250 words

Question: read the text below and then write a 250-word argumentative essay about why people should (or should not) be worried about language death. Note that the whole essay should be in your OWN words. Marks will be deducted for copying verbatim any part of the text.

Why should we care about language death?

Many people think we shouldn’t care. There is a widely held and popular – but nonetheless misconceived – belief that any reduction in the number of languages is a benefit for mankind, and not a tragedy at all. Several strands of thought feed this belief. One reflects the ancient tradition, expressed in several mythologies but most famously in the Biblical story of Babel, that the proliferation of languages in the world was a penalty imposed on humanity, the reversal of which would restore some of its original perfectibility. In an ideal world, according to this view, there would be just one language, which would guarantee mutual understanding, enlightenment, and peace. Any circumstances which reduce the number of languages in the world, thereby enabling us to move closer to this goal, must therefore be welcomed.

There are two difficulties with this view. The first is the naivety of the conception that sharing a single language is a guarantor of mutual understanding and peace, a world of new alliances and global solidarity. The examples to the contrary are so numerous that it would be impracticable to list them. Suffice it to say that all the major monolingual countries of the world have had their civil wars, and that as one reflects on the war-zones of the world in the last decades of the twentieth century, it is striking just how many of them are in countries which are predominantly monolingual – Vietnam, Cambodia, Rwanda, and Burundi (the latter two standing out in Africa in their lack of multilingualism). It is, in short, a total myth that the sharing of a single language brings peace, whichever language it might be. It is difficult to see how the eventual arrival of English, Esperanto, or any other language as a global lingua franca could eliminate the pride that leads to ambition and conflict.

The second difficulty, of course, relates to this question of choice. The people who are in favour of a single world language tend to come from major monolingual nations, and make the assumption that, when the day arrives, it will be their own language which, of course, everyone will use. Problems arise when, for religious, nationalistic, or other reasons, the vote goes in different directions, as it has always done. So, is it easy to choose a language for all humans that all people would agree to? Lingua francas (languages used between people who do not share the same language) have an obvious and important role in facilitating international communication; but even if one language does, through some process of linguistic evolution, become the world’s lingua franca – a status which most people feel is likely to be held by English – it does not follow that this must be at the expense of other languages. A world in which everyone speaks at least two languages – their own ethnic language and an international lingua franca – is perfectly possible, and highly desirable. Because the two languages have different purposes – one for identity, the other for intelligibility – they do not have to be in conflict.

Emotions regularly cloud the issues. People, who are prepared to believe that, on a global scale, language death is a bad thing, can sometimes nonetheless be heard condemning a local language. They point that the languages of some tribes are ‘primitive’, and ‘little more than noise’, and ‘it wouldn’t be a bad thing if they disappeared’. Facts come to be beside the point in such situations – notably the fact that there is no such thing as a primitive language, and that every language is capable of great beauty and power of expression. The languages spoken by primitive tribes have complex grammar and vocabulary.

The economic argument:

Sometimes it is reason which clouds the issues – a reason, that is, which seems plausible when you first hear it, but which with further thought turns out to be false. The most commonly heard argument here is the economic one: having so many languages in the world is a waste of money, because individuals and firms have to spend so much time and energy on translating and interpreting. If there were just one language, so this argument goes, everyone could get on with the job of buying and selling without having to worry about these barriers. There is an element of truth in this: it does indeed cost a lot of money to cope with the diversity of the world’s languages. The mistake is to think that it is money wasted. The money actually is not wasted at all.

There are strong economic arguments available to counter the ‘many-languages-wasteful’ view. For example, languages play an important role and contribute to the economic success of countries which depend on tourism. Million of tourists love to experience different cultures. Local languages are valuable because they promote community cohesion and foster pride in a culture. If the local language dies, the culture will disappear. In the end, there will be nothing for tourists who love to experience different cultures. As a result, the country which depends on tourism will suffer economic loss.

There is no plausibility in the view ‘the fewer languages the better’, to my mind; the opposite view, however, has several strong arguments. So, what are the benefits of maintaining as many of the world’s languages as possible? ‘Why should we care if a language dies?’

Because we need diversity

In fact, the arguments which support the need for biological diversity also apply to language. Most people, in fact, would accept without need for argument the proposition that diversity is a good thing, and that its preservation should be fostered. Living things depend on each other for their survival. Any damage to any one of the elements in an ecosystem can result in unforeseen consequences for the system as a whole. In the language of ecology: the strongest ecosystems are those which are most diverse.

Can we say that the need for linguistic diversity is as important as the need for biological diversity? The answer is yes. Human beings have developed multiple cultures. Each culture was developed in a particular place so people can adapt with the environment. Each culture contains valuable knowledge about the place the speakers live in. The language of an African tribe, for example, contains a lot of knowledge about the environment, the plants, the animals, the weather, and many other things which exist in that place where the tribe lives. The important role of the language is to preserve the culture. Without the language, the culture and the knowledge are lost. When they are lost, it will be very difficult for the younger generations to live and benefit from the place they live in.

Because Language contains history

A language contains our history. Through the words and idioms it uses, it provides us with clues about the earlier states of mind of its speakers, and about the kinds of cultural contact they had. There are over 350 living languages listed in the etymological files of the Oxford English Dictionary. Each etymology demonstrates through its presence a point of contact, an index of influence. George Steiner’s comment applies: ‘Everything forgets. But not a language.’ The existence of Arabic words in English provides evidence that there was a contact in the past.

Because different languages enrich each other

English, for example, has borrowed huge numbers of words from over several hundred languages, and hundreds of languages have in turn borrowed huge numbers of English words. That is what gives so much interest and variety to a lexicon, of course – in the case of English, an Anglo-Saxon word like (kingly) co-exists with a French word (royal) and a Latin word (regal), thereby offering possibilities of diverse styles which would not otherwise be available.

If there are 6,000 languages, of course, we are even richer. And if, in a century’s time, as many have died as current fears predict, we will have lost half our traditional cultural wealth, and reduced our human expressive potential in proportion..

Because languages express identity

If we turn the concept of diversity over, we find identity. And everyone cares about their identity. A Welsh proverb captures the essence of this section’s answer to the question ‘Why should we care if languages die?’

The proverb says: ‘A nation without a language is a nation without a heart’

Source: Crystal, David. Language Death (Canto Classics). Cambridge University Press.