It is an untruth, often repeated, that the British are too lazy to learn other languages.

The fact is that human being rarely do things without some good reason, be it self-interest or desire.

We know that for most people in the world, the english language (and I deliberately use a small 'e') has already become the second language of choice. For any language to become a truly useful international language it makes sense to use only one language for the purpose. For people to choose one or other of the many other widely used languages does not make sense, because it only enables communication with others who use that particular language. It makes no sense to learn any language unless there is purpose or pleasure, and for real language proficiency it is necessary to use it regularly. For those intending to visit, live or work abroad of course it makes sense to learn the language, but for those who travel to different countries, all they need is a smattering of the local language, enough to get by and get laughed at! Nothing wrong in that, but that is not meaningful communication.

On a recent first visit to Germany I found myself trying to communicate with Germans who had a little 'English', with my even smaller 'German' aided by often wild gesticulations! and it occurred to me how useful it would be if we all used recognised sign language. This idea made me realise that there is already a sign language in use for deaf people. From time to time we see conferences being simultaneously translated in sign language, so why not teach all children basic sign language? Adults too could learn basic signing too instead of another language, so that within a generation most people would be able to communicate with each other regardless of their 'mother tongue'.

If as Noam Chomsky says, there is an optimum age at which language must be learnt it may be easier for adults to learn signing rather than a spoken language. With increasing use of computers written language can already be translated so the fact that signing may not be written down (and for all I know it may have its own symbols) would be less important than the need for verbal means of communication. It would not of course specifically advantage blind people, but for deaf people it would presumably mean an almost immediate advantage of becoming the most competent multi-lingual people ever! It would bring deaf people into the mainstream and promote their culture, (which I am told they have) which is presumably international rather than nationality based.

The advantage to the increasing numbers of deaf people as people live longer, would I think be enormous, in that hearing people would also understand their signing. Instead of deafness leading to increasing isolation and social disadvantage, due to inability to communicate, to be understood and follow other's conversation, they would immediately be part of the normal social exchanges and in much demand to teach the rest of us!

The last advantage I can think of is that for us all to use signing as our basic second language would mean that it would put us all on the same footing. Speakers of French and Spanish, Chinese and English would all have the same second language, and the 'small' languages, those with relatively few fluent speakers, dialects and 'difficult' languages would have equal status and advantage. Groups of people with different languages would be better able to communicate with the addition of signing, and the fears of small language populations that their languages will be overwhelmed by the 'big' languages would be reduced, safe in the knowledge that they do not face unequal odds in the race for international language status. This in itself would be a contribution to a safer, less fearful and more co-operative world.

I am not of course the first person to think of this solution to our language problems, and there is the problem of the competing US and British signing systems, but if we really want to bring down God's little wheeze of creating the Tower of Babel, I think this is the way to do it.