Universal Language

Remove all ads!

What are our opinions on making every nation use a single language? What language should it be, should it be a language created from scratch, should it exist at all? And even if it did come to pass that a universal language was used, whould it help anything anyway?

 

I have recently written an essay in linguistics which touches upon this subject. I am going to be so bold as to copy paste in my conclusion here. The subject for the essay was whether the world was moving towards a global lingua franca and whether that lingua franca would be English.

Conclusion:
Is there a need for a global lingua franca in the world today? Everything seems to point towards it, more and more cooperation between states is taking place and the practical need for a lingua franca is verging on the acute. Almost every aspect of humanity is getting internationalized and gloabalized. Science, the arts, entertainment, everywhere national and linguistic borders are getting vaguer and vaguer. There seems to be little doubt that the emergence of a global lingua franca is a necessity. What points towards that lingua franca being English, it seems everything points towards it, the power of the USA has never been greater and with power comes influence in all areas. The Internet and the possibilities for global communications it has brought is a phenomenon speaking English. There seems to be nothing which truly threatens the role of English in today's world. The world is a changing place however, other languages have had similar roles albeit on a more regional level throughout history and that has changed. We can only speculate as to what might happen in the future but nothing should ever be taken for granted.

 

An existing language would pay a horrendous price: it would be bastardised beyond imagination.

An artificial language would be, as all of them are, stupid.

Conclusion: people who learn languages, such as yours truly, are still needed.

 

Aye, allthough this is an interesting subject. I have always admired philologists and linguists.

Apart from the reasons allready listed, each language has specific attributes that cannot be duplicated, you can say things, or hint at things, or subtly arrange definition in very different ways according to different subjects in various languages, even in the various dialects of such.

This is too large a sacrifice to make I think, even beside the point that a new language will just not hold the poetic or historically imbedded nuances as did the old.

It would be a nice idea, and could work towards uniting the globe and fostering a new age, but I do not think it would work yet. A better solution would be if everyone understood everyone else's language. Of course, I barely even understand English, let alone in its entirety or its older forms, so I realise how difficult this would be.

If a new language could be made, it would be good, but I do not think it could, and I don't like the idea of using one of the languages allready existent, and going halfway towards discarding the others. Perhaps an ancient language now forgotten? Senzar? There are many of them.

It doesn't really seem too necessary a thing to do, to tell the truth.

 

The thing is that there is no real threat towards most existing languages, the tide of death for languages has pretty much been turned. That everyone is going to speak the same language at home over dinner is not likely for a long long time but there is a need for a language in which we can communicate across language barriers, a lingua franca. Just as we are doing here. English isnt the first language of I would think a majority of these boards and yet it is English we are speaking. This whole community is a sign that we are moving towards a world where one language makes it possible for us to communicate.

 

Esperanto, invented in 1887, is the most widely known artificial language created. It, and all others like it, failed because (despite the fact that there are many good reasons for having a universal language) *no one* could speak it in the first place. This simply means that a huge effort is required (learning a new language is not easy) *before* any communication can be made.
The obvious way around this problem is to take a widely spoken language and make *that* the universal language, which is what has happened with English. It is already commonly accepted as *the* language to learn, wherever one is in the world, purely on the grounds that it is already the most *widely spoken* in the world (Mandarin Chinese is the most *commonly* spoken but outside of China et al. it isn't common at all). The reason is British Imperialism (like it or not) plus the global power of the US, and lastly (but by no means least) because English is a language of immense breadth and beauty. Compare it to French (another widely spoken language), which has a vocabulary of approximately 250,000 words: English has a 1,000,000-word vocabulary. It is arguable if it is the most beautiful/beautiful sounding language in the world (Italian and French being obvious contenders) but it isn’t, by a long way, the worst. For example, the UK has won the Eurovision Song Contest a number of times and Ireland has won it more times than anyone, and 'experts' trying to find the reason why Norway has so consistently received zero points concluded that it was because the language sounds guttural and unpleasant (as does German). Certainly few songs in the Eurovision Song Contest win on the basis of the subject matter!
On a more serious side of the topic, international air traffic control, for one example, is an area that clearly needs to have a universal language - and indeed it does, and it is already English. Japan has just set on a programme of creating 10 ‘super’ universities that teach *all* classes in English, specifically so their graduates (and thus the Japanese economy) can tap into the global business market. These things demonstrate that English is already the clear contender for universal language. English also has a great historical and cultural importance; the influence of Shakespeare alone in modern culture is huge.
Personally, I've been advocating a common language for years because it seems obvious to me that holding on desperately to a non-English language is narrow-minded and insular. As long as there are multiple languages, there will be multiple language *barriers*; and language barriers predispose peoples to misunderstanding one another. What we don't understand, we often fear, and fear leads to anger, anger leads to hatred, and hatred leads to war (not quite what Yoda said but we're both right, nonetheless! ). Also, learning Finnish, for example, takes a lot of a child's mental energy and time; to then have that child have to learn English and Swedish, as a matter of course, is an illogical waste of time, effort and resources. Furthermore, for the French, for example, to expect an Englishman to learn their language, when he knows full well that the French already know English, is further nonsense. To call for that amount of effort as a matter of mere curtsey is pure lunacy! As if the English have to prove that they *too* can learn foreign languages; the notion that they can't would be xenophobic and racist.
However, there is no need to speculate on the matter or make special efforts to bring a universal language into being. The proponents of Esperanto were right all those years ago - would that they had known they only had to wait for it to happen. That said, how many wars might have been avoided, if language barriers had been knocked aside earlier?

 

Most notably: esperanto!

That language is almost comical!

Did you know that William Shatner did a movie completely in esperanto?

 

The main reason that English is so dominant is not necessarily due to the preeminence of American political clout, although that certainly does come into play. But the fact of the matter is that English is one of the most versatile languages on the planet. Its speakers willingly incorporate foreign words and phrases into the lexicon, thereby earning the imprimatur of English dictionary writers. The States are so (theoretically) committed to linguistic evolution that they refuse even to adopt English as an official language. Naturally, there are those who would like to see that changed, but even that wouldn't stop English speakers from raiding the vocabularies of other languages when no native equivalent is available. That's one of the reason English has so many words. We've got more words than anybody.

As opposed to, say, France or Quebec, both of which have passed laws "protecting" their native languages. Blame whomever you like, Hollywood or Coca Cola or McDonald's or what have you, but passing laws on language is like trying to stop a tidal wave by talking to it nicely.

It'd still be nice if a few more of us Yanks bothered to learn a second language...

 

Gonzago, I agree with you. However, rather than have 'you' Yanks learn another language, I think it would more useful and far less intellectually demanding, to actually visit other countries now and again. Many Americans think the world is like their own state (having never even left that in their life!)! I realise the US is massive but talk about insular!

 

My dear gentlemen, don't you see the obvious conclusion?

Up with Latin!

Vis esto cum vobis

 

I didn't take the post as an insult, but just for the record:

I live in France and speak French with quasi-native fluency and without an American accent. Next year I'm heading back to UConn for my PhD in French lit, and I've just learned that I have to learn both Latin and any other language of my choosing. (I'm thinking German.)

I agree that Americans need to travel abroad more, and of those that do travel, we need to do our best not to think of any country we're visiting as Disneyland. But I have to say that what bothers me most about Anglophonic hegemony isn't the fact that Americans assume that everyone speaks English...but when other foreigners assume everyone speaks English. I saw a German getting all bent out of shape in a metro station the other day because the ticket-seller couldn't understand his English, behaving as though an inability to speak English was somehow discourteous. That's just wrong.

 

I find the argument that having a universal language would prevent wars because of misunderstandings related to the language barrier to be very ironic. For a long time, there was a lingua franca, Latin (at least, for most of Europe). Latin was kept around for legal language, use in churches, to describe concepts of science, etc. It was also one of the fundamental parts of a good education. Why, then, would it not be preserved? The answer to that is nationalism. With the rise of nationalism, as an example, scientists began to switch over from Latin to their native language. Since Latin was no longer used as much, it could not be the lingua franca.

I also see another possiblilty, besides a lingua franca. If, for example, a universal translator were developed (yes, I know this sounds as though it comes from Star Trek or other science fiction), we wouldn't need a lingua franca nearly as much. An Estonian, for example, could continue to speak Estonian at home and wouldn't have to learn other languages.

The problem, really, is that most people will only learn a language as much as they need to. If they needed to know English, then why would they bother to keep their native tongue? To lose many languages to a lingua franca would be to lose an important part of human history.

 

Well, all speakers of all languages willingly incorporate foreign words and foreign phrases into their vocubalary. Did so always, will do so always. Every language is work in progress, that's no English speciality.

The particularity of English is, that she is the daughter of Henry French and Charles German, leading to a rather big vocubalary, as nearly every word is there once in German and once in French. Search it French and find it German. Which it somehow makes it to the least-common-denominator, which makes it too many come natural. Or at least easier to understand and abuse. Spanish and Chinese seem to me quite common too.

The French habit of treating a dictionary like a French-cuisine cookbook is a singularity and very peculiar indeed. It has to something with cooking. The cooking... it's the cooking, somehow.

As for making nations using a single language. No...