One world, many languages: an analysis of language extinction and the social, political and linguistic consequencesWhile the world's population is becoming increasingly great, humans are perhaps for the first time getting closer than ever. The advent of the Internet has brought together groups of people who would otherwise never have spoken to each other and has also created a platform for the mutual exchange of ideas across linguistic and cultural barriers. Yet, with this new positive interaction, as well as with widespread globalization, an often overlooked and ignored catastrophe is occurring before our eyes: the extinction of language. This concept does not simply refer to the extinction of one or two ancient languages, but rather the ever-present extinction of literally thousands of languages ​​belonging to millions of speakers. Even with this alarming idea, many are still not convinced that this is a problem and some even praise this shocking destruction. Through an in-depth analysis of the social, political and linguistic implications of language extinction one can understand the importance of stopping this growing trend. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayWhen thinking about language extinction perhaps the first thought that comes to mind is that of "dead" languages ​​such as Latin and Greek, but the term is now used to refer to modern languages ​​that are rapidly disappearing. According to the National Geographic Society, about half of the world's languages ​​have disappeared in the last 500 years. While this statistic is slightly alarming, the real shocker is the fact that over the next 100 years, "more than half of the world's 7,000 languages ​​are expected to disappear," according to the same study. Unlike many other phenomena, language extinction can be both sudden and gradual. Certain catastrophes such as genocide or war are known to extinguish languages, but according to the Linguistic Society of America there is also “pressure to integrate with a larger or more powerful group.” Although the source of this pressure has been different in the past, today it comes from the West, and in particular from the English language, but also from the East through the Chinese language. Perhaps the greatest indicator of the “dominant” language, or the one causing its widespread extinction, is related to economics and business. The West has long been idolized by the world as the land of economic prosperity and the desire for success and assimilation. from the rest of the world has come at a high price for those who don't speak English. For non-English speakers forced to participate and compete in the global business world, the first step is to learn the language and begin to assimilate it to succeed (Baines 2012). Often this assimilation is not as simple as learning a couple of words in the language, rather success is seen as learning the culture and lifestyle of the dominant language. For those, like English speakers, who have not yet needed to assimilate to a dominant language, this change may seem minuscule, but there are big cultural implications for those who must undergo this transition. As most second language learners know, the best way to learn a new language is through practice, but if this practice is extensive enough, one language (here, English) overrides the other and prevails. The reason this happens is because the speaker, at that time, sees the new language as economically more valuable than the old language and therefore the process of assimilation is encouraged. Although thisstatement apparently places responsibility for the assimilation and therefore extinction of the language on the part of the speaker, this is not accurate. In fact, the responsibility for glottophagy rests heavily on the speakers of the dominant language, thus making them the oppressors and those who speak the extinct languages ​​the oppressed. By demanding that everyone else adapt to the language and therefore the lifestyle of their dominant language, the oppressors therefore leave the oppressed no choice but to reject their native language or have no opportunity to participate in the global economic market . Understandably, given the current economic situation, most non-native English speakers are more than willing to learn the dominant language because feeding their family becomes a priority rather than fighting for the immediate survival of their native language. Even with these initial implications there are still those who believe that language extinction is not only unproblematic, but also valuable. As mentioned, the Internet has helped bring more people together than ever before, and strangely enough, most content posted on the Internet is assumed to be in the English language. The fact that so many individuals are able to communicate effectively can be attributed to the fact that only one main language is used and it is therefore useful to encourage linguistic assimilation. When individuals are able to communicate without great difficulty, cultural differences can indeed be shared and ultimately appreciated by both parties and great learning also occurs from this. Having a primary language can also lead to greater interpersonal relationships in individuals who would otherwise never communicate and are able to share common interests and thus foster strong interpersonal bonds. Some also believe that language extinction has social value because there is the potential for less discrimination based on linguistic differences if there is a core language observed and used by all. There appears to be a certain social stigma associated with language differences as a language barrier is often seen as intimidating or impossible to break down. Therefore, some believe that the extinction of language may eventually break down this barrier and more people will communicate with those they were previously too shy to communicate with. Finally, in terms of education many worry about the effects of “language deprivation” because much of the valuable material is currently published in English and requires mastery of this dominant language (Phillipson 5). In addition to the possible social benefits, some also believe that language extinction is beneficial in terms of politics. The fact that there is a dominant language can be powerful because if a population needs political assistance they can communicate their needs more easily than if there is a language barrier. Often with oppressed populations, especially in Africa, it is difficult if not nearly impossible for the oppressed to ask for help or assistance because they have no linguistic connection to the dominant linguistic communities that can help them. Furthermore, with language extinction and the subsequent creation of a dominant language, greater political opportunities are provided to those who would not otherwise have them. If someone wants to become a prominent world leader he must learn the prominent language and his supporters must speak it too. Considering the wealth of possible policy ideas or suggestions that are lost due to language barriers, it is possible to understand why having a common language could help valuable and insightful leaders rise to power who otherwise would not have had the opportunity. Finally, iLanguage extinction advocates argue that there are linguistic advantages to having a primary language. The transition to a language will interest linguists because there is the possibility of studying this assimilation. Furthermore, if language barriers are out of the question, then linguists can focus on more important concepts, such as how the dominant language can be further developed and even extended to create more words to describe concepts or emotions that cannot yet be described. The fact that many languages ​​become one can also be seen as an advantage because the main language has the potential to be very rich due to possible influences from extinct languages. While these arguments may seem convincing to some, they are actually not strong enough to support the claim that language extinction is good. First, in terms of social factors, the majority actually leans in favor of multilingualism and shows the large negative impact of language extinction. In terms of culture, language reveals much more than anthropological or scientific data might suggest. For example, the Pirahã people of South America, among many other cultural differences, have one fewer consonant for women than for men (Everett 2012). If the Pirahã had simply assimilated into the English language and their language became extinct, we would never be able to analyze this linguistics-based cultural difference. Furthermore, in terms of interpersonal relationships, linguistic differences should interest rather than discourage potential relationships. If language extinction were successful and society had only one language, then there would be, frankly, a lot less to talk about. Children would have even less interest in their heritage if all their ancestors spoke the same language, and perhaps the only ancestral interest that would arise would be for those who speak a language other than English. Finally, language extinction would have a negative social impact because individuals would lose their sense of identity and individuality. As the world becomes smaller in communication gaps but larger in population size, individuals are more likely to feel as if they are no different from others and have nothing special to contribute. If languages ​​were maintained and there was no central language, diversity would be maintained in an increasingly homogeneous society, which would benefit everyone. Even politically, language extinction is a very harmful process. The rules-based political system of the English language is quite imperfect and has dangerous implications when applied globally. There is a great possibility that other languages ​​could offer more in-depth political terms that could not only help those in the political sphere better articulate their thoughts, but also help those who are affected by politics: everyone. Furthermore, some argue that having only one language will result in less conflict due to linguistic differences in the political sphere. This argument is flawed because, using the example of the United States, one language is maintained and there are still incredible conflicts and misunderstandings. Ultimately, having a central language will not result in less conflict, but if we were to incorporate and encourage various languages ​​into the political process perhaps we would actually see more politicians striving to work together rather than conniving against each other. Finally, the belief that language extinction is beneficial in linguistics is completely flawed. The main goal of linguists is the study of language and if there is only one language then there will be even fewer.