In response to a post concerning the Most Difficult Language, 2009 begins with a post discussing what might be the world’s easiest language, whatever that might mean. A quick scan of the internet yields surprising results which seem to have absolutely no linguistic support. Answers include Spanish, German, Indonesian, Japanese, English, Esperanto and Pirahã. Let us take these latter three propositions.
One could argue that efficiency is a mark of ease of use and the ability to learn a language quickly. Also, the fact that certain languages spread more quickly than others is a valid argument in terms of this efficiency. If this is the case then English would no doubt top the list as the world’s most widespread language, especially if we pay attention to the number of English native speakers together with people who speak English as a second language. But does this justify calling it the easiest language?
Esperanto, the brainchild of Polish-born Ludwik Zamenhof, has an estimated 2 million speakers but few (if any) native speakers, thus the argument used with English is completely invalid here. However, this artificial language was constructed by Zamenhof in order to be easy to learn, especially for many European as Esperanto borrows heavily from Romance, Germanic and Slavonic languages. However, due to the fact that speakers of Esperanto seem to be falling rather than growing is there are justification for learning it?
Pirahã, a language recently made famous by Daniel Everett’s Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes, is allegedly one of the world’s simplest languages with no numbering system or time references. This obscure South American language is spoken by approximately 400 tribes-people and is a strong contender for world’s easiest language due to its simple grammar and vocabulary. It may perhaps be easy but the motivation for learning such a language might be very low. Practically speaking, does this make it an easy language?
A large number of factors need to be considered before any poll or survey can ever be put together. First of all, in what way are these languages easiest? Easiest to learn? To teach? To understand? To speak fluently? To write and speak effectively? Secondly, easiest for whom? Speakers of Arabic? Speakers of Chinese? Thirdly, usefulness is a major factor. Many languages which are allegedly easy to learn may be useless for some learners (although no language can ever be useless for a true linguist). For a native speaker of Polish, Sorbian may be the easiest language to learn but it could also be completely useless.
It could well be that statements such as “this is the easiest language to speak”, or “this is the easiest writing system in the world” are simply untrue without the necessary qualification. What is easy about them? For whom are they easy? What is meant by easy? Are these questions which can never be truely answered?