I'm seeing many dismissive comments, and as this seems to be due to the length of the piece, I would warmly recommend anyone interested in languages, literature

I'm seeing many dismissive comments, and as this seems to be due to the length of the piece, I would warmly recommend anyone interested in languages, literature (and especially their cross-cultural implications) to set it aside to read when they have the time. It is a very beautiful article, whose form is inescapably related to its content. It voices an unease which I suspect will feel familiar to many international, non-English-native readers (like me), as well as native English speakers (like the author). An aspect of this conversation which I feel is particularly relevant for many of us here: the perception of language as simply a means to communicate information, a tool to be optimized with respect to its purpose, as though "information" existed in a vacuum. In my experience, this perception is particularly strong among speakers of dominant languages (languages either in which things are most likely to be spoken, or into which things are routinely translated to reach a broader audience), but it can also infuse in "dominated" language groups. I've seen this first hand among close relatives who delude themselves into thinking they have as much expressive power in English as in their native language, which they don't, not just because of their inability to speak it (though that plays a part) but because their life experience hasn't "soaked" in the English language, or (maybe) vice-versa. One expression that I will long meditate from the article, and which I think applies more broadly than just literature "the continuous encounter of young people with a tradition". (the irony is not lost on me that I have to write this comment in English. Maybe you see the irony but, if you only speak English, this irony is probably of a different color than the one I see, without value judgment)