GREGORY CARTWRIGHT debates whether Global English is really the big, bad bully that it’s made out to be, or is it just misunderstood?

Later this month the new Les Misérables film will be released into cinemas across the world. However, although the film is adapted from Victor Hugo’s classic French novel of the same name, it will – of course – be in English. I’m sure this will come as no great surprise to you; why would Hollywood make a film in any other language when the majority of people in the world can enjoy watching it in English? What is the need for other languages if we can all get by with one?

A backlash to this attitude has resulted in English being dubbed a ‘killer language’ by many linguists. But just how substantial is their claim?

Many centuries ago, the elite of the population of Britain spoke French, as did many other countries. But that phase passed – English is currently the most widely spoken language in the world and is regarded as a ‘global language’. In the realms of education, politics and business – many indigenous languages are used less and less in favour of English and other ‘lingua franca’. According to Crystal (2000: 14) ‘96% of the world’s languages are spoken by 4% of the population’  and linguists estimate that over the next century, around two languages will die every month (Jenkins 2009: 160). These figures are indeed worrying ones. But whilst languages are dying, they are also being born.

Threatened languages often begin to incorporate features from the language which is threatening them but change in language isn’t always a negative thing (Crystal 2000: 22). ‘English is not replacing indigenous languages but being added on to persistent local language habits’ (Schneider 2011: 222) – in some cases the adoption of inflections, function words and even slang, can evolve a language and even result in the formation of pidgins and creoles which go on to be regarded as languages in their own right.

Never has it been so easy for a language to ‘go global’, and popular culture plays a huge part in the spread (and development) of English; people can make video calls to relatives in foreign countries using Skype or communicate via Twitter; pop songs can be uploaded onto Soundcloud within minutes and downloaded by someone half the world away in seconds; and teenagers in Eastern countries such as Singapore hear slang words in popular Hollywood films and adopt them, creating New Englishes. For instance: the Singlish (Singapore English) phrase ‘tok cok’ means to ‘talk nonsense’ and derives from the English phrase ‘cock and bull story’.

Linguists hope these new languages will be studied and codified, and this positive attitude towards local Englishes marks an important step toward their ultimate acceptance.  So, whilst at times it might seem like English is a globally-dominant bully, I think we have to see the positive side to what many of us consider a bad situation. Think of language death as inevitable evidence of Darwin’s theory; think of language change as evolution which results in exciting new variations; and think of Global English as a killer, maybe, but  also as a positive thing; a communicative tool to be used as we wish; to be used to progress.  As Victor Hugo, in his classic French novel, wrote: ‘would you realise what revolution is, call it progress; and would you realise what progress is, call it tomorrow.’

Gregory Cartwright, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK




Crystal, D. (2000) Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hugo, V. (2012) Les Misérables. London: Penguin Books.

Jenkins, J. (2012) World Englishes. 2nd edition. Oxon: Routledge.

Schneider, E. W. (2011) “Issues and Attitudes” from: Schneider, E. W.  (2011)  English Around the World: an Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 210-228.




One thought on “GREGORY CARTWRIGHT debates whether Global English is really the big, bad bully that it’s made out to be, or is it just misunderstood?

  1. Jessica Alice Holmes says:

    Much like yourself, I can appreciate all of the criticisms made towards the English language. However, I question why the blame should be put on to the shoulders of the English language. Is it not possible for people of all cultures worldwide to make a conscious decision of what their first language should be and also have the option of a second language to use if and when it may be necessary?

    Crystal defines ‘language death’ by stating ‘[a] language dies when nobody speaks it anymore’. Narrow-mindedly, I question why, when people have chosen to speak and learn English, should it then bear the brunt of the blame. If an individual has made a conscious decision to learn the language, (whether it be to benefit themselves in some way) why is this then somebody else’s fault when their own language diminishes?

    Of course, I accept it is not always as straight forward as this, but just because something may become a global phenomenon does that make it wrong?

    Coming from somewhere myself where a language is at risk of dying (Welsh), I do sympathise with the opposing views that we should fight for our culture, history and heritage.
    Therefore, change is inevitable, so perhaps we should not try to fight it as it may already be a lost battle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s