The case of Globish: can a universal language ever exist?

Composed of only 1500 words, “Globish” was coined by a French businessman, Jean-Paul Nerrière, who found that two non-native speakers of English found it easier to communicate than a native speaker conversing with a non-native speaker. He then proposed a simplified form of English to streamline the process of communication in trade, where it was well-adapted to its users’ needs. The original intended purpose of Globish defines its limitations: it functions as a tool for communicating simple economic concepts for global businesses, operating as a universal bridging language for all international traders. But whilst the simplicity of the language makes it easier to understand and use, it does not meet the need for a global auxiliary language – and remains an unwelcome symbol of British colonialism and eternal economic dominance.

Many proponents of Globish argue that it is not perpetuating historic colonial oppression, and instead offers a democratic way for the world to speak English. Despite this, there is no denying that whilst Globish is a simplified model, it still adheres to basic grammatical functions used in native-speaking (or “inner circle”) English. Kachru’s model of English, coined in 1992, defined different forms of English as three concentric circles, with native English speakers at the centre. World Englishes – Chinglish, Hinglish and Singlish, for example – are on the second circle, and furthest from the centre are the most recent forms of English, including where it has been used as a lingua franca. Hybrid languages on the second circle would be rendered obsolete if Globish was to be regarded as the “correct” way to use English, forcing speakers of Chinglish to remove Chinese words from their vocabulary and adopt the thoroughly English vocabulary of Globish. Since Globish is firmly in the inner circle and seeks to establish itself across every country, it could be said to be a conscious attempt to eliminate the second and third circles of English. Though this would largely be for the sake of convenience and not malice, it would still have a damaging effect on English derivatives that are not in the inner circle, undermining their use and disregarding the purpose of contact languages, also known as pidgins. Inner circle speakers would also be alienated by this proposed language, as they would be forced to regress their own language, which is not only quite difficult, but innately breeds discontent among those who have no need or want to communicate with people outside of the UK.

The “need” for a universal language rests on the idea that people are unable to communicate if they do not speak the same exact language, but the presence of pidgins, creoles and even lingua francas prove this to be false. A pidgin is a language that forms between two people who do not speak each other’s native language, and instead form a “contact language” that bridges the gap and enables them to express simple concepts to each other. If this pidgin expands and develops past the first two people who created it, it may become a creole, which is defined as when a pidgin has native speakers. When English is used to bridge the original gap, it becomes a lingua-franca, using words from each speaker’s native vocabulary and not adhering to the rules of standard English. This “bridging” is not a rare concept and happens globally, proving that the natural initiative of humans enables them to find ways to communicate without resorting to an auxiliary language. Pidgins and creoles could come under threat if Globish was to become a widespread language, but another possible outcome is that people who speak Globish may be forced to form pidgins with people who do not speak it. Since Globish largely seeks to eliminate the need for contact languages, the potential formation of contact languages between Globish speakers and people who don’t speak Globish would undermine its usefulness.

The use of Globish, as defined by its creator, is to serve as an international language of business for global firms, making communication more efficient. English is a vast language, composed of countless words, many of which are used to define specific or intricate concepts, such as names for animal species or chemical formulas. Globish allegedly makes room for these nuances by having broad descriptive words to use in their place; for example a “grey heron” would become simply a “bird”. Whilst this might be acceptable in some contexts, in business, detailed descriptions are often necessary, and eliminating vital details (such as the specific bird species in the example above) can result in serious information failure. Firms who are unwilling to take this risk might therefore avoid Globish, opting to learn standard English in order to communicate the exact things that they want. This sentiment is not exclusive to business; Globish is also professed to be a type of lingua franca for everyone who wishes to communicate with people who don’t speak their native language, but with a language as simplified as Globish, this could be difficult. The vocabulary of Globish is also very rigid, allowing no room for people to supplement words from their native languages to aid understanding. It would therefore function fairly poorly as a universal language, reducing English to an over-simplified level and eliminating cultural contact languages such as Chinglish.

Whilst Globish is a useful tool for simple conversations between international businesses, to suggest that it can become more than a tool is overestimating the extent to which intricate discussions can be had using it. Globish suits its primary function, but using it as a universal language reinstates the colonial power of England, serving as an implicit form of language imperialism whilst masquerading as a tool of equality.