# Colonial languages in post-colonial countries



## terredepomme

Colonial languages, mostly European with Japanese as a notable exception, have rested in some post-colonies, while have completely disappeared in others. (I am talking about domination-type colonies rather than immigration-type colonies like Canada or Argentina) For example, most Sub-Saharan African countries except for Ethiopia still use French, English, or Portuguese intensively. The same goes for South Asian countries, notably India. In Southeast Asia, French, Dutch, and Japanese seem to have died a death, English still being spoken but much less than in South Asia or Africa, except for Singapore where it is the main language. In Taiwan and Korea, although Japanese is a popular foreign language, no one would ever dream of using it for official purposes.

So what factors decide whether colonial languages rest or not? Obviously, the economic level plays a decisive role. Korea and Taiwan today are just as rich as Japan; no reason to use their language. However, it seems that many African or South Asian countries lack the economic power to entitle greater status to their indigenous languages, and use the colonial languages to benefit from economic ties with the post-colonizer and the world.

Secondly, the linguistic diversity of the post-colonial nation also helps assure the survival of the post-colonial language. Sadly, many modern "nations" are often arbitrary bounderies carelessly traced by Europeans. Examples would be India, or African nations such as Congo. However, this is not always the decisive factor; in the Maghreb, where Arabic is enshrined as the only official language and is spoken by the vast majority of the locals, French still enjoys semi-official status. On the other hand, nations like Indonesia which features a great linguistic diversity has chosen to promulgate one single dialect(Bahasa Indonesia) as the national language.

The importance of the colonial language on the international scale is also a big factor. My guess is that Indonesia might have considered keeping Dutch around if it still were an international language. But there is a paradox to this factor: the post-colonial nations keeping the colonial language helps it remain an international language. French wouldn't be so international if the French African nations all agreed to abandon it to the favor of their own languages.

So my questions are the following:
1) When a post-colonial country grows in wealth, does it become less dependent or more dependent of the colonial language? On one hand, as a country experiences growth, that usually means a better education, hence the residents learn to speak better the prestige language which allows them greater social mobility. One example would be the increase of English speakers in India. On the other hand, at the same time it helps the indigenous language(s) BECOME the prestige language, so there would be less reason to rely on the colonial language to attain prestige.
2) Is the importance of the colonial language dependent on the importance of that language on the international scale? If so, how much? For example, if English loses its current status as the a powerful international language, would countries like India or Nigeria gradually abandon English? French now certainly isn't as powerful as it used to be, but it's still being widely used in African countries - although it lost much ground in countries like Lebanon where it was much more widely used back in the days. What do you think?


----------



## Frank78

terredepomme said:


> Colonial languages, mostly European with Japanese as a notable exception, have rested in some post-colonies, while have completely disappeared in others. (I am talking about domination-type colonies rather than immigration-type colonies like Canada or Argentina) For example, most Sub-Saharan African countries except for Ethiopia still use French, English, or Portuguese intensively.



Ethiopia has never been a colony except for a short period of time before WWII when the Italians invaded it. Since they were the only (native) Christian nation in Africa no one made an attempt to colonize them.



terredepomme said:


> So what factors decide whether colonial languages rest or not? Obviously, the economic level plays a decisive role. Korea and Taiwan today are just as rich as Japan; no reason to use their language. However, it seems that many African or South Asian countries lack the economic power to entitle greater status to their indigenous languages, and use the colonial languages to benefit from economic ties with the post-colonizer and the world.
> 
> Secondly, the linguistic diversity of the post-colonial nation also helps assure the survival of the post-colonial language. Sadly, many modern "nations" are often arbitrary bounderies carelessly traced by Europeans. Examples would be India, or African nations such as Congo. However, this is not always the decisive factor; in the Maghreb, where Arabic is enshrined as the only official language and is spoken by the vast majority of the locals, French still enjoys semi-official status. On the other hand, nations like Indonesia which features a great linguistic diversity has chosen to promulgate one single dialect(Bahasa Indonesia) as the national language.



