File talk:Anglospeak.svg

Official language

English is not the/an official language in the USA, and so it should not be said to be so. —ScouterSig 04:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the English caption; some of the captions in other languages are correct, some incorrect... AnonMoos 08:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

South Africa

Over 3 million South Africans speak English natively. South Africa belongs in dark blue. Joeldl 07:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That is just 3 million out of 43 million South Africans, which isn't even plurality. --Shibo77 03:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that those English speakers who are there are a major component of the English-speaking world. It's not relative numbers that count but absolute ones. Joeldl 15:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not. There are around 350 million native English speakers around the world, so the 3 million in South Africa are a tiny fraction of the English-speaking world. —Angr 13:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the map and caption should be reverted to show majority countries in dark blue. The word "majority" has a precise definition that anyone can understand. What exactly does "significant concentrations" mean? There are no "concentrations" of English speakers anywhere in SA. They are thinly spread all over the country. For the record, I am one of the minority of English speaking South Africans. BTW its actually less than 3 million out of a total of about 50 million South Africans. Revert the change! Dodger67 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Others, including me, support a revert (see en:Talk:English language). --Hooiwind (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've recolored South Africa light blue and restored the original wording of the description, which others are free to improve. But please do not restore dark blue to South Africa without first seeking consensus. —Angr 22:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

South Africa is still dark blue! I'm trying to revert it but I'm not succeeding. I don't know where I'm going wrong - please help! Dodger67 (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You should reload your browser to show out the newest version.--白布飘扬 (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There are about 3 million native English-speakers in South Africa, the same as New Zealand. Perhaps the word "concentrations" is not ideal, but South Africa is the only country with millions of native speakers which is not coloured dark blue.

The description that's been reverted to says: "Countries of the world where English is an official or de facto official language, or national language, in dark blue."

How is that more accurate than the previous reference to native speakers? Why is Nigeria not in dark blue? Its official language is English. Joeldl (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It should say that dark blue is used where English is the predominant native language, light blue where it isn't. The absolute numbers aren't what matter. Even if there are about the same number of native English speakers in South Africa as in New Zealand, the fact is that English is the native language of the great majority of people in New Zealand, and of only a small minority in South Africa. —Angr 15:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand why the caption was changed from an accurate one back to an inaccurate one, then. At least we agree now that it's a matter of the number of native speakers.

Regarding consensus, two people who have commented at en:File talk:Anglospeak.svg expressed similar views to mine. I don't know if that counts here, but if it does then I would suggest that there's no clear consensus at the moment. Otherwise, I think it might be helpful to obtain more outside opinions here.

You've said that having a significant English-speaking population (whether in absolute terms, or as a fraction of the population of the country) is not enough, and that the criterion should be a majority.

My own feeling is that the purpose of this map is to give an overall picture of the English-speaking world. It is a normal occurrence for various language populations to coexist in a country, and therefore normal for a single country to belong to several language communities simultaneously. Demanding a majority in each country is an arbitrary restriction, and runs counter to the purpose of the map as I see it. People consulting the encyclopedia are likely to ask the question "Where are there populations speaking this language?" They're not likely to say, "Yes, but please don't tell me about countries where other languages are also spoken."

South Africa has a stable, sizable indigenous population (in a reasonable sense) that speaks English, the sixth-largest in the world, just ahead of New Zealand. It is a group having a high degree of notoriety among anglophones the world over. It would be the only population of that magnitude excluded from the map. In terms of its relevance to the English-speaking world, I think most people will agree South Africa has much more in common with New Zealand than with Nigeria.

As another illustration of the unsuitability of the majority criterion, the number three country, Canada, went from 60% to 58% anglophone between 2001 and 2006. At that rate, it will likely fall off the map in about 20 years.

What do you see as the basic purpose of the map, as regards the dark blue colouring? Why do you believe the criterion of a majority of English-speakers is preferable to that of a significant population (or some other threshold lower than a majority)? Joeldl (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

According to w:Spoken languages of Canada, the 2006 census shows that English is the home language of 67.1% of the population, so I'm not sure where you're getting the 58% figure, or the assumption that the number is dropping. I agree that the purpose of the map is to give an overall picture of the English-speaking world, which is why coloring South Africa with its small minority of English speakers the same color as countries where English is the predominant language would be misleading. —Angr 12:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I got the figure from the 2006 census: [1]

It shows 57.2% of Canadians with English mother tongue, single response. A further 1.1% gave multiple responses one of which was English.

If you agree that the purpose of the map is to give an overall picture of the English-speaking world, then the presence of speakers of other languages in South Africa should make no difference. The significance of anglophone South Africans within the English-speaking world is unaffected by the others' presence. Again, we are talking about the country with the sixth-highest total in the world, and as far as I can tell, the only population numbering in the millions that is excluded from the map.

A person who wishes to know where significant anglophone populations can be found is ill-served by the present map. You say that people will be misled if South Africa is shown as dark blue. That is your appreciation. As I said before, it is normal for countries to belong to several linguistic communities simultaneously. Therefore, when looking at a map of the geographic distribution of a language, people are most likely to expect that all significant populations will be shown, not just those which are a majority within their countries. For example, under your preferred criteria, only France and Monaco would be shown on a map of the French language.

It is a map lumping South Africa in with, say, Nigeria, which has no native speakers, that is most likely to mislead readers. Joeldl (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If south africa is coloured light blue then please make new Zealand and Ireland light blue since south africa has much more english speaking people then them! It should also be noted that the english speaking people are one of the highest in the world and the map doesn't point out saying 'perecentages'. 3 million out of 47 million IS enough. Its an official language and a majorly spoken language. South Africa is a land where NO language makes a majority. The language with the highest % only makes up 30% (zulu). You have to point south africa... the same % of people in south africa speak english as people speak irish in Ireland. Irish is important THERE.

I do reckon South Africa should be coloured dark blue, not only due to the abovementioned three millions, but also since English is one of their official languages and the business language of the country. In business everybody, regardless of mother tongue, do use English, and all official papers, signs etc. is written in English (and sometimes in a couple of other languages as well, like Afrikaans and Xhosa). I have no idea what the total number of English speaking people there is, but I know the most people do speak fluent English despite having another mother tongue. Compared to English as a second language in Europe, their second language English is way more mother tongue-ish (: --EivindJ (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice Europe isn't colored light blue on the map. How does the use of English in South Africa differ from its use in the other countries that are colored light blue? What you've described above for South Africa sounds very similar to the situation in India. —Angr 08:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If Europe was coloured light blue, it would've been a disgrace (: Yes, I reckon the situation might be quite similar to the one in India, but I've never been to India, nor studied it, so I won't say too much about whether or not India should be dark blue. All I say is that out from my experiences with English in South Africa, I find English as the de facto language, and the only language which may be widely used in the country (none of the other official languages is understood by the majority. I reckon Hindi has a stronger stand in India, than the other languages in South Africa). To put it like this: I think South Africa is de facto dark blue, but de jure light blue. --EivindJ (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

86 makes a terrific point. In fact, if we adopted Angr's criterion of a majority of speakers for maps of other languages (by native speakers), then South Africa would not be shown as part of the Zulu-speaking world, the Xhosa-speaking world or the Afrikaans-speaking world. What good would maps of those languages then be? South Africa would not belong to any linguistic grouping of countries.

Perhaps that sounded a bit sarcastic, but my point is that it's a circumstance fairly specific to English that the list of countries where English is a majority language comes anywhere near being an accurate representation of the English-speaking world. The fact that the sixth-largest group of speakers is left out is proof that it isn't, though.

On a separate point, according to Ethnologue, the vast majority of people in Guyana and Belize have as their mother tongue English creoles that Ethnologue doesn't classify as English. Perhaps these countries shouldn't be coloured dark blue, depending on the criteria we adopt, since a minority do speak English. Also, after New Zealand at 3 million, Ethnologue says you have 370,000 in Zimbabwe (but that goes back to 1969 - it must be less now with white emigration) and 225,000 in Singapore. These seem to me like the lowest reaches of what would be acceptable for inclusion on the basis of absolute numbers. Then you have a few countries (like Bermuda, at 90% English, 60,000) that might qualify on the basis of relative numbers.

I would suggest a dual criterion: at least 200,000-1,000,000 native speakers or at least 2%-10% native speakers. I think the list would remain quite manageable with these criteria. I would actually tend to favour using the lower end of these ranges. In a bit, I'll come back with figures from Ethnologue, and that will give us an idea. Joeldl (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Having read through this discussion with a keen interest, I must admit that it strikes me as surprising as some users seem to put passion above reason. While that may be excellent in love, I'm not sure it quite works here. English is by no means a majority language in South Africa, not even close. Why should the map put English in South Africa along English in countries where it is the only official language or at least the first language of an overwhelming majority. The absolute number of English speakers in South Africa is irrelevant to the discussion - just compare with the maps on Islam. Following the logic adopted by some of the South Africans here, India should be coloured as more Muslim than Saudi Arabia or Iran, as the absolute number of Muslims in India is very high yet the proportion is fairly low, just as with English in South Africa. The map is meant to show

a. Where is English an official language (South Africa included)

b. Where is English the language of the people (South Africa not included). No country has 100% speaking any language, but above 50% is a sound limit.128.214.107.235 12:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What I've tried to argue is that the concept of the language of the people doesn't make sense in general. It's predicated on the idea that a country will have one major language. If you take 50% as your cutoff, then South Africa won't appear on any language map.

And, depending on the particular intent of the map, I might find it a good idea to colour India as a Muslim country. Of course the idea of colouring it a darker shade than Saudi Arabia is absurd, but here light blue and dark blue denote very different categories; they are not used to indicate a difference of degree, except in the sense that having native speakers (or a majority of native speakers) indicates a greater degree of being "English-speaking." One relates to official language status and the other to native speakers.

By the way, I'm not South African, I'm Canadian. Joeldl (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Most countries in the world have a dominating language, a language spoken by more than 50% of the population, I don't see any problem there. Some don't, and South Africa would fit in a map over those countries. As you say, light blue and dark blue denote very different categories in this map, and South Africa belong in the light blue category. It is not English-speaking in the same sense as the UK, Australia, the US, New Zealand or Ireland are. In these countries, English is the main language for most of the population and if you start to speak to a stranger in the street, you don't have to hesitate about which language to use.128.214.107.235 13:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what fraction of countries have a majority language, but I don't think it should be taken for granted that in putting together this map we should act as if that were the case in all countries. Let's just forget about light blue, because the dark blue category, and only it, is concerned with native speakers. South Africa is clearly in a different category than Nigeria because, to take your example, if you start talking to someone on the street in South Africa, there's an 8% chance they grew up speaking English, whereas in Nigeria it's highly unlikely. And in Canada, depending on where you are, you may not be able to just start talking to people in English either. Yet Canada is an English-speaking country.

That there are multilingual countries is a fact that is not marginal and can't just be wished away. You seem to want to ignore it. The consequence of your position is that you ignore the population of those countries.

