Some people say that there should be a single official international language. Others oppose this idea. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
For
This will help in eliminating ambiguity
Render communication for cultures across the world speed and ease, fostering homogeneity and harmony due to creating grounds for a better understanding.
Affording trade and business clarity; making deliberations easier among counterparts from different parts of the world.
Help in evolving global policies on various matters of paramount importance more easily: environment, trade policies, crime prevention
Let forego huge investments otherwise made on translating and interpreting communications.
**Render equal voice to all nations.
Make it easier for the people to exhibit their talent and get employment anywhere in the world.
Make it easier for people to get education in any part of the world.
Help tourism flourish and allow people to travel to diverse locations without inhibitions
Against
Many nations, especially marginalised societies claim it as an attempt by the affluent nations to impose their culture on them: language and culture are intricately entwined, and promotion of one will lead to spread of the other. They draw parallels between such a move and neo-colonialism.
Many also fear that this may lead of disappearance of native language and culture; people, especially the young, will start abandoning the use of their native tongues, making perpetuation difficult, leading to extinction. This will be a great loss to mankind, since each language is a huge repository of wisdom accumulated by ancestors over the ages.
An expensive proposition for many countries: they will have to allocate huge financial outlays and make fundamental changes in education to expose locals to that language.
In contemporary times,a school of thought propounds that a universal global language can help eliminate communication barriers, while other lobbies oppose this notion. The following paragraphs shall delve into this debate, and draw and share a logical opinion.
To begin with, an army of people is quite optimistic about the outcomes of such an arrangement; this will aid in transcending hurdles and impediments erected by linguistic barriers, allowing unambiguous communication and exchange of ideas, and fostering homogeneity and harmony for creating better understanding amongst the global citizens. Moreover, this approach will enable individuals to obtain education from anywhere in the world; and they can exhibit their talent and gain employment around the globe. In addition, it will make travel and tourism flourish by allowing people from different countries to travel without inhibitions of not being able to communicate in alien environments effectively.
However, the skeptical lobby is up in arms against this proposal and suggests this approach can be harmful for millions of native speakers, especially hailing from impoverished societies, as it will make them lose their heritage. The younger generation will abandon and move away from their native heritage and tongue, it will make perpetuation onerous, causing the demise of local cultures and ancestral wisdom since language happens to be an infinite repository of knowhow about a culture and region accumulated over eons. Additionally, several marginalized nations claim it as an attempt by the affluent nations to impose their will and ways of life, and slowly gain control over them.
Overall, although imposition of one universal language does have some shortcomings that are supported by fears about extinction of several weaker vernaculars, having one mode of communication will be in the larger interest of the world; and pitfalls can be overcome with prudent policies.
