Nik, UK
The language we speak defines the limit of our conceptual understanding. If we introduce a simplified language and this language becomes the common language of the world, do we not risk limiting the understanding of the citizens of that world? Rather like George Orwell's 1984. Language is complex, because people are complex and have complex needs and ideas to express. If we dumb down the language, then we dumb down the people who speak that language.

Mandep Singh, India
As a communication faculty with a Canadian Institute ,I have felt that Indian students do not shy away from English but get often confused when given a complicated concept.

Raquel, Uruguay
It's a good idea because sometimes it is very difficult for our students to learn the language. Besides I think that when they need the language they learn it. Meanwhile they try to understand a short conversation or a song.

Andrew, Brazil
Who is going to decide whose version of simplified English would be taught? We run the risk of reducing the language to various forms of pidgin English which would become incomprehensible to most listeners! English grammar is fairly simple as it is; any further simplification would result in a great deal of confusion and probably hinder adequate communication.

Kamran, UK
I believe a simplified version of English would be the best step to encourage the learners for further studies of the language. Too much information at once not only puts lots of pressure on the students but also gives them an impression that the language they are studying is not easy to deal with; as a result many will turn away from taking further steps towards a more advance levels.

Oswin, Austria
In my view, I don`t think that it is a good idea to teach simplified English. English is a wonderful language and when you leave out complicated sentence patterns or difficult words it is like lukewarm beer. Furthermore, what do we understand by simplified English? There are books of English literature in simplified language but whenever the pupils are capable of understanding a more complicated language, they should read everything in the original books. I used to read Raold Dahl`s The Twits in a simplified version with my younger pupils. And this year I am reading the original book and I can tell you that not only is it a lot more fun but the message of the book becomes clearer. It is as if Mr. Dahl is speaking to us!

Afshin Derakhshan, Toronto
It is clear that in most countries English is becoming more popular for all types of people, and among those students have more desire in learning it as a Second Language. This is a great jump for English over the past few years. It is true that languages are always changing, but the change for English is much faster than others. Linguists are always thinking of easier ways of teaching English, and in most countries English is being used as a Language for communication in all aspects. So I believe that it is better we look forward to easy and fast steps in learning,which can lead us to learning other languages too, and we can switch to a third language.

Conner, Mexico
Isn´t this what we already do by sheltering beginning level students? Many of my students insist that their native language is more complicated and richer than English but only because I give them a simplified version that won´t overburden them as they develop fluency. Too, I would like to say, that language is inevitably complex, in part because new speakers, even if they be ESL, contribute new semantic forms and possibilities. Maybe, as students move beyond the simplified English of beginning levels, we as teachers and possibly native speakers need to strive to be less rigid in what we accept as proper English.

Susan Hillyard, Argentina
Perhaps we should be looking at aims and objectives. What does the individual need the language for? Jim Cummins' distinction between BICS and CALP ( see: http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/bicscalp.html) could be an interesting starting point for a discussion. I also believe we should start early and work on methodology used by teachers based on the maxim....confidence first, fluency second and accuracy first. Most teachers build in automatic failure for large numbers of students by insisting on standard accuracy too early. When the student begins to WANT the language he builds in his own need for accuracy. Motivation is vital and that depends on perceived needs.

Gangs, India
The topic is as interesting as the comments. I'm not too sure what's meant by 'English should be simplified'. Are we talking about making it 'phonetic' or changing the 'structures' or inhibiting the dynamism?! In some of the comments, I'm afraid, I could sense 'methodology' of teaching creeping in while recommending simplification of the language!! If English has established itself as an international language of communication, I would suggest that we let the language be as it is: it'll help people from across the globe to identify with and communicate in a commonly accepted /standard form of the language. It may turn out to be a communicator's nightmare if everyone looks for his / her comfort zone churned out of the language!!

Diala, Lebanon
I believe both formal and simplified English should be taught. I'm afraid that simplified English, per se, would affect the students' writing skills or prevent him from appreciating the beauty, richness and the open possibilities of the language.

Dolly Dhawan, India
Simplified version of English should not be used. If we teach our students a simpler version, we are spoon feeding them. We are not giving them a chance to explore themselves.

Brent, Switzerland
The idea of teaching a simplified English seems great. I would hate to be there when a group of global representatives sat there and tried to agree on the rules of this new simplified English, let alone when they tried to enforce the rules of this new simplified English on the rest of the world.

Dinesh Kafle, Nepal
In non-English speaking countries like Nepal, English language is like a nightmare for many people. It is practically difficult to get used to rigid terms and rules. I strongly feel the necessity to produce simplified versions of English in order to consider it a widely accepted international language.

