Google launches the Endangered Language Project

[Gray Richardson]

Google launched a new website today devoted to preserving endangered languages.

Here's the new site: http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/

I saw this referenced on several news sites today including:
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/tech/web/ ... ?hpt=hp_t3)
and Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/ ... e-project/)

This could possibly turn out to be a wonderful conlanging resource.

Kudos to them for trying to preserve linguistic diversity, shed a little light on the problem and curate research and resources on the matter!

[clawgrip]

This looks really interesting.

[Terra]

1) "The disappearance of a language means the loss of valuable scientific and cultural information, comparable to the loss of a species." : I do not understand this sentiment.
2) There's a dot in northern Denmark that's marked "Inuit", along with the one in Greenland. Is it a mistake?, or are they counting speakers in Denmark? *is confused*
3) Hopefully it produces some nice and detailed grammars!

[Gulliver]

1) "The disappearance of a language means the loss of valuable scientific and cultural information, comparable to the loss of a species." : I do not understand this sentiment.

From a scientific perspective, comparing how different languages encode different things, and the influence of language on the brain, shines light on how hard-wired certain things are. Our ability to distinguish and remember colours is, to at least some extent, culturally dependent, for example. This is relevant to understanding the visual system and the parts of the brain that process colour.

A lack of diversity in language means a lack of resources for study, at its most unsentimental level.

2) There's a dot in northern Denmark that's marked "Inuit", along with the one in Greenland. Is it a mistake?, or are they counting speakers in Denmark? *is confused*

I think there is a small Greenlander population on continental Denmark, and it is a native language there seeing as Greenland is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark but the fact that there are two dots is a bit of a mystery. It could be an oversight, a reminder, a simplified reference to two Inuit languages or political correctness.

[clawgrip]

1) "The disappearance of a language means the loss of valuable scientific and cultural information, comparable to the loss of a species." : I do not understand this sentiment.

From a scientific perspective, comparing how different languages encode different things, and the influence of language on the brain, shines light on how hard-wired certain things are. Our ability to distinguish and remember colours is, to at least some extent, culturally dependent, for example. This is relevant to understanding the visual system and the parts of the brain that process colour.

There are also things like medical knowledge or other traditional practices that may have a practical basis in scientific fact but are not recognized. Certain cultures may have knowledge of specific plants that are beneficial in some way, but as people lose their language, they often lose their cultural knowledge with it.

[Terra]

From a scientific perspective, comparing how different languages encode different things, and the influence of language on the brain, shines light on how hard-wired certain things are. Our ability to distinguish and remember colours is, to at least some extent, culturally dependent, for example. This is relevant to understanding the visual system and the parts of the brain that process colour.

Yes, I recognize this already, but once the language is/are already recorded, what's the use? I think I'm grossly underestimating how long it would take to record a language though, and it's useful to always have a variety of native-speaking test subjects on hand.

It could be an oversight, a reminder, a simplified reference to two Inuit languages or political correctness.

1) Both the Denmark dot and the Greenland dot lead to the same Inuit page.
2) But I don't see a link to English in North America...

There are also things like medical knowledge or other traditional practices that may have a practical basis in scientific fact but are not recognized. Certain cultures may have knowledge of specific plants that are beneficial in some way, but as people lose their language, they often lose their cultural knowledge with it.

What're some examples of valuable and useful medical (or other) knowledge that've been gained from dying languages in say, the past 50 years? How do they compare with modern medical practices? (Yes, I realize that not all people in the world have access to modern medicine, so their reliance on traditional medicine is better than nothing.)

There's a subtle bias here. There's plenty of talk about "losing" a language, but none about gaining another; They obviously goes hand in hand. Really, is their nothing positive about losing a language and gaining another?

[Gulliver]

1) Both the Denmark dot and the Greenland dot lead to the same Inuit page.
2) But I don't see a link to English in North America...

1) I dunno then. Email them and ask?
2) English is not an endangered language in North America, so why would it appear on the map?

[clawgrip]

There's a subtle bias here. There's plenty of talk about "losing" a language, but none about gaining another; They obviously goes hand in hand. Really, is their nothing positive about losing a language and gaining another?

From the perspective of the individual, gaining a new language at the expense of the old one is usually beneficial and is one of the primary causes of language loss. However, when we speak of "losing a language" we generally mean it on a global scale. In that case, when, for example, all the Gumbaynggirr speakers start speaking English and give up their own language, we (the human race as a whole) lose Gumbaynggirr as a piece of cultural heritage, but we gain nothing.

Although you're right, there probably aren't so many medicinal herbs or amazing secret techniques left to find.

