The following is from a paper I wrote. Please don't plagiarize it.


The idea of a simple, globally spoken language which allows a person to speak to any other person in the world captures the imagination. For this reason Esperanto, a language created with such an idea in mind, fascinates people. However, I believe that Esperanto should not be widely used because it would actually hinder rather than help intercultural communication.

. . .

Despite being a global language intended to bring peoples together, Esperanto is Eurocentric. In the book Esperanto: The World Interlanguage, Thomas Yoseloff, a distinguished scholar, writes, “It [Esperanto] is based on the elements of the most important European tongues” (26). Forster agrees:

Even the very structure of the Esperanto language reflects its European base: international roots have been effectively those of European languages. Esperanto. . . drew particularly on vocabulary from the two previously accepted international languages, Latin and French. (354)

Esperanto thus is a clear product of Europe. It borrows vocabulary from European languages; it uses the concept of prefixes and suffixes from European languages; it uses the syntax, the word order of sentences, found in European languages; and most obviously, it utilizes the Roman alphabet. Conversely, Forster points out, “If the European basis of the language is objected to, Esperantists could reply that Esperanto as a language has an Indo-European rather than an European basis” (354). Though Indo-European languages are spoken throughout the world, there are many major language families not in this category, especially languages from Asia and the Middle East. These languages have had little influence on Esperanto despite how widely they may be spoken. Also, it should not be forgotten that Esperanto was born in Europe. A language biased so heavily towards one continent cannot be truly global and reach over cultural barriers.

Yet according to enthusiasts, there is a great need for a global language. Thomas Yoseloff speaks for them when he writes:

The language problem has many facets. Its implications in education, science, business, and politics are innumerable. There has been a growing awareness of the fact that increased emphasis on foreign language study, though useful and urgent, will not suffice, but that for worldwide use a practical, neutral, and easy-to-learn world interlanguage is necessary. (3)

Thus he claims that a world interlanguage is necessary to cross language barriers and overcome the misunderstandings they cause. He believes that it is impractical to rely on foreign language study. He mentions a list of 2,796 total languages in the world established by the French Academy and of those the languages of practical importance number around one hundred twenty. No individual could learn that many languages, and thus Yoseloff makes his case for an international language and more specifically Esperanto, the best developed international language, that would allow people to communicate all over the globe. The applications he mentions that would benefit from an interlanguage are practical; education, science, business, and politics. This practical usage of Esperanto is tempting and I concede that an interlanguage would be a benefit in many fields. But some proponents of Esperanto believe that its use would extend beyond such applications. Forster explains:

While some Esperantists emphasize its advantages for trade, conferences, travel, and the like, others emphasize an idealistic attitude, seeing Esperanto as contributing to world peace, justice, and brotherhood of mankind. (5)

The goals of Esperanto are not simply practical communication, but it is intended to bring about intercultural understanding leading to peace and other idealistic ends.

Despite any benefits of Esperanto's practical application, I disagree that such a constructed, international language like Esperanto could foster intercultural understanding. The linguistic Sapir-Whorf hypothesis must be taken into account. B. Kumaravadivelu, a professor of applied linguistics at San Jose State University, sums the hypothesis up well in Cultural Globalism and Language Education, “In a nutshell, the hypothesis states that language determines thought. That is, the way we think and behave is conditioned and constrained by the language we use” (1 cool . If people use a international language, they will never be able to understand the thought processes and actions of people of other cultures because they do not know the other people's native tongue. Their understanding of each other will be only superficial, what can be gathered from the direct meaning of the words. Because Esperanto is a constructed language, it is no one's native language and the very fact that it claims to be neutral requires that it is empty of conditioning and constraining nature of languages.

Furthermore, with a global language that is easy to learn, there would be little incentive for people to learn the native language of another culture. Foreign language learning is much more than just learning to communicate and understand new vocabularies and linguistic structures. Included in the language learning is understanding the different thought processes and learning about another culture. Learning foreign languages is invaluable to intercultural understanding. However, people would flock to an easier, globally understood interlanguage at the expense of learning the native languages of others. Thus Esperanto would hinder intercultural communication.

Therefore perhaps it has been a benefit that Esperanto remains a linguistic curiosity instead of being widespread. Forster describes its current position:

Yet Esperanto has not been adopted officially by any major organization, state, or group of states. Thus to some degree certain members are liable to continue to display characteristics of the 'deviance syndrome'. (372)

Considering that any benefit of Esperanto in international communication would be at the cost of intercultural understanding, it is best that it remain a deviant and unadopted.