In many countries, old or traditional languages are dying out or being forgotten, especially by younger people. Is this an acceptable development which occurs inevitably, or is it something which we should try to prevent?
Language is considered to be the greatest achievement of human beings throughout history. However, the issue of whether to preserve endangered languages continues to be a controversial topic in many countries around the world. There are valid arguments on both sides, which will be analyzed now.
On the one hand, it can be said that losing a language would indicate that losing the potential of greater diversity in art, music, literature, and oral traditions. Perhaps this is because language is the main part of culture, so, for instance, if the language of an ethnic were to become extinct, its culture and identity of that ethnic would gradually disappear as well. Furthermore, the supporters of preserving rare languages claim that language diversity can lead us to new thoughts and creativity, which are required for problem-solving skills.
The other side of this debate is that preserving isolated languages may simply be unenforceable in practical terms. This is because there are 20 dominant languages out of more than 7,000 languages all around the world are being spoken by people. Therefore, the process of becoming extinct is inescapable for many of them due to the dearth of enthusiasm of new generations to learn their rare mother tongue. Rather, they, for example, tend to learn Persian, which is a national language in Iran, instead of learning Lurish. A second point is that most ethnics are forbidden by law to formally teach their languages to their children. Take the ethnic Kurds in Turkey as an example, clearly makes Kurdish endangered in that area. What is more, thanks to globalization, people tend to communicate with each other with a lingua franca, thus reducing the importance of language diversity.
To conclude, it appears that the aim of reviving languages which are in danger is admirable, but it is unworkable in realistic terms due to globalization and the failure to transfer a language to the next generations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 219, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...fer a language to the next generations.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, may, second, so, therefore, thus, well, for example, for instance, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 13.1623246493 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1642.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 318.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16352201258 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91977025538 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 176.041082164 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572327044025 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 512.1 506.74238477 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.4951377771 49.4020404114 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.285714286 106.682146367 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7142857143 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.85714285714 7.06120827912 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.209079752917 0.244688304435 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0746597227957 0.084324248473 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0391501030188 0.0667982634062 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130688148957 0.151304729494 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0241755780007 0.056905535591 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 50.2224549098 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.4159519038 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 78.4519038076 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.