[Pthagnar]

From the perspective of the individual, gaining a new language at the expense of the old one is usually beneficial and is one of the primary causes of language loss. However, when we speak of "losing a language" we generally mean it on a global scale. In that case, when, for example, all the Gumbaynggirr speakers start speaking English and give up their own language, we (the human race as a whole) lose Gumbaynggirr as a piece of cultural heritage, but we gain nothing.

we do not gain *nothing* -- we gain the utility that the former-Gumbaynggirr speakers gain since they are, in fact, part of the world, and so included in "we". whether this outpays the loss you mention is an uncomputable matter.

[Hakaku]

A lot of languages are misplaced, so it wouldn't surprise me that there are other errors (Okinawan appears in the Ocean for me, and the dots for Okinoerabu and Yoron are superimposed and misplaced on Okinawa Island).

I think the project is nifty, but I don't think Google can really contribute very much. They should really be putting a focus on contributing to Wikipedia as opposed to promoting a lot of useless junk studies and pointless Youtube videos.

[clawgrip]

From the perspective of the individual, gaining a new language at the expense of the old one is usually beneficial and is one of the primary causes of language loss. However, when we speak of "losing a language" we generally mean it on a global scale. In that case, when, for example, all the Gumbaynggirr speakers start speaking English and give up their own language, we (the human race as a whole) lose Gumbaynggirr as a piece of cultural heritage, but we gain nothing.

we do not gain *nothing* -- we gain the utility that the former-Gumbaynggirr speakers gain since they are, in fact, part of the world, and so included in "we". whether this outpays the loss you mention is an uncomputable matter.

Since the Gumbaynggirr are included in "we" (the human race as a whole), then how can we gain something we already have? Gumbaynggirr speakers were human beings, like us, regardless of the language they spoke. The only thing that happened was they lost their language, and their cultural traditions were weakened as a result.

To be perfectly honest, I see what you're saying. You mean "we" in the sense of the modern, international world, as opposed to the isolated tribal world. In that sense, the world at large may be enriched from the knowledge of these people, but the loss of their language is, as I said, a thinning out of or even obliteration of their traditions and culture. Whether this is actually bad or simply sentimentalism on our part is hard to say, since language loss has likely been going on since prehistory.

[Gray Richardson]

On the contrary, I think Google can achieve a lot.
1) they can bring awareness and inspiration to the problem
2) they can curate research, sound recordings, grammars, lexicons and other valuable resources that would not otherwise be concentrated in one easily accessible location
3) there's an advantage to Google being able to throw some money at the problem
4) the more the merrier! Why wouldn't you want as many people as possible working toward archiving all this valuable information?
5) Wikipedia is great, but it's not really set up to be an archive for all the materials needed to preserve thousands of languages. Wikipedia does not have the expertise or capacity to archive sound recordings and videos of native speakers that Google can muster.
6) Surely there are synergies to be had from Google coordinating with other websites, like Wikipedia, universities and researchers. The links and websites can point to one another, help steer traffic to the most useful sites, and make it easier for people to find the information they need.
7) No one else was doing this, that I know of, or at least on this scale. I certainly appreciate Google stepping up to organize such a thing.

[Hakaku]

On the contrary, I think Google can achieve a lot.
1) they can bring awareness and inspiration to the problem

Sure, but awareness on what? That languages are dissappearing?

2) they can curate research, sound recordings, grammars, lexicons and other valuable resources that would not otherwise be concentrated in one easily accessible location

This is assuming that that's what they're doing. Currently, their website is user-driven, so none of the information is actually generated or backed by them. It's just a bunch of user submitted Youtube videos, some ressources that aren't verified or filtered (a lot of pointless "sample" documents too).

3) there's an advantage to Google being able to throw some money at the problem

This assumes they're putting their money into documenting any of these languages, which does not appear to be the case. Their whole website just says that they're an alliance, and that the project is collaborative.

5) Wikipedia is great, but it's not really set up to be an archive for all the materials needed to preserve thousands of languages. Wikipedia does not have the expertise or capacity to archive sound recordings and videos of native speakers that Google can muster.

The current Google project jacks information from Wikipedia (cf. all the incorrect geo-coordinates are due to redirects on Wikipedia), while just acting as a portal to non-reviewed user-submitted content. It's the exact same concept as Wikipedia, just more restrictive in that it's nothing more than a pretty map. Google does not have any more "expertise" in acting as a portal to further research than Wikipedia does. Perhaps the only advantage is that Google owns Youtube, which allows it to throw up a better gallery of audio-visual content.

