"Many of the world's lesser-known languages are being lost as fewer and fewer people speak
them. The governments of countries in which these languages are spoken should act to prev
ent such languages from becoming extinct."The speaker asserts that governments of countrie
s where lesser-known languages are spoken should intervene to prevent these languages from
becoming extinct. I agree insofar as a country's indigenous and distinct languages should
not be abandoned and forgotten altogether. At some point, however, I think cultural ident
ity should yield to the more practical considerations of day-to-day life in a global socie
ty.On the one hand, the indigenous language of any geographical region is part-and-parcel
of the cultural heritage of the region's natives. In my observation we humans have a basic
psychological need for individual identity, which we define by way of our membership in d
istinct cultural groups. A culture defines itself in various ways--by its unique tradition
s, rituals, mores, attitudes and beliefs, but especially language. Therefore, when a peopl
e's language becomes extinct the result is a diminished sense of pride, dignity, and self-
worth. One need look no further than continental Europe to observe how people cling tenac
iously to their distinct languages, despite the fact that there is no practical need for t
hem anymore. And on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, the French Canadians stubbornly
insist on French as their official language, for the sole purpose of preserving their dist
inct cultural heritage. Even where no distinct language exists, people will invent one to
gain a sense of cultural identity, as the emergence of the distinct Eboniccant among today
's African Americans aptly illustrates. In short, people resist language assimilation beca
use of a basic human need to be part of a distinct cultural group.Another important reason
to prevent the extinction of a language is to preserve the distinct ideas that only that
particular language can convey. Certain Native American and Oriental languages, for instan
ce, contain words symbolizing spiritual and other abstract concepts that only these cultur
es embrace. Thus, in some cases to lose a language would be to abandon cherished beliefs a
nd ideas that can be conveyed only through language.On the other hand, in today's high-tec
h world of satellite communications, global mobility, and especially the Internet, languag
e barriers serve primarily to impede cross-cultural communication, which in turn impedes i
nternational commerce and trade. Moreover, language barriers naturally breed misunderstand
ing, a certain distrust and, as a result, discord and even war among nations. Moreover, in
my view the extinction of all but a few major languages is inexorable--as supported by th
e fact that the Internet has adopted English as its official language. Thus by intervening
to preserve a dying language a government might be deploying its resources to fight a los
ing battle, rather than to combat more pressing social problems--such as hunger, homelessn
ess, disease and ignorance--that plague nearly every society today.In sum, preserving indi
genous languages is, admittedly, a worthy goal; maintaining its own distinct language affo
rds a people a sense of pride, dignity and self-worth. Moreover, by preserving languages w
e honor a people's heritage, enhance our understanding of history, and preserve certain id
eas that only some languages properly convey. Nevertheless, the economic and political dra
wbacks of language barriers outweigh the benefits of preserving a dying language. In the f
inal analysis, government should devote its time and resources elsewhere, and leave it to
the people themselves to take whatever steps are needed to preserve their own distinct lan
guages.