Should minority languages be saved from extinction?

Yes and no. I was watching an X-Files episode where the two main characters investigate a case on a Native American reservation. The fact that one of the Native American men speaks his native tongue is helpful in the case of this show, but it sometimes makes communication difficult. There's always the problem of having a translator, and the issue that not everything can be translated literally. So I think minority languages should be saved for the sake of having cultural integrity and history, but for those purposes only. I think it tends to complicate things when there's not a simple, guided language to converse in. Latin, for example, is now a dead language, though quite preserved, but it was never a minority language. I think an important part of culture and beliefs is language, so even if people no longer speak a minority language, I think it's nice to know at one point they did, and for them to appreciate this without using it.

Is the ability to learn language innate or learned?

I saw a Geico ad the other day, one of the ones with the cavemen, and it got me thinking how humans came up with language. Were we born with a way to communicate? Well sure, we have vocal chords and such, but don't animals have those too? So maybe animals are born with the ability to communicate too, like the songs whales sing to each other, or the noises dolphins make. I think with this new view that the ability to learn language is innate, but has evolved over time. We weren't born speaking English or Spanish, but our brains evolved and the tool of communication became innate.

Do our beliefs influence our language use?

I think our beliefs absolutely influence the way we use language. Tonight I was at services at temple and we watched the movie Arranged, a film about a Muslim woman and an Orthodox Jewish woman and their similarities. In short, they were both destined for arranged marriages. Because of the different systems and the different cultures, the women were very different socially. The Muslim woman, Nasir, is more daring while the Orthodox woman, Rochel, is much quieter. Because of their different ideas and the weight they carry as the oldest females in their family, they are forced to limit the language they use and how they are viewed. Though it seems that this is unfortunate to them, all the women in their families are treated the same and the traditions are expected to be upheld for generations, as it is usually.
On another note, if someone believes something but with little passion, they are less likely to be outspoken with their ideas. It is because of the outgoing, passionate people that changes come in the form of protests and revolutions. Without differing beliefs, language might not be necessary.

Can we understand texts that are written for different audiences in different times or cultures?

I watched Midnight In Paris tonight - the movie with Owen Wilson and Marion Cotillard about a man who travels to Paris with his fiancee and ends up finding himself - physically and emotionally - in and attached to the Roaring Twenties. While he spends his nights traveling the streets of Paris with the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, he finds a spiritual connection to the ideas of the time. He says that he believes all modern literature can be traced back to or inspired by Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. Usually, I would disagree and say that it is difficult to fully understand works from a different era - the consequences of the writing were different, the causes, the effects, the ideas and the ideals, are so different from what they are today. The underlying ideas behind Shakespeare's Othello are clear - jealousy and lust are sins that must be avoided. But it is really possible to understand how people came to conclusions of these two emotions centuries ago? If humans truly evolved, the process and the extent to which we process and feel things now and then are quite stark. Although as much as I can argue this, Wilson's character in the movie is able to compare older works with all contemporary literature. In the movie, Hemingway says one of his books was good because it was "an honest story." Is that not what makes a good story now? Can a fantasy book really move people in a way that a non-fiction, heart-wrenching story about war can? I don't think so, and that is partly why I think we can understand the essential ideas of different texts from eras centuries ago - if not the complete stories emotions that played into and came along with the literature, at least the moral of the story.

Does language define our identity?

I recently saw an ad for Chrysler in a magazine; a double page spread where the right page had a picture of a car and the left page read: "When you've been through hell, you tend to appreciate heaven." I thought it was pretty relevant since we had already talked about a previous Chrysler ad, and the significance of the slogan "imported from Detroit." I think especially in this case that language shapes the identity of the company. The slogan in particular paints a picture of a luxury car company coming from a place not often known as anything near luxurious. Without said slogan, people might associate the company with the city it is from, therefore ignoring that Chrysler wants to be known less as a car company and more as a lifestyle with struggles and achievements, rewarded by a nice car.
Outside of the magazine ad, I've noticed that people who fit certain stereotypes tend to speak differently than others. For example, my brother - a student at a liberal arts college, in the writing program - tends to sound somewhat ostentatious when he speaks, trying to incorporate bigger, fancier words to try to distinguish himself from his former high school counterpart. The effort that he puts into his language is obvious and he's even told me he does it to make himself seem more like a writer.