Skip to main contentSkip to solution

It's easy to forget that most of the world's languages are still transmitted orally with no widely established written form. While speech communities are increasingly involved in projects to protect their languages in print, on air and online - orality is fragile and contributes to linguistic vulnerability. But indigenous languages are about much more than unusual words and intriguing grammar: They function as vehicles for the transmission of cultural traditions, environmental understandings and knowledge about medicinal plants, all at risk when elders die and livelihoods are disrupted.

Both push and pull factors lead to the decline of languages. Through war, famine and natural disasters, whole communities can be destroyed, taking their language with them to the grave, such as the indigenous populations of Tasmania who were wiped out by colonists. More commonly, speakers live on but abandon their language in favor of another vernacular, a widespread process that linguists refer to as "language shift" from which few languages are immune. Such trading up and out of a speech form occurs for complex political, cultural and economic reasons sometimes voluntary for economic and educational reasons, although often amplified by state coercion or neglect. Welsh, long stigmatized and disparaged by the British state, has rebounded with vigor.

Many speakers of endangered, poorly documented languages have embraced new digital media with excitement. Speakers of previously exclusively oral tongues are turning to the web as a virtual space for languages to live on. Internet technology offers powerful ways for oral traditions and cultural practices to survive, even thrive, among increasingly mobile communities. I have watched as videos of traditional wedding ceremonies and songs are recorded on smartphones in London by Nepali migrants, then uploaded to YouTube and watched an hour later by relatives in remote Himalayan villages.

Globalization is regularly, and often uncritically, pilloried as a major threat to linguistic diversity. But in fact, globalization is as much process as it is ideology, certainly when it comes to language. The real forces behind cultural homogenization are unbending beliefs, exchanged through a globalized delivery system, reinforced by the historical monolingualism prevalent in much of the West.

Monolingualism, the condition of being able to speak only one language, is regularly accompanied by a deep-seated conviction in the value of that language over all others. Across the largest economies that make up the G8, being monolingual is still often the norm, with multilingualism appearing unusual and even somewhat exotic. The monolingual mindset stands in sharp contrast to the lived reality of most the world, which throughout its history has been more multilingual than unilingual. Monolingualism, then, not globalization, should be our primary concern.

Multilingualism can help us live in a more connected and more interdependent world. By widening access to technology, globalization can support indigenous and scholarly communities engaged in documenting and protecting our shared linguistic heritage. For the last 5,000 years, the rise and fall of languages was intimately tied to the plow, sword and book. In our digital age, the keyboard, screen and web will play a decisive role in shaping the future linguistic diversity of our species.

From the passage, we can infer that the author is in favour of:

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 3

We need to find what the author supports or favors based on their opinions in the passage. Let us trace through their main arguments.

The author discusses language loss, then shifts to what they think are the real problems and solutions. The key is in the later paragraphs where they reveal their position.

From passage: "Multilingualism can help us live in a more connected and more interdependent world" and "Monolingualism, then, not globalization, should be our primary concern."

The author's logic: Most people think globalization kills languages -> But actually, the real problem is monolingualism (speaking only one language) -> Multilingualism (speaking many languages) is the solution -> Technology can help support this.


šŸ”“ Option 1 -> scope-error -> The passage mentions state actions (like British stigmatizing Welsh) but doesn't call for expanded state role. Author focuses on technology and individual multilingualism instead.

šŸ”“ Option 2 -> opposite-stance -> Author directly criticizes cultural homogenization, calling it driven by "unbending beliefs." This goes against what author wants.

šŸ”“ Option 4 -> negative-context -> "Language shift" means people abandoning their native languages for other ones. Author presents this as a problem causing language loss, not something good.

🟢 Option 3 -> direct-match -> Author explicitly states multilingualism helps us live in a "more connected world" and criticizes monolingualism as the main problem. This captures the author's clear position.

The confusion might be between options 1 and 3, but the author focuses on individual multilingualism and technology rather than government action.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question