Are dying languages worth saving?

[Treffie]

Language experts are gathering at a university in the UK to discuss saving the world's endangered languages. But is it worth keeping alive dialects that are sometimes only spoken by a handful of people, asks Tom de Castella?

"Language is the dress of thought," Samuel Johnson once said.

About 6,000 different languages are spoken around the world. But the Foundation for Endangered Languages estimates that between 500 and 1,000 of those are spoken by only a handful of people. And every year the world loses around 25 mother tongues. That equates to losing 250 languages over a decade - a sad prospect for some.

This week a conference in Carmarthen, Wales, organised by the foundation, is being attended by about 100 academics. They are discussing indigenous languages in Ireland, China, Australia and Spain.

"Different languages will have their quirks which tell us something about being human," says Nicholas Ostler, the foundation's chairman.

"And when languages are lost most of the knowledge that went with them gets lost. People do care about identity as they want to be different. Nowadays we want access to everything but we don't want to be thought of as no more than people on the other side of the world."

Apart from English, the United Kingdom has a number of other languages. Mr Ostler estimates that half a million people speak Welsh, a few thousand Scots are fluent in Gaelic, about 400 people speak Cornish, while the number of Manx speakers - the language of the Isle of Man - is perhaps as small as 100. But is there any point in learning the really minor languages?

Last speaker dies

"I do think it's a good thing for a child on the Isle of Man to learn Manx. I value continuity in a community."

Mr Ostler's view seems to command official support. There is a European Charter for Regional Languages, which every European Union member has signed, and the EU has a European Language Diversity For All programme, designed to protect the most threatened native tongues. At the end of last year the project received 2.7m euros to identify those languages most at risk.

But for some this is not just a waste of resources but a misunderstanding of how language works. The writer and broadcaster Kenan Malik says it is "irrational" to try to preserve all the world's languages.

Earlier this year, the Bo language died out when an 85-year-old member of the Bo tribe in the India-owned Andaman islands died.

While it may seem sad that the language expired, says Mr Malik, cultural change is driving the process.

"In one sense you could call it a cultural loss. But that makes no sense because cultural forms are lost all the time. To say every cultural form should exist forever is ridiculous." And when governments try to prop languages up, it shows a desire to cling to the past rather than move forwards, he says.

If people want to learn minority languages like Manx, that is up to them - it shouldn't be backed by government subsidy, he argues.

"To have a public policy that a certain culture or language should be preserved shows a fundamental misunderstanding. I don't see why it's in the public good to preserve Manx or Cornish or any other language for that matter." In the end, whether or not a language is viable is very simple. "If a language is one that people don't participate in, it's not a language anymore."

Wicked words

The veteran word-watcher and Times columnist Philip Howard agrees that languages are in the hands of people, not politicians. "Language is the only absolutely true democracy. It's not what professors of linguistics or academics or journalists say, but what people do. If children in the playground start using 'wicked' to mean terrific then that has a big effect."

Minority language translators at work at the National People's Congress The former Spanish dictator Franco spent decades trying to stamp out the nation's regional languages but today Catalan is stronger than ever and Basque is also popular.

And Mr Howard says politicians make a "category mistake" when they try to interfere with language, citing an experiment in Glasgow schools that he says is doomed to fail. "Offering Gaelic to children of people who don't speak it seems like a conservation of lost glories. It's very romantic to try and save a language but nonsense."

But neither is he saying that everyone should speak English. "Some people take a destructivist view and argue that everyone will soon be speaking English. But Mandarin is the most populous language in the world and Spanish the fastest growing."

There are competing forces at work that decide whether smaller languages survive, Howard argues. On the one hand globalisation will mean that many languages disappear. But some communities will always live apart, separated by sea, distance or other barriers and will therefore keep their own language. With modern communications and popular culture "you find that if enough people want to speak a language they can".

In short, there is no need for handwringing.

"Language is not a plant that rises and falls, lives and decays. It's a tool that's perfectly adapted by the people using it. Get on with living and talking."

Source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11304255)

[The Lawspeaker]

My answer to this question is simple: yes it is.
Even if the last speaker will die the language will still be on paper and can be past on to any children that want to learn it.
It's worth it.

[Lithium]

Isn't the language preservation one of the weapons against the mass globalisation?

[Crossbow]

Latin has also been kept for centuries, and is still 'alive'. For different reasons of course, but it is an example of language preservation, without native speakers.

[Ibericus]

Massive immigration is accelerating the death of these languages.

[Curtis24]

In my opinion, no. These languages/dialects should of course be written down and preserved for historical research, but there's no point whatsoever to try to force/"educate" people into continuing to speak them.

"Programs" rarely accomplish anything. Real change is the result of individual people exercising their individual choice. If Europeans no longer wish to speak their unique languages, what can you do? Nothing. Its really the same story about Europeans making the individual choice to have less/no children. There's nothing you can do about it.

[Electronic God-Man]

I agree with those people in the article that say that language cannot be propped up solely by government programs, etc. There needs to be a will from within that culture to move into the future. You can't force someone to want to live in a certain way.

If the will was strong enough these people wouldn't need government assistance and no one would be talking about offering them any.


Also, Latin is still spoken by some people, but not as a first language. In fact, it is not "alive". It is classified as a "dead language." People still know of it and speak it to some degree because of the extent of the Roman Empire and even more so because it was used by the Catholic Church and then became the language of not only religion, but also science. The Manx situation can't be compared to the Latin situation.

[Ibericus]

Also, Latin is still spoken by some people, but not as a first language. In fact, it is not "alive". It is classified as a "dead language." People still know of it and speak it to some degree because of the extent of the Roman Empire and even more so because it was used by the Catholic Church and then became the language of not only religion, but also science. The Manx situation can't be compared to the Latin situation.
But the comparison with Latin is not the same. Latin did not die, it did evolve into other languages (spanish, italian, catalan, french,etc).

[Wyn]

My answer to this question is simple: yes it is.
Even if the last speaker will die the language will still be on paper and can be past on to any children that want to learn it.
It's worth it.

I agree.

I even sometimes support the revival of languages that were (technically) dead, like Cornish and Manx, when the last authentic, first-language native speaker died. I know it's funding being thrown towards languages that were extinct, but I still think they're important aspects of culture and heritage. I'm maybe something of a romanticist...


There needs to be a will from within that culture to move into the future. You can't force someone to want to live in a certain way.

The situation with Scotch Gaelic comes to mind. Declining numbers of native speakers. You would think that those who speak it would attempt to pass it on and teach it to their children, or even raise their children in monolingual households. But they don't and it could be dead soon enough, confined to hobbyist and text books.

[Osweo]

Apart from English, the United Kingdom has a number of other languages. Mr Ostler estimates that half a million people speak Welsh, a few thousand Scots are fluent in Gaelic, about 400 people speak Cornish, while the number of Manx speakers - the language of the Isle of Man - is perhaps as small as 100.
Wait a sec!!! Since when has the Kingdom of Man been part of the United Kingdom!?!? :mad: Since never!

The writer and broadcaster Kenan Malik says it is "irrational" to try to preserve all the world's languages.
http://www.ideasfestival.co.uk/wp-content/themes/ad-clerum-10/images/speakers/kenan_malik_200.jpg
He illustrates his articles with cartoons like this;
http://www.eurozine.com/UserFiles/illustrations/malik468.jpg
Kenan Malik (born 1960) is an Indian-born British writer, lecturer and broadcaster, trained in neurobiology and the history of science...
FUCK OFF.

And when governments try to prop languages up, it shows a desire to cling to the past rather than move forwards, he says.
So every step forwards is to be accompanied with shedding more and more cultural baggage, so that the ideal of the Future-man is a complete cultural-pauper, cut off entirely from any continuity with anyone who lived before him? Again, Malik, fuck OFF.

If people want to learn minority languages like Manx, that is up to them - it shouldn't be backed by government subsidy, he argues.
Does this Indian not realise that Man is an independent state, with reasonably deep pockets of its own (perhaps uncoincidentally also not one that spends spends spends on accommodating insolent Indian scum)?

"To have a public policy that a certain culture or language should be preserved shows a fundamental misunderstanding. I don't see why it's in the public good to preserve Manx or Cornish or any other language for that matter."
The tens of thousands of Britons who do think it a good thing are reason enough to do it.

But neither is he saying that everyone should speak English. "Some people take a destructivist view and argue that everyone will soon be speaking English. But Mandarin is the most populous language in the world and Spanish the fastest growing."
LOL and Mandarin got where it is by its elite users being lacksadaisical about what subjects of the Chinese Empire spoke in official life, did it? :rolleyes:


I agree.

I even sometimes support the revival of languages that were (technically) dead, like Cornish and Manx, when the last authentic, first-language native speaker died. I know it's funding being thrown towards languages that were extinct, but I still think they're important aspects of culture and heritage. I'm maybe something of a romanticist...
Me too. And there are hundreds of thousands like us. Many of us even pay taxes and vote...

The situation with Scotch Gaelic comes to mind. Declining numbers of native speakers. You would think that those who speak it would attempt to pass it on and teach it to their children, or even raise their children in monolingual households. But they don't and it could be dead soon enough, confined to hobbyist and text books.
Is it really so bad? I've been up on Skye where a friend lived, many times, and the kids spoke it all the time.

**************

As for the world beyond Britain.... well... some regions are mad patchworks, linguistically. Consider the North East Caucasus, or New Guinea.
In such a situation, you have to take decisions and make priorities. Stalin's policy here is worthy of note. He would have his linguists concoct a literary language that could cater for a whole group of related mini-languages. Imagine one village spoke Standard English, and then we were all taught in school to write in Geordie... :p Better than nothing, if the alternative was to all switch to Urdu or something!

[hereward]

And when governments try to prop languages up, it shows a desire to cling to the past rather than move forwards, he says.

Standard daily gibberish from those who think they are clever. It will never dawn on this parasite how lucky he is; into the meat grinder with the Brothers Milliband for him I say.

[Wyn]

Is it really so bad? I've been up on Skye where a friend lived, many times, and the kids spoke it all the time.


Well, you obviously have first-hand experience with speakers that I don't. I'm only going by statistics. The number of speakers declines census on census, and something around 2% of people on Scotland had "some Gaelic ability" (or some similar phrasing) at the last one. Hows that for the land of the Gaels. :eek: Still, it is better than nothing, and I imagine Welsh is in a better state, at least?

Edit: Upon review of this (http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/press/news2005/scotlands-census-2001-gaelic-report.html), it would appear things, despite being in a poor state, are slowly but surely improving:


* 92,400 people aged three and over (1.9 per cent of the population) had some Gaelic language ability in 2001.
* More people with Gaelic language ability lived in Eilean Siar (18,420), Highland (18,360) and Argyll & Bute (6,520) than in any other council areas.
* The number of people aged three and over able to speak Gaelic declined by 11 per cent between 1991 and 2001. The number who could read Gaelic increased by seven and a half per cent and the number able to write Gaelic increased by 10 per cent over the same period.
* People who could speak, read or write Gaelic fell by 3,800 (six per cent) between 1991 and 2001, while the number with more extensive Gaelic ability, who could speak, read and write the language, rose by 1,800 (six per cent) over the same period.
* 63 per cent of people aged three & over with some Gaelic language ability were Gaelic speakers in 2001, while 29 per cent could understand Gaelic but could not speak, read or write it.
* Levels of Gaelic speaking increased between 1991 and 2001 for those aged between five and nine, despite falls for these ages in the chief Gaelic heartlands of Eilean Siar and Skye & Lochalsh.
* In 2001, Gaelic speakers aged three & over were approximately five years and eight months older than an average member of the population.
* 72 per cent of people living in Eilean Siar had Gaelic language ability in 2001, the highest of any local authority area in Scotland.
* Outwith the main Gaelic areas, only around one per cent of the population had any Gaelic language ability in 2001.
* The number and percentage of people speaking Gaelic in Eilean Siar fell between 1991 and 2001 for all age groups.
* The Barvas parish, in the north-west of Eilean Siar, had the highest proportion of Gaelic speakers in all of Scotland (75 per cent in 2001 and 87 per cent in 1991).

The results of the next census should be interesting.

[Treffie]

Massive immigration is accelerating the death of these languages.

Massive immigration has already affected these languages greatly - even before the advent of the EU etc.

[Voitto]

It seems hypocritical for left-wing, multiculturalist countries to want to save dying languages, because the immigrants they love so much are much of the reason why these languages are dying.

I have heard that mass immigration into Catalonia is the final nail in the coffin for Catalan, as most of these immigrants don't take the time to learn any Catalan and expect everyone to speak Castilian to them. The effect of this has been so great in Barcelona that Catalan is starting to loose status there.

As to whether languages should be saved I think it depends. I think efforts should be made to save languages like Catalan, Welsh and Sicilian as these languages are still major languages in these areas, make up a big part of the culture, and are very much alive.

However, languages like Manchu and Cornish which are spoken by less than 1000 people should be just left to die I think. When they are spoken by so few people it is clear that no one really has a use for it and to try and force people to learn it is merely artificial.

[Ibericus]

It seems hypocritical for left-wing, multiculturalist countries to want to save dying languages, because the immigrants they love so much are much of the reason why these languages are dying.

I have heard that mass immigration into Catalonia is the final nail in the coffin for Catalan, as most of these immigrants don't take the time to learn any Catalan and expect everyone to speak Castilian to them. The effect of this has been so great in Barcelona that Catalan is starting to loose status there.

As to whether languages should be saved I think it depends. I think efforts should be made to save languages like Catalan, Welsh and Sicilian as these languages are still major languages in these areas, make up a big part of the culture, and are very much alive.

However, languages like Manchu and Cornish which are spoken by less than 1000 people should be just left to die I think. When they are spoken by so few people it is clear that no one really has a use for it and to try and force people to learn it is merely artificial.
Yes, I know first hand experience this. But Catalan has as many speakers as Swedish, though these naive left-wingers think that in a multicultural and americanized Catalonia, the catalan culture is going to be the less affected ? LOL They want to protect catalan culture and at the same time they are all for massive immigration, quite a contradiction.

[Aviane]

Language experts are gathering at a university in the UK to discuss saving the world's endangered languages. But is it worth keeping alive dialects that are sometimes only spoken by a handful of people, asks Tom de Castella?

"Language is the dress of thought," Samuel Johnson once said.

About 6,000 different languages are spoken around the world. But the Foundation for Endangered Languages estimates that between 500 and 1,000 of those are spoken by only a handful of people. And every year the world loses around 25 mother tongues. That equates to losing 250 languages over a decade - a sad prospect for some.

This week a conference in Carmarthen, Wales, organised by the foundation, is being attended by about 100 academics. They are discussing indigenous languages in Ireland, China, Australia and Spain.

"Different languages will have their quirks which tell us something about being human," says Nicholas Ostler, the foundation's chairman.

"And when languages are lost most of the knowledge that went with them gets lost. People do care about identity as they want to be different. Nowadays we want access to everything but we don't want to be thought of as no more than people on the other side of the world."

Apart from English, the United Kingdom has a number of other languages. Mr Ostler estimates that half a million people speak Welsh, a few thousand Scots are fluent in Gaelic, about 400 people speak Cornish, while the number of Manx speakers - the language of the Isle of Man - is perhaps as small as 100. But is there any point in learning the really minor languages?

Last speaker dies

"I do think it's a good thing for a child on the Isle of Man to learn Manx. I value continuity in a community."

Mr Ostler's view seems to command official support. There is a European Charter for Regional Languages, which every European Union member has signed, and the EU has a European Language Diversity For All programme, designed to protect the most threatened native tongues. At the end of last year the project received 2.7m euros to identify those languages most at risk.

But for some this is not just a waste of resources but a misunderstanding of how language works. The writer and broadcaster Kenan Malik says it is "irrational" to try to preserve all the world's languages.

Earlier this year, the Bo language died out when an 85-year-old member of the Bo tribe in the India-owned Andaman islands died.

While it may seem sad that the language expired, says Mr Malik, cultural change is driving the process.

"In one sense you could call it a cultural loss. But that makes no sense because cultural forms are lost all the time. To say every cultural form should exist forever is ridiculous." And when governments try to prop languages up, it shows a desire to cling to the past rather than move forwards, he says.

If people want to learn minority languages like Manx, that is up to them - it shouldn't be backed by government subsidy, he argues.

"To have a public policy that a certain culture or language should be preserved shows a fundamental misunderstanding. I don't see why it's in the public good to preserve Manx or Cornish or any other language for that matter." In the end, whether or not a language is viable is very simple. "If a language is one that people don't participate in, it's not a language anymore."

Wicked words

The veteran word-watcher and Times columnist Philip Howard agrees that languages are in the hands of people, not politicians. "Language is the only absolutely true democracy. It's not what professors of linguistics or academics or journalists say, but what people do. If children in the playground start using 'wicked' to mean terrific then that has a big effect."

Minority language translators at work at the National People's Congress The former Spanish dictator Franco spent decades trying to stamp out the nation's regional languages but today Catalan is stronger than ever and Basque is also popular.

And Mr Howard says politicians make a "category mistake" when they try to interfere with language, citing an experiment in Glasgow schools that he says is doomed to fail. "Offering Gaelic to children of people who don't speak it seems like a conservation of lost glories. It's very romantic to try and save a language but nonsense."

But neither is he saying that everyone should speak English. "Some people take a destructivist view and argue that everyone will soon be speaking English. But Mandarin is the most populous language in the world and Spanish the fastest growing."

There are competing forces at work that decide whether smaller languages survive, Howard argues. On the one hand globalisation will mean that many languages disappear. But some communities will always live apart, separated by sea, distance or other barriers and will therefore keep their own language. With modern communications and popular culture "you find that if enough people want to speak a language they can".

In short, there is no need for handwringing.

"Language is not a plant that rises and falls, lives and decays. It's a tool that's perfectly adapted by the people using it. Get on with living and talking."

Source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11304255)


In all this some people are still eager to keep up the languages and are worried about losing them, so I can partly see their point but sometimes I think nobody can do anything about it.

In case of these language savers they probably want alot of people to learn their language so that they are not thought as people who don't exisit but as for certain languages (that are not that common) only a amount of people speak them.

So it's good on one hand that some people who are intrested in keeping up this is not a bad idea.


As for Kenan Malik I think he has a point from the part he mentions that it's irrational it preserve all the world's languages since alot of them are been lost at a time anyway.

I'm got my point to on this, as trying to preserve a language is almost really pointless because culture keeps changing, moves forward and for those people who hold or latch on to these languages are still living in the past and sometimes will need to move forward unfortunately.

But if people want to keep them then I can still respect that.

[Comte Arnau]

Every thing must be done as long as it's possible. That is, as long as there are children enough. Without a 'next generation', kapput.

The first mistake becomes when some governments don't consider that languages are not territorial and all the blah blah blah. A language that is no territorial is bound to disappear.



I have heard that mass immigration into Catalonia is the final nail in the coffin for Catalan,

Lol, you speak as if Catalan was in a seriously endangered situation when it is the stateless language in the best situation in the world.


as most of these immigrants don't take the time to learn any Catalan and expect everyone to speak Castilian to them. The effect of this has been so great in Barcelona that Catalan is starting to loose status there.

Nah, some South Americans who came to Barcelona ignoring everything about the native ethnicity may get mad when they realize the knowledge of Catalan is required or at least useful for certain jobs, but many others understand it, specially foreigners coming from similar bilingual contexts. I don't think there is lack of status, rather on the contrary. Years ago, Catalans addressed to foreigners in Spanish, because they thought they wouldn't know Catalan. Now many of the foreigners living in Catalonia can speak it or understand it. Obviously it depends much on the situation and place, in some contexts Catalan is more used, in others it is Spanish.


However, languages like Manchu and Cornish which are spoken by less than 1000 people should be just left to die I think. When they are spoken by so few people it is clear that no one really has a use for it and to try and force people to learn it is merely artificial.

I don't agree. I think that, while my grandpa is alive, I'm not going to leave him agonize forgotten in the corner.


though these naive left-wingers think that in a multicultural and americanized Catalonia, the catalan culture is going to be the less affected ? LOL They want to protect catalan culture and at the same time they are all for massive immigration, quite a contradiction.

Another reason for independence.

[Sahson]

some languages should be preserved. I am learning Nungar, a language that only has 160 fluent speakers

the language centre closed down 11 years ago, apparently the Aboriginals in this area didn't feel it was important or a key part of their culture, they feel that land rights are far more important.

[Crossbow]

Trying to save dying languages is a noble thing to do and I am in favour of it, but there is already a lot of work to be done to preserve our current language from foreign influences (mainly English, but also all kind of immigrant-blends which corrupt and undermine the expressiveness of our language). So let us start right here, before we have to mourn another European language on the verge of extinction. Or any other that faces similar problems.