It has often been suggested that we should all learn to speak an international language, and both artificial and natural languages, including Esperanto, Latin and English, have been put forward at various times in history as candidates to fill this role.
The arguments in favour of an international language are both ideological and practical. Firstly, it is sometimes said that linguistic diversity divides people and leads to conflict. In other words, if we removed language differences, we would find it easier to understand each other's point of view and, as a result, co-operate more easily. Secondly, it is argued that if everyone learned the same language, a great deal of time-consuming and expensive translation work would no longer be necessary, and this would be of great benefit to international trade. Finally, it is generally agreed that a common language would make international travel much easier for everyone.
However, there are strong arguments against the introduction of an international language. To start with, it is often pointed out that while an international language might initially facilitate communication, some people believe all languages tend to divide into dialects, some of which cannot always be understood by all native speakers. Secondly, it is often claimed that an international language would eventually come to dominate over, and in some cases cause the disappearance of less widely-spoken languages. Furthermore, as culture and language are closely associated, it is generally believed that the threat to minority languages posed by an international one would also mean a threat to their related cultures. The result would be a dull world, lacking in both linguistic and cultural diversity.
On balance, I believe that it would be undesirable to impose an international language on the world. I doubt that an international language would bring about international peace, and the disappearance of minority languages and cultures would be a sad loss.
It has
often
been suggested
that we should all learn to speak an
international
language
, and both artificial and natural
languages
, including Esperanto, Latin and English, have
been put
forward at various times in history as candidates to fill this role.
The arguments in
favour
of an
international
language
are both ideological and practical.
Firstly
, it is
sometimes
said that linguistic diversity divides
people
and leads to conflict.
In other words
, if we removed
language
differences, we would find it easier to understand each other's point of view and,
as a result
, co-operate more
easily
.
Secondly
, it
is argued
that if everyone learned the same
language
, a great deal of time-consuming and expensive translation work would no longer be necessary, and this would be of great benefit to
international
trade.
Finally
, it is
generally
agreed
that a common
language
would
make
international
travel much easier for everyone.
However
, there are strong arguments against the introduction of an
international
language
. To
start
with, it is
often
pointed out that while an
international
language
might
initially
facilitate communication,
some
people
believe all
languages
tend to divide into dialects,
some
of which cannot always
be understood
by all native speakers.
Secondly
, it is
often
claimed that an
international
language
would
eventually
come
to dominate over, and in
some
cases cause the disappearance of less
widely
-spoken
languages
.
Furthermore
, as culture and
language
are
closely
associated, it is
generally
believed that the threat to minority
languages
posed by an
international
one would
also
mean a threat to their related cultures. The result would be a dull world, lacking in both linguistic and cultural diversity.
On balance, I believe that it would be undesirable to impose an
international
language
on the world. I doubt that an
international
language
would bring about
international
peace, and the disappearance of minority
languages
and cultures would be a sad loss.