I was appalled to read that Siletz Dee-ni only has about five speakers left. I do not understand how a language can only have five speakers. I speak English (spoken by 1.5 billion people) and Spanish (437 million people) and am learning Korean (75 million people). All three of those languages are very popular. I am thankful that English is my native language because it is the most widely spoken language worldwide. I learned Spanish through my school, which only offered Spanish or French, but they are very common languages. I am learning Korean so that I can communicate with a very important person in my life. All of the languages I know and am learning are spoken by many people. A factor that I consider when deciding which language to learn is how many additional people I can communicate with. I would be hesitant to learn an entirely new language if I could only then communicate with five other people.
The point of language is communication. A language goes extinct when new ideas are no longer being created in it. If a language is only used to refer to old ideas, it will die. For example, Siletz is preserved in song for certain native dances. However, unless there are new songs or new ideas being made in Siletz, there will be no new communication in the language. The case of preserving Siletz is unique because it is closely tied with the history of how American Indians were treated by the American government. The Siletz tribe was declared dead, but managed to regain its federally recognized status. The mission to maintain the language is made even more difficult by the fact that it is also a challenge to maintain the culture and status of the tribe.
Linguists can help preserve a language by encouraging more people to speak it. Technology can be a helpful resource. Bud Lane is working on the online talking dictionary for Siletz Dee-ni. Jen Johnson is texting with tribe members in Siletz. I am tempted to say that another way linguists can preserve a language is by having people learning it as their first language. The problem is: I would not want those people to be limited to only talking with the few other native speakers. Having many people speak the same language promotes diversity in other ways because it helps people learn about others who are different than themselves. Finally, the most obvious way of preserving a language is to teach it in schools, because children can grow up and then teach it to their kids.
My immediate response is that a ‘dead’ language can be brought to life; however, I am not sure why it would be. Someone would have to be incredibly passionate about reviving that language and get others to learn it as well. It seems unrealistic to bring a ‘dead’ language back to life.
At first, I didn’t see the downside of having an uncommon language die out. Not many people are directly affected. Furthermore, having more people speak the same language is beneficial because they can communicate with each other. After watching the video, I learned that having more people who know uncommon languages can result in more collective knowledge. This can lead to technological, healthcare, societal, and general advancements for multiple cultures. Additionally, other languages can offer new ideas about different aspects of life, such as mythology and religion.
I was conflicted while learning about this topic. I value cultural diversity. I also see the practical benefits of having many people speak the same language. This allows for easier communication and less misunderstanding among a diverse group of people (except for linguistic diversity). For example, the term “English speakers” encompasses a massive group of people of different races, ethnicities, socioeconomic statuses, et cetera. However, I also understand that less popular languages reflect the unique beauty and essence of a specific culture. They also offer value in their unique structures. For Siletz, this is revealed in how Jen Johnson “fell in love with its cadences.” This point is further emphasized in younger tribe members learning Siletz because “it can sound pretty cool.” My question now is, “How do we balance increased communication among people of different backgrounds, while also appreciating linguistic diversity?” After reflecting further on this question, I’ve wondered if maybe linguistic diversity isn’t different from other forms of diversity. We should promote diversity for the minorities who would otherwise be underappreciated, but also because, when the minority is silenced, the majority is missing out on the valuable contributions they could offer.
Comments