Sample 1:

Language is a gateway to know about other cultures and communicating with them. It is argued that governments should infuse in conserving minority languages, while others consider it is in vain to put money into storing it. In my perspective, it is vital to infuse to neutralize its extinction as well as saving cultural identity, if it is no longer spoken.

At the outset, in different parts of the world, minority languages are spoken; but the number of speakers is scanty. So, if attention is not paid towards saving these, they will become extinct, and it is an irreparable loss for any nation. So, measures must be taken to keep it alive. Governments must consider that less spoken languages were once the treasure house of keeping survive the old traditions or customs. So, it is indispensable to preserve these languages. For instance, Sanskrit, being the oldest language, is on the verge of extinction. People do not know the ABC of it. Thus, spending more money on it by making it mandatory for learners in schools or colleges, can save these to some extent. Masses must be made aware that all the religious books like Digveda or Atharvaveda and to name but a few are written in this language. So, these contain historical importance.

Furthermore, others argue that it is inappropriate usage of wealth as these have become obsolete and moreover are less spoken by individuals. The prime reason is the excessive usage of foreign languages. So, the language, which assists people to learn about the outer world and earn handsome income by getting proficiency in an alien language is lucrative for them. So, pouring money lavishly is a futile effort of the government to save it instead governments should invest more in expanding international language, which will be more beneficial in strengthening the economy of a country. Thus, they consider spending more amount to preserve minority languages, is impractical work.

In conclusion, as it is ostensible from the above-mentioned ideas that governments ought to preserve dying languages in order to save culture as well as escaping it from being extinct due to containing treasure house of knowledge. From other perspectives, it is no longer spoken and is now replaced with the foreign language. I consider it is important to save, which were once the origin of all languages. If culture is saved today, it is due to these less spoken languages.

Sample 2:

Many are of the belief that it would be worthwhile for governments to prioritise the preservation of various minority languages. In my opinion, despite limited potential efficacy this sentiment is justifiable.

Detractors of this proposal argue that investment is unlikely to have a major impact. In order for minority groups to earn a living and enjoy the conveniences of the modern world, they require knowledge of a nation’s most widely spoken language. In fact, many indigenous peoples themselves desire to move away from their hometowns to live in large cities and join the modern workforce. For example, in the Hmong people of Southeast Asia, it is typically the older generation that seeks to communicate in their native tongue and preserve traditional ways of life. The younger generation, generally, would rather learn the most useful language and integrate with the dominant national culture. Therefore, efforts by governments oppose what individuals desire and are unlikely to be successful.

Nonetheless, there is cultural value in preserving a language. A language uniquely represents and codifies the external world. Everything from the verb structures and choice of nouns to the intonation and rhythm of the language present a singular way of interacting with and deciphering the world at large. For example, in many languages there are words that are not precisely translatable, and users therefore are more likely to see events and objects differently. As the world becomes increasingly globalised, I would argue that the importance of a plurality of perspectives only becomes more crucial. If such languages die out, they will likely never be resurrected, and the world will be poorer for the loss.

In conclusion, regardless of the potential challenges faced in preserving minority languages, their continued existence is essential to diversity. Governments must therefore make every effort to ensure their survival.

Sample 3:

Language is the reflection of thoughts, and it represents many unique features of culture no matter how many people belong to it. So, many put pressure on the government to invest in protecting minority languages, yet others believe that state investment to conserve these languages, which is used by only a handful of people, is a waste of taxpayers’ money. I believe that the government should take measures to preserve such languages.

Vociferous opponents of this demand claim that this would be a vain attempt to preserve minority languages from dying out. They argue that the features of dominant cultures and the modern market system have pervaded most indigenous societies to such an extent that the conventional subsistence way of life is considered socially inferior. Besides, the depletion of natural resources in some regions, many aboriginal communities leave hunting, fur trapping, and fishing to look for employment and the materialistic way of life in urban areas. The younger generations of Maya communities, for example, are adopting Spanish due to the hegemonic influence of Spanish. Therefore, the investment in preserving minority languages is not a judicious use of the resource.

On the contrary, there are several reasons why governments should invest to save minority languages. To commence with, languages contain an accumulated wealth of wisdom, which includes meteorology, botany, pharmacology, astronomy, mathematics, geography, and so forth. A case in point is Cherokee, an Iroquoian language. In the language, the names of berries convey whether they are poisonous, edible, or have some medical value. If we lose the language, then lose the ancient knowledge. Likewise, each language uniquely interprets the world and is insufficient in itself to utter certain ideas. As such, it offers unique insight into psychology, neurology, and the linguistic capacities of the human being. Different languages provide us with a distinct paradigm of thought for thinking and solving problems as well. When such languages become extinct, they will never be revived, and it would be irreparable harm to the world. This is why governments should invest in preserving minority languages.

In conclusion, aboriginal and minority languages are worth saving even if it requires state funds. Therefore, governments ought to allocate a budget for preserving these languages.

Sample 4:

It has been argued that it is the responsibility of governmental authorities to allocate funds to conserving languages not spoken by the majority of people in a country. Others, however, have proposed an opposing viewpoint which stipulates that resources would be better used elsewhere. My views align with the former.

The main reason why I support the opinion that the government ought to invest in the preservation of minority languages is due to the strong connection between language and culture. If people lose their language, they can lose a part of their culture which may have a negative impact on future generations. For instance, in Canada efforts were made to assimilate native Americans into the dominant culture; part of this involved only speaking English and this caused serious disruption to native American culture which has lasted to the present day.

There is an opposing belief that there are better avenues of investment that do not involve protecting minority languages. This is based on the idea that the government should prioritize more essential services to cater for the majority of people such as more funding to national health care systems or national defense. In some cases, this might be important, but most countries are not in a state of crisis where these aspects have an overriding priority.

On balance, the argument that the government has to invest in maintaining minority languages has more weight than the proposed alternative. The conservation of language and subsequently culture is of greater import than focusing on other priorities especially in a time of general stability in the world.