Option A

For ToK (Theory of Knowledge), we have to do a project, explaining several objectives, in reference to the movie L’Enfant Sauvage (The Wild Child). One of our options was to create a piece of artwork.
For my piece I took decided to use a piece of matte board. I was originally going to have a dark purple barrier down the middle, but I decided to change that because the two sides were dark colors, and I wanted the barrier to stand out. I decided to paint it white instead.
I decided to do some research on color meanings. Using Google I found the website: Color Wheel Pro: Color Meaning (http://www.color-wheel-pro.com/color-meaning.html )
I found that “Blue symbolizes…intelligence…” (among many other meanings), and “Red is a very emotionally intense color. Dark red is associated with vigor [and] willpower…” (also among other meanings). I decided that these two colors would be the perfect background for the Dt. Itard side of the matte board. I decided that I would put the dark red on the bottom, and brush blue on the top. Both colors are visible, and they also combine to make up a dark purple color, which according to my research “can cause frustration.” Dr. Itard had a lot of frustration in trying to educate Victor.
For Victor’s side I decided to use black as a base color because “black is a mysterious color, associated with…the unknown.” I thought this was perfect because not a lot is known, nor were many attempts made to find out about Victor’s past. It is therefore, shrouded in mystery. To add color to Victor’s side, I decided to splatter paint it for several reason. One was because Victor never fully developed to the “normal” standards, especially speaking, that Dr. Itard had which for him to achieve. The splatters symbolize how different he is from Dr. Itard, who has a solid background. The splatters also have a chaotic effect, which represents Victor’s wildness. The final reason I choose to splatter paint was because it was the most effective way of incorporating all the colors, which represent Victor. The colors I used most prominently for Victor were white, which symbolizes innocence, and green, which symbolizes growth. Throughout the movie, theses were vicotr’s two strongest traits. Secondarily, was my use of the other colors, blue (once again, intelligence), red (passion, vigor, willpower), and yellow (“produces a warming effect, arouses cheerfulness, stimulates mental activity”). All of theses colors represent how Victor acts throughout the movie. For Dr. Itard’s name I chose to use the color white simply because it stood out best against the background. I chose purple, and the less rigid letter for Victor’s name to symbolizes his mental wildness, and because purple also conveys mystery.
I chose to put two breaks in the barrier, to symbolize Dr. Itard’s breakthrough to Victor, and Victor’s own breakthrough. Across the barriers is the word “lait” (milk), twice, the only word Victor ever spoke, and was the perhaps the most important breakthrough Victor had.
On either side of the barrier are pictures. They are mostly stills from the movie, which I got by searching key words, such as Wild Child, L’enfant Sauvage, Victor of Aveyron, Dr. Itard, and mixes of the words. On the left are pictures of Francois Truffaut, who played Dr. Itard in the movie, and two illustrations of the real Dr. Itard. On the right side, are pictures of Jean-Pierre Cargol, who played Victor, and one drawing of the real Victor of Aveyron. I picked specific stills from the movie, to really show Dr. Itard and Victor Many of the pictures, were actually of the two actors together but I separated them to show each character specifically. The Pictures of Dr. Itard show him in thought, reaching out, or recording what is happening. This is how he was for the majority of the movie, always in motion, thinking of ways to get through to Victor. The pictures of victor are slightly different. There are pictures of him staring off into space, as he does many times throughout the movie, which he most often does when he does not understand, and doesn’t really seem to care. There are also pictures of victor with his alphabet board and him with the key to the milk cupboard, and him learning to walk upright. These are all pictures of his growth.
On the divider, there are three pictures. On is of Victor and Dr. Itard, walking together, one is of Dr. Itard, Victor, and Citizen Pinel, in front of the mirror, where Victor realizes that it is himself in the mirror. There is also a picture at the bottom of Victor biting Dr. Itard. These three significant images really show the breakthroughs Victor had. Victor was able to interact and walk straight-upright (image 1), Victor shows he is more intelligent than most animals, by recognizing himself in the mirror (image 2), and Victor biting Dr. Itard, when he tries force Victor into the closet, without cause or reason (image 3).
Image 3 is particularly significant. Dr. Itard has taught Victor emotion and reason, and justice. Victor lashes out when forced to go in the closet for no good basis. He has reasoned that he performed the task Dr. Itard asked, correctly, and his anger and fear (emotion), at going into the closet cause him to lash out.
Dr. Itard wants Victor to speak. He wants to show the world that a feral child (see the image below Victor’s name), can be trained and taught to be a normal human being. He wants to show that he can bridge the gap of lost education from the early years. He does this by repeating certain words, lait, being repeated the most often, and by giving Victor the board with letters to put in the correct place. In the movie, he tries to teach Victor the vowels, and how to say them.
Dr. Itard teaches Victor perception in several different ways. The first, is through the mirror, and how Victor realizes that the image in front of him is a reflection of himself. Another way is thrpugh Victor’s alphabet board. At first he just put the letters in the same order, but when Dr. Itard changes it, victor must learn to recognize the different letters, and put them where they actually belong, not where he is used to putting them. This is also how Dr. Itard teaches Victor language, because Victor never speaks, besides the word lait. Dr. tard teaches Victor to understand language, but he never successfully teaches Victor to speak.
I used modgepodge to cover the pictures so that there would not rip,a nd prevent them from losing their stickiness.
I really like the way that this piece came out. I think it conveys the general story of Victor of Aveyron, and how Dr. Itard taught him.

"In-Class" Essay

The use of Oralism (aka the Oral method) and Sign language impact the deaf view of reality, in two separate and different ways. Oralism has a better realm of reality, on Earth, where not everyone knows how to use sign language, and not everyone is deaf, so communication is more difficult. Sign language has a better realm of reality on Eyeth (the name deaf people call a world where not one speaks, everyone just signs), where everyone uses Sign language to communicate, and everyone understand through that means of “speaking.”
The Sapir –Whorf Hypothesis applies to Deaf Culture in the way that deaf people communicate (sign language). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that different language patterns yield different patterns of thought is shown in Deaf Culture through the world they call “Eyeth.” In Eyeth, the deaf person only has to focus on the sign language, and doesn’t get caught up in reading lips, so that if someone speaks to them to quickly, they might miss something. Sign language is essentially different language, because it is different than speaking. Through Sapir-Whorf, deaf people who use only sign language may have a clearer understanding of what is trying to be said because there a specific for words, and there is a sign for each letter of the alphabet. If a deaf person was using Oralism, aka reading lips, and learning to speak, their patterns of thought would be different than sign language. If a deaf person were reading lips, they might miss a word and not understand the full meaning, the way they would if the conversation was being signed. Similarly, if a deaf person can read lips, and can speak coherently, a hearing person may treat the deaf person the same a hearing one, which could lead to things like speaking with his/her back to the deaf person, the way hearing people sometimes talk to each other, which would prevent the deaf person from understanding that part of the conversation, which changes the way the deaf person thinks about whatever the topic of conversation is.
Oralism and Signing facilitate, extend, direct or limit thinking in different way. Oralism is makes it easier for a deaf person to communicate with a hearing person, facilitating them by speaking, as best they can, and reading the hearing person’s lips, so that s/he does not have to sign. It also limits the thinking on both the deaf person and hearing person’s parts. The deaf person may be limited in how fast they can read lips, and so some words may get lost, which can skew the meaning the hearing person is trying to get across. The hearing person is limited in how they can communicate with the deaf person. It is almost rude to constantly rely on the other person to do so much work in holding a simple conversation. Signing both extends, and facilitates thinking. It is extended through hand-eye coordination, watching the hands sign, and replying almost instantaneously with one’s one signs. The better people can sign to each other, the more fluent the conversation becomes, and the more easily the conversation is understood. Signing facilitates thinking because specific signs can only mean certain things so it is easier to understand what is being said when one is holding a conversation in sign. However, signing can also limit thinking. If two people are conversing in sign, it makes it much harder for others to join the conversation, even those who can already sign because who ever wants to join the conversation must watch it carefully for a while to understand what is being discussed. This is basically impossible for any non-signing person to do. In Abel, Mill and Frege say that “the meaning of a sentence ought to depend only on the meaning of words that constitute it,” which basically is a sentence that says what it means, and has relevance to the context or makes sense. However, in language there are always colloquialisms and idioms, so the words don’t always have the meaning they traditionally have, and with signing, it is hard to express those, especially to a newly-signing person, which can make a conversation a) difficult to hold, and b) difficult to understand.
When the Deaf use the Oral method or Signing, what they know is different in each language. With the oral method, lip reading provides a direct meaning and so a deaf person can know what has just been said, although words may get lost, depending on how fast one speaks. Also, when a deaf person uses the Oral method to speak, they know that what they are saying can be understood by hearing people. With Signing, deaf people know exactly what is being said because there are specific signs for almost anything. Anything that doesn’t have a sign can easily be spelled out using the sign alphabet. Each “language,” however, does have a different framework of reality. On “Eyeth,” Deaf people communicate solely through sign, which isolates them from hearing people who cannot sign. It provides better communication among those who can sign, because they are focused solely on the signs and not through understanding fast-paced lips. Through sign, objects can be described better through referencing, therefore becoming more specific. If there is no specific sign for the word egg, a person signing can still describe what they had for breakfast, simply through referencing. It is possible for them to say (through signs of course) “This morning I had two of what a chicken lays, for breakfast.” It simply takes longer.
On Earth, where the oral method would be used more often, there is a sense, cultivated by Alexander Graham Bell, of eugenics, and “breeding” deafness out of the population. Using Oralism, and not sign, deaf people would be able to “mate and pro-create” with hearing people, which would hopefully (in the eyes of the eugenicists) breed out the undesirable trait of deafness. This frame of reality is a little off. Deafness is a mutation that is likely to reoccur, whether someone has two deaf parents or one, or none. It is unrealistic and horrible to keep deaf people separated from each other. In the documentary, families that have two deaf parents say that they found each other and connected better because they were deaf. If you isolate each deaf person, whether they can use the oral method or not, doesn’t prevent them from being lonely, and not having someone they can relate to. However, the Oral method is more realistic on Earth. It allows the deaf people to communicate with the hearing people, not only by reading lips, but also by the deaf speaking, so that their ideas may be conveyed as well.
Abel’s explanation of Sense and reference, sense is a description, and reference is that “which is what the words point to or designate,” play into how the Deaf might use Oralism or signing to view reality. According to the documentary, originally the deaf didn’t know what something was. Gaulledet tried to bring meaning to things and objects, and he did this by creating sign language, which gave the deaf community a way to express and communicate with each other. Sign language, gave both a sense and a reference to things so that they could properly be explained to deaf people. Through sign language, he could describe an object (sense), and then give it a name (reference), which helped deafs to understand the world better, and it gave them a better sense of reality, because they could look at something, know, what it was called, and actually describe it. Through the Oral method they could also do this and connect to hearing people, which kept them in touch with reality, because they had to communicate with people. Abel’s quote, “Though meanings require words, they are not identical to words,” means, in the context of the hearing and the deaf, that those who are able to understand the meaning of a words, and what that words stands in for (i.e. an object or idea), are better able to communicate with the world around them. “Linguistic symbols to organize experience,” means, in the context of the hearing and the deaf, that linguistic symbols, like Sign language, help to explain the things we experience around us, in different ways.
Implications of my claims are that it is possible for deaf and hearing peoples to communicate sufficiently, through both groups’ understanding of words and what they mean, and what they stand for. This, in theory, means that there should be perfect understanding and communication through all people. If hearing people learned to sign, and deaf people learned to read lips and speak, people would be able to understand each other much more clearly, and conversations would flow much more easily. The counterclaim to my argument is, of course, that the world does not work so perfectly. There will always be those who do not wish to learn to better communicate with others, that will leave it up to someone else to learn to sign, or to speak and read lips. There will always be those who do not wish to communicate with those who make no effort. Also, meanings of words are not always clear, which makes communication that much more difficult.
In conclusion, Oralism and Sign language are different capacities, for which different realities exist. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and perhaps one way is better than another, although that should be based solely on opinion.

