See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231886685

Language death. David Crystal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Pp. 208. -

Article  in  Applied Psycholinguistics · June 2001

DOI: 10.1017/S0142716401212077

CITATIONS READS
0 5,576

2 authors:

R. Bruce Thompson Jean Berko Gleason

University of Southern Maine Boston University
18 PUBLICATIONS   79 CITATIONS    82 PUBLICATIONS   3,122 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jean Berko Gleason on 27 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Thompson & G leason: Crystal Review -1-

Language Death. David Crystal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Pp. x + 198.

On 4 November 1995 Kasabe existed; on 5 November, it did not. This brief obituary in

David Crystal’s book (p. 1) does not refer to a creature. It refers to an African language also

known as Luo that had been spoken in Cameroon, and on the day in question, Bogon, the last

speaker of Kasabe died, taking his language with him. According to Crystal, half of the world’s

current languages are in danger of dying, and the situation is sufficiently grave that an

international and interdisciplinary effort must be mounted to rescue them. He has written

Language Death to alert and alarm us to the peril and to suggest ways that our linguistic

diversity might be maintained.

Crystal’s book was written subsequent to UNESCO’s establishment of the Endangered

Languages Project, as linguists were beginning to understand the degree to which the future of

the world’s 6000-plus languages is imperiled. It is written in the clear, engaging style that

characterizes David Crystal’s other work, while at the same time conveying a sense of urgency.

The author makes the case that although there is an ample historical record to show that some

languages inevitably die out, global forces now pose threats on an unprecedented scale. This

concise book contains five revelatory chapters, each of which addresses one central question:

What is language death? Why should we care? Why do languages die? Where do we begin?

What can be done?

Language death occurs when the last speaker of a language dies. In almost all cases

when a language dies, there is no chance of resuscitation. Among the rare cases of language

revivification that Crystal notes is that of Kaurna, an Aboriginal language of South Australia; in

this instance, a highly motivated community was able to rely upon copious written records to

bring back a limited form of a language that had been extinct for a hundred years. Another case

that comes to mind when one thinks of languages being brought back from extinction is Modern
 Thompson & G leason: Crystal Review -2-

Hebrew, but the author points out that Hebrew was never really extinct: There has been a great

deal of linguistic continuity in Hebrew from classical to modern times, both in its written form

and in the speech of the European vernacular varieties (p. 127).

Building on previous attempts to create a language risk taxonomy, Crystal introduces a

classification system that allows the researcher to place languages on a language death

continuum (p. 21). Languages that are spoken by a population that is socially and economically

disadvantaged and under pressure to adopt a majority language may begin to have fewer new

child speakers and become potentially endangered. When there are no new child speakers of a

language and the only remaining speakers who know the language well are young adults, the

language is endangered. If the youngest proficient speakers are over the age of fifty (it is not

clear why this cutoff point was chosen) the language is classified as seriously endangered.

When only a few, mostly quite old, speakers remain, the language is moribund. And, finally,

when there are no remaining speakers, the language is extinct. Although the taxonomy sounds

quite straightforward, Crystal further explains that any classificatory system must take into

account many variables, such as the number of speakers relative to the total population: If a

language has only 1000 speakers, but the total population of the community is 1500, the

language is probably not endangered, assuming the community itself is stable. But if there were

only 1000 speakers of English in the US, with a total population of 275 million, we would

certainly have cause to worry. In arriving at a diagnosis, it is important to calculate such things

as the number of native speakers relative to second language learners of the language (the index

of ability) and the number people who speak a language at home relative to those who speak it as

a mother tongue (the index of continuity). These indices were derived by other researchers,

notably Harrison (1997), and reflect an attempt to provide a statistical representation of what

might otherwise remain largely impressionistic.

Why we should care about language death, the topic of Crystal’s second chapter, makes
 Thompson & G leason: Crystal Review -3-

clear that the author cares very much indeed, and that we should, too. He begins by citing, and

quickly dismissing, common arguments in favor of letting languages die. For instance, some

might claim that the world would be a better place if we all spoke the same language, since, as

the conventional wisdom goes, language differences contribute to ethnic strife, impede

commerce, and prevent easy political negotiation. Others also argue that it is cost effective to

reduce language diversity, since programs designed to save dying languages are very expensive.

Crystal counters that the worst civil wars have occurred in monolingual countries (e.g., Rwanda,

Cambodia, or the United States.) He notes that proponents of a universal language usually come

from a monolingual culture and have their own language in mind. The author concedes that

there are expenses to preventing language death, but makes clear why we should undertake them.

Primary among the reasons for maintaining a language is our need to maintain diversity.

Crystal’s argument is that we should regard language diversity in the same way that we regard

biological diversity. Language exists as part of a knowledge ecosystem, and disturbing one part

of the system has repercussions throughout the system. Moreover, variation is an important

component of adaptability in a species, and hence a survival characteristic: “If diversity is

prerequisite for successful humanity, then the preservation of linguistic diversity is essential, for

language lies at the heart of what if means to be human (pp. 33-34).” In making the argument

for variation, he carefully walks the line between metaphorical argument and literal exposition,

and at times the reader is left to ponder whether variation among languages is actually the same

as biological diversity, or something different altogether.

Why languages die is illuminated in Crystal’s third chapter as a highly complex, dynamic

phenomenon. Without thoughtful analysis of individual cultural forces, ethnic histories, and the

physical environment, it cannot be fully comprehended or generalized. He begins with the most

visible and catastrophic forces that bring about the demise of a language: physical,

environmental disasters. These include plagues, earthquakes, droughts, and other disasters that
 Thompson & G leason: Crystal Review -4-

have the potential to kill or displace fragile communities that exist in delicate balance with their

environment. Although environmental disasters often conjure up a sense of inevitability, Crystal

is quick to point out that the most destructive environmental changes have been caused by the

actions of people who could have behaved otherwise. Large-scale industrial logging,

irresponsible cash-crop farming, and poor irrigation practices have caused land erosion and even

desertification in some parts of the world that already had marginal indigenous populations. For

instance, many new young speakers were lost in Somalia during the drought of the early 1990s

when one quarter of the children under 5 died of starvation after the crops failed. AIDS is a

disease that is deadly in individuals, and threatens entire populations left without proper

education, preventive care, and drug therapies. Crystal points out that in Botswana, Namibia,

Swaziland and Zimbabwe, one quarter of the total population between the ages of 15 and 50 are

in imminent danger. In a country like Nigeria, where there are 470 languages, many spoken by

very small populations, AIDS is causing linguistic as well as human fatalities.

Far more difficult to analyze and classify are the socio-political factors that contribute to

language loss when minority communities are forced into assimilation with a dominant, often

foreign culture. History is littered with these events, for instance the devastation of the native

North American nations by Anglo-Europeans, or the Spanish conquest of the indigenous

populations in Peru, Columbia, and other Central and South American countries. Although the

military conquest of one culture by another is catastrophic for an endangered language, what are

more common and insidious are the social and economic factors that are part of modern (19th

and 20th century) industrial expansion. The pressure on many small cultures to adopt a lingua

franca or a dominant language for purposes of profitable trade forces members of those cultures

into a destructive dilemma. On the one hand, if they resist, they may lose their way of life as

economic forces overwhelm them. On the other hand, they risk losing their way of life by

abandoning their native language. This no-win situation may be further exacerbated by the
 Thompson & G leason: Crystal Review -5-

speakers of the threatened language themselves. This comes about, as Crystal argues, through

the erosion of respect for traditional language forms. Through a subtle and gradual process a

new, economically driven lingua franca creates an emergent bilingual class, forcing the

indigenous language slowly underground into closed, family settings, where it is used less and

less, and ultimately may not be used at all.

