"Globalization, that is, the international trade among different nations, demands the use of the same language in order for it to become feasible."

It somehow sounds a bit off to me and I would re-write is as follows:

"A common language needs to be used to make globalization, the international trade among different nations, feasible."

If the first sentence isn't in the passive voice, what then is wrong with it / or how could it be improved?

  • 1
    Passive requires some form of "be" + the PP. That is not present in the first, but it is the the second. Both sound clunky.
    – Cascabel
    May 19 '17 at 17:38
  • 2
    I would dump the "needs to be used" and/or "in order for it to become feasible", and "international trade among different nations" (redundant). Your core sentence is "Globalization demands a common language." [New sentence] "International trade..." and go from there. Possibly then you could use a conjunction to join them.
    – Cascabel
    May 19 '17 at 17:50
  • 1
    A common language is required for the feasibility of the international (globalization of) trade - passive. The international trade requires a common language for its feasibility - active. May 19 '17 at 18:09
  • 2
    I wouldn't recommend defining something as complex as "globalization" as a parenthetical aside. May 19 '17 at 18:24
  • 2
    Echoing @Cascabel I would rewrite it as *Feasible globalization demands that international trade use a common language." As an aside, I note that international trade has been going along fine for thousands of years with bilingual middle people. But who am I to rain on your parade? :-) May 19 '17 at 21:20

As MikeJRamsey alluded to, one reason you're likely struggling with how all off this sounds, is that both sentences are untrue. International trade among nations is possible without a singular language. Therefore the word "feasible" is invalid.

The definition of "globalization" is also not precise. International trade is one thing that continues to become more globalized over time, but it is not synonymous with globalization. Various religions have also experienced increasing globalization. So has the Internet. So have weapons technologies. International trade is merely a subset of the things which are encompassed by the word "globalization".

What is true, however, and what the first sentence may be hoping to suggest, though imprecisely, is that where international trade exists, it tends to encourage use of a common language between trading partners. As an example, companies across Europe that transact with companies from other European nations tend to do business in English. Thus, I believe it is true that international trade, once it exists, creates a demand for the use of the same language, but not to make the trade feasible, only to make it easier.

Therefore, the first sentence is almost correct. The suggested rewrite is less correct since the word "need" is as incorrect as feasible was incorrect.

A rewrite that would fix many problems is: Increasing levels of international trade ultimately result in increasing demand from the businesses, citizens and governments of globalizing nations for a common language with worldwide trading partners in order to facilitate business transactions, employment and regulation.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.