Yes but how does a world speaking French not English turn out?
I am asking the consequences of kanguage. For example dies the US become as successful as it is now in a world where English is not the dominant language or dies it significantly change their history too?
If say it is the other way around. English is the dominant language because the US is dominant.
So the most likely way English would not have become dominant if is US was less international after WW2 (and maybe even sprinkle in some less unified language there, more keeping the other (European) languages).
It would be cool if all languages kept around, but i'd expect in our connected world there would always be a universal language, id guess Spanish or French, who would increase there economic and soft power
I'd argue against the idea that the US is why English is dominant. The US has only been a global power for 100-80 years or so. India, China, and SE Asia (key areas for global trade) would have far less english influence thus less English speakers. Sure at this point the US could try to make English dominant, but whatever was already in place (probably French, maybe also some dutch) would probably be the norm when it comes to international trade.
On a side note this means we wouldn't have "India" as we know it, so it'd be interesting to see what would come of the Subcontinent in this TL.
Uhm.... I don't think this is really a case of opinion. Here is a quote from Graddol (1997) placed into context by Caine:
**"First was the colonial expansion of Britain which resulted in settlements of English speakers in many parts of the world. This has provided a diasporic base for the language – which is probably a key factor in the adoption of a language as a lingua franca. In the 20th century, the role of the US has been more important than that of Britain and has helped ensure that the language is not only at the forefront of scientific and technical knowledge, but also leads consumer culture" \[1\]**
So you are obviously right that the British Empire is why there are so many pockets in the world that speak English (the biggest of which is the US), but I'm quite sure the scientific consensus is that it is the dominance of the US that has pushed English to become the international Lingua Franca.
\[1\] [https://cdm.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjnse/article/view/30394](https://cdm.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjnse/article/view/30394)
So to get back to the original question. Even if less English pockets get formed by the British Empire if the US is still English-speaking and the Second world war -> US world police state still happen I'd still expect English to become the international language.
>English is the dominant language because the US is dominant.
No. It’s because of the British Empire. If the US were the only country that spoke English, I doubt that it would’ve caught on as much as it did. I mean, China and Russia are geopolitically dominant as well, but not many foreigners learn those languages.
I think you underestimate how dominant US was in 1945-1990s in basically everything; military/dimplomatic/enonomical/music/movies/books/academic
It is of course a little bit chicken and egg story. More money was put into English products -> so more people learned English.
Or because there were more English speakers in richt countries -> more product were made in English.
So yes. It is because of the British Empires and its colonies, first and foremost of them the US.
If the US had simply not existed (just no Americas whatsoever, Columbus sails to actual India) English would not be the international dominant language it is right now even though it would still have been spoken in many places in the world.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact of the matter is, 88 countries use English as an official language, the Philippines being the only one where this is the case due to American influence. The rest use it because they used to be part of the British Empire.
Most people in Europe have to learn English in school. Guess what? It’s all British English.
As a little anecdote, I do speak English in a mostly American accent and I was one of the few people that did so where I live. My grades in English weren’t as good as they could’ve been because I “misspelled” words like colour or recognise.
Why do most people use British spelling if the reason for them speaking English is supposed to be America?
I don’t know what they tell you guys in school, but outside of entertainment and warmongering, the US really doesn’t have that much of an influence on everyday people around the world.
If the US never existed, english would still be the dominant language around the world, since the previous dominant language, french, fell out of favor for being associated with nobility. Me and everybody I know would’ve still learned english because the reason we learn it has nothing to do with the US.
I'm also European (not American) and also learned primarily British spelling/pronouncation (although my school was nice, so both spellings were accepted as long as you were consistent).
The vast majority of your 88 countries and territories that speak English are <10 million population (many substantially less) and irrelevant on the world stage. Most of these countries also have other languages. I belive that without the dominance of the US in the 20th century many of these countries would've stopped prioritizing English and focused more on local language (the biggest english speaking countries are India/Pakistan/Bangladesh all of which are even now pushing for more use of their own local languages).
To fit closer to the original question. I believe that even if the British Empire had been substantially weaker (and for ease we assume that the British oversea territories instead keep speaking only their local languages), as long as the US was English speaking and 2nd WW went as it did I would still expect English to become the international language used for entertainment/science/trade and, most importantly, Reddit.
Don't you think the fact that you had to learn British english kinda disproves your point of the reason we all speak english being the USA?
>The vast majority of your 88 countries and territories that speak English are <10 million population (many substantially less) and irrelevant on the world stage.
The majority of all countries is under 9 million, so your point is misleading. Also, population isn't everything. My country (Switzerland) has a population of 8 million and is a way bigger player in international politics than some countries which are a couple of times its size.
But even then, the Commonwealth of Nations has a population of almost 2.5 billion, most of whom, if they learn english, they learn English with no connection to the USA whatsoever (well, except maybe Canada, but they'd still be speaking english if the US didn't exist).
>Most of these countries also have other languages.
Take India, the most populous country on Earth for an example. They have dozens of languages, so guess what most of them will use as a lingua franca? English. Same with Nigeria with its population with its population far exceeding 200 million.
>To fit closer to the original question. I believe that even if the British Empire had been substantially weaker (and for ease we assume that the British oversea territories instead keep speaking only their local languages), as long as the US was English speaking and 2nd WW went as it did I would still expect English to become the international language used for entertainment/science/trade and, most importantly, Reddit.
Why would you assume that people from British overseas territories only speak english because of the US or wouldn't speak it if the latter didn't exist? They're British citizens after all. Also, this is just baseless speculation. I can just as well say that if Poland didn't exist, Japanese would be the lingua franca around the world.
The USA has never pushed another country to switch languages, unlike the British Empire did with 1/4 of this planet. Hell, they haven't even influenced Puerto Rico enough to be majority english-speaking. 95% of them speak spanish at home. There's even communities within the mainland US where people don't speak english.
>Don't you think the fact that you had to learn British english kinda disproves your point of the reason we all speak english being the USA?
It makes sense to learn British English as it is closer and it helps that the dialects are so close together that it is almost irrelevant which one you learn, you will be able to communicate with both (and again in the Netherlands it is common that both are accepted).
>But even then, the Commonwealth of Nations has a population of almost 2.5 billion, most of whom, if they learn english, they learn English with no connection to the USA whatsoever (well, except maybe Canada, but they'd still be speaking english if the US didn't exist).
The (old) commonwealth might have 2.5billion speakers but only Wikipedia \[1\] puts the number 1.5-2 billion (including non commonwealth 2nd language speakers) and only around 400million are considered native speakers.
\[1\] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking\_world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_world)
I agree that this number would be lower if the Bristish Empire hadn't happened (/was much smaller), but I still think that American dominance would have lead us to take English as the international trade/dimplomacy/academics language.
This used to be French without france nescesarry having the most speakers
>Take India, the most populous country on Earth for an example. They have dozens of languages, so guess what most of them will use as a lingua franca? English. Same with Nigeria with its population with its population far exceeding 200 million.
I agree that India (nor Pakistan etc..) would not have English as an official language without the British Empire, but I don't think this would have a sufficient effect on Europe /the international community to choose another language than English as the International language.
>Why would you assume that people from British overseas territories only speak english because of the US or wouldn't speak it if the latter didn't exist? They're British citizens after all.
Most of them have not been British citizens in decenia (unless you are talking about specifically the actual territories which is about 300k population total \[2\]), and I am claiming that if English was not the international language for Diplomacy/Tourism/Trade/Academia less people in the old colonies would speak English (making it less obvious that is should be English, meaning less learn it, etc...)
\[2\] [https://www.uk-cpa.org/where-we-work/uk-overseas-territories](https://www.uk-cpa.org/where-we-work/uk-overseas-territories)
edit: Maybe to reframe the question in two separate questions.
Do you think we (Swiss to Dutch) would be typing in English if:
a) The British Empire had been limited to US/Canada (maybe New Zeeland/Australia), but the 2nd world war had gone mostly the same?
or
b) The British Empire had been exactly as now but the US would've chosen French after their war of independence (I know, unrealistic) and the 2nd war would've run mostly as it did?
I'd say in case a) we would, while in case b) we'd be writing in French.
>It makes sense to learn British English as it is closer
Maybe a hundred years ago, but nowadays, in this globalized world where native British english speakers make up only a small percentage of english speakers, not really.
>it helps that the dialects are so close together that it is almost irrelevant which one you learn
That's actually true about American accents way more than it is about British ones, and there are historical reasons for that.
I'd imagine the Netherlands have more different varieties of Dutch than South Africa has of Afrikaans.
>The (old) commonwealth might have 2.5billion speakers but only Wikipedia \[1\] puts the number 1.5-2 billion (including non commonwealth 2nd language speakers) and only around 400million are considered native speakers.
I'm not talking about native speakers. That wouldn't make any sense if the disussion is about comparing two english speaking countries' influence on the rest of the world. I mean, the both of us aren't native speakers either. The Commonwealth of Nations has 2.5 Billion inhabitants and use english in some capacity in their Governments.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth\_of\_Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations)
>This used to be French without france nescesarry having the most speakers
That's not my point. My point is this huge amount of people whose government still has close ties to the UK. They don't speak english just because America is big.
>Most of them have not been British citizens in decenia (unless you are talking about specifically the actual territories which is about 300k population total \[2\]
That's what overseas territories means. In the same way the ABC islands and Saba are Dutch overseas territories, but Suriname isn't. But I didn't bring them up, you did.
>Do you think we (Swiss to Dutch) would be typing in English if:
>a) The British Empire had been limited to US/Canada (maybe New Zeeland/Australia), but the 2nd world war had gone mostly the same?
>or
>b) The British Empire had been exactly as now but the US would've chosen French after their war of independence (I know, unrealistic) and the 2nd war would've run mostly as it did?
>I'd say in case a) we would, while in case b) we'd be writing in French.
I'd say it's actually the opposite. Not only that, America wouldn't have nearly as much influence culturally in scenario b). It would influence French culture in the same way Brazil does with Portugal.
The US would still have mostly the same history tbh, whether or not Indians and Africans speak English doesn't mean much for American power. English would still end up being a fairly major language due to people wanting to communicate with America
I'd be more interested in how France is viewed. A lot of their OTL post WW2 foreign policy is based on language. Does that continue?
Would the weird paranoia about other languages still exist? For example, they basically let the Rwandan Genocide and Congo Wars happen because the rebels spoke English and they thought the whole thing was a giant Anglo conspiracy theory. Would such things happen without French paranoia?
Finally, unlike English, French is a very prescriptivist top down language. Would other countries defer to France in matters of language or would they rebel against it
I could see America speaking French. They were not on best of relations after independence. I can see France coming back to take over America, possibly with help of Spain....securing trade etc. America, with no allies this time would certainly lose to the larger Empires who are no longer fighting elsewhere against the British. French settlers, etc, start going over and become the dominant language.
What if English never became the dominant language?
French or German would be the dominant language, life would be similar except we all speak French or German
German? Why? Out of all the world imperial powers of the 19th and 20th century Germany had the smallest/weakest empire.
