Should we accept or mourn the loss of languages? JESSICA WOOLLEY surveys some opinions

The debate surrounding language death and the preservation of endangered languages contains numerous opinions, some which are emotive, and others that are based on more concrete evidence.

In a study on endangered native American languages, James Crawford lists four common arguments amongst linguists which outline why we should care about language death. Crawford’s first point outlines how the death of a language results in linguists missing out on valuable information that could have otherwise contributed towards their science (1995, p. 31). For the second reason, Crawford discusses an argument shared by many others, i.e. “the loss of linguistic diversity means a loss of intellectual diversity” (1995, p. 33). The third reason is the loss of cultures, and the fourth reason, which Crawford (1995, p.33) describes as being the most important one is “the human costs to those most directly affected,” as in the loss of a culture’s and individual’s identity.  This therefore creates challenges when it concerns the solutions to family, poverty, and school issues, and ultimately jeopardizes the success of small communities in the modern world (1995, p.33).

Such losses are a reality for many communities across the world, especially in linguistically diverse countries like Nigeria. Take Kasabe, a language spoken in Mambilia (which is a region in Cameroon), for instance. On November 4th 1995 Kasabe existed, but with the death of its last speaker, it disappeared by the 6th of November 1995 (Crystal, 1999). The linguist who analyzed Kasabe, Bruce Connell, remarks how the last speaker told him that “his mother had been born in the same village where he himself grew up [therefore] indicating several generations had passed” (Connell, 1997), but all is assumed to be lost with the death of the last speaker.

Yet, not everyone shares Crawford’s list of concerns about language death. As Nettle and Romaine explain in their book Vanishing Voices (2000), some argue that instead of trying to save endangered languages, it would make more sense to spread and encourage the use of dominant languages so that smaller communities can experience the same high standards of living as people speaking the dominant languages (2000, p.151). Nettle and Romaine further define this line of argument as being the benign neglect position: those who would prefer to let endangered languages gently disappear over time think that it would be right to do so because of the correlation formed between language death and the extinction of species. They argue that extinctions have occurred throughout history, so why worry about the loss of languages? (2000, p.153). Even though Nettle and Romaine do not support the benign neglect position, and go to great lengths to undermine it in their book, there are other linguists who do, to some degree, support part of it. For example, the linguist Peter Ladefoged argues that in some countries, such as Tanzania, tribalism goes against what it is that they are trying to achieve – unity (1992, p. 809). Thus, attempts at preserving endangered languages in places such as Tanzania would not benefit communities in a way that linguists would originally hope.

But what about the people who purposefully choose to speak a more dominant language? According to James Harbeck, some speakers of endangered languages choose to speak a dominant language because they “see their language as limiting: if they or their children are to be successful, they need to know the language of education, of science, of business” (2015). And just as Ladefoged discusses in his own study, not everyone sees their language as being sacred like some linguists suggest (1992, p. 809). For example, young speakers of Dravidian, which is spoken in southern India, want to be a part of modern India and simultaneously honour their ancestors. But in order to be a part of both, they have decided to stop using Dravidian on a regular basis (Ladefoged, 1992, p. 810).

Whilst it is easy to get caught up in the debate, I think it is important to consider the opinions of all those affected by language death, and what it is that they desire. But overall, the question still remain – should we preserve endangered languages?

JESSICA WOOLLEY, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Connell, B. (1997). Moribund Languages of the Nigeria-Cameroon Borderland. Symposium on Language Endangerment in Africa. Leipzig, Germany, 29-31 July 1997.

Crawford, J. (1995). Endangered Native American Languages: What is to be Done, and   Why? The Bilingual Research Journal, 19 (1), 17-38.

Crystal, D. (1999, November 20). Millennium briefing: the death of language. Prospect     Magazine. 

 

Harbeck, J. (2015, March 2). Why do we fight so hard to preserve endangered languages?. The Week

Ladefoged, P. (1992). Another view of Endangered Languages. Languages, 68(4), 809-811.

Nettle, S. & Romaine, S. (2000). Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world’s languages.           Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.  

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Should we accept or mourn the loss of languages? JESSICA WOOLLEY surveys some opinions

  1. Amy Montague says:

    Fantastic blog post Jessica! I found it a very useful and insightful tool to aid my own developing understanding of language deaths and the preservation of endangered languages. The structuring is clear and provides an easily comprehensible pattern, from James Crawford’s (1995) view on language preservation to Nettle and Romaine’s (2000) acceptance/encouragement of language deaths. Additionally, I really like how you have included examples throughout which cover aspects such as, the effects language has on living standards, extinct languages and unity, which help to bring the theorist biased issues you have discussed into reality. I found Crawford’s second common argument “the loss of linguistic diversity means the loss of intellectual diversity” and fourth common argument “identity” (1995, p. 33) of interest. They signify the multiple ways in which language can provide new insights and experiences which may have been ignored by monologists or disregarded in general, and the effect language has on our own identity or place in society. However, as ‘our world becomes smaller’ through globalization and technology, the boundaries language creates, as discussed by Nettle and Romaine (2000), can prevent workers looking for a higher quality of life. Do you think that we should protect and prevent the extinction of languages, so that we can view the world in different ways, or should we let languages slowly disappear so that people can have a higher quality of life and an increased level of unity could be more achievable?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s