Policy Statements

A policy for the maintenance and advancement of heritage languages in the US is desperately needed, whether the justification be a rich and diverse society, national security, or language rights. Surprisingly though, there appears to be very little political (and therefore, financial) support for such a specifically targeted policy. However, if an approach to heritage languages is embedded in a general language education policy that is realistic and focused on the needs of the nation, then there is every likelihood that this vital national need can be met. The outlines of this realistic and focused language education policy are as follows:

• Guiding Principles (Cf. Australian model): 1. English for all; 2. Right to maintain mother tongue; 3. Opportunity to acquire a second language; 4. Universal access to language services
• Strategy: Promulgation of a National Language Education Policy that focuses on 2 and 3 above, while integrating existing efforts to improve access to ESL in the bilingual education world (1 above), as well as provide access to language services (4 above) as mandated by current interpretations of Title VI of Civil Rights Act concerning language (cf. Clinton 2000 Executive Order).
• Vehicles: Newly formed proactive organizations focused on heritage languages (a National Alliance of Heritage Language Community School Organizations, representing the heritage communities in a National Coalition of Organizations in Support of Heritage Languages in America representing all 5 heritage language constituents: heritage, K-12, post-secondary, researchers, and consumers of language expertise) working within a National Coalition for Language Policy in America.

National Language Education Policy:

National security interests and the needs of an increasingly diverse society require a national language education policy. However, practically speaking, the development of experts as well as linguistically and culturally informed citizens implies a dual approach that comprises both a selective and a universal language education policy. The purpose of a selective language education policy is to ensure that the education system produce the requisite numbers of professionals with superior language competence in critical languages. A universal language education policy, by contrast, is intended to ensure that all children have experience in studying a language in addition to their mother tongue.

The goal of a selective language education policy is to establish a national system of schools, colleges and universities that would cooperate to recruit students to language study early in their education careers and retain them long enough to graduate them at advanced levels of proficiency. Such a system would comprise: 1) schools of choice at the K-8 level, including total immersion programs, dual language programs, language magnet programs, and the like; 2) heritage language education schools and programs across the country; 3) regional magnate high school language programs with four years of instruction as well as integrated exchange and study abroad opportunities; and 4) higher education flagship language programs capable of graduating students from across the disciplines in critical languages at advanced levels of proficiency (presumably at the ILR/ACTFL “distinguished”/3 level.) (Note 1). This network of schools would be supported by and integrated system of dedicated intensive summer programs, proven study abroad programs, and a web-based network of quality assured, WWW-based language support in the form of resources and services directed at programs as well as individual learners in the system. Such a system would also require clearly articulated standards determining the design and outputs of participating institutions at each level as well as criteria for evaluating these outputs. Membership in the system would be open to institutions that demonstrate the ability to meet the standards--for as long as they actually meet the standards. Presumably, the system would have a development component for institutions aspiring to membership as well as programs encountering difficulty in meeting the program goals. It would also include faculty development and sharing programs as well as materials development and production facilities.

Conclusions

First, this selective approach would exploit the resources of the heritage language communities in the US. Second, the selective language education approach would be used to pilot design and implementation as well as demonstrate the feasibility of a universal language education policy, which should be the ultimate goal of educators and policy makers in the US.

Note

1. Cf. The National Flagship Language Initiative of the NSEP & NFLC.

In the United States, two serious problems converge that could be addressed with improved policies toward heritage language education. They are

• The U.S. lacks the language resources (in languages other than English) to meet its diplomatic, security; and economic goals. While this is true across the board, it is particularly troublesome that individuals with high levels of proficiency in certain domains and languages cannot be found when such proficiency is called for.

• Students who enter our schools with native-like proficiency in a language other than English (their heritage language) often suffer academically because they are forced to enroll in programs that provide instruction only through English. Research shows that these students could benefit from continued development in their native language, both academically and cognitively. In addition, they could develop high levels of proficiency in their native language, while also mastering English.

The elementary and secondary education years are critical to the maintenance and development of heritage languages. When not encouraged, heritage language skills often languish, at best remaining static, and at worst being lost totally (the “subtractive” result where English is acquired and the native language is lost). The individual student loses, and our society loses the potential contributions from high levels of proficiency in languages.

To address these needs, elementary and secondary education policies at all levels (federal, state, local) should foster the ongoing development of heritage language proficiency in all ways possible. Policy development should encompass not only legislation, but also regulations and guidelines that are issued, as well as funding appropriations that are made. Recommendations include policies that would:

• Encourage high quality, well-articulated K-12 school-based programs that teach heritage languages for native speakers (at a minimum allowing such programs; preferably providing incentives or mandates for them):
  • Two-way immersion
  • Developmental bilingual education
  • Heritage language support in schools, including technology-based programs
  • Specially-designed foreign language education

• Give credit for individual students who achieve high levels of proficiency in their native language as well as English, through awards, school credits, advanced placement status, and other means.

• Include proficiency in languages other than English among core areas of achievement that will be measured and accounted for, both locally and in national assessments such as NAEP.

• Require effective articulation between community-based programs and schools, and partnerships where possible, including recognition of the achievements of students in those programs through credit or other means.

• Include in standards for teacher preparation for all teachers the understanding of language learning, awareness of the value of language proficiency, and knowledge of ways to support heritage language development.

• Establish rigorous standards for language teacher preparation to increase the availability of effective teachers in a wide variety of languages

• Create teacher and parent education programs in early childhood education that explain the value of maintaining native languages and demonstrate ways to help children preserve their native language and succeed in school.

Background on immigrant languages in K-16 in California: Statistics from the California Department of Education show that 25% (1,511,299 out of the total 6,050,895) K-12 students are enrolled in ESL classes, i.e. these students speak a language other than English language at home. (For statistics on the specific languages spoken, please see the attached document.) These numbers do not include the students who speak a language other than English at home but who do not need ESL instruction. A recently published LA Times article estimated that another language is spoken in 54% of households in Los Angeles County. These students typically do not receive instruction in their home language at school or elsewhere. If such instruction is offered, it is usually below the level they require and is not tailored to their special needs.

The Heritage Language Institute held at UCLA in June 2002 established that language educators at the University of California are ready to develop and present to the university administration and academic community recommendations for a policy on heritage languages that will meet the needs of heritage speakers and of local communities. There is clearly a need to promote the study of heritage languages so that heritage speakers can fulfill their potential of attaining the highest levels of proficiency, typically higher than that can be expected of foreign language students. At the same time, K-16 educational institutions should develop its own set of policies on heritage language instruction that will promote: (a) offering languages of the community in which schools are located; (b) identifying the goals of instruction in terms of the highest achievable linguistic and cultural proficiency; (c) developing appropriate teaching methodologies; (d) providing special instruction for heritage speakers whenever possible; and (e) supporting, rewarding, and encouraging research and materials development in the area of heritage teaching.

Policy Action Needs: Federal and state granting agencies need to be apprised of the need for heritage language instruction and a lobbying effort should be initiated. It may be sensible to begin an effort to create policies with a comparative study of the accomplishments and setbacks resulting from language policies in other countries, particularly in Australia, which has demographics similar to those in the U.S.

The Hispanic presence and its history in what is now the United States have for the most part been ignored or misrepresented in K-12 and college education. “Cultural activities” in the curriculum and in textbooks are often reduced to superficial tidbits of stereotypical information about a few food items and holidays. All too often, administrators and colleagues who teach other languages view Spanish as a “problem” because those other languages do not enjoy such high enrollments in secondary school or university level classes. John Lipski has pointed out that language departments and programs “cannot behave as competitors of Spanish, any more than they compete legitimately with biology, English, or physical education. Resources cannot be distributed among all language programs, including Spanish, based on simple formulas of student credit-hour generation, because in such a reckoning Spanish will always win and other languages will always lose, alleviating one disparity while creating a new one” (PMLA, October 2002, p. 1251). I agree with Lipski that administrators need to acknowledge that “for many—perhaps most—college students, Spanish is well on the way to dropping its foreign status, to take its place among the knowledge and skills required by well-rounded university graduates.”

As important as it is to develop heritage language education in its own right, it is just as important to keep our efforts connected to foreign and second language education. To do this, we need to work together with others in the profession to develop an agenda for action that includes educating and influencing the general public and lobbying those who are in positions of power over language policy and funding for language programs. It is important to argue in favor of a strong national foreign and heritage language education policy and for an agenda for action that includes a positive media campaign. We cannot argue for one without the arguing for the other. Foreign and heritage language education are intertwined and are equally important in developing a more literate and tolerant multilingual nation.