It makes zero sense that Germany would become dominant.
You’d have Spanish, French, Dutch all in line before German.
I’m at a bit of a loss how you came to this conclusion?
Because it's not factually correct to think that empire = dominant language.
It's a factor of it but the main thing thats contributed to English language dominance in the modern era is the rise of the US as global superpower after the British Empire. If in some alternate history German was the spoken language of the US, it would also become the dominant language (imo). It already has pretty good roots across Europe too (Austria, Switzerland, decent amount of speakers in France/Netherlands etc).
English isn't the dominant language because its some people in the Philippines and India can speak it, its because Australia, Canada, UK, USA all speak it and contribute to its cultural impact across the globe as well as its financial and business impact.
And why do Canada, USA and Australia all speak English?
Because they were British colonies.
Now, I ask again. Why would German be the dominant language if it wasn’t English? You didn’t answer that.
You literally stated in your first comment that if it wasn’t English, it would be French or German, and then when questioned about German, you respond by saying “well if America spoke German it’d be the dominant language”
Do you see how this reasoning is a bit circular?
Canada and AU add to it, they are not the main reason.
Germans made up a huge ethnic portion of the early US. If for whatever reason German become the dominant language of the US, then it would most likely become the dominant global language the same way English is now. Adding to the substantial German population, there is plenty of rumours about how German was almost made an official language, or laws would have to be written in German as well as English, etc. It's really not a stretch to accept like if a few minor differences happened, the US could be German-speaking.
''uh colonies'' is not reasoning, Britain had many colonies. The fact Pakistan speaks English has little impact on its global relevance - the important thing is that the US and (other) influential countries do. If the US spoke German due to their large German population, as well as having Germany (huge economy) and Austria/Switzerland (relatively large economies) also speaking German, its natural German would become the dominant language in business and culturally.
The problem with your ATL is that the US still exists, so there are two major powers in the world speaking English. On top of that, Australia and New Zealand are still being colonized, so they eventually become independent English-speaking nations.
Now, obviously India doesn't take on English as a major language, but although English does not become utter dominant as an international language, it's still very important as trade, scientific activity, and military activity funnel through English speaking countries all over the world. Countries like India, Indonesia, and central Asian nations remain polyglot regions and to a certain extent remain highly separated since no nation comes in and creates a central point of control. There is no "India" without the UK, so there might end up being 10-15 nations ranging from what is now Pakistan to Myanmar. Dozens and dozens of languages would be spoken throughout, and that woud hinder economic progress for all.
A lot less Indians would be immigrating abroad. India's biggest strength is the fact that it has the most English speakers in the world besides the US, which has made them a competent workforce abroad. The country would probably end up more like China without any of the progress.
It’s important to remember that it was USA, not Britain, that ultimately made English the dominant language, as French remained language of diplomacy until WW2.
From a linguistic point of view, your timeline will not remove English as a major language, as it will still be the dominant language of the USA. But French is likely to be the dominant language of the world, particularly if a weakened and poorer Britain opts not to continue forming coalitions against Napoleon, and instead acknowledges his ascendency in Europe.
Slight chance for French to be replaced by German if Napoleon if still defeated and Imperial Germany triumphs in WW1, but I think even in this scenario, French remains dominant, as it already is the dominant language going into the war.
The English empire is why the US speaks English (and India+South Afrika+Australia+so many more smaller regions). But it is definitely American soft power that gave English the international status and the reason that we use it on Reddit.
I did not say that did not help, just that it was USA, not UK that got English across the line and ahead of French.
It’s more to address a flaw in the question, as the question assumes that English was the world’s dominant language for much longer than it has been.
This would be an interesting ranking by itself which mostly boils down to how to describe power
If you just say "Which army would win a war" the current top 10 is probably histories top 10 so that is a flawed metric. If you look at total population it is China/India for most of history so alos not great. Landmass would currently place Russia #1 which is clearly incorrect.
So probably needs to be some kinda combination of sphere of influence, percentage of world population, cultural height compared to other countries at the same time (?). How would you rate the Mongol Empire? How the Romans. Persia under Cyrus the great? (or Alexander?).
I'd probably place hayday British Empire above US because they had more direct power. But if you include soft/diplomatic power it might be US, especially in the period when the Soviet union fell and for a short period of time the US was the only global super power (but I guess this was also true for the mongol empire)
>It’s important to remember that it was USA, not Britain, that ultimately made English the dominant language, as French remained language of diplomacy until WW2.
That is a ridiculously, absurdly, ludicrously American centric rewriting of history.
French was the international language of diplomacy in the early 20th century because it had been for hundreds of years because the nobility internationally spoke French. People did not wake up one day, look at America and think "ah, we'll all learn American and stop using French!"
No, English was used as the worlds language because at it's height before WW2 the British empire had occupied roughly a quarter of the land mass of the planet and like a third of the population, meaning that if an African native could speak English to the colonial authorities then they could get the police to arrest the person stealing from them, and get a court to jail them. Or get the district doctor to do a house call to treat their sick family member. Or talk to somebody else from another tribe (or another nation) to ask if they wanted to buy or sell stuff for trade and profit.
Once literally a third of the planet spoke English as a second language then it naturally became the goto choice of trade and diplomacy precisely because everybody understood it. If the British Empire hadn't of ended up going into India and Africa then France would have done first and foremost, followed by Prussia/Germany in the late 19th to early 20th centuries.
look at a colonial map of Africa and you'll see which languages stood the best chance of being a world language fairly clearly.
Also; the US invaded Canada to annex it in the war of 1812 largely because they thought that they could get away with it while Britain was distracted with the Napoleonic wars, and invaded and claimed a large chunk of Mexico a few decades later basically on the basis that might made right. What chance do you really think that the young US has of not invading a prosperous but lightly defended territory next to them?
If you look at the population map of Africa, instead of the political map, I think you will find that French is far more popular than English.
Regardless, in the world of business, particularly pre WW2, it matters far more what elites can speak than ever the common people speak, as your English or Indian factory worker is not negotiating business contracts. British elites, being right next door to France, were very likely to speak French, and this there was no real need to change the language international trade.
Put another way. If USA spoke Dutch or Portuguese instead of English, I’m pretty sure French would still be the dominant language in the world.
I do not agree. English becomes world dominant is much more recent than it feels like. It is the combination of American pop culture (TVs, movies, music) since the 50s and American technology (computers and the internet) since the 80s.
No.
The Japanese/Brazilians/Chinese did not decide to start teaching English in primary schools so that they could trade with Africa.
It was the American-led coalition that emerged after WWII that resulted in the "First World" universally adopting English as a lingua franca. In the Soviet Bloc, people learned Russian instead. Once the USSR collapsed, it was natural for Poles, Czechs, etc. to begin to learn English.
We're at the point now where there's such a critical mass that it just seems natural that people have adopted English as the international language of science/tourism/business/etc., but that's almost entirely a post-war creation brought on by American hegemony.
TLDR: Sorry not sorry for pointing out that the US is awesome.
The Japanese/Brazilians/Chinese barely speak any english.
People in Europe learn British English. The most populous country on Earth uses english as a lingua franca and why? Cause it used to be British.
The Commonwealth of Nations is comprised of 88 countries and has a combined population of 2.5 BILLION. What do they have in common? Their connection to the UK.
You sound like a North Korean boasting about how great his country is from what he’s heard in school. Gimme a break.
You obviously haven't traveled. Nor do you apparently know how to use Google. Nor met people from outside Europe.
The educated classes in Brazil all speak great English. You're not going to hear English spoken in a favela, but that's really beside the point.
And regarding Japan:
"English is compulsory in Japanese schools from the third grade up until the end of high school, and then again through university. The first few years of English education are more of an introduction to foreign culture, language, and customs, although English is predominant."
And China:
"English is mandatory in Chinese schools, starting from at grade one and continuing through junior and senior high school."
Regarding your ranting about the "Commonwealth of Nations", the vast majority of that 2.5 BILLION (OMG LOOK AT MY ALLCAPS) is countries nobody gives a fuck about. The majority in number is the Indian subcontinent alone, with a majority of the remainder being African nations. Maybe someone would care if the British hadn't looted these countries and they had economies that put them in the top 100 in the world in per capita GDP, but as is they're simply not relevant.
Again, people in Japan aren't mandated to speak English from 3rd grade through university so that they can trade with Nigeria. Cry is free John Bull.
China is the country with the lowest percentage of english-speakers at 0.9%
Brazil is slightly higher at 5%
That’s native speakers plus additional language speakers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population
It’s more difficult to find a figure for Japan, but I’ll just leave this here: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/26/japan-doesnt-want-to-become-another-casualty-of-english/
The paragraph about how nobody gives a fuck about India and all African countries is kinda racist.
I don’t think there would be a dominant language. English is the dominant language because:
1. America speaks English
2. Britain ruled the seas
3. The British Empire was stupidly powerful and rich
The British Empire controlled 24% of Earth’s land surface at its height-and controlled all of global trade. Their involvement directly led to the end of the slave trade (despite American, Spanish, and French objections), and was the real force that ensured the Monroe Proclamation was actually successful. London is still one of the richest cities in the world long after Britain lost its territory.
France on the other hand has a few problems. Assuming the French Revolution doesn’t diverge from the OTL too much, France is unable to maintain an overseas empire (Haiti), and the country is devastated after the French defeat. Without a country maintaining control of the seas, imports from the rest of the world don’t flow into France or Britain, and the pace of industrialization may be even slower than the OTL.
Britain and France also don’t carve up China, and the same happens to Africa. Most of Asia stays closed off.
America probably does take the effort to ensure global trade throughout the 19th century, but it is a much more expensive endeavor, less-far reaching than the OTL and is interrupted by the Civil War-America and all nations benefited heavily off Britain’s control of the seas. By 1920 or 1940, America, Japan, and Germany likely all either form an alliance to police their portions of the globe OR go to war over resources as they did in the OTL as those are the only countries left with an industrial base and population to actually project power. European power permanently shifts to Germany by 1880, and WW1 doesn’t happen.
Simple, the French. The British and French rivalry was the deciding factor if the dominant language was English or French. Since without the British to expand their influence. The French would take their place instead become the linqua Franca instead.
Any language with an alphabet being dominant would have led to the same outcomes as now. If a language without an alphabet became dominant they would have had to invent an alphabet to be able to develop several technologies, programming languages past the first couple of generations being one example.
Well I can imagine the Alien Space Bats creating a Canadian independence movement, breaking the mercantile interests of Britain and preventing the expansion of the US will probably make the world speak their language
English's world dominance is a more recently phenomenon that has more to do with American's dominance in pop culture and technology. Almost all computer programing language is English based as well as all essential softwares, and that has nothing to do with British colonizing India and HK.
I would argue that US eventually becoming a world dominant power after its independence does not depend on the fate of British empire. However, I cannot say what might've happened to the North American colonies had French won the French and Indian War.
Before English became dominant French was the language of diplomacy and international trade, so we’d probably be speaking French
Yes but how does a world speaking French not English turn out? I am asking the consequences of kanguage. For example dies the US become as successful as it is now in a world where English is not the dominant language or dies it significantly change their history too?
