The other side of the concern for language endangerment

10.3.1. Introduction

There are people who are seriously concerned with language endangerment:

community members (10.2.2), language activists (10.2.3), and linguists (10.2.4). There are, however, people who are not concerned with it, and peo-ple who even welcome it. There are also peopeo-ple who are opposed to language revitalization activities. This issue is discussed in 10.3.2. There are also criti-cisms of some of the views cited above in 10.2.2 through 10.2.4. Furthermore, there are factors that may inhibit the execution of these views. They are looked at in 10.3.3.

10.3.2. Lack of concern for language endangerment

Probably the majority of people in the world are not concerned with language endangerment, and there appear to be people who even welcome the current language crisis, as seen below.

[1] Linguists

Surprisingly, linguists in general do not seem to be concerned with language endangerment. This is pointed out by Dixon (1994: 136-137), Dorian (1994b:

799), Krauss (1992: 8, 1993: 45), and Miyaoka (2001: 6-7). For example, Dixon (1994: 137) states: "Indeed, if every linguistics student (and faculty member) in the world today worked on just one language that is in need of study, the prospects for full documentation of endangered languages (before they fade away) would be rosy. I doubt if one linguist in twenty is doing this".

Dorian (1994b: 799) has strong words to say: "Arguably the single most fun-damental obstacle, ..., is an absence of mobilizing will on the part of the pro-fession".

[2] Mass media and general public

It is often the case that the general public is not concerned with language endan-germent. This is reflected in, or possibly caused by, the relatively little attention, or no attention at all, that is paid to endangered languages, in comparison with the attention paid to (i) endangered natural species (cf. Krauss 1992: 7-8; Mi-yaoka 2001: 6; Pawley 1991: 3; Tsunoda 1997: 14; 1998a, Wurm 1997: 38) and (ii) the destruction or decay of the products of architecture and civil engineer-ing (cf. Miyaoka 2001: 9).

An example of (i) is the heated media reports in 1999 in Japan on the hatch-ing of a chick of an endangered bird species called toki ('Japanese ibis'). No doubt such a phenomenon in mass media is a commonplace in other countries as well. In contrast, when Alf Palmer (Warrungu name: Jinbilnggay) passed away in 1981 (5.2-[6]-(b), 8.3), there was not one single newspaper - even in Australia - that reported the death of the last speaker of the Warrungu language

(Tsunoda 1997: 14, 1998a).

An Australian known as "the Media King" was reported to have said that things would be improved (for his business?) if everyone in the world spoke just one language. No doubt, he meant English, which happens to be his

moth-er tongue. It seems likely that his view is shared by othmoth-er people. For them, language endangerment will be a welcome phenomenon, and it constitutes no cause for concern. But what would the Media King say if his language, i.e.

English, faced extinction? Would he welcome its extinction? (See Tsunoda 1997: 14.)

10.3. The other side of the concern for language endangerment 159

Despite what has been said above, at least in Japan the situation has been slowly changing, and there is now an encouraging sign. The mass media is beginning to show interest in language endangerment. It is not uncommon to encounter, for example, newspaper and magazine articles that deal with en-dangered languages or minority languages, e.g. Tsunoda (1997, 1998a, 1999b, 2000b).

[3] Governments

The attitude of governments seems generally no better than that of the media and general public. There are governments which do not seem to be concerned with minority peoples' rights (as noted in 10.2.3), and which regard these peo-ples as a "nuisance". It is vital that the government recognizes minority peopeo-ples' rights (11.4.2-[7]-(a)).

Perhaps, with very few exceptions (such as the New Zealand government;

see 11.5.2), governments do not seem to be committed to the documentation and revitalization of endangered languages. Language revitalization activities in Australia (and no doubt elsewhere) are continuously beset with financial problems (11.4.2-[7]-(c)).

It may be argued that one possible cause for these problems is the cost in-volved. Thus, "linguistic diversity creates extra costs in translation, duplica-tion of materials, etc." (Pawley 1991: 10). The same may be said to apply to the cost of the execution of the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (cf.

10.2.3), and for the documentation of endangered languages. However, this ar-gument can in no way be justified. As Krauss (2001: 37) points out, these costs are insignificant compared with the cost of certain military hardware, such as a jet fighter.

There is another problem with governments. They - like the mass media and general public - do not seem to recognize any value in languages as a cultur-al heritage. For example, the Japanese government regularly nominates a smcultur-all number of people as "National Treasures". These National Treasures are main-ly people who preserve traditional performing arts, handcrafts, and the like. But this government policy is never applied to language. So, the writer says to his students - partly jocularly but partly seriously, "Well, if those people are nomi-nated as National Treasures, then why aren't I nominomi-nated as a World Treasure?

I am the last and the only speaker of Warrungu in the whole world" (Tsunoda 1998a). The students laugh at this, but they fully appreciate what the writer in-tends to show, i.e. the lack of the government's interest in languages as cultur-al heritage.

[4] Administrators, educators, and other officers

It has often been reported that certain - if not all - administrators, educators, and other officers consider the existence of a minority language as an obstacle

for education. Thus, Hudson and McConvell (1984: 39) state that some admin-istrators, educators and other highly placed people would probably be glad to see all Aboriginal languages die away, either because they cling to the assimila-tion view or because they think it would make their jobs easier.

[5] Community members

Community members may not see any value in their traditional language. Thus, old people may not seize upon an opportunity to have their language recorded - much to the regret of their descendants (Tsunoda 1996a: 156). Also, commu-nity members may be opposed to language revitalization activities, or they may think that revitalization efforts are pointless or worthless; see 11.4.2-[ll]-(a), Fishman ( 1991: 11 ), and Maher ( 1995: 91 ).

10.3.3. Linguistic rights

We now return to the issue of linguistic rights, discussed in 10.2.3. If it is a right to maintain one's traditional language, wouldn't it also be a right to abandon it (Brenzinger, Heine, and Sommer 1991: 41; cf. also Matisoff 1991: 221)? Re-call that it is in order to survive (7.3.1-[2], 7.3.4) or, more generally, for the bet-terment of one's life that minorities shift to the dominant language. An article in a Japanese newspaper reports the view of a man who hails from the Ryukyu islands and is now a professor at a university in Tokyo. He in effect seems to welcome the decline of the Ryukyuan language, which has decreased the "lan-guage barrier" facing people who move to mainland Japan. (Ryukyuan is ge-netically related to Japanese; see Maher 1994.) Ladefoged (1992) reports and apparently supports the view of a speaker of Dahalo, a dying language of Ke-nya, who seemed to be happy that his son had been to school and only spoke Swahili.

However, Ladefoged neglected one important role of linguists (mentioned in 10.2.2.11), namely, to inform people of the grief and regret that are felt by those people who have lost their language. His stance was criticized by Dorian (1993b: 576), who points out regarding the Gaelic-speaking East Sutherland fisherfolk of Scotland that "some of the youngest members of their own kin cir-cles have begun to berate them for choosing not to transmit the ancestral lan-guage and so allowing it to die".

The above shows that the issue of rights should take into account not only the present generation but also future generations. Any dealings with endan-gered languages should take future generations into consideration. It is rele-vant in this context to mention the following: Many people and many govern-ments claim it is their right to consume resources and they continue to pollute