Many are of the belief that it would be worthwhile for governments to prioritise the preservation of various minority languages. In my opinion, despite limited potential efficacy this sentiment is justifiable.
Detractors of this proposal argue that investment is unlikely to have a major impact. In order for minority groups to earn a living and enjoy the conveniences of the modern world, they require knowledge of a nation’s most widely spoken language. In fact, many indigenous peoples themselves desire to move away from their hometowns to live in large cities and join the modern workforce. For example, in the Hmong people of Southeast Asia, it is typically the older generation that seeks to communicate in their native tongue and preserve traditional ways of life. The younger generation, generally, would rather learn the most useful language and integrate with the dominant national culture. Therefore efforts by governments oppose what individuals desire and are unlikely to be successful.
Nonetheless, there is cultural value in preserving a language. A language uniquely represents and codifies the external world. Everything from the verb structures and choice of nouns to the intonation and rhythm of the language present a singular way of interacting with and deciphering the world at large. For example, in many languages there are words that are not precisely translatable and users therefore are more likely to see events and objects differently. As the world becomes increasingly globalised, I would argue that the importance of a plurality of perspectives only becomes more crucial. If such languages die out, they will likely never be resurrected and the world will be poorer for the loss.
In conclusion, regardless of the potential challenges faced in preserving minority languages, their continued existence is essential to diversity. Governments must therefore make every effort to ensure their survival.
Many
are of the belief that it would be worthwhile for
governments
to
prioritise
the preservation of various minority
languages
. In my opinion, despite limited potential efficacy this sentiment is justifiable.
Detractors of this proposal argue that investment is unlikely to have a major impact. In order for minority groups to earn a living and enjoy the conveniences of the modern
world
, they require knowledge of a nation’s most
widely
spoken
language
. In fact,
many
indigenous peoples themselves desire to
move
away from their hometowns to
live
in large cities and
join
the modern workforce.
For example
, in the Hmong
people
of Southeast Asia, it is
typically
the older generation that seeks to communicate in their native tongue and preserve traditional ways of life. The younger generation,
generally
, would
rather
learn the most useful
language
and integrate with the dominant national culture.
Therefore
efforts by
governments
oppose what individuals desire and are unlikely to be successful.
Nonetheless, there is cultural value in preserving a
language
. A
language
uniquely
represents and codifies the external
world
. Everything from the verb structures and choice of nouns to the intonation and rhythm of the
language
present a singular way of interacting with and deciphering the
world
at large.
For example
, in
many
languages
there are words that are not
precisely
translatable and users
therefore
are more likely to
see
events
and objects
differently
. As the
world
becomes
increasingly
globalised
, I would argue that the importance of a plurality of perspectives
only
becomes more crucial. If such
languages
die
out, they will likely never
be resurrected
and the
world
will be poorer for the loss.
In conclusion
, regardless of the potential challenges faced in preserving minority
languages
, their continued existence is essential to diversity.
Governments
must
therefore
make
every effort to ensure their survival.