Winter 2016 Covers 4 and 1_Fall 2015 Covers 1 and 4 11/17/16 1:20 PM Page 1 L Winter , 2016 I S T E N I N G This issue: / J o u r n a l o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n E t h i c s The Ethics of , R e l i g i o Language n , a n d Development C u l t u r e V o l . 5 1 Volume 51 Number 1 Winter 2016 Covers 2 and 3_Fall 2013 Covers 2 and 3 11/17/16 1:20 PM Page 1 Journal of Communication Ethics, Religion, and Culture Editor ........................Janie M. Harden Fritz, Duquesne University Production Editor ......Craig T. Maier, Duquesne University Assistant Editor...........Joshua D. Hill, Duquesne University Consulting Editors ....Mark McVann, F.S.C., Saint Mary’s College of California Marilyn Nissim-Sabat, Lewis University Thomas E. Wren, Loyola University Chicago Assistant Production Editors ......................Matthew Mancino, Duquesne University Joshua D. Hill, Duquesne University Justin N. Bonanno, Duquesne University u The views expressed in the articles in Listening/Journal of Communication Ethics, Religion, and Culture remain those of the authors. Their publication does not constitute an endorsement, explicit or otherwise, by the editors. u Listening is published three times a year, in Winter, Spring, and Fall. All correspondence (including subscriptions) should be sent to the Editor, Listening/Journal of Communication Ethics, Religion, and Culture , Depart ment of Communication & Rhetorical Studies, Duquesne University, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15282. Tel: (412) 396- 6558. Subscription rates (prices include postage): • Individuals (USA, Canada, and International): $35 per year. • Libraries and Institutions (USA, Canada, and International): $75 per year. © 2016 Listening, Incorporated [Non-profit journal]. u Microfilm: Complete volumes of Listening/Journal of Communication Ethics, Religion, and Culture are available on microfilm. Address inquiries to: University Microfilm International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. ISSN 0024-4414 THE ETHICS OF LANGUAGE IDENTIFICATION AND ISO 639 J. Albert Bickford The ISO 639 standard, and especially its Part 3 (ISO 639 -3), has become a widely-used tool for language identification. In a standard this important, there is potential for ethical challenges, and some controversy about it has indeed developed. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the principal ethi - cal challenges surrounding ISO 639 and to suggest ways that it can be applied ethically so as to maximize its benefits for all while minimizing potential harm. LANGUAGE IDENTIFICATION In order to understand the ISO 639 standard, one must first understand the broader issue of language identification, which has long been recognized as a thorny and often contentious issue. The question language identification addresses is deceptively simple: What linguistic varieties should be considered separate languages rather than dialects of some larger language? On a technical linguistic level, answering this question is challenging, and it is further compli - cated by the fact that language is often a marker of identity and is tied to issues of power, prestige, and resource allocation. The meaning of “dialect” relevant here is not the popular and somewhat pejorative conception of dialects as being less prestigious or even substandard, compared to languages. Rather, as linguists use the terms, a dialect is simply one variety of a language, so that one can speak of, for example, the Midwestern American dialect of the English language or the Quebecois dialect of French. Still, as is well-known, there are many cases that are not easily classified as to whether they are dialects or separate languages. For example, Arabic and Chinese are for some purposes each considered single languages, but both vary considerably across their broad geographic ranges, even to the point of differ - ent varieties being mutually unintelligible. Thus, at least their spoken dialects Ethics of Language Identification and ISO 639 /21 can, under some circumstances, be considered separate languages. To cope with this ambiguity, linguists sometimes talk about varieties, lects, or languoids ,1 terms that are intended to be noncommittal about the question of whether their referents are dialects or languages. The decision as to whether to call a particular linguistic variety a dialect or a language may be based on different factors. Some factors are essentially lin - guistic, such as the degree of lexical or grammatical similarity or mutual intelli - gibility. Others involve a range of other factors such as published literature, eth - nic identity, or political boundaries. This is the basis of the quip, first cited by Max Weinreich, that “a language is a dialect with an army and a navy.” 2 Because different people may regard different factors as significant, and further because many of these factors are gradient with no clear dividing line between “same” and “different,” there is much room for alternate groupings in specific cases, especially