Poornima Shetty, India
Communication is said to be effective between to individuals when it's mutually understood. Difficulty is faced when two non-natives involve in conversation. As the World is moving towards Outsourcing more people are trained to learn required language and accent (e.g. UK & US accents) even though individuals are not emotionally attached. When we come up with a simplified version of English this difficulty can be overcome.

Soraya, Brazil
It´s important to have confidence. English is easy and simple, but you need to have at least 'the standard English.' I think simplifying is not good.

Nadeem Sheikh,Pakistan
English has its branches to accommodate different types of learner requirements like offering spoken English classes whose syllabuses are entirely different from that of English language or literature. So it all depends on the requirement and age of the learner. I think we should not simplify any language for a young elementary learner. Yes, a grown up learner with nearly no foundation and exposure to English would definitely require a simplified version of the language

Ernani Trindade, Brazil
Who wants to know English well must always be studying it. For progress there is no limit. It is good to have an international English but this also has no limit. Let's do everything to make English easier for anybody to learn. If we can have a common language in the world, peace would be easier to be attainable.

Cristina Florencio, Brazil
Every time we try to find out a "better" way for people to communicate, we fail because that is not natural and we can´t deal with language in a such artificial manner (p.ex Esperanto). The same can occurs again. Apart from other obvious reasons, if English reached the top as international, don't you think it's because of it is also an easy language?

Luísa, Portugal
As an English teacher I find great difficulties in teaching standard English to my Portuguese students. My first goal is communication, so I sometimes simplify it and it is really worth it.

UK
As an Indian but living in UK I have realised that it's easy to start with simple language to help build confidence and speak before introducing difficult versions.

Greg, Italy
As an American but now living in Italy I realized that for some nationalities such as Italian, Spanish speakers the best thing is to teach a language that is easy and simple to speak and use and I know that from my own experience.

Nadir, Algeria
Well, it depends who we are teaching and where we are teaching... The first major goal of any language is "communication". So Let's simplify it.

Ali, Pakistan
This is very important for people whose mother tongue is not English, they have better choice to learn and speak correct English.

Krishna Kalyan Dixit, India
I think it is not a question of making language simple or complex. Moreover, what language sample is simple and what are its credentials that make it simple are hard to articulate. It should be just language for the learners. The successful learners have just learnt the language and were not bothered about its simplicity or complexity. The child learns the language by grading itself and postpones and rejects some of it, if it doesn't make any sense at the moment.

Sunaina Aggarwal, India
Yeah, I think we should teach English in simplified forms that are easier to understand. As a matter of fact, I am already into it. Especially, for speakers of other languages......
Reasons:
1. It's not their mother tongue.
2. English Language deals with more exceptions than rules.
3. If we work with simpler forms, the base for this language will be stronger and everlasting.
4. Application of English Language in their daily lives also be easier.

Afshin Derakhshan
English is a Language which is in changing all the time. The current version of English which is mostly used in North American countries is most acceptable for most students because of learning procedures for pronunciation, and grammar rules. The easier the language is, the more popular it will be.

Sultani Rome , NWFP Pakistan
Yes I am in the favour of teaching the simplified form of English as it will enable majority of people to speak, write and read the English Language.

Kavita, India
If viewed as a communication tool, a simplified version needs to be taught. However, it should be known to those who learn it, that a more complex level not only exists, but needs to be worked towards as autonomous learners or by taking more courses as and when possible.

Atef Kamel, Egypt
I think English should be simplified but there is a big problem faces teachers if they are not native speakers, so we have to find simple plans to teach English. I like simplifying English when I teach and I see that is very interesting but students should be regarded when we decide the way of teaching, I mean their levels, goal of learning English, etc.

Heidi, Germany
Yes. I'd like to teach a simpler English to my classes of seniors. But who decides on what is "Global English?"
Who, do you think, is influencing the language most in these days? I'm loving it??

Irene, UAE
Definitely not! We have to respect the language we teach and learn. So often teachers meet students who started learning a language “just to be able to communicate” and later they realize that it's not enough for them – they need to improve and learn more. So, let's not be self deluded about “simple English”.

Tabinda Urooj Samdani, Pakistan
Simplifying the original language means depriving the learners from experiencing the pleasure of its romantic element. Language carries traditions and the history of its country. Simplifying a language means we're doing it just for functional sake and are not interested in the rich culture behind it. The beauty of learning any language is to be able to speak just like the natives and take pleasure in it. Besides, English has its branches to accommodate different types of learner requirements like offering spoken English classes whose syllabuses are entirely different from that of English language or literature. So it all depends on the requirement and age of the learner. I think we should not simplify any language for a young elementary learner. Yes, a grown up learner with nearly no foundation and exposure to English would definitely require a simplified version of the language to improve his communication skills.

Manish, US
I am father of a 4 year old, I am not sure if my opinion matters amongst linguistic professionals. I look at any language as a tool needed to communicate. Having a simpler tool always helps the users. I see that most of the technological and scientific efforts being made today have a common goal - make the tools simpler-to-use, easy-to-learn, and productive besides many other things. In my opinion, we should look at English (or other languages as well) through the same eyes; we should make it simpler-to-use, easy-to-learn to achieve effective communications across language boundaries. I agree with "Maria Giannali, Greece" that teaching a different/simpler version, especially to younger generation is not the right thing. In my opinion, we should try to steer the language's evolution towards a more simple version. We should work on the tool itself rather than developing tricks to sell it more.

Smitha, India
Teaching simplified English to students will make it more accessible to students coming from disadvantaged section of society.

Onyegbunwa Julius Caesar, Nigeria
The basic essence of English is communication. Most of the rules we teach in grammar, for example, are hardly heard in everyday conversation. What is the need if not for use outside the classroom? My students often accuse me of being too formal when I correct their use of the language. At times I feel they have a point. It is necessary we teach with simplification so that our students can see the relevance of what they learn outside the the classroom.

Devon Lin, China
Initially with learners it is necessary to teach them a simpler form of language but only as a stepping stone. Language as a means of communication conveys our feelings, culture etc. To limit the ability of any language to convey these complex thoughts and feelings through simplification would destroy the language and in turn the speakers ability to communicate effectively in all areas of life. Whereas, the simplification of Chinese was purely its written form, thereby having no effect on oral communication. As, historically, the written form of English has undergone simplification.

Zulfiqar Ali, Najran, Saudi Arabia
It is only the simplified English that serves the purpose of active communication. Note that Chaucerian language is also English. Ok, go on and start teaching it. What! Is it going to serve any purpose any more? Certainly not. We should see our needs and we should start teaching English according to it.

Ryo-chan, Japan
I'm teaching at high school level for more than 10 years. I have already taught simplified English to my students just because I feel they need it. However, at the same time, I have to teach complicated English to them for university entrance examination. So, my conclusion about teaching simplified English is that we should teach various levels of English based of students' needs and abilities. However, I myself am confused with the definition of "simplified English." Does that mean English sentences with simple structures? or does that mean English sentences with easy vocabulary? or does that mean English sentences free from Western culture? I would like to hear opinions about the concept or perceptions of "simplified English."

Maja Hadzic, Serbia
The teacher should simplify the language in the amount the learners want. It all depends on the needs of learners - some people want more fluency, less accuracy, some want to improve their writing skills.

Maria Giannali, Greece
As teachers of a foreign language, of any foreign language it might be, we should teach our students how to understand first and then how to use this language. Therefore it is common sense that we teach them how the language is used and spoken. If we teach them a simplified version of the language they will neither be able to understand the language nor will they able to communicate with native speakers at higher levels. What is more, the language itself, any language, is simple or complicated depending either on the situation or on the topic you use it for.

Idit, Israel
I think that communication is a very important mean in our developing world. But it is not all. There are some points that we must see for the sake of our students. If we teach them a simple language to communicate maybe we forget that. Hello and how are you! are not the top in a friendly conversation. We must achieve other exposures to the language like books, music, science and so many other subjects for a good conversation where an appropriate idea can be heard and given by the speaker. We live in the 2006 almost 2007 and it doesn't mean that the language has to be simple. We have to make it simple for the student how to learn and how to enjoy the language you teach and learn.

Sahdia , UK
Simplify the task not the language. Use authentic texts and devise differentiated tasks to enable learners to complete them according to their level.

Behnaz, Iran
As I know if the goal of learning English is communication and self expression, so it should be simple and easy to get.

Tom McLean, Oxford
The average briton uses about 1000 words 80% of the time. What is this but simplified English. Tennis anyone?

Srikumaran, India
Everyone should understand the english without much difficulties. Teaching should be understandable. English is the most widely used language in the world across various countries as well. When one teaches English, it should be compared with daily usage then only they will know the nuance of the sentence.

Blandine, France
Let the language decide that for us... but we shouldn't forget Beauty in Language..

Kasia, Poland
In my opinion - no. At present people want everything to be simplified, fast and without any limits. Learning languages must be challenging and that is that!

To simplify English is to gut English. English language and grammar is rich with depths of layers allowing for a near infinite level of communication. To simplify it will remove those layers and reduce English to an elementary language. Sure, we will be able to communicate clearly but will we be able to communicate accurately and interestingly?

Otabek, Teacher of English, Uzbekistan
Having learnt a simplified English in their countries students face enormous problems visiting English speaking countries and I think the only question they have "WHAT DID THEY TEACH US???"

Sundararajan, India
Language should be a mean to communication and it should not be a barrier to communicate an idea to other. English is now used by most of us. It should be simple so that it can be made to communicate.

