- 最后登录
- 2012-8-19
- 在线时间
- 168 小时
- 寄托币
- 440
- 声望
- 6
- 注册时间
- 2009-3-30
- 阅读权限
- 20
- 帖子
- 2
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 339
- UID
- 2623412
 
- 声望
- 6
- 寄托币
- 440
- 注册时间
- 2009-3-30
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 2
|
本帖最后由 吉子轩 于 2009-6-2 14:44 编辑
Issue 13:
."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."
提纲:
1.
语言是每个国家的重要标志之一,她包含着很多该国独特的风俗习惯和文化。
Languages are indeed important symbols for the countries since they contain the countries’ many distinct customs and their special cultures.
有些国家的某些信仰和独特文化只能种本国原来的语言来表达,要是用别的语言来表达就会失去原来的味道,从这个层面上讲,语言的确需要政府出面去保护。
Sometimes many countries’ unique cultures can only be expressed by their own languages, if such cultures are recorded or transmitted by any other language they will loss their original essences. To this extend, I agree that the governments should take measures to preserve these languages as to keep people’s feeling of individual identity and to protect their unique cultures and beliefs.
2. 但是,除了语言,还有很多其他方面也可以体现一个国家的独有文化,比如宗教信仰,风俗习惯,服装穿着等——并非只有语言。
Besides language, there are so many other ways can the countries identify themselves, such as unique traditions, rituals, mores, attitudes, and beliefs----not just language
3. 过分的保护语言会阻碍国家的发展,特别是在当今全球化越来越明显的情况下。
Qveremphasis on language protecting could hinder a country’s development rather then preserve its unique culture.(举例: 法国)
再有,过分的强调保护语言也会产生很多语言障碍,从而很容易产生误会,会cause discord even wars among nations.
4. 在全球化的今天,语言的灭绝是不可避免的,这也算是自然选择的结果。政府完全可以将用在保护语言上的有限资源用于其他跟基础的社会问题,例如饥荒,疾病,流离失所等。
It’s the result of natural selection.
The government can use the limited resources to resolve those more fundamental problems such as starvation, homelessness, disease and the like rather than to struggles on preserving the dying language.
The arguer asserts that the government of the countries should act to preserve their lesser-known languages since they face to be being lost as fewer and fewer people speak them. As far as I am concerned, since the language is one of the most important symbols for any country it should be protected as to preserve the special culture of the country. However, is that to say the governments should take any measure to prevent their languages from being extinct? If the measures risk obstacles in the countries’ development in today’ s global society I will not agree with the asserter.
I concede that languages are indeed important symbols for the countries since they contain the countries’ many distinct customs and their special cultures. If the countries loss their native language people may loss the sense of individual identity. Also, sometimes many countries’ unique cultures can only be expressed by their own languages, if such cultures are recorded or transmitted by any other language they will loss their original essences. Certain Native American and Oriental languages contain words symbolizing spiritual and other abstract concepts that cannot be convey by any other language. Thus, once such languages are extinct the cherish beliefs and ideas will be abandoned at the same time. To this extend, I agree that the governments should take measures to preserve these languages as to keep people’s feeling of individual identity and to protect their unique cultures and beliefs.
However, besides language, there are so many other ways can the countries identify themselves, such as unique traditions, rituals, mores, attitudes, and beliefs----not just language. The Chinese have spring festival and use chopsticks while the West have Christmas and use knives and forks, the France like leisure garments while the English incline to formal costume, the European believe in Christianity while the Indian in Islam, these are all the ways people can identify themselves from others. So people don’t have to limit to language as the mean to distinguish themselves, not to say the language may have little practical need anymore.
In fact, overemphasis on language protecting could hinder a country’s development rather then preserve its unique culture, especially in today’ s global society. One good example is that, in last century the French government stubbornly insisted on French as their official language, for the sole purpose of preserving their distinct culture heritage. The result is that plenty of foreign investment, without which many big corporations could hardly operate, withdrew soon later. Worst of all, the stubborn insistence impeded the French scientists from international discussion, and that caused brain drain at the end. Besides this, language berries naturally breed misunderstanding, which may cause discord and even war among nations.
Any way, language extinction is unavoidable since the signs of globalization become more and more obvious. It’s the result of natural selection Thus, facing the dying language, the government can use the limited resources to resolve those more fundamental problems such as starvation, homelessness, disease and the like rather than to struggles on preserving the dying language.
In sum, preserving the dying language is worthy when it comes to passing on the country’s unique culture and meeting the people’s sense of self-identity. Nevertheless, the economic, scientific and political drawbacks of language outweigh the benefit of preserving a dying language. So the best way is that let people themselves do whatever they want to preserve their distinct language, and the government just plays an auxiliary role since it has to resolve the more fundamental problems with such limited resources.
|
|