There are thousands of languages ​​in the world, each contributing to our linguistic diversity. However, many languages ​​are in danger of extinction. These languages ​​belong to indigenous populations who, in recent decades, have transitioned to more traditional metropolitan languages. Linguists have a responsibility to study endangered languages ​​to preserve overall linguistic diversity in the world. We use the study of all languages ​​because they increase the diversity of syntax and semantics available to us. The greater the linguistic diversity, the better we can describe our surroundings, the better we can understand the world around us. However, although 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 the people who speak it. Language is a piece of their culture and therefore belongs to them just like any other piece of culture. So they have the right to do what they want with it. It is patronizing in nature for anyone to ask for a language to be saved. This notion implies that the people who allow the death of this language do not know what is best for them, and it is our responsibility to protect them by saving this language. People have the right to decide whether or not to pass down pieces of their culture and will do what is in the best interest of their people. After examining the two opposing sides of the issue, I will argue that it is a dangerous assumption for linguists to take responsibility for saving these languages. Furthermore, I will provide an example of how to better combat the problem of the loss of linguistic diversity. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In the article "On Endangered Languages," linguist Ken Hale explains why he firmly believes that it is the responsibility of linguists and anthropologists to prevent the spread of moribund endangered languages. Hale discusses 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 the loss of biological diversity. While his intentions are good, his ideas are misguided. Hale states that each individual language contributes to linguistic diversity. So Hale believes the death of a particular language is a catastrophe. According to Hale, the greater the linguistic variety available in the world, the better we are able to describe and therefore understand what surrounds us. As a result, the loss of any endangered language is detrimental to our growth as a species. I admit that Hale's argument is valid. However, assuming that it is our responsibility to push against the loss of a particular language is extremely patronizing. By making this assumption, Hale has put himself and other linguists on a pedestal. By claiming that it is the responsibility of linguists to uphold the language, Hale is demeaning the intellect of the language's 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 passing down their own language. While it is unlikely that this was Hale's intention, this type of thinking is nevertheless morally wrong. The responsibility for maintaining a language lies in the hands of those who maintain itthey speak. To think or say otherwise is to be guilty of elitism as well as ethnocentrism. Hale fails to consider two major issues. The first is that some people wish to separate themselves from their language. This is a decision they make and are able to make, and it is their right to do so. The second is that the loss of a given endangered language is not as catastrophic to the world's overall linguistic diversity as Hale would have us believe. Peter Ladefoged is another linguist who has provided a prudent counterargument to Hale's article. Ladefoged believes that we don't need to worry about saving languages. He believes that in some cases the loss of a language can actually be a positive event. Although this leads to a slight loss of linguistic diversity, positive results can be achieved. For example: the idea of ​​language as a unifier. A single, more widely known language can unify an area with many divided communities. Two communities with a language barrier separating them are much less likely to coexist peacefully. Breaking down this barrier can lead to the unification of communities that would otherwise have been in conflict with each other. Another point made by Ladefoged is that language is not the only thing that matters when it comes to diversity. He gives us an example to explain his reasoning for this statement. “We consider two groups of Bushmen, the Zhuloasi and the !Xoo, who speak mutually unintelligible languages ​​belonging to different subgroups of the Khoisan family, but otherwise behave in similar ways.” (Ladefoged, 1992). These groups act in very similar ways but speak different languages. How different are they really? What would we lose if they converted to speaking only one language? Perhaps linguistic diversity is not the most important factor we should be concerned about. Finally, and most importantly: it is wrong for a linguist to assume that he knows more than the people in the community whose language is endangered. Their language will survive if they choose to pass it on. However, if they do not choose to do so, it is often a difficult but still calculated decision. Ladefoged once again provides an excellent example of this. Speaking of the Toda, a community in the Nilgiri hills of southern India (Ladefoged, 1992) he explains that “Many of the younger ones want to honor their ancestors, but also be part of a modern India”. Without adopting a new language, it would be difficult for them to do so. Adopting a new, more widely known language offers them opportunities that were not previously available to them. In this case, the decision was to stop using one's native language as a means of acculturation in a metropolitan area and to adopt a more widely available language. This is a decision that every person has the right to. If a child grows up in a metropolitan area, this may mean that the language is not passed on to the next generation. If so, it is a shame that a small part of our linguistic diversity is being put at risk. However, it is more important that these families are given the right to decide what is best for themselves. The previous paragraph touches on the broader and perhaps underlying issue of paternalism in Hale's argument. For centuries, Western culture has promoted this ideal of superiority. Communities outside the Western way of life were seen as different and therefore less worthy of basic human rights. This has led to gross and appalling mistreatment of other human beings throughout history. It is extremely dangerous for any culture to assume that it knows what is best for another. We must work to exterminate ethnocentric thinking in the West. This type of thinking led.