A few days ago, while I was listening to lots of radio programming during a
10 hour drive, I came across a report on NPR about the extinction of
languages.  The figures quoted were, I believe, that more than half of the
world's languages are now spoken by less than 1,000 people, and most of those
are expected to die out completely in the next several decades.  While the
report quoted a few speakers of these, for lack of a better term, proprietary
languages talking about how glad they were that their kids would instead speak
a language that would be widely understood, for the most part the report
quoted lots of linguists talking about how horrible the loss of linguistic
diversity was.  The arguments there ranged from the languages being an
important part of the culture that would die out as well, to the usefulness
of the languages in studying other ancient languages.

As somebody who is facscinated by history and how things got the way they are
now, having all these languages around strikes me as really neat, and I can
certainly understand why a lot of linguists would be sad to see them go.  At
the same time, though, I really have to wonder, considering the purpose of
language, if some amount of language consolodation isn't a very good thing.
As a speaker of English, I can go anywhere in the US and be pretty much
assured that I will be able to communicate.  I can also go to much of the rest
of the world and have a faily good chance, if not a guarantee, that I will
be able to find people I can communicate with.  On the other hand, if
somebody's primary (or only) language is something spoken by less than 1,000
people, probably only in their own small village, that's going to significanly
limit their oportunities in life.  Is this homogenizing of language then a
good thing?

35 responses total.

no, it's bad bad very bad. On the one hand, I can see how it would be 
good to have a way to communicate with large numbers of people. On the 
other hand, language is an integral part of culture, identity and all 
sorts of useful things. Hearing one of my Gaelic teachers (alright, so 
he was extremely pissed) go on about the loss of his culture, and 
generally having studied a language that has been in massive decline 
for hunderds of years, it seems to me that there has to be a way of 
attempting to revive dying languages.

It may not necessarily be entirely useful, but then since when are 
things like Friends reruns, which people are willing to pay money to 
sustain, useful? The range of ideas and expressions that exist through 
different languages is amazing. You can learn all sorts of things about 
a state of mind when you learn a language. (a modest example) You can't 
say 'my house' in Gaelic in the same way you'd say 'my mother'. 'my 
house' is 'an taigh agam' which translates as 'the house at-me' but 'my 
mother' is 'mo mhathair'. Parts of the body, family, and friends, 
(altho not spouses) use the second construction. The more languages in 
existance, the more interesting larger languages become as well. Most 
of the people I know who have studied a language take small bits of the 
syntax into English. Which is much more interesting and therefore 
something to be kept.

You can say that because you also speak English.  But say you were brought up
in a Gaelic-only environment?  Wouldn't your opportunities be severely limited?
People all over the world are more often coming into contact with one another
and working with one another and they need to be able to communicate.

The solution, of course, is for us all to become multi-lingual, but I think
that's unlikely.  First, many, if not most, people have enough trouble becoming
proficient at their native language let alone multiple languages. Second, we
just don't have the time to do it.

Maybe I'm being too much the practical engineer, but I think the worldwide
adoption of a standard language is a good thing.

The reason for our many languages is due to our past relative isolation.
In recent decades you can be anywhere on the planet within 24 hrs.  The
internet has tied landmasses together so you can visit any country in
a few seconds for only $19.95 a month.  A common language allows us to
communicate with one another without the services of a babble fish.  
There is little to be gained from learning a language no one speaks.  In
a way is is "bad" because it makes us a s a people less colorful but it
is also very good because it will allow us to communicate better with
one another.  Wouldn't it be cool to be able to talk with a Serb citizen
directly over the internet without having to learn Serbian first? Isn't
communication the key to negotiations during disputes and the threat of
war?  Right now we depend on our leaders to do this for us.  Wouldn't it
be better if all the people on both side of the argument could talk to
each other and not just hired muppets?  We have the technology.

        And it's technology that is allowing us to analyze 
        languages more quickly and trace their historic
        development and correlation, extrapolating to
        hypothetical "proto-languages" of the past.

        Just as we are able to really study whole language
        families they are disappering. So it's a race against time.

