Tove Skutnabb-Kangas

How many languages are there in the world? Most linguists say around 6-7,000. The most useful source is still The Ethnologue, edited by Barbara Grimes from the Summer Institute of Linguistics, a missionary organisation – see . The Ethnologue lists almost 6,800 languages in 228 countries. But there might be twice as many: 12-14,000 languages. How come? There are deaf people in all societies, and where hearing people have developed spoken, oral languages, the deaf have developed sign languages, fully-fledged, complex, abstract languages. This article discusses only oral languages - we still know too little about sign languages even if the literature is growing fast.

How many languages are there in the world? Most linguists say around 6-7,000. The most useful source is still The Ethnologue, edited by Barbara Grimes from the Summer Institute of Linguistics, a missionary organisation – see http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/. The Ethnologue lists almost 6,800 languages in 228 countries. But there might be twice as many: 12-14,000 languages. How come? There are deaf people in all societies, and where hearing people have developed spoken, oral languages, the deaf have developed sign languages, fully-fledged, complex, abstract languages. This article discusses only oral languages - we still know too little about sign languages even if the literature is growing fast.

What fate awaits the world’s languages?

Tove Skutnabb-Kangas

It is impossible to ‘know’ the number of (oral and sign) languages precisely, because there are no research-based definitions about the difference between language and dialect. On linguistic grounds Danish, Swedish and Norwegian could be seen as one language, with several dialects: they are structurally similar, and the speakers can understand much of what the others say, or at least what they write. A political definition is the only possible one: A language is a dialect with an army and with state borders. Or: a language is the dialect of the elites.

Where are the languages of the world?

Europe is poor – we have only some 3% of the world’s languages. North, Central and South America have around 1,000 oral languages, 15%; Africa around 30%; Asia a bit over 30%; and the Pacific somewhat under 20%. Two countries, Papua New Guinea with over 850 languages and Indonesia with around 670, have together a quarter of the world’s languages. When we add those seven countries which have more than 200 languages each (Nigeria 410, India 380, Cameroon 270, Australia 250, Mexico 240, Zaire 210, Brazil 210), we get up to almost 3.500 languages, i.e. 9 countries have more than half of the world’s oral languages.

Taking the next 13 countries, those with more than 100 languages each (the Philippines, Russia, USA, Malaysia, China, Sudan, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Chad, Vanuatu, The Central African Republic, Myanmar/Burma and Nepal), we see that 22 megadiversity countries have around 75% of the world’s languages. More than 80% of the world’s languages are endemic: they exist in one country only.

How many users/(native) speakers do the various languages have? The 11 largest languages in the world (‘the big killer languages’) account for approximately half the world’s population (Chinese, English, Hindi/Urdu, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Russian, Bengali, Japanese, German, French). Most of the world’s languages are spoken by relatively few people: the median number of speakers is probably around 5-6,000. 95% of the world’s spoken languages have fewer than 1 million native users; half of all the languages have fewer than 10,000.

A quarter of the world’s spoken languages and most of the sign languages have fewer than 1,000 users. Table 1 has a list of those spoken languages which a decade ago had more than 1 million speakers (based on Gunnemark 1991: 169-171). A reader task: find those languages which have approximately as many speakers as your

own, if you are a speaker of one of the BIG languages (i.e. over 1 million)! Or identify at least those 60 languages on the list which have more than 10 million native users...

