Solomonick Abraham, PhD, Jerusalem (Israel)

On the Multiplicity of Languages

and Multilingualism
Abstract

This article is devoted to explicating the origin of many languages in the world and their
development towards the dissemination of one leading language from among all the others. The
drive for the selection of such singular language, which has become an international interest in
our age of globalization, was caused, in my opinion, by imperial conquests which were followed
by the quick development of colonial languages that reached the level of culturally and
economically advanced countries. As a result, English became the modern international
language. Along with international languages, national languages are also maturing.
Cooperation between the two categories (international and national tongues) ensures a
balanced language situation in any particular country. The tendencies of such cooperation at the
global and national levels, as well as at the level of individual linguistic abilities, are shown
below.

Key words: multiplicity of languages, multilingualism, a single international language,

interaction of the three levels of linguistic development.

Historical roots of linguistic multiplicity

In general, the term multilingualism is used in two senses: firstly, as designating the
plurality of the existing languages, and, secondly, as mastering by an individual not one,
but several languages. To remove this ambiguity, for the first meaning I will use the term

1
“multiplicity of languages,” and for the second I will use "multilingualism" to denote how
each of us uses a plurality of languages for our own benefit. I'll start with the question of
how so many languages independently emerged in the world, or whether they all
originated from one proto-language.

Until now, this issue has not been finally resolved. While the world was dominated
by a religious worldview, it was generally accepted (and philologists vividly participated
in the dissemination of this theory) that at the beginning of world history God gave
people one language and only then punished them with many languages for trying to
build the Tower of Babel. This story is quite well known – it is set forth in the Holy
Scriptures and is the property of all three leading monotheistic religions. According to
this version, in the beginning there was one language, which was designated by
theologians either as God's language, or as the language of Adam (Adam's language).
Different opinions about the proto-language existed. Some people said that it was
Hebrew, because most texts of the Old Testament were written in it. This claim was also
one of the reasons why ancient Hebrew was not forgotten, although Jews no longer
used it in everyday life. It was also actively studied in Christian seminaries, and many
linguists from various countries studied Hebrew.

It was not only Hebrew that claimed the title of being the proto-language. Many
countries wanted to prove that their language was the predecessor of all other
languages in the world. A special technique was invented for comparing the dialects
that existed in the world with such guess-works. People suggested that after the
intervention of God, the builders of the Tower of Babel gathered their belongings and
left, but at the time they had to retain some of their former linguistic skills. Theologically-
oriented linguists conducted lengthy discussions about these words of interest, which
were necessary to retain in order to gather their instruments and leave the Tower of
Babel. And such words included, in their opinion, remnants of the proto-language.

According to these researchers' estimates, the higher the prevalence of words that
could facilitate building and construction in a given language, the greater was the
chance that this particular language might have been the eagerly searched for proto-
language. Since any developed language is essentially all-encompassing, examples for

2
this conjecture could be found in each of them. Therefore, in many countries, residents
believed that their language was the forerunner of all the others. This comforted their
national identity and pride. Many living languages have claimed the role of the proto-
language, but none have received universal recognition.

Even in modern times, wherein the dominance of the religious paradigm has
receded, philologists still continue to argue whether languages arose independently for
each nation (the theory of polygenesis of languages), or whether they came from a
single linguistic root (monogenesis of languages). There are still supporters of both the
first and the second points of view.

Relatively recently, in the second half of the 20th century, a discussion arose on the
issue of interest to us. The instigator of the dispute, a Jewish American linguist, Morris
Swadesh (1909-1967), considered all languages to emerge from the same proto-
language: “Comparing the language families of the New and Old Worlds, Swadesh
suggested the existence of large macrofamilies that unite them, as well as the existence
of links between macrofamilies that support the theory of monogenesis. Being the
creator of glottochronology, Swadesh also pointed out the main difficulties for the
scientific substantiation of the theory of monogenesis. The comparison of modern
languages and these families, established by the methods of glottochronology, did not
allow researchers to penetrate a period more distant than about 10 thousand years
ago."1

Indeed, due to the time which has passed since the initial writing of these languages,
it is impossible to verify which of the two hypotheses is correct. But the fact remains that
humans use a variety of languages, and not a single dialect. From this insight about the
variety of languages we must proceed, depending on all reliable information on the use
of these languages, and how each existing language has changed throughout its
history. Such linguistic theories are full of interesting facts and even regularities to which
linguists, for some reason, pay little attention, in spite of the fact that these regularities
are very instructive and provide material for concrete practical conclusions.

The quest for a single world language

1 At: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics1/ivanov-90c.htm (retrieved December 2016)

3
 The fact that there are many languages in the world, and not one language in which
all people could be included, is very unpleasant. The absence of one common human
language has always been felt as a misfortune and a barrier to universal
comprehension. Therefore, linguists (and not only linguists) have always tried to correct
this situation by inventing artificial languages that could be common to all. Theories
about these feelings fall under a separate topic which, in its full scope, is beyond the
limits of this work. My task in this article is to show how, despite all the obstacles,
people created the prerequisites and adopted a common language for all, which exists
now, along with the national dialects, and helps people understand each other without
intermediaries. I want to demonstrate how the processes I noted above have led
humanity both to the need for such a language and to practical steps towards its
formation and spread. My deepest conviction suggests that this need for a common
language arose as a result of imperial conquests, which entailed a mixture of peoples
and languages, and then singled out one of them for joint communication. This
language turned out to be English.

There is no doubt that the seizure and occupation of foreign territories is evil, and
nowadays it is completely unacceptable. However, in the big picture, it brings not only
negative, but also positive results. It is usually instigated by the desire for profit, for the
acquisition of additional benefits at the expense of the occupied territories. But, at the
same time, the enslavement of uncivilized peoples by the more powerful and advanced
nations precipitates the advancement of the indigenous population of the occupied
territories along the path of human progress. Together with brute force, new customs,
new forms of behavior, and new advanced cultural practices come to the conquered
country. This culture is guided by the language of the conquerors, which is usually much
better organized and wealthier in varieties than local tongues. Accordingly, such a
language offers new potentials and ideas. Throughout world history, this process has
occurred constantly and, as a result, has led to the emergence of a single linguistic
mediator in the global civilization. Let's turn to the facts.

The beginning of European civilization, which laid the foundation for a global
civilization, took place in Ancient Greece, where the seeds of a genuine scientific
worldview were developed, as well as ethical and political concepts that later became

4
universal. They spread beyond the borders of Greece proper, throughout the territory of
the then known oecumene and even further, as the result of the conquests of Alexander
the Great. Consequently, a huge empire arose, which, even after its partition by the
leading military leaders after the death of Alexander, remained Greek-oriented for many
centuries. It was dominated by the Ancient Greek language as well as the culture, which
was advanced for its time.

Here is what Harold Goad, whose views have shaped my ideas, writes about it: “At
the time of the Alexandrine conquest, Greek civilization was at its zenith. To be civilized
was to be Greek-minded, although not necessarily of Hellenic race. Every aspirant to
honour vaunted his Greek culture, his knowledge of Greek literature and custom, with
the clear sense that Hellenism stood for the higher intellectual life in contrast to the
darkness and anarchy of barbarism."2

The same process took place in all the great empires created throughout the course
of human history. The Roman Empire, which emerged after the Greek empire,
consciously adopted Greek culture; and, having significantly supplemented it, passed it
on. Naturally, Latin predominated across the vast territories of the Roman Empire. In the
middle Ages, the Arab Caliphate arose, and in the countries that fell under its rule,
people spoke Arabic. It is well known that Arabic set the tone in the culture of that time,
and that Arabs translated Greek treatises into Arabic, from which they eventually
appeared in Latin, which became the leading language of emerging sciences at the
time. Then came the Christian civilization, which spread throughout Europe and
sprouted throughout the world. Even though it did not consign to oblivion the previous
cultural and scientific achievements, officially Christianity fought with them. Finally, in
modern times, which are rightly called the Age of Enlightenment, we openly embrace an
orientation towards the ancient wisdom of the Greeks and Romans. Greek and Latin
began to be taught, right up to the high school curriculum, and, more importantly,
continued their unfading and prevailing cultural tradition, first on the European and then
on a worldwide scale.

2 Harold Goad. Language in History. Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1958, p. 33.

5
 In modern times, all the leading countries of Europe created their own empires, where they
introduced their particular culture and language. The largest empire was that of Great Britain,
with colonies scattered throughout the world. English was used everywhere in the
conquered countries; finally, it began to be spoken by almost half of the world's
population. By the time the British Empire collapsed, the technical prerequisites had
emerged for the creation of a global economy that was based on mastering a common
language for all; quite naturally, it became English.

It would be unfair to keep silent about the parallel trend that prompted linguists to
create a single language for all and which would reflect, so to speak, the advantages of
the already existing natural languages. There were many such attempts, more than a
hundred. But they all failed, except for Esperanto, created in the late 19th century by a
Jew from Bialystok, Lazar Zamenhof (1859-1917). Esperanto is attractive thanks to its
simplicity of grammar and compact vocabulary, which has helped it take root among
amateur polyglots. It continues to exist, although it does not fulfill the task set before it
by L. Zamenhof − namely, to become the language of all people on Earth, easily
learned and able to express everything. The overwhelming majority chose to master the
enormously more difficult language of English, because a huge cultural tradition rested
on it and also, because many people on the planet already knew it.

Thus, the initial premise for multiplicity of languages for me is a combination of two
aspirations: (1) the desire of each nation to preserve and enrich its national tongue,
making it an instrument of adequate reflection of the surrounding reality, and (2)
complementing this process with learning a common language for all, that would allow
humans to communicate without the help of intermediaries. To ensure the combination
of these two trends is the responsibility of the government in any state; and we will
move on to this aspect of the problem in the next section.

Combination of national and English languages within a separate state

The task of state bodies in any country is to create conditions for every citizen to
study and use both (1) the national language of the ruling group in the state (in the first
place) and (2) English, which today acts as the main international language of
communication. In schools, the mother tongue should be studied in all grades; and

6
English either from the fourth or fifth grade, or even earlier. Continuing the study of
English in universities is dictated by the need to acquire knowledge of professional
vocabulary in whatever specialty students choose to pursue. It is also necessary to
organize a network of voluntary courses in foreign languages, where each student
(most often, an adult) can choose the language of his/her interest with specific methods
of studying it according to the student's psychological preferences.

It is also desirable for all countries to have an academy of the national language,
where the current problems of its development and modernization, as well as its
protection from excessive foreign influences, in particular the influence of the same
English, would be investigated. It would also be good to give the language academy the
right to impose sanctions on those organizations (schools, newspapers, radio, and TV)
that violate the language standards adopted by it. The combination of the two
languages does not at all imply the suppression of one of them by the other, which very
often happens in practice. Since Russian is my mother tongue, I often use it and track
its fate in the ups and downs of the Russian Empire. I must say with regret, and even
sometimes with indignation, that I often come across an unjustified appeal by Russian
authors to anglicisms, when it would be possible to get by with Russian words.

The borrowing of foreign words is justified following the borrowing and appearance
of corresponding realities. But even here one must know when to stop. For instance, in
the process of computerizing a country, many new terms naturally come into its
language. They can and should be replaced with words from the national language. In
Israel, for example, words such as “site” or even “computer” were given Hebrew names
based on well-known roots, while in Russia foreign words are simply written in Russian
letters. I'm not even talking about such delightful words as "glamorous" or "showman,"
which are absolutely inappropriate for the authentic linguistic style of Russian.

