填空题.At the time when the United States split off from Britain, there were proposals independence should be linguistically 31 acknowledged by the use of a different language from that of Britain. There was even one proposal that Americans should adopt Hebrew. In the end, like everyone knows, the two countries 32 adopted the eminently practical and satisfactory solution of carrying on with the same language as before. For nearly two hundred years now, they have shown to the world that 33 independence and national identity can be complete with 34 sacrificing the enormous mutual advantages of a common language. Like religion, language is clearly a powerful unifying and dividing force. As we have seen, moreover, there is nothing about 35 language as such that makes linguistic identity conterminous with national identity. "If he speaks French, he is by no means necessary a Frenchman." French is not the private property of 36 Frenchmen, and still less is English the private property of Englishmen. Yet many of us still half-consciously feel that anyone 37 other than an Englishman uses English, we have a special right to criticise his use because he has been privileged to deal something 38 which is in the Englishman's gift. We feel that he must necessarily look to us for a "standard", because it is "his" language. 39 It is high time that such naive notions about English are 40 firmly stopped. They do not even remotely correspond to linguistic realities and they can do nothing but harm to the cause of human relationships and international harmony.