Sooner or later we will end up with only one language on Earth - it's very likely I think. (if we survive long enough)
I think it is much more likely that we will have a small number of lingua francas (right now English, Spanish and Mandarin are the top three spoken languages and serve as the lingua franca in various locations) but a plethora of local languages will remain.
Many African countries, but also Latin America, the US and Canada are examples of that. South Africa is a stark example with 11 official languages. Many South Africans grow up bilingual. English is the lingua franca there, but neither Xhosa, Zulu, nor Afrikaans will die out any time soon.
Language forms reality and vice versa. It always adapts to the needs of the speakers. Just look at English used be lawyers vs engineers. Geography is not the only factor for diverging languages. Social differences are also a factor, e.g, sociolects are specific to a socioeconomic class.
So unless human societies become a lot more homogenous, I don't see a single language emerging.
A) The evidence is in the article. It's heading towards a small number very quickly.
B) Everyone is learning to speak English. Everyone in W. Europe under 30 speaks English fairly well. It's happening in M/E and Asia as well.
Once immigrants to W. Europe who speak English + some foreign language can get services in English - there's no point in learning the local language.
There are only 12 million Swedes. 10% of them barely speak Swedish - and the number is growing rapidly.
Once young people speak English fluently and services are in English - so much work will be in English ... Swedish loses all real utility. And utility is an important thing.
'Long term' I think a diaspora of languages is important, but people make short term decisions: 'what is important in my life'?
I fear in 20 years, in Sweden, young people will equate 'Swedish' with 'old, out of touch, nationalists and racists' - which is an unfair characterization but the perception is already developing: young urbanites speak English fluently, rural, less developed communities, less so.
Just because Swedish might die (which I doubt, but that's beside the point), does not mean that all languages but one will die.
Ad B) While English is probably gaining importance (speculating, I don't have a source), it is number 2 in total speakers after Mandarin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_num.... Even Everyone in W. Europe under 30 speaking English is an overestimation. If you look in less well educated groups, you will find more people not speaking English. Even Sweden shows ~5% of "Younger" not speaking English in http://languageknowledge.eu/countries/sweden. Austria even shows only 52.35% speaking English natively or learned: http://languageknowledge.eu/countries/austria
interesting angle. I doubt that Swedish will ever lose its utility, but dividing the society along language lines and typecasting native speakers as racists sounds like a natural development of current trend.
"If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart." (Nelson Mandela)
I think every day need of communication and convenience will define the result.
And this list, I think, is an evidence of that tendency.
that way everyone in the world only has to learn two languages and people dont have to waste their time learning 3-6 languages
brasilians I know typically know english and portuguese and they dont want to admit it but usually they know spanish. they just prefer brasilian or english.
overall if we just all agreed on english as the universal language (imperfect as it is) then it would save so many smart people so much time from needing to learn and translate between so many languages.
just from an efficiency perspective alone, humanity would see a major benefit, I believe.
> just from an efficiency perspective alone, humanity would see a major benefit, I believe.
I'm always surprised to see people accustomed to the world of computers say this kind of things. We know computer languages have different strengths, and we're often advised to learn some languages, not for the professional impact, but for the abstractions they teach.
In this context, I can't explain how people miss the fact that learning multiple languages is an enriching experience. And it is not only an abstract theory, considering the loan words every language has.
It is not only a matter of opening your thought framework, but also a matter of what ressource you have access to : the english language as we know it is very recent, and as a consequence, most of the world's intellectual output has been written in foreign languages. A world that switches to a single language as fast as we do is inevitably burning bridges with most of its knowledge.
Don't try to save smart people from diversifying their views, it's a bad idea.
Do we -all- have to spend all our lives learning -all- of these languages for us to communicate the greatness of each others' cultures and philosophies? Wouldnt it be better, given our finite time on this planet, to share all of these concepts more efficiently?
I don't see an easy way to get many growing and living cultures, and everyone sharing one language, cultural content, goals, etc. A society can't be homogene and diverse at the same time.
In 2002, the AP reported that 66% of children worldwide are bilingual. There are probably fewer people who speak a single language than 2 or more.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/06/19/language.glance/index.h...
I think it might be more correct to say that for every globalisation / unification force, there is an equal and opposite teapot in free orbit around the sun.
nonnative speakers of Chinese < nonnative speakers of English
If the vast majority of Chinese speakers are native, that means that not that many non-Chinese people are learning the language compared to English, and thus English is more attractive for interlingual communication.
China is big enough to be a world in itself, and for most of history has been so, but globalization means that it is part of a greater whole and competes on that level.