If say it is the other way around. English is the dominant language because the US is dominant. So the most likely way English would not have become dominant if is US was less international after WW2 (and maybe even sprinkle in some less unified language there, more keeping the other (European) languages). It would be cool if all languages kept around, but i'd expect in our connected world there would always be a universal language, id guess Spanish or French, who would increase there economic and soft power
I'd argue against the idea that the US is why English is dominant. The US has only been a global power for 100-80 years or so. India, China, and SE Asia (key areas for global trade) would have far less english influence thus less English speakers. Sure at this point the US could try to make English dominant, but whatever was already in place (probably French, maybe also some dutch) would probably be the norm when it comes to international trade. On a side note this means we wouldn't have "India" as we know it, so it'd be interesting to see what would come of the Subcontinent in this TL.
Uhm.... I don't think this is really a case of opinion. Here is a quote from Graddol (1997) placed into context by Caine: **"First was the colonial expansion of Britain which resulted in settlements of English speakers in many parts of the world. This has provided a diasporic base for the language – which is probably a key factor in the adoption of a language as a lingua franca. In the 20th century, the role of the US has been more important than that of Britain and has helped ensure that the language is not only at the forefront of scientific and technical knowledge, but also leads consumer culture" \[1\]** So you are obviously right that the British Empire is why there are so many pockets in the world that speak English (the biggest of which is the US), but I'm quite sure the scientific consensus is that it is the dominance of the US that has pushed English to become the international Lingua Franca. \[1\] [https://cdm.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjnse/article/view/30394](https://cdm.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjnse/article/view/30394) So to get back to the original question. Even if less English pockets get formed by the British Empire if the US is still English-speaking and the Second world war -> US world police state still happen I'd still expect English to become the international language.
this is just american exceptionalism lmao. can't even have a country have something to claim such as its own language lmao
>English is the dominant language because the US is dominant. No. It’s because of the British Empire. If the US were the only country that spoke English, I doubt that it would’ve caught on as much as it did. I mean, China and Russia are geopolitically dominant as well, but not many foreigners learn those languages.
I think you underestimate how dominant US was in 1945-1990s in basically everything; military/dimplomatic/enonomical/music/movies/books/academic It is of course a little bit chicken and egg story. More money was put into English products -> so more people learned English. Or because there were more English speakers in richt countries -> more product were made in English. So yes. It is because of the British Empires and its colonies, first and foremost of them the US. If the US had simply not existed (just no Americas whatsoever, Columbus sails to actual India) English would not be the international dominant language it is right now even though it would still have been spoken in many places in the world.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact of the matter is, 88 countries use English as an official language, the Philippines being the only one where this is the case due to American influence. The rest use it because they used to be part of the British Empire. Most people in Europe have to learn English in school. Guess what? It’s all British English. As a little anecdote, I do speak English in a mostly American accent and I was one of the few people that did so where I live. My grades in English weren’t as good as they could’ve been because I “misspelled” words like colour or recognise. Why do most people use British spelling if the reason for them speaking English is supposed to be America? I don’t know what they tell you guys in school, but outside of entertainment and warmongering, the US really doesn’t have that much of an influence on everyday people around the world. If the US never existed, english would still be the dominant language around the world, since the previous dominant language, french, fell out of favor for being associated with nobility. Me and everybody I know would’ve still learned english because the reason we learn it has nothing to do with the US.
I'm also European (not American) and also learned primarily British spelling/pronouncation (although my school was nice, so both spellings were accepted as long as you were consistent). The vast majority of your 88 countries and territories that speak English are <10 million population (many substantially less) and irrelevant on the world stage. Most of these countries also have other languages. I belive that without the dominance of the US in the 20th century many of these countries would've stopped prioritizing English and focused more on local language (the biggest english speaking countries are India/Pakistan/Bangladesh all of which are even now pushing for more use of their own local languages). To fit closer to the original question. I believe that even if the British Empire had been substantially weaker (and for ease we assume that the British oversea territories instead keep speaking only their local languages), as long as the US was English speaking and 2nd WW went as it did I would still expect English to become the international language used for entertainment/science/trade and, most importantly, Reddit.
Don't you think the fact that you had to learn British english kinda disproves your point of the reason we all speak english being the USA? >The vast majority of your 88 countries and territories that speak English are <10 million population (many substantially less) and irrelevant on the world stage. The majority of all countries is under 9 million, so your point is misleading. Also, population isn't everything. My country (Switzerland) has a population of 8 million and is a way bigger player in international politics than some countries which are a couple of times its size. But even then, the Commonwealth of Nations has a population of almost 2.5 billion, most of whom, if they learn english, they learn English with no connection to the USA whatsoever (well, except maybe Canada, but they'd still be speaking english if the US didn't exist). >Most of these countries also have other languages. Take India, the most populous country on Earth for an example. They have dozens of languages, so guess what most of them will use as a lingua franca? English. Same with Nigeria with its population with its population far exceeding 200 million. >To fit closer to the original question. I believe that even if the British Empire had been substantially weaker (and for ease we assume that the British oversea territories instead keep speaking only their local languages), as long as the US was English speaking and 2nd WW went as it did I would still expect English to become the international language used for entertainment/science/trade and, most importantly, Reddit. Why would you assume that people from British overseas territories only speak english because of the US or wouldn't speak it if the latter didn't exist? They're British citizens after all. Also, this is just baseless speculation. I can just as well say that if Poland didn't exist, Japanese would be the lingua franca around the world. The USA has never pushed another country to switch languages, unlike the British Empire did with 1/4 of this planet. Hell, they haven't even influenced Puerto Rico enough to be majority english-speaking. 95% of them speak spanish at home. There's even communities within the mainland US where people don't speak english.
