The power of English and Mandarin
In last a few decades, China has grew rapidly, many people believe it is one of the most considerable force nowadays. Like what Jeffrey(2011) says in his book, English Today: “A report in China Daily (2004), for example, suggests that: there may even come a day when learning Chinese, like present day English, becomes compulsory for business, politics and cultural exchanges – a trend that has become increasingly plausible as more foreign students enroll in Chinese courses and China as a nation takes a more prominent role on the international stage.” You can see that how everyone is closely relating the role of China and the use of Chinese.
First of all, I want to have a say that China’s development and rapid growth is relied largely on overuse non-renewable resources and at a cost, the environment pollution and destruction are super high. Honestly I don’t know how long the positive situation will last and whether it’s the right way for us to get stronger because drawbacks are already exposed. In fact, as Chinese, we are all benefiting from the development of China and we can’t just complain about it even if we paid our environment for a cost. But I personally would like to think this is not a long-term deal for a country’s development.
http://ichinese8max.blogspot.com/2013/11/chinese-education-online-chinese-vs.html
You've written a compelling refutation of Gil's point. The idea of global Chinese is an interesting one on which to speculate. David Graddol's 1997 text The Future of English had a section on Language Hierarchies that you might be interested in reading. He gives a more nuanced analysis of global languages rather than a "this one or that one" analysis.
ReplyDeleteA few quick notes about the way you cited your (good) source for this blog entry.
- the author's name is Jeffrey Gil. It would be appropriate in this context to call him by his full name or by his family name, which is Gil. "Jeffrey" is too informal
- English Today is a journal, and Gil wrote an article in it. You referred to Gil's piece as a book, and that is incorrect.
Knowing both these points is good for your future academic writing. I'll be looking for them!