I have oftenwondered why it is important to keep dying languages alive. When there is no practical necessity for a language, such as when another language is spoken just as widely by the people group, what would be the use of maintaining the language? The way the text describes how the loss of a language “reduces the diversity of our planet” (339) helped me realize the value of preserving a language, even though it is only spoken by a small minority. Languages contribute more to a people than just a method of communication. They provide a way for a culture to identify with each other and other people groups with similar historical roots. Languages help track “movements of early civilizations” (339), and thus have strong historic importance.
It interested me to find out that Modern Hebrew is one of the few cases where a language was successfully resuscitated. It provides interesting ground for studying why the language was so important to the peopleof Israel that they would have the desire and will to go through the difficult process of reviving an ancient language. This goes back to the idea that language is more than just communication, but an important symbol of cultural identity and legitimacy.
The chapter that explains how and why a language changes made me think about how the English language has evolved. It also causes me to worry. With all the slang and abbreviations that are becoming more commonly used, is English deteriorating? And is this not deterioration, but a natural change that comes inevitably with a living language? Although “proper” English is still spoken widely, will “most deff” (most definitely), “toats” (totally), “obvi” (obviously) and other words such as this eventually become more commonly spoken, and therefore more accepted, than the original words?
Comments