Words and Worlds

BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM

Series Editors: Professor Colin Baker, University of Wales, Bangor, Wales, Great Britain and Professor Nancy
H. Hornberger, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

Recent Books in the Series

Language Minority Students in the Mainstream Classroom (2nd edn)
Angela L. Carrasquillo and Vivian Rodríguez
World English: A Study of its Development
Janina Brutt-Griffler
Power, Prestige and Bilingualism: International Perspectives on Elite Bilingual Education
Anne-Marie de Mejía
Identity and the English Language Learner
Elaine Mellen Day
Language and Literacy Teaching for Indigenous Education: A Bilingual Approach
Norbert Francis and Jon Reyhner
The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality
Alan Davies
Language Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual Societies
Robert Bayley and Sandra R. Schecter (eds)
Language Rights and the Law in the United States: Finding our Voices
Sandra Del Valle
Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in
Multilingual Settings
Nancy H. Hornberger (ed.)
Languages in America: A Pluralist View (2nd edn)
Susan J. Dicker
Trilingualism in Family, School and Community
Charlotte Hoffmann and Jehannes Ytsma (eds)
Multilingual Classroom Ecologies
Angela Creese and Peter Martin (eds)
Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts
Aneta Pavlenko and Adrian Blackledge (eds)
Beyond the Beginnings: Literacy Interventions for Upper Elementary English Language Learners
Angela Carrasquillo, Stephen B. Kucer and Ruth Abrams
Bilingualism and Language Pedagogy
Janina Brutt-Griffler and Manka Varghese (eds)
Language Learning and Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Approach
Margaret R. Hawkins (ed.)
The English Vernacular Divide: Postcolonial Language Politics and Practice
Vaidehi Ramanathan
Bilingual Education in South America
Anne-Marie de Mejía (ed.)
Teacher Collaboration and Talk in Multilingual Classrooms
Angela Creese

For more details of these or any other of our publications, please contact:
Multilingual Matters, Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall,
Victoria Road, Clevedon, BS21 7HH, England
http://www.multilingual-matters.com
BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 52
Series Editors: Colin Baker and Nancy H. Hornberger

Words and Worlds

World Languages Review

Fèlix Martí, Paul Ortega, Itziar Idiazabal,

Andoni Barreña, Patxi Juaristi, Carme Junyent,
Belen Uranga and Estibaliz Amorrortu

UNESCO ETXEA

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS LTD

Clevedon • Buffalo • Toronto
The authors wish to express their deepest gratitude to the Basque Government,
who, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding signed with UNESCO
on 23 July 1997, has financed the World Languages project from its beginnings to the
publication of the present volume.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Words and Worlds: World Languages Revie/Fèlix Martí … [et al.].
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism: 52
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Sociolinguistics. 2. Language and languages. 3. Linguistics.
I. Marti, F. (Felix) II. Series.
P40.W647 2005
303.44-dc22 2005004086

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1–85359–827–5 (hbk)

ISBN 1–85359–828–3 (electronic)

Multilingual Matters Ltd

UK: Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Road, Clevedon BS21 7HH.
USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA.
Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario M3H 5T8, Canada.

Copyright © 2005 UNESCO ETXEA.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means
without permission in writing from the publisher.

Typeset by Saxon Graphics Ltd, Derby.

Printed and bound in Great Britain by the Cromwell Press Ltd.
Contents
List of Maps ...........................................................................................................................vi
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................vii
Prologue ..................................................................................................................................x
Introduction ............................................................................................................................1
Chapter 1. Linguistic Communities...................................................................................10
Chapter 2. The Linguistic Heritage....................................................................................46
Chapter 3. The Official Status of Languages ....................................................................92
Chapter 4. The Use of Languages in Public Administration ........................................119
Chapter 5. Language and Writing....................................................................................131
Chapter 6. Language and Education ...............................................................................150
Chapter 7. Languages and the Media..............................................................................175
Chapter 8. Language and Religion ..................................................................................189
Chapter 9. Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language ..............................200
Chapter 10. Linguistic Attitudes ......................................................................................214
Chapter 11. The Threats to Languages ............................................................................225
Chapter 12. The Future of Languages .............................................................................249
References ...........................................................................................................................269
Web References...................................................................................................................281
Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire .................................................................................284
Appendix 2: Index of Contributors .................................................................................289
Appendix 3: List of Informants ........................................................................................291
Appendix 4: Index of Languages, Families and Varieties ............................................301
Subject Index.......................................................................................................................315

v
List of Maps
Map 1. Genetic Groupings of the Languages of the World
Map 2. Languages in the Caucasus Region
Map 3. Native American Languages in California
Map 4. Sami Language. Language, Territory, and Official Status
Map 5. Languages of South Africa
Map 6. Great Diversity but only Occasional Use in Administration
Map 7. Standardisation in Senegal
Map 8. Languages of Central America (Partial)
Map 9. The Media and Languages Spoken in Tanzania
Map 10. Tamazight Language Areas
Map 11. Attitudes and Indian Languages in Canada
Map 12. Languages of Colombia
Map 13. Language Diversity in China

The maps can all be found between pages 248 and 249.

vi
Acknowledgements
The preparation of this Review would not have been possible without the collabo-
ration, contributions, help and advice of a large number of people, institutions and
organisations all over the world. In this respect, the World Languages Review can be
considered a collective work, indebted to all the contributors listed below. We would
therefore like to express our profound gratitude to all those who have disinterestedly
supported this project (we apologise for any possible oversight or inaccuracy the list
may include):

• To the members of the former Board of Directors:

José Antonio Ardanza, former President of the Government of the Basque Country;
Vigdis Finnbogadottir, Goodwill Ambassador to UNESCO for Languages,
Chairperson of the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and
Technology, former President of the Republic of Iceland; Enric Masllorens,
Chairman of the UNESCO Centre of Catalonia; Joseph Poth, former Director of the
Division of Languages of UNESCO.

• To the members of the former Scientific Committee:

Miquel Siguán (Chairman), University of Barcelona, Barcelona; E. Annnamalai,
Central Institute of Indian Languages, (CIIL), Mysore, India; Denis Cunningham,
International Federation of Teachers of Living Languages, (IFTLL), Victoria,
Australia; E. Nolue Emenanjo, Nigerian National Institute for Languages, Aba,
Nigeria; Irina Khaleeva, Moscow State Linguistics University, Moscow, Russia;
Luis Enrique López, PROEIB Andes, Cochabamba, Bolivia; Mohamed Miled,
Tunis Language Institute, Tunis; Juan Carlos Moreno, Autonomous University of
Madrid, Madrid, Spain; Philippe N’Tahombaye, University of Burundi,
Bujumbura, Burundi; Irmela Neu, Fachhochschule, Munich, Germany; Raymond
Renard, UNESCO Chair in Linguistic Planning and Didactics of Languages,
University of Mons-Hainaut, Belgium; Ignace Sanwidi, Councillor for Education
and the Culture of Peace, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; Jean-Jacques Van
Vlasselaer, University of Carleton, Ottawa, Canada.

vii
viii Acknowledgements

• To the experts of recognised prestige who have contributed to the text of the Review:
Anvita Abbi, Jawaharlal Nehru University; Xavier Albó, Peasant Research and
Promotion Centre; Isaac Pianko Ashaninka and Joaquim Mana Kaxinawa, Acre
Indigenous Teachers Association; Ayo Bamgbose, University of Ibadan; Wynford
Bellin, Cardiff University; Jean-Paul Bronckart, University of Geneva; Bernard
Comrie, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology; Nancy C. Dorian,
Bryn Mawr College; Francis Favereau, University of Rennes 2; Joshua Fishman,
Jeshiva University; Barbara F. Grimes (Ed.) Ethnologue; Josiane Hamers, University
of Laval; Sun Hongkai and Huang Xing, Minority Languages Academic Society of
China; Joseba Intxausti; Irina Khaleeva, Moscow State Linguistics University;
Omkar N. Koul and Debi Prasanna Pattanayak, Central Institute for Indian
Languages; Multamia R.M.T. Lauder, University of Indonesia; Chura Mani
Bandhu, University of Nepal; Grant D. McConnell, University of Laval; Bartomeu
Melià, “Antonio Guasch” Centre for Paraguayan Studies; Juan Carlos Moreno,
Autonomous University of Madrid; Raymond Renard, University of Mons-
Hainaut; Suzanne Romaine, Merton College, University of Oxford; Miquel Siguan,
University of Barcelona; Miquel Strubell, Open University of Catalonia; Alexey
Yeschenko, Pyatigorsk North-Caucasian Centre for Sociolinguistic Studies.

• We would especially like to thank Professor Peter Mühlhäusler and Professor Moreno
Cabrera for their extensive contributions to Chapters One and Two respectively.

• To each and every one of the informants who filled in the more than one thousand
questionnaires on their languages or the languages they knew. To all of them we
send our warmest thanks for their commitment and for their valuable first-hand
contribution (see Appendix 3 for the list of informants).

• To the people and institutions with whom a special partnership was established:
Stephen Wurm (†)
Clinton Robinson, Ray Gordon, and Barbara Grimes, Joe Grimes and Paul Lewis
(Summer Institute of Linguistics, SIL)
David Dalby
Tove Skutnabb-Kangas

• To the Spanish Commission for Cooperation with UNESCO.

• To the National Commissions for Cooperation with UNESCO all over the world.

• To the UNESCO Advisory Committee on Linguistic Pluralism and Multilingual

Education.

• To the UNESCO Centre of Catalonia and the Linguapax Institute.

Acknowledgements ix

• To the University of the Basque Country – Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.

• To Olalla Juaristi, research assistant, UNESCO Etxea.

• A special mention for the direct collaborators of the Technical Committee during
these years: Maitena Etxebarria, member of the Technical Committee for this report
during the years 1998–2000, for her dedication during this period; Izaskun Azueta,
Mikel Mendizabal, Marta Pardo, Begoña Arbulu, Maider Huarte, Margareta
Almgren, Xabier Monasterio, José Luis Villacorta, Ane Ortega, Esti Izagirre and
Olga Andueza as support staff; finally, UNESCO Etxea – UNESCO Centre of the
Basque Country, their work team and their Board of Governors, chaired by Jon
Arrieta and Ruper Ormaza during all these years, and Mikel Mancisidor, Director
of UNESCO Etxea.
Prologue
The value of language diversity
Languages are humanity’s most valuable cultural heritage. They are fundamental to
understanding. Each language provides a system of concepts which helps us to
interpret reality. The complexity of reality is easier to understand thanks to the
diversity of languages. Progress in understanding is due, amongst other things, to the
growing linguistic diversity that has characterised the human species. Languages are
also fundamental in the generation and transmission of values. Each language
expresses a differentiated ethical sensibility. Each language provides us with symbols
and metaphors to deal with the mysterious and the sacred. Furthermore, languages
are not closed or exclusive universes. All of them express the rationality of the human
species, as well as its common fears and hopes. Linguistic diversity is the most
obvious manifestation of cultural diversity. In a world characterised by growing
processes of globalisation, it seems necessary to assert the value of cultural diversity
as a guarantee of more democratic and more creative coexistence. Cultural
uniformity would mean a decline, to the extent that we would lose our ability to give
specialised answers to specific challenges. The report “Our Creative Diversity”,
published by UNESCO in 1995, pointed out what orientations were necessary to
preserve diversity without renouncing positive aspects of globalisation. In the field of
cultural and linguistic diversity we often coincide with the criteria of the defenders of
diversity of living species in the natural environment. In both cases it is said that there
is a need to protect the heritage. The reason is not exclusively ethical. Both the defence
of biological diversity and the defence of cultural and linguistic diversity are
necessary conditions for the well-being of humans, for the balances that protect life
and for the life quality we aspire to develop.
The defence of languages and cultures is part of a larger project which aspires to a
more rational, fairer and freer organisation of humanity. We have entered the
twenty-first century without giving sufficient answers to very serious global
problems. These could be grouped under seven headings. First of all, the failure in
the system of distribution of the planet’s wealth, which leads to poverty and extreme
hardship, so objectively described by the successive reports on human development
by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Secondly, unsustainable
production and consumption systems, which increasingly deteriorate the planet’s

x
Prologue xi

ecological balance, as studies by the Worldwatch Institute, amongst others, have

shown. Thirdly, the non-fulfilment of international conventions in matters of human
rights, as denounced by the annual reports of Amnesty International and other
governmental and non-governmental human rights organisations, as well as the
persistence of undemocratic governments. Fourth, the weakness of the United
Nations and of international tribunals as a result of the inertia of the system of state
sovereignties and the excessive weight carried by some states. Fifth, the practice of
very unbalanced cultural relations to the extent that the technologically dominant
culture aggressively imposes its myths and its values on other cultures. Sixth, the
marginalisation of many peoples and minorities whose aspiration to various forms
of cultural or political self-determination is not sufficiently recognised by centralist
and uniformist political traditions. Seventh, the use of enormous scientific and tech-
nological resources for security and defence systems which have little bearing on the
objectives of human security and peace.
These challenges also define our responsibilities. We want to build a world with
fair economic structures, with a sustainable model of development, with effective
protection of human rights, with a United Nations that can exercise governance of
globality, with harmonious coexistence between cultures and religions, with recog-
nition of all peoples and with peace guaranteed by human security.

Globalisation, socio-economic development and protection of

language
The protection of the linguistic heritage forms part of the construction of a more
orderly, more balanced and more advanced world. There is a very clear relationship
between language policies, economic, cultural and social development, the perfection
of democratic systems, stability and peace. In the past, some very mistaken principles
regarding linguistic questions gained prestige which fortunately now are no longer
defended. It was thought that languages could be ranked according to a hierarchy and
that it was therefore a good thing to replace the use of inferior languages with that of
the higher languages essential for science or for abstract speculation. Today we know
that all languages are equal in dignity and in communication and thinking capacity
and that the hierarchy among languages is based on prejudices characteristic of
cultural colonialism. It was also believed that linguistic uniformity of the population
was desirable in the governance of states, in the same way as there was opposition to
other aspects of pluralism such as religion or ethics. Today we attach prestige to
policies that can manage complex societies. Pluralism is perceived as an asset. Ethnic,
religious or linguistic cleansing belongs to mistaken, primitive political philosophies.
In recent years, studies by sociolinguists have drawn attention to the speed of the
changes affecting linguistic communities. Languages are living realities and there
have always been relations between linguistic communities that have contributed to
their development. Relations of power, wars, migrations and technological changes
have had an important influence in the life of languages. All languages, with the
xii Prologue

passage of time, have evolved. Linguistic contacts have been something very
common. Many languages have suffered irreversible processes of minorisation or of
repression and have died. Others have changed through the evolution of the
linguistic community itself and have given rise to new languages. Scientists of
language warn us of the conventional nature of our concept of language or of
languages. In reality what we find are linguistic practices which become diversified
over the human geography but that do not permit the establishment of clear borders.
Political borders are often presented as linguistic borders, but in the majority of cases
there is no real break to be seen in the linguistic practices of areas separated by
borders. Furthermore, while in some territories only one language is used, in other
territories it is normal for various different linguistic communities to coexist in some
form and for multilingualism to be a generalised and socially well considered
practice. What is new in our time is the pace affecting linguistic contacts, the growing
complexity of all societies from the point of view of their linguistic diversity and the
generalised risk of linguistic take-overs as a result of certain aspects of globalisation.

Goals of the Review

This Review sets out to present the universal sociolinguistic situation. The Review
describes the linguistic diversity which currently characterises the human species
and the trends indicating the risks of losing a considerable part of this diversity. The
Review is not intended as a linguistic atlas. Many researchers have prepared maps
locating the linguistic communities and illustrating linguistic contacts. Neither is it
intended to provide an official list of the world’s languages or an encyclopaedia clas-
sifying each and every one of them. Many works have already been published in this
field without having reached general agreement as to either the number of languages
that exist or even a form of reckoning that distinguishes properly between languages,
dialects and pidgins. The Review sets out to present significant data on linguistic
diversity and its speeding evolution. The authors of the Review have sought out
opinions on linguistic uses and their evolution from individuals, groups and institu-
tions concerned with the trends they observe as members of specific linguistic
communities or as researchers. The Review is intended as an appeal to the responsi-
bility of everyone to protect linguistic diversity. In this respect, the Review aims to
contribute to the rise of a linguistic ethic, that is to a set of attitudes in favour of the
protection of the linguistic heritage. Finally, the most important objective of the
Review is to establish a set of guidelines with a view to the future. Many actors play a
part in the life of linguistic communities: governments, popular movements,
teachers, media, religious leaders, non-governmental organisations, research centres
and of course self-organised linguistic communities themselves. The Review puts
forward guidelines of language policy for all these actors. In the realisation that each
specific situation has novel aspects, the Review merely recommends language policy
measures on the basis of a typification of situations which would have to be adapted
and completed locally. In many cases the objective of the Review will have been
Prologue xiii

achieved if it avoids mistakes that have been very common in public interventions in
matters of language policy. For this reason some authors are sceptical about the
appropriateness of promoting language policies. The Review, with its recommenda-
tions, tries to allow for modest, sensible language policy measures that favour the
weakest or most endangered linguistic communities.

History of the Review

In preparing the Review a fairly complex methodology was established. The Director-
General of UNESCO Federico Mayor Zaragoza at a seminar of experts held in Bilbao
(Spain) in 1996, proposed the drafting of a review on the world’s languages. The
government of the Basque Country (Spain) provided the funds for the first review in
the framework of the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 23 July 1997.
Coordination of the project was entrusted to UNESCO Etxea (UNESCO Centre of the
Basque Country). A board of directors was set up for the project, along with a scientific
committee and a technical committee, which worked at a good pace during the years
1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. We decided to launch a survey to get direct infor-
mation from the linguistic communities themselves and from a variety of informers.
More than one thousand replies were received, which once analysed allowed confir-
mation or modification of the research hypotheses used to draft the surveys. At the
same time, continental meetings served to get a better understanding of the linguistic
problems of each continent and request the collaboration of experts for the different
parts of the Review. The Linguapax university network coordinated by the UNESCO
Chair at the University of Mons (Belgium) collaborated in the different stages of the
project. The scientific committee, chaired by Dr Miquel Siguan, met regularly and
discussed the successive draftings of the review with the members of the board of
directors and the technical committee. The final result is the one offered in this text.

About language diversity and social peace

Linguistic issues have a very fundamental effect on human identities at an individual
and a collective level, and it is not easy to deal with linguistic pluralism calmly,
rationally and objectively. In some states there are conflicts which have linguistic
components. For this reason reflection on the past and future of linguistic communities
can be seen as over-politicised or destabilising. The Review does not set out to disguise
the political implications of the management of linguistic diversity by states and by the
international community, but it stresses the pacifying nature of a management of
linguistic pluralism which takes into account the principles of democracy and justice.
The Review is offered in the framework of the Linguapax spirit that inspired UNESCO
linguistic activities during many years in the conviction that language policies which
respect diversity and promote linguistic communication also favour peace. Linguistic
security – that is the perception by linguistic communities that they are not going to
suffer deliberate aggressions – is one of the conditions for peace. Multilingual
education is another of the conditions for peace. Self-enclosed communities that are
xiv Prologue

unable to understand other communities living around them can give rise to preju-
dices, fear and intolerance. Peace is built with the enjoyment of rights that affirm one’s
own linguistic identity and by promoting relations of understanding and sympathy
towards other linguistic communities. These judicious principles constitute the
Linguapax philosophy. The Review is inspired in these principles and it is hoped it will
contribute to the solution of conflicts with a linguistic dimension.
This Review is the result of a work done by an independent group of experts. The
authors have worked in excellent collaboration with the Languages Division, until it
was suppressed in 1999, as well as with many permanent delegations of the UNESCO
member states, but the Review is the responsibility of the technical committee, the
scientific committee and the board of directors. Its mistakes and its limitations must
be attributed to its authors, and as figures in many publications, the opinions and
judgements expressed cannot be considered official opinions or judgements of
UNESCO. The editors offer this text with the intention of contributing to a much-
needed international debate on measures to protect the linguistic heritage. Amongst
sociolinguists this debate already exists, but it would be good if this Review served to
enlarge it. It is indispensable that we find out the points of view of linguistic commu-
nities, of state and intra-state governments, of international organisations, of NGOs,
of teachers, of experts in the new communication technologies, of cultural promoters
in the cities and of everyone interested in the life of languages.

Contributions and limits of the Review

The Review is intended to be of use to all citizens, in the same way as reports on the
other great challenges affecting our societies are directed at all the citizens. The
Review aspires to go beyond ignorance and the prejudices which negatively affect the
life of linguistic communities. At the same time, the Review is not intended merely to
present the situation of languages in danger of extinction. It wants to contribute to
organising the relations between all languages according to new criteria, that is the
relations between local, national, state, regional and international languages. All
languages must think about their future and their mutual articulation. In this respect
the group of experts proposes a text whose interest is universal. In the context of
speeding globalisation, all languages must imagine and find their place in the
universe of languages, that is in the set of all human languages. The possible models
for international linguistic coexistence must be the subject of debate, and ultimately
of individual and collective decisions. The Review can help to establish hypotheses
free of private interests of a political, economic or ideological type.
All those who have contributed to the preparation of this Review are conscious of
the limits of the text they are offering to the public opinion. They deem it to be a first
global diagnosis with a series of recommendations the application of which shall be
subject to adaptations to each concrete situation. They believe that the Review can
orientate a wide international debate and that the observations made by the readers
will help draft future reports about the world languages.
Prologue xv

Reading notes
Apart from being able to read the Review from the first to the last chapter, the mono-
graphic character of the book allows the reader to read each one independently. The
reader can make more rapid progress, for example, following the recommendations
that one can find at the end of each chapter. Another interesting itinerary would be to
follow all the testimonies of the informants that are marked in italics throughout the
text and that is maybe the more original and authentic contribution of the Review. A
graphic view of world language diversity can be obtained from the thirteen maps of
thirteen different geographical areas that are included in a separate section according
to the interest that a particular area has as an example of the phenomena analysed in
each chapter, together with the tables and graphics. The various monographic texts,
in boxes, of the specialists that have collaborated in the Review, offer a varied and
contrasted way of understanding many of the more highlighted aspects of the situ-
ation of the languages of the world. The reader can also consult the different indexes,
the extent list of collaborators and informants, the questionnaire used, the list of the
languages quoted in the Review or the subject index always depending on the
reader’s interest.
Introduction
How can we describe the sociolinguistic situation of the languages of the world in a
way that lets us assess the situation of each language and at the same time put
forward recommendations or patterns of action to help preserve the linguistic and
cultural heritage of humanity?
Before a challenge of this scale, the technical committee felt it was essential to turn
– amongst other sources – to the speakers of the languages themselves, to ask the
members of the linguistic communities directly for their view of the situation their
language is in and collect first-hand the opinions of the protagonists themselves. We
believe that the survival of a language basically depends on what its speakers, its
community, wants to and can do with their language.
To obtain this information, the technical committee prepared a questionnaire
specially for this Review and distributed it to an extensive network of informants
during the five years of work. The questionnaires have been returned by those
informants who wanted to collaborate in this project and to whom we are deeply
grateful (see the respective Appendixes)
The data received via the questionnaire are a basic reference providing the review’s
most original information. However, to respond to the review’s objectives of explanation
and understanding, we have also had access to other sources. There are many research
and documentation centres on languages that are carrying out systematic work on the
circumstances surrounding languages in different parts of the world. Catalogues, reper-
tories, atlases and various works of a linguistic type have been of great use to us and
have provided invaluable references (see the respective Appendixes).
We have turned to many authors and to members of many institutions with a
record in the fight against the loss of linguistic diversity for their collaboration
through specific contributions. These contributions have enormously enlarged our
perspective and undoubtedly done a lot to enrich this Review.
In involving the largest possible number of specialists and/or cultural agents
committed to the defence of linguistic diversity and wealth, the meetings held in
different parts of the world have also been very useful. In the course of events during
the four years spent preparing the Review, it has been possible to meet many people
whose academic speciality, awareness or experience in work on the preservation of
linguistic diversity has made them collaborators in the project. We would like to pick

1
2 Words and Worlds

out the international seminars held in Bolivia (Cochabamba, March 1999), the Russian
Federation (Elista, May 1999), Burkina Faso (Ouagadougou, June 1999), India
(Mysore, March 2000) and Australia (Melbourne, April, 2001), which made it possible
to significantly enlarge the group of collaborators and informants, as well as helping
the Review to accurately reflect the linguistic situation in different parts of the world.
It is essential that we report the different views of what languages are, of how
languages in contact in certain areas relate to one another, of the uses that bring
prestige to languages in each context, of how diversity, complementarity or relations
of domination or dependence of languages are experienced in each area. Experts in
each region, as well as the enlightened members of each community, have a lot to say
and offer with a view to greater understanding of linguistic diversity in the world,
avoiding the dangers threatening it and feeding the hope that it can be developed.
And our aim has been to reflect this in our Review.

Contents of the Review

The Review consists of twelve chapters of different types. The first two are principally
based on contributions by experts not on the technical committee and do not
therefore refer to data obtained from the questionnaire. Their contributions, like those
by the rest of the collaborators, complement and balance the contents of the Review.
The nine chapters that follow sum up the quantitative and qualitative contributions
gathered by the specific empirical research this Review is based on. As we shall see,
these chapters cover the most significant sociolinguistic aspects in an account of the
situation of the languages of the world. The last chapter of the Review makes up the
prospective section. It answers one of the basic objects of this review: to put forward
action plans for languages to the different agents involved.
In the course of the different chapters, contributions by various specialists are
included in a different format. Similarly, the maps included have been drawn up on the
basis of the information obtained from different sources, to illustrate some of the most
significant areas from the point of view of linguistic diversity. These additions are of a
varied nature and the feelings they reflect do not necessarily coincide. They complement
the views of the technical team and substantially enrich the contents of the review.
The contributors come from a wide range of backgrounds: recognised linguists,
sociolinguists who have dedicated all their reflection and life to the cause of the
survival of linguistic diversity, politicians responsible for linguistic affairs in their
countries, activists belonging to indigenous communities who tell of their own expe-
riences, teachers, journalists, writers, etc., all united behind the cause of linguistic
survival, even though the forms and strategies adopted may be different.
As we have already said, the voices of the voluntary informants play a central part in
this document. There are abundant accounts taken from the questionnaire and
included amongst the chapters. We feel that this Review must also be a meeting point
and a place for exchanging initiatives. In it appear similar experiences in places far
apart and differing experiences in neighbouring communities, even in cases of groups
Introduction 3

with similar social characteristics. We feel that a mutual knowledge of these experiences
will be enriching for everyone and will encourage new relations of exchange.
We have dedicated Chapter One to clearing up terminologies and to understanding
the concept of linguistic community. This is the object of the work of Professor
Mühlhaüsler. We believe his particular knowledge of one of the geographical regions
with the greatest linguistic wealth, the Pacific and Australia, makes a basic contri-
bution to understanding the data supplied by the informants and to guiding the
policies of preservation and furtherance that should be promoted. We feel his reflec-
tions on the concept of language, a concept which tends to be heavily biased by
Western experience and which can cause so much confusion when it comes to under-
standing and especially intervening in other experiences, are particularly relevant.
The members of the technical committee consider that his view of linguistic ecology
allows a suitable description of very diverse linguistic situations which will be
reflected through the data gathered from the questionnaires.
Chapter Two, called “The Linguistic Heritage”, offers a general overview of the
planet’s linguistic diversity and includes an extensive contribution on the subject
from a classical typological standpoint by the collaborating lecturer and member of
the scientific committee, Juan Carlos Moreno Cabrera. The technical committee felt it
was important to include this contribution in the Review because it provides a
general overview of the planet’s linguistic diversity analysed by number of speakers,
linguistic families and geographical areas, constituting an essential academic
reference in a review such as ours. In addition, it was felt important to include this
contribution because it is not just a sterile academic description but points out the
dangers threatening diversity. It also provides a personal view of the reasons why the
diversity of languages is endangered.
Chapter Three deals with the analysis of the status of languages. In particular, it
covers the legal or official status to be seen on the global linguistic scene. In this chapter
we would like to point out the contribution by Professor Annamalai, who takes a novel
and realistic approach to linguistic policy aimed at dealing with multilingual relations
grounded on rigorous theories. This proposal not only has implications for tradi-
tionally multilingual societies like India, this specialist’s country of origin, but also has
implications of relevance for most parts of the planet. Multilingual relations are also
arising in Western countries; his proposals are especially interesting as an alternative
to the monolingual model imposed by Western tradition and the many problems it
poses in approaching a reality which is multilingual and multicultural.
Following this, chapter four analyses the use of language in administration.
Administration is the area which in certain linguistic situations best reflects the legal
status of the language. Writing, education, the media and religion are the spheres of
use analysed in the following chapters: Chapters Five, Six, Seven and Eight. The
enormous disparity in sociolinguistic situations and the different ways they are seen
do not allow simplifications. It is important to understand that these are always
dynamic processes and that there is never just one factor to explain the reality of a
language. Multifactorial analyses are what allow greater realism in dealing with the
4 Words and Worlds

information provided in the accounts gathered. Chapter Nine analyses the trends
observed in the intergenerational transmission and use of languages. Chapter Ten
studies linguistic attitudes and Chapter Eleven sums up the dangers and threats the
informants observe in the languages and communities mentioned. These three
sections provide the most disturbing information contained in the review. In fact,
intergenerational transmission as observed in the sample under study is in an
alarming situation. Almost 50% of languages are no longer habitually transmitted.
Intergenerational use of languages as reviewed by the informants seems to have dete-
riorated even more, since only 30% of the languages studied are used among the
younger generations of their communities. In the remaining cases, communication
between young people is established in a different language, generally the dominant
one. The title of Chapter Eleven, “The Dangers and Threats Facing Languages”, is not
very optimistic either. However, as can be seen in the plentiful accounts reproduced,
more and more linguistic communities are becoming aware of the dangers threat-
ening their languages and therefore their cultures and their very communities, and
are beginning to rebel against the trend towards linguistic substitution which only a
few had noticed until now.
Finally, Chapter Twelve looks to the future. It points out the need to establish new
linguistic models based on the acknowledgement and celebration of cultural and
linguistic diversity. Other highlighted topics are the importance of universalised
multilingual education that should not be limited to the learning of a few large circu-
lation languages, the need for progress in the field of linguistic rights, the access of
small and medium sized linguistic communities to the new information technologies
or enhancing the value of the own language as an element of the economic devel-
opment of communities. This chapter also puts forward some proposals to better
study the linguistic contact and the rapid evolution of diversity, especially caused by
increasing population movements and migrations. It recommends the creation of
new research centres in sociolinguistics and suggests specific responsibilities for
UNESCO and for the states. The chapter ends by connecting languages with peace
and welcoming the new languages that will appear during the 21st century.

The questionnaire
In the course of forty questions, most of them open, we have gathered the character-
istics of languages and of their linguistic communities, regarding their denomination,
uses, representations, attitudes and the linguistic expectations shown by the speakers
of different languages. The questionnaire was drawn up according to criteria now
classical in sociolinguistics, such as Haugen’s (1972), mentioned by Mühlhaüsler in
this same review (see Appendix 1).
In spite of some difficulties, the questionnaire has had a relevant virtue; it has
allowed the informants great freedom in their answers. This fact is especially worth
noting as it has become a very valuable aspect in the review. The informants have
supplied the facts they felt were most relevant, regardless of whether or not they were
Introduction 5

required of them. Obviously this very aspect could reduce the credibility of the
results, just as it is obvious that the diversity of the informants (organisations,
linguists, members of the community, etc.) could have the same effect. However, since
these two facts (differences in the perception of the relevance of the information and
differences in the involvement of the informants) were detected at the beginning, the
technical committee has chosen, first of all, to pay greater attention to the qualitative
information and, secondly, to include, as well as the objective data, the informants’
representations of the reality.
Subjection to objective data often involves a distortion of reality, especially
inasmuch as it is altered by non-objective elements (feelings, desires, opinions, etc.).
In the case of this World Languages Review, it is obvious that emotional or professional
involvement impregnates the objective elements and we have therefore felt that
representations of reality should also form part of the review. After all, not a few
linguistic normalisation projects have failed because they did not take into account
the wishes, ideologies, feelings, etc. of those affected.
Reading the questionnaires, we have been struck by the informants’ urge to
communicate and by the hope this Review has evidently stirred up in many commu-
nities, and we believe that rather than acting as depositories, our duty is to make
these voices reach the largest possible number of people and organisations.

The language sample

The research this Review is based on is still in progress and has been receiving ques-
tionnaires uninterruptedly since 1998. We have received more than 1000 question-
naires, and although they sometimes refer to the same language, the total number of
languages to which we had access is more than 800. The quantitative analysis,
however, has been carried out using a sample of 525 languages. This sample corre-
sponds to the languages received as of July 2001, the deadline established for
beginning the statistical analysis. The statistical treatment made use of the analysis
procedures offered in the SPSS program (Statistical Package for Social Sciences).
Different samples were taken: from 100 languages, 400 languages and 525 languages.
We have been able to observe that, regardless of the number of languages or question-
naires processed, the main figures, as well as the general trends, remain constant.
The range of situations of the languages for which we have received information
provides an outlook as disturbing as it is suggestive. The sample contains languages
with large numbers of speakers and used for a large number of purposes and languages
which are now down to their last speakers, expanding languages and disappearing
languages, languages that are official in some states and that are disappearing in others,
usually marginalised by the authorities-in short, a wide range of situations.
The technical committee has in no case wanted to demonstrate a common denomi-
nator in these situations, so much as, on the contrary, to reflect all their disparity and with
it the many strategies that intervene in the dynamics of languages, since by comparing
and contrasting, ideas can arise that contribute to the preservation of linguistic diversity.
6 Words and Worlds

Although the sample we have worked with is clearly limited (approximately 10%
of all the world’s languages), the results clearly show what other specialists have
already stated: one of the underlying causes of the acceleration in the trend towards
world linguistic uniformity is the increasing inequality between languages and, of
course, their speakers, such that the growth of some languages involves a reduction
in the number of speakers of many others and/or their disappearance. This process
has harmful consequences in that it drags other communities after it by destroying
their traditional web of communications, as we shall see later.
The sample reveals trends in the sociolinguistic behaviour of linguistic commu-
nities and makes it possible to plan actions aimed at restoring or preserving the
linguistic balance. However, the Review does not present detailed figures for each of
the languages making up the sample. It is not a catalogue in which to look for specific,
singularised information.

Details of the language

The authors of the Review are convinced that standardising the names of languages
or glottonyms is an urgent task, especially in an increasingly interconnected world.
The enormous task of documentation carried out in this respect by the Ethnologue
strikes us as a basic and indispensable contribution for this process of normalisation,
which should facilitate the identification of languages and correct terms that are
unsuitable for a variety of reasons (pejorative or inaccurate terms, unnecessary
heteroglottonyms, etc.).
The request for information in this respect is intended to propose suitable names,
giving preference to the use of the autoglottonym or name the speakers themselves
give their language. In other words, in those cases in which there is no traditional
designation and whenever the term is pejorative, we advocate the use of the autoglot-
tonym to identify the language.
The authors of the Review do not want to overlook those cases in which there is
no glottonym and in which creating one could contradict the cosmovision of the
people concerned. After all, the concept of languages is a construct alien to many
cultures. In these cases, and for want of further discussion of this issue in the
sphere of linguistics, we propose the use of the auto-ethnonym or name of the
ethnic group the speakers belong to and, failing this, some historical or
geographical term allowing its identification. Obviously, this proposal still accepts
the notion of language as an entity with fixed limits, but we do not believe there is
any alternative that can be proposed without prior discussion in depth. We
therefore wish merely to draw attention to this issue and propose it as a subject for
future reflection.
In connection with the question of glottonyms, linguistic variation, and with it
linguistic filiation, inevitably arises. The inference is clearly that the attribution of a
language to a specific group or family basically depends on the informants’ theo-
retical option in the case of professional linguists and in other cases on their
Introduction 7

perception and/or intention. The same language can be seen either as a variety of
another language or else as an independent language or as a language group.
Even when linguistics has given priority to the criterion of intelligibility in deter-
mining linguistic borders, the fact is that the nature of languages as a continuum, the
relations established between communities, the reciprocity or otherwise of intelligi-
bility and, in short, the actual wish to understand, clearly interfere with this criterion.
At the same time, the notion of languages as discreet entities usually overlooks their
historical development apart from their “official” history, which sets out to give a
fragmented view of communities, as though their historical background had nothing
to do with the surrounding communities.
All of this raises questions that go far beyond technical aspects of linguistic filiation
and pose another challenge: how to designate the set of intelligible varieties we
consider “languages”. It is obvious that using a single term distorts the perception of
variety and contributes to uniformity, but it is also true that the use of various terms
favours fragmentation and this can be fatal for the preservation of linguistic diversity.
The authors of this Review believe that this is another of the theoretical aspects which,
on account of their importance in the life of communities, deserve to be treated in
depth over and above technical aspects.

The informants
We have tried, often successfully, to obtain first-hand information, that is, to ensure
that the information came from informants who were members of the respective
linguistic communities or were closely connected to them. Thus more than half of the
informants, approximately 60%, say they belong to that linguistic community.
Identification with the community, furthermore, is backed up with reasons of ethnic
and/or linguistic membership. Almost 40% say they are not members of the
community. These are researchers or people who, in one way or another, are working
for the community in question. Some researchers, though, identify themselves as
members of the community precisely because of their work or because they have
learned the language.
I belong to the community by descent and blood ties. I also speak (the language) fluently.
(Maori, New Zealand)
I consider myself a member (of the community) because I am part of that culture and my
parents brought me up in the belief that I am a native like them, I was born in that
community. (Yine, Peru)
I am a speaker and writer, but I am not a native or a native speaker. I am not a gypsy but I
know the four dialects of the Romany language that are spoken in Romania by the Roms
(Gypsies). (Romany, Romania)
The significant proportion of informants who say they belong to the linguistic
community for which they are supplying information strikes us as a decisive factor.
8 Words and Worlds

We know that this adds subjectivity to the information but, in view of the circum-
stances, it is obvious that no-one knows the linguistic reality like the member
involved. Since the aim is to create awareness and help to reverse the trend towards
uniformity, we believe that this connivance with his or her linguistic reality, far from
detracting from the review’s validity, enriches it.
This element of will must be taken into account in analysing the results, since the
Review includes details of languages whose speakers are already aware of the need to
revitalise it or of its value for the community in general, and, in the case of the
specialists (language informants), the very fact that the languages have research and
researchers itself singles them out from the majority of the world’s languages.
Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 contain a list of all the people and institutions who
have contributed to this Review so far. We would like to take this opportunity to
express once again our profound gratitude to all of them.

The contributions
We have tried to include contributions by experts representing a variety of
geographical, sociopolitical and cultural contexts, coming from different scientific,
social and cultural backgrounds and belonging to a range of academic, political or
sociocultural institutions. Although they all show a positive awareness as regards
preservation of the linguistic heritage, one can find opinions that may differ amongst
themselves or from the approach taken by the technical committee. We feel this is a
reflection of the reality which need not be hidden in working for the common cause of
the defence of linguistic diversity.
In spite of all the efforts, however, we realise that we have not managed to contact
all the recognised specialists on the subject. What we can say is that the requests for
participation have had a widespread general acceptance for which we are
profoundly grateful.
The contributions by the collaborators are included in the text in a different format.
The content and form, of course, is the responsibility of the author signing them. The
members of the technical committee are responsible for their placement. We are
grateful for their generosity in sharing their experience and knowledge in favour of
the common cause which involves us all: the preservation of linguistic diversity.

With a view to the next Review

We believe the usefulness of the project also lies in its nature as a reference for
successive editions and it allows to enlarge the data base. It is a point of departure
which raises many elements for reflection, offers a wide range of initiatives for the
preservation of languages which are being developed in a wide range of communities
and hopes to take advantage of and publicise the talent and creativity of many
communities in the preservation of their linguistic heritage.
At the same time, the prospective side of the review feeds on the multiple effective
actions in different parts of the world, actions that have rarely served as a model for
Introduction 9

other communities, on account of the obstacles to information and to its dissemi-

nation. We have tried to palliate these obstacles by listening closely to their proposals
with the explicit object of acting as a mouthpiece for all those who, having made
valuable contributions to the preservation, revival and recovery of their languages,
have been generous enough to share their experiences with us.
The pages that follow are an initial approach to the enormous wealth of infor-
mation gathered in the course of preparing this Review. Other readings, other inter-
pretations, will help spread it farther and better, as established and growing
communications networks, especially through computers, gather and disseminate
this splendid documentation.
For the time being, in response to all the information received, we are presenting
this Review with the intention of:

• Generating pride, self-esteem and prestige in the speakers and promoters of the
world’s languages, so that they will continue to work in favour of their heritage
without looking down on or weakening languages with which they share speakers
and their communicative space.
• Providing models for action, raising awareness and promotion that have been
positive in their respective communities so that they can provide an incentive and
a stimulus in other situations and one to continue in those where they have already
been tried successfully.
• Denouncing threats and warning of the dangerous situations languages are facing,
so as to rouse awareness in the authorities and the general population in favour of
the preservation and development of the linguistic heritage.
• Attracting the support of those who have the responsibility and the power to
reverse the trend towards linguistic uniformity.

The Technical Committee:

Fèlix Martí, Paul Ortega, Itziar Idiazabal, Andoni Barreña, Patxi Juaristi, Carme
Junyent, Belen Uranga and Estibaliz Amorrortu
Chapter 1
Linguistic Communities
This Review is concerned with languages, language communities or speech commu-
nities along with language ecologies. The reader will find that the terminology used is
not new, though we would like to underline the fact that the traditional definitions of
some terms and ideas are not adequate to describe the real situation of languages in the
world. Thus, we wish to make clear that languages are neither abstract entities nor inde-
pendent systems as the Western Linguistics tradition has portrayed them to be.
Languages are rather historical products related to each other that the communities use
for several purposes: to communicate, to represent their world and to generate thoughts.
The attempts to formalize certain aspects of a language, such as the grammar of a
language, do not tackle the real nature of a language, that is, its social aspect.
Languages are social and identifying realities, they are thoughts and values
provoking realities and the strict framework of a grammar or a classical dictionary
cannot handle such aspects of the language. A great variety of parameters is needed
in order to define a language as an ecological system.
The technical committee considered it necessary to devote a chapter to clarify the
terminology used in the field. Professor Mühlhäusler (University of Adelaide,
Australia), who studies linguistic realities very different from the Western ones and is
an expert on languages from Australia and the Pacific area, has been invited to write
this chapter for the Review.
As Professor Mühlhäusler points out, the chapter presents many of the terms that
have been used to describe sociolinguistic realities that are different from the
languages and patterns of language use around the globe. The chapter also presents
the set of parameters that will be used to define the language ecologies. The question-
naire designed to collect the data in the review is also based on this parameter
framework that was originally presented by Haugen (1972). The chapter and the
whole review describe the different situations of languages and language ecologies,
not with great thoroughness but indicating which aspects of the relations among
different linguistic groups are the healthiest or the most pathologic for the purpose of
linguistic diversity.
We believe that the clarifications of the terminology as well as the description of the
different language ecologies are an accurate reflection of the descriptive and
prescriptive aims of the review.

10
Linguistic Communities 11

1. Introduction
This chapter will be concerned with a number of issues that are fundamental to the
task of understanding the vast diversity of languages and patterns of language use
around the globe. It is hoped that the understanding gained can contribute to the
urgent task of maintaining linguistic and cultural diversity. The problem which gave
rise to the UNESCO review of the state of the world’s languages is that linguistic and
cultural diversity, which until the advent of the modern industrial age was a self-
regulating and self-sustaining system, is no longer self-sustaining and like other
phenomena such as climate or biological diversity, requires management. Left to its
own devices, linguistic and cultural diversity is likely to rapidly decline, giving way
to monolingualism and monoculturalism. A major challenge to scholars working in
this area is the widespread perception that we are witnessing a natural process of
competition between less fit and more fit ways of communication, the end of which
only a few competitors will survive. There is a very strong intellectual tradition in
Western thinking about language that this is also a desirable process, that the
replacement of a very large number of languages and ways of communication by a
few modern standardised languages will lead to greater economic efficiencies, a
decrease in human conflicts and greater human well-being. Linguistic diversity in
popular perception is a reflection of the curse of Babel.
The idea that linguistic diversity is an asset or even a treasure is widespread in
traditional societies that cherish multilingual skills, though the wish to preserve one’s
own small language is growing stronger among many ethnic groups in modern
industrialised societies as well. The revival of minority languages in Spain, France or
Britain are recent examples of this. Fishman (1991), one of the principal theoreticians
on language revival, has strongly emphasised the rationality of this wish and we can
now witness a reframing of the question, ‘How can we achieve greater efficiencies
through the reduction and streamlining of diversity?’ to a new question, ‘How can
linguistic diversity be employed in solving social, environmental and technological
problems?’ This reframing goes hand in hand with the emergence of a new paradigm,
the ecological paradigm in many areas of enquiry, including linguistics (Fill &
Mühlhäusler (eds) 2001/Mühlhäusler 2002).
The ecological paradigm has a number of characteristics, including the following:

• considerations not just of system internal factors but wider environmental ones;
• awareness of the dangers of monoculturalism and loss of diversity;
• awareness of the limitations of both natural and human resources;
• long-term vision; and
• awareness of those factors that sustain the health of ecologies.

A fundamental principle of management is that one can only manage what one knows.
Two related principles are one can only manage what one can talk about and one can only
manage what one cares for. This paper aims at summarising existing knowledge on the
12 Words and Worlds

issue of speech communities and to draw attention to the important issue of talking about
the phenomenon. It is argued that existing knowledge is patchy and that unreflected use
of words such as ‘language,’ ‘tribe’ or ‘community’ make management very difficult and
whether political and economic leaders care about languages remains to be seen.
An appreciation of linguistic diversity alone, it is argued, is not enough. It presup-
poses an understanding of the nature of this diversity. The complexity of the issues,
the limitations of time and space and the urgency of action make it necessary to resort
to shortcuts, simplification and abstractions and, above all, focussing on a smaller
selection of parameters that are desirable in a parameter-rich ecological approach.

2. Methodological considerations
In what follows I propose to adopt the classical ‘scientific’ method of proceeding from
a research question to observation, classification and eventual theory formation. Put
differently, I shall try to develop a tool or theory which can be used to reverse the trend
towards language loss. Given the novelty of the problem, I shall concentrate heavily on
the pre-theoretical stages of observation and classification. I shall be guided by the
suggestion of the editors of this volume and carry out my observation and classifi-
cation from the perspective of the community of users of a language or languages.
I shall further be guided by Haugen (1972) who in his seminal paper ‘The Ecology
of Language’ has suggested a list of questions to be asked.
For any given ‘language1’, then, we should want to have answers to the following
ecological questions:

• What is its classification in relation to other languages? This answer would be

given by historical and descriptive linguists.
• Who are its users? This is a question of linguistic demography, locating its users
with respect to locale, class, religion or any other relevant grouping.
• What are its domains of use? This is a question of sociolinguistics, discovering
whether its use is unrestricted or limited in specific ways.
• What concurrent languages are employed by its users? We may call this a problem
of dialinguistics, to identify the degree of bilingualism present and the degree of
overlap among the languages.
• What internal varieties does the language show? This is the task of a dialectology
that will recognize not only regional, but also social and contactual dialects.
• What is the nature of its written traditions? This is the province of philology, the
study of written texts and their relationship to speech.
• To what degree has its written form been standardised, i.e. unified and codified?
This is the province of prescriptive linguistics, the traditional grammarians and
lexicographers.

1
The notion of ‘given language’ is highly problematic and will be discussed in greater detail below.
Linguistic Communities 13

• What kind of institutional support has it won, either in government, education, or

private organisations, either to regulate its form or propagate it? We may call this
study glotto-politics.
• What are the attitudes of its users towards the language, in terms of intimacy and
status, leading to personal identification? We may call this field of ethnolinguistics.
• Finally we may wish to sum up its status in a typology of ecological classification,
which will tell us something about where the language stands and where it is
going in comparison with the other languages of the world.

3. Language communities, speech communities, language ecologies:

some terminological issues
A major problem in doing this is a terminological one. The received wisdom among
both academics and lay persons in Western societies is that the notion of language and
the associated notion of language community is a relatively unproblematic one, that
languages are somehow ‘given’ and can be objectively described, classified and
analysed. However, on closer inspection, it emerges that there is no such thing as a
cultural neutral definition of a language and that Haugen’s notion of a ‘given’
language cannot be easily applied. Rather we are dealing with quite diverse
phenomena which from time to time have been labelled ‘language,’ mainly by profes-
sional linguists or by language policy makers. The experience of most writers on the
matter of European national languages has strongly influenced their views of what
languages are. However, even an inspection of European national languages demon-
strates considerable heterogeneity. The historical forces which have brought into being
standard French differ greatly from those involved in the development of standard
Italian, Norwegian, Bosnian or Modern Greek, one of the differences being the extent
of deliberate human planning by speakers or outsiders. Haugen’s characterisation of
the Scandinavian languages as ‘cultural artefacts’ (1972) can be extended to a wide
range of other languages. Languages thus can be seen as the outcome of a unique mix
of cultural and historical forces. The diversity of human ways of speaking is not a
natural process of speciation and the practice of using the label ‘natural language’ is an
example of the typical process of myth creation: the confusion of history with nature.
That languages are the outcome of a vast number of historical processes acting on
an as yet ill defined natural human language ability increases rather than decreases
the importance of diversity. The maintenance of languages as memories of cultural
experience and adaptation to specific conditions would seem far more important than
the maintenance of relatively superficial varieties of the universal theme ‘language’.
In this connection we need to examine how linguists have regarded the relationship
between languages and the world. In Western linguistics one can distinguish four views.

(1) Independency hypothesis (Chomsky, cognitive linguistics). Language is for

cognition – it exists in a social and environmental vacuum.
(2) Language is constructed by the world (Marr).
14 Words and Worlds

(3) The world is constructed by language (structuralism and post structuralism).

(4) Language is interconnected with the world – it both constructs and is constructed
by it (ecolinguistics).

The ecological view would appear to be the most complex, but at the same time the
most realistic as it caters for the fact that languages combine independence from the
world with dependency on the world as well as their ability to shape the world
through a range of ecological interdependencies. The problem with finding a satis-
factory definition of language is encountered again when defining the notion of
community (see below).

4. Types of languages
The following is an attempt to identify some of the principal parameters that can be
employed in characterising different social types of languages. Individual languages
can be conceived as a kind of matrix of parameters including:

4.1 Bounded versus continuous

Before the emergence of nation states and colonisation, language boundaries did not
exist in many parts of the world. Instead, there were dialectal or language chains
spoken over wide areas. There was for instance a Germanic dialect chain located
between the north of Scandinavia and the south of Italy. Adjacent varieties were
mutually intelligible with intelligibility declining with increasing geographical
distance. Thus speakers of varieties on both sides of the present border between the
Netherlands and Germany could intercommunicate freely, whilst the same speakers
experienced difficulties understanding varieties spoken a few hundred kilometres
further south or north. Intelligibility on such a chain resulted from close structural
and lexical similarities of adjacent varieties but also from institutionalised conven-
tions for endo and exolexicons. This terminological distinction means that speakers
actively use a particular lexical item (say British English ‘tap’ or ‘bucket’) whilst
passively recognising other speech varieties (American English ‘faucet’ and ‘pail’).
Table 1 shows how in the ‘Western Desert’ language of Central Australia a single endo
lexeme was accompanied by up to eight exolexemes which eased understanding over
a wide area (Table 1, based on Hansen 1984). The // indicates the boundary between
endo (to the left) and exolexicon (to the right) in a number of desert communities.
The word listed first is the preferred or most frequently used synonym within that
community. All words listed before the double slash // are primary synonyms used
in the community. Words listed after the double slash // are secondary synonyms –
known but not used.
Other well known language chains have been documented for West Africa and in
many parts of the Pacific, including the New Guinea Highlands (Wurm and Laycock
1962), Micronesia (Bender 1971) and Vanuatu (Tryon 1979) we find long chains of
interrelated dialects and languages with no clear internal boundaries. As regards
Table 1: Words used to translate English ‘small’ in different communities of Western Desert Language

Linguistic Communities
COMMUNITIES WORDS

Ernabella tjukutjuku tjimpatjimpa kulunyra// tjap wiima

Giles kulupa kulunypa tjukutjuku tjapu wiima// tjulyitjulyi tjulyi,

nyamanypa

Warburton Ranges kulupa kulunypa tjukutjuku// tjulyitjulyi

Papunya tjukutjuku wiima// nyamanypa tjaputjapu tjulitjuli yamanypa

Balgo Hills lampan (pa) tjuku wiima nyamany (pa) tjapu tjulitjuli tjumpili

Christmas Creek lampan (pa) tjuku tjukutjuku tjukunya nyamanpa ngini// tjulitjuli,
wiima,
tjumpili, nyuyi

Fitzroy Crossing tjuku lampan tjukutjuku tjutamata nyuyi tjulitjuli tjapu, wiima,
nyamanypa,
tjumpili

La Grange tjukku tjukutjuku tjapu tjulitjuli tjapuwata tjulyi nyamanypa//,

wiima, lampan,
warrku,
tjumpili

Jigalong tjuku tjukutjuku tjulitjuli tjapuwata// nyamanypa kulunypa

Wiluna tjuku tjukutjuku tjapu tjulitjuli warrku tjapuwata// tjumpili,

nyamanypa,
wiima

15
16 Words and Worlds

Micronesia, a group of very closely related languages are spoken all the way from
Truk in the east to Tobi in the west. As observed by Bender (1971) ‘there are some indi-
cations that it is possible to establish a chain of dialectal connections from one end to
the other with all contiguous dialects being mutually intelligible.’
Language boundaries, one might argue, are not so much a linguistic given, but a
creation of linguists, administrators and missionaries. Over time, Western and
Westernised thinking has become so habituated to the concept of language boundary
that it has become to be regarded as a natural fact.
The popular perception is reinforced by the large number of language maps and
atlases and indeed the entire subdiscipline of dialectology which is predicated on the
notion that it is possible to establish locations and boundaries. Dialectologists, for
instance, seek to define a dialect2 as being surrounded by bundled isoglosses. This turned
out not to be the case, even when the objects of mapping were carefully abstracted
languages rather than patterns of speaking (for further discussion see Bailey 1996).
It is possible of course to map the political boundaries within which a particular
language has official status, for instance, the parts of Belgium where German is offi-
cially spoken but this hardly gives an indication where languages are actually used.
Political boundaries, the development of national standard languages and changes
in speakers’ mobility has greatly affected the viability of language chains, or at least
severely curtailed their geographical range. Language chains are among the most
endangered linguistic phenomena.

4.2 Focussed versus unfocussed languages

Whereas it is widely assumed that a standard grammatical code is a precondition for
successful intercommunication, there are a number of documented cases where
speakers communicated quite successfully without sharing a grammatical code. Le
Page and Tabouret-Keller’s study of Belizian Creole (1985) documents an astonishing
diversity of grammatical and lexical practices among Creole speakers in Colonial
British Honduras, shared norms emerged only through ‘an act of identity’ following
the establishment of an independent state Belize where the inhabitants of the new
nation began to emulate the linguistic habits of their political leaders, a process called
focussing. The extent to which languages are focussed depends on the presence and
recognition of linguistic role models.
One might wish to argue that the absence of clear role models is a contributing factor
in the structural disintegration of many traditional languages. Charpentier (2001) for

2
The definition of dialect is primarily a sociopolitical one – “a dialect is a language without an
army and navy” is a common pronouncement of sociolinguists. Being labelled a dialect or
patois (a Romance form of speech in French-speaking countries) can contribute to endan-
germent of a way of speaking. There is far less concern for the disappearance of dialects than
for the disappearance of languages and there are fewer funds for dialects than for minority
languages. A dialect, apart from lacking military hardware, thus has come to mean a language
lacking official recognition and funding.
Linguistic Communities 17

instance, brought attention to the fact that demographic and social changes in Vanuatu
have greatly diminished the number and authority of older speakers who in the past
provided role models, an outcome of the absence of older speakers are less focussed
young people’s varieties such as Young People’s Dyirbal described by Schmidt (1985).

4.3 Intergenerationally continuous languages

Language transmission is often conceived as a process where children acquire or get
handed down the language of their parents. As Hockett (1950) has shown, trans-
mission can take many forms as can continuity over time. Hockett suggests a
continuum situation ranging from those where children living in isolated hamlets
with adults caretakers to creolization where children construct a new language
together with other children. Intergenerational continuity is often reinforced by social
institutions, including schools, literacy or language training by elders. The continuity
of the Torres Strait language Miriam Mer, for instance, was enforced by language
monitoring (Cromwell 1980). In this language ‘mis-speech is virtually never allowed
to pass uncorrected. And the corrections of vocabulary, or of tense, or of grammar,
may be rendered by anyone present who notices the error’ (Cromwell 1980). That
such corrections differ from European schoolteachers’ correcting their pupils’
grammar, however, is evident from the remainder of this quotation.
In noticing the error he is making an implicit claim to a more able command of the
language, and in noticing and correcting it he makes his claims explicit. But in
such acts of correction it is important to note that what is being corrected is the
way of speaking. That is, the corrective utterance embodies the sense that the
speaker who erred DID NOT SAY WHAT HE MEANT.
Case studies of changing sociocultural practices leading to weakening of language
transmission can be found in Maffi (ed. 2001). As traditional institutions (language
monitors, initiation ceremonies) sustaining intergenerational transmission are
becoming less important and as children attend modern schools or missions and are
removed from traditional society, intergenerational transmission is becoming prob-
lematic. This is particularly evident in the case of difficult, esoteric languages which
structural complexity could only be maintained through complex long-term methods.
Intergenerational continuity is threatened by deliberate acts of language planning
as well. The modernisation of Turkish in the 1920s, for instance, included the
replacement of the traditional Arabic script by Roman script and the phasing out of
words of Arabic origin and led to a situation where young Turks could no longer
access older written documents or indeed speak with members of the older gener-
ation (Gallagher 1971). Similar modernization of languages (not always deliberate)
can be witnessed around the world.
Language shift is the most radical form of intergenerational discontinuity. It is
particularly widespread among migrant communities. Neither discouragement nor
positive language maintenance policies have prevented second and third generation
children of the numerous migrant groups in USA or Australia from giving up their
18 Words and Worlds

ancestral languages and to assimilate with the mainstream English-speech

community (see Fishman 1991).
Internal migration and in particular urban migration has a similar effect. The speakers
of many smaller languages that have migrated to capital cities such as Honiara (Solomon
Islands), Bangui (Central African Republic) or Harare (Zimbabwe) increasingly shift to
non-traditional languages such as Solomon Pijin, Sango or Town Bemba respectively.

4.4 Esoteric versus exoteric languages

An important distinction developed in Thurston’s writings (e.g. 1982, 1987) is that
between exoteric and esoteric languages, the former being freely available for intergroup
communication, whilst the latter are restricted to a well-defined group who often
contribute to its exclusiveness by making it difficult for outsiders to learn. To sustain an
esoteric language requires considerable social effort, as it involves formal teaching, moni-
toring and correcting. The case of the Papuan language Anêm, and its relationship with
surrounding Austronesian languages reported by Thurston (1982), is a good illustration.
In the past, languages like Japanese and Chinese were esoteric in the sense that it
was prohibited to teach them to outsiders. Limited access to the language by outsiders
is one of the criteria for esotericity and numerous small languages continue to be kept
away from outsiders. As long as there is a viable community of speakers for an esoteric
language, this does not affect its survival. However, with out-migration, out-marriage
and similar social processes the number of speakers of small esoteric languages can
decline to the point where language is no longer viable and threatened with extinction
as is happening to the Pitkern-Norfolk language (see Mühlhäusler forthcoming).
The limited economic usefulness of an esoteric language combined with the effort it
takes to learn them can be a cause for language shift. Exoteric language by contrast,
because of their accessibility, usefulness in wider communication and relative lack of
structural complexity have a greater survival chance. World languages such as
English and Spanish are modern examples of exoteric languages but exoteric
languages were also found in earlier days and in traditional context. Malay for long
time has been an exoteric language, as has Arabic or Wolof. Formerly esoteric
languages have become exoteric languages with the consequence of deliberate inter-
vention by European missionaries and Governments, Guarani in Paraguay, Kâte and
Yabêm in Papua New Guinea or Tetúm in East Timor being examples. Closely related
to the notion of exoteric language is that of lingua franca.
The historical origin of this term is a medieval Mediterranean trade language
(Arends 1998) used as the language of intercommunication between Crusaders and
the people of the Middle East, the language of the sugar plantation of Cyprus and the
language of the trade centres of the area.
A lingua franca in a wider sense is typically used as a second language by speakers
of many other languages over a wide area. Because of its function as an auxiliary
language it tends to be structurally and lexically less complex than the natively spoken
language it derives from (e.g. English as a foreign language or Odgen’s Basic English
(1968) when compared with English) but remains mutually intelligible with it.
Linguistic Communities 19

Structured complexity and mutual intelligibility are of course gradient

phenomena. There are, for instance, a number of varieties of Swahili in East Africa
ranging from vernacular Swahili in coastal Tanzania to highly reduced and restricted
Pidgin varieties spoken in Katanga and the interior of the continent. English, as a
lingua franca of Singapore, again comprises of a continuum of varieties.

4.5 Pidgins
Pidgin languages come into being when speakers of different languages need to
communicate about a restricted range of topics and when neither party wishes
and/or is allowed to become fully competent in the other party’s native language.
The classical pidgin context is that of plantations, set up in the colonial era which
employed slaves or labourers from numerous language backgrounds, who, in order
to communicate among themselves and with their plantations owners and overseers,
had to develop a common language. Pidgin languages by definition are second
languages, structurally and functionally restricted and not mutually intelligible with
the language from which they derive most of their lexicon. The various Pidgin
Englishes of the Pacific (Queensland, New Guinea, Vanuatu etc.) are not intelligible to
speakers of ‘standard’ English. They have developed their own communicative
norms which draw on universal principles of language simplification, borrowing
from a range of languages and diffusion of Pidgin conventions around the globe. The
observed absence of shared grammar has prompted Silverstein to state (1971) that the
equation of ‘linguistic community’ with ‘people with the same grammar’ seems to be
too strong here. The complexity of a Pidgin is closely related to the communicative
functions it fulfils and they are sustained not by native speakers transmitting them
from parent to children but by the continuation of the conditions that brought them
into being. The military Pidgin English of Vietnam and Korea disappeared with the
social context in which they were developed and Vietnamese Pidgin French (Tay Boi)
ceased to be used once the French colonisers left Vietnam. Pidgin Portuguese, once
spoken almost universally in South East Asian trade, disappeared when English
traders became dominant.
The survival of colonial Pidgin languages depends on their users putting them to
new uses. Pidgin English in Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu have become the prin-
cipal languages of intercommunication of modern independent states and have been
recognised as official languages. Increasingly this principle appears to apply to many
non-Pidgins as well.
In specific circumstances Pidgins can become primary or native languages, a
process called Creolization. Compared with Pidgins, Creoles are spoken as native
languages, are compatible in terms of structural and lexical complexity with other full
languages. Contexts in which creolization occurs include plantations where children
elaborated the only useful means of intercommunication, their parents’ broken
Pidgin, in orphanages of remote locations (such as Tayo in New Caledonia or
Unserdeutsch in Papua New Guinea) or most recently under the impact of rapid
urbanisation in countries such as Papua New Guinea or the Solomons.
20 Words and Worlds

In as much as human history is full of catastrophic events (invasions, slavery,

displacement) there are probably a very large number of languages with a Creole
ancestry and the number of known Creoles (as listed in Holm 1988) of about 100, is a
very conservative estimate. Because Creoles are often perceived to be inferior
versions of a lexically related more prestigious language e.g. Seychellois or Haitian
Creole vis à vis French, they are susceptible to language shift or gradual merger (so-
called post-Creole continuum) with their lexifier language.

4.6 Koines
This term derives from the variety of Greek spoken by settlers from different areas in
the Greek colonies of the Mediterranean (best known as the language of the Modern
Testament). The term has since been extended to many similar situations where
dialect mixing occurs in new settlements, for instance the German settlers of Eastern
Europe or Namibia, or in the non-traditional Aboriginal settlements of Australia
(Mühlhäusler and Amery 1996). In discussing this term, Siegel (1985) draws attention
to the following points:
A Koine is the result of mixing between language subsystems that are either
mutually intelligible or share the same superimposed standard language.
Koineization, unlike pidginization, is typically a slow and gradual process.
The social correlate of Koine development is sustained intensive contacts and
gradual assimilation of social groups.
Thus, although some of the linguistic consequences of koineization can be similar to
those identified in Pidgin development (for example, simplification of inflectional
morphology), Koines do not involve the drastic reduction characteristic of early
pidgin development. There is some overlap with the notion of lingua franca. In
contrast to the latter Koines are spoken as native and/or primary languages.
The development of Koines goes hand in hand with social displacement and social
reconstruction and an increase in urbanisation and social change in the 21st century is
likely to lead to the development of further Koines. Their long-term viability however
is not secure.

4.7 Ausbau and modern languages

In times of rapid social technological development languages tend to lag behind and
are not capable of adapting quickly to new requirements. In such a situation they can
either be abandoned or marginalised or made to meet the new requirements by delib-
erate human interference. The term Ausbau, coined by the German linguist Kloss
(1967), refers to the general process of extension. Typical examples are provided by
languages chosen by Christian Missionaries as media of conversion. Missionary
extension typically consists of adding Christian terminology and words used in
education and life on a mission station (e.g. relating to food, hygiene etc). The small
Melanesian language Mota, for instance, was extended by a number of professional
Linguistic Communities 21

linguists belonging to the Melanesian Mission (such as Codrington and Palmer, 1896)
and elevated the state of the language of missionization and education.
Modern languages are a special case of Ausbau. The modernisation process is
designed to make them intertranslatable with modern European nation languages.
Indonesian, for example has undergone an extension process of modernisation (over
400,000 new words have been added since 1947) as have Swahili, Pilipino and Afrikaans.
Whilst in principle all languages can be modernised, in practice it has been a very
selective process. Because of the cost of language planning, modernisation is
governed by considerations of economy of scale. Only Indonesian and a few large
provincial languages in Indonesia underwent modernisation, all the other 400+
languages of the archipelago remained largely unaffected and unmodernised. Once
modernised, a language tends to have considerable economic advantages and
speakers on non-modernised languages can find it desirable either to adopt them as a
second language or switch to them.
Extension which does not involve dependency on European language models is
being attempted in a number of instances, where indigenous languages have gained
greater political status. A well known case is that of Maori (Harlow 1993).

4.8 Abstand languages

This term meaning ‘distance language’ again was coined by Kloss (1967). It implies
deliberate human interference, not so much with the aim of making the language
cope with the modern world but in order to distinguish it from another related
language with which speakers do not wish to identify. Switsertütsch for instance, was
developed as a reaction against the German spoken in Hitler Germany, Norwegian as
a reaction against the language of the Danish colonisers, Bosnian as a reaction against
Serbia, but Hindi and Urdu became different languages because of the different reli-
gious affiliations of Hindustani speakers.
The wish not to speak the language of a group one does not identify with is a very
strong one and there is a sizeable body of literature (e.g. Laycock 1975) documenting
‘naïve language planning’ of the absolute type in traditional society. Where 90% of
Indigenous Australians no longer speak an indigenous language, and whilst most of
them can speak standard Australian English, Aborigines nevertheless have
developed a number of Aboriginal Englishes such as Koori English of the East Coast
or Nunga English of South Australia, to signal their distance from mainstream white
society. An extreme case of Abstand language are secret languages or cants, such as
Shelta (developed by Irish travellers), and varieties of English such as Backslang and
perhaps Rastfarian English.

4.9 Artificial and planned languages

Whilst languages such as English are referred to as ‘natural’ languages and
contrasted with artificial languages (eg. Esperanto) the distinction is not an absolute
one. Deliberate human involvement in lexicon and grammar are documented in
virtually all languages (Laycock & Mühlhäusler 1990) and in most national languages
22 Words and Worlds

(see below) the extent of human agency can be very considerable. The documentation
of what Laycock has labelled ‘naïve language planning’ is very patchy. The main
raisons d’être in traditional societies includes, taboo, secret or initiation ceremonies,
purposes or language play (ludlings). Like Pidgins they are brought into existence by
special social circumstances and disappear once external conditions change. Franklin
(1992) for instance has documented the disappearance of the Pandanus gathering
variety of Kewa Papua New Guinea, and Hale (1992) has analysed the disappearing
Damin register of the indigenous Australian Lardil language.
There is great urgency to document and analyse similar special languages around
the world.
Entirely planned languages were developed mainly in Europe following the
Enlightenment. The objective of their creators being to have a language capable of
expressing enlightened philosophical or scientific ideas, to have a single language for
worldwide communication either in addition to or as a replacement of existing
languages.
Structurally, artificial languages are either of the a priori type, created from scratch
on the basis of philosophical principles of classification or naming (Libert 2000), or a
posteriori languages, simplified and enhanced versions of an existing language or
languages. The best known example of this latter category is Esperanto. In the recent
past the idea of developing a single artificial language for the European Union has
been revived.
A general problem with artificial world languages is the underlying assumption
that a single language can cope equally well with all aspects of the world, that it could
in principle be replacive of other languages.

4.10 Sign and other non-verbal languages

Speech typically is accompanied by gestures which in most societies are mainly
improvised in context. In some special conditions highly codified gesture systems can
develop(substitute languages), however. The sign languages of deaf communities are
an example, next to the better documented sign varieties of large modern languages
such as English German or French, there probably have been many others that go
undocumented and may disappear. Washabaugh (1986) has demonstrated, with the
example of the sign Creole of the small Caribbean Island of San Andres, the relevance
of such languages to both linguistic theory and to an understanding of human
communication. Kendon (1988) offers the most comprehensive account of sign
language in a particular linguistic ecology, that of indigenous Australia. Most of them
were semantically highly sophisticated sign languages used as languages for special
domains or functions and as languages of intergroup communication. Sign language
as full substitute of verbal speech once were widely used. Few of them are properly
recorded and most of the remaining ones appear to be endangered.
Other non-verbal forms of communication such as whistle languages, drum or
slitgong languages share their fate and observationally adequate accounts are
urgently needed.
Linguistic Communities 23

4.11 Independent versus connected languages

In the Western view, languages are seen as objects that are clearly separate from the
social and natural environment they are spoken in. As such they can be transported
and they can be acquired by new groups of speakers. By contrast, many traditional
languages are regarded by their speakers as being inseparably linked with land,
customs, belief systems and family relations. The link to the land of some Australian
indigenous languages is such that one has to speak a different language when moving
to a different part of the territory (Sutton 1991). Correct use of some languages is only
possible for members of the language community, for instance in pronoun choice or
when using kinship terms, both of which can require a knowledge of how speakers,
persons spoken about and persons spoken to, are related to one another, a practice
which can only be upheld in small tightly-knit communities. With migration and
changing patterns of land use the connections that languages have with their envi-
ronment are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. It has been argued, for
instance, that the large scale loss of Australian indigenous languages was precipitated
by the removal of most groups from their traditional habitat.

4.12 Endemic versus exotic languages

The widespread view that languages are independent entities, accounts for the
scarcity of these labels in sociolinguistic literature. There are now findings however
which suggest the coincidence of tribal and language boundaries and local natural
ecologies (Tindale 1974) and a recent study by Nettle 1998, 1999 summarised in
Glausiusz (1997) suggests a direct correlation between language size and rainfall.
Geographically spread-out languages are encountered typically in dry areas whilst
small languages predominantly occur in high-rainfall areas. The unstoppable spread
of English (a high-rainfall language) over the entire globe under this view suggests
problems for discourses about management of resources in desert areas.
Mühlhäusler (1996) argues that the hypothesis of adaptation can be tested most
conveniently with evidence from recently occupied ‘desert’ islands such as Pitkern,
Palmerston Creole or Mauritian Creole. As languages get transported around the
globe, the fit between them and the environment in which they are spoken, of
necessity, weakens. As linguistic adaptation to a new environment takes several
hundred years (e.g. the development of complex plant classification in Maori after the
arrival of Eastern Polynesian with a much less complex system in New Zealand), this
misfit is likely to be a prolonged one and may turn out to be an important task for
language planners.
Detailed studies of how languages are adapted to and help preserve the biological
diversity in their area of currency are given by the contributors to Maffi (ed. 2001). In
her introduction Maffi observes (following Harmon 1996) that biological megadi-
versity closely correlates with linguistic diversity. The conclusion most contributors
to Maffi’s volume arrive at that the loss of large numbers of endemic languages will
result in the loss of biodiversity.
24 Words and Worlds

4.13 National languages

The concept of nation and nation state is only a few hundred years old and has
become worldwide applicable only in the wake of decolonisation and modernisation
from the middle of the 20th century. Nation states, as Wollock (2001) points out,
initially took pride in their linguistic diversity.
The idea that political units and states should be inhabited by a culturally and
linguistically homogenous population is an idea that developed during the French
Revolution. Before this event speakers of many languages (Occitan, Catalan, Flemish,
Alamanic, Basque and French) were spoken in France and the concept of a French
community was defined by shared laws, shared religion and a common ruler.
The ideal of a single monolingual French nation took more than 200 years to become
realised. French as a national language today is the dominant medium of all public
discourse but other languages still continue to be used by minority groups in other
domains. The creation of monolingual nation states first occurred in other European
states such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy – though there are no nation states
in which other languages are not also spoken and a number of modern nation states
such as Belgium, Switzerland and Finland continue to be officially multilingual.
The idea of a single national language has been converted into policy in many
former European colonies – in most instances national language means the most priv-
ileged and most modernised language rather than the only language. However, the
trend toward dominant monolingualism established first in France can also be
witnessed elsewhere: Modern China, Malaysia, Indonesia as well as former colonial
languages such as Russian, English, Spanish and Portuguese have acquired a large
number of native speakers (or monolingual) of the chosen national language.

4.14 Tribal languages

This term is used as synonymous with ‘indigenous language’ and ‘vernacular’ i.e.
unwritten, unstandardised forms of speech spoken by single communities in small
political units such as extended families, tribes or villages. The vast majority of the
worlds’ languages falls into this group. More than a third of the world’s languages are
spoken by fewer than 1,000 people and in some regions (e.g. Melanesia) the average
number of speakers is even less.
The number of tribal languages has decreased dramatically since the European
conquest of the world and estimates such as these by Lizarraldi (2001) for South
America underline this. Of the 1,200 tribal languages spoken there in 1492 only 600
remained in 1940 and the number has since shrunk to about 400.

4.15 Some generalisations

The main aim of this section has been to show the variety of phenomena bearing the
label language. Languages, I have tried to show, differ in their political status, ability
to be used in modern technological environments, range of functions and domains
and last, but not least, in having recognised boundaries and domains and a name.
Linguistic Communities 25

In whatever sense human languages are equal, they are certainly not equal in
regard to their visibility. There is a clear danger that the best described, mapped and
labelled languages have a better chance of being maintained. Ironically, this often
means that languages that have been described or otherwise standardised or objec-
tified by Europeans are the ones whose survival chances are greatest and that
genuinely different ways of speaking are highly endangered. There is a clear paral-
lelism with the so-called charismatic species in wildlife protection: whereas many
millions of dollars are spent on koala research in Australia, very little money has been
made available to document and maintain Australia’s weevil population. But
arguably, the survival of a diversity of near invisible weevil species is ecologically
more important than that of the koala.
Many ways of speaking which, on structural and/or functional grounds could well
have been recognised as languages in actual fact are not – because of political circum-
stances, lack of folk sentiment, or lack of Abstand and Ausbau. In Europe, this
includes languages such has Alsatian, Asturian, Bavarian, Corsican, Flemish,
Francique, Istro-Romanian, Yutish, Karelian, Low Saxon, Tsakonian and many others.
In some instances, the ways of speaking have been labelled ‘dialect’ or ‘patois’, in
other instances there is little metalinguistic awareness of their existence.
What I shall do in the following section is explore how different ways of speaking are
employed side-by-side by groups of people. Just as the term language applies to a range
of phenomena, so do the terms language community, speech community, multilingual
community etc. Again, the multitude of combinations must be seen as functional
responses to particular communicative requirements, not dysfunctional oddities.
I shall employ Haugen’s (1972) and other ecological parameters to identify a
number of types of possible languages or language ecologies. The term ‘language
ecology’ is used as a cover term for a range of phenomena, some of which in the past
have been labelled language communities or speech communities. The main
difference between an ecological and closed sociolinguistic approach is that the
ecological approach places greater emphasis on the environmental support systems
and pays greater attention to the adaptability of different language ecologies.
It would seem useful first to say a few words about the concept of speech commu-
nities used in sociolinguistics.

THE MEANING OF TRIBAL LANGUAGES IN INDIA

The Indian tribes are scheduled as per Article 342 of the Constitution by the
President and the Parliament. They do not form a neat homogenous social-
cultural category. The concept of tribe in India is thus an administrative,
judicial, and political. The scheduled tribes constitute 623 varied communities.
Languages spoken by these scheduled communities are considered ‘tribal
26 Words and Worlds

languages’. There is no linguistic definition of tribal language/s. It is the tribal

languages that contribute to the vast and rich linguistic diversity of India. The
tribal languages belong to five distinct language groups pertaining to distinct
five language families represented in India such as Andamanese, Austro-
Asiatic, Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, and Tibeto-Burman. Though tribal languages
are spoken all over the country, languages belonging to a particular family tend
to be concentrated in a defined geographical area. Thus Northeast by Tibeto-
Burman, East-Center by Austro-Asiatic (Munda and Mon-Khmer), Western
India by Indo-Aryan, Southern India by Dravidian, and Andaman Islands by
Andamanese languages are represented.
As these languages are not scheduled languages, ethnolinguistic minority
status induces a negative attitude toward language loyalty. Anxiety to be asso-
ciated with the superior masses discourages people to declare their traditional
languages as mother tongues. In reality the tribals speak and use their tradi-
tional languages in the home domain but refuse to acknowledge this. This is
especially true of many of the urban Munda and the Dravidian tribes. The
‘claimed mother tongues’ that are reported in various census reports at best,
are foster mother tongues.
Despite the reported language shift most of our rural tribals (barring
Andamanese) do not really fit in the moulds of ‘terminal speakers’ or ‘semi-
speakers’. Instead, some of them may be considered ‘healthy speakers’. Those in
the rural Northeast and in rural Jharkhand may be considered the thriving
speakers. The two forces, retention and shift, coexist within the same language
group, e.g. while the urban tribals of the Munda family and those of the
Dravidian family are seen as easy to shift, rural tribes of the same language
families prefer to maintain their indigenous languages. Tribals belonging to the
Munda group are known to be the original inhabitants of India.
Bilingualism among tribals is 50% more than the national average bilingualism.
Most of the Northeastern and Central urban Tribals are bilinguals in Hindi
which they use for inter-tribal communication, or in other lingua franca origi-
nating out of the mixture of two or three languages of the region such as Sadari
among Munda speakers and Nagamese, Nefamese, Chakesang (these
languages are contact languages created out of the convergence of two or three
languages. Thus Nagamese is convergence of Naga and Assamese, while
Chakesang is constituted of drawing structures of three languages distinct
languages) as well as in English among the educated Tibeto-Burman speakers.
The conflict between the mother tongue and the other tongue is greater, deeper
and more terse in Central India than that which exists in the Northeast.
Anvita Abbi
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Linguistic Communities 27

5. The notion of language community and speech community

The problems encountered in defining language are again found when it comes to
defining speech and language communities. As the etymology of the term
‘community’ suggests, its members have something in common but what it is that
members of a speech community have in common and how many properties have to
be shared for a community to come into existence is far from clear.
Linguists such as Gumperz (1972) and Fishman (1971) have argued that “A speech
community is one, all of whose members share at least a single speech variety and the
norms for its appropriate use” (Fishman 1971). Other linguists by contrast de-
emphasise the notion of uniformity of language and put in their place shared evalu-
ation of patterns of language use (e.g. Labov 1972). By the first criterion there would
seem to be a single community of all of those who can speak English or French as the
first or second (and possibly foreign language), by the second criteria, because the social
evaluation of different varieties of English varies greatly, one is dealing with a large
number of communities. Labov (1972) notes that the assumptions of dialectologists are
problematic because of the presence of variation within speech communities. Extreme
forms of variation are found in some Post-creole communities and in Kupwar-type
settings. The Indian village of Kupwar (described by Gumperz and Wilson 1971) is
located in Sangli District Maharashtra, approximately seven miles north of the Mysore
border. It has a population of 3,000 and four languages. Village lands are controlled
largely by two land-owning and cultivating groups, Kannada-speaking Jains, who form
the majority, and Urdu-speaking Moslems. There are furthermore, large contingents of
Kannada-speaking Lingayats – largely craftsmen, Marathi-speaking untouchables and
other landless labourers, as well as some Telugu-speaking rope-makers.
In spite of the differences in language use, Kupwar can be defined as a community
in Labov’s sense because the evaluation of language use is shared by all members of
this village though not by outsiders.
What leads to shared norms is constant interaction. Milroy’s (1980: 20) use of a
network model provides further insights. She distinguishes two types, as in Diagrams
1 and 2 where the individual whose network is being studied is shown by a star, and
other people in the network by dots. Contact between individuals is shown by a line.
The two networks are said to be of high density and low density respectively.
Milroy then observes “it is possible for one network to be described as more or less
dense than another, rather than in absolute terms as open or closed. Additionally, Blom
and Gumperz comment that the contents of the network ties which bind members of
the elite to ‘local team’ people is ‘largely impersonal, focussing around single tasks.” In
contrast, most local team people ‘live, marry and earn their livelihood among others of
their own kind’ (p. 433). Thus, not only are local team networks dense, but each indi-
vidual is likely to be linked to others in more than one capacity – as a co-employee, a
kinsman and a friend, for example. This kind of network tie may be said to be
multiplex, or many stranded, and to contrast with the uniplex ties of the elite who tend
to associate with the local people in a single capacity only.
28 Words and Worlds

Diagram 1. High-density personal network structure: X is the focal point of the network

Diagram 2. Low-density personal network structure: X is the focal point of the network

Traditional lifestyles strongly correlate with closed multiplex networks and such
networks provide a home for a multitude of small endemic languages. Urbanisation,
social and geographical mobility and information technology, by contrast promote
open networks which call for larger, even international languages: one can witness a
corresponding process of the shrinkage of closed networks (they are becoming
restricted to communication with in-families, tribes and other highly-knit social
structures), and a steady growth in the importance of open networks. In as much as
the village has been the typical locus for closed network communication, the notion of
a global village seems absurd. Kreckel (1980) comments on the ‘undesirable effects of
heterodynamic [=open network] communication for presupposed common
knowledge may easily have no common basis at all.’
Given the problem of pinning down what a speech community is, it would at
first sight seem desirable to start with clearly bounded units such as states,
provinces and urban communities and ask: what languages and what relation-
ships between languages are encountered within such units. This, in fact, is what
many sociolinguists have opted to do (a process referred to as the dialectological
approach) when describing phenomena such as diglossia (see below). However,
Linguistic Communities 29

applying labels such as speech community, Laycock (1979) has pointed out, can
bring with it other problems:
Extensive multilingualism has important consequences for theories of language
contact and language classification. One major effect is the erasure or blurring of
linguistic boundaries. We can distinguish three types of linguistic areas with
definable boundaries:

(1) a communication area, which is the area in which a speaker or community can
still manage to communicate, by the use of any languages known;
(2) a lectal or language currency area, which is the area in which a single language is
effective for communication purposes,
(3) a language area, which is the area in which a particular language can be said to be
native – that is, it is the first learnt and/or the primary language.

Linguistic maps usually feature type 3, which is the hardest to define satisfactorily, and
which is coterminous with types 1 and 2 unless multilingualism is present. However, it
is precisely the boundaries of 3 that are made fuzzy, or are erased by, multilingualism.
A way of defining community that does not rely on pre-established boundaries
might be to examine the key metaphors (Lakoff and Johnson 1980) that different
groups of people live by. Those dominant in mainstream Anglo culture (time is
money, argument is war) are not shared by members of many other cultures. The
Australian and British metaphor of politics as a game of cricket (to be played
according to rules on a level playing field) is foreign to most of the ‘foreign’ politicians
that British politicians are dealing with and the lack of shared metaphors could be one
of the reasons for the lack of mutual understanding.
That the notion that speaking the same language needs to correlate with other
social categories is questioned by writers such as Rigsby and Sutton (n.d.) who argue
that speech community is not a primary social term but a secondary construct. Their
own data, gathered during many years of fieldwork in Northern Queensland suggest
that ‘residence groups, task groups (such as ritual participants) and regional political
groupings are formed largely independent of linguistic affiliation’ (p. 35). The notion
that one language equals one culture and the derived view that the loss of, say, 100
languages implies the loss of 100 cultural and philosophical systems thus would seem
highly questionable.
The non-agreement between language and culture can be illustrated in the so-
called developed world by the existence of pluricentric standard languages with
several standard varieties (see Clyne 1985). Examples of these include Arabic,
Chinese, Dutch, English, French and Spanish, all of which have official status in a
number of nation states with different political and cultural agendas. Belonging to the
same speech community does not exclude hostility or almost total non-cooperation,
as can be seen from the examples of Korean in North and South Korea, Mandarin in
Mainland China and Taiwan or German in former East and West Germany. The case
of Moldavian and Galician illustrate that there can be considerable disagreement
30 Words and Worlds

among speakers as to whether they are speaking a language with its own norms or a
variety of Romanian or Portuguese and in the case of Valencian vis à vis Catalan this
has led to considerable social conflict.
In view of the difficulties with the definition of communities, the notion of
language ecology would seem preferable, particularly as it supplements information
about the use of different languages as information about the wider ecological factors
(including discourses) that sustain such practices.
One has to remind oneself of the etymological roots of the term ‘ecology,’ i.e. Greek
oikos, ‘house’ or ‘home.’ Haugen, whose ecolinguistic questions were quoted at the
beginning of this paper, very much looked at the linguistic practices of the inhabitants
of communities bounded by sociopolitical boundaries and this approach would seem
appropriate only for nation states and similar modern entities. The question of the
relationships within a house, what relationships between its inhabitants make it a
home and a sociolinguistic characterisation of its inhabitants are important. However,
Haugen uses the notion of ecology as a heuristic metaphor without suggesting that
language can itself be an ecological phenomenon.
In discussing the notion of endemic language I have suggested that languages can
also be seen as ecologically adapted to particular natural environments and this
suggestion can be extended to the hypothesis that particular language ecologies in
turn are adapted to particular natural conditions, that, for instance the seemingly
excessive multilingualism in some parts of the world is a response to the need for
various types of cooperation needed for survival and management in a particular
environment. Healthy ecologies are characterised by the presence of a large number
of mutually beneficial interrelationships and a relatively small proportion of compet-
itive and/or parasitic ones. They are also defined by functional diversity.
In the past, healthy language ecologies were the norm but over the last few
hundred years or so, there has been a marked shift to unbalanced and unhealthy
ecologies, characterised by an increase of internal competition and a reduction of
diversity and, in the domain of language, a dramatic loss of the connections between
languages, speakers and their natural habitat.
What defines language ecologies remains to be explored, and the sections that
follow have to be read against the background of an important ecological principle.
What keeps one ecology healthy and stable may destroy another one. The support
system for different language ecologies can be very different and must be determined
case by case.
An overview of writings on the psychology and sociology of language ecologies is
given by Fill (1993). The parameters determining ecological processes in language
and society listed by Fill include:

• status and intimacy,

• similarity and difference of language in contact,
• number of competing languages,
• cultural, religious and economic factors,
Linguistic Communities 31

• frequency of intermarriage,
• functional distribution,
• degree of codification,
• external interventions.

In my view there are a number of additional parameters that need to be considered:

• whether languages are endemic or exotic to an ecology,

• the degree of esotericity (closed in-group language),
• the degree of vitality of the languages in an ecology,
• whether languages are ‘packaged’ with or disconnected from the ecology,
• continuity (e.g. dialect or chains) or discontinuity (abrupt boundaries),
• named or unnamed i.e. degree of recognition by speakers and outsiders),
• types of solutions for intergroup communication with outside groups (bilin-
gualism, lingua francas, Pidgins).

6. Some aspects of ecological support systems

In what follows I shall consider some of the external factors that impinge on the
nature of language ecologies, factors such as territory, speaker numbers, etc.

6.1 Language and territory

The 6,000+ languages spoken around the world are not evenly distributed. Neither is
there a simple formula for the relationship between language and topological space
nor is there one for language and speaker numbers. In some parts of the world a rela-
tively small number of languages is spoken by a large number of people (Europe and
North America today), in others many languages are spoken by a few people each. In
Papua New Guinea 800+ languages are said to be used by about 4 million speakers,
far fewer speakers than in the past, whereas in New Zealand, a country of a compa-
rable size only one language, Maori, was spoken at the time the first European
colonisers arrived.
The reasons for these differences have been traditionally given as temporal factors.
Linguistic diversification takes time (e.g. 1,000 years time period is conventionally
used as a rough guide for one language to become two). Thus, the difference between
PNG with 40,000+ years of human habitation and New Zealand with only about 1200
years is adduced as a reason for the difference in language numbers. Similarly, the
large number of dialects of British English contrasts with a very small number of
dialects in North American English and an even smaller one in Australian and New
Zealand English.
Next to time, contact with other languages is given as a reason, as new languages
can develop out of language contact in a relatively short time, only a few decades in
the case of Pidgins and Creoles, for instance. Both factors together would account for
the fact that there are a large number of different languages in Arnhem Land,
32 Words and Worlds

Northern Australia, the first part settled by human beings and the one closest to
South East Asia with whose inhabitants there have been several periods of contact. By
contrast human habitation of the Southern parts of Australia is far more recent and
contacts with outside groups were rare or non-existent.
Time and contact alone are insufficient to explain all aspects of linguistic diversity.
Laycock (1982) adds deliberate human choice as a further motive. Speaking about the
situation in Melanesia he argues:
In view of all the above, it is possible to formulate a hypothesis about Melanesian
linguistic diversity. Migration into the small independent, or semi-independent,
communities, with, often, the same or very similar languages. Isolation and
normal linguistic change played their part in the splitting of these communities
unhampered by pressures towards convergence. The process was accelerated by
contact between communities of quite different linguistic backgrounds, by
warfare (and subsequent dispersal of communities), by cross-cutting migrations,
and by technical innovation. Once the process of diversification was well under
way, diversity had advantages as well as disadvantages, in clearly distinguishing
friend, acquaintance, trading-partner, and foe; and with this consciousness came
an attitude, I believe, that the community was further divided. In other words, I
suggest that Melanesian linguistic diversity is not merely the by-product of acci-
dents of history and geography, but is in large measure a partly conscious
reaction, on the part of the Melanesians themselves, to their environment and
social conditions.
Ecolinguistics, as discussed under the heading of ‘Endemic Languages’, has added
external environmental reasons. The size of a language coincides with the size of the
ecological borders in which it is spoken. Highly diversified complex ecological condi-
tions such as in rainforest areas coincide with high linguistic diversity. The linguisti-
cally most complex areas are Melanesia, the Amazon and West Africa. The number of
languages spoken in desert areas and the Arctic, on the other hand, are relatively small.
Areas with high linguistic diversity are also areas with a high degree of multilin-
gualism, with as many as 4+ languages spoken in traditional Melanesia and up to a
dozen in tropical Northern Australia. Linguistic diversity is often linked to
geographical isolation but this turns out not to be a very reliable parameter. Islands, for
instance, have traditionally been associated with isolation but as the many contrib-
utors to the Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the
Americas (Wurm, Mühlhäusler & Tryon 1996) have demonstrated, contacts between
most of the islands of the Pacific was relatively intense and the only genuinely isolated
islands of the area were Easter Island and possibly Hawaii. Rivers also isolate popula-
tions but, on the contrary, provide access and contact. The isolated languages of distant
mountain villages are mainly a discursive category rather than a linguistic fact. The
largest languages in Papua New Guinea, for instance, are located in the rugged terrain
of the New Guinea highlands. Genetic research (e.g. Terrell 1986) confirms that human
groups rarely remain isolated over extended periods of time.
Linguistic Communities 33

There is, however, an interesting relationship between some factors of the physical
terrain and language continuity. Languages located in areas subject to natural disasters
such as drought, floodwaves, volcanic eruptions etc. are more vulnerable to change and
extinction than other languages. Thurston (1982) has illustrated this for the languages
spoken on the dangerous coastline of Eastern New Britain, and the unreliability of water
supply in parts of the Pacific has in the past lead to the extinction of populations and
their languages on many islands. Medical disasters such as epidemics can also disrupt
linguistic continuity. Stross (1975) has shown how speakers of Tzeltal in Yukatan are
affected by frequent epidemics which lead to the decline of individual dialects and the
rise of others, promoting frequent changes in the direction of language development.
Introduced diseases and their roles in changes in language ecologies remain to be
fully documented. Australian Indigenous languages, as a response to smallpox and
influenza, often became non-viable as their speaker numbers declined, or as speakers
fled to different parts of the continent where they mixed with other groups. Hottentot
and several Melanesian languages experienced a similar decline and the spread of
AIDS and other pandemics throughout the developing world is likely seriously to
affect the viability of many smaller languages.

6.2 Speaker distribution

This concept relates on the one hand to the degree of contacts between members of a
language community and, on the other, the density of such contacts.
Contact between languages involves physical proximity as a necessary but not a
sufficient reason for mutual influence. Contact together with time tends to promote
similarity between languages no matter what their original history was. It tends to
lead to the development of Sprachbunds where languages from several families
display common traits not found in members of the same families spoken outside.
The already mentioned Kupwar situation can be called a mini-Sprachbund. The
languages of the Balkan again have become structurally and semantically similar
over time with Romanian in spite of its romance origins, being more similar with
surrounding languages such as Greek or Bulgarian than Latin or Spanish.

BILINGUALISM, MULTILINGUALISM AND MIND DEVELOPMENT

Languages in contact, whether it is bilingualism or multilingualism are an

integral part of human behaviour. Situations of languages in contact have always
outnumbered monolingual situations, but they will constantly increase with glob-
alisation and increasing population movements due to migration and greater
social mobility, with the universal spread of education and the need for all human
societies to have access to modern information technology. By “languages in
contact” we mean the use of two or more distinct linguistic codes in interpersonal
34 Words and Worlds

and inter-group relations as well as the psychological state of an individual who

uses more than one language. The distinction between bilingualism and multilin-
gualism refers to the number of languages involved in the contact situation:
multilingualism generally refers to any situation involving two or more
languages, whereas bilingualism refers to a contact between only two languages.
A more important distinction is however made between societal and indi-
vidual bi- or multilingualism. The concepts of bilingualism and multilingualism
refer to the state of a linguistic community in which at least two languages are in
contact with the result that more than one linguistic code can be used in the
same interaction and that a number of individuals master more than one
language; it includes the concept of bilinguality or individual bilingualism. In
the present discussion, we will use the term bilinguality to refer to bilingual and
multilingual individuals, as so far there is no evidence that bilinguals and multi-
linguals show different behaviour patterns.
Definitions of bilingualism
At first sight the concept of individual bilingualism seems easy to define. In the
layman’s view a bilingual person is somebody who either speaks two languages as
native speakers or has an almost native-like command of a second language in
addition to the command of his mother tongue. According to Webster’s dictionary,
a bilingual is defined as “having or using two languages especially as spoken with
the fluency characteristic of a native speaker” and bilingualism as “the constant
oral use of two languages”. However, scholars in bilingualism do not agree on a
single definition. Bloomfield (1935) defines bilingualism as “the native-like control
of two languages”. In contradistinction to this definition of “perfect bilinguals”,
Macnamara (1967) suggests that a bilingual is anyone who possesses a minimal
competence in one of the four language skills, listening, reading, speaking and
writing in a language different from its mother tongue. Between these two
extremes there is a large array of definitions; Titone (1972), for example, defines
bilingualism as the individual’s capacity to speak a second language following its
concepts and structures rather than paraphrasing the mother tongue.
These definitions, ranging from a native-like competence in two languages to
a minimum proficiency in a second language, raise a number of theoretical and
methodological questions. First, they lack precision: they do not specify what is
meant by native-like competence, nor by minimal proficiency, nor by following
the concepts and structures of a language. Second, they refer to a single
dimension, i.e. proficiency in both languages. According to Hamers & Blanc
(1983), however, bilingualism and bilinguality are multi-dimensional concepts.
Bilinguality can be described using the following dimensions: according to
competence in both languages a distinction can be made between balanced
(competence in LA = competence in LB ) and dominant (competence in LA > or
Linguistic Communities 35

< than competence in LB ) bilinguals ; according to cognitive organisation

between compound (language labels in LA and LB correspond to one single
concept) and coordinate (each language label corresponds to a different concept)
bilinguals. In terms of age of acquisition a distinction is made between simulta-
neous (the two languages are acquired during the language acquisition period;
LA and LB are both the child’s mother tongues) and consecutive (L2 is acquired
after the child has developed a competence in L1) bilinguality. In consecutive
bilinguality a further distinction is made between childhood (L2 before 10–11),
adolescent (L2 between 11 and 17 years) and adulthood (L2 after the age of 17) bilin-
guality. According to the presence or the absence of a community of L2 speakers,
a distinction is made between endogenous (both speech communities are present)
and exogenous (only one speech communities is present) bilinguality. According
to the relative status of the languages a distinction is made between additive
(both language are highly valorised; bilingual development will enhance
cognitive development) and subtractive (L1 is devalorised, leading to cognitive
disadvantages). Bilinguals can also be described in terms of their cultural identity:
bilinguality can be described as bicultural, monocultural or deculturated
(ambiguous membership and anomic identity).
Bilinguistic development
Early biographies on bilingual children (Ronjat 1913; Leopold, 1939–1949)
already pointed to a harmonious development of the bilingual child and indi-
cated that his linguistic development is comparable to that of a monolingual
child. More recent studies however permit us to be more precise in their compar-
isons and point out that the bilingual child does not only compare favourably
with his monolingual counterpart but displays also some specific behaviours. At
the preverbal stage, it seems that infants as young as four months, raised in a
multilingual environment, discriminate better between familiar and non-
familiar phonemes and intonation patterns than their monolingual counterparts.
There is a general agreement that the bilingual child produces his first word at
the same time as a monolingual infant and that at the holophrastic stage he uses
words from his two languages. The receptive vocabulary of monolingual and
bilingual children is comparable; bilingual children produce less vocabulary in
each language, but if the lexical items in the two languages are taken together
production is comparable; bilingual children do not have translation equiva-
lents for all their lexicon but monolingual and bilingual children’s conceptual
vocabularies have similar sizes.
How do grammatical structures evolve in bilinguistic development? From the
available data it appears that certain aspects of linguistic development follow a
monolingual pattern closely while others do not. Some studies (Swain 1972)
mention developmental delay, others (Meisel 1990) give some evidence for a
36 Words and Worlds

more precocious development of bilingual children, while still others (Padilla &
Liebman 1975) conclude that the acquisition of the two languages follows a
monolingual pattern.
Mixing is mentioned in all biographies and studies on bilinguistic development.
The majority of mixings are lexical in nature, with nouns as the most frequently
substituted words. Mixing may also occur at other levels (est-ce que you sleep
here?). Infant and adult mixing follow different patterns and there is also a
consensus that syntactic categories do not appear at random in mixed elements.
Although probably all bilingual children mix codes, this mixing occurs with a
low frequency (from 2% to 6.5%), tending to decrease with age. What role mixing
plays in bilinguistic acquisition is still little known, but its less frequent use as the
child grows older may be a manifestation of his improved capacity to keep his
two languages separate. Not all mixing must be attributed to a lack of compe-
tence; mixed utterance might express the intended meaning more adequately.
Translation is also an integral part of bilinguistic development. Besides using
translation spontaneously, the bilingual child requests translation equivalents
in the other language. The onset of awareness of two systems is evidenced
around the second birthday: two-year old children will assign words to each
parent’s repertoire and request translations for them. This is considered as proof
that language awareness develops at an early age.
The relation between language and mind
Several researchers have suggested that language and mind are closely inter-
mingled. In 1956, Whorf suggested that language moulds thought, and
although this hypothesis in its extreme form is no longer accepted, most
scholars do agree that language and thought are not completely independent
from each other. Childhood bilinguality does not develop in isolation from
other developmental aspects but interacts with them. Whether one considers
that language plays an important role in the development of thought or
whether both are seen as developing independently from each other will
influence the extent to which bilinguality is considered as a relevant factor for
the development of cognitive processes. At the present time most child
psychologists recognise the role played by language in cognitive devel-
opment. But what happens when children are socialised into multilingual
modes of communication?
Empirical research on the cognitive consequences of bilingual development
can be divided in two periods. The early studies, mainly psychometric ones,
conducted before the 1960, reported mainly negative results: bilingual children
suffered from academic retardation, from a linguistic handicap, had a lower IQ
and were socially maladjusted as compared with monolingual children.
Bilinguality was viewed as the cause of an inferior intelligence.
Linguistic Communities 37

From the sixties onwards studies demonstrating positive effects by far

outnumber research which still mentions negative effects. An important turning
point came in 1962 with the publication of the Peal & Lambert study: comparing
the academic achievement of bilingual and monolingual children, the authors
came to the conclusion that bilingual children showed a higher level of
cognitive development which they attributed to a more developed cognitive
flexibility. Among others, the following advantages have been mentioned in the
studies conducted after 1962: a greater ability in reconstructing perceptual situ-
ations, superior results on verbal and non-verbal intelligence; a greater sensi-
tivity to semantic relations between words; higher scores on concept-formation
tasks and rule-discovery tasks; a better performance with traditional psycho-
metric school tests; a greater originality in creative thinking. Bilinguals are also
better in verbal-transformation and symbol-substitution; in correction of
ungrammatical sentences; in problem-solving tasks. They outperform monolin-
guals in metalinguistic tasks. (For a review, see Hamers & Blanc, 2000.)
However, a small number of studies still report poor academic achievement
of bilingual children. When this occurs, it almost always refers to minority
children, schooled in the majority language and having their own mother
tongue devalorised. Attempting to explain the positive and negative effects of
bilingual development, Lambert (1974) suggests distinguishing between
additive and subtractive bilinguality. In its additive form the child adds a
second language as a communicative and cognitive tool to its linguistic reper-
toire; in its subtractive form the little valorised mother tongue is replaced by the
more prestigious second language. In the first case the child might benefit from
a bilingual situation whereas in the second case the child’s cognitive devel-
opment is likely to be delayed. In their model of bilingual development, Hamers
& Blanc (1982) suggest that social and individual valorisation of both languages
play a crucial role for the bilingual’s child cognitive development. Education
can provide the necessary context for additive bilinguality by insisting on
mother tongue education for minority children.
Several authors have suggested that a bilingual child would develop a deeper
level of processing which would lead to a greater cognitive flexibility and a
more developed metalinguistic awareness. In Vygotsky’s (1962) view, being
able to express the same thought in different languages will enable ‘the child to
see his language as one particular system among many, to view its phenomena
under more general categories, and this leads to awareness of his linguistic
operations’. This early awareness further generalises to other areas of concept
learning and thinking.
During the last decades the development of bilinguality has been analysed in
relation to the development of linguistic awareness. Bilingual children may have
a greater cognitive control in information processing than do monolingual
38 Words and Worlds

children; this provides them with the necessary foundation for metalinguistic
ability, a necessary tool in cognitive development. Because experiencing with two
languages enhances the awareness of the analysis and control components of
language processing, different processing systems develop to serve two linguistic
systems from the ones that operate with one language. These advantages are
available to all children provided with an adequate bilingual education program.
Josiane F. Hamers
Laval University, Canada

7. Types of language ecologies

7.1 Balanced multilingualism
Multilingualism is often portrayed as a consequence of speakers having to communicate
with outgroups, but this is only part of the story. As Kendon (1988), who like Laycock
(above) emphasises the rationality of multilingualism, has observed for Australia:
People may speak several different languages, not so much because they need to
do so to make themselves understood in different places, but because their
languages serve as a means of expressing multiple social identities that they can
lay claim to through their network of kin relationships.
Choosing different languages can be equated with choosing different registers or
styles in a monolingual speech community. Whether different communicative func-
tions and domains are talked about in one or more than one language differs from
group to group. The fact remains that successful communication requires a repertoire
of many speech varieties or languages.
Balanced multilingualism is predicated, on the one hand, on a stable ecological link
between speakers of different languages and, on the other hand, or the absence of
sudden changes in established patterns of social and spatial mobility. It is manifested,
in instances such as Melanesia or tropical Australia, with egalitarian modes of coexis-
tence but hierarchical structures, such as that of Kupwar (see above). Other examples
of traditional multilingualism have been discussed for the Asia Pacific Region by
Wurm, Mühlhäusler and Laycock (1996) and in Wurm (ed. 1979).
I shall begin by looking at areas of extensive multilingualism such as Papua New
Guinea (Laycock 1979), the Cape York Peninsula of Queensland (Sutton 1991) or
Brazil (Aikenvald 1999, Sorensen 1967). Communication between the speakers of
multiple small languages is achieved by a number of means all of which seek the dual
purpose of enabling intercommunication whilst maintaining the maximum diversity
of local vernacular. The maintenance of language numbers of small local vernaculars
is required both to preserve ethnocultural identity and to ensure a fit between
languages and local environmental conditions.
Linguistic Communities 39

A large number of small group of speakers (fewer than 1,000) also ensures that (a)
relatively unauthoritarian structures can be maintained within a language
community and (b) no community can readily achieve power over another
community: diversity reduces the scope for competition and strengthens links
between speakers of small vernaculars. Speakers of small or very small languages are
rarely monolingual as they depend on their well-being and functional links with
other groups for trade, out marriages and joint action.
The solutions to this requirement vary from ecology to ecology: an obvious but rela-
tively ‘costly’ solution is multilingualism or the less costly dual-lingualism (passive
multilingualism) where each party speaks their own language but understands their
interlocuter’s language. The greatest degree of multilingualism is encountered in parts
of Australia (e.g. Cape York Peninsula, Sutton 1991) where speakers have at their
disposal a repertoire of up to a dozen languages; a knowledge of 3–4 languages such as
in parts of Papua New Guinea is more common, but because multilingualism usually
does not imply full competence in all languages it is impossible to be precise.
The varying extent of communicative requirements when dealing with outgroups
is the reason for bilinguals employing a vernacular and one or more special inter-
group Pidgins. A particularly sophisticated solution is a layered language ecology
(Mühlhäusler 1999) where local vernaculars are employed mainly to express local
identity and discuss local knowledge, intergroup Pidgins (often with a 50/50 mixed
lexicon and a common core grammar) are employed mainly for transactions between
villages, and regional lingua francas are employed mainly for signalling regional
identity and exchanging regionally important information. Examples of such layered
ecologies have been documented for Native (Indian) Americans in the southern
United States by Drechsel (1997). Similar layering is developing in the European
Union where many inhabitants are competent in international English, their National
Standard Language, plus a local vernacular.
Stable hierarchical communities often employ a diglossic pattern, where there are
specialised functions for High (socially superordinate) and Low (socially subordinate)
forms of speech. In the strictest sense, these varieties should be historically and lexically
related such as French versus Haitian Creole or Classical Arabic and Egyptian Colloquial
Arabic (Ferguson 1959). In a wider sense the complementary functional distribution of
two languages, e.g. Spanish and Guarani in Paraguay, has also been labelled diglossia
(for more details see Romaine 1989). In using labels such as stable or balanced, I do not
wish to suggest that traditional societies are static. Rather, the rate of change in many
traditional language ecologies is such that they can adapt to those changes that
inevitably occur. What endangers them is that technological and social changes that are
now occurring have put their adaptive potential under severe strain.

7.2 Mixed endemic–exotic ecologies

Migrations, invasions and colonisation are the main factors that bring endemic
languages into contact with exotic ones, with a range of linguistic outcomes such as
the large scale extinction of Indo European languages in Central Asia, following the
40 Words and Worlds

Mongol invasion, pidginization, creolization and intensive mixing between local

‘Papuan’ and ‘Austronesian’ languages in Melanesian or the specialisation of the two
language types in a new linguistic ecology as in the case of Carib and South American
languages in the form of gender differentiation (Trudgill 1983).
What such processes may have done to linguistic ecologies in the past remains
unknown. It is certain, however, that even without major contacts, the number of
languages that became extinct in pre-colonial times was of a very large scale. Walsh
(1997), working with figures used by O’Grady (1979), argues that over the last 15,000
years a minimum of 4,000 and perhaps as many as several hundred thousand
languages have become extinct in Australia.
European colonisation, and the technological and social changes that happened in
this wake have created massive changes in the linguistic ecologies, in particular:

(1) the establishment of a small number of powerful exotic languages (English,

Spanish, Portuguese, French) in most parts of the world,
(2) the emergence of a small number of large natural languages (e.g. Indonesian,
Hindi, Swahili) modelled on European National languages,
(3) widespread diglossia, transitional multilingualism and partial Ausbau of
selected local languages.

An important study of the new mixed endemic-exotic communities is that by Myers-

Scotton (1993) for Africa. She documents the change from a relatively stable to a
highly dynamic multilingualism in which introduced European languages play a
pivotal role. In the past, multilingualism was found primarily among people who
were mobile in a geographic sense (p. 30ff) or amongst speakers of a small language
surrounded by a larger one. Today, mobility in a socio-economic sense is the prime
reason. Adding a metropolitan language to one’s repertoire can lead to competition,
functional reproduction of non-metropolitan languages and language shift. Whilst a
number of studies of new types of diglossia or triglossia are available it is not easy to
generalise, as the reasons for using languages in certain domains and functions are
contingent on complex sociohistorical processes (Fishman 1965). A classic study of a
traditional language ecology to which exotic languages have been added is that by
Sankoff (1972) where she discusses code switching among the Buang of PNG in the
1970s many of whom spoke a church lingua franca, Yabem, and still more spoke Tok
Pisin. Speakers’ choices are summarised in Diagram 3.
More recently Sankoff has discussed some of the changing patterns of code
switching among the Buang under the impact of English education and migration to
urban centres. An important feature of the latter article is the demonstration that code
switching behaviour can differ considerably among the individuals within a given
group or society and that the mastery of a multitude of subcodes and codes may be ‘in
part a result of deliberate development of rhetorical skills by aspirants to leadership.’
A situation (Mühlhäusler 1996) far more complex than among the rural Buang is found
in Fiji (Schütz 1985) where a number of varieties of Fijian are spoken side-by-side with
Linguistic Communities 41

decision to speak

speaking to Buang speaking to non-Buang

formal situation informal situation stranger non-stranger

religious business: traditional written oral missionary Yabem or Buang other

government: e.g. yam teacher Bukawa speaker
community distribution pastor speaker
affairs

special normal
circumstances circumstances
e.g. joking

YABEM BUANG BUANG YABEM NM BUANG NM YABEM YABEM BUANG NM

NM NM NM YABEM NM
BUANG YABEM

Diagram 3. Language choice among the Buang in Papua New Guinea

two exotic languages, English and Fiji Hindi. The degrees of stability achieved in
Paraguay (Rubin 1968) for Spanish and Guarani would seem to be relatively rare and
competition or even dualling (Myers, Scotton 1993) are common in the 20th century.
In 1971 White concluded:
Fiji shares with many other new nations the problems of creating a sense of socio-
cultural unity in a territorial area which at the moment has little else but geo-political
unity. It is characteristic of emerging nations that the forces of nationalism and
nationism co-exist, and it is common for an ethnically based diglossia to potentially
be divisive, but the possibilities of division are reduced by two factors disclosed in
the current survey: (i) the practice of vernacular bilingualism, and (ii) the use of
English as a mediating or stand-by language in intergroup interaction. English, it is
clear, has the potentiality of becoming an instrument both of nationism and of nation-
alism, but it will probably have to serve as an artefact of geo-political unity before it
can contribute to the evolution of socio-cultural unity in the emergent nation of Fiji.
Thirty years later the situation remains problematic and attempts to create a stable
society with a stable multilingual ecology continue.

7.3 Competitive language ecologies

The reader needs to be reminded of the ecological principle that healthy linguistic
ecologies are characterised by a large proportion of functional interrelationships
42 Words and Worlds

(mutually beneficial) between languages and a relatively small proportion of compet-

itive ones. The view that people’s linguistic choices are rational ones, regulated by a
rational market forces ignores, as Tollefson (1991) has shown, the fact that the
language market is far from free but rather is dominated by the monopolism of a few
privileged (sometimes referred to as killer) languages.
Competition can take a number of shapes. The most extreme one is the killing off
of speakers of minority languages (as happened with many Australian and
Amerindian people), resettlement, forced assimilation (which is an ongoing process
in many countries), legislation or deliberate status planning and discrimination
against smaller languages. In the majority of instances one is dealing with a gradual
loss of ecological factors that are needed to maintain structural linguistic diversity.
Ironically, languages can be rendered uncompetitive by the very acts that were
meant to strengthen them. Standardisation, promotion of literacy and school
programmes, as has been argued in Mühlhäusler (1996), can in some instances accel-
erate the decline of languages and eventual language shift. The two principal
reasons, in other words, for language competition are the introduction of powerful
regional or national official languages into areas where many small languages are
spoken and the migration of speakers of small languages. How these two factors can
lead to the extinction of many minority languages in India has been illustrated by
Pandharipande (1992). The external conditions which have made smaller local
languages unacceptable according to this writer are:

(a) mechanisation of professions such as fishing, farming, tanning of leather etc. is

rapidly replacing human labour by machines, thus leaving the traditional skills
of these communities useless to a great extent,
(b) deforestation and urbanisation of the villages have made it mandatory for the tribals
to interact with the dominant/majority group for commercial trade or jobs, and
(c) the education policy of state governments to promote education among these
communities through the medium of regional/state languages has accelerated
the speed of learning of the dominant regional language among these commu-
nities. These communities view the regional language as a tool for upward socio-
economic mobility in the society.

In as much as these changes were brought to the communities from the outside, the
choice of shifting to other languages is far from free. It is necessary not just for social
mobility, but in many instances, physical survival.
Migration again can be both a choice driven by the wish to improve one’s life or it can
also be beyond people’s control brought about by war, persecution and forced reset-
tlement. Migrant languages not only are far from the cultural and physical support
system that once sustained them and surrounded by numerically and functionally
more powerful languages; as Fishman (1991) has shown, there are few instances in
which migrant languages have survived for more than three generations but this
survival was typically accompanied by a shrinkage in the domains and functions in
Linguistic Communities 43

which these languages are used. First language adaptation is a matter of centuries, the
outcome of competition is often a matter of years only. Whatever short-term economic
benefits it may bring, the long term consequences are far from beneficial. One of the
problems of language shift is that it can lead to a loss of cultural identity. There is a
strong but not necessary link between language and people’s identity, the wish to
speak the same language typically being driven by the wish to belong to a community
of like people (Fishman 1991). The loss of a language can be a matter of grief for a
community and can have negative side-effects on its members. When there is a strong
link between language and identity, a number of adjustments can occur. In the case of
the indigenous languages of Australia, 90% of Australian Aborigines no longer speak a
traditional language. However, traditional patterns of language use have been main-
tained in various Aboriginal Englishes (Eades 1982), for example South Australian
Nunga English, South East Queensland English, and the concept of language
ownership can persist even where a language is no longer spoken. New Englishes in
Australia are not necessarily languages of identity, rather a typical pattern in tradi-
tional language whether spoken or not is the focus of identity. Aboriginal English is the
language of non-identity with the white majority and standard English a language of
communication within the wider community.

7.4 Artificial language ecologies

One can argue that diversity is natural and streamlining is artificial and further that
most contemporary language ecologies are located at the artificial end of a
continuum, with examples of instances where exotic world languages were elevated
to national languages being particularly artificial. Thus, just as national languages
can be labelled ‘cultural’, language ecologies can also be artificial to a substantial
degree. Singapore provides an example of how repeated acts of planning and policy
making can create a different ecology.
In Singapore, the suppression of small ethnic languages as well as that of non-
Mandarin varieties of Chinese has been much more deliberate. Goh (1980) reported
on the language situation in Singapore as follows:
Singapore society is ethnically heterogeneous, with about 76% Chinese, 15%
Malay, 7% Indians, and 2% from other ethnic origins. Its language situation is still
more diversified since each of the three major ethnic groups speaks many
language varieties. A census report identifies more than 33 specific mother-
tongue groups, 20 of which have more than 0.1% of the population as native
speakers. Four major languages are designated as official languages: Malay,
English, Mandarin Chinese and Tamil. Hokkien, while a major language, is not
an official language. In addition, there are three minor languages: Teochew,
Cantonese and Hainanese. (Goh 1980, quoted in Kuo 1980)
This policy of egalitarian multilingualism has since given way to a policy of
English/Mandarin bilingualism and deliberate official attempts to get rid of Chinese
varieties other than Mandarin.
44 Words and Worlds

The European Union, whereas far more tolerant of minority languages, never-
theless has over the years introduced many policies that have remarkably changed its
original linguistic ecology and, with a number of new members about to join, more
radical solutions (e.g. creating a supernational artificial language, such as Eurolingua
or using Esperanto) are being considered.
Thus far, artificial language ecologies have been of the streamlining type, i.e. the
objective has been to reduce the number of languages spoken. There is no reason why
one could not also plan for highly diverse language ecologies in which a maximum
number of languages could be sustained. Given the extent of which traditional
language ecologies have been disrupted, this would seem a logical task for future
language planners. However, management of complex diversity presupposes a great
deal more knowledge than is available to most language planners at present. The idea
was briefly mooted in the context of planning a multi-ethnic, multi-function polis in
South Australia but with the demise of the physical project the plans for cultural and
linguistic diversity have also been shelved.
An interesting project is that of Romansch Grishun (see contributors to Lüdi 1994)
which combines streamlining with planning for diversity. In essence, five very small
Romansch languages were merged with into a single standard variety (Romansch
Grishun) which is recognised as Switzerland’s fourth official language and which is
used side-by-side with the other three official languages in parts of the country. The
concept of merging closely related small languages into a single larger more compet-
itive language is also being tried for Sami and other languages (Wurm 1994). What the
long-term chances of this approach might be remains to be seen.
My remarks on types of language ecologies and speech communities should not be
regarded as either complete or as a statement of linguistic fact. It is a pre-theoretical,
exploratory attempt to classify a very large number of phenomena, each of them
unique, and may require a major revision after more becomes known about the
numerous ways in which human beings establish their linguistic identities, define
themselves vis à vis others and cooperate or compete with one another.

8. Conclusions
Whilst linguists, and to a certain extent sociolinguists, have tended to arrive at gener-
alisations I have in this paper taken the opposite approach. My point is that it is not
possible to make sweeping generalisations as to what languages, speech commu-
nities and language ecologies are. Rather, humanity has over a very long time arrived
at a large number of different solutions to the management of human affairs and to
adapting to environmental conditions.
A grammar in its widest sense accounts for the fact that the whole is more that the
sum of the parts. Sentences, for instance, mean more than what their individual words
cumulatively mean. Speech communities or ecologies too are grammatical
phenomena in the sense that the whole community is more than the sum of its parts.
What matters are the syntagmatic relations or functional links between the parts. At
Linguistic Communities 45

this point only relatively few studies and a small metalinguistic vocabulary exists (e.g.
diglossia, balanced multilingualism) to describe the grammar of entities comprised of
different languages. To understand why so many individual languages are disap-
pearing requires an understanding of the ecological conditions that sustain complex
language ecologies.
Language is inescapably linked to the world and affects the well-being of those
who inhabit it. Language users want more than to communicate information, they
want to maintain social bonds, have a feeling of belonging and identity, to include
and exclude outsiders to varying degrees and to manage their environment. In view
of the numerous problems of overpopulation, genocide, war, displacement and
psychological disturbances in the 21st century, it would seem essential to gain a
greater understanding of healthy as well as pathological aspects of different linguistic
groups and their interactions. An initial step is to adopt an interlinguistic and
ecological perspective in documenting the world’s language communities.
Chapter 2
The Linguistic Heritage
A un populu Enchain
mittitilu a catina a people
spugghiatillu strip it bare,
attupatici a vucca, cover its mouth,
é ancora libiru. it is still free.

Livatici u travagghiu Deprive it of its work

u passaportu of its passport
a tavula unni mancia of the table where it eats
u lettu unni dormi of the bed where it sleeps
é ancora riccu. and it is still rich.

Un populu, A people
diventa poviru e servu, is poor and enslaved
quannu ci arrobbanu a when it is robbed of the
lingua language
addudata di patri: inherited from its parents:
é persu pi sempri. it is lost for ever.

IGNAZIO BUTTITTA, Lingua e Dialettu, (Sicilian poet)

How many languages are spoken in the world? This is a question we have all asked at
one time or another. It is also a question that linguists are often asked and which we
have had to answer on numerous occasions. But the answer linguists give to this type
of question is usually unsatisfactory, as we can only venture an approximate figure.
The fact is that for various reasons it is not easy to give a straightforward answer to this
elementary question. One of the reasons it is difficult to answer is that some parts of our
planet have not yet been described linguistically and that even today, from time to time,
news reaches us of the discovery of new ethnic groups and languages. This happens, for
example, in the islands of Indonesia, in regions of Papua New Guinea and in tropical

46
The Linguistic Heritage 47

regions of South America. In 1998, for example, the Vahuadate and Aukedate ethnic groups
in Indonesia were “discovered” from the point of view of Western culture.
Another reason why it is difficult to answer is related to the names of languages.
Languages, in general, tend to be given more than one name, depending on the neigh-
bouring peoples the speakers have dealings with and the name the speakers them-
selves give their own language. This multiplicity of denominations complicates the
job of identifying the language concealed behind different names. The problem is
such that the Ethnologue (Grimes 2000), for example, speaks of 6,809 languages and
41,806 names for them and their variants.
But the real problem making it difficult to answer is over who should decide when
a variety is a language or a dialect, or, in other words, what concept of language we
are working with. As has been pointed out already by Mühlhäusler, until recently the
concept of European national languages has been decisive in this issue.
Until very recently, Luxemburgian was considered a dialect or variety of German.
Today, though, Luxemburgian, along with German and French, is one of the official
languages in Luxemburg. Who should decide if a variety is an independent language
or a dialect of another language? This is a crucial issue, since the concept of language
varies according to the period, the place, the culture and the society. After all, who can
stop a community with political and economic power that is firmly determined to
defend the rank of language for its speech?
Such a variety of criteria is used that Grimes (2000), for example, mentions seven
different Germanic languages spoken in Germany, while for many these are no more
than varieties of German. The same sort of thing happens with other very widespread
languages in the world, such as Arabic, English or Chinese.
But this question also affects numerous less widespread languages. Who, for
example, should decide whether Achi is a variety of the Maya language K’iche’, as the
Academy of Maya Languages in Guatemala proclaims, or an independent Maya
language, as many of its speakers claim? Who should decide whether the different vari-
eties of Tamazight, Sami or Quechua form a single language or a group of languages?
Mutual understanding as one of the characteristics for defining the autonomy of
languages is not a valid criterion or at least does not work infallibly. Otherwise, why are
Danish, Swedish and Norwegian considered three separate languages if they have no
problem understanding each other? Who decides whether or not the Croatian speaker
understands the Serbian speaker, the Catalan speaker understands the Spanish speaker
or the Urdu speaker understands the Hindi speaker? Furthermore, mutual under-
standing is not always symmetrical and depends to a large extent on people’s attitudes.
But, returning to the original question regarding the number of languages in exis-
tence, most linguists today (Crystal 2000, Nettle 1999, Comrie, Matthews & Polinsky
1996, Wurm 2001, Grenoble & Whaley 1998, Hagège 2000) give global figures
between 5,000 and 6,000 languages, which we shall also use. If we start with the
premise that some 6,000 languages are spoken in the world, their distribution by
continent is approximately as follows: 1,900 in Africa (32%), 900 in America (15%),
1,900 in Asia (32%), 200 in Europe (3%) and 1,100 in the Pacific (18%) (see Diagram 4).
48 Words and Worlds

3%
15% 32% Africa 1900

Asia 1900

Pacific 1100

18% America 900

Europe 200
32%

Diagram 4. Distribution of languages by continent

Based on Krauss 1992 and Grimes 2000

But languages are not uniformly distributed over the different continents either. If
we look at linguistic diversity by territories or states, we see that in 22 states there are
more than 100 languages spoken, or, in other words, that in those 22 states almost 90%
of the languages of the world are spoken (Table 2).

Table 2. Number of languages per state

State Gunnemark (1991) Krauss (1992) Grimes (2000)

Papua New Guinea 750 850 823

Indonesia 300 670 726

India 350 380 387

Nigeria 400 410 505

Cameroon 200 270 279

Mexico – 240 288

Australia 150 250 235

Brazil 150 210 192

Zaire / Congo 200 220–200 218

China – 160–100 201

United States 150 160–100 176

Philippines 100 160–100 169

The Linguistic Heritage 49

Table 2. Continued

State Gunnemark (1991) Krauss (1992) Grimes (2000)

Burma 100 160–100 107

Nepal – 160–100 120

Russia 100 160–100 100

Malaysia 120 160–100 139

Sudan 100 160–100 134

Tanzania 100 160–100 135

Ethiopia – 160–100 82

Chad – 160–100 132

Vanuatu 100 160–100 109

Central African Republic – 160–100 68

Based on Krauss 1992, Grimes 2000, Gunnemark 1991

If we classify languages according to the number of speakers they have, we see that a
few languages, about 80, have more than ten million speakers each – that is, that 1.3%
of languages account for about three quarters of the world population. On the other
hand, 81.8% of languages do not exceed 100,000 speakers and 55.5% do not exceed
10,000, though on this question the sources differ considerably (Table 3).
50 Words and Worlds

Table 3. Languages and number of speakers

Number of speakers Number of Percentage of Ascendant Descending

languages total number accumulated accumulated
of languages percentage percentage

More than 100 million 8 0.1 0.1 100

10 – 99.9 million 72 1.2 1.3 99.9

1 – 9.9 million 239 3.9 5.2 98.7

100,000 – 999,999 795 13.0 18.2 94.8

10,000 – 99,999 1,605 26.3 44.5 81.8

1,000 – 9,999 1,782 29.2 73.7 55.5

100 – 999 1,075 17.6 91.3 26.3

10 – 99 302 4.9 96.2 8.7

1–9 181 3.0 99.2 3.8

1 51 0.8 100 0.8

Based on Crystal 2000

THE LANGUAGES OF NIGERIA

Nigeria, with a population of about 100 million, has a little over 400 languages,
most of which belong to two large families: Niger-Congo (whose largest sub-
family is Benue-Congo), and Afro-Asiatic (whose largest sub-family is Chadic).
These two sub-families between them account for most of the country’s
languages. In fact, Hausa, one of the country’s three major languages, is Chadic,
while the other two, Yoruba and Igbo, are Benue-Congo. Another interesting
thing about these sub-families is that Chadic is found mainly in the northern,
and northeastern areas, while Benue-Congo spreads across the southern and
central parts of the country. The third family, Nilo-Saharan, is represented
mainly by Kanuri in the northeastern tip of the country. In addition to languages
The Linguistic Heritage 51

that are indigenous to the country, English is the official language, Nigerian
(English-based) Pidgin is an informal medium, and Arabic is used mainly in
connection with Islam.
It should be clear from the foregoing that Nigeria is typically multilingual
with all the challenges that characterise multilingualism. The fact that there are
400 languages to 100 million people does not imply that each language is
spoken by ¼ million persons. The three major languages account for about 55
million native speakers, while another 10 million speak one or more of them as
an additional language. If a language is not regarded as major, it does not mean
it is minor. In practically every State, there is a main language which can be
promoted and there are hundreds of smaller languages at the local level.
Ideally, all Nigerian languages should find a role at the national, State or local
level. The ideal is however often different from reality. In spite of policies
purporting to enhance the status and role of Nigerian languages, implemen-
tation is generally ineffective. The result is that Nigerian languages are
constantly being bombarded by the dominance of English as the language of
government and administration, education at almost all levels, most of the
media, science and technology and most creative writing. In recent years, inter-
national attention has been focused on endangered languages and the need to
safeguard them. This effort must not be limited to smaller languages alone but
should rightly extend to the dominance of English and the deprivation arising
from lack of use of Nigerian languages in prestigious domains. A major
constraint in this regard is the lack of political will by policy-makers and unfa-
vorable attitudes to indigenous languages engendered by the colonial expe-
rience. If Nigerian languages and cultures are to survive, basic education must
be given in a child’s language and efforts must be made to take measures to
enhance the value and status of indigenous languages. As long as being profi-
cient in Nigerian languages is not seen as conferring any special rewards or
advantages, so long will their use and preservation be hampered.
Ayo Bamgbose
Ibadan University, Nigeria

Although the number of speakers is often considered decisive for the preservation
and future of languages, we would like at this point to stress the relative nature of
this question.
At first sight it seems to be the case, as Nettle (1999), for example, points out, that
below a certain number of speakers a language can have problems surviving. This
author indicates the figure of 10,000 speakers as a crucial threshold. But this issue has
a lot to do with the type of society and culture.
52 Words and Worlds

Languages with less than 10,000 or even 1,000 speakers can form highly viable
communities in which the only language used for all internal purposes is their own.
We find situations of this type, for example, in the communities using the Gumawana
language in Papua New Guinea, which has 367 speakers according to the 1996
census, Nambikwara in Brazil, with almost 1,000 speakers of which 95% are mono-
lingual, Ka’apor in Brazil, with less than 500 speakers of which 90% are monolingual,
Onobasulu in Papua New Guinea, with some 500 speakers, or Secoya in Ecuador,
with a similar number of speakers. Similar situations have been described on
numerous occasions and in a variety of places, such as the Caucasian language
Hinukh in Dagestan (Kibrik 1991) or the Baiso language of Ethiopia (Hagège 2000).
The community’s cohesion and its wish to maintain its language and culture can
decide their future and so it has been for centuries, as in the case of Baiso in Ethiopia,
mentioned above, which for more than a millennium has resisted competition from
more widespread languages around it. In other words, as well as the number of
speakers, the vitality shown by the language is fundamental.
On the other hand, there are languages with more than 10,000 speakers in situa-
tions of extreme danger. This is the case, for example, of Breton in France. According
to figures by Broudic (1999), although Breton has more than 250,000 speakers, due to
the percentage of speakers in the total population (Diagram 5) and their distribution
by generation (Diagram 6), the situation seems highly delicate.
Global figures for Breton for 1997 (Diagram 6) seem to indicate a rapid reduction in
the number of speakers in the coming years, although at the end of the nineteenth
century it had almost one and a half million speakers.
The number of speakers of a language therefore seems to be a relative aspect. However,
a decrease in the number of speakers is an important indicator, as all the experts agree.
It is a known fact, for example, that in many parts of the planet aboriginal
languages are seeing an alarming decrease in numbers of speakers in a trend that
leads to extinction. By way of example, let us look at the extremely disturbing figures
for the percentage of speakers of aboriginal languages in Canada and Australia
(Diagrams 7 and 8) based on recent censuses.

9%
Good knowledge
57% 11%
Fairly good knowledge

A few words

Nothing
23%

Diagram 5. Knowledge of Breton in 1997

Based on Broudic 1999
The Linguistic Heritage 53

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
74+ years 60–74 years 40–59 years 20–39 years 15–19 years

Diagram 6. Percentage of speakers of Breton by age group in 1997

Based on Broudic 1999

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 1996

Diagram 7. Evolution of the percentage of the indigenous population speaking an

aboriginal language in Canada
Based on Norris 1998
54 Words and Worlds

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20.4 20
20 14
10
0
1986 1991 1996

Diagram 8. Evolution of the percentage of the indigenous population speaking an

aboriginal language in Australia
Based on McConvell and Thieberger 2001

There now follows the contribution by Professor Moreno Cabrera (Autonomous

University of Madrid) on linguistic diversity (pp. 54–90). The subjects presented are,
first of all, linguistic diversity on the individual, genetic and structural or typological
planes, secondly, the location of linguistic diversity in the different parts of the world
with particular reference to endangered languages, thirdly, the loss of linguistic
heritage and the need to understand the equality and dignity of all human languages
and cultures, and finally, the alarming consequences of the internationalisation of
English, which the author calls Anglo-Saxon linguistic imperialism.

Linguistic diversity in the twenty-first century

Defending our languages and their diversity, particularly against the domination
of a single language is more than defending our cultures. It is defending our life.
(Hagège 2000)
We shall now take a look at the planet’s linguistic diversity and we shall see that this
linguistic diversity is in very serious danger. The rate at which the languages and
cultures of the less favoured communities are disappearing is increasing steadily and
the numerous warnings that have been issued do not seem to have been able to halt the
phenomenon in any significant way. It is impossible to discuss the planet’s present
linguistic diversity without referring to this circumstance. For this reason, in the last
section of this contribution the causes for this dramatic situation are analysed briefly
The Linguistic Heritage 55

and it is argued that the acceleration in the loss of the world’s linguistic wealth has a lot
to do with the steady internationalisation of English, which is not based on a sponta-
neous or natural phenomenon but on certain monolingual models of acculturation that
are becoming more and more widespread over the length and breadth of the planet.

Linguistic diversity
In this section we shall establish the theoretical bases of linguistic diversity so as to
make empirical considerations on this aspect in subsequent sections.
We can distinguish three types of linguistic diversity (Nettle 1999): individual,
genetic and typological.

• Individual diversity refers to the number of languages spoken in the world; it is

therefore determined by counting the number of languages spoken in each area of
the planet.
• Genetic diversity is determined by the number of linguistic families that exist in
today’s world. Here, therefore, we count the number of genetically related
language groups, called families, that there are in the world.
• Structural diversity refers to the degree of variability in the grammatical structures
of the world’s languages. We shall examine these three types of diversity in the
following sections.

We shall examine these three approaches to the concept of linguistic diversity in turn,
since all three have important aspects for evaluating and understanding it.

Individual diversity
As has been pointed out above, it is quite difficult to count the number of languages
spoken in the world, as the criteria applied in different parts of the world are not the
same. In countries where one or more standard languages have been officially adopted
by the state, that language is usually counted as a single individual, even though there
are varieties that differ to a greater or lesser degree. For example, English, German,
Chinese and Russian are all counted as four single languages in most accounts, when
it is well known that these languages include a large number of different linguistic
varieties that are far from identical to one another. Nevertheless, this situation only
occurs in certain parts of the world. There are places in the world that have no official
standard languages, but a set of more or less similar linguistic varieties which are very
often counted as separate languages, even though they resemble one another more
than some of the varieties included in the languages mentioned above.
Calculations of individual linguistic diversity on a world level are therefore
biased, as they reduce linguistic diversity in the industrialised societies and
increase linguistic diversity in the other societies. This creates the false impression
that the so-called backward societies of the third world show a great linguistic
diversity and that that diversity is one of the factors contributing to their so-called
56 Words and Worlds

backwardness, stagnation or isolation. As we shall see in chapter four, these are

racist ideas, despite attempts to back them up with seemingly objective facts and
figures. The fact is that in Western industrialised societies linguistic variety is
similar to that in third world countries, but this variety is disguised and hidden by
the existence of standard languages. It is well known that in that part of Europe
going from Vienna to Amsterdam there is a chain of Germanic varieties which are
locally mutually intelligible and which are disguised behind generic terms like
German or Dutch. There is no doubt that the countries making up this part of
Europe (Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium) are
amongst the most advanced, civilised and developed in the world. The same sort of
thing goes for France, Great Britain, Italy and Spain. No correlation can therefore be
established between a high level of linguistic diversity and social, political or
economic underdevelopment, isolation or stagnation. In addition, in many Western
societies, as a result of immigration, there is a very appreciable number of speakers
of non-European languages which should be counted as European languages of
non-European origin. Something similar can be said of the United States and
Canada. According to Grimes (1996), for example, in Great Britain there are thought
to be at least 140,000 speakers of Gujarati, an Indo-Arian language from India; in
France, there are more than 600,000 speakers of Algerian Arabic, more than 500,000
speakers of Kabyle, a language of the Algerian Berber family, and more than 200,000
speakers of Tunisian Arabic.
In the thirteenth edition of the catalogue of languages Ethnologue (Grimes 1996), a
total of 6,703 languages are listed. However, this figure is biased by the considerations
we have just made. Even so, the increase as a result of splitting up languages like
German or Italian could be compensated by the reduction in the number as a result of
merging many varieties of indigenous languages which are given as separate
languages. For example, the Ethnologue lists more than thirty-five Quechua
languages, which could be reduced to just one or two if we used criteria like those
applied, for example, in Europe, even though there is no official unified Quechua
adopted as a standard language.
The problem is much more difficult in the case of areas like Papua New Guinea,
where most of the indigenous languages (871, according to this catalogue) are
known only poorly or not at all, so that in many cases their degree of similarity
cannot be assessed.
Even so, a figure of around 6,000 could be taken as the approximate number of
languages spoken in the world today.
Where languages do show considerable variation is in the number of speakers.
The imbalances on a world level are very big and to some extent reflect other
imbalances in the world economic and political structure. The following table
(Table 4) is sufficiently illustrative.
The Linguistic Heritage 57

Table 4. Percentages of languages with less speakers than the figure indicated

Continent <150 <1,000 <10,000 <100,000 <1,000,000

Africa 1.7 7.5 32.6 72.5 94.2

Asia 5.5 21.4 52.8 81 93.8

Europe 1.9 9.9 30.2 46.9 71.6

North America 22.6 41.6 77.8 96.3 100

Central America 6.1 12.1 36.4 89.4 100

South America 27.8 51.8 76.5 89.1 94.1

Pacific / Australia 22.9 60.4 92.8 99.5 100

World 11.5 30.1 59.4 83.8 95.2

Source: Nettle 1999

Although the number of speakers is only one of the factors influencing the preser-
vation and survival of a language, the fact is that the smaller this number is the more
weight this factor carries in the risk situation facing a particular language.
If we take the figure of 10,000 speakers (Nettle 1999) as the threshold below which
the factor of the number of speakers can be considered decisive for the survival of a
language, then of the approximately 6,000 languages in the world 59.4% of
languages have fewer than 10,000 speakers, which amounts to 3,564 languages. In
other words, in the course of the twenty-first century, in view of their endangered
situation, it is very possible that half of the languages spoken today could disappear.
Amongst them, 30.1% – that is, 1,806 languages – have less than 1,000 speakers. It is
possible that most, if not all, of these languages are doomed to extinction in a
question of decades.
If we take into account languages with fewer than 100,000 speakers, which Nettle
himself (1999) defines as languages whose future is seriously endangered this
century, then we get 83.8% of 6,000 languages, which means rather more than 5,000
languages. On this basis, only about 1,000 languages can be considered strong
languages from the demographic point of view.
The simple fact that there are almost 3,500 – or, perhaps more realistically, 5,000
– languages in danger (almost 2,000 of them very seriously), along with the
cultures for which they are a vehicle, is a cultural catastrophe of a truly over-
whelming magnitude. As Nettle says, “Most of our human heritage is disap-
pearing before our eyes” (1999).
58 Words and Worlds

We may wonder what the cause of this situation is. There are undoubtedly multiple
causes of a historical, economic, political and cultural nature which ought to be
studied at length. What we can say is that at the heart of this situation and of its steady
acceleration at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first
can be found, amongst other things, an efficient policy of discrimination, marginali-
sation and assimilation that has been and is still being applied on a global scale, as I
shall explain later.

Genetic diversity
Since the beginning of historical-comparative linguistics in the nineteenth century it
has been known that many languages can be classified into larger units called
linguistic families, which contain all those languages that have arisen as a result of
the process of differentiation of a particular ancestral language, known as the parent
language. One historically recent case is the Romance family, which includes
languages like Spanish, French, Italian, Romansh, Sardinian, Catalan, Galician,
Friulan, Ladino, Occitan, whose parent language is vulgar Latin. Although no
written testimonies of them have survived, the Germanic languages – German,
Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, for example – and the Slavic languages –
Russian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, for example – are also
each descended from their own parent languages and therefore form two distinct
linguistic families. Outside Europe we find a similar situation. The more than 1,000
Austronesian languages, which cover most of the Pacific Islands, Indonesia,
Malaysia and the Philippines, seem to be descended from an ancestral language for
which there is no written evidence, which is known as Proto-Austronesian and could
be about 6,000 years old. Similarly, the Bantu languages of Central and Southern
Africa arose from an ancestral language called Proto-Bantu which must have been
located somewhere in today’s Cameroon and whose speakers expanded towards the
equatorial forests of the Congo about 5,000 years ago.
Several linguistic families have in turn been shown to be genetically related. For
example, the Romance, Germanic and Slavic families (along with other families and
languages) are demonstrably related to one another and it is therefore postulated that
they are descended from one ancestral language usually called Indo-European. A set
of related families, taking a term from biology, is called a phylum. So we have the
Indo-European phylum, to which languages like Sardinian, Dutch, Greek, Armenian,
Belarusan, Breton and Lithuanian belong, languages which at first sight have nothing
to do with one another. Similarly, the Bantu, Iyoide, Atlantic, Mande and Kordofanian
linguistic families of western and central Sub-Saharian Africa seem to be genetically
related and an ancestral language called Proto-Niger-Congo has also been postulated
with an age of about 15,000 years.
Unfortunately, it has not always been possible to determine how the various
linguistic families discovered in the world are linked genetically, although there are
proposals – some riskier or bolder than others – which at all events should be seen as
The Linguistic Heritage 59

speculations for research rather than reliable results. The American continent
provides an illustrative case. The approximately 900 languages of America can be
grouped in the following linguistic families:

Linguistic families of America

Na-Dené (North America, 41 languages)

Eskimo Aleut (North America, 9 languages)
Hokan (North America, 43 languages)
Penutian (North America, 92 languages)
Almosan (North America, 62 languages)
Keres (North America, 35 languages)
Oto-Manguean (Central America, 19 languages)
Uto-Aztecan (Central America, 33 languages)
Tanoan (Central America, 8 languages)
Ge-Pano-Carib (Central and South America, 193 languages)
Tucanoan (South America, 59 languages)
Equatorial (South America, 209 languages)
Chibchan-Páez (Central and South America, 71 languages)
Andean (South America, 30 languages)

Although not all these linguistic families are felt to have been convincingly demon-
strated, since some are based solely on a few clues which do not necessarily prove
their genetic relation (Campbell 1997), we can nevertheless say that the 900
languages belong to just fourteen linguistic families. One author, Joseph Greenberg,
a pioneer in the classification of the linguistic families of Africa, has proposed a
macro-phylum called Amerindian (Greenberg 1987), which would contain all the
families listed except Eskimo-Aleut and Na-Dené in a single phylum. In that way,
America would have just three native language groups, although, as I say, this
proposal is considered too uncertain.
All together, and with the exception of a few dozen languages that are considered
genetic isolates – that is, lone remnants of possible extinct families or phyla – we can
say that 90% of human languages belong to one of the following phyla or families.
(see also Map 1.)
60 Words and Worlds

Genetic groupings of the languages of the world

Afro-Asiatic (includes the Semitic family)

Niger-Congo (includes the Bantu family)
Khoisan (includes Bushman and Hottentot)
Nilo-Saharan
Altaic (includes the Turkic family)
Uralic (includes Finnish and Hungarian)
Chukchi-Kamchatkan (includes Chukchi and Itelmen)
Languages of America (a least twelve phyla or linguistic families)
Eskimo-Aleut (includes Inuktitut, Yupiit and Aleut)
Na-Dené (includes the Attabascan family with the Apache languages)
Australian (includes the Pama-Nyungan family of South Australia)
Mon-Cambodian (includes Cambodian and Vietnamese)
Munda (India)
Daic (includes Tai)
Austronesian (includes the Malayo-Polynesian family)
Miao-Yao
Sino-Tibetan (includes the Sinic family)
Andamanese (Andaman Islands)
Papuan (includes the trans-Guinean phylum, which covers most of New Guinea)
Indo-European (includes the Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic and Celtic families)
Southern Caucasian (includes Georgian)
Northern Caucasian (includes Chechen)
Isolated languages: Japanese, Korean, Basque

Therefore, the immense majority of the world’s languages can be classified in these 33
phyla or linguistic families (counting the families gathered under the Amerindian
macrophylum individually).
The Linguistic Heritage 61

Typological diversity
Typological diversity refers to the diversity of grammatical features to be found in the
world’s languages.
First, all the languages of the world have an identical general structure: there are
elementary significant units (words) and all those words consist of one or more
syllables and these syllables, in turn, consist of a concatenation of distinct units of
speech, without meaning, called phonemes. Any utterance in any human language
can be analysed in this way. For example the West Greenland Inuktitut (Manning
1996) word neqitorpunga, “I ate meat”, is broken up as follows: neqi-tor-pu-nga,
where neqi means “meat”, tor means “to eat”, pu is the morpheme for the indicative
mood and nga denotes the first person singular. In turn, each of these elements
consists of one or more syllables (ne-qi). Each of these syllables consists of several
phonemes – for example, tor is obtained by the concatenation of three phonemes:
/t/, /o/ and /r/.
Expressions in all known human languages can be analysed in this way, showing
the deep fundamental affinity between all of them.
Within the sphere of phonetics, variability is not very great, since the human speech
organs limit the possibilities for the production of sounds. Vowels such as [a] or [i] are
very common in languages, the consonants [t] and [k] or [m] and [n] are amongst the
most common. There are more complex sounds that are less widespread in the world’s
languages. For example, the pharyngealised voiced nasal velar, the affricative
voiceless retroflex, the voiceless palato-alveolar fricative lateral, or the voiced pharyn-
gealised dento-alveolar vibrant have been found in very few languages. All these
sounds arise through the combination of simpler articulatory gestures that are much
more frequent in human languages.
As regards the syllable, it seems that the immense majority of humanity’s
languages contain syllables of the CV type (a consonant followed by a vowel, as in ka),
although the CCV (kra), VC (ak), CVC (kak) and CCVCC (krans) types occur with
varying frequency in a wide range of languages. Several languages also have diph-
thongs such as ya or ay.
In the sphere of words we find that languages are unequally distributed between
analytic procedures, in which each word tends to be associated with a simple
meaning, and the synthetic model, in which a word is associated with a complex
meaning composed of simple meanings. For example, the Inuktitut word neqitor-
punga shows a high degree of synthesis as it includes four significant elements. In the
English translation of this expression “I ate meat” we have three words with a simpler
meaning: “I”, the first person singular pronoun, “ate”, the past of the verb “to eat”,
and “meat”. What in Inuktitut is expressed through just one word requires three
words in English. In this respect, therefore, Inuktitut is more synthetic than English
and English is more analytical than Inuktitut. In spite of this superficial difference, the
correspondence between the two languages is perfect:
62 Words and Worlds

Correspondence of the Inuktitut neqitorpunga with the English “I ate meat”

English I ate meat
Inuktitut –nga –torpu– neqi–

The only difference is that what Inuktitut can do in the morphology English has to do
it in the syntax. However, the English “I” is not as autonomous a word as “meat” and
could in some ways be said to act more like a prefix than a separate word (in fact, it is
difficult to find contexts in which “I” appears alone in a sentence).
In syntax we also find a fairly restricted diversity, since syntactic mechanisms can
only be expressed by the following means: word order, function markers and into-
nation. Normally, the last procedure is present along with one of the other two.
For example, to distinguish the object from the subject of an action, Spanish can
resort to the use of a preposition to mark the object: Juan vio a María (“Juan saw
María”), where Juan denotes the subject and a María denotes the object. In Basque the
opposite occurs: Jonek María ikusi zuen, where the ending –(e)k in Jonek indicates the
agent function. Furthermore, the auxiliary verb zuen indicates a subject and an object
in the third person, so that the function of the participants is also marked in the
auxiliary verb form. In English, the order of the words is what indicates the function:
“John saw Mary” as opposed to “Mary saw John”. Languages in this aspect use one of
these procedures or a combination of them, so that diversity is limited.
In vocabulary, languages have some elements in common and elements specific to
each one. There is a basic vocabulary that denotes common elements of nature and of
the human being itself and which appear in all languages. The known languages have
words for “sun”, “water”, “moon”, “star”, “head”, “leg”, “eye” or “tongue” and
words denoting basic actions such as “eat”, “urinate”, “copulate”, “walk”, “run”,
“sleep”, etc. These words from the basic vocabulary are the ones commonly used to
determine the genetic relation between two or more languages.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ETHNOLOGUE TO THE REVIVAL OF

WORLD LANGUAGES

The Ethnologue: Languages of the World began in 1951 as a catalogue of the

languages of the world, and has been published in successive editions ever
since by SIL International. It includes information about language names,
alternate names, a unique three-letter identification code for each language,
speaker population date and source, size of the ethnic group, number of
second language speakers, location, names of different countries where the
The Linguistic Heritage 63

language is spoken, names of dialects and their alternate names, language

family it belongs to, closeness of dialects, the second language used by
speakers, and other information.
Information has come from field linguists under SIL International, other
linguists, other scholars, linguistic publications and reports, and other indi-
viduals and organisations.
The latest edition, the 14th, was published in the year 2000. It is printed as two
volumes with a total of 1,584 pages. It has information on 6,809 living
languages, as well as some extinct languages, and some languages used as
second languages only. It includes language maps of many countries, a
language family index, and a language name index that includes 41,806
language, dialect, and alternate names.
The number of languages listed has grown with most editions, as infor-
mation about additional languages and corrections become available. Since
1990 the Ethnologue has been on the Internet, increasing feedback and questions
from users.
Since 1974 the Ethnologue has included growing information about creole
languages, often thought by some people to be dialects or corrupted varieties of
the languages on which they are based. Creole languages are the mother
tongues of a group of people, but pidgin languages are used only for contact
purposes among speakers of other languages. The 2000 edition includes 82
creole languages and 17 pidgin languages.
Since 1984 or earlier the Ethnologue has included growing information
about nonstandard and regional languages that have no official status, and
are often considered to be dialects of better known languages, although their
speakers cannot understand the better-known language of which they are
thought to be dialects.
Since 1988 Deaf sign languages have been included in the Ethnologue. It may
provide a more complete listing than is available elsewhere. The 2000 edition
includes 114 of them.
The 2000 edition of the Ethnologue includes information on 8 mixed
languages, of growing interest to linguists. Earlier information was provided on
some of these, including Gypsy languages and Jewish languages. In the 2000
edition 15 Gypsy languages and 27 Jewish languages are listed. Linguists have
used the Ethnologue as one of their sources to provide information on endan-
gered languages in the world. It is hoped and planned that its accuracy and
usefulness will continue.
Barbara F. Grimes
Ethnologue Ed.
64 Words and Worlds

The location of linguistic diversity

According to Grimes (1996), out of a total of 6,703 languages, 1,000 – that is, 15% – are
of American origin; 2,011 – that is, 30% – are of African origin; 225 – that is, just 3% –
are of European origin; 2,175 – that is, 32% – are of Asian origin; and 1,302 – that is,
19% – are of Pacific origin. That means that 97% of the planet’s linguistic wealth has
its origin outside of Europe.
What most draws one’s attention about the linguistic situation of the twenty-first
century are the monstrous inequalities that exist between the world’s languages.
Most of them are spoken by very few people and a few are enormously widespread.
In America there are two clearly predominant languages: English in the North and
Spanish in the South, with a considerable presence of Portuguese (Brazil) and French
(Canada, United States and the Caribbean Islands).
In Africa, Arabic in the north, English in the west, centre and south, French in the
west and centre and Portuguese are the colonial languages that dominate in many
decisive political spheres. Native African languages, like Wolof, Hausa, Yoruba,
Swahili and a few others are also widespread and influential.
In Europe, each state has its dominant language or languages, though English,
German and French occupy important spheres, either because of the number of coun-
tries in which these languages are official (the case of German and to a lesser extent of
French and English) or because of their economic, political and cultural influence
(English and French).
In Northern and Central Asia, Russian still occupies an important place as an inter-
national language, in spite of the disappearance of the USSR. On the Indian subcon-
tinent there is appreciable linguistic variation with an important demographic basis,
but English, a colonial inheritance, still plays a decisive role in many spheres. In East
Asia, Chinese occupies an important position because of demographic and political
factors and its cultural influence, along with Japanese as a language associated with a
country with great economic power and cultural prestige. French still enjoys a certain
influence in Indochina, as a remnant of its colonial inheritance.
In the Pacific, we have Indonesian as a language associated with power centres and
French and especially English and French as the dominant languages in many areas
(Australia, New Zealand and several Pacific Islands).
Beneath this apparent linguistic homogeneity is a much more complex reality in
which we find most of the languages of the world, an enormous cultural heritage
which in many cases is gradually languishing and disappearing while the centres of
cultural, political and economic power do not feel sufficiently involved or concerned.
Let us briefly examine the linguistic situation of the world, paying particular
attention to this endangered cultural heritage of Humanity. We shall start our
overview with the linguistic phyla and families and we shall take our figures from
Grimes (1996), which gathers the results of a wide range of studies of this issue.
The Linguistic Heritage 65

North America
We have already given figures for the Eskimo-Aleut family in the previous section.
Most of the indigenous languages of North America (Canada and USA) are in a very
bad situation. For example, the Salish family of British Columbia (south-west
Canada) consists of many languages with fewer than 100 speakers and a few with
around 500. Of the Na-Dené phylum (Canada and USA), at least 27 languages have
fewer than 1,000 speakers. Navajo, the indigenous language with the largest number
of speakers, belongs to this phylum. Fishman (1991) reports that in the largest
indigenous population in the United States, the Navajo, only half (about 100,000)
speak Navajo. A more recent study has raised the alarm:
As for Navajo, which is one of the healthier American indigenous languages and
cultures by most measures, Diné language and ways of life are deeply endan-
gered. The shift from Navajo to English…is taking place with extraordinary
speed. (Lee and McLaughlin 2001)
Of some 25 languages in the Algonquin phylum (Canada and USA), there are 15 with
fewer than 5,000 speakers. Of the 13 remaining languages in the Sioux family (USA),
12 have fewer than 10,000 speakers, nine have fewer than 1,000 and seven have fewer
than 100. The Iroquoian family is no better off: of the six languages in this family, five
have fewer than 5,000 speakers, most of them fewer than 1,000. The four remaining
languages of the Caddo family (USA) have fewer than 1,000 speakers. Of the 28
languages of the Penutian phylum (USA), there are at least 18 with fewer than 100
speakers, so that the chances for survival for most of these languages are slim.
The situation of the indigenous languages of North America, then, is absolutely
desperate. It is almost certain that all of them will disappear during the present century.

Central America
Most of the languages making up the various families of the Hokan phylum are already
extinct or have fewer – in many cases far fewer – than 500 speakers. For example, of the
Salinan-Serian family, only speakers of Seri in Mexico remain (about 700), the other two
languages in this family, Chumashan and Salinan (California) are already extinct.
In the Chibchan family (Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, Costa Rica,
Colombia, Ecuador), 70% of the languages have fewer than 5,000 speakers, most of
them fewer than 1,000.
All of the languages of the Amuzgoan, Chiapanec-Manguean and Chinantecan
families (Mexico) have fewer than 10,000 speakers, most fewer than 5,000. Most of the
languages of the Popolocan family of Mexico have fewer than 5,000 speakers. Other
language families of Mexico, such as Mixtecan, Mayan, Aztecan and Zapotecan, have
a much higher number of speakers. In Mexico, then, we find a degree of preservation
of indigenous languages which is totally unknown in the rest of North America,
which does not mean that these indigenous American languages are entirely free
from danger, in view of their low status of recognition and association induced from
66 Words and Worlds

above and very often assumed from below with poverty and ignorance. The general
situation is characterised as follows:
Language policy in Mexico can be summarised as a tendency to unify the country
linguistically and make native languages disappear. The policy is based on the rela-
tions established by the indigenous groups with Spanish-speaking sectors which in
turn are based on economic relations and social discrimination transmitted by the
media, religion and primarily by the educational system. Since 1964 there is
supposedly bilingual and bicultural education. It has amounted to making the
communicative barrier between teachers and students less abrupt, but it isn’t a real
system of bilingual education and it certainly is not bicultural: the teaching mate-
rials are inadequate, the teachers are not qualified and above all their attitude is
negative. What they do is use the native language to teach Spanish. (Lastra 2001)

South America
The languages of the Ge and Pano families (Brazil) do not exceed 1,000 speakers in most
cases. Most of the languages of the Cariban family (Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia) have
fewer than 5,000 speakers. The Mataco-Guaicuru family (Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia,
Paraguay) consists of languages which also have fewer than 1,000 speakers. The
Huitotoan family (Peru, Colombia) is also seriously threatened, as most of its languages
have fewer than 1,000 speakers. The Arawakan family (Brazil, Colombia, Peru,
Venezuela) has 90% of its languages below the 5,000-speaker mark. Ninety-three
percent of the Tupian languages (Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay) have fewer than 5,000
speakers. Paraguayan Guarani alone stands out with some 4.5 million speakers. More
than half the languages of the Tucanoan family (Brazil, Colombia, Peru) have fewer than
1,000 speakers. The Yanomami family (Brazil, Venezuela) is made up of five languages,
four of which have fewer than 10,000 speakers. The Páez-Barbacoan family (Colombia,
Ecuador) has several languages with fewer than 10,000 speakers. Of the Andean family,
excepting Quechua, the rest are on the verge of extinction. The Zaparo family (Peru,
Ecuador) is made up of a series of languages having fewer than 200 speakers. Of the
Alakaluf family (Chile), only one language, Kaweskar, remains, with about twenty
speakers. Of the Araucanian family (Chile), only two languages remain, one of which,
Mapuche, still has more than 400,000 speakers. But some families are already extinct or
are on the verge of extinction, like Cahuapanan (Peru) or Chon (Argentina). But even a
language with millions of speakers, like Quechua, mentioned above, can be considered
endangered. This is how two researchers see the present situation:
While the position of Quechua varies greatly from one community and region to
the next, there are substantial sociolinguistic data which indicate that Quechua is
indeed a declining and threatened language. In Peru, for example, figures from
the official census reveal that Quechua monolingualism is steadily giving way to
temporary, subtractive bilingualism in one generation, followed by Spanish
monolingualism in the next. (Hornberger and King 2001)
The Linguistic Heritage 67

As we can see, the survival of most of the indigenous languages of America is

extremely precarious, even in the case of many languages with a large number of
speakers. There is only one country in America where an indigenous language clearly
dominates, though only in the rural world (Paraguay).

Africa
In North Africa the Berber family, while containing languages with an appreciable
number of speakers, is cornered and constantly threatened by the predominance
of Arabic.
The Biu-Mandara family, of the Chadic phylum (Nigeria, Cameroon), consists of 48
languages with fewer than 10,000 speakers. Of the Omotic languages of Ethiopia, 42%
have fewer than 10,000 speakers.
Of the 94 languages of the Nilo-Saharan phylum, 75 have fewer than 10,000 speakers.
In the Khoisan family (Namibia, Angola, Botswana), there are just over 30
languages, of which more than 20 have fewer or far fewer than 5,000 speakers.
The large Niger-Congo phylum, which includes the large Bantu family, is the
richest and most widespread of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa (it covers western,
central and southern sub-Saharan Africa), but that does not mean that there are not
dozens of languages in this phylum in serious danger of disappearing under the
pressure from other more widespread languages, both African and European. Of the
rather more than 640 Bantu or Bantoid languages, more than 200 have fewer than
10,000 speakers. We could mention the Bantu languages of the H and C areas. In the H
area (Democratic Republic of Congo, Congo, Angola), there are some 19 languages of
which at least 12 can be considered endangered. In the C area (Democratic Republic
of Congo, Congo, Central African Republic), there are rather more than 70 Bantu
languages of which about 35 seem to have fewer than 5,000 speakers.
The situation of the Adamawa families is especially worrying, with 61% of
languages with fewer than 10,000 speakers. The languages of the Kordofanian family
(Sudan) do not seem to be in a very hopeful situation, either. It comprises some 31
languages, of which 20 have fewer than 10,000 speakers and 13 fewer than 5,000.
Most of the native languages of Africa are under pressure from two directions:
from the large native languages of Africa-Swahili, Kikuyu, Bambara, Fulani,
Amharic, Tigriña, Lingala, Luba Congo, Lugando, Lugbara, Ebe, Wolof, Yoruba,
Hausa and Igbo:
These major languages are like big fish that deliberately go out to swallow up the
smaller languages. Their functional dominance in the national scheme of things
dictates, willy nilly, that anyone who desires any meaningful participation in
national life must learn to use at least one of them. (Adegbija 2001)
and from the European languages inherited from the colonial period:
The very presence of European languages and the disproportional prestige asso-
ciated with them overtly and covertly by virtue of the dynamic roles that they have
68 Words and Worlds

played in national life since colonial times is a major threat to African languages
which, functionally, become insignificant by comparison. (Adegbija 2001)

THE FUTURE OF FRENCH IN AFRICA

With its nearly 2000 languages, Africa is the continent of multilingualism. This
explains why many states have granted a European language the status of
exclusive or not exclusive official language. French enjoys this status in about
twenty of them, essentially in sub-Saharan Africa. It is also widespread in the
Arabic-speaking Maghreb. Many states in the anglicised or Portuguese-
speaking areas have chosen it as a second foreign language in their concern for
economic trade with their neighbours.
Yet the 27 African member States of the institutional Francophonie cannot be
considered as ‘French-speaking’. All sociolinguistic surveys stress the great
diversity in intercommunication situations that characterise those countries, the
vitality of their own languages and the gap between the de jure status and reality
in the field.
The dissemination and vernacularisation of French in Africa are linked to
schooling and urbanisation processes. The excessively low schooling rates –
hardly 30% in the South of Sahara – and totally inadequate and exclusive
education systems cannot satisfy the enormous need for integration and devel-
opment of a fast growing school-age population. So the French that is spreading
is a street-French. One can therefore wonder whether its appropriation by
Africans will convert it into a language very different from that spoken in the
former metropolis. Regional varieties of French have already appeared, such as
Cameroonese, Congolese, Ivorian, Senegalese, and so forth.
The massive appropriation of an exogenous language always entails
linguistic changes that constitute an endogenous norm. As opposed to the
imported – or official – norm, that of the popular French corresponds to
informal, home exchanges that are more social and therefore more convivial.
They are evidence of a feeling of linguistic security, of freedom of complexes,
which allows French to really participate in the African identity, to integrate
well into the environment. It is not without reason that linguists speak of “Afro-
French speaking Africa” (Kazadi) or of “French as African language” (Dumont).
The acknowledgement of the different “national” French alone can legitimate
the “plural francophony”.
On the other hand, the media – mostly the audiovisual ones – probably
contribute to maintaining a certain intercomprehension which is necessary for
official, scientific, administrative or economic functions and carries hopes of
social promotion…
The Linguistic Heritage 69

But the major problem is obviously the relationship between French and the
national languages. An initial schooling in the environmental language condi-
tions the harmonious development of any child and any community in respect
of their sound identity.
Shouldn’t we ascribe part of the lack of participation of the majority of so-
called French-speaking Africans in their own development, their difficulty
achieving democracy and academic failure to the cultural uprooting they are
confronted with?
Reconciling tradition and modernity through adequate language planning,
this is the path to follow to allow French to play an irreplaceable role as a feder-
ative element. An effective strategy of functional multilingualism would make
French a second language of access to modernity.
This approach requires interlinguistic articulation of languages based on an
intercultural contract of partnership excluding the very notion of dominant and
dominated language, relying on the respect for “partner languages” and open to
endogenous norms. In this perspective, French is certainly not intended as a
substitute for environmental languages but rather for the “hexagonal” French,
which will confine itself to the fields of sciences and international relations.
Believing that Africans could do without an international language of access
to modernity is as utopian as imagining they could renounce their own
languages in their social relations.
Raymond Renard
University of Mons-Hainaut, Belgium

Europe
Europe is the home of some of the most widespread languages in the world today
(English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian). The existence of independent political
states in association with a particular language has meant that many European
languages, even those with few speakers, enjoy a favourable situation. However, this
does not mean that all the languages of Europe are in good health. Many European
languages are at this moment in a precarious or serious situation. Perhaps the most
obvious example is Romany. The Gypsies have their own language, Romany (a member
of the Indo-Aryan linguistic family), which, following the fate of this people, is cornered,
scattered, despised, fragmented and on the verge of total assimilation and extinction.
Hagège reports (2000) that many speakers of Romany have disappeared through
various attempted genocides. Other authors are just as forthright on this subject:
With regard to Gypsies, policies have always been a negation of the people, their
culture, their language, in different ways. (Liégeois 1992)
70 Words and Worlds

There are a large number of Gypsies in Hungary, the ex-Yugoslav republic of

Macedonia and Romania and they can be found in smaller numbers in other countries
in Western and Eastern Europe. However, Romany is a language with no recognition
or support of any sort in Europe. Romany is perhaps one of the European languages
whose outlook is most uncertain and inevitably tied to the marginalisation and assim-
ilation of the Gypsy people.
In the Caucasus, the richest part of Eastern Europe, linguistically speaking, of
the 34 North-western and North-eastern Caucasian languages, 15 have fewer than
5,000 speakers. (See Map 2.)
There are many languages which in spite of having an appreciable number of
speakers, do not seem to have a very clear future unless decisive action is taken in
their favour. Amongst these languages is Welsh in Wales, Breton in Brittany, Irish
Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic. Frisian, Sami, Casubian, Romansh, Franco-Provençal and
Occitan are also in a precarious situation. Fishman (1991) denounces the massive
erosion of Frisian and its replacement by Dutch, the dominant language in a large
part of the Frisian area and especially in the urban nuclei. Fishman points out that in
the town of Heerenveen, located in the south of the Frisian area, 95% of the popu-
lation spoke Frisian in the 1950s while today the proportion has dropped to 71%, and
in the new districts of the town only 42% of the population speaks Frisian and only
25% of the children of mixed marriages learn Frisian.
An even more precarious situation is the one facing languages like Bable,
Aragonese Fabla, Ladino and Vepsian, which are European languages in serious
danger of disappearing.
It is especially worth mentioning linguistic communities in European states with a
different official language. Denmark, for example, has a community of 20,000
Germans, almost 40,000 Faroese and 50,000 Greenlanders; in France there are more
than one million Alsatians and more than 60,000 Corsicans; in Hungary there are
more than 200,000 Germans and in Italy more than 300,000; in Norway there are more
than 12,000 Finns, in Romania there are more than 1.5 million Hungarians and half a
million more in Slovakia. Hagège (2000) reports that the Hungarian spoken in the east
of Austria faces an extremely serious threat of extinction. In Oberwart, less than 12
kilometres from the border with Hungary, there are about 2,000 people who have
given up Hungarian in favour of the German of Burgenland. Even the European
states themselves do not always guarantee, protect and promote the linguistic rights
of these communities to speak languages as European as the official languages of the
states they belong to.
To all this must be added the languages of the immigrants, which receive little
recognition, prestige, understanding or protection in a part of the world which sees
itself as one of the most advanced.
The Linguistic Heritage 71

NORTHERN CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES

The term “North Caucasus”, as a concept of physical geography, is used to

designate the area comprising the north Caucasus and the north slope of the
Great Caucasus. In Russia, this name has also been applied to the political and
administrative unit that included the provinces of Rostov-on-Don, Krasnodar
and Stavropol and the Republics of Adygeya, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-
Cherkessia, North Osetia-Alania, Ingushetia, Chechenya, Dagestan and
Kalmykia. After the reform of the administrative division of the Russian
Federation implemented in 2000 by President Vladimir Putin, which consisted
of the implementation of seven Federal Districts in the country, governed by
Presidential Delegates, this region has had its surface area increased with the
incorporation of the neighbouring provinces of Astrakhan and Volgograd, a
total of 626,000 square kilometres with more than 19,000,000 inhabitants.
If the Russian Federation is a “nation of nations”, then the Northern Caucasus
is the part of the country with the largest number of peoples and ethnic groups,
speaking almost 50 languages belonging to a wide range of linguistic families.
The Slavonic language family is represented here by Russian, which as well as
being the mother tongue of the Russians living in this area and forming the
majority of the population is spoken as the country’s official language by the
remaining ethnic groups in this District. Two languages belong to the Iranian
family: Osettic (whose autoglottonym is Irón Avzag), the official language (a
status it shares with Russian) of the Republic of North Osettia-Alania, and Tat,
spoken by members of the Tat ethnic group, barely numbering 30,000 people
living in small communities scattered over Dagestan and other republics and
provinces of the Northern Caucasus without forming a compact territory.
Karachay-Balkar (Karachai-Malkar Tif), Kumyk (Kumuk Tif) and Nogai (Nogai
Tif) belong to the Kipchak group of the Turkic language family. All these
languages, like Osettic, belong in the category of the so-called “titular
languages”, or languages of peoples who have given their name to a republic as
a political and administrative unit of the Federation: Karachay-Balkar, spoken
by more than 300,000 people, is the official language of the Republics of
Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia, Nogai is another official
language of Karachay-Cherkessia and Kumyk is one of the official languages of
the Republic of Dagestan. Kalmyk (Jalm Keli), titular language of the Republic
of Kalmykia, is the only language in the Northern Caucasus representing the
Mongolian family of languages.
Under the name of Caucasian languages are included a set of almost 40
languages, linguistic modalities and/or dialects. The area covered by these
languages is made up of the Caucasus and part of Turkey. There are also small
72 Words and Worlds

communities of speakers of Caucasian languages in Syria, Iran, Jordan and

other countries of the Middle East. The total number of speakers of these
languages exceeds 7,000,000 people. According to the most widespread classifi-
cation, the Caucasian languages are usually divided into three groups: Abkhaz-
Adyghian, Kartvelian and Nakho-Dagestanian. Georgian, Mingrelian, Laz
(Chano) and Svan belong to the Kartvelian language group, which has about
3,800,000 speakers spread over an area embracing the Republic of Georgia and
bordering areas of Azerbaijan, Iran and Turkey.
The Abkhazo-Adyghian group (North-West Caucasian languages) is made
up of the following languages: Abkhaz, Abaza, Adyghe, Kabardian-
Cherkessian and Ubikh. Speakers of Abaza (about 350,000 speakers) lack
political and administrative identity and live scattered over various republics
and provinces of the Northern Caucasus. Adyghe, spoken by some 220,000
people, is the titular and official language of the Republic of Adygeya, while the
Kabardian form of Kabardian-Cherkessian, which has some 400,000 speakers, is
titular and official in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria and the Cherkessian
form (more than 50,000 speakers) is titular and official in the Republic of
Karachay-Cherkessia. Abkhaz and Ubikh, like the Kartvelian languages, are, in
strictly geographical terms, located outside the Northern Caucasus and
therefore the Federal District of the South of the Russian Federation: the first is
the official language of Abkhazia, which is a political and administrative unit of
the Republic of Georgia, and the second is spoken by a small community made
up of descendants of the North-Caucasian Ubikh who emigrated to Turkey on
account of the Caucasian war in the nineteenth century.
The Nakho group is made up of three languages: Chechen (Nojchiin Mettan),
the official language of the Republic of Chechenya, spoken by some 700,000
people, Ingush (Galgai Mot), the official language of the Republic of Ingushetia,
spoken by more than 200,000 speakers, and Bats, a language spoken by a
community of almost 3,000 people who live in Georgia.
Amongst Caucasian languages, the most numerous group (consisting of
some 25 languages and linguistic forms with 1,5000,000 speakers) and the most
difficult to classify is Dagestanian, the group of highland Caucasian languages
spoken by numerous ethnic groups who inhabit the Republic of Dagestan. The
most widespread criterion tends to single out two main subgroups amongst the
Dagestanian languages: Avar-Ando-Tsezo (which contains the following
languages presented by their autoglottonym: Avar Matsi, Kvannab Mitsi,
Ashvali Mits, Bagvali, Buijali Mitsi, Chamalaldub Mitsi, Guibdili Mitsi, Kikirli
Mitsi, Bezhkalas Mits, Guinuzas Mets, Jvarshi, Tseios Mits) and Lezguian
(containing languages whose glottonyms are: Lezgui Chal, Tabasaran Chal,
Agul Chal, Rutul, Tsajo, Arshatten Chat and Undino spoken by a small ethnic
The Linguistic Heritage 73

group in Azerbaijan and Georgia). The classification omits Lak (Lakku Maz)
and Dargva (Dargan Mez, with its varieties Jaidako and Urbuko), which are
characterised by a certain “oneness”.
It is worth singling out the demographic potential of four Dagestan languages
(Avar, with more than 600,000 speakers, Dargva, with almost 370,000, Lezguian,
with more than 200,000, and Lak, with more than 100,000), contrasting with most
of the languages of this group, which have between 1,000 and 15,000 speakers.
Following the Russian Parliament’s approval in October 1991 of the “Law of
Languages of the Russian Federation”, the Republics of the Northern
Caucasus passed the respective laws or decrees establishing the “stateship” of
their titular languages (in Russian, the concept of “state language” is
considered the highest element in the tripartite terminological system “state
language – official language – titular language”). As a result of this legislative
action, today we can speak of 14 Northern Caucasian languages that have
been proclaimed state languages: Avar, Adyghe, Chechen, Dargva, Ingush,
Kabardian-Cherkessian, Kalmyk, Karachay-Balkar, Kumyk, Lak, Lezgian,
Nogay, Osettic and Tabassaran. As we can see, there are more state languages
than there are Republics, and this is because some Republics are plurilingual,
as in the case of Dagestan, which has seven state languages, the Republic of
Kabardino-Balkaria, which has two state languages, and the Republic of
Karachay-Cherkessia, which has three. To all these languages must be added
Russian, which is still the state or official language in all the Republics of the
Northern Caucasus.
Alexey Yeschenko
University of Pyatigorsk, Russian Federation

Asia
In the area of Siberia, of the twelve languages belonging to the Tungus family (Altaic
phylum), nine have fewer than 10,000 speakers. We have already seen how the
Chukchi-Kamchatkan of the far northeast of Siberia is also in obvious danger. In a
recent field study on Chukchi, Dunn reaches the following conclusion:
Chukchi is thus a highly endangered language. While at the time of writing there
remain lots of native speakers, transmission of the language to the young has
been disrupted, and political and economic support for language maintenance is
very low. (Dunn 1999)
Of the Yeniseian family, the only surviving language, Ket, has fewer than 1,000 speakers.
Of the 81 languages comprising the Iranian family, there are at least 52 with fewer
than 10,000 speakers.
74 Words and Worlds

In the numerous group of languages of the Indo-Aryan family of northern India,

we find a fairly small proportion of languages with fewer than 10,000 speakers.
Almost 50% of the Nuristani, West and Sinhala-Maldivian groups have fewer than
10,000 speakers. In the Dravidian family of southern India we find languages with
millions of speakers (Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil), but there are also many with
fewer than 10,000, more or less 56% of them.
The Mon-Cambodian family comprises some 150 languages of which more than
100 have fewer than 10,000 speakers. The Munda family in Italy is in a similar situ-
ation, since half of them also have fewer than 10,000 speakers.
The same sort of thing goes for the Daic family, which includes Tai, the national
language of Thailand; approximately half the languages in this family have fewer
than 10,000 speakers.
The Bodic family, belonging to the Sino-Tibetan phylum and located mainly in
Nepal, comprises some 130 languages of which rather more than 80% have fewer
than 10,000 speakers. Of the rather more than fifty languages in the Burmese-Lolo
family, about 20 have fewer than 10,000 speakers. The Karen, Nunguisa and Chian
families (Myanmar, Thailand and China) also have approximately 50% of their
languages below the 10,000-speaker mark.
This is a brief and far from complete overview of the linguistic situation of this part
of the world.

LANGUAGES IN RUSSIA AND CIS COUNTRIES

An ethnic-territorial autonomy is a form of ethnocultural existence in the

Russian Federation, surviving in the post-Soviet space. In Russia, this takes the
form of intra-state entities where the bulk of non-Russian peoples live in a
compact pattern.
As a federative state, today’s Russia is made up of 89 subjects, whose nation-
state entities include 21 republics, 1 autonomous region and 10 autonomous
districts. RF’s non-Russian population amounts roughly to 28 million people, of
whom only 18 million live in “their own” republics. According to census data, a
total of 180 ethnic groups live in RF territory.
From the viewpoint of international law, all of these, barring the Russian
people, may be described as national minorities. However, the content of some
concepts used in international documents is not applicable to Russia in all cases.
Thus, for instance, about 100 Russian ethnic groups developed into “ethnoses”
precisely in the Russian territory, i.e., they are capable of forming a state.
Other groups of peoples in today’s Russia have their “parent ethnoses” beyond
the RF confines. These are more recent ethnic entities, representing peoples living
in the CIS, the Baltic countries, Finland, Poland, Greece, Germany, Korea and so on.
The Linguistic Heritage 75

In addition, in Russia’s territory there live ethnoses which have no state of

their own anywhere, such as Gypsies, Assyrians, Karaims and others.
In Russia, there also exists a group of aboriginal peoples (63), indigenous
ethnic entities whose number ranges from several dozens to several hundreds
and whose languages must become the subject of linguo-ecology study. In other
words, development and preservation of languages of small indigenous
peoples, over 30 of whom live in the North, must become a priority task both for
science and the state.
The year 1996 saw the adoption of the Law “On national-cultural autonomy.”
The law provides the basis for the genuine national-cultural self-determination
of RF citizens who regards themselves as belonging to certain kindred commu-
nities, and for measures to develop national languages, education and culture.
Thus, according to recent data provided by the Ministry of Justice, there are 94
national-cultural autonomies registered in Russia.
Language and cultural processes in the RF are determined by combinations of
three basic factors, namely, polyethnicity of population, the predominant
(Russian) nationality, and the existing structure of the national-territorial
entities.
Micro-censusing of population helps identify an important trend in language
development processes of contemporary Russia’s peoples, which is a growing
bilingualism and a corresponding slow down of the pace of assimilation.
Russia’s schools at present provide training in 38 languages. In close to nine
thousand schools 75 national languages are taught as an official subject.
In a multinational and federative state, which Russia is, constitutional regu-
lation of ethnic processes includes not only regulation of the rights of the indi-
vidual but also of the use of national languages in official relations.
The integrity of the state and the unity of the system of state government
require the use of a single vehicle of official training at the federative level.
Russian is the official state language in the entire RF territory (RF
Constitution, Part 1, Article 68). It is the language of the ethnic majority of
Russia, i.e. 83% of population.
At the same time, however, the RF Constitution (part 3, Article 68) guarantees
all the peoples of Russia “the right to preserve their mother tongue and to create
conditions for its study and development.”
Under the CIS Charter, the Russian language is also the official language in
the relations between CIS countries in post-Soviet territory.
Irina Khaleeva
Moscow State Linguistic University, Russian Federation
76 Words and Worlds

The Pacific
In the Austronesian phylum, which dominates Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines
and the Pacific Islands and which comprises more than 1,200 languages, we find
more than 800 with fewer than 10,000 speakers. This does not mean that these 800
languages are in immediate danger of extinction, but the fact that the drive of
English, the official languages and the vehicle languages of the area (including the
Creole languages and the sabirs) means that their future is in no way assured. One
illustrative example is the New Hebrides archipelago forming the territory of the
state of Vanuatu.
Vanuatu is the country with the world’s highest linguistic density, since it has some
150,000 inhabitants and has rather more than 100 languages, all of them belonging to
the Austronesian family, comprising almost 10% of the entire phylum (Tryon 1999).
This gives a proportion of one language for every 1,500 inhabitants. According to
Tryon (1999), none of these 100 languages is taught in the schools and although none
of them seem to be in danger of immediate disappearance, we must bear in mind that
approximately half of these languages have fewer than 300 speakers. By Tryon’s esti-
mates (1999), the greatest threat to these languages comes from the national language
of Vanuatu, a Creole language based on English and called Bislama. Children in
Vanuatu tend to use this language when they communicate with one another rather
than the languages education takes place in, English and French. Furthermore, the
example set by parents who speak to their children in Bislama instead of their local
language is catching on. Nevertheless, Tryon notes that the fact that the inhabitants of
Vanuatu take pride in their languages and their culture works in favour of the preser-
vation of these languages. According to this author, these feelings can for the time
being guarantee the survival of these languages.
The linguistic variety of the Island of New Guinea is also absolutely amazing. In
Papua New Guinea there are more than 800 languages and in Irian Jaya, the western
part of New Guinea, which belongs to Indonesia, there are more than 250 languages.
The phylum with most languages on the island of New Guinea is Papuan, which
contains numerous linguistic families. Most of these languages have fewer than
10,000 speakers, many of them fewer than 5,000. For example, of the 105 languages of
the Sepik-Ramu family, located in the north of Papua New Guinea, there are rather
more than ninety with fewer than 5,000 speakers. The Madang-Adelbert family has
102 languages, 100 of which are spoken by fewer than 5,000 people. This is the general
pattern in the rest of the families of Papuan languages.
Australia, with some 230 indigenous languages, presents a desolate picture of
suffering and destruction. The linguists’ opinion leaves no room for doubt:
Australian aboriginal languages are dying at a rate of one or more per year.
Although there may have been more than 250 languages before European contact,
some linguists predict that if nothing is done, almost all Aboriginal languages will
be dead by the time this book is published. (Nettle & Romaine 2000)
The Linguistic Heritage 77

The conclusions of a study on the recoverability of these indigenous Australian

languages leaves no room for doubt either:
Despite occasional instances of revival efforts that attain short-term, unexpected
and spiritually uplifting gains for communities of speakers of traditional
languages the pattern of attrition and extinction appears inexorable. (Lo Bianco
and Rhydwen 2001)
We should not be in the least surprised at this dramatic situation. According to
Fishman (1991), the first 150 years after the British occupation of Australia have
been characterised by a shameful history of destruction of Aborigine peoples
through expropriation of their land, destruction of their holy places and inhuman
and demeaning treatment. The results of this genocide are quantifiable: from a
population of more than 250,000 people, in less than a century and a half they were
reduced to 80,000 people. The consequences for linguistic diversity have been
devastating: of at least 300 languages spoken at the time of contact with the British,
only about 50 languages remain that have an appreciable number of speakers, of
which only two or three seem to have any chance of surviving in the twenty-first
century (Fishman 1991).
The figures to be found in the Ethnologue amply confirm these opinions. Of more
than 200 Australian indigenous languages, only 53 have more than 100 speakers,
there are nine with more than 1,000 speakers and none reaches the figure of
4,000 speakers.
Compared with this, the situation in Aotearoa (New Zealand) as regards Maori, the
indigenous language of the island, is far more hopeful, in view of this people’s
struggle to preserve their language and culture. This struggle crystallises in the Te
Kohanga Reo movement (Home of the Language) for the revival of Maori, whose first
centre opened in April 1982, and moves by the Kura Kaupapa Maori (Schools of
Maori Philosophy) (May 2001), whose first centre opened in 1985. The results of the
introduction of these two Maori educational movements are very important:
There is still much to be accomplished in the arenas of language and education
in Aotearoa/New Zealand – of that there is no doubt – while the wider political
struggle for group-differentiated rights for Maori continues. However, in the
areas of language and education, Te Kohanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa Maori
represent, for the first time since 1840, a genuine educational alternative that
meets the terms outlined in the Treaty of Waitangi of ‘guaranteed [and active]
protection’ of Maori language and culture. The aims of Kohanga Reo and Kura
Kaupapa are also consistent with the developments of international law and
other national arenas…Moreover, they are contributing to Aotearoa/New
Zealand’s slow move towards a genuinely bilingual and bicultural society.
(May 2001)
78 Words and Worlds

THE LANGUAGE CONCEPT IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA

There is no such thing as a culture neutral definition of a language. The Western

concept of language, including that of professional linguists, has been shaped
by the experience of European nation-state languages. English, Hiri Motu and
Tok Pisin are referred to as national languages of Papua New Guinea by
younger members of post independence society, and the view that there are 800
plus indigenous languages has found its way into the education system. These
are recent developments and traditional ways of conceiving ways of speaking
have been quite different.
In many instances the traditional criteria used to distinguish between
different ways of speaking are at odds with professional linguistic criteria, such
as intelligibility or shared core lexicon. Linguists have talked about the lack of
clear linguistic boundaries in terms of dialect and language chains but never-
theless drawn arbitrary boundaries and labelled languages. Structural criteria
are unreliable indicators of traditional language boundaries, as these reflect
factors such as wanting to be members of a group, sharing social obligations or
having a common enemy.
A very large proportion of what modern linguists have labelled ‘language’
have no traditional name – most names featured in existing lists of language
names were given by expatriate linguists, administrators and missionaries.
There seems to be no clear distinction between language in an abstract sense
and concrete talk, nor a boundary between language and other cultural forms of
communication. In many instances, the ability to understand and use language
is extended to spirits and animals.
There is a perceived direct link between verbal utterances and what they refer
to. The belief that there can be dangerous words has promoted taboo words and
secret speech forms.
Where groups of speakers from time to time agree on identifying with a
particular language what is understood by the term ‘language’ may differ
greatly from situation to situation.
The notion that one can identify, count or classify the languages of Papua
New Guinea is a recent idea, one which made no sense in precolonial Papua
New Guinea. A perusal of the last hundred years of writings on the linguistic
scene in Papua New Guinea presents a very confusing picture.
There are few attempts to explore indigenous views on what a language
might be.
There are constant changes in both naming practices and drawing boundaries
between languages: each list of Papua New Guinea language names has a
different number of languages and distinct differences in name.
The Linguistic Heritage 79

The notion that there are either 700, 800, 846 or whatever languages in Papua
New Guinea is devoid of precise meaning, as the entities counted are not
readily comparable.
Whilst the indigenous concept of language and communication remain unex-
plored, a new generation of Papua New Guineans is being educated to
subscribe to a Western concept of language.
A major problem which has arisen from the projection of Western metalin-
guistics views on a linguistically very different language ecology, is that it is
difficult to diagnose changes – the fact that languages disappear from a list does
not say much about language decline. For instance, the current Ethnologue lists a
single language Pinai with eight dialects (among them Wapi and Hagahai) with a
total of 600 speakers. Nekitel (1998), Professor of Linguistics at the University of
Papua New Guinea, lists three languages, Pinai 1500 speakers, Wapi 1200
speakers and Hagahai 300 speakers. It is difficult to see how such confusing infor-
mation can be the basis for any action concerning language policy and planning.
What has kept the languages of Papua New Guinea viable is not names,
boundaries or numbers but the fact that Papua New Guinea has highly struc-
tured multilingual language ecologies inhabited by typically unnamed and
uncounted lingua francas, Pidgins, vernaculars, sign and drum languages etc.
To conceptualise these ecologies would seem a precondition for carrying out
linguistic diagnosis and linguistic rescue work.
Peter Mühlhäusler
University of Adelaide, Australia

The Linguistic hecatomb

Gure herriak ez dauka kondairarik
Pobrea da. Ez dauka
pirata koxkor pare bat,
langile sofritu batzuk,
muga zentzungabe asko,
mila zorigaizto
besterik. Ez da gutxi
Euri gortina batek ixten du
gure kalendarioa.
Ez da bilatu kondaira unibertsalen
liburu handietan gure inperiorik.
(Joxe Azurmendi, Manifestu atzeratua, 1968)
Our country does not have a history.
It is poor. It does not have anything but
A couple of little pirates,
Some suffering workers,
Many senseless borders
And thousands of misfortunes.
It’s not that little.
A rain curtain closes
our calendar.
No empire of our own is to be found
in the big books of Universal History.
80 Words and Worlds

As we have seen previously, it is clear that at this moment the world is going through
a gradual reduction of the linguistic and cultural wealth treasured over many thou-
sands of years. Linguists have begun to realise the scope of the problem after many
decades in which only a few specialists had worried about it. The alarm has been
raised and there are monographs devoted to letting the world in general know of this
critical situation. Books aimed at the general public, like those by Nettle and Romaine
(2000) and Crystal (2000), are illustrative examples of this trend. See Map 3 for a
description of the situation of the languages of California.
It is absolutely vital to realise, in order to understand this situation, that the expla-
nation for the death of languages is connected with the result of a certain type of policy
of assimilation and oppression which powerful communities exert on small commu-
nities that are at a disadvantage and which since colonial times have begun to have an
effect on a global scale. This sort of oppressive policy is not exclusive to the colonial
period when slavery existed, but still exists today in other more modern forms, which
explains the accelerating pace at which languages and cultures are becoming extinct.

