Globish: How the English Language Became the World's Language: a review

Review by Mike Unwalla.

Robert McCrum, 2010. Globish: How the English Language Became the World's Language. Penguin Group. 310 pages. ISBN 978-0-670-91887-4.

The Roman invasion of Britain is the start of McCrum's story of English. McCrum then continues to tell interesting stories about the history of English. At the end of the book, McCrum writes that "In the twenty-first century Globish will continue to develop the supranational momentum it exhibits today… In this new world, some people may even begin to ask themselves, Is this the fulfilment of an age-old dream, the end of Babel?"

Although I learnt new things, the book disappoints me. My primary criticisms are as follows:

Although I enjoyed McCrum's history of English, I do not understand McCrum's message about 'Globish'.

Globish means different things

McCrum's Globish is different from both Nerrière's Globish and Gogate's Globish (www.mngogate.com/e02.htm).

When McCrum initially uses the word Globish, he means the things that follow:

Near the end of Globish, McCrum writes, "Every time protestors parade English-language placards in front of television cameras they are advancing the cause of Globish."

McCrum does not explain the difference between Globish and English. Usually, when McCrum writes the word 'Globish', the word 'English' is apparently an equivalent alternative.

Some text is not clear

Sometimes, I struggle to understand what McCrum wants to say. For example, McCrum writes, "Language, it cannot be stressed too strongly, is intrinsically neutral, but it is no contradiction to claim that English – by virtue of its origins and history – is unique."

McCrum does not explain what he means by the term 'neutral' in the context of language. Near the end of the book, McCrum apparently contradicts the statement that language is neutral. McCrum writes, "Those who want to characterize Globish as a kind of benign virus that has worked its way into every corner of daily life must also acknowledge its imperial and colonial past." If language is neutral, why must I "acknowledge its imperial and colonial past"?

Change 'English' to 'French' or to 'Arabic' or to 'Cantonese'. Without knowledge of the criteria that are used to evaluate uniqueness, the languages are interchangeable. For example, "Language, it cannot be stressed too strongly, is intrinsically neutral, but it is no contradiction to claim that Arabic – by virtue of its origins and history – is unique."

The following combinations of neutrality and uniqueness are possible:

To emphasize that neutrality and uniqueness are not contradictory is not necessary, because neutrality and uniqueness are not related. But, too much of the text in Globish is similar to the example sentence. The words flow, but the text does not give much useful information. (I can write, "Language is neutral. English is unique.")

Sometimes, I do not understand what McCrum wants to say. In the examples that follow, I understand each word, but I do not understand the sentences:

See also

Articles about language

Reviews of books that are about English for international readers

International English pages on the TechScribe website

RSS feed