Should we (as a species) make one language our "go-to" language?

[Jacco]

I've been wondering for a while now if the UN should try to implement English as a "universal" language. It would be very useful to have such a thing, to be able to be from anywhere in the world and go anywhere in the world and be able to effectively communicate.

I think English should be chosen for a variety of reasons, the main ones being that it is already used almost exclusively for air travel and science. Making it standard for everything else would be a logical next step. It is also very, very good at conveying complex ideas (which is part of the reason it is used for science) that other languages can't always articulate as precisely.

Now I'm not saying that we should completely usurp regional languages or cultures. Everyone can still have their own languges, just that we should teach English universally as a part of Primary/Elementary school curriculum. And in english speaking countries, we teach another language in place of English during that time such as Spanish or French. That way everyone is bilingual and the world is a slightly better place.


What do you guys think? It doesn't necessarily have to be english. That's just my opinion. But do you think it would be good to have a universal language everyone is taught from a young age alongside their native one?

 

[Thaluikhain]

In theory, yes, in practice racism and xenophobia will cause issues.

OTOH, not mandating it, but just encouraging it quietly wouldn't be a bad idea.

OTOOH, this is going to exclude plenty of the not-English speaking world as it is, plenty of developing countries that won't be able to afford this.

 

[Olas]

It's a very practical idea, and English would definitely be the most logical first choice.

The only worry I'd have is that if everyone knows English there won't be much need or reason for people to become fluent in their native languages anymore. Why would they want to when the rest of the world speaks English including people in their own country? Slowly, native languages would start to deprecate until every country is like Ireland where only 2% of the population actually know Gaelic.

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, in all fairness, we don't need a UN decision for this. English is a very widespread language without actually trying to push it along. It is not literally everywhere, nor does everybody even want to speak it, but it's the go-to language of the country that has to be the biggest melting pot of humanity in the world. Rather than sanction it to be a universal language that everybody much know, we should just encourage it along the path it's on. Those that have any use for it will generally learn it, and english will become the most-used language out of habit.

 

[Esotera]

I don't think we'll ever have one universal language, simply because languages tend to change and fragment over time. If we ever did have a universal language, English would be the worst choice possible as it's incredibly complex to learn.

That said, it'd be nice if everyone had a very basic standard of English so that basic communication were possible, which is the way things are going with the internet. There are a lot of different fusion languages being created that are merging regional languages with English, which is quite interesting.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Well, in all fairness, we don't need a UN decision for this. English is a very widespread language without actually trying to push it along. It is not literally everywhere, nor does everybody even want to speak it, but it's the go-to language of the country that has to be the biggest melting pot of humanity in the world. Rather than sanction it to be a universal language that everybody much know, we should just encourage it along the path it's on. Those that have any use for it will generally learn it, and english will become the most-used language out of habit.

Pretty much this.

English is already the language of choice for science, business, the internet, and international travel. People who need to know english will learn english because english is useful to them. People who don't have a use for english shouldn't be forced to learn it by a mandate.

Also, english is a pain in the ass to learn. There are just too many rules that are constantly broken for no apparent reason.

 

[Asita]

Uh, ever hear of a Lingua Franca? At present, English is the dominant language for those purposes and is used for everything from the Olympics to International Trade to Air Traffic Control. That's probably about as close to a universal language as we're going to see in our lifetimes.

 

[JoJo]

I don't think we'll ever have one universal language, simply because languages tend to change and fragment over time. If we ever did have a universal language, English would be the worst choice possible as it's incredibly complex to learn.

I disagree, English is very easy to learn the basics of. It doesn't contain arbitrary genders for words like French or German do, or tonal differences between words and thousands of individual symbols to learn like Chinese does. The exceptions to rules would be a pain to learn if you wanted to speak grammatically correct English but someone who didn't know them would be just as understandable, which is what would be most important for a universal language.

 

[Esotera]

I disagree, English is very easy to learn the basics of. It doesn't contain arbitrary genders for words like French or German do, or tonal differences between words and thousands of individual symbols to learn like Chinese does. The exceptions to rules would be a pain to learn if you wanted to speak grammatically correct English but someone who didn't know them would be just as understandable, which is what would be most important for a universal language.

