Language Endangerment and Language Maintenance

An Active Approach

David Bradley, Maya Bradley

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781138878341
• eBook ISBN: 9781136852787
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Language endangerment is a fundamental issue for humanity. What rights do minority communities have concerning their languages? How does each language conceptualize the world differently? How much knowledge about the world and a local ecosystem is lost when a language disappears? What is the process involved and how can insights about this process contribute to linguistic theory? What typological insights will be lost if undescribed languages disappear before their unique structural properties are known? How can language shift be stopped or reversed? This volume comprises: * a general overview introduction * four theoretical chapters on what happens during language shift * ten case studies of autochthonous languages under threat * four case studies of migrant languages at risk * three concluding chapters discussing strategies and resources for language maintenance.

Chapter 1

Language Attitudes: the key factor in language maintenance¹

David Bradley
La Trobe University

1. ATTITUDES CONCERNING LANGUAGE

Why is it that one minority group assimilates and its language dies, while another maintains its linguistic and cultural identity? Perhaps the crucial factor in language maintenance is the attitudes of the speech community concerning their language. Thus we need to know more about attitudinal factors which disfavour language maintenance (LM) and may lead to language endangerment.

Overall attitudes are extremely important. There is considerable discussion in the literature about ethnolinguistic vitality - the group’s attitude about itself and its language, a concept discussed in Giles (1977). Equally crucial is whether language is regarded as a core cultural value (Smolicz 1981) — whether the group sees their language and its maintenance as a key aspect of the group’s identity.

More specific minority and majority beliefs and preferences about the following are also highly relevant:

whether bilingualism is accepted and valued or even normal and expected

how public use of a minority language in the presence of monolingual majority speakers is viewed

whether minority group members view their language as ‘difficult’ or ‘hard to maintain’

the attitudes of the majority, the minority itself, and other minorities about the relative utility, importance and beauty of the majority and various minority languages

whether the society as a whole supports, tolerates or represses LM for minority languages

Another key issue is linguistic boundary maintenance, which ranges along a continuum from purism to acceptance. Maximal purism involves conservative attitudes to the minority language and rejection of any effect of language contact or other change; maximal acceptance naturally also leads to rapid internal change, as several other papers in this volume have indicated. This also determines the source of lexical enrichment — loanwords from a majority language, from a high culture language, or internal coinage of new words; likewise the likelihood of code switching and code mixing between minority and majority languages - do parents choose to speak only the majority language to their children, to ‘help them get ahead’ in the majority society, or do they support and approve of their children’s minority language skills. Even some linguists who are native speakers of endangered languages feel entirely comfortable that their language is dying, because they share the attitudes within their own group that led to the breakdown of transmission.

A further important factor in determining attitudes is the historicity of the minority language. Does it have an orthography or orthographies? How long has it been written? How widespread is literacy? How much and what kind of literature exists? As linguists we know that written language is secondary and that many minority languages are spoken in viable nonliterate societies with a very rich oral tradition, but in contact with literary majority languages, many though of course not all minority groups have accepted the idea that a ‘proper’ language must be written. This may even lead to internal movements to create a new orthography, as in the case of the Hmong (Eira 2000).

Attitudes about a number of linguistic and sociolinguistic factors also have a bearing on the likelihood of LM, such as:

degree of internal difference within the minority language

existence of a traditional standard dialect

use as a local lingua franca

traditions concerning bilingualism

Many endangered languages (ELs) have undergone rapid and substantial internal diversification in the absence of a literary or spoken standard, and because speakers of some languages do not see a need for everyone to speak the same and are more willing and able to understand or even adjust towards a range of other subvarieties. For example, speakers of Lao are highly tolerant of local tonal differences and can readily comprehend them and even mimic them; while speakers of Thai are not, and do not feel that they can or should understand regional varieties.

Some groups with a more puristic attitude may even have a traditional internal standard dialect which speakers of other dialects are able to understand and willing to adjust their speech towards, as in the case of Lahu (Bradley 1979). While this may be negative for the continuation and development of internal dialect differences, it is clearly favourable for LM. In some cases, even out-group members may learn and use a local language as a lingua franca, again as in the case of Lahu (Bradley 1996b) or Bantawa Rai (Bradley 1996d); in this case the lingua franca may survive at the expense of the ELs of smaller groups, as Lahu is now replacing languages such as Bana in Laos, Pyen in Burma and Laomian in China. Small groups who are regarded, and may even regard themselves, as members of a larger minority group may be absorbed into that minority and their own language disappear; this is happening to Akeu which is disappearing into Akha in Thailand, Laos, Burma and China; and to various Kuki languages which are disappearing into Mizo in northeastern India. Small groups may even choose to fuse themselves into larger ethnicities, like the Zeliangrong which includes the former Zemi, Liangmei and Kabui/Pochuri groups in northeastern India (Bradley 1996c) or have this choice made for them, as within the numerous composite national minorities in China like the Yi (Bradley 1996e and Forthcoming).

In many societies, as noted in several other contributions to this volume, bilingualism or multilingualism is normal and traditional. With language exogamy as among the Kachin (Bradley 1996a) or in the Amazon (Aikhenvald 2000), the family home will have at least two first languages, and there may be other minority or majority lingue franche in use, in addition to a national official language. In such cases there is often a hierarchy of languages or a domain-specific use of different languages for specific purposes, such as the use of Jinghpaw Kachin as an in-group lingua franca and literary language (Bradley 1996a). When a minority is transnational, the same group may use different national languages depending on which country they happen to be in. Reactions can go either way as societies develop: the minority languages lower in the status hierarchy may disappear, or they may seek to assert themselves and become separate literary languages and expand their domains of use, as is now happening for four of the languages within the Kachin group: Lacid, Lhaovo, Ngochang and Zaiwa.² The linguistic repertoire of groups lower in such hierarchies can be startling; I have met Kachin and Lisu who can converse happily in at least half a dozen languages, with native knowledge of three or more.

2. SOCIAL FACTORS IN LANGUAGE ATTITUDES

Many characteristics of the social use of the language and beliefs concerning language use are also highly relevant. These concern domains of language use, networks for language use, and the degree of accommodation towards the speech of one’s interlocutors.

Speakers may feel it is more or less appropriate to use their language in certain domains, depending on their attitudes. Some groups maintain their language in a wider range of domains; for others it retreats into the village and the home.

The social network, that is, the patterns of contact and interaction between people, is another major factor in LM. Some ethnic groups have more closed, in-group interaction patterns with a high density and multiplexity of network; that is, the same people talk to each other all the time, in a variety of domains. Others have a more open network; that is, greater contact with out-group members more of the time in more domains. Naturally as governments spread their reach and the network becomes more open, some new domains in which a minority language cannot be used come into existence, and some existing domains may shift to an outside language.

If the local network includes out-group members or younger nonspeakers of the group language, this poses great difficulties for LM. Exogamy, in-migration and the extension of government and other services such as schools, medical services, agricultural technology and so on may gradually lead to a higher proportion of outsiders in a minority community. The earliest arrivals in a minority community, such as the first few Lao husbands in the Gong villages in Thailand (Bradley 1989: 37) or local shopkeepers, may learn the ethnic language; but as the proportion of out-group speakers increases, this becomes less necessary and thus less likely.

One of the basic principles of human interaction is that there is accommodation to the speech of the interlocutor; that is, one adjusts to the speech repertoire, abilities and preferences of the people one is speaking with. Thus, as more outsiders move in, more and more of the speech within a community with an increasingly open network will not be in the endangered minority language. Speakers may also begin to choose not to transmit their language to children. In societies where children are largely socialised and cared for by their elder siblings, minority language ability may begin by being restricted to the eldest children, with gradual or abrupt decline in knowledge among younger siblings within each family.

Many studies of language contraction and death have observed the same patterns of network effect: some communities, and families are more language-solidary, and a minority language may survive longer among them while disappearing from other households and villages. Thus at one time various stages of language loss can be observed. For example, the Bisu and Gong languages in Thailand are completely dead in many former villages; people may deny or even be unaware of their former language and ethnicity. In other villages there are elderly speakers or semispeakers but the language is not used or understood by the young. In some villages, the youngest community members are non-speakers or at best passive understanders of their traditional languages, with middle-aged semispeakers and elderly fluent speakers; but everyone, of whatever age, is fluent in the dominant language, in this case varieties of Thai. In some families the former language may still be known but not used much, and as the last fluent language-solidary elders die the language disappears from everyday use even in those homes.

Even such a bleak picture is not necessarily the end. I was delighted to discover recently that my main Bisu language co-worker, now a prosperous village leader, has been using the Thai-based script which I devised with him in 1976 to write ever since, and is now leading a revival movement with participation of relatively fluent semispeakers and assistance from Payap University. He doesn’t want his language to die! But in the meantime it has disappeared from two other villages and has a precarious hold in only his and one other.

3. PROBLEMS IN LANGUAGE ATTITUDES

Some specific attitudinal problems confront endangered languages. One noted in Schmidt (1990) for Australian Aboriginal languages is that recognition of language loss is often delayed; that is, speakers feel that their language is healthy enough within the in-group network until the remaining fluent speakers are all old, even if younger people are all semispeakers, passive understanders or have no knowledge of the traditional language, and normal transmission stopped long ago. By the time a community becomes aware of impending language loss, it may be very difficult to reverse.

Another kind of problem often confronts communities in which the younger speakers of the language speak something which is radically different from what is spoken by fluent elders. This results from the widely-observed phenomenon of extremely rapid change within an endangered language. If the speech of the younger people is regarded by the elders as inadequate because of puristic attitudes, the younger people may be discouraged from continuing to speak, as Dorian (1994) has observed. Conversely, if the semispeaker version of the language is accepted within the community, even by the elders, the changed version may persist or rapid change may continue.

It is often suggested that such changed varieties have been simplified and have converged towards the structure of the replacing language, in which all or most speakers are likely to be bilingual. Also, loanwords may become very prevalent, spreading beyond nouns, verbs and discourse markers into all parts of the lexicon including closed classes of grammatical markers. This may lead speakers and outsiders to feel that the language is becoming impoverished. However, widely dispersed findings suggest that some structural changes in ELs may also lead to more complex structures, such as the complex tone sandhi and multiplication of vowels in Gong described in Bradley (1992).

4. CHANGING LANGUAGE ATTITUDES

In many developed countries, indigenous groups are vigorously reasserting their linguistic rights. This major shift from acceptance of a dominant language and linguistic assimilation has taken place at different times in different places over the last century or so, and is a direct reflection of changing linguistic attitudes among the EL community. One spectacularly successful example of revival is Hebrew over the last century. Crystal (2000) traces the remarkable resurgence of Welsh in Wales over the last thirty years. Current efforts are underway among the Basque in Spain, various other small indigenous groups speaking ‘regional languages’ throughout Europe, with many Original Nations in different parts of North America, and in many Australian Aboriginal communities.

We need to look at the successful examples of language revival or reversal of language shift like Hebrew and Welsh, as well as the lessons to be learned from less successful efforts elsewhere. The basic question is: how do we change speakers’ attitudes. A highly relevant but often neglected issue is whether we should do so, or whether communities should be left to make their own decisions.

A revival which is essentially a heritage activity aimed at building community self-esteem or which is based on efforts by an intellectual elite is inherently less likely to maintain a language than something which also changes attitudes and ultimately linguistic behaviour. This is not to belittle such efforts; Thieberger (2000) discusses why our preference as linguists for languages to be maintained intact at all costs is unrealistic, and provides a number of examples where LM activities have had less ambitious goals more in accord with what the community wants and what can realistically be achieved.

The outsider linguist who enters a community for research purposes can become a focus for LM activities, but unless the group itself choose to keep their language, we can do nothing but document the language and hope that the descendants may later find some use for our material. This is happening among various Original Nations in North America, where 19th century ethnographic materials are used in attempts to reclaim their languages and cultures. Some linguists, such as Blake (2000), are using archival materials to describe dead languages and then preparing materials for heritage language activities in various Koori (Australian Aboriginal) communities in Victoria. Even if such attempts may ultimately not succeed in recreating a speech community, they still contribute to a group’s positive feelings and self-knowledge.

Sometimes, however, the linguist may encourage and energise indigenous co-workers who may change their attitudes and work for LM after the linguist goes away. To return to the Bisu in Thailand: I thought the language was well on its way to death in 1976, but more than twenty years later my former co-worker is leading a revival which is publishing textbooks, books of traditional stories and so on, and has...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Table of Figures, Maps and Tables
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Language Attitudes: the key factor in language maintenance
• Chapter 2: Strategies for Language Maintenance and Revival
• Chapter 3: Traditional Multilingualism and Language Endangerment
• Chapter 4: Why One Cannot Preserve Languages (but can preserve language ecologies)
• Chapter 5: Irish and Finland Swedish
• Chapter 6: Working Together to Strengthen Sm’algyax (Tsimshian Nation, British Columbia, Canada)
• Chapter 7: Language Policy and Language Maintenance: Yi in China
• Chapter 8: Tai Languages of Assam, a progress report — Does anything remain of the Tai Ahom language?
• Chapter 9: The Impact of Malay on Taba: a type of incipient language death or incipient death of a language type?
• Chapter 10: Language Obsolescence: Progress or Decay? The emergence of new grammatical categories in ‘language death’
• Chapter 11: Reclaiming Languages in Aboriginal Victoria
• Chapter 12: A Language Plan for Norfolk Island
• Chapter 13: Language Maintenance and Survival in East Timor: all change now? Winners and losers
• Chapter 14: Steel Tyres or Rubber Tyres — Maintenance or Loss: Pennsylvania German in the “horse and buggy” communities of Ontario
• Chapter 15: Language Maintenance at the Micro Level: Hmong ex-refugee communities
• Chapter 16: Community Initiatives towards Language Renewal among Moluccan Migrants in the Netherlands
• Chapter 17: Concealment, Maintenance and Renaissance: language and ethnicity in the Moluccan community in the Netherlands
• Chapter 18: Extinction in Whose Terms? Which parts of a language constitute a target for language maintenance programmes?
• Chapter 19: Dictionaries and Endangered Languages
• Chapter 20: Conclusion: Resources for Language Maintenance
• Contributors