Really, with your man on the street example, it seems all you're doing is restating your view that 50% is the appropriate criterion. I explained why I thought it was ill-adapted. Why do you think readers expect only countries with a majority of speakers to be shown on the map? For many languages, that would give a completely warped view of their distribution. I expect readers to look at a map of the English-speaking world and bring the same expectations they would have of a map of any other language. And normally, a majority of speakers would be a poorly adapted criterion. Should South Africa be shown on a map of the Afrikaans-speaking world, or should South Africa not be on any such map (in which case the Afrikaans map will be empty)? Is Switzerland part of the French-speaking world? Joeldl (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded by Joeldl's arguments above. For starters, and needless to say, I find it offensive to call Canada "an English-speaking country". Canada is a country where English is the largest language, it is by no means an English-speaking country. As Joeldl, for some reason, comes back to Nigeria all the time, I'll stick to that country as an example. There are native English-speakers in Nigeria, just as in South Africa - I even know some native English-speaking Nigerians myself. The percentage of native English-speakers in Nigeria must be very low, even lower than in South Africa. Still, Nigeria and South Africa are much more similar than South Africa and the US, the UK, Ireland and so on. Both Nigeria and South Africa are countries where English is an official language, but is spoken natively by a relatively small percentage of the population. Both in Nigeria and South Africa, there are no areas where English is the dominating languages, it is spoken natively by a small elite. In both countries, the percentage of native English-speakers is rather low. In the US, the UK or Ireland, by contrast, English is spoken natively by a vast majority of the population, English is the dominating language in most parts of the countries, it's spoken by all social classes and the percentage of English speakers is very high. The comparisons with Nigeria only serves to underline why South Africa should be light blue on the map.JdeJ (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you find it offensive for me to call Canada an English-speaking country? In my view, it's an English-speaking country and a French-speaking country. In fact, it has the third-largest English-speaking and second-largest French-speaking population in the world, and one would expect to find it on maps of both the English- and French-speaking worlds. Also, I'm doubtful that there are many native speakers of English in Nigeria. (Ethnologue says there are two languages spoken as second languages only in Nigeria: English and Nigerian Pidgin English. It says there are a million second-language speakers of English, out of a total population of 137 million.) If I'm mistaken, and there are millions of them, then I'm sorry - I'm simply relying on data available to me. In that case, just replace Nigeria in my arguments with a country where there are very few native speakers. In South Africa, the percentage of native speakers is in the neighbourhood of 8%. I find that quite significant. Whether or not they're an "elite" is irrelevant to me.Joeldl (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are native English speakers in Nigeria, increasing both in number and percentage. In the larger cities, there are people from many different areas of Nigeria and when couples marry, English is relatively often their common language and the language they speak with their kids. The same situation is found in many other African states as well. The percentage is not very high, perhaps 2% or 3% but that still puts South Africa much closer to other African countries than to the UK, Ireland or North America in terms of native English. 128.214.107.233 09:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

According to this 2006 source, while 3-5 million people speak Nigerian Pidgin English natively (hence one must assume Ethnologue is out of date on this aspect), "only those Nigerians with many years of formal education can claim to speak [Nigerian] Standard English with any proficiency." It therefore sounds to me as though there are no native speakers of English, if, following Ethnologue, we accept that Nigerian Pidgin English is a separate language and not a dialect of English. Previously, I had no idea that there was a pidgin that was so widespread in Nigeria (75 million people). While I still think Nigeria should not be the same colour as South Africa, I realize that it was a poor example for comparison because some uncertainty exists around what we consider to constitute English. Joeldl (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not very different in Tanzania, in Kenya, in Ghana, in Liberia and so on. In all of the former British colonies, there are an increasing number of native English speakers. People from many different tribes have moved to the city centres and English has been their common language. The same is true in India, Bangalore is a typical example of such a city. South Africa is the African country with the largest and oldest English-speaking minority, but it still remains much much closer to other former African and Asian colonies than to the British Isles or areas whose main population is the result of emmigrations from Europe. 85.134.26.120 17:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one option would be to include a third degree, between the two we currently have. Countries in which English is both the official language and is spoken natively by a significant part of the population. The problem is then to decide what "significant" means. Personally I think that the map is fine the way it is and I have no doubts about South Africa being in the correct category, nut Joeldl seems to have strong opinions on the issue (and nothing wrong with that).85.134.31.146 19:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not addressing the fact that those people to whom you're referring as native speakers speak a language classified by Ethnologue as separate from, and not a dialect of, English. Joeldl (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing much of the position of English in different African states, let me just add that the value of Ethnologue as a linguistic source is very low and certainly not reliable. Being a linguist myself, I've often shaken my head in disbelief at the many rampant errors found in Ethnologue and its obvious ignorance. While I don't know Africa very well, European minorities is my speciality and I can tell you that Ethnologue is either wrong, outdated or both in more than half of its descriptions of European minority languages. An English linguist, whose name I've forgotten right now, recently wrote a paper showing how Ethnologue has more than sixty serious mistakes for the UK alone. I think we need to keep in mind that Ethnologue is not a linguistic research centre, it's a religious organisation. Most of what Ethnologue does is to look at reports by linguists and try to classify the data found in these reports. Unfortunately, the people at Ethnologue more often than not lack the necessary skills in linguistics to be able to interpret what they read, often leading to comic results. These comic results get more tragic when people refer to Ethnologue as if it were a reliable source. It's not, and we should not pretend that it is. Nothing of this concerns the number of English speakers in African countries, it's just to say that whatever Ethnologue says about it can be safely disregarded.JdeJ (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, they list 15 PhD's in linguistics as consultants, most of whom appear to be researchers at universities. To me, that means they have some degree of legitimacy as a source for Wikipedia. I agree that some of their data appear out of date. If you can find a better source on whether Nigerian Pidgin English is English, that's fine. Otherwise, they're what we have to go on. And if in the end we decide Nigerian Pidgin English is English, and that 3-5 million speakers is enough, then I say, by all means, include Nigeria in dark blue. The reason I took Nigeria as an example was simply that I didn't know there were native speakers of anything that could be argued to be English there. This shouldn't change the essence of the points I was trying to make. Joeldl (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your last point, the comment I was making about Ethnologue doesn't change your argument one bit; as a linguist myself, I'm just a bit annoyed at the extent to which Wikipedia seems to threat a protestant missionary organisation with a long record of lazy research-implications as a credible source. From experience, I know that "consultants" can mean a lot of things, including people never involved. As you said, though, that's not the topic. To address that part of your argument, I still think that dark blue should be reserved exclusively for countries in which English is the main language.JdeJ (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Before i say this, i AM south african (living in england) but my native tongue is Afrikaans, so i'm not being nationalist here - South Africa is VERY different compared to Nigeria, yes English IS an official language in Nigeria, but in my opinion, this is only because , unlike south africa, there are WAY to many languages to fill in the gap in such a large, heavily populated country 3 times the population of south africa! Unlike nigeria , south africa has a large NATIVE english speaking population which amounts to a quite big percentage compared to nigeria where i wont be shocked if english is spoken nativley by over 0.05%. SA has 2 million english south africans who are either english born or 1-5 generations (200 years at most) in their south african blood. Most english speaking nigerians i doubt have only been there for a couple of years if not just temporey. I want everyone who is interrested in this to look at the list : List of White Africans (en). As you scroll down you will see a flood of south africans. I don't see ANY nigerians, and 40% of whites in south africa are english speaking and the majority of indians (1 million) there are english speaking too. Now i want to draw your attention to Ireland. 9% of irish people speak it as their mother tongue (this could mean that they don't speak it publicley) and yet if any irish map was created, ireland would be dark blue first, and i know this is because its the only part of the world that speaks irish % wise, but it should be noted. Lastley, i want to compare south africa to India, were 226,449 peoples speak it as their mother tongue out of 1.15 billion people (that makes 0.0015%, far from 8% in south africa). A bit more extreme then south africa. In another answer, if you walk the streets of Johannesburg (watch out!) talk to anyone, and they will reply in english. This applies even more in Cape Town and Durban. In reply to people saying other billingual countrys like switzerland and french canada are in the same positiong, it's very different because in south africa english (by the whites) is extremley spead out with the highest province speaking english is KwaZulu Natal at only 13%. In switzerland, you can go to a city in the GERMAN, FRENCH, ITALIAN OR ROMANSCH sections of the country and be talked to the country in whatever 'language area' you are in. If you walk to streets of zurich people will talk to you in german. If you walk the streets of Lagos (Nigeria) you might be confronted with english, but in south africa every white person, every indian, almost every coloured and most of the black people will talk to you in english. In nigeria were scholing is rarer, children don't end up being taught english. And 86 was me, i forgot to log in when i wrote the comment, I hope i got throught to people.--81.153.181.59 22:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Many people assume south africa is like all the other africans countries who just addopt english for business reasons, but south africa is special ;) 81.153.181.59 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Table of countries with native speakers

The data are from Ethnologue [2] They include all countries for which there were at least 5% native speakers. Speakers of Creole English are excluded. The percentage may be off quite a bit if the year for the population figure doesn't match the year for the English-speaker figure. The table could be improved by finding population figures to match the year of the language estimate.

It turns out there are quite a few countries in the 2% to 5% range, many more than I thought, and often with their own dialects of English. It could make for an interesting map, but it would be quite different from what we have now if it went down to 2%.

Country	Total native speakers	Total population	Percentage native speakers	Year	Observations
Anguilla	946	13,008	7.3	2004
Australia	15,682,000	19,913,144	78.8	1987	Australian Standard English
Bahamas	49,331	299,697	16.5	2004
Bermuda	58,800	64,935	90.6	1989	Bermudan English
British Indian Ocean Territory	3,500	3,500	100.0	2004	US/UK mil, gvt staff
British Virgin Islands	2,000	22,187	9.0	1998
Canada	17,100,000	32,507,874	52.6	1998
Cayman Islands	20,000	43,103	46.4	2002	Cayman Islands English
Dominica	10,000	69,278	14.4	2004	Dominican English
Falkland Islands	1,991	2,000	99.6	1993
Gibraltar	3,300	27,833	11.9	1993	Yanito?
Guam	28,800	166,090	17.3	1987	US military
Ireland	2,600,000	3,969,558	65.5	1983	Hiberno-English
Nauru	714	12,809	5.6	2000
New Zealand	3,213,000	3,993,817	80.4	1987
Norfolk Island	1,678	1,700	98.7	1980
Pitcairn	46	46	100.0	1998
Saint Helena	5,400	5,400	100.0	2004	Main island only
Singapore	227,000	4,353,893	5.2	1985
South Africa	3,457,467	42,718,530	8.1	1996
UK	55,000,000	60,270,708	91.3	1984
US Virgin Islands	8,414	108,775	7.7	1970
USA	210,000,000	293,027,571	71.7	1984	Many reg. dialects

You've left out the UK from this table. And I see what you mean about the native speaker number coming from a different year than the total population number - that's clearly what happened with Ireland since there's no possible way only 65.5% of the population of Ireland speaks English as a native language. —Angr 17:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added the UK. I forgot about it because it was at the top of the Ethnologue page. As for the problem of discrepancies caused by the year of the population figure, I agree that makes the table unsuitable if we're interested in the exact percentage. Still, it should give us a rough idea of what countries will be above a particular cutoff. Joeldl (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia

How come Malaysia is light blue on the map? According to the article Malaysia, it's official language is Malay; the same information is given in other articles as well. If that's correct, as I assume it to be, Malaysia should be grey on the map.JdeJ (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody objects, I assume that Malaysia should indeed be grey. Untill that has been done, I suggest that the map be removed from articles as it is currently not accurate.JdeJ (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that English is not official in Malaysia. However, according to this source, English is used in Parliament and the courts alongside Malay, and with slightly higher status. Joeldl (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm from UdeM so I refuse to accept Laval as a good source. :) Nah,just kidding, they're decent enough, quite a few friends work there. However, this doesn't change much as English still isn't an official language of Malaysia.JdeJ (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've recolored Malaysia gray, though it may be a few days before it appears as such correctly. —Angr 13:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the Article 152 in the Constitution of Malaysia, Malay is the national language, but English will remain as an official language until the parliament change it.--白布飘扬 (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The source I linked to above says the following about Article 152:

Article 152

1) Le malais sera la langue nationale et son écriture sera conforme à ce que le Parlement décidera en vertu d'une loi.

