Words are all we have Samuel Beckett.

According to an eleventh century Arab writer, Ibn-e-Hazm, in the beginning there existed a single
language given by God, thanks to which Adam was able to understand the quiddity of things. Over the
chequered history of mankind, the fragmentation of this unique tongue that existed abinitio gave rise to
a multitude of diverse languages. An integration of all these, or a reversion to a single language would
have several repercussions.

The fundamental benefits of a single world language are pragmatic. A common language would dissolve
all communication barriers and increase mutual understanding between people and the world over.
Such an environment would be conducive to world peace and the end of conflicts. Economic prosperity
would be facilitated as business partners are able to communicate freely, leading to a growth of
international trade.

Xenophobia and other related human fears would be eliminated as people are united under one
language. This would undermine at least some racism or ethno-centrism as societies become more
egalitarian in their outlook on foreign individuals. On the cultural front, a unique tongue would make
redundant the need to translate works of literature or to subtitle/dub movies. The dissemination of
knowledge and information could be done freely and in all parts of the globe, as the world's
comprehension of different cultures rises.

However, there are some drawbacks of a single world language. The convenience of a single language
with its resulting blandness would not make for a full life. Language is more than just a communication
of needs, it is a reflection of the social, historical and cultural milieu of society and is therefore a sacred
institution. By restricting the modes of human expression to a single language we would be stultifying,
repressing and suffocating man's desire to be creative. 'The limits of my language are the limits of my
world', as someone once aptly noted. Also, in a manner similar to the situation depicted in George
Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-four', a single language is a dangerous situation as it may put disproportionate
power into the few hands controlling the medium.

Although the implementation of a single language is an achievable target, the situation is bound to be
transient and impossible to maintain in the long run. Cultural differences between societies transcend
language. This is proven by the distinct cultures of the countries speaking the same language. Hence,
although the same language, English, as spoken in Canada for instance, is dissimilar to that spoken in the
United Kingdom, the United States of Australia. Also, the culture of a country may be composed of
several sub-cultures each with its own language. The home of the Queen's English - the UK - is where
English, Gaelic, Welsh, Punjabi, Bengali and Urdu, all coexist. Another obstacle in achieving this target of
common language is political pride, which could create conflict between nations, when the choice of a
dominant language is being made.

In the light of the above discussion, I would suggest that if we are to succeed economically, socially,
culturally and politically, then the world must embrace plurilinguism. The future is a multi-lingual one.

The introductory paragraph provides a divine background. A clear, historical background makes for a
cogent introduction.

The paragraph gives the benefits in a succinct manner, without giving the impression of a list which
would have been all too easy.

Development of some of the points from the previous paragraph occurs with an expansion towards
cultural benefits.

This is the key paragraph in terms of expression and eloquence. What a shame that the quotation could
not be attributed. The long term political implications in the last sentence could have been developed
perhaps offering a less developed country where education is poor.

"The limits of my language are the limits of my world." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

It would have been easy for this question to suggest to candidates that English was the common
language by implication. This candidate avoids that potential trap, yet uses English in Canada/USA to
compare with the UK.

A disappointing conclusion. The essay merited a more expansive conclusion than the one offered.

Conclusion from the above comments

The overall use of language is sophisticated and mature.

The tone of the essay disguises the fact that there could have been a little more development on the
political effects. However, the essay does provide a balance of both sides of the argument.

Points which could have been included to widen the scope of the answer include an improvement in the
case of travel, the loss of dialect and a loss of jobs as translators.

Surely the conclusion could have made more of the individual nature of language and its importance in
cultural terms.