Free Essay About Do You Agree With Malik That Endangered Languages Should Be Allowed To Die?

I strongly disagree with the main theme of the Malik’s essay: languages with a small amount of their speakers or with no speakers at all should die. An author claims that “if the language is spoken by one person or even a few hundred – it’s not a language at all”. In my opinion – it is a language still. Malik says that “the purpose of language is to enable the communication” – even a language of a few hundred people give them an opportunity to communicate between each other. Going back to this two author’s statements, it is clearly to notice that Malik contradicts himself. It is because even a dying language serves as a tool of the communication.
Another argument in the dying languages defense – is often the unique knowledge, which is carried by those languages speakers. If some particular language dies, a great knowledge dies as well. Why the humanity has kept the Latin language? Nowadays it is considered to be dead language. It is all because of all the knowledge this language has brought to us. It has kept the history not only of some particular region or person. This language has kept the history of the whole world.
On this point I agree with David Chrystal, quoted by Malik. We should care about dying languages. They are creating a cultural diversity in the world, which increases people’s experience in the cross cultural communication. Every new language teaches us how to think in a
different way, in the relation to its culture. Every new language discovers a new culture. We should keep dying languages in written and recorded forms as a respect to our history. As it is said in a wise proverb: “the more languages you know, the more you are a person.”