Genie #2

1. What was so significant about Chomsky's argument?
The part of Chomsky’s argument that was so significant was that he made “syntax central, and for the first time it was clear how big the task was, how difficult the child’s task was in acquiring language.” This was part of the explanation to why Genie was not learning to speak.

2. What do you make of Chomsky's bird argument on p. 36?
I think that Chomsky’s bird argument is an interesting piece of evidence to his the theory that language is a skill that comes naturally to humans not something that must be learned. It makes sense that a child raised by birds would not end up flying because it is unconditionally impossible for a human to fly; it is simply not a skill humans posses. In Chomsky’s argument, he believes that language is a skill humans innately posses, it, however, must be cultivated.

3. Do you agree with Chomsky's claim about the island at the end of Chapter 7? Please explain your answer.
I agree with Chomsky’s claim about the island experiment at the end of Chapter 7. I think that even if language is a skill which humans innately posses, that skill must be cultivated. However, there are differences between isolating one child with no language, and several children with no language. I think that it would be impossible for the individual to develop language, simply because s/he has no one to interact with. But, I think that if you were to place “prelinguistic children on an island,” eventually some sort of language would develop, for means of communication.

4. In Chapter 10, why were Genie's observers pleased to see her hitting other children?
Genie’s observer’s were pleased to see her hitting other children, because it showed he r progression towards the normalcy of an un-abused child. Where “previously [Genie’s] rage had been directed inward,” her lashing out at other children, showed that “Genie was developing a sense of self.”

5. Describe how Genie's language was developing.
Genie’s vocabulary, as in words she understood, increased enormously, yet her speech progressed very little. “Her curiosity about her new surroundings sent her on a constant quest for the names of things. She would lead one or another of her caretakers around, using their fingers to touch or point to object, while they said the corresponding words. ‘Hungry to learn the words for all the new items filing her senses…’” She began to understand what they object around her were called, and she could understand what they were when said by name, but she could not speak. “Although Genie’s vocabulary increased, her speech stayed limited to a few short utterances; it soon became clear that she was understanding more than she could produce.”

6. After reading Chapter 11, what are the primary differences between the reading and the film?
The primary difference between the reading and the film were that Dr. Itard “terrorized” Victor more than is conveyed in the movie, in attempts to “normalize” him. He actually used a Leyden jar, instead of the closet, in the movie. Also, Dr. Itard “once dangled the boy from a fifth-story window to frighten him out of his recalcitrance.”

7. How did the film, Wild Child impact the symposium members? What is meant by: "all of us saw in the movie what we were prepared to see to confirm to our own biases."?
The Wild Child impacted the symposium members by making them ask questions about how this case of isolation, similar to Genie’s, was handled, what the outcomes were, and what could now possibly be expected of Genie. What is meant by that statement was that those who saw the movie were able to confirm their biases (which were: “what Genie could best reveal to science, and what, in the course of that revealing, science could ethically ask of Genie.”). The Wild Child showed them the “answers” to their questions and biases, but each member really only took away what s/he wanted.

