It is common knowledge that English is an international language. Considering further, we observe Australian English, New Zealand English, Indian English and so forth. However, most known to us (by saying us I mean mostly non-native speakers ) are US English and British English.
While taking an "American English" course at university, we were taught that RP (i.e. received pronunciation) is British English pronunciation. At our university all the academic subjects we took were delivered in British English.
By contrast, when we happen to communicate with foreigners, we observe that most of them speak US English. What's more, US English seems to dominate everywhere. A close look at the language in question reveals that "pure British English" can hardly be observed.
Furthermore, it is worth citing Peter Sutton (2006:86) in connection with our concerns:
"As globalisation is breaking many barriers and frontiers, it will not be long before the existing differences between British,US, Indian or South African English will disappear and merge into the creation of a "globalised" English language.
The troublesome point is whether such prediction will turn into reality in the nearest future. Won't that confront "cultural barriers". It is said that "language is culture and culture is language.
A number of studies have been carried out into the differences between US and British English, but solution to the so called "globalised English language" are yet to emerge.
There are issues among the English strains. But another great problem concerns the impacts to the non-English cultures, which can go beyond the benign and even enriching effects of pollination, to jarring mongrelization to outright supplantation. A most publicized clash of cultures is with France, whose people, in spite of being the inheritors of a most glorious language on earth, or because of it, felt alarmed enough by English's encroachments into their culture to mobilize defense in the form of national legislature. In some Oriental cultures, the adaptations of English words amount to mongrelized dictions that are more jarring and offending than the benefits are worth them, where there are any at all. As for the inheritors of ancient languages along with also small genetic pools, the spread of English along with industrialization spells extinctions, as well reported by researchers who recently broadcast on NPR.
But hopes for positive outcomes could be inspired from precedents such as by India - if at all possible against other considerations of colonialism- which is that English even achieves official status there, all the way without her traditional languages having to suffer for it.
Sutton's remark is balderdash. It is suitably vague -- "it will not be long" and "existing differences" -- to be difficult to prove wrong, but I'll bet him a fine dinner in the restaurant of his choice anywhere in the world that in 25 years, or even 50, he is proven utterly wrong. Where does that quote come from, anyway?
When you write "a number of studies," Asusena, to which studies are you referring?
And Robert, what NPR story are you referring to? Would you link to it?
I don't think they blamed English, but a recent (last month or two) National Geographic had an article about disappearing languages.
Emmett
I wouldn't have said it as boldly, but I concur with Grant about the Peter-Sutton quote. It's a very common mistake (but thoughtless, nonetheless) to look at a trend and make a prediction without pointing out, usually without even noticing, that the prediction depends upon the trend continuing.
For example: Say a rabbit has six fawns. At that rate, after another generation there would be 32 rabbits, then 128, then 512 and so on. If they're capable of reproducing every six weeks (I have no idea, I'm just making up an example) then "very soon", say in five years, there'd be almost 4x1078 of them—and they'd weigh 6x1053 times more than the Earth itself.
If you send this email to just ten of your friends, and they send it to ten of their friends, then Toyota (Disney World, Bill Gates, whoever) will send you $213 and within a month the email will have reached more people than could fill the solar system shoulder to shoulder.
I could adduce more examples but you get the idea. I think the same sort of operation is at work here; Sutton sees that English has spread, believes that its influence is still growing, and points out the logical result of that trend continuing indefinitely. But trends never continue indefinitely, partly because of saturation and also because of other factors not predicted. Global warming? Sure, I'll buy it's happening; but I have no idea (and neither does anyone else) whether it'll continue at the same rate, or accelerate sharply, or turn into something else. The same with the economy, political unrest and the globalization of English. Or, rather, we all have ideas, and some of them will turn out to be accurate, but our sciences cannot reliably tell us, even theoretically, what will happen to certain trends.