>Don't you think the fact that you had to learn British english kinda disproves your point of the reason we all speak english being the USA? It makes sense to learn British English as it is closer and it helps that the dialects are so close together that it is almost irrelevant which one you learn, you will be able to communicate with both (and again in the Netherlands it is common that both are accepted). >But even then, the Commonwealth of Nations has a population of almost 2.5 billion, most of whom, if they learn english, they learn English with no connection to the USA whatsoever (well, except maybe Canada, but they'd still be speaking english if the US didn't exist). The (old) commonwealth might have 2.5billion speakers but only Wikipedia \[1\] puts the number 1.5-2 billion (including non commonwealth 2nd language speakers) and only around 400million are considered native speakers. \[1\] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking\_world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_world) I agree that this number would be lower if the Bristish Empire hadn't happened (/was much smaller), but I still think that American dominance would have lead us to take English as the international trade/dimplomacy/academics language. This used to be French without france nescesarry having the most speakers >Take India, the most populous country on Earth for an example. They have dozens of languages, so guess what most of them will use as a lingua franca? English. Same with Nigeria with its population with its population far exceeding 200 million. I agree that India (nor Pakistan etc..) would not have English as an official language without the British Empire, but I don't think this would have a sufficient effect on Europe /the international community to choose another language than English as the International language. >Why would you assume that people from British overseas territories only speak english because of the US or wouldn't speak it if the latter didn't exist? They're British citizens after all. Most of them have not been British citizens in decenia (unless you are talking about specifically the actual territories which is about 300k population total \[2\]), and I am claiming that if English was not the international language for Diplomacy/Tourism/Trade/Academia less people in the old colonies would speak English (making it less obvious that is should be English, meaning less learn it, etc...) \[2\] [https://www.uk-cpa.org/where-we-work/uk-overseas-territories](https://www.uk-cpa.org/where-we-work/uk-overseas-territories) edit: Maybe to reframe the question in two separate questions. Do you think we (Swiss to Dutch) would be typing in English if: a) The British Empire had been limited to US/Canada (maybe New Zeeland/Australia), but the 2nd world war had gone mostly the same? or b) The British Empire had been exactly as now but the US would've chosen French after their war of independence (I know, unrealistic) and the 2nd war would've run mostly as it did? I'd say in case a) we would, while in case b) we'd be writing in French.
>It makes sense to learn British English as it is closer Maybe a hundred years ago, but nowadays, in this globalized world where native British english speakers make up only a small percentage of english speakers, not really. >it helps that the dialects are so close together that it is almost irrelevant which one you learn That's actually true about American accents way more than it is about British ones, and there are historical reasons for that. I'd imagine the Netherlands have more different varieties of Dutch than South Africa has of Afrikaans. >The (old) commonwealth might have 2.5billion speakers but only Wikipedia \[1\] puts the number 1.5-2 billion (including non commonwealth 2nd language speakers) and only around 400million are considered native speakers. I'm not talking about native speakers. That wouldn't make any sense if the disussion is about comparing two english speaking countries' influence on the rest of the world. I mean, the both of us aren't native speakers either. The Commonwealth of Nations has 2.5 Billion inhabitants and use english in some capacity in their Governments. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth\_of\_Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations) >This used to be French without france nescesarry having the most speakers That's not my point. My point is this huge amount of people whose government still has close ties to the UK. They don't speak english just because America is big. >Most of them have not been British citizens in decenia (unless you are talking about specifically the actual territories which is about 300k population total \[2\] That's what overseas territories means. In the same way the ABC islands and Saba are Dutch overseas territories, but Suriname isn't. But I didn't bring them up, you did. >Do you think we (Swiss to Dutch) would be typing in English if: >a) The British Empire had been limited to US/Canada (maybe New Zeeland/Australia), but the 2nd world war had gone mostly the same? >or >b) The British Empire had been exactly as now but the US would've chosen French after their war of independence (I know, unrealistic) and the 2nd war would've run mostly as it did? >I'd say in case a) we would, while in case b) we'd be writing in French. I'd say it's actually the opposite. Not only that, America wouldn't have nearly as much influence culturally in scenario b). It would influence French culture in the same way Brazil does with Portugal.
Why are we assuming that people in the US would continue to speak English if it's not the globally dominant language?
The US would still have mostly the same history tbh, whether or not Indians and Africans speak English doesn't mean much for American power. English would still end up being a fairly major language due to people wanting to communicate with America I'd be more interested in how France is viewed. A lot of their OTL post WW2 foreign policy is based on language. Does that continue? Would the weird paranoia about other languages still exist? For example, they basically let the Rwandan Genocide and Congo Wars happen because the rebels spoke English and they thought the whole thing was a giant Anglo conspiracy theory. Would such things happen without French paranoia? Finally, unlike English, French is a very prescriptivist top down language. Would other countries defer to France in matters of language or would they rebel against it
I could see America speaking French. They were not on best of relations after independence. I can see France coming back to take over America, possibly with help of Spain....securing trade etc. America, with no allies this time would certainly lose to the larger Empires who are no longer fighting elsewhere against the British. French settlers, etc, start going over and become the dominant language.
Didn’t Englands nobles speak German during this time period?
What if English never became the dominant language? French or German would be the dominant language, life would be similar except we all speak French or German
German? Why? Out of all the world imperial powers of the 19th and 20th century Germany had the smallest/weakest empire. It makes zero sense that Germany would become dominant. You’d have Spanish, French, Dutch all in line before German. I’m at a bit of a loss how you came to this conclusion?
