Text 1: Linguist Dr. Emily Carter studies language evolution. "Languages naturally change over time," Carter explains. "New words emerge, meanings shift, and grammatical structures evolve. Attempts to 'preserve' language in a fixed state fight against the fundamental nature of human communication."
Text 2: Language preservation advocate Thomas Nguyen works with endangered languages. "When a language dies, unique knowledge systems and cultural perspectives disappear forever," Nguyen argues. "Documentation and revitalization efforts aren't about freezing language but ensuring speakers have the choice to maintain their linguistic heritage."
Based on the texts, how would Carter most likely respond to Nguyen's preservation work?
By arguing that all endangered languages should be allowed to disappear naturally
By distinguishing between natural evolution and forced language loss
By claiming that Nguyen's approach is scientifically impossible
By suggesting that only major world languages are worth studying
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Carter discusses natural language change; Nguyen addresses threatened heritage choice. Carter would likely recognize that forced language death differs from natural evolution—her critique of "freezing" doesn't apply to preserving speaker choice.
- Evidence: Carter opposes artificial preservation of fixed states; Nguyen emphasizes speaker choice.
- Reasoning: Natural evolution and forced extinction are different phenomena.
- Conclusion: Carter would likely distinguish between these scenarios.
Choice A is incorrect because Carter discusses natural change, not advocating for language death. Choice C is incorrect because Nguyen's approach is well-established. Choice D is incorrect because Carter doesn't express language hierarchy views.