Would the world be a better place if everyone spoke just one language?

[Bonam]

Just a topic for some thought. Had this discussion with a friend recently and wondering what people here think about it.

On one hand, everyone speaking one language would make for easier communication, would perhaps improve international relations as people from different areas could more easily understand and relate to one another, would reduce costs and logistical challenges of international trade and business, etc.

On the other hand, knowing multiple languages gives one additional insight into each of those languages, insight that is hard to gain otherwise unless one studies linguistics. And most people think in a language, and the structure of that language affects their thought process. Languages with different structures, vocabularies, and connotations can lead to quite differing thought processes, providing additional perspectives and ideas that may be hard to come by if only one language existed (people fluent in more than one language will know what I'm talking about here). Further, there is a certain richness and diversity in culture that results from there being so many languages, some long lost, others alive and evolving, that would not be preserved in a world with just one language.

For reference, the world today has about ~7000 languages as tallied by linguists. It's estimated about 80-90% of them will be extinct by the middle of the century. About 500 languages have just a handful of aged speakers left as of right now, with some of those having just one remaining speaker. The top 100 languages are the mother tongues of about 75% of the world's population.

Thoughts?

[TheNewTeddy]

Yes.

They've done studies with just one thing - colour - and have shown that people who speak some languages see colours that people who speak other languages do not. Russian for example has two "Blue" colours, and they can distinguish between them far better than we can. Their eyes are no different than ours are, it's their brains. In china, people see the past as "up" and the future as "down" because that is how traditional Chinese text is presented.

When you think so radically different from somebody that you can't even agree about the colour on the page in front of you, you can easily get into arguments.

If we all spoke one language, this would not happen.

[bush_cheney2004]

IIRC, the overt attempt to adopt a universal language (Esperanto) met with dismal failure, as it was too Eurocentric, based on Germanic and Romantic roots. Nowadays it is seen more as a politically neutral alternative "hobby" language. Language is not static, not even within a single culture, so the idea of a single language would in many ways be impractical. It would be like computer programming being permanently stuck on Fortran or C++.

Edited January 20, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[TimG]

On one hand, everyone speaking one language would make for easier communication, would perhaps improve international relations as people from different areas could more easily understand and relate to one another, would reduce costs and logistical challenges of international trade and business, etc.

Computer translation programs can accomplish the same goal. As it stands today, Google translate is more useful than a couple years of language training (implying that the average person would not learn enough in a language training course to replicate what Google translate can do in seconds).

On the other hand, knowing multiple languages gives one additional insight into each of those languages, insight that is hard to gain otherwise unless one studies linguistics.

Language and culture are intertwined. Adopting a common language would result in people adopting a common culture.

It's estimated about 80-90% of them will be extinct by the middle of the century.

Language has no value if the culture supporting it is gone. Languages going extinct is not a big deal since it means the culture is already dead and gone. Edited January 20, 2013 by TimG

[Peter F]

A world with one universal language and no other would not last. Language evolves, and the universal tongue would evolve differently in different places.

[Michael Hardner]

IIRC, the overt attempt to adopt a universal language (Esperanto) met with dismal failure, as it was too Eurocentric, based on Germanic and Romantic roots. Nowadays it is seen more as a politically neutral alternative "hobby" language. Language is not static, not even within a single culture, so the idea of a single language would in many ways be impractical. It would be like computer programming being permanently stuck on Fortran or C++.

Ah, Esperanto. Yes, they even made a movie in Esperanto - little known fact. Starring Shatner of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubus_(1966_film)

[-TSS-]

There is a common joke in Russia about language studies: The optimists study English, the pessimists study Chinese.

[Signals.Cpl]

Just a topic for some thought. Had this discussion with a friend recently and wondering what people here think about it.

On one hand, everyone speaking one language would make for easier communication, would perhaps improve international relations as people from different areas could more easily understand and relate to one another, would reduce costs and logistical challenges of international trade and business, etc.

You can always find someone to translate for you but you cannot always find someone who understands the local culture and mindset.

[Canuckistani]

Yes.

They've done studies with just one thing - colour - and have shown that people who speak some languages see colours that people who speak other languages do not. Russian for example has two "Blue" colours, and they can distinguish between them far better than we can. Their eyes are no different than ours are, it's their brains. In china, people see the past as "up" and the future as "down" because that is how traditional Chinese text is presented.

When you think so radically different from somebody that you can't even agree about the colour on the page in front of you, you can easily get into arguments.

If we all spoke one language, this would not happen.

You are way overstating the claim. What you are presenting is Whorf's original idea, which was then roundly dismissed. Amazon tribesmen who had no names for colors still were able to distinguish them. Recent studies have shown some effects of language on perception, but nothing as drastic as what you claim. Read up on linguistic relativity.

[Canuckistani]

A world with one universal language and no other would not last. Language evolves, and the universal tongue would evolve differently in different places.

That's a good point. Not just different places, but as we see, subcultures in the same place. Urbonics for instance.

[Moonlight Graham]

Language is a huge part of culture, possibly even the most important part. Culture can also be very exclusive and divisive.

IMO there would be less civil war etc. if everyone spoke the same language. Generally it would be easier for everyone to get along. Look at the problems that language differences has caused in Canada historically?

A lot of languages also aren't that different, ie: english, french, spanish, italian etc., so if had to combine those languages as an example, there wouldn't be much of a difference in how people process thoughts in their mind.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[TheNewTeddy]

You are way overstating the claim. What you are presenting is Whorf's original idea, which was then roundly dismissed. Amazon tribesmen who had no names for colors still were able to distinguish them. Recent studies have shown some effects of language on perception, but nothing as drastic as what you claim. Read up on linguistic relativity.

