Talk:World language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Russian?

How can Russian be a potential world language? The only thing that would suggest that is old Soviet propaganda. Many Russian minorities living in the country barely understand Russian, and its their second language despite living in that country and speaking languages that have less than 100000 speakers usually. YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed true that Russian suffered from a big setback when eastern Europe broke away - such that many people there preferred to choose English [or German or French] as their second language. Something along these lines could be mentioned in the main article.
As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia insists on sources to justify its content - but in this context we could certainly ask whether some of them have now become outdated.
Admittedly, Russian is still widely used in much of central and west Asia [Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan etc.], and is probably the second language taught in Mongolia. In addition, it continues to carry some importance in the scientific world.
Let's see what other editors say. --DLMcN (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refer to
WP:DUE. I don't think the statement "Following the end of the Cold War, the Russian language's relative position as a world language declined" would be controversial among scholars, but at present it's not attributable. TompaDompa (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I still don't see any such sources. I have consequently removed the addition to the article that mentioned this aspect—it seems relevant to me, but it really needs to come from sources on the topic. TompaDompa (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
We have sources confirming that the number of second-language speakers of Russian has fallen significantly since 1990. We agree that the "Number of second-language speakers" is the most important indicator for deciding whether or not a language should be accorded "World status". Are the Wikipedia rules really so strict - that we are not allowed to put those^ two points together? --DLMcN (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. TompaDompa (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add German as a world language?

German is described as a “major language of the world” in its own article. So why not add it here as well? XXE XDXx (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that sources on the subject of world languages typically do not consider it one (thought there are some exceptions). What level of sourcing to require was discussed back in 2021 (see Talk:World language/Archive 3#A summary of the sources located so far, and a suggestion), and it was decided that we would be fairly strict. It may be useful to look at the table of sources compiled at the time, which I'll copy here for convenience. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potential world languages
Arabic Chinese Dutch English French German Hindi/Hindustani Japanese Latin Malay/Indonesian Portuguese Russian Spanish Swahili
Ammon (2010)[1] Discussed Leaning no Not discussed Yes (predominant) Leaning yes Discussed Leaning no Discussed Not discussed Discussed Discussed Discussed Yes Not discussed
Benrabah (2014)[2] Yes Yes Not mentioned Yes (unique position) Yes Yes Yes Yes Not mentioned Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
de Mejía (2002)[3] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Yes Yes Yes Not mentioned
García (2014)[4] Not mentioned Not mentioned Intermediate Yes Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Intermediate Not mentioned Yes Not mentioned
Lu (2008)[5] Not mentioned No Not mentioned Yes Yes Not mentioned Not mentioned Not discussed Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Yes Not mentioned
Mar-Molinero (2004)[6] Not discussed Not discussed Not discussed Not discussed Not discussed Not discussed Not discussed Not discussed Not discussed Not discussed Not discussed Not discussed Discussed Not discussed
Mazrui (1976)[7] Regional Regional/National Not mentioned Yes Yes Regional National Not mentioned Not mentioned Regional/National Not mentioned Regional Yes Regional
Mufwene (2010)[8] Yes (second-tier) No (major language) Not mentioned Yes (foremost) Yes Not mentioned No (major language) Not mentioned Formerly Not mentioned Not mentioned Yes Yes (second-tier) Not mentioned
Pei (1968)[9] Discussed No Not mentioned Discussed Discussed Discussed No Discussed Not mentioned Discussed Discussed No Discussed Not mentioned
Wright (2012)[10] Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Yes Yes Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Formerly Not mentioned Yes Not mentioned Yes Not mentioned
References

References

  1. , The focus on non-native speakers corresponds to our intuition that French or English are international or world languages rather than Hindi; or rather than Hindi and Urdu, combined as a single language – or even rather than Chinese, in spite of the latter languages' higher numbers of native speakers
  2. .
  3. . The terms 'international language' or 'world language' [...] have been defined as 'high prestige', majority language(s) used as a means of communication between different countries speaking different languages (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998: 702). These notions are often explained in terms of the rapid rise in globalisation and internationalisation during the twentieth century which has meant that certain languages have become languages of international communication at world level in such fields as science, technology, and international diplomacy (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998). The following languages of wider communication, that may be used as first or as second or foreign languages, are generally recognised: English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Arabic, Russian and Chinese.
  4. .
  5. . Judging by this criterion, one will have no hesitance to decide that English is worth the label of world language. Accordingly French and Spanish can be regarded as world language, too, because there are some speech communities of the two languages scattered in some parts of the globe.
  6. .
  7. ^ Mazrui, Ali AlʾAmin; World Order Models Project (1976). A world federation of cultures : an African perspective. Internet Archive. New York : The Free Press. pp. 332–333.
  8. .
  9. , There is no generally agreed precise definition of what counts as a 'World' Language. For the purposes of this chapter, they can be defined as languages spoken over a wide geographical area, often as a result of previous colonization, and in many cases by native speakers of some other language. The category now includes Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English, but with reference to historically earlier periods the label has been applied to Latin [...]
German is not usually considered to be a world language because:
  • It has not that many (total) speakers compared to other languages which are typically considered world languages.
  • It is mainly spoken in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, meaning that the language is not very widespread aside from Central Europe.
    • These are all very developed countries, meaning that almost all German speakers also speak English to a sufficient degree, making it quite unnecessary to learn German as a lingua franca.—-Maxeto0910 (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason why I became interested in this Wiki-article, was to try and learn how useful - around the world - were the various languages which I had studied - namely, French, German, Spanish, Russian, Portuguese and Arabic]. Certainly, the picture is somewhat different now than it was in the 1960s, when I first looked at that question. At that time, German was very much a lingua franca in central and eastern Europe (and indeed Turkey) - and, to an extent, still continues to serve as one even now, despite having conceded ground to English.... But Maxeto is correct: it is no longer a lingua franca once you leave Europe.
I do of course realise that "my own personal impressions" do not qualify as a reliable source in the Wikipedia context ! --DLMcN (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps worth mentioning languages which do not quite 'make the cut'?

How about including this sentence at the very end of the article? >

Some scholars (but only a minority) would also include Portuguese, Chinese, and/or German in their list of world languages.

.... and then adding Benrabah [and perhaps Wright and de Mejia] as sources?

[We did discuss this possibility in May 2021].

--DLMcN (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we do, we have to be consistent about it. For instance, if Benrabah is sufficient sourcing to add Portuguese, then the same must apply to adding Japanese and Swahili. The easiest ways to be consistent are to be as inclusive or as restrictive as possible. The article is currently closer to being maximally restrictive. I think it would be very different to be any more inclusive while staying consistent without going all the way to maximum inclusivity. This specific suggestion would create a two-tier system, which was discussed at some length back in February and March of 2021 (see Talk:World language/Archive 3#Two categories?) and which I don't think is a particularly good idea. I laid out my thoughts on the sources and how to apply them, as well as some reasons why this is somewhat complicated, back in May 2021 at Talk:World language/Archive 3#A summary of the sources located so far, and a suggestion. I don't think we have sufficient sourcing to say that only a minority of scholars would include certain languages. TompaDompa (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]