IELTS writing II: Every year several languages die out.

[Tdol]

But sort your ideas out first.

 

[Maybo]

Support:
Para. 1
Some languages do not have a written form, so it is difficult to pass them down to the next generation and hard for foreigners to learn them systematically.
Also, languages without a written form are less practical because it cannot record important events or information and hard to deliver the information to other people accurately.
As a result, mistakes and miscommunication may occur frequently.

Para. 2
It is uneconomical to learn endangered languages because it may not benefit us very much.
On the one hand, it takes a lot of time to find learning resource. On the other hand, teaching fee could be very high because there are not many teachers.
In addition, there are not many organisations that use them as official languages, which makes the learning less rewarding.
Therefore, many people are prepared to spend time and money learning dominant languages that increase our access to higher education and better careers.

 

[teechar]

[ 1] Some languages do not have a written form, so it is difficult to pass them down to the next generation and hard for foreigners to learn them systematically. Also, languages without a written form are less practical because it they cannot record important events or information in detail and hard often fail to deliver the information to other people accurately. As a result, mistakes and miscommunication may occur frequently.


[ 1] It is uneconomical [ 2] not economically advantageous to learn endangered languages because it they may not benefit us very much. [ 3] For example,
On the one hand, it takes a lot of time to find formal learning [ 4] resources for such languages. On the other hand, Furthermore, teaching [ 4] fees could be very high because there are not many teachers specialised in them. In addition, there are not many organisations that use them as official languages, which makes the learning less rewarding. Therefore, many people are prepared to spend time and money learning dominant languages that increase our their access to higher education and better careers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ 1]: Use a suitable transition word.
[ 2]: “uneconomical” has a different meaning.
[ 3]: If you give an example, you get better marks.
[ 4]: When we talk about something in general, we use the plural (if it’s countable).
-----------------------------------------
Now, go ahead and write the conclusion and introduction.

 

[Tarheel]

Learning a language requires an investment in time and energy and maybe money. It is not worth it to learn s language nobody speaks. (An exception to that is Latin, the language of science and medicine. Also, many English words come from Latin.)

 

[Tdol]

Languages without writing systems record things orally- they pass down stories, histories, etc, by word of mouth.

 

[Maybo]

Support:
As our world becomes better connected, people tend to use dominant languages to communicate with each other. Thus, some people argue that having fewer languages in the world makes life easier. I agree with this position for several reasons.

To begin with, some languages do not have a written form, so it is difficult to pass them down to the next generation and hard for foreigners to learn them systematically. Also, languages without a written form are less practical because they cannot record important events or information in detail and often fail to deliver the information to other people accurately. As a result, mistakes and miscommunication may occur frequently.

Moreover, it is not economically advantageous to learn endangered languages because they may not benefit us very much. For example, the language Red Gelao which only less than 50 people can speak it. On the one hand, it takes a lot of time to find formal learning resources for such languages. Furthermore, teaching fees could be very high because there are not many teachers specialised in them. In addition, there are not many organisations that use them as official languages, which makes the learning less rewarding. Therefore, many people are prepared to spend time and money learning dominant languages that increase their access to higher education and better careers.

In conclusion, I agree that having fewer languages in the world improves our life because it reduces miscommunication and is more beneficial to our education as well as careers.

 

[Tdol]

The second paragraph is basically questionable and has not improved. You make the same erroneous assumptions about the inability of languages without a written script and state them as facts. As an example, people learnt passages from the Koran by heart so that they could carry an exact copy of the words without necessarily being able to write them. Also, many of the languages at risk of extinction have written forms.

 

[Maybo]

The second paragraph is basically questionable and has not improved. You make the same erroneous assumptions about the inability of languages without a written script and state them as facts. As an example, people learnt passages from the Koran by heart so that they could carry an exact copy of the words without necessarily being able to write them. Also, many of the languages at risk of extinction have written forms.

How about I add examples that are hard to be delivered by word of mouth such as textbooks, contracts and medical reports? Those involve lot of numbers and facts.

 

[teechar]

How about I add examples that are hard to be delivered by word of mouth such as textbooks, contracts and medical reports? Those involve lot of numbers and facts.

It's always a good idea to support your points with examples. The more concrete, the better.

 

[Maybo]

Support:
As our world becomes better connected, people tend to use dominant languages to communicate with each other. Thus, some people argue that having fewer languages in the world makes life easier. I agree with this position for several reasons.


To begin with, some languages do not have a written form, so it is difficult to pass them down to the next generation and hard for foreigners to learn them systematically. Also, languages without a written form are less practical because they cannot record important events or information in detail and often fail to deliver the information to other people accurately. For example, if people are making deals, they sometimes includes a lot of requirements which people need to be comply with. If we cannot record them on paper, mistakes and miscommunication may occur frequently.


Moreover, it is not economically advantageous to learn endangered languages because they may not benefit us very much. For example, the language Red Gelao which only less than 50 people can speak it. On the one hand, it takes a lot of time to find formal learning resources for such languages. Furthermore, teaching fees could be very high because there are not many teachers specialised in them. In addition, there are not many organisations that use them as official languages, which makes the learning less rewarding. Therefore, many people are prepared to spend time and money learning dominant languages that increase their access to higher education and better careers.


In conclusion, I agree that having fewer languages in the world improves our life because it reduces miscommunication and is more beneficial to our education as well as careers.