Rachid, Morocco
Regarding the age and level of students, teachers should simplify their language to achieve comprehension. However, teachers should gradually expose their students to the complex patterns of language and improve their awareness of real English.

Miniar, Tunisia
Well I think it should be simplified, because it will be easier specially for the young students otherwise they'll never like to learn.

Kevin Gaudette, China
Some wonder "Who will decide what form is taught?" In China a top-down Beijing-initiated precedent is Simplified Chinese Characters, to take literacy out of the exclusive hands of the literati .However, oral English evolution in China will take the grassroots 'democracy' process of bicyclists crossing a busy intersection 'en masse'. By listening to the English speech patterns of well-educated Chinese professionals who've lived abroad many years in English-speaking countries, we can get a sense of how English-in-China will evolve into a more user-friendly International Language. One major 'evolutionary' Chinese English change I expect...the loss of the past tense. Already English has some Chinese-style verbs.

Helena Lestre, Portugal
I think that we must prepare students to communicate in every part of the world. Nowadays students search information on the Net and much of it is in American English. In my classes I always correct the pronunciation and writing but I explain them the difference between American and British English. But the main purpose is to give them "tools" to communicate everywhere!

Jacek, Poland
No, absolutely not. In 20 -30 years it may not resemble the English language at all. After all, it is not that difficult to learn, is it?

Rosalie, India
Not all students are able to converse in hard English. Without meaning what is the use for everyone? So simplified English is useful specially in this country.

Siddharth Sood, India
This is a real quagmire. I am appalled to see that the global visionaries are planning or, even considering to adopt this model. However, to some extent this is what is really required (or is it?). As per a latest NASDAQ ruling for BPO (Business process outsourcing) units; proficiency in English for any employee is considered good if, he/she can explain the processes to the client. In other words, can manage (somehow!) to get the message across. What the model suggests is that, scrap away the grammar, the spellings and simplify the vocabulary. What we are basically left with is an insipid, incoherent derivative of English language. Interestingly, they are trying to pass it off as simplified English. As an ardent second user of English or, should I say a first user of fusion language i.e. both Hindi and English I strongly, object to the move. It is very difficult for me to unlearn the Shakespearian and contemporary English and not to mention the three different tomes of grammar that I was taught at school. Not every one in India does English at the same level or comes from an English speaking background. Again thanks to the BPO even the people who come from a vernacular medium learn very quickly. To the extent that, they even forget the Indian accent and use some superficial American or British accent. This means that these people must have been taught a good academic form of English in schools. Otherwise how the hell can these people become fluent and good conversationalist in such a short duration of time? The success rate may look trivial, but a few years back very few people knew that the conventional help desks are no longer in their countries but somewhere in India. What is really required is to teach English properly and more relevant to current usage in terms of words and expressions. People can later be polished depending on the sector in which they work.

Brian, Spain
Having read most of the comments above, I can see that there is a majority in favour of teaching English in a simpler version to suit individual needs. When teaching, say, question tags, to people who will probably never have the time to be able to use the grammar with ease (and have no exam to face) it's always a relief for them to be told that a simple '...,no? 'will do instead of '...,isn't it?' etc. Most people they use English with don't use such esoteric grammar. Likewise with 'I'm married for three years.' (a typical Spanish mistake) Now, find me somebody who doesn't know what that speaker is trying to say. Communication is all.

Lynn Ross Ward, Tenerife
I am a firm believer in not teaching English as a Foreign Language. The grammar-structuralist approach which non-native speakers conceive to be grammar, only alienates students from the real language which is used both nationally and internationally today; "chemical formulas" and "mathematical equations" are not the manner in which I learnt English. We have the past, the present and the future - what more do we need? Teachers need to stop complicating what is, after all, the easiest language in the world to learn.

Michael Clarke, Indonesia
The important thing is communication. A relaxed attitude to rules and regs but with high regard for clarity would be a better way to promote learning.

Miranda Vincent LaCoeur, Mexico
Everyone has different skills which allow us to develop different activities. I don't think that it should be simplified but it should be taught in a dynamic way; taking into account the students' needs and their learning styles. There must be a certain degree of complexity in every language and every human has enough intelligence to face those barriers which could appear when learning a language.

Conceição, Portugal
As an international language it has worked so far. Learners will make their own simplified version of the language. The less you teach the less they'll learn and know.

Paul, Germany
The people I teach need English for business and I feel that communication is more important than especially getting all of the grammar perfect. So, I teach them what they need to be able to do that. With students who are learning "a language" then I spend more time teaching the "proper thing".

Christianerevyn, Belgium
I think it would be wrong to teach 'simplified' English. How can students make use of all the mass media in English if they get 'another' form of English at school? Also reading original stories would be made impossible.

Silvia, Italy
If English is taught to non-native speakers it is better if it is simplified. I think it is more profitable to teach very well "few" rules than teaching many rules, difficult sentence structures,... which are easily forgotten by students and not assimilated at all. If you are a non-native speaker, it's more important owning a strong, consolidated knowledge of the most common rules and of a wide vocabulary of the language you're learning, than studying dozens of details, structures that will be hardly ever be practiced and by sure easily forgotten.

Mustafa, Tunisia
It would be a good idea to teach a simplified version of English to help increase the number of people who use the English language whatever their reason for that. I like the English language. It helps me a lot in my work, travel and relationships.

P.H.Rao, India
Simplified language doesn't mean broken ,slang language. It is to be simplified without loss to the beauty of the language.

Runston Perera, Sri Lanka
I too think a language should be as simple as it could be. This comment should be special to English because it is a global language. Easy communication is the most important thing.

David, Latvia
Teaching "simplified" English (whatever THAT means - simplified according to who?) doesn't do anyone any favours. Would it be easier not to teach more difficult or challenging aspects of the language? Well absolutely, but only in the short term. In the long run though, students will be less equipped to use the language effectively, and frankly why should they be short-changed? If students only need a certain level of English (maybe just enough to make themselves understood), then they can simply stop taking extra courses once that aim has been reached. In reality though, more and more students need to demonstrate an effective command of the language (either through formal certification like IELTS, FCE/CAE, TOEFL etc. or through practical application of the language in daily situations). This idea of a "simplified" English is daft.

Mike, England
We have to distinguish between English spoken in the 'real world' and English taught in class. All languages are necessarily simplified when being taught. Different learners have different needs - some may want to achieve native speaker competence while others, probably most, do not. Non-native speaker competence should therefore be considered the norm, the target and the model for most learners of ESL. This needs to be acknowledged by ESL teachers whether native or not.

Alexia, Greece
Let me start by the fact that no language is easy enough to learn since every one has its own history behind and as such no language can be simplified for the sake of easiness. Any attempt for simplification would take away the complexity of language which is part and parcel of its beauty. I'd rather use the word "facilitate" learners to deal with the language as such and rather expose them to authentic language used by native speakers. Only then will they be able to stand up to a real conversation.

Silvina, Argentina
I think a simplified language is not a language. No native and no English speaking country speaks such a thing. Besides, you cannot separate a language from its culture.

Anne, France
Yes, we should as teachers of English not living in an English speaking country. It is a particular kind of English our international students need. The English they will use to order goods from the Far East for example. They don't need everyday colloquial expressions for that. Clear, effective communication comes first and the rest is the icing on the cake to learn with time, exposure and experience. This will not diminish "native speaker" English which will continue to evolve as it always has no matter what anyone says.

Aamir Mughal
Well, I believe many countries have already contributed a lot to make it simple for the ordinary USER, others are still trying, though unintentionally. English has now become the Lingua Franca, so it is not the property of any nation or country. Let it grow itself. But the Standard is Standard. I think everyone (especially in the Academic situations) should try to aim at the standards, set by the educated Natives.

Shahin Vaezi
I don't think we should teach a simplified version of English; there should always be a standard version to refer to. Isn't the aim global interaction and negotiation, if it is, I wonder whether numerous simplified varieties would lead to this goal. I think a simplified form of English will not remain English in the long run. It might as well be any code called simplified "English".

Sharon, England
No. It's part of our history. Let it evolve naturally.

Kaddari, Morocco
Why a simplified English? Is it simplified in real life? Do we write in a simplified way. Go and check how difficult it is sometimes to understand an article in a newspaper... The teacher's role is to facilitate learning and to equip the learner with the skills and strategies to make her or him able to deal with the language as it is and not as we want it to be.

Are Olushola, Nigeria
Language has a life of its own and cannot be doctored to achieve 'simplification'. A language can however be taught in such a way that learners learn elements essential to achieve basic communicative competence. This I already do. But then,maybe I don't understand exactly what you mean by 'simplified'.

Elisabeth, Germany
If we don't stick to a standard version, chances are that the language deteriorates over time.

Stephen Austin, Hong Kong
Many people have proposed the use of an artificial, simplified language for easier everyday use. These suggestions were made with the best of intentions but have all come to nothing. It is futile to try and legislate from above and introduce different 'Englishes'.

Arizio Sweeting, Australia
It's undeniable that the status of English has and is changing with time, and the English as a Lingua Franca approach (ELF), as controversial as it seems, is here to stay. Cliches apart, however, I believe that we (teachers and educators) also need to account for the circumstances in which our learners find themselves in and what expectations they might have for their own learning. For example, the core of the teacher's resource book I have been working on for the past three years, using feature films in the ELT classroom, focuses on providing higher level learners with opportunity to develop the ability to understand native speaker, or competent non-native speaker, ‘English' i.e. the variety of English which they will hear outside the classroom. In fact, the idea for the book, in a nutshell, was born from a direct request from a group of learners who claimed to possess or have already mastered a ‘simplified' variety of English, but who felt 'trapped' due to an inability to 'read between the lines' ‘in other words, to ‘decode' the variety of English spoken around them outside the language classroom. When communicating with people in their surroundings, these learners feel the need to 'fit in' by being able to understand the cultural-embedded knowledge, the values, the humour, the accent, the colloquialisms and slang of their interlocutors. In general, what I am trying to suggest is that teaching a 'simplified' variety of English has its merits but it would certainly not cater for the needs of learners as in the scenario described above. Although I am an advocate for English as a Lingua Franca, I cannot ignore and fail to acknowledge my learners' expectations and circumstantial needs.

Gloria Matzig
Why should non-native speakers of English be forced to speak the way native speakers do, as long as we all can understand each other? Doing business in English does not require perfect usage or complete understanding of the language in order to be judged successful. The most important need is for real communication and mutual understanding -- not the achievement of grammar perfection, nor the conquering of advanced and sometimes old-fashioned phrases and vocabulary with subtle meanings and hidden agendas which even make it difficult for native speakers of English to understand each other! This may become a moot point whether we like it or not, as control of this situation will eventually be taken out of the hands of native speaker English teachers in future, as more and more foreign speakers of English take over the responsibility of teaching the language to new learners!

Tuba , Turkey
It should be simplified, especially for the young learners, but I cannot say the same thing when it comes to education of the adults 'cos they don't have much time or they aren't suitable for several activities like games, solving puzzles or riddles like children. Adult learners should learn English without any simplification.

Vina Vidal-Boss , Portugal and UK
It would be impractical. It is the language as a whole which the native speakers speak therefore it is the language as a whole that others need to acquire. Enough damage has already been done by teachers who can't teach grammar, structure, idioms, syntax and the list goes on!! Don't ruin which is so beautifully natural, don't ruin competent communication.

Denise Wesley, Italy
We might ask ourselves: for what purpose or purposes are we teaching/learning this 'target language?' and then progress towards an appropriate model. Once a language learner has acquired even the simplest capacity to communicate and to be successfully understood, is the 'ownership' of that language then extended to the learner her/himself? perhaps, as both native and non native speakers we may then ask ourselves a third question: to whom does this language belong?

Joel Dorego, Philippines
Yes, we should! It will really become a global language if we do so!

Diana Cadillo
I personally think it is impossible to try to manipulate a language as if it was something created in a lab. All languages have been developed in a natural way that is out of our control. I'm sure that we could try to figure out a less complicated version, but with time we would realise the need to increase or enlarge the language again in order to reach communication.

Oswaldo, Peru
Well, in my opinion, we should teach a standard English, which might include "unified" idioms, but basically the same grammar rules and go for the less complex pronunciation whether British or American.

Akhtar Hussain Mingora Swat, Pakistan
Well I think English must be taught the way it is. It just can't be made easier than it already is. Students must be exposed to the English language slowly and gradually and that is the surest way to achieve a considerable command of it.

Lucy, Italy
I think that English shouldn't be simplified. Obviously it can be taught at different levels. If we "clean" a language we deprive the student. Will he be able in the future to understand and appreciate "difficult" texts like poems,slang expressions, lyrics..?

Mohammed Khamma, Morocco
The ultimate purpose of teaching English is to help people communicate. So, the easier they get the language, the more likely they are to use it in their interpersonal communication. Still, this doesn't mean to teach anything & anyhow. We should keep in mind "easy come, easy gone".

James, England
I think our language is beautiful and any forced adaptation to it would be introducing the totalitarian concept of 'newspeak' as mentioned by Orwell. Language is a free developing entity we shouldn't imprison it barbarically.

France
English is not a difficult language, so it would make it less beautiful if it were simplified. It would lose its fantastic nuances which make its richness. Learners will always simplify it without teachers needing to make it for them ;-)

Swe Set, Burma
English is now no more one-own language and it has been using all class of people (the majority of those are young who are increasingly trying to be the global community. This is a very good reason why English should be taught a simplified version of English. The simpler the better for the communication which is now greatly important to success for current and next generations who are parts of globalization. In my view, if we can globalize English Language as a more simplified version, our generations will be more able to access, explore and manage their planet with global understanding which is for global respect for all global citizens.

Raed Attal, Syria
To some extent we should do so, but we must proceed teaching adults the more complicated items.

Karen, Ecuador
Has anyone heard of or taught GLOBISH? Jean-Paul Nerriere developed a 1500 word Global English. His text is called Don't Speak English, Speak Globish. Has anyone used it?

Miguel, Colombia
To teach a simplified language means to lose part of the culture and moreover to break into pieces a language that has been used for centuries.

