More than half of the 7000 languages spoken in the world are in danger of disappearing. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing. UNESCO is the site of efforts to protect these endangered languages, and especially to protect language diversity in cyberspace. Certainly there is an argument that the language in which people most easily and effectively think and communicate should be protected for the benefit of those people. Moreover, it may well be that the loss of languages will also entail the loss to all mankind of knowledge and understanding which is expressed only in those languages.
In the United States there is a debate on how to handle Spanish, which is in some parts of the country a second official language. There is a general agreement that it is useful to have a single national language that can be understood by all citizens. On the other hand, in parts of the country the majority of people are more comfortable in Spanish than English.
With increasing immigration worldwide, there is a need not only in the United States but in many countries to handle residents who do not speak the official language, or who do not speak it well. The need to find ways to deal with children in the schools who speak other than the majority language is especially complicated, since on the one hand the schools are ideal for teaching the majority language, but on the other hand, kids can't be expected to learn the content of the school curriculum in a language that they don't speak well or at all.
It occurs to me that the great civilizations seem to be held together by a common language -- Greco-Byzantine, Roman, Chinese, ancient Egyptian, British Commonwealth. I suppose a part of this is that those in political power impose their language. However, a common language may facilitate commerce. A large population speaking a common language may create a critical mass for the growth of knowledge and understanding. It may create a common culture which supports the idea of nationhood. And of course, it simplifies administration of public organizations.
Learning an international language is of course possible in addition to learing one's own local language. However, it is difficult to do so.
So do we really want to spend a lot of effort in saving dying languages, or would we be better off in promoting the diffusion and improvement of world languages?
Friday, February 08, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In his book Empires of the Word Nick Ostler points out that so-called 'world languages' have come and gone throughout history and that what is considered the dominant language today may not be so in the near or more distant future. Each language that is lost through substitution by a 'world language' encapsulates the history, culture, knowledge and identity of the people who speak it, something that can never be replaced once it has gone. Adding languages through bilingualism or multilingualism is surely a better solution to the needs of individuals and communities.
Thanks for the comment.
Languages change. Latin is now not used except in schools and churches, but its descendants (French, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, Italian, etc. are still widely used.
The only way to keep a culture alive is to let it evolve. I suspect similarly that the only way to keep a language alive is to let it change.
I am descended from Blind Raftery, who lived a couple of hundred years ago, and is considered the last of authentic poets in Irish. I regret not being able to understand his poetry in the original. His language is being kept alive, at great effort, and I am happy that others have chosen to do so. But excuse me if I put my efforts to learn other languages to those which help me to communicate more widely.
Post a Comment