Loss and Endangerment of World Languages - Research Paper Example

?LOSS AND ENDANGERMENT OF WORLD LANGUAGES Introduction The on-going debate regarding the origin of human knowledge is polarised into two extreme ideas – one stands from the perspective that knowledge is acquired through the senses and is developed through experience, while the other postulates that knowledge is predominantly innate. Scholars believe that in the first notion where knowledge is built through the senses and from experience, language assumes a mediating role (Malt and Wolf, 2010). It was, therefore, presupposed that language: “might point out certain ways of interpreting experiences in the world, or it might serve as a releasing factor that allows such knowledge to emerge and be connected to other parts of the conceptual system” (Malt and Wolf, 2010, p. 4). It can not, however, be denied that the meaning of words vary across languages, and such variance is pervasive. This may be explained by both the physical and cultural environments which a language community is exposed to. The best example in this regard would be colour descriptions between industrialised and traditional societies, where the former tends to acquire a larger vocabulary than the latter (Malt and Wolf, 2010). The possibility of language endangerment from communities with lesser vocabulary, however, can not be discounted, even if there are numerous other reasons why languages are endangered. This research study conducted through library investigation of literature covered the different reasons forwarded to explain why languages are endangered or at worst, lost. Literature on Language Endangerment and / or Loss An endangered language is described as a language that is likely to cease its existence as a form of human communication. Endangered languages are not necessarily minority languages, and vice versa. However, a minority language with a dwindling number of speakers is more likely to become endangered eventually (Derhemi, 2002). Moreover, Maffi (2002) maintained that “in the life of languages, change is the rule rather than the exception” (p. 385). Maffi (2002) explained why change is a common denominator in the propagation of languages, that is, to adopt to their users’ communication needs. Generation after generation, it is an accepted fact speakers of a language in a specific community utilise their language consciously or unconsciously a little differently than the preceding generation. This gradual process of language modification acts as adaptation to continuously serve the needs of the speech community, provide a link between the past and the future, and preserve the community identity in terms of knowledge, beliefs, values and practices. Such form of language modification connotes that “languages do not die; they only get transformed” (Maffi, 2002, p. 385). Languages, however, die in some cases, as gathered by Maffi (2002). Language preservation by way of use and passing through successive generations sometimes experience restricted use and eventually stops in the cycle of use, modification and transformation. This scenario occurs when speakers either intentionally or unwillingly change their medium of communication to a more dominant language which may be more prestigious or more powerful to the extent that parents do not anymore teach their original language to their children. Reasons for the non-continuance of the transmission may be extinction of the speakers of the language due to natural disasters, disease, war or genocide (Maffi, 2002). Either of the two general modes elucidated by Maffi (2002) can result in the endangerment, and eventual loss of a language. Having observed that the degree of endangerment of world languages vary, Krauss (2007) recommended a schema for categorisation of languages based on their degree of vitality from “safe” to “extinct”. Languages which are learned as a mother-tongue by children as a norm and are expected to be learned in the future throughout the present century, spoken in a viable community constitute the first main language classification termed as “safe”. Endangered languages, the second main classification of languages in terms of vitality, are divided into five levels. The highest level of endangered languages is “stable” languages in as much as both children and adults in the speech community speak the language. The next four levels of endangered languages are collectively termed as languages in decline, which includes: (1) “instable or eroded” languages are languages in which only some children speak the language, or all children speak the language but only in some places; (2) “definitively endangered” which are languages spoken only by the parents and the older generations; (3) “severely endangered” are languages spoken only by the grandparents and the older generation in a speech community; (4) “critically endangered” are spoken only by a very few people, particularly the generation of the great grandparents. The third and last main classification of languages where there are no more people speaking the language is termed as “extinct” (Krauss, 2007). Brezinger (2007) maintained that the languages currently spoken globally are simply remnants of a rich assortment of languages and that language diversity has dwindled during the last few thousand years. Scholars have pinpointed the dramatic decline of the multiplicity of spoken language when hunters changed to a pastoral lifestyle and eventually as sedentary farmers. Although Brezinger (2007) did not anymore expound on the disappearance of languages as a result of change in lifestyle of early human beings, a plausible and apparent explanation may be conjectured. The so-called hunters or gatherers were known to be gregarious in nature, owing to the supply of animals which are hunted and consumed as food. Various languages are propagated as the hunters travel from one area to another to hunt for food. When hunters speaking different languages meet and group together for the common purpose of protecting themselves from wild animals, each of them is exposed to other languages. Eventually, they learn different languages from one another through time. When these hunters come back to their villages or homes, they propagate these languages by speaking them to their families. The practice lived on until our early ancestors started domesticating animals and opted to shift from hunting to pasturing animals. This means of livelihood also entailed going places but not as far as hunters went to catch animals for food. Pasturing animals, merely, required early humans to herd animals to grasslands or places where the animals can source their own food. Propagation of languages, therefore, was limited to areas where the animals were herded to graze. When early man learned to plant crops and trees, they stopped travelling and were limited to their farms and places of abode. Eventually some languages disappeared as the people who were using them as a medium of communication died by natural causes, from wild animal attack or by diseases which were then incurable. Brezinger (2007) argued that there were serious repercussions of the endangerment and disappearance of languages all over the world. Primarily, the communities which once thrived speaking these languages would have lost their heritage, and this is considered as a critical impediment in propagating their ethnic and cultural identity. Accordingly, King, et al. (2008) situated the current status of language endangerment as “crossing a threshold of irreversible loss of species and languages into a fundamentally changed and less diverse world” (p. 7). With this, King, et al. (2008) explained that the exclusion of conditions or circumstances which created language diversity are being compromised by large-scale speciation and language genesis. Through the two aforementioned causes of language endangerment, the basic process which engendered the conditions of living that people have been accustomed to is being destroyed. Krauss (as cited in Tsunoda, 2006) estimated that the world has had as many as 5,000 to 20,000 languages some 10,000 year ago and that languages remained at that number for sometime, but has since continuously declined. Although languages were believed to be lost several times in history, from prehistoric times to the present, Tsunoda (2006) points to colonisation as the most significant culprit in the loss or endangerment of languages. Tsunoda (2006) believes that language loss or endangerment during the pre-European colonial period were small-scale, while, those from the post-European colonial period was were large-scale. From the accounts of Tsunoda (2006), various languages were lost as the Roman Empire ventured to extend its world dominion. These languages include Rumanian, French, Portuguese and Spanish. Colonised people began to abandon their languages in favours of Latin, the language of the Romans. These languages were not, however, lost to oblivion but were immortalised as the Romance Languages. Likewise, Spanish conquest of the Aztecs of Central America and Incas of South America did not result in the total loss of the Nahuatl or Aztec language and the Quechua, the language of the Incas. However, the expansion of the Aztec and Incan empires for several centuries before the onslaught of the Spanish conquest resulted in the loss of the languages of their neighbouring territories in the region (Tsunoda, 2006). The most devastating damage to linguistic diversity, according to Tsunoda (2006) occurred during the colonisation by European powers either diminished or extinguished a number of aboriginal languages in the following areas: (1) Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and North America, which was replaced by English; (2) South and Central America, which was replaced by Spanish; (3) Brazil, which was replaced by Portuguese; (4) Canada, which was replaced by French; and (5) Siberia, which was replaced by Russians. A number of European languages such as the Sami language of Scandinavia, the Celtic and the Basque languages, are also being endangered because of the expansion of dominant languages (Tsunoda, 2006). In a general sense, Sumbuk (2006) delineated a number of factors which influence the survival of languages, or put in a more pessimistic sense, factors which catalyse the loss of languages: (1) technology; (2) lack of documentation, particularly of indigenous languages; (3) economic globalisation; (4) lack of education in these languages; and (5) absence or deficiency of socio-political and economic rights among indigenous people. To help propagate languages, in general, the current practice of mono-linguistic technology should be changed to multilingual. Indigenous languages can be preserved with language education and the scaffold of a national language institute. Economic globalisation eradicates indigenous languages since aboriginal natives are driven away from their territories so that the area may be utilised for economic ventures. Colonisers rarely respect socio-political and economic rights of the subjugated people (Sumbuk, 2006). Additionally, as elucidated in Golluscio and Gonzalez (2008), languages are lost or endangered as they lose or are losing domains of use, and are undergoing or have undergone the so-called “rupture of the chain of intergenerational transmission” (p. 238). This was the case of Native American languages where their abandonment and subsequent loss may be traced from socio-political and socio-economic subservience of their speakers to their colonisers, instead of obsolescence of the language, itself. Contrary to the scenario in Latin America, Mous (2003) observed that endangerment of languages is less dramatic in Africa since colonial languages were not the predominant cause of languages. Colonisation of African countries did not reduce the original people as unimportant members of society like their counterparts in the American continent. It was also noted that the economic status of Africans speaking their endangered languages were better than in other neighbouring countries who had adopted the language of their colonisers. The only exception to the rule was Nigeria where English became the lingua franca among inter-ethnic groups, to the extent that Standard English because the mode of instruction in school, and the medium of communication among the government administrators. This resulted to variations in the so-called Nigerian Pidgin English that this language is now considered a new language. This heralded the birth of a new language as a consequence of globalisation. African youth have also been instrumental in giving birth to new languages from slang languages which came to be accepted as a method of bridging the communication gap between the endangered African languages and the colonial languages. In this way, youth slang languages lost the stigma associated with gang membership and was elevated as new mode of communication among the colonised communities. This, according to Mous (2003) is another example of language birth as a consequence of globalisation. Among the examples of African languages which replaced other African languages are: Amharic, Somali and Swahili. Mous (2003) distinguished and summarised the apparent loss of languages in Africa into five categories: (1) shift to the non-colonial official and national language; (2) shift to more widely communicated languages as a result of settlement in the urban areas of the country; (3) shift towards a more dominant regional language; (4) shift driven by economic displacement to propagate group identity; and (5) loss of vocabulary without shifting to another language. Findings from Recent Studies Errington (2003) determined that recognizing the ideological grounds of marginalized communities can help avert the threats posed on marginalized languages and speech groups. Moreover, it helps establish a deeper understanding on its uses and the social contributions it may provide for marginalized communities. Maffi (2005) had identified three main themes of biocultural diversity studies: (1) global and regional studies on the relationship between linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity; (2) the measurement and assessment of biocultural diversity; and (3) the protection and maintenance of biocultural diversity. The author postulated that since the world’s linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity are interrelated, the loss of diversity has become a common threat to these aspects. Nevins (2004) emphasized the inclusion of local interpretation of issues on language loss and survival in terms of developing language preservation solutions. An example would be the issue that surfaced during a language maintenance program in the White Mountain Apache Reservation in Arizona wherein two clashing ideologies advocating a different pedagogical model became apparent. One side focused on educational institutions while the other side focused on extending the reach of the program to homes and families. As a result, it was perceived that language education programs seek to undermine traditional Apache pedagogical practices and such programs weaken authority between the young and old Apaches. Mufwene (2003) argued that the current academic discussion on the subject of language endangerment has left out diversification as a contributing factor in the expansion of languages. Language diversification has been likened to the process of speciation in genetics wherein members of a species located in contrasting geographical areas may diverge into several subspecies in response to environmental conditions. Therefore, migration of populations and contacts are viewed as important aspects of linguistic adaptation which result to language speciation. In an evolutionary sense, the linguistic landscape in a specific geographical location depends on the rise and fall of languages. Hawkins (2005) revealed four attitudinal factors which significantly affect ethnolinguistic vitality in Guatemala, namely minority status; access to and participation in institutions and markets; education; and migration. Meanwhile, Childs (2008) summarised the factors threatening Atlantic language, namely: (1) economic, mainly by young people who seek employment either in cities or in plantations; (2) demographic, mainly by powerful and big groups such as Wolof, Fulfulde, Malinke, Soso, Temne, etc; (3) religious, mainly through the spread of Islam and Christianity; (4) Militaristic, particularly in the form of Fulbe jihads, Mandeng Empire and the European colonisers; and (5) cultural, in the form of hospitality to strangers, openness to external influences and slavery. Many languages are dying, and efforts to revitalise these endangered language seem futile at this point because of the paucity of studies and the hindrances to the conduct of field research on minority languages. These two problems impede the documentation of endangered language in Laos (Enfield, 2006). Lim and Ansaldo (2006) described how the language of Sri Lanka Malays or SLM has fared in the face of endangerment. The Malay communities of Sri Lanka originated from Indonesia during the Dutch and British colonial era. The SLM language is described as an amalgam of three languages: Sri Lankan, Malay, and Creole. Due to pressure from dominant languages such as Singhala, Tamil, and English, as well as the negative stigma created by the Creole component of SLM language, communities began to shy away from the language in favour of standard Malay. The clash of contrasting ideologies has increased the likelihood of language endangerment of the SLM language. Fabunmi and Salawu (2005) argued that having a large number of speakers of a language does not guarantee survival from the threat of language death. The Yoruba language is one of the primary languages of Nigeria. However, language death has threatened the Yoruba language and may face extermination within 20 years if preventive measures are not undertaken. Otsuka (2007) evaluated the current sociolinguistic situation in Tonga in terms of the survival of languages in Polynesia. Tongan is the official language of the country and speakers belong to a predominantly monolinguistic community. However, due to globalisation, Tongan speech communities would give up its native language in favor of another language which would provide more social and economic benefits, such as English. The author suggested that in the case of Polynesian societies, language endangerment should be perceived beyond the borders of a particular country. Terrill (2006) studied the language of the Lavukal people of the Solomon Islands in terms of the survival of the Lavukaleve language. The Lavukal society is characterized with low levels of literacy and a non-reading culture. These factors contribute to the endangerment of the Lavukaleve language. One of the most prevalent causes of language death is the non-transmittal of the language to the next generation. It was concluded that the use of cultural symbols of status and prestige may help turn the tide and aid in the preservation of the Lavukaleve language for future generations. Igbouanusi (2006) evaluated the status of the Igbo language in terms of language endangerment. The Igbo language is one of three primary languages in Nigeria with an estimated 20 to 25 million speakers. In the educational system, Igbo is taught in all levels and an extensive number of books are written in the language. However, recent issues such as diminished interest in learning the language, lesser number of students taking degrees in Igbo, status as a non-accredited language by the National Universities Commission, and language attitude problems have threatened the existence of the Igbo language for future generations. Burmeister (2008) suggested the use of media in ensuring the survival of endangered languages. Since media is a language extensive method of communication, it is hypothesized that media can encourage speakers of minority and endangered languages to use their language more often. In addition, it is thought that the more often people would use their native language, the easier it is to help resist the threats of language endangerment and language death. Analysis and Conclusion Based on the foregoing library investigation pertaining to the loss and endangerment of world languages, a variety of reasons were uncovered to explain such global linguistic phenomenon. These include change in livelihood style from haunting to pastoral to farming; loss of species and language genesis; colonisation; technology, lack of documentation, economic globalisation; lack of education; lack of socio-political and economic rights; lost domains of use; breakdown of the cycle of intergenerational transmission; shift to the non-colonial official and national language, to more widely communicated languages as a result of settlement in the urban areas of the country or towards a more dominant regional language, economic displacement to propagate group identity, and loss of vocabulary without necessarily shifting to another language; domination of big and powerful groups; spread of religions; slavery; lack of documentation, and this list would go on and on (Brezinger, 2007; King, et al., 2008; Tsunoda, 2006; Sumbuk, 2006; Golluscio and Gonzalez, 2008; Mous, 2003; Hawkins, 2005; Enfield, 2006). It is a sad fact that interest groups, particularly the linguists, anthropologists and cultural associations were not able to act fast enough to save many of the already extinct languages on time. With a variety of reasons presented for the endangerment and eventual lost of the world languages, it was revealed with distinct clarity that the evolution of languages somehow follows the concept of survival of the fittest as enunciated by Darwin (2010). Powerful nations dominated colonised nations by a show of force and by imposing their language upon the subjugated people. Hence, the fittest and the most powerful triumphed in propagating their language miles away from their homeland. This explains the wisdom of the Fabunmi and Salawu (2005) argument that having a large number of speakers of a language does not ensure its survival from extinction. Like living plant and animal species, languages also thrive by adaptation. Languages are transformed from one generation to another to adapt to the communication needs of the speech community. In this regard, languages are living artifacts of history. Given that all living things need to be nurtured, the vitality of languages should be preserved so that it will not die. Research and documentation is a crucial part of the process of reviving endangered languages. Concerted efforts to propagate the remaining languages from a once extensively diversified collection of 20,000 languages will definitely a feat for mankind. References Bradley, D (2005) Sanie and language loss in China. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 173, 159-176. Brenzinger, M (2007) Language endangerment throughout the world. In M Brezinger (ed), Language Diversity Endangered. Berlin, DEU: Walter de Gruyter. Burmeister, M (2008) Television as saviour for endangered languages? – A survey among Scottish-Gaelic teenagers. In NLK-Proceedings : 9. Norddeutsches Linguistisches Kolloquium (NLK2008 Bielefeld), Bielefeld, Germany, 5-6 March 2008, Faculty of Linguistics und Literature, Bielefeld, Germany. Childs, GT (2008) Language death within the Atlantic Group of West Africa,viewed 4 May, 2011, http://www.ling.pdx.edu/childs/DKB_Web/ childs_2007_atlantic.pdf Darwin, C (2010) Origin of species, Bibliolis Classics extract ed. London, Bibliolis Books. Derhemi, E (2002) Thematic introduction: Protecting endangered minority languages: Sociolinguistic perspectives. In M Koenig (ed), The Impact of Goevrnment Policies on Territorially Based Ethnic or Nationalist Movements, International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 4(2), 150-161. Enfield, NJ (2006) Languages as historical documents: the endangered archive in Laos. South East Asia Research, 14(3), 471-488. Errington, J (2003) Getting language rights: The Rhetorics of Language Endangerment. American Anthropologist, 105(4), 723-732. Fabunmi, FA and Salawu, AS (2005) Is Yoruba an endangered language? Nordic Journal of African Studies, 14(3), 391-408. Golluscio, LA and Gonzalez, H (2008) Contact, attrition and shift in two Chaco languages: The case of Tapiete and Vilela. In KD Harrison, DS Rood, and A Dweyer (eds), Lessons from Documented Endangered Languages. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins North America,195-242. Hawkins, RJ (2005) Language loss in Guatemala: A statistical analysis of the 1994 population census. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(1), 53-73. Igboanusi, H (2006) Is Igbo an endangered language? Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 25(4), 443-452. King, KA, Schilling-Estes, N, Fogle, L, Lou, JJ, and Soukup, B (2008) Sustaining Linguistic Diversity: Endangered and Minority Languages and Language Varieties. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Krauss M (2007) Classification and terminology for degrees of language endangerment. In In M Brezinger (ed), Language Diversity Endangered. Berlin, DEU: Walter de Gruyter, 1-8. Lim, L and Ansaldo U (2006) Keeping Kirinda vital: The endangerment-empowerment dilemma in the documentation of Sri Lanka Malay. ACLC Working Papers, 1(1), 51-66. Malt, BC and Wolf, P (eds) (2010) Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience. New York: Oxford University Press. Maffi, L (2002) Endangered languages, endangered knowledge. International Social Science Journal, 54(173), 385-393. Maffi, L (2005) Linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 54(173), 385-393. Maffi, L (2005) Linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 599-617. Mufwene, SS (2003) Language endangerment: What have pride and prestige got to do with it?, In B Joseph (ed), When languages collide, Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH. Nevins, ME (2004) Learning to listen: Confronting two meanings of language loss in the contemporary White Mountain Apache speech community. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(2), 269-288. Mous, M (2003) Loss of linguistic diversity in Africa. In M Janse and S Tol (eds), Language Death and Language Maintenance: Theoretical, Practical and Descriptive Approaches. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins North America,157-170. Otsuka, Y (2007) Making a case for Tongan as an endangered language. The Contemporary Pacific, 19(2), 446-473. Sumbuk, KM (2006) Papua New Guinea’s languages: Will they survive? In D Cummingham, DE Ingram and K Sumbuk (eds), Language Diversity in the Pacific: Endangerment and Survival. Clevedon, GBR: Multilingual Matters. 85-96. Terrill, A (2006) Why make books for people who don’t read? A perspective on documentation of an endangered language from Solomon Islands. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2002(155-156), 205-219. Tsunoda, T (2006) Language Endangerment and Language Revitalization: An Introduction. Berlin, DEU: Walter de Gruyter. Read More