Hey everyone! So I was recently thinking about the huge debate we had earlier in the year about whether or not English should be the official language of the USA. And it got me thinking, as the world becomes increasingly interconnected due to advances in technology, communication, etc; will globilization lead to the unification of language? Will we one day all speak the same language? As Hayakawa said, the point of language is to form cohesion in our society and further advance it. If this is indeed the purpose of language, then is it not innevitable that one day in a global community we will all speak one language in which we can all communicate and learn from one another? Or, do you think that customs and cultures will prevent us from ever having one universal language? Your thoughts?
(Kevin Trainer)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Instead of the formation of one global language, I believe it to be more likely that each of us will know multiple languages by the time globalization has run its course. We're already seeing some of this phenomenon today, as Chinese has become a popular language to learn. As language's purpose is to encourage cooperation and cohesion, multilinguism gives a definite advantage to anybody. I'm not sure that one single language will ever form, however, considering the cultural roots many languages have and the unlikelihood of completely different languages blending together (ex Chinese and Dutch).
(Eric Wei)
I also think that it's not likely that the world will eventually speak a single language. As you suggested, Kevin, I think that the varying cultures and wide spread of languages around the world would be too much of an obstacle for a universal language to develop. I agree with Eric, though, that certainly the number of multilingual people may eventually amount to a majority.
Although I don't believe that a universal language will develop, I do understand your logic. Clearly, the "standardization" of language would augment social cohesion, just as the universality of the "language" of chemistry (that of the periodic table of elements) allows chemists around the world to share and understand each others' information easily. Even the system of measurement is standardized...well, ALMOST standardized. The US is one of only three countries that has not officially adopted the "SI" or metric system. (Let's hear it for our stubbornness, which really only makes students like us learn more conversion factors!)
(Janet Lee)
Even with all these advances, I don't think that it's possible to have a 'unification' of language. After all, our different semantic environments lead us to different connotations and definitions. Therefore, I believe that there will always be some sort of variation present in language.
However, I don't think that the unification of language is necessary to advance communication and cohesion in society. We are able to communicate in all different types of languages, even though it may be very difficult at times.
I actually am going to agree with Kevin's idea. I think it is very possible that eventually everyone will speak the same language. Communication has already made it easy to contact people all around the world. Take a look at history. In AP Euro we recently learned how people in different provinces of France couldn't understand eachother. Then the king standardized the language and now there is one French. Now imagine this large scale. The whole world needs to be able to communicate in a moment. A single language would be much simpler. This will take a long time and may not even happen by our great great-grandchildren's time but it seems inevitable to me. There will probably still be accents but generally people worldwide would be able to understand eachother.
(Kelley Volosin)
A universal language is, I agree, completely impossible unless human nature/behavior undergoes some massive transformation in the distant future. There already is a global language and no one speaks it. (I'm excluding math from this statement). I put it in my scrapbook and Mr. Lazarow mentioned it earlier in the year--Esperanto. The fact is that while it may make much more sense semantically, the idea is just that--an idea. Every language has its roots in a specific culture or nation or region. People identify with their mother language (or multilingualism) and see it as an expression of themselves. A global language is too wide and encompassing to fulfill this need.
We talked a lot about individual identity and how everyone wants to be an individual and part of a larger group at the same time. Separate languages help us do just that. A global language would only satisfy the latter requirement. So perhaps the whole issue comes down to self interest and not semantics?
Looking from this point in time to the future, it doesn't seem possible that there could ever be a unified language. For much of the world's existence, language has been a barrier to communication. It still is. But language is not the only thing that keeps societies apart. As Kevin mentioned, customs do, as well. Even though we are an increasingly advancing society, not every society is advancing at the same pace. Each society has its own customs that are tightly bound with its language. So, it seems quite unlikely that language could ever be one hundred percent unified, because societies would cling to their natural language. I do think, though, that it's becoming increasingly more common for people (especially in other countries) to speak more than one language, so communication across societal lines may increase.
Emily T.
I feel that this is a rather good example of the juxtaposition between our innate desire to "fit in" while maintaining a sense of individuality. Indeed, as it has been mentioned, ease of communication is something people tend towards. The turning point is the realization of this fact - something that is occurring in our nation as we speak. We who were once a target of jokes for our adherence to English as the sole language (What do you call someone who speaks three languages? Trilingual. Two languages? Bilingual. One language? American.) are now realizing the importance of multilingualism in an increasingly globalized society.
In truth, the only things keeping us from developing a single language is our difference in intensional backgrounds and our innate unwillingness to sacrifice characteristics that differentiate us from everyone else. The French were able to standardize language because it united them, in some respects, against other Europeans in a time they wanted to be a distinct entity (Around the time of France's rise as a European power, right?). If we all unite under one language, however, doesn't that homogenize us to an unbearable extent? Learning other languages (Or the spread of languages) seems to be the natural evolution of language simply because it befits our inherent desires. It allows us to form a more cohesive society while maintaining our senses of individuality.
I think in this case, I can compare language to religion. In a previous post, a lot of us seemed to agree that religion/religious processes (like Puritanism) are everchaning and evolving due to needs of a society. This same exact phenomenon occurs in the linguistic realm. If drastic measures call for there to be a single, unified language, there is a chance that one may be invented. If society allows for the presence of multiple languages (as it does currently), they will persist. Puritanism was no longer needed, according to the people, thus it was disposed of and replaced by other sects of Christianity. The same is able to happen to language; I don't think I'm making too much of a stretch when I say this.
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment