I'm reading something at the moment which questions whether the teaching of English worldwide is a plot by the British Council and America to facilitate the spread of English as a means of asserting dominance over other languages, thereby facilitating the dominance of western culture over other cultures.
Since we're doing it, I guess by that view we're the foot soldiers of western cultural imperialism. Or not?
My personal view is that English has adopted many regional variations as a means of adapting to particular cultures, while remaining viable as a means for communications between peoples who do not share another language. How does a Thai speak to a German? In English, of course. Indian English is different to American English, but is it inferior, or merely different?
By so adapting to regional cultures, English has also accepted local variations. For instance, while English grammar requires someone to say "the red car", Thais might simply say "car red", dropping the article and putting the adjective after the noun, not before, because of their greater familiarity with Thai grammar rules. Is that really wrong, or does it comply with the overall aim of facilitating communicaiton, even if it does not conform to the British/American/Canadian/Australian/NZ "inner circle" of English grammar rules.
If we insist on uniform compliance with "inner circle" grammar, then that could be seen as a form of cultural imperialism, but if we accept regional variations, then is that simply an example of adapting to the local culture, as I think. Do you agree?
So, are you a foot soldier of English cultural imperialism, or merely a lackey in the great scheme of intercultural communications?
If 6 of the 7 dwarves were not Happy, does that prove that dwarves are generally an unhappy lot?
I am a lackey!!!
Only because I haven't heard that expression used in a long time, and I quite like it!
Can I be a lackey for English cultural imperialism in the grand scheme of intercultural communication?
Oh go on.. let me.. pleeeeeease!
Who is as wise as the wise man?
Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool that follows him?
Look old bean. You've got to control Johnny Foreigner and the rest of the fuzzy wuzzys somehow haven't you eh what?
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no Interior Minister of Thailand's son.
Not a lackey but I fancy being a suicide bomber for the GLF though. [grammar liberation front]
This topic good very very.
What about the Liberation of Grammar Front?
"Splitters!"Originally Posted by howdooski
I do feel, Poolie, that any Anti-Imperialist Liberation group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
Howabout a link or a citation, please.
Originally Posted by MikeS
foot soldier be f*cked - I'm an officer
the answer to the secret of the universe is the secret itself
and the secret is.........................................it isn't there
Swap "British Council and America" for "Zionists and Jews" and you're getting warm.Originally Posted by MikeS
Or would you like to swing on a star?
You? A lackey?! Ha! Don' make me larf! Ya have to serve yer apprenticeship as a lickspittle afore ya can climb the ladder to lackey old son, an' darn you bleedin' well forget it!Originally Posted by howdooski
yeah and before you get promoted to lickspittleship you have to put in your time as a running dog
I did serve an apprenticeship as a lickspittle for 2 years, and even as a leper before that.
I am now a fully paid up member of the Lackey's Union.
Now, take my case. They made me lickspittle here five years ago. Every night, they make me run like a dog for twenty minutes, then they tie me up again, which I regard as very fair, in view of what I done, and, if nothing else, it's taught me respect, and it's taught me... that you'll never get anywhere in this life, unless you're prepared to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay! Now, I have been promoted to Lackey!
Last edited by howdooski; 21st June 2007 at 14:40. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Originally Posted by howdooski
What the Dickens? No one mentioned gimpage!