India is actually a bad example. The borders have changed a lot after the colonisation. British India conisted of India, Pakistan, Nepal, Burma/Birma/Myanmar (Which name is up-to-date? )  and Bangladesh.
Since Hindus and Muslims weren't willing to live in a single nation the parties agreed to divide the country and to "exchange" their populations.

I think, your second point plays the most important role. Is there an authority (either colonial or post-colonial) which has the power and will to promote the usage of a single official language.  If you take a look at the former German and British colony Tanzania then you'll see that not many people speak one of the colonial power's languages because the Germans made Swahili (just one of the indigenous languages) copmpulsory at schools there. If it's better if one of the indigenous languages replaces other indigenous languages than replacing them by the colonists' language is up to your judgement.

Perhaps it's better to look at the pre-colonial differences between those nations to answer your question.
Was there a lively written culture before?
Did the indigenous people have someting in common which promotes a certain language, e.g. like the Islam promotes Arabic?
Did they have a single language instead of a huge diversity?


----------



## terredepomme

> Was there a lively written culture before?
> Did the indigenous people have someting in common which promotes a certain language, e.g. like the Islam promotes Arabic?
> Did they have a single language instead of a huge diversity?


I think the Philippines can answer no to all these questions but from what I've observed Filipino seems to be more widespread than English or Spanish. Even someone from Cebu will speak Filipino with someone from Manila.


----------



## Schem

I think it also largely depends on the colonizers and the type of colonization that was being carried. In the case of French and British colonies, English and French were widely taught and, in some cases, imposed on the populace in hopes/plans of future annexation (e.g., Algeria and India respectively). While in Indonesia, for example, the Dutch never really cared about teaching their language to the locals and actually preferred it remain the language of the elite, to maintain a clear social distinction.

Frank also raises many good points.


----------



## terredepomme

Both of you have raised interesting points and I appreciate it, but the questions I have asked were more about the post-colonial development of colonial languages. To make it more clear, what I wanted to know was "whether the post-colonial nations will be more dependent or less dependent on their colonial languages as 1) they grow in wealth and 2) these colonial languages become less important internationally."


----------



## merquiades

terredepomme said:


> Both of you have raised interesting points and I appreciate it, but the questions I have asked were more about the post-colonial development of colonial languages. To make it more clear, what I wanted to know was "whether the post-colonial nations will be more dependent or less dependent on their colonial languages as 1) they grow in wealth and 2) these colonial languages become less important internationally."



I would agree with both of these statements, unless in the meantime the colonial language turns into the mother tongue.  This is what I've heard is happening in some places in Francophone Africa where there are several local languages.  The people study in French, meet and talk with one another in French, then they may marry and speak in French to their children.  I've heard about this happening in the Congo.

Attitudes toward languages play the most important role though.  I've heard so many Lebanese people say almost word per word to me the following thought:  One is not considered educated and cultured unless one speaks fluent French.  One learns English to travel around the world. One must learn French before English because the former helps in the acquisition of the latter but not vice-versa.  French must be perfect, English can and should be sloppy.  It's far more important to speak one or both of these languages than Arabic.  *I must preface that these were Lebanese met outside Lebanon, of course.  This is certainly not my feeling.

Strangely enough North Africans attitudes toward French are more hostile.  Colonization was an unfortunate and unwelcome event.  It has caused countless problems.  It would be preferable to get rid of French linguistic and cultural influence but as of yet it's not possible....  *These people I've met in France and usually speak French more often than Arabic.

In American countries I think it would be impossible to get rid of any European language.  They are the only languages widely spoken anywhere nowadays.


----------



## Youngfun

In Macau Portuguese is the official language used in courts, in road signals, in laws, but only 1% of the population speak it! The everyday language is Chinese, and people prefer learning English than Portuguese.

In Malaysia English is still a very common language, and it became the lingua franca between the Chinese (40% of the population) and the Malays. So that Chinese living in Malaysia don't need to learn Malay, despite it being the national language.

In Singapore Malaysian is the national language, used in the national anthem. But it's not the main language.
The main language used by institutions, used in daily life is English.
Singapore could have decided to make Malay the main language for historical reason, but didn't. The Chinese and the Indians wouldn't have liked to speak Malay.
They could have made Chinese the main language (80% of the population) but then the Malays and Indians wouldn't be happy with that.
So they made English as a lingua franca between the different ethnic groups, and to be more connected to the World economy.
English as main language is also the main reason why Singapore became quickly an economic and financial power.
So the international prestige of the language is also very important.

But While in Malaysia English is still a very widespread language, Dutch is not spoken anymore in Indonesia.


----------



## terredepomme

> Attitudes toward languages play the most important role though. I've heard so many Lebanese people say almost word per word to me the following thought: One is not considered educated and cultured unless one speaks fluent French. One learns English to travel around the world. One must learn French before English because the former helps in the acquisition of the latter but not vice-versa. French must be perfect, English can and should be sloppy. It's far more important to speak one or both of these languages than Arabic. *I must preface that these were Lebanese met outside Lebanon, of course. This is certainly not my feeling.


 Where did you meet them? I once read a blog article about French language declining in Lebanon, people preferring English. I honestly don't understand why French is still around in those Mediterranean post-colonies when Arabic is 1)the official language native to most people 2)the religious, historical language 3)a large, international language(at least in its standard form). I guess diplomatic/economic ties with France are still important.


----------



## merquiades

terredepomme said:


> Where did you meet them? I once read a blog article about French language declining in Lebanon, people preferring English. I honestly don't understand why French is still around in those Mediterranean post-colonies when Arabic is 1)the official language native to most people 2)the religious, historical language 3)a large, international language(at least in its standard form). I guess diplomatic/economic ties with France are still important.



They study both languages in Lebanon. Apparently more emphasis is given to them than Arabic. I met them in various European countries and the USA.  The strange thing about it was the Lebanese repeated the same spiel verbatim like it had been officially taught to them or something.

Perhaps in North Africa a key difference might be that the popular way people speak is extremely different from standard Arabic.  So it's not so easy for them.  Also, so many people have families that live in France or learn French to go study there.  The intelligentsia of Algeria also write in French which explains why the newspapers etc. there are in French.  A vicious circle.  So French has to be introduced in school at a early age...

One place I know of that used to use French officially and then switched to English is Rwanda.


----------



## AquisM

> So what factors decide whether colonial languages rest or not?  Obviously, the economic level plays a decisive role. Korea and Taiwan  today are just as rich as Japan; no reason to use their language.  However, it seems that many African or South Asian countries lack the  economic power to entitle greater status to their indigenous languages,  and use the colonial languages to benefit from economic ties with the  post-colonizer and the world.


Consider also the length of the colonial period. Hong Kong, for example, was a British colony for more than 150 years, and so English is an official language in Hong Kong. It is used in legal writing and other formal situations, a mandatory subject in school up to the secondary level, and the top universities here set English as their primary language of instruction, or at least, shared with Chinese. Japan, on the other hand, only took over Hong Kong for three years and eight months. There wasn't even enough time to repair most of the damage, let alone making a mark big enough to convince Hong Kong to put Japanese as an official language.

Of course, politics has its role too. Hong Kong was cede to Britain at a time when foreign powers were considered superior in China, or at least, have made themselves dominant around the coastal areas. The Chinese Civil War, which came afterwards, made many Mainland Chinese decide to move to Hong Kong and flee the turmoil. These refugees saw Hong Kong as a safe haven, and so the British were tolerated. When the Japanese invaded Hong Kong (and many parts of China) in WWII, the Chinese had already advanced and went through a stage of ideological change. During the New Culture Movement in the '10s and '20s, values such as freedom, democracy and scientific development was proposed and quickly spread throughout China's youth. By WWII, these ideas were already deeply rooted within the population, so patriotism was strong, and many were willing to sacrifice themselves in order to repel the Japanese. This is another reason why the Japanese is not an official language in Hong Kong and China.


----------



## terredepomme

I don't know whether if one can see Hong Kong as an anglophone society anymore. Mandarin is actually more used than English in HK these days.


----------



## AquisM

terredepomme said:


> I don't know whether if one can see Hong Kong as an anglophone society anymore. Mandarin is actually more used than English in HK these days.


Definitely not. While English may not be as common as it was before, Mandarin has not taken its place. True, the amount of people who are Mandarin-proficient has increased, and has perhaps overtaken English, but English is still more commonly used. Just the fact that English is still an official language of Hong Kong shows its importance (while Mandarin has no official status - the Basic Law declares Chinese to be the other official language, without specifying which dialect, and Cantonese is used for oral legal discussions). Also, considering the recent conflicts between Mainland and Hong Kong, I would say that Mandarin popularity is at an all-time low. Cantonese is now more dominant than ever, but even English has made a mark on Hong Kong Cantonese, which has many loanwords from English (such as taxi, bus, strawberry), and many English words are "Cantonised" and incorporated into the language. A Hongkonger typically would not know, or would rarely used, Chinese terms to say phrases like "make sense", "right-click", "highlight"... or "Cantonised" forms would coexist with standard Chinese words (such as "sik kiu" from security, "kon si" from coins, "wurk" from "work"). A typical Hongkonger would say "咁到唔 make sense." (this doesn't make sense) instead of "咁到講唔通" (same phrase in colloquial Cantonese using standard Chinese characters).


----------



## merquiades

What is the status of Portuguese in Macao?  I can't really think of a reason to retain it if it's not for nostalgia.  English as a second language will probably continue for a long time in Hong Kong, but as a first language?

Here is an interesting BBC article on Lebanon.  It's amazing to what extent people can look down on their own mother tongue.
I believe that a similar attitude was the reason why English overtook Gaelic in Ireland during last century.
Around the same time, or perhaps a wee bit earlier, Czech beat out German in Prague despite it being the language of power.
Just saying healthy attitudes towards vernacular languages can trump colonialism regardless of the international scale or prestige of the given language...  negative attitudes can end up destroying them all together.


----------



## Frank78

merquiades said:


> Czech beat out German in Prague despite it being the language of power.



Probably the Hussite Wars and the reformation promoted the usage of Czech in urban Prague.
But German was NOT the language of power from the beginning on. Latin was used in the administration, at least until the end of the middle age. So both Czech and German became "more important" at the same time.


----------



## Youngfun

For those who understand Portuguese, here's an interview by BBC to a Brazilian living in Macau:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/noticias/2002/020926_chinamacaurui.shtml

I think the main reason is because they maintained the previous Portuguese laws, and they are too lazy to translate them into Chinese. And a country cannot have laws in a language that's not the official one.


----------



## terredepomme

> What is the status of Portuguese in Macao?  I can't really think of a  reason to retain it if it's not for nostalgia.  English as a second  language will probably continue for a long time in Hong Kong, but as a  first language?


Although the offices have to have a Portuguese-speaking staff on duty, only like 1% speaks it, or so I've heard. To a less degree I think it's the similar with English in HK. It still has official status but really, many people can't speak it well, especially since the handover.


----------



## merquiades

> Publicado por non dat panem
> Guaraní language




Salve non dat panem.  Good point, thanks for bringing up Paraguay. It is the only country where most people are bilingual in Spanish and an indigenous language. Diglosia would have to be surmounted (if for some reason we wanted to eliminate Spanish). However, they have been unique in preserving both languages. In other areas in America the acquiring of the colonial language parallels a rejection of the indigenous one. Guaraní is oral and informal, Spanish is seen as more serious, fit for schooling, business and government. They tend to go together and are inseparable as people are also bicultural, and do constant code switching. Also interesting is that non-indigenous people have somewhat picked up Guaraní.




Frank78 said:


> Probably the Hussite Wars and the reformation promoted the usage of Czech in urban Prague.
> But German was NOT the language of power from the beginning on. Latin was used in the administration, at least until the end of the middle age. So both Czech and German became "more important" at the same time.



I was only talking about modern history, the end of the Habsburg era in the 19th-20th century.  I was told continually in Prague that at the beginning of the 19th century German was the majority language having all the prestige and power with Czech being repressed... but by WWI it had turned into a small minority language. The Czechs told me this was achieved through resistance, a renaissance in Czech language and literature, renewed nationalism and a great pride in being Czech.  But of course, that's what they would tell me...  
The Wiki article on Prague talks a little about it but not too much..  I copy these 3 sentences:


> The revolutions that shocked all Europe around 1848 touched Prague too, but they were fiercely suppressed. In the following years the Czech nationalist movement began its rise, until it gained the majority in the town council in 1861. Prague had a German speaking majority in 1848, but by 1880 the German population had decreased to 14% (42,000), and by 1910 to 6.7% (37,000), due to a massive increase of the city's overall population caused by the influx of Czechs from the rest of Bohemia and Moravia and also due to ethnic mixing and assimilations


----------



## Frank78

merquiades said:


> I was only talking about modern history, the end of the Habsburg era in the 19th-20th century.  I was told continually in Prague that at the beginning of the 19th century German was the majority language having all the prestige and power with Czech being repressed... but by WWI it had turned into a small minority language. The Czechs told me this was achieved through resistance, a renaissance in Czech language and literature, renewed nationalism and a great pride in being Czech.  But of course, that's what they would tell me...



So the reason for decline of German is obvious but not the reduction of the people there. After 1848 and the failed revolution huge amounts of Germans emigrated to America but it weren't that many.

Anyway, this threat is about colonies, states like the Czech Republic or Ireland definitely don't belong to that group.


----------



## merquiades

Frank78 said:


> So the reason for decline of German is obvious but not the reduction of the people there. After 1848 and the failed revolution huge amounts of Germans emigrated to America but it weren't that many.
> 
> Anyway, this threat is about colonies, states like the Czech Republic or Ireland definitely don't belong to that group.



OK.  I didn't know so many of these people left for America.

The Czech Republic and Ireland were being colonized during this time.


----------



## AquisM

terredepomme said:


> Although the offices have to have a Portuguese-speaking staff on duty, only like 1% speaks it, or so I've heard. To a less degree I think it's the similar with English in HK. It still has official status but really, many people can't speak it well, especially since the handover.


By "well", what level do you mean? Native-speaker level? That is impossible for any second language. If you mean that there is a Chinese accent, well, that's unavoidable for any language. But I would agree that *spoken* English is rarely heard. Having said that, many people still have a high level of understanding and knowledge of *spoken* English, as practically all administrative jobs require employees to have a high standard of English.


----------



## terredepomme

By "well" I mean average TOEFL scores higher than the average of developped countries. Hong Kong was around 80 out of 120 the last time I checked, which is lower than countries like Argentina or France. Considering the fact that not everyone takes TOEFL exams and a score like 80 only garantees elementary conversation, I think it's safe to assume that the English skill of an average HKer is below average, although better than its East Asian peers.


----------



## Frank78

merquiades said:


> The Czech Republic and Ireland were being colonized during this time.



What do you mean? In nowadays Czech Republic Czech and German people lived for centuries. Furthermore the king of Bohemia was the leading monarch in the Holy Roman Empire and was usually appointed as Emperor. If you say it's a colony it would be pretty much the same as if the king of England had to be from one of the thirteen colonies.
And in Ireland I would only agree to the statement that Ulster was colonized by Scottish settlers.


----------



## AquisM

terredepomme said:


> By "well" I mean average TOEFL scores higher than the average of developped countries. Hong Kong was around 80 out of 120 the last time I checked, which is lower than countries like Argentina or France. Considering the fact that not everyone takes TOEFL exams and a score like 80 only garantees elementary conversation, I think it's safe to assume that the English skill of an average HKer is below average, although better than its East Asian peers.


I didn't know that. I suppose you're right.  However, considering that IELTS is much more popular in HK and the recent change in the system has made many decide to turn to international schools and overseas, I guess that (and hope that) HK's level of English will improve.


----------



## merquiades

Frank78 said:


> What do you mean? In nowadays Czech Republic Czech and German people lived for centuries. Furthermore the king of Bohemia was the leading monarch in the Holy Roman Empire and was usually appointed as Emperor. If you say it's a colony it would be pretty much the same as if the king of England had to be from one of the thirteen colonies.
> And in Ireland I would only agree to the statement that Ulster was colonized by Scottish settlers.



If you are referring to the cohabitation of peoples in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and who has the right to live in which location, it is a complicated issue indeed.  German-speakers in Prague, German and Hungarian-speakers in Bratislava, Hungarians in Romania.  It's a hodgepodge, and I won't dispute that.  I don't think it was or is right to expel minorities.

In Ireland there was certainly colonization in all parts.  It was conquered by the British army. They invaded and took over, imposed their ways.

Colonization is more than just a movement of peoples who decide to go in and occupy a territory. This of course is what happened in the Americas, Australia and other places.  It is also the control over a place, limiting the sovereignty of the original inhabitants, favoring and imposing the language, culture, and perhaps religion of the occupier, and installing systems such as schooling, laws, policing which perpetuate control over the area, making the native population second-class citizens.  In such a way India was certainly colonized by the British even though there was not a widespread movement of people there from the UK.  Anyhow, I don't see India that different from Ireland.

To move back to the subject, English was maintained in Ireland even if nationalism became strong and the British were forced to exit. However German was discarded in the Czech Republic in a similar nationalist movement.  It has to do with the concept one has of one's  own language, the esteem, the love of it, the force to keep it, not as much with the mere fact of being colonized. So English and Portuguese may be about to be banished from Hong Kong and Macau, from the reports here there is no sign of people abandoning Chinese, or even becoming true bilinguals, on the contrary when spoken they are clearly foreign and artificial.  English however is being maintained in the Philippines, is official and is seen as empowering by the people.  In Lebanon, people don't seem to hold Arabic in high esteem even to the point of speaking to their kids in French and English and sending them to schools teaching in these languages.


----------



## terredepomme

> English however is being maintained in the Philippines, is official and is seen as empowering by the people.


 What strikes me is how the different Filipinos all agreed on making Tagalog the official and national language and use it for interdialectic communication(people from different provinces will speak Tagalog to each other) while in India making Hindi the national language was met by severe opposition. I guess since the Philippines was colonized only half a century by US and English didn't have enough time to fully penetrate the intellectual class which was previously Spanish-speaking, unlike in India. And also the fact that the Philippines don't have radically different languages like the Dravidian languages of South India.


----------



## Youngfun

I think the "population colonies" are more likely to preserve the colonizers' language.
This is true in US, Canda, Australia, South Africa where most of the people are white.

But I didn't know that in Ireland the British were banned... in which epoch? That time, was English already a prestigious language as today?

In South America, there are more people whose native language is Guaraní than Spanish. But they kept both languages as official, being the Spanish the more common used language in formal situations. Maybe because Spanish is more prestigious language?


----------



## OneStroke

AquisM said:


> Definitely not. While English may not be as common as it was before, Mandarin has not taken its place. True, the amount of people who are Mandarin-proficient has increased, and has perhaps overtaken English, but English is still more commonly used. Just the fact that English is still an official language of Hong Kong shows its importance (while Mandarin has no official status - the Basic Law declares Chinese to be the other official language, without specifying which dialect, and Cantonese is used for oral legal discussions). Also, considering the recent conflicts between Mainland and Hong Kong, I would say that Mandarin popularity is at an all-time low. Cantonese is now more dominant than ever, but even English has made a mark on Hong Kong Cantonese, which has many loanwords from English (such as taxi, bus, strawberry), and many English words are "Cantonised" and incorporated into the language. A Hongkonger typically would not know, or would rarely used, Chinese terms to say phrases like "make sense", "right-click", "highlight"... or "Cantonised" forms would coexist with standard Chinese words (such as "sik kiu" from security, "kon si" from coins, "wurk" from "work"). A typical Hongkonger would say "咁到唔 make sense." (this doesn't make sense) instead of "咁到講唔通" (same phrase in colloquial Cantonese using standard Chinese characters).



I agree. While I have no doubt that the English level of the average Hongkonger is lower than average, the Putonghua level of HKers is about that of the average American. Also, many people believe Putonghua to be a 'corrupted' form of Chinese and would probably rather learn Min or Hakka because these dialects, like Cantonese, are believed to be 'pure' Chinese. I doubt the number of Putonghua-proficient people exceeds the number of English-proficient people if you don't count Mainlanders who came to HK after 1978.

One thing's for sure, though. 'Mandarin' has been completely replaced in Hong Kong. Almost everyone uses the proper term - Putonghua in English and 普通話 in Cantonese - instead of 'Mandarin' and '國語', respectively. 

I don't think English will decline in HK at all Just look at those adverts for English tutors on the sides of buses. It's not a matter of economy - it's a matter of the educational system.


----------



## mataripis

The education brought by the western countries influenced much the language of any country.In the Philippines, Spanish was taught only to the wealthy families(minority) so majority(cannot afford spanish education) still patronized their native language(Tagalog,Bisaya,bikol,Ilokanon etc).When Americans arrived , English was taught together with their assistance/help making the Americans more humanitarian/superior than Spanish colonizers.Many Filipinos patronized english language and it has long term existence. English almost dissolved spanish in most part of Philippine Archipelago.English together with Philippine languages prevail(English for wealthy and middle class/Ethnic-native languages for Majority living in rural and isolated areas).From Phil. experiences, Language that was brought by humanitarian colonizers give better impressions,this make the English prevailing here and even in other countries.The factor that affect the existence of introduced languages in any country is 1.) the way the native people are treated by the colonizers.The less fortunate natives will keep on prevailing with their simple way of living even during transitions or economic crisis will take place in their areas together with their native languages.the existence of introduced language like English will remain as long as the economic condition of the nation is fine.The way of communication with other people(outside the country) will be in English or other introduced languages but within the country, National and other native languages will prevail.


----------



## Youngfun

Not completely true. Spanish and Portuguese were not very humanitarian in South America... 
But here a lot of them settled locally.
And many native populations were killed...
Then in Brazil the independence was declared by a Portuguese royal member, not by native indios that expulsed the Portuguese...
This is also a factor.


----------



## souminwé

terredepomme said:


> What strikes me is how the different Filipinos all agreed on making Tagalog the official and national language and use it for interdialectic communication(people from different provinces will speak Tagalog to each other) while in India making Hindi the national language was met by severe opposition. I guess since the Philippines was colonized only half a century by US and English didn't have enough time to fully penetrate the intellectual class which was previously Spanish-speaking, unlike in India. And also the fact that the Philippines don't have radically different languages like the Dravidian languages of South India.



Those many languages of India also have their own unique scripts and well-celebreated literatures, and most are associated with distinct cultures. India was never one nation, but many kingdoms, usually with its own language. Even after colonisation and independance, I would say most Indians view their own subculture as a distinct ethnicity, with its own history. The reason Hindi would never be accepted is because it imposes the superiority of one of these cultures over the others; English is seen as having no cultural affiliations.


----------



## Hulalessar

mataripis said:


> ...making the Americans more humanitarian/superior than Spanish colonizers.



A questionable statement.


----------



## wildan1

I think an element not mentioned is how many indigenous languages exist under the post-colonial identity, and whether they promote or take away from unity across the country.

The reason English, French and Portuguese have remained so prevalent in many sub-Saharan African countries is that those countries' borders often do not match the linguistic borders of the people living in them. And which "national" African language can be chosen in a given country that does not lead to exclusion or conflict? That's the case in Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Uganda, Liberia and several other countries.

Ethiopia has a different problem--its federated constitution adopted about a dozen "official" languages in its different states on the basis of protests over Amharic's dominance, and elementary schools were supposed to start using those languages first. The problem is the teachers weren't used to teaching in those languages, there were few books available in them, and parents often prefer that their children learn Amharic so they have better access to jobs!

Nobody has mentioned the role of Russian in post-colonial (post-Soviet) Eurasia. It seems Central Asian and Caucasian languages have grown much stronger since 1991--what about Russian nowadays?


----------



## merquiades

wildan1 said:


> Nobody has mentioned the role of Russian in post-colonial (post-Soviet) Eurasia. It seems Central Asian and Caucasian languages have grown much stronger since 1991--what about Russian nowadays?



Only judging from what is said on Wikipedia, it seems that in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan the use of Russian is less prominent than before and it has lost the official status it once enjoyed.  In regard to Uzbekistan it says children are no longer proficient and only half the people speak it.  Russian has been discouraged in both countries. Even the local languages are no longer written in Cyrillic.  They switched to Latin script.  However, in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, the exact opposite has occurred. Russian has returned and strengthened and has become an official language again. Apparently people prefer using it in formal contexts. Cyrillic has also been retained for the other languages. 

In the Caucus, absolutely nothing is said about language use in Azerbaijan but Azeri is the official language and is written now in latin script.  Regarding Armenia, Wiki states that 94% of the people are bilingual in Russian and consider it important to know Russian well, so it has become the de-facto second official language.  Georgia seems complicated with Georgian becoming more common (also official) and Russian less, but the population is declining quickly as people immigrate away (loss of 20% of population in 10 years).


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

terredepomme said:


> Where did you meet them? I once read a blog article about French language declining in Lebanon, people preferring English. I honestly don't understand why French is still around in those Mediterranean post-colonies when Arabic is 1)the official language native to most people 2)the religious, historical language 3)a large, international language(at least in its standard form). I guess diplomatic/economic ties with France are still important.



The countries where Arabic is spoken are many and the local varieties of Arabic from Morocco to Iraq aren't mutually understandable, except for Egyptian Arabic which has a strong cinematographic industry. There is a variety called Modern Standard Arabic which they use in TV news and the like, but it's quite different from what people speak in everyday life. Moreover, from what I've read, Modern Standard Arabic, which has a strong Classical Arabic basis and is quite near to the language used in the Quran, has difficulties to find adequate words for many concepts of modern life.
The diplomatic/economic ties with France are quite important, but I think it's also important that in the Sahara countries they don't speak Arabic and that there are countries where many different languages are spoken, so French, being the language of colonial administration, is the natural lingua franca.


----------



## wildan1

Angelo di fuoco said:


> The countries where Arabic is spoken are many and the local varieties of Arabic from Morocco to Iraq aren't mutually understandable, except for Egyptian Arabic which has a strong cinematographic industry.


 Yes, most people have learned to understand Egyptian dialect passively because of movies and TV shows. 

However, dialects within a region are usually not so different to prevent mutual understanding: Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Jordanians with some level of education all understand most of what each other says. Gulf countries also: Saudis, Yemenis, Omanis. The same for Moroccans and Algerians, or Algerians and Tunisians. Of course all sprinkle in foreign loan words (English, French or Berber) depending on context… or if well educated, switch to MSA.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Youngfun said:


> But I didn't know that in Ireland the British were banned... in which epoch? That time, was English already a prestigious language as today?


When Ireland got independent, i. e. some 90 years ago.



Youngfun said:


> In South America, there are more people whose native language is Guaraní than Spanish. But they kept both languages as official, being the Spanish the more common used language in formal situations. Maybe because Spanish is more prestigious language?



Paraguay, to be precise.
The problem with Guaraní is that it isn't very well adapted to some necessities of modern life: e. g., you can count in Guaraní only up to 4 or 5 and then have to switch to Spanish.


----------

