“If everyone spoke one language (e.g. English),
would it lead to better international relations?”
by Omar G. P.
In today’s world, it is essential for nations to seek to help each other and cooperate altogether in order to improve the condition of human life and avoid future conflicts. International relations are more than needed, and in turn, communication between people from different countries is a vital medium to interchange perspectives about a number of topics that can help us understand others’ needs and the way in which we all can support each other. Language, thus, plays a vital role to reach that state of international communication; and of all the lingua francas, English, particularly, sets itself as the most widely used (Hoffman; Siebers, 2009:408).
Some people present a number of claims to argue that everyone could speak English. Namely, (1) that English is already one of the most spoken languages nowadays (although estimates vary, English is usually regarded as the first or second most spoken language in the Occident, and the second or third most spoken language in the world); (2) that English has become “the universal language” (Melville Bell, 2012), and (3) that, in comparison to other languages, English is be “the easiest language to learn” (Ray, 2013:44).
Nonetheless, there are others who believe that the former arguments are merely utopian if one considers that the current estimate shows that English is the main language of only 5.52% of the world’s population (Mukherjee, 2013:199). History shows that attempts to promote a language as the universal language (as in the case of Esperanto) have failed, and many may argue that to give the prior importance to one language over another, is to disesteem the great diversity of linguistic expression and forget the value of other languages from different countries than the U.S. and the U.K.
Of course, nobody should doubt the essential relevance and importance of a language like English in numerous areas in the contemporary world, but, that “English can be spoken by everybody”, is another thing. On the assumption that a scenario as such could be reached, one would also have to consider the possible good and bad results.
On the one hand, the benefits of the human race having one and only language would include the exchanging of knowledge and information, and an increasing communication between people with different experiences and from different backgrounds. More communication would then lead (in theory) to a state of more international relations, to a better understanding of these differences, and also to a state in which we could identify the things we share in common, as humans, with people from all around the world. It may be argued, then, that there would be a way to share good ideas and answers to the same kind of questions, and thus, help to solve certain situations in human life. Scientific knowledge could be improved; research, increased; and religious and ethnic groups could find other members of their groups in other parts of the world, in order to establish strongest and peaceful relationships with each other. Sociologists, politicians, and scholars could also be able to find solutions and strategies to improve conditions in their own countries, with the support of foreign knowledge.
On the other hand, it would be foolish to assume that having one and only language could be the solution to the problems of the world. One has to admit that there are examples of countless countries that throughout its history have had only one dominant language (e.g. Russia, and China), and by no means they have been exempt from internal divisions, war, injustice and social inequality, surely because the source of these evils is not the difference of language or the variety of expressions of it, but rather, the evils that come from certain individuals and the evil that inhabits the heart and mind of people themselves.
Certainly, language may unify the identity of a nation, but that is not always the case. If everyone everywhere spoke the same language, racketeering, drug dealers, criminals, and all evildoers could also find a way to collaborate with one other, and also try to make themselves stronger in technical knowledge or power, so to would extend their domain. Let alone the benefits that the same situation would bring to political and economic imperialism and monopolies.
In conclusion, the idea of the world speaking just one language (in this case English), is, in my personal view, unfeasible. Promoting wider dissemination of one language is indeed a useful option to accelerate and improve certain social issues and increase knowledge all around the world, but, one must remember that language is an instrument of communication, and like all instruments, it can be used for good or bad purposes; it can have both a positive and a negative impact, and is as likely to solve some social issues, as to cause some others. Instruments cannot do anything by themselves. It is how one use them what holds an overall importance in this kind of discussions.
References:
- Hoffmann, Thomas. Siebers, Lucia (2009). World Englishes – Problems, Properties and Prospects, John Benjamins Publishing. (ISBN: 9027289069)
- Melville Bell, Alexander (2012). World-English: The Universal Language. Nabu Press. (ISBN: 1279371897).
- Mukherjee Biswas, Debjani (2013). Unleash the Power of Diversity. AuthorHouse. (ISBN: 1481760769)
- Ray, Rimaletta (2013). Language Intelligence or Universal English, Xlibris Corporation. (ISBN: 1483674428)
