Most Important Natural Languages?

[Travis B.]

Most of us, I'm willing to wager, don't do much globetrotting. But we all read, some of us very extensively. Here's a breakdown of records in WorldCat (with 1.8 billion records from 72,000 contributing libraries, the largest bibliographic database in the world today) by language:
...
Granted, US libraries are heavily overrepresented in this database but (a) most of the ZBB is based in the USA and (b) the USA still publishes more new titles annually than any other country. (Moreover, many "new" publications outside the US are translations of works originally published there.)

Firstly, yes there is an overrepresentation. Secondly, I would suppose that any major new ideas or artistic/literary movements in French, German and other European languages would make it to English in translation or through influencing original works, but I doubt the same is true for most non-European languages except possibly Arabic and Chinese.

If reading new interesting thoughts is the aim, then again I feel picking languages with less "cultural overlap" is more rewarding. And of course, the reading arguments would also privilege imperial/high culture languages of the past such as Farsi, Arabic, Sanskrit, Latin, Tamil. I mean, it's perfectly okay for someone to be personally more interested in European languages due to their ancestral heritage, personal whim or whatever, but to think that this is because these languages are more important than all others is to buy into the silly Macaulay quote about how “I am quite ready to take oriental learning at the valuation of orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them, who could deny that that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.”

This then raises the question of who has better literature or the most interesting literature, which is certainly a much harder, if not impossible, question to answer in anything even resembling an objective manner than simply who produces the most literature (excluding English, of course).

For instance, if I bother to get back into learning a language, I probably still would learn German, simply because from what it seems there is quite a bit written in it that I might want to read. But most people are not necessarily interested in reading this, and would find there to be no reason to learn German at all in the first place.

[linguoboy]

For instance, if I bother to get back into learning a language, I probably still would learn German, simply because from what it seems there is quite a bit written in it that I might want to read. But most people are not necessarily interested in reading this, and would find there to be no reason to learn German at all in the first place.

That's the fundamental problem with all such lists: While it can be fun to discuss them, it's hard to see what practical value they might have. Ultimately, we all learn languages for intensely personal reasons, not because they are "important" or "useful" in some pseudo-objective sense.

[2+3 clusivity]

From the call of the question I saw you valued numbers. Most of your lists were euro-centric as pointed out, which I'll try to avoid. You also valued old or religiously important languages--no one speaks them for a reason--we've moved on.

Perhaps this is more objective. Take the six official languages of the UN and add some of the proposed additions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_l ... ed_Nations

I added some of my own support criteria--take them or trash them.

1. Arabic (accord numbers, media; lingua franca effect)
2. Bengali/Bangladeshi/Bangla/etc. (accord numbers, aid to understanding related languages)
3. English (accord numbers, media, aid to understanding loans word into and out of; lingua franca effect)
4. French (accord numbers, media; lingua franca effect; aid to understanding related languages)
5. Hindustani, i.e. Urdu/Hindi/etc (accord numbers, media, aid to understanding neighboring languages; lingua franca effect; but see huge definitional problems and lumping issues with divergent/convergent languages/dialects)
6. Mandarin (accord numbers, media, aid to literacy in surrounding languages; lingua franca effect)
7. Portuguese (accords numbers, aid to understanding related languages)
8. Russian (accord geopolitical; lingua franca effect (former USSR))
9. Spanish (accord numbers, aid to understanding related languages; lingua franca effect)

Not on the U.N. list:

10. Persian/Dari/Tajik~~Pashto? [not all are mutual intelligible but perhaps a general understanding] (accord numbers, aid to understanding related languages; lingua franca effect) Persian: up to 60-70 million if you clump them; Pashto: 50-60m


Runners up:

A. Either Tamil or Telugu (both for reason of numbers and I'd assume growing media, maybe one would help with picking the other up or the other large related languages)
B. Swahili (lingua franca effect perhaps, the number of l1 speakers leaves me unsatisfied)
C. Punjabi (Wikipedia lumps together very divergent dialects or languages, plus the similarity to other NIA languages already on the list strikes against)
D. Malay~Javanese (Lumping problem again, probably more so)

[installer_swan]

From the call of the question I saw you valued numbers. Most of your lists were euro-centric as pointed out, which I'll try to avoid. You also valued old or religiously important languages--no one speaks them for a reason--we've moved on.

