[Viennacon]

Well, I would totally agree that the French language has to be kept lively and interesting through as you say, novelists and playwrights.

There is a difference in causation however. I don’t think anyone would suggest that the English language adoption of the Dutch term ‘ice berg’, was an element of Dutch cultural imperialism. There was no other factor that could point to any kind of cultural imperialism on the part of the Dutch.

Now, there was a recent article on FreeRepublic about a controversy in France over college courses being taught in English instead of French. The purpose of this was to try to attract immigrants who might have learned English, but not French.
I would argue that this was indeed a form of cultural imperialism, not imposed by foreign cultures themselves, but by scholars in France eager to rake in more cash.
If people in the US began regularly substituting the title of Mr. with ‘Señor’, in light of the massive influx of Hispanic immigrants, I could argue that this was a result of cultural imperialism, seeping into American culture through uncontrolled immigration and a lack of assimilation.

This only applied IF the words being substituted already exist. If they do not, then I am mistaken, and I see no issue.

We can’t really deny that some cultural imperialism does exist in Europe, as almost all children at least in Western Europe are encouraged to learn English, as it is a very useful language to know. I guess what I was voicing concern about is the growth of such imperialism to a point where customs, languages, and cultures begin to die out.

This may be one of the strongest arguments I have heard for European ethnopluralism. That by keeping cultures definite and separate, we actually preserve their beauty. I don’t deny that some exchanges of words or phrases helps to keep languages alive, but I wouldn’t want it to get to the point where French was indistinguishable from English.

[Vanders9]

I'm not suggesting this "cultural imperialism" is deliberate. After all, the English are not forcing French people to use these terms - in fact in most cases English speakers are unaware of these developments. I am suggesting that it is merely a consequence of when two cultures and language groups come into contact - they exchange words and concepts in the same way they trade goods and services. And the stronger of the two, in the sense of "better" or "more numerous" will have the greater effect. After 1066 the French were the more dominant, and loads of french words were imported into English (some 20,000 I believe, about half of which are still in widespread use).

This interaction need not neccesarily be a bad thing either. Interestingly, when modern French people use English words they often put their own slant on them, which basically means they are changing them. For example, what the French call "Le People" is what we would call "celebrities". They dont quite mean the same thing. So language has developed.

Of course it can be very sad if an influx of a foreign tongue does away with custom and tradition and the "uniqueness" of a society, but I would argue that any tradition that cannot stand such competition obviously cannot mean that much to the members of that culture. Tradition is fine, IF it provides a sense of community and a link to the past. If it stops doing that though, you really have to ask if its not time it goes.