By Carmen Chang,
[According to Umberto Eco] Thus, we would have a generation that is not multilingual in the sense of “polyglot,” but multilingual from a general knowledge perspective, a generation that knows that some words are merely a turn of phrase among others… I believe that even for an Esperantist, this could be a way to better prepare people to accept even a vehicular language.
And once that is achieved, why not teach a young person, among other languages, also some elements of Esperanto? Starting very, very, very early, before they are capable of learning arithmetic or history, because that is the right moment! Such multilingualism, not the multilingualism of polyglots but the multilingualism of culture, the one that allowed me to learn a few words of Russian —although I don’t understand anything, don’t speak it but it can help me in certain situations to understand the Russian spirit— I believe in this multilingualism quite strongly.
To carry out this research, we have identified a central point of reflection or problem that has allowed us to conduct a more detailed analysis of the issue of languages. This work arose from the theme “Literary Translation and Neologisms” proposed within the framework of the Hispanic and Romance Linguistics Seminar, and it is titled Natural and Artificial Languages. For methodological reasons, we have mainly focused on the linguistic aspect, but we have also included examples and practical aspects of both types of languages. After completing our study and critical analysis of the topic, we have reached the following conclusions:
As French linguist, Émile Benveniste (1902-1976), states, “language is the essence of man”. Language could be interpreted as a mirror of the soul, a means of communication with others, a social element, a sign of recognition, and belonging to a community, a group, a culture, but in reality, it reflects much more than that. Since ancient times, this faculty, specific to the human species, has fascinated and intrigued us. The emergence of language raises multiple questions and causes admiration in humans. In this regard, the formulation of questions and proposed explanations are, generally speaking, highly varied, often imbued with religious, mystical, or purely scientific connotations. These responses have been unconvincing, partial, and unsystematic. For most of the 20th century, archaeology, linguistics, and population genetics have, in fact, followed separate paths, each with its own objectives, developing particular methods and giving rise to different hypotheses.
Now, we will briefly discuss the opposing positions of those who favor monolingualism versus those who advocate for multilingualism. On one hand, critics of natural languages oppose their imprecision and incessant fluctuations, as if they were a form of imperfection; and proponents of artificial languages still believe that adopting a universal language would break down cultural and linguistic barriers, thereby facilitating understanding between nations. On the other hand, defenders of primary languages cannot overlook the benefits they provide, such as historical legacy, cultural traditions, the richness of linguistic diversity, and practical reasons like the development of creativity, memory, reasoning, and intellect.
On the other hand, creators of artificial languages have sought to set aside historical languages, thus defending the monolingualist theory for reasons of “linguistic” practicality, legibility, and language economy. Many intellectuals still defend the monolingualism project and persist in the idea of inventing a technical and universal language, and in various cultures, this project continues to be of interest. Many creators of artificial languages have even established their own institutions and have many followers and fans worldwide. Perhaps the most famous of these is Esperanto, a case previously addressed, along with other linguistic projects that have gained good acceptance in modern societies. In this regard, Otto Jespersen (1860-1943), a Danish linguist who contributed to language theory, justifies two reasons, one political and the other linguistic, as to why a natural language could not be chosen as the international language for all nations.
The first reason is that it would unfairly favor one people over all others, thus violating the principle of impartiality that should govern all international relations. The second reason is that any language is too difficult for all foreigners. All existing languages are full of pronunciation, spelling, grammar, lexicon, and especially, phraseological difficulties (André Rousseau, 2003: 10)
While their inventors have gained recognition and popularity, many experts and much of the speaking communities’ members are in favor of the multilingualism theory and do not believe that it is possible to adopt a universal language in everyday contexts due to the complexity and discomfort such a situation would entail; however, it would be feasible in the academic and scientific fields. Many argue that we are tied to natural languages due to the strong sentimental and cultural bonds of linguistic communities speaking a particular language. In this regard, M. Bollack maintains that natural languages cannot be compared with artificial ones, as they are part of the cultural and linguistic identity of a community of speakers: “Literature, representing the most subtle feelings of each people, cannot find a place in a language artificially created by an individual”.
In this regard, Hildebrando Fuentes (1881: 7) explains the problems and difficulties that adopting an international language would imply:
‘’Let us imagine humanity speaking a single language and understanding all the various peoples that form it. If it is true that they are subject to different laws that separate them from one another and if it is an axiom of Science and experience that different climates and geographic conditions correspond to different character, habits, languages, it is clear that, if these natural laws do not disappear, the universal language would be adulterated and corrupted’’. (Hildebrando Fuentes, 1881: 7).
Currently, many organizations are fighting for the preservation and dissemination of regional and indigenous languages, which constitute the cultural, historical, and linguistic heritage of their speakers:
In this way, UNESCO carries out urgent action to promote and expand international commitment in favor of promoting multilingualism and linguistic diversity, including safeguarding languages at risk of extinction (UNESCO, 2021).
On the other hand, Hildebrando Fuentes (1881: 7-8) outlines the reasons, justifying the option to adopt a universal language in the academic and scientific fields:
‘’But no longer does one seek to establish a language for all peoples, no longer does one intend to standardize societies, to mold them into one shape, to destroy the diversity of elements and, consequently, progress. Far from doing harm, it aspires to do good for humanity by giving a single language to all scholars, that is, by founding a universal language that is eminently philosophical. Seen from this second perspective, its realization is very possible. Eminent scholars such as Galen, Leibniz, Newton’s famous rival, and philosopher Krausse, have raised the issue and, with the strength of their arguments, have shown that their claim cannot be called a beautiful dream. And it matters little that this project has not yet been accepted in the world. To achieve such great achievements, much work must be done by men, and the results do not always match the magnitude of their efforts’’ (Hildebrando Fuentes, 1881: 7-8).
In this regard, Pyrrhus Bardyli (1904: 7), in his Essay on Natural Languages and Artificial Languages, emphasizes the identity characteristic of primary languages, which are associated with the ideology, vision, affinities, and customs shared by their speakers:
‘’Considered in its relations with the entire group of people who speak it, a language could be defined as the sonic physiognomy of the race. For just as the average physical type of a people, the characteristic features of faces, customary gestures, attitudes, movements, are the visible expression of the race, so too words are representative of national genius, both in their isolated sonority and inherent value and in the nature of the combinations they are meant to form’’ (Pyrrhus Bardyli, 1904: 13-14).
Ultimately, this battle between monolingualism and multilingualism is an issue that concerns many disciplines separately and all of humanity as a whole, but the possibility of the former prevailing over the latter does not seem viable. Lastly, one could only ask whether an international and universal language were adopted, it would be a natural language, such as English, probably, or an artificial one, like Esperanto. In this regard, it seems that English is already on the path to becoming the international language, especially in the academic and scientific fields, and also in other areas.
References
- Ertl István et LO JACOMO François. “L’espéranto et le plurilinguisme de l’avenir”. Entretien avec Umberto Eco, Universala Esperanto-Asocio, Rotterdam, 1996. p. 24/27.
- Moses Stéphane. “Émile Benveniste et la linguistique du dialogue”, Revue de métaphysique et de morale. 2001/4 (n 32), p. 509-525.
- Rousseau André. “Les avatars des projets de langue universelle au tournant du siècle (1880-1930)”, Mémoire et progrès dans la littérature et l’histoire des idées allemandes au début du XXe siècle. Histoire des idées linguistiques, Germanica, 33, 2003.
- Fuentes Hildebrando. “Proyecto de una lengua universal”, Tesis para optar el Grado de Bachiller, Facultad de Letras y Ciencias Humanas, Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 1881.
- Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura, Diversidad cultural y lingüística, UNESCO, 2021.