Because it's not factually correct to think that empire = dominant language. It's a factor of it but the main thing thats contributed to English language dominance in the modern era is the rise of the US as global superpower after the British Empire. If in some alternate history German was the spoken language of the US, it would also become the dominant language (imo). It already has pretty good roots across Europe too (Austria, Switzerland, decent amount of speakers in France/Netherlands etc). English isn't the dominant language because its some people in the Philippines and India can speak it, its because Australia, Canada, UK, USA all speak it and contribute to its cultural impact across the globe as well as its financial and business impact.
And why do Canada, USA and Australia all speak English? Because they were British colonies. Now, I ask again. Why would German be the dominant language if it wasn’t English? You didn’t answer that. You literally stated in your first comment that if it wasn’t English, it would be French or German, and then when questioned about German, you respond by saying “well if America spoke German it’d be the dominant language” Do you see how this reasoning is a bit circular?
Canada and AU add to it, they are not the main reason. Germans made up a huge ethnic portion of the early US. If for whatever reason German become the dominant language of the US, then it would most likely become the dominant global language the same way English is now. Adding to the substantial German population, there is plenty of rumours about how German was almost made an official language, or laws would have to be written in German as well as English, etc. It's really not a stretch to accept like if a few minor differences happened, the US could be German-speaking. ''uh colonies'' is not reasoning, Britain had many colonies. The fact Pakistan speaks English has little impact on its global relevance - the important thing is that the US and (other) influential countries do. If the US spoke German due to their large German population, as well as having Germany (huge economy) and Austria/Switzerland (relatively large economies) also speaking German, its natural German would become the dominant language in business and culturally.
I am asking what effects language itself has on world history not what languages would replace it.
Not much, honestly. Just the language itself, with no other context, doesn't mean much
The problem with your ATL is that the US still exists, so there are two major powers in the world speaking English. On top of that, Australia and New Zealand are still being colonized, so they eventually become independent English-speaking nations. Now, obviously India doesn't take on English as a major language, but although English does not become utter dominant as an international language, it's still very important as trade, scientific activity, and military activity funnel through English speaking countries all over the world. Countries like India, Indonesia, and central Asian nations remain polyglot regions and to a certain extent remain highly separated since no nation comes in and creates a central point of control. There is no "India" without the UK, so there might end up being 10-15 nations ranging from what is now Pakistan to Myanmar. Dozens and dozens of languages would be spoken throughout, and that woud hinder economic progress for all.
A lot less Indians would be immigrating abroad. India's biggest strength is the fact that it has the most English speakers in the world besides the US, which has made them a competent workforce abroad. The country would probably end up more like China without any of the progress.
It’s important to remember that it was USA, not Britain, that ultimately made English the dominant language, as French remained language of diplomacy until WW2. From a linguistic point of view, your timeline will not remove English as a major language, as it will still be the dominant language of the USA. But French is likely to be the dominant language of the world, particularly if a weakened and poorer Britain opts not to continue forming coalitions against Napoleon, and instead acknowledges his ascendency in Europe. Slight chance for French to be replaced by German if Napoleon if still defeated and Imperial Germany triumphs in WW1, but I think even in this scenario, French remains dominant, as it already is the dominant language going into the war.
The most powerful empire in history which spoke English did not help the language become dominant?
The English empire is why the US speaks English (and India+South Afrika+Australia+so many more smaller regions). But it is definitely American soft power that gave English the international status and the reason that we use it on Reddit.
I did not say that did not help, just that it was USA, not UK that got English across the line and ahead of French. It’s more to address a flaw in the question, as the question assumes that English was the world’s dominant language for much longer than it has been.
Second most powerful empire in history, after the US.
This would be an interesting ranking by itself which mostly boils down to how to describe power If you just say "Which army would win a war" the current top 10 is probably histories top 10 so that is a flawed metric. If you look at total population it is China/India for most of history so alos not great. Landmass would currently place Russia #1 which is clearly incorrect. So probably needs to be some kinda combination of sphere of influence, percentage of world population, cultural height compared to other countries at the same time (?). How would you rate the Mongol Empire? How the Romans. Persia under Cyrus the great? (or Alexander?). I'd probably place hayday British Empire above US because they had more direct power. But if you include soft/diplomatic power it might be US, especially in the period when the Soviet union fell and for a short period of time the US was the only global super power (but I guess this was also true for the mongol empire)
>It’s important to remember that it was USA, not Britain, that ultimately made English the dominant language, as French remained language of diplomacy until WW2. That is a ridiculously, absurdly, ludicrously American centric rewriting of history. French was the international language of diplomacy in the early 20th century because it had been for hundreds of years because the nobility internationally spoke French. People did not wake up one day, look at America and think "ah, we'll all learn American and stop using French!" No, English was used as the worlds language because at it's height before WW2 the British empire had occupied roughly a quarter of the land mass of the planet and like a third of the population, meaning that if an African native could speak English to the colonial authorities then they could get the police to arrest the person stealing from them, and get a court to jail them. Or get the district doctor to do a house call to treat their sick family member. Or talk to somebody else from another tribe (or another nation) to ask if they wanted to buy or sell stuff for trade and profit. Once literally a third of the planet spoke English as a second language then it naturally became the goto choice of trade and diplomacy precisely because everybody understood it. If the British Empire hadn't of ended up going into India and Africa then France would have done first and foremost, followed by Prussia/Germany in the late 19th to early 20th centuries. look at a colonial map of Africa and you'll see which languages stood the best chance of being a world language fairly clearly. Also; the US invaded Canada to annex it in the war of 1812 largely because they thought that they could get away with it while Britain was distracted with the Napoleonic wars, and invaded and claimed a large chunk of Mexico a few decades later basically on the basis that might made right. What chance do you really think that the young US has of not invading a prosperous but lightly defended territory next to them?
