Universal Languages

AGAINST a universal language

Impractical because there are conditions for a society to adopt a common language.
Language becomes popular due to the network effects: the more people who speak the
language, the more motivation there is to learn the language.
Languages are usually associated with culture, history and sense of identity. The
implication of a universal language is that the chosen language (along with its culture,
history, etc) is more desirable or superior than others. Naturally, disagreements over
whose language is to be chosen are almost unresolvable.
Interestingly, globalisation may make the notion of a universal language even more
improbable. Current languages, along with their own exotic cultures, are competing for
learners.
1

The argument that universal languages are needed for political unity is flawed. Even in
the context of national (let alone international) unity, this argument is proved wrong by
many cases of countries whose people speak different languages.

E.G. Esperanto, the worlds most successful artificial language, has garnered about 2 million
learners since its creation in 1887. However, even its most famous speaker, the novelist J.R.R.
Tolkien, admitted that Esperanto is deader than ancient unused languages because there are
no Esperanto culture or legends that would capture interests.
E.G. Switzerland (four official languages), South Africa (11) and India (22 scheduled languages)
are just a few examples of countries without a common language.
FOR a universal language
Without a common language, it is hard to create friendships between people. The
premise here is humans have a tribal instinct to relate to someone similar to them.
Language is one such tribal marker.


1
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/09/esperanto-0