru. It sounds just as weird:

    I see the spread of the Spanish language a step in the Peruvianization of the world, which is a shame.

In America, we speak all kinds of languages, of which English is the most common.

[CamelCaseName]

America is influenced by the Spanish language, but that is because it imports Mexican culture, not Peruvian.

Iceland (I assume) imports far more American culture than British. They simply dominate many forms of art (TV, movies, games). So while you are right that America is not the birthplace of English, English is the medium in which American culture spreads.

[powercf]

> You know that the English language doesn't originate in America, right?

Of course, but it's not relevent.

> I see the spread of the Spanish language a step in the Peruvianization of the world, which is a shame.

Peru isn't driver of Spanish-speaking culture the way the US is the driver of English-speaking culture.

TV shows, music, film, technology news and discussion websites, …. Most are US-made, and go hand in hand with the spread of the English language. An English lerner in ${X} will watch Breaking Bad, House of Cards, Spiderman, … (all in English, maybe with suptitles), will listen to Rhianna, Eminem, …, and will talk about "Performance", "Data Center" or use other English loanwords (if working with technology at least). It's obvious to me enough exposure to US culture does lead to a US way of thinking.

[ascorbic]

They'll also probably listen to Ed Sheeran, One Direction, Adele, watch Top Gear, Doctor Who, Downton Abbey, Bake Off, read Harry Potter. The US might be dominant, but it's the English language that's the global hegemon.

[SEJeff]

This so much! This was literally my point! The English language != America, and I say this as a born and bred (slightly unhappy with our buffoon in chief) American.

[_emacsomancer_]

There are an awful lot of English-native and English-speaking Commonwealth countries (including the UK itself) which have non-negligible influence, including on the US.

[notahacker]

Hell, us Brits even get to apologise to the US for selling them the TV-show format that got their president elected ;-)

[adventured]

American cultural projection and economic success in the 20th century is overwhelmingly responsible for spreading the English language to so many corners of the globe. The British Empire collapsed and retracted back to the UK. Britain's global cultural projection is a small fraction of the US today. If eg Britain were the primary driver of English since WW2, as the first major sponsors of the language, you'd more likely see a contraction in English in line with the contraction of the British Empire and their cultural + economic reach. Instead English has continued to spread.

People in China haven't been aggressively learning English the last ~30 years primarily so they can do business with New Zealand. English become the global language of commerce because the US took over nearly half of the global economy, and over half of its manufacturing, immediately after WW2.

It's pretty simple: the British started that fire, then their empire declined. The US picked up their torch and made the fire a lot bigger with the wide-spread globalization we see today coinciding with the US becoming the sole superpower post WW2 (ie produced a perfect storm for English spreading globally).

[notahacker]

I'm not sure English would have "retracted back to the UK" even if the US spoke Navajo as its preferred language. It's not realistic expectations of doing business with the US or watching Hollywood instead of Bollywood that explains why English became the alternative to Hindu dominance of language in Indian education, commerce and civil service. The much earlier decline of Spanish colonial influence didn't diminish the pervasiveness of its language in certain parts of the world (most where English is seldom spoken) in any meaningful way, and there really aren't any obvious corners of the globe English hadn't already spread to some extent before American cultural influence kicked in.

There's a reason why people haven't been aggressively learning Chinese despite it being the language of the world's #2 economic power, and that's because all the boots on the ground work to set up civil services, education systems and trade networks and associate their language with prestige and power had already been done by colonialists speaking other languages.

[ardfie]

The United States is the biggest exporter of English-language media. In other English speaking countries American terms and idioms are increasingly common.

[wyclif]

I'm in the Philippines now, and the irony for me, as an American, is that English is not an official language in the USA, yet in the Philippines it is (along with Filipino).

[BurningFrog]

> I get a lot of enjoyment from visiting places where English isn't spoken

Sure, but people decide what language to speak based on what is most practical for them. Not on what gives you the most exotic vacation.

Personally, I see a future world where all people on earth can talk to each other as an enormous benefit. I'm really confused by the priorities of anyone who honestly thinks otherwise.

[thatfrenchguy]

> I get a lot of enjoyment from visiting places where English isn't spoken

Very interestingly though, Americans tend to visit places and usually contain themselves to the very small pockets of countries where people can speak English to them. I can definitely see that in my country (France), where American tourists only go to the-place-where-all-americans-go, and then come back amazed that people spoke English to them.

This tends to be very disconnected from the actual English-speaking skills of the population (which, for my country, is pretty abysmal).

[EggsOnToast]

This is a topic that's really interesting to me because it has a lot of angles. At its most basic, there's people like me who are largely divested from our heritage and don't value it's preservation particularly. That's not to say I want it gone, I just don't have strong feelings about it either way.

On the other hand you have a lot of peoples who draw a lot of pride or just a sense of identity from exploring their culture and its heritage.

And finally you have the arguable need and definite convenience of a lingua franca in the face of increasing globalization.