Based on a critical positioning of German in a global, multilingual context, it is outlined why there is and can be no equality of opportunity in the multilingual world of human linguistic communication. Neither quantitatively global nor communicator-centered in terms of the individual subject, nor interpersonal, nor group-specific, nor within the framework of typical areas of media-specific linked public speechlanguage communication. The primary data of cognitive-communicative speech activity remains central to human communication. Both should not be demonized: neither digital aids and appliances of teaching mediation, nor AIsupported chat programs with translation functions and encyclopaedically networked archive and data access options. Usability and customizability (individualization) are significant. The balance between human scientific, phonetic and innovative components as well as between philological categorization and communication-theoretical integration is relevant. In addition, a reduction in the ideologization and sociologization of learning and teaching is advocated. Technological ‚adminicula‘ are good in terms of methodological pluralism. In view of technological progress stages, Homo loquens AI-modified could develop into Homo multarum linguarum peritus. With a real transformation option onto Homo digitalis atque sermocinalis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Milutin Michael Nickl (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: