I am not a linguist (but a computer scientist), so that I may not have a proper feeling for this question. But I would like to mention two things I consider relevant: (1) the importance of personal experience, and (2) the excessive expectations from technology.

In my native village, people used to teach children Italian language (for practical reasons; Italy is close). Peasants spoke a peculiar local dialect. The official language has been Croatian (a Slavic language), so that this is the language I have been using since I entered the primary school. But since I entered the university (pretty long ago), I have been reading and writing mostly English. In sum, language has been primarily a means of communication for me. None of the languages I mentioned "defines" me as a person. (Maybe they all together do, I should think about this.)

Secondly, the unique value & beauty of each language consists in its peculiar *poetic quality* and its peculiar expression of *emotions*. In this regard, I do *not* believe that a "context-sensitive automatic translation to different languages" can ever exist, as Luiz announces in his post. Formal automata (computer programs) are not "contest-sensitive" at all, and surely not enough to translate poetry. Computer systems can translate the *literal content* of a discourse in oil industry (for example), but they have no way to "seize" the *poetic quality* of a narration, the melody and emotional content of a specific word and sentence of a specific language.

Computers can do only what people "teach" (programme) them to do, and they function at the level of syntax. It is not possible to express in a *formal way* the poetic quality and emotional content of a discourse. Hence, computers will never be able to translate (transmit) the beauty and emotions from one human language to another.

Luiz: "Writing productivity will soon increase for artists, journalists and scientists in producing exciting dynamic pieces of beautiful work."

Productivity, has exploded, but quality seems in a constant decline. And more "automation" we use and produce (and are compelled to do so), more illiterate and anti-poetic we are getting. Fortunately, we are also getting more and more incapable of seeing our decline, so that everything looks nice & fine to us.

Though the use of English language is aligned with technological communication; all other scripts of languages do position themselves along with it.

This can be twisted into unfounded fears, in reality it is not...

In my Facebook, I receive postings in tamil, telugu, hindi, Malay, Indonesian, spanish, luganda and many other languages (which i dont decipher) along with English. They are all my friends, hence they have the liberty to communicate within themselves, which i have an opportunity to see, if required to know the content, I copy paste them into Google translate and get to know the information, else i am happy to see their faces and posts....

English and other languages of our choice co-exist and brings harmony.

I agree with Dr Krishnan and i donnot think the pros outweight the cons

The problem is, not only lingua franca of various sorts, but also the standard dialect, or a dominant language, can pose threat for the very existance of a more vulnerable language. Sometimes languages also have life circles, some are dead, then some new ones are born, e.g., Haitian creole. 

A dominant language (English) is not a danger by itself. However, the language imposes the one who has the power to impose it. Many people adore power, and many are afraid of it: both kinds of people tend to adopt the culture of the mighty. In sum, I hold that power influences language and cultures, more than languages and cultures influence each other.

In terms of ancient civilisations, Latin and 'koine' Greek must surely have helped to open up the known world. In terms of the modern day, English has seemed to be occurring as a language in which people are communicating, from the western world right across Asia. [Our young daughter recently sat, unexpectedly, for 11 hours on a drive from Bishkek to Osh with a 14-year-old girl who had never left Kyrgyzstan, but gave her some fluent Russian lessons, in English.]

Do I think it good to have a lingua franca? Mixed feelings here in England! I can only speak from the British perspective. Yes, Google-translate and the like work well, especially if we already know a smattering of the language. But it is NOT good for us English-speakers who then expect everyone else in the world to make the effort to communicate, but do not do think it necessary to try harder ourselves.  Why else have foreign languages been removed from the UK's list of compulsory subjects in the State sector of education? We British were already insular enough, literally and metaphorically, and have long been diffident at foreign languages. Now, unless a child shows particular aptitude or enthusiasm and has a teacher available in school, it is mostly those in the wealthier sector of society which uses privately fee-paid education [in establishments confusingly termed Public schools] who are encouraged to learn languages.

Thus, in England, modern languages are learnt by few. As for the ancient linguae francae, Classical Greek disappeared in the 1970s' and Latin was removed from comprehensive schools in the early1980s', along with Russian by the 1980s'. Recently, some comprehensive schools have been offering after-school Classical Civilisation at age 16, and the course includes a few lessons in basic Latin. So, here in England we use our lingua franca, while some of us long for better language-teaching - and a wider perspective on life alongside our Brother Man.

Kind regards to you and the world,

Margaret

 PS. Excuse my lightweight answer. More academically, see Barbara Graziosi's paper in regard to Latin teaching in modern Italy and Britain; available as a download: 

 https://www.academia.edu/15322838/The_Future_of_Classics_especially_in_Italy_and_Great_Britain_

[John, I have sent you a paper concerning a previous topic, if you check your messages.]

