As we have seen, there is nothing about language as such that makes linguistic identity coextensive with national identity. "If hespeaks French, he is by any means necessarily French." French is 1not the private property of Frenchmen, as English of English 2people. This should be obvious when one reflects that English is the mother-tongue in Canada, the United States, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and many other areas of the world. Yet many of usstill half-consciously feel that when anyone no other than an 3Englishman uses English, we have a special right to criticise hisusage because he has privileged to handle something that is in the 4Englishman's gift. We feel that he must necessarily look us for a 5"standard", because it is "our" language. It is reasonable to regard 6any language as the property of a particular nation,and with no language is it more irrational than with English. This is not to saythat English is used by a great number of speakers than any other 7language: it is easily outnumbered in this respect with Chinese.Whereas it is the most international of languages. 8 To people in Africa or Pakistan or Chile, English is the obvious foreign language to master, not merely because it is the native language in Great Britain and the United States, but because itprovides a readiest access to the cream of world scholarship and to 9the bulk of world trade. It is understanding more widely than any 10other language.