8. What do you think of Dr. Elkind's quote on p. 59? How do you feel about Dr. Freedman's suggestion on p. 59-61?
I agree with Dr. Elkind’s quote. If Genie’s caretakers put too much emphasis on her learning to speak, and only rewarded with “love” when she did well in the speech area, she might not make progress and/or even regress because she would not be getting the attention she generally needed, whether or not she could speak. I think Dr. Freedman’s suggestion is a good one, because it mimics the life of a “normal” child. Is Genie was exposed to one primary caretaker, like a mother, the time could come when she might speak in order to please that caretaker. With so many people paying attention to her, spending time with her, and expecting so much of her, it might have been too much pressure on her to please everyone. She might have made more progress if she had one person who she truly wanted to please because that person was the primary “lover” in her life.

9. Why was it important for Itard to teach Victor to "imagine the needs of others (p. 73)"? Does CAS do this? Why or why not?
It was important for Dr. Itard to teach Victor to “imagine the needs of others” because a “normal” person does not only think of him/herself all the time. A person considers the emotions and needs of others in the world, and thereby is able to properly interact with others. Considering others makes one a better person because one is able to help others, and make the world a better place to live. CAS does do this. It makes the student aware of how thing in the “real world” (i.e. not school or home), work, and it actually makes the students participate in the world, preparing them for life on their own, where it in order to survive, one must consider others, sometimes even before one considers him/herself.

10. After reading Chapter 14, do you agree that Truffaut's film ending was too optimistic?
I agree that Truffaut’s film ending was too optimistic. I do think it would have been better if he had added “an illustrated narrative of what happened to the characters after we them on the screen.” The note the movie ended on suggested that Victor eventually may have learned to speak, and that Dr. Itard continued on caring for him and teaching him. It was good to leave it on an optimistic note, but it was too optimistic and needed a dose of realism. If the narrative had been added, the movie would have better conveyed the limitations of educating “feral children” or “closet children.”

Genie #1

1. What was Psamtik's experiment? What did he hope to learn? Did he?
His experiment was to take two children from their mothers at a very young age, and put them in a hut with a shepherd who would not speak to them. He hoped to learn what the protolanguage, the very first language was, and he hoped that it would be Egyptian, or related to Egyptian, because he was the King of Egypt at that time. When “the pair accosted [the shepherd] with their first utterance. The word they had developed was “bekos,” the Phrygian word for bread. Pstamik declared that Phrygian, the language of an Indo-European people in Asia Minor, was the protolanguage. However, his research “has not well stood the test of time.” There are problems with his experiment. “There is no way of ascertaining whether the children had a natural grasp of many languages and were merely expressing an innate human preference for Phrygian baked goods.” It is also possibly that the sheep the shepherd watch made a noise like bekos, and perhaps the children were imitating that noise.

2. Rymer claims on pg. 5 that "while his experiment was flawed in fulfilling its declared intention...it embodied both the theological questions and the practical quandaries that still bedevil the discipline." Where did Abel hint at this same concept?
Abel hinted at the same concept in The Functions of Language, and linguistic competence. The questions of whether or not language is a learned skill, or a naturally adapted skill.

3. Why do Linguistics and Astronomy "constitute an unlikely sisterhood"?
Linguistics and Astronomy “constitute an unlikely sisterhood” because they are “both often constrained to be more observational than experimental—astronomy because its subjects are too distant to be experimented on, linguistics because its subject are too human.” The way each subject must be studied, have similar qualities, so they are considered to be in a sisterhood.

4. Why was the Social Worker concerned about the young girl that came to her Welfare Office with her mother?
The Social Worker was concerned about the young girl that came to her Welfare Office with her mother because she had a “halting gait and a curious posture—unnaturally stooped, hands held up as though resting on an invisible rail. The worker alerted her supervisor to what she thought was an unreported case of autism…”

5. Consider the history of Linguistics outlined in Chapter 5. Please explain how the study of language grew from the religious to the biological and finally to the psychological.
The study of language began as religious when, prior to 1450 (the beginning of the era known as the “High Renaissance”) when “European philosophers related [any question] to the Bible. Any human attribute must be inevitably mysterious and divine beyond investigation as the creator it reflected.” When Descartes (during the High Renaissance) “proposed the independence of the soul from the body, of the mind from the brain…allowed much leeway to the nascent [developing] science of biology.” When in the late 17th century “Leibniz proclaimed language ability to be a gift of God” and “language was considered [to be] an integral part—perhaps a keystone—of man’s soul or (less likely)man’s reason, or both,” the study of language was making a jump from biological to theological. “By the late 19th century as comparative linguists handled the relationship of one tongue to another, the bulk of questions concerning the relationship of language to man had disappeared into psychology—a discipline the questions helped create.”

Abel Questions #2, The Functions of Language

1. What are the functions of language? Just provide the main ones Abel describes.
The functions of language are: cognitive (“language transmits information”), expressively (“when we attend to the words themselves and to their atmosphere”), performatory (“[the words] themselves are the sole instrument of the action”). Abel also says that “Language also functions to tell a story, to declaim, to hypnotize, to play a part, to imagine, to soothe, to ask, to deceive, to demonstrate one’s feelings, and in endless other ways.”

2. What is significant about the story of the tribal boys and the table?
The significance of the story about the tribal boys and the table is that the visitor did not ask specifically for what he wanted so he was given many answers. What he did not realize was that only one of the answers he was given was the only true answer to what he was asking. He assumed that the language of the tribe had five words for "table." In that particular language however, thy only had one word for table, because it was only needed in a cognitive form.

3. What is the “inscrutability of reference?” (p. 228)
The “inscrutability of reference” is when the only “way of learning what words mean” is not able to be understood through “being shown the objects [the words] denote.” An example of this is given: “can you point to air?” The answer is you cannot, because it cannot be seen. The” inscrutability of reference” is understanding what words mean even if you cannot see the meaning.

4. What does Abel mean when he says that “Words are mere breaths of air, or scribbled pencil marks, but as used in a ‘language game’ by a speech community they are not arbitrary? “( p. 228)
Abel means that words are random, you can have a string of words, and not have it mean anything, but at the same time, there can be another string of words that has a perfectly clear meaning. The ‘language game’ he mentions, he means when exploring the way the words work, in our lives. That is why a speech community would be studying words. Also, a speaking community does not make up arbitrary sentences that have no meaning. When a person speaks, they speak to make sense, or more importantly make a point. If a person was to just use random words, it would be impossible to understand them, because speech is a very large part of how we communicate.

5. What is the difference between Animal and Human Language?
The radical difference between Animal and Human Language is that Human language “is always learned; it is not mechanically controlled by specific external stimuli or internal states; it is not restricted to communication of information; it is innovative and creative.”

6. What is Chomsky’s argument on how humans learn language? Be specific about linguistic competence.
Chomsky’s argument on how humans learn language is “a special ability must be posited to account for language learning.” His argument is also know as linguistic competence. This means that he believes that language is a learned skill, not something that comes naturally to humans. It must be instilled in a person; they are not genetically and mentally programmed to automatically speak.

7. What does Abel think about Chomsky’s argument?
Abel thinks that Chomsky’s argument has no necessity. He says: “I believe it is not warranted to postulate a specific human attribute called linguistic competence.” This means he does not find it important to confirm that there is a human skill need to learn language. He believes that “knowing how to use language is no more mysterious than other instances of knowing how.”

8. How would you answer Abel’s question: “Would an infant learn to speak, although isolated from adults, if he were constantly within earshot of a radio?” (p. 231)
I would answer Abel’s question by saying, yes, a child would learn to speak, if isolated form adults, yet always in earshot of a radio. The constant stream of words, which would usually be repeated (if you listen to a radio host, they often use many of the same words), would prompt the child to speak, but I think that just because someone has words, does not mean they have language, and I don’t think the radio, would help the child understand the words s/he was hearing. Without an adult to personally explain the words and their meanings to the child, the child would be simply a parrot, with no real understanding.

9. Why does Abel believe that “language is not in fact unique in the spectrum of human capacities?” (p. 231)
Abel believes that “language is not unique in the spectrum of human capacities” because the “human species has evolved certain physiological capacities and certain neurological dispositions to learn; no one can now say how specific these learning mechanisms are.” What Abel means by that is that the human linguistic capacity is not the only special capacity which humans have, and that all the other special capacities are just a mysterious as the linguistic one, so it is not necessary to find out if there is a special linguistic skill humans have the capacity to learn, instead of just possessing it.

10. What does Abel mean when he says: “We all learn these codes of stance, mannerism, gesture, tactility, interpersonal behavior…yet we are equally unable to state them fully”? (p. 232)
Abel means that according to Plato, we have no actual knowledge of all these “impersonal behaviors” because we are unable to explain them. Also that, all of these “codes” we have learned, are not always the same everywhere in the world. Abel gives examples of how the US version of an straight, honest man, how he stand up straight and looks others in the eye, is a “gangster, or barbarian” to the Vietnamese.

Eyak Language

I believe that by the time a language is dying, it is too late to “preserve” it. There are certain methods that should be used to ‘memorialize it,’ like creating a dictionary that converts the words to one of the major languages. But I think that if a language is already dying, it is too late to preserve it.
There are two sides to every story. Consequently there are two arguments to the debate of promoting a single language. In the NPR audio article, “The Sound of Vanishing Languages,” the male narrator makes an argument for letting languages die out: “Fewer languages, easier communication; not such a terrible thing.” He does however, provide a counter, albeit weak, argument: “Linguists, like botanists and zoologists, prefer diversity.” This first argument, that fewer languages would mean easier communication, is a strong argument. The phrase, “lost in translation” would be less valid, and in the case of only one language, it would be completely invalid. People would have much less trouble understanding each other, and idioms and colloquialisms would not have to be translated, just to make absolutely no sense in a different language.
The counter argument to having only one language in the world is partly that diversity is important to the world. Another part of this argument is that language is a part of culture, and if you lose a language, you lose part of the culture. An example of this is how the Inuit (A Native American Tribe in the pacific north-west), have approx. 100 different words for snow. If the world was to choose to have only one language, and it was not Intuit, all these words would be lost, and perhaps the Inuit people would not know how to express themselves, they way they use to. There are also financial implications. There would be many people out of jobs, if it was decided that there would be only one language in the world. All the people who are hired to create inter-language dictionaries like a French to English dictionary, would be out of jobs, because there would only be one language for everyone to learn. All the people hired to bind those books would be out of jobs. For the first generation, they would be needed to make all the dictionaries, converting all the languages into the new “only” language, but once everyone had learned that language, they would all be out of jobs. The second, third, fourth, and etc. generations would not need the dictionaries, because they would be brought up learning the language. Then all those people would be out of jobs, and it would be a huge crush to the world’s economy.
I think the best solution is to let dying languages die, because if they are already dying, it is too late to “save” (i.e. having many fluent speakers) it, but there are still ways to preserve the language. Just as was done with the Eyak Language, and Chief Marie Smith Jones, dictionaries and sound recordings should be done of the language, so that if anyone wants to study the language, it is available. Dead languages, are not truly dead, because they are not lost to the world. I believe that we should not let any languages be lost to the world, because each language is a part of someone’s culture and history. Consequently, I do not believe that there should only be one language spoken throughout the world. Conformity, even just confined to a language, shows closed-mindedness, which narrows one’s vision of the world, and one’s understanding of the world, and people in general.
After reading Every Teacher is a Language Teacher, I think that the I.B. supporting International Mother Language Day would be a great thing. As the article says it “encourag[es] students to use their mother tongue[, and] gets them interested in their native language and heritage.” This prevents languages, and as a result, heritage and culture from dying.