There are thousands of languages ​​in the world, each adding to our linguistic diversity. However, many languages ​​are in danger of extinction. These languages ​​belong to indigenous peoples who, in recent decades, have evolved into more common metropolitan languages. Linguists have a responsibility to study endangered languages ​​in order to preserve overall linguistic diversity in the world. We benefit from studying each language because they increase the diversity of syntax and semantics available to us. The more linguistic diversity there is, the better we can describe our environment, the better we can understand the world around us. However, while linguists have a responsibility to study these languages, they do not have an obligation to ensure the survival of all endangered languages. The extinction of languages ​​is part of a natural process within the communities that speak them. Linguists should let languages ​​come and go organically. The responsibility for ensuring the survival of a language lies with those who speak it. The language is part of their culture and therefore belongs to them in the same way as any other culture. So, they have the right to do with it what they want. It is inherently paternalistic to demand that a language be saved. This notion implies that those who let the language die do not know what is best for them, and it is our responsibility to protect them by saving that language. People have the right to decide whether or not to pass on elements of their culture and will do what is in the best interest of their people. After examining the two opposing sides of this question, I will argue that it is dangerous for linguists to take responsibility for saving these languages. Additionally, I will give an example of how to better combat the problem of loss of linguistic diversity. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'? Get an original essay In the article 'On Endangered Languages', linguist Ken Hale explains why he strongly believes that it is responsibility linguists and anthropologists to prevent endangered languages ​​from dying. Hale explains how the loss of languages ​​contributes to the loss of cultural and intellectual diversity (Hale, 349). He compares the loss of a language to the loss of an animal or plant species in terms of loss of biological diversity. Even if his intentions are good, his ideas are wrong. Hale asserts that each language contributes to linguistic diversity. Thus, Hale believes that the death of a given language constitutes a catastrophe. According to Hale, the greater the linguistic diversity available in the world, the better we are able to describe and therefore understand our environment. Therefore, the loss of any endangered language is detrimental to our growth as a species. I agree that Hale's argument is valid. However, assuming that it is our responsibility to lobby against the loss of a given language is extremely paternalistic. In making this assumption, Hale placed himself and other linguists atop a pedestal. By asserting that it is the responsibility of linguists to defend language, Hale demeans the intellect of the speakers themselves. In Hale's argument, there is an inherent implication that native speakers of the language are incapable of taking responsibility for maintaining and transmitting their language. Although this is unlikely to be Hale's intention, this type of thinking is nevertheless morally wrong. The responsibility for preserving a language rests in the hands ofthose who speak it. To think or say the opposite is to be guilty of elitism and ethnocentrism. Hale fails to consider two main issues. The first is that some people want to separate themselves from their language. It is a decision that they make and are capable of making, and it is their right to do so. The second is that the loss of an endangered language is not as catastrophic for the world's overall linguistic diversity as Hale would have us believe. Peter Ladefoged is another linguist who provided a careful counterargument to Hale's article. Ladefoged believes that we do not need to worry about safeguarding languages. He believes that in some cases the loss of a language can actually be a positive event. Although this results in a slight loss of linguistic diversity, positive results can be achieved. For example: the idea of ​​language as unifier. A single, more widely known language can unify a region with many divided communities. Two communities separated by a language barrier are much less likely to coexist peacefully. Breaking this barrier can lead to the unification of communities that otherwise might have been at odds with each other. Another point made by Ladefoged is that language is not the only thing that matters when talking about diversity. He gives us an example to explain his reasoning for this statement. “Consider two groups of Bushmen, the Zhuloasi and !Xoo, who speak mutually unintelligible languages ​​belonging to different subgroups of the Khoisan family, but otherwise behave similarly. » (Ladefoged, 1992). These groups act very similar but speak different languages. How diverse are they really? What would we have to lose if they converted to just one language? Linguistic diversity may not be the most important factor we should be concerned about. Last but not least: it is wrong for a linguist to assume that he or she knows better than the members of the community whose language is endangered. Their language will survive if they choose to pass it on. However, if they choose not to, it is often a difficult but nonetheless calculated decision. Ladefoged once again provides an excellent example. Speaking of the Toda, a community in the Nilgiri hills of southern India (Ladefoged, 1992), he explains that "many young people want to honor their ancestors, but also want to be part of a modern India." Without adopting a new language, it would be difficult for them to achieve this. Adopting a new, better-known language offers them opportunities that were not previously available to them. In this case, the decision was to stop using their native language as a way to acculturate to a metropolitan area and adopt a more widely available language. It is a decision to which everyone is entitled. If a child grows up in a metropolitan area, it may mean that the language is not passed down to the next generation. If this is the case, it is unfortunate that a small part of our linguistic diversity is under threat. However, it is more important that these families have the right to decide what is best for themselves. The preceding paragraph addresses the broader and perhaps underlying issue of paternalism in Hale's argument. For centuries, Western culture has promoted this ideal of superiority. Communities outside of the Western way of life have been seen as different and therefore less worthy of basic human rights. This has led to blatant and horrific mistreatment of human beings throughout history. It is extremely dangerous for a culture to assume that it knows what is best..