The Use of Esperanto as a Universal Language: Feasibility and Limitations

Throughout history, the idea of creating a universal language a language that could seamlessly facilitate communication between people from different countries has gained some traction. One such proposal that has been discussed extensively is the creation and use of Esperanto. However, the feasibility of using Esperanto as a universal language has been questioned on several grounds. In this article, we will delve into the arguments against adopting Esperanto as a universal language and explore why such a proposition might still hold some merits.

Language is Not Primarily about Communication

One of the primary reasons cited against the use of a universal language like Esperanto is the inherent nature of language itself. It has been argued that while languages serve as a means of expression, they are not inherently designed to facilitate communication.

Individual Expression: When we choose to speak a specific language, be it local, national, or international, it is not out of a desire to communicate, but rather, to express something specific. As each person’s choice of language is deeply personal and tied to their identity, it is incidental whether anyone else is listening. This perspective suggests that the primary function of language is personal expression rather than universal communication.

Languages Exist Within the Individual Brain

A second point of contention is the idea that language is not a social construct but a natural phenomenon. Language is not found outside the brain; it belongs to the individual mind rather than society.

Brain as the Seat of Language: Just as we have distinct organs for hearing and vocalizing, the brain is the organ for language. The process of language production and comprehension is entirely internal. Even when we interact socially with others through language, the act of forming and reforming societies occurs outside the individual language itself.

Language as a Natural Mechanism

Language is not an artificial tool or an institution but a natural organism that arises from the individual’s need for self-expression. It is a natural aspect of human cognition and psychology, not a social construct imposed by society.

Natural vs. Artificial: If a language were artificial, like, say, a programming language designed by humans, it would not capture the nuances and intricacies of human thought and emotion. On the other hand, if languages were purely social, they would lack the individuality and personal touch that makes human communication unique and meaningful.

The Futility of Linguistic Discussions

These ideas about the nature of language bring into question the feasibility and value of discussions on creating a universal language such as Esperanto. If the primary function of language is expression, and not universal communication, then the pursuit of a single universal language may be a futile endeavor.

Futility of Linguistic Proposals: Linguistic discussions often focus on the diversity of languages, which can be a source of richness but also a barrier to universal communication. However, the underlying unity of language the fact that linguistics is a single science is often overlooked. Similarly, the creation of words is a product of language itself, not the other way around. Thus, discussions centered around creating a universal language based on the premise that language is primarily for communication may be misconceived.

Relevance of Esperanto: Despite the futility of creating a universal language based on current linguistics, there is a possibility for a universally understandable language. Esperanto, as a constructed language, offers a unique solution. It was designed to be easily learnable and might serve as a working language for institutions that need to remain neutral and inclusive across cultures.

National Neutrality and Esperanto

The feasibility of a nationally neutral language also hinges on the existence of national neutrality itself, which is a complex and often unattainable concept. Nations like Switzerland can be said to be neutral, but the individual citizens cannot. National neutrality requires belonging to a transcultural community, something provided by Esperanto. As a constructed language, Esperanto offers a way to approach partial neutrality, particularly in global institutions and organizations.

Conclusion: While the idea of a universal language like Esperanto might seem appealing, its feasibility is limited by our current understanding of the nature of language. Instead, the focus should be on making English (or any other language) the dominant language in business and economics, with Esperanto serving as a fallback for global institutions that require a neutral platform for communication.