CRITICAL RESPONSE

There are opposite points of view was embedded into the two articles How much English is enough? (Jane Cuthbert) and Globish? It just doesnt make sense (Peter Jackson). As being critical, we have to consider the reliability of those opinions as well as to identify the truth about the phenomenon of Globish. This essay will focus on analyzing the credibility of those articles and the core of Globish.

In the article How much English is enough?, Jane Cuthbert supports the idea of Globish by bringing out its advantages. Those advantages are: y y y Simplicity of vocabulary and grammar. Culture - free element. Convenience and relaxation in study and teaching.

In contrast, Peter Jackson opposes Globish in the article Globish? It just doesnt make sense by mentioning its limitations which are: y y y Restriction in vocabulary and grammar. Limited expressions. Possibility of unconsidered situations.

As a matter of fact, any new idea will have to face different opinions. By digging deep into those articles and referring other sources, we can discover the implied targets and the essence of Globish.

How much English is enough? Jane Cuthbert.

Jane mentions a change in her mind before and after teaching Globish. Janes first impression of Globish is negative. She is forced to teach Globish. After three months, she feels pleased with the new language. Take a quick look at Janes background. She is an English teacher who regards the importance of sufficient vocabulary. The idea that she changes her mind within three months and supports a limited version of English wordlist, which is Globish, becomes hard to accept.

The next point I would like to focus on is the missing contents of the other side of Globish. She mentions about the good side of Globish including the simplicity, strip of culture matters and the easy studying and teaching but misses out the opposite perspective. That makes

her article becomes one sided and incomplete. We can assume that the explanation for this is because of her article is made to assist her business, in this case, the English Learning Centre, which she works for, so she may be biased for her own benefits.

A good suggestion of Jane is the vocabulary and grammar of Globish can be studied in a short time. Globish is made from 1,500 words and simple grammar. With the average speed of studying 30-40 words per week she mentions about her students and the no needs of accuracy, Globish will be studied in approximate nine months. The idea of Globish can help people to start communicating soon enough is believable.

Another point I would agree with Jane is the culture free element makes Globish easier to study. Speaking a language in the right way relates closely to its culture. Idioms are the perfect examples for this case. If someone doesnt understand the languages culture, it will be impossible to understand the idea lies behind the idioms. Without the culture, the language is just a matter of words and their meanings and becomes simpler to deal with.

Globish? It just doesnt make sense.

Peter Jackson denies completely Globish in his article. He carries out the reasons that Globish is too simple in vocabulary and grammar, limited in expression to support his argument. At some level, simplicity and limitation helps people to study easier. Think about the 260,000 words and hundreds rules of grammar and other issues we have to study in order to communicate in English. It is a real challenge for anyone. The limitation in Globish is a way that can help people at beginning level to have a practical target. The good thing about Globish is people dont have to study the whole dictionary, but just some necessary words and rules in order to communicate.

The similarity between the two articles is the missing part of Globish. In Peters article he doesnt mention about any good side of Globish. This may be because he is a PhD of Applied Linguistics. In my opinions, a professor must have an objective point of view of an issue. This partiality makes Peters article a one sided document, therefore, credibility must be considered.

I would agree with Peter when he says that Globish is inappropriate for sophisticated matters. Due to its simplicity, Globish doesnt have the precision required in situations such as international relations, scientific issues, contracting, etc. Those situations need specific words to avoid any misunderstanding, and it cant be solved by Globish because 1,500 words of Globish are only enough for daily communication.

Another good point from Peters article is the unconsidered problems may occur, in this case is the natural development of Globish. He assumes that when a person masters Globish, he or she will seek for more knowledge. The very first target of Globish is to be simple and limited. When Globish evolves, it will lose its property and become a complex language just like any other language, so it is not Globish anymore.

Globish is a phenomenon with its own bad and good sides. To understand a matter we need to look at it in different perspectives. Both writers shows only fragments of this language, therefore, a combination of two articles will describe Globish the best, along with its advantages and disadvantages. In my opinions, Globish is an appropriate tool for people who find it suitable for themselves. For those who do not, they can consider it is just another news on the newspaper.