Krishnan and all,

I, too, enjoy the benefits of communicating with others in whatever language is used. It is not so much the use of a particular language that is disturbing, but its non-use. When we realize what happens to the cultures of disappearing languages, it is disconcerting. I am currently involved with the American Indian language Shawnee. 14,000 people with Shawnee heritage have little resource to maintain and examine cultural traditions with dwindling speakers who number between 100-200 speakers. Watching the death of any language to a linguist is like watching the death of a biological species. 

The first lingua franca was portuguese, in the time of Discoveries, that revealed that the world was connected by sea. The first country to be revealed was the actual India.

As far as I know, every historical period had its lingua franca in a given area. In Europe, Latin had this role for a long period of time, at the end of the Middle Ages, French and German replaced it when Latin came into decline. After WW II, English gradually became the lingua franca, and Russian in the Soviet Union and the Soviet block. In the Far East, Chinese was the reference language. The existence of a lingua franca is inevitable, most people can learn one language, at a bearable level allowing minimal communicational needs, they cannot afford to learn more language, and still less language with a (very) limited number of speakers. 

The relation between a lingua franca, the language in a dominant position, and the other languages, some being linguae francae in a limited area, e.g. Spanish or Russian, is complex and cannot be simplified in some phrases only. This explains why one of the EU recommendations is to learn at least one language of limited use (Greek, Latvian, Slovene, Czech...) and one language of larger use, English, French or German.

This question is really complex and there are no straightforward and univocal answers. The two basic point, in my view are:

1) the development of a lingua franca is a cultural more than a linguistic question, linked to colonial and imperialistic enterprises (think of Latin as a lingua franca). The problem of non mutual intelligibility of languages gave rise to Pidgins and Creoles, but the development of a lingua franca is something different stretching beyond the boundaries of immediate communicative needs. the interests of which people/s are served by the development of a lingua franca? the question of the selection of a lingua franca is never neutral and we have full evidence of this.

2) the power of a lingua franca is in direct relationship with the death of minority languages. the more a common language of interaction is powerful, the greater chances of death for other languages will be. this is very serious, especially when it comes to questions such as ethics, intercultural communication, minority communities. in this sense a lingua franca can be a dangerous tool: useful, dynamic, but extremely aggressive.

in plain words, the question is between the almost unavoidable development of a lingua franca, given that language contact is a feature of human communication AND the threath that this feature of human communication represents for less powerful but equally important cultures and languages instantiated by them. 

@Maria Grazia Sindoni. Of course, the development of a lingua franca is, above all, a political and economic issue, not a linguistic one. As long as an economic and/or political power begins to dominate over a given area, its language becomes a lingua franca, because its leaders cannot imagine that they should learn another language, as long as their language is the language of the most powerful.

The story of lingiua franca is the very story of the evolution of societies.

I'd like to add one more thing to what has been righlty said above. In the very U.S.A, English is in danger in that Spanish is rapidly and steaduly becoming a major language, there. In pragmatic terms, politicians, journalists, scholars, and the like are somehow "forced", .i.e. culturally led to learn Spanish due to the importnce of all those Spanish speaking people - legal and non-legal, who are crucial for the very development of the economy.

The rise and fall of a lingua franca goes hand in hand with the emergence of numerous other possibilities - vernacular languages, etc.

While a  dominant language can provide uniformity it can  also potentially hinder effective communications for non native speakers. Also, some languages have words which express ideas and  feelings that are not necessarily accurately captured by a dominant language and give rise to serious misinterpretations.. 

Just a matter of a short time: "Enabling Cross-Lingual Conversations in Real Time"  http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/translator-052714.aspx

 I don´t think the pros outweigh the cons and I see that there is  a negative cultural influence with our sciences being communicated through primarily English. This has been noted and there are many scientific journals choose to publish in languages other than English, however, I cannot deny that visibility is significant mostly when research publications are in English.  It certainly is a matter of power, but it is also a matter of identity so I guess that the best we can do is to keep the debate going and to raise awareness on the pros and cons of learning English and other languages as well. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_Philippines

"There are some 120 to 175 languages in the Philippines, depending on the method of classification.[3] Four others are no longer spoken. Almost all are classified as Malayo-Polynesian languages, while one, Chavacano, is a creole derived from a Romance language. Two are official, while (as of 2015) nineteen are official auxiliary languages.[2][4] The indigenous script of Philippines (Baybayin) is no longer used, instead Filipino languages are today written in the Latin script because of the Spanish and American colonial experience"

I think the prevalence or survival of a language relies on its practicability. The "dominant" organization (business, education, agriculture, etc) will attract people and influence people to adapt to its language.

