Question

The death of languages is not a new phenomenon. Languages usually have a relatively short life span as well as a very high death rate. Only a few, including Egyptian, Chinese, Greek, Latin, have lasted more than 2,000 years.

What is new, however, is the speed at which they are dying out. Europe’s colonial conquests caused a sharp decline in linguistic diversity, eliminating at least 15 percent of all languages spoken at the time. Over the last 300 years, Europe has lost a dozen, and Australia has only 20 left of the 250 spoken at the end of the 18th century.

The rise of nation-states has also been decisive in selecting and consolidating national languages and sidelining others. By making great efforts to establish an official language in education, the media and the civil service, national governments have deliberately tried to eliminate minority languages.

This process of linguistic standardization has been boosted by industrialization and scientific progress, which have imposed new methods of communication that are swift, straightforward and practical. Language diversity came to be seen as an obstacle to trade and the spread of knowledge. Monolingualism became an ideal.

More recently, the internationalization of financial markets, the spread of information by electronic media and other aspects of globalization have intensified the threat to “small” languages. A language not on the Internet is a language that “no longer exists” in the modern world. It is out of the game.

The serious effects of the death of languages are evident. First of all, it is possible that if we all ended up speaking the same language, our brains would lose some of their natural capacity for linguistic inventiveness. We would never be able to figure out the origins of human language or resolve the mystery of “the first language”. As each language dies, a chapter of human history closes.

Multilingualism is the most accurate reflection of multiculturalism. The destruction of the first will inevitably lead to the loss of the second. Imposing a language without any links to a people’s culture and way of life stifles the expression of their collective genius. A language is not only used for the main instrument of human communication. It also expresses the world vision of those who speak it, their ways of using knowledge. To safeguard languages is an urgent matter.

1.Which of the following does not contribute to the death of languages?

A. Colonial conquests of Europe

B. The boom of human population

C. Advances in science and industrialization

D. The rise of nation-states

2.The underlined word “ stifles” in the last paragraph probably means “_____”.

A. boosts B. fuels C. imposes D. kills

3.The serious effects of the death of languages include all except that_______.

A. People would fail to understand how languages originated

B. Language diversity would become an obstacle to globalization

C. Monolingualism would lead to the loss of multiculturalism

D. Human brains would become less creative linguistically

4.What is the author’s purpose of writing this passage?

A. To explain the reasons why languages are dying out.

B. To warn people of the negative aspects of globalization.

C. To call people’s attention to the urgency of language preservation.

D. To argue how important it is for people to speak more languages.

Answer 1