It is believed by some that measures to save not widespread languages should be taken by governments’ funding, while others consider it as a useless wasting of money. Even though efforts to save language of some nations in order to preserve their cultural heritage would bring positive outcomes, I believe that governments would make risks and it would probably be wasting money and time.
On the one hand, language is an indispensable part of each culture. In other words, on no account should the importance of languages be neglected. Therefore, governments should allocate money in order to save languages with different approaches, be it incentivizing language learners or providing a promotion for workers, who know that language in a particular level. A prime example would be Central Asian countries that encourage people to learn their mother tongue. Hence, governments not only save languages from completely disappearing, but also provide a wide range of opportunities to local people. However, it will not be likely to bring satisfying results to fund preserving those languages which speakers are decreasing annually.
On the other hand, some languages with minority of speakers would bring devastating results after years of investing. This is because people would have a less motivation to learn them and, thus governments would face with disappointed outcomes. Hence, in some cases it is totally useless to put focus on dying out languages. For example, governments in some African countries tried to save languages, however, due to a declining number of people, using different approaches was in vain. Therefore, it is better to invest in other fields rather than making such a risky action.
In conclusion, although languages play a pivotal role in each culture, I strongly stick to the point that trying to preserve a language with a few speakers would not be a best decision from governmental side in the long run.