Vijayalakshmi Krishnan, India
It is very important to focus on the need of the learner. A speaker who has acquired the language does not find it difficult, but a learner shouldn't be made to go through the difficult path. For an adult, L2 learner it definitely should be simplified so that they are not put off by the language.

Anthony O'Driscoll, Spain
If we start simplifying the language to suit the speaker, then we run the risk of having all sorts of national variations, which would make it even more difficult for non-native speakers of English to communicate with one another. Whereas if we all teach the same standard English, any variation on this will not be so different from the original as would be a national variant, and, basically, all our students would be able, in greater or lesser degree, as they do now, to understand the English language as she is spoke by we, the British. After all, if you spend years and a fortune learning a language, you'd expect to be able to understand the native speaker as well as other non-native speakers of the language.

Maram, Saudi Arabia
Yes I think English language seems difficult to some people, so I see that they will not like to learn it till they see that it is simplified to them.

Sujata Taterh
Students find English very difficult to learn. A simplified version which is phonetically friendly like Sanskrit would increase its outreach and popularity. Already SMS is revolutionising the language. Students are comfortable with English SMS but not English spellings. They are most uncomfortable with spoken English.

Izabela Stepien, Poland
The fact that English increasingly becomes the 'international language of communication' often between people who are more than likely to be non-native speakers, does not mean we should think about teaching a simplified version of the language. Instead, we should think of better ways to teach English and motivate our students to strive for excellence. Simplifying will not solve our problems of teaching/mastering a language. What if, at a certain point, the simplified version is still too hard to learn? Should we simplify it any further? If so, to what extent?

John Kuti - Russia
Voice of America Special English is a good start in this direction with its core vocabulary of 1500 words.

Z.Stamatopoulou, Greece
English is not an easy language for foreign students. It has different grammatical structures& rules. It needs practice and good understanding. Simplifying it,will have better results and as a worldwide language we should make a good attempt to establish this.

Ella, Finland
Most of learner language is simplified according to the learners' level. What kind of language to teach depends on the target group. E.g. adult students learning tourist English for traveling in different countries may not be so interested in learning the language used in scientific publications or literature, or learn correct British pronunciation. The language I use with them is much simplified. At high school and open university the students are able to learn different variants - local and stylistic - and do not need simplified language. It is also very motivating to learn about different cultures when learning languages.

R. K. Vijay, India
It is a must to teach students a simplified version of English. If you teach them a complex version of English language they will be frightened and will abhor learning English.

Hassania, Morocco
I have been teaching English for over twenty-five years now , and have come to the conclusion the more you simplify things for students, the more you encourage them and motivate them. Therefore, I strongly believe that English should be made easier and more enjoyable.

Roddy Kay, Brazil
While it is a truism that all pedagogy is about simplifying content in order to promote learning, I don´t think ELT should try to create a new simplified version of English in terms of advanced levels i.e. the creation of a new standard. This is to set the inglorious aim of making English a mere commodity, or to borrow the late great Prof Etiemble´s witticism to market the language of McDo. I am not of course against simplifying English for elementary and intermediate learners or, in the light of best practice, investigating how much farther we can go but a warning to us all was the failure and abandonment of the Initial Teaching Alphabet in primary schools in the UK. Research showed that ultimately it did not help the weaker learner to make the transition to standard forms. Pidgin is fine for the pigeons of the street markets!

V.Sankaranarayanan, India
I think that English should be simplified and made easier to learn because only some brands of English like the American, the British, the Australian, the Canadian are recognized while the Indians speak good English, but many think that what we speak as unEnglish

Kata Doromby, Hungary
Slowly everything is washed into one gray mass, the culture, the eating habits even thinking in this global village - as we call our planet now. We should guard everything that is characteristic to us. Language in the first place. let it be our own mother tongue or a precious second language we can communicate in. After all this is the tool we are able to express our thoughts.

Irene Ong, Malaysia
Yes, as far as it enable students' comprehension and encouragement into the use of the language (primarily) for communication purposes. However, after having grasped the "workings of English" the next phase would be 'English proper' in all its complexities. This can be effected with a wide range of reading and comprehension materials (readily available on the 'www') taught in tandem with grammar! The English Language learner has to understand the cultural background of the English language if he or she wants to achieve a fairly good command of the language or even any language for that matter!

Jamie Pearson, Dominican Republic
Much of the USA already speaks a 'simplified 'corrupted form of English. I find that students prefer to learn the clarity of British English, and have difficulty understanding the slurring which characterises US English.

Hélène, Reunion
The dangers of teaching a simplified version of English are well-known by most of us: The text messages sent by young people are already a simplified version of English and we know for a fact that misunderstanding simplified for simplistic can be hazardous in many ways..

