There is an assertion that the government should take action in languages with few speakers in order to prevent it from extincting. A group of individuals argue that it will be a waste of financial resources. This essay will discuss both aspects and point out personal perspectives.
On the one hand, investing money in measures to conserve languages with few speaker aids government in saving the beauty of traditional features of one’s country. To elaborate further, languages are a symbol of one’s country or ethnicity. People could perceive special features of one’s ethnic group through their languages if it was conserved by citizen and the authorities. In Nghe An, a province of Vietnam, for instance, has a special language to communicate with each other. That kind of language used by people living in this area is hard to understand if people do not learn thoroughly. It play a crucial role in citizen’s life in this area because they are recognized through their special language. Thus, spending money on preserving languages with few speaker can have good impacts on the development of one’s country.
On the other hand, there is an assumption that this phenomenon triggers a waste of financial resources. To clarify, there is a minority of people using that language, so it will be an unpopular phenomenon in terms of citizens. Moreover, the country could not develop in all aspects if the authorities merely pay attention in spending money on conserving languages with few speaker. It could be an effect on financial resources for a country to become a developed country if the government just pay attention in one perspective.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that languages with few speaker should be conserved in view of the fact that it brings benefit for the traditional beauty features of one’s country.