In several years many languages die out. Some say it is not important because if we speak fewer languages life would be easier. Do you agree or disagree?
The United Nations estimates that approximately 6,500 languages are spoken in the world today. By the end of this century, many linguists estimate that over half of those 6,500 languages will be gone. Some opine that it is futile to save these languages because it is more convenient to have fewer languages today. I agree with this view.
The reason why the possibility of a language dying raises so much concern for sociolinguists is that language is directly related to culture. It is said that, ―When a language dies, a culture dies‖. Secondly, these languages are a significant part of their speaker's identity. Beyond preserving culture and using language as a part of the speakers' identity, a very practical reason for wanting to save a dying language is that archaeologists and anthropologists can get a wealth of information about a society from its language. If a language dies out, so does our access to direct knowledge about its customs, folk tales, and vocabulary for describing the world.
However, languages that lose their communicative purposes and are abandoned by speakers should disappear from the public arena. The truth of ―when a language dies, a culture dies‖ does not imply the truth of when a language is saved, a culture is so saved. The change of culture is a normal part of the law of change and we should welcome this change. The only thing that can be achieved by saving a language is for intra-linguistic studies and nothing more.
Furthermore, it is irrefutable that what actually kills languages is the choices of the speakers. The moment the speakers of a language realize that their language does not have a global functionality, they begin to abandon it. In today‘s global village, it is far more convenient to have a few languages. There is better communication and also better job prospects worldwide with fewer languages. Even the technology of today is more comfortable to learn with fewer languages. So, such languages that have limited potential at the global stage, and they thus come under threat or even die, it would be better to let them die. There is no need to preserve them.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, the idea of saving threatened languages sounds good but it is difficult to sustain because the speakers have a right to shift to another language. Once this happens, there is no logical basis for saving a past linguistic behavior. What is more, globalization will continually lead to language shift. This trend is not likely to abate. Therefore, it is not important to save endangered languages.
- The graphs show changes in spending habits of people in UK between 1971 and 2001.write a report to a university lecturer describing the data. 78
- The diagram below shows how a central heating system in a house works.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons whererelevant. 61
- The charts below show the average percentages in typical meals of three types of nutrients all of which may be unhealthy if eaten too much 82
- The pie chart below shows the main reason why agricultural land becomes less productive. The table shows how there causes affected three regions of the world during the 1990s. 56
- Some people believe that it is good to share as much information as possible in scientific research, business and the academic world. Others believe that some information is too important or too valuable to be shared freely. 61
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 338, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'speakers'' or 'speaker's'?
Suggestion: speakers'; speaker's
...ure and using language as a part of the speakers identity, a very practical reason for w...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 352, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ange and we should welcome this change. The only thing that can be achieved by savi...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 13.1623246493 205% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 7.30460921844 205% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 43.0 24.0651302605 179% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 41.998997996 124% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2153.0 1615.20841683 133% => OK
No of words: 436.0 315.596192385 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9380733945 5.12529762239 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56953094068 4.20363070211 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89898367472 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 176.041082164 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504587155963 0.561755894193 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 683.1 506.74238477 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 5.43587174349 184% => OK
Article: 11.0 2.52805611222 435% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 16.0721442886 156% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.1213029143 49.4020404114 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.12 106.682146367 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.44 20.7667163134 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.92 7.06120827912 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 3.4128256513 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.287397863831 0.244688304435 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0796254629419 0.084324248473 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.054772433005 0.0667982634062 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163762432077 0.151304729494 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0438737312996 0.056905535591 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 13.0946893788 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 50.2224549098 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.4159519038 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.58950901804 90% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 78.4519038076 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.