4.1 La législature

Mais l’anglais est aussi admis au Parlement, même s’il ne constitue pas la langue officielle. Le même article 152 de la Constitution (par. 2 et 3) précise ainsi la place de l’anglais:

2) Nonobstant les dispositions de la clause 1), pendant dix ans après le jour de la Merdeka et, par la suite, jusqu'à ce que le Parlement en décide autrement, la langue anglaise sera utilisée dans les deux Chambres du Parlement, à l'Assemblée législative de chaque État et à toutes les autres fins officielles.

3) Nonobstant les dispositions de la clause 1), pendant dix ans après le jour de la Merdeka et, par la suite, jusqu'à ce que le Parlement en décide autrement, les textes faisant autorité:

   a) de tous les projets de loi et de leurs amendements soumis à l'une ou l'autre des Chambres du Parlement, et

   b) de toutes les lois du Parlement et tous les règlements y afférents publiés par le gouvernement fédéral, seront en langue anglaise.

So English is used in parliament but is not official. There is considerable danger in interpreting primary sources ourselves, as you are asking us to do, particularly when the concept of "official language" isn't mentioned explicitly in the legal text. Joeldl (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Article 152

1. The national language shall be the Malay language and shall be in such script as Parliament may by law provide: Provided that-
   • (a) no person shall be prohibited or prevented from using (otherwise than for official purposes), or from teaching or learning, any other language; and
   • (b) nothing in this Clause shall prejudice the right of the Federal Government or of any State Government to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any other community in the Federation.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause (1), for a period of ten years after Merdeka Day, and thereafter until Parliament otherwise provides, the English language may be used in both Houses of Parliament, in the Legislative Assembly of every State, and for all other official purposes.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause (1), for a period of ten years after Merdeka Day, and thereafter until Parliament otherwise provides, the authoritative texts-
   • (a) of all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in either House of Parliament, and
   • (b) of all Acts of Parliament and all subsidiary legislation issued by the Federal Government, shall be in the English language.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause (1), for a period of ten years after Merdeka Day, and thereafter until Parliament otherwise provides, all proceedings in the Supreme Court or a High Court shall be in the English language: Provided that, it the Court and counsel on both sides agree, evidence taken in language spoken by the witness need not be translated into or recorded in English.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause (1), until Parliament otherwise provides, all proceedings in subordinate courts, other than the taking of evidence, shall be in the English language.
6. In this Article, "official purpose" means any purpose of the Government, whether Federal or State, and includes any purpose of a public authority.

---

Mmm... Until today, English is still used together with Malay in government's official documents. And parliament never denials its official purpose. That means that it still remains its official function legally. That is not my own interpreting but government's explanation.--白布飘扬 (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Description

Does the use of "non-official" for the map's description cause confusion for anyone else? "English: Countries of the world where English is an official or de facto official language, or national language, in dark blue; countries where it is an official/non-official but not primary language in light blue."

According to dictionary.com, nonofficial (no hyphen) is the same as unofficial, which means: 1. not having official authority or sanction; "a sort of unofficial mayor"; "an unofficial estimate"; "he participated in an unofficial capacity" [ant: official] 2. not officially established; "the early election returns are unofficial"

Based on the meaning of the word, I would have to say that many countries would qualify as light blue. I would like to suggest that the statement be reworded, or non-official be removed. If not, most of the map will become light blue.ReveurGAM (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

English is not really the "official language" of the United States, in the sense of there being any law declaring it to be so (though it is of course the customary language of administration). AnonMoos (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that before somewhere, but that isn't a response to my statement that the map's description for light blue is sufficiently vague due to the use of non-official (unofficial) that it causes debates and misunderstandings.ReveurGAM (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the criterion we've been using for light blue is in fact that English is official in the country in question. I'd say we should correct "official/non-official" to "official" for the light blue countries. The point is that English need not be official in dark blue countries like the U.S. and U.K., but for light blue countries is should be official, otherwise there's nothing to distinguish them from gray countries. —Angr 12:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm hoping for - remove the confusion so other people won't go nuts like me! :) ReveurGAM (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Angr, it might be worth noting that English is at least a de facto official language in those countries with significant numbers of native speakers of non-creole English, so they would qualify for light blue as well. My source for de facto official status is here for the U.K. and here for the U.S. I know you've argued in the past that the concept of a de facto official language doesn't make sense. However, reliable secondary sources say that there is such a thing. Joeldl (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense (specifically, it's a contradiction in terms), but that doesn't stop people (including publishers of reliable sources!) from using it when they can't think of how else to formulate what they're trying to say: the language in which all (or the vast majority of) official business is conducted de facto but which has no de jure designation as an official language. —Angr 15:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that an "official language" is one that is prescribed or recognized as authorized for use in official situations (i.e., those involving the state). That recognition may be explicit or implicit. Implicit recognition is a meaningful concept, and I do not feel that the word "official" carries with it the requirement that the recognition be explicit. A language can be re"cognized through official practice. When we talked about this last time I linked to a source that said the following:

• There can be no doubt whatsoever that English is the de facto official language of the United States (see Kloss 1986 for a distinction between "explicit" and "implicit" status).

I don't have access to "Kloss 1986" (or even to its title, as that page is not part of the preview from Google), but it seems to me that this author is addressing the issue of terminology directly. It is unlikely that they are using the phrase "de facto official language" out of negligence, as you contend authors who use it must be doing. Joeldl (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Official, as defined by dictionary.com's various sources, is sufficiently vague (to me) that could go either way in debating the officialness of English as the US's language. If we look at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/official #3, it would seem that official would be that which has been sanctioned or approved by an authority. Therefore, if there are official documents from a branch of the government (eg: dept. of ed.), that might constitute official.

I think we needn't argue the meaning of official but, rather, whether official documents exist, produced by the US gov't, which state English is the official language. Alternatively, we can - as I've suggested - expand the range of colors to provide a more complete picture of where and how English is used. Ultimately, we need to come to a compromise that is acceptable, in the absence of decisive policy from Wiki.

See Official_language. Even it presents info that supports both of you.

Just a note: I would suggest that we avoid the use of de jure and find a common English equivalent for those who don't know what it means. De facto is already in common use but that is not.

I hope this helps.ReveurGAM (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

The current description is vague and apparently inaccurate, to the extent its meaning can be discerned. I suppose the reason it hasn't been changed is that there's been significant disagreement about what to change it to.

It's been well understood in discussions here that the appropriate criteria for dark blue are related to the presence of native speakers, and that light blue is for other countries in which English is official, de jure or de facto. (Since all or virtually all countries with substantial English-speaking populations also have English as an official language, dark blue countries would also qualify as light blue.) But there has been disagreement about whether dark blue should mean majority English-speaking, or should be used more broadly for countries with substantial populations of native speakers, not necessarily constituting a majority in their country.

There has already been a lot of discussion, centring mostly on the issue of South Africa. Here are a few questions that may help to determine consensus.

Feel free to suggest the use of additional colours to resolve problems if appropriate.Joeldl (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[Note. I wrote Questions 1 - 3, and ReveurGAM Question 4. Joeldl (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)]

Question 1

Should the criterion for a country to be dark blue be that it have a majority of native English-speakers, or should a weaker criterion be adopted, perhaps allowing South Africa to be included?

Responses

• Weaker criterion. Include South Africa. In no circumstances should the sixth-largest English-speaking population in the world - over 3 million - be excluded. Looking at the table above, I would propose a minimum of 200,000 native speakers or 10% to qualify a country. Assuming creole-speakers are excluded, that would qualify the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, Zimbabwe and Singapore on the basis of absolute numbers (although the figure of 369,000 for Zimbabwe may be out of date), and a further eight or so small countries based on relative numbers. Joeldl (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral. I really don't care what color South Africa is on the map as long as there's a clear definition of what light blue and dark blue mean so that there isn't constant bickering and revert-warring about what color South Africa (or any other country, for that matter) is. —Angr 12:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Negative - Multi-colored. Ultimately, I think we need to add colors. This way we can delineate between various categories of English users in a clear way.

South Africa is not, to my knowledge, a country where the majority of the people speak the Queen's English, American, Canadian, Australian or New Zealander. I would suggest that any country that would be dark blue should have at least 70% (or some other, more accurate, figure) of the population at native speaker levels, if not more. To mix S. Africa into the dark blue category would present a misleading idea of the English-speaking capabilities of that country. People might assume that they could go there and expect that no problems will be experienced. Native speaker/country also implies, along with mother tongue, that it is a location that originated the language. S. Africa is the source of Afrikaans, I believe, not English.ReveurGAM (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, then Canada would have to be removed from the map, if 70% is the right number. Also, it's true that South Africans don't speak British or Canadian English, just as Canadians don't speak South African English. The point is that those South Africans who speak English from birth speak a variety that is close enough that it is clearly the same language. In fact, it is probably closer to British English than are the varieties spoken in the United States and Canada.

Thanks for pointing out the %. I suggested that number out because I think 10% is a ridiculously low number for dark blue. Clearly, however, I was mistaken, so another (lower) number is needed. Also, I'd failed to note that the chart on English_language is for TOTAL speakers, and today I saw another article that says there are 60some% of Canadians who speak English as their mother tongue. Therefore, my suggestion would need to be revised. However, Native_speaker does not provide consensus on what a native speaker is, so we would need to reach agreement on which definition to use. From that, we can then proceed to defining a %, right? And, my suggestion is based on the premise of a set % of native speakers in a country, because otherwise there are many countries where people speak with enough fluency to be able to fool anyone except a native speaker.

Example 1: I have a friend who grew up in Europe and, at the age of 18, moved to the US, where he lived for more than 25 years. His father was American, yet he doesn't know common English rules, or common vernacular from the US. He speaks with an odd accent, too. And yet, he is considered a native speaker and is employed as an English teacher in Indonesia.

Example 2: I have a friend who grew up in Indonesia but, in her late 20s, married an American and moved there. Her English is sufficient that I can talk to her far more easily than my own (Indonesian) wife, but she lacks knowledge of the vernacular. Her accent is nearly flawless.

If we examine these examples, we could argue for or against them being considered native speakers. The fact remains, however, that they are not native speakers, as their first language is something other than English and, English is possibly their 3rd or 4th language. Shall we then color Italy and Indonesia dark blue simply because "it is clearly the same language" that they speak? I'm sorry, but I can't say I agree with that. Again, I am suggesting that we differentiate between native speakers and those who use English with fluency/proficiency. I can use Indonesian with enough proficiency that I can communicate with most people, but some cannot understand me. I can read, write, listen and speak, but official documents give me a big headache. Clearly, I am not a native speaker. Shall I be counted as a native speaker (for example) for the Indonesian language map because I can use the language? Of course not.

Also, you seem to have decided that because I didn't list all the valid variants of English from native speaker countries that I was excluding them. This is not the case. I am simply delineating between those countries with a dominance of native speakers, and those for whom their English as another language is of or near the quality of a native speaker. I feel it is beneficial to differentiate, else we run the risk of misclassification.

You can do what you will with my suggestions for this is a survey. I find the current map inadequate and in need of more clarification via extra colors/categories.ReveurGAM (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that your idea of an English-speaking country is one in which in the overwhelming majority of situations, it would be most appropriate to initiate contact with a stranger in English. This is a possible view, but if applied uniformly to all languages it would result in a good number of countries not belonging to the map of any language, since multilingual countries exist.

You seem not to be putting all of my thoughts together, Joeldl. Please look at the greater context of my suggestions. I propose distinctions be made between those countries that are truly native speaker, and the various other categories, such as my suggestion below. Also, I am not suggesting the EXCLUSION of countries. By adding categories, MORE countries will be included - which is what I'm hoping for. The map is not reflective of the state of the language.ReveurGAM (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by "a location that originated the language." Does this mean that only the UK should be coloured in dark blue? Joeldl (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Another way of looking at native speaker might be to say that the location of the speaker is one from which the language came. If it is decided, then one would be forced to either assume that only the UK would be such, or that the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would be such. Either way is fine with me, although I prefer the second option since the evolution of the language has been promoted by all five countries - but especially the UK & the USA (the media presence of the other 3 seems to be weak, Canadians often sound like Americans [ala the Dakota states] or sometimes the French, Australian English is less accepted and understood by native and non-native speakers alike, etc.). If you prefer the first choice, that would be workable - one color for the root source of English, a second color for the other 4 countries.

Can we focus on some sort of agreement instead of arguing, please? If I'm not being clear enough, I'm sorry. My point is (again) to make the map better. The number of countries that should be somehow colored is far from what are colored.ReveurGAM (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if we didn't break up each other's comments. To answer your question, a native speaker of a language is someone for whom the language was the first one learned in childhood. Sometimes authorities add the condition that they still speak - or, alternatively, understand - it, but this last condition eliminates very few people. Occasionally people may claim multiple mother tongues, but this is unusual (in Canada, perhaps 1 or 2 percent of the population).

I still don't understand how the U.S. is "a location that originated the language" in a way that South Africa and Ireland are not. I think the concept as you have explained it is unclear. (I am not saying that just to be argumentative.) The point I'm making is that three million people in South Africa speak English natively; they are no different than Americans in this respect, except that they share their country with many people who either do not speak English or are non-native speakers of it. To clarify for you, Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki and F.W. de Klerk are non-native speakers of English; Richard Goldstone is one and so was Helen Suzman. There is nothing wrong with the "quality" of their English: it was the only language they spoke as children. If a scheme with multiple colours is eventually adopted, we could have a colour for countries with a substantial minority of native speakers. However, the status quo is that there are two colours, and on that basis the role of South Africa within the English-speaking world seems to me to be more similar to that of New Zealand than to that of, say, Uganda.

I don't think it's necessary to create a category with just the U.K. in it. My point is that, apart from the criterion of a majority of native speakers, there is nothing essential that sets your five chosen countries apart from all others: other than the U.K., they are not the source of the language; and the concept of "promoting" the language is unclear to me. If by this you mean being most influential in encouraging the use of English as a lingua franca internationally, then this seems rather vague and, to me at least, entirely beside the point for this map. Joeldl (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am one of the "rare" native English speaking South Africans. I support the current status quo. South Africa should not be dark blue because native English speakers are a small minority. Some commentators have compared SA to Nigeria by asking whether one could sucessfully communicate with a random "man in the street" in "Standard" English. In Nigeria the odds are against success but in SA you would most likely succeded. This is because English is a compulsory high school subject in SA. Any South African who has at least a high school education can speak English. I think we could go to a three colour map. Colour A's criterion is that of the current dark blue - majority native speakers. Colour B's criterion is English is official, minority Native speakers but majority second language speakers (SA would fit here). Colour C should be for countries such as Nigeria, where English is official but native speakers are insignificant and only a minority speak it as a second language. (An argument could be made for a fourth colour for countries where English has no official status nor significant native speakers but it is a popular second language and is taught in schools - Germany, Sweden, Japan, etc.) Dodger67 (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

For colours B and C you're basing your definition on two criteria simultaneously: presence of a significant number of native speakers and majority use as a second language. This seems undesirable, since it can't be excluded that there are countries with an insignificant number of native speakers but a significant number of people speaking it as a second language, or on the contrary a significant number of native speakers but only a minority knowing it as a second language. It would make the most sense to have a single criterion in addition to the language being official. Also, I think it's unlikely we'll find good data for all countries on number of second-language speakers. I think your proposal for a fourth category would end up including too many countries and would be difficult to find sources for. (I remember reading somewhere that English, with French, is one of the only two languages that are taught in schools to some extent in virtually every country. So everything would depend on the definition of "popular.") Joeldl (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! I missed that logic error. Ok so lets modify my Category B and C like so: B is for countries where English is official and the majority can speak it (At Native or 2nd language level) - SA (and Zimbabwe) fits here. Evidence can be either reliable statistics or because it is a compulsory school subject. Category C is: English is official but it is spoken by only a minority (Nigeria, Hong Kong). Dodger67 (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In a country where English is an official language (and especially where it's the only official language, as is often the case), I don't think that its being a compulsory school subject is saying much. Also, I think that it's absolutely essential that those countries with a significant number of native speakers be set apart from all others. Based on what you've said previously, I imagine you would insist that countries with English-speaking majorities be separated from those in turn. That would be a possibility, but I'd prefer to wait for more input. By the way, I disagree with your earlier characterization of the English-speaking population of South Africa as a "tiny" minority. I feel 8% is quite significant. Joeldl (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If south africa is excluded then Ireland, Guyana, all caribean islands and Belize should be taken off. I find it just ignorant that non-south africans can just debate about it, it's more then just statistics. I learnt english in south africa at 5, i might be white, but other non-english south africans learnt it more, belize and guyana have minority english speakers, i personally think the main problem is that people are being missled to think that south africa is like the other african countries that have english as an official language. This is certainly not true, and i am sure every south africa would agree that another key must be made to make it stand out and show it HAS native speakers, unlike other african countries. But i still don't get what's the problem with the accent, South African English is an accent, not a dialect and should be regarded just as American or Australian English, and an english south african can have a perfect conversation with a British person with ease. If 70% is the base for being dark blue, then take off ireland, they're on;y 65% --Africa South (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Africa South: Please note that I retracted the 70% I mentioned before, and stated why. I am not being "ignorant" - I am trying to provide clarification between your country and those like it, contrasted with other countries, which is what you said you want - "another key". Sorry for the confusion. You'll have to ask joeldl about the accent thing, not me, since I never brought it up. I only have trouble understanding certain accents that are especially "thick."

Joeldl I'm not really sure what it is that I'm saying that is so hard for you to understand, but I will try again to clarify myself.

• I didn't ask what a native speaker is - I am aware of that, especially since it is a selling point for me in Indonesia.
• A location that originated the language - with a broad stroke of the pen (take it or change it - you ARE being argumentative), a country where the language: (1) started (the UK), (2) used from its inception and has had a major impact worldwide on the usage, importance and perception of English (the USA, and the UK, and to a lesser degree Australia, mostly in SE Asia), or (3) has been used from its inception but with less impact on the outside world (NZ, Canada, somewhat Oz).

In regards to promoting English:

1. These countries have a clear MAJORITY of native speakers.
2. The majority of English-using movies and TV programs come from the UK and the USA.
3. The USA (no delusions of grandeur) created the Internet and continues to be a major part of it.
4. International business is dominated by English because of the power of the UK and the USA, primarily, and to a lesser degree the other three.
5. There are FAR more films, programs, TV shows, websites, books and other English-based materials from the USA and, secondarily, the UK, than from ANY OTHER COUNTRIES.
6. If you want the best quality of English in your teaching materials, you buy books from "the five", not India, S. Africa, the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, or Singapore. Singapore is probably the next best source of such materials.
7. English is propagated, disseminated, popularized, and otherwise promoted by "the five" far more than by other countries, although this will change with time.

I propose "the five" be given their own color due to their influence on the language internationally, their historical significance in terms of the language, and the fact that the majority of their populations are native speakers.

I hope I have made myself clear. If not, I am not sure how to make you understand.

• I am proposing a DISTINCTION between the 5 principle countries and those other countries, like S. Africa and Singapore. I do NOT want to see such countries lumped together with "the five" but I do want those native speakers we hold so dear to get the recognition that is appropriate for a tiny statistical minority and other categories. Drawing the lines of distinction is what we should be working on.
• I have proposed more than two colors. A 2-color map is like a poster of a clown. It isn't funny or entertaining, and it's not worth much. It belongs in the trash (no offense to those who have created it, I realize you've put much time into it - it's just that the functionality is too limited). If you don't agree, that's fine. Make something better.
• I want S. Africa and various other countries on the map because of the number of people who use English, or because it is used in certain sectors, or something else that is verifiable. A minority population doesn't qualify as dark blue - just like a country where English is taught in a majority of schools and private courses, but it isn't an official decision and many people are terrible at using English (Indonesia) - doesn't qualify as dark blue. Give S. Africa a different color. Let it shine.
• I do not, nor have I ever, base(d) my suggestions on accent, the vernacular, slang, the variant of the language, dialect, or anything of that nature (except for Creole, which Wikipedia identifies as a separate language), unless it can be clearly identified as a separate language. I do not understand why you insist on bringing up (again) something I have not said, and have denied.

I do, however, take into consideration the quality of the English (ie: can the user communicate effectively in most situations?). As I said before, most Singaporeans I've met do NOT have the ability to communicate effectively, except within certain specific sectors. They use English in the way you'd expect of someone who doesn't even have mastery of normal levels of daily communication, not to mention English related to their jobs! There IS a difference between English and pidgin English, you know.

• I brought up multilinguals like my children as an aside only.
• You asked, we delivered. This is a survey, joeldl, not a debate, so why are you debating what you asked for here and not separately? It makes a mess of the survey. Consensus is not yours to create, and the point of a survey is to see what the consensus is. If you don't agree with my opinions/suggestions, that's just fine, but can we please work towards a viable compromise?ReveurGAM (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Africa South, could you suggest precise criteria for inclusion of countries in the dark blue category? The table above may help. It lists all countries with 5% or more who are native speakers. Additionally, Zimbabwe and Singapore each appear to have hundreds of thousands of native speakers, but still less than 5%.

Okay, ReveurGAM. Let's not debate this further. I don't think you're suggesting appropriate criteria for the dark blue colour, but we can see if other participants here agree with your suggestions. (So far, nobody has agreed, because everybody has said that at the very least all countries with a majority of native speakers, including, for example, Ireland and Bermuda, should be in dark blue.) If they do agree eventually, there is still the issue of finding reliable sources. Joeldl (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

YES, although I don't think the term 'weaker' criterion is appropriate. Rather, I think we should adopt a different set of criteria. I would suggest using Braj Kachru's concentric circles model. This suggest that there are three different 'levels' of English use in different countries around the world. The 'inner circle' consists of the countries with a significant proportion of speakers of English as a first language (or bilinguals with English as one of their main languages). What is important here is not so much the absolute number of speakers or even the proportion of the population who speak English, but rather how the group of speakers of this language interacts with each other, with other groups within the country, and with groups from other countries. Thus, you might look at things like whether there is a variety of English-language news media with a significant circulation, whether the speakers of other languages within the country tend to assimilate to the English speakers or vice-versa, and whether speakers of other languages from other countries would, for example, go to this country for English language courses, or to attend university in English. See also my comments on the other survey questions for more reasons why I think this model might be more appropriate than the current one. --Junglehungry (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a certain appeal to Mr. Kachru's concept. Of course, that would require adding a 4th color (dark blue-inner, light blue-outer, green-expanding, grey for everything else). Are the criteria supported by available data?

I can't say that I agree that South Africa is norm-providing, however. I know that some international schools headhunt S. Africans the same way they do Philippinos for teaching, but I've never even seen S. African teaching materials (that doesn't mean they don't exist) whereas Indian and Singaporean materials are common. Also, I don't believe SA has ever decided the English norms (rather, it follows British norms, if I didn't misunderstand other users, making it norm-developing or norm-dependent) and I'm not aware that SA plays a significant role in the media (including books), entertainment or the Internet, all of which are major ways that lingual norms are shared and developed. Malta would seem to be the same, even moreso. Countries like Jamaica (ala Reggae, mon) have had more influence on English than Malta and SA. I'm probably wrong, of course. What do the books referenced (written by him) have to say as to why SA and Malta aren't outer circle? I'm intrigued. ReveurGAM (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, being norm-providing is only one of the criteria - the most important one (as I understand it) is historical. Kamwangamalu, in his chapter on South Africa in the Handbook of World Englishes (2006) (which incidentally is available on Google books - have a look for yourselves!) states that South Africa should be considered as being in both the inner and the outer circle, because 'English is used as a native language by some ... and as a second language by others'. This points to one of the problems with Kachru's model (and trust me, there is no perfect model, so we need to find the one with least problems, not with no problems): no country can be entirely in one circle or the other, because there are no countries with entirely homogeneous populations. The questions of norms is not so much to do with SA's (and other countries') influence on the world, but on the influence of its variety of English within its own borders and within the region. Kamwangamalu argues that South Africans who want to learn English don't have to look to Britain or the US because they have so many 1st language speakers within their own country. To come back to norms, I would say that SA follows British norms in the same way that Australia does... i.e. they see Britain as the 'origin' of their language, but don't necessarily see its English as an ideal model to follow in all instances.

I don't have access to the pages on Malta from here, but I will be getting a hard copy of the book from my department's library soon. However, I don't know if this is the place to argue about details - rather, we should be deciding which model (or which criteria) we want to use to colour the different countries of the map. I would strongly suggest that it is better to use an established model developed by academics and supported by numerous publications than to rely on some arbitrary self-developed criteria (keeping in mind that as wikipedians we should not be doing original research).

Finally, regarding the number of colours, in theory we would need three + grey. However, I'd argue that it will be rather hard to find any countries that are not part of the expanding circle. Perhaps North Korea, but even there I know people who have spent time there to teach English.--Junglehungry (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The approach you're suggesting seems reasonable, but I have a few concerns and questions:

• The "expanding circle" is, as you said, a residual category encompassing all or virtually all countries not in the first two. The idea that countries like China fall within any "circle" at all is useful only from the point of view that all individuals who use English are part of the English-speaking world in some sense, and therefore their countries must be categorized somehow. I do not see the point of including them on a map. I suggest therefore that we limit ourselves to the "inner" and "outer" circles.
• How does Kachru define the "inner circle"? If it amounts essentially to saying that there is a significant presence of native speakers, then when the data are presented to readers, it might be simpler to say this than to use opaque terminology like "inner circle according to Kachru." One option would of course be to use a straightforward description but use Kachru's list.
• How different are Kachru's inner and outer circles taken together from the list of countries in which English is an official language? Official status is also a straightforward criterion, not subject to original research concerns. (Some will object that this would require an evaluation of when English is a de facto official language, but we have sources that do this for us.) There may be some difference of opinion on whether official status or "outer circle" membership (or a similar classification from another author) is a more pertinent categorization for our purposes, but I will go with whatever the majority feels is best on this. So far, there have been few opinions because disagreement has centred on the dark blue countries.
• How good is Kachru about classifying smaller countries? For example, Bermuda has a majority of native speakers of non-creole English. Is it accordingly placed in the inner circle? Is it classified at all?
• How up to date is Kachru's list? Joeldl (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My answers/observations, in the same order as your questions/comments:

• I agree we should not mark the expanding circle - It makes sense to restrict the colouring to the inner and outer circles.
• Crystal (in English as a global language (1997, p. 53, Cambridge UP) defines the inner circle as 'the traditional bases of English, where it is the primary language', and gives the examples of the USA, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (although he makes it clear that these are not all the members of this category!). As I've already mentioned, the Handbook of World Englishes states that SA is in both the inner and outer circles (we'd have to find a way of marking this - perhaps hatched colours?). I don't have Kachru's original definition of the inner circle at hand here, but I will look it up. I agree we shouldn't necessarily use a term like 'Kachru's inner circle" when describing the map, but I'm sure you agree we can use it while we're discussing which model to use!
• A list of countries in both circles taken together will look pretty much the same as a list of the existing light blue + dark blue countries together. However, the internal distinctions (inner or outer vs. light blue or dark blue) may be different, as in the case of SA. I wold say that the main problem with the current map is that we're trying to show two different things: official status on the one hand, and proportion of 1st language speakers on the other. That is why I suggest we get rid of the problem by having a clear model for showing to what extent a country can be called 'english-speaking' (e.g. Kachru's model) on one map, and another map showing official status (perhaps with a distinction between de facto and de jure).
• I'll have to check regarding small countries. However, the Handbook of World Englishes is pretty comprehensive and has chapters on all parts of the world.
• Kachru is still publishing, and others have taken up his model and improved on it (e.g. in the Handbook of World Englishes --Junglehungry (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One more point, why is Belize in dark blue when only 3% of the population speak english as a first language and only 79% as a second? (see languages of belize on en wiki for reference). Surly this is nothing compared to south africa's 8-10% english first speaking and over 85%+ 2nd language. Can someone please report back to fix Belize's mistake?--81.153.180.20 20:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think weaker. Because English is one of the primary languages of South Africa. If it has official status and is used by a large part of the population, it should be dark. 24.167.214.53 18:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Question 2

Should countries where the English-speaking population is known to be primarily foreign-born (such as Guam), but otherwise meeting the dark blue criteria, be in dark blue?

Responses

• No to the extent this can be determined from reliable sources. Joeldl (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• I don't see why not. Why should foreign-born citizens or residents of a country be considered less than full people? —Angr 12:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that foreign-born people are full people. However, when most of the English-speaking population is foreign-born, that's a clear sign that the population is transient and not strongly connected with the country. For example, in the case of Guam, the overwhelming majority of native English-speakers appear to be US military personnel. Joeldl (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Being foreign-born does not in itself imply transience. I'm foreign-born with respect to my country of residence, but I have no intention of leaving. —Angr 07:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't imply transience in itself. I put it forward because it's an objective criterion and - at the level of an entire population rather than that of an individual - seems to me like a decent approximation for transience, except when you have the first generation of a sort of founding population. Perhaps you can propose an alternative criterion that would encompass cases like that of Guam. Joeldl (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. But I'm getting the feeling you're proceeding from a conclusion you've already made - that South Africa should be dark blue and Guam should be light blue - and trying to adjust the definitions to achieve that result. —Angr 15:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I view these as independent questions. The one about South Africa is much more important because the population in question is large. I don't feel as strongly about Guam and countries like it. Apart from the parenthetical remarks in Ethnologue, I'm pessimistic about finding good sources for this question, so it may largely be a moot point.

Your question about trying to arrive at a particular result is an interesting one. Ideally, I would have liked to include all countries with substantial English-speaking populations. Of course, a map like that might become meaningless, since it's within the realm of possibility that countries like Germany would be included. So what I'm really trying to get at is this: a substantial local English-speaking population that is not sustained exclusively through arrivals from foreign countries. (At a minimum, this should mean there are native-born populations, even if the language doesn't survive past that generation. Perhaps second-generation or more would be ideal.) Unfortunately, while this criterion could be made objective, the data that we have don't fit it exactly. So yes, to some extent I would like to choose criteria that approximate that idea, but for which we're still likely to find sources.

If you get the feeling that I have a certain conclusion in mind, it's not anything in particular about South Africa and Guam, just that the countries I feel ought to be included are whichever ones satisfy the condition I stated in the last paragraph (also taking into account that the cutoffs we select in Question 1 have to keep the number of countries on the map reasonable). I think it is beyond question that South Africa satisfies this condition, and this would be the case in most countries with 8% of the country speaking a language. I suggested a 10% cutoff above to keep the total number of countries included low, but inclusion of countries based on absolute numbers is also necessary because a stable English-speaking population in the millions is simply too important to leave out.

An alternative to these considerations would be to see how reliable sources define the concept of "English-speaking world." I imagine that most are uninterested in criteria whose only effect would be to cause the inclusion or exclusion of countries that are small enough for foreign military forces to constitute a substantial fraction of the population. Joeldl (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps. Foreign-born would depend. If they are foreigners from native-English speaking countries then, yes, the country could be dark blue, assuming it meets my suggestion of 70% (or some other, more accurate, figure). If they are foreigners from non-native-English speaking countries then they clearly are not native speakers and thus don't qualify for dark blue.

Native English speaker=English is their mother tongue.

