With his book on “the politics of language” due to be published next year, international correspondent for The Economist, Robert Lane Green,Â is interviewed in More Intelligent Life.
The discussion I find mostÂ intriguingÂ is this onÂ the saving of threatened world languages:
Half of today’s languages may be gone in a century. Is there a book that explains why we should care?
Unfortunately, I’ve tried and failed to find a utilitarian argument for preserving tiny languages. Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine failed to convince me with â€œVanishing Voicesâ€, which tied biodiversity to the preservation of endangered languages. They’re right in that small groups that speak threatened languages often know things about plant and animal species that are lost when their lands are â€œdevelopedâ€ and they are absorbed into the larger community. But that knowledge isn’t lost because the language is lost. It’s lost because the way of life is lost. If a modest tribe moved to the city and took urban jobs, their knowledge of rare plants and so on would disappear even if they kept their language. By contrast, if their traditional way of life were preserved, they could start speaking the bigger metropolitan language and keep their knowledge. (Contrary to a common belief, most things are perfectly translatable.)
So the reason to keep languages alive is really just because they are an irreplaceable part of our common human heritage. [â€¦] The thought of a planet a thousand years from now where everyone speaks just a few languages, or just one, depresses me