SAVING LANGUAGE - IELTS Reading Answers & Explanations
From IELTS Practice Test Plus 1 Academic Reading Test 3 · Part 3 · Questions 28–40
Reading Passage
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 28-40 which are based on Reading Passage 3 below.
SAVING LANGUAGE
For the first time, linguists have put a price on language. To save a language from extinction isn't cheap - but more and more people are arguing that the alternative is the death of communities
There is nothing unusual about a single language dying. Communities have come and gone throughout history, and with them their language. But what is happening today is extraordinary, judged by the standards of the past. It is language extinction on a massive scale. According to the best estimates, there are some 6,000 languages in the world. Of these, about half are going to die out in the course of the next century: that's 3,000 languages in 1,200 months. On average, there is a language dying out somewhere in the world every two weeks or so.
How do we know? In the course of the past two or three decades, linguists all over the world have been gathering comparative data. If they find a language with just a few speakers left, and nobody is bothering to pass the language on to the children, they conclude that language is bound to die out soon. And we have to draw the same conclusion if a language has less than 100 speakers. It is not likely to last very long. A 1999 survey shows that 97 per cent of the world's languages are spoken by just four per cent of the people.
It is too late to do anything to help many languages, where the speakers are too few or too old, and where the community is too busy just trying to survive to care about their language. But many languages are not in such a serious position. Often, where languages are seriously endangered, there are things that can be done to give new life to them. It is called revitalisation.
Once a community realises that its language is in danger, it can start to introduce measures which can genuinely revitalise. The community itself must want to save its language. The culture of which it is a part must need to have a respect for minority languages. There needs to be funding, to support courses, materials, and teachers. And there need to be linguists, to get on with the basic task of putting the language down on paper. That's the bottom line: getting the language documented – recorded, analysed, written down. People must be able to read and write if they and their language are to have a future in an increasingly computer-literate civilisation.
But can we save a few thousand languages, just like that? Yes, if the will and funding were available. It is not cheap, getting linguists into the field, training local analysts, supporting the community with language resources and teachers, compiling grammars and dictionaries, writing materials for use in schools. It takes time, lots of it, to revitalise an endangered language. Conditions vary so much that it is difficult to generalise, but a figure of $100,000 a year per language cannot be far from the truth. If we devoted that amount of effort over three years for each of 3,000 languages, we would be talking about some $900 million.
There are some famous cases which illustrate what can be done. Welsh, alone among the Celtic languages, is not only stopping its steady decline towards extinction but showing signs of real growth. Two Language Acts protect the status of Welsh now, and its presence is increasingly in evidence wherever you travel in Wales.
On the other side of the world, Maori in New Zealand has been maintained by a system of so-called 'language nests', first introduced in 1982. These are organisations which provide children under five with a domestic setting in which they are intensively exposed to the language. The staff are all Maori speakers from the local community. The hope is that the children will keep their Maori skills alive after leaving the nests, and that as they grow older they will in turn become role models to a new generation of young children. There are cases like this all over the world. And when the reviving language is associated with a degree of political autonomy, the growth can be especially striking, as shown by Faroese, spoken in the Faroe Islands, after the islanders received a measure of autonomy from Denmark.
In Switzerland, Romansch was facing a difficult situation, spoken in five very different dialects, with small and diminishing numbers, as young people left their community for work in the German-speaking cities. The solution here was the creation in the 1980s of a unified written language for all these dialects. Romansch Grischun, as it is now called, has official status in parts of Switzerland, and is being increasingly used in spoken form on radio and television.
A language can be brought back from the very brink of extinction. The Ainu language of Japan, after many years of neglect and repression, had reached a stage where there were only eight fluent speakers left, all elderly. However, new government policies brought fresh attitudes and a positive interest in survival. Several 'semi-speakers' - people who had become unwilling to speak Ainu because of the negative attitudes by Japanese speakers – were prompted to become active speakers again. There is fresh interest now and the language is more publicly available than it has been for years.
If good descriptions and materials are available, even extinct languages can be resurrected. Kaurna, from South Australia, is an example. This language had been extinct for about a century, but had been quite well documented. So, when a strong movement grew for its revival, it was possible to reconstruct it. The revised language is not the same as the original, of course. It lacks the range that the original had, and much of the old vocabulary. But it can nonetheless act as a badge of present-day identity for its people. And as long as people continue to value it as a true marker of their identity, and are prepared to keep using it, it will develop new functions and new vocabulary, as any other living language would do.
It is too soon to predict the future of these revived languages, but in some parts of the world they are attracting precisely the range of positive attitudes and grass roots support which are the preconditions for language survival. In such unexpected but heart-warming ways might we see the grand total of languages in the world minimally increased.
Questions
Questions 28–32 Yes / No / Not Given
Do the following statements agree with the views of the writer in Reading Passage 3?
write
YES if the statement agrees with the writer's views
NO if the statement contradicts the writer's views
NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this
Questions 33–35 Multiple Choice (Three Answers)
The list below gives some of the factors that are necessary to assist the revitalisation of a language within a community.
Which THREE of the factors are mentioned by the writer of the text?
Questions 36–40 Matching Features
Match the languages A-F with the statements below which describe how a language was saved.
A. Welsh
B. Maori
C. Faroese
D. Romansch
E. Ainu
F. Kaurna
Answers & Explanations Summary
| # | Answer | Evidence | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q28 | YES | But what is happening today is extraordinary, judged by the standards of the past. It is language extinction on a massive scale | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that what is happening now with languages disappearing is special and very big, especially when we compare it to how things were a long time ago. This means many more languages are dying now than before. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the writer thinks more languages are dying now than in the past. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is YES because the author states that the current situation of languages dying is 'extraordinary' when compared to 'the standards of the past'. The passage also calls it 'language extinction on a massive scale', clearly indicating that the rate at which languages are dying out has gone up considerably. |
| Q29 | NO | In the course of the past two or three decades, linguists all over the world have been gathering comparative data | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that language experts started collecting information 'two or three decades' ago. This means they began their work in the 1970s or 1980s, which is much earlier than the 1990s mentioned in the question. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the statement is wrong. The writer does not agree that research on languages dying out started in the 1990s. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is NO because the passage indicates that linguists started collecting information about language extinction much earlier than the 1990s. The writer states that this research began 'in the course of the past two or three decades'. Since a '1999 survey' is mentioned later, 'two or three decades' before that would place the beginning of the research in the 1970s or 1980s, not the 1990s. |
| Q30 | YES | And we have to draw the same conclusion if a language has less than 100 speakers. It is not likely to last very long | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that if a language has fewer than 100 people who speak it, then it will probably die soon. It means it cannot live for a long time. Answer Explanation: The answer is 'YES'. This means the writer agrees that a language needs more than 100 people speaking it to continue existing. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is YES because the passage clearly states that if a language has fewer than 100 speakers, it probably won't survive for long. This means that a language needs more than 100 speakers to have a good chance of continuing to be used and not disappear. The keywords 'less than 100 speakers' and 'not likely to last very long' show the writer's view. |
| Q31 | NOT GIVEN | What is happening today is extraordinary, judged by the standards of the past. It is language extinction on a massive scale. According to the best estimates, there are some 6,000 languages in the world. Of these, about half are going to die out in the course of the next century: that's 3,000 languages in 1,200 months. On average, there is a language dying out somewhere in the world every two weeks or so | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that many languages are dying everywhere in the world right now, calling it a 'massive scale' problem. It says that about half of the world's 6,000 languages might disappear in the next 100 years. This shows the problem is widespread, but it doesn't say if one part of the world is more affected than another. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the passage does not tell us if some places in the world are more likely than others for languages to die out. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'NOT GIVEN' because the passage talks about language extinction happening all over the world and gives examples of languages being saved in different countries (like Wales, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Japan). However, it never compares different areas to say that some regions are more 'vulnerable' or at higher risk of losing their languages than others. The writer focuses on the global problem of language extinction and how languages can be saved, but does not provide details about geographical differences in vulnerability. |
| Q32 | NO | where the community is too busy just trying to survive to care about their language | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that some groups of people are very busy just trying to stay alive every day. Because they are so worried about their daily needs, they do not have time or energy to think about how to save their language. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the writer does not think that saving their language is the most important thing (the "major concern") for all small communities whose language is in danger. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is NO because the author's view, as stated in the passage, suggests that some communities facing language threats have more pressing issues. The passage explicitly states that there are communities "too busy just trying to survive to care about their language." This indicates that for certain communities, basic survival is a greater priority than language preservation, directly contradicting the idea that saving language *should be* their major concern. |
| Q33 | — | — | |
| Q34 | — | — | |
| Q35 | B / D / F | The community itself must want to save its language. The culture of which it is a part must need to have a respect for minority languages. There needs to be funding, to support courses, materials, and teachers. And there need to be linguists, to get on with the basic task of putting the language down on paper | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that for a language to be saved, the people who speak it (the community) must genuinely *want to save it*. It also says that money (funding) is needed to pay for classes (*courses*), learning books (*materials*), and people who teach the language (*teachers*). Finally, it mentions that smart people who study languages (*linguists*) are needed to write the language down on paper. Answer Explanation: The answer says that three key things are needed to help a language become strong again: 1. **Support from local people:** This means the people who belong to that culture and speak the language must want to save it. 2. **Help from language experts:** This means people who know a lot about languages, called linguists, need to be involved. 3. **Ways to officially teach the language:** This means having classes, teachers, and learning materials, often like in schools. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer states three important things for bringing a language back to life, all directly mentioned in the passage. First, a language needs 'support from the indigenous population' because the passage says 'The community itself must want to save its language.' This means the local people must actively wish to keep their language alive. Second, 'on-the-spot help from language experts' is crucial because the passage explains that 'there need to be linguists, to get on with the basic task of putting the language down on paper.' Linguists are these language experts who write down and analyze the language. Third, 'formal education procedures' are necessary, as the passage indicates there 'needs to be funding, to support courses, materials, and teachers.' These elements refer to structured ways of teaching the language, which is akin to formal education. |
| Q36 | C | And when the reviving language is associated with a degree of political autonomy, the growth can be especially striking, as shown by Faroese, spoken in the Faroe Islands, after the islanders received a measure of autonomy from Denmark | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that when a language that is coming back to life is connected to a region getting more control over itself (called 'political autonomy'), the language can grow a lot. It gives the example of Faroese, saying that it grew stronger after the people living in the Faroe Islands got more self-rule, or 'autonomy,' from Denmark. Answer Explanation: The answer is Faroese. This language grew stronger because the place where it is spoken got more power to rule itself. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is Faroese because the passage states that the growth of a language can be especially strong when it is connected to 'political autonomy,' and it uses Faroese as an example. The passage specifically mentions that Faroese grew after the people in the Faroe Islands 'received a measure of autonomy from Denmark,' which means they gained more control over their own region, or increased independence. |
| Q37 | E | The Ainu language of Japan, after many years of neglect and repression, had reached a stage where there were only eight fluent speakers left, all elderly. However, new government policies brought fresh attitudes and a positive interest in survival. Several 'semi-speakers' - people who had become unwilling to speak Ainu because of the negative attitudes by Japanese speakers – were prompted to become active speakers again | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that the Ainu language was almost gone. But then, new rules from the government made people feel better about it. Many people who used to not want to speak Ainu because other Japanese speakers had bad thoughts about it, started speaking it again. This means that people were helped to see the language in a better way, without prejudice. Answer Explanation: The answer is E, which means the Ainu language was saved because people were encouraged to stop having bad feelings or unfair ideas about it. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is Ainu because the passage explains that 'new government policies brought fresh attitudes and a positive interest in survival' for the Ainu language. Before these changes, many 'semi-speakers' were unwilling to use Ainu because of 'negative attitudes by Japanese speakers'. This shows that people were encouraged to change their prejudiced views, leading more people to speak Ainu again. |
| Q38 | B | On the other side of the world, Maori in New Zealand has been maintained by a system of so-called 'language nests', first introduced in 1982. These are organisations which provide children under five with a domestic setting in which they are intensively exposed to the language | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that the Maori language in New Zealand was kept alive by 'language nests.' These special places were for very young children (under five) and helped them learn the language very deeply, by being fully surrounded by it. Answer Explanation: The answer is B, which refers to the Maori language. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is Maori because the passage explains that the Maori language was saved through special programs called 'language nests.' In these 'nests,' young children were 'intensively exposed' to the Maori language. This means they were fully surrounded by and taught the language in a deep way, which is what 'language immersion programmes' are. |
| Q39 | D | In Switzerland, Romansch was facing a difficult situation, spoken in five very different dialects, with small and diminishing numbers, as young people left their community for work in the German-speaking cities. The solution here was the creation in the 1980s of a unified written language for all these dialects | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that Romansch had 'five very different dialects'. To save it, people made 'a unified written language for all these dialects'. This means they joined the different forms of the language into one single written language to help it survive. Answer Explanation: The answer is D, which means the Romansch language. This language was saved by bringing together its different forms. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is D because the passage explains that the Romansch language, which had many different forms called 'dialects', was saved by creating one 'unified written language' for all of them. This means the different varieties were combined or merged into one standard form. |
| Q40 | F | If good descriptions and materials are available, even extinct languages can be resurrected. Kaurna, from South Australia, is an example. This language had been extinct for about a century, but had been quite well documented. So, when a strong movement grew for its revival, it was possible to reconstruct it | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that if there are good writings and information (descriptions and materials) about a language, it can be brought back to life even if no one speaks it anymore. The Kaurna language is an example. It was 'extinct' (no longer spoken) for about 100 years, but it was 'well documented' (a lot of it was written down). This written information made it possible to 'reconstruct' (build it again) when people wanted to bring it back. Answer Explanation: The answer is F, which is Kaurna. This is the name of a language. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is Kaurna because the passage states that this language, which had been 'extinct' (meaning no one spoke it anymore), could be brought back to life, or 'resurrected' (meaning made alive again), because it had been 'quite well documented' (meaning a lot of information about it was written down or recorded). These written samples or documents made its 'revitalisation' (the process of bringing it back) possible, even though it had been gone for a long time. |