 

[emsr2d2]

Support:
As our world becomes better connected, people tend to use dominant languages to communicate with each other. Thus, some people argue that having fewer languages in the world makes life easier. I agree with this position for several reasons.

[strike]To begin with,[/strike] Some languages do not have a written form, so it is difficult to pass them down to the next generation and hard for foreigners to learn them systematically. Also, languages without a written form are less practical because they cannot record important events or information in detail and often fail to deliver [strike]the[/strike] information to other people accurately. For example, if people are making deals, they sometimes [STRIKE]includes[/STRIKE] include a lot of requirements which people need to [STRIKE]be[/STRIKE] comply with. If we cannot record them on paper, mistakes and miscommunication may occur frequently.

Moreover, it is not economically advantageous to learn endangered languages because they may not benefit us very much. [strike]For example, the language[/strike] One example is Red Gelao, which only [STRIKE]less[/STRIKE] fewer than 50 people can speak. [STRIKE]it.[/STRIKE] [strike]On the one hand,[/strike] It takes a lot of time to find formal learning resources for such languages. Furthermore, teaching fees could be very high because there are not many teachers who [STRIKE]specialised[/STRIKE] specialise in them. In addition, there are not many organisations that use them as official languages, which makes the learning less rewarding. Therefore, many people are prepared to spend time and money learning dominant languages that increase their access to higher education and better careers.

In conclusion, I agree that having fewer languages in the world improves our life because it reduces miscommunication and is more beneficial to our education [STRIKE]as well as[/STRIKE] and careers.

If you're going to use "On the one hand", you need to start another sentence with "On the other hand", showing an opposing point of view.

 

[probus]

One disadvantage of a language with few native speakers is that a lot of money must be spent on translation. Because of that, Denmark held a referendum a few years ago on the idea of adopting English as the official language for legislation and other purposes of government, retaining Danish only as a cultural language. The proposal was defeated, but not by a wide margin.

 

[Tarheel]

So Denmark considered making English their official language?

 

[Maybo]

Against:
Para. 1
Some concepts may exist only in the endangered language so if the language disappeared, the meanings of such concepts could be hard to explain in another language. As a result, some knowledge that deals with particular situations may also be lost along with the languages. For example, Lulamogi speakers in Uganda are worried that terms such as “Okukunia” used to describe ways of trapping and eating white ants will be forgotten.

Para. 2
Moreover, a language might have its own thinking system and culture, which may inspire creativity when people exchange ideas. For example, the language such as French has genders. When French people use feminine nouns, they might tend to use feminine adjectives to describe them. It can inspire people who speak genderless languages while writing or doing other creative projects.

 

[teechar]

Against:
Para. 1
Some concepts may exist only in the endangered language so if the language disappeared, the meanings of such concepts could be hard to explain in another language. As a result, some knowledge that deals with particular situations may also be lost along with the languages. For example, Lulamogi speakers in Uganda are worried that terms such as “Okukunia” used to describe ways of trapping and eating white ants will be forgotten.

No. It's not about concepts disappearing. It's about the loss of linguistic and associated cultural diversity. Try again.

Para. 2
Moreover, a language might have its own thinking system and culture, which may inspire creativity when people exchange ideas. For example, the language such as French has genders. When French people use feminine nouns, they might tend to use feminine adjectives to describe them. It can inspire people who speak genderless languages while writing or doing other creative projects.

Again, that's vague. Your ideas are not well developed.
The real issues associated with languages disappearing include:
1- Loss of cultural diversity/heritage.
2- Loss of identity for the speakers of those languages.

 

[Maybo]

No. It's not about concepts disappearing. It's about the loss of linguistic and associated cultural diversity. Try again.

Again, that's vague. Your ideas are not well developed.
The real issues associated with languages disappearing include:
1- Loss of cultural diversity/heritage.
2- Loss of identity for the speakers of those languages.

But isn't creativity associated with cultural diversity?

 

[Tarheel]

I haven't heard that one before. What stimulates creativity? Well, James Watt was Scottish, and Scotland was not at the time culturally diverse. (It still isn't.) And South Korea isn't culturally diverse, but they created Hyundai and Samsung. And Japan isn't culturally diverse, but they gave us Toyota and Sony. (I don't think you need to encourage creativity. Just don't discourage it.)

As for why languages disappear, I think it's because they lose their usefulness. In many cases, languages don't really die. They simply evolve. Latin is called a dead language. Nobody speaks Latin nowadays. But Latin didn't die. It evolved into modern Italian. English has evolved. It certainly isn't the same language that was spoken in King Alfred's day. And it isn't the same language that was spoken in King James's day.

Change is the one thing we can count on.

 

[Maybo]

I haven't heard that one before. What stimulates creativity? Well, James Watt was Scottish, and Scotland was not at the time culturally diverse. (It still isn't.) And South Korea isn't culturally diverse, but they created Hyundai and Samsung. And Japan isn't culturally diverse, but they gave us Toyota and Sony. (I don't think you need to encourage creativity. Just don't discourage it.)

Some places that don't have cultural diversity can still be creative, which doesn't mean that cultural diversity cannot stimulate creativity. It's just a language test. I think "cultural diversity stimulates creativity" is a reasonable point.

As for why languages disappear, I think it's because they lose their usefulness.

I have talked about this in my 'support' essay.