In addition to promoting heritage language development, we also need to develop concrete and realistic strategies for improving views on bilingualism in general and bilingualism in Spanish and English in particular. We must confront the following needs:

1. for a well-coordinated investment in a public relations campaign to educate the general public about language learning and minority languages, to combat negative attitudes toward bilingualism and heritage language education efforts;

2. for professional development activities in such areas as: teacher certification; graduate school training for K-16 public and private sector schooling; adult education; curriculum development; teacher workshops, seminars and institutes; and professional associations, centers, and institutes.

3. to work effectively against anti-immigrant attitudes and anti-bilingual movements that are well-funded and thriving.

Spanish, after English, is not only a top international language of business and trade, but it is also the second most used language in the United States. In spite of this, Spanish and its speakers have been associated with negative stereotypes. Additionally, because the U.S. does not have an official policy on foreign language or heritage language study, there are wide gaps in the continuity of its study and problems related to lack of support and accurate information regarding the need for teacher training. If we foster positive attitudes toward Spanish and Hispanic cultures, we will also advance in other heritage language areas because we will improve attitudes toward bilingualism in general. Only then can such projects as the National Foreign Language Standards become more useful and bilingualism become more desirable by diverse communities in our nation.

For most indigenous people around the world, their heritage language is an integral, vital, and unquestionable part of their self- and culture-identities. Yet, today, out of 175 extant indigenous languages, only 20 are being passed on to children; the remaining 155 are considered moribund and endanger of extinction within the next half of this century (Krauss, 1998). Spolsky (2002) attributes this language endangerment to two fundamental causes–linguistic imperialism implemented via 19^th and early 20^th century federal Indian policies and the “introduction of Western modernizing schools” (p.140) which contributed to internal ideological and attitudinal changes among speakers of these languages and to their eventual weakening. Fortunately, within the last half of the 20^th century, there has been an ever-increasing awareness of the dire situation of indigenous languages in the United States, which, in turn, has developed into movements inside and outside speech communities to maintain and restore these languages. An outcome of these movements has been a reinforcing by heritage language speakers and their communities of their basic human right to speak their heritage languages and strengthen their ways of life. Despite this self-determination on the part of heritage language speakers and their communities, the external societal pressures to discontinue speaking languages other than English continue to exist today in the form of federal and state educational mandates and policies such as performance-based accountability requirements and high-stakes examinations, both are based on testing of academic achievement and literacy skills in English (Elmore, 2002; Orfield & Wald, 2000). Unfortunately, an outcome of these external pressures has been the creation of deep concerns among parents, students, and educators about learning English and an increase in the abandonment of heritage language teaching and maintenance efforts in schools serving indigenous children (Durate, 2002) and in homes, where parents and grandparents are abandoning the heritage language in favor of English.

In light of the present vitality of heritage languages in the United States, the indigenous nations’ sovereign rights to self-governance, the fundamental and inherent right to speak their heritage languages, to continue their ways of life, to articulate their own visions, and to determine their own futures, it is critical that indigenous heritage language communities be fully supported in their efforts to perpetuate their heritage languages, and in strengthening their communities and way of life. Although schools are considered to be key resources for these language renewal and preservation efforts (McCarty, 1998), the true decision-making and planning entities and stakeholders in this arena are the indigenous heritage communities and community members. Therefore, a crucial part of indigenous heritage language renewal efforts is the cultivation of new generations of heritage language speakers and community “professionals”, internal movers who will plan, develop, implement, and sustain long-term language renewal and maintenance initiatives in their respective communities. As well, these indigenous heritage language efforts must focus on the identification and development of culturally appropriate community- or local-based language renewal and maintenance practices, methods, strategies, and materials for those communities that continue to maintain oral traditions (Sims, personal communication, October 17, 2002) as well as those that are school or literacy-based. Additionally, these efforts call for collaborative research initiatives planned and conducted by indigenous language communities, schools, universities, and state and federal entities. This collaborative research must focus on the practical as well as theoretical issues of language renewal and maintenance such as the relationship between heritage language proficiency and school achievement of indigenous and other heritage language populations. And, last but not least, financial resources (local, state, federal, and private) are desperately needed in indigenous heritage language communities to assist them in their language renewal and maintenance initiatives.

References

Duarte, Carmen. (2002, September). Regulations trip up language program. Arizona Republic, pp. B7, B11.

What is a Heritage Language? A heritage language is any language spoken in the United States, or ever spoken by any group. English would qualify as a HL, too, except it’s not endangered, and covert (implicit, de facto) policy favors English and disfavors any and all others.

