6 ms·

Sooner or later we will end up with only one language on Earth - it's very likely I think. (if we survive long enough)

jdimov9 10y ago
Not a chance. For any globalisation / unification force there is an equal and opposite force pulling towards autonomy / authenticity / diversity. Language is a very core component of human identity.
- avodonosov 10y ago
  For globalization in general - very possible you're right; if speak about aspects other than language I would probably agree. But language is changing constantly; all languages are influenced by surrounding countries / cultures, and by those which lead progress currently. I think every day need of communication and convenience will define the result. And this list, I think, is an evidence of that tendency.
- djKianoosh 10y ago
  thats why it's best to have both. one de facto universal language, and people can still maintain their local language. that way everyone in the world only has to learn two languages and people dont have to waste their time learning 3-6 languages
  - kwhitefoot 10y ago
    Who does that? Most people learn only their own language. A substantial number learn one other language, generally English. My own experience (bi-lingual Brit living in Norway working with people from 17 different countries) suggests that a very small proportion go beyond that. I'm excluding those who have a smattering of another language such as most Brits like me who had to take French and Latin at school but never got beyond being able to ask for a beer in a bar. Some of my Polish colleagues can get by in Russian as well as English but not many of those under 30.
    - GuiA 10y ago
      > Who does that? Most people learn only their own language. In 2002, the AP reported that 66% of children worldwide are bilingual. There are probably fewer people who speak a single language than 2 or more. http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/06/19/language.glance/index.html?_%2520s=PM:US http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/06/19/language.glance/index.h...
    - djKianoosh 10y ago
      anecdotally I know several europeans where they know at least their language + english + at least one of (french, german, spanish, italian) brasilians I know typically know english and portuguese and they dont want to admit it but usually they know spanish. they just prefer brasilian or english. overall if we just all agreed on english as the universal language (imperfect as it is) then it would save so many smart people so much time from needing to learn and translate between so many languages. just from an efficiency perspective alone, humanity would see a major benefit, I believe.
      - pyrale 10y ago
        > overall if we just all agreed on english as the universal language (imperfect as it is) then it would save so many smart people so much time from needing to learn and translate between so many languages. > just from an efficiency perspective alone, humanity would see a major benefit, I believe. I'm always surprised to see people accustomed to the world of computers say this kind of things. We know computer languages have different strengths, and we're often advised to learn some languages, not for the professional impact, but for the abstractions they teach. In this context, I can't explain how people miss the fact that learning multiple languages is an enriching experience. And it is not only an abstract theory, considering the loan words every language has. It is not only a matter of opening your thought framework, but also a matter of what ressource you have access to : the english language as we know it is very recent, and as a consequence, most of the world's intellectual output has been written in foreign languages. A world that switches to a single language as fast as we do is inevitably burning bridges with most of its knowledge. Don't try to save smart people from diversifying their views, it's a bad idea.
- pierrec 10y ago
  >For any globalisation / unification force there is an equal and opposite force pulling towards autonomy / authenticity / diversity. I think it might be more correct to say that for every globalisation / unification force, there is an equal and opposite teapot in free orbit around the sun.
empath75 10y ago
English is already pretty much a lingua franca for most of the world.
- vbernat 10y ago
  Not sure. Compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_world (at most more than a billion) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinophone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinophone (more than a billion).
  - hx87 10y ago
    English is much more common as a second/third/... language.
    - vbernat 10y ago
      Both links contain figures about non-native speakers. And it seems that native/non-native Chinese speakers are more numerous than native/non-native English speakers.
      - hx87 10y ago
        True, native + nonnative speakers of Chinese > native + nonnative speakers of English, but the relation I'm talking about is: nonnative speakers of Chinese < nonnative speakers of English If the vast majority of Chinese speakers are native, that means that not that many non-Chinese people are learning the language compared to English, and thus English is more attractive for interlingual communication. China is big enough to be a world in itself, and for most of history has been so, but globalization means that it is part of a greater whole and competes on that level.
matroosberg 10y ago
What evidence do you have to support your claim? I think it is much more likely that we will have a small number of lingua francas (right now English, Spanish and Mandarin are the top three spoken languages and serve as the lingua franca in various locations) but a plethora of local languages will remain. Many African countries, but also Latin America, the US and Canada are examples of that. South Africa is a stark example with 11 official languages. Many South Africans grow up bilingual. English is the lingua franca there, but neither Xhosa, Zulu, nor Afrikaans will die out any time soon. Language forms reality and vice versa. It always adapts to the needs of the speakers. Just look at English used be lawyers vs engineers. Geography is not the only factor for diverging languages. Social differences are also a factor, e.g, sociolects are specific to a socioeconomic class. So unless human societies become a lot more homogenous, I don't see a single language emerging.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "What evidence do you have to support your claim?" A) The evidence is in the article. It's heading towards a small number very quickly. B) Everyone is learning to speak English. Everyone in W. Europe under 30 speaks English fairly well. It's happening in M/E and Asia as well. Once immigrants to W. Europe who speak English + some foreign language can get services in English - there's no point in learning the local language. There are only 12 million Swedes. 10% of them barely speak Swedish - and the number is growing rapidly. Once young people speak English fluently and services are in English - so much work will be in English ... Swedish loses all real utility. And utility is an important thing. 'Long term' I think a diaspora of languages is important, but people make short term decisions: 'what is important in my life'? I fear in 20 years, in Sweden, young people will equate 'Swedish' with 'old, out of touch, nationalists and racists' - which is an unfair characterization but the perception is already developing: young urbanites speak English fluently, rural, less developed communities, less so.
  - matroosberg 10y ago
    Ad A) It's merely a list of extinct languages, an incomplete at that since we cannot possibly know all languages that were spoken 3000 years ago. So it does not even give you a rate at which languages go extinct. But, yes, as we see more mobility (geographically and socially), languages consolidate, but a consolidation to one single language seems extremely unlikely, as I explained before. Just because Swedish might die (which I doubt, but that's beside the point), does not mean that all languages but one will die. Ad B) While English is probably gaining importance (speculating, I don't have a source), it is number 2 in total speakers after Mandarin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_num.... Even Everyone in W. Europe under 30 speaking English is an overestimation. If you look in less well educated groups, you will find more people not speaking English. Even Sweden shows ~5% of "Younger" not speaking English in http://languageknowledge.eu/countries/sweden http://languageknowledge.eu/countries/sweden. Austria even shows only 52.35% speaking English natively or learned: http://languageknowledge.eu/countries/austria http://languageknowledge.eu/countries/austria