The key to a language's survival is people- the population size of the people. An organization that is more populous (because it is more popular) will have more people speaking its language.

 I agree, Sorin, that each age and geographic area possesses its unique lingua franca.  I think the EU recommendation is practical and for most people doable. As an aside, I remember visiting in Bucharest in the 1970s. Bucaresti is a beautiful city. I would love to see it today for I am sure that there have been many changes. I remember visiting also the area of Sibiu which I really liked.  

 Carlos,

Thank you so much for your true and thoughtful comments. I am from Texas where bi-lingual culture and speech are facts of life. The two language have thrived in that area for generations. My ancestors were Dutch immigrants who became Spaniards when arriving in North America who suddenly became Mexicans with the change of the government. Then, with the Texas revolution, they became Texicans before joining what is now the U.S. I laugh to tell others I am a latino-gringo. Both languages there are meshed and blended into a vibrant culture.   

Dear John,

Dear All,

Crystal’s opinion should be considered. As a consequence of the exaggerated use of English the cultivation of native languages decreases continually and their deformation is on a rising course. In addition, most of the people utilise a Pidgin English and are not able to express truly their ideas.  The result may be a mass of disoriented people who cannot find their place and function in an altered world. About two years ago I started a thread on the opportunities of scientific lingua franca and prepared a little characterization on the suitability of various languages.  

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_language_can_be_an_ideal_or_optimal_lingua_franca_for_science

By the way the original lingua franca as a "language of the Franks" was a relatively simple Pidgin idiom thus the future of the present lingua franca, the simplified English must be on the same decadent and spoiled course. 

In a kind of synthesis. A ‘lingua franca’ is not something good or bad in itself, it is a direct consequence of a certain political and economic dominance because we cannot imagine, in an extreme example, that the EU members, say, may learn all the languages spoken in this group. Languages emerged and vanished across time, or new languages emerged from a precursor, like the Romance languages, the direct continuation of colloquial Latin of post-classical times.

@John Bruce Langley. You are welcome. Bucharest, and Romania, have changed a lot over the last decades, of course. 

John: Here is some research that may be relevant to your questions.

On the pros and cons of a lingua franca, the 2015 Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy issue 18 (2) is dedicated to Philippe Van Parijs (2011) book, Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World, Oxford, Oxford UP.

Journal issue: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/fcri20/18/2

Book URL: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199208876.001.0001/acprof-9780199208876

On scientific communication taking place mostly in a single language, these two blogposts of mine discuss related matters:

‘How do we know?’

http://beingmultilingual.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-do-we-know.html

‘The language of science’

http://beingmultilingual.blogspot.com/2011/03/language-of-science.html

Madalena

For Arabs lingua franca is considered to be a kind of identity and unity their name is derived from Arabic. Therefore, as an Arab, I favour the lingua franca. However, Arabic is suffering form the disparity between between its spoken and written language. This comes as a result of the European invaders who not just occupied our land but diluted our language to the extent that the spoken language( the vernacular) becomes almost completely different from the written language. For instance in the Middle East the use of English expressions and terms is very apparent. The same happened in Libya. French is the dominant spoken language in the Maghreb countries (Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco). Finally this demonstrates that 

factors outside the language can influence the rise or down fall of any language.

Dear John, thank for sharing your experience. My new latino-American friend.

Yeap, learning a new language is not so much a matter of desire, but a need, a want, namely, in most cases around the world, a matter of adaptation and survvival. Only very few take it as an opportunity or a step in their own personal development.

New technologies in artificial intelligence are beginning to arrive on the market with performance comparable to humans. Certainly, there will be strong influences on scientific and political scenario. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language_generation  

https://www.narrativescience.com/

If we were to absolutely find the "pros" and "cons" of a lingua franca, the pros would outweigh the cons. But, to me, there are no "cons" as far as a lingua franca is concerned. In those speech communities  where a lingua franca developed, it was inevitable: people with different languages needed one that could help them communicate with each other. If in some societies some languages are endangered, that is not the lingua franca to blame, since this latter can always coexist with the languages of those communities that needed it in the first place. Typically, lingua francas were made official languages, not national languages, which makes it difficult for an official language to kill a national language. (Of course not all the indigenous languages can be national languages.) To give the example of Kenya, the languages that are threatened with extinction are not threatened by either English or Kiswahili, both of which are lingua francas, but by the neighbouring,  indigenous Kenyan languages, spoken by larger and/or more economically (and sometimes politically) powerful communities. It is only in big towns, which are cosmopolitan and hence require a lingua franca, where the indigenous languages do not stand much chance of thriving.

