Biocultural diversity
comprises the diversity of life in all of its manifestations: biological, cultural, and linguistic, which are interrelated (and likely coevolved) within a complex socio-ecological adaptive system. This definition comprises the following key elements:

• The diversity of life is made up not only of the diversity of plants and animal species, habitats, and ecosystems found on the planet, but also of the diversity of human cultures and languages.
• These diversities do not exist in separate and parallel realms, but rather are different manifestations of a single, complex whole.
• The links among these diversities have developed over time through the cumulative global effects of mutual adaptations, likely of a co-evolutionary nature, between humans and the environment at the local level. (LM)

Diglossia:
functional differentiation between languages, e.g., using one language or variant at home or in the neighbourhood, and another one for more formal purposes. (TSK)

Endemic species & languages:
those found in restricted locales (typically, within a single country) and nowhere else. (DH)

Ecocultural Health

is the well–functioning (sustainability) of the human/environment system. The field of research concerned with eco-cultural health merges two holistic concepts: that of ecosystem health and that of biocultural diversity. Looking at ecosystems from a ‘humans-in-environment’ perspective, eco-cultural health brings together the biophysical aspects (soil, air, water, biota), economic aspects (human activities and their sustainability), social and cultural aspects (values, practices) and human and animal health. The health of eco-cultural systems can be measured in terms of resilience, vitality, and organization. Today, we are experiencing the loss of health of both ecosystems and the world’s cultures – placing the fate of the earth in considerable peril. Bringing to the fore a more integrative concept of nature and culture, and devising clear measures of conditions and trends in eco-cultural health at global and sub-global levels, should enable a reformulation of public policy on the environment to enhance the sustainability of life on our planet. (DR)(LM)

top

Indigenous or tribal; a "traditional community":
the terms "indigenous" and "tribal" can be understood according to the definition in Art. 1 of the International Labour Organization's Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (I.L.O. 169), which states that the Convention applies to:

(a) Tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations;

(b) Peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present State boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.

Discussion

Art. 1 of I.L.O. 169 also states that: "Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply". These criteria are followed in various other international instruments and by many indigenous and tribal peoples themselves. Official as well as self-appellation preferences for the use of "indigenous" vs."tribal" (as well as others such as "native", "aboriginal", "ethnic minority", etc.) vary from one region of the world to the other. A highly simplified description is to say that there is a general tendency toward the use of "indigenous" (or variants thereof) to refer in particular to the original inhabitants of the Americas, Australia, and the Pacific, while the terms "tribal" or "ethnic minority" are more common in Africa and Asia. The expression "traditional communities" is also commonly used to refer to "local communities embodying traditional lifestyles", as per Article 8j of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (LM)

Only peoples, not minorities or populations or (ethnic or other) groups, have the right to self-determination in international law (see Why is it important whether a group is defined as a minority according to international law or not?). This has led to terminological disputes. The U.N. Group which worked for over a decade with the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, was, for instance, called "U.N. Working Group on Indigenous Populations", not "Peoples". The problem has also led to the formulation of legal exceptions (as in the I.L.O. Convention 169 above) which, though using "peoples", stipulates that the use of the word shall not have any consequences for the rights that lie with "peoples" elsewhere in international law, i.e., indigenous or tribal groups do not have the right to self-determination in the classical sense (= independence).

Gudmundur Alfredsson (1990: 5) sees the criterion of inhabitation of land since "time immemorial" as the critical factor for defining indigenous peoples. Stener Ekern (1998: 7) asserts that the criterion of descent seems "to come out as the least significant criterion", especially because of (a) several consecutive colonisations (Africa); (b) many Asian countries in addition claim that all their peoples are indigenous; and (c) many groups (such as the Basques, Tuaregs, Kurds) reject the status of "indigenous". The decisive factors, according to him, are "a disadvantageous relation with a national community" and "readiness to adopt the status of 'indigenous' or 'tribal' as against the external world. In practice, groups choose to be indigenous if it is politically expedient. If not, it might be better to appear as minorities or colonised nations fighting for self-determination" (ibid.).

Some broad definitions suggest a focus on endo-definitions and on cultural and other differences from the rest of the society, and on the will to transmit them to succeeding generations. These definitions share many characteristics with definitions of minorities (see Minority). One representative example is the definition by José R. Martinez Cobo, Special Rapporteur appointed by the U.N. Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities to study the problems of discrimination against indigenous peoples (1987: 4). "[I]ndigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, in having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems" (emphases added; the focussed characteristics are in bold). Not surprisingly, the U.N. Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does not contain a definition of indigenous peoples.

Since virtually all indigenous peoples are also at the same time minorities in terms of both numbers and power (less than 50% of the population and non-dominant), they can in principle make use of all the rights that minorities have in international law. Still more important is that most of them have never properly surrendered or abandoned their sovereignty as a people -- it has been forcibly taken from them. This is also true in most cases where there have been treaties with the colonisers. Therefore they should be seen as sovereign entities, with the right to negotiate self-determination.

For further references, see Clark & Williamson's edited volume Self-Determination: international perspectives (1996); de Varennes 1996a, b; Hannum 1988, 1989, 1990; Martinez Cobo 1987; Alfredsson 1990, 1991; Thornberry 1987, 1991, 1995, 1997. Patrick Thornberry is also finishing a substantial book on the rights of indigenous peoples, due out in 2001. (TSK)

top

Language or Dialect?:
Short definition: a language is a dialect promoted by élites.

Discussion

Sometimes one can hear people speaking about "those tribes in Africa with all their dialects" while the same people speak about "European nations with their languages". Without necessarily intending to do so, one can in this way hierarchise people and what they speak. In Debi Prasanna Pattanayak's view (1991: 27-28), "the developed countries treat their respective dominant languages as resources, call them world languages, and use them to further their national interest', while those of the 'third world élites' who follow the West 'deride the mother tongues' in their own countries 'as dialect, slang, patois, vernacular, and condemn them to marginal use, or completely ignore them" (ibid., 28). But we can also hear a genuine question: is what XX speak a "language", or is it a "dialect"? Can the question be answered? What is the difference between a language and a dialect?

There are no linguistic criteria for differentiating between a language and a dialect (or vernacular or patois). Structural similarity or dissimilarity can only tell apart very dissimilar languages. It is easy to confirm that, for instance, Chinese and English, or Kurdish and Turkish are clearly different languages because their linguistic structures are so dissimilar. But despite being structurally very close to each other, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian are called different languages. Serbian and Croatian may be even closer to each other but they are now (again) called two different languages. Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi are both structurally and lexically very similar, Kannada and Marathi are structurally almost the same but lexically dissimilar -- all are called different languages. Structural similarity can thus mainly be used to differentiate between two languages in cases which are so clear that no linguists would be needed anyway to solve the problem. In other cases, linguistic criteria are not of much help.

"Mutual intelligibility" has also been used as a criterion: if you understand a "language", A, without being taught that "language", it is a dialect (or another variety) of your own "language", B. Or your own "language" B is a dialect of the one you can understand, A. Or what both of you speak (A & B), are dialects of some third entity, C, which is then called "a language". But if you don't understand A, it is a different language. But the criterion of mutual intelligibility is also far from unambiguous. Let us say that speaker A understands B, and speaker B understands C, who in her turn understands D. On the other hand, speaker A does not understand C, and speaker B does not understand D. Where is the boundary then between language and dialect. Or if A understands B but B does not understand A (non-reciprocal intelligibility), are A and B dialects of the same language for speaker A who understands both, but two different languages for speaker B who does not understand both? In situations where languages are oral (spoken) languages and have not been reduced to writing, people in neighbouring villages often understand each other, either well, or at least to some extent, despite the differences, but they may not understand people from villages much further away. These in turn understand their close neighbours, etc.

How well do the speakers need to understand each other? Is "semi-communication" enough (Haugen 1966: 102) or must the understanding be "complete" (and is it ever complete even between speakers of the same language)? Should the speakers who test the criteria be monolingual? It is, for instance, easy for me (Tove Skutnabb-Kangas), knowing other Indo-European languages like Danish, English, German, Latin, Norwegian and Swedish, to understand some Dutch, without having ever been taught Dutch. Would Dutch then be a separate language for a monolingual Swedish-speaker who does not understand Dutch, but a dialect of Swedish, or German or English, for me?

Is oral understanding enough, or should we rather use understanding of writing as a criterion? Or the opposite: is understanding writing enough, or should one also understand the oral mode? A Finn who has studied Swedish at school, understands some written Danish, but does not understand spoken Danish at all. Is oral Danish then a separate language from Swedish, while written Danish is a dialect of Swedish? And what about the deaf population?

Should the criterion be used only with language spoken by a native speaker, with normal speed, or can a second language speaker who speaks slowly also be used? Age, amount of formal schooling, degree of metalinguistic awareness, amount of exposure to the language or to other languages in general, learning styles, courage, motivation, fatigue, etc, obviously also affect intelligibility, in many situations much more than the "same language/different languages" question. Mutual intelligibility as a criterion thus discriminates well only in situations with structurally unrelated languages, as was the case with the structural linguistic criterion too.

Neither similarity or dissimilarity of structure, nor mutual intelligibility or lack of it can therefore differentiate between languages.

The social functions of languages, measured, for instance, by the speakers' own views on what are different languages, are based partly on the two linguistic criteria (structural similarity, mutual intelligibility), but mainly on extra-linguistic criteria. One possible criterion which has been suggested is standardization. Only dialects which have been reduced to writing (a prerequisite for standardization) and been standardized are languages, everything else is something else (dialect, vernacular, patois). Peter Trudgill's old definition (1983: 16) reflects this; for him "languages" were "independent, standardized varieties ... with, as it were, a life of their own". This would drastically reduce the number of "languages" in the world. Very few indigenous languages and only a handful of sign languages would qualify as languages according to this definition. But it can be understood in the sense that it only becomes natural to speak about a language as a specific, discrete unit, distinct from other similar units, when there is a written form of that language, claims Tore Janson, earlier Professor of Latin, now Professor of African Languages, at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden (1997: 125). The written forms of today's languages in Europe displaced and replaced other ways of writing. In most cases, a written form came first and a name for the language only afterwards. One or some of the dialects were chosen as the basis for the written form, and the choice was obviously made by those or to benefit those who "needed" the written form in the first place: the élites, the state builders, the church representatives. These choices were also decisive for inclusion and exclusion: the rulers decided where the borders would be placed in the dialect continua between what was called one language and what another language.

Thus, the main criterion for whether something is a dialect of another language or a separate language (and what is being standardized, what not) is the relative political power of the speakers of that language/dialect. The decisions about what are "languages" and what are not, are thus political decisions. Those with enough power can claim that what they speak is a language and what less powerful groups speak are dialects. Political definitions of a language would be: "a language is a dialect with an army (and a navy)" or "a language is a dialect with state borders" or "a language is a dialect promoted by elites". (TSK)

Linguism:
Ideologies, structures, and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate, regulate, and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and immaterial) between groups which are defined on the basis of language (Skutnabb-Kangas 1988). (TSK)

Linguistic Genocide:
linguistic genocide is "prohibiting the use of the language of the group in daily intercourse or in schools, or the printing and circulation of publications in the language of the group".

Discussion

This was how linguistic genocide was defined in Article III(1) of the final draft of what became The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (E 794, 1948) of the United Nations. Article III was voted down in the U.N. General Assembly when the Convention was finally accepted, and is NOT part of the final Convention. But those states then members of the U.N. were in agreement that this was how the phenomenon could be defined. Therefore, we can still use the definition.

The "prohibition" in the definition can consist of direct physical punishment, for instance when indigenous or minority children were hit or left without food or had their mouth washed when they spoke their own language. It can also be indirect, structural or psychological. If there are no minority teachers in the pre-school or school and if the minority language is not used as the main medium of education and childcare, the use of the child is indirectly prohibited from using the minority language in daily intercourse or in school. If the child is being made to feel ashamed of her language so that she stops using it in daily intercourse, its use has also been prohibited. If libraries or publishers discriminate against literature in indigenous or minority languages, publication and distribution of publications in these languages is indirectly prohibited. All this can be a question of linguistic genocide.

The definition articles II(e) and II(b) in the present convention about what is genocide also fit indigenous and minority education. They define genocide as follows:

Article II(e), "forcibly transferring children of the group to another group"; and
Article II(b), "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group"; [emphasis added].

