Why cultural meanings matter in endangered language research

Language endangerment, a global phenomenon, is accelerating and 90 percent of the world's languages are about to disappear in 21 st century, leading to the loss of human intellectual and cultural diversity. When Europe colonized the New World and the South, an enormous body of cultural and intellectual wealth of indigenous people was lost completely and it was appreciable only through the language that disappeared with it (Hale, 1998). This research deals with the problem of language loss in the world and seeks answer to critical questions: What does language extinction mean for humankind? What is to be done to save languages from loss? Some scholars suggest that linguists should find solutions whereas others disagree that it is linguists' responsibility to maintain and preserve the currently disappearing languages. Moreover, the research indicates that not only language specialists are participating in this process but also general public, particularly members of the communities whose languages are declining, are contributing their efforts in saving languages from loss.

Language Policy, 2011

In their introduction, editors Farfán and Ramallo write that the purpose of their book ''is to contribute to the debate regarding the perspectives of documenting languages,'' with language revitalization in mind (p. 7). The idea is to serve the language community being documented while also serving science in general. The editors note Lenore Grenoble's perspective in the fourth chapter that ''the more oriented towards revitalization the [language] documentation is the more effective and relevant it will be'' (p. 9). They conclude that a ''sociolinguistics of development, in which the revitalization of linguistic communities is the priority, opens new perspectives for the emerging field of linguistic documentation, in which the societal aspects of the research have frequently been marginal'' (p. 10). The ideal put forward by Grenoble in chapter 4 is of the linguist as ''facilitator and collaborator'' in well-planned documentation projects that include training and capacity building for the local community (p. 84; see also Grenoble 2009). This call for researchers to serve and give back to the Indigenous communities they study is not new, at least not in North America. In his 1969 book Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto, Vine Deloria, Jr. took to task anthropologists, and by implication linguists and other researchers who studied American Indians, and the issue has been roundly debated since then (see e.g., Biolsi and Zimmerman 1997). All linguists, the contributors to this volume take up a variety of issues surrounding language documentation and revitalization that have recently been discussed at length (see e.g., Kroskrity and Field 2009). The central question concerns the place of Indigenous languages in the modern world. Are they destined to become extinct one by one as is happening now, or can they find a place in our modern globalized world where only a few languages seem to be the ''fittest'' and able to survive? In the second chapter, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald notes how Manambu, a language spoken by about 2,500 people in Papua New Guinea, is

2009

It is generally agreed that about 7,000 languages are spoken across the world today and at least half may no longer be spoken by the end of this century. This state-of-the-art Handbook examines the reasons behind this dramatic loss of linguistic diversity, why it matters, and what can be done to document and support endangered languages. The volume is relevant not only to researchers in language endangerment, language shift and language death, but to anyone interested in the languages and cultures of the world. It is accessible to both specialists and non-specialists: researchers will find cutting-edge contributions from acknowledged experts in their fields, while students, activists and other interested readers will find a wealth of readable, yet thorough and up-to-date, information. The Handbook covers the essentials of language documentation and archiving, and also includes hands-on chapters on advocacy and support for endangered languages, development of writing systems for previously unwritten languages, education, training the next generation of researchers and activists, dictionary making, the ecology of languages, language and culture, language and society, language policy, and harnessing technology and new media in support of endangered languages.

Sociolinguistic Studies, 2008

Economic & Political Weekly, 2009

Identity-Based: Language is not simply a tool for communication but is a central and defining feature of identity as all hu-man thoughts are conceptualised through a language and all human values are pro-nounced and perceived through it. It fol-lows that since language is a ...

International Social Science Journal, 2002

Language, 2017

Salikoko Mufwene raises significant questions about how and why languages become endangered (and die). The purpose of this reply is to provide additional perspective on what goes into answering these questions. Several of Mufwene's claims are responded to. Questions are raised concerning what the theorizing about language endangerment and loss (LEL) that Mufwene calls for would be like. Many causal factors associated with LEL are mentioned, advances in understanding are pointed out, and the roles of language documentation and language revitalization are clarified.*

Language, 2005

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2010

Among a couple of dozen books in English written on language endangerment over the past two decades, this one is uniquely good. It is especially so for linguists, and perhaps particularly for those who are wondering if they would like to become linguists. All these books take note of the parlous state of the world's stock of languages and the fact that half of them now have fewer than 7,000 speakers each. That perhaps 4 per cent of them are disappearing every decade means that there is no room for complacency about the future. But the usual way is then to plead in general terms for the value that stands to be lost, the inner worlds known to small communities, the evidence of linguistic diversity that might illuminate scientific understanding of the potential of the human mind, and of the origins of the human race: noble stuff, but distant, and a bit vague. This book stands out because it is written by a linguist who has been active in tiny language communities over long periods. He can tell first-person stories about the role of their languages in the lives of his native-speaker friends and colleagues, in Australasia and the Pacific. He can go beyond the usual stock of 'good examples' hallowed in the literature, privileging the reader by giving access to his own experience. But as well as being experienced, he is learned. He says as much about metropolitan languages throughout history, and little-known languages of antiquity, as he does about modern languages spoken by small minorities in inaccessible places. In this book, Mandarin and Meroitic, Korean and Kayardild are all on a par. Evans emphasizes the human dimension of, and indeed human fascination for, linguistic data. He notes in his Prologue: 'you only hear what you listen for, and you only listen for what you are wondering about.' His explicit goal is to show us what we should be wondering about-a fundamental way to inspire further research. He also shows quite concretely what the scientific importance of this kind of linguistic knowledge has been in the past, and will be in the future. In the

Abstract: Language is essential in humans’ lives; it is what takes to differentiate between animals and humans, it is what we use to understand ourselves. Upon all its status in human life, people are still crying of language disappearance, because many died and some are endangered. There are some questions that supposed to be asked, but only few were raised. We tried to look at major areas such as: the importance of languages, the statistics of languages, what really caused the endangerment, and a way out (solution). Though, the issue is very vast, but we tried and narrowed ourselves down to the minimal level just not to confuse readers. Key words: Language, death, endangered, and revitalization

Language & Communication, 2014

On the (re-)production and representation of endangered language communities: Social boundaries and temporal borders 1. Shifting concepts of language and community Conceptualizations of language and community have mirrored changes in anthropology and the social sciences more generally, shifting from notions of shared linguistic structures, norms, and values in specific regions to complex variation, diverse practices, and multifaceted ideologies across contexts. These evolving changes, of course, were not due solely to ongoing theoretical percolations but also to permutations and complications in the types of language communities that were receiving analytical attention. Once bounded and mostly homogeneous, language communities that began to be analyzed were increasingly in contact with the hybridizing forces of immigration, culture contact, national media penetration, and globalization. But the most recent challenge to the study of language communities comes from scholars attempting to understand the confluence of all these forces in processes of language endangerment. This special issue is dedicated to the exploration of the ways studying endangered language communities makes us rethink the notion of speech or language community both in terms of how those communities construct themselves and how they can be understood and represented by researchers. Since the 1930's, scholars in the language sciences have engaged in an increasingly sustained preoccupation with concepts that connect language and community. This began with Bloomfield's (1933) groundbreaking conceptualization of a "speechcommunity" as "a group of people who interact by means of speech" (p. 42), which he highlights as "the most important kind of social group" (p. 42). His description privileges speech over other forms of language-in-interaction, and does little to acknowledge the complexities of communities that have fragile connections to a common language. In his discussion, he emphasizes the varying sizes of speech-communities and the difficulty of making distinctions within and among these groups. One of his primary interests is in density of communication, recognizing that various members of these groups have more or less interaction with one another. He also discusses issues of standard language, native language, local dialects, immigration, and language attitudes. Bloomfield's important work laid the foundation for a variety of scholars' later instantiations of the concept. Building upon Bloomfield's work, Gumperz (1968, p. 43) defined speech community as "any human aggregate characterized by regular and frequent interaction by means of a shared body of verbal signs and set off from similar aggregates by significant differences in language usage". This more complex characterization also acknowledged the amount of interaction as a key component and the elements of what makes speech community members similar to each other and distinctive from others. However, Gumperz's focus on what is shared does not emphasize sufficiently the variation within speech communities, something that is especially relevant in communities around endangered languages. For example, later pioneering work by Dorian (1982) considered variability within speech communities, introducing terms such as low-proficiency "semispeaker" and "near passive bilinguals" in relation to Gaelic and English. This acknowledgment of complexity within a speech community, in particular one focused on an endangered language, is valuable. However, in many ways it still holds full fluency and native speakerness as implicit norms and goals. 1 In her editorial introduction to a Journal of Linguistic Anthropology special issue on language and community, Irvine (1996) notes, "the one language-one culture assumption persists in anthropology and elsewhere, both within and outside the academy, despite the long history of arguments against it" (p. 123). She highlights the "semiotic processes.linguistic phenomena and discursive practices" (p. 124) that are central to notions of community. In this way, she acknowledges previous moves toward a more complex understanding of language and community, and pushes the field forward in its conceptualizations. 1 For further discussion about how to represent "semi-speakers" and other types of intra-community linguistic variation, see such sources as Tsitsipis (1989) and Sallabank (2010).

2010

In this paper we show that much can be gained when speakers of an endangered language team up with linguistic anthropologists to comment on the documentary record of an endangered language. The Cherokee speakers in this study examined published linguistic data of a relatively understudied grammatical construction, Cherokee prepronominals.2 They commented freely on the form, usage, context, meaning, dialect, and other related aspects of the construction. As a result of this examination, we make the data of Cherokee prepronominals applicable to a wider audience, including other Cherokee speakers, teachers, language learners, and general community members, as well as linguists and anthropologists.