I agree with Alfred, that Kiswahili is used in most of the East African countries, almost like an official language than their own native ones, irrespective of their country

Dear All,

In the summary of Philippe Van Parijs’ book „Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World” – Madalena suggested to read - , I found some indications of unfairness which is very true for the disproportionate use of English in scientific journals and this fact is but an explicit disadvantage for the not native speakers of English.  

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199208876.001.0001/acprof-9780199208876

“However, the resulting linguistic situation can plausibly be regarded as unjust in three distinct senses. Firstly, the adoption of one natural language as the lingua franca implies that its native speakers are getting a free ride by benefiting costlessly from the learning effort of others. Secondly, they gain greater opportunities as a result of competence in their native language becoming a more valuable asset. And thirdly the privilege systematically given to one language fails to show equal respect for the various languages with which different portions of the population concerned identify.”

In my thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_language_can_be_an_ideal_or_optimal_lingua_franca_for_science I prepared a little language characterisation on candidates of lingua franca (LF) and some idioms that were LF earlier.

Here you can see the brief portrayal of the English:

English

Grammar: at the beginning easy, then difficult

Vocabulary: well known

Script: OK

Pronunciation: difficult

Giving equal opportunity? too many native speakers

Strong cultural background: yes

Strong scientific background: yes

Strong economic/political background: world power

The stressed features cause the injustice to the researchers outside the English language culture and proficiency:  the lack of equal opportunity and the enormous and often egoistic economic/political power. Both make a clear and preprogramed advantage for Americans, Englishmen and others.   

Very interesting discussion! Personally, I'm very glad to have my language as a lingua franca - as I implied earlier, foreign language teaching in Britain is minimal and it is important for us in our insularity, in our little islands, to be able to understand the rest of the world.

BUT the use of a lingua franca should not give us native speakers, whether in the UK or elsewhere, any sense of superiority. We are, in truth, all equals.

No minorities, then? Interestingly, in schools in Wales, lessons are conducted in Welsh as well as in English, Scottish schools  do not [yet] have to teach Gaelic, although it is spoken in the Western Isles and parts of the Highlands. In contrast, those native to the far northern Orkney and Shetland Isles [once Viking strongholds] speak only English - and feel stronger connections to England than they do to mainland Scotland!

For myself and the many who think as I do, we prefer to express the brotherhood of mankind, whatever the language.

Dear John,

this is a very stimulating discussion and I have read some great comments above.

I would like to refer to your point: "do you perceive a negative cultural influence with our sciences being communicated through primarily one language?".

Personally, I don't, as using one language may be a good way to share the advances of all sciences within our globalized community, and I am also convinced that the pros of a lingua franca outweigh the cons.

The main purpose of a language is communication, whatever the language. English today perfectly fits for purpose, as we all know, but what I hardly bear is the use of English when unnecessary.

For example, I attended a conference on terminology management before summer and I remember that one of the speakers - not a linguist but an economist - stated that if a researcher in Italy wants his/her studies to be valuable, the only option available for him/her is to write in English, first of all. I shuddered at this statement! But I guess that is just the way it goes, and I am quite happy with that, because I love English :-)

In a 2011 paper Tim McNamara makes a good point: "Frameworks like the CEFR are like the Euro, or like the use of English as an international language. They allow ease of exchange across boundaries, but reduce local variation, and render unintelligible other accounting systems, or sets of cultural values, or formulations of the goals of language education, which cannot be directly translated into the language of the CEFR." 

The advantages and disadvantages of (English as) a lingua franca (facilitator of international communication, enabler of participation in the world economy, helping to reap the benefits from globalisation vs. dissemination of Anglo-American culture, communicative disadvantages for non-native speakers, adverse effects on individual languages, rising potential for the extinction of smaller languages, undermining of multiligual systems and societies, i.e. the spread of ELF in the EU institutions or in Switzerland, etc.) are too obvious to go into the details here.

More interesting than the pros and cons are perhaps the reasons and motivations behind why one would take a positive or negative stance. For instance, general research into ELF which, starting in the 1980s, has grown into a full-blown discipline with annual conferences since 2008, the establishment of the de Gruyter Journal of English as a Lingua Franca in 2012 and a series of monographs and doctoral studies has put the focus on providing corpus-based evidence of effective ELF communication – the most well-known corpora being ELFA (Helsinki corpus of spoken academic lingua franca English, www.helsinki.fi/elfa); VOICE (Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English, www.univie.ac.at/voice/index.php); and ACE (Hong Kong Asian Corpus of English, http://corpus.ied.edu.hk/ace/About.html). Against the backdrop of the deficit view of the EFL (English as a Foreign language) paradigm, a major driving force of this line of research had been an emancipatory effort to liberate the majority of the world’s English speakers from the unattainable target model of the native speaker gold standard upheld by vested ELT (English Language Teaching) interests, and – as part of a conceptual reorientation, reflecting the realities of globalized communication in the twenty-first century – to shift the focus from (grammatical) correctness to (pragmatic) appropriateness. The focus was and is on the recognition of ELF as a legitimate use of English in its own right, independent of native speaker norms, and of ELF as an asset to successful international communication (Seidlhofer 2011; Mauranen 2012).

As a result, translation and interpreting scholars have seen themselves confronted with an overly optimistic view of ELF which is inconsistent with the reality faced and reported by professional interpreters and translators. In fact, a more critical stance has been taken by analysts in interpreting studies (Donovan, 2009; Albl-Mikasa, 2010, 2013, 2014;  Reithofer, 2010, 2013) and in translation studies (Gazzola and Grin, 2013; Hewson, 2009, 2013; Snell-Hornby, 2010). The general ELF research conclusion “that ELF is not a defective, but a fully functional means of communication” (House 2013:286) is seen as questionable as it is overwhelmingly based on conversation protocol data (e.g. from the ELF corpora mentioned above) from small-scale face-to-face discussions, negotiations, and meetings that do not reflect the level of terminological and special subject complexity typical of technical conferences or translation contexts. 

Against this backdrop of quite different views of the same phenomenon, depending on perspective, context of use, communicative purpose, etc., the point I should like to make is that we need much more empirical research in order to gauge possible negative or positive effects of ELF or any other lingua franca.

P.S. Sorry, it's Mcnamara's 2010 paper:

Tim Mcnamara 2010, 'Squaring the Circle? Reconciling Cognitive and Social Perspectives on Validity', in Sprachenlernen Konkret!, Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH.

according to Canagarajah (2007), there are Lingua Franca languages other

than English. The argument made in this article for the implications of LFE for language acquisition may apply to those lingua franca languages as well, and also House (2003) concluded that the LFE is indeed a full- fledged language, not a pidgin variety or register for special purposes: “ELF is neither a language for specific purposes nor a pidgin, because it is not a restricted code, but a language showing full linguistic and functional range” (p. 557).  

Therefore, from the mentioned attitude, it is also premature to say whether or not the LFE is teachable like other languages in a product-oriented and formalistic treatment. 

Lingua francas solve communication problems among people of different linguistic background. Of course, this is good; people communicate with one another. This maintains mutual understanding. People can also know about the culture, beliefs and traditions of each other.  furthermore, Lingua francas can  facilitate commercial and economic activities among those people who communicate via this means of communication.  But the problem is as follows:  Why is language X  and not Y chosen to be the lingua franca in a particular region? This leads to the so-called "linguistic imperialism" and "linguistic rights" in the sense that one language is taken as better than other languages. This might also lead to the death of the languages that are not used for any communicative purposes where one particular language is used as a lingua franca. Some speakers may underestimate their own languages thinking that their language is lower than the language used as the lingua franca.

Dear Margaret,

Dear All,

I am afraid nobody might have mentioned individual human feelings like “sense of superiority”. What I have stated is the very advantage a native English speaker has in science, economy and politics but also getting information and ordering a hotel room anywhere. It would be instructive to calculate the time and energy benefit an average English speaker can economise during his/her life.

Interesting discussion. In spite of the angst about lost identity, one cannot escape that with better communications (transportation as well as electronic comms) comes globalization, and with globalization comes the imperative that people communicate effectively. By effectively, I mean that people have to be able to understand nuance, idioms, and even humor. Not just the bare basics.

If once upon a time, a lingua franca limited to just a region of the world was quite sufficient, because very few people ever left that region, or even had to deal on a regular basis with people outside that region, that's simply not the case anymore. Certainly not in the research community, such as this forum. Not in commerce, not in manufacturing (clearly, with all the off-shoring going on). So, the need for a single lingua franca, a step beyond the previous lingue franche, has simply become an imperative. Might as well say, "like it or not."

I thoroughly agree that those lucky enough to be native speakers of the lingua franca have an advantage, as Andras states. And as we have seen even in this discussion, those with the advantage seem to feel somewhat embarrassed or even contrite about it. But the very good news is that if the young of any culture are taught to speak the lingua franca, beginning at a young age, they can easily become as proficient as any native speaker. In fact, if the young are taught to speak more than just one or two languages, they can quite readily become even more proficient than that native speaker of the lingua franca, who knows only one language. Honestly, I'm not joking.

Having personally experienced the above, I believe that there is nothing more powerful than a fluently-spoken common language to break down barriers of distrust, misunderstanding, and of apparent cultural incompatibilities. So, are there disadvantages to having a lingua franca? Sure, there are disadvantages to just about anything you can name. But is it worth pursuing? Absolutely. I have no doubt about this.

There's the separate issue about which language the lingua franca might be, and the inevitable hard feelings that generates. In my parents' youth, French was supposedly the language of diplomacy, and German the language of physics. I have to think that after WWII, when many European researchers moved to the US, this reality changed. Whatever the reasons, the one lingua franca, among lingue franche, I believe, has become inevitable.

Dear Albert,

Dear All,

I agree with you: “By effectively, I mean that people have to be able to understand nuance, idioms, and even humor. Not just the bare basics.” The inability to understand the sense of a message – not to speak on nuance and humour – causes a lot of misunderstandings among RG fellows. Even the fact of down-voting may be the consequence of vestigial English knowledge. The development of proficiency of not native speakers of the actual lingua franca should be promoted too.

In spite of the very powerful situation of English, I do not think it is the optimal lingua franca of our epoch but of cause this is not a question of personnel decision.

Antonio, 

Grazie per la risposta! I appreciate our joint interests in English, and for that matter, our joint interests in Italian. I lived in Italy five years altogether, three years in Firenze, one year in Napoli, and another at Bel Passo outside of Catania. To view our question as an interdisciplinary matter, if all the world was pressed to view artistic expression in terms of realism, we would not have the benefit of the many schools of interpretation. Is our current paradigm of using English as a medium to interpret scientific interests in any way restrictive of the data compiled or contributive to any particular bias? 

To all who are participating in our discussion, I heartily thank you. If I have failed to upvote anyone, it is an oversight. All have substantially participated. Please notify me if so. In pursuance of our discussion, I found a remarkably pertinent set of research that coincides with our current topic, which I invite all to read and comment upon. It is a bit lengthy for all of our busy schedules but the evidence challenges the status quo.

Paolillo, J., Pimienta, D., Prado, D., et al (2005). Measuring Linguistic Diversity on the Internet. Edited with an introduction by UNESCO Institute for Statistics Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001421/142186e.pdf

Pimienta, D., Prado, D, & Blanco, Á. (2009). Twelve years of measuring linguistic diversity in the Internet: balance and perspectives. Paris, France: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001870/187016e.pdf

The rapidly changing face of my native language  clearly points to the extinction path Polish has entered, and there is no escaping it, I am afraid. The process of change and eventual extinction is as much stimulated and helped not only by language users but also by IT that favours and promotes the language that is here to stay. Yet, this may take at least 1-2 generations. One may certainly speak of pros, but can we ignore cons?

It is a very interesting topic, Bruce, and one that has fostered many debates. As someone whose mother tongue is a lesser known language (Romanian), I'm particularly interested in it. The feeling expressed by Grzegorz (and by Crystal), i.e. that other languages may lose the battle with English (or other lingue franche), is common in Romania too. However, I do not agree and I'm not that pessimistic about it. A lingua franca should be seen as a tool that helps and streamlines communication in particular situations and in particular fields. Of course, a lingua franca prevails over other languages as a cross-national means of communication due to economic, political, etc. reasons. But as long as one's native language remains the language one uses while communicating with one's own family, friends, etc., in a personal setting and in daily activities, I don't think that that particular language is in danger, even if it may (and it should) adopt some foreign words. Romanian is a very good example, since it has survived for over two millennia as the only Romance language in a sea of non-Latin languages. It has survived the influence of many rulers and invaders (many barbarians, Turks, Greeks, Slavic peoples) and of many lingue franche (French played an important role in the formation of modern Romanian, but it did not "destroy" it). I think that a language's capacity to adapt to and absorb lexis from a lingua franca is key to its survival.

Dear Sorina, please allow this little comment: Since April this year I started -slowly but steadily- to learn Romanian. A lovely language!

Mind-embedded paradigm of the Gutenberg press and the concept of nostalgia: Will the paper book and corresponding lingua franca be the new vinyl? Dynamic web page and natural language engineering allow us to easily write dynamic books in multiple formats as audio and video (with context-sensitive automatic translation to different languages). Many companies will deliver the necessary online tools for fast prototyping of conceptual ideas, including automated text-to-artwork, text-to-speech, text-to-animation synthesis and automated narrative for different rhetoric styles. The flow of ideas should not be interrupted, and the hierarchic creative process is developed in multiple steps to converge to an acceptable final format. Writing productivity will soon increase for artists, journalists and scientists in producing exciting dynamic pieces of beautiful work.

Luiz,

I look forward to the many benefits of these up and coming technologies. If everyone can express themselves in their choice of language and be understood, it is promising for the preservation of the many languages and dialects that are at risk. Thank you for your comments.

I think this is a very interesting discussion that has got consequences especially for those languages that are perceived as "inferior" for whatever reason. Their survival in all the different modalities are usually threatened by the more dominant language. Some even do away with the perceived "inferior" language.

I am not a linguist (but a computer scientist), so that I may not have a proper feeling for this question. But I would like to mention two things I consider relevant: (1) the importance of personal experience, and (2) the excessive expectations from technology.

In my native village, people used to teach children Italian language (for practical reasons; Italy is close). Peasants spoke a peculiar local dialect. The official language has been Croatian (a Slavic language), so that this is the language I have been using since I entered the primary school. But since I entered the university (pretty long ago), I have been reading and writing mostly English. In sum, language has been primarily a means of communication for me. None of the languages I mentioned "defines" me as a person. (Maybe they all together do, I should think about this.)

Secondly, the unique value & beauty of each language consists in its peculiar *poetic quality* and its peculiar expression of *emotions*. In this regard, I do *not* believe that a "context-sensitive automatic translation to different languages" can ever exist, as Luiz announces in his post. Formal automata (computer programs) are not "contest-sensitive" at all, and surely not enough to translate poetry. Computer systems can translate the *literal content* of a discourse in oil industry (for example), but they have no way to "seize" the *poetic quality* of a narration, the melody and emotional content of a specific word and sentence of a specific language.

Computers can do only what people "teach" (programme) them to do, and they function at the level of syntax. It is not possible to express in a *formal way* the poetic quality and emotional content of a discourse. Hence, computers will never be able to translate (transmit) the beauty and emotions from one human language to another.

Luiz: "Writing productivity will soon increase for artists, journalists and scientists in producing exciting dynamic pieces of beautiful work."

Productivity, has exploded, but quality seems in a constant decline. And more "automation" we use and produce (and are compelled to do so), more illiterate and anti-poetic we are getting. Fortunately, we are also getting more and more incapable of seeing our decline, so that everything looks nice & fine to us.

In Switzerland 

The phenomenon of internal lingua franca communication can be observed primarily in internal business communication in Switzerland as an international marketplace. More and more globally active companies with headquarters in Switzerland are using English as the lingua franca for internal communication, a trend discussed by many

major newspapers

http://www.peterlang.com/download/extract/54720/extract_430432.pdf

 Mario,

You have expressed what most of us know: technology has its limitations. In fact, even the written form of communication presents similar weaknesses. The inflections that are a part of our everyday conversations must be inferred as we read written text. Yet, who could argue that there is value in a written text. I don't think technology will ever rise to the occasion of perfected translation, and especially since human beings who program the computers have yet to "perfect" translation. Language quickly changes. Yet, I do hope that improvements might be made where the majority of thought could be rendered in immediate translation. As this occurs, I admit, I will use the tool, in spite of its imperfections, while savoring the benefit of a real conversation in the languages we all hold dear. Thank you so much for your comments and for participating in our interdisciplinary forum. You certainly qualify to express your thoughts. As an aside, how far is your village from Gorizia? I have enjoyed delightful days and many good meals there.

@ John, i agree that some traditional practices in marking translations, particularly those from L1 to the TL, come down heavily on certain errors of verb morphology.

https://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2956

John says: "Yet, I do hope that improvements might be made where the majority of thought could be rendered in immediate translation."

Perhaps. But this does not depend on technology (computers); this depends on how well we can express contents from a natural (human) language in a formal language. Because computers can do (perform, process) only what they are "told" in a formal language with a precise syntax. As I said, computers work at the level of syntax. Some may mention "artificial neural networks" and similar methods ("approaches") here, but I do not think these methods can help much.

Dear All,

The little conversation between Mario and John shows clearly that the importance of a lingua franca has been always a practical one: for the commerce, technology or practical human relationships where people of various mother tongues meet. Lingua franca has had but rarely an instrument of haute culture e.g. the Greek in the Roman Empire or the Latin in the Middle Age for a few humanists like Erasmus of Rotterdam.

Yes, we do all love our own 'culture'. But there can also be genius that touches the whole world. Shakespeare, for example. Does it translate well from Elizabethan-period English into multiple languages? [A sincere question!]

Krishnan, and all who have contributed bibliographical references toward our discussion. I am gathering them all toward a possible subject for my dissertation. I look forward to your continued comments. This subject in not only one that can be explored through many avenues, but is one that affects us all in many dimensions.

Another reseaarch path you might be tempted to follow in your dissertation is the question of why ENGLISH - originally a language of a couple of thousnds tribesmen - and  not any other language, namely Polish, Italian, Lusatian or Russian - has become the LINGUA FRANCA of today. What determed English to be the chose seed for the position? What was the role of its internlly cosmopolitan nature? What was the impact of changing nature of English? What  were the processed that helped English acquire the status it has today?

