One Language For All


Did you know that there is a European treaty called The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages? The Council of Europe web-site says “The Charter is designed to protect and promote regional and minority languages and to enable speakers to use them both in private and public life. It therefore obliges the States Parties to actively promote the use of these languages in education, courts, administration, media, culture, economic and social life, and cross-border co-operation…. the Charter complements the individual rights of minority language speakers ensuing from national and international minority protection. This adds momentum to the implementation of minority rights in daily practice.”

Did you know that in Cape Breton our federal government has invested almost a million dollars in the preservation of Gaelic culture? As part of that program, “A former convent in Mabou turned satellite campus of the Gaelic College will be the new home of North America’s first Gaelic immersion school.

In France, the Breton culture is dying. An article on the CNN website says “Almost two million people spoke Breton at the beginning of the 20th century, according to Ofis ar Brezhoneg, the Breton Language Office. That number has now declined to around 250,000 according to UNESCO, which lists the language as severely endangered.

But the latest figures may already be out of date. Most Breton speakers are now in their 70s or older and the language is estimated to be losing around 10,000 speakers a year.

“The Breton language is the main aspect of our culture, our identity,” Fulup Jakez, head of Ofis ar Brezhoneg, told CNN. “If we lose our language we lose everything.

Here in little Southampton, Ontario, the local elementary school has begun teaching the language of the Chippewa of Nawash to the largely English-speaking population of that school. Why are we doing that? Do we really think that our children will retain any of that language twenty years from now?

I respect the Council of Europe’s determination to protect the rights of minorities. But I think the approach is badly flawed. Why do we need to work hard to preserve minority languages? It ought to be enough to protect the minority population from oppression just because they’re in a minority position. Preserving their language is their own problem.

The world is getting smaller and smaller. The internet is connecting us online and worldwide travel is (Covid limitations aside) freeing the peoples of the world to mingle. And the greatest barrier to getting to know and value each other? Well, that would be the inability to understand each other, because we don’t speak the same language.

In 500 years, or maybe a thousand, what are the chances that the world speaks one language? And won’t that be a wonderful thing when we can all understand each other? Why are we trying so desperately to preserve dying languages? What value is there in that?

I have no problem in creating historical records of dying cultures. It’s useful to know where we came from and why we might have certain customs and attitudes. But I don’t care much for the practice of trying desperately to keep a certain culture active. That complaint from the Breton community – “if we lose our language we lose everything”? My response, were I a French taxpayer (God forbid) would be “That’s your problem, not mine.” Don’t expect me, as a taxpayer, to keep your dreams alive. Either you have a real, vibrant constituency of Breton speaking cultural adherents, or you don’t. And if you don’t, and your descendants speak French, not Breton, the truth is they’ll be better off and it will be easier for them to fit into the world around them.”

What about that Gaelic immersion school in Cape Breton? What sense does that make in Canada? Is it not enough that we’ve still got to suffer the bag-pipes? Why should I want to pay taxpayer dollars to keep Gaelic alive?

The truth is, Gaelic isn’t even very alive in Scotland. The government of Scotland passed The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act in 2005 “with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language.” The Scottish government website reports that “This is a critical time for the future of Gaelic. The position of the language is extremely fragile and the declining numbers of those speaking Gaelic fluently threatens the survival of Gaelic as a living language in Scotland. It is essential that steps are taken to create a sustainable future for Gaelic in Scotland.” As a result, they are carrying out a number of programs to try to preserve a dying language, despite the fact that a 2011 census reported that only 1.1% of the population can speak Gaelic. For God’s sake, it’s dying! Let it go! Celebrate your past if you wish, but embrace a future in which you can be understood by others.

The Hellenic Heritage Association, an Ottawa-based association of Canadians of Greek descent proudly announced The Heritage Greece Program (HG) “an unforgettable two-week cultural and educational study abroad trip….For the first time ever, Greek-Canadian students will be eligible to take part and will be sponsored by the Hellenic Heritage Foundation.  Student participants will meet in Washington, DC for orientation on June 6, 2019, and will depart for Greece…” Well, my heartiest congratulations to the HHA. I commend them for being so dedicated to the preservation of their language and culture. When I was in Ottawa, I enjoyed an afternoon at a Greek festival, and it was fun and different and I was happy for the experience.

But… (there’s always a BUT) … the HHA is a registered charity. Which means that when these Greek-Canadian citizens donate to the HHA, they get a substantial break on their taxes. And that means that the HHA is no longer a real, vibrant cultural entity with a strong enough constituency to survive on their own. Now they’re asking the remainder of the Canadian population to fund the preservation of a language and culture which is probably going to die out eventually anyway, no matter what they do.

What does all this imply for the survival of French in Canada? In March of this year, two studies were published that indicated that the French is in decline, even in Quebec. In response, the Federal government has produced an Official Languages Plan designed to support the preservation of the French language. I think it’s OK to ensure, while a substantial portion of Canada’s population is still French speaking, that government services can be obtained in either language. We should not suppress French language, nor should we mandate its disappearance. But neither should we attempt to mandate its survival. Because the truth is, mandate will not ensure any language survives. People either find it useful and natural to communicate in that language or they don’t. And if they don’t, well, c’est la vie. I personally think French in Canada is doomed in the long run. And as long as we let that happen naturally, organically, and don’t force it, it will cause no pain except to those who long to live in the past.