Heritage Language Students. HL students are any students who have any knowledge of their heritage language, and wish to build on that knowledge to acquire greater proficiency in it. Some HL students may actually have very little knowledge of the HL language, or only a passive knowledge. Some may have only background knowledge.

What Kind of HL is important? Often HL knowledge or proficiency is non-standard; ideally it would be nice to safeguard any knowledge of any variety, but in fact, our FL instructional system can handle non-standard language only with difficulty. The FL system de facto will try to convert or replace non-standard proficiency with standard proficiency.

Possible Relationships. One possible relationship I now favor is training community HL teachers in language pedagogy, so that they can operate efficiently in the HL community. More effort needs to be expended; helping HL teachers to use new pedagogy and new materials (especially web-based, electronic resources).

Learning from Others. I am not sure what we can learn from others; the record seems, in general, weak. Even in overtly multilingual nations (Soviet Union, India), only some languages are promoted and favored, and smaller languages are ignored or disfavored.

Heritage Language Policy Statement

I favor a Heritage Language Policy for the US that recognizes that most Heritage Languages have been ignored, denigrated, downplayed, or worse, but is nevertheless realistic. By Realistic I mean a policy that does not raise false hopes or expectations; recognizes that resources are not unlimited, and that the preservation and/or revival of almost-extinct languages may be beyond the capabilities of the community wishing to preserve them. Although Soviet language policy is now seen as somewhat of a sham, the language policy as it was conceived was fair and realistic, recognizing that smaller-population language groups could usefully use their languages for educational purposes for initial literacy, or even beyond that, but that eventually speakers of small languages would need to acquire literacy in larger territorial languages used in the neighboring territories. Unfortunately, covert aspects of Soviet policy (such as Russification) and overt goals, such as the idea that ethnic group consciousness was a transitional stage on the road to Communism, undermined language rights and language maintenance efforts of smaller groups. We must recognize that covert, implicit ideas about language policy can be as forceful as overt and explicit statements and policies, and work to counteract both explicit and implicit factors working against the maintenance of Heritage Languages.

The first principle is the development of policies that ensure there is no linguistic discrimination.

Comment: The US model for this is Executive Order (EO) 13166, entitled "Improving access to services for persons with limited English proficiency."

The second principle is the provision of adequate programs for the teaching of English to all.

Comment: The new act No Child Left Behind has features of this, but drops the bilingual methodology that proved effective.

The third principle is the development of respect for both plurilingual capacity and for diverse individual languages.

Comment: The death of the Bilingual Education Act is a backward step here.

The fourth principle is the development of approaches that enhance the status and enrich the knowledge of heritage language and community languages.

The fifth principle is the development of a multi-branched language-capacity program that strengthens and integrates a variety of language programs that; assures the heritage programs connect with advanced training programs; builds on heritage, immersion and overseas-experience approaches to constantly replenish a cadre of efficient plurilingual citizens capable of professional work using their plurilingual skills; and provides rich and satisfying language programs that lead to a plurilingual population with knowledge of and respect for other languages and cultures.

Comment: Some of the parts exist, but there is no overarching policy framework.

(Adapted from: Spolsky, Bernard. (2001). Heritage languages and national security: an ecological view. In Steven J. Baker (Ed.), Language Policy: Lessons from global models (pp. 103-114). Monterey, CA: Monterey Institute of International Studies. pp. 112-113)

Principles for a language policy for a heritage language community

• The community recognizes the importance of plurilingual competence in its members.
• It supports programs that assure that everyone can develop full control of English for access to educational, economic, social and cultural development.
• It supports efforts to assure that everyone can develop a high level of proficiency in the community language for the maintenance of tradition and culture. This involves:
• raising children bilingually,
• providing opportunities for developing oral and literacy skills in both languages,
• ensuring the use of the community language in public domains as well as private,
• assisting in the maintenance and cultivation of the community language,
• providing ways of passing traditional language and culture between the generations,
• providing community schools,
• persuading public schools to respect and support community language maintenance,
• encouraging and respecting efforts by other language groups to do the same.

Indigenous languages and the heritage languages of immigrant families share many issues, but there are also major differences. In much of the world, including the United States, indigenous languages have a special protected status. In the European Union, indigenous languages (only Sami counts as indigenous in the EU), along with minority languages which have been present in the locale since before present national boundaries have been drawn, are often given official status. In the United States, where no official language is recognized federally at this time, American Indian languages are nevertheless recognized by law. The act declares that "it is the policy of the United States to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages," and, among other things, to "encourage and support the use of Native American languages as a medium of instruction." It is stated that "the United States has the responsibility to act together with Native Americans to ensure the survival of these unique cultures and languages." In recognition of this special status within the US, some of the bills which have come up in congress (but never made it through both houses) to make English the official language had sections stating that the bill is not intended to harm American Indian languages.

After the centuries of repressive policies toward Native Americans, this about-face of the government's relationship to indigenous languages is welcome indeed. However, policy on paper and actual action are two different things. Only 1-2 million dollars is spent by the government each year on grants to Native American communities for the development of language programs, and grants for a project can generally only be funded for up to three years. With 175 languages that still have speakers (and multiple politically-separate communities speaking those languages in some cases), the money provided for language revitalization is very little. Furthermore, the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) who administers the NALA funds have decided on a policy of non-support for languages that no longer have native speakers. A number of people who have learned such languages themselves from linguistic documentation and taught it to family and community can testify that even languages without native speakers can be revitalized.

Furthermore, despite NALA, Native American languages are always affected by laws and acts that are not directly aimed at them. Although this year for the first time in over a decade no bill to make English the official language has been brought to congress, other bills have been passed that place a damper on school programs that might include language retention and revitalization for American Indians. The bill that most affects languages other than English is the “No Child Left Behind” bill, which essentially kills bilingual education programs that are geared toward minority language maintenance. Another symbolic indication that the tide is again turning against languages other than English in the schools is the name change of the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA), which this year was changed to the Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited-English-Proficient Students (OELALEAALEPS).

If the United States is to make good on a policy of protection and assistance to American Indian languages, it had better start thinking about policies that will help rather than hinder this aim. In some European countries, there are special language tracks in school: getting back to Finland, for example, the Samis have their choice of having their language of instruction be Finnish or Sami. Such a policy combined with “Language nests,” or preschools running their programs in the indigenous language in order to develop early fluency in children not learning the language at home, are one important approach to language revitalization. This sort of program is not the solution for all languages by any means, but this is an example of the sort of long-term and intensive financial and policy commitment to language revitalization that the United States must make in order to seriously honor the commitment of our country to the survival of Native American languages.

Why are issues of heritage language continuity so vital to the interests and life of America's First Peoples? For indigenous people across this nation, the significance of questions related to language survival are also inextricably entwined with cultural survival. For indigenous communities the continuance of cultural values, traditions, and native belief systems is dependent on the continued transmission and use of native languages across generations. Unfortunately for many indigenous languages this process has been seriously impacted by various factors and events spanning the history of this nation's treatment of its first inhabitants. For some tribes language loss has happened to the degree that few or no speakers exist. In other tribes, efforts to shore up their respective languages and stem language shift are being seriously pursued.

America's indigenous languages occupy a unique position in this country by virtue of several unique factors:

Indigenous languages are not world languages in the sense that one can find these languages spoken in other parts of the world. They exist and function primarily within the context of those communities from which they originate. Indigenous languages are primarily rooted in oral tradition rather than long traditions of literacy.

Many of the remaining indigenous languages in this country serve as the critical vehicle by which a Native community maintains its particular cultural identity, oral tradition, cultural knowledge, and spiritual lifeways. As such, to lose these languages is to lose an entire history and source of identity that is rooted in collective expressions of being part of distinct cultural communities.

Indigenous languages that are extant in the U.S. may be found primarily among tribal communities that have been formally recognized as sovereign entities by the United States. As such, Native American tribes enjoy a unique status that is unlike any other minority language group in the United States. The Native Languages Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-477) passed by the U.S. Congress recognizes this unique relationship in its provisions supporting Native American language restoration and maintenance efforts.

For those indigenous language communities that have been denied tribal status by the United States Federal Government, the struggle to maintain and revitalize their languages is often integrally tied to the continuing struggle for federal recognition as indigenous people.

Within these broad parameters there clearly exists a need to produce from within indigenous language communities future generations of speakers. Unlike immigrant heritage languages which may be replenished and increase over time with new waves of speakers entering this country, the replenishment of indigenous speakers is primarily dependent on internal conscious efforts to transmit a given language to its young. Speakers of America's remaining indigenous languages are essential vital links in the language transmission process and ultimately in the continuance of indigenous cultures. Hence, for indigenous heritage languages the revitalization of their languages is a race against time and their continued maintenance a challenge against tremendous odds wrought by pressures of socioeconomics, globalization, and the hegemony of national discourse that ignores the realities of other cultures and languages present in this country. As well, local, state, and federal education mandates and conflicting federal reform acts threaten to undermine the most critical first steps that many indigenous communities have taken to revitalize their languages.