7) No one else was doing this, that I know of, or at least on this scale. I certainly appreciate Google stepping up to organize such a thing.

On what scale? What exactly is Google doing that's different from Wikipedia, the LinguistList, or the Linguasphere Observatory? It's a map, a basic portal, and a lot of pretty for nothing.

[Pthagnar]

To be perfectly honest, I see what you're saying. You mean "we" in the sense of the modern, international world, as opposed to the isolated tribal world. In that sense, the world at large may be enriched from the knowledge of these people, but the loss of their language is, as I said, a thinning out of or even obliteration of their traditions and culture. Whether this is actually bad or simply sentimentalism on our part is hard to say, since language loss has likely been going on since prehistory.

not exactly. i mean "we" in the sense of "people". you are taking it for granted that for Mr. and Mrs. Gumbaynggirr and the little Gumbaynggirrets to speak English|Spanish|Whatever instead is an improvement for them, and I will happily go with this. Now just as it is an improvement for humanity when *you* do better without making somebody else worse off, so it is for when *they* do. I group all gains and all losses together because it beats the hell out of coming up with silly categories like "the isolated tribal world" v "the modern, international world" as though you were carving nature at anything resembling joints.
And so sentimentalism on my part or your part hardly matters, since the people being made worse off would not really be me or you, but the Gumbaynggirr family. If the "isolated tribal world" were made worse off, then it would be *because* the Gumbaynggirr family were made, all things considered, worse off. And if this were the case, then the *world* would be worse off.

NE: and your last sentence is nonsense. rape has been going on since prehistory, therefore ...?

[Jashan]

This looks like something I shall happily waste hours exploring. Thankee for the link.

[clawgrip]

not exactly. i mean "we" in the sense of "people". you are taking it for granted that for Mr. and Mrs. Gumbaynggirr and the little Gumbaynggirrets to speak English|Spanish|Whatever instead is an improvement for them, and I will happily go with this. Now just as it is an improvement for humanity when *you* do better without making somebody else worse off, so it is for when *they* do. I group all gains and all losses together because it beats the hell out of coming up with silly categories like "the isolated tribal world" v "the modern, international world" as though you were carving nature at anything resembling joints.
And so sentimentalism on my part or your part hardly matters, since the people being made worse off would not really be me or you, but the Gumbaynggirr family. If the "isolated tribal world" were made worse off, then it would be *because* the Gumbaynggirr family were made, all things considered, worse off. And if this were the case, then the *world* would be worse off.

NE: and your last sentence is nonsense. rape has been going on since prehistory, therefore ...?

So you are saying that humanity as a whole stands to gain when minority languages are replaced with majority languages, because these people are able to interact with a greater number of people and thus have a higher potential of putting to use on a broad scale any latent talents they may have that the minority language community is likely unable to properly develop and improve? If so, I can agree in that sense.

I think equating language death to rape is a bit of a stretch. We can agree that when South Africans are forced to give up their language in order to hide from the Dutch, who are trying to hunt down and kill everyone from their tribe, this is a bad thing. But when, for example, speakers of a minority language willingly chose to discard their language because the majority language offers more opportunities, is this bad? If so, why?

[Pthagnar]

i did not equate language death to rape. i *likened* something which has been going on ever since the neolithic to something else which has been going on ever since the neolithic and observed that one was very obviously bad despite its lengthy tradition, the implicit conclusion being "it is bullshit not to say that something is bad just because it is old".
of course, they are not independent. back in the good old days, rape and language death went together when group X conquered group Y. The Yites who weren't killed were raped and enslaved, and part of being enslaved means taking X as master, and so giving up the Yish way of life. All of which is fairly deplorable.

And again no not exactly. I am saying that *if* humanity stands to gain from etc. then it is *only because* the individual people stand to gain. *if* humanity stands to lose from etc. then it is *only because* the individual people stand to lose. this does not make it any easier to judge if people lose or gain, but it stops a lot of waffle about ~tribal worlds~.

[Radius Solis]

But there is a humanitarian argument to be made for language preservation beyond the sentimentality and loss-of-knowledge arguments.

People may certainly switch languages because they choose to, and thereby benefit; but this is sometimes quite comparable to how people choose to do horrible work for horrible pay and thereby benefit (in the sense that it beats unemployment and homelessness). In many cases, for both, it's nothing you could call a happy choice. Meanwhile watching one's native culture and language slowly die out can cause deep pain and grief.

Much of that is unavoidable. But for us to go on about how great the benefits are for those linguistic minorities to finally join the world culture is rather a lot like the affluent going on about how poor people should feel happy to have their shitty jobs because they "build character" or whatever.

[Izambri]

Aragonese appears as "severely endangered". It doesn't surprise me... And what is doing the Aragonese government to protect the language?

Nothing.
And to round it off declares that the language spoken in the Pyrenean zone (Huesca province) is la lengua aragonesa propia de las áreas pirenaica y prepirenaica "the Aragonese language from the Pyrenean and pre-Pyrenean areas", and the one spoken in La Franja is la lengua aragonesa propia de el área oriental "the Aragonese language typical of the Eastern zone".

WTF? So Spanish is now "Western Aragonese" and Occitan is "Transpyrenean Aragonese", I guess.

[Pthagnar]

[quote="Radius Solis"][/quote]
as humanitarian aid goes, that is rather palliative, but you are right.

although the parallel in your last paragraph can be made more explicit -- poor people like being rich and are well aware of rich people's existence. the nasty missionaries say what you say, but the nice ones who are following them closely go "it is not so bad for them, you know; in their little worlds they don't know how much their lives suck [so let's try to keep it that way]". the palliative form of this is "well it is far too late for them, now they have to grow up in a world that is too big for them with their innocence lost -- let's make sad art about them!".
the benefits are *real* and since, as you say, it is unavoidable, then to take advantage of them with the knowledge that although the Babylonians/Romans/Normans/Tories/Yanquis never go away, once you get involved in the world, they don't appear quite so invincible as they first seemed. which makes it *all the more* important to keep that shit alive, of course, even if it appears dead to people ignorant of cultural cryogenics!

[ol bofosh]

Just looked at the dots in Britain. There's Cornish and Scottish Gaelic, no sight of Welsh. Don't know how Polari got on there, and have absolutely no idea Sekpele or Yora are. I guess they come from immigrant communities living in London or something. I'm going to look them up now. I like how they've considered some sign languages.

[Vuvuzela]

Just looked at the dots in Britain. There's Cornish and Scottish Gaelic, no sight of Welsh. Don't know how Polari got on there, and have absolutely no idea Sekpele or Yora are. I guess they come from immigrant communities living in London or something. I'm going to look them up now. I like how they've considered some sign languages.

Welsh isn't endangered. Polari, Cornish, and Scottish Gaelic are. I think Sekpele and Yora may be a glitch.

[Rodlox]

It could be an oversight, a reminder, a simplified reference to two Inuit languages or political correctness.

1) Both the Denmark dot and the Greenland dot lead to the same Inuit page.
2) But I don't see a link to English in North America...

when did English become an endangered language?

There are also things like medical knowledge or other traditional practices that may have a practical basis in scientific fact but are not recognized. Certain cultures may have knowledge of specific plants that are beneficial in some way, but as people lose their language, they often lose their cultural knowledge with it.

What're some examples of valuable and useful medical (or other) knowledge that've been gained from dying languages in say, the past 50 years? How do they compare with modern medical practices?

there are some examples in this month's issue of National Geographic magazine's article on endangered languages.

There's a subtle bias here. There's plenty of talk about "losing" a language, but none about gaining another; They obviously goes hand in hand. Really, is their nothing positive about losing a language and gaining another?

is there anything positive about losing the love of your life, and then going on a date? (or losing your liver and being put on a waiting list)

[Qwynegold]

A lot of languages are misplaced, so it wouldn't surprise me that there are other errors (Okinawan appears in the Ocean for me, and the dots for Okinoerabu and Yoron are superimposed and misplaced on Okinawa Island).

Also, Dalecarlian appears in Uppland instead of Dalarna, and some South American language appears in the middle of the Arctic Ocean.

[Terra]

People may certainly switch languages because they choose to, and thereby benefit; but this is sometimes quite comparable to how people choose to do horrible work for horrible pay and thereby benefit (in the sense that it beats unemployment and homelessness). In many cases, for both, it's nothing you could call a happy choice. Meanwhile watching one's native culture and language slowly die out can cause deep pain and grief.

Indeed, watching your world-view collapse is distressing and agonizing, but it doesn't mean that it's worth preserving. The agony of learning that the earth is not the center of the solar system, or that humans are the result of evolution, if you've long believed the opposite, is very real.

when did English become an endangered language?

Ack, I forgot about that for a moment. I was just thinking about languages that are recent immigrants.

is there anything positive about losing the love of your life, and then going on a date? (or losing your liver and being put on a waiting list)

Why do you frame it as "losing the love of your life"? In the typical 3-stage model of language shift, each generation teaches the next generation the language that they want, willingly. The second generation simply doesn't care as much as the first, to teach it to the third. Why should the first have authority over what the second (and later) generations decide?