|
Back
to Language Ecology Home Page
Langaue
Ecology Course Proposal
Language Ecology
1. Summary
“When I think of my tongue being no longer alive in the mouths of men a
chill goes over me that is deeper than my own death, since it is the gathered
deaths of all my kind.”
— David Malouf, Antipodes (1985)
1.1. Introduction.
We envision a program of collaborative
scholarship and teaching in the emerg-ing field of language ecology.
Though its roots are old (with early Berkeley connections in the work
of scholars like A. L. Kroeber, M. B. Emeneau, and Dell Hymes), this
field has become a major locus of scholarly energy only in the last
decade due to convergent developments in anthropology, sociology, demography,
genetics, linguistics, psychology, cognitive science, educational theory,
and the study of individual language areas in their historical contexts.
Language ecology has now also assumed an unprecedented public profile
as globalization threatens to extinguish a majority of the world’s
6,000 languages by the end of this century; at this rate a language dies
every ten days. Since language is the primary medium through which a society
articulates its culture and history, and provides the cognitive structure
through which its people apprehend their world, language death on this new
scale has consequences that transcend all parochial boundaries.
The field of language ecology investigates the dynamics of languages in relation
to the groups of people who speak them; as such, we are centrally concerned
with problems of cultural change, con-tinuity, and transformation. Our work
focusses on a variety of processes, from historical expansion, displacement
(e.g. by migration), and contraction over the long term to everyday issues
of language choice, style, and repertoire in ongoing communities; these foci
converge in the crisis of language death, since an endangered language is
precisely one where, due to long-term contraction, everyday speech choices
may have devastating consequences. The longue durée requires methods developed in tandem
with disciplines such as archaeology, history, and population genetics, while
the contemporary dynamics of language and speech require a different set of
conceptual tools, for which we look to interactional sociolinguistics, sociocultural
anthropology, work on language learning and teaching, and the psychology of
language. Throughout this spectrum, we approach language as a nexus — an “ecology” — in
which social context, history and geography, population dynamics, ideology,
and cognition are interwoven and consequent on the forms and fates of linguistic
systems.
Questions of language ecology are especially critical in California. Two hundred
years ago Cali-fornia had the greatest language diversity of any comparable
area in the western hemisphere. Its indigenous languages are today mostly either
dead or in imminent danger of death, mainly as a result of earlier government
policies. Maintaining these languages is now government policy (the 1990 Native
American Languages Act) and our urgent moral obligation. But California is
also home to the greatest immigrant language diversity of any state in the
U.S. New citizens from East and Southeast Asia, from the Philippines and Pacific
Islands, and from Mexico, Central America, and South America bring their languages
with them and try to find a way of maintaining their diasporic cultures while
participating in the mainstream world of American English. Many of the political
controversies of recent decades reflect this tension, and our experience is
that Berkeley students at all levels are fascinated by these and related issues.
1.2. Faculty positions.
We propose to make eight new appointments
in areas now unrepresented at Berkeley. The intellectual rationale for these
positions is detailed in section 3.1 below; here we summarize. We first identify
four complex geographical, historical, and language areas that are
not only interesting in their own right (boththeoretically and methodologically)
but are also of particular significance in light of our students’ demographic
profile. These rubrics are meant also to include the relevant diasporic
cultures and languages in California:
• New World Spanish
• Indigenous languages of Latin America
• East Asia (China, Japan, Korea)
• Southeast Asia or Pacific Islands
We will seek to hire specialists in the language ecology of all four of these
areas. We expect that they would be housed (wholly or partly) in Spanish & Portugese,
Ethnic Studies, East Asian Languages & Cultures, and South & Southeast
Asian Studies.
We also identify six theoretically defined areas where we seek to make appointments
(probably in Anthropology, Cognitive Science, Demography, Education, Linguistics,
and Ethnic Studies or an area-studies department):
• Population and language. A specialist in the relation between language
and diaspora, migration, or other historical transformations of society
and population. [Anthropology.]
• Quantitative analysis of language and society. A computationally sophisticated
scholar with training in quantitative analysis of language form and practice
and their relation to speech communities, ideally also with training in
demography or population modelling. [Affiliation would depend on background;
an appointment in more than one department is especially likely.]
• Cognition, meaning, and society. A specialist in the relation of language
form and practice to modes of thinking and acting, ideally with special
attention to cross-cultural or typologically diverse so-cial contexts. [Cognitive
Science, jointly appointed with another department.]
• Learning and teaching in multilingual settings. A scholar who studies
the role of language in learning and teaching, particularly in bilingual
or multilingual contexts. [Graduate School of Education.]
• Languages in contact. A specialist in language or dialect contact: multilingual
language use; linguis-tic and sociocultural accomodation, hybridity, interlanguage,
innovation, and diffusion; effects of contact on language structure and
practice. [Linguistics.]
• Local language use. A specialist in language use in contracted, endangered,
or small-scale contexts. [Ethnic Studies or an area-studies department.]
These six positions fall naturally into three groups of two: the first two
positions are especially con-cerned with populations, the next two with cognition,
and the last two with sociocultural context.
We seek a total of eight new positions (not ten) because we will insist that
at least two of the re-gionally and theoretically defined positions overlap;
for example, a New World Spanish specialist might focus on language learning
and teaching. In fact, given the complexity and relevance of the populations
and languages of California, we expect that more than two of the theoretically
defined appointments will result in scholars who focus on the Americas and
the Pacific Rim.
1.3. Organizational structure.The proposed program will
be embodied in an interdepartmental Graduate Group, which will administer
an undergraduate Minor, a heritage-language M.A. program, and a Designated
Emphasis for Ph.D. students in various departments. See section 3.5 below.
2. Background
2.1. Why now?
Our proposed program fits
into a nascent network of worldwide interest. The most conspicuous manifestation
of this interest is a series of recent books and general publications
on the urgent crisis of language endangerment and death, and on related
areas of language ecology. In Europe, the language endangerment crisis
has become a concern of major foundations, two of which — the
Volkswagen Stiftung in collaboration with the Max Planck Institute
in Nijmegen, and the Lisbet Rausing Charitable Fund in collaboration
with the School of Oriental and African Studies (University of London) — have
set up multi-million-dollar grant programs for endangered-language
documentation. Major American foundations have not yet followed suit,
but we hope that the creation of our program and similar enterprises
will help spur them to action. To ensure basic documentation of all
human languages within a generation or two, we estimate that about
200 new projects must be initiated worldwide every year, with a similar
rate of publication; few more urgent tasks confront the community of
scholars.
Not only the field of endangered-language study but also the study
of heritage languages has grown enormously within education and linguistics
and in the various language and literature fields. For example, a new
Heritage Language Journal has been founded at UCLA, UC San Diego is
now searching for a specialist in heritage linguistics, and the Second
Heritage Languages Conference re-cently met in Washington, D.C., under
the auspices of the Heritage Languages Intiative launched in 1999 by
the Center for Applied Linguistics and the National Foreign Language
Center.
The field of language ecology also has an important role
to play on the specifically national stage. As we look in the American
mirror, it becomes obvious that our nation’s sociocultural and
linguistic diversity is both a source of great strength and energy
and a locus of enormous controversy. Issues of language ecology loom
large in any study of these phenomena. Just as clearly, as we look
at the world we are embedded in, we see that the tensions associated
with global vs. local cultural practices, knowledges, and traditions
have enormous, sometimes catastrophic consequences. We see the study
of language ecology as a central part of understanding and offering
historical perspective to this set of problems.
In this as in many areas California serves as a microcosm
and as the leading edge of our nation, and as the flagship University
of California campus Berkeley confronts every one of these issues.
In addition, we should point out that a Language Ecology program will
offer a new way of framing the study of language in area-studies and
national-literature departments. The practice in many institutions
is for each such department to hire at least one linguist, who typically
specialized in the philological and historical study of the relevant
language or language family. But as department faculties tend to shift
their interests away from philological research, the need for philologically
oriented language specialists has become controversial. Scholars interested
in the dynamics of speech communities — cultural
contact; style and repertoire; the relation between language and local knowledge — could
help revive aproductive interaction between language-oriented and
literary-cultural “camps”.
2.2. Comparable academic ventures.
Universities in this
country and abroad have
begun to rec-ognize both the urgency and the intellectual
vitality of the field we propose to institutionalize here. At the same
time, no comparable venture has precisely the intellectual scope of
ours; most treat only part of an organic whole. For example, this year
alone, at least two new graduate programs relating to endangered languages
are being established at prominent institutions. In tandem with the
Rausing grants mentioned above, the School of Oriental and African
Studies (University of London) has a new professorial position and
graduate funding in a program to train students and postdoctoral scholars
in endangered language documentation. Even more significantly, M.I.T.
is now setting up an M.A. program aimed at indigenous communities seeking
to preserve endangered languages. This is important not just because
M.I.T. has had the world’s
most influential linguistics department for 40 years, since the start
of the research program associated with Noam Chomsky, but also because
that research program is sometimes criticized as ungrounded in socioculturally
and structurally diverse language data. More broadly, we have observed
that anthropology and linguistics departments seeking to make new appointments
now often explicitly cite endangered-language research specializations
as desiderata.
Programs specifically devoted to endangered-language
documentation and to training members of local communities to teach
and help preserve their own languages are important, and it will take
many such programs to have the impact they need to have. Our proposed
program subsumes this approach, but for its long-term success we believe
that it is absolutely essential at the same time to understand the
ecological bases for sociocultural processes of language contraction,
endangerment, and death. What distinguishes our proposed program from
similar enterprises is our insistence on this full context — an
insistence, in short, that the world-wide crisis of language endangerment
that brings us together is a complex problem whose understanding requires
the tools of many disciplines and knowledge developed in many areas
of the world.
2.3. Berkeley in the future of language ecology.
Berkeley
is poised to be an international leader in our emerging field. The
campus units supporting this proposal house important scholars who
work on aspects of the field, and their students make innovative contributions;
Berkeley’s archival resources
for endangered and minority language study are also unparalleled. Some other
aspects of the field are not yet represented on campus, nor is there any overarching
structure (department, graduate group, ORU, or other unit) into which its various
elements now fit. Indeed, with participants from three major administrative
divisions — the Divisions of Arts & Humanities and Social Sciences
and the Graduate School of Education — only a new interdisciplinary
framework will nurture the synergies we anticipate. A Berkeley program
in Language Ecology would quickly become the intellectual and professional
center of a growing field nationwide, and it would attract international
attention (as current Berkeley participants already do individually).
3. Academic review criteria
The specific questions posed in the preproposal instructions are addressed
in sections 3.1 (Intellec-tual content of program), 3.2 (Societal importance),
3.3 (Resource base), and 3.4 (Student base). In section 3.5 we provide
an overview of our pedagogical goals and the structures in which they
will be realized, and we add a brief conclusion in section 3.6.
3.1. Intellectual content.
Human language is a cognitive system embedded
in sociocultural, inter-personal, demographic, and historical contexts;
that is, language has systematic internal properties as well as systematic
links with external cultural systems such as ethnomusicology, folklore,
writing, and others. As we see it, the core theoretical and methodological
issues of our field form the following series of five spokes radiating
from the central problem of ecology:
• Social context. This summarizes the following issues among others relating
to language and cul-ture: bilingualism; languages in contact; interlinguistic
processes; hybridity; language repertoires (cf. e.g. Makoni 1998a, 1998b) and
genres (inter- or intra-language); folklore and ethnopoetics; indigenous textualities; “textualization” (Clifford
1988); and the sociological diffusion of linguis-tic innovations.
• History and geography. The central
problem here is the historical trajectory of languages in relation
to the places where they are spoken and the communities who speak them.
Of special interest are processes of migration, the emergence and typologies
of language areas, functional contraction and expansion of the spheres
in which languages are used, language as repository of knowledge,
and practices of landscape and place. For our proposed program, rich examples
of these dynamics are provided by Native and immigrant languages of California,
the historical ecology of Pacific Rim languages, and the historical
development of language families, using the combined approaches of archaeology,
history, diachronic linguistics, and anthropology.
• Population dynamics. This summarizes the population
basis of language and speech communities, for example drawing on demography,
biological cladistics, or epidemiological models to under-stand language spread,
contraction, and displacment and other population-based dimensions of language
ecology. The methods of population studies, both statistical and macrodemographic
(stable population theory, Lee-Carter forecasting, etc.), offer productive
models for analyses of language speakers as members of populations. Empirically,
demographic studies of migration present important points of contact with studies
of language diaspora. More generally, studies of population dynamics raise
the prospect of interdisciplinary work on human origins, the for-mation of
the human and linguistic populations of whole continents, and relations among
lin-guistic, biological, and cultural diversity, between linguistic and cultural
areas, or between trajec-tories of language spread and of political and cultural
influence and trade (cf. e.g. Blench & Spriggs
1998 among other recent works).
• Ideology. This concerns language as a repository
of value, as a means of
propagating values. and as a valued object
in its own right. We include phenomena such as linguistic hegemony,
lan-guage attitudes, language policy (e.g. its impact on bilingual
or non-majority-language-speaking populations), and standardization
(in present-day societies and historically, e.g. in Renaissance Europe
or ancient Rome). Relevant problems are aptly illustrated by nativist
and revivalist social movements such as the Central American Pan-Mayan
movement and analogous movements elsewhere in the Americas (Quebec, Brazil,
Mexico). Language ideologies have a basic impact on language ecology, by altering
the degree to which speaking populations strive to reinforce, expand, or abandon
use of given languages, with an array of associated changes in the form
and social life of the languages.
• Cognition. Language is fundamental to human cognition, and the dynamics
studied in language ecology are consequent on the cognitive dimensions
of speech, practical reasoning, and thinking for speaking (Slobin 1987,
1991). There is a growing literature on culturally specific structuring of semantic
domains such as space (e.g. Hanks 1990, Levinson 1996, Bickel 1997, Senft
1997, Pederson et al. 1998), local forms of knowledge (e.g. Maffi 2001), and
metaphor (e.g. Talmy 1983, 1985, 1988). Similarly, literacy regimes, orthographies,
and writing systems all have potential cognitive dimensions. In light of
this research, what are the cognitive causes and effects of language attrition
or expansion, language blending, multilingualism, and language learning in a
plurilingual context?
Working among these five broad areas, we seek to produce careful analyses,
informed by a com-parative perspective, of specific language communities
and their historical trajectories. Language ecology is both a transdisciplinary
conceptual focus in which we seek to develop theory and method
and an empirical focus in which we will produce description and analsysis
of particular cases. We have at Berkeley excellent resources with which
to develop empirical studies. A conspicuous exam-ple is California, whose
unique character is of obvious relevance to our students and the public
they are part of. As with the state we serve, Berkeley offers a uniquely
rich diversity of native and immi-grant populations with diasporic links
to cultures and languages of the Pacific Rim and with Hispa-nophone and
indigenous populations to the south. The historical dimensions of language
ecology will lead us to interact with scholars in a variety of historical
areas, including prominently at Berkeley the ancient Mediterranean world
(the social dynamics of Greek, Latin, Celtic, Etruscan, Egyptian, and Phoenician),
the ancient Near East (Akkadian, Hebrew, Hittite, and other speech communities),
societies of ancient India or China, and of course the Americas.
In order to operationalize the five spokes or clusters outlined above,
we need to break them down further into mid-range thematic foci
which can be addressed in a systematic fashion. We see these foci as heruistic
themes around which research collaboration, teaching and student
fieldwork, workshops, and colloquia will be organized. All of them will
be approached from a comparative perspective, drawing on work in a broad
array of language ecologies. Our overall aim is to explore fundamental
principles of ecological embedding through mid-range and case-specific
research and teaching. While the precise definition of project themes will
depend on future circumstances, the following will serve as a guide:
• Language, mind, subject. This theme lies at the intersection of social
and cognitive embeddings of language. It includes adult language
processing from a typological perspective, with special fo-cus on bilinguals
and monolingual speakers of languages other than English, as well as language,
education, and the making of subjects and minds.
• Language in society. This theme joins social, demographic (population),
and historical embeddings of language. It includes sociocultural
approaches to language, quantitative sociolinguistics, lin-guistic anthropology
and theories of context, speech practices in multilingual and multivarietal
contexts, standardization, encapsulation and marginalization.
• Language, culture, and meaning. This theme joins social, historical,
and cognitive embeddings of language, with emphasis on meaning production and
the study of communicative practices. Specific research projects under this rubric
would involve semantic typology, the (cross-cultural) semantics of minority languages,
ethnographic and cognitive semantics, language ideologies, and learning (Kramsch
1993, Rampton 1995, Kern 2000, Scollon & Scollon 2001).
