According to a recent study, 84% of Americans believe English should be the official language of the United States. But is that fair for immigrants and folks of other countries and should it be the universal language?
Many people believe English drives the economy and allows people to communicate. They don’t want to have to learn another language to talk with people in their own country. So Americans take exception with those who can’t, don’t or resist learning English. Recent polls suggest language to be a critical element in immigration concerns as immigration is discussed in the news along with issues of communication barriers.
But those barriers exist outside the United States as well, so there are questions about language that includes them.
But should there be a universal language for everyone so the issue of language difference doesn’t cause problems of miscommunication and problems? Other countries have immigrants. Americans also travel and live in other countries. Do they all learn the language of the host country? Those are relevant questions to the concerns Americans express and areas people discuss when it comes to language barriers.
Some scholars and religious practitioners believe it valuable to have a universal language. But what language and what issues would be involved and is it really a good idea? Would it help the matters involving immigration and ease the tension that exists when people can’t speak the same language and answer the need for Americans to have an official language?
The Bahai’I Faith, a universal religion originating in Iran, maintains a universal language would promote dialogue, elicit better understanding among the people of the world and help build international peace and goodwill. In fact universal language is a core principle of this religion’s belief system, which also includes universal justice and equality among its tenets.
Is a universal language essential for international communication in the sense that nuances and special ideas are lost in translation? Some folks have tackled the subject straight on, with pros and cons about the concept. Here are some to ponder, according to one writer who says, language barriers would cease to exist, international monetary transactions and trade would be easier, and people won’t have to learn other languages to communicate with others.
The arguments against having a universal language include such issues of national pride and how to select the right language.
Right now Esperanto is the largest auxiliary language in the world, although only a relative minority speak the language. It was put together to have that efficient form of communication, universally, as people conceived it to be a vehicle to unite folks in at least one common area, language.
Some folks advocate English since it is used so much in business and communication already around the globe. These people maintain scholars and business people are paramount users, and this forms the core group to expand the idea further.
As the world becomes smaller and more fluid, and the need to manage health crises acute, the barriers of economics grave, and political problems rampant, some believe a universal tongue might solve many problems. It is, however, making the choice and the decision that continues to plague the advocates, even as today differences in communication continue. In the meantime it becomes a regular conversation in the debate over immigration and the language concerns that make it difficult
