rrect? That is, for now, strictly a matter of opinion. Are there problems with one or both ideas? Yes. Chuang said, "globalization has affected the dynamics of nation-state, local and national" (p.20). That is certainly true. However, can the local be more affected by globalization than the national? Apparently so. Chuang talks about English as the world language. "Today, English has advanced to the status of lingua franca. It has become a common (and probably the only) language which allows diverse ethnic groups of Asians, Indians, or Africans to communicate with each other" (p.23-24). For an example, Chuang chose Chinese. "[Because] there are a wide variety of dialects, a Hong Kong Chinese person and a Taiwanese Chinese person would probably need to rely on English to carry on a lengthy conversation. In this scenario, global language such as English has become a medium to bridge the language differences among local people" (p.24). Is this good or bad? It can be seen both ways. One could conclude that the status of English as an accepted global language is evidence of Americanization, and therefore, cultural imperialism. With that in mind, English being the lingua franca is a bad thing. One could also conclude that because of globalization, English, as a global language, can help foster better communication within a nation, and is therefore a good thing. In the world today, superpower nations are aiding third world countries with their development. The reason is simple. The superpower nations have the ability to "represent their interests on a global level" (Chuang, p.23). Without these superpower nations, developing countries would not have access to the money, technology, education, and aid that they need. Does this therefore mean that the cultures of these developing countries will be overshadowed? Not necessarily. The fact that these developing countries must depend on superpower nations for what they need...