Not a chance. For any globalisation / unification force there is an equal and opposite force pulling towards autonomy / authenticity / diversity. Language is a very core component of human identity.

avodonosov 10y ago
For globalization in general - very possible you're right; if speak about aspects other than language I would probably agree. But language is changing constantly; all languages are influenced by surrounding countries / cultures, and by those which lead progress currently. I think every day need of communication and convenience will define the result. And this list, I think, is an evidence of that tendency.
djKianoosh 10y ago
thats why it's best to have both. one de facto universal language, and people can still maintain their local language. that way everyone in the world only has to learn two languages and people dont have to waste their time learning 3-6 languages
- kwhitefoot 10y ago
  Who does that? Most people learn only their own language. A substantial number learn one other language, generally English. My own experience (bi-lingual Brit living in Norway working with people from 17 different countries) suggests that a very small proportion go beyond that. I'm excluding those who have a smattering of another language such as most Brits like me who had to take French and Latin at school but never got beyond being able to ask for a beer in a bar. Some of my Polish colleagues can get by in Russian as well as English but not many of those under 30.
  - GuiA 10y ago
    > Who does that? Most people learn only their own language. In 2002, the AP reported that 66% of children worldwide are bilingual. There are probably fewer people who speak a single language than 2 or more. http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/06/19/language.glance/index.html?_%2520s=PM:US http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/06/19/language.glance/index.h...
  - djKianoosh 10y ago
    anecdotally I know several europeans where they know at least their language + english + at least one of (french, german, spanish, italian) brasilians I know typically know english and portuguese and they dont want to admit it but usually they know spanish. they just prefer brasilian or english. overall if we just all agreed on english as the universal language (imperfect as it is) then it would save so many smart people so much time from needing to learn and translate between so many languages. just from an efficiency perspective alone, humanity would see a major benefit, I believe.
    - pyrale 10y ago
      > overall if we just all agreed on english as the universal language (imperfect as it is) then it would save so many smart people so much time from needing to learn and translate between so many languages. > just from an efficiency perspective alone, humanity would see a major benefit, I believe. I'm always surprised to see people accustomed to the world of computers say this kind of things. We know computer languages have different strengths, and we're often advised to learn some languages, not for the professional impact, but for the abstractions they teach. In this context, I can't explain how people miss the fact that learning multiple languages is an enriching experience. And it is not only an abstract theory, considering the loan words every language has. It is not only a matter of opening your thought framework, but also a matter of what ressource you have access to : the english language as we know it is very recent, and as a consequence, most of the world's intellectual output has been written in foreign languages. A world that switches to a single language as fast as we do is inevitably burning bridges with most of its knowledge. Don't try to save smart people from diversifying their views, it's a bad idea.
pierrec 10y ago
>For any globalisation / unification force there is an equal and opposite force pulling towards autonomy / authenticity / diversity. I think it might be more correct to say that for every globalisation / unification force, there is an equal and opposite teapot in free orbit around the sun.