It's just one point.

Another:

When you can't talk to one another you can't try to agree. Look at our own country. Quebecois 'need' to learn English to speak to the rest of Canada, and if you want to speak to Quebec, you gotta learn French to do so. This is not a good situation.

We need to be able to speak to one another no matter where or who we are. If the entire world spoke one language - whatever that language - we would be able to communicate with one another and thus come to agreements. It's not about high ranking political leaders being able to talk to the people, or about the people to be able to talk to those top leaders. It is about people talking to people. The internet brings this world together, but languages divide us. If you could go on to the right website and have a chat - right now - with someone from Nepal, or Algeria, or Brazil, both of you would end up with a far more open mind.

Communication is important and we should not poo-poo the thought of it.

[TimG]

Communication is important and we should not poo-poo the thought of it.

Google translate can do a lot. There are translation apps that run on smart phones which can handle speech. The days where multiple languages are a barrier to communication are dwindling. A bigger issue are cultural issues. Just because one has a way to communicate it does not mean people will understand each other. Look at the divide between the left and right in this country - completely different frames of reference which makes mutual understanding next to impossible.

[jbg]

Just a topic for some thought. Had this discussion with a friend recently and wondering what people here think about it.

On one hand, everyone speaking one language would make for easier communication, would perhaps improve international relations as people from different areas could more easily understand and relate to one another, would reduce costs and logistical challenges of international trade and business, etc.

**************************

Thoughts?

I prefer multiple languages in the world. Language springs from and in turn feeds culture and the world would be a boring place with just one language.

Perhaps the way it is now is best with multiple languages and a default second language for most countries, English. English is the new Esperanto.

[TheNewTeddy]

Advertising is another reason, etc. I will continue to list individual reasons btw as there are far too many to fit into a single post.

[Guest Manny]

Monoculture- the leftist ideal.

[dre]

Its true the cultural differences between us cause a lot of friction, and language is a key factor. Very few nations with multiple cultural nations within it are free from having to deal with all kinds of problems. Look at Canadas stuggles keeping the nation together, or Great Brittains struggles keeping that distinct nations of Scottland, Ireland, England, and Whales together. And look at all the problems caused by the EU trying to form a super-state. Look at the USSR.

Still, I dont really see the point of the question because its so hypothetical. This IS how the human race evolved, and the only way language ever could have been universalized is by an act of force or total dominance of one nations over all the others. This would have left way more water under the bridge, and caused way more problems than it would have solved.

What if the sky was purple instead of blue?

[Bonam]

I thought it would be interesting to have a thread discussing an interesting (at least to me) hypothetical rather than all the current events where debate quickly becomes supercharged with partisanship.

[Guest Manny]

I think you underestimate the effect of geography, time and space on human culture. Besides, culture is not a static thing. Culture and language continually evolves. If you created a monoculture of common language all over the world it wouldn't work. In a few short decades, I predict uniqueness would appear again. Just look at local "dialect", let alone language.

[dre]

I thought it would be interesting to have a thread discussing an interesting (at least to me) hypothetical rather than all the current events where debate quickly becomes supercharged with partisanship.

Fair enough, it IS interesting. But supposing we all agreed it WOULD be much better? My point was that the only way this could happen would be for the complete dominance of one nation/culture/language group over all others, and that would simply lead to a completely different and likely worse set of problems.

If the question is, would the human race be better off if everyone was the same in as many ways possible? Well sure...

[Bonam]

Fair enough, it IS interesting. But supposing we all agreed it WOULD be much better? My point was that the only way this could happen would be for the complete dominance of one nation/culture/language group over all others, and that would simply lead to a completely different and likely worse set of problems.

Oh, I certainly agree. I was not suggesting that we should consider means to achieve such an end, nor that it would be feasible to do so. But even without people of one language group purposefully imposing linguistic hegemony, there seems to be a rapid worldwide convergence of languages happening right now, with many less spoken languages disappearing and being replaced by more widely spoken ones. This process shows no sign of abating. Further, as more and more of the world's information becomes recorded and available online in just a few dominant languages, the remaining ones become less and less useful. Where a few centuries ago most people were illiterate, and for most the only application of language was to speak verbally to other people, today, which language you know determines how much of the world's knowledge you can easily access. In that sense, English is much much more useful to know than some random other language, as it lets you access vast stores of knowledge online.

But, on the other hand, as TimG mentioned, computer translation systems are rapidly getting much better, and perhaps in a few years or a decade or so it will no longer matter what your native language is, as all the world's stores of information could be instantly translated from their source language to your language with complete accuracy. Perhaps such technological advances will slow the rate of disappearance of less used languages since not knowing a more common language will become less of a disadvantage? Or perhaps technologies allowing global communication will continue pushing the trend of small localized languages disappearing?

If the question is, would the human race be better off if everyone was the same in as many ways possible? Well sure...

See, just as with language, I'm not sure that I'd agree. It seems like diversity has its merits too. Would the world not be a more boring place if everything everywhere was exactly the same? Such diversity could have advantages not only in making things more interesting, but from a species survival standpoint as well. People with different societal systems, cultures, languages, attitudes, architectures, technologies, etc, can adapt differently to different kinds of situations, and this increases the net adaptability and survivability of the human species as a whole.