National Geographic reports Languages Racing to Extinction in 5 Global "Hotspots".
"From Alaska to Australia, hundreds of languages around the world are teetering on the brink of extinction—some being spoken only by a single person, according to a new study. The research has revealed five hotspots where languages are vanishing most rapidly: eastern Siberia, northern Australia, central South America, Oklahoma, and the U.S. Pacific Northwest"
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think the world would be a better place if we all spoke the same language. The article says that lots of knowledge is held only in the oral traditions of some of these languages. "More than half of the world's 7,000 languages are expected to die out by the end of the century, often taking with them irreplaceable knowledge about the natural world, Harrison said. 'Most of what we know about species and ecosystems is not written down anywhere, it's only in people's heads,' he said." If that's the case, that's it's only in people's heads, people who speak languages that only 10 or fewer other people speak, do we really know it?
4 comments:
I think it would be good if we all understood each other. That is not the same as all speaking the same language to the exclusion of others.
If, as some philosophers, scientists and linguists speculate, that language controls thinking and vice versa, then the loss of some of these languages means the loss of different ways of describing the world around us and different ways of thought.
However, I don't know if recording the words from the last 10 people to speak a language really preserves their perspective. I still would imagine that diversity is better than monoculture, and that preserving or recording what is left is better than losing it all.
I agree with all 3 of your points. Though I can't say I'm completely convinced yet.
And which language is it that we are all going to be speaking? American English, I assume?
Yes, if we all spoke the same language down comes the Tower of Babel and all the miscommunication and problems that result.
But something tells me one language is not a perfect solution. Language and culture ...and indeed thought process...are inextricably linked.
There is an expression that goes something like "When a person dies, it is like a library has burned to the ground." If a language dies...well..a very big library...perhaps even a whole culture...has vanished. What is lost is more than the botanical information in the National Geographic essay.
One language...it would be a well-intentioned effort. But I think in reality it would be the exportation of one culture. May not be a problem if it is your language...but those of other languages may disagree.
I deliberately didn't say which language we should speak because I don't know. Be careful what you assume.
I think even a small handful of languages so that people could be multilingual and understand virtually everything written would be great and an improvement.
Yes people say that works of art are usually better in the original language and there are concepts that cannot be or cannot easily be expressed in other languages. I think it's more accurate to say that they can't yet be expressed.
Obviously there would be cultural losses, but as you say, it's not a perfect solution. I've tried learning ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and was surprised to learn that the pictograms represent not words but sounds and to understand it you must speak the language. Think pictures for "butter" and "fly" combined to form a new word. Then add that we don't know what the vowel sounds are and assume "e" for everything. Not easy stuff.
Still I think it's at least worth considering the negatives of such loses vs the benefits of understanding currently active cultures better without a language barrier. And no I don't know how to get there so this is fairly academic.
Post a Comment