Quote:
Appeals for a unilanguage make me cry. Diversity in cultures (and language is an integral part of culture) is extremely important. Homogenized culture is as potentially susceptible to disaster as a single seed crop.
Let me ask you this: what is the purpose of teaching foreign languages? You could say it's for the practical aspect of communication, or for the cultural enrichment it provides, or you could easily say it's both.
So if, in lieu of a single foreign language, we taught a universal language as the elective language, here's what would happen:
1: Practical communication is increased, as one elective language allows communication with those who speak many varying languages.
2: Cultural identity remains intact, as students still learn the language of their culture.
3: Cultural enrichment is -increased- due to the ability to communicate effectively with many other cultures directly.
There is much more to culture than language, and it is a CRIME in this day and age that two people can meet on the street and not communicate with eachother verbally. The language barrier causes us more harm than it warrants us protection.
I was not even suggesting a universal language, though I would like to see it come to fruition eventually. What I was suggesting was refining the English language so that it is more intuitive and easier to learn. Traditional English is unecessarily difficult and reduces literary rates and decreases access to American citizenship for those legitimately seeking it.
I actually just posed the question to a friend of mine who is a professor of reading, and they thought it was a good idea with no insurmountable shortcomings. The largest obstacle would be implementation, which would not be cost inefficient for the benefits it would bring.