Foreign language is widely debated issue, with many individuals claiming that in some nations are required to learn foreign linguistics. However, opponent claimed that it is not required to do so. This essay will intends to analysis both the prospective including my opinion.
To commence with, there are number of arguments in favour of former viewpoint. The most prominent one is it develops the nation. Broadly speaking in multinational companies the foreign language is compulsory for dealing as to build better communication. As a result, it enhances communication skills. Inspite of the this students go to abroad for further studies then they have to familiar with their native language to reduce the stress of communication. To exemplify, now a days most of learners go to abroad not only for further studies but also for know better about their culture. Hence, this will also increase their academic skills. Therefore, it might seem appropriate to side with this stance.
Nonetheless, much of the criticism against this stem from believe that abolishment of their own identity as many thinks that if the try to learn nu languages than their native linguistic will less spoken so that after some years the language will be extinct. For instance, in China there is only language is used that is Chinese.
Thus, it will save the heritage of their language. It is undeniable that many masses reckon that it is not compulsory to learn the language to get familiar with foreign culture but the another method are also available such as history and geography books are also available to learn the language. Hence it can be understand why there is a strong opposition which favour on the side of this stance.
Having considered both sides of arguments, it seems to be much more convencing that the former viewpoint has more weightage as it will increase the level of knowledge and skills.
Foreign
language
is
widely
debated issue, with
many
individuals claiming that in
some
nations
are required
to
learn
foreign
linguistics.
However
, opponent claimed that it is not required to do
so
. This essay will intends to analysis both the prospective including my opinion.
To commence with, there are number of arguments in
favour
of former viewpoint. The most prominent one is it develops the nation.
Broadly
speaking in multinational
companies
the
foreign
language
is compulsory for dealing as to build better communication.
As a result
, it enhances communication
skills
.
Inspite
of
the this
students
go to abroad
for
further
studies then they
have to
familiar with their native
language
to
reduce
the
stress
of communication. To exemplify,
now a days
most of learners
go to abroad
not
only
for
further
studies
but
also
for know better about their culture.
Hence
, this will
also
increase their academic
skills
.
Therefore
, it might seem appropriate to side with this stance.
Nonetheless, much of the criticism against this stem from believe that abolishment of their
own
identity as
many
thinks
that if the try to
learn
nu
languages
than their native linguistic will less spoken
so
that after
some
years the
language
will be extinct.
For instance
, in China there is
only
language
is
used
that is
Chinese.
Thus
, it will save the heritage of their
language
. It is undeniable that
many
masses reckon that it is not compulsory to
learn
the
language
to
get
familiar with
foreign
culture
but
the another method are
also
available such as history and geography books are
also
available to
learn
the
language
.
Hence
it can be
understand
why there is a strong opposition which
favour
on the side of this stance.
Having considered both sides of arguments, it seems to be much more
convencing
that the former viewpoint has more weightage as it will increase the level of knowledge and
skills
.