Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Endangered Languages
An expert quoted in the article "said that more than half the languages had no written form and were 'vulnerable to loss and being forgotten.'" What is the signficance of a language being lost in writing VS. speaking? Is it more important to try and preserve one type over another?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is more important to preserve verbal languages that have no writing. This is due to the simple fact that there is no tangible record of them, while languages that have writing most likely would have documents using their language. If they do not, then ones can much more easily be recorded than verbal only languages. This is because there is a writing aspect to them and not nearly as much work is required to write down a language that exists versus creating a written aspect for a strictly verbal-only language.
ReplyDeleteLanguages that are only spoken are more likely to go extinct because they are less possible uses for it than languages with verbal and written aspects. If the writing aspect of a language with both verbal and written aspects is lost, there is still the spoken form of the language that exists before the language went extinct. A simple way to look at it is that languages with only spoken form are a more severe case of languages with both verbal and written forms. There are two steps languages with both must go through before extinction, while verbal only are just one step away. This exemplifies why verbal-only languages should be recorded and "saved" before languages with both aspects. The languages with both may still exist in just the spoken form if left unrecorded, as might happen while the attempt to save verbal only languages takes place. It should not happen the other way because the spoken only language could die while the other dual aspect languages are being recorded and documented. The process is not as cut and dry as that, but describing it with these terms makes the situation easier to understand.
However, imagine there is a language, that was not known about previously, that gets discovered. If there is no other languages close by that are closer to extinction, this language should be recorded regardless it is a single or dual aspect language. This is because it is no use searching for a more likely to be extinct language to save when you have one at hand that needs saving. This is due to the fact that, while it would be nice to save all languages, it is highly unlikely that every language nearing extinction can be salvaged.
Written languages, in my opinion, have a much larger impact on society. Think about hieroglyphics and the Rosetta Stone. Linguists spent centuries attempting to decipher the pictograph-based language, and until the stone was discovered, little progress was being made. Think about Latin, commonly regarded now as a dead language, but still a huge part of society. Though no one speaks it as a vernacular, Latin phrases and influence sneak into life everyday. Many school mottos are Latin and the Romance languages, as well as English, stem from Latin. With a written language, there are records proving its existence. The game 'telephone' is a great example of why a language that is only spoken will not last as long as one which is written. Words get twisted, forgotten, or completely vanish. The article mentions an Australian man who is the only speaker of a language and has now forgotten some of the words he had learned from is late father. In a spoken language, once it's gone, it's gone forever. Back to hieroglyphics - to the best of my knowledge, this was only a written language. Although it eventually died, we were able to revive at least some of the meanings. I can imagine that some written languages might require a phonetic guide to go with the records since alphabets may vary and so may sounds. You can't say that preserving one type of language is more important than the other - they have equal importance and significance.
ReplyDelete"How and why this language has survived for more than 400 years, while being spoken by very few, is a mystery,” Dr. Harrison said. I wonder how the same thing as Dr. Harrison. There must have been a specific use for the language that other languages could not satisfy, such as the language used in regards to medicinal uses of plants.
ReplyDeleteThis may be a question that is hard to answer, but how does one preserve a language that is in danger of becoming extinct? The article points out all of these regions that are losing their languagds and why, but now how to slow down the process.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is more important to save languages that are written down versus only spoken. With a spoken only language, words can be changed based on how somone heard them. Also, it is much harder to keep track of a language that is only spoken. Finally, there is no key to how to write down all of the words. Problems with a spoken language are much greater than a written. Words are more likely to be continued to be spelled the same versus being pronounced the same. Also, it is much easier to create a dictionary for the language. All of the words have already been recorded down on paper. Finally, it is easier to change words over from written to spoken. One can make up the sounds as he goes. It would be much more difficult to make up the pronounciation as you go. Overall, written languages must be preserved over spoken languages. It is a much easier job.
In response to Evan's question, I think it is important to go back and find out where the language began to decline. If a language began to decline because a foreign language entered a region and became more prominent, then I do not think that language can be saved, it is the case of the strongest survive. I agree with Evan that it is easier to to save a written language rather than a spoken one, because there could be vast differences in spoken language when comparing from person to person.
DeleteMy question is how does one know whether a language is dying or not? Language in the Andes in the article is a good example.
Is there more at risk of being lost when a language is only written? Is it easier to regain use and knowledge of a language that is written down than one that is only spoken?
DeleteThe preservation of any language lies both in writing and speaking, one of which does not have a priority over the other. People certainly need to teach their next generation how to speak their language as it is the most basic skill and tool to communicate for most people--people tend to speak instead of write, for the sake of convenience and efficiency. Compared with oral form of language, a written form is more of a record of the civilization of language itself. It proves at least human beings has possessed such wisdom and knowledge in history. Due to a higher demands in learning and less necessity in daily dialogue, people tends to pay more attention to speaking than writing as normally one will assume others who know French that they can speak in French. And that's it. One is not likely to think further whether the "they" can read or writing in French; yet the latter skills seem less significant while take a lot more effort. That's why so many ABCs (American born Chinese) can speak Chinese pretty good but read Chinese as if they are reading Greek. And the quote saying that language "lose gradually in bilingual cultures" totally makes sense. In this sense, I would like to stress the importance of a language in its written form for the balance is inclined to the other side in reality. There is also another point worth to note for supporting my argument. Speaking form of language dies with the people of a generation pass away if not preserving in time to the next generation; however, they may pick up in the future by studying the written form if it has been well preserved and saved. The hypothesis fails if we from the other way: if the written language has not been kept since its inception, and people only inherit verbally from their parents; the oral language cannot avoid to degrade as time goes by while lacks a proof and a record of the original standard. People won't even know what the language should be sound like at first; this is the justification of an language without its written type being “vulnerable to loss and being forgotten”. People may therefore face the crisis of losing their tones and originality for ever.
ReplyDeleteMy question: The article seems to blame "the dominance of English" on threatening the survival of other indigenous languages. Is it good to have dominant languages or so-called "big language" in the world we live in or better to have different exotic languages which reflect the speakers' unique cultural backgrounds?
In my opinion, it is more important to preserve spoken language. This is because spoken language is much more pure than written language. There are not as many boundaries that you have to conform to when speaking. It is much more free. This also can now be possible due to video cameras and microphones.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking is more pure, however it is much more tangible to keep written records of a language. This is much easier and it is what has allowed us to decipher languages for years. I think that this combination of being able to capture language though both writing and speaking will allow future generations to be able to capture the interesting cultures we are able to preserve.
A question i would ask others about this issue is... Are all of the thousands of languages going extinct worth the effort to try and preserve them?
While both spoken and written forms of languages are important, if I am forced to choose one, I would choose to preserve written language. Spoken language is based on the written language, which means, written language is the original language. Spoken language is more vulnerable than the written language; there are many important factors in spoken language, such as pronunciation, while these factors can vary throughout the generations. The written language, however, is consistent and that’s why people, in most times, have been recorded huge or critical historic events in written form. These written records would be preserved and would be read by people from next generation. This process, which proves the value of the written language, will continue forever.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Is language just a tool to communicate or more than just a tool?
I think it is important to note the fact that certain languages that have survived and are just now in danger of extinction were once invented by their speakers as a form of shibboleth for a certain ethnicity or faction within that ethnicity, whether to pass down precious herbal medicines or to just feel unique, and though it is hard to choose whether a certain language has served its purpose and should now run its course, it is important to at the least, document and record these languages so as to better understand how to manage the plethera of languages, dialects and sub-dialects that make up our modern society, because if we mismanage, as Karl puts it, "raw" spoken language or allow ourselves to become passive with regard to the importance of language, then it becomes harder to fully convey our opinions if we narrow our means of expression to one major,overpowering, or just "socially acceptible" form of language, such as Academic English, where meaning is buried under jargon.
ReplyDeleteIn response to answering Seong Wook's question, I think language is more than just a tool to communicate. Yes, we use it to understand people by using words, our body, and many other ways to form a language. But it its beyond that, language can define a nation, represent a culture, make a difference in history. In the article it said that their was a Spanish group that spoke a mystery language when they had wanted to discuss preserving knowledge of medicinal plants and some previously unknown science. That is basically a whole code, these very few people have been speaking it and preserving it for 400 years and it still has not died out. The information they hold in their group with that language could be information that everyone in the world must need to know. It is crazy to see how this world is changing and adapting so quickly, yes that means that languages are dying quicker but it makes the languages we still have and are willing to preserve, are more than just a tool today.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Karl's question, i think that to a certain extent they should be preserved. Like in the article where it says that there was a language with words for medicinal plants that are completely unknown to science, that language should be preserved, because only they have a name and knowledge for something that exists that no other language does. I do feel though that this goal to preserve all of these dying languages is not useful at all. This goal is like trying to say i want to keep every living bug from going extinct so I can collect them all. It's silly. If no one is speaking a language it will dye anyways. There is no great point in saving something that is already dying. Language is used to communicate, but if there is no one to communicate with there is no use in saving it. What i do believe we should be doing is studying these cultures. This does not require though a preservation of the language. Our world is blending together in many different ways and attempting to save all of these languages like pokemon is halting progress in the world.
ReplyDeleteQ: If they classify a dying language with only one speaker, what stops someone from creating their own language with only one speaker and it being considered, "dying."
Is there not more at stake in languages than every variety of insect?
DeleteWhile both the speaking and the writing of a language is important to is preservation, it is makes it more difficult of the dying language is not at least written down somewhere. Records and history are known for insanely large amounts of time because they have been written down. Then it goes almost unchanged, and it is passed down through generations for generations. Speaking of the dying language also preserves it but it can only be passed down through generations of those who still speak it rather than to everyone which causes the language to etinct quicker. (sorry.. missing the letter key for the one between w and y in the alphabet)
ReplyDeleteMy question: If some languages are more important to preserve than others, what about that language makes it more important than another?
I think it is more important to preserve the written language because when everybody who speaks it die, there will be no records left that the language existed. I think that the majority of unwritten languages are spoken in not developed countries. People there live in small communities and are not familiar with 21st century civilization. Such a language could be recorded by Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages, but it would lack specific words used in todays society. For example, the native tongue of my friend from Zambia is Bemba language. Even though they have written Bemba language, they do not have some words, such as “computer”, so they just use the English words Also, if a language had already been written, LT would not have to worry about documenting it.. On the other hand, a spoken language is very significant as well. If we had a written version from the distinct language, we would not know how to pronounce it correctly. Therefore, National Geographic Society and the Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Language are recording so many distinct oral languages. This situation of endangered languages in the world makes me to recall of Tower of Babel. God scattered the people around the world by creating many new languages. In present days, there are several dominant languages, which makes it easier to communicate globally. Maybe later in the future we will have just one dominant language as it was in the beginning…
ReplyDeleteQ: Why is it important to preserve minority languages?
Re: "I think it is more important to preserve the written language because when everybody who speaks it die, there will be no records left that the language existed."
DeleteIf it is a written language, won't that serve as a record even after all the speakers die?
Written language can be survived until the paper or the stone that is written is not disappeared. Also, written language can give the language information such as structure and words. Speaking language couldn’t save those written language could do. Speaking language is vulnerable to loss and being forgotten. However, Speaking language is more important. I think speaking language contains more cultural things than written language. Using language by speaking means someone is still speaking language and the culture of language doesn’t end. People consider the disappearance of language because the culture also will disappear when the language disappears.
ReplyDeleteQ. It said one of reason that cause disappearing language is that “Others are lost gradually in bilingual cultures”. Then, Chinglish or other language that formed by mixing two language is not considering as language in the article?
From Hannah:
ReplyDeleteWhen a language is lost in speaking, it can still be recovered because there are things written in that language. When a language is lost in writing, it is much more difficult to prevent the language from dying out completely. As soon as the last speaker dies, the language is gone. I think both written and spoken language should be preserved. If a language only has written records, it will be hard for someone to learn how to pronounce the words. If it's only spoken, the language is more susceptible to extinction. Having a written language is more important because writing can last thousands of years-much longer than a person can remain alive. To answer Evan's question, people can save near-extinct languages by trying to learn them and by passing them on to other people. If there are multiple people speaking a language, it won't die out.
Question: At what point is it too late to save a language? Should all languages be saved?
From Robert Lane Greene:
ReplyDelete"One more thing needs to be said about how linguists think as opposed to traditional sticklers. The self-appointed stickler usually holds the written language far above the spoken in its purported logic, clarity, elegance, and style. Spoken language, with its far more errors, false starts, and variation by time, place, exhaustion, and presence of alcohol, seems by comparison debased and debauched.
"For the linguist, the focus is almost the other way around. All typical, healthy adults speak, and spoken language has been in existence for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. Writing is a newcomer by comparison. Spoken language may be a natural faculty wired in the brain, which needs input only during formative years to become the amazing machine that is the adult language-producing box. Writing is an artificial modern skill that must be taught for years when children are older, and (as the stickler knows) the results often fail to impress."