David Crystal accepts the inevitable spread of dominant languages, English being the

most apparent; but he strongly supports multilingualism. He calls for a grassroots support of

indigenous languages, which should exist in harmony with dominant languages. In this way

speakers will preserve their positive self-identity, and we will all maintain access to the

invaluable body of knowledge that is part of the fabric of a linguistic system.

Languages also die, according to Crystal, because of governmental actions on the part of

the dominant society. The very same reasons that make languages important, a sense of culture,

identity, and solidarity, are also the reasons that groups seeking domination want to stamp out

indigenous languages. This may be done forcefully, for example, by making it illegal to speak

the indigenous language, or by depriving speakers of their political rights, as was the case of

Ainu in Japan, Welsh in Wales and local languages in many other countries. However, more

often an indigenous language is undermined through shame, condescension and “folklorization.”

The language loses its prestige among the speakers themselves, especially the younger

generation.

In the concluding chapters of the book (Where do we begin? What can be done?)

Crystal outlines projected multidisciplinary and grassroots intervention programs to prevent

language death. Success depends on reeducating the populations of multilingual nations and on

reorienting researchers themselves. He adopts a medical model in describing the approach

needed to save the more than 3000 endangered languages around the world. There must be

researchers in linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and education willing to take on

 Thompson & G leason: Crystal Review -6-

the tasks of diagnosis: identifying and assessing potential language loss. Monitoring involves

following the language situation over time through careful, scholarly, descriptive work. And

lastly intervention is required. This can take the form of consciousness-raising, generating local

support, mediation between conflicting cultures and governments, and specific school- and

community-based language programs.

Crystal calls for a revision of the traditional attitudes and practices of linguists

themselves, who historically have taken a hands-off approach to the languages and cultures they

have studied. In the past, non-intervention was often well intentioned and considered most

responsible, but Crystal argues that linguists now have an urgent responsibility to “get in there”

and do something. Direct involvement entails risks. These may be professional, e.g.,

theoretical controversy, or the possible loss of intellectual property rights when research material

becomes part of a community’s resources. And there are physical risks as well: Languages

under threat are often in unstable, dangerous parts of the world. Linguists are in a unique

position to mediate between indigenous communities and governments or corporations that seek

to appropriate the land and resources of indigenous peoples, who often have no deeds or titles to

their lands, or even any written record of their history. The linguist can often identify place

names, genealogies, even colloquial expressions that provide critical evidence of land rights and

ownership deriving from traditional practices.

Saving a language calls for a Revitalization Team (p. 157) to galvanize and activate

people at all levels within an endangered speech community. The task is immense: to survey,

describe and document the language, and establish standard forms of transcription. The team

must recruit native speaker consultants, collect data, and set up systems to raise public

awareness. And there is the task of renewing pride and interest among the native speakers, who

ultimately must be responsible for the survival of their language. In making this last point

Crystal cites Grinevald (1998) who asserts that work on a language must be conducted not just
 Thompson & G leason: Crystal Review -7-

for and with its speakers, but also “by its speakers (p. 157).”

Inevitably a book such as this appeals most to those who share the author’s linguistic and

philosophical views. Those whose interest in language is primarily in universals, or what unites

us as humans, probably are not much bothered by the death of Kasabe, or any other language, so

long as it is not their own. On the other hand, those who value diversity and believe that

linguistic variation, like biological variation, is tied to our survival will find the book

compelling.

REFERENCES

Grinevald, C. (1998). Language endangerment in South America: A programmatic approach. In

L. A. Grenoble & L. J. Whaley (Eds.), Endangered Languages: Current Issues and

Future Prospects (pp. 124-159) . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harrison, B. (1997.) Language integration: Results of an intergenerational analysis. Statistical

Journal of the United Nations, ECE 14, 289-303.

R. Bruce Thompson

Harvard University

Jean Berko Gleason

Boston University

View publication stats