Table 1: 208 languages with more than 1 million native users

Achinese, Afrikaans, Akan, Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Assamese, Aymara, Azerbaijani, Bai, Balinese, Baluchi, Bambara, Bashkir, Batak, Bemba, Bengali, Berber, Bete, Beti, Bhili, Bhojpuri, Bikol, Buginese, Bulgarian, Burmese, Buyi, Byelorussian, Catalan, Cebuano, Chinese, Chokwe, Chuvash, Congo, Czech, Danish, Dinka, Dong, Dutch, Edo-Bini, Efil-Ibibio, English, Estonian, Ewe, Finnish, Fon, French, Ful, Galician, Ganda, Garhwali, Georgian, German, Gisu, Gondi, Greek, Guaraní, Gujarati, Gurma, Hadiyya, Haitian, Hani, Hausa, Haya, Hebrew, Hehe, Hiligaynon, Hindi, Ho, Hungarian, Igbo, Ijo, Iloko, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Javanese, Kamba, Kannada, Kanuri, Karen, Kashmiri, Kazakh, Khmer, Kirghiz, Kisii, Konkani, Korean, Kumauni, Kurdish, Kurukh, Kuyu, Lao, Latvian, Li, Lingala, Lithuanian, Low German, Luba, Luhya, Luo, Macassar, Macedonian, Madurese, Magahi, Maguindanao, Maithili, Makonde, Makua, Malagasy, Malay, Malayalam, Malinke, Manipuri, Marathi, Marwari, Mbundu, Mende, Miao, Minangkabau, Mongolian, Mongo-Nkundu, Mordva, More, Mundari, Nahuatl, Nandi, Nandi-Kipsigis, Ndebele, Nepali, Nkore-Kiga, Norwegian, Nuer, Nupe, Nyamwezi, Nyanja, Occitan, Oriya, Oromo, Pampangan, Pangasinan, Panjabi, Pashto, Pedi, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Quechua, Romani, Romanian, Ronga-Tsonga, Russian, Rwanda-Rundi, Santali, Sasak, Senufo, Serbo-Croatian, Serer, Shan, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhalese, Slovak, Slovenian, Somali, Songe, Songhai, Sotho, Spanish, Sundanese, Swahili, Swazi, Swedish, Tagalog, Tajiki, Tamil, Tatar, Teke, Telugu, Temne, Teso-Turkana, Thai, Tibetan, Tigrinya, Tiv, Tonga, Tswana, Tulu, Turkish, Turkmen, Ukrainian, Umbundu, Urdu, Uygur, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Waray, Welamo, Wolof, Xhosa, Yao (Man), Yao (Chiyao), Yi, Yoruba, Zande, Zhuang, Zulu.

Languages are threatened - we may have only 10% of the languages left (= unthreatened) in a 100 years’ time. Languages are today being murdered faster than ever before in human history. The media and the educational systems are the most important direct agents in language murder today; indirectly the culprits are the global economic and political systems.

Linguists are today working with the description of the world’s linguistic diversity in the same way as biologists describe and list the world’s biodiversity. There are Red books for threatened languages in the same way as for threatened animals and plants and other species.

Have a look at the list of web-addresses in Table 2. A language is threatened if it has few users and a weak political status, and, especially, if children are no longer learning it, i.e. the language is not transmitted to the next generation.

Table 2. Red books for threatened languages

Europe: http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/europe_index.html

Northeast Asia:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/nasia_index.html

Asia and the Pacific: http://www.tooyoo.l.u-

tokyo.ac.jp/redbook/asiapacific/asia-index.html

Africa: http://www.tooyoo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/redbook/africa-index.html

Databanks for Endangered Finno-Ugric Languages:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/deful.html

http://www.suri.ee

Russia: http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/

Even the most ‘optimistic realistic’ linguists now estimate that half of today’s oral languages may have disappeared or at least not be learned by children in a 100 years’ time. The pessimistic but realistic (e.g. Michael Krauss from Alaska, 1992) estimate that we may only have some 10% of today’s oral languages left as vital, non-threatened languages in the year 2100. 90% may be ‘dead’ or ‘on death row’ (a negative term that many object to). On the other hand languages can also be ‘reborn’ or ‘reclaimed’ - there is a handful of examples of this. Kaurna in Australia is one; Rob Amery’s book describing this is in press (and those who speak it now say that it was not dead - even if the last speaker died in the late 1920s - it was only sleeping...). But so far this has happened seldom, and fairly few new languages arise.

Languages are more threatened than biological species

Linguistic diversity is disappearing relatively much faster than biodiversity. I will present a very simple comparison. The number of biological species on earth has been estimated at something between 5 and 30 million. According to conservative (i.e. optimistic) assessments, more than 5,000 species disappear every year. Pessimistic evaluations claim that this figure may be up to 150,000.

Using the most ‘optimistic’ estimate of both the number of species (30 million) and the killing of species (5,000/year), the extinction rate is 0.017% per year. With the opposite, the most

‘pessimistic’ estimates (5 million species; 150,000/year disappear), the yearly extinction rate is 3%.

On the other hand, researchers who use the high extinction rates, often also use higher estimates for numbers of species. If the number of species is estimated at 30 million and 150,000 disappear yearly, the rate would be 0.5 per year. Many researchers seem to use yearly extinction rates which vary between 0.2% (‘pessimistic realistic’) and 0.02 (‘optimistic realistic’ - these are my labels).

According to the ‘pessimistic realistic’ estimate, then, 20% of the biological species we have today might be dead in the year 2100, in a hundred years’ time; according to the ‘optimistic realistic’ the figure would be 2%. This can be compared to the numbers of plants and animals which are on the Red Lists on threatened species (start with http://www.wcmc.org.uk/species/data/index.html and continue with http://www.rbge.org.uk/data/wcmc/plants.by.taxon.html; http://www.wcmc.org.uk/species/plants/plant_redlist.html; http://www.wcmc.org.uk/species/animals/.

