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.