Cultural genocide in the world today

The explanation sometimes given for this situation is that the small languages that are
disappearing are those of communities representing residual stages in the devel-
opment of Humanity, who must be assimilated and indoctrinated in order to have
access to the economic and cultural forms of civilised and advanced Humanity, which
goes with economic, social and political progress. Furthermore, these small
languages and cultures have nothing to contribute to the cultural wealth of Humanity
unless they quickly assimilate the languages and cultures associated with the centres
of political and economic power within whose area they fall. Therefore, the disap-
pearance of so many languages and cultures is no more than a collateral occurrence,
regrettable but inevitable, in view of Humanity’s progress towards the sort of society
that is considered more advanced. They are remnants from earlier periods which it is
felt must be put behind us as soon as possible. These communities are invited to
adopt the linguistic, cultural, political and economic patterns which are considered a
guarantee of social, political and economic success and progress.
In face of this, it has to be said that the disappearance and minorisation of many
languages and cultures and the spread of English as an international language in most
spheres of decision-making is no more than the result of a conscious, predetermined
policy of cultural genocide and imperialism, carried out by the great world powers and
the smaller powers subordinated to them, who have no qualms about using psycho-
logical or physical violence for the sake of destroying linguistic and cultural diversity
and to bring about the imposition of a handful of languages in the decision-making
spheres of economic, political and social organisation. To sum up, the present situation of
severe regression in linguistic and cultural diversity is the result of imperialist practices
against many small communities on our planet and the coercive imposition of certain
languages and cultures by the hegemonic Western societies, whose actions are not based
on the principle of respect for the linguistic and cultural rights of small communities.
The Linguistic Heritage 81

Many examples could be given of this oppressive imperialist policy. The following
are a just a small cross-section, denounced by the Non Governmental Organisation
Survival International, which are taking place at this moment:

• The linguistic discrimination and oppression the Tibetans are subjected to by the
Chinese government.
• The linguistic and cultural genocide to which the Turkish government is trying to
subject the Kurds.
• The maltreatment by the government of Botswana of the Bushmen, still today seen
as savage and primitive hunters, marginalised and trampled by the government.
• The constant attacks by the government of Brazil on the territorial and cultural
integrity of the Yanomami and other native peoples of the territory of this country.
• The continuously unfulfilled promises of recognition of the territorial integrity of
the Wichi by the government of Salta (Argentina).
• The marginalisation and systematic invasion of the Naskapi Indians (Innu) by the
Canadian government.
• The marginalisation of the culture and language of the Berber people in the coun-
tries of North Africa and the null or scarce official recognition of Berber in Morocco
and Algeria.
• The marginalisation, scorn and continuing persistent attempts at the cultural and
linguistic genocide of the Gypsies in many of the countries of Europe.
• The continued oppression of the Khanti (west Siberia) by the oil companies since
the sixties, which have endangered or totally prevented their traditional means of
subsistence.

As this Non Governmental Organisation proclaims, “There are some 300 million
indigenous people all over the world, organised in viable contemporary societies
with complex lifestyles and progressive ways of thinking. They are not remnants
from a past age.”
Indigenous peoples are part of the present and not just part of the past. All commu-
nities, as historical communities, have ties with the past. The large Western commu-
nities are also a product of the past.
Modernisation and the age of globalisation are leading to the disappearance of
many languages and cultures because a series of deliberate and sustained policies are
being implemented that are directed at eliminating them, either through assimilation
or through physical violence (destruction of these communities’ habitat and
resources) or social and psychological violence (destruction of their self-esteem and
of the valuation of their language and culture). This is how it was described in a recent
study of today’s hunter-gatherer communities:
For most indigenous minorities, the transition to modernisation is a synonym of
impoverishment, racism, violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide and
social disintegration. In fact, the tendency to consume toxic substances can be
82 Words and Worlds

symptomatic of an unconscious desire of self-destruction, and a mute protest

against the collapse of the old values. For Pygmy, San, Negrito, Inuit and other
economically marginal groups, ways of life have already changed or will soon
do so, with modifications of the environment, such as game depletion and
competition from other types of economies. (Froment 2001)
Ever since the colonial period, sometimes openly and sometimes covertly, the large
Western political and economic powers have applied an absolutely scandalous policy
of cultural genocide.
There is no natural process of progress that leads inevitably to marginalisation
followed by the disappearance of the greater part of the planet’s small local languages
and cultures, so much as a policy directed at those ends which has had unques-
tionable success during the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
There are a series of suppositions which, though not explicitly acknowledged,
shape this policy of cultural marginalisation and destruction.
First, the racism which, in spite of all the formal declarations against it, still exists in
every corner of the world. The concepts of primitive society or savage, backward or
tribal community are clearly racist. The communities these pejorative labels are
applied to are made up of people with exactly the same abilities and the same needs
as people in Western societies, neither more nor less. There is no backwardness, either
physical or mental, that can be considered characteristic of these communities. It
must be stated that any idea of this sort is declaredly racist.
These prejudices give rise to the belief that these savage communities need to be
educated according to Western models. This presupposes another racist idea, namely
that these communities are ignorant and backward and are therefore incapable by
themselves of assimilating contacts with others in their own way, following their own
behaviour patterns, their own culture and their own language. Here it is the industri-
alised Western societies who are ignorant, as they know nothing or almost nothing
about the language, culture and customs of these communities and simply assume
that they are primitive and inferior and must therefore be assimilated as soon as
possible to Western models and must be guided and controlled by them to ensure
their survival, showing a paternalism based on the racist and discriminatory idea that
these communities are not of legal age or are primitive.
From the general racism which predominates today in the modern world, and which
demonstrates its radically conservative and retrograde nature, is derived linguistic racism
or linguicism – the term used by Phillipson (1992) to refer to discrimination on the basis of
linguistic differences – according to which some languages are more developed or more
suitable for modern life than others. Languages are classified as modern languages of
communication and indigenous languages serving only to express a people’s identity but
not having any communicative or cultural value. As Phillipson has remarked:
The labels currently used in political and academic discourse to describe English
are almost invariably positive ascriptions. By implication other languages lack
these properties or are inferior.
The Linguistic Heritage 83

In this way, descriptions such as international or global language, auxiliary

language, link language, neutral language, encounter language, language of
culture or language of science, applied to English, French and Spanish, have as
their complement the characterisation of other languages as local languages,
tribal languages, regional languages, local or tribal dialects or speeches, exclusion
languages, nationalist languages, uncultured languages, languages of poverty,
languages of non-communication, languages of superstition, etc. These implica-
tions manifest linguistic racism or linguicism, because all the languages of the
world are languages of communication, of culture, of understanding, of
knowledge and of excellence. If some languages are more advantageous or more
widespread than others, this is due to circumstances outside them, such as the
social, political or economic conditioning that makes some communities appear
more highly favoured than others in one or more spheres.
The identification of culture with written culture is another of the racist ideas domi-
nating many areas of today’s Western world. It is felt that written culture and liter-
ature, which are typical of the dominant powers in the Western and Oriental worlds,
are superior to cultures with an oral tradition, which are typical of smaller commu-
nities, who do not make use of writing.
But it is quite clear that oral cultures and literatures are much richer and more
varied than written cultures. First of all, let me say that all communities have oral
culture and literature, even those considered more advanced. What is more,
written culture and literature arise from oral culture and literature and hardly ever
the other way round. Therefore, written culture and literature arise from a transpo-
sition of oral culture and literature to a written medium. Indeed, any language that
is written has previously been spoken and, what is more important, is in most
cases still spoken today. It is not true that literature arises with writing. Literature
has arisen in and from orality in all cases, including those of the major Western
societies. Anyone who says that there is no oral literature in Western societies is
wrong. Written literature and culture have not supplanted oral literature and
culture in any of the Western societies. In those societies in which there is a written
press, there are also oral means of diffusion, which always have larger audiences
and more influence.
In all spheres of industrialised societies, orality is used as an essential element:
from work interviews to court hearings, from political meetings to scientific
congresses, from primary education to further education, from café gossip to parlia-
mentary debates. Writing has not managed to supplant orality in the industrialised
countries. In fact, amongst the most representative inventions of these post-modern
societies are radio, television and the mobile telephone, which have given a new
dimension to orality. We have no right to despise languages and cultures with an
exclusively oral tradition, because orality is also fundamental in our advanced
industrialised societies. To think otherwise is to lapse once again into cultural and
linguistic racism.
84 Words and Worlds

On equality and dignity in all human languages and cultures

Human languages are diverse by nature. Each community tends to develop its own
way of speaking that identifies it as a community and distinguishes it from other
communities. This is even possible in several communities that speak what is iden-
tified as the same language. It is a perfectly documented fact that languages develop
distinctive idiosyncratic forms that identify a specific linguistic community. The
English of Seattle is not the same as the English of Houston, the Spanish of Oviedo is
not the same as that of Seville, the German of Hamburg is not exactly the same as the
German of Munich. The standard languages adopted by today’s national states are
more or less artificial conventions adopted in the basic institutions of these states.
This is the case of standard English or Englishes, standard German, standard Spanish
or Spanishes and many other languages. These standard languages, furthermore, are
not entirely neutral, but are based on a certain variety associated with some centre
with social, political or economic prestige. For example, standard French is based on
the Francian variety, standard Peninsular Spanish is based on the Castilian variety,
standard Italian is based on the Tuscan variety.
There is therefore no standard language that is entirely and politically neutral:
Ethnicity and nationalism…inhabit the very structures of the civic societies in
which we live. In effect, both the political and administrative structure of the state
and its civil society are ethnicised. This is achieved principally via the artificial
establishment of a ‘common’ civic language and culture. This supposedly
common language and culture in fact represents and is reflective of the particular
cultural and linguistic habitus of the dominant ethnie, or Staatsvolk. It is a majori-
tarian particularism masquerading as universalism. (May 2001)
Standard language is based on a conventional concoction of the basic varieties
resulting in a more or less prefabricated language which, when spoken in the
different linguistic communities, takes on special distinguishing features. This is so
because real linguistic activity works through variation and differentiation, which are
at the root of two essential elements of languages: their constant adaptation to social
dynamics and their use as an indicator of identity. These two examples are what allow
languages to persist over time and survive the multitude of social upheavals a
community is inexorably exposed to. They also make it possible for language to be a
sign of cohesion and identification for communities. A specific way of speaking
constitutes a sign of intragroup cohesion and a sign of intergroup identification.
Just as the human being is equipped to deal with linguistic diversity, since
according to what I am saying languages themselves keep adapting dynamically to
social changes, they are also equally capable of understanding related linguistic
varieties from other linguistic communities. In none of these aspects do standard
languages occupy a significant place. Standard languages do not provide any
further essential range in the cohesive and communicative aspects that are not
present in the varieties.
The Linguistic Heritage 85

The process of standardisation of a language or groups of linguistic varieties does

not introduce elements that fundamentally modify the quality of that language and
make it superior to the varieties. The value of a standard language is the value given
to it by the community that adopts it freely or by obligation. It is not, however, an
intrinsically superior language but, at most, the outline for a language, an unfinished
language which needs to be constantly remade and recreated through whatever use is
made of it, as happens with non-standard languages. All of this means that those
communities that do not have a standard language of their own (most of the world’s
communities), which is a Western phenomenon associated with a specific type of
politico-social organisation, are communities as perfect or imperfect linguistically
speaking as those that do have a standard language. The differences arise from the
structure according to a particular model, but the languages of the former commu-
nities have exactly the same cohesive, communicative and identificative possibilities
as these. Linguistic communities without a standard language must not therefore be
looked on as inferior, backward or less evolved in comparison with those with a
standard language. These communities, like any human community, have one or
more developed languages and a literary tradition that is transmitted orally. Oral
transmission of a language is also characteristic of Western societies, where written
language is acquired once the language spoken has been acquired orally. We cannot
therefore look down on a language for not being standardised or written.

English as the natural language of globalisation

English is far from being a neutral language that can be associated with a progressive
internationalisation of Humanity. English, whether we like it or not, is associated
with a certain specific type of culture, as worthy and valuable as any other, of course,
but never superior.
Language and culture are closely connected by three aspects (Fishman 1991): the
indicial, the symbolic and the constituent. English is the language of Shakespeare and
Spanish is the language of Cervantes, classical Arabic is the language of the Koran. It
is something that cannot be avoided in any way; when we use a certain language
there is an indicial reference, deliberate or not, to certain cultural referents and
patterns. In its symbolic aspect, language works as a symbol of a certain culture;
English is a symbol of Anglo-Saxon culture and Spanish is a symbol of Hispanic
culture. We cannot strip English or Spanish of this symbolic aspect, in the same way
as it is very difficult to eliminate the connotations of a swear word. As regards the
constituent aspect, language forms a constituent part of a certain culture. English is a
constituent part of Anglo-Saxon, for example. It is very difficult to imagine the associ-
ation of the Anglo-Saxon culture with Chinese or Russian. It is very difficult to
express oneself in English and set oneself outside Anglo-Saxon culture or the Anglo-
Saxon colonial sphere.
The neutral image of English (and of other languages) is used for imperialist
purposes, as explicitly stated by Phillipson:
86 Words and Worlds

Claiming that English is neutral (a tool, an instrument) involves a disconnection

between what English is (‘culture’) from its structural basis (from what it has and
does). It disconnects the means from ends or purposes, from what English is being
used for. The type of reasoning we are dealing with here is part of the national-
ization process whereby the unequal power relations between English and other
languages are explained and legitimated. It fits into the familiar linguicist pattern
of the dominant language creating an exalted image of itself, other languages
being devaluated, and the relationship between the two rationalized in favour of
the dominant language. This applies to each type of argument, whether
persuasion, bargaining, or threats are used, all of which serve to reproduce
English linguistic hegemony. (Phillipson 1992)
From Anglo-Saxon imperialist standpoints it is preached that international English
makes us more cosmopolitan and makes us feel like citizens of the world, free from
sentimental and exclusive nationalisms.
Some linguists have realised that the spread of English is resulting in the domi-
nation and even disappearance of other languages and cultures:
American English cannot be a real international language, i.e. a neutral instrument
for everyone to communicate everywhere. It is the vehicle of a culture that may well
swallow up all the others and convert them in negotiable products. (Hagège 2000)
This French linguist draws a direct connection between the lightning spread of
English and the speeding up of massive language extinction on a world level:
All factors of language death, whether political, economical or social, can act to
the detriment of any language except English, and in favour of the latter. The
strength and rapidity characterising the current dissemination of English
worldwide are by far surpassing those that in the past allowed other languages –
such as Latin two thousand years ago – to lead a great number of languages to
total extinction. (Hagège 2000)
Other students of the relations between languages and nations take the same approach:
Globalisation has clearly played an important part in the rise of English as the
current world language… But this is not the whole story, since the current ascen-
dancy of English also clearly has longer historical antecedents. Indeed, the rise of
English to be the pre-eminent international language has had much to do with the
role of Great Britain the dominant colonial power over the last three centuries…The
increasing sociopolitical and socioeconomic dominance of the USA, and its pre-
eminent position in cutting-edge media and telecommunication, has ensured that
English remains at the forefront of the world’s languages. (May 2001)
The spread of English is far from being a natural or spontaneous phenomenon. There
are institutions funded by Great Britain and the United States whose object is to make
English an international language. Phillipson (1992) mentions the British Council and
The Linguistic Heritage 87

the United States Information Agency as agents of Anglo-Saxon linguistic imperi-

alism whose object is the recognition of Anglo-American cultural values. This, of
course, may be legitimate, but in no way does it make English a culturally neutral
language, as it is sometimes said.

The teaching of English, monolingualism and cultural assimilation

Phillipson (1992) shows how the basic premises of the teaching of English as a foreign
language, as laid down at the Commonwealth Congress on teaching English as a
second language, which took place in Makerer (Uganda) in 1961 (Phillipson 1992),
have been decisive in creating or favouring the necessary conditions for increasing
the hegemony of English, especially in areas outside Europe. These premises,
according to Phillipson (1992), are as follows:

• Monolingualism in the teaching of English. English should normally be taught

exclusively in English, without resort to another auxiliary language.
• Ideally the English teacher should be a native speaker. The native speaker and,
even more important, the way he or she speaks English, are considered the basic
model for the teaching of this language.
• English should be taught as early as possible. The younger the learner of English,
the better the results obtained.
• The more English is taught, the better. Teaching of English should embrace the
largest possible number of spheres.
• The quality of the results of English teaching is inversely proportional to the use of
other languages. The more other languages different from English are used, the
less successful its teaching will be.

This is not the place for an examination of the efficacy of these points of view
mentioned by Phillipson for the teaching of a second language, but let us look at the
ideological aspects concealed behind these postulates and their relation with a mono-
lingualist ideology that sees cases of bilingualism or plurilingualism as no more than
stages in the transition to monolingualism in the dominant language.
The idea that only English and no other language should be used when teaching
English is clearly aimed at linguistic substitution rather than at the coexistence of
languages. This is even more obvious bearing in mind the third supposition, that
English teaching should be introduced as soon as possible. This allows for the possi-
bility that English could eventually replace the student’s native language. The idea
that the use of other languages can have harmful effects on the teaching of English,
the fifth supposition, once again shows that this proposal is based on a monolingual
ideology. The first, third and fifth suppositions, therefore, regardless of whether or
not they are considered effective or suitable in the teaching of a foreign language, are
signs of a clearly monolingual mentality tending towards the replacement of our
various languages by one single language.
88 Words and Worlds

The second and fourth suppositions reveal another of the basic pillars of linguistic
imperialism: induced assimilation and acculturation.
First, to say that the best teachers must be native speakers implies two concealed
ideas: the English of native speakers (British or United States) is the best and most
correct English and, secondly, by suggesting this type of teacher as a model, someone
is being proposed who has normally been educated according to an Anglo-Saxon
educational model which thereby becomes a universal model for all parts of the
world (educational imperialism).
Considering native English as correct English and the remaining forms of English
speech as incorrect or defective has the following consequence: since the number of
people who learn a foreign language and get to speak it like a native is very low,
there is an extremely high number of speakers of English who speak it badly or
incorrectly, with the discrimination that this involves. The worldwide spread of
English is creating a kind of cultural proletariat characterised by its incorrect,
defective use of English, which brands them as second-class cultural citizens
compared with the natives, who are first-class. To reach a level in one’s use of
English close to that of the natives it is often necessary to spend a long time inten-
sively involved in Anglo-Saxon teaching institutions, which ensures they are assim-
ilated in depth, as speaking English correctly means neither more nor less than
speaking according to the canons of the British or United States educated norm.
Only those prepared to undergo all this will be able to shake off the cultural under-
valuation involved in using English incorrectly.
The fourth supposition lies at the root of one of the basic postulates of the teaching
of English: it is not enough just to learn to understand English, one must also learn to
use it actively, to speak it fluently. Linguistic imperialism considers that just learning
to understand a language is imperfect and faulty learning. Someone who says they
understand English but can’t speak it is not normally valued as highly as someone
who says they can do both. It is obvious that the passive teaching of languages
favours plurilingualism, since it is much easier to learn to understand several
languages competently than it is to learn to speak them competently.
It is well known that learning to use a language actively involves much greater
effort and dedication than learning it simply for passive use, that is, for under-
standing. This clearly favours monolingualism: the time spent learning to speak one
language is time taken away from the passive learning of others.
Furthermore, the predominance of passive language learning does not favour
speakers of the dominant language, as they have to make an effort to understand the
language of the dominated, if they really want to understand them. But people who
speak a dominant language, such as English, are rarely prepared to make this effort.
Therefore, the model of monolingual and assimilatory imposition, which to a large
extent is the model used in the teaching of English (and of other European languages
like French and Spanish), not only facilitates the spread of the language and creates
the conditions for it to replace other languages, it also creates a large number of
second-class citizens who use English (or French or Spanish) not entirely correctly, at
The Linguistic Heritage 89

the same time as it means that native speakers of English (or French or Spanish) do
not need to make any effort to understand, let alone to speak, the language of others.
With a model of this sort it is difficult to be optimistic regarding the future of
linguistic diversity on our planet.

Conclusion
We have seen the immense linguistic and cultural wealth our planet still treasures, but
we have also seen the trends on a world level, left over from the colonial period,
towards the implantation of a model based on monoculturalism and monolingualism.
This model places no value on the mutual understanding of languages and cultures as
the basis for the cementing of harmonious relations between the peoples of the world,
but considers that there are modern cultures and languages and backward cultures
and languages and that the backward communities must assimilate this model as soon
as possible and that it does not in the least matter if their cultural and linguistic idio-
syncracies are partly or totally lost in the process of assimilation.
The policy of imposing ideas, cultures or languages has often been the origin of
conflicts between the world’s communities and peoples and will continue to be so.
Western models of economic, political or social organisation demand that the agents
intervening in them adopt a very limited number of languages, normally those of the
dominant layers of society, and therefore force many of those agents to abandon their
own language in favour of one that is strange to them and in which they will probably
feel less sure of themselves than native users of that language. On this sort of basis,
mutual understanding between the world’s communities becomes submission and
cultural and political dominance. In this way it will never be possible to build a world
in peace and harmony.
As Froment points out in referring to the future of hunter-gatherer communities,
this can only take place on the basis of respect for all facets of the life of small
communities and their way of assimilating the changes brought about by relations
with other communities:
In the end, the biological consequences of modernity for hunter-gatherer
groups will be dictated by the evolution of social prejudice against them, their
access to school, affluence and health facilities, the acknowledgement of tradi-
tional rights to land, as well as their own choices in the matter of development.
(Froment 2001)
Although at this moment English is the imperialist language par excellence, the
problem does not lie in English as such, since it is as respectable as a language as any
other, so much as in the monolingual assimilation models linguistic imperialism is
based on.
This does not imply that if English were to vanish (a highly improbable
hypothesis in the present world), other languages would live in equality.
Dominant languages in multilingual communities and in a multilingual world
90 Words and Worlds

are dominant because their speakers have the power to secure advantages for
their own group, among them linguistic advantages. Thus linguicism serves to
maintain the dominant position of French in a substantial number of countries
which are linked to France in an imperialist structure in much the same way as
English linguistic imperialism operates. (Phillipson 1992)
Linguistic diversity, like cultural diversity, is something that enriches Humanity and
which we ought to care for between us all. What is needed is a radical change in
mentality. If we really want to understand each other we ought to take an interest in
understanding each other’s language and culture, but the effort needed to do this will
only be made on the basis of mutual respect. If we think that the other person’s
culture and language are inferior to our own – that is, if we take a racist attitude – we
shall never make the effort needed to understand the other person, who is as human
as we are.
The monolingual attitude being imposed on a global level is intrinsically counter to
peace and harmony and furthermore is lacking in legitimacy:
I have argued that this assertion of continued monolingualism has no real or
legitimated basis – certainly, at least, not under the auspices of individual rights –
since the opportunity and right to continue to speak the dominant language is in
no way threatened by minority-language recognition. (May 2001)
Nothing can change if we are not prepared to change this mentality and, far more
serious, if we are not even aware of it. Since it seems difficult to change the mentality
of those who are already educated, then perhaps education for tolerance, the valu-
ation of other cultural and linguistic communities and mutual understanding, and
against racism, is the only basis on which we might, in the future, build a truly fairer
and more human world.

Recommendations on linguistic heritage

In view of the imminent danger of loss of our linguistic diversity, we recommend

• Spreading the idea amongst international bodies and the general public that
linguistic and cultural diversity is a heritage that must be preserved as actively
as possible.
• Publicly proclaiming and defending that endangered languages, like all
languages, contain enormous wealth and interest for humanity, and drawing
attention to the falsity and the danger of placing languages in a hierarchy.
• Transmitting and popularising the feeling that all languages and cultures
form part of the common heritage of humanity and that as such they must
not only be preserved but developed and encouraged.
The Linguistic Heritage 91

• Spreading, especially amongst speakers of widespread languages, the

importance of preserving and furthering the less widespread languages,
especially those around them, and making speakers of the less widespread
languages aware of their role in this task.
• Spreading the idea that multilingualism does not refer only to the
knowledge and use of the more widespread languages. The study of less
widespread languages, especially those surrounding each community,
should be encouraged and helped.
• Spreading the importance of respecting and protecting the rights of speakers
of all languages to use them and cultivate them.
• Declaring each and every language the heritage of humanity.
Chapter 3
The Official Status of Languages
1. Each culture has a dignity and value which must be respected and preserved.
2. Every people has the right and the duty to develop its culture. 3. In their rich
variety and diversity, and in the reciprocal influences they exert on one another,
all cultures form part of the common heritage belonging to all mankind.
(UNESCO 1966, Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Co-operation).

In this chapter we shall look at the official status of the languages of the world and also at
the impact that official recognition of a language by a state has for the development of that
language. Since it is the official languages of each state that, as a result of being used in all
social spheres, show the greatest vitality, those linguistic communities whose language
does not share the same official status should demand this status for their own language,
or if not this status, then at least the practical consequences arising from being official.
The chapter is structured as follows: first of all, different state policies regarding
recognition of their official languages are analysed; secondly, we shall look at languages
that have achieved official status and those that have not; next, we shall single out some
of the current legislation aimed at the protection of linguistic heritage through policies
of official recognition, and finally, Professor Annamalai will put forward a new
approach to linguistic policy based on the recognition of plurilingualism.

The state and the official language

The majority of the linguistic policies of states today have been based on, at least in
recent centuries, promoting what they call their “national” languages. This encour-
agement of “national” languages has in most cases had a twofold application.
Internally, the language or variety considered “national” has had prestige conferred
on it and been promoted over the other languages and varieties within the state
borders. The consequences of this policy have, amongst other things, been to margin-
alise the other varieties and languages, lower their prestige, endanger them and even
cause their disappearance. Only in a handful of occasions or historical moments have
states acted to preserve their linguistic diversity.
Externally, many powers have considered their “national” language a loyal partner
in their imperial and colonial actions and have exported it beyond its original limits.

92
The Official Status of Languages 93

In the new territories, it has in turn become the language behind the disappearance or
marginalisation of other languages and cultures.
European nationalism in recent centuries has integrated the concepts of a common
language, nation and state (Lastra 1992) and has created the opinion that a modern
state, if it is to be modern and promote itself as such, must be endowed with a single
language common to all its citizens.
The development of the European concept of the nation state together with colonial
expansion has encouraged a specific concept of state based on the idea of a “national”
language sustained and reinforced by a common administrative and educational
system and has spread it all over the world.
The creation of new states in the course of the twentieth century and the moderni-
sation of others has on numerous occasions involved the mimetic adoption of this
model, very often to the extreme of even declaring the language of the European
colonisers the official language.
In this way, languages of basically European origin, such as English, Spanish,
French or Portuguese, are today official languages in most of America and Africa and
in large areas of Asia and the Pacific, and have a clear advantage in their competition
with the local languages. English is the official or co-official language in more than 70
states according to Crystal (1997), French in 30, Spanish in 20, Arabic in 20 and
Portuguese in 6.
McArthur (1998) mentions 232 territories spread over the planet in which one of the
four languages mentioned (English, Spanish, French or Portuguese) is official, co-
official or carries a lot of weight. According to this author, only the remaining 52 terri-
tories are free of this European linguistic preponderance. The situation is especially
notorious in Africa, where out of 56 countries, according to UNESCO (1997), 45 have
a language of European origin as their official or co-official language and nine have
Arabic (Bolekia 2001).
This policy of linguistic homogenisation is based on the prejudice of considering
that the use of just one language or of a common language facilitates the cohesion and
progress of the state, overlooking the fact that in many situations the language of the
former coloniser has not united and does not unite different linguistic communities.
Whatever the case, with this worldwide consolidation of the idea of a national
language, in some states the languages of the European colonisers has in practice
managed to replace the local languages and the “national” language adopted has
been the colonial language. This has happened, for example, in Australia, New
Zealand, Argentina and Brazil. In these states, the local languages have only just
survived and their speakers can only use them alongside the official languages in a
bilingual situation.
In other states, which have also opted for the language of the colonisers as the
official language and a vehicle for Westernisation, linguistic wealth has been better
preserved, perhaps because the demographic pressure of the colonisation itself was
less. This is the case of Cameroon (English and French), Gabon (French), Gambia
(English), Chad (French and Arabic) and Guatemala (Spanish), for example.
94 Words and Worlds

In other cases, especially when colonisation has been more recent or less intense,
the modern state has preserved the language of the colonisers as one of its official
languages, while also promoting one of its local languages to the same rank. This is
the situation, for example, in Kenya (English and Swahili), Pakistan (English and
Urdu) and Vanuatu (English, French and Bislama). There are even situations where
colonisation has meant the conversion of a traditionally monolingual society to bilin-
gualism or multilingualism, as in Samoa (English and Samoan), Tonga (English and
Tongan) and Rwanda (French, English and Rwanda), which as well as their own
languages have declared those of their former European colonisers as official.

Article 3 of the Constitution of Vanuatu, 1980

1. The national language of the Republic of Vanuatu is Bislama. The official

languages are Bislama, English and French. The principal languages of
education are English and French.
2. The Republic of Vanuatu shall protect the different local languages which
are part of the national heritage, and may declare one of them as a
national language.

States that have copied the European model of a “national” language, promoting just
one of their local languages to this rank are also found. This has taken place in certain
states in the process of modernisation, such as Turkey (Turkish), Nepal (Nepali),
Tanzania (Swahili), Azerbaijan (Azerbaijani) and Thailand (Thai). This policy has led
them to the promotion and development of the language declared “national” over
and above their other languages. In some cases, the language chosen for this purpose
is the one most closely tied to local economic power or with the best chance of being
promoted as an interstate language, and not the most widespread language. This is
the case in Bahasa in Indonesia and Tagalog in the Philippines, languages which are
officially known as Indonesian and Filipino.
However, there are also states that have adopted positions more in consonance
with the preservation and promotion of their linguistic heritage, raising several of
their languages to the level of official languages. South Africa, for example, has since
1996 recognised 11 languages as official (Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Pedi, Xhosa,
Sotho, Tswana, Swati, Tsonga, Venda and Zulu); India has two official languages over
the whole of its territory (English and Hindi) and 17 more co-official languages in
different regions (Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Kannada, Konkani, Kashmiri,
Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil,
Telugu and Urdu), and Eritrea has recognised eight official languages (Afar, Arabic,
Blean, Hadareb, Kunama, Saho, Tigre and Tigriña).
Most states, therefore, have adopted explicit linguistic policies, juridically
favouring the internal and external development of the language considered by their
The Official Status of Languages 95

rulers to be the common and official language of the country. On many occasions, the
state even takes on the work of preserving and maintaining the “purity” of the
language adopted as official, as well as its protection and diffusion beyond its
borders. This political practice leads to the preponderance and development of the
languages proclaimed official, which states generally use as the only medium of
communication in all public spheres, to the exclusion of all other languages.

LANGUAGE TREASURES IN INDONESIA

In Indonesia today, apart from Indonesian, there are hundreds of languages.

One estimate puts the number of regional languages at 715. These languages are
distributed throughout the entire archipelago of Indonesia and have a
confusing number of names. The language map in Indonesia is kaleidoscopic.
In 1928, while Indonesia was still under Dutch colonial rule, a group of young
nationalists expressed their yearning for national unity and independence in a
declaration which is now known as the Youth Pledge (Sumpah Pemuda). With
some considerable foresight, they included in the declaration their intention to
promote Indonesian as the language of national unity.
Their dream of Indonesian being the national language became a reality.
Indonesian is now spoken as a first language by a growing number of people and
there is no denying that it is taking root in the nation, but its spread is not even,
geographically or socially. Not all Indonesians are able to speak it, and many do not
speak it in the home. The presence of the regional languages is still very much felt.
The number of people who claim to understand Indonesian has grown signif-
icantly during the last three decades. However, a large number of these people
still do not necessarily use the language on a daily basis at home. They continue
to use one or other of the country’s regional languages as their language of daily
communication. In 1970, only 40% of the population claimed that they under-
stood Indonesian. In 1980, it had grown markedly to 60% and in 1990, the figure
had risen moderately to 67%. Projections for the year 2000 put the figure at 72%.
According to the 1980 census, there were 17,505,000 people who could under-
stand Indonesian and who also used it on a daily basis in their home. By 1990, there
were 27,055,000, an increase of about ten million people. However, there were
179,194,223 people in 1990 and therefore Indonesian speakers represented only
approximately 6.62% of the population. The number of people in 2000 was esti-
mated at 32.000.000 million people. This means that, while the language is
certainly gaining ground, its eventual adoption as everyone’s first language is
indeed a long-term project. It has, however, spread more rapidly in some places
than others. If we compare the growth during the ten years between 1980 and 1990
in a number of provinces beyond the island of Java, the growth is quite remarkable.
96 Words and Worlds

Most Indonesians are able to use more than one language with Indonesian and
the regional languages being used side by side. However, for the majority of
people, one of the regional languages – rather than Indonesian – will be their first
language. So the regional languages have an important place still in the life of the
people. The regional languages are still used as a means of education in their
own locales. The use of the regional languages in education is provided for in the
country’s law. In Statute 4 of 1950 it says that ‘teachers may use the regional
languages as a medium of instruction up to the third year of primary school.’
There is a close link between the regional languages and a person’s ethnic
group. Regional languages are the mother tongue or first language of many
people and are used for informal, personal communication in the home among
family members, or in the immediate environment with people who are from
the same ethnic group. The regional languages are also used in a limited way for
formal or public activities such as marriage ceremonies.
A Rich Heritage
For someone interested in the relationship between language and culture, the
vocabulary of a language can mirror the way the people in that speech
community conceive their world, the way they structure knowledge about
society and their place in it. Because language reflects culture and also represents
cognitive structures, each regional language is a valuable resource for research
not only into the diverse nature of each of the unique cultures it expresses, but
also into important theoretical issues about the nature of linguistic and cognitive
universals – the way human beings cognitively process reality. These important
issues need to be tested by field data from languages other than English or those
in the Indo-European group before such theories can win wide acceptance.
Certainly, the decision to promote Indonesian which has come to some extent
at the expense of the regional languages can be justified in terms of the
important role Indonesian is playing in national unity, development, and the
provision of educational opportunity.
Yet surely it need not cost the extinction of this rich heritage which is an
important source of knowledge for questions ranging from the relation between
language, culture and knowledge to the search for linguistic universals, the
structure of human knowledge and human evolution.
Informed policies are necessary which will aim to promote a happy coexis-
tence between Indonesian and the regional languages and will help to slow
their demise. We cannot stop language change. Nor can we necessarily prevent
the natural processes that lead to the extinction of languages. But we can
perhaps support the work of those who wish to combat social beliefs and
political policies that are actively undermining the world’s linguistic diversity
by the promotion of monolingual policies.
The Official Status of Languages 97

Recent efforts which frame the arguments for preservation within the context
of a social and political agenda are signs that the threat of extinction for many
languages is seen by many respected linguists as all too real. The least that
researchers can do is to record for posterity something of the uniqueness of
those people’s lives, thoughts and culture. Perhaps we can also support efforts
at increasing awareness among policy makers of what is being lost.
Multamia RMT Lauder
University of Indonesia, Indonesia

State, language and territory

Both in states that have existed for centuries and in more or less modern post-colonial
states, situations are found in which the same linguistic community inhabits terri-
tories belonging to more than one state. In Europe, for example, one well-known situ-
ation is that of Sami, whose speakers are to be found in land belonging to Norway,
Sweden, Finland and the Russian Federation, of Basque, in France and Spain, of
Frisian, in Germany and Holland, of Catalan, in Spain, France and Italy, of Occitan, in
France, Italy and Spain, etc.
This lack of consideration for the integrity of local ethnic groups or linguistic
communities in drawing the limits or borders of modern states can also be found in
other parts of the world. Thus the territory of the Zaparo linguistic community is
divided between Ecuador and Peru, the Maya languages Ch’orti’, Mopan,
Q’anjob’al and Popti’ between several Central-American states, Garifuna between
Guatemala, Honduras, Belize and Nicaragua, Osettic between the Russian
Federation and Georgia, Kirgiz between Kirgiztan and China and countless
examples in Africa.
It is a well-known fact that colonial borders, at least in many areas, were fixed
totally arbitrarily, with no respect for common cultural or linguistic traditions. To a
great extent, this is what has caused the present divisions between states and not a
few of today’s armed conflicts.
Alongside this fact it is important to mention the shifting of borders that takes place
in some parts of the world. By this we mean areas which change fairly easily from one
state to another or are a cause of dispute between states.
From the point of view of linguistic policy, management aimed at promoting and
preserving the linguistic heritage, it is important to stress this aspect since due to the
limited resources available it is essential that efforts be coordinated.
It is also important that forces and bodies from outside the affected communities
avoid having a negative influence on these processes by preventing supra-state
coordination or creating false linguistic and cultural divisions that do not exist
within the communities.
98 Words and Worlds

Official status and languages

How many of the world’s languages are official in some state or other?
This question can be answered with an initial approximation, such as the one by
Krauss (1992), who notes that only some 250 languages are recognised as official or
co-official languages in states or in autonomous regions of a state.
Though not referring strictly to states, UNESCO (1998) puts the figure of different
states or regions of our planet at 224. Languages with official or co-official status in
any state or region of a state comprise less than 5% of the world’s total.
Nevertheless, it is important to point out that more and more states are tending to
recognise all or several of their languages as official or at least to give them co-official
status in the area where they are spoken. Although there are large differences from one
state to another, we can say that following the pioneer policies of Switzerland and Ireland,
who since the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth have
recognised as their official languages French, German, Italian and Romansh, in the case of
the former, and English and Irish Gaelic, in the case of the latter, other states are seeking to
raise all or several of the languages of their territory to official or co-official status.

Constitution of Switzerland 1874, Art. 116

1. German, French, Italian and Romansh are the national languages of

Switzerland.
2. German, French and Italian are declared to be official languages of the
Confederation.

Sri Lanka, for example, recognised Sinhala and Tamil as official languages in 1978.
Luxembourg declared its three languages – French, German and Luxemburgian –
official over the whole of its territory in the eighties. Belgium has French, German and
Dutch as official languages. South Africa, as mentioned above, has recognised 11 of its
languages as official. Paraguay has made Spanish and Guarani official. Eritrea has
established eight languages as official: Afar, Arabic, Blean, Hadareb, Kunama, Saho,
Tigre and Tigriña. Nigeria has declared nine languages official or national: Edo, Efik,
Adamawa Fulfulde, Hausa, Idoma, Igbo, Yerwa Kanuri, Yoruba and English.

Constitution of Sri Lanka, 1978

1. The official language of Sri Lanka shall be Sinhala.

2. Tamil shall also be an official language.
3. English shall be the link language.
The Official Status of Languages 99

Other states, instead of making all their languages official state languages, grant all or
several of them co-official status in their territory alongside the state language or
generalised official language. This is the case in Spain, with Basque, Catalan and
Galician, in Denmark, with Faroese and Greenlandic (Inuktitut), in the Russian
Federation, with many of its languages, such as Chukchi in Chukchia, Chuvash in
Chuvashia, Dolgan in Taymyria, Nentsi in Nenetsia and Taymyria, Osetic in North
Ossetia, Udmurtian in Udmurtia and Yakuto in Yakut and in China with some of the
languages spoken in its territory, such as Tibetan, Jingpo, Derung, Dai, Salar, Zhuang,
Zaiwa, etc.
In other states, local languages, not always recognised as official or co-official, are
promoted through their use in the administration and in the educational system. This
happens, for example, in Ghana, where Akuapim Twi, Asante Twi, Dagaari, Dagbani,
English, Eve, Fante, Ga, Kasem and Nzema are used in teaching (Grimes 2000), in
India, where according to the Sixth Educational Survey in 1998, 35 languages are used
in the educational system, though at different levels (Pattanyak, in this Review), and
in Papua New Guinea, with some 30 languages in the educational system (Wurm, in
this Review).
Although it is true that most states affected by linguistic diversity have for a long
time, contrasting with what have been the main lines of their traditional policy,
proclaimed the dignity of the local languages and the need to preserve them and
encourage them in public life, it is no less true that these proclamations very often
tend to be simple declarations of good intentions which are not reflected in the
linguistic practice of the authorities (Siguán 2001).

Constitution of Vietnam, 1980, Art. 5

…All the nationalities have the right to use their spoken languages and scripts,
and to preserve and promote their fine customs, habits, traditions, and cultures.

Constitution of Ecuador, 1979, Art. 1

…Castilian is the official language. Quechua, Shuar and the other ancestral
languages are official for the indigenous peoples, in the terms laid down by
the law.

But casting an eye over all of the languages of the world, it is important to remember
that 95% of them lack official or co-official state recognition.
Official recognition by the state, as Hagège (2000) points out, involves the
inscription of a language in the state’s constitution and is an increasingly indispen-
sable measure for ensuring the preservation and promotion of languages.
100 Words and Worlds

When a language is made official, the prestige this measure gives rise to in the atti-
tudes of the speakers towards their language is remarkable. Linguistic communities
see their efforts to preserve their language reinforced and the measure allows the use
of resources not previously available. Being able to endow themselves with official
resources to promote their language adds to the prestige of its speakers and in the
means available to them in their daily struggle for the promotion and preservation of
their language.

From official status to marginalisation by way of tolerance

The speakers of minority languages generally tend to identify two different types of
action by states and public institutions.
On the one hand, there are speakers or linguistic communities who feel that their
languages are tolerated by the authorities. This tolerance can, in some cases, be accom-
panied by real, specific measures that promote the development and preservation of
the language, as happens, for example, in the case of Welsh (United Kingdom).

THE LANGUAGE REVIVAL OF WELSH

By 2001 the Census showed that there were 582,400 Welsh speakers making up
21 per cent of the population of Wales. This represented stabilisation since the
Census of 1981. The highest percentages (41%) were in the numbers of younger
Welsh speakers (five to fifteen years old).
The language is represented on television (30 hours a week) and radio (120
hours a week). An Education Reform Act of 1988 stipulated that all children in
state schools should be taught Welsh. Most five to fourteen year olds were so
being by 1993. Then, since 1999, all pupils from five to sixteen learn Welsh either
as a first or second language.
The ‘Welsh Language Act’ of 1993 was intended to give Welsh and English
equal legal status in Wales. It does not give Welsh speakers individual rights.
Public bodies, but not private companies, must draw up plans for providing
services in Welsh.
The legislation gave responsibility for receiving and assessing such plans to
‘Bwrdd Yr Iaith Gymraeg/The Welsh Language Board’. The Board also became
responsible for promoting the language. It administers state aid to two annual
‘Eisteddfodau’ or competitive festivals which have become large scale events.
Intergenerational transmission is a problem. Just over 90% of families where
both parents speak Welsh transmit the language. But where just one parent
speaks Welsh the language is spoken at home only 50% of the time.
A movement for pre-school education (‘Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin’) has been
important for developing Welsh medium nursery education since 1970. A
The Official Status of Languages 101

movement known as ‘Urdd Gobaith Cymru/The League Of Welsh Youth’ is

important for linking Welsh speaking children and adolescents.
Such movements receive state aid through the Welsh Language Board. The
Board’s strategy includes supporting ‘Mentrau Iaith’ or language ventures
which work within communities to revitalise the language as a community
language.The Government of Wales Act 1998 set up the National Assembly for
Wales, giving a weak form of devolved government to Wales. (The Assembly
cannot initiate legislation.) The Welsh language is used in Assembly
proceedings, and simultaneous translation is provided. Changes in the legiti-
mation and promotion of the language create dilemmas for campaigning
groups such as ‘Cymdeithas Yr Iaith Gymraeg/The Welsh Language Society’.
New kinds of mobilisation other than historic civil disobediance campaigns
would be needed to build on the current situation.
Wynford Bellin
Cardiff University, United Kingdom

On the other hand, though, there are occasions when the state can declare all
languages official, as in the case of Mozambique, Peru, Colombia and Ecuador.
However, only very rarely does it take real measures towards protecting them.
Constitutions like Colombia’s (1991) proclaim, for example, that “the state recog-
nises and protects the ethnic and cultural diversity of the Colombian Nation”
(article 7) and that “the languages and dialects of the ethnic groups are also official
in their territories.” “The teaching in communities with their own linguistic tradi-
tions will be bilingual” (article 10). The informant for the Awa Pit community,
however, points out that their language “is theoretically official in their territory,
but this has not yet been put into practice.” The same sort of thing seems to happen
in Ecuador, where article 1 of the constitution states that “the State respects and
encourages the development of all the languages of the Ecuatorians. Castilian is the
official language. Quechua, Shuar and the other ancestral languages are used offi-
cially by the indigenous peoples in the terms laid down by the law.” The informant
for Waorani, in turn, points out that his language “is also co-official in their
territory, but (only) in theory.” The informant for Zaparo in Ecuador also coincides
with this feeling and points out that the language is “co-official in its area, but (only)
on a theoretical level.”
The linguistic communities do not express disagreement with this generic procla-
mation of official status; what they want is to be able to take advantage of the means
that real official status implies.
When the state does not go beyond formal declarations, disappointment is an
inevitable consequence. The informant for the Achuar language of Peru, for example,
102 Words and Worlds

clearly demonstrates the inefficacy of mere general recognition: “In fact it has no
official status of any sort as far as the use of this language in the public administration
and other bodies is concerned”.
It is worth adding that this disappointment seems to extend to a number of coun-
tries, to judge from the accounts gathered. With regard to Article 4 of the Constitution
of Mexico (1992), which says that “The Mexican nation has a pluricultural compo-
sition originally based on its indigenous peoples. The Law will protect and promote
the development of their languages, cultures, habits, customs, resources and specific
forms of social organisation”, the informant for Otomi points out that this is “fair but
belated recognition for the indigenous languages”, but that “there’s many a slip twixt
the cup and the lip”.
Generally in these situations of tolerated languages the members of the
linguistic communities involved have only their own resources to work with in
favour of their languages, and can only count on tolerance on the part of the public
institutions. These languages are only used within the linguistic communities and
rarely get to be used in dealings with the administration. Even when they are used
in the educational system, it is generally at the elementary levels and with the
object of integrating the community’s members into the dominant national culture
more quickly.
In addition, those linguistic communities wanting to preserve and cultivate their
languages and cultures are often faced with hostile attitudes from their fellow
citizens, as the informant for Aymara in Peru points out: “Formally it is co-official and
in practice tolerated, but there is also a negative attitude on the part of the dominant
sector of white Creole society”.
The survival and development of a language is not ensured by giving it an official
status or by tolerating its use. However, it is always positive to claim for the right of a
language to become official. If there are speakers and linguistic communities who feel
that their states forget, marginalised or try to do away with their languages, the
problem is even worse. Amongst these cases we find situations like the ones in Turkey
or Botswana, where the use of non-official languages is explicitly forbidden in some
public spheres.
At other times, although the prohibitions are not explicit, the spokespeople for the
linguistic communities understand that the government would like to see the non-
official languages disappear. In this respect they blame the state and the government
for the situation of their languages, which are close to extinction.
This is the case of the informant for Munduruku in Brazil, who says, “I understand
the Brazilian government’s great desire is that they stop using Munduruku and speak
only Portuguese. The sooner the better.” The perception of the informant for Breton in
France also goes this way: “France denies the existence of linguistic minorities on its
territory. The notion of community other than ‘the French national community’ is
banished from the French legislation that only recognises citizens ‘equal in rights’ and
considers the affirmation of specific community rights as discriminatory and contrary
to the principle of ‘republican equality’.”
The Official Status of Languages 103

BRETON AND THE EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR MINORITY LANGUAGES

From the origins of Brittany until well into the 20th century, Breton was the
language spoken by a great majority of the population of its area, Lower Brittany.
Besides, the use of Breton reached its highest level (more than a million speakers
out of one and a half million inhabitants) on the eve of the First World War.
But Breton parallelly suffered a complete exclusion from the education system set
up at that time (from the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century),
while French was declared the only teaching language, particularly in primary
school, despite many claims, movements of protest, petitions and draft laws.
It was only by the middle of the century that the change of language imposed
itself and the practice of Breton much declined from then on. After dropping to
less than half-a-million, the number of Breton speakers is now estimated to
roughly 250,000, and “passive Breton users” – who understand Breton but don’t
speak it – are roughly estimated to 360 000, according to recent figures.
On the other hand, for the past two decades there seems to be a strong desire for
the preservation of Breton and its increased access to teaching and media among
at least three-quarters of the concerned population (Lower Brittany). The rate
even came very close to 90% in the latest opinion polls on this issue (1997, 1999).
Admittedly, a change occurred since the Breton language was given a certain
place through the Deixonne law in the fifties, which allowed its introduction in
secondary school. Breton was taught as a second modern language during the
seventies, then as an optional subject and finally bilingual streams were set up
during the last two decades, especially after the creation of the Diwan asso-
ciative schools in 1977. By the end of 200, these schools were the subject of
ministry proposals for their admission under public status with a view to ensure
their development.
Currently, the three bilingual education streams (immersion-type associative
stream, parity-type streams of public and Catholic private schools) enrol around
7,000 pupils (approximately one-third each). To this we must add around 12,000
pupils who receive Breton teaching (as optional or so), which means a total of
less than 20,000 pupils out of more than half-a-million enrolled children in the
district of Rennes (not counting the district of Nantes).
The European Charter for Minority Languages signed by the French
government in 1999 (i.e. 39 articles), should contribute to improve this situation
and legitimate the Breton language, in the field of education as well as in the
field of media and for its officialisation at different levels. This is why the ratifi-
cation of this Charter seems important to us.
Francis Favereau
University of Rennes II, France
104 Words and Worlds

Legislation for the protection of the linguistic heritage

Some states make an effort to protect their linguistic heritage. In this respect, it is worth
mentioning New Zealand’s new linguistic attitude toward Maori, Switzerland’s
towards Romansh, Finland’s towards Swedish, the United Kingdom’s towards Welsh,
Paraguay’s towards Guarani, Canada’s towards the indigenous languages, especially
in the North-West territories, Eritrea’s towards its languages, etc.
It is not the intention of this Review to draw up an exhaustive list of favourable
policies implemented by states with a view to the preservation of the linguistic
heritage, but we shall point out a few examples.
One example of positive legislative implementation is that affecting the Sami
language. This language, distributed over the states of Norway, Sweden, Finland and
the north east of the Russian Federation (see Map 4), has seen important progress in
its legal status over recent decades, though not in all the states where it is spoken.
Until the Second World War, the linguistic policies of these European states as
regards Sami were highly assimilationist, trying to impose their respective “national”
languages on Sami speakers and thereby condemning the language to extinction.
After the Second World War, Norway, Sweden and Finland all recognised the particu-
larities of their minorities and began to legislate to guarantee the rights of the Sami
people and its culture.
However, the recognition of linguistic rights in these countries’ constitution did not
come about in Norway until 1988. “It is incumbent upon the government authorities
to take the necessary steps to enable the Sami population to safeguard and develop
their language, culture and social life”. In 1996, it was the government of Finland that
added a special clause to its constitution “Given their status as an indigenous people,
and pursuant to the law, the Sami shall be accorded cultural autonomy in their home-
lands on matters relating to their language and culture”. Sweden’s constitution
makes no specific reference to the Sami language, although it mentions the linguistic
rights of the minorities (Magga 1998).
Today, these measures have made it possible for the Sami community to use their
language in the educational system and in various spheres in which it was banned
until now.
Whatever the case, and as happens with numerous languages, the fact that it
extends over different state territories calls for supra-state co-ordination to take care
of the interests of this people’s culture and language.
Canada is another state in which legislation and administrative practice are
making progress towards the preservation of linguistic heritage. Since 1970 the
official state languages are English and French, but the Canadian Constitutional Act
also establishes that “The existing rights of Aboriginal Peoples are hereby recog-
nized and confirmed.”
This declaration has allowed several juridical and administrative instances to
interpret that the aboriginal peoples have the right to learn and use their languages in
their dealings with the administration.
The Official Status of Languages 105

However, political practice in Canada as regards its local languages has not materi-
alised in laws or received financial backing until very recently, when in 1988 the
province of Northwest Territories declared its six aboriginal languages (Chipewyan,
Cree, Dogrib, Gwich’in, Inuktitut and Slavey) co-official in its territory along with
English and French (Ignace 1998).
As a result of this recognition, these languages receive funding for their real implemen-
tation as languages used in the administration and in education and have acted as a point
of reference for the other Canadian provinces and their native linguistic communities.
There are now projects for the teaching and use of Canadian aboriginal languages
in various provinces. As examples we could mention those of the Cree and Inuskitut
communities in James Bay and North Quebec or that of the Mohawk community of
Kahnawake, Quebec, where since 1980 a programme of linguistic immersion in this
language has been in progress following the model used for French in Quebec. This
Mohawk teaching model has given excellent results as regards the learning and use of
the language and is today one of the mirrors in which the other aboriginal linguistic
communities see themselves (Hoover 1992, Ignace 1998).
Although aboriginal linguistic communities do not always seem to get the support
they wish for and need, the explicit wishes of the aborigines and more sensitive legis-
lation have opened a window of hope in Canada as regards the preservation of the
linguistic heritage. This has happened in a part of the world where the threat facing
languages is enormous (Krauss 1992).
Another language that has seen a certain revival in recent years is Maori. It has been
said of Maori that it is a language that has risen from its deathbed. After centuries of
marginalisation the Maori language was declared official in New Zealand in 1987.
Aborigines and defenders of the language had been fighting since the sixties for its
inclusion in the educational system and its use in public life. In about 1980 the first
linguistic immersion educational programmes in Maori began to be applied and,
thanks to the determination of its defenders and to legal and financial support from
the New Zealand administration, Maori has gained in prestige and raised its level of
use (Ministry of Maori Development 1998).

Initiatives in favour of the preservation of linguistic heritage

In the European Union (EU), also, initiatives have been developed over the last few
years designed to promote linguistic diversity. Today, thirteen languages have official
status in at least one of its fifteen states: German, Danish, Spanish, Finnish, French,
Irish Gaelic, Greek, English, Italian, Luxemburgian, Dutch, Portuguese and Swedish.
Continuing in the tradition of its member states, the EU has based its linguistic
rules on the principle of the equality of languages in its states, though excluding Irish
Gaelic and Luxemburgian from the rank of official working languages of the EU.
In 1958, when it was established that the official languages were to be the official
languages of its member states, what is known as the principle of non-discrimination
was also underlined. This principle states, amongst other things, that citizens cannot
be discriminated on the grounds of language.
106 Words and Worlds

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

Strasbourg 1992
Preamble
The member States of the Council of Europe signatory hereto,
Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity
between its members, particularly for the purpose of safeguarding and real-
ising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage;
Considering that the protection of the historical regional or minority
languages of Europe, some of which are in danger of eventual extinction,
contributes to the maintenance and development of Europe’s cultural wealth
and traditions;
Considering that the right to use a regional or minority language in private
and public life is an inalienable right conforming to the principles embodied in
the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and
according to the spirit of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the work carried out within the CSCE and in particular to
the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and the document of the Copenhagen Meeting
of 1990;
Stressing the value of interculturalism and multilingualism and consid-
ering that the protection and encouragement of regional or minority
languages should not be to the detriment of the official languages and the
need to learn them;
Realising that the protection and promotion of regional or minority
languages in the different countries and regions of Europe represent an
important contribution to the building of a Europe based on the principles of
democracy and cultural diversity within the framework of national sovereignty
and territorial integrity;
Taking into consideration the specific conditions and historical traditions in
the different regions of the European States,
Have agreed as follows: Euopean Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages (Committee of Ministers of the European Union 1992). Available
from; <http: //conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/treaties/HTML/148.htm>
[Accessed 30 October 2004]
The Official Status of Languages 107

The most serious move in this respect was the approval in 1992 by the Committee
of Ministers of the EU of what is known as the European Charter of Regional or
Minority Languages, which was submitted to member states for their signature and
practical recognition. This Charter lays down the obligations of states in the attempt
to preserve the linguistic rights of its minorities and of citizens who do not speak the
official language. To facilitate the signature by states of this charter, only general obli-
gations are mentioned, without making any reference to specific languages. As a
result, the document is purely symbolic.
Even so, the Charter demands minimum measures in teaching, in the media, in
cultural facilities, in public and administrative life, recognition of the plurilingual
reality and a firm will to preserve and promote it. For all these reasons it can be
considered an important step forward, so long, of course, that its recommendations
are respected and carried out. For this it will be necessary for all the EU member states
to sign the Charter and comply with its contents.
In addition, the Council of Europe has expressly invited all the European states to
give their support to this charter. At the end of 2001, 27 states had signed the Charter
and 14 of them had ratified it: Germany, Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Slovenia, Spain,
Finland, Holland, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Norway, United Kingdom, Sweden and
Switzerland. Amongst the signers who had not yet ratified it were: Armenia, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Slovakia, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta,
Rumania, Russia and Ukraine. On the other hand, 16 states in the Council of Europe –
Albania, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Ireland,
Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Poland, Portugal, San Marino and Turkey – had not yet
signed the Charter.
Another EU organisation that works to preserve the European linguistic heritage is
the EBLUL (European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages). This institution estimates
that 40 million citizens of the EU speak a language other than those considered official
in the EU and advocates full recognition of their linguistic rights.
One of the EBLUL’s most recent initiatives, for example, is its proposed resolution
for the promotion of Occitan as an official language at the Winter Olympics to be held
in Turin in 2006.
In Africa, too, in recent decades there have been a series of conferences and
meetings of state representatives to outline and plan several aspects of linguistic
policy. In Harare in 1997, at the Intergovernmental Conference of Ministers on
Language Policies in Africa, organised by UNESCO with the collaboration of the
OAU (Organisation of African Unity) and the ACCT (Francophone Agency) and the
financial support of the Republic of Zimbabwe, at which government experts from 51
states took part, a clear wish was expressed to design a future in which linguistic
wealth would be favoured and protected through government action.
At this conference a proposed action plan was also drafted, which pursued the
implementation of real measures by government authorities with a view to the
promotion of languages in the spheres of education, administration, culture, media,
communication, economy, etc.
108 Words and Worlds

PETITION TO THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS (EBLUL 2001)

On the occasion of the European Year of Languages 2001 (EYL), you have an
opportunity to express your support in favour of Europe’s regional or
minority languages, by signing this petition. In this way you will contribute
to supporting the demands of the forty or so minority linguistic communities
of Europe.
Our languages, an essential part of the European cultural heritage, should
benefit from a legal framework and from the necessary subsidies to protect and
safeguard them.
In the absence of adequate financial aid, one part of the European linguistic
heritage is condemned to disappear.
Help EBLUL to give a voice to the more than 40 million European citizens
who speak a regional or minority language so that they can feel themselves
equal with all other European citizens.
Your stance will contribute to the better preparation of a pluriannual
programme concerning regional or minority languages and will influence
European institutions to take appropriate measures.
EBLUL is an International Association functioning under the Belgian and the
Irish law. It is an independent organisation co-operating with the European
Commission and for questions concerning the European Charter for Regional
or Minority Languages, with the Council of Europe. EBLUL is in Special consul-
tative status with the Economic and Social Council of the UN, the UNESCO and
the Council of Europe.

Along the same lines, the Asmara proclamation, in 2000, underlines the need to
further African languages and literature in the face of the tendency to maintain
colonial languages as vehicles for communication in Africa.
See Map 5 showing language diversity in South Africa.

The universal declaration of linguistic rights

The Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, signed in June 1996 in Barcelona, is an
important reference for the preservation and promotion of languages.
At the World Conference on Linguistic Rights organised by the PEN Club
International Commission for Translations and Linguistic Rights and the Escarré
International Centre for Ethnic Minorities and Nations, with the moral and technical
support of UNESCO, non-governmental participants from almost 100 countries
approved a declaration on linguistic rights for the preservation of languages which
would serve as a guideline for the different state and international bodies.
As it is pointed out in the preliminaries, this declaration sets out to “correct
linguistic imbalances so as to ensure respect and full development of all languages
The Official Status of Languages 109

INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS ON LANGUAGE

POLICY IN AFRICA, HARARE 1997
HARARE DECLARATION
2. GUIDELINES FOR POLICY FORMULATION
a. All African language Policies should be those that enhance the chances
of attaining the vision of Africa portrayed above.
b. Each country should produce a clear Language Policy Document,
within which every language spoken in the country can find its place.
c. Guidelines for policy formulation should be sanctioned by legislative
action.
d. Every country’s policy framework should be flexible enough to allow each
community to use its language side-by-side with other languages while
integrating with the wider society, within an empowering language policy
that caters for communication at local, regional and international levels.
e. A language policy-formulating and monitoring institution/body
should be established in each country.

AGAINTS ALL ODDS: AFRICAN LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES INTO

THE 21ST CENTURY
Asmara 2000
African languages must take on the duty, the responsibility, and the challenge
of speaking for the continent.
The vitality and equality of African languages must be recognized as a basis
for the future empowerment of African peoples.
The diversity of African languages reflects the rich cultural heritage of Africa
and must be used as an instrument of African unity.
Dialogue among African languages is essential: African languages must use
the instrument of translation to advance communication among all people,
including the disabled.
All African children have the unalienable right to attend school and learn in
their mother tongues. Every effort should be made to develop African
languages at all levels of education.
Promoting research on African languages is vital for their development,
while the advancement of African research and documentation will be best
served by the use of African languages.
110 Words and Worlds

The effective and rapid development of science and technology in Africa

depends on the use of African languages and modern technology must be used
for the development of African languages.
Democracy is essential for the equal development of African languages and
African languages are vital for the development of democracy based on
equality and social justice.
African languages, like all languages, contain gender bias. The role of
African languages in development must overcome this gender bias and
achieve gender equality.
African languages are essential for the decolonization of African minds and
for the African Renaissance.

and establish the principles for fair and equitable planetary linguistic peace as a prin-
cipal factor of social coexistence.”
Amongst the basic ideas that guided the drafting of this Universal Declaration of
Linguistic Rights is the principle of the equality of all peoples and all languages. The
initial concept is that neither the internal characteristics of languages nor the
particular economic, social, religious or cultural features of the people who speak
them justify any kind of discrimination.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF LINGUISTIC RIGHTS

Article 3
1. This Declaration considers the following to be inalienable personal rights
which may be exercised in any situation:
the right to be recognized as a member of a language community;
the right to the use of one’s own language both in private and in public;
the right to the use of one’s own name;
the right to interrelate and associate with other members of one’s language
community of origin;
the right to maintain and develop one’s own culture;
and all the other rights related to language which are recognized in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966
and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of
the same date.
2. This Declaration considers that the collective rights of language groups,
may include the following, in addition to the rights attributed to the
The Official Status of Languages 111

members of language groups in the foregoing paragraph, and in accordance

with the conditions laid down in article 2.2:
the right for their own language and culture to be taught;
the right of access to cultural services;
the right to an equitable presence of their language and culture in the
communications media;
the right to receive attention in their own language from government
bodies and in socioeconomic relations.
3. The aforementioned rights of persons and language groups must in no way
hinder the interrelation of such persons or groups with the host language
community or their integration into that community. Nor must they restrict
the rights of the host community or its members to the full public use of the
community’s own language throughout its territorial space.

In the absence of the nevertheless indispensable international legislation in linguistic

matters, this declaration, with its universal vocation, could at least provide a point of
reference for the international community. As a result, states and other responsible
bodies will be able to take coherent action and reverse the trend to uniformity which
runs counter to linguistic and cultural plurality.

NEW APPROACH TO LANGUAGE POLICY

Language is an entity of double abstraction. It is an abstraction at one level

of the speech of individuals (known as idiolects) and of the speech of commu-
nities of individuals bound by geographic, social, economic and gender divi-
sions (known as dialects). This abstraction has been the object of linguistic
description for centuries and the cornerstone of modern linguistics initiated
by Saussure (who called this abstraction langue). Language is an abstraction,
at another level, of the function of relationship with other languages that are
bound in a multilingual network. When multilingualism is taken as the norm,
the functional (or ecological) relationship between languages in a multi-
lingual network (or linguistic ecology) defines the nature of each language in
the network.
This second abstraction of language has not found a place even in sociolin-
guistics, which treats multilingualism as a cluster of autonomous languages.
The languages are not autonomous, as their formal autonomy is constrained by
the multilingual context in which they are situated. The linguistic competence of
112 Words and Worlds

a multilingual speaker correlates with the function of the language defined by

the domain of its use and thus it is a variable. A multilingual speaker need not
have the same competence of the language he uses in the courtroom in another
language he uses in courtship. When he mixes two languages to realise his
communicative and social goals, the codes cease to be autonomous.
The postulate that the languages are autonomous of their functional multi-
lingual context underlies the current practice of language policy. Hence stan-
dardisation of language becomes a primary focus of language policy and is
considered to be a prerequisite for the function planned for the language.
Standardisation draws boundaries around languages, which process militates
against language dependency operating in a multilingual network. The bound-
aries are violated by speakers in their natural linguistic behaviour, as they do
typically in informal contexts and in code mixing. They can be enforced only
through penalties sanctioned by the policy of denying social status and mobility
for breaking them. Language policy is traditionally concerned with the form
and function of a language and not with the form and function of a multilingual
network. That is, the concern is not of the functional inter-relationship between
languages at the level of the individual, the community and the nation. The
functional inter-relationship at best may be an outcome of the implementation
of the policy in a multilingual context, whose focus is the individual languages.
Language policy in the post-colonial world has traditionally been concerned
with making a nation out of a former colony. The policy postulates that the
citizens of the country will have loyalty to and pride in the nation, and thus will
make it viable, through the acceptance of one of the native languages as the
symbol of the new nation and as the instrument of governance. It also postulates
that the nation is one communication zone and one language must have currency
throughout the nation for communication. The policy then is about the selection
of the national, official and link language or languages of the country. It is
considered ideal if all three are the same language. In order to make all citizens
acquire the national, official and link language(s), choice of language in
education becomes an integral part of the policy. With the emphasis on nation
formation, the home language of the people in education does not get its due
place in the policy formulation. The fact that for most ordinary people the zone of
communication in which they live their daily lives is local gets scant attention.
The needs of the individuals and communities are subordinated to the needs of
the nation and when there is any conflict between the needs, the nation’s needs
take precedence. The policy is not about legitimising the needs of the individuals
and communities who constitute the nation but is about fulfilling the needs of
the nation by its constituents co-opting them. Language policy, in other words, is
an expression of the concerns of the State to maintain itself.
The Official Status of Languages 113

Given the centrality of the interests of the State in the goals of language
policy, policy making and implementation becomes the prerogative of the
government. The government is not neutral ideologically and so is not a
neutral arbiter when the interests of the different segments of the society come
into conflict. Its policy is shaped by the ideology of the ruling class and by the
interests of this class and so the policy becomes an instrument of this class to
retain its power. A consequence of this connection in making policy is that its
implementation draws more on the legal sanction of the policy by the State
than on the will of the people. The State has to enact laws for the acceptance of
the policy by the people and adherence to it; there are social sanctions for non-
compliance like denial of educational and economic opportunities. When
people protest against one or other aspect of the policy, it is suppressed using
the power of the State. There are other consequences as well. Policy implemen-
tation depends on bureaucratic will rather than on the demands of the people;
it becomes a governmental programme rather than a popular programme.
There may be disjunction between the policy pronounced by the government
and the actual practice of the people.
These features of policy making and implementation reflect the fact that the
ruling class generally is drawn from the linguistic majority and consequently
the interests of the linguistic minorities are not incorporated in the policy. These
features, however, are found with regard to the linguistic majority also when a
globally dominant language is involved. In many developing countries, their
formal colonial language is eschewed in the policy but embraced by the people.
The case of English is the paradigm example of this. This results from the fact
that policies in other spheres like economics are contrary to the goals of
language policy. The economic policy may promote capital intensive, high tech
industries and integration with the global market, which are perceived by the
ruling class to be beneficial. This kind of economy enhances the value of the
global language for knowledge accumulation and dissemination and so
increases the demand for it by the people in spite of the language policy
promoting a native language. Public policy and private choice of language
diverge even for the linguistic majority in a nation.
Such divergence is a manifestation of the relation of dominance between
languages in which one or some languages abrogate the functions of all public
domains that give power. Promotion of the relation of dominance is inherent in
the traditional language policy and thus emerges one or some dominant
languages out of the multitude of languages. It is inherent in the policy because
the policy is to aid national governance and a centralised governing structure is
made easy by the dominant language, which is made good use of by the bureau-
cracy to assert its authority. The dominance of a language forces or induces a
114 Words and Worlds

language behaviour in the speakers of other languages that leads to the

displacement of their languages. The dominant language enters into private
domains of language use also – home is the ultimate private domain – under-
mining the fabric of functional distribution of languages. Many languages come
to be regarded as redundant, and so a burden, when one language assumes all
functions. This perception leads to transmission of only the dominant language
to the following generation and consequently the disappearance of other
languages. The emergence of a dominant language at the global level threatens
the dominance, if not the survival, of the dominant language(s) at the national
level so assiduously developed by the language policy. The global dominant
language weakens the allegiance of the national elite to their nation by facili-
tating the global alliance of the elite across nations. This shift in the allegiance of
the ruling elite weakens the will of the national government to make a language
policy that will curtail the power of the global dominant language. National
governments that are traditionally the agents of language policy yield their
agency to the market (or to another powerful nation) to allow the emergence of
a dominant language of not their making in their countries.
The agency of the government to make language policy in its interest is chal-
lenged by another global development. It is the assertion of language rights by
people who want the freedom to make language choice that does not discrim-
inate them from access to opportunities. The government is forced to take into
account in language policy the language rights that are exercised by the people
for materialising their interests and to accommodate them without compro-
mising the interests of the State.
The circumscribed role of the government in making language policy pressed
by the global dominant language on one hand and by the assertion of the rights
of the speakers of marginalised languages on the other calls for a new approach
to language policy. The failure of policy as revealed by its dislocation from
practice and by the need to use the force of law to implement it, as mentioned
above, lends further support for a new approach.
When the language is taken to be the second abstraction mentioned in the
beginning, it would follow that all languages, however small, will come under
the purview of policy in terms of their relationship with each other.
Standardisation for literate functions would become a manifestation of just one
of the relationships. Dominance would not be the all-pervasive relation in the
multilingual network. Language policy will be concerned with maintaining a
functional balance between languages. Functions have different values and
therefore the policy must ensure that they do not discriminate. The equality
between languages emanates from the equality of persons in the sense that
persons do not become unequal by the languages they speak. People are not
The Official Status of Languages 115

discriminated against and denied opportunities because of their language. So

the fundamental concern of the language policy must be to ensure this equality.
It means that no language is a liability to its speaker. A corollary of this principle
of equal treatment of languages for equal opportunities to their speakers is that
speakers of more than one language will be better endowed among the equals.
In other words, many languages add to one’s asset by enhancing their function-
ality, as the addition of literacy over orality in a language does.
When the focus of the language policy is multilingual functionality and the
development of individual languages in the sense of equipping them to perform
their function is a derivative of it, the problem of language disappearance
caused by language dominance and inequality will be minimised.
This shift in focus does not mean that a multilingual network is static. It
continuously evolves in tune with the societal changes and the multilingual
functionality of speakers is constantly redefined. The goal of language policy
then is not to make languages reach their set end points but to keep the multi-
lingual functionality viable and vital all the time and to prevent it from self-
terminating by disallowing emergence of dominant and unequal relationship
between languages.
Such a language policy calls for a shift in the domain of the policy. Its domain
is not limited to the nation but extends to the community and the individual
because language functions are not limited to the nation. Communities and indi-
viduals have functions for languages, some of which may replicate the functions
the State has for those languages, and some other functions may complement
them. All the functions together make up the multilingual functionality of the
individual, the community and the nation. An individual and a community do
not have a mother tongue in the functional sense (other than using one language
for ethnic identity for socio-political purposes) but have a language repertoire,
which is not merely a collection of languages but a set of languages with defined
functions. The languages in the repertoire have distributed functions and, correl-
atively, distributed competence. The repertoire may have just one language (if
we ignore the dialect varieties with defined functions), which means all func-
tions are carried out by one language. But the repertoire is open to include more
languages and so is not necessarily static. The language policy must make use of
this openness to encourage the individuals and communities to enrich the reper-
toire. As with the nation, the multilingual network in the individuals and
communities is not static, but is changing in response to societal changes.
Protecting the viability and vitality of the individual and communal multilingual
functionality must be a goal of language policy. The policy of multilingual func-
tionality at the level of the individual, the community and the nation must
synchronise to realise this goal.
116 Words and Worlds

Some advantages follow the above shift in the domain of the policy. The
cultural needs of rootedness and distinctiveness of individuals and commu-
nities get equal weight with the political needs of unity and solidarity of
nations. These needs do not exclude each other. Unlike traditional language
policy, the linguistic functionality of the individual and the community is not
left to be the default function or, at best, to be the residue of the national policy.
All three domains get equal attention in the policy. All linguistic communities,
big and small, get a place in the policy, not just the majority community. Cross
border communities could have common functionality at their level on to
which the national level functionality is super-imposed. The negative features
of the traditional language policy mentioned earlier will not manifest itself
because the individual, the community and the nation are not moving in
different directions.
The domain shift brings with it a structural change in the agency of policy
making. The government has been the exclusive agent to make policy. The new
global and ethnic forces constraining the freedom of the government to make
policy for the nation have already been mentioned. In the new approach, the
government is one of the three agents along with the individual and the
community. The individual is free to make his or her decision (i.e. policy) of
language use and so does the community. The constraint is that the policies
made by the three agents are in concert. For the three agents of language policy
to function in relative freedom the control mechanism in the polity must be
decentralised. A good candidate for decentralised control is the school system.
The community has control over the school and decides language choice in
education accommodating individual and national preferences.
The role of the government in the overall language policy is neither central
nor independent. In addition to making that part of the policy that safeguards
national interests, it assumes other responsibilities like facilitating the
community and the individual to make decisions on language use, synchro-
nising the decisions made at the three levels and balancing the language rights
of the individual, the community and the State.
There is another aspect to the decentralised language policy making.
Decisions about policy must be well informed. Otherwise they may not be in
the interest of their makers themselves. Individuals and communities
without power may accept the negative perception of their language as defi-
cient and useless inculcated by others in power and this may bias their
decision about the use of their language. They may further be enticed by the
rewards of the language of the powerful and mesmerised into believing that
the rewards are automatic when that language becomes dominant in their
language repertoire edging out others. This calls for programmes for creating
The Official Status of Languages 117

awareness in individuals and communities about the value of different

languages, about existence of structural barriers other than acquisition of the
dominant language that block access to power, wealth and status, about the
vacuousness of the belief that use as the medium of education (immersion) is
the best way to learn effectively the language of power, etc. Creation of such
awareness must be the responsibility of the media, non-governmental organ-
isations and other institutions of the civil society. Any decision made by indi-
viduals and communities after exposure to such information may be said to
be well informed. The language policy must accommodate such decisions.
Language policy is not made for the sake of language alone. It has a larger
social purpose as well. It is to build a just and equal society without discrimi-
nation by the attributes of one’s birth. A language policy that does not allow the
language to be used for discrimination and that does not push people into
giving up their language to avoid denial of opportunities in the pursuit of their
interests makes a contribution to building such a society. This must be the
underlying principle for any new approach to language policy.
E. Annamalai
Central Institute of Indian Languages, India
118 Words and Worlds

Recommendations on the official status of languages

Leaders, legislators and administrators in societies in general should do everything
possible to:

• Legislate on linguistic matters on the basis of respect for the wish of indi-
viduals to use their own language in public and in private, and according to
the principle of the right to maintain and develop one’s own language.
• Structure societies on the basis of respect for the wish of linguistic commu-
nities to use their own language in education, in the administration of public
services, in the sphere of justice and, in general, in all spheres of public and
private activity.
• Explicitly recognise, in the constitution or in the supreme judicial ordinance,
the co-official status at state level of all the languages of the territory, or at
least the official status of each language in its area (autonomy, province,
federation, canton, city, etc.).
• Provide real and effective administrative and financial support on the part of
the authorities for putting into effect educational and language-use projects
in the public sphere and the administration.
• Establish and further a body to control these measures in each linguistic
community, administered by the community itself.
• In those cases in which a community is divided over various states, promote
the community’s own supra-state body for the coordination of the different
linguistic and cultural programmes.
• Publicise and spread existing positive practices and models, to which end we
hereby appeal to linguists and members of all the planet’s social and scien-
tific communities to increase their efforts in this direction, either through
organised encounters or through academic and social diffusion.
• Exchange experiences and coordinate the efforts by states, state organisa-
tions, supra-state organisations or popular initiatives working in this field.
• Establish an international body of an informative type both to denounce viola-
tions of linguistic rights and to mediate in the solution of any problems arising.
Chapter 4
The Use of Languages in Public
Administration
Why is it important for a language to have access to public administration?
The use of a given language by governmental institutions always brings prestige to
it because it is associated with the power wielded by the political and administrative
structures. Administrative uses, and especially in writing, have furthermore
developed specific registers and styles in languages which have access to them.
Consequently, it is logical that any linguistic community should want to be able to use
its language when dealing with administrative bodies.
Given the political structure of states, many languages have not been able to
exercise any administrative role. This non-use, of course, does not imply any intrinsic
shortcoming in the language that cannot be overcome with use. It is important to
emphasise, furthermore, that forms of use can be very varied, from informal oral use
to the most specialised written use. It is also important to bear in mind that according
to the characteristics of the administrative organisation, depending, for example, on
whether it is run by members of the community or outsiders, the possibilities for
using the language can be considerably increased or decreased.
In the information gathered, it can be seen that use of a language in public services
depends directly on its official status. But this is not a sufficient guarantee. There can
also be examples of communities in which, in spite of lacking the desired legal status
for their language, it is at least tolerated and members of the community can use it for
some administrative purposes.
In this chapter we shall analyse the relation between the official status of a
language and its use in administration, with special attention to whether or not the
use reported is written or oral.

Language, official status and public administration

According to the information gathered, 7% of the sample languages are official or co-
official state languages in their territory or, at least, part of it.

119
120 Words and Worlds

Table 5. Official status of languages and use in governmental institutions

Degree of official status Official or Co-official Languages Total

co-official languages without
state in their official
languages territory or recognition
Language use in administration part of it

Oral and written use 6% 6% 1% 13 %

Oral with incipient written use 1% 2% 2% 5%

Exclusively oral use –– 7% 16 % 23 %

Neither oral nor written –– 4% 55 % 59 %

Total 7% 19 % 74 % 100 %

As regards language use in dealings with public administration, 13% of informants

say that their language can be used both orally and in writing with relative
normality; 5% consider that it is limited to oral use but with incipient written use,
and 23% that its use is exclusively oral. The remaining languages (59%) are not
used at all.
An initial comparison of the figures might appear surprising, as one would expect
that at least 26% of the sample languages – that is, the ones with official or co-official
status – would be used normally in public services. However, the figures reveal that
only between 13% and 18% of languages are used in writing and there is an
observable gradation from normalised to incipient use.
Although the sample under study represents approximately 10% of the languages
in the world, the figures and trends reflected in Table 5 are fairly representative of the
general situation of languages. We shall now analyse each of the observed trends on
the basis of the figures gathered.

THE LANGUAGES OF SIBERIA

Despite its low population density in pre-industrial times, Siberia (including the
Russian Far East) is home to substantial linguistic diversity. Apart from recently
introduced languages like Russian, the following families are represented:
Uralic (western Siberia), Turkic (southern Siberia, also Yakut (Saha) in eastern
Siberia), Tungusic (central and eastern Siberia), Mongolic (southern Siberia), as
well as the so-called Paleo-Siberian (Paleo-Asiatic) languages: Yeniseian (central
The Use of Languages in Public Administration 121

Siberia), Yukaghir (north-eastern Siberia), Chukotko-Kamchatkan (north-

eastern Siberia), and Nivkh (Gilyak, eastern Siberia). In addition, varieties of
Eskimo are or were spoken at the eastern tip of Siberia.
Some of the smaller languages were endangered even before Russian entered
the area, and there are well attested cases of shift from one Siberian language to
another, e.g. Dolgan is an aberrant variety of Yakut with a Tungusic substrate. In
the Soviet period, encouragement was given, e.g. through the development of a
written form and at least limited use in education and the media, to some of the
indigenous languages, though the smallest ones, such as Yukaghir and the
Yeniseian language Ket, received little or no such support. The more extensive
languages, in particular the Turkic and Mongolic languages of the southern
fringe and Yakut, have survived well, are currently spoken by the near-totality
of the corresponding ethnic groups, and are even in some cases, e.g. Tuvan,
enjoying a substantial revival through expanded use in the post-Soviet period.
Some of the smaller languages, however, had already died out by the end of the
nineteenth century, e.g. the Uralic language Mator and the Yeniseian language
Kott, while the last speaker of the Uralic language Kamassian died in 1989.
The Soviet policy – paralleling similar policies in North America – of removing
children to Russian-speaking residential schools led to language loss among
children, so that even for languages that did find some use in education like
Chukchi, it is increasingly hard to find younger speakers with a full command of
the language. The post-Soviet period has admittedly provided new opportunities,
e.g. writing systems have been developed for some languages that previously
were not used as written languages, such as Ket. But the market economy and the
exploitation of Siberia’s natural resources have not in general been kind to the
smaller languages, and the prospects for their survival as active means of commu-
nication are bleak. Documentation of these languages is an urgent task.
Bernard Comrie
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany

Languages used orally and in writing in public administration

The languages used orally and in writing in public administration are of three types:
Official or co-official state languages. The presence of these languages is extended
to all levels of public administration. In this situation we find, for example, Spanish,
Russian, Chinese, French, Arabic, Japanese, Polish, Icelandic, Korean, Swedish and
Italian. These languages make up 6% of the total.
Languages that are official in their territory or part of it. These are languages that
have a real presence in public administration orally and in writing. In this situation
we find, for example, Catalan (Spain), Faroese (Denmark), Mongol (China),
122 Words and Worlds

Malabar (India) and Tibetan (China). These languages make up another 6% of the
total of languages.
Languages without official recognition. There are languages that in spite of lacking
official or co-official status are nevertheless used in public administration. These
make up 1% of the sample languages, as reported by, for example, the informant for
Acholi in Uganda:
It is used in administration, since most people do not express themselves well in
English in official documents, and especially in the sphere of the rural commu-
nities, Acholi is used a lot in writing. (Acholi, Uganda)

Languages with normalised oral use and incipient written use in public
administration
Five percent of the sample languages show normal oral and some sporadic written
use in public administration. Some (1% of the total) are languages which in spite of
being official or co-official state languages are used very little in writing. This is the
situation of, for example, Guarani in Paraguay, Urdu in Pakistan, Belarusian in
Belarus and Maltese in Malta. The accounts of the informants on Urdu and Maltese
are revealing in this respect:
Maltese is the national language, and co-official with English according to the
Constitution. It is the language of the Parliament and the Law Courts. It is spoken
generally in all administrative levels, but most of the writing is carried out in English.
(Maltese, Malta)
Urdu is the national language. Yes, it is used in offices in verbal form, very rarely in
written as mostly the written language is English. (Urdu, Pakistan)
Others (2% of the total) are languages that while co-official in their territory or part of
it are barely used in writing in public administration. Some examples of these are Igbo
(Nigeria), Ndebele (Zimbabwe) and Dai (China).
The Igbo language has an official status. It is one of the three major languages
alongside Hausa and Yoruba taught in the school system – primary, secondary and
tertiary levels. It is used to some extent, mostly in the spoken form. Official documents
in the country are usually written in English. There are, however, a few instances
where these documents may be translated into the three major languages: Hausa, Igbo
and Yoruba. (Igbo, Nigeria)
In the Xishuangbanna and Dehong Dai Autonomous Prefectures, Dai is an official
language and has the same status as Chinese. Dai is used in administration along with
Chinese. At the prefectural and county levels, Chinese is used more; at the township and
village levels, Dai is used more. In terms of writing, Chinese is mostly used. Dai writing
is only used for certain important documents or when there is a necessity to inform those
living in townships or villages. (Dai, China)
The Use of Languages in Public Administration 123

Finally, there is another group of languages (2% of the total) which while not
official or co-official are also used in public administration, though their written
use is very limited.

Languages with oral and without written use in public administration

Twenty-three percent of the sample languages are used in administration only orally.
This group includes languages that are co-official in at least part of their territory,
such as Kabardian (Russian Federation), Wolof (Senegal) and Dongxiang (China).
These languages make up 7% of the sample. The remaining 16% of the total are not
officially recognised.
From the accounts of the informants themselves one can deduce that the oral use of
a language in administration is not a direct consequence of a policy of promoting this
language by the administrative authorities. In fact, it responds to the spontaneous
conduct of citizens who use the language on recognising a member of their own
community in an administrative post. These languages can hardly be considered
favoured or protected by the authorities. The accounts of the informants for
Tamazight, Karachay and Salar have plenty to say on this aspect:
Only Niger and Mali have recognised the co-official status of Tamazight although they
do not ensure its use in schools. In Algeria, the official status of this language has not
been recognised in spite of the constant campaigns by the Kabyle from spring 1980 until
the popular outbreak following the murder of Lunes Matub in July 1998. Officially it is
not used in administration, although in Berber-speaking areas it depends on whether or
not the civil servants are Berbers and always unofficially. In this case, it is always used
orally. (Tamazight, Algeria)
Formally this language has state status in the territory of the Republic. This language is
used in dealings with the administration only in cases when the civil servant is
Karachay. In this case, older people use their mother tongue but only orally. (Karachay,
Russian Federation)
Salar is one of the official languages in Salar autonomous areas. In government affairs
within the Salar autonomous counties, Chinese is usually used. However, among Salar
people themselves, they may occasionally use spoken Salar. (Salar, China)
Whatever the case, this oral use of the language or this possibility of using it in public
administration is a positive aspect for the vitality of the language and reflects at least
a certain tolerance on the part of administrative structures.

Languages not used orally or in writing in public administration

Fifty-nine percent of the remaining languages in the sample are not used in dealings
with governmental institutions. This situation sometimes includes languages which
have co-official status in their territory, as in the case of Nogai (Russian Federation) or
Aymara (Peru). (See Map 6.) But basically the languages in this group are those with
124 Words and Worlds

no explicit recognition, which is the case of Uitoto (Colombia), Cabecar (Costa Rica)
and Fongbe (Benin).
Formally they are co-official and in practice tolerated or even rejected by the dominant
sector of white Creole society. In the public and private administration the Aymara
language is not used, either orally or in writing. (Aymara, Peru)
According to the new political Constitution of 1991, ‘The state recognises and protects the
ethnic and cultural diversity of the Colombian Nation’ (Article 7). ‘The languages and
dialects of the ethnic groups are also official in their territories. The teaching in commu-
nities with linguistic traditions of their own will be bilingual’ (Article 10). Even so, the
language is not used at all by the administration.” (Uitoto, Colombia)
In 1987 this language – and 5 others – was raised to the rank of national languages that
must be promoted as a priority in Benin. Fon is not in use by the administration.
However we must point out a movement of hope since at the level of the Beninian
parliament, some deputies can only understand their own national languages. These
deputies are starting to claim that the parliamentary sessions should also take place in
Fon. (Fongbe, Benin”)
This large group has given rise to accounts from informants in which it can be seen
that they are not aware of any tolerance of their languages by public adminis-
tration. Contrary to their wishes, the speakers come up against obstacles imposed
by the administrative authorities that hinder the use of the language by
government services.
The language is not official yet. To this day, Portuguese is the only official language of the
islands. There are however efforts being made to endow Kriolu with a joint-official status.
In terms of acceptance of the language, a survey I conducted on the islands in the summer
of 1997 showed that the overwhelming majority of the people interviewed not only
accepted the language but also favoured its officialisation by the side of Portuguese
(Capeverdean Creole, Cape Verde)
Bantawa is not allowed to use in administration (Bantawa, Nepal)
France denies the existence of linguistic minorities on its territory. The notion of
community other than the French national community is banished from the French legis-
lation that only recognises citizens equal in rights and considers the affirmation of specific
community rights as discriminatory and contrary to the principle of republican equality.
Article 2 of the French Constitution, as modified in 1992, states that the language of the
Republic is French. The written use of Breton is banished from public administration. Its
oral use is anecdotal or confidential. (Breton, France)
These figures are surprising, because a careful reading of them could suggest, for
example, that in many situations recognition of official or co-official status for a
language in its territory or part of it is more symbolic than real. We need only note that
while 19% of the languages in the sample are co-official in their territory, only 6% of
The Use of Languages in Public Administration 125

them can possibly be used in writing normally in dealings with the administration
and 2% only show incipient use (see Table 5, column 2).
From all this we can conclude that only 13% of the languages in the sample
show real normalised use in public administration, regardless of their official
status. Of course, we must not forget the 5% which are said to show incipient
written use. Any achievement, any presence of the language in a medium such as
the administration, must always be defended and backed up if we want to
preserve linguistic diversity.
However, in the face of these facts, we must make an urgent appeal to the adminis-
trative and public authorities for practical measures to encourage the use of all their
languages in public institutions.
In analysing the use of languages in government services, it can be seen that in
many situations the recognition of official or co-official status for a language seems
more symbolic than real. We need only note that while 19% of languages in the
sample are official or co-official, less than a third (6% of the total) show any degree of
normal written use in dealings with governmental institutions. Furthermore, there is
a symbolic 2% of the total of languages that only use writing in public services
sporadically (see Table 5, column 2).
This does not mean that oral use is not important. In fact, the informants them-
selves mention that insofar as citizens have access to administrative or to government
bodies, they use their own language, sometimes because they express themselves
better than in the official or administration language, and at others because they want
to exercise their right to use it. These, of course, are acts that show a considerable
awareness or linguistic vitality that very often has nothing to do with the official
status of the language.
Although contact situations between languages have traditionally been
considered a problem for administrators, it is urgent that administrative bodies
should look on multilingual situations as normal and they must be managed as such
by the administration as well. Just as in education the simultaneous use of more than
one language need not be an obstacle to communication if one can appreciate the
value of diversity.
In any case, every effort made for languages to figure more prominently in political
and administrative bodies will always be positive both for the prestige and for the
development of new linguistic forms in each language. Because of all this, it is
important that we appeal to the administrative and public authorities so that they
take every measure available to them and protect this fundamental right with imagi-
native measures, taking advantage of the innovations to be found in technology and
always bearing in mind that the basic object of the administration is to ensure the
greatest well-being for its citizens.
126 Words and Worlds

THE WHY AND THE WHEREFORE OF CENSUSES WITH LINGUISTIC DATA

Censuses with linguistic data have been with us for a long time. Certainly a few
countries have had language questions in their censuses for the better part of the
20th century (eg. Canada, India, Soviet Union) but even fewer in the 19th
century (eg. Canada, India, Belgium). Other countries have been late arrivals on
the scene and have only shown an official interest in such data in recent years
(e.g. Spain, USA) and others have gathered language data in the past but have
not done so in recent times (e.g. Belgium).
To broaden the scope of what has been called linguistic data above, we could
include in this discussion not just language data per se, but also data on ethnic or
national groups as well. In doing so, we would ipso facto add many more countries
to our list of those gathering ‘linguistic’ type data or what would be better termed
ethno-linguistic type data. As language here defined is spoken by people, and
people are themselves regrouped by longstanding ancestral and cultural relation-
ships, data on these quite intact human groups can often shed some light on their
linguistic affiliations (ibid. Kloss and McConnell, volume 1, Introduction).
Obviously, broad ethno-linguistic links exist, but these need not be on a uniquely
one-to-one basis, as an ethnic group can easily be found to speak more than one
language on the one hand, and on the other, one language can often be spoken by
several ethnic groups. This state of affairs has come about through a long
historical process of diffraction and assimilation of languages. Here horizonal
(geographical) space, involving also geographical barriers to communication, is
paramount in the diffraction process. On the other hand, assimilation results in
the loss of a language by a group, so that a language initially spoken by one group
is lost and another language takes its place. Hence, the language spoken first by
one group is later spoken by two or more. Here vertical (social) space is para-
mount, in that a number of languages may come to be used in a social space,
resulting in the spread of some and the contraction of other languages.
When we try to make these less than neat associations between closely
interknit groups and their languages, it is usually presumed that we are
speaking of the first language learned in childhood and still spoken, which is usually
referred to as the mother tongue. Between the mother tongue and the ethnic
group then, there is some kind of intimate consociational relationship (an
ecological community with a common mother tongue), which in many cases
lasts from generation to generation, and which allows one not only to link, but
almost to identify, the one in terms of the other. This is not nearly so much the
case for other-than-mother-tongue languages (second, third, forth, etc.
languages), which have a much more tenuous relationship with the ethnic
group and which are usually determined by conditions of social proximity
The Use of Languages in Public Administration 127

either in horizonal or in vertical space. Nowadays, both types of space have

further expanded into a third dimension of cyberspace, so that real physical
proximity or lack of it is no longer a sine qua non of second language learning
and language maintenance, spread and loss. Due to the overall ‘shrinkage’ of
physical space, the diffraction process appears to be slowing down, giving rise
to a lower ‘birth rate’ for languages on the one hand, and on the other, the
increasing virtual proximity would appear to be resulting in a speeding up of
the assimilation process, both in terms of social and ‘long distance’ cyber space.
THE WHEREFORE OF LINGUISTIC DATA
At this point we should perhaps ask ourselves the following question: ‘Why
bother gathering linguistic or ethnolinguistic data?’ and at the same time, use
this discussion to discuss some of the difficulties and pitfalls involved in this
data gathering process.
One would have thought that given the central and dependent role of
language in our daily lives, together with the inescapable fact of universal
ethnic grouping (the latter having in turn a direct link to nationalism and the
rise of the nation state in modern times), that data on linguistic and ethno-
national groups would be plentiful, accurate to a fault and universally recog-
nised and promoted. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is the exact
opposite. Data is sparce, sporadic in its manifestation, lacks consistency over
time, is geographically not very widespread and methodologically is largely not
uniform. Although such data is considered basic by many, it is often so stratigic
or sensitive in many countries as to warrant suppression at the worst, or manip-
ulation at the best. So, although ethno-linguistic data should due to its nature be
of central interest to most countries and in high demand for research and in the
scientific media for many different reasons, the reality is that when it is not
simply ignored, such data is limited in scope and controlled in its diffusion by
governments in control of their census offices and research institutes.
Data on an ethnographic and geolinguistic patterning of the world and its
peoples would seem to be a natural result of a democratisation of the political
regimes of the world and could without too much difficulty be related to basic
human rights, at least in the form of a right to detailed information on the subject.
Graphically, it could also lead to a further scientific development of maps on the
subject and to still other scientific developments in GIS mapping (Dalby 1998;
McConnell 1999), so that ethnolinguistic data could be better classified, thereby
‘obtaining sets of empirical data at each level of abstraction’ (see above). At the
same time this data could be linked to other types of social data, so that changes
in language use (including language death) could be monitored better, explained
and predicted through an ecological approach, using data not only from the
social sciences but from the biological sciences as well (Parker 1997).
128 Words and Worlds

Apart from the usual standard type of data relating to: (i) mother tongue, i.e.
‘the first language learned and still spoken’, (ii) second or other languages spoken
(able to keep up a conversation in the language), there are sometimes questions
about whether languages are read or written. There are also, but only very occa-
sionally, questions on speaking a language in a particular contextual situation,
which constitutes a very useful dimension, e.g. ‘Language most often spoken in
the home?’, as in more recent Canadian censuses. The most recent census in
Canada, i.e. that of 2001, will still add further questions of this nature, namely,
‘The language most often spoken at work?, The second most used language at
work? and ’The second most used language at home?’. This type of question is
important, as it relates directly to the functional or utilitarian aspect of language
and not just to general language skills, which are largely assumed in the func-
tional context. Second, it includes in the functional aspect one of frequency or
dominance. Language function is a whole different area of study not centred on
the individual speaker and his/her language skills, but on dominant or coor-
dinate language usage in a specific ‘social’ territory. This type of data has only
been superficially covered in language censuses, but when it has been used there
or elsewhere, has given rise to challenging comparisons and promising analyses.
Very little data of this nature has come out of the conventional census, probably
because such data raises sensitive questions of language role and utility/function-
ality, that can lead to further embarrassing questions on language community
rights, to language spread, maintenance and loss, and to language domination.
However, sociolinguistic research on language communities has generated a large
amount of data over the past 40 years, although much of it is based on case studies
that give neither a wide coverage or a strong comparative basis. One such study
that has these qualities and which covers several hundred languages spoken on
several continents is: The Written Languages of the World: A Survey of the Degree and
Modes of Use (Kloss and McConnell 1978, 1989, 1989; McConnell et al. 1995, 1998,
2000). Here the data that has been gathered is based on the same questionnaire
(with limited local adaptions) with information on 8 social domains (govern-
ments, schools, mass media, industries, etc.) and in each of these domains on a
number of levels. This has allowed us to create a functional portrait that is both
descriptive and quantifiable.
THE POTENTIAL FOR LINGUISTIC DATA IN CENSUS
If it were not for the political impediments and objections raised against the
collection of linguistic data in censuses, this type of data could go a long way to
solidifying language and linguistic community rights and to adding to the main
outlines of an ethnographic and geolinguistic patterning of the world’s
languages and peoples. This framework, once established, would also allow us
to study in a more serious vein the internal interaction of this patterning
The Use of Languages in Public Administration 129

(language and community contact) against the backdrop of other types of social
and economic interaction in order to better evaluate more seriously the effect of
the one on the other. It is only then that any serious kind of prognosis or
prediction can be undertaken. Unfortunately both linguists and sociolinguists
in the recent turn of century events could not resist the temptation to predict the
demise of most of the languages of the world (Hagège, Crystal, Krauss, etc.).
However, it is certain that basic linguistic and sociolinguistic portraits of most of
the languages of the world that are required for this framework are simply
either not available, are out of date or are incomplete.
So in spite of the pitfalls in language census data, some of which are
mentioned above, the census still has a role to play in gathering data of this
nature worldwide. And this role can and undoubtedly will become ever more
important, once this data is not just at the service of individual nation states, but
at the service of worldwide institutions, the aim of which is to foster the dissem-
ination of important and useful and even critical ethnolinguistic data on the
peoples and languages of the world.
Grant D. McConnell
Laval University, Canada
130 Words and Worlds

Recommendations on the use of languages in public administration

Having noted the importance and the practical transcendence for linguistic commu-
nities of the use of their language in relations with public services:

• The administrative authorities and public services, both those dependent on

the state and those that are regional and local, should watch over the
fulfilment of the right to use local languages in citizens’ dealings with the
administration.
• The administrative authorities must ensure that members of linguistic
communities have the chance to address oral and written requests to the
administrative services in their own language and to receive a reply in the
same language.
• In public administration, citizens should be provided with the relevant
application forms in the local language or at least in a bilingual or multi-
lingual edition. The same must happen with the basic documents supplied
by the administration, such as identity cards, passports, driving licenses,
citizens’ certificates, etc.
• The public administration should also ensure that members of local commu-
nities can use names and other signs of identity in their own language and
that place names and toponyms are indicated in the local language(s).
• The public administration should in particular ensure that basic facilities
such as the administration of justice and the health service attend to citizens
in their own language.
• The authorities should see to it that their employees are able to use the
language of the area where they are working.
• The authorities should take population censuses that include linguistic data,
with the object of revealing citizens’ real linguistic situation and subsequently
being able to provide services attending properly to their linguistic rights.
Chapter 5
Language and Writing
Can a language subsist without writing in the twenty-first century? Why is so much
importance attached to writing? What is the real situation of most languages as
regards writing? What does it mean to standardise a language? Does writing mean
written literary tradition? How much space/time will be left for reading/writing
with the generalisation of telephony and of computer and audiovisual media?
When a linguistic community has no system of writing and has no dealings with
so-called modern civilisation, its language nevertheless fulfils all the functions of
communication and thought for the community and can therefore subsist without
danger. This situation, however, is increasingly rare. For the sake of modernity and
the power of social liberation attributed to written culture, literacy campaigns are
now widespread in all states. As Pattanayak points out (1991), UNESCO put a literacy
programme into operation in 1975 which it was hoped would reach the whole of the
world’s population by 2000. However, this author believes that there are still about
800 million people today who are illiterate. Also, it is not known if the newly literate
are literate in their own language or, which is almost the same thing, how many
people have been made literate in their own language and who they are.
Although it is known that many languages have no written codification or written
use, in the figures obtained in the study, more than 80% of the informants for the
languages sampled said that their language was a written one. What is more, it seems
that the development of writing, along with schools, is a prime objective for the
survival of the language in question.
Except for fully official or co-official state languages, most languages show only the
beginnings of written use, generally limited to the sphere of religion and to schools. It
is with regard to writing that we see how the interpretation of the concept of standard
language varies. As for literary tradition, we shall see that the oral wealth that exists
in all languages rarely has a written version. In this section on the written use of
languages, we shall try to answer the questions above, mainly on the basis of the
evidence gathered.

131
132 Words and Worlds

ORALITY AND WRITING: AND THERE WERE LETTERS

You have come to the village of the Ena Wene Nawé, an Arawak people of the
Juruena river, Mato Grosso, Brazil. In 1974 they had their first visitors from the
“others”. At the beginning of 1978 I am in their midst and I am writing my notes
in a notebook on my knees. The natives watch the movement of my wrist and
the birth of the signs lining up from left to right with curiosity. One day Kawair°
asks me if my companion will be back soon; another day, I am asked if the
woman we left dying in the village has died yet. Writing, they think, can predict,
prophesy, bring the distance near and leap across time.
One day I take a book with me containing mythical stories of the Paresi, another
Arawak people with long contact with “civilisation” and once visited by Claude
Lévi-Strauss. I have been with the Ena Wene Nawé for some years now, and I have
never before read aloud what I write in Portuguese. What sense could they make
of that bla-bla-bla of mine? But for whatever reason, today I decide to read aloud.
When I pronounce words in a similar dialect, they immediately understand. And
then one of them, realising that I do not know enough of the language to give such
a long account so well, snatches the book from me intrigued…and listens to it.
There is no doubt I saw the voice, the voice was inside the book.
Going from orality to writing is not an impersonal act. Someone has to specif-
ically transmit the voice to the hands and from the hands to a sign, written,
drawn, lined up vertically or horizontally, and transmitted back to the eyes.
While there is a taste of language that is relished, savoured, is moistened with
saliva or dries in the throat, there is also writing that is touched, though it would
take an almost superhuman sense of touch to make out the relief in writing
unless it were cuneiform or glyptic or some other form of graffito. But essen-
tially, writing makes it possible to see words and to hear what we see, since what
we hear is endowed with visibility. In orality and writing all the senses that are
strengthened and enhanced on the basis of utterances intervene. Today we
know that no word can be uttered that cannot be at once time and space. But
what is really universal is the language of the mouth, which we call oral and
which no human society can do without.
The experience by which I happened to assist at the birth of reading in a
village filled me with wonder and fear. It all began as a game, but then I began to
wonder how it would end. How often they took my notebook from my hands
and filled the lines from left to right with drawings – graphemes – that were
different but fairly repetitive – that is, discrete units of an almost closed series of
figures, an attempt at a kind of alphabet. An attempt to imitate? Probably.
In what were to become early pages of writing there was not as yet, it seemed,
any intention of mastery, as Claude Lévi-Strauss thought he had discovered
Language and Writing 133

when that Nambikwara Indian, precisely in the same area where I was now
with the Ena Wene Nadw, appropriated writing, trying to make use of those
scribblings as an instrument of power. Before my eyes, though, was a barely
gratuitous act and – why not? – an amusement. This has been the common
paradigm of the history of writing in the peoples who have adopted it. Not
always, but it presents a way in which writing can emerge and be accepted
which would perhaps not be very traumatic for those peoples and languages
who adopt it.
Death in books?
The Yanomami refer to letters with the word kanasi, which means “vestige,
corpse, remains, sign or hint”. In fact, writing can be all these things: the corpse
of a dead body, the waste remains of empty words, but also the vestige of a
memory, the hint of future life, a sign of battle.
According to accounts of people’s first encounters with letters and books, the
situation created is not a very hopeful one.
Pedro Mártir de Anglería and Francisco López de Gomara speak of the rever-
ential fear of the natives before these newcomers who “made paper speak”.
Written paper, understandably, seemed almost as fearful and as terrible as the
firearms that wounded and killed from a distance, since it brought and issued
words of life and death over even greater distances. Written paper was the
instrument of great powers that came from far away, through voices that were
never heard but that were “seen” in the picture on the paper.
According to one account from 1614, at the time when the Jesuits in Paraguay
were carrying out their “Reducciones”, the Guarani distrusted these men who
spent so much time reading their breviaries. The Jesuit writes, “Throughout the
Paraná they spread [the idea] that we were spies and false priests and that we
brought death in our books”. The Jesuit chronicle also reports that one Guarani
youth, on seeing “the priest was praying for the book in his hands, conceived
that the tupa kuatia, as they called books or paper, revealed his betrayal; because
they have conceived that, when they see that we communicate through letters,
these speak to us and reveal that which is secret and foretell the future”.
The notebooks and field diaries of ethnographers who have had experiences
of first contact with indigenous societies record similar reactions. The neolo-
gisms created by the natives themselves to express the novelty of written paper
are revealing. The Guarani called letters kuatia, a name with which they also
refer to the drawings and paintings with which they adorn themselves: ava
ikuatia for “the man written with paintings”. The Guarani-Chiriguano called
paper tupa pire, “divine skin” or “skin that casts spells” (shamanistic).
The truth is that writing and literacy have become an unavoidable task of
globalisation. In fact, there may be no greater globalisation today than writing,
134 Words and Worlds

though in such a range of forms that those of us who are of one language are
illiterate before another.
Only the market is perhaps more globalised than writing itself, but the
market economy could hardly become widespread except through a system of
letters and numbers.
The debate over the death throes – the struggle and approaching death – of
the voice in the face of writing had a lofty exponent as far back as Plato himself.
Must we continue to mistrust writing? Is it still in most cases an instrument of
domination? And even worse, the death of words?
But would it not still be possible to play with letters, like voices seen and
painted? Writing is a visible support for the voice and not necessarily its rival,
although at present its dominant fixation is sought.
Bartomeu Melià
“Antonio Guasch” Centre for Paraguayan Studies, Paraguay

The value of writing

Many values have been attributed to written language. The study of the history of
writing, and especially of classical Greek culture, has led authors like Olson to say
(1991) that it is written language that has given rise to ordered and logical thought. It
has also been said that it is thanks to writing that humanity has been able to develop
democratic political systems. This same researcher (Olson 1994), however, mentions
other authors who argue that Greek culture, the Homeric texts or the writings of Plato
himself, are based on oral records. He even accepts that no direct causal links can be
established between written culture and cultural development.
In the same way, assertions about the influence of writing on cognitive devel-
opment are also questionable. It might be said that thanks to writing obvious metalin-
guistic skills are developed. The development of grammar, of syllogistic reasoning, of
most linguistic analysis, are all unlikely without writing. However, differentiating
between simple and complex thought on the basis of the possession or otherwise of a
written culture has no scientific foundation (Goody & Watt 1968).
It also seems obvious that writing as a system of annotation, memorisation and
recording is more efficient than the oral system and it is hard to imagine a state or
political system of any scope without a written system of administration. But, as
Gough says (1968), writing is no guarantee of democracy, since dictatorial or fascist
systems have also developed with the help of writing. In the same way, we cannot say
that cultures without writing are less logical. In fact, according to Lloyd (1990),
knowledge has developed more through oral dialectical discussion than through the
analysis of written texts.
Language and Writing 135

Similarly, no-one is in any doubt that the prestige of written language is associated
with the social, religious and political history of most communities. As Landaburu
points out (1998), it is the possessors of technology (scribes, priests, officials, jurists,
etc.) who have overvalued the use of writing, taking advantage of the position of
power this use gave them. It is therefore logical that the mastery of writing is also
considered an important asset to social liberation.
Although the values attributed to writing can be questioned, we nevertheless know
that society – and this includes all the informants in our research – considers written
language essential for a language to subsist and to acquire the prestige necessary to be
passed on. It is therefore not the object of this review to dismiss or detract from writing.
It is, however, important to stress that writing does not constitute a necessary condition
for a language to be considered an invaluable asset of the cultural heritage of humanity.

The written use of languages

Table 6. Written use, standardisation and written literature

Languages not used in writing 19%

Languages used in writing, with standardisation and written literature 27%

Languages used in writing but without standardisation or written literature 54%

TOTAL 100%

The figures in Table 6 provide important information for assessing the state of
languages as regards written use. If we only looked at the answer to “is the language
written or not?”, we would be reduced to the information provided in the first line of
the table, which tells us that more than 80% of the languages analysed are used in
writing. However, because of the extreme differences to be found in the act of writing,
we also need to look into the information that has been obtained on standardisation
and on written literary traditions. Of course, we need to go back over what is
considered standard language and on the possible misinterpretations of the question
on written language. Suffice it to say, for the time being, that only a third of all
languages, those that claim to have a standard language and a standard literature,
show a relatively normalised use of writing.
Writing is a factor to which informants attach great importance. Generally it brings
prestige to the language, especially when there is an ancient written tradition to fall
back on, as shown by informants of Sindhi, Breton and Tibetan.
The Literary tradition is as ancient as the language itself (10,000 years). Poetry: Shah-
jo-Risaco, Sachal-jo-Risalo. Texts: Mirza Kaleech Beg Allama I. Kazi and others.
(Sindhi, India)
136 Words and Worlds

The Breton literary tradition is very ancient. Originally oral (bardic tradition), it appears
in writing in the twelfth century. This inspired the Matière de Bretagne by Chrestien de
Troyes. Since the creation of the Gwalarn literary movement in 1925, novels, short novels,
poetry and plays have not ceased to appear. (Breton, France)
There is an abundant collection of traditional folk literature in the Tibetan language. This
includes mainly folk songs, myths, legends, stories, narrative poems, long songs and
heroic epics. The Story of King Geser is a Tibetan heroic epic which consists of over 100
sections and which has over 50 different versions. Tibetan operas consisting of over 10
different plays and several Tibetan ballads are also very popular throughout Tibetan
regions. (Tibetan, Tibet)
In many cases, writing has begun recently – in the last century – as in the case of
Zhuang, Jingpo and many other Chinese languages, or many African languages like
Somali or Bamanankan. Very often, and this would be the case of the examples given,
the beginning of writing coincides with colonisation and even, sometimes, seems to
have been induced by it. This does not lessen the value attached to its presence and use.
It has a phonetic script based on the Latin alphabet which was created in 1957. Among the
Zhuang people another form of writing based on Chinese characters is used for native
poems and plays, but the shapes of the characters vary between regions. It has a rich
corpus of literature. Most of them have been transmitted orally down through the genera-
tions. Since the creation of the Zhuang writing system, these traditional works have grad-
ually been published. (Zhuang, China)
There has been a written system since 1972; there are poems, songs, dances, stories.
(Somali, Somalia)
The Jingpo writing system, which was based on the Latin alphabet, was created in 1899.
(Jingpo, China)
The known use dates from 1930 through Kaarta’s Bamanankan (writing called ‘masaba’).
(Bamanankan, Mali)
A separate mention is needed for the writing systems adopted by different
linguistic communities. The processes some languages have been through in the
adoption of different codifications (alphabetic, syllabic, ideographic, etc.) constitute
interesting aspects of the cultural experience undergone by the respective commu-
nities. These circumstances, however, are in many cases the reflection of the partic-
ularly troublesome historical situations that so many communities have suffered
and still suffer.
Examples of this type are the writing in the Abaza language of the Russian
Federation, which according to our informant, was until 1938 based on the Latin
alphabet and after this date on the Cyrillic alphabet; that of the Malay language of
Malaysia, which has two written forms, Latin and Arabic; that of Kirgiz, which in China
has writing based on Arabic signs and in Kyrgyzstan on Cyrillic; Meitei, in India, which
Language and Writing 137

is written in the Assamese/Bengali system and in its original specific alphabet;

Rajhastani, which is based on the Devanagari system, etc.
It seems that these circumstances do nothing for the prestige and vitality of
languages. If the process of writing is seen as something enriching, a resort that
speakers of a language endow themselves with to gain access to other uses that are
not possible from oral use, it seems important to have the most economic and
effective writing models. In other words, those codes are needed that best serve the
circumstances in store for the linguistic community now and in the future. Linguistic
planners and the respective officials should bear this very much in mind.
Another aspect that is emphasised over and over again amongst the informants is
the influence of religions as initiators of written use. Illustrative examples are those
cases of American languages such as Guarani, Otomi and Wayuu, or the African
language Nyoro and the Asian Lai.
Since the arrival of the Jesuits in the eighteenth century until our day, the Guarani
language has had an alphabet and it has been used since the implementation of the
bilingual situation in 1993. (Guarani, Paraguay)
From the sixteenth century the Franciscans and Augustines adapted the Latin alphabet
for writing Otomi. Today there is a ‘rebirth’ of written Otomi. The Secretariat for Public
Education is publishing text books for primary education for children who speak Otomi.
(Otomi, Mexico)
There was no written form until 1907, but the American Missionary Mr. Carson
invented a written form in 1907. (Lai, Bangladesh)
The Runyoro have known written use for only 120 years, since the arrival of the African
missionaries. Until then, they only knew spoken tradition. (Nyoro, Uganda)
Only the publications of the Church (are written): Bible, New Testament, school Bible,
missal, prayer book, hymn book, catechism, dictionary, grammar, ABC Chisena…There is
a booklet of poems and another of legends made by pupils. (Wayuu, Venezuela)
Written experience is often limited to the translation of the Bible, or parts of it, very
often by missionaries or linguists from outside the community. The adoption of
writing in the language of the community is not usually quick or widespread, but it
can constitute a productive process. What has happened in the history of writing of
most European languages, and particularly in the Germanic languages, seems still to
be repeated. Religious writings and in particular translations of the Bible give rise to
writing in many other languages. The most recent experience is that of the Summer
Institute of Linguistics (SIL) as chiefly responsible for this powerful boost to writing
in native languages through the Bible.
This language exists in a written form since 1973, when literacy and Bible Translation
Programmes were introduced in Maridi to develop southern languages, but prior to that
some works existed in comparative vocabularies only. (Viri, Sudan)
138 Words and Worlds

The Summer Institute of Linguistics prepared literacy reading-books in this language but
they were used very little. The Central Bank of Guayaquil has produced publications on
mythology which are hardly used either by speakers. At present the Confederation of
Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) is publishing material which is being
used in the bilingual schools. (Colorado, Ecuador)
The development of writing in each language will nevertheless depend on the ideo-
logical, economic and institutional resources the community itself can manage.

ON THE EQUALITY OF LANGUAGES

Modern linguistics, thanks to descriptive studies of numerous indigenous

languages made during the twentieth century, has been able to determine that
there is no such thing as a primitive language supposedly less developed than
the languages of Western civilisation. It is commonly believed that a language
that is not written, that has neither grammar nor dictionary, is less grammati-
cally developed than those languages that have grammatical descriptions and
dictionaries, and that until writing is introduced, allowing the composition of
works of this sort and a written literary tradition, a language cannot develop its
grammatical potential. These beliefs are radically false. Writing and written
literary tradition have no influence at all on the grammatical structure of
languages. Having writing has no real effect on the grammar of any language.
There is a preconception that writing fixes or codifies language. All human
languages are codes structured according to precise rules and subject to a
constant state of change, also according to identifiable rules. Languages that
are written do not in any way stop changing, just like purely oral languages;
hence the differences to be seen, for example, between spoken and written
English or French.
Furthermore, communities that have no knowledge of writing have rich and
varied oral literary traditions that exploit and develop the possibilities offered
by their languages, which are the same as those found in, for example, classical
languages like Greek or Latin, the basis of one of the most admired written liter-
atures in Western cultures.
Many people refuse to accept that the language of a small tribal community
can have a linguistic medium of expression as useful, ductile and powerful as
that enjoyed by Spaniards, Russians or Germans. Nevertheless, linguists who
have described the languages of lost tribes, such as Hixkariana (Brazil, 400
speakers; see D.C. Derbyshire 1979) or Haruai (Papua New Guinea, 1,000
speakers; see Comrie, 1998) reveal languages whose grammatical development
and capacities are similar to those of Western languages.
Language and Writing 139

The fact that all known languages are equal as regards their degree of
complexity and potential does not mean that they are the same. Each language
achieves that degree in its own way; no two languages are the same in this
aspect, each one has its own grammatical personality within the common arena
that defines human languages. Every single one of the languages of the world is
an original and efficient contribution to the rigorous demands of expression and
communication amongst human beings and communities.
Juan Carlos Moreno
Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain

See Map 7 for information on language diversity and standardisation in Senegal.

Languages not used in writing

Although the number of languages in the world without writing is very large, of the
sample analysed, only 19% are languages whose informants say they have no writing.
Of course, the absence of writing does not involve any linguistic shortcoming for
the language or for the culture it transmits. Evidence for this are the abundant
accounts reflecting the literary wealth which unwritten languages also possess and
transmit from generation to generation orally, so long as the language remains alive.
The following accounts of three Chinese languages are a good example of this fact. It
is also important to point out that according to these same accounts, only Guiqiong
seems to be transmitted at all normally. The other two, De’ang and Namuyi, are in
immediate danger of extinction.
As there has been no written form of De’ang historically, its traditional literature has been
transmitted through the generations in oral form. A few literary works have been recorded
using Dai in religious writings. These include ‘The Story of the Flood’, ‘The Bathing
Goddess’ and ‘Lament on the Lusheng’. (De’ang, China)
The elders or religious practitioners in the local areas can remember a wealth of oral liter-
ature. This includes historical stories, stories about the origin of man, songs and fables.
Apart from their superstitious content, they have a certain literary value. However, there
have not yet been opportunities to record them. (Guiqiong, China)
Some elderly people and religious practitioners can relate historical stories, fables, and
other forms of oral literature, which can be traced back to antiquity and which have been
passed down orally through the generations. They have not all been recorded. They
include some curses used by their religious practitioners as well as some other religious
terms. Despite the superstitious elements of some of the stories, they are still valuable
140 Words and Worlds

because they contain much philosophical knowledge and provide us with insight about
how the ancients viewed the world. (Namuyi, China)

Languages used in writing

In the sample analysed, more than 80% of the languages studied are said to have a
written code. This is a good thing if we bear in mind that writing, in principle,
helps to give languages prestige and vitality. However, to say that a language is
used in writing can mean a lot of things, from the existence of an alphabet barely
used for anything more than to translate bits of the Bible or transcribe some work
of folklore, to situations of normalised use of writing which is socially indispen-
sable for belonging to the group. The in-between situations, of course, vary
widely. In order to provide rather more accurate information taking into account
the figures gathered, we shall analyse whether the languages in the sample, as
well as having a written code, are standardised and whether they have a written
literary tradition.

Languages used in writing, with standardisation and a literary tradition

Of the languages analysed, 27% have a standard variety and furthermore a written
literary tradition.
Of course, each of these concepts – whether a language is used in writing or not,
whether it is standardised and whether it has literary tradition – can be understood
differently and the fact that the answers to the three questions are affirmative does not
guarantee that the written language is habitually or normally used.
According to the details given by the informants themselves, written use in many
cases arises basically through the production of material for study, literacy teaching
or religious instruction. It does not necessarily reflect widespread use either in
spheres of normal social use (administration, education, the press, trade, etc.) or by
the majority of the members of the community (level of literacy in the language in
question). The following examples illustrate this situation:
There is written use of the language: some of the documents that exist are religious hymns,
fragments of biblical translation, literacy spelling books, reading books for classes in
convergent education, handbooks for reading and writing and various literacy docu-
ments. There are publications by Catholic missionaries and isolated researchers. The
DNAFLA (Direction Nationale de l’Alphabétisation Fonctionnelle et de la Linguistique
Appliquée) has produced a lot of teaching material for literacy and post-literacy classes
and classes in convergent education. (Dogon, Mali)
There is a lot of material written recently in the language by the Kaxinawa teachers for use
in schools about native history, geography and science. It has been published by the
Comissão Pró-Índio do Acre since 1987. (Kaxinawa, Brazil)
Language and Writing 141

Written forms include a phonetic script based on the Latin alphabet, as well as the new
Latin Lisu script created after 1949. There is a wealth of literature which includes
‘Genesis’, ‘The Shepherd’s Song’ and the ‘White-Haired Bird’, as well as the Bible and
Christian hymns of praise. (Lisu, China)
Of course, widespread languages that are official state languages and that have an
extensive literature in production today satisfy all three conditions.
This group also includes languages that are currently undergoing recession or have
had a flourishing literature in the past but have lost that condition for one reason or
another. In this group, there are also languages whose written use is just beginning
and has not yet extended to all the community of speakers.
Writing processes, like any other linguistic activity, are dynamic by nature.
Situations can change due to a number of circumstances. Informants seemed to
consider it a good thing to be able to write a language and to do so as often as
possible and for as many uses as possible. The survey also reflects the difficulty
involved in this practice when the language is in decline. Bearing in mind the pride
and satisfaction which arises from possessing written texts, especially for
minorised languages, it is important to emphasise and appreciate the effort made
by these communities.

Languages used in writing but lacking standardisation or written

literary tradition
Fifty-four percent of languages are used in writing even though they lack standardis-
ation and a written literature. The account for Qiang, a Chinese language, shows that
writing does exist. However, it is also evident that this is not a language in which
writing is a common practice.
There is oral folklore. Since the creation of the Qiang writing system, a volume of tradi-
tional literary works has been collated (with a total of over one million words) and is
awaiting publication. (Qiang, China)
In fact, at least half the languages that are said to be written are in a precarious situ-
ation. Although they are said to have a standard variety, this is frequently the only
variety or dialect to have been codified, as in the case of Aukan, Babole or Dobel,
whose accounts follow.
There is a standard form of the language as it is used in speech by Aukaners. Furthermore,
the SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics) has developed a standard orthography and has
documented the linguistic patterns of the language. (Aukan, Surinam)
No conscious attempt to impose standardisation, but the Dzeke variety is the only variety
written. (Babole, Congo)
In the written form, printed materials all use the SIL approved ‘working orthography’,
individuals often spell according to how they think it should be in personal letters.
(Dobel, Indonesia)
142 Words and Worlds

Similarly, we have been able to confirm that in spite of having a written code, many
languages hardly have any written work and that neither writing (nor reading), at
least in their own language(s), is as yet a normal practice in that linguistic community.
Similarly, it is known for a fact that our figures also confirm the existence of
languages which have a written literary tradition and which nevertheless have not
accepted a standard variety for all the written practice of the linguistic community as
a whole. These account for approximately 20% of this group. The example of Uma, an
Indonesian language, illustrates this situation.
If you mean standard orthography used in all literature, yes, there is standardisation. All
literature that has been produced is in the Kantewu (Central) dialect, and the established
orthography has been used. But if you mean is there a standard dialect or standard
written form used by all dialects, no. Other dialects accept Kantewu dialect better than
they would any other dialect, but many people would still prefer to read their own dialect.
(Uma, Indonesia)

On standard language
The concept of a standard language is a Western notion usually associated with the
written language, as it is through writing that the corresponding rules are normally
established and fixed. It is nevertheless important to remember, as Moreno Cabrera
says in this same work, that “the process of standardisation of a language or groups of
linguistic varieties does not introduce any new elements that would fundamentally
modify the quality of that language and make it superior to the varieties”. It is also
true, however, that the adoption of certain formal regularities, be they lexical,
morphological, orthographical, etc., can bring stability and thereby increase the
chances of identification and cohesion the language gives the group. The standard,
however, insofar as it is usually built from forms used by the elite (see Bronckart in
this same text), also raises problems for its adoption by the community as a whole.
Whatever conception our informants have, almost half the languages in this sample are
standardised, according to the information they have provided. On the other hand, the
other half are not, although 10% say they are being standardised at the present moment.
As we pointed out above, the concept of standard language is not unequivocal. For
example, for a large number of informants a language need not necessarily be used
habitually in writing to be considered standardised. In fact, 20% of the languages that
claim to have a standard language are hardly used in writing, but are languages of a
fundamentally oral tradition. The standard, in these cases, is associated with the oral
use, and is a variety which receives general acceptance within the community.
The following list sums up the reasons given in the survey to support how the
standard language came about:

• The standard is based on one of the dialects although it is influenced by others. The
case of Waffa or Yele, in Papua New Guinea, corresponds to this criterion since one
variety of the language is said to have been accepted as standard.
Language and Writing 143

• Standardisation is taken for granted, as the language is not considered to have

varieties. There is no need for writing. Languages in serious risk of extinction,
such as Tchamba, in Togo, or Itzaj, in Guatemala, are the ones that give rise to
these appreciations.
• The existing literary language is implicitly accepted as the standard form of the
respective language.
An orthography based on scientific principles has been introduced and used in the
available books. Outside of this literature there is little standardisation. (Yakan,
Philippines)
The standard as such does not exist, but literary Ossetic fulfils the role of the national
norm. (Ossetic, Georgia)
• The use of the written language – that is, the production of written material – is
also seen as proof in itself of the existence of the written standard. But there are also
those who feel the opposite. It is not enough to write a language for it to have a
standard form.
• The teaching of the language in schools and the prestige of the language are also
often given as reasons supporting the existence of a standard variety.
The Tepehuan of the south-east is considered the prestige dialect, since it is spoken over
a wide area. (Tepehuan, Mexico)
• There is an orthographic, grammatical and/or lexical proposal that has been prom-
ulgated by some official institution or organisation, sometimes with the support of
rules or laws.
The question of standardisation pertains to the individual dialects. Most of the dialects
are now standardised in the sense that there are dictionaries and (small) grammars for
most of them. It is, however, as yet unclear whether all members of the linguistic
community accept the standardised forms of Frisian. (Frisian, Germany)
An association of Mandyak has determined that Bok should be used as the standard; it
is the most widespread dialect. (Mandyak, Senegal)
• Translation of texts confirms and reinforces the existence of a standard variety and
at the same time gives a feeling of unity within the language.
Concerning standardisation, if you mean ‘Is there an official body that determines how
the language will be written’, then the answer is ‘no’. If you mean ‘Is there a body of
published literature in a single dialect that has a standardising effect’, the answer is
yes. (Yele, Papua New Guinea)
• It is felt that there must be various simultaneous uses (literature, media, education)
to confirm the existence of a standard language.
144 Words and Worlds

Halbi spoken in and around Jagadalpur is considered a standard one. All India Radio
broadcasts programmes in Halbi. The only local newspaper of Bastar Dandakaranya
Samachai publishes News in Halbi in Nagarisaint. Hence, this standard variety is
recognised. Hence, Halbi spoken in the central part of Bastar is considered the
standard one. (Halbi, India)
• And although sporadic, there is no shortage of associations between the concepts
of standard language and artificial language. In the same way, there are those who
speak of changes in acceptance of the standard.
During the 1950s, the vernacular form used in Jinhua town in Jianchuan Country was
considered to be the standard form. However, over the past few years, it has been
replaced by the vernacular used in Xizhou Town in Dali City. (Bai, China)
However, most accounts considered that having a standard variety is good for
prestige and especially for allowing the use of language in writing. The disparity of
opinions confirms the range of circumstances that can affect the creation and devel-
opment of a standard variety. It is also very important to point out that, as the infor-
mation shows, the standard variety is not essential either for written use or for
literary production and even less so for the survival of a language. The informers
seemed to be clear that it is their use, both orally and in writing, that ensures the
survival and development of languages.
In the same way, it cannot be said either that the existence of a standard variety
necessarily ensures written literary production. A wide range of situations can arise
in the development of languages and their written varieties, be these considered
standard or not. Within the group selected, the languages with a standard that never-
theless lack a literary tradition account for 35%.

THE STATUS OF LINGUISTIC NORMS

Linguistic norms can be defined as codified products of social judgements

concerning the particular human activity called language.
Language has two obvious characteristics: it is extremely diversified and it
evolves with the passing of time. Diversity is first of all external: language is
realised through multiple natural languages, which differ from one another in
their phonology (types of sound units exploited to produce meaning), in their
lexicon and their morphosyntactic rules. Diversity is also internal: within each
language there are coexisting varieties linked to regional, socio-economic,
personal differences, etc. As to change, it affects the whole dimension of
natural languages, even if evidence of it requires long periods of time. This
variability of languages is due to the fact that the significance of their consti-
tutive units, or signs, is permanently renegociated through use and these signs
Language and Writing 145

organise themselves in paradigms of terms competing to express the same

reality. It is also due to the fact that these signs get organised in commu-
nicative forms, i.e. oral or written texts, the function of which is to comment on
diverse and changing human activities, and the structure of which partially
depends on the very characteristics of those activities. But this variability is
also dynamic: each natural language (and each variety) constitutes a system
able to transform itself to express any item of knowledge and any process of
thought. In this sense, languages constitute systems of expression whose
potentialities are strictly equivalent whether they have a writing system or not.
Social judgements concern one or another aspect of this functioning of
language and produce four different kinds of norms.

• Functional norms are related to the conditions of use of a particular natural language;
they indicate the choice of signs and of texts that, regardless of any intrinsic
value judgement, seem more accurate or more suitable in a determined situ-
ation of communication, to express content or comment on an activity.
• Cultural norms are related to the presumed quality of language productions, and
therefore largely depend on aesthetic judgement. They can translate into a
comparison of languages, leading us to consider that some of them could be more
complete or more logical or “nicer” than others, and also leading us to consider
that the best languages could be those that both possess a writing system and
have been the subject of technical descriptions. Cultural norms generally give
more importance to the characteristics of written forms compared to oral forms
and, within written forms, they favour a subgroup of a literary nature.
• Theoretical norms result from the steps made towards language knowledge in
philosophy or in linguistics. In philosophy, an important thread claims that
the structures of languages are but the direct translation either of a logic of
the world or of a logic of thought, both of universal status. In this perspective
diversity and change are disturbing phenomena and hence they remain
under-analysed and de facto undervalued. In linguistics, many works of
empirical analysis of languages have been carried out but none of the models
built on these bases could pretend to give a full and homogenous vision of
their characteristics. Yet researchers often tend to consider that the only
existing language properties are those they manage to describe, which again
entails a depreciation of some varieties, particularly oral ones.
• Political norms are linked to centralisation and education measures under-
taken by the States. Relying on the concept of State unity and citizen equality
prevailing from the end of the 18th century, they translate into the definition
of a standard language that would be a kind of common language elaborated
from multiple varieties in use, and that would serve at the same time as the
146 Words and Worlds

official State language, as the teaching language and as the “mother”

language to be taught. But historical analyses show that these standard
languages always build upon a privileged variety, that of the elites close to
power, and that they reject most of the characteristics of the other varieties in
use inside a specific community.

In as far as all human activities are subject to social evaluations, the production of
linguistic norms is in itself an ineluctable process and it would be illusory to
pretend to interrupt or suppress it. But there is a risk of confusing these judgements,
whose grounds are often questionable, with the very reality of languages and
their functioning. On the other hand, these normative judgements are everyone’s
responsibility, and it is therefore legitimate and necessary to discuss and control
them, and particularly to try to differentiate between those norms that are useful
for the development of languages and their users, and those hindering them.
From this point of view, and on the basis of the data collected in this Review, it
is convenient to question and fight against the judgements that issue from
simplistic “preconceived ideas” or from “interested” enterprises (cultural,
philosophical, scientific or political ones). This drives us to assert that all
languages (and their varieties), whatever the magnitude of their dissemination
and use, have a potential linguistic resource that is equal in rights, and that they
are the witnesses of the multiple ways humans have to elaborate their
knowledge of the world and regulate their social interactions, and in this sense
they constitute a major aspect of human heritage. This also drives us not to over-
estimate the role played by writing systems. The creation and development of these
systems do entail deep changes in the social structures and in the cognitive func-
tioning of individuals. But every language has the capacity to survive, to enrich
and to play its part as a social mediator independently from the existence of
writings that only reflect part of their properties and are only recent technical
constructions. This finally drives us to encourage a switch in the all too frequent
relationship existing between theoretical elaborations and the effective charac-
teristics of language functioning; languages should not be masked or rejected in
the name of philosophical prejudices or because of insufficient descriptions or
scientific analyses. On the contrary, such positions and procedures must be
permanently corrected, according to the progress of our knowledge of the prop-
erties and operating conditions of all human languages.
On the other hand, there is no point in questioning the usefulness of what we
call functional norms. As far as it fits in with varied and complex social inter-
action processes, the production of signs and texts in all languages is submitted
to conditions of use that all speakers must learn and master so that they can
fully assume their part as members of a community. Therefore it is necessary to
Language and Writing 147

have indications concerning the communicative relevance and appropriateness

of the different units and structures proposed by the same language system.
Finally, although the language standardisation process seems inevitable, due
to the conditions of functioning and reproduction of modern societies (through
education), it is convenient not to convert standard languages into instruments of a
fight against diversity and change, i.e. against the effective modalities of language
functioning for the majority. To ensure their democratic role standard languages
must consider the effective practices that are open to change and diversity, in
other words they must permanently aim at creating a balance between the
general need for intercomprehension and the diverse and rich linguistic solu-
tions used by human subgroups to achieve it.
Jean-Paul Bronckart
University of Geneva, Switzerland

Written literary tradition

It is worth repeating that that there is no natural living language that does not have a
literary tradition, and the fact that this may be oral does not mean that it is of an
inferior category to written literature.
In the survey, though, the question refers to written literature. This question was
not always properly understood, since many of the informants thought it referred
only to literary tradition. This fact led many informants to insist, quite rightly, that
regardless of the greater or lesser written tradition, the languages they were
informing on had a rich literary tradition.
Even so, 39% of the sample languages appear as languages with a written literary
tradition. In many cases, of course, there is reference to religious texts, to educational
material for initial literacy or for primary education, and to the publication of collec-
tions of literature from the oral tradition, either historical, cultural or folkloric. These
characteristics of the written production are what justify the undoubtedly positive
numbers as regards the experience of written literature.
Amongst the languages mentioned as having religious literature are Ashaninca
(Peru), Kabiye (Togo), Kaqchikel (Guatemala), Karay (Russia), Lango (Uganda),
Migaama (Chad), Naasioi (Papua New Guinea), Ndau (Mozambique), Sakapulteko
(Guatemala), Tiv (Cameroon), Burushaski (Pakistan), Triqui, (Mexico), etc. Then
there are literatures with a basically oral tradition, which have recently begun to be
collected and published. Finally, we might mention more ancient literatures as in
the case of languages like Friulan (Italy), Ladino (Israel), Otomi (Mexico),
Poqomchi’ (Guatemala), Rajasthani (India), etc., each of which has a different
history and experience.
148 Words and Worlds

The literary tradition is still very new and poor, consisting mainly of poetry (religious),
folklore and public education. (Burushaski, Pakistan)
Although there are religious and educational texts, we cannot speak of the existence of a
literary tradition. (Triqui, Mexico)
However, it is important to properly understand, and the accounts are a good illus-
tration of this, that however incipient and precarious the writing experience is, it is
always considered a factor of prestige for the language. Similarly, no one – at least in
our results – decries the possibilities this condition offers for development, though
the obvious shortcomings can, very often, lead to discouragement and frustration.
Also, it is essential to insist on the fact that, whether or not a language has a written
form, there is no linguistic reason for looking down on it. On the contrary, in contrast
to the written forms of most languages, which are recent productions, all languages
have millenarian oral literary traditions which are the repositories for their particular
interpretations of the world and which make most valuable contributions to the
cultural heritage of humanity.
The language has a rich literary tradition. Firstly, there are many folk songs and fairy
tales. Folk songs are sung during weddings as well as funerals. Secondly, the Lingao
people have their own unique brand of Lin opera and puppetry. Some classic Chinese
operas have also been adapted for the Lingao language. (Lingao, China)
As there was no written form historically, its traditional literature has been transmitted
down through the generations in oral form. There is an abundant collection of different
kinds of oral literature, including legends, stories, fables, proverbs, historical poems, and
folk songs. There are historical poems concerning the creation of the world and the origin
of man. (Va, China)
There is no written tradition in this language, there is only an oral tradition. There are
some stories and legends of the payas, but they are all written in Spanish, with a few
names of animals, plants and people in Pech. The most important are Gods, heroes and
men in the Pech mythical universe (1991) by Lázaro Flores and Wendy Griffin. There are
no stories written in Pech, not even bilingual. (Pech, Honduras).
Map 8 shows language diversity in Mexico and Central America.
Language and Writing 149

Recommendations on language and writing

In view of the importance informants give to the possibility of using their language in
writing, we recommend:

• Furthering written use, as it confers prestige on languages and increases

their chances of being transmitted and recovered. This measure cannot be
implemented without the agreement of the linguistic community affected.
• Taking the utmost care so that the use of the written form of a language is
seen as an enrichment rather than a threat for the linguistic community.
• Allowing the functional aspect pursued by writing to integrate the existing
cultural tradition, especially in the case of languages whose situation is
critical. A linguistic community’s written tradition, whatever it is, is an
important part of its cultural heritage.
• That the authorities should support people, groups or community institu-
tions who take care of the furtherance of the written use of minority
languages, in such a way that the greater the degree of minorisation of the
language or the threat to it, the greater the assistance from the authorities.
• That changes in the systems of writing a community’s language(s) should be
avoided, as the interests of the linguistic community and the defence of its
linguistic heritage must prevail over the political and administrative interest
in favour of uniformity on the part of the states these communities belong to.
• That the scientific community should involve itself in a coordinated job with
the linguistic communities in questions relating to standardisation,
primarily when the communities request their assistance.
• That linguistic communities should be provided with suitable technological
means and training in their use when required, to help and allow written use
of the language.
• That bearing in mind the fact that telephony and computers have made
spelling rules (orthography) more flexible, the spread of these resources in
less widespread languages with less written practice can provide a good
chance of increasing the use of these languages.
• That it should not be forgotten that the fundamental use of any language is
oral and that the survival of a language depends on its transmission and
habitual use.
Chapter 6
Language and Education

“All persons should therefore be able to express themselves and to create and dissem-
inate their work in the language of their choice, and particularly in their mother tongue;
all persons should be entitled to quality education and training that fully respect their
cultural identity.” (Article 5 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural
Diversity of 2 November 2001)

Are the languages taught in schools more important than the ones that are not taught?
How can a language be taught if the teachers do not know it or are not trained to teach
it and there is no teaching material in that language? Can children learn two or three
languages without harming their academic training? Why spend money on teaching
a minority language if it is hardly used for communicating and all the new thinking is
done in another language? What does it mean to maintain one’s own language and
what does learning a new language do for one?
In attempting to describe the situation of languages in the world, it seems essential
to approach the educational situation. Nevertheless, education adds nothing intrinsic
to a language. All languages have developed and been transmitted during the course
of history independently of the teaching institutions that may have grown up around
them. The dominant languages are the ones that were able to take advantage of schools
earlier and more effectively as a way of furthering their use and development. But the
efficiency of the dominant educational policies has also, in most cases, increased
linguistic uniformity, the loss of languages and cultures, and forced the abandonment
of identities forged over thousands of years. These losses and the uprooting and social
marginalisation resulting from them are factors that have been underestimated or
silenced to the greater glory of policies of national unity aimed at maximum linguistic
and cultural uniformity in the nation-state and its colonies or satellites.
What is more, this educational policy has created a monolingual school model,
widespread in many parts of Europe and the whole of the Western world, which has
posed enormous contradictions in bilingual or plurilingual communities, as well as

150
Language and Education 151

for all the stateless languages or those with few speakers. School and prestigious
education have been associated with the dominant language, which in many cases is
none other than English.
Nevertheless, in the twentieth century, there have also been linguistic policies that
have promoted diversity, educational policies that have included teaching of and in
various languages and whose chief objective has been to encourage bilingualism or
plurilingualism. Furthermore, the growth of the educational sciences, and of educa-
tional linguistics in particular, shows that bilingual and plurilingual education not
only benefit the individual and social development of schoolchildren but also the
educational system itself.
In this respect, it is worth remembering some of the guidelines of the action plan for the
implementation of UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2 November
2001), to which Member States are committed. We have singled out objectives 5 and 6:
–“To safeguard humanity’s linguistic heritage and support expression, creation
and diffusion in the greatest possible number of languages”:
–“To further linguistic diversity – respecting the mother tongue – at all levels of
education, wherever possible, and stimulate the learning of several languages from
the earliest age.”
This chapter presents the difficult situation facing many of the world’s languages,
and which according to the accounts gathered is partly due to the lack of access to the
educational system or to their inadequate treatment by it. It also reports on the possi-
bilities the educational system could offer for reappraising, recovering and devel-
oping languages. Of particular interest are the presentations of the models developed
in different parts of the world and the significant testimonies gathered through
informants on teaching initiatives being undertaken in favour of their languages. The
chapter ends with recommendations of interest to the various political and cultural
agents responsible for furthering education and linguistic and cultural diversity.

Languages without access to the educational system

Most of the world’s languages are not present in the school system so that this cannot
contribute to their transmission and development. Thirty-three percent of informants
stated that the languages they were reporting on were not present in schools (see
Table 7). And no one seems satisfied with this situation. What is more, it must be
emphasised that any move in favour of teaching languages is a good thing in that it at
least generates positive attitudes of prestige for them.
Some of the informants mentioned the speakers’ experiences with initiatives for
teaching the language, its literary tradition, etc., even when taking place outside
school hours.
Our language is not taught in formal education and there is no written material. School
teachers from the indigenous communities give pupils homework on words from the
152 Words and Worlds

Nahuatl language who go where there are speakers who teach them orally and in writing.
(Nahuatl, Mexico)
Children learn songs and phrases in community activities/cultural centre. (Cupeño, USA)
Others go even further and as well as reporting on informal experiments in furthering
their teaching and use, clearly express their wish that the language be introduced into
the formal educational system.
This language is not used in education. But we have been demanding education in the mother
tongue. Some informal application in education has brought better results. (Chepang, Nepal)
In some cases they even report real prohibition, always against the express wish of the
community.
The Mon community has an Education Committee in order to teach Mon language in
their community. But in the state run schools, it is not allowed even as a subject of study.
(Mon, Burma)
There are also plenty of accounts of situations in which although the law allows the
use of the language, in practice it is not included at school.
Teachers are permitted to use the language for explanations to students in the lower
grades of elementary education. But the medium of instruction is Pilipino or English and
many teachers do not speak the language. (Some) teachers who are native speakers would
like to use the language at least in first grade and/or as a subject of study in other
elementary grades. Materials are available. But the provincial supervisory structure of the
school system has not been very encouraging – to say the least. (Yakan, Philippines)
The language is supposed to be used as a medium for bilingual education as well as a subject
in elementary education. However, for various reasons this remains on paper. (Kuvi, India)
Other accounts speak of languages which were once present in the educational
system but are no longer so.
Bilingual schools were begun about 20 years ago; but I think it is all in Portuguese now,
both the R.C. Mission school and the school in Sai Cinza, begun by a Baptist missionary
(now retired). (Munduruku, Brazil)
It was used for some months when a vernacular pre-school was going on. But the school
fell apart when the teachers were discouraged by not being paid from the community. But
the use of the language in education might resume when the time is ripe for doing so.
(Meramera, Papua New Guinea)
Finally, let us hear from those informants who indicate that although their language is
not today present in the educational system they hope it will be in the future.
Teachers are being trained to use Mapudungun as a vehicle for teaching as well as a
subject for learning. (Mapudungun, Chile)
The new educational policy plans its introduction at the primary level. (Comorian, Comoros)
Language and Education 153

Possibly in the future, at the community school in the language area it will be used as the
language for education for preparatory and grades 1 and 2. (Yale, Papua New Guinea)
The Education Department wants to teach the first three years of schooling in the Narak
language. (Narak, Papua New Guinea)
The accounts gathered are only a small sample of the many linguistic communities
there are that have no access to education. When the population goes to school but
their own language is not present, it is difficult to imagine what benefit these children
can obtain from these schools. The negation of identity involved in a situation of this
sort is unimaginable for the majority of the citizens belonging to communities with a
dominant language. These citizens have grown up thinking that education can only
be transmitted in certain languages or that it is best if it is done only in the dominant
language. In many cases, this is also the opinion deliberately instilled into citizens
belonging to communities with minorised languages that are not reflected in the
educational system. The arguments are extremely twisted: some people consider that
this avoids problems of communication; we could also mention the argument that the
social development resulting from learning the dominant language is best for both
communities, of whatever language; others say that there are not enough resources
for every language to be taught at school.
The right to an education in one’s mother tongue constitutes a fundamental right
recognised by UNESCO since 1953. Nevertheless, most linguistic communities
cannot exercise it.
This principle, however, still plays a decisive role in the educational policy to be
developed for all the world’s linguistic communities and especially the smallest. Its
implementation would allow the development of languages not only by increasing
their use as such, but also because, in general, it gives rise to positive attitudes
towards them.
Indeed, although all languages are equal from a linguistic point of view, their prestige
and the attitudes surrounding them suffer badly if they are not taught at school.
They call it a ‘dialect’ and look down on it as a language and as a means of expression.
Nowadays, school teachers have forbidden the children from using Chipaya.
(Chipaya, Bolivia)

LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION IN INDIA

The tension between the unitary features of the Union and equally strong
regulatory powers of the States is also reflected in the education scenario of
the country.
Bringing education into the concurrent list of the constitution and handing
over primary education to the Panchayats are two such examples. The latter was
154 Words and Worlds

possible by the 73rd and 74th Amendments of the Constitution in 1992, which
for the first time, recognised local Governments.
Culture, language and education are social capital for development.
Whether one looks at education as enrolment or retention, as availability of
teachers or textbooks, adequacy of infrastructure or of instructional aids, it
would demonstrate the quality and quantity of a society’s engagement with
itself and with others.
The contradictions in perception about rural and urban schools are as follows:
education ruins the rural children, it spoils the urban; provides more infor-
mation and less skills; considers working with hands inferior to working with
machines; and the present day education results in alienation, anomie and
culture perception blindspots. The distinction is between ‘being’ and
‘appearing’. Language is at the root of these contradictions.
About 3000 mother tongues approximating to 200 and 700 languages in India
as against 35 languages at Primary stage, 28 languages at Upper Primary stage,
25 languages at Secondary stage, 20 languages at Senior Secondary stage, used
as medium of education in schools (All India 6th Education Survey, 1998,
NCERT) demonstrate that as one climbs higher in the education ladder, the
greater is the demand for fewer languages. At the University level, the medium
is English or the dominant regional language.
The emphasis on English is due to the colonial mind-set developed during
200 years of British rule. Colonialism came to India with the traders searching
for markets. It claimed to civilise the uncivilised. It remained to develop the
under developed, to protect their environment and empower the weaker
sections and finally to globalise them. Globalisation is not only a search for
global market, but also a search for marketable talents. Language and education
remain instruments for continuation of the colonial process in India and the
third world.
Developing a knowledge/learning society in a plural world necessitates
interdisciplinary, interactive communication between subjects and media
languages. Linking memory with thinking abilities will link indigenous
knowledge systems with the modern. Languages would continue to play a
critical and crucial role. Multiple languages must develop twin focuses, cooper-
ative, intercultural education at home and competitive marketable education
for the world outside.
Dr. D. P. Pattanayak
Former Director, Central Institute of Indian Languages, India
Language and Education 155

Languages that are used in teaching

It is true that most languages have survived without schools; a language is no less a
language just because it is not taught at school. We also know that schools by them-
selves cannot save a language. Schools are not even the best place to learn a language.
Annamalai (1995), referring to India, points out that learning languages, like certain
other subjects, probably happens out of school more than inside.
Nevertheless, if schools are where communities transmit and develop their culture,
it seems logical that they should also transmit their language. But schools do not
always respond to the needs of the community. As a result, the school is not always
popular as an institution. There are indigenous communities in Colombia, for
example, which reject school and the language used there, since they consider that the
education it offers is not in keeping with their cultural characteristics. In these cases,
the indigenous peoples demand their own ethno-educational models which do not
necessarily coincide with the more widespread model of school (Landaburu, 1998).
From the information gathered it can be seen that most communities consider the
use of their language at school to be important. In fact, the first initiatives of linguistic
policy undertaken by these communities tend to be aimed at the educational field.
Thus, in the sample studied, 67% acknowledge that their language is present to some
extent in the teaching system, though as we shall see later on, its presence is rarely as
noticeable as it should be.

BILINGUAL INDIGENOUS EDUCATION

I believe that education, the job of schools and of teachers in indigenous

languages is to convey the idea that we must preserve, study and enlarge our
language ourselves. Only through our language will we manage to extend our
own knowledge.
If I am an Ashaninka, my people are Ashaninka, all my pupils are Ashaninka
and all of them speak Ashaninka, why should I work in Portuguese? It makes
no sense for me to work in Portuguese in the classroom because if I did I would
be missing the contents, the little details that the language brings with it. I
would be removing power from our language, our speech, because I would be
working in another language. If I work in the Ashaninka language, with
Ashaninka pupils, I am offering them the chance of extending our own
knowledge and understanding it better and at the same time of strengthening
our language.
Some Portuguese phrases have no meaning or translation in our language
because ours is a different world. For example, when I work in the Ashaninka
language on some event from the non-indigenous society, for example, it has
no explanation in our language because we have other references, our world is
156 Words and Worlds

a different one. Our language is very important, because we see it as a part of

us. Because there is no point in having indigenous schools and working in
another language.
Our people need people who will act as a bridge to the dominant society,
because without them we cannot defend our territory. To work it is important to
have an understanding of the surroundings, that is why we need these people.
But there is no need for everyone to act as a bridge. For that, Brazil and other
countries have diplomats who make contact, negotiate, etc. And here the
opposite happens, everyone has to know Portuguese. Even parents expect
everyone to learn Portuguese, they see Portuguese as the alternative by which
to break with dependence.
But I see it the other way round, because if you learn Portuguese you end up
depending on the other society, not on yours. You will depend on the other
society because you are already in another language. That is why we work like
this. There have to be people who are bridges, but not everybody. The school
works with six or seven people in training to be able to make that contact.
In our school it is quite clear. We discuss with the community so that they stop
worrying so much about Portuguese. Wanting to know someone else’s
language gets you nowhere; it’s enough to have a knowledge of the world and
of the way of life of the society around you.
What we need is to understand the values of our knowledge and to value
what is ours. I believe that that is the importance of language, giving it the
chance to grow more and not disappear. Because the more you study another
language, the more you think it is richer than yours and that’s not so. Language
depends on the cultural and scientific development of the people using it. There
are indigenous teachers who say that the indigenous language is very poor, but
why do they say that? It’s because they have lived with Portuguese for many
years and no longer value their mother tongue, because they have lost the total
balance of their language.
In the school I always speak in this way: the point of reference to work with
the language, science and culture begins with the teacher. To be able to work
with our language and strengthen it, and identify the problems, I have to start
with the pupils. After seeing the situation of the pupils I have to continue with
the elders. To resolve the problems of the young people, the elder must be a
point of reference for the indigenous language necessary for working in the
classroom. The space in which the elders educate the young people is the most
important educational space for strengthening their own language, culture and
knowledge, because the way the elders teach is fundamental.
In our community we work over this question a lot, because the elders are the
most important people for working with the question of the language. The way
Language and Education 157

they have of speaking, the time they have for explaining; they have another pace
of teaching, everything is planned in the heads of the elders, that is our world.
Many pupils bring those formulas into the classroom. This form of wisdom of
the elders is the point of reference for a school in tune with nature; it is the
contribution by traditional knowledge making itself present through the
indigenous language.
Isaac Pianko Ashaninka
Acre Organisation of Indigenous Teachers, Brazil

Table 7 classifies and sums up the answers received regarding the use of languages in
teaching. The list is not necessarily in hierarchical order. At any rate, the authors of
this Review cannot establish it. We are merely trying to reflect the situation from the
accounts we have received. We are also presenting some examples of these accounts.

Table 7: Languages in teaching grouped according to their use

Group 1 Present in teaching (without specifying) 1%

Group 2 Exclusively oral use (as an instrument for the teaching given in 7%
another language)

Group 3 Teaching as a specific subject (L2) 8%

Group 4 Present only in pre-school and early years 26%

Group 5 Extensively present in primary education and part of secondary 13%

(with difficulties)

Group 6 Present throughout the system, though not throughout the 12%
population (sometimes the system is bilingual)

Group 7 Languages not used in teaching 33%

Total 100%

As can be seen in Table 7, the languages used in education present a wide variety of
situations and their distribution also varies. As well as those languages said to be
present in teaching without details of their level of usage (1%), it is worth pointing
out, first, that the languages in group 2 are used as secondary languages, as a tran-
sition to the acquisition of the language promoted by the school. The informants
express themselves clearly. This use is aimed at a quick and successful introduction of
158 Words and Worlds

young people to the other language, which is the one “used” for teaching. Neither the
informants nor the schools seemed to value oral use in itself as a way of developing
their own language.
Only in grades 1 and 2 of primary schools as a supplementary educational tool in trans-
lating text. (Pumi, China)
In the past it was used as the language of instruction in primary schools. With the recent
promotion of Mandarin Chinese, Cun is only used as a supplementary tool in beginners’
or elementary classes. (Cun, China)
In the language classes it is used orally to explain the content of the class being given.
(Adyghe, Russia)

EDUCATION IN INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES AND ITS IMPORTANCE

FOR THEIR REVIVAL

Indigenous education has various forms. Perhaps the young child’s first
education is the one he or she receives in the home. All the experience passed on
by the father or mother is education. After that, education is also participation in
festivals, in rituals the community has always held. Children are also there, not
as though it were a school for learning in, but as an event that comes along for
the children to learn from. That is what we know as traditional education and
the indigenous language always forms part of it.
Recently there has been talk of differentiated school education, of
indigenous school education. Another type of knowledge that indigenous
peoples are acquiring is related to the knowledge of writing and reading.
Previously, children learned orally, now they are learning from writing. At
school they learn to read and write, enquiries are being made amongst the
teachers so that pupils have that knowledge and so that this knowledge is
taught in the schools. This is an incentive for children to start to think about
new investigations with the elders. It is called school education when the
knowledge is learned from writing.
It is very positive work. I have heard my pupils who have more contact with
whites say that that they did not know or had never thought that our people had
such and such a story. Because for them our past did not exist. But with this
work we are doing through the enquiries by some of the teachers the pupils
eventually realise that we also have our own stories. The whites have stories of
ancestors but so have we. One important moment in our past is the conquest of
the land. The conquest of education, health and the environment will also in the
future be our past.
Language and Education 159

Education in the indigenous language is a good thing because we must write

down everything making up our knowledge as we decide. This strengthens
children’s knowledge and at the same time we are strengthening our culture. As
in any language, although speakers of Kaxinawa may have difficulty writing,
they understand the content from the context. The indigenous language is an
incentive for learning from paper too.
I believe that in the revival and maintenance of languages the teacher is the
driver who pushes that language in the classroom, with the participation of the
elders. The Kaxinawa people have a division of knowledge, a division of male
and female teaching. These roles are what make the pupils learn what it is to be
a father or a mother. For example, in speaking about arts and crafts there is no
single word in Portuguese that can be identified with this word in Kaxinawa, or
in music there is no translation that can explain what it means in Portuguese,
only the indigenous language can transmit that knowledge. I believe the experi-
ences during these years have been very positive.
Many indigenous peoples had many contacts and probably in those contacts
they lost their languages and stopped speaking them, and the children took to
speaking in Portuguese. In the eighties and nineties, work was done to increase
our cultural knowledge and we made a place for ourselves in the federal consti-
tution, so that each indigenous people could teach its language and culture and
organise itself. Today we are seeing that many people who were not aware of
their culture are beginning to investigate, to prepare teaching material, and this
will help the pupils who have problems with the language. There was a time
when parents were ashamed to use the indigenous language to speak to their
children and grandchildren and our language almost disappeared. We see that
the Kaxinawa people living close to the city still have this lack of faith in their
own language and culture.
This entire process has been a very good experience for me. Perhaps the first
was when I lived amongst the whites under the pressure of not being able to
speak my mother tongue. Happily, my father and mother had the courage to go
on speaking in our language and it was the first language I mastered. Then I
went on to write the language. To write our language we had to decide on a sign
system, write our alphabet, and in the last few years we have been producing
teaching material.
The first material published was a literacy book: some sentences, words,
letters. That was very good for learning to write our language. Then we did a
joint work from which emerged Shenipabu Miyui, which contains 12 written
stories. The material was well prepared and today it is a reference when
speaking of old stories of the Kaxinawa people. Other material was also
produced, a post-literacy reading and writing book, a book of geography and
160 Words and Worlds

one of music, to show the Kaxinawa people that Portuguese is not the only
language that can be written. The indigenous language can also be recorded.
Recently I wrote 12 stories like the ones in Shenipabu Miyui. Some are an
earlier version of the published ones. And that is very important because close
contact with the Portuguese language had altered the stories.
Today we think that this language is not finished, that we are going to keep it
going. If it did not disappear when it was oral, now that it has been recorded it
will be even more difficult.
Joaquim Mana Kaxinawa
Acre Organisation of Indigenous Teachers, Brazil

Group 3 includes those languages taught as a subject carrying more or less weight in
the syllabus or curriculum. These amount to 8%. This is a traditional approach to
learning second or foreign languages.
However, there are differences within this group that should be pointed out.
Although in most cases they are given very limited oral use restricted to the basic
grades, in some cases, as the accounts show, it seems to be a first step towards making
the language an instrument of teaching.
It is hardly used as an instrument of teaching, only as a subject in some syllabuses like in
the schools under the management of the Directorate General for Bilingual and
Intercultural Education. (Chuj, Guatemala)
Teaching medium and subject of study in elementary school, i.e. Classes preparatory and
vernacular components in higher grades are being planned. (Boazi, Papua New Guinea)
Attempts are being made to try and have the language used as the subject of study in
primary school teaching and later it is hoped it will take on the role of an instrumental
language. (Kokama, Peru)
Group 4 includes those languages that are used as a teaching medium, though only at
pre-school level and during the first years of primary education. This group, which
accounts for more than a quarter of the languages in the sample (26%), itself includes
many different situations. In general, these are languages recently introduced into
teaching. Very often the introduction has been thanks to popular initiative and is not
supported by the authorities.
These valuable initiatives, however, rarely embrace the whole of the population
speaking the language in question, as they often tend to be restricted to certain
areas or communities. The reports also show the various difficulties they have to
face to get their language implemented with full rights in the world of teaching.
The lack of involvement by the authorities, government obstacles, even new
Language and Education 161

prohibitions, the shortage of teacher sources, teaching materials and funds in

general, the inexperience and lack of schooling tradition which most of these
initiatives come up against should all be taken very much into account. The
informants’ accounts speak for themselves.
Miskito has not been used as an oral or written language at school, as it was forbidden by
educational legislation. In isolated towns and villages not supervised by the Ministry,
some Miskito teachers gave one hour a week of Miskito by means of old people’s stories, but
this was an exception. Since the establishment of the bilingual/intercultural education in
the Honduran Mosquitia (CEBIMH), and MOPAWI (the primary non-governmental
organization operating in La Mosquitia) published the first learning-to-read book, Yabal
Raya, the first one to fix the system of writing and the phonemes of Miskito quasi-officially,
and a pilot project for bilingual education began in 12 schools in La Mosquitia (Lara, 1998:
80). From 1975 to 1980, the Department of Literature of the UNAH (Universidad
Nacional Autonoma de Honduras) offered three learning levels of the Miskito language
given by the native teacher Natan Pravia, but unfortunately they were later discontinued.
(Miskito, Honduras)
This language is not used orally and is not written, either in intermediate education or at
university. Since 1994 it has begun very timidly to be taught at the two schools attended
by the Tolupan of the Montaña de La Flor, as L1, with the Tol reading and writing books
proposed by the SIL and accepted by PRONEEAH. Its has only been relatively successful,
there are still no pupils at these schools who write texts in Tol at all fluently, they barely
write words and phrases or very short sentences. The great failure of PRONEEAH in La
Montaña de La Flor is that no teacher, of the twelve there are in the region, speaks Tolupan
and what is more surprising than anything is that none of the speakers have been trained
for this. (Tol, Honduras)
There is now some teaching of S. Tiwa at all levels, in programs developed in the 1990s.
All is a level of ‘language revival’, since there is growing concern about losing their native
tongue. (Tiwa, USA)
The languages gathered in group 5 (13%) can be considered to have a more estab-
lished educational practice; they can generally cater for the whole of primary
education, they have teaching materials and a certain tradition. Nevertheless, the
accounts gathered still reveal problems that seem to be due to the lack of involvement
on the part of the authorities. These are all languages that do not enjoy official or co-
official status, something which generally leads to discrimination and asymmetry
with regard to the other language or languages whose space it shares or that compete
with it in a certain usage, in this case in teaching.
The following accounts illustrate some of the circumstances we have just mentioned.
As a vehicle as an object – specially since 1977, when the association of Breton schools
was created (2000 pupils in1998) – both in the public and Catholic schools, this teaching
has been progressing since 1982 under the effects of continued pressure from parents
162 Words and Worlds

associations and Breton language teachers associations. Around 13,000 children are
initiated into the language as a subject. Around 4,700 children are taught in Breton at
least partially. (Breton, France)
The Tamazight language was not used in teaching in any North-African country
until 1996–1997 in Algeria. In this country it is taught at the end of basic education
and in secondary education. In Morocco, in spite of King Hassan II’s promise to
introduce it in primary teaching in his speech of 20/8/1994, nothing has yet been put
into practice. In higher education, Tamazight is only the object of research.
(Tamazight, Morocco)
Before civil war Somali was the medium of instruction up to secondary level. Higher
Education was in Italian and English. Now most secondary schools have switched to
English medium. Quite a number of lower and upper primary schools have Arabic or
English medium. However in all educational institutions there is a lot of spoken use of
Somali. (Somali, Somalia)
Group 6 includes those languages used throughout the educational system. In some
cases they may not all reach all sectors of the population. There are also cases which in
spite of legislation in their favour, as the languages enjoy official or semi-official
status allowing their use in the educational system, this legislation is not fully
enforced and the demands of the population are not properly attended to. However,
this group includes languages which are generally felt to be in a proper or normal
situation for proper development of a language at school. These account for 12% of
the sample.
Whereas we have seen that 7% of the languages in our sample are official and 19%
are co-official in their area (see Chapter four), the figure mentioned before (12%) indi-
cates that co-officiality does not ensure proper treatment of the language in the school
system either.
In basic and intermediate education the use of the language tends to be like the social char-
acteristics of the area in question, with a clear tendency to use Castilian, even among
children whose initial language is Galician. At university the number of students speaking
Galician drops considerably. According to the law, the predominant mother tongue must be
used in infant education, while taking care to teach the other one; in the rest of non-
university teaching the possibility is established of teaching 50% of subjects in Galician. It
is important to say that the law is not being kept in these two cases. (Galician, Spain)
Welsh is both a subject and a medium in schools at all levels but precise practice varies
depending on the local authority. (Welsh, Great Britain)
Both Russian and Belarusan are compulsory in the secondary school system. Actually,
40% of the children are taught on the basis of Belarusan and 60% on the basis of Russian.
In the higher education system, especially in technical universities, it is practically impos-
sible to be trained in Belarusan. The number of hours devoted to the study of Belarusan in
universities diminishes year after year. (Belarusan, Belarus)
Language and Education 163

According to Table 7, the figures in our sample seem fairly hopeful since they reveal
that the sum of languages with some sort of use in teaching reaches 67%. However,
the real scope of this activity is substantially less. At the very least, certain clarifica-
tions are needed. Without going outside the sample, we can say that generalised use
of the language throughout the educational system does not seem to occur in more
than 12% of cases. And as we have seen, most minorised languages do not fall into
this group.
This initial analysis reveals the presence and/or treatment of different languages in
the educational system. It has been barely possible to observe the schooling condi-
tions of the language communities. Do they receive an education suited to their
needs? Do the members of the community become bilingual speakers or is their bilin-
gualism or pluringualism reinforced?

THE TEACHING OF MINORITY LANGUAGES AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

At the end of the twentieth century the globe retains a rich linguistic heritage of
an estimated 6000 languages. Not as rich as some earlier periods in history, the
current wealth of languages world-wide is threatened – seriously threatened – if
projected language loss eventuates. In his recent text, Language Death, David
Crystal estimates rationally and conservatively that up to 90% of these
languages could disappear during the next hundred years.
This would be catastrophic as I believe that the loss of even one language is
tragic. Whatever reasonable steps that could be taken, should be taken to arrest
this anticipated deterioration of the linguistic wealth currently enjoyed across
the globe. The solutions are many and must be put in place immediately. Global
awareness-raising of the issue at all relevant levels – governmental, political,
family community, education, culture, NGO associations, electronic and digital
media, to identify but a few – must be undertaken without delay to mobilise a
global conscience to protect and retain the world’s languages.
In this context, education has a major role to play. Where educational policy
and practice are satisfactory to excellent, education becomes an effective vehicle
to further the cause of languages. Where these essentials of society are less than
adequate, the necessary upgrading should be accompanied by the irrevocable
message that languages are critical to global society, operations and culture, and
must be nurtured, defended and maintained.
As a result the promotion and teaching of languages in the educational field –
whether at the primary, secondary, tertiary or adult level – should be a priority.
The identity of languages taught would be a local concern, but one would
expect adequate coverage of the first language of the majority of learners,
164 Words and Worlds

languages of international significance and languages particular to a certain

location, region or country. Any of these language categories could find them-
selves defined alternatively as minority languages within a certain area but the
majority of languages used globally – Crystal points out that 4% of the world’s
population speak 96% of the languages used – are what we would consider
collectively as minority languages.
Many of these will be learned at home, at school or elsewhere as a first
language, but let us not forget the important perspective of their being accom-
modated as a second language in education within all sectors (i.e.
government, religious, independent) and across all levels. Australia – with its
declining wealth of indigenous languages and co-existing surge in the number
of languages brought to the continent by more recently arrived groups –
provides an excellent model of a multicultural society, strongly underpinned
by rich multilingualism.
In school, it is not only those students of certain ethnic groups who are offered
the language(s) of their community. Schools make choices to teach languages,
often the languages of minority groups significant to an area, and expect all
students enrolled to undertake the study of these languages across a range of
year levels. The self-esteem of the speakers of these languages (as an L1)
elevates predictably and considerably; those learning the language as an L2
develop a healthy perspective of another culture, another element of their
community by learning the language of some of their classmates. An acceptance
of difference and a discovery of the touchstones of humanity – similar across all
cultures – often lead to a growing respect for others. Complementing the
language curricula of mainstream schools is the Victorian School of Languages,
which teaches 40 languages – however defined but among them a significant
number of minority languages often as an L2 – to 14,000 students of a multitude
of backgrounds. Such a model epitomises what is possible in the policy and
desire to promote mutual respect, harmony and peace in a multilingual and
multicultural society, a microcosm of our global community.
Denis Cunningham
International Federation of Professors of Living Languages, Australia

Plurilingual education: a challenge for everyone

As the Delors report on Education for the Twenty-First Century (UNESCO, 1996) so
clearly shows, it is important to prepare the younger generations so that they can take
advantage of the possibilities today’s information society has to offer. There is a
growing demand for knowledge of languages used in international relations. But
education will have failed if on account of this it ignores, rejects or causes people to
Language and Education 165

abandon the languages and cultures that have shaped the identity and integrity of
people and communities.
As stated in the Resolution approved by the United Nations General Assembly of
9 November 2001, teaching the language, history and socio-political philosophy of
different civilisations is one of the Action Programmes. Similarly, the UNESCO
Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, as we have seen, places special emphasis
on pluringualism as a way of making cultural diversity accessible to everyone. In this
respect, also, UNESCO’s Programme and Budget Plan for 2002–2003 specifically
considers “support to networks of experts and research institutions for counselling
Member States and UNESCO on important issues to do with education in human
rights, linguistic pluralism and multilingualism in education”.
Many people live with bilingualism and pluringualism quite naturally. In India, in
the Amazon, in Central Europe, in the Caucasus, people have traditionally been
familiar with several local languages so as to coexist in a plurilingual and pluricul-
tural environment. Sixty-four percent of the communities consulted in our research
said that most of their members were bilingual and in 10% of cases most of the
members of these communities were plurilingual. In other words, most of the
members of the different linguistic communities are not monolingual. These commu-
nities could be the best prepared to face the need for the plurilingual proficiency
today’s world increasingly demands of its inhabitants.
These communities show that coexistence and communication between groups
with several languages is possible and that plurilingualism does not lead to a lack of
communication or to a loss of cohesion within the group, the community or the State.
India is a good example in which to observe rules of behaviour that seem strange to
the eyes of Westerners and that can provide answers to some apparent contradictions.
It is possible to have a multiple identity without any risk to personal integrity. The
ease with which codes are alternated or even mixed, the freedom and lack of purism
in being able use several languages at different levels of proficiency and for different
objects and purposes (Annamalai, 2001) could be a realistic way of dealing with rela-
tions between people ever more remote and diverse without renouncing linguistic
diversity. Any form of relations between different codes is more interesting, demo-
cratic and natural in the history of humanity than the uniformity we seem to be
having forced upon us.
Education must therefore face another challenge. The mother tongue is not enough.
Knowledge of at least one other language must be ensured, and in many cases it will
be necessary to confront plurilingual education.
When the object is bilingual or plurilingual proficiency, we need to take what
plurilingual communities have traditionally done as our model. New languages are
learnt like new instruments, as new skills for new purposes. In these circumstances,
learning a new language does not involve the gradual loss of the mother tongue
(Annamalai, 2001).
It is also important to stress that languages are basically instruments for oral
communication. When it comes to education, however, written forms are given
166 Words and Worlds

priority. School is associated with the literacy of its speakers, the system of writing,
the existence of a written literature and text books written for schools. These demands
are an added obstacle to increasing the role of the school in the survival of languages.
Without detracting from or abandoning writing, why not encourage greater oral use
of languages at school? Why not place greater value on what really has most commu-
nication value and is linguistically more fundamental – that is, oral use?
Knowing that languages are fundamentally used orally, that to encourage this use
we hardly need the most sophisticated resources of language (writing, written liter-
ature, books, spelling rules, etc.) and that the new technologies allow an infinite
number of oral uses with a great power of attraction (telephony, radio, television),
why are schools subordinated to the written form of languages?
Written language must not be surrendered or even underestimated. But the fact
that a language is only just beginning to be used in writing does not justify a poor or
limited use of that language at school.
During the course of the second half of the twentieth century, various bilingual and
plurilingual educational programmes and models were developed in different parts
of the world.

ON BILINGUAL EDUCATION. OBJECTIVES AND APPROACHES

Throughout the whole of the nineteenth century and for large part of the twentieth,
pedagogical theorists and educational politicians were decidedly opposed to
bilingual teaching. This was partly because the educational renewal propounded
continuity between family and school experiences and therefore defended the
mother tongue as the medium of education. The chief reason, though, was the
influence of what has been called linguistic nationalism, which established a close
relation between language, culture and nationality and the importance of language
as a factor in the development of identity, whereas early bilingualism threatened to
divide it. After the Second World War, the globalisation process has multiplied situ-
ations of contact between languages and the early need to know foreign languages
and all this has worked in favour of bilingual education. Among the various
examples of successful bilingual education the best-known was the St. Lambert
Experiment with children whose family language was English and who were
taught in French. The success was so complete that the opposite opinion began to
become widespread, that bilingual education is in itself a good thing. And this is
equally false. Bilingual education takes many forms, can have very varied objec-
tives and can only succeed inasmuch as it has the right means for the desired ends.
In certain situations where languages are in contact, as happens in the city of
Brussels with French and Dutch, two school systems are set up according to the
language of origin of the pupils. In this case we cannot speak of bilingual
Language and Education 167

education. In other cases, as often happens in the United States with the population
of immigrant origin, pupils speaking the lesser language are offered the chance to
use it at school, either until they master the main language, in this case English, or
else as a way of preserving their language. In other cases, and this happens today
in those parts of Spain that have their own language, the object of bilingual
education is that all students should master both languages whatever their family
language. This can take place through a single model of school or with more than
one model from which parents can choose. Obviously, in all these cases the object
of bilingual education is to increase social cohesion while respecting the rights of
speakers of different languages. Equally obviously, a system of this sort can only
succeed insofar as it is supported by democratically expressed social consensus.
In truly plurilingual countries such as Luxembourg, bilingual, or in this case
trilingual teaching cannot be considered an educational option so much as a
strict necessity. And the success of the results shows how easily pupils can learn
in more than one language when the conditions are right.
A different situation from these is when the object of bilingual education is the
acquisition of foreign languages. Modern education has generalised the use of
communicative methods in the teaching of foreign languages, but after a certain
limit, which is soon reached, the most effective way of making progress in the
foreign language is through its use as the teaching medium. There are plenty of
examples today of schools that above a certain level offer some teaching in a
foreign language, such as, for example, English.
But the presence of a foreign language in the educational system can have
other objectives as well as ensuring its mastery. In schools for civil servants in
the European Community, where pupils come from a wide range of linguistic
and national backgrounds, familiarity with other languages is intended to
increase their open-mindedness and strengthen their European conscience.
Miquel Siguan
University of Barcelona, Spain

The literature for the descriptions of educational models for bilingual proficiency of
schoolchildren is increasingly abundant (Baker 1993, Skutnabb-Kangas 2000,
McLaughlin 1984, Cummins 1995, López 1996). Not all so-called bilingual systems,
however, have the object of training bilingual individuals. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000)
describes up to 10 types of supposedly bilingual education systems. Only five of them,
the so-called strong models, can guarantee proficiency in more than one language. We
shall single out two of them: the maintenance model and the immersion model.
The maintenance educational model for minority languages involves schooling in
the mother tongue through bilingual teachers at the same time as the majority
168 Words and Worlds

language is also learnt as a second language. These programmes are therefore far
superior to the traditional submersion models, which school in the dominant
language without taking into account the pupils’ own language. In this type of
teaching, teachers are generally unfamiliar with the schoolchildren’s mother tongue
and in most cases it involves the loss and discredit of the minority language. As far as
the maintenance model is concerned, it is important to stress the important experi-
ments in bilingual education being developed throughout Latin America with the
Bilingual Intercultural Education programmes. Maintenance models, for example,
are the bilingual multicultural education programmes being developed in Bolivia for
Quechua or Aymara (Hornberger & López 1998). The experiment now being
developed by the Brazilian Comisión Pro Indio do Acre de Amazonía is another
example of a highly suitable treatment of local languages in educational activities
through the training of indigenous teachers themselves (Lindenberg-Monte 1998).
In Latin America there are endless experiments in education being developed in
favour of the local languages. Their contributions constitute a real revolution in
education and are cause for hope, both for their maintenance of the languages and the
prestige they give them and in the educational innovations, teacher training, comple-
mentary oral and written use, and approach to interculturalism that they encourage.
The immersion educational module uses a language other than the mother tongue as
the medium of instruction. The programmes are always approved by the parents,
teachers are bilingual and are familiar with the child’s language. In general, these
immersion programmes allow a second language to be learnt far more efficiently than
traditional programmes for L2 teaching. They have been particularly effective in the
teaching of minorised second languages such as Maori in New Zealand (Benton 1996,
Skutnabb-Kangas), Basque in the Basque Country (Spain and France, Sierra et al.),
Catalan in Catalonia (Spain, Artigal), Mohawk in Canada (Hoover 1992), Breton in France
(Gwegen 1999) and Welsh in Great Britain. They are also used in situations in which
languages are a contextual minority, such as French in Canada (Lambert 1974, Genesee
1987) or Aosta, Italy (Floris 1988), Finnish in Sweden (Skutnabb-Kangas 2000), etc.
Thanks to the immersion model applied to minorised languages it is possible to
extend learning of these languages beyond the community itself and, especially,
recover them amongst members who have lost them. They further bilingualism, inte-
gration and social peace, and therefore the maintenance of minorised languages
otherwise condemned to disappear.

POSSIBILITIES OF THE REVIVAL OF LANGUAGES IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Papua New Guinea has about 820 local languages, with 16 extinct and 77
threatened. Only 3 languages have over 100,000 speakers, 10 over 50,000, 70
over 10,000, 330 over 1000, 360 between 100 and 1000, and about 80 under 100.
Language and Education 169

Not only small languages are threatened, but also some larger ones. Speakers
are very proud of their languages, cling them as symbols of their ethnic identity,
though 90 per cent know the national language Tok Pisin as the second
language, which until recently had little influence on the maintenance of local
languages. Bi- and multilingualism is very widespread. The last 20 years have
seen a sharp increase in marriages between partners speaking different
languages because of greater population mobility. The family language became
Tok Pisin then. Electronic media use Tok Pisin, English and a few major
languages. Elementary education uses only about 30 major languages. Young
speakers increasingly regard small minority languages as unimportant and
prefer Tok Pisin. This has lead to endangerment and extinction of the former.
Academics and politicians try to stop this through media propaganda, with
little effect as yet. Descendants try to revive some recently extinct languages
using studies of them by linguists. The introduction of oral elementary
education an hour every day to linguistically separated groups of pupils of
different mother tongues in their own languages in a polylingual class as a
supplement to the main education with literacy in a major language, is a possi-
bility for raising the respect of children speakers for their own languages and for
reviving and preserving their failing languages. It would also correspond to
UNESCO’s view that every child ought to get some basic education in its
mother tongue. Another important means of revitalising and maintaining
threatened languages has been found to be their study by outside and local
linguists and the production of language materials in them which is greatly
welcomed by their speakers. UNESCO has supported this activity from
1992–1998 through grants awarded to applications received by the International
Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies – ICPHS (UNESCO), but this
funding has been discontinued which lowers the chances of language mainte-
nance, revival and survival, unless other organisations giving grants for such
linguistic work step in, which may be likely seeing the present great interna-
tional interest in the study and maintenance of threatened minority languages.
Stephen Wurm
The Australian National University, Australia

Education as an agent of linguistic recovery

What is gained by learning a new language? What does it mean to recover the
language of our ancestors? What can education contribute?
Many languages are learned as second or third languages. The social relations
established through intergroup coexistence, migratory movements or a variety of
educational policies mean that a large part of the population becomes bilingual or
170 Words and Worlds

plurilingual in the course of their life. Social life, work, commerce, science and politics
all have considerable influence on the learning of regional, state or international
languages. It is important to stress that any language learning process constitutes an
asset to training and culture which is increasingly valued and necessary. Learning
another language brings direct access to another culture, substantially increases the
capacity for understanding cultural heritage and improves communication power.
Advances in educational linguistics, audiovisual and computer technologies and
access to the media allow substantially faster and more efficient language teaching.
Although all these experiments take place basically in the case of second languages
which in their context act as dominant languages, nevertheless there are also cases in
which thanks to specific educational programmes languages which may be in a
minority situation can be learned as L2 or L3. The fact that members who have lost
their language or that members of other communities learn a minorised language is
also a source of prestige for this language. Of course, if this option is to play a decisive
role in the recovery of a language, it must be of a social nature, and school is one of the
means used to this end. This is the purpose of education in any language recovery
programme, and its influence will be positive, and sometimes decisive, so long as the
community integrates the educational initiative in a more general and complete
recovery plan. In these cases, the identity value attributed to a language, and the
possibility for social integration learning it allows, is decisive for the success of the
initiative. The examples of Hebrew, Maori, Basque, Welsh and Catalan (Fishman
1991) and the initiatives reported for Triqui, Kaxinawa, Mapudungun, Sami, etc.
show that, though difficult, it is not impossible to revive a language and that
education can be an important tool for achieving this object.

WHY LEARN THE LANGUAGE? WHY BE LITERATE?

THE BASQUE EXPERIENCE, 1960–2000

The Basque community (Euskaldunak) and its language (Basque – Euskara)

have had a remarkable experience in the Basque Country (Euskal Herria) over
the last 40 years in teaching the language to adults and, at the same time, in
acquiring literacy in their own language.
This linguistic community is currently (1996) estimated to have 12,000 mono-
lingual Basque speakers, 534,000 bilingual (Basque-Spanish/Basque-French)
speakers and 352,900 passive bilingual speakers. At the same time, Basque was
the mother tongue of 31.6% of the inhabitants of the Continental Basque
Country, 24.2% of the Basque Autonomous Community and 10.1% of Navarre.
Thus the levels of familiarity and use of the language vary considerably
according to the geographical area of the country and the sociolinguistic level of
the population. Furthermore, in general, the need, opportunity and/or wish to
Language and Education 171

acquire the language on the part of adults and/or the convenience of doing so
and becoming literate in Basque also varies widely in the three areas of the
Basque linguistic community. Learning the language and literacy must therefore
be seen in this varied and sometimes contradictory setting. As we shall see, in
recent decades the acquisition of language and literacy has played an important
part in this community.
In general, we might say that the Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) is
where the best organised plans for positive promotion have been set up, both
through private social initiatives and through the Administration’s official
public initiatives, but conditions for this between 1940 and 1975 were especially
difficult. Neither before nor during those decades could teaching of the
language to adults or Basque literacy for speakers use the general school
system, the cultural institutions or the media. Only a stubborn effort by the
community managed to open a breach in the status imposed.
Various socio-cultural factors came together to reactivate the social foundations
of the language. Amongst them were a few worthy individual initiatives (fifties),
the teaching in the Seminars of the Catholic Church, which included courses in
Basque (fifties), the creation of the Basque Schools and their social milieu
(Ikastolak), the introduction of spoken and written journalism (sixties), the
massive secularisation of already literate Catholic seminarists (who became new
agents of literacy: 1968…), the spread of the children’s literacy press (1959, 1966)
and the offer of radio programmes promoting the language (1966), amongst others.
To all this can be added, in the sixties, as basic factors, the economic devel-
opment of areas with a high proportion of Basque speakers (with a twofold
rural/industrial domestic economy) and the growing discredit of the Franco
regime’s educational and cultural policy. Thus possession and mastery of the
language emerged more and more as a liberating factor and an instrument for a
more harmonious future for the country. Political resistance and cultural
creativity came together in a single movement.
In this context, there was a proliferation of modest local initiatives for Basque
literacy and language learning (at first, Gau-Eskolak: extracurricular evening
classes), also helped by a wide range of social movements and after 1966
gathered under the protection of the Euskaltzaindia (Basque Language
Academy). In 1975, a broad network of euskaltegiak (Basque language and
literacy centres) came together as a general coordinating association (AEK) and
began operations alongside other professional centres of the same nature. At the
end of the seventies, annual enrolment at these centres reached about 30,000 (of
which 91% were for Basque language and 9% Basque literacy).
In response to the growing importance of this phenomenon in society, in the
following decade (the eighties) the authorities (in this case, the Basque
172 Words and Worlds

Government of the BAC) took on themselves the institutional coverage of

Basque language and literacy (HABE: Basque Adult language and Literacy
Institute, 1983). At the same time, the declaration of the language as (co) official
in the Basque Autonomous Community and the Autonomous Community of
Navarre (1979, 1982) and the projects for its normalisation have also generated
increased demand for Basque teaching, doubtless also as a result of the social
prestige arising from the legality of the language and its new professional or
occupational utility (access to posts in the Administration).
Along with the schools mentioned above, several complementary actions
should also be mentioned, in both the private and public sectors. First of all,
there are the Barnetegiak (boarding schools) and, in another field, the publi-
cation of magazines for pupils (Habe, Aizu) and teachers (Hizpide, Ele), as well
as classroom teaching materials. Proficiency and refresher courses for teachers
have not been overlooked either (1992–1997). Two methodological criteria have
guided this teaching activity: careful progress in the study of language struc-
tures and special attention to the communicative component in learning
(Perales 2000). The experience gathered in the preceding years has made it
possible to design a “Basic Syllabus for the Teaching of Basque to Adults”
(Decree of 24/01/2000).
At the same time as Basque language and literacy acquisition has been
endowed with technical and organisational resources, it has also sought public
support for the process, to which end social/leisure events have been created,
such as Korrika, a people’s march across the Basque Country (every two years
since 1980) or Aek-Eguna, a festive occasion for schools and for anyone inter-
ested in the recovery of the language.
What point has currently been reached in language and literacy acquisition in
the Basque Country? The size and nature of the student population is suggested
in the following figures. In 1995, there were 1,135 registered students in the
Continental Basque Country, while in Navarre the annual number of students
can be estimated at 3,500 people and in schools in the BAC there were 42,064
(1997–1998). It is estimated that between 3,500 and 4,000 people pass the top
grade in Basque language every year (BAC). To all this must now be added a
new form of action, that of technical literacy teaching, which aims to prepare
professionals and the public in general in the use of the language in the
specialised sphere of their professional or occupational life.
The future transmission of the language to adults will be particularly condi-
tioned by other initiatives as important or more so: by the general educational
system (increasingly Basque-speaking by families’ choice), by the perhaps more
difficult process of bilingualisation of civil servants, by the influence of the
media (overwhelmingly dominated by French and Spanish) and more generally
Language and Education 173

by the fact that greater knowledge of the language also has a positive effect for
the real use of the language.
After almost forty years of private efforts by society (1960–1980) and by social
institutions – private and public (1980–2000) – two objectives can be seen to
have stimulated the linguistic community in this field: that of recovering the lost
language and that of achieving full social normalisation of this minority
language. The awareness of and esteem for the cultural and identifying value of
the language have been decisive in the process of learning, as well as that of
literacy. This was evident in the seventies and recent surveys have confirmed it
once more (Perales 2000). The will of society and of the political institutions has
collaborated in both senses with noteworthy effect, especially in the BAC.
Joseba Intxausti
Basque Country, Spain

Recommendations on language and education

State, regional and local authorities, especially educational and cultural adminis-
trators, must bear in mind he following points:

• Multilingualism is the skill best suited to safeguarding cultural diversity and

confronting the dangers of globalisation. The priority educational aim for the
new millennium must be approached in terms of language proficiency.
• Multilingualism must be an aspiration and a demand for everybody, not just
for the speakers of minority languages. Knowledge of the language of one’s
own community is not enough, but neither is knowing only the language of
the state.
• Minority linguistic communities must have institutional assistance and
advice to create and develop their educational system, but they must be
allowed to define their own objectives according to their linguistic and
cultural needs.
• The fact of not having a written language must not prevent the use of a
language at school. Furthering formal and informal oral uses must be an
educational priority in languages with and without writing, especially when
the presence of a language in society is limited.
• The educational models that can contribute most to preserving linguistic
diversity and thereby the identity and integrity of all linguistic commu-
nities are those that have successfully trained multilingual or at least
bilingual individuals.
174 Words and Worlds

• In the case of immigrants arriving in the territory of linguistic communities

which speak a language different to their own, the use of immersion teaching
methods is recommended to speed up the process of learning the language
of the host community. This immersion must be made compatible with the
preservation of the language of their place of origin.
• The monolingual school model is a threat to linguistic diversity; multilin-
gualism must be a priority objective also for speakers of dominant languages,
and schools can offer this service through immersion programmes. The prin-
ciple of educating children in the family language still applies, but especially
so when it is a small one. It is also important to remember that legislating for
this is not enough; the community must be given the human and financial
resources needed to achieve this end as soon as possible.
• Schools cannot guarantee either the recovery or the preservation of a
language, but it will be difficult to save a language if it is not included in the
educational system of the affected community.
• Biodiversity is an asset acknowledged by everyone. It is important also to
acknowledge linguistic diversity as humanity’s most valuable cultural asset.
This acknowledgement would reinforce language teaching and confer
prestige on any move in favour of preserving linguistic diversity.
• The ability to use several languages is an asset of immediate utility, whether
fully or only partly exercised. For commercial exchanges it is useful to know
a few oral expressions; for social and political relations oral use is a priority,
and in technology an ability to read in certain languages can also be suffi-
cient. In other words, knowledge of languages, as well as being worthwhile
in itself and intellectually enriching, is always useful. Schools should
therefore teach people to enjoy and make use of each level of learning
achieved in the languages they teach.

At the time this World Review is going to press, the position paper ‘Education in a
Multilingual World’ has been published by UNESCO (2003). The ideas expressed in
this document are in line with the recommendations of this chapter.
Chapter 7
Languages and the Media
The use of a language in the media has a fundamental effect, both from the internal
point of view of the language itself, and from the external point of view of the status
of the language.
On an internal level, the media are responsible for the development of specific oral and
written genres, as well as the corresponding discursive, grammatical and lexical forms.
Oral and written forms in the media can have so much influence that the linguistic
varieties they use are the fundamental points on which many of today’s standard
languages are based. So-called British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) English is the
classic and most paradigmatic example of this.
From the point of view of status, the media also contribute decisively to the prestige
and vitality of languages and can do so negatively or positively. Absence from the
media, incorrect, derogatory or disparaging use, would be the most negative
extremes of endless ways of damaging a language in the media.
On the other hand, the presence and correct (suitable) treatment of languages in the
media is today a fundamental way for them to develop a formal and public discourse.
In other times, it was religious and festive rituals that provided the necessary commu-
nicative contexts for developing this type of prestige.
Subsequently, using the language in the media not only fulfils its specific object of
allowing communication between members of a linguistic community, but also
increases the prestige of the language between people inside and outside the
community. In this Review, Xavier Albó puts it as follows: “…if speakers of a discrim-
inated language find it is used in favourable contexts in the social media, their self-
esteem grows and even the dominant elite can come to accept its presence”.
All of this shows how very important it is for languages to have access to the media
and therefore how important it is to promote cultural and linguistic diversity in the
media. Those languages present in the media acquire greater prestige in their own
community of speakers and outside it and are better situated to face up to the
tendency towards linguistic and cultural uniformity and ensure their survival.
In this chapter we shall start with the controversy there is over the consequences that
the growth of the media is going to have for the future of languages. The second section
analyses the way in which languages can be present in the media. The third section
covers the factors that enable or restrict the presence of languages in the media. The

175
176 Words and Worlds

fourth section analyses the importance of developing media in each of the languages of
the community. Finally, a series of recommendations to the authorities, the linguistic
communities themselves and to institutions, on the subject of the media is presented.

Media, globalisation and languages

The media have grown in a way that was previously unimaginable. While large areas
of the world, especially the less industrialised, do not yet have widespread access to
much of the information and communications technology, there are fewer and fewer
people who are not in contact with some network of written, oral, audiovisual or
cybernetic transmission.
There is much controversy today over the consequences the growth in the media
could have on the future of languages. For some, the digitalisation, fusion, deregu-
lation and globalisation that is taking place in the world of telecommunications is
producing a tendency to uniformity that threatens linguistic and cultural plurality. In
other words, the development and the growth of digital technology are increasing the
capacity for obtaining, processing and storing information. This digitalisation process
has at the same time allowed the technological standardisation behind the fusion of
media corporations with the large technological companies, giving rise to a single
telecommunications industry which is usually in the hands of the dominant cultures
and which in many cases is taking on the appearance of an oligopoly. These two
trends, in turn, are closely linked to the tendency to deregulation that can be seen in
the world of the media. In other words, at the same time as they are being privatised,
the large information and telecommunications operators are acquiring more power
and influence over society, to the detriment of public operators. These three trends, in
turn, are closely linked to the globalisation process taking place in the world. This
process is favouring the growth and strengthening of the cultural industries, largely
North American, which are creating a culturally and linguistically uniform world
through the spread of English and of products fashioned according to the Anglo-
Saxon socio-cultural pattern (Hamelink 1994).
Opposite to this view, placing the emphasis on the trends to uniformity, there are
authors who analyse the influence of the media and who hold an optimistic outlook
as regards the future of languages. These authors point out that, while accepting the
real threats facing linguistic diversity, many linguistic communities endure and have
come to have a certain presence in the communications media and, in some cases,
have developed communications media in their own language. Despite more than
two centuries of production by the cultural industries, and despite the aggressive
strategies of the powerful communications groups, independent forms of enter-
tainment and media are still succeeding in the world (Miège 2000).

What presence do languages have in the communications media?

In the questionnaire used for the review, a question about the presence of the
languages of the community in the media was introduced. Specifically it was asked if
Languages and the Media 177

the language is used in press, radio or television. It is important to remember that the
questions were open, so we have been able to gather some information about their
use in Internet.
More than half (53%) of the languages analysed in the research carried out are
present in some kind of media – that is, they are used as a medium of expression in the
media – although there are enormous differences in the means at their disposal and in
the frequency with which they broadcast. As regards their presence in the media,
languages can be classified in three main groups:
First of all, languages that are usually present in all the media (radio, television,
press and even the Internet). In this group are the more widespread languages of the
world, such as English, Arabic and Spanish, and most official state languages. In
other words, the languages of the dominant cultures that in many cases use the media
as an instrument of linguistic and cultural dominance.
The second group contains those languages that have gained access to the media
but do not have either the media presence or the political and economic power of the
languages in the first group. Furthermore, the languages in this group do not form a
homogeneous group as there is a gradation to be seen in them going from languages
habitually used in all the media to languages used from time to time and only in some
local media.
European languages such as Latvian, Catalan and Icelandic are found in this
subgroup. These are languages which lack the power and the extension of the
languages in the first group but which have media productions and are habitually
present in the press, on radio and television and, in most cases, also on the Internet.
Some are even official state languages.
This group contains also languages that are habitually present in some media,
both oral and written, but that are not used in all the media or else are only sporad-
ically present. Examples can be found in an Amerindian language like Aymara,
habitually present on the radio and occasionally on local television but absent
from the press, and the Gikuyu language of Kenya, which has a press and radio
but no television.
Besides this, those languages whose presence in the media is reduced almost
exclusively to local radio can be found, though this presence can vary from being
daily, weekly or monthly to being only sporadic. This subgroup includes, for
example, the Maya language Achi, which is used by two radio stations in the region
for one hour a day; Mon, in Burma, which has a radio programme of half an hour
every week, and Kom, in Cameroon, which is used in five programmes a week
lasting half an hour on the station in the provincial capital. Amongst languages
sporadically used in the media we can include Lakota, spoken in the United States
and Canada, and Meriam, in Australia. Both languages are used sporadically on the
tribal radio stations of each community.
We present below some examples of the languages that the informants sent us,
without generalised presence in mass media.
178 Words and Worlds

Languages used to some degree in the media

In the Autonomous Prefecture Hani is used in broadcasting, films, and on television.

Hani newspapers are also published locally. (Hani, China)
There are Jingpo broadcasts and newspapers in Yunnan Province, and in the Dehong Dai
and Jingpo Autonomous Prefecture. The Dehong Autonomous Prefecture also shows
films which have been translated into Jingpo language. (Jingpo, China)
There is a television channel in Galician, a radio station and a newspaper. There are also
some programmes that are broadcast in Galician on other television channels and radio
stations (though very few), as well as some articles in Galician in the press which is almost
all in Castilian. (Galician, Spain)
It is used on radio and television but not in newspapers yet. (Ibibio, Nigeria)
Dogon is used in the media: radio, press, television. (Dogon, Mali)
The language is used in local radio broadcasting. Approximately one hour per day.
(Burushaski, Pakistan)
There are Maonan broadcasts in Maonan towns only. Chinese is used in all other forms of
media. (Maonan, China)
There is an Ainu language radio course on the air once a week. (Ainu, Japan)
There is at least one radio station that broadcasts in Otomi, of the Patrimonio Indígena del
Valle del Mezqutal in Ixmiqilpan, Hgo. There is no real press in Otomi, or television
programmes. (Otomi, Mexico)
It is used on the radio and exceptionally on television. (Serere, Senegal)

The third and last group is made up of languages which have no presence in the
media, such as Guiqiong, in China, Tayo, in New Caledonia, and Yeyi, in Botswana
and many others.
As has been said before, almost half the languages from the sample studied (47%)
have no access to any communication media. In other words, they are languages
which in most cases have been marginalised by the dominant cultures and which on
many occasions have been denied access to the media. In this respect, it should be
pointed out that, on many occasions, the dominant cultures and languages have
prevented development of the media in these languages and have used the influence
of the media to achieve linguistic and cultural uniformity of the territory around the
language proclaimed official or national.
Some languages which informants said that are not used in the media are the
following ones:
Achang, Achuar, Aiwo, Akoye, Alsatian, Amahuaca, Athpare, Awa pit, Awajun,
Babole, Badyara, Baheng, Baima, Balanta, Baniwa, Bao’an, Bargam, Bariai,
Languages and the Media 179

Baruga, Basari, Bengni-Bogar, Berbice, Bhumij, Bimin, Bisu, Blang, Boazi,

Bolinao, Buang, Budik, Buhutu, Burum-Mindik, Bwaidoka, Cabecar, Cacaopera,
Caquinte, Cayapa, Chaga, Chamling, Cheke Holo, Chepang, Chichimeco
Chilcotin, Chimila, Chinanteco, Chipaya, Chocho, Chrau, Kokama, Kofan,
Colorado, Komba, Cun, Da‘a, Darang-Deng, De’ang, Derung, Dobel, Domaki,
Dong, Edolo, Ergong, Ersu, Fuyug, Gelao, Geman-Deng, Giriama, Guambiano,
Guiqiong, Gumawana, Gungu, Haruai, Hewa, Hezhen, Uitoto, Idakho, Idu,
Ilianen Manobo, Imbongu, Iquito, Itzaj, Jalunka, Jarauara, Jinuo, Jiongnai, Jukun,
Ka’apor, Kagayanen, Kaguru, Kaluli, Kamali, Kandozi, Karay, Kayapi, Kayapo,
Kei, Koasati, Komo, Kuku-Yalanji, Kuuy, Kuvi, Kwakwala, Lakkia, Lamenu,
Lembena, Lobala, Loogoli, Luang, Luwo, Macanese, Malay, Malecite, Malngin,
Mambwe, Manchu, Mangbetu, Mazateco, Mbosi, Meramera, Mian, Migaama,
Minaveha, Miwok, Mixe, Mocheno, Munduruku, Mussau-Emira, Muya,
Nambikwara, Namuyi, Narak, Ndali, Ndogo, Ngardi, Ngbaka, Ngbandi,
Ngonde, Ngoni, Nihali, Ninggirum, Numanggang, Nunga, Nusu, Ogiek,
Oneida, Onge, Onobasulu, Orya, Pagibete, Paiute, Palenque, Pech, Popoluca,
Poyanawa, Pumi, Ramoaaina, Rouruo, Sabaot, Saep, Salar, Sandawi, Sawai,
Sentani, Shawnee, She, Shelta, Shixing, Shona, Blackfoot, Sipakapense, Siriono,
Siroi, Songorong, Sukuma, Sumo-Tawahka, Tae’, Tanimuka, Tatar, Tau, Tayo,
Tehid, Tehuelche, Teke, Tepehuan, Tifal, Timbe, Tiwa, Tol, Tsanglo, Tujia,
Tutunacu, Tuwali, Uma, Uspanteko, Waama, Waffa, Wampis, Wanga, Waorani,
Xavante, Yaaku, Yagua, Yakan, Yale, Yele, Yerava, Yukuna, EasternYugur, Western
Yugur, Zauzou.

Factors allowing or restricting the presence of languages in the media

Although it is difficult to determine all the factors that play a part in the presence a
language has in the media, everything seems to suggest that the legal status and the
support or restrictions the dominant cultures allow or impose on the languages in
their orbit play a decisive part in their presence in the media.
In this respect, a close correlation can be seen between the use of a language in the
media and its official status – that is, languages that are official and co-official have a
greater presence in the media than those that have no official status. To be precise,
almost 90% of official languages and co-official languages are present to some extent
in the media. It is important to point out, though, that lack of official status is not an
invincible obstacle to the presence of a language in the media. The example of
Romany is one of many examples we have been able to note.
There are two hours a week on Romanian television for the Roms. There are five maga-
zines for the Roms with writing in Romania. There are also three radio programmes in
Romany. (Romany, Romania)
Speakers’ linguistic awareness and the wish to develop media in their own language
is another decisive factor for the development of the media. There are many accounts
180 Words and Worlds

from informants, even of languages with few speakers, saying that in recent years
they have been able to develop written and oral media.
Frisian is hardly used in the media. The situation is as follows: There are three minutes
a week on the local public radio station. The radio station does not seem to be willing to
increase the broadcasting time. On one private radio station there are occasionally
longer programmes. There is no Frisian on television. In the local newspaper there is
one page per month with articles in Frisian and Low German. In the Danish
minority’s newspaper, Flensborg Avis, there are occasional articles in Frisian.
(Frisian, Germany)
Nevertheless, all the linguistic communities analysed expressed a clear wish to
maintain, develop or create media of their own, though they also show difficulties
which very often are difficult to overcome. Above all, the lack of financial support is
one of the main obstacles to the development of the media. There are many linguistic
communities which, although they have the awareness and the wish to develop
media of their own, do not do so because of a lack of financial resources.
There are radio and television broadcasts in Runyoro. There was a local newspaper,
Enyunorí Yaítu, but it has stopped for lack of funds. Now there are only occasional
publications and text books (a few), because most of them are written in English.
(Nyoro, Uganda)
Map 9 shows the languages spoken in Tanzania.

The survival of languages through the development of their own media

The fact that the gloomiest forecasts on cultural identities and languages have not
entirely come true and that many languages have achieved some kind of presence in
the media is no guarantee that these forecasts will not be fulfilled at some point in
the future. Many people have pointed out that the large communication corpora-
tions, which basically broadcast in English, will increasingly foster cultural
uniformity and lead to the disappearance of those languages whose position is
weakest (May 2001).
The asymmetry and lack of proportion between a local radio using the language of
the community in the face of the large television channels or the American film
colossuses raises serious doubts as to the survival of the less widespread languages
and cultures.
Everything seems to suggest that to avoid linguistic and cultural uniformity
linguistic communities will have to develop communications media that use their
own language. In other words, in the face of the influence in favour of uniformity
exerted by the large communications media, linguistic communities will have to
create their own media or at least ensure their presence in the local media.
As has been pointed out above, the development of communication channels
depends on a number of things, some of which are beyond the powers of the group or
Languages and the Media 181

community of speakers. Written media obviously call for an alphabet and a system of
spelling; audiovisual media require technological and financial means that are not
always accessible to linguistic communities, though it should not be forgotten that
they facilitate their use for unwritten or barely standardised languages or languages
lacking the creation of graphic systems.

THE MEDIA IN THE SERVICE OF MINORITY LANGUAGES

The media are one of the most powerful instruments for standardising,
changing or consolidating languages and cultural identities. Present in the
landscape and in the intimacy of every home, they shape values, attitudes and
even identities, like a fine rain that eventually penetrates the being’s every
pore. At the same time, by their very nature, the mass media reflect the global
environmental pressure more insistently than other institutions – such as
school – and can pose a threat to the identity and language of subordinated or
marginated groups such as indigenous peoples, immigrant workers, refugees
and other excluded groups.
In Latin America, the indigenous languages entered the media late and very
incompletely. It was not until the fifties that the transistor radio made it possible
for communication to overcome obstacles such as bad roads, lack of electricity,
illiteracy or monolingualism and radio stations or programmes in the main
indigenous languages began to emerge, sometimes with ample audience partic-
ipation, especially in countries with few languages spoken by many and with
less state control of radio stations. On commercial television and in the daily
press, progress is practically nil, while the little that has been done in cinema
and video is very scattered.
The use of one language or another in the media, as well as easing or
obstructing understanding, plays an important expressive role, especially in
those media that appeal to the feelings by means of sound and images. If
certain languages and cultures are ignored in them or only appear in the
context of crime or with pejorative connotations, their marginalisation is
increased and their disappearance hastened. But if speakers of discriminated
languages find them used in the media in favourable contexts, their self-
esteem grows and even the dominant elites can eventually come to accept
their presence.
For any media to strengthen its positive role in favour of minority languages,
the general setting and contextualisation of all its programmes must reflect the
plural reality around it positively; its use of languages, images and content must
show the country or the area in a positive light as an intercultural and
plurilingual reality.
182 Words and Worlds

In addition, all plurilingual countries should adopt the following measures:

• Train native speakers of the minority languages in the use of the different
media and ensure the existence of at least one regular broadcasting channel
for each linguistic area and community and in each branch of the media.
• Set up community radio stations in these languages and form radial chains
between the ones broadcasting in the same language.
• Further the preparation and compilation of records, cassettes, films and
videos in minority languages and their large-scale distribution in the chief
media and other distribution networks.
• Make systematic use of the different local languages in signs, public places
and events and on the Internet.
Xavier Albó
Centre for Peasant Research and Promotion (CIPCA), Bolivia

Radio, according to the accounts gathered, seems to be the medium that has seen
most development, even in linguistic communities with more modest means. It is
the most readily accessible media form and therefore the most widespread. The
figures are clear in this respect: 44% of the languages analysed are used on the radio;
only 26% have access to the written press, and 23% of the languages have some
presence on television.
The reasons for the predominance of radio are easy to imagine. It is less demanding
technically and economically than the other media, and in principle it has no need for
a written use of the language. Also, it does not require the literacy of its audience
(Anashin 2000). It is therefore foreseeable that linguistic communities and especially
those with most awareness of their situation will continue to make widespread use of
radio. In this respect, radio is a medium to take very much into account in any imple-
mentation of linguistic planning policy.
The proportion of languages with a television presence (23%) is half the number
with radio presence (44%). The technical and economic demands for developing the
necessary technology mean that many communities, especially the smaller ones with
fewer resources, have serious problems when it comes to gaining access to the tech-
nology needed to develop this sort of media. However, there is no denying that tele-
vision can play an important part in the survival of languages. Television could be of
great help for communities wanting to bring prestige to their language and
encourage its use, or implement programmes for language teaching at a distance,
especially amongst geographically dispersed linguistic communities. One interesting
experience in this respect were the Yukateko language classes given on the Mexican
channel Azteca 13.
Languages and the Media 183

The Internet, just like television, calls for infrastructures and technologies that are
not often within reach of all linguistic communities. With the increased use of
graphic elements, the difficulties and the costs involved in image treatment are
creating added difficulties in its use. Increasingly sophisticated means are required,
which very often are not available to linguistic communities. What is more,
inequality in access to technologies in turn leads to greater social privileges for those
linguistic communities with more power. Thus the socio-economic gap between the
rich communities, who can develop, promote and impose their language, and the
poorer communities, who have no alternative but to accept the cultural and
linguistic influence forced on them, gets wider. We must not forget that the mastery
of these technologies gives real cultural and political power to the great world
powers and the private interests behind them, particularly in relation to populations
who do not have proper education or are not in a position to classify, interpret or crit-
icise the information they receive (Delors 1997).
In addition, everything seems to suggest that more than half of what there is on the
Internet today is in English (Miège 2000). If we add to this the fact that the main
Internet browser software can only read the characters of the Latin alphabet (World
Communication Report 1997), it seems there is no other way but to accept the point of
view of certain authors who point to the Internet as one of the most important instru-
ments of cultural uniformity (Virilio 1997).
However, we must not forget that the Internet is furthering previously
unimagined remote communications networks and that it is one of the most active
technologies that can allow the use of certain languages, especially when speakers
are subject to increasing situations of mobility (migrations and job transfers).
Furthermore, it gives communities or individuals speaking the same language
greater opportunities for bringing pressure to bear or organising in favour of their
language. The Internet makes it possible to debate, reach conclusions and organise
without costly and unnecessary travel (Myers 1999). One obvious example is the
Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights signed in 1996 in Barcelona, to which
were added, with the help of the Internet, proposals from different centres and
organisations all over the world.
It must be remembered that, in so far as it allows interactivity, the Internet is a good
way of imparting distance teaching. It is likely that in future on-line study courses on
the subject of languages will be commoner and cheaper, thus foreseably contributing
to their reinforcement and development as the World Communication and
Information Report notes (UNESCO 1999).
During the 31st session of the General Conference of UNESCO, November 2001,
UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and the Main Lines of an
Action Plan was adopted. In this action plan, the following objectives were estab-
lished among others:
184 Words and Worlds

MAIN LINES OF AN ACTION PLAN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

UNESCO UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY.
November 2001
(…)
5. Safeguarding the linguistic heritage of humanity and giving support to
expression, creation and dissemination in the greatest possible number
of languages.
6. Encouraging linguistic diversity – while respecting the mother tongue – at
all levels of education, wherever possible, and fostering the learning of
several languages from the earliest age.
(…)
10. Promoting linguistic diversity in cyberspace and encouraging universal
access through the global network to all information in the public domain.
(…)

Another interesting reference is the document of Recommendation concerning the

Promotion and Use of Multilingualism and Universal Access to Cyberspace
adopted by the General Conference of the UNESCO during its 32nd session,
October 2003, which undertakes an analysis of important themes such as the elabo-
ration of plurilingual systems and contents, the facilitation of access to the web and
its services, the development of information and knowledge in the public domain
and the reaffirmation of the equitative equilibrium between private interests and
public interests.
Each of the recommendations is vitally important. Here we present a small extract.

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE PROMOTION AND USE OF

MULTILINGUALISM AND UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO CYBERSPACE
Adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization during its 32nd session, October 2003.
(…)
5. UNESCO, in cooperation with other international organisations, should
establish a collaborative online observatory on existing policies, regula-
tions, technical recommendations, and best practices relating to multilin-
gualism and multilingual resources and applications, including
innovations in language computerisation.
(…)
8. In particular, Member States and international organisations should
establish mechanisms at the local, national, regional and international level
Languages and the Media 185

to facilitate universal access to the Internet through affordable telecommu-

nications and Internet costs with special consideration given to the needs of
public service and educational institutions, and of disadvantaged and
disabled population groups. New incentives in this area should be
designed towards this end including public-private partnerships to
encourage investment and the lowering of financial barriers to the use of
ICT, such as taxes and customs duties on informatics equipment, software
and services.
(…)
10. Member States should encourage the development of information
strategies and models that facilitate community access and reach out to all
levels of society, including the setting up of community projects and
fostering the emergence of local information and communication tech-
nology leaders and mentors. Strategies should also support cooperation on
ICT among public service institutions, as a means of reducing the cost of
access to Internet services.
(…)
14. Member States and international organisations should promote appropriate
partnerships in the management of domain names, including multilingual
domain names.
(…)
16. Member States and international organisations should identify and
promote repositories of information and knowledge in the public domain
and make them accessible by all, thus shaping learning environments
conducive to creativity and audience development. To this end, adequate
funding should be provided for the preservation and digitisation of public
domain information.
17. Member States and international organisations should encourage cooper-
ative arrangements which respect both public and private interests in order
to ensure universal access to information in the public domain without
geographical, economic, social or cultural discrimination.
(…)
19. Member States and international organisations should promote and facil-
itate ICT literacy, including popularising and building trust in ICT imple-
mentation and use. The development of “human capital” for the
information society, including an open, integrated and intercultural
education combined with skills training in ICT, is of crucial importance.
ICT training should not be limited to technical competence but should also
include awareness of ethical principles and values.
186 Words and Worlds

The General Conference recommends that Member States bring this recom-
mendation to the attention of the authorities and services responsible for public
and private works on ICT policies, strategies and infrastructures, including use
of multilingualism on the Internet, the development of networks and services,
expansion of public domain information on the Internet and intellectual
property rights issues

Finally, the importance of the World Summit on the Information Society that took
place in two parts should be stressed. During the first, in Geneva 2003, the
Declaration of Principles and the Plan of Action was adopted, to be reviewed in the
second part, Tunis 2005. This Declaration affirms that:

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES. BUILDING THE INFORMATION SOCIETY:

A GLOBAL CHALLENGE IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM
WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
12 December 2003
(…)

8) Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content

52. Cultural diversity is the common heritage of humankind. The Information
Society should be founded on and stimulate respect for cultural identity,
cultural and linguistic diversity, traditions and religions, and foster dialogue
among cultures and civilisations. The promotion, affirmation and preser-
vation of diverse cultural identities and languages as reflected in relevant
agreed United Nations documents, including UNESCO’s Universal
Declaration on Cultural Diversity, will further enrich the Information Society.
53. The creation, dissemination and preservation of content in diverse
languages and formats must be accorded high priority in building an
inclusive Information Society, paying particular attention to the diversity of
supply of creative work and due recognition of the rights of authors and
artists. It is essential to promote the production of and accessibility to all
content – educational, scientific, cultural or recreational – in diverse
languages and formats. The development of local content suited to
domestic or regional needs will encourage social and economic devel-
opment and will stimulate participation of all stakeholders, including
people living in rural, remote and marginal areas.
Languages and the Media 187

54. The preservation of cultural heritage is a crucial component of identity and

self–understanding of individuals that links a community to its past. The
Information Society should harness and preserve cultural heritage for the
future by all appropriate methods, including digitisation.

9) Media
55. We reaffirm our commitment to the principles of freedom of the press and
freedom of information, as well as those of the independence, pluralism
and diversity of media, which are essential to the Information Society.
Freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information for the creation, accu-
mulation and dissemination of knowledge are important to the
Information Society. We call for the responsible use and treatment of infor-
mation by the media in accordance with the highest ethical and profes-
sional standards. Traditional media in all their forms have an important
role in the Information Society and ICTs should play a supportive role in
this regard. Diversity of media ownership should be encouraged, in
conformity with national law, and taking into account relevant interna-
tional conventions. We reaffirm the necessity of reducing international
imbalances affecting the media, particularly as regards infrastructure, tech-
nical resources and the development of human skills.
(…)

Recommendations on language and the media

As proposed by the Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policy for Development
organised by UNESCO and held in Stockholm (1998), it is necessary to recommend to
government authorities that they promote cultural and linguistic diversity in the infor-
mation society. Below we summarise some of the basic recommendations.

• To provide radio, written press, television and Internet services to linguistic

communities in minority situations. The existence of one regular broad-
casting channel for each linguistic area and community and in each type of
social communication media should be assured.
• To support initiatives arising in the linguistic communities themselves. Support
should be given to those media that arise within the communities and that allow
their members information and entertainment with their own view of reality.
• To create multilingual media, as well as media that provide access to and
further the use of dialectical varieties, to allow a balanced development of all
188 Words and Worlds

the languages and varieties in linguistic communities, so long, of course, as

the speakers themselves so desire.
• To promote equal use of languages amongst the new communication and
information technologies, as far as possible making these technologies acces-
sible to linguistic communities. In this respect, it should be remembered that
the UNESCO universal declaration on cultural diversity, approved at the
twentieth plenary session on 2 November 2001, made an appeal to member
states to promote linguistic diversity in cyberspace and promote free and
universal access, via the world-wide web, to all information of public domain.
• To further the preparation, production and compilation of media material
(records, cassettes, films, videos, etc.) in minority languages and its large-
scale distribution in the chief media.
• To encourage the commitment of the public and private communication
media to matters relating to the promotion of local, regional and national
cultures and languages and, especially, to endangered languages.
• In particular we appeal to the media and to journalists to value and
encourage linguistic diversity, to confer prestige on the use of all languages
in all spheres and to fight against the linguistic prejudices that ridicule small
languages and lead humanity towards linguistic globalisation. We also ask
them to give positive publicity to news from linguistic communities working
to preserve and develop their languages and cultures.
Chapter 8
Language and Religion
Religious factors can greatly influence language maintenance and shift. There are
several reasons to consider this topic in a Review of the situation of the languages of
the world. On one hand, religious experience (both religious beliefs and practices) is
in most cases closely related to language; both language and religion are crucial in a
definition of the individual’s identity. On the other, the use of a certain language in
religious practices, apart from being very important for the individual believer, it also
gives additional prestige to the group of speakers and, as a consequence, to the given
language. A language not used in the religious practice of their speakers gets rele-
gated and marginalised, which can provoke negative attitudes among the speakers
and correligionist non-speakers of the given language. Since religious institutions
wield power in society, the language planning that they carry about can be deter-
minant in the creation of linguistic stereotypes that perpetuate marginalisation of
certain groups of speakers and their languages.
The power held by religious institutions and leaders is obvious in all three types of
language planning issues: the creation and spread of writing systems and other issues
relating to standardisation of a language (corpus), the choice of one language over
others in the religious domain (status), and language-teaching (acquisition)
conducted in church and missionary schools.
In this chapter we address the importance of religion in the sociolinguistic situation
of the world, taking the following aspects into account: religious ideology in regard to
language planning, the role of religion on language choice in colonisation processes,
some current scenarios where global religions are replacing local ones, and the effect
of religion in language maintenance in immigrant communities. We also inform on
the written and oral use of the languages examined in this Review in the religious
domain, and we give a series of recommendations directed to the preservation of
language diversity.

The influence of religious ideology

Religions have played a crucial role in the history and development of the world.
Linguistic decisions taken influenced by religious beliefs, such as the use of a language
over another in religious practices or the spread of a certain writing system, have been
extremely influential in the future of many communities and even in the formation of

189
190 Words and Worlds

modern civilisations. There is no doubt that the ideology inherent in the religion of a
linguistic community affects greatly the status, corpus, and acquisition of a language.
Taken into account the language choice each makes, religions can be divided into
two large groups. On one hand, some religions keep the use of the ancient language in
which the revealed text was delivered by the divine force. On the other, another
group of religions use texts not revealed directly by God, but rather texts delivered by
wise masters based on personal experience. The former are called Religions based on
Revelation and the latter are named Religions of Wisdom. This way of looking at reli-
gions and classifying them by their origin helps us understand the language choices
made in many religions of the world.
Religions based on Revelation are the Religions of the Book (Islam, Judaism and
Christianity), and others such as Hinduism. In this group we should make a further
distinction between the religions that take the Revelation as dictated directly by the
divinity – as in the case of Islam – and the ones that consider the received text as inspired
and, therefore, subject and allowed to be localised to the historical, psychological and
cultural circumstances of the receiver – Judaism, Christianism and Hinduism.
All these religions have been and are often still associated tightly with the use of
certain languages: The Qu’ran is considered a text descended (munzal) on
Muhammad; it is the literal transcription of Alà’s words and should not, therefore, be
translated or interpreted – although there are examples that differ from this general
idea. Since this text is written in Classical Arabic, it can only be read or recited in this
language. Use of other languages is only allowed during the Friday sermon or in other
less formal situations. Map 10 shows the areas where Tamazight varieties are spoken.
Hinduism also prevents its sacred texts from being translated and these are read in
another classical language, Sanskrit, language of the ancient Vedas; Judaism has also
used a classical language, Classical Hebrew, to pass on the revealed texts. All these
three languages share the fact that they have not been transmitted naturally from
generation to generation, but have rather been kept incorrupt, away from any
possible language change, due, in fact, to their exclusive use in the religious domain.
The case of Hebrew is worth mentioning as well, not only because of the impressive
recovery process that took place in Israel during the last century, but also, and what is
more impressive, for the fact that a classical language only used in the religious
domain at the time spread its use to all situations, creating the whole range of
linguistic varieties needed in a normalised language.
Finally, there is no sacred language in Christian religions, although some
languages, such as Latin and Greek, have been granted the highest status, despite the
fact that they were not spoken by the Founders.
In fact, we can observe the major role played by religion in language choice and in the
creation and spread of writing systems when we examine, among others, language
planning decisions through history in Europe. Between 867 (Council of
Constantinople) and 1054 Europe was divided in two clear cultural worlds. This
division was related to religion and language (Hagège 1992: 133). In Western Europe,
Christianity used Latin in all religious services by the 11th century, even in places where
Language and Religion 191

there had been no Latin tradition, such as Ireland or Germany; moreover, languages of
Western Christianity not written before adopted the Latin alphabet. In the meantime,
Eastern Europe started to translate religious texts to Gothic and the Orthodox Church
later adopted the Cyrillic alphabet, which was based on Old Slavonic, the language
spoken by the monks who created it: Cirilus and Methodius. The two major writing
systems used in Europe today are, therefore, a direct consequence of the divide between
Western and Eastern Christianity after the Fall of the Roman Empire.
Another religion division among Christians in the 16th century also lets us see
differences in language choice. The Protestant Reform brought the translation of the
Bible to High German, and later to other vernacular languages. In addition massive
literarisation in vernacular languages allowed the spread of Protestantism, which
provoked a reaction from the Catholic Church, which also felt forced to undertake the
education of the elites and the literarisation of the general population, and started to
give vernacular languages a status that they never had before, using them together
with Latin in religious texts (Baggioni 1997: 108). In fact, the standardisation of small
European languages such as Basque or Gaelic began in this context, when they started
to be used in the written form of catechisms and doctrines. However, it was not until
the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) that the Roman Catholic Church allowed the
use of vernacular languages in Catholic mass. Until then, mass was held in Latin.
Therefore, it is important to highlight the critical role that writing the sacred texts in
vernacular languages has, and the consequences that the choice of an orthographic
system have in the future of many languages. In Western Christianity the Latin alphabet
was generalised, but this phenomenon has also been common in other religious
contexts: for instance, languages written in other characters shifted to Arabic script
because of religious reasons. Arabic alphabet was used to transcribe languages previ-
ously not written down until the expansion of Islam, such as Turkish, Urdu, Malay,
Swahili, although nowadays some of them (Swahili, Malay or Turkish) use the Latin
alphabet (Calvet 2001: 171). The Hebrew system has also been used to codify languages
such as Yiddish, Ladino and varieties of Arabic and Persian (Spolsky 2004: 49).
The relation between language and Religions of Wisdom is less close. Religions such
as Buddhism, Taoism, or Animism, and all their variants, have texts that gather the
reflections of their wise masters; these texts do not constitute the revealed (by divine
force), but rather the experienced (by wise masters). The language used in these
canonical texts is not the only key to interpretation, but rather it assists the believer to
create a lifestyle that ultimately makes it possible to get to sense illumination or
ecstasy. Wisdom is not the start-point structured in a sacred language (as in
Revelation cases), but rather an arrival-point.
The language has the instrumental value of allowing communication (Buddhism)
or the value of invocation (Animism). Therefore, there is no close relationship
between a specific language and Wisdom religions or paths, these being more open to
the use of vernaculars. Buddhism has also encouraged translation from the original
Sanskrit, Prakrit and Middle Aryan texts into Chinese or Tibetan, for instance. Our
Mon (Myanmar) informant confirms us that:
192 Words and Worlds

Buddhism has a great influence on the Mon community, in terms of culture and liter-
ature. (…) in the Mon community the religious service and ceremonies are completely in
Mon language. (Mon, Myanmar)
As other religions, Buddhism has also contributed to the spread of a writing system;
as the religion spread through Asia, many communities adopted its writing system,
Brahmi, or adaptations of it.
The Brahmi writing system is the base for most systems used in India, with the
exception of the ones spread through Islam. The Devanagari script, a system derived
from original Brahmi, is currently used in India not only to transcribe Classical
Sanskrit, but also to write Hindi. Another form of Brahmi, the Gupta script, is used to
transcribe the Tibetan language. In addition, the Brahmi system was adopted in
China and Japan when Buddhism spread there. The Chinese classical script was
spread with the expansion of Buddhism in Korea, Vietnam and Japan. Later, many
small local languages used Chinese characters for transcription (Calvet 2001: 99).
Last but not least, Animist communities are the most likely to use their vernacular
language, to the point that some languages are only used by the certified person, shaman
or another, as the language of invocation. Kallawaya, a language of Peru, for instance, is
an almost secret and sacred language, not naturally transmitted in the community, but
only used by the Kallawaya when they practice traditional medicine (Girault 1989: 13).

Language shift as a consequence of colonisation: the effect of religion

Colonisation processes often bring together the imposition of the language, religion,
culture and ways of living of the coloniser. Governors and political leaders frequently
added religion to the one language, one nation, one state, (one religion) idea spread by
European nationalism, and later taken to the colonies.
As Ferguson points out (1982: 102), several factors influence the spread of religion
and language in the colonies: the number and proportion of colonists vis-à-vis the
colonised, the colonists’ attitude toward incorporation of the colonised population
into their society, the role of religion in the local community, and the ideology of the
coming religion with regard to language.
The spread of language and culture and the spread of religion quite often go together,
although not always: for example, French colonisation to Morocco and Algeria was
determinant in the spread of the language but not the religion of the colonisers, whereas
the Spaniards were quite successful in the spread of Catholicism in Philippines,
although not so much in the spread of Spanish. The situations may be very varied.
A typical pattern of colonisation is that carried out by Europeans in Central and
South America since the “discovery,” when the main objective was the spread of
religion (Catholicism), even before the spread of the language. In fact, the first reli-
gious missions used widespread indigeneous languages such as Nahuatl, Quichua,
or Guarani, “powerful languages” at the time in comparison with smaller languages,
and absolutely “powerless” languages today with regard to Spanish. The use in the
religious domain of these more important languages contributed to their spread, at
Language and Religion 193

least until the 18th century, when the prestige of these three lingua francas started to
decrease and the use of Spanish in religious and administrative domains accelerated.
(Ortiz Rescaniere 1992: 12. See also Cerrón Palomino 1987 and Meliá 1992).
The increased use of Spanish, not only in the religious domain but in all public
domains, caused the substitution and loss of many American languages. The accul-
turation feeling perceived by the communities as a consequence remains until today,
as reported by many informants. The Mam testimony is only an example:
Christian religion has contributed to kind of acculturation that makes people drop their
religion or their own spirituality and shift to the Catholic or Evangelical religion; on the
other hand, due to religion, religious document have been currently translated; in addition,
they sing and use the [Mam] language in ceremonies. (…) In the practice of Mayan spiri-
tuality, the Mam language has always been the oral means of communication; however,
Christianity started to use Spanish, both orally and in written form; Mam started to be
used not long ago and it is reinforced with Spanish. (Mam, Guatemala)
As in the situations already mentioned, the spread of the new religion contributed to
the creation of writing systems for many languages that were not written at the time,
and even the adoption of the Latin alphabet by languages that already had their own
system, such as Nahuatl, language that already had a different script in the Amoxtli
codex – books related to the religious and historic tradition of the old indigenous
world (Leon Portilla 1993: 20).
Another typical pattern is that carried out during the British colonisation of Asian
and African territories: missionaries used vernacular languages, together with local
lingua francas and English in education with the purpose of spreading the Christian
religion (Ferguson 1982: 102). This language policy obviously favoured the spread of
English and local lingua francas, causing also a threat to small local languages.
Other patterns of colonisation, especially recent ones, gave up on the idea of spreading
the religion of the colonisers. During the French colonisation in Africa in the 19th
century, the French tried to colonise through the language, so that all the “civilised” ones
would be French speakers (Spolsky 2004: 71). In this case the role that the French
education system played in the status of the European language in the colonies is crucial.
To finish, we must note that the spread of a religion or religious factors alone cannot
be held responsible for the marginalisation and even loss of hundreds of languages in
the former colonies. However, without underscoring the economical and social domi-
nance that usually co-occurs with linguistic and cultural domination, we must stress
that the spread of religion in colonial settings often goes hand-in-hand with the
spread of the language, culture and world view of the colonisers, who always want to
impose their ways over the colonised peoples’ ones.

Local versus global religions: some current situations

Although aware of the important consequences that religious ideology has in
language choice in religious practices, we must note that even religions that allow the
194 Words and Worlds

translation of their holy texts and the use of vernaculars in religious practices are not
always consistent when applying this policy. Quite often, current religious ideology
does not prevent them from using vernacular languages; however, according to some
of our informants, religious practice is conducted in the language of the missionaries
or religious leaders, producing language shift for the local community. The use of a
language in the religious domain gives prestige to a language; similarly, it is common
to choose a prestigious language in the religious domain to the detriment of those
with lower prestige. Consider the following testimony:
Since 1859–1860, the Pech have been Catholic, as they were converted by the Spanish
Jesuit Manuel de Jesús Subirana. The Pech communities are attended by Catholic
priests who use Spanish as the only ritual, official and communication language. The
church, along with schools, have historically been the institutions that have most perse-
cuted the Pech language and have strengthened Spanish as the official and only
language. (Pech, Honduras)
The members of the communities often report explicitly that they would rather use
their vernacular language in religious rites and ceremonies:
Until the mid eighties, all the Reef Islanders were Anglican. Since that time, many joined
evangelical fellowships (e.g. Church of the Living Word). (…)The services are largely
conducted in English, a language most Reefs people do not understand. If a message is
preached, the preacher will use Aiwo or Pijin or both. All the written materials (Book of
Common Prayer) are English exclusively, though the people have expressed a strong
desire to have this translated into Aiwo. (Aiwo, Salomon Islands)
In addition, it is important to highlight that in some situations language choice –
whether to use the local language or impose a more prestigious one – seems to reflect
a sort of competition among different religious organisations trying to gain adepts in
the same linguistic community:
Catholic Church promotes in a way the local language in all religious ceremonies. There
are hymnbooks and missals in Achi and the New Testament has been translated.
Protestants act differently: they reject the use of the local language and prohibit many of
the Mayan traditions in the community. Protestants use the [Achi] language neither in
written form nor orally. (…) In the Mayan religious practices the language is used 100%,
but there are no written texts. (Achi, Guatemala)
Like the Achi informant, many others noted that, whereas religions not originating
from the region weaken local languages, practice of the native religion strengthens
ethnic, linguistic, and cultural identity (also Crystal 2000):
If it is a traditional ritual, the [Maninga] language is used exclusively. The cultural cere-
monies are often influenced by Islam and the phrases and prayers are sometimes in
Arabic. (Maninga, Côte d’Ivoire)
Language and Religion 195

But sometimes it is often difficult to establish clear-cut differences between the new,
global, religions and traditional ones. Several informants report cases of syncretism
between the two.
In the western dialect area, the Muya people practise Lamaism, and have built many
temples there. In the eastern dialect region, only some of the Muya profess Lamaism, so
there are not many temples or professional Lamas. In addition, the Muya people still
adhere to animistic beliefs and often hold religious activities such as worshipping nature
and sacrificing to spirits. (…) In Lama temples in the western dialect region, Tibetan is
used in religious activities instead of Muya. In the eastern dialect area, Muya is used in
such activities, but is sometimes used together with Chinese and not Tibetan. Thus, Muya
in the western dialect region tend to be much more fluent in Tibetan than those in the
eastern dialect region. (Muya, China)
In addition, it seems that the tendency today is for many religious organisations to be
more tolerant towards local languages, as pointed by our Desano informant:
As for most indigenous groups, the traditional religion, often in syncretism with the
Catholic religion, is bound to the everyday life of the indigenous people. Birth, death,
sowing, harvesting etc. are reasons for religious celebrations in the community.
Concerning other religions, Catholic missions acted as commissioned by the government
of Colombia to “civilise” the indigenous people till 1974 and it was common to have
boarding schools where children were forbidden to use their language. Nowadays, the
Catholic Church assists in the official education through administration contracts and
they are diminishing their offensive against indigenous traditions and the language.
(Desano, Colombia)
However, it must not be forgotten that for many reporters the change that has taken
place in many religions is apparent; members of foreign religions have learnt the
language and produced texts written in the local language so as to promote a subse-
quent transition to the dominant language. Quite a few people have pointed out that
the use of the local language in religious acts, rites and practices always has the ultimate
object of continuing acculturation or leading them away from their own original beliefs,
cultures and languages. Many of our reporters perceive that religious leaders have no
interest in supporting or strengthening local languages. In general, their goal would be
to increase their membership and power in the community:
The Tolupan of La Montaña de la Flor have traditionally been Catholics, but the
presence of the Protestants of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) from 1950 to
1980 has led most of the Tolupan of the Cipriano group to join this religion. The
linguistic influence of the Protestant religion was quite considerable during its 36-year
presence, as they did the first texts in Tol, studied the language and prepared the
dictionary. They also began an educational programme for transition from the Tol
language to Spanish. Curiously, the ILV [SIL] implemented a contradictory religion
and language policy; on one hand, it studied the Tol language in depth and produced
196 Words and Worlds

endless written texts, but on the other, it encouraged the transition to Spanish in its
religious and educational programmes. (Tol, Honduras).
Accepting the fact that the main goal of religious organisations in the former colonies
is to gain adepts to their beliefs and religious communities, there seems to be a contra-
diction in the language planning conducted by many. As noted by our Tol informant,
among others, on one hand, there is great interest in documenting indigenous
languages, especially in respect to their structure and lexicon. Very important efforts
have been undertaken to codify writing systems for many languages. What looks
necessary corpus planning to reverse the minority status of “powerless” languages is
often perceived by the communities themselves as an effort to bring speakers to the
mainstream, so that they are assimilated by the more powerful linguistic and cultural
group, and not as an effort directed toward the maintenance of indigenous languages
and cultures. Even more strongly, the work conducted by many proselytiser groups is
often perceived as a move towards linguistic, cultural, and religious uniformity for
the benefit of the economically, politically, and socially more powerful.

Religious practice as a trigger for language maintenance in immigrant

communities
Current scenarios of large- or medium-scale migrations for socio-economic, political
or religious reasons, and especially from less- to more-developed countries are inter-
esting for the sociolinguist. According to Ferguson, this type of “voluntary”
(quotation marks added) migration tends to be language-conservative; in other
words, maintenance-oriented, “to the greatest extent for the language of the sacred
texts, next greatest for the language of public ritual and explanation of the texts, and
also for the mother-tongue language of ordinary conversation” (1982: 101).
The reason why “voluntary” migrations favour language maintenance in the reli-
gious domain is that both language and religion are crucial in a definition of both the
individual and collective identity and immigrants quite often attempt to preserve
their identity as much as possible, at least during the first years after leaving their
homeland. In addition, immigrant religious organisations also try to prevent their
immigrant adepts from being assimilated religiously by other groups, which can only
be achieved if the immigrants’ identity is preserved. It is well known that many immi-
grant churches in the US, for instance, promote the teaching of the language of origin
of the community to the members who did not acquire it within the family.
This kind of situation is especially common these days right across the world. An
increasing number of immigrant languages are in contact in socio-economically more
developed areas. Other than the family and close community environment, religious
practice can contribute to the maintenance of many of these languages. It is hardly
necessary to say that aspects mentioned by Ferguson (1982: 101), such as the presence
or absence of coreligionists in the host community, the existence of shared lingua
francas, and the ideological stance of religion with regard to language will determine
language maintenance.
Language and Religion 197

Written and oral use of the languages of the world in religious practices
In the same way that all languages have their literature, most languages have also
developed verbal forms, texts, either oral or written, and more or less ritualised, to
express the sacred, supernatural or magic. It is not surprising, therefore, that most of
the languages analysed in the World Languages Review should be used in religious
practices. To be precise, more than 80% of the sample languages were reported to be
used in religious ceremonies and rituals, at least orally.
In fact, religion is the social domain in which languages are most used. Indeed, in
many cases, the language survives only as a liturgical language. This is the situation
in the African Fongbe community, whose essentially animist traditional religion
sustains the language through worship, ceremonies and sacred songs. It is also
important to note that traditional religions generally make exclusive use of the
language of the community, as in the case of the Akoye language of Papua New
Guinea. Other examples are that of Fon (Benin) and Guiqiong (China):
Fon speakers are mostly animists, a traditional religion that uses the language in its
cults, ceremonies, sacred songs etc. (…) Fon is used in religious practices and cults, but
only orally. (Fon, Benin)
The Guiqiongs are animists and believe that there are spirits in heaven, earth, fire, moun-
tains and water. When natural disasters strike, they will invite religious practitioners to
sacrifice chickens, pigs and sheep in order to placate the spirits.(…) When their religious
practitioners offer sacrifices, they use the native language, but some of the ancient reli-
gious terms are not comprehensible to the general public. (Guiqiong, China)
Indigenous religions most generally have a exclussive oral tradition and, as pointed
before, are the most common domain for language maintenance. Consider the Hayu
and Mapudungun cases:
They have an indigenous religion.(…) It is spoken and sung in local ceremonies.
(Hayu, Nepal)
Native religion practice revitalises Mapundungun and the Christian religion prevents it
from use (…) The [Mapundungun] language is used in practices and religious cere-
monies, it is used exclusively orally when Mapuche practices and religious ceremonies –
in other words, the rites of the natives themselves – are carried out. (Mapudungun,
Chile, Argentina)
Not surprisingly, the written use of languages in religious practices and rites drops
considerably with respect to their oral use: rather less than half of the languages are
used in the writing of the religion. Even so, it must be pointed out that this figure for
written use in religious practices is quite high in comparison with general written use,
which in most cases does not exceed 30% of languages.
One of the reasons that might explain such a high proportion of written use of
languages in religious practices is that, as mentioned before, the more widespread
198 Words and Worlds

religions, the so-called “religions of the book”, are based on sacred texts in written
form, whether they are maintained in the original language or, most often, translated
into other languages. The written use of many languages is, in fact, restricted to the
translation of sacred texts. As already mentioned, religions that encourage translation
of the holy texts have played a central role in the use and, in some cases the devel-
opment, of the written form of many of the world’s languages.
Although recognising the benefits that written use of a language in the domain of
religion provide for the standardisation and even social prestige of many
languages, we must stress that for a language to remain healthy and not in danger
of disappearance written use must be promoted also in other formal areas, espe-
cially in the field of education, media and public administration, as claimed else-
where in this Review.

Closing remarks
There is no doubt that religion plays a crucial role in sociolinguistic issues. On one
hand, the fact that a language is used in the religious domain in itself grants that
language a status and prestige not granted to languages not used in this setting. We
must remind ourselves, though, that the fact that a language is not used in the
reading of the sacred texts and in the rites and practices of the religion of the
linguistic community does not necessarily imply language loss. However, when reli-
gious associations not only do not use the language of the community, but also wish
to acculturate it or when the language different from the local one is more
“powerful” or prestigious – often as a consequence of the social, economic or reli-
gious status of the carriers of the new religion – the low or lack of use of the local
language in religious practices can, in fact, contribute, together with the other
aspects, to language substitution.
On the other hand, the importance of religion and religious associations in
corpus planning must also be stressed. As discussed thorough this chapter, the
standardisation – codification of writing systems and other kinds of standardis-
ation, for instance – of many oral languages was carried out for religious purposes.
We must also point at the efforts conducted by many religious organisations in the
field of education in general, and especially, literarisation, despite very harmful
efforts to prohibit the use of some languages in religious schools, as reported by
some of our informants.
In sum, religious ideology alone cannot account for the different attitudes held and
linguistic measures implemented by religious organisations. Situations sharing a
certain religion can be completely different with regards to tolerance for linguistic
diversity and promotion of minority languages.
Finally, when examining the current situation of languages and trying to predict
their future, religious aspects cannot be taken in isolation; we should rather consider
economical, political, and social ones along with them, since the factors that may
affect language shift or maintenance are various and interrelated.
Language and Religion 199

Recommendations on language and religion

While realising that using a language in the religious domain is not enough to ensure
its vitality, the absence of a language from this domain can be a factor against its
development and survival. We, therefore, encourage religious leaders to:

• Acknowledge that all religions can be expressed in any language, without

prejudice to the exceptional value of the language of their founding texts.
• Respect native religions as elements of prestige and as vehicles for the use of
the language of the community in the framework of the right to religious
freedom. These traditions are often the ones that most respect local languages.
• Encourage the commitment of foreign religions to confer prestige on and
further local languages. In other words, as well as showing a respectful
attitude to local languages, they should make an effort to use them in their
rites and ceremonies; religion can not be made an instrument of cultural
colonisation or of linguistic and cultural uniformity.
• Write, translate or adapt their texts to the languages of the communities in
which they are present or into which they wish to introduce themselves,
since in general linguistic communities do not reject the translation of sacred
texts and religious subject matter.
• Avoid the transmission of stereotypes and prejudices, marginalisation of
certain cultural values and the creation of hierarchies amongst languages
and cultures, since all languages are suitable for religious use.
• Use, promote and confer prestige on native languages in educational centres
attached to religious institutions.
• Prevent religion or its practice from being used as an instrument for discrimi-
nating against linguistic communities. The ecclesiastical hierarchies of the
different religions must responsibly avoid divisions within the linguistic
community itself and confrontations between different linguistic communities.
Chapter 9
Transmission and
Intergenerational Use
of Language
Children learn the family language or languages in the course of socialisation. All
children, as human beings, acquire at least one language through their parents, their
family or their community.
Transmitting a language involves transferring knowledge and skills in using that
language to those that lack them. The transmission of languages is influenced by
various agents, such as the family, community, school, the sphere of work and the
media, whose importance varies according to the motivations people have for
learning the language. But the fact is that everyone learns to speak the language of
their immediate environment, regardless of what other languages they may acquire
simultaneously or successively.
In this section, we shall focus on intergenerational transmission, a term which
refers to the acquisition of a language in the family, informally and as part of the
individual’s socialisation process. Furthermore, it is generally admitted that the
family language carries with it the group’s cultural identity, the symbology and
the collective memory. Through the language or languages acquired in the earliest
contacts established between the child and the immediate community, the inter-
generational relations that shape the personal and cultural identity of individuals
are reinforced.
In the settings in which a school system using a given language has been imple-
mented, family or community transmission of that language can be reinforced.
Other agents that influence the learning and use of language are those of the world
of administration, work and the media, but in this case they are considered
secondary agents.
If it was felt essential to analyse this phenomenon in as much detail as possible, it is
precisely because it was seen that transmission of language, which in theory should
be a natural consequence of the linguistic circumstances, has suffered alarming alter-
ations in large parts of the world. Specialists have reported extensively on this
problem and our data also confirm the deterioration in natural patterns of language

200
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language 201

transmission. Erosion is said to happen when there are segments of the population of
certain communities that do not teach the younger generations their own language.
The erosion is absolute when there is a total break in the transmission. The chances of
a language of being replaced by another depend on the degree of alteration in the
natural method of transmission.
Indeed, a large number of researchers who have tried to understand the problems
involved in the unequal relations between languages have stressed that the alarm
must be raised immediately. There are an enormous number of situations in which
the natural setting for children’s socialisation is breaking down and this is reflected,
amongst other things, in the fact that parents are no longer passing on their language
to their children.
Krauss (1992), for example, analyses the position of languages in relation to the
proportion of children who learn them, and if the trends are not corrected, he foresees
that up to 90% of languages could disappear during this century. Wurm (1996, 2001)
suggests that the scale of the threat of a language’s disappearing is closely related to
the proportion of children who speak it, and on this basis he proposes a classification
which basically indicates that if the language of a community is not widely learnt by
the children or by a large proportion of them (which should reach at least 30%) then it
is in danger or at least potentially threatened.
The expression “in danger of disappearance” refers to a gradual process of decline
which can lead to extinction after going through intermediate situations which are
ranked according to the level of deterioration from “languages in potential danger of
extinction” to “languages in serious danger”, “dying languages” and finally “extinct
languages”. According to this author ’s criterion, at least 50% of the world’s
languages – that is, more than 3,000 – are currently in danger of extinction, in serious
danger or dying.
McConvell (2001) also proposes that the classification of the danger of extinction
of languages can be determined according to the population groups that speak
them. He proposes the following categories for discussion of types of language: (a)
the language chiefly spoken by children; (b) the language understood by adults,
though not necessarily transmitted to children, (c) languages spoken only by older
people, but understood by adults, while children no longer even understand
them. All of this suggests that the number of people making up the age groups
who know and use a language is a basic indicator of the danger of extinction
facing the language.
Thus the basic objective of the proposals for revitalising languages in danger of
replacement or extinction relies on ensuring their intergenerational transmission.
One of the most representative theoretical writings on this issue is the one
presented by Fishman (1991), whose proposal for countering the trend towards
language shift centres on the need to ensure the means for preventing the break in
intergenerational transmission, and in those cases where the shift has already
taken place, on influencing the factors that can help recover the natural trans-
mission mechanism.
202 Words and Worlds

Why is intergenerational transmission interrupted? Which reasons make parents

feel that their language is not important enough to transmit to their children? Why is
it said that every effort should be made to reinforce the nuclei of the earliest sociali-
sation so that the language is transmitted naturally in spite of the external pressures
to abandon it that may be felt? Why is it said that intergenerational transmission is the
crucial point in the survival of languages?
The enormous range of situations in which languages come into contact does not
allow generalisations or simple answers to these questions.
In this review facts are laid out that point in the same direction as the specialists.
The causes the informants put forward for the deterioration and interruption of trans-
mission as well as for its maintenance are also listed.

EUROMOSAIC: THE PRODUCTION AND REPRODUCTION OF THE

MINORITY LANGUAGE GROUPS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

The Euromosaic Report derives from a report commisioned by the Task Force
Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth in 1993 (later DG XXII and
now the DG for Education and Culture) to investigate the current situation of
the dozens of minority language groups within the European Union. The
expression “minority language groups”, or communities, refers to territorially-
defined linguistic groups other than those of the speakers of the dominant or
official state languages in the member states.
Two previous studies had been commisioned in the 1980s. A new report was
urgently needed both because of the rapidly changing legal, institutional and
social situation in a number of these communities, and because a methodologi-
cally sound study would allow a comparative understanding of them. The
objective of the chosen project was to relate the current situation of each
language group to its potential for production and reproduction, and the diffi-
culties encountered in doing so.
Various social and institutional aspects were considered, whereby a language
group produces and reproduces itself. Seven central concepts were focused
upon, and empirical measures were sought for them. The primary agencies of
these processes were identified as the family, education and the community. The
motivating force involved the concept of language prestige and cultural repro-
duction. The link between ability and use involved the concepts of institutional-
isation and legitimisation.
The final version of the Euromosaic report, which was produced by the
Institut de Sociolingüística Catalana (Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona),
Centre de Recherche sur le plurilinguisme (Brussels), and Research Centre
Wales (Bangor), highlights the shift in thinking about the value of diversity for
economic deployment and European integration. It argues that language is a
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language 203

central component of diversity; if diversity is the cornerstone of innovative

development, attention must be given to sustaining the existing pool of
diversity within the EU. The Report ends by focusing upon the need for
proactive planning, which suffers from constraints on the deployment of budg-
etary resources; and it calls for a Programme which can be the basis for such
forward planning and action.
The general Report was published in 1996 in several languages by the
Commission. Nearly 50 individual uniformly structured reports were also
prepared by the three Centres. These were added to several years later by
reports on groups in Sweden, Finland and Austria. Each report was compiled
using the relevant bibliography and research, a language correspondent and a
number of key witnesses, following a complex procedure which allowed both
the language correspondents and the key witnesses to improve successive
drafts. The project also involved eighteen “language use surveys”.
Abbreviated versions of the language group reports, containing valuable
information on each language community and an analysis of its prospects for
the future, are available on the Internet (http://www.uoc.es/euromosaic/) in
English and French (and some in Catalan). The language use surveys are in
English only.
Miquel Strubell
Open University of Catalonia, Spain

Language transmission
The figures analysed are representative of general trends. According to the informants in
our research, only 53% of the languages analysed are widely and normally transmitted,
thus confirming the hypothesis that there is a serious risk of language shift.

Table 8. Intergenerational transmission of languages

Generalised transmission 53%

Partly interrupted transmission 23%

Practically interrupted transmission 8%

Totally interrupted transmission 12%

No answer 4%

Total 100%
204 Words and Worlds

In 23% of the communities analysed transmission exists but the influence of prestige
languages is already perceptible, as transmission is only maintained in the more
impermeable nuclei. The case of languages whose transmission is practically inter-
rupted refers to languages whose change is imminent, since only in exceptional cases
is the language transmitted within the family. This situation affects 8% of the
languages analysed. Finally, the figures returned show that 12% are not transmitted at
all, so that it is foreseeable that these languages will disappear along with the last
remaining speakers.
Indeed, the fact that in 43% (23%, 8% and 12%) of languages transmission has been
altered is itself cause for serious concern. But it should also be pointed out that even
generalised transmission of a language in the present generation does not necessarily
ensure its survival, since transmission can be altered in the next generation – that is, in
a very short period of time.
Of course, transmission is not interrupted simultaneously and completely in all the
family nuclei of the community, except in exceptional cases or physical aggression.
In the cases of physical aggression, the change in the transmission trend tends to be
radical, but in situations of extensive language contact the onset of shift is preceded
by the presence of the external language in spheres bordering on the family nucleus.
In other words, the outsider language first of all occupies formal or official spheres,
that of work relations, and gradually begins to be adopted in the private sphere of the
family group. That is why it is said that the external influence for linguistic change
takes place chronologically and tends to progress from the external sphere towards
the family sphere.
All of this suggests that if external pressures for the use of the prestige language
intensify – which is something quite likely in view of the trend to uniformity to be
seen in the spheres of external use – the change will affect private relations, so that it
can be foreseen that many of the languages that at present are being transmitted
normally could begin to be interrupted.

Intergenerational use of language

The first trend in language shift can be seen in the way the language is used in the
family sphere. As we know, linguistic behaviour can reflect the attitude of speakers
to the language. Even in those cases in which the language is transmitted, if there is
a marked drop in the use of the language between the older and younger genera-
tions a risk situation arises. If there is no change of attitude, transmission between
generations drops and the younger generation may not pass the language on to
their children.
Table 9 has been drawn up from information on the frequency with which the
language of the community is used as compared to the other language. In other
words, the idea is to find out if the language in question is used with more, less or the
same frequency as another language.
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language 205

Table 9. Intergenerational use of the language (%)

Old people Adults Young people Children

Old people 65

Adults 59 54

Young people 54 44 36

Children 49 42 35 38

In a global analysis of the figures, always applying the necessary precautions to extrap-
olation, we see that the use of the languages among the older generation is higher
(approximately 65%) than the percentage of languages at present being transmitted
(approximately 53%). The widespread use of the languages in these generations
assumes that they have received it naturally. This figure shows that in at least 10% of
languages transmission has been interrupted in the space of a single generation.
The use of community languages shows a marked drop among the younger gener-
ation to 36%. We can therefore see that in two generations the percentage of use has
dropped to half. In other words, there has been a marked acceleration in the tendency
to change observable in the first generation and widespread by the second.
This fact is particularly alarming because it shows the gap there is between
knowledge and behaviour as regards one’s language. If at least 53% of languages
have been transmitted in the normal way, the level of use among the younger
generation, 20% lower, suggests that the trend to substitution will increase in the
next generation.
Figures for the use of language among children (38%) are slightly higher than those
of the group immediately preceding them – that is, young people (35%). This fact,
which could in theory be a positive sign, does not seem to be a sign of recovery either,
since the use of languages between adult generations and children, which in
language transmission situations seem to be the most favourable, shows a marked
decline. The figures confirm that adults speak their own language amongst them-
selves (54%) more often than they do with children (42%), even if they have trans-
mitted it. All of this suggests that this increase is more likely to be due to the fact that
children are less exposed to the majority language, as they have not yet had access to
spheres with more influence from outside agents, which are principally school and
the surrounding social sphere.

Reasons for the interruption of transmission

The reasons for the interruption of language transmission go from subtle, more wide-
spread prejudices to more explicit threats and prohibitions. Although the section on
the threats facing languages analyses these factors in greater detail, they are stressed
206 Words and Worlds

here again because the informants associate them with the idea that the interruption
of intergenerational transmission is a cause of risk to the language and is one of the
consequences of the threats and risks facing the speakers of threatened languages.
Languages that are not transmitted naturally in the family are being replaced by
languages of supposedly greater prestige. These languages can be a territory’s official
language, the more widespread languages in prestigious social use or the languages
spoken by the more influential groups in the region.
The reasons for interruption most frequently mentioned are closely interrelated
and in general refer to: (1) Pressure from other cultures or languages, (2) Government
pressure to acquire the official language or implementation of the educational system
in a language different from that of the community, (3) Demographic factors
involving displacements (migrations abroad or migrations from country to city) and
the effects of mixed marriages.
1. Pressure from other cultures or languages is mentioned by a large number of
reporters as a cause of interruption in language transmission.
A detailed analysis reveals that the influence of modernisation and urban devel-
opment are considered the most influential causes. Urban development involves a
move to a new lifestyle, considered more attractive and economically more prom-
ising, which causes a change in lifestyle and in many cases a complete break with
traditional culture. This change shows up more strongly in the younger generations,
since the expectations of entry into the professional and social world lead to the
adoption of foreign habits:
This language was passed down from generation to generation in the closed feudal soci-
eties of the past, leading to its preservation until now. However, over the past century,
modern civilisation has gradually penetrated into these closed village communities, and
those of the younger generation of Jiongnai have left their homes to enter modern society.
After the implementation of the reform policies and the opening of China’s doors to the
outside world, Jiongnai villages have been exposed to new objects, new concepts, and
modern technology as well as to new words. Putonghua (Mandarin Chinese) is gradually
replacing the previous southwestern dialect and is now being used in schools and public
meetings. Thus, the Jiongnai language, with its small number of speakers and limited use,
is gradually heading towards extinction. (Jiongnai, China)
When important changes take place in ways of life, immediate changes can take
place in linguistic habits. The history of linguistic diversity clearly shows, for
example, that changes in the language-territory relationship are decisive in the life of
languages, to the extent that the adoption of a sedentary lifestyle by nomadic
peoples often tends to involve language substitution, as in the case of the Gypsies of
Romania, the Fulani of northern Nigeria and the Maku of the Amazon jungle, to
mention only a few.
2. Pressure to acquire the official language is mentioned explicitly in numerous
cases (sometimes the pressure is attributed directly to the government) and appears
closely linked to negative linguistic attitudes, which involve first a drop in use and
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language 207

subsequently the interruption of the transmission of the language itself. Aspects

mentioned include lack of appreciation for the language or lack of awareness, lack of
prestige in the language, shame, fear, etc.
Whenever there have been historical pressures for cultural discredit, there has even
been a negation of identity itself, so that parents decide to transmit the dominant
language with the object of avoiding discrimination on account of the language. In
these cases, negation of the language is the first step to renouncing identity, as the
language is perceived as one of the elements preventing integration in the desired
social milieu. The feeling of discrimination and shame that has arisen in many
communities in relation to language has meant that the speakers themselves try to
assure their children a less painful future than their own.
Some years ago there were many families who denied their Maya identity… There are
numerous families who no longer transmit this language to their children because of the
cultural discrimination there is in the country. People are valued if they speak Castilian,
because this is the official language. If they only speak their language they are ignored,
despised, marginalised. For this reason, many families are inclined towards Castilian as
the mother tongue for their children. (Achi, Guatemala)
Formerly the language was transmitted from parents to children. Today one often finds
that parents speak to their children in Spanish because they feel that this language’s domi-
nance ensures their descendants will be accepted by the dominant society on an equal
footing. (Uitoto, Colombia)
Map 12 shows language diversity in Colombia.
(Transmission has been interrupted) for the last 10–20 years. Children never learn the
language, as it has no prestige and is linked to backwardness and to pre-Islamic rites.
(Jukun, Nigeria)
One of the state’s areas of influence which is attributed most responsibility in linguistic
attitudes is the sphere of education. Especially aggressive moves against unofficial
languages have taken place in practically every part of the world. One example,
amongst others, is the one from the reporter on the Mi’kmaw language of Canada:
Normally the language passes from one generation to the next. However, due to the insti-
tutions who carry out cultural genocide and assimilation like the Indian boarding schools,
the language is not being taught to future generations. (Mi’kmaw, Canada)
Implementing the school system in some language other than the local language has
given rise to the feeling that the language that is not used in schools is not suited to
this sphere of knowledge. This perception is related to the fact that schools are seen in
connection with the written use of language. Because of this, when it comes to
languages with an oral tradition, the sense of a lack of modernisation is strengthened.
Inversely, the use of the language of the community in the school seems to offer
hopes of avoiding the interruption of transmission and allowing recovery.
208 Words and Worlds

The reply given by the reporter for Chilcotin, a language spoken in Canada, clearly
sums up the part played by schools as a system of pressure for the abandonment of
the language, in the case of the parents, as well as the part played by schools as an
element acting in favour of recovery, in the case of the children:
Although earlier educational pressures on today’s parents when they were at school led to
their language being abandoned, the children now often learn the language only in the
Chilcotin classes at school or with their grandparents. (Chilcotin, Canada)
We must remember that many places have opted for a bilingual or multilingual
teaching system allowing use of the local language while learning others for specific
intergroup or international relations purposes without losing their own language.
3. Migratory movements and mixed marriages are two of the demographic factors
indicated as causes for the interruption of language transmission.
Both the migratory movements outside the territory and the immigration of
speakers of more powerful languages into a territory are factors that influence the
decision to transmit the own language or not. However, the factor most often
mentioned as the cause for the interruption of transmission is the movement of the
rural population to urban areas. It is in the urban environment that the influence of
external factors for change is more marked. Direct dealings with administration, the
influence on the value of the language of the labour market and commerce, the more
influential media and social relations, added to modernisation, make a decisive
combination for the attitude of speakers of less prestigious languages.
At the same time, bearing in mind that young people are more likely to make this
sort of migration to the cities, the tendency to drop the habits of the community is
more marked. The following could be illustrative examples of these phenomena:
The transmission of this language from parents to children is obvious. Nevertheless, a
considerable number of inhabitants – some 2000 who have settled in cities like Pucallpa,
Yarinacocha – no longer do so, and replace it with Castilian. (Shipibo, Peru)
The language is transmitted from generation to generation, especially for the people from
the rural areas. On the other hand, those who settle in urban centres replace it with
Swahili or English. (Loogoli, Kenya)
Normally, yes [the language is transmitted], but in many cities there are now families
who speak to their children in Maghrib Arabic in the belief that this will help in their
schooling. This process of forced Arabisation is replaced by Hispanicisation in the case of
families of Berber origin in Melilla. (Tamazight, Morocco)
The language is still stable in the family for those who do not live in big cities or inter-
marry with other ethnic groups. (Songorong, Chad)
Another very frequently mentioned cause is the phenomenon of mixed marriages.
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language 209

A large proportion does [transmit the language], but another proportion doesn’t, because
they marry Spanish-speaking mestizos who because they don’t speak the Bora language
speak mostly Castilian with their children. (Bora, Colombia)
The increase in marriages between Norfolk Islanders and foreigners is one of the reasons
for the decline of the language. It is still considered bad manners to speak Norfolk when a
member of the family or community only speaks English. (Norfolk, Norfolk Island)

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT/REVIVAL ACTIVITIES

BY THE CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF INDIAN LANGUAGES

The Central Institute of Indian Languages (established by Govt. of India in 1969 at

Mysore) has studied and developed in different proportions, as of today eighty
tribal languages belonging to four language families plus the Andaman family of
languages. Its intervention in the form of development of these languages has
contributed to the maintenance of some of the tribal languages in India.
The Institute has undertaken Linguistic description of the tribal and minority
languages in terms of their phonology, morphology and syntax; devised writing
systems for the hitherto unwritten languages; and standardised the existing
writing systems for the recently written languages.
Linguistic descriptions of the tribal languages are pedagogically oriented.
Promotion of tribal languages in education especially at the primary school
level has been attempted. The objectives are two-fold: (a) providing education
to tribal children through their mother tongues, and (b) the maintenance or
revival of endangered languages. To fulfil these objectives trilingual dictionaries
(tribal language – Hindi and English), and school primers adopting the
Bilingual Education Model have been prepared. The Institute has conducted
Experimental Bilingual Education programmes in Soliga and Jenu Kuruba in
Karnataka, Wagdi in Rajasthan and Dungar Varli and Davar Varli in the Union
Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The activities of CIIL and its participation
in the Committees has helped in promoting the use of tribal languages in
Primary Education at the national level and it is reflected in National Policy of
Education, 1986, section 4.6 (ii) which runs as follows “The sociocultural milieu
of the scheduled tribes has its distinctive characteristics including, in many
cases their own spoken languages. This underlies the need to develop the
curricula and devise instructural materials in tribal languages at the initial
stages, with arrangement, for switching over to the regional language”.
Special attention has been paid to some of the languages spoken by (i)
Negroid tribes viz. Onge (96 speakers), Andamanese (35 speakers) and Jarawa
(estimated to be spoken by 200 speakers) and (ii) Mongloid tribes viz., the
210 Words and Worlds

Shompen language (Austro-Asiatic) estimated to be spoken by 200 people in the

Andaman and Nicobar Islands. These languages are ‘endangered languages’
because of the size of the population.
The Institute has prepared a grammar, an Onge-Hindi-English Pictorial
glossary, an Onge-Hindi Bilingual education primer and a video film to learn
the Onge Orthography. To help the functionaries of Andaman Administration to
communicate with the Onge tribe through their tribal mother tongue an Onge
handbook is under preparation.
In Andamanese (a) an Andamanese-Hindi Bilingual Primer and (b) an
Andamanese-Hindi-English Pictorial Glossary have been prepared for school
education. The above instructional materials have been introduced in the
schools in Strait Island, Andaman. Bilingual education primers in Onge and
Andamanese languages attempt to give instructions to tribal children initially in
their respective mother tongues and later to switch over to Hindi.
A sociolinguistic study of the maintenance of Andamanese language has been
undertaken. The results of the study indicate that the active acquisition and use
of the language of the parents/ancestors is less by the children of the next gener-
ation due to peer group pressure but there is an increase in the use of the
existing passive knowledge of their mother tongue viz. Andamanese, due to
new acquisition, when the children become adults and participate in collective
activities like fishing, turtle hunting and cultural activities such as puberty
ceremony. The schooling through Andamanese at the primary level is made
possible by the efforts made by the CIIL in collaboration with the Union
Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. This kind of new acquisition and
use of the mother tongue is due to the social network of the community. This is
because both the utility value of Hindi and the identity value of Andamanese
are at work and cyclically there is a greater realisation of the need for identity
and preservation as people grow older.
A handbook of Jarawa language has been published with a view to help the
functionaries and researchers who have to interact and work with the Jarawa tribe.
A Shompen-Hindi-English Pictorial glossary has been published as a part of
teaching/learning material for the children and adults of the Shompen tribe.
The Institute has also studied less known Dravidian tribal languages like Urali
spoken in Tamilnadu.
In addition to the above the Institute in collaboration with Annamalai
University and Telugu University, Hyderabad has collected language data for
documentation purposes in the following tribal languages: Kurichian
(Dravidian) (Population: 15,700) spoken in Tamilnadu, Urali Kurumba
(Dravidian) (Population: 4,370) spoken in Waynad, Kerala, Indi-Awe (Dravidian)
and Parengi Gorum (Munda) both spoken in Koraput, Orissa.
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language 211

In collaboration with a non-governmental organisation known as ACCORD

in Gudalur, Tamilnadu, primers at the pre primary level in the Dravidian tribal
languages, viz. Paniya, Irula, Kattu Naika, Mullukurumba and Betta Kurumba
spoken in Gudalur, Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu have been prepared. A Paniya Primer
PATTOLA for the pre primary class has been published and introduced in the
schools run by the non-Governmental organisation viz. ACCORD. A Tamil
Orthography system with modifications has been adopted to write and read
Paniya and the other languages. Thus the Institute has made pioneering
successful efforts in reviving some of the endangered tribal languages of India.
Omkar N. Koul
Central Institute of Indian Languages, India

Mixed marriages have a wide range of effects on the life of languages, although the
immense majority of reporters only mention their negative influences. Furthermore,
there are indications that in societies that have traditionally been multilingual due to
the formation of couples belonging to different linguistic descents, in recent decades the
traditional strategy has been changed to one of the adoption of a dominant language, be
this the language of one of the spouses or the official or dominant language of the
region, which may not be the language of either of them. In the case of Western, basi-
cally monolingual societies, mixed marriages can act in favour of diversity because each
spouse ensures transmission of their language to their descendants.
It is worth pointing out that of the causes mentioned only the last two, migration
and marriage, can be said to respond to communication strategies, while the rest
respond to direct pressures or are attributable to negative linguistic attitudes usually
as a result of these pressures.

A window for hope

It is worth mentioning in particular the important accounts provided by informants
who speak of new situations in certain languages which have made it possible to
ensure their transmission. There are languages that have achieved official status, as
in the case of Kirgiz, or the new consideration gained by Timbe on producing a
written literature.
Since Kirgiz has also been spoken in Kyrgyzstan as an official language, it is transmitted
from generation to generation. (Kirgiz, Kyrgyzstan)
In 1970 the language was considered inferior to either Kote or Pidgin. Many parents were
attempting to prevent their children from using it. By 1990 that had changed and since
there was literature in the language many considered it better than Pidgin or Kote.
(Timbe, Papua New Guinea)
212 Words and Worlds

One hopeful fact that some informants provided was the value placed on grand-
parents as transmitters of languages to their grandchildren to recover the trans-
mission interrupted by parents with these children.
At present, Pech couples over 40 speak Pech at home but it seems that in younger
couples the grandparents are the only people who speak Pech to the children (Lara 1997).
(Pech, Honduras)
Huambisa is transmitted by grandparents to parents, then to children and then to the
grandchildren. In some cases transmission relations arise from grandparents to grand-
children. (Wampis, Peru)
Finally, it is important to mention some undoubtedly subjective accounts which
nevertheless have the added value of conveying the pleasure of speaking one’s
own language.
Lingao will be passed down to future generations, because the local people like to use it
everywhere. The local people use it in markets, cadres use it in offices, teachers use it in
schools, and children grow up speaking it. (Lingao, China)
Since the last century, all the researchers in La Mosquitia (Nicaragua) have pointed out
two things as regards the Miskita language and its use: (1) That the Miskitos are very
communicative with all ethnic groups and with foreigners and speak and teach their
language to those wanting to learn it (Herranz, 1996: 436–437). (2) That Miskito women,
even those married to Ladinos or other ethnic groups such as the Tawahka, always teach
their children Miskito (Herranz 1996). (Miskito, Nicaragua)
At present, no other language is likely to completely replace it as the Derung people like to
use their native language. (Derung, China)

Recommendations on intergenerational transmission and use of

language
Before the serious threat to the preservation of the universal linguistic heritage posed
by the large-scale interruption in the transmission of family languages from parents
to children and by the alarming decline in the use of native languages in intergenera-
tional relations, we must:

• Emphasise the importance of language and culture for the individual’s sense
of identity and self-esteem.
• Discourage language substitution, by pointing out the widely demonstrated
ability to harmoniously integrate the knowledge and use of more than one
language by one person or social group.
Transmission and Intergenerational Use of Language 213

• Protect and acknowledge the fundamental role of the family group in

preserving linguistic diversity. When the family is bilingual or multilingual,
the transmission of all these languages should be encouraged, as the benefits
of bilingual or multilingual skills are fundamental in preserving personal
identity and integrity, as well as in furthering social integration.
• Confer prestige on all the languages in the area through its use in formal and
informal spheres and hold persistent campaigns to persuade adults to pass
on the language of the community to the younger generation.
• Explain to parents the psychological, cultural and economic advantages of a
multilingual education that does not marginalise the mother tongue.
Chapter 10
Linguistic Attitudes
In speaking of linguistic attitudes, a reference is made to the favourable or
unfavourable disposition people have towards languages, be these their own or
foreign. Attitudes are formed by complex processes on the basis of the beliefs, repre-
sentations and perceptions established around languages, all of them influenced by a
particular feeling of liking or rejection. In addition, attitudes make people more or
less likely to adopt one linguistic behaviour or another. In other words, they lead to a
tendency either to use a language or to replace it, either completely or in certain
specific spheres or situations.
Beliefs about languages are usually linked to perceptions about the identity, char-
acter, culture and history of its group of speakers, and are often based on historically
disseminated prejudices which have a decisive influence on feelings, and subse-
quently on behaviour. This is why it is important to take into account the sociolin-
guistic and historical characteristics of each and every community to be able to get
close to a full understanding of these attitudes.
In addition, attitudes are not directly observable, and must be deduced from
opinions expressed in opinion polls, and by observing behaviour in specific situa-
tions. The main thing is, perhaps, that attitudes, as well as helping to explain current
behaviour, can help forecast future behaviour. This consideration suggests that the
measures taken to promote the use and prestige of languages can be effective through
the positive attitudes they generate.
The attitude to a language – as regards using it or abandoning it, as well as
learning a new one – tends to show a twofold motivation: instrumental motivation
and integrating motivation. The first reflects pragmatic objectives and is charac-
terised by attempting, in theory, to respond to communication needs, and often also
to motives of social recognition or economic promotion. The integrating character of
the attitude, however, is of a social nature and is mainly reflected in the search for
integration and identification with the linguistic community. It goes without saying
that in monolingual communities this integrating character is perceived naturally
and furthermore tends to be accompanied by feelings of liking for the language and
the community. However, in bilingual or multilingual situations, this integrating
character can be conflictive because it can give rise to identity tensions that are not
always easily resolved.

214
Linguistic Attitudes 215

One’s attitude to one’s own language involves one’s own personal identity linked
to the social group one belongs to. That is why it is especially interesting to identify
the reasons why some people’s attitudes lead them to use another language in situa-
tions of multilingualism. Furthermore, it is interesting to find out what motivates
someone to learn a new language, in what spheres it is used, and why it can replace
one’s own in spheres originally occupied by the latter, even to the extent of aban-
doning it. In particular, we shall attempt to identify the reasons why people show
negative attitudes to their language.
One of the factors that researchers consider fundamental in shaping linguistic atti-
tudes is whether or not the language has some sort of official status – that is, the
official character of the language or the relative position of prestige it occupies with
respect to the official language and other languages in contact with it. In addition,
other factors have to be added such as the preservation or loss of the community’s
cultural identity and the attitude shown by members of the linguistic communities
with which they come in contact.
In addition, we have to take into account changes in the life of communities and in
the use of languages as a result of the process of urbanisation, migrations and the
introduction of mass media, along with pressure from the hope of social promotion
expressed in the need to use the majority languages.
In this chapter we shall be analysing the attitudes of speakers to their own
languages and the attitudes of speakers of other languages with which they come into
contact, in relation to the factors mentioned above. The comparative analysis of the
data will make it possible to classify them into two large groups, which though not
closed, will make it possible to speak of positive and negative attitudes to languages.

Positive linguistic attitudes

According to the figures gathered, the feelings that members of the community have
towards their own language are positive in the great majority of cases and
furthermore are almost always accompanied by feelings of identity, liking and pride.
In the case of speakers of official languages, as well as reflecting the natural rela-
tionship between identity and language, the figures confirm the idea that an official
language confers political, economic and social status on its speakers. When there is no
contact with other languages, the question may not even arise among speakers. Those
groups whose first language is the official one see the use of their language in all
spheres as something natural and, of course, have a positive attitude towards it. But
when the speakers of prestige languages have dealings with other languages, nuances
arise and an awareness of identity shows itself, giving rise to conscious attitudes of
pride for one’s language and of indifference (or scorn) for those of less prestige.
However, it is noticeable that the spread of transnational languages catering for
prestige functions, such as those involved in the field of science, economics or inter-
national culture, can compromise the behaviour of speakers of certain official
languages. Thus, pragmatic attitudes arise that turn to these transnational languages
216 Words and Worlds

for reasons of social promotion. This is the case of widespread languages in their
areas of influence that are being adopted by speakers in many regions, very often to
the detriment of their own language. One example was provided by the informant for
Norwegian, who said that “the attitude to the language presents no problems, as its
use is taken for granted. However, the insecurity historically attached to everything
Norwegian can sometimes lead to an emphasis on the use of Norwegian, or, more
often, to an irrational lack of self-esteem leading to an unnecessary and insecure use
of English.”
The most widespread behaviour is the following: attitudes to the languages of
greater prestige are positive and the tendency to learn these languages will depend on
the advantages their use involves. This is the case of some multilingual contexts,
where identification with the influential group stands out. For example, in the case of
Sena, declared a national language in Mozambique, it is reported that speakers use it
as a means of communication, especially in cities where other languages are also
used, and that the speakers themselves see it as a language respected by the other
communities, precisely because of its status as a national language.

TERRALINGUA AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS

There is a high correlation between the world’s biological and

linguistic/cultural megadiversity areas: where there are many biological
species, there are often also many languages and cultures, and vice versa. The
relationship between linguistic diversity and biodiversity is probably not only
correlational but also causal, reflecting “human-environment co-evolution”,
including the assumption that cultural diversity (encoded in languages) might
enhance biodiversity or vice versa. People’s cultural knowledge, encoded in the
world’s languages, is a necessary prerequisite for sustainable maintenance of
natural resources, including the most vulnerable and most biologically diverse
environments in the world. Languages are also a necessary prerequisite for
intergenerational transfer of that knowledge.
If we, as realistic prognoses claim, during the next 100 years murder 50–90%
of the world’s linguistic diversity, we are also seriously undermining our
chances of life on earth. People need to get to know their environment well
enough to see that maintaining biodiversity is in their best interest. The time
needed for this and for developing the knowledge of how to protect their envi-
ronment and use it in a sustainable way is measured in centuries, not decades.
Transferring this knowledge from one language to another (e.g. from a small
indigenous language to a larger dominant language) also takes generations. If
languages are being killed at today’s pace, these vital knowledges are lost.
Linguistic Attitudes 217

When speakers of small languages learn necessary dominant languages in

addition to their native languages, they become multilingual, and linguistic
diversity is supported. When dominant languages, like English, are learned
subtractively, at the cost of the mother tongues, they become killer languages,
and education is forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. This is
genocide, according to the definition in the United Nation’s Genocide
Convention, Article II (e).
The most vital linguistic human right for diversity maintenance, the right to
mother tongue medium education, has totally insufficient protection in human
rights law.
Tove Skutnabb-Kangas
Terralingua (www.terralingua.org)

One’s attitude to one’s own language depends on the pressures brought to bear on the
language to maintain it or abandon it. Whereas the great majority of opinion surveys
favour survival, it is obvious that historical pressures have given rise to behaviour
inclined towards the replacement of people’s languages by others of greater prestige
for pragmatic reasons, in spite of people’s declared pride in their language. The
account of languages like Hani, in China, could illustrate this statement:
The Hani majority believes that the language is a symbol of their nationality which must
be preserved. However, as there is a feeling that it is used in limited situations, they would
like to learn Chinese too. Furthermore, Hani is not necessary in school exams, so it would
be preferable to study Chinese or English. (Hani, China)
Another aspect worth stressing is the view people have of the attitude to their
language on the part of speakers of other languages, which shows the importance of
the relationship between linguistic status and attitude. By way of example, the
reporter for Yoruba, a Nigerian language with national status and clearly
spreading, states that, “the members of the community are proud of their language,
but even so, they realise that there are more advantages to using English than to
using Yoruba.” However, referring to other linguistic communities under its
influence, this same reporter says, “the attitude (of speakers towards the Yoruba) is
positive, particularly in the communities of the small Nigerian languages like
Baruba, Ebira, Ijaw and Urhobo.”
At the same time, the promotion of certain languages to the detriment of others
gives rise to many accounts of resentment. For example, whereas speakers of
Pulaar express feelings of pride in their language, they say that “there is a certain
ill-feeling amongst other groups who see them as chauvinists”. A similar case is
that of the Viri language, reporting that “members of this community have a
218 Words and Worlds

positive attitude to the promotion, development and use of the language, espe-
cially since the language has spread to other languages”, adding that speakers of
other languages “have adopted it in public spheres, such as the fields of trade and
commerce, especially in residential areas.” All of this confirms the value of status in
the attitude to a language.
As regards languages with no official status, while expressing positive attitudes
towards their own language, as in the case of Tumbuka, informants note that other
communities have attitudes of “indifference, due to the fact that this language is not
official in the administration at a national level”.
However, it is important to point out that linguistic attitudes to one’s own language
are not the same in all members of the community. One fact that stands out is that
even in those accounts expressing pride in one’s identity and an explicit wish for the
survival of the language and culture of the group, there is deep concern over the loss
of this awareness by the younger members of the communities. School, the media, the
dominant culture and emigration to urban areas are seen as being the chief causes for
the attitude of indifference to or rejection of the local language by younger members.
The accounts of the informants for Aymara, in Peru, or Sabaot, in Kenya, could serve
to illustrate this situation:
Speakers of 40 years of age or more identify with their culture and communicate in this
language. Those between 20 and 35 use Aymara and Spanish with a tendency to cultural
mixing. Those under 20, because of their nationalist, castilianising schooling, follow
urban behaviour patterns. (Aymara, Peru)
Most people like the language, especially those of middle age and above. But it is losing
popularity among educated young people. (Sabaot, Kenya)
Furthermore, accounts of differences between the attitudes of urban and rural popu-
lations abound. One illustrative example could be the account by the informant for
the Achi language of Guatemala:
The attitude to the use and knowledge of the language among the majority in the urban
area is negative, as they are under greater pressure to learn Castilian. This is the symbol of
development, of acceptance by the dominant class, of a source of employment. People in
the rural areas have a greater appreciation for the language; the children learn it from
birth; it’s the official language in the community. (Achi, Guatemala)
However, we want to stress that most of the accounts gathered express opinions in
favour of maintaining and using the native language, even in spite of being at a disad-
vantage with other languages or being subject to opinions that go from indifference to
contempt or prohibition:
Speakers of Chipaya take great pride in their language. They feel that it is the original
language of the world. And yet the members of other communities call it a dialect and
despise it as a language and a means of communication. Nowadays, the schoolteachers
have forbidden the children to use Chipaya at school. (Chipaya, Bolivia)
Linguistic Attitudes 219

Furthermore, we have been able to see that in many communities in an advanced

state of language substitution a change is taking place in the attitude of members
of those communities, thanks to the reinforcement of cultural identity. This
attitude shows itself in the growing tide of claims to the right to maintain
languages and the growing demands for the use of languages, at least in the school
sphere and in the local media. The informant for the Pech language in Honduras
expresses this situation very well:
Until 1990, the attitude of the majority of the population was one of fear and strong
reserves about speaking Pech outside the family setting or relationships of friendship with
other speakers of the language. The presence of a Pech who didn’t speak the language or of
a Ladino was enough to stop them speaking it because they ‘felt ashamed’. Today, the
FIPH (Federación Indígena Pech de Honduras) and the seven Pech teachers are encour-
aging the oral use of Pech (and its written use at school). Now you can find Pech who take
pride in speaking their language, especially the teachers and directors of the Federation,
which offers a ray of hope. (Pech, Honduras)
This revival situation is taking place in many indigenous communities where
awareness of cultural identity is growing in the face of intense pressure from
colonising languages. In Canada, for example, a study by the First Nations Assembly
in 1992 revealed the critical situation of their languages (see Map 11). However,
figures issued by the Canadian Institute of Statistics show that 88% of those who used
to speak the language wanted to relearn it and that more than 75% of the natives who
had never spoken it were willing to learn.
Another example could be the situation amongst the indigenous peoples of Siberia,
where the danger of extinction is extreme, not only for the languages but also for the
communities themselves. These are languages and cultures which have deteriorated
in a very short space of time. According to Filtchenko (2000), the impact of the
discovery of gas in the 1970s meant that in a very few years, as a result of massive
immigration, the native demographic majority became a demographic minority, at
the same time as the traditional habitat suffered irreparable damage. As a result of
these factors, the identity of the native peoples of Siberia has been endangered.
Nevertheless, a revival of native awareness is taking place which expresses itself in
the importance a majority of the indigenous population attaches to the teaching of the
mother tongue at school through bilingual education, with the prime objective of
preserving the language. They stress the need to make available the economic
resources necessary for this, furthermore implementing the means whereby native
students can have a medium in the community in which to develop the language they
learn at school.
But the economic and social situation of many of the world’s indigenous peoples is
extremely difficult. And very often, awareness of the loss of a language is considered
a problem of little importance in the face of the social deterioration the community is
immersed in. The account by the reporter for the Bardi language of Australia, for
example, is moving in its frankness and is common to countless communities:
220 Words and Worlds

[The situation of the language] doesn’t seem to matter to some; others (particularly a few
of the older people) want to pass the language on. My feeling is that until there is a ‘Bardi
Culture’ the language isn’t so important, but this point of view may not represent the
majority point of view. I think the One Arm Point community is worried about drugs,
alcohol and preventing suicide and unemployment and other social issues; the language
doesn’t rank very high because there is a generation or two that don’t use it and because
there are other concerns. (Bardi, Australia)
And nevertheless, the figures collected seem to suggest that when these conditions
improve there is great interest in relaunching language learning along with rein-
forcing native cultures.
The change in attitude referred to is also noticeable in some minority linguistic
communities in Western Europe, where it has been possible to maintain cultural
identity, and linguistic policies are beginning to allow a certain flexibility, making it
possible to promote measures to revive languages, as in the case of Breton in France:
After four generations of shame and linguistic rejection and of an image marked by a
negative Breton identity (linked to linguistic repression led by the schools of the
Republic), mentalities are changing. Today the dominant feeling is that a valuable asset is
being lost and that there is an urgent need for action. According to a survey held in 1997,
88% of people think the language must be preserved, 72% believe it has a future and 80%
are in favour of its teaching. (Breton, France)

Negative attitudes
We have deliberately gone into the extremely worrying facts about people’s negative
attitudes towards their own language in some detail, as they indicate an almost irre-
versible trend towards linguistic substitution.
The effect of traditional state policies and the progress of some expanding
languages is endangering the survival of countless languages which are in a situation
of lower prestige.
Because of this, it is not surprising that, along with expressions of affection for the
language, some of the accounts gathered by reporters speak of the shame they feel
when using their language and of the fear of stigmatisation because of their
language, a feeling which can even become scorn when the language has suffered
severe loss of prestige.
Truly dramatic ideas were returned by the reporter on Kaqchikel, for example, who
said that “after 500 years of rejection and extermination of the Kaqchikel language,
today the majority of the members of the community rejects the preservation and use
of the language”, or on Mam, of which it is said that “there is rejection of the language
due to the lack of its implementation and use by the Administration, especially at the
educational level”, or of Pech, where “until 1990, the attitude of the majority of the
population was one of fear and great reserve in speaking outside the family setting or
relations of friendship with other speakers of the language”, or of Tol, whose
Linguistic Attitudes 221

informant says that “all the work of researching the Tol of La Montaña de la Flor until
1985 showed that the Tolupans of Yoro and La Flor felt shame when speaking Tol.”
The accounts of indigenous populations gathered in this Review show that native
languages have come under enormous pressure, and that although many communities
are beginning to demand respect for their linguistic rights, many populations still show
negative feelings towards them. The lack of prestige towards the indigenous language is
a feature we see repeated in most areas where minority indigenous populations coexist
with majority groups speaking the official language. We might remember that people
can even deny belonging to a linguistic community, as Abbi (2000) shows when he says
that “the feeling of inferiority, the awareness of the low status of the mother tongue in
society, anxiety to be associated with the superior masses, all discourage people from
declaring the language used in the family setting their own. This is especially true in
many Munda and Dravidian tribes. Research has shown that even languages that have
been declared lost are still used in the domestic sphere. The low prestige associated with
these languages has brought about this change in loyalty”.
And non-indigenous populations heighten this feeling through their attitude:
The members of the surrounding communities would like to bury this language or absorb
it. (Lai, Bangladesh)
But this pressure is not exclusive to indigenous populations. In most of Europe, too,
language communities in the minority have suffered the consequences of outright
assimilation policies on the part of states that have in many cases generated attitudes
of indifference towards the minority language or its loss, or shame over the stigma
involved in its use. There are some who feel the language should only be used in the
family sphere, in the case of the informant on Friulan; who show indifference due to
the influence of schooling in French, like the reporter on Occitan; or who even express
scorn, as the informant for Corsican reports.
From what has been said above, we can deduce that establishing hierarchies in the
status of languages generates attitudes of rejection towards one’s own language and
towards the languages of other communities. Similarly, the attitude to a language
depends directly on the relation established with the group it represents. It is also
possible that when groups with different mother tongues maintain balanced rela-
tions, the tensions between the two different communities diminish. This is one of the
basic factors that have allowed language communities with small populations to keep
up their cultural identity and their language today.
The hierarchical effect of languages is confirmed when we note the fact that all the
dominant languages in the sample analysed for this Review are learned by other
people or adopted as second or third languages. The behaviour observed in the
learning of second and third languages also shows the influence of the hierarchies
established between languages. Thus dominant languages are learnt with greater
frequency, but those of less prestige are only learned by certain people.
Societies that are traditionally multilingual show that the tendency to uniformity –
one which is becoming extremely widespread in recent decades – does not take place
222 Words and Worlds

in all societies and is not a natural one. The greater the multilingual tradition, the less
the aggression between the different languages in contact.
The reported figures indicate that relations between communities of similar status
are less hostile than those established between majority and minorised languages.
According to Abbi (2000) and Annamalai (2001), for example, relations among the
different languages in multilingual situations like India are linked to the nature of
multilingualism itself in the area. This is characterised by its social acceptance, and
people learn other languages in the course of socialisation, for communicative,
economic, cultural and religious needs, since languages can have a functional distri-
bution with respect to these functional uses.
Expressions of solidarity between communities show up time and again. This is an
encouraging fact. It could be that if initiatives are begun in favour of respect for
different identities, the self-esteem of communities in a precarious situation might
recover; experiences in similar situations might be shared and natural solidarity
between groups of similar status might arise. All of this with the object of modifying
the attitudes of dominant communities. Indeed, though no language can survive
through the incorporation of speakers from other communities, the fact that its
language is learnt by people outside the group has very positive effects on the pride
and consideration attributed to it. The learning of minorised languages by non-
natives should be encouraged. Only in this way can balanced linguistic and cultural
relations be established in the face of the linguistic and cultural uniformity with
which we are threatened.

SOCIAL ATTITUDES CONCERNING PIDGINS AND CREOLES

Negative attitudes to pidgins and creoles are based primarily on perceived

linguistic inadequacies or the economic and social limitations of pidgins and
creoles vis-a-vis their lexifier languages. Most speakers of pidgins and creoles
would be surprised to find that the study of pidgin and creole languages consti-
tutes a legitimate academic discipline, and that linguists consider them
languages in their own right rather than dialects or incorrect versions of other
languages. Superficial similarities lead non-experts to assume that pidgins and
creoles are inferior versions of the languages to which they are most closely affil-
iated in vocabulary. Thus, Haitian Creole French speakers and Hawai’i Creole
English speakers have been corrected and/or punished at school, and in some
cases at home, for speaking what is widely believed to be ‘bad French’ or ‘bad
English’, respectively.
Although they typically arise to serve a linguistically diverse population, they
have limited currency outside these local settings when compared to their lexi-
fiers. Most pidgins and creoles are unstandardised, unwritten, have no official
Linguistic Attitudes 223

recognition and have not been widely used in education. They often co-exist in
a diglossic relationship with their lexifiers, where the pidgin/creole assumes
the L(ow) functions, i.e. is used at home and non-official domains, and the
lexifier functions as H(igh).
Negative attitudes to pidgins and creoles, particularly at school, have had a
number of unfortunate social consequences. Research has demonstrated the
futility of constant correction of non-standard language use in the classroom
without respect for the students’ home language. When teachers tell children
not to speak pidgins and creoles because they represent a ‘lazy’ way to talk or
because they are ‘broken’ English, French, etc., mixed emotions of shame and
resistance are often the result. To deny the validity of any language is to deny the
validity of the people who speak it.
Although it seems at first glance paradoxical that pidgins and creoles persist
at all despite correction and negative public opinion, speakers do attach positive
value to these languages as markers of solidarity and intimacy. As children
approach adolescence, the use of non-standard speech varieties often increases,
indicating the effects of peer group allegiance, and resistance to mainstream
authority structures which endorse the standard. One manifestation of this can
be seen in the extension of pidgins and creoles into domains generally reserved
for the lexifier language, in particular in literature and in school. A number of
creoles such as Krio in Sierra Leone have vibrant literary traditions, and are
being increasingly used in the classroom.
Suzanne Romaine
Merton College, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Attitudes and prejudices to be avoided

While it is true that linguistic attitudes are responsible for most behaviour relating to
language, it is no less true that behind most attitudes are prejudices that have nothing
to do with the nature of languages. We believe it is necessary to unmask common-
places and beliefs about languages that have no other basis than carefully and delib-
erately promoted prejudices that establish hierarchies between languages as a prior
step to the replacement and disappearance of languages and cultures.
Let us remember some of the most widespread prejudices whose falsity it is
essential to demonstrate as soon as possible:
224 Words and Worlds

• Languages are merely vehicles for communication; the fewer languages

there are, the better the chances of communication; diversity is therefore an
obstacle to understanding between human beings.
• The economic and technological underdevelopment seen in many commu-
nities and social groups is largely due to their preservation of a language and
culture that is not suited to social, economic or technological progress; there
are urban languages and rural languages, languages for modernity and
languages for primitive, traditional or indigenous life.
• Some languages are only of use for affective family communication, but
cannot be used as vehicles of formal education; there are languages that are
not suitable for use in schools, and far less in universities.
• The use in the family of a language that is not used at school is a handicap
that slows down children’s integration in the school system, has a direct
influence on learning difficulties and is the cause of school failure.
• Bilingualism is prejudicial to the all-round development of the individual;
children do not acquire proper mastery of either of the two languages; a clear
example of the harmful consequences of bilingual education is that bilingual
people do not master orthographic systems and make more and more
spelling mistakes.
• Teaching children a minority language they do not know is an imposition, as
well as being unnatural; it is prejudicial because they have never heard it in
the family.
• Is a language that is not written and does not have a dictionary or grammar a
language? Furthermore, why begin to write or teach a language that has
never been written or taught? Why go against tradition?
• Some languages are not viable as it is impossible to agree on the correct form
because it is spoken differently in different places. The standard, which may be
of recent creation, is false, artificial and useless; false, because it does not reflect
every variety, especially yours; artificial, because it has no tradition and has
been invented by a handful of smart alecs who hope to make a living out of it;
useless, because it has no future, as no-one will use it or understand it.
• Some languages are of no use when looking for interesting jobs or for
relating with the modern world; these are backward languages that merely
shut us away inside ourselves; they are not languages with a universal scope.
Chapter 11
The Threats to Languages

Surely, just as the extinction of any animal species diminishes our world, so does
the extinction of any language. Surely we linguists know, and the general public
can sense, that any language is a supreme achievement of a uniquely human
collective genius, as divine and endless a mystery as a living organism. Should
we mourn the loss of Eyak or Ubykh any less than the loss of the panda or
Californian condor? (Krauss 1992)

Languages evolve on the basis of sometimes imperceptible changes that take place in
different ways. These changes can be caused by widely varying factors such as
strategies for adaptation to the social milieu, group identification or the influence of
external linguistic contacts. In addition, they can be induced through deliberate
strategies or can take place spontaneously.
If a moment comes in this evolution when the varieties are no longer perceived as
part of the same language and are considered different languages, we can say that
these languages’ evolution has led to the disappearance of the original language.
We are speaking of well-known cases of languages for which there are plenty of
written accounts, such as the so-called classical languages, which are no longer
considered living languages today. They have evolved into multiple languages, some
of which are still alive, while others have become extinct. It is difficult to make even
an approximate calculation of the number of languages that have disappeared in this
way, since many of them have left no written evidence at all, but in any case the
number far exceeds that of the languages still spoken. It is also important to point out
that the languages that are spoken in the world today are the product of evolution
and would not be recognised as the same languages if we were able to go back far
enough in time. In other words, they have become totally differentiated from earlier
languages. Rather than languages disappearing, in these cases we speak of language
transformation (Hagège, 2000).
In this Review, however, the subject is the disappearance of languages in perhaps
far more dramatic terms. We want to put the emphasis on disappearance through

225
226 Words and Worlds

extinction or replacement and try to identify the factors that have most influence on
the falling into disuse of a language. If we accept the metaphor of the death of a
language, obviously these factors will be a direct threat to languages.
When one language is in contact with another which is expanding more powerfully,
then it is subject to extinction depending on different factors such as history, politics,
economics, culture and demography. It is therefore impossible to pick out a single
decisive cause that can be universally generalised, as each situation depends on its
own history and idiosyncrasies. It is easy to realise the enormous differences that exist
between languages in contact in stigmatised indigenous communities under pressure
from powerful economies and between indigenous communities under pressure from
other indigenous groups or between communities with high historical and economic
prestige under the influence of internationally dominant languages. Indeed, the
causes and effects vary enormously from one situation to another.

The last speakers

A language disappears when its last speakers stop speaking it without having passed
it on to the younger generation. There are well known examples of these cases, such
as that of Marie Smith, the last speaker of Eyak, an Alaskan language mentioned by
Nettle & Romaine (2000), or the accounts gathered in our research of, for example, the
Miwok language of the United States, whose only speaker is 94 years old, or that of
Popoluca, a language spoken in Veracruz, Mexico, whose youngest speaker is 74
years old and has no following generation. What is more, in this case it is even
reported that “the older generation takes it for granted that the language is dying”.
Accounts of this sort are common. For example, Tol, in Honduras, is a language
which, like many other indigenous languages, is spoken exclusively by the old folk,
“whose children have not learned it”; Macanese, on the island of Macao, “is only
spoken by older people”; Palenque is a Creole language spoken in Colombia whose
informant says it will “disappear within two or three generations because the
younger generation tends not to use it.”
The languages of the Australian Aborigines are also characterised by the very small
numbers of speakers they have. The following account by a member of the Bardi
community illustrates this situation:
The language is seriously threatened, as the last speakers are now reaching adult age
(average life expectancy for the Aborigines in Australia is approximately 45 years, and
most speakers are already older than this). What’s more, the general feeling is that
speaking this language does not provide access to jobs, so that the children have no longer
learned the language. (Bardi, Australia)
The gradual reduction in speakers also affects many unofficial languages in Europe.
This is the case of Occitan, a language spoken in the south of France, whose disap-
pearance is foreseen amongst other reasons due to the death of the speakers them-
selves, who have not passed it on. The same happens with Aragonese (Spain): “this
The Threats to Languages 227

language is in danger due to the small number of speakers and the ageing of the
population, as well as the lack of official recognition and support.”
However, although the physical fact of the disappearance of the last speakers
affects individuals, the fact is that there have been direct causes that have led to
these speakers’ isolation. This is why the disappearance of the last speakers is not
in itself considered the cause of death of a language, so much as the certification of
this death.
The object of this section, therefore, is to determine the causes giving rise to the
threats facing languages. Analysis of specific situations confirms the idea that there
are many causes for the death of a language. Furthermore, the way the speakers
themselves perceive this question is significant and must be taken into account.
The information received has been analysed in detail, not only taking into account
the factors referring strictly to the threats facing languages, but also with an eye to
causes referring to historical factors and the dangers facing the communities them-
selves. In fact, many informants put forward the same arguments, both for the
languages and for the communities, in trying to explain the dangers or threats they
see or suffer in their environment. We are convinced that in this way the information
presented will be more complete.
Table 10 groups the causes of threats or dangers mentioned by the informants in
five categories:

Table 10. Causes of threats to languages

Causes (%)

POLITICAL FACTORS 46
(Colonisation, linguistic policies, official status)

DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS 27
(Reduced number of speakers, reduction and ageing of the
population, mixed marriages, migrations for economic reasons or
because of conflicts or deportations)

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FACTORS 16

(Economic crises, economic exploitation, subordination, low social
prestige, acculturation)

PHYSICAL AGGRESSION 8
(Natural disasters, epidemics, physical aggressions)

OTHERS 3

TOTAL 100
228 Words and Worlds

Political factors
A detailed description of the political causes that have affected languages would be a
task beyond the scope of the present work. However, it should be remembered that
the endangered situation of most of today’s languages is a direct consequence of
economic and social factors, for centuries governed mainly by political interests.
In all periods of history there has been displacement of populations as a result of
military and political invasions, which has given rise to induced or directly imposed
linguistic changes.
The large movements associated with language shift, some of which have already
been indicated by Fishman (1971), are as follows.
Vernacularisation of government, technical, educational and cultural activity in
Europe. In other words, the establishment of the vernacular languages as a symbol of
state unity during the construction of the European states. It can be said that this
tendency towards one state/one language was accentuated after the French
Revolution and was the cause of the weakening of countless languages spoken in
these areas. Furthermore, this idea was subsequently widely accepted by states under
construction during the post-colonial period.
The Anglicisation and Hispanicisation of the populations of North and South America,
respectively. The colonisation of the American continent by European states brought
with it, in addition to the extinction of languages through the physical extermination of
many indigenous communities, the widespread Castilianisation of the region and later
the Anglicisation and Frenchification of the regions of the north. The action of the
colonising states was different in each region and all sorts of particularities can be found.
However, we can say that following the military domination of the population, apart
from physical extermination the linguistic policy implemented was based on the impo-
sition of the state language. There have of course been periods when states have not been
able to avoid using certain local languages with the object of achieving long-term goals,
both economic and religious. This has even led to some local languages being spread by
the conquerors themselves. This is the case, for example, of Nahuatl and Quechua in
Central and South America respectively. We must not forget, however, that just like
today, the spread of these indigenous languages led to the replacement of other local
languages of less prestige. In North America, the process of conquest has been even more
troubled in demographic terms. The result is that the indigenous communities have been
restricted to reserves, with hardly any chance of integration into the dominant society.

ABOUT THE DEATH OF LANGUAGES

When a language dies, the richness and fullness of human life suffers a
reduction. Languages are long in the making. They are repositories of human
history, carrying evidence of earlier environments and practices that a people
The Threats to Languages 229

may no longer remember and of contacts between peoples who no longer live
anywhere near one another. The degree to which languages resemble each other
can reveal ancient separations or minglings of peoples. Languages bear witness
to the many ways in which human cognitive faculties have perceived the world,
sorting and categorising human experience. Each language has unique lexical
content and unique ways of patterning that content grammatically.
Even languages that are considered well known – represented by whole
libraries of lore and literature, captured in extensive grammatical treatises – are
never fully plumbed. There is always more latitude for differences in the way
individual speakers or groups of speakers put such a language into play than
can be recorded, and there is always scope for creative elaboration of linguistic
resources beyond what happens to have been remembered or preserved. Little
known languages – never treated in any studies, their poetic and traditional lore
unfamiliar to anyone but their own speakers – are lost, when they die, to
humankind’s awareness of its own full range of expressive and elaborative
verbal capacities.
When a language dies, the community of people who once spoke it (if they
have not all died as well) has lost the richest and most direct connection to their
ancestral heritage. Not their identity, necessarily, since identity can be marked
by other special features (distinctive clothing, music, foods, and the like). Lost to
memory and self-knowledge, rather, are such things as ability to perform the
sacred songs and ancient chants whose rhythms and meanings are fully
expressed only in the ancestral language; speech that embodies unique gram-
matical and lexical categorisations reflecting distinctive cultural orientations;
remembrance of the culturally specific names of places and figures important to
their history; deep familiarity with locally unique plants and their nutritional
and medicinal value. No language translates fully into another. Always there
are large or small expressive and conceptual losses when a people ceases to
speak its ancestral language and goes over to speaking another.
It can appear, sometimes, that a person chooses to abandon their own
language for another. But choices are not always “free” choices, and under-
lying such apparent choices are, in most cases, severe historic pressures:
outside political control, economic subjugation, social discrimination. What
is needed, fundamentally, is to alleviate the pressures. Around the world
today, peoples who recognise that their languages have almost slipped away
are making heroic efforts to save those languages, and with them their
rightful heritage.
Nancy C. Dorian
Bryn Mawr College, United States of America
230 Words and Worlds

Other than this, the colonisation of Asian and Australian territories by the French and
English has also given varied results. By way of example, following withdrawal of the
French from the region of Indochina, hardly any tradition of using the colonial
language remained, yet in Australia and other places the indigenous populations have
been almost wiped out, so that the overturn in the demographic correlation prevents
the natural reproduction of their languages and seriously endangers their survival.
Within this section it is worth remembering the colonisation of the American and
African continents by other European states, such as Portugal and France, which
broadly speaking followed the steps described above.
At the same time, it should be pointed out that direct action by states in economic
matters has also led to the rise of new languages. These are the languages arising in
communities of African slaves taken to America and of their descendants, who through
contact amongst themselves and/or on the basis of European languages have produced
many Pidgin and Creole languages in large areas of the Caribbean and South America.
The adoption of English and French as internationally widespread elite languages,
particularly in Asia and Africa should also be taken into account. This is a feature of post-
colonial periods, when the majority local population has not had access to the language
of colonisation. The great majority of states have adopted the European language as their
official language. Although in many cases local languages have been made official, the
fact is that the European languages are still used by the economic and prestige elites, as
they are used in administration and at school, wherever schools are generalised.
The forced Russification of populations under the control of the Soviet Union has
resulted in the deterioration and disappearance of many local languages. Similarly,
displacement of Russian populations to republics that have recently acquired
political autonomy also produces contacts between linguistic communities that are
demographically difficult to manage.
It should not be forgotten either that in many parts of Africa and Asia local languages
have been adopted for government, technical, educational and cultural activities. In
consequence, the official languages of the colonial periods have been displaced.
However, this does not prevent many other local languages being relegated.

ALTERNATIVES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF LANGUAGES:

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE LINGUASPHERE OBSERVATORY

The Linguasphere Observatory was created in 1983 as a transnational network

for the study and promotion of multilingualism, developed since 1997 around
its website www.linguasphere.org. The Observatory recognises the linguasphere
as a dynamic continuum of spoken and written languages, developed and
extended around the planet by humankind as its greatest and most collective
creation, from the first palaeolithic speech-communities of hunter-gatherers to
The Threats to Languages 231

the electronic global society of today. This perspective on language is presented

in the Observatory’s 2-volume Linguasphere Register (David Dalby 2000), the first
comprehensive classification of over 22,000 modern languages and dialects, and
of over 71,000 linguistic and ethnic names. This new work of reference includes
an introduction to the linguasphere and its classification, a bibliography, a
lexicon of new terms, statistical tables and a diagrammatic map.
Every living language deserves to be viewed and developed as an integral part
of the linguasphere, as an active component in the dynamics of global communi-
cation. Central to the working of the linguasphere are 12 megalanguages (these
are: Arabic, Bengali, Chinese (Mandarin), English, French, German, Hindi-Urdu,
Japanese, Malay-Indonesian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish; see Dalby 2000),
each comprising over 100 million speakers. In contrast, more than one thousand
endangered languages comprise less than 1000 speakers each, with infant
learners outnumbered by older speakers dying. Many of these fragile speech-
communities – in the Americas, Eurasia, Africa and Australasia – were or still are
hunter-gatherers, as were the earliest founders of the linguasphere. Between the
two extremes are the majority of the world’s modern languages and dialects,
whose future depends on global strategies of communication and education.
In today’s era of worldwide electronic communication, the maintenance of
humankind’s diversity of expression requires the promotion of multilingualism
in all speech-communities. The co-ordinated development of all living and
evolving languages is more appropriate to an increasingly transnational society
than the protection of individual languages as isolated and static systems.
The Linguasphere Observatory has proposed the following four strategic
points in the development of multilingual education in the 21st century, both in
and out of school:
• access to two or more languages and cultures should be the right of each boy
and each girl in every speech-community, including the language(s) of that
community and at least one megalanguage;
• the world’s linguistic and cultural diversity should be presented to children as
the shared heritage of humankind: “each language belongs to all who learn it”;
• day-to-day life and culture in all speech-communities should be extensively
video-recorded as a global educational project, and sub-titled in at least one
megalanguage;
• literary and dramatic creativity should be encouraged among the boys and girls
of every speech-community, together with skills of self-expression, translation
and interpretation: “in the galaxy of languages, the voice of each person is a star”.
David Dalby
Linguasphere Observatory, United Kingdom
232 Words and Worlds

In terms of the political causes generating a threat to languages, the first factor in the
action of states refers to the official status each one grants to the language spoken in
its territory. Political factors manifest themselves from the expansions described
above to those that materialise in the use of languages in all public services – that is, in
the administration itself, at school, in the health services and the media.
In other sections of this Review a more detailed study has been made of these
areas of use and their influence in the use of languages. Here, though, we want to
provide the information supplied by those affected with reference to actions of a
political nature.
The lack of institutional support for a language can take many forms: from the
express prohibition to use the language, which would be an extreme situation, to a
subtler lack of support which can take the form, for example, of not complying with
existing legislation. The following is a list of the aspects mentioned by informants:
absence of any form of official status or recognition of linguistic rights; express prohi-
bition of using the language; absence of the language in the media, at school and in
the administration; and the absence of linguistic policies in favour of preserving the
linguistic heritage.
The lack of support in the sphere of education and even the express prohibition of
using certain languages in schools is often mentioned in the informants’ observations.
This is the case, for example, of the Yeyi language of Botswana, where according to
our informant, “The government today prohibits the use of any language other than
English or Tswana. The government banned the use of the languages that were taught
in schools before independence. Yeyi was banned and the people who developed its
spelling were imprisoned.”
The consequence of the absence of institutional support is that the language
becomes excluded from public life. This exclusion also affects the media, a sphere
which is considered by some informants to be a source of danger for the language,
either because the language itself is not present in them or because they are used to
spread the dominant language.

Demographic factors
It seems obvious that languages with many speakers have more chances of surviving
than those with few speakers. In this respect, it is important to remember that 96% of
the world’s population speaks only 4% of the world’s languages and that 55% of
languages have fewer than 10,000 speakers. Furthermore, the eight most widespread
languages are spoken by more than 2,400 million people.
Nevertheless, the fact that a language has a large number of speakers is not enough
to ensure its survival. It is enough for some especially virulent action from outside to
come at some moment in history for the community to decide to adopt a new
language. Grinevald (1998) reports, for example, that Quechua, an indigenous
language spoken in the Andes Mountains by a population of from 8 to 12.5 million
people, “has no guarantee of survival in many areas, in spite of the projects under
The Threats to Languages 233

way for planning the corpus. There must be planning of the status to counter the
pressure from Spanish in socio-economic incentives.”
The theory of ethno-linguistic vitality put forward in 1977 by Giles, Bourhis and
Taylor proposes different variables of the language to be taken into account. The
factors involved are related to the community’s economic, social and historical status,
as well as the status of the language itself. It proposes taking into account demo-
graphic variables referring to the distribution of speakers in the territory (the concen-
tration and proportion of speakers of the language), absolute and relative numbers,
mixed marriages and migrations (immigration and emigration). Finally, it proposes
taking into account institutional support (or its absence) in official spheres (presence
of the language in the administrative services, schools, media) and unofficial spheres
(areas of work, religion and culture).
Amongst the various external factors to be considered, here stress will be put on the
analysis of the demographic factors to be found in the societies with languages in
contact. It is very significant that demographic factors, accounting for 27%, are the
second group of factors most mentioned as a source of danger to the language.
Along with the absolute number of speakers of the language, their proportion with
respect to the total population occupying the region in which it is spoken also has a
decisive influence. Indeed, if contact between languages with different economic
statuses comes about through demographic invasion, it will be much more difficult
for the members of the local community to maintain their language. Even when the
language enjoys official status, population figures could prevent this official status
from being effective. This is the case, for example, of Balkar, whose informant says
that “the small percentage of Balkars in the republic (9.4%) does not allow full reali-
sation of the language’s status as a state language”. However, if the contact occurs
exclusively amongst the elites, it is likely that the community will be able to maintain
its own language, at least for a time.
But it is also true that small communities have managed to keep themselves safe
from economically and politically more aggressive cultures. These are languages that
are “viable but small”, in the words used by Kinkade (1991), which are spoken in
“isolated communities or communities with a strong internal organisation, who are
aware that their language is a distinctive feature that reinforces their identity”. We can
offer the account by the informant for Tanimuka, a language spoken in the Amazon by
some 600 people which seems to have great vitality, amongst other reasons thanks to
the fact that “there are strong settlements, though they are not big, which are quite
remote, in the forest. The danger lies in the fact that people are beginning to migrate
and come down close to the white population of the Caquetá River.”
The effect of mixed marriages between linguistic communities of different social
status is also decisive. Though it may not be a direct or necessary consequence, it is
extremely usual for the language that is transmitted to the new generation to be the
one with the higher economic and social status, in detriment, of course, of the less
favoured language. The example of Sorbian, a Slavonic language spoken in Germany
by about 50,000 people, could illustrate this: “Unfortunately, in many Sorbian-German
234 Words and Worlds

marriages (and also in Sorbian-Sorbian marriages), the parents do not pass on their
mother tongue (Sorbian) to their children. Many parents think it is difficult for their
children to learn two languages from the start and they reject Sorbian because they
think German is the more important and useful language”. The factor that could
change this tendency is the feeling of family or group identification, which could lead
to its being passed on along with the more dominant language.
The drop in the birth rate and the aging of the population are further factors whose
effect is alarming. These factors, along with the effects of mixed marriages mentioned
above amount to a total of 17% of the risk factors mentioned by our informants.
Migratory movements are another of the most influential demographic factors,
whether caused by economic reasons or others. Although throughout history we
know of tragic forced displacements of whole populations (we need only remember
the dark age of the slave trade between Africa and America), the nineteenth and espe-
cially the twentieth centuries were characterised by the extreme cruelty and abun-
dance of these displacements. The industrialisation of the nineteenth century
produced massive migration of whole populations to the main economic centres and
the twentieth century has witnessed mass migrations due partly to rapid urban
development and partly to endless wars, armed conflicts, forced deportations and
displacements for economic purposes, which have lead to the collapse of society in
large parts of the world.
Indeed, the migration factor deserves a special mention, as it constantly arises as
the cause of the threat to languages. In fact, the phenomenon of migrations is a trans-
verse issue, as they are caused for political and military reasons as well as for
economic reasons. These migrations are mentioned as a chief cause of danger to the
language in 10% of the answers to the survey, although they do not necessarily
involve the loss of the language for the affected group. This can happen, though, and
this is why it is given special prominence in this chapter on risk factors and threats.
For example, it has been seen that the various migrations and displacements to
cities are amongst the causes of the interruption of intergenerational transmission
usually pointed out by informants. In several cases these displacements are asso-
ciated with a change in lifestyle. Although the behaviour of immigrant communities
varies according to their vitality, if the receiving community has a language of greater
prestige, the general trend seems to be towards the loss of the language in the third
generation of immigrants.
Analysing the factors that lead populations to migrate is complicated. We need
only remember that the number of displacements as a result of armed conflicts,
according to the Report for the year 2000 by UNHCR (United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees) was of 22.3 million people, of which 18.3% correspond
to internal displacements and more than 52% to refugees. It is obvious that, apart
from the human tragedy involved in such a situation, maintaining social and group
structures will be very difficult and it is foreseeable that many will have their chances
of survival as linguistic communities seriously reduced.
The Threats to Languages 235

LANGUAGE DIVERSITY IN CHINA

According to historical records, the many minority communities in China

today were already living within the vast geographical territory of Mainland
China at least 3,000 years ago. However, due to contact and alliances between
ancient tribes and peoples, assimilation gradually occurred between these
numerous languages to form smaller language groups. Only those minority
languages and cultures with fewer external contacts and which had formed
fewer alliances with other tribes were able to preserve their languages more
completely. Ever since China adopted a centralised system of government with
the Han as the main ethnic group, the sphere of influence of the Han Chinese
people has continued to spread. The assimilation of many surrounding groups
led to a rapid increase in the Han population. Those groups which were not
assimilated became the ethnic minorities of today, retaining their own
languages and cultures.
Viewed from both historical and present perspectives, the Han Chinese and the
55 ethnic minorities of China are integral parts of the Chinese people. The
diversity and plurality of both the affiliations and typologies of their languages
and cultures are distinctive features of the ethnic minorities of China. Their
extensive representation in both human history and geographical territory fully
reflects man’s creativity, and represents an unalienable contribution to the rich
fabric of man’s linguistic and cultural heritage. The profound mysteries and
creative genius contained in the world’s languages and cultures cannot be
adequately described by those in existence today, nor can they be comprehen-
sively explained by current knowledge systems. With respect to Chinese minority
languages and cultures, many phonological, grammatical and lexical forms as
well as behavioural norms and value systems exist which are different from those
of “more dominant” languages and cultures. These rich and diverse linguistic
categories and cultural forms tend to be prevalent in those non-material cultures
belonging to smaller ethnic groups which may be on the verge of extinction.
Due to a variety of reasons, the total numbers of minority languages and
cultures, as well as their social functions, have decreased rapidly over the past
few decades. This has led to some very evident negative effects: a gradual
decrease in human linguistic and cultural resources; a narrowing of the leben-
sraum for such cultures; insurmountable conflicts and difficulties for those
minority groups who have had to adapt to life in today’s global village; and an
inevitable deterioration in the socio-cultural environment, the sustainable
development of which depends on diversity.
Man needs to have a rational knowledge of himself, and must bear responsi-
bility for his own history and future. Viewed from this perspective, the recording,
236 Words and Worlds

preservation, and to a certain extent, revival of endangered languages constitutes

an important task towards maintaining global diversity. This task is especially
urgent for endangered languages which are fast approaching extinction and
which do not have writing systems.
Over 100 different minority languages are spoken in China, including the
many Austronesian languages of the Gaoshan people in Taiwan. The current
usage situation of the languages in China is as follows: 7 languages have 100 or
fewer speakers; 15 have a hundred to a thousand speakers; 41 have one to ten
thousand speakers; 34 have ten to a hundred thousand speakers; 17 have a
hundred thousand to a million speakers; 10 have one to ten million speakers;
while 2 languages are spoken by over 10 million people. Of the above
languages, those 20 or so minority languages with fewer than 1,000 speakers are
on the verge of extinction.
The richness of a culture is contained within its language, which captures the
essence of the traditional culture and experiences of its speakers. This is espe-
cially so for unwritten languages or languages whose writing systems are rela-
tively undeveloped. The knowledge and experiences of a community are
contained within their language, and depend on language for their transmission
from generation to generation. Therefore, the gradual disappearance of the
language of an ethnic community is an irreplaceable loss, and also represents a
loss of our common human heritage. Linguistic and cultural diversity are
necessary for the richness and colour of our world.
From a purely linguistic perspective, the rich linguistic resources of China are
extremely valuable for the development of linguistics in China. The richer the
linguistic resources, the greater is the potential for development. At present,
many “small” language groups have still not been subjected to in-depth investi-
gations. Although these languages have very few speakers, their academic
value is high. Many have retained older features found in languages of the Sino-
Tibetan and Altaic language phyla, the majority of which are found in China.
Therefore, the recording and preservation of data from languages on the verge
of extinction are important and urgent tasks in the development of linguistics in
China, and are also fundamental to minority language research. The completion
of these tasks can also promote the development of research in descriptive
linguistics, historical comparative linguistics, typological linguistics, and even
ancient writing systems. This kind of research is also helpful in the in-depth
study of historical relationships between different ethnic groups in China, in
order to improve our understanding of the complexity of our “diverse yet
united” country. This will enable better implementation of work among the
minorities, and will also be extremely beneficial to the promotion and devel-
opment of unity and progress among the different ethnic groups of China.
The Threats to Languages 237

Language is an important distinguishing feature of every ethnic group in

China, and every minority has a special affinity for their own language and
writing. The disappearance of “weak” languages has already aroused the concern
of minority communities, who have appealed to the government for preservation
and salvage of their languages. Investigation and research of “weak” languages
can therefore fulfil their expectations to a certain extent, and are also in accordance
with the language policies and programmes of the government.
The speakers of endangered languages are deeply dependent on their mother
tongues for the continuous creation and re-creation of cultural symbols. Only
through their own languages can they discover a vigorous subjectivity,
promoting social interaction, communication, and sustainable development.
Through the identification and investigation of minority languages which are
based on a reliable foundations, the relevant departments concerned with
ethnic affairs, education, and culture can formulate developmental plans and
implementation strategies for different areas.
Sun Hongkai & Huang Xing
Academic Society for the Minority Languages of China & Institute of
Nationality Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China

See Map 13 showing language diversity in China.

Economic and social causes

Researchers stress the importance of economic and social factors for people who
speak a language that is in contact with that of an economically and socially more
powerful community.
Amongst the economic causes can be included changes in economic systems,
economic crises, poverty, economic subordination, indebtedness of the population,
loss of land ownership, land shortage, the drop in living standards, economic
exploitation of the local community and unemployment. In the framework of our
research, it is worth mentioning that 16% of answers regarding the causes of danger
are based on situations of this type. We come across striking ideas such as the one that
associates certain ways of life with certain languages, so that some communities are
forced to adopt a new language if they hope to become integrated into more advanta-
geous situations. It is significant that terms like modernity, progress or economic
development are associated with dominant languages and, on the other hand, certain
languages and cultures are linked to terms such as “traditional”, “rural”, “ethnic” or
“group”, which carry negative associations.
We could single out the example of Jaru, an Australian language spoken by about
200 people, who have suffered the seizure of their land and massacres and who have
238 Words and Worlds

no chance of working without emigrating out of their territory, or of Sindhi, whose

speakers “are refused jobs and other opportunities because of their language”.
When a language is seen by its speakers as obsolete and of no use for social
improvement, feelings of inferiority surface. Furthermore, if an economic elite
emerges within the community that imitates the outsiders’ behaviour, the need for
change is even more strongly felt. All of this leads a community to change its culture
in favour of a foreign one that is more influential and more powerful. These are
phenomena of acculturation.
Usually, these processes tend to go hand in hand with a decline in rural life, the
abandonment of traditional activities and the adoption of new habits. As a result,
there is a loss of prestige of the language that can lead directly to its death. In fact, it is
not just a loss of prestige for the language, but a loss of prestige for the whole
community and its culture, so that all the community’s local expressions will grad-
ually be relegated to restricted spheres, and with them, particularly, the language
itself. All of this will influence the decision not to pass it on to their descendants. The
interruption of transmission is a direct cause of the death of languages, but itself is the
result of two factors we are analysing in this section.
The process of acculturation tends to go through three stages:

(1) It begins with the political, economic or social pressure exerted by people who
speak the dominant language and can be either explicit and coercive or else
underlie subtler pressures. Gradually it takes the form of hints of socio-cultural
changes which include modernisation, land development, modernisation of the
educational system, the influence of other cultures, the influence of religion, the
lack of cultural autonomy, assimilation or loss of cultural identity, subordination,
loss of prestige and social discrimination, marginalisation and social degra-
dation, as well as degradation of traditional living conditions.
(2) The result is a period of bilingualism, which forms the second stage of the
process. In principle, people acquire the new language without losing compe-
tence in their original language. However, this bilingualism begins to decline as
the original language gives way in the more prestigious spheres of use, the ones
that suggest social or economic improvement. Unequal bilingualism develops,
characterised by the gradual shift in the spheres in which language is used, until
it is totally assimilated. Accounts of these situations reflect over and over again
that speakers of minority languages constantly feel the pressure of the other
language, first through the public spheres (school, media and government
services), and then in the private sphere of family relations.
The Yerava language, spoken in India, “is being replaced by more widespread
languages like Kodagu and Kannada. The community were once slaves and most
of them now work in forestry or in coffee plantations. It is under threat because it
is not seen as suitable for work. It is a ‘language for the home, only used in this
domain or field’”.
The Threats to Languages 239

(3) When identification with the new language becomes widespread in the younger
generations and the original language is no longer necessary because it does not
respond to the new needs and can even be a cause of stigmatisation, the third
stage of the process is complete. This sequence of events tends to be accompanied
by a feeling of shame over the use of their old language on the part both of
parents and children.
The informants frequently mentioned that a dangerous situation arises through
the existence of bilingualism. In fact, the supposedly monolingual state model
spread by the colonial countries, as well as the generalisation of the monolingual
school as a quality educational model, have both struck deep. However, many
communities are bilingual or plurilingual by cultural tradition, and if this feature
is properly managed it can become a factor allowing the survival of languages
without loss of communicating capacity on the part of the communities.

Physical aggression
It has been possible to confirm that in addition to the existence of situations of
extreme injustice affecting languages, these languages are also affected by the
aggression to which the actual linguistic communities are subjected. The actual
speakers of the communities have mentioned physical aggressions as factors threat-
ening their language in 8% of cases.
Physical causes are often responsible for the drastic disappearance of the speakers
as a group. These are the most dramatic situations, on which all sorts of reflections
can be made, as examples are available affecting just about every part of the world.
They can be causes we could call natural, such as seismic movements, floods and
prolonged drought. Examples of this are the collapse of Mount Barba-Bassari in Togo,
which according to our informant wiped out a large part of the population of the
Bassar community, the great famine in Ireland in 1848, and the prolonged drought in
several African countries during the twentieth century.
But as well as natural disasters, avoidable factors such as the destruction of the
habitat by economically more powerful foreign communities or companies, and
others, pose a serious threat. Understandably, the effects of these aggressions can
hardly be classed as natural. We must remember that one of the most important causes
of the drastic reduction in the indigenous population during the Spanish colonisation
of America was death from epidemics of diseases which the colonisers introduced into
regions where they were unknown. We are also familiar with external aggressions of
this type in Africa, such as the smallpox epidemic of 1713, which affected the Nama
community in South Africa. Today, the effects of illnesses that can be easily eradicated
in the West, such as tuberculosis, or are at least relatively easy to control, such as AIDS,
pose an unprecedented physical threat in several parts of Africa and Asia.
The physical integrity of communities is also affected by the impoverishment,
social disintegration and marginalisation arising when these groups are forcibly
displaced due to economic causes such as migrations from the country to the city,
240 Words and Worlds

deforestation, new forms of slavery through the hiring of cheap labour, prostitution,
etc., or from political causes such as deportations and border conflicts.
Direct action and aggression against people have dramatically taken place in
history and still take place today. Examples of important aggressions are those
mentioned, for example, by Lastra (2000) in reference to the murder of natives in El
Salvador in 1932, where the death of 25,000 natives meant the disappearance of all the
speakers of Lenca and of Cacaopera and the almost complete extinction of Pipil.
About this event, the informant on Cacaopera for our research adds that “as a result
of this massacre, most cultural values, including the language, were cast into oblivion
in order to safeguard the natives’ lives”. There are many accounts of aggressions,
such as those carried out by the rubber tapping companies in the Amazon, on which
the informant for Uitot tells us that “the Uitotos, as well as other ethnic groups of the
Colombian Amazon region, suffered the atrocities perpetrated by logging companies
at the beginning of the twentieth century. Many died, others fled from their original
homeland. One large group of Uitotos was taken to Peru as forced labour”.
In short, from the figures gathered we can estimate that a prime danger for the
languages of communities today is based on physical aggression to people in at least
8% of the communities analysed.

LANGUAGES OF NEPAL

There are over one hundred languages and dialects in Nepal. Ethnologue (Grimes,
2000) lists 125 languages including one Nepali sign language). The Population
Census of Nepal 2001 reported 92 languages spoken in Nepal as mother tongues.
In addition to these, some languages were lumped together as ‘unidentified’.
These languages belong to four families such as Indo-European spoken by
79.1%, Sino-Tibetan spoken by 18.4%, Austro-Asiatic by 0.2%, Dravidian by 0.1%
and unidentified 2.2%. The UNESCO Language Survey Report for Nepal has
counted only 60 languages spoken in Nepal. Out of these 11 are Indo-Aryan, 46
are Tibeto-Burman, 1 Dravidian, 1 Austro-Asiatic and 1 Kusunda (Toba, et al.,
2002). According to the census of 2001 sixteen languages have more than 100,000
speakers. These are Nepali, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Tharu, Bajjika, Hindi,
Urdu, and Rabamshi of the Indo-Aryan group of Indo-European family and
Tamang, Newari, Magar. Bantawa, Limbu, Gurung and Sherpa of the Tibeto-
Burman family. In addition to these, there are other Indo-Aryan languages such
as Danuwar, Darai, Bote, Majhi, Kumale and Angika, which are spoken by a
small number of people in Nepal. Major languages of India like Hindi and Urdu
are used by educated elites in Nepal Terai. In everyday inter-personal communi-
cation they use Nepali and other Indo-Aryan languages of their locality. Other
major languages of India, such as Bengali, Marwadi, Punjabi, Oriya, Sindhi,
The Threats to Languages 241

Hariyanwi, Magahi and Assamese are spoken by a small number of people in

Nepal. Some speakers of Sanskrit and English languages are also reported.
A large number of languages spoken in Nepal belong to Tibeto-Burman
group of the Sino-Tibetan family. The languages such as Humli Tamang, Khan,
Karmarong, Mugali, Dolpo, Rengpungmo, Tichurong, Lopa, Nar-Phu, Kag,
Gyasundo, Sum or Sung, Nubri, Namsrung or Larke, Prok, Sama, Kutang
Bhote, Kyorung, Hyolmo, Jirel, Kagate, Lhomi, Naba, Walung, Halung, Kachad
and Lamtang are closer to Tibetan and are spoken by different small groups in
the Himalayan region (Bradley, 1997). Some of them are considered dialects of
Tibetan. There are some emigrant speakers of Lhasa Tibetan who are also
bilingual in Nepali. Various languages of the central hill region fall under the
Tamang-Gurung-Thakali sub-group such as Thakali, Chantel, Managwa, Ghale,
Kaike and Dura.
Other Tibeto-Burman languages of the southern slopes of the Himalayas are
divided into three sub-groups. (a) The West Himalayish languages such as
Byangsi, Chaudangsi, Darmiya, Jangali or Rawat and Rankas are spoken in the
western border area of Nepal. Thami, and Bhramu of this sub-group are spoken
in the west and east of the Kathmandu valley respectively. (b) The Central
Himalayish languages like Newar, Pahari, Chepang, Bhujel, Kham, Raute and
Raji are spoken in the western and central hills of Nepal. (c) The Eastern
Himalayish languages are also known as Kiranti languages. They are again clas-
sified into three sub-groups: Central Kiranti such as Bantawa, Puma, Chamling,
Meohang, Sam, Kulung, Chukwa, Pohing, Nachhering, Dimali, Sangpang,
Dungmali, Khesang, Waling; Eastern Kiranti such as Athapahare, Belhare,
Chhiling, Chhulung, Chintang, Mugali, Pangduwali, Limbu, Yakkha; and
Western Kiranti such as Yamphe, Yamphu, Umbule, Jerung, Thulung, Limkhim,
Bahing, Sunwar, Surel, Khaling, Dumi, Koi, Hayu and Tillung. Dhimal and
Meche languages, spoken in the eastern Terai and Lepcha in the eastern hills are
also Tibeto-Burman languages. In addition to these, there are also small number
of people speaking various major Tibeto-Burman Languages of different neigh-
bouring countries. Santhali, Munda and Khadiya are the languages of Munda
group of the Austro-Asiatic family and Dhangar/Jhangar and Kisan are the
languages of Dravidian family spoken in the eastern Terai. Nepali, Maithili,
Newari, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Hindi and Rajbamshi languages with their written
traditions use the Devanagari script for writing and publications. Tibetan,
Limbu and Lepcha also have their own scripts. Arabic script is used to write
Urdu language. Various unwritten languages have adapted Devanagari script
for writing and publication.
Nepali is the official language used in administration, communication and
education, and is spoken by 48.60% of the total population as their mother
242 Words and Worlds

tongue and by others as their second language. Linguistic studies of some of the
languages have been undertaken and the major languages are also used in radio
broadcasts and print media. Sanskrit and Tibetan occupy important positions as
languages of the Hindu and Buddhist religions. Nepali Sign Language has been
developed recently for the use of deaf people, and is reported for the first time in
the national census of 2001 as well.
Some of the languages spoken by a small number of people are already
extinct and some other languages are on the verge of extinction. Many of them
are not well described. A comparative study of Nepalese census figures for the
last five decades (1954–2001) show a gradual decrease in the number of speakers
and many of the languages have already disappeared.
It has already been reported that some languages of Nepal are extinct or
nearly extinct. Many of the languages spoken by less than 10,000 are threatened
or endangered. They are some Indo-Aryan languages like Kumal and Bote, and
many Tibeto-Burman languages like Khaling, Thakali, Chantel, Dumi, Jirel,
Umbule, Yolmo, Nachiring, Dura, Meche, Pahari, Lapche, Bahing, Koyu, Raji,
Hayu, Byangshi, Yamphu, Ghale, Chiling, Lohrung, Mewahang, Kaike, Raute,
Baram, Tilung, Jerung, Dungmali, Linkhim, Koche, Sam, Kagate and Chintang.
An unclassified language called Kusunda is also nearing extinction.
There are several reasons for language endangerment and extinction.
Speakers of various languages have been using Nepali as a contact language for
more than five hundred years. The space and domain of the use of Nepali have
been constantly extending. As a language of basic literacy, education, adminis-
tration and everyday communication, people of various linguistic backgrounds
have been using Nepali as their second language and many of them have shifted
to Nepali. Similarly, many of the linguistic groups without written traditions of
their own, have learnt to read and write the Nepali language. Opportunities for
livelihood, better jobs and social integration have motivated a shift to Nepali.
Urbanisation, migration or change of habitat was another reason of language
loss. Speakers of various languages shifted to Nepali or other major languages
after they migrated to new places with a new linguistic and cultural envi-
ronment. The school children use the Nepali language as a medium of
education and socialisation in early childhood and children in some linguistic
communities are not carrying the mother tongues of their parents. Lack of
awareness for language maintenance in some linguistic communities is another
cause of language loss.
Thus there are several factors for language endangerment and death.
Language shift, growth of education in Nepali and English mediums, extension
of literacy in Nepali, wider contacts and constant use of Nepali and other major
languages in communication media, assimilation of small groups in dominant
The Threats to Languages 243

linguistic groups, migration and change of habitat, urbanisation, natural

calamities and diseases have caused several languages to be put on the verge of
extinction and into an endangered situation.
References
Bradley, David (1997) “Tibeto-Burman Languages and Classification”, Pacific
Linguistics, pp. 1–72.
Grimes, Barbara (2000) Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas, Texas: SIL.
Toba, S. et al. (2002) UNESCO Language Survey Report: Nepal. Kathmandu:
UNESCO.
Yadava, Yogendra (2003) “Language”, in Population Monograph of Nepal, Chapter
4, Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics.
Chura Mani Bandhu
Tribhuvan University, Nepal

In view of all this, it is surprising to find that an enormous number of languages are
still spoken in spite of centuries and even millennia of aggressive contact with other
languages. One might remember the conscious tenacity of communities like the
indigenous North Americans, relegated to isolated reserves in the midst of the most
powerful community in the world; the natives of the Amazon, faced by physical and
cultural aggression on an inhuman scale; the Australian Aborigines, relegated to the
rank of second-class citizens; or communities that hold out against linguistic change
in contact with expanding languages like English, French or Spanish, such as the
Celtic languages (Breton, Welsh, Scots and Irish Gaelic, Cornish), spoken in regions
under Anglophone or Francophone domination. The tenacity and persistence of these
communities in the face of outside aggression is admirable.
Nevertheless, as Crystal (2000) says, the present situation of danger is one without
precedent: “The world has never been so populated, globalisation processes have
never been so omnipresent and never before has English had so much influence”, so
that the need to take corrective measures on a large scale seems obvious.

WHAT DO YOU LOSE WHEN YOU LOSE YOUR LANGUAGE?

The public at large greatly underestimates the “value” of the little languages
scattered here, there and everywhere around the globe. How could their
extinction make much difference to their own speakers, the public asks, much
less to humanity as a whole? Those languages are so tiny and so ineffective in
244 Words and Worlds

accessing the major material rewards of the modern world, that what possible
difference could it make to anyone whether they live or die? On the other hand,
some language-oriented scholars and activists commit the opposite error and
try to substitute language determinism for language dismissal. The loss of even
the tiniest language is considered a world-shattering cataclysm, not only for its
erstwhile speech-community but for humanity at large, which will remain (they
claim) forever devastated as a result of that loss. However, exaggeration is not
necessary to make the point: linguicide, like genocide is a major human tragedy.
It is an evil that diminishes us all and that civilised and ethically sensitised
peoples must struggle to overcome, whether it occurs in their vicinity or half
way around the world.
The indexical relationship between a language and its culture
In order to answer the question posed in the title to these remarks, we must first
consider how a language is related to culture. It is the business of cultures to be
“different”. This self-declared “difference” is experienced by the members of a
culture as uniqueness and as authenticity. Each language is indexically related
(“calibrated”, if you like) to the specifically characteristic objects, values,
concerns, kinship relations, interpersonal roles (rights and obligations) and
environmental features (natural resources, flora and fauna) that its speakers
recognise and that make up their traditionally associated cultural distinc-
tiveness. The seamless fit between a language and its associated daily culture,
its unique and authentic world, is one of the characteristics of life that get lost
when a culture loses its language. Its erstwhile speakers become a human
aggregate that is no longer quite sure exactly what terms to use. An entire popu-
lation thrust into a second language is an insecure population for an entire
generation or more. The “goodness of fit” that previously existed between
thought, language and culture is gone and remains absent until the replacement
language and the modified culture have themselves co-existed and co-
performed long enough and intimately enough in the bereft population to fit
together effortlessly and intergenerationally on their own.
So what do you lose when you (the collective “you”) lose your language?
You lose the ease of navigational certainty in daily life, both personally and
collectively. Many customary and needed terms, phrases and speech events are
no longer operational and many of those that remain feel somewhat strange
and inappropriate in their new settings and with a new language-context in
which to be implemented. New words and phrases ultimately replace the old
ones, but in doing so, the old speech events are no longer what they are. They
are only approximations of their former selves, their exact meanings and even
consensual understandings are uncertain and unshared. When “things fall
apart”, twilight zones replace previous fine-grained certainties until new
The Threats to Languages 245

shared congruencies arise. Even then, the original home is never rebuilt or
reoccupied. In a very fundamental sense, one never again returns to the
original home, with all of its historically meaningful, culturally familiar and
societally distinctive contexts.
Language and culture are symbolically related
Language is the major symbol system of the human species. As such, it is only
natural that a given language should symbolise the particular speech
community with which it has long been intimately associated. We recognise in
it that the community’s very own intelligence, its humour, its propensity for
musicality, its exactness and methodicalness, its originality, sobriety and
honesty, its distinctiveness and its self-recognition. In our own language we
see reflected our history, our major literary creations, our heroes and martyrs,
our generations upon generation of mothers and fathers and assorted kinfolk
(real or putative), the voices of the past and the promises of the future. Our
minds are culturally fashioned so as to discern attributes in our language of
everything that it is theirs. And when we lose our language we lose an entire
world of seemingly automatic and immediate symbolic associations with the
history and attainments of our own slice of humanity; in other words our own
self-concept becomes altered thereby. The turns of phrase that were part and
parcel of the patrimony inherited from gifted kinfolk, historical events,
triumphs of the mind, or ascents to God per se, exist no more, and it will take
untold time for a successor language to develop new ones that are as rich in
symbolic value for anywhere near as many members of the speech
community. The shared symbols associated with a language are the shared
sinews of community and of group identity. That is part of what you lose
when you lose your language.
To a very large extent the language is the culture
We make a huge mistake when we assume that language and culture are as
separate as the two words are. Most of culture is so thoroughly interpenetrated
by its traditionally associated language that the culture without that language
would not be, could not be, “the same”. The body of law, the prayers and cere-
monies, the songs, the proverbs, the folktales, the education, the greetings, the
blessings, the curses, the jokes, the literature…all of these are in and through a
given language (and only in that language) for a given culture.
Of course all of these language-dependent desiderata can be translated,
after a fashion, but a translated culture is not the same at all as the original. It
is like “kissing one’s beloved through a veil”: it does not have the same feel,
the same aroma, the same reality. No culture has ever been fully or success-
fully translated, because languages are not simply interchangeble parts. The
246 Words and Worlds

continuity of group identity labels is a facade that masks huge underlying

differences in every aspect of daily life when the language traditionally asso-
ciated with that label is lost and replaced by another language. Life goes on,
but its ethos changes. Its access to its own roots is blocked. Its claim to natural
authenticity is forfeited for generations to come, while overcoming a gener-
ation gap preoccupies an entire collectivity. A new pattern of communica-
tional ease, continuity in identity and cultural authenticity will ultimately
arise, but things will never again be as they were before the rupture occurred
or before “things fell apart”. That is what is lost when a culture loses its
language – it loses a great part of itself.
Conclusions
Throughout human history thousands of languages have been lost. Most of
these languages hace died unmourned because they (their speakers and their
cultures) were exterminated and there was no one left to mourn them. Many
died because they were so grievously dislocated by competitors, conquerors,
missionaries and tourists. But “survival of the fittest” is, after all, a law of the
jungle. Many small languages cannot remain in good health if left to their own
devices in today’s globalisation process. Yet their cultures have other and far
more humane virtues that do Wallmart or Coca Cola. Therefore, we must make
the world safe for the small languages too, by helping them and treasuring
them, for our own sake (if not for theirs). A world that is safe only for a few giant
languages is not even a “zero-sum game” with some winners and some losers. It
is a “lose-game” (a game in which all players lose), because a culturally
denuded human environment is also an environment in which all other life
forms become imperiled. That is why we all lose when “other people’s
languages” are lost. We must call a halt to linguicide, anywhere in the world,
because it is really a form of suicide for us all. Some of the actual and some of the
potential beauty in our own lives is what we lose when a language is lost
anywhere in the world. Knowing that, it is doubly cruel and senseless for us to
permit such losses to go on. They need and deserve our sympathy, our under-
standing and our help.
Joshua A. Fishman
Yeshiva University and Stanford University, USA
The Threats to Languages 247

The threats to languages: recommendations

Due to the many factors threatening the universal linguistic heritage, with a direct
effect on the decline and death of many languages and cultures,

• It is recommended that an international programme be prepared that is

dynamic and open to all linguistic communities and to the world civil
society, with the collaboration of specialised Non Governmental
Organisations. The chief purpose of this programme, independently of any
government, political ideology, economic interest or religious creed, would
be to research, monitor and denounce situations posing a threat to
languages. It could make specific regular reviews to alert world public
opinion and act as proxy before officials of the public and private institutions
involved. Furthermore, it could initiate specific actions to further the interna-
tional prestige, use and knowledge of minority or endangered languages.
• Any kind of pressure on differentiated linguistic communities to abandon
their language or culture in favour of the exclusive use of the official
language(s) must be avoided. In this respect, the authorities should facilitate
the use of the languages spoken in their territory in every sphere of social
activity pertaining to them – that is, in relations with the administration, in
teaching, in the media and in political life.
• It is important to plan for the use of all languages in their area in the social
spheres relevant to their administration, with the object of preserving them
and developing them, so long, of course, as the wishes and the decisions of
the linguistic communities involved are respected.
• Suitable measures must be urgently taken to prevent large-scale population
movements that threaten the future of the language of the emigrants as well
as that of the locals in the target area. In those cases where these population
movements are unavoidable or have already taken place, measures must be
taken to preserve the languages and avoid their substitution.
• States with internationally established languages that plan to spread under-
standing of them should be urged to respect the languages of those to whom
they intend to teach a new one. The large institutions that promote interna-
tional development of English, French, Spanish or any other language
should also finance the development of endangered languages and facil-
itate world-wide study of all the languages spoken in their states, not just
the official language.
• In addition, it is essential to act immediately to try and preserve languages
that have very few speakers, always, of course, in coordination with the local
authorities and the affected linguistic communities. An effort should be
made to gather all the documentation necessary and provide every possible
248 Words and Worlds

means, always, of course, respecting the decisions of individuals, so that the

language is passed on by the last speakers to the younger generation in the
community or the area. In these situations it would also be necessary to pool
all the efforts being made in different parts of the planet and get the affected
communities, scientists, universities and institutions involved in the issue to
plan the recovery of these languages, backed by the financial and human
resources needed to carry this out.
• Furthermore, any discrimination of linguistic communities on political,
social, economic, cultural, religious or any other grounds must be prevented.
Special attention must be paid to the rejection of discrimination on the basis
that the language has not reached the right level of development, moderni-
sation or codification, and,
• The proclamation and publication by all the governments of the world of a
charter recognising linguistic rights, recognising that these form part of
human rights and defending their protection all over the planet. This should
be an international convention with financial and juridical resources to guar-
antee its effective implementation.
Chapter 12
The Future of Languages
This chapter synthesises the main findings of the previous chapters and includes
some thoughts concerning the future of the languages

1. Main findings and recommendations

1.1. Introduction
The original idea behind this Review was to get a better understanding of the situ-
ation of the languages of the world and to try to provide guidelines for action for the
preservation of linguistic diversity. In this final section we shall be going back over
the alternatives proposed as regards the fundamental spheres for action in favour of
language use, such as education, writing and the media. At the same time, it includes
certain reflections on public administration, non-governmental organisations and
linguists, agents considered to be the most influential in the process of preserving
linguistic diversity. Prior to that, we recapitulate certain general principles that
should be considered before any language planning intervention. Broadly speaking,
the global trend towards linguistic uniformity is confirmed and affects languages
with very few speakers as well as the languages of larger groups. However, one
notices an incipient reaction on the part of communities, especially in South America
but also in other parts of the world. This takes multiple forms, from the attempt to
recover and revitalise languages, to resistance to all sorts of pressure in the case of
communities whose language is still transmitted. For this reason, this Review cannot
detach itself from the genuine threat of death that languages face or ignore the efforts
of communities to resist this threat. The information received shows many examples
of creativity in this struggle and its diffusion could be of great help to many commu-
nities, both by drawing attention to them and by publicising models that could be
applied in other societies.
Even if universals cannot be drawn from the dynamics of languages, common
phenomena can be detected in the most diverse situations, such as the function of
belonging and identity that language fulfils in most communities. And nevertheless,
as a general principle, it is essential to understand the dynamics of languages as a
global and multi-factorial phenomenon, so that actions aimed at revitalising them are
not limited to single areas, such as for example education, or exclusively to isolated

249
250 Words and Worlds

communities. On the contrary, from the general principle we deduce that preser-
vation of linguistic diversity is a job for everybody, and not something affecting only
those communities whose language is endangered.
Another observation of a general nature is that regardless of the specific circum-
stances of each community, a negative linguistic attitude is a decisive factor in
language shift. For this reason, before taking specific steps towards recovery or revi-
talisation, we need to provide the information necessary to allow a change of attitude,
which must not, of course, be limited to language. In some cases, for example, we see
that a value which is in principle positive, like the link established through language
with one’s ancestors and one’s cultural values, acts as a double-edged sword when
these values are felt to be a limitation of people’s aims. In this sense, the association of
certain languages with modernity, civilisation or progress can have devastating
effects in communities subjected to socio-economic changes of all sorts, such as
tourism, migration or industrialisation.
Actions in favour of a language generally have positive effects on its development,
but in many cases these actions are not enough or do not have the desired effects.
This can be attributed in part to the restricted spheres in which intervention is taken,
but especially to the effect of alienation as a result of certain actions that look on
language as an additional community feature rather than as something intrinsic to
them. For example, in some communities it has been detected that the fact that a
language is protected leads members of the community to neglect their responsibil-
ities. It has also been detected that many communities see intervention in favour of a
language as an instrument aimed at obtaining certain ends. Perhaps the most
obvious example is that of the literacy campaigns carried out as a transition phase to
acquisition of the official language.
The information obtained shows that the diversity of aims of the different planning
agents often contributes to this ‘objectification’ of the language and therefore, as a
general recommendation, it is important to stress the need to establish clear objec-
tives, which must be those of the communities involved, who are, after all, the bearers
of the language. Furthermore, planning must not look on language as an isolated
object, but in relation to the history, the culture and, in short, the life of communities
and their members.
One of the basic objectives of language planning must be to further cooperation
and reciprocity, and to achieve this it is also necessary for those who no longer speak
the language and for members of other communities to take part, together with the
linguistic community itself. Language is a leading instrument of integration and
identification in communities of all sorts, to the extent that in many cases this is the
chief motivation for acquiring a language. The fact that the preservation of a
language is not something affecting only the communities involved suggests that it
would be a good idea to work in this direction to ensure equal distribution of respon-
sibilities and full participation in the preservation of linguistic diversity, which is a
job for everyone. This is not incompatible with the fact that all the decisions or efforts
that go towards the recovery and revitalising of a language should come from the
The Future of Languages 251

communities involved, or should at least have their approval, since they are the chief
agents of this work.
In addition to the general aspects, there is another question that should be empha-
sised. The information analysed shows, openly or implicitly, a series of recurrent
dichotomies, such as language/dialect, monolingual school/bilingual school, oral
language/written language, rural/urban, traditional/modern, official/not official,
minority/majority. These dichotomies, which in many cases add to the alienation of
the speakers and contribute to the perpetuation of conflicts insofar as they are often
merely the reflection of the us/others confrontation, interrupt the continuous nature
that languages and communities tend to have and oversimplify situations which can
only be resolved if we take into account their complexity. For example, in some cases,
rejection of the written form of a language or of its use in the media responds more to
a fear of acculturation than of its actual use, while the often mentioned rejection by
parents of the use of the local language in teaching responds to fear of marginalisation
rather than to rejection of the language itself.
Throughout the Review, in the relevant chapters, alternatives to these dichotomies
have been suggested in the different spheres of intervention.
As regards global treatment of linguistic diversity, some fundamental general prin-
ciples are listed here.

The trend to linguistic uniformity affects humanity as a whole and not just the
individuals and communities whose languages are disappearing.
The preservation of linguistic diversity is everyone’s responsibility.
The preservation of linguistic diversity calls for respect for all languages and
their speakers.
The recovery and revitalisation of endangered languages is a process that takes
in all aspects of the life of a community, including its relations with other
communities, be these neighbouring or otherwise.
The recovery and revitalisation of endangered languages involves doing away
with the hierarchisation of languages, especially in those spheres that are vital
for communities.
The establishment of clear objectives and coordinated action are basic in any
process of recovery and revitalisation of endangered languages.
The recovery and revitalisation of languages cannot depend solely on actions in
isolated spheres, such as education, for example.
252 Words and Worlds

1.2. Education
Education is a fundamental sphere of action for the recovery and revitalisation of
languages, and something those communities concerned with recovering their
languages insist on. Schools, as well as being an instrument for spreading knowledge
and values, are the ideal medium for correcting negative linguistic attitudes and
giving the language its rightful value. As is mentioned in many of the cases analysed,
the presence and use of a language in schools is a factor of prestige, and its absence
consequently contributes to interrupting its intergenerational transmission.
The community must play a part in preparing the curriculum and in deciding the
knowledge and values to be transmitted, especially because the use in teaching of
languages in decline must not take place in isolation if these are to be recovered.
The first urgent measure is that no school should prohibit the spontaneous use of
the students’ mother tongue. Even so, action in this area is neither exclusive nor suffi-
cient, and it is therefore essential that teaching activities should be coordinated with
other aspects of the life of the community. The necessary connection with other areas
must take place in the transmission of the community’s cultural heritage.
Furthermore, this connection must take place at different levels. For one thing, when
the use of the language is limited to primary education, its absence at higher levels, as
well as being a disadvantage to pupils who have studied in their own language,
strengthens the notion that the language is not suitable for high functions. For
another, use of a language in the school curriculum should be extended to all subjects,
so that the study of history, mathematics, literature or any other subject can be linked
to the language and the community. The community must play a part in ensuring that
the teaching syllabus is adapted to each context.
In addition to including the language in a suitable school syllabus, it is a good thing if
materials are created that allow acquisition as a second language of those languages
forming part of the community’s historical heritage, whether through bonds of neigh-
bourhood or because they form part of the same state. Obviously, the preparation of
these materials should also take into account as users those members of the community
to whom the language has not been transmitted and who wish to recover it.
One essential aspect of education is teacher training. In several cases, teachers’
linguistic prejudices were mentioned. These prejudices are passed on to pupils.
Teacher training must therefore include, in addition to knowledge of the language, a
positive attitude towards it.
In some places, the development of bilingual teaching programmes has created a
dichotomy between bilingual schools and monolingual schools which is seen as a
divisive factor in the community and in some cases is seen as a project aimed only at
the indigenous communities, thus strengthening the idea that monolingualism is a
privilege or something natural, while bilingualism requires special treatment.
However, nothing could be clearer than the obsolescence of monolingual schools
and the need to encourage bilingual and multilingual educational models that can
cater for the demands of training in different linguistic and cultural contexts. There
The Future of Languages 253

is an urgent need to develop imaginative approaches aimed specifically at multi-

lingual education for very small communities, for those that are traditionally
bilingual or multilingual, or for areas of recent immigration, as well as for mono-
lingual groups, whether or not their language is dominant, who also need to benefit
from the communicative, cognitive and democratic advantages that come from a
multilingual education.
Finally, returning to the initial subject, although schools are the main setting for the
teaching and spread of languages, action in this field is not enough. The work of
schools needs to be related to other spheres and activities to allow the use of the
language in the wider world.

The educational system must guarantee the use of languages as a basic right of
individuals and communities.
The educational system must dignify and give prestige to languages, through
their use as well as by furthering positive attitudes towards all of them.
The educational system must give special support to those languages which
until now have been marginalised by it.
The educational system must always act in accordance with the linguistic
communities, respecting their wishes, opinions and feelings.
The educational system must help those communities with few resources in the
training and preparation of both the workforce and the material.
The educational system must train people in bilingualism or multilingualism,
both in the case of communities with minority languages and in the case of
speakers of widespread languages.
The chief priority of the educational system in the new millennium must be
approached in terms of language skills.
The monolingual school model is a threat to linguistic diversity.

1.3. Writing
Writing has a great symbolic value which plays a large part in the prestige of the
language. One widespread linguistic prejudice is the tendency to only see as
languages those that have developed a written form. This prejudice undoubtedly has
great influence on the linguistic attitudes of speakers and of members of other
communities, whether neighbouring or not.
In general, writing is seen as an achievement by the majority of informants when
talking of languages whose writing has been developed recently, and as a desire or a
254 Words and Worlds

need in those cases where it does not yet exist. Whatever the case, as we have already
seen in reference to other aspects, communities must play an important role in
decision-making, and in this case the need for a language to have a written form
should come from them.
In those cases in which a written system must be created, it is essential to bear in
mind the systems of surrounding languages, the cultural tradition and the genetic
classification of the language in question. In this respect, systems of writing
created for languages in the same linguistic group can provide solutions and
reflect the common origin of these languages. The cases of different systems of
writing within a single language – alphabetic, orthographic, etc. – tend to favour
division and fragmentation of languages and can be fatal in the case of languages
with few speakers. Therefore, any plans for creating a system of writing must
foresee these risks and consider the creation of written material in the language,
material which can be taken from the oral tradition and that allows the creation of
a written literary tradition. The creation of a written system, therefore, as pointed
out in other sections, must not be an isolated undertaking but one coordinated
with other activities.
One way of avoiding the written/oral dichotomy, which attaches a higher value to
writing, consists in valuing literary, ritual or religious oral literary traditions, as many
informants have shown. Furthermore, nowadays, new audiovisual and computer
technologies, the media and more innovative educational models make it possible to
incorporate oral usages into spheres of prestige which until very recently were
restricted to written forms.

The written use of languages in general confers prestige on them and increases
their chances of transmission and revitalisation.
Written use is only suitable if it is seen by the community as enriching and not
as a threat or frustration.
Written use must integrate a linguistic community’s written and oral tradition
and its cultural heritage.
The authorities should support the written use of all languages, especially
minority languages or seriously endangered languages.
The authorities should provide communities with the right technical means
and economic resources to facilitate and allow the written use of the language.
The scientific community should work in coordination with the linguistic
communities concerning questions regarding the creation of a written form or
of standardisation, when these communities require their assistance.
The Future of Languages 255

1.4. The media

The role of the media in the preservation of linguistic diversity takes in at least two
fundamental aspects: the presence and use of languages and the values the media
themselves transmit.
Of all the media, radio is the most widespread and the most multilingual, mainly
due to its greater technical accessibility and diffusion and because it does not require
written language. Communities that have problems getting access to other media
have shown that they can get access to radio broadcasting, so that the language has
managed to extend beyond the strictly family sphere. In this respect, as an urgent
measure, encouragement should be given to radio broadcasts managed by the
communities themselves with the object of increasing the scope of use of endangered
languages along with their prestige.
Television raises an aspect the Review does not want to overlook. The fact that large
broadcasting companies have a monopoly in this medium has the effect of mediating
the information, so that minority communities can rarely take part in the image that is
transmitted of them. At the same time, the chiefly metropolitan image of these broad-
casts is having an alarming influence on communities with no direct access to this
medium, and is accelerating the process of acculturation of the societies that are left
out of them. In this respect, it is essential to alert the chief media so that an attempt is
made to avoid hierarchisation of cultures, for one, and for another, in those cases in
which communities with minority languages have access to this medium, to
explicitly support them in spite of the impossibility of competing with the large
broadcasting companies.
In the case of the press, there is often a feeling in communities of ‘having missed the
boat’. In other words, the tradition of the press in widespread languages prevents
access on an equal footing to less favoured languages. However, in addition to the
actual benefits that normalised diffusion in one’s language could bring, the spread of
a local-language press could be an effective method for providing reading material,
which is essential if literacy campaigns are to have any continuation. At the same
time, just as the need for multilingual education has been emphasised, the creation of
multilingual newspapers should be furthered, especially in settings where the simul-
taneous presence of different languages could have an effect on the social acceptance
of each one of them.
Similarly, the Internet raises the need for the written use of languages. Its increasing
use aggravates the problem of the enormous differences in the use of languages and
could be an added factor in the death of languages. However, it also means that
communities can be at once agents and protagonists of the information they want to
diffuse, with relatively accessible economic means. The feeling of having ‘missed the
boat’, as mentioned above with reference to the press, could therefore be avoided in
the case of the Internet if facilities were provided for access to this technology.
As well as the essential democratisation of the media, it is important to point out
that one of the most urgent measures to be taken is the training of journalists to the
256 Words and Worlds

extent that the values they transmit cannot be countered in other spheres. The
profusion of linguistic and cultural prejudices, along with ignorance of linguistic
diversity and of the value of all languages, suggests that the training of journalists
should include an understanding of this aspect of the life of communities and the
necessary information for overcoming the linguistic prejudices that perpetuate
negative linguistic attitudes. Until all peoples are able to explain their own history, we
should at least ensure that the intermediaries are, if not objective, at least even-
handed and reliable.

Each linguistic community should have at least one regular radio broadcasting
station. In the case of very small communities, it should at least be possible for
their language to be present in the existing media.
It is also very important to develop the printed press, and the authorities should
ensure at least one regular printed medium. Support should be given to those
media arising in the communities themselves and allowing their members
information and entertainment with a viewpoint of their own.
The use of languages in the new communication and information technologies,
and especially on the Internet, should be furthered.
The chief media should be open to the use of new languages and to combining
the simultaneous use of different languages.
The chief media should respect, promote and confer prestige on linguistic
diversity.
The chief media should fight against the linguistic prejudices that ridicule the
use and promotion of less widespread languages and lead humanity towards
linguistic globalisation.
The chief media should give positive coverage to news about the revitalisation
of languages.

1.5. Migrations and socioeconomic changes

The link between language and territory, which seems beyond doubt for the majority
of the world’s languages, is a recurrent topic in the Review. Profound reflection is
called for, especially as regards proposing models for a changing society in which
almost half the languages are not being passed on normally from one generation to
the next, where substitution processes are generally associated with social and
economic changes related to urbanisation and so-called modernisation, and where
migration is widespread.
The Future of Languages 257

Indeed, sudden changes in communities’ economic systems can have devastating

effects on the dynamics of the languages of small communities. By way of example,
unless it is managed in a way that is more in keeping with the specific characteristics of
the territory, tourism is emerging as one of the greatest threats for the survival of many
languages. While it is true that economic and social development can allow the devel-
opment of linguistic policies, these need to be respectful of diversity. It is essential to
avoid the association of minority languages with underdevelopment, poverty and
marginalisation. When communities have a positive attitude towards their own
languages, they can change their lifestyle without having to abandon their language.
Amongst the different types of migration, the move to urban areas is particularly
important, with large concentrations of population giving rise to numerous processes
of language shift. As we have said, the dichotomy established between ‘rural’ and
‘urban’ encourages numerous linguistic prejudices which feed substitution processes.
Furthermore, it is obvious that these processes often result in marginalisation and
ghettoisation of the displaced population. Social agents intervening in these processes
should take into account the integrating factor of language in designing strategies for
the integration of displaced people and help both access to the language of the desti-
nation community and preservation of the language of origin.
The public presence of the language of origin of the displaced, even if only symbol-
ically, can further the perception of the society as multilingual and multicultural and
subsequently as welcoming to immigrants.
We need to remember that migratory movements resulting from wars and political
conflicts can also have a negative effect on the life of languages, especially in the case
of small linguistic communities.
The attraction exerted by peoples who have managed to integrate different
linguistic communities in peaceful coexistence benefiting from technological
progress and democratic organisation should be taken as a model of socioeconomic
development for the preservation of linguistic and cultural development.

The value of one’s own language and culture in terms of the individual’s
identity and self-esteem must be emphasised.
The ability of individuals to harmoniously integrate knowledge and use of
several languages must be emphasised.
All the territory’s languages must be given prestige through their use and
through campaigns.
The use of various languages must be made possible in large cities where
people of different origins converge.
In communities that live in tourist areas, preservation of the native culture and
language needs to be especially encouraged.
258 Words and Worlds

1.6. Linguists
Linguists are members of the scientific community directly involved in the under-
standing, preservation and furtherance of linguistic diversity.
Although in general it appears that the work of linguists tends to be appreciated by
the community and that knowledge of the language favours integration, in some of
the cases analysed a certain reticence was detected as regards these professionals’
activity, especially when their work was seen as an instrument of professional or
academic promotion rather than as a contribution to society. As a general principle, it
is obvious that the linguist must be aware of the aims of the community and offer
his/her services for that end, and avoid using it as a means to his/her own profes-
sional objectives.
The Review reveals the gap which tends to occur between linguists’ knowledge
and knowledge of the language. In many cases, the description of a language is
directed at the validation of theoretical aspects, rather than, for example, at making
written use or standardisation of the language possible. Even when the two aspects
are not incompatible, in many cases linguists overlook the practical aspects of their
work or its applications in society, and this attitude can give rise to conflicts. For
example, there are languages that have been studied from various theoretical view-
points, but which nevertheless have no language-teaching method that can be used in
schools. Awareness of the difference between linguistics, language knowledge and
language teaching is therefore important if linguists are to offer a useful service to the
linguistic community and not just to the scientific community.
The work of linguists cannot take place in isolation, either, and must, of course, take
into account the surrounding culture. In societies without writing, linguists must
realise that language is not just a formal or functional system, but that, among other
aspects of its culture, it contains the keys to an understanding of the history of
peoples, their cosmovision and their relations with the surrounding communities.
Research in these aspects, along with the recovery of name systems (toponyms,
anthroponyms, etc.) must form part of their work, so that the recovery of the
language involves recovering the history and the culture of peoples.
At the same time, we must not forget the responsibility of linguists as regards the
educational side of their work. By publishing their knowledge, they can do a lot to
help reappraise languages, eradicate prejudices and involve professionals and insti-
tutions who could operate in the field of revitalisation. It is therefore essential to
extend the presence of subjects relating to language loss and recovery, systemati-
sation and exchange in academic centres, institutions, professorships and institutes
concerned with languages and linguistic communities.

1.7. Participation by non governmental institutions

The Review reveals that different organisations of varying types and objectives are
acting on language communities and their dynamics, with different effects on their
linguistic normalisation processes. Amongst these organisations can be found, for
The Future of Languages 259

example, non governmental organisations, religious organisations and research

teams. While in some cases these institutions can be seen to act as perpetuators of
linguistic colonialism, in others, they have excelled as revitalising forces for
languages and cultures. The general observation is that when the stage is left to the
communities, their activities tend to be of great benefit to the recovery of
languages and they fulfil a double role of incentive and support for the commu-
nities’ projects. The enormous potential of these bodies, however, means that their
action can be counterproductive in those cases in which this action is subordinated
to other aims, such as teaching language as an instrument of conversion to a given
faith, or literacy as a stepping-stone to the dominant language. Sometimes these
objectives are not explicit. Whatever the case, when the objectives have not been
drawn up by the communities and are therefore foreign to them, they have devas-
tating effects on them.
In addition, the lack of coordination between different bodies within the same
community can lead to contradictory actions and, in the worst cases, open a divide
between members of the community, between educational options, media uses, types
of writing, relations with other communities, etc. This divide can have the same effect
as migration or deportation in the case of communities with few speakers who
require a certain degree of cohesion.
This type of action affects all sorts of communities. For example, in so-called
modern societies in Europe, discrimination against minority languages and their
speakers is also common. This discrimination ranges from the exclusive use of
official or dominant languages in religious services, administration and NGO
campaigns or in language teaching to immigrants, to the reproduction of models
from the dominant culture in preparing projects for language planning, promotion
or recovery.

Non governmental institutions involved in the recovery and revitalisation of

languages must make their objectives clear.
The objectives of unofficial bodies involved in the recovery and revitalisation of
languages must be shared by the communities.
The different bodies intervening in the life of communities must coordinate
their activities.
Unofficial bodies involved in the recovery and revitalisation of languages must
subordinate their activities to the life of the community, acting as both incentive
and support for the community’s projects.
It is necessary for international NGOs to promote large-scale action to promote
languages and linguistic diversity.
260 Words and Worlds

1.8. The responsibility of the authorities

On the basis of the unquestionable fact that monolingual states are the exception, it is
essential that their multilingual nature be acknowledged. Insofar as all individuals
and all communities should be given equal treatment, it is the duty of the authorities
to ensure respect and protection for all spoken languages, at least in their own
territory. Acknowledgement of the multilingual nature of the state implies that the
authorities must ensure that all citizens take part on an equal footing, and this is not
possible if the state itself places languages in a hierarchy. At the same time, the inter-
state reality of many languages must be acknowledged, thereby facilitating coordi-
nation between organisations involved in the recovery and normalisation of
languages whose speakers are located in different states, so that their actions and
projects embrace the entire territory of a language.
Since many normalisation processes show that normalisation is only possible with
the collaboration of a motivated community, state bodies should cooperate and collab-
orate in the recovery activities that arise in the communities themselves, without
forgetting that simply declaring a language official or even directing a project at
preservation over the heads of the community is not enough for the recovery of the
language. Public institutions can cooperate in a wide range of areas, from the recovery
of place names to drawing up syllabuses that include acquisition of the territory’s
other languages as second languages, amongst many other things. But their basic role
must be to ensure respect for the linguistic rights of all speakers and the recognition of
all the languages in the territory, so that no normalisation process is forced to take
place ‘in spite of the authorities’.
Obviously, ensuring respect for everyone’s linguistic rights implies equal
treatment for all communities, since unequal treatment, as well as being an
injustice, could lead to confrontation between these communities. However, ‘equal
treatment’ must not be confused with ‘the same solutions for different situations’.
In this respect, the members of the majority communities must take responsibility
for designing strategies for the preservation of linguistic diversity. In the same way
that environmental conservation is an issue affecting the entire population, the
preservation of linguistic diversity is only possible with the collaboration of all
involved, and for this it is essential to create the necessary mechanisms that allow
reciprocity and cooperation. Inevitably, the first steps in this direction call for
general motivation, for which it is essential to provide the information and training
that will allow a change in linguistic attitudes. In this sphere, the role of the author-
ities can be fundamental, providing the mechanisms to avoid the hierarchisation of
languages, encouraging shared activities aimed at preserving linguistic diversity
and ensuring equal treatment for all communities in keeping with their role in this
shared undertaking.
The Future of Languages 261

The authorities must commit themselves to the preservation of linguistic diversity.

Multilingual states must acknowledge their nature as such and act accordingly.
It is the duty of the authorities to ensure equal treatment for all the linguistic
communities residing in their territory.
The authorities must encourage trans-state linguistic policies, especially in
those cases in which linguistic communities occupy trans-border territories.
The authorities must cooperate in normalisation processes, but not impose them.
The authorities must facilitate and promote participation by all citizens in the
preservation of linguistic diversity.

2. The way forward

2.1. Celebrating cultural diversity
We are beginning the twenty-first century with a new and positive perception of
cultural diversity. Some authors have warned of the danger of conflictive cultural
relations and have announced wars between the main cultural traditions; but many
other voices are proclaiming the rise of peaceful coexistence between cultures. For the
first time, on a global scale, we are in a position to accept the plurality of cultures
without subjecting it to colonialist criteria. In the coming decades, understanding
between cultures could grow and practices of mutual respect could spread, leading to
a celebration of cultural diversity. If this future scenario is confirmed, linguistic
diversity, an important manifestation of cultural diversity, could be reinforced. The
rapid disappearance of languages, which at present affects several dozen languages
every year, could be reduced. Languages in danger of extinction are those belonging
to cultures in extremely delicate situations. Language and culture are inseparable.
Celebrating linguistic diversity involves celebrating cultural diversity.
A global future is conceivable in which all cultural and linguistic communities can
live in freedom. In the past, communities have all too often been subordinated to
political and economic interests that failed to take into account their aspirations. In the
coming decades, all human communities must be acknowledged as the subject of their
respective histories and integrated into political structures that endow them with
advanced criteria of democratic participation. We need progressive political structures
that make room for all languages and cultures on sub-state, state, regional and global
levels. Constant advances in the democratic spirit mean we can realistically imagine
humanity evolving towards the elimination of cultural and linguistic discrimination.
Measures can be taken today to ensure that, of the different possible futures, the one
that triumphs will be one that guarantees and celebrates linguistic diversity.
262 Words and Worlds

2.2. Linguistic models for a global world

In the past, linguistic diversity was preserved by the isolation of linguistic commu-
nities and therefore the low rate of linguistic contact. With a view to the future, it no
longer makes sense to choose isolation and contacts between speakers of different
languages will multiply in both the individual and the collective sphere. In this new
setting, what could happen is that the more vulnerable or even medium-sized
linguistic communities will begin to die out because they will be displaced by other
languages with greater demographic, political, economic or technological strength.
But it could also come about that new models for relations between all languages will
be established that do not lead to the death of the most fragile. Ecological models
indicate that a form of linguistic coexistence is conceivable in which the languages in
contact have different functions and which does not necessarily cause processes of
substitution. The real challenge consists in planning the relative functions of all
languages – large, medium and small – in the global world.
Small and medium-sized linguistic communities must plan their future making
simultaneous use of more widespread languages on the basis of their utility in
communication and in economic, social and cultural development. This multilin-
gualism must be made perfectly compatible with the use of the community’s own
language, the language which often determines personality or cultural identity, the
myths and values that guide people’s lives. The stronger linguistic communities must
realise that their demographic, political, economic or technological strength does not
make their language superior and that they must therefore open up to other
languages, especially those of their neighbours, and enrich themselves with other
epistemologies and other values. The main regional and universal languages must be
redefined to be actively sympathetic to medium and small languages. A more
peaceful and more humane future can be built if mutual relations of sympathy are
established between linguistic communities and between their speakers.
Interlinguistic sympathy is one of the desirable futures for languages.

2.3. Generalisation of multilingual education

There is growing agreement about the importance of multilingual education. In
some continents with a rich linguistic diversity this is a tradition going back a long
way. From birth, boys and girls hear the different languages in their family and
social surroundings and quickly learn the linguistic codes as well as their commu-
nicative function. The task facing us in the twenty-first century is to make multi-
lingual education universal. Some linguistic communities that consider themselves
superior because their language is associated with instances of political and
cultural domination or breakthroughs in philosophical abstraction, science and
technology, have not given multilingual education any consideration. In many
cases, political powers have repressed minority languages in the conviction that
they were encouraging access to a superior language. Today it is acknowledged
that, even for speakers of the strongest languages, learning other languages is a
The Future of Languages 263

priority cultural objective. In the coming decades, as well as eliminating illiteracy,

we must eliminate monolingual education.
It would be desirable for plurilingual education to mean more than just an improved
knowledge of the more widespread languages or of those most often used in the
media. It is not enough, therefore, for bilingual syllabuses merely to introduce the
teaching of a minority language alongside a major language or to provide speakers of
one major language with the knowledge of another major language. In the coming
decades there will be a need for generalised plurilingual education allowing a proper
knowledge of three or more languages: one minority language and two languages for
communicating on a regional and universal level. The first would be the family
language, but importance should be given to learning the languages of the neigh-
bouring communities. It is also important to distinguish between passive and active
knowledge, between oral and written language. Among languages of the same
linguistic group, a passive knowledge is achieved without much effort. The same
happens in learning oral language, which is faster than learning a written language.

2.4. Convention on linguistic rights

On the initiative of various governmental organisations, a series of proposals have
been drawn up for the recognition of linguistic rights as part of human rights and for
their international protection. The best known is the Universal Declaration of
Linguistic Rights promoted by the Pen Club International and the CIEMEN and
agreed in 1996 by 61 NGOs and 41 Pen centres. UNESCO was asked to take care of the
matter and draft a government declaration which could take the form of an interna-
tional convention with the juridical mechanisms to ensure its effectiveness. The work
is yet to be done. It would be desirable if in the next few years progress could be made
in this process, because individual and collective linguistic rights, the same as human
rights, are being violated not only by political regimes that confuse unity and cultural
and linguistic uniformity but also by the advance of globalisation in its imposition of
economic reasoning over cultural and social development. It would be desirable if the
rights and liberties many linguistic communities already enjoy could be globalised
under the auspices of the United Nations system.
Migratory movements will probably increase in the coming decades. In all coun-
tries, and especially in the large metropolises, people from different linguistic
communities will be living together in unprecedented linguistic complexity.
Managing linguistically complex societies will be a great challenge for the whole of
humanity. Migrants could become involuntary agents of linguistic and cultural
uniformity if criteria are not agreed for combining individual linguistic rights and the
linguistic rights of linguistic communities in their historical territory. Rules for the
protection of linguistic diversity must therefore be established taking these new chal-
lenges into account. A universal declaration of linguistic rights in the form of an inter-
national convention could be the frame of reference for the establishment of
intelligent linguistic policies. In addition, the international technical bodies set up by
264 Words and Worlds

the convention could offer proposals or mediation that are difficult to find locally
when conflicts arise. The instruments of the convention would make it possible to
prevent conflicts or defuse them rapidly.

2.5. Languages and new communication technology

The spectacular advances in the new information and communication technologies
pose unexpected challenges for linguistic diversity. On the one hand, one sees the
creation in this sector of gigantic commercial enterprises that use only the major
languages. On the other, medium-sized and small linguistic communities can use the
new technologies intelligently for their own needs and objectives. The presence of these
communities in cyberspace probably involves far fewer problems than those they faced
in the fifteenth century in adapting to the spread of printing. Access to the Internet will
be open to all linguistic communities in the not-so-distant future, when electrical and
telephone services are universal and when voice use has the same technical possibilities
as the use of written language. For some communication technologies, such as radio
and television, orality is already much more important than writing.
To put the new technologies at the service of linguistic and cultural diversity, we
need to establish policies to guarantee this objective. In the coming decades the
amount of information that is considered to be in the public domain will have to be
increased, whether it is information regulated by copyright or, especially, information
no longer subject to such limitations. Digitalisation of the knowledge and heritage of
all cultures must be supported. With these aims in mind, legislative measures need to
be introduced to guarantee free circulation of information on networks as well as on-
line access to public heritage. The presence of small and medium-sized languages in
cyberspace will be one of the new responsibilities of local, substate, state, regional and
universal authorities. The same responsibility must be shared by non-profit organisa-
tions. Communication scientists, for their part, will probably achieve new tech-
nologies for automatic translation, especially to prevent orality from being an
obstacle to entering the cyberspace networks.

2.6. Languages as a factor of economic development

All languages can be associated with processes of economic, social and cultural devel-
opment. No language has had a monopoly on economic progress in the history of the
human species. Many languages have become a factor and a symbol of prosperity.
Today, a handful of languages are used for universal scientific communication and for
global economic activity. But we now know that economic development is a complex
process in which many factors intervene that do not seem decisive on a global scale:
people’s talent, social cohesion, participation procedures, moral values, patriotism,
education and culture. A community with a language of its own can be a community
with a high degree of self-esteem, in tune with its natural environment and with
conceptual and linguistic instruments allowing competitive economic specialisation
on a local, substate, state, regional and universal scale. Small, specialised communities
The Future of Languages 265

can in the future achieve high levels of development. In addition, human development
involves a transition from an economy-based model of development to forms of
sustainable development adapted to each environment. Languages provide episte-
mologies and values that allow this adaptation.
Each linguistic community must find its place in the global economic world.
People’s languages must, with a view to the future, be considered an added value also
from the point of view of development. Linguistic communities will of course be
open in the sense that their members will also be familiar with other languages, but
they will discover the pleasure of using their own language as the basis of their
specific personality in a world increasingly looking for what is original and unre-
peatable. It does not seem utopian to imagine that, in the same way that the tourist
trade values landscapes or the physical cultural heritage for their originality and
difference, differentiated linguistic experiences will in future also be valued. It may be
that visitors to communities with languages of their own will ask for linguistic initi-
ation so as to be able to enjoy the secrets of unfamiliar cultural universes. Linguistic
communities will discover the economic value of their non-material linguistic
heritage. Cultural tourism will include various forms of language learning.

2.7. Advanced linguistic sciences

Linguistic atlases are getting more and more complex. The use of languages in cities
and countries can no longer be understood on the basis of simple questions included
in population censuses. Linguistic contacts caused by displacements and migrations
are increasing in all countries. Linguistic practices in the professional sphere
frequently differ from those in the family sphere. The languages used by citizens in
different areas of their cultural life do not coincide either, because the cultural indus-
tries use mainly the more widespread languages, which do not necessarily coincide
with the usual languages of traditional cultures. For all these reasons, sociolinguists
will have to develop efficient systems for monitoring language use over the whole of
the universe of human geography. In the coming decades it would be desirable for
new sociolinguistic research centres in university networks and elsewhere to devote
the necessary efforts to describing linguistic diversity and its evolution. With a view
to the future, we need high-precision sociolinguistics.
The attention scientists have devoted to languages is very uneven. Some languages
have innumerable instruments: grammars, dictionaries, histories of literature and
editions of their representative works on paper or in digital format. Other languages
are poorly served as far as these scientific instruments are concerned although they
are not poor in terms of grammatical structures, vocabulary or literature. It would be
desirable if in the coming decades the activity of scientists of language were to
concentrate on the less studied languages so as to achieve a reasonable balance
between all languages. Oral languages ought to be the object of particular attention,
so that scientific activity can create suitable instruments of knowledge compatible
with their particular traditions. Projects for cooperation in development for the
266 Words and Worlds

coming years should take into account linguistic projects expressed by the linguistic
communities themselves. The main aims of cooperation should be guided by the
creation of linguistic scientific competence among members of the linguistic commu-
nities themselves.

2.8. Languages, the heritage of humanity

Studying all the world’s languages will provide data and perspectives for the design
of useful strategic options for the future of each language. International continental
organisations and UNESCO on a global level should have specific departments to
give technical advice to linguistic communities in shaping their strategies and to
those political authorities that have responsibility for linguistic policy. Among the
possible measures for the promotion of all languages, an example to follow would be
the recognition as official languages of each state of all the historical regional
languages spoken by its citizens. This recognition need not involve their use on an
equal footing in administrative bodies and in public life. It would also be significant if
all those countries where they do not already exist set up technical departments to
further the work of sociolinguistics in collaboration with research centres and to
provide linguistic communities with political, legal, economic and media instru-
ments to safeguard their future.
The declaration by UNESCO of each and every language as the heritage of
humanity would be a great stimulus to the recognition of the dignity of all languages
and an indication that each language belongs not just to the speakers of that language
but to the human species as a whole. In keeping with this declaration, UNESCO could
periodically convene global evaluations on the state of linguistic diversity in the
world with effective participation by representatives of large, medium and small
linguistic communities. It would be also useful to publish regular reports on
linguistic diversity, summing up the findings from the latest sociolinguistic research,
and regular studies of good practices on the subject of linguistic policy. For all these
tasks, UNESCO could, with a view to the future, establish new partnerships with
university networks of scientists in languages, specialist NGOs and UNESCO profes-
sorships devoted to languages.

2.9. Languages for peace

The immense majority of human beings wish for a world at peace. Even those who
use violence believe they want peace. But at the beginning of the twenty-first century,
the logic of force still engenders much violence that relativises the force of logic. Many
people hope that the twenty-first century will see increasing faith in words, reasoning
and dialogue and a reduction in violence. If this hope is to become a reality, humanity
must opt for free and open cultures of words. Languages are free when we remove the
conditioning factors that are an obstacle to objective knowledge, critical sense and
sense of humour, and the expression of desires and dreams. In today’s world, the
media industry, with its enormous power, often limits freedom of expression because
The Future of Languages 267

it creates distorted virtual realities that are presented as objective and because it
popularises ideas, feelings and values alien to democratic consensus. In this sense,
words in the public sphere very often contribute not to freedom but to domination.
They are words that exert violence. Humanity has the right to free itself of manipu-
lation by the media and of any words that exert violence. Many cultures express the
wish to disarm words.
Languages are open when they do not try to monopolise knowledge. Each
language is an interpretation of reality, but none of them has a complete or definitive
view of the various dimensions of reality. When one linguistic community or a group
within it considers that its knowledge, its writings, its representatives are superior to
those of other human communities, intolerance and violence arise. Languages must
not have any strength other than that arising from their reasoning, from their
usefulness in relation to the challenges of the natural and social surroundings and
from their capacity for exploring the wonderful through their poetic and symbolic
registers. This strength is not the strength that characterises conventional power. With
a view to the twenty-first century, there is a need for speakers without superiority
complexes, and for linguistic practices that facilitate dialogue between their own
viewpoint and that of others within each linguistic community and between different
linguistic communities. Languages, when they are used in a spirit of freedom and
with an open mind, are peace builders. During the twenty-first century, all languages
must become languages for peace.

2.10. A welcome to new languages

The life of languages is a faithful expression of the life of human communities. The life
of languages is affected by the evolution of the human species in space and time.
Linguistic specialisation has allowed multiple adaptations of human communities to
their physical and cultural surroundings. Languages, with their marvellous capacity
for abstraction, have been the most decisive instruments for the advancement of
knowledge, agreement on ethical principles as a basis for coexistence and for imag-
ining desirable futures. Each language can contribute to this common task. Many
languages have disappeared because human communities were faced with new chal-
lenges and needed new linguistic instruments. The languages spoken today are living
languages because there are human communities that need them to live – that is, to
understand, to relate, to work, to speak of love, to ask questions and create beautiful
expressions, to remember and to make plans. The communities themselves are
constantly making languages evolve. During the twenty-first century, the power of
language could be returned to these communities, and in particular to those that have
suffered linguistic repression, through different forms of self-management. With
these guidelines it would be possible to protect linguistic diversity without hindering
the evolution of all living languages. Under normal circumstances, evolution should
take place in all widespread languages as well as in medium and small languages, so
that they can all adapt to new settings and new challenges. Taking part in the
268 Words and Worlds

linguistic creativity of one’s language is a pleasure. Perhaps we should remember that

we speak our languages to enjoy them. Our spoken and written words are accessible
experiences of life, creativity and joy. During the twenty-first century, multilin-
gualism should become widespread for the sheer pleasure of it.
References
Abbi, A. 2000. “Forgotten Indian Heritage Languages of Minority Communities of India” in
Koul, O.N. & Devaki. L. (eds.) Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia. Mysore: Central Institute
of Indian Languages, pp. 13–28.
Aboud, F.E. & Meade, R.D. (eds.) 1974. Cultural Factors in Learning and Education. Bellingham,
Washington: Western Washington State University.
Adegbija, E. 1994. Language Attitudes in Sub-Saharan Africa. Clevedon/Philadelphia/Adelaide:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Adegbija, E. 2001. “Saving threatened languages in Africa: a case study of Oko” in Fishman,
J.A. (ed.) Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st
Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 284–308.
Aikhenvald, A.Y. 1999. “Areal diffusion and language contact in the Içana-Vaupés basin, North
West Amazonia” in Dixon, R.M.W. & Aikhenvald, A.Y. (eds.) The Amazonian Languages,
pp. 385–415. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Amery, R. 2000. Warrabarna Kaurna! Reclaiming an Australian Language. The Netherlands: Swets
& Zeitllinger.
Anashin, V. 2000. “A worldwide view” in UNESCO World Communication and Information
1999–2000 Report. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, pp. 167–179.
Annamalai, E. 2001. Managing Multilingualism in India. Political and Linguistic Manifestations.
New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Arends, J. 1998. “A Bibliography of Lingua Franca” in The Carrier Pidgin 26, 1–3, 4–5 & 33–35.
Artigal, J.M. 1995. “Multiways towards multilingualism: the Catalan immersion programme
experience” in Skutnabb-Kangas (ed.) Multilingualism for All. Series European Studies on
Multilingualism 4. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, pp. 169–181.
Assembly of First Nations, Language and Literacy Secretariat 1992. Toward Rebirth of First
Nations Languages. Ontario.
Azurmendi, J. 1968. “Manifestu atzeratua” in Olerti III-IV.
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (ed.) 1981. Elements of Bilingual Theory. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit te
Brussel.
Baggioni, D. 1997. Langues et nations en Europe. Paris: Payot&Rivages.
Bailey, C.J.N. 1996. Essays on Time-Based Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Baker, C. 1992. Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Baker, C. 1993. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters Ltd.
Barreña, A., Etxebarria, M., Idiazabal, I., Juaristi, P., Junyent, C. & Ortega, P. 2000. “World
Languages Review. A Preliminary Approach” in Koul, O.N. & Devaki, L. (eds.) Linguistic
Heritage of India and Asia. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, pp. 318–336.
Bender, B.W. 1971. “Micronesian Languages” in Current Trends in Linguistics 8, 426–65.

269
270 Words and Worlds

Benton R.A. 1996. “Language policy in New Zealand: Defining the ineffable” in Herriman, M.
& Burnaby, B. (eds.) Language Policy in English-dominant Countries: Six Case Studies.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 62–98.
Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Blench, R & Spriggs, M. (eds.) 1999. Archaeology and Language III. Artefacts, Languages and Texts.
London: Routledge.
Bloom, J.P. & Gumperz, J.J. 1972. “Social meaning in linguistic structures: code-switching in
Norway” in Gumperz, J.J. & Hymes, D. (eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics. NewYork: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Bloomfield, L. 1935. Language. London: Allen and Unwin.
Bolekia Boleká, J. 2001. Lengua y poder en òbfrica. Madrid: Mundo Negro.
Bomhard, A. & Kerns, J. 1994. The Nostratic Macrofamily. A Study in Distant Linguistic
Relationship. Berlin: Mouton.
Bratt Paulston, Ch. 1994. Linguistic Minorities in Multilingual Settings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brenzinger, M. (dir.) 1992. Language Death: Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special
Reference to East Africa. New York: Mouton.
Broudic, F. 1999. “L‘évolution des bilingues bretonnants au XXe siècle” in Klask, 5. Rennes:
Université de Rennes.
Bruner, J.S. 1975. “Language as an instrument of thought” in Davies, A. (ed.) Problems of
Language and Learning. London: Heinemann.
Buttitta, I. 1972. “Lingua e Dialettu” in Io faccio il poeta. Milano: Fetrinelli.
Calvet, L-J. 1987. La guerre des langues et les politiques linguistiques. Paris: Payot.
Calvet, L-J. 2001. Historia de la escritura. Barcelona: Paidós.
Campbell, L. 1997. American Indian Languages. The Historical Linguistics of Native America.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carle, R., Heinschke, M., Pink, P.W., Rost, Ch. & Stadtlander, K. (eds.) 1982. Gava’: Studies in
Austronesian Languages and Cultures, Dedicated to Hans Kähler. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. (eds.) 1998. Beyond Bilingualism. Multilingualism and Multilingual
Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Cerrón Palomino, R. 1987: Lingüística Quechua. Cusco, Per£: Centro de Estudios Rurales
Andinos “Bartolomé de Las Casas”.
Comité of Ministres of the European Union 1992. European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages [Internet] Strasbourg: The Council of Europe. Avalable from http:
//conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/treaties/HTML/148/148.htm [Accessed 30 October, 2004].
Charles, E. 1995. “Idioma nacional y lenguas vernáculas en el Caribe” in UNESCO Medios de
Comunicación y democracia en América Latina y el Caribe. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, pp. 119–121.
Charpentier, J.M. 2001. Paper presented at Melbourne, International Conference; Pacific: A
Language Treasure. Melbourne, Australia.
Clyne, M. 1985. “The Interaction of a National Identity, Class and Pluriglossia in a Pluricentric
Language” in Laycock, D.C. & Winter, W. (eds.) A World of Language, Series C-No. 100.
Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Codrington, R.H. & Palmer, J. 1896. A Dictionary of the Language of Mota, Sugarloaf Island, Banks
Islands. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
Comrie, B. 1998. “Haruai” in Pawley, A. Ross, M. & Tryon, D. (eds.) The Boy from Bundaburg:
Studies in Melanesian Linguistics in Honour of Tom Dutton. Canberra: PICS.
Comrie, B., Matthews, S. & Polinsky, M. 1996. The Atlas of Languages. New York: Facts On
File Inc.
Cooper, R.L. (ed.) 1982. Language Spread: Studies in Difusión and Social Change. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Coulmas, F. (ed.) 1997. The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
References 271

Crochetière, J., Boulanger, C. & Ouellon, C. (eds.) 1993. Proceedings of the XV International
Congress of Linguists, Endangered Languages. Quebec: Laval University.
Cromwell, L.G. 1980. “Bar Kar Mir: To Talk with No Curves” in Anthropological Forum 5 (1), 24–37.
Crystal, D. 1997. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Crystal, D. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. 1989. “Language and literacy acquisition in bilingual contexts” in Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 10 (1), 17–31.
Dalby, D. 1998. The Linguasphere: from Person to Planet, Register and Overview of the World’s
Languages and Speech-Communities at the Close of the 20th Century. Hebron (Wales):
Linguasphere Press.
Daswani, C.J. 2000. “Language decay: Lessons from India Sindhi” in Koul, O.N. & Devaki. L.
(eds.) Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages,
pp. 9–63.
Davies, A. (ed.) 1975. Problems of Language and Learning. London: Heinemann.
Declaración Universal de los Derechos Lingüísticos 1998. Barcelona: Institut d’Edicions de la
Diputació de Barcelona.
Delors, J. et al. 1996. Education: The Treasure Within. Paris: UNESCO.
Derbyshire, D.C. 1979. Hixkaryana. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Drechsel, E.J. 1996. “Native American Contact Languages of the Contiguous United States,” in
Wurm, S.A., Mühlhäusler, P. & Tryon, D.T. (eds.) Atlas of Languages of Intercultural
Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Drechsel, E.J. 1997. Mobilian Jargon. Linguistic and Sociohistorical Aspects of a Native American
Pidgin. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dumont, P. 1990. Le français langue africaine. Paris: Karthala.
Dunn, M.J. 1999. A Grammar of Chukch. Canberra: Australian National University.
Dutton, T.E. (ed.) 1992. Culture Change, Language Change: Case Studies from Melanesia. Canberra
Pacific Linguistics C-120.
Dutton, T.E. 1985. Hiri Motu – Iena Sivarai. Port Moresby: University of Papua New Guinea Press.
Eades, D. 1982. “You Gotta Know How to Talk: Information Seeking in South East Queensland
Aboriginal Society” in Australian Journal of Linguistics 2 (1), 61–83.
Eilers, R.E., Gavin, W.J. & Oller, D.K. 1982. “Cross-linguistic perception in infancy: early effects
of linguistic experience” in Journal of Child Language 9, 289–302.
European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL) 2001. Petition to the European Institutions.
Avalable from http://www.eblul.org/ [Accessed 30 January, 2004].
European Commission. 1996. Euromosaic: The Production and Reproduction of the Minority
Language Groups in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities.
Fase, W., Koen, J. & Kroon, S. (eds.) 1992. Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Ferguson, C.A. 1959/1972. “Diglossia” in Word 15: 325–340. [Reprinted in Gigliolo, P. (ed.) 1972.
Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 232–252].
Ferguson, C.A. 1982. Religious Factors in Language Spread, in Cooper (ed.), pp. 95–106.
Fill, A. & Mühlhäusler, P. (eds.) 1997. The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and
Environment. London: Continuum.
Fill, A. 1993. Ökolinguistik: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr.
Filtchenko, A. 2000. A Policy Analysis and Proposals Regarding Prerequisites for Preservation of
Cultural/linguistic Variety in Siberia. Budapest: Open Society Institute Budapest.
Fishman, J. (ed.) 1971. Advances in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
272 Words and Worlds

Fishman, J. (ed.) 2001. Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A
21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, J. 1965. “The relationship between micro- and macro-sociolinguistics in the study of
who speaks what language to who and when” in La Linguistique 2, 67–68.
Fishman, J. 1968. Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton.
Fishman, J. 1971. “The Sociology of Languages” in Fishman, J. Advances in the Sociology of
Language. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 217–404.
Fishman, J. 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Assistance to Threatened
Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, J. 1995. Sociología del lenguaje. Madrid: Cátedra.
Floris, P. et al. 1988. “Langues et Savoirs. Due lingue per sapere. Matériaux pour un
apprentissage bilingue à l’école primaire de la Vallée d’Aoste” in Principes et Méthodologie
Vol. 1, Supplément à L’Ecole Valdotaine, 14. Aoste.
Fortescue, M.D. 1998. Language Relations Across Bering Strait. Reappraising the Archaeological and
Linguistic Evidence. London: Cassell.
Franklin, K.J. 1992. “The Pandanus Languages of the Southern Highlands Province” in Dutton,
T.E. (ed.) Culture Change, Language Changes: Case Studies from Melanesia. Canberra Pacific
Linguistics C-120.
Froment, A. 2001. “Evolutionary biology and health of hunter-gatherer populations” in Panter-
Brick, C., Layton, R.H. &. Rowley-Conwy, P. (eds.) Hunter-Gatherers. An Interdisciplinary
Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gallagher, Ch. F. 1971. “Language Reform and Social Modernization in Turkey” in Rubin, J. &
Jernudd, B.H. (eds.) Can Language be Planned? Hawaii: University Press of Hawaii Rubin,
pp 159–178.
Gardner, N. 2000. Basque in Education: In the Basque Autonomous Community. Vitoria-Gasteiz:
Eusko Jaurlaritzaren Argitalpen Zerbitzu Nagusia – Servicio Central de Publicaciones del
Gobierno Vasco.
Genesee, F. (ed.) 1994. Educating Second Language Children: The Whole Child, the Whole
Curriculum, the Whole Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Genesee, F. 1983. “Bilingual education of majority-language children: The immersion
experiments in review” in Applied Psycholinguistics 4, 1–46.
Genesee, F. 1987. Learning Through Two Languages. Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education.
Rowley: M.A. Newbury House.
Giglioli, P.P. (ed.) 1972. Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Giles, H. & Johnson, P. 1987. “Ethnolinguistic identity theory: a social psychological approach
to language maintenance” in International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68, 69–100.
Giles, H. (ed.) 1977. Language Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.
Giles, H., Taylor, D.M. & Bourhis, R. 1977. “Toward a theory of language in ethnic group
relations” in Giles, H. (ed.) Language Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. London: Academic
Press, pp. 307–348.
Giordan H. (ed.) 1992. Les minorités en Europe. Droits linguistiques et droits de l’homme. Paris: Kimé.
Girault, L. 1989. Kallawaya, El idioma secreto de los Incas. Bolivia UNICEF-OPS-OMS.
Glausiusz, J. 1997. “The Ecology of Language: Link between Rainfall and Language Diversity”
in Fill, A. & Mühlhäusler, P. (eds.) 1997. The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and
Environment. London: Continuum.
Gnanasundaram, V. & Elangaiyan, R. 2000. “Endangered Languages in the Indian Context” in
Koul, O.N. & Devaki. L. (eds.) Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia. Mysore: Central Institute
of Indian Languages, pp. 29–44.
Goh, K. 1980. “Report on the Ministry of Education 1978” in Newman, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the
Symposium on Language Planning. Singapore: University of Singapore.
References 273

Goody, J. & Watt, I. 1968. “Las consecuencias de la cultura escrita” in. Goody, J. (eds.) Cultura
escrita en sociedades tradicionales, Barcelona: Gedisa, pp. 39–82.
Goody, J. (ed.) 1996. Cultura escrita en sociedades tradicionales. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Goodz, N. 1994. “Interactions between parents and children in bilingual families“ in Genesee,
F. (ed.) Educating Second Language Children: The Whole Child, the Whole Curriculum, the Whole
Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gough, K. 1968. “Las implicaciones de la cultura escrita en las sociedades tradicionales de la
China y de la India” in Goody, J. (ed.) Cultura escrita en sociedades tradicionales. Barcelona:
Gedisa, pp. 83–100.
Greenberg, J. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Grenoble, L.A. & Whaley, L.J. (eds.) 1998. Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Grimes, B.F. 1996 / 2000. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Grinevald, C. 1998. “Language endangerment in South America: a programmatic approach” in
Grenoble, L.A. & Whaley, L.J. (eds.) Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 124–159.
Gumperz, J.J. 1972. “The Speech Community” in Giglioli, P.P. (ed.) Language and Social Context.
Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 219–231.
Gumperz, J.J. & Wilson, R. 1971. “Convergence and Creolization: A Case from the Indo-Aryan-
Dravidian Border”. in Hymes, D. (ed.) Pidginization and Creolization of Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–168.
Gunnemark, E. 1991. Countries, Peoples and Their Languages. The Geolinguistic Handbook.
Gothenburg: Geolingua.
Gwegen, J. 1999. “Le bilinguisme immersif dans les écoles Diwan” in Klask 5. Rennes:
Université de Rennes.
Haarmann, H. 1980. Multilingualismus 2. – Elemente einer Sprach”kologie. Tübingen: Narr.
Hagège, C. 1992. Le souffle de la langue. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Hagège, C. 2000. Halte à la mort des langues. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Hale, K. 1992. “Language Endangerment and the Human Value of Linguistic Diversity” in
Language 68 (1), 35–42.
Hamelink, J.C. 1994. Trends in World Communication. On Disempowerment and Self-Enpowerment.
Malaysia: Southbound.
Hamers, J.F. & Blanc, M. 1982. “Towards a social-psychological model of bilingual
development” in Journal of Language and Social Psychology 1 (1), 29–49.
Hamers, J.F. & Blanc, M. 1983. Bilingualité et Bilinguisme. Brussels: Mardaga. Série Psychologie
et Sciences Humaines.
Hamers, J.F. & Blanc, M. 2000. Bilinguality & Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2nd Edition.
Hamers, J.F. 1981. “Psychological approaches to the development of bilinguality” in Baetens
Beardsmore, H. (ed.) Elements of Bilingual Theory. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit te Brussel.
Hansen, K.C. 1984. “Communicability of some Western Desert Communilects” in Hudson, J. &
Pym, N. (eds.) Language Survey. Work Papers of SIL-AAB, B-11: 1–112. Darwin: Summer
Institute of Linguistics.
Harlow, R. 1993. “Lexical Expansion” in Journal of the Polynesian Society 10 (1), 99–107.
Harmon, D. 1996. “Losing species, losing languages: Connections between biological and
linguistic diversity” Southwest Journal of Linguistics 15, 89–108.
Haugen, E. 1972. The Ecology of Language. California: Stanford University Press.
Herranz, A. 1996. Estado, sociedad y lenguaje. Política lingüística en Honduras. Tegucigalpa:
Guaymuras-IHAH-GTZ.
Herriman, M. & Burnaby, B. (eds.) 1996. Language Policy in English-dominant Countries: Six Case
Studies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
274 Words and Worlds

Hinton, L. 1994. Flutes of Fire: Essays on California Indian Languages. California: Heyday Books.
Hockett, Ch. 1950. “Age-Grading and Linguistic Continuity” in Language 26, 449–457.
Holm, J. 1988. Pidgins and Creoles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoover, M.C. 1992. “The revival of the Mohawk Language in Kahnawake” in Canadian Journal
of Native Studies 12 ( 2), 269–287.
Hornberger, N.H. & King, K.A. 2001. “Reversing Quechua Language shift in South America” in
Fishman, J. (ed.) Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st
Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 166–194.
Hornberger, N.H. & López, L.E. 1998. “Policy Possibility and Paradox: Indigenous
Multilingualism and Education in Peru and Bolivia” in Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. Beyond
Bilingualism. Multilingualism and Multilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,
pp. 206–242.
Hudson, J. & Pym, N. (eds.) 1984. Language Survey. Work Papers of SIL-AAB, B-11: 1–112.
Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Hyltenstam, K. & Viberg, A. (eds.) 1993. Progression and Regression in Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. (ed.) 1971. Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
IFA (International Franchise Association) 1988. Inventaire des particularités lexicales du français en
Afrique Noire. Montreal: AUPELF-UREF/ACCT.
Ignace, M.B. 1998. Handbook for Aboriginal Language Program Planning in British Columbia. North
Vancouver. British Columbia: First Nations Education Steering Committee.
Instituto Superior de Catequética de Nimega 1969. Nuevo catecismo para adultos. Barcelona: Herder.
Jablonski, N.G. & Aiello, L.A. (eds.) 1998. The Origin and Diversification of Language. San
Francisco: California Academy of Sciences.
Junyent, C. 1992. Vida i mort de les llengües. Barcelona: Empúries.
Junyent, C. 1999. La diversidad lingüística. Barcelona: Octaedro.
Kazadi, N. 1991. L’Afrique afro-francophone. Paris: Didier Érudition.
Kendon, A. 1988. Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia; Cultural, Semiotic and Communicative
Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kibrik, A.E. 1991. “The problem of endangered languages in USSR” in Robins, R.H. &
Uhlenbeck, E.M. (eds.) Endangered Languages. Oxford/New York: Berg.
Kinkade, M.D. 1991.”The decline of native languages in Canada” in Robins, R.H. & Uhlenbeck,
E.M. (eds.) Endangered Languages. Oxford/New York: Berg.
Kinkade, M.D., Hale, K. & Werner, W. (eds.) 1975. Linguistic and Anthropology in Honour of C.F.
Voegelin. Lisse: De Ridder.
Kloss, H. & McConnell, G.D. 1978, 1989, 1989. The Written Languages of the World: A Survey of the
Degree and Modes of Use, 6 V. Quebec: Laval University Press.
Kloss, H. 1967. “Abstand Languages” and “Ausbau Languages” in Anthropological Linguistics
9 (7), 29–41.
Kloss, H. & McConnell, G.D. 1974, 1987, 1978, 1980, 1984. The Linguistic Composition of the
Nations of the World/La Composition linguistique des nations du monde, 6 volumes. Quebec:
Laval University Press.
Koul, O.N. & Devaki. L. (eds.) 2000. Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia. Mysore: Central
Institute of Indian Languages.
Krauss, M. 1992. “The world’s languages in crisis” in Language 68 (1), 4–10.
Krauss, M. 1993. “The Language Extinction Catastrophy Just Ahead: Should Linguists Care” in
Crochetière, J.-C. Boulanger, C. Ouellon (eds.) Proceedings of the XV International Congress of
Linguists, Endangered Languages. Quebec: Laval University.
Kreckel, M. 1980. Communicative Acts and Shared Knowledge in Natural Discourse. London:
Academic Press.
References 275

Kulick, D. 1993. “Growing Up Monolingual in a Multilingual Community” in Hyltenstam, K. &

Viberg, A. (eds.) Progression and Regression in Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuo, E.C.Y. 1980. “Language Planning in Singapore” in Language Planning Newsletter 6 (2), 1–4.
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lambert W.E. & Tucker R.G. 1972. Bilingual Education of Children. The St. Lambert Experiment.
Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Lambert, W.E. 1974. “Culture and language as factors in learning and education” in Aboud, F.E.
& Meade, R.D. (eds.) Cultural Factors in Learning and Education. Bellingham, Washington:
Western Washington State University.
Landaburu, J. 1997. “La situación de las lenguas indígenas de Colombia: Prolegómenos para
una política lingüística viable” in LINGUAPAX Seminario Internacional sobre Políticas
Lingüísticas, pp. 299–314.
Landaburu, J. 1998. “Oralidad y escritura en las sociedades indígenas” in López, L.E. & Jung, I.
(eds.) Sobre las huellas de la voz. Madrid: Morata, pp. 39–82.
Lara, G. 1997. Educación de adultos en contextos indígenas: hacia una educación culturalmente
diferenciada en Honduras. Tegucigalpa: Secretaría de Educación, GTZ-UNO.
Lastra, Y. 1992. Sociolingüística para hispanoamericanos. México: El Colegio de México.
Lastra, Y. 2001. “Otomí language shift and some recent efforts to reverse it” in Fishman, J.A.
(ed.) Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century
Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 142–165.
Laycock, D.C. 1979. “Linguistic Boundaries and Unsolved Problems in Papua New Guinea,” in
Wurm, S.A. (ed.) New Guinea and Neighboring Areas: A Sociolinguistic Laboratory. The Hague:
Mouton, pp. 81–99.
Laycock, D.C. & Mühlhäusler, P. 1990. An Encyclopaedia of Language. London: Routledge.
Laycock, D.C. & Winter, W. (eds.) 1985. A World of Language, Series C-No. 100. Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics.
Laycock, D.C. 1982. “Linguistic Diversity in Melanesia: a tentative explanation” in Carle, R.,
Heinschke, M., Pink, P.W., Rost, Ch. & Stadtlander, K. (eds.) Gava’: Studies in Austronesian
Languages and Cultures, Dedicated to Hans Kähler. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, pp. 31–37.
Le Page, R.B. & Tabouret-Keller, A. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and
Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, T. & McLaughlin, D. 2001. “Reversing Navajo Language Shift, Revisited” in Fishman, J.
(ed.) Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century
Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 23–43.
León Portilla, M.&A. (ed.) 1993. Fray Andrés.de Olmos. Arte de la Lengua Mexicana. Madrid: Ed.
Cultura Hispánica. Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana.
Leopold, W.F. 1939–1949. Speech Development of a Bilingual Child. 4 Volumes. Evanston, Illinois:
Northwestern University Press.
Libert, A. 2000. A Priori Artificial Languages. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Liégeois, J.P. 1992. “Les Tsiganes: situation d’une minorité non territoriale” in Giordan H. (ed.)
Les Minorités en Europe. Droits Linguistiques et droits de l’homme. Paris: Kimé.
Lind, G. 1972. “Language Gaps and Language Links in Scandinavia” in Anthropological
Linguistics 14 (2), 62–69.
Lindenberg-Monte, N. 1998. Escolas da floresta. Entre o passado oral e o presente letrado. Rio de
Janeiro: Multiletra.
Linguapax, Seminario Internacional sobre Políticas Lingüísticas 1997. UNESCO Linguapax. Bilbao:
UNESCO Etxea.
Lizarraldi, M. 2001. “Biodiversity and Loss of Indigenous Languages and Knowledge” in Maffi
(ed.) On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge and the Environment. Washington:
Smithsonian Institute Press, pp. 265–281.
276 Words and Worlds

Lloyd, G.E.R. 1990. Demystifying Mentalities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lo Bianco, J. & Rhyden, M. 2001. “Is the extinction of Australia’s Indigenous languages
inevitable?” in Fishman, J.A. (ed.) Can Threatened languages Be Saved? Reversing Language
Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 391–422.
López, L.E. & Jung, I. (eds.) 1998. Sobre las huellas de la voz. Madrid: Morata.
Lüdi, G. (ed) 1994. Sprachstandardisierung. Freiburg: Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social
Sciences.
Maalouf. A. 1998. Les identités meurtrières. Paris: Grasset & Fasquelle.
MacEoin, G. et al. (eds) 1987. Third International Conference on Minority Languages; General Papers.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
MacNamara, J. 1967. “The bilingual’s linguistic performance” in Journal of Social Issues 23, 58–77.
Maffi, L. (ed.) 2001. On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge and the Environment.
Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press.
Magga, O.H. 1998. “Cultural rights and indigenous peoples: the Sami experience” in UNESCO
World Culture Report. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, pp. 76–84.
Manning, Ch. 1996. Ergativity. Stanford: CSLI.
Markey, T.L. 1987. “When Minor is Minor and Major is Major: Language Expansion,
Contraction and Death” in MacEoin, G. et al. (eds) Third International Conference on Minority
Languages; General Papers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
May, S. 2001. Language and Minority Rights. Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language.
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Mayor Zaragoza, F. 2000. Un món nou. Barcelona: Centre UNESCO de Catalunya.
McArthur, T. 1998. The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McConnell, G.D. (ed.) 1999. “An Analytic Bank of the Languages of the World” in Bulletin de
géolinguistique/Geolinguistic Newsletter, 8. Centre international de recherche en aménagement
linguistique (Ciral). Québec: Université Laval.
McConnell, G.D. 1997. “Global Scale Sociolinguistics” in Coulmas, F. (ed.) The Handbook of
Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
McConnell, G.D. 1998. The Linguistic Composition of the Nations of the World/La Composition
linguistique des nations du monde, 6 volumes. Quebec: Laval University Press.
McConvell, P. & Thieberger, N. 2001. The State of Indigenous Languages in Australia. Draft.
Meisel, J.M. (ed.) 1990. Two First Languages: Early Grammatical Development in Bilingual Children.
Dordrecht: Floris.
Meliá, B. 1992. La Lengua Guaraní del Paraguay. Madrid: MAFRE.
Miège, B. 2000. “Cultural production and cultural pluralism” in UNESCO World Communication
and Information 1999–2000 Report. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, pp. 62–71.
Milroy, L. 1980. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ministry of Maori Development 1998. The National Maori Language Survey. Wellington: Ministry
of Maori Development.
Mohanty, A.K. 1994. Bilingualism in a Multilingual Society: Psychosocial and Pedagogical
Implications. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Moreno Cabrera J.C. 2000. La dignidad e igualdad de las lenguas. Crítica de la discriminación
lingüística. Madrid: Alianza.
Moseley, Ch. & Asher, R.E. 1994. Atlas of the World’s Languages. New York: Routledge.
Mühlhäusler, P. & Amery, R. 1996. “Koines and indigenous lingue franche in Australia” in Wurm,
S.A., Mühlhäusler, P. & Tryon D.T. (eds.) Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the
Pacific, Asia, and the Americas, Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, pp. 17–24.
Mühlhäusler, P. 1996. Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in the Pacific
Region. London: Routledge.
Mühlhäusler, P. 2002. “Language as an Ecological Phenomenon” in The Linacre Journal. A Review
of Research in the Humanities 5, 61–68.
References 277

Mühlhäusler, P., Dutton, T.E., Hovdhaugen, E., Williams, J. & Wurm S.A. 1996. “Precolonial
Patterns of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific Islands” in Wurm, S.A.,
Mühlhäusler, P. & Tryon D.T. (eds.) 1996. Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in
the Pacific, Asia and the Americas. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Muñoz, C. (ed.) 2000. Segundas lenguas: adquisición en el aula. Barcelona: Ariel.
Myers, J.D. 1999. Social Activism Through Computer Networks. Cuadernos Bakeaz, 32.
Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Dualling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Code Switching. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Social Motivations for Code Switching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Nagalakshmi, S. 2000. “Respect for Linguistic and cultural diversity in India” in Koul, O.N. &
Devaki. L. (eds.) Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian
Languages, pp. 91–109.
Nekitel, Otto 1998. Voices of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Language, Culture and Identity. Papua
New Guinea: UBS Publishers Distributors Ltd. & Nekitelson Pty Ltd.
Nettle, D. & Romaine, S. 2000. Vanishing Voices. The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Nettle, D. 1998. “Explaining Global Patterns of Language Diversity” in Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 17, 354–374.
Nettle, D. 1999. Linguistic Diversity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Newman, J. (ed.) 1980. Proceedings of the Symposium on Language Planning. University of Singapore.
Nichols, J. 1998. “The origin and dispersal of languages: linguistic evidence” in Jablonski, N.G.
& Aiello, L.A. (eds.) The Origin and Diversification of Language. San Francisco: California
Academy of Sciences.
Norris, M.J. 1998. “Canada’s aboriginal languages” in Canadian Social Trends: Winter.
O’Barr, W.M. & O’Barr, J.F. (eds.) 1976. Language and Politics. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
O’Grady, G.N. 1979. “Preliminaries to a Proto Nuclear Pama-Nyungan stem list” in Wurm, S.A.
(ed.) Australian Linguistic Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 107–139.
Odgen, C.K. 1968. Basic English: International Second Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World, Inc.
Olson D. 1994. El mundo sobre el papel. El impacto de la escritura y la lectura en la estructura del
conocimiento. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Olson, D. & N. Torrance, N. (eds.) 1995. Cultura escrita y oralidad. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Olson, D. 1995. “Cultura escrita y objetividad: el surgimiento de la ciencia moderna” in Olson,
D.R. & Torrance, N. (eds.) Cultura escrita y oralidad. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Ortiz Rescaniere, A. 1992. El Quechua y el Aymara. Madrid: MAFRE.
Padilla, A.M. & Liebmann, E. 1975. “Language acquisition in the bilingual child” in The
Bilingual Review/ La Revista Bilingüe 2, 34–55.
Pandharipande, R. 1992. “Language Shift in India: Issues and Implications” in Fase, W.,
Koen, J. & Kroon, S. (eds.) Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, pp. 253–276.
Panter-Brick, C., Layton, R.H. &. Rowley-Conwy, P. (eds.) 2001. Hunter-Gatherers. An
Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parker, P.M. 1997. Linguistic Cultures of the World: a Statistical Reference. Westport:
Greenwood Press.
Pattanayak, D.P. 1991. Language, Education and Culture. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian
Languages.
Pattanayak, D.P. 1995. “La cultura escrita: un instrumento de opresión” in Olson, D. & N.
Torrance, N. (eds.) Cultura escrita y oralidad. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Pawley, A. Ross, M. & Tryon, D. (eds.) 2001. The Boy from Bundaburg: Studies in Melanesian
Linguistics in Honour of Tom Dutton. Camberra: PICS.
278 Words and Worlds

Peal, E. & Lambert, W.E. 1962. “The relation of bilingualism to intelligence” in Psychological
Monographs 76, 1–23.
Perales, J. 2000. Euskara-ikasle helduen ikas-prozesua: ikaslearen baitako zenbait aldagairen eta
arrakastaren arteko erlazioa. EHU-ko doktorego tesia. Donostia: Universidad del País Vasco –
Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pride, J.B. & Holmes, J. (eds.) 1972. Sociolinguistics. Hardmondsworh: Penguin.
Pugh, A.K., Lee, V.O. & Swann, J. 1980. Language and Language Use. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Renard, R. 2000. Une éthique pour la francophonie. Questions de politique linguistique. Mons: CIPA,
Paris: Didier Érudition.
Rigsby, B & Sutton, P. no date. Speech Communities in Aboriginal Australia. [photocopy] Brisbane:
University of Queensland.
Rijkhoff, R.H. & Bakker, E.M. 1998. “Language sampling” in Linguistic Typology 2–3.
Robins, R.H. & Uhlenbeck, E.M. (eds.) 1991. Endangered Languages. Oxford/New York: Berg.
Romaine, S. (ed.) 1991. Language in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Romaine, S. 1982. Sociolinguistic Variation in Speech Communities. London: Edward Arnold.
Romaine, S. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ronjat, J. 1913. Le développement du langage observé, chez un enfant bilingue. Paris: Champion.
Rubin, J. & Jernudd, B.H. 1971. Can Language Be Planned?. Hawaii: University Press of Hawaii.
Rubin, J. 1968. National Bilingualism in Paraguay. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruhlen, M. 1987. A Guide to the World’s Languages. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Sankoff, G. 1972. “Language Use in Multilingual Societies: Some Alternative Approaches” in
Pride, J.B. & Holmes, J. (ed.) Sociolinguistics. Hardmondsworh: Penguin, pp. 33–51.
Sankoff, G. 1976. “Political Power and Linguistic Inequality in Papua New Guinea” in O’Barr,
W.M. & O’Barr, J.F. (eds.) Language and Politics. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 283–310.
Sankoff, G. 1980. “Mutual Intelligibility, Bilingualism and Linguistic Boundaries” in Sankoff,
G. The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 133–141.
Sankoff, G.1980. The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sasse, H.J. 1992. “Theory of language death” in Brenzinger, M. (dir.) Language Death: Factual and
Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa. New York: Mouton.
Schmidt, A. 1985. Young People’s Dyirbal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schütz, A.J. 1985. “Prelude to the Grammar: The Tongues of Men and Angels” in The Fijian
Language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 55–72.
Seurujärvi-Kari, I. & Pedersen, S. & Hirvonen, V. 1997. The Sámi. The Indigenous People of
Northernmost Europe. Brussels: European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages.
Siegel, J. 1985. “Koines and Koineization” in Language in Society 14, 357–378.
Siguan, M. 2001. Bilingüismo y lenguas en contacto. Madrid: Alianza.
Siguan, M.& Mackey, W.F. 1986. Education and Bilingualism. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Silverstein, M. 1971. “Language Contact and the Problem of Convergent Generative Systems:
Chinook Jargon” in Hymes, D. (ed.) Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–192.
Skutnabb-Kangas T. (ed.) 1995. Multilingualism for all. Series European Studies on Multilingualism
4. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human
Rights? Mahwa/New Jersey/London: L. Erlbaum Ass.
Sorensen, A.P. Jr. 1967. “Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon” in American Anthropologist
69, 670–684.
Spolsky, B. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, W.A. 1968. “A sociolinguistic typology for describing national multilingualism” in
Fishman, J. (ed.) Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 531–545.
References 279

Stross, B. 1975. “Variation and Natural Selection as Factors in Linguistic and Cultural Change”
in Kinkade, M.D., Hale, K. & Werner, W. (eds.) Linguistic and Anthropology in Honour of C.F.
Voegelin. Lisse: De Ridder.
Suter, R. 1989. Unser Baseldeutsch. Basel: Buchverlag Basler Zeitung.
Sutton, P. 1991. “Language in Aboriginal Australia: Social Dialects in a Geographic Idiom” in
Romaine, S. (ed.) Language in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. 1972. Bilingualism as a First Language. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Irvine:
University of California.
Terrell, J. 1986. Prehistory in the Pacific Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thurston, W.R. 1982. A Comparative Study in Anêm and Lusi. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics B85.
Thurston, W.R. 1987. Processes of Change in the Languages of North-Western New Britain. Canberra:
Pacific Linguistics B99.
Tindale, N.B. 1974. Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Titone, R. 1972. Le bilinguisme précoce. Brussels: Dessart.
Tollefson, J.W. 1991. Planning Language, Planning Inequality. London: Longman.
Trudgill, P. 1983. Sociolinguistics (revised edition). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Tryon, D.T. & Walsh, M. (eds.) 1997. Boundary Rider: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey O’Grady.
Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Tryon, D.T. 1979. “The Language Situation in the New Hebrides” in Wurm, S.A. (ed.) Australian
Linguistic Studies. Camberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 11–13.
Tryon, D.T. 1999. “Language, culture and archaeology in Vanuatu” in Blench, R & Spriggs, M.
(eds.) Archaeology and Language III. Artefacts, Languages and Texts. London: Routledge.
UNESCO 1953. The Use of Vernacular Languages in Education. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO 1966. Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Cooperation. [Internet] General
Conference. 14th session. Paris. Avalable from http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/
cooperation/html_eng/page1.shtml. [Accessed 30 October, 2004].
UNESCO 1975. Declaration of Persepolis, [Internet] International Symposium For Literacy, Iran.
Avalable from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/PERSEP_E.PDF [Accessed 30
October, 2004].
UNESCO 1995. Medios de Comunicación y democracia en América Latina y el Caribe. Paris:
UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO 1995. Our Creative Diversity: Report of the World Commission on Culture and
Development. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO 1996. La educación encierra un tesoro. Informe a la UNESCO de la Comisión Internacional
sobre la educación para el siglo XXI, presidida por Jacques Delors. Paris/Madrid: UNESCO/
Santillana.
UNESCO 1997. Declaration of Harare. [Internet] Intergovernmental Conference of Ministers.
Avalable from http: //www.bisharat.net/Harare97Declaration.htm [Accessed 30 October, 2004].
UNESCO 1997. Statistical Yearbook 1997. Paris: UNESCO Publishing & Bernan Press.
UNESCO 1997. World Communication Report. The Media and the Challenge of the New Technologies.
Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO 1998. Statistical Yearbook 1998. Paris: UNESCO Publishing & Bernan Press.
UNESCO 1998. Stockholm Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Developement.
[Internet] Avalable from http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/stockholm/html_eng/
index_en.shtml [Accessed 30 October, 2004].
UNESCO 1998. World Culture Report. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO 2000. Asmara Declaration. African Languages and Literatures into the XXI Century.
[Internet] Avalable from http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Govern_Political/
asmrlit.html [Accessed 30 October, 2004].
UNESCO 2000. World Communication and Information 1999–2000 Report. Paris: UNESCO
Publishing.
280 Words and Worlds

UNESCO 2001. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. [Internet] Avalable from http:
//www.unesco.org/culture/pluralism/diversity/html_eng/index_en.shtml [Accessed
30 October, 2004].
UNESCO 2003. Education in a Multilingual World. Education Position Paper. Paris: UNESCO
Publishing
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 2000. The State of the World’s
Refugees 2000. Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action. Geneva/New York : UNHCR/Oxford
University Press.
Virilio, P. 1997. El cibermundo, política de lo peor. Madrid: Cátedra.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Walsh, M. 1997. “How many Australian languages were there?” in Tryon, D.T., & Walsh, M.
(eds.) Boundary Rider: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey O’Grady. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
C-136, pp. 393–411.
Washabaugh, W. 1986. Five Fingers for Survival. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, Inc.
Webster 1961. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. London: Bell
& Sons.
White, R.V. 1971. “Language Use in a South Pacific Urban Community” in Anthropological
Linguistics 13, 361–384.
Whorf, B. 1956. Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings. Massachusetts: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Wollock, J. 2001. “Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity” in Maffi, L. (ed.) On Biocultural
Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge and the Environment. Washington: Smithsonian
Institute, pp. 248–262.
Wurm, S.A. & Laycock, D.C. 1962. “The Question of Language and Dialect in New Guinea” in
Oceania 37: 128–143.
Wurm, S.A. (ed.) 1979. Australian Linguistic Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Wurm, S.A. (ed.) 1979. New Guinea and Neighboring Areas: A Sociolinguistic Laboratory. The
Hague: Mouton.
Wurm, S.A. 1994. “Graphisation and Standardisation of Languages” in Lüdi, G. (ed.)
Sprachstandardisierung. Freiburg: Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences,
pp. 255–274.
Wurm, S.A. 1996. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger of Disappearing. Paris/Camberra:
UNESCO Publishing/Pacific Linguistics.
Wurm, S.A. 2001. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger of Disappearing. Paris/Camberra:
UNESCO Publishing/Pacific Linguistics.
Wurm, S.A., Mühlhäusler, P. & Tryon D. T. (eds.) 1996. Atlas of Languages of Intercultural
Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Web References
ACALAN – die Afrikanische Sprachenakademie
http://www.unesco.de/unesco-heute/302/acalan.htm
AMARAUNA – World Languages Network
http://www.amarauna-languages.com
Cátedra UNESCO en Lenguas y Educación (Institut d’Estudis Catalans)
http://www.iecat.net
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, CARLA; Universidad de Minnesota
http://carla.acad.umn.edu/CARLA.html
Central Institute of Indian Languages
http://www.ciil.org/
Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherche sur les Activités Langagières (CIRAL)
http://www.ciral.ulaval.ca/
Centre Internacional Escarré per a les Minories Ètniques i les Nacions (CIEMEN)
http://www.ciemen.org
Consortium for Language Policy and Planning; University of Pennsylvania
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/clpp/
Council of Europe: European Centre for Modern Languages
http://www.ecml.at
Diverscité langues
http://www.teluq.uquebec.ca/diverscite/entree.htm
Endangered Language Fund, Yale University
http://sapir.ling.yale.edu/~elf/index.html
Ethnologue
http://www.ethnologue.com
Euromosaic
http://www.uoc.edu/euromosaic/
Europa Diversa
http://www.europadiversa.org
European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages, EBLUL
http://www.eblul.org
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/treaties/HTML/148.htm (Castellano: BOE
15/09/2001 no 222–2001)

281
282 Words and Worlds

European Commission: Directorate-General for Education and Culture

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/education_culture/index_en.htm
European Minority Languages
http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/saoghal/mion-chanain/en/
Foundation for Endangered Languages
http://www.ogmios.org
Luistxo Fernández Page at Geocities
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9479/lotu.html
Institute for the Preservation of the Original Languages of the Americas, IPOLA
http://www.ipola.org
Instituto LINGUAPAX
http://www.linguapax.org,
International Clearing House for Endangered Languages, ICHEL, University of Tokyo
http://www.tooyoo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ichel/ichel.html
L’Aménagement Linguistique dans le Monde
http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/index.shtml
Language Policy Research Unit – Arizona State University
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/lpru.htm
Linguasphere
http://www.linguasphere.org
Linguistic Minority Research Institute; University of California
http://www.lmri.ucsb.edu
Linguistic Society of America, LSA
http://www.lsadc.org
Mercator (Education, Legislation and Media)
http://www.mercator-central.org
Programa de Formación en Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Países Andinos
(PROEIBANDES)
http://www.proeibandes.org
Research Center on Multilingualism, Brussels University
http://www.kubrussel.ac.be/ovm/
SIL International,
http://www.sil.org
Society for the of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, SSILA; Humboldt State
University, California
http://www.ssila.org
Terralingua
http://www.terralingua.org
The Language Policy Research Center; Bar-Ilan University, Israel
http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/lprc
The Modern Language Center, Ontario institute for Studies in Education (OISE)
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/MLC/
Web References 283

UNESCO
http://www.unesco.org
UNESCO Chair in Languages and Education (Institut d’Estudis Catalans)
http://www.iecat.net catedra.unesco@iecat.net
UNESCO Etxea
http://www.unescoeh.org
UNESCO International Mother Tongue Day
http://www.unesco.org/education/imld_2002
UNESCO Management of Social Transformations, MOST
http://www.unesco.org/most/ln1.htm
UNESCO Mons-Hainaut Chair in Linguistic Planning
http://www.umh.ac.be/chaire_unesco
UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity
http://www.unesco.org/culture/pluralism/diversity/html_eng/index_en.shtml
Universal Declaration on Linguistic Rights
http://www.linguistic-declaration.org
Appendix 1
Survey Questionnaire
Questionnaire number

Date of completion

Respondent’s details

Name: Surname:

Sex: Male Female

Institution belonged to:

Address:

Telephone: Fax: E-mail:

Glotonym or name of language on which you are providing data:

Autoglotonym (name given to the language by native speakers):

Heteroglotonym (name given by the non-native community to the language):

What language group does the language belong to?

Family: Group: Subgroup:

What type of language is it?

Creole Pidgin

1. Does this language have other varieties? If so, what are these?

2. Does the language exist in a written form?

3. Is there standardisation of the language?

284
Survey Questionnaire 285

4. Do you consider yourself a member of this linguistic community? If so, why?

5. Where is this language spoken? What are its geographical boundaries?

6. Have these geographical boundaries changed over the years? If so, how have they altered?

7. What is the physical terrain of this area like?

8. Are any other languages spoken within the same territory? If so, what are these?

9. Could you enclose a sketch or indicate the area in which this language is spoken? (if you
wish, you can draw a sketch in the space on the next page)

10. What State(s) / country (ies) do/es the territory/ies where the language is spoken belong to?

11. What is the total number of inhabitants (whether or not they speak this language) of this
territory?

12. How many of the inhabitants understand, speak, read or write this language?

Number

Understand

Speak

Read

Write

Use this space to draw a map or sketch of the territory where this language is spoken.

13. How many of the speakers are monolingual (use only this language)?

14. How many of the speakers are bilingual (use this and another language)? What other
language(s) do they speak?
286 Words and Worlds

15 How many of the speakers are multilingual (speak this and more than one other
language)? What other languages do they speak?

16. Are speakers of this language dispersed throughout the territory, or are they concentrated
in specific population centres?

17. How has the number of speakers of this language evolved over time (increased, decreased
or remained stable)?

18. Is the language passed down from generation to generation? If not, why not? What
language is replacing it?

19. Could you indicate how often the members of each generation use the language with other
generations (old people with old people, young people with old people, etc) in their
informal contacts (in the street, at home, in leisure time,…)?

…speak the language with

The people The Elderly Adults Young people Children

Men Women Men Women Men Women Boys Girls

The elderly : Men Women

Adults: Men Women

Young people: Men Women

Children: Boys Girls

Specify the frequency: 5 = always in this language; 4 = more in this language than others;
3 = equally often in either language; 2 = more in other languages than in this one; 1 = always in
other languages.

20. Do the speakers of other languages speak this language? In what circumstances?

21. Is there any historical, political or economic factor which has affected the situation of this
linguistic community?
Survey Questionnaire 287

22. Has any other factor directly influenced the growth or threatened the future of the
language (migration, temporary labour, deportations, wars…)?

23. Is the language currently threatened? If so, what is the cause?

24. Is the community which speaks this language in danger? If so, what is the cause?

25. Is there any internal migration (movement of the population within the territory)? Is there
any external migration (movement out of the territory to others)? If so, what is the cause?

26. What is the main economic activity of this community?

27. What is the influence of religion on this community?

28. Does the language have any official status (official, joint-official language, acceptance…)?

29. Is the language used in contact with the administration? Indicate whether its use in the
administration is in spoken and/or written form.

30. Is this language used in education (whether as the teaching medium or as a subject of
study)? Indicate whether there is spoken and/or written use of the language in elementary
and higher education.

31. Is this language used in the media (radio, newspapers and television…)?

32. Is the language used in religious services and ceremonies? Indicate whether there is
spoken or written use of the language in religious services and ceremonies.

33. Is the language used in business and labour relations? Indicate whether the use is spoken
and/or written.

34. Are there any other areas in which this language is used in its written form?

35. Is there any organisation or body responsible for linguistic policy and planning with
respect to this language? What kind of activities does this perform?
288 Words and Worlds

36. Is there any kind of cultural or linguistic organisation or body which promotes the
knowledge and/or use of the language? What kind of activities does this perform?

37. Does he language have a literary tradition? If so, please give some information about this
literary tradition.

38. What is the attitude of the majority of the members of this community towards the
knowledge and use of this language?

39. What is the attitude of the majority of the members of the neighbouring communities
towards the knowledge and use of the language?

40. PLEASE ADD ANY OTHER DETAILS REGARDING THE SITUATION OF THE
LANGUAGE WHICH YOU CONSIDER OF INTEREST. At the same time, we would be
grateful if you could send us any statistics, reports, assignment or research which might
help us to understand the situation of this language. It would also be very helpful if you
could provide references of the sources consulted and the addresses of any individuals or
bodies that may be able to offer further data about this language.
Appendix 2
Index of Contributors
THE MEANING OF TRIBAL LANGUAGES IN INDIA 25
Anvita Abbi
BILINGUALISM, MULTILINGUALISM AND MIND DEVELOPMENT 33
Josiane F. Hamers
THE LANGUAGES OF NIGERIA 50
Ayo Bamgbose
THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ETHNOLOGUE TO THE REVIVAL OF WORLD
LANGUAGES 62
Barbara F. Grimes
THE FUTURE OF FRENCH IN AFRICA 68
Raymond Renard
NORTHERN CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES 71
Alexey Yeschenko
LANGUAGES IN RUSSIA AND CIS COUNTRIES 74
Irina Khaleeva
THE LANGUAGE CONCEPT IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA 78
Peter Mühlhäusler
LANGUAGE TREASURES IN INDONESIA 95
Multamia RMT Lauder
THE LANGUAGE REVIVAL OF WELSH 100
Wynford Bellin
BRETON AND THE EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR MINORITY LANGUAGES 103
Francis Favereau
NEW APPROACH TO LANGUAGE POLICY 111
E. Annamalai
THE LANGUAGES OF SIBERIA 120
Bernard Comrie
THE WHY AND THE WHEREFORE OF CENSUSES WITH LINGUISTIC DATA 126
Grant D. McConnell
ORALITY AND WRITING: AND THERE WERE LETTERS 132
Bartomeu Melià
ON THE EQUALITY OF LANGUAGES 138
Juan Carlos Moreno
THE STATUS OF LINGUISTIC NORMS 144
Jean-Paul Bronckart
LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION IN INDIA 153
P. Pattanayak
BILINGUAL INDIGENOUS EDUCATION 155
Isaac Pianko Ashaninka

289
290 Words and Worlds

EDUCATION IN INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES AND ITS IMPORTANCE FOR

THEIR REVIVAL 158
Joaquim Mana Kaxinawa
THE TEACHING OF MINORITY LANGUAGES AS A SECOND LANGUAGE 163
Denis Cunningham
ON BILINGUAL EDUCATION. OBJECTIVES AND APPROACHES 166
Miquel Siguan
POSSIBILITIES OF THE REVIVAL OF LANGUAGES IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA 168
Stephen Wurm
WHY LEARN THE LANGUAGE? WHY BE LITERATE? THE BASQUE
EXPERIENCE, 1960–2000 170
Joseba Intxausti
THE MEDIA IN THE SERVICE OF MINORITY LANGUAGES 181
Xavier Albó
EUROMOSAIC: THE PRODUCTION AND REPRODUCTION OF THE MINORITY
LANGUAGE GROUPS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 202
Miquel Strubell
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT/REVIVAL ACTIVITIES BY THE CENTRAL
INSTITUTE OF INDIAN LANGUAGES 209
Omkar N. Koul
TERRALINGUA AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS 216
Tove Skutnabb-Kangas
SOCIAL ATTITUDES CONCERNING PIDGINS AND CREOLES 222
Suzanne Romaine
ABOUT THE DEATH OF LANGUAGES 228
Nancy C. Dorian
ALTERNATIVES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF LANGUAGES:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE LINGUASPHERE OBSERVATORY 230
David Dalby
LANGUAGE DIVERSITY IN CHINA 235
Sun Hongkai & Huang Xing
LANGUAGES OF NEPAL 240
Chura Mani Bandhu
WHAT DO YOU LOSE WHEN YOU LOSE YOUR LANGUAGE? 243
Joshua A. Fishman
Appendix 3
List of Informants
Clifford Abbott, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. Hilili Abdelaziz, Université Sidi
Mohammed Ben Abdellah. Sapana Abuyi, Summer Institute of Linguistics. K.P. Acharya,
Central Institute of Indian Languages. Marcel Acquaviva, Comité Français du Belmr / Scola
Corsa Bastia. Thomas Acton, University of Greenwich. Lawrence Olufemi Adewole,
Obafemi Awolowo University. Larey Adreka, Direction de L’Alphabétisation de Togo.
Zahid Agha. Amaia Agirre Pinedo, Eusko Jaurlaritza. Paulino Aguilera, Misioneros
Combonianos. Husni Mahmoud Ahmad, Yarmouk University. Samuli Aikio, Research
Institute for the Languages of Finland. Chengshiliang Aixinjueluo, Central University for
Nationalities. Mariam Ajmatova, Kabardino-Balkarian State University. Ixch’umil Adela
Ajquijay On, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Timur Ajriyev, Ingushetia
State University. Aghamusa Akhundov, Nasimi Language Institute, Academy of Sciences.
John Akhura Muhambi, Bible Society of Kenya. Omuka Fanuel Akolo, University of
Nairobi. Kofi Akpakli, Directeur de la formation permanente, de l’action et de la recherche
pédagogique de Togo (DIFOP). Afia Akrasi Twumasi. Olugboyega Alaba, University of
Lagos. Mariëta Alberts, National Language Service South Africa. Catalina Alcantara
Malca, Federación de Rondas Femeninas del Norte del Perú. Mikhail Alexeyev, Linguistics
Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences. Ileana Almeida, Fundación Pueblo Indio del
Ecuador. Ahmed Khattab Al-Omar, University of Tikrit. Miguel Angel Amaya Amaya,
GUIDAKA (Comunidad de Indígenas Cacaoperas). Titus Adebisi Amoo, Nigerian
Educational Research and Development Council. Aït Mehouane Amssane. Jun An,
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Gabriel Andres, Mouvement Autonomiste Alsacien-
Lorrain. Dagmar Maria Anoca, Universitatea Bucuresti-Romania. Begum Jahan Ara,
University of Dhaka. Jacques Arends, University of Amsterdam. Adjisardji Aritiba, École
Normale Superieure. Malcolm Armour, Summer Institute of Linguistics. John Kobia
Ataya, Bible Society of Kenya. Kla’rik Attila, Ministry of National Education-Romania.
Jeanne Austin, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Oladele Awobuluyi, University of Ilorin.
A. Aziz Bin Deraman, Ministery of Education, Malaysia. Victoria Olubanwo Babalola,
Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council. Tetouhaki Balouki, Association
pour la Sauvegarde des Langues et Cultures Africaines en Peril (ASLACAP). Ayo Bamgbose,
University of Ibadan. Marlyse Baptista, University of Georgia. Verónica Barès, Conselh
Generau dera Val d’ Aran. Donald Barr, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Evariste
Barumwete, Université du Burundi. Janet Bateman, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Amy
Bauernschmidt, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Dimas Bautista Iturrizaga, Commoner of
Native Community of Tupe. Keith Beavon, Summer Institute of Linguistics-Cameroon.
Eudocio Becerra, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. David Beck, University of Michigan.
Jean Marc Becker, Associaton Wéi Laang Nach. Dietlinde Behrens, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Viacheslav Belousov, Intitute of the Russian Language. Héctor Leonardo
Benito Pérez, Consejo Nacional de Educación Maya (CNEM). Rosario Bentolila, EGB 963.
Boussad Berrichi, Journaliste à la radio et presse écrite. Christina M. Beuke-Muir,

291
292 Words and Worlds

University of Namibia. Revina Raphael Biltambo, University of Dar es Salaam. Ruth

Bishop, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Piotr Bitkeiev, Kalmyk State university. Zara
Bizheva, Kabardino-Balkarian State University. Boris Bizhoiev, Kabardino-Balkarian
Humanities Research. Gilda Victoria Blanco Franzuá, Organización Negra Guatemalteca.
Wenze Bo, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Joan Bomberger, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Marlytte Borman, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Freddy Boswell, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Ahmed Boukous, Université Mohammed V. Al Boush, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Claire Bowern, Harvard University. Robert Bradshaw, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Thomas Branks, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Tonnia Brennan,
Magani Malu Kes. Miguel A. Bretos, Smithsonian Institution. Jaqueline Britto, Asociación
Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Amazonia Peruana. Wella Brown, Kesva AnTaves Kernewek
/ The Cornish Language Board. Dionicio V. Brown O’Neill, Secretaría de Educación
Departamental. John Brownie, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Bruce, Summer Institute
of Linguistics. Dionizio Bueno, Universidade de Sâo Paulo. Osmo T. Buller, Universal
Esperanto Association. Eugene Burnham, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Donald H.
Burns, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Shirley Burtch, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Lazaro Bustince, Misioneros de África. James Butler, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Beatriz Cáceres Casaperalda, Federación de Mujeres Campesinas de Prov. Cailloma.
Antoinette Camilleri, University of Malta. Carl R. Campbell, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Allan Campbell, Comunn na Gáidhlig. Aroldo Gamaliel Camposeco
Montejo, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Ana María Cano González,
Academia de la Llingua Asturiana (ALLA). Juan Pedro Carvajal Carvajal. Maribel Elina
Casanto Marinque, Organización CECONSEC. Charles Castellani, Comité Français du
Belmr / Scola Corsa Bastia. Bernard Cathomas, Lia Rumantscha (LR). Raymundo Caz
Tzub, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino,
Universidad Pontificia Católica del Perú. Martín Chacach Cutzal, Universidad Rafael
Landívar. Julia Chacon de Merino, Federación Campesina de Anta Fenca. Mohammed
Chafik, Académie du Royaume du Maroc. Chaoke D. O., Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences. Ruth Chatfield, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Meregildo David Chayax
Huex, Comunidad Lingüística Uspatenko. Andy Chebanne, University of Bostwana.
Moinaécha Cheikh Yahaya, Centre National de Documentation et de Recherche Scientifique,
Comoros. Guoqing Chen, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Zongzhen Chen, Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences. Donald Cheney, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Bill
Chesley, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mercy Chijioke, Nigerian Educational Research
and Development Council. Feodor Chirila, University of Bucharest. Angelina Choc
Martínez, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Muhammad Hossam Haider
Chowdhury, Independent University, Bangladesh. Duane Clouse, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Juan Idelfonzo Coj Ical, Comisión Nacional para la Oficialización de Idiomas
Indígenas. Paolig Combot, Mouvement ar Falz. Bernard Comrie, Max Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology. Russ Cooper, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Chris Corne,
University of Auckland. Serafín M. Coronel Molina, University of Pennsylvania.
Corporación de Resguardo Cultural Mata Nui a Hotu Matu’a o Kahu-Kahu o Hera.
Graziella Corvalán, Centro Paraguayo de Estudios Sociológicos (CPES). Odilo Cougil Gil,
Misioneros de África. Marcel Courthiade, Université de Paris. George Cowan, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Bill Cranmer, Namgis First Nation. Nigel Crawhall, National
Language Service South Africa. Elettra Crocetti, Bureau Régional pour l’Ethnologie et la
Linguistique. Marjorie Crofts, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Maria Josep Cuenca
Ordiñana, Universitat de València. Susana Cuevas Suárez, Dirección de Lingüística del
INAH. Dashima Damdinova, Buriat State University. Dansk Sprognaevn (Danish
Language Council). Nicholas Darryl, National Indian Brotherhood. Eifion Gruffydd
Davies, Welsh Language Board. Licio de Clara. Vivian Anne de Klerk, National Language
List of Informants 293

Service South Africa. Gerardo del Aguila Miveco, Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la
Amazonia Peruana. Béatrice Denis, Graduate student at City University of New York.
R. Deprez, Unesco Platform UNESCO@Vlaanderen. Hubert Devonish, University of the
West Indies. Sorcha Nic Dhonncha, Ádarás na Gaeltachta. Diélimakan Diabaté, Ministère
de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Amadou Dialo, Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar.
Soungalo Diarra, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Karunasena Dias
Paranavitana, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka. Salvatore Gennaro Dieni, Ismía Grecánika
tu Jaló tu Vua. Hillebrand Dijkstra, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Kaba Diouara,
Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Martin Diprose, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Direction de l’Alphabétisation et de l’Education de base du Senegal (DAEB).
Hj. T. Fatimah Djajasudarma, Padjadjaran University. Dob, Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences. Pascual Martín Domingo, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala.
Daniel Domingo López, Consejo Nacional de Educación Maya (CNEM). Anne Dondorp,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ying Dong, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Nancy C.
Dorian, Bryn Mawr College. Ina Druviete, University of Latvia. Ábngel Dueñas Arias,
Academia Peruana de la Lengua Quechua (APLQP). Zara Duguzheva, Adyghe Compane.
Cristofor Innokentiyevich Dutkin, Institute of Northern Minorities problems. P. Dutta
Baruah, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Klara Dzhanibekova, Karachaievo-Cherkess
Dept. of Moscow Open Social University. Elizabeth Eastman, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Karen H. Ebert, University of Zürich. Antón Eito Mateo, Consello da Fabla
Aragonesa (CFA). Duxan Eli, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Jean Michel Eloy,
Université de Picardie-Jules Verne. Nora C. England, Equipo de Investigación Lingüística
Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’, OKMA. Natalia María Eraso Keller, Universidad de los Andes.
Okon Essien, University of Calabar. Jesus Esteibarlanda, Sociedad de los Misioneros de
África (Padres Blancos). Hortensia Estrada Ramírez, Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Hortensia
Estrada Ramírez, Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Eduardo Daniel Faingold, University of Tulsa.
Fenghe Fang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Cynthia Farr, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Saverio Favre, Bureau Régional pour l’Ethnologie et la Linguistique.
Fédération Camerounaise des Clubs et Associations UNESCO. Benigno Fernandez Braña,
MDGA (Mesa prá Defensa del Galego de Asturias e da Cultura). Ana Fernandez Garay,
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas. Phil Fields, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Rosalie Finlayson, National Language Service South Africa. Alexey
Flegontov, Association of Indigenous Peoples of Yakutia. Fidel Flores, Asociación
Coordinadora de Comunidades Indígenas de El Salvador- ACCIES. Winona Flying Earth,
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. David Foris, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Francis Foster,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Rosalie Francis, Union of Nova Scotia Indians. Karl
Franklin, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Donald Frantz, University of Lethbridge.
Lisbeth Fritzell, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Roland Fumey, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. N. Louanna Furbee, University of Missouri. Zinaida Gabunia, Kabardino-
Balkarian State University. Steve Gallagher, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Erqing Gao,
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Luis Fernando Garcés Velásquez, Universidad
Politécnica Salesiana. Xosé Lluis García Arias, Universidad de Oviedo. Donna Gardiner,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Yagfar Garipov, Institute of Language, Literature & Art of
the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan. Michel Gautier, UPCP-MÉTIVE. Massanvi
Honorine Gblem ép Podi, Société Internationale de Linguisitque. Florence Gerdel, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Marwan Ghasb, Al-Baath University. Salem Ghazali, Institut
Supérieur des langues de Tunis. Sarau Gheorghe, Universitatea Bucuresti-Romania. Stan
Gibson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. John Mwaniki Gichangi, Kîembu-Kîmbeere
Translation Project. Jordi Ginebra, Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Peter Gittlen, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. V. Gnana Sundaram, Central Institute of Indian Languages. David
L. Gold, Association for the Study of Jewish Languages. María Stella González de Pérez,
294 Words and Worlds

Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Rita Gonzalez Delgado, Universitad de La Habana. Daniel

Gonzalez García, Colla Unibersitaria por l’Aragonés. Durk Gorter, Fryske Akademy. Jan
Gossner, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Kimmo Granqvist, Research Institute for the
Languages of Finland. Gianfranco Gribaudo, Unión de Asociaciones Piemonteses ante el
Mundo. Rhonda Griffiths, The Association of Norfolk Islanders. Andrew Grosh, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Manfred Gross, Lia Rumantscha (LR). Eva Grosser Lerner,
Dirección de Lingüística del INAH. Abdoulaye Gueye, Universidad del País Vasco/ Euskal
Herriko Unibertsitatea. Daniel Guillermo Agirre, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de
Lenguas Aborígenes (CCELA-UNIANDES). Nijayasarathi Gurindapall, Central Institute of
Indian Languages. Lakhan Gusain, Centre for Alternative Research and Development.
Wilfrid Haacke, University of Namibia. Marleen Haboud Bumachar, Universidad Católica.
Jerome Simooya Hachipola, University of Zambia. C. Joan Hainsworth, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Suleiman Haj-Mohammed, Damascus University. Lingadevaru Halemane,
Central Institute of Indian Languages. Munawar Alam Halepota, Human Rights
International Alliance. Amadou Hamady Diop, Centre de Linguistique Appliquée de Dakar,
UCAD. Abdellah Hammouti, Université Mohammed I. Don Hankins. M. J. Hardman,
University of Florida. Smolina Hariza, Serbska Kulturna informacija / Sorbische
Kulturinformation Berlin. Alec Harrison, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Lindsay Harry,
Universal Esperanto Association. Ralph Harry, Universal Esperanto Association. Dwight
Hartzler, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Yuting He, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Paul Heineman, Summer Institute of Linguistic. Jim Henderson, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. David Henne, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mark Hepner, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Victor Hernández Agüero, Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas
(CONAI). Elvira Herrejón Mejía, Misioneras Combonianas. Hank Hershberger, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Ruth Hershberger, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ron Hesse,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Pirjo Hiidenmaa, The Research Instute for the Languages of
Finland. Margaret Hill, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Diane Hintz, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Kamel Hocine, Association Culturelle et Sportive NUMIDYA. Hans
Hoddenbagh, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Alison Hoffmann, Victoria University of
Wellington. Sam Hofman, Reformed Church in America. Richard Hohulin, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Paul Hoiland, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Barbara
Hollenbach, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Arthur Holmer, Lund University. Bruce
Hooley, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Bradley Hopkins, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Mary Hopkins, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Nancy H. Hornberger, University of
Pennsylvania. Zhenhua Hu, Central University for Nationalities. Yong Huang, University
of Foreign Economics and Trade of Beijing. Chenglong Huang, Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences. Jock Hughes, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Rosendo Huisca Melinao,
Universidad Católica de Temuco. Daniel Hunziker, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Conrad Hurd, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Christopher Hurst, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. David Hynum, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ana Ical de Cu, Universidad
Rafael Landívar. Akanni Mamoud Igué, Université Nationale du Bénin. Clara Ikekeonwu,
University of Nigeria. Petar Hr. Ilievski, Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Mohamed Iliyas, Jénonal Medical College. Nommensen Ingwer, Jandesinstitut Schlessing-
Holstein für Praeis und Theorie an der Schule. Humanities Research Institute of the
Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). Investigación Lingüística
Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’, OKMA. Zaual Ionov, Karachayevo-Cherkesia Pedagogical
State University. Traore Issofah Issah, Direction de L’Alphabétisation de Togo. Pavle Ivic,
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Frances Jackson, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Roderick A. Jacobs, University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen,
Fródskaparsetur Foroya. Marc Jacobson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Jay Jenkins,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Jiafa Ji, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Faïza Jibline,
List of Informants 295

Université Cadi Ayyad. Jitendra Jitendra, Nepal Chepang Association. Tony A. Johnson,
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. George Owen Jones, Mercator Media Centre. Elin
Jones, Mercator Media Centre. Sun Gi Jong, The Institution of Korean Language. Baldur
Jónsson, Icelandic Language Institute. Enrique Jordá, Compañía de Jesús. Victor Jose,
National Secretariat of Torres Strait Islanders Organisations Ltd Jocelyne Joussemet, Centre
de Documentació i d’Animació de la Cultura Catalana. Olga Marina Joya Sierra, Instituto
Hondureño de Antropología e Historia (IHAH). Ismail Junaidu, Nigerian Educational
Research and Development Council. Junast, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Fary
Silate Ka, Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar. James Kakumasu, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Vidal Kamala-Cole, National Federation of UNESCO Clubs in Sierra Leone.
Laré Kantchoa, Université du Bénin. Rawhia A. Kara, Sharjah Police Academy. Yumav
Karakaiev, Karachayevo-Cherkesia Pedagogical State University. Itao Michael Keem,
Kaikor Catholic Mission. Donald Kenrick, Romany Institute. Lukian Kergoat, Université
Rennes 2 – Haute Bretagne. Daniel Kernalegenn, Diwan Breizh. Amos Key, Woodland
Cultural Education Centre. Kalu Ram Khambu Rai, Kirat Rai Language & Literary Council.
Sejung Kim, The National Academy of the Korean Language. Kwanghae Kim, The National
Academy of Korean Language. Pascal James Kishindo, University of Malawi, Chancellor
College. Timur Kocaoglu, Koc University. Mama Kouata, Ministère de l’ Éducation
Nationale du Mali. Omkar Koul, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Silvia
Kouwenberg, University of the West Indies. Jarmila Kovarcik-Skalná, PEN (International
Writers Association). Jiri Kraus, Czech Language Institute. Georg Kremnitz, Universität
Wien. Pedro Juan Krisólogo B., Academia Venezolana de la Lengua Correspondiente de la
Real Española. Menno Kroeker, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Gavril Nikolayevich
Kurilov, Institute of Northern Minorities Problems. Lamont Laird, Eastewrn Shawnee Tribe
of Oklahoma. Per Langgard, Ilisimatusarfik / University of Greenland. Robert Larsen,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Virginia Larson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mildred
L. Larson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Yolanda Lastra, Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México. Juha Laulainen, University of Helsinki. Jean Le D–c, Université de Bretagne
Occidentale. André Le Mercier, Emgleo Breiz. Raúl Leal Gaiao, Universidade de Macau.
Myles Leitch, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Yubing Li, Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences. Jinfang Li, Central University for Nationalities. Keyu Li, Ethnic Affairs
Commission of Huzhu Tuzu. Piran Li, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Min Liang,
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Nietta Lindenberg Monte, Comissáo Pró Indio do Acre.
Pauline Linton, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Baoyuan Liu, Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences. Xiaochun Liu, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Domingo Llanque Chana,
Academia Peruana de la Lengua Aymara. Junstino Llanque Chana, University of Florida.
Christine Lohmann, IPTS. Stale Loland, Norsk Sprakrad. Juventino López, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Ausencia López Cruz, Dirección de Lingüística del INAH.
Longinos López Fernández, Misioneros Combonianos. Luz Mary López Franco,
Universidad del Valle. Félix López Mamani, Ayllus de fhach’a Carangas. Belkacem
Lounes, Congrès Mondial Amazigh. Bernhard Louw, South African Academy of Science and
Arts. Larry Lovell, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Shaozun Lu, Chinese Academy of
Social Sciences. Velciov Luca-Francisc, Comunitatea Bratstvo a Bulgarilor din România.
Eoghan Mac Aogáin, Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann (ITÉ). Scott MacGregor, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Donald J.M. Maciver, Haldane Education Centre. Munzhedzi
James Mafela, National Language Service South Africa. Youssouf Billo Maiga, Ministère de
l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Peter Nderi Maina, University of Nairobi. Manuel
Bernado Malchic Nicolás, Equipo de Investigación Lingüística Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’,
OKMA. Refilwe Morongwa Malimabe, National Language Service South Africa. B.
Mallikarjun, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Eusebia Mamani de Navarro,
Organización Prov. Del Collao Dto. Ilave. Bertha Mamiro, University of Dar es Salaam.
296 Words and Worlds

Munir Mamman, Ahmadu Bello University. Deborah Maphoko Mampuru, National

Language Service South Africa. Pierre-Loius Mangeard. Nathalie Marchal, Ministère de la
Communauté française-Service de la langue française. Mwamini Marco, University of Dar es
Salaam. Nely Guadalupe Marcos Manrique, Organización Campa Ashaninka Feconaca.
Nagy Marimela, Brukenthal School. Pedro Marin, Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Jeanne Marion-Landais, Comision Nacional Dominicana para la UNESCO. Ahmed Marouf,
Université d’Oran. Michael Martens, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Maisa Martin,
University of Jyväskylä. Gordon Martin, Summer Institute of Linguistics. William Martin,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Nyakundi M. Elijah Matagaro, University of Nairobi
(CEES). Dyobyana Isaac Mathumba, National Language Service South Africa. Esther
Matteson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Francis Kinyari Mbaaro, Bible Society of Kenya.
J. Derrick McClure, Aberdeen University. Arthur Edwin McCullough, University of Ulster.
John Martin McIntyre, Ulster Scots Language Society. Robert McKee, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Louise McKone, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Wilson McLeod, University
of Edinburgh. Helena Medesi, The Executive Council of Autonomous Province of Vojvodina.
Nely Margot Mejia Paredes, FEDECMA. Nebon Maximino Méndez Bernardo, Academia
de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Chaoji Meng, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Baceliza Miguel Dionicio, Federación de Comunidades Nativas Campa Ashaninka. Anne
Dagmar Biti Mikalsen, Saami Language Council. Mohamed Miled, Université de Tunis.
Carlo Minnaja, “Esperanto” Radikala Asocio. Anna Nikolayevich Mireyeva, Institute of
Northern Minorities problems. Gotart Mitri, Istitût Ladin-Furlan “Pre Checo Placerean”.
Buyisiwe Phyllis Mngadi, National Language Service South Africa. Salum, R. Mnjagila,
Ministry of Education and Culture. Romelia Mó Jsém, Equipo de Investigación Lingüística
Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’, OKMA. Rosemary MH Moeketsi, National Language Service
South Africa. María Cristina Mogellón Pérez, Asociación Interetnica de Desarrollo de la
Amazonia Peruana. Handaine Mohamed, Université d’Eté d’Agadir. Yonta Moise,
CABTAL. Claude Molinier, Institut d’Estudis Occitans. Luis Montaluisa, Confederación
de Nacionalidades Indigenas del Ecuador (CONAIE). Henrique Monteagudo Romero,
Arquivo de Planificación e Normalización Lingüística. Saqch’en Ruperto Montejo,
Universidad Rafael Landívar. David Moomo, Nigeria Bible Translation Trust. Juan
Antonio Morán Muss, Comisión Nacional para la Oficialización de Idiomas Indígenas.
Bruno Moretti, Osservatorio Linguistico della Svizzera. David Morgan, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Chris E. Morganroth, Quileute Tribal School. Mabel Petronila Mori Clement,
Asociación Interetnica de Desarrollo de la Amazonia Peruana. Nancy Morse, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Esteban Emilio Mosonyi, Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Yuzhang Mu, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Shihua Mu, Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences. Violet Mucheni. Samuel M. Kimani Mugo, Mugoya Construction Co Clement
Murba Wau Bilal, Université de Khartoum. Carolyn Murray, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Bill Murray, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Jefwa George Mweri, University
of Nairobi. N. Nadaraja Pillai, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Hidayatullah
Naeem, Pashto Academy. Francho Nagore Laín, Consello d’a Fabla Aragonesa (CFA).
Naomi Nagy, University of New Hampshire. Ajit Kumar Naik, Jawaharlal Nehru
University. V. Saratchandran Nair, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Poidi Napo,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Elivered Nasambu Mulongo, Bible Society of Kenya.
Dmitri Mikhailovich Nasilov, Lomonosov State Univesity, Moscow. Montillier Natea,
Centre Polynésien des Sciences Humaines “Te Anavaharau”. Gianni Nazzi, Clape Culturâl
Aquilee. Atwaya Saidi Nchimbi, Moi University. Peter Chuma Ndiema, University of
Nairobi. Augustin Ngabiramé, Université National du Rwuanda. Meabh Ni Chatháin,
Bord Na Gaeilge. Nkechiyere Nnadi, Nigerian Educational Research and Development
Council. Inno Uzoma Nwadike, University of Nigeria. Lydia Nyati-Ramahobo,
Kamanakao Cultural Association / University of Bostwana. Ruán Ó Bric, Údarás na
List of Informants 297

Gaeltachta. Michael O’ Keefe, Department of Canadian Heritage, Policy and Research,

Official Languages Support Programmes. Howard Oates, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Rainer Oetzel, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Sabine Oetzel, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Charles Ogbulogo, University of Lagos. Chinyere Ohiri-Aniche, University
of Lagos. Hideki Ohtsuba, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Claris Okonji, University of
Nairobi. Joseph Ole Karia, Maasai of Kenya. Johnson M. Ndanareh Ole Kaunga,
O.S.I.L.I.G.I. Secretariat. Soini Olkonen, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Clif Olson,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ronald Olson, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Harry
Opikokew, MBC Radio. Galina Nikolaevna Orlova, Ministry of General and Professional
Education of the Republic of Kalmykia. Carolyn Orr, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Peter
Osore Muniafu, Oluluyia Bible Translation Project. Martha Lucía Osorno Posada,
Universidad del Valle. Bertram Iwunwa Nkemgemedi Osuagwu, Alvan Ikoku College of
Education. Jueya Ouyang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Haydee Padilla
Villanueva, ADECAP. Michel Paillé, Conseil de la Langue Française du Québec. Ma Liena
Palacios Rasal, LIGALLO de Fablans de l’Aragones. Christina Noel Pallangyo, University
of Dar es Salaam. Chehgqian Pan, Central University for Nationalities. Robert A. Papen,
Université du Québec à Montréal. James Park, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Jim Parlier,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Luis Evangelino Patzi Vera, Confederación Sindical Unica
de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia. Valentin Pavlovski, Université linguistique de
Minsk. Thomas Payne, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Sergey Pazov, Karachayevo-
Cherkesia Pedagogical State University. Roy N. Pedersen, Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
Louise Peltzer, Université de la Polynésie française. Lucio Peressi, Societât Filologjiche
Furlane. Fernando Perez Prieto, Misioneros de Africa. Mona Perrin, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Jan Persons, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Gary Persons, Summer Institute
of Linguistics. P. Perumalsamy, Goverment of India – Language Division. Gabriele
Petersen de Piñeros, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Daryl Pfantz, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Kenneth Pheasant, Grand Traverse Band Tribal Council. Conrad Phelps,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Berengier Pierrette, Ciel d’Oc. Augusto Pinula Méndez,
Comunidad Lingüística Uspanteko. Ilda Pizzinini, Union Generala di Ladins dla Dolomites
(UGLD). Kathrin Pope, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Patricia M. Powell, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Leslie Pride, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Perry Priest, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Olga Profili, Commission Europénne. Mauricio Puig,
Congregación Escuelas Pías. Edgar Armando Quiacain, Visión Guatemala. Ahmed Rachid
Raha, Fundación Mediterranea Montgomery Hart de Estudios Amazighs y Magrebíes. J.
Randolph Radney, Canada Institute of Linguistics. Milorad Radovanovic, University of
Novi Sad. Krishna Kumar Rai, Kirat Rai Language & Literary Council. V.R. Rajasingh,
Central Institute of Indian Languages. Jebra Ram Muchahary, Indian Confederation of
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. N. Ramaswami, Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Henri Ramirez, Universidade do Amazonas (Manaus/ Brazil). Alfredo Ramírez Celestino,
Dirección de Lingüística del INAH. Mario Ramos Ramírez, Comunidad Lingüística Ch’orti’
de la ALMG. R. Kailainathan Ratnamalar, University of Jaffna. Jorge Manuel Raymundo
Velásquez, Universidad Rafael Landívar. Peter Rebigo, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Ioan Rebusapca, University of Bucharest. Joy Reddy, Central Institute of Indian Languages.
JeDene Reeder, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Martine Renouprez, Universidad de Cadiz.
Karin Rensberg Ripa, The Sami Parliament. John Rentz, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Anita Sophie Reutenauer. Mikael Reuter, The Research Institute for the Languages of
Finland. Ag Jbrahim Rhaly, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Rudo
Rhuhwaya, UNESCO Harare. Heinz Richter-Rychtar, Universität Leipzig. David Riggs,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Antònia Rigo, ESADE – Escola Superior d’Administració i
Direcció d’Empreses. Karen Risager, Universtity of Roskilde. Clifford Roberts, National
Federation of UNESCO Clubs in Sierra Leone. Jean-Dominique Robin, Unvaniezh ar
298 Words and Worlds

Gelennerien Brezhoneg. José Carlos Rodríguez, Misioneros Combonianos. Simón

Rodríguez Hernández, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Telma Rodríguez
Rodríguez, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Diego Rodríguez Toma,
Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Haydee Rosales Alvarado, Asociación
Interetnica de Desarrollo de la Amazonia Peruana. Haiim B. Rosén, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem. Judith Rosenhouse, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. Antonio Benicio
Ross Montejo, Equipo de Investigación Lingüística Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’, OKMA.
Melania Rukanda, Unesco Zimbabwe. Ingrid Runggaldier, Province Administration.
James Rupp, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Jim Rupp, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Liliana Ruxandoin, University of Bucharest. Fatima Sadiqui, Université Sidi Mohammed
Ben Abdellah. Boniface Sagbohan, FIFA Médiation (Cabinet d’Etudes Socio-linguistiques).
Omitade Saliman Salami, Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council. Israpil
Sampíev. Juan Sánchez Arenas, Misioneros Combonianos. Francisco Javier Sánchez
Gómez, PROIMMSE-IIA-UNAM. Eli Sánchez Rodríguez, Asociación Interetnica de
Desarrollo de la Amazonia Peruana. Fausto Sandoval Cruz, Centro Cultural Driki. Aldir
Santos de Paula, Universidade Federal de Alagoas. Mahavir Saran Jain, Ministry of Human
Resource Development. Leena Savolainen, Research Institute for the Languages of Finland.
Will Sawers, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Junia Schauer, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Henri Scherb, Association Heimetsproch un Tradition (HT). Alvin
Schoenhals, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Dietrich Scholze, Sorbisches Institut e. V.
Bautzen. Petra Schroeder, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Martin Schroeder, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Marc Schwab, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Armin Schwegler,
University of California. Sechenchogt, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Aliou Ngoné
Seck, Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar-Fann. Margaret J. Secombe, University of
Adelaide. Osvaldo Segovia, Centro Educativo de Nivel Medio No 2. Frank Seifart, Centro
Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborígenes (CCELA-UNIANDES). Kilnesy Emmanuel
Sekwiha, University of Dar-es-Salaam. Charles Saina Sena, Ogiek Rural Integrated Projects.
Gunter Senft, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Bjornar Seppola, Norsk Kveners
Forbund. Rekha Sharma, Central Institute of Indian Languages. Irina Vitalievna
Shenzova, State Institute for Pedagogical Sciences of Novokuznetsk. Caleb Shivachi,
Maseno University. Wesley Shoemaker, Summer Institute of Linguistics. George Shultz,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Dag F. Simonsen, Norsk Sprakrad. Fridah Adava Simwa,
University of Nairobi. María Juliana Sis Iboy, Equipo de Investigación Lingüística Oxlajuuj
Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’, OKMA. William Sischo, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mady
Sissoko, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Yome Bananibitcho Sizing, Directeur
de la Formation permanente, de l’Action et de la Recherche pédagogique de Togo (DIFOP).
Sarah Johanna Catharine Slabbert, National Language Service South Africa. A. Jean Smith,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Jerzy J. Smolicz, University of Adelaide. Siddharaj
Soorjibhai Solanki, Shri Arravalli Adivasi. Domingo Solís Marcos, Academia de las
Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Neville Southwell, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Margarethe Sparing-Chavez, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ruth Spielmann, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Sunthorn Sripanngern, Mon Unity League. Jim Stahl, Summer
Institute of Linguistics. Roman Stefaniw, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Richard
Steinbring, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Asher Stern, NIV – Center for Expertise
Provision. Joel Stolte, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Anne Storch, Institut für
Afrikanische Sprachwissenschaften. Margarete Storck, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Mary Stringer, International Literacy Consultant with INTERLEC. Morris A. Stubblefield,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Suikhar, Chin National Froant. Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Kembo Sure, Moi University. Hongkai Sun, Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences. Zamir Suyunou, Open State University of Moscow, Karachayevo-Cherkesia Dept
Kenneth Swift, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mark Taber, Summer Institute of
List of Informants 299

Linguistics. Kaori Tahara, Ainu Association of Japan. Miloud Taïfi, Université Sidi
Mohammed Ben Abdellah. Dalila Taisin Victoria, Federación Aguaruna (FAD). Jarum
Takazov, North Ossetia-Alania. State University Petrus Cornelius Taljaard, National
Language Service South Africa. Elemo Tapim, Magani Malu Kes. Alejandro Teletov
Velasquez, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Delfino Felipe Tema Bautista,
Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Aldo Leopoldo Tévez, Alero Quichua
Santiagueño en Buenos Aires. David Thomas, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Marlin
Thompson, Yerington Paiute Tribe. Ruth Thomson, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Chihiro Kinoshita Thomson, University of New South Wales. Purna Chandra Thoudam,
Manipur University. Bertil Tikkanen, University of Helsinki. Mohand Tilmatine,
Universidad de Cadiz. Peter James Hilary Titlestad, The English Academy of Southern
Africa. Maria Elena Tobar Gutierrez, Universidad de los Andes. Band-Patrice Togo,
Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Litip Tohti, Central University for Nationalities.
Leo Toner, Istituto Culturale Mòcheno-Cimbro (ICMC). Modeen Tore, University of
Helsinki. Hilary Tovey, Dublin University. Douglas Towne, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Annette Trabold, Institut für Deutsche Sprache. Bory Traoré, Ministère de l’
Éducation Nationale du Mali. Ed Travis, Summer Institute of Linguistics. E. Douglas Trick,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. María Trillos Amaya, Universidad de Los Andes. Tasaku
Tsunoda, University of Tokyo. Ma. C. Hilaria Tuki Pakarati, Corporación de Resguardo
Cultural Mata Nui a Hotu Matu’a o Kahu-Kahu o Hera. Afia Akrasi Twumasi. Bob
Uebele, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Vijayendra Bhas V. Sarngadharan, International
School of Dravidian Linguistics. Ian Vail, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Rosa Aidé
Vallejos Yopán, Asociación Interetnica de Desarrollo de la Amazonia Peruana. Freek Van de
Scheur, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Sjaak Van Kleef, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Feikje Van der Haak, Summer Institute of Linguistics. María Ofelia Vásquez, Comunidad
Lingüística Uspatenko. Domingo Vásquez Gómez, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de
Guatemala. Celia Vasquez Yui, Federación de Comunidades Nativas del Ucayli. Elías
Velásquez, Asociación Misionera Garífuna. Ruth Celia Velazco Castro, Organización
Indígena Regional Atalaya- OIRA. Jaume Vernet, Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Antonio
Florencio Vicente Tosin, Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala. Sara Delicia
Villagra de Batoux, Comisión Nacional de Bilingüismo. Hessel Visser, Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Alan Vogel, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Paul Vollrath, Summer Institute
of Linguistics. Brad Voltmer, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Alastair Walker, Christian-
Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. Piripi Walker, The Wellington Maori Language Board.
Helga Walsemam, IPTS. Feng Wang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Said Warsame,
UNESCO PEER. Christiane Weber, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Thomas Weber,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Samueul Weekes, National Federation of UNESCO Clubs in
Sierra Leone. Xuechun Wei, Information Property Minister. André Wengler, Ministère de
l’Education Nationale et de la Formation Professionnelle, Luxembourg SCRIPT. Anne West,
Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ron Whisler, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Henry
Whitney, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Daya Menike Wickramasinghe, University of
Kelaniya. Geirr Wiggen, University of Oslo. Ratna Wijetunge, University of Soi
Gayewardenepura. Thomas Willett, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Elizabeth Grace
Winkler, Indiana University. Birger Winsa, Stockholm University. Scott Wood Ronas,
CEBIMH-MOPAWI. David Charles Wright Carr, Universidad del Valle de MEXICO.
Hongwei Wu, Institute of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Huang Xing, Chinese Academy
of Social Sciences. Shixuan Xu, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Xijian Xu, Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences. Dewu Xuan, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Ballo
Yacouba, Ministère de l’ Éducation Nationale du Mali. Salisu Ahmed Yakasai, Usmanu
Danfodio University. Yanli Yang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Jiangling Yang,
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Juan de Dios Yapita, Instituto de Lengua y Cultura
300 Words and Worlds

