Peter Bradwell
Researcher
Peter Bradwell is a researcher at Demos. He is interested in digital identity, technology and the ways that information and knowledge is shared...
at 12:53pm
on Tuesday, 19th September 2006
Just read an interesting piece in China's 'People's Daily Online'. It argues that perhaps there is little value in investing so much energy and effort in teaching everyone English - that the country's 'internationalization' doesn't necessarily entail that increasing numbers need be proficient in English.
This is presumably down largely to two factors. Firstly, that only a particular sector of Chinese society need be engaged in the kinds of transactional conversations likely to be conducted in English. Secondly, that perhaps in the future, given current population and market trends, Chinese will attain a status similar to that which English enjoys now.
The piece seemed interesting because of how it frames the utility argument for learning the English language - ie that it gives people access to certain networks and resources that are useful to them - in the context of national interest. Whilst it's easy to think in terms of individual emancipation or empowerment, it's less easy to weave that back into broader national or regional narratives.
As well as the debate about English overpowering other languages, there are questions about the extent to which states can influence and shape language use and how that policy might relate to national identity and to national interest.
China is a really interesting example because of the very proactive and overt ways that it engages with language policy. The Confucius institute is a good example.
This is presumably down largely to two factors. Firstly, that only a particular sector of Chinese society need be engaged in the kinds of transactional conversations likely to be conducted in English. Secondly, that perhaps in the future, given current population and market trends, Chinese will attain a status similar to that which English enjoys now.
The piece seemed interesting because of how it frames the utility argument for learning the English language - ie that it gives people access to certain networks and resources that are useful to them - in the context of national interest. Whilst it's easy to think in terms of individual emancipation or empowerment, it's less easy to weave that back into broader national or regional narratives.
As well as the debate about English overpowering other languages, there are questions about the extent to which states can influence and shape language use and how that policy might relate to national identity and to national interest.
China is a really interesting example because of the very proactive and overt ways that it engages with language policy. The Confucius institute is a good example.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments