1. An Interview with Bill Bryson
The following is an edited version of
interview that was conducted by Geun Ho
Lee, a reader of Bill Bryson’s Mother Tongue.
The focus of this interview was to clarify one
point brought out in the book: aptness of
English as a global language.
Bill Bryson is the author of Mother Tongue.
In this non-fiction book, he writes with his
journalistic style about different languages,
but focuses the most on his mother tongue,
English. In this book which was published in
1990, Bill Bryson examines how English has
become a global language.
Q. So, Mr. Bill Bryson. I understand that in Mother Tongue, you wrote some qualities you
believe are necessary for a global language. Could you rephrase them for a clarification?
A. Sure, I believe that a global language needs to be simple yet complex, because a global language
should be able to be used as a mean of communication among different people. This means that
anyone should be able to understand the language easily. But the language itself or its rules have to be
complex enough to be able to translate a concept or an idea that is expressed in one language into this
global language. Also, global language should be accessible, because accessible languages like
English can be easily learned by a large number of people. But most importantly, a global language
should endorse people. It should be liked and used by large population, because a language cannot
survive without its followers.
Q. In the book, you mention about Volapük, Esperanto, and Seaspeak. Can you explain in more
detail why they cannot be global languages?
A. Yes, in the book I mentioned that the first two languages were devised in the end of nineteenth
century when a vogue for made-up language rose. These two languages do not satisfy some of the
standards of a global language. Consider Volapük first. It cannot be a global language, because it lacks
the simplicity that a global language should have. Majority of its vocabulary are claimed to have been
based on English roots, but it is really difficult see the connection. Take the name of the language for
example. Johann Martin Schleyer, the inventor of this language, claims that Volapük comes from two
English roots. He claims that vola is for world and pük is for speak. I really doubt that any layman
first encountering this language will notice these connections. Also, it has some issues with its
accessibility, because it was not well known in the world other than Europe.
Esperanto attracted more followers than Volapük. Unlike Volapük which at its peak had one million
followers, Esperanto is known to have eight million speakers. Despite this number of followers, the
chance of encountering a fellow follower is very rare. This chance, as I have compared in the book, is
as low as a Norwegian encountering another Norwegian in Mexico in twenty years ago. So, the
accessibility in finding a real-time usage of this language is the main issue for this.
Seaspeak lacks complexity as the tones and various ways of expressing an idea is lost due to its overly
simple phrases. For example, phrases such as “What did you say?”, “I beg your pardon,” “Could you

2. repeat that?” in English becomes “Say again” in Seaspeak. Although these different phrases could
carry different messages depending on the context, they are considered to be the same in Seaspeak.
Also, it is not very accessible. As I have written in the book, it is a language that was devised in
Britain for the use of maritime authorities in busy sea lanes. So, it lacks the accessibility as a global
language.
Q. So you are saying that English satisfies all four standards of a global language? Could you
explain it more thoroughly?
A. Well, I mentioned that the best hope in devising a world language is not in devising a synthetic
tongue but in making English less complex and more accessible. It’s true that I think English in its
current form is not ready to be labeled a global language, because it lacks the simplicity. For one, just
like any other languages, English has vocabulary issues that hold it back from being a global language
at current stage.
I mentioned three simplified versions of English that people came up with as possible global
languages. These are Basic English, Anglic, and Seaspeak. All of these three failed to meet the
standards of a global language. Basic English lacks complexity, because it is too much focused on
cutting down English vocabulary to the essential 850 words. Anglic lacks the attractive force, because
it never caught on. Seaspeak, as I have already pointed out, lacks the complexity and accessibility.
But I still believe that English satisfies all of the standards of a global language other than simplicity.
So I believe that it is the most likely to devise a global language from reducing English.
Word count: 822