My conclusion:

• ∑ Optimistic: 2% of biological species but 50% of languages may be dead (or on death row) in a 100 years’ time.
• ∑
• ∑ Pessimistic: 20% of biological species but 90% of languages may be dead (or on death row) in a 100 years’ time.
• ∑
• Linguistic diversity and biodiversity

Many people are worried about the disappearance of biodiversity. Why are there so incredibly few who are worried about the disappearance of linguistic diversity? Why are there almost no people screaming about linguistic genocide? Where are the big NGOs, world congresses and summits, foundations, research millions? Where is the action?

Linguistic diversity and biodiversity are mutually influencing each other. Conservationist David Harmon (1995: 14) has looked at correlations between biological and linguistic diversity. In Table 3 he compares endemism of languages and higher vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians), with the top 25 countries for each type. I have capitalised and made bold those

countries which are on both lists.

Table 3. Endemism in languages and higher vertebrates: a comparison of the top 25 countries

Endemic languages

• Number Endemic higher vertebrates Number
• 1. PAPUA NEW GUINEA 847 1. AUSTRALIA 1346
• 2. INDONESIA 655 2. MEXICO 761
• 3. Nigeria 376 3. BRAZIL 725
• 4. INDIA 309 4. INDONESIA 673
• 5. AUSTRALIA 261 5. Madagascar 537
• 6. MEXICO 230 6. PHILIPPINES 437
• 7. CAMEROON 201 7. INDIA 373
• 8. BRAZIL 185 8. PERU 332
• 9. ZAIRE 158 9. COLOMBIA 330
• 10. PHILIPPINES 153 10. Ecuador 294
• 11. USA 143 11. USA 284
• 12. Vanuatu 105 12. CHINA 256
• 13. TANZANIA 101 13. PAPUA NEW GUINEA 203
• 14. Sudan 97 14. Venezuela 186
• 15. Malaysia 92 15. Argentina 168
• 16. ETHIOPIA 90 16. Cuba 152
• 17. CHINA 77 17. South Africa 146
• 18. PERU 75 18. ZAIRE 134
• 19. Chad 74 19. Sri Lanka 126
• 20. Russia 71 20. New Zealand 120
• 21. SOLOMON ISLANDS 69 21. TANZANIA 113
• 22. Nepal 68 22. Japan 112
• 23. COLOMBIA 55 23. CAMEROON 105
• 24. Côte d’Ivoire 51 24. SOLOMON ISLANDS 101
• 25. Canada 47 25. ETHIOPIA

26. Somalia 88

88

Sixteen of the 25 countries are on both lists, a coincidence of 64%. According to Harmon (1995: 6) ‘it is very unlikely that this would only be accidental’. Harmon gets the same results with flowering plants and languages, butterflies and languages, etc. - a high correlation between countries with biological and linguistic megadiversity.

What is new and exciting for research is that there is mounting evidence to suggest that it might not only be a correlational relationship. It may also be causal: linguistic and cultural diversity on the one hand and biodiversity on the other hand seem mutually to reinforce and support each other. And if the long-lasting co-evolution which people have had with their environments for millions of years is abruptly disrupted, without nature (and people) getting enough time to adjust and adapt, we can expect a catastrophe. If, during the next 100 years, we murder 50-90% of the linguistic (and thereby mostly also the cultural) diversity which is our treasury for historically developed knowledge, including knowledge about some of the most vulnerable and most biologically diverse environments in the world, we are also seriously undermining our chances of life on earth. The planet does not need us - but we might need the planet.

Linguistic genocide

Linguistic human rights in education are one possible tool for supporting linguistic diversity. But most countries in the world violate them every day. Most countries participate in committing genocide in their educational systems, according to UN definitions, both those which are in the 1948 UN International Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Articles II(e), ‘forcibly transferring children of the group to another group’, and II(b), ‘causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group’; emphasis added) and the specific definition of linguistic genocide which was in the final Draft of the Conventions but was voted down in the UN General Assembly (Article III(1) ‘Prohibiting the use of the language of the group in daily intercourse or in schools, or the printing and circulation of publications in the language of the group’).

‘Prohibition’ can be direct or indirect. If there are no minority teachers in the preschool/school and if the minority language is not used as the main medium of education, the use of the language is indirectly prohibited in daily intercourse/in schools, i.e. it is a question of linguistic genocide. Assimilationist submersion education where minorities are taught through the medium of dominant languages, cause mental harm and lead to the students using the dominant language with their own children later on, i.e. over a generation or two the children are linguistically forcibly transferred to a dominant group.

Most countries do not follow the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities’ Hague Recommendations Regarding the Education Rights of National Minorities & Explanatory Note (October 1996, The Hague). These guidelines were worked out by a small group of experts on human rights and education (including the author of this article). They represent an interpretation of present human rights standards; they are also valid for immigrant minorities. In the section ‘The spirit of international instruments’, bilingualism is seen as a right and responsibility for persons belonging to national minorities (Art. 1), and states are reminded not to interpret their obligations in a restrictive manner (Art. 3).

In the section on ‘Minority education at primary and secondary levels’, mother tongue medium education is recommended at all levels, including bilingual teachers in the dominant language as a second language (Articles 11-13). Teacher training is made a duty of the state (Art. 14):

• ∑ 11) The first years of education are of pivotal importance in a child’s development. Educational research suggests that the medium of teaching at pre-school and kindergarten levels should ideally be the child’s language. Wherever possible, States should create conditions enabling parents to avail themselves of this option.
• ∑
• ∑ 12) Research also indicates that in primary school the curriculum should ideally be taught in the minority language. The minority language should be taught as a subject on a regular basis. The State language should also be taught as a subject on a regular basis preferably by bilingual teachers who have a good understanding of the children’s cultural and linguistic background. Towards the end of this period, a few practical or non-theoretical subjects should be taught through the medium of the State language. Wherever possible, States should create conditions enabling parents to avail themselves of this option.
• ∑
• ∑ 13) In secondary school a substantial part of the curriculum should be taught through the medium of the minority language. The minority language should be taught as a subject on a regular basis. The State language should also be taught as a subject on a regular basis preferably by bilingual teachers who have a good understanding of the children’s cultural and linguistic background. Throughout this period, the number of subjects taught in the State language, should gradually be increased. Research findings suggest that the more gradual the increase, the better for the child.
• ∑
• ∑ 14) The maintenance of the primary and secondary levels of minority education depends a great deal on the availability of teachers trained in all disciplines in the mother tongue. Therefore, ensuing from the obligation to provide adequate opportunities for minority language education, States should provide adequate facilities for the appropriate training of teachers and should facilitate access to such training.
• ∑
• Finally, the Explanatory Note states that ‘[S]ubmersion-type approaches whereby the curriculum is taught exclusively through the medium of the State language and minority children are entirely integrated into classes with children of the majority are not in line with international standards’ (p. 5).

Most Western countries participate in murdering the chances that they might have to increase the linguistic diversity in their countries, because they do not give immigrants and refugees much chance of maintaining and developing their languages. Development co-operation also participates, with very few exceptions, in murdering small languages and supporting subtractive spread of the big killer languages, especially English. ‘Subtractive spread’ means that new languages are not learned in addition to the language(s) people already have, but instead of them, at the cost of the mother tongue(s). The whole homogenisation process that globalisation is made to ‘demand’ has to be problematised and nuanced before it is too late.

UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) organised, together with others, the world summit on biodiversity in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In connection with the Rio conference a megavolume was published, summarising our knowledge on biodiversity (Heywood, V.H. (ed.) (1995), Global Biodiversity Assessment, Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press & UNEP). A companion volume on other types of diversity is now in press (Posey, Darrell A. (ed.), Cultural and Spiritual Values of

Biodiversity, New York: UNEP (United Nations Environmental

Programme) & Leiden: Intermediate Technologies, Leiden University). In the article on linguistic diversity, Luisa Maffi and I argue that ‘the preservation of the world’s linguistic diversity must be incorporated as an essential goal in any bioculturally-oriented diversity conservation program’. For more detail, see Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (in press). Linguistic genocide in education - or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 540 pages).

A good place to continue is Terralingua’s web-site http://cougar.ucdavis.edu/nas/terralin/home.html ; e-mails: Luisa Maffi, President: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; David Harmon, Secretary & Treasurer: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Vice-President: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Maybe you, the reader, would like to become a member? There is much to do! ‘Terralingua is a nonprofit international organisation devoted to preserving the world’s linguistic diversity and to investigating links between biological and cultural diversity.’

But just to dig where you stand, with the effectiveness of the ‘killer languages’: why is it that it is much easier for me to write this article in English than in my mother tongues (Finnish or Swedish) or the dominant language of the country where I live (Danish)? Information and awareness does not weigh a lot compared to economic imperatives, not even for academics - even if I have written books in all those languages.

Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (PhD) - mother tongues Finnish and Swedish - is professor in the Department of Languages and Culture at University of Roskilde, Denmark. She has among her main research interests linguistic human rights, multilingual education, language and power, linguistic imperialism and the relationship between linguistic (and cultural) diversity and biodiversity. For publications, see http://babel.ruc.dk/~tovesk/.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites