Words and Worlds
BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM
Series Editors: Professor Colin Baker, University of Wales, Bangor, Wales, Great Britain and Professor Nancy H. Hornberger, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA Recent Books in the Series Language Minority Students in the Mainstream Classroom (2nd edn) Angela L. Carrasquillo and Vivian Rodríguez World English: A Study of its Development Janina Brutt-Griffler Power, Prestige and Bilingualism: International Perspectives on Elite Bilingual Education Anne-Marie de Mejía Identity and the English Language Learner Elaine Mellen Day Language and Literacy Teaching for Indigenous Education: A Bilingual Approach Norbert Francis and Jon Reyhner The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality Alan Davies Language Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual Societies Robert Bayley and Sandra R. Schecter (eds) Language Rights and the Law in the United States: Finding our Voices Sandra Del Valle Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings Nancy H. Hornberger (ed.) Languages in America: A Pluralist View (2nd edn) Susan J. Dicker Trilingualism in Family, School and Community Charlotte Hoffmann and Jehannes Ytsma (eds) Multilingual Classroom Ecologies Angela Creese and Peter Martin (eds) Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts Aneta Pavlenko and Adrian Blackledge (eds) Beyond the Beginnings: Literacy Interventions for Upper Elementary English Language Learners Angela Carrasquillo, Stephen B. Kucer and Ruth Abrams Bilingualism and Language Pedagogy Janina Brutt-Griffler and Manka Varghese (eds) Language Learning and Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Approach Margaret R. Hawkins (ed.) The English Vernacular Divide: Postcolonial Language Politics and Practice Vaidehi Ramanathan Bilingual Education in South America Anne-Marie de Mejía (ed.) Teacher Collaboration and Talk in Multilingual Classrooms Angela Creese For more details of these or any other of our publications, please contact: Multilingual Matters, Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Road, Clevedon, BS21 7HH, England http://www.multilingual-matters.com
BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 52 Series Editors: Colin Baker and Nancy H. Hornberger
Words and Worlds World Languages Review Fèlix Martí, Paul Ortega, Itziar Idiazabal, Andoni Barreña, Patxi Juaristi, Carme Junyent, Belen Uranga and Estibaliz Amorrortu
UNESCO ETXEA
MULTILINGUAL MATTERS LTD Clevedon • Buffalo • Toronto
The authors wish to express their deepest gratitude to the Basque Government, who, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding signed with UNESCO on 23 July 1997, has financed the World Languages project from its beginnings to the publication of the present volume.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Words and Worlds: World Languages Revie/Fèlix Martí … [et al.]. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism: 52 Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Sociolinguistics. 2. Language and languages. 3. Linguistics. I. Marti, F. (Felix) II. Series. P40.W647 2005 303.44-dc22 2005004086 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1–85359–827–5 (hbk) ISBN 1–85359–828–3 (electronic) Multilingual Matters Ltd UK: Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Road, Clevedon BS21 7HH. USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA. Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario M3H 5T8, Canada. Copyright © 2005 UNESCO ETXEA. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. Typeset by Saxon Graphics Ltd, Derby. Printed and bound in Great Britain by the Cromwell Press Ltd.
Contents List of Maps ...........................................................................................................................vi Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................vii Prologue ..................................................................................................................................x Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1. Linguistic Communities...................................................................................10 Chapter 2. The Linguistic Heritage....................................................................................46 Chapter 3. The Official Status of Languages ....................................................................92 Chapter 4. The Use of Languages in Public Administration ........................................119 Chapter 5. Language and Writing....................................................................................131 Chapter 6. Language and Education ...............................................................................150 Chapter 7. Languages and the Media..............................................................................175 Chapter 8. Language and Religion ..................................................................................189 Chapter 9. Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language ..............................200 Chapter 10. Linguistic Attitudes ......................................................................................214 Chapter 11. The Threats to Languages ............................................................................225 Chapter 12. The Future of Languages .............................................................................249 References ...........................................................................................................................269 Web References...................................................................................................................281 Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire .................................................................................284 Appendix 2: Index of Contributors .................................................................................289 Appendix 3: List of Informants ........................................................................................291 Appendix 4: Index of Languages, Families and Varieties ............................................301 Subject Index.......................................................................................................................315
v
List of Maps Map 1. Genetic Groupings of the Languages of the World Map 2. Languages in the Caucasus Region Map 3. Native American Languages in California Map 4. Sami Language. Language, Territory, and Official Status Map 5. Languages of South Africa Map 6. Great Diversity but only Occasional Use in Administration Map 7. Standardisation in Senegal Map 8. Languages of Central America (Partial) Map 9. The Media and Languages Spoken in Tanzania Map 10. Tamazight Language Areas Map 11. Attitudes and Indian Languages in Canada Map 12. Languages of Colombia Map 13. Language Diversity in China The maps can all be found between pages 248 and 249.
vi
Acknowledgements The preparation of this Review would not have been possible without the collaboration, contributions, help and advice of a large number of people, institutions and organisations all over the world. In this respect, the World Languages Review can be considered a collective work, indebted to all the contributors listed below. We would therefore like to express our profound gratitude to all those who have disinterestedly supported this project (we apologise for any possible oversight or inaccuracy the list may include): • To the members of the former Board of Directors: José Antonio Ardanza, former President of the Government of the Basque Country; Vigdis Finnbogadottir, Goodwill Ambassador to UNESCO for Languages, Chairperson of the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, former President of the Republic of Iceland; Enric Masllorens, Chairman of the UNESCO Centre of Catalonia; Joseph Poth, former Director of the Division of Languages of UNESCO. • To the members of the former Scientific Committee: Miquel Siguán (Chairman), University of Barcelona, Barcelona; E. Annnamalai, Central Institute of Indian Languages, (CIIL), Mysore, India; Denis Cunningham, International Federation of Teachers of Living Languages, (IFTLL), Victoria, Australia; E. Nolue Emenanjo, Nigerian National Institute for Languages, Aba, Nigeria; Irina Khaleeva, Moscow State Linguistics University, Moscow, Russia; Luis Enrique López, PROEIB Andes, Cochabamba, Bolivia; Mohamed Miled, Tunis Language Institute, Tunis; Juan Carlos Moreno, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain; Philippe N’Tahombaye, University of Burundi, Bujumbura, Burundi; Irmela Neu, Fachhochschule, Munich, Germany; Raymond Renard, UNESCO Chair in Linguistic Planning and Didactics of Languages, University of Mons-Hainaut, Belgium; Ignace Sanwidi, Councillor for Education and the Culture of Peace, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; Jean-Jacques Van Vlasselaer, University of Carleton, Ottawa, Canada.
vii
viii
Acknowledgements
• To the experts of recognised prestige who have contributed to the text of the Review: Anvita Abbi, Jawaharlal Nehru University; Xavier Albó, Peasant Research and Promotion Centre; Isaac Pianko Ashaninka and Joaquim Mana Kaxinawa, Acre Indigenous Teachers Association; Ayo Bamgbose, University of Ibadan; Wynford Bellin, Cardiff University; Jean-Paul Bronckart, University of Geneva; Bernard Comrie, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology; Nancy C. Dorian, Bryn Mawr College; Francis Favereau, University of Rennes 2; Joshua Fishman, Jeshiva University; Barbara F. Grimes (Ed.) Ethnologue; Josiane Hamers, University of Laval; Sun Hongkai and Huang Xing, Minority Languages Academic Society of China; Joseba Intxausti; Irina Khaleeva, Moscow State Linguistics University; Omkar N. Koul and Debi Prasanna Pattanayak, Central Institute for Indian Languages; Multamia R.M.T. Lauder, University of Indonesia; Chura Mani Bandhu, University of Nepal; Grant D. McConnell, University of Laval; Bartomeu Melià, “Antonio Guasch” Centre for Paraguayan Studies; Juan Carlos Moreno, Autonomous University of Madrid; Raymond Renard, University of MonsHainaut; Suzanne Romaine, Merton College, University of Oxford; Miquel Siguan, University of Barcelona; Miquel Strubell, Open University of Catalonia; Alexey Yeschenko, Pyatigorsk North-Caucasian Centre for Sociolinguistic Studies. • We would especially like to thank Professor Peter Mühlhäusler and Professor Moreno Cabrera for their extensive contributions to Chapters One and Two respectively. • To each and every one of the informants who filled in the more than one thousand questionnaires on their languages or the languages they knew. To all of them we send our warmest thanks for their commitment and for their valuable first-hand contribution (see Appendix 3 for the list of informants). • To the people and institutions with whom a special partnership was established: Stephen Wurm (†) Clinton Robinson, Ray Gordon, and Barbara Grimes, Joe Grimes and Paul Lewis (Summer Institute of Linguistics, SIL) David Dalby Tove Skutnabb-Kangas • To the Spanish Commission for Cooperation with UNESCO. • To the National Commissions for Cooperation with UNESCO all over the world. • To the UNESCO Advisory Committee on Linguistic Pluralism and Multilingual Education. • To the UNESCO Centre of Catalonia and the Linguapax Institute.
Acknowledgements
ix
• To the University of the Basque Country – Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. • To Olalla Juaristi, research assistant, UNESCO Etxea. • A special mention for the direct collaborators of the Technical Committee during these years: Maitena Etxebarria, member of the Technical Committee for this report during the years 1998–2000, for her dedication during this period; Izaskun Azueta, Mikel Mendizabal, Marta Pardo, Begoña Arbulu, Maider Huarte, Margareta Almgren, Xabier Monasterio, José Luis Villacorta, Ane Ortega, Esti Izagirre and Olga Andueza as support staff; finally, UNESCO Etxea – UNESCO Centre of the Basque Country, their work team and their Board of Governors, chaired by Jon Arrieta and Ruper Ormaza during all these years, and Mikel Mancisidor, Director of UNESCO Etxea.
Prologue The value of language diversity Languages are humanity’s most valuable cultural heritage. They are fundamental to understanding. Each language provides a system of concepts which helps us to interpret reality. The complexity of reality is easier to understand thanks to the diversity of languages. Progress in understanding is due, amongst other things, to the growing linguistic diversity that has characterised the human species. Languages are also fundamental in the generation and transmission of values. Each language expresses a differentiated ethical sensibility. Each language provides us with symbols and metaphors to deal with the mysterious and the sacred. Furthermore, languages are not closed or exclusive universes. All of them express the rationality of the human species, as well as its common fears and hopes. Linguistic diversity is the most obvious manifestation of cultural diversity. In a world characterised by growing processes of globalisation, it seems necessary to assert the value of cultural diversity as a guarantee of more democratic and more creative coexistence. Cultural uniformity would mean a decline, to the extent that we would lose our ability to give specialised answers to specific challenges. The report “Our Creative Diversity”, published by UNESCO in 1995, pointed out what orientations were necessary to preserve diversity without renouncing positive aspects of globalisation. In the field of cultural and linguistic diversity we often coincide with the criteria of the defenders of diversity of living species in the natural environment. In both cases it is said that there is a need to protect the heritage. The reason is not exclusively ethical. Both the defence of biological diversity and the defence of cultural and linguistic diversity are necessary conditions for the well-being of humans, for the balances that protect life and for the life quality we aspire to develop. The defence of languages and cultures is part of a larger project which aspires to a more rational, fairer and freer organisation of humanity. We have entered the twenty-first century without giving sufficient answers to very serious global problems. These could be grouped under seven headings. First of all, the failure in the system of distribution of the planet’s wealth, which leads to poverty and extreme hardship, so objectively described by the successive reports on human development by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Secondly, unsustainable production and consumption systems, which increasingly deteriorate the planet’s
x
Prologue
xi
ecological balance, as studies by the Worldwatch Institute, amongst others, have shown. Thirdly, the non-fulfilment of international conventions in matters of human rights, as denounced by the annual reports of Amnesty International and other governmental and non-governmental human rights organisations, as well as the persistence of undemocratic governments. Fourth, the weakness of the United Nations and of international tribunals as a result of the inertia of the system of state sovereignties and the excessive weight carried by some states. Fifth, the practice of very unbalanced cultural relations to the extent that the technologically dominant culture aggressively imposes its myths and its values on other cultures. Sixth, the marginalisation of many peoples and minorities whose aspiration to various forms of cultural or political self-determination is not sufficiently recognised by centralist and uniformist political traditions. Seventh, the use of enormous scientific and technological resources for security and defence systems which have little bearing on the objectives of human security and peace. These challenges also define our responsibilities. We want to build a world with fair economic structures, with a sustainable model of development, with effective protection of human rights, with a United Nations that can exercise governance of globality, with harmonious coexistence between cultures and religions, with recognition of all peoples and with peace guaranteed by human security.
Globalisation, socio-economic development and protection of language The protection of the linguistic heritage forms part of the construction of a more orderly, more balanced and more advanced world. There is a very clear relationship between language policies, economic, cultural and social development, the perfection of democratic systems, stability and peace. In the past, some very mistaken principles regarding linguistic questions gained prestige which fortunately now are no longer defended. It was thought that languages could be ranked according to a hierarchy and that it was therefore a good thing to replace the use of inferior languages with that of the higher languages essential for science or for abstract speculation. Today we know that all languages are equal in dignity and in communication and thinking capacity and that the hierarchy among languages is based on prejudices characteristic of cultural colonialism. It was also believed that linguistic uniformity of the population was desirable in the governance of states, in the same way as there was opposition to other aspects of pluralism such as religion or ethics. Today we attach prestige to policies that can manage complex societies. Pluralism is perceived as an asset. Ethnic, religious or linguistic cleansing belongs to mistaken, primitive political philosophies. In recent years, studies by sociolinguists have drawn attention to the speed of the changes affecting linguistic communities. Languages are living realities and there have always been relations between linguistic communities that have contributed to their development. Relations of power, wars, migrations and technological changes have had an important influence in the life of languages. All languages, with the
xii
Prologue
passage of time, have evolved. Linguistic contacts have been something very common. Many languages have suffered irreversible processes of minorisation or of repression and have died. Others have changed through the evolution of the linguistic community itself and have given rise to new languages. Scientists of language warn us of the conventional nature of our concept of language or of languages. In reality what we find are linguistic practices which become diversified over the human geography but that do not permit the establishment of clear borders. Political borders are often presented as linguistic borders, but in the majority of cases there is no real break to be seen in the linguistic practices of areas separated by borders. Furthermore, while in some territories only one language is used, in other territories it is normal for various different linguistic communities to coexist in some form and for multilingualism to be a generalised and socially well considered practice. What is new in our time is the pace affecting linguistic contacts, the growing complexity of all societies from the point of view of their linguistic diversity and the generalised risk of linguistic take-overs as a result of certain aspects of globalisation.
Goals of the Review This Review sets out to present the universal sociolinguistic situation. The Review describes the linguistic diversity which currently characterises the human species and the trends indicating the risks of losing a considerable part of this diversity. The Review is not intended as a linguistic atlas. Many researchers have prepared maps locating the linguistic communities and illustrating linguistic contacts. Neither is it intended to provide an official list of the world’s languages or an encyclopaedia classifying each and every one of them. Many works have already been published in this field without having reached general agreement as to either the number of languages that exist or even a form of reckoning that distinguishes properly between languages, dialects and pidgins. The Review sets out to present significant data on linguistic diversity and its speeding evolution. The authors of the Review have sought out opinions on linguistic uses and their evolution from individuals, groups and institutions concerned with the trends they observe as members of specific linguistic communities or as researchers. The Review is intended as an appeal to the responsibility of everyone to protect linguistic diversity. In this respect, the Review aims to contribute to the rise of a linguistic ethic, that is to a set of attitudes in favour of the protection of the linguistic heritage. Finally, the most important objective of the Review is to establish a set of guidelines with a view to the future. Many actors play a part in the life of linguistic communities: governments, popular movements, teachers, media, religious leaders, non-governmental organisations, research centres and of course self-organised linguistic communities themselves. The Review puts forward guidelines of language policy for all these actors. In the realisation that each specific situation has novel aspects, the Review merely recommends language policy measures on the basis of a typification of situations which would have to be adapted and completed locally. In many cases the objective of the Review will have been
Prologue
xiii
achieved if it avoids mistakes that have been very common in public interventions in matters of language policy. For this reason some authors are sceptical about the appropriateness of promoting language policies. The Review, with its recommendations, tries to allow for modest, sensible language policy measures that favour the weakest or most endangered linguistic communities.
History of the Review In preparing the Review a fairly complex methodology was established. The DirectorGeneral of UNESCO Federico Mayor Zaragoza at a seminar of experts held in Bilbao (Spain) in 1996, proposed the drafting of a review on the world’s languages. The government of the Basque Country (Spain) provided the funds for the first review in the framework of the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 23 July 1997. Coordination of the project was entrusted to UNESCO Etxea (UNESCO Centre of the Basque Country). A board of directors was set up for the project, along with a scientific committee and a technical committee, which worked at a good pace during the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. We decided to launch a survey to get direct information from the linguistic communities themselves and from a variety of informers. More than one thousand replies were received, which once analysed allowed confirmation or modification of the research hypotheses used to draft the surveys. At the same time, continental meetings served to get a better understanding of the linguistic problems of each continent and request the collaboration of experts for the different parts of the Review. The Linguapax university network coordinated by the UNESCO Chair at the University of Mons (Belgium) collaborated in the different stages of the project. The scientific committee, chaired by Dr Miquel Siguan, met regularly and discussed the successive draftings of the review with the members of the board of directors and the technical committee. The final result is the one offered in this text.
About language diversity and social peace Linguistic issues have a very fundamental effect on human identities at an individual and a collective level, and it is not easy to deal with linguistic pluralism calmly, rationally and objectively. In some states there are conflicts which have linguistic components. For this reason reflection on the past and future of linguistic communities can be seen as over-politicised or destabilising. The Review does not set out to disguise the political implications of the management of linguistic diversity by states and by the international community, but it stresses the pacifying nature of a management of linguistic pluralism which takes into account the principles of democracy and justice. The Review is offered in the framework of the Linguapax spirit that inspired UNESCO linguistic activities during many years in the conviction that language policies which respect diversity and promote linguistic communication also favour peace. Linguistic security – that is the perception by linguistic communities that they are not going to suffer deliberate aggressions – is one of the conditions for peace. Multilingual education is another of the conditions for peace. Self-enclosed communities that are
xiv
Prologue
unable to understand other communities living around them can give rise to prejudices, fear and intolerance. Peace is built with the enjoyment of rights that affirm one’s own linguistic identity and by promoting relations of understanding and sympathy towards other linguistic communities. These judicious principles constitute the Linguapax philosophy. The Review is inspired in these principles and it is hoped it will contribute to the solution of conflicts with a linguistic dimension. This Review is the result of a work done by an independent group of experts. The authors have worked in excellent collaboration with the Languages Division, until it was suppressed in 1999, as well as with many permanent delegations of the UNESCO member states, but the Review is the responsibility of the technical committee, the scientific committee and the board of directors. Its mistakes and its limitations must be attributed to its authors, and as figures in many publications, the opinions and judgements expressed cannot be considered official opinions or judgements of UNESCO. The editors offer this text with the intention of contributing to a muchneeded international debate on measures to protect the linguistic heritage. Amongst sociolinguists this debate already exists, but it would be good if this Review served to enlarge it. It is indispensable that we find out the points of view of linguistic communities, of state and intra-state governments, of international organisations, of NGOs, of teachers, of experts in the new communication technologies, of cultural promoters in the cities and of everyone interested in the life of languages.
Contributions and limits of the Review The Review is intended to be of use to all citizens, in the same way as reports on the other great challenges affecting our societies are directed at all the citizens. The Review aspires to go beyond ignorance and the prejudices which negatively affect the life of linguistic communities. At the same time, the Review is not intended merely to present the situation of languages in danger of extinction. It wants to contribute to organising the relations between all languages according to new criteria, that is the relations between local, national, state, regional and international languages. All languages must think about their future and their mutual articulation. In this respect the group of experts proposes a text whose interest is universal. In the context of speeding globalisation, all languages must imagine and find their place in the universe of languages, that is in the set of all human languages. The possible models for international linguistic coexistence must be the subject of debate, and ultimately of individual and collective decisions. The Review can help to establish hypotheses free of private interests of a political, economic or ideological type. All those who have contributed to the preparation of this Review are conscious of the limits of the text they are offering to the public opinion. They deem it to be a first global diagnosis with a series of recommendations the application of which shall be subject to adaptations to each concrete situation. They believe that the Review can orientate a wide international debate and that the observations made by the readers will help draft future reports about the world languages.
Prologue
xv
Reading notes Apart from being able to read the Review from the first to the last chapter, the monographic character of the book allows the reader to read each one independently. The reader can make more rapid progress, for example, following the recommendations that one can find at the end of each chapter. Another interesting itinerary would be to follow all the testimonies of the informants that are marked in italics throughout the text and that is maybe the more original and authentic contribution of the Review. A graphic view of world language diversity can be obtained from the thirteen maps of thirteen different geographical areas that are included in a separate section according to the interest that a particular area has as an example of the phenomena analysed in each chapter, together with the tables and graphics. The various monographic texts, in boxes, of the specialists that have collaborated in the Review, offer a varied and contrasted way of understanding many of the more highlighted aspects of the situation of the languages of the world. The reader can also consult the different indexes, the extent list of collaborators and informants, the questionnaire used, the list of the languages quoted in the Review or the subject index always depending on the reader’s interest.
Introduction How can we describe the sociolinguistic situation of the languages of the world in a way that lets us assess the situation of each language and at the same time put forward recommendations or patterns of action to help preserve the linguistic and cultural heritage of humanity? Before a challenge of this scale, the technical committee felt it was essential to turn – amongst other sources – to the speakers of the languages themselves, to ask the members of the linguistic communities directly for their view of the situation their language is in and collect first-hand the opinions of the protagonists themselves. We believe that the survival of a language basically depends on what its speakers, its community, wants to and can do with their language. To obtain this information, the technical committee prepared a questionnaire specially for this Review and distributed it to an extensive network of informants during the five years of work. The questionnaires have been returned by those informants who wanted to collaborate in this project and to whom we are deeply grateful (see the respective Appendixes) The data received via the questionnaire are a basic reference providing the review’s most original information. However, to respond to the review’s objectives of explanation and understanding, we have also had access to other sources. There are many research and documentation centres on languages that are carrying out systematic work on the circumstances surrounding languages in different parts of the world. Catalogues, repertories, atlases and various works of a linguistic type have been of great use to us and have provided invaluable references (see the respective Appendixes). We have turned to many authors and to members of many institutions with a record in the fight against the loss of linguistic diversity for their collaboration through specific contributions. These contributions have enormously enlarged our perspective and undoubtedly done a lot to enrich this Review. In involving the largest possible number of specialists and/or cultural agents committed to the defence of linguistic diversity and wealth, the meetings held in different parts of the world have also been very useful. In the course of events during the four years spent preparing the Review, it has been possible to meet many people whose academic speciality, awareness or experience in work on the preservation of linguistic diversity has made them collaborators in the project. We would like to pick
1
2
Words and Worlds
out the international seminars held in Bolivia (Cochabamba, March 1999), the Russian Federation (Elista, May 1999), Burkina Faso (Ouagadougou, June 1999), India (Mysore, March 2000) and Australia (Melbourne, April, 2001), which made it possible to significantly enlarge the group of collaborators and informants, as well as helping the Review to accurately reflect the linguistic situation in different parts of the world. It is essential that we report the different views of what languages are, of how languages in contact in certain areas relate to one another, of the uses that bring prestige to languages in each context, of how diversity, complementarity or relations of domination or dependence of languages are experienced in each area. Experts in each region, as well as the enlightened members of each community, have a lot to say and offer with a view to greater understanding of linguistic diversity in the world, avoiding the dangers threatening it and feeding the hope that it can be developed. And our aim has been to reflect this in our Review.
Contents of the Review The Review consists of twelve chapters of different types. The first two are principally based on contributions by experts not on the technical committee and do not therefore refer to data obtained from the questionnaire. Their contributions, like those by the rest of the collaborators, complement and balance the contents of the Review. The nine chapters that follow sum up the quantitative and qualitative contributions gathered by the specific empirical research this Review is based on. As we shall see, these chapters cover the most significant sociolinguistic aspects in an account of the situation of the languages of the world. The last chapter of the Review makes up the prospective section. It answers one of the basic objects of this review: to put forward action plans for languages to the different agents involved. In the course of the different chapters, contributions by various specialists are included in a different format. Similarly, the maps included have been drawn up on the basis of the information obtained from different sources, to illustrate some of the most significant areas from the point of view of linguistic diversity. These additions are of a varied nature and the feelings they reflect do not necessarily coincide. They complement the views of the technical team and substantially enrich the contents of the review. The contributors come from a wide range of backgrounds: recognised linguists, sociolinguists who have dedicated all their reflection and life to the cause of the survival of linguistic diversity, politicians responsible for linguistic affairs in their countries, activists belonging to indigenous communities who tell of their own experiences, teachers, journalists, writers, etc., all united behind the cause of linguistic survival, even though the forms and strategies adopted may be different. As we have already said, the voices of the voluntary informants play a central part in this document. There are abundant accounts taken from the questionnaire and included amongst the chapters. We feel that this Review must also be a meeting point and a place for exchanging initiatives. In it appear similar experiences in places far apart and differing experiences in neighbouring communities, even in cases of groups
Introduction
3
with similar social characteristics. We feel that a mutual knowledge of these experiences will be enriching for everyone and will encourage new relations of exchange. We have dedicated Chapter One to clearing up terminologies and to understanding the concept of linguistic community. This is the object of the work of Professor Mühlhaüsler. We believe his particular knowledge of one of the geographical regions with the greatest linguistic wealth, the Pacific and Australia, makes a basic contribution to understanding the data supplied by the informants and to guiding the policies of preservation and furtherance that should be promoted. We feel his reflections on the concept of language, a concept which tends to be heavily biased by Western experience and which can cause so much confusion when it comes to understanding and especially intervening in other experiences, are particularly relevant. The members of the technical committee consider that his view of linguistic ecology allows a suitable description of very diverse linguistic situations which will be reflected through the data gathered from the questionnaires. Chapter Two, called “The Linguistic Heritage”, offers a general overview of the planet’s linguistic diversity and includes an extensive contribution on the subject from a classical typological standpoint by the collaborating lecturer and member of the scientific committee, Juan Carlos Moreno Cabrera. The technical committee felt it was important to include this contribution in the Review because it provides a general overview of the planet’s linguistic diversity analysed by number of speakers, linguistic families and geographical areas, constituting an essential academic reference in a review such as ours. In addition, it was felt important to include this contribution because it is not just a sterile academic description but points out the dangers threatening diversity. It also provides a personal view of the reasons why the diversity of languages is endangered. Chapter Three deals with the analysis of the status of languages. In particular, it covers the legal or official status to be seen on the global linguistic scene. In this chapter we would like to point out the contribution by Professor Annamalai, who takes a novel and realistic approach to linguistic policy aimed at dealing with multilingual relations grounded on rigorous theories. This proposal not only has implications for traditionally multilingual societies like India, this specialist’s country of origin, but also has implications of relevance for most parts of the planet. Multilingual relations are also arising in Western countries; his proposals are especially interesting as an alternative to the monolingual model imposed by Western tradition and the many problems it poses in approaching a reality which is multilingual and multicultural. Following this, chapter four analyses the use of language in administration. Administration is the area which in certain linguistic situations best reflects the legal status of the language. Writing, education, the media and religion are the spheres of use analysed in the following chapters: Chapters Five, Six, Seven and Eight. The enormous disparity in sociolinguistic situations and the different ways they are seen do not allow simplifications. It is important to understand that these are always dynamic processes and that there is never just one factor to explain the reality of a language. Multifactorial analyses are what allow greater realism in dealing with the
4
Words and Worlds
information provided in the accounts gathered. Chapter Nine analyses the trends observed in the intergenerational transmission and use of languages. Chapter Ten studies linguistic attitudes and Chapter Eleven sums up the dangers and threats the informants observe in the languages and communities mentioned. These three sections provide the most disturbing information contained in the review. In fact, intergenerational transmission as observed in the sample under study is in an alarming situation. Almost 50% of languages are no longer habitually transmitted. Intergenerational use of languages as reviewed by the informants seems to have deteriorated even more, since only 30% of the languages studied are used among the younger generations of their communities. In the remaining cases, communication between young people is established in a different language, generally the dominant one. The title of Chapter Eleven, “The Dangers and Threats Facing Languages”, is not very optimistic either. However, as can be seen in the plentiful accounts reproduced, more and more linguistic communities are becoming aware of the dangers threatening their languages and therefore their cultures and their very communities, and are beginning to rebel against the trend towards linguistic substitution which only a few had noticed until now. Finally, Chapter Twelve looks to the future. It points out the need to establish new linguistic models based on the acknowledgement and celebration of cultural and linguistic diversity. Other highlighted topics are the importance of universalised multilingual education that should not be limited to the learning of a few large circulation languages, the need for progress in the field of linguistic rights, the access of small and medium sized linguistic communities to the new information technologies or enhancing the value of the own language as an element of the economic development of communities. This chapter also puts forward some proposals to better study the linguistic contact and the rapid evolution of diversity, especially caused by increasing population movements and migrations. It recommends the creation of new research centres in sociolinguistics and suggests specific responsibilities for UNESCO and for the states. The chapter ends by connecting languages with peace and welcoming the new languages that will appear during the 21st century.
The questionnaire In the course of forty questions, most of them open, we have gathered the characteristics of languages and of their linguistic communities, regarding their denomination, uses, representations, attitudes and the linguistic expectations shown by the speakers of different languages. The questionnaire was drawn up according to criteria now classical in sociolinguistics, such as Haugen’s (1972), mentioned by Mühlhaüsler in this same review (see Appendix 1). In spite of some difficulties, the questionnaire has had a relevant virtue; it has allowed the informants great freedom in their answers. This fact is especially worth noting as it has become a very valuable aspect in the review. The informants have supplied the facts they felt were most relevant, regardless of whether or not they were
Introduction
5
required of them. Obviously this very aspect could reduce the credibility of the results, just as it is obvious that the diversity of the informants (organisations, linguists, members of the community, etc.) could have the same effect. However, since these two facts (differences in the perception of the relevance of the information and differences in the involvement of the informants) were detected at the beginning, the technical committee has chosen, first of all, to pay greater attention to the qualitative information and, secondly, to include, as well as the objective data, the informants’ representations of the reality. Subjection to objective data often involves a distortion of reality, especially inasmuch as it is altered by non-objective elements (feelings, desires, opinions, etc.). In the case of this World Languages Review, it is obvious that emotional or professional involvement impregnates the objective elements and we have therefore felt that representations of reality should also form part of the review. After all, not a few linguistic normalisation projects have failed because they did not take into account the wishes, ideologies, feelings, etc. of those affected. Reading the questionnaires, we have been struck by the informants’ urge to communicate and by the hope this Review has evidently stirred up in many communities, and we believe that rather than acting as depositories, our duty is to make these voices reach the largest possible number of people and organisations.
The language sample The research this Review is based on is still in progress and has been receiving questionnaires uninterruptedly since 1998. We have received more than 1000 questionnaires, and although they sometimes refer to the same language, the total number of languages to which we had access is more than 800. The quantitative analysis, however, has been carried out using a sample of 525 languages. This sample corresponds to the languages received as of July 2001, the deadline established for beginning the statistical analysis. The statistical treatment made use of the analysis procedures offered in the SPSS program (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). Different samples were taken: from 100 languages, 400 languages and 525 languages. We have been able to observe that, regardless of the number of languages or questionnaires processed, the main figures, as well as the general trends, remain constant. The range of situations of the languages for which we have received information provides an outlook as disturbing as it is suggestive. The sample contains languages with large numbers of speakers and used for a large number of purposes and languages which are now down to their last speakers, expanding languages and disappearing languages, languages that are official in some states and that are disappearing in others, usually marginalised by the authorities-in short, a wide range of situations. The technical committee has in no case wanted to demonstrate a common denominator in these situations, so much as, on the contrary, to reflect all their disparity and with it the many strategies that intervene in the dynamics of languages, since by comparing and contrasting, ideas can arise that contribute to the preservation of linguistic diversity.
6
Words and Worlds
Although the sample we have worked with is clearly limited (approximately 10% of all the world’s languages), the results clearly show what other specialists have already stated: one of the underlying causes of the acceleration in the trend towards world linguistic uniformity is the increasing inequality between languages and, of course, their speakers, such that the growth of some languages involves a reduction in the number of speakers of many others and/or their disappearance. This process has harmful consequences in that it drags other communities after it by destroying their traditional web of communications, as we shall see later. The sample reveals trends in the sociolinguistic behaviour of linguistic communities and makes it possible to plan actions aimed at restoring or preserving the linguistic balance. However, the Review does not present detailed figures for each of the languages making up the sample. It is not a catalogue in which to look for specific, singularised information.
Details of the language The authors of the Review are convinced that standardising the names of languages or glottonyms is an urgent task, especially in an increasingly interconnected world. The enormous task of documentation carried out in this respect by the Ethnologue strikes us as a basic and indispensable contribution for this process of normalisation, which should facilitate the identification of languages and correct terms that are unsuitable for a variety of reasons (pejorative or inaccurate terms, unnecessary heteroglottonyms, etc.). The request for information in this respect is intended to propose suitable names, giving preference to the use of the autoglottonym or name the speakers themselves give their language. In other words, in those cases in which there is no traditional designation and whenever the term is pejorative, we advocate the use of the autoglottonym to identify the language. The authors of the Review do not want to overlook those cases in which there is no glottonym and in which creating one could contradict the cosmovision of the people concerned. After all, the concept of languages is a construct alien to many cultures. In these cases, and for want of further discussion of this issue in the sphere of linguistics, we propose the use of the auto-ethnonym or name of the ethnic group the speakers belong to and, failing this, some historical or geographical term allowing its identification. Obviously, this proposal still accepts the notion of language as an entity with fixed limits, but we do not believe there is any alternative that can be proposed without prior discussion in depth. We therefore wish merely to draw attention to this issue and propose it as a subject for future reflection. In connection with the question of glottonyms, linguistic variation, and with it linguistic filiation, inevitably arises. The inference is clearly that the attribution of a language to a specific group or family basically depends on the informants’ theoretical option in the case of professional linguists and in other cases on their
Introduction
7
perception and/or intention. The same language can be seen either as a variety of another language or else as an independent language or as a language group. Even when linguistics has given priority to the criterion of intelligibility in determining linguistic borders, the fact is that the nature of languages as a continuum, the relations established between communities, the reciprocity or otherwise of intelligibility and, in short, the actual wish to understand, clearly interfere with this criterion. At the same time, the notion of languages as discreet entities usually overlooks their historical development apart from their “official” history, which sets out to give a fragmented view of communities, as though their historical background had nothing to do with the surrounding communities. All of this raises questions that go far beyond technical aspects of linguistic filiation and pose another challenge: how to designate the set of intelligible varieties we consider “languages”. It is obvious that using a single term distorts the perception of variety and contributes to uniformity, but it is also true that the use of various terms favours fragmentation and this can be fatal for the preservation of linguistic diversity. The authors of this Review believe that this is another of the theoretical aspects which, on account of their importance in the life of communities, deserve to be treated in depth over and above technical aspects.
The informants We have tried, often successfully, to obtain first-hand information, that is, to ensure that the information came from informants who were members of the respective linguistic communities or were closely connected to them. Thus more than half of the informants, approximately 60%, say they belong to that linguistic community. Identification with the community, furthermore, is backed up with reasons of ethnic and/or linguistic membership. Almost 40% say they are not members of the community. These are researchers or people who, in one way or another, are working for the community in question. Some researchers, though, identify themselves as members of the community precisely because of their work or because they have learned the language. I belong to the community by descent and blood ties. I also speak (the language) fluently. (Maori, New Zealand) I consider myself a member (of the community) because I am part of that culture and my parents brought me up in the belief that I am a native like them, I was born in that community. (Yine, Peru) I am a speaker and writer, but I am not a native or a native speaker. I am not a gypsy but I know the four dialects of the Romany language that are spoken in Romania by the Roms (Gypsies). (Romany, Romania) The significant proportion of informants who say they belong to the linguistic community for which they are supplying information strikes us as a decisive factor.
8
Words and Worlds
We know that this adds subjectivity to the information but, in view of the circumstances, it is obvious that no-one knows the linguistic reality like the member involved. Since the aim is to create awareness and help to reverse the trend towards uniformity, we believe that this connivance with his or her linguistic reality, far from detracting from the review’s validity, enriches it. This element of will must be taken into account in analysing the results, since the Review includes details of languages whose speakers are already aware of the need to revitalise it or of its value for the community in general, and, in the case of the specialists (language informants), the very fact that the languages have research and researchers itself singles them out from the majority of the world’s languages. Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 contain a list of all the people and institutions who have contributed to this Review so far. We would like to take this opportunity to express once again our profound gratitude to all of them.
The contributions We have tried to include contributions by experts representing a variety of geographical, sociopolitical and cultural contexts, coming from different scientific, social and cultural backgrounds and belonging to a range of academic, political or sociocultural institutions. Although they all show a positive awareness as regards preservation of the linguistic heritage, one can find opinions that may differ amongst themselves or from the approach taken by the technical committee. We feel this is a reflection of the reality which need not be hidden in working for the common cause of the defence of linguistic diversity. In spite of all the efforts, however, we realise that we have not managed to contact all the recognised specialists on the subject. What we can say is that the requests for participation have had a widespread general acceptance for which we are profoundly grateful. The contributions by the collaborators are included in the text in a different format. The content and form, of course, is the responsibility of the author signing them. The members of the technical committee are responsible for their placement. We are grateful for their generosity in sharing their experience and knowledge in favour of the common cause which involves us all: the preservation of linguistic diversity.
With a view to the next Review We believe the usefulness of the project also lies in its nature as a reference for successive editions and it allows to enlarge the data base. It is a point of departure which raises many elements for reflection, offers a wide range of initiatives for the preservation of languages which are being developed in a wide range of communities and hopes to take advantage of and publicise the talent and creativity of many communities in the preservation of their linguistic heritage. At the same time, the prospective side of the review feeds on the multiple effective actions in different parts of the world, actions that have rarely served as a model for
Introduction
9
other communities, on account of the obstacles to information and to its dissemination. We have tried to palliate these obstacles by listening closely to their proposals with the explicit object of acting as a mouthpiece for all those who, having made valuable contributions to the preservation, revival and recovery of their languages, have been generous enough to share their experiences with us. The pages that follow are an initial approach to the enormous wealth of information gathered in the course of preparing this Review. Other readings, other interpretations, will help spread it farther and better, as established and growing communications networks, especially through computers, gather and disseminate this splendid documentation. For the time being, in response to all the information received, we are presenting this Review with the intention of: • Generating pride, self-esteem and prestige in the speakers and promoters of the world’s languages, so that they will continue to work in favour of their heritage without looking down on or weakening languages with which they share speakers and their communicative space. • Providing models for action, raising awareness and promotion that have been positive in their respective communities so that they can provide an incentive and a stimulus in other situations and one to continue in those where they have already been tried successfully. • Denouncing threats and warning of the dangerous situations languages are facing, so as to rouse awareness in the authorities and the general population in favour of the preservation and development of the linguistic heritage. • Attracting the support of those who have the responsibility and the power to reverse the trend towards linguistic uniformity. The Technical Committee: Fèlix Martí, Paul Ortega, Itziar Idiazabal, Andoni Barreña, Patxi Juaristi, Carme Junyent, Belen Uranga and Estibaliz Amorrortu
Chapter 1
Linguistic Communities This Review is concerned with languages, language communities or speech communities along with language ecologies. The reader will find that the terminology used is not new, though we would like to underline the fact that the traditional definitions of some terms and ideas are not adequate to describe the real situation of languages in the world. Thus, we wish to make clear that languages are neither abstract entities nor independent systems as the Western Linguistics tradition has portrayed them to be. Languages are rather historical products related to each other that the communities use for several purposes: to communicate, to represent their world and to generate thoughts. The attempts to formalize certain aspects of a language, such as the grammar of a language, do not tackle the real nature of a language, that is, its social aspect. Languages are social and identifying realities, they are thoughts and values provoking realities and the strict framework of a grammar or a classical dictionary cannot handle such aspects of the language. A great variety of parameters is needed in order to define a language as an ecological system. The technical committee considered it necessary to devote a chapter to clarify the terminology used in the field. Professor Mühlhäusler (University of Adelaide, Australia), who studies linguistic realities very different from the Western ones and is an expert on languages from Australia and the Pacific area, has been invited to write this chapter for the Review. As Professor Mühlhäusler points out, the chapter presents many of the terms that have been used to describe sociolinguistic realities that are different from the languages and patterns of language use around the globe. The chapter also presents the set of parameters that will be used to define the language ecologies. The questionnaire designed to collect the data in the review is also based on this parameter framework that was originally presented by Haugen (1972). The chapter and the whole review describe the different situations of languages and language ecologies, not with great thoroughness but indicating which aspects of the relations among different linguistic groups are the healthiest or the most pathologic for the purpose of linguistic diversity. We believe that the clarifications of the terminology as well as the description of the different language ecologies are an accurate reflection of the descriptive and prescriptive aims of the review.
10
Linguistic Communities
11
1. Introduction This chapter will be concerned with a number of issues that are fundamental to the task of understanding the vast diversity of languages and patterns of language use around the globe. It is hoped that the understanding gained can contribute to the urgent task of maintaining linguistic and cultural diversity. The problem which gave rise to the UNESCO review of the state of the world’s languages is that linguistic and cultural diversity, which until the advent of the modern industrial age was a selfregulating and self-sustaining system, is no longer self-sustaining and like other phenomena such as climate or biological diversity, requires management. Left to its own devices, linguistic and cultural diversity is likely to rapidly decline, giving way to monolingualism and monoculturalism. A major challenge to scholars working in this area is the widespread perception that we are witnessing a natural process of competition between less fit and more fit ways of communication, the end of which only a few competitors will survive. There is a very strong intellectual tradition in Western thinking about language that this is also a desirable process, that the replacement of a very large number of languages and ways of communication by a few modern standardised languages will lead to greater economic efficiencies, a decrease in human conflicts and greater human well-being. Linguistic diversity in popular perception is a reflection of the curse of Babel. The idea that linguistic diversity is an asset or even a treasure is widespread in traditional societies that cherish multilingual skills, though the wish to preserve one’s own small language is growing stronger among many ethnic groups in modern industrialised societies as well. The revival of minority languages in Spain, France or Britain are recent examples of this. Fishman (1991), one of the principal theoreticians on language revival, has strongly emphasised the rationality of this wish and we can now witness a reframing of the question, ‘How can we achieve greater efficiencies through the reduction and streamlining of diversity?’ to a new question, ‘How can linguistic diversity be employed in solving social, environmental and technological problems?’ This reframing goes hand in hand with the emergence of a new paradigm, the ecological paradigm in many areas of enquiry, including linguistics (Fill & Mühlhäusler (eds) 2001/Mühlhäusler 2002). The ecological paradigm has a number of characteristics, including the following: • • • • •
considerations not just of system internal factors but wider environmental ones; awareness of the dangers of monoculturalism and loss of diversity; awareness of the limitations of both natural and human resources; long-term vision; and awareness of those factors that sustain the health of ecologies.
A fundamental principle of management is that one can only manage what one knows. Two related principles are one can only manage what one can talk about and one can only manage what one cares for. This paper aims at summarising existing knowledge on the
12
Words and Worlds
issue of speech communities and to draw attention to the important issue of talking about the phenomenon. It is argued that existing knowledge is patchy and that unreflected use of words such as ‘language,’ ‘tribe’ or ‘community’ make management very difficult and whether political and economic leaders care about languages remains to be seen. An appreciation of linguistic diversity alone, it is argued, is not enough. It presupposes an understanding of the nature of this diversity. The complexity of the issues, the limitations of time and space and the urgency of action make it necessary to resort to shortcuts, simplification and abstractions and, above all, focussing on a smaller selection of parameters that are desirable in a parameter-rich ecological approach.
2. Methodological considerations In what follows I propose to adopt the classical ‘scientific’ method of proceeding from a research question to observation, classification and eventual theory formation. Put differently, I shall try to develop a tool or theory which can be used to reverse the trend towards language loss. Given the novelty of the problem, I shall concentrate heavily on the pre-theoretical stages of observation and classification. I shall be guided by the suggestion of the editors of this volume and carry out my observation and classification from the perspective of the community of users of a language or languages. I shall further be guided by Haugen (1972) who in his seminal paper ‘The Ecology of Language’ has suggested a list of questions to be asked. For any given ‘language1’, then, we should want to have answers to the following ecological questions: • What is its classification in relation to other languages? This answer would be given by historical and descriptive linguists. • Who are its users? This is a question of linguistic demography, locating its users with respect to locale, class, religion or any other relevant grouping. • What are its domains of use? This is a question of sociolinguistics, discovering whether its use is unrestricted or limited in specific ways. • What concurrent languages are employed by its users? We may call this a problem of dialinguistics, to identify the degree of bilingualism present and the degree of overlap among the languages. • What internal varieties does the language show? This is the task of a dialectology that will recognize not only regional, but also social and contactual dialects. • What is the nature of its written traditions? This is the province of philology, the study of written texts and their relationship to speech. • To what degree has its written form been standardised, i.e. unified and codified? This is the province of prescriptive linguistics, the traditional grammarians and lexicographers.
The notion of ‘given language’ is highly problematic and will be discussed in greater detail below.
1
Linguistic Communities
13
• What kind of institutional support has it won, either in government, education, or private organisations, either to regulate its form or propagate it? We may call this study glotto-politics. • What are the attitudes of its users towards the language, in terms of intimacy and status, leading to personal identification? We may call this field of ethnolinguistics. • Finally we may wish to sum up its status in a typology of ecological classification, which will tell us something about where the language stands and where it is going in comparison with the other languages of the world.
3. Language communities, speech communities, language ecologies: some terminological issues A major problem in doing this is a terminological one. The received wisdom among both academics and lay persons in Western societies is that the notion of language and the associated notion of language community is a relatively unproblematic one, that languages are somehow ‘given’ and can be objectively described, classified and analysed. However, on closer inspection, it emerges that there is no such thing as a cultural neutral definition of a language and that Haugen’s notion of a ‘given’ language cannot be easily applied. Rather we are dealing with quite diverse phenomena which from time to time have been labelled ‘language,’ mainly by professional linguists or by language policy makers. The experience of most writers on the matter of European national languages has strongly influenced their views of what languages are. However, even an inspection of European national languages demonstrates considerable heterogeneity. The historical forces which have brought into being standard French differ greatly from those involved in the development of standard Italian, Norwegian, Bosnian or Modern Greek, one of the differences being the extent of deliberate human planning by speakers or outsiders. Haugen’s characterisation of the Scandinavian languages as ‘cultural artefacts’ (1972) can be extended to a wide range of other languages. Languages thus can be seen as the outcome of a unique mix of cultural and historical forces. The diversity of human ways of speaking is not a natural process of speciation and the practice of using the label ‘natural language’ is an example of the typical process of myth creation: the confusion of history with nature. That languages are the outcome of a vast number of historical processes acting on an as yet ill defined natural human language ability increases rather than decreases the importance of diversity. The maintenance of languages as memories of cultural experience and adaptation to specific conditions would seem far more important than the maintenance of relatively superficial varieties of the universal theme ‘language’. In this connection we need to examine how linguists have regarded the relationship between languages and the world. In Western linguistics one can distinguish four views. (1) Independency hypothesis (Chomsky, cognitive linguistics). Language is for cognition – it exists in a social and environmental vacuum. (2) Language is constructed by the world (Marr).
14
Words and Worlds
(3) The world is constructed by language (structuralism and post structuralism). (4) Language is interconnected with the world – it both constructs and is constructed by it (ecolinguistics). The ecological view would appear to be the most complex, but at the same time the most realistic as it caters for the fact that languages combine independence from the world with dependency on the world as well as their ability to shape the world through a range of ecological interdependencies. The problem with finding a satisfactory definition of language is encountered again when defining the notion of community (see below).
4. Types of languages The following is an attempt to identify some of the principal parameters that can be employed in characterising different social types of languages. Individual languages can be conceived as a kind of matrix of parameters including: 4.1 Bounded versus continuous Before the emergence of nation states and colonisation, language boundaries did not exist in many parts of the world. Instead, there were dialectal or language chains spoken over wide areas. There was for instance a Germanic dialect chain located between the north of Scandinavia and the south of Italy. Adjacent varieties were mutually intelligible with intelligibility declining with increasing geographical distance. Thus speakers of varieties on both sides of the present border between the Netherlands and Germany could intercommunicate freely, whilst the same speakers experienced difficulties understanding varieties spoken a few hundred kilometres further south or north. Intelligibility on such a chain resulted from close structural and lexical similarities of adjacent varieties but also from institutionalised conventions for endo and exolexicons. This terminological distinction means that speakers actively use a particular lexical item (say British English ‘tap’ or ‘bucket’) whilst passively recognising other speech varieties (American English ‘faucet’ and ‘pail’). Table 1 shows how in the ‘Western Desert’ language of Central Australia a single endo lexeme was accompanied by up to eight exolexemes which eased understanding over a wide area (Table 1, based on Hansen 1984). The // indicates the boundary between endo (to the left) and exolexicon (to the right) in a number of desert communities. The word listed first is the preferred or most frequently used synonym within that community. All words listed before the double slash // are primary synonyms used in the community. Words listed after the double slash // are secondary synonyms – known but not used. Other well known language chains have been documented for West Africa and in many parts of the Pacific, including the New Guinea Highlands (Wurm and Laycock 1962), Micronesia (Bender 1971) and Vanuatu (Tryon 1979) we find long chains of interrelated dialects and languages with no clear internal boundaries. As regards
COMMUNITIES
WORDS
Ernabella
tjukutjuku
tjimpatjimpa kulunyra//
tjap
wiima
Giles
kulupa
kulunypa
tjukutjuku
tjapu
wiima//
tjulyitjulyi
Warburton Ranges
kulupa
kulunypa
tjukutjuku// tjulyitjulyi
Papunya
tjukutjuku
wiima//
nyamanypa
tjaputjapu
tjulitjuli
yamanypa
Balgo Hills
lampan (pa) tjuku
wiima
nyamany (pa) tjapu
tjulitjuli
tjumpili
Christmas Creek
lampan (pa) tjuku
tjukutjuku
tjukunya
nyamanpa
ngini//
tjulitjuli, wiima, tjumpili, nyuyi
Fitzroy Crossing
tjuku
lampan
tjukutjuku
tjutamata
nyuyi
tjulitjuli
tjapu, wiima, nyamanypa, tjumpili
La Grange
tjukku
tjukutjuku
tjapu
tjulitjuli
tjapuwata
tjulyi
nyamanypa//, wiima, lampan, warrku, tjumpili
Jigalong
tjuku
tjukutjuku
tjulitjuli
tjapuwata//
nyamanypa kulunypa
Wiluna
tjuku
tjukutjuku
tjapu
tjulitjuli
warrku
tjulyi, nyamanypa
15
tjapuwata// tjumpili, nyamanypa, wiima
Linguistic Communities
Table 1: Words used to translate English ‘small’ in different communities of Western Desert Language
16
Words and Worlds
Micronesia, a group of very closely related languages are spoken all the way from Truk in the east to Tobi in the west. As observed by Bender (1971) ‘there are some indications that it is possible to establish a chain of dialectal connections from one end to the other with all contiguous dialects being mutually intelligible.’ Language boundaries, one might argue, are not so much a linguistic given, but a creation of linguists, administrators and missionaries. Over time, Western and Westernised thinking has become so habituated to the concept of language boundary that it has become to be regarded as a natural fact. The popular perception is reinforced by the large number of language maps and atlases and indeed the entire subdiscipline of dialectology which is predicated on the notion that it is possible to establish locations and boundaries. Dialectologists, for instance, seek to define a dialect2 as being surrounded by bundled isoglosses. This turned out not to be the case, even when the objects of mapping were carefully abstracted languages rather than patterns of speaking (for further discussion see Bailey 1996). It is possible of course to map the political boundaries within which a particular language has official status, for instance, the parts of Belgium where German is officially spoken but this hardly gives an indication where languages are actually used. Political boundaries, the development of national standard languages and changes in speakers’ mobility has greatly affected the viability of language chains, or at least severely curtailed their geographical range. Language chains are among the most endangered linguistic phenomena. 4.2 Focussed versus unfocussed languages Whereas it is widely assumed that a standard grammatical code is a precondition for successful intercommunication, there are a number of documented cases where speakers communicated quite successfully without sharing a grammatical code. Le Page and Tabouret-Keller’s study of Belizian Creole (1985) documents an astonishing diversity of grammatical and lexical practices among Creole speakers in Colonial British Honduras, shared norms emerged only through ‘an act of identity’ following the establishment of an independent state Belize where the inhabitants of the new nation began to emulate the linguistic habits of their political leaders, a process called focussing. The extent to which languages are focussed depends on the presence and recognition of linguistic role models. One might wish to argue that the absence of clear role models is a contributing factor in the structural disintegration of many traditional languages. Charpentier (2001) for The definition of dialect is primarily a sociopolitical one – “a dialect is a language without an army and navy” is a common pronouncement of sociolinguists. Being labelled a dialect or patois (a Romance form of speech in French-speaking countries) can contribute to endangerment of a way of speaking. There is far less concern for the disappearance of dialects than for the disappearance of languages and there are fewer funds for dialects than for minority languages. A dialect, apart from lacking military hardware, thus has come to mean a language lacking official recognition and funding. 2
Linguistic Communities
17
instance, brought attention to the fact that demographic and social changes in Vanuatu have greatly diminished the number and authority of older speakers who in the past provided role models, an outcome of the absence of older speakers are less focussed young people’s varieties such as Young People’s Dyirbal described by Schmidt (1985). 4.3 Intergenerationally continuous languages Language transmission is often conceived as a process where children acquire or get handed down the language of their parents. As Hockett (1950) has shown, transmission can take many forms as can continuity over time. Hockett suggests a continuum situation ranging from those where children living in isolated hamlets with adults caretakers to creolization where children construct a new language together with other children. Intergenerational continuity is often reinforced by social institutions, including schools, literacy or language training by elders. The continuity of the Torres Strait language Miriam Mer, for instance, was enforced by language monitoring (Cromwell 1980). In this language ‘mis-speech is virtually never allowed to pass uncorrected. And the corrections of vocabulary, or of tense, or of grammar, may be rendered by anyone present who notices the error’ (Cromwell 1980). That such corrections differ from European schoolteachers’ correcting their pupils’ grammar, however, is evident from the remainder of this quotation. In noticing the error he is making an implicit claim to a more able command of the language, and in noticing and correcting it he makes his claims explicit. But in such acts of correction it is important to note that what is being corrected is the way of speaking. That is, the corrective utterance embodies the sense that the speaker who erred DID NOT SAY WHAT HE MEANT. Case studies of changing sociocultural practices leading to weakening of language transmission can be found in Maffi (ed. 2001). As traditional institutions (language monitors, initiation ceremonies) sustaining intergenerational transmission are becoming less important and as children attend modern schools or missions and are removed from traditional society, intergenerational transmission is becoming problematic. This is particularly evident in the case of difficult, esoteric languages which structural complexity could only be maintained through complex long-term methods. Intergenerational continuity is threatened by deliberate acts of language planning as well. The modernisation of Turkish in the 1920s, for instance, included the replacement of the traditional Arabic script by Roman script and the phasing out of words of Arabic origin and led to a situation where young Turks could no longer access older written documents or indeed speak with members of the older generation (Gallagher 1971). Similar modernization of languages (not always deliberate) can be witnessed around the world. Language shift is the most radical form of intergenerational discontinuity. It is particularly widespread among migrant communities. Neither discouragement nor positive language maintenance policies have prevented second and third generation children of the numerous migrant groups in USA or Australia from giving up their
18
Words and Worlds
ancestral languages and to assimilate with the mainstream English-speech community (see Fishman 1991). Internal migration and in particular urban migration has a similar effect. The speakers of many smaller languages that have migrated to capital cities such as Honiara (Solomon Islands), Bangui (Central African Republic) or Harare (Zimbabwe) increasingly shift to non-traditional languages such as Solomon Pijin, Sango or Town Bemba respectively. 4.4 Esoteric versus exoteric languages An important distinction developed in Thurston’s writings (e.g. 1982, 1987) is that between exoteric and esoteric languages, the former being freely available for intergroup communication, whilst the latter are restricted to a well-defined group who often contribute to its exclusiveness by making it difficult for outsiders to learn. To sustain an esoteric language requires considerable social effort, as it involves formal teaching, monitoring and correcting. The case of the Papuan language Anêm, and its relationship with surrounding Austronesian languages reported by Thurston (1982), is a good illustration. In the past, languages like Japanese and Chinese were esoteric in the sense that it was prohibited to teach them to outsiders. Limited access to the language by outsiders is one of the criteria for esotericity and numerous small languages continue to be kept away from outsiders. As long as there is a viable community of speakers for an esoteric language, this does not affect its survival. However, with out-migration, out-marriage and similar social processes the number of speakers of small esoteric languages can decline to the point where language is no longer viable and threatened with extinction as is happening to the Pitkern-Norfolk language (see Mühlhäusler forthcoming). The limited economic usefulness of an esoteric language combined with the effort it takes to learn them can be a cause for language shift. Exoteric language by contrast, because of their accessibility, usefulness in wider communication and relative lack of structural complexity have a greater survival chance. World languages such as English and Spanish are modern examples of exoteric languages but exoteric languages were also found in earlier days and in traditional context. Malay for long time has been an exoteric language, as has Arabic or Wolof. Formerly esoteric languages have become exoteric languages with the consequence of deliberate intervention by European missionaries and Governments, Guarani in Paraguay, Kâte and Yabêm in Papua New Guinea or Tetúm in East Timor being examples. Closely related to the notion of exoteric language is that of lingua franca. The historical origin of this term is a medieval Mediterranean trade language (Arends 1998) used as the language of intercommunication between Crusaders and the people of the Middle East, the language of the sugar plantation of Cyprus and the language of the trade centres of the area. A lingua franca in a wider sense is typically used as a second language by speakers of many other languages over a wide area. Because of its function as an auxiliary language it tends to be structurally and lexically less complex than the natively spoken language it derives from (e.g. English as a foreign language or Odgen’s Basic English (1968) when compared with English) but remains mutually intelligible with it.
Linguistic Communities
19
Structured complexity and mutual intelligibility are of course gradient phenomena. There are, for instance, a number of varieties of Swahili in East Africa ranging from vernacular Swahili in coastal Tanzania to highly reduced and restricted Pidgin varieties spoken in Katanga and the interior of the continent. English, as a lingua franca of Singapore, again comprises of a continuum of varieties. 4.5 Pidgins Pidgin languages come into being when speakers of different languages need to communicate about a restricted range of topics and when neither party wishes and/or is allowed to become fully competent in the other party’s native language. The classical pidgin context is that of plantations, set up in the colonial era which employed slaves or labourers from numerous language backgrounds, who, in order to communicate among themselves and with their plantations owners and overseers, had to develop a common language. Pidgin languages by definition are second languages, structurally and functionally restricted and not mutually intelligible with the language from which they derive most of their lexicon. The various Pidgin Englishes of the Pacific (Queensland, New Guinea, Vanuatu etc.) are not intelligible to speakers of ‘standard’ English. They have developed their own communicative norms which draw on universal principles of language simplification, borrowing from a range of languages and diffusion of Pidgin conventions around the globe. The observed absence of shared grammar has prompted Silverstein to state (1971) that the equation of ‘linguistic community’ with ‘people with the same grammar’ seems to be too strong here. The complexity of a Pidgin is closely related to the communicative functions it fulfils and they are sustained not by native speakers transmitting them from parent to children but by the continuation of the conditions that brought them into being. The military Pidgin English of Vietnam and Korea disappeared with the social context in which they were developed and Vietnamese Pidgin French (Tay Boi) ceased to be used once the French colonisers left Vietnam. Pidgin Portuguese, once spoken almost universally in South East Asian trade, disappeared when English traders became dominant. The survival of colonial Pidgin languages depends on their users putting them to new uses. Pidgin English in Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu have become the principal languages of intercommunication of modern independent states and have been recognised as official languages. Increasingly this principle appears to apply to many non-Pidgins as well. In specific circumstances Pidgins can become primary or native languages, a process called Creolization. Compared with Pidgins, Creoles are spoken as native languages, are compatible in terms of structural and lexical complexity with other full languages. Contexts in which creolization occurs include plantations where children elaborated the only useful means of intercommunication, their parents’ broken Pidgin, in orphanages of remote locations (such as Tayo in New Caledonia or Unserdeutsch in Papua New Guinea) or most recently under the impact of rapid urbanisation in countries such as Papua New Guinea or the Solomons.
20
Words and Worlds
In as much as human history is full of catastrophic events (invasions, slavery, displacement) there are probably a very large number of languages with a Creole ancestry and the number of known Creoles (as listed in Holm 1988) of about 100, is a very conservative estimate. Because Creoles are often perceived to be inferior versions of a lexically related more prestigious language e.g. Seychellois or Haitian Creole vis à vis French, they are susceptible to language shift or gradual merger (socalled post-Creole continuum) with their lexifier language. 4.6 Koines This term derives from the variety of Greek spoken by settlers from different areas in the Greek colonies of the Mediterranean (best known as the language of the Modern Testament). The term has since been extended to many similar situations where dialect mixing occurs in new settlements, for instance the German settlers of Eastern Europe or Namibia, or in the non-traditional Aboriginal settlements of Australia (Mühlhäusler and Amery 1996). In discussing this term, Siegel (1985) draws attention to the following points: A Koine is the result of mixing between language subsystems that are either mutually intelligible or share the same superimposed standard language. Koineization, unlike pidginization, is typically a slow and gradual process. The social correlate of Koine development is sustained intensive contacts and gradual assimilation of social groups. Thus, although some of the linguistic consequences of koineization can be similar to those identified in Pidgin development (for example, simplification of inflectional morphology), Koines do not involve the drastic reduction characteristic of early pidgin development. There is some overlap with the notion of lingua franca. In contrast to the latter Koines are spoken as native and/or primary languages. The development of Koines goes hand in hand with social displacement and social reconstruction and an increase in urbanisation and social change in the 21st century is likely to lead to the development of further Koines. Their long-term viability however is not secure. 4.7 Ausbau and modern languages In times of rapid social technological development languages tend to lag behind and are not capable of adapting quickly to new requirements. In such a situation they can either be abandoned or marginalised or made to meet the new requirements by deliberate human interference. The term Ausbau, coined by the German linguist Kloss (1967), refers to the general process of extension. Typical examples are provided by languages chosen by Christian Missionaries as media of conversion. Missionary extension typically consists of adding Christian terminology and words used in education and life on a mission station (e.g. relating to food, hygiene etc). The small Melanesian language Mota, for instance, was extended by a number of professional
Linguistic Communities
21
linguists belonging to the Melanesian Mission (such as Codrington and Palmer, 1896) and elevated the state of the language of missionization and education. Modern languages are a special case of Ausbau. The modernisation process is designed to make them intertranslatable with modern European nation languages. Indonesian, for example has undergone an extension process of modernisation (over 400,000 new words have been added since 1947) as have Swahili, Pilipino and Afrikaans. Whilst in principle all languages can be modernised, in practice it has been a very selective process. Because of the cost of language planning, modernisation is governed by considerations of economy of scale. Only Indonesian and a few large provincial languages in Indonesia underwent modernisation, all the other 400+ languages of the archipelago remained largely unaffected and unmodernised. Once modernised, a language tends to have considerable economic advantages and speakers on non-modernised languages can find it desirable either to adopt them as a second language or switch to them. Extension which does not involve dependency on European language models is being attempted in a number of instances, where indigenous languages have gained greater political status. A well known case is that of Maori (Harlow 1993). 4.8 Abstand languages This term meaning ‘distance language’ again was coined by Kloss (1967). It implies deliberate human interference, not so much with the aim of making the language cope with the modern world but in order to distinguish it from another related language with which speakers do not wish to identify. Switsertütsch for instance, was developed as a reaction against the German spoken in Hitler Germany, Norwegian as a reaction against the language of the Danish colonisers, Bosnian as a reaction against Serbia, but Hindi and Urdu became different languages because of the different religious affiliations of Hindustani speakers. The wish not to speak the language of a group one does not identify with is a very strong one and there is a sizeable body of literature (e.g. Laycock 1975) documenting ‘naïve language planning’ of the absolute type in traditional society. Where 90% of Indigenous Australians no longer speak an indigenous language, and whilst most of them can speak standard Australian English, Aborigines nevertheless have developed a number of Aboriginal Englishes such as Koori English of the East Coast or Nunga English of South Australia, to signal their distance from mainstream white society. An extreme case of Abstand language are secret languages or cants, such as Shelta (developed by Irish travellers), and varieties of English such as Backslang and perhaps Rastfarian English. 4.9 Artificial and planned languages Whilst languages such as English are referred to as ‘natural’ languages and contrasted with artificial languages (eg. Esperanto) the distinction is not an absolute one. Deliberate human involvement in lexicon and grammar are documented in virtually all languages (Laycock & Mühlhäusler 1990) and in most national languages
22
Words and Worlds
(see below) the extent of human agency can be very considerable. The documentation of what Laycock has labelled ‘naïve language planning’ is very patchy. The main raisons d’être in traditional societies includes, taboo, secret or initiation ceremonies, purposes or language play (ludlings). Like Pidgins they are brought into existence by special social circumstances and disappear once external conditions change. Franklin (1992) for instance has documented the disappearance of the Pandanus gathering variety of Kewa Papua New Guinea, and Hale (1992) has analysed the disappearing Damin register of the indigenous Australian Lardil language. There is great urgency to document and analyse similar special languages around the world. Entirely planned languages were developed mainly in Europe following the Enlightenment. The objective of their creators being to have a language capable of expressing enlightened philosophical or scientific ideas, to have a single language for worldwide communication either in addition to or as a replacement of existing languages. Structurally, artificial languages are either of the a priori type, created from scratch on the basis of philosophical principles of classification or naming (Libert 2000), or a posteriori languages, simplified and enhanced versions of an existing language or languages. The best known example of this latter category is Esperanto. In the recent past the idea of developing a single artificial language for the European Union has been revived. A general problem with artificial world languages is the underlying assumption that a single language can cope equally well with all aspects of the world, that it could in principle be replacive of other languages. 4.10 Sign and other non-verbal languages Speech typically is accompanied by gestures which in most societies are mainly improvised in context. In some special conditions highly codified gesture systems can develop(substitute languages), however. The sign languages of deaf communities are an example, next to the better documented sign varieties of large modern languages such as English German or French, there probably have been many others that go undocumented and may disappear. Washabaugh (1986) has demonstrated, with the example of the sign Creole of the small Caribbean Island of San Andres, the relevance of such languages to both linguistic theory and to an understanding of human communication. Kendon (1988) offers the most comprehensive account of sign language in a particular linguistic ecology, that of indigenous Australia. Most of them were semantically highly sophisticated sign languages used as languages for special domains or functions and as languages of intergroup communication. Sign language as full substitute of verbal speech once were widely used. Few of them are properly recorded and most of the remaining ones appear to be endangered. Other non-verbal forms of communication such as whistle languages, drum or slitgong languages share their fate and observationally adequate accounts are urgently needed.
Linguistic Communities
23
4.11 Independent versus connected languages In the Western view, languages are seen as objects that are clearly separate from the social and natural environment they are spoken in. As such they can be transported and they can be acquired by new groups of speakers. By contrast, many traditional languages are regarded by their speakers as being inseparably linked with land, customs, belief systems and family relations. The link to the land of some Australian indigenous languages is such that one has to speak a different language when moving to a different part of the territory (Sutton 1991). Correct use of some languages is only possible for members of the language community, for instance in pronoun choice or when using kinship terms, both of which can require a knowledge of how speakers, persons spoken about and persons spoken to, are related to one another, a practice which can only be upheld in small tightly-knit communities. With migration and changing patterns of land use the connections that languages have with their environment are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. It has been argued, for instance, that the large scale loss of Australian indigenous languages was precipitated by the removal of most groups from their traditional habitat. 4.12 Endemic versus exotic languages The widespread view that languages are independent entities, accounts for the scarcity of these labels in sociolinguistic literature. There are now findings however which suggest the coincidence of tribal and language boundaries and local natural ecologies (Tindale 1974) and a recent study by Nettle 1998, 1999 summarised in Glausiusz (1997) suggests a direct correlation between language size and rainfall. Geographically spread-out languages are encountered typically in dry areas whilst small languages predominantly occur in high-rainfall areas. The unstoppable spread of English (a high-rainfall language) over the entire globe under this view suggests problems for discourses about management of resources in desert areas. Mühlhäusler (1996) argues that the hypothesis of adaptation can be tested most conveniently with evidence from recently occupied ‘desert’ islands such as Pitkern, Palmerston Creole or Mauritian Creole. As languages get transported around the globe, the fit between them and the environment in which they are spoken, of necessity, weakens. As linguistic adaptation to a new environment takes several hundred years (e.g. the development of complex plant classification in Maori after the arrival of Eastern Polynesian with a much less complex system in New Zealand), this misfit is likely to be a prolonged one and may turn out to be an important task for language planners. Detailed studies of how languages are adapted to and help preserve the biological diversity in their area of currency are given by the contributors to Maffi (ed. 2001). In her introduction Maffi observes (following Harmon 1996) that biological megadiversity closely correlates with linguistic diversity. The conclusion most contributors to Maffi’s volume arrive at that the loss of large numbers of endemic languages will result in the loss of biodiversity.
24
Words and Worlds
4.13 National languages The concept of nation and nation state is only a few hundred years old and has become worldwide applicable only in the wake of decolonisation and modernisation from the middle of the 20th century. Nation states, as Wollock (2001) points out, initially took pride in their linguistic diversity. The idea that political units and states should be inhabited by a culturally and linguistically homogenous population is an idea that developed during the French Revolution. Before this event speakers of many languages (Occitan, Catalan, Flemish, Alamanic, Basque and French) were spoken in France and the concept of a French community was defined by shared laws, shared religion and a common ruler. The ideal of a single monolingual French nation took more than 200 years to become realised. French as a national language today is the dominant medium of all public discourse but other languages still continue to be used by minority groups in other domains. The creation of monolingual nation states first occurred in other European states such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy – though there are no nation states in which other languages are not also spoken and a number of modern nation states such as Belgium, Switzerland and Finland continue to be officially multilingual. The idea of a single national language has been converted into policy in many former European colonies – in most instances national language means the most privileged and most modernised language rather than the only language. However, the trend toward dominant monolingualism established first in France can also be witnessed elsewhere: Modern China, Malaysia, Indonesia as well as former colonial languages such as Russian, English, Spanish and Portuguese have acquired a large number of native speakers (or monolingual) of the chosen national language. 4.14 Tribal languages This term is used as synonymous with ‘indigenous language’ and ‘vernacular’ i.e. unwritten, unstandardised forms of speech spoken by single communities in small political units such as extended families, tribes or villages. The vast majority of the worlds’ languages falls into this group. More than a third of the world’s languages are spoken by fewer than 1,000 people and in some regions (e.g. Melanesia) the average number of speakers is even less. The number of tribal languages has decreased dramatically since the European conquest of the world and estimates such as these by Lizarraldi (2001) for South America underline this. Of the 1,200 tribal languages spoken there in 1492 only 600 remained in 1940 and the number has since shrunk to about 400. 4.15 Some generalisations The main aim of this section has been to show the variety of phenomena bearing the label language. Languages, I have tried to show, differ in their political status, ability to be used in modern technological environments, range of functions and domains and last, but not least, in having recognised boundaries and domains and a name.
Linguistic Communities
25
In whatever sense human languages are equal, they are certainly not equal in regard to their visibility. There is a clear danger that the best described, mapped and labelled languages have a better chance of being maintained. Ironically, this often means that languages that have been described or otherwise standardised or objectified by Europeans are the ones whose survival chances are greatest and that genuinely different ways of speaking are highly endangered. There is a clear parallelism with the so-called charismatic species in wildlife protection: whereas many millions of dollars are spent on koala research in Australia, very little money has been made available to document and maintain Australia’s weevil population. But arguably, the survival of a diversity of near invisible weevil species is ecologically more important than that of the koala. Many ways of speaking which, on structural and/or functional grounds could well have been recognised as languages in actual fact are not – because of political circumstances, lack of folk sentiment, or lack of Abstand and Ausbau. In Europe, this includes languages such has Alsatian, Asturian, Bavarian, Corsican, Flemish, Francique, Istro-Romanian, Yutish, Karelian, Low Saxon, Tsakonian and many others. In some instances, the ways of speaking have been labelled ‘dialect’ or ‘patois’, in other instances there is little metalinguistic awareness of their existence. What I shall do in the following section is explore how different ways of speaking are employed side-by-side by groups of people. Just as the term language applies to a range of phenomena, so do the terms language community, speech community, multilingual community etc. Again, the multitude of combinations must be seen as functional responses to particular communicative requirements, not dysfunctional oddities. I shall employ Haugen’s (1972) and other ecological parameters to identify a number of types of possible languages or language ecologies. The term ‘language ecology’ is used as a cover term for a range of phenomena, some of which in the past have been labelled language communities or speech communities. The main difference between an ecological and closed sociolinguistic approach is that the ecological approach places greater emphasis on the environmental support systems and pays greater attention to the adaptability of different language ecologies. It would seem useful first to say a few words about the concept of speech communities used in sociolinguistics.
THE MEANING OF TRIBAL LANGUAGES IN INDIA The Indian tribes are scheduled as per Article 342 of the Constitution by the President and the Parliament. They do not form a neat homogenous socialcultural category. The concept of tribe in India is thus an administrative, judicial, and political. The scheduled tribes constitute 623 varied communities. Languages spoken by these scheduled communities are considered ‘tribal
26
Words and Worlds
languages’. There is no linguistic definition of tribal language/s. It is the tribal languages that contribute to the vast and rich linguistic diversity of India. The tribal languages belong to five distinct language groups pertaining to distinct five language families represented in India such as Andamanese, AustroAsiatic, Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, and Tibeto-Burman. Though tribal languages are spoken all over the country, languages belonging to a particular family tend to be concentrated in a defined geographical area. Thus Northeast by TibetoBurman, East-Center by Austro-Asiatic (Munda and Mon-Khmer), Western India by Indo-Aryan, Southern India by Dravidian, and Andaman Islands by Andamanese languages are represented. As these languages are not scheduled languages, ethnolinguistic minority status induces a negative attitude toward language loyalty. Anxiety to be associated with the superior masses discourages people to declare their traditional languages as mother tongues. In reality the tribals speak and use their traditional languages in the home domain but refuse to acknowledge this. This is especially true of many of the urban Munda and the Dravidian tribes. The ‘claimed mother tongues’ that are reported in various census reports at best, are foster mother tongues. Despite the reported language shift most of our rural tribals (barring Andamanese) do not really fit in the moulds of ‘terminal speakers’ or ‘semispeakers’. Instead, some of them may be considered ‘healthy speakers’. Those in the rural Northeast and in rural Jharkhand may be considered the thriving speakers. The two forces, retention and shift, coexist within the same language group, e.g. while the urban tribals of the Munda family and those of the Dravidian family are seen as easy to shift, rural tribes of the same language families prefer to maintain their indigenous languages. Tribals belonging to the Munda group are known to be the original inhabitants of India. Bilingualism among tribals is 50% more than the national average bilingualism. Most of the Northeastern and Central urban Tribals are bilinguals in Hindi which they use for inter-tribal communication, or in other lingua franca originating out of the mixture of two or three languages of the region such as Sadari among Munda speakers and Nagamese, Nefamese, Chakesang (these languages are contact languages created out of the convergence of two or three languages. Thus Nagamese is convergence of Naga and Assamese, while Chakesang is constituted of drawing structures of three languages distinct languages) as well as in English among the educated Tibeto-Burman speakers. The conflict between the mother tongue and the other tongue is greater, deeper and more terse in Central India than that which exists in the Northeast. Anvita Abbi Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Linguistic Communities
27
5. The notion of language community and speech community The problems encountered in defining language are again found when it comes to defining speech and language communities. As the etymology of the term ‘community’ suggests, its members have something in common but what it is that members of a speech community have in common and how many properties have to be shared for a community to come into existence is far from clear. Linguists such as Gumperz (1972) and Fishman (1971) have argued that “A speech community is one, all of whose members share at least a single speech variety and the norms for its appropriate use” (Fishman 1971). Other linguists by contrast deemphasise the notion of uniformity of language and put in their place shared evaluation of patterns of language use (e.g. Labov 1972). By the first criterion there would seem to be a single community of all of those who can speak English or French as the first or second (and possibly foreign language), by the second criteria, because the social evaluation of different varieties of English varies greatly, one is dealing with a large number of communities. Labov (1972) notes that the assumptions of dialectologists are problematic because of the presence of variation within speech communities. Extreme forms of variation are found in some Post-creole communities and in Kupwar-type settings. The Indian village of Kupwar (described by Gumperz and Wilson 1971) is located in Sangli District Maharashtra, approximately seven miles north of the Mysore border. It has a population of 3,000 and four languages. Village lands are controlled largely by two land-owning and cultivating groups, Kannada-speaking Jains, who form the majority, and Urdu-speaking Moslems. There are furthermore, large contingents of Kannada-speaking Lingayats – largely craftsmen, Marathi-speaking untouchables and other landless labourers, as well as some Telugu-speaking rope-makers. In spite of the differences in language use, Kupwar can be defined as a community in Labov’s sense because the evaluation of language use is shared by all members of this village though not by outsiders. What leads to shared norms is constant interaction. Milroy’s (1980: 20) use of a network model provides further insights. She distinguishes two types, as in Diagrams 1 and 2 where the individual whose network is being studied is shown by a star, and other people in the network by dots. Contact between individuals is shown by a line. The two networks are said to be of high density and low density respectively. Milroy then observes “it is possible for one network to be described as more or less dense than another, rather than in absolute terms as open or closed. Additionally, Blom and Gumperz comment that the contents of the network ties which bind members of the elite to ‘local team’ people is ‘largely impersonal, focussing around single tasks.” In contrast, most local team people ‘live, marry and earn their livelihood among others of their own kind’ (p. 433). Thus, not only are local team networks dense, but each individual is likely to be linked to others in more than one capacity – as a co-employee, a kinsman and a friend, for example. This kind of network tie may be said to be multiplex, or many stranded, and to contrast with the uniplex ties of the elite who tend to associate with the local people in a single capacity only.
28
Words and Worlds
X
Diagram 1. High-density personal network structure: X is the focal point of the network
X
Diagram 2. Low-density personal network structure: X is the focal point of the network Traditional lifestyles strongly correlate with closed multiplex networks and such networks provide a home for a multitude of small endemic languages. Urbanisation, social and geographical mobility and information technology, by contrast promote open networks which call for larger, even international languages: one can witness a corresponding process of the shrinkage of closed networks (they are becoming restricted to communication with in-families, tribes and other highly-knit social structures), and a steady growth in the importance of open networks. In as much as the village has been the typical locus for closed network communication, the notion of a global village seems absurd. Kreckel (1980) comments on the ‘undesirable effects of heterodynamic [=open network] communication for presupposed common knowledge may easily have no common basis at all.’ Given the problem of pinning down what a speech community is, it would at first sight seem desirable to start with clearly bounded units such as states, provinces and urban communities and ask: what languages and what relationships between languages are encountered within such units. This, in fact, is what many sociolinguists have opted to do (a process referred to as the dialectological approach) when describing phenomena such as diglossia (see below). However,
Linguistic Communities
29
applying labels such as speech community, Laycock (1979) has pointed out, can bring with it other problems: Extensive multilingualism has important consequences for theories of language contact and language classification. One major effect is the erasure or blurring of linguistic boundaries. We can distinguish three types of linguistic areas with definable boundaries: (1) a communication area, which is the area in which a speaker or community can still manage to communicate, by the use of any languages known; (2) a lectal or language currency area, which is the area in which a single language is effective for communication purposes, (3) a language area, which is the area in which a particular language can be said to be native – that is, it is the first learnt and/or the primary language. Linguistic maps usually feature type 3, which is the hardest to define satisfactorily, and which is coterminous with types 1 and 2 unless multilingualism is present. However, it is precisely the boundaries of 3 that are made fuzzy, or are erased by, multilingualism. A way of defining community that does not rely on pre-established boundaries might be to examine the key metaphors (Lakoff and Johnson 1980) that different groups of people live by. Those dominant in mainstream Anglo culture (time is money, argument is war) are not shared by members of many other cultures. The Australian and British metaphor of politics as a game of cricket (to be played according to rules on a level playing field) is foreign to most of the ‘foreign’ politicians that British politicians are dealing with and the lack of shared metaphors could be one of the reasons for the lack of mutual understanding. That the notion that speaking the same language needs to correlate with other social categories is questioned by writers such as Rigsby and Sutton (n.d.) who argue that speech community is not a primary social term but a secondary construct. Their own data, gathered during many years of fieldwork in Northern Queensland suggest that ‘residence groups, task groups (such as ritual participants) and regional political groupings are formed largely independent of linguistic affiliation’ (p. 35). The notion that one language equals one culture and the derived view that the loss of, say, 100 languages implies the loss of 100 cultural and philosophical systems thus would seem highly questionable. The non-agreement between language and culture can be illustrated in the socalled developed world by the existence of pluricentric standard languages with several standard varieties (see Clyne 1985). Examples of these include Arabic, Chinese, Dutch, English, French and Spanish, all of which have official status in a number of nation states with different political and cultural agendas. Belonging to the same speech community does not exclude hostility or almost total non-cooperation, as can be seen from the examples of Korean in North and South Korea, Mandarin in Mainland China and Taiwan or German in former East and West Germany. The case of Moldavian and Galician illustrate that there can be considerable disagreement
30
Words and Worlds
among speakers as to whether they are speaking a language with its own norms or a variety of Romanian or Portuguese and in the case of Valencian vis à vis Catalan this has led to considerable social conflict. In view of the difficulties with the definition of communities, the notion of language ecology would seem preferable, particularly as it supplements information about the use of different languages as information about the wider ecological factors (including discourses) that sustain such practices. One has to remind oneself of the etymological roots of the term ‘ecology,’ i.e. Greek oikos, ‘house’ or ‘home.’ Haugen, whose ecolinguistic questions were quoted at the beginning of this paper, very much looked at the linguistic practices of the inhabitants of communities bounded by sociopolitical boundaries and this approach would seem appropriate only for nation states and similar modern entities. The question of the relationships within a house, what relationships between its inhabitants make it a home and a sociolinguistic characterisation of its inhabitants are important. However, Haugen uses the notion of ecology as a heuristic metaphor without suggesting that language can itself be an ecological phenomenon. In discussing the notion of endemic language I have suggested that languages can also be seen as ecologically adapted to particular natural environments and this suggestion can be extended to the hypothesis that particular language ecologies in turn are adapted to particular natural conditions, that, for instance the seemingly excessive multilingualism in some parts of the world is a response to the need for various types of cooperation needed for survival and management in a particular environment. Healthy ecologies are characterised by the presence of a large number of mutually beneficial interrelationships and a relatively small proportion of competitive and/or parasitic ones. They are also defined by functional diversity. In the past, healthy language ecologies were the norm but over the last few hundred years or so, there has been a marked shift to unbalanced and unhealthy ecologies, characterised by an increase of internal competition and a reduction of diversity and, in the domain of language, a dramatic loss of the connections between languages, speakers and their natural habitat. What defines language ecologies remains to be explored, and the sections that follow have to be read against the background of an important ecological principle. What keeps one ecology healthy and stable may destroy another one. The support system for different language ecologies can be very different and must be determined case by case. An overview of writings on the psychology and sociology of language ecologies is given by Fill (1993). The parameters determining ecological processes in language and society listed by Fill include: • • • •
status and intimacy, similarity and difference of language in contact, number of competing languages, cultural, religious and economic factors,
Linguistic Communities • • • •
31
frequency of intermarriage, functional distribution, degree of codification, external interventions.
In my view there are a number of additional parameters that need to be considered: • • • • • • •
whether languages are endemic or exotic to an ecology, the degree of esotericity (closed in-group language), the degree of vitality of the languages in an ecology, whether languages are ‘packaged’ with or disconnected from the ecology, continuity (e.g. dialect or chains) or discontinuity (abrupt boundaries), named or unnamed i.e. degree of recognition by speakers and outsiders), types of solutions for intergroup communication with outside groups (bilingualism, lingua francas, Pidgins).
6. Some aspects of ecological support systems In what follows I shall consider some of the external factors that impinge on the nature of language ecologies, factors such as territory, speaker numbers, etc. 6.1 Language and territory The 6,000+ languages spoken around the world are not evenly distributed. Neither is there a simple formula for the relationship between language and topological space nor is there one for language and speaker numbers. In some parts of the world a relatively small number of languages is spoken by a large number of people (Europe and North America today), in others many languages are spoken by a few people each. In Papua New Guinea 800+ languages are said to be used by about 4 million speakers, far fewer speakers than in the past, whereas in New Zealand, a country of a comparable size only one language, Maori, was spoken at the time the first European colonisers arrived. The reasons for these differences have been traditionally given as temporal factors. Linguistic diversification takes time (e.g. 1,000 years time period is conventionally used as a rough guide for one language to become two). Thus, the difference between PNG with 40,000+ years of human habitation and New Zealand with only about 1200 years is adduced as a reason for the difference in language numbers. Similarly, the large number of dialects of British English contrasts with a very small number of dialects in North American English and an even smaller one in Australian and New Zealand English. Next to time, contact with other languages is given as a reason, as new languages can develop out of language contact in a relatively short time, only a few decades in the case of Pidgins and Creoles, for instance. Both factors together would account for the fact that there are a large number of different languages in Arnhem Land,
32
Words and Worlds
Northern Australia, the first part settled by human beings and the one closest to South East Asia with whose inhabitants there have been several periods of contact. By contrast human habitation of the Southern parts of Australia is far more recent and contacts with outside groups were rare or non-existent. Time and contact alone are insufficient to explain all aspects of linguistic diversity. Laycock (1982) adds deliberate human choice as a further motive. Speaking about the situation in Melanesia he argues: In view of all the above, it is possible to formulate a hypothesis about Melanesian linguistic diversity. Migration into the small independent, or semi-independent, communities, with, often, the same or very similar languages. Isolation and normal linguistic change played their part in the splitting of these communities unhampered by pressures towards convergence. The process was accelerated by contact between communities of quite different linguistic backgrounds, by warfare (and subsequent dispersal of communities), by cross-cutting migrations, and by technical innovation. Once the process of diversification was well under way, diversity had advantages as well as disadvantages, in clearly distinguishing friend, acquaintance, trading-partner, and foe; and with this consciousness came an attitude, I believe, that the community was further divided. In other words, I suggest that Melanesian linguistic diversity is not merely the by-product of accidents of history and geography, but is in large measure a partly conscious reaction, on the part of the Melanesians themselves, to their environment and social conditions. Ecolinguistics, as discussed under the heading of ‘Endemic Languages’, has added external environmental reasons. The size of a language coincides with the size of the ecological borders in which it is spoken. Highly diversified complex ecological conditions such as in rainforest areas coincide with high linguistic diversity. The linguistically most complex areas are Melanesia, the Amazon and West Africa. The number of languages spoken in desert areas and the Arctic, on the other hand, are relatively small. Areas with high linguistic diversity are also areas with a high degree of multilingualism, with as many as 4+ languages spoken in traditional Melanesia and up to a dozen in tropical Northern Australia. Linguistic diversity is often linked to geographical isolation but this turns out not to be a very reliable parameter. Islands, for instance, have traditionally been associated with isolation but as the many contributors to the Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas (Wurm, Mühlhäusler & Tryon 1996) have demonstrated, contacts between most of the islands of the Pacific was relatively intense and the only genuinely isolated islands of the area were Easter Island and possibly Hawaii. Rivers also isolate populations but, on the contrary, provide access and contact. The isolated languages of distant mountain villages are mainly a discursive category rather than a linguistic fact. The largest languages in Papua New Guinea, for instance, are located in the rugged terrain of the New Guinea highlands. Genetic research (e.g. Terrell 1986) confirms that human groups rarely remain isolated over extended periods of time.
Linguistic Communities
33
There is, however, an interesting relationship between some factors of the physical terrain and language continuity. Languages located in areas subject to natural disasters such as drought, floodwaves, volcanic eruptions etc. are more vulnerable to change and extinction than other languages. Thurston (1982) has illustrated this for the languages spoken on the dangerous coastline of Eastern New Britain, and the unreliability of water supply in parts of the Pacific has in the past lead to the extinction of populations and their languages on many islands. Medical disasters such as epidemics can also disrupt linguistic continuity. Stross (1975) has shown how speakers of Tzeltal in Yukatan are affected by frequent epidemics which lead to the decline of individual dialects and the rise of others, promoting frequent changes in the direction of language development. Introduced diseases and their roles in changes in language ecologies remain to be fully documented. Australian Indigenous languages, as a response to smallpox and influenza, often became non-viable as their speaker numbers declined, or as speakers fled to different parts of the continent where they mixed with other groups. Hottentot and several Melanesian languages experienced a similar decline and the spread of AIDS and other pandemics throughout the developing world is likely seriously to affect the viability of many smaller languages. 6.2 Speaker distribution This concept relates on the one hand to the degree of contacts between members of a language community and, on the other, the density of such contacts. Contact between languages involves physical proximity as a necessary but not a sufficient reason for mutual influence. Contact together with time tends to promote similarity between languages no matter what their original history was. It tends to lead to the development of Sprachbunds where languages from several families display common traits not found in members of the same families spoken outside. The already mentioned Kupwar situation can be called a mini-Sprachbund. The languages of the Balkan again have become structurally and semantically similar over time with Romanian in spite of its romance origins, being more similar with surrounding languages such as Greek or Bulgarian than Latin or Spanish.
BILINGUALISM, MULTILINGUALISM AND MIND DEVELOPMENT Languages in contact, whether it is bilingualism or multilingualism are an integral part of human behaviour. Situations of languages in contact have always outnumbered monolingual situations, but they will constantly increase with globalisation and increasing population movements due to migration and greater social mobility, with the universal spread of education and the need for all human societies to have access to modern information technology. By “languages in contact” we mean the use of two or more distinct linguistic codes in interpersonal
34
Words and Worlds
and inter-group relations as well as the psychological state of an individual who uses more than one language. The distinction between bilingualism and multilingualism refers to the number of languages involved in the contact situation: multilingualism generally refers to any situation involving two or more languages, whereas bilingualism refers to a contact between only two languages. A more important distinction is however made between societal and individual bi- or multilingualism. The concepts of bilingualism and multilingualism refer to the state of a linguistic community in which at least two languages are in contact with the result that more than one linguistic code can be used in the same interaction and that a number of individuals master more than one language; it includes the concept of bilinguality or individual bilingualism. In the present discussion, we will use the term bilinguality to refer to bilingual and multilingual individuals, as so far there is no evidence that bilinguals and multilinguals show different behaviour patterns. Definitions of bilingualism At first sight the concept of individual bilingualism seems easy to define. In the layman’s view a bilingual person is somebody who either speaks two languages as native speakers or has an almost native-like command of a second language in addition to the command of his mother tongue. According to Webster’s dictionary, a bilingual is defined as “having or using two languages especially as spoken with the fluency characteristic of a native speaker” and bilingualism as “the constant oral use of two languages”. However, scholars in bilingualism do not agree on a single definition. Bloomfield (1935) defines bilingualism as “the native-like control of two languages”. In contradistinction to this definition of “perfect bilinguals”, Macnamara (1967) suggests that a bilingual is anyone who possesses a minimal competence in one of the four language skills, listening, reading, speaking and writing in a language different from its mother tongue. Between these two extremes there is a large array of definitions; Titone (1972), for example, defines bilingualism as the individual’s capacity to speak a second language following its concepts and structures rather than paraphrasing the mother tongue. These definitions, ranging from a native-like competence in two languages to a minimum proficiency in a second language, raise a number of theoretical and methodological questions. First, they lack precision: they do not specify what is meant by native-like competence, nor by minimal proficiency, nor by following the concepts and structures of a language. Second, they refer to a single dimension, i.e. proficiency in both languages. According to Hamers & Blanc (1983), however, bilingualism and bilinguality are multi-dimensional concepts. Bilinguality can be described using the following dimensions: according to competence in both languages a distinction can be made between balanced (competence in LA = competence in LB ) and dominant (competence in LA > or
Linguistic Communities
35
< than competence in LB ) bilinguals ; according to cognitive organisation between compound (language labels in LA and LB correspond to one single concept) and coordinate (each language label corresponds to a different concept) bilinguals. In terms of age of acquisition a distinction is made between simultaneous (the two languages are acquired during the language acquisition period; LA and LB are both the child’s mother tongues) and consecutive (L2 is acquired after the child has developed a competence in L1) bilinguality. In consecutive bilinguality a further distinction is made between childhood (L2 before 10–11), adolescent (L2 between 11 and 17 years) and adulthood (L2 after the age of 17) bilinguality. According to the presence or the absence of a community of L2 speakers, a distinction is made between endogenous (both speech communities are present) and exogenous (only one speech communities is present) bilinguality. According to the relative status of the languages a distinction is made between additive (both language are highly valorised; bilingual development will enhance cognitive development) and subtractive (L1 is devalorised, leading to cognitive disadvantages). Bilinguals can also be described in terms of their cultural identity: bilinguality can be described as bicultural, monocultural or deculturated (ambiguous membership and anomic identity). Bilinguistic development Early biographies on bilingual children (Ronjat 1913; Leopold, 1939–1949) already pointed to a harmonious development of the bilingual child and indicated that his linguistic development is comparable to that of a monolingual child. More recent studies however permit us to be more precise in their comparisons and point out that the bilingual child does not only compare favourably with his monolingual counterpart but displays also some specific behaviours. At the preverbal stage, it seems that infants as young as four months, raised in a multilingual environment, discriminate better between familiar and nonfamiliar phonemes and intonation patterns than their monolingual counterparts. There is a general agreement that the bilingual child produces his first word at the same time as a monolingual infant and that at the holophrastic stage he uses words from his two languages. The receptive vocabulary of monolingual and bilingual children is comparable; bilingual children produce less vocabulary in each language, but if the lexical items in the two languages are taken together production is comparable; bilingual children do not have translation equivalents for all their lexicon but monolingual and bilingual children’s conceptual vocabularies have similar sizes. How do grammatical structures evolve in bilinguistic development? From the available data it appears that certain aspects of linguistic development follow a monolingual pattern closely while others do not. Some studies (Swain 1972) mention developmental delay, others (Meisel 1990) give some evidence for a
36
Words and Worlds
more precocious development of bilingual children, while still others (Padilla & Liebman 1975) conclude that the acquisition of the two languages follows a monolingual pattern. Mixing is mentioned in all biographies and studies on bilinguistic development. The majority of mixings are lexical in nature, with nouns as the most frequently substituted words. Mixing may also occur at other levels (est-ce que you sleep here?). Infant and adult mixing follow different patterns and there is also a consensus that syntactic categories do not appear at random in mixed elements. Although probably all bilingual children mix codes, this mixing occurs with a low frequency (from 2% to 6.5%), tending to decrease with age. What role mixing plays in bilinguistic acquisition is still little known, but its less frequent use as the child grows older may be a manifestation of his improved capacity to keep his two languages separate. Not all mixing must be attributed to a lack of competence; mixed utterance might express the intended meaning more adequately. Translation is also an integral part of bilinguistic development. Besides using translation spontaneously, the bilingual child requests translation equivalents in the other language. The onset of awareness of two systems is evidenced around the second birthday: two-year old children will assign words to each parent’s repertoire and request translations for them. This is considered as proof that language awareness develops at an early age. The relation between language and mind Several researchers have suggested that language and mind are closely intermingled. In 1956, Whorf suggested that language moulds thought, and although this hypothesis in its extreme form is no longer accepted, most scholars do agree that language and thought are not completely independent from each other. Childhood bilinguality does not develop in isolation from other developmental aspects but interacts with them. Whether one considers that language plays an important role in the development of thought or whether both are seen as developing independently from each other will influence the extent to which bilinguality is considered as a relevant factor for the development of cognitive processes. At the present time most child psychologists recognise the role played by language in cognitive development. But what happens when children are socialised into multilingual modes of communication? Empirical research on the cognitive consequences of bilingual development can be divided in two periods. The early studies, mainly psychometric ones, conducted before the 1960, reported mainly negative results: bilingual children suffered from academic retardation, from a linguistic handicap, had a lower IQ and were socially maladjusted as compared with monolingual children. Bilinguality was viewed as the cause of an inferior intelligence.
Linguistic Communities
37
From the sixties onwards studies demonstrating positive effects by far outnumber research which still mentions negative effects. An important turning point came in 1962 with the publication of the Peal & Lambert study: comparing the academic achievement of bilingual and monolingual children, the authors came to the conclusion that bilingual children showed a higher level of cognitive development which they attributed to a more developed cognitive flexibility. Among others, the following advantages have been mentioned in the studies conducted after 1962: a greater ability in reconstructing perceptual situations, superior results on verbal and non-verbal intelligence; a greater sensitivity to semantic relations between words; higher scores on concept-formation tasks and rule-discovery tasks; a better performance with traditional psychometric school tests; a greater originality in creative thinking. Bilinguals are also better in verbal-transformation and symbol-substitution; in correction of ungrammatical sentences; in problem-solving tasks. They outperform monolinguals in metalinguistic tasks. (For a review, see Hamers & Blanc, 2000.) However, a small number of studies still report poor academic achievement of bilingual children. When this occurs, it almost always refers to minority children, schooled in the majority language and having their own mother tongue devalorised. Attempting to explain the positive and negative effects of bilingual development, Lambert (1974) suggests distinguishing between additive and subtractive bilinguality. In its additive form the child adds a second language as a communicative and cognitive tool to its linguistic repertoire; in its subtractive form the little valorised mother tongue is replaced by the more prestigious second language. In the first case the child might benefit from a bilingual situation whereas in the second case the child’s cognitive development is likely to be delayed. In their model of bilingual development, Hamers & Blanc (1982) suggest that social and individual valorisation of both languages play a crucial role for the bilingual’s child cognitive development. Education can provide the necessary context for additive bilinguality by insisting on mother tongue education for minority children. Several authors have suggested that a bilingual child would develop a deeper level of processing which would lead to a greater cognitive flexibility and a more developed metalinguistic awareness. In Vygotsky’s (1962) view, being able to express the same thought in different languages will enable ‘the child to see his language as one particular system among many, to view its phenomena under more general categories, and this leads to awareness of his linguistic operations’. This early awareness further generalises to other areas of concept learning and thinking. During the last decades the development of bilinguality has been analysed in relation to the development of linguistic awareness. Bilingual children may have a greater cognitive control in information processing than do monolingual
38
Words and Worlds
children; this provides them with the necessary foundation for metalinguistic ability, a necessary tool in cognitive development. Because experiencing with two languages enhances the awareness of the analysis and control components of language processing, different processing systems develop to serve two linguistic systems from the ones that operate with one language. These advantages are available to all children provided with an adequate bilingual education program. Josiane F. Hamers Laval University, Canada
7. Types of language ecologies 7.1 Balanced multilingualism Multilingualism is often portrayed as a consequence of speakers having to communicate with outgroups, but this is only part of the story. As Kendon (1988), who like Laycock (above) emphasises the rationality of multilingualism, has observed for Australia: People may speak several different languages, not so much because they need to do so to make themselves understood in different places, but because their languages serve as a means of expressing multiple social identities that they can lay claim to through their network of kin relationships. Choosing different languages can be equated with choosing different registers or styles in a monolingual speech community. Whether different communicative functions and domains are talked about in one or more than one language differs from group to group. The fact remains that successful communication requires a repertoire of many speech varieties or languages. Balanced multilingualism is predicated, on the one hand, on a stable ecological link between speakers of different languages and, on the other hand, or the absence of sudden changes in established patterns of social and spatial mobility. It is manifested, in instances such as Melanesia or tropical Australia, with egalitarian modes of coexistence but hierarchical structures, such as that of Kupwar (see above). Other examples of traditional multilingualism have been discussed for the Asia Pacific Region by Wurm, Mühlhäusler and Laycock (1996) and in Wurm (ed. 1979). I shall begin by looking at areas of extensive multilingualism such as Papua New Guinea (Laycock 1979), the Cape York Peninsula of Queensland (Sutton 1991) or Brazil (Aikenvald 1999, Sorensen 1967). Communication between the speakers of multiple small languages is achieved by a number of means all of which seek the dual purpose of enabling intercommunication whilst maintaining the maximum diversity of local vernacular. The maintenance of language numbers of small local vernaculars is required both to preserve ethnocultural identity and to ensure a fit between languages and local environmental conditions.
Linguistic Communities
39
A large number of small group of speakers (fewer than 1,000) also ensures that (a) relatively unauthoritarian structures can be maintained within a language community and (b) no community can readily achieve power over another community: diversity reduces the scope for competition and strengthens links between speakers of small vernaculars. Speakers of small or very small languages are rarely monolingual as they depend on their well-being and functional links with other groups for trade, out marriages and joint action. The solutions to this requirement vary from ecology to ecology: an obvious but relatively ‘costly’ solution is multilingualism or the less costly dual-lingualism (passive multilingualism) where each party speaks their own language but understands their interlocuter’s language. The greatest degree of multilingualism is encountered in parts of Australia (e.g. Cape York Peninsula, Sutton 1991) where speakers have at their disposal a repertoire of up to a dozen languages; a knowledge of 3–4 languages such as in parts of Papua New Guinea is more common, but because multilingualism usually does not imply full competence in all languages it is impossible to be precise. The varying extent of communicative requirements when dealing with outgroups is the reason for bilinguals employing a vernacular and one or more special intergroup Pidgins. A particularly sophisticated solution is a layered language ecology (Mühlhäusler 1999) where local vernaculars are employed mainly to express local identity and discuss local knowledge, intergroup Pidgins (often with a 50/50 mixed lexicon and a common core grammar) are employed mainly for transactions between villages, and regional lingua francas are employed mainly for signalling regional identity and exchanging regionally important information. Examples of such layered ecologies have been documented for Native (Indian) Americans in the southern United States by Drechsel (1997). Similar layering is developing in the European Union where many inhabitants are competent in international English, their National Standard Language, plus a local vernacular. Stable hierarchical communities often employ a diglossic pattern, where there are specialised functions for High (socially superordinate) and Low (socially subordinate) forms of speech. In the strictest sense, these varieties should be historically and lexically related such as French versus Haitian Creole or Classical Arabic and Egyptian Colloquial Arabic (Ferguson 1959). In a wider sense the complementary functional distribution of two languages, e.g. Spanish and Guarani in Paraguay, has also been labelled diglossia (for more details see Romaine 1989). In using labels such as stable or balanced, I do not wish to suggest that traditional societies are static. Rather, the rate of change in many traditional language ecologies is such that they can adapt to those changes that inevitably occur. What endangers them is that technological and social changes that are now occurring have put their adaptive potential under severe strain. 7.2 Mixed endemic–exotic ecologies Migrations, invasions and colonisation are the main factors that bring endemic languages into contact with exotic ones, with a range of linguistic outcomes such as the large scale extinction of Indo European languages in Central Asia, following the
40
Words and Worlds
Mongol invasion, pidginization, creolization and intensive mixing between local ‘Papuan’ and ‘Austronesian’ languages in Melanesian or the specialisation of the two language types in a new linguistic ecology as in the case of Carib and South American languages in the form of gender differentiation (Trudgill 1983). What such processes may have done to linguistic ecologies in the past remains unknown. It is certain, however, that even without major contacts, the number of languages that became extinct in pre-colonial times was of a very large scale. Walsh (1997), working with figures used by O’Grady (1979), argues that over the last 15,000 years a minimum of 4,000 and perhaps as many as several hundred thousand languages have become extinct in Australia. European colonisation, and the technological and social changes that happened in this wake have created massive changes in the linguistic ecologies, in particular: (1) the establishment of a small number of powerful exotic languages (English, Spanish, Portuguese, French) in most parts of the world, (2) the emergence of a small number of large natural languages (e.g. Indonesian, Hindi, Swahili) modelled on European National languages, (3) widespread diglossia, transitional multilingualism and partial Ausbau of selected local languages. An important study of the new mixed endemic-exotic communities is that by MyersScotton (1993) for Africa. She documents the change from a relatively stable to a highly dynamic multilingualism in which introduced European languages play a pivotal role. In the past, multilingualism was found primarily among people who were mobile in a geographic sense (p. 30ff) or amongst speakers of a small language surrounded by a larger one. Today, mobility in a socio-economic sense is the prime reason. Adding a metropolitan language to one’s repertoire can lead to competition, functional reproduction of non-metropolitan languages and language shift. Whilst a number of studies of new types of diglossia or triglossia are available it is not easy to generalise, as the reasons for using languages in certain domains and functions are contingent on complex sociohistorical processes (Fishman 1965). A classic study of a traditional language ecology to which exotic languages have been added is that by Sankoff (1972) where she discusses code switching among the Buang of PNG in the 1970s many of whom spoke a church lingua franca, Yabem, and still more spoke Tok Pisin. Speakers’ choices are summarised in Diagram 3. More recently Sankoff has discussed some of the changing patterns of code switching among the Buang under the impact of English education and migration to urban centres. An important feature of the latter article is the demonstration that code switching behaviour can differ considerably among the individuals within a given group or society and that the mastery of a multitude of subcodes and codes may be ‘in part a result of deliberate development of rhetorical skills by aspirants to leadership.’ A situation (Mühlhäusler 1996) far more complex than among the rural Buang is found in Fiji (Schütz 1985) where a number of varieties of Fijian are spoken side-by-side with
Linguistic Communities
41 decision to speak
speaking to Buang
formal situation
religious
business: traditional government: e.g. yam community distribution affairs
speaking to non-Buang
informal situation
written
stranger
oral
non-stranger
missionary Yabem or Bukawa teacher speaker pastor
Buang speaker
other
YABEM
BUANG NM YABEM
NM
special normal circumstances circumstances e.g. joking
YABEM NM BUANG
BUANG NM
BUANG
YABEM NM
NM YABEM
BUANG
NM
YABEM
Diagram 3. Language choice among the Buang in Papua New Guinea two exotic languages, English and Fiji Hindi. The degrees of stability achieved in Paraguay (Rubin 1968) for Spanish and Guarani would seem to be relatively rare and competition or even dualling (Myers, Scotton 1993) are common in the 20th century. In 1971 White concluded: Fiji shares with many other new nations the problems of creating a sense of sociocultural unity in a territorial area which at the moment has little else but geo-political unity. It is characteristic of emerging nations that the forces of nationalism and nationism co-exist, and it is common for an ethnically based diglossia to potentially be divisive, but the possibilities of division are reduced by two factors disclosed in the current survey: (i) the practice of vernacular bilingualism, and (ii) the use of English as a mediating or stand-by language in intergroup interaction. English, it is clear, has the potentiality of becoming an instrument both of nationism and of nationalism, but it will probably have to serve as an artefact of geo-political unity before it can contribute to the evolution of socio-cultural unity in the emergent nation of Fiji. Thirty years later the situation remains problematic and attempts to create a stable society with a stable multilingual ecology continue. 7.3 Competitive language ecologies The reader needs to be reminded of the ecological principle that healthy linguistic ecologies are characterised by a large proportion of functional interrelationships
42
Words and Worlds
(mutually beneficial) between languages and a relatively small proportion of competitive ones. The view that people’s linguistic choices are rational ones, regulated by a rational market forces ignores, as Tollefson (1991) has shown, the fact that the language market is far from free but rather is dominated by the monopolism of a few privileged (sometimes referred to as killer) languages. Competition can take a number of shapes. The most extreme one is the killing off of speakers of minority languages (as happened with many Australian and Amerindian people), resettlement, forced assimilation (which is an ongoing process in many countries), legislation or deliberate status planning and discrimination against smaller languages. In the majority of instances one is dealing with a gradual loss of ecological factors that are needed to maintain structural linguistic diversity. Ironically, languages can be rendered uncompetitive by the very acts that were meant to strengthen them. Standardisation, promotion of literacy and school programmes, as has been argued in Mühlhäusler (1996), can in some instances accelerate the decline of languages and eventual language shift. The two principal reasons, in other words, for language competition are the introduction of powerful regional or national official languages into areas where many small languages are spoken and the migration of speakers of small languages. How these two factors can lead to the extinction of many minority languages in India has been illustrated by Pandharipande (1992). The external conditions which have made smaller local languages unacceptable according to this writer are: (a) mechanisation of professions such as fishing, farming, tanning of leather etc. is rapidly replacing human labour by machines, thus leaving the traditional skills of these communities useless to a great extent, (b) deforestation and urbanisation of the villages have made it mandatory for the tribals to interact with the dominant/majority group for commercial trade or jobs, and (c) the education policy of state governments to promote education among these communities through the medium of regional/state languages has accelerated the speed of learning of the dominant regional language among these communities. These communities view the regional language as a tool for upward socioeconomic mobility in the society. In as much as these changes were brought to the communities from the outside, the choice of shifting to other languages is far from free. It is necessary not just for social mobility, but in many instances, physical survival. Migration again can be both a choice driven by the wish to improve one’s life or it can also be beyond people’s control brought about by war, persecution and forced resettlement. Migrant languages not only are far from the cultural and physical support system that once sustained them and surrounded by numerically and functionally more powerful languages; as Fishman (1991) has shown, there are few instances in which migrant languages have survived for more than three generations but this survival was typically accompanied by a shrinkage in the domains and functions in
Linguistic Communities
43
which these languages are used. First language adaptation is a matter of centuries, the outcome of competition is often a matter of years only. Whatever short-term economic benefits it may bring, the long term consequences are far from beneficial. One of the problems of language shift is that it can lead to a loss of cultural identity. There is a strong but not necessary link between language and people’s identity, the wish to speak the same language typically being driven by the wish to belong to a community of like people (Fishman 1991). The loss of a language can be a matter of grief for a community and can have negative side-effects on its members. When there is a strong link between language and identity, a number of adjustments can occur. In the case of the indigenous languages of Australia, 90% of Australian Aborigines no longer speak a traditional language. However, traditional patterns of language use have been maintained in various Aboriginal Englishes (Eades 1982), for example South Australian Nunga English, South East Queensland English, and the concept of language ownership can persist even where a language is no longer spoken. New Englishes in Australia are not necessarily languages of identity, rather a typical pattern in traditional language whether spoken or not is the focus of identity. Aboriginal English is the language of non-identity with the white majority and standard English a language of communication within the wider community. 7.4 Artificial language ecologies One can argue that diversity is natural and streamlining is artificial and further that most contemporary language ecologies are located at the artificial end of a continuum, with examples of instances where exotic world languages were elevated to national languages being particularly artificial. Thus, just as national languages can be labelled ‘cultural’, language ecologies can also be artificial to a substantial degree. Singapore provides an example of how repeated acts of planning and policy making can create a different ecology. In Singapore, the suppression of small ethnic languages as well as that of nonMandarin varieties of Chinese has been much more deliberate. Goh (1980) reported on the language situation in Singapore as follows: Singapore society is ethnically heterogeneous, with about 76% Chinese, 15% Malay, 7% Indians, and 2% from other ethnic origins. Its language situation is still more diversified since each of the three major ethnic groups speaks many language varieties. A census report identifies more than 33 specific mothertongue groups, 20 of which have more than 0.1% of the population as native speakers. Four major languages are designated as official languages: Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese and Tamil. Hokkien, while a major language, is not an official language. In addition, there are three minor languages: Teochew, Cantonese and Hainanese. (Goh 1980, quoted in Kuo 1980) This policy of egalitarian multilingualism has since given way to a policy of English/Mandarin bilingualism and deliberate official attempts to get rid of Chinese varieties other than Mandarin.
44
Words and Worlds
The European Union, whereas far more tolerant of minority languages, nevertheless has over the years introduced many policies that have remarkably changed its original linguistic ecology and, with a number of new members about to join, more radical solutions (e.g. creating a supernational artificial language, such as Eurolingua or using Esperanto) are being considered. Thus far, artificial language ecologies have been of the streamlining type, i.e. the objective has been to reduce the number of languages spoken. There is no reason why one could not also plan for highly diverse language ecologies in which a maximum number of languages could be sustained. Given the extent of which traditional language ecologies have been disrupted, this would seem a logical task for future language planners. However, management of complex diversity presupposes a great deal more knowledge than is available to most language planners at present. The idea was briefly mooted in the context of planning a multi-ethnic, multi-function polis in South Australia but with the demise of the physical project the plans for cultural and linguistic diversity have also been shelved. An interesting project is that of Romansch Grishun (see contributors to Lüdi 1994) which combines streamlining with planning for diversity. In essence, five very small Romansch languages were merged with into a single standard variety (Romansch Grishun) which is recognised as Switzerland’s fourth official language and which is used side-by-side with the other three official languages in parts of the country. The concept of merging closely related small languages into a single larger more competitive language is also being tried for Sami and other languages (Wurm 1994). What the long-term chances of this approach might be remains to be seen. My remarks on types of language ecologies and speech communities should not be regarded as either complete or as a statement of linguistic fact. It is a pre-theoretical, exploratory attempt to classify a very large number of phenomena, each of them unique, and may require a major revision after more becomes known about the numerous ways in which human beings establish their linguistic identities, define themselves vis à vis others and cooperate or compete with one another.
8. Conclusions Whilst linguists, and to a certain extent sociolinguists, have tended to arrive at generalisations I have in this paper taken the opposite approach. My point is that it is not possible to make sweeping generalisations as to what languages, speech communities and language ecologies are. Rather, humanity has over a very long time arrived at a large number of different solutions to the management of human affairs and to adapting to environmental conditions. A grammar in its widest sense accounts for the fact that the whole is more that the sum of the parts. Sentences, for instance, mean more than what their individual words cumulatively mean. Speech communities or ecologies too are grammatical phenomena in the sense that the whole community is more than the sum of its parts. What matters are the syntagmatic relations or functional links between the parts. At
Linguistic Communities
45
this point only relatively few studies and a small metalinguistic vocabulary exists (e.g. diglossia, balanced multilingualism) to describe the grammar of entities comprised of different languages. To understand why so many individual languages are disappearing requires an understanding of the ecological conditions that sustain complex language ecologies. Language is inescapably linked to the world and affects the well-being of those who inhabit it. Language users want more than to communicate information, they want to maintain social bonds, have a feeling of belonging and identity, to include and exclude outsiders to varying degrees and to manage their environment. In view of the numerous problems of overpopulation, genocide, war, displacement and psychological disturbances in the 21st century, it would seem essential to gain a greater understanding of healthy as well as pathological aspects of different linguistic groups and their interactions. An initial step is to adopt an interlinguistic and ecological perspective in documenting the world’s language communities.
Chapter 2
The Linguistic Heritage A un populu mittitilu a catina spugghiatillu attupatici a vucca, é ancora libiru.
Enchain a people strip it bare, cover its mouth, it is still free.
Livatici u travagghiu u passaportu a tavula unni mancia u lettu unni dormi é ancora riccu.
Deprive it of its work of its passport of the table where it eats of the bed where it sleeps and it is still rich.
Un populu, diventa poviru e servu, quannu ci arrobbanu a lingua addudata di patri: é persu pi sempri.
A people is poor and enslaved when it is robbed of the language inherited from its parents: it is lost for ever.
IGNAZIO BUTTITTA, Lingua e Dialettu, (Sicilian poet)
How many languages are spoken in the world? This is a question we have all asked at one time or another. It is also a question that linguists are often asked and which we have had to answer on numerous occasions. But the answer linguists give to this type of question is usually unsatisfactory, as we can only venture an approximate figure. The fact is that for various reasons it is not easy to give a straightforward answer to this elementary question. One of the reasons it is difficult to answer is that some parts of our planet have not yet been described linguistically and that even today, from time to time, news reaches us of the discovery of new ethnic groups and languages. This happens, for example, in the islands of Indonesia, in regions of Papua New Guinea and in tropical
46
The Linguistic Heritage
47
regions of South America. In 1998, for example, the Vahuadate and Aukedate ethnic groups in Indonesia were “discovered” from the point of view of Western culture. Another reason why it is difficult to answer is related to the names of languages. Languages, in general, tend to be given more than one name, depending on the neighbouring peoples the speakers have dealings with and the name the speakers themselves give their own language. This multiplicity of denominations complicates the job of identifying the language concealed behind different names. The problem is such that the Ethnologue (Grimes 2000), for example, speaks of 6,809 languages and 41,806 names for them and their variants. But the real problem making it difficult to answer is over who should decide when a variety is a language or a dialect, or, in other words, what concept of language we are working with. As has been pointed out already by Mühlhäusler, until recently the concept of European national languages has been decisive in this issue. Until very recently, Luxemburgian was considered a dialect or variety of German. Today, though, Luxemburgian, along with German and French, is one of the official languages in Luxemburg. Who should decide if a variety is an independent language or a dialect of another language? This is a crucial issue, since the concept of language varies according to the period, the place, the culture and the society. After all, who can stop a community with political and economic power that is firmly determined to defend the rank of language for its speech? Such a variety of criteria is used that Grimes (2000), for example, mentions seven different Germanic languages spoken in Germany, while for many these are no more than varieties of German. The same sort of thing happens with other very widespread languages in the world, such as Arabic, English or Chinese. But this question also affects numerous less widespread languages. Who, for example, should decide whether Achi is a variety of the Maya language K’iche’, as the Academy of Maya Languages in Guatemala proclaims, or an independent Maya language, as many of its speakers claim? Who should decide whether the different varieties of Tamazight, Sami or Quechua form a single language or a group of languages? Mutual understanding as one of the characteristics for defining the autonomy of languages is not a valid criterion or at least does not work infallibly. Otherwise, why are Danish, Swedish and Norwegian considered three separate languages if they have no problem understanding each other? Who decides whether or not the Croatian speaker understands the Serbian speaker, the Catalan speaker understands the Spanish speaker or the Urdu speaker understands the Hindi speaker? Furthermore, mutual understanding is not always symmetrical and depends to a large extent on people’s attitudes. But, returning to the original question regarding the number of languages in existence, most linguists today (Crystal 2000, Nettle 1999, Comrie, Matthews & Polinsky 1996, Wurm 2001, Grenoble & Whaley 1998, Hagège 2000) give global figures between 5,000 and 6,000 languages, which we shall also use. If we start with the premise that some 6,000 languages are spoken in the world, their distribution by continent is approximately as follows: 1,900 in Africa (32%), 900 in America (15%), 1,900 in Asia (32%), 200 in Europe (3%) and 1,100 in the Pacific (18%) (see Diagram 4).
48
Words and Worlds 15%
3% 32%
Africa 1900 Asia 1900 Pacific 1100
18%
America 900 Europe 200 32%
Diagram 4. Distribution of languages by continent Based on Krauss 1992 and Grimes 2000
But languages are not uniformly distributed over the different continents either. If we look at linguistic diversity by territories or states, we see that in 22 states there are more than 100 languages spoken, or, in other words, that in those 22 states almost 90% of the languages of the world are spoken (Table 2). Table 2. Number of languages per state State
Gunnemark (1991)
Krauss (1992)
Grimes (2000)
Papua New Guinea
750
850
823
Indonesia
300
670
726
India
350
380
387
Nigeria
400
410
505
Cameroon
200
270
279
–
240
288
Australia
150
250
235
Brazil
150
210
192
Zaire / Congo
200
220–200
218
–
160–100
201
United States
150
160–100
176
Philippines
100
160–100
169
Mexico
China
The Linguistic Heritage
49
Table 2. Continued State
Gunnemark (1991)
Krauss (1992)
Grimes (2000)
Burma
100
160–100
107
Nepal
–
160–100
120
Russia
100
160–100
100
Malaysia
120
160–100
139
Sudan
100
160–100
134
Tanzania
100
160–100
135
Ethiopia
–
160–100
82
Chad
–
160–100
132
100
160–100
109
–
160–100
68
Vanuatu Central African Republic
Based on Krauss 1992, Grimes 2000, Gunnemark 1991
If we classify languages according to the number of speakers they have, we see that a few languages, about 80, have more than ten million speakers each – that is, that 1.3% of languages account for about three quarters of the world population. On the other hand, 81.8% of languages do not exceed 100,000 speakers and 55.5% do not exceed 10,000, though on this question the sources differ considerably (Table 3).
50
Words and Worlds
Table 3. Languages and number of speakers Number of speakers
Number of Percentage of Ascendant Descending languages total number accumulated accumulated of languages percentage percentage
More than 100 million
8
0.1
0.1
100
10 – 99.9 million
72
1.2
1.3
99.9
1 – 9.9 million
239
3.9
5.2
98.7
100,000 – 999,999
795
13.0
18.2
94.8
10,000 – 99,999
1,605
26.3
44.5
81.8
1,000 – 9,999
1,782
29.2
73.7
55.5
100 – 999
1,075
17.6
91.3
26.3
10 – 99
302
4.9
96.2
8.7
1–9
181
3.0
99.2
3.8
1
51
0.8
100
0.8
Based on Crystal 2000
THE LANGUAGES OF NIGERIA Nigeria, with a population of about 100 million, has a little over 400 languages, most of which belong to two large families: Niger-Congo (whose largest subfamily is Benue-Congo), and Afro-Asiatic (whose largest sub-family is Chadic). These two sub-families between them account for most of the country’s languages. In fact, Hausa, one of the country’s three major languages, is Chadic, while the other two, Yoruba and Igbo, are Benue-Congo. Another interesting thing about these sub-families is that Chadic is found mainly in the northern, and northeastern areas, while Benue-Congo spreads across the southern and central parts of the country. The third family, Nilo-Saharan, is represented mainly by Kanuri in the northeastern tip of the country. In addition to languages
The Linguistic Heritage
51
that are indigenous to the country, English is the official language, Nigerian (English-based) Pidgin is an informal medium, and Arabic is used mainly in connection with Islam. It should be clear from the foregoing that Nigeria is typically multilingual with all the challenges that characterise multilingualism. The fact that there are 400 languages to 100 million people does not imply that each language is spoken by ¼ million persons. The three major languages account for about 55 million native speakers, while another 10 million speak one or more of them as an additional language. If a language is not regarded as major, it does not mean it is minor. In practically every State, there is a main language which can be promoted and there are hundreds of smaller languages at the local level. Ideally, all Nigerian languages should find a role at the national, State or local level. The ideal is however often different from reality. In spite of policies purporting to enhance the status and role of Nigerian languages, implementation is generally ineffective. The result is that Nigerian languages are constantly being bombarded by the dominance of English as the language of government and administration, education at almost all levels, most of the media, science and technology and most creative writing. In recent years, international attention has been focused on endangered languages and the need to safeguard them. This effort must not be limited to smaller languages alone but should rightly extend to the dominance of English and the deprivation arising from lack of use of Nigerian languages in prestigious domains. A major constraint in this regard is the lack of political will by policy-makers and unfavorable attitudes to indigenous languages engendered by the colonial experience. If Nigerian languages and cultures are to survive, basic education must be given in a child’s language and efforts must be made to take measures to enhance the value and status of indigenous languages. As long as being proficient in Nigerian languages is not seen as conferring any special rewards or advantages, so long will their use and preservation be hampered. Ayo Bamgbose Ibadan University, Nigeria
Although the number of speakers is often considered decisive for the preservation and future of languages, we would like at this point to stress the relative nature of this question. At first sight it seems to be the case, as Nettle (1999), for example, points out, that below a certain number of speakers a language can have problems surviving. This author indicates the figure of 10,000 speakers as a crucial threshold. But this issue has a lot to do with the type of society and culture.
52
Words and Worlds
Languages with less than 10,000 or even 1,000 speakers can form highly viable communities in which the only language used for all internal purposes is their own. We find situations of this type, for example, in the communities using the Gumawana language in Papua New Guinea, which has 367 speakers according to the 1996 census, Nambikwara in Brazil, with almost 1,000 speakers of which 95% are monolingual, Ka’apor in Brazil, with less than 500 speakers of which 90% are monolingual, Onobasulu in Papua New Guinea, with some 500 speakers, or Secoya in Ecuador, with a similar number of speakers. Similar situations have been described on numerous occasions and in a variety of places, such as the Caucasian language Hinukh in Dagestan (Kibrik 1991) or the Baiso language of Ethiopia (Hagège 2000). The community’s cohesion and its wish to maintain its language and culture can decide their future and so it has been for centuries, as in the case of Baiso in Ethiopia, mentioned above, which for more than a millennium has resisted competition from more widespread languages around it. In other words, as well as the number of speakers, the vitality shown by the language is fundamental. On the other hand, there are languages with more than 10,000 speakers in situations of extreme danger. This is the case, for example, of Breton in France. According to figures by Broudic (1999), although Breton has more than 250,000 speakers, due to the percentage of speakers in the total population (Diagram 5) and their distribution by generation (Diagram 6), the situation seems highly delicate. Global figures for Breton for 1997 (Diagram 6) seem to indicate a rapid reduction in the number of speakers in the coming years, although at the end of the nineteenth century it had almost one and a half million speakers. The number of speakers of a language therefore seems to be a relative aspect. However, a decrease in the number of speakers is an important indicator, as all the experts agree. It is a known fact, for example, that in many parts of the planet aboriginal languages are seeing an alarming decrease in numbers of speakers in a trend that leads to extinction. By way of example, let us look at the extremely disturbing figures for the percentage of speakers of aboriginal languages in Canada and Australia (Diagrams 7 and 8) based on recent censuses. 9% 57%
11%
Good knowledge Fairly good knowledge A few words Nothing
23%
Diagram 5. Knowledge of Breton in 1997 Based on Broudic 1999
The Linguistic Heritage
53
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 74+ years
60–74 years
40–59 years
20–39 years
15–19 years
Diagram 6. Percentage of speakers of Breton by age group in 1997 Based on Broudic 1999
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1951
1961
1971
1981
1991
1996
Diagram 7. Evolution of the percentage of the indigenous population speaking an aboriginal language in Canada Based on Norris 1998
54
Words and Worlds
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30
20.4
20 14
20 10 0 1986
1991
1996
Diagram 8. Evolution of the percentage of the indigenous population speaking an aboriginal language in Australia Based on McConvell and Thieberger 2001
There now follows the contribution by Professor Moreno Cabrera (Autonomous University of Madrid) on linguistic diversity (pp. 54–90). The subjects presented are, first of all, linguistic diversity on the individual, genetic and structural or typological planes, secondly, the location of linguistic diversity in the different parts of the world with particular reference to endangered languages, thirdly, the loss of linguistic heritage and the need to understand the equality and dignity of all human languages and cultures, and finally, the alarming consequences of the internationalisation of English, which the author calls Anglo-Saxon linguistic imperialism.
Linguistic diversity in the twenty-first century Defending our languages and their diversity, particularly against the domination of a single language is more than defending our cultures. It is defending our life. (Hagège 2000) We shall now take a look at the planet’s linguistic diversity and we shall see that this linguistic diversity is in very serious danger. The rate at which the languages and cultures of the less favoured communities are disappearing is increasing steadily and the numerous warnings that have been issued do not seem to have been able to halt the phenomenon in any significant way. It is impossible to discuss the planet’s present linguistic diversity without referring to this circumstance. For this reason, in the last section of this contribution the causes for this dramatic situation are analysed briefly
The Linguistic Heritage
55
and it is argued that the acceleration in the loss of the world’s linguistic wealth has a lot to do with the steady internationalisation of English, which is not based on a spontaneous or natural phenomenon but on certain monolingual models of acculturation that are becoming more and more widespread over the length and breadth of the planet.
Linguistic diversity In this section we shall establish the theoretical bases of linguistic diversity so as to make empirical considerations on this aspect in subsequent sections. We can distinguish three types of linguistic diversity (Nettle 1999): individual, genetic and typological. • Individual diversity refers to the number of languages spoken in the world; it is therefore determined by counting the number of languages spoken in each area of the planet. • Genetic diversity is determined by the number of linguistic families that exist in today’s world. Here, therefore, we count the number of genetically related language groups, called families, that there are in the world. • Structural diversity refers to the degree of variability in the grammatical structures of the world’s languages. We shall examine these three types of diversity in the following sections. We shall examine these three approaches to the concept of linguistic diversity in turn, since all three have important aspects for evaluating and understanding it.
Individual diversity As has been pointed out above, it is quite difficult to count the number of languages spoken in the world, as the criteria applied in different parts of the world are not the same. In countries where one or more standard languages have been officially adopted by the state, that language is usually counted as a single individual, even though there are varieties that differ to a greater or lesser degree. For example, English, German, Chinese and Russian are all counted as four single languages in most accounts, when it is well known that these languages include a large number of different linguistic varieties that are far from identical to one another. Nevertheless, this situation only occurs in certain parts of the world. There are places in the world that have no official standard languages, but a set of more or less similar linguistic varieties which are very often counted as separate languages, even though they resemble one another more than some of the varieties included in the languages mentioned above. Calculations of individual linguistic diversity on a world level are therefore biased, as they reduce linguistic diversity in the industrialised societies and increase linguistic diversity in the other societies. This creates the false impression that the so-called backward societies of the third world show a great linguistic diversity and that that diversity is one of the factors contributing to their so-called
56
Words and Worlds
backwardness, stagnation or isolation. As we shall see in chapter four, these are racist ideas, despite attempts to back them up with seemingly objective facts and figures. The fact is that in Western industrialised societies linguistic variety is similar to that in third world countries, but this variety is disguised and hidden by the existence of standard languages. It is well known that in that part of Europe going from Vienna to Amsterdam there is a chain of Germanic varieties which are locally mutually intelligible and which are disguised behind generic terms like German or Dutch. There is no doubt that the countries making up this part of Europe (Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium) are amongst the most advanced, civilised and developed in the world. The same sort of thing goes for France, Great Britain, Italy and Spain. No correlation can therefore be established between a high level of linguistic diversity and social, political or economic underdevelopment, isolation or stagnation. In addition, in many Western societies, as a result of immigration, there is a very appreciable number of speakers of non-European languages which should be counted as European languages of non-European origin. Something similar can be said of the United States and Canada. According to Grimes (1996), for example, in Great Britain there are thought to be at least 140,000 speakers of Gujarati, an Indo-Arian language from India; in France, there are more than 600,000 speakers of Algerian Arabic, more than 500,000 speakers of Kabyle, a language of the Algerian Berber family, and more than 200,000 speakers of Tunisian Arabic. In the thirteenth edition of the catalogue of languages Ethnologue (Grimes 1996), a total of 6,703 languages are listed. However, this figure is biased by the considerations we have just made. Even so, the increase as a result of splitting up languages like German or Italian could be compensated by the reduction in the number as a result of merging many varieties of indigenous languages which are given as separate languages. For example, the Ethnologue lists more than thirty-five Quechua languages, which could be reduced to just one or two if we used criteria like those applied, for example, in Europe, even though there is no official unified Quechua adopted as a standard language. The problem is much more difficult in the case of areas like Papua New Guinea, where most of the indigenous languages (871, according to this catalogue) are known only poorly or not at all, so that in many cases their degree of similarity cannot be assessed. Even so, a figure of around 6,000 could be taken as the approximate number of languages spoken in the world today. Where languages do show considerable variation is in the number of speakers. The imbalances on a world level are very big and to some extent reflect other imbalances in the world economic and political structure. The following table (Table 4) is sufficiently illustrative.
The Linguistic Heritage
57
Table 4. Percentages of languages with less speakers than the figure indicated Continent
<150
<1,000
<10,000
<100,000
<1,000,000
Africa
1.7
7.5
32.6
72.5
94.2
Asia
5.5
21.4
52.8
81
93.8
Europe
1.9
9.9
30.2
46.9
71.6
22.6
41.6
77.8
96.3
100
6.1
12.1
36.4
89.4
100
South America
27.8
51.8
76.5
89.1
Pacific / Australia
22.9
60.4
92.8
99.5
World
11.5
30.1
59.4
83.8
North America Central America
94.1 100 95.2
Source: Nettle 1999
Although the number of speakers is only one of the factors influencing the preservation and survival of a language, the fact is that the smaller this number is the more weight this factor carries in the risk situation facing a particular language. If we take the figure of 10,000 speakers (Nettle 1999) as the threshold below which the factor of the number of speakers can be considered decisive for the survival of a language, then of the approximately 6,000 languages in the world 59.4% of languages have fewer than 10,000 speakers, which amounts to 3,564 languages. In other words, in the course of the twenty-first century, in view of their endangered situation, it is very possible that half of the languages spoken today could disappear. Amongst them, 30.1% – that is, 1,806 languages – have less than 1,000 speakers. It is possible that most, if not all, of these languages are doomed to extinction in a question of decades. If we take into account languages with fewer than 100,000 speakers, which Nettle himself (1999) defines as languages whose future is seriously endangered this century, then we get 83.8% of 6,000 languages, which means rather more than 5,000 languages. On this basis, only about 1,000 languages can be considered strong languages from the demographic point of view. The simple fact that there are almost 3,500 – or, perhaps more realistically, 5,000 – languages in danger (almost 2,000 of them very seriously), along with the cultures for which they are a vehicle, is a cultural catastrophe of a truly overwhelming magnitude. As Nettle says, “Most of our human heritage is disappearing before our eyes” (1999).
58
Words and Worlds
We may wonder what the cause of this situation is. There are undoubtedly multiple causes of a historical, economic, political and cultural nature which ought to be studied at length. What we can say is that at the heart of this situation and of its steady acceleration at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first can be found, amongst other things, an efficient policy of discrimination, marginalisation and assimilation that has been and is still being applied on a global scale, as I shall explain later.
Genetic diversity Since the beginning of historical-comparative linguistics in the nineteenth century it has been known that many languages can be classified into larger units called linguistic families, which contain all those languages that have arisen as a result of the process of differentiation of a particular ancestral language, known as the parent language. One historically recent case is the Romance family, which includes languages like Spanish, French, Italian, Romansh, Sardinian, Catalan, Galician, Friulan, Ladino, Occitan, whose parent language is vulgar Latin. Although no written testimonies of them have survived, the Germanic languages – German, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, for example – and the Slavic languages – Russian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, for example – are also each descended from their own parent languages and therefore form two distinct linguistic families. Outside Europe we find a similar situation. The more than 1,000 Austronesian languages, which cover most of the Pacific Islands, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, seem to be descended from an ancestral language for which there is no written evidence, which is known as Proto-Austronesian and could be about 6,000 years old. Similarly, the Bantu languages of Central and Southern Africa arose from an ancestral language called Proto-Bantu which must have been located somewhere in today’s Cameroon and whose speakers expanded towards the equatorial forests of the Congo about 5,000 years ago. Several linguistic families have in turn been shown to be genetically related. For example, the Romance, Germanic and Slavic families (along with other families and languages) are demonstrably related to one another and it is therefore postulated that they are descended from one ancestral language usually called Indo-European. A set of related families, taking a term from biology, is called a phylum. So we have the Indo-European phylum, to which languages like Sardinian, Dutch, Greek, Armenian, Belarusan, Breton and Lithuanian belong, languages which at first sight have nothing to do with one another. Similarly, the Bantu, Iyoide, Atlantic, Mande and Kordofanian linguistic families of western and central Sub-Saharian Africa seem to be genetically related and an ancestral language called Proto-Niger-Congo has also been postulated with an age of about 15,000 years. Unfortunately, it has not always been possible to determine how the various linguistic families discovered in the world are linked genetically, although there are proposals – some riskier or bolder than others – which at all events should be seen as
The Linguistic Heritage
59
speculations for research rather than reliable results. The American continent provides an illustrative case. The approximately 900 languages of America can be grouped in the following linguistic families: Linguistic families of America Na-Dené (North America, 41 languages) Eskimo Aleut (North America, 9 languages) Hokan (North America, 43 languages) Penutian (North America, 92 languages) Almosan (North America, 62 languages) Keres (North America, 35 languages) Oto-Manguean (Central America, 19 languages) Uto-Aztecan (Central America, 33 languages) Tanoan (Central America, 8 languages) Ge-Pano-Carib (Central and South America, 193 languages) Tucanoan (South America, 59 languages) Equatorial (South America, 209 languages) Chibchan-Páez (Central and South America, 71 languages) Andean (South America, 30 languages)
Although not all these linguistic families are felt to have been convincingly demonstrated, since some are based solely on a few clues which do not necessarily prove their genetic relation (Campbell 1997), we can nevertheless say that the 900 languages belong to just fourteen linguistic families. One author, Joseph Greenberg, a pioneer in the classification of the linguistic families of Africa, has proposed a macro-phylum called Amerindian (Greenberg 1987), which would contain all the families listed except Eskimo-Aleut and Na-Dené in a single phylum. In that way, America would have just three native language groups, although, as I say, this proposal is considered too uncertain. All together, and with the exception of a few dozen languages that are considered genetic isolates – that is, lone remnants of possible extinct families or phyla – we can say that 90% of human languages belong to one of the following phyla or families. (see also Map 1.)
60
Words and Worlds
Genetic groupings of the languages of the world Afro-Asiatic (includes the Semitic family) Niger-Congo (includes the Bantu family) Khoisan (includes Bushman and Hottentot) Nilo-Saharan Altaic (includes the Turkic family) Uralic (includes Finnish and Hungarian) Chukchi-Kamchatkan (includes Chukchi and Itelmen) Languages of America (a least twelve phyla or linguistic families) Eskimo-Aleut (includes Inuktitut, Yupiit and Aleut) Na-Dené (includes the Attabascan family with the Apache languages) Australian (includes the Pama-Nyungan family of South Australia) Mon-Cambodian (includes Cambodian and Vietnamese) Munda (India) Daic (includes Tai) Austronesian (includes the Malayo-Polynesian family) Miao-Yao Sino-Tibetan (includes the Sinic family) Andamanese (Andaman Islands) Papuan (includes the trans-Guinean phylum, which covers most of New Guinea) Indo-European (includes the Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic and Celtic families) Southern Caucasian (includes Georgian) Northern Caucasian (includes Chechen) Isolated languages: Japanese, Korean, Basque
Therefore, the immense majority of the world’s languages can be classified in these 33 phyla or linguistic families (counting the families gathered under the Amerindian macrophylum individually).
The Linguistic Heritage
61
Typological diversity Typological diversity refers to the diversity of grammatical features to be found in the world’s languages. First, all the languages of the world have an identical general structure: there are elementary significant units (words) and all those words consist of one or more syllables and these syllables, in turn, consist of a concatenation of distinct units of speech, without meaning, called phonemes. Any utterance in any human language can be analysed in this way. For example the West Greenland Inuktitut (Manning 1996) word neqitorpunga, “I ate meat”, is broken up as follows: neqi-tor-pu-nga, where neqi means “meat”, tor means “to eat”, pu is the morpheme for the indicative mood and nga denotes the first person singular. In turn, each of these elements consists of one or more syllables (ne-qi). Each of these syllables consists of several phonemes – for example, tor is obtained by the concatenation of three phonemes: /t/, /o/ and /r/. Expressions in all known human languages can be analysed in this way, showing the deep fundamental affinity between all of them. Within the sphere of phonetics, variability is not very great, since the human speech organs limit the possibilities for the production of sounds. Vowels such as [a] or [i] are very common in languages, the consonants [t] and [k] or [m] and [n] are amongst the most common. There are more complex sounds that are less widespread in the world’s languages. For example, the pharyngealised voiced nasal velar, the affricative voiceless retroflex, the voiceless palato-alveolar fricative lateral, or the voiced pharyngealised dento-alveolar vibrant have been found in very few languages. All these sounds arise through the combination of simpler articulatory gestures that are much more frequent in human languages. As regards the syllable, it seems that the immense majority of humanity’s languages contain syllables of the CV type (a consonant followed by a vowel, as in ka), although the CCV (kra), VC (ak), CVC (kak) and CCVCC (krans) types occur with varying frequency in a wide range of languages. Several languages also have diphthongs such as ya or ay. In the sphere of words we find that languages are unequally distributed between analytic procedures, in which each word tends to be associated with a simple meaning, and the synthetic model, in which a word is associated with a complex meaning composed of simple meanings. For example, the Inuktitut word neqitorpunga shows a high degree of synthesis as it includes four significant elements. In the English translation of this expression “I ate meat” we have three words with a simpler meaning: “I”, the first person singular pronoun, “ate”, the past of the verb “to eat”, and “meat”. What in Inuktitut is expressed through just one word requires three words in English. In this respect, therefore, Inuktitut is more synthetic than English and English is more analytical than Inuktitut. In spite of this superficial difference, the correspondence between the two languages is perfect:
62
Words and Worlds Correspondence of the Inuktitut neqitorpunga with the English “I ate meat” English Inuktitut
I
ate
meat
–nga
–torpu–
neqi–
The only difference is that what Inuktitut can do in the morphology English has to do it in the syntax. However, the English “I” is not as autonomous a word as “meat” and could in some ways be said to act more like a prefix than a separate word (in fact, it is difficult to find contexts in which “I” appears alone in a sentence). In syntax we also find a fairly restricted diversity, since syntactic mechanisms can only be expressed by the following means: word order, function markers and intonation. Normally, the last procedure is present along with one of the other two. For example, to distinguish the object from the subject of an action, Spanish can resort to the use of a preposition to mark the object: Juan vio a María (“Juan saw María”), where Juan denotes the subject and a María denotes the object. In Basque the opposite occurs: Jonek María ikusi zuen, where the ending –(e)k in Jonek indicates the agent function. Furthermore, the auxiliary verb zuen indicates a subject and an object in the third person, so that the function of the participants is also marked in the auxiliary verb form. In English, the order of the words is what indicates the function: “John saw Mary” as opposed to “Mary saw John”. Languages in this aspect use one of these procedures or a combination of them, so that diversity is limited. In vocabulary, languages have some elements in common and elements specific to each one. There is a basic vocabulary that denotes common elements of nature and of the human being itself and which appear in all languages. The known languages have words for “sun”, “water”, “moon”, “star”, “head”, “leg”, “eye” or “tongue” and words denoting basic actions such as “eat”, “urinate”, “copulate”, “walk”, “run”, “sleep”, etc. These words from the basic vocabulary are the ones commonly used to determine the genetic relation between two or more languages.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ETHNOLOGUE TO THE REVIVAL OF WORLD LANGUAGES The Ethnologue: Languages of the World began in 1951 as a catalogue of the languages of the world, and has been published in successive editions ever since by SIL International. It includes information about language names, alternate names, a unique three-letter identification code for each language, speaker population date and source, size of the ethnic group, number of second language speakers, location, names of different countries where the
The Linguistic Heritage
63
language is spoken, names of dialects and their alternate names, language family it belongs to, closeness of dialects, the second language used by speakers, and other information. Information has come from field linguists under SIL International, other linguists, other scholars, linguistic publications and reports, and other individuals and organisations. The latest edition, the 14th, was published in the year 2000. It is printed as two volumes with a total of 1,584 pages. It has information on 6,809 living languages, as well as some extinct languages, and some languages used as second languages only. It includes language maps of many countries, a language family index, and a language name index that includes 41,806 language, dialect, and alternate names. The number of languages listed has grown with most editions, as information about additional languages and corrections become available. Since 1990 the Ethnologue has been on the Internet, increasing feedback and questions from users. Since 1974 the Ethnologue has included growing information about creole languages, often thought by some people to be dialects or corrupted varieties of the languages on which they are based. Creole languages are the mother tongues of a group of people, but pidgin languages are used only for contact purposes among speakers of other languages. The 2000 edition includes 82 creole languages and 17 pidgin languages. Since 1984 or earlier the Ethnologue has included growing information about nonstandard and regional languages that have no official status, and are often considered to be dialects of better known languages, although their speakers cannot understand the better-known language of which they are thought to be dialects. Since 1988 Deaf sign languages have been included in the Ethnologue. It may provide a more complete listing than is available elsewhere. The 2000 edition includes 114 of them. The 2000 edition of the Ethnologue includes information on 8 mixed languages, of growing interest to linguists. Earlier information was provided on some of these, including Gypsy languages and Jewish languages. In the 2000 edition 15 Gypsy languages and 27 Jewish languages are listed. Linguists have used the Ethnologue as one of their sources to provide information on endangered languages in the world. It is hoped and planned that its accuracy and usefulness will continue. Barbara F. Grimes Ethnologue Ed.
64
Words and Worlds
The location of linguistic diversity According to Grimes (1996), out of a total of 6,703 languages, 1,000 – that is, 15% – are of American origin; 2,011 – that is, 30% – are of African origin; 225 – that is, just 3% – are of European origin; 2,175 – that is, 32% – are of Asian origin; and 1,302 – that is, 19% – are of Pacific origin. That means that 97% of the planet’s linguistic wealth has its origin outside of Europe. What most draws one’s attention about the linguistic situation of the twenty-first century are the monstrous inequalities that exist between the world’s languages. Most of them are spoken by very few people and a few are enormously widespread. In America there are two clearly predominant languages: English in the North and Spanish in the South, with a considerable presence of Portuguese (Brazil) and French (Canada, United States and the Caribbean Islands). In Africa, Arabic in the north, English in the west, centre and south, French in the west and centre and Portuguese are the colonial languages that dominate in many decisive political spheres. Native African languages, like Wolof, Hausa, Yoruba, Swahili and a few others are also widespread and influential. In Europe, each state has its dominant language or languages, though English, German and French occupy important spheres, either because of the number of countries in which these languages are official (the case of German and to a lesser extent of French and English) or because of their economic, political and cultural influence (English and French). In Northern and Central Asia, Russian still occupies an important place as an international language, in spite of the disappearance of the USSR. On the Indian subcontinent there is appreciable linguistic variation with an important demographic basis, but English, a colonial inheritance, still plays a decisive role in many spheres. In East Asia, Chinese occupies an important position because of demographic and political factors and its cultural influence, along with Japanese as a language associated with a country with great economic power and cultural prestige. French still enjoys a certain influence in Indochina, as a remnant of its colonial inheritance. In the Pacific, we have Indonesian as a language associated with power centres and French and especially English and French as the dominant languages in many areas (Australia, New Zealand and several Pacific Islands). Beneath this apparent linguistic homogeneity is a much more complex reality in which we find most of the languages of the world, an enormous cultural heritage which in many cases is gradually languishing and disappearing while the centres of cultural, political and economic power do not feel sufficiently involved or concerned. Let us briefly examine the linguistic situation of the world, paying particular attention to this endangered cultural heritage of Humanity. We shall start our overview with the linguistic phyla and families and we shall take our figures from Grimes (1996), which gathers the results of a wide range of studies of this issue.
The Linguistic Heritage
65
North America We have already given figures for the Eskimo-Aleut family in the previous section. Most of the indigenous languages of North America (Canada and USA) are in a very bad situation. For example, the Salish family of British Columbia (south-west Canada) consists of many languages with fewer than 100 speakers and a few with around 500. Of the Na-Dené phylum (Canada and USA), at least 27 languages have fewer than 1,000 speakers. Navajo, the indigenous language with the largest number of speakers, belongs to this phylum. Fishman (1991) reports that in the largest indigenous population in the United States, the Navajo, only half (about 100,000) speak Navajo. A more recent study has raised the alarm: As for Navajo, which is one of the healthier American indigenous languages and cultures by most measures, Diné language and ways of life are deeply endangered. The shift from Navajo to English…is taking place with extraordinary speed. (Lee and McLaughlin 2001) Of some 25 languages in the Algonquin phylum (Canada and USA), there are 15 with fewer than 5,000 speakers. Of the 13 remaining languages in the Sioux family (USA), 12 have fewer than 10,000 speakers, nine have fewer than 1,000 and seven have fewer than 100. The Iroquoian family is no better off: of the six languages in this family, five have fewer than 5,000 speakers, most of them fewer than 1,000. The four remaining languages of the Caddo family (USA) have fewer than 1,000 speakers. Of the 28 languages of the Penutian phylum (USA), there are at least 18 with fewer than 100 speakers, so that the chances for survival for most of these languages are slim. The situation of the indigenous languages of North America, then, is absolutely desperate. It is almost certain that all of them will disappear during the present century.
Central America Most of the languages making up the various families of the Hokan phylum are already extinct or have fewer – in many cases far fewer – than 500 speakers. For example, of the Salinan-Serian family, only speakers of Seri in Mexico remain (about 700), the other two languages in this family, Chumashan and Salinan (California) are already extinct. In the Chibchan family (Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador), 70% of the languages have fewer than 5,000 speakers, most of them fewer than 1,000. All of the languages of the Amuzgoan, Chiapanec-Manguean and Chinantecan families (Mexico) have fewer than 10,000 speakers, most fewer than 5,000. Most of the languages of the Popolocan family of Mexico have fewer than 5,000 speakers. Other language families of Mexico, such as Mixtecan, Mayan, Aztecan and Zapotecan, have a much higher number of speakers. In Mexico, then, we find a degree of preservation of indigenous languages which is totally unknown in the rest of North America, which does not mean that these indigenous American languages are entirely free from danger, in view of their low status of recognition and association induced from
66
Words and Worlds
above and very often assumed from below with poverty and ignorance. The general situation is characterised as follows: Language policy in Mexico can be summarised as a tendency to unify the country linguistically and make native languages disappear. The policy is based on the relations established by the indigenous groups with Spanish-speaking sectors which in turn are based on economic relations and social discrimination transmitted by the media, religion and primarily by the educational system. Since 1964 there is supposedly bilingual and bicultural education. It has amounted to making the communicative barrier between teachers and students less abrupt, but it isn’t a real system of bilingual education and it certainly is not bicultural: the teaching materials are inadequate, the teachers are not qualified and above all their attitude is negative. What they do is use the native language to teach Spanish. (Lastra 2001)
South America The languages of the Ge and Pano families (Brazil) do not exceed 1,000 speakers in most cases. Most of the languages of the Cariban family (Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia) have fewer than 5,000 speakers. The Mataco-Guaicuru family (Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay) consists of languages which also have fewer than 1,000 speakers. The Huitotoan family (Peru, Colombia) is also seriously threatened, as most of its languages have fewer than 1,000 speakers. The Arawakan family (Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela) has 90% of its languages below the 5,000-speaker mark. Ninety-three percent of the Tupian languages (Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay) have fewer than 5,000 speakers. Paraguayan Guarani alone stands out with some 4.5 million speakers. More than half the languages of the Tucanoan family (Brazil, Colombia, Peru) have fewer than 1,000 speakers. The Yanomami family (Brazil, Venezuela) is made up of five languages, four of which have fewer than 10,000 speakers. The Páez-Barbacoan family (Colombia, Ecuador) has several languages with fewer than 10,000 speakers. Of the Andean family, excepting Quechua, the rest are on the verge of extinction. The Zaparo family (Peru, Ecuador) is made up of a series of languages having fewer than 200 speakers. Of the Alakaluf family (Chile), only one language, Kaweskar, remains, with about twenty speakers. Of the Araucanian family (Chile), only two languages remain, one of which, Mapuche, still has more than 400,000 speakers. But some families are already extinct or are on the verge of extinction, like Cahuapanan (Peru) or Chon (Argentina). But even a language with millions of speakers, like Quechua, mentioned above, can be considered endangered. This is how two researchers see the present situation: While the position of Quechua varies greatly from one community and region to the next, there are substantial sociolinguistic data which indicate that Quechua is indeed a declining and threatened language. In Peru, for example, figures from the official census reveal that Quechua monolingualism is steadily giving way to temporary, subtractive bilingualism in one generation, followed by Spanish monolingualism in the next. (Hornberger and King 2001)
The Linguistic Heritage
67
As we can see, the survival of most of the indigenous languages of America is extremely precarious, even in the case of many languages with a large number of speakers. There is only one country in America where an indigenous language clearly dominates, though only in the rural world (Paraguay).
Africa In North Africa the Berber family, while containing languages with an appreciable number of speakers, is cornered and constantly threatened by the predominance of Arabic. The Biu-Mandara family, of the Chadic phylum (Nigeria, Cameroon), consists of 48 languages with fewer than 10,000 speakers. Of the Omotic languages of Ethiopia, 42% have fewer than 10,000 speakers. Of the 94 languages of the Nilo-Saharan phylum, 75 have fewer than 10,000 speakers. In the Khoisan family (Namibia, Angola, Botswana), there are just over 30 languages, of which more than 20 have fewer or far fewer than 5,000 speakers. The large Niger-Congo phylum, which includes the large Bantu family, is the richest and most widespread of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa (it covers western, central and southern sub-Saharan Africa), but that does not mean that there are not dozens of languages in this phylum in serious danger of disappearing under the pressure from other more widespread languages, both African and European. Of the rather more than 640 Bantu or Bantoid languages, more than 200 have fewer than 10,000 speakers. We could mention the Bantu languages of the H and C areas. In the H area (Democratic Republic of Congo, Congo, Angola), there are some 19 languages of which at least 12 can be considered endangered. In the C area (Democratic Republic of Congo, Congo, Central African Republic), there are rather more than 70 Bantu languages of which about 35 seem to have fewer than 5,000 speakers. The situation of the Adamawa families is especially worrying, with 61% of languages with fewer than 10,000 speakers. The languages of the Kordofanian family (Sudan) do not seem to be in a very hopeful situation, either. It comprises some 31 languages, of which 20 have fewer than 10,000 speakers and 13 fewer than 5,000. Most of the native languages of Africa are under pressure from two directions: from the large native languages of Africa-Swahili, Kikuyu, Bambara, Fulani, Amharic, Tigriña, Lingala, Luba Congo, Lugando, Lugbara, Ebe, Wolof, Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo: These major languages are like big fish that deliberately go out to swallow up the smaller languages. Their functional dominance in the national scheme of things dictates, willy nilly, that anyone who desires any meaningful participation in national life must learn to use at least one of them. (Adegbija 2001) and from the European languages inherited from the colonial period: The very presence of European languages and the disproportional prestige associated with them overtly and covertly by virtue of the dynamic roles that they have
68
Words and Worlds played in national life since colonial times is a major threat to African languages which, functionally, become insignificant by comparison. (Adegbija 2001)
THE FUTURE OF FRENCH IN AFRICA With its nearly 2000 languages, Africa is the continent of multilingualism. This explains why many states have granted a European language the status of exclusive or not exclusive official language. French enjoys this status in about twenty of them, essentially in sub-Saharan Africa. It is also widespread in the Arabic-speaking Maghreb. Many states in the anglicised or Portuguesespeaking areas have chosen it as a second foreign language in their concern for economic trade with their neighbours. Yet the 27 African member States of the institutional Francophonie cannot be considered as ‘French-speaking’. All sociolinguistic surveys stress the great diversity in intercommunication situations that characterise those countries, the vitality of their own languages and the gap between the de jure status and reality in the field. The dissemination and vernacularisation of French in Africa are linked to schooling and urbanisation processes. The excessively low schooling rates – hardly 30% in the South of Sahara – and totally inadequate and exclusive education systems cannot satisfy the enormous need for integration and development of a fast growing school-age population. So the French that is spreading is a street-French. One can therefore wonder whether its appropriation by Africans will convert it into a language very different from that spoken in the former metropolis. Regional varieties of French have already appeared, such as Cameroonese, Congolese, Ivorian, Senegalese, and so forth. The massive appropriation of an exogenous language always entails linguistic changes that constitute an endogenous norm. As opposed to the imported – or official – norm, that of the popular French corresponds to informal, home exchanges that are more social and therefore more convivial. They are evidence of a feeling of linguistic security, of freedom of complexes, which allows French to really participate in the African identity, to integrate well into the environment. It is not without reason that linguists speak of “AfroFrench speaking Africa” (Kazadi) or of “French as African language” (Dumont). The acknowledgement of the different “national” French alone can legitimate the “plural francophony”. On the other hand, the media – mostly the audiovisual ones – probably contribute to maintaining a certain intercomprehension which is necessary for official, scientific, administrative or economic functions and carries hopes of social promotion…
The Linguistic Heritage
69
But the major problem is obviously the relationship between French and the national languages. An initial schooling in the environmental language conditions the harmonious development of any child and any community in respect of their sound identity. Shouldn’t we ascribe part of the lack of participation of the majority of socalled French-speaking Africans in their own development, their difficulty achieving democracy and academic failure to the cultural uprooting they are confronted with? Reconciling tradition and modernity through adequate language planning, this is the path to follow to allow French to play an irreplaceable role as a federative element. An effective strategy of functional multilingualism would make French a second language of access to modernity. This approach requires interlinguistic articulation of languages based on an intercultural contract of partnership excluding the very notion of dominant and dominated language, relying on the respect for “partner languages” and open to endogenous norms. In this perspective, French is certainly not intended as a substitute for environmental languages but rather for the “hexagonal” French, which will confine itself to the fields of sciences and international relations. Believing that Africans could do without an international language of access to modernity is as utopian as imagining they could renounce their own languages in their social relations. Raymond Renard University of Mons-Hainaut, Belgium
Europe Europe is the home of some of the most widespread languages in the world today (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian). The existence of independent political states in association with a particular language has meant that many European languages, even those with few speakers, enjoy a favourable situation. However, this does not mean that all the languages of Europe are in good health. Many European languages are at this moment in a precarious or serious situation. Perhaps the most obvious example is Romany. The Gypsies have their own language, Romany (a member of the Indo-Aryan linguistic family), which, following the fate of this people, is cornered, scattered, despised, fragmented and on the verge of total assimilation and extinction. Hagège reports (2000) that many speakers of Romany have disappeared through various attempted genocides. Other authors are just as forthright on this subject: With regard to Gypsies, policies have always been a negation of the people, their culture, their language, in different ways. (Liégeois 1992)
70
Words and Worlds
There are a large number of Gypsies in Hungary, the ex-Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and Romania and they can be found in smaller numbers in other countries in Western and Eastern Europe. However, Romany is a language with no recognition or support of any sort in Europe. Romany is perhaps one of the European languages whose outlook is most uncertain and inevitably tied to the marginalisation and assimilation of the Gypsy people. In the Caucasus, the richest part of Eastern Europe, linguistically speaking, of the 34 North-western and North-eastern Caucasian languages, 15 have fewer than 5,000 speakers. (See Map 2.) There are many languages which in spite of having an appreciable number of speakers, do not seem to have a very clear future unless decisive action is taken in their favour. Amongst these languages is Welsh in Wales, Breton in Brittany, Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic. Frisian, Sami, Casubian, Romansh, Franco-Provençal and Occitan are also in a precarious situation. Fishman (1991) denounces the massive erosion of Frisian and its replacement by Dutch, the dominant language in a large part of the Frisian area and especially in the urban nuclei. Fishman points out that in the town of Heerenveen, located in the south of the Frisian area, 95% of the population spoke Frisian in the 1950s while today the proportion has dropped to 71%, and in the new districts of the town only 42% of the population speaks Frisian and only 25% of the children of mixed marriages learn Frisian. An even more precarious situation is the one facing languages like Bable, Aragonese Fabla, Ladino and Vepsian, which are European languages in serious danger of disappearing. It is especially worth mentioning linguistic communities in European states with a different official language. Denmark, for example, has a community of 20,000 Germans, almost 40,000 Faroese and 50,000 Greenlanders; in France there are more than one million Alsatians and more than 60,000 Corsicans; in Hungary there are more than 200,000 Germans and in Italy more than 300,000; in Norway there are more than 12,000 Finns, in Romania there are more than 1.5 million Hungarians and half a million more in Slovakia. Hagège (2000) reports that the Hungarian spoken in the east of Austria faces an extremely serious threat of extinction. In Oberwart, less than 12 kilometres from the border with Hungary, there are about 2,000 people who have given up Hungarian in favour of the German of Burgenland. Even the European states themselves do not always guarantee, protect and promote the linguistic rights of these communities to speak languages as European as the official languages of the states they belong to. To all this must be added the languages of the immigrants, which receive little recognition, prestige, understanding or protection in a part of the world which sees itself as one of the most advanced.
The Linguistic Heritage
71
NORTHERN CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES The term “North Caucasus”, as a concept of physical geography, is used to designate the area comprising the north Caucasus and the north slope of the Great Caucasus. In Russia, this name has also been applied to the political and administrative unit that included the provinces of Rostov-on-Don, Krasnodar and Stavropol and the Republics of Adygeya, Kabardino-Balkaria, KarachayCherkessia, North Osetia-Alania, Ingushetia, Chechenya, Dagestan and Kalmykia. After the reform of the administrative division of the Russian Federation implemented in 2000 by President Vladimir Putin, which consisted of the implementation of seven Federal Districts in the country, governed by Presidential Delegates, this region has had its surface area increased with the incorporation of the neighbouring provinces of Astrakhan and Volgograd, a total of 626,000 square kilometres with more than 19,000,000 inhabitants. If the Russian Federation is a “nation of nations”, then the Northern Caucasus is the part of the country with the largest number of peoples and ethnic groups, speaking almost 50 languages belonging to a wide range of linguistic families. The Slavonic language family is represented here by Russian, which as well as being the mother tongue of the Russians living in this area and forming the majority of the population is spoken as the country’s official language by the remaining ethnic groups in this District. Two languages belong to the Iranian family: Osettic (whose autoglottonym is Irón Avzag), the official language (a status it shares with Russian) of the Republic of North Osettia-Alania, and Tat, spoken by members of the Tat ethnic group, barely numbering 30,000 people living in small communities scattered over Dagestan and other republics and provinces of the Northern Caucasus without forming a compact territory. Karachay-Balkar (Karachai-Malkar Tif), Kumyk (Kumuk Tif) and Nogai (Nogai Tif) belong to the Kipchak group of the Turkic language family. All these languages, like Osettic, belong in the category of the so-called “titular languages”, or languages of peoples who have given their name to a republic as a political and administrative unit of the Federation: Karachay-Balkar, spoken by more than 300,000 people, is the official language of the Republics of Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia, Nogai is another official language of Karachay-Cherkessia and Kumyk is one of the official languages of the Republic of Dagestan. Kalmyk (Jalm Keli), titular language of the Republic of Kalmykia, is the only language in the Northern Caucasus representing the Mongolian family of languages. Under the name of Caucasian languages are included a set of almost 40 languages, linguistic modalities and/or dialects. The area covered by these languages is made up of the Caucasus and part of Turkey. There are also small
72
Words and Worlds
communities of speakers of Caucasian languages in Syria, Iran, Jordan and other countries of the Middle East. The total number of speakers of these languages exceeds 7,000,000 people. According to the most widespread classification, the Caucasian languages are usually divided into three groups: AbkhazAdyghian, Kartvelian and Nakho-Dagestanian. Georgian, Mingrelian, Laz (Chano) and Svan belong to the Kartvelian language group, which has about 3,800,000 speakers spread over an area embracing the Republic of Georgia and bordering areas of Azerbaijan, Iran and Turkey. The Abkhazo-Adyghian group (North-West Caucasian languages) is made up of the following languages: Abkhaz, Abaza, Adyghe, KabardianCherkessian and Ubikh. Speakers of Abaza (about 350,000 speakers) lack political and administrative identity and live scattered over various republics and provinces of the Northern Caucasus. Adyghe, spoken by some 220,000 people, is the titular and official language of the Republic of Adygeya, while the Kabardian form of Kabardian-Cherkessian, which has some 400,000 speakers, is titular and official in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria and the Cherkessian form (more than 50,000 speakers) is titular and official in the Republic of Karachay-Cherkessia. Abkhaz and Ubikh, like the Kartvelian languages, are, in strictly geographical terms, located outside the Northern Caucasus and therefore the Federal District of the South of the Russian Federation: the first is the official language of Abkhazia, which is a political and administrative unit of the Republic of Georgia, and the second is spoken by a small community made up of descendants of the North-Caucasian Ubikh who emigrated to Turkey on account of the Caucasian war in the nineteenth century. The Nakho group is made up of three languages: Chechen (Nojchiin Mettan), the official language of the Republic of Chechenya, spoken by some 700,000 people, Ingush (Galgai Mot), the official language of the Republic of Ingushetia, spoken by more than 200,000 speakers, and Bats, a language spoken by a community of almost 3,000 people who live in Georgia. Amongst Caucasian languages, the most numerous group (consisting of some 25 languages and linguistic forms with 1,5000,000 speakers) and the most difficult to classify is Dagestanian, the group of highland Caucasian languages spoken by numerous ethnic groups who inhabit the Republic of Dagestan. The most widespread criterion tends to single out two main subgroups amongst the Dagestanian languages: Avar-Ando-Tsezo (which contains the following languages presented by their autoglottonym: Avar Matsi, Kvannab Mitsi, Ashvali Mits, Bagvali, Buijali Mitsi, Chamalaldub Mitsi, Guibdili Mitsi, Kikirli Mitsi, Bezhkalas Mits, Guinuzas Mets, Jvarshi, Tseios Mits) and Lezguian (containing languages whose glottonyms are: Lezgui Chal, Tabasaran Chal, Agul Chal, Rutul, Tsajo, Arshatten Chat and Undino spoken by a small ethnic
The Linguistic Heritage
73
group in Azerbaijan and Georgia). The classification omits Lak (Lakku Maz) and Dargva (Dargan Mez, with its varieties Jaidako and Urbuko), which are characterised by a certain “oneness”. It is worth singling out the demographic potential of four Dagestan languages (Avar, with more than 600,000 speakers, Dargva, with almost 370,000, Lezguian, with more than 200,000, and Lak, with more than 100,000), contrasting with most of the languages of this group, which have between 1,000 and 15,000 speakers. Following the Russian Parliament’s approval in October 1991 of the “Law of Languages of the Russian Federation”, the Republics of the Northern Caucasus passed the respective laws or decrees establishing the “stateship” of their titular languages (in Russian, the concept of “state language” is considered the highest element in the tripartite terminological system “state language – official language – titular language”). As a result of this legislative action, today we can speak of 14 Northern Caucasian languages that have been proclaimed state languages: Avar, Adyghe, Chechen, Dargva, Ingush, Kabardian-Cherkessian, Kalmyk, Karachay-Balkar, Kumyk, Lak, Lezgian, Nogay, Osettic and Tabassaran. As we can see, there are more state languages than there are Republics, and this is because some Republics are plurilingual, as in the case of Dagestan, which has seven state languages, the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria, which has two state languages, and the Republic of Karachay-Cherkessia, which has three. To all these languages must be added Russian, which is still the state or official language in all the Republics of the Northern Caucasus. Alexey Yeschenko University of Pyatigorsk, Russian Federation
Asia In the area of Siberia, of the twelve languages belonging to the Tungus family (Altaic phylum), nine have fewer than 10,000 speakers. We have already seen how the Chukchi-Kamchatkan of the far northeast of Siberia is also in obvious danger. In a recent field study on Chukchi, Dunn reaches the following conclusion: Chukchi is thus a highly endangered language. While at the time of writing there remain lots of native speakers, transmission of the language to the young has been disrupted, and political and economic support for language maintenance is very low. (Dunn 1999) Of the Yeniseian family, the only surviving language, Ket, has fewer than 1,000 speakers. Of the 81 languages comprising the Iranian family, there are at least 52 with fewer than 10,000 speakers.
74
Words and Worlds
In the numerous group of languages of the Indo-Aryan family of northern India, we find a fairly small proportion of languages with fewer than 10,000 speakers. Almost 50% of the Nuristani, West and Sinhala-Maldivian groups have fewer than 10,000 speakers. In the Dravidian family of southern India we find languages with millions of speakers (Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil), but there are also many with fewer than 10,000, more or less 56% of them. The Mon-Cambodian family comprises some 150 languages of which more than 100 have fewer than 10,000 speakers. The Munda family in Italy is in a similar situation, since half of them also have fewer than 10,000 speakers. The same sort of thing goes for the Daic family, which includes Tai, the national language of Thailand; approximately half the languages in this family have fewer than 10,000 speakers. The Bodic family, belonging to the Sino-Tibetan phylum and located mainly in Nepal, comprises some 130 languages of which rather more than 80% have fewer than 10,000 speakers. Of the rather more than fifty languages in the Burmese-Lolo family, about 20 have fewer than 10,000 speakers. The Karen, Nunguisa and Chian families (Myanmar, Thailand and China) also have approximately 50% of their languages below the 10,000-speaker mark. This is a brief and far from complete overview of the linguistic situation of this part of the world.
LANGUAGES IN RUSSIA AND CIS COUNTRIES An ethnic-territorial autonomy is a form of ethnocultural existence in the Russian Federation, surviving in the post-Soviet space. In Russia, this takes the form of intra-state entities where the bulk of non-Russian peoples live in a compact pattern. As a federative state, today’s Russia is made up of 89 subjects, whose nationstate entities include 21 republics, 1 autonomous region and 10 autonomous districts. RF’s non-Russian population amounts roughly to 28 million people, of whom only 18 million live in “their own” republics. According to census data, a total of 180 ethnic groups live in RF territory. From the viewpoint of international law, all of these, barring the Russian people, may be described as national minorities. However, the content of some concepts used in international documents is not applicable to Russia in all cases. Thus, for instance, about 100 Russian ethnic groups developed into “ethnoses” precisely in the Russian territory, i.e., they are capable of forming a state. Other groups of peoples in today’s Russia have their “parent ethnoses” beyond the RF confines. These are more recent ethnic entities, representing peoples living in the CIS, the Baltic countries, Finland, Poland, Greece, Germany, Korea and so on.
The Linguistic Heritage
75
In addition, in Russia’s territory there live ethnoses which have no state of their own anywhere, such as Gypsies, Assyrians, Karaims and others. In Russia, there also exists a group of aboriginal peoples (63), indigenous ethnic entities whose number ranges from several dozens to several hundreds and whose languages must become the subject of linguo-ecology study. In other words, development and preservation of languages of small indigenous peoples, over 30 of whom live in the North, must become a priority task both for science and the state. The year 1996 saw the adoption of the Law “On national-cultural autonomy.” The law provides the basis for the genuine national-cultural self-determination of RF citizens who regards themselves as belonging to certain kindred communities, and for measures to develop national languages, education and culture. Thus, according to recent data provided by the Ministry of Justice, there are 94 national-cultural autonomies registered in Russia. Language and cultural processes in the RF are determined by combinations of three basic factors, namely, polyethnicity of population, the predominant (Russian) nationality, and the existing structure of the national-territorial entities. Micro-censusing of population helps identify an important trend in language development processes of contemporary Russia’s peoples, which is a growing bilingualism and a corresponding slow down of the pace of assimilation. Russia’s schools at present provide training in 38 languages. In close to nine thousand schools 75 national languages are taught as an official subject. In a multinational and federative state, which Russia is, constitutional regulation of ethnic processes includes not only regulation of the rights of the individual but also of the use of national languages in official relations. The integrity of the state and the unity of the system of state government require the use of a single vehicle of official training at the federative level. Russian is the official state language in the entire RF territory (RF Constitution, Part 1, Article 68). It is the language of the ethnic majority of Russia, i.e. 83% of population. At the same time, however, the RF Constitution (part 3, Article 68) guarantees all the peoples of Russia “the right to preserve their mother tongue and to create conditions for its study and development.” Under the CIS Charter, the Russian language is also the official language in the relations between CIS countries in post-Soviet territory. Irina Khaleeva Moscow State Linguistic University, Russian Federation
76
Words and Worlds
The Pacific In the Austronesian phylum, which dominates Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and the Pacific Islands and which comprises more than 1,200 languages, we find more than 800 with fewer than 10,000 speakers. This does not mean that these 800 languages are in immediate danger of extinction, but the fact that the drive of English, the official languages and the vehicle languages of the area (including the Creole languages and the sabirs) means that their future is in no way assured. One illustrative example is the New Hebrides archipelago forming the territory of the state of Vanuatu. Vanuatu is the country with the world’s highest linguistic density, since it has some 150,000 inhabitants and has rather more than 100 languages, all of them belonging to the Austronesian family, comprising almost 10% of the entire phylum (Tryon 1999). This gives a proportion of one language for every 1,500 inhabitants. According to Tryon (1999), none of these 100 languages is taught in the schools and although none of them seem to be in danger of immediate disappearance, we must bear in mind that approximately half of these languages have fewer than 300 speakers. By Tryon’s estimates (1999), the greatest threat to these languages comes from the national language of Vanuatu, a Creole language based on English and called Bislama. Children in Vanuatu tend to use this language when they communicate with one another rather than the languages education takes place in, English and French. Furthermore, the example set by parents who speak to their children in Bislama instead of their local language is catching on. Nevertheless, Tryon notes that the fact that the inhabitants of Vanuatu take pride in their languages and their culture works in favour of the preservation of these languages. According to this author, these feelings can for the time being guarantee the survival of these languages. The linguistic variety of the Island of New Guinea is also absolutely amazing. In Papua New Guinea there are more than 800 languages and in Irian Jaya, the western part of New Guinea, which belongs to Indonesia, there are more than 250 languages. The phylum with most languages on the island of New Guinea is Papuan, which contains numerous linguistic families. Most of these languages have fewer than 10,000 speakers, many of them fewer than 5,000. For example, of the 105 languages of the Sepik-Ramu family, located in the north of Papua New Guinea, there are rather more than ninety with fewer than 5,000 speakers. The Madang-Adelbert family has 102 languages, 100 of which are spoken by fewer than 5,000 people. This is the general pattern in the rest of the families of Papuan languages. Australia, with some 230 indigenous languages, presents a desolate picture of suffering and destruction. The linguists’ opinion leaves no room for doubt: Australian aboriginal languages are dying at a rate of one or more per year. Although there may have been more than 250 languages before European contact, some linguists predict that if nothing is done, almost all Aboriginal languages will be dead by the time this book is published. (Nettle & Romaine 2000)
The Linguistic Heritage
77
The conclusions of a study on the recoverability of these indigenous Australian languages leaves no room for doubt either: Despite occasional instances of revival efforts that attain short-term, unexpected and spiritually uplifting gains for communities of speakers of traditional languages the pattern of attrition and extinction appears inexorable. (Lo Bianco and Rhydwen 2001) We should not be in the least surprised at this dramatic situation. According to Fishman (1991), the first 150 years after the British occupation of Australia have been characterised by a shameful history of destruction of Aborigine peoples through expropriation of their land, destruction of their holy places and inhuman and demeaning treatment. The results of this genocide are quantifiable: from a population of more than 250,000 people, in less than a century and a half they were reduced to 80,000 people. The consequences for linguistic diversity have been devastating: of at least 300 languages spoken at the time of contact with the British, only about 50 languages remain that have an appreciable number of speakers, of which only two or three seem to have any chance of surviving in the twenty-first century (Fishman 1991). The figures to be found in the Ethnologue amply confirm these opinions. Of more than 200 Australian indigenous languages, only 53 have more than 100 speakers, there are nine with more than 1,000 speakers and none reaches the figure of 4,000 speakers. Compared with this, the situation in Aotearoa (New Zealand) as regards Maori, the indigenous language of the island, is far more hopeful, in view of this people’s struggle to preserve their language and culture. This struggle crystallises in the Te Kohanga Reo movement (Home of the Language) for the revival of Maori, whose first centre opened in April 1982, and moves by the Kura Kaupapa Maori (Schools of Maori Philosophy) (May 2001), whose first centre opened in 1985. The results of the introduction of these two Maori educational movements are very important: There is still much to be accomplished in the arenas of language and education in Aotearoa/New Zealand – of that there is no doubt – while the wider political struggle for group-differentiated rights for Maori continues. However, in the areas of language and education, Te Kohanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa Maori represent, for the first time since 1840, a genuine educational alternative that meets the terms outlined in the Treaty of Waitangi of ‘guaranteed [and active] protection’ of Maori language and culture. The aims of Kohanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa are also consistent with the developments of international law and other national arenas…Moreover, they are contributing to Aotearoa/New Zealand’s slow move towards a genuinely bilingual and bicultural society. (May 2001)
78
Words and Worlds THE LANGUAGE CONCEPT IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA
There is no such thing as a culture neutral definition of a language. The Western concept of language, including that of professional linguists, has been shaped by the experience of European nation-state languages. English, Hiri Motu and Tok Pisin are referred to as national languages of Papua New Guinea by younger members of post independence society, and the view that there are 800 plus indigenous languages has found its way into the education system. These are recent developments and traditional ways of conceiving ways of speaking have been quite different. In many instances the traditional criteria used to distinguish between different ways of speaking are at odds with professional linguistic criteria, such as intelligibility or shared core lexicon. Linguists have talked about the lack of clear linguistic boundaries in terms of dialect and language chains but nevertheless drawn arbitrary boundaries and labelled languages. Structural criteria are unreliable indicators of traditional language boundaries, as these reflect factors such as wanting to be members of a group, sharing social obligations or having a common enemy. A very large proportion of what modern linguists have labelled ‘language’ have no traditional name – most names featured in existing lists of language names were given by expatriate linguists, administrators and missionaries. There seems to be no clear distinction between language in an abstract sense and concrete talk, nor a boundary between language and other cultural forms of communication. In many instances, the ability to understand and use language is extended to spirits and animals. There is a perceived direct link between verbal utterances and what they refer to. The belief that there can be dangerous words has promoted taboo words and secret speech forms. Where groups of speakers from time to time agree on identifying with a particular language what is understood by the term ‘language’ may differ greatly from situation to situation. The notion that one can identify, count or classify the languages of Papua New Guinea is a recent idea, one which made no sense in precolonial Papua New Guinea. A perusal of the last hundred years of writings on the linguistic scene in Papua New Guinea presents a very confusing picture. There are few attempts to explore indigenous views on what a language might be. There are constant changes in both naming practices and drawing boundaries between languages: each list of Papua New Guinea language names has a different number of languages and distinct differences in name.
