May 15, 2003
The Death of Language
It is always a great loss when something dies out forever. We have taken strides to protect animals and plants from unnecessary and preventable extinction. Linguistic extinction is, for some people, as great a worry as a biological extinction.
The extinction of a living creature can affect the biosystem in which it lives. Many times there are unintended consequences of extinction, as another species will begin to dominate the environment as one of its natural enemies is removed. A biological extinction can be a significant world-altering event (think about the dinosaurs).
But a language dies because it isn't useful anymore. Language is a tool of humanity; it is how we communicate thoughts and ideas. If a particular language doesn't do that as well as another, then it dies.
The death of a language doesn't lead to great catastrophes for people. Its not as if a certain segment of people can't speak if a language dies. When a language dies, people adapt.
There is no purpose to labeling some languages as "endangered" or "critically endangered." A language only survives when it is important enough to be learned.
And unlike times past, we don't necessarily have to lose the knowledge that a dead or dying language contains. Our technology allows us to record the sounds and meanings of the language. Languages don't completely die anymore.
When a language passes from being spoken to being Memorex, it is a moment of loss. But it is not on the same level as a loss of a living species. Civilization has not ended; life goes on.
What I don't get about the recent worry over these languages dying out is what exactly do these people propose we do? Like you said, if a language is no longer useful, people will stop speaking it. There really is no way to prevent them from becoming dead languages at that point. You can’t exactly force people to speak a language. And really the fewer languages people speak around the world the easier it becomes to communicate.
Posted by: John Belcher at May 15, 2003 09:18 PMAlways a fan of academia, I noted, with admiration, the stunning observation in the referenced article "and some languages are even rarer – 46 are known to have just one native speaker".
Now admittedly bound by a possibly outdated definition, I have believed "language" to be a 'vehicle, or medium, of communication' - somehow implying a party of more than one! If I say "a tree falls" in a form no else understands, did I use a "language"?
A puzzle worthy of that astute observer of language, George Carlin....
Posted by: dad at May 15, 2003 10:46 PMComments have been closed on this entry in an effort to conserve disk space. If you have feedback on this entry, please email me at blog - at - cbnoble.com.