To these very obvious remarks I would like to add another discussion, so to speak,
of the problems adjacent to our topic. Let's consider a hypothetical question: is it
possible to get by with one language, say, the same English, instead of wasting time
and money on two languages? In other words, is it possible now, when there is a single
language for all, to abandon national languages? The answer, of course, must be

7
unambiguous – this should never be done. Rejection of the national language is
tantamount to rejection of the entire national culture developed by the ancestors. Not a
single nation can afford this and will not want to become "Ivans who do not remember
kinship" [a Russian phrase for people who have forgotten their heritage].

Even less significant linguistic problems are insoluble for the same reason. For
example, some writing systems are clearly inferior to their counterparts in other
countries, because historically different nations had invented their writing systems
before simpler and more efficient ways of writing appeared. I mean, for example,
hieroglyphic writing, which many Eastern peoples began to use long before the alphabet
was invented. The Chinese, who still use hieroglyphics today, have long understood
that their system is inferior to alphabetic writing, and are constantly trying to modernize
their hieroglyphic system. They have achieved significant success in this matter, but
they cannot fundamentally solve the problem, because then they would have had to
abandon the hieroglyphs altogether. This would be equal to abandoning the centuries-
old wisdom, which was written down in hieroglyphs for thousands of years, to which any
people with such ancient history will never relinquish.

Another problem is formulated as follows: there is one common international

language, but what if there is a strong state nearby, with which you are closely tied and
on which you depend economically? Is it possible then, instead of English, to introduce
the study of the language of this nearby nation? The correct answer seems to be: in
these cases, along with English, the study of a second foreign language should be
introduced. For example, both English and Chinese should be introduced in Korea. The
same should be done in Russia in the Far East. There is nothing wrong with that −
plurality of languages is closely related to multilingualism in the second sense of the
term. We know many territories on earth, in which there is a crossroads between
multiple cultures, where linguistic problems can be practically solved by mastering more
than two languages.

The problem of multilingualism at the individual level

In these circumstances, the role of an individual learning a language is very

important. For example, at the dawn of his career as a sales agent, Heinrich

8
Schliemann (who later became a famous archaeologist) decided to study Russian,
since he was engaged in trade with Russia. Schliemann proved to be unusually
receptive to languages and continued to master more and more new languages in an
unusually short time. But there are very few such people; for this kind of mastery one
must have a special talent. More frequent are cases when, after a long effort, people
master two or three foreign languages. That learning objective is accessible to a large
number of people, and this is what we must set as our aim.

It should be noted that no one can say a priori that he is not capable of mastering
foreign languages in general. Such a case must be recognized as pathological. Of
course, the work of mastering an additional language is difficult and burdensome –
many reject it out of intellectual indifference and laziness. But, without trying again and
again to master a foreign language, you cannot assess your own linguistic potential.
This need for repetition and persistence is revealed only in the course of practical
language lessons. It is possible that in the course of such classes, the student will
discover the gift of learning languages, a gift that this person will enjoy throughout
his/her life.

There is an additional aspect to the problem. Multilingualism ultimately implies

varying degrees of language proficiency. For example, I actively speak three languages:
Russian (my mother's tongue), English (by profession, I am an English teacher), and
Hebrew, since I live in Israel. But, I possess these different languages to varying
degrees. The most advanced language for me is Russian. I know Hebrew well enough
in order to initiate and maintain communication; and I speak English well, but I find it
difficult to write scientific texts in it. Therefore, I need to give the work I write in English
to an editor for review. I do this deliberately and am not ashamed of this circumstance.

Scientific texts are specific in the sense that they are associated with the
formulations of the deepest level of language proficiency. It is easier for me to initially
write them in my native language, which I consider to be Russian. Therefore, I first
arrange a scientific article in Russian, afterwards I myself translate it into English, and
only then send it for editing. There are scientists who cannot express their thoughts in
English at all; I advise them to give the essay written in their native language to a

9
professional translator for translation. In the future, they will be able to view the English
version, accept it or reject it. It is worthwhile to notice that Google translation gained
such a degree of efficiency that one can rely on it for translating rather complicated
texts, yet one must be on guard and carefully verify the result.

As a specialist in teaching foreign languages, I understand the reasons for the

inconsistencies outlined above. The fact is that when learning a new language, we
master four specific abilities: the ability to verbally explain something in the target
language, the ability to perceive it by ear, the ability to read in it, and the ability to write
in it. Each skill can be learned separately, using different methods and achieving
separate results.

The closely related skills of speaking and listening are usually studied first. In
parallel, we master the ability to read. In general, this latter skill can be mastered
separately, as was done in Soviet times, when universities estimated foreign language
acquisition by the number of thousands of letters read by students. The hardest part is
learning to write in a foreign language. Mastering the complex and all-encompassing
composition of the language along the way, we find those sections of it that are easiest
for us. We can focus on a particular ability, while simultaneously progressing and
improving all other skills and habits. This approach brings about a sense of constant
and rapid progress and contributes to the emergence of satisfaction from the learning
process itself.

Practical applications from the above thoughts

The main conclusion can be stated as follows: it is time to move from the study of two
languages (national and English), accepted today at school, to the study of three
languages (the two mentioned above and a regional language). By regional, I mean a
language that belongs to the most powerful state in the area. If in the twentieth century
we have reached the point that the majority of people graduating from secondary school
are bilingual, then by the end of the twenty-first century we should achieve a more
difficult goal: that school graduates become trilingual.

Considering the mental abilities of people, mastering three languages, to a certain

extent, is not impossible. We are convinced of this potential for people to be trilingual

10
through the examples of countries like Switzerland and Israel. Switzerland has united
three multilingual cantons, and internal needs have led to the mastery of its inhabitants
in more than two languages: “Today, in elementary school, one mother-state language
is taught (depending on the canton; for example, in the canton of St. Haller – German)
and two foreign languages: one national language of choice (the overwhelming majority
is French) and English.”3

Israel has adopted its citizens as immigrants from more than a hundred states, so
they usually speak (to varying degrees) three languages – their mother tongue, Hebrew,
and English. It would also be wise to introduce Arabic studies in all Jewish schools, and
Hebrew studies in Arabic teaching institutions. Language studies can be a mighty tool
for mutual understanding, and it must be integrated into education, wherever there are
conflicts between adjacent nationalities.

Secondary schools in any state should be required to include in their curricula (at
various stages of education) lessons on mastering three languages – the national
language throughout school education; English in the time period required for its
thorough study; and regional (of student choice) for at least two years of teaching. In
English speaking countries, a similar requirement ought to be introduced, according to
the best opportunities and, perhaps, including the study of classical languages (Greek
and Latin).

I am deeply convinced that within the framework of UNESCO, a subdivision should

be created to implement a program to help transition secondary school education into
teaching three languages. It will promote the very idea of introducing “trilingual
education” into school life and develop methodological techniques for such education in
various regions of the world.

The second practical conclusion concerns the learning of additional languages at the
individual level. The obvious fact should be accepted that today, after the introduction of
a universal tool (i.e. the computer) into practical life, it has become possible to master
any languages that appeal to a particular person. Anyone can now choose whatever

3 At: http://business-swiss.ch/2014/04/shvejcariya-yazyk-gosudarstvennye-yazyki-shvejcarii-oficialnye-yazyki/
(retrieved December 2016).

11
language learning methods are most suitable for him/her. This makes it possible to
organize an individualized study of foreign languages vis-à-vis a computer.

Learning more and more languages can be a vital habit that can fill up one’s free time
and, at the same time, keep you interested in life in old age. Almost all of us have a
computer and an internet connection, so organizing such training is not difficult. Then
two trends of modern life will coincide – the multiplicity of existing languages and
multilingualism in its individual embodiment – into one unit: the thing that I wanted to
explicate.

12