Aymara (ILCA). Lahcen Yasri, Assotiation Socioéducative et Culturelle Assekka. Deshu

Ye, Jishou University. Yan Yuan, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Ore Yusuf,
University of Ilorin. Mirfatych Zakiev, Institute of Language, Literature & Art of the
Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan. Daysi Zapata Fasabi, Organización Indígena Regional
Atalaya- OIRA. Roberto Zavala, Max Planck Institute für Psycholinguistik. Xiaoyu Zeng,
Nankai University. Liubov Zhabelova, Research Institute of Humanities of the Kabardino-
Balkarian Republic. Ronglan Zhang, Yunnan Minority Languages Commission. Junru
Zhang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Jichuan Zhang, Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences. Aping Zhao, Institute on the Manchu Language. Nurgaisha Zheksem Bieva,
Kazakh State University of World Languages and International Relations. Yiqing Zheng,
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Jinwen Zhong, Central University for Nationalities.
Guoyan Zhou, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Yaowen Zhou, Chinese Academy of
Social Sciences. Wenxu Zhu, Central Nationality University. Armand Zimmer, Institut
Universitaire de Formation des Maitres (I. U. F. M.) de Lorraine. Mao Zongwu, Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences. Giandaniele Zoratto, Istit–t Ladin-Furlan “Pre Checo
Placerean”. Carol Zylstra, Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Appendix 4
Index of Languages, Families
and Varieties1
!Xü * Alsatian *, 25, 178
Abaza *, 72, 136, map 2 Altaic, 60, 73, 236, map 1
Abkhaz, 72, map 2 Alto Campa
Abkhaz-Adyghian, 72 Amahuaca *, 178, map 6
Achagua *, map 12 Amaiweri-Kisambaeri, map 6
Achang *, 178, map 13 Amarakaeri, map 6
Achi *, 47, 177, 194, 207, 218, map 8 Amerindian, 59, 60, 177, map 1
Acholi *, 122 Amharic, 67
Achuar *, 101, 178, map 6 Amuesha, map 6
Achumawi, map 3 Amuzgo *
Adamawa, 67, 98 Amuzgoan, 65
Adamawa Fulfulde, 98 Ancash-Yaru (Quechua), map 6
Adyghe *, 72, 73, 158 Andaman, 209
Afar, 94, 98 Andamanese *, 26, 60, 209, 210, map 1
Afrikaans *, 21, 94, map 5 Andean, 59, 66
Afro-Asiatic, 50, 60, map 1 Andi, map 2
Aghem * Andoa, map 6
Aghul *, map 2 Andoke *, map 12, 6
Aguano, map 6 Anêm, 18
Ahlon *, Anong *, map 13
Ainu *, 178 Apache, 60
Aiwo *, 178, 194 Arabela, map 6
Ajachmen (Juaneño), map 3 Arabic *, 18, 29, 47, 51, 56, 64, 67, 68, 85, 93, 94,
Akan * 98, 101, 136, 162, 177, 190, 191, 194, 231, 241
Akateko, map 8 Aragonese *, 70, 226
Akhwakh, map 2 Arahuaca, map 6
Akoose * Arasairi, map 6
Akoye *, 178, 197 Araucanian, 66
Akuapim Twi, 99 Arawakan (Arawak) 66, map 12
Alakaluf, 66 Archi, map 2
Algonquian (Algonquin), 65, map 11 Armenian, 58, map 2
Algonquin *, 65 Aru, map 6
Almosan, 59 Asante Twi, 99

1
The information on the languages with an asterisk has been collected through a questionnaire

301
302 Words and Worlds

Ashaninca *, 147, map 6 Bargam *, 178

Assamese *, 26, 94, 137, 221 Bari *, map 12
Asturian *, 25 Bariai *, 178
Asu, map 9 Baruba, 217
Athapahare (see Athpare), 178, 241 Baruga *, 179
Athapaskan, map 11 Basari *, 179
Athpare (Athapahare) *, 178, 241 Basque *, 60, 62, 97, 99, 168, 170, 171, 172, 191,
Atsugewi, map 3 map 1
Aukan *, 141 Batanga *
Australian, 22, 23, 33, 42, 43, 60, 76, 77, 237, Bati *
map 1 Bats, 72, map 2
Austro-Asiatic, 26, 210, 240, 241 Bavarian, 25
Austronesian, 18, 40, 58, 60, 76, 236, map 1 Bay Islands Creole English *, map 2
Avar *, 72, 73, map 2 Bayot, map 7
Awa Pit *, 178, map 12 Beash *
Awadhi, 240, 241 Befang *
Awajun *, 178, map 6 Belarusan *, 58, 162
Awakateko *, map 8 Belhare, 241
Ayacucho-Cusco (Quechua), map 6 Belize Creole English, map 8
Aymara *, 102, 123, 124, 168, 177, 218, map 6 Bemba, 18, map 9
Azerbaijani *, 94, map 2 Bena, map 9
Aztecan, 65 Bende, map 9
Babanki * Bengali *, 94, 137, 231, 240
Babole *, 141, 178 Bengni-Bogar *, 179, map 13
Backslang, 21 Benue-Congo, 50
Badyara *, 178 Berber, 56, 67, 81, 123, 208 (Tamazight 47, 123,
Bafut * 162, 190, 208), map 10
Bagri * Berbice Creole Dutch *, 179
Bagval, 72, map 2 Bezthi, map 2
Bahasa, 94 Bhili *
Baheng *, 178, map 13 Bhojpuri, 240, 241
Bai *, 144, map 13 Bhramu, 241
Baima *, 178, map 13 Bhujel, 241
Baiso, 52 Bhumij *, 179
Baka * Biao *, map 13
Bakole * Bimin *, 179
Bakpwe * Bislama, 76, 94
Balanta *, 178 Bisu *, 179, map 13
Balkar *, 71, 73, 233, map 2 Biu-Mandara, 67
Balong * Blackfoot *, 179
Baltic, 60, 74 Blang *, 179, map 13
Bamanankan *, 136 Blean, 94, 98
Bandial, map 7 Bliss, map 7
Baniba, map 12 Boazi *, 160, 179
Baniwa *, 178, map 12 Bodic, 74
Bantawa *, 124, 240, 241 Boki *
Bantoid (Bantu), 58, 60, 67 Bolinao *, 179
Bantu, 58, 60, 67 Bondei, map 9
Bao’an *, 178, map 13 Bora *, 209, map 12, map 6
Bara *, map 12 Boro *
Barasana *, map 12 Bosnian, 13, 21
Bardi *, 219, 220, 226 Bote, 240, 242
Index of Languages, Families and Varieties 303

Botlikh, map 2 Chachapoyas-Lamas (Quechua), map 6

Botolan * Chadic, 50, 67
Bozo * Chaga *, 179
Breton *, 52, 53, 58, 70, 102, 103, 124, 135, 136, Chamalal *, map 2
161, 162, 168, 220, 243 Chamicuro, map 6
Brokpa * Chamling *, 179, 241
Buang *, 40, 41, 179 Chantel, 241, 242
Bubia * Chasi (Wasi), map 9
Budik *, 179 Chatino *
Budukh, map 2 Chaudangsi, 241
Buduma * Chayahuita, map 6
Buhutu *, 179 Chechen, 60, 72, 73, map 2
Bukusu * Cheke Holo *, 179
Bulgarian, 33, 58 Chemehuevi, map 3
Buluf, map 7 Chepang *, 152, 179, 241
Bungu, map 9 Chewa *
Bunu *, map 13 Chhiling, 241
Buriato * Chhulung, 241
Burmese-Lolo, 74 Chian, 74
Burum-Mindik *, 179 Chiapanec-Manguean, 65
Burunge, map 9 Chibchan (Chibcha), 65, map 12
Burushaski *, 147, 148, 178 Chibchan-Páez, 59
Bushman, 60 Chichimeco *, 179
Buyei *, map 13 Chilcotin *, 179, 208
Bwaidoka *, 179 Chilula, map 3
Byangsi, 241 Chimariko, map 3
Cabecar *, 124, 179 Chimila *, 179, map 12
Cacaotera, 179, 240, map 8 Chinantecan, 65
Cacua, map 12 Chinanteco *, 179
Caddo, 65 Chinese (Mandarin) *, 18, 29, 43, 47, 55, 64,
Cahto, map 3 85, 121, 122, 123,136, 139, 141, 148, 159,
Cahuapanan, 66, map 6 178, 191, 192, 195, 206, 217, 231, 235
Cahuilla, map 3 Chinook *
Calabrian Greek * Chintang, 241, 242
California Shoshoni (Panamint), map 3 Chipaya *, 153, 179, 218
Campa del Alto, map 6 Chipewyan, 105
Cañaris-Cajamarca (Quechua), map 6 Chiwere *,
Canglo-Monba *, map 13 Chocho *, 179
Cantonese, 43 Choco, map 12
Capanahua, map 6 Ch’ol, map 8
Capeverdean Creole *, 124 Cholon, map 6
Caquinte *, 179, map 6 Chon, 66
Carapana Chontal, map 8
Cariban (Caribe), 66, map 12 Ch’orti’ *, 97, map 8
Cashibo, map 6 Chrau *, 179
Casubian, 70 Chuj *, 160, map 8
Catalan *, 24, 30, 47, 58, 97, 99, 121, 168, 170, Chukchi, 60, 73, 99, 121
177, 203 Chukchi-Kamchatdan, 60, 73, map 1
Caucasian, 52, 60, 70, 71, 72, map 1 Chukwa, 241
Cayapa *, 179 Chumash, map 3
Cayuga * Chumashan, 65
Celtic, 60, 243 Cubas, 99
304 Words and Worlds

Cocopa, map 3 Domari *

Colorado *, 138, 179 Dong (Kam) *, 179, map 13
Comorian *, 152 Dongxiang *, 123, map 13
Cona-Monba *, map 13 Dravidian 26, 74, 210, 211, 221, 240, 241, map 1
Coreguaje * Duala *
Cornish *, 243 Dugwor *
Corsican *, 25, 241 Dumbule *
Costanoan, map 3 Dumi, 241, 242
Cree *, 105 Dungar Varli, 209
Croatian, 47, 58 Dungmali, 241, 242
Cujareño, map 6 Dura, 241, 242
Culina, map 6 Dutch *, 29, 56, 58, 70, 95, 98, 105, 166
Cun *, 158, 179, map 13 Duupa *,
Cupeño, *, 152, map 3 Dyirbal, 17
Czech *, 58, 107 Ebira, 217
Da’a *, Ediamat, map 7
Dagaari, 99 Edo *, 98
Dagbani, 99 Edolo *, 179
Dagestanian, 72, map 2 Efik *, 98
Dai *, 99, 122, 139, 178, map 13 Ejagham *
Daic, 60, 74, map 1 Elun, map 7
Dama * Embera *, map 12
Damana *, map 12 Embu *
Damin, 22 English *, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27,
Danish *, 47, 58, 105, 180 29, 31, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 51, 54, 55, 61, 62,
Danuwar, 240 64, 65, 69, 76, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87,
Darai, 240 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 104, 105,
Darang-Deng *, 179, map 13 113, 122, 138, 151, 152, 154, 162, 166, 167,
Dargva, 73, map 2 169, 175, 176, 177, 180, 183, 193, 194, 203,
Darmiya, 241 208, 209, 210, 216, 217, 222, 223, 230, 231,
Datooga, map 9 232, 241, 242, 243, 247, map 5
Daur *, map 13 Ergong *, 179, map 13
Davar Barril, 209 Ersu *, 179, map 13
De’ang *, 139, map 13 Ese’ejja, map 6
Denya * Esimbi *
Derung *, 99, 179, 212, map 13 Eskimo-Aleut 59, 60, 65, map 1, map 11
Desano *, 195, map 12 Esperanto *, 21, 22, 44
Dhangar (Jhangar), 241 Esselen, map 3
Dido, map 2 Eve *, 99, 103
Diegueño (Kumeyaay, Ipai), map 3 Ewenki *, map 13
Digo, map 1 Eyak, 225, 226
Dii *, Fante, 99
Dimali, 241 Faroese *, 70, 99, 121
Doayo *, Fe’fe’ *,
Dobel *, 141, 179 Fiji Hindi, 41
Doe, map 9 Finnish, 60, 105, 168
Dogba *, Fipa, map 9
Dogon *, 140, 178 Flemisch, 24, 25
Dogrib, 105 Fogny *, map 7
Dolían, 99, 121 Fogny-Kombo, map 7
Dolpo, 241 Fongbe *, 124
Domaki *, 179 Francique, 25
Index of Languages, Families and Varieties 305

Franco-Provençal *, 70 Gweno, map 9

French *, 13, 16, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, 39, 40, 47, 58, Gyarong *, map 13
64, 68, 69, 76, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 98, Gyasundo, 241
102, 103, 104, 105, 121, 124, 138, 166, 193, Gypsy, 7, 63
203, 221, 222, 223, 228, 230, 231, 243, 247 Ha, map 9
Frisian *, 70, 97, 143, 180 Hadareb, 94, 98
Friulan *, 58, 147, 221 Hadza (Hatsa), map 9
Fulani 67, 206 Hagahai, 79
Fuyug *, 179 Haida, map 11
Ga *, 99 Hainanese, 43
Gabrielino (see Tongva), map 3 Haitian Creole, 20, 39, 222
Galician *, 29, 58, 99, 162, 178 Halbi *, 144
Ganda, map 9 Halung, 241
Garasia *, Hangaza, map 9
Gardangarurru * Hani *, 178, 217, map 13
Garifuna *, 97, map 8 Harakmbet, map 6
Gelao *, 179, map 13 Harauti *
Geman-Deng *, 179, map 13 Haruai, *, 138, 179
Georgian, 60, 72, map 2 Hatsa (Hadza), map 9
German *, 16, 21, 22, 29, 47, 55, 56, 58, 64, 70, Hausa *, 50, 64, 67, 98, 122
84, 98, 105, 180, 191, 231, 233, 234 Haya *, map 9
Ghale *, 241, 242 Haya, 197, 241, 242
Ghomala’ * Hebrew *, 170, 190, 191
Gikuyu *, 179 Hehe, map 9
Gilyak (see Nivkh), 121 Her, map 7
Gimbe * Hewa *, 179
Gimme * Hezhen *, 179, map 13
Gin, *, map 13 Hide *
Giriama *, 179 Hijuk *
Giziga * Himalayan Languages, 241
Glavda * Hindi *, 21, 26, 40, 41, 47, 94, 192, 209, 210,
Godoberi, map 2 231, 240, 241
Gogo, map 9 Hinukh 52, map 2
Gondi * Hiri Motu, 78
Gorowa, map 9 Hitnu, map 12
Greek, 138, 190 Hixkariana, 138
Greenlandic *, 98 Hokkien, 43
Grishun (Romansh), 44, 58, 70, 98, 104 Holoholo, map 9
Guahibo, map 12 Hottentot, 33, 60
Guambiano *, 179, map 12 Huachipaeri, map 6
Guarani *, 18, 39, 41, 66, 98, 104, 122, 133, 137, Huave, map 8
192 Huichol, map 8
Guarau * Huihui *, map 13
Guayabero *, map 12 Huitoto (Uitoto), 66, 124, 179, 207, 240
Guiqiong *, 139, 178, 179, 197 Humli Tamang, 241
Gujarati, 56, 94 Hungarian *, 60, 70
Gumawana *, 52, 179 Hunzib, map 2
Gungu *, 179 Hupa, map 3
Gurung, 240, 241 Ibibio *, 178
Gusii * Ibo (see Igbo), 50, 67, 98, 122
Gusilay, map 7 Icelandic *, 121, 177
Gvoko * Idakho *, 179
306 Words and Worlds

Idoma, 98 Ka’apor *, 52
Idu *, 179, map 13 Kabardian *, 72, 73, 123, map 2
Igbo *, 50, 67, 98, 122 Kabiyari *
Ignaciano * Kabiye *, 147
Ijaw Kabwa, map 9
Ijor *, 217 Kada *
Ika *, map 12 Kag, 241
Ikizu, map 9 Kagate, 241, 242
Ikoma, map 9 Kagayanen *, 179
Ilianen Manobo *, 179 Kagulu (see Kaguru), 179, map 9
Imbongu *, 179 Kaguru (Kagulu) *, 179, map 9
Indonesian, 21, 40, 64, 94, 95, 96, 142, 231 Kahe, 241, 242, map 9
Indo-European languages 58, 60, 96, 240, map 1 Kaike,
Inga *, map 12 Kajnas *
Ingush *, 72, 73, map 2 Kakua *
Inuktitut, 60, 61, 62, 99, 105 Kalanga *
Ipai (see Diegueño), map 3 Kalmyk *, 71, 73, map 2
Iquito *, 179, map 6 Kaluli *, 179
Iraqw, map 9 Kam (see Dong)
Irish Gaelic *, 70, 98, 105, 243 Kamali *, 179
Isanzu, map 9 Kamassian, 121
Isconahua, map 3 Kami, map 9
Istro Romanian, 25 Kamsa *, map 12
Isu * Kan
Italian *, 13, 56, 58, 84, 98, 105, 121, 162 Kandozi *, 179, map 6
Itzaj *, 141, 179, map 8 Kangjia *, map 13
Ivatan * Kannada *, 27, 74, 94, 238
Ixil *, map 8 Kanuri *, 50, 98
Jakalteko *, map 8 Kaqchikel *, 147, 220, map 8
Jalunka *, 179 Kara, map 9
Jamaican, * Karachay *, 71, 73, 233, map 2
Japanese *, 18, 60, 64, 121, 231, map 1 Karapana *, map 12
Jaqaru *, map 6 Karata, map 2
Jarauara *, 179 Karay *, 147, 179
Jarawa *, 209, 210 Karelian, 25
Jaru *, 237 Karijona *, map 12
Jasngali (Rawat), 241 Karimojong *
Jauja-Huanca (Quechua), map 6 Kariña *
Jebero, map 6 Karmarong, 241
Jenu Kuruba, 209 Karon, map 7
Jhangar (see Dhangar), 241 Karuk, map 3
Jibaro (see Shuar), 99, 101, map 6 Kasa *, map 7
Jingpo *, 99, 136, 178, map 13 Kasem, 99
Jino, map 13 Kashmiri *, 94
Jinuo *, 179 Kâte, 18
Jiongnai *, 179, 206, map 13 Kawaiisu, map 3
Jirel 241, 242 Kaweskar, 66
Jita, map 9 Kawiyari, map 12
Jitnu * Kaxinawa *, 140, 159, 160, 170, map 6
Juaneño (see Ajachmen), map 3 Kayapi *, 179
Juhupde * Kayapo *, 179
Jukun *, 179, 207 Kazak *, map 13
Index of Languages, Families and Varieties 307

Kei *, 179 Kulung, 241

Kenyang * Kumale, 240
Kera * Kuman *
Kerewe (Kerebe), map 9 Kumeyaay (see Dieguño), map 3
Ket 73, 121 Kumyk, 71, 73, map 2
Kewa, 22 Kuna *, map 12
Khaidako, map 2 Kunama, 94, 98
Khaling, 241, 242 Kupwar, 27, 33, 38
Kham * Kurdish, map 2
Khesang, 241 Kuria, map 9
Khinalugh, map 2 Kurripako *, map 12
Khmer * Kurti *
Khoekhoegowap * Kusunda, 240, 242
Khoisan, 60, 67, map 1 Kutang Bhote, 241
Khvarsh, map 2 Kutenai, map 11
Khwendam * Kutep *
K’iche’ *, map 8 Kutu, map 9
Kikuyu, 67 Kuuy *, 179
Kimbu, map 9 Kuvi *, 152, 179
Kinga, map 9 Kwaiquer *, (see Awa Pit)
Kirgiz *, 97, 136, 211, map 13 Kwakwala *, 179
Kirivila * Kwatay *, map 7
Kisi, map 9 Kwaya, map 9
Koasati *, 179 Kwere, map 9
Kobo * Kyorung, 241
Kodagu, 238 Ladin *
Kofan, *, 179, map 12 Ladino *, 58, 70, 147, 191, 219
Kogui *, map 12 Lahu *, map 13
Koi *, 241 Lai *, 137, 221
Kokama *, 160, 179, map 6, map 12 Lak, 73, map 2
Kom *, 179 Lakantun, map 8
Koma Ndera * Lake (see Namsrung)
Komba *, 179 Lakkia *, 179, map 13
Komo *, 179 Lakota *, 177
Konja * Lamba *
Konkani, 94 Lambya, map 9
Konkow, map 3 Lamenu *, 179
Konongo, map 9 Lamnso’ *
Konyagi * Langi (Rangi), map 9
Koori, 21 Lango *, 147
Korean *, 29, 60, 121, map 1, map 13 Lardil, 22
Koreguaje *, map 12 Laria *
Korop * Larke (see Namsrug), 241
Koryak * Lassik, map 3
Kosarek Yale * Latin, 33, 58, 86, 136, 138, 141, 190, 191
Kosorong * Latvian *, 177
Kott, 121 Laz, 72, map 2
Krio *, 223 Lembena *, 179
Kryts, map 2 Lenca (Lenka), 240, map 8
Kubeo *, map 12 Leti *
Kuiba *, map 12 Lezgian *, 73, map 2
Kuku-Yalanji *, 179 Lfa’ *
308 Words and Worlds

Lhasa Tibetan, 241 Mambay *

Lhomi, 241 Mambila *
Li *, map 13 Mambwe *, 179
Limbo, 240, 241 Mambwe-Lungu, map 9
Limbum * Managalasi *
Limkhim, 241 Managua, 141
Lingala, 67 Manchu *, 179, map 13
Lingao *, 148, 212, map 13 Manda, map 9
Lisu *, 141, map 13 Mandarín (see Chinese)
Lithuanian, 58 Mandinkan *
Lobala *, 179 Mandyak *, 143
Logooli * Mangbetu *, 179
Lopa, 141 Maninga *, 149
Lotha * Manipuri, 94
Low Saxon, 25 Mankon *
Luang *, 179 Maonan *, 178, map 13
Luba Congo, 67 Maori, *, 7, 21, 23, 31, 77, 104, 105, 168, 170
Lugbara, 67 Mapudungun *, 152, 170, 197
Luiseño, map 3 Marathi, 27, 94
Lunda * Mataco-Guaicuru, 66
Luo, map 9 Matal *
Luvale * Matengo, map 9
Luwo *, 179 Mator, 121
Luxemburgian *, 47, 98, 105 Mattole, map 3
Maasai *, map 9 Matumbi, map 9
Mabas * Mauritian Creole, 23
Macanese *, 179, 226 Maviha, map 9
Macedonian * Mayan, 65, 193, 194
Machame, map 6 Mayoruna, map 6
Machiguenga, map 6 Mazateco *, 179
Machinga, map 6 Mbembe *,
Mada * Mbo *
Madang-Adelbert, 76 Mboko *
Magar, 240 Mbong *
Mahl * Mbosi *, 179
Maidu, Northest, map 3 Mbugu, map 9
Maithili, 240, 241 Mbuko *
Majhi, 240 Mbum, East *
Makhuwa-Metto, map 9 Mbunga, map 9
Makonde, map 9 Mbungwe, map 9
Maku, 206, map 12 Meänkieli *
Makuna *, map 12 Meche, 141, 142
Malay *, 18, 43, 136, 179, 191, 231 Medumba *
Malayalam *, 74, 94 Meitei *, 136
Malayo-Polynesian, 60 Meohang Eastern, 241
Maldivian, 74 Meohang Western, 241
Malecite *, 179 Meramera *, 152, 179
Malila, map 9 Merey *
Malngin *, 179 Meriam *, 177
Maltese *, 122 Meru *
Mam *, 193, 220, map 8 Meta’ *
Mamaara * Mian *, 169, map 13
Index of Languages, Families and Varieties 309

Miao *, map 13 Muya *, 179, 195, map 13

Miao-Yao 60, map 1 Muyang *
Mien * Mwanza, map 9
Migaama *, 147, 179 Mwera, map 9
Mi’kmaw *, 207 N/u *
Minaveha *, 179 Naasioi *, 147
Mingrelian, 72, map 2 Naba, 241
Miraña *, map 12 Nachhering, 241
Miriam Mer, 17 Na-Dené, 59, 60, 65
Miskito *, 161, 212, map 8 Nahuatl *, 152, 192, 193, 228, map 6
Miwok *, 179, 226, map 3 Nakho-Dagestanian, 72
Miwok, Coast, map 3 Nama *, 239
Miwok, Lake, map 3 Nambikwara *, 52, 133, 179
Mixe *, 179, map 8 Namsrung (Larke), 241
Mixteco * Namuyi *, 139, 140, 179, map 13
Mlokwo * Napo-Pastaza-Tigre (Quechua), map 6
M’lomp, North, map 7 Narak *, 153, 179
Moba * Narang, map 7
Mocheno *, 179 Naro *
Mochi (Mosi), map 9 Nar-phu, 241
Mocho’, map 8 Naxi *, map 13
Modo * Ndali *, 179, map 9
Modoc, map 3 Ndamba, map 9
Moghamo * Nda’nda’ *
Mohawk, 105, 168 Ndau *, 197
Mojave, map 3 Ndebele *, 94, 122, map 5
Moldavian, 29 Ndemli *
Mon *, 152, 177, 192, 194 Ndendeule, map 9
Mon-Cambodian (see Mon-Khmer), 26, 60, 74, Ndengereko, map 9
map 1 Ndogo *, 179
Mongolian *, 71, map 13 Ndut *
Mongolia, 120, 121 Nenets *
Monguor *, map 13 Nentsi, 99
Mon-Khmer (see Mon-Cambodian), 26, 60, 74, Nepali, 94, 240, 242
map 1 Newari, 240, 241
Mono *, map 3 Ngambay *
Mopan *, 94, map 8 Ngardi *, 179
Morunahua, map 6 Ngas *
Mosi (Mochi), map 9 Ngasa, map 9
Mota, 20 Ngbaka *, 179
Mpoto, map 9 Ngbandi *, 179
Magali, 241 Nghwele, map 9
Muinane *, map 6, 12 Ngiemboon *
Mulam *, map 13 Ngindo, map 9
Munda, 26, 60, 74, 210, 221, 241, map 1 Ngoe *
Mundang * Ngonde (Nyakyusa) *, 179
Munduruku *, 101, 151, 179 Ngoni *, 179
Mungaka * Ngulu, map 9
Munguk * Ngurimi, map 9
Muniche, map 6 Ngwo *
Murui, map 6 Niger-Congo, 50, 58, 60, 67, map 1
Mussau-Emira *, 179 Nigerian, 51, 217
310 Words and Worlds

Nigi * Onge *, 179, 209, 210

Nihali *, 179 Onobasulu *, 52, 179
Nilamba, map 9 Orejon, map 6
Nilo-Saharan, 50, 60, 67, map 1 Oriya, 94, 240
Ninggirum *, 179 Orochi *
Nisenan, map 3 Orokaiva *
Nivhi *, Oroko *
Nivkh, 121 Oromo *
Njikum * Oroqen *, map 13
Njoyame * Orya *, 179
Nkwen * Ossetic *, 143, map 2
Nogai *, 71, 123, map 2 Oto-Manguean, 59
Nomatsiguenga, map 6 Otomi *, 102, 137, 147, 178
Nomlaki, map 3 Páez *, map 12
Non * Páez-Barbacoan, 66
Nongati, map 3 Pagibete *, 179
Nonuya, map 12 Pahari, 241, 242
Norfolk (Pitkern) *, 18, 209 Paiute *, 179
Northern Central American Creole English, Paiute, Northern, map 3
map 8 Paiute, Owens Valley, map 3
Norwegian, *, 13, 21, 47, 58, 216 Pajonal, map 6
Nswase * Palenque *, 179, 226, map 12
N’tcham * Palmerston Creole, 23
Nubaca * Pama-Nyungan, 60
Nubri, 241 Pamun *
Nugunu * Pa’na *
Nukak *, map 12 Panamint (see California Shoshoni), map 3
Numand * Panare *
Numanggang *, 179 Pandanus, 22
Nunga, 179 Pangduwali, 241
Nunga English, 21, 43 Pangwa, map 9
Nunguisa, 74 Pano, 66, map 6
Nuristani, 74 Papuan, 18, 40, 60, 76, map 1
Nusu *, 179, map 13 Parkwa *
Nyakyusa (Ngonde), 179, map 9 Parquenahua, map 6
Nyambo, map 9 Pashto *
Nyamwezi, map 9 Patwin, map 3
Nyaturu, map 9 Pavlikeana *
Nyiha, map 9 Peba Yagua, map 6
Nyindrou * Pech *, 148, 179, 194, 212, 219, 220
Nyokon * Pedi *, 94, map 5
Nyole * Peere *
Nyoro *, 137, 180 Pemon *
Nzema, 99 Pennsylvania Dutch *
Nzime * Penutian, 59, 65
Occitan *, 24, 58, 70, 97, 107, 221, 226 Piapoco *, map 12
Odawa * Piaroa *, map 12
Ogiek *, 179 Pichis, map 6
Okaina *, map 6, 12 Piemontese *
Omagua, map 6 Pilipino, 21, 152
Omotic, 67 Pimbwe, map 9
Oneida *, 179 Pinai, 79
Index of Languages, Families and Varieties 311

Pipil, 240 Romance, 16, 33, 58, 60

Piratapuyo *, map 12 Romanian *, 25, 30, 33, 179
Pisabo, map 6 Romansh (Grishun) *, 44, 58, 70, 98, 104,
Pisamira *, map 12 Rombo, map 9
Pitkern (see Norfolk), 18, 209 Rouruo *, 179, map 13
Plasla * Rromani *
Platt * Rufiji, map 9
Pogolo, map 9 Ruguru, map 9
Pohing, 241 Rundi *, map 9
Polish *, 58, 121 Rungi, map 9
Pomo, map 3 Rungwa, map 9
Popolocan, 65 Rusnak *
Popoluca *, 179, 226, map 8 Russian, *, 24, 55, 58, 64, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75,
Popti’, 97 97, 99, 120, 121, 123, 162, 231, map 2, map 13
Poqomam *, map 8 Rusyn *
Poqomchi’ *, 147, map 8 Rutul, 72, map 2
Portuguese, 24, 30, 40, 64, 68, 69, 93, 102, 105, Rwa, map 9
124, 132, 152, 155, 156, 159, 160, 231 Rwanda *, 94, map 9
Poyanawa *, 179 Saafi-Saafi *,
Prok, 241 Sabaot *, 179, 218
Proto-Austronesian, 58 Saep *, 179
Proto-Bantu, 58 Safwa, map 9
Proto-Niger-Congo, 58 Sagala, map 9
Puinave *, map 12 Saha (see Yakut), 99, 120, 121
Pukirieri, map 6 Saho, 94, 98
Pulaar *, 217 Sakapulteko *, 147
Puma, 241 Sakha *,
Pumi *, 158, 179, map 13 Salar *, 99, 123, 179, map 13
Punjabi, 94, 240 Saliba *, map 12
Q’anjob’al *, 97, map 8 Salinan, map 1
Q’eqchi’ *, map 8 Salinan-Serian, 65
Qiang *, 141, map 13 Salish/an 66, map 11
Quechan (see Yuma), map 3 Sama *, 241
Quechua *, 47, 56, 66, 99, 101, 168, 228, 232, Samba Leeko *
map 6, map 12 Sami *, 44, 47, 70, 97, 104, 170, map 4
Quichua *, 192 Samoan, 94
Quileute * San Andres, 22, map 12
Rajasthani *, 147 Sandawe *, map 9
Raji, 241, 242 Sango, 18
Rama, map 8 Sangpang, 241
Ramoaaina *, 179 Sangu, map 9
Rangi (Langi), map 9 Sanskrit, 94, 190, 191, 192, 241, 242
Rankas, 241 Santarrosino (Quechua), map 6
Rapa Nui *, Santhali (see Sattar), 241
Rastfarian, 21 Sapiteri, map 6
Raute, 241, 242 Sattar (see Santhali), 241
Rawat (see Jasngali), 241 Savara *
Rengpungmo, 241 Sawai *, 179
Reo Tahiti *, Scots *, 243
Resigaro, map 6 Scottish Gaelic *, 70
Reunion Creole * Seediq *
Rikpa’ * Segeju, map 9
312 Words and Worlds

Sena *, 216 148, 170, 172, 177, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196,
Sentani *, 179 207, 209, 218, 231, 233, 239, 243, 247
Sepik-Ramu, 76 Sranan *
Serbian *, 47, 58 Suahili (see Swahili), 19, 21, 40, 64, 67, 69, 191,
Serbocroatian * 208
Serer *, Suba *, map 9
Serrano, map 3 Suga *
Sesi Kham * Sui *, map 13
Shambala, map 9 Sukuma *, 179, map 9
Sharanahua, map 6 Sulawesi (see Indonesian)
Shasta, map 3 Sum (see Sung), 197, 198, 241
Shawnee *, 179 Sumbwa, map 9
She *, 179, map 13 Sumo-Tawahka *, 179, map 8
Shelta *, 21, 179 Sunda *
Sherpa, 240 Sung (see Sum), 197, 198, 241
Shetebo, map 6 Sunwar, 241
Shipibo *, 208, map 6 Supralecto-Yauyos (Quechua), map 6
Shiwi’ma * Surel, 96
Shixing *, 179, map 13 Svan, 72, map 2
Shompen, 210 Swahili *, 19, 21, 40, 64, 67, 69, 191, 208, map 9
Shona *, 179 Swati *, 94, map 5
Shor * Swedish *, 47, 58, 104, 105, 121
Shuar (see Achuar), 99, 101, map 6 Switsertütsch, 21
Shubi, map 9 Tabassaran, 73, map 2
Sikkimese * Tacana, map 6
Sikuani *, map 12 Tae’ *, 179
Sindhi *, 94, 135, 238, 240 Tagalog, 94
Sinhala *, 98 Taiwano, map 12
Sinhala-Maldivian, 74 Tajik, *, map 13
Sinic, 60 Talish, map 2
Sinkyone, map 3 Tamang, 240, 241
Sino-Tibetan, 60, 74, 236, 240, 241, map 1 Tamazight, *, (berber) 47, 56, 67, 81, 123, 162,
Siona, *, map 6, 12 190, 208
Siouan, map 11 Tamil *, 43, 74, 94, 98, 211
Sipakapense *, 179, map 8 Tanimuka *, 179, 233, map 12
Siriano *, 179, map 12 Tanoan, 59
Siriono * Tarahumara *
Siroi *, 179 Tariano *, map 12
Sizaki, map 9 Tat, 71, map 2
Slavey, 105 Tatar *, 179, map 13
Slavic, 58, 60 Tatuyo *, map 12
Slovak *, 58 Tau *, 179
Soliga, 209 Taushiro, map 6
Solomon Pidgin, 18 Tausug *
Somali *, 136, 162 Taveta, map 9
Songhay * Tayo *, 19, 178, 179
Songorong *, 179, 208 Tchamba *, 143
Soninke * Tehid *, 179
Sorbian *, 233, 234 Tehuelche *, 179
Sotho *, 94, map 5 Teke *, 179
Spanish *, 24, 29, 33, 39, 40, 41, 47, 58, 62, 64, Tektiteko, map 8
66, 69, 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 93, 98, 105, 121, Telugu *, 27, 94
Index of Languages, Families and Varieties 313

Tem * Tumbuka *, 218

Temi, map 9 Tunebo *, map 12
Teochew, 43 Tunen *
Tepehuan *, 143, 179 Tungus, 73
Terai, 240, 241 Tungusic, 120, 121
Thai, 60, 74, 94 Tuotomb *
Thakali, 241, 242 Tupí Guaraní, map 6
Thami, 241 Tupian, 66
Tharu, 240 Tupuri *
Thulung, 241 Turkana *
Tibea * Turkic, 60, 71, 120, 121
Tibetan *, 99, 122, 135, 136, 191, 192, 195, 236, Turkish, 17, 81, 94, 191
241, 242, map 13 Tutunaku (Totonac) *
Tibeto-Burman, 26, 240, 241, 242, 243 Tuva (Tuvan) *, 121, map 13
Tichurong, 241 Tuwali *, 179
Tifal *, 179 Tuyuka *, map 12
Tigre, 94, 98, 309 Tzeltal *, 33, map 8
Tigriña, 67, 94, 98 Tzotzil, map 8
Tikari * Tz’utujil *, map 8
Tikuna *, map 6, 12 Ubikh, 72
Tillung Dhimal, 241 Ucayali, map 6
Timbe *, 179, 211 Udi, map 2
Tindi *, map 2 Udmurtian, 99
Tinigua *, map 12 Uitoto *, (Huitoto) 64, 124, 179, 207, 240, map 6,
Tipai, map 3 map 12
Tiv *, 147 Ukrainian *
Tiwa, *, 161, 179 Uma *, 142, 179
Tlingit, map 11 Umbule, 241, 242
Toba * Uminey *
Tofalar * Unserdeutsch, 19
Tojolab’al *, map 8 Uralic, 60, 120, 121, map 1
Tok-Pisin * Urarina, map 6
Tol *, 161, 179, 195, 196, 220, 221, 226, map 8 Urbuko, 73, map 2
Tolowa, map 3 Urdu *, 21, 27, 47, 94, 122, 191, 231, 240, 241
Tonga *, 94 Urhobo, 217
Tongan, 94 Uspanteko *, 179, map 8
Tongva (Gabrielino), map 3 Uto-Aztecan, 59
Tongwe, map 9 Uuhum *
Toposa * Uygur *, map 13
Toyoeri, map 6 Uzbek *, map 13
Trans-Guinean, 60 Va *, 148, map 13
Triqui *, 147, 148, 170 Valencian, 30
Tsakhur, map 2 Venda *, 94, map 5
Tsakonian, 25 Vepsian, 70
Tsimshian, map 11 Vidunda, map 9
Tsonga *, 94, map 5 Vinza, map 9
Tswana *, 94, 232, map 5 Viri *, 137, 217
Tubatulabal, map 3 Vunjo, map 9
Tucanoan, 59, 66 Vute *
Tujia *, 179, map 13 Waama *, 179
Tukano *, (Tucano), map 6, 12 Waffa *, 142, 179
Tuki * Wagdi, 209
314 Words and Worlds

Wailaki, map 3 Yana, map 3

Waimaha * Yanghwang *, map 13
Wakashan, map 11 Yanomami, 66, 81, 133
Waling, 241 Yao Map, 9
Walser * Yaruro *, map 12
Walung, 241 Yasa *
Wampis *, 179, 212 Yau *
Wanano *, map 12 Yele *, 142, 143, 179
Wanda, map 9 Yemba *
Wandala * Yenische *
Wanga *, 179 Yeniseian, 73, 120, 121
Wanji, map 9 Yerava *, 179, 238
Wanyjirra *, Yerwa Kanuri, 98
Waorani *, 101, 179 Yeyi *, 178, 232
Wapi, 79 Yi *, map 13
Wappo, map 3 Yiddish *, 191
Washo, map 3 Yine *, 7, map 6
Wasi (Chasi), map 9 Yokuts, map 3
Waunana *, map 12 Yoruba *, 50, 64, 67, 98, 122, 217
Wayuu *, 137, map 12 Yugur, Eastern *, 179, map 13
Welsh *, 70, 100, 101, 104, 162, 168, 170, 243 Yugur, Western *, 179, map 13
Whilkut, map 3 Yujup-Maku map 12
Wichi *, 81 Yukaghir , 121
Wintu, map 3 Yukateko, 182, map 8
Witoto (see Uitoto) Yuki, map 3
Wiwa * Yuko *, map 12
Wiyot, map 3 Yukuna *, 179, map 12
Woko * Yuma (see Quechan), map 3
Wolof *, 18, 64, 67, 123 Yurok, map 3
Wuzlam * Yuruti *, map 12
Xavante *, 179 Yutish, 25
Xhosa *, 94, map 5 Zaiwa *, 99, map 13
Xibe *, map 13 Zalamo, map 9
Xinka, map 8 Zanaki, map 9
Yaaku *, 179 Zaparo, 66, 97, 101, map 6
Yabêm, 18 Zapotecan, 65
Yagua *, 179, map 6, 12 Zapoteco *, map 8
Yakan *, 143, 152, 179 Zhuang *, 99, 136
Yakkha, 241 Zigula, map 9
Yakut (Saba), 99, 120, 121 Zinza, map 9
Yale *, 153, 179 Zlgwa *
Yaminahua, map 6 Zo’e *
Yamphe, 241 Zoque, map 8
Yamphu, 241, 242 Zulú*, map 5
Subject Index
Aboriginal Algeria, 81, 123, 162, 192
– language, 53, 54 Algiers,
– settlements, 20 Alienation, 150, 151, 154
Abstand language, 21 Alphabetic codification, 149, 254
Academic Society for the Minority Amazon, 32, 165, 206, 233, 240, 243
Languages of China, 237 America, 47, 48, 59, 60, 64, 67, 93, 230, 234,
Academic training, 150 239
Academy of Maya Languages, 47 – Central, 57, 59, 65, 97, 148
Acculturation, 55, 88, 193, 195, 227, 238, 251, – Latin, 168, 181
255 – North, 31, 57, 59, 65, 121, 176, 228, 243
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome – South, 24, 40, 47, 57, 59, 66, 192, 228, 230,
(AIDS), 33, 239 249
Action for Community Organisation, Ancestral
Rehabilitation and Development – heritage, 229
(ACCORD), 211 – language, 18, 58, 99, 101, 229
Acre Organization of Indigenous Teachers, Andaman Islands, 26, 60
140, 157, 160, 168 Andes Mountains, 232
Adigea, Adygeya, 71, 72 Andorra, 107
Administration, 51, 99, 102, 104, 105, 107, 118, Anglicisation, 228
119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 129, Anglo-Saxon culture, 85
130, 134, 140, 143, 172, 195, 198, 200, 208, Angola, 67
210, 218, 220, 230, 232, 241, 242, 247, 259 Animism, 191
Adolescent, 35, 101 Anomie, 154
Adulthood, 35 Aotearoa, 77
Africa, 40, 47, 48, 57, 58, 59, 64, 67, 68, 93, 97, Arabic script, 17, 191, 241
107, 108, 109, 110, 193, 230, 231, 239 Arabic signs, 136
– Central and Southern, 18, 49, 58, 67 Arequipa,
– East 19 Argentina, 66, 81, 93, 197
– South 94, 98, 108, 239 Armed conflict, 97, 234
– Sub-Saharan 67, 68 Armenia, 107
– West 14, 32 Arnhem Land, 31
African Renaissance, 110 Articulatory gesture, 61
Agadir, map 10 Artificial language, 21, 22, 43, 44, 144
Aggression, xiii, 204, 222, 227, 239, 240 Asia, 32, 38, 47, 48, 57, 73, 93, 192, 230, 239
Alaska, 226 – Central, 39, 64
Albania, 107 – East, 64
Alcoholism, 81 – Northern, 64
Alfabetatze Euskalduntze Koordinakundea – South East, 32
(AEK), 171, 172 – Pacific Region, 38

315
316 Words and Worlds

Asmara, 108, 109 Bible, 137, 140, 141, 191

Assimilation, 20, 42, 58, 69, 70, 75, 80, 81, 87, Bicultural, 35, 66, 77
88, 89, 126, 127, 207, 221, 235, 238, 242 Bilbao, xiii
Astrakhan, 71 Bilingual, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 66, 77, 93, 101,
Atlantic, 58 103, 124, 130, 137, 138, 148, 150, 151, 152,
Atlas, xii, 1, 16, 32, 265 155, 157, 160, 161, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168,
Attitude, xii, 4, 13, 26, 32, 47, 51, 66, 90, 100, 169, 170, 173, 208, 209, 210, 213, 214, 219,
102, 104, 151, 153, 181, 189, 192, 198, 199, 224, 239, 241, 251, 252, 253, 263
204, 206, 207, 208, 211, 214, 215, 216, 217, – and bicultural, 35, 66, 77
218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 250, 252, 253, Bilingualism, 12, 26, 31, 33, 34, 41, 43, 66, 75,
256, 257, 258, 260 87, 94, 151, 163, 165, 166, 168, 224, 238, 239,
Audiovisual, 68, 131, 170, 176, 181, 254 252, 253
Augustines, 137 Bilinguality, 34, 35, 36, 37
Ausbau, 20, 21, 25, 40 Biodiversity, 23, 174, 216
Australasia, 231 Biological diversity, biological megadiversity,
Australia, 2, 3, 10, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 32, 38, 39, x, 11, 23
40, 43, 44, 48, 52, 54, 57, 60, 64, 76, 77, 93, Bolivia, vii, 2, 66, 153, 168, 182, 218
164, 177, 219, 220, 226, 230 Border, boundary, xii, 7, 14, 16, 27, 32, 70, 72,
– Central, 14 78, 79, 92, 95, 97, 116, 204, 240, 241, 261
– Northern, 32 Botswana, 67, 81, 102, 178, 232
– Tropical, 38 Brazil, 38, 48, 52, 64, 66, 81, 102, 132, 138, 140,
– Tropical Northern, 32 152, 156, 157, 160
Austria, 56, 70, 107, 203 Britain, 11
Auto-ethnonym, 6 British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, 175
Autoglottonym, 6, 71, 72 British Columbia, 65
Autonomous language, 111 British Council, 86
Autonomous University of Madrid, vii, viii, British occupation, 77
54, 139 Brittany, 70, 103
Autonomy of language, 47 Bryn Mawr College, viii, 229
Autonomy, 74, 75, 104, 111, 118, 230, 238 Buddhism, 191, 192
Autonomous district, 74 Bujumbura, vii
Autonomous region, 74, 98 Bulgaria, 33, 58, 107
Auxiliary language, 18, 83, 87 Burgenland, 70
Auxiliary verb, 62 Burkina Faso, vii, 2
Awareness, 1, 8, 9, 11, 25, 36, 37, 38, 97, 117, Burma, 49, 152, 177
125, 163, 173, 179, 180, 182, 185, 207, 215, Burundi, vii
218, 219, 221, 229, 242, 258 Bwrdd Yr Iaith Gymraeg, 100
Azerbaijan, 72, 73, 94, 107
California, 65, 80, 225
Babel, 11 Cameroon, 48, 58, 67, 68, 93, 147, 177
Balkan, 33 Canada, 38, 52, 53, 56, 64, 65, 104, 105, 126,
Baltic, 60, 74 128, 129, 168, 177, 207, 208, 219, 220
Bangladesh, 137, 221 Canadian Constitutional Act, 104
Barcelona, 108, 167, 183, 202 Cape Verde, 124
Basque Autonomous Community, Basque Cape York, 38, 39
Country, vii, viii, xiii, 168, 170, 171, 172, Caquetá River, 233
173 Cardiff University, viii, 101
Belarus, 122 Caribbean, 22, 64, 230
Belgium, vii, viii, 16, 24, 56, 69, 98, 107, 126 Castilianisation, 228
Belize, 16, 97 Catalonia viii, 168, 203
Benin, 124, 197 Catechism, 137, 191
Subject Index 317

Catholic, 103, 140, 161, 171, 191, 192, 193, 194, Constitution, 25, 75, 94, 98, 99, 101, 102, 104,
195 118, 122, 124, 153, 154, 159
Caucasian war, 72 Contact languages, 26, 242
Caucasus, 70, 71, 72, 73, 165 Continuous languages, continuum, 7, 17, 19,
Census, 26, 43, 52, 66, 74, 75, 95, 100, 126, 127, 20, 43, 230
128, 129, 130, 240, 242, 265 Convention for the Protection of Human
Central African Republic, 18, 49, 67 Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Central Institute of Indian Languages CIIL, (Council of Europe), xi, 106
vii, 209, 210 Co-official language, 93, 94, 98, 120, 179
Centre de Recherche sur le Plurilingüisme, Co-official status, 98, 99, 118, 120, 122, 123,
202 124, 125
Centre for Paraguayan Studies “Antonio Copenhagen, 106
Guasch”, viii, 134 Costa Rica, 65, 124
Centre for Peasant Research and Promotion, Council of Europe, 106, 107, 108
182 Craftsmen, 27
Centro de Investigación y Promoción del Creole, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 31, 39, 63, 76, 102,
Campesinado CIPCA, 182 124, 222, 223, 226, 230
Cervantes, 85 Croatia, 107
Chistianity, Christianism, 190, 191, 193 Cultural
Cinema, 181 – artefacts, 13
Civil servants, 132, 167 – autonomy, 75, 104, 238
Classical language, 132, 167 – catastrophe, 57
Code switching, 40 – diversity, x, 11, 80, 90, 101, 106, 124, 150,
Codification, 31, 131, 136, 198, 248 151, 165, 173, 183, 184, 186, 188, 216, 231,
Coexistence, x, xi, xii, xiv, 38, 87, 96, 110, 165, 236, 261, 264
169, 257, 261, 262, 267 – dominance, 177
Cognitive, 13, 35, 36, 37, 38, 96, 134, 146, 229, – experience, 13, 136
253 – genocide, 80, 81, 82, 207
Colombia, 65, 66, 101, 124, 155, 195, 207, 209, – heritage, x, 1, 64, 108, 109, 136, 148, 149, 170,
226 187, 235, 252, 254, 265
Colonial language, 24, 64, 93, 108, 113, 230 – identity, 35, 38, 43, 150, 186, 194, 208, 215,
Colonialism, xi, 154, 259 218, 220, 221, 238, 262
Colonisation, colonization, 14, 24, 39, 40, 93, – marginalisation, 82
94, 110, 136, 189, 192, 193, 199, 227, 228, – plurality, 111, 176
230, 239, – prestige, 64
Comissão Pró-Índio do Acre, 140 – referent, 85
Commonwealth, 87 – right, 80, 110
Communicative methods, 167 – uniformity, x, 158, 175, 178, 180, 183, 199,
Community 222, 263
– right, 102, 124, 128 Curriculum, 160, 252
– school, 153, 164, 200 Cuzco, map 6
Comoros, 152 Cymdeithas Yr Iaith Gymraeg, 100, 101
Comparative linguistics, 58, 236 Cyprus, 18, 107
Competing languages, 30 Cyrillic alphabet, 136, 191
Computer technology ies, 170, 254 Czech Republic, 107
Concurrent languages, 12 Chad, 93, 146, 208
Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Chechenya, 71, 72, map 2
Ecuador CONAIE, 138 Chiclayo, map 6
Congo, 48, 58, 67, 141 Childhood, 35, 36, 126, 242
Connected languages, 23 Chile, 66, 152, 197, map 6
Consciousness, 32 Chimbote, map 6
318 Words and Worlds

China, 24, 29, 48, 74, 97, 99, 121, 122, 123, 136, – monolingualism, 24
139, 140, 141, 144, 148, 158, 178, 192, 195, – society, 156, 207, 228
197, 206, 212, 217, 235, 236, 237 Drought, 33, 239
Chinese character, 136, 192 Drug addiction, 81
Christian, 20, 141, 190, 193, 197 Drum language, 79
Chukchia, 99 Dry areas, 23
Chuvashia, 99 Dual-lingualism, 39
Durban, map 5
Dagestan, 52, 71, 72, 73, map 2
Dar es Salam, map 9 East London, map 5
Death of language, 86, 127, 163, 226, 227, 228, Easter Island, 32
238, 242, 247, 249, 255 Ecolinguistics, 30, 32
Decline of language, x, 18, 33, 42, 79, 103, 141, Ecological
201, 205, 209, 212, 238, 247, 252 – balance, xi
Decolonisation, 24, 110 – community, 126
Deculturated, 35 – system, 10
Deforestation, 42, 240 Ecology, 30, 31, 38, 43
Deixonne law, 103 Economic
Democracy, xiii, 69, 106, 110, 134 – crises, 227, 237
Democratic Republic of Congo, 67 – exploitation, 227, 237
Demographic factor, 206, 208, 227, 232, 233, 234 – factor, 30
Denmark, 70, 99, 107, 121 – power, 47, 64, 80, 82, 94, 177
Descriptive linguists, 12 – subjugation, 229
Desert, 14, 15, 23, 32 Ecuador, 52, 65, 66, 97, 99, 101, 138, map 6,
Devanagari script, 191, 241 map 11
Dialect, 14, 16, 20, 25, 31, 47, 63, 78, 115, 132, Education Reform Act, 100
141, 142, 143, 153, 195, 206, 218, 251 Education system, educational system, 66, 68,
Dialectology, 12, 16 78, 93, 99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 151, 152, 153,
Dialinguistics, 12 162, 163, 167, 172, 173, 174, 198, 206, 238,
Dictionary, 10, 34, 137, 138, 195, 224 253
Diglossia, diglossic, 28, 39, 40, 41, 45, 223 Educational
Dioudoulou, map 7 – linguistics, 151, 170
Directorate, General for Bilingual and – policy, 150, 152, 153, 163
Intercultural Education 160 – programme, 105, 166, 170, 190, 196
Disappearing languages 5 Egypt 39, map 10
Discrimination, discriminated, discriminatory, Eisteddfodau, 100
42, 58, 66, 81, 82, 88, 105, 115, 124, 161, 175, El Salvador, 240, map 8
181, 185, 207, 229, 238, 248, 259, 261 Electronic media, 169
Disease, 33, 239, 243 Elementary grade, 152
Displacement, 20, 45, 114, 206, 228, 230, 234, Elista, 2
265 Elite language, 230
Diwan, 103 Emergente, 11, 14, 40, 114, 115, 185
Dodoma, map 9 Emigration, see also migration, immigration,
Domains, 12, 22, 24, 38, 40, 42, 51, 113, 114, xi, 4, 18, 23, 32, 33, 39, 40, 42, 56, 183, 196,
116, 128, 193, 223 206, 208, 211, 215, 218, 219, 227, 233, 234,
Dominant 239, 242, 243, 250, 253, 256, 257, 259, 265
– culture, 177, 178, 179, 218, 259 Ena Wene Nawé, 132, 133
– language, see also predominant language, Encounter language, 83
64, 70, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 113, 114, 117, 150, Endangered
151, 153, 168, 170, 174, 195, 207, 211, 216, – language, 51, 54, 63, 73, 90, 188, 209, 210,
217, 221, 226, 232, 234, 235, 237, 238, 258 231, 236, 237, 247, 251, 254, 255
Subject Index 319

– linguistic communities, xii, 3, 7, 19, 34, 84, First

97, 118, 119, 128, 131, 197, 142, 143, 149, – grade, 152
170, 171, 173, 175, 190, 194, 198, 199, 214, – language, 43, 95, 96, 126, 128, 159, 163, 164,
221, 250, 254, 256, 258, 265, 267 215
Endemic language, 23, 28, 30, 32, 39 First World War, 103
Epidemia, 33, 227, 239 Flood, 139
Escarré Internacional Centre for Ethnic Folk songs, 136, 148,
Minorities and Nations, 108 Forbidden, 102, 153, 161, 195, 218
Esoteric language, 17, 18 Foreign language, 18, 27, 68, 87, 88, 167
Estonia, 107, map 4 Formal educational system, formal teaching,
Ethiopia, 49, 52, 67 18, 152
Ethnic identity, 115, 169 Former European colonies, 24
Ethnicity, 75, 84 Foster mother tongues, 26
Ethnocultural, 38, 74 France, 11, 24, 52, 56, 70, 90, 97, 102, 103, 107,
Ethno-educational model, 155 124, 136, 162, 168, 220, 226, 230
Ethnolinguistic, ethno-linguistic, 13, 26, 126, Franciscans, 137
127, 129, 233 Francophone Agency ACCT, 107
Ethnoses, 127 Francophonie, 68
Europe French Revolution, 24, 228
– Central, 165 Frenchification, 228
– Eastern, 20, 70, 191 Frisian (community, region, area), 70, 97, 143,
– Western 190, 220 180
European Bureau for Lesser Used Functional diversity, 30
Languages, EBLUL 107, 108 Further education, 83
European Commission, 108
European Charter of Regional or Minority Gabon, 93
Languages, 103, 106, 107, 108 Gällivare, map 4
European national languages, 13, 40, 47 Gambia, 93, map 7
European nationalism, 93, 192 Generalitat de Catalunya, 202
European Union EU, 22, 39, 44, 105, 106, 202 Genocida, 45, 69, 77, 80, 81, 82 207, 217, 244
Euskal Herria, euskaldunak, 170 Geographical
Euskaltzaindia, 171 – isolation, 32
Exclusion language, 83 – mobility, 28
Exogenous language, 68 Georgia, 72, 73, 97, 107, 141, map 2
Exolexicons, 14 Germany, 14, 21, 24, 29, 47, 56, 74, 97, 107,
Exoteric language, 18 121, 143, 180, 191, 233
Exotic language, 23, 40, 41 Ghana, 99
Expanding language, 5, 220, 243 Global
Extinct language, 63, 169, 201 – dominant language, 114
Extinction language, 96, 201, 228 – language, 83, 113
– society, 163, 231
Fables, 136, 148 – village, 235
Fairy tales, 148 Globalisation, x, xi, xii, xiv, 33, 81, 85, 86, 133,
Family language, 166, 167, 169, 174, 208, 212, 154, 166, 171, 176, 188, 243, 246, 256, 263
263 Glottonym, 6
Famine, 239 Glotto-politics, 13
Fes, map 10 Government of Wales Act, 101
Fieldwork, 29 Gradual shift, 238
Fiji, 40, 41 Great Britain, 56, 86, 162, 168
Finland, 24, 74, 97, 104, 107, 203, map 4 Great famine, 239
FIPH, 219 Greece, 74
320 Words and Worlds

Guatemala, 47, 93, 97, 143, 147, 160, 193, 194, – minority, 81
207, 218, map 8 – people, 75, 81, 99, 101, 102, 104, 155, 158,
Guayaquil, 138 159, 181, 195, 219
– population, 53, 54, 65, 219, 221, 230, 239
Hamburg, 84 Indigenous Teachers Association ACRE, 140,
Harare, 18, 107, 109 157, 160, 168
Hawaii, 32 Indochina, 64, 230
Heerenveen, 70 Indonesia, 21, 24, 46, 47, 48, 58, 67, 94, 95, 97,
Helduen Alfabetatze Berreuskalduntzerako 141, 142
Erakundea HABE, 172 Inequality, 115, 183
Helsinki, map 4 Influenza, 33
Helsinki Final Act, 106 Information technology, 28, 33
Hetta, map 4 Ingushetia, 71, 72, map 2
High-rainfall, 23 Institut de Sociolingüística Catalana, 202
Hispanic Culture, 82 Intercommunication, 16, 18, 19, 38, 68
Hispanicisation, 208, 228 Interculturalism, 106, 168
Hitler Germany, 21 Intergenerational
Holland, 56, 97, 107 – continuity, 17
Home language, 112, 223 – discontinuity, 17
Honduras, 16, 65, 97, 148, 161, 194, 196, 212, – transmission, 4, 17, 100, 200, 201, 202, 203,
219, 226, map 8 206, 212, 234, 252
Houston, 84 – use, 4, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 207, 209, 211,
Huancayo, map 6 213
Huanuco, map 6 Intergovernmental Conference of Ministers
Hudston Bay, map 11 on Language Policies in Africa, 107
Human rights, xi, 106, 127, 165, 217, 248, 263 Intermarriage, see also mixed marriage, 31
Hungary, 70, 107 Internal migration, see also migration,
Hymn book, 137 emigration, immigration, 18
International Commission for Translations
Iceland, vii, 107, 121, 177 and Linguistic Rights, 108
Idiolect, 111 International Covenant on Civil and Political
Idre, map 4 Rights, 106, 110
Illiterate, 131, 134 International language, 64, 69, 80, 86
Immersion, 103, 105, 117, 167, 168, 174 Internationalisation, 54, 55, 85
Immigration, see also migration, emigration, Intolerance, xiv, 267
xi, 4, 18, 23, 32, 33, 39, 40, 42, 56, 183, 196, Invasion, 40, 81, 233
206, 208, 211, 215, 218, 219, 227, 233, 234, Iquitos, map 6
239, 242, 243, 250, 253, 256, 257, 259, 265 Iran, 72
Imperialist language, 89 Ireland, 98, 107, 191, 239
Impoverishment, 81, 239 Irian, Jaya 76
Independent language, 7, 47 Iringa, map 9
India, 3, 25, 26, 42, 48, 56, 60, 74, 99, 117, 122, Islam, 51, 190, 191, 192, 194
126, 135, 136, 144, 147, 152, 153, 154, 155, Island of San Andres, 22, map 12
165, 192, 209, 211, 222, 238, 240 Isolation, 32, 36, 56, 198, 227, 252, 258, 262
Indigenous Israel, 147, 190
– community, 2, 151, 155, 219, 226, 228 Italy, 14, 24, 56, 70, 74, 97, 107, 147, 168
– group, 66, 195, 226
– language, 21, 23, 24, 26, 33, 43, 51, 56, 65, 67, James Bay, 105
76, 77, 78, 82, 102, 104, 121, 138, 155, 156, Japan, 178, 192
157, 158, 159, 160, 164, 181, 196, 216, 221, Java, 95
226, 228, 232 Jawaharlal Nehru University, viii, 26
Subject Index 321

Jesuits, 133, 137 – of communication, 43

Jharkhand, 26 – of instruction, 158
Johannesburg, map 5 – planning, 17, 21, 22, 69, 189, 190, 196, 249,
Jordan, 72 250, 259
Judaism, 190 – policy, xii, xiii, 13, 66, 79, 109, 111, 112, 113,
114, 115, 116, 117, 193, 195
Kabardino-Balkaria, 71, 72, 73, map 2 – recovery, 170
Kabrousse, map 7 – revival, 11, 109, 161
Kabyle, 56, 123 – right, 114, 116, 216
Kahnawake, 105 – shift, see also shift, 17, 18, 20, 26, 30, 40, 42,
Kalemie, map 9 43, 65, 97, 114, 115, 116, 121, 189, 191, 192,
Kalmykia, map 2 193, 194, 198, 201, 202, 203, 204, 228, 238,
Kautokeino, map 4 242, 250, 257,
Karachay, 71, 73, map 2 – transmission, 17, 203, 205, 206, 208
Karachay-Cherkessia, 71, 72, 73, map 2 – use, 10, 11, 27, 43, 46, 52, 63, 114, 116, 118,
Karasjok, map 4 120, 127, 155, 160, 190, 191, 203, 221, 223,
Kenya, 94, 177, 208, 218, map 9 241, 249, 265
Kigoma, map 9 Languages in contact, see also contact
Kinship terms, 23, 244 language, 26, 242
Kirgiztan, 97 Last speaker, 5, 121, 226, 227, 248
Kiruna, map 4 Latin alphabet, 136, 137, 141, 148, 191, 193
Koine, 20 Latvia, 107, 177, map 4
Koran, 85 Legends, 136, 137, 148
Korea, 19, 29, 74, 192 Legislation, 42, 92, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 111,
Krasnodar, 71, map 2 124, 161, 162, 232
Kupwar, 27, 33, 38 Lesotho, map 5
Kura Kaupapa Maori, 77 Lexicon, 14, 19, 21, 35, 39, 78, 144, 196, 231
Liberia,
Lamaism, 195 Libya, map 11
Language Lima, map 6
– choice, 41, 116, 119, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194 Lingua franca, 18, 19, 20, 26, 31, 39, 40, 79,
– community, 10, 13, 15 193, 196
– continuity see also speech community, 33 Linguapax, viii, xiii, xiv
– death, 86, 127, 163, 226, 227, 228, 238, 242, Linguasphere, 230, 231
247, 249, 255 Linguicide, 244, 246
– decline, 79 Linguicism, 82, 83, 90
– development, 33, 75, 209 Linguistic policy see also planning, vii, 3, 90,
– disappearance, languages disappearing, 97, 107, 155, 182, 228, 266,
115, 225 – comparative, 58, 236
– dominant, 115 – contact, see also contact languages, xii, 4,
– ecology, 12, 25, 30, 30, 79 222, 262, 265, 266
– family, 63, 71 – density, 76
– group, 7, 26, 55, 59, 72, 110, 111, 202, 203, – dominance, see also dominant language, 64
235, 236 – ecology, see also ecolinguistics, 3, 22, 30, 32,
– in contact, see also contact languages, 2, 26, 40, 44, 111
33, 215, 222, 226, 233, 242, 262 – hegemony, 86
– in danger, xiv, 57, 201, 261 – heritage, xi, xii, xiv, 3, 8, 9, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53,
– loyalty, 26 54, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75,
– maintenance, 17, 73, 127, 169, 189, 196, 197, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 97,
244 104, 105, 107, 108, 149, 151, 163, 184, 232,
– names, 62, 78 247, 265
322 Words and Worlds

– homogenisation, 93 Mediterranean, 18, 20, map 10

– identity, see also language identity Megalanguage, 231
– immersion, 105 Melanesia, 32, 38
– imperialism, 54, 87, 88, 89, 90 Melbourne, 2
– minority ies, 102, 113, 124 Melilla, 208, map 10
– norms, 144, 146 Mentrau Iaith, 101
– normalisation, 5, 258 Merton College, viii, 223
– racism, 82, 83 Metalinguistic, 37, 38, 45, 134
– right, see also language right, 4, 70, 104, 107, – awareness, 25, 37
108, 110, 118, 130, 180, 221, 232, 248, 260, – skills, 134
263 Mexico, 48, 65, 66, 101, 137, 143, 147, 148, 152,
– substitution, 4, 87, 206, 212, 220 178, 226, map 8
– uniformity, xi, 6, 9, 150, 249, 251, 263 Middle East, 18, 72
– universal, 96 Migrant
Link language, 83, 98, 111 – communities, 17,
Literacy, 42, 115, 131, 133, 137, 138, 140, 147, – languages, 42
159, 166, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 181, 182, Migration, see also emigration, immigration,
185, 244, 250, 255, 259, 263 internal migration, xiv, 4, 18, 23, 32, 33, 39,
Lithuania, 107 40, 42, 56, 183, 196, 206, 208, 211, 215, 218,
Living language, 231, 247 219, 227, 233, 234, 239, 242, 243, 250, 253,
Local language, 76, 130, 194, 195, 198, 207, 256, 257, 259, 265
208, 218, 251, 255 Military domination, 228
Lower Brittany, 103 Minorisation, 80, 149
Lozovero, map 4 Minorised languages, 141, 153, 163, 168, 222
Lunes Matub, 123 Minority language, viii, 11, 16, 42, 44, 90, 100,
Luxembourg, 56, 98, 107, 167 103, 106, 107, 108, 149, 150, 163, 164, 167,
Lycksele, map 4 168, 169, 181, 182, 188, 198, 202, 209, 221,
224, 235, 236, 237, 238, 253, 254, 255, 257,
Macao, 226 259, 262, 263
Macedonia, 70, 107 Minority Languages Academic Society of
Maghrib, 208, map 10 China, viii
Maharashtra, 27 Missal, 137, 194
Maintenance educational model, 176 Missionaries, 16, 18, 20, 78, 137, 140, 193, 194,
Makerer, 87 246
Mala, map 4 Missions, 17, 192, 195
Malawi, map 9 Mixed
Malaysia, 24, 49, 58, 76, 136 – endemic-exotic communities, 39, 40
Mali, 123, 136, 140, 178, map 10 – marriage, see also intermarriage, 31, 70, 206,
Malta, 107, 122 208, 211, 227, 233, 234
Marginalisation, xi, 58, 70, 81, 82, 93, 100, Modern language, 20, 21, 22, 82, 103, 154,
105, 150, 181, 182, 193, 199, 238, 239, 251, 231
257 Modern Testament, see also New Testament,
Marie Smith, 226 20, 137, 194
Marraquech, map 10 Modernisation, 17, 21, 24, 81, 93, 94, 206, 207,
Masaba, 136 208, 238, 248, 256
Massacre, 237, 240 Moldavia, 107
Mato Grosso, 132 Monolingual
Mauritania, map 10 – assimilation, 89
Mbeya, map 9 – attitude, 90
Media propaganda, 169 – ideology, 87
Medical disasters, 33 – mentality, 87
Subject Index 323

– model, 3 Narrative poems, 136

– policy, 96 National Assembly for Wales, 101
– school, 150, 174, 239, 251, 252, 253 National
Monolingualism, 11, 24, 66, 87, 88, 89, 90, 189, – language, 13, 21, 24, 28, 40, 43, 47, 69, 74, 75,
252 76, 78, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 104, 122, 124, 169,
Montreal, map 11 216
Morocco, map 10 – minority, 74
Morogoro, map 9 Nationalism, 41, 84, 86, 93, 127, 166, 192
Morphology, 20, 62, 209 Nationalist language, 83
Moscow State Linguistics University, vii, viii, Nationalisation, 86
75 Native
Mother tongue, 26, 34, 35, 37, 63, 71, 75, 96, – language, 19, 66, 67, 112, 137, 199, 212, 217,
109, 115, 123, 126, 128, 150, 151, 152, 153, 221
154, 156, 159, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, – religions, 194, 197, 199
170, 184, 196, 207, 209, 210, 213, 217, 219, Natively spoken language, 18
221, 234, 237, 240, 242, 245 Natural
Mountain villages, 32 – and human resources, 11
Mozambique, 101, 147, 216, map 5 – calamities, 243
Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, 108 – disaster, 33, 197, 227, 238
Multicultural, see also pluricultural, 3, 164, – environments, x, 23, 30
168, 257 – language, 13, 21, 40, 82, 144, 145
Multifactorial analyses, 3 Negative attitude, 26, 102, 189, 215, 220, 222,
Multi-function polis, 44 223
Multilingual Neighbouring communities, 2, 263
– community, 25, 89 Nenetsia, 99
– education, viii, xiii, 4, 213, 231, 252, 253, 255, Nepal, 243
262 Netherlands, 14, 24
– ecology, 41 Neutral language, 83, 85, 87
– modes of communication, 36 New Britain, 33
– network, 111, 112, 114, 115 New Caledonia, 19, 178
– relations, 3 New Guinea, 14, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32, 38, 39, 41,
Multilingualism, see also plurilingualism, 29, 46, 48, 52, 60, 66, 78, 79, 99, 138, 142, 143,
30, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 51, 68, 69, 147, 152, 153, 160, 168, 197, 211
87, 88, 91, 92, 106, 111, 151, 164, 165, 169, New Guinea Highlands, 14, 32
173, 174, 184, 186, 215, 222, 230, 231, 253, New Hebrides, 76
262, 268 New Testament, see also Modern Testament,
Munich, vii, 84 20, 137, 194
Murder of natives in El Salvador in 1932, New Zealand, 7, 23, 31, 64, 77, 93, 105, 168
240 Newspaper, 144, 178, 180
Murmansk, map 4 Nicaragua, 65, 97, 212, map 8
Mutual intelligibility, mutual understanding, Niger, 123, map 10
mutually intelligible, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 29, Nigeria, vii, 48, 50, 51, 67, 98, 122, 178, 206,
47, 56, 89, 90 207
Mwanza, map 9 Non Governmental Organisation Survival
Myanmar, 74, 191, 192 International, 81
Mysore, vii, 2, 27, 209 Normalised use
Myth, xi, 13, 132, 136, 138, 148, 262 – in the administration, 125
– of writing, 135, 140
Nagorno-Karabakh, map 2 North-West Territories, 104, map 11
Nakho, 62 Norway, 70, 97, 104, 107, map 4
Namibia, map 5 Notozeto, map 4
324 Words and Worlds

Number Phonetics, 61
– of languages, xii, 5, 11, 20, 31, 32, 34, 40, 44, Phyla, phylum, 58, 59, 60, 64, 67, 73, 74, 76,
47, 48, 50, 55, 56, 63, 78, 86, 89, 126, 138, 236
151, 164, 184, 225, 241, 243 Pyatigorsk, viii, 73, map 2
– of speakers, 3, 6, 18, 24, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, Pidgin, xii, 19, 20, 22, 31, 39, 40, 51, 63, 79, 211,
65, 67, 70, 72, 77, 88, 206, 227, 232, 233, 243 222, 223, 230
Nyassia, map 7 Piura, map 6
Planned languages, 21, 22
Oberwart, 70 Planning, see also language planning (see
Official language, 19, 42, 43, 44, 47, 51, 68, 70, linguistic planning) 17, 21, 22, 69, 189, 190,
71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 101, 196, 249, 250, 259
105, 106, 107, 120, 122, 123, 124, 179, 205, Plantations, 19, 238
206, 207, 211, 215, 218, 221, 226, 230, 241, Pluralism, xi, xiii, 165, 187
247, 250, 266 Pluricentric standard languages, 29
Open University of Catalonia, viii, 203 Pluricultural, see also multicultural, 3, 164,
Oral 168, 257
– culture, 83 Plurilingualism, see also multilingualism, 29,
– literature, 83, 148 30, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 51, 68, 69,
– literary tradition, 138, 148, 254 87, 88, 91, 92, 106, 111, 151, 162, 164, 165,
– transmission, 85 169, 173, 174, 184, 186, 215, 222, 230, 231,
Orality, 83, 115, 132, 164 253, 262, 268,
Order of the words, 62 Poland, 74, 107
Organisation of African Unity OAU, 107 Policies of preservation, 3
Original language, 198, 218, 225, 238, 239 Policy of discrimination, see also
Oslo, map 4 marginalisation, assimilation, 58
Ossettia, 99, map 2 Political self-determination, xi
Ouagadougou, vii, 2 Political units, 24
Oussouye, map 7 Polyethnicity, 75
Oviedo, 84 Polylingual, see also multilingual, plurilingual,
73, 87, 88, 92, 107, 150, 151, 164, 165, 166,
Pakistan, 94, 122, 147, 148, 178 167, 170, 181, 182, 184, 239, 263
Panama, 65 Ponoj, map 4
Pandemics, 33 Port Elizabeth, map 5
Papua New Guinea (see New Guinea) Portugal, 107, 230
Paraguay, 18, 39, 41, 66, 67, 98, 122, 133, 134, Positive attitude, 151, 153, 214, 215, 218, 253,
137 257
Paraná, 133 Post-colonial, see also colonial, 97, 112, 228
Passive Post-creole communities, 27
– language learning, 88 Post-modern society ies, 83
– multilingualism, 39 Predominant language, see also dominant
Patois, 16, 25 language, 64, 70, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 113, 114,
Peasant Research and Promotion Centre, viii 117, 150, 151, 153, 168, 170, 174, 195, 207,
PEN Club, 108, 263 211, 216, 217, 221, 226, 232, 234, 235, 237,
Persecution, 42 238, 258
Peru, 7, 66, 97, 101, 102, 123, 124, 147, 160, Prefabricated language, 84
192, 208, 212, 218, 240, map 12 Prejudices, xi, xiv, 82, 146, 188, 199, 205, 214,
Philippines, 48, 58, 76, 94, 143, 152, 192 223, 252, 256, 257, 258
Philology, 12 Prescriptive linguistics, 12
Philosophical knowledge, philosophical Press, 83
system, 29, 140 Pretoria, 140, 171, 174, 177, 178, 181, 182, 187,
Phonetic script, 136, 141 255, 256, map 5
Subject Index 325

Priest, 133 Russian Far East, 120

Primary education, 83, 137, 147, 153, 157, 160, Russian Federation, 2, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 97,
161, 209, 252 99, 104, 123, 136
Primitive society, 82 Russification, 230
Private domain, 114 Rwanda, 94, map 9
Process of diversification, 32
PROEIB Andes, vii Sabir, 76
Prohibition, 152, 218, 232 Sacred languages, 190, 191, 192
Promotion Sahara, 67, 68
– of language, 99, 107, 108 Sahara, Western, map 10
– of literacy, 42 Salta, 81
Protestant, 191, 194, 195 Salvador, 240, map 8
Purism, 165 Samoa, 94
Purity, 95 San Marino, 107
Pyatigorsk North-Caucasian Centre for San Salvador, map 8
Sociolinguistic Studies, viii, 73, 324 Sangli, 27
Saussure, 111
Quebec, 105 Scandinavia, 14, map 4
Queensland, 19, 29, 38, 43 Seattle, 84
Second language, 18, 19, 21, 34, 37, 62, 63, 69,
Racism, racist, 56, 81, 82, 83, 90 87, 100, 127, 163, 164, 168, 169, 170, 242,
Radio, 83, 100, 144, 166, 171, 177, 178, 179, 244, 252, 260
180, 181, 182, 187, 242, 255, 256, 264 Second World War, 104, 166
Rainfall, 23 Secondary education, 103, 122, 154, 157, 162,
Receptive vocabulary, 35 163
Regional language, 42, 63, 83, 95, 96, 154, 209, Secret languages, 21
266 Seismic movement, 239
Religion, xi, 3, 12, 24, 66, 131, 137, 186, 189, Self-destruction, 82
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, Self-enclosed communities, xiii
199, 233, 238, 242 Self-esteem, 9, 81, 164, 212, 216, 222, 257, 264
Religious instruction Semi-official status, 162
– leaders, xii, 194, 195, 199 Semi-speakers, 26
– terms, 139, 197 Senegal, 123, 139, 143, 178, map 7
– writings, 137, 139 Separate language, 47, 55, 56
Removing children, 121 Serbia, 21
Rennes, viii, 103 Serengeti National Park, map 9
Repression, xii, 220, 267 Settlement, 20, 42, 233
Resettlement, see also settlement, 42 Seville, 84
Revitalisation, see also vitality, 250, 251, 252, Shakespeare, 85
254, 256, 258, 259 Shift, see also language shift, 17, 18, 20, 26, 30,
Revival, 9, 11, 62, 77, 100, 105, 121, 158, 159, 40, 42, 43, 65, 97, 114, 115, 116, 121, 189,
161, 168, 169, 209, 219, 236 191, 192, 193, 194, 198, 201, 202, 203, 204,
Riga, map 4 228, 238, 242, 250, 257,
Rivers, 32 Siberia, 73, 81, 120, 121, 219
Roman script, 17 Sign language, 22, 63, 240, 242
Romania, 7, 70, 179, 206 SIL see also Summer Institute of Linguistics,
Rope-makers, 27 and Instituto Lingüístico de Verano ILV,
Röros, map 4 viii, 62, 63, 137, 138, 141, 161, 195, 243
Rural, 26, 40, 67, 122, 154, 171, 186, 208, 218, Sindian, map 7
224, 237, 238, 251, 257 Singapore, 19, 43
Russia, vii, 49, 71, 74, 75, 107, 147, 158 Single national language, 24
326 Words and Worlds

Size of a language, 32 Stavropol, 71, map 2

Slavery, slaves, 19, 20, 46, 80, 105, 230, 234, Stigmatised indigenous community ies, 226
238, 240 Stockholm, 187, map 4
Slitgong languages, 22 Strasbourg, 106
Slovakia, 70, 107 Structural disintegration, 16
Slovenia, 107 Structuralism, 14
Small language, 11, 18, 23, 38, 39, 42, 44, 80, Submersion (educational model), 168
169, 188, 217, 236, 246, 262, 267 Subordination, 227, 237, 238
Smallpox, 33, 239 Substractive
Snasa, map 4 – bilingualism, 66
Social – bilinguality, 37
– degradation, 238 Sudan, 49, 67, 137
– discrimination, 66, 229 Summer Institute of Linguistics SIL (see SIL)
– liberation, 131, 135 Sumpah Pemuda, 95
– marginalisation, 150 Superstitions, 83
– mobility, 33, 42 Supplementary educational tool, 158
– prestige, 172, 198, 227 Surinam, 141
Socioeconomic power, Survival, 1, 2, 18, 19, 25, 30, 42, 57, 65, 67, 77,
Sociolinguistics, 4, 12, 25, 111, 265, 266 81, 82, 102, 114, 121, 131, 144, 149, 166, 169,
Sociopolitical power, 175, 180, 182, 199, 202, 204, 217, 218, 220,
Sodankylä, map 4 230, 232, 234, 239, 146, 257
Solomon Islands, Solomons, 18, 19 Sustainable development, 235, 237, 265
Somalia, 136, 162 Swaziland, map 5
Songelsk, map 4 Sweden, 97, 104, 107, 168, 203, map 4
Songs, 136, 139, 148, 152, 197, 229, 245 Switzerland, 24, 44, 56, 98, 99, 104, 107, 147
Sosnavka, map 4 Symbols, x, 37, 85, 107, 112, 124, 125, 169, 208,
Soviet Union, 126, 230 217, 218, 228, 237, 245, 253, 256, 265, 267
Spain, vii, xiii, 11, 56, 97, 99, 107, 121, 126, 139, Syntagmatic relations, 44
162, 167, 168, 173, 178, 203, 226 Syntax, 62, 209
Speakers distribution, 33 Synthetic model, 61
Speech organ, 61 Syria, 72
Speech-community, see also language System of annotation, 134
community, 10, 12, 13, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
35, 38, 44, 96, 230, 231, 244, 245, Taboo, 22, 78
Sprachbunds, 33 Tacna, map 6
Sri Lanka, 98 Taiwan, 29, 236
Staatsvolk, 84 Tallinn, map 4
Stable hierarchical communities, 39 Tamanrasset, map 10
Standard language, 16, 20, 29, 39, 55, 56, 84, Tarna,
85, 131, 135, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, Tanganyka, map 9
175, 223 Tanger, map 10
Standardisation, 42, 85, 112, 114, 135, 139, 140, Tännäs, map 10
141, 142, 143, 147, 149, 176, 189, 191, 198, Tanzania, 19, 49, 94, 180, map 9
254, 258 Tärna, map 4
State language, 42, 73, 75, 78, 94, 97, 99, 104, Taymyria, 90
119, 120, 121, 122, 131, 141, 146, 177, 202, Te Kohanga Reo, 77
228, 233 Teaching institutions, 88, 150
Status of Technical innovation, 32
– languages, 3, 92, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, Technological changes, xi
107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 118, 120, 221 Tegucigalpa, map 8
– planning, 42 Telephony, 131, 149, 166
Subject Index 327

Temporal factors, 31 Turkey, 71, 72, 94, 102, 107, map 2

Terminal speakers, see also last speakers, 26 Typological
Terminological, terminology, 10, 13, 14, 20, 73 – diversity, 61
Terralingua, 216, 217 – linguistics, 236
Texts, 12, 134, 135, 141, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, Typology of ecological classification, 13
161, 190, 191, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
Thailand, 74, 94 Udmurtia, 99
The Australian National University, Uganda, 87, 122, 137, 147, 180, map 9
Canberra, 169 Ukraine, 107
The League of Welsh Youth, 101 Unbalanced and unhealthy ecologies, 30
The Universal Declaration of Linguistic Uncultured language, 83
Rights, 108, 183, 263 Unemployment, 220, 237
Third languages, 169, 221 Unequal bilingualism, 238
Thought, 10, 36, 37, 63, 97, 131, 132, 134, 145, UNESCO, vii, x, xiii, xiv, 11, 92, 93, 98, 107,
244, 249 108, 131, 150, 151, 153, 161, 165, 169, 174,
Threat, 68, 70, 76, 97, 105, 149, 164, 181, 193, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 240, 243, 263, 266
201, 212, 226, 232, 234, 238, 239, 247, 248, UNESCO Advisory Committee on Linguistic
249, 253, 254 Pluralism and Multilingual Education, viii
Threatened language, 66, 169, 206 UNESCO Centre of Catalonia, viii
Tibet, 136 UNESCO Etxea UNESCO Centre of the
Timbuctu, map 10 Basque Country ix, xiii
Tizi-Uzu, map 10 Unfocussed languages, 16
Tobi, 16 Uniformity of language, 27
Togo, 143, 147, 239 United Kingdom, 100, 101, 104, 107, 224, 231
Tolerated language, 102 United Nations High Commissioner for
Tonga, 94 Refugees UNHCR, 234
Toronto, map 11 United Nations International Covenant on
Tradition, 3, 10, 11, 69, 83, 85, 105, 131, 135, Civil and Political Rights, 106
136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 145, 147, 148, United States of America USA, 17, 65, 86, 126,
149, 151, 161, 191, 193, 197, 207, 222, 224, 152, 161, 229, 246
230, 239, 254, 255, 262 United States Information Agency, 87
Traditional University
– folk literature, 136 – of Adelaide, viii, 10, 79
– grammarians, 12 – of Barcelona, vii, viii, 167
– multilingualism, 38 – of Geneva, viii, 147
– society, 17, 21 – of Ibadan, viii
Translation, 35, 36, 61, 101, 110, 137, 140, 143, – of Indonesia, viii, 97
145, 155, 159, 191, 192, 194, 198, 199, 231, – of Laval, viii, 38, 129
264 – of Mons-Hainaut, vii, viii, xiii, 69
Transmission language, interruption of – of Nepal, vii
transmission (see language transmission) – of Papua New Guinea, 79
73, 172, 207 – of Pyatigorsk, 73
Treaty of Waitangi, 77 – of Rennes 2, viii, 103
Tribal – of the Basque Country, viii
– community, 82, 138 Unofficial language, 207, 226
– language, 24, 25, 26, 83, 209, 210, 211 Untouchables, 27
Triglossia, 40 Unwritten language, 139, 209, 236, 241
Tripoli, map 10 Urban
Tuberculosis, 239 – communities, 28
Tunisia, map 10 – migration, 18
Turin, 107 – schools, 154
328 Words and Worlds

Urbanisation, 19, 20, 28, 42, 68, 215, 242, 243, – concept of language, 78, 79
256 – culture, 47, 138
Urdd Gobaith Cymru, 101 – industrialised societies, 56
Utsjoki, map 4 – model, 82, 89
– political and economic power, 82
Vancouver, map 11 Whistle languages, 22
Vanuatu, 14, 17, 19, 49, 76, 94 Widespread language, 47, 52, 67, 70, 91, 94,
Variety language, 142 141, 149, 177, 180, 206, 216, 232, 238, 253,
Vatican Council II, 191 255, 256, 262, 263, 265, 267
Venezuela, 66, 137, map 12 Writing system, 121, 136, 141, 146, 189, 190,
Veracruz, 226 191, 192, 193, 196, 198, 209, 236
Verbal and non-verbal intelligence, 37 Written
Vernacular, 19, 24, 38, 39, 41, 79, 144, 152, 160, – code, 140, 142
191, 192, 193, 194, 228 – codification, 131
Vernacularisation, 68, 228 – culture, 83, 131, 134
Victoria, vii, map 9 – language, 85, 121, 122, 128, 134, 135, 139,
Vietnam, 19, 99, 192 140, 142, 143, 161, 166, 173, 209, 230, 251,
Vilhelmina, map 4 255, 263, 264
Vitality see also revitalisation, 31, 52, 68, 92, 109, – literary tradition, 131, 135, 138, 140, 141,
115, 123, 125, 137, 140, 175, 199, 233, 234 142, 147, 154
Violence (psychological or physical), 80, 81, – literature, 83, 135, 138, 141, 147, 166, 211
266, 267 – media, 181
Vocabulary, 17, 35, 45, 62, 96, 222, 265
Volgograd, 71 Xishuangbanna, 122
Vuotso, map 4
Young speakers, 169
Wales, 70, 100, 101, 202 Youth Pledge, 95
War, 29, 42, 45, 72, 103, 104, 162, 166 Yukatan, 33
Weak language, 237
Weddings, 148 Zaire, 48, map 9
Welsh Language Act, 100 Zambia, map 9
Welsh Language Board, 100, 101 Zanzibar, map 9
Welsh Language Society, 101 Zhuang writting system, 136
Western Ziguinchor, map 7
– civilisation, 138 Zimbabwe, 107, 122, map 9
Map 1. Genetic Groupings of the Languages of the World
Map 2. Languages in the Caucasus Region
The Caucasus is the richest area in Europe, linguistically speaking. Over fifty languages are
spoken in the region, although only a few are official. This map depicts linguistic diversity in
the Caucasus and notes whether each language is official or not.
Based on data provided by Alexey Yeschenko, University of Pyatigorsk (Russian Federation)
Map 3. Native American Languages in California
The great linguistic diversity of California is reducing dramatically. This map shows Native
American Languages in California and the number of speakers of each one. As you can see,
most of them have already died or are in the process of totally disappearing.
Source: Hinton, L. (1994)
Map 4. Sami Language. Language, Territory, and Official Status
Frequently, the same linguistic community inhabits territories belonging to more than one
state. In Europe, for instance, one well-known example is that of Sami, whose speakers are to be
found in land belonging to Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Russian Federation, but which is
official only in the first three countries. This map shows the Sami-speaking areas.
Source: Seurujärvi-Kari, Pedersen & Hirvonen (1997)
Map 5. Languages of South Africa
The map includes the eleven languages of South Africa that are recognised officially. It is also
important to point out that there are other first languages that are used by South Africans such
as Dutch, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, French, Tamil, Hindi, Telegu, Gujarati, Urdu,
Chinese, Swahili, Shone and Arabic and two Bantu languages, siPhuthi and Makhuwa, that
are not recognised by the Constitution but that are both unique to South Africa.
Based on data provided by the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology of Pretoria (South Africa)
Map 6. Great Diversity but only Occasional Use in Administration
Despite the great linguistic diversity in South American countries such as Peru, very few get to
be used in formal service encounters. Even languages declared official, Quechua and Aymara,
for instance, are hardly used in public administration. This map of Peru shows the original
territory of the several language varieties.
Data provided by the Peruvian Indigenous Institute
Map 7. Standardisation in Senegal
Senegal has great language diversity. Some languages, such as Balanta or Safen, have
undergone a certain process of standardisation; others, such as Basari or Badyara, have not.
This map shows the languages used in the region of Ziguinchor.
Based on data provided by the Directorate for Literacy and Basic Education, Senegal
Map 8. Languages of Central America (Partial)
According to our respondent for Pech (Honduras), there is no written tradition in this
language, but only oral. This map shows the languages of Mexico and Central America.
Sources: Wurm, Mühlhäusler & Tryon (1996), England (1994), Moseley & Asher (1994) and data provided
by K’ulb’il Yol Twitz Paxil-Academy of Mayan Language and the Honduran Institute of Anthropology
Map 9. The Media and Languages Spoken in Tanzania
Over one hundred languages are spoken in Tanzania. Only a few have some presence in the
media. The use of Swahili as the language for high functions is widespread.
Data taken from Grimes (2000)
Map 10. Tamazight Language Areas
According to our Tamazight (North Africa) respondent, Islamism contributes to the
Arabisation of the Amazights. This map shows the Tamazight language areas.
Based on data provided by the Mediterranean “Montgomery Hart” Foundation of Amazights and
Magrebian Studies

Map 11. Attitudes and Indian Languages in Canada

Although a language may play an important role in the definition of both individual and
collective identity, severe language shift may occur in a community. According to the
respondent for Algonquin, for instance, Algonquins often express their concern about
language loss and note that this language is an important part of their identity as a nation and
as individuals. This map shows Indian languages in Canada grouped by families.
Data provided by the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (Minister of Supply and Services, Canada)
Map 12. Languages of Colombia
Social pressure often prevents natural transmission of minority languages, as reported by our
respondent for some languages spoken in Colombia.
Formerly the language was transmitted from parents to children. Today we often find that parents
speak to their children in Spanish because they feel that this language’s dominance ensures that
their descendants will be accepted by the dominant society on an equal footing. (Uitoto, Colombia).
This map shows languages spoken in Colombia.
Based on data provided by the Colombian Center for the Study of Aboriginal Languages (CCELA)
Map 13. Language Diversity in China
Most minority communities in China today are at least three thousand years old. However,
contact between different groups brought about assimilation, and only isolated communities
were able to preserve their languages more completely (Hongkai and Xing, 2003: 243). This map
shows languages other than Chinese spoken in China classified by the number of speakers.
Based on data provided by the Academic Society for the Minority Languages of China