By Dr Laila Abdel Aal Alghalban
“On this International Mother Language Day, UNESCO is calling for investment in language transmission by placing young people at the heart of the solutions involved. Linguistic diversity is a pillar of peace, dignity and inclusion. No voice should be missing from the story of our humanity,” wrote Dr Khaled El-Enany, Director-General of UNESCO, on the occasion of International Mother Language Day.
In tribute to the Language Movement of the Bangladeshis’ fight for the recognition of the Bangla language in the seventies, UNESCO has announced 21 February to be the International Mother Language Day to celebrate multilingualism and multiculturalism, stressing the need for millions of people around the world to have access to speak their mother languages and receive education in them, as “40% of the world’s children learn in a language which is not the one they speak at home.” The world is losing languages on an alarming rate, one every two weeks, according to reservationists, linguists, and organizations. To understand the backstory of such an appalling linguistic Darwinism, let’s pose the following question that has sparked heated discussions worldwide and shaped conflicting views on and policies towards celebrating or curbing multiculturalism.
What if the world spoke one language? Would humanity be much better off?
The loss of linguistic diversity: The case for
People are poles apart on multilingualism and linguistic diversity as a whole. Supporters of the global monolingual vision argue that adopting one or a handful of dominant global languages would create equal opportunities for everyone. It would provide access to knowledge, expand international connections, help people break away from poverty, and greatly contribute to mutual understanding and inclusion.
What is the purpose, they ask, of preserving a dead or “worthless” language that no longer serves as a satisfactory living tool for communication? Why should communities lose sustainable development opportunities to clinging to voices that confine them to the past? Indigenous languages, from this perspective, can become prisons in which utopianist people isolate themselves, fighting to remain inside. Such preservation is pointless—a waste time and money to little avail.
There are over 9,000 languages worldwide, most of them are endangered and spoken by only a handful of old speakers. The world would be far better off, Anti-reservationists argue, if that number decreased dramatically. They suggest focusing education on just six languages: English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Hindi. These are the languages children should learn in school, rather than dying languages. Anti-reservationists propose that functioning with few dominant languages does not imply that the world would become culturally uniform. They cite English as an example: it is spoken across Australia, Canada, America, England, Scotland, Ireland, and beyond—yet each place maintains its unique culture(s).
It is unsurprising, then, that diaspora parents may choose not to teach their children their ancestral language, fearing it could impede their success in a new homeland. This echoes the painful legacy of boarding schools in America and elsewhere, where indigenous children were removed from their families and forced to abandon their native languages.
The case against
Opponents maintain that multilingualism constitutes an asset, a sort of resistance, and a shield against adverse colonial linguistic ideologies that fight for silencing voices, and destroying linguistic and cultural diversity. They accuse monolingual advocates of nurturing linguicidal narratives and policies that instill bias, injustice, poverty, division, and discrimination, all of which undermine global peace.
Why does it matter?
The world cannot do with one language. Linguistic diversity in space and time is imperative.
When a language vanishes, so do its history, traditions, and distinctive expressions. In one language, there is no word for “goodbye” – only “I will see you.” These unique ways of conveying thoughts and emotions are culturally embedded and deeply human. Furthermore, every language is intrinsically linked to its environment.
When people speak and learn in their languages in inclusive, compassionate and peaceful societies, new avenues to education, investments, and poverty reduction open more likely than ever.
Finally, linguistic and cultural diversity should not be regarded as a divisive exclusionary factor in today’s world. To speak an additional language means that you are given additional eyes to see and understand the world. Diversity is strength. Conformity is “a jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth,” said John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the thirty-fifth President of the US.
By Dr Laila Abdel Aal Alghalban Professor of linguistics Faculty of Arts Kafr el-sheikh University
Email: [email protected]