Some exceptions might crop up with people of dual mother tongues, but they would be a minority. For example, in my household, my children learn both English and Indonesian as their mother tongues, (lower) Javanese as a secondary language, and Arabic and Spanish as tertiary languages, with American Sign Language (ASL) thrown in for good measure. If I could afford it, they'd have 1-2 more second/third languages taught to them. We can do this because I'm a native-English speaker, my wife and her brother are native Indonesian speakers, and her mother and the maid are native Javanese speakers. She picks up Arabic from my mother-in-law (the family is Muslim) and others, and Spanish from Dora the Explorer. ASL is acquired from Baby Signing Time videos from the USA. :)

• In regards to the issue of transience, it would depend on, as I see it, a couple of factors. (Angr is not really a transient, he is an expatriate, since he has no intention of returning to his homeland. I am also an expatriate.) Transients are those who move from place to place with no real sense of any one place truly being home - drifters, for example; or they believe one place is their home but spend most of their time away from it - migrant workers, for example.

Is the transience (1) within the country in question, or (2) does the population in question tend to move from one country to another? Further, if they are "international," do they spend the majority of their time in the country in question, or somewhere else? And, of course, is reliable data available to quantify this? If transients are to fit into the picture, they might require another color, but this might be problematic due to the difficulty in doing a census on transients.ReveurGAM (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because these are not part of the 'inner circle' (see my response to previous question). --Junglehungry (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree basically with Angr. Plus, Guam is American. 24.167.214.53 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Question 3

In counting native speakers of English, should native speakers of English creoles be excluded?

This would probably eliminate Jamaica, Guyana, Nigeria and other countries from consideration for dark blue colouring.

Responses

• Yes These are different languages from English. I would not oppose the use of another colour for this purpose, though. Joeldl (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• This isn't that clearcut. In countries like Suriname, where standard English isn't used as the language of education and administration, the English-lexified creoles in the country are unambiguously separate languages from English. But in countries like Jamaica, there's a continuum ranging from basilectal creole "Patois" to the acrolectal local variety of Standard English, with most people having a good command over some range of this spectrum depending on their level of education. Although Jamaican Creole and Standard English are generally regarded as separate languages, in practice there isn't a clear boundary between them, and it isn't clear whether people who speak both fluently should be considered bilingual or diglossic. Perhaps a third color for such cases is the best way to go. —Angr 12:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. According to Creole_language, it is a stable language that mixed together various other languages. Therefore, it is to be considered separate from English and those who speak Bislama, Lousiana_Creole_French, Negerhollands, Bajan and English-based_creole_languages or other native-English speaker country Creole variants would thus have to be excluded.
• I would suggest we need to use several colors to give readers a clear idea of the usage, distribution, and varieties of English a clearer picture (no pun intended).

The 70% (or a more appropriate number) I mentioned may have to be modified to keep countries like Singapore out of the native speaker category because a large portion of the population seems to be incapable of even conversational fluency. Based on English materials I've used from Singapore, and several trips there (where I frequently had communication problems because of their lack of fluency - taxi drivers, shopkeepers/owners, restauranteers, and various others - and sometimes had to resort to using Indonesian so as to be understood), I would say that Singapore has yet to reach the level of ability required to be considered native speaker (ie: dark blue/purple).

Countries such as the UK that qualify as both native speaker and official language could be colored with striping or some other combination, if that is not too difficult, or a separate color.

(Retracted prior color scheme.)

Et cetera. Just some suggestions for you to gnaw on. I am trying to be neutral and objective about this, and I hope it helps.ReveurGAM (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know why you think Singapore should be excluded. I would assume that you spoke mostly to non-native speakers of English. About 4% of the population speaks English natively and anybody who speaks a language natively is completely fluent in it. You may object to the fact that it's a different variety of English from yours and mine. I know that the variety of English widely used there as a lingua franca may differ considerably from ours, but I doubt it's enough to qualify it as a different language. In any case, I think those who speak English natively are mostly of European descent, so I would assume that their variety would have only a moderate number of features resulting from the influence of second-language speakers.

First, I am not looking at whether or not Singaporeans speak English using a different variety or even a different language. That is irrelevant and, besides which, would cause us to create a schizophrenic map.

Second, I am not intending to exclude Singapore - merely put it in a more appropriate category than native speaker.

Third, when I go to a country and I have trouble communicating with people using the same words I would use with native speakers from the 5 countries I mentioned, to the point that I have to resort to using a 2nd language, using pidgin English, or giving up, I consider that a red flag. I am stating that there are too few people who have even a conversational fluency in the language. 4% or not, they don't qualify as a native speaker country. Citizens learn 2-4 languages in school, with English and another one of their choice being required core subjects. Also, the policy of intellectual segregation (streaming) there exacerbates the lingual problems, I believe, to the point that many choose to sacrifice English fluency over their "ethnic" preference (Malay, Thamil, Hindu, Mandarin, etc.) and scoot by with just passing grades. I travel there every year to get my working permits and I am there at least once a year - more often 3-6 times a year, for up to a week at a time (minimum one day). I have met those who are fluent in the language but they are a minority, IMHO. Again, this is not about variety. Try speaking to most Indians and their English is below the level one would need to say they are native speakers, but their English, on average, is better than that of the Malays and Chinese I've met. I'm trying to get us to come to an agreement on the qualifications for various colors to be used on the map.ReveurGAM (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm truly baffled as to why you expect non-native speakers of English in a multilingual country to speak it well. 70% is as arbitrary a figure as any other - that's probably close to the number of Belgians who speak Dutch natively, but I doubt that most francophone Belgians speak it with a high degree of fluency, if at all. As for English in Canada, where 58% speak English natively, only about half of French Canadians speak English, and the vast majority of those who do, speak it in a way that makes it clear English is their second language. Joeldl (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I do not expect non-native speakers of English (non-NSE) to speak like native speakers (NS). I hope that the map will clearly differentiate so that it is actually of use to a majority of visitors, instead of just being a space-filler like it is now (IMHO).

As for Canadians, I don't understand why you are bringing up the minority that use French as their first language. I'm talking about adding categories so that both the native speakers (even if they, like Dakotans, speak with a Norwegian accent, or a French one) are accounted in some way or other. Canada will be on the map as a native-speaker country. If you want to stripe or dot it to show the area that is predominantly French-speaking, or otherwise differentiate, that's fine.

Assuming that you agree with adding colors, how would you break it down? Please share with me so that we can all be productive rather than argue.ReveurGAM (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned Canada because I wanted to make the point that "having problems" is not unique to countries where English is a minority language. It can happen in countries where English is the language of the majority. That there are over 200,000 native speakers of English in Singapore is not common knowledge outside the country. I feel that to have an informative map, we need to show all significant populations having English as their mother tongue. Singapore is number eight or nine on the list in terms of absolute numbers.

I'd rather wait until we have more input before making suggestions about multiple colours. Joeldl (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point about Canada and I also want an informative map that shows all significant populations (including Singapore).

Why are you willing to critique my suggestion about colors without providing alternatives? Be a sport and help out, will you?ReveurGAM (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion at the moment would be to have two or three colours. Colour A: Majority of native speakers. Colour B: Substantial minority of native speakers. Colour C: De facto or de jure official language, but not in category A or B. Whether or not to merge colours A and B would depend on opinions expressed by other participants. At the moment, I would favour merging them, because otherwise there will be relatively few countries in Category B. Possibly, additional measures to deal with native speakers of English creoles, depending on the balance of opinions expressed on the matter. Currently, I would probably prefer simply excluding them from consideration, so Jamaica and Guyana would just be light blue (Colour C). I could be persuaded otherwise though.Joeldl (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No - Creole speakers should not be included as 'core' English speakers, but should certainly be indicated in the map - I would suggest in the 'outer circle', i.e. those countries where English has an important historical role. --Junglehungry (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Give them a different colour! In the key, green or something should say "English-based creole" 24.167.214.53 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak No or Give them a different colour (I like Green :-D). Haitian Creole isn't the same as French, and believe me the English in these former colonies is very difficult to understand. Whenever a documentery or programme about it comes on about an English-creole domminanted country, I always need subtitles because the English not only is so different it's in it's own language but it's virtually not understandable. 86.132.70.7 14:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Question 4

Should additional colors be added to the map to make it a more informative and useful map?

This would allow many countries that have been excluded to be included, provide clarification for countries that are not (according to some people) correctly categorized, as well as providing a clearer picture of the spread and usage of English around the world.

Responses

• Yes. I'm putting these suggestions forward for consideration. What do you think?

Purple: Native speaker countries (the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand)

Dark blue: Countries where English is an all-purpose official language (Singapore, etc.)

Light blue: Countries where English is a 'de facto' or official language in certain sectors only (such as business, science, medicine)

Dark green: Countries where English is used only for governmental purposes

Light green: Countries where English is used unofficially in any or all sectors (such as Indonesia)

Yellow: Countries where a majority (w%) use English as their primary language.

Orange: Countries where a majority (x%) use English as their non-primary language.

Red: Countries where English is used by a significant number (y%) of people in any other capacity/sector

Medium Grey: These countries use English only marginally or not at all./There are no or insignificant numbers of English users. (<z%)

White: Countries for which there is no data.

Striping or dotting can be employed to combine colors and thus provide a more varied picture. A zoom feature on the map could be employed to allow people to see those countries too small to view on the world map (of which there are several, such as Andorra, the Vatican, Vanuatu, etc.).

Where would S. Africa fit in? Guam and other US Protectorates? Zimbabwe? Etc.?ReveurGAM (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a number of objections: 1. I think this is probably too many colours. 2. You haven't defined clear criteria for including countries in your purple category (other than just listing them), and some of the others are also fairly vague. 3. I think we're unlikely to find reliable sources telling us which countries fall into which of these categories.

What we do have data on from reliable sources is official status and number of native speakers. It's not impossible that data could be found on second-language use, but it will be more difficult finding it. Given the importance of English in business, etc., there are some second-language learners in every country, so clear criteria and good sources are extremely important. If appropriate sources can be found, a possible distinction would be between countries where English has a significant role in communication within the country, as opposed to external communication. Malaysia is an example of a country where English is an administrative language without being official. There are probably a handful of these. I don't think finer distinctions than this are feasible or desirable. Joeldl (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Provide your ideas (ie: "put up or shut up" is the phrase). Which colors would you combine into one (eg: light blue & dark green; orange & red)? The examples would reduce the colors from 8 to 6, plus grey & white. I feel that both grey and white are important, so that the map is not misleading. If necessary, they can be combined and defined as: "Countries where English use is insignificant or there is no reliable data." That would mean 6 significant plus one. I suspect that's "doable".
2. I've already clarified purple elsewhere (majority population, major global influence, primary developers of the language), and I think you know what I mean. These are suggestions. What are yours?
3. Please advise what categories would be possible to support given the available resources. Keep in mind that we will have to get help from those in other countries to provide additional sources before particular countries can qualify for a color, so this would be an ongoing project (as all of Wikipedia is). I suspect that data on official/sectoral usage of English is out there.