Grzegorz

Putting it very basically, 'English' has of course itself developed as a result of the many waves of invasions that our little islands saw over centuries, and in recent times it has obviously seen adoptions particularly of 'Americanisms' from across the Atlantic. Very little of the original Celtic [British!] tongues remain conspicuous in modern English, though more of Latin, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Norman has survived visibly, inter-woven in a very rich tapestry. And of course, we The English/The British for centuries have been a breed of..... immigrants. It is ironic that our governing politicians are currently objecting to immigrants diluting our culture with theirs.

Dear Gregorz, I have a little answer about your question.

It all begun some time around the turn from the 17th to the 18th Century. Once Latin was dead - thanks mainly to Luther - the Royal Academy, the French Academy of Sciences and the Prussian Academy of Sciences met in Paris. To make the story short, there they agreed that the common lingua franca in science would be English, not French or German.

This story has been told and re-told a number of times, especially among mathematicians.

Dear Margaret, Bingo!

I didn't know that scientific anecdote - thanks, Carlos Eduardo Maldonado, it helps to explain a lot!

Dear Carlos,

Thanks for making me aware of this story. Yet, mind you, languages rarely grow in status and position by order/permission (even of the greatest authorities). There must be (or rather must have been) something inside English that has smoothed the path. I believe there have been many factors that have worked towards this effect.  I was simply suggesting JOHN  to delve into this issue in his dissertation-to-be...

Grzegorz

Dear Grzegorz, I agree with you. My story is about a particular circumstance, namely a decision made once in order to adopt a lingua franca in science.

As for the importance of a lingua franca in the day-to-day life, a number of other reasons come to concur. As we know, science didn't have at the time of the meeting I am referring to the social and political meaning that it came to have later on, particularly during the 19th and 20th century.

Grzegorz, 

You suggestion is a good one. As I consider the many factors that have contributed to the use of English, I recall that although English has the classification of being Germanic, oddly its structure has just as strong a basis in the Romance family. In fact, its commonality with Latin and Greek, two previous LFs, in addition to the Germanic emphasis gave it a strong reason as a choice. Then when we consider the vastness of the efforts of the Spanish, English, French, and others who contributed toward colonization of the Americas, the influence of the shipping industry, the contributions of English-speaking missionaries who were on the front lines helping many cultures to develop versions of written language, the film industry, the history of two world wars, and the rise of the internet, it would make quite a dissertation piece. 

In that my theme is going to be educationally driven, I will probably concentrate more on the effect of LFs throughout history as they have affected the global education process, the effects on curriculum, etc. In that I have interests in Biblical issues, I will possibly include the effects on the composition of the curriculum of the Bible in the cross-influences of the three LFs, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin for starters. It's still developing, but I have such a vast wealth of research to draw from. I may choose to discuss the ebbs and flows of the Language Death Theory in conjunction with these influences. As one who possesses American Indian heritage, these issues are very important to me and those sharing my culture. Any ideas are welcome and our intersubjectivity is greatly appreciated. 

Dear John Bruce, dear All,

it seems, from global point of view the situation with lingua franca is more interestiong. One can find many important facts, data (and answers) in this book from official UNESCO's site: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/netlang_EN_pdfedition.pdf, esp. in Oustinoff's article "English Won’t Be the Internet’s Lingua Franca"

Dear Olga, thank you very much for pointing us to this UNESCO's book.

Yes, Olga and two more references along the same thinking that I submitted earlier in the forum are worthy to consider in this regard: 

Paolillo, J., Pimienta, D., Prado, D., et al (2005). Measuring Linguistic Diversity on the Internet. Edited with an introduction by UNESCO Institute for Statistics Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001421/142186e.pdf

Pimienta, D., Prado, D, & Blanco, Á. (2009). Twelve years of measuring linguistic diversity in the Internet: balance and perspectives. Paris, France: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001870/187016e.pdf

Dear Carlos,

I have never heard or read what you indicated on the origin of the English as the common lingua franca. Could you present some evidences/details about it?

In addition, how Luther did execute the Latin?

Dear András, I am right now out of town. I have those references back home in my library. I can mention them later on. On the one hand.

On the other, Luther was a most significant actor in bringing down Latin as lingua franca. Together with the discovery of the press, by Gutenberg, the other languages became important. In fact, as you know, Luther: a) translated the Bible into German (a minor language, almost a jargon then), and b) introduced the idea that people's own interpretation of the texts was crucial, instead of the interpretation made bu priests, like in the Catholic church.

Fast and shortly said.

Dear Carlos,

Thanks for your answer.

I do not think that Luther’s intention was to decrease the scientific or cultural use of Latin, he wanted only to help people to know the Bible in their mother tongue but also to limit the power of the pope and the Catholic Church.   As to the almost a jargon of German in that time, I am able to understand the original texts of Luther even these days.  By the way, Latin was the official language in Hungary until 1830.