15/06/2026
The Importance of Language Learning, and Should We Have a ‘Universal Language’?
Many argue that we should have just one universal language. This would eradicate all language barriers, make communication quick and easy, and create a shared culture for us all. Some say we are already seeing the rise in a universal language, English. However, I would argue that this would be inefficient and actually create more limitations in our lives, linking to the theory of Linguistic Relativity.
Charlemagne once said that ‘to have another language is to possess a second soul’. Lots of multilingual people claim that they almost have different personalities in different languages, I can also affirm that I have experienced this – I tend to have much more confidence in Spanish than English for example.
Whorf’s theory of Linguistic Relativity claims that language can shape our thoughts and perceptions, in turn affecting our behaviours. We all generally acknowledge this in temporal terms, for instance the term ‘social class’ only became widely recognised in the 19th century, transforming how we view social hierarchy and therefore allowed us to gain a political consciousness. This is the same culturally.
A good example is that of feelings in Latin languages, like Spanish, vs in English. In Spanish, we describe feelings as something separate to our identity, something impermanent or fleeting. We say ‘tengo miedo’, which directly translates to ‘I have fear’, whereas in English we say ‘I am scared/fearful’, just as we would say ‘I am a human’.
In English, we put our emotions on par with our identity. This changes the way in which we perceive emotion, it becomes a part of us, something perhaps overwhelming or incontrollable, in contrast to Spanish where you ‘have’ fear, it is completely separate from our identity.
Latin languages even go as far to differentiate between a ‘permanent being’ and an ‘impermanent being’ (Ser vs Estar). In Spanish, when referring to a permanent state, like your identity, we use the verb ‘Ser’, whereas when referring to something impermanent, like emotion, we use the verb ‘Estar’. (E.g. ‘Soy humano’ vs ‘Estoy triste’). This differentiation between states of being makes us perceive things differently – emotions are much lighter and impermanent than our identity in Spanish, in contrast to in English, where they are spoken about in the same way (with the same verb ‘to be’) as our identity, making them seem much heavier.
Perhaps this is partly why depression rates are higher in England than those in Spain?
This is already acknowledged in psychological spaces, for instance we tend to say somebody ‘has depression’ or ‘has a mental illness’ rather than they ‘are depressed’ or ‘are mentally ill’, this is done to separate their mental disorder from their identity, turning it into something manageable and perhaps curable.
Through language learning, we get to understand concepts, like this, in completely new ways, it helps us to navigate our own languages and lives because it opens our minds to new perceptions. This is why I believe that a universal language wouldn’t suffice and instead we should try and understand as many languages as we can. Yes, we would all be able to communicate easily, but at what cost? Which language should it be? Which concepts are deemed “less important” than others, and who decides that? If English were to be the universal language, we would lose words, and therefore concepts, from different cultures; for instance, the concept of ‘fernweh’ in German, or ‘duende’ in Spanish, or ‘saudade’ in Portuguese, or ‘tu’burni’ in Arabic. All words without direct translations into English. Learning languages opens our minds to new cultures and ideas, without which, our ways of living would be severely limited.
I’d be interested in other views and opinions on this.