If an indigenous or minority child does not get the main part of her basic education through the medium of her own language and is forced to be in a SUBMERSION PROGRAMME (see this entry) , with a subtractive learning environment, and if this continues for several generations, minorities are forcibly assimilated. They are, at least linguistically, often also culturally, transferred to the majority group. Children who are not educated in their own language are not likely to speak this language to their own children. Education through the medium of a (foreign or second) dominant language which leads to first displacement and then replacement (see definition entry LINGUICISM CONTINUUM) of the mother tongue, can cause serious mental harm which may continue throughout the rest of the person's life. It can prevent the child's development potential from enfolding, psychologically, in terms of identity, in school achievement. It can prevent optimal participation in further education, in the labour market and in democratic participation in decision-making in society. Much of yesterday's and today's indigenous and minority education represents linguistic genocide. (TSK)

top

Minority:
Short definition: "a group which is smaller in number than the rest of the population of a State, whose members have ethnic, religious or linguistic features different from those of the rest of the population, and are guided, if only implicitly, by the will to safeguard their culture, traditions, religion or language. Any group coming within the terms of this definition shall be treated as an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority. To belong to a minority shall be a matter of individual choice". (The definition comes from Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson 1994a: 107, Note 2, and is based on her reformulation of the definition by the Council of Europe Commission for Democracy through Law (91) 7, Art. 2).

Discussion

In this definition the requirement of citizenship ("who are nationals of that State") which many legal definitions use, has been omitted because a forced change of citizenship to my mind cannot be required in order to be able to enjoy basic human rights. This interpretation has since been borne out by the U.N. Human Rights Commission's General Comment (4 April, 1996, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5) on Article 27 of the I.C.C.P.R. (the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). As long as many immigration states practise a fairly restrictive policy in granting citizenship (for instance, residence requirements which are longer than 3-4 years, and/or linguistic requirements, often based on evaluations by non-language-professionals, or ius sanguinis (only children whose parents have the citizenship, i.e., "sons and daughters of the soil", have a right to citizenship), it also seems that especially children may suffer unduly if they are only granted basic linguistic rights after, in the best case, upwards of 5 years in the new country.

The definitions of both minority and different types of minorities (indigenous, national, regional, territorial, immigrant, etc.) are notoriously difficult. There is, despite many attempts, no legally accepted universal definition of a minority: see Andrések 1989; Capotorti 1979; Eide 1990, 1991; Palley 1984; Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson 1994a, note 2 and references in it for overviews of the criteria used in different definitions. For definitions and thorough treatises on the legal problems involved, see, e.g., Alfredsson 1990, 1991; Chernichenko 1996, 1997; Deschênes 1985; de Varennes 1996a; Eide 1993, 1996; Gromacki 1992; Packer 1993; Thornberry 1987, 1991, 1995, 1997. See also U.N. Human Rights Fact Sheet No. 18, Minority Rights, 1992: 8-10, and the revised version 1998: 13-14.

Most definitions use as defining characteristics a combination of the following:

A. Numbers; B. Dominance is used in some but not others ("in an inferior and non-dominant position", Andrések 1989: 60; "in a non-dominant position", Capotorti 1979: 96);

C. Ethnic or religious or linguistic traits, features or characteristics, or cultural bonds and ties which are (markedly) different from those of the rest of the population (in most definitions);

D. A will/wish (if only implicit) to safeguard, or preserve, or strengthen the patterns of life and behaviour, or culture, or traditions, or religion, or language of the group is specifically mentioned in most definitions (e.g., Capotorti 1979: 96). Language is included in most but not all definitions (e.g., not in Andrések's definition 1989: 60);

E. Citizenship/nationality in the state concerned is required in most definitions in charters and covenants as part of the definition, i.e. minorities are defined so as to give national or regional minorities more rights than to immigrants and refugees (who, by definition, are considered non-national and non-regional). In contrast, academic definitions for research purposes often make no mention of nationality as a criterion.

If an individual claims that she belongs to a national minority, and the State claims that there are no national minorities in that State (e.g., Kurds in Turkey or Finns in Sweden until 1998 -- France and the U.S.A. belong to this group, too), there is also a conflict, and the State may refuse to grant the minority person or group rights which it has accorded or might accord to national minorities. In most definitions of minority, minority rights thus become conditional on the acceptance by the State of the existence of a minority in the first place, i.e., only exo-definitions (see this definition entry) of minorities are accepted. According to my definition, minority status does NOT depend on the acceptance of the State, but is either "objectively" ("coming within the terms of this definition" -- but see the discussion about ethnicity as a characteristic or a relation) or subjectively verifiable ("a matter of individual choice").

Many of the definitions of indigenous peoples also have this combination of "objective" characteristics and self-identification (e.g., the definitions of "Sámi" for the purposes of voting rights to the Sámi Parliaments in Finland and in Norway). The processes whereby indigenous peoples are (or are not) "recognised" by the states in which they live still often reflect profoundly paternalistic approaches where exo-definitions only are valid.

The trend, though, seems to be towards self-identification only (endo-definitions), for numerically small groups. Minority definitions can be compared to definitions of ethnic groups -- they are similar. One benefit of endo-definitions is that even groups who have lost the mother tongue as a result of (forced) assimilation can still claim minority or indigenous status, because "language" is not necessarily part of an endo-definition. (We also get the same result if "mother tongue" is defined on the basis of self-identification, not competence -- see the definition entry mother tongue. Another benefit is that nobody who does not want to belong to a minority is forced to do so. This has been an important consideration in many legal and, especially, political discussions. On the other hand, "self-identification only" definitions tend to be to some extent paperwork products, describing an ideal situation where power relations are equal or do not influence what happens, i.e. they often work badly in real-life situations where dominant groups can prevent any rights accruing to a self-identifying (minority) group, even very large groups like the Kurds or the Palestinians. Likewise, some individuals may in a changing situation endo-define themselves as minority members because of economic benefits only.

We might also mention the relational aspect of definitions from three points of view. The first concerns the size of the unit of measurement. If a local or regional unit (or, for instance, a school district) is the unit of measurement, Spanish-speakers in Hayward (Oakland, California) or Russian-speakers in Narva or Sillamäe (Estonia) would be a majority. If the state is the unit of measurement, they are a minority. Native English-speakers are in many urban school districts in the U.S.A. a minority; in the whole of the U.S.A. they are a majority; on a global scale, again, they are a minority. The second aspect concerns the dependence of each group on the other: both "minority" and "majority" are concepts that require each other: you can only be a "minority" if you are compared to another unit which is in some aspect bigger/larger. The third aspect concerns the usual (power) relation between endo- and exo-definitions: the power of the respective groups is decisive for who can decide on both the unit of measurement and which comparisons are relevant, and therefore on the validation of the labels.

See also the question "Why is it important whether a group is defined as a minority according to international law or not?" (TSK)

Mothertongue:
Short definition: the mother tongue(s) is/(are) the language(s) one has learned first (provided it is a language one can express oneself fully in) and/or (voluntarily) identifies with.

Discussion

The former Director of the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Debi Prasanna Pattanayak: "Places are not geographical concepts; they exist in people's consciousness. So does the concept of 'mother tongue'. It is not a language in the general sense of the word, neither is it a dialect. It is an identity signifier waiting to be explained" (1992).

In the literature there are several different ways of defining mother tongues. I have distinguished between four different criteria for the definitions: origin, identification, competence and function (for details, see Skutnabb-Kangas 1984, Chapters 2-4; 2000, chapter 3):

Definitions of mother tongue.

CRITERION	DEFINITION
1. Origin	the language(s) one learned first (the language(s) in which one has established the first long-lasting verbal contacts).
2. Identification a) internal b) external	a) the language(s) one identifies with/as a native speaker of; b) the language(s) one is identified with/as a native speaker of, by others.
3. Competence	the language(s) one knows best.
4. Function	the language(s) one uses most.

Four theses about the mother tongues and the definitions:

1. The same person can have different mother tongues, depending on which definition is used.

2. A person's mother tongue can change during her/his life-time, even several times, according to all other definitions listed except the definition by origin.

3. A person can have several mother tongues, especially according to definitions by origin and identification, but also according to the other criteria.

4. The mother tongue definitions can be organized hierarchically according to their degree of linguistic human rights awareness. This degree in a society can be assessed by examining which definition(s) the society uses in its institutions, explicitly and implicitly. The definition which shows the highest degree of awareness of linguistic human rights is a combination or definitions of origin and internal identification: the mother tongue(s) is/(are) the language(s) one has learned first and identifies with.

The definition by function is the most primitive one: many people in powerless situations (speakers of indigenous or minority or numerically small languages) cannot choose which language(s) to use most, in daycare, schools, work, official contexts. Lack of use leads to less competence.

Some problems with the definitions:

A definition combining origin and internal identification implies that the language(s) identified with is/are the same as the original mother tongue(s), the language(s) learned first. It also presupposes that others accept the internal identification of a person. Therefore, there are a number of exceptions to seeing this definition as an optimal one. Two additional theses are needed:

5. It is possible to claim a mother tongue by identification, even if one knows very little, or sometimes, next to nothing, of the language, and even when native speakers do not identify one as a native speaker, or even when there are no native speakers. Mother tongue definitions have to be rethought so as to allow for situations where parents and children may not have the same mother tongue, especially by origin; for situations where the mother tongue by origin may not be learned in infancy and may not be taught by the primary care-takers; for situations where lost languages are being reclaimed as mother tongues by identification; and for fluid multilingual situations where multilingualism is the mother tongue , rather than one or two discrete languages. 6. What is accepted as somebody's mother tongue is crucially dependent on who has the right to define it. Mother tongues are relations to be negotiated, not (only) characteristics that people possess, and relations depend on who has more power.

It seems that the criterion of origin has to be left out in several cases. This leaves us with the self-identification criterion only.

Firstly, there is the situation of deaf children. Since most deaf children (90-95 per cent) are born to hearing parents who in most cases are not competent signers when the child is born, the child may not learn Sign language in infancy. Sign language (see entry SIGN LANGUAGES) may in some views not become the child's mother tongue according to the criterion of origin. But we also have to consider whether the child learns any other language, or whether Sign language, even if it comes only later, is the first natural language that the child learns properly. In any case, Sign languages are the only languages that Deaf children and adults can express themselves fully in.

Secondly, there is the case of indigenous and other peoples who have not had an opportunity of learning their parents' or grandparents' or ancestors' mother tongue(s), and in extreme cases, where there are no native speakers (or no competent speakers) left. We can have cases with individual reclamation or revival (see entries RECLAMATION and REVIVAL) of the language (the person wants to learn, or relearn, or learn more of the language and/or use it more and there are native speakers to learn from) or collective revival or reclamation. In these cases, the person/group may identify with a language they do not "know" or know well.

The last thesis can be exemplified with situations, where there is a conflict between internal and external self-identification of a mother tongue (or two). If a Deaf person (see entry Deaf vs. deaf) says that Sign language is her mother tongue (endo-definition, her own definition) while some people in the surrounding society say that the deaf person does not have any language (exo-definition, an outsider's definition), the two definitions collide. The Turkish Law 2932/3, annulled in 1991, stated that "The mother tongue of Turkish citizens is Turkish". The vice-chair of the Danish ruling Social Democratic Party, Lene Jensen, says (August 2000): "If one is born in Denmark and intends to stay, the mother tongue is Danish. Full stop". Kurds in Turkey and Turks in Denmark claim that their mother tongues are Kurdish and Turkish, respectively. Whose definition is valid? People in powerless positions have to negotiate about the validity of their internal identification, their endo-definition. Many countries still have laws which invalidate deaf people's own definition of their mother tongue. Outsiders (even hearing parents of deaf children) might claim that the child's mother tongue is (or at least should be, or become) the oral language that the parents speak, or a manually coded form of it (see entry SIGN LANGUAGES).

We might say that it is the person herself who in a human rights oriented view has the right to decide about her identity, and others have to accept this. Only endo-definitions should be valid. But this is naive in the real world. Just as "ethnicity" and statehood are not (only) characteristics that an ethnic group or a state possess, but relations to be negotiated (Palestine is not a state solely if the Palestinians proclaim it -- endo-definition -- since the statehood needs to be accepted/recognised by other states -- exo-definition); a mother tongue, too, is not (only) a characteristic that a person possesses. A mother tongue is also a relation. And relations have to be validated by both parties, i.e., a mother tongue needs external validation to be recognised as such. If those whose languages are already somehow accepted as languages do not accept that Sign language is a language (which can fulfill all the same functions as other mother tongues), Sign language is invalidated, delegitimised. An invalidated language cannot be a mother tongue, on a par with other mother tongues, and it does not get the same protection as other mother tongues in international law. A similar invalidation of other minority or dominated mother tongues is also common in several ways.

In societies with institutional and cultural linguicism (see linguicism) and discrimination, not all indigenous and minority children are allowed to identify positively with their original mother tongues and cultures. Many are being forced to feel ashamed of their mother tongues, their parents, their origins, their group and their culture. Many internalise the negative views which the majority society has of the indigenous/minority groups, their languages and cultures. Many disown their parents and their own group and language. They attempt, mostly under pressure, to shift identity, including linguistic identity, "voluntarily", and want to be German/ Dutch/ Anglo-American/ British/ Swedish/ Turkish, etc, instead of, respectively, Turkish/ Moluccan/ Mexican or Navajo/ Pakistani/ Finnish/ Kurdish etc. Wanting to change identity can also be a result of lack of linguistic and cultural competence in the original mother tongue and its concomitant culture, caused by a neglect of these by the school.

In order to accommodate the last two theses, we re-define the mother tongue:

The mother tongue(s) is/(are) the language(s) one has learned first (provided it is a language one can express oneself fully in) and/or (voluntarily) identifies with.

Still, this definition presupposes that people's endo-definition of their mother tongue is validated by others so that endo-definitions and exo-definitions coincide. This is what many "ethnic conflicts" (see entry ETHNIC CONFLICT) are about. (TSK)

Subtractive and additive language learning and language spread:

subtractive spread of languages -- incoming language displaces and then eventually replaces original languages.

subtractive language learning -- a dominant/majority language is learned at the cost of a mother tongue which is displaced and sometimes replaced.

additive spread of languages -- incoming language is initially used for new functions but does not replace original languages.

additive language learning -- a new language is learned in addition to the mother tongue which continues to be used and developed. (TSK)

top

Traditional ecological knowledge (T.E.K.):

T.E.K. is "[a] cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationships of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment". (Berkes 1999: 8)

The term "traditional", as used in this context, should not be taken to refer to something static and homogeneous. Rather, "tradition" should be understood as "a filter through which innovation occurs" (Posey in press), a "tradition of invention and innovation" (Pereira and Gupta 1993). In a report to the C.B.D. Secretariat, the Four Directions Council of Canada explains: "What is 'traditional' about traditional knowledge is not its antiquity, but the way it is acquired and used. In other words, the social process of learning and sharing knowledge, which is unique to each Indigenous culture, lies at the very heart of its 'taditionality'. Much of this knowledge is actually quite new, but it has a social meaning, and legal character, entirely unlike the knowledge indigenous people acquire from settlers and induastrialised sociaties" (Four Directions Council , 1996). Traditional knowledge also varies according to age, gender, and a host of other variables. (LM)

top

"Traditional knowledge", "indigenous peoples' knowledge":

Knowledge which is acquired and preserved through generations in an original or local society, consisting of experience in working to secure subsistence from nature. (DH)

U.N.E.S.C.O. Red Books' category definitions of endangered languages: - extinct languages, other than the ancient ones;
- possibly extinct languages, without reliable information of remaining speakers;
- nearly extinct languages, with maximally tens of speakers, all elderly;

- seriously endangered languages, with a more substantial number of speakers but practically without children among them;
- endangered languages, with some children speakers at least in part of their range but decreasingly so;
- potentially endangered languages, with a large number of children speakers but without an official or prestigious status;
- not endangered languages, with safe of language to new generations.

Source: www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/nasia_index.html, which is the Northeast Asia Red Book. The categories were developed by Juha Janhunen and Tapani Salminen. (TSK)

top

*Initially, much of this page's content is based on Linguistic Genocide in Education — Or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? written by Dr. Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (TSK). The book was published in 2000 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 10 Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430-2262 U.S.A. The book has 818 pages, with figures, tables, definition boxes, address boxes, information boxes, inserts, reader tasks and 4 indices. The bibliography (over 1,600 references) is a good starting point for additional sources.