English may be the world’s lingua franca, but it can be full of bias. The words we choose can make us better global citizens — or destroy understanding.
The Tower of Babel, by Pieter Brueghel the Elder (Wikimedia Commons)
“Language is the road map of a culture. It tells you where its people come from and where they are going.” — American feminist writer Rita Mae Brown
When L.L. Zamenhof began developing Esperanto in Warsaw, Poland at the age of 14, the future eye doctor envisioned an international language that could help unite people across the globe and create a world without war.
Unfortunately, by the time he died in 1917, World War One was raging. A century later, there are only two million people who speak Esperanto and a mere 1,000 native speakers.
“Esperanto, despite its intellectual appeal, was simply not practical,” doctors Stanley Huff and Robert Patterson wrote in 1999. “It was no one’s mother tongue; finding other speakers outside conventions was nearly impossible; and it wasn’t even a true standard, as unofficial words appeared and spread.”
“Despite the logical concept and intellectual appeal of a standard language, Esperanto has not evolved into a dominant worldwide language,” they wrote. “Instead, English, with all its idiosyncrasies, is closest to an international lingua franca.”
But which form of English are we talking about? And how inclusive, or exclusive, is it? Are we talking about the “Queen’s English” — or maybe now “King’s English” — that dominated while the sun never set on the British Empire?
English can be full of bias and misleading.
Unfortunately, this form of English is rife with bias that reflects the United Kingdom’s colonial past. Consider the terms “master,” “slave” and “sold down the river,” which are directly associated with slavery.
Notions of white male supremacy were reinforced in “English English” by such phrases as “the rule of thumb,” which is said to derive from the belief that English law allowed a man to beat his wife with a stick so long as it is was no thicker than his thumb.
A Southwest Asian by origin (“Middle Eastern” is a geographically inaccurate colonial term), I grew up in England hearing the abhorrent phrases “play the white man” and “that’s not white” in terms of doing the right thing.
UK culture has included many xenophobic and racial epithets and slurs, such as “wog,” which is an ironic acronym for “wily oriental gentleman” and was short for “golliwog,” the name of a black mascot for a marmalade company for nearly a century before being finally removed in 2001.
Since the decline of the British Empire, American English has come to prevail, aided by its ubiquitous usage in pop culture and social media. Unfortunately, bias remains.
As Malcolm X and others have pointed out, think of all the words and phrases with “white” that are considered positive: “lilywhite,” “white angel,” “white knight,” “white lies” and “whitelist.”
Think of all the words with “black” that are considered negative: “blackball,” “black death,” “black hole,” “blacklist,” “blackmail,” “black mark,” “blackout” and “black sheep.”
Common American English usage is often filled with what I call “WordWatch” items that can be confusing, misleading or inaccurate to someone whose first language is not English.
Why do unusual ideas “come out of left field”? If you “execute” on time or “table” a proposal, is this good or bad? And why would anyone want to “throw spaghetti against the wall”?
It is not just written or spoken words. Why is 7/6 the date of July 6 in North America but June 7 in the rest of the world? Why do you exit a building on the first floor in North America, while in other countries you might “break a leg” — is this phrase good or bad? — doing so? And why is a “thumbs up” or “okay” sign positive in the United States but negative in other parts of the world?
Adopt a global mindset.
So, what is the answer if Esperanto is seen to have failed and English doesn’t always engender and sustain mutual understanding across the globe? Part of the answer is adopting a more global mindset.
First-language English speakers will hopefully realize and accept that they have a huge advantage in being able to communicate in their own familiar language almost anywhere in the world.
But with that power and privilege comes a responsibility to make it easier for those who may be speaking English as a second, third, fourth or fifth language and who have come at least half way by agreeing to communicate in a foreign tongue.
Then comes awareness and action, as native speakers learn their limitations and seek not to impose their rules and practices on others, even with the best intentions.
For example, more and more Americans use pronouns such as “she/her” after their name to show their gender identity and express solidarity with those who are non-binary and may use pronouns such as “they/them.”
Unfortunately, this does not always work in other languages such as German, where “sie” and “ihr” make the process much more cumbersome. Some languages such as Kinyarwanda — which is the main language of Rwanda where I live — don’t use pronouns at all!
Keep it simple.
Another way to enhance global inclusion and understanding is to be much more specific about what you are referring to.
For example, when talking about different regions of the world, it is better to avoid antiquated terms such as “First and Third World,” which relate to the Cold War. Other terms, such as “West/East,” “developing/developed” and “industrialising/industrialised” are largely inaccurate or unhelpful. No term is perfect, but “Global North/South” seems the best in such areas as global politics, economics and the environment.
Everyone should remember that Africa is a continent, not a country. One of my passports is from the United Kingdom, not Britain or England.
Finally, the most effective way to be more globally understood is by learning and speaking more “Global” English, or “Globish,” which are simplified forms of English used by more than one billion speakers of English as an Additional Language (EAL) around the world.
“Global English” features consistent word order; short sentences; no passive voice or figurative language; and logical and literal words. “Globish” — which was first formalised by IBM executive Jean-Paul Nerriere in the early 2000s — focuses on simplified grammar and a list of only 1,500 words.
In other words: please keep it very simple.
The only trouble is that if every sentence is short and direct like the above phrase “please keep it very simple,” communication might become a bit dull and boring. Some kind of balance might be needed.
It is a good idea to use a short, easy word like “use” instead of the longer, more technical term “utilization,” but for common, dual-meaning acronyms, such as “LOL,” clarify the meaning on first reference. Is it “laughing out loud” at a joke or sending “lots of love” for a bereavement? Likewise for a more idiomatic expression or phrase such as “break a leg,” which means “good luck.”
This may require more sensitivity and effort for both native and EAL speakers, forcing them to learn and communicate in a new way so that language can be dynamic, creative and fun while still being simple, easy to understand and inclusive.
As the Persian poet Rumi wrote: “Speak a new language so that the world will be a new world.”
Three questions to consider:
- Why did Esperanto fail as a dominant international language?
- Why should native English speakers make an extra effort to make themselves understood?
- What will you do in future to speak in a more understandable and inclusive way?
Jeremy Solomons is a global leadership coach and facilitator based in Kigali, Rwanda, where he has written regular “Leading Rwanda” and "Letter from Kigali" columns for the New Times newspaper. In the past, he was a Reuters financial reporter in Hong Kong and New York City and then a foreign correspondent in Frankfurt. He was also a farmer in Israel; factory worker and teacher in France; banker in England and Switzerland; and entrepreneur in Italy.