Every year, several languages die out. This phenomenon brings us to a significant academic debate regarding the utility of a single global language versus the preservation of linguistic diversity. Below are the arguments presented for and against the motion.
🎤 For the Motion
Mr. Chairperson, respected teachers, and friends!
I would like to thank Mr. Timilsina for giving me an opportunity to express my opinion on the burning issue ‘the fewer the languages there are, the easier the life will be’. Every year, several languages die out.
Some people think that life will be easier if there are fewer languages in the world. I support this view. As we know, the development of recent technology has a significant role to create a global village. People from any part of the world can communicate easily through the Internet. Due to the international importance of the English language, most people are reluctant to use their first language and are learning English. This shows that people prefer learning the language that helps them to communicate in the global village to their own language.
Mr. Chairperson, using the same language would certainly aid understanding and global fraternity:
- Global Unity: It unites all the people as global citizens. If everyone speaks the same language, there will be a clear understanding between not only countries but also people throughout the world.
- Flow of Information: It would promote learning, the flow of information and ideas. For example, students don’t have to translate the text into their mother tongue to understand.
- Economic Efficiency: Economic growth is also possible by using a single language as it can minimize various costs such as the cost of communication, translation, interpretation, etc. We won’t need interpreters in international conferences, seminars, and workshops. Participants can easily express whatever they like in the language of common understanding.
- Business and Security: It can minimize the communication barriers and help international business, resulting in a healthier world economy. Not only this, if a language is intelligible for all, members of security forces can easily investigate and understand national and international criminal plans. It may help in solving international and intercultural security problems too.
🎤 Against the Motion
Mr. Chairperson, respected teachers, and friends!
Thank you, Mr. Timilsina for giving me this platform to present my view on the issue. As we know every year several languages die out. With their death, the knowledge inherent there dies too. Though the previous speaker argued that the fewer the languages are, the easier life will be, I strongly disagree with his arguments.
Mr. Chairperson, language influences our thought, and our thought influences the reality of the world around us. It means we perceive the world as per our linguistic background. Language also carries the culture. Cultural and linguistic diversity have a reciprocal relationship. Therefore, there are obvious disadvantages of having only one global language.
Key Arguments for Linguistic Diversity:
- Preservation of Culture: Firstly, it would mean that all other languages would eventually disappear and, along with them, their cultures too. Each culture is unique with its own way of life and owns perspective of the world.
- Impact on Tourism: Cultural diversity boosts tourism because it attracts tourists from different parts of the world. The loss of languages results in the loss of cultures and the loss of cultures leads to the collapse of the tourism industry because there would be no reason to travel for pleasure and interest if, all over the world, we have the same language and similar cultures. This finally leads to the decline in the national economy of the countries which rely on the tourism industry.
- Identity and Literature: Mr. Chairperson, using fewer languages also creates identity problems. The ethnic groups without their own language and culture lose their linguistic and cultural identity. Variety in literature is only possible through linguistic and cultural differences. It is impossible if we have a single global language.
- Loss of Distinct Qualities: Likewise, each language has its own taste and own distinct quality. For example, the Sanskrit language is said to have a musical quality. All these qualities get lost if people start using a single language all over the world. Furthermore, the fewer the languages are in use, the less the vocabulary in practice. Therefore, the less vocabulary in practice, the less imaginative and creative work is possible.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask Karma if he could understand all the varieties, i.e. dialects of his mother tongue. As we know, even the dialects are often unintelligible to all the speakers of the same language. Then, how can we think about the use of a single language all over the world? Is it practical? Is it possible?
📊 Comparison of Arguments
| Feature | For the Motion (Pros) | Against the Motion (Cons) |
|---|---|---|
| Global Communication | Aids understanding and fraternity. | Impractical due to unintelligible dialects. |
| Economic Impact | Reduces costs of translation/interpreters. | Tourism collapse due to lack of diversity. |
| Culture & Identity | Unites people as global citizens. | Loss of unique cultural/ethnic identity. |
| Creative Work | Promotes easy flow of information. | Vocab reduction limits imaginative work. |
| Security | Easier to investigate criminal plans. | Death of inherent knowledge in languages. |
