Could we rebuild the tower of Babel?

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it—so goes the saying. In the case of the tower of Babel, would this be such a bad thing?

According to the Bible, there was a time when everyone on Earth spoke the same language. They had no barriers to communication, and thus nothing to stop them from achieving incredible feats. So they decided to build a tower.

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

The story of the tower of Babel has long been one of my favourites. While not religious, this has always resonated with me; I read languages at university and believe communication is paramount to the life experience. Although one shared language would see my degree worse than useless, the pacifist diplomat revels in the idea of being able to talk to anyone. I'm fascinated by the idea even the omnipotent would feel threatened by a society with a shared goal; would immediately find the beginnings of such a project worthy of intervention. To me, it’s not hubris that led to humans storming heaven; rather, they wanted to sink their roots into one place and avoid being ‘scattered’ to the winds and away from one another. After all, isn’t that what we all want? To stick together? Our entire society is predicated on the agreement to behave in ways which protect and support each other. But here, the scattering is more to do with the confusion of languages.

In our increasingly globalised, interconnected world, nationalism is taking hold in some countries. Many people see multiple languages as a threat—they demand people ‘speak English in England’ and while they tend to see foreigners themselves as a threat, if they speak English then they have assimilated at least a bit. Without touching upon the nonsense that is English speakers insisting on communicating with English abroad, there is something to be said about everyone speaking the same language. The tower of Babel showed what people can do if they share a language; even God took notice.

Although Dr Noam Chomsky, world-renowned professor of linguistics, said ‘every language that has ever existed is just a modification of something before it’, there isn’t any concrete evidence to suggest all languages originated from a single source. We didn’t all evolve from the same monkey, after all. There are thousands of languages spoken around the world today—not that we could accurately count them thanks to dialects—but experts agree there are fewer languages today than yesterday. Languages are literally dying and there are some estimates that half the current languages will have disappeared by 2100. Welsh, Basque, Romansh, Yiddish, Raji, Koke, Lolak, Saponi… the list is long. There are 20 languages with just one remaining speaker.

Languages dying isn’t a new thing. As tribes died out, language was replaced; as societies coincided, languages mixed and new ones spawned. Now, many experts believe we are headed towards a monolingual world. English is the current lingua franca of international business, education, science, diplomacy, technology, entertainment, seafaring and aviation—advanced by the prominent international role played by English-speaking nations, English is the most widely spoken language by a long way. Even the seating and roll-call order in sessions of the United Nations is determined by the alphabetical order of the English country names. According to some estimates, almost 80 percent of English speakers in the world are non-native speakers. A common tongue makes communication between even the most far-flung societies possible—suddenly, no one is out of reach—and globalisation can thrive.

Would monolingualism mean an end to conflict and distrust? Probably not. I need only point to the history of Northern Ireland, Vietnam and Korea. But surely, understanding each other would go a long way to improving relations, not to mention opening huge opportunities for work, commerce, education and debate. Think how far we could go—with modern science and technology, we’ve already reached the heavens. What could we do with all that time back from translating?

Let’s not distract ourselves with debating which language to choose. Esperanto was unquestionably a noble attempt but ultimately a failure. English may well be the language of the moment, but it could easily be replaced with shifts in political and economic power over time.

Translation theory offers us two ways to turn one language into another: dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. Formal equivalence is the approach most people attempt when they translate—they want to literally turn each word of a sentence into its equivalent in the target language. This is near impossible and is more goal than reality: one language may contain a word for a concept which has no direct equivalent in another language.

Pochemuchka (Russian); a person who constantly asks ‘why?’

Esprit de l’escalier (French); a witty comeback that only comes to mind once the opportunity to make it has passed

Torschlusspanik (German); the feeling of urgency to complete life goals before it’s too late

Dynamic equivalence works much better and prioritises understanding—it translates the concept and the meaning. Consider the Bible passage above; a great example of formal equivalence that trips on the tongues of English speakers.

Language is intrinsic to culture and personal identity. Words provide insight to a people’s beliefs, cultures, traditions and history—the loss of which would be immense if we eschewed the languages of the world for a dominant one. People see languages as an expression of themselves—I always find workplace jargon particularly entertaining. Do ‘let’s take this offline’ and ‘it’s time to sunset the brand’ mean anything to you? Languages enhance and enrich a people and help keep culture alive; they give a sense of belonging, and it’s that belonging that nationalists are clinging to. No Englishman would give up the language of Shakespeare and no Russian would forsake Tolstoy.

With different languages presenting so many ways to express a single thought, monolingualism would see us lose out on a rich and varied description of our world. Linguistic diversity is inherently creative; consider how many of our own words are neologisms or loaned and how integral they become. Not least, a world with a single hegemonic language would not allow diversity of expression or opinion to flourish.

‘We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion.’

All hail the metaphor!

Besides, even if we did agree on a common language, it certainly wouldn’t be English. Does anyone really think the language that gave us ‘selfie’, ‘lol’, and ‘Brangelina’ would stand still long enough to build a tower to space?