Ecology of language - External setting of language endangerment

List of abbreviations

6. External setting of language endangerment

6.2. Ecology of language

The viability of a given language may be examined in terms of numerous fac-tors. See, for instance, Edwards (1992), Fishman (1964, 1972: 107-154, 1991), Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor (1977), Haarmann (1986: 7-13), Haugen (1972:

336-337), Kloss (1967), Stewart (1968), and Weinreich ([1953] 1974). These factors, which concern the "ethnolinguistic vitality" (Giles, Bourhis, and Tay-lor 1977), are sometimes discussed under the rubric of "ecology of language"

(Haugen 1972). The authors cited are not exclusively concerned with endan-gered languages, but writers such as the following point out those factors which are relevant to the viability of endangered languages specifically: Brad-ley (1998: 51, 2001), Brenzinger (1997), Brenzinger and Dimmendaal (1992:

3), Campbell (1994: 1963-1964), Crawford (1996: 57), Dorian (1981), Greno-ble and Whaley (1998a), Kibrik (1991: 258-261), Krauss (2001: 23), Mesth-rie (1994: 1989-1990), Pawley (1991), Schmidt (1985b, 1990), and Tsunoda (200Id: 8350).

In the following, we shall consider the whole array of these factors, with-out confining our attention to endangered languages. We shall adopt Edwards' (1992: 48) typology, which sets up eleven groups according to which various factors may be classified. As will be obvious, this classification is not clear-cut, and many of the groups overlap each other. Most of the factors listed below will be self-evident, and only a selection of them will be commented on.

[1] Geography

(a) Geographical extent of the language (Edwards 1992: 50; Stewart 1968:

536; Weinreich 1974: 89-90).

(b) National territory: Do the people live in their traditional homeland or elsewhere, e.g. in a settlement (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 312; Kibrik 1991:259)?

(c) Rural-urban nature of residence (Edwards 1992: 50; Fishman 1964: 52-53, 1972: 126; Haarmann 1986: 11; Weinreich 1974: 96-97).

(d) Isolation of the community (Dorian 1973: 413; Fishman 1964: 52, 1972:

126-127; Kane 1997: 241; Krauss 2001: 23; Pawley 1991: 7), and distance from urban centres. A community in a remote place, in isolation from towns and cities, will have a better chance of maintaining its language than does a community in or near an urban centre. When the community loses its isola-tion from the outside world, its language is likely to be influenced by the out-side language.

Two examples from Australia are cited. Nowadays, the Jaru language is not spoken by children in the town of Halls Creek, Western Australia, but in 1995 the present writer heard it spoken by children at Ringer Soak Community, an isolated community about 160 km away from Halls Creek (mentioned in 5.2-[2]). At a very remote community called Mt. Mayu Community of Northern Territory, in 1995 the writer even heard a baby - about 2 or 3 years old - trying to speak the Wanyjirra language.

[2] Demography

(a) Size of the ethnic group (Haarmann 1986: 11; Kibrik 1991: 258).

(b) Birth rate of the ethnic group (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylorl977: 313-314).

51; Edwards 1992: 50; Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 313; Kibrik 1991:

258; Krauss 2001: 23, 25; Mesthrie 1994: 1989; Miyaoka 2001: 4; Stewart 1968: 536). With other things being equal, a language with a larger number of speakers will probably have a better chance of survival than one with a small-er numbsmall-er of speaksmall-ers. Howevsmall-er, as Bsmall-ergsland (1998: 45), Brenzingsmall-er (1997:

276), Kibrik (1991: 258), Miyaoka (2001: 4), and Wurm (1998: 192) note and also as the qualification "other things being equal" indicates, the sheer num-ber of speakers itself is not a decisive factor. For example, compare Icelandic and Quechua. Icelandic has only about 200,000 speakers, but it is in no way threatened; the country is separated from major languages. In contrast, ac-cording to Daisuke Ebina (p.c.), Quechua has more than one million speak-ers, but its future is not safe; most of its speakers are bilingual and the shift to Spanish is already underway (see also 3.6, and Adelaar 1991: 50 and Ken-dall King 2001).

6.2. Ecology of language 51 (d) Density of the population (Kibrik 1991: 259), concentration/dispersion of speakers (Bradley 1998: 51, 54; Edwards 1992: 50; Fishman 1972: 126;

Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 313; Haarmann 1986: 11; Mesthrie 1994:

1990; Stewart 1968: 536), and residential segregation (Li 1982: 117). Thus, a group with a dense population will have a better chance of preserving its lan-guage than a group of the same size, spread out over different territories and without regular language contact (Kibrik 1991: 259-260). When people are scattered in many places, this reduces the opportunities to speak the language, leading to its demise. An example from Japan is cited in 6.3-[2], Li (1982: 117) reports regarding third-generation Chinese-Americans that shift to English is slower among Chinatown residents than among non-Chinatown residents.

(e) Homogenity/heterogenity of speakers, i.e. monoethnic versus polyethnic nature of the community (Haarmann 1986: 11; Weinreich 1974: 91-92).

(f) Proportion of speakers of the language to those of other languages (Bren-zinger 1997: 276; Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 313; Mesthrie 1994: 1990).

(g) Age of speakers (Haarmann 1986: 11; Kibrik 1991: 258-259; Kloss 1967: 15; Weinreich 1974: 94-95). If there are speakers from every age group, then the language will not die out for another 4 0 - 5 0 years but, if the children and adolescents do not speak the language of their parents then the language will be unlikely to survive well beyond 40 or 50 years (Kibrik 1991: 258-259).

(h) Sex of speakers: certain differences in language style according to sex of the speaker are not uncommon (Weinreich 1974: 93). An example from Gros Ventre, USA, is given in 6.3-[9]-(b-ii).

(i) Race of speakers (Weinreich 1974: 93).

(j) Marriage patterns: endogamy versus exogamy (Dorian 1981: 56; Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 3 1 3 - 3 1 4 ; Haarmann 1986: 11; Kibrik 1991: 259;

Mesthrie 1994: 1990). Intermarriage is often listed as a cause of language en-dangerment. See Brenzinger (1997: 276), Campbell (1994: 1963), Crawford (1997: 57), Dixon (1991a: 245), Kane (1997: 241), Schmidt (1990: 15), Suwi-lai (1998: 150, 154), Wurm (1991: 6), and Zepeda and Hill (1991: 138, 141).

It may be expected on a priori grounds that marriage between members of the same language group is more likely to contribute towards the preservation of the language concerned than a mixed marriage, and that the latter will induce shift to the more prestigious language. However, as Kibrik (1991: 259) and McKay (1996: 202) note, mixed marriages do not always lead to the loss of an ethnic language. For example, intermarriage has been common among Ab-original Australians, as has been the case with bi- or multi-lingualism (cf. Dix-on 1980: 32). Thus, there are many instances of intermarriage between Jaru people and Kija people of Kimberley, Western Australia. (These two languag-es are as different from each other as, say, English and Russian; cf.

Kimber-ley Language Resource Centre 1996a: 1.) Nonetheless, those intermarriages themselves have not endangered either of the languages. Many of Jaru people and Kija people were (and some are still) bilingual. It seems that it is not just any intermarriage but rather intermarriage with non-Aboriginal Australians, e.g. white people, that causes language endangerment (McKay 1996: 202). In general, it seems that marriage involving dominant and subordinate languag-es, e.g. English and Jaru, that is likely to induce language endangerment, and that marriage involving languages with equal status, e.g. Jaru and Kija, is less likely to do so.

(k) Static settlement versus migration movement (Haarmann 1986: 11).

(1) Migration patterns: in- or out-migration (Brenzinger 1997: 276; Craw-ford 1996: 57; Edwards 1992: 50; Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 314; Jones 1998: 150). Emigration reduces the size of the population. Depopulation due to emigration seems uncommon, but there are reported instances, e.g. Hamp (1989: 205, 209) on Scottish Gaelic and Slovene dialects in the valley of Resia in northeast Italy, and Nagy (2000: 145) on Faetar, a Francoprovençal dialect spoken in southern Italy.

[3] Sociology

(a) Social stratification in the ethnic group (Haarmann 1986: 11).

(b) Degree of interaction with other ethnic groups (Haarmann 1986: 12).

(c) Social status of speakers, e.g. their class (Haugen 1972: 336; Weinreich 1974: 95-96), and their occupation (Weinreich 1974: 96).

(d) Cultural (dis)similarity between the groups (Brenzinger and Dimmendaal 1992: 3).

(e) Way of life. Ethnic groups who retain their traditional way of life (fami-ly structure, division of labour, dwellings and so forth) have a better chance of preserving their language, whereas adaptation to modern ways of life makes preserving the language more difficult (Bergsland 1998: 45; Kibrik 1991: 260).

Thus, Bergsland (1998: 45) indicates that retention of the traditional way of life, especially reindeer breeding, was a decisive condition for the survival of the Sami language of Scandinavia.

[4] Linguistics, including sociolinguistics

(a) Genetic classification of the language (Haugen 1972: 336).

(b) History of the language (Edwards 1992: 50; Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 312). For example: Is the language known or believed to be the result of normal development over time or of some other development, e.g. pidginiza-tion (Stewart 1968: 535-536)?

(c) Existence/absence of native speakers, as against classical and artifi-cial languages, which lack native speakers (Haugen 1972: 334; Stewart 1968:

536).

6.2. Ecology of language 53 (d) Transmission of the language to children (Edwards 1992: 50; Miyaoka 2 0 0 1 : 4 ) . See [2]-(g) above.

(e) Language contact. Kibrik (1991: 260) maintains that the more contact a language has with other languages the less viable it will be. However, con-tact with other languages itself does not necessarily cause language endanger-ment. For example, Aboriginal Australians were traditionally bilingual or mul-tilingual (Dixon 1980: 32), but their languages were not threatened. It is only when they were confronted by a dominant language (i.e. English) that they be-gan to face extinction.

(f) Linguistic capabilities of individual speakers (Edwards 1992: 50), e.g.

degree of bilingualism (Bradley 1998: 51; Haugen 1972: 337; Kloss 1967: 15) or multilingualism. Are they monolingual, bilingual, trilingual or multilingual (Kloss 1967: 9)? What other languages do the people use (Haugen 1972: 334, 336)?

(g) Type of the speech community. Is the community monolingual, bilingual, trilingual or multilingual (Kloss 1967: 7; Krauss 2001: 25)? Is the bilingualism stable or transitional (Haugen 1972: 334)?

(h) Domains of use (Haugen 1972: 336), patterns of language use (Brenz-inger and Dimmendaal 1992: 3), communicational mobility (Haarmann 1986:

12), i.e. which language variety is used in what settings. See also [7]-(c) below.

Domains of use will be discussed in some detail in 7.2.

(i) Autonomy of the language, i.e. the degree of linguistic distance between the languages spoken in the community (Haarmann 1986: 12; Haugen 1972:

331; Kloss 1967: 16; Stewart 1968: 535; Weinreich 1974: 1-2).

(j) Internal varieties of the language (e.g. dialects) (Bradley 2001: 153; Hau-gen 1972: 337; Krauss 2001: 25).

(k) Existence (/absence) and nature of the written language (Bradley 2001:

153; Haarmann 1986: 13; Haugen 1972: 337).

(1) Standardization of the language, i.e. its unification and codification (Ed-wards 1992: 50; Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 312; Haugen 1972: 337;

Stewart 1968: 534).

[5] Psychology

(a) The group's attitude towards other groups (Haarmann 1986: 12).

(b) Other groups' attitude towards this group (Edwards 1992: 50).

(c) The group's self-esteem (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 310; Mesth-rie 1994: 1990) and national self-consciousness (Kibrik 1991: 260). The pres-ence of a national self-consciousness may help to surmount difficult circum-stances, while its absence will not help to increase the viability of the language (Kibrik 1991:260).

(d) The group's attitude towards their language (Edwards 1992: 50; Hau-gen 1972: 337; Suwilai 1998: 150), e.g. concerning (i) the relationship between the language and their ethnic identity (Bradley 1998: 51, 2001: 152; Brenzin-ger and Dimmendaal 1992: 3; Edwards 1992: 50; Haarmann 1986: 12; Haugen 1972: 337), (ii) the relationship between the language and their intimacy, sol-idarity, etc. (Haugen 1972: 329, 337), (iii) the maintenance or shift of the lan-guage (Haarmann 1986: 12; Kloss 1967: 16), and (iv) loyalty to their lanlan-guage (Brenzinger 1997: 276; Fishman 1964: 51-52; Kloss 1967: 17). Language atti-tude will be examined in some detail in 6.3-[9],

(e) Prestige or status of the language (Fishman 1964: 53-55, 1972: 132-136;

Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 312; Haugen 1972: 329, 337; Kloss 1967: 15;

Mesthrie 1994: 1990). The prestige of a language may result from rich liter-ary heritage, high degree of language modernization, considerable international standing, and/or the prestige of its speakers (Kloss 1967: 15). However, Wein-reich (1974: 79, fn. 34) argues that the term "prestige" is imprecise and he pro-poses to restrict its use to "a language's value in social advance", or to dispense with it altogether.

[6] History

(a) History of the area in which the group now lives (Edwards 1992: 50).

(b) History of the group (Edwards 1992: 50). For example: Are the people indigenous to the area or latecomers, e.g. migrants (Kloss 1967: 16; Weinreich 1974: 91)? Is ancestry (descent) a criterion of group solidarity (Haarmann 1986:

12)? Are there any historic events salient to ethnolinguistic group members, e.g.

struggles for recognition? The last can be conductive to feelings of group sol-idarity, and as such, can contribute to the vitality of the group (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 310-311).

[7] Politics, law, and government

This in the main concerns the "ethnos-state relation" (Haarmann 1986: 11), the "national policies on minority status" (Bradley 1998: 51), and "legal status"

(Kloss 1967: 14) of the people and their language. Its major component is the government's language policy.

(a) Recognition of speakers' rights and ethnic identity (Bergsland 1998: 45;

Edwards 1992: 50; Kibrik 1991: 261), e.g. the degree of autonomy or "special status" of the area (Edwards 1992: 50).

(b) Degree and extent of official recognition of the language (Edwards 1992:

50; Krauss 2001: 23, 25). Is the language proscribed, tolerated, promoted or rec-ognized (Bradley 2001: 153; Kloss 1967: 15)?

The use of a language may be proscribed. It may even lead to severe pun-ishment (Reyhner and House 1996: 133). Thus, there are reports, in the USA, of children having been beaten for speaking their Indian languages at school

6.2. Ecology of language 55 (Hinton 1994: 175-179; Thomason 2001: 240). Kendall King (2001: 74) and Dixon (1991b: 187) mention parallel cases from Ecuador and Australia, re-spectively. Also, "American Indian people's mouths were washed out with harsh G.I. soap whenever they spoke their own languages" (Littlebear 1999:

3; see also Batchelder and Markel 1997: 241). On the island of Taketomi, in the Ryukyu archipelago of Japan, a child who spoke the local dialect on the school premises had to wear a "dialect tag" until he/she found another child speaking the dialect and gave the tag to the latter (an NHK TV program, 13 January 2000). Jones (1998: 10, 242, 298) reports similar cases from Wales (the "Welsh Not") and Brittany, and Maguire (1991: 24, 63), from Ireland ("tally stick").

A language may be at least tolerated in the private sphere, e.g. in newspa-pers, broadcasting, and in nonpublic (parochial or independent) schools (Kloss 1967: 15).

A language may even be promoted by the authorities in various ways (use in public schools, in public notices, in public libraries, etc.) (Kloss 1967: 15).

Finally, a language may be recognized as an official language - of the region, or even of the state (Haarmann 1986: 11 ; Kloss 1967: 15).

parliament, government, administration, armed forces, education, religion, mass media, private organizations (Brenzinger and Dimmendaal 1992: 3; Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 316; Haarmann 1986: 11; Haugen 1972: 337). Ed-ucation will be treated separately, in [9], religion in [10], and mass media in [11].

(d) Organizations for the promotion of the community's interests (Haar-mann 1986: 12). Are there any pressure groups (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 315-316)? Are there any language maintenance or revival efforts (Ed-wards 1992: 50)? (Language maintenance and revival will be examined in Chapter 11.)

[8] Economics

(a) Economic health of the region (Edwards 1992: 50).

(b) Economic status of speakers (Bradley 1998: 51 ; Edwards 1992: 50; Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977: 310; Mesthrie 1994: 1989), e.g. employment oppor-tunities (Crawford 1996: 57; Suwilai 1998: 150).

[9] Education

(a) State of education in the area (Edwards 1992: 50).

(b) Literacy and writing system (Grenoble and Whaley 1998a: 32-37; Kibrik 1991: 261; Krauss 2001: 23, 25). For example, regarding vocabulary, literacy

"may be expected to retard the rate of vocabulary change" (Zengel 1968: 303),

while "illiteracy might be expected to speed the rate of vocabulary change"

(Dorian 1973: 437).

(c) School support for language (Edwards 1992: 50). Is the language inte-grated into education (Bradley 1998: 51; Mesthrie 1994: 1990)? Is it used as a medium of instruction, or taught as a subject (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977:

316; Haarmann 1986: 12; Kibrik 1991: 261)? Introduction of the language into school will certainly raise the status of the language and will also enhance the pride and self-esteem of the people.

(d) How are the people presented in education? Are the history and culture of the people are not respected? For example, does the textbook ignore Aborig-inal Australians' history and teach AborigAborig-inal children (and other children) that James Cook "discovered" Australia?

(e) Upbringing of children. Kibrik (1991: 259) notes that it is important where and by whom children are raised: in the family or outside the family. The family environment makes acquiring the ethnic language easier, especially if the children live together with their grandparents. However, if the children live away from their families, for example, in boarding school, the transmission of the ethnic language will be interrupted. The boarding school system had a dete-riorating effect on the maintenance of traditional languages.

It seems often to be grandmothers, rather than grandfathers, who influence their grandchildren linguistically and transmit the language to them. This may be termed "grandmother effect". Thus, in Kimberley, Western Australia, it is al-ways grandmothers, rather than grandfathers, who attend language meetings and accompany the grandchildren on bush trips. Dorian (1981: 107-108) pro-vides another example, from Scotland regarding Scottish Gaelic.

[10] Religion

(a) Importance of religion in the area (Edwards 1992: 50).

(b) Religion of speakers (Brenzinger 1998a: 89; Edwards 1992: 50; Haugen 1972: 336; Weinreich 1974: 92).

(d) Type and strength of association between language and religion (Ed-wards 1992: 50).

[11] The media

(a) Existence/absence of modern mass media, e.g. TV, video, etc. (Crawford 1996: 57; Dixon 1991b: 193; Suwilai 1998: 150).

(b) Use of the language in the media (Edwards 1992: 50; Mesthrie 1994:

1990).

We have seen numerous factors that are relevant to the "ecology of lan-guage", tentatively classified into the eleven groups set up by Edwards (1992).

Im Dokument Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data (Seite 76-84)