Part 4: Reading for Viewpoints

Time Allotted: 13 Minutes

Read the following article from a website.

Language Decline

The numbers are in, and they're grim: Three thousand of the world's seven thousand languages are in decline and expected to perish by around 2100. While the most prevalent languages are taking a firmer hold across the globe, the extinction rate for languages is 25 per year. Charting language demise, UNESCO ranks dwindling languages on a scale ranging from “vulnerable” to “critically endangered.” The question is how, or whether, UNESCO or sovereign governments should intervene?

Concerned language preservation organizations include the Canadian Association for Language Diversity (CALD), a charity whose goal is to prevent language extinctions. IALD spokesperson Norman Reideger says all endangered languages should be saved. “For individuals, language fosters a sense of personal identity. Language extinction means loss of priceless, irreplaceable cultural knowledge—the grammar, music, narratives, and even medical knowledge embedded in a language. A linguistically diverse planet is a healthy planet.”

Concordia University linguistics professor Marianne Houseman deplores such use of biodiversity rhetoric in linguistics discourse. “Life is life, and language is language,” she clarifies. Houseman is skeptical about whether speakers of endangered languages benefit from linguistic preservation, noting that those who abandon their language may be acting in their own best interests by adapting to a naturally evolving socio-economic climate. “Whose needs are served by government-funded social—or socio-linguistic—engineering schemes?” asks Houseman, “Their proponents are typically nationalist regimes advancing their own territorial, political and economic agendas.”

Annalisa Ducharme, a Memorial University doctoral candidate, points out that a confounding factor is variation within a language. “One language can have multiple dialects—regional varieties,” says Ducharme, “If an endangered language is to be artificially propped up with government funded schools and preschools, as they do with some First Nation languages in Canada, then which—whose—version of the language should be deemed “essential” and therefore worth saving?” As well as First Nation languages, Ducharme points to French, which “has many dialects worth sustaining. Globally, France, Louisiana, and Africa have their own versions. In New Brunswick, French dialects include Quebecois, Acadian, and Chiac, a sub-dialect that blends Acadian French, English, and [aboriginal] Mi'kmaq.”

Questions 1-5:

Choose the best option according to the information given on the website.

1. Annalisa Ducharme most likely objects to………………….

2. Marianne Houseman thinks language preservation programs should be………………….

3. Who holds directly opposing viewpoints? ……………….

4. Marianne Houseman would most likely agree that……………

5. Overall, the article suggests that efforts to preserve dying languages are………….

Questions 6-10:

The following is a comment by a visitor to the website page. Complete the comment by choosing the best option to fill in each blank.

I'm Metis, of French and Cree descent. Having just 1,000 remaining speakers, Michif, the language of my people, is being sustained through Canadian federal government funded programs like those described in the article. The goal is to save it through transmission to 6.……………………. I have two points. First, I remind the 7………….………… that historically, the demise of Michif was anything but an organic process; Michif endured systematic government efforts to erase it. Michif therefore merits government efforts to help it 8……………….……… I strongly disagree with the notion that language-targeted government redress and reconciliation programs are 9………………………. Second, Michif has several dialects; we chose to revitalize two. While Ms. Ducharme may think targeting languages for revival is 10…………….………., we think Michif is worth reviving.

1.

o inflated claims about language preservation outcomes.

o public programs to revitalize dying   languages for political reasons.

o denials about the rate of language extinction.

o a simplistic categorization or definition of a language.

2.

o modified.

o continued.

o consolidated.

o abandoned.

3.

o Ducharme and UNESCO.

o Houseman and Reideger.

o Reideger and Ducharme.

o Ducharme and Houseman.

4.

o investments in language immersion schools are defensible.

o language preservation policies deserve public attention.

o people stand to gain from a lingua franca.

o dying languages are a priceless cultural resource.

5.

o hampered by the link between language and identity.

o fraught with an array of sociopolitical complications.

o warranted on the basis of disturbing global statistics.

o essential for the sake of preserving indigenous cultures.

6.

o the next generation

o linguistic researchers

o a range of First Nation groups

o Michif speakers

7.

o professor

o graduate students

o CALD representative

o United Nations

8.

o continue evolving

o grow more diverse

o make a comeback

o become official

9.

o language standardization efforts

o aggressive nationalist agendas

o likely to proliferate

o indulgent charity campaigns

10.

o unnecessary

o linguistic

o essential

o arbitrary

1. a simplistic categorization or definition of a language.

In the fourth paragraph, Ducharme refers to variations within languages. She believes languages have numerous dialects and it is not easy to determine which dialect or language version is more essential to be saved. So, she might object to a simplistic view of language classification.

2. abandoned

According to the third paragraph, Houseman is skeptical about whether speakers of endangered languages benefit from linguistic preservation, noting that those who abandon their language may be acting in their own best interests by adapting to a   naturally evolving socio-economic climate. So, she seems against the language preservation program.

3. Houseman and Reideger

According to paragraph two, Norman Reideger believes that all endangered languages should be saved while, based on the third paragraph, Houseman believes that the abandonment of a language might benefit its speakers, so they hold opposing views in relation to language preservation.

4. people stand to gain from speaking a lingua franca

Housman asserts that those who abandon their language may be acting in their own best interests by adapting to a naturally evolving socio-economic climate.   This naturally evolving climate can be a medium of communication between peoples of different languages, or lingua franca.

5. fraught with an array of   sociopolitical complications

Overall, the article states that languages are interwoven with personal identity, diversity and adaptations, and nationalistic and territorial preferences, so it can be inferred that the preservation of dying languages is full of sociopolitical complications.

6. the next generation

Norman Reideger believes that for individuals, language fosters a sense of personal identity, and language extinction means loss of priceless, irreplaceable, cultural knowledge. So, the goal of this preservation plan is to save the language for the next generation.

7. professor

It was professor Houseman who claimed government-funded engineering schemes have served no speakers of endangered speakers. So, the visitor who appreciates government efforts to keep the Michif language is against the professor’s idea.

8. make a comeback

The visitor states that Michif endured systematic government efforts to erase it;   therefore, Michif merits government efforts to preserve the language. In other words, Michif would be thankful to the government for helping the language make a comeback.

9. aggressive nationalist agendas

Houseman asserted that the proponents of language preservation programs are typically nationalistic regimes promoting their own territorial, political, and economic agendas. The visitor disagrees with this idea so he believes language-targeted programs are not aggressive nationalistic agendas.

10. arbitrary

In the last paragraph, Ducharme states that languages have numerous dialects and we cannot determine which version is essential to preserve, so she thinks the revival of a language can be an arbitrary decision.