I've said that data are available for: 1. estimated number of native speakers; and 2. official status of English in various countries. And what I am suggesting is categories based on those data. It may be possible to find sources for other kinds of information, but I don't have them. So the onus is on people suggesting other categorizations to provide the sources. Even then, there can be debate about whether the suggested categories are desirable here. My suggested scheme is two colours, based on my answer to Question 1, and we are still awaiting additional opinions on Question 1. I have suggested that if consensus doesn't favour that approach, we could have a third, intermediate colour for countries with a substantial minority who are native speakers. Additionally, in Question 3 the possibility was raised of doing something about speakers of English creole, but there are a number of difficulties relating to that, because additional colours based on that could obscure whether the countries in question have English as an official language or not. Joeldl (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No - I would suggest that we redefine what each colour means, though, in line with Kachru's division into the 'inner circle', the 'outer circle', and the 'expanding circle'. We can use a reliable academic source (e.g. The Handbook of World Englishes (2006), edited by Kachru et al., or even David Crystal's 'English as a Global Language' to determine which country goes in which category. That should stop the endless arguments over whether a country has enough speakers to qualify, or whether the kind of English they speak is 'English enough' to count. Of course it will lead to other arguments (when does a country move from one category to the other), but these are not arguments we should be having as wikipedians, because they require original research. --Junglehungry (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. Another thought just occurred, which is that if we want to indicate countries where English is official (whether de facto or de jure), this should be on a separate map from the one used to show the status and prevalence of English in various countries. Mixing the two just doesn't make sense, because they require completely different indicators to determine which category each country belongs in. --Junglehungry (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe. To some extent, like for special cases like South Africa, Singapore, creole places, Malaysia, etc 24.167.214.53 18:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian translation of the description

I've added Indonesian to the map description. Please advise me if it needs to be updated.ReveurGAM (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Anglospeak.svg

I realize that I have broached this subject before. I am now writing not as a member but as a teacher who needs resources.

I am looking for multiple maps that show the dispersion of the English language across the world based on different criteria. Judging from the poll several months ago here, it seems like there was a lot of agreeing to disagree, and not much else.

Is it possible that different maps, following different selection criteria, be created for those users who need such a resource - or is that expecting too much?ReveurGAM (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Québec

I've been saying this at the Wikipedia page for this file (I'm The Person Who Is Strange there), Québec shouldn't be dark blue. 24.167.214.53 18:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Quebec is part of Canada. This map shows entire countries, not subnational units. —Angr 09:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Québec states French as the exclusive official language, so it doesn't matter if it's part of Canada or not, there's simply no official English to be found. So light blue for Québec, if the map shall be correct. 141.13.170.175 14:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What Quebec states at the provincial level is irrelevant to this map, which shows the federal level. At that level, English is co-official with French. —Angr 22:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You could still claim this to be a distorted if not biased depiction as a) you would have to put any African country in dark blue by this criteria (which would be a mislead for sure) and b) on the French language-map all of Canada is NOT put in dark blue (would have to be according to your argumentation), but solely Quebec and the rest is light blue; and anything else would be misleading, wouldn't you say as well? The map's called "Anglospeak" so once again: Quebec light blue. 79.211.117.246 08:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Madagascar

Madagascar already dropped English in November 2010, so it has to be grey/colourless in order to give the correct information (besides it only has been during three years after a referendum as questionable as some say the last one was...)141.13.170.175 14:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Somaliland

So I tried to add Somaliland with light blue stripes. It shows up fine on Inkscape and I thought I had beaten the damn thing (as my overly optimistic upload summary indicates). Can someone with more experience with vector editors fix that? I can export to png and it looks fine, and rather remarkably, Wikipedia's export to png does the same, so the object is still there. Neither solid blue, indicating full sovereignty, nor solid gray, denying the facts on the ground (as the svg version is now) is appropriate. Thanks, Quintucket (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somaliland

This map's highly misleading - if not biased in some sort of an "anglophone" agenda (see also Quebec):

1. In Ethiopia, English has no official/governmental status whatsoever. Period. (Nor if it's used in secondary education as one teaching language.) Not even the CIA "fact"book states such foolery.

2. In Eritrea, Tigrina is the (de facto) official idiom. English, after Tigrina and Arabic, is the third working language only.

3. Somaliland doesn't exist. I could declare my landed property a country and state anything, including any official language. It's a difficult political situation, so putting that as it was done seems highly opportunistic...why not declare Brazil an anglophone country? It's pretty huge and sure looks good on the anglophone map?! Just a few editing clicks away... 186.212.113.250 11:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's true English is not official in Ethiopia or Eritrea, so I've reverted to an older version of the map. As for Somaliland, it certainly exists, it's just not internationally recognized. It's probably best to treat it as a part of Somalia, and therefore to keep Somalia entirely gray, since this map does not take subnational divisions (like Quebec) into consideration. —Angr 18:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And while we're discussing that neck of the woods, the border between Sudan and South Sudan should be added. Is English official in both countries? —Angr 18:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but Sudan has greatly emphasized Arabic, while South Sudan seems to be greatly emphasizing English... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's official in both. See the bottom of page 5 of the Constitution of Sudan and the official website of the government of South Sudan. So all we need is for someone to draw the border in. —Angr 09:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the CIA factbook, what are you talking about. CIA definitely lists English as an official language for both[3][4], and Ethnologue[5][6], English is either an official or national language of both Ethiopia and Eritrea. I admit I was surprised, and brought it up on the English Wikipedia to see if anybody could explain why, or had contradictory evidence. I now bring it here. Regarding Eritrea, English is only a working language in India, but we include it. It's used for official government business.

As for Somaliland, it's an internationally unrecognized state which has control over its own territory, and all the trappings of sovereignty except international recognition. Note that I only striped the parts actually controlled by the government, which is why I striped it. Note that Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh, despite being recognized by no state, are listed in the Russian and Armenian languages. When you successfully fight off the government of your home country, then yes, we'll consider you a state with limited recognition (which includes states with no recognition). --Quintucket (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That I wrote "fact"book this way was for a reason, called irony. You need not search too hard to find evidence for the questionable quality of those "facts". Wouldn't be the first controversy. Plus it's an instrument of the US government, in the final analysis. In some US schools even exist world maps where Brazil's Amazon region is striped, thus indicating it as "international territory" - this only out of political (which means in the background corporate) interest: Pure and knowing disinformation of their own folks (which - and really sorry, but this is based on 26 years of empirical analysis^^ - by the way at an average base don't really show off by geographical or linguistic general knowledge). Get this. So it is simply naive to only quote from it; of course the US government wants to promote the English language at any occasion possible.

Same thing for Ethnologue: Wikipedia should play by at least some general scientific standards, which in my opinion excludes copying "information" spread by a fundamental Christian missionary organization.

So what I want to say in short: present quality sources free of any obvious lack of credibility (like constitutions or court decisions, for instace) before starry-eyedly (at least I hope so) putting two and a half countries in your mother tongue. What helps, too, is to have some substantial knowledge in foreign languages in order to widen one's horizon and be capable of acquiring different information and thus - most importantly - being independent from just one side(d).

(the IP may be different, but I'm the same who started the thread) 177.17.63.105 22:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you consider getting an account, but I make a good portion of my own edits when not logged in. If it weren't for the general lack of respect shown to IPs on the English Wikipedia (fortunately I see it less so here), I probably wouldn't bother at all. But any rate, to your main points.

I did pick up on your "irony" about the CIA Factbook, and I agree, it often is unreliable. As is any single source, which is why we rely on multiple sources when we can. Nonetheless, it's generally a good source, since it's run by one of the most important intelligence outfits on the planet, and deals in fairly basic stuff. The SIL is indeed a Christian organization, but it's still a reliable source, and you're resulting to ad hominem to discredit it.

Your arguments seem to boil down to "I don't trust such and such a source for such and such a reason (especially when ignorant, insular Americans are involved)," and as both the Factbook and Ethnologue are used as reputable sources on Wikimedia projects means that the burden is on you to provide reliable secondary sources that indicate the contrary. --Quintucket (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Considerations

Considerations:

1. Create a shade of blue that represents: "Countries/regions in which the mother tongue of the majority of the population is an English-based creole language but the main language of governance is English"
2. Use the color purple that shows the countries/regions where there is a small English-creole speaking ethnic minority in a country that may or may not use standard English as the language of government.
3. Another shade of blue should refer to the countries in which there is a widely spoken Anglo-creole language in the nation/region although non of official languages are English.
4. Use the color shown below (used to indicate where Russian is spoken) to show countries/regions in which one of the official languages is English but also has the presence of an English-based creole spoken as a lingua franca in informal situations by people who may also be well educated in formal English.
5. Don't forget to use a green square to show cities/settlements/regions where Englsih is a prominent minority language.
6. Use dots to show countries to small to see, e.g. Caribbean, Southeast Asia.

P.S. Don't forget about shading Quebec the right shade.

`

Here are their uses:

English-based creole languages:

• Jamaica, Sierra Leone, Belize, the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos Islands, the Virgin Island, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Barbados, Grenada, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Cayman Islands, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Vantu, Torres Strait Islands, the Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea are all the countries/dependencies/regions where an Anglo-creole language is the native tongue/lingua franca of the majority population while standard English is the language of government.
• Limonese, Miskito Coast Creole, Colón Creole, Rama Cay Creole, Bay Islands Creole, Bocas del Toro Creole, Bende, Samaná English, Afro-Seminole Creole, Gullah, Aluku, Ndyuka, Paramaccan, Kwinti, Saramaccan, and Aku are all English-based creole languages spoken by a small ethnic minority in a region/country that does not speak their language.

They are spoken in: the eastern coast of Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama roughly stretching from the Caratasca Lagoon in Honduras to the Bocas del Toro Archipelago in Panama; the Bay Islands off the coast of Honduras; the Colombian-controlled Archipelago of San Andrés off the coast of Nicaragua; the Samaná Peninsula in the Dominican Republic; very small, scattered communities in the northeastern Florida wilderness; the South Carolina Lowcountry and the Sea Islands in coastal South Carolina and Georgia; small settlements near the national border in the Maripasoula region of French Guiana; a small community in the interior wilderness of the Marowijne District in Suriname; a small cluster of settlements at the bank of the Coppename River; eastern Suriname wilderness; around the Saramacca River and Suriname River with some populations in French Guiana; an in The Gambia.

• The islands of Saba, Saint Martin, & Sint Eustatius under Dutch & French control, Sranan Tongo in Suriname; and the the Fernandino languages on Bioko Island are all the regions in which the majority of the population speaks an English-based creole language but does not have English as the official language.
• Nigeria, Liberia, Cameroon, Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia are all countries in which English is not the native tongue but a English-based creole has reached the status of lingua franca in informal settings. Standard English is still used as lingua franca in formal settings.

Refer to this list to get ideas about how to show small countries/regions.

Legend

English

Countries/dependencies where English has official language status and/or is the main mother tongue.   Countries/dependencies where the mother tongue is an English-based Creole but the main language of government is formal English.   Countries/dependencies in which there is a widely spoken Anglo-creole language in the nation/region although non of official languages are English.   Countries where English is official but is not a widely-spoken language.   Countries in which English is not the native tongue but a English-based creole has reached the status of lingua franca in informal settings. Standard English is still used as lingua franca in formal settings as it is also the official language.   English-based creole languages unique to a small ethnic minority.   Cities/settlements where English is a major minority language and/or has a notable presence large presence.