Perhaps this is more objective. Take the six official languages of the UN and add some of the proposed additions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_l ... ed_Nations

I added some of my own support criteria--take them or trash them.

1. Arabic (accord numbers, media; lingua franca effect)
2. Bengali/Bangladeshi/Bangla/etc. (accord numbers, aid to understanding related languages)
3. English (accord numbers, media, aid to understanding loans word into and out of; lingua franca effect)
4. French (accord numbers, media; lingua franca effect; aid to understanding related languages)
5. Hindustani, i.e. Urdu/Hindi/etc (accord numbers, media, aid to understanding neighboring languages; lingua franca effect; but see huge definitional problems and lumping issues with divergent/convergent languages/dialects)
6. Mandarin (accord numbers, media, aid to literacy in surrounding languages; lingua franca effect)
7. Portuguese (accords numbers, aid to understanding related languages)
8. Russian (accord geopolitical; lingua franca effect (former USSR))
9. Spanish (accord numbers, aid to understanding related languages; lingua franca effect)

Not on the U.N. list:

10. Persian/Dari/Tajik~~Pashto? [not all are mutual intelligible but perhaps a general understanding] (accord numbers, aid to understanding related languages; lingua franca effect) Persian: up to 60-70 million if you clump them; Pashto: 50-60m


Runners up:

A. Either Tamil or Telugu (both for reason of numbers and I'd assume growing media, maybe one would help with picking the other up or the other large related languages)
B. Swahili (lingua franca effect perhaps, the number of l1 speakers leaves me unsatisfied)
C. Punjabi (Wikipedia lumps together very divergent dialects or languages, plus the similarity to other NIA languages already on the list strikes against)
D. Malay~Javanese (Lumping problem again, probably more so)

Interesting list, but Bangla,Hindustani,Farsi seems like languages too close to each other if you're going by intelligibility. As a native Hindustani speaker, I can already understand a fair amount of Punjabi and Bangla passively and could get to reasonable competence in a few weeks of immersion. At least one of them can be safely replaced by something from the Malay-Bahasa continuum, or Tamil/Telugu/Kannada.

[clawgrip]

For instance, if I bother to get back into learning a language, I probably still would learn German, simply because from what it seems there is quite a bit written in it that I might want to read. But most people are not necessarily interested in reading this, and would find there to be no reason to learn German at all in the first place.

That's the fundamental problem with all such lists: While it can be fun to discuss them, it's hard to see what practical value they might have. Ultimately, we all learn languages for intensely personal reasons, not because they are "important" or "useful" in some pseudo-objective sense.

I think there can be useful, partially objective ways of ranking languages, but only to an extent. Most Japanese people, for example, are going to have English, Mandarin Chinese and Korean at the top of their lists of most "useful" languages. The choice here would be based on the person's job and/or geographic location (Japan), which although personal to some extent, is not intensely so, since this hypothetical person does not necessarily have any particular personal interest in the language chosen. In my unscientific, subjective recollections, I seem to have encountered more Japanese people learning Mandarin Chinese and Korean than those learning say, German or Spanish. This trend I think represents an objective, geographical situation.

Doing a quick survey of my Japanese coworkers, there are two who are relatively fluent in Mandarin Chinese, one who can carry on basic conversations in Korean, and that's it (excluding English). No one speaks any other language to any extent, aside from English. Small sample size, I realize, but this represents my experience.

That said, the list for the average Japanese person basically goes:
1. English (taught in school, needed for university, American influence)
2. Chinese (most important neighbouring country)
3. Korean (second most important neighbouring country)
3. subjective / personal

[cybrxkhan]

There doesn't seem to be clear criteria for this, but I'll personally define "important" for contemporary communication. As a history major, I suppose I can also attempt to define important for being able to understand history (i.e., knowing Latin really helps with European history, and Classical Arabic does wonders for much of Middle Eastern history).

For contemporary communication, I'd say:

1. English
2. Spanish
3. Mandarin
4. French
5. Arabic
6. Russia
7. Japanese
8. German
9. Hindi-Urdu
10. Portuguese


For historical study, I'd say:

1. English
2. French
3. Latin
4. Greek
5. Classical Chinese
6. Classical Arabic
7. German
8. Spanish
9. Aramaic
10. Sanskrit


Even then I'm not really sure.

[Shihali]

This is my rating, on the not entirely objective scale of "how often does my limited/nonexistent competence in this language frustrate my desire to read something?"

0. English (my L1, but I suspect it would top the list if it weren't)
1. French (severely limited proficiency and common in 19c English-language books and modern materials on Africa alike)
2. Japanese (severely limited proficiency and useful for 20-21c pop culture; literature is far out of reach)
3. German (no proficiency so deliberately avoided, but important for 19-20c economics and general reference)
4. Vernacular Chinese (no proficiency, increasingly available materials but usually with an English version)
5. Classical Chinese (no proficiency, interest in the culture, English versions usually available)
6. Literary Arabic (severely limited proficiency but seems interesting; not much pop culture)
7. Latin (severely limited proficiency, scarce but widespread in general use)
8. Spanish (some proficiency, useful for Latin America and general reading)
9. Italian (no proficiency, looks like it should be easier to read than it is)
10. Classical Greek (no proficiency, scarce but occurs with some frequency)

A more objective scale would add Hindustani in some form, Malay~Indonesian, and Russian, adjust the classical languages, and cut back on the Western European languages; there's a feedback loop cutting out languages in which I have truly zero proficiency and no regional interest.

Incidentally, I've been told that the other reason Korean is such a popular foreign language for Japanese high school students is that it's the easiest foreign language for Japanese L1 speakers offered, so they don't have to work as hard and have more time to spend on truly important things like cram school.

[Travis B.]

For instance, if I bother to get back into learning a language, I probably still would learn German, simply because from what it seems there is quite a bit written in it that I might want to read. But most people are not necessarily interested in reading this, and would find there to be no reason to learn German at all in the first place.

That's the fundamental problem with all such lists: While it can be fun to discuss them, it's hard to see what practical value they might have. Ultimately, we all learn languages for intensely personal reasons, not because they are "important" or "useful" in some pseudo-objective sense.

I think there can be useful, partially objective ways of ranking languages, but only to an extent. Most Japanese people, for example, are going to have English, Mandarin Chinese and Korean at the top of their lists of most "useful" languages. The choice here would be based on the person's job and/or geographic location (Japan), which although personal to some extent, is not intensely so, since this hypothetical person does not necessarily have any particular personal interest in the language chosen. In my unscientific, subjective recollections, I seem to have encountered more Japanese people learning Mandarin Chinese and Korean than those learning say, German or Spanish. This trend I think represents an objective, geographical situation.

Doing a quick survey of my Japanese coworkers, there are two who are relatively fluent in Mandarin Chinese, one who can carry on basic conversations in Korean, and that's it (excluding English). No one speaks any other language to any extent, aside from English. Small sample size, I realize, but this represents my experience.

That said, the list for the average Japanese person basically goes:
1. English (taught in school, needed for university, American influence)
2. Chinese (most important neighbouring country)
3. Korean (second most important neighbouring country)
3. subjective / personal

By these kinds of criteria, for instance, all Americans ought to learn Spanish as their second language, if they learn one, as it is already effectively the de facto second language in the US today (to the point that on language family maps I have seen the US crosshatched for Germanic and Romance).

Yet, most English-speaking Americans will never need to learn Spanish, since they will rarely if ever come into contact with individuals who are actually Spanish-monolingual, except possibly in the areas with the most intense recent settlement from Spanish-speaking areas (hence rules in California about people in certain positions having to know Spanish). There is the use of being able to read and watch media content untranslated in Spanish, but there is no indication that most Americans have an interest in watching telenovelas or reading untranslated Borges or Márquez.

One could make arguments about how this is reflecting English-speaker chauvinism, but that still does not change that for English speakers in the US, they really do not need to know the second most spoken language in their country.

[Nooj]

Obviously this is unsatisfactory: Bengali and Punjabi but not French or German? An esoteric choice, to say the least, for most polyglots.

...no, not at all.

[Torco]

[some] language is best language

again, important as in what.

[Bob Johnson]

your favorite language sucks

[hwhatting]

If you're travelling for business, the most important languages to know are
1) English (the business lingua franca of the world)
2) Spanish
3) Mandarin
4) French
5) Russian
In my experience, the areas where 2) - 5) are the main languages for business are areas where the people you normally do business with as an expatriate very often don't know English. OTOH, in the Arab world people you normally meet for business are most frequently either anglo- or francophone; in (say) Pakistan those people speak English, etc. Things become different when you want to move from business meetings and frequenting the usual expat haunts to actually meeting and working with a broader range of natives, but then you don't need a list of the world's most important languages, you need to know what the most important languages spoken in that specific location are.

[Torco]

french over russian?
french over arabic? okay, most of the arab world speaks either english or french.

[installer_swan]

If you're travelling for business, the most important languages to know are

[Vuvuzela]

Very carefully.

[Yng]

OTOH, in the Arab world people you normally meet for business are most frequently either anglo- or francophone; in (say) Pakistan those people speak English, etc.

I am unclear on whether this is meant to imply Pakistan is in the Arab World.

[brandrinn]

If you're travelling for business, the most important languages to know are
1) English (the business lingua franca of the world)
2) Spanish
3) Mandarin
4) French
5) Russian

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If you are a business person, there is only one language you would ever study without a specific purpose: English. All other languages you need to learn are based on where you plan to do business. If your company is partnered with a company in Estonia, then it is of no consequence how important Mandarin is in the international market. You learn a language out of a catalog of dozens of choices based on very specific needs, not based on their weight relative to each other internationally. I get what you're trying to say, but the concept of a list of most important business languages seems flawed from the start.

[clawgrip]

So I guess the answer is: English.

[murtabak]

Speaking about business, here are the countries with the largest GDP (top 25):
US, China, India, Japan, Germany, Russia, Brazil, UK, France, Italy, Mexico, S Korea, Spain, Canada, Indonesia, Turkey, Iran, Australia, Taiwan, Poland, Argentina, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, South Africa

So English is clearly the "richest" language. The others are Mandarin, Japanese, German, Russian, Portuguese, French, Italian, Spanish, Korean, Malay/Indonesian, Turkish, Farsi, Polish, Dutch, Arabic, and Thai. Hindi I'm not so sure since it's not even a lingua franca in India, is it? I think English is. And this shows that although Spanish and Arabic are widespread, they don't have the commensurate economic importance.

But yeah, nonsense about studying language other than English for international business or scientific research. Virtually everyone is those fields speaks English nowadays

[2+3 clusivity]

I think you missed the point that spanish, arabic and other languages are important not because of a single country's "top 10" economy, but because of their aggregate speakers in various countries . . . all with economies of varying prominence.

and in re hindi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi#Official_status.

[Skomakar'n]

So I guess the answer is: English.

The answer to which are the most important languages isn't, no.

[2+3 clusivity]

Wait, wait, wait. No love of Esper ..... Haha, it's too funny to even finish that thought.

[Thry]

If making a 10 list for ""language importance"", I don't immediately think of business or historical significance, but rather on a more linguistic importance, what do natlangs have of value by themselves? Why not make a list of varied things that represent many different features? How could you exclude, say, a polysynthetic lang (Inuit), or an ergative lang (Basque), an isolating lang (Chinese), ...

[clawgrip]

So I guess the answer is: English.

The answer to which are the most important languages isn't, no.

My unwritten point was that the s was incorrect. My singular answer was intended to retroactively rewrite the plural question.

[Bob Johnson]

English and Bad English