- Book information
- On the Death and Life of Languages by Claude Hagège
- Published by: Yale University Press
- Price: £20/$30
EVERY year, 25 languages die out, on average. The world has perhaps 5000 living languages - though estimates vary - so by the end of this century there will be only half this number. In North America alone, there were between 600 and 700 languages when Columbus landed in 1492. This number had fallen to 213 by 1962, of which only 89 languages had speakers ranging from children to the elderly. Since then at least 50 more have gone extinct. For example, the last native speaker of Cupeño died in 1987 in Pala, California, aged 94.
Claude Hagège, a professor of linguistics at the Collège de France in Paris, has studied this decline for more than three decades. His academic book, On the Death and Life of Languages, which was first published in French in 2000 and has now been translated into English, is a wake-up call, covering languages across the globe, from Cornish to the polyglot brew of Papua New Guinea. Hagège has no doubt that linguistic imperialism is largely responsible for the problem: "The death threat that weighs upon languages today takes the guise of English," he concludes glumly. "And I wager that the wisest anglophones would not, in fact, wish for a world with only one language."
However, he also focuses on how a few dying languages, such as Welsh, have been saved by their native-speakers, assisted by governments. The rebirth of Hebrew in Israel receives detailed treatment. Uniquely, Hebrew is a spoken language fabricated from a written language; it has been used by Jewish scholars since biblical times. Modern Hebrew's messianic proponent, the Zionist Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, faced stiff opposition to the plan. A fellow Jew sarcastically told him: "If you only speak a dead language to your children, you will make them idiots!"
Still, it's amazing to consider that in the early 20th century, German almost supplanted Hebrew among Jews in Palestine, because of its use in technical schools. Einstein, inaugurating the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1923, managed just one sentence in Hebrew, then switched to his native German.
- Like what you've just read?
- Don't miss out on the latest content from New Scientist.
- Get 51 issues of New Scientist magazine plus unlimited access to the entire content of New Scientist online.
- Subscribe now and save
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Einstein distanced himself from the jewish community because he felt they were exploiting his popularity.
So what? He was Jewish you know.
I know but I find it amusing that he's used as an example for that language when he got the impression they were using him. Sounds like he was right.
Einstein
Sun Oct 25 16:44:01 GMT 2009 by Ghost of Einstein
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html
"For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong ... have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew."
source: Letters of Note with pic of authenticated handwritten letter
(long URL - click here)
Language is a dynamic entity. Like purists who deplore the ingress of words from other languages, those who artificially sustain them are missing this point. I don't see a world with one language but the nor do I see the loss of obscure languages as anything to be particularly concerned about.
Clinging to languages and cultures is promoted by older participants and many do all within their power to resist their displacement in the young. Promoting some obscure language while avoiding young people adopting a major language is no different from trying to make one's children live the life of the elder rather than embracing their own choices.
If a language continues to naturally attract users then well and good but those who vigourously prevent young people from choosing alternatives are doing them and the world a disservice.
English is an all pervasive language because it adopted words so readily giving it the largest and most expressive vocabulary of all.
It has simple grammar without the 14 tenses and six cases found in Romantic languages. No pointless gender assignments of inanimate objects. It doesn't require clumsy words the length of whole sentences we see in German or Welsh.
Plurals with a simple addition of a letter or two rather than repeating the word. Possession with an apostrophe rather than having to use a phrase.
Pity about the irrational non-phonetic spelling. I guess we are stuck with that.
English is an "all pervasive" language because the dominant powers of the 19th and 20th centuries,i.e. Britain and the US, spoke it. It wasn't chosen for its basic syntax
English was the language spoken by two of the dominant powers in this period. French is pervasive in Africa due to the French colonies. It was substantially promoted as the international diplomatic language during this time but is now in decline despite it being widespread. German was also widespread in the German colonies as was Nederlands (Dutch). Spanish dominates South and Central America dating back to the Spanish invasion of the 16th century.
