The future of English

English as she was spoke


See article

Readers' comments




I read one of the author's earlier books, A Language History of the World, and this underlying argument was also present in that book, though it was not the book's focus.


Not having read the book, only the review, I wonder if it looks at the social aspect to globalization. People around the world are striving to be global citizens, and are using English as their tool to do so. Every year a greater percentage of the world population is traveling and connecting with people who do not share their mother tung. We must re-think the concept of mother tung and second language. What does it mean? And I state that question not wanting to hear the old definition repeated back.


I was passing time once with diverse group of international students, and several of them made an interesting observation. They said that one of the strengths of English is that it is more "welcoming" than many other languages. They contrasted their experience of learning English with learning French (in one case) or Mandarin Chinese (in the other). They said that native-English speakers tended to try harder to understand what they were saying, and would compliment them despite their lack of experience, whereas native-speakers of the other languages tended to correct them much more frequently on grammar and accent, thereby making the learning process less enjoyable.
Again, those are not my observations.

Reeshar France

For those commentators who suggest the US will soon mainly speak Spanish because of all the Spanish speaking immigrants, I suggest they visit Argentina. Sixty percent of the population might have Italian origins but there was never any chance of Spanish being replaced by the very similar Italian.

Those who try to bring their children up bilingually are all too aware of the monolingual attraction of the language spoken at school. Most bilingual kids over seven years old understand their parents' language perfectly but insist on replying in the language of their adopted country.


A friend of mine from Britain got a tattoo in Hindi. She told me it was her name and she had used google translator. The translation was no where near her name, even the pronunciation was wrong. Clearly shows translators have a long way to go before they can be trusted, especially when translating sensitive diplomatic communication.


I believe the language that will depose English as Lingua-Franca is Spanish, simply because by the end of This Century, Spanish will become the dominant language of USA, and the 300+ million US population will one day become a Spanish speaking nation.

Transision from English to Spanish is nowhere near as drastic as transition to Arabic or Chinese, and one continent (Latin America) will give its wholehearted support to the transition. On the other hand, I can see strong opposition from the Indian subcontinent for such transition too, so maybe its not as clear-cut.

Also, if anyone succeeds in inventing the Star Trek Universal Translator, it will be us (Japanese), for our need is by far the greatest (we really are horrible at learning foreign languages, maybe because many of us consider learning a foreign tongue as some sort of spiritual contamination...)

Reeshar France

@Ontario Canada, that was my point: all those Italian immigrants didn't manage to change the language of Argentina from Spanish to Italian. And after a few generations there's not much trace of anyone in the country still speaking Italian, even as a second language.

As for your comment about people learning British English as opposed to American English, in my experience as soon as you move away from areas with a recent British influence (India, Hong Kong etc.), the people learn US English. Even most Europeans I know prefer the spelling center to centre. And why not too? Speaking as a Brit, I find the US spelling a little simpler, though I still think it would be a great idea to get up some committee of the great and the good and really simplify the rules of English spelling. Though, that said, I'd only trust myself to head that committee.

Reluctant Polluter


"Get your facts together and stop the lingo-imperialistic attitudes."

Are lingo-Guevarish attitudes any better?

The question is not how many native speakers has this or that language, but how many non-natives use the lingua-franca. When millions of Spanish and Mandarin native speakers need to communicate, they use English, and will continue to do so in foreseeable future.


It is funny to see how English speakers think about their language as "the world’s second language". It is not. Mandarin Chinese (1.1 billion); Hindi/Urdu (350 million), and Spanish (330 million) are the most spoken languages in the world. Get your facts together and stop the lingo-imperialistic attitudes.

D. Sherman

The idea that computer translation will make it unnecessary for people to speak a common language is interesting, but not persuasive. There is precedent for that in measurement, where the "need" for us all to convert to the metric system 50 years ago has gone away thanks to computer-controlled machinery that can make parts perfectly well in whatever units you want to give them.

With language, however, there will always be benefits to direct person-to-person communication. Interposing any sort of translator, human or machine, no matter how cheap, ubiquitous, and speedy it might be, will always remove both spontaneity and nuance from the conversation. If two salesmen are trying to sell me a product, and the products are identical, the salesman who can speak my language will likely get the order. Machine translation essentially fills the role of a trade jargon -- it will suffice to allow the trading parties to do business, but it's far from satisfactory and the fluent speaker of his trading partner's language will always have a competitive advantage.

What I think is much more likely is a continuation of what's already happening. The great advantage of English has been its ability to incorporate words from other languages. This makes it devilish to learn since its "rules" are a hodge-podge of those of the languages it's absorbed, but it also makes it particularly adaptable to globalization.