Philip, Italy
English has already undergone and is undergoing a process of simplification. This is why it sometimes seems irregular to speakers of languages which have not been subject to such simplification. However, it is still possible to teach students to avoid using illogical linguistic constructions, and to replace many of the "rules" that are presented in grammar explanations with fewer and better thought out concepts.

Roberta, Mexico
It depends upon what we mean by a simplified version of English. If we mean teaching English without focusing on grammar, I agree. It is my sincere belief that we need to teach spoken English first in order to get our students comfortable in what the majority of them find the most difficult skill. While teaching them to speak, read and write, grammar is inductive. From there, when they are relatively fluent in the language, they can learn grammar if necessary. This is the way we learn our native language. To me, it only makes sense to learn other languages in the same way, in this way "simplifying" it.

Andrea, France
Define "simplified". Simplified American English? Canadian English? British English? Australian English? Scottish? Teaching English to Business professionals who've already, for the most part, had some exposure to English, my goal as a trainer has been to clearly define their needs and teach them the English they need in order to function more effectively in an economy where the majority of people they are speaking with are non-native speakers. This is not to say I support "simplified" English. I'm willing to go as far as my learners are interested in pursuing the language. But if the language isn't meaningful to them or presented in a fashion that is abstract and lacking in context, what's to motivate them to continue? Besides, English is a living language, that's one of the things that is so exciting. If we don't allow it to breathe and grow and reflect the changing cultures then we might as well start speaking Latin.

Brasilia, Brazil
No we shouldn't teach a simplified version of the language we must understand the cultural differences and uses of the language for the particular country(s). The English Language went global but is know owned by many different people as they change it to suit their local use. So English is now local and it is this local use teachers need to understand. However, I'm not sure we need to teach it as it develops naturally between these local users. How local depends on who the people are and their relationship.

Pilar de Diego
I teach in Spain, Canary Islands. My students come from other countries than Spain, but most of them don't speak English, that's why I've tried for a couple of years that they learn it in a more simple way, using just those structures essential to an understanding communication and not being very strict on those more complex and formal, for instance, passive voice.

Irin David Evans, Spain
I think English is already simplifying itself, and second-language acquisition is becoming a variant of English, much like Jamaican English, with a different, yet perfectly understandable logic. Natural English, peppered with phrasal verbs and idiomatic expression, I would like to believe, is definitely on the way out - it's so twentieth century!!! At times, as teachers, we are more interested in developing methods to teach complex (do I dare say archaic) concepts than being instrumental in modernizing them.

Vineeth Mathoor, India
The purpose of any language is to communicate and to share ideas. If the second language seems to be tough to learn many people might not take interest, and the language may fail. So the mission will have to be to make more people learn the language.

Ewa Komorowska, Poland
English is a difficult language both to learn and to teach, which doesn't mean we have any right whatsoever to change it into a more palatable version for the sake of making it work with non-native users. Just think of your mother tongue lessons - would any teacher ever think of using only the abridged and simplified versions of literary masterpieces? Or simplify the rules of grammar just because they were quite complex? No, the teachers would rather start from the easiest examples and go on to the more and more difficult ones. Besides, language is heritage and heritage demands respect. Let's show English some respect, shall we?

Denmark
I believe students can still learn to understand a text although it sometimes is difficult.

Jermaine, Colombia
English is by far a complex language to master. However, simplifying it, making it more "user friendly" would not necessarily make it easier to grasp. Nevertheless, in the classroom we will always use it in a way for our learners to communicate effectively.

Reed, UK
This is a wasted question. If the language you teach is over-simplified it is useless for real communication, if it is too complicated not many people will persevere and master it. You introduce students to the language, in a manner similar to how children start learning their native language, and gradually work towards the real thing. If you set off with the idea of stopping before reaching 'real' language level then you are wasting everyone's time.

Brian, UK
This is all very well, but English isn't a simple language. Surely we either teach it as it is, or we aren't really teaching it at all. You wouldn't change the basis of physics to make it easier. You have to rise to the challenge or fail.

Imzouren, Morocco
First of all I'd like to thank everyone who has been supportive in the creation of this site. My point is that we have to learn English for the sake of communication, but when English is not only a means of communication that is something else. Everybody can't ignore the spread of English language all over the globe, however, I find it quite harsh when a language becomes a way of subverting and destroying others beliefs and identities. Anyway I guess we have to learn English because we have to, but don't forget that the world is made up of wildly different civilizations and this difference must survive.

Rohana Andaraweera , Sri Lanka
Simplifed versions of English encourage the learner to use English. It is vital in teaching English through communication.

Vargheese K J, India
Students often do not interact in English because of the lack of exposure to authentic materials. If the input is comprehensible and simple the motivation to learn will increase.

Cecilia, Brazil
Communication is key. Once the students are able to communicate in a simplified version of English, they will be more motivated to improve their language skills.