Indigenous peoples of the United States are for the first time engaged in a battle unlike any other that has been fought before. While matters pertaining to tribal lands, natural resources, economics, and social issues are at the forefront of contemporary concerns for many tribes, the issue of indigenous heritage language vitality is one that must be fought just as steadfastly and wholeheartedly as indigenous people have always fought for what is dear and sacred to them. Moreover, by joining efforts with allies across this nation who are of like mind regarding the maintenance of heritage languages perhaps a new vision can be forged, one that embraces true democracy in the linguistic sense. For in that linguistic democracy lies our survival as indigenous people of America.

Linguistic diversity is essential to the human heritage. Each and every language enshrines the unique cultural wisdom of a people. Therefore, loss of any language is a loss for all humanity.

Language diversity still exists but is alarmingly threatened. Thus there is an imperative need for language documentation, new policy initiatives, and new materials to enhance the vitality of languages.

The cooperative efforts of language communities, language professionals, NGOs and governments will be indispensable in countering this threat. There is a pressing need to build support for language communities in their efforts to establish meaning new roles for their endangered languages.

THE WORLD'S LANGUAGES IN CRISIS: QUESTIONS, CHALLENGES, AND A CALL FOR ACTION

Presented for discussion with participants at the 2nd International Conference on Endangered Languages, Kyoto, Japan

November 30-December 2, 2001

Michael Krauss
Luisa Maffi
Akira Yamamoto

According to Michael Krauss's widely accepted predictions, 50% to 90% of the world's 6000 languages will be extinct or moribund by the end of this century—a crisis of far greater magnitude than the biodiversity crisis (the global loss of plant and animal species and their habitats). Awareness of the scope and pace of this alarming phenomenon has grown over the past decade. Language communities have been engaging in a variety of efforts to maintain and revitalize their languages. Linguists have been called to the urgent task of documenting languages before they disappear, but it is also increasingly recognized that they have a responsibility to help ensure that the languages do not disappear in the first place. In a number of cases, linguists are collaborating with language communities in conducting such efforts, but more needs to be done. The linguistic profession must rise to the challenge.

Researchers are also exploring not just the parallels, but the links between the world's biodiversity and linguistic and cultural diversity and the causes and consequences of diversity loss at all levels. This connection is significant in itself, because it suggests that the diversity of life is made up of diversity in nature, culture, and language. Luisa Maffi has proposed that we should think of this as "biocultural diversity", and Michael Krauss has put forth the notion of "logosphere" as a web linking the world's languages in a way analogous to the web that links ecosystems into one biosphere. The connection is also strategic, in that the cause of language preservation is still perceived as politically and economically too "weak" and "specialized" to command attention by itself. It can be strengthened and made more charismatic by being linked to the cause of environmental conservation and protection, which has progressed much further over the past decades.

Against this background, questions and challenges arise concerning theoretical frameworks, professional training, the relationship between science and action, ethics and human rights, and the philosophies and priorities of academic and funding institutions. There is a great need for linguists and other language scholars to address these issues in a systematic and integrated fashion, in the same way as biologists and ecologists have addressed similar issues in the case of biodiversity and ecosystems. This kind of synthesis is urgently needed to provide a clear picture of the nature and implications of the problem and to support the search for solutions.

To stimulate discussion, here are some questions for the participants:

General Issues

1. Does it matter that so many languages are rapidly being lost? If so, why, and for whom?

2. Can we claim that, just as the Earth's living systems constitute the biosphere, the world's linguistic systems constitute the "logosphere" and are connected to one another in a web of "linguistic ecologies"? Can we identify "linguistic services" that languages provide, analogous to the ecosystem services provided by Earth's ecosystems? Can we offer concrete evidence of these linguistic ecological connections and of what happens when they break down? How are "linguistic services" affected when this happens?

3. Are linguistic diversity and biodiversity (or the "logosphere" and the biosphere) really related, so that the state of one affects the state of the other? How can we show whether this is the case? If it is the case, what are the implications for the conservation of both languages and ecosystems, and thus for both human societies and the disciplines of linguistics, anthropology, conservation biology, and restoration ecology?

