WHY ENGLISH?

The purpose of this paper is to explore, critique different arguments and give my own insight
about an extract of the book “English as a global language” by linguist David Crystal.

The first argument is found on the calculation of the total of people who speak English as a
foreign language. In my opinion, Crystal makes a serious error by calculating a part of the
number using statistics of people who have completed their secondary education. Assuming
that people who have graduated have a competent level of English is logical, I must admit,
but unfortunately, is wrong in general.
Take Spain, for instance: only a small percentage of graduated students know how to
communicate in English efficiently, while the rest of them have an overall poor level.
This is due to the poor educational programme that several countries have, in which they
solely focus in aspects like grammar and vocabulary, but skip crucial parts like speaking.
This fact removes credibility of the data provided by the writer.

The second claim I don’t agree with is found in the conclusion. When estimating that one
quarter of the world population speaks English competently, Crystal states that 'if one quarter
of the world’s population are able to use English, then three-quarters are not', in order to state
that we are safe by now, as English is not that widely spoken as some people usually say.
What I find curious about the linguist point is that he assumes that we should only raise our
eyebrows when a language actively takes over the world, i.e, when everyone is speaking and
communicating with it. I don’t think he approaches the subject correctly. In this day and age,
colonization is not the main way of spreading a language, like it used to be. Instead, social
media content in English and the American entertainment industry have gradually made its
way into the international mainstream.

I find this more concerning than the “active spread” of English that Crystal denies, as this
more subtle and passive way of slipping the English language into the pop culture is proving
to be highly effective. I believe that this gradual spread of English can pose a real threat to
other languages and cultures, as opposed to Crystal views.

To summarize, I believe that the writer omitted some crucial aspects when making the
previous points. Making wrong assumptions about English as a second language and not
mentioning the “passive spread” of English are the two main flaws I found worth refuting.