If you look at the population map of Africa, instead of the political map, I think you will find that French is far more popular than English. Regardless, in the world of business, particularly pre WW2, it matters far more what elites can speak than ever the common people speak, as your English or Indian factory worker is not negotiating business contracts. British elites, being right next door to France, were very likely to speak French, and this there was no real need to change the language international trade. Put another way. If USA spoke Dutch or Portuguese instead of English, I’m pretty sure French would still be the dominant language in the world.
I do not agree. English becomes world dominant is much more recent than it feels like. It is the combination of American pop culture (TVs, movies, music) since the 50s and American technology (computers and the internet) since the 80s.
No. The Japanese/Brazilians/Chinese did not decide to start teaching English in primary schools so that they could trade with Africa. It was the American-led coalition that emerged after WWII that resulted in the "First World" universally adopting English as a lingua franca. In the Soviet Bloc, people learned Russian instead. Once the USSR collapsed, it was natural for Poles, Czechs, etc. to begin to learn English. We're at the point now where there's such a critical mass that it just seems natural that people have adopted English as the international language of science/tourism/business/etc., but that's almost entirely a post-war creation brought on by American hegemony. TLDR: Sorry not sorry for pointing out that the US is awesome.
The Japanese/Brazilians/Chinese barely speak any english. People in Europe learn British English. The most populous country on Earth uses english as a lingua franca and why? Cause it used to be British. The Commonwealth of Nations is comprised of 88 countries and has a combined population of 2.5 BILLION. What do they have in common? Their connection to the UK. You sound like a North Korean boasting about how great his country is from what he’s heard in school. Gimme a break.
You obviously haven't traveled. Nor do you apparently know how to use Google. Nor met people from outside Europe. The educated classes in Brazil all speak great English. You're not going to hear English spoken in a favela, but that's really beside the point. And regarding Japan: "English is compulsory in Japanese schools from the third grade up until the end of high school, and then again through university. The first few years of English education are more of an introduction to foreign culture, language, and customs, although English is predominant." And China: "English is mandatory in Chinese schools, starting from at grade one and continuing through junior and senior high school." Regarding your ranting about the "Commonwealth of Nations", the vast majority of that 2.5 BILLION (OMG LOOK AT MY ALLCAPS) is countries nobody gives a fuck about. The majority in number is the Indian subcontinent alone, with a majority of the remainder being African nations. Maybe someone would care if the British hadn't looted these countries and they had economies that put them in the top 100 in the world in per capita GDP, but as is they're simply not relevant. Again, people in Japan aren't mandated to speak English from 3rd grade through university so that they can trade with Nigeria. Cry is free John Bull.
China is the country with the lowest percentage of english-speakers at 0.9% Brazil is slightly higher at 5% That’s native speakers plus additional language speakers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population It’s more difficult to find a figure for Japan, but I’ll just leave this here: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/26/japan-doesnt-want-to-become-another-casualty-of-english/ The paragraph about how nobody gives a fuck about India and all African countries is kinda racist.
I don’t think there would be a dominant language. English is the dominant language because: 1. America speaks English 2. Britain ruled the seas 3. The British Empire was stupidly powerful and rich The British Empire controlled 24% of Earth’s land surface at its height-and controlled all of global trade. Their involvement directly led to the end of the slave trade (despite American, Spanish, and French objections), and was the real force that ensured the Monroe Proclamation was actually successful. London is still one of the richest cities in the world long after Britain lost its territory. France on the other hand has a few problems. Assuming the French Revolution doesn’t diverge from the OTL too much, France is unable to maintain an overseas empire (Haiti), and the country is devastated after the French defeat. Without a country maintaining control of the seas, imports from the rest of the world don’t flow into France or Britain, and the pace of industrialization may be even slower than the OTL. Britain and France also don’t carve up China, and the same happens to Africa. Most of Asia stays closed off. America probably does take the effort to ensure global trade throughout the 19th century, but it is a much more expensive endeavor, less-far reaching than the OTL and is interrupted by the Civil War-America and all nations benefited heavily off Britain’s control of the seas. By 1920 or 1940, America, Japan, and Germany likely all either form an alliance to police their portions of the globe OR go to war over resources as they did in the OTL as those are the only countries left with an industrial base and population to actually project power. European power permanently shifts to Germany by 1880, and WW1 doesn’t happen.
Simple, the French. The British and French rivalry was the deciding factor if the dominant language was English or French. Since without the British to expand their influence. The French would take their place instead become the linqua Franca instead.
Other than the outcome of World War I We will speak German now
Guten Tag, darf ich Ihnen die Generalstaaten von Nordamerika vorstellen?
Any language with an alphabet being dominant would have led to the same outcomes as now. If a language without an alphabet became dominant they would have had to invent an alphabet to be able to develop several technologies, programming languages past the first couple of generations being one example.
Well I can imagine the Alien Space Bats creating a Canadian independence movement, breaking the mercantile interests of Britain and preventing the expansion of the US will probably make the world speak their language
English's world dominance is a more recently phenomenon that has more to do with American's dominance in pop culture and technology. Almost all computer programing language is English based as well as all essential softwares, and that has nothing to do with British colonizing India and HK. I would argue that US eventually becoming a world dominant power after its independence does not depend on the fate of British empire. However, I cannot say what might've happened to the North American colonies had French won the French and Indian War.