10. Value of linguistic heritage 10.1. Introductory notes As we shall see in Chapter 11, devoted efforts are being carried out, in many parts of the world, by community members to revitalize (i.e. maintain or revive) their traditional language. Furthermore, a large number of linguists are actively documenting endangered languages and/or assisting language revitalization ac- tivities. What makes them so devoted to these efforts? Are such attempts really important? The answer to these questions lies in the value of linguistic heritage, and this is the theme of the present chapter. The views of people who believe that these efforts are important, are dis- cussed in 10.2. Most of the relevant previous studies only look at the views of "enthusiasts". However, their views are not shared by everyone. Also, there are factors that may hinder their activities. These issues are dealt with in 10.3. Fi- nally, 10.4 considers an issue that often emerges in the discussion of the value of linguistic heritage, viz. the link among language, culture, and identity. Specifi- cally, it addresses itself to the question as to whether a given language is neces- sary for maintaining the ethnic identity in question. 10.2. Concern for language endangerment 10.2.1. Introduction The views of people who are concerned with the current crisis of language en- dangerment may be classified as follows, depending on the type of advocates (Tsunoda 200Id: 8352): (a) Community's views or local views (10.2.2); (b) Outsiders' views or global views; (b-i) Language activists' views (10.2.3), and; (b-ii) Linguists' views (10.2.4). In this context, "community" refers to one whose traditional language is endan- gered or extinct. Strictly speaking, this classification is not clear-cut. Thus, there are people who are at the same time a member of such a community, a language activist, and a linguist. Also, the classification of views presented below is not clear-cut. A given view may be shared by community members, language activists, and linguists, e.g. the view concerning linguistic rights (see 10.2.3). Obviously, the DOI 10.1515/9783110896589.134, ©2017 Tasaku Tsunoda, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. 10.2. Concern for language endangerment 135 three groups of views do not contradict one another. Rather, they complement one another and bring the value of linguistic heritage into relief. Perhaps the majority, if not most, of works on language endangerment and revitalization are written by linguists who, like the writer, are not members of the community concerned. It is, however, encouraging to see that this unbal- anced presentation of views is gradually beginning to be recognized, and that an increasing number of community members publish their works, as shown in 10.2.2. 10.2.2. Community's views 10.2.2.1. Overview Many community members wish to keep their language (Pawley 1991: 10). Thus, Veronica Dobson ( 1994: iii), an Arrernte person of Central Australia, says, "I want to make sure that my language doesn't die out". Why do community members want to keep their language? In general, retention of their language - and culture - does not help them, for instance, in the way of economic pros- perity (although it may create employment, say, in tourism and education, e.g. as language teachers - where such opportunities exist). The answer is spiritu- al rather material. Thus, Littlebear (1999: 1) (a Cheyenne person, the USA) states: But why save our languages since they now seem to have no political, economic, or global relevance? That they seem not to have this relevance is exactly the rea- son why we should save our languages because it is the spiritual relevance that is deeply embedded in our own languages that is important. The embeddedness of this spirituality is what makes them relevant to us American Indians. Likewise, Maguire (1991: 94) suggests that the main motivation for the reviv- al of Irish in Belfast (11.5.3) is non-material, not having to do with economic utility. Also, the value of traditional languages is in their integrative, rather than in- strumental or pragmatic, function (cf. Dorian 1978: 608; Rouchdy 1989a: 96; Spolsky 1995: 179). Traditional languages have an integrative function in that they play an important role in maintaining the groups' identity; see 10.2.2.6. In contrast, they have an instrumental function only to the extent that they are useful for purposes such as employment, say, as language teachers. (It should be added, however, that such opportunities are scarce, as far as Australia is concerned.) Similarly, traditional languages may have a symbolic value, as an "ethnic marker", even if they can no longer have a communicative value (cf. Edwards 1984: 289). In the words of Velma Hale, a Navajo person (?) of the 136 10. Value of linguistic heritage USA, "English is a tool for survival, not a way of life" (Reyhner and House 1996: 137). The importance of language to community members is expressed in the fol- lowing poem (cited from Thieberger 1995: v) by Mary Duroux, a Yuin person of New South Wales, Australia. This poem eloquently describes the sorrow that has been caused by the loss of her ancestral language. "Lament for a dialect" Dyirringan is lost to the tribes of the Yuin I am filled with remorse and I weep at the ruin Of beautiful words that were softly spoken Now lay in the past all shattered and broken We forgot it somehow when English began The sweet-sounding dialect of Dyirringan If we're to be civilised whom can we blame To have lost you my language is my greatest shame Having looked at a view on linguistic heritage expressed poetically, we shall turn to more concrete and specific arguments on the value of linguistic heritage, expressed by community members. In the following, these arguments are cited verbatim, for this will portray them vividly. A citation of a community member's view is accompanied, where possible, by his/her language group affiliation. It is relevant to mention here that some people in Australia avoid the term "tribe" and use the term "language group" instead (cf. Sutton 1991: 50), in contrast, for ex- ample, with New Zealand, where Maaori people themselves use the term "tribe". 10.2.2.2. Language as a gift from the ancestral beings According to the belief of Aboriginal Australians, people, language, and land are closely connected. Thus, Sutton (1991: 50) states: "It is a general rule in Aboriginal Australia that languages are held to have originated when Dream- ings (Ancestral Beings, totemic heroes) invested the land with meaning and human beings". Rumsey (1993: 200) provides a specific example concerning the Jawoyn language of Northern Territory: "language was directly installed or 'planted' in the landscape by Nabilil 'Crocodile', a Dreamtime creator fig- ure who moved up the Katherine River, establishing sites and leaving names for them in the Jawoyn language". See also Dalton et al. (1995: 84), Evans (2001: 253), Hudson and McConvell (1984: 37), McKay (1996: 226-227), Na- than (1996: 26), and Rumsey (1993: 201-204). According to this belief, people "own" their language (Evans 2001: 253; Nathan 1996: 26). As a consequence, to keep the traditional language "is a sacred duty given to each group by the Cre- ator Dreamings" (Hudson and McConvell 1984: 37). 10.2. Concern for language endangerment 137 Stories of how North American languages were given by Creators are found in Hinton (1994). Native Americans (cited by Yamamoto 2001: 339), too, con- sider it their duty to keep their languages: "If we don't use it, we are not fulfill- ing our responsibility. If we don't give life to it, we are neglecting to perform our duties. Our Creator has created for us the world through language. So, if we don't speak it, there is no world". The belief that people own their language, points to the need to distinguish between "language owners" and "language speakers" (Evans 2001: 251). Thus, many Aboriginal Australians consider they own their ancestral language even if they do not speak it (Amery 1994: 140, 2000: 44; McKay 1996: 101; Nathan 1996: 26, 1999: 1). They are owners, but not users, of their language. In contrast, "another-group language speakers", who speak the language of another group (5.2-[8]), are users, but not owners, of that language. See 11.5.15 for examples of language owners and language users. The conviction of language ownership constitutes a strong motivation for language revival. Language revival will be discussed in Chapter 11. Also, lan- guage ownership needs to be taken into account when choosing a language to revive, as seen in 11.5.15. 10.2.2.3. Language as a connection to the ancestors and land Based on the view expounded above is the view that the language connects the people with their ancestors and land. Thus, Bonnie Deegan, a Jaru person and the former chairperson of Kimberley Language Resource Centre, Western Aus- tralia, states {Keeping Language Strong KLRC Newsletter 1996: 1): "Language is a very big part of the culture of Aboriginal people in the Kimberley. We know who we are by the language we speak. It joins us to our past and our old people, right back to the dreamtime. It ties us to our land, and it makes us proud and strong". Similar views are expressed by Velma Hale (a Navajo person (?), the USA) (Reyhner and House 1996: 134) and by Simon Ortiz, an Acoma person of the USA (Wallace 1996: 105).