It's more that the spelling makes no sense, and there's a lot of idiomatic language & sayings that have multiple meanings. For example, when my family went to France & went on a tour of an Airbus factory, the guide told them that two men were screwing in the cockpit. Misunderstandings will happen in any language but English has a ridiculous number of double meanings and subtle nuances, thanks to it being a mish-mash of 4 different languages.

Also a bit more on-topic there's a school of thought that believes the way you think is influenced by the language you speak, so every time a language dies humanity loses a unique cultural perspective on the world.

 

[Auron225]

In theory it's a terrific idea. In practice? Well it's kinda being attempted already isn't it? I've been to a fair few non-English speaking countries and a lot of them do teach English as part of the curriculum. The problem is that most of these countries don't use those languages on a day-to-day basis so they forget it in adulthood (much like why most of us forget whatever Spanish/French we learned in high school). You can put it on the curriculum but you can't make people speak it - only those who excel in it or are keen to learn will really try to.

So as they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Slowly, native languages would start to deprecate until every country is like Ireland where only 2% of the population actually know Gaelic.

I was going to say that English has been... uh... 'inflicted', I guess, on Ireland since the eleventh or twelfth century and the rulers were none too gentle about it, either. But then, the effect would be more or less the same, if a bit slower... *shrug*

Anyway, I work in international trade and commerce and English is the operating language as a matter of course, so I'm not sure whether any policy needs enacting. The same goes for diplomacy for the most part.

And here is where, as a Brit, I get to needle the French! Ha! How things change... =.=

As things stand, though, I think it's fine, though we could do with better foreign language study in the UK... :/

 

[Thaluikhain]

No. Because we can't. It doesn't matter if we should or not. We can't.

You can not impose a language from outside. Language will only be learned when people desire to learn it, and aside from a tiny number of academics, people will not desire to learn a language unless it is beneficial to their personal goals.

Which means if we end up with a universal language, it will be because people agree to use it of their own free will. Telling people they have to learn it will be about as effective as way back 100 years ago telling people they had to learn Latin did.

Er...as I understand it, the official language of Indonesia was imposed over the hundred of different dialects and language groups. Now, having said that, the language was in use to an extent before that.

Generally, though, I agree, doesn't work. Hell, endless attacks on immigrants not learning the local language to whatever the arbitrary level is set to, because forcing them to learn doesn't work.

 

[sanquin]

I don't think we'll ever have one universal language, simply because languages tend to change and fragment over time. If we ever did have a universal language, English would be the worst choice possible as it's incredibly complex to learn.

English is actually one of the easier languages to learn. Together with Spanish and...one or two more I believe. In contrast Chinese and Dutch, for instance, are very difficult languages. English is already the go-to language in Science, travel, business, computer technology and the internet. There are also already quite a few western countries where English is mandatory in school. (My country being one of them.) Why not slowly extend that to the entire world over the next...say...25~50 years? I'm not talking about learning fluent English. I'm talking about having mandatory English classes so people from every country learn at least the basics of the language. So everyone in the world can at least communicate with each other, even if they're only able to use basic English.

 

[chikusho]

A lot of important things in human psychology, sociology and sociolinguistics will be lost if the world would turn to a single language system. Not to mention how dialects and regional and cultural differences on a global scale would quickly evolve unique variations of the language that would soon be incompatible with its core.

That said, the more people being able to communicate better is very important.

 

[Caiphus]

Who would agree to this?

You'd go to China and be all "Right, UN says you all need to learn English."

And they'd, rather rightly, tell you to sod off. Same if the UN decided that Spanish or Mandarin was the best option, both of which have more native speakers, says Wikipedia, and tried to get the US to cooperate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers

Edit: My post might have sounded angrier than I meant it to sound. Sorry.

 

[Teoes]

Whether or not it's practical or possible, for reasons of communication I think it could be a good idea - but I'd be very worried about what would happen to all the other languages. It's very sad to see them forgotten as they fall out of use.

 

[BabuNu]

A Polish doctor tried to do this in the late 1800's but it never really caught on. The language was called Esperanto, which mean "one who hopes" and there's a documentary on it called "The Universal Language". Most languages have been created naturally over time, this one was created logically and aimed to combine a lot of the 'best bits' from many other languages.

http://esperantodocumentary.com/en/about-the-film

 

[CorvusFerreum]

I think we all can agree that if we unify language the language of choice should be High Gothic. Nothing beat this silly little mix from every language ever with huge chunks of faux latin and greece (so Xenos is plural now?).