by Sophie Haworth
The official Esperanto flag
Since the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, humanity has been divided by language. Recent estimates suggest that there are around 7,000 different languages across the world, not including individual dialects that vary from region to region. Arguably, this communication barrier has worked to separate people of different races, religions and nations, fuelling distrust and conflict. This was the argument of L.L. Zamenhof, the creator of the auxiliary language, Esperanto, in 1887. His aim in creating this Lingua Franca (common language) was to break down language barriers, allowing for open and universal communication between all people of the world. For example, it could be used in international assemblies such as the European Union or the United Nations, where a universal language could make legislative debate and work far simpler and more communal. 135 years on, Esperanto is spoken by an estimated 100,000 people, with courses available on popular language learning sites such as Duolingo.
Esperanto takes inspiration from Germanic and Romance languages, such as German, French, Spanish and Italian, and thus is relatively simple for European language speakers to pick up. Its grammar rules are simple and regular, negating a significant deterrence for learning other languages, with their copious exceptions. Its fusion style is designed to allow it to be easily picked up by the casual linguist, with many words reflecting their forms in other languages.
For example:
estas are (similar to French ‘est’)
laboras does work (similar to English, ‘labour’)
ne no (similar to Dutch, ‘nee’)
la the (same as feminine French, ‘la’)
saluton hello (similar to Spanish, ‘saluton’, meaning greeting)
It is estimated that around 1,000,000 people will understand a vast amount of Esperanto without having learnt it, passively transferring knowledge of their native tongue to the vocabulary and grammar rules. In some ways, this is the beauty of Esperanto, in that its integrative system allows a variety of speakers to learn the language efficiently, relying on concepts and forms present in their own tongue. It does not favour one language over another, a feature which clearly distinguishes it from purely deciding on an existing language (such as English) as the global tongue. Esperanto does not discriminate in this way, which would make language more divisive, especially when the aim of a universal language is to unite and bridge the communication gaps.
However, the successful introduction of an auxiliary language requires a mutual agreement for most, if not all, countries to teach, speak and utilise it regularly, to create a national understanding and appreciation for it and its uses. As of now, no single country has adopted Esperanto as an official language, and there are few academic opportunities for students to learn it, especially in the younger, formative years where languages are more easily picked up. (Though, it is important to mention that there are limited opportunities to learn the language at German, Hungarian and Polish universities, such as an Interlinguistic Studies course at Polish university, Adam Mickiewicz). As such, Esperanto has never taken off as the solution to the world’s language barrier. Without proper early education and universal knowledge of the language, Esperanto will be virtually useless as a communication tool. In most countries, there are fewer than 100 Esperanto speakers per million people, and even countries with high proportions of Esperanto speakers, such as Hungary, have fewer than 900 speakers per million. Therefore, functioning as an Esperanto speaker is incredibly difficult, and this reduces the opportunity for conversation and real-life uses of the language. This works tourther marginalise it and reduces its prominence on the international stage, relegating it as an ineffective attempt at a Lingua Franca.
If we are to introduce such a language solution, organisations such as the EU and UN would need to sponsor state education across their countries, as well as providing resources and updating infrastructure to recognise the change. Even so, there is significant scope for this to be an unwelcome change for many. Linguists and the general public are able to appreciate our wide-ranging global culture through language and dialect, which would arguably be sidelined by such a change. Eradicating diverse and complex tongues would be unproductive, and could contribute to the further loss of dialects and reduce language learning across the globe. This is an especially significant point with an increasingly prominent push to preserve dwindling native tongues, such as Welsh and Gaelic. Additionally, language-based technology is becoming increasingly common, with real-time language translator tools reaching the market, and thus heavily reducing the need for a universal language. Whether Esperanto is as relevant and useful a tool as it was at its creation is a highly debatable topic, with this and emerging technology working to discourage many modern students from learning foreign languages.
The real legacy of Esperanto is what could have been - the missed potential to connect the world.
Sources; Where Do People Even Speak Esperanto? | Listen & Learn (listenandlearn.org)
Esperanto | language | Britannica
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments with names are more likely to be published.