ThisguyYEAH (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This will make the map unreadable. Too many similar-looking shades of blue, and even if we use all different colors, it's just too many colors to keep track of. English-lexified creoles are not English, nor are they varieties or dialects of English, so they should not be taken into consideration here. Coloring Quebec differently from the rest of Canada will also make the map too complicated, not to mention being the thin edge of the wedge for other subnational entities or even vaguely defined regions. If Quebec is colored differently, people will want to color Nunavut differently too, and then the Navajo reservation in the U.S., and then the parts of the British Isles where the majority speak Celtic languages, and so on. The map is displayed at thumbnail size in articles and should be kept simple and legible. —Angr 16:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I still think it is important to show English-based creoles even though I already knew they were not part of the English Language. They are, in my opinion, part of the Anglo-sphere. Not including them would be a gap in the greater picture. The problem with Quebec and the other stuff you just said is the following: In Quebec, French is the SOLE official language and is not even used in government nor anything, only in inter-provincial affairs SUCH AS federal affairs. New Mexico has English as an official language of the STATE (as contrasted to Quebec). The Celtic speaking regions of the British Isles are isolated to villages. English would be the language to use in all these areas except Quebec. English is practically useless in Quebec; trust me, I would know, the 4rth one has no color yet since I do not know the code for that green looking color in the Russian map.

Here is my revised legend to a perfectly acceptable 5, simple colors (only 3 of them are frequently used). Just so you know, the:

English

Countries/dependencies where English is the dominant language/mother tongue.   Countries/dependencies where the most common mother tongue is an English-based Creole language.   Countries/dependencies were the where English is an official language but is mostly used in urban areas or as a lingua franca.   Countries where English is official but is not a widely-spoken language.   Countries/dependencies where some sort of English-based creole languages exists. (Talk about every single country/territory/dependency shaded to give more info about the use of English there and remember to sort them by category and alphabetically).

• Category 1: United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory, the Falkland Islands, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Antarctic bases owned by English-speaking languages.

ThisguyYEAH (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The New Plan

Hey, I have an even better idea! I rearranged the categories to be more consise and easy to read.

• Category 1: Areas where English and/or an English Creole language is the main language.
• Category 2: Areas where English and/or an English creole is a lingua Franca and/or a large minority. [e.g. South Africa, Singapore, Suriname]
• Category 3: English, or a creole of thereof, is a small visible minority [e.g. Nicaragua, Samana Peninsula, Panama]
• Category 4: Areas where English is official but not widely spoken.

ThisguyYEAH (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

An English-derived true creole is by no means necessarily greatly intercomprehensible with English (see en:Saramaccan language for a language which is technically derived from English more than from any other language, but which is 99% completely unintelligible to ordinary English speakers), so I'm not sure why you lump English-based Creoles in with English... AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

South Sudan

English is the only official language of South Sudan. Here's a source http://www.goss-online.org/magnoliaPublic/en/about/ataglance.html --91.15.91.105 14:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Language of education

What should we do with countries like Malaysia, where English is the language of govt and education? Not de jure official, but you could argue it's de facto official. The point of the map is to show where English is spoken, and if English is used in the classroom, there shouldn't be too much trouble getting around using English (as anyone who has been to Malaysia can attest). But should it be a third color, or is lumping it in with official status acceptable? (We could always change the caption.)

Oh, and yes, adding countries like the Netherlands where the majority of the pop. is fluent in English would be nice, but I doubt we have a source that would allow us to apply that standard to the entire world. (Universal exposure to English in school as an L2 is not sufficient, as this frequently fails to produce fluency.) Kwamikagami (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, continuing from the talk page messages. This image has the caption of light blue being "countries where it is an official but not majority native language", and are used on Wikipedia projects as depicting "countries where it is an official but not primary language". Since you do not dispute that, I have removed Ethiopia and Malaysia. Their official languages and the working languages of the government are Amharic and Malay, not English. As for the "language of education" or a third colour, like I said on the talk page, that is currently outside the scope of this image and there would be far far more countries that have English as a "language of education". Education at the upper secondary and tertiary and graduate levels in most countries of the world are conducted in English, or require high competency in English reading skills. This is mostly because at higher levels of education there are very few native language materials, and further studies generally requires studying abroad in more developed English-speaking countries. If I am not mistaken, even developed countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Iceland, Taiwan, South Korea, all use imported or "international versions" of English language textbooks for varying science, technology, and mathematics courses at the tertiary and graduate levels of education. --Shibo77 00:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not the same as the language of education. In Sweden classes are conducted in Swedish, not in English. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

New New Plan

My plan for the Anglo-sphere. Those with "*" mean I still need some clarification on its category. Creoles & Pidgins are included for vernacular and Lingua Franca since they exist on a spectrum where creole is the least formal and standard is formal. The written language is almost always in standard English regardless if it is usually spoken in Creole.

Category 1: Dominant Vernacular and Official Language(de facto)

• USA
• Canada (excl. Quebec)*
• Australia
• New Zealand
• Ireland
• Anguilla
• Antigua & Barbuda
• Bahamas
• Barbados
• Belize
• Bermuda
• British VI
• American VI
• Cayman
• Dominica*
• Grenada
• Jamaica
• Montserrat
• St. Kitts and Nevis
• St. Lucia*
• St. Vincent and the Grenadines
• Trinidad & Tobago
• Guyana
• Turks and Caicos
• Akrotiri & Dhekelia*
• British Indian Ocean Territory
• Falkland
• Gibraltar
• Pitcairn
• Saint Helena
• Ascension
• Tristan da Cunha
• South George and the South Sandwhich Is.
• Isle of Man
• Jersey
• Guernsey
• Coral Sea Islands
• Cocos (Keeling)*
• Christmas Island*
• Norfolk
• Guam
• Northern Mariana*
• And possibly Antarctic Stations

Category 2: Primary lingua franca and official language. (Varying levels of proficiency)

• Gambia
• Ghana
• Nigeria
• Singapore
• South Africa*
• Liberia
• F. S. of Micronesia
• Namibia*
• Sierra Leone
• Papua*
• Solomon Islands*
• South Sudan*
• Zambia

Category 3: Primary working language &/or secondary official language

• Botswana
• Cameroon
• India
• Eritrea
• Fiji*
• Kenya
• Kiribati
• Lesotho
• Malta
• Malawi
• Marshal Islands
• Mauritius
• Nauru
• Pakistan
• Palau
• Philippines
• Rwanda
• Samoa
• Sudan
• Swaziland
• Timor-Leste*
• Tanzania
• Tonga
• Tuvalu
• Uganda*
• Vanuata
• Zimbabwe*
• American Samoa
• Curacao
• Hong Kong
• Niue
• Puerto Rico
• Quebec*
• Sint Maarten
• Tokelau

The above three categories will be colored blue, with category 1 being the darkest, category 3 the lightest.

Category 2 varies from countries like Singapore, where English dominates public life, is used daily, and has a near universal proficiency, to Solomon Islands, where fluent speakers are less than 5% (although knowledge of creole is very high). What lands you on category 2 however is that English is the main language of business, education, government, & law. It is the lingua franca of choice regardless of how many people are actually proficient in it. There may be other official languages, but they do not compete with English. Category 3 on the other hand has English as the language of choice for at least one of the these categories (lingua franca, business, law, government, education, commerce, higher education), but that there is another language that dominates the other categories. In Philippines for example, English and Standard Tagalog compete for all of these categories, with English having the upper hand on external uses, and Tagalog on internal uses. In East Africa, Swahili is the dominant lingua franca and is used in government while English is preferred in business and higher education.

I will clarify some of the "*" here. Dominica and St. Lucia have native French Creoles but I have no data regarding how many people have since switched to English/English-creole. The Cyprus base areas include both the military bases as well as a few local villages. Neither Cocos nor Christmas Island have White majority populations, but there is no data whether the populations still speak their ethnic languages at home or if they switched to English. The situation in Guam is similar to Hawaii: language policies and no ethnic majority resulted in English dominating both public and private life. Unlike Guam and Hawaii on the other hand, Northern Mariana still has a native majority; no data on vernacular language. In South Africa, Afrikaner and African languages are also widely used and are all official. In Namibia, German is also widely used, more so in commerce. Papua, Solomon, and S. Sudan have very low English proficiency. Fiji has a very high non-native population, unknown if English or Fijian is the dominant lingua franca. The lingua franca and official languages of Timor-Leste is Portugese and Tetum. Indonesian and English are only listed as working language and aren't really languages of choice. In Uganda, Swahili and English actually compete with each other since not all Ugandans want to use Swahili; Uganda is more English-leaning than its East African neighbors who lean more Swahili. The Shona are by far the largest ethnic group in Zimbabwe, which has a very low level of development. That, coupled with lack of data, leads me to believe that Shona may actually be more understood, even among minorities.

Canada is bilingual, yet all provinces and territories, as well as the federal government, are English dominant. Even non-English speaking minorities, including French ones, have to learn English to do anything in these places/levels. The only exception is Quebec, where French is the sole official and universal language. In Quebec it is the opposite, all non-French speaking minorities, even English ones, have to learn French to get anything done. Sure, there are areas in the West and in Montreal where you can get by with English, but you will have one hell of a time if you actually live there. The only problem is that when you reach the federal level, English dominates although you it is possible to get by only on French since everything must be offered in both languages.

Category 4: Not official but widely understood (>75%)

• Netherlands
• Sweden
• Israel
• Denmark
• Norway
• Cyprus
• Suriname*

Category 5: Not official but largely understood (50-75%)

• Germany
• Belgium
• Austria
• Greece
• Switzerland
• Finland
• Slovenia
• Estonia
• Luxembourg

These will be green. An then in orange...

Category 6: Unrecognized English speaking populations

• San Andres y Providencia (Colombia)
• Miskito Coast (Nicaragua)
• Bocas del Toro (Panama)
• Limon (Panama)
• Colon (Panama)
• Bay Islands (Honduras)
• Samana (Dominican Republic)
• Suriname*
• SSS Islands* (French and Dutch territories in the caribbean)
• Southern French Guina
• Bioko Island (Equatorial Guinea)
• Bonin Islands* (Japan)
• Sapwaahfik (Micronesia)

Suriname and the SSS Islands are a special case. The local population speak an English-based Creole but the official language is either Dutch or French. I have no data regarding how many people know proper English as well as creole, or how many people have since switched to the official language.

MrWonderphul (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Malta

Why Malta is not marked on map? English in Malta is co-official language. And also about 90% Maltan people speak English. Subtropical-man (留言) 22:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See reply left on File talk:Anglospeak-percentage-knowledge.svg‎... -- AnonMoos (留言) 22:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Gambia dropped English

Gambia dropped it some time in late 2014, having replaced it completely on the official level with Arabic. 2.242.131.27 20:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

No evidence provided; reports still have English as official lang in 2021. Kwamikagami (留言) 05:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan dropped English

News coverage -- 07:37, 18 April 2016‎ 182.156.226.126

Malta

Someone should put a circle around the island nation of Malta. English an official language, beside Maltese, and English is spoken by 90-95% of the population. English is given preference in almost everything from education, to government, to communication, applications, post, music, etc.Continentaleurope (留言) 06:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)