[RNLD] Case of Funding denied for languages described as "Vigorous" in Ethnologue.

Tue Aug 5 13:24:52 UTC 2014

Dear Dr. Morey and others,

Please find attached a copy of a paper presented by Gary Simons and Paul Lewis, two of the editors of the Ethnologue, at the 26th Linguistics Symposium at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee in 2011.The paper was later published in the Responses to language endangerment volume edited by Mihas, Perley, Rei-Doval, and Wheatley (Simons, Gary F. & M. Paul Lewis. 2013. The world’s languages in crisis: A 20-year update. In Elena Mihas, Bernard Perley, Gabriel Rei-Doval & Kathleen Wheatley (eds.), Responses to language endangerment: In honor of Mickey Noonan. New directions in language documentation and language revitalization, vol. 142, 3–20. (Studies in Language Companion Series). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. http://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/slcs.142.01sim/details (5 November, 2013)). 

In the paper, Simons and Lewis discuss the basic rationale for their ratings: after applying EGIDS in the 2/3 of the cases for which they had sufficient data to make a determination, they followed a statement by Fishman (1991) to the effect that the lion’s share of the worlds languages are at a GIDS level 6. They write (p. 8 of pdf): "After the above steps, approximately one-third of the languages still remained with no estimate of the EGIDS level. In these cases we assigned EGIDS level 6a (Vigorous Oral Use) as the default. This follows Fishman’s (1991:92) assertion that “the lion’s share” of the world’s languages are at GIDS 6. This conservative approach undoubtedly paints a rosier picture than is actually the case. In particular, we suspect that many of the languages that have defaulted to 6a would more properly be assigned to 6b, but we are lacking the information to make that distinction. However, we have every expectation and hope that where the evaluations are significantly in error, corrections will be forthcoming as part of an ongoing process of review. Indeed, in a few cases, our country reviewers have observed that 6b would be a more fitting default in that country, so we have made that adjustment.”

I have spoken with Dr. Simons about this methodology on a couple of occasions now and expressed my concerns. He and Dr. Lewis hope very much that, in each case where the designation 6a is disputed, the researcher(s) will send in documentation for an adjusted assessment so that changes can be made to render the Ethnologue a more accurate picture of the state of vitality of the world’s languages. To be fair, it should also be noted that at the 3rd ICLDC conference in Hawaii, Lyle Campbell presented data from the ELP and ELCat showing that just 46% of the world’s languages can be considered endangered. Like Simons’ and Lewis’ “rosier” picture of overall language vitality, with just 34% falling into the “in trouble” (18%) and “moribund” (16%) categories, this total likewise falls below Krauss’ (1992) bottom estimate of 50%. 

[As a side note: I have sat in on meetings to discuss revisions to the ISO 639-3 codes, and I imagine the process followed there is similar to what the Ethnologue editors would do with proposals to revise the EGIDS levels of languages listed there. Indeed, Gary Simons also sits on the body that reviews ISO 639-3 change requests. The committee review the proposed change and carefully sift through the documentation provided by the requesting researcher(s). It is the documentation provided with the request that forms the primary basis on which a final determination is made. The unsuccessful petitions generally share as a common fault the fact that they come in with either no documentation or very little/substandard documentation to substantiate their claims.]  

I have never, however, heard of any situation in which a proposed documentation project was rejected for funding because the Ethnologue’s EGIDS numbers for the language(s) in question were too high. I should be very surprised if this would ever happen. Most academics are well aware of the necessary grain of salt with which to take the Ethnologue’s numbers. I have spoken with Shobhana Chelliah, a current program director for the DEL program at the NSF, about the DEL review process a couple of times, and I don’t have the impression that she or the NSF look favorably upon the quantitative data of the Ethnologue as a definitive source of information on the basis of which to make funding decisions. I have, however, heard of the HRELP program rejecting applications because the language was not classified as endangered by UNESCO. One case in point is the Sicilian Dialect Theatre project currently featured on the Language Documentation Crowd website. Sicilian is listed in the Atlas of the world’s languages in danger as “vulnerable.”  

Anyway, I hope this information proves useful. 

Take care,
Stephen Self

On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:55 PM, Stephen Morey <s.morey at latrobe.edu.au> wrote:

> Thank you very much for pointing that out, Rosey. I would consider that setting the default status at 'vigorous' is indeed problematic. If there is no information, the surely it is better to say 'don't know' or something of that kind?
> 
> Stephen
> 
> From: Rosey Billington [rosey.billington at gmail.com]
> Sent: 05 August 2014 13:07
> To: Stephen Morey
> Cc: r-n-l-d
> Subject: Re: [RNLD] Case of Funding denied for languages described as "Vigorous" in Ethnologue.
> 
> Note also that 'vigorous' is the default language status - from the methodology page: "Where the data were not sufficient, we set the EGIDS default value at EGIDS 6a." Very problematic, given the limited availability of accurate population and language use data in many parts of the world.
> 
> http://www.ethnologue.com/about/language-status
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Stephen Morey <S.Morey at latrobe.edu.au>wrote:
> Dear RNLD members,
> 
> The Wikipedia site on 'Ethnologue' contains the following paragraph:
> 
> "With the 17th edition, Ethnologue introduced a numerical code for language status, along the lines of Fishman’s Graded Inter-generational Disruption Scale, that ranks a language from 0 for an international language to 10 for an extinct language with no attempt at revival.[12] This has had unintended consequences: Linguists have been denied funding for documenting endangered languages because Ethnologue rates them as "vigorous" (6); in doing so, SIL is addressing a competing concern, that missionaries generally cannot get funding to translate scripture unless the language is vigorous."
> 
> Does anyone know of any examples of the denial of funding for a project regarded byEthnologue as "vigorous"?
> 
> Stephen
> 
> Stephen Morey
> Australian Research Council Future Fellow
> Centre for Research on Language Diversity
> La Trobe University
> Website: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/humanities/about/staff/profile?uname=SMorey
> 
> Language data website: http://sealang.net/assam
> Dictionary websites: http://sealang.net/ahom;  http://sealang.net/singpho;http://sealang.net/phake 
> 
> Linguistic data archived at::
> DoBeS:  http://www.mpi.nl/DoBeS and follow a link to projects, then Tangsa, Tai and Singpho in North East India
> ELAR: http://elar.soas.ac.uk
> PARADISEC:  http://www.paradisec.org.au
>  
> North East Indian Linguistics Society: http://sealang.net/neils

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/resource-network-linguistic-diversity/attachments/20140805/4b6ccc2a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Simons Lewis The world?s languages in crisis.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 174095 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/resource-network-linguistic-diversity/attachments/20140805/4b6ccc2a/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/resource-network-linguistic-diversity/attachments/20140805/4b6ccc2a/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Mihas Perley Rei-Doval & Wheatley Responses to Language Endangerment. In honor of Mickey Noonan. New directions in language documentation and language revitalization (Studies in Language Compa
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2687650 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/resource-network-linguistic-diversity/attachments/20140805/4b6ccc2a/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/resource-network-linguistic-diversity/attachments/20140805/4b6ccc2a/attachment-0002.htm>