regarding minority languages without a strong literary or edu - cational tradition. There are practical implications to calling something a language vs. a dialect. Governments and NGOs may allocate resources or develop policies based on particular lists of identified languages. Legal decisions may depend on whether a variety has been identified as a language. Educational policies may be built around recognized languages, so that speakers of varieties not recognized as languages do not have equal access to education. As such, decisions in this area can have far-reaching repercussions, leading to significant ethical concerns. In addition, once the decision has been made to regard a particular set of language varieties as constituting one language, there is an additional issue in language identification, also often controversial, of what to call the language. Because many languages have more than one name and some names are used for more than one (often unrelated) language, it is often not a trivial issue to know what name(s) to use. Further, since speakers of a language may object to a name for a variety of reasons, the name used for a specific language also has ethical import. Language identification, then, involves two main factors: (1) which dialects group together to form a single language, and (2) what names or other labels to use when referring to it. ISO 639 -3 The long-standing issue of language identification has in recent years col - lided with practical concerns arising from information technology, particularly the practical need for metadata to locate resources in or about particular lan - guages (cataloguing) and to properly process examples of those languages (information processing). To address this need, a set of international standards has been developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), known as ISO 639, “Codes for the representation of names of lan - 22 /BICKFORD guages.” ISO 639 associates language names with codes that can serve as unam - biguous and concise references to languages, similar in some ways to airport codes. This addresses the problems associated with the existence of multiple names for some languages and multiple languages for some names. It also pro - vides a compact way to refer to languages in databases and to exchange data about them. Although its primary purpose is to create precise identifiers that refer to languages—the second factor in language identification—it cannot effec - tively do so without making clear what language varieties the identifiers refer to. As a result, it is involved in both of the thorny aspects of language identification discussed above. ISO 639 consists of four main parts, containing distinct but interrelated and overlapping sets of codes. Part 3, “Alpha-3 code for comprehensive cover - age of languages,” is of greatest interest here because it attempts to cover as complete a set of languages as possible (7865 codes as of October 2015). 3 The earlier Parts 1 & 2, which encompass far fewer languages, are also relevant because of their interdependence with Part 3. 4 Part 3, or ISO 639 -3, was based originally on the 3-letter language codes for languages used in SIL International’s publication Ethnologue , with some adjustments. 5 As such, it inherited the operational definition of language that Ethnologue used. That is, two related varieties are considered the same lan - guage based primarily on inherent mutual intelligibility—the ability of the speak - ers of the two varieties to understand each other without needing to learn the other variety. In marginal cases, some adjustments are possible based on other factors, particularly the existence of a common literature or a strong ethnolin - guistic identity (either common or separate). The standard makes no claim as to whether this definition is the best one possible, acknowledging that others may not feel it is appropriate, but it was “thought to best fit the intended range of applications for this standard,” 6 name - ly, information processing and retrieval. The standard also makes no claims as to whether the list of “languages” in the standard is in any way a definitive or authoritative statement about what languages exist in the world. It is simply a coding scheme for referencing one particular way of grouping linguistic varieties into languages; other groupings are possible and legitimate. ISO 639 has become pervasive in the digital world. It is widely used in Internet communications to indicate which language is used on a web page or other interfaces, 7 as well as in operating systems such as Apple’s OS X, Microsoft Windows, and various flavors of Unix/Linux. 8 This is important for a wide range of language processing tasks such as indexing, sorting, spell-check - ing, and translating. 9 Librarians and archivists also use ISO 639 for cataloguing in databases and information retrieval. 10 Because of ISO 639 -3’s ambitious scope, encompassing all languages of the world, the list needs constant updating as knowledge of languages improves.