IJSL 2012; 218: 145 – 166
DOI 10.1515/ijsl-2012-0062 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
John Wendel and Patrick Heinrich
A framework for language endangerment
dynamics: the effects of contact and social
change on language ecologies and language
diversity
Abstract: This paper argues for a new perspective on the study of language
endangerment dynamics where diversity serves not only as a yardstick for assessing equality, but represents the very basis of equality. To this end, we propose a
unified framework accounting for the ecology of languages and language diversity loss. Different ways of economically organizing communities result in power
differentials. In cases of contact between them, the language ecologies of the less
powerful communities are disrupted through language shift and attrition processes. While these processes have taken place in all competitive language ecologies across time and space, two major waves of language diversity loss can be attested. The first wave began 11,000 years ago following the Neolithic revolution
when agrarian societies expanded into the territories of hunter-gatherer communities. The second wave was initiated by the French Revolution when dynastic
realms transformed into modern states. The promotion of language nationalism
and social mobility in societies imagined to be linguistically homogenous undermined the value and utility of minority languages. Two basic possibilities exist for
maintaining linguistic diversity: one is limiting contact to dominating communities; another is finding ways of regulating inter-community relations by mechanisms that do not rely on power alone. Ongoing processes in glocalizing societies
suggest that a combination of both options may become a viable way to halt language diversity loss.
30 Keywords: language ecology; language contact; language shift; language attri31 tion; inequality
32
33
34 John Wendel: Dokkyo University, Japan. E-mail: [email protected]
35 Patrick Heinrich: Dokkyo University, Japan. E-mail: [email protected]
36
37
38
39
40
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
308LGS
S
2FWREHU30
J. Wendel and P. Heinrich
146 1 Introduction
1
In this paper we propose a unified perspective for the study of language diversity
loss. Our framework provides both an explication of the general mechanisms at
work in language diversity loss and insights into the conditions necessary to sustain language diversity. Language diversity loss refers here to (1) the decline of
language use through processes of language shift, and to (2) the erosion of knowledge and the underlying linguistic devices that structure knowledge, that is, language attrition. Research on the loss of language diversity typically treats these
dimensions separately. In addition, a focus on either specific geographical regions or periods in history is also found in language endangerment studies. The
result of such approaches is inevitably particularistic.
Language diversity loss is, in general, the result of changes in language ecologies caused by transformations of the socio-economic organization of communities. In the case of contact between communities with different levels of socioeconomic sophistication, inequalities arise. These inequalities take on different
forms across time and space. It is therefore appropriate to differentiate between
language ecologies and their socio-economic basis as well as the specific types of
socio-economic transitions triggering language shift.
Because all processes of language diversity loss are the products of disturbances to ecologies, we begin our paper with a differentiation of the types of language ecologies, followed by a discussion of contact between different ecologies.
Lastly, we turn attention to integrating these insights into one unified framework
and discussing language endangerment dynamics on its basis.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2 Types of language ecologies
26
27
Language ecology emerged as a new paradigm for language studies in the 1970s
(Haugen 1972) and grew into a discipline in its own right in the 1990s. The impetus behind the founding of ecological approaches was a felt need to broaden the
considerations that account for language contact phenomena. Over the past two
decades, scholars such as Mühlhäusler (1996) and Calvet (1999) examined such
processes as pidginization, creolization, language spread, shift and attrition from
the perspective of ecology. Early on, ecological orientations to language studies
led investigators to observe correlations along several dimensions: between the
niche-width of languages and latitude, an application of “Rapoport’s Rule”1 to
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
1 Eduardo Rapoport observed greater diversity of plants and animals in regions of lower
latitudes, that is, in the tropics.
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
308LGS
39
40
S &6
308
2FWREHU30
147
A framework for language endangerment dynamics 1 language (Mace and Pagel 1995); between biodiversity and linguistic diversity
2 (Harmon 1996), where regions across the planet with high levels of biodiversity
3 had correspondingly high levels of linguistic diversity – research which led to the
4 coining of the expression ‘biolinguistic diversity’ (Nettle and Romaine 2000); and
5 between geographical factors and the diversity of language stocks which were
6 found to be higher in “coastal regions, at lower latitudes, and in wetter and less
7 seasonal climates”, but lower “in continental interiors, high latitudes, and in
8 dryer and seasonal climates” (Nichols 1997: 368). Nettle’s (1996) study offered fur-
9 ther insights into the impact of climate on economies and social networks, dem-
10 onstrating correlations between high amounts of rainfall, longer growing sea11 sons, self-sufficiency of communities, and high language densities. Collectively,
12 this research highlighted the embeddedness of language in the environment and
13 served as the first test cases for ecological orientations.
14
A language ecology refers to a dynamic network of relationships and inter-
15 dependencies between the sociocultural, economic, and environmental contin16 gencies that impact on the use, function, structure, and ways of meaning of lan-
17 guages and their speakers. Two major types of ecologies2 can be identified which
18 we have named “stable” and “competitive” ecologies as in Table 1. Stable ecolo19 gies are best characterized as bottom-up systems in rough equilibrium influenced
20 principally by local conditions (e.g., biogeography, exogamy), whereas competi-
21 tive ecologies are top-down systems associated with punctuation events and in22 fluenced by external conditions (e.g., social and political institutions).
23
24
25
26
2.1 Stable ecologies
27 Stable ecologies are found in “communication communities” (Mühlhäusler 1996)
28 in which the functional relationships between languages complement each
29 other, forming networks of interdependencies. They are called “stable” because
30 the speech varieties making up these communication communities do not com31 pete with one another and are therefore able to coexist side by side. Although
32 stable ecologies are often richly multilingual, the languages within them are in a
33 layered or structured relation to each other (Mühlhäusler 2000). Such layered
34 relations allow for a high “integrity” of such language ecologies – that is, such
35 ecologies are able to carry high language diversity. The languages in stable ecolo-
36 gies have small numbers of speakers (typically constituting hunter-gather bands);
37
38
39 2 This discussion builds on the work of many scholars including Dixon (1997), Mühlhäusler
40 (2000, 2005), Nettle (1999), Nettle and Romaine (2000) and Mufwene (2008).
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
30
308LGS
S
2FWREHU30
J. Wendel and P. Heinrich
148 Competitive
Stable
Features
– Predominately
bottom-up influences
– Symmetrical power
distribution
– Associated with
equilibrium states
– Predominately
esoteric languages
and communication
– Pre-settlement
semantics
– Predominantly
top-down influences
– Asymmetrical power
distribution
– Associated with
punctuation events
– Predominantly
exoteric languages
and communication
– Post-settlement
semantics
Sub-type
Features
1
– Migration into unoccupied territory –
isolated island and rainforest communities.
– Associated with hunters and gatherers,
pastoralists.
2
Emergent
ecologies
6
Multilingual
ecologies
– Structured language layers in
complementary relation to each other –
diversity sustaining processes.
– Associated with hunters and gatherers,
pastoralists.
– Includes multilingual exotic-endemic
communities.
Replacement
ecologies
Exploitation
ecologies
Glocalizing
ecologies
– Language replacement – total collapse and
replacement of less powerful language
groups by dominate language groups.
– Associated with settlement colonialism,
empires.
– Language shift to and expansion of
dominant languages.
– Policies and ideologies undermine the
vitality of minority languages.
– Associated with exploitation colonialism
and nation states.
– Language spread and language revival.
– Pluricentric languages, nativization.
– Novel forms of contact and competition;
strategies for language maintenance and
revival; exaptation of infrastructures and
communication technologies.
– Associated with globalization,
transnational migration, plurilinguistic
urban centers.
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Table 1: Types of language ecologies
32
small numbers of speakers mean that no one community enjoys significant advantages in economic or technological strength over another. For this reason,
stable ecologies are in an equilibrium state (Dixon 1997) with roughly the same
number of languages spoken in any given area over long periods of time. Because
of their small sizes, communication communities in stable ecologies are highly
susceptible to local conditions and pressures (i.e., bottom-up processes) such as
climate change and changes in social organization.
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
308LGS
3
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
S &6
308
2FWREHU30
149
A framework for language endangerment dynamics 1
As Table 1 shows, there are two sub-types of stable ecology: emergent and
2 multilingual ecologies. Emergent ecologies are manifest when a community
3 moves into an unoccupied territory. Multilingual ecologies communities are typi-
4 cally distinguished by high levels of multilingualism and by layered networks of
5 speech varieties. Multilingual ecologies have been documented, for example, in
6 New Britain (Thurston 1987), New Guinea (Kulick 1992; Laycock 2001 [1991]), or in
7 the Amazon Basin (Kaufman 1990). Also included in stable multilingual ecologies
8 are those regions constituted before European intrusions that include a mix of
9 exotic-endemic languages. Exotic-endemic ecologies can be found, for example,
10 in the Brazilian Vaupés region in the Amazon (Aikhenvald 2010), Timor (Hajek
11 2000), and along the north coast of Papua New Guinea where we find Austrone12 sian and Papuan languages side by side (Mühlhäusler 2000).
13
14
15
16
2.2 Competitive ecologies
17 Beginning around 11,000 years ago, the practice of agriculture initiated indepen18 dently by populations in several parts of the world set the scene for technological
19 innovation and socio-economic change. These developments initiated the transi-
20 tion from hunter-gatherer bands to larger, more sophisticated political units and
21 lay the groundwork for power differentials between the “haves” and “have nots”
22 – the cornerstone of competitive ecologies.
23
Competitive ecologies are found throughout the modern world today. In
24 contrast to the egalitarian social structure of hunter-gatherer communities
25 (Woodburn 1998 [1981]), the social organization in competitive ecologies is pre26 eminently hierarchical. The nation-state represents the present-day apex of the
27 development of competitive ecologies. Competitive ecologies are thus impacted
28 by pressures and events generally outside the control of local communities. If
29 smaller languages are not displaced immediately, language shift results in having
30 dominant languages grow at the expense of minority languages, and language
31 attrition results in reductions of domain use and linguistic structure. Major punc32 tuation events that result in competitive ecologies include the development of
33 writing systems, the spread of literacy and printing, scientific and technological
34 advances, the industrial revolution, nation-state building, and the emergence of
35 standardized languages. All these events coincide with language diversity loss
36 or with marginalization of smaller language varieties into geographic or societal
37 peripheries.
38
There are three sub-types of competitive ecology: replacement, exploitation
39 and glocalizing ecologies. Each type is characterized by a major process of lan-
40 guage change: as indicated in Table 1, replacement ecologies are characterized
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
30
308LGS
S
2FWREHU30
J. Wendel and P. Heinrich
150 by language replacement, exploitation ecologies by language shift, and glocalizing ecologies by language spread and grassroot efforts aimed at language revival.
Total collapse and replacement of indigenous language ecologies caused by the
spread of disease or genocide are characteristic of replacement ecologies. These
histories are often associated with settlement colonialism as discussed in Mufwene (2008). North America and Australia are obvious examples of replacement
ecologies where today pockets of relic languages, typically on native “reservations”, are surrounded by larger transplanted languages such as English, Spanish and Portuguese.
Exploitation ecologies are driven principally by economic inequalities: an established dominant language, due to its higher social status and economic advantage, undermines the vitality of other languages in contact encounters. The
result is a shift away from small local languages to the languages of prestige, often
in a matter of generations. Exploitation ecologies are characteristic of histories
associated with the industrial revolution (Nettle and Romaine 2000) and exploitation colonialism (Mufwene 2008).
Finally, glocalizing ecologies are a consequence of globalization processes
such as global communication networks and infrastructures, new media, and
changes in migration patterns. Among many post-industrial countries, there
is a growing sense of awareness of the rights of ethnolinguistic minorities to
the practice of their cultures and to the transmission and use of their heritage
languages in these ecologies. Virtual language contact and communities have
emerged, creating new domains of language use, and new possibilities to circumvent competition with dominant languages (Eisenlohr 2004). While it is
true that in glocalizing ecologies, larger languages such as English and Spanish
have spread to an unprecedented extent, it is significant that such languages
are typically learned as a second language at school and are often adapted to regional or local circumstances and identities over the course of several generations (García 2001). Thus typically, we see two opposing processes at work in
these ecologies: dominant language spread on the one hand, and language revival on the other.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
2.3 Meaning-making in pre- and post-settlement ecologies
Little attention has been paid to the roles that ecologies have played in supporting the ways languages can mean. The idea here is that language ecologies are
distinctive not only in terms of the bottom-up/top-down processes that predominate in each ecology, but also in terms of their potential for promoting and sustaining distinctive ways of meaning creation – the linkages between social orga-
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
308LGS
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
S &6
308
2FWREHU30
151
A framework for language endangerment dynamics 1 nization on the one hand, and linguistic structure and semantic development on
2 the other.
3
Thurston’s (1987) work in New Britain, Papua New Guinea, led him to observe
4 two types of language: esoteric languages (complex languages used for commu-
5 nication within communities) and exoteric languages (less complex languages,
6 including regional lingua francas and pidgins, used for inter-group communica-
7 tion). He noted that languages on the esoteric side of the continuum were often
8 deliberately made to be difficult for adult learners, a process he called esoter9 ogeny, thus securing their value as badges of community identity. Exoteric lan-
10 guages tended to have larger numbers of speakers and were more readily learned
11 by adults. In ecological terms, esoterogeny can not only account for high levels of
12 linguistic diversity, but also for the perpetuation of languages with small speaker
13 populations situated in areas of high linguistic diversity. The upper layers in
14 the hierarchy of languages in a communication community, in effect, protect the
15 local languages. A process such as esoterogeny would be unsustainable in a com16 petitive ecology.
17
The esoteric-exoteric language continuum was confirmed in a statistical
18 analysis of 2,236 languages in a study by Lupyan and Dale (2010) using combined
19 demographic and morphological language variables. They showed that lan-
20 guages with smaller speaker populations spoken over smaller areas and having
21 less contact with other language communities have overall simpler morphologi22 cal systems than languages having larger speaker populations, greater geograph23 ical coverage and greater language contact. Their Linguistic Niche Hypothesis pro-
24 vides that “the level of morphological specification is a product of languages
25 adapting to the learning constraints and the unique communicative needs of the
26 speaker population” (Lupyan and Dale 2010: 7).
27
These and other insights into the relationships between social and linguistic
28 structure have been elaborated by other investigators (e.g., Sampson, et al. 2009;
29 Trudgill 2011). For example, Wray and Grace (2007) developed a position based
30 on the juxtaposition of a societies of intimates and a societies of strangers, pro31 posing that early human languages, i.e., those of the hunter-gatherer cultures,
32 and the communicative mode that characterized their interactions, were primar-
33 ily esoteric, while modern human languages and their communicative mode are
34 primarily exoteric. “Languages that are used predominately for esoteric (intra35 group) communication tend to have features that are semantically and grammat36 ically ‘complex’, while those used also (or even exclusively) for exoteric (inter37 group) communication become ‘simplified’ towards rule-based regularity and
38 semantic transparency” (Wray and Grace 2007: 543). It is only larger political or
39 economic units (i.e., those of the post-settlement societies) that bring people into
40 extensive contact with strangers. Contact with strangers means that “societies of
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
30
308LGS
S
2FWREHU30
J. Wendel and P. Heinrich
152 intimates” cannot rely on the same high degree of implicitness in their interactions for maintaining comprehensibility between speakers and hearers. The need
to be more transparent pushed languages toward greater explicitness – less irregularity, a higher degree of predictability and more rule-governed – in a word,
compositional. Thus Wray and Grace find that over time, greater compositionality
in language is one consequence of talking with strangers.
Very much related to structural complexity, another dimension along which
ecologies support meaning-making in languages is the semantic dimension. Halliday (2001 [1990]) sketched out the linguistic consequences of transitions from
one type of socioeconomic organization to another, positing a view of grammar
as theories of experience. Languages – their use, functions, underlying semantic
and structural organization – are neither the product of some universal blueprint
set deep eons ago within the minds of speakers, nor are they mirrors passively
reflecting changes in sociocultural and material conditions. Instead languages
are at the “intersection of the material with the symbolic” (Halliday 2001: 179)
where meaning making is forged.
Along these lines, Halliday proposes a “semogenic” history of language –
that is, a historical account of the processes of construing meaning. Halliday
(2001: 181–183) proposes four major stages, each period culminating in an upheaval in the ways of meaning: (1) the hunter-gatherer stage, (2) the settlement
stage, (3) the iron-age culture stage and (4) the modernity stage. For example, in
his view of grammar as theories of experience, Halliday (2001: 181) posits a shift
from pre- to post-settlement semantics, through which abstract meanings shifted
from the “interpersonal towards the ideational – from, for example the rights and
duties of kinship to generalizations about the phenomena of experience, and
within the ideational, from processes towards things.” Things became “construed
as commodities, they take on value, they can be itemized and drawn up in lists”.
These shifts are manifested in language by the nominal group: “nouns measured
into quantities, assigned qualities along various scales, organized into taxonomies of classes and subclasses, social relations transformed into institutions.”
Two conclusions can be drawn from the above discussion. The first is that the
ecologies and languages across the pre- and post-settlement divide provide for
distinctive meaning creation potential which, in turn, leads to differently textured views on the world. The second is that when ecologies are disturbed and
when pressures, from whatever sources, effect changes that cause transitions
from one ecological configuration to another, it is not just language size, power,
and prestige that are affected, it is also the underlying structural and semantic
properties of languages that shift to accommodate new sociocultural and economic contingencies – contingencies themselves made possible only through semiotic mediation of the environment.
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
308LGS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
S &6
308
2FWREHU30
153
A framework for language endangerment dynamics 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
3 Contact and transition across language
ecologies
There are two general release mechanisms triggering the transformation from one
type of socio-economic order to the next. One is contact with and dominance by
another community or society, which subsequently imposes its economy, social
organization, values, etc.; the second is what David Nettle (1999: 79) calls “managing ecological risk”. Simply put, different types of societies vary because they
cope in their own way with ecological risk in order to assure their survival and
wellbeing. Hunter-gatherers primarily cope with ecological risk by fission and
mobility, agriculturalists with storage and exchange, dynastic realms with expansion, modern societies by ideological mobilization of its members, and glocalizing societies by attention to sustainability and exaptation of novel infrastructures
and information technologies. Let us consider the transition between these socioeconomic types in more detail.
17
18
19
20
3.1 The socio-economic basis of hunter-gatherer languages
21 Before the Neolithic revolution, all communities depended entirely on local
22 plant and animal resources for their survival. Typically, locally available re23 sources support only small bands, and once the resources are depleted, the
24 groups will splinter and move in search of new territories. These bands are homo25 geneously constituted and enjoy a strong sense of group membership (see e.g.,
26 Marshall 1998: 65). There is no or little social stratification or occupational spe27 cialization. Thus day-to-day interactions within the community are grounded in
28 a shared knowledge, and shared behaviors and understandings, with little need
29 to be explicit.
30
Pre-settlement cultures are also oral. Speech is ephemeral, limited both in
31 time and space. Apart from orally transmitted histories and myths that are struc32 tured for ease of memory, they have no recourse to aide memoires. In his study on
33 the transition from oral to literate cultures, Ong (1982) shows how expression in
34 oral cultures is additive rather than subordinative, aggregative rather than ana-
35 lytic, contextualized in the here-and-now rather than abstract, and participatory
36 rather than distant. Unable to organize knowledge in the elaborate and abstract
37 taxonomies, as is possible with the technology of writing, speakers of unwritten
38 languages rely on mnemonic strategies to structure their knowledge. From our
39 literate perspective, these pre-literate practices appear to place heavy restrictions
40 on the form and structure of languages.
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
30
308LGS
S
2FWREHU30
J. Wendel and P. Heinrich
154 One well-known case of restricted structural complexity concerns the Pirahã
language spoken by some 350 people in western Brazil. Everett (2005) has found
only four words indicating time relationships in Pirahã; no numerals or system
of counting, but instead two words meaning ‘relative large amount’ and ‘relatively small amount’; no color words; the simplest kinship system ever recorded
for a language; and, significantly, no recursion, a combinatorial rule that allows
for embedding in language. The Pirahã have also remained stubbornly monolingual despite 200 years of contact with Brazilian Portuguese speakers. Everett explains that many of the phenomena above can be explained by a single cultural
value that the Pirahã place on immediate experience that constrains not just their
way of living, but the Pirahã grammar as well. Everett (2005: 633) concludes,
“Pirahã thus provides striking evidence for the influence of culture on major
grammatical structures. . . . If I am correct, Pirahã shows that gross grammatical
properties are not only correlated with sociocultural facts but may be determined
by them.” How might such a language look after a transition to post-settlement
conditions?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
3.2 Transition to agricultural societies
19
Many indigenous hunter-gatherer communities disappeared and transformed
under the advance of the first agriculturalists, spreading from southwestern and
East Asia, northern and central Africa, and Central America. The result was a first
wave of language diversity loss. Shifting the socioeconomic system from hunting
and gathering to farming resulted in previously unknown types of societies, settled in fixed places, with a complex division of labor, technological innovation,
surplus food production, trade, and social stratification. All of this required new
institutions and forms of knowledge for the regulation of daily life.
Consider two examples of recent transitions away from hunter-gatherer traditions. In his study of ethno-botanical knowledge among the Piaroa in Venezuela, Zent (2001: 207–209) observed a loss of ethno-botanical knowledge in
their acculturated riverine habitat. In the 50 years that the Piaroa migrated
away from their traditional lands in the high hills between rivers, their knowledge retreated along with declining competence of their language. Spanish has
become both the dominant language of choice and the chief medium for knowledge of the world. Crawhall (2008), an authority of the Khoe-San hunter-gatherer
societies, explains that “hunter gatherer peoples manage their knowledge in
substantially different ways than other systems or other economic modes.” For
example, ecological knowledge is coded in social relationships. He has observed
disturbances to the chain of knowledge transmission, by habitat destruction or
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
308LGS
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
S &6
308
2FWREHU30
155
A framework for language endangerment dynamics 1 forced removal off the homelands, that have caused a change in communicative
2 relationships, which in turn, changed “the ability to diffuse the knowledge and
3 keep it in circulation.” Crawhall (2008) asks the very excellent question: “Is it
4 possible to move from a hunter-gatherer language with a highly diffused, very
5 detailed knowledge of biodiversity to a pastoralist or agriculturalist language,
6 and still be able to manage the same knowledge composition?” Clearly, the an7 swer is, “no”.
8
9
10
11
3.3 From dynastic realm to the nation state
12 What Anderson (1991) calls “dynastic realms” do not constitute societies in the
13 strict sense because a “sense of belonging” is not equally shared among all in-
14 habitants, nor is such a sense of belonging actively being promoted as in the case
15 of nation building. In this paper the term “dynastic realm” refers to various pol16 itical economies such as chiefdoms, pre-modern kingdoms, and empires. Dynam17 ic realms play a significant role in the growth and spread of specific languages.
18 Growing languages in dynastic realms serve as vehicles for the spread of reli19 gions, knowledge and legal systems. Although still based on an agricultural
20 economy, dynastic realms feature occupational specialization and urbanization,
21 and this affects again language patterns and use. To start with, cultural special-
22 ization and stratification results in specialized vocabularies, which need to be
23 managed and updated. Dynastic realms also require standard measurements due
24 to their progress in agriculture and long-distance trade. Most crucial with a view
25 to language diversity, however, is an established division of work between elite,
26 sacred or classical languages, that is, written languages on one hand, and of un-
27 written vernacular languages on the other. As a result thereof, language does not
28 lay ready as a resource to create one imagined community within the dynastic
29 realm. Dynastic realms are limited by frontiers, rather than borders beyond which
30 the Other resides. That is to say, the transition from the familiar to the unfamiliar
31 is more gradual than in the case of modern states. Consequently, dynastic realms
32 have a clear distinction between the center and the periphery, the latter of which
33 grows increasingly unfamiliar the further away one gets from the center. Rather
34 than being united in and through language, diglossia or societal bilingualism in
35 dynastic realms results in having literacy being restricted to the ruling elite. As an
36 effect, the vitality of regional languages is often left intact and language ecologi37 cal integrity remains high.
38
In contrast, modern states represent a new dramatic departure of social
39 and linguistic regimentation. Modernization goes hand in hand with industri40 alization, urbanization, the unification of a national labour market and social
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
30
308LGS
S
2FWREHU30
J. Wendel and P. Heinrich
156 mobility. The modern state serves as the main centre for regulating and reproducing society into a consistent and uniform direction. Typically, large communities become imagined as homogenous and uniform, from border to border,
irrespective of center or periphery. While the territory governed by dynastic
realms is delimited by the results of sexual politics, that is, arranged marriages
between ruling elites, the borders of the nation state are seen as the quasinatural territory inhabited by the quasi-natural entity of the nation. In order
for this to happen, the conflict between the subjective antiquity and primordial
imagination of the nation and the historical novelty of the nation needs to be
confused by ideology (Anderson 1991: 5). Unifying nations in terms of language, that is, making nations where there were none before by linguistically
unifying inhabitants of a given territory, became a prime task of modernity. In
contrast to dynastic realms with their indifference to language diversity among
their subjects, the socio-cultural periphery in modern states comes under pressure to assimilate in the process of nation building because nation states highlight unity within state borders and project diversity to the outside. All those falling between the gap of the nation as the invention and its multilingual makeup
come under pressure to adapt to the imagined model. Language diversity loss is
the result.
Consider the example of Spanish in the Americas. At the start of the 19th
century, Spanish speakers were outnumbered by a ratio of 3:1 by speakers of
indigenous languages. It is only after gaining independence from the Spanish
crown, that is, after shifting from a dynastic realm to a modern state, that Spanish
spread there to the extent that basically everyone speaks Spanish now in the
former Spanish colonies, and that nine out of ten of Spanish speakers are first
language speakers (Ostler 2005: 373–376). Likewise, the spread of Russia in Siberia (Salminen 1997) and that of French in what is today France (Marcellesi and
Larousie 1997) gained a whole different quality only after the rise of modernity
there. Heinrich (2012) offers a book-length discussion how the Japanese nationbuilding process has been threatening Ainu, the Ryukyuan languages, Ogasawara Creole English and Japanese Sign Language in Japan. Language diversity
loss in nations where the replacing language is always the dominant state language3 deserves our attention because this constitutes the second wave of language loss.
Language diversity is diminished because modernism introduces the novel
idea of equality through national unity and seeks to attain it through uniformity,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
3 Given the fact that “national language” is an ideological construct, we term it here as what it 39
40
is, a “state language”.
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
308LGS
S &6
308
2FWREHU30
157
A framework for language endangerment dynamics 1 that is, aligning everyone to the dominating language, culture, history and mores.
2 Efforts aiming at upward social mobility often lead to the adaptation to dominant
3 language and culture, and renders dominated languages largely without signifi4 cance in modern orders. To be sure, such a situation is not egalitarian from the
5 perspectives of dominated communities.
6
7
8
9
3.4 Glocalizing societies
10 All the effects of economic globalization on daily life are necessarily locally an11 chored. Globalization is already locally internalized because the changes intro12 duced by economic globalization run through local institutions. Together with
13 transnationalism and cosmopolitanism, glocalization results in societies where
14 the globe is increasingly often regarded as the main point of reference. The dis-
15 course on language endangerment in many states across the world is in itself
16 such an example. At an abstract level, such reflections result in new assessments
17 of issues such as pluralism, variety, contingency and ambivalence. Modernity
18 saw such characteristics as failures, and thus as issues to be corrected, a view
19 no longer tenable to many today (Bauman 1992: 187–188). Ensuing from such epis-
20 temological change are also conflicting views on language use and language
21 diversity.
22
We are witnessing in glocalizing societies an increase of linguistic diversity in
23 modern states through transnational migration, a new kinetic elite working in
24 institutions of global management and knowledge, and language revitalization
25 efforts, and all of these developments are in themselves contributing to a new
26 linguistic diversification. Code switching, language crossing, migrant varieties
27 of host-society languages, and national varieties of world languages are also part
28 of this new diversification wave in glocalizing societies. Since modernist institu-
29 tions are largely left intact, we arrive thus at the situation where we encounter a
30 defense of language nationalism, a revival of regional languages and cultures, a
31 diffusion of migrant languages, the unprecedented spread of international lingua
32 francas, and new extents and forms of language hybridization.
33
In view of the many concurrently occurring changes, the study of language
34 endangerment dynamics becomes indeed a challenging undertaking. A state like
35 Brazil, for example, has the greatest share of the estimated 100 uncontacted
36 tribes remaining in the Amazon Basin (Pantone 2008). There are also stable mul37 tilingual communities among the indigenous groups there (Aikhenvald 1999).
38 At the same time, the government is displacing thousands of indigenous peo39 ple every year in its rush to access energy resources. The construction of infra-
40 structure such as the Belo Monte Dam, the raising of new settlements, and the
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
30
308LGS
S
2FWREHU30
J. Wendel and P. Heinrich
158 movements of thousands of Brazilian Portuguese speakers to work on construction projects are triggering radical alterations that transform the language ecologies of entire regions. As the sixth largest economy in the world, Brazil is at the
same time subject to the effects of economic globalization. Glocalization ecologies, on the one hand, contribute to the spread of English and Spanish, but on the
other hand, in these same ecologies efforts to maintain or revitalize endangered
languages are also promoted. While the Brazilian government in 1996 mandated
foreign language instruction (mainly Spanish and English) for grades 6–12, government recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples to their language and
culture is pushed ahead (Hornberger 1998), and grassroots efforts to maintain the
languages of ethnolinguistic minorities are initiated (Rohter 2005). In terms of
language ecologies, Brazil represents a complex case. In her discussion on the
difficulties in separating out one linguistic area from another, Aikhenvald (2001:
168) writes that the “Amazon can be compared to a set of Chinese boxes of linguistic areas and subareas, included within each other”. Understanding how such
ecological mosaics interact is one of the challenges facing the study of language
endangerment dynamics today.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
4 The study of language endangerment dynamics
Languages emerge, spread, decline, and disappear, all within the context of the
ecologies that shape them, and languages, in their turn, have a crucial role in
shaping ecologies. Languages and their speakers are players in an incessant dynamics that is grounded as much in human behaviors and human histories as it
is in environmental and biogeographical contingencies. Thus, the study of language endangerment dynamics needs not only to account for language shift and
language attrition in the context of their ecologies, but it also has to relate to the
fact that ecologies have different historical trajectories, partly as an effect of the
region in which they are embedded; that ecologies may be layered in relation to
each other in complex ways; that ecologies are successional from the perspective
of history, but that many present-day conditions create non-successional contact
encounters; and that competitive ecologies are by far the most pervasive today.
What is more, phenomena such as exotic-endemic, post-settlement and presettlement semantics, written and oral language are not neutral labels but powerloaded phenomena. The former always dominate the latter. Thus, two issues are
at the heart of change in language ecologies: (1) the changing socio-economic
basis of language ecologies and (2) the relations of domination and inequality in
contact between communities, that is, the power-differentials resulting from different socio-economic types of organization.
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
308LGS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
S &6
308
2FWREHU30
159
A framework for language endangerment dynamics 1
2
3
4.1 The community – society continuum in language
endangerment dynamics
4 The socio-economic types discussed above differ dramatically in terms of their
5 complexity. This has not only repercussions on the language ecologies, but on
6 all institutions regulating daily life. Ferdinand Tönnies’ (2007 [1887]) classical
7 distinction between community (Gemeinschaft) and society (Gesellschaft) cap8 tures many of these differences quite well. His two concepts form a continuum, at
9 which the community end correlates with bottom-up regulations from within net-
10 works, manifesting in culture, folkways or mores. Daily life is mainly regulated
11 by concord and kinship. Direct influences on community also include climate
12 and locally available flora and faunal assemblages. At the society end of this con-
13 tinuum, regulation of everyday life correlates with numerous pressures originat14 ing from outside personal and community networks. Such top-down regulation
15 takes the form of legislation, rationalized in various ways such as religion, schol-
16 arship, or public opinion. Daily life is embedded in large imagined communities,
17 which are regulated on the basis of conventions, laws and rights.
18
19
20
21
22
4.2 The inequality/equality continuum in language
endangerment dynamics
23 Domination and inequality are part and parcel of all competitive ecologies. It is
24 this, which leads Coulmas (2005) to observe that competition between speech
25 communities based on economic, political and cultural strength benefits the
26 strongest player almost without fail. Unsurprisingly therefore, it is the disempow27 ered who find themselves in situations where maintaining their languages and
28 cultures is difficult (Kymlicka 1995). Contact on the basis of inequality is the major
29 cause of language diversity loss across all types of socio-economic orders, and
30 language is one of the dimensions in which inequality is manifest in competitive
31 ecologies. While indeed no language “has a privileged window into reality”
32 (Nettle and Romaine 2000: 62), one nevertheless needs to add that some languag33 es offer their speakers access to ways of meaning-making and worldviews that
34 heavily leverage their odds against speakers of other languages. In this sense,
35 languages themselves may serve as instruments for domination, because lan-
36 guages of ecologies differing from the dominant group are ill-adapted to the
37 newly imposed sociocultural environment. As a consequence, pre-settlement
38 speakers and their languages, for instance, may be perceived to be backward, and
39 this view then serves as a rationale for not granting such communities autonomy,
40 that is, it serves as a rationale for dominance. From this vantage point it is the
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
30
308LGS
S
2FWREHU30
J. Wendel and P. Heinrich
160 business of minority communities to find ways to adapt to the dominant society. 1
As we have seen above, language shift is a strategy often resorted to in such 2
constellations.
3
4
5
4.3 The field of language endangerment dynamics
6
Changes in language ecologies driven by both social change and inequality in
contact cause language diversity loss. The field of language endangerment dynamics is thus located at the juncture of the community/society and inequality/
equality continua as in Figure 1. It follows that language ecologies can be identified within the crossed dimensions and that distinct levels of socio-economic
organization and degrees of equality in contact can be located at specific points.
Stable language ecologies (e.g., hunter-gatherers) are thus found in cell A where
human groups are small in number, social networks are multiplex, and in which
political structures are comparatively horizontal whereas, at the other extreme,
competitive ecologies (e.g., dynastic realms, modern societies), located in cell C,
represent conditions where the groups are organized in far greater numbers and
the political structures are hierarchical. Cell B represents ecologies in transition
(e.g., early agriculturalists, exotic-endemic language communities) between sta-
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Fig. 1: Language endangerment dynamics
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
308LGS
40
S &6
308
2FWREHU30
161
A framework for language endangerment dynamics 1 ble and competitive ecologies, and cell D, represents the potential of glocalizing
2 ecologies, in which we find elements of both competitive and stable ecologies
3 strongly represented.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Figure 1 clarifies that there are three basic language replacement scenarios,
with the replacing language either being an agriculturalist language, a language
of a dynastic realm, or a national state language. These scenarios and their corresponding shifts (Shift 1, 2 and 3 in Figure 1) are prefigured in earlier sections of
our paper above. Thus, Shift 1 corresponds to displacement of hunter-gatherers
by more powerful farming populations. Because of their inferior numbers and
early-stage technologies, hunter-gatherer communities and their languages are
easily driven out when brought into contact with successful agriculturalists
(i.e., those who have overcome the “equilibrium trap”, Nettle and Romaine [2000:
108]). The spread of farming populations coincides with the extinction, expulsion
or assimilation of hunter-gatherer communities. Shift 2 corresponds to the expansion of empires and their languages in which diseases and military technologies
play a significant role in language replacement scenarios. And Shift 3 is fueled
largely by economic factors and nationalist ideologies through which language
shift away from minority languages to state languages and from multilingualism
to monolingualism are taken as signs of progress.
Additionally, the specific coordinates of a given language ecology within the
crossed dimensions allows for a characterization with regard to the ecology’s stability and for predictions of its prospects, and provides for a heuristic means to
identify ways of maintaining language diversity. In this regard, Figure 1 points to
two fundamental scenarios for endangered language communities. The first option is to strive for more equality and seek liberation from coercion and ideological dominance. This is where language maintenance activities become an emancipative endeavor, a call for social change, usually loaded with political conflict.
The second option is to reduce contact. This is where language maintenance
activities become involved in quests for more autonomy, one way of which may
also include the formation and expansion of new close-knit endangered language
networks.
The framework in Figure 1 also suggests ways for generating insights into the
dynamics of endangered languages, including distinguishing between the types
of shifts above; understanding better the interactions between layers in layered
language ecologies which result from such shifts; tracking and explaining the
changes that linguistic structures and communication communities undergo
when shifting from one ecology to another; better characterizing the features and
processes of non-successional shifts (e.g., hunter-gatherers shifting directly to
state language); and coming to grips with the new and emerging patterns and
potentials in glocalizing ecologies. Given that most endangered languages today
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
30
308LGS
S
2FWREHU30
J. Wendel and P. Heinrich
162 face non-successional transition scenarios, this should certainly be one main
focus of future study. We have referred above to two such instances, one involving
the Piaroa (Zent 2001) of Venezuela and the other, the Khoe-San (Crawhall 2008),
and there are a multitude of other contact encounters between hunter-gatherer
communities and the apparatus of modern states around the world. What particular challenges do non-successional transitions present to speakers of huntergatherer languages? How is it that communities such as the Pirahã of Brazil have
apparently managed to forestall efforts to have them assimilate to the mainstream
culture?
Another focal area for research should be centered on the transitions from
modernist to glocalized ecologies as indicated in Figure 1. Glocalized environments differ from the ecologies envisaged by modernists and thus testify to the
increasing difficulties to regiment languages along modernist lines. The highly
multilingual urban centers (see e.g., Extra and Yagmur 2004) we find across the
world today contradict modernist ideologies that intertwined language, nation,
and territory and presented this constellation as the natural order of things. Relaxing this linkage has allowed for a “return of the social”, part of which includes
the linguistic diversity of a diversifying population.
The emerging glocalized ecologies differ in many important respects from all
other ecologies. These differences include the revitalization of endangered indigenous languages – a phenomenon which came to be termed “reversing language
shift” (Fishman 1991). Perhaps misunderstood in some quarters, reversing language shift does not promote a “reversion” to old orders, but is a push forward to
overcome restrictions and limitations of modernist institutions, which clears the
way for the emergence of new ecologies. Given the dynamic between social and
linguistic structure described above, we can expect languages to shape, and be
shaped by, innovations made to the sociocultural and technological environments: as novel social interactions and communication media are innovated,
new varieties, registers and forms of discourse emerge while established ones fall
out of use. Control and regulation of these newly formed communication communities becomes increasingly difficult. What is more, in a number of contexts,
such control and regulation no longer has the prominence it has once enjoyed.
The linguistic mosaics that characterize urban centers today favor the dominant
languages within these ecologies which, however, in contrast to the past, tend to
be promoted as second or additional languages that function as lingua francas
rather than as languages of national identity.
What all of these individual developments amount to is a new process of layering between languages in environments where locality loses its previous significance as it transforms into a site of coexisting worlds. That said, it becomes
clear that many glocalized environments are not community-oriented places in
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
308LGS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
S &6
308
2FWREHU30
163
A framework for language endangerment dynamics 1 the traditional sense. New communities of practice replace neighborhoods as mi-
2 grants to glocalized ecologies deal with ecological risk by having placed individ-
3 ual wellbeing above remaining within their home communities. The subsequent
4 sense of loss fuels a longing for community and constant efforts to rebuild it on
5 the shifting sands of glocalized ecologies (Bauman 2000). The implications for
6 research on glocalized ecologies are that new concepts and analytical tools are
7 needed: networks rather than domains, metro rather than ethnic, individual tra8 jectories rather than communities must be at the fore of such research.
9
10
11
12
5 Conclusion
13 In a reassessment and defense of Whorf’s writings on language diversity,
14 Fishman (1982: 13) pledged 30 years ago to forego the narrow perspective of
15 “linguistics-as-a-science”, arguing that “linguistics is also very significantly a
16 humanities field and an applied field as well”. With regard to language endan-
17 germent dynamics this requires relinquishing the perspective of the dominant
18 society on the dominated, because dominance is the very source of the issue
19 under study. One needs to stop self-evidence mediated by dominant ideology as
20 proof of the naturalness and appropriateness of power differences and inequali-
21 ties. Minority issues require minority perspectives, endangered languages require
22 endangered language perspectives, hunter-gatherer ecologies require a hunter23 gatherer perspective, and so on. Such an attitude is at the present, however, not
24 fostered in agrarian societies, or dynastic realms, or modern societies. It is also
25 not widely practiced in modern scholarship, a central pillar of modern society.
26
In order to maintain language diversity and to support endangered lan-
27 guages, scholars have mainly stressed the cognitive benefits of individual bilin-
28 gualism (Wurm 2002) and the societal benefits of language diversity (UNESCO
29 2003). However, because the main trigger of language diversity loss is power im-
30 balance, all attempts to maintain linguistic diversity not taking this factor into
31 account are doomed to achieve little in uncovering the language loss mechanisms
32 and the possibilities to counter them. Fishman (1991: 411) rightly said that revers-
33 ing language shift “implies remaking social reality”. As long as these issues are
34 not identified in research into endangered languages and addressed in mainte-
35 nance efforts and language policies, communities on the shorter end of the power36 divide will continue to undergo language shift and language attrition. What is
37 needed is scholarship that takes as its point of departure minority perspectives
38 and issues in an effort to develop greater insights into the dynamics of language
39 endangerment. Such direction of sociolinguistic research will demonstrate in
40 more detail that equality in diversity are in fact two sides of the same coin.
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
30
308LGS
S
2FWREHU30
J. Wendel and P. Heinrich
164 References
1
2
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1999. Areal diffusion and language contact in the Içana-Vaupés basin,
North West Amazonia. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The Amazonian
languages, 385–415. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2001. Areal diffusion, genetic inheritance, and problems of subgrouping: a North Arawak case study. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.),
Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: problems in comparative linguistics, 167–194.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Language contact in Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined communities, 2nd revised edn. London: Verso.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1992. Intimation of postmodernity. London: Routledge.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 2000. Community. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Calvet, Louis-Jean. 1999. Pour une écologie des langues. Paris: Plon Publishers.
Coulmas, Florian. 2005. Changing language regimes in globalizing environments. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 175/176. 3–15.
Crawhall, Nigel. 2008. Endangered languages and traditional ecological knowledge: Part 1.
Presentation delivered at the American Museum of Natural History, NY, 3 April.
http://symposia.cbc.amnh.org/biocultural/agenda.html (accessed 15 December 2011).
Dixon, R. W. M. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eisenlohr, Patrick. 2004. Language revitalization and new technologies. Annual Review of
Anthropology 33. 21–45.
Everett, Daniel. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current
Anthropology 46(4). 621–646.
Extra, Guus & Kutlay Yagmur. 2004. Urban multilingualism in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1982. Whorfianism of the third kind: ethnolinguistic diversity as a
worldwide asset. Language in Society 11(1). 1–14.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing language shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
García, Olfelia. 2001. Language spread and its study in the twenty-first century. In Robert
Kaplan (ed.), Oxford handbook of applied linguistics, 398–411. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hajek, John. 2000. Towards a language history of East Timor. Quaderni del Dipartimeto di
Linguistica, Universitá di Firenze 10. 213–222.
Haugen, Einar. 1972. The ecology of language: essays by Einar Haugen. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 2001 [1990]. New ways of meaning: the challenge to applied linguistics. In
Alwin Fill & Peter Mühlhäusler (eds.), The ecolinguistics reader, 175–202. London:
Continuum.
Harmon, David. 1996. Losing species, losing languages: connections between biological and
linguistic diversity. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 15(10). 561–568.
Heinrich, Patrick. 2012. The making of monolingual Japan: language ideology and Japanese
modernity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Hornberger, Nancy H. 1998. Language policy, language education, language rights. Language
in Society 27. 439–458.
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
308LGS
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
S &6
308
2FWREHU30
165
A framework for language endangerment dynamics 1 Kaufman, Terrence. 1990. Language history in South America. In Doris L. Payne (ed.),
Amazonian linguistics: studies in lowland South American languages, 13–67. Austin:
2
University of Texas Press.
3
Kulick, Don. 1992. Language shift and cultural reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
4
Press.
5 Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6 Laycock, Donald. 2001 [1991]. Linguistic diversity in Melanesia. In Alwin Fill & Peter
Mühlhäusler (eds.), The ecolinguistics reader, 167–174. London: Continuum.
7
8 Lupyan, Gary & Rick Dale. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure.
PloS One 5(1). 1–10. www.plosone.org (accessed 15 December 2011).
9
Mace, Ruth & Mark Pagel. 1995. A latitudinal gradient in the density of human languages in
10
North America. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. (Biological Sciences) 261.
11
117–121.
12 Marcellesi, Jean-Baptiste & Foued Larousie. 1997. France. In Hans Goebel, Peter H.
Nelde, Zedenek Stary & Wolfgang Wölk (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik, Vol. II, Handbücher
13
zur Sprach-und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 1172–1187. Berlin & New York: de
14
Gruyter.
15
Marshall, Lorna. 1998. Sharing, talking, and giving. Relief of social tensions among the !Kung.
16
In John Gowdy (ed.), Limited wants, unlimited means. A reader in hunter-gather economics
17
and the environment, 65–85. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
18 Mufwene, Salikoko. 2008. Language evolution. London: Continuum.
19 Mühlhäusler, Peter. 1996. Linguistic ecology. Language change and linguistic imperialism in
the Pacific Region. London: Routledge.
20
Mühlhäusler, Peter. 2000. Language planning and language ecology. Current Issues in
21
Language Planning 1(3). 306–367.
22 Mühlhäusler, Peter. 2005. Linguistic communities. In Fèlix Martí, Paul Ortega, Itziar Idiazabal,
Andoni Barreña, Patxi Juaristi, Carme Junyent, Belen Uranga & Estibaliz Amorrortu (eds.),
23
Words in worlds: world languages review, 10–45. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
24
Nettle, Daniel. 1996. Language diversity in West Africa: an ecological approach. Journal of
25
Anthropological Archaeology 15. 403–438.
26
Nettle, David. 1999. Linguistic diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27 Nettle, David & Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing voices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28 Nichols, Johanna. 1997. Modeling ancient population structures and movement in linguistics.
Annual Review of Anthropology 26. 359–384.
29
Ong,
Walter J. 1982. Orality and literacy: the technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
30
Ostler, Nicholas. 2005. Empires of the word. New York: HarperCollins.
31
Pantone, Dan James. 2008. Uncontacted Amazon Indians in Peru. http://www.amazon-indians.
32
org/Uncontacted-Amazon-Indians-Peru.html (accessed 10 December 2011).
33 Rhoter, Larry. 2005. Language born of colonialism thrives again in Amazon. New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/international/americas/28amazon.
34
html?pagewanted=all (accessed 10 December 2011).
35
Salminen, Tapani. 1997. Die gegenwärtige Lage der nordwestsibirischen Sprachen. Anachronia
36
4. 87–104.
37
Sampson, Geoffrey, David Gill & Peter Trudgill. 2009. Language complexity as an evolving
38
variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39 Thurston, William R. 1987. Processes of change in the languages of North-Western New Britain.
Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Series B, No. 99.
40
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
30
308LGS
S
2FWREHU30
J. Wendel and P. Heinrich
166 Tönnies, Ferdinand. 2007 [1887]. Community and society. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers.
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: social determinants of linguistic complexity.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
UNESCO. 2003. Education in a multicultural world. Paris: UNESCO.
Woodburn, James. 1998 [1981]. Egalitarian societies. In John Gowdy (ed.), Limited wants,
unlimited means, 87–110. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Wray, Alison & Grace, George. 2007. The consequences of talking to strangers: evolutionary
corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua 117. 543–578.
Wurm, Stephen A. 2002. Strategies for language maintenance and revival. In David Bradely &
Maya Bradely (eds.), Language endangerment and language maintenance, 11–23. London:
RoutledgeCurzon.
Zent, Stanford. 2001. Acculturation and ethnobotanical knowledge loss among the Piaroa of
Venezuela. In Luisa Maffi (ed.), On biocultural diversity: linking language, knowledge and
the environment, 190–211. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
&6 :'*îPP '*0HWD6FLHQFH -,-6/ SS± BB
308LGS
S
2FWREHU30