If you ask Google how many languages exist in the world today, you’ll get many answers ranging from 6500 to about 7300. Berlitz, the language teaching specialists, state on their web-site that “Although there are currently more than 7,000 languages, only 23 cover more than half of the world’s population. They state that the most common language in the world is English, with 379 million native speakers and 753 million non-native speakers. Mandarin Chinese is next with 918 million native speakers and 199 million non-native speakers.

If one had to bet today on what the dominant language in the world will be 500 years from now, you’d have to bet on one of those two languages. Do I care if it turns out to be Mandarin Chinese? Not even a little bit. If my great, great, great great grandchildren have darker skin and epicanthic folds at their eyes, would that be a bad thing? No, it would not. A future world in which racial blending has made it difficult for racism to survive would be a fine thing. And if that world has a single language that everyone understands, all the better.

We should aspire to a world full of racial mongrels speaking a common language and revelling in our common humanity, rather than a world full of pure-bred races disputing over our differences. To that end, we should exercise, at best, passive tolerance of those who want to preserve language and culture. But, our governments should not actively participate in those preservation activities. Stand aside, and let a single world-wide language evolve.


10 responses to “One Language For All”

  1. Makes good sense. I can see that eventually the number of languages will be reduced. However people can get very emotional about keeping and resurrecting their culture (myself excluded). Unfortunately our governments put money into things without a whole amount of justification. Citing a few examples: the bluenose, the ferry in Yarmouth. In other words money could be spent on worse than preserving culture. Do I support it? No but it’s not going to stop.

    • David, I had you in mind a bit while I was writing this. I was aware that your parents spoke French, and you…not so much. I think you expressed some mild regrets for the loss of that part of your heritage, but I don’t think that it represented a tragic loss for you. You simply moved on and adapted to the language that was commonly spoken in your community and you were, by and large, happy with the result. I don’t think language loss has to be painful. It’s not a surgical removal of culture; it’s an evolution and we grow into something new.

      I don’t mind spending money on cultural things like the Bluenose. I just think we should look at the probable future and map our course to get there with minimal resistance.

      • The suggestion that national languages like German, Polish, or Greek are going to disappear is way off base. “Tiny” languages in the Amazon basin or on indigenous reserves in Canada may disappear, and funding Gaelic studies in Canada should cease, but national languages will survive indefinitely.

        • You might be right. Unlikely, but you might be right. But the bottom line is that desperate measures to “save” a language are sadly misplaced. If the language survives because it’s being used a lot, then it has a place. If it needs artificial respiration to keep it going, then it doesn’t.

  2. I’m probably not in favour of your position. Sounds like a new type of colonialism and would also be a main feature of any Orwellian state.
    Technology will likely obviate the need at any rate. The microchips we get injected with our vaccines in the next pandemic will most certainly have instant translators that will allow us to communicate with anyone, anywhere in any of the known languages

    • My position, when you get past all the verbosity, isn’t that we want to force everyone to speak a single language. It’s that it will happen all by itself if we simply stand back and let it happen. But yes, the microchips will help.

  3. On the other hand, the Welsh language is thriving in Wales, which poses an interesting question about why preservation is working there but less so in Scotland, where the English-speaking Lowlands and the Highlands have always been two separate cultures, and Ireland. Languages have a life of their own that often defies official sanction or support. And for every trend towards uni-ligualism, there is another expert opining that languages will continue to split off. I will say this: when a language is lost an immense amount of culture is lost as well as one of the most significant touchstones of identity. The Gaels on PEI abandoned their language because they were taught to be ashamed of it — taught by their teachers, by official culture, and even by their elders, who saw it as a marker of inferiority. Who needs official oppression when you can make people oppress themselves? The Irish who came to PEI — Curleys and Cullens among them — were already language-assimilated by the British before they left Ireland. Meanwhile, back home the Great Famine completed the work of dismantling Irish Gaelic culture. And something special was lost.

    On another tack, until the age of nine or so, children apparently have no trouble learning multiple languages and keeping them straight. The language centre of their brain is still, like their bones, pliable. After that it becomes harder. So, I say, the more languages the better. The more languages, each with their own nuance and their own freight of memory, the better. But can a government sustain a language by dint of will? I doubt it. (Although Acadians have benefited mightily from federal Canada’s concessions to Quebecois language rights.)

    • Ed, the chief argument for multiple languages is captured in your comment “and something special was lost”. How true, how lasting, how important is that loss? Did you ever feel a great lack in your childhood because you couldn’t speak Gaelic? It’s only a source of pain for the first generation that loses the language. After that, it matters little to the descendants. And I simply argue that you, as a child on PEI were better able to cope with the community around you speaking English than you would have been had your parents somehow managed to raise you as a Gaelic speaking little sprout.

      I have no wish to suppress languages and cancel cultures, but I have no wish to support preservation efforts either. If the affected community is strong enough and vibrant enough to keep their language and culture alive, well good for them. And if they’re no….oh, well.

  4. A person essentially help to make seriously posts I would state. This is the first time I frequented your website page and thus far? I surprised with the research you made to create this particular publish extraordinary. Great job!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *