Issue13 by 海王泪

海王泪UID: 2673613

TOPIC: ISSUE13 - "Many of the world's lesser-known languages are being lost as fewer and fewer people speak them. The governments of countries in which these languages are spoken should act to prevent such languages from becoming extinct."

It is regrettable that many lesser-known languages are being lost because cultural heritage disappears simultaneously. Governments should preserve languages as keys to cultures, but they should keep in mind that sparing no efforts to keep specific communication tools does not worth an investment.

Without lingual keys, lots of unique and valuable treasure may lose in human’s evolution. For instance, Maya civilization, which amazes us by its cutting edge, becomes an unsolved mystery because no one has lingual access to Maya. How could they calculate the cycle of planets before Christ? How could they build edifices when they only use Neolithic tools? No matter historians or scientists are eager for answers. But the answers through ancient words on stone or books cannot be read and understood any more. We are not willing to accept similar loss of culture. When we spend an awful lot of money to preserve endangered animals for diversity or appreciation, how could we leave behind those keys to stunning, various, and awesome experience of world?

Thanks to the realization of importance to culture, governments today are willing to pay for lesser-know languages. Interestingly, policies in preserving endangered are mainly divided into two camps. One involves language-promoting projects. Another is sending experts to save them in files.

The latter alternative seems cruel when a language loses its life as a rare bird becoming specimen. So it seems obvious that most of people agree with the former policy emotionally . However, promoting projects seldom work in practice due to reluctance of individuals and governments.
On account of individual development, promoting policy often fails to get cooperation. Populace neglect governments’ kindness, giving up their own tongues when a substitute language brings much more opportunities for them. It has been my personal experience that government fails to hold Hakka dialect when immigrants and locals adopt other widely-used languages, such as English and Mandarin which serve as better living tools and greater convenience to keep in touch with a richer, broaden world. Immigrants live in foreign countries where local government could hardly reach, while locals are not willing to cooperate with regional government though it publicized and offered classes for our old sad story.
For macroeconomic growth, reviving endangered languages seems unwise to governments. Politicians know well that there is high correlation between endangered languages and poor groups of people. They would like to boost the intercommunication between these poor economic entities with stronger ones. Widely-used languages would be promoted instead of lesser-known languages. Hence people in backward areas can get more information, better education, more business and thus can naturally improve their life while decrease subsidy needed. In contrast, holding back lesser-known “tongue” not only costs a lot but perhaps deprives poor economic entities of rapid development.

Let us alter to another policy, which is more practical, effective and valuable in saving a language. By funding not a lot to small and active groups of experts, lesser-known languages could be recognized and recorded more immediately than governments’ direct participation, because experts are much more sensitive than populace and politicians. Before extinction, linguists, historians, anthropologists and so on could be easily directed together, editing dictionaries, translating important literature, taking sounds tracks, pictures, and videos and so on. Sometimes the combinantion research interest, record tools and media could even create much more value than promotion of lesser-known languages. For instance, Chinese scholars inquiring language of Manchu make greater contribution to cultural interaction than those remained Manchurians do. Their achievements in details benefits subsequent scholars. Their achievement allows people today to read books, watch program and search Internet to understand the once magnificent ethnic group without knowing a Manchu word. In contrast, promoting projects of Manchu language failed. Obviously, those residents in poor, remote area cannot attain what experts achieve for their dying culture.

To human, forfeiting a species of animal means losing of a vivid image, while forgetting a language indicates loss of a unique and splendid view about our world. Raising and falling of languages are similar to the natural selection of creatures, thus the governments of countries where lesser-known languages are spoken should not consider direct intervention too much. Instead, they can act to focus and organize experts to preserve the genes of languages when today’s technology has made it available. And preservation offers opportunities for people in the future, that one day offspring can reuse their old languages and find their original self-identity, as long as they are willing to do that.