To Save or Not to Save

While it would be ideal to save every language and preserve each of their unique features, one has to be practical. There are not nearly enough funds and resources to revive the 3,500 languages in danger of extinction. There are many conditions to consider when deciding if a language is "worth" saving.

A language that is worth saving has a large community of functional speakers. The language should be currently passed on, even if it is not being passed as effectively as is it could be. Ideally, the language is deep rooted in history. This proves that the language has some enduring quality worth saving. If the language has a written form already available, then the likelihood of it being effectively preserved and used in the future increases. The attitude of the speakers towards the endangered language is very important. An aspect of a language "worth" saving is that its speakers have a positive attitude (or a positive attitude can be created) towards the language. Linguists may find it nearly impossible to effectively save a language without non-speakers who display a willingness to learn and speakers who display a willingness to pass it on. Saving a language is one thing, but linguists must ensure the language has potential for modernization and every day usage. A language should not be saves simply to put it on a pedestal to be admired, as many suggest is the case with Latin. The geographic location of the language is not of much importance, as long as the resources are available and the language has potential "worth." Arguably most important, if the language contains large amounts of knowledge (especially pertaining to the natural world) it should be preserved no matter what the conditions. This information is vital to the progress of society and the loss of such knowledge is almost always irreversible.


Low feasibility and low practicality sums up a language not "worth" saving. This is the case when speakers of the language are few and isolated. If a language is deprived of constant communication, efforts to save such a language will go to waste. If the geographic location is difficult to reach, one must ask: is it worth the danger? Irreversible negative attitudes held by speakers towards the language due to social or political reasons also constitute a language that may not be salvageable.

Interested in what some people are doing to save these languages? Check this out!

Linguistics and Critical Thinking

Our social issues class, Language, Society, and Culture uses real life examples pertaining to the complexity of languages in societies to incorporate themes of critical thinking and the accommodation of uncertainty. Described in the USC Course Catalogue, the objective of our linguistics class is to "discourse patterns among diverse social groups in institutional and interpersonal settings; interrelationships among language practices and gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity; social structures and cultural values as reflected in language policies and practices."

This social issue class, similar to all Social Issues courses offered at USC, steps away from simply memorizing information and turns to attaining deeper levels of understanding on the part of the students. George A. Thoma’s model “The Perry Model of Intellectual and Ethical Development” supports that a change in focus from solely acquiring large amounts of information to an actual retention and application of said information is present in schooling as students mature and progress to higher levels of learning. Superficially, it may appear as though Linguistics 115 is a course that merely utilizes the skills required to listen to a long lecture and take detailed notes. By exploring deeper into the course syllabus and objectives, one sees that the purpose is quite different than that of the obvious level.

The actual goal of the class is to challenge students to reevaluate the way they view languages and reinterpret how and why certain languages came to be. To apply this objective to the bigger picture involving society and its inhabitants, students utilize skills pertaining to critical reasoning to address problems that are sure to arise in the evaluation of what defines a language.

Purpose of Goldhagen's Analogy

The Pope and Nazi Germany

If one thing is certain, the Holy Father of Catholicism and der Furer of the Nazis have both impressively mastered the skill of one-way thinking. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen pinpoints and parallels traces of a dialectic, elitist mentality found in the lives of Pope Benedict XVI and those who participated in Hitler's Nazi Germany to warn readers of the dangers that accompany close mindedness. The effects of such is seen as the pope now applies egotistical principles (similar to those used by the Nazis) to lead the Catholic religion. Like Hitler, the pope advocates that his way is the only true way. Because complex issues are not black and white, critical reasoning is imperative for those aspects that lie in the various shades of gray. Subjects pertaining to religion, politics, and other aspects of human life cannot and should not be approached empirically as there is no “correct answer.” Goldhagen argues that this pattern of imperialism is a deadly disease stemming from the limited points of view of those in power. As the pope has "curiously spoken little" about his time spent in Nazi Germany, Goldhagen concludes that the pope "has not fully learned" the consequences of anti-Semitism and other crimes of hate. However, Goldhagen omits the fact that Pope Benedict XVI did in fact take something away from his time spent serving Hitler in WWII – intolerance.