There is an article in The New York Times which focuses on the fact that many languages are going extinct as native speakers die. Here is the critical issue:
In a teleconference with reporters yesterday, K. David Harrison, an associate professor of linguistics at Swarthmore, said that more than half the languages had no written form and were "vulnerable to loss and being forgotten." Their loss leaves no dictionary, no text, no record of the accumulated knowledge and history of a vanished culture.
A language is a window into the mental ecology of ideas of a people. It is a connection to the past, and a promise to the future. When we abandon one language for another we retroactively shift our ancestral memories, when the nobility of Gaul gave up their Celtic speech for Latin they turned their back on the legends and myths of their past and seized upon a future where Caesar and Cincinnatus would become the heroes of their descendants; when the German Franks invaded their lands the nobles presented themselves as Romans, heirs to the vanquishers of Vercingetorix. The interleaved relationship of language, myth and history are clear when we consider the preservation of the great cycles of Gaelic epic history concurrent with the persistence of the language. On the other hand the legends of the Gauls or the Celtiberians are ghosts to us, preserved often in the garbled propaganda of their Roman conquerors or folk memories of their Roman descendants.
But let me ask, what language does the typical citizen of the Republic of Ireland speak now in their day to day life? Though we may wax romantically about the whithering of the vast panoply of human languages, there is a reason that local peoples have abandoned the village tongue for more a prestigious lingua franca. This is no new process, it is a fundamental dynamic which has characterized all of human history. The peoples of Australia or North America did not come fully formed from the Dreamtime or the bosom of Mother Earth singing in the mellifluous tones of their "indigenous" dialects. Not only do languages change, but the orally transmitted ones tend to evolve the fastest. The diversity of tongues across Australia or North America is a testament to this quicksilver pace of linguistic innovation. This does not even take into account the natural synthesis, and periodic replacements, which would occur in the normal course of history. The evolution of languages is a destroyer of information, the breaker of old legends, and the shaper of new myths.
Language serves to preserve history, unique information which records the past of our species. Information is precious, but fundamentally the perpetuation of linguistic diversity is a positive externality, all of humanity benefits from this richness, diversity and preservation of our species' creativity. This does not put food on the table, or allow one to participate in the global economy. The ancestral dialect does not give one access to the enormous body of literature which can be found in world languages. Some of my ancestors switched from Dravidian or Austro-Asiatic dialects to the tongue of the Indo-Aryans some thousands of years ago. Others shifted from the Persian or Turkic of their youth to the camp language of the Mughals, Urdu. These latter then gave up Urdu for the Bengali which defined the new nation in which they lived. I myself am illiterate in Bengali, but am quite familiar with the English language, as will be my own children. Their pasts will be that of the triumphant German step-child of Norman French.
On a more philosophical level one must ask whether the creative genius of humanity is constrained and defined by the texture of a particular language, or whether specific works are simply masks placed upon universal faces. Does the language make the myth, or does the myth simply seek a language? I lean toward the latter, though I do not deny that the ancients puns and Hebrew world-play embedded within the Pentateuch are obscured in translation. Something special, sui generis, is lost as a language winks out of existence, but the fundamental truths that we value as human beings is extant in stories which transcend the particular speech in which they are transmitted. The Epic of Gilgamesh has the same heart whether it is in Sumerian, Akkadian or English. All men live only in memory after they die.
Related: Ruchira Paul offers her opinion.
Update: Check out this comment from Ruchira on her blog.
- Log in to post comments
We may be losing languages, but are more than making up for it in new dialects, which can sometimes seem like another language. Personally, I'm fluent in accounting, psychology, and biology, with a good understanding of engineering, sociology, and information technology, and a smattering of physics and geology. So many people just ignore the huge variety of linguistics in use today. Sit an electrical engineer, organic chemist, physicist, anthropologist, CFO, lawyer, and a surgeon in a room, and tell them they can only talk in the same words they use at work. Now see how long it takes all of them to understand what each other is saying.
sir, tell me the tales of your folk!
Loss of languages is loss of data. Similarly with platypuses, star-nosed moles, mole rats, and various other weird species unimportant in the big picture. Likewise with loss of cultures. For example, native Australians were uniquely pre-neolithic (mostly). So-called "Bushmen" may be a race of their own (genetically) despite being few and unimportant.
And so on.
So-called "Bushmen" may be a race of their own (genetically) despite being few and unimportant.
interesting you bring that up, some geneticists (e.g., spencer wells) worry about the loss of genetic variation through the absorption and intermarriage of indigenous peoples. but of course, though on type of variation (between group) is lost, more variation is created (this time within group).
p.s., the genetic-cultural analogy is of course a coarse one, genetic variation is preserved because of the discrete nature of the substrate. culture isn't like that (e.g., you can speak ONLY one parent's dialect, or neither parents' dialect).
what if the question were: "Extinction of a culture: Cry or Rejoice?"
because sometimes that seems to be what is going on, either slow genocide by poverty and indifference, or active destruction of people resistant to assimilation.
because sometimes that seems to be what is going on, either slow genocide by poverty and indifference, or active destruction of people resistant to assimilation.
cultures don't bleed, people do. and of course in this case most local languages die because people choose no longer to speak them. so replacing it with culture doesn't change it, it depends on the kind of culture. the romans were right to persecute the celtic culture when it came to human sacrifice, despite the objections that the druids made that this was their custom. but then i'm biased, i have particular values which overrule room for pluralism which extends toward a huge range of cultural vibrancy.
Interesting to contrast the lack of uptake of Irish following independence as even a second language, despite govnt efforts to make it the first, with the astonishing and speedy revival of Hebrew in Israel after independence. Differing incentives maybe, or perhaps Jews are just smarter than Irish and learn languages better.
Or maybe the Irish are just smarter than the Jews and knew better than to hitch their wagon to an obscure and little-spoken tongue.
Or maybe we could stop stupid speculations about cultural/racial superiority/inferiority and just look at what's going on. Hmm?
In the case of local dialects of the dominant language (Provencal, Sardinian, Scots, etc.) it may be possible to say "most local languages die because people choose no longer to speak them." But most dying languages are spoken by small, weak peoples subject to various sorts of incentives and coercive measures. All countries have a language policy, and in most of them assimilation to the dominant language is strongly encouraged. In some cases (Turkey, Iraq, and even France and Spain) the language policy is heavy handed (e.g. against the Kurds, Bretons, and Basques).
When I see the people talking about making English the official language also talk about how terrible things are in France, I do a double take, because France has had a very strong French-only language policy for centuries, at the expense not only of the local dialects but also the indigenous Breton and Basque languages.
By now there are only 85,000 Basque speakers in France in an area where they used to be dominant: Link. The present government is much less repressive of Basque and Breton than past governments were, but there's little formal recognition of bilingualism.
For most people the smart thing to do is to learn the language of the elite in their region or country - especially when one is impoverished or fighting to survive at all.
This was the case with the native Irish Gaelic speakers in the West of Ireland. This was also the case of holocaust survivor Jews fleeing to Israel.
But what happens when one is doing well? I was in Ireland a few months ago and heard that among the elite in Dublin that it has become fashionable to send their children to Irish only private schools, and that there was a huge backlog of applicants at such places. I know this had not been the case a decade ago and questioned it. I was told that the new upsurge of interest in Irish was spurred by the huge, very recent, mass immigration to the country.
It takes a lot of efforts of the current generation to preserve its language, esp that language has been considered inferior thus the speakers also feel inferior. Indeed it is true what pconroy above mentioned and i quote here: "For most people the smart thing to do is to learn the language of the elite in their region or country - especially when one is impoverished or fighting to survive at all." That was the case before with our language Kinaray-a (Antique, Philippines) which was considered just a dialect before. But now people have realized that it is a language (thanks to those linguists and writers who persevered) and is nothing to be ashamed of. So majority are now promoting its use and many initiatives are being made to use it not only for conversation but also for other ways of communication.
But most dying languages are spoken by small, weak peoples subject to various sorts of incentives and coercive measures. All countries have a language policy, and in most of them assimilation to the dominant language is strongly encouraged.
granted. "choice" does not operate in a vacuum.
The present government is much less repressive of Basque and Breton than past governments were, but there's little formal recognition of bilingualism.
yes, but note that it isn't like small-scale cultures were formally bilingual either. this is an apples to oranges situation where linguistic diversity that flourishes in a politically fragmented environment now needs be adapted to, or removed, by a unitary political system.
p.s. the rebirth of hebrew is sui generis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew#Development_of_Modern_Hebrew
the part often stands for the whole in conversation. By culture and way of life, i mean the living breathing people. This gets lost sometimes in dicussions about preserving language (which often revolve around how to record and preserve the language before the last speaker dies).
You correctly note that languages die because people choose to stop speaking them. Why do they choose? Some choose to learn a world language, or a national language, but why does this entail dropping an ancestral one? It's well within the capacity of most people to be bilingual or trilingual, and this is in fact the world norm.
What I want to emphasise is that this choice to stop speaking sometimes seems like despair or coercion more than a freely chosen step. For instance many American Indian languages and cultures are dying because their people were and are still systematically oppressed.
Some choose to learn a world language, or a national language, but why does this entail dropping an ancestral one? It's well within the capacity of most people to be bilingual or trilingual, and this is in fact the world norm.
do you have numbers on bilingualism? (or multi-lingualism)
In areas like the Balkans and the Caucasus everyone is bilingual or trilingual. All educated Europeans are bilingual or trilingual (and the educational level is high). I believe that in SE Asia bilingualism-plus is common. American monolingualism may be exceptional.
I met a seller of handcrafts about 2 years ago, who had come to the US from somewhere in the Sahel, and he stated that he could speak English, French and 4 African languages. He said that it was normal where he came from.
In areas like the Balkans and the Caucasus everyone is bilingual or trilingual. All educated Europeans are bilingual or trilingual (and the educational level is high). I believe that in SE Asia bilingualism-plus is common. American monolingualism may be exceptional.
china? japan? many asian indians are multi-lingual, but most of these are ethnic minorities or elites. i would like numbers, i don't doubt that people with university level educations have multi-lingual generally (because of the penetration of english), but i am skeptical about others.
About half of Chinese are bilingual. The dialects of Chinese are no more closely related than German and Swedish. In any case, China is not a favorable example for advocates on monolingualism; China is what we're trying to avoid.
Correction: Wiki says that monolingualism is common in the Balkans. My information anout frequent multilingualism was apparently about elite groups including local etlites who mediated with the larger society. Again, though, monolingualism is associated with provinciality, ignorance, powerlessness, and low status (wives barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.)
I think that the bilingualism argument is completely misdirected. The real problems talked about here are fundamentally with immigration, refugees, dissident unintegrated minorities, and the status of unskilled labor. Bilingualism and multilingualism are a subordinate factors -- I would say very subordinate.
Formally bilingual nations include New Zealand, Finland, Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland. Their problems rising from bilingualism are insignificant in the big picture. The only reason Canada's problems seem important is because Canada is such a boring, peaceful place. Belgium's problems are slightly more serious but (as with Czechoslovakia) the reason they're serious is because people are asking why such a small state should exist at all. Belgium isn't a player; the players are large states and international organizations like the EU. Even Sweden and Austria are barely players.
Probably the bitterest dispute in Europe has been Northern Ireland, where both sides are monolingual in English. (Northern Irish Irish-speakers are very rare). The Basques in Spain come next, more or less, and the problems there have diminished enormously since the Spanish-only policies were dropped. AFAIK, bilingualism and ignorance of French are not factors in France.
From a different angle, either Danish, Swedish, or Norwegian could be used as the official language of all three countries with very minimal effort. (Norwegian is somewhat the middle term, I'm told, but would never be used because it's the least prestigious of the three). In areas like publishing, education, and probably law and government there would be very significant savings, but on the other hand, who cares? None of the three would be a world language anyway.
In short, militants have puffed up a specific situation in the US involving bilingualism (especially in California) into a universal principle about bilingualism. But this universal principle is just plain false.
The extinction of languages is a good thing. Becoming fluent in one of the dominant languages opens up the world of knowledge, making people more efficient and productive. You can't become a (real) doctor or engineer knowing only Navajo, for example.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next few decades when real-time translation software becomes available. Of course, most of the shrinking language groups will be too poor to afford it, so it'll have to get real cheap to be widespread.
Still, any loss, say of being unable to appreciate old works of art and literature, are more than made up for by the economic gains of the average person. And there's plenty of culture to appreciate in one of the dominant languages.
About half of Chinese are bilingual. The dialects of Chinese are no more closely related than German and Swedish. In any case, China is not a favorable example for advocates on monolingualism; China is what we're trying to avoid.
why? i think china has an edge over india in part because it has a cohesive national written language. in contrast some of the most 'advanced' parts of india prefer english to hindi for nationalistic reasons.
Formally bilingual nations include New Zealand, Finland, Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland.
each example is diff. in finland the linguistic minority (swedes) traditionally had higher status (most swedish finns are probably swedishized finns in the first place). in belgium you have the problem that the flemmish were once the moe backward, and so the monolingualism of the french speakers was understandable. now that the flemmish areas are more prosperous they dislike the more common monolingualism of the french (a relict of the fact that recognition of flemmish as an official language is relatively recent).
From a different angle, either Danish, Swedish, or Norwegian could be used as the official language of all three countries with very minimal effort.
this is an interesting case, because the languages are close. there are even two forms of norwegian, and the official version is based on one of the dialects. it is analogous to swiss germans, who have their own dialect along with the official high german. when bilingualism occurs between languages that are very close (e.g., macedonians being bilingual with bulgarian) that is very different from when the languages are very different. part of the relative non-resistance to hindi in places like gujarat as opposed to tamil nadu might have to do with the fact that gujarati and hindi are very close compared to hindi and tamil. the learning curve is fundamentally different.
i think that that this implies a false choice:
"The extinction of languages is a good thing. Becoming fluent in one of the dominant languages opens up the world of knowledge, making people more efficient and productive. You can't become a (real) doctor or engineer knowing only Navajo, for example."
Learning a world language does not mean that one cannot also learn another language.
Apparently surveys of world bilingualism/multilingualism aren't that common, however the authors of "The Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education (Hardcover)
by Colin Baker (Editor), Sylvia Prys Jones." estimate that 2/3 of the world population are bilingual. One sees this number tossed around quite a bit, and it seems like the right ballpark figure.
From my own experience: In west Africa, I only rarely met someone who was monolingual. Almost everyone knew a national language, and several local languages. I lived in Benin, and even in villages where few people spoke French, knowing two local languages at minimum was the norm. Honestly, it was only people with developmental disabilities who were monolingual.
In China, not only are there minority languages with small populations, there are several large populations of regional languages. So people learned mandarin as well as one or more regional languages. Only in regions where Mandarin or a close dialect was spoken were people monolingual.
In China, not only are there minority languages with small populations, there are several large populations of regional languages. So people learned mandarin as well as one or more regional languages. Only in regions where Mandarin or a close dialect was spoken were people monolingual.
yes, but most chinese are literate and the written language is one. so there wouldn't be an issue with multiple documents, etc.
To what degree do multilingual people master their languages, and how does the complexity of the language affect this?
English is an extraordinarily large language, with a vocabulary that few people use to anywhere near its full extent, with a complex and often nonsensical grammar and orthography that takes new speakers years to grasp. I don't suggest that this makes it better than simpler languages, which may gain in elegance what they lose in complexity, but isn't there a difference between being fluent in English and fluent in, say, Esperanto?
Why are we trying to avoid the Chinese example? Come on, Razib.
Chinese monolingualism combined with government media control means that China will never even know what the Western tradition is. Their goal is to appropriate science, technology, and state capitalism while keeping all the other stuff out.
I remain convinced that language policy is only important at all when it is aggravated by other problems and conflicts, and that imposed monolingualism is a bad response to ethnic conflicts.
Chinese monolingualism combined with government media control means that China will never even know what the Western tradition is.
i actually don't necessarily grant this. japan has an enormous translation industry. are the english translations of the iliad fundamentally inferior to the greek original in their core message?
Sometimes this is like being in the Twilight Zone.
They teach English in China. Having a single national language (like for example Indonesia has) doesn't mean they try to stop people from speaking English. Or learning ancient Greek for that matter. The standards of English in a lot of China are now pretty good, in some cases absolutely outstanding.
Travel restrictions have been greatly liberalised in recent years. I know kids of wealthy Mainland Chinese people who attend secondary schools in the UK and other Western countries, to add to any number of Chinese students attending overseas universities. It's not clear how 'they' make sure these kids only appropriate science and technology without soaking up a bit of Jane Austen along the way.
The university libraries are full of 'foreign' text books in English. As jim pointed out, you can't acquire competence in any number of vitally important professions without access to the international literature. Plenty of Mainland Chinese professionals attend overseas conferences and publish papers on their work at conferences and in international journals. It's not a one way flow, not in anything I know about.
There is a thriving industry in interpretation and translation in China. Big demand.
Anywhere you go in China you will hear people speaking regional dialects; they don't get shot or incarcerated for it. I've done it myself and haven't been shot yet. Of course, in any official capacity they are going to speak Putonghua.
No one is going to try to keep Homer out of China. I mean the Greek, not the Simpson. Maybe both, I haven't checked.
They didn't even kick Starbucks out of the Forbidden City, they offered them an option to use Chinese coffee which Starbucks decided not to take. Personally I think that was a mistake, I've got some Chinese grown coffee that is a hell of a lot better than anything I ever drank in Starbucks.
Yes, there is media control, for sure. Press and TV are controlled, and it's pretty severe. So they are in Singapore - which also has a language policy. If you don't speak Mandarin in Singapore you are screwed for Government employment, despite the size of the ethnic minorities there.
They drive better in Singapore, though, and have air you can breathe, which I'm increasingly regarding as big pluses, but that's waaay off the topic.
@ Kent Kauffman: "We may be losing species, but are more than making up for it it new breeds which can sometimes seem like another species. Personally, I have owned Border Collies, Dalmatians, English Setters and Jack Russel Terriers. So many people just ignore the huge variety of dogs that are around today. ..."
@ razib: "Species don't bleed, organisms do."
@ pconroy "For most people, the smart thing to do is to buy the same pets that the elite in their region or country own."
@ jim: "The extinction of species is a good thing. Buying a pet from the dominant culture opens up the world of pet accessories. Any loss of, say, finding out something about the evolution of life on earth is more than made up for by the economic gains of dealing in pet accessories. And there are plenty of those to appreciate instead of worrying about boring genetic diversity."
@ Caledonian: "Dogs are an extraordinarily large subspecies, with a range of breeds that people don't use to anywhere its full extent, with complex and often nonsensical characteristics and a behavior that takes new dog owners years to grasp. I don't suggest that this makes dogs better than simpler organisms, which may gain in elegance what they lose in complexity, but isn't there a difference between owning a dog and owning, say, a Sony Aibo?"
Oh my.
Mr. Emerson, I have the greatest respect for your attempts to give all these self-appointed language experts at least a faint idea of what they are talking about. Alas, I fear your attempts were unsuccessful...
Languages != species.
Linguistic diversity and genetic diversity are not the same thing. Yes, they both have the word diversity in them, which apparently has been shown to be the single greatest good, more important than all other considerations.
The last several hundred years have seen a great uptick in language extinctions. At the same time mankind's material condition has improved immensely. The fact that trade and specialization is harder in a Tower of Babel world divided up into tiny language communities is a plausible factor. The regions of the world with the greatest linguistic diversity (say, Papua New Guinea) tend to also be the poorest.
Again, languages and species are not the same thing, even if we use some of the same words to describe them.
Caledonian, Irish is pretty much drilled into students from day one. It's compulsory from tiny tot onwards. Yet most don't speak it very well. Now it is fundamentally a lack of interest that causes this, but it is plausible that g plays a role as well.
@ jimm: "Languages != species"
You're right. They are not the same. My point (at the risk of spoiling the subtle irony) was that some of the statements in this thread make as much sense to people who know something about language as my satire makes to people who know something about genetics. The subtler point was an implicit suggestion that geneticists should stick to what they know and if they do, linguists will promise in return not to make inane statements about genetics.
"The last several hundred years have seen a great uptick in language extinctions. At the same time mankind's material condition has improved immensely."
If you're serious about a causal relationship between these two facts, that has got to be the single most ignorant statement I have ever heard about language. You need to do some serious research into the conditions under which, for example, the Australian aborigines or the indigenous peoples of South America live. I will be interested to know whether you then still believe that their material condition has improved as they were forced to give up their languages and cultures.
Well, I'll avoid the invitation to a pissing contest from A.S.
I do suggest spending more time learning some economics and economic history and less time perfecting your linguistic snobbery. You might find the return worthwhile. Good luck.
It is more plausible that the lack of a religious structure that emphasizes the use of an archaic language has something to do with it, not to mention that since the Jewish founders of Israel came from many different nations, Hebrew was one of their common shared cultural points.
But by all means, let's bring g into the discussion! We can talk about how the incredibly low rate of dyslexia among Ashkenazi Jews suggests a massive self-selection against males who had trouble reading, thus having difficulty meeting the social criteria for manhood and being unlikely to prosper in the high-status positions of scholastic literary analysis. It's not as though the Irish have any particular reputation for linguistic skill. Therefore, the Jews must be smarter than the Irish. It's all so clear now!
Well yes. IQ 93 vs whatever for the Ashkenazi. And the Ashkenazi don't just do well verbally, they excell beyond all other groups.
Their average IQ scores say otherwise. Normal, except for being two standard deviations above the mean on verbal intelligence.
That's what happens if you screen out everyone who can't pull off their Bar Mitzvah* for several hundred years.
*It's not as simple as that, of course.
@Razib Regarding the swedish speaking minority in Finland: it is true that people with higher status traditionally were swedish speaking (and many of these were swedishized finns). However, especially in the north- and south-western coastal regions nearly 100% of the population spoke (or still speaks) swedish. Hence locally status correlated little with language. More generally too, a majority of the swedish speakers did not have higher status.
Regarding the Bushmen, might it be the case that diversity is reduced due to genetic drift when they merge with europeans and bantus?
"Well yes. IQ 93 vs whatever for the Ashkenazi. And the Ashkenazi don't just do well verbally, they excell beyond all other groups."
you wonder why they(we) ever learned English in the first place. Israel's IQ is about 100, I think Ireland's underestimated. In any case you are arguing that the Irish cant learn a language their ancestors spoke with little difficulty, and are forced to a language their ancestors adopted with little difficulty, producing some of the English language's greatest works in poetry and prose within a few generations ( although I think Joyce overrated, thats the consensus)
Wilde's pretty good, though.