"Nothing can stop the willingness to maintain a language alive"

The idea is that there are people more accustomed to learning a second language than others, and among the people with identical interest and experience, some use this second language more than others. Motivations are an influence here. There are people, for instance, who will make a greater effort to use the second language and to improve it, to take any opportunity to make use of it, whilst others are more reserved, take it more easily and will very rarely speak the language. So in the use of a second language there is not only the influence of the preparation or the experience, but a whole range of psychological factors that have an important impact at the time of making people decide to use the second language they have learnt. I specialised myself in psychology and communication, something that leads one to analyse the numerous variables in the communicative processes. When you add the use of the second language, everything becomes more complex. You enter the dimension of another language, of another culture, and everything is more interesting. There is a lot of talk about the usefulness of a second language for the economic globalisation, for immigration, for Business English, but there is a wider range that goes from access to tourism to the promotion of new relations, friendship, cultural activities? To learn new languages not only brings about financial benefits. Languages and cultures are very closely related, many people argue that it is practically impossible to separate a language from a culture. And, when a language dies, it is an irreparable loss for culture. I would add that, if a language is under threat, and the number of people that speak it is getting smaller all the time, this implies an emotional state of fear that changes people. When a culture is under threat, one has the feeling that something very important in you might disappear, and this could change the way people relate with one another. We can indeed, as the use of a language is, to a great extent, an individual decision and, in addition, it is part of a social process. For instance, in Canada and the US there are people who are learning what we call ?heritage languages?, the languages of their ancestors. They don?t want to use them in daily conversations, nor to do business in them, but they form part of their identity and want to learn them because they are part of their history. This is what happened in the Canadian state of New Scotia. The aborigines resurrected their identity, obtained greater political force, their population began to increase? They have been increasingly united in terms of their language as they don?t want to see it disappear. In the past, their language was oral, but now they are compiling their first dictionary; in fact, it has been elaborated by a couple of lecturers at my university. This job of compiling a dictionary is a huge task, because after all the effort done, you realise that your work has not finished. Something like this can only be done when you have a true motivation to preserve a language, an identity. When people speak a language and seek to maintain it, even if it entails a great effort, if they want it to continue living, nothing can stop that willingness, it will be possible to transmit the language to the next generation, which in turn will have to decide? Languages are constantly changing, and many will probably disappear, but those languages spoken by people with a resolve to make sure they do not disappear, will still be spoken in fifty years time. I am not as pessimist as those that warn of the loss of a number of languages as a result of the pressure of a majority language? When pressure exists, people can also react. As a rule, a government cannot do it on its own. One needs the commitment of people, to pass on their language to their children and to infuse the love for their language. It should be borne in mind that a language can be lost in just three generations. Its disappearance, therefore, depends a lot on the individual. I think both things must co-exist: if a government works to defend a language but there is no correspondence by the individual, the language will have problems. And the other way round is also true: without the complicity of the government, it will be more complicated for the individual to pass his or her language from generation to generation. Be that as it may, what matters is that languages are used effectively, that they form part of the tools we use when carrying out the activities we like ? going to the cinema, reading, playing? Children will not play in the playground with the aim of learning a second language, but maybe they will need it if they want to play. This is what guarantees the continuity of languages. If people realise that to speak a language is useful, it will be easier for them to learn it. From an identitarian standpoint, the groups that want their language to survive have a strong sense of cohesion, of pride in their history and culture. The stronger their identity is, the more the number of motives to maintain one?s language alive. The groups that lose this sense of identity, that do not mind becoming assimilated or integrated into larger groups, will not defend their language. There are different types of learning. Children learn languages by absorption, they imitate their parents, and build up their language from the base. At twelve, thirteen or fourteen years of age, the method to learn a new language is another one. Adults can start from the first language learnt and establish comparisons: ?In English we say it like this, yet in French they say it like that, this I shall retain as a norm and that as an exception?. Adults can learn the structure of a language, its abstract norms, the grammar, almost as if it were a school subject. This learning is not necessarily less efficient than that of children; it is simply different. If you think of children, most of their day to day is spent learning a language, and they take from three to four years to learn their mother tongue perfectly, but they will not have a wider vocabulary until their adolescence. We tend to undervalue the effort children make to learn languages; we think it is very easy for them. Yet, there are adults who learn a new language in a couple of years, and this pace is most efficient. Esperanto was tried out, and it is there. I don?t know anyone who speaks it and cannot imagine anyone speaking it, as it lacks all its cultural dimension. There is no sense of pride, of emotions, no roots. Languages cannot be controlled to that extent. They grow with each individual, they become part of the person, of the way they think, they feel, of their experiences? It cannot be uprooted and be replaced by another thing. In that world people acted as machines, they all had to be in a determined way. Today we can say that English plays the role of the useful language for business, for travelling or for much of communication in general, but it cannot replace one?s own language. It depends on your idea of success! [He smiles] I think that in order to have success you should learn to speak a language well. If you speak two, it will be very good, as you will open up to another culture and maybe you will realise that the best way to see things is not your way, and this allows more flexibility and tolerance. To be successful from the point of view of economic opportunities, today you will need two, or even better three, languages. But this depends on each person and on the amount of travel they want to do and on the willingness to have access to other cultures. If you are interested in other cultures, it will be easier for you to learn their languages. There are people who speak six, seven or eight languages, and each new language is easier for them to learn, as they already know the mechanisms of learning.