1. Would the world be a more peaceful place if everyone spoke the same language? Think here specifically about issues of communication and diplomacy.
Every day, millions of people tune into television talk shows to watch others try to resolve communication issues. People often have a difficult time getting along, even if they speak the same language. Imagine how these conflicts grow exponentially when a language barrier is added to the equation. The world would indeed be a more peaceful place if everyone spoke the same language, but there must be some very important conditions to follow. First, like the debated "Esperanto" language, the universal language would exist solely as a second language for all nations. This way, countries may preserve their diversity and cultural uniqueness associated with their languages of origin while working to dissolve the barriers that currently exist by uniting the world with one shared language. This second language would be very useful in communication between different countries and may prevent international misunderstandings stemming from the lack of a shared language for communication. By preventing these misunderstandings, enemies and wars may be prevented. But, communication is not just speaking. Yes, it would be helpful under one language to communicate but one universal language does not take away from the physical aspects of communication such as hand motions and body language. In countries such as the United States of America, a firm hand shake and direct eye contact are appropriate behaviors to greet a stranger whom you've just met. But in some Asian countries, these same gestures could be taken as offensive or aggressive, perhaps even causing a fight. In some European countries, people greet one another with kisses on the cheek; in some countries that may be taken as behaving in too forward a manner. Other problems exist as well. For example, literal translations of colloquial phrases are lost in translation. Also, some countries have many words for one word in other languages. For example, in English, we use the word love to mean many different things. In the Greek language, there are many different words to express those different types of love. Despite these challenges, a neutral universal language would still be advantageous. It would offer a vehicle for individuals from different countries and cultures to teach one another about each other's cultures and values, thereby building a greater understanding among countries around the world. The more we can understand, respect and appreciate each other, the greater likelihood for universal peace.
Sarah brought up some excellent points regarding the link between miscommunication and culture. She really brought it to my attention that body language, considered the “universal” language of mankind, can often be just as easily misunderstood as the spoken language. From birth, humans grow up observing the body language of others, linking actions and facial expressions to meanings. I had originally assumed that most cultures have relatively similar implications behind gestures, as least regarding the positive or negative emotion intended. However, Sarah’s examples proved me wrong. Regardless, despite the variation of body languages’ meanings across the globe, as the world becomes evermore global and residents understand more about others’ cultures, the frequency of these simple misunderstandings will most likely dwindle. People will understand that Europeans may greet each other with kisses, and despite any discomfort, grow to accept the action. Eventually, this aspect of miscommunication will most likely prove to be a very simple obstacle to overcome.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I found Sarah’s point of how “literal translations of colloquial phrases are lost in translation” to be very perceptive. It is true that even if a universal language were developed, different connotations would become associated with words and phrases, depending on the region of the world. These developments would occur on both small and large scales; modern day examples in the English language are proof. According to londonslang.com, when English people proclaim something as “Mickey Mouse”, they mean it’s fake. “Porky pies” is another term for the concept of lies. “Who took the jam off your doughnut?” translates into “Who spoilt your fun?” On a smaller scale, regional slang develops within a single nation as well: as stated by tracihill.com, when southerners say “catty-wumpus”, they mean “cockeyed”, and the phrase “high on the hill” means “living well”. Therefore, although the same language is spoken in all of these examples, most of them would only be understood by people of the correct regional origin.
Despite all these potentials for miscommunication, none of them would hinder the progress towards world peace that a universal language would stimulate. Much of the potential for world peace hinges on diplomacy; when engaging in professional meetings and speeches, it is very rare that diplomats throw out slang phrases. In high-profile matters, usually only the formal version of the language is used, therefore ensuring that all people who speak the language understand what is being said. As for body language, when regarding diplomacy, “Diplomatic ‘body language’ encompasses everything from personal gestures to the manipulation of military forces. A handshake, for example, is commonly used as a metaphor for the quality of inter-state relations” (Jönsson and Hall; Communication: An Essential Aspect of Diplomacy). As with the spoken language, the body language involved in diplomacy is formalized as well, resulting in very few misunderstandings. Therefore, although it is indeed near impossible to achieve a completely universal language, if everyone spoke the same basic language, the world would surely be a more peaceful place.