People naturally want to talk with each other. People do not naturally care if the parts of their car were manufactured to fractions of an inch or fractions of a millimeter. People will gladly let machines translate the dimensions of machine parts, but when it comes to human communication, for business or pleasure, a common language has such huge social advantages that I can only foresee machine translation being used, like a trade jargon, as a stopgap measure.

Reeshar France

Translation software will become more and more useful, that's for sure. But ask any UN official, EU bureaucrat or manager of a multinational if they would prefer to communicate face to face with their peers using a lingua franca or via the world's best interpreter and the common language - even when not completely mastered by either party - will win hands down.

Political and business elites, for at least as long as they are made up of humans and not machines, will always make the effort to learn a common language in order to communicate.



Well I agree with you on this. My first language is English, I grew up learning Japanese, and I'm just getting started on Mandarin. I can't comment for English speaking people, but Chinese people are much more helpful and excited to see me learning their language compared with Japanese people. Its something I never would have considered before, and I hate to group entire people like this, but its been so overwhelming when I compare the attitudes of Japanese people to the attitudes of Chinese friends and even strangers I meet. Something to consider for anyone wanting to learn an Asian language.

Brian Barker

Please do not overestimate the position of English.






Your readers may be interested in seeing Professor Piron was a former translator with the United Nations

The study course is now receiving 120,000 hits per month. That can't be bad :)


When people use the term "English" for language, aren't they really talking about speaking "American"? I think there is a meaningful distinction, because American English is actually a pretty dynamic language, that is constantly inventing words and phrases, and liberally borrowing words and phrases from other languages. The English that Americans spoke 200 years ago, 150 years ago, 100 years ago, and 50 years ago, are all noticeably different, yet a modern listener can figure out what people were saying from those timeperiods with little difficulty.

This is why I think American English will remain the lingua franca of global communications - it is flexible enough to absorb and change. You don't need to speak it well to be understood, and the irony is that if enough people copy your mistakes, there is a really good chance they will be adopted eventually into the American English lexicon anyway.


Interesting arguments here. I find the value-driven argument the most compelling for language adoption and use. During my several years in China I observed that there were many people who wanted to learn English to improve their employment prospects. It simply opens doors to opportunity. As China's economy begins to stand on its own, it seems to me that sufficient domestic demand for products will significantly offset the need to service international trade. When the money is in servicing domestic demand, where is the benefit in English, particularly when Mandarin is so widely adopted in its territories and protectorates? (remember that China, like India, has a large number of local languages) This is going to happen much sooner than many might expect and when it does, English language adoption will drop dramatically.

As it stands, the English classes that Chinese receive from primary school amount to no demonstrable use of the language as it simply isn't spoken by the average person under any circumstance outside of school. That is except in very structured, scripted circumstances (usually at western-style hotels and venues). Going off-script results in much frustration. Case in point, the gentlemen's remarks regarding Chinglish on his domestic Chinese flight. I would argue that the English-language materials were more to make a statement to the Chinese consumers on the flight than they were for the benefit of foreigners. "We are a quality airline as evidenced by our 'English' magazines." It is a sign of prestige within the culture much like the many adverts on the sides of Beijing buses featuring caucasian consumers of local products. Chinese practitioners of English have a long way to go before we can even begin to consider the average even remotely passable.

A significant level of adoption is unlikely to happen because the Chinese economy will begin to service itself in greater and greater degrees, obviating the desirability or even need to have English as a driver for opportunity, much as it did in Japan. And like Japan (with a very low English adoption rate for a fully emerged economy), English will be spoken only by those who want to engage in international trade or industries that cater to westerners (business, tourism). English simply isn't that relavent to most Japanese people and their daily needs. This is still true and likely to remain true for China.

Having said that, I wonder what the rate of adoption of Mandarin is in Japan as compared to English ...


I think that trying to quantify native english speakers (especially to the nearest million!) is really a fools errand. For example, I was born in Canada, but my native language is German, meaning that my Mom spoke German to me and it was the only language I knew until I attended public school at the age of five.

Today, while I can understand German, I have a hard time carrying on a conversation in German. I've used English for education, work and everyday communication for the past twenty years.

Am I a native English speaker or not? My point is, in cases like this, generalizations are necessary. Is it really important if the number is 333 or 400?

Reluctant Polluter

Examples with the ancient lingua-francas like Aramaic, Persian or Phoenician are impressive and quite interesting (to the point of cuteness), but don't bear much significance for the modern age.

Very small sections of population had any need in lingua-franca back then: either at the time of Achaemenids or at Renaissance. But even before the Internet, means of communication underwent an absolutely groundbreaking and rapid development during the 20th century, involving more and more people into international contacts and intercourse. It happened during the rein of English as the lingua-franca, and got this language into its current unique position; I cannot see what could change it – except if a totally new mind to mind communication which won't need any language were invented... but it's too fantastic a suggestion (and even in our minds we speak to ourselves in languages).

Technological arguments of Mr. Ostler are laughable, and even more so the nationalistic ones. Sinhala- and Swahili-speaking... he-he-he-he... “elites” may forced their agenda on certain nations, but what good did it bring to them? Some day pragmatism and sanity will take revenge.

What's true however, is that it's not exactly English which is lingua-franca, but broken English; and everybody speaks Broken English perfectly – in his own way.


....and now they attack English!

First it was the decline of America and the CERTAIN rise of China as a Superpower to take her place. Right? Of course. After all, America was said to be in decline when the Soviets launched Sputnik. America was in decline when the Vietnam war was raging. America was in decline when Watergate was headlines. America was in decline during the Japaneses economic [temporary] miracle in the 80's. And we are told today that as a result of Sept11 and the Iraq/Afghan wars America is in decline again with a rising China to fill it's shoes.. blah.. blah.. blah...

So, I suppose the next brilliant prediction by the wishful-thinkers is of course the decline of English as the world's preferred language.

my humble advice: don't lose sleep or wait up for this, because you'll probably be losing precious sack time for nothing.


The author mentions empire. French and Portuguese are usually mentioned as colonizers. What is often overlooked is the position of German during and prior to two world wars. The langauge of Marx, Einstein and Fraud, Bach, Beethoven and Mozart was largely German. We do repeat history with notorious results because even this dialogue ignores how a prominent language like German disappeared with defeat in 2 world wars. (While Japanese Americans were intened, millions of German Americans stayed low-key (some supported Germany) and didn't suffer major reprisals.)
Many of the comments deal with numbers. Few readers will discuss what is wrong or right (moral). Too difficult, impossible one might say.
I'm a bit annoyed. Esperanto has spread because of a message of peace. English will spread and prosper, with a message of war/empire/oolonization its racist legacy. I'm an American who believes that the American culture is made up of the following: 1. no unions 2. no vacations 3. apathy in political life (with a minority ever voting-for 2 parties of elites-instead of a multi-party proportional system in numerous European countries) and 4.low female participation in politics... as the essential elements of American culture, which seems to be what the world will get if it continues in its love of all American.
During 40 years I have discovered that Esperanto is leaning towards an improved tolerant democracy. Thousands of Esperanto speakers meet because friendship is a urgent need of mankind. All the commerce in the world does not impress me when it is devoid of human contact (example China-US relations). Happily Esperanto is spreading egually in Asia (China, Vietnam, Japan and Korea), South America (notably Brazil and Cuba) and most European countries. India and Africa are have vibrant Esperanto movements in numerous cities.
The choice is dumbed-down English for the masses or Esperanto (designed to be 5 times easier) which will lift us into a knew phase of international cooperaion and friendship. I blog, mostly in English on Esperanto at


Many commenters apparently fail to realize that computer translation does not have to be perfect, or as good as professional human translation. It only has to good enough so that it's easier to deal with documents that have been automatically translated than it would be to learn enough of the language to be able to read them in the original.

For a lot of purposes, the technology is already at that point, or at least almost. With the Google Toolbar, a single click will turn a web page written in French, German, or dozens of other languages into English. Poorly written, often grammatically incorrect English, yes, with left-over unrecognized words and the occasionally mangled meaning, but good enough for casual use. I regularly follow (and occasionally post to) websites and online forums in French, a language I do not know. And this is only possible because there has been a noticeable improvement in quality over the last decade. In another ten years, I expect the process to be quite smooth.

Still, a lingua franca will always be indispensible for anyone who travels widely abroad, or anyone who deals with foreign travelers. Even with technology like Word Lens (in-camera substitution of text with its translation) and Google Maps (no need to ask for directions), at some point you'll want or need to interact with the locals. This traveling population is likely to grow for the foreseeable future, and of course includes particularly the internationalized elites in business, science, technology, and politics.

Whether that language remains English for much of the world ultimately depends on the political, economic and cultural dominance of English-speaking nations (in effect the US). If it manages to establish itself even more securely among the "lesser" nations of the world -- I think university education in English is the key here -- before being eclipsed by rising powers in those arenas, it might end up as a de facto global standard for the long run. (Once the whole world is connected, there'll be no outsiders to push for change.) The interesting question is whether technology will reduce the switching costs enough that the benefits of the native language of the next dominant power (Mandarin?) will outweigh them. I tend to doubt it, if only because English has the benefit of the Latin alphabet, making it far more accessible to learn.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

