logo
The big idea: could the English language die?

The big idea: could the English language die?

Yahoo11-05-2025

Given that a staggering 1,500 languages could vanish by the end of this century, by some estimates – close to a quarter of the world's total – some may find it obscene to even ask this question. English is certainly not on the endangered list. As the one truly global language, it is more often labelled an exterminator, a great lumbering titanosaur that unwittingly crushes hapless smaller languages underfoot – or undertongue.
The fact is, though, that no language has yet proved eternal. Subjects of the Roman or Egyptian empires might once have assumed that their languages would last for ever, like their hegemony, but they were wrong. Latin and Egyptian were eventually transformed into languages that would have been unintelligible to Augustus or Ramses the Great. 'English could of course die, just as Egyptian died,' says linguist Martin Haspelmath, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. The more interesting questions are: when and how?
Predicting the future of any language is, most linguists will tell you, an exercise in speculation. The code by which we communicate is subject to so many complex and interacting forces that – until AI helps find patterns in the morass of data – we can't do much more than guess. It doesn't help that we can't look very far back for precedents: Homo sapiens has been nattering for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years, but we only thought of recording our pearls of wisdom about 5,000 years ago, when the Sumerians invented writing.
Widespread literacy and schooling – both only a few hundred years old – act as brakes on linguistic evolution, by imposing common standards
Still, most experts would agree on a few guiding principles. Migration is a major driver of language change, as is technology – though the two can counteract as well as amplify each other. Some predict that international migration will rise as the climate crisis intensifies, and technological renewal is speeding up, but they aren't the only factors in the mix. Widespread literacy and schooling – both only a few hundred years old – act as brakes on linguistic evolution, by imposing common standards.
As if that wasn't unhelpful enough, experts judge that the configuration of the linguistic landscape is terribly susceptible to black swan events – those defined by their unpredictability. The Egyptian language survived the arrival of the Greeks, the Romans and Christianity, but not that of Arabic and Islam in the seventh century AD. No one quite knows why.
We're in uncharted territory, in other words. English could come under pressure as a global lingua franca if China replaces the US as the world's dominant superpower, and if India drops English as an official language. Demographic factors could drive the growth of African lingua francas – Lingala and Swahili, for example, but also other legacy colonial languages such as French and Portuguese – and of Spanish in the Americas, without any major war. 'A hundred years from now, the world could be very different,' Haspelmath says.
But English will still be spoken in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, in all likelihood. And we have to distinguish between two phenomena: the resizing of English's dominion, and its own internal evolution. English exists today in many spoken variants, just as Latin did before it exploded into Romance. Those variants are being held together by a common written form and the internet – adhesive forces that were absent in the late Roman empire, most of whose subjects were illiterate – so English is unlikely to go the way of Latin.
On the other hand, the balance of power between the variants is likely to shift, so that it's no longer American- or British-English speakers setting the standards (unless the former retain their grip on communication technologies). West African Pidgin, a creole strongly influenced by English, was spoken by a few thousand people two centuries ago, but it's now the dominant language of west Africa, and linguist Kofi Yakpo of the University of Hong Kong predicts that by 2100 it will have 400 million speakers. It's mostly a spoken language, so Pidgin speakers revert to English when they write. 'It's very clear that in half a century we'll have more books written [in English] by Nigerians or Indians than by UK residents,' Yakpo says.
That means that Nigerian and Indian colloquialisms will start entering 'standard' English, as those new titans pull the lexical blanket towards them, so to speak. The vocabulary of a language – its words – tends to be its fastest evolving component. Sounds or phonology, the stuff of accents, and grammar are typically more conservative, but change in them is needed to make a language unintelligible to its original speakers – to turn it into a new language, that is. So even though New Yorkers and Londoners might be calling liquor or booze by the Pidgin word for it, ogogoru, within 50 years – they will still probably be speaking Englishes that today's Londoners and New Yorkers could understand.
As for the combined impact of migration and technology on the nature of English, that's harder to anticipate. Although the language has never stood still, the growing influx of non-native English speakers to English-speaking strongholds such as Britain and North America could usher in a period of accelerated change, leading to a new language in need of a new name: post-modern English? But a backlash, resulting in less permeable borders and stricter language policies, could mitigate that. And if machine translation is taken up on a massive scale, both the residents and the immigrants could be relieved of the pressure to learn each other's languages. At the very least, this technology might act as a buffer, stemming the flow of loanwords such as ogogoru between languages or language variants – countering the effect of migration, once again.
The point is that even if we can't predict how English will change, we can be sure that it will, and that not even the world's first – and for now, only – global language is immune from extinction. Both Latin and Egyptian were spoken for more than 2,000 years; English has been going strong for about 1,500. It's looking healthy now, some might even say too healthy, but its days could yet be numbered.
• Proto: How One Ancient Language Went Global by Laura Spinney is published by William Collins.
Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger of Disappearing, edited by Stephen Wurm (Unesco, £25)
English As a Global Language by David Crystal (Cambridge, £14.99)
The Future of Language by Philip Seargeant (Bloomsbury, £14.99)
• This article was amended on 11 May 2025. An earlier version said the Egyptian language was supplanted by Arabic in the seventh century BC. This should have said the seventh century AD.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Limited Survival Benefit With Expanded Kidney Donor Criteria
Limited Survival Benefit With Expanded Kidney Donor Criteria

Medscape

time2 hours ago

  • Medscape

Limited Survival Benefit With Expanded Kidney Donor Criteria

VIENNA — The use of expanded-criteria donors for kidney transplantation in older and high-risk recipients did not provide the same survival benefit as the use of standard donors, according to an analysis of data from more than 64,000 individuals in the European Renal Association (ERA) Registry, using target trial emulation. 'When determining who is a suitable transplant candidate, we shouldn't only focus on the patient alone, because the outcomes will also depend on donor quality,' said study presenter Rachel Hellemans, MD, PhD, a nephrologist at Antwerp University Hospital, Belgium. 'Of course, ideally, we would like to give a transplant to everyone, but shortage is a reality,' she continued. The possibilities for older patients to receive a standard-criteria donor kidney depend on local allocation systems and waiting times. Waiting an extended period for a transplant carries the risk of clinical deterioration, Hellemans pointed out, and patients may want to 'settle for an expanded-criteria donor kidney — although, in general, these kidneys perform less well.' 'Even in the absence of a true survival difference, patients may still value this kind of transplantation to improve the quality of their remaining life years,' she said. But clinicians need to be careful 'to interpret and communicate the results of our study' she cautioned, 'because, despite a very thorough pretransplant workup,' and 'careful decision-making as a transplant team, there remains an element of unpredictability and some very real risks, especially in the early post-transplant period.' Exploring the Margins of Survival Benefits The research presented here at the 62nd ERA Congress 2025 was based on an analysis of data on more than 64,000 individuals on the European Renal Association (ERA) Registry. 'Transplantation is, no doubt, the optimal treatment strategy for many of our patients with kidney failure,' said Hellemans, 'and it often leads to substantially better survival compared to continued dialysis, but its successes have also made us push the boundaries.' She pointed out that, due to a lack of suitable donor organs, clinicians have increasingly turned to less-than-ideal donors, such as those who are older, have more comorbidities, or who have died due to circulatory disorders. On the other hand, patients on dialysis now have improved survival, said Hellemans. Therefore, the question becomes: 'Where do the margins lie for the survival benefit with transplantation?' 'Although this may sound like a simple question,' she continued, 'it's actually a very difficult one to answer.' Ideally, a research question like this would be answered with a randomized control trial (RCT), 'which is impossible for ethical and practical reasons.' The next best step is to turn to registry data, but this is fraught with methodological pitfalls. Hellemans said that approximately half of such studies in the field suffer from avoidable biases, likely leading to an overestimation of the true benefit of transplantation. Moreover, the most recent comprehensive assessment of the impact of recipient age and comorbidities, and donor quality on mortality risk in older patients, was published in 2013, and Hellemans pointed out that this is a fast-evolving field, and so regular updates are required. The researchers therefore turned to the ERA Registry, which contains data on 64,013 adults from France, Catalonia (in Spain), Denmark, Norway, and the United Kingdom who were on dialysis and wait-listed for a first deceased donor kidney transplant between 2000 and 2019. The study investigators looked at 5-year survival with transplantation vs continued dialysis, stratified by donor type: standard-criteria donor kidneys, or those from donors younger than 60 years of age without significant risk factors for poor kidney function; and expanded-criteria donor kidneys, which includes all donors aged ≥ 60 years, and aged 50-59 years who had at least two of the following: a history of arterial hypertension, death from cerebrovascular accident, and/or last serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL. The recipients were also stratified by age and presence of comorbidities, namely diabetes, and a history of cardiovascular disease. To overcome the limitations of using registry data, the researchers turned to a methodological framework known as target trial emulation. Here, they treated their observational data as if it was from an RCT, in which transplantation was considered the intervention, and each transplant launched one of a series of sequential trials comparing the outcome with that seen for patients who remained on dialysis. They then controlled for country, time on dialysis prior to wait-listing, calendar year of transplantation, patient sex, cause of kidney failure, and diabetes. This way, Hellemans explained, they could avoid the biases that normally come with registry-based studies. Provided there is no important and measured confounding, target trial emulation can 'achieve a level of evidence that closely approximates that of a true RCT.' Standard Criteria Donor vs Extended Criteria Donor The results showed that, no matter the recipient's age, the 5-year adjusted survival rate was substantially better for transplant patients who received a standard-criteria donor organ than those who remained on dialysis. However, when the researchers turned to expanded-criteria donors, they found that the survival benefit from transplant decreased with increasing recipient age — to the extent that, among those who received a donor organ after circulatory death, the advantage all but disappeared. Among patients aged 75 years and older, 5-year survival rates for recipients who received kidneys from extended criteria donors were estimated at 57%–58%, only slightly higher than the 54% in those who remained on dialysis. A similar pattern was seen when looking at recipients with diabetes and those with cardiovascular disease: standard-criteria donors were associated with a survival benefit with transplant over remaining on dialysis — no matter the recipient's age — while the benefit dropped off sharply with increasing age in patients receiving expanded-criteria donor organs. A key factor was the increased early post-transplant mortality observed in older patients receiving expanded criteria kidney donations, Hellemans reported. There was a sharp rise in mortality risk compared with staying on dialysis in the first 10 months after undergoing transplant, followed by a drop-off in risk until, at 5 years, the hazard ratio for death was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.74-1.36) for the two approaches, she explained. Limitations of the study include the heterogeneous nature of the donor population, and potential residual confounding factors due to the lack of information on the functional status of the patients, said Hellemans. In addition, the presence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease were recorded only at the time of wait-listing, thus they did not include incident cases during follow-up. Moreover, 5-year survival as an outcome has its limitations, she pointed out, as few patients remained on dialysis beyond this timeframe. Informed Discussions With Patients 'The breadth of data we could access via the ERA Registry showed that the survival advantage of a transplant plateaus for the very oldest or highest-risk patients who are likely to receive an expanded-criteria or circulatory-death donor kidney,' said Vianda Stel, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Medical Informatics at Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands, and director of the ERA Registry, in a press release. 'This arms clinicians with guidance to have informed discussions with their patients. The message is not 'don't transplant older people,' ' she said, but rather 'be open about uncertainty when the numbers say benefit may be marginal.' 'We were always convinced that we can give a benefit by giving a transplant to every patient on the waiting list,' Christoph Wanner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and head of the Division of Nephrology, University of Würzburg, Germany, told Medscape Medical News . 'And now we see that, in those aged 75 years, they will not have a benefit with the expanded donor criteria.' He said that the 'big question' is whether the current findings will affect clinical decision-making. 'I think dialysis doctors will respond to this and maybe keep patients on dialysis for various reasons and not push them into transplant. This new data give us the justification' to make that argument. Given that the pool of available organs cannot be expanded, Wanner believes that current waiting lists could be rationalized so that 'the organs that are available could be directed to a smaller proportion of patients, and therefore people would benefit' from lower wait times. Daniel W. Coyne, MD, professor of medicine, Nephrology/Internal Medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, commented on X (formerly Twitter) that the benefit with expanded-criteria donation decreases with older age 'is not what my transplant group is telling our patients in the US.' He added: 'We need this [trial] emulation in US data.' | content The research received no specific grant. Hellemans, Stel, Wanner, and Coyne reported no relevant financial relationships.

Drinking sugar may be worse than eating it, study finds
Drinking sugar may be worse than eating it, study finds

The Hill

time3 hours ago

  • The Hill

Drinking sugar may be worse than eating it, study finds

PROVO, Utah (KTVX) — Drinking your sugar may be worse for you than previously thought. That is, according to a recent study conducted by Brigham Young University (BYU) researchers in collaboration with several researchers from Germany-based institutions. The study, which analyzed data from over half a million people across multiple continents, found that sugar consumed through drinks, such as soda and juice, was consistently linked to a higher risk of Type 2 diabetes. Sugar from other sources reportedly showed no such link or were, in some cases, associated with a lower risk of diabetes. Karen Della Corte, the lead author on the study and a BYU nutritional science professor, said this was the first study to draw clear 'dose-response' relationships between different sugar sources and Type 2 diabetes risks. 'It highlights why drinking your sugar, whether from soda or juice, is more problematic for health than eating it,' said Della Corte. The study suggests the more problematic nature of sugary drinks may come down to differing metabolic effects. Researchers said sugar-sweetened drinks contain isolated sugars that lead to a higher glycemic impact that overwhelm and disrupt metabolism in the liver. This, in turn, increases liver fat and insulin resistance, the study says. Meanwhile, the sugars that can be found in fruits, dairy products, or whole grains do not overload the liver. The beneficial nutrients, such as fiber, fats, and proteins, help slow the blood glucose responses that dietary sugars bring. 'This study underscores the need for even more stringent recommendations for liquid sugars such as those in sugar-sweetened beverages and fruit juice, as they appear to harmfully associate with metabolic health,' Della Corte said. 'Rather than condemning all added sugars, future dietary guidelines might consider the differential effects of sugar based on its source and form.' The study has been published in the Advances in Nutrition journal.

Astronomers Astonished by Largest Explosion Since the Big Bang
Astronomers Astonished by Largest Explosion Since the Big Bang

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Astronomers Astonished by Largest Explosion Since the Big Bang

You've heard of how mighty supernovas are, or of the ungodly amounts of energy released by gamma ray bursts. But astronomers have just discovered a type of cosmic blast that puts all those to shame. They're called "extreme nuclear transients" (ENTs) — and they're quite literally the most powerful explosion witnessed since the dawn of time. What produces ENTs is appropriately catastrophic: a star, at least three times as massive as our Sun, being obliterated by a supermassive black hole. "We've observed stars getting ripped apart as tidal disruption events for over a decade, but these ENTs are different beasts, reaching brightnesses nearly ten times greater than what we typically see," Jason Hinkle, lead author of a new study published in the journal Science Advances, and a researcher at the University of Hawai'i's Institute for Astronomy (IfA), said in a statement about the work. "Not only are ENTs far brighter than normal tidal disruption events, but they remain luminous for years, far surpassing the energy output of even the brightest known supernova explosions," Hinkle added. The first clues emerged when Hinkle and his team were trawling through public data collected by the European Space Agency's Gaia mission, a vast three-dimensional map of over two billion stars and counting. Amid this stellar sea, they noticed flares of light, including one recorded in 2016 and another in 2018, that inexplicably lasted for several years. Most cosmic explosions, for comparison, only shine for several weeks. "When I saw these smooth, long-lived flares from the centers of distant galaxies, I knew we were looking at something unusual," Hinkle said. He wasn't the only one on the scent. Back in 2023, another team of astronomers reported a similar detection with the Zwicky Transient Facility in California. Following-up on these findings, Hinkle conducted additional observations with other telescopes, including the Keck Observatory in Hawaii, and linked these phenomena together. The most formidable ENT, assigned the screenname-esque moniker of Gaia18cdj, unleashed 25 times more energy than the most powerful supernova ever detected. In one year, it radiated energy equal to all the energy our Sun will produce in its entire lifetime across billions of years — times one hundred. Typically, a supernova produces "just" one Sun's worth of energy. To produce such a tremendous blast, a star has to undergo a brutal, slow death. That's what sets these apart from when a star falls into a black hole in a typical tidal disruption event, which culminates in a powerful but brief flash. An ENT draws out the torture, forming a disk of the star's shredded entrails that glows for years. This aspect of a supermassive black hole's diet could tell us a lot about how they grew to their monstrous masses — a mystery that has long haunted astronomers — and how they stamped their name on a crucial period of the universe's history. "By observing these prolonged flares, we gain insights into black hole growth when the universe was half its current age and galaxies were busy places — forming stars and feeding their supermassive black holes ten times more vigorously than they do today," said coauthor Benjamin Shappee, an associate professor at IfA, in a statement. "These ENTs don't just mark the dramatic end of a massive star's life. They illuminate the processes responsible for growing the largest black holes in the universe," Hinkle added. More on astronomy: Scientists Spot Mysterious Object in Our Galaxy Pulsing Every 44 Minutes

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store