The Linguistic Heritage
79
The notion that there are either 700, 800, 846 or whatever languages in Papua New Guinea is devoid of precise meaning, as the entities counted are not readily comparable. Whilst the indigenous concept of language and communication remain unexplored, a new generation of Papua New Guineans is being educated to subscribe to a Western concept of language. A major problem which has arisen from the projection of Western metalinguistics views on a linguistically very different language ecology, is that it is difficult to diagnose changes – the fact that languages disappear from a list does not say much about language decline. For instance, the current Ethnologue lists a single language Pinai with eight dialects (among them Wapi and Hagahai) with a total of 600 speakers. Nekitel (1998), Professor of Linguistics at the University of Papua New Guinea, lists three languages, Pinai 1500 speakers, Wapi 1200 speakers and Hagahai 300 speakers. It is difficult to see how such confusing information can be the basis for any action concerning language policy and planning. What has kept the languages of Papua New Guinea viable is not names, boundaries or numbers but the fact that Papua New Guinea has highly structured multilingual language ecologies inhabited by typically unnamed and uncounted lingua francas, Pidgins, vernaculars, sign and drum languages etc. To conceptualise these ecologies would seem a precondition for carrying out linguistic diagnosis and linguistic rescue work. Peter Mühlhäusler University of Adelaide, Australia
The Linguistic hecatomb Gure herriak ez dauka kondairarik Pobrea da. Ez dauka pirata koxkor pare bat, langile sofritu batzuk, muga zentzungabe asko, mila zorigaizto besterik. Ez da gutxi Euri gortina batek ixten du gure kalendarioa. Ez da bilatu kondaira unibertsalen liburu handietan gure inperiorik.
Our country does not have a history. It is poor. It does not have anything but A couple of little pirates, Some suffering workers, Many senseless borders And thousands of misfortunes. It’s not that little. A rain curtain closes our calendar. No empire of our own is to be found in the big books of Universal History.
(Joxe Azurmendi, Manifestu atzeratua, 1968)
80
Words and Worlds
As we have seen previously, it is clear that at this moment the world is going through a gradual reduction of the linguistic and cultural wealth treasured over many thousands of years. Linguists have begun to realise the scope of the problem after many decades in which only a few specialists had worried about it. The alarm has been raised and there are monographs devoted to letting the world in general know of this critical situation. Books aimed at the general public, like those by Nettle and Romaine (2000) and Crystal (2000), are illustrative examples of this trend. See Map 3 for a description of the situation of the languages of California. It is absolutely vital to realise, in order to understand this situation, that the explanation for the death of languages is connected with the result of a certain type of policy of assimilation and oppression which powerful communities exert on small communities that are at a disadvantage and which since colonial times have begun to have an effect on a global scale. This sort of oppressive policy is not exclusive to the colonial period when slavery existed, but still exists today in other more modern forms, which explains the accelerating pace at which languages and cultures are becoming extinct.
Cultural genocide in the world today The explanation sometimes given for this situation is that the small languages that are disappearing are those of communities representing residual stages in the development of Humanity, who must be assimilated and indoctrinated in order to have access to the economic and cultural forms of civilised and advanced Humanity, which goes with economic, social and political progress. Furthermore, these small languages and cultures have nothing to contribute to the cultural wealth of Humanity unless they quickly assimilate the languages and cultures associated with the centres of political and economic power within whose area they fall. Therefore, the disappearance of so many languages and cultures is no more than a collateral occurrence, regrettable but inevitable, in view of Humanity’s progress towards the sort of society that is considered more advanced. They are remnants from earlier periods which it is felt must be put behind us as soon as possible. These communities are invited to adopt the linguistic, cultural, political and economic patterns which are considered a guarantee of social, political and economic success and progress. In face of this, it has to be said that the disappearance and minorisation of many languages and cultures and the spread of English as an international language in most spheres of decision-making is no more than the result of a conscious, predetermined policy of cultural genocide and imperialism, carried out by the great world powers and the smaller powers subordinated to them, who have no qualms about using psychological or physical violence for the sake of destroying linguistic and cultural diversity and to bring about the imposition of a handful of languages in the decision-making spheres of economic, political and social organisation. To sum up, the present situation of severe regression in linguistic and cultural diversity is the result of imperialist practices against many small communities on our planet and the coercive imposition of certain languages and cultures by the hegemonic Western societies, whose actions are not based on the principle of respect for the linguistic and cultural rights of small communities.
The Linguistic Heritage
81
Many examples could be given of this oppressive imperialist policy. The following are a just a small cross-section, denounced by the Non Governmental Organisation Survival International, which are taking place at this moment: • The linguistic discrimination and oppression the Tibetans are subjected to by the Chinese government. • The linguistic and cultural genocide to which the Turkish government is trying to subject the Kurds. • The maltreatment by the government of Botswana of the Bushmen, still today seen as savage and primitive hunters, marginalised and trampled by the government. • The constant attacks by the government of Brazil on the territorial and cultural integrity of the Yanomami and other native peoples of the territory of this country. • The continuously unfulfilled promises of recognition of the territorial integrity of the Wichi by the government of Salta (Argentina). • The marginalisation and systematic invasion of the Naskapi Indians (Innu) by the Canadian government. • The marginalisation of the culture and language of the Berber people in the countries of North Africa and the null or scarce official recognition of Berber in Morocco and Algeria. • The marginalisation, scorn and continuing persistent attempts at the cultural and linguistic genocide of the Gypsies in many of the countries of Europe. • The continued oppression of the Khanti (west Siberia) by the oil companies since the sixties, which have endangered or totally prevented their traditional means of subsistence. As this Non Governmental Organisation proclaims, “There are some 300 million indigenous people all over the world, organised in viable contemporary societies with complex lifestyles and progressive ways of thinking. They are not remnants from a past age.” Indigenous peoples are part of the present and not just part of the past. All communities, as historical communities, have ties with the past. The large Western communities are also a product of the past. Modernisation and the age of globalisation are leading to the disappearance of many languages and cultures because a series of deliberate and sustained policies are being implemented that are directed at eliminating them, either through assimilation or through physical violence (destruction of these communities’ habitat and resources) or social and psychological violence (destruction of their self-esteem and of the valuation of their language and culture). This is how it was described in a recent study of today’s hunter-gatherer communities: For most indigenous minorities, the transition to modernisation is a synonym of impoverishment, racism, violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide and social disintegration. In fact, the tendency to consume toxic substances can be
82
Words and Worlds symptomatic of an unconscious desire of self-destruction, and a mute protest against the collapse of the old values. For Pygmy, San, Negrito, Inuit and other economically marginal groups, ways of life have already changed or will soon do so, with modifications of the environment, such as game depletion and competition from other types of economies. (Froment 2001)
Ever since the colonial period, sometimes openly and sometimes covertly, the large Western political and economic powers have applied an absolutely scandalous policy of cultural genocide. There is no natural process of progress that leads inevitably to marginalisation followed by the disappearance of the greater part of the planet’s small local languages and cultures, so much as a policy directed at those ends which has had unquestionable success during the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. There are a series of suppositions which, though not explicitly acknowledged, shape this policy of cultural marginalisation and destruction. First, the racism which, in spite of all the formal declarations against it, still exists in every corner of the world. The concepts of primitive society or savage, backward or tribal community are clearly racist. The communities these pejorative labels are applied to are made up of people with exactly the same abilities and the same needs as people in Western societies, neither more nor less. There is no backwardness, either physical or mental, that can be considered characteristic of these communities. It must be stated that any idea of this sort is declaredly racist. These prejudices give rise to the belief that these savage communities need to be educated according to Western models. This presupposes another racist idea, namely that these communities are ignorant and backward and are therefore incapable by themselves of assimilating contacts with others in their own way, following their own behaviour patterns, their own culture and their own language. Here it is the industrialised Western societies who are ignorant, as they know nothing or almost nothing about the language, culture and customs of these communities and simply assume that they are primitive and inferior and must therefore be assimilated as soon as possible to Western models and must be guided and controlled by them to ensure their survival, showing a paternalism based on the racist and discriminatory idea that these communities are not of legal age or are primitive. From the general racism which predominates today in the modern world, and which demonstrates its radically conservative and retrograde nature, is derived linguistic racism or linguicism – the term used by Phillipson (1992) to refer to discrimination on the basis of linguistic differences – according to which some languages are more developed or more suitable for modern life than others. Languages are classified as modern languages of communication and indigenous languages serving only to express a people’s identity but not having any communicative or cultural value. As Phillipson has remarked: The labels currently used in political and academic discourse to describe English are almost invariably positive ascriptions. By implication other languages lack these properties or are inferior.
The Linguistic Heritage
83
In this way, descriptions such as international or global language, auxiliary language, link language, neutral language, encounter language, language of culture or language of science, applied to English, French and Spanish, have as their complement the characterisation of other languages as local languages, tribal languages, regional languages, local or tribal dialects or speeches, exclusion languages, nationalist languages, uncultured languages, languages of poverty, languages of non-communication, languages of superstition, etc. These implications manifest linguistic racism or linguicism, because all the languages of the world are languages of communication, of culture, of understanding, of knowledge and of excellence. If some languages are more advantageous or more widespread than others, this is due to circumstances outside them, such as the social, political or economic conditioning that makes some communities appear more highly favoured than others in one or more spheres. The identification of culture with written culture is another of the racist ideas dominating many areas of today’s Western world. It is felt that written culture and literature, which are typical of the dominant powers in the Western and Oriental worlds, are superior to cultures with an oral tradition, which are typical of smaller communities, who do not make use of writing. But it is quite clear that oral cultures and literatures are much richer and more varied than written cultures. First of all, let me say that all communities have oral culture and literature, even those considered more advanced. What is more, written culture and literature arise from oral culture and literature and hardly ever the other way round. Therefore, written culture and literature arise from a transposition of oral culture and literature to a written medium. Indeed, any language that is written has previously been spoken and, what is more important, is in most cases still spoken today. It is not true that literature arises with writing. Literature has arisen in and from orality in all cases, including those of the major Western societies. Anyone who says that there is no oral literature in Western societies is wrong. Written literature and culture have not supplanted oral literature and culture in any of the Western societies. In those societies in which there is a written press, there are also oral means of diffusion, which always have larger audiences and more influence. In all spheres of industrialised societies, orality is used as an essential element: from work interviews to court hearings, from political meetings to scientific congresses, from primary education to further education, from café gossip to parliamentary debates. Writing has not managed to supplant orality in the industrialised countries. In fact, amongst the most representative inventions of these post-modern societies are radio, television and the mobile telephone, which have given a new dimension to orality. We have no right to despise languages and cultures with an exclusively oral tradition, because orality is also fundamental in our advanced industrialised societies. To think otherwise is to lapse once again into cultural and linguistic racism.
84
Words and Worlds
On equality and dignity in all human languages and cultures Human languages are diverse by nature. Each community tends to develop its own way of speaking that identifies it as a community and distinguishes it from other communities. This is even possible in several communities that speak what is identified as the same language. It is a perfectly documented fact that languages develop distinctive idiosyncratic forms that identify a specific linguistic community. The English of Seattle is not the same as the English of Houston, the Spanish of Oviedo is not the same as that of Seville, the German of Hamburg is not exactly the same as the German of Munich. The standard languages adopted by today’s national states are more or less artificial conventions adopted in the basic institutions of these states. This is the case of standard English or Englishes, standard German, standard Spanish or Spanishes and many other languages. These standard languages, furthermore, are not entirely neutral, but are based on a certain variety associated with some centre with social, political or economic prestige. For example, standard French is based on the Francian variety, standard Peninsular Spanish is based on the Castilian variety, standard Italian is based on the Tuscan variety. There is therefore no standard language that is entirely and politically neutral: Ethnicity and nationalism…inhabit the very structures of the civic societies in which we live. In effect, both the political and administrative structure of the state and its civil society are ethnicised. This is achieved principally via the artificial establishment of a ‘common’ civic language and culture. This supposedly common language and culture in fact represents and is reflective of the particular cultural and linguistic habitus of the dominant ethnie, or Staatsvolk. It is a majoritarian particularism masquerading as universalism. (May 2001) Standard language is based on a conventional concoction of the basic varieties resulting in a more or less prefabricated language which, when spoken in the different linguistic communities, takes on special distinguishing features. This is so because real linguistic activity works through variation and differentiation, which are at the root of two essential elements of languages: their constant adaptation to social dynamics and their use as an indicator of identity. These two examples are what allow languages to persist over time and survive the multitude of social upheavals a community is inexorably exposed to. They also make it possible for language to be a sign of cohesion and identification for communities. A specific way of speaking constitutes a sign of intragroup cohesion and a sign of intergroup identification. Just as the human being is equipped to deal with linguistic diversity, since according to what I am saying languages themselves keep adapting dynamically to social changes, they are also equally capable of understanding related linguistic varieties from other linguistic communities. In none of these aspects do standard languages occupy a significant place. Standard languages do not provide any further essential range in the cohesive and communicative aspects that are not present in the varieties.
The Linguistic Heritage
85
The process of standardisation of a language or groups of linguistic varieties does not introduce elements that fundamentally modify the quality of that language and make it superior to the varieties. The value of a standard language is the value given to it by the community that adopts it freely or by obligation. It is not, however, an intrinsically superior language but, at most, the outline for a language, an unfinished language which needs to be constantly remade and recreated through whatever use is made of it, as happens with non-standard languages. All of this means that those communities that do not have a standard language of their own (most of the world’s communities), which is a Western phenomenon associated with a specific type of politico-social organisation, are communities as perfect or imperfect linguistically speaking as those that do have a standard language. The differences arise from the structure according to a particular model, but the languages of the former communities have exactly the same cohesive, communicative and identificative possibilities as these. Linguistic communities without a standard language must not therefore be looked on as inferior, backward or less evolved in comparison with those with a standard language. These communities, like any human community, have one or more developed languages and a literary tradition that is transmitted orally. Oral transmission of a language is also characteristic of Western societies, where written language is acquired once the language spoken has been acquired orally. We cannot therefore look down on a language for not being standardised or written.
English as the natural language of globalisation English is far from being a neutral language that can be associated with a progressive internationalisation of Humanity. English, whether we like it or not, is associated with a certain specific type of culture, as worthy and valuable as any other, of course, but never superior. Language and culture are closely connected by three aspects (Fishman 1991): the indicial, the symbolic and the constituent. English is the language of Shakespeare and Spanish is the language of Cervantes, classical Arabic is the language of the Koran. It is something that cannot be avoided in any way; when we use a certain language there is an indicial reference, deliberate or not, to certain cultural referents and patterns. In its symbolic aspect, language works as a symbol of a certain culture; English is a symbol of Anglo-Saxon culture and Spanish is a symbol of Hispanic culture. We cannot strip English or Spanish of this symbolic aspect, in the same way as it is very difficult to eliminate the connotations of a swear word. As regards the constituent aspect, language forms a constituent part of a certain culture. English is a constituent part of Anglo-Saxon, for example. It is very difficult to imagine the association of the Anglo-Saxon culture with Chinese or Russian. It is very difficult to express oneself in English and set oneself outside Anglo-Saxon culture or the AngloSaxon colonial sphere. The neutral image of English (and of other languages) is used for imperialist purposes, as explicitly stated by Phillipson:
86
Words and Worlds Claiming that English is neutral (a tool, an instrument) involves a disconnection between what English is (‘culture’) from its structural basis (from what it has and does). It disconnects the means from ends or purposes, from what English is being used for. The type of reasoning we are dealing with here is part of the nationalization process whereby the unequal power relations between English and other languages are explained and legitimated. It fits into the familiar linguicist pattern of the dominant language creating an exalted image of itself, other languages being devaluated, and the relationship between the two rationalized in favour of the dominant language. This applies to each type of argument, whether persuasion, bargaining, or threats are used, all of which serve to reproduce English linguistic hegemony. (Phillipson 1992)
From Anglo-Saxon imperialist standpoints it is preached that international English makes us more cosmopolitan and makes us feel like citizens of the world, free from sentimental and exclusive nationalisms. Some linguists have realised that the spread of English is resulting in the domination and even disappearance of other languages and cultures: American English cannot be a real international language, i.e. a neutral instrument for everyone to communicate everywhere. It is the vehicle of a culture that may well swallow up all the others and convert them in negotiable products. (Hagège 2000) This French linguist draws a direct connection between the lightning spread of English and the speeding up of massive language extinction on a world level: All factors of language death, whether political, economical or social, can act to the detriment of any language except English, and in favour of the latter. The strength and rapidity characterising the current dissemination of English worldwide are by far surpassing those that in the past allowed other languages – such as Latin two thousand years ago – to lead a great number of languages to total extinction. (Hagège 2000) Other students of the relations between languages and nations take the same approach: Globalisation has clearly played an important part in the rise of English as the current world language… But this is not the whole story, since the current ascendancy of English also clearly has longer historical antecedents. Indeed, the rise of English to be the pre-eminent international language has had much to do with the role of Great Britain the dominant colonial power over the last three centuries…The increasing sociopolitical and socioeconomic dominance of the USA, and its preeminent position in cutting-edge media and telecommunication, has ensured that English remains at the forefront of the world’s languages. (May 2001) The spread of English is far from being a natural or spontaneous phenomenon. There are institutions funded by Great Britain and the United States whose object is to make English an international language. Phillipson (1992) mentions the British Council and
The Linguistic Heritage
87
the United States Information Agency as agents of Anglo-Saxon linguistic imperialism whose object is the recognition of Anglo-American cultural values. This, of course, may be legitimate, but in no way does it make English a culturally neutral language, as it is sometimes said.
The teaching of English, monolingualism and cultural assimilation Phillipson (1992) shows how the basic premises of the teaching of English as a foreign language, as laid down at the Commonwealth Congress on teaching English as a second language, which took place in Makerer (Uganda) in 1961 (Phillipson 1992), have been decisive in creating or favouring the necessary conditions for increasing the hegemony of English, especially in areas outside Europe. These premises, according to Phillipson (1992), are as follows: • Monolingualism in the teaching of English. English should normally be taught exclusively in English, without resort to another auxiliary language. • Ideally the English teacher should be a native speaker. The native speaker and, even more important, the way he or she speaks English, are considered the basic model for the teaching of this language. • English should be taught as early as possible. The younger the learner of English, the better the results obtained. • The more English is taught, the better. Teaching of English should embrace the largest possible number of spheres. • The quality of the results of English teaching is inversely proportional to the use of other languages. The more other languages different from English are used, the less successful its teaching will be. This is not the place for an examination of the efficacy of these points of view mentioned by Phillipson for the teaching of a second language, but let us look at the ideological aspects concealed behind these postulates and their relation with a monolingualist ideology that sees cases of bilingualism or plurilingualism as no more than stages in the transition to monolingualism in the dominant language. The idea that only English and no other language should be used when teaching English is clearly aimed at linguistic substitution rather than at the coexistence of languages. This is even more obvious bearing in mind the third supposition, that English teaching should be introduced as soon as possible. This allows for the possibility that English could eventually replace the student’s native language. The idea that the use of other languages can have harmful effects on the teaching of English, the fifth supposition, once again shows that this proposal is based on a monolingual ideology. The first, third and fifth suppositions, therefore, regardless of whether or not they are considered effective or suitable in the teaching of a foreign language, are signs of a clearly monolingual mentality tending towards the replacement of our various languages by one single language.
88
Words and Worlds
The second and fourth suppositions reveal another of the basic pillars of linguistic imperialism: induced assimilation and acculturation. First, to say that the best teachers must be native speakers implies two concealed ideas: the English of native speakers (British or United States) is the best and most correct English and, secondly, by suggesting this type of teacher as a model, someone is being proposed who has normally been educated according to an Anglo-Saxon educational model which thereby becomes a universal model for all parts of the world (educational imperialism). Considering native English as correct English and the remaining forms of English speech as incorrect or defective has the following consequence: since the number of people who learn a foreign language and get to speak it like a native is very low, there is an extremely high number of speakers of English who speak it badly or incorrectly, with the discrimination that this involves. The worldwide spread of English is creating a kind of cultural proletariat characterised by its incorrect, defective use of English, which brands them as second-class cultural citizens compared with the natives, who are first-class. To reach a level in one’s use of English close to that of the natives it is often necessary to spend a long time intensively involved in Anglo-Saxon teaching institutions, which ensures they are assimilated in depth, as speaking English correctly means neither more nor less than speaking according to the canons of the British or United States educated norm. Only those prepared to undergo all this will be able to shake off the cultural undervaluation involved in using English incorrectly. The fourth supposition lies at the root of one of the basic postulates of the teaching of English: it is not enough just to learn to understand English, one must also learn to use it actively, to speak it fluently. Linguistic imperialism considers that just learning to understand a language is imperfect and faulty learning. Someone who says they understand English but can’t speak it is not normally valued as highly as someone who says they can do both. It is obvious that the passive teaching of languages favours plurilingualism, since it is much easier to learn to understand several languages competently than it is to learn to speak them competently. It is well known that learning to use a language actively involves much greater effort and dedication than learning it simply for passive use, that is, for understanding. This clearly favours monolingualism: the time spent learning to speak one language is time taken away from the passive learning of others. Furthermore, the predominance of passive language learning does not favour speakers of the dominant language, as they have to make an effort to understand the language of the dominated, if they really want to understand them. But people who speak a dominant language, such as English, are rarely prepared to make this effort. Therefore, the model of monolingual and assimilatory imposition, which to a large extent is the model used in the teaching of English (and of other European languages like French and Spanish), not only facilitates the spread of the language and creates the conditions for it to replace other languages, it also creates a large number of second-class citizens who use English (or French or Spanish) not entirely correctly, at
The Linguistic Heritage
89
the same time as it means that native speakers of English (or French or Spanish) do not need to make any effort to understand, let alone to speak, the language of others. With a model of this sort it is difficult to be optimistic regarding the future of linguistic diversity on our planet.
Conclusion We have seen the immense linguistic and cultural wealth our planet still treasures, but we have also seen the trends on a world level, left over from the colonial period, towards the implantation of a model based on monoculturalism and monolingualism. This model places no value on the mutual understanding of languages and cultures as the basis for the cementing of harmonious relations between the peoples of the world, but considers that there are modern cultures and languages and backward cultures and languages and that the backward communities must assimilate this model as soon as possible and that it does not in the least matter if their cultural and linguistic idiosyncracies are partly or totally lost in the process of assimilation. The policy of imposing ideas, cultures or languages has often been the origin of conflicts between the world’s communities and peoples and will continue to be so. Western models of economic, political or social organisation demand that the agents intervening in them adopt a very limited number of languages, normally those of the dominant layers of society, and therefore force many of those agents to abandon their own language in favour of one that is strange to them and in which they will probably feel less sure of themselves than native users of that language. On this sort of basis, mutual understanding between the world’s communities becomes submission and cultural and political dominance. In this way it will never be possible to build a world in peace and harmony. As Froment points out in referring to the future of hunter-gatherer communities, this can only take place on the basis of respect for all facets of the life of small communities and their way of assimilating the changes brought about by relations with other communities: In the end, the biological consequences of modernity for hunter-gatherer groups will be dictated by the evolution of social prejudice against them, their access to school, affluence and health facilities, the acknowledgement of traditional rights to land, as well as their own choices in the matter of development. (Froment 2001) Although at this moment English is the imperialist language par excellence, the problem does not lie in English as such, since it is as respectable as a language as any other, so much as in the monolingual assimilation models linguistic imperialism is based on. This does not imply that if English were to vanish (a highly improbable hypothesis in the present world), other languages would live in equality. Dominant languages in multilingual communities and in a multilingual world
90
Words and Worlds are dominant because their speakers have the power to secure advantages for their own group, among them linguistic advantages. Thus linguicism serves to maintain the dominant position of French in a substantial number of countries which are linked to France in an imperialist structure in much the same way as English linguistic imperialism operates. (Phillipson 1992)
Linguistic diversity, like cultural diversity, is something that enriches Humanity and which we ought to care for between us all. What is needed is a radical change in mentality. If we really want to understand each other we ought to take an interest in understanding each other’s language and culture, but the effort needed to do this will only be made on the basis of mutual respect. If we think that the other person’s culture and language are inferior to our own – that is, if we take a racist attitude – we shall never make the effort needed to understand the other person, who is as human as we are. The monolingual attitude being imposed on a global level is intrinsically counter to peace and harmony and furthermore is lacking in legitimacy: I have argued that this assertion of continued monolingualism has no real or legitimated basis – certainly, at least, not under the auspices of individual rights – since the opportunity and right to continue to speak the dominant language is in no way threatened by minority-language recognition. (May 2001) Nothing can change if we are not prepared to change this mentality and, far more serious, if we are not even aware of it. Since it seems difficult to change the mentality of those who are already educated, then perhaps education for tolerance, the valuation of other cultural and linguistic communities and mutual understanding, and against racism, is the only basis on which we might, in the future, build a truly fairer and more human world.
Recommendations on linguistic heritage In view of the imminent danger of loss of our linguistic diversity, we recommend • Spreading the idea amongst international bodies and the general public that linguistic and cultural diversity is a heritage that must be preserved as actively as possible. • Publicly proclaiming and defending that endangered languages, like all languages, contain enormous wealth and interest for humanity, and drawing attention to the falsity and the danger of placing languages in a hierarchy. • Transmitting and popularising the feeling that all languages and cultures form part of the common heritage of humanity and that as such they must not only be preserved but developed and encouraged.
The Linguistic Heritage • Spreading, especially amongst speakers of widespread languages, the importance of preserving and furthering the less widespread languages, especially those around them, and making speakers of the less widespread languages aware of their role in this task. • Spreading the idea that multilingualism does not refer only to the knowledge and use of the more widespread languages. The study of less widespread languages, especially those surrounding each community, should be encouraged and helped. • Spreading the importance of respecting and protecting the rights of speakers of all languages to use them and cultivate them. • Declaring each and every language the heritage of humanity.
91
Chapter 3
The Official Status of Languages 1. Each culture has a dignity and value which must be respected and preserved. 2. Every people has the right and the duty to develop its culture. 3. In their rich variety and diversity, and in the reciprocal influences they exert on one another, all cultures form part of the common heritage belonging to all mankind. (UNESCO 1966, Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Co-operation). In this chapter we shall look at the official status of the languages of the world and also at the impact that official recognition of a language by a state has for the development of that language. Since it is the official languages of each state that, as a result of being used in all social spheres, show the greatest vitality, those linguistic communities whose language does not share the same official status should demand this status for their own language, or if not this status, then at least the practical consequences arising from being official. The chapter is structured as follows: first of all, different state policies regarding recognition of their official languages are analysed; secondly, we shall look at languages that have achieved official status and those that have not; next, we shall single out some of the current legislation aimed at the protection of linguistic heritage through policies of official recognition, and finally, Professor Annamalai will put forward a new approach to linguistic policy based on the recognition of plurilingualism.
The state and the official language The majority of the linguistic policies of states today have been based on, at least in recent centuries, promoting what they call their “national” languages. This encouragement of “national” languages has in most cases had a twofold application. Internally, the language or variety considered “national” has had prestige conferred on it and been promoted over the other languages and varieties within the state borders. The consequences of this policy have, amongst other things, been to marginalise the other varieties and languages, lower their prestige, endanger them and even cause their disappearance. Only in a handful of occasions or historical moments have states acted to preserve their linguistic diversity. Externally, many powers have considered their “national” language a loyal partner in their imperial and colonial actions and have exported it beyond its original limits.
92
The Official Status of Languages
93
In the new territories, it has in turn become the language behind the disappearance or marginalisation of other languages and cultures. European nationalism in recent centuries has integrated the concepts of a common language, nation and state (Lastra 1992) and has created the opinion that a modern state, if it is to be modern and promote itself as such, must be endowed with a single language common to all its citizens. The development of the European concept of the nation state together with colonial expansion has encouraged a specific concept of state based on the idea of a “national” language sustained and reinforced by a common administrative and educational system and has spread it all over the world. The creation of new states in the course of the twentieth century and the modernisation of others has on numerous occasions involved the mimetic adoption of this model, very often to the extreme of even declaring the language of the European colonisers the official language. In this way, languages of basically European origin, such as English, Spanish, French or Portuguese, are today official languages in most of America and Africa and in large areas of Asia and the Pacific, and have a clear advantage in their competition with the local languages. English is the official or co-official language in more than 70 states according to Crystal (1997), French in 30, Spanish in 20, Arabic in 20 and Portuguese in 6. McArthur (1998) mentions 232 territories spread over the planet in which one of the four languages mentioned (English, Spanish, French or Portuguese) is official, coofficial or carries a lot of weight. According to this author, only the remaining 52 territories are free of this European linguistic preponderance. The situation is especially notorious in Africa, where out of 56 countries, according to UNESCO (1997), 45 have a language of European origin as their official or co-official language and nine have Arabic (Bolekia 2001). This policy of linguistic homogenisation is based on the prejudice of considering that the use of just one language or of a common language facilitates the cohesion and progress of the state, overlooking the fact that in many situations the language of the former coloniser has not united and does not unite different linguistic communities. Whatever the case, with this worldwide consolidation of the idea of a national language, in some states the languages of the European colonisers has in practice managed to replace the local languages and the “national” language adopted has been the colonial language. This has happened, for example, in Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Brazil. In these states, the local languages have only just survived and their speakers can only use them alongside the official languages in a bilingual situation. In other states, which have also opted for the language of the colonisers as the official language and a vehicle for Westernisation, linguistic wealth has been better preserved, perhaps because the demographic pressure of the colonisation itself was less. This is the case of Cameroon (English and French), Gabon (French), Gambia (English), Chad (French and Arabic) and Guatemala (Spanish), for example.
94
Words and Worlds
In other cases, especially when colonisation has been more recent or less intense, the modern state has preserved the language of the colonisers as one of its official languages, while also promoting one of its local languages to the same rank. This is the situation, for example, in Kenya (English and Swahili), Pakistan (English and Urdu) and Vanuatu (English, French and Bislama). There are even situations where colonisation has meant the conversion of a traditionally monolingual society to bilingualism or multilingualism, as in Samoa (English and Samoan), Tonga (English and Tongan) and Rwanda (French, English and Rwanda), which as well as their own languages have declared those of their former European colonisers as official. Article 3 of the Constitution of Vanuatu, 1980 1. 2.
The national language of the Republic of Vanuatu is Bislama. The official languages are Bislama, English and French. The principal languages of education are English and French. The Republic of Vanuatu shall protect the different local languages which are part of the national heritage, and may declare one of them as a national language.
States that have copied the European model of a “national” language, promoting just one of their local languages to this rank are also found. This has taken place in certain states in the process of modernisation, such as Turkey (Turkish), Nepal (Nepali), Tanzania (Swahili), Azerbaijan (Azerbaijani) and Thailand (Thai). This policy has led them to the promotion and development of the language declared “national” over and above their other languages. In some cases, the language chosen for this purpose is the one most closely tied to local economic power or with the best chance of being promoted as an interstate language, and not the most widespread language. This is the case in Bahasa in Indonesia and Tagalog in the Philippines, languages which are officially known as Indonesian and Filipino. However, there are also states that have adopted positions more in consonance with the preservation and promotion of their linguistic heritage, raising several of their languages to the level of official languages. South Africa, for example, has since 1996 recognised 11 languages as official (Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Pedi, Xhosa, Sotho, Tswana, Swati, Tsonga, Venda and Zulu); India has two official languages over the whole of its territory (English and Hindi) and 17 more co-official languages in different regions (Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Kannada, Konkani, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu), and Eritrea has recognised eight official languages (Afar, Arabic, Blean, Hadareb, Kunama, Saho, Tigre and Tigriña). Most states, therefore, have adopted explicit linguistic policies, juridically favouring the internal and external development of the language considered by their
The Official Status of Languages
95
rulers to be the common and official language of the country. On many occasions, the state even takes on the work of preserving and maintaining the “purity” of the language adopted as official, as well as its protection and diffusion beyond its borders. This political practice leads to the preponderance and development of the languages proclaimed official, which states generally use as the only medium of communication in all public spheres, to the exclusion of all other languages.
LANGUAGE TREASURES IN INDONESIA In Indonesia today, apart from Indonesian, there are hundreds of languages. One estimate puts the number of regional languages at 715. These languages are distributed throughout the entire archipelago of Indonesia and have a confusing number of names. The language map in Indonesia is kaleidoscopic. In 1928, while Indonesia was still under Dutch colonial rule, a group of young nationalists expressed their yearning for national unity and independence in a declaration which is now known as the Youth Pledge (Sumpah Pemuda). With some considerable foresight, they included in the declaration their intention to promote Indonesian as the language of national unity. Their dream of Indonesian being the national language became a reality. Indonesian is now spoken as a first language by a growing number of people and there is no denying that it is taking root in the nation, but its spread is not even, geographically or socially. Not all Indonesians are able to speak it, and many do not speak it in the home. The presence of the regional languages is still very much felt. The number of people who claim to understand Indonesian has grown significantly during the last three decades. However, a large number of these people still do not necessarily use the language on a daily basis at home. They continue to use one or other of the country’s regional languages as their language of daily communication. In 1970, only 40% of the population claimed that they understood Indonesian. In 1980, it had grown markedly to 60% and in 1990, the figure had risen moderately to 67%. Projections for the year 2000 put the figure at 72%. According to the 1980 census, there were 17,505,000 people who could understand Indonesian and who also used it on a daily basis in their home. By 1990, there were 27,055,000, an increase of about ten million people. However, there were 179,194,223 people in 1990 and therefore Indonesian speakers represented only approximately 6.62% of the population. The number of people in 2000 was estimated at 32.000.000 million people. This means that, while the language is certainly gaining ground, its eventual adoption as everyone’s first language is indeed a long-term project. It has, however, spread more rapidly in some places than others. If we compare the growth during the ten years between 1980 and 1990 in a number of provinces beyond the island of Java, the growth is quite remarkable.
96
Words and Worlds
Most Indonesians are able to use more than one language with Indonesian and the regional languages being used side by side. However, for the majority of people, one of the regional languages – rather than Indonesian – will be their first language. So the regional languages have an important place still in the life of the people. The regional languages are still used as a means of education in their own locales. The use of the regional languages in education is provided for in the country’s law. In Statute 4 of 1950 it says that ‘teachers may use the regional languages as a medium of instruction up to the third year of primary school.’ There is a close link between the regional languages and a person’s ethnic group. Regional languages are the mother tongue or first language of many people and are used for informal, personal communication in the home among family members, or in the immediate environment with people who are from the same ethnic group. The regional languages are also used in a limited way for formal or public activities such as marriage ceremonies. A Rich Heritage For someone interested in the relationship between language and culture, the vocabulary of a language can mirror the way the people in that speech community conceive their world, the way they structure knowledge about society and their place in it. Because language reflects culture and also represents cognitive structures, each regional language is a valuable resource for research not only into the diverse nature of each of the unique cultures it expresses, but also into important theoretical issues about the nature of linguistic and cognitive universals – the way human beings cognitively process reality. These important issues need to be tested by field data from languages other than English or those in the Indo-European group before such theories can win wide acceptance. Certainly, the decision to promote Indonesian which has come to some extent at the expense of the regional languages can be justified in terms of the important role Indonesian is playing in national unity, development, and the provision of educational opportunity. Yet surely it need not cost the extinction of this rich heritage which is an important source of knowledge for questions ranging from the relation between language, culture and knowledge to the search for linguistic universals, the structure of human knowledge and human evolution. Informed policies are necessary which will aim to promote a happy coexistence between Indonesian and the regional languages and will help to slow their demise. We cannot stop language change. Nor can we necessarily prevent the natural processes that lead to the extinction of languages. But we can perhaps support the work of those who wish to combat social beliefs and political policies that are actively undermining the world’s linguistic diversity by the promotion of monolingual policies.
The Official Status of Languages
97
Recent efforts which frame the arguments for preservation within the context of a social and political agenda are signs that the threat of extinction for many languages is seen by many respected linguists as all too real. The least that researchers can do is to record for posterity something of the uniqueness of those people’s lives, thoughts and culture. Perhaps we can also support efforts at increasing awareness among policy makers of what is being lost. Multamia RMT Lauder University of Indonesia, Indonesia
State, language and territory Both in states that have existed for centuries and in more or less modern post-colonial states, situations are found in which the same linguistic community inhabits territories belonging to more than one state. In Europe, for example, one well-known situation is that of Sami, whose speakers are to be found in land belonging to Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Russian Federation, of Basque, in France and Spain, of Frisian, in Germany and Holland, of Catalan, in Spain, France and Italy, of Occitan, in France, Italy and Spain, etc. This lack of consideration for the integrity of local ethnic groups or linguistic communities in drawing the limits or borders of modern states can also be found in other parts of the world. Thus the territory of the Zaparo linguistic community is divided between Ecuador and Peru, the Maya languages Ch’orti’, Mopan, Q’anjob’al and Popti’ between several Central-American states, Garifuna between Guatemala, Honduras, Belize and Nicaragua, Osettic between the Russian Federation and Georgia, Kirgiz between Kirgiztan and China and countless examples in Africa. It is a well-known fact that colonial borders, at least in many areas, were fixed totally arbitrarily, with no respect for common cultural or linguistic traditions. To a great extent, this is what has caused the present divisions between states and not a few of today’s armed conflicts. Alongside this fact it is important to mention the shifting of borders that takes place in some parts of the world. By this we mean areas which change fairly easily from one state to another or are a cause of dispute between states. From the point of view of linguistic policy, management aimed at promoting and preserving the linguistic heritage, it is important to stress this aspect since due to the limited resources available it is essential that efforts be coordinated. It is also important that forces and bodies from outside the affected communities avoid having a negative influence on these processes by preventing supra-state coordination or creating false linguistic and cultural divisions that do not exist within the communities.
98
Words and Worlds
Official status and languages How many of the world’s languages are official in some state or other? This question can be answered with an initial approximation, such as the one by Krauss (1992), who notes that only some 250 languages are recognised as official or co-official languages in states or in autonomous regions of a state. Though not referring strictly to states, UNESCO (1998) puts the figure of different states or regions of our planet at 224. Languages with official or co-official status in any state or region of a state comprise less than 5% of the world’s total. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that more and more states are tending to recognise all or several of their languages as official or at least to give them co-official status in the area where they are spoken. Although there are large differences from one state to another, we can say that following the pioneer policies of Switzerland and Ireland, who since the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth have recognised as their official languages French, German, Italian and Romansh, in the case of the former, and English and Irish Gaelic, in the case of the latter, other states are seeking to raise all or several of the languages of their territory to official or co-official status. Constitution of Switzerland 1874, Art. 116 1. 2.
German, French, Italian and Romansh are the national languages of Switzerland. German, French and Italian are declared to be official languages of the Confederation.
Sri Lanka, for example, recognised Sinhala and Tamil as official languages in 1978. Luxembourg declared its three languages – French, German and Luxemburgian – official over the whole of its territory in the eighties. Belgium has French, German and Dutch as official languages. South Africa, as mentioned above, has recognised 11 of its languages as official. Paraguay has made Spanish and Guarani official. Eritrea has established eight languages as official: Afar, Arabic, Blean, Hadareb, Kunama, Saho, Tigre and Tigriña. Nigeria has declared nine languages official or national: Edo, Efik, Adamawa Fulfulde, Hausa, Idoma, Igbo, Yerwa Kanuri, Yoruba and English. Constitution of Sri Lanka, 1978 1. 2. 3.
The official language of Sri Lanka shall be Sinhala. Tamil shall also be an official language. English shall be the link language.
The Official Status of Languages
99
Other states, instead of making all their languages official state languages, grant all or several of them co-official status in their territory alongside the state language or generalised official language. This is the case in Spain, with Basque, Catalan and Galician, in Denmark, with Faroese and Greenlandic (Inuktitut), in the Russian Federation, with many of its languages, such as Chukchi in Chukchia, Chuvash in Chuvashia, Dolgan in Taymyria, Nentsi in Nenetsia and Taymyria, Osetic in North Ossetia, Udmurtian in Udmurtia and Yakuto in Yakut and in China with some of the languages spoken in its territory, such as Tibetan, Jingpo, Derung, Dai, Salar, Zhuang, Zaiwa, etc. In other states, local languages, not always recognised as official or co-official, are promoted through their use in the administration and in the educational system. This happens, for example, in Ghana, where Akuapim Twi, Asante Twi, Dagaari, Dagbani, English, Eve, Fante, Ga, Kasem and Nzema are used in teaching (Grimes 2000), in India, where according to the Sixth Educational Survey in 1998, 35 languages are used in the educational system, though at different levels (Pattanyak, in this Review), and in Papua New Guinea, with some 30 languages in the educational system (Wurm, in this Review). Although it is true that most states affected by linguistic diversity have for a long time, contrasting with what have been the main lines of their traditional policy, proclaimed the dignity of the local languages and the need to preserve them and encourage them in public life, it is no less true that these proclamations very often tend to be simple declarations of good intentions which are not reflected in the linguistic practice of the authorities (Siguán 2001). Constitution of Vietnam, 1980, Art. 5 …All the nationalities have the right to use their spoken languages and scripts, and to preserve and promote their fine customs, habits, traditions, and cultures.
Constitution of Ecuador, 1979, Art. 1 …Castilian is the official language. Quechua, Shuar and the other ancestral languages are official for the indigenous peoples, in the terms laid down by the law. But casting an eye over all of the languages of the world, it is important to remember that 95% of them lack official or co-official state recognition. Official recognition by the state, as Hagège (2000) points out, involves the inscription of a language in the state’s constitution and is an increasingly indispensable measure for ensuring the preservation and promotion of languages.
100
Words and Worlds
When a language is made official, the prestige this measure gives rise to in the attitudes of the speakers towards their language is remarkable. Linguistic communities see their efforts to preserve their language reinforced and the measure allows the use of resources not previously available. Being able to endow themselves with official resources to promote their language adds to the prestige of its speakers and in the means available to them in their daily struggle for the promotion and preservation of their language.
From official status to marginalisation by way of tolerance The speakers of minority languages generally tend to identify two different types of action by states and public institutions. On the one hand, there are speakers or linguistic communities who feel that their languages are tolerated by the authorities. This tolerance can, in some cases, be accompanied by real, specific measures that promote the development and preservation of the language, as happens, for example, in the case of Welsh (United Kingdom).
THE LANGUAGE REVIVAL OF WELSH By 2001 the Census showed that there were 582,400 Welsh speakers making up 21 per cent of the population of Wales. This represented stabilisation since the Census of 1981. The highest percentages (41%) were in the numbers of younger Welsh speakers (five to fifteen years old). The language is represented on television (30 hours a week) and radio (120 hours a week). An Education Reform Act of 1988 stipulated that all children in state schools should be taught Welsh. Most five to fourteen year olds were so being by 1993. Then, since 1999, all pupils from five to sixteen learn Welsh either as a first or second language. The ‘Welsh Language Act’ of 1993 was intended to give Welsh and English equal legal status in Wales. It does not give Welsh speakers individual rights. Public bodies, but not private companies, must draw up plans for providing services in Welsh. The legislation gave responsibility for receiving and assessing such plans to ‘Bwrdd Yr Iaith Gymraeg/The Welsh Language Board’. The Board also became responsible for promoting the language. It administers state aid to two annual ‘Eisteddfodau’ or competitive festivals which have become large scale events. Intergenerational transmission is a problem. Just over 90% of families where both parents speak Welsh transmit the language. But where just one parent speaks Welsh the language is spoken at home only 50% of the time. A movement for pre-school education (‘Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin’) has been important for developing Welsh medium nursery education since 1970. A
The Official Status of Languages
101
movement known as ‘Urdd Gobaith Cymru/The League Of Welsh Youth’ is important for linking Welsh speaking children and adolescents. Such movements receive state aid through the Welsh Language Board. The Board’s strategy includes supporting ‘Mentrau Iaith’ or language ventures which work within communities to revitalise the language as a community language.The Government of Wales Act 1998 set up the National Assembly for Wales, giving a weak form of devolved government to Wales. (The Assembly cannot initiate legislation.) The Welsh language is used in Assembly proceedings, and simultaneous translation is provided. Changes in the legitimation and promotion of the language create dilemmas for campaigning groups such as ‘Cymdeithas Yr Iaith Gymraeg/The Welsh Language Society’. New kinds of mobilisation other than historic civil disobediance campaigns would be needed to build on the current situation. Wynford Bellin Cardiff University, United Kingdom
On the other hand, though, there are occasions when the state can declare all languages official, as in the case of Mozambique, Peru, Colombia and Ecuador. However, only very rarely does it take real measures towards protecting them. Constitutions like Colombia’s (1991) proclaim, for example, that “the state recognises and protects the ethnic and cultural diversity of the Colombian Nation” (article 7) and that “the languages and dialects of the ethnic groups are also official in their territories.” “The teaching in communities with their own linguistic traditions will be bilingual” (article 10). The informant for the Awa Pit community, however, points out that their language “is theoretically official in their territory, but this has not yet been put into practice.” The same sort of thing seems to happen in Ecuador, where article 1 of the constitution states that “the State respects and encourages the development of all the languages of the Ecuatorians. Castilian is the official language. Quechua, Shuar and the other ancestral languages are used officially by the indigenous peoples in the terms laid down by the law.” The informant for Waorani, in turn, points out that his language “is also co-official in their territory, but (only) in theory.” The informant for Zaparo in Ecuador also coincides with this feeling and points out that the language is “co-official in its area, but (only) on a theoretical level.” The linguistic communities do not express disagreement with this generic proclamation of official status; what they want is to be able to take advantage of the means that real official status implies. When the state does not go beyond formal declarations, disappointment is an inevitable consequence. The informant for the Achuar language of Peru, for example,
102
Words and Worlds
clearly demonstrates the inefficacy of mere general recognition: “In fact it has no official status of any sort as far as the use of this language in the public administration and other bodies is concerned”. It is worth adding that this disappointment seems to extend to a number of countries, to judge from the accounts gathered. With regard to Article 4 of the Constitution of Mexico (1992), which says that “The Mexican nation has a pluricultural composition originally based on its indigenous peoples. The Law will protect and promote the development of their languages, cultures, habits, customs, resources and specific forms of social organisation”, the informant for Otomi points out that this is “fair but belated recognition for the indigenous languages”, but that “there’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip”. Generally in these situations of tolerated languages the members of the linguistic communities involved have only their own resources to work with in favour of their languages, and can only count on tolerance on the part of the public institutions. These languages are only used within the linguistic communities and rarely get to be used in dealings with the administration. Even when they are used in the educational system, it is generally at the elementary levels and with the object of integrating the community’s members into the dominant national culture more quickly. In addition, those linguistic communities wanting to preserve and cultivate their languages and cultures are often faced with hostile attitudes from their fellow citizens, as the informant for Aymara in Peru points out: “Formally it is co-official and in practice tolerated, but there is also a negative attitude on the part of the dominant sector of white Creole society”. The survival and development of a language is not ensured by giving it an official status or by tolerating its use. However, it is always positive to claim for the right of a language to become official. If there are speakers and linguistic communities who feel that their states forget, marginalised or try to do away with their languages, the problem is even worse. Amongst these cases we find situations like the ones in Turkey or Botswana, where the use of non-official languages is explicitly forbidden in some public spheres. At other times, although the prohibitions are not explicit, the spokespeople for the linguistic communities understand that the government would like to see the nonofficial languages disappear. In this respect they blame the state and the government for the situation of their languages, which are close to extinction. This is the case of the informant for Munduruku in Brazil, who says, “I understand the Brazilian government’s great desire is that they stop using Munduruku and speak only Portuguese. The sooner the better.” The perception of the informant for Breton in France also goes this way: “France denies the existence of linguistic minorities on its territory. The notion of community other than ‘the French national community’ is banished from the French legislation that only recognises citizens ‘equal in rights’ and considers the affirmation of specific community rights as discriminatory and contrary to the principle of ‘republican equality’.”
The Official Status of Languages
103
BRETON AND THE EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR MINORITY LANGUAGES From the origins of Brittany until well into the 20th century, Breton was the language spoken by a great majority of the population of its area, Lower Brittany. Besides, the use of Breton reached its highest level (more than a million speakers out of one and a half million inhabitants) on the eve of the First World War. But Breton parallelly suffered a complete exclusion from the education system set up at that time (from the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century), while French was declared the only teaching language, particularly in primary school, despite many claims, movements of protest, petitions and draft laws. It was only by the middle of the century that the change of language imposed itself and the practice of Breton much declined from then on. After dropping to less than half-a-million, the number of Breton speakers is now estimated to roughly 250,000, and “passive Breton users” – who understand Breton but don’t speak it – are roughly estimated to 360 000, according to recent figures. On the other hand, for the past two decades there seems to be a strong desire for the preservation of Breton and its increased access to teaching and media among at least three-quarters of the concerned population (Lower Brittany). The rate even came very close to 90% in the latest opinion polls on this issue (1997, 1999). Admittedly, a change occurred since the Breton language was given a certain place through the Deixonne law in the fifties, which allowed its introduction in secondary school. Breton was taught as a second modern language during the seventies, then as an optional subject and finally bilingual streams were set up during the last two decades, especially after the creation of the Diwan associative schools in 1977. By the end of 200, these schools were the subject of ministry proposals for their admission under public status with a view to ensure their development. Currently, the three bilingual education streams (immersion-type associative stream, parity-type streams of public and Catholic private schools) enrol around 7,000 pupils (approximately one-third each). To this we must add around 12,000 pupils who receive Breton teaching (as optional or so), which means a total of less than 20,000 pupils out of more than half-a-million enrolled children in the district of Rennes (not counting the district of Nantes). The European Charter for Minority Languages signed by the French government in 1999 (i.e. 39 articles), should contribute to improve this situation and legitimate the Breton language, in the field of education as well as in the field of media and for its officialisation at different levels. This is why the ratification of this Charter seems important to us. Francis Favereau University of Rennes II, France
104
Words and Worlds
Legislation for the protection of the linguistic heritage Some states make an effort to protect their linguistic heritage. In this respect, it is worth mentioning New Zealand’s new linguistic attitude toward Maori, Switzerland’s towards Romansh, Finland’s towards Swedish, the United Kingdom’s towards Welsh, Paraguay’s towards Guarani, Canada’s towards the indigenous languages, especially in the North-West territories, Eritrea’s towards its languages, etc. It is not the intention of this Review to draw up an exhaustive list of favourable policies implemented by states with a view to the preservation of the linguistic heritage, but we shall point out a few examples. One example of positive legislative implementation is that affecting the Sami language. This language, distributed over the states of Norway, Sweden, Finland and the north east of the Russian Federation (see Map 4), has seen important progress in its legal status over recent decades, though not in all the states where it is spoken. Until the Second World War, the linguistic policies of these European states as regards Sami were highly assimilationist, trying to impose their respective “national” languages on Sami speakers and thereby condemning the language to extinction. After the Second World War, Norway, Sweden and Finland all recognised the particularities of their minorities and began to legislate to guarantee the rights of the Sami people and its culture. However, the recognition of linguistic rights in these countries’ constitution did not come about in Norway until 1988. “It is incumbent upon the government authorities to take the necessary steps to enable the Sami population to safeguard and develop their language, culture and social life”. In 1996, it was the government of Finland that added a special clause to its constitution “Given their status as an indigenous people, and pursuant to the law, the Sami shall be accorded cultural autonomy in their homelands on matters relating to their language and culture”. Sweden’s constitution makes no specific reference to the Sami language, although it mentions the linguistic rights of the minorities (Magga 1998). Today, these measures have made it possible for the Sami community to use their language in the educational system and in various spheres in which it was banned until now. Whatever the case, and as happens with numerous languages, the fact that it extends over different state territories calls for supra-state co-ordination to take care of the interests of this people’s culture and language. Canada is another state in which legislation and administrative practice are making progress towards the preservation of linguistic heritage. Since 1970 the official state languages are English and French, but the Canadian Constitutional Act also establishes that “The existing rights of Aboriginal Peoples are hereby recognized and confirmed.” This declaration has allowed several juridical and administrative instances to interpret that the aboriginal peoples have the right to learn and use their languages in their dealings with the administration.
The Official Status of Languages
105
However, political practice in Canada as regards its local languages has not materialised in laws or received financial backing until very recently, when in 1988 the province of Northwest Territories declared its six aboriginal languages (Chipewyan, Cree, Dogrib, Gwich’in, Inuktitut and Slavey) co-official in its territory along with English and French (Ignace 1998). As a result of this recognition, these languages receive funding for their real implementation as languages used in the administration and in education and have acted as a point of reference for the other Canadian provinces and their native linguistic communities. There are now projects for the teaching and use of Canadian aboriginal languages in various provinces. As examples we could mention those of the Cree and Inuskitut communities in James Bay and North Quebec or that of the Mohawk community of Kahnawake, Quebec, where since 1980 a programme of linguistic immersion in this language has been in progress following the model used for French in Quebec. This Mohawk teaching model has given excellent results as regards the learning and use of the language and is today one of the mirrors in which the other aboriginal linguistic communities see themselves (Hoover 1992, Ignace 1998). Although aboriginal linguistic communities do not always seem to get the support they wish for and need, the explicit wishes of the aborigines and more sensitive legislation have opened a window of hope in Canada as regards the preservation of the linguistic heritage. This has happened in a part of the world where the threat facing languages is enormous (Krauss 1992). Another language that has seen a certain revival in recent years is Maori. It has been said of Maori that it is a language that has risen from its deathbed. After centuries of marginalisation the Maori language was declared official in New Zealand in 1987. Aborigines and defenders of the language had been fighting since the sixties for its inclusion in the educational system and its use in public life. In about 1980 the first linguistic immersion educational programmes in Maori began to be applied and, thanks to the determination of its defenders and to legal and financial support from the New Zealand administration, Maori has gained in prestige and raised its level of use (Ministry of Maori Development 1998).
Initiatives in favour of the preservation of linguistic heritage In the European Union (EU), also, initiatives have been developed over the last few years designed to promote linguistic diversity. Today, thirteen languages have official status in at least one of its fifteen states: German, Danish, Spanish, Finnish, French, Irish Gaelic, Greek, English, Italian, Luxemburgian, Dutch, Portuguese and Swedish. Continuing in the tradition of its member states, the EU has based its linguistic rules on the principle of the equality of languages in its states, though excluding Irish Gaelic and Luxemburgian from the rank of official working languages of the EU. In 1958, when it was established that the official languages were to be the official languages of its member states, what is known as the principle of non-discrimination was also underlined. This principle states, amongst other things, that citizens cannot be discriminated on the grounds of language.
106
Words and Worlds
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages Strasbourg 1992 Preamble The member States of the Council of Europe signatory hereto, Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members, particularly for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage; Considering that the protection of the historical regional or minority languages of Europe, some of which are in danger of eventual extinction, contributes to the maintenance and development of Europe’s cultural wealth and traditions; Considering that the right to use a regional or minority language in private and public life is an inalienable right conforming to the principles embodied in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and according to the spirit of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Having regard to the work carried out within the CSCE and in particular to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and the document of the Copenhagen Meeting of 1990; Stressing the value of interculturalism and multilingualism and considering that the protection and encouragement of regional or minority languages should not be to the detriment of the official languages and the need to learn them; Realising that the protection and promotion of regional or minority languages in the different countries and regions of Europe represent an important contribution to the building of a Europe based on the principles of democracy and cultural diversity within the framework of national sovereignty and territorial integrity; Taking into consideration the specific conditions and historical traditions in the different regions of the European States, Have agreed as follows: Euopean Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Committee of Ministers of the European Union 1992). Available from;
[Accessed 30 October 2004]
The Official Status of Languages
107
The most serious move in this respect was the approval in 1992 by the Committee of Ministers of the EU of what is known as the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages, which was submitted to member states for their signature and practical recognition. This Charter lays down the obligations of states in the attempt to preserve the linguistic rights of its minorities and of citizens who do not speak the official language. To facilitate the signature by states of this charter, only general obligations are mentioned, without making any reference to specific languages. As a result, the document is purely symbolic. Even so, the Charter demands minimum measures in teaching, in the media, in cultural facilities, in public and administrative life, recognition of the plurilingual reality and a firm will to preserve and promote it. For all these reasons it can be considered an important step forward, so long, of course, that its recommendations are respected and carried out. For this it will be necessary for all the EU member states to sign the Charter and comply with its contents. In addition, the Council of Europe has expressly invited all the European states to give their support to this charter. At the end of 2001, 27 states had signed the Charter and 14 of them had ratified it: Germany, Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Slovenia, Spain, Finland, Holland, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Norway, United Kingdom, Sweden and Switzerland. Amongst the signers who had not yet ratified it were: Armenia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Rumania, Russia and Ukraine. On the other hand, 16 states in the Council of Europe – Albania, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Poland, Portugal, San Marino and Turkey – had not yet signed the Charter. Another EU organisation that works to preserve the European linguistic heritage is the EBLUL (European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages). This institution estimates that 40 million citizens of the EU speak a language other than those considered official in the EU and advocates full recognition of their linguistic rights. One of the EBLUL’s most recent initiatives, for example, is its proposed resolution for the promotion of Occitan as an official language at the Winter Olympics to be held in Turin in 2006. In Africa, too, in recent decades there have been a series of conferences and meetings of state representatives to outline and plan several aspects of linguistic policy. In Harare in 1997, at the Intergovernmental Conference of Ministers on Language Policies in Africa, organised by UNESCO with the collaboration of the OAU (Organisation of African Unity) and the ACCT (Francophone Agency) and the financial support of the Republic of Zimbabwe, at which government experts from 51 states took part, a clear wish was expressed to design a future in which linguistic wealth would be favoured and protected through government action. At this conference a proposed action plan was also drafted, which pursued the implementation of real measures by government authorities with a view to the promotion of languages in the spheres of education, administration, culture, media, communication, economy, etc.
108
Words and Worlds
PETITION TO THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS (EBLUL 2001) On the occasion of the European Year of Languages 2001 (EYL), you have an opportunity to express your support in favour of Europe’s regional or minority languages, by signing this petition. In this way you will contribute to supporting the demands of the forty or so minority linguistic communities of Europe. Our languages, an essential part of the European cultural heritage, should benefit from a legal framework and from the necessary subsidies to protect and safeguard them. In the absence of adequate financial aid, one part of the European linguistic heritage is condemned to disappear. Help EBLUL to give a voice to the more than 40 million European citizens who speak a regional or minority language so that they can feel themselves equal with all other European citizens. Your stance will contribute to the better preparation of a pluriannual programme concerning regional or minority languages and will influence European institutions to take appropriate measures. EBLUL is an International Association functioning under the Belgian and the Irish law. It is an independent organisation co-operating with the European Commission and for questions concerning the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, with the Council of Europe. EBLUL is in Special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the UN, the UNESCO and the Council of Europe.
Along the same lines, the Asmara proclamation, in 2000, underlines the need to further African languages and literature in the face of the tendency to maintain colonial languages as vehicles for communication in Africa. See Map 5 showing language diversity in South Africa. The universal declaration of linguistic rights The Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, signed in June 1996 in Barcelona, is an important reference for the preservation and promotion of languages. At the World Conference on Linguistic Rights organised by the PEN Club International Commission for Translations and Linguistic Rights and the Escarré International Centre for Ethnic Minorities and Nations, with the moral and technical support of UNESCO, non-governmental participants from almost 100 countries approved a declaration on linguistic rights for the preservation of languages which would serve as a guideline for the different state and international bodies. As it is pointed out in the preliminaries, this declaration sets out to “correct linguistic imbalances so as to ensure respect and full development of all languages
The Official Status of Languages
109
INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS ON LANGUAGE POLICY IN AFRICA, HARARE 1997 HARARE DECLARATION 2.
GUIDELINES FOR POLICY FORMULATION a. All African language Policies should be those that enhance the chances of attaining the vision of Africa portrayed above. b. Each country should produce a clear Language Policy Document, within which every language spoken in the country can find its place. c. Guidelines for policy formulation should be sanctioned by legislative action. d. Every country’s policy framework should be flexible enough to allow each community to use its language side-by-side with other languages while integrating with the wider society, within an empowering language policy that caters for communication at local, regional and international levels. e. A language policy-formulating and monitoring institution/body should be established in each country.
AGAINTS ALL ODDS: AFRICAN LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES INTO THE 21ST CENTURY Asmara 2000 African languages must take on the duty, the responsibility, and the challenge of speaking for the continent. The vitality and equality of African languages must be recognized as a basis for the future empowerment of African peoples. The diversity of African languages reflects the rich cultural heritage of Africa and must be used as an instrument of African unity. Dialogue among African languages is essential: African languages must use the instrument of translation to advance communication among all people, including the disabled. All African children have the unalienable right to attend school and learn in their mother tongues. Every effort should be made to develop African languages at all levels of education. Promoting research on African languages is vital for their development, while the advancement of African research and documentation will be best served by the use of African languages.
110
Words and Worlds
The effective and rapid development of science and technology in Africa depends on the use of African languages and modern technology must be used for the development of African languages. Democracy is essential for the equal development of African languages and African languages are vital for the development of democracy based on equality and social justice. African languages, like all languages, contain gender bias. The role of African languages in development must overcome this gender bias and achieve gender equality. African languages are essential for the decolonization of African minds and for the African Renaissance.
and establish the principles for fair and equitable planetary linguistic peace as a principal factor of social coexistence.” Amongst the basic ideas that guided the drafting of this Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights is the principle of the equality of all peoples and all languages. The initial concept is that neither the internal characteristics of languages nor the particular economic, social, religious or cultural features of the people who speak them justify any kind of discrimination. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF LINGUISTIC RIGHTS Article 3 1.
This Declaration considers the following to be inalienable personal rights which may be exercised in any situation: the right to be recognized as a member of a language community; the right to the use of one’s own language both in private and in public; the right to the use of one’s own name; the right to interrelate and associate with other members of one’s language community of origin; the right to maintain and develop one’s own culture; and all the other rights related to language which are recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the same date.
2.
This Declaration considers that the collective rights of language groups, may include the following, in addition to the rights attributed to the
The Official Status of Languages
111
members of language groups in the foregoing paragraph, and in accordance with the conditions laid down in article 2.2: the right for their own language and culture to be taught; the right of access to cultural services; the right to an equitable presence of their language and culture in the communications media; the right to receive attention in their own language from government bodies and in socioeconomic relations. 3.
The aforementioned rights of persons and language groups must in no way hinder the interrelation of such persons or groups with the host language community or their integration into that community. Nor must they restrict the rights of the host community or its members to the full public use of the community’s own language throughout its territorial space.
In the absence of the nevertheless indispensable international legislation in linguistic matters, this declaration, with its universal vocation, could at least provide a point of reference for the international community. As a result, states and other responsible bodies will be able to take coherent action and reverse the trend to uniformity which runs counter to linguistic and cultural plurality.
NEW APPROACH TO LANGUAGE POLICY Language is an entity of double abstraction. It is an abstraction at one level of the speech of individuals (known as idiolects) and of the speech of communities of individuals bound by geographic, social, economic and gender divisions (known as dialects). This abstraction has been the object of linguistic description for centuries and the cornerstone of modern linguistics initiated by Saussure (who called this abstraction langue). Language is an abstraction, at another level, of the function of relationship with other languages that are bound in a multilingual network. When multilingualism is taken as the norm, the functional (or ecological) relationship between languages in a multilingual network (or linguistic ecology) defines the nature of each language in the network. This second abstraction of language has not found a place even in sociolinguistics, which treats multilingualism as a cluster of autonomous languages. The languages are not autonomous, as their formal autonomy is constrained by the multilingual context in which they are situated. The linguistic competence of
112
Words and Worlds
a multilingual speaker correlates with the function of the language defined by the domain of its use and thus it is a variable. A multilingual speaker need not have the same competence of the language he uses in the courtroom in another language he uses in courtship. When he mixes two languages to realise his communicative and social goals, the codes cease to be autonomous. The postulate that the languages are autonomous of their functional multilingual context underlies the current practice of language policy. Hence standardisation of language becomes a primary focus of language policy and is considered to be a prerequisite for the function planned for the language. Standardisation draws boundaries around languages, which process militates against language dependency operating in a multilingual network. The boundaries are violated by speakers in their natural linguistic behaviour, as they do typically in informal contexts and in code mixing. They can be enforced only through penalties sanctioned by the policy of denying social status and mobility for breaking them. Language policy is traditionally concerned with the form and function of a language and not with the form and function of a multilingual network. That is, the concern is not of the functional inter-relationship between languages at the level of the individual, the community and the nation. The functional inter-relationship at best may be an outcome of the implementation of the policy in a multilingual context, whose focus is the individual languages. Language policy in the post-colonial world has traditionally been concerned with making a nation out of a former colony. The policy postulates that the citizens of the country will have loyalty to and pride in the nation, and thus will make it viable, through the acceptance of one of the native languages as the symbol of the new nation and as the instrument of governance. It also postulates that the nation is one communication zone and one language must have currency throughout the nation for communication. The policy then is about the selection of the national, official and link language or languages of the country. It is considered ideal if all three are the same language. In order to make all citizens acquire the national, official and link language(s), choice of language in education becomes an integral part of the policy. With the emphasis on nation formation, the home language of the people in education does not get its due place in the policy formulation. The fact that for most ordinary people the zone of communication in which they live their daily lives is local gets scant attention. The needs of the individuals and communities are subordinated to the needs of the nation and when there is any conflict between the needs, the nation’s needs take precedence. The policy is not about legitimising the needs of the individuals and communities who constitute the nation but is about fulfilling the needs of the nation by its constituents co-opting them. Language policy, in other words, is an expression of the concerns of the State to maintain itself.
The Official Status of Languages
113
Given the centrality of the interests of the State in the goals of language policy, policy making and implementation becomes the prerogative of the government. The government is not neutral ideologically and so is not a neutral arbiter when the interests of the different segments of the society come into conflict. Its policy is shaped by the ideology of the ruling class and by the interests of this class and so the policy becomes an instrument of this class to retain its power. A consequence of this connection in making policy is that its implementation draws more on the legal sanction of the policy by the State than on the will of the people. The State has to enact laws for the acceptance of the policy by the people and adherence to it; there are social sanctions for noncompliance like denial of educational and economic opportunities. When people protest against one or other aspect of the policy, it is suppressed using the power of the State. There are other consequences as well. Policy implementation depends on bureaucratic will rather than on the demands of the people; it becomes a governmental programme rather than a popular programme. There may be disjunction between the policy pronounced by the government and the actual practice of the people. These features of policy making and implementation reflect the fact that the ruling class generally is drawn from the linguistic majority and consequently the interests of the linguistic minorities are not incorporated in the policy. These features, however, are found with regard to the linguistic majority also when a globally dominant language is involved. In many developing countries, their formal colonial language is eschewed in the policy but embraced by the people. The case of English is the paradigm example of this. This results from the fact that policies in other spheres like economics are contrary to the goals of language policy. The economic policy may promote capital intensive, high tech industries and integration with the global market, which are perceived by the ruling class to be beneficial. This kind of economy enhances the value of the global language for knowledge accumulation and dissemination and so increases the demand for it by the people in spite of the language policy promoting a native language. Public policy and private choice of language diverge even for the linguistic majority in a nation. Such divergence is a manifestation of the relation of dominance between languages in which one or some languages abrogate the functions of all public domains that give power. Promotion of the relation of dominance is inherent in the traditional language policy and thus emerges one or some dominant languages out of the multitude of languages. It is inherent in the policy because the policy is to aid national governance and a centralised governing structure is made easy by the dominant language, which is made good use of by the bureaucracy to assert its authority. The dominance of a language forces or induces a
114
Words and Worlds
language behaviour in the speakers of other languages that leads to the displacement of their languages. The dominant language enters into private domains of language use also – home is the ultimate private domain – undermining the fabric of functional distribution of languages. Many languages come to be regarded as redundant, and so a burden, when one language assumes all functions. This perception leads to transmission of only the dominant language to the following generation and consequently the disappearance of other languages. The emergence of a dominant language at the global level threatens the dominance, if not the survival, of the dominant language(s) at the national level so assiduously developed by the language policy. The global dominant language weakens the allegiance of the national elite to their nation by facilitating the global alliance of the elite across nations. This shift in the allegiance of the ruling elite weakens the will of the national government to make a language policy that will curtail the power of the global dominant language. National governments that are traditionally the agents of language policy yield their agency to the market (or to another powerful nation) to allow the emergence of a dominant language of not their making in their countries. The agency of the government to make language policy in its interest is challenged by another global development. It is the assertion of language rights by people who want the freedom to make language choice that does not discriminate them from access to opportunities. The government is forced to take into account in language policy the language rights that are exercised by the people for materialising their interests and to accommodate them without compromising the interests of the State. The circumscribed role of the government in making language policy pressed by the global dominant language on one hand and by the assertion of the rights of the speakers of marginalised languages on the other calls for a new approach to language policy. The failure of policy as revealed by its dislocation from practice and by the need to use the force of law to implement it, as mentioned above, lends further support for a new approach. When the language is taken to be the second abstraction mentioned in the beginning, it would follow that all languages, however small, will come under the purview of policy in terms of their relationship with each other. Standardisation for literate functions would become a manifestation of just one of the relationships. Dominance would not be the all-pervasive relation in the multilingual network. Language policy will be concerned with maintaining a functional balance between languages. Functions have different values and therefore the policy must ensure that they do not discriminate. The equality between languages emanates from the equality of persons in the sense that persons do not become unequal by the languages they speak. People are not
The Official Status of Languages
115
discriminated against and denied opportunities because of their language. So the fundamental concern of the language policy must be to ensure this equality. It means that no language is a liability to its speaker. A corollary of this principle of equal treatment of languages for equal opportunities to their speakers is that speakers of more than one language will be better endowed among the equals. In other words, many languages add to one’s asset by enhancing their functionality, as the addition of literacy over orality in a language does. When the focus of the language policy is multilingual functionality and the development of individual languages in the sense of equipping them to perform their function is a derivative of it, the problem of language disappearance caused by language dominance and inequality will be minimised. This shift in focus does not mean that a multilingual network is static. It continuously evolves in tune with the societal changes and the multilingual functionality of speakers is constantly redefined. The goal of language policy then is not to make languages reach their set end points but to keep the multilingual functionality viable and vital all the time and to prevent it from selfterminating by disallowing emergence of dominant and unequal relationship between languages. Such a language policy calls for a shift in the domain of the policy. Its domain is not limited to the nation but extends to the community and the individual because language functions are not limited to the nation. Communities and individuals have functions for languages, some of which may replicate the functions the State has for those languages, and some other functions may complement them. All the functions together make up the multilingual functionality of the individual, the community and the nation. An individual and a community do not have a mother tongue in the functional sense (other than using one language for ethnic identity for socio-political purposes) but have a language repertoire, which is not merely a collection of languages but a set of languages with defined functions. The languages in the repertoire have distributed functions and, correlatively, distributed competence. The repertoire may have just one language (if we ignore the dialect varieties with defined functions), which means all functions are carried out by one language. But the repertoire is open to include more languages and so is not necessarily static. The language policy must make use of this openness to encourage the individuals and communities to enrich the repertoire. As with the nation, the multilingual network in the individuals and communities is not static, but is changing in response to societal changes. Protecting the viability and vitality of the individual and communal multilingual functionality must be a goal of language policy. The policy of multilingual functionality at the level of the individual, the community and the nation must synchronise to realise this goal.
116
Words and Worlds
Some advantages follow the above shift in the domain of the policy. The cultural needs of rootedness and distinctiveness of individuals and communities get equal weight with the political needs of unity and solidarity of nations. These needs do not exclude each other. Unlike traditional language policy, the linguistic functionality of the individual and the community is not left to be the default function or, at best, to be the residue of the national policy. All three domains get equal attention in the policy. All linguistic communities, big and small, get a place in the policy, not just the majority community. Cross border communities could have common functionality at their level on to which the national level functionality is super-imposed. The negative features of the traditional language policy mentioned earlier will not manifest itself because the individual, the community and the nation are not moving in different directions. The domain shift brings with it a structural change in the agency of policy making. The government has been the exclusive agent to make policy. The new global and ethnic forces constraining the freedom of the government to make policy for the nation have already been mentioned. In the new approach, the government is one of the three agents along with the individual and the community. The individual is free to make his or her decision (i.e. policy) of language use and so does the community. The constraint is that the policies made by the three agents are in concert. For the three agents of language policy to function in relative freedom the control mechanism in the polity must be decentralised. A good candidate for decentralised control is the school system. The community has control over the school and decides language choice in education accommodating individual and national preferences. The role of the government in the overall language policy is neither central nor independent. In addition to making that part of the policy that safeguards national interests, it assumes other responsibilities like facilitating the community and the individual to make decisions on language use, synchronising the decisions made at the three levels and balancing the language rights of the individual, the community and the State. There is another aspect to the decentralised language policy making. Decisions about policy must be well informed. Otherwise they may not be in the interest of their makers themselves. Individuals and communities without power may accept the negative perception of their language as deficient and useless inculcated by others in power and this may bias their decision about the use of their language. They may further be enticed by the rewards of the language of the powerful and mesmerised into believing that the rewards are automatic when that language becomes dominant in their language repertoire edging out others. This calls for programmes for creating
The Official Status of Languages
117
awareness in individuals and communities about the value of different languages, about existence of structural barriers other than acquisition of the dominant language that block access to power, wealth and status, about the vacuousness of the belief that use as the medium of education (immersion) is the best way to learn effectively the language of power, etc. Creation of such awareness must be the responsibility of the media, non-governmental organisations and other institutions of the civil society. Any decision made by individuals and communities after exposure to such information may be said to be well informed. The language policy must accommodate such decisions. Language policy is not made for the sake of language alone. It has a larger social purpose as well. It is to build a just and equal society without discrimination by the attributes of one’s birth. A language policy that does not allow the language to be used for discrimination and that does not push people into giving up their language to avoid denial of opportunities in the pursuit of their interests makes a contribution to building such a society. This must be the underlying principle for any new approach to language policy. E. Annamalai Central Institute of Indian Languages, India
118
Words and Worlds
Recommendations on the official status of languages Leaders, legislators and administrators in societies in general should do everything possible to: • Legislate on linguistic matters on the basis of respect for the wish of individuals to use their own language in public and in private, and according to the principle of the right to maintain and develop one’s own language. • Structure societies on the basis of respect for the wish of linguistic communities to use their own language in education, in the administration of public services, in the sphere of justice and, in general, in all spheres of public and private activity. • Explicitly recognise, in the constitution or in the supreme judicial ordinance, the co-official status at state level of all the languages of the territory, or at least the official status of each language in its area (autonomy, province, federation, canton, city, etc.). • Provide real and effective administrative and financial support on the part of the authorities for putting into effect educational and language-use projects in the public sphere and the administration. • Establish and further a body to control these measures in each linguistic community, administered by the community itself. • In those cases in which a community is divided over various states, promote the community’s own supra-state body for the coordination of the different linguistic and cultural programmes. • Publicise and spread existing positive practices and models, to which end we hereby appeal to linguists and members of all the planet’s social and scientific communities to increase their efforts in this direction, either through organised encounters or through academic and social diffusion. • Exchange experiences and coordinate the efforts by states, state organisations, supra-state organisations or popular initiatives working in this field. • Establish an international body of an informative type both to denounce violations of linguistic rights and to mediate in the solution of any problems arising.
Chapter 4
The Use of Languages in Public Administration Why is it important for a language to have access to public administration? The use of a given language by governmental institutions always brings prestige to it because it is associated with the power wielded by the political and administrative structures. Administrative uses, and especially in writing, have furthermore developed specific registers and styles in languages which have access to them. Consequently, it is logical that any linguistic community should want to be able to use its language when dealing with administrative bodies. Given the political structure of states, many languages have not been able to exercise any administrative role. This non-use, of course, does not imply any intrinsic shortcoming in the language that cannot be overcome with use. It is important to emphasise, furthermore, that forms of use can be very varied, from informal oral use to the most specialised written use. It is also important to bear in mind that according to the characteristics of the administrative organisation, depending, for example, on whether it is run by members of the community or outsiders, the possibilities for using the language can be considerably increased or decreased. In the information gathered, it can be seen that use of a language in public services depends directly on its official status. But this is not a sufficient guarantee. There can also be examples of communities in which, in spite of lacking the desired legal status for their language, it is at least tolerated and members of the community can use it for some administrative purposes. In this chapter we shall analyse the relation between the official status of a language and its use in administration, with special attention to whether or not the use reported is written or oral.
Language, official status and public administration According to the information gathered, 7% of the sample languages are official or coofficial state languages in their territory or, at least, part of it.
119
120
Words and Worlds
Table 5. Official status of languages and use in governmental institutions Degree of official status
Language use in administration
Official or Co-official Languages Total co-official languages without state in their official languages territory or recognition part of it
Oral and written use
6%
6%
1%
13 %
Oral with incipient written use
1%
2%
2%
5%
Exclusively oral use
––
7%
16 %
23 %
Neither oral nor written
––
4%
55 %
59 %
Total
7%
19 %
74 %
100 %
As regards language use in dealings with public administration, 13% of informants say that their language can be used both orally and in writing with relative normality; 5% consider that it is limited to oral use but with incipient written use, and 23% that its use is exclusively oral. The remaining languages (59%) are not used at all. An initial comparison of the figures might appear surprising, as one would expect that at least 26% of the sample languages – that is, the ones with official or co-official status – would be used normally in public services. However, the figures reveal that only between 13% and 18% of languages are used in writing and there is an observable gradation from normalised to incipient use. Although the sample under study represents approximately 10% of the languages in the world, the figures and trends reflected in Table 5 are fairly representative of the general situation of languages. We shall now analyse each of the observed trends on the basis of the figures gathered.
THE LANGUAGES OF SIBERIA Despite its low population density in pre-industrial times, Siberia (including the Russian Far East) is home to substantial linguistic diversity. Apart from recently introduced languages like Russian, the following families are represented: Uralic (western Siberia), Turkic (southern Siberia, also Yakut (Saha) in eastern Siberia), Tungusic (central and eastern Siberia), Mongolic (southern Siberia), as well as the so-called Paleo-Siberian (Paleo-Asiatic) languages: Yeniseian (central
The Use of Languages in Public Administration
121
Siberia), Yukaghir (north-eastern Siberia), Chukotko-Kamchatkan (northeastern Siberia), and Nivkh (Gilyak, eastern Siberia). In addition, varieties of Eskimo are or were spoken at the eastern tip of Siberia. Some of the smaller languages were endangered even before Russian entered the area, and there are well attested cases of shift from one Siberian language to another, e.g. Dolgan is an aberrant variety of Yakut with a Tungusic substrate. In the Soviet period, encouragement was given, e.g. through the development of a written form and at least limited use in education and the media, to some of the indigenous languages, though the smallest ones, such as Yukaghir and the Yeniseian language Ket, received little or no such support. The more extensive languages, in particular the Turkic and Mongolic languages of the southern fringe and Yakut, have survived well, are currently spoken by the near-totality of the corresponding ethnic groups, and are even in some cases, e.g. Tuvan, enjoying a substantial revival through expanded use in the post-Soviet period. Some of the smaller languages, however, had already died out by the end of the nineteenth century, e.g. the Uralic language Mator and the Yeniseian language Kott, while the last speaker of the Uralic language Kamassian died in 1989. The Soviet policy – paralleling similar policies in North America – of removing children to Russian-speaking residential schools led to language loss among children, so that even for languages that did find some use in education like Chukchi, it is increasingly hard to find younger speakers with a full command of the language. The post-Soviet period has admittedly provided new opportunities, e.g. writing systems have been developed for some languages that previously were not used as written languages, such as Ket. But the market economy and the exploitation of Siberia’s natural resources have not in general been kind to the smaller languages, and the prospects for their survival as active means of communication are bleak. Documentation of these languages is an urgent task. Bernard Comrie Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
Languages used orally and in writing in public administration The languages used orally and in writing in public administration are of three types: Official or co-official state languages. The presence of these languages is extended to all levels of public administration. In this situation we find, for example, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, French, Arabic, Japanese, Polish, Icelandic, Korean, Swedish and Italian. These languages make up 6% of the total. Languages that are official in their territory or part of it. These are languages that have a real presence in public administration orally and in writing. In this situation we find, for example, Catalan (Spain), Faroese (Denmark), Mongol (China),
122
Words and Worlds
Malabar (India) and Tibetan (China). These languages make up another 6% of the total of languages. Languages without official recognition. There are languages that in spite of lacking official or co-official status are nevertheless used in public administration. These make up 1% of the sample languages, as reported by, for example, the informant for Acholi in Uganda: It is used in administration, since most people do not express themselves well in English in official documents, and especially in the sphere of the rural communities, Acholi is used a lot in writing. (Acholi, Uganda)
Languages with normalised oral use and incipient written use in public administration Five percent of the sample languages show normal oral and some sporadic written use in public administration. Some (1% of the total) are languages which in spite of being official or co-official state languages are used very little in writing. This is the situation of, for example, Guarani in Paraguay, Urdu in Pakistan, Belarusian in Belarus and Maltese in Malta. The accounts of the informants on Urdu and Maltese are revealing in this respect: Maltese is the national language, and co-official with English according to the Constitution. It is the language of the Parliament and the Law Courts. It is spoken generally in all administrative levels, but most of the writing is carried out in English. (Maltese, Malta) Urdu is the national language. Yes, it is used in offices in verbal form, very rarely in written as mostly the written language is English. (Urdu, Pakistan) Others (2% of the total) are languages that while co-official in their territory or part of it are barely used in writing in public administration. Some examples of these are Igbo (Nigeria), Ndebele (Zimbabwe) and Dai (China). The Igbo language has an official status. It is one of the three major languages alongside Hausa and Yoruba taught in the school system – primary, secondary and tertiary levels. It is used to some extent, mostly in the spoken form. Official documents in the country are usually written in English. There are, however, a few instances where these documents may be translated into the three major languages: Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba. (Igbo, Nigeria) In the Xishuangbanna and Dehong Dai Autonomous Prefectures, Dai is an official language and has the same status as Chinese. Dai is used in administration along with Chinese. At the prefectural and county levels, Chinese is used more; at the township and village levels, Dai is used more. In terms of writing, Chinese is mostly used. Dai writing is only used for certain important documents or when there is a necessity to inform those living in townships or villages. (Dai, China)
The Use of Languages in Public Administration
123
Finally, there is another group of languages (2% of the total) which while not official or co-official are also used in public administration, though their written use is very limited.
Languages with oral and without written use in public administration Twenty-three percent of the sample languages are used in administration only orally. This group includes languages that are co-official in at least part of their territory, such as Kabardian (Russian Federation), Wolof (Senegal) and Dongxiang (China). These languages make up 7% of the sample. The remaining 16% of the total are not officially recognised. From the accounts of the informants themselves one can deduce that the oral use of a language in administration is not a direct consequence of a policy of promoting this language by the administrative authorities. In fact, it responds to the spontaneous conduct of citizens who use the language on recognising a member of their own community in an administrative post. These languages can hardly be considered favoured or protected by the authorities. The accounts of the informants for Tamazight, Karachay and Salar have plenty to say on this aspect: Only Niger and Mali have recognised the co-official status of Tamazight although they do not ensure its use in schools. In Algeria, the official status of this language has not been recognised in spite of the constant campaigns by the Kabyle from spring 1980 until the popular outbreak following the murder of Lunes Matub in July 1998. Officially it is not used in administration, although in Berber-speaking areas it depends on whether or not the civil servants are Berbers and always unofficially. In this case, it is always used orally. (Tamazight, Algeria) Formally this language has state status in the territory of the Republic. This language is used in dealings with the administration only in cases when the civil servant is Karachay. In this case, older people use their mother tongue but only orally. (Karachay, Russian Federation) Salar is one of the official languages in Salar autonomous areas. In government affairs within the Salar autonomous counties, Chinese is usually used. However, among Salar people themselves, they may occasionally use spoken Salar. (Salar, China) Whatever the case, this oral use of the language or this possibility of using it in public administration is a positive aspect for the vitality of the language and reflects at least a certain tolerance on the part of administrative structures.
Languages not used orally or in writing in public administration Fifty-nine percent of the remaining languages in the sample are not used in dealings with governmental institutions. This situation sometimes includes languages which have co-official status in their territory, as in the case of Nogai (Russian Federation) or Aymara (Peru). (See Map 6.) But basically the languages in this group are those with
124
Words and Worlds
no explicit recognition, which is the case of Uitoto (Colombia), Cabecar (Costa Rica) and Fongbe (Benin). Formally they are co-official and in practice tolerated or even rejected by the dominant sector of white Creole society. In the public and private administration the Aymara language is not used, either orally or in writing. (Aymara, Peru) According to the new political Constitution of 1991, ‘The state recognises and protects the ethnic and cultural diversity of the Colombian Nation’ (Article 7). ‘The languages and dialects of the ethnic groups are also official in their territories. The teaching in communities with linguistic traditions of their own will be bilingual’ (Article 10). Even so, the language is not used at all by the administration.” (Uitoto, Colombia) In 1987 this language – and 5 others – was raised to the rank of national languages that must be promoted as a priority in Benin. Fon is not in use by the administration. However we must point out a movement of hope since at the level of the Beninian parliament, some deputies can only understand their own national languages. These deputies are starting to claim that the parliamentary sessions should also take place in Fon. (Fongbe, Benin”) This large group has given rise to accounts from informants in which it can be seen that they are not aware of any tolerance of their languages by public administration. Contrary to their wishes, the speakers come up against obstacles imposed by the administrative authorities that hinder the use of the language by government services. The language is not official yet. To this day, Portuguese is the only official language of the islands. There are however efforts being made to endow Kriolu with a joint-official status. In terms of acceptance of the language, a survey I conducted on the islands in the summer of 1997 showed that the overwhelming majority of the people interviewed not only accepted the language but also favoured its officialisation by the side of Portuguese (Capeverdean Creole, Cape Verde) Bantawa is not allowed to use in administration (Bantawa, Nepal) France denies the existence of linguistic minorities on its territory. The notion of community other than the French national community is banished from the French legislation that only recognises citizens equal in rights and considers the affirmation of specific community rights as discriminatory and contrary to the principle of republican equality. Article 2 of the French Constitution, as modified in 1992, states that the language of the Republic is French. The written use of Breton is banished from public administration. Its oral use is anecdotal or confidential. (Breton, France) These figures are surprising, because a careful reading of them could suggest, for example, that in many situations recognition of official or co-official status for a language in its territory or part of it is more symbolic than real. We need only note that while 19% of the languages in the sample are co-official in their territory, only 6% of
The Use of Languages in Public Administration
125
them can possibly be used in writing normally in dealings with the administration and 2% only show incipient use (see Table 5, column 2). From all this we can conclude that only 13% of the languages in the sample show real normalised use in public administration, regardless of their official status. Of course, we must not forget the 5% which are said to show incipient written use. Any achievement, any presence of the language in a medium such as the administration, must always be defended and backed up if we want to preserve linguistic diversity. However, in the face of these facts, we must make an urgent appeal to the administrative and public authorities for practical measures to encourage the use of all their languages in public institutions. In analysing the use of languages in government services, it can be seen that in many situations the recognition of official or co-official status for a language seems more symbolic than real. We need only note that while 19% of languages in the sample are official or co-official, less than a third (6% of the total) show any degree of normal written use in dealings with governmental institutions. Furthermore, there is a symbolic 2% of the total of languages that only use writing in public services sporadically (see Table 5, column 2). This does not mean that oral use is not important. In fact, the informants themselves mention that insofar as citizens have access to administrative or to government bodies, they use their own language, sometimes because they express themselves better than in the official or administration language, and at others because they want to exercise their right to use it. These, of course, are acts that show a considerable awareness or linguistic vitality that very often has nothing to do with the official status of the language. Although contact situations between languages have traditionally been considered a problem for administrators, it is urgent that administrative bodies should look on multilingual situations as normal and they must be managed as such by the administration as well. Just as in education the simultaneous use of more than one language need not be an obstacle to communication if one can appreciate the value of diversity. In any case, every effort made for languages to figure more prominently in political and administrative bodies will always be positive both for the prestige and for the development of new linguistic forms in each language. Because of all this, it is important that we appeal to the administrative and public authorities so that they take every measure available to them and protect this fundamental right with imaginative measures, taking advantage of the innovations to be found in technology and always bearing in mind that the basic object of the administration is to ensure the greatest well-being for its citizens.
126
Words and Worlds
THE WHY AND THE WHEREFORE OF CENSUSES WITH LINGUISTIC DATA Censuses with linguistic data have been with us for a long time. Certainly a few countries have had language questions in their censuses for the better part of the 20th century (eg. Canada, India, Soviet Union) but even fewer in the 19th century (eg. Canada, India, Belgium). Other countries have been late arrivals on the scene and have only shown an official interest in such data in recent years (e.g. Spain, USA) and others have gathered language data in the past but have not done so in recent times (e.g. Belgium). To broaden the scope of what has been called linguistic data above, we could include in this discussion not just language data per se, but also data on ethnic or national groups as well. In doing so, we would ipso facto add many more countries to our list of those gathering ‘linguistic’ type data or what would be better termed ethno-linguistic type data. As language here defined is spoken by people, and people are themselves regrouped by longstanding ancestral and cultural relationships, data on these quite intact human groups can often shed some light on their linguistic affiliations (ibid. Kloss and McConnell, volume 1, Introduction). Obviously, broad ethno-linguistic links exist, but these need not be on a uniquely one-to-one basis, as an ethnic group can easily be found to speak more than one language on the one hand, and on the other, one language can often be spoken by several ethnic groups. This state of affairs has come about through a long historical process of diffraction and assimilation of languages. Here horizonal (geographical) space, involving also geographical barriers to communication, is paramount in the diffraction process. On the other hand, assimilation results in the loss of a language by a group, so that a language initially spoken by one group is lost and another language takes its place. Hence, the language spoken first by one group is later spoken by two or more. Here vertical (social) space is paramount, in that a number of languages may come to be used in a social space, resulting in the spread of some and the contraction of other languages. When we try to make these less than neat associations between closely interknit groups and their languages, it is usually presumed that we are speaking of the first language learned in childhood and still spoken, which is usually referred to as the mother tongue. Between the mother tongue and the ethnic group then, there is some kind of intimate consociational relationship (an ecological community with a common mother tongue), which in many cases lasts from generation to generation, and which allows one not only to link, but almost to identify, the one in terms of the other. This is not nearly so much the case for other-than-mother-tongue languages (second, third, forth, etc. languages), which have a much more tenuous relationship with the ethnic group and which are usually determined by conditions of social proximity
The Use of Languages in Public Administration
127
either in horizonal or in vertical space. Nowadays, both types of space have further expanded into a third dimension of cyberspace, so that real physical proximity or lack of it is no longer a sine qua non of second language learning and language maintenance, spread and loss. Due to the overall ‘shrinkage’ of physical space, the diffraction process appears to be slowing down, giving rise to a lower ‘birth rate’ for languages on the one hand, and on the other, the increasing virtual proximity would appear to be resulting in a speeding up of the assimilation process, both in terms of social and ‘long distance’ cyber space. THE WHEREFORE OF LINGUISTIC DATA At this point we should perhaps ask ourselves the following question: ‘Why bother gathering linguistic or ethnolinguistic data?’ and at the same time, use this discussion to discuss some of the difficulties and pitfalls involved in this data gathering process. One would have thought that given the central and dependent role of language in our daily lives, together with the inescapable fact of universal ethnic grouping (the latter having in turn a direct link to nationalism and the rise of the nation state in modern times), that data on linguistic and ethnonational groups would be plentiful, accurate to a fault and universally recognised and promoted. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is the exact opposite. Data is sparce, sporadic in its manifestation, lacks consistency over time, is geographically not very widespread and methodologically is largely not uniform. Although such data is considered basic by many, it is often so stratigic or sensitive in many countries as to warrant suppression at the worst, or manipulation at the best. So, although ethno-linguistic data should due to its nature be of central interest to most countries and in high demand for research and in the scientific media for many different reasons, the reality is that when it is not simply ignored, such data is limited in scope and controlled in its diffusion by governments in control of their census offices and research institutes. Data on an ethnographic and geolinguistic patterning of the world and its peoples would seem to be a natural result of a democratisation of the political regimes of the world and could without too much difficulty be related to basic human rights, at least in the form of a right to detailed information on the subject. Graphically, it could also lead to a further scientific development of maps on the subject and to still other scientific developments in GIS mapping (Dalby 1998; McConnell 1999), so that ethnolinguistic data could be better classified, thereby ‘obtaining sets of empirical data at each level of abstraction’ (see above). At the same time this data could be linked to other types of social data, so that changes in language use (including language death) could be monitored better, explained and predicted through an ecological approach, using data not only from the social sciences but from the biological sciences as well (Parker 1997).
128
Words and Worlds
Apart from the usual standard type of data relating to: (i) mother tongue, i.e. ‘the first language learned and still spoken’, (ii) second or other languages spoken (able to keep up a conversation in the language), there are sometimes questions about whether languages are read or written. There are also, but only very occasionally, questions on speaking a language in a particular contextual situation, which constitutes a very useful dimension, e.g. ‘Language most often spoken in the home?’, as in more recent Canadian censuses. The most recent census in Canada, i.e. that of 2001, will still add further questions of this nature, namely, ‘The language most often spoken at work?, The second most used language at work? and ’The second most used language at home?’. This type of question is important, as it relates directly to the functional or utilitarian aspect of language and not just to general language skills, which are largely assumed in the functional context. Second, it includes in the functional aspect one of frequency or dominance. Language function is a whole different area of study not centred on the individual speaker and his/her language skills, but on dominant or coordinate language usage in a specific ‘social’ territory. This type of data has only been superficially covered in language censuses, but when it has been used there or elsewhere, has given rise to challenging comparisons and promising analyses. Very little data of this nature has come out of the conventional census, probably because such data raises sensitive questions of language role and utility/functionality, that can lead to further embarrassing questions on language community rights, to language spread, maintenance and loss, and to language domination. However, sociolinguistic research on language communities has generated a large amount of data over the past 40 years, although much of it is based on case studies that give neither a wide coverage or a strong comparative basis. One such study that has these qualities and which covers several hundred languages spoken on several continents is: The Written Languages of the World: A Survey of the Degree and Modes of Use (Kloss and McConnell 1978, 1989, 1989; McConnell et al. 1995, 1998, 2000). Here the data that has been gathered is based on the same questionnaire (with limited local adaptions) with information on 8 social domains (governments, schools, mass media, industries, etc.) and in each of these domains on a number of levels. This has allowed us to create a functional portrait that is both descriptive and quantifiable. THE POTENTIAL FOR LINGUISTIC DATA IN CENSUS If it were not for the political impediments and objections raised against the collection of linguistic data in censuses, this type of data could go a long way to solidifying language and linguistic community rights and to adding to the main outlines of an ethnographic and geolinguistic patterning of the world’s languages and peoples. This framework, once established, would also allow us to study in a more serious vein the internal interaction of this patterning
The Use of Languages in Public Administration
129
(language and community contact) against the backdrop of other types of social and economic interaction in order to better evaluate more seriously the effect of the one on the other. It is only then that any serious kind of prognosis or prediction can be undertaken. Unfortunately both linguists and sociolinguists in the recent turn of century events could not resist the temptation to predict the demise of most of the languages of the world (Hagège, Crystal, Krauss, etc.). However, it is certain that basic linguistic and sociolinguistic portraits of most of the languages of the world that are required for this framework are simply either not available, are out of date or are incomplete. So in spite of the pitfalls in language census data, some of which are mentioned above, the census still has a role to play in gathering data of this nature worldwide. And this role can and undoubtedly will become ever more important, once this data is not just at the service of individual nation states, but at the service of worldwide institutions, the aim of which is to foster the dissemination of important and useful and even critical ethnolinguistic data on the peoples and languages of the world. Grant D. McConnell Laval University, Canada
130
Words and Worlds
Recommendations on the use of languages in public administration Having noted the importance and the practical transcendence for linguistic communities of the use of their language in relations with public services:
• The administrative authorities and public services, both those dependent on the state and those that are regional and local, should watch over the fulfilment of the right to use local languages in citizens’ dealings with the administration. • The administrative authorities must ensure that members of linguistic communities have the chance to address oral and written requests to the administrative services in their own language and to receive a reply in the same language. • In public administration, citizens should be provided with the relevant application forms in the local language or at least in a bilingual or multilingual edition. The same must happen with the basic documents supplied by the administration, such as identity cards, passports, driving licenses, citizens’ certificates, etc. • The public administration should also ensure that members of local communities can use names and other signs of identity in their own language and that place names and toponyms are indicated in the local language(s). • The public administration should in particular ensure that basic facilities such as the administration of justice and the health service attend to citizens in their own language. • The authorities should see to it that their employees are able to use the language of the area where they are working. • The authorities should take population censuses that include linguistic data, with the object of revealing citizens’ real linguistic situation and subsequently being able to provide services attending properly to their linguistic rights.
Chapter 5
Language and Writing Can a language subsist without writing in the twenty-first century? Why is so much importance attached to writing? What is the real situation of most languages as regards writing? What does it mean to standardise a language? Does writing mean written literary tradition? How much space/time will be left for reading/writing with the generalisation of telephony and of computer and audiovisual media? When a linguistic community has no system of writing and has no dealings with so-called modern civilisation, its language nevertheless fulfils all the functions of communication and thought for the community and can therefore subsist without danger. This situation, however, is increasingly rare. For the sake of modernity and the power of social liberation attributed to written culture, literacy campaigns are now widespread in all states. As Pattanayak points out (1991), UNESCO put a literacy programme into operation in 1975 which it was hoped would reach the whole of the world’s population by 2000. However, this author believes that there are still about 800 million people today who are illiterate. Also, it is not known if the newly literate are literate in their own language or, which is almost the same thing, how many people have been made literate in their own language and who they are. Although it is known that many languages have no written codification or written use, in the figures obtained in the study, more than 80% of the informants for the languages sampled said that their language was a written one. What is more, it seems that the development of writing, along with schools, is a prime objective for the survival of the language in question. Except for fully official or co-official state languages, most languages show only the beginnings of written use, generally limited to the sphere of religion and to schools. It is with regard to writing that we see how the interpretation of the concept of standard language varies. As for literary tradition, we shall see that the oral wealth that exists in all languages rarely has a written version. In this section on the written use of languages, we shall try to answer the questions above, mainly on the basis of the evidence gathered.
131
132
Words and Worlds ORALITY AND WRITING: AND THERE WERE LETTERS
You have come to the village of the Ena Wene Nawé, an Arawak people of the Juruena river, Mato Grosso, Brazil. In 1974 they had their first visitors from the “others”. At the beginning of 1978 I am in their midst and I am writing my notes in a notebook on my knees. The natives watch the movement of my wrist and the birth of the signs lining up from left to right with curiosity. One day Kawair° asks me if my companion will be back soon; another day, I am asked if the woman we left dying in the village has died yet. Writing, they think, can predict, prophesy, bring the distance near and leap across time. One day I take a book with me containing mythical stories of the Paresi, another Arawak people with long contact with “civilisation” and once visited by Claude Lévi-Strauss. I have been with the Ena Wene Nawé for some years now, and I have never before read aloud what I write in Portuguese. What sense could they make of that bla-bla-bla of mine? But for whatever reason, today I decide to read aloud. When I pronounce words in a similar dialect, they immediately understand. And then one of them, realising that I do not know enough of the language to give such a long account so well, snatches the book from me intrigued…and listens to it. There is no doubt I saw the voice, the voice was inside the book. Going from orality to writing is not an impersonal act. Someone has to specifically transmit the voice to the hands and from the hands to a sign, written, drawn, lined up vertically or horizontally, and transmitted back to the eyes. While there is a taste of language that is relished, savoured, is moistened with saliva or dries in the throat, there is also writing that is touched, though it would take an almost superhuman sense of touch to make out the relief in writing unless it were cuneiform or glyptic or some other form of graffito. But essentially, writing makes it possible to see words and to hear what we see, since what we hear is endowed with visibility. In orality and writing all the senses that are strengthened and enhanced on the basis of utterances intervene. Today we know that no word can be uttered that cannot be at once time and space. But what is really universal is the language of the mouth, which we call oral and which no human society can do without. The experience by which I happened to assist at the birth of reading in a village filled me with wonder and fear. It all began as a game, but then I began to wonder how it would end. How often they took my notebook from my hands and filled the lines from left to right with drawings – graphemes – that were different but fairly repetitive – that is, discrete units of an almost closed series of figures, an attempt at a kind of alphabet. An attempt to imitate? Probably. In what were to become early pages of writing there was not as yet, it seemed, any intention of mastery, as Claude Lévi-Strauss thought he had discovered
Language and Writing
133
when that Nambikwara Indian, precisely in the same area where I was now with the Ena Wene Nadw, appropriated writing, trying to make use of those scribblings as an instrument of power. Before my eyes, though, was a barely gratuitous act and – why not? – an amusement. This has been the common paradigm of the history of writing in the peoples who have adopted it. Not always, but it presents a way in which writing can emerge and be accepted which would perhaps not be very traumatic for those peoples and languages who adopt it. Death in books? The Yanomami refer to letters with the word kanasi, which means “vestige, corpse, remains, sign or hint”. In fact, writing can be all these things: the corpse of a dead body, the waste remains of empty words, but also the vestige of a memory, the hint of future life, a sign of battle. According to accounts of people’s first encounters with letters and books, the situation created is not a very hopeful one. Pedro Mártir de Anglería and Francisco López de Gomara speak of the reverential fear of the natives before these newcomers who “made paper speak”. Written paper, understandably, seemed almost as fearful and as terrible as the firearms that wounded and killed from a distance, since it brought and issued words of life and death over even greater distances. Written paper was the instrument of great powers that came from far away, through voices that were never heard but that were “seen” in the picture on the paper. According to one account from 1614, at the time when the Jesuits in Paraguay were carrying out their “Reducciones”, the Guarani distrusted these men who spent so much time reading their breviaries. The Jesuit writes, “Throughout the Paraná they spread [the idea] that we were spies and false priests and that we brought death in our books”. The Jesuit chronicle also reports that one Guarani youth, on seeing “the priest was praying for the book in his hands, conceived that the tupa kuatia, as they called books or paper, revealed his betrayal; because they have conceived that, when they see that we communicate through letters, these speak to us and reveal that which is secret and foretell the future”. The notebooks and field diaries of ethnographers who have had experiences of first contact with indigenous societies record similar reactions. The neologisms created by the natives themselves to express the novelty of written paper are revealing. The Guarani called letters kuatia, a name with which they also refer to the drawings and paintings with which they adorn themselves: ava ikuatia for “the man written with paintings”. The Guarani-Chiriguano called paper tupa pire, “divine skin” or “skin that casts spells” (shamanistic). The truth is that writing and literacy have become an unavoidable task of globalisation. In fact, there may be no greater globalisation today than writing,
134
Words and Worlds
though in such a range of forms that those of us who are of one language are illiterate before another. Only the market is perhaps more globalised than writing itself, but the market economy could hardly become widespread except through a system of letters and numbers. The debate over the death throes – the struggle and approaching death – of the voice in the face of writing had a lofty exponent as far back as Plato himself. Must we continue to mistrust writing? Is it still in most cases an instrument of domination? And even worse, the death of words? But would it not still be possible to play with letters, like voices seen and painted? Writing is a visible support for the voice and not necessarily its rival, although at present its dominant fixation is sought. Bartomeu Melià “Antonio Guasch” Centre for Paraguayan Studies, Paraguay
The value of writing Many values have been attributed to written language. The study of the history of writing, and especially of classical Greek culture, has led authors like Olson to say (1991) that it is written language that has given rise to ordered and logical thought. It has also been said that it is thanks to writing that humanity has been able to develop democratic political systems. This same researcher (Olson 1994), however, mentions other authors who argue that Greek culture, the Homeric texts or the writings of Plato himself, are based on oral records. He even accepts that no direct causal links can be established between written culture and cultural development. In the same way, assertions about the influence of writing on cognitive development are also questionable. It might be said that thanks to writing obvious metalinguistic skills are developed. The development of grammar, of syllogistic reasoning, of most linguistic analysis, are all unlikely without writing. However, differentiating between simple and complex thought on the basis of the possession or otherwise of a written culture has no scientific foundation (Goody & Watt 1968). It also seems obvious that writing as a system of annotation, memorisation and recording is more efficient than the oral system and it is hard to imagine a state or political system of any scope without a written system of administration. But, as Gough says (1968), writing is no guarantee of democracy, since dictatorial or fascist systems have also developed with the help of writing. In the same way, we cannot say that cultures without writing are less logical. In fact, according to Lloyd (1990), knowledge has developed more through oral dialectical discussion than through the analysis of written texts.
Language and Writing
135
Similarly, no-one is in any doubt that the prestige of written language is associated with the social, religious and political history of most communities. As Landaburu points out (1998), it is the possessors of technology (scribes, priests, officials, jurists, etc.) who have overvalued the use of writing, taking advantage of the position of power this use gave them. It is therefore logical that the mastery of writing is also considered an important asset to social liberation. Although the values attributed to writing can be questioned, we nevertheless know that society – and this includes all the informants in our research – considers written language essential for a language to subsist and to acquire the prestige necessary to be passed on. It is therefore not the object of this review to dismiss or detract from writing. It is, however, important to stress that writing does not constitute a necessary condition for a language to be considered an invaluable asset of the cultural heritage of humanity.
The written use of languages Table 6. Written use, standardisation and written literature Languages not used in writing
19%
Languages used in writing, with standardisation and written literature
27%
Languages used in writing but without standardisation or written literature
54%
TOTAL
100%
The figures in Table 6 provide important information for assessing the state of languages as regards written use. If we only looked at the answer to “is the language written or not?”, we would be reduced to the information provided in the first line of the table, which tells us that more than 80% of the languages analysed are used in writing. However, because of the extreme differences to be found in the act of writing, we also need to look into the information that has been obtained on standardisation and on written literary traditions. Of course, we need to go back over what is considered standard language and on the possible misinterpretations of the question on written language. Suffice it to say, for the time being, that only a third of all languages, those that claim to have a standard language and a standard literature, show a relatively normalised use of writing. Writing is a factor to which informants attach great importance. Generally it brings prestige to the language, especially when there is an ancient written tradition to fall back on, as shown by informants of Sindhi, Breton and Tibetan. The Literary tradition is as ancient as the language itself (10,000 years). Poetry: Shahjo-Risaco, Sachal-jo-Risalo. Texts: Mirza Kaleech Beg Allama I. Kazi and others. (Sindhi, India)
136
Words and Worlds
The Breton literary tradition is very ancient. Originally oral (bardic tradition), it appears in writing in the twelfth century. This inspired the Matière de Bretagne by Chrestien de Troyes. Since the creation of the Gwalarn literary movement in 1925, novels, short novels, poetry and plays have not ceased to appear. (Breton, France) There is an abundant collection of traditional folk literature in the Tibetan language. This includes mainly folk songs, myths, legends, stories, narrative poems, long songs and heroic epics. The Story of King Geser is a Tibetan heroic epic which consists of over 100 sections and which has over 50 different versions. Tibetan operas consisting of over 10 different plays and several Tibetan ballads are also very popular throughout Tibetan regions. (Tibetan, Tibet) In many cases, writing has begun recently – in the last century – as in the case of Zhuang, Jingpo and many other Chinese languages, or many African languages like Somali or Bamanankan. Very often, and this would be the case of the examples given, the beginning of writing coincides with colonisation and even, sometimes, seems to have been induced by it. This does not lessen the value attached to its presence and use. It has a phonetic script based on the Latin alphabet which was created in 1957. Among the Zhuang people another form of writing based on Chinese characters is used for native poems and plays, but the shapes of the characters vary between regions. It has a rich corpus of literature. Most of them have been transmitted orally down through the generations. Since the creation of the Zhuang writing system, these traditional works have gradually been published. (Zhuang, China) There has been a written system since 1972; there are poems, songs, dances, stories. (Somali, Somalia) The Jingpo writing system, which was based on the Latin alphabet, was created in 1899. (Jingpo, China) The known use dates from 1930 through Kaarta’s Bamanankan (writing called ‘masaba’). (Bamanankan, Mali) A separate mention is needed for the writing systems adopted by different linguistic communities. The processes some languages have been through in the adoption of different codifications (alphabetic, syllabic, ideographic, etc.) constitute interesting aspects of the cultural experience undergone by the respective communities. These circumstances, however, are in many cases the reflection of the particularly troublesome historical situations that so many communities have suffered and still suffer. Examples of this type are the writing in the Abaza language of the Russian Federation, which according to our informant, was until 1938 based on the Latin alphabet and after this date on the Cyrillic alphabet; that of the Malay language of Malaysia, which has two written forms, Latin and Arabic; that of Kirgiz, which in China has writing based on Arabic signs and in Kyrgyzstan on Cyrillic; Meitei, in India, which
Language and Writing
137
is written in the Assamese/Bengali system and in its original specific alphabet; Rajhastani, which is based on the Devanagari system, etc. It seems that these circumstances do nothing for the prestige and vitality of languages. If the process of writing is seen as something enriching, a resort that speakers of a language endow themselves with to gain access to other uses that are not possible from oral use, it seems important to have the most economic and effective writing models. In other words, those codes are needed that best serve the circumstances in store for the linguistic community now and in the future. Linguistic planners and the respective officials should bear this very much in mind. Another aspect that is emphasised over and over again amongst the informants is the influence of religions as initiators of written use. Illustrative examples are those cases of American languages such as Guarani, Otomi and Wayuu, or the African language Nyoro and the Asian Lai. Since the arrival of the Jesuits in the eighteenth century until our day, the Guarani language has had an alphabet and it has been used since the implementation of the bilingual situation in 1993. (Guarani, Paraguay) From the sixteenth century the Franciscans and Augustines adapted the Latin alphabet for writing Otomi. Today there is a ‘rebirth’ of written Otomi. The Secretariat for Public Education is publishing text books for primary education for children who speak Otomi. (Otomi, Mexico) There was no written form until 1907, but the American Missionary Mr. Carson invented a written form in 1907. (Lai, Bangladesh) The Runyoro have known written use for only 120 years, since the arrival of the African missionaries. Until then, they only knew spoken tradition. (Nyoro, Uganda) Only the publications of the Church (are written): Bible, New Testament, school Bible, missal, prayer book, hymn book, catechism, dictionary, grammar, ABC Chisena…There is a booklet of poems and another of legends made by pupils. (Wayuu, Venezuela) Written experience is often limited to the translation of the Bible, or parts of it, very often by missionaries or linguists from outside the community. The adoption of writing in the language of the community is not usually quick or widespread, but it can constitute a productive process. What has happened in the history of writing of most European languages, and particularly in the Germanic languages, seems still to be repeated. Religious writings and in particular translations of the Bible give rise to writing in many other languages. The most recent experience is that of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) as chiefly responsible for this powerful boost to writing in native languages through the Bible. This language exists in a written form since 1973, when literacy and Bible Translation Programmes were introduced in Maridi to develop southern languages, but prior to that some works existed in comparative vocabularies only. (Viri, Sudan)
138
Words and Worlds
The Summer Institute of Linguistics prepared literacy reading-books in this language but they were used very little. The Central Bank of Guayaquil has produced publications on mythology which are hardly used either by speakers. At present the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) is publishing material which is being used in the bilingual schools. (Colorado, Ecuador) The development of writing in each language will nevertheless depend on the ideological, economic and institutional resources the community itself can manage.
ON THE EQUALITY OF LANGUAGES Modern linguistics, thanks to descriptive studies of numerous indigenous languages made during the twentieth century, has been able to determine that there is no such thing as a primitive language supposedly less developed than the languages of Western civilisation. It is commonly believed that a language that is not written, that has neither grammar nor dictionary, is less grammatically developed than those languages that have grammatical descriptions and dictionaries, and that until writing is introduced, allowing the composition of works of this sort and a written literary tradition, a language cannot develop its grammatical potential. These beliefs are radically false. Writing and written literary tradition have no influence at all on the grammatical structure of languages. Having writing has no real effect on the grammar of any language. There is a preconception that writing fixes or codifies language. All human languages are codes structured according to precise rules and subject to a constant state of change, also according to identifiable rules. Languages that are written do not in any way stop changing, just like purely oral languages; hence the differences to be seen, for example, between spoken and written English or French. Furthermore, communities that have no knowledge of writing have rich and varied oral literary traditions that exploit and develop the possibilities offered by their languages, which are the same as those found in, for example, classical languages like Greek or Latin, the basis of one of the most admired written literatures in Western cultures. Many people refuse to accept that the language of a small tribal community can have a linguistic medium of expression as useful, ductile and powerful as that enjoyed by Spaniards, Russians or Germans. Nevertheless, linguists who have described the languages of lost tribes, such as Hixkariana (Brazil, 400 speakers; see D.C. Derbyshire 1979) or Haruai (Papua New Guinea, 1,000 speakers; see Comrie, 1998) reveal languages whose grammatical development and capacities are similar to those of Western languages.
Language and Writing
139
The fact that all known languages are equal as regards their degree of complexity and potential does not mean that they are the same. Each language achieves that degree in its own way; no two languages are the same in this aspect, each one has its own grammatical personality within the common arena that defines human languages. Every single one of the languages of the world is an original and efficient contribution to the rigorous demands of expression and communication amongst human beings and communities. Juan Carlos Moreno Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain
See Map 7 for information on language diversity and standardisation in Senegal.
Languages not used in writing Although the number of languages in the world without writing is very large, of the sample analysed, only 19% are languages whose informants say they have no writing. Of course, the absence of writing does not involve any linguistic shortcoming for the language or for the culture it transmits. Evidence for this are the abundant accounts reflecting the literary wealth which unwritten languages also possess and transmit from generation to generation orally, so long as the language remains alive. The following accounts of three Chinese languages are a good example of this fact. It is also important to point out that according to these same accounts, only Guiqiong seems to be transmitted at all normally. The other two, De’ang and Namuyi, are in immediate danger of extinction. As there has been no written form of De’ang historically, its traditional literature has been transmitted through the generations in oral form. A few literary works have been recorded using Dai in religious writings. These include ‘The Story of the Flood’, ‘The Bathing Goddess’ and ‘Lament on the Lusheng’. (De’ang, China) The elders or religious practitioners in the local areas can remember a wealth of oral literature. This includes historical stories, stories about the origin of man, songs and fables. Apart from their superstitious content, they have a certain literary value. However, there have not yet been opportunities to record them. (Guiqiong, China) Some elderly people and religious practitioners can relate historical stories, fables, and other forms of oral literature, which can be traced back to antiquity and which have been passed down orally through the generations. They have not all been recorded. They include some curses used by their religious practitioners as well as some other religious terms. Despite the superstitious elements of some of the stories, they are still valuable
140
Words and Worlds
because they contain much philosophical knowledge and provide us with insight about how the ancients viewed the world. (Namuyi, China)
Languages used in writing In the sample analysed, more than 80% of the languages studied are said to have a written code. This is a good thing if we bear in mind that writing, in principle, helps to give languages prestige and vitality. However, to say that a language is used in writing can mean a lot of things, from the existence of an alphabet barely used for anything more than to translate bits of the Bible or transcribe some work of folklore, to situations of normalised use of writing which is socially indispensable for belonging to the group. The in-between situations, of course, vary widely. In order to provide rather more accurate information taking into account the figures gathered, we shall analyse whether the languages in the sample, as well as having a written code, are standardised and whether they have a written literary tradition.
Languages used in writing, with standardisation and a literary tradition Of the languages analysed, 27% have a standard variety and furthermore a written literary tradition. Of course, each of these concepts – whether a language is used in writing or not, whether it is standardised and whether it has literary tradition – can be understood differently and the fact that the answers to the three questions are affirmative does not guarantee that the written language is habitually or normally used. According to the details given by the informants themselves, written use in many cases arises basically through the production of material for study, literacy teaching or religious instruction. It does not necessarily reflect widespread use either in spheres of normal social use (administration, education, the press, trade, etc.) or by the majority of the members of the community (level of literacy in the language in question). The following examples illustrate this situation: There is written use of the language: some of the documents that exist are religious hymns, fragments of biblical translation, literacy spelling books, reading books for classes in convergent education, handbooks for reading and writing and various literacy documents. There are publications by Catholic missionaries and isolated researchers. The DNAFLA (Direction Nationale de l’Alphabétisation Fonctionnelle et de la Linguistique Appliquée) has produced a lot of teaching material for literacy and post-literacy classes and classes in convergent education. (Dogon, Mali) There is a lot of material written recently in the language by the Kaxinawa teachers for use in schools about native history, geography and science. It has been published by the Comissão Pró-Índio do Acre since 1987. (Kaxinawa, Brazil)
Language and Writing
141
Written forms include a phonetic script based on the Latin alphabet, as well as the new Latin Lisu script created after 1949. There is a wealth of literature which includes ‘Genesis’, ‘The Shepherd’s Song’ and the ‘White-Haired Bird’, as well as the Bible and Christian hymns of praise. (Lisu, China) Of course, widespread languages that are official state languages and that have an extensive literature in production today satisfy all three conditions. This group also includes languages that are currently undergoing recession or have had a flourishing literature in the past but have lost that condition for one reason or another. In this group, there are also languages whose written use is just beginning and has not yet extended to all the community of speakers. Writing processes, like any other linguistic activity, are dynamic by nature. Situations can change due to a number of circumstances. Informants seemed to consider it a good thing to be able to write a language and to do so as often as possible and for as many uses as possible. The survey also reflects the difficulty involved in this practice when the language is in decline. Bearing in mind the pride and satisfaction which arises from possessing written texts, especially for minorised languages, it is important to emphasise and appreciate the effort made by these communities.
Languages used in writing but lacking standardisation or written literary tradition Fifty-four percent of languages are used in writing even though they lack standardisation and a written literature. The account for Qiang, a Chinese language, shows that writing does exist. However, it is also evident that this is not a language in which writing is a common practice. There is oral folklore. Since the creation of the Qiang writing system, a volume of traditional literary works has been collated (with a total of over one million words) and is awaiting publication. (Qiang, China) In fact, at least half the languages that are said to be written are in a precarious situation. Although they are said to have a standard variety, this is frequently the only variety or dialect to have been codified, as in the case of Aukan, Babole or Dobel, whose accounts follow. There is a standard form of the language as it is used in speech by Aukaners. Furthermore, the SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics) has developed a standard orthography and has documented the linguistic patterns of the language. (Aukan, Surinam) No conscious attempt to impose standardisation, but the Dzeke variety is the only variety written. (Babole, Congo) In the written form, printed materials all use the SIL approved ‘working orthography’, individuals often spell according to how they think it should be in personal letters. (Dobel, Indonesia)
142
Words and Worlds
Similarly, we have been able to confirm that in spite of having a written code, many languages hardly have any written work and that neither writing (nor reading), at least in their own language(s), is as yet a normal practice in that linguistic community. Similarly, it is known for a fact that our figures also confirm the existence of languages which have a written literary tradition and which nevertheless have not accepted a standard variety for all the written practice of the linguistic community as a whole. These account for approximately 20% of this group. The example of Uma, an Indonesian language, illustrates this situation. If you mean standard orthography used in all literature, yes, there is standardisation. All literature that has been produced is in the Kantewu (Central) dialect, and the established orthography has been used. But if you mean is there a standard dialect or standard written form used by all dialects, no. Other dialects accept Kantewu dialect better than they would any other dialect, but many people would still prefer to read their own dialect. (Uma, Indonesia)
On standard language The concept of a standard language is a Western notion usually associated with the written language, as it is through writing that the corresponding rules are normally established and fixed. It is nevertheless important to remember, as Moreno Cabrera says in this same work, that “the process of standardisation of a language or groups of linguistic varieties does not introduce any new elements that would fundamentally modify the quality of that language and make it superior to the varieties”. It is also true, however, that the adoption of certain formal regularities, be they lexical, morphological, orthographical, etc., can bring stability and thereby increase the chances of identification and cohesion the language gives the group. The standard, however, insofar as it is usually built from forms used by the elite (see Bronckart in this same text), also raises problems for its adoption by the community as a whole. Whatever conception our informants have, almost half the languages in this sample are standardised, according to the information they have provided. On the other hand, the other half are not, although 10% say they are being standardised at the present moment. As we pointed out above, the concept of standard language is not unequivocal. For example, for a large number of informants a language need not necessarily be used habitually in writing to be considered standardised. In fact, 20% of the languages that claim to have a standard language are hardly used in writing, but are languages of a fundamentally oral tradition. The standard, in these cases, is associated with the oral use, and is a variety which receives general acceptance within the community. The following list sums up the reasons given in the survey to support how the standard language came about: • The standard is based on one of the dialects although it is influenced by others. The case of Waffa or Yele, in Papua New Guinea, corresponds to this criterion since one variety of the language is said to have been accepted as standard.
Language and Writing
143
• Standardisation is taken for granted, as the language is not considered to have varieties. There is no need for writing. Languages in serious risk of extinction, such as Tchamba, in Togo, or Itzaj, in Guatemala, are the ones that give rise to these appreciations. • The existing literary language is implicitly accepted as the standard form of the respective language. An orthography based on scientific principles has been introduced and used in the available books. Outside of this literature there is little standardisation. (Yakan, Philippines) The standard as such does not exist, but literary Ossetic fulfils the role of the national norm. (Ossetic, Georgia) • The use of the written language – that is, the production of written material – is also seen as proof in itself of the existence of the written standard. But there are also those who feel the opposite. It is not enough to write a language for it to have a standard form. • The teaching of the language in schools and the prestige of the language are also often given as reasons supporting the existence of a standard variety. The Tepehuan of the south-east is considered the prestige dialect, since it is spoken over a wide area. (Tepehuan, Mexico) • There is an orthographic, grammatical and/or lexical proposal that has been promulgated by some official institution or organisation, sometimes with the support of rules or laws. The question of standardisation pertains to the individual dialects. Most of the dialects are now standardised in the sense that there are dictionaries and (small) grammars for most of them. It is, however, as yet unclear whether all members of the linguistic community accept the standardised forms of Frisian. (Frisian, Germany) An association of Mandyak has determined that Bok should be used as the standard; it is the most widespread dialect. (Mandyak, Senegal) • Translation of texts confirms and reinforces the existence of a standard variety and at the same time gives a feeling of unity within the language. Concerning standardisation, if you mean ‘Is there an official body that determines how the language will be written’, then the answer is ‘no’. If you mean ‘Is there a body of published literature in a single dialect that has a standardising effect’, the answer is yes. (Yele, Papua New Guinea) • It is felt that there must be various simultaneous uses (literature, media, education) to confirm the existence of a standard language.
144
Words and Worlds Halbi spoken in and around Jagadalpur is considered a standard one. All India Radio broadcasts programmes in Halbi. The only local newspaper of Bastar Dandakaranya Samachai publishes News in Halbi in Nagarisaint. Hence, this standard variety is recognised. Hence, Halbi spoken in the central part of Bastar is considered the standard one. (Halbi, India)
• And although sporadic, there is no shortage of associations between the concepts of standard language and artificial language. In the same way, there are those who speak of changes in acceptance of the standard. During the 1950s, the vernacular form used in Jinhua town in Jianchuan Country was considered to be the standard form. However, over the past few years, it has been replaced by the vernacular used in Xizhou Town in Dali City. (Bai, China) However, most accounts considered that having a standard variety is good for prestige and especially for allowing the use of language in writing. The disparity of opinions confirms the range of circumstances that can affect the creation and development of a standard variety. It is also very important to point out that, as the information shows, the standard variety is not essential either for written use or for literary production and even less so for the survival of a language. The informers seemed to be clear that it is their use, both orally and in writing, that ensures the survival and development of languages. In the same way, it cannot be said either that the existence of a standard variety necessarily ensures written literary production. A wide range of situations can arise in the development of languages and their written varieties, be these considered standard or not. Within the group selected, the languages with a standard that nevertheless lack a literary tradition account for 35%.
THE STATUS OF LINGUISTIC NORMS Linguistic norms can be defined as codified products of social judgements concerning the particular human activity called language. Language has two obvious characteristics: it is extremely diversified and it evolves with the passing of time. Diversity is first of all external: language is realised through multiple natural languages, which differ from one another in their phonology (types of sound units exploited to produce meaning), in their lexicon and their morphosyntactic rules. Diversity is also internal: within each language there are coexisting varieties linked to regional, socio-economic, personal differences, etc. As to change, it affects the whole dimension of natural languages, even if evidence of it requires long periods of time. This variability of languages is due to the fact that the significance of their constitutive units, or signs, is permanently renegociated through use and these signs
Language and Writing
145
organise themselves in paradigms of terms competing to express the same reality. It is also due to the fact that these signs get organised in communicative forms, i.e. oral or written texts, the function of which is to comment on diverse and changing human activities, and the structure of which partially depends on the very characteristics of those activities. But this variability is also dynamic: each natural language (and each variety) constitutes a system able to transform itself to express any item of knowledge and any process of thought. In this sense, languages constitute systems of expression whose potentialities are strictly equivalent whether they have a writing system or not. Social judgements concern one or another aspect of this functioning of language and produce four different kinds of norms. • Functional norms are related to the conditions of use of a particular natural language; they indicate the choice of signs and of texts that, regardless of any intrinsic value judgement, seem more accurate or more suitable in a determined situation of communication, to express content or comment on an activity. • Cultural norms are related to the presumed quality of language productions, and therefore largely depend on aesthetic judgement. They can translate into a comparison of languages, leading us to consider that some of them could be more complete or more logical or “nicer” than others, and also leading us to consider that the best languages could be those that both possess a writing system and have been the subject of technical descriptions. Cultural norms generally give more importance to the characteristics of written forms compared to oral forms and, within written forms, they favour a subgroup of a literary nature. • Theoretical norms result from the steps made towards language knowledge in philosophy or in linguistics. In philosophy, an important thread claims that the structures of languages are but the direct translation either of a logic of the world or of a logic of thought, both of universal status. In this perspective diversity and change are disturbing phenomena and hence they remain under-analysed and de facto undervalued. In linguistics, many works of empirical analysis of languages have been carried out but none of the models built on these bases could pretend to give a full and homogenous vision of their characteristics. Yet researchers often tend to consider that the only existing language properties are those they manage to describe, which again entails a depreciation of some varieties, particularly oral ones. • Political norms are linked to centralisation and education measures undertaken by the States. Relying on the concept of State unity and citizen equality prevailing from the end of the 18th century, they translate into the definition of a standard language that would be a kind of common language elaborated from multiple varieties in use, and that would serve at the same time as the
146
Words and Worlds official State language, as the teaching language and as the “mother” language to be taught. But historical analyses show that these standard languages always build upon a privileged variety, that of the elites close to power, and that they reject most of the characteristics of the other varieties in use inside a specific community.
In as far as all human activities are subject to social evaluations, the production of linguistic norms is in itself an ineluctable process and it would be illusory to pretend to interrupt or suppress it. But there is a risk of confusing these judgements, whose grounds are often questionable, with the very reality of languages and their functioning. On the other hand, these normative judgements are everyone’s responsibility, and it is therefore legitimate and necessary to discuss and control them, and particularly to try to differentiate between those norms that are useful for the development of languages and their users, and those hindering them. From this point of view, and on the basis of the data collected in this Review, it is convenient to question and fight against the judgements that issue from simplistic “preconceived ideas” or from “interested” enterprises (cultural, philosophical, scientific or political ones). This drives us to assert that all languages (and their varieties), whatever the magnitude of their dissemination and use, have a potential linguistic resource that is equal in rights, and that they are the witnesses of the multiple ways humans have to elaborate their knowledge of the world and regulate their social interactions, and in this sense they constitute a major aspect of human heritage. This also drives us not to overestimate the role played by writing systems. The creation and development of these systems do entail deep changes in the social structures and in the cognitive functioning of individuals. But every language has the capacity to survive, to enrich and to play its part as a social mediator independently from the existence of writings that only reflect part of their properties and are only recent technical constructions. This finally drives us to encourage a switch in the all too frequent relationship existing between theoretical elaborations and the effective characteristics of language functioning; languages should not be masked or rejected in the name of philosophical prejudices or because of insufficient descriptions or scientific analyses. On the contrary, such positions and procedures must be permanently corrected, according to the progress of our knowledge of the properties and operating conditions of all human languages. On the other hand, there is no point in questioning the usefulness of what we call functional norms. As far as it fits in with varied and complex social interaction processes, the production of signs and texts in all languages is submitted to conditions of use that all speakers must learn and master so that they can fully assume their part as members of a community. Therefore it is necessary to
Language and Writing
147
have indications concerning the communicative relevance and appropriateness of the different units and structures proposed by the same language system. Finally, although the language standardisation process seems inevitable, due to the conditions of functioning and reproduction of modern societies (through education), it is convenient not to convert standard languages into instruments of a fight against diversity and change, i.e. against the effective modalities of language functioning for the majority. To ensure their democratic role standard languages must consider the effective practices that are open to change and diversity, in other words they must permanently aim at creating a balance between the general need for intercomprehension and the diverse and rich linguistic solutions used by human subgroups to achieve it. Jean-Paul Bronckart University of Geneva, Switzerland
Written literary tradition It is worth repeating that that there is no natural living language that does not have a literary tradition, and the fact that this may be oral does not mean that it is of an inferior category to written literature. In the survey, though, the question refers to written literature. This question was not always properly understood, since many of the informants thought it referred only to literary tradition. This fact led many informants to insist, quite rightly, that regardless of the greater or lesser written tradition, the languages they were informing on had a rich literary tradition. Even so, 39% of the sample languages appear as languages with a written literary tradition. In many cases, of course, there is reference to religious texts, to educational material for initial literacy or for primary education, and to the publication of collections of literature from the oral tradition, either historical, cultural or folkloric. These characteristics of the written production are what justify the undoubtedly positive numbers as regards the experience of written literature. Amongst the languages mentioned as having religious literature are Ashaninca (Peru), Kabiye (Togo), Kaqchikel (Guatemala), Karay (Russia), Lango (Uganda), Migaama (Chad), Naasioi (Papua New Guinea), Ndau (Mozambique), Sakapulteko (Guatemala), Tiv (Cameroon), Burushaski (Pakistan), Triqui, (Mexico), etc. Then there are literatures with a basically oral tradition, which have recently begun to be collected and published. Finally, we might mention more ancient literatures as in the case of languages like Friulan (Italy), Ladino (Israel), Otomi (Mexico), Poqomchi’ (Guatemala), Rajasthani (India), etc., each of which has a different history and experience.
148
Words and Worlds
The literary tradition is still very new and poor, consisting mainly of poetry (religious), folklore and public education. (Burushaski, Pakistan) Although there are religious and educational texts, we cannot speak of the existence of a literary tradition. (Triqui, Mexico) However, it is important to properly understand, and the accounts are a good illustration of this, that however incipient and precarious the writing experience is, it is always considered a factor of prestige for the language. Similarly, no one – at least in our results – decries the possibilities this condition offers for development, though the obvious shortcomings can, very often, lead to discouragement and frustration. Also, it is essential to insist on the fact that, whether or not a language has a written form, there is no linguistic reason for looking down on it. On the contrary, in contrast to the written forms of most languages, which are recent productions, all languages have millenarian oral literary traditions which are the repositories for their particular interpretations of the world and which make most valuable contributions to the cultural heritage of humanity. The language has a rich literary tradition. Firstly, there are many folk songs and fairy tales. Folk songs are sung during weddings as well as funerals. Secondly, the Lingao people have their own unique brand of Lin opera and puppetry. Some classic Chinese operas have also been adapted for the Lingao language. (Lingao, China) As there was no written form historically, its traditional literature has been transmitted down through the generations in oral form. There is an abundant collection of different kinds of oral literature, including legends, stories, fables, proverbs, historical poems, and folk songs. There are historical poems concerning the creation of the world and the origin of man. (Va, China) There is no written tradition in this language, there is only an oral tradition. There are some stories and legends of the payas, but they are all written in Spanish, with a few names of animals, plants and people in Pech. The most important are Gods, heroes and men in the Pech mythical universe (1991) by Lázaro Flores and Wendy Griffin. There are no stories written in Pech, not even bilingual. (Pech, Honduras). Map 8 shows language diversity in Mexico and Central America.
Language and Writing
149
Recommendations on language and writing In view of the importance informants give to the possibility of using their language in writing, we recommend:
• Furthering written use, as it confers prestige on languages and increases their chances of being transmitted and recovered. This measure cannot be implemented without the agreement of the linguistic community affected. • Taking the utmost care so that the use of the written form of a language is seen as an enrichment rather than a threat for the linguistic community. • Allowing the functional aspect pursued by writing to integrate the existing cultural tradition, especially in the case of languages whose situation is critical. A linguistic community’s written tradition, whatever it is, is an important part of its cultural heritage. • That the authorities should support people, groups or community institutions who take care of the furtherance of the written use of minority languages, in such a way that the greater the degree of minorisation of the language or the threat to it, the greater the assistance from the authorities. • That changes in the systems of writing a community’s language(s) should be avoided, as the interests of the linguistic community and the defence of its linguistic heritage must prevail over the political and administrative interest in favour of uniformity on the part of the states these communities belong to. • That the scientific community should involve itself in a coordinated job with the linguistic communities in questions relating to standardisation, primarily when the communities request their assistance. • That linguistic communities should be provided with suitable technological means and training in their use when required, to help and allow written use of the language. • That bearing in mind the fact that telephony and computers have made spelling rules (orthography) more flexible, the spread of these resources in less widespread languages with less written practice can provide a good chance of increasing the use of these languages. • That it should not be forgotten that the fundamental use of any language is oral and that the survival of a language depends on its transmission and habitual use.
Chapter 6
Language and Education “All persons should therefore be able to express themselves and to create and disseminate their work in the language of their choice, and particularly in their mother tongue; all persons should be entitled to quality education and training that fully respect their cultural identity.” (Article 5 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of 2 November 2001)
Are the languages taught in schools more important than the ones that are not taught? How can a language be taught if the teachers do not know it or are not trained to teach it and there is no teaching material in that language? Can children learn two or three languages without harming their academic training? Why spend money on teaching a minority language if it is hardly used for communicating and all the new thinking is done in another language? What does it mean to maintain one’s own language and what does learning a new language do for one? In attempting to describe the situation of languages in the world, it seems essential to approach the educational situation. Nevertheless, education adds nothing intrinsic to a language. All languages have developed and been transmitted during the course of history independently of the teaching institutions that may have grown up around them. The dominant languages are the ones that were able to take advantage of schools earlier and more effectively as a way of furthering their use and development. But the efficiency of the dominant educational policies has also, in most cases, increased linguistic uniformity, the loss of languages and cultures, and forced the abandonment of identities forged over thousands of years. These losses and the uprooting and social marginalisation resulting from them are factors that have been underestimated or silenced to the greater glory of policies of national unity aimed at maximum linguistic and cultural uniformity in the nation-state and its colonies or satellites. What is more, this educational policy has created a monolingual school model, widespread in many parts of Europe and the whole of the Western world, which has posed enormous contradictions in bilingual or plurilingual communities, as well as
150
Language and Education
151
for all the stateless languages or those with few speakers. School and prestigious education have been associated with the dominant language, which in many cases is none other than English. Nevertheless, in the twentieth century, there have also been linguistic policies that have promoted diversity, educational policies that have included teaching of and in various languages and whose chief objective has been to encourage bilingualism or plurilingualism. Furthermore, the growth of the educational sciences, and of educational linguistics in particular, shows that bilingual and plurilingual education not only benefit the individual and social development of schoolchildren but also the educational system itself. In this respect, it is worth remembering some of the guidelines of the action plan for the implementation of UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2 November 2001), to which Member States are committed. We have singled out objectives 5 and 6: –“To safeguard humanity’s linguistic heritage and support expression, creation and diffusion in the greatest possible number of languages”: –“To further linguistic diversity – respecting the mother tongue – at all levels of education, wherever possible, and stimulate the learning of several languages from the earliest age.” This chapter presents the difficult situation facing many of the world’s languages, and which according to the accounts gathered is partly due to the lack of access to the educational system or to their inadequate treatment by it. It also reports on the possibilities the educational system could offer for reappraising, recovering and developing languages. Of particular interest are the presentations of the models developed in different parts of the world and the significant testimonies gathered through informants on teaching initiatives being undertaken in favour of their languages. The chapter ends with recommendations of interest to the various political and cultural agents responsible for furthering education and linguistic and cultural diversity.
Languages without access to the educational system Most of the world’s languages are not present in the school system so that this cannot contribute to their transmission and development. Thirty-three percent of informants stated that the languages they were reporting on were not present in schools (see Table 7). And no one seems satisfied with this situation. What is more, it must be emphasised that any move in favour of teaching languages is a good thing in that it at least generates positive attitudes of prestige for them. Some of the informants mentioned the speakers’ experiences with initiatives for teaching the language, its literary tradition, etc., even when taking place outside school hours. Our language is not taught in formal education and there is no written material. School teachers from the indigenous communities give pupils homework on words from the
152
Words and Worlds
Nahuatl language who go where there are speakers who teach them orally and in writing. (Nahuatl, Mexico) Children learn songs and phrases in community activities/cultural centre. (Cupeño, USA) Others go even further and as well as reporting on informal experiments in furthering their teaching and use, clearly express their wish that the language be introduced into the formal educational system. This language is not used in education. But we have been demanding education in the mother tongue. Some informal application in education has brought better results. (Chepang, Nepal) In some cases they even report real prohibition, always against the express wish of the community. The Mon community has an Education Committee in order to teach Mon language in their community. But in the state run schools, it is not allowed even as a subject of study. (Mon, Burma) There are also plenty of accounts of situations in which although the law allows the use of the language, in practice it is not included at school. Teachers are permitted to use the language for explanations to students in the lower grades of elementary education. But the medium of instruction is Pilipino or English and many teachers do not speak the language. (Some) teachers who are native speakers would like to use the language at least in first grade and/or as a subject of study in other elementary grades. Materials are available. But the provincial supervisory structure of the school system has not been very encouraging – to say the least. (Yakan, Philippines) The language is supposed to be used as a medium for bilingual education as well as a subject in elementary education. However, for various reasons this remains on paper. (Kuvi, India) Other accounts speak of languages which were once present in the educational system but are no longer so. Bilingual schools were begun about 20 years ago; but I think it is all in Portuguese now, both the R.C. Mission school and the school in Sai Cinza, begun by a Baptist missionary (now retired). (Munduruku, Brazil) It was used for some months when a vernacular pre-school was going on. But the school fell apart when the teachers were discouraged by not being paid from the community. But the use of the language in education might resume when the time is ripe for doing so. (Meramera, Papua New Guinea) Finally, let us hear from those informants who indicate that although their language is not today present in the educational system they hope it will be in the future. Teachers are being trained to use Mapudungun as a vehicle for teaching as well as a subject for learning. (Mapudungun, Chile) The new educational policy plans its introduction at the primary level. (Comorian, Comoros)
Language and Education
153
Possibly in the future, at the community school in the language area it will be used as the language for education for preparatory and grades 1 and 2. (Yale, Papua New Guinea) The Education Department wants to teach the first three years of schooling in the Narak language. (Narak, Papua New Guinea) The accounts gathered are only a small sample of the many linguistic communities there are that have no access to education. When the population goes to school but their own language is not present, it is difficult to imagine what benefit these children can obtain from these schools. The negation of identity involved in a situation of this sort is unimaginable for the majority of the citizens belonging to communities with a dominant language. These citizens have grown up thinking that education can only be transmitted in certain languages or that it is best if it is done only in the dominant language. In many cases, this is also the opinion deliberately instilled into citizens belonging to communities with minorised languages that are not reflected in the educational system. The arguments are extremely twisted: some people consider that this avoids problems of communication; we could also mention the argument that the social development resulting from learning the dominant language is best for both communities, of whatever language; others say that there are not enough resources for every language to be taught at school. The right to an education in one’s mother tongue constitutes a fundamental right recognised by UNESCO since 1953. Nevertheless, most linguistic communities cannot exercise it. This principle, however, still plays a decisive role in the educational policy to be developed for all the world’s linguistic communities and especially the smallest. Its implementation would allow the development of languages not only by increasing their use as such, but also because, in general, it gives rise to positive attitudes towards them. Indeed, although all languages are equal from a linguistic point of view, their prestige and the attitudes surrounding them suffer badly if they are not taught at school. They call it a ‘dialect’ and look down on it as a language and as a means of expression. Nowadays, school teachers have forbidden the children from using Chipaya. (Chipaya, Bolivia)
LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION IN INDIA The tension between the unitary features of the Union and equally strong regulatory powers of the States is also reflected in the education scenario of the country. Bringing education into the concurrent list of the constitution and handing over primary education to the Panchayats are two such examples. The latter was
154
Words and Worlds
possible by the 73rd and 74th Amendments of the Constitution in 1992, which for the first time, recognised local Governments. Culture, language and education are social capital for development. Whether one looks at education as enrolment or retention, as availability of teachers or textbooks, adequacy of infrastructure or of instructional aids, it would demonstrate the quality and quantity of a society’s engagement with itself and with others. The contradictions in perception about rural and urban schools are as follows: education ruins the rural children, it spoils the urban; provides more information and less skills; considers working with hands inferior to working with machines; and the present day education results in alienation, anomie and culture perception blindspots. The distinction is between ‘being’ and ‘appearing’. Language is at the root of these contradictions. About 3000 mother tongues approximating to 200 and 700 languages in India as against 35 languages at Primary stage, 28 languages at Upper Primary stage, 25 languages at Secondary stage, 20 languages at Senior Secondary stage, used as medium of education in schools (All India 6th Education Survey, 1998, NCERT) demonstrate that as one climbs higher in the education ladder, the greater is the demand for fewer languages. At the University level, the medium is English or the dominant regional language. The emphasis on English is due to the colonial mind-set developed during 200 years of British rule. Colonialism came to India with the traders searching for markets. It claimed to civilise the uncivilised. It remained to develop the under developed, to protect their environment and empower the weaker sections and finally to globalise them. Globalisation is not only a search for global market, but also a search for marketable talents. Language and education remain instruments for continuation of the colonial process in India and the third world. Developing a knowledge/learning society in a plural world necessitates interdisciplinary, interactive communication between subjects and media languages. Linking memory with thinking abilities will link indigenous knowledge systems with the modern. Languages would continue to play a critical and crucial role. Multiple languages must develop twin focuses, cooperative, intercultural education at home and competitive marketable education for the world outside. Dr. D. P. Pattanayak Former Director, Central Institute of Indian Languages, India
Language and Education
155
Languages that are used in teaching It is true that most languages have survived without schools; a language is no less a language just because it is not taught at school. We also know that schools by themselves cannot save a language. Schools are not even the best place to learn a language. Annamalai (1995), referring to India, points out that learning languages, like certain other subjects, probably happens out of school more than inside. Nevertheless, if schools are where communities transmit and develop their culture, it seems logical that they should also transmit their language. But schools do not always respond to the needs of the community. As a result, the school is not always popular as an institution. There are indigenous communities in Colombia, for example, which reject school and the language used there, since they consider that the education it offers is not in keeping with their cultural characteristics. In these cases, the indigenous peoples demand their own ethno-educational models which do not necessarily coincide with the more widespread model of school (Landaburu, 1998). From the information gathered it can be seen that most communities consider the use of their language at school to be important. In fact, the first initiatives of linguistic policy undertaken by these communities tend to be aimed at the educational field. Thus, in the sample studied, 67% acknowledge that their language is present to some extent in the teaching system, though as we shall see later on, its presence is rarely as noticeable as it should be.
BILINGUAL INDIGENOUS EDUCATION I believe that education, the job of schools and of teachers in indigenous languages is to convey the idea that we must preserve, study and enlarge our language ourselves. Only through our language will we manage to extend our own knowledge. If I am an Ashaninka, my people are Ashaninka, all my pupils are Ashaninka and all of them speak Ashaninka, why should I work in Portuguese? It makes no sense for me to work in Portuguese in the classroom because if I did I would be missing the contents, the little details that the language brings with it. I would be removing power from our language, our speech, because I would be working in another language. If I work in the Ashaninka language, with Ashaninka pupils, I am offering them the chance of extending our own knowledge and understanding it better and at the same time of strengthening our language. Some Portuguese phrases have no meaning or translation in our language because ours is a different world. For example, when I work in the Ashaninka language on some event from the non-indigenous society, for example, it has no explanation in our language because we have other references, our world is
156
Words and Worlds
a different one. Our language is very important, because we see it as a part of us. Because there is no point in having indigenous schools and working in another language. Our people need people who will act as a bridge to the dominant society, because without them we cannot defend our territory. To work it is important to have an understanding of the surroundings, that is why we need these people. But there is no need for everyone to act as a bridge. For that, Brazil and other countries have diplomats who make contact, negotiate, etc. And here the opposite happens, everyone has to know Portuguese. Even parents expect everyone to learn Portuguese, they see Portuguese as the alternative by which to break with dependence. But I see it the other way round, because if you learn Portuguese you end up depending on the other society, not on yours. You will depend on the other society because you are already in another language. That is why we work like this. There have to be people who are bridges, but not everybody. The school works with six or seven people in training to be able to make that contact. In our school it is quite clear. We discuss with the community so that they stop worrying so much about Portuguese. Wanting to know someone else’s language gets you nowhere; it’s enough to have a knowledge of the world and of the way of life of the society around you. What we need is to understand the values of our knowledge and to value what is ours. I believe that that is the importance of language, giving it the chance to grow more and not disappear. Because the more you study another language, the more you think it is richer than yours and that’s not so. Language depends on the cultural and scientific development of the people using it. There are indigenous teachers who say that the indigenous language is very poor, but why do they say that? It’s because they have lived with Portuguese for many years and no longer value their mother tongue, because they have lost the total balance of their language. In the school I always speak in this way: the point of reference to work with the language, science and culture begins with the teacher. To be able to work with our language and strengthen it, and identify the problems, I have to start with the pupils. After seeing the situation of the pupils I have to continue with the elders. To resolve the problems of the young people, the elder must be a point of reference for the indigenous language necessary for working in the classroom. The space in which the elders educate the young people is the most important educational space for strengthening their own language, culture and knowledge, because the way the elders teach is fundamental. In our community we work over this question a lot, because the elders are the most important people for working with the question of the language. The way
Language and Education
157
they have of speaking, the time they have for explaining; they have another pace of teaching, everything is planned in the heads of the elders, that is our world. Many pupils bring those formulas into the classroom. This form of wisdom of the elders is the point of reference for a school in tune with nature; it is the contribution by traditional knowledge making itself present through the indigenous language. Isaac Pianko Ashaninka Acre Organisation of Indigenous Teachers, Brazil
Table 7 classifies and sums up the answers received regarding the use of languages in teaching. The list is not necessarily in hierarchical order. At any rate, the authors of this Review cannot establish it. We are merely trying to reflect the situation from the accounts we have received. We are also presenting some examples of these accounts. Table 7: Languages in teaching grouped according to their use Group 1
Present in teaching (without specifying)
1%
Group 2
Exclusively oral use (as an instrument for the teaching given in another language)
7%
Group 3
Teaching as a specific subject (L2)
8%
Group 4
Present only in pre-school and early years
26%
Group 5
Extensively present in primary education and part of secondary (with difficulties)
13%
Group 6
Present throughout the system, though not throughout the population (sometimes the system is bilingual)
12%
Group 7
Languages not used in teaching
33%
Total
100%
As can be seen in Table 7, the languages used in education present a wide variety of situations and their distribution also varies. As well as those languages said to be present in teaching without details of their level of usage (1%), it is worth pointing out, first, that the languages in group 2 are used as secondary languages, as a transition to the acquisition of the language promoted by the school. The informants express themselves clearly. This use is aimed at a quick and successful introduction of
158
Words and Worlds
young people to the other language, which is the one “used” for teaching. Neither the informants nor the schools seemed to value oral use in itself as a way of developing their own language. Only in grades 1 and 2 of primary schools as a supplementary educational tool in translating text. (Pumi, China) In the past it was used as the language of instruction in primary schools. With the recent promotion of Mandarin Chinese, Cun is only used as a supplementary tool in beginners’ or elementary classes. (Cun, China) In the language classes it is used orally to explain the content of the class being given. (Adyghe, Russia)
EDUCATION IN INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES AND ITS IMPORTANCE FOR THEIR REVIVAL Indigenous education has various forms. Perhaps the young child’s first education is the one he or she receives in the home. All the experience passed on by the father or mother is education. After that, education is also participation in festivals, in rituals the community has always held. Children are also there, not as though it were a school for learning in, but as an event that comes along for the children to learn from. That is what we know as traditional education and the indigenous language always forms part of it. Recently there has been talk of differentiated school education, of indigenous school education. Another type of knowledge that indigenous peoples are acquiring is related to the knowledge of writing and reading. Previously, children learned orally, now they are learning from writing. At school they learn to read and write, enquiries are being made amongst the teachers so that pupils have that knowledge and so that this knowledge is taught in the schools. This is an incentive for children to start to think about new investigations with the elders. It is called school education when the knowledge is learned from writing. It is very positive work. I have heard my pupils who have more contact with whites say that that they did not know or had never thought that our people had such and such a story. Because for them our past did not exist. But with this work we are doing through the enquiries by some of the teachers the pupils eventually realise that we also have our own stories. The whites have stories of ancestors but so have we. One important moment in our past is the conquest of the land. The conquest of education, health and the environment will also in the future be our past.
Language and Education
159
Education in the indigenous language is a good thing because we must write down everything making up our knowledge as we decide. This strengthens children’s knowledge and at the same time we are strengthening our culture. As in any language, although speakers of Kaxinawa may have difficulty writing, they understand the content from the context. The indigenous language is an incentive for learning from paper too. I believe that in the revival and maintenance of languages the teacher is the driver who pushes that language in the classroom, with the participation of the elders. The Kaxinawa people have a division of knowledge, a division of male and female teaching. These roles are what make the pupils learn what it is to be a father or a mother. For example, in speaking about arts and crafts there is no single word in Portuguese that can be identified with this word in Kaxinawa, or in music there is no translation that can explain what it means in Portuguese, only the indigenous language can transmit that knowledge. I believe the experiences during these years have been very positive. Many indigenous peoples had many contacts and probably in those contacts they lost their languages and stopped speaking them, and the children took to speaking in Portuguese. In the eighties and nineties, work was done to increase our cultural knowledge and we made a place for ourselves in the federal constitution, so that each indigenous people could teach its language and culture and organise itself. Today we are seeing that many people who were not aware of their culture are beginning to investigate, to prepare teaching material, and this will help the pupils who have problems with the language. There was a time when parents were ashamed to use the indigenous language to speak to their children and grandchildren and our language almost disappeared. We see that the Kaxinawa people living close to the city still have this lack of faith in their own language and culture. This entire process has been a very good experience for me. Perhaps the first was when I lived amongst the whites under the pressure of not being able to speak my mother tongue. Happily, my father and mother had the courage to go on speaking in our language and it was the first language I mastered. Then I went on to write the language. To write our language we had to decide on a sign system, write our alphabet, and in the last few years we have been producing teaching material. The first material published was a literacy book: some sentences, words, letters. That was very good for learning to write our language. Then we did a joint work from which emerged Shenipabu Miyui, which contains 12 written stories. The material was well prepared and today it is a reference when speaking of old stories of the Kaxinawa people. Other material was also produced, a post-literacy reading and writing book, a book of geography and
160
Words and Worlds
one of music, to show the Kaxinawa people that Portuguese is not the only language that can be written. The indigenous language can also be recorded. Recently I wrote 12 stories like the ones in Shenipabu Miyui. Some are an earlier version of the published ones. And that is very important because close contact with the Portuguese language had altered the stories. Today we think that this language is not finished, that we are going to keep it going. If it did not disappear when it was oral, now that it has been recorded it will be even more difficult. Joaquim Mana Kaxinawa Acre Organisation of Indigenous Teachers, Brazil
Group 3 includes those languages taught as a subject carrying more or less weight in the syllabus or curriculum. These amount to 8%. This is a traditional approach to learning second or foreign languages. However, there are differences within this group that should be pointed out. Although in most cases they are given very limited oral use restricted to the basic grades, in some cases, as the accounts show, it seems to be a first step towards making the language an instrument of teaching. It is hardly used as an instrument of teaching, only as a subject in some syllabuses like in the schools under the management of the Directorate General for Bilingual and Intercultural Education. (Chuj, Guatemala) Teaching medium and subject of study in elementary school, i.e. Classes preparatory and vernacular components in higher grades are being planned. (Boazi, Papua New Guinea) Attempts are being made to try and have the language used as the subject of study in primary school teaching and later it is hoped it will take on the role of an instrumental language. (Kokama, Peru) Group 4 includes those languages that are used as a teaching medium, though only at pre-school level and during the first years of primary education. This group, which accounts for more than a quarter of the languages in the sample (26%), itself includes many different situations. In general, these are languages recently introduced into teaching. Very often the introduction has been thanks to popular initiative and is not supported by the authorities. These valuable initiatives, however, rarely embrace the whole of the population speaking the language in question, as they often tend to be restricted to certain areas or communities. The reports also show the various difficulties they have to face to get their language implemented with full rights in the world of teaching. The lack of involvement by the authorities, government obstacles, even new
Language and Education
161
prohibitions, the shortage of teacher sources, teaching materials and funds in general, the inexperience and lack of schooling tradition which most of these initiatives come up against should all be taken very much into account. The informants’ accounts speak for themselves. Miskito has not been used as an oral or written language at school, as it was forbidden by educational legislation. In isolated towns and villages not supervised by the Ministry, some Miskito teachers gave one hour a week of Miskito by means of old people’s stories, but this was an exception. Since the establishment of the bilingual/intercultural education in the Honduran Mosquitia (CEBIMH), and MOPAWI (the primary non-governmental organization operating in La Mosquitia) published the first learning-to-read book, Yabal Raya, the first one to fix the system of writing and the phonemes of Miskito quasi-officially, and a pilot project for bilingual education began in 12 schools in La Mosquitia (Lara, 1998: 80). From 1975 to 1980, the Department of Literature of the UNAH (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Honduras) offered three learning levels of the Miskito language given by the native teacher Natan Pravia, but unfortunately they were later discontinued. (Miskito, Honduras) This language is not used orally and is not written, either in intermediate education or at university. Since 1994 it has begun very timidly to be taught at the two schools attended by the Tolupan of the Montaña de La Flor, as L1, with the Tol reading and writing books proposed by the SIL and accepted by PRONEEAH. Its has only been relatively successful, there are still no pupils at these schools who write texts in Tol at all fluently, they barely write words and phrases or very short sentences. The great failure of PRONEEAH in La Montaña de La Flor is that no teacher, of the twelve there are in the region, speaks Tolupan and what is more surprising than anything is that none of the speakers have been trained for this. (Tol, Honduras) There is now some teaching of S. Tiwa at all levels, in programs developed in the 1990s. All is a level of ‘language revival’, since there is growing concern about losing their native tongue. (Tiwa, USA) The languages gathered in group 5 (13%) can be considered to have a more established educational practice; they can generally cater for the whole of primary education, they have teaching materials and a certain tradition. Nevertheless, the accounts gathered still reveal problems that seem to be due to the lack of involvement on the part of the authorities. These are all languages that do not enjoy official or coofficial status, something which generally leads to discrimination and asymmetry with regard to the other language or languages whose space it shares or that compete with it in a certain usage, in this case in teaching. The following accounts illustrate some of the circumstances we have just mentioned. As a vehicle as an object – specially since 1977, when the association of Breton schools was created (2000 pupils in1998) – both in the public and Catholic schools, this teaching has been progressing since 1982 under the effects of continued pressure from parents
162
Words and Worlds
associations and Breton language teachers associations. Around 13,000 children are initiated into the language as a subject. Around 4,700 children are taught in Breton at least partially. (Breton, France) The Tamazight language was not used in teaching in any North-African country until 1996–1997 in Algeria. In this country it is taught at the end of basic education and in secondary education. In Morocco, in spite of King Hassan II’s promise to introduce it in primary teaching in his speech of 20/8/1994, nothing has yet been put into practice. In higher education, Tamazight is only the object of research. (Tamazight, Morocco) Before civil war Somali was the medium of instruction up to secondary level. Higher Education was in Italian and English. Now most secondary schools have switched to English medium. Quite a number of lower and upper primary schools have Arabic or English medium. However in all educational institutions there is a lot of spoken use of Somali. (Somali, Somalia) Group 6 includes those languages used throughout the educational system. In some cases they may not all reach all sectors of the population. There are also cases which in spite of legislation in their favour, as the languages enjoy official or semi-official status allowing their use in the educational system, this legislation is not fully enforced and the demands of the population are not properly attended to. However, this group includes languages which are generally felt to be in a proper or normal situation for proper development of a language at school. These account for 12% of the sample. Whereas we have seen that 7% of the languages in our sample are official and 19% are co-official in their area (see Chapter four), the figure mentioned before (12%) indicates that co-officiality does not ensure proper treatment of the language in the school system either. In basic and intermediate education the use of the language tends to be like the social characteristics of the area in question, with a clear tendency to use Castilian, even among children whose initial language is Galician. At university the number of students speaking Galician drops considerably. According to the law, the predominant mother tongue must be used in infant education, while taking care to teach the other one; in the rest of nonuniversity teaching the possibility is established of teaching 50% of subjects in Galician. It is important to say that the law is not being kept in these two cases. (Galician, Spain) Welsh is both a subject and a medium in schools at all levels but precise practice varies depending on the local authority. (Welsh, Great Britain) Both Russian and Belarusan are compulsory in the secondary school system. Actually, 40% of the children are taught on the basis of Belarusan and 60% on the basis of Russian. In the higher education system, especially in technical universities, it is practically impossible to be trained in Belarusan. The number of hours devoted to the study of Belarusan in universities diminishes year after year. (Belarusan, Belarus)
Language and Education
163
According to Table 7, the figures in our sample seem fairly hopeful since they reveal that the sum of languages with some sort of use in teaching reaches 67%. However, the real scope of this activity is substantially less. At the very least, certain clarifications are needed. Without going outside the sample, we can say that generalised use of the language throughout the educational system does not seem to occur in more than 12% of cases. And as we have seen, most minorised languages do not fall into this group. This initial analysis reveals the presence and/or treatment of different languages in the educational system. It has been barely possible to observe the schooling conditions of the language communities. Do they receive an education suited to their needs? Do the members of the community become bilingual speakers or is their bilingualism or pluringualism reinforced?
THE TEACHING OF MINORITY LANGUAGES AS A SECOND LANGUAGE At the end of the twentieth century the globe retains a rich linguistic heritage of an estimated 6000 languages. Not as rich as some earlier periods in history, the current wealth of languages world-wide is threatened – seriously threatened – if projected language loss eventuates. In his recent text, Language Death, David Crystal estimates rationally and conservatively that up to 90% of these languages could disappear during the next hundred years. This would be catastrophic as I believe that the loss of even one language is tragic. Whatever reasonable steps that could be taken, should be taken to arrest this anticipated deterioration of the linguistic wealth currently enjoyed across the globe. The solutions are many and must be put in place immediately. Global awareness-raising of the issue at all relevant levels – governmental, political, family community, education, culture, NGO associations, electronic and digital media, to identify but a few – must be undertaken without delay to mobilise a global conscience to protect and retain the world’s languages. In this context, education has a major role to play. Where educational policy and practice are satisfactory to excellent, education becomes an effective vehicle to further the cause of languages. Where these essentials of society are less than adequate, the necessary upgrading should be accompanied by the irrevocable message that languages are critical to global society, operations and culture, and must be nurtured, defended and maintained. As a result the promotion and teaching of languages in the educational field – whether at the primary, secondary, tertiary or adult level – should be a priority. The identity of languages taught would be a local concern, but one would expect adequate coverage of the first language of the majority of learners,
164
Words and Worlds
languages of international significance and languages particular to a certain location, region or country. Any of these language categories could find themselves defined alternatively as minority languages within a certain area but the majority of languages used globally – Crystal points out that 4% of the world’s population speak 96% of the languages used – are what we would consider collectively as minority languages. Many of these will be learned at home, at school or elsewhere as a first language, but let us not forget the important perspective of their being accommodated as a second language in education within all sectors (i.e. government, religious, independent) and across all levels. Australia – with its declining wealth of indigenous languages and co-existing surge in the number of languages brought to the continent by more recently arrived groups – provides an excellent model of a multicultural society, strongly underpinned by rich multilingualism. In school, it is not only those students of certain ethnic groups who are offered the language(s) of their community. Schools make choices to teach languages, often the languages of minority groups significant to an area, and expect all students enrolled to undertake the study of these languages across a range of year levels. The self-esteem of the speakers of these languages (as an L1) elevates predictably and considerably; those learning the language as an L2 develop a healthy perspective of another culture, another element of their community by learning the language of some of their classmates. An acceptance of difference and a discovery of the touchstones of humanity – similar across all cultures – often lead to a growing respect for others. Complementing the language curricula of mainstream schools is the Victorian School of Languages, which teaches 40 languages – however defined but among them a significant number of minority languages often as an L2 – to 14,000 students of a multitude of backgrounds. Such a model epitomises what is possible in the policy and desire to promote mutual respect, harmony and peace in a multilingual and multicultural society, a microcosm of our global community. Denis Cunningham International Federation of Professors of Living Languages, Australia
Plurilingual education: a challenge for everyone As the Delors report on Education for the Twenty-First Century (UNESCO, 1996) so clearly shows, it is important to prepare the younger generations so that they can take advantage of the possibilities today’s information society has to offer. There is a growing demand for knowledge of languages used in international relations. But education will have failed if on account of this it ignores, rejects or causes people to
Language and Education
165
abandon the languages and cultures that have shaped the identity and integrity of people and communities. As stated in the Resolution approved by the United Nations General Assembly of 9 November 2001, teaching the language, history and socio-political philosophy of different civilisations is one of the Action Programmes. Similarly, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, as we have seen, places special emphasis on pluringualism as a way of making cultural diversity accessible to everyone. In this respect, also, UNESCO’s Programme and Budget Plan for 2002–2003 specifically considers “support to networks of experts and research institutions for counselling Member States and UNESCO on important issues to do with education in human rights, linguistic pluralism and multilingualism in education”. Many people live with bilingualism and pluringualism quite naturally. In India, in the Amazon, in Central Europe, in the Caucasus, people have traditionally been familiar with several local languages so as to coexist in a plurilingual and pluricultural environment. Sixty-four percent of the communities consulted in our research said that most of their members were bilingual and in 10% of cases most of the members of these communities were plurilingual. In other words, most of the members of the different linguistic communities are not monolingual. These communities could be the best prepared to face the need for the plurilingual proficiency today’s world increasingly demands of its inhabitants. These communities show that coexistence and communication between groups with several languages is possible and that plurilingualism does not lead to a lack of communication or to a loss of cohesion within the group, the community or the State. India is a good example in which to observe rules of behaviour that seem strange to the eyes of Westerners and that can provide answers to some apparent contradictions. It is possible to have a multiple identity without any risk to personal integrity. The ease with which codes are alternated or even mixed, the freedom and lack of purism in being able use several languages at different levels of proficiency and for different objects and purposes (Annamalai, 2001) could be a realistic way of dealing with relations between people ever more remote and diverse without renouncing linguistic diversity. Any form of relations between different codes is more interesting, democratic and natural in the history of humanity than the uniformity we seem to be having forced upon us. Education must therefore face another challenge. The mother tongue is not enough. Knowledge of at least one other language must be ensured, and in many cases it will be necessary to confront plurilingual education. When the object is bilingual or plurilingual proficiency, we need to take what plurilingual communities have traditionally done as our model. New languages are learnt like new instruments, as new skills for new purposes. In these circumstances, learning a new language does not involve the gradual loss of the mother tongue (Annamalai, 2001). It is also important to stress that languages are basically instruments for oral communication. When it comes to education, however, written forms are given
166
Words and Worlds
priority. School is associated with the literacy of its speakers, the system of writing, the existence of a written literature and text books written for schools. These demands are an added obstacle to increasing the role of the school in the survival of languages. Without detracting from or abandoning writing, why not encourage greater oral use of languages at school? Why not place greater value on what really has most communication value and is linguistically more fundamental – that is, oral use? Knowing that languages are fundamentally used orally, that to encourage this use we hardly need the most sophisticated resources of language (writing, written literature, books, spelling rules, etc.) and that the new technologies allow an infinite number of oral uses with a great power of attraction (telephony, radio, television), why are schools subordinated to the written form of languages? Written language must not be surrendered or even underestimated. But the fact that a language is only just beginning to be used in writing does not justify a poor or limited use of that language at school. During the course of the second half of the twentieth century, various bilingual and plurilingual educational programmes and models were developed in different parts of the world.
ON BILINGUAL EDUCATION. OBJECTIVES AND APPROACHES Throughout the whole of the nineteenth century and for large part of the twentieth, pedagogical theorists and educational politicians were decidedly opposed to bilingual teaching. This was partly because the educational renewal propounded continuity between family and school experiences and therefore defended the mother tongue as the medium of education. The chief reason, though, was the influence of what has been called linguistic nationalism, which established a close relation between language, culture and nationality and the importance of language as a factor in the development of identity, whereas early bilingualism threatened to divide it. After the Second World War, the globalisation process has multiplied situations of contact between languages and the early need to know foreign languages and all this has worked in favour of bilingual education. Among the various examples of successful bilingual education the best-known was the St. Lambert Experiment with children whose family language was English and who were taught in French. The success was so complete that the opposite opinion began to become widespread, that bilingual education is in itself a good thing. And this is equally false. Bilingual education takes many forms, can have very varied objectives and can only succeed inasmuch as it has the right means for the desired ends. In certain situations where languages are in contact, as happens in the city of Brussels with French and Dutch, two school systems are set up according to the language of origin of the pupils. In this case we cannot speak of bilingual
Language and Education
167
education. In other cases, as often happens in the United States with the population of immigrant origin, pupils speaking the lesser language are offered the chance to use it at school, either until they master the main language, in this case English, or else as a way of preserving their language. In other cases, and this happens today in those parts of Spain that have their own language, the object of bilingual education is that all students should master both languages whatever their family language. This can take place through a single model of school or with more than one model from which parents can choose. Obviously, in all these cases the object of bilingual education is to increase social cohesion while respecting the rights of speakers of different languages. Equally obviously, a system of this sort can only succeed insofar as it is supported by democratically expressed social consensus. In truly plurilingual countries such as Luxembourg, bilingual, or in this case trilingual teaching cannot be considered an educational option so much as a strict necessity. And the success of the results shows how easily pupils can learn in more than one language when the conditions are right. A different situation from these is when the object of bilingual education is the acquisition of foreign languages. Modern education has generalised the use of communicative methods in the teaching of foreign languages, but after a certain limit, which is soon reached, the most effective way of making progress in the foreign language is through its use as the teaching medium. There are plenty of examples today of schools that above a certain level offer some teaching in a foreign language, such as, for example, English. But the presence of a foreign language in the educational system can have other objectives as well as ensuring its mastery. In schools for civil servants in the European Community, where pupils come from a wide range of linguistic and national backgrounds, familiarity with other languages is intended to increase their open-mindedness and strengthen their European conscience. Miquel Siguan University of Barcelona, Spain
The literature for the descriptions of educational models for bilingual proficiency of schoolchildren is increasingly abundant (Baker 1993, Skutnabb-Kangas 2000, McLaughlin 1984, Cummins 1995, López 1996). Not all so-called bilingual systems, however, have the object of training bilingual individuals. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) describes up to 10 types of supposedly bilingual education systems. Only five of them, the so-called strong models, can guarantee proficiency in more than one language. We shall single out two of them: the maintenance model and the immersion model. The maintenance educational model for minority languages involves schooling in the mother tongue through bilingual teachers at the same time as the majority
168
Words and Worlds
language is also learnt as a second language. These programmes are therefore far superior to the traditional submersion models, which school in the dominant language without taking into account the pupils’ own language. In this type of teaching, teachers are generally unfamiliar with the schoolchildren’s mother tongue and in most cases it involves the loss and discredit of the minority language. As far as the maintenance model is concerned, it is important to stress the important experiments in bilingual education being developed throughout Latin America with the Bilingual Intercultural Education programmes. Maintenance models, for example, are the bilingual multicultural education programmes being developed in Bolivia for Quechua or Aymara (Hornberger & López 1998). The experiment now being developed by the Brazilian Comisión Pro Indio do Acre de Amazonía is another example of a highly suitable treatment of local languages in educational activities through the training of indigenous teachers themselves (Lindenberg-Monte 1998). In Latin America there are endless experiments in education being developed in favour of the local languages. Their contributions constitute a real revolution in education and are cause for hope, both for their maintenance of the languages and the prestige they give them and in the educational innovations, teacher training, complementary oral and written use, and approach to interculturalism that they encourage. The immersion educational module uses a language other than the mother tongue as the medium of instruction. The programmes are always approved by the parents, teachers are bilingual and are familiar with the child’s language. In general, these immersion programmes allow a second language to be learnt far more efficiently than traditional programmes for L2 teaching. They have been particularly effective in the teaching of minorised second languages such as Maori in New Zealand (Benton 1996, Skutnabb-Kangas), Basque in the Basque Country (Spain and France, Sierra et al.), Catalan in Catalonia (Spain, Artigal), Mohawk in Canada (Hoover 1992), Breton in France (Gwegen 1999) and Welsh in Great Britain. They are also used in situations in which languages are a contextual minority, such as French in Canada (Lambert 1974, Genesee 1987) or Aosta, Italy (Floris 1988), Finnish in Sweden (Skutnabb-Kangas 2000), etc. Thanks to the immersion model applied to minorised languages it is possible to extend learning of these languages beyond the community itself and, especially, recover them amongst members who have lost them. They further bilingualism, integration and social peace, and therefore the maintenance of minorised languages otherwise condemned to disappear.
POSSIBILITIES OF THE REVIVAL OF LANGUAGES IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA Papua New Guinea has about 820 local languages, with 16 extinct and 77 threatened. Only 3 languages have over 100,000 speakers, 10 over 50,000, 70 over 10,000, 330 over 1000, 360 between 100 and 1000, and about 80 under 100.
Language and Education
169
Not only small languages are threatened, but also some larger ones. Speakers are very proud of their languages, cling them as symbols of their ethnic identity, though 90 per cent know the national language Tok Pisin as the second language, which until recently had little influence on the maintenance of local languages. Bi- and multilingualism is very widespread. The last 20 years have seen a sharp increase in marriages between partners speaking different languages because of greater population mobility. The family language became Tok Pisin then. Electronic media use Tok Pisin, English and a few major languages. Elementary education uses only about 30 major languages. Young speakers increasingly regard small minority languages as unimportant and prefer Tok Pisin. This has lead to endangerment and extinction of the former. Academics and politicians try to stop this through media propaganda, with little effect as yet. Descendants try to revive some recently extinct languages using studies of them by linguists. The introduction of oral elementary education an hour every day to linguistically separated groups of pupils of different mother tongues in their own languages in a polylingual class as a supplement to the main education with literacy in a major language, is a possibility for raising the respect of children speakers for their own languages and for reviving and preserving their failing languages. It would also correspond to UNESCO’s view that every child ought to get some basic education in its mother tongue. Another important means of revitalising and maintaining threatened languages has been found to be their study by outside and local linguists and the production of language materials in them which is greatly welcomed by their speakers. UNESCO has supported this activity from 1992–1998 through grants awarded to applications received by the International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies – ICPHS (UNESCO), but this funding has been discontinued which lowers the chances of language maintenance, revival and survival, unless other organisations giving grants for such linguistic work step in, which may be likely seeing the present great international interest in the study and maintenance of threatened minority languages. Stephen Wurm The Australian National University, Australia
Education as an agent of linguistic recovery What is gained by learning a new language? What does it mean to recover the language of our ancestors? What can education contribute? Many languages are learned as second or third languages. The social relations established through intergroup coexistence, migratory movements or a variety of educational policies mean that a large part of the population becomes bilingual or
170
Words and Worlds
plurilingual in the course of their life. Social life, work, commerce, science and politics all have considerable influence on the learning of regional, state or international languages. It is important to stress that any language learning process constitutes an asset to training and culture which is increasingly valued and necessary. Learning another language brings direct access to another culture, substantially increases the capacity for understanding cultural heritage and improves communication power. Advances in educational linguistics, audiovisual and computer technologies and access to the media allow substantially faster and more efficient language teaching. Although all these experiments take place basically in the case of second languages which in their context act as dominant languages, nevertheless there are also cases in which thanks to specific educational programmes languages which may be in a minority situation can be learned as L2 or L3. The fact that members who have lost their language or that members of other communities learn a minorised language is also a source of prestige for this language. Of course, if this option is to play a decisive role in the recovery of a language, it must be of a social nature, and school is one of the means used to this end. This is the purpose of education in any language recovery programme, and its influence will be positive, and sometimes decisive, so long as the community integrates the educational initiative in a more general and complete recovery plan. In these cases, the identity value attributed to a language, and the possibility for social integration learning it allows, is decisive for the success of the initiative. The examples of Hebrew, Maori, Basque, Welsh and Catalan (Fishman 1991) and the initiatives reported for Triqui, Kaxinawa, Mapudungun, Sami, etc. show that, though difficult, it is not impossible to revive a language and that education can be an important tool for achieving this object.
WHY LEARN THE LANGUAGE? WHY BE LITERATE? THE BASQUE EXPERIENCE, 1960–2000 The Basque community (Euskaldunak) and its language (Basque – Euskara) have had a remarkable experience in the Basque Country (Euskal Herria) over the last 40 years in teaching the language to adults and, at the same time, in acquiring literacy in their own language. This linguistic community is currently (1996) estimated to have 12,000 monolingual Basque speakers, 534,000 bilingual (Basque-Spanish/Basque-French) speakers and 352,900 passive bilingual speakers. At the same time, Basque was the mother tongue of 31.6% of the inhabitants of the Continental Basque Country, 24.2% of the Basque Autonomous Community and 10.1% of Navarre. Thus the levels of familiarity and use of the language vary considerably according to the geographical area of the country and the sociolinguistic level of the population. Furthermore, in general, the need, opportunity and/or wish to
Language and Education
171
acquire the language on the part of adults and/or the convenience of doing so and becoming literate in Basque also varies widely in the three areas of the Basque linguistic community. Learning the language and literacy must therefore be seen in this varied and sometimes contradictory setting. As we shall see, in recent decades the acquisition of language and literacy has played an important part in this community. In general, we might say that the Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) is where the best organised plans for positive promotion have been set up, both through private social initiatives and through the Administration’s official public initiatives, but conditions for this between 1940 and 1975 were especially difficult. Neither before nor during those decades could teaching of the language to adults or Basque literacy for speakers use the general school system, the cultural institutions or the media. Only a stubborn effort by the community managed to open a breach in the status imposed. Various socio-cultural factors came together to reactivate the social foundations of the language. Amongst them were a few worthy individual initiatives (fifties), the teaching in the Seminars of the Catholic Church, which included courses in Basque (fifties), the creation of the Basque Schools and their social milieu (Ikastolak), the introduction of spoken and written journalism (sixties), the massive secularisation of already literate Catholic seminarists (who became new agents of literacy: 1968…), the spread of the children’s literacy press (1959, 1966) and the offer of radio programmes promoting the language (1966), amongst others. To all this can be added, in the sixties, as basic factors, the economic development of areas with a high proportion of Basque speakers (with a twofold rural/industrial domestic economy) and the growing discredit of the Franco regime’s educational and cultural policy. Thus possession and mastery of the language emerged more and more as a liberating factor and an instrument for a more harmonious future for the country. Political resistance and cultural creativity came together in a single movement. In this context, there was a proliferation of modest local initiatives for Basque literacy and language learning (at first, Gau-Eskolak: extracurricular evening classes), also helped by a wide range of social movements and after 1966 gathered under the protection of the Euskaltzaindia (Basque Language Academy). In 1975, a broad network of euskaltegiak (Basque language and literacy centres) came together as a general coordinating association (AEK) and began operations alongside other professional centres of the same nature. At the end of the seventies, annual enrolment at these centres reached about 30,000 (of which 91% were for Basque language and 9% Basque literacy). In response to the growing importance of this phenomenon in society, in the following decade (the eighties) the authorities (in this case, the Basque
172
Words and Worlds
Government of the BAC) took on themselves the institutional coverage of Basque language and literacy (HABE: Basque Adult language and Literacy Institute, 1983). At the same time, the declaration of the language as (co) official in the Basque Autonomous Community and the Autonomous Community of Navarre (1979, 1982) and the projects for its normalisation have also generated increased demand for Basque teaching, doubtless also as a result of the social prestige arising from the legality of the language and its new professional or occupational utility (access to posts in the Administration). Along with the schools mentioned above, several complementary actions should also be mentioned, in both the private and public sectors. First of all, there are the Barnetegiak (boarding schools) and, in another field, the publication of magazines for pupils (Habe, Aizu) and teachers (Hizpide, Ele), as well as classroom teaching materials. Proficiency and refresher courses for teachers have not been overlooked either (1992–1997). Two methodological criteria have guided this teaching activity: careful progress in the study of language structures and special attention to the communicative component in learning (Perales 2000). The experience gathered in the preceding years has made it possible to design a “Basic Syllabus for the Teaching of Basque to Adults” (Decree of 24/01/2000). At the same time as Basque language and literacy acquisition has been endowed with technical and organisational resources, it has also sought public support for the process, to which end social/leisure events have been created, such as Korrika, a people’s march across the Basque Country (every two years since 1980) or Aek-Eguna, a festive occasion for schools and for anyone interested in the recovery of the language. What point has currently been reached in language and literacy acquisition in the Basque Country? The size and nature of the student population is suggested in the following figures. In 1995, there were 1,135 registered students in the Continental Basque Country, while in Navarre the annual number of students can be estimated at 3,500 people and in schools in the BAC there were 42,064 (1997–1998). It is estimated that between 3,500 and 4,000 people pass the top grade in Basque language every year (BAC). To all this must now be added a new form of action, that of technical literacy teaching, which aims to prepare professionals and the public in general in the use of the language in the specialised sphere of their professional or occupational life. The future transmission of the language to adults will be particularly conditioned by other initiatives as important or more so: by the general educational system (increasingly Basque-speaking by families’ choice), by the perhaps more difficult process of bilingualisation of civil servants, by the influence of the media (overwhelmingly dominated by French and Spanish) and more generally
Language and Education
173
by the fact that greater knowledge of the language also has a positive effect for the real use of the language. After almost forty years of private efforts by society (1960–1980) and by social institutions – private and public (1980–2000) – two objectives can be seen to have stimulated the linguistic community in this field: that of recovering the lost language and that of achieving full social normalisation of this minority language. The awareness of and esteem for the cultural and identifying value of the language have been decisive in the process of learning, as well as that of literacy. This was evident in the seventies and recent surveys have confirmed it once more (Perales 2000). The will of society and of the political institutions has collaborated in both senses with noteworthy effect, especially in the BAC. Joseba Intxausti Basque Country, Spain
Recommendations on language and education State, regional and local authorities, especially educational and cultural administrators, must bear in mind he following points: • Multilingualism is the skill best suited to safeguarding cultural diversity and confronting the dangers of globalisation. The priority educational aim for the new millennium must be approached in terms of language proficiency. • Multilingualism must be an aspiration and a demand for everybody, not just for the speakers of minority languages. Knowledge of the language of one’s own community is not enough, but neither is knowing only the language of the state. • Minority linguistic communities must have institutional assistance and advice to create and develop their educational system, but they must be allowed to define their own objectives according to their linguistic and cultural needs. • The fact of not having a written language must not prevent the use of a language at school. Furthering formal and informal oral uses must be an educational priority in languages with and without writing, especially when the presence of a language in society is limited. • The educational models that can contribute most to preserving linguistic diversity and thereby the identity and integrity of all linguistic communities are those that have successfully trained multilingual or at least bilingual individuals.
174
Words and Worlds
• In the case of immigrants arriving in the territory of linguistic communities which speak a language different to their own, the use of immersion teaching methods is recommended to speed up the process of learning the language of the host community. This immersion must be made compatible with the preservation of the language of their place of origin. • The monolingual school model is a threat to linguistic diversity; multilingualism must be a priority objective also for speakers of dominant languages, and schools can offer this service through immersion programmes. The principle of educating children in the family language still applies, but especially so when it is a small one. It is also important to remember that legislating for this is not enough; the community must be given the human and financial resources needed to achieve this end as soon as possible. • Schools cannot guarantee either the recovery or the preservation of a language, but it will be difficult to save a language if it is not included in the educational system of the affected community. • Biodiversity is an asset acknowledged by everyone. It is important also to acknowledge linguistic diversity as humanity’s most valuable cultural asset. This acknowledgement would reinforce language teaching and confer prestige on any move in favour of preserving linguistic diversity. • The ability to use several languages is an asset of immediate utility, whether fully or only partly exercised. For commercial exchanges it is useful to know a few oral expressions; for social and political relations oral use is a priority, and in technology an ability to read in certain languages can also be sufficient. In other words, knowledge of languages, as well as being worthwhile in itself and intellectually enriching, is always useful. Schools should therefore teach people to enjoy and make use of each level of learning achieved in the languages they teach.
At the time this World Review is going to press, the position paper ‘Education in a Multilingual World’ has been published by UNESCO (2003). The ideas expressed in this document are in line with the recommendations of this chapter.
Chapter 7
Languages and the Media The use of a language in the media has a fundamental effect, both from the internal point of view of the language itself, and from the external point of view of the status of the language. On an internal level, the media are responsible for the development of specific oral and written genres, as well as the corresponding discursive, grammatical and lexical forms. Oral and written forms in the media can have so much influence that the linguistic varieties they use are the fundamental points on which many of today’s standard languages are based. So-called British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) English is the classic and most paradigmatic example of this. From the point of view of status, the media also contribute decisively to the prestige and vitality of languages and can do so negatively or positively. Absence from the media, incorrect, derogatory or disparaging use, would be the most negative extremes of endless ways of damaging a language in the media. On the other hand, the presence and correct (suitable) treatment of languages in the media is today a fundamental way for them to develop a formal and public discourse. In other times, it was religious and festive rituals that provided the necessary communicative contexts for developing this type of prestige. Subsequently, using the language in the media not only fulfils its specific object of allowing communication between members of a linguistic community, but also increases the prestige of the language between people inside and outside the community. In this Review, Xavier Albó puts it as follows: “…if speakers of a discriminated language find it is used in favourable contexts in the social media, their selfesteem grows and even the dominant elite can come to accept its presence”. All of this shows how very important it is for languages to have access to the media and therefore how important it is to promote cultural and linguistic diversity in the media. Those languages present in the media acquire greater prestige in their own community of speakers and outside it and are better situated to face up to the tendency towards linguistic and cultural uniformity and ensure their survival. In this chapter we shall start with the controversy there is over the consequences that the growth of the media is going to have for the future of languages. The second section analyses the way in which languages can be present in the media. The third section covers the factors that enable or restrict the presence of languages in the media. The
175
176
Words and Worlds
fourth section analyses the importance of developing media in each of the languages of the community. Finally, a series of recommendations to the authorities, the linguistic communities themselves and to institutions, on the subject of the media is presented.
Media, globalisation and languages The media have grown in a way that was previously unimaginable. While large areas of the world, especially the less industrialised, do not yet have widespread access to much of the information and communications technology, there are fewer and fewer people who are not in contact with some network of written, oral, audiovisual or cybernetic transmission. There is much controversy today over the consequences the growth in the media could have on the future of languages. For some, the digitalisation, fusion, deregulation and globalisation that is taking place in the world of telecommunications is producing a tendency to uniformity that threatens linguistic and cultural plurality. In other words, the development and the growth of digital technology are increasing the capacity for obtaining, processing and storing information. This digitalisation process has at the same time allowed the technological standardisation behind the fusion of media corporations with the large technological companies, giving rise to a single telecommunications industry which is usually in the hands of the dominant cultures and which in many cases is taking on the appearance of an oligopoly. These two trends, in turn, are closely linked to the tendency to deregulation that can be seen in the world of the media. In other words, at the same time as they are being privatised, the large information and telecommunications operators are acquiring more power and influence over society, to the detriment of public operators. These three trends, in turn, are closely linked to the globalisation process taking place in the world. This process is favouring the growth and strengthening of the cultural industries, largely North American, which are creating a culturally and linguistically uniform world through the spread of English and of products fashioned according to the AngloSaxon socio-cultural pattern (Hamelink 1994). Opposite to this view, placing the emphasis on the trends to uniformity, there are authors who analyse the influence of the media and who hold an optimistic outlook as regards the future of languages. These authors point out that, while accepting the real threats facing linguistic diversity, many linguistic communities endure and have come to have a certain presence in the communications media and, in some cases, have developed communications media in their own language. Despite more than two centuries of production by the cultural industries, and despite the aggressive strategies of the powerful communications groups, independent forms of entertainment and media are still succeeding in the world (Miège 2000).
What presence do languages have in the communications media? In the questionnaire used for the review, a question about the presence of the languages of the community in the media was introduced. Specifically it was asked if
Languages and the Media
177
the language is used in press, radio or television. It is important to remember that the questions were open, so we have been able to gather some information about their use in Internet. More than half (53%) of the languages analysed in the research carried out are present in some kind of media – that is, they are used as a medium of expression in the media – although there are enormous differences in the means at their disposal and in the frequency with which they broadcast. As regards their presence in the media, languages can be classified in three main groups: First of all, languages that are usually present in all the media (radio, television, press and even the Internet). In this group are the more widespread languages of the world, such as English, Arabic and Spanish, and most official state languages. In other words, the languages of the dominant cultures that in many cases use the media as an instrument of linguistic and cultural dominance. The second group contains those languages that have gained access to the media but do not have either the media presence or the political and economic power of the languages in the first group. Furthermore, the languages in this group do not form a homogeneous group as there is a gradation to be seen in them going from languages habitually used in all the media to languages used from time to time and only in some local media. European languages such as Latvian, Catalan and Icelandic are found in this subgroup. These are languages which lack the power and the extension of the languages in the first group but which have media productions and are habitually present in the press, on radio and television and, in most cases, also on the Internet. Some are even official state languages. This group contains also languages that are habitually present in some media, both oral and written, but that are not used in all the media or else are only sporadically present. Examples can be found in an Amerindian language like Aymara, habitually present on the radio and occasionally on local television but absent from the press, and the Gikuyu language of Kenya, which has a press and radio but no television. Besides this, those languages whose presence in the media is reduced almost exclusively to local radio can be found, though this presence can vary from being daily, weekly or monthly to being only sporadic. This subgroup includes, for example, the Maya language Achi, which is used by two radio stations in the region for one hour a day; Mon, in Burma, which has a radio programme of half an hour every week, and Kom, in Cameroon, which is used in five programmes a week lasting half an hour on the station in the provincial capital. Amongst languages sporadically used in the media we can include Lakota, spoken in the United States and Canada, and Meriam, in Australia. Both languages are used sporadically on the tribal radio stations of each community. We present below some examples of the languages that the informants sent us, without generalised presence in mass media.
178
Words and Worlds
Languages used to some degree in the media In the Autonomous Prefecture Hani is used in broadcasting, films, and on television. Hani newspapers are also published locally. (Hani, China) There are Jingpo broadcasts and newspapers in Yunnan Province, and in the Dehong Dai and Jingpo Autonomous Prefecture. The Dehong Autonomous Prefecture also shows films which have been translated into Jingpo language. (Jingpo, China) There is a television channel in Galician, a radio station and a newspaper. There are also some programmes that are broadcast in Galician on other television channels and radio stations (though very few), as well as some articles in Galician in the press which is almost all in Castilian. (Galician, Spain) It is used on radio and television but not in newspapers yet. (Ibibio, Nigeria) Dogon is used in the media: radio, press, television. (Dogon, Mali) The language is used in local radio broadcasting. Approximately one hour per day. (Burushaski, Pakistan) There are Maonan broadcasts in Maonan towns only. Chinese is used in all other forms of media. (Maonan, China) There is an Ainu language radio course on the air once a week. (Ainu, Japan) There is at least one radio station that broadcasts in Otomi, of the Patrimonio Indígena del Valle del Mezqutal in Ixmiqilpan, Hgo. There is no real press in Otomi, or television programmes. (Otomi, Mexico) It is used on the radio and exceptionally on television. (Serere, Senegal) The third and last group is made up of languages which have no presence in the media, such as Guiqiong, in China, Tayo, in New Caledonia, and Yeyi, in Botswana and many others. As has been said before, almost half the languages from the sample studied (47%) have no access to any communication media. In other words, they are languages which in most cases have been marginalised by the dominant cultures and which on many occasions have been denied access to the media. In this respect, it should be pointed out that, on many occasions, the dominant cultures and languages have prevented development of the media in these languages and have used the influence of the media to achieve linguistic and cultural uniformity of the territory around the language proclaimed official or national. Some languages which informants said that are not used in the media are the following ones: Achang, Achuar, Aiwo, Akoye, Alsatian, Amahuaca, Athpare, Awa pit, Awajun, Babole, Badyara, Baheng, Baima, Balanta, Baniwa, Bao’an, Bargam, Bariai,
Languages and the Media
179
Baruga, Basari, Bengni-Bogar, Berbice, Bhumij, Bimin, Bisu, Blang, Boazi, Bolinao, Buang, Budik, Buhutu, Burum-Mindik, Bwaidoka, Cabecar, Cacaopera, Caquinte, Cayapa, Chaga, Chamling, Cheke Holo, Chepang, Chichimeco Chilcotin, Chimila, Chinanteco, Chipaya, Chocho, Chrau, Kokama, Kofan, Colorado, Komba, Cun, Da‘a, Darang-Deng, De’ang, Derung, Dobel, Domaki, Dong, Edolo, Ergong, Ersu, Fuyug, Gelao, Geman-Deng, Giriama, Guambiano, Guiqiong, Gumawana, Gungu, Haruai, Hewa, Hezhen, Uitoto, Idakho, Idu, Ilianen Manobo, Imbongu, Iquito, Itzaj, Jalunka, Jarauara, Jinuo, Jiongnai, Jukun, Ka’apor, Kagayanen, Kaguru, Kaluli, Kamali, Kandozi, Karay, Kayapi, Kayapo, Kei, Koasati, Komo, Kuku-Yalanji, Kuuy, Kuvi, Kwakwala, Lakkia, Lamenu, Lembena, Lobala, Loogoli, Luang, Luwo, Macanese, Malay, Malecite, Malngin, Mambwe, Manchu, Mangbetu, Mazateco, Mbosi, Meramera, Mian, Migaama, Minaveha, Miwok, Mixe, Mocheno, Munduruku, Mussau-Emira, Muya, Nambikwara, Namuyi, Narak, Ndali, Ndogo, Ngardi, Ngbaka, Ngbandi, Ngonde, Ngoni, Nihali, Ninggirum, Numanggang, Nunga, Nusu, Ogiek, Oneida, Onge, Onobasulu, Orya, Pagibete, Paiute, Palenque, Pech, Popoluca, Poyanawa, Pumi, Ramoaaina, Rouruo, Sabaot, Saep, Salar, Sandawi, Sawai, Sentani, Shawnee, She, Shelta, Shixing, Shona, Blackfoot, Sipakapense, Siriono, Siroi, Songorong, Sukuma, Sumo-Tawahka, Tae’, Tanimuka, Tatar, Tau, Tayo, Tehid, Tehuelche, Teke, Tepehuan, Tifal, Timbe, Tiwa, Tol, Tsanglo, Tujia, Tutunacu, Tuwali, Uma, Uspanteko, Waama, Waffa, Wampis, Wanga, Waorani, Xavante, Yaaku, Yagua, Yakan, Yale, Yele, Yerava, Yukuna, EasternYugur, Western Yugur, Zauzou.
Factors allowing or restricting the presence of languages in the media Although it is difficult to determine all the factors that play a part in the presence a language has in the media, everything seems to suggest that the legal status and the support or restrictions the dominant cultures allow or impose on the languages in their orbit play a decisive part in their presence in the media. In this respect, a close correlation can be seen between the use of a language in the media and its official status – that is, languages that are official and co-official have a greater presence in the media than those that have no official status. To be precise, almost 90% of official languages and co-official languages are present to some extent in the media. It is important to point out, though, that lack of official status is not an invincible obstacle to the presence of a language in the media. The example of Romany is one of many examples we have been able to note. There are two hours a week on Romanian television for the Roms. There are five magazines for the Roms with writing in Romania. There are also three radio programmes in Romany. (Romany, Romania) Speakers’ linguistic awareness and the wish to develop media in their own language is another decisive factor for the development of the media. There are many accounts
180
Words and Worlds
from informants, even of languages with few speakers, saying that in recent years they have been able to develop written and oral media. Frisian is hardly used in the media. The situation is as follows: There are three minutes a week on the local public radio station. The radio station does not seem to be willing to increase the broadcasting time. On one private radio station there are occasionally longer programmes. There is no Frisian on television. In the local newspaper there is one page per month with articles in Frisian and Low German. In the Danish minority’s newspaper, Flensborg Avis, there are occasional articles in Frisian. (Frisian, Germany) Nevertheless, all the linguistic communities analysed expressed a clear wish to maintain, develop or create media of their own, though they also show difficulties which very often are difficult to overcome. Above all, the lack of financial support is one of the main obstacles to the development of the media. There are many linguistic communities which, although they have the awareness and the wish to develop media of their own, do not do so because of a lack of financial resources. There are radio and television broadcasts in Runyoro. There was a local newspaper, Enyunorí Yaítu, but it has stopped for lack of funds. Now there are only occasional publications and text books (a few), because most of them are written in English. (Nyoro, Uganda) Map 9 shows the languages spoken in Tanzania.
The survival of languages through the development of their own media The fact that the gloomiest forecasts on cultural identities and languages have not entirely come true and that many languages have achieved some kind of presence in the media is no guarantee that these forecasts will not be fulfilled at some point in the future. Many people have pointed out that the large communication corporations, which basically broadcast in English, will increasingly foster cultural uniformity and lead to the disappearance of those languages whose position is weakest (May 2001). The asymmetry and lack of proportion between a local radio using the language of the community in the face of the large television channels or the American film colossuses raises serious doubts as to the survival of the less widespread languages and cultures. Everything seems to suggest that to avoid linguistic and cultural uniformity linguistic communities will have to develop communications media that use their own language. In other words, in the face of the influence in favour of uniformity exerted by the large communications media, linguistic communities will have to create their own media or at least ensure their presence in the local media. As has been pointed out above, the development of communication channels depends on a number of things, some of which are beyond the powers of the group or
Languages and the Media
181
community of speakers. Written media obviously call for an alphabet and a system of spelling; audiovisual media require technological and financial means that are not always accessible to linguistic communities, though it should not be forgotten that they facilitate their use for unwritten or barely standardised languages or languages lacking the creation of graphic systems.
THE MEDIA IN THE SERVICE OF MINORITY LANGUAGES The media are one of the most powerful instruments for standardising, changing or consolidating languages and cultural identities. Present in the landscape and in the intimacy of every home, they shape values, attitudes and even identities, like a fine rain that eventually penetrates the being’s every pore. At the same time, by their very nature, the mass media reflect the global environmental pressure more insistently than other institutions – such as school – and can pose a threat to the identity and language of subordinated or marginated groups such as indigenous peoples, immigrant workers, refugees and other excluded groups. In Latin America, the indigenous languages entered the media late and very incompletely. It was not until the fifties that the transistor radio made it possible for communication to overcome obstacles such as bad roads, lack of electricity, illiteracy or monolingualism and radio stations or programmes in the main indigenous languages began to emerge, sometimes with ample audience participation, especially in countries with few languages spoken by many and with less state control of radio stations. On commercial television and in the daily press, progress is practically nil, while the little that has been done in cinema and video is very scattered. The use of one language or another in the media, as well as easing or obstructing understanding, plays an important expressive role, especially in those media that appeal to the feelings by means of sound and images. If certain languages and cultures are ignored in them or only appear in the context of crime or with pejorative connotations, their marginalisation is increased and their disappearance hastened. But if speakers of discriminated languages find them used in the media in favourable contexts, their selfesteem grows and even the dominant elites can eventually come to accept their presence. For any media to strengthen its positive role in favour of minority languages, the general setting and contextualisation of all its programmes must reflect the plural reality around it positively; its use of languages, images and content must show the country or the area in a positive light as an intercultural and plurilingual reality.
182
Words and Worlds
In addition, all plurilingual countries should adopt the following measures: • Train native speakers of the minority languages in the use of the different media and ensure the existence of at least one regular broadcasting channel for each linguistic area and community and in each branch of the media. • Set up community radio stations in these languages and form radial chains between the ones broadcasting in the same language. • Further the preparation and compilation of records, cassettes, films and videos in minority languages and their large-scale distribution in the chief media and other distribution networks. • Make systematic use of the different local languages in signs, public places and events and on the Internet. Xavier Albó Centre for Peasant Research and Promotion (CIPCA), Bolivia
Radio, according to the accounts gathered, seems to be the medium that has seen most development, even in linguistic communities with more modest means. It is the most readily accessible media form and therefore the most widespread. The figures are clear in this respect: 44% of the languages analysed are used on the radio; only 26% have access to the written press, and 23% of the languages have some presence on television. The reasons for the predominance of radio are easy to imagine. It is less demanding technically and economically than the other media, and in principle it has no need for a written use of the language. Also, it does not require the literacy of its audience (Anashin 2000). It is therefore foreseeable that linguistic communities and especially those with most awareness of their situation will continue to make widespread use of radio. In this respect, radio is a medium to take very much into account in any implementation of linguistic planning policy. The proportion of languages with a television presence (23%) is half the number with radio presence (44%). The technical and economic demands for developing the necessary technology mean that many communities, especially the smaller ones with fewer resources, have serious problems when it comes to gaining access to the technology needed to develop this sort of media. However, there is no denying that television can play an important part in the survival of languages. Television could be of great help for communities wanting to bring prestige to their language and encourage its use, or implement programmes for language teaching at a distance, especially amongst geographically dispersed linguistic communities. One interesting experience in this respect were the Yukateko language classes given on the Mexican channel Azteca 13.
Languages and the Media
183
The Internet, just like television, calls for infrastructures and technologies that are not often within reach of all linguistic communities. With the increased use of graphic elements, the difficulties and the costs involved in image treatment are creating added difficulties in its use. Increasingly sophisticated means are required, which very often are not available to linguistic communities. What is more, inequality in access to technologies in turn leads to greater social privileges for those linguistic communities with more power. Thus the socio-economic gap between the rich communities, who can develop, promote and impose their language, and the poorer communities, who have no alternative but to accept the cultural and linguistic influence forced on them, gets wider. We must not forget that the mastery of these technologies gives real cultural and political power to the great world powers and the private interests behind them, particularly in relation to populations who do not have proper education or are not in a position to classify, interpret or criticise the information they receive (Delors 1997). In addition, everything seems to suggest that more than half of what there is on the Internet today is in English (Miège 2000). If we add to this the fact that the main Internet browser software can only read the characters of the Latin alphabet (World Communication Report 1997), it seems there is no other way but to accept the point of view of certain authors who point to the Internet as one of the most important instruments of cultural uniformity (Virilio 1997). However, we must not forget that the Internet is furthering previously unimagined remote communications networks and that it is one of the most active technologies that can allow the use of certain languages, especially when speakers are subject to increasing situations of mobility (migrations and job transfers). Furthermore, it gives communities or individuals speaking the same language greater opportunities for bringing pressure to bear or organising in favour of their language. The Internet makes it possible to debate, reach conclusions and organise without costly and unnecessary travel (Myers 1999). One obvious example is the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights signed in 1996 in Barcelona, to which were added, with the help of the Internet, proposals from different centres and organisations all over the world. It must be remembered that, in so far as it allows interactivity, the Internet is a good way of imparting distance teaching. It is likely that in future on-line study courses on the subject of languages will be commoner and cheaper, thus foreseably contributing to their reinforcement and development as the World Communication and Information Report notes (UNESCO 1999). During the 31st session of the General Conference of UNESCO, November 2001, UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and the Main Lines of an Action Plan was adopted. In this action plan, the following objectives were established among others:
184
Words and Worlds
MAIN LINES OF AN ACTION PLAN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNESCO UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY. November 2001 (…) 5. Safeguarding the linguistic heritage of humanity and giving support to expression, creation and dissemination in the greatest possible number of languages. 6. Encouraging linguistic diversity – while respecting the mother tongue – at all levels of education, wherever possible, and fostering the learning of several languages from the earliest age. (…) 10. Promoting linguistic diversity in cyberspace and encouraging universal access through the global network to all information in the public domain. (…)
Another interesting reference is the document of Recommendation concerning the Promotion and Use of Multilingualism and Universal Access to Cyberspace adopted by the General Conference of the UNESCO during its 32nd session, October 2003, which undertakes an analysis of important themes such as the elaboration of plurilingual systems and contents, the facilitation of access to the web and its services, the development of information and knowledge in the public domain and the reaffirmation of the equitative equilibrium between private interests and public interests. Each of the recommendations is vitally important. Here we present a small extract. RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE PROMOTION AND USE OF MULTILINGUALISM AND UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO CYBERSPACE Adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization during its 32nd session, October 2003. (…) 5. UNESCO, in cooperation with other international organisations, should establish a collaborative online observatory on existing policies, regulations, technical recommendations, and best practices relating to multilingualism and multilingual resources and applications, including innovations in language computerisation. (…) 8. In particular, Member States and international organisations should establish mechanisms at the local, national, regional and international level
Languages and the Media
185
to facilitate universal access to the Internet through affordable telecommunications and Internet costs with special consideration given to the needs of public service and educational institutions, and of disadvantaged and disabled population groups. New incentives in this area should be designed towards this end including public-private partnerships to encourage investment and the lowering of financial barriers to the use of ICT, such as taxes and customs duties on informatics equipment, software and services. (…) 10. Member States should encourage the development of information strategies and models that facilitate community access and reach out to all levels of society, including the setting up of community projects and fostering the emergence of local information and communication technology leaders and mentors. Strategies should also support cooperation on ICT among public service institutions, as a means of reducing the cost of access to Internet services. (…) 14. Member States and international organisations should promote appropriate partnerships in the management of domain names, including multilingual domain names. (…) 16. Member States and international organisations should identify and promote repositories of information and knowledge in the public domain and make them accessible by all, thus shaping learning environments conducive to creativity and audience development. To this end, adequate funding should be provided for the preservation and digitisation of public domain information. 17. Member States and international organisations should encourage cooperative arrangements which respect both public and private interests in order to ensure universal access to information in the public domain without geographical, economic, social or cultural discrimination. (…) 19. Member States and international organisations should promote and facilitate ICT literacy, including popularising and building trust in ICT implementation and use. The development of “human capital” for the information society, including an open, integrated and intercultural education combined with skills training in ICT, is of crucial importance. ICT training should not be limited to technical competence but should also include awareness of ethical principles and values.
186
Words and Worlds
The General Conference recommends that Member States bring this recommendation to the attention of the authorities and services responsible for public and private works on ICT policies, strategies and infrastructures, including use of multilingualism on the Internet, the development of networks and services, expansion of public domain information on the Internet and intellectual property rights issues
Finally, the importance of the World Summit on the Information Society that took place in two parts should be stressed. During the first, in Geneva 2003, the Declaration of Principles and the Plan of Action was adopted, to be reviewed in the second part, Tunis 2005. This Declaration affirms that: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES. BUILDING THE INFORMATION SOCIETY: A GLOBAL CHALLENGE IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY 12 December 2003 (…) 8) Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content 52. Cultural diversity is the common heritage of humankind. The Information Society should be founded on and stimulate respect for cultural identity, cultural and linguistic diversity, traditions and religions, and foster dialogue among cultures and civilisations. The promotion, affirmation and preservation of diverse cultural identities and languages as reflected in relevant agreed United Nations documents, including UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, will further enrich the Information Society. 53. The creation, dissemination and preservation of content in diverse languages and formats must be accorded high priority in building an inclusive Information Society, paying particular attention to the diversity of supply of creative work and due recognition of the rights of authors and artists. It is essential to promote the production of and accessibility to all content – educational, scientific, cultural or recreational – in diverse languages and formats. The development of local content suited to domestic or regional needs will encourage social and economic development and will stimulate participation of all stakeholders, including people living in rural, remote and marginal areas.
Languages and the Media
187
54. The preservation of cultural heritage is a crucial component of identity and self–understanding of individuals that links a community to its past. The Information Society should harness and preserve cultural heritage for the future by all appropriate methods, including digitisation. 9) Media 55. We reaffirm our commitment to the principles of freedom of the press and freedom of information, as well as those of the independence, pluralism and diversity of media, which are essential to the Information Society. Freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information for the creation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge are important to the Information Society. We call for the responsible use and treatment of information by the media in accordance with the highest ethical and professional standards. Traditional media in all their forms have an important role in the Information Society and ICTs should play a supportive role in this regard. Diversity of media ownership should be encouraged, in conformity with national law, and taking into account relevant international conventions. We reaffirm the necessity of reducing international imbalances affecting the media, particularly as regards infrastructure, technical resources and the development of human skills. (…)
Recommendations on language and the media As proposed by the Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policy for Development organised by UNESCO and held in Stockholm (1998), it is necessary to recommend to government authorities that they promote cultural and linguistic diversity in the information society. Below we summarise some of the basic recommendations.
• To provide radio, written press, television and Internet services to linguistic communities in minority situations. The existence of one regular broadcasting channel for each linguistic area and community and in each type of social communication media should be assured. • To support initiatives arising in the linguistic communities themselves. Support should be given to those media that arise within the communities and that allow their members information and entertainment with their own view of reality. • To create multilingual media, as well as media that provide access to and further the use of dialectical varieties, to allow a balanced development of all
188
•
•
•
•
Words and Worlds the languages and varieties in linguistic communities, so long, of course, as the speakers themselves so desire. To promote equal use of languages amongst the new communication and information technologies, as far as possible making these technologies accessible to linguistic communities. In this respect, it should be remembered that the UNESCO universal declaration on cultural diversity, approved at the twentieth plenary session on 2 November 2001, made an appeal to member states to promote linguistic diversity in cyberspace and promote free and universal access, via the world-wide web, to all information of public domain. To further the preparation, production and compilation of media material (records, cassettes, films, videos, etc.) in minority languages and its largescale distribution in the chief media. To encourage the commitment of the public and private communication media to matters relating to the promotion of local, regional and national cultures and languages and, especially, to endangered languages. In particular we appeal to the media and to journalists to value and encourage linguistic diversity, to confer prestige on the use of all languages in all spheres and to fight against the linguistic prejudices that ridicule small languages and lead humanity towards linguistic globalisation. We also ask them to give positive publicity to news from linguistic communities working to preserve and develop their languages and cultures.
Chapter 8
Language and Religion Religious factors can greatly influence language maintenance and shift. There are several reasons to consider this topic in a Review of the situation of the languages of the world. On one hand, religious experience (both religious beliefs and practices) is in most cases closely related to language; both language and religion are crucial in a definition of the individual’s identity. On the other, the use of a certain language in religious practices, apart from being very important for the individual believer, it also gives additional prestige to the group of speakers and, as a consequence, to the given language. A language not used in the religious practice of their speakers gets relegated and marginalised, which can provoke negative attitudes among the speakers and correligionist non-speakers of the given language. Since religious institutions wield power in society, the language planning that they carry about can be determinant in the creation of linguistic stereotypes that perpetuate marginalisation of certain groups of speakers and their languages. The power held by religious institutions and leaders is obvious in all three types of language planning issues: the creation and spread of writing systems and other issues relating to standardisation of a language (corpus), the choice of one language over others in the religious domain (status), and language-teaching (acquisition) conducted in church and missionary schools. In this chapter we address the importance of religion in the sociolinguistic situation of the world, taking the following aspects into account: religious ideology in regard to language planning, the role of religion on language choice in colonisation processes, some current scenarios where global religions are replacing local ones, and the effect of religion in language maintenance in immigrant communities. We also inform on the written and oral use of the languages examined in this Review in the religious domain, and we give a series of recommendations directed to the preservation of language diversity.
The influence of religious ideology Religions have played a crucial role in the history and development of the world. Linguistic decisions taken influenced by religious beliefs, such as the use of a language over another in religious practices or the spread of a certain writing system, have been extremely influential in the future of many communities and even in the formation of
189
190
Words and Worlds
modern civilisations. There is no doubt that the ideology inherent in the religion of a linguistic community affects greatly the status, corpus, and acquisition of a language. Taken into account the language choice each makes, religions can be divided into two large groups. On one hand, some religions keep the use of the ancient language in which the revealed text was delivered by the divine force. On the other, another group of religions use texts not revealed directly by God, but rather texts delivered by wise masters based on personal experience. The former are called Religions based on Revelation and the latter are named Religions of Wisdom. This way of looking at religions and classifying them by their origin helps us understand the language choices made in many religions of the world. Religions based on Revelation are the Religions of the Book (Islam, Judaism and Christianity), and others such as Hinduism. In this group we should make a further distinction between the religions that take the Revelation as dictated directly by the divinity – as in the case of Islam – and the ones that consider the received text as inspired and, therefore, subject and allowed to be localised to the historical, psychological and cultural circumstances of the receiver – Judaism, Christianism and Hinduism. All these religions have been and are often still associated tightly with the use of certain languages: The Qu’ran is considered a text descended (munzal) on Muhammad; it is the literal transcription of Alà’s words and should not, therefore, be translated or interpreted – although there are examples that differ from this general idea. Since this text is written in Classical Arabic, it can only be read or recited in this language. Use of other languages is only allowed during the Friday sermon or in other less formal situations. Map 10 shows the areas where Tamazight varieties are spoken. Hinduism also prevents its sacred texts from being translated and these are read in another classical language, Sanskrit, language of the ancient Vedas; Judaism has also used a classical language, Classical Hebrew, to pass on the revealed texts. All these three languages share the fact that they have not been transmitted naturally from generation to generation, but have rather been kept incorrupt, away from any possible language change, due, in fact, to their exclusive use in the religious domain. The case of Hebrew is worth mentioning as well, not only because of the impressive recovery process that took place in Israel during the last century, but also, and what is more impressive, for the fact that a classical language only used in the religious domain at the time spread its use to all situations, creating the whole range of linguistic varieties needed in a normalised language. Finally, there is no sacred language in Christian religions, although some languages, such as Latin and Greek, have been granted the highest status, despite the fact that they were not spoken by the Founders. In fact, we can observe the major role played by religion in language choice and in the creation and spread of writing systems when we examine, among others, language planning decisions through history in Europe. Between 867 (Council of Constantinople) and 1054 Europe was divided in two clear cultural worlds. This division was related to religion and language (Hagège 1992: 133). In Western Europe, Christianity used Latin in all religious services by the 11th century, even in places where
Language and Religion
191
there had been no Latin tradition, such as Ireland or Germany; moreover, languages of Western Christianity not written before adopted the Latin alphabet. In the meantime, Eastern Europe started to translate religious texts to Gothic and the Orthodox Church later adopted the Cyrillic alphabet, which was based on Old Slavonic, the language spoken by the monks who created it: Cirilus and Methodius. The two major writing systems used in Europe today are, therefore, a direct consequence of the divide between Western and Eastern Christianity after the Fall of the Roman Empire. Another religion division among Christians in the 16th century also lets us see differences in language choice. The Protestant Reform brought the translation of the Bible to High German, and later to other vernacular languages. In addition massive literarisation in vernacular languages allowed the spread of Protestantism, which provoked a reaction from the Catholic Church, which also felt forced to undertake the education of the elites and the literarisation of the general population, and started to give vernacular languages a status that they never had before, using them together with Latin in religious texts (Baggioni 1997: 108). In fact, the standardisation of small European languages such as Basque or Gaelic began in this context, when they started to be used in the written form of catechisms and doctrines. However, it was not until the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) that the Roman Catholic Church allowed the use of vernacular languages in Catholic mass. Until then, mass was held in Latin. Therefore, it is important to highlight the critical role that writing the sacred texts in vernacular languages has, and the consequences that the choice of an orthographic system have in the future of many languages. In Western Christianity the Latin alphabet was generalised, but this phenomenon has also been common in other religious contexts: for instance, languages written in other characters shifted to Arabic script because of religious reasons. Arabic alphabet was used to transcribe languages previously not written down until the expansion of Islam, such as Turkish, Urdu, Malay, Swahili, although nowadays some of them (Swahili, Malay or Turkish) use the Latin alphabet (Calvet 2001: 171). The Hebrew system has also been used to codify languages such as Yiddish, Ladino and varieties of Arabic and Persian (Spolsky 2004: 49). The relation between language and Religions of Wisdom is less close. Religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, or Animism, and all their variants, have texts that gather the reflections of their wise masters; these texts do not constitute the revealed (by divine force), but rather the experienced (by wise masters). The language used in these canonical texts is not the only key to interpretation, but rather it assists the believer to create a lifestyle that ultimately makes it possible to get to sense illumination or ecstasy. Wisdom is not the start-point structured in a sacred language (as in Revelation cases), but rather an arrival-point. The language has the instrumental value of allowing communication (Buddhism) or the value of invocation (Animism). Therefore, there is no close relationship between a specific language and Wisdom religions or paths, these being more open to the use of vernaculars. Buddhism has also encouraged translation from the original Sanskrit, Prakrit and Middle Aryan texts into Chinese or Tibetan, for instance. Our Mon (Myanmar) informant confirms us that:
192
Words and Worlds
Buddhism has a great influence on the Mon community, in terms of culture and literature. (…) in the Mon community the religious service and ceremonies are completely in Mon language. (Mon, Myanmar) As other religions, Buddhism has also contributed to the spread of a writing system; as the religion spread through Asia, many communities adopted its writing system, Brahmi, or adaptations of it. The Brahmi writing system is the base for most systems used in India, with the exception of the ones spread through Islam. The Devanagari script, a system derived from original Brahmi, is currently used in India not only to transcribe Classical Sanskrit, but also to write Hindi. Another form of Brahmi, the Gupta script, is used to transcribe the Tibetan language. In addition, the Brahmi system was adopted in China and Japan when Buddhism spread there. The Chinese classical script was spread with the expansion of Buddhism in Korea, Vietnam and Japan. Later, many small local languages used Chinese characters for transcription (Calvet 2001: 99). Last but not least, Animist communities are the most likely to use their vernacular language, to the point that some languages are only used by the certified person, shaman or another, as the language of invocation. Kallawaya, a language of Peru, for instance, is an almost secret and sacred language, not naturally transmitted in the community, but only used by the Kallawaya when they practice traditional medicine (Girault 1989: 13).
Language shift as a consequence of colonisation: the effect of religion Colonisation processes often bring together the imposition of the language, religion, culture and ways of living of the coloniser. Governors and political leaders frequently added religion to the one language, one nation, one state, (one religion) idea spread by European nationalism, and later taken to the colonies. As Ferguson points out (1982: 102), several factors influence the spread of religion and language in the colonies: the number and proportion of colonists vis-à-vis the colonised, the colonists’ attitude toward incorporation of the colonised population into their society, the role of religion in the local community, and the ideology of the coming religion with regard to language. The spread of language and culture and the spread of religion quite often go together, although not always: for example, French colonisation to Morocco and Algeria was determinant in the spread of the language but not the religion of the colonisers, whereas the Spaniards were quite successful in the spread of Catholicism in Philippines, although not so much in the spread of Spanish. The situations may be very varied. A typical pattern of colonisation is that carried out by Europeans in Central and South America since the “discovery,” when the main objective was the spread of religion (Catholicism), even before the spread of the language. In fact, the first religious missions used widespread indigeneous languages such as Nahuatl, Quichua, or Guarani, “powerful languages” at the time in comparison with smaller languages, and absolutely “powerless” languages today with regard to Spanish. The use in the religious domain of these more important languages contributed to their spread, at
Language and Religion
193
least until the 18th century, when the prestige of these three lingua francas started to decrease and the use of Spanish in religious and administrative domains accelerated. (Ortiz Rescaniere 1992: 12. See also Cerrón Palomino 1987 and Meliá 1992). The increased use of Spanish, not only in the religious domain but in all public domains, caused the substitution and loss of many American languages. The acculturation feeling perceived by the communities as a consequence remains until today, as reported by many informants. The Mam testimony is only an example: Christian religion has contributed to kind of acculturation that makes people drop their religion or their own spirituality and shift to the Catholic or Evangelical religion; on the other hand, due to religion, religious document have been currently translated; in addition, they sing and use the [Mam] language in ceremonies. (…) In the practice of Mayan spirituality, the Mam language has always been the oral means of communication; however, Christianity started to use Spanish, both orally and in written form; Mam started to be used not long ago and it is reinforced with Spanish. (Mam, Guatemala) As in the situations already mentioned, the spread of the new religion contributed to the creation of writing systems for many languages that were not written at the time, and even the adoption of the Latin alphabet by languages that already had their own system, such as Nahuatl, language that already had a different script in the Amoxtli codex – books related to the religious and historic tradition of the old indigenous world (Leon Portilla 1993: 20). Another typical pattern is that carried out during the British colonisation of Asian and African territories: missionaries used vernacular languages, together with local lingua francas and English in education with the purpose of spreading the Christian religion (Ferguson 1982: 102). This language policy obviously favoured the spread of English and local lingua francas, causing also a threat to small local languages. Other patterns of colonisation, especially recent ones, gave up on the idea of spreading the religion of the colonisers. During the French colonisation in Africa in the 19th century, the French tried to colonise through the language, so that all the “civilised” ones would be French speakers (Spolsky 2004: 71). In this case the role that the French education system played in the status of the European language in the colonies is crucial. To finish, we must note that the spread of a religion or religious factors alone cannot be held responsible for the marginalisation and even loss of hundreds of languages in the former colonies. However, without underscoring the economical and social dominance that usually co-occurs with linguistic and cultural domination, we must stress that the spread of religion in colonial settings often goes hand-in-hand with the spread of the language, culture and world view of the colonisers, who always want to impose their ways over the colonised peoples’ ones.
Local versus global religions: some current situations Although aware of the important consequences that religious ideology has in language choice in religious practices, we must note that even religions that allow the
194
Words and Worlds
translation of their holy texts and the use of vernaculars in religious practices are not always consistent when applying this policy. Quite often, current religious ideology does not prevent them from using vernacular languages; however, according to some of our informants, religious practice is conducted in the language of the missionaries or religious leaders, producing language shift for the local community. The use of a language in the religious domain gives prestige to a language; similarly, it is common to choose a prestigious language in the religious domain to the detriment of those with lower prestige. Consider the following testimony: Since 1859–1860, the Pech have been Catholic, as they were converted by the Spanish Jesuit Manuel de Jesús Subirana. The Pech communities are attended by Catholic priests who use Spanish as the only ritual, official and communication language. The church, along with schools, have historically been the institutions that have most persecuted the Pech language and have strengthened Spanish as the official and only language. (Pech, Honduras) The members of the communities often report explicitly that they would rather use their vernacular language in religious rites and ceremonies: Until the mid eighties, all the Reef Islanders were Anglican. Since that time, many joined evangelical fellowships (e.g. Church of the Living Word). (…)The services are largely conducted in English, a language most Reefs people do not understand. If a message is preached, the preacher will use Aiwo or Pijin or both. All the written materials (Book of Common Prayer) are English exclusively, though the people have expressed a strong desire to have this translated into Aiwo. (Aiwo, Salomon Islands) In addition, it is important to highlight that in some situations language choice – whether to use the local language or impose a more prestigious one – seems to reflect a sort of competition among different religious organisations trying to gain adepts in the same linguistic community: Catholic Church promotes in a way the local language in all religious ceremonies. There are hymnbooks and missals in Achi and the New Testament has been translated. Protestants act differently: they reject the use of the local language and prohibit many of the Mayan traditions in the community. Protestants use the [Achi] language neither in written form nor orally. (…) In the Mayan religious practices the language is used 100%, but there are no written texts. (Achi, Guatemala) Like the Achi informant, many others noted that, whereas religions not originating from the region weaken local languages, practice of the native religion strengthens ethnic, linguistic, and cultural identity (also Crystal 2000): If it is a traditional ritual, the [Maninga] language is used exclusively. The cultural ceremonies are often influenced by Islam and the phrases and prayers are sometimes in Arabic. (Maninga, Côte d’Ivoire)
Language and Religion
195
But sometimes it is often difficult to establish clear-cut differences between the new, global, religions and traditional ones. Several informants report cases of syncretism between the two. In the western dialect area, the Muya people practise Lamaism, and have built many temples there. In the eastern dialect region, only some of the Muya profess Lamaism, so there are not many temples or professional Lamas. In addition, the Muya people still adhere to animistic beliefs and often hold religious activities such as worshipping nature and sacrificing to spirits. (…) In Lama temples in the western dialect region, Tibetan is used in religious activities instead of Muya. In the eastern dialect area, Muya is used in such activities, but is sometimes used together with Chinese and not Tibetan. Thus, Muya in the western dialect region tend to be much more fluent in Tibetan than those in the eastern dialect region. (Muya, China) In addition, it seems that the tendency today is for many religious organisations to be more tolerant towards local languages, as pointed by our Desano informant: As for most indigenous groups, the traditional religion, often in syncretism with the Catholic religion, is bound to the everyday life of the indigenous people. Birth, death, sowing, harvesting etc. are reasons for religious celebrations in the community. Concerning other religions, Catholic missions acted as commissioned by the government of Colombia to “civilise” the indigenous people till 1974 and it was common to have boarding schools where children were forbidden to use their language. Nowadays, the Catholic Church assists in the official education through administration contracts and they are diminishing their offensive against indigenous traditions and the language. (Desano, Colombia) However, it must not be forgotten that for many reporters the change that has taken place in many religions is apparent; members of foreign religions have learnt the language and produced texts written in the local language so as to promote a subsequent transition to the dominant language. Quite a few people have pointed out that the use of the local language in religious acts, rites and practices always has the ultimate object of continuing acculturation or leading them away from their own original beliefs, cultures and languages. Many of our reporters perceive that religious leaders have no interest in supporting or strengthening local languages. In general, their goal would be to increase their membership and power in the community: The Tolupan of La Montaña de la Flor have traditionally been Catholics, but the presence of the Protestants of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) from 1950 to 1980 has led most of the Tolupan of the Cipriano group to join this religion. The linguistic influence of the Protestant religion was quite considerable during its 36-year presence, as they did the first texts in Tol, studied the language and prepared the dictionary. They also began an educational programme for transition from the Tol language to Spanish. Curiously, the ILV [SIL] implemented a contradictory religion and language policy; on one hand, it studied the Tol language in depth and produced
196
Words and Worlds
endless written texts, but on the other, it encouraged the transition to Spanish in its religious and educational programmes. (Tol, Honduras). Accepting the fact that the main goal of religious organisations in the former colonies is to gain adepts to their beliefs and religious communities, there seems to be a contradiction in the language planning conducted by many. As noted by our Tol informant, among others, on one hand, there is great interest in documenting indigenous languages, especially in respect to their structure and lexicon. Very important efforts have been undertaken to codify writing systems for many languages. What looks necessary corpus planning to reverse the minority status of “powerless” languages is often perceived by the communities themselves as an effort to bring speakers to the mainstream, so that they are assimilated by the more powerful linguistic and cultural group, and not as an effort directed toward the maintenance of indigenous languages and cultures. Even more strongly, the work conducted by many proselytiser groups is often perceived as a move towards linguistic, cultural, and religious uniformity for the benefit of the economically, politically, and socially more powerful.
Religious practice as a trigger for language maintenance in immigrant communities Current scenarios of large- or medium-scale migrations for socio-economic, political or religious reasons, and especially from less- to more-developed countries are interesting for the sociolinguist. According to Ferguson, this type of “voluntary” (quotation marks added) migration tends to be language-conservative; in other words, maintenance-oriented, “to the greatest extent for the language of the sacred texts, next greatest for the language of public ritual and explanation of the texts, and also for the mother-tongue language of ordinary conversation” (1982: 101). The reason why “voluntary” migrations favour language maintenance in the religious domain is that both language and religion are crucial in a definition of both the individual and collective identity and immigrants quite often attempt to preserve their identity as much as possible, at least during the first years after leaving their homeland. In addition, immigrant religious organisations also try to prevent their immigrant adepts from being assimilated religiously by other groups, which can only be achieved if the immigrants’ identity is preserved. It is well known that many immigrant churches in the US, for instance, promote the teaching of the language of origin of the community to the members who did not acquire it within the family. This kind of situation is especially common these days right across the world. An increasing number of immigrant languages are in contact in socio-economically more developed areas. Other than the family and close community environment, religious practice can contribute to the maintenance of many of these languages. It is hardly necessary to say that aspects mentioned by Ferguson (1982: 101), such as the presence or absence of coreligionists in the host community, the existence of shared lingua francas, and the ideological stance of religion with regard to language will determine language maintenance.
Language and Religion
197
Written and oral use of the languages of the world in religious practices In the same way that all languages have their literature, most languages have also developed verbal forms, texts, either oral or written, and more or less ritualised, to express the sacred, supernatural or magic. It is not surprising, therefore, that most of the languages analysed in the World Languages Review should be used in religious practices. To be precise, more than 80% of the sample languages were reported to be used in religious ceremonies and rituals, at least orally. In fact, religion is the social domain in which languages are most used. Indeed, in many cases, the language survives only as a liturgical language. This is the situation in the African Fongbe community, whose essentially animist traditional religion sustains the language through worship, ceremonies and sacred songs. It is also important to note that traditional religions generally make exclusive use of the language of the community, as in the case of the Akoye language of Papua New Guinea. Other examples are that of Fon (Benin) and Guiqiong (China): Fon speakers are mostly animists, a traditional religion that uses the language in its cults, ceremonies, sacred songs etc. (…) Fon is used in religious practices and cults, but only orally. (Fon, Benin) The Guiqiongs are animists and believe that there are spirits in heaven, earth, fire, mountains and water. When natural disasters strike, they will invite religious practitioners to sacrifice chickens, pigs and sheep in order to placate the spirits.(…) When their religious practitioners offer sacrifices, they use the native language, but some of the ancient religious terms are not comprehensible to the general public. (Guiqiong, China) Indigenous religions most generally have a exclussive oral tradition and, as pointed before, are the most common domain for language maintenance. Consider the Hayu and Mapudungun cases: They have an indigenous religion.(…) It is spoken and sung in local ceremonies. (Hayu, Nepal) Native religion practice revitalises Mapundungun and the Christian religion prevents it from use (…) The [Mapundungun] language is used in practices and religious ceremonies, it is used exclusively orally when Mapuche practices and religious ceremonies – in other words, the rites of the natives themselves – are carried out. (Mapudungun, Chile, Argentina) Not surprisingly, the written use of languages in religious practices and rites drops considerably with respect to their oral use: rather less than half of the languages are used in the writing of the religion. Even so, it must be pointed out that this figure for written use in religious practices is quite high in comparison with general written use, which in most cases does not exceed 30% of languages. One of the reasons that might explain such a high proportion of written use of languages in religious practices is that, as mentioned before, the more widespread
198
Words and Worlds
religions, the so-called “religions of the book”, are based on sacred texts in written form, whether they are maintained in the original language or, most often, translated into other languages. The written use of many languages is, in fact, restricted to the translation of sacred texts. As already mentioned, religions that encourage translation of the holy texts have played a central role in the use and, in some cases the development, of the written form of many of the world’s languages. Although recognising the benefits that written use of a language in the domain of religion provide for the standardisation and even social prestige of many languages, we must stress that for a language to remain healthy and not in danger of disappearance written use must be promoted also in other formal areas, especially in the field of education, media and public administration, as claimed elsewhere in this Review.
Closing remarks There is no doubt that religion plays a crucial role in sociolinguistic issues. On one hand, the fact that a language is used in the religious domain in itself grants that language a status and prestige not granted to languages not used in this setting. We must remind ourselves, though, that the fact that a language is not used in the reading of the sacred texts and in the rites and practices of the religion of the linguistic community does not necessarily imply language loss. However, when religious associations not only do not use the language of the community, but also wish to acculturate it or when the language different from the local one is more “powerful” or prestigious – often as a consequence of the social, economic or religious status of the carriers of the new religion – the low or lack of use of the local language in religious practices can, in fact, contribute, together with the other aspects, to language substitution. On the other hand, the importance of religion and religious associations in corpus planning must also be stressed. As discussed thorough this chapter, the standardisation – codification of writing systems and other kinds of standardisation, for instance – of many oral languages was carried out for religious purposes. We must also point at the efforts conducted by many religious organisations in the field of education in general, and especially, literarisation, despite very harmful efforts to prohibit the use of some languages in religious schools, as reported by some of our informants. In sum, religious ideology alone cannot account for the different attitudes held and linguistic measures implemented by religious organisations. Situations sharing a certain religion can be completely different with regards to tolerance for linguistic diversity and promotion of minority languages. Finally, when examining the current situation of languages and trying to predict their future, religious aspects cannot be taken in isolation; we should rather consider economical, political, and social ones along with them, since the factors that may affect language shift or maintenance are various and interrelated.
Language and Religion
199
Recommendations on language and religion While realising that using a language in the religious domain is not enough to ensure its vitality, the absence of a language from this domain can be a factor against its development and survival. We, therefore, encourage religious leaders to:
• Acknowledge that all religions can be expressed in any language, without prejudice to the exceptional value of the language of their founding texts. • Respect native religions as elements of prestige and as vehicles for the use of the language of the community in the framework of the right to religious freedom. These traditions are often the ones that most respect local languages. • Encourage the commitment of foreign religions to confer prestige on and further local languages. In other words, as well as showing a respectful attitude to local languages, they should make an effort to use them in their rites and ceremonies; religion can not be made an instrument of cultural colonisation or of linguistic and cultural uniformity. • Write, translate or adapt their texts to the languages of the communities in which they are present or into which they wish to introduce themselves, since in general linguistic communities do not reject the translation of sacred texts and religious subject matter. • Avoid the transmission of stereotypes and prejudices, marginalisation of certain cultural values and the creation of hierarchies amongst languages and cultures, since all languages are suitable for religious use. • Use, promote and confer prestige on native languages in educational centres attached to religious institutions. • Prevent religion or its practice from being used as an instrument for discriminating against linguistic communities. The ecclesiastical hierarchies of the different religions must responsibly avoid divisions within the linguistic community itself and confrontations between different linguistic communities.
Chapter 9
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language Children learn the family language or languages in the course of socialisation. All children, as human beings, acquire at least one language through their parents, their family or their community. Transmitting a language involves transferring knowledge and skills in using that language to those that lack them. The transmission of languages is influenced by various agents, such as the family, community, school, the sphere of work and the media, whose importance varies according to the motivations people have for learning the language. But the fact is that everyone learns to speak the language of their immediate environment, regardless of what other languages they may acquire simultaneously or successively. In this section, we shall focus on intergenerational transmission, a term which refers to the acquisition of a language in the family, informally and as part of the individual’s socialisation process. Furthermore, it is generally admitted that the family language carries with it the group’s cultural identity, the symbology and the collective memory. Through the language or languages acquired in the earliest contacts established between the child and the immediate community, the intergenerational relations that shape the personal and cultural identity of individuals are reinforced. In the settings in which a school system using a given language has been implemented, family or community transmission of that language can be reinforced. Other agents that influence the learning and use of language are those of the world of administration, work and the media, but in this case they are considered secondary agents. If it was felt essential to analyse this phenomenon in as much detail as possible, it is precisely because it was seen that transmission of language, which in theory should be a natural consequence of the linguistic circumstances, has suffered alarming alterations in large parts of the world. Specialists have reported extensively on this problem and our data also confirm the deterioration in natural patterns of language
200
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language
201
transmission. Erosion is said to happen when there are segments of the population of certain communities that do not teach the younger generations their own language. The erosion is absolute when there is a total break in the transmission. The chances of a language of being replaced by another depend on the degree of alteration in the natural method of transmission. Indeed, a large number of researchers who have tried to understand the problems involved in the unequal relations between languages have stressed that the alarm must be raised immediately. There are an enormous number of situations in which the natural setting for children’s socialisation is breaking down and this is reflected, amongst other things, in the fact that parents are no longer passing on their language to their children. Krauss (1992), for example, analyses the position of languages in relation to the proportion of children who learn them, and if the trends are not corrected, he foresees that up to 90% of languages could disappear during this century. Wurm (1996, 2001) suggests that the scale of the threat of a language’s disappearing is closely related to the proportion of children who speak it, and on this basis he proposes a classification which basically indicates that if the language of a community is not widely learnt by the children or by a large proportion of them (which should reach at least 30%) then it is in danger or at least potentially threatened. The expression “in danger of disappearance” refers to a gradual process of decline which can lead to extinction after going through intermediate situations which are ranked according to the level of deterioration from “languages in potential danger of extinction” to “languages in serious danger”, “dying languages” and finally “extinct languages”. According to this author ’s criterion, at least 50% of the world’s languages – that is, more than 3,000 – are currently in danger of extinction, in serious danger or dying. McConvell (2001) also proposes that the classification of the danger of extinction of languages can be determined according to the population groups that speak them. He proposes the following categories for discussion of types of language: (a) the language chiefly spoken by children; (b) the language understood by adults, though not necessarily transmitted to children, (c) languages spoken only by older people, but understood by adults, while children no longer even understand them. All of this suggests that the number of people making up the age groups who know and use a language is a basic indicator of the danger of extinction facing the language. Thus the basic objective of the proposals for revitalising languages in danger of replacement or extinction relies on ensuring their intergenerational transmission. One of the most representative theoretical writings on this issue is the one presented by Fishman (1991), whose proposal for countering the trend towards language shift centres on the need to ensure the means for preventing the break in intergenerational transmission, and in those cases where the shift has already taken place, on influencing the factors that can help recover the natural transmission mechanism.
202
Words and Worlds
Why is intergenerational transmission interrupted? Which reasons make parents feel that their language is not important enough to transmit to their children? Why is it said that every effort should be made to reinforce the nuclei of the earliest socialisation so that the language is transmitted naturally in spite of the external pressures to abandon it that may be felt? Why is it said that intergenerational transmission is the crucial point in the survival of languages? The enormous range of situations in which languages come into contact does not allow generalisations or simple answers to these questions. In this review facts are laid out that point in the same direction as the specialists. The causes the informants put forward for the deterioration and interruption of transmission as well as for its maintenance are also listed.
EUROMOSAIC: THE PRODUCTION AND REPRODUCTION OF THE MINORITY LANGUAGE GROUPS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION The Euromosaic Report derives from a report commisioned by the Task Force Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth in 1993 (later DG XXII and now the DG for Education and Culture) to investigate the current situation of the dozens of minority language groups within the European Union. The expression “minority language groups”, or communities, refers to territoriallydefined linguistic groups other than those of the speakers of the dominant or official state languages in the member states. Two previous studies had been commisioned in the 1980s. A new report was urgently needed both because of the rapidly changing legal, institutional and social situation in a number of these communities, and because a methodologically sound study would allow a comparative understanding of them. The objective of the chosen project was to relate the current situation of each language group to its potential for production and reproduction, and the difficulties encountered in doing so. Various social and institutional aspects were considered, whereby a language group produces and reproduces itself. Seven central concepts were focused upon, and empirical measures were sought for them. The primary agencies of these processes were identified as the family, education and the community. The motivating force involved the concept of language prestige and cultural reproduction. The link between ability and use involved the concepts of institutionalisation and legitimisation. The final version of the Euromosaic report, which was produced by the Institut de Sociolingüística Catalana (Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona), Centre de Recherche sur le plurilinguisme (Brussels), and Research Centre Wales (Bangor), highlights the shift in thinking about the value of diversity for economic deployment and European integration. It argues that language is a
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language
203
central component of diversity; if diversity is the cornerstone of innovative development, attention must be given to sustaining the existing pool of diversity within the EU. The Report ends by focusing upon the need for proactive planning, which suffers from constraints on the deployment of budgetary resources; and it calls for a Programme which can be the basis for such forward planning and action. The general Report was published in 1996 in several languages by the Commission. Nearly 50 individual uniformly structured reports were also prepared by the three Centres. These were added to several years later by reports on groups in Sweden, Finland and Austria. Each report was compiled using the relevant bibliography and research, a language correspondent and a number of key witnesses, following a complex procedure which allowed both the language correspondents and the key witnesses to improve successive drafts. The project also involved eighteen “language use surveys”. Abbreviated versions of the language group reports, containing valuable information on each language community and an analysis of its prospects for the future, are available on the Internet (http://www.uoc.es/euromosaic/) in English and French (and some in Catalan). The language use surveys are in English only. Miquel Strubell Open University of Catalonia, Spain
Language transmission The figures analysed are representative of general trends. According to the informants in our research, only 53% of the languages analysed are widely and normally transmitted, thus confirming the hypothesis that there is a serious risk of language shift. Table 8. Intergenerational transmission of languages Generalised transmission
53%
Partly interrupted transmission
23%
Practically interrupted transmission Totally interrupted transmission No answer Total
8% 12% 4% 100%
204
Words and Worlds
In 23% of the communities analysed transmission exists but the influence of prestige languages is already perceptible, as transmission is only maintained in the more impermeable nuclei. The case of languages whose transmission is practically interrupted refers to languages whose change is imminent, since only in exceptional cases is the language transmitted within the family. This situation affects 8% of the languages analysed. Finally, the figures returned show that 12% are not transmitted at all, so that it is foreseeable that these languages will disappear along with the last remaining speakers. Indeed, the fact that in 43% (23%, 8% and 12%) of languages transmission has been altered is itself cause for serious concern. But it should also be pointed out that even generalised transmission of a language in the present generation does not necessarily ensure its survival, since transmission can be altered in the next generation – that is, in a very short period of time. Of course, transmission is not interrupted simultaneously and completely in all the family nuclei of the community, except in exceptional cases or physical aggression. In the cases of physical aggression, the change in the transmission trend tends to be radical, but in situations of extensive language contact the onset of shift is preceded by the presence of the external language in spheres bordering on the family nucleus. In other words, the outsider language first of all occupies formal or official spheres, that of work relations, and gradually begins to be adopted in the private sphere of the family group. That is why it is said that the external influence for linguistic change takes place chronologically and tends to progress from the external sphere towards the family sphere. All of this suggests that if external pressures for the use of the prestige language intensify – which is something quite likely in view of the trend to uniformity to be seen in the spheres of external use – the change will affect private relations, so that it can be foreseen that many of the languages that at present are being transmitted normally could begin to be interrupted.
Intergenerational use of language The first trend in language shift can be seen in the way the language is used in the family sphere. As we know, linguistic behaviour can reflect the attitude of speakers to the language. Even in those cases in which the language is transmitted, if there is a marked drop in the use of the language between the older and younger generations a risk situation arises. If there is no change of attitude, transmission between generations drops and the younger generation may not pass the language on to their children. Table 9 has been drawn up from information on the frequency with which the language of the community is used as compared to the other language. In other words, the idea is to find out if the language in question is used with more, less or the same frequency as another language.
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language
205
Table 9. Intergenerational use of the language (%) Old people
Adults
Young people Children
Old people
65
Adults
59
54
Young people
54
44
36
Children
49
42
35
38
In a global analysis of the figures, always applying the necessary precautions to extrapolation, we see that the use of the languages among the older generation is higher (approximately 65%) than the percentage of languages at present being transmitted (approximately 53%). The widespread use of the languages in these generations assumes that they have received it naturally. This figure shows that in at least 10% of languages transmission has been interrupted in the space of a single generation. The use of community languages shows a marked drop among the younger generation to 36%. We can therefore see that in two generations the percentage of use has dropped to half. In other words, there has been a marked acceleration in the tendency to change observable in the first generation and widespread by the second. This fact is particularly alarming because it shows the gap there is between knowledge and behaviour as regards one’s language. If at least 53% of languages have been transmitted in the normal way, the level of use among the younger generation, 20% lower, suggests that the trend to substitution will increase in the next generation. Figures for the use of language among children (38%) are slightly higher than those of the group immediately preceding them – that is, young people (35%). This fact, which could in theory be a positive sign, does not seem to be a sign of recovery either, since the use of languages between adult generations and children, which in language transmission situations seem to be the most favourable, shows a marked decline. The figures confirm that adults speak their own language amongst themselves (54%) more often than they do with children (42%), even if they have transmitted it. All of this suggests that this increase is more likely to be due to the fact that children are less exposed to the majority language, as they have not yet had access to spheres with more influence from outside agents, which are principally school and the surrounding social sphere.
Reasons for the interruption of transmission The reasons for the interruption of language transmission go from subtle, more widespread prejudices to more explicit threats and prohibitions. Although the section on the threats facing languages analyses these factors in greater detail, they are stressed
206
Words and Worlds
here again because the informants associate them with the idea that the interruption of intergenerational transmission is a cause of risk to the language and is one of the consequences of the threats and risks facing the speakers of threatened languages. Languages that are not transmitted naturally in the family are being replaced by languages of supposedly greater prestige. These languages can be a territory’s official language, the more widespread languages in prestigious social use or the languages spoken by the more influential groups in the region. The reasons for interruption most frequently mentioned are closely interrelated and in general refer to: (1) Pressure from other cultures or languages, (2) Government pressure to acquire the official language or implementation of the educational system in a language different from that of the community, (3) Demographic factors involving displacements (migrations abroad or migrations from country to city) and the effects of mixed marriages. 1. Pressure from other cultures or languages is mentioned by a large number of reporters as a cause of interruption in language transmission. A detailed analysis reveals that the influence of modernisation and urban development are considered the most influential causes. Urban development involves a move to a new lifestyle, considered more attractive and economically more promising, which causes a change in lifestyle and in many cases a complete break with traditional culture. This change shows up more strongly in the younger generations, since the expectations of entry into the professional and social world lead to the adoption of foreign habits: This language was passed down from generation to generation in the closed feudal societies of the past, leading to its preservation until now. However, over the past century, modern civilisation has gradually penetrated into these closed village communities, and those of the younger generation of Jiongnai have left their homes to enter modern society. After the implementation of the reform policies and the opening of China’s doors to the outside world, Jiongnai villages have been exposed to new objects, new concepts, and modern technology as well as to new words. Putonghua (Mandarin Chinese) is gradually replacing the previous southwestern dialect and is now being used in schools and public meetings. Thus, the Jiongnai language, with its small number of speakers and limited use, is gradually heading towards extinction. (Jiongnai, China) When important changes take place in ways of life, immediate changes can take place in linguistic habits. The history of linguistic diversity clearly shows, for example, that changes in the language-territory relationship are decisive in the life of languages, to the extent that the adoption of a sedentary lifestyle by nomadic peoples often tends to involve language substitution, as in the case of the Gypsies of Romania, the Fulani of northern Nigeria and the Maku of the Amazon jungle, to mention only a few. 2. Pressure to acquire the official language is mentioned explicitly in numerous cases (sometimes the pressure is attributed directly to the government) and appears closely linked to negative linguistic attitudes, which involve first a drop in use and
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language
207
subsequently the interruption of the transmission of the language itself. Aspects mentioned include lack of appreciation for the language or lack of awareness, lack of prestige in the language, shame, fear, etc. Whenever there have been historical pressures for cultural discredit, there has even been a negation of identity itself, so that parents decide to transmit the dominant language with the object of avoiding discrimination on account of the language. In these cases, negation of the language is the first step to renouncing identity, as the language is perceived as one of the elements preventing integration in the desired social milieu. The feeling of discrimination and shame that has arisen in many communities in relation to language has meant that the speakers themselves try to assure their children a less painful future than their own. Some years ago there were many families who denied their Maya identity… There are numerous families who no longer transmit this language to their children because of the cultural discrimination there is in the country. People are valued if they speak Castilian, because this is the official language. If they only speak their language they are ignored, despised, marginalised. For this reason, many families are inclined towards Castilian as the mother tongue for their children. (Achi, Guatemala) Formerly the language was transmitted from parents to children. Today one often finds that parents speak to their children in Spanish because they feel that this language’s dominance ensures their descendants will be accepted by the dominant society on an equal footing. (Uitoto, Colombia) Map 12 shows language diversity in Colombia. (Transmission has been interrupted) for the last 10–20 years. Children never learn the language, as it has no prestige and is linked to backwardness and to pre-Islamic rites. (Jukun, Nigeria) One of the state’s areas of influence which is attributed most responsibility in linguistic attitudes is the sphere of education. Especially aggressive moves against unofficial languages have taken place in practically every part of the world. One example, amongst others, is the one from the reporter on the Mi’kmaw language of Canada: Normally the language passes from one generation to the next. However, due to the institutions who carry out cultural genocide and assimilation like the Indian boarding schools, the language is not being taught to future generations. (Mi’kmaw, Canada) Implementing the school system in some language other than the local language has given rise to the feeling that the language that is not used in schools is not suited to this sphere of knowledge. This perception is related to the fact that schools are seen in connection with the written use of language. Because of this, when it comes to languages with an oral tradition, the sense of a lack of modernisation is strengthened. Inversely, the use of the language of the community in the school seems to offer hopes of avoiding the interruption of transmission and allowing recovery.
208
Words and Worlds
The reply given by the reporter for Chilcotin, a language spoken in Canada, clearly sums up the part played by schools as a system of pressure for the abandonment of the language, in the case of the parents, as well as the part played by schools as an element acting in favour of recovery, in the case of the children: Although earlier educational pressures on today’s parents when they were at school led to their language being abandoned, the children now often learn the language only in the Chilcotin classes at school or with their grandparents. (Chilcotin, Canada) We must remember that many places have opted for a bilingual or multilingual teaching system allowing use of the local language while learning others for specific intergroup or international relations purposes without losing their own language. 3. Migratory movements and mixed marriages are two of the demographic factors indicated as causes for the interruption of language transmission. Both the migratory movements outside the territory and the immigration of speakers of more powerful languages into a territory are factors that influence the decision to transmit the own language or not. However, the factor most often mentioned as the cause for the interruption of transmission is the movement of the rural population to urban areas. It is in the urban environment that the influence of external factors for change is more marked. Direct dealings with administration, the influence on the value of the language of the labour market and commerce, the more influential media and social relations, added to modernisation, make a decisive combination for the attitude of speakers of less prestigious languages. At the same time, bearing in mind that young people are more likely to make this sort of migration to the cities, the tendency to drop the habits of the community is more marked. The following could be illustrative examples of these phenomena: The transmission of this language from parents to children is obvious. Nevertheless, a considerable number of inhabitants – some 2000 who have settled in cities like Pucallpa, Yarinacocha – no longer do so, and replace it with Castilian. (Shipibo, Peru) The language is transmitted from generation to generation, especially for the people from the rural areas. On the other hand, those who settle in urban centres replace it with Swahili or English. (Loogoli, Kenya) Normally, yes [the language is transmitted], but in many cities there are now families who speak to their children in Maghrib Arabic in the belief that this will help in their schooling. This process of forced Arabisation is replaced by Hispanicisation in the case of families of Berber origin in Melilla. (Tamazight, Morocco) The language is still stable in the family for those who do not live in big cities or intermarry with other ethnic groups. (Songorong, Chad) Another very frequently mentioned cause is the phenomenon of mixed marriages.
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language
209
A large proportion does [transmit the language], but another proportion doesn’t, because they marry Spanish-speaking mestizos who because they don’t speak the Bora language speak mostly Castilian with their children. (Bora, Colombia) The increase in marriages between Norfolk Islanders and foreigners is one of the reasons for the decline of the language. It is still considered bad manners to speak Norfolk when a member of the family or community only speaks English. (Norfolk, Norfolk Island)
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT/REVIVAL ACTIVITIES BY THE CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF INDIAN LANGUAGES The Central Institute of Indian Languages (established by Govt. of India in 1969 at Mysore) has studied and developed in different proportions, as of today eighty tribal languages belonging to four language families plus the Andaman family of languages. Its intervention in the form of development of these languages has contributed to the maintenance of some of the tribal languages in India. The Institute has undertaken Linguistic description of the tribal and minority languages in terms of their phonology, morphology and syntax; devised writing systems for the hitherto unwritten languages; and standardised the existing writing systems for the recently written languages. Linguistic descriptions of the tribal languages are pedagogically oriented. Promotion of tribal languages in education especially at the primary school level has been attempted. The objectives are two-fold: (a) providing education to tribal children through their mother tongues, and (b) the maintenance or revival of endangered languages. To fulfil these objectives trilingual dictionaries (tribal language – Hindi and English), and school primers adopting the Bilingual Education Model have been prepared. The Institute has conducted Experimental Bilingual Education programmes in Soliga and Jenu Kuruba in Karnataka, Wagdi in Rajasthan and Dungar Varli and Davar Varli in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The activities of CIIL and its participation in the Committees has helped in promoting the use of tribal languages in Primary Education at the national level and it is reflected in National Policy of Education, 1986, section 4.6 (ii) which runs as follows “The sociocultural milieu of the scheduled tribes has its distinctive characteristics including, in many cases their own spoken languages. This underlies the need to develop the curricula and devise instructural materials in tribal languages at the initial stages, with arrangement, for switching over to the regional language”. Special attention has been paid to some of the languages spoken by (i) Negroid tribes viz. Onge (96 speakers), Andamanese (35 speakers) and Jarawa (estimated to be spoken by 200 speakers) and (ii) Mongloid tribes viz., the
210
Words and Worlds
Shompen language (Austro-Asiatic) estimated to be spoken by 200 people in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. These languages are ‘endangered languages’ because of the size of the population. The Institute has prepared a grammar, an Onge-Hindi-English Pictorial glossary, an Onge-Hindi Bilingual education primer and a video film to learn the Onge Orthography. To help the functionaries of Andaman Administration to communicate with the Onge tribe through their tribal mother tongue an Onge handbook is under preparation. In Andamanese (a) an Andamanese-Hindi Bilingual Primer and (b) an Andamanese-Hindi-English Pictorial Glossary have been prepared for school education. The above instructional materials have been introduced in the schools in Strait Island, Andaman. Bilingual education primers in Onge and Andamanese languages attempt to give instructions to tribal children initially in their respective mother tongues and later to switch over to Hindi. A sociolinguistic study of the maintenance of Andamanese language has been undertaken. The results of the study indicate that the active acquisition and use of the language of the parents/ancestors is less by the children of the next generation due to peer group pressure but there is an increase in the use of the existing passive knowledge of their mother tongue viz. Andamanese, due to new acquisition, when the children become adults and participate in collective activities like fishing, turtle hunting and cultural activities such as puberty ceremony. The schooling through Andamanese at the primary level is made possible by the efforts made by the CIIL in collaboration with the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. This kind of new acquisition and use of the mother tongue is due to the social network of the community. This is because both the utility value of Hindi and the identity value of Andamanese are at work and cyclically there is a greater realisation of the need for identity and preservation as people grow older. A handbook of Jarawa language has been published with a view to help the functionaries and researchers who have to interact and work with the Jarawa tribe. A Shompen-Hindi-English Pictorial glossary has been published as a part of teaching/learning material for the children and adults of the Shompen tribe. The Institute has also studied less known Dravidian tribal languages like Urali spoken in Tamilnadu. In addition to the above the Institute in collaboration with Annamalai University and Telugu University, Hyderabad has collected language data for documentation purposes in the following tribal languages: Kurichian (Dravidian) (Population: 15,700) spoken in Tamilnadu, Urali Kurumba (Dravidian) (Population: 4,370) spoken in Waynad, Kerala, Indi-Awe (Dravidian) and Parengi Gorum (Munda) both spoken in Koraput, Orissa.
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language
211
In collaboration with a non-governmental organisation known as ACCORD in Gudalur, Tamilnadu, primers at the pre primary level in the Dravidian tribal languages, viz. Paniya, Irula, Kattu Naika, Mullukurumba and Betta Kurumba spoken in Gudalur, Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu have been prepared. A Paniya Primer PATTOLA for the pre primary class has been published and introduced in the schools run by the non-Governmental organisation viz. ACCORD. A Tamil Orthography system with modifications has been adopted to write and read Paniya and the other languages. Thus the Institute has made pioneering successful efforts in reviving some of the endangered tribal languages of India. Omkar N. Koul Central Institute of Indian Languages, India
Mixed marriages have a wide range of effects on the life of languages, although the immense majority of reporters only mention their negative influences. Furthermore, there are indications that in societies that have traditionally been multilingual due to the formation of couples belonging to different linguistic descents, in recent decades the traditional strategy has been changed to one of the adoption of a dominant language, be this the language of one of the spouses or the official or dominant language of the region, which may not be the language of either of them. In the case of Western, basically monolingual societies, mixed marriages can act in favour of diversity because each spouse ensures transmission of their language to their descendants. It is worth pointing out that of the causes mentioned only the last two, migration and marriage, can be said to respond to communication strategies, while the rest respond to direct pressures or are attributable to negative linguistic attitudes usually as a result of these pressures.
A window for hope It is worth mentioning in particular the important accounts provided by informants who speak of new situations in certain languages which have made it possible to ensure their transmission. There are languages that have achieved official status, as in the case of Kirgiz, or the new consideration gained by Timbe on producing a written literature. Since Kirgiz has also been spoken in Kyrgyzstan as an official language, it is transmitted from generation to generation. (Kirgiz, Kyrgyzstan) In 1970 the language was considered inferior to either Kote or Pidgin. Many parents were attempting to prevent their children from using it. By 1990 that had changed and since there was literature in the language many considered it better than Pidgin or Kote. (Timbe, Papua New Guinea)
212
Words and Worlds
One hopeful fact that some informants provided was the value placed on grandparents as transmitters of languages to their grandchildren to recover the transmission interrupted by parents with these children. At present, Pech couples over 40 speak Pech at home but it seems that in younger couples the grandparents are the only people who speak Pech to the children (Lara 1997). (Pech, Honduras) Huambisa is transmitted by grandparents to parents, then to children and then to the grandchildren. In some cases transmission relations arise from grandparents to grandchildren. (Wampis, Peru) Finally, it is important to mention some undoubtedly subjective accounts which nevertheless have the added value of conveying the pleasure of speaking one’s own language. Lingao will be passed down to future generations, because the local people like to use it everywhere. The local people use it in markets, cadres use it in offices, teachers use it in schools, and children grow up speaking it. (Lingao, China) Since the last century, all the researchers in La Mosquitia (Nicaragua) have pointed out two things as regards the Miskita language and its use: (1) That the Miskitos are very communicative with all ethnic groups and with foreigners and speak and teach their language to those wanting to learn it (Herranz, 1996: 436–437). (2) That Miskito women, even those married to Ladinos or other ethnic groups such as the Tawahka, always teach their children Miskito (Herranz 1996). (Miskito, Nicaragua) At present, no other language is likely to completely replace it as the Derung people like to use their native language. (Derung, China)
Recommendations on intergenerational transmission and use of language Before the serious threat to the preservation of the universal linguistic heritage posed by the large-scale interruption in the transmission of family languages from parents to children and by the alarming decline in the use of native languages in intergenerational relations, we must: • Emphasise the importance of language and culture for the individual’s sense of identity and self-esteem. • Discourage language substitution, by pointing out the widely demonstrated ability to harmoniously integrate the knowledge and use of more than one language by one person or social group.
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language
213
• Protect and acknowledge the fundamental role of the family group in preserving linguistic diversity. When the family is bilingual or multilingual, the transmission of all these languages should be encouraged, as the benefits of bilingual or multilingual skills are fundamental in preserving personal identity and integrity, as well as in furthering social integration. • Confer prestige on all the languages in the area through its use in formal and informal spheres and hold persistent campaigns to persuade adults to pass on the language of the community to the younger generation. • Explain to parents the psychological, cultural and economic advantages of a multilingual education that does not marginalise the mother tongue.
Chapter 10
Linguistic Attitudes In speaking of linguistic attitudes, a reference is made to the favourable or unfavourable disposition people have towards languages, be these their own or foreign. Attitudes are formed by complex processes on the basis of the beliefs, representations and perceptions established around languages, all of them influenced by a particular feeling of liking or rejection. In addition, attitudes make people more or less likely to adopt one linguistic behaviour or another. In other words, they lead to a tendency either to use a language or to replace it, either completely or in certain specific spheres or situations. Beliefs about languages are usually linked to perceptions about the identity, character, culture and history of its group of speakers, and are often based on historically disseminated prejudices which have a decisive influence on feelings, and subsequently on behaviour. This is why it is important to take into account the sociolinguistic and historical characteristics of each and every community to be able to get close to a full understanding of these attitudes. In addition, attitudes are not directly observable, and must be deduced from opinions expressed in opinion polls, and by observing behaviour in specific situations. The main thing is, perhaps, that attitudes, as well as helping to explain current behaviour, can help forecast future behaviour. This consideration suggests that the measures taken to promote the use and prestige of languages can be effective through the positive attitudes they generate. The attitude to a language – as regards using it or abandoning it, as well as learning a new one – tends to show a twofold motivation: instrumental motivation and integrating motivation. The first reflects pragmatic objectives and is characterised by attempting, in theory, to respond to communication needs, and often also to motives of social recognition or economic promotion. The integrating character of the attitude, however, is of a social nature and is mainly reflected in the search for integration and identification with the linguistic community. It goes without saying that in monolingual communities this integrating character is perceived naturally and furthermore tends to be accompanied by feelings of liking for the language and the community. However, in bilingual or multilingual situations, this integrating character can be conflictive because it can give rise to identity tensions that are not always easily resolved.
214
Linguistic Attitudes
215
One’s attitude to one’s own language involves one’s own personal identity linked to the social group one belongs to. That is why it is especially interesting to identify the reasons why some people’s attitudes lead them to use another language in situations of multilingualism. Furthermore, it is interesting to find out what motivates someone to learn a new language, in what spheres it is used, and why it can replace one’s own in spheres originally occupied by the latter, even to the extent of abandoning it. In particular, we shall attempt to identify the reasons why people show negative attitudes to their language. One of the factors that researchers consider fundamental in shaping linguistic attitudes is whether or not the language has some sort of official status – that is, the official character of the language or the relative position of prestige it occupies with respect to the official language and other languages in contact with it. In addition, other factors have to be added such as the preservation or loss of the community’s cultural identity and the attitude shown by members of the linguistic communities with which they come in contact. In addition, we have to take into account changes in the life of communities and in the use of languages as a result of the process of urbanisation, migrations and the introduction of mass media, along with pressure from the hope of social promotion expressed in the need to use the majority languages. In this chapter we shall be analysing the attitudes of speakers to their own languages and the attitudes of speakers of other languages with which they come into contact, in relation to the factors mentioned above. The comparative analysis of the data will make it possible to classify them into two large groups, which though not closed, will make it possible to speak of positive and negative attitudes to languages.
Positive linguistic attitudes According to the figures gathered, the feelings that members of the community have towards their own language are positive in the great majority of cases and furthermore are almost always accompanied by feelings of identity, liking and pride. In the case of speakers of official languages, as well as reflecting the natural relationship between identity and language, the figures confirm the idea that an official language confers political, economic and social status on its speakers. When there is no contact with other languages, the question may not even arise among speakers. Those groups whose first language is the official one see the use of their language in all spheres as something natural and, of course, have a positive attitude towards it. But when the speakers of prestige languages have dealings with other languages, nuances arise and an awareness of identity shows itself, giving rise to conscious attitudes of pride for one’s language and of indifference (or scorn) for those of less prestige. However, it is noticeable that the spread of transnational languages catering for prestige functions, such as those involved in the field of science, economics or international culture, can compromise the behaviour of speakers of certain official languages. Thus, pragmatic attitudes arise that turn to these transnational languages
216
Words and Worlds
for reasons of social promotion. This is the case of widespread languages in their areas of influence that are being adopted by speakers in many regions, very often to the detriment of their own language. One example was provided by the informant for Norwegian, who said that “the attitude to the language presents no problems, as its use is taken for granted. However, the insecurity historically attached to everything Norwegian can sometimes lead to an emphasis on the use of Norwegian, or, more often, to an irrational lack of self-esteem leading to an unnecessary and insecure use of English.” The most widespread behaviour is the following: attitudes to the languages of greater prestige are positive and the tendency to learn these languages will depend on the advantages their use involves. This is the case of some multilingual contexts, where identification with the influential group stands out. For example, in the case of Sena, declared a national language in Mozambique, it is reported that speakers use it as a means of communication, especially in cities where other languages are also used, and that the speakers themselves see it as a language respected by the other communities, precisely because of its status as a national language.
TERRALINGUA AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS There is a high correlation between the world’s biological and linguistic/cultural megadiversity areas: where there are many biological species, there are often also many languages and cultures, and vice versa. The relationship between linguistic diversity and biodiversity is probably not only correlational but also causal, reflecting “human-environment co-evolution”, including the assumption that cultural diversity (encoded in languages) might enhance biodiversity or vice versa. People’s cultural knowledge, encoded in the world’s languages, is a necessary prerequisite for sustainable maintenance of natural resources, including the most vulnerable and most biologically diverse environments in the world. Languages are also a necessary prerequisite for intergenerational transfer of that knowledge. If we, as realistic prognoses claim, during the next 100 years murder 50–90% of the world’s linguistic diversity, we are also seriously undermining our chances of life on earth. People need to get to know their environment well enough to see that maintaining biodiversity is in their best interest. The time needed for this and for developing the knowledge of how to protect their environment and use it in a sustainable way is measured in centuries, not decades. Transferring this knowledge from one language to another (e.g. from a small indigenous language to a larger dominant language) also takes generations. If languages are being killed at today’s pace, these vital knowledges are lost.
Linguistic Attitudes
217
When speakers of small languages learn necessary dominant languages in addition to their native languages, they become multilingual, and linguistic diversity is supported. When dominant languages, like English, are learned subtractively, at the cost of the mother tongues, they become killer languages, and education is forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. This is genocide, according to the definition in the United Nation’s Genocide Convention, Article II (e). The most vital linguistic human right for diversity maintenance, the right to mother tongue medium education, has totally insufficient protection in human rights law. Tove Skutnabb-Kangas Terralingua (www.terralingua.org)
One’s attitude to one’s own language depends on the pressures brought to bear on the language to maintain it or abandon it. Whereas the great majority of opinion surveys favour survival, it is obvious that historical pressures have given rise to behaviour inclined towards the replacement of people’s languages by others of greater prestige for pragmatic reasons, in spite of people’s declared pride in their language. The account of languages like Hani, in China, could illustrate this statement: The Hani majority believes that the language is a symbol of their nationality which must be preserved. However, as there is a feeling that it is used in limited situations, they would like to learn Chinese too. Furthermore, Hani is not necessary in school exams, so it would be preferable to study Chinese or English. (Hani, China) Another aspect worth stressing is the view people have of the attitude to their language on the part of speakers of other languages, which shows the importance of the relationship between linguistic status and attitude. By way of example, the reporter for Yoruba, a Nigerian language with national status and clearly spreading, states that, “the members of the community are proud of their language, but even so, they realise that there are more advantages to using English than to using Yoruba.” However, referring to other linguistic communities under its influence, this same reporter says, “the attitude (of speakers towards the Yoruba) is positive, particularly in the communities of the small Nigerian languages like Baruba, Ebira, Ijaw and Urhobo.” At the same time, the promotion of certain languages to the detriment of others gives rise to many accounts of resentment. For example, whereas speakers of Pulaar express feelings of pride in their language, they say that “there is a certain ill-feeling amongst other groups who see them as chauvinists”. A similar case is that of the Viri language, reporting that “members of this community have a
218
Words and Worlds
positive attitude to the promotion, development and use of the language, especially since the language has spread to other languages”, adding that speakers of other languages “have adopted it in public spheres, such as the fields of trade and commerce, especially in residential areas.” All of this confirms the value of status in the attitude to a language. As regards languages with no official status, while expressing positive attitudes towards their own language, as in the case of Tumbuka, informants note that other communities have attitudes of “indifference, due to the fact that this language is not official in the administration at a national level”. However, it is important to point out that linguistic attitudes to one’s own language are not the same in all members of the community. One fact that stands out is that even in those accounts expressing pride in one’s identity and an explicit wish for the survival of the language and culture of the group, there is deep concern over the loss of this awareness by the younger members of the communities. School, the media, the dominant culture and emigration to urban areas are seen as being the chief causes for the attitude of indifference to or rejection of the local language by younger members. The accounts of the informants for Aymara, in Peru, or Sabaot, in Kenya, could serve to illustrate this situation: Speakers of 40 years of age or more identify with their culture and communicate in this language. Those between 20 and 35 use Aymara and Spanish with a tendency to cultural mixing. Those under 20, because of their nationalist, castilianising schooling, follow urban behaviour patterns. (Aymara, Peru) Most people like the language, especially those of middle age and above. But it is losing popularity among educated young people. (Sabaot, Kenya) Furthermore, accounts of differences between the attitudes of urban and rural populations abound. One illustrative example could be the account by the informant for the Achi language of Guatemala: The attitude to the use and knowledge of the language among the majority in the urban area is negative, as they are under greater pressure to learn Castilian. This is the symbol of development, of acceptance by the dominant class, of a source of employment. People in the rural areas have a greater appreciation for the language; the children learn it from birth; it’s the official language in the community. (Achi, Guatemala) However, we want to stress that most of the accounts gathered express opinions in favour of maintaining and using the native language, even in spite of being at a disadvantage with other languages or being subject to opinions that go from indifference to contempt or prohibition: Speakers of Chipaya take great pride in their language. They feel that it is the original language of the world. And yet the members of other communities call it a dialect and despise it as a language and a means of communication. Nowadays, the schoolteachers have forbidden the children to use Chipaya at school. (Chipaya, Bolivia)
Linguistic Attitudes
219
Furthermore, we have been able to see that in many communities in an advanced state of language substitution a change is taking place in the attitude of members of those communities, thanks to the reinforcement of cultural identity. This attitude shows itself in the growing tide of claims to the right to maintain languages and the growing demands for the use of languages, at least in the school sphere and in the local media. The informant for the Pech language in Honduras expresses this situation very well: Until 1990, the attitude of the majority of the population was one of fear and strong reserves about speaking Pech outside the family setting or relationships of friendship with other speakers of the language. The presence of a Pech who didn’t speak the language or of a Ladino was enough to stop them speaking it because they ‘felt ashamed’. Today, the FIPH (Federación Indígena Pech de Honduras) and the seven Pech teachers are encouraging the oral use of Pech (and its written use at school). Now you can find Pech who take pride in speaking their language, especially the teachers and directors of the Federation, which offers a ray of hope. (Pech, Honduras) This revival situation is taking place in many indigenous communities where awareness of cultural identity is growing in the face of intense pressure from colonising languages. In Canada, for example, a study by the First Nations Assembly in 1992 revealed the critical situation of their languages (see Map 11). However, figures issued by the Canadian Institute of Statistics show that 88% of those who used to speak the language wanted to relearn it and that more than 75% of the natives who had never spoken it were willing to learn. Another example could be the situation amongst the indigenous peoples of Siberia, where the danger of extinction is extreme, not only for the languages but also for the communities themselves. These are languages and cultures which have deteriorated in a very short space of time. According to Filtchenko (2000), the impact of the discovery of gas in the 1970s meant that in a very few years, as a result of massive immigration, the native demographic majority became a demographic minority, at the same time as the traditional habitat suffered irreparable damage. As a result of these factors, the identity of the native peoples of Siberia has been endangered. Nevertheless, a revival of native awareness is taking place which expresses itself in the importance a majority of the indigenous population attaches to the teaching of the mother tongue at school through bilingual education, with the prime objective of preserving the language. They stress the need to make available the economic resources necessary for this, furthermore implementing the means whereby native students can have a medium in the community in which to develop the language they learn at school. But the economic and social situation of many of the world’s indigenous peoples is extremely difficult. And very often, awareness of the loss of a language is considered a problem of little importance in the face of the social deterioration the community is immersed in. The account by the reporter for the Bardi language of Australia, for example, is moving in its frankness and is common to countless communities:
220
Words and Worlds
[The situation of the language] doesn’t seem to matter to some; others (particularly a few of the older people) want to pass the language on. My feeling is that until there is a ‘Bardi Culture’ the language isn’t so important, but this point of view may not represent the majority point of view. I think the One Arm Point community is worried about drugs, alcohol and preventing suicide and unemployment and other social issues; the language doesn’t rank very high because there is a generation or two that don’t use it and because there are other concerns. (Bardi, Australia) And nevertheless, the figures collected seem to suggest that when these conditions improve there is great interest in relaunching language learning along with reinforcing native cultures. The change in attitude referred to is also noticeable in some minority linguistic communities in Western Europe, where it has been possible to maintain cultural identity, and linguistic policies are beginning to allow a certain flexibility, making it possible to promote measures to revive languages, as in the case of Breton in France: After four generations of shame and linguistic rejection and of an image marked by a negative Breton identity (linked to linguistic repression led by the schools of the Republic), mentalities are changing. Today the dominant feeling is that a valuable asset is being lost and that there is an urgent need for action. According to a survey held in 1997, 88% of people think the language must be preserved, 72% believe it has a future and 80% are in favour of its teaching. (Breton, France)
Negative attitudes We have deliberately gone into the extremely worrying facts about people’s negative attitudes towards their own language in some detail, as they indicate an almost irreversible trend towards linguistic substitution. The effect of traditional state policies and the progress of some expanding languages is endangering the survival of countless languages which are in a situation of lower prestige. Because of this, it is not surprising that, along with expressions of affection for the language, some of the accounts gathered by reporters speak of the shame they feel when using their language and of the fear of stigmatisation because of their language, a feeling which can even become scorn when the language has suffered severe loss of prestige. Truly dramatic ideas were returned by the reporter on Kaqchikel, for example, who said that “after 500 years of rejection and extermination of the Kaqchikel language, today the majority of the members of the community rejects the preservation and use of the language”, or on Mam, of which it is said that “there is rejection of the language due to the lack of its implementation and use by the Administration, especially at the educational level”, or of Pech, where “until 1990, the attitude of the majority of the population was one of fear and great reserve in speaking outside the family setting or relations of friendship with other speakers of the language”, or of Tol, whose
Linguistic Attitudes
221
informant says that “all the work of researching the Tol of La Montaña de la Flor until 1985 showed that the Tolupans of Yoro and La Flor felt shame when speaking Tol.” The accounts of indigenous populations gathered in this Review show that native languages have come under enormous pressure, and that although many communities are beginning to demand respect for their linguistic rights, many populations still show negative feelings towards them. The lack of prestige towards the indigenous language is a feature we see repeated in most areas where minority indigenous populations coexist with majority groups speaking the official language. We might remember that people can even deny belonging to a linguistic community, as Abbi (2000) shows when he says that “the feeling of inferiority, the awareness of the low status of the mother tongue in society, anxiety to be associated with the superior masses, all discourage people from declaring the language used in the family setting their own. This is especially true in many Munda and Dravidian tribes. Research has shown that even languages that have been declared lost are still used in the domestic sphere. The low prestige associated with these languages has brought about this change in loyalty”. And non-indigenous populations heighten this feeling through their attitude: The members of the surrounding communities would like to bury this language or absorb it. (Lai, Bangladesh) But this pressure is not exclusive to indigenous populations. In most of Europe, too, language communities in the minority have suffered the consequences of outright assimilation policies on the part of states that have in many cases generated attitudes of indifference towards the minority language or its loss, or shame over the stigma involved in its use. There are some who feel the language should only be used in the family sphere, in the case of the informant on Friulan; who show indifference due to the influence of schooling in French, like the reporter on Occitan; or who even express scorn, as the informant for Corsican reports. From what has been said above, we can deduce that establishing hierarchies in the status of languages generates attitudes of rejection towards one’s own language and towards the languages of other communities. Similarly, the attitude to a language depends directly on the relation established with the group it represents. It is also possible that when groups with different mother tongues maintain balanced relations, the tensions between the two different communities diminish. This is one of the basic factors that have allowed language communities with small populations to keep up their cultural identity and their language today. The hierarchical effect of languages is confirmed when we note the fact that all the dominant languages in the sample analysed for this Review are learned by other people or adopted as second or third languages. The behaviour observed in the learning of second and third languages also shows the influence of the hierarchies established between languages. Thus dominant languages are learnt with greater frequency, but those of less prestige are only learned by certain people. Societies that are traditionally multilingual show that the tendency to uniformity – one which is becoming extremely widespread in recent decades – does not take place
222
Words and Worlds
in all societies and is not a natural one. The greater the multilingual tradition, the less the aggression between the different languages in contact. The reported figures indicate that relations between communities of similar status are less hostile than those established between majority and minorised languages. According to Abbi (2000) and Annamalai (2001), for example, relations among the different languages in multilingual situations like India are linked to the nature of multilingualism itself in the area. This is characterised by its social acceptance, and people learn other languages in the course of socialisation, for communicative, economic, cultural and religious needs, since languages can have a functional distribution with respect to these functional uses. Expressions of solidarity between communities show up time and again. This is an encouraging fact. It could be that if initiatives are begun in favour of respect for different identities, the self-esteem of communities in a precarious situation might recover; experiences in similar situations might be shared and natural solidarity between groups of similar status might arise. All of this with the object of modifying the attitudes of dominant communities. Indeed, though no language can survive through the incorporation of speakers from other communities, the fact that its language is learnt by people outside the group has very positive effects on the pride and consideration attributed to it. The learning of minorised languages by nonnatives should be encouraged. Only in this way can balanced linguistic and cultural relations be established in the face of the linguistic and cultural uniformity with which we are threatened.
SOCIAL ATTITUDES CONCERNING PIDGINS AND CREOLES Negative attitudes to pidgins and creoles are based primarily on perceived linguistic inadequacies or the economic and social limitations of pidgins and creoles vis-a-vis their lexifier languages. Most speakers of pidgins and creoles would be surprised to find that the study of pidgin and creole languages constitutes a legitimate academic discipline, and that linguists consider them languages in their own right rather than dialects or incorrect versions of other languages. Superficial similarities lead non-experts to assume that pidgins and creoles are inferior versions of the languages to which they are most closely affiliated in vocabulary. Thus, Haitian Creole French speakers and Hawai’i Creole English speakers have been corrected and/or punished at school, and in some cases at home, for speaking what is widely believed to be ‘bad French’ or ‘bad English’, respectively. Although they typically arise to serve a linguistically diverse population, they have limited currency outside these local settings when compared to their lexifiers. Most pidgins and creoles are unstandardised, unwritten, have no official
Linguistic Attitudes
223
recognition and have not been widely used in education. They often co-exist in a diglossic relationship with their lexifiers, where the pidgin/creole assumes the L(ow) functions, i.e. is used at home and non-official domains, and the lexifier functions as H(igh). Negative attitudes to pidgins and creoles, particularly at school, have had a number of unfortunate social consequences. Research has demonstrated the futility of constant correction of non-standard language use in the classroom without respect for the students’ home language. When teachers tell children not to speak pidgins and creoles because they represent a ‘lazy’ way to talk or because they are ‘broken’ English, French, etc., mixed emotions of shame and resistance are often the result. To deny the validity of any language is to deny the validity of the people who speak it. Although it seems at first glance paradoxical that pidgins and creoles persist at all despite correction and negative public opinion, speakers do attach positive value to these languages as markers of solidarity and intimacy. As children approach adolescence, the use of non-standard speech varieties often increases, indicating the effects of peer group allegiance, and resistance to mainstream authority structures which endorse the standard. One manifestation of this can be seen in the extension of pidgins and creoles into domains generally reserved for the lexifier language, in particular in literature and in school. A number of creoles such as Krio in Sierra Leone have vibrant literary traditions, and are being increasingly used in the classroom. Suzanne Romaine Merton College, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Attitudes and prejudices to be avoided While it is true that linguistic attitudes are responsible for most behaviour relating to language, it is no less true that behind most attitudes are prejudices that have nothing to do with the nature of languages. We believe it is necessary to unmask commonplaces and beliefs about languages that have no other basis than carefully and deliberately promoted prejudices that establish hierarchies between languages as a prior step to the replacement and disappearance of languages and cultures. Let us remember some of the most widespread prejudices whose falsity it is essential to demonstrate as soon as possible:
224
Words and Worlds
• Languages are merely vehicles for communication; the fewer languages there are, the better the chances of communication; diversity is therefore an obstacle to understanding between human beings. • The economic and technological underdevelopment seen in many communities and social groups is largely due to their preservation of a language and culture that is not suited to social, economic or technological progress; there are urban languages and rural languages, languages for modernity and languages for primitive, traditional or indigenous life. • Some languages are only of use for affective family communication, but cannot be used as vehicles of formal education; there are languages that are not suitable for use in schools, and far less in universities. • The use in the family of a language that is not used at school is a handicap that slows down children’s integration in the school system, has a direct influence on learning difficulties and is the cause of school failure. • Bilingualism is prejudicial to the all-round development of the individual; children do not acquire proper mastery of either of the two languages; a clear example of the harmful consequences of bilingual education is that bilingual people do not master orthographic systems and make more and more spelling mistakes. • Teaching children a minority language they do not know is an imposition, as well as being unnatural; it is prejudicial because they have never heard it in the family. • Is a language that is not written and does not have a dictionary or grammar a language? Furthermore, why begin to write or teach a language that has never been written or taught? Why go against tradition? • Some languages are not viable as it is impossible to agree on the correct form because it is spoken differently in different places. The standard, which may be of recent creation, is false, artificial and useless; false, because it does not reflect every variety, especially yours; artificial, because it has no tradition and has been invented by a handful of smart alecs who hope to make a living out of it; useless, because it has no future, as no-one will use it or understand it. • Some languages are of no use when looking for interesting jobs or for relating with the modern world; these are backward languages that merely shut us away inside ourselves; they are not languages with a universal scope.
Chapter 11
The Threats to Languages Surely, just as the extinction of any animal species diminishes our world, so does the extinction of any language. Surely we linguists know, and the general public can sense, that any language is a supreme achievement of a uniquely human collective genius, as divine and endless a mystery as a living organism. Should we mourn the loss of Eyak or Ubykh any less than the loss of the panda or Californian condor? (Krauss 1992)
Languages evolve on the basis of sometimes imperceptible changes that take place in different ways. These changes can be caused by widely varying factors such as strategies for adaptation to the social milieu, group identification or the influence of external linguistic contacts. In addition, they can be induced through deliberate strategies or can take place spontaneously. If a moment comes in this evolution when the varieties are no longer perceived as part of the same language and are considered different languages, we can say that these languages’ evolution has led to the disappearance of the original language. We are speaking of well-known cases of languages for which there are plenty of written accounts, such as the so-called classical languages, which are no longer considered living languages today. They have evolved into multiple languages, some of which are still alive, while others have become extinct. It is difficult to make even an approximate calculation of the number of languages that have disappeared in this way, since many of them have left no written evidence at all, but in any case the number far exceeds that of the languages still spoken. It is also important to point out that the languages that are spoken in the world today are the product of evolution and would not be recognised as the same languages if we were able to go back far enough in time. In other words, they have become totally differentiated from earlier languages. Rather than languages disappearing, in these cases we speak of language transformation (Hagège, 2000). In this Review, however, the subject is the disappearance of languages in perhaps far more dramatic terms. We want to put the emphasis on disappearance through
225
226
Words and Worlds
extinction or replacement and try to identify the factors that have most influence on the falling into disuse of a language. If we accept the metaphor of the death of a language, obviously these factors will be a direct threat to languages. When one language is in contact with another which is expanding more powerfully, then it is subject to extinction depending on different factors such as history, politics, economics, culture and demography. It is therefore impossible to pick out a single decisive cause that can be universally generalised, as each situation depends on its own history and idiosyncrasies. It is easy to realise the enormous differences that exist between languages in contact in stigmatised indigenous communities under pressure from powerful economies and between indigenous communities under pressure from other indigenous groups or between communities with high historical and economic prestige under the influence of internationally dominant languages. Indeed, the causes and effects vary enormously from one situation to another.
The last speakers A language disappears when its last speakers stop speaking it without having passed it on to the younger generation. There are well known examples of these cases, such as that of Marie Smith, the last speaker of Eyak, an Alaskan language mentioned by Nettle & Romaine (2000), or the accounts gathered in our research of, for example, the Miwok language of the United States, whose only speaker is 94 years old, or that of Popoluca, a language spoken in Veracruz, Mexico, whose youngest speaker is 74 years old and has no following generation. What is more, in this case it is even reported that “the older generation takes it for granted that the language is dying”. Accounts of this sort are common. For example, Tol, in Honduras, is a language which, like many other indigenous languages, is spoken exclusively by the old folk, “whose children have not learned it”; Macanese, on the island of Macao, “is only spoken by older people”; Palenque is a Creole language spoken in Colombia whose informant says it will “disappear within two or three generations because the younger generation tends not to use it.” The languages of the Australian Aborigines are also characterised by the very small numbers of speakers they have. The following account by a member of the Bardi community illustrates this situation: The language is seriously threatened, as the last speakers are now reaching adult age (average life expectancy for the Aborigines in Australia is approximately 45 years, and most speakers are already older than this). What’s more, the general feeling is that speaking this language does not provide access to jobs, so that the children have no longer learned the language. (Bardi, Australia) The gradual reduction in speakers also affects many unofficial languages in Europe. This is the case of Occitan, a language spoken in the south of France, whose disappearance is foreseen amongst other reasons due to the death of the speakers themselves, who have not passed it on. The same happens with Aragonese (Spain): “this
The Threats to Languages
227
language is in danger due to the small number of speakers and the ageing of the population, as well as the lack of official recognition and support.” However, although the physical fact of the disappearance of the last speakers affects individuals, the fact is that there have been direct causes that have led to these speakers’ isolation. This is why the disappearance of the last speakers is not in itself considered the cause of death of a language, so much as the certification of this death. The object of this section, therefore, is to determine the causes giving rise to the threats facing languages. Analysis of specific situations confirms the idea that there are many causes for the death of a language. Furthermore, the way the speakers themselves perceive this question is significant and must be taken into account. The information received has been analysed in detail, not only taking into account the factors referring strictly to the threats facing languages, but also with an eye to causes referring to historical factors and the dangers facing the communities themselves. In fact, many informants put forward the same arguments, both for the languages and for the communities, in trying to explain the dangers or threats they see or suffer in their environment. We are convinced that in this way the information presented will be more complete. Table 10 groups the causes of threats or dangers mentioned by the informants in five categories: Table 10. Causes of threats to languages Causes (%) POLITICAL FACTORS (Colonisation, linguistic policies, official status)
46
DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS (Reduced number of speakers, reduction and ageing of the population, mixed marriages, migrations for economic reasons or because of conflicts or deportations)
27
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FACTORS (Economic crises, economic exploitation, subordination, low social prestige, acculturation)
16
PHYSICAL AGGRESSION (Natural disasters, epidemics, physical aggressions)
8
OTHERS
3
TOTAL
100
228
Words and Worlds
Political factors A detailed description of the political causes that have affected languages would be a task beyond the scope of the present work. However, it should be remembered that the endangered situation of most of today’s languages is a direct consequence of economic and social factors, for centuries governed mainly by political interests. In all periods of history there has been displacement of populations as a result of military and political invasions, which has given rise to induced or directly imposed linguistic changes. The large movements associated with language shift, some of which have already been indicated by Fishman (1971), are as follows. Vernacularisation of government, technical, educational and cultural activity in Europe. In other words, the establishment of the vernacular languages as a symbol of state unity during the construction of the European states. It can be said that this tendency towards one state/one language was accentuated after the French Revolution and was the cause of the weakening of countless languages spoken in these areas. Furthermore, this idea was subsequently widely accepted by states under construction during the post-colonial period. The Anglicisation and Hispanicisation of the populations of North and South America, respectively. The colonisation of the American continent by European states brought with it, in addition to the extinction of languages through the physical extermination of many indigenous communities, the widespread Castilianisation of the region and later the Anglicisation and Frenchification of the regions of the north. The action of the colonising states was different in each region and all sorts of particularities can be found. However, we can say that following the military domination of the population, apart from physical extermination the linguistic policy implemented was based on the imposition of the state language. There have of course been periods when states have not been able to avoid using certain local languages with the object of achieving long-term goals, both economic and religious. This has even led to some local languages being spread by the conquerors themselves. This is the case, for example, of Nahuatl and Quechua in Central and South America respectively. We must not forget, however, that just like today, the spread of these indigenous languages led to the replacement of other local languages of less prestige. In North America, the process of conquest has been even more troubled in demographic terms. The result is that the indigenous communities have been restricted to reserves, with hardly any chance of integration into the dominant society.
ABOUT THE DEATH OF LANGUAGES When a language dies, the richness and fullness of human life suffers a reduction. Languages are long in the making. They are repositories of human history, carrying evidence of earlier environments and practices that a people
The Threats to Languages
229
may no longer remember and of contacts between peoples who no longer live anywhere near one another. The degree to which languages resemble each other can reveal ancient separations or minglings of peoples. Languages bear witness to the many ways in which human cognitive faculties have perceived the world, sorting and categorising human experience. Each language has unique lexical content and unique ways of patterning that content grammatically. Even languages that are considered well known – represented by whole libraries of lore and literature, captured in extensive grammatical treatises – are never fully plumbed. There is always more latitude for differences in the way individual speakers or groups of speakers put such a language into play than can be recorded, and there is always scope for creative elaboration of linguistic resources beyond what happens to have been remembered or preserved. Little known languages – never treated in any studies, their poetic and traditional lore unfamiliar to anyone but their own speakers – are lost, when they die, to humankind’s awareness of its own full range of expressive and elaborative verbal capacities. When a language dies, the community of people who once spoke it (if they have not all died as well) has lost the richest and most direct connection to their ancestral heritage. Not their identity, necessarily, since identity can be marked by other special features (distinctive clothing, music, foods, and the like). Lost to memory and self-knowledge, rather, are such things as ability to perform the sacred songs and ancient chants whose rhythms and meanings are fully expressed only in the ancestral language; speech that embodies unique grammatical and lexical categorisations reflecting distinctive cultural orientations; remembrance of the culturally specific names of places and figures important to their history; deep familiarity with locally unique plants and their nutritional and medicinal value. No language translates fully into another. Always there are large or small expressive and conceptual losses when a people ceases to speak its ancestral language and goes over to speaking another. It can appear, sometimes, that a person chooses to abandon their own language for another. But choices are not always “free” choices, and underlying such apparent choices are, in most cases, severe historic pressures: outside political control, economic subjugation, social discrimination. What is needed, fundamentally, is to alleviate the pressures. Around the world today, peoples who recognise that their languages have almost slipped away are making heroic efforts to save those languages, and with them their rightful heritage. Nancy C. Dorian Bryn Mawr College, United States of America
230
Words and Worlds
Other than this, the colonisation of Asian and Australian territories by the French and English has also given varied results. By way of example, following withdrawal of the French from the region of Indochina, hardly any tradition of using the colonial language remained, yet in Australia and other places the indigenous populations have been almost wiped out, so that the overturn in the demographic correlation prevents the natural reproduction of their languages and seriously endangers their survival. Within this section it is worth remembering the colonisation of the American and African continents by other European states, such as Portugal and France, which broadly speaking followed the steps described above. At the same time, it should be pointed out that direct action by states in economic matters has also led to the rise of new languages. These are the languages arising in communities of African slaves taken to America and of their descendants, who through contact amongst themselves and/or on the basis of European languages have produced many Pidgin and Creole languages in large areas of the Caribbean and South America. The adoption of English and French as internationally widespread elite languages, particularly in Asia and Africa should also be taken into account. This is a feature of postcolonial periods, when the majority local population has not had access to the language of colonisation. The great majority of states have adopted the European language as their official language. Although in many cases local languages have been made official, the fact is that the European languages are still used by the economic and prestige elites, as they are used in administration and at school, wherever schools are generalised. The forced Russification of populations under the control of the Soviet Union has resulted in the deterioration and disappearance of many local languages. Similarly, displacement of Russian populations to republics that have recently acquired political autonomy also produces contacts between linguistic communities that are demographically difficult to manage. It should not be forgotten either that in many parts of Africa and Asia local languages have been adopted for government, technical, educational and cultural activities. In consequence, the official languages of the colonial periods have been displaced. However, this does not prevent many other local languages being relegated.
ALTERNATIVES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF LANGUAGES: THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE LINGUASPHERE OBSERVATORY The Linguasphere Observatory was created in 1983 as a transnational network for the study and promotion of multilingualism, developed since 1997 around its website www.linguasphere.org. The Observatory recognises the linguasphere as a dynamic continuum of spoken and written languages, developed and extended around the planet by humankind as its greatest and most collective creation, from the first palaeolithic speech-communities of hunter-gatherers to
The Threats to Languages
231
the electronic global society of today. This perspective on language is presented in the Observatory’s 2-volume Linguasphere Register (David Dalby 2000), the first comprehensive classification of over 22,000 modern languages and dialects, and of over 71,000 linguistic and ethnic names. This new work of reference includes an introduction to the linguasphere and its classification, a bibliography, a lexicon of new terms, statistical tables and a diagrammatic map. Every living language deserves to be viewed and developed as an integral part of the linguasphere, as an active component in the dynamics of global communication. Central to the working of the linguasphere are 12 megalanguages (these are: Arabic, Bengali, Chinese (Mandarin), English, French, German, Hindi-Urdu, Japanese, Malay-Indonesian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish; see Dalby 2000), each comprising over 100 million speakers. In contrast, more than one thousand endangered languages comprise less than 1000 speakers each, with infant learners outnumbered by older speakers dying. Many of these fragile speechcommunities – in the Americas, Eurasia, Africa and Australasia – were or still are hunter-gatherers, as were the earliest founders of the linguasphere. Between the two extremes are the majority of the world’s modern languages and dialects, whose future depends on global strategies of communication and education. In today’s era of worldwide electronic communication, the maintenance of humankind’s diversity of expression requires the promotion of multilingualism in all speech-communities. The co-ordinated development of all living and evolving languages is more appropriate to an increasingly transnational society than the protection of individual languages as isolated and static systems. The Linguasphere Observatory has proposed the following four strategic points in the development of multilingual education in the 21st century, both in and out of school: • access to two or more languages and cultures should be the right of each boy and each girl in every speech-community, including the language(s) of that community and at least one megalanguage; • the world’s linguistic and cultural diversity should be presented to children as the shared heritage of humankind: “each language belongs to all who learn it”; • day-to-day life and culture in all speech-communities should be extensively video-recorded as a global educational project, and sub-titled in at least one megalanguage; • literary and dramatic creativity should be encouraged among the boys and girls of every speech-community, together with skills of self-expression, translation and interpretation: “in the galaxy of languages, the voice of each person is a star”. David Dalby Linguasphere Observatory, United Kingdom
232
Words and Worlds
In terms of the political causes generating a threat to languages, the first factor in the action of states refers to the official status each one grants to the language spoken in its territory. Political factors manifest themselves from the expansions described above to those that materialise in the use of languages in all public services – that is, in the administration itself, at school, in the health services and the media. In other sections of this Review a more detailed study has been made of these areas of use and their influence in the use of languages. Here, though, we want to provide the information supplied by those affected with reference to actions of a political nature. The lack of institutional support for a language can take many forms: from the express prohibition to use the language, which would be an extreme situation, to a subtler lack of support which can take the form, for example, of not complying with existing legislation. The following is a list of the aspects mentioned by informants: absence of any form of official status or recognition of linguistic rights; express prohibition of using the language; absence of the language in the media, at school and in the administration; and the absence of linguistic policies in favour of preserving the linguistic heritage. The lack of support in the sphere of education and even the express prohibition of using certain languages in schools is often mentioned in the informants’ observations. This is the case, for example, of the Yeyi language of Botswana, where according to our informant, “The government today prohibits the use of any language other than English or Tswana. The government banned the use of the languages that were taught in schools before independence. Yeyi was banned and the people who developed its spelling were imprisoned.” The consequence of the absence of institutional support is that the language becomes excluded from public life. This exclusion also affects the media, a sphere which is considered by some informants to be a source of danger for the language, either because the language itself is not present in them or because they are used to spread the dominant language.
Demographic factors It seems obvious that languages with many speakers have more chances of surviving than those with few speakers. In this respect, it is important to remember that 96% of the world’s population speaks only 4% of the world’s languages and that 55% of languages have fewer than 10,000 speakers. Furthermore, the eight most widespread languages are spoken by more than 2,400 million people. Nevertheless, the fact that a language has a large number of speakers is not enough to ensure its survival. It is enough for some especially virulent action from outside to come at some moment in history for the community to decide to adopt a new language. Grinevald (1998) reports, for example, that Quechua, an indigenous language spoken in the Andes Mountains by a population of from 8 to 12.5 million people, “has no guarantee of survival in many areas, in spite of the projects under
The Threats to Languages
233
way for planning the corpus. There must be planning of the status to counter the pressure from Spanish in socio-economic incentives.” The theory of ethno-linguistic vitality put forward in 1977 by Giles, Bourhis and Taylor proposes different variables of the language to be taken into account. The factors involved are related to the community’s economic, social and historical status, as well as the status of the language itself. It proposes taking into account demographic variables referring to the distribution of speakers in the territory (the concentration and proportion of speakers of the language), absolute and relative numbers, mixed marriages and migrations (immigration and emigration). Finally, it proposes taking into account institutional support (or its absence) in official spheres (presence of the language in the administrative services, schools, media) and unofficial spheres (areas of work, religion and culture). Amongst the various external factors to be considered, here stress will be put on the analysis of the demographic factors to be found in the societies with languages in contact. It is very significant that demographic factors, accounting for 27%, are the second group of factors most mentioned as a source of danger to the language. Along with the absolute number of speakers of the language, their proportion with respect to the total population occupying the region in which it is spoken also has a decisive influence. Indeed, if contact between languages with different economic statuses comes about through demographic invasion, it will be much more difficult for the members of the local community to maintain their language. Even when the language enjoys official status, population figures could prevent this official status from being effective. This is the case, for example, of Balkar, whose informant says that “the small percentage of Balkars in the republic (9.4%) does not allow full realisation of the language’s status as a state language”. However, if the contact occurs exclusively amongst the elites, it is likely that the community will be able to maintain its own language, at least for a time. But it is also true that small communities have managed to keep themselves safe from economically and politically more aggressive cultures. These are languages that are “viable but small”, in the words used by Kinkade (1991), which are spoken in “isolated communities or communities with a strong internal organisation, who are aware that their language is a distinctive feature that reinforces their identity”. We can offer the account by the informant for Tanimuka, a language spoken in the Amazon by some 600 people which seems to have great vitality, amongst other reasons thanks to the fact that “there are strong settlements, though they are not big, which are quite remote, in the forest. The danger lies in the fact that people are beginning to migrate and come down close to the white population of the Caquetá River.” The effect of mixed marriages between linguistic communities of different social status is also decisive. Though it may not be a direct or necessary consequence, it is extremely usual for the language that is transmitted to the new generation to be the one with the higher economic and social status, in detriment, of course, of the less favoured language. The example of Sorbian, a Slavonic language spoken in Germany by about 50,000 people, could illustrate this: “Unfortunately, in many Sorbian-German
234
Words and Worlds
marriages (and also in Sorbian-Sorbian marriages), the parents do not pass on their mother tongue (Sorbian) to their children. Many parents think it is difficult for their children to learn two languages from the start and they reject Sorbian because they think German is the more important and useful language”. The factor that could change this tendency is the feeling of family or group identification, which could lead to its being passed on along with the more dominant language. The drop in the birth rate and the aging of the population are further factors whose effect is alarming. These factors, along with the effects of mixed marriages mentioned above amount to a total of 17% of the risk factors mentioned by our informants. Migratory movements are another of the most influential demographic factors, whether caused by economic reasons or others. Although throughout history we know of tragic forced displacements of whole populations (we need only remember the dark age of the slave trade between Africa and America), the nineteenth and especially the twentieth centuries were characterised by the extreme cruelty and abundance of these displacements. The industrialisation of the nineteenth century produced massive migration of whole populations to the main economic centres and the twentieth century has witnessed mass migrations due partly to rapid urban development and partly to endless wars, armed conflicts, forced deportations and displacements for economic purposes, which have lead to the collapse of society in large parts of the world. Indeed, the migration factor deserves a special mention, as it constantly arises as the cause of the threat to languages. In fact, the phenomenon of migrations is a transverse issue, as they are caused for political and military reasons as well as for economic reasons. These migrations are mentioned as a chief cause of danger to the language in 10% of the answers to the survey, although they do not necessarily involve the loss of the language for the affected group. This can happen, though, and this is why it is given special prominence in this chapter on risk factors and threats. For example, it has been seen that the various migrations and displacements to cities are amongst the causes of the interruption of intergenerational transmission usually pointed out by informants. In several cases these displacements are associated with a change in lifestyle. Although the behaviour of immigrant communities varies according to their vitality, if the receiving community has a language of greater prestige, the general trend seems to be towards the loss of the language in the third generation of immigrants. Analysing the factors that lead populations to migrate is complicated. We need only remember that the number of displacements as a result of armed conflicts, according to the Report for the year 2000 by UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) was of 22.3 million people, of which 18.3% correspond to internal displacements and more than 52% to refugees. It is obvious that, apart from the human tragedy involved in such a situation, maintaining social and group structures will be very difficult and it is foreseeable that many will have their chances of survival as linguistic communities seriously reduced.
The Threats to Languages
235
LANGUAGE DIVERSITY IN CHINA According to historical records, the many minority communities in China today were already living within the vast geographical territory of Mainland China at least 3,000 years ago. However, due to contact and alliances between ancient tribes and peoples, assimilation gradually occurred between these numerous languages to form smaller language groups. Only those minority languages and cultures with fewer external contacts and which had formed fewer alliances with other tribes were able to preserve their languages more completely. Ever since China adopted a centralised system of government with the Han as the main ethnic group, the sphere of influence of the Han Chinese people has continued to spread. The assimilation of many surrounding groups led to a rapid increase in the Han population. Those groups which were not assimilated became the ethnic minorities of today, retaining their own languages and cultures. Viewed from both historical and present perspectives, the Han Chinese and the 55 ethnic minorities of China are integral parts of the Chinese people. The diversity and plurality of both the affiliations and typologies of their languages and cultures are distinctive features of the ethnic minorities of China. Their extensive representation in both human history and geographical territory fully reflects man’s creativity, and represents an unalienable contribution to the rich fabric of man’s linguistic and cultural heritage. The profound mysteries and creative genius contained in the world’s languages and cultures cannot be adequately described by those in existence today, nor can they be comprehensively explained by current knowledge systems. With respect to Chinese minority languages and cultures, many phonological, grammatical and lexical forms as well as behavioural norms and value systems exist which are different from those of “more dominant” languages and cultures. These rich and diverse linguistic categories and cultural forms tend to be prevalent in those non-material cultures belonging to smaller ethnic groups which may be on the verge of extinction. Due to a variety of reasons, the total numbers of minority languages and cultures, as well as their social functions, have decreased rapidly over the past few decades. This has led to some very evident negative effects: a gradual decrease in human linguistic and cultural resources; a narrowing of the lebensraum for such cultures; insurmountable conflicts and difficulties for those minority groups who have had to adapt to life in today’s global village; and an inevitable deterioration in the socio-cultural environment, the sustainable development of which depends on diversity. Man needs to have a rational knowledge of himself, and must bear responsibility for his own history and future. Viewed from this perspective, the recording,
236
Words and Worlds
preservation, and to a certain extent, revival of endangered languages constitutes an important task towards maintaining global diversity. This task is especially urgent for endangered languages which are fast approaching extinction and which do not have writing systems. Over 100 different minority languages are spoken in China, including the many Austronesian languages of the Gaoshan people in Taiwan. The current usage situation of the languages in China is as follows: 7 languages have 100 or fewer speakers; 15 have a hundred to a thousand speakers; 41 have one to ten thousand speakers; 34 have ten to a hundred thousand speakers; 17 have a hundred thousand to a million speakers; 10 have one to ten million speakers; while 2 languages are spoken by over 10 million people. Of the above languages, those 20 or so minority languages with fewer than 1,000 speakers are on the verge of extinction. The richness of a culture is contained within its language, which captures the essence of the traditional culture and experiences of its speakers. This is especially so for unwritten languages or languages whose writing systems are relatively undeveloped. The knowledge and experiences of a community are contained within their language, and depend on language for their transmission from generation to generation. Therefore, the gradual disappearance of the language of an ethnic community is an irreplaceable loss, and also represents a loss of our common human heritage. Linguistic and cultural diversity are necessary for the richness and colour of our world. From a purely linguistic perspective, the rich linguistic resources of China are extremely valuable for the development of linguistics in China. The richer the linguistic resources, the greater is the potential for development. At present, many “small” language groups have still not been subjected to in-depth investigations. Although these languages have very few speakers, their academic value is high. Many have retained older features found in languages of the SinoTibetan and Altaic language phyla, the majority of which are found in China. Therefore, the recording and preservation of data from languages on the verge of extinction are important and urgent tasks in the development of linguistics in China, and are also fundamental to minority language research. The completion of these tasks can also promote the development of research in descriptive linguistics, historical comparative linguistics, typological linguistics, and even ancient writing systems. This kind of research is also helpful in the in-depth study of historical relationships between different ethnic groups in China, in order to improve our understanding of the complexity of our “diverse yet united” country. This will enable better implementation of work among the minorities, and will also be extremely beneficial to the promotion and development of unity and progress among the different ethnic groups of China.
The Threats to Languages
237
Language is an important distinguishing feature of every ethnic group in China, and every minority has a special affinity for their own language and writing. The disappearance of “weak” languages has already aroused the concern of minority communities, who have appealed to the government for preservation and salvage of their languages. Investigation and research of “weak” languages can therefore fulfil their expectations to a certain extent, and are also in accordance with the language policies and programmes of the government. The speakers of endangered languages are deeply dependent on their mother tongues for the continuous creation and re-creation of cultural symbols. Only through their own languages can they discover a vigorous subjectivity, promoting social interaction, communication, and sustainable development. Through the identification and investigation of minority languages which are based on a reliable foundations, the relevant departments concerned with ethnic affairs, education, and culture can formulate developmental plans and implementation strategies for different areas. Sun Hongkai & Huang Xing Academic Society for the Minority Languages of China & Institute of Nationality Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China
See Map 13 showing language diversity in China.
Economic and social causes Researchers stress the importance of economic and social factors for people who speak a language that is in contact with that of an economically and socially more powerful community. Amongst the economic causes can be included changes in economic systems, economic crises, poverty, economic subordination, indebtedness of the population, loss of land ownership, land shortage, the drop in living standards, economic exploitation of the local community and unemployment. In the framework of our research, it is worth mentioning that 16% of answers regarding the causes of danger are based on situations of this type. We come across striking ideas such as the one that associates certain ways of life with certain languages, so that some communities are forced to adopt a new language if they hope to become integrated into more advantageous situations. It is significant that terms like modernity, progress or economic development are associated with dominant languages and, on the other hand, certain languages and cultures are linked to terms such as “traditional”, “rural”, “ethnic” or “group”, which carry negative associations. We could single out the example of Jaru, an Australian language spoken by about 200 people, who have suffered the seizure of their land and massacres and who have
238
Words and Worlds
no chance of working without emigrating out of their territory, or of Sindhi, whose speakers “are refused jobs and other opportunities because of their language”. When a language is seen by its speakers as obsolete and of no use for social improvement, feelings of inferiority surface. Furthermore, if an economic elite emerges within the community that imitates the outsiders’ behaviour, the need for change is even more strongly felt. All of this leads a community to change its culture in favour of a foreign one that is more influential and more powerful. These are phenomena of acculturation. Usually, these processes tend to go hand in hand with a decline in rural life, the abandonment of traditional activities and the adoption of new habits. As a result, there is a loss of prestige of the language that can lead directly to its death. In fact, it is not just a loss of prestige for the language, but a loss of prestige for the whole community and its culture, so that all the community’s local expressions will gradually be relegated to restricted spheres, and with them, particularly, the language itself. All of this will influence the decision not to pass it on to their descendants. The interruption of transmission is a direct cause of the death of languages, but itself is the result of two factors we are analysing in this section. The process of acculturation tends to go through three stages: (1) It begins with the political, economic or social pressure exerted by people who speak the dominant language and can be either explicit and coercive or else underlie subtler pressures. Gradually it takes the form of hints of socio-cultural changes which include modernisation, land development, modernisation of the educational system, the influence of other cultures, the influence of religion, the lack of cultural autonomy, assimilation or loss of cultural identity, subordination, loss of prestige and social discrimination, marginalisation and social degradation, as well as degradation of traditional living conditions. (2) The result is a period of bilingualism, which forms the second stage of the process. In principle, people acquire the new language without losing competence in their original language. However, this bilingualism begins to decline as the original language gives way in the more prestigious spheres of use, the ones that suggest social or economic improvement. Unequal bilingualism develops, characterised by the gradual shift in the spheres in which language is used, until it is totally assimilated. Accounts of these situations reflect over and over again that speakers of minority languages constantly feel the pressure of the other language, first through the public spheres (school, media and government services), and then in the private sphere of family relations. The Yerava language, spoken in India, “is being replaced by more widespread languages like Kodagu and Kannada. The community were once slaves and most of them now work in forestry or in coffee plantations. It is under threat because it is not seen as suitable for work. It is a ‘language for the home, only used in this domain or field’”.
The Threats to Languages
239
(3) When identification with the new language becomes widespread in the younger generations and the original language is no longer necessary because it does not respond to the new needs and can even be a cause of stigmatisation, the third stage of the process is complete. This sequence of events tends to be accompanied by a feeling of shame over the use of their old language on the part both of parents and children. The informants frequently mentioned that a dangerous situation arises through the existence of bilingualism. In fact, the supposedly monolingual state model spread by the colonial countries, as well as the generalisation of the monolingual school as a quality educational model, have both struck deep. However, many communities are bilingual or plurilingual by cultural tradition, and if this feature is properly managed it can become a factor allowing the survival of languages without loss of communicating capacity on the part of the communities.
Physical aggression It has been possible to confirm that in addition to the existence of situations of extreme injustice affecting languages, these languages are also affected by the aggression to which the actual linguistic communities are subjected. The actual speakers of the communities have mentioned physical aggressions as factors threatening their language in 8% of cases. Physical causes are often responsible for the drastic disappearance of the speakers as a group. These are the most dramatic situations, on which all sorts of reflections can be made, as examples are available affecting just about every part of the world. They can be causes we could call natural, such as seismic movements, floods and prolonged drought. Examples of this are the collapse of Mount Barba-Bassari in Togo, which according to our informant wiped out a large part of the population of the Bassar community, the great famine in Ireland in 1848, and the prolonged drought in several African countries during the twentieth century. But as well as natural disasters, avoidable factors such as the destruction of the habitat by economically more powerful foreign communities or companies, and others, pose a serious threat. Understandably, the effects of these aggressions can hardly be classed as natural. We must remember that one of the most important causes of the drastic reduction in the indigenous population during the Spanish colonisation of America was death from epidemics of diseases which the colonisers introduced into regions where they were unknown. We are also familiar with external aggressions of this type in Africa, such as the smallpox epidemic of 1713, which affected the Nama community in South Africa. Today, the effects of illnesses that can be easily eradicated in the West, such as tuberculosis, or are at least relatively easy to control, such as AIDS, pose an unprecedented physical threat in several parts of Africa and Asia. The physical integrity of communities is also affected by the impoverishment, social disintegration and marginalisation arising when these groups are forcibly displaced due to economic causes such as migrations from the country to the city,
240
Words and Worlds
deforestation, new forms of slavery through the hiring of cheap labour, prostitution, etc., or from political causes such as deportations and border conflicts. Direct action and aggression against people have dramatically taken place in history and still take place today. Examples of important aggressions are those mentioned, for example, by Lastra (2000) in reference to the murder of natives in El Salvador in 1932, where the death of 25,000 natives meant the disappearance of all the speakers of Lenca and of Cacaopera and the almost complete extinction of Pipil. About this event, the informant on Cacaopera for our research adds that “as a result of this massacre, most cultural values, including the language, were cast into oblivion in order to safeguard the natives’ lives”. There are many accounts of aggressions, such as those carried out by the rubber tapping companies in the Amazon, on which the informant for Uitot tells us that “the Uitotos, as well as other ethnic groups of the Colombian Amazon region, suffered the atrocities perpetrated by logging companies at the beginning of the twentieth century. Many died, others fled from their original homeland. One large group of Uitotos was taken to Peru as forced labour”. In short, from the figures gathered we can estimate that a prime danger for the languages of communities today is based on physical aggression to people in at least 8% of the communities analysed.
LANGUAGES OF NEPAL There are over one hundred languages and dialects in Nepal. Ethnologue (Grimes, 2000) lists 125 languages including one Nepali sign language). The Population Census of Nepal 2001 reported 92 languages spoken in Nepal as mother tongues. In addition to these, some languages were lumped together as ‘unidentified’. These languages belong to four families such as Indo-European spoken by 79.1%, Sino-Tibetan spoken by 18.4%, Austro-Asiatic by 0.2%, Dravidian by 0.1% and unidentified 2.2%. The UNESCO Language Survey Report for Nepal has counted only 60 languages spoken in Nepal. Out of these 11 are Indo-Aryan, 46 are Tibeto-Burman, 1 Dravidian, 1 Austro-Asiatic and 1 Kusunda (Toba, et al., 2002). According to the census of 2001 sixteen languages have more than 100,000 speakers. These are Nepali, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Tharu, Bajjika, Hindi, Urdu, and Rabamshi of the Indo-Aryan group of Indo-European family and Tamang, Newari, Magar. Bantawa, Limbu, Gurung and Sherpa of the TibetoBurman family. In addition to these, there are other Indo-Aryan languages such as Danuwar, Darai, Bote, Majhi, Kumale and Angika, which are spoken by a small number of people in Nepal. Major languages of India like Hindi and Urdu are used by educated elites in Nepal Terai. In everyday inter-personal communication they use Nepali and other Indo-Aryan languages of their locality. Other major languages of India, such as Bengali, Marwadi, Punjabi, Oriya, Sindhi,
The Threats to Languages
241
Hariyanwi, Magahi and Assamese are spoken by a small number of people in Nepal. Some speakers of Sanskrit and English languages are also reported. A large number of languages spoken in Nepal belong to Tibeto-Burman group of the Sino-Tibetan family. The languages such as Humli Tamang, Khan, Karmarong, Mugali, Dolpo, Rengpungmo, Tichurong, Lopa, Nar-Phu, Kag, Gyasundo, Sum or Sung, Nubri, Namsrung or Larke, Prok, Sama, Kutang Bhote, Kyorung, Hyolmo, Jirel, Kagate, Lhomi, Naba, Walung, Halung, Kachad and Lamtang are closer to Tibetan and are spoken by different small groups in the Himalayan region (Bradley, 1997). Some of them are considered dialects of Tibetan. There are some emigrant speakers of Lhasa Tibetan who are also bilingual in Nepali. Various languages of the central hill region fall under the Tamang-Gurung-Thakali sub-group such as Thakali, Chantel, Managwa, Ghale, Kaike and Dura. Other Tibeto-Burman languages of the southern slopes of the Himalayas are divided into three sub-groups. (a) The West Himalayish languages such as Byangsi, Chaudangsi, Darmiya, Jangali or Rawat and Rankas are spoken in the western border area of Nepal. Thami, and Bhramu of this sub-group are spoken in the west and east of the Kathmandu valley respectively. (b) The Central Himalayish languages like Newar, Pahari, Chepang, Bhujel, Kham, Raute and Raji are spoken in the western and central hills of Nepal. (c) The Eastern Himalayish languages are also known as Kiranti languages. They are again classified into three sub-groups: Central Kiranti such as Bantawa, Puma, Chamling, Meohang, Sam, Kulung, Chukwa, Pohing, Nachhering, Dimali, Sangpang, Dungmali, Khesang, Waling; Eastern Kiranti such as Athapahare, Belhare, Chhiling, Chhulung, Chintang, Mugali, Pangduwali, Limbu, Yakkha; and Western Kiranti such as Yamphe, Yamphu, Umbule, Jerung, Thulung, Limkhim, Bahing, Sunwar, Surel, Khaling, Dumi, Koi, Hayu and Tillung. Dhimal and Meche languages, spoken in the eastern Terai and Lepcha in the eastern hills are also Tibeto-Burman languages. In addition to these, there are also small number of people speaking various major Tibeto-Burman Languages of different neighbouring countries. Santhali, Munda and Khadiya are the languages of Munda group of the Austro-Asiatic family and Dhangar/Jhangar and Kisan are the languages of Dravidian family spoken in the eastern Terai. Nepali, Maithili, Newari, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Hindi and Rajbamshi languages with their written traditions use the Devanagari script for writing and publications. Tibetan, Limbu and Lepcha also have their own scripts. Arabic script is used to write Urdu language. Various unwritten languages have adapted Devanagari script for writing and publication. Nepali is the official language used in administration, communication and education, and is spoken by 48.60% of the total population as their mother
242
Words and Worlds
tongue and by others as their second language. Linguistic studies of some of the languages have been undertaken and the major languages are also used in radio broadcasts and print media. Sanskrit and Tibetan occupy important positions as languages of the Hindu and Buddhist religions. Nepali Sign Language has been developed recently for the use of deaf people, and is reported for the first time in the national census of 2001 as well. Some of the languages spoken by a small number of people are already extinct and some other languages are on the verge of extinction. Many of them are not well described. A comparative study of Nepalese census figures for the last five decades (1954–2001) show a gradual decrease in the number of speakers and many of the languages have already disappeared. It has already been reported that some languages of Nepal are extinct or nearly extinct. Many of the languages spoken by less than 10,000 are threatened or endangered. They are some Indo-Aryan languages like Kumal and Bote, and many Tibeto-Burman languages like Khaling, Thakali, Chantel, Dumi, Jirel, Umbule, Yolmo, Nachiring, Dura, Meche, Pahari, Lapche, Bahing, Koyu, Raji, Hayu, Byangshi, Yamphu, Ghale, Chiling, Lohrung, Mewahang, Kaike, Raute, Baram, Tilung, Jerung, Dungmali, Linkhim, Koche, Sam, Kagate and Chintang. An unclassified language called Kusunda is also nearing extinction. There are several reasons for language endangerment and extinction. Speakers of various languages have been using Nepali as a contact language for more than five hundred years. The space and domain of the use of Nepali have been constantly extending. As a language of basic literacy, education, administration and everyday communication, people of various linguistic backgrounds have been using Nepali as their second language and many of them have shifted to Nepali. Similarly, many of the linguistic groups without written traditions of their own, have learnt to read and write the Nepali language. Opportunities for livelihood, better jobs and social integration have motivated a shift to Nepali. Urbanisation, migration or change of habitat was another reason of language loss. Speakers of various languages shifted to Nepali or other major languages after they migrated to new places with a new linguistic and cultural environment. The school children use the Nepali language as a medium of education and socialisation in early childhood and children in some linguistic communities are not carrying the mother tongues of their parents. Lack of awareness for language maintenance in some linguistic communities is another cause of language loss. Thus there are several factors for language endangerment and death. Language shift, growth of education in Nepali and English mediums, extension of literacy in Nepali, wider contacts and constant use of Nepali and other major languages in communication media, assimilation of small groups in dominant
The Threats to Languages
243
linguistic groups, migration and change of habitat, urbanisation, natural calamities and diseases have caused several languages to be put on the verge of extinction and into an endangered situation. References Bradley, David (1997) “Tibeto-Burman Languages and Classification”, Pacific Linguistics, pp. 1–72. Grimes, Barbara (2000) Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas, Texas: SIL. Toba, S. et al. (2002) UNESCO Language Survey Report: Nepal. Kathmandu: UNESCO. Yadava, Yogendra (2003) “Language”, in Population Monograph of Nepal, Chapter 4, Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics. Chura Mani Bandhu Tribhuvan University, Nepal
In view of all this, it is surprising to find that an enormous number of languages are still spoken in spite of centuries and even millennia of aggressive contact with other languages. One might remember the conscious tenacity of communities like the indigenous North Americans, relegated to isolated reserves in the midst of the most powerful community in the world; the natives of the Amazon, faced by physical and cultural aggression on an inhuman scale; the Australian Aborigines, relegated to the rank of second-class citizens; or communities that hold out against linguistic change in contact with expanding languages like English, French or Spanish, such as the Celtic languages (Breton, Welsh, Scots and Irish Gaelic, Cornish), spoken in regions under Anglophone or Francophone domination. The tenacity and persistence of these communities in the face of outside aggression is admirable. Nevertheless, as Crystal (2000) says, the present situation of danger is one without precedent: “The world has never been so populated, globalisation processes have never been so omnipresent and never before has English had so much influence”, so that the need to take corrective measures on a large scale seems obvious.
WHAT DO YOU LOSE WHEN YOU LOSE YOUR LANGUAGE? The public at large greatly underestimates the “value” of the little languages scattered here, there and everywhere around the globe. How could their extinction make much difference to their own speakers, the public asks, much less to humanity as a whole? Those languages are so tiny and so ineffective in
244
Words and Worlds
accessing the major material rewards of the modern world, that what possible difference could it make to anyone whether they live or die? On the other hand, some language-oriented scholars and activists commit the opposite error and try to substitute language determinism for language dismissal. The loss of even the tiniest language is considered a world-shattering cataclysm, not only for its erstwhile speech-community but for humanity at large, which will remain (they claim) forever devastated as a result of that loss. However, exaggeration is not necessary to make the point: linguicide, like genocide is a major human tragedy. It is an evil that diminishes us all and that civilised and ethically sensitised peoples must struggle to overcome, whether it occurs in their vicinity or half way around the world. The indexical relationship between a language and its culture In order to answer the question posed in the title to these remarks, we must first consider how a language is related to culture. It is the business of cultures to be “different”. This self-declared “difference” is experienced by the members of a culture as uniqueness and as authenticity. Each language is indexically related (“calibrated”, if you like) to the specifically characteristic objects, values, concerns, kinship relations, interpersonal roles (rights and obligations) and environmental features (natural resources, flora and fauna) that its speakers recognise and that make up their traditionally associated cultural distinctiveness. The seamless fit between a language and its associated daily culture, its unique and authentic world, is one of the characteristics of life that get lost when a culture loses its language. Its erstwhile speakers become a human aggregate that is no longer quite sure exactly what terms to use. An entire population thrust into a second language is an insecure population for an entire generation or more. The “goodness of fit” that previously existed between thought, language and culture is gone and remains absent until the replacement language and the modified culture have themselves co-existed and coperformed long enough and intimately enough in the bereft population to fit together effortlessly and intergenerationally on their own. So what do you lose when you (the collective “you”) lose your language? You lose the ease of navigational certainty in daily life, both personally and collectively. Many customary and needed terms, phrases and speech events are no longer operational and many of those that remain feel somewhat strange and inappropriate in their new settings and with a new language-context in which to be implemented. New words and phrases ultimately replace the old ones, but in doing so, the old speech events are no longer what they are. They are only approximations of their former selves, their exact meanings and even consensual understandings are uncertain and unshared. When “things fall apart”, twilight zones replace previous fine-grained certainties until new
The Threats to Languages
245
shared congruencies arise. Even then, the original home is never rebuilt or reoccupied. In a very fundamental sense, one never again returns to the original home, with all of its historically meaningful, culturally familiar and societally distinctive contexts. Language and culture are symbolically related Language is the major symbol system of the human species. As such, it is only natural that a given language should symbolise the particular speech community with which it has long been intimately associated. We recognise in it that the community’s very own intelligence, its humour, its propensity for musicality, its exactness and methodicalness, its originality, sobriety and honesty, its distinctiveness and its self-recognition. In our own language we see reflected our history, our major literary creations, our heroes and martyrs, our generations upon generation of mothers and fathers and assorted kinfolk (real or putative), the voices of the past and the promises of the future. Our minds are culturally fashioned so as to discern attributes in our language of everything that it is theirs. And when we lose our language we lose an entire world of seemingly automatic and immediate symbolic associations with the history and attainments of our own slice of humanity; in other words our own self-concept becomes altered thereby. The turns of phrase that were part and parcel of the patrimony inherited from gifted kinfolk, historical events, triumphs of the mind, or ascents to God per se, exist no more, and it will take untold time for a successor language to develop new ones that are as rich in symbolic value for anywhere near as many members of the speech community. The shared symbols associated with a language are the shared sinews of community and of group identity. That is part of what you lose when you lose your language. To a very large extent the language is the culture We make a huge mistake when we assume that language and culture are as separate as the two words are. Most of culture is so thoroughly interpenetrated by its traditionally associated language that the culture without that language would not be, could not be, “the same”. The body of law, the prayers and ceremonies, the songs, the proverbs, the folktales, the education, the greetings, the blessings, the curses, the jokes, the literature…all of these are in and through a given language (and only in that language) for a given culture. Of course all of these language-dependent desiderata can be translated, after a fashion, but a translated culture is not the same at all as the original. It is like “kissing one’s beloved through a veil”: it does not have the same feel, the same aroma, the same reality. No culture has ever been fully or successfully translated, because languages are not simply interchangeble parts. The
246
Words and Worlds
continuity of group identity labels is a facade that masks huge underlying differences in every aspect of daily life when the language traditionally associated with that label is lost and replaced by another language. Life goes on, but its ethos changes. Its access to its own roots is blocked. Its claim to natural authenticity is forfeited for generations to come, while overcoming a generation gap preoccupies an entire collectivity. A new pattern of communicational ease, continuity in identity and cultural authenticity will ultimately arise, but things will never again be as they were before the rupture occurred or before “things fell apart”. That is what is lost when a culture loses its language – it loses a great part of itself. Conclusions Throughout human history thousands of languages have been lost. Most of these languages hace died unmourned because they (their speakers and their cultures) were exterminated and there was no one left to mourn them. Many died because they were so grievously dislocated by competitors, conquerors, missionaries and tourists. But “survival of the fittest” is, after all, a law of the jungle. Many small languages cannot remain in good health if left to their own devices in today’s globalisation process. Yet their cultures have other and far more humane virtues that do Wallmart or Coca Cola. Therefore, we must make the world safe for the small languages too, by helping them and treasuring them, for our own sake (if not for theirs). A world that is safe only for a few giant languages is not even a “zero-sum game” with some winners and some losers. It is a “lose-game” (a game in which all players lose), because a culturally denuded human environment is also an environment in which all other life forms become imperiled. That is why we all lose when “other people’s languages” are lost. We must call a halt to linguicide, anywhere in the world, because it is really a form of suicide for us all. Some of the actual and some of the potential beauty in our own lives is what we lose when a language is lost anywhere in the world. Knowing that, it is doubly cruel and senseless for us to permit such losses to go on. They need and deserve our sympathy, our understanding and our help. Joshua A. Fishman Yeshiva University and Stanford University, USA
The Threats to Languages
247
The threats to languages: recommendations Due to the many factors threatening the universal linguistic heritage, with a direct effect on the decline and death of many languages and cultures,
• It is recommended that an international programme be prepared that is dynamic and open to all linguistic communities and to the world civil society, with the collaboration of specialised Non Governmental Organisations. The chief purpose of this programme, independently of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religious creed, would be to research, monitor and denounce situations posing a threat to languages. It could make specific regular reviews to alert world public opinion and act as proxy before officials of the public and private institutions involved. Furthermore, it could initiate specific actions to further the international prestige, use and knowledge of minority or endangered languages. • Any kind of pressure on differentiated linguistic communities to abandon their language or culture in favour of the exclusive use of the official language(s) must be avoided. In this respect, the authorities should facilitate the use of the languages spoken in their territory in every sphere of social activity pertaining to them – that is, in relations with the administration, in teaching, in the media and in political life. • It is important to plan for the use of all languages in their area in the social spheres relevant to their administration, with the object of preserving them and developing them, so long, of course, as the wishes and the decisions of the linguistic communities involved are respected. • Suitable measures must be urgently taken to prevent large-scale population movements that threaten the future of the language of the emigrants as well as that of the locals in the target area. In those cases where these population movements are unavoidable or have already taken place, measures must be taken to preserve the languages and avoid their substitution. • States with internationally established languages that plan to spread understanding of them should be urged to respect the languages of those to whom they intend to teach a new one. The large institutions that promote international development of English, French, Spanish or any other language should also finance the development of endangered languages and facilitate world-wide study of all the languages spoken in their states, not just the official language. • In addition, it is essential to act immediately to try and preserve languages that have very few speakers, always, of course, in coordination with the local authorities and the affected linguistic communities. An effort should be made to gather all the documentation necessary and provide every possible
248
Words and Worlds
means, always, of course, respecting the decisions of individuals, so that the language is passed on by the last speakers to the younger generation in the community or the area. In these situations it would also be necessary to pool all the efforts being made in different parts of the planet and get the affected communities, scientists, universities and institutions involved in the issue to plan the recovery of these languages, backed by the financial and human resources needed to carry this out. • Furthermore, any discrimination of linguistic communities on political, social, economic, cultural, religious or any other grounds must be prevented. Special attention must be paid to the rejection of discrimination on the basis that the language has not reached the right level of development, modernisation or codification, and, • The proclamation and publication by all the governments of the world of a charter recognising linguistic rights, recognising that these form part of human rights and defending their protection all over the planet. This should be an international convention with financial and juridical resources to guarantee its effective implementation.
Chapter 12
The Future of Languages This chapter synthesises the main findings of the previous chapters and includes some thoughts concerning the future of the languages
1. Main findings and recommendations 1.1. Introduction The original idea behind this Review was to get a better understanding of the situation of the languages of the world and to try to provide guidelines for action for the preservation of linguistic diversity. In this final section we shall be going back over the alternatives proposed as regards the fundamental spheres for action in favour of language use, such as education, writing and the media. At the same time, it includes certain reflections on public administration, non-governmental organisations and linguists, agents considered to be the most influential in the process of preserving linguistic diversity. Prior to that, we recapitulate certain general principles that should be considered before any language planning intervention. Broadly speaking, the global trend towards linguistic uniformity is confirmed and affects languages with very few speakers as well as the languages of larger groups. However, one notices an incipient reaction on the part of communities, especially in South America but also in other parts of the world. This takes multiple forms, from the attempt to recover and revitalise languages, to resistance to all sorts of pressure in the case of communities whose language is still transmitted. For this reason, this Review cannot detach itself from the genuine threat of death that languages face or ignore the efforts of communities to resist this threat. The information received shows many examples of creativity in this struggle and its diffusion could be of great help to many communities, both by drawing attention to them and by publicising models that could be applied in other societies. Even if universals cannot be drawn from the dynamics of languages, common phenomena can be detected in the most diverse situations, such as the function of belonging and identity that language fulfils in most communities. And nevertheless, as a general principle, it is essential to understand the dynamics of languages as a global and multi-factorial phenomenon, so that actions aimed at revitalising them are not limited to single areas, such as for example education, or exclusively to isolated
249
250
Words and Worlds
communities. On the contrary, from the general principle we deduce that preservation of linguistic diversity is a job for everybody, and not something affecting only those communities whose language is endangered. Another observation of a general nature is that regardless of the specific circumstances of each community, a negative linguistic attitude is a decisive factor in language shift. For this reason, before taking specific steps towards recovery or revitalisation, we need to provide the information necessary to allow a change of attitude, which must not, of course, be limited to language. In some cases, for example, we see that a value which is in principle positive, like the link established through language with one’s ancestors and one’s cultural values, acts as a double-edged sword when these values are felt to be a limitation of people’s aims. In this sense, the association of certain languages with modernity, civilisation or progress can have devastating effects in communities subjected to socio-economic changes of all sorts, such as tourism, migration or industrialisation. Actions in favour of a language generally have positive effects on its development, but in many cases these actions are not enough or do not have the desired effects. This can be attributed in part to the restricted spheres in which intervention is taken, but especially to the effect of alienation as a result of certain actions that look on language as an additional community feature rather than as something intrinsic to them. For example, in some communities it has been detected that the fact that a language is protected leads members of the community to neglect their responsibilities. It has also been detected that many communities see intervention in favour of a language as an instrument aimed at obtaining certain ends. Perhaps the most obvious example is that of the literacy campaigns carried out as a transition phase to acquisition of the official language. The information obtained shows that the diversity of aims of the different planning agents often contributes to this ‘objectification’ of the language and therefore, as a general recommendation, it is important to stress the need to establish clear objectives, which must be those of the communities involved, who are, after all, the bearers of the language. Furthermore, planning must not look on language as an isolated object, but in relation to the history, the culture and, in short, the life of communities and their members. One of the basic objectives of language planning must be to further cooperation and reciprocity, and to achieve this it is also necessary for those who no longer speak the language and for members of other communities to take part, together with the linguistic community itself. Language is a leading instrument of integration and identification in communities of all sorts, to the extent that in many cases this is the chief motivation for acquiring a language. The fact that the preservation of a language is not something affecting only the communities involved suggests that it would be a good idea to work in this direction to ensure equal distribution of responsibilities and full participation in the preservation of linguistic diversity, which is a job for everyone. This is not incompatible with the fact that all the decisions or efforts that go towards the recovery and revitalising of a language should come from the
The Future of Languages
251
communities involved, or should at least have their approval, since they are the chief agents of this work. In addition to the general aspects, there is another question that should be emphasised. The information analysed shows, openly or implicitly, a series of recurrent dichotomies, such as language/dialect, monolingual school/bilingual school, oral language/written language, rural/urban, traditional/modern, official/not official, minority/majority. These dichotomies, which in many cases add to the alienation of the speakers and contribute to the perpetuation of conflicts insofar as they are often merely the reflection of the us/others confrontation, interrupt the continuous nature that languages and communities tend to have and oversimplify situations which can only be resolved if we take into account their complexity. For example, in some cases, rejection of the written form of a language or of its use in the media responds more to a fear of acculturation than of its actual use, while the often mentioned rejection by parents of the use of the local language in teaching responds to fear of marginalisation rather than to rejection of the language itself. Throughout the Review, in the relevant chapters, alternatives to these dichotomies have been suggested in the different spheres of intervention. As regards global treatment of linguistic diversity, some fundamental general principles are listed here. The trend to linguistic uniformity affects humanity as a whole and not just the individuals and communities whose languages are disappearing. The preservation of linguistic diversity is everyone’s responsibility. The preservation of linguistic diversity calls for respect for all languages and their speakers. The recovery and revitalisation of endangered languages is a process that takes in all aspects of the life of a community, including its relations with other communities, be these neighbouring or otherwise. The recovery and revitalisation of endangered languages involves doing away with the hierarchisation of languages, especially in those spheres that are vital for communities. The establishment of clear objectives and coordinated action are basic in any process of recovery and revitalisation of endangered languages. The recovery and revitalisation of languages cannot depend solely on actions in isolated spheres, such as education, for example.
252
Words and Worlds
1.2. Education Education is a fundamental sphere of action for the recovery and revitalisation of languages, and something those communities concerned with recovering their languages insist on. Schools, as well as being an instrument for spreading knowledge and values, are the ideal medium for correcting negative linguistic attitudes and giving the language its rightful value. As is mentioned in many of the cases analysed, the presence and use of a language in schools is a factor of prestige, and its absence consequently contributes to interrupting its intergenerational transmission. The community must play a part in preparing the curriculum and in deciding the knowledge and values to be transmitted, especially because the use in teaching of languages in decline must not take place in isolation if these are to be recovered. The first urgent measure is that no school should prohibit the spontaneous use of the students’ mother tongue. Even so, action in this area is neither exclusive nor sufficient, and it is therefore essential that teaching activities should be coordinated with other aspects of the life of the community. The necessary connection with other areas must take place in the transmission of the community’s cultural heritage. Furthermore, this connection must take place at different levels. For one thing, when the use of the language is limited to primary education, its absence at higher levels, as well as being a disadvantage to pupils who have studied in their own language, strengthens the notion that the language is not suitable for high functions. For another, use of a language in the school curriculum should be extended to all subjects, so that the study of history, mathematics, literature or any other subject can be linked to the language and the community. The community must play a part in ensuring that the teaching syllabus is adapted to each context. In addition to including the language in a suitable school syllabus, it is a good thing if materials are created that allow acquisition as a second language of those languages forming part of the community’s historical heritage, whether through bonds of neighbourhood or because they form part of the same state. Obviously, the preparation of these materials should also take into account as users those members of the community to whom the language has not been transmitted and who wish to recover it. One essential aspect of education is teacher training. In several cases, teachers’ linguistic prejudices were mentioned. These prejudices are passed on to pupils. Teacher training must therefore include, in addition to knowledge of the language, a positive attitude towards it. In some places, the development of bilingual teaching programmes has created a dichotomy between bilingual schools and monolingual schools which is seen as a divisive factor in the community and in some cases is seen as a project aimed only at the indigenous communities, thus strengthening the idea that monolingualism is a privilege or something natural, while bilingualism requires special treatment. However, nothing could be clearer than the obsolescence of monolingual schools and the need to encourage bilingual and multilingual educational models that can cater for the demands of training in different linguistic and cultural contexts. There
The Future of Languages
253
is an urgent need to develop imaginative approaches aimed specifically at multilingual education for very small communities, for those that are traditionally bilingual or multilingual, or for areas of recent immigration, as well as for monolingual groups, whether or not their language is dominant, who also need to benefit from the communicative, cognitive and democratic advantages that come from a multilingual education. Finally, returning to the initial subject, although schools are the main setting for the teaching and spread of languages, action in this field is not enough. The work of schools needs to be related to other spheres and activities to allow the use of the language in the wider world. The educational system must guarantee the use of languages as a basic right of individuals and communities. The educational system must dignify and give prestige to languages, through their use as well as by furthering positive attitudes towards all of them. The educational system must give special support to those languages which until now have been marginalised by it. The educational system must always act in accordance with the linguistic communities, respecting their wishes, opinions and feelings. The educational system must help those communities with few resources in the training and preparation of both the workforce and the material. The educational system must train people in bilingualism or multilingualism, both in the case of communities with minority languages and in the case of speakers of widespread languages. The chief priority of the educational system in the new millennium must be approached in terms of language skills. The monolingual school model is a threat to linguistic diversity.
1.3. Writing Writing has a great symbolic value which plays a large part in the prestige of the language. One widespread linguistic prejudice is the tendency to only see as languages those that have developed a written form. This prejudice undoubtedly has great influence on the linguistic attitudes of speakers and of members of other communities, whether neighbouring or not. In general, writing is seen as an achievement by the majority of informants when talking of languages whose writing has been developed recently, and as a desire or a
254
Words and Worlds
need in those cases where it does not yet exist. Whatever the case, as we have already seen in reference to other aspects, communities must play an important role in decision-making, and in this case the need for a language to have a written form should come from them. In those cases in which a written system must be created, it is essential to bear in mind the systems of surrounding languages, the cultural tradition and the genetic classification of the language in question. In this respect, systems of writing created for languages in the same linguistic group can provide solutions and reflect the common origin of these languages. The cases of different systems of writing within a single language – alphabetic, orthographic, etc. – tend to favour division and fragmentation of languages and can be fatal in the case of languages with few speakers. Therefore, any plans for creating a system of writing must foresee these risks and consider the creation of written material in the language, material which can be taken from the oral tradition and that allows the creation of a written literary tradition. The creation of a written system, therefore, as pointed out in other sections, must not be an isolated undertaking but one coordinated with other activities. One way of avoiding the written/oral dichotomy, which attaches a higher value to writing, consists in valuing literary, ritual or religious oral literary traditions, as many informants have shown. Furthermore, nowadays, new audiovisual and computer technologies, the media and more innovative educational models make it possible to incorporate oral usages into spheres of prestige which until very recently were restricted to written forms. The written use of languages in general confers prestige on them and increases their chances of transmission and revitalisation. Written use is only suitable if it is seen by the community as enriching and not as a threat or frustration. Written use must integrate a linguistic community’s written and oral tradition and its cultural heritage. The authorities should support the written use of all languages, especially minority languages or seriously endangered languages. The authorities should provide communities with the right technical means and economic resources to facilitate and allow the written use of the language. The scientific community should work in coordination with the linguistic communities concerning questions regarding the creation of a written form or of standardisation, when these communities require their assistance.
The Future of Languages
255
1.4. The media The role of the media in the preservation of linguistic diversity takes in at least two fundamental aspects: the presence and use of languages and the values the media themselves transmit. Of all the media, radio is the most widespread and the most multilingual, mainly due to its greater technical accessibility and diffusion and because it does not require written language. Communities that have problems getting access to other media have shown that they can get access to radio broadcasting, so that the language has managed to extend beyond the strictly family sphere. In this respect, as an urgent measure, encouragement should be given to radio broadcasts managed by the communities themselves with the object of increasing the scope of use of endangered languages along with their prestige. Television raises an aspect the Review does not want to overlook. The fact that large broadcasting companies have a monopoly in this medium has the effect of mediating the information, so that minority communities can rarely take part in the image that is transmitted of them. At the same time, the chiefly metropolitan image of these broadcasts is having an alarming influence on communities with no direct access to this medium, and is accelerating the process of acculturation of the societies that are left out of them. In this respect, it is essential to alert the chief media so that an attempt is made to avoid hierarchisation of cultures, for one, and for another, in those cases in which communities with minority languages have access to this medium, to explicitly support them in spite of the impossibility of competing with the large broadcasting companies. In the case of the press, there is often a feeling in communities of ‘having missed the boat’. In other words, the tradition of the press in widespread languages prevents access on an equal footing to less favoured languages. However, in addition to the actual benefits that normalised diffusion in one’s language could bring, the spread of a local-language press could be an effective method for providing reading material, which is essential if literacy campaigns are to have any continuation. At the same time, just as the need for multilingual education has been emphasised, the creation of multilingual newspapers should be furthered, especially in settings where the simultaneous presence of different languages could have an effect on the social acceptance of each one of them. Similarly, the Internet raises the need for the written use of languages. Its increasing use aggravates the problem of the enormous differences in the use of languages and could be an added factor in the death of languages. However, it also means that communities can be at once agents and protagonists of the information they want to diffuse, with relatively accessible economic means. The feeling of having ‘missed the boat’, as mentioned above with reference to the press, could therefore be avoided in the case of the Internet if facilities were provided for access to this technology. As well as the essential democratisation of the media, it is important to point out that one of the most urgent measures to be taken is the training of journalists to the
256
Words and Worlds
extent that the values they transmit cannot be countered in other spheres. The profusion of linguistic and cultural prejudices, along with ignorance of linguistic diversity and of the value of all languages, suggests that the training of journalists should include an understanding of this aspect of the life of communities and the necessary information for overcoming the linguistic prejudices that perpetuate negative linguistic attitudes. Until all peoples are able to explain their own history, we should at least ensure that the intermediaries are, if not objective, at least evenhanded and reliable. Each linguistic community should have at least one regular radio broadcasting station. In the case of very small communities, it should at least be possible for their language to be present in the existing media. It is also very important to develop the printed press, and the authorities should ensure at least one regular printed medium. Support should be given to those media arising in the communities themselves and allowing their members information and entertainment with a viewpoint of their own. The use of languages in the new communication and information technologies, and especially on the Internet, should be furthered. The chief media should be open to the use of new languages and to combining the simultaneous use of different languages. The chief media should respect, promote and confer prestige on linguistic diversity. The chief media should fight against the linguistic prejudices that ridicule the use and promotion of less widespread languages and lead humanity towards linguistic globalisation. The chief media should give positive coverage to news about the revitalisation of languages.
1.5. Migrations and socioeconomic changes The link between language and territory, which seems beyond doubt for the majority of the world’s languages, is a recurrent topic in the Review. Profound reflection is called for, especially as regards proposing models for a changing society in which almost half the languages are not being passed on normally from one generation to the next, where substitution processes are generally associated with social and economic changes related to urbanisation and so-called modernisation, and where migration is widespread.
The Future of Languages
257
Indeed, sudden changes in communities’ economic systems can have devastating effects on the dynamics of the languages of small communities. By way of example, unless it is managed in a way that is more in keeping with the specific characteristics of the territory, tourism is emerging as one of the greatest threats for the survival of many languages. While it is true that economic and social development can allow the development of linguistic policies, these need to be respectful of diversity. It is essential to avoid the association of minority languages with underdevelopment, poverty and marginalisation. When communities have a positive attitude towards their own languages, they can change their lifestyle without having to abandon their language. Amongst the different types of migration, the move to urban areas is particularly important, with large concentrations of population giving rise to numerous processes of language shift. As we have said, the dichotomy established between ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ encourages numerous linguistic prejudices which feed substitution processes. Furthermore, it is obvious that these processes often result in marginalisation and ghettoisation of the displaced population. Social agents intervening in these processes should take into account the integrating factor of language in designing strategies for the integration of displaced people and help both access to the language of the destination community and preservation of the language of origin. The public presence of the language of origin of the displaced, even if only symbolically, can further the perception of the society as multilingual and multicultural and subsequently as welcoming to immigrants. We need to remember that migratory movements resulting from wars and political conflicts can also have a negative effect on the life of languages, especially in the case of small linguistic communities. The attraction exerted by peoples who have managed to integrate different linguistic communities in peaceful coexistence benefiting from technological progress and democratic organisation should be taken as a model of socioeconomic development for the preservation of linguistic and cultural development. The value of one’s own language and culture in terms of the individual’s identity and self-esteem must be emphasised. The ability of individuals to harmoniously integrate knowledge and use of several languages must be emphasised. All the territory’s languages must be given prestige through their use and through campaigns. The use of various languages must be made possible in large cities where people of different origins converge. In communities that live in tourist areas, preservation of the native culture and language needs to be especially encouraged.
258
Words and Worlds
1.6. Linguists Linguists are members of the scientific community directly involved in the understanding, preservation and furtherance of linguistic diversity. Although in general it appears that the work of linguists tends to be appreciated by the community and that knowledge of the language favours integration, in some of the cases analysed a certain reticence was detected as regards these professionals’ activity, especially when their work was seen as an instrument of professional or academic promotion rather than as a contribution to society. As a general principle, it is obvious that the linguist must be aware of the aims of the community and offer his/her services for that end, and avoid using it as a means to his/her own professional objectives. The Review reveals the gap which tends to occur between linguists’ knowledge and knowledge of the language. In many cases, the description of a language is directed at the validation of theoretical aspects, rather than, for example, at making written use or standardisation of the language possible. Even when the two aspects are not incompatible, in many cases linguists overlook the practical aspects of their work or its applications in society, and this attitude can give rise to conflicts. For example, there are languages that have been studied from various theoretical viewpoints, but which nevertheless have no language-teaching method that can be used in schools. Awareness of the difference between linguistics, language knowledge and language teaching is therefore important if linguists are to offer a useful service to the linguistic community and not just to the scientific community. The work of linguists cannot take place in isolation, either, and must, of course, take into account the surrounding culture. In societies without writing, linguists must realise that language is not just a formal or functional system, but that, among other aspects of its culture, it contains the keys to an understanding of the history of peoples, their cosmovision and their relations with the surrounding communities. Research in these aspects, along with the recovery of name systems (toponyms, anthroponyms, etc.) must form part of their work, so that the recovery of the language involves recovering the history and the culture of peoples. At the same time, we must not forget the responsibility of linguists as regards the educational side of their work. By publishing their knowledge, they can do a lot to help reappraise languages, eradicate prejudices and involve professionals and institutions who could operate in the field of revitalisation. It is therefore essential to extend the presence of subjects relating to language loss and recovery, systematisation and exchange in academic centres, institutions, professorships and institutes concerned with languages and linguistic communities.
1.7. Participation by non governmental institutions The Review reveals that different organisations of varying types and objectives are acting on language communities and their dynamics, with different effects on their linguistic normalisation processes. Amongst these organisations can be found, for
The Future of Languages
259
example, non governmental organisations, religious organisations and research teams. While in some cases these institutions can be seen to act as perpetuators of linguistic colonialism, in others, they have excelled as revitalising forces for languages and cultures. The general observation is that when the stage is left to the communities, their activities tend to be of great benefit to the recovery of languages and they fulfil a double role of incentive and support for the communities’ projects. The enormous potential of these bodies, however, means that their action can be counterproductive in those cases in which this action is subordinated to other aims, such as teaching language as an instrument of conversion to a given faith, or literacy as a stepping-stone to the dominant language. Sometimes these objectives are not explicit. Whatever the case, when the objectives have not been drawn up by the communities and are therefore foreign to them, they have devastating effects on them. In addition, the lack of coordination between different bodies within the same community can lead to contradictory actions and, in the worst cases, open a divide between members of the community, between educational options, media uses, types of writing, relations with other communities, etc. This divide can have the same effect as migration or deportation in the case of communities with few speakers who require a certain degree of cohesion. This type of action affects all sorts of communities. For example, in so-called modern societies in Europe, discrimination against minority languages and their speakers is also common. This discrimination ranges from the exclusive use of official or dominant languages in religious services, administration and NGO campaigns or in language teaching to immigrants, to the reproduction of models from the dominant culture in preparing projects for language planning, promotion or recovery. Non governmental institutions involved in the recovery and revitalisation of languages must make their objectives clear. The objectives of unofficial bodies involved in the recovery and revitalisation of languages must be shared by the communities. The different bodies intervening in the life of communities must coordinate their activities. Unofficial bodies involved in the recovery and revitalisation of languages must subordinate their activities to the life of the community, acting as both incentive and support for the community’s projects. It is necessary for international NGOs to promote large-scale action to promote languages and linguistic diversity.
260
Words and Worlds
1.8. The responsibility of the authorities On the basis of the unquestionable fact that monolingual states are the exception, it is essential that their multilingual nature be acknowledged. Insofar as all individuals and all communities should be given equal treatment, it is the duty of the authorities to ensure respect and protection for all spoken languages, at least in their own territory. Acknowledgement of the multilingual nature of the state implies that the authorities must ensure that all citizens take part on an equal footing, and this is not possible if the state itself places languages in a hierarchy. At the same time, the interstate reality of many languages must be acknowledged, thereby facilitating coordination between organisations involved in the recovery and normalisation of languages whose speakers are located in different states, so that their actions and projects embrace the entire territory of a language. Since many normalisation processes show that normalisation is only possible with the collaboration of a motivated community, state bodies should cooperate and collaborate in the recovery activities that arise in the communities themselves, without forgetting that simply declaring a language official or even directing a project at preservation over the heads of the community is not enough for the recovery of the language. Public institutions can cooperate in a wide range of areas, from the recovery of place names to drawing up syllabuses that include acquisition of the territory’s other languages as second languages, amongst many other things. But their basic role must be to ensure respect for the linguistic rights of all speakers and the recognition of all the languages in the territory, so that no normalisation process is forced to take place ‘in spite of the authorities’. Obviously, ensuring respect for everyone’s linguistic rights implies equal treatment for all communities, since unequal treatment, as well as being an injustice, could lead to confrontation between these communities. However, ‘equal treatment’ must not be confused with ‘the same solutions for different situations’. In this respect, the members of the majority communities must take responsibility for designing strategies for the preservation of linguistic diversity. In the same way that environmental conservation is an issue affecting the entire population, the preservation of linguistic diversity is only possible with the collaboration of all involved, and for this it is essential to create the necessary mechanisms that allow reciprocity and cooperation. Inevitably, the first steps in this direction call for general motivation, for which it is essential to provide the information and training that will allow a change in linguistic attitudes. In this sphere, the role of the authorities can be fundamental, providing the mechanisms to avoid the hierarchisation of languages, encouraging shared activities aimed at preserving linguistic diversity and ensuring equal treatment for all communities in keeping with their role in this shared undertaking.
The Future of Languages
261
The authorities must commit themselves to the preservation of linguistic diversity. Multilingual states must acknowledge their nature as such and act accordingly. It is the duty of the authorities to ensure equal treatment for all the linguistic communities residing in their territory. The authorities must encourage trans-state linguistic policies, especially in those cases in which linguistic communities occupy trans-border territories. The authorities must cooperate in normalisation processes, but not impose them. The authorities must facilitate and promote participation by all citizens in the preservation of linguistic diversity.
2. The way forward 2.1. Celebrating cultural diversity We are beginning the twenty-first century with a new and positive perception of cultural diversity. Some authors have warned of the danger of conflictive cultural relations and have announced wars between the main cultural traditions; but many other voices are proclaiming the rise of peaceful coexistence between cultures. For the first time, on a global scale, we are in a position to accept the plurality of cultures without subjecting it to colonialist criteria. In the coming decades, understanding between cultures could grow and practices of mutual respect could spread, leading to a celebration of cultural diversity. If this future scenario is confirmed, linguistic diversity, an important manifestation of cultural diversity, could be reinforced. The rapid disappearance of languages, which at present affects several dozen languages every year, could be reduced. Languages in danger of extinction are those belonging to cultures in extremely delicate situations. Language and culture are inseparable. Celebrating linguistic diversity involves celebrating cultural diversity. A global future is conceivable in which all cultural and linguistic communities can live in freedom. In the past, communities have all too often been subordinated to political and economic interests that failed to take into account their aspirations. In the coming decades, all human communities must be acknowledged as the subject of their respective histories and integrated into political structures that endow them with advanced criteria of democratic participation. We need progressive political structures that make room for all languages and cultures on sub-state, state, regional and global levels. Constant advances in the democratic spirit mean we can realistically imagine humanity evolving towards the elimination of cultural and linguistic discrimination. Measures can be taken today to ensure that, of the different possible futures, the one that triumphs will be one that guarantees and celebrates linguistic diversity.
262
Words and Worlds
2.2. Linguistic models for a global world In the past, linguistic diversity was preserved by the isolation of linguistic communities and therefore the low rate of linguistic contact. With a view to the future, it no longer makes sense to choose isolation and contacts between speakers of different languages will multiply in both the individual and the collective sphere. In this new setting, what could happen is that the more vulnerable or even medium-sized linguistic communities will begin to die out because they will be displaced by other languages with greater demographic, political, economic or technological strength. But it could also come about that new models for relations between all languages will be established that do not lead to the death of the most fragile. Ecological models indicate that a form of linguistic coexistence is conceivable in which the languages in contact have different functions and which does not necessarily cause processes of substitution. The real challenge consists in planning the relative functions of all languages – large, medium and small – in the global world. Small and medium-sized linguistic communities must plan their future making simultaneous use of more widespread languages on the basis of their utility in communication and in economic, social and cultural development. This multilingualism must be made perfectly compatible with the use of the community’s own language, the language which often determines personality or cultural identity, the myths and values that guide people’s lives. The stronger linguistic communities must realise that their demographic, political, economic or technological strength does not make their language superior and that they must therefore open up to other languages, especially those of their neighbours, and enrich themselves with other epistemologies and other values. The main regional and universal languages must be redefined to be actively sympathetic to medium and small languages. A more peaceful and more humane future can be built if mutual relations of sympathy are established between linguistic communities and between their speakers. Interlinguistic sympathy is one of the desirable futures for languages.
2.3. Generalisation of multilingual education There is growing agreement about the importance of multilingual education. In some continents with a rich linguistic diversity this is a tradition going back a long way. From birth, boys and girls hear the different languages in their family and social surroundings and quickly learn the linguistic codes as well as their communicative function. The task facing us in the twenty-first century is to make multilingual education universal. Some linguistic communities that consider themselves superior because their language is associated with instances of political and cultural domination or breakthroughs in philosophical abstraction, science and technology, have not given multilingual education any consideration. In many cases, political powers have repressed minority languages in the conviction that they were encouraging access to a superior language. Today it is acknowledged that, even for speakers of the strongest languages, learning other languages is a
The Future of Languages
263
priority cultural objective. In the coming decades, as well as eliminating illiteracy, we must eliminate monolingual education. It would be desirable for plurilingual education to mean more than just an improved knowledge of the more widespread languages or of those most often used in the media. It is not enough, therefore, for bilingual syllabuses merely to introduce the teaching of a minority language alongside a major language or to provide speakers of one major language with the knowledge of another major language. In the coming decades there will be a need for generalised plurilingual education allowing a proper knowledge of three or more languages: one minority language and two languages for communicating on a regional and universal level. The first would be the family language, but importance should be given to learning the languages of the neighbouring communities. It is also important to distinguish between passive and active knowledge, between oral and written language. Among languages of the same linguistic group, a passive knowledge is achieved without much effort. The same happens in learning oral language, which is faster than learning a written language.
2.4. Convention on linguistic rights On the initiative of various governmental organisations, a series of proposals have been drawn up for the recognition of linguistic rights as part of human rights and for their international protection. The best known is the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights promoted by the Pen Club International and the CIEMEN and agreed in 1996 by 61 NGOs and 41 Pen centres. UNESCO was asked to take care of the matter and draft a government declaration which could take the form of an international convention with the juridical mechanisms to ensure its effectiveness. The work is yet to be done. It would be desirable if in the next few years progress could be made in this process, because individual and collective linguistic rights, the same as human rights, are being violated not only by political regimes that confuse unity and cultural and linguistic uniformity but also by the advance of globalisation in its imposition of economic reasoning over cultural and social development. It would be desirable if the rights and liberties many linguistic communities already enjoy could be globalised under the auspices of the United Nations system. Migratory movements will probably increase in the coming decades. In all countries, and especially in the large metropolises, people from different linguistic communities will be living together in unprecedented linguistic complexity. Managing linguistically complex societies will be a great challenge for the whole of humanity. Migrants could become involuntary agents of linguistic and cultural uniformity if criteria are not agreed for combining individual linguistic rights and the linguistic rights of linguistic communities in their historical territory. Rules for the protection of linguistic diversity must therefore be established taking these new challenges into account. A universal declaration of linguistic rights in the form of an international convention could be the frame of reference for the establishment of intelligent linguistic policies. In addition, the international technical bodies set up by
264
Words and Worlds
the convention could offer proposals or mediation that are difficult to find locally when conflicts arise. The instruments of the convention would make it possible to prevent conflicts or defuse them rapidly.
2.5. Languages and new communication technology The spectacular advances in the new information and communication technologies pose unexpected challenges for linguistic diversity. On the one hand, one sees the creation in this sector of gigantic commercial enterprises that use only the major languages. On the other, medium-sized and small linguistic communities can use the new technologies intelligently for their own needs and objectives. The presence of these communities in cyberspace probably involves far fewer problems than those they faced in the fifteenth century in adapting to the spread of printing. Access to the Internet will be open to all linguistic communities in the not-so-distant future, when electrical and telephone services are universal and when voice use has the same technical possibilities as the use of written language. For some communication technologies, such as radio and television, orality is already much more important than writing. To put the new technologies at the service of linguistic and cultural diversity, we need to establish policies to guarantee this objective. In the coming decades the amount of information that is considered to be in the public domain will have to be increased, whether it is information regulated by copyright or, especially, information no longer subject to such limitations. Digitalisation of the knowledge and heritage of all cultures must be supported. With these aims in mind, legislative measures need to be introduced to guarantee free circulation of information on networks as well as online access to public heritage. The presence of small and medium-sized languages in cyberspace will be one of the new responsibilities of local, substate, state, regional and universal authorities. The same responsibility must be shared by non-profit organisations. Communication scientists, for their part, will probably achieve new technologies for automatic translation, especially to prevent orality from being an obstacle to entering the cyberspace networks.
2.6. Languages as a factor of economic development All languages can be associated with processes of economic, social and cultural development. No language has had a monopoly on economic progress in the history of the human species. Many languages have become a factor and a symbol of prosperity. Today, a handful of languages are used for universal scientific communication and for global economic activity. But we now know that economic development is a complex process in which many factors intervene that do not seem decisive on a global scale: people’s talent, social cohesion, participation procedures, moral values, patriotism, education and culture. A community with a language of its own can be a community with a high degree of self-esteem, in tune with its natural environment and with conceptual and linguistic instruments allowing competitive economic specialisation on a local, substate, state, regional and universal scale. Small, specialised communities
The Future of Languages
265
can in the future achieve high levels of development. In addition, human development involves a transition from an economy-based model of development to forms of sustainable development adapted to each environment. Languages provide epistemologies and values that allow this adaptation. Each linguistic community must find its place in the global economic world. People’s languages must, with a view to the future, be considered an added value also from the point of view of development. Linguistic communities will of course be open in the sense that their members will also be familiar with other languages, but they will discover the pleasure of using their own language as the basis of their specific personality in a world increasingly looking for what is original and unrepeatable. It does not seem utopian to imagine that, in the same way that the tourist trade values landscapes or the physical cultural heritage for their originality and difference, differentiated linguistic experiences will in future also be valued. It may be that visitors to communities with languages of their own will ask for linguistic initiation so as to be able to enjoy the secrets of unfamiliar cultural universes. Linguistic communities will discover the economic value of their non-material linguistic heritage. Cultural tourism will include various forms of language learning.
2.7. Advanced linguistic sciences Linguistic atlases are getting more and more complex. The use of languages in cities and countries can no longer be understood on the basis of simple questions included in population censuses. Linguistic contacts caused by displacements and migrations are increasing in all countries. Linguistic practices in the professional sphere frequently differ from those in the family sphere. The languages used by citizens in different areas of their cultural life do not coincide either, because the cultural industries use mainly the more widespread languages, which do not necessarily coincide with the usual languages of traditional cultures. For all these reasons, sociolinguists will have to develop efficient systems for monitoring language use over the whole of the universe of human geography. In the coming decades it would be desirable for new sociolinguistic research centres in university networks and elsewhere to devote the necessary efforts to describing linguistic diversity and its evolution. With a view to the future, we need high-precision sociolinguistics. The attention scientists have devoted to languages is very uneven. Some languages have innumerable instruments: grammars, dictionaries, histories of literature and editions of their representative works on paper or in digital format. Other languages are poorly served as far as these scientific instruments are concerned although they are not poor in terms of grammatical structures, vocabulary or literature. It would be desirable if in the coming decades the activity of scientists of language were to concentrate on the less studied languages so as to achieve a reasonable balance between all languages. Oral languages ought to be the object of particular attention, so that scientific activity can create suitable instruments of knowledge compatible with their particular traditions. Projects for cooperation in development for the
266
Words and Worlds
coming years should take into account linguistic projects expressed by the linguistic communities themselves. The main aims of cooperation should be guided by the creation of linguistic scientific competence among members of the linguistic communities themselves.
2.8. Languages, the heritage of humanity Studying all the world’s languages will provide data and perspectives for the design of useful strategic options for the future of each language. International continental organisations and UNESCO on a global level should have specific departments to give technical advice to linguistic communities in shaping their strategies and to those political authorities that have responsibility for linguistic policy. Among the possible measures for the promotion of all languages, an example to follow would be the recognition as official languages of each state of all the historical regional languages spoken by its citizens. This recognition need not involve their use on an equal footing in administrative bodies and in public life. It would also be significant if all those countries where they do not already exist set up technical departments to further the work of sociolinguistics in collaboration with research centres and to provide linguistic communities with political, legal, economic and media instruments to safeguard their future. The declaration by UNESCO of each and every language as the heritage of humanity would be a great stimulus to the recognition of the dignity of all languages and an indication that each language belongs not just to the speakers of that language but to the human species as a whole. In keeping with this declaration, UNESCO could periodically convene global evaluations on the state of linguistic diversity in the world with effective participation by representatives of large, medium and small linguistic communities. It would be also useful to publish regular reports on linguistic diversity, summing up the findings from the latest sociolinguistic research, and regular studies of good practices on the subject of linguistic policy. For all these tasks, UNESCO could, with a view to the future, establish new partnerships with university networks of scientists in languages, specialist NGOs and UNESCO professorships devoted to languages.
2.9. Languages for peace The immense majority of human beings wish for a world at peace. Even those who use violence believe they want peace. But at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the logic of force still engenders much violence that relativises the force of logic. Many people hope that the twenty-first century will see increasing faith in words, reasoning and dialogue and a reduction in violence. If this hope is to become a reality, humanity must opt for free and open cultures of words. Languages are free when we remove the conditioning factors that are an obstacle to objective knowledge, critical sense and sense of humour, and the expression of desires and dreams. In today’s world, the media industry, with its enormous power, often limits freedom of expression because
The Future of Languages
267
it creates distorted virtual realities that are presented as objective and because it popularises ideas, feelings and values alien to democratic consensus. In this sense, words in the public sphere very often contribute not to freedom but to domination. They are words that exert violence. Humanity has the right to free itself of manipulation by the media and of any words that exert violence. Many cultures express the wish to disarm words. Languages are open when they do not try to monopolise knowledge. Each language is an interpretation of reality, but none of them has a complete or definitive view of the various dimensions of reality. When one linguistic community or a group within it considers that its knowledge, its writings, its representatives are superior to those of other human communities, intolerance and violence arise. Languages must not have any strength other than that arising from their reasoning, from their usefulness in relation to the challenges of the natural and social surroundings and from their capacity for exploring the wonderful through their poetic and symbolic registers. This strength is not the strength that characterises conventional power. With a view to the twenty-first century, there is a need for speakers without superiority complexes, and for linguistic practices that facilitate dialogue between their own viewpoint and that of others within each linguistic community and between different linguistic communities. Languages, when they are used in a spirit of freedom and with an open mind, are peace builders. During the twenty-first century, all languages must become languages for peace.
2.10. A welcome to new languages The life of languages is a faithful expression of the life of human communities. The life of languages is affected by the evolution of the human species in space and time. Linguistic specialisation has allowed multiple adaptations of human communities to their physical and cultural surroundings. Languages, with their marvellous capacity for abstraction, have been the most decisive instruments for the advancement of knowledge, agreement on ethical principles as a basis for coexistence and for imagining desirable futures. Each language can contribute to this common task. Many languages have disappeared because human communities were faced with new challenges and needed new linguistic instruments. The languages spoken today are living languages because there are human communities that need them to live – that is, to understand, to relate, to work, to speak of love, to ask questions and create beautiful expressions, to remember and to make plans. The communities themselves are constantly making languages evolve. During the twenty-first century, the power of language could be returned to these communities, and in particular to those that have suffered linguistic repression, through different forms of self-management. With these guidelines it would be possible to protect linguistic diversity without hindering the evolution of all living languages. Under normal circumstances, evolution should take place in all widespread languages as well as in medium and small languages, so that they can all adapt to new settings and new challenges. Taking part in the
268
Words and Worlds
linguistic creativity of one’s language is a pleasure. Perhaps we should remember that we speak our languages to enjoy them. Our spoken and written words are accessible experiences of life, creativity and joy. During the twenty-first century, multilingualism should become widespread for the sheer pleasure of it.
References Abbi, A. 2000. “Forgotten Indian Heritage Languages of Minority Communities of India” in Koul, O.N. & Devaki. L. (eds.) Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, pp. 13–28. Aboud, F.E. & Meade, R.D. (eds.) 1974. Cultural Factors in Learning and Education. Bellingham, Washington: Western Washington State University. Adegbija, E. 1994. Language Attitudes in Sub-Saharan Africa. Clevedon/Philadelphia/Adelaide: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Adegbija, E. 2001. “Saving threatened languages in Africa: a case study of Oko” in Fishman, J.A. (ed.) Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 284–308. Aikhenvald, A.Y. 1999. “Areal diffusion and language contact in the Içana-Vaupés basin, North West Amazonia” in Dixon, R.M.W. & Aikhenvald, A.Y. (eds.) The Amazonian Languages, pp. 385–415. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Amery, R. 2000. Warrabarna Kaurna! Reclaiming an Australian Language. The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitllinger. Anashin, V. 2000. “A worldwide view” in UNESCO World Communication and Information 1999–2000 Report. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, pp. 167–179. Annamalai, E. 2001. Managing Multilingualism in India. Political and Linguistic Manifestations. New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd. Arends, J. 1998. “A Bibliography of Lingua Franca” in The Carrier Pidgin 26, 1–3, 4–5 & 33–35. Artigal, J.M. 1995. “Multiways towards multilingualism: the Catalan immersion programme experience” in Skutnabb-Kangas (ed.) Multilingualism for All. Series European Studies on Multilingualism 4. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, pp. 169–181. Assembly of First Nations, Language and Literacy Secretariat 1992. Toward Rebirth of First Nations Languages. Ontario. Azurmendi, J. 1968. “Manifestu atzeratua” in Olerti III-IV. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (ed.) 1981. Elements of Bilingual Theory. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit te Brussel. Baggioni, D. 1997. Langues et nations en Europe. Paris: Payot&Rivages. Bailey, C.J.N. 1996. Essays on Time-Based Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Baker, C. 1992. Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Baker, C. 1993. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Barreña, A., Etxebarria, M., Idiazabal, I., Juaristi, P., Junyent, C. & Ortega, P. 2000. “World Languages Review. A Preliminary Approach” in Koul, O.N. & Devaki, L. (eds.) Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, pp. 318–336. Bender, B.W. 1971. “Micronesian Languages” in Current Trends in Linguistics 8, 426–65.
269
270
Words and Worlds
Benton R.A. 1996. “Language policy in New Zealand: Defining the ineffable” in Herriman, M. & Burnaby, B. (eds.) Language Policy in English-dominant Countries: Six Case Studies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 62–98. Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Blench, R & Spriggs, M. (eds.) 1999. Archaeology and Language III. Artefacts, Languages and Texts. London: Routledge. Bloom, J.P. & Gumperz, J.J. 1972. “Social meaning in linguistic structures: code-switching in Norway” in Gumperz, J.J. & Hymes, D. (eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bloomfield, L. 1935. Language. London: Allen and Unwin. Bolekia Boleká, J. 2001. Lengua y poder en òbfrica. Madrid: Mundo Negro. Bomhard, A. & Kerns, J. 1994. The Nostratic Macrofamily. A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship. Berlin: Mouton. Bratt Paulston, Ch. 1994. Linguistic Minorities in Multilingual Settings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Brenzinger, M. (dir.) 1992. Language Death: Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa. New York: Mouton. Broudic, F. 1999. “L‘évolution des bilingues bretonnants au XXe siècle” in Klask, 5. Rennes: Université de Rennes. Bruner, J.S. 1975. “Language as an instrument of thought” in Davies, A. (ed.) Problems of Language and Learning. London: Heinemann. Buttitta, I. 1972. “Lingua e Dialettu” in Io faccio il poeta. Milano: Fetrinelli. Calvet, L-J. 1987. La guerre des langues et les politiques linguistiques. Paris: Payot. Calvet, L-J. 2001. Historia de la escritura. Barcelona: Paidós. Campbell, L. 1997. American Indian Languages. The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carle, R., Heinschke, M., Pink, P.W., Rost, Ch. & Stadtlander, K. (eds.) 1982. Gava’: Studies in Austronesian Languages and Cultures, Dedicated to Hans Kähler. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. (eds.) 1998. Beyond Bilingualism. Multilingualism and Multilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Cerrón Palomino, R. 1987: Lingüística Quechua. Cusco, Per£: Centro de Estudios Rurales Andinos “Bartolomé de Las Casas”. Comité of Ministres of the European Union 1992. European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages [Internet] Strasbourg: The Council of Europe. Avalable from http: //conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/treaties/HTML/148/148.htm [Accessed 30 October, 2004]. Charles, E. 1995. “Idioma nacional y lenguas vernáculas en el Caribe” in UNESCO Medios de Comunicación y democracia en América Latina y el Caribe. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, pp. 119–121. Charpentier, J.M. 2001. Paper presented at Melbourne, International Conference; Pacific: A Language Treasure. Melbourne, Australia. Clyne, M. 1985. “The Interaction of a National Identity, Class and Pluriglossia in a Pluricentric Language” in Laycock, D.C. & Winter, W. (eds.) A World of Language, Series C-No. 100. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Codrington, R.H. & Palmer, J. 1896. A Dictionary of the Language of Mota, Sugarloaf Island, Banks Islands. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Comrie, B. 1998. “Haruai” in Pawley, A. Ross, M. & Tryon, D. (eds.) The Boy from Bundaburg: Studies in Melanesian Linguistics in Honour of Tom Dutton. Canberra: PICS. Comrie, B., Matthews, S. & Polinsky, M. 1996. The Atlas of Languages. New York: Facts On File Inc. Cooper, R.L. (ed.) 1982. Language Spread: Studies in Difusión and Social Change. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Coulmas, F. (ed.) 1997. The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
References
271
Crochetière, J., Boulanger, C. & Ouellon, C. (eds.) 1993. Proceedings of the XV International Congress of Linguists, Endangered Languages. Quebec: Laval University. Cromwell, L.G. 1980. “Bar Kar Mir: To Talk with No Curves” in Anthropological Forum 5 (1), 24–37. Crystal, D. 1997. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. 1989. “Language and literacy acquisition in bilingual contexts” in Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 10 (1), 17–31. Dalby, D. 1998. The Linguasphere: from Person to Planet, Register and Overview of the World’s Languages and Speech-Communities at the Close of the 20th Century. Hebron (Wales): Linguasphere Press. Daswani, C.J. 2000. “Language decay: Lessons from India Sindhi” in Koul, O.N. & Devaki. L. (eds.) Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, pp. 9–63. Davies, A. (ed.) 1975. Problems of Language and Learning. London: Heinemann. Declaración Universal de los Derechos Lingüísticos 1998. Barcelona: Institut d’Edicions de la Diputació de Barcelona. Delors, J. et al. 1996. Education: The Treasure Within. Paris: UNESCO. Derbyshire, D.C. 1979. Hixkaryana. Amsterdam: North Holland. Drechsel, E.J. 1996. “Native American Contact Languages of the Contiguous United States,” in Wurm, S.A., Mühlhäusler, P. & Tryon, D.T. (eds.) Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Drechsel, E.J. 1997. Mobilian Jargon. Linguistic and Sociohistorical Aspects of a Native American Pidgin. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dumont, P. 1990. Le français langue africaine. Paris: Karthala. Dunn, M.J. 1999. A Grammar of Chukch. Canberra: Australian National University. Dutton, T.E. (ed.) 1992. Culture Change, Language Change: Case Studies from Melanesia. Canberra Pacific Linguistics C-120. Dutton, T.E. 1985. Hiri Motu – Iena Sivarai. Port Moresby: University of Papua New Guinea Press. Eades, D. 1982. “You Gotta Know How to Talk: Information Seeking in South East Queensland Aboriginal Society” in Australian Journal of Linguistics 2 (1), 61–83. Eilers, R.E., Gavin, W.J. & Oller, D.K. 1982. “Cross-linguistic perception in infancy: early effects of linguistic experience” in Journal of Child Language 9, 289–302. European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL) 2001. Petition to the European Institutions. Avalable from http://www.eblul.org/ [Accessed 30 January, 2004]. European Commission. 1996. Euromosaic: The Production and Reproduction of the Minority Language Groups in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Fase, W., Koen, J. & Kroon, S. (eds.) 1992. Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Ferguson, C.A. 1959/1972. “Diglossia” in Word 15: 325–340. [Reprinted in Gigliolo, P. (ed.) 1972. Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 232–252]. Ferguson, C.A. 1982. Religious Factors in Language Spread, in Cooper (ed.), pp. 95–106. Fill, A. & Mühlhäusler, P. (eds.) 1997. The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and Environment. London: Continuum. Fill, A. 1993. Ökolinguistik: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr. Filtchenko, A. 2000. A Policy Analysis and Proposals Regarding Prerequisites for Preservation of Cultural/linguistic Variety in Siberia. Budapest: Open Society Institute Budapest. Fishman, J. (ed.) 1971. Advances in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
272
Words and Worlds
Fishman, J. (ed.) 2001. Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. 1965. “The relationship between micro- and macro-sociolinguistics in the study of who speaks what language to who and when” in La Linguistique 2, 67–68. Fishman, J. 1968. Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton. Fishman, J. 1971. “The Sociology of Languages” in Fishman, J. Advances in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 217–404. Fishman, J. 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. 1995. Sociología del lenguaje. Madrid: Cátedra. Floris, P. et al. 1988. “Langues et Savoirs. Due lingue per sapere. Matériaux pour un apprentissage bilingue à l’école primaire de la Vallée d’Aoste” in Principes et Méthodologie Vol. 1, Supplément à L’Ecole Valdotaine, 14. Aoste. Fortescue, M.D. 1998. Language Relations Across Bering Strait. Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence. London: Cassell. Franklin, K.J. 1992. “The Pandanus Languages of the Southern Highlands Province” in Dutton, T.E. (ed.) Culture Change, Language Changes: Case Studies from Melanesia. Canberra Pacific Linguistics C-120. Froment, A. 2001. “Evolutionary biology and health of hunter-gatherer populations” in PanterBrick, C., Layton, R.H. &. Rowley-Conwy, P. (eds.) Hunter-Gatherers. An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gallagher, Ch. F. 1971. “Language Reform and Social Modernization in Turkey” in Rubin, J. & Jernudd, B.H. (eds.) Can Language be Planned? Hawaii: University Press of Hawaii Rubin, pp 159–178. Gardner, N. 2000. Basque in Education: In the Basque Autonomous Community. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritzaren Argitalpen Zerbitzu Nagusia – Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco. Genesee, F. (ed.) 1994. Educating Second Language Children: The Whole Child, the Whole Curriculum, the Whole Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Genesee, F. 1983. “Bilingual education of majority-language children: The immersion experiments in review” in Applied Psycholinguistics 4, 1–46. Genesee, F. 1987. Learning Through Two Languages. Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Rowley: M.A. Newbury House. Giglioli, P.P. (ed.) 1972. Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Giles, H. & Johnson, P. 1987. “Ethnolinguistic identity theory: a social psychological approach to language maintenance” in International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68, 69–100. Giles, H. (ed.) 1977. Language Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press. Giles, H., Taylor, D.M. & Bourhis, R. 1977. “Toward a theory of language in ethnic group relations” in Giles, H. (ed.) Language Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press, pp. 307–348. Giordan H. (ed.) 1992. Les minorités en Europe. Droits linguistiques et droits de l’homme. Paris: Kimé. Girault, L. 1989. Kallawaya, El idioma secreto de los Incas. Bolivia UNICEF-OPS-OMS. Glausiusz, J. 1997. “The Ecology of Language: Link between Rainfall and Language Diversity” in Fill, A. & Mühlhäusler, P. (eds.) 1997. The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and Environment. London: Continuum. Gnanasundaram, V. & Elangaiyan, R. 2000. “Endangered Languages in the Indian Context” in Koul, O.N. & Devaki. L. (eds.) Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, pp. 29–44. Goh, K. 1980. “Report on the Ministry of Education 1978” in Newman, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the Symposium on Language Planning. Singapore: University of Singapore.
References
273
Goody, J. & Watt, I. 1968. “Las consecuencias de la cultura escrita” in. Goody, J. (eds.) Cultura escrita en sociedades tradicionales, Barcelona: Gedisa, pp. 39–82. Goody, J. (ed.) 1996. Cultura escrita en sociedades tradicionales. Barcelona: Gedisa. Goodz, N. 1994. “Interactions between parents and children in bilingual families“ in Genesee, F. (ed.) Educating Second Language Children: The Whole Child, the Whole Curriculum, the Whole Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gough, K. 1968. “Las implicaciones de la cultura escrita en las sociedades tradicionales de la China y de la India” in Goody, J. (ed.) Cultura escrita en sociedades tradicionales. Barcelona: Gedisa, pp. 83–100. Greenberg, J. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Grenoble, L.A. & Whaley, L.J. (eds.) 1998. Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grimes, B.F. 1996 / 2000. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Grinevald, C. 1998. “Language endangerment in South America: a programmatic approach” in Grenoble, L.A. & Whaley, L.J. (eds.) Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124–159. Gumperz, J.J. 1972. “The Speech Community” in Giglioli, P.P. (ed.) Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 219–231. Gumperz, J.J. & Wilson, R. 1971. “Convergence and Creolization: A Case from the Indo-AryanDravidian Border”. in Hymes, D. (ed.) Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–168. Gunnemark, E. 1991. Countries, Peoples and Their Languages. The Geolinguistic Handbook. Gothenburg: Geolingua. Gwegen, J. 1999. “Le bilinguisme immersif dans les écoles Diwan” in Klask 5. Rennes: Université de Rennes. Haarmann, H. 1980. Multilingualismus 2. – Elemente einer Sprach”kologie. Tübingen: Narr. Hagège, C. 1992. Le souffle de la langue. Paris: Odile Jacob. Hagège, C. 2000. Halte à la mort des langues. Paris: Odile Jacob. Hale, K. 1992. “Language Endangerment and the Human Value of Linguistic Diversity” in Language 68 (1), 35–42. Hamelink, J.C. 1994. Trends in World Communication. On Disempowerment and Self-Enpowerment. Malaysia: Southbound. Hamers, J.F. & Blanc, M. 1982. “Towards a social-psychological model of bilingual development” in Journal of Language and Social Psychology 1 (1), 29–49. Hamers, J.F. & Blanc, M. 1983. Bilingualité et Bilinguisme. Brussels: Mardaga. Série Psychologie et Sciences Humaines. Hamers, J.F. & Blanc, M. 2000. Bilinguality & Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd Edition. Hamers, J.F. 1981. “Psychological approaches to the development of bilinguality” in Baetens Beardsmore, H. (ed.) Elements of Bilingual Theory. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit te Brussel. Hansen, K.C. 1984. “Communicability of some Western Desert Communilects” in Hudson, J. & Pym, N. (eds.) Language Survey. Work Papers of SIL-AAB, B-11: 1–112. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Harlow, R. 1993. “Lexical Expansion” in Journal of the Polynesian Society 10 (1), 99–107. Harmon, D. 1996. “Losing species, losing languages: Connections between biological and linguistic diversity” Southwest Journal of Linguistics 15, 89–108. Haugen, E. 1972. The Ecology of Language. California: Stanford University Press. Herranz, A. 1996. Estado, sociedad y lenguaje. Política lingüística en Honduras. Tegucigalpa: Guaymuras-IHAH-GTZ. Herriman, M. & Burnaby, B. (eds.) 1996. Language Policy in English-dominant Countries: Six Case Studies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
274
Words and Worlds
Hinton, L. 1994. Flutes of Fire: Essays on California Indian Languages. California: Heyday Books. Hockett, Ch. 1950. “Age-Grading and Linguistic Continuity” in Language 26, 449–457. Holm, J. 1988. Pidgins and Creoles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoover, M.C. 1992. “The revival of the Mohawk Language in Kahnawake” in Canadian Journal of Native Studies 12 ( 2), 269–287. Hornberger, N.H. & King, K.A. 2001. “Reversing Quechua Language shift in South America” in Fishman, J. (ed.) Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 166–194. Hornberger, N.H. & López, L.E. 1998. “Policy Possibility and Paradox: Indigenous Multilingualism and Education in Peru and Bolivia” in Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. Beyond Bilingualism. Multilingualism and Multilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 206–242. Hudson, J. & Pym, N. (eds.) 1984. Language Survey. Work Papers of SIL-AAB, B-11: 1–112. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Hyltenstam, K. & Viberg, A. (eds.) 1993. Progression and Regression in Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D. (ed.) 1971. Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IFA (International Franchise Association) 1988. Inventaire des particularités lexicales du français en Afrique Noire. Montreal: AUPELF-UREF/ACCT. Ignace, M.B. 1998. Handbook for Aboriginal Language Program Planning in British Columbia. North Vancouver. British Columbia: First Nations Education Steering Committee. Instituto Superior de Catequética de Nimega 1969. Nuevo catecismo para adultos. Barcelona: Herder. Jablonski, N.G. & Aiello, L.A. (eds.) 1998. The Origin and Diversification of Language. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences. Junyent, C. 1992. Vida i mort de les llengües. Barcelona: Empúries. Junyent, C. 1999. La diversidad lingüística. Barcelona: Octaedro. Kazadi, N. 1991. L’Afrique afro-francophone. Paris: Didier Érudition. Kendon, A. 1988. Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia; Cultural, Semiotic and Communicative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kibrik, A.E. 1991. “The problem of endangered languages in USSR” in Robins, R.H. & Uhlenbeck, E.M. (eds.) Endangered Languages. Oxford/New York: Berg. Kinkade, M.D. 1991.”The decline of native languages in Canada” in Robins, R.H. & Uhlenbeck, E.M. (eds.) Endangered Languages. Oxford/New York: Berg. Kinkade, M.D., Hale, K. & Werner, W. (eds.) 1975. Linguistic and Anthropology in Honour of C.F. Voegelin. Lisse: De Ridder. Kloss, H. & McConnell, G.D. 1978, 1989, 1989. The Written Languages of the World: A Survey of the Degree and Modes of Use, 6 V. Quebec: Laval University Press. Kloss, H. 1967. “Abstand Languages” and “Ausbau Languages” in Anthropological Linguistics 9 (7), 29–41. Kloss, H. & McConnell, G.D. 1974, 1987, 1978, 1980, 1984. The Linguistic Composition of the Nations of the World/La Composition linguistique des nations du monde, 6 volumes. Quebec: Laval University Press. Koul, O.N. & Devaki. L. (eds.) 2000. Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Krauss, M. 1992. “The world’s languages in crisis” in Language 68 (1), 4–10. Krauss, M. 1993. “The Language Extinction Catastrophy Just Ahead: Should Linguists Care” in Crochetière, J.-C. Boulanger, C. Ouellon (eds.) Proceedings of the XV International Congress of Linguists, Endangered Languages. Quebec: Laval University. Kreckel, M. 1980. Communicative Acts and Shared Knowledge in Natural Discourse. London: Academic Press.
References
275
Kulick, D. 1993. “Growing Up Monolingual in a Multilingual Community” in Hyltenstam, K. & Viberg, A. (eds.) Progression and Regression in Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuo, E.C.Y. 1980. “Language Planning in Singapore” in Language Planning Newsletter 6 (2), 1–4. Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lambert W.E. & Tucker R.G. 1972. Bilingual Education of Children. The St. Lambert Experiment. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House. Lambert, W.E. 1974. “Culture and language as factors in learning and education” in Aboud, F.E. & Meade, R.D. (eds.) Cultural Factors in Learning and Education. Bellingham, Washington: Western Washington State University. Landaburu, J. 1997. “La situación de las lenguas indígenas de Colombia: Prolegómenos para una política lingüística viable” in LINGUAPAX Seminario Internacional sobre Políticas Lingüísticas, pp. 299–314. Landaburu, J. 1998. “Oralidad y escritura en las sociedades indígenas” in López, L.E. & Jung, I. (eds.) Sobre las huellas de la voz. Madrid: Morata, pp. 39–82. Lara, G. 1997. Educación de adultos en contextos indígenas: hacia una educación culturalmente diferenciada en Honduras. Tegucigalpa: Secretaría de Educación, GTZ-UNO. Lastra, Y. 1992. Sociolingüística para hispanoamericanos. México: El Colegio de México. Lastra, Y. 2001. “Otomí language shift and some recent efforts to reverse it” in Fishman, J.A. (ed.) Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 142–165. Laycock, D.C. 1979. “Linguistic Boundaries and Unsolved Problems in Papua New Guinea,” in Wurm, S.A. (ed.) New Guinea and Neighboring Areas: A Sociolinguistic Laboratory. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 81–99. Laycock, D.C. & Mühlhäusler, P. 1990. An Encyclopaedia of Language. London: Routledge. Laycock, D.C. & Winter, W. (eds.) 1985. A World of Language, Series C-No. 100. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Laycock, D.C. 1982. “Linguistic Diversity in Melanesia: a tentative explanation” in Carle, R., Heinschke, M., Pink, P.W., Rost, Ch. & Stadtlander, K. (eds.) Gava’: Studies in Austronesian Languages and Cultures, Dedicated to Hans Kähler. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, pp. 31–37. Le Page, R.B. & Tabouret-Keller, A. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, T. & McLaughlin, D. 2001. “Reversing Navajo Language Shift, Revisited” in Fishman, J. (ed.) Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 23–43. León Portilla, M.&A. (ed.) 1993. Fray Andrés.de Olmos. Arte de la Lengua Mexicana. Madrid: Ed. Cultura Hispánica. Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana. Leopold, W.F. 1939–1949. Speech Development of a Bilingual Child. 4 Volumes. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press. Libert, A. 2000. A Priori Artificial Languages. Munich: Lincom Europa. Liégeois, J.P. 1992. “Les Tsiganes: situation d’une minorité non territoriale” in Giordan H. (ed.) Les Minorités en Europe. Droits Linguistiques et droits de l’homme. Paris: Kimé. Lind, G. 1972. “Language Gaps and Language Links in Scandinavia” in Anthropological Linguistics 14 (2), 62–69. Lindenberg-Monte, N. 1998. Escolas da floresta. Entre o passado oral e o presente letrado. Rio de Janeiro: Multiletra. Linguapax, Seminario Internacional sobre Políticas Lingüísticas 1997. UNESCO Linguapax. Bilbao: UNESCO Etxea. Lizarraldi, M. 2001. “Biodiversity and Loss of Indigenous Languages and Knowledge” in Maffi (ed.) On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge and the Environment. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press, pp. 265–281.
276
Words and Worlds
Lloyd, G.E.R. 1990. Demystifying Mentalities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lo Bianco, J. & Rhyden, M. 2001. “Is the extinction of Australia’s Indigenous languages inevitable?” in Fishman, J.A. (ed.) Can Threatened languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 391–422. López, L.E. & Jung, I. (eds.) 1998. Sobre las huellas de la voz. Madrid: Morata. Lüdi, G. (ed) 1994. Sprachstandardisierung. Freiburg: Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences. Maalouf. A. 1998. Les identités meurtrières. Paris: Grasset & Fasquelle. MacEoin, G. et al. (eds) 1987. Third International Conference on Minority Languages; General Papers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. MacNamara, J. 1967. “The bilingual’s linguistic performance” in Journal of Social Issues 23, 58–77. Maffi, L. (ed.) 2001. On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge and the Environment. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press. Magga, O.H. 1998. “Cultural rights and indigenous peoples: the Sami experience” in UNESCO World Culture Report. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, pp. 76–84. Manning, Ch. 1996. Ergativity. Stanford: CSLI. Markey, T.L. 1987. “When Minor is Minor and Major is Major: Language Expansion, Contraction and Death” in MacEoin, G. et al. (eds) Third International Conference on Minority Languages; General Papers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. May, S. 2001. Language and Minority Rights. Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Mayor Zaragoza, F. 2000. Un món nou. Barcelona: Centre UNESCO de Catalunya. McArthur, T. 1998. The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McConnell, G.D. (ed.) 1999. “An Analytic Bank of the Languages of the World” in Bulletin de géolinguistique/Geolinguistic Newsletter, 8. Centre international de recherche en aménagement linguistique (Ciral). Québec: Université Laval. McConnell, G.D. 1997. “Global Scale Sociolinguistics” in Coulmas, F. (ed.) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. McConnell, G.D. 1998. The Linguistic Composition of the Nations of the World/La Composition linguistique des nations du monde, 6 volumes. Quebec: Laval University Press. McConvell, P. & Thieberger, N. 2001. The State of Indigenous Languages in Australia. Draft. Meisel, J.M. (ed.) 1990. Two First Languages: Early Grammatical Development in Bilingual Children. Dordrecht: Floris. Meliá, B. 1992. La Lengua Guaraní del Paraguay. Madrid: MAFRE. Miège, B. 2000. “Cultural production and cultural pluralism” in UNESCO World Communication and Information 1999–2000 Report. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, pp. 62–71. Milroy, L. 1980. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell. Ministry of Maori Development 1998. The National Maori Language Survey. Wellington: Ministry of Maori Development. Mohanty, A.K. 1994. Bilingualism in a Multilingual Society: Psychosocial and Pedagogical Implications. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Moreno Cabrera J.C. 2000. La dignidad e igualdad de las lenguas. Crítica de la discriminación lingüística. Madrid: Alianza. Moseley, Ch. & Asher, R.E. 1994. Atlas of the World’s Languages. New York: Routledge. Mühlhäusler, P. & Amery, R. 1996. “Koines and indigenous lingue franche in Australia” in Wurm, S.A., Mühlhäusler, P. & Tryon D.T. (eds.) Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, pp. 17–24. Mühlhäusler, P. 1996. Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in the Pacific Region. London: Routledge. Mühlhäusler, P. 2002. “Language as an Ecological Phenomenon” in The Linacre Journal. A Review of Research in the Humanities 5, 61–68.
References
277
Mühlhäusler, P., Dutton, T.E., Hovdhaugen, E., Williams, J. & Wurm S.A. 1996. “Precolonial Patterns of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific Islands” in Wurm, S.A., Mühlhäusler, P. & Tryon D.T. (eds.) 1996. Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Muñoz, C. (ed.) 2000. Segundas lenguas: adquisición en el aula. Barcelona: Ariel. Myers, J.D. 1999. Social Activism Through Computer Networks. Cuadernos Bakeaz, 32. Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Dualling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Code Switching. Oxford: Clarendon. Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Social Motivations for Code Switching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nagalakshmi, S. 2000. “Respect for Linguistic and cultural diversity in India” in Koul, O.N. & Devaki. L. (eds.) Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, pp. 91–109. Nekitel, Otto 1998. Voices of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Language, Culture and Identity. Papua New Guinea: UBS Publishers Distributors Ltd. & Nekitelson Pty Ltd. Nettle, D. & Romaine, S. 2000. Vanishing Voices. The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nettle, D. 1998. “Explaining Global Patterns of Language Diversity” in Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 354–374. Nettle, D. 1999. Linguistic Diversity. New York: Oxford University Press. Newman, J. (ed.) 1980. Proceedings of the Symposium on Language Planning. University of Singapore. Nichols, J. 1998. “The origin and dispersal of languages: linguistic evidence” in Jablonski, N.G. & Aiello, L.A. (eds.) The Origin and Diversification of Language. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences. Norris, M.J. 1998. “Canada’s aboriginal languages” in Canadian Social Trends: Winter. O’Barr, W.M. & O’Barr, J.F. (eds.) 1976. Language and Politics. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. O’Grady, G.N. 1979. “Preliminaries to a Proto Nuclear Pama-Nyungan stem list” in Wurm, S.A. (ed.) Australian Linguistic Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 107–139. Odgen, C.K. 1968. Basic English: International Second Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. Olson D. 1994. El mundo sobre el papel. El impacto de la escritura y la lectura en la estructura del conocimiento. Barcelona: Gedisa. Olson, D. & N. Torrance, N. (eds.) 1995. Cultura escrita y oralidad. Barcelona: Gedisa. Olson, D. 1995. “Cultura escrita y objetividad: el surgimiento de la ciencia moderna” in Olson, D.R. & Torrance, N. (eds.) Cultura escrita y oralidad. Barcelona: Gedisa. Ortiz Rescaniere, A. 1992. El Quechua y el Aymara. Madrid: MAFRE. Padilla, A.M. & Liebmann, E. 1975. “Language acquisition in the bilingual child” in The Bilingual Review/ La Revista Bilingüe 2, 34–55. Pandharipande, R. 1992. “Language Shift in India: Issues and Implications” in Fase, W., Koen, J. & Kroon, S. (eds.) Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 253–276. Panter-Brick, C., Layton, R.H. &. Rowley-Conwy, P. (eds.) 2001. Hunter-Gatherers. An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parker, P.M. 1997. Linguistic Cultures of the World: a Statistical Reference. Westport: Greenwood Press. Pattanayak, D.P. 1991. Language, Education and Culture. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Pattanayak, D.P. 1995. “La cultura escrita: un instrumento de opresión” in Olson, D. & N. Torrance, N. (eds.) Cultura escrita y oralidad. Barcelona: Gedisa. Pawley, A. Ross, M. & Tryon, D. (eds.) 2001. The Boy from Bundaburg: Studies in Melanesian Linguistics in Honour of Tom Dutton. Camberra: PICS.
278
Words and Worlds
Peal, E. & Lambert, W.E. 1962. “The relation of bilingualism to intelligence” in Psychological Monographs 76, 1–23. Perales, J. 2000. Euskara-ikasle helduen ikas-prozesua: ikaslearen baitako zenbait aldagairen eta arrakastaren arteko erlazioa. EHU-ko doktorego tesia. Donostia: Universidad del País Vasco – Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pride, J.B. & Holmes, J. (eds.) 1972. Sociolinguistics. Hardmondsworh: Penguin. Pugh, A.K., Lee, V.O. & Swann, J. 1980. Language and Language Use. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Renard, R. 2000. Une éthique pour la francophonie. Questions de politique linguistique. Mons: CIPA, Paris: Didier Érudition. Rigsby, B & Sutton, P. no date. Speech Communities in Aboriginal Australia. [photocopy] Brisbane: University of Queensland. Rijkhoff, R.H. & Bakker, E.M. 1998. “Language sampling” in Linguistic Typology 2–3. Robins, R.H. & Uhlenbeck, E.M. (eds.) 1991. Endangered Languages. Oxford/New York: Berg. Romaine, S. (ed.) 1991. Language in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Romaine, S. 1982. Sociolinguistic Variation in Speech Communities. London: Edward Arnold. Romaine, S. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Ronjat, J. 1913. Le développement du langage observé, chez un enfant bilingue. Paris: Champion. Rubin, J. & Jernudd, B.H. 1971. Can Language Be Planned?. Hawaii: University Press of Hawaii. Rubin, J. 1968. National Bilingualism in Paraguay. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Ruhlen, M. 1987. A Guide to the World’s Languages. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Sankoff, G. 1972. “Language Use in Multilingual Societies: Some Alternative Approaches” in Pride, J.B. & Holmes, J. (ed.) Sociolinguistics. Hardmondsworh: Penguin, pp. 33–51. Sankoff, G. 1976. “Political Power and Linguistic Inequality in Papua New Guinea” in O’Barr, W.M. & O’Barr, J.F. (eds.) Language and Politics. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 283–310. Sankoff, G. 1980. “Mutual Intelligibility, Bilingualism and Linguistic Boundaries” in Sankoff, G. The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 133–141. Sankoff, G.1980. The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Sasse, H.J. 1992. “Theory of language death” in Brenzinger, M. (dir.) Language Death: Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa. New York: Mouton. Schmidt, A. 1985. Young People’s Dyirbal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schütz, A.J. 1985. “Prelude to the Grammar: The Tongues of Men and Angels” in The Fijian Language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 55–72. Seurujärvi-Kari, I. & Pedersen, S. & Hirvonen, V. 1997. The Sámi. The Indigenous People of Northernmost Europe. Brussels: European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. Siegel, J. 1985. “Koines and Koineization” in Language in Society 14, 357–378. Siguan, M. 2001. Bilingüismo y lenguas en contacto. Madrid: Alianza. Siguan, M.& Mackey, W.F. 1986. Education and Bilingualism. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Silverstein, M. 1971. “Language Contact and the Problem of Convergent Generative Systems: Chinook Jargon” in Hymes, D. (ed.) Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–192. Skutnabb-Kangas T. (ed.) 1995. Multilingualism for all. Series European Studies on Multilingualism 4. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwa/New Jersey/London: L. Erlbaum Ass. Sorensen, A.P. Jr. 1967. “Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon” in American Anthropologist 69, 670–684. Spolsky, B. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stewart, W.A. 1968. “A sociolinguistic typology for describing national multilingualism” in Fishman, J. (ed.) Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 531–545.
References
279
Stross, B. 1975. “Variation and Natural Selection as Factors in Linguistic and Cultural Change” in Kinkade, M.D., Hale, K. & Werner, W. (eds.) Linguistic and Anthropology in Honour of C.F. Voegelin. Lisse: De Ridder. Suter, R. 1989. Unser Baseldeutsch. Basel: Buchverlag Basler Zeitung. Sutton, P. 1991. “Language in Aboriginal Australia: Social Dialects in a Geographic Idiom” in Romaine, S. (ed.) Language in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. 1972. Bilingualism as a First Language. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Irvine: University of California. Terrell, J. 1986. Prehistory in the Pacific Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thurston, W.R. 1982. A Comparative Study in Anêm and Lusi. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics B85. Thurston, W.R. 1987. Processes of Change in the Languages of North-Western New Britain. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics B99. Tindale, N.B. 1974. Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Titone, R. 1972. Le bilinguisme précoce. Brussels: Dessart. Tollefson, J.W. 1991. Planning Language, Planning Inequality. London: Longman. Trudgill, P. 1983. Sociolinguistics (revised edition). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Tryon, D.T. & Walsh, M. (eds.) 1997. Boundary Rider: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey O’Grady. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Tryon, D.T. 1979. “The Language Situation in the New Hebrides” in Wurm, S.A. (ed.) Australian Linguistic Studies. Camberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 11–13. Tryon, D.T. 1999. “Language, culture and archaeology in Vanuatu” in Blench, R & Spriggs, M. (eds.) Archaeology and Language III. Artefacts, Languages and Texts. London: Routledge. UNESCO 1953. The Use of Vernacular Languages in Education. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. UNESCO 1966. Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Cooperation. [Internet] General Conference. 14th session. Paris. Avalable from http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/ cooperation/html_eng/page1.shtml. [Accessed 30 October, 2004]. UNESCO 1975. Declaration of Persepolis, [Internet] International Symposium For Literacy, Iran. Avalable from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/PERSEP_E.PDF [Accessed 30 October, 2004]. UNESCO 1995. Medios de Comunicación y democracia en América Latina y el Caribe. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. UNESCO 1995. Our Creative Diversity: Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. UNESCO 1996. La educación encierra un tesoro. Informe a la UNESCO de la Comisión Internacional sobre la educación para el siglo XXI, presidida por Jacques Delors. Paris/Madrid: UNESCO/ Santillana. UNESCO 1997. Declaration of Harare. [Internet] Intergovernmental Conference of Ministers. Avalable from http: //www.bisharat.net/Harare97Declaration.htm [Accessed 30 October, 2004]. UNESCO 1997. Statistical Yearbook 1997. Paris: UNESCO Publishing & Bernan Press. UNESCO 1997. World Communication Report. The Media and the Challenge of the New Technologies. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. UNESCO 1998. Statistical Yearbook 1998. Paris: UNESCO Publishing & Bernan Press. UNESCO 1998. Stockholm Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Developement. [Internet] Avalable from http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/stockholm/html_eng/ index_en.shtml [Accessed 30 October, 2004]. UNESCO 1998. World Culture Report. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. UNESCO 2000. Asmara Declaration. African Languages and Literatures into the XXI Century. [Internet] Avalable from http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Govern_Political/ asmrlit.html [Accessed 30 October, 2004]. UNESCO 2000. World Communication and Information 1999–2000 Report. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
280
Words and Worlds
UNESCO 2001. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. [Internet] Avalable from http: //www.unesco.org/culture/pluralism/diversity/html_eng/index_en.shtml [Accessed 30 October, 2004]. UNESCO 2003. Education in a Multilingual World. Education Position Paper. Paris: UNESCO Publishing United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 2000. The State of the World’s Refugees 2000. Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action. Geneva/New York : UNHCR/Oxford University Press. Virilio, P. 1997. El cibermundo, política de lo peor. Madrid: Cátedra. Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Walsh, M. 1997. “How many Australian languages were there?” in Tryon, D.T., & Walsh, M. (eds.) Boundary Rider: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey O’Grady. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. C-136, pp. 393–411. Washabaugh, W. 1986. Five Fingers for Survival. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, Inc. Webster 1961. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. London: Bell & Sons. White, R.V. 1971. “Language Use in a South Pacific Urban Community” in Anthropological Linguistics 13, 361–384. Whorf, B. 1956. Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Wollock, J. 2001. “Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity” in Maffi, L. (ed.) On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge and the Environment. Washington: Smithsonian Institute, pp. 248–262. Wurm, S.A. & Laycock, D.C. 1962. “The Question of Language and Dialect in New Guinea” in Oceania 37: 128–143. Wurm, S.A. (ed.) 1979. Australian Linguistic Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Wurm, S.A. (ed.) 1979. New Guinea and Neighboring Areas: A Sociolinguistic Laboratory. The Hague: Mouton. Wurm, S.A. 1994. “Graphisation and Standardisation of Languages” in Lüdi, G. (ed.) Sprachstandardisierung. Freiburg: Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences, pp. 255–274. Wurm, S.A. 1996. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger of Disappearing. Paris/Camberra: UNESCO Publishing/Pacific Linguistics. Wurm, S.A. 2001. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger of Disappearing. Paris/Camberra: UNESCO Publishing/Pacific Linguistics. Wurm, S.A., Mühlhäusler, P. & Tryon D. T. (eds.) 1996. Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Web References ACALAN – die Afrikanische Sprachenakademie http://www.unesco.de/unesco-heute/302/acalan.htm AMARAUNA – World Languages Network http://www.amarauna-languages.com Cátedra UNESCO en Lenguas y Educación (Institut d’Estudis Catalans) http://www.iecat.net Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, CARLA; Universidad de Minnesota http://carla.acad.umn.edu/CARLA.html Central Institute of Indian Languages http://www.ciil.org/ Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherche sur les Activités Langagières (CIRAL) http://www.ciral.ulaval.ca/ Centre Internacional Escarré per a les Minories Ètniques i les Nacions (CIEMEN) http://www.ciemen.org Consortium for Language Policy and Planning; University of Pennsylvania http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/clpp/ Council of Europe: European Centre for Modern Languages http://www.ecml.at Diverscité langues http://www.teluq.uquebec.ca/diverscite/entree.htm Endangered Language Fund, Yale University http://sapir.ling.yale.edu/~elf/index.html Ethnologue http://www.ethnologue.com Euromosaic http://www.uoc.edu/euromosaic/ Europa Diversa http://www.europadiversa.org European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages, EBLUL http://www.eblul.org European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/treaties/HTML/148.htm (Castellano: BOE 15/09/2001 no 222–2001)
281
282
Words and Worlds
European Commission: Directorate-General for Education and Culture http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/education_culture/index_en.htm European Minority Languages http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/saoghal/mion-chanain/en/ Foundation for Endangered Languages http://www.ogmios.org Luistxo Fernández Page at Geocities http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9479/lotu.html Institute for the Preservation of the Original Languages of the Americas, IPOLA http://www.ipola.org Instituto LINGUAPAX http://www.linguapax.org, International Clearing House for Endangered Languages, ICHEL, University of Tokyo http://www.tooyoo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ichel/ichel.html L’Aménagement Linguistique dans le Monde http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/index.shtml Language Policy Research Unit – Arizona State University http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/lpru.htm Linguasphere http://www.linguasphere.org Linguistic Minority Research Institute; University of California http://www.lmri.ucsb.edu Linguistic Society of America, LSA http://www.lsadc.org Mercator (Education, Legislation and Media) http://www.mercator-central.org Programa de Formación en Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Países Andinos (PROEIBANDES) http://www.proeibandes.org Research Center on Multilingualism, Brussels University http://www.kubrussel.ac.be/ovm/ SIL International, http://www.sil.org Society for the of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, SSILA; Humboldt State University, California http://www.ssila.org Terralingua http://www.terralingua.org The Language Policy Research Center; Bar-Ilan University, Israel http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/lprc The Modern Language Center, Ontario institute for Studies in Education (OISE) http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/MLC/
Web References UNESCO http://www.unesco.org UNESCO Chair in Languages and Education (Institut d’Estudis Catalans) http://www.iecat.net [email protected] UNESCO Etxea http://www.unescoeh.org UNESCO International Mother Tongue Day http://www.unesco.org/education/imld_2002 UNESCO Management of Social Transformations, MOST http://www.unesco.org/most/ln1.htm UNESCO Mons-Hainaut Chair in Linguistic Planning http://www.umh.ac.be/chaire_unesco UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity http://www.unesco.org/culture/pluralism/diversity/html_eng/index_en.shtml Universal Declaration on Linguistic Rights http://www.linguistic-declaration.org
283
Appendix 1
Survey Questionnaire Questionnaire number Date of completion Respondent’s details Name:
Surname: Sex: Male
Female
Institution belonged to: Address: Telephone:
Fax:
E-mail:
Glotonym or name of language on which you are providing data: Autoglotonym (name given to the language by native speakers): Heteroglotonym (name given by the non-native community to the language): What language group does the language belong to? Family:
Group:
Subgroup:
What type of language is it? Creole 1.
Does this language have other varieties? If so, what are these?
2.
Does the language exist in a written form?
3.
Is there standardisation of the language?
284
Pidgin
Survey Questionnaire
285
4.
Do you consider yourself a member of this linguistic community? If so, why?
5.
Where is this language spoken? What are its geographical boundaries?
6.
Have these geographical boundaries changed over the years? If so, how have they altered?
7.
What is the physical terrain of this area like?
8.
Are any other languages spoken within the same territory? If so, what are these?
9.
Could you enclose a sketch or indicate the area in which this language is spoken? (if you wish, you can draw a sketch in the space on the next page)
10. What State(s) / country (ies) do/es the territory/ies where the language is spoken belong to? 11. What is the total number of inhabitants (whether or not they speak this language) of this territory? 12. How many of the inhabitants understand, speak, read or write this language? Number Understand Speak Read Write Use this space to draw a map or sketch of the territory where this language is spoken. 13. How many of the speakers are monolingual (use only this language)? 14. How many of the speakers are bilingual (use this and another language)? What other language(s) do they speak?
286 15
Words and Worlds
How many of the speakers are multilingual (speak this and more than one other language)? What other languages do they speak?
16. Are speakers of this language dispersed throughout the territory, or are they concentrated in specific population centres? 17. How has the number of speakers of this language evolved over time (increased, decreased or remained stable)? 18. Is the language passed down from generation to generation? If not, why not? What language is replacing it? 19. Could you indicate how often the members of each generation use the language with other generations (old people with old people, young people with old people, etc) in their informal contacts (in the street, at home, in leisure time,…)? …speak the language with The people
The Elderly Men Women
Adults Men Women
Young people Men Women
The elderly :
Men
Women
Adults:
Men
Women
Young people:
Men
Women
Children:
Boys
Girls
Children Boys Girls
Specify the frequency: 5 = always in this language; 4 = more in this language than others; 3 = equally often in either language; 2 = more in other languages than in this one; 1 = always in other languages. 20. Do the speakers of other languages speak this language? In what circumstances? 21. Is there any historical, political or economic factor which has affected the situation of this linguistic community?
Survey Questionnaire
287
22. Has any other factor directly influenced the growth or threatened the future of the language (migration, temporary labour, deportations, wars…)? 23. Is the language currently threatened? If so, what is the cause? 24. Is the community which speaks this language in danger? If so, what is the cause? 25. Is there any internal migration (movement of the population within the territory)? Is there any external migration (movement out of the territory to others)? If so, what is the cause? 26. What is the main economic activity of this community? 27. What is the influence of religion on this community? 28. Does the language have any official status (official, joint-official language, acceptance…)? 29. Is the language used in contact with the administration? Indicate whether its use in the administration is in spoken and/or written form. 30. Is this language used in education (whether as the teaching medium or as a subject of study)? Indicate whether there is spoken and/or written use of the language in elementary and higher education. 31. Is this language used in the media (radio, newspapers and television…)? 32. Is the language used in religious services and ceremonies? Indicate whether there is spoken or written use of the language in religious services and ceremonies. 33. Is the language used in business and labour relations? Indicate whether the use is spoken and/or written. 34. Are there any other areas in which this language is used in its written form? 35. Is there any organisation or body responsible for linguistic policy and planning with respect to this language? What kind of activities does this perform?
288
Words and Worlds
36. Is there any kind of cultural or linguistic organisation or body which promotes the knowledge and/or use of the language? What kind of activities does this perform? 37. Does he language have a literary tradition? If so, please give some information about this literary tradition. 38. What is the attitude of the majority of the members of this community towards the knowledge and use of this language? 39. What is the attitude of the majority of the members of the neighbouring communities towards the knowledge and use of the language? 40. PLEASE ADD ANY OTHER DETAILS REGARDING THE SITUATION OF THE LANGUAGE WHICH YOU CONSIDER OF INTEREST. At the same time, we would be grateful if you could send us any statistics, reports, assignment or research which might help us to understand the situation of this language. It would also be very helpful if you could provide references of the sources consulted and the addresses of any individuals or bodies that may be able to offer further data about this language.
Appendix 2
Index of Contributors THE MEANING OF TRIBAL LANGUAGES IN INDIA Anvita Abbi BILINGUALISM, MULTILINGUALISM AND MIND DEVELOPMENT Josiane F. Hamers THE LANGUAGES OF NIGERIA Ayo Bamgbose THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ETHNOLOGUE TO THE REVIVAL OF WORLD LANGUAGES Barbara F. Grimes THE FUTURE OF FRENCH IN AFRICA Raymond Renard NORTHERN CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES Alexey Yeschenko LANGUAGES IN RUSSIA AND CIS COUNTRIES Irina Khaleeva THE LANGUAGE CONCEPT IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA Peter Mühlhäusler LANGUAGE TREASURES IN INDONESIA Multamia RMT Lauder THE LANGUAGE REVIVAL OF WELSH Wynford Bellin BRETON AND THE EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR MINORITY LANGUAGES Francis Favereau NEW APPROACH TO LANGUAGE POLICY E. Annamalai THE LANGUAGES OF SIBERIA Bernard Comrie THE WHY AND THE WHEREFORE OF CENSUSES WITH LINGUISTIC DATA Grant D. McConnell ORALITY AND WRITING: AND THERE WERE LETTERS Bartomeu Melià ON THE EQUALITY OF LANGUAGES Juan Carlos Moreno THE STATUS OF LINGUISTIC NORMS Jean-Paul Bronckart LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION IN INDIA P. Pattanayak BILINGUAL INDIGENOUS EDUCATION Isaac Pianko Ashaninka
289
25 33 50 62 68 71 74 78 95 100 103 111 120 126 132 138 144 153 155
290
Words and Worlds
EDUCATION IN INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES AND ITS IMPORTANCE FOR THEIR REVIVAL Joaquim Mana Kaxinawa THE TEACHING OF MINORITY LANGUAGES AS A SECOND LANGUAGE Denis Cunningham ON BILINGUAL EDUCATION. OBJECTIVES AND APPROACHES Miquel Siguan POSSIBILITIES OF THE REVIVAL OF LANGUAGES IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA Stephen Wurm WHY LEARN THE LANGUAGE? WHY BE LITERATE? THE BASQUE EXPERIENCE, 1960–2000 Joseba Intxausti THE MEDIA IN THE SERVICE OF MINORITY LANGUAGES Xavier Albó EUROMOSAIC: THE PRODUCTION AND REPRODUCTION OF THE MINORITY LANGUAGE GROUPS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Miquel Strubell LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT/REVIVAL ACTIVITIES BY THE CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF INDIAN LANGUAGES Omkar N. Koul TERRALINGUA AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS Tove Skutnabb-Kangas SOCIAL ATTITUDES CONCERNING PIDGINS AND CREOLES Suzanne Romaine ABOUT THE DEATH OF LANGUAGES Nancy C. Dorian ALTERNATIVES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF LANGUAGES: THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE LINGUASPHERE OBSERVATORY David Dalby LANGUAGE DIVERSITY IN CHINA Sun Hongkai & Huang Xing LANGUAGES OF NEPAL Chura Mani Bandhu WHAT DO YOU LOSE WHEN YOU LOSE YOUR LANGUAGE? Joshua A. Fishman
158 163 166 168 170 181 202 209 216 222 228 230 235 240 243
Appendix 3
List of Informants Clifford Abbott, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. Hilili Abdelaziz, Université Sidi Mohammed Ben Abdellah. Sapana Abuyi, Summer Institute of Linguistics. K.P. Acharya, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Marcel Acquaviva, Comité Français du Belmr / Scola Corsa Bastia. Thomas Acton, University of Greenwich. Lawrence Olufemi Adewole, Obafemi Awolowo University. Larey Adreka, Direction de L’Alphabétisation de Togo. Zahid Agha. Amaia Agirre Pinedo, Eusko Jaurlaritza. Paulino Aguilera, Misioneros Combonianos. Husni Mahmoud Ahmad, Yarmouk University. Samuli Aikio, Research Institute for the Languages of Finland. Chengshiliang Aixinjueluo, Central University for Nationalities. Mariam Ajmatova, Kabardino-Balkarian State University. Ixch’umil Adela Ajquijay On, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Timur Ajriyev, Ingushetia State University. Aghamusa Akhundov, Nasimi Language Institute, Academy of Sciences. John Akhura Muhambi, Bible Society of Kenya. Omuka Fanuel Akolo, University of Nairobi. Kofi Akpakli, Directeur de la formation permanente, de l’action et de la recherche pédagogique de Togo (DIFOP). Afia Akrasi Twumasi. Olugboyega Alaba, University of Lagos. Mariëta Alberts, National Language Service South Africa. Catalina Alcantara Malca, Federación de Rondas Femeninas del Norte del Perú. Mikhail Alexeyev, Linguistics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences. Ileana Almeida, Fundación Pueblo Indio del Ecuador. Ahmed Khattab Al-Omar, University of Tikrit. Miguel Angel Amaya Amaya, GUIDAKA (Comunidad de Indígenas Cacaoperas). Titus Adebisi Amoo, Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council. Aït Mehouane Amssane. Jun An, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Gabriel Andres, Mouvement Autonomiste AlsacienLorrain. Dagmar Maria Anoca, Universitatea Bucuresti-Romania. Begum Jahan Ara, University of Dhaka. Jacques Arends, University of Amsterdam. Adjisardji Aritiba, École Normale Superieure. Malcolm Armour, Summer Institute of Linguistics. John Kobia Ataya, Bible Society of Kenya. Kla’rik Attila, Ministry of National Education-Romania. Jeanne Austin, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Oladele Awobuluyi, University of Ilorin. A. Aziz Bin Deraman, Ministery of Education, Malaysia. Victoria Olubanwo Babalola, Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council. Tetouhaki Balouki, Association pour la Sauvegarde des Langues et Cultures Africaines en Peril (ASLACAP). Ayo Bamgbose, University of Ibadan. Marlyse Baptista, University of Georgia. Verónica Barès, Conselh Generau dera Val d’ Aran. Donald Barr, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Evariste Barumwete, Université du Burundi. Janet Bateman, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Amy Bauernschmidt, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Dimas Bautista Iturrizaga, Commoner of Native Community of Tupe. Keith Beavon, Summer Institute of Linguistics-Cameroon. Eudocio Becerra, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. David Beck, University of Michigan. Jean Marc Becker, Associaton Wéi Laang Nach. Dietlinde Behrens, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Viacheslav Belousov, Intitute of the Russian Language. Héctor Leonardo Benito Pérez, Consejo Nacional de Educación Maya (CNEM). Rosario Bentolila, EGB 963. Boussad Berrichi, Journaliste à la radio et presse écrite. Christina M. Beuke-Muir,
291
292
Words and Worlds
University of Namibia. Revina Raphael Biltambo, University of Dar es Salaam. Ruth Bishop, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Piotr Bitkeiev, Kalmyk State university. Zara Bizheva, Kabardino-Balkarian State University. Boris Bizhoiev, Kabardino-Balkarian Humanities Research. Gilda Victoria Blanco Franzuá, Organización Negra Guatemalteca. Wenze Bo, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Joan Bomberger, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Marlytte Borman, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Freddy Boswell, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ahmed Boukous, Université Mohammed V. Al Boush, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Claire Bowern, Harvard University. Robert Bradshaw, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Thomas Branks, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Tonnia Brennan, Magani Malu Kes. Miguel A. Bretos, Smithsonian Institution. Jaqueline Britto, Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Amazonia Peruana. Wella Brown, Kesva AnTaves Kernewek / The Cornish Language Board. Dionicio V. Brown O’Neill, Secretaría de Educación Departamental. John Brownie, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Bruce, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Dionizio Bueno, Universidade de Sâo Paulo. Osmo T. Buller, Universal Esperanto Association. Eugene Burnham, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Donald H. Burns, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Shirley Burtch, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Lazaro Bustince, Misioneros de África. James Butler, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Beatriz Cáceres Casaperalda, Federación de Mujeres Campesinas de Prov. Cailloma. Antoinette Camilleri, University of Malta. Carl R. Campbell, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Allan Campbell, Comunn na Gáidhlig. Aroldo Gamaliel Camposeco Montejo, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Ana María Cano González, Academia de la Llingua Asturiana (ALLA). Juan Pedro Carvajal Carvajal. Maribel Elina Casanto Marinque, Organización CECONSEC. Charles Castellani, Comité Français du Belmr / Scola Corsa Bastia. Bernard Cathomas, Lia Rumantscha (LR). Raymundo Caz Tzub, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino, Universidad Pontificia Católica del Perú. Martín Chacach Cutzal, Universidad Rafael Landívar. Julia Chacon de Merino, Federación Campesina de Anta Fenca. Mohammed Chafik, Académie du Royaume du Maroc. Chaoke D. O., Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Ruth Chatfield, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Meregildo David Chayax Huex, Comunidad Lingüística Uspatenko. Andy Chebanne, University of Bostwana. Moinaécha Cheikh Yahaya, Centre National de Documentation et de Recherche Scientifique, Comoros. Guoqing Chen, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Zongzhen Chen, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Donald Cheney, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Bill Chesley, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mercy Chijioke, Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council. Feodor Chirila, University of Bucharest. Angelina Choc Martínez, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Muhammad Hossam Haider Chowdhury, Independent University, Bangladesh. Duane Clouse, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Juan Idelfonzo Coj Ical, Comisión Nacional para la Oficialización de Idiomas Indígenas. Paolig Combot, Mouvement ar Falz. Bernard Comrie, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Russ Cooper, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Chris Corne, University of Auckland. Serafín M. Coronel Molina, University of Pennsylvania. Corporación de Resguardo Cultural Mata Nui a Hotu Matu’a o Kahu-Kahu o Hera. Graziella Corvalán, Centro Paraguayo de Estudios Sociológicos (CPES). Odilo Cougil Gil, Misioneros de África. Marcel Courthiade, Université de Paris. George Cowan, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Bill Cranmer, Namgis First Nation. Nigel Crawhall, National Language Service South Africa. Elettra Crocetti, Bureau Régional pour l’Ethnologie et la Linguistique. Marjorie Crofts, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Maria Josep Cuenca Ordiñana, Universitat de València. Susana Cuevas Suárez, Dirección de Lingüística del INAH. Dashima Damdinova, Buriat State University. Dansk Sprognaevn (Danish Language Council). Nicholas Darryl, National Indian Brotherhood. Eifion Gruffydd Davies, Welsh Language Board. Licio de Clara. Vivian Anne de Klerk, National Language
List of Informants
293
Service South Africa. Gerardo del Aguila Miveco, Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Amazonia Peruana. Béatrice Denis, Graduate student at City University of New York. R. Deprez, Unesco Platform UNESCO@Vlaanderen. Hubert Devonish, University of the West Indies. Sorcha Nic Dhonncha, Ádarás na Gaeltachta. Diélimakan Diabaté, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Amadou Dialo, Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar. Soungalo Diarra, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Karunasena Dias Paranavitana, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka. Salvatore Gennaro Dieni, Ismía Grecánika tu Jaló tu Vua. Hillebrand Dijkstra, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Kaba Diouara, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Martin Diprose, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Direction de l’Alphabétisation et de l’Education de base du Senegal (DAEB). Hj. T. Fatimah Djajasudarma, Padjadjaran University. Dob, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Pascual Martín Domingo, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Daniel Domingo López, Consejo Nacional de Educación Maya (CNEM). Anne Dondorp, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ying Dong, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Nancy C. Dorian, Bryn Mawr College. Ina Druviete, University of Latvia. Ábngel Dueñas Arias, Academia Peruana de la Lengua Quechua (APLQP). Zara Duguzheva, Adyghe Compane. Cristofor Innokentiyevich Dutkin, Institute of Northern Minorities problems. P. Dutta Baruah, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Klara Dzhanibekova, Karachaievo-Cherkess Dept. of Moscow Open Social University. Elizabeth Eastman, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Karen H. Ebert, University of Zürich. Antón Eito Mateo, Consello da Fabla Aragonesa (CFA). Duxan Eli, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Jean Michel Eloy, Université de Picardie-Jules Verne. Nora C. England, Equipo de Investigación Lingüística Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’, OKMA. Natalia María Eraso Keller, Universidad de los Andes. Okon Essien, University of Calabar. Jesus Esteibarlanda, Sociedad de los Misioneros de África (Padres Blancos). Hortensia Estrada Ramírez, Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Hortensia Estrada Ramírez, Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Eduardo Daniel Faingold, University of Tulsa. Fenghe Fang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Cynthia Farr, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Saverio Favre, Bureau Régional pour l’Ethnologie et la Linguistique. Fédération Camerounaise des Clubs et Associations UNESCO. Benigno Fernandez Braña, MDGA (Mesa prá Defensa del Galego de Asturias e da Cultura). Ana Fernandez Garay, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas. Phil Fields, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Rosalie Finlayson, National Language Service South Africa. Alexey Flegontov, Association of Indigenous Peoples of Yakutia. Fidel Flores, Asociación Coordinadora de Comunidades Indígenas de El Salvador- ACCIES. Winona Flying Earth, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. David Foris, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Francis Foster, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Rosalie Francis, Union of Nova Scotia Indians. Karl Franklin, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Donald Frantz, University of Lethbridge. Lisbeth Fritzell, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Roland Fumey, Summer Institute of Linguistics. N. Louanna Furbee, University of Missouri. Zinaida Gabunia, KabardinoBalkarian State University. Steve Gallagher, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Erqing Gao, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Luis Fernando Garcés Velásquez, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana. Xosé Lluis García Arias, Universidad de Oviedo. Donna Gardiner, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Yagfar Garipov, Institute of Language, Literature & Art of the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan. Michel Gautier, UPCP-MÉTIVE. Massanvi Honorine Gblem ép Podi, Société Internationale de Linguisitque. Florence Gerdel, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Marwan Ghasb, Al-Baath University. Salem Ghazali, Institut Supérieur des langues de Tunis. Sarau Gheorghe, Universitatea Bucuresti-Romania. Stan Gibson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. John Mwaniki Gichangi, Kîembu-Kîmbeere Translation Project. Jordi Ginebra, Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Peter Gittlen, Summer Institute of Linguistics. V. Gnana Sundaram, Central Institute of Indian Languages. David L. Gold, Association for the Study of Jewish Languages. María Stella González de Pérez,
294
Words and Worlds
Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Rita Gonzalez Delgado, Universitad de La Habana. Daniel Gonzalez García, Colla Unibersitaria por l’Aragonés. Durk Gorter, Fryske Akademy. Jan Gossner, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Kimmo Granqvist, Research Institute for the Languages of Finland. Gianfranco Gribaudo, Unión de Asociaciones Piemonteses ante el Mundo. Rhonda Griffiths, The Association of Norfolk Islanders. Andrew Grosh, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Manfred Gross, Lia Rumantscha (LR). Eva Grosser Lerner, Dirección de Lingüística del INAH. Abdoulaye Gueye, Universidad del País Vasco/ Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Daniel Guillermo Agirre, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborígenes (CCELA-UNIANDES). Nijayasarathi Gurindapall, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Lakhan Gusain, Centre for Alternative Research and Development. Wilfrid Haacke, University of Namibia. Marleen Haboud Bumachar, Universidad Católica. Jerome Simooya Hachipola, University of Zambia. C. Joan Hainsworth, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Suleiman Haj-Mohammed, Damascus University. Lingadevaru Halemane, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Munawar Alam Halepota, Human Rights International Alliance. Amadou Hamady Diop, Centre de Linguistique Appliquée de Dakar, UCAD. Abdellah Hammouti, Université Mohammed I. Don Hankins. M. J. Hardman, University of Florida. Smolina Hariza, Serbska Kulturna informacija / Sorbische Kulturinformation Berlin. Alec Harrison, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Lindsay Harry, Universal Esperanto Association. Ralph Harry, Universal Esperanto Association. Dwight Hartzler, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Yuting He, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Paul Heineman, Summer Institute of Linguistic. Jim Henderson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. David Henne, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mark Hepner, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Victor Hernández Agüero, Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI). Elvira Herrejón Mejía, Misioneras Combonianas. Hank Hershberger, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ruth Hershberger, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ron Hesse, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Pirjo Hiidenmaa, The Research Instute for the Languages of Finland. Margaret Hill, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Diane Hintz, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Kamel Hocine, Association Culturelle et Sportive NUMIDYA. Hans Hoddenbagh, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Alison Hoffmann, Victoria University of Wellington. Sam Hofman, Reformed Church in America. Richard Hohulin, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Paul Hoiland, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Barbara Hollenbach, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Arthur Holmer, Lund University. Bruce Hooley, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Bradley Hopkins, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mary Hopkins, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Nancy H. Hornberger, University of Pennsylvania. Zhenhua Hu, Central University for Nationalities. Yong Huang, University of Foreign Economics and Trade of Beijing. Chenglong Huang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Jock Hughes, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Rosendo Huisca Melinao, Universidad Católica de Temuco. Daniel Hunziker, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Conrad Hurd, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Christopher Hurst, Summer Institute of Linguistics. David Hynum, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ana Ical de Cu, Universidad Rafael Landívar. Akanni Mamoud Igué, Université Nationale du Bénin. Clara Ikekeonwu, University of Nigeria. Petar Hr. Ilievski, Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Mohamed Iliyas, Jénonal Medical College. Nommensen Ingwer, Jandesinstitut SchlessingHolstein für Praeis und Theorie an der Schule. Humanities Research Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). Investigación Lingüística Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’, OKMA. Zaual Ionov, Karachayevo-Cherkesia Pedagogical State University. Traore Issofah Issah, Direction de L’Alphabétisation de Togo. Pavle Ivic, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Frances Jackson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Roderick A. Jacobs, University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen, Fródskaparsetur Foroya. Marc Jacobson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Jay Jenkins, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Jiafa Ji, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Faïza Jibline,
List of Informants
295
Université Cadi Ayyad. Jitendra Jitendra, Nepal Chepang Association. Tony A. Johnson, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. George Owen Jones, Mercator Media Centre. Elin Jones, Mercator Media Centre. Sun Gi Jong, The Institution of Korean Language. Baldur Jónsson, Icelandic Language Institute. Enrique Jordá, Compañía de Jesús. Victor Jose, National Secretariat of Torres Strait Islanders Organisations Ltd Jocelyne Joussemet, Centre de Documentació i d’Animació de la Cultura Catalana. Olga Marina Joya Sierra, Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia (IHAH). Ismail Junaidu, Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council. Junast, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Fary Silate Ka, Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar. James Kakumasu, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Vidal Kamala-Cole, National Federation of UNESCO Clubs in Sierra Leone. Laré Kantchoa, Université du Bénin. Rawhia A. Kara, Sharjah Police Academy. Yumav Karakaiev, Karachayevo-Cherkesia Pedagogical State University. Itao Michael Keem, Kaikor Catholic Mission. Donald Kenrick, Romany Institute. Lukian Kergoat, Université Rennes 2 – Haute Bretagne. Daniel Kernalegenn, Diwan Breizh. Amos Key, Woodland Cultural Education Centre. Kalu Ram Khambu Rai, Kirat Rai Language & Literary Council. Sejung Kim, The National Academy of the Korean Language. Kwanghae Kim, The National Academy of Korean Language. Pascal James Kishindo, University of Malawi, Chancellor College. Timur Kocaoglu, Koc University. Mama Kouata, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Omkar Koul, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Silvia Kouwenberg, University of the West Indies. Jarmila Kovarcik-Skalná, PEN (International Writers Association). Jiri Kraus, Czech Language Institute. Georg Kremnitz, Universität Wien. Pedro Juan Krisólogo B., Academia Venezolana de la Lengua Correspondiente de la Real Española. Menno Kroeker, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Gavril Nikolayevich Kurilov, Institute of Northern Minorities Problems. Lamont Laird, Eastewrn Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma. Per Langgard, Ilisimatusarfik / University of Greenland. Robert Larsen, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Virginia Larson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mildred L. Larson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Yolanda Lastra, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Juha Laulainen, University of Helsinki. Jean Le D–c, Université de Bretagne Occidentale. André Le Mercier, Emgleo Breiz. Raúl Leal Gaiao, Universidade de Macau. Myles Leitch, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Yubing Li, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Jinfang Li, Central University for Nationalities. Keyu Li, Ethnic Affairs Commission of Huzhu Tuzu. Piran Li, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Min Liang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Nietta Lindenberg Monte, Comissáo Pró Indio do Acre. Pauline Linton, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Baoyuan Liu, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Xiaochun Liu, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Domingo Llanque Chana, Academia Peruana de la Lengua Aymara. Junstino Llanque Chana, University of Florida. Christine Lohmann, IPTS. Stale Loland, Norsk Sprakrad. Juventino López, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ausencia López Cruz, Dirección de Lingüística del INAH. Longinos López Fernández, Misioneros Combonianos. Luz Mary López Franco, Universidad del Valle. Félix López Mamani, Ayllus de fhach’a Carangas. Belkacem Lounes, Congrès Mondial Amazigh. Bernhard Louw, South African Academy of Science and Arts. Larry Lovell, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Shaozun Lu, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Velciov Luca-Francisc, Comunitatea Bratstvo a Bulgarilor din România. Eoghan Mac Aogáin, Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann (ITÉ). Scott MacGregor, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Donald J.M. Maciver, Haldane Education Centre. Munzhedzi James Mafela, National Language Service South Africa. Youssouf Billo Maiga, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Peter Nderi Maina, University of Nairobi. Manuel Bernado Malchic Nicolás, Equipo de Investigación Lingüística Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’, OKMA. Refilwe Morongwa Malimabe, National Language Service South Africa. B. Mallikarjun, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Eusebia Mamani de Navarro, Organización Prov. Del Collao Dto. Ilave. Bertha Mamiro, University of Dar es Salaam.
296
Words and Worlds
Munir Mamman, Ahmadu Bello University. Deborah Maphoko Mampuru, National Language Service South Africa. Pierre-Loius Mangeard. Nathalie Marchal, Ministère de la Communauté française-Service de la langue française. Mwamini Marco, University of Dar es Salaam. Nely Guadalupe Marcos Manrique, Organización Campa Ashaninka Feconaca. Nagy Marimela, Brukenthal School. Pedro Marin, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Jeanne Marion-Landais, Comision Nacional Dominicana para la UNESCO. Ahmed Marouf, Université d’Oran. Michael Martens, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Maisa Martin, University of Jyväskylä. Gordon Martin, Summer Institute of Linguistics. William Martin, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Nyakundi M. Elijah Matagaro, University of Nairobi (CEES). Dyobyana Isaac Mathumba, National Language Service South Africa. Esther Matteson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Francis Kinyari Mbaaro, Bible Society of Kenya. J. Derrick McClure, Aberdeen University. Arthur Edwin McCullough, University of Ulster. John Martin McIntyre, Ulster Scots Language Society. Robert McKee, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Louise McKone, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Wilson McLeod, University of Edinburgh. Helena Medesi, The Executive Council of Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. Nely Margot Mejia Paredes, FEDECMA. Nebon Maximino Méndez Bernardo, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Chaoji Meng, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Baceliza Miguel Dionicio, Federación de Comunidades Nativas Campa Ashaninka. Anne Dagmar Biti Mikalsen, Saami Language Council. Mohamed Miled, Université de Tunis. Carlo Minnaja, “Esperanto” Radikala Asocio. Anna Nikolayevich Mireyeva, Institute of Northern Minorities problems. Gotart Mitri, Istitût Ladin-Furlan “Pre Checo Placerean”. Buyisiwe Phyllis Mngadi, National Language Service South Africa. Salum, R. Mnjagila, Ministry of Education and Culture. Romelia Mó Jsém, Equipo de Investigación Lingüística Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’, OKMA. Rosemary MH Moeketsi, National Language Service South Africa. María Cristina Mogellón Pérez, Asociación Interetnica de Desarrollo de la Amazonia Peruana. Handaine Mohamed, Université d’Eté d’Agadir. Yonta Moise, CABTAL. Claude Molinier, Institut d’Estudis Occitans. Luis Montaluisa, Confederación de Nacionalidades Indigenas del Ecuador (CONAIE). Henrique Monteagudo Romero, Arquivo de Planificación e Normalización Lingüística. Saqch’en Ruperto Montejo, Universidad Rafael Landívar. David Moomo, Nigeria Bible Translation Trust. Juan Antonio Morán Muss, Comisión Nacional para la Oficialización de Idiomas Indígenas. Bruno Moretti, Osservatorio Linguistico della Svizzera. David Morgan, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Chris E. Morganroth, Quileute Tribal School. Mabel Petronila Mori Clement, Asociación Interetnica de Desarrollo de la Amazonia Peruana. Nancy Morse, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Esteban Emilio Mosonyi, Universidad Central de Venezuela. Yuzhang Mu, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Shihua Mu, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Violet Mucheni. Samuel M. Kimani Mugo, Mugoya Construction Co Clement Murba Wau Bilal, Université de Khartoum. Carolyn Murray, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Bill Murray, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Jefwa George Mweri, University of Nairobi. N. Nadaraja Pillai, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Hidayatullah Naeem, Pashto Academy. Francho Nagore Laín, Consello d’a Fabla Aragonesa (CFA). Naomi Nagy, University of New Hampshire. Ajit Kumar Naik, Jawaharlal Nehru University. V. Saratchandran Nair, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Poidi Napo, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Elivered Nasambu Mulongo, Bible Society of Kenya. Dmitri Mikhailovich Nasilov, Lomonosov State Univesity, Moscow. Montillier Natea, Centre Polynésien des Sciences Humaines “Te Anavaharau”. Gianni Nazzi, Clape Culturâl Aquilee. Atwaya Saidi Nchimbi, Moi University. Peter Chuma Ndiema, University of Nairobi. Augustin Ngabiramé, Université National du Rwuanda. Meabh Ni Chatháin, Bord Na Gaeilge. Nkechiyere Nnadi, Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council. Inno Uzoma Nwadike, University of Nigeria. Lydia Nyati-Ramahobo, Kamanakao Cultural Association / University of Bostwana. Ruán Ó Bric, Údarás na
List of Informants
297
Gaeltachta. Michael O’ Keefe, Department of Canadian Heritage, Policy and Research, Official Languages Support Programmes. Howard Oates, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Rainer Oetzel, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Sabine Oetzel, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Charles Ogbulogo, University of Lagos. Chinyere Ohiri-Aniche, University of Lagos. Hideki Ohtsuba, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Claris Okonji, University of Nairobi. Joseph Ole Karia, Maasai of Kenya. Johnson M. Ndanareh Ole Kaunga, O.S.I.L.I.G.I. Secretariat. Soini Olkonen, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Clif Olson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ronald Olson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Harry Opikokew, MBC Radio. Galina Nikolaevna Orlova, Ministry of General and Professional Education of the Republic of Kalmykia. Carolyn Orr, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Peter Osore Muniafu, Oluluyia Bible Translation Project. Martha Lucía Osorno Posada, Universidad del Valle. Bertram Iwunwa Nkemgemedi Osuagwu, Alvan Ikoku College of Education. Jueya Ouyang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Haydee Padilla Villanueva, ADECAP. Michel Paillé, Conseil de la Langue Française du Québec. Ma Liena Palacios Rasal, LIGALLO de Fablans de l’Aragones. Christina Noel Pallangyo, University of Dar es Salaam. Chehgqian Pan, Central University for Nationalities. Robert A. Papen, Université du Québec à Montréal. James Park, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Jim Parlier, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Luis Evangelino Patzi Vera, Confederación Sindical Unica de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia. Valentin Pavlovski, Université linguistique de Minsk. Thomas Payne, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Sergey Pazov, KarachayevoCherkesia Pedagogical State University. Roy N. Pedersen, Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Louise Peltzer, Université de la Polynésie française. Lucio Peressi, Societât Filologjiche Furlane. Fernando Perez Prieto, Misioneros de Africa. Mona Perrin, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Jan Persons, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Gary Persons, Summer Institute of Linguistics. P. Perumalsamy, Goverment of India – Language Division. Gabriele Petersen de Piñeros, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Daryl Pfantz, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Kenneth Pheasant, Grand Traverse Band Tribal Council. Conrad Phelps, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Berengier Pierrette, Ciel d’Oc. Augusto Pinula Méndez, Comunidad Lingüística Uspanteko. Ilda Pizzinini, Union Generala di Ladins dla Dolomites (UGLD). Kathrin Pope, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Patricia M. Powell, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Leslie Pride, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Perry Priest, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Olga Profili, Commission Europénne. Mauricio Puig, Congregación Escuelas Pías. Edgar Armando Quiacain, Visión Guatemala. Ahmed Rachid Raha, Fundación Mediterranea Montgomery Hart de Estudios Amazighs y Magrebíes. J. Randolph Radney, Canada Institute of Linguistics. Milorad Radovanovic, University of Novi Sad. Krishna Kumar Rai, Kirat Rai Language & Literary Council. V.R. Rajasingh, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Jebra Ram Muchahary, Indian Confederation of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. N. Ramaswami, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Henri Ramirez, Universidade do Amazonas (Manaus/ Brazil). Alfredo Ramírez Celestino, Dirección de Lingüística del INAH. Mario Ramos Ramírez, Comunidad Lingüística Ch’orti’ de la ALMG. R. Kailainathan Ratnamalar, University of Jaffna. Jorge Manuel Raymundo Velásquez, Universidad Rafael Landívar. Peter Rebigo, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ioan Rebusapca, University of Bucharest. Joy Reddy, Central Institute of Indian Languages. JeDene Reeder, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Martine Renouprez, Universidad de Cadiz. Karin Rensberg Ripa, The Sami Parliament. John Rentz, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Anita Sophie Reutenauer. Mikael Reuter, The Research Institute for the Languages of Finland. Ag Jbrahim Rhaly, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Rudo Rhuhwaya, UNESCO Harare. Heinz Richter-Rychtar, Universität Leipzig. David Riggs, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Antònia Rigo, ESADE – Escola Superior d’Administració i Direcció d’Empreses. Karen Risager, Universtity of Roskilde. Clifford Roberts, National Federation of UNESCO Clubs in Sierra Leone. Jean-Dominique Robin, Unvaniezh ar
298
Words and Worlds
Gelennerien Brezhoneg. José Carlos Rodríguez, Misioneros Combonianos. Simón Rodríguez Hernández, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Telma Rodríguez Rodríguez, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Diego Rodríguez Toma, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Haydee Rosales Alvarado, Asociación Interetnica de Desarrollo de la Amazonia Peruana. Haiim B. Rosén, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Judith Rosenhouse, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. Antonio Benicio Ross Montejo, Equipo de Investigación Lingüística Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’, OKMA. Melania Rukanda, Unesco Zimbabwe. Ingrid Runggaldier, Province Administration. James Rupp, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Jim Rupp, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Liliana Ruxandoin, University of Bucharest. Fatima Sadiqui, Université Sidi Mohammed Ben Abdellah. Boniface Sagbohan, FIFA Médiation (Cabinet d’Etudes Socio-linguistiques). Omitade Saliman Salami, Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council. Israpil Sampíev. Juan Sánchez Arenas, Misioneros Combonianos. Francisco Javier Sánchez Gómez, PROIMMSE-IIA-UNAM. Eli Sánchez Rodríguez, Asociación Interetnica de Desarrollo de la Amazonia Peruana. Fausto Sandoval Cruz, Centro Cultural Driki. Aldir Santos de Paula, Universidade Federal de Alagoas. Mahavir Saran Jain, Ministry of Human Resource Development. Leena Savolainen, Research Institute for the Languages of Finland. Will Sawers, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Junia Schauer, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Henri Scherb, Association Heimetsproch un Tradition (HT). Alvin Schoenhals, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Dietrich Scholze, Sorbisches Institut e. V. Bautzen. Petra Schroeder, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Martin Schroeder, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Marc Schwab, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Armin Schwegler, University of California. Sechenchogt, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Aliou Ngoné Seck, Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar-Fann. Margaret J. Secombe, University of Adelaide. Osvaldo Segovia, Centro Educativo de Nivel Medio No 2. Frank Seifart, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborígenes (CCELA-UNIANDES). Kilnesy Emmanuel Sekwiha, University of Dar-es-Salaam. Charles Saina Sena, Ogiek Rural Integrated Projects. Gunter Senft, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Bjornar Seppola, Norsk Kveners Forbund. Rekha Sharma, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Irina Vitalievna Shenzova, State Institute for Pedagogical Sciences of Novokuznetsk. Caleb Shivachi, Maseno University. Wesley Shoemaker, Summer Institute of Linguistics. George Shultz, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Dag F. Simonsen, Norsk Sprakrad. Fridah Adava Simwa, University of Nairobi. María Juliana Sis Iboy, Equipo de Investigación Lingüística Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’, OKMA. William Sischo, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mady Sissoko, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Yome Bananibitcho Sizing, Directeur de la Formation permanente, de l’Action et de la Recherche pédagogique de Togo (DIFOP). Sarah Johanna Catharine Slabbert, National Language Service South Africa. A. Jean Smith, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Jerzy J. Smolicz, University of Adelaide. Siddharaj Soorjibhai Solanki, Shri Arravalli Adivasi. Domingo Solís Marcos, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Neville Southwell, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Margarethe Sparing-Chavez, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ruth Spielmann, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Sunthorn Sripanngern, Mon Unity League. Jim Stahl, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Roman Stefaniw, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Richard Steinbring, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Asher Stern, NIV – Center for Expertise Provision. Joel Stolte, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Anne Storch, Institut für Afrikanische Sprachwissenschaften. Margarete Storck, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mary Stringer, International Literacy Consultant with INTERLEC. Morris A. Stubblefield, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Suikhar, Chin National Froant. Summer Institute of Linguistics. Kembo Sure, Moi University. Hongkai Sun, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Zamir Suyunou, Open State University of Moscow, Karachayevo-Cherkesia Dept Kenneth Swift, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mark Taber, Summer Institute of
List of Informants
299
Linguistics. Kaori Tahara, Ainu Association of Japan. Miloud Taïfi, Université Sidi Mohammed Ben Abdellah. Dalila Taisin Victoria, Federación Aguaruna (FAD). Jarum Takazov, North Ossetia-Alania. State University Petrus Cornelius Taljaard, National Language Service South Africa. Elemo Tapim, Magani Malu Kes. Alejandro Teletov Velasquez, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Delfino Felipe Tema Bautista, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Aldo Leopoldo Tévez, Alero Quichua Santiagueño en Buenos Aires. David Thomas, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Marlin Thompson, Yerington Paiute Tribe. Ruth Thomson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Chihiro Kinoshita Thomson, University of New South Wales. Purna Chandra Thoudam, Manipur University. Bertil Tikkanen, University of Helsinki. Mohand Tilmatine, Universidad de Cadiz. Peter James Hilary Titlestad, The English Academy of Southern Africa. Maria Elena Tobar Gutierrez, Universidad de los Andes. Band-Patrice Togo, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Litip Tohti, Central University for Nationalities. Leo Toner, Istituto Culturale Mòcheno-Cimbro (ICMC). Modeen Tore, University of Helsinki. Hilary Tovey, Dublin University. Douglas Towne, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Annette Trabold, Institut für Deutsche Sprache. Bory Traoré, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Ed Travis, Summer Institute of Linguistics. E. Douglas Trick, Summer Institute of Linguistics. María Trillos Amaya, Universidad de Los Andes. Tasaku Tsunoda, University of Tokyo. Ma. C. Hilaria Tuki Pakarati, Corporación de Resguardo Cultural Mata Nui a Hotu Matu’a o Kahu-Kahu o Hera. Afia Akrasi Twumasi. Bob Uebele, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Vijayendra Bhas V. Sarngadharan, International School of Dravidian Linguistics. Ian Vail, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Rosa Aidé Vallejos Yopán, Asociación Interetnica de Desarrollo de la Amazonia Peruana. Freek Van de Scheur, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Sjaak Van Kleef, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Feikje Van der Haak, Summer Institute of Linguistics. María Ofelia Vásquez, Comunidad Lingüística Uspatenko. Domingo Vásquez Gómez, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Celia Vasquez Yui, Federación de Comunidades Nativas del Ucayli. Elías Velásquez, Asociación Misionera Garífuna. Ruth Celia Velazco Castro, Organización Indígena Regional Atalaya- OIRA. Jaume Vernet, Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Antonio Florencio Vicente Tosin, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Sara Delicia Villagra de Batoux, Comisión Nacional de Bilingüismo. Hessel Visser, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Alan Vogel, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Paul Vollrath, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Brad Voltmer, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Alastair Walker, ChristianAlbrechts-Universität zu Kiel. Piripi Walker, The Wellington Maori Language Board. Helga Walsemam, IPTS. Feng Wang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Said Warsame, UNESCO PEER. Christiane Weber, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Thomas Weber, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Samueul Weekes, National Federation of UNESCO Clubs in Sierra Leone. Xuechun Wei, Information Property Minister. André Wengler, Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la Formation Professionnelle, Luxembourg SCRIPT. Anne West, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ron Whisler, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Henry Whitney, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Daya Menike Wickramasinghe, University of Kelaniya. Geirr Wiggen, University of Oslo. Ratna Wijetunge, University of Soi Gayewardenepura. Thomas Willett, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Elizabeth Grace Winkler, Indiana University. Birger Winsa, Stockholm University. Scott Wood Ronas, CEBIMH-MOPAWI. David Charles Wright Carr, Universidad del Valle de MEXICO. Hongwei Wu, Institute of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Huang Xing, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Shixuan Xu, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Xijian Xu, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Dewu Xuan, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Ballo Yacouba, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Salisu Ahmed Yakasai, Usmanu Danfodio University. Yanli Yang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Jiangling Yang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Juan de Dios Yapita, Instituto de Lengua y Cultura
300
Words and Worlds
Aymara (ILCA). Lahcen Yasri, Assotiation Socioéducative et Culturelle Assekka. Deshu Ye, Jishou University. Yan Yuan, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Ore Yusuf, University of Ilorin. Mirfatych Zakiev, Institute of Language, Literature & Art of the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan. Daysi Zapata Fasabi, Organización Indígena Regional Atalaya- OIRA. Roberto Zavala, Max Planck Institute für Psycholinguistik. Xiaoyu Zeng, Nankai University. Liubov Zhabelova, Research Institute of Humanities of the KabardinoBalkarian Republic. Ronglan Zhang, Yunnan Minority Languages Commission. Junru Zhang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Jichuan Zhang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Aping Zhao, Institute on the Manchu Language. Nurgaisha Zheksem Bieva, Kazakh State University of World Languages and International Relations. Yiqing Zheng, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Jinwen Zhong, Central University for Nationalities. Guoyan Zhou, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Yaowen Zhou, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Wenxu Zhu, Central Nationality University. Armand Zimmer, Institut Universitaire de Formation des Maitres (I. U. F. M.) de Lorraine. Mao Zongwu, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Giandaniele Zoratto, Istit–t Ladin-Furlan “Pre Checo Placerean”. Carol Zylstra, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Appendix 4
Index of Languages, Families and Varieties1 !Xü * Abaza *, 72, 136, map 2 Abkhaz, 72, map 2 Abkhaz-Adyghian, 72 Achagua *, map 12 Achang *, 178, map 13 Achi *, 47, 177, 194, 207, 218, map 8 Acholi *, 122 Achuar *, 101, 178, map 6 Achumawi, map 3 Adamawa, 67, 98 Adamawa Fulfulde, 98 Adyghe *, 72, 73, 158 Afar, 94, 98 Afrikaans *, 21, 94, map 5 Afro-Asiatic, 50, 60, map 1 Aghem * Aghul *, map 2 Aguano, map 6 Ahlon *, Ainu *, 178 Aiwo *, 178, 194 Ajachmen (Juaneño), map 3 Akan * Akateko, map 8 Akhwakh, map 2 Akoose * Akoye *, 178, 197 Akuapim Twi, 99 Alakaluf, 66 Algonquian (Algonquin), 65, map 11 Algonquin *, 65 Almosan, 59
Alsatian *, 25, 178 Altaic, 60, 73, 236, map 1 Alto Campa Amahuaca *, 178, map 6 Amaiweri-Kisambaeri, map 6 Amarakaeri, map 6 Amerindian, 59, 60, 177, map 1 Amharic, 67 Amuesha, map 6 Amuzgo * Amuzgoan, 65 Ancash-Yaru (Quechua), map 6 Andaman, 209 Andamanese *, 26, 60, 209, 210, map 1 Andean, 59, 66 Andi, map 2 Andoa, map 6 Andoke *, map 12, 6 Anêm, 18 Anong *, map 13 Apache, 60 Arabela, map 6 Arabic *, 18, 29, 47, 51, 56, 64, 67, 68, 85, 93, 94, 98, 101, 136, 162, 177, 190, 191, 194, 231, 241 Aragonese *, 70, 226 Arahuaca, map 6 Arasairi, map 6 Araucanian, 66 Arawakan (Arawak) 66, map 12 Archi, map 2 Armenian, 58, map 2 Aru, map 6 Asante Twi, 99
The information on the languages with an asterisk has been collected through a questionnaire
1
301
302 Ashaninca *, 147, map 6 Assamese *, 26, 94, 137, 221 Asturian *, 25 Asu, map 9 Athapahare (see Athpare), 178, 241 Athapaskan, map 11 Athpare (Athapahare) *, 178, 241 Atsugewi, map 3 Aukan *, 141 Australian, 22, 23, 33, 42, 43, 60, 76, 77, 237, map 1 Austro-Asiatic, 26, 210, 240, 241 Austronesian, 18, 40, 58, 60, 76, 236, map 1 Avar *, 72, 73, map 2 Awa Pit *, 178, map 12 Awadhi, 240, 241 Awajun *, 178, map 6 Awakateko *, map 8 Ayacucho-Cusco (Quechua), map 6 Aymara *, 102, 123, 124, 168, 177, 218, map 6 Azerbaijani *, 94, map 2 Aztecan, 65 Babanki * Babole *, 141, 178 Backslang, 21 Badyara *, 178 Bafut * Bagri * Bagval, 72, map 2 Bahasa, 94 Baheng *, 178, map 13 Bai *, 144, map 13 Baima *, 178, map 13 Baiso, 52 Baka * Bakole * Bakpwe * Balanta *, 178 Balkar *, 71, 73, 233, map 2 Balong * Baltic, 60, 74 Bamanankan *, 136 Bandial, map 7 Baniba, map 12 Baniwa *, 178, map 12 Bantawa *, 124, 240, 241 Bantoid (Bantu), 58, 60, 67 Bantu, 58, 60, 67 Bao’an *, 178, map 13 Bara *, map 12 Barasana *, map 12 Bardi *, 219, 220, 226
Words and Worlds Bargam *, 178 Bari *, map 12 Bariai *, 178 Baruba, 217 Baruga *, 179 Basari *, 179 Basque *, 60, 62, 97, 99, 168, 170, 171, 172, 191, map 1 Batanga * Bati * Bats, 72, map 2 Bavarian, 25 Bay Islands Creole English *, map 2 Bayot, map 7 Beash * Befang * Belarusan *, 58, 162 Belhare, 241 Belize Creole English, map 8 Bemba, 18, map 9 Bena, map 9 Bende, map 9 Bengali *, 94, 137, 231, 240 Bengni-Bogar *, 179, map 13 Benue-Congo, 50 Berber, 56, 67, 81, 123, 208 (Tamazight 47, 123, 162, 190, 208), map 10 Berbice Creole Dutch *, 179 Bezthi, map 2 Bhili * Bhojpuri, 240, 241 Bhramu, 241 Bhujel, 241 Bhumij *, 179 Biao *, map 13 Bimin *, 179 Bislama, 76, 94 Bisu *, 179, map 13 Biu-Mandara, 67 Blackfoot *, 179 Blang *, 179, map 13 Blean, 94, 98 Bliss, map 7 Boazi *, 160, 179 Bodic, 74 Boki * Bolinao *, 179 Bondei, map 9 Bora *, 209, map 12, map 6 Boro * Bosnian, 13, 21 Bote, 240, 242
Index of Languages, Families and Varieties Botlikh, map 2 Botolan * Bozo * Breton *, 52, 53, 58, 70, 102, 103, 124, 135, 136, 161, 162, 168, 220, 243 Brokpa * Buang *, 40, 41, 179 Bubia * Budik *, 179 Budukh, map 2 Buduma * Buhutu *, 179 Bukusu * Bulgarian, 33, 58 Buluf, map 7 Bungu, map 9 Bunu *, map 13 Buriato * Burmese-Lolo, 74 Burum-Mindik *, 179 Burunge, map 9 Burushaski *, 147, 148, 178 Bushman, 60 Buyei *, map 13 Bwaidoka *, 179 Byangsi, 241 Cabecar *, 124, 179 Cacaotera, 179, 240, map 8 Cacua, map 12 Caddo, 65 Cahto, map 3 Cahuapanan, 66, map 6 Cahuilla, map 3 Calabrian Greek * California Shoshoni (Panamint), map 3 Campa del Alto, map 6 Cañaris-Cajamarca (Quechua), map 6 Canglo-Monba *, map 13 Cantonese, 43 Capanahua, map 6 Capeverdean Creole *, 124 Caquinte *, 179, map 6 Carapana Cariban (Caribe), 66, map 12 Cashibo, map 6 Casubian, 70 Catalan *, 24, 30, 47, 58, 97, 99, 121, 168, 170, 177, 203 Caucasian, 52, 60, 70, 71, 72, map 1 Cayapa *, 179 Cayuga * Celtic, 60, 243
303
Chachapoyas-Lamas (Quechua), map 6 Chadic, 50, 67 Chaga *, 179 Chamalal *, map 2 Chamicuro, map 6 Chamling *, 179, 241 Chantel, 241, 242 Chasi (Wasi), map 9 Chatino * Chaudangsi, 241 Chayahuita, map 6 Chechen, 60, 72, 73, map 2 Cheke Holo *, 179 Chemehuevi, map 3 Chepang *, 152, 179, 241 Chewa * Chhiling, 241 Chhulung, 241 Chian, 74 Chiapanec-Manguean, 65 Chibchan (Chibcha), 65, map 12 Chibchan-Páez, 59 Chichimeco *, 179 Chilcotin *, 179, 208 Chilula, map 3 Chimariko, map 3 Chimila *, 179, map 12 Chinantecan, 65 Chinanteco *, 179 Chinese (Mandarin) *, 18, 29, 43, 47, 55, 64, 85, 121, 122, 123,136, 139, 141, 148, 159, 178, 191, 192, 195, 206, 217, 231, 235 Chinook * Chintang, 241, 242 Chipaya *, 153, 179, 218 Chipewyan, 105 Chiwere *, Chocho *, 179 Choco, map 12 Ch’ol, map 8 Cholon, map 6 Chon, 66 Chontal, map 8 Ch’orti’ *, 97, map 8 Chrau *, 179 Chuj *, 160, map 8 Chukchi, 60, 73, 99, 121 Chukchi-Kamchatdan, 60, 73, map 1 Chukwa, 241 Chumash, map 3 Chumashan, 65 Cubas, 99
304 Cocopa, map 3 Colorado *, 138, 179 Comorian *, 152 Cona-Monba *, map 13 Coreguaje * Cornish *, 243 Corsican *, 25, 241 Costanoan, map 3 Cree *, 105 Croatian, 47, 58 Cujareño, map 6 Culina, map 6 Cun *, 158, 179, map 13 Cupeño, *, 152, map 3 Czech *, 58, 107 Da’a *, Dagaari, 99 Dagbani, 99 Dagestanian, 72, map 2 Dai *, 99, 122, 139, 178, map 13 Daic, 60, 74, map 1 Dama * Damana *, map 12 Damin, 22 Danish *, 47, 58, 105, 180 Danuwar, 240 Darai, 240 Darang-Deng *, 179, map 13 Dargva, 73, map 2 Darmiya, 241 Datooga, map 9 Daur *, map 13 Davar Barril, 209 De’ang *, 139, map 13 Denya * Derung *, 99, 179, 212, map 13 Desano *, 195, map 12 Dhangar (Jhangar), 241 Dido, map 2 Diegueño (Kumeyaay, Ipai), map 3 Digo, map 1 Dii *, Dimali, 241 Doayo *, Dobel *, 141, 179 Doe, map 9 Dogba *, Dogon *, 140, 178 Dogrib, 105 Dolían, 99, 121 Dolpo, 241 Domaki *, 179
Words and Worlds Domari * Dong (Kam) *, 179, map 13 Dongxiang *, 123, map 13 Dravidian 26, 74, 210, 211, 221, 240, 241, map 1 Duala * Dugwor * Dumbule * Dumi, 241, 242 Dungar Varli, 209 Dungmali, 241, 242 Dura, 241, 242 Dutch *, 29, 56, 58, 70, 95, 98, 105, 166 Duupa *, Dyirbal, 17 Ebira, 217 Ediamat, map 7 Edo *, 98 Edolo *, 179 Efik *, 98 Ejagham * Elun, map 7 Embera *, map 12 Embu * English *, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 51, 54, 55, 61, 62, 64, 65, 69, 76, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 104, 105, 113, 122, 138, 151, 152, 154, 162, 166, 167, 169, 175, 176, 177, 180, 183, 193, 194, 203, 208, 209, 210, 216, 217, 222, 223, 230, 231, 232, 241, 242, 243, 247, map 5 Ergong *, 179, map 13 Ersu *, 179, map 13 Ese’ejja, map 6 Esimbi * Eskimo-Aleut 59, 60, 65, map 1, map 11 Esperanto *, 21, 22, 44 Esselen, map 3 Eve *, 99, 103 Ewenki *, map 13 Eyak, 225, 226 Fante, 99 Faroese *, 70, 99, 121 Fe’fe’ *, Fiji Hindi, 41 Finnish, 60, 105, 168 Fipa, map 9 Flemisch, 24, 25 Fogny *, map 7 Fogny-Kombo, map 7 Fongbe *, 124 Francique, 25
Index of Languages, Families and Varieties Franco-Provençal *, 70 French *, 13, 16, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, 39, 40, 47, 58, 64, 68, 69, 76, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 98, 102, 103, 104, 105, 121, 124, 138, 166, 193, 203, 221, 222, 223, 228, 230, 231, 243, 247 Frisian *, 70, 97, 143, 180 Friulan *, 58, 147, 221 Fulani 67, 206 Fuyug *, 179 Ga *, 99 Gabrielino (see Tongva), map 3 Galician *, 29, 58, 99, 162, 178 Ganda, map 9 Garasia *, Gardangarurru * Garifuna *, 97, map 8 Gelao *, 179, map 13 Geman-Deng *, 179, map 13 Georgian, 60, 72, map 2 German *, 16, 21, 22, 29, 47, 55, 56, 58, 64, 70, 84, 98, 105, 180, 191, 231, 233, 234 Ghale *, 241, 242 Ghomala’ * Gikuyu *, 179 Gilyak (see Nivkh), 121 Gimbe * Gimme * Gin, *, map 13 Giriama *, 179 Giziga * Glavda * Godoberi, map 2 Gogo, map 9 Gondi * Gorowa, map 9 Greek, 138, 190 Greenlandic *, 98 Grishun (Romansh), 44, 58, 70, 98, 104 Guahibo, map 12 Guambiano *, 179, map 12 Guarani *, 18, 39, 41, 66, 98, 104, 122, 133, 137, 192 Guarau * Guayabero *, map 12 Guiqiong *, 139, 178, 179, 197 Gujarati, 56, 94 Gumawana *, 52, 179 Gungu *, 179 Gurung, 240, 241 Gusii * Gusilay, map 7 Gvoko *
305
Gweno, map 9 Gyarong *, map 13 Gyasundo, 241 Gypsy, 7, 63 Ha, map 9 Hadareb, 94, 98 Hadza (Hatsa), map 9 Hagahai, 79 Haida, map 11 Hainanese, 43 Haitian Creole, 20, 39, 222 Halbi *, 144 Halung, 241 Hangaza, map 9 Hani *, 178, 217, map 13 Harakmbet, map 6 Harauti * Haruai, *, 138, 179 Hatsa (Hadza), map 9 Hausa *, 50, 64, 67, 98, 122 Haya *, map 9 Haya, 197, 241, 242 Hebrew *, 170, 190, 191 Hehe, map 9 Her, map 7 Hewa *, 179 Hezhen *, 179, map 13 Hide * Hijuk * Himalayan Languages, 241 Hindi *, 21, 26, 40, 41, 47, 94, 192, 209, 210, 231, 240, 241 Hinukh 52, map 2 Hiri Motu, 78 Hitnu, map 12 Hixkariana, 138 Hokkien, 43 Holoholo, map 9 Hottentot, 33, 60 Huachipaeri, map 6 Huave, map 8 Huichol, map 8 Huihui *, map 13 Huitoto (Uitoto), 66, 124, 179, 207, 240 Humli Tamang, 241 Hungarian *, 60, 70 Hunzib, map 2 Hupa, map 3 Ibibio *, 178 Ibo (see Igbo), 50, 67, 98, 122 Icelandic *, 121, 177 Idakho *, 179
306 Idoma, 98 Idu *, 179, map 13 Igbo *, 50, 67, 98, 122 Ignaciano * Ijaw Ijor *, 217 Ika *, map 12 Ikizu, map 9 Ikoma, map 9 Ilianen Manobo *, 179 Imbongu *, 179 Indonesian, 21, 40, 64, 94, 95, 96, 142, 231 Indo-European languages 58, 60, 96, 240, map 1 Inga *, map 12 Ingush *, 72, 73, map 2 Inuktitut, 60, 61, 62, 99, 105 Ipai (see Diegueño), map 3 Iquito *, 179, map 6 Iraqw, map 9 Irish Gaelic *, 70, 98, 105, 243 Isanzu, map 9 Isconahua, map 3 Istro Romanian, 25 Isu * Italian *, 13, 56, 58, 84, 98, 105, 121, 162 Itzaj *, 141, 179, map 8 Ivatan * Ixil *, map 8 Jakalteko *, map 8 Jalunka *, 179 Jamaican, * Japanese *, 18, 60, 64, 121, 231, map 1 Jaqaru *, map 6 Jarauara *, 179 Jarawa *, 209, 210 Jaru *, 237 Jasngali (Rawat), 241 Jauja-Huanca (Quechua), map 6 Jebero, map 6 Jenu Kuruba, 209 Jhangar (see Dhangar), 241 Jibaro (see Shuar), 99, 101, map 6 Jingpo *, 99, 136, 178, map 13 Jino, map 13 Jinuo *, 179 Jiongnai *, 179, 206, map 13 Jirel 241, 242 Jita, map 9 Jitnu * Juaneño (see Ajachmen), map 3 Juhupde * Jukun *, 179, 207
Words and Worlds Ka’apor *, 52 Kabardian *, 72, 73, 123, map 2 Kabiyari * Kabiye *, 147 Kabwa, map 9 Kada * Kag, 241 Kagate, 241, 242 Kagayanen *, 179 Kagulu (see Kaguru), 179, map 9 Kaguru (Kagulu) *, 179, map 9 Kahe, 241, 242, map 9 Kaike, Kajnas * Kakua * Kalanga * Kalmyk *, 71, 73, map 2 Kaluli *, 179 Kam (see Dong) Kamali *, 179 Kamassian, 121 Kami, map 9 Kamsa *, map 12 Kan Kandozi *, 179, map 6 Kangjia *, map 13 Kannada *, 27, 74, 94, 238 Kanuri *, 50, 98 Kaqchikel *, 147, 220, map 8 Kara, map 9 Karachay *, 71, 73, 233, map 2 Karapana *, map 12 Karata, map 2 Karay *, 147, 179 Karelian, 25 Karijona *, map 12 Karimojong * Kariña * Karmarong, 241 Karon, map 7 Karuk, map 3 Kasa *, map 7 Kasem, 99 Kashmiri *, 94 Kâte, 18 Kawaiisu, map 3 Kaweskar, 66 Kawiyari, map 12 Kaxinawa *, 140, 159, 160, 170, map 6 Kayapi *, 179 Kayapo *, 179 Kazak *, map 13
Index of Languages, Families and Varieties Kei *, 179 Kenyang * Kera * Kerewe (Kerebe), map 9 Ket 73, 121 Kewa, 22 Khaidako, map 2 Khaling, 241, 242 Kham * Khesang, 241 Khinalugh, map 2 Khmer * Khoekhoegowap * Khoisan, 60, 67, map 1 Khvarsh, map 2 Khwendam * K’iche’ *, map 8 Kikuyu, 67 Kimbu, map 9 Kinga, map 9 Kirgiz *, 97, 136, 211, map 13 Kirivila * Kisi, map 9 Koasati *, 179 Kobo * Kodagu, 238 Kofan, *, 179, map 12 Kogui *, map 12 Koi *, 241 Kokama *, 160, 179, map 6, map 12 Kom *, 179 Koma Ndera * Komba *, 179 Komo *, 179 Konja * Konkani, 94 Konkow, map 3 Konongo, map 9 Konyagi * Koori, 21 Korean *, 29, 60, 121, map 1, map 13 Koreguaje *, map 12 Korop * Koryak * Kosarek Yale * Kosorong * Kott, 121 Krio *, 223 Kryts, map 2 Kubeo *, map 12 Kuiba *, map 12 Kuku-Yalanji *, 179
Kulung, 241 Kumale, 240 Kuman * Kumeyaay (see Dieguño), map 3 Kumyk, 71, 73, map 2 Kuna *, map 12 Kunama, 94, 98 Kupwar, 27, 33, 38 Kurdish, map 2 Kuria, map 9 Kurripako *, map 12 Kurti * Kusunda, 240, 242 Kutang Bhote, 241 Kutenai, map 11 Kutep * Kutu, map 9 Kuuy *, 179 Kuvi *, 152, 179 Kwaiquer *, (see Awa Pit) Kwakwala *, 179 Kwatay *, map 7 Kwaya, map 9 Kwere, map 9 Kyorung, 241 Ladin * Ladino *, 58, 70, 147, 191, 219 Lahu *, map 13 Lai *, 137, 221 Lak, 73, map 2 Lakantun, map 8 Lake (see Namsrung) Lakkia *, 179, map 13 Lakota *, 177 Lamba * Lambya, map 9 Lamenu *, 179 Lamnso’ * Langi (Rangi), map 9 Lango *, 147 Lardil, 22 Laria * Larke (see Namsrug), 241 Lassik, map 3 Latin, 33, 58, 86, 136, 138, 141, 190, 191 Latvian *, 177 Laz, 72, map 2 Lembena *, 179 Lenca (Lenka), 240, map 8 Leti * Lezgian *, 73, map 2 Lfa’ *
307
308 Lhasa Tibetan, 241 Lhomi, 241 Li *, map 13 Limbo, 240, 241 Limbum * Limkhim, 241 Lingala, 67 Lingao *, 148, 212, map 13 Lisu *, 141, map 13 Lithuanian, 58 Lobala *, 179 Logooli * Lopa, 141 Lotha * Low Saxon, 25 Luang *, 179 Luba Congo, 67 Lugbara, 67 Luiseño, map 3 Lunda * Luo, map 9 Luvale * Luwo *, 179 Luxemburgian *, 47, 98, 105 Maasai *, map 9 Mabas * Macanese *, 179, 226 Macedonian * Machame, map 6 Machiguenga, map 6 Machinga, map 6 Mada * Madang-Adelbert, 76 Magar, 240 Mahl * Maidu, Northest, map 3 Maithili, 240, 241 Majhi, 240 Makhuwa-Metto, map 9 Makonde, map 9 Maku, 206, map 12 Makuna *, map 12 Malay *, 18, 43, 136, 179, 191, 231 Malayalam *, 74, 94 Malayo-Polynesian, 60 Maldivian, 74 Malecite *, 179 Malila, map 9 Malngin *, 179 Maltese *, 122 Mam *, 193, 220, map 8 Mamaara *
Words and Worlds Mambay * Mambila * Mambwe *, 179 Mambwe-Lungu, map 9 Managalasi * Managua, 141 Manchu *, 179, map 13 Manda, map 9 Mandarín (see Chinese) Mandinkan * Mandyak *, 143 Mangbetu *, 179 Maninga *, 149 Manipuri, 94 Mankon * Maonan *, 178, map 13 Maori, *, 7, 21, 23, 31, 77, 104, 105, 168, 170 Mapudungun *, 152, 170, 197 Marathi, 27, 94 Mataco-Guaicuru, 66 Matal * Matengo, map 9 Mator, 121 Mattole, map 3 Matumbi, map 9 Mauritian Creole, 23 Maviha, map 9 Mayan, 65, 193, 194 Mayoruna, map 6 Mazateco *, 179 Mbembe *, Mbo * Mboko * Mbong * Mbosi *, 179 Mbugu, map 9 Mbuko * Mbum, East * Mbunga, map 9 Mbungwe, map 9 Meänkieli * Meche, 141, 142 Medumba * Meitei *, 136 Meohang Eastern, 241 Meohang Western, 241 Meramera *, 152, 179 Merey * Meriam *, 177 Meru * Meta’ * Mian *, 169, map 13
Index of Languages, Families and Varieties Miao *, map 13 Miao-Yao 60, map 1 Mien * Migaama *, 147, 179 Mi’kmaw *, 207 Minaveha *, 179 Mingrelian, 72, map 2 Miraña *, map 12 Miriam Mer, 17 Miskito *, 161, 212, map 8 Miwok *, 179, 226, map 3 Miwok, Coast, map 3 Miwok, Lake, map 3 Mixe *, 179, map 8 Mixteco * Mlokwo * M’lomp, North, map 7 Moba * Mocheno *, 179 Mochi (Mosi), map 9 Mocho’, map 8 Modo * Modoc, map 3 Moghamo * Mohawk, 105, 168 Mojave, map 3 Moldavian, 29 Mon *, 152, 177, 192, 194 Mon-Cambodian (see Mon-Khmer), 26, 60, 74, map 1 Mongolian *, 71, map 13 Mongolia, 120, 121 Monguor *, map 13 Mon-Khmer (see Mon-Cambodian), 26, 60, 74, map 1 Mono *, map 3 Mopan *, 94, map 8 Morunahua, map 6 Mosi (Mochi), map 9 Mota, 20 Mpoto, map 9 Magali, 241 Muinane *, map 6, 12 Mulam *, map 13 Munda, 26, 60, 74, 210, 221, 241, map 1 Mundang * Munduruku *, 101, 151, 179 Mungaka * Munguk * Muniche, map 6 Murui, map 6 Mussau-Emira *, 179
Muya *, 179, 195, map 13 Muyang * Mwanza, map 9 Mwera, map 9 N/u * Naasioi *, 147 Naba, 241 Nachhering, 241 Na-Dené, 59, 60, 65 Nahuatl *, 152, 192, 193, 228, map 6 Nakho-Dagestanian, 72 Nama *, 239 Nambikwara *, 52, 133, 179 Namsrung (Larke), 241 Namuyi *, 139, 140, 179, map 13 Napo-Pastaza-Tigre (Quechua), map 6 Narak *, 153, 179 Narang, map 7 Naro * Nar-phu, 241 Naxi *, map 13 Ndali *, 179, map 9 Ndamba, map 9 Nda’nda’ * Ndau *, 197 Ndebele *, 94, 122, map 5 Ndemli * Ndendeule, map 9 Ndengereko, map 9 Ndogo *, 179 Ndut * Nenets * Nentsi, 99 Nepali, 94, 240, 242 Newari, 240, 241 Ngambay * Ngardi *, 179 Ngas * Ngasa, map 9 Ngbaka *, 179 Ngbandi *, 179 Nghwele, map 9 Ngiemboon * Ngindo, map 9 Ngoe * Ngonde (Nyakyusa) *, 179 Ngoni *, 179 Ngulu, map 9 Ngurimi, map 9 Ngwo * Niger-Congo, 50, 58, 60, 67, map 1 Nigerian, 51, 217
309
310 Nigi * Nihali *, 179 Nilamba, map 9 Nilo-Saharan, 50, 60, 67, map 1 Ninggirum *, 179 Nisenan, map 3 Nivhi *, Nivkh, 121 Njikum * Njoyame * Nkwen * Nogai *, 71, 123, map 2 Nomatsiguenga, map 6 Nomlaki, map 3 Non * Nongati, map 3 Nonuya, map 12 Norfolk (Pitkern) *, 18, 209 Northern Central American Creole English, map 8 Norwegian, *, 13, 21, 47, 58, 216 Nswase * N’tcham * Nubaca * Nubri, 241 Nugunu * Nukak *, map 12 Numand * Numanggang *, 179 Nunga, 179 Nunga English, 21, 43 Nunguisa, 74 Nuristani, 74 Nusu *, 179, map 13 Nyakyusa (Ngonde), 179, map 9 Nyambo, map 9 Nyamwezi, map 9 Nyaturu, map 9 Nyiha, map 9 Nyindrou * Nyokon * Nyole * Nyoro *, 137, 180 Nzema, 99 Nzime * Occitan *, 24, 58, 70, 97, 107, 221, 226 Odawa * Ogiek *, 179 Okaina *, map 6, 12 Omagua, map 6 Omotic, 67 Oneida *, 179
Words and Worlds Onge *, 179, 209, 210 Onobasulu *, 52, 179 Orejon, map 6 Oriya, 94, 240 Orochi * Orokaiva * Oroko * Oromo * Oroqen *, map 13 Orya *, 179 Ossetic *, 143, map 2 Oto-Manguean, 59 Otomi *, 102, 137, 147, 178 Páez *, map 12 Páez-Barbacoan, 66 Pagibete *, 179 Pahari, 241, 242 Paiute *, 179 Paiute, Northern, map 3 Paiute, Owens Valley, map 3 Pajonal, map 6 Palenque *, 179, 226, map 12 Palmerston Creole, 23 Pama-Nyungan, 60 Pamun * Pa’na * Panamint (see California Shoshoni), map 3 Panare * Pandanus, 22 Pangduwali, 241 Pangwa, map 9 Pano, 66, map 6 Papuan, 18, 40, 60, 76, map 1 Parkwa * Parquenahua, map 6 Pashto * Patwin, map 3 Pavlikeana * Peba Yagua, map 6 Pech *, 148, 179, 194, 212, 219, 220 Pedi *, 94, map 5 Peere * Pemon * Pennsylvania Dutch * Penutian, 59, 65 Piapoco *, map 12 Piaroa *, map 12 Pichis, map 6 Piemontese * Pilipino, 21, 152 Pimbwe, map 9 Pinai, 79
Index of Languages, Families and Varieties Pipil, 240 Piratapuyo *, map 12 Pisabo, map 6 Pisamira *, map 12 Pitkern (see Norfolk), 18, 209 Plasla * Platt * Pogolo, map 9 Pohing, 241 Polish *, 58, 121 Pomo, map 3 Popolocan, 65 Popoluca *, 179, 226, map 8 Popti’, 97 Poqomam *, map 8 Poqomchi’ *, 147, map 8 Portuguese, 24, 30, 40, 64, 68, 69, 93, 102, 105, 124, 132, 152, 155, 156, 159, 160, 231 Poyanawa *, 179 Prok, 241 Proto-Austronesian, 58 Proto-Bantu, 58 Proto-Niger-Congo, 58 Puinave *, map 12 Pukirieri, map 6 Pulaar *, 217 Puma, 241 Pumi *, 158, 179, map 13 Punjabi, 94, 240 Q’anjob’al *, 97, map 8 Q’eqchi’ *, map 8 Qiang *, 141, map 13 Quechan (see Yuma), map 3 Quechua *, 47, 56, 66, 99, 101, 168, 228, 232, map 6, map 12 Quichua *, 192 Quileute * Rajasthani *, 147 Raji, 241, 242 Rama, map 8 Ramoaaina *, 179 Rangi (Langi), map 9 Rankas, 241 Rapa Nui *, Rastfarian, 21 Raute, 241, 242 Rawat (see Jasngali), 241 Rengpungmo, 241 Reo Tahiti *, Resigaro, map 6 Reunion Creole * Rikpa’ *
311
Romance, 16, 33, 58, 60 Romanian *, 25, 30, 33, 179 Romansh (Grishun) *, 44, 58, 70, 98, 104, Rombo, map 9 Rouruo *, 179, map 13 Rromani * Rufiji, map 9 Ruguru, map 9 Rundi *, map 9 Rungi, map 9 Rungwa, map 9 Rusnak * Russian, *, 24, 55, 58, 64, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 97, 99, 120, 121, 123, 162, 231, map 2, map 13 Rusyn * Rutul, 72, map 2 Rwa, map 9 Rwanda *, 94, map 9 Saafi-Saafi *, Sabaot *, 179, 218 Saep *, 179 Safwa, map 9 Sagala, map 9 Saha (see Yakut), 99, 120, 121 Saho, 94, 98 Sakapulteko *, 147 Sakha *, Salar *, 99, 123, 179, map 13 Saliba *, map 12 Salinan, map 1 Salinan-Serian, 65 Salish/an 66, map 11 Sama *, 241 Samba Leeko * Sami *, 44, 47, 70, 97, 104, 170, map 4 Samoan, 94 San Andres, 22, map 12 Sandawe *, map 9 Sango, 18 Sangpang, 241 Sangu, map 9 Sanskrit, 94, 190, 191, 192, 241, 242 Santarrosino (Quechua), map 6 Santhali (see Sattar), 241 Sapiteri, map 6 Sattar (see Santhali), 241 Savara * Sawai *, 179 Scots *, 243 Scottish Gaelic *, 70 Seediq * Segeju, map 9
312 Sena *, 216 Sentani *, 179 Sepik-Ramu, 76 Serbian *, 47, 58 Serbocroatian * Serer *, Serrano, map 3 Sesi Kham * Shambala, map 9 Sharanahua, map 6 Shasta, map 3 Shawnee *, 179 She *, 179, map 13 Shelta *, 21, 179 Sherpa, 240 Shetebo, map 6 Shipibo *, 208, map 6 Shiwi’ma * Shixing *, 179, map 13 Shompen, 210 Shona *, 179 Shor * Shuar (see Achuar), 99, 101, map 6 Shubi, map 9 Sikkimese * Sikuani *, map 12 Sindhi *, 94, 135, 238, 240 Sinhala *, 98 Sinhala-Maldivian, 74 Sinic, 60 Sinkyone, map 3 Sino-Tibetan, 60, 74, 236, 240, 241, map 1 Siona, *, map 6, 12 Siouan, map 11 Sipakapense *, 179, map 8 Siriano *, 179, map 12 Siriono * Siroi *, 179 Sizaki, map 9 Slavey, 105 Slavic, 58, 60 Slovak *, 58 Soliga, 209 Solomon Pidgin, 18 Somali *, 136, 162 Songhay * Songorong *, 179, 208 Soninke * Sorbian *, 233, 234 Sotho *, 94, map 5 Spanish *, 24, 29, 33, 39, 40, 41, 47, 58, 62, 64, 66, 69, 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 93, 98, 105, 121,
Words and Worlds 148, 170, 172, 177, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 207, 209, 218, 231, 233, 239, 243, 247 Sranan * Suahili (see Swahili), 19, 21, 40, 64, 67, 69, 191, 208 Suba *, map 9 Suga * Sui *, map 13 Sukuma *, 179, map 9 Sulawesi (see Indonesian) Sum (see Sung), 197, 198, 241 Sumbwa, map 9 Sumo-Tawahka *, 179, map 8 Sunda * Sung (see Sum), 197, 198, 241 Sunwar, 241 Supralecto-Yauyos (Quechua), map 6 Surel, 96 Svan, 72, map 2 Swahili *, 19, 21, 40, 64, 67, 69, 191, 208, map 9 Swati *, 94, map 5 Swedish *, 47, 58, 104, 105, 121 Switsertütsch, 21 Tabassaran, 73, map 2 Tacana, map 6 Tae’ *, 179 Tagalog, 94 Taiwano, map 12 Tajik, *, map 13 Talish, map 2 Tamang, 240, 241 Tamazight, *, (berber) 47, 56, 67, 81, 123, 162, 190, 208 Tamil *, 43, 74, 94, 98, 211 Tanimuka *, 179, 233, map 12 Tanoan, 59 Tarahumara * Tariano *, map 12 Tat, 71, map 2 Tatar *, 179, map 13 Tatuyo *, map 12 Tau *, 179 Taushiro, map 6 Tausug * Taveta, map 9 Tayo *, 19, 178, 179 Tchamba *, 143 Tehid *, 179 Tehuelche *, 179 Teke *, 179 Tektiteko, map 8 Telugu *, 27, 94
Index of Languages, Families and Varieties Tem * Temi, map 9 Teochew, 43 Tepehuan *, 143, 179 Terai, 240, 241 Thai, 60, 74, 94 Thakali, 241, 242 Thami, 241 Tharu, 240 Thulung, 241 Tibea * Tibetan *, 99, 122, 135, 136, 191, 192, 195, 236, 241, 242, map 13 Tibeto-Burman, 26, 240, 241, 242, 243 Tichurong, 241 Tifal *, 179 Tigre, 94, 98, 309 Tigriña, 67, 94, 98 Tikari * Tikuna *, map 6, 12 Tillung Dhimal, 241 Timbe *, 179, 211 Tindi *, map 2 Tinigua *, map 12 Tipai, map 3 Tiv *, 147 Tiwa, *, 161, 179 Tlingit, map 11 Toba * Tofalar * Tojolab’al *, map 8 Tok-Pisin * Tol *, 161, 179, 195, 196, 220, 221, 226, map 8 Tolowa, map 3 Tonga *, 94 Tongan, 94 Tongva (Gabrielino), map 3 Tongwe, map 9 Toposa * Toyoeri, map 6 Trans-Guinean, 60 Triqui *, 147, 148, 170 Tsakhur, map 2 Tsakonian, 25 Tsimshian, map 11 Tsonga *, 94, map 5 Tswana *, 94, 232, map 5 Tubatulabal, map 3 Tucanoan, 59, 66 Tujia *, 179, map 13 Tukano *, (Tucano), map 6, 12 Tuki *
313
Tumbuka *, 218 Tunebo *, map 12 Tunen * Tungus, 73 Tungusic, 120, 121 Tuotomb * Tupí Guaraní, map 6 Tupian, 66 Tupuri * Turkana * Turkic, 60, 71, 120, 121 Turkish, 17, 81, 94, 191 Tutunaku (Totonac) * Tuva (Tuvan) *, 121, map 13 Tuwali *, 179 Tuyuka *, map 12 Tzeltal *, 33, map 8 Tzotzil, map 8 Tz’utujil *, map 8 Ubikh, 72 Ucayali, map 6 Udi, map 2 Udmurtian, 99 Uitoto *, (Huitoto) 64, 124, 179, 207, 240, map 6, map 12 Ukrainian * Uma *, 142, 179 Umbule, 241, 242 Uminey * Unserdeutsch, 19 Uralic, 60, 120, 121, map 1 Urarina, map 6 Urbuko, 73, map 2 Urdu *, 21, 27, 47, 94, 122, 191, 231, 240, 241 Urhobo, 217 Uspanteko *, 179, map 8 Uto-Aztecan, 59 Uuhum * Uygur *, map 13 Uzbek *, map 13 Va *, 148, map 13 Valencian, 30 Venda *, 94, map 5 Vepsian, 70 Vidunda, map 9 Vinza, map 9 Viri *, 137, 217 Vunjo, map 9 Vute * Waama *, 179 Waffa *, 142, 179 Wagdi, 209
314 Wailaki, map 3 Waimaha * Wakashan, map 11 Waling, 241 Walser * Walung, 241 Wampis *, 179, 212 Wanano *, map 12 Wanda, map 9 Wandala * Wanga *, 179 Wanji, map 9 Wanyjirra *, Waorani *, 101, 179 Wapi, 79 Wappo, map 3 Washo, map 3 Wasi (Chasi), map 9 Waunana *, map 12 Wayuu *, 137, map 12 Welsh *, 70, 100, 101, 104, 162, 168, 170, 243 Whilkut, map 3 Wichi *, 81 Wintu, map 3 Witoto (see Uitoto) Wiwa * Wiyot, map 3 Woko * Wolof *, 18, 64, 67, 123 Wuzlam * Xavante *, 179 Xhosa *, 94, map 5 Xibe *, map 13 Xinka, map 8 Yaaku *, 179 Yabêm, 18 Yagua *, 179, map 6, 12 Yakan *, 143, 152, 179 Yakkha, 241 Yakut (Saba), 99, 120, 121 Yale *, 153, 179 Yaminahua, map 6 Yamphe, 241 Yamphu, 241, 242
Words and Worlds Yana, map 3 Yanghwang *, map 13 Yanomami, 66, 81, 133 Yao Map, 9 Yaruro *, map 12 Yasa * Yau * Yele *, 142, 143, 179 Yemba * Yenische * Yeniseian, 73, 120, 121 Yerava *, 179, 238 Yerwa Kanuri, 98 Yeyi *, 178, 232 Yi *, map 13 Yiddish *, 191 Yine *, 7, map 6 Yokuts, map 3 Yoruba *, 50, 64, 67, 98, 122, 217 Yugur, Eastern *, 179, map 13 Yugur, Western *, 179, map 13 Yujup-Maku map 12 Yukaghir , 121 Yukateko, 182, map 8 Yuki, map 3 Yuko *, map 12 Yukuna *, 179, map 12 Yuma (see Quechan), map 3 Yurok, map 3 Yuruti *, map 12 Yutish, 25 Zaiwa *, 99, map 13 Zalamo, map 9 Zanaki, map 9 Zaparo, 66, 97, 101, map 6 Zapotecan, 65 Zapoteco *, map 8 Zhuang *, 99, 136 Zigula, map 9 Zinza, map 9 Zlgwa * Zo’e * Zoque, map 8 Zulú*, map 5
Subject Index Aboriginal – language, 53, 54 – settlements, 20 Abstand language, 21 Academic Society for the Minority Languages of China, 237 Academic training, 150 Academy of Maya Languages, 47 Acculturation, 55, 88, 193, 195, 227, 238, 251, 255 Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), 33, 239 Action for Community Organisation, Rehabilitation and Development (ACCORD), 211 Acre Organization of Indigenous Teachers, 140, 157, 160, 168 Adigea, Adygeya, 71, 72 Administration, 51, 99, 102, 104, 105, 107, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 129, 130, 134, 140, 143, 172, 195, 198, 200, 208, 210, 218, 220, 230, 232, 241, 242, 247, 259 Adolescent, 35, 101 Adulthood, 35 Africa, 40, 47, 48, 57, 58, 59, 64, 67, 68, 93, 97, 107, 108, 109, 110, 193, 230, 231, 239 – Central and Southern, 18, 49, 58, 67 – East 19 – South 94, 98, 108, 239 – Sub-Saharan 67, 68 – West 14, 32 African Renaissance, 110 Agadir, map 10 Aggression, xiii, 204, 222, 227, 239, 240 Alaska, 226 Albania, 107 Alcoholism, 81 Alfabetatze Euskalduntze Koordinakundea (AEK), 171, 172
Algeria, 81, 123, 162, 192 Algiers, Alienation, 150, 151, 154 Alphabetic codification, 149, 254 Amazon, 32, 165, 206, 233, 240, 243 America, 47, 48, 59, 60, 64, 67, 93, 230, 234, 239 – Central, 57, 59, 65, 97, 148 – Latin, 168, 181 – North, 31, 57, 59, 65, 121, 176, 228, 243 – South, 24, 40, 47, 57, 59, 66, 192, 228, 230, 249 Ancestral – heritage, 229 – language, 18, 58, 99, 101, 229 Andaman Islands, 26, 60 Andes Mountains, 232 Andorra, 107 Anglicisation, 228 Anglo-Saxon culture, 85 Angola, 67 Animism, 191 Anomie, 154 Aotearoa, 77 Arabic script, 17, 191, 241 Arabic signs, 136 Arequipa, Argentina, 66, 81, 93, 197 Armed conflict, 97, 234 Armenia, 107 Arnhem Land, 31 Articulatory gesture, 61 Artificial language, 21, 22, 43, 44, 144 Asia, 32, 38, 47, 48, 57, 73, 93, 192, 230, 239 – Central, 39, 64 – East, 64 – Northern, 64 – South East, 32 – Pacific Region, 38
315
316 Asmara, 108, 109 Assimilation, 20, 42, 58, 69, 70, 75, 80, 81, 87, 88, 89, 126, 127, 207, 221, 235, 238, 242 Astrakhan, 71 Atlantic, 58 Atlas, xii, 1, 16, 32, 265 Attitude, xii, 4, 13, 26, 32, 47, 51, 66, 90, 100, 102, 104, 151, 153, 181, 189, 192, 198, 199, 204, 206, 207, 208, 211, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 250, 252, 253, 256, 257, 258, 260 Audiovisual, 68, 131, 170, 176, 181, 254 Augustines, 137 Ausbau, 20, 21, 25, 40 Australasia, 231 Australia, 2, 3, 10, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 32, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 48, 52, 54, 57, 60, 64, 76, 77, 93, 164, 177, 219, 220, 226, 230 – Central, 14 – Northern, 32 – Tropical, 38 – Tropical Northern, 32 Austria, 56, 70, 107, 203 Auto-ethnonym, 6 Autoglottonym, 6, 71, 72 Autonomous language, 111 Autonomous University of Madrid, vii, viii, 54, 139 Autonomy of language, 47 Autonomy, 74, 75, 104, 111, 118, 230, 238 Autonomous district, 74 Autonomous region, 74, 98 Auxiliary language, 18, 83, 87 Auxiliary verb, 62 Awareness, 1, 8, 9, 11, 25, 36, 37, 38, 97, 117, 125, 163, 173, 179, 180, 182, 185, 207, 215, 218, 219, 221, 229, 242, 258 Azerbaijan, 72, 73, 94, 107 Babel, 11 Balkan, 33 Baltic, 60, 74 Bangladesh, 137, 221 Barcelona, 108, 167, 183, 202 Basque Autonomous Community, Basque Country, vii, viii, xiii, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173 Belarus, 122 Belgium, vii, viii, 16, 24, 56, 69, 98, 107, 126 Belize, 16, 97 Benin, 124, 197
Words and Worlds Bible, 137, 140, 141, 191 Bicultural, 35, 66, 77 Bilbao, xiii Bilingual, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 66, 77, 93, 101, 103, 124, 130, 137, 138, 148, 150, 151, 152, 155, 157, 160, 161, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 173, 208, 209, 210, 213, 214, 219, 224, 239, 241, 251, 252, 253, 263 – and bicultural, 35, 66, 77 Bilingualism, 12, 26, 31, 33, 34, 41, 43, 66, 75, 87, 94, 151, 163, 165, 166, 168, 224, 238, 239, 252, 253 Bilinguality, 34, 35, 36, 37 Biodiversity, 23, 174, 216 Biological diversity, biological megadiversity, x, 11, 23 Bolivia, vii, 2, 66, 153, 168, 182, 218 Border, boundary, xii, 7, 14, 16, 27, 32, 70, 72, 78, 79, 92, 95, 97, 116, 204, 240, 241, 261 Botswana, 67, 81, 102, 178, 232 Brazil, 38, 48, 52, 64, 66, 81, 102, 132, 138, 140, 152, 156, 157, 160 Britain, 11 British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, 175 British Columbia, 65 British Council, 86 British occupation, 77 Brittany, 70, 103 Bryn Mawr College, viii, 229 Buddhism, 191, 192 Bujumbura, vii Bulgaria, 33, 58, 107 Burgenland, 70 Burkina Faso, vii, 2 Burma, 49, 152, 177 Burundi, vii Bwrdd Yr Iaith Gymraeg, 100 California, 65, 80, 225 Cameroon, 48, 58, 67, 68, 93, 147, 177 Canada, 38, 52, 53, 56, 64, 65, 104, 105, 126, 128, 129, 168, 177, 207, 208, 219, 220 Canadian Constitutional Act, 104 Cape Verde, 124 Cape York, 38, 39 Caquetá River, 233 Cardiff University, viii, 101 Caribbean, 22, 64, 230 Castilianisation, 228 Catalonia viii, 168, 203 Catechism, 137, 191
Subject Index Catholic, 103, 140, 161, 171, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195 Caucasian war, 72 Caucasus, 70, 71, 72, 73, 165 Census, 26, 43, 52, 66, 74, 75, 95, 100, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 240, 242, 265 Central African Republic, 18, 49, 67 Central Institute of Indian Languages CIIL, vii, 209, 210 Centre de Recherche sur le Plurilingüisme, 202 Centre for Paraguayan Studies “Antonio Guasch”, viii, 134 Centre for Peasant Research and Promotion, 182 Centro de Investigación y Promoción del Campesinado CIPCA, 182 Cervantes, 85 Chistianity, Christianism, 190, 191, 193 Cinema, 181 Civil servants, 132, 167 Classical language, 132, 167 Code switching, 40 Codification, 31, 131, 136, 198, 248 Coexistence, x, xi, xii, xiv, 38, 87, 96, 110, 165, 169, 257, 261, 262, 267 Cognitive, 13, 35, 36, 37, 38, 96, 134, 146, 229, 253 Colombia, 65, 66, 101, 124, 155, 195, 207, 209, 226 Colonial language, 24, 64, 93, 108, 113, 230 Colonialism, xi, 154, 259 Colonisation, colonization, 14, 24, 39, 40, 93, 94, 110, 136, 189, 192, 193, 199, 227, 228, 230, 239, Comissão Pró-Índio do Acre, 140 Commonwealth, 87 Communicative methods, 167 Community – right, 102, 124, 128 – school, 153, 164, 200 Comoros, 152 Comparative linguistics, 58, 236 Competing languages, 30 Computer technology ies, 170, 254 Concurrent languages, 12 Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador CONAIE, 138 Congo, 48, 58, 67, 141 Connected languages, 23 Consciousness, 32
317 Constitution, 25, 75, 94, 98, 99, 101, 102, 104, 118, 122, 124, 153, 154, 159 Contact languages, 26, 242 Continuous languages, continuum, 7, 17, 19, 20, 43, 230 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Council of Europe), xi, 106 Co-official language, 93, 94, 98, 120, 179 Co-official status, 98, 99, 118, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125 Copenhagen, 106 Costa Rica, 65, 124 Council of Europe, 106, 107, 108 Craftsmen, 27 Creole, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 31, 39, 63, 76, 102, 124, 222, 223, 226, 230 Croatia, 107 Cultural – artefacts, 13 – autonomy, 75, 104, 238 – catastrophe, 57 – diversity, x, 11, 80, 90, 101, 106, 124, 150, 151, 165, 173, 183, 184, 186, 188, 216, 231, 236, 261, 264 – dominance, 177 – experience, 13, 136 – genocide, 80, 81, 82, 207 – heritage, x, 1, 64, 108, 109, 136, 148, 149, 170, 187, 235, 252, 254, 265 – identity, 35, 38, 43, 150, 186, 194, 208, 215, 218, 220, 221, 238, 262 – marginalisation, 82 – plurality, 111, 176 – prestige, 64 – referent, 85 – right, 80, 110 – uniformity, x, 158, 175, 178, 180, 183, 199, 222, 263 Curriculum, 160, 252 Cuzco, map 6 Cymdeithas Yr Iaith Gymraeg, 100, 101 Cyprus, 18, 107 Cyrillic alphabet, 136, 191 Czech Republic, 107 Chad, 93, 146, 208 Chechenya, 71, 72, map 2 Chiclayo, map 6 Childhood, 35, 36, 126, 242 Chile, 66, 152, 197, map 6 Chimbote, map 6
318 China, 24, 29, 48, 74, 97, 99, 121, 122, 123, 136, 139, 140, 141, 144, 148, 158, 178, 192, 195, 197, 206, 212, 217, 235, 236, 237 Chinese character, 136, 192 Christian, 20, 141, 190, 193, 197 Chukchia, 99 Chuvashia, 99 Dagestan, 52, 71, 72, 73, map 2 Dar es Salam, map 9 Death of language, 86, 127, 163, 226, 227, 228, 238, 242, 247, 249, 255 Decline of language, x, 18, 33, 42, 79, 103, 141, 201, 205, 209, 212, 238, 247, 252 Decolonisation, 24, 110 Deculturated, 35 Deforestation, 42, 240 Deixonne law, 103 Democracy, xiii, 69, 106, 110, 134 Democratic Republic of Congo, 67 Demographic factor, 206, 208, 227, 232, 233, 234 Denmark, 70, 99, 107, 121 Descriptive linguists, 12 Desert, 14, 15, 23, 32 Devanagari script, 191, 241 Dialect, 14, 16, 20, 25, 31, 47, 63, 78, 115, 132, 141, 142, 143, 153, 195, 206, 218, 251 Dialectology, 12, 16 Dialinguistics, 12 Dictionary, 10, 34, 137, 138, 195, 224 Diglossia, diglossic, 28, 39, 40, 41, 45, 223 Dioudoulou, map 7 Directorate, General for Bilingual and Intercultural Education 160 Disappearing languages 5 Discrimination, discriminated, discriminatory, 42, 58, 66, 81, 82, 88, 105, 115, 124, 161, 175, 181, 185, 207, 229, 238, 248, 259, 261 Disease, 33, 239, 243 Displacement, 20, 45, 114, 206, 228, 230, 234, 265 Diwan, 103 Dodoma, map 9 Domains, 12, 22, 24, 38, 40, 42, 51, 113, 114, 116, 128, 193, 223 Dominant – culture, 177, 178, 179, 218, 259 – language, see also predominant language, 64, 70, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 113, 114, 117, 150, 151, 153, 168, 170, 174, 195, 207, 211, 216, 217, 221, 226, 232, 234, 235, 237, 238, 258
Words and Worlds – monolingualism, 24 – society, 156, 207, 228 Drought, 33, 239 Drug addiction, 81 Drum language, 79 Dry areas, 23 Dual-lingualism, 39 Durban, map 5 East London, map 5 Easter Island, 32 Ecolinguistics, 30, 32 Ecological – balance, xi – community, 126 – system, 10 Ecology, 30, 31, 38, 43 Economic – crises, 227, 237 – exploitation, 227, 237 – factor, 30 – power, 47, 64, 80, 82, 94, 177 – subjugation, 229 Ecuador, 52, 65, 66, 97, 99, 101, 138, map 6, map 11 Education Reform Act, 100 Education system, educational system, 66, 68, 78, 93, 99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 151, 152, 153, 162, 163, 167, 172, 173, 174, 198, 206, 238, 253 Educational – linguistics, 151, 170 – policy, 150, 152, 153, 163 – programme, 105, 166, 170, 190, 196 Egypt 39, map 10 Eisteddfodau, 100 El Salvador, 240, map 8 Electronic media, 169 Elementary grade, 152 Elista, 2 Elite language, 230 Emergente, 11, 14, 40, 114, 115, 185 Emigration, see also migration, immigration, xi, 4, 18, 23, 32, 33, 39, 40, 42, 56, 183, 196, 206, 208, 211, 215, 218, 219, 227, 233, 234, 239, 242, 243, 250, 253, 256, 257, 259, 265 Ena Wene Nawé, 132, 133 Encounter language, 83 Endangered – language, 51, 54, 63, 73, 90, 188, 209, 210, 231, 236, 237, 247, 251, 254, 255
Subject Index – linguistic communities, xii, 3, 7, 19, 34, 84, 97, 118, 119, 128, 131, 197, 142, 143, 149, 170, 171, 173, 175, 190, 194, 198, 199, 214, 221, 250, 254, 256, 258, 265, 267 Endemic language, 23, 28, 30, 32, 39 Epidemia, 33, 227, 239 Escarré Internacional Centre for Ethnic Minorities and Nations, 108 Esoteric language, 17, 18 Estonia, 107, map 4 Ethiopia, 49, 52, 67 Ethnic identity, 115, 169 Ethnicity, 75, 84 Ethnocultural, 38, 74 Ethno-educational model, 155 Ethnolinguistic, ethno-linguistic, 13, 26, 126, 127, 129, 233 Ethnoses, 127 Europe – Central, 165 – Eastern, 20, 70, 191 – Western 190, 220 European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages, EBLUL 107, 108 European Commission, 108 European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages, 103, 106, 107, 108 European national languages, 13, 40, 47 European nationalism, 93, 192 European Union EU, 22, 39, 44, 105, 106, 202 Euskal Herria, euskaldunak, 170 Euskaltzaindia, 171 Exclusion language, 83 Exogenous language, 68 Exolexicons, 14 Exoteric language, 18 Exotic language, 23, 40, 41 Expanding language, 5, 220, 243 Extinct language, 63, 169, 201 Extinction language, 96, 201, 228 Fables, 136, 148 Fairy tales, 148 Family language, 166, 167, 169, 174, 208, 212, 263 Famine, 239 Fes, map 10 Fieldwork, 29 Fiji, 40, 41 Finland, 24, 74, 97, 104, 107, 203, map 4 FIPH, 219
319 First – grade, 152 – language, 43, 95, 96, 126, 128, 159, 163, 164, 215 First World War, 103 Flood, 139 Folk songs, 136, 148, Forbidden, 102, 153, 161, 195, 218 Foreign language, 18, 27, 68, 87, 88, 167 Formal educational system, formal teaching, 18, 152 Former European colonies, 24 Foster mother tongues, 26 France, 11, 24, 52, 56, 70, 90, 97, 102, 103, 107, 124, 136, 162, 168, 220, 226, 230 Franciscans, 137 Francophone Agency ACCT, 107 Francophonie, 68 French Revolution, 24, 228 Frenchification, 228 Frisian (community, region, area), 70, 97, 143, 180 Functional diversity, 30 Further education, 83 Gabon, 93 Gällivare, map 4 Gambia, 93, map 7 Generalitat de Catalunya, 202 Genocida, 45, 69, 77, 80, 81, 82 207, 217, 244 Geographical – isolation, 32 – mobility, 28 Georgia, 72, 73, 97, 107, 141, map 2 Germany, 14, 21, 24, 29, 47, 56, 74, 97, 107, 121, 143, 180, 191, 233 Ghana, 99 Global – dominant language, 114 – language, 83, 113 – society, 163, 231 – village, 235 Globalisation, x, xi, xii, xiv, 33, 81, 85, 86, 133, 154, 166, 171, 176, 188, 243, 246, 256, 263 Glottonym, 6 Glotto-politics, 13 Government of Wales Act, 101 Gradual shift, 238 Great Britain, 56, 86, 162, 168 Great famine, 239 Greece, 74
320 Guatemala, 47, 93, 97, 143, 147, 160, 193, 194, 207, 218, map 8 Guayaquil, 138 Hamburg, 84 Harare, 18, 107, 109 Hawaii, 32 Heerenveen, 70 Helduen Alfabetatze Berreuskalduntzerako Erakundea HABE, 172 Helsinki, map 4 Helsinki Final Act, 106 Hetta, map 4 High-rainfall, 23 Hispanic Culture, 82 Hispanicisation, 208, 228 Hitler Germany, 21 Holland, 56, 97, 107 Home language, 112, 223 Honduras, 16, 65, 97, 148, 161, 194, 196, 212, 219, 226, map 8 Houston, 84 Huancayo, map 6 Huanuco, map 6 Hudston Bay, map 11 Human rights, xi, 106, 127, 165, 217, 248, 263 Hungary, 70, 107 Hymn book, 137 Iceland, vii, 107, 121, 177 Idiolect, 111 Idre, map 4 Illiterate, 131, 134 Immersion, 103, 105, 117, 167, 168, 174 Immigration, see also migration, emigration, xi, 4, 18, 23, 32, 33, 39, 40, 42, 56, 183, 196, 206, 208, 211, 215, 218, 219, 227, 233, 234, 239, 242, 243, 250, 253, 256, 257, 259, 265 Imperialist language, 89 Impoverishment, 81, 239 Independent language, 7, 47 India, 3, 25, 26, 42, 48, 56, 60, 74, 99, 117, 122, 126, 135, 136, 144, 147, 152, 153, 154, 155, 165, 192, 209, 211, 222, 238, 240 Indigenous – community, 2, 151, 155, 219, 226, 228 – group, 66, 195, 226 – language, 21, 23, 24, 26, 33, 43, 51, 56, 65, 67, 76, 77, 78, 82, 102, 104, 121, 138, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 164, 181, 196, 216, 221, 226, 228, 232
Words and Worlds – minority, 81 – people, 75, 81, 99, 101, 102, 104, 155, 158, 159, 181, 195, 219 – population, 53, 54, 65, 219, 221, 230, 239 Indigenous Teachers Association ACRE, 140, 157, 160, 168 Indochina, 64, 230 Indonesia, 21, 24, 46, 47, 48, 58, 67, 94, 95, 97, 141, 142 Inequality, 115, 183 Influenza, 33 Information technology, 28, 33 Ingushetia, 71, 72, map 2 Institut de Sociolingüística Catalana, 202 Intercommunication, 16, 18, 19, 38, 68 Interculturalism, 106, 168 Intergenerational – continuity, 17 – discontinuity, 17 – transmission, 4, 17, 100, 200, 201, 202, 203, 206, 212, 234, 252 – use, 4, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 207, 209, 211, 213 Intergovernmental Conference of Ministers on Language Policies in Africa, 107 Intermarriage, see also mixed marriage, 31 Internal migration, see also migration, emigration, immigration, 18 International Commission for Translations and Linguistic Rights, 108 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 106, 110 International language, 64, 69, 80, 86 Internationalisation, 54, 55, 85 Intolerance, xiv, 267 Invasion, 40, 81, 233 Iquitos, map 6 Iran, 72 Ireland, 98, 107, 191, 239 Irian, Jaya 76 Iringa, map 9 Islam, 51, 190, 191, 192, 194 Island of San Andres, 22, map 12 Isolation, 32, 36, 56, 198, 227, 252, 258, 262 Israel, 147, 190 Italy, 14, 24, 56, 70, 74, 97, 107, 147, 168 James Bay, 105 Japan, 178, 192 Java, 95 Jawaharlal Nehru University, viii, 26
Subject Index Jesuits, 133, 137 Jharkhand, 26 Johannesburg, map 5 Jordan, 72 Judaism, 190 Kabardino-Balkaria, 71, 72, 73, map 2 Kabrousse, map 7 Kabyle, 56, 123 Kahnawake, 105 Kalemie, map 9 Kalmykia, map 2 Kautokeino, map 4 Karachay, 71, 73, map 2 Karachay-Cherkessia, 71, 72, 73, map 2 Karasjok, map 4 Kenya, 94, 177, 208, 218, map 9 Kigoma, map 9 Kinship terms, 23, 244 Kirgiztan, 97 Kiruna, map 4 Koine, 20 Koran, 85 Korea, 19, 29, 74, 192 Krasnodar, 71, map 2 Kupwar, 27, 33, 38 Kura Kaupapa Maori, 77 Lamaism, 195 Language – choice, 41, 116, 119, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194 – community, 10, 13, 15 – continuity see also speech community, 33 – death, 86, 127, 163, 226, 227, 228, 238, 242, 247, 249, 255 – decline, 79 – development, 33, 75, 209 – disappearance, languages disappearing, 115, 225 – dominant, 115 – ecology, 12, 25, 30, 30, 79 – family, 63, 71 – group, 7, 26, 55, 59, 72, 110, 111, 202, 203, 235, 236 – in contact, see also contact languages, 2, 26, 33, 215, 222, 226, 233, 242, 262 – in danger, xiv, 57, 201, 261 – loyalty, 26 – maintenance, 17, 73, 127, 169, 189, 196, 197, 244 – names, 62, 78
321 – of communication, 43 – of instruction, 158 – planning, 17, 21, 22, 69, 189, 190, 196, 249, 250, 259 – policy, xii, xiii, 13, 66, 79, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 193, 195 – recovery, 170 – revival, 11, 109, 161 – right, 114, 116, 216 – shift, see also shift, 17, 18, 20, 26, 30, 40, 42, 43, 65, 97, 114, 115, 116, 121, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 198, 201, 202, 203, 204, 228, 238, 242, 250, 257, – transmission, 17, 203, 205, 206, 208 – use, 10, 11, 27, 43, 46, 52, 63, 114, 116, 118, 120, 127, 155, 160, 190, 191, 203, 221, 223, 241, 249, 265 Languages in contact, see also contact language, 26, 242 Last speaker, 5, 121, 226, 227, 248 Latin alphabet, 136, 137, 141, 148, 191, 193 Latvia, 107, 177, map 4 Legends, 136, 137, 148 Legislation, 42, 92, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 111, 124, 161, 162, 232 Lesotho, map 5 Lexicon, 14, 19, 21, 35, 39, 78, 144, 196, 231 Liberia, Libya, map 11 Lima, map 6 Lingua franca, 18, 19, 20, 26, 31, 39, 40, 79, 193, 196 Linguapax, viii, xiii, xiv Linguasphere, 230, 231 Linguicide, 244, 246 Linguicism, 82, 83, 90 Linguistic policy see also planning, vii, 3, 90, 97, 107, 155, 182, 228, 266, – comparative, 58, 236 – contact, see also contact languages, xii, 4, 222, 262, 265, 266 – density, 76 – dominance, see also dominant language, 64 – ecology, see also ecolinguistics, 3, 22, 30, 32, 40, 44, 111 – hegemony, 86 – heritage, xi, xii, xiv, 3, 8, 9, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 97, 104, 105, 107, 108, 149, 151, 163, 184, 232, 247, 265
322 – homogenisation, 93 – identity, see also language identity – immersion, 105 – imperialism, 54, 87, 88, 89, 90 – minority ies, 102, 113, 124 – norms, 144, 146 – normalisation, 5, 258 – racism, 82, 83 – right, see also language right, 4, 70, 104, 107, 108, 110, 118, 130, 180, 221, 232, 248, 260, 263 – substitution, 4, 87, 206, 212, 220 – uniformity, xi, 6, 9, 150, 249, 251, 263 – universal, 96 Link language, 83, 98, 111 Literacy, 42, 115, 131, 133, 137, 138, 140, 147, 159, 166, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 181, 182, 185, 244, 250, 255, 259, 263 Lithuania, 107 Living language, 231, 247 Local language, 76, 130, 194, 195, 198, 207, 208, 218, 251, 255 Lower Brittany, 103 Lozovero, map 4 Lunes Matub, 123 Luxembourg, 56, 98, 107, 167 Lycksele, map 4 Macao, 226 Macedonia, 70, 107 Maghrib, 208, map 10 Maharashtra, 27 Maintenance educational model, 176 Makerer, 87 Mala, map 4 Malawi, map 9 Malaysia, 24, 49, 58, 76, 136 Mali, 123, 136, 140, 178, map 10 Malta, 107, 122 Marginalisation, xi, 58, 70, 81, 82, 93, 100, 105, 150, 181, 182, 193, 199, 238, 239, 251, 257 Marie Smith, 226 Marraquech, map 10 Masaba, 136 Massacre, 237, 240 Mato Grosso, 132 Mauritania, map 10 Mbeya, map 9 Media propaganda, 169 Medical disasters, 33
Words and Worlds Mediterranean, 18, 20, map 10 Megalanguage, 231 Melanesia, 32, 38 Melbourne, 2 Melilla, 208, map 10 Mentrau Iaith, 101 Merton College, viii, 223 Metalinguistic, 37, 38, 45, 134 – awareness, 25, 37 – skills, 134 Mexico, 48, 65, 66, 101, 137, 143, 147, 148, 152, 178, 226, map 8 Middle East, 18, 72 Migrant – communities, 17, – languages, 42 Migration, see also emigration, immigration, internal migration, xiv, 4, 18, 23, 32, 33, 39, 40, 42, 56, 183, 196, 206, 208, 211, 215, 218, 219, 227, 233, 234, 239, 242, 243, 250, 253, 256, 257, 259, 265 Military domination, 228 Minorisation, 80, 149 Minorised languages, 141, 153, 163, 168, 222 Minority language, viii, 11, 16, 42, 44, 90, 100, 103, 106, 107, 108, 149, 150, 163, 164, 167, 168, 169, 181, 182, 188, 198, 202, 209, 221, 224, 235, 236, 237, 238, 253, 254, 255, 257, 259, 262, 263 Minority Languages Academic Society of China, viii Missal, 137, 194 Missionaries, 16, 18, 20, 78, 137, 140, 193, 194, 246 Missions, 17, 192, 195 Mixed – endemic-exotic communities, 39, 40 – marriage, see also intermarriage, 31, 70, 206, 208, 211, 227, 233, 234 Modern language, 20, 21, 22, 82, 103, 154, 231 Modern Testament, see also New Testament, 20, 137, 194 Modernisation, 17, 21, 24, 81, 93, 94, 206, 207, 208, 238, 248, 256 Moldavia, 107 Monolingual – assimilation, 89 – attitude, 90 – ideology, 87 – mentality, 87
Subject Index – model, 3 – policy, 96 – school, 150, 174, 239, 251, 252, 253 Monolingualism, 11, 24, 66, 87, 88, 89, 90, 189, 252 Montreal, map 11 Morocco, map 10 Morogoro, map 9 Morphology, 20, 62, 209 Moscow State Linguistics University, vii, viii, 75 Mother tongue, 26, 34, 35, 37, 63, 71, 75, 96, 109, 115, 123, 126, 128, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 159, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 184, 196, 207, 209, 210, 213, 217, 219, 221, 234, 237, 240, 242, 245 Mountain villages, 32 Mozambique, 101, 147, 216, map 5 Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, 108 Multicultural, see also pluricultural, 3, 164, 168, 257 Multifactorial analyses, 3 Multi-function polis, 44 Multilingual – community, 25, 89 – education, viii, xiii, 4, 213, 231, 252, 253, 255, 262 – ecology, 41 – modes of communication, 36 – network, 111, 112, 114, 115 – relations, 3 Multilingualism, see also plurilingualism, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 51, 68, 69, 87, 88, 91, 92, 106, 111, 151, 164, 165, 169, 173, 174, 184, 186, 215, 222, 230, 231, 253, 262, 268 Munich, vii, 84 Murder of natives in El Salvador in 1932, 240 Murmansk, map 4 Mutual intelligibility, mutual understanding, mutually intelligible, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 29, 47, 56, 89, 90 Mwanza, map 9 Myanmar, 74, 191, 192 Mysore, vii, 2, 27, 209 Myth, xi, 13, 132, 136, 138, 148, 262 Nagorno-Karabakh, map 2 Nakho, 62 Namibia, map 5
323 Narrative poems, 136 National Assembly for Wales, 101 National – language, 13, 21, 24, 28, 40, 43, 47, 69, 74, 75, 76, 78, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 104, 122, 124, 169, 216 – minority, 74 Nationalism, 41, 84, 86, 93, 127, 166, 192 Nationalist language, 83 Nationalisation, 86 Native – language, 19, 66, 67, 112, 137, 199, 212, 217, 221 – religions, 194, 197, 199 Natively spoken language, 18 Natural – and human resources, 11 – calamities, 243 – disaster, 33, 197, 227, 238 – environments, x, 23, 30 – language, 13, 21, 40, 82, 144, 145 Negative attitude, 26, 102, 189, 215, 220, 222, 223 Neighbouring communities, 2, 263 Nenetsia, 99 Nepal, 243 Netherlands, 14, 24 Neutral language, 83, 85, 87 New Britain, 33 New Caledonia, 19, 178 New Guinea, 14, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32, 38, 39, 41, 46, 48, 52, 60, 66, 78, 79, 99, 138, 142, 143, 147, 152, 153, 160, 168, 197, 211 New Guinea Highlands, 14, 32 New Hebrides, 76 New Testament, see also Modern Testament, 20, 137, 194 New Zealand, 7, 23, 31, 64, 77, 93, 105, 168 Newspaper, 144, 178, 180 Nicaragua, 65, 97, 212, map 8 Niger, 123, map 10 Nigeria, vii, 48, 50, 51, 67, 98, 122, 178, 206, 207 Non Governmental Organisation Survival International, 81 Normalised use – in the administration, 125 – of writing, 135, 140 North-West Territories, 104, map 11 Norway, 70, 97, 104, 107, map 4 Notozeto, map 4
324 Number – of languages, xii, 5, 11, 20, 31, 32, 34, 40, 44, 47, 48, 50, 55, 56, 63, 78, 86, 89, 126, 138, 151, 164, 184, 225, 241, 243 – of speakers, 3, 6, 18, 24, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 65, 67, 70, 72, 77, 88, 206, 227, 232, 233, 243 Nyassia, map 7 Oberwart, 70 Official language, 19, 42, 43, 44, 47, 51, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 101, 105, 106, 107, 120, 122, 123, 124, 179, 205, 206, 207, 211, 215, 218, 221, 226, 230, 241, 247, 250, 266 Open University of Catalonia, viii, 203 Oral – culture, 83 – literature, 83, 148 – literary tradition, 138, 148, 254 – transmission, 85 Orality, 83, 115, 132, 164 Order of the words, 62 Organisation of African Unity OAU, 107 Original language, 198, 218, 225, 238, 239 Oslo, map 4 Ossettia, 99, map 2 Ouagadougou, vii, 2 Oussouye, map 7 Oviedo, 84 Pakistan, 94, 122, 147, 148, 178 Panama, 65 Pandemics, 33 Papua New Guinea (see New Guinea) Paraguay, 18, 39, 41, 66, 67, 98, 122, 133, 134, 137 Paraná, 133 Passive – language learning, 88 – multilingualism, 39 Patois, 16, 25 Peasant Research and Promotion Centre, viii PEN Club, 108, 263 Persecution, 42 Peru, 7, 66, 97, 101, 102, 123, 124, 147, 160, 192, 208, 212, 218, 240, map 12 Philippines, 48, 58, 76, 94, 143, 152, 192 Philology, 12 Philosophical knowledge, philosophical system, 29, 140 Phonetic script, 136, 141
Words and Worlds Phonetics, 61 Phyla, phylum, 58, 59, 60, 64, 67, 73, 74, 76, 236 Pyatigorsk, viii, 73, map 2 Pidgin, xii, 19, 20, 22, 31, 39, 40, 51, 63, 79, 211, 222, 223, 230 Piura, map 6 Planned languages, 21, 22 Planning, see also language planning (see linguistic planning) 17, 21, 22, 69, 189, 190, 196, 249, 250, 259 Plantations, 19, 238 Pluralism, xi, xiii, 165, 187 Pluricentric standard languages, 29 Pluricultural, see also multicultural, 3, 164, 168, 257 Plurilingualism, see also multilingualism, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 51, 68, 69, 87, 88, 91, 92, 106, 111, 151, 162, 164, 165, 169, 173, 174, 184, 186, 215, 222, 230, 231, 253, 262, 268, Poland, 74, 107 Policies of preservation, 3 Policy of discrimination, see also marginalisation, assimilation, 58 Political self-determination, xi Political units, 24 Polyethnicity, 75 Polylingual, see also multilingual, plurilingual, 73, 87, 88, 92, 107, 150, 151, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 181, 182, 184, 239, 263 Ponoj, map 4 Port Elizabeth, map 5 Portugal, 107, 230 Positive attitude, 151, 153, 214, 215, 218, 253, 257 Post-colonial, see also colonial, 97, 112, 228 Post-creole communities, 27 Post-modern society ies, 83 Predominant language, see also dominant language, 64, 70, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 113, 114, 117, 150, 151, 153, 168, 170, 174, 195, 207, 211, 216, 217, 221, 226, 232, 234, 235, 237, 238, 258 Prefabricated language, 84 Prejudices, xi, xiv, 82, 146, 188, 199, 205, 214, 223, 252, 256, 257, 258 Prescriptive linguistics, 12 Press, 83 Pretoria, 140, 171, 174, 177, 178, 181, 182, 187, 255, 256, map 5
Subject Index Priest, 133 Primary education, 83, 137, 147, 153, 157, 160, 161, 209, 252 Primitive society, 82 Private domain, 114 Process of diversification, 32 PROEIB Andes, vii Prohibition, 152, 218, 232 Promotion – of language, 99, 107, 108 – of literacy, 42 Protestant, 191, 194, 195 Purism, 165 Purity, 95 Pyatigorsk North-Caucasian Centre for Sociolinguistic Studies, viii, 73, 324 Quebec, 105 Queensland, 19, 29, 38, 43 Racism, racist, 56, 81, 82, 83, 90 Radio, 83, 100, 144, 166, 171, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 187, 242, 255, 256, 264 Rainfall, 23 Receptive vocabulary, 35 Regional language, 42, 63, 83, 95, 96, 154, 209, 266 Religion, xi, 3, 12, 24, 66, 131, 137, 186, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 233, 238, 242 Religious instruction – leaders, xii, 194, 195, 199 – terms, 139, 197 – writings, 137, 139 Removing children, 121 Rennes, viii, 103 Repression, xii, 220, 267 Resettlement, see also settlement, 42 Revitalisation, see also vitality, 250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 258, 259 Revival, 9, 11, 62, 77, 100, 105, 121, 158, 159, 161, 168, 169, 209, 219, 236 Riga, map 4 Rivers, 32 Roman script, 17 Romania, 7, 70, 179, 206 Rope-makers, 27 Röros, map 4 Rural, 26, 40, 67, 122, 154, 171, 186, 208, 218, 224, 237, 238, 251, 257 Russia, vii, 49, 71, 74, 75, 107, 147, 158
325 Russian Far East, 120 Russian Federation, 2, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 97, 99, 104, 123, 136 Russification, 230 Rwanda, 94, map 9 Sabir, 76 Sacred languages, 190, 191, 192 Sahara, 67, 68 Sahara, Western, map 10 Salta, 81 Salvador, 240, map 8 Samoa, 94 San Marino, 107 San Salvador, map 8 Sangli, 27 Saussure, 111 Scandinavia, 14, map 4 Seattle, 84 Second language, 18, 19, 21, 34, 37, 62, 63, 69, 87, 100, 127, 163, 164, 168, 169, 170, 242, 244, 252, 260 Second World War, 104, 166 Secondary education, 103, 122, 154, 157, 162, 163 Secret languages, 21 Seismic movement, 239 Self-destruction, 82 Self-enclosed communities, xiii Self-esteem, 9, 81, 164, 212, 216, 222, 257, 264 Semi-official status, 162 Semi-speakers, 26 Senegal, 123, 139, 143, 178, map 7 Separate language, 47, 55, 56 Serbia, 21 Serengeti National Park, map 9 Settlement, 20, 42, 233 Seville, 84 Shakespeare, 85 Shift, see also language shift, 17, 18, 20, 26, 30, 40, 42, 43, 65, 97, 114, 115, 116, 121, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 198, 201, 202, 203, 204, 228, 238, 242, 250, 257, Siberia, 73, 81, 120, 121, 219 Sign language, 22, 63, 240, 242 SIL see also Summer Institute of Linguistics, and Instituto Lingüístico de Verano ILV, viii, 62, 63, 137, 138, 141, 161, 195, 243 Sindian, map 7 Singapore, 19, 43 Single national language, 24
326 Size of a language, 32 Slavery, slaves, 19, 20, 46, 80, 105, 230, 234, 238, 240 Slitgong languages, 22 Slovakia, 70, 107 Slovenia, 107 Small language, 11, 18, 23, 38, 39, 42, 44, 80, 169, 188, 217, 236, 246, 262, 267 Smallpox, 33, 239 Snasa, map 4 Social – degradation, 238 – discrimination, 66, 229 – liberation, 131, 135 – marginalisation, 150 – mobility, 33, 42 – prestige, 172, 198, 227 Socioeconomic power, Sociolinguistics, 4, 12, 25, 111, 265, 266 Sociopolitical power, Sodankylä, map 4 Solomon Islands, Solomons, 18, 19 Somalia, 136, 162 Songelsk, map 4 Songs, 136, 139, 148, 152, 197, 229, 245 Sosnavka, map 4 Soviet Union, 126, 230 Spain, vii, xiii, 11, 56, 97, 99, 107, 121, 126, 139, 162, 167, 168, 173, 178, 203, 226 Speakers distribution, 33 Speech organ, 61 Speech-community, see also language community, 10, 12, 13, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35, 38, 44, 96, 230, 231, 244, 245, Sprachbunds, 33 Sri Lanka, 98 Staatsvolk, 84 Stable hierarchical communities, 39 Standard language, 16, 20, 29, 39, 55, 56, 84, 85, 131, 135, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 175, 223 Standardisation, 42, 85, 112, 114, 135, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 147, 149, 176, 189, 191, 198, 254, 258 State language, 42, 73, 75, 78, 94, 97, 99, 104, 119, 120, 121, 122, 131, 141, 146, 177, 202, 228, 233 Status of – languages, 3, 92, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 118, 120, 221 – planning, 42
Words and Worlds Stavropol, 71, map 2 Stigmatised indigenous community ies, 226 Stockholm, 187, map 4 Strasbourg, 106 Structural disintegration, 16 Structuralism, 14 Submersion (educational model), 168 Subordination, 227, 237, 238 Substractive – bilingualism, 66 – bilinguality, 37 Sudan, 49, 67, 137 Summer Institute of Linguistics SIL (see SIL) Sumpah Pemuda, 95 Superstitions, 83 Supplementary educational tool, 158 Surinam, 141 Survival, 1, 2, 18, 19, 25, 30, 42, 57, 65, 67, 77, 81, 82, 102, 114, 121, 131, 144, 149, 166, 169, 175, 180, 182, 199, 202, 204, 217, 218, 220, 230, 232, 234, 239, 146, 257 Sustainable development, 235, 237, 265 Swaziland, map 5 Sweden, 97, 104, 107, 168, 203, map 4 Switzerland, 24, 44, 56, 98, 99, 104, 107, 147 Symbols, x, 37, 85, 107, 112, 124, 125, 169, 208, 217, 218, 228, 237, 245, 253, 256, 265, 267 Syntagmatic relations, 44 Syntax, 62, 209 Synthetic model, 61 Syria, 72 System of annotation, 134 Taboo, 22, 78 Tacna, map 6 Taiwan, 29, 236 Tallinn, map 4 Tamanrasset, map 10 Tarna, Tanganyka, map 9 Tanger, map 10 Tännäs, map 10 Tanzania, 19, 49, 94, 180, map 9 Tärna, map 4 Taymyria, 90 Te Kohanga Reo, 77 Teaching institutions, 88, 150 Technical innovation, 32 Technological changes, xi Tegucigalpa, map 8 Telephony, 131, 149, 166
Subject Index Temporal factors, 31 Terminal speakers, see also last speakers, 26 Terminological, terminology, 10, 13, 14, 20, 73 Terralingua, 216, 217 Texts, 12, 134, 135, 141, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 161, 190, 191, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199 Thailand, 74, 94 The Australian National University, Canberra, 169 The League of Welsh Youth, 101 The Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, 108, 183, 263 Third languages, 169, 221 Thought, 10, 36, 37, 63, 97, 131, 132, 134, 145, 244, 249 Threat, 68, 70, 76, 97, 105, 149, 164, 181, 193, 201, 212, 226, 232, 234, 238, 239, 247, 248, 249, 253, 254 Threatened language, 66, 169, 206 Tibet, 136 Timbuctu, map 10 Tizi-Uzu, map 10 Tobi, 16 Togo, 143, 147, 239 Tolerated language, 102 Tonga, 94 Toronto, map 11 Tradition, 3, 10, 11, 69, 83, 85, 105, 131, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 145, 147, 148, 149, 151, 161, 191, 193, 197, 207, 222, 224, 230, 239, 254, 255, 262 Traditional – folk literature, 136 – grammarians, 12 – multilingualism, 38 – society, 17, 21 Translation, 35, 36, 61, 101, 110, 137, 140, 143, 145, 155, 159, 191, 192, 194, 198, 199, 231, 264 Transmission language, interruption of transmission (see language transmission) 73, 172, 207 Treaty of Waitangi, 77 Tribal – community, 82, 138 – language, 24, 25, 26, 83, 209, 210, 211 Triglossia, 40 Tripoli, map 10 Tuberculosis, 239 Tunisia, map 10 Turin, 107
327 Turkey, 71, 72, 94, 102, 107, map 2 Typological – diversity, 61 – linguistics, 236 Typology of ecological classification, 13 Udmurtia, 99 Uganda, 87, 122, 137, 147, 180, map 9 Ukraine, 107 Unbalanced and unhealthy ecologies, 30 Uncultured language, 83 Unemployment, 220, 237 Unequal bilingualism, 238 UNESCO, vii, x, xiii, xiv, 11, 92, 93, 98, 107, 108, 131, 150, 151, 153, 161, 165, 169, 174, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 240, 243, 263, 266 UNESCO Advisory Committee on Linguistic Pluralism and Multilingual Education, viii UNESCO Centre of Catalonia, viii UNESCO Etxea UNESCO Centre of the Basque Country ix, xiii Unfocussed languages, 16 Uniformity of language, 27 United Kingdom, 100, 101, 104, 107, 224, 231 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR, 234 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 106 United States of America USA, 17, 65, 86, 126, 152, 161, 229, 246 United States Information Agency, 87 University – of Adelaide, viii, 10, 79 – of Barcelona, vii, viii, 167 – of Geneva, viii, 147 – of Ibadan, viii – of Indonesia, viii, 97 – of Laval, viii, 38, 129 – of Mons-Hainaut, vii, viii, xiii, 69 – of Nepal, vii – of Papua New Guinea, 79 – of Pyatigorsk, 73 – of Rennes 2, viii, 103 – of the Basque Country, viii Unofficial language, 207, 226 Untouchables, 27 Unwritten language, 139, 209, 236, 241 Urban – communities, 28 – migration, 18 – schools, 154
328 Urbanisation, 19, 20, 28, 42, 68, 215, 242, 243, 256 Urdd Gobaith Cymru, 101 Utsjoki, map 4 Vancouver, map 11 Vanuatu, 14, 17, 19, 49, 76, 94 Variety language, 142 Vatican Council II, 191 Venezuela, 66, 137, map 12 Veracruz, 226 Verbal and non-verbal intelligence, 37 Vernacular, 19, 24, 38, 39, 41, 79, 144, 152, 160, 191, 192, 193, 194, 228 Vernacularisation, 68, 228 Victoria, vii, map 9 Vietnam, 19, 99, 192 Vilhelmina, map 4 Vitality see also revitalisation, 31, 52, 68, 92, 109, 115, 123, 125, 137, 140, 175, 199, 233, 234 Violence (psychological or physical), 80, 81, 266, 267 Vocabulary, 17, 35, 45, 62, 96, 222, 265 Volgograd, 71 Vuotso, map 4 Wales, 70, 100, 101, 202 War, 29, 42, 45, 72, 103, 104, 162, 166 Weak language, 237 Weddings, 148 Welsh Language Act, 100 Welsh Language Board, 100, 101 Welsh Language Society, 101 Western – civilisation, 138
Words and Worlds – concept of language, 78, 79 – culture, 47, 138 – industrialised societies, 56 – model, 82, 89 – political and economic power, 82 Whistle languages, 22 Widespread language, 47, 52, 67, 70, 91, 94, 141, 149, 177, 180, 206, 216, 232, 238, 253, 255, 256, 262, 263, 265, 267 Writing system, 121, 136, 141, 146, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 196, 198, 209, 236 Written – code, 140, 142 – codification, 131 – culture, 83, 131, 134 – language, 85, 121, 122, 128, 134, 135, 139, 140, 142, 143, 161, 166, 173, 209, 230, 251, 255, 263, 264 – literary tradition, 131, 135, 138, 140, 141, 142, 147, 154 – literature, 83, 135, 138, 141, 147, 166, 211 – media, 181 Xishuangbanna, 122 Young speakers, 169 Youth Pledge, 95 Yukatan, 33 Zaire, 48, map 9 Zambia, map 9 Zanzibar, map 9 Zhuang writting system, 136 Ziguinchor, map 7 Zimbabwe, 107, 122, map 9
Map 1. Genetic Groupings of the Languages of the World
Map 2. Languages in the Caucasus Region The Caucasus is the richest area in Europe, linguistically speaking. Over fifty languages are spoken in the region, although only a few are official. This map depicts linguistic diversity in the Caucasus and notes whether each language is official or not. Based on data provided by Alexey Yeschenko, University of Pyatigorsk (Russian Federation)
Map 3. Native American Languages in California The great linguistic diversity of California is reducing dramatically. This map shows Native American Languages in California and the number of speakers of each one. As you can see, most of them have already died or are in the process of totally disappearing. Source: Hinton, L. (1994)
Map 4. Sami Language. Language, Territory, and Official Status Frequently, the same linguistic community inhabits territories belonging to more than one state. In Europe, for instance, one well-known example is that of Sami, whose speakers are to be found in land belonging to Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Russian Federation, but which is official only in the first three countries. This map shows the Sami-speaking areas. Source: Seurujärvi-Kari, Pedersen & Hirvonen (1997)
Map 5. Languages of South Africa The map includes the eleven languages of South Africa that are recognised officially. It is also important to point out that there are other first languages that are used by South Africans such as Dutch, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, French, Tamil, Hindi, Telegu, Gujarati, Urdu, Chinese, Swahili, Shone and Arabic and two Bantu languages, siPhuthi and Makhuwa, that are not recognised by the Constitution but that are both unique to South Africa. Based on data provided by the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology of Pretoria (South Africa)
Map 6. Great Diversity but only Occasional Use in Administration Despite the great linguistic diversity in South American countries such as Peru, very few get to be used in formal service encounters. Even languages declared official, Quechua and Aymara, for instance, are hardly used in public administration. This map of Peru shows the original territory of the several language varieties. Data provided by the Peruvian Indigenous Institute
Map 7. Standardisation in Senegal Senegal has great language diversity. Some languages, such as Balanta or Safen, have undergone a certain process of standardisation; others, such as Basari or Badyara, have not. This map shows the languages used in the region of Ziguinchor. Based on data provided by the Directorate for Literacy and Basic Education, Senegal
Map 8. Languages of Central America (Partial) According to our respondent for Pech (Honduras), there is no written tradition in this language, but only oral. This map shows the languages of Mexico and Central America. Sources: Wurm, Mühlhäusler & Tryon (1996), England (1994), Moseley & Asher (1994) and data provided by K’ulb’il Yol Twitz Paxil-Academy of Mayan Language and the Honduran Institute of Anthropology
Map 9. The Media and Languages Spoken in Tanzania Over one hundred languages are spoken in Tanzania. Only a few have some presence in the media. The use of Swahili as the language for high functions is widespread. Data taken from Grimes (2000)
Map 10. Tamazight Language Areas According to our Tamazight (North Africa) respondent, Islamism contributes to the Arabisation of the Amazights. This map shows the Tamazight language areas. Based on data provided by the Mediterranean “Montgomery Hart” Foundation of Amazights and Magrebian Studies
Map 11. Attitudes and Indian Languages in Canada Although a language may play an important role in the definition of both individual and collective identity, severe language shift may occur in a community. According to the respondent for Algonquin, for instance, Algonquins often express their concern about language loss and note that this language is an important part of their identity as a nation and as individuals. This map shows Indian languages in Canada grouped by families. Data provided by the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (Minister of Supply and Services, Canada)
Map 12. Languages of Colombia Social pressure often prevents natural transmission of minority languages, as reported by our respondent for some languages spoken in Colombia. Formerly the language was transmitted from parents to children. Today we often find that parents speak to their children in Spanish because they feel that this language’s dominance ensures that their descendants will be accepted by the dominant society on an equal footing. (Uitoto, Colombia). This map shows languages spoken in Colombia. Based on data provided by the Colombian Center for the Study of Aboriginal Languages (CCELA)
Map 13. Language Diversity in China Most minority communities in China today are at least three thousand years old. However, contact between different groups brought about assimilation, and only isolated communities were able to preserve their languages more completely (Hongkai and Xing, 2003: 243). This map shows languages other than Chinese spoken in China classified by the number of speakers. Based on data provided by the Academic Society for the Minority Languages of China
