The recent release of Avatar: Fire and Ash has reignited some fascination with languages invented not merely as dialogue, but as a mechanism to shape different culture and way of life. The Na’vi language, meticulously developed by a professor at the University of Southern California, reminds us that languages are not accidental; they are designed systems that carry values, ethics, and ways of seeing the world. Closer home, debates on language and curriculum, from medium of instruction to the role of Indian languages in technical education often keep resurfacing in public discourses.These incidents may appear unrelated, but together they raise a deeper question that universities cannot avoid: what is the real purpose of language learning in higher education today? Is it about employability and geography or about forming individuals capable of navigating difference, ambiguity, and pluralism?Utility of Language LearningForeign language courses in professional degree programs have traditionally been justified on utilitarian grounds. German for engineering collaborations, French for diplomacy, Spanish for global business. These are sensible choices when the explicit objective is preparation for a specific region or cultural context. However, when such courses are positioned as part of the humanities or liberal studies component of a degree, the intended outcomes are often far broader: cultural sensitivity, openness to difference, ethical communication, and global awareness. If the primary purpose of learning German or Spanish were purely functional or employability-driven, they could just as well be housed within professional disciplines and taught like programming languages such as Java or C++, optimised for use rather than understanding. Globally, universities are actively rethinking language requirements. In several systems, traditional foreign-language mandates are under pressure: questioned by students for relevance, by institutions for cost, and by policymakers in the age of real-time translation. At the same time, language educators themselves are asking whether the old models still serve contemporary educational goals. The debate, increasingly, is not about which language, but why language learning exists in the curriculum at all.Reframing the Learning QuestionIn a multilingual society like India, every language learned beyond one’s mother tongue, whether Indian or global, is effectively foreign from the learner’s standpoint. The pedagogical question, therefore, is not which foreign culture a language represents, but what kind of cognitive and ethical capacities language learning is meant to develop.This reframing opens space for the idea of a universal or auxiliary language. One that does not belong to a single nation, ethnicity, or historical power structure. Unlike national languages, such a language is not burdened with cultural dominance or native-speaker advantage. Its value lies less in where it is spoken, and more in what it enables learners to experience: equality, accessibility, and the mechanics of communication itself.Languages Without BordersThe popularity of constructed languages such as Klingon from Star Trek or Na’vi from Avatar offers an unexpected insight into this debate. These languages, developed by professional linguists, demonstrate that people are willing, even eager, to learn languages that have no immediate economic utility, provided they offer meaning and motivation. Their educational value lies in engagement and imagination, not universality.Esperanto occupies a different, more contested space. Designed explicitly as a culture-neutral auxiliary language, it has been used in various universities as an elective, a humanities course, or a laboratory for studying how languages work. It is structured, learnable, and supported by a transnational community, but it does not claim vocational primacy or cultural prestige. For some educators, this makes Esperanto compelling and for others, insufficient. That disagreement itself highlights a central tension in curriculum design: balancing utility, heritage, motivation and neutrality in language learning.In India, language questions are never merely pedagogical. While efforts to broaden the use of Indian languages in education are important, they also remind us how easily language choices can become politicized. A universal auxiliary language offers an interesting proposition. It neither displaces Indian languages nor competes with English. Instead, it reframes language learning as a shared human exercise, detached from regional or historical hierarchies. Introducing such options at the undergraduate level, particularly within professional programs, can signal such shift.Why Language Learning Still MattersUniversities, at their best, are spaces where students learn to listen, to hesitate, and to see the world from unfamiliar perspectives. Language learning plays a unique role in this process because it institutionalizes humility: the discomfort of not knowing, the patience of listening, the generosity of being corrected.In an age marked by fragmentation: linguistic, cultural or ideological, the most radical contribution higher education can make may be to teach a language that belongs to no one, and therefore, has the potential to belong to everyone.The author Dr. Rajendra V. Nargundkar is Vice Chancellor of Prestige University, Indore. These ideas were sparked by conversations with his linguist colleague Dr. Himanshu Upadhyay.DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETEDUCATION does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETEDUCATION will not be responsible for any damage caused to any person or organisation directly or indirectly.
Published On Jan 22, 2026 at 02:23 PM IST
Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals.
Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox.
All about ETEducation industry right on your smartphone!