        Only recently we found the carved patterns on
        Mayan . . or Aztec? temples are actually a
        written language . . deciphering the history
        of the civilization's collapse we are referred
        to a jungle location of an ancient city and
        we dig a little and  . . it's there!

Learning a different language gives you a peek into a another culture with
different values - values which may be a bettter fit mentally and emotionally.
Values and ways of seeing things that are much more satisfying.  Loosing these
chances to view life differently is a terrible loss.  I love my freedom to
go anywhere in this country and communicate and also have access to hugh
amounts of knowledge.  But I know no other language and many times feel
constrained by the limits of English - struggling to find words to express
feelings for which there seem to be no concepts let alone words.

Could you see the French giving up their language in favor of 
worldwide English? Hah. I do admire them though, for wanting to hold on 
to their culture so intently. I'll be in Prague two weeks from now, and 
am told it's already highly americanized. In fact, language shouldn't be 
a problem. That's a relief for me I suppose, but I'd hate to travel so 
far only to see more of the same.

De-languification is somewhat like de-speciation. Humans are homogenizing
the world, both intentionally and as a by-product of other activities.  We
know what lots of people want the world to speak just English, and lots of
people cultivate mono-cultural lawns. Other people think that diversity is
at least interesting, if not valuable, in both human cultures and
languages, and in ecosystems. If one thinks having a variety of animals
and plants in the world is worthwhile, why not also have a variety of
cultures and languages? 

Beyond diversity being interesting, there are practical (to humans) 
reasons for maintaining ecosystem variety, which is that the information
encoded in DNA of other species has contributed a great many benefits to
humans. Can one say the same thing about information encoded in different
languages. There are two sides to the latter - one aesthetic, and the
other manipulative. Certainly, the best way to find the maximum aesthetic
enjoyment of the language arts is in the language of its creation. A great
deal is lost in any translation. The same does not seem to be true for
manipulative information. It does not seem to matter very much whether an
industry is developed and conducted in Chinese or in English, for example.

A result of this would seem to be that, in constrasting the human desires
to maintain diversity in ecosystems and in languages, the former has all
the 'pratical' arguments in its favor, while the latter has only
aesthetics. 

Nicely put, Rane.

        Although I'm not sure that the knee-jerk reaction some people have to
the death of cultural diversities is appropriate, diversity, ecologically,
tends to ensure survival.

I agree that there should be a sort of "trade language"...something that
most of the world speaks to commicate with each other.  On the other hand
though, we should keep these other langugaes alive so that we can learn more
about the history and culture of these other places.  Honestly, there is so
much that cannot just be translated.

I agree in principle that linguistic diversity is a wonderful thing, since
it's very interesting, and is an important part of a lot of cultures.  I
certainly don't think there would be anything to be gained by getting rid of
French or Spanish or something like that, which allow communication among very
large groups of people.  However, for somebody whose only language is one
spoken by less than 1000 people, I imagine telling them that their complete
inability to communicate with anybody in the rest of the world is necessary
to maintain linguistic diversity might not go over very well.

the idea of a 'trade language' is quite good. rather like what Latin 
was used for as a language of educated thoughts. I object to splitting 
languages off by size, it just seems like an arbitrary things that 
could easily be changed for a larger group's convenience. 

It just occurred to me that we can have a trade language, and lots of
*hobby* languages. The latter can be ethnic, or invented, like Esperanto,
or *re*invented (or recovered), like the native American languages. There
is nothing wrong with having any number of languages in use, so long as
everyone has a way to communicate with everyone else.

On the other hand, the fly in that ointment is that the interesting 
consequences of having to deal with other languages one does not know
would no longer exist. One seeks other means of communication, which is
both challenging and stimulating. One would not have the experience
(as I have had) of being invited into a Spanish farmer's home, and everyone
having a grand time exchanging the names for things in Spanish and English,
and building a memorable comradrie based upon unspoken languages. 

  The existence of multiple languages is not without benefits -- among
  other things there are thoughts that are simple to express in one language
  which are difficult (or nearly impossible) to fully convey in another.
 
  However, in my opinion, the gain from mutual understanding of a single
  unified language would far outweigh the things we'd give up to get it.
  I don't think it's going to happen (possibly ever, certainly not anytime
  soon.)

I was disappointed, living in The Netherlands, when I would speak to
(say) a shopkeeper in Dutch, and he would answer in Enlish. If there
were one universal language, we should be able to have Learner Plates
so that when we try "their" hobby language, we'd get answered in kind.

This response has been erased.

I took four semesters of German, but can now only speak it fluently if I'm
drunk and flirting. I'm sesquilingal.

(<hehe>  Is there such a thing as "quadrilingual"?  That would be the
direction I'm headed...)

We had a term for that in my German classes: "curve breaker".

Each and every language is a different view on the human condition. 
Losing a language is indeed like losing a species. 

I'd be very surprised if there were very many speakers of a really small
language (5,000 speakers or less) who weren't also fluent in some other
more dominant language.  Languages die out because another language is
culturally dominant. 

According to the U.S. Census, in 1980 there were about 300,000 people who
spoke Yiddish at home.  In 1990 there were about 200,000.  At that rate,
Yiddish, already wiped out in Europe by the Holocaust, will be extinct in
the U.S. in ten years.  This may be inevitable, and may be the result of
trends which were otherwise beneficial, but it is still not a good thing.

Sure, some people will continue to read/speak/understand Yiddish, but
without a base of daily speakers, it will be a dead language.

I wonder to waht extent "every language is a different view on the human
condition". How do you know that if you don't know that other language?
Do you know two (or more) languages, Larry? If so, exactly what in
each constitutes "a different view on the human condition"? I speak English
and, at one time, both passable German and Dutch. I can not say that I
had different perspectives on the human condition at the times I spoke
one or the other of these languages. 

I did earlier make the observation that there is a resemblance between
DNA and languages, both being systems of information. But the system
of information of languages is much more mutable and, in fact, different
languages appear to be able to deal with the same "real" information
about external facts, with equal facility - that is, even a single
language can be used to work in many different views on the human
condition. 

Perhaps you are equating cultures and the languages that have developed
within each. To the extent that a language is a necessary part of a
culture, they are intertwined, but many aspects of cultures can exist
regardless of the language used. 

> This may be inevitable, and may be the result of
> trends which were otherwise beneficial, but it is still not a good thing.

I don't buy that "not a good thing" notion.  It's just "a thing", neither good
nor bad, in the same way that "they don't make records any more" is not a bad
thing, it just is.  To the extent that languages are not dying due to an
"occupying culture" stamping out a native one (e.g. how the Brits tried to
stamp out the Irish language and culture), then their dying out is just
"natural selection".  Their passing can be mourned or regretted, but not
condemned.

that's 'how the /english/ tried to stamp out the irish language', 
thankyou...:)  at the same time as they were trying to stamp out 
welsh...

but languages can come back from the dead, witness cornish, which was 
reconstructed by academics starting in the 70s, and is now widely taught 
in cornish schools, and use of which is growing encouragingly amongst 
pre-teens.

and i suspect polygon is right about there being /very/ few minority 
language speakers who aren't multilingual.  certainly, in southern 
africa it's extremely rare for anyone to speak only one language - oh, 
unless they're white... i wouldn't be surprised if there weren't more 
multilingual people in the world than monolingual, although i'm not sure 
how one would go about finding out.  out of two million or so welsh 
speakers (at a rough guess), which isn't exactly extreme minority as 
languages go, i'd be surprised if there were any left who weren't 
bilingual with english.  but take our language away from us, as the 
english tried very hard to do, and... well.  don't like even to imagine 
it.  as one of our writers said, a nation without a language is a nation 
without a heart.

/just/ aesthetics?  hmmmm.

oh, and there are some interesting educational research statistics which 
suggest that bilingual children are slightly behind in both languages 
aged about seven/eight, but by their teens are standard or above in 
both, and considerably more able at acquiring new languages... so maybe 
making the effort would be beneficial...

i'd loathe a world where everyone spoke the same language.  just as i'd 
loathe a world where everyone looked the same, or thought the same.

        At what price linguistic and cultural diversity, though?

        True linguistic diversity means that there are people who'll never
leave their homeland, because they cannot understand what is spoken even in
neighboring districts;  it means confusion and miscommunication between
different cultures.  True cultural diversity includes along with it "female
cirumcision", religious pogroms and institutionalized racism and sexism.

  True, but those are a small price (for other people) to pay so that our
  vacations abroad can be more quaint, don't you think?

  I'm not arguing in favor of one huge global monoculture but I do think
  that a universal language would solve more problems than it causes.

  So far the majority of respondents to this item have been north americans,
  where the issue isn't a pressing one for the majority of the population,
  though it does come up.  How do people feel in places like India, where
  *many* different languages are spoken in the same country and universal
  comprehension is much harder to take for granted?

The long and no doubt brilliant response I was going to make has flown out
of my head.  :)

However -- this is a discussion that seems worth continuing.  Perhaps some
kind soul (if any are still reading this) might consider linking this to
language?

Spring 1999 agora 189, "Dying Languages", has been linked to language 103.

Thanks, Rane.  I'm glad to have read it.  The many keatses of responses
already said everything I would have said, so I don't even have to formulate
a reply.   8-{)]

I  am from India so this question  is important to me.Among the languages of
India, except for a dozen or so, the others are in a sense "Dying Languages".
In north India, even a century  ago there used to be several languages with
distinctive literatures  and cultures associated with them. 
However since then, the rise of the printed word, and the politics of language
has ensured that they have  been relegated in status to dialects of Hindi or
have been altoghether wiped out. This has been the fate of Maithili, Bhojpuri,
Magahi etc. in the provinces of Bihar and Eastern Uttar Pradesh.Similarly,
Brajabhasha, once ( in the 16th and 17th centuries) the literary dialect of
western Hindi is now extinct. Lingui`stic homogenization is the future of the
world.

I think that not all of these languages are necessarily doomed.  Here in
New Mexico, many of the Native American tribes have become concerned that
their languages are spoken by fewer and fewer people (and most of those
who do also speak English, although there are still a small number of
Navajos in particular, I believe, who are monolingual), so the tribes made
a point of setting up classes for children in the tribe, so that they
could learn the languages while they were still young.  I learned recently
of a similar program among Native Hawaiians.  It is very difficult to
preserve these languages, but it can be done.

Personally, I think that it's very very important to do so.  There is so
much history behind these languages, and each has a unique role in
shaping culture.  No, it's not particularly "useful" in a pragmatic sense
-- but I don't think that pragmatism should be the only factor here.  Next
on my list of languages that I want to learn is Finnish.  (Well, okay,
next after learning enough Spanish to pronounce the names of streets and
cities here in New Mexico without feeling like a total idiot.)  Finnish is
spoken by around five million people, nearly all of whom speak Swedish and
English as well, a large number of whom speak French and German.  Learning
Finnish is thus not at all "useful" -- but it is important to me so that I
can write to my Finnish friend in her own language, read Finnish
literature and newspapers, and, yes, gain a different perspective.  (For
example, the fact that "he" and "she" are the same word -- "han" --
boggles my  little American-gender-specific mind.)  So... Finnish is
obviously in much less danger of dying out than many of the other
languages discussed here.  But the idea of *any* language dying out
strikes me as sad.

Heista Nuppa!

I met a few Philippino teenagers and 20-somethings in San Francisco who
were learning Tagalog as a rebellious thing to do, using it as private slang.
If this sort of thing is going on elsewhere, it's a good sign for that
language's survival.  I guess the language's original speakers were opressed
enough (at home and in this country) that you could see speaking it as a
rebellious thing.

The Punana Leo and related Hawaiian language immersion programs have
achieved remarkable success in a very short time in reviving Hawaiian
as a living, breathing, primary language for several waves of children.

The key to the survival of any language is teaching it as a primary
language to children and mapping out options and career paths where they
may subsequently use that language as part of their daily lives.

It's extremely difficult and requires signficant committment of time with
little certainty of the results, particularly for the early participants
in such programs, but it can be done.

The obvious substitution for "proprietary" in #0 would be
"minority" or even "endangered".

ryan sucks

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss