Thanks a lot for your invaluable tutoring. I learned so much from your video lessons and rich website.
I wanted to ask a little question for clarification – if we are asked about the advantages and disadvantages (of English as a global language), why is the writer’s opinion expressed in the conclusion? (that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages)
Many thanks in advance,
Majority of countries nowadays use English as part of their languages as a result of the development in tourism. With English language dominating globally, some people have come to think that, eventually, it will be the only language used in this world. Though, it will bring advantages in communication as a whole, the national identity of a country is also threatened as a consequence.
I did my speaking test today, it went well, your model question of country side was asked, I did very well based on your teachings and input given by you, for which I am greatful to you. your teaching was so useful and its free. May God bless you for all the good work that are doing. LRW exam on Saturday and preparing for that based on all your teaching. Thank you once again. Regards, Samuel Raj
English has become the most widely spoken language as a direct consequence of growing tourism. There is even a common belief that English will eventually become the only globally spoken language . Having one global language will influence economic growth and better communication. However there will be some drawbacks
The topic is a discussion essay that does not require our opinion. However, the conclusion seems to be an opinion even though it does not use ‘I’ or ‘we’ – having one language has more disadvantages and that languages and culture should be protected.
Without detracting anything from primates like Kanzi and Washoe, fundamental differences between animals and humans nevertheless remain. Unlike human children, animals: (1) do not have a special region in the brain devoted to language; (2) possess a much smaller brain overall; and (3) lack the anatomy to speak the words they may think. In summary, humans have an innate, built-in, hard-wired ability to acquire and communicate complex language from the moment of their birth. Animals do not. Admittedly, animals do possess a measure of understanding. They can learn to respond to commands and signs, and in some instances even can be trained to use minimal portions of human sign language. As Oller and Omdahl pointed out: ‘One of the most remarkable missing elements in the pseudolinguistic behavior of the trained apes is that they don’t ask questions. They simply don’t seem to be able to understand what a question is.’ Thus, even though apes, dogs, and birds can be trained to do certain things and can convey ideas of danger, food, etc., they still cannot reason with others so as to have true mental communion. Why? The intelligence of animals is, quite bluntly, unlike that of humankind.
Thus, the intended language "goes over the heads" of the students from the very first day of class, thus creating a distancing and ultimate loss of the student's attention and cognitive awareness of just what is being communicated in class.
An environment begins in hour one wherein the teacher speaks the foreign language slowly, clearly, and uses easily understandable and comprehensible cognates, at least to the best of his or her ability as a foreign language professional educator.
For instance, a famous African gray parrot in England named Toto can pronounce words so clearly that he sounds rather human. Like humans, birds can produce fluent, complex sounds. We both share a double-barreled, double-layered system involving tunes and dialects—a system controlled by the left side of our brains. And just like young children, juvenile birds experience a period termed ‘sub-song’ where they twitter in what resembles the babbling of a young child learning to speak. Yet Toto does not have a ‘language’ as humans understand it. Humans use language for many more purposes than birds use song. Consider, too, that it is mostly male birds that sing. Females remain songless unless they are injected with the male hormone testosterone. Also consider that humans frequently communicate intimately between two or three people, while bird communication is a fairly long-distance affair.
In 1876, Carl Wernicke discovered that language problems also could result from damage to another section of the brain. This area, later termed ‘Wernicke’s area’, is located in the posterior part of the temporal lobe (see Figure 2). Thus, patients can continue to speak, but the words are put together in such a way that they make no sense. Interestingly, in most people (approximately 97%) both Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area are found only in the left hemisphere, which explains the language deficits observed in patients with brain damage to the left side of the brain. Evolutionists freely acknowledge that:
Learning a language is not viewed necessarily as an individual accomplishment, but rather as a collective experience, something to be disseminated out into the community at large at a later stage in the second-language acquisition process.
However, the existing state of human language nevertheless suggests that the variety of dialects and sub-languages has developed from a relatively few (perhaps even less than twenty) languages. These original ‘proto-languages’—from which all others allegedly have developed—were distinct within themselves, with no previous ancestral language. Creationist Carl Wieland rightly remarked: ‘The evidence is wonderfully consistent with the notion that a small number of languages, separately created at Babel, has diversified into the huge variety of languages we have today’.
The late Lewis Thomas, a distinguished physician, scientist, and longtime director and chancellor of the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, acknowledged: ‘ ...Language is so incomprehensible a problem that the language we use for discussing the matter is itself becoming incomprehensible’. It appears that, from the beginning, human communication was with a tremendous amount of complexity and forethought, and has allowed us to communicate not only with one another, but also with the Designer of language.