empath75 10y ago

English is already pretty much a lingua franca for most of the world.

vbernat 10y ago
Not sure. Compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_world (at most more than a billion) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinophone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinophone (more than a billion).
- hx87 10y ago
  English is much more common as a second/third/... language.
  - vbernat 10y ago
    Both links contain figures about non-native speakers. And it seems that native/non-native Chinese speakers are more numerous than native/non-native English speakers.
    - hx87 10y ago
      True, native + nonnative speakers of Chinese > native + nonnative speakers of English, but the relation I'm talking about is: nonnative speakers of Chinese < nonnative speakers of English If the vast majority of Chinese speakers are native, that means that not that many non-Chinese people are learning the language compared to English, and thus English is more attractive for interlingual communication. China is big enough to be a world in itself, and for most of history has been so, but globalization means that it is part of a greater whole and competes on that level.

matroosberg 10y ago

What evidence do you have to support your claim? I think it is much more likely that we will have a small number of lingua francas (right now English, Spanish and Mandarin are the top three spoken languages and serve as the lingua franca in various locations) but a plethora of local languages will remain. Many African countries, but also Latin America, the US and Canada are examples of that. South Africa is a stark example with 11 official languages. Many South Africans grow up bilingual. English is the lingua franca there, but neither Xhosa, Zulu, nor Afrikaans will die out any time soon. Language forms reality and vice versa. It always adapts to the needs of the speakers. Just look at English used be lawyers vs engineers. Geography is not the only factor for diverging languages. Social differences are also a factor, e.g, sociolects are specific to a socioeconomic class. So unless human societies become a lot more homogenous, I don't see a single language emerging.

jomamaxx 10y ago
"What evidence do you have to support your claim?" A) The evidence is in the article. It's heading towards a small number very quickly. B) Everyone is learning to speak English. Everyone in W. Europe under 30 speaks English fairly well. It's happening in M/E and Asia as well. Once immigrants to W. Europe who speak English + some foreign language can get services in English - there's no point in learning the local language. There are only 12 million Swedes. 10% of them barely speak Swedish - and the number is growing rapidly. Once young people speak English fluently and services are in English - so much work will be in English ... Swedish loses all real utility. And utility is an important thing. 'Long term' I think a diaspora of languages is important, but people make short term decisions: 'what is important in my life'? I fear in 20 years, in Sweden, young people will equate 'Swedish' with 'old, out of touch, nationalists and racists' - which is an unfair characterization but the perception is already developing: young urbanites speak English fluently, rural, less developed communities, less so.
- matroosberg 10y ago
  Ad A) It's merely a list of extinct languages, an incomplete at that since we cannot possibly know all languages that were spoken 3000 years ago. So it does not even give you a rate at which languages go extinct. But, yes, as we see more mobility (geographically and socially), languages consolidate, but a consolidation to one single language seems extremely unlikely, as I explained before. Just because Swedish might die (which I doubt, but that's beside the point), does not mean that all languages but one will die. Ad B) While English is probably gaining importance (speculating, I don't have a source), it is number 2 in total speakers after Mandarin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_num.... Even Everyone in W. Europe under 30 speaking English is an overestimation. If you look in less well educated groups, you will find more people not speaking English. Even Sweden shows ~5% of "Younger" not speaking English in http://languageknowledge.eu/countries/sweden http://languageknowledge.eu/countries/sweden. Austria even shows only 52.35% speaking English natively or learned: http://languageknowledge.eu/countries/austria http://languageknowledge.eu/countries/austria