Real English® Blog Feed

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Globish or English?

Do you sepak Globish http://bit.ly/b2SfcB or English? If you do speak Globish, is that good enough for you, or do you want to speak more correctly?

 "Globish" is an approximate English, not correct English. Is it good enough? If you can communicate most of the time in "Globish" is that sufficient for you?

12 comments:

  1. Globish reminds me of another failed project called "Basic English" which failed, because native English speakers could not remember which words not to use :)

    So it's time to move forward and adopt a neutral non-national language, taught universally in schools worldwide,in all nations. As a native English speaker, I would prefer Esperanto

    Your readers may be interested in the following video at http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_YHALnLV9XU Professor Piron was a translator with the United Nations in Geneva.

    A glimpse of Esperanto can be seen at http://www.lernu.net

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was not able to post a comment on
    http://the-original-real-english.blogspot.com/2010/07/globish-or-english.htm
    l, therefore, I am sending my comment to you.

    Many people think that Globish (as defined by Nerrière) is incorrect
    English. In 'Globish the world over' (ISBN: 978-2-212-54323-0), Nerrière
    wrote, "Globish is correct English..."

    Best regards,

    Mike
    -------------------------------------
    Dr Mike Unwalla, MBCS CITP
    Principal Technical Writer
    TechScribe
    52 Stanwood Crescent
    Sheffield
    S6 5JB
    UK
    mike@techscribe.co.uk
    +44 (0)114 232 6776
    www.techscribe.co.uk
    www.linkedin.com/in/mikeunwalla
    VAT number: GB 790392900

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Mike - Now I understand, thanks to your link.

    The Newsweek article which I referred to in my post -
    http://bit.ly/b2SfcB
    was written by a person like me who had never visited www.globish.com !

    They use the term in completely different ways.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another message from Mike Unwalla

    "Hi Michael,

    I read the Newsweek article again. Yes, McCrum states that he uses the term
    'Globish' in a different way to Nerrière ("For Nerrière, Globish was a kind
    of linguistic tool... As I saw it, however, “Globish” was the newly
    globalized lingua franca..."). I apologise for my error.

    [Please put my apology on your blog. Thank you.]

    Regards,

    Mike"

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think there's a difference between Globish and 'Basic English', the latter being a construct and the former being an evolutionary consequence of having people of many backgrounds attempting to speak the same language. No-one has tried to make Globish a global language, it just developed into the de facto language for communication between people of different cultures.

    From my understanding, with Globish there is no correct way of saying something, the aim is to make yourself understood. If, by using a certain word, a person doesn't understand you, you'd naturally rephrase the sentence. Over time, one or two dominant forms of communicating a certain meaning will emerge, and these become the 'standard'.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Shafiq - What you write makes a lot of sense. Old-timers in ESL and EFL like myself will probably have a hard time adapting!
    I say that somewhat facetiously, since I am very used to "bad English" which I do NOT correct or question if I think I understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Shafiq - What you say makes a lot of sense, but old timers in EFL / ESL like myself might have a hard time adapting. I say that somewhat facetiously since I am used to hearing "bad English" from students and others, and rarely question it if I can understand the meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Shafiq - What you say makes a lot of sense, but old timers in EFL / ESL like myself might have a hard time adapting. I say that somewhat facetiously since I am used to hearing "bad English" from students and others, and rarely question it if I can understand the meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Shafiq - What you say makes a lot of sense, but old timers in EFL / ESL like myself might have a hard time adapting. I say that somewhat facetiously since I am used to hearing "bad English" from students and others, and rarely question it if I can understand the meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shafiq - What you say makes a lot of sense, but old timers in EFL / ESL like myself might have a hard time adapting. I say that somewhat facetiously since I am used to hearing "bad English" from students and others, and rarely question it if I can understand the meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  11. From Dr Mike Unwalla
    "I tried to post a comment on
    http://the-original-real-english.blogspot.com/2010/07/whats-wrong-with-this-
    blog.html#comment-form, but I get the same problem as before.

    I agree with Nerrière that 1500 words is not 'perfect', in the sense that
    you lose nuances. Some grammatical constructions are clumsy. For example,
    Nerrière suggests, 'the son of my brother' instead of 'nephew'. However,
    'the son of my brother' is correct English.

    Nerrière wants people to speak grammatically correct English. However, to
    communicate effectively, correct English is not always necessary.
    Communication with incorrect English is better than no communication.

    Nerrière writes:
    It is very important, on the other hand, to speak correct English. Correct
    English means using common English words in sentences that have reasonably
    good meanings. Of course, everyone makes mistakes now and then, but a good
    goal is to say things in a correct way using simple words.

    In addition to the basic 1500 words, Nerrière explains that you can increase
    the vocabulary to approximately 4000 words, for example, by adding prefixes
    or suffixes. Additionally, you need the technical vocabulary of the
    particular subject about which you talk."

    ReplyDelete
  12. English is key to success and we must learn it as soon as possible to survive

    ReplyDelete