4. What is the current state of the world's languages? How can we better assess their vitality or endangerment status and determine what factors contribute to or threaten their health? How can we reliably measure and monitor trends over time, both in linguistic diversity globally, and language transmission and use locally?

5. Assuming that we can have a reliable picture of the state of the world's languages and of their trends, can we then build and analyze scenarios about the possible consequences for human societies, both locally and globally, of the observed trends? What might be a worst-case scenario, a best-case scenario, an intermediate scenario?

6. Given the observed trends and possible consequences, what are the response options? What is being done, what can be done, what should be done (by communities, researchers and practitioners, academic and research institutions, non-governmental and international organizations, politicians, financial and funding institutions)? What works or does not work when and why (success stories and failures and their circumstances)?

7. How can we ensure that all relevant parties (stakeholders) are substantively and equitably involved both in assessing and analyzing the situation, and in seeking solutions? How do we build or improve capacity wherever necessary to foster full participation in the process, raise awareness of needs and requirements, and promote implementation of response options? How do we best communicate research results and implementation needs to decision makers and the general public, in order to generate the necessary support?

Theoretical Framework

1. What kind of linguistics do we need in order to properly address the linguistic diversity crisis? Should it purely be a "salvage linguistics" (language documentation and preservation in grammars, dictionaries, and texts)? Or should it rather aim to be a "conservation linguistics", working for the maintenance of languages within their language communities through continued use and development? Should it therefore be a kind of "action linguistics"-- linguistics not only for the scholar, but also for the people? Or do we need both kinds of efforts, one in support of the other?

2. If we accept that language documentation is needed, then what kind of documentation should linguists strive to provide? Can documentation be made accessible and useful to language communities without sacrificing rigor and accuracy? Can a better understanding of what is needed to support language maintenance improve our understanding of what constitutes adequate linguistic description?

3. If we embrace the idea of a "conservation linguistics" as a form of "action linguistics", what other tasks beside documentation is the linguist called upon to perform? How can a linguist most effectively work with and aid a language community seeking to maintain or revitalize its language? What aspects of both the language and the social and cultural context should they pay attention to? If the goal is to support linguistic and biological diversity jointly, what features and functions of language are involved?

Training and Academic Attitudes

1. How do we train this new "brand" of linguist, skilled in both linguistic description and analysis, and in applied work? How do we provide linguistics students with the interdisciplinary training that will allow them to collaborate with social and natural scientists on joint projects to support and restore linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity? How do we teach them to bridge science and action and to work with language communities in a spirit of collaboration and reciprocity? How do we ensure that as many members as possible of the language communities themselves get trained to do this work?

2. How do we promote the changes in academic culture that will allow for this kind of training, overcoming the barriers between different disciplines, theory and applied work, science and action, and academia and society?

3. How do we foster new attitudes in the academic merit system so that the value of linguistic description and action-oriented work are properly recognized in terms of what constitutes material for dissertations and publications and of what provides access to jobs and promotions?

Professional Ethics and Responsibilities

1. How do we foster among linguists a strong sense of professional ethics and responsibility vis-a-vis the linguistic diversity crisis?

2. How do we ensure that linguists are aware of the principles of linguistic and cultural rights contained in international conventions and/or national legislations, as well as in local customs, and are supportive of them?

3. What changes may be needed in the way linguists think of their careers, in light of ethical and human rights concerns?

Funding

1. Is it possible to come up with realistic figures for how much money it takes to provide an adequate description of a language? And do we have valid criteria for prioritizing, so that funding may go where it is most urgently needed?

2. What is the cost of creating and running an effective and lasting language maintenance or revitalization program? How do we identify priorities?

3. Where do we go for funding (public and private sector), and how do we make a good argument for the relevance of language documentation and maintenance/revitalization? How do we counter common arguments that linguistic research is not a priority and that language programs are too costly? Can funding be mobilized more easily by linking the protection of linguistic diversity to the protection of biodiversity?

Note

1. This document was prepared by the UNESCO Ad hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages (Matthias Brenzinger and Akira Yamamoto, co-chairs; Noriko Aikawa, Dmitri Koundioubaand Anahit Minasyan, UNESCO; Arienne Dwyer, Colette Grinevald, Michael Krauss, Osahito Miyaoka, Osamu Sakiyama, Rieks Smeets, and Ofelia Zepeda).