When one says, "dead language", the first thing that comes to my mind is latin. Latin, the holy language of the Roman Catholic Church. Europeans wrote primarily in latin during the times of the roman empire and the middle ages. But then, something changed. The holy works of latin were translated into a variety of european vernacular tongues, in order for biblical texts to reach a wider audience. And slowly, latin was used less frequently, both in speech and in writing. Once the language of academia, we started to rely on its variations: French, Spanish, and Portuguese, to mention a few. This occurred within the context of hundreds of years of social and economic reforms in early modern europe. Political boundaries changed, and people began to identify themselves by ethnicity, of which language is a major component.
So I challenge the idea of dead languages. I believe that languages are dynamic; they either keep up with the pace of contemporary society, or become extinct. I admit that the homogenization of cultures is a concern, but I believe that people are adopting to the homogenizing cultures and languages because they want to, not because they have to.
Language preservation
ReplyDeleteI think that languages do evolve, but these languages that are becoming extinct should definitely be preserved because they tell a lot about a culture. The people who speak these indigenous languages might not be adopting to the homogenizing cultures because they want to, but because they do have to. If they do not receive the education to record their language, but do learn how to write another, then they will have to adapt, which makes their language extinct. I think that the researchers who are preserving the languages are doing the right thing because languages are evolving against the will of the people who speak these languages.