One world, many languages: an analysis of language extinction and the social, political and linguistic consequencesAs the world's population increases, human beings perhaps for the first time closer than ever. The advent of the Internet has brought together groups of people who otherwise would never have spoken to each other and has also created a platform for mutual exchange of ideas across cultural and language barriers. Yet with this new positive interaction, as well as widespread globalization, an often overlooked and ignored catastrophe is occurring before our eyes: language extinction. This concept does not simply refer to the extinction of one or two ancient languages, but rather to the ever-present extinction of thousands of languages ​​belonging to millions of speakers. Even with this alarming idea, many are still not convinced that this is a problem and some are even touting this shocking destruction. Through an in-depth analysis of the social, political and linguistic implications of language extinction, one can understand the importance of stopping this growing trend. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay When we think of the extinction of a language, the first thought that comes to mind may be that of “dead” languages ​​like Latin and Greek. , but the term is now used to refer to modern languages ​​that are rapidly disappearing. According to the National Geographic Society, over the past 500 years, about half of the world's languages ​​have disappeared. While this statistic is somewhat alarming, the real shocker is that over the next 100 years, "more than half of the world's 7,000 languages ​​are expected to disappear," according to the same study . Unlike many other phenomena, the extinction of a language can be both sudden and gradual. Certain disasters like genocide or war are known to extinguish languages, but there is also a "felt pressure to fit into a larger or more powerful group," according to the Linguistic Society of America. Even if the origin of this pressure has varied in the past, it now comes from the West, and in particular from the English language, but also from the East through the Chinese language. Perhaps the biggest indicator of which language is “dominant,” or which is causing widespread extinction, has to do with economics and business. The West has long been idolized by the world as the land of economic prosperity and the desire for success and assimilation. in the name of the rest of the world has cost those who do not speak English dearly. For non-English speakers who are forced to participate and compete in the globalized business world, the first step is to learn the language and begin to assimilate it to succeed (Baines 2012). Often this assimilation is not as simple as learning a few words of the language, but rather success is seen as learning the culture and ways of life of the dominant language. For those, like English speakers, who have not yet needed to assimilate into a dominant language, this change may seem small, but the cultural implications are great for those who must undergo this transition. As most second language learners know, the best way to learn a new language is practice, but if that practice is deep enough, one language (in this case, English) trumps the other and prevails. The reason this happens is that the speaker, at that moment, considers thenew language as having more economic value than the old language and that, therefore, the process of assimilation is encouraged. Although this statement seems to attribute responsibility for assimilation and thus extinction of the language to the speaker's part, this is not accurate. The blame for glottophagy in fact falls heavily on the speakers of the dominant language, making them the oppressors and those speaking the extinct languages ​​the oppressed. By demanding that all others adapt to the language and therefore to the ways of life of their dominant language, the oppressors therefore leave the oppressed no other choice than either to reject their mother tongue or to have no possibility of participate in the global trading market. Naturally, given the current economic situation, most non-native English speakers are more than willing to learn the dominant language because feeding their family becomes a priority rather than fighting for the immediate survival of their native language. Even with these initial implications, there still remain those who believe that language extinction is not only unproblematic, but also valuable. As mentioned, the Internet has helped bring more people together than ever before and, oddly enough, most of the content published on the Internet is supposed to be in English. The fact that so many individuals are able to communicate effectively can be attributed to the fact that only one main language is used and it is therefore useful to encourage linguistic assimilation. When individuals are able to communicate without much difficulty, cultural differences can actually be shared and ultimately appreciated by both parties, which also results in great learning. Having a primary language can also lead to better interpersonal relationships in individuals who would otherwise never communicate, are able to share common interests and therefore foster strong interpersonal bonds. Some also believe that language extinction is socially useful because it is possible to reduce discrimination based on linguistic differences if there is a primary language observed and used by all. There appears to be some social stigma associated with language differences as a language barrier is often seen as intimidating or impossible to overcome. Therefore, some believe that language extinction may eventually break down this barrier and more people will communicate with those with whom they were previously too shy. Finally, in terms of education, many are concerned about the effects of “language deprivation,” as many valuable materials are currently published in English and require mastery of that dominant language (Phillipson 5). Besides the possible social benefits, some also believe that language extinction is beneficial in terms of politics. The fact that there is a dominant language can be powerful in that if a population needs political assistance, they can express their needs more easily than if there is a language barrier. Often, among oppressed populations, particularly in Africa, it is difficult, if not almost impossible, for the oppressed to seek help or assistance, because they have no linguistic connection to the dominant linguistic communities that can provide them. help. Additionally, with language extinction and the subsequent creation of a dominant language, more political opportunities are available to those who would not otherwise have access to them. If someone wants to become a prominent world leader, they must learn the official language and their followers must also speak it. Given the multitude of ideas orpossible policy suggestions that are left aside due to language barriers, it is possible to understand why having a common language could help valuable and insightful leaders access power who would not otherwise have had the opportunity . Finally, proponents of language extinction argue that there are linguistic advantages to having a primary language. The shift to a single language will be of interest to linguists because there is an opportunity to study this assimilation. Furthermore, if language barriers are out of the question, then linguists can focus on more important concepts, such as how to further develop the dominant language, or even expand it to others. describe concepts or emotions that cannot yet be described. The fact that many languages ​​will morph into one can also be seen as an advantage, as the main language has the potential to be very rich due to possible influences from extinct languages. Although these arguments may seem convincing to some, they are in fact not. valid enough to support the proposition that language extinction is positive. First, in terms of social factors, the majority actually leans in favor of multilingualism and shows the great negative impact of language extinction. In terms of culture, language reveals much more than anthropological or scientific data might suggest. For example, the Pirahã people in South America, in addition to many other cultural differences, have one less consonant for women than for men (Everett 2012). If the Pirahã simply assimilated to the English language and their language disappeared, we would never be able to analyze this linguistic cultural difference. Additionally, in terms of interpersonal relationships, language differences should be of interest rather than a deterrent to potential relationships. If language extinction was successful and society had only one language, there would, frankly, be a lot less to talk about. Children would be even less interested in their heritage if all their ancestors spoke the same language, and perhaps the only ancestral interest that would arise would be in those who spoke a language other than English. Finally, language extinction would have a negative social impact because individuals would lose the sense of identity and individuality. As the world shrinks in terms of communication gaps but grows in terms of population, individuals are more likely to feel as if they are no different from others and have nothing special to contribute. If languages ​​were maintained and there was not a central language, diversity would be maintained in an increasingly homogeneous society, which would benefit everyone. Politically, language extinction is also a very damaging process. The political system established based on Anglophone rules is quite imperfect and has dangerous implications if applied on a global scale. It's quite possible that other languages ​​might come up with more expansive political terms that could not only help those in the political sphere better express their thoughts, but also help those affected by politics – everyone. Furthermore, some argue that having a single language will lead to fewer conflicts due to linguistic differences in the political sphere. This argument is flawed in that, taking the example of the United States, only one language is maintained and there are still incredible conflicts and misunderstandings. Ultimately, having a central language will not result in less conflict, but if we were to integrate and.