There is an assertion that the government should take action in languages with few speakers to prevent them 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 speakers aids the 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 their ethnic group through their languages if it was conserved by citizens 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 it thoroughly. It plays a crucial role in people’s living in this area because they are recognized through their special language. Thus, spending money on preserving languages with few speakers can have a good impact 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 to spending money on conserving languages with few speakers. It could be an effect on financial resources for a country to become a developed country if the government just payed attention in one perspective.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that languages with few speakers should be conserved in view of the fact that they bring benefits to the traditional beauty features of one’s country.