Yet English is now the widespread choice as second language for many nationalities including those of Asia. Regardless of the historical reasons for it widespread use it is the clear choice as an international language.
The simple syntax and wide vocabulary make it an excellent choice.
I'd hardly call English simple. One only has to look at how poorly it is spoken in many of the countries in which it's the de facto 'second language' for proof of that.
For an international language, Esperanto fits the bill when it comes to simple syntax and a wide vocabulary. In fact, the only Esperanto speakers I've ever had trouble understanding are those whose native language is English, who try to apply English's arbitrary grammar to Esperanto.
English is not a good language by any stretch, and it's sad that it's one of the languages that is helping to strangle those that are dying.
English is the international language partly because it's the mandatory language of air traffic communication. It's adaptation is not so much dependent on the migration of English-speaking people anymore, but due to the practical reality of needing to unify air commerce and safety.
Some children in the US are opting to learn Mandarin. The reason is that it's the language of commerce in some sectors and could open doors career-wise. Also Spanish simply because so many illegal immigrants have come into the US that it's useful to communicate with them.
no but it most certainly helped!
Natural Selection
Sun Oct 25 13:38:08 GMT 2009 by Toño
http://www.delbarrio.eu
These arguments sound logical to you... because you speak English! But in reality the prevalence of English has nothing to do with its intrinsic values, but it's simply a matter of power. The empire of this century speaks English, and as Antonio de Nebrija said when Spanish was the predominant lenguage, "siempre fue la lengua compañera del imperio". It's that simple.
No wonder people opposing domination prefer to use a neutral language, such as Esperanto
Natural Selection
Mon Oct 26 15:54:22 GMT 2009 by Pete
http://www.ReallyQuick.co.uk
There is an element of natural selection with Enligh, I agree. Imperialism does play a part, but ask why is English spoken by that imperial power. The language has developed over thousands of years, taking ancient roots, Roman and French occupations, and assimilating the best of them, actually developing through natural selection. In this respect, it surely is the most evolved and diverse lanuguage. We take the order of Latin for scientific words, the romance of French for poetic words, etc. Also this means that much of the language is partly familiar to speakers of other major languages.
To suggest that English is only prevalant by defualt is taking an over simplified view. It is the evolotion and coming together of many languages, still evolving, still assimilating and still growing in popularity.
You make the fault of assuming that people can only learn either obscure languages or a major language. Here in NZ a girl who won the award for speeches (in english) went to a Maori immersion school and had been raised on that language.
Its not as if there is any limit on the number of languages we can learn mate. Its not like a choice between a or b. You can eat the whole smorgasbord of languages if you wanted to
"Pity about the irrational non-phonetic spelling. I guess we are stuck with that."
The non-phonetic spelling and antonyms such as leak and leek make our language partially similar to Chinese that uses graphical characters as words. It is not entirely phonetical; it is partly character-based. You can only tell the meaning of some sentences by reading the printed script. Some of those words are historical oddities but once mastered, speaking, and especially writing, English can convey meaning very, very well. And that ain't no lie.
French Vs English. . . .
Sun Oct 25 11:56:30 GMT 2009 by Evan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_I_of_England
Re: The death threat ... of English
English was created out of Germanic and French influences following William the Conqueror in 1066. More recently, the French (and Claude Hagège, apparently) have become paranoid about the reverse invasion of "le weekend" and various technical terms derived from English.
In practice, I find that many French people speak English much more fluently than they believe.
I once met a family in Belgium where several people spoke 5 languages - to this family, there were some things that were just clearer in one language than in another. However, they were perhaps exceptional.
I think that the resurgence of local languages (like Welsh in the UK) may be a reaction to the globalisation that is apparent in most areas of life today, allowing retention of a local identity, as well as global participation. I think that encouraging children to have an understanding of their local history and heritage is important.
Some languages like Breton in north-west France, and Catalan in southern Spain are seeing a resurgence despite being severely repressed in previous generations.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
PRINT
SEND
