[IELTS] May 5, today's essays which should be memorized by mouth !

Some experts believe that it is better for children to begin learning a foreign language at primary school rather than secondary school. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

Children usually begin to learn a second language at secondary school, but some experts think they should start earlier. This idea has been put into action by some school districts and individual schools, with mixed results.

The biggest argument is that young children are better at learning language than teenagers. Their brains still naturally remember language easily. They are also not shy and worried their image, unlike many teenagers. Primary schools have much more flexible timetables, so they can have many short language classes, rather than one or two longer ones. Lessons can also be based on play and activity more easily. Their language ability in later life will benefit from learning the language at a young age. Other languages will also become easier for them. They may also gain a better understanding of other cultures.

There are, however, some disadvantages. Primary school teachers do not have special subjects, and may not have good enough language skills themselves. If specialists have to be brought in to teach the lessons, the flexibility of the timetable will be less. If primary language classes are not all the same, secondary schools could have problems with different levels of ability within one class. High level students might become bored because other students are not the same level. There is no advantages if enthusiastic primary pupils become uninterested as soon as they change schools. However, there problems can be solved with a well-planned policy.

Learning language benefits society culturally and economically and early language learning contributes to this. Young children’s natural ability should be developed in order to fully enjoy the benefits.

As languages such as English, Spanish and Mandarin become more widely spoken, there is a fear that many minority languages may die out. Some countries have taken steps to protect minority languages. What is your view of this practice?

As the world becomes more integrated, the need for common means of communication is becoming pressing. Inevitably, people who use minority languages have been under pressure to speak languages of dominant groups both locally and globally. Some people argue that there is nothing to be done to stop this process. However, I strongly argue that minority languages on the verge of extinction should be helped to survive.

As the balance of power among groups of people throughout history has shifted, languages have arisen, changed and were absorbed into other ones. For example, Widely-spoken languages in the past- Latin or Esperanto- are regarded as a dead language. In contrast, there are examples of communities that have managed to preserve and revive their own languages. Scottish Gaelic, for example, has been preserved and revitalized by government policy on education and promoting literacy.

There are, indeed, several reasons why preserving minority languages should be implemented. Retaining the language of a community often means that other forms of different cultures- songs, literature and local traditions can be maintained. These all may contribute to the richness and the diversity in human cultures. Moreover, languages especially mother tongues help communities to remain cohesive and to have a strong sense of identity. This can enable people to be strong against adversity. We have seen many indigenous communities in North America which have lost their mother tongue and have been submerged by dominant languages as well as cultures. This has made native people low self-esteem, lack of confidence and loss of initiative.

On balance, it is possible and in many cases, desirable to make an on-going effort to preserve minority languages. This can have benefits both for the minority speech community and for society as a whole in terms of cultural richness and diversity.