Is a Universal Language a Good Idea?
The Tower of Babel is a great fable of the bible. This supposed cooperation through a common language is interesting and at once confusing. Would a common world language actually be beneficial to all mankind and allow us to overcome the problems facing humanity today? In short, I believe that answer to this, is probably no.
For instance, let's setup a scenario where a common language was not directly instituted, but rather made possible via a machine. This is the most likely construct in a world where people are often deprived of the opportunity to learn a second language. Let us suppose then that a universal translation machine was created. The machine can translate one language to any other language within a small margin of error. So group A send a message to group B. The message from group A is, "We would like to buy your plot of land to develop it." Group B gets the same message, but they are confused, because group B has no social construct of either owning land or any concept of "money." So what happens? You waste more time translating culture concepts until something is understood, or the more likely outcome the confusion is never sorted out the land it taken and a war breaks out. This is of course the more dramatic outcome, but still it illustrates the problem with machine translation.
Machine translation currently has many flaws. Often machine translation cannot distinguish between the complex differences between nouns and verbs, especially when they do not have any spelling difference. Colloquial expression pose an even greater problem as well. However, we are assuming that machine translation is ultimately possible though. The last remaining problem is that machine translation is not alive and lacks the cognizance to determine social and cultural constructs that are necessary for human communication. A computer gets down to business without any subtleties and explains simply that A is B, instead of translating into cultural norms. The presents a conundrum of communication, because no matter how well the machine is programmed to acknowledge social and cultural norms it will still make mistakes that could create problems.
Returning to the tower of babel it is important to realize here that these people all spoke a common language, and no message was relayed between them, because they all had a common culture and social construct. Of many languages vying for the position of a common language we have Esperanto and by hegemony of the United States, English. If these languages were taught by every state within the world would be have better cooperation and fewer wars? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Again these languages rely heavily on their own culture of creation. Why can we still not put terms such as déjà vu and Istigkeit into English? Simply because language is built on social and cultural constructs that make it difficult to put into another language without someone to distinguish what should and should not be said. Meaning that even if there is more mutual understanding it still will limit the communication between any two parties by their own social constructs, whereas study of a particular language encompasses study of their culture and beliefs as well. I believe that although the evidence for the Saphir-Worf hypothesis was to say the least misinformed, that it still had a correct assumption in the constructs of language at large.
Considering other factors politically and within the international relations realm we also run into problems. Let us say that all cultural aspects have been eliminated and now we have a common society based on only one language, and all cultural aspects of difference have been muted by the commonality of language. Each party can communicate fluidly and learn as much as possible when A communicated to B. B finds out that A is underpricing the land, because B can communicate with other parties and read the fine print that A has provided, thus B will never cooperate given that A is getting a better deal. In fact, cooperation will be limited by a common language. With one common language between the two each party will act only as it is beneficial to them, which brings about a worldwide stalemate or a whole lot of deception when it comes to getting things done.
Why then is a traditional translator a superb deal? Well, judge for yourself. Social and cultural norms are taken into account, which allows for a lower level of communication that is highly calculated and speaks to that particular nation's beliefs, rather than political outcomes that are negative or positive. It also limits the communications between other parties.
Therefore it makes sense that a common language has extreme limits when it comes to working on an international scale. Although it has its benefits in travel and perhaps even trade, between nations it, at least to myself, does not seem to be the best scenario to operate under.
Have questions or disagreement? Leave me a comment.
A short summary on the Tower of Babel: "The Tower of Babel (Hebrew: מגדל בבל Migdal Bavel Arabic: برج بابل Burj Babil) is a structure featured in chapter 11 of the Book of Genesis, an enormous tower intended as the crowning achievement of the city of Babilu, the Akkadian name for Babylon. According to the biblical account, Babel was a city that united humanity, all speaking a single language and migrating from the east; it was the home city of the great king Nimrod, and the first city to be built after the Great Flood. The people decided their city should have a tower so immense that it would have "its top in the heavens." (וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם). However, the Tower of Babel was not built for the worship and praise of God, but was dedicated to false man-made religion, with a motive of making a 'name' for the builders - Genesis 11:4. " Courtesy Wikipedia
The Tower of Babel is a great fable of the bible. This supposed cooperation through a common language is interesting and at once confusing. Would a common world language actually be beneficial to all mankind and allow us to overcome the problems facing humanity today? In short, I believe that answer to this, is probably no.
For instance, let's setup a scenario where a common language was not directly instituted, but rather made possible via a machine. This is the most likely construct in a world where people are often deprived of the opportunity to learn a second language. Let us suppose then that a universal translation machine was created. The machine can translate one language to any other language within a small margin of error. So group A send a message to group B. The message from group A is, "We would like to buy your plot of land to develop it." Group B gets the same message, but they are confused, because group B has no social construct of either owning land or any concept of "money." So what happens? You waste more time translating culture concepts until something is understood, or the more likely outcome the confusion is never sorted out the land it taken and a war breaks out. This is of course the more dramatic outcome, but still it illustrates the problem with machine translation.
Machine translation currently has many flaws. Often machine translation cannot distinguish between the complex differences between nouns and verbs, especially when they do not have any spelling difference. Colloquial expression pose an even greater problem as well. However, we are assuming that machine translation is ultimately possible though. The last remaining problem is that machine translation is not alive and lacks the cognizance to determine social and cultural constructs that are necessary for human communication. A computer gets down to business without any subtleties and explains simply that A is B, instead of translating into cultural norms. The presents a conundrum of communication, because no matter how well the machine is programmed to acknowledge social and cultural norms it will still make mistakes that could create problems.
Returning to the tower of babel it is important to realize here that these people all spoke a common language, and no message was relayed between them, because they all had a common culture and social construct. Of many languages vying for the position of a common language we have Esperanto and by hegemony of the United States, English. If these languages were taught by every state within the world would be have better cooperation and fewer wars? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Again these languages rely heavily on their own culture of creation. Why can we still not put terms such as déjà vu and Istigkeit into English? Simply because language is built on social and cultural constructs that make it difficult to put into another language without someone to distinguish what should and should not be said. Meaning that even if there is more mutual understanding it still will limit the communication between any two parties by their own social constructs, whereas study of a particular language encompasses study of their culture and beliefs as well. I believe that although the evidence for the Saphir-Worf hypothesis was to say the least misinformed, that it still had a correct assumption in the constructs of language at large.
Considering other factors politically and within the international relations realm we also run into problems. Let us say that all cultural aspects have been eliminated and now we have a common society based on only one language, and all cultural aspects of difference have been muted by the commonality of language. Each party can communicate fluidly and learn as much as possible when A communicated to B. B finds out that A is underpricing the land, because B can communicate with other parties and read the fine print that A has provided, thus B will never cooperate given that A is getting a better deal. In fact, cooperation will be limited by a common language. With one common language between the two each party will act only as it is beneficial to them, which brings about a worldwide stalemate or a whole lot of deception when it comes to getting things done.
Why then is a traditional translator a superb deal? Well, judge for yourself. Social and cultural norms are taken into account, which allows for a lower level of communication that is highly calculated and speaks to that particular nation's beliefs, rather than political outcomes that are negative or positive. It also limits the communications between other parties.
Therefore it makes sense that a common language has extreme limits when it comes to working on an international scale. Although it has its benefits in travel and perhaps even trade, between nations it, at least to myself, does not seem to be the best scenario to operate under.
Have questions or disagreement? Leave me a comment.
