From Liddy on Globish

Liddy 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Globish: less is more - 
 constraining English to promote 
inclusion 
When the Web was new, we all wondered what would happen to languages 
that were regionally based, far from ‘global’, the centre of our 
precious cultures. Years later we have seen that the Web does not 
threaten local languages but it extends the possibilities for global 
conversations. That is, for people with a command of English sometimes 
in addition to their native tongue and other languages they use, it is 
becoming a global village in terms of conversations. For people who do 
not have an opportunity to spend years learning to speak and read 
English like a native, who have disabilities that make written or 
spoken text inaccessible, or others with cognitive disabilities that 
make interpretation of text or speech incomprehensible in its normal, 
abundant format, the world is not becoming global and inclusive. They 
are being alienated by the very enabling technologies from which their 
colleagues are benefitting. 
 
English has been described as a wonderful language; dynamic, 
evolutionary. Meanings of words and expressions change, words go in 
and out of fashion. English for some is infinite, a user can add new 
words and forms of expression; they usually grow their language 
naturally and unconsciously. 
 
The problem for non-English speakers wanting access to English-origin 
resources is that when they want to learn ‘English’ they anticipate, 
often correctly, an unending challenge with a language that has an 
enormous and changing vocabulary, incredibly complicated tenses, 
voices, constructs and masses of exceptions, let alone that does not 
have spelling that accurately supports pronunciation. These are well- 
known problems and have been solved independently for many years in 
similar ways: build the vocabulary slowly; use simple constructions at 
the beginning, … But these are independently established paths to 
English – they are proprietary, they are arbitrary, one might say. And 
there is another problem: the learning process is going to be endless. 
There is no endpoint at which the student can be assured they will 
have enough to cope. Instead, they are initiated into a life-long 
challenge. And for many, not only is this a daunting prospect, it is 
not able to produce a satisfactory result. Students from one learning 
course cannot even be sure they have learned the same ‘English’ as 
those from other courses. 
 
Globish has been proposed by Jean-Paul Nerrière to tackle this problem 
in particular. For Jean-Paul, a non-native English speaker, there has 
never been a serious problem with his lack of English or his somewhat 
amusing accent. He has the confidence to reduce his conversation to 
the words he knows, or encourage others to do this for him. He has 
learned from experience that non-native speakers can converse in 
English when they do not have another language in common; that many in 
Asia use what English they have as their common language. 
Significantly, Jean-Paul has witnessed non-native speakers of English 
interacting comfortably until a native English speaker takes the floor 
and rattles on with no regard for others’ English limitations. Such 
speakers often silence others who depend on limited vocabularies, 
clear placement of emphasis within spoken words, simpler tenses and 
importantly, of course, avoidance of references to unrecognizable 
metaphors. 
 
Jean-Paul has been concerned to include non-native speakers in global 
discourse by following the ideas proven by such as Voice of America. 
That broadcasting enterprise found 1500 words sufficient on most 
occasions to convey the news to non-native English speakers. In fields 
where there is expertise and contextual jargon, for example medicine 
or computer technology, specialized vocabularies are usually not a 
problem and anyway can be translated into words already available in 
the 1500. 
 
For those learning English for limited purposes, such as engagement in 
trade, having an appropriate set of 1500 general words, which become 
5000 when plurals, verbs and nouns, and other similar forms are 
included, means they can plan how to learn ‘sufficient’ English and 
confidently assess their progress. The use of this limited English 
depends, however, on being able to trust that those communicating with 
them will respect the limitations. Documents need to be evaluated and 
words outside the 1500 replaced with suitable words from within the 
set; the grammatical constructs need to be constrained suitably. 
 
In an era when machine translation has been developed to the level it 
has, at least identifying sections of text that exceed the limitations 
is easy. Practice with such a system has shown that it is then fairly 
easy to focus on what will be difficult sections for non-native 
speakers. Given a standard set of vocabulary, it is clearly an 
expectation that automated translators could replace difficult 
sections of text with equivalents that use only the restricted 
vocabulary and grammar. Just as Braille indicates changes in symbolic 
use before it commences, where there is a change in tense or some 
other difficult construct, the tense could be indicated and then 
present tense used, for example. 
 
So there is a critical need for standardization of the 1500 words. It 
has been shown that there about 1200 words that are typically used in 
all simplified English language use, but the last 300 need work. This 
is not impossible work and already is under way. Language teachers are 
already developing what they call business English for Europe and 
business English for Asia – such an approach might be appropriate. 
 
Jean-Paul, meanwhile, has added a very significant rule to the use of 
limited English. He points out that too often native speakers speak 
without regard for how effectively they are communicating their 
message. He says the responsibility seems to be on the speaker to be 
sure they are satisfied with their expression. Instead, Jean-Paul says 
the speaker should defer to the intended recipient of the 
communication. The listener should be clearly empowered to slow the 
speech, to ask for repeats and explanations, to not be exposed to 
examples that will exemplify a concept for the speaker but mean 
nothing to the listener. He does not put all the responsibility on the 
native speaker but calls for this shift of initiative where real 
communication is to take place. 
 
Jean-Paul calls his version of limited English Globish. He does not 
think it is English but it recognizes the language base being used 
around the world. He does not advocate incorrect use of English but 
nor does he think of Globish as a way of learning English. For Jean- 
Paul, Globish is an end in itself. His work has resulted in the use of 
Globish, for example, within all instructions within a major Japanese 
company with the aim of being assured that all employees and product 
users who learn Globish will be fully informed by all text 
instructions. This means that teaching of Globish, instead of English, 
can form part of an employee’s training. It can also mean that 
international participants can work together, using Globish for shared 
and individual communication within the enterprise. 
 
In fact, Globish is gaining popularity and there are now Globish 
‘cells’ in a wide range of countries across the world. But this is not 
enough. 
 
Inclusion 
Globish has, to date, been seen as a language for inclusion of non- 
native English speakers in a world that is becoming increasingly 
global and dependent on English communications. But inclusion should 
and can go far beyond this goal. 
 
Modern technologies, especially information and communications 
technologies, have not worked in favour of everyone. Setting aside any 
socio-economic problems, there are many people who have been alienated 
by the technologies. For example, while earlier technologies allowed 
blind people to communicate using teletype machines, most of the 
information now available via the Web is not accessible to them. In 
general, people with physical limitations, whether they are caused by 
medical conditions or contextual conditions, are suffering from 
exclusion caused by the current technology practices. 
 
It is estimated that 20% of the community have disabilities that make 
it difficult for them to use the technologies, even if they have them. 
Microsoft research discovered, to its surprise, that more than 60% of 
people using the technologies benefitted from assistive techniques 
that were intended for people with what had hitherto been identified 
as medical disabilities. 
 
Many people with severe disabilities rely on assistive techniques for 
perception of information. In some cases, texts are transformed into 
Braille, or avatars represent sounds in relevant sign languages, or 
images are described for those who cannot see them, et cetera. The 
techniques and services need are, mostly, well defined as a result of 
a 15 years global effort led by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). 
 From a base where people with disabilities were thought of as needing 
special attention, the emphasis has shifted, led by the United 
Nations, to consider the accommodations being made as relevant to 
everyone, as being inclusive. The UN Declaration of the Rights of 
People with Disabilities now does not think in terms of assisting 
those with problems but rather of ensuring that what is done is done 
for everyone, so no group of people will need special attention. This 
is known as inclusive design. 
 
Inclusion for information and communication technologies thus means 
having them designed so that everyone can use them. It is not limited 
to inclusion of people with physical disabilities, however caused, and 
this means a person using their eyes to watch the road while driving 
has the same right to voiced instructions as a blind person. It is not 
limited to physical disabilities. People with cognitive disabilities 
have the same rights and so people with linguistic disabilities 
should. Disabilities have been defined as a mismatch between what is 
available and what can be perceived – so the goal is to make 
everything available to everyone who needs it. 
 
Globish aims to make information and services available to everyone 
who reaches the threshold of limited English, for instance. But 
Globish can do a lot more. When text is being translated, it is more 
likely to be translated accurately if it is expressed in clear, simple 
language. While a sentence might be quite correct within English 
prose, it can be very confusing and difficult to translate. Starting 
with a simplified version of the text will lead to a more accurate 
translation of it. This is well known within the linguistic field and 
by those who specialize in translation software. This is the field of 
pivot languages – the base to and from which translations can operate 
with maximal accuracy. Despite the brilliant techniques involving 
quantities of text to develop common translation of texts by the likes 
of Google, automated translation is still not completely satisfactory. 
Perhaps it is most accurate when it is working on single words, or 
phrases rather than large sections. 
 
For people with disabilities that require them to use sign language, 
for instance, a pivot language such as Globish can make all the 
difference. Once the text is simplified, it can be more accurately 
translated. 
 
For people with cognitive disabilities, Globish has much to offer. 
Disabilities such as dyslexia occur independently of other cognitive 
abilities. Many very clever people are dyslexic and so, for them, 
reading and writing can be incredibly difficult but their cognitive 
abilities outstanding. These people do not have disabilities that can 
be seen and they have been the last group of people with disabilities 
to be considered as needing inclusion in the world of advanced 
information and communications technology. These people have adapted 
solutions offered to others in many cases, and can take advantage, for 
example, of screen readers and dictation systems initially designed to 
help people with vision disabilities. But not all people with dyslexia 
have the same problems. For some, if the text is presented clearly, 
without distractions such as side columns containing advertisements, 
they will be able to read what is wanted. For others, there might be 
confusion caused by the use of what others would not recognize as 
ambiguities. Still others have a cognitive disability that results in 
confusion with directions – is the next word the one on the right or 
the one on the left? 
 
The important thing for people with physical or cognitive disabilities 
is then, what are their functional requirements for accessibility of 
resources and services, not what is their particular disability. 
Inclusion depends upon everyone’s functional requirements being 
respected. The fact that they overlap in terms of individual 
disabilities is irrelevant. 
 
A major functional requirement is thus identifiable as simplified 
language. Like a curb cut, simplified, clear language is helpful to 
everyone. Less language can well be more meaningful. 
 
A Role for Globish? 
Globish thus presents itself as a language for inclusion, as a way of 
more effective implementation of the UN Declaration of the Rights of 
People with Disabilities. Globish can help everyone: 
 
- Native English speakers can communicate better with those who 
are not native speakers 
 
- Non-native speakers can communicate better with those who are 
native speakers 
 
- Non-native speakers can communicate better with those who are 
not native speakers 
 
- Native and non-native speakers can communicate better with 
those with disabilities 
 
- Those with disabilities can communicate better with native and 
non-native speakers 
 
In order to realize this potential, what is needed is not very 
difficult: agreement about the base 1500 words, a set of rules for use 
of grammar, and a recognition that the listener rather than the 
speaker should control the conversation. This is all that should be 
standardized to enable a very rapid adoption of a common, shared 
subset of English for use as Globish, the inclusive language. 
 
Where should such standardization be developed? Perhaps the most 
urgent need is for global education to adopt the solution? Perhaps the 
International Standards Organization, collaborating with the 
International Electrotechnical Commission Council, known as the ISO/ 
IEC JTC1 working in the field of Learning, Education and Technology 
should take the lead? Perhaps ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36?