#14 language enrichment--yes/no?

Interestingly enough, two consecutive google alerts sent two specific links to articles directly contradicting each other. When juxtaposed, we see that these two articles both make very valid points. Which then, is the more "correct" stance on the issue?

The topic at hand is language enrichment: whether or not the change of a specific language by imbuing it with foreign words is beneficial to the speakers of the language as a whole.

The first article, found here:

How a few English words can help to keep our Welsh language alive
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2007/11/24/how-a-few-english-words-can-help-to-keep-our-welsh-language-alive-91466-20153846/

lauds the affect English influence has on the Welsh language. In fact, it insists that due to the incorporation of many English words and sentence structures, Welsh has undergone a transformation--or modernization, if you will--for the better. It goes as far as to say that "fears that Welsh is being watered down by English are unfounded," approaching the dilution of the Welsh language from a comletely optomistic view. Welsh lingisuts imply that binding a language to a standard set of rules is anachronistic in today's world, and can only contribute to the degradation of the Welsh language. Purists, then, are considered behind their times. As a conclusion, this article believes that "It’s just important that people speak Welsh. Once you get them speaking, whatever the quality, there’s a possibility the language will develop."

Now we explore the other side of the coin:

Enrich language, don't kill it
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Editorial/COUNTER_VIEW_Enrich_language_dont_kill_it/articleshow/2573579.cms

This editorial that appeared in an Indian paper provides a counter perspective to the writers of the first article. Although they concede that "language enrichment" via imbuing the language with certain foreign elements is good to an extent, they also believe strongly in the overkill of such practices. Quote: "to throw all rules out of the window, completely transforming the nature and character of the language itself is tantamount to linguistic massacre." Now with the argument focused on the hyberdization of the English language, these writers argue that would make English obsolete as a global language, for the foreign words would only be comprehendible to the country from which they were borrowed. In effect, for a language to be universalized, it needs to be understand by many, and not just by a select few.

These two disparate articles bring up several questions concerning language hybirdization. When reading the first one, I almost got a sense of a defeatist attitude, as if the writers were throwing up the white flag of surrender and adopting a "we'll take it regardless of condition attitude". Now let's consider some hard facts. English is only the third most spoken language in the world, following Chinese as the first and Spanish the second. However, a strong argument has been made that English is perhaps the most disseminated language in the world. Where as Chinese and Spanish are concentrated in specific (if not single) countries, English has formal acceptance in at least 75 countries and territories. Why then, is English the language that receives priority in becoming a global language? Additionally, though the authors of the first paper insist that Welsh has also made an impact on the English language, the prominent language still stands to be English, that is, the hybirdization is more the anglification of Welsh rather than the "Welshification" of English. This then, leads us back to our initial discussion of English being able to absorb aspects of almost all language, and it becomes an advantage to English speakers. However, when the converse occurs--when other languages utilize English aspects--that language becomes almost diluted rather than hybirdized. In a more explicit example, there exists an English alphabet (the katakana) for the Japanese language, but such a system is blatantly missing in the English language. Even though many of our words are borrowed from the Japanese language (just think of a typical night out in Miyake on University...), it's almost as if those words have been uprooted from their origin Japanese roots and sucked into the English language. Therefore, when they are used in foreign conversation (conducted in English) in places other than the US or Japan, they are likely to be taken as part of the English language rather than borrowed terms from the Japanese langauge.
So, as it stands, personally, I think the second holds valid poitns--to a degree. The incorporation of foreign words into the English language serves to improve the utility of the language, and because it has such widespread usefulness, such additions will not hinder any comprehension. As for the effects of English on the Welsh language, I think the Welsh should approach the matter from a more realistic perspective. They need to consider the repurcussions should this "Welshgish" continue in the long run, and what that could mean for the ultimate fate of Welsh.


Sources:
http://www2.ignatius.edu/faculty/turner/languages.htm