• Population and language. This theme is situated at the intersection of
language, population, society, and history. As far as we know this
is a new area of study combining demography, cladistics, biological anthropology,
and linguistics to investigate the consequences of population dynamics
for language form and function (expansion, contraction, displacement, and endangerment
due to diaspora, migration, colonization, globalization).
• Language and political economy. This theme joins language form, ideology,
social and historical ap-proaches to language policy and planning,
linguistic markets, multilingual societies and discursive formations. It investigates
social systems through which languages are reproduced, and the role
of language in reproducing and transforming societies.
• Language and symbolic systems. This theme articulates linguistic systems
and practices with other modalities, including gesture, image, writing,
and other systems of representation. It also implies comparative semiotics,
cognitive dimensions of different symbolic modalities, folklore, ethnomusicology,
social approaches to literacy, and writing.
• Endangered language teaching and learning. This theme joins education,
cognition, and social history with linguistic approaches to language systems.
We intend to continue and further develop Ber-keley’s position
of leadership in the field of training native-speaker teachers of
endangered lan-guages. Given the unique circumstances of California,
this theme ties directly into Native American languages in the area.
We see this both as a form of applied scholarship contributing to
society and as a way of better understanding the fine structures
of language ecology under limiting conditions.
These heuristic themes provide mid-range, empirically approachable
topics around which re-search, publication, and teaching will be
organized. Our perspective is steadfastly comparative, since we are
concerned as much with general principles of language ecology as
with specific cases. Moreover, any of the foregoing themes could
in principle be studied in a wide range of areal and historical contexts.
In practice, however, the relative strengths of Berkeley, our place
in the state of California, and our aim to contribute to the betterment
of society all point to some areal focus. Three areas we consider
especially important are native North America, Latin America, and
the Pa-cific Rim. All three have long histories rich with implications
for language ecology, and all have been vital in shaping California
and the western United States. We state these as separate themes,
though it is obvious that research in these areas will also be guided
by reference to the aforemen-tioned problems.
• Languages of native North America. The locus classicus of American linguistics
and anthropology in their formative years, a vital area of contemporary
research in both disciplines, raising virtually all the questions to
which language ecology is directed. A likely area of teaching for endangered
languages.
• Language in the Pacific Rim. Rich in evidence of long-term language history,
spread/contraction, and typology. Accessible through any of the
modern or historical languages of East or South-east Asia (e.g. Chinese, Vietnamese,
Indonesian) or the Pacific region (e.g. Tagalog, Hawaiian)
• Language in Latin America. At the root of many of the ecological dynamics
of language in the western United States, involving New World Spanish,
indigenous languages of Mexico, Central and South America. A uniquely
rich area for studying language ecology under colonial, post-colonial, and diasporic
conditions.
These ten themes provide a basis for the areas of faculty recruitment and
development we con-sider necessary at Berkeley. Just as the themes are overlapping
and transdisciplinary, so too our ap-proach to them is collaborative and
cuts across departments. Two questions stand out at this point. First, what
new kinds of scholar-teachers are needed to advance our understanding of
language ecology and to produce first-rate students of the field? Second,
more practically, in which depart-ments will they be housed? At this phase
of the planning process we concentrate on the first ques-tion, and we defer
a full treatment of the second question until the second phase.
The intellectual and pedagogical basis of this initiative
represents a new development at Ber-keley. There is at present no department
or other research unit which articulates any comparable range of areas.
At the same time, our discussions and preliminary work have indicated
that we do have at Berkeley significant resources on which to
build. Among our core faculty and close collabo-rators are faculty from
Anthropology, Cognitive Science, Education, German, Linguistics, Psychol-ogy,
Slavic Languages & Literatures, and Spanish & Portugese.
In a number of areas bearing on lan-guage ecology we thus already
have strengths without which this project would not be feasible.
In several key areas, however, we do not have adequate
human resources (researchers, teachers, students); these are the areas
where we propose to make a series of critical appointments in the coming
years. To be precise, and reiterating our statement in section 1.2
above, we propose to hire a total of eight new colleagues. Four of
them will represent complex ecological areas of importance to the populations
of California: New World Spanish, the indigenous languages of Latin
America, East Asia (China, Japan, Korea), and Southeast Asia and Pacific
Islands; we will seek specialists in the language ecology of all four.
Six of our new colleagues (i.e. including at least two in the first
set) will represent the theoretical areas of our field that are most
urgently need campus representation: population and language; quantitative
analysis of language and society; cognition, meaning, and society; learning
and teaching in multilingual settings; languages in contact; and
local language use. For further description of these hiring areas see
section 1.2.
The result of these appointments, with the concomittant programmatic
innovations described in section 3.5 below, will set the standard
for an emerging field. Students and faculty colleagues in various
complex areas will be brought together, in some cases asking new
kinds of questions of fa-miliar data and in other cases pursuing
new empirical areas. Far greater than the sum of its depart-mental
parts, an interdepartmental and interdisciplinary Berkeley program
in Language Ecology will contribute (no doubt in quite unexpected
ways) both to a basic understanding of sociocultural trans-formation
and to some practical understanding of what is needed if societies
wish to maintain local identities in this period of globalization.
3.2. Societal importance. At the recent National Conference
on Heritage Languages, many re-searchers noted that we waste a tremendous
national resource by failing to support the enriched de-velopment of
bilingualism in students who speak a language other than English at
home. Thus, ac-cording to Hoffman et al. (2002), the Federal Bureau
of Investigation finds that “heritage speakers” often
score in proficiency tests at level 2 on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 4 being required
for being hired as a translator or interpreter). In California, where speakers
of other languages comprise a quarter of the total student population, Spanish
speakers in particular represent 47.9% of English Limited Proficient students.
As for UC Berkeley itself, according to a recent study (reported by Schevitz
2002), 65% of incoming Berkeley freshmen have at least one foreign-born parent.
This diverse linguistic setting has been the backdrop against which several
controversial political initatives in recent years have passed, all of which
have had a negative impact on heritage language maintenance programs. The elimination
of bilingual education programs and the proliferation of new state-mandated
English-based reading programs have contributed to the creation of a growing
monolingual student population in our schools and the largest group of de-skilled
heritage language teachers (Cummins 2000, Gándara 2000, Gutiérrez
et al. 2000).
While native knowledge of foreign languages needs to be nurtured
for economic, diplomatic and defense purposes, a still greater
challenge is to maintain the existence of Native American languages,
which constitute an essential part of the heritage of all of us
as Americans. Since most Native languages and especially those
of California are on the brink of extinction, it is obviously both
essential and urgent that every possible effort be made to document
the languages and to provide our expertise to communities who are
making efforts to save their languages. Given the long history
of linguistic and cultural description and fieldwork at the University
of California at Berkeley, the interest in fieldwork and description
historically displayed by most applicants for graduate work in
linguistics and language programs at Berkeley, and the worldwide
growth of interest in this field, Berkeley is the natural center
of excellence in description, documentation, and revitalization
of indigenous languages of the Americas. Documentation is even
in its garden-variety manifestations a much more extensive and
rigorous matter, requiring much greater technological and linguistic
sophistication, than 20th-century fieldwork even at its best. Training
the students of the next two or three generations in these fields
is a matter of the utmost urgency, and the Language Ecology program
will give them not just the technical training but the broader
expertise in relevant aspects of context that will enable academics
to help speech communities intervene in language extinction.
Meanwhile, educating society at large to the critical situation of
most languages, their origin, history, and value, and the societal
and psychological benefits of bilingualism and multilingualism is
the urgent task of universities. Our program will not only train
professionals but also produce inte-grative lower-division and breadth
courses that will speak to the interests and personal experience
of Berkeley undergraduates and raise California society's level of
self-awareness.
The program we envision is urgent not simply because of the nature
of our state’s
population and the current crisis of language endangerment, but also for more
strictly academic reasons. It usu-ally goes without saying that description
and documentation are limited by theoretical knowledge. The best grammatical
accounts and text collections of now-extinct Native American languages made
by Berkeley linguists and anthropologists in the early 20th century — state-of-the-art
in their time — are riddled with data gaps that are glaringly obvious
now but deal with phenomena that no scientist of a century ago could have conceived.
What will be the value of today’s state-of-the-art documentations to
the science of the future? Any number of critically important structural properties
of language are unlikely to appear spontaneously even in a large corpus but
must be elicited or determined experimentally, and the quality and adequacy
of elicitation and experiment depend on the state of theoretical knowledge.
We cannot do full-time documentation now and leave analysis and theory the
future, but must rapidly expand the frontiers of theoretical knowledge if this
century’s linguistic work is to have lasting value.
Our Language Ecology program is designed to foster theoretical
and analytic progress in the areas likely to be most fruitful.
3.3. Resource base. The proposed program
crucially builds on existing strengths in faculty and institutional
resources. The faculty most involved in planning the program
are from seven units — Anthropology, Education, German, Linguistics,
Psychology, Slavic Languages & Literatures, Spanish & Portugese — in
three major administrative divisions (the Arts & Humanities and Social
Sciences Divisions and the Graduate School of Education); other participants
making important contributions represent Cognitive Science, Demography, East
Asian Languages & Cultures, and Music. Four of the participating units
(Education, Linguistics, Slavic Languages & Literatures, Spanish & Portugese)
have been represented by more than one faculty member at
many or most planning meetings.
In areas related to language learning and teaching, our
proposed program will leverage the insti-tutional strengths
of several units. For example, the Graduate School of Education
has a Ph.D. and a Master’s
program in Language and Literacy (its only program explicitly
addressing language), and it also prepares language teachers through
a Multicultural Urban Secondary Education M.A. / credential
program. These existing programs will be invaluable in
the creation of our new endangered-language M.A. program.
For language and area-studies departments, two developments
in the last ten years have given renewed prestige and visibility to
the teaching and learning of foreign and heritage languages at
the University of California. First, the Berkeley Language Center,
a resource and research center founded by Claire Kramsch in 1994
and funded by the College of Letters and Science, International
and Area Studies, and the Graduate Division, provides all Berkeley
language teachers with opportunities for professional and intellectual
development. Besides a lecture series, professional library, newsletter
and other teacher training services, it offers every year six graduate
student research fel-lowships to work on projects aimed at improving
the theory and practice of language learning and teaching. Most
of these projects are interdisciplinary in nature.
The other development
is the founding three years ago of a University of California
Consortium for Language Learning and Teaching (UCCLLT),
located at UC Davis (directed by Robert Blake) and whose mission
is to foster the professional development of all language teachers
within the UC system. The two major foci of interest of UCCLLT are
the teaching of heritage languages and dis-tance learning technologies.
These two initiatives have enhanced the intellectual synergy of theory
and practice in language study and raised the interest for language
ecology on the Berkeley campus.
In relevant areas apart from language learning and teaching, the
Berkeley campus has long pio-neered in such questions as areal linguistics,
long-range genealogical and typological comparison, large-scale cross-linguistic
surveying, intra-family comparison and historical reconstruction,
use of linguistic evidence to trace ancient migrations (e.g. the
human settlement of the Americas), joint lin-guistic-archaeological
work, and use of linguistic and human-genetic evidence together.
For exam-ple, the Autotyp project co-directed at UC Berkeley works
in these areas and is also developing electronic tools whereby the
full arsenal of typological and structural analysis, plus the full
findings of these fields to date, can be called up and applied by
linguistic field workers to greatly increase the efficiency and scope
of their analysis and enable them to make rapid and high-impact contributions
to typology. The broad research priorities of these various initiatives
boil down to greatly increasing the depth and sophistication of cross-linguistic
comparison and its application to other fields, rapidly increasing
the size, accuracy, scope, and availability of large cross-linguistic
phonological, morphosyntactic, and lexical databases, and rapidly
expanding the scope of linguistic field work and other descriptive
work to secure a detailed, state-of-the-art description and documentation
of every language on earth, including ancient languages, within the
next few decades. Only this rapid, massive joint progress in fieldwork,
analysis, and comparison will enable us to expand our understanding
of what it is we can and must know about languages in time to obtain
the crucial information from endangered languages before it is too
late.
3.4. Student base. Given the pedagogical structures outlined in section
3.5 below, our program will be of great interest to Berkeley students
of all levels. For undergraduates, our focus on tradi-tionally marginalized
and encapsulated languages will potentially be attractive to many
minority stu-dents, who often feel marginalized themselves and may
belong to the heritage communities we are studying. Our program might
also provide a new incentive to minority students to come to Ber-keley,
especially Latino and Native American students, now poorly represented
at Berkeley. Asian-American students, already well-represented here,
may nevertheless be attracted away from some of the impacted majors
and major in a less crowded department. Foreign-language and area-studies
departments might especially benefit from increased enrollment. We
note finally that as outlined in section 3.5 below we envision not
only a new minor for undergraduate students but also a number of
new courses that could, for example, fulfill the American Cultures
requirement.
The new endangered-language M.A. program described below will be
of interest to at least three groups of people: future foreign language
teachers who want to specialize in the development of heritage language
teaching; future linguists with an interest in language revitalization
processes; and indigenous people with a desire to involve themselves
in the revitalization of their own languages. We expect that it will
take about two years to set up the program, advertise it, and begin
to attract students; probably we could expect to have about 10 graduate
students at a time in this program.
Finally, we should emphasize the enrichment of students in existing
graduate programs through a proposed Designated Emphasis in Language
Ecology. Not only will this foster precisely the kind of interdisciplinary
contact that departmental barriers inhibit, among many students in
a wide range of departments, but we hope more specifically that it
will enable the conceptual and methodological approaches and presuppositions
of each field to be tested on the new ground of others. Nothing is
more exciting to students than intellectual ambience of this sort.
3.5. Pedagogical objectives and structures. Students and researchers
must be trained in the analytic tools of an interdisciplinary area;
they may develop new combinations of demography with linguistics
and anthropology, cognitive science with education and anthropology,
linguistics with biological cladistics, linguistic anthropology,
history and cognitive science, and other transdiscipli-nary foci
in which there are at present few or no scholars trained anywhere
to our knowledge. Sev-eral specific elements will define the Language
Ecology program at various levels.
• General undergraduate education. Since our program will be an interdisciplinary
one in which cul-tural interactions are a major concern
and the California context plays a special role, our faculty should be in a
position to offer many broadly based courses for a wide undergraduate audience;
for example, we expect that a number of courses designed to meet the American
Cultures re-quirements will be offered in the Language Ecology program.
• Undergraduate specialists. Existing and new curricular offerings in various
departments will be linked as a new Minor in Language
Ecology. For students whose areal interests lie abroad, we envision a significant
role for EAP in the relevant area. Locally, we expect that talented and
motivated undergraduates will assist faculty and graduate students in their work
on Bay Area communities (people of native heritage as well as those from
Pacific Rim or Central or South American backgrounds).
• Endangered-language M.A. students. We will sponsor a new endangered-language
M.A. program. This will be designed in the first instance
for minority language communities in California (e.g. Mayan immigrants in
the Bay Area or Yurok Indians in northwestern California), but it will also be
relevant and can serve as a model for similar communities nationally (e.g.
Makah Indians in Washington State or Latinos in Texas) and internationally (e.g.
Pacific Islanders negotiating local and global Asian-American dynamics, or
Rom seeking to maintain distinctive identities in a rapidly changing Europe).
To develop ecologically viable strategies for maintaining their heritage languages,
members of these communities need to integrate the technical aspects
of language study with the theory and practice of language maintenance and revitalization.
• Doctoral students. For graduate students in existing degree programs,
we will set up a Designated Emphasis in Language Ecology.
We expect this to enrich programs in anthropology, education, history, linguistics,
literary and cultural studies, and psychology by helping students see
the inter-connections between established disciplines and the role that language
plays in the transmission of knowledge, the invention of history, and the
construction of identity. The Designated Em-phasis will also be of great interest
to doctoral students in the foreign language and literature de-partments,
where an increasing number of job listings require a knowledge of second language
acquisition or applied linguistics, and we expect that it will benefit students
interested in doing fieldwork in minority communities or on endangered languages.
For example, in linguistics, en-dangered-language fieldwork experience
is often mentioned as a desideratum in job ads; indeed, perhaps half of all
academic jobs now advertised even in theoretical fields like phonology and syntax
specifically mention field experience.
• Postdoctoral research. We will seek internal or extramural funding for
a two-year postdoctoral pro-gram. We envision two types
of postdoctoral fellowships. In one type, scholars with primary training in
one subdiscipline of language ecology (say, language education) would have the
time and institutional and intellectual connections to develop expertise
in another area (anthropology or demography, for example). Nationwide, such an
innovative program (indeed unique, as far as we know) would help tear down a
wall that now often inhibits transdisciplinary collaboration and lateral professionalization.
The other postdoctoral fellowship type would facilitate fieldwork (and
publication of fieldwork results) on severely endangered languages.
Finally, we should note that we are now seeking funding to bring to
the Berkeley campus a pro-gram that heritage-language M.A. students
as well as other graduate students (and motivated under-graduates)
could participate in. This is the “Master-Apprentice
Language Learning Program,” in which the last
speakers of California Indian languages work one-on-one
with young adults in their own tribes to teach them
their languages. It is an immersion program: the teams
are trained in the techniques of immersion teaching
and learning, and then mentored by telephone and site-visits.
The teams also teach the language in their communities.
Leanne Hinton has guided this successful program, which
has trained over 70 teams speaking more than 20 different
California Indian languages in the last 10 years. When
we bring the program to campus, we hope that graduate
students will become mentors for master-apprentice
teams and will assist in the curriculum design for
their teaching programs. Student mentors will also
document the language of the elder and the learning
process of the apprentice. Mentoring teams in the master-apprentice
program can function as a form of internship for the
graduate students.
3.6. Conclusion. The relation of language, thought,
and culture lies at the core of the educational enterprise.
The revival, maintenance, and use of inherited wisdoms
through endangered and heri-tage languages, the acquisition
of alien wisdoms through foreign languages, the transmission
of na-tive wisdoms across migrations and displacements, and through
the collapsed time/space offered by computer technologies — all
these projects are both universal in their intellectual
value and particu-lar in their semiotic realization. At a time when the
international spread of English and of informa-tion technologies risks
homogenizing both thought and action around the globe, it is important
that educational institutions keep the focus on linguistic and cultural
diversity, and on the unavoidable and creative challenges of translation
across languages, disciplines, historicities, and subjectivities.
4. Supporting documentation
[Contents: 4.1 Lead faculty; 4.2 Supporting faculty; 4.3 Recent
dissertations; 4.4 References]
4.1. Lead faculty in alphabetical order
4.1.1. Andrew Garrett
Education and employment
1995 – Department of Linguistics, UC Berkeley
(Assistant Professor 1995-1999, Associate Professor 1999 –)
1990-1995 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Texas
at Austin
1990 Ph.D. in Linguistics, Harvard University
1987 A.M. in Linguistics, Harvard University
1984 A.B. (Folklore and Mythology), Harvard College
Visiting positions
1997 Linguistic Society of America Linguistic Institute, Cornell
University
1991-1992 Department of Linguistics, Stanford University
Major awards, fellowships, and grants
2001-2004 Principal Investigator, ‘The Yurok Language: Description and
Revitalization’, National Science Foundation
grant BCS-0004081 to UC Berkeley ($313,959)
2000 Distinguished Teaching Award, Division of Social Sciences,
UC Berkeley
1994-95 Fellowship for University Teachers, National Endowment for
the Humanities
Articles and book chapters
in press “Alkman’s Muse”, in a Festschrift (Oxford
University Press)
in press Andrew Garrett and Juliette Blevins, “Analogical morphophonology”,
in The nature of the word: Essays in honor of Paul
Kiparsky, ed. by Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas
(MIT Press)
in press Juliette Blevins and Andrew Garrett, “The evolution of metathesis”,
in The phonetic basis of phonology, ed. by Bruce
Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade (Cambridge
University Press)
2002 Andrew Garrett and Esther J. Wood, “The semantics of Yurok intensive
infixation”, in Proceedings from the fourth
Workshop on American Indigenous Languages (UC Santa
Barbara Papers in Linguistics, 11), ed. by Jeanie
Castillo
2001 “Reduplication and infixation in Yurok: Morphology, semantics, and
diachrony”, In-ternational Journal of American
Linguistics 67: 264-312
1999 “On the prosodic phonology of Ogam Irish”, Ériu
50: 139-60
1999 “A new model of Indo-European subgrouping and dispersal”,
in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting
of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Steve
S. Chang et al., pp. 146-156
1998 “On the origin of auxiliary do”,
English Language and Linguistics 2: 283-330
1998 Juliette Blevins and Andrew Garrett, “The origins of consonant-vowel
metathesis”, Language 74: 508-556
1998 “Adjarian’s Law, the glottalic theory, and the position of
Armenian”, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society:
Special Session on Indo-European Subgrouping and
Internal Relations, ed. by Benjamin K. Bergen et
al., pp. 12-23
1998 “Remarks on the Old Hittite split genitive”, in Mír
curad: Studies in honor of Calvert Wat-kins, ed. by Jay Jasanoff et al. (Institut
für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität
Inns-bruck), pp. 155-163
1996 “Wackernagel’s Law and unaccusativity in Hittite”,
in Approaching second: Second position clitics
and related phenomena, ed. by Aaron L. Halpern
and Arnold M. Zwicky (Center for the Study of Language
and Information), pp. 85-133
1994 Andrew Garrett and Leslie Kurke, “Pudenda Asiae Minoris”,
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 96: 75-83
1994 “Relative clause syntax in Lycian and Hittite”,
Die Sprache 36: 29-69
1993 “A note on the morphosyntax of Lycian and Anatolian possession”,
Die Sprache 35 (1991-93) 155-162
1993 Juliette Blevins and Andrew Garrett, “The evolution of Ponapeic
nasal substitution”, Oceanic Linguistics
32: 199-236
1992 “Topics in Lycian syntax”, Historische
Sprachforschung 105: 200-212
1992 Juliette Blevins and Andrew Garrett, “Ponapean nasal substitution:
New evidence for rhinoglottophilia”, in Proceedings
of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society, February 14-17, 1992, ed.
by Laura A. Buszard-Welcher et al., pp. 2-21
1991 “The Lycian nasalized preterite”, Münchner
Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 52: 15-26
1991 “Review article: Indo-European reconstruction and historical methodologies”,
Lan-guage 67: 790-804
1990 “Hittite enclitic subjects and transitive verbs”,
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 42: 227-242
1990 “The origin of NP split ergativity”,
Language 66: 261-296
1990 “Applicatives and preposition incorporation”,
in Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective,
ed. by Katarzyna Dziwirek et al. (Center for the
Study of Language and Information), pp. 183-198
1989 “Ergative case assignment, Wackernagel’s Law, and the VP Base
Hypothesis”, Proceed-ings of the North East
Linguistic Society 19: 113-126
Recent invited lectures
2003 “Koin_ization, dialect contact, and the koin_”,
workshop on Greek dialects and poet-ics, University
of Washington
2002 “Disentangling the Yurok language: Linguistics and philology in
northwestern California”, Oxford University
2002 “Latin vowel weakening: Phonetics, phonology, morphology”,
21st East Coast Indo-European Conference, University
of Pennsylvania
2001 “The historical syntax problem” and “How infixes evolve:
A case study from Califor-nia”, Cornell University
2001 “The origin of the Latin frequentative”,
20th East Coast Indo-European Conference, Cornell
University
2000 “Phonetics in paradigm uniformity: The levelling of Latin vowel
weakening”, UCLA; “The evolution of an infix”,
UCLA and Yale University
2000 “Syntactic vs. pragmatic context in semantic change”,
Stanford University
Conferences organized
2002 “The new look of ancient Greek”, UC Berkeley
1999 “Greek: Dialect, language, and linguistics”, UC
Berkeley
1997 “Analogy and paradigm levelling”,
UC Berkeley
1996 “Latin and the ancient languages of Italy”,
UC Berkeley
1994 13th East Coast Indo-European Conference, University of Texas
at Austin
4.1.2. William F. Hanks
Education and employment
2000 – Professor of Anthropology & Berkeley Distinguished
Chair in Linguistic Anthropol-ogy, UC Berkeley
1996-2000 Professor of Anthropology & Milton
H. Wilson Professor of the Humanities, North-western
University
1983-1996 Departments of Anthropology and Linguistics, University
of Chicago
(Assistant Professor 1983-1989, Associate Professor 1989-95, Professor
1995-1996)
1983 Ph.D. in Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Chicago
1979 M.A. in Linguistics, University of Chicago
1975 B.S. cum laude in French and History, Georgetown University,
School of Languages and Linguistics
Visiting positions
1993, 1999 Casa de America, Aula Bartolome de las Casas, Madrid
1996, 1999 Institute of Anthropology, University of Copenhagen
1998 Summer School, International Center for Semiotic and Cognitive
Studies, Italian Soci-ety for the Philosophy of Language, San Marino
1995 CNRS (Bourse de Haut Niveau), University of Paris X, Nanterre
1988, 1992 École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales,
Paris
Major fellowships and grants
1996 John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellow
1992-1996 National Endowment for the Humanities research grant
RO22303, “History
and dis-course: The colonial roots of Maya shamanism” ($120,000)
1987-1989 National Endowment for the Humanities
research grant RO21374-86, “Language
structure and communicative event” ($90,940)
Books
1999 Intertexts: Writings on language, utterance and context (Rowman
and Littlefield)
1995 Language and communicative practices (Westview Press)
1990 Referential practice, language and lived space among the Maya
(University of Chicago Press)
1990 William F. Hanks and Don S. Rice, eds., Word and image in Mayan
culture: Explorations in language, writing and representation (University
of Utah Press)
Articles and book chapters
2002 “Exemplary natives and what they know”, in Paul Grice’s
heritage, ed. by Giovanna Co-senza (Brepols), pp.
203-230
2000 “Dialogic conversions and the field of missionary discourse in Colonial
Yucatan”, in Les Rituels du dialogue, ed. by A. Monod Becquelin and Philippe
Erikson (Société d’Ethnologie),
pp. 235-254
1996 “Language and discourse in colonial Yucatan”, in Le Nouveau
monde, mondes nouveaux: L’Expérience americaine (Éditions
Recherches sur les Civilizations), pp. 238-271
1996 “Commentaire sur les études américanistes et l’anthropologie”,
in Le Nouveau monde, mondes nouveaux: L’Expérience americaine
(Éditions Recherches sur les Civilizations),
pp. 667-672
1996 “Exorcism and the description of participant roles”,
in Natural histories of discourse, ed. by Michael
Silverstein and Greg Urban (University of Chicago
Press)
1996 “Language form and communicative practices”,
in Rethinking linguistic relativity, ed. by John
J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson (Cambridge University
Press), pp. 232-270
1995 “When utterances become objects”,
Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 6: 173-186
1993 “Copresencia y alteridad en la practica ritual Maya: Copresence
and Alterity in Maya ritual practice”, in De palabra y obra en le nuevo
mundo, vol. 3, ed. by Miguel Léon Portilla et al. (Siglo XXI de España
Editores), pp. 75-117
1993 “Notes on semantics in linguistic practice”,
in Towards a reflexive sociology: The social theory
of Pierre Bourdieu, ed. by Craig Calhoun and Moise
Postone (Basil Blackwell), pp. 139-155
1993 “The five gourds of memory”, in Mémoire de la tradition,
ed. by A. B. Monod and A. M. Fioravanti (Société d’Ethnologie),
pp. 330-319
1993 “Metalanguage and pragmatics of deixis”,
in Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics,
ed. by John Lucy (Cambridge University Press)
1992 “The indexical ground of deictic reference”,
in Rethinking context: Language as an interac-tive
phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti and C. Goodwin
(Cambridge University Press), pp. 43-77
1992 “The language of the Canek Manuscript”,
Ancient Mesoamerica 3: 269-279
1992 “L’Intertextualité de l’espace au Yucatan”,
L’Homme (Paris) no. 122-124: 53-74
1990 “Word and image in a semiotic perspective”,
introductory chapter in Word and image in Mayan
culture [above, Books]
1990 “Elements of Maya style”, in Word
and image in Mayan culture [above, Books]
1989 “Text and textuality”, Annual
Reviews of Anthropology 18: 95-127
1988 “Grammar style and meaning in a Maya manuscript”,
International Journal of American Linguistics 54:
331-364
1987 “Discourse genres in a theory of practice”,
American Ethnologist 14: 64-88
1987 “Markedness and category interaction in the Malagasy deictic system”,
Chicago Linguistic Society Working Papers 3: 109-136
1986 “Authenticity and ambivalence in the text: A colonial Maya case”,
American Ethnologist 13: 722-744
1985 “The proportionality of shifters in Yucatec”,
International Journal of American Linguistics 51:
430-432
1984 “Sanctification, structure and experience in a Yucatec Maya ritual
event”, Journal of American Folklore 97/384:
131-166
1984 “The evidential core of deixis in Yucatec Maya”,
in Papers from the Fifteenth Regional Meeting of
the Chicago Linguistic Society (Chicago Linguistic
Society), pp. 154-173
Recent invited lectures
2003 “Proximity and construal in the deictic field”,
plenary address, Center for Language, Interaction,
and Culture, UCLA
2001 “Proximité et champs déictique”, conference “Espace
et cognition”, Université de Paris
2001 “The making of a colonial habitus”,
session on Language Ideologies, Annual Meeting
of the American Anthropological Association
2000 “Belief ascription and the social production of belief”, conference
on “Belief ascrip-tion”, International
Center of Semiotic and Cognitive Studies, San Marino
2000 “Reduccion and social space in colonial Yucatan”,
conference on space in Mayan cul-tures, University
of Paris X (Nanterre)
4.1.3. Leanne Hinton
Education and employment
1978 – Department of Linguistics, UC Berkeley
(Assistant Professor 1978-1986, Associate Professor 1986-1995,
Professor 1995 –)
1975-1978 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Texas
at Dallas
1977 Ph.D. in Linguistics, UC San Diego
1966 B.A. in Anthropology, UC Berkeley
Visiting position
1989 Linguistic Society of America Linguistic Institute, University
of Arizona
Selected administrative, professional, and public service
2003-2005 President, Society for Linguistic Anthropology
2002-2003 President, Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages
of the Americas
2001 – Curator of the sound collections, Hearst Museum of Anthropology,
UC Berkeley
1999-2002 Undergraduate Division, UC Berkeley
(Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Advising 1999-2000, Associate
Dean 2000-2002)
1993 – Founding member, Advocates for Indigenous California
Language Survival
(designer and primary trainer, Master-Apprentice Language Learning
Program, which has trained about 70 teams representing 25 languages;
organizer, biennial Breath of Life Workshops for California Indians,
UC Berkeley; the 2002 workshop had 45 participants representing 25
languages)
1978 – Director, Survey of California and Other Indian Languages;
Curator, Native American Language and Music Archive,
Berkeley Language Center
1975 – Language revitalization consultant for Native American
communities (Acoma, Cochiti, Colusa Wintun, Comanche,
Coyote Valley Pomo, Flathead Reservation, Haida, Hoopa, Hualapai,
Manzanita Kumeyaay, Ojibwe, Robinson Rancheria Pomo, Shawnee,
Sierra Mono, Tenana Chiefs (Alaska), Tlingit, Tsimshian, Yurok, intertribal
Alaskan and Pueblo groups, and others)
Major awards and grants
1997 Distinguished Service Award, Division of Social Sciences,
UC Berkeley
1996-1997 McEnerny Humanities Grant
Books
2002 Keeping your language alive: A common-sense approach to language
learning and teaching (Heyday Books)
2001 Ken Hale and Leanne Hinton, eds., The green book of language
revitalization in practice (Academic Press)
1998 Leanne Hinton and Pamela Munro, eds., Studies in American Indian
languages: Description and theory (UC Press)
1994 Flutes of fire: Essays on California Indian languages (Heyday
Books)
1994 Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols, and John J. Ohala, eds., Sound
symbolism (Cambridge University Press)
1984 Havasupai Songs: A linguistic perspective (Gunther Narr)
1984 Leanne Hinton and Lucille Watahomigie, Spirit Mountain: An anthology
of Yuman Indian oral literature and song (University of Arizona Press)
Recent articles and book chapters
in press “Internal and external language advocacy: Comments on Jane Hill’s ‘expert
rhetoric’ in advocacy for endangered languages: Who is listening and
what do they hear?”, Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology
in press “Endangered languages”, in
International encyclopedia of linguistics, 2nd
edition, ed. by William J. Frawley and Regna Darnell
(Oxford University Press)
2002 Leanne Hinton and William Weigel, “A dictionary for whom? Tensions
between aca-demic and non-academic functions of bilingual dictionaries”,
in Dictionaries of the in-digenous languages of
the Americas, ed. by William J. Frawley and Pamela
Munro (UC Press)
2001 “Involuntary language loss among immigrants: Asian-American linguistic
autobiogra-phies”, Language in our time:
Georgetown University Round Table in Language and
Linguistics 1999, pp. 203-252
2000 “Language revitalization and language change”, in Quinto Encuentro
de Lingüistica del No-roeste, vol. 2 (Editorial
UniSon), pp. 233-246
2000 “Language is Life: The fourth biannual gathering”,
News from Native California 13/4: 4-9
2000 “A whole earth forum of compassionate linguists”,
statements by Ken Hale, Elena Benedicto, Douglas
Whalen, Don Ringe, Nora England and Leanne Hinton,
Whole Earth Magazine Spring 2000
1999 “Teaching endangered languages”,
in Concise encyclopedia of educational lingusitics,
ed. by B. Spolsky (Elsevier Science Ltd.)
1999 Jocelyn Ahlers and Leanne Hinton, “The issue of ‘authenticity’ in
California language restoration”, Anthropology
and Education Quarterly 30/1: 56-67
1999 “Trading tongues: Loss of heritage languages in the United States”,
English Today 1999: 21-30
1998 “A history of Yuman orthography”,
in Studies in American Indian languages [above,
Books]
1998 “Language loss and revitalization in California: Overview”,
International Journal of the Sociology of Language
132: 83-94
1998 “Why have I not forgotten my language? A Yowlumne language autobiography
by Agnes Vera”, International Journal of
the Sociology of Language 132: 79-81
1997 “Survival of endangered languages: The California Master-Apprentice
Program”, Inter-national Journal of the Sociology
of Language 123: 177-191
1997 “Layers of meaning in a Wintu Doctor Song”,
in The life of language: Papers in linguistics
in honor of William Bright. ed. by Jane H. Hill
et al. (Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 271-280
1995 [1997] “Current issues affecting language loss and language survival
in California”, Sounthwest Journal of Linguistics
14: 29-42
Recent invited lectures
2002 Leanne Hinton and Gordon Bussell, “Two models of language survival:
The master-apprentice program and the Breath of Life workshops”,
Athabascan Languages Con-ference, Fairbanks, Alaska
2002 “Issues relating to California Indian languages”, conference
on “Negotiating the New Racial Landscape in California”,
Stanford University.
2002 “Language death and language revitalization”,
University of Minnesota
2002 “Language rights as human rights”,
Swarthmore College
2001 “Language death and revitalization in California”,
UC Davis
2001 Leanne Hinton and Nancy Steele, “The Master-Apprentice language
learning pro-gram”, Grotto Foundation conference
on Native American language teaching
4.1.4. Claire J. Kramsch
Education and employment
1989 – Professor of German and Foreign Language Acquisition,
UC Berkeley
(Affiliate Professor of Education, 1992–)
1965-1989 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Instructor 1965-1973,
Lecturer 1974-1978,
Senior Lecturer 1978-1986, Professor of Foreign Language Acquisition
1986-1989)
1961-1963 Instructor for French, Institut Francais, Freiburg im Breisgau
1959-1960 Instructor for German, Lycée de Sevres, France
1959 Agrégation d’Allemand, Université de Paris–Sorbonne
1957 Diplome d’Etudes Supérieures (mention Bien), Université de
Paris–Sorbonne
1956 Licence d’Enseignement (mention Bien), Université de Paris–Sorbonne
1953 Baccalauréat Philosophie (mention Bien), Lycée
de J. F. de Versailles
Visiting positions
1982-2002 Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Telecommunications,
Pennsylvania State University, Uni-versity of Jyvaskyla,
University of Vienna, University of Michigan, Cornell University,
University of Arizona, Interuniversity Center Dubrovnik
Selected administrative and professional service
1994 – Director, Berkeley Language Center, UC Berkeley
1994 President, American Association of Applied Linguistics
Major fellowships, grants, and honors
2001 Honorary doctorate, St. Michael’s College
2000 Modern Language Association Distinguished Service Award
2000 Distinguished Teaching Award, UC Berkeley
1998 Honorary doctorate, Middlebury School of Languages
1998 Goethe Medal, Goethe Institute
1994 – Life-long Honorary Membership in the AATG
1994 Kenneth Mildenberger Prize (Modern Language Association) for
Context and culture
Books
2002 [Editor,] Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological
perspectives (Continuum)
1998 Language and culture (Oxford University Press)
1995 [Editor,] Redefining the boundaries of language study (Heinle & Heinle)
1993 Context and culture in language teaching (Oxford University
Press)
1992 Claire Kramsch and Sally McConnell-Ginet, eds., Text and context:
Cross-disciplinary per-spectives on language study (D.C. Heath)
1991 Kees de Boot, Claire Kramsch, and Ralph Ginsberg, eds., Foreign
language research in cross-cultural perspective (Benjamin)
1990 Ellen Crocker and Claire Kramsch, Reden, Mitreden, Dazwischenreden:
Managing conversa-tions in German, 2nd ed. (Heinle & Heinle)
1984 Interaction et discours dans la classe de langue (Hatier-Credif)
1981 Discourse analysis and second language teaching (Center for
Applied Linguistics)
Recent articles and book chapters
in press “The multilingual subject”, in Mehrsprachigkeit
und multikulturelle Identitaet, ed. by Inez de
Florio-Hansen and Adelheid Hu (Stauffenburg)
in press “Identity, role, and voice in interdiscursive (mis)communication”,
in Misunderstanding in social life, ed. by Juliane
House and Gabi Kasper (Longman)
in press “Metaphor and the subjective construction of belief”,
in New approaches to research on beliefs about
SLA, ed. by Ana Maria Barcelos and Paula Kalaja (Kluwer)
in press “Language, thought, and culture”,
in The handbook of applied linguistics, ed. by
Alan Davies and Catherine Elder (Basil Blackwell)
2002 Claire Kramsch and Steve Thorne, “Foreign language learning as global
communica-tive practice”, in Globalization
and language teaching, ed. by Block and Cameron
(Rout-ledge), pp. 83-100
2001 “Intercultural communication”,
in The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers
of other languages, ed. by Ronald Carter and David
Nunan (Cambridge University Press), pp. 201-206
2001 “Language, culture, and voice in the teaching of English as a foreign
language”, Nov-ELTy: A Journal of English
Language Teaching and Cultural Studies in Hungary
8: 4-21
2000 “Social discursive construction of self in L2 learning”,
in Sociocultural theory and second language learning,
ed. by James Lantolf (Oxford University Press),
pp. 133-154
2000 “Global and local identities in the contact zone”,
in Teaching and learning English as a global language:
Native and non-native perspectives, ed. by Claus
Gnutzmann (Stauffen-burg), pp. 131-46
2000 “A new field of research: SLA-applied linguistics”,
PMLA 2000: 1978-1980
2000 “Second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and the teaching
of foreign lan-guages”, The Modern Language
Journal 84/3
2000 “Literacy, equity, access for the immigrant learner”,
in Language, identity and immigration, ed. by Elite
Olshtain and Gabriel Horenczyk (Magnes Press)
1999 “Thirdness: The intercultural stance”,
in Language, culture and identity, ed. by Torben
Vestergaard (Aalborg University Press), pp. 41-58
1997 “Imagination métaphorique et enseignement des langues”,
in Les représentations en didactique des
langues et cultures., ed. by G. Zarate (ENS Fontenay/St.Cloud),
pp. 77-101
1995 “Andere Worte, andere Werte: Zum Verhältnis von Sprache und
Kultur im Fremdspra-chenunterricht”, in Verstehen und Verständigung
durch Sprachenlernen?, ed. by L. Bredella (Brockmeyer),
pp. 35-66
1997 “The privilege of the non-native speaker”,
PMLA May 1997: 359-369
1995 “The cultural component of language teaching”,
Language, Culture and Curriculum 8: 83-92
1995 “La composante culturelle de la didactique des langues”,
Le Francais dans le Monde janv. 1995: 54-69
Recent invited lectures
2002 “Culture and self-awareness”, plenary address, ALA
conference, Umea, Sweden
2002 “Language relativity and the applied linguistics of the language
classroom”, plenary ad-dress, conference on “Knowledge & Discourse”,
University of Hong Kong
2001-2002 “The predicament of culture”,
Cornell University, University of Washington, University
of Utah
2001 “Context and culture on line”,
Modern Language Association session of the Committee
on Information Technology
2001 “Language teaching methodology in research and practice”,
Modern Language Associa-tion ADE Forum on Teaching
2001 “Beyond the SL and FL dichotomy: The subjective dimension of language
learning”, British Association of Applied
Linguistics, Reading, U.K.
2001 “The cultural component of language teaching”,
Australian Association of Foreign Lan-guage Teachers,
Canberra
4.1.5. Johanna B. Nichols
Education and employment
1972 – Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, UC Berkeley
(Lecturer 1972-1974, Assistant Professor 1974-1980, Associate Professor
1980-1985,
Professor 1985 –)
1973 Ph.D. in Linguistics, UC Berkeley
1967 B.A. summa cum laude in French, University of Iowa
Visiting positions
2002 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig
1997 Linguistic Society of America Linguistic Institute, Cornell
University
1994 First Scandinavian Summer School in Linguistic Diversity, Joensuu
University
1989 Australian National University
Major awards and grants
1996 Principal Investigator, “Ingush grammar, dictionary, and texts”,
National Science Foundation grant 96-16448 to UC
Berkeley ($285,937)
1994 Leonard Bloomfield Book Award (Linguistic Society of
America) for Linguistic diversity in space and time [given
every other year for “the most outstanding
contribution to the development of our understanding of language”]
1992 Principal Investigator, “Lexical valence as a source of genetic
markers”, National Sci-ence Foundation grant
92-22294 to UC Berkeley ($79,434)
Books
in press Johanna Nichols and Arbi Vagapov, Noxchiin-ingals dosham
/ Chechen-English and English-Chechen dictionary (Curzon/Routledge)
[5500 Chechen words, 7000+ English words]
in press Ghalghaai-ingalsii, ingalsa-ghalghaai lughat / Ingush-English
and English-Ingush dictionary (Curzon/Routledge) [5500 Ingush words,
7000+ English words]
1994 Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols, and John J. Ohala, eds., Sound
symbolism (Cambridge University Press)
1992 Linguistic diversity in space and time (University of Chicago
Press)
1986 Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols, eds., Evidentiality: The
linguistic coding of epistemology (Ablex)
1985 Johanna Nichols and Anthony C. Woodbury, eds., Grammar inside
and outside the clause: Some approaches to theory from the field
(Cambridge University Press)
1981 Predicate nominals: A partial surface syntax of Russian (UC
Press)
Recent articles and book chapters
in press “The origin of the Chechen and Ingush”, Annual
of the Society for the Study of Caucasia
in press “Genetic and typological diversification of language”,
in Handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Brian
Joseph and Richard Janda (Blackwell)
in press Balthasar Bickel and Johanna Nichols, “Inflectional morphology”,
in Language typology and syntactic description,
2nd ed., ed. by Tim Shopen (Cambridge University
Press)
in press “Geographical distribution of linguistic features”,
in International encyclopedia of linguistics, 2nd
edition, ed. by William J. Frawley and Regna Darnell
(Oxford University Press)
2002 “The first American languages”,
in The first Americans,, ed. by Nina Jablonski
(California Academy of Sciences), pp. 273-293
2001 “Why ‘me’ and ‘thee’?”,
in Historical linguistics 1999, ed. by Laurel Brinton
(Benjamins), pp. 253-276
2001 “Long-distance reflexivization in Chechen and Ingush”,
in Long distance reflexives, ed. by Peter Cole
et al. (Academic Press), pp. 255-278
2001 “Estimating dates of early American colonization events”,
in Time depth in historical lin-guistics, ed. by
Colin Renfrew et al. (McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research), vol. 2, pp. 643-664
1999 “The Eurasian spread zone and the Indo-European dispersal”,
in Archaeology and lan-guage II: Correlating archaeological
and linguistic hypotheses, ed. by Roger Blench
and Mat-thew Spriggs (Routledge), pp. 220-265
1998 “The origin and dispersal of languages: Linguistic evidence”,
in The origin and diversifica-tion of language,
ed. by Nina Jablonski and L. C. Aiello (California
Academy of Sci-ences), pp. 127-170
1997 “Sprung from two common sources: Sahul as a linguistic area”,
in Archeology and lin-guistics: Global perspectives
on ancient Australia, ed. by Patrick McConvell
et al. (Oxford University Press)
1997 “The epicenter of the Indo-European linguistic spread”,
in Archaeology and language I: Theoretical and
methodological orientations, ed. by Roger Blench
and Matthew Spriggs (Routlege), pp. 122-148
1997 “Modeling ancient population structures and population movement
in linguistics and archeology”, Annual Review
of Anthropology 26: 359-384
1996 “The comparative method as heuristic”,
in The comparative method reviewed: Regularity
and irregularity in language change, ed. by Mark
Durie and Malcolm Ross (Oxford University Press),
pp. 39-71
1996 Johanna Nichols and David A. Peterson, “The Amerind personal pronouns”,
Language 72: 336-371
1995 “The spread of language around the Pacific Rim”,
Evolutionary Anthropology 3: 206-215
1994 “Chechen” and “Ingush”,
in The indigenous languages of the Caucasus, ed.
by Rieks Smeets (Caravan Press), vol. 4, The northeast
Caucasian languages, Part 2, pp. 1-77 and 79-145
1993 “The linguistic geography of the Slavic expansion”,
in American contributions to the Elev-enth International
Congress of Slavists, ed. by Robert A. Maguire
and Alan Timberlake, (Slavica) pp. 377-391
1993 “Heads in discourse: Functional and structural centricity”,
in Heads in grammatical theory, ed. by Greville
Corbett et al. (Cambridge University Press), pp.
164-185
1993 “Transitive and causative in the Slavic lexicon: Evidence from Russian”,
in Causatives and transitivity, ed. by Bernard
Comrie et al. (Benjamins)
1993 “Ergativity and linguistic geography”,
Australian Journal of Linguistics 13: 39-89
1990 “Linguistic diversity and the first settlement of the New World”,
Language 66: 475-521
1986 “Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar”,
Language 62: 56-119
1986 “Aspect and inversion in Russian”,
in The scope of Russian aspect, ed. by Michael
S. Flier and Alan Timberlake (Slavica)
Recent invited lectures
2002 “The Chechen and Ingush people of the Caucasus: Languages and cultures”,
Cooper Foundation Lecture, Swarthmore College
2002 “The Pacific Rim linguistic population in the Americas: Chronology
and origins”, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology, Leipzig
2002 “Typological and genetic diversity of languages”,
Oriental Institute, Naples
2002 “Monogenesis or polygenesis?”,
plenary lecture, Linguistic Society of America
annual meeting
4.2. Supporting faculty
Ronelle Alexander (Slavic Languages & Literatures)
Wye Allenbrook (Chair, Music)
Milton Azevedo (Spanish & Portugese)
Patricia Baquedano-López (Education)
Patricia Berger (History of Art)
Benjamin Brinner (Music)
Terrence Deacon (Anthropology)
Susan Ervin-Tripp (Psychology)
Lily Wong Fillmore (Education)
Andrew Garrett (Linguistics)
Alison Gopnik (Psychology)
Patricia Hilden (Ethnic Studies)
Carla Hudson (Psychology)
Larry M. Hyman (Linguistics)
Robin Tolmach Lakoff (Linguistics)
Ian Maddieson (Linguistics)
Lori Markson (Psychology)
Susan Matisoff (Chair, East Asian Languages & Cultures)
John H. McWhorter (Linguistics)
Ignacio Navarete (Chair, Spanish & Portugese)
José Rabasa (Spanish & Portugese)
Richard A. Rhodes (Linguistics)
José Saldivar (Chair, Ethnic Studies)
Dan I. Slobin (Psychology)
Eve Sweetser (Linguistics/Cognitive Science)
Estelle Tarica (Spanish & Portugese)
Alan Timberlake (Slavic Languages & Literatures)
Bonnie Wade (Music)
4.3. Recent Berkeley dissertations
We list dissertations in progress, as well as those completed since
2000, by students (in any depart-ment) whose research focusses on
language ecology. These represent some of the kinds of students
whose work would be brought together and enriched in the interdisciplinary
program we envision.
Michelle Anthony (Psychology, 2001), Examining the relationship between
classifiers and literacy in deaf children
Brian Bielenberg (Education, 2002), Who will sing the songs? Language
renewal among Puebloan adolscents
Laura Buszard-Welcher (Linguistics, in progress), Constructional
polysemy and mental spaces in Potawotami [an endangered Native American
language]
Laura Callahan (Spanish & Portugese, 2001), Spanish/English codeswitching
in fