Mythbusting Monolingualism and Endangered Languages Martin questions

Mythbusting: Monolingualism and Endangered Languages

Martin Lee-Paterson, 1st Year: Mythbusting: Belief and Truths about Language

At the LSA Endangered Languages symposium of January 1991, linguist

Michael E. Krauss famously predicted that 90% of the world’s languages would

be dead or doomed within a century (Hale et al., 1992). This grim prediction, if

it comes to pass, will have wide-reaching consequences - the mass extinction of

smaller languages would confine vast corpora of media and culture at best to

the domain of experts, and at worst, for those languages without sufficient

documentation, to obscurity.

Some years on from Krauss’s portent, his concerns appear well-founded.

Harmon and Loh (2010) report that global linguistic diversity declined by 20%

during the thirty-five year period spanning 1970 to 2005. Simons and Lewis

(2011) find in their own response to Krauss that of even the languages still

living, 19% are not being taught to children, putting them at risk. It is because

of this that the position of languages with mainly multilingual speakers is of

interest to so many. There are a variety of circumstances that can lead to a

62

language being spoken mainly by multilinguals. In places such as Wales, local

languages are promoted and used as languages of instruction in schools but

must coexist with locally and internationally dominant languages such as

English. In places such as China, school instruction takes place mainly in a

more widely spoken national language, with local dialects more often spoken

in informal contexts such as the home. In this essay, I seek to evaluate the view

that having few monolingual speakers puts a language in an inherently

precarious position.

Many believe languages with few monolingual speakers are under threat

because they are often regional but must compete with more popular linguas

franca. For example, in Chinese cities such as Guangzhou, it is necessary to

speak Mandarin as well as one’s local dialect to communicate with a large

population of workers and visitors from elsewhere in China (Zhou, 2001).

Furthermore, educational institutions in China are legally mandated to teach in

Mandarin (Sautman & Xie, 2021). Thus, there is a widespread belief,

particularly amongst Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong, that the Cantonese

language has been marginalised in Guangzhou, and that Guangzhou’s

Cantonese speaking population is in decline (Sautman & Xie, 2021).

63

However, the assumption that Cantonese is suffering due to these

circumstances is not necessarily founded in evidence. Sautman and Xie’s (2021)

research shows that despite immigration from outside the Cantonese speaking

Guangdong province, the number of Cantonese speakers in Guangzhou

remains stable at greater than 78%. The same research also shows that

Cantonese is still being learnt by young people. Krauss’s (Hale et al., 1992)

prediction attributed the mass-death of languages to them no longer being

passed on to children, as do Simons and Lewis (2011) in their follow-up, but

this is clearly not what is happening to Cantonese. In fact, Sautman and Xie

(2021) find that even the children of newer settlers are being taught Cantonese

as their first languages, a far cry from the stereotype of regional languages in

competition with linguas franca as as-good-as-dead.

Another example of a local language in competition with a national one is that

of Catalonia. For a great deal of its history, language in education and state

policy has played a major role in the marginalisation of the Catalan language

(Xavier Vila, 2008). Of particular note is how the introduction of compulsory

education affected language use in the region, allowing the state much more

power to impose a national language. One must also remember the impact of

regimes such as that of military dictator Francisco Franco, whose policies

further entrenched the Castilian Spanish (“Castilian” for the purposes of this

64

essay) language’s hegemonic position in Spain. By the 1950s, monolingual

Catalan speakers had disappeared almost entirely.

According to Fabregat (1984), as of 1984 two languages were dominant in

Catalonia - Catalan and Castilian. Despite the same speakers using different

languages in different contexts, a phenomenon known as coordinate

bilingualism, Catalan people of the time were generally only literate in

Castilian. However, circumstances have changed in Catalonia since then. 1983’s

introduction of the Linguistic Normalisation act and a 1994 Constitutional

Court ruling have allowed a vast increase in Catalan language schooling, to the

point where over 90% of primary schools and 50% of secondary schools in

Catalonia use Catalan as their medium of instruction. In fact, as of 2003, 95%

of 15-29 year olds in Catalonia are able to speak Catalan, and 94% can write in

it (Xavier Vila, 2008).

While the differences between China and Catalonia’s situations are obvious,

both are nonetheless still examples of the stable coexistence of languages and

widespread coordinate bilingualism. While economic and political pressures to

learn national and international languages do exist, regional languages are not

inherently threatened by the existence of more popular linguas franca. In fact,

studies exist demonstrating using statistical models that language coexistence is

65

possible, including Yun et al. (2016) which shows that languages of comparable

strength can even codevelop instead of forcing each other out. Seoane et al.

(2019) produced similar findings, modelling the relationship between Castilian

and Catalan and finding that coexistence between the two will likely continue

for several generations at least. While it is obviously difficult to predict the

outcomes of volatile political situations as seen in China and Spain, or their

effects on language use, being affected by complex political issues is not

something unique to languages with few monolingual speakers.

Coexistence isn’t just exclusive to languages of comparable popularity. The

Welsh language is an example of a minority language, less spoken than the

dominant English, but also of one that has undergone a revival in recent times -

the 2001 decennial census in Wales showed a general upturn in Welsh speakers

(Coupland and Aldridge, 2009). However, 2011 census data shows that Welsh

is most popular among the young, with an astonishing 40.3% of the 5-15 age

bracket able to speak Welsh (StatsWales, 2011). Krauss’s (Hale, 1992)

symposium speech draws the line between endangered languages and

moribund ones by whether or not they’re being taught to children, and the

Welsh Government’s (2011) technical report on Welsh language growth from

2011 to 2050 projects consistent growth. This indicates that despite its small

66

population of speakers and the near-complete lack of monolinguals within that

population, Welsh is unlikely to die out any time soon.

It’s also possible that it is precisely Welsh’s largely bilingual population that has

made it so resilient. At least in South Wales, perhaps the Welsh language has

been able to coexist so effectively with English is specifically because they’re not

in competition at all - Welsh is spoken by choice amongst a smaller population

of speakers not just for reasons of utility, but also for its sentimental value and

its standing as an important piece of cultural heritage in both modern and

historical contexts. The Welsh language speaking community is also

exceptionally welcoming to new speakers. Perhaps it is because Welsh can’t be

outcompeted on the grounds of utility that it’s been able to make its recent

comeback.

A comparison can be made to the constructed language of Esperanto. By virtue

of being a “planned language,” invented in 1887 by one Ludwig Zamenhof

(Gobbo, 2017), Esperanto began with no speakers, no local communities, and

thus, no real utility. In the modern day, on the other hand, it has an estimated

two million speakers (Wandel, 2015; Corsetti, 2012), and the Esperanto

language version of Wikipedia contains over 300,000 articles as of January 2022

(Wikipedia, 2022). Zamenhof’s vision of an international auxiliary language,

67

not intended to compete with or replace local languages but to become a

universal second one, (Corsetti, 2012) was obviously a failure, as only a fraction

of a fraction of the world’s population has even heard of the ambitious project.

However, the language is by no means dead, and even to this day its

community continues to grow and produce its own literature (Corsetti, 2012)

without the need for monolingual speakers. In my opinion, this growth can be

attributed to three major factors: First, its status as a planned language means

that Esperanto is necessarily fully documented. Even without a local

community to learn with, all the relevant information can be accessed in text

form, and an Esperanto speaking community can be built essentially from

scratch where one would not otherwise exist. Second, there is a charming

novelty to the language, with its big ambitions, international community, and

macaronic vocabulary. Potential learners may be drawn to the idea of helping

build a new community. Thirdly, and most importantly, the advent of the

internet has made Esperanto learning and communities widely accessible to the

general public. Because services such as Duolingo make language lessons

available for free, and a new speaker can easily communicate with others

online, the initial time and money investment required has decreased

dramatically, and the potential benefits of learning have increased immensely

68

too, making the second language-only model far more viable in 2022 than it

would have been in Zamenhof’s time.

To sum up, I disagree with the idea that being predominantly spoken by

multilinguals is a death sentence for all languages. History has shown that a

variety of cultural, educational, and even political factors can cause a language’s

speakership to wax or wane, and that even similar actions like choosing a

certain language of instruction for schools, can have drastically different effects

from country to country. Furthermore, the way languages are used continues to

evolve, and existing languages can take on different roles as time goes on, like

Welsh as a language of cultural significance or Esperanto as the centerpiece of a

hobbyist community.

Rather, I think the key indicator of a language community’s safety is not size,

geography, or multilingualism, but instead its capacity to be passed on and

secure new learners. It is because of this that the conservation of minority

languages is such important work. While languages such as Cantonese or

Catalan may not be at risk at the moment, and languages such as Welsh and

Esperanto are enjoying a renaissance, this is specifically because an effort has

been made to promote them. Many primarily second language or otherwise

multilingual speaking communities are at risk of dying out, as are monolingual

69

ones, and myths like this one can oversimplify that issue, cause complacence,

and distract from necessary work. On top of making education more accessible,

I would also like to encourage the enthusiastic participation in and creation of

new media for at-risk language communities. As the above case studies have

shown, a language community’s current state has little to do with its prospects,

just as long as the right steps are taken to maintain it.

70

References

Corsetti, R. (2012). The Movement for Esperanto: Between creolization and the Report Grin. Interlingvistikaj Kajeroj.

Coupland, N., & Aldridge, M. (2009). Introduction: A critical approach to the revitalisation of Welsh. International Journal Of The Sociology of Language, 195(-).

Fabregat, C. E. I. (1984). Ethnocentricity and Bilingualism in Catalonia: The state and bilingualism. International Journal Of The Sociology of Language, 1984(47).

Gobbo, F. (2017). Beyond the Nation-State? The ideology of the Esperanto movement between neutralism and multilingualism. Cogitatio, 5(4).

Hale, K., et al. (1992). Endangered Languages. Language, 68(1).

Xavier Vila, F. (2008). Language Education Policies in the Catalan Language Area. AILA Review, 21(2008).

Seoane, L., et al. (2019). Is the Coexistence of Catalan and Spanish possible in Catalonia? Nature, 5(139).

Simons, G. F., & Lewis, M. P. (2013). The World’s Languages in Crisis. In E. Mihas, et al. (Eds.), Responses to Language Endangerment (pp. 3-20). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

StatsWales. (2011). Welsh Speakers by Local Authority and Broader Age Groups, 2001 and 2011 Census. StatsWales. https://statswales.gov.wales/Catalogue/Welsh-Language/Census-WelshLanguage/welshspeakers-by-la-broaderage-2001and2011census

71

Wandel, A. (2015). How Many People Speak Esperanto? Or: Esperanto on the Web. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 13(2).

Welsh Government. (2011). Technical Report: Projection and trajectory for the number of Welsh speakers aged three and over, 2011 to 2050. GOV.WALES. https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-12/welsh-speakerestimates-2011-to-2050-technical-report.pdf

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Vikipedio. Retrieved January 5, 2022, from https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedio: Ĉefpaĝo

Yun, J. et al. (2016). The Possibility of Coexistence and Co-Development in Language Competition: ecology–society computational model and simulation. SpringerPlus, 5(1).

Zhou, M. (2001). The Spread of Putonghua and Language Attitude Changes in Shanghai and Guangzhou, China. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11(2).