Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
Journal of Universal Language
Sejong University Language Research Institue

J. Univers. Lang. 2001; 2(1):61-69

pISSN: 1598-6381

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2001.2.1.61

Article

Like WTO, Why not WCO?

Stuart Read1
1Hongik University

Copyright ⓒ 2016, Sejong University Language Research Institue. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published Online: Jan 01, 2017

Abstract

As the effect of globalization has been to increase the level of language contact between speakers of different languages, English becomes to stand out as the leading world language as people express their need for a common tongue.

However, this paper objects to English as a world language. In addition, this paper is against any ocher natural languages as well as multilingualism. Instead, this paper claims that the adoption of an artificial or "planned" language could a possible solution.

References

1.

Crystal, David. 1995. TheEnglishLanguage. Cambridge.

2.

Hamelink C. 1994. Trends in world communication: On disempowerment and self-empowerment. Penanag. Malaysia: Southbound & Third world Network.

3.

Naisbitt,John. 1994. Golbal Paradox. William Morrow and Company Inc., New York.

4.

Naisbitt, John & Aburdene. 1990. Megatrends 2000. William Murrowand Company Inc.，New York.

5.

Phillipson, Robert & Tove Skutnabb-Kangas. 1997. "Human Rights and English in Europe,World Englishies, vol. 16 n.l (March 1997) 22-43.

6.

Phillipson ， Robert & Tove Skutnabb-Kangas.. 1996. "English Only Worldwide or Language Ecology?，，.

7.

TESOLQuarterly, vol.30 n.3 (August 1996) 429-52

8.

Tsuada, Y. 1994. The diffusion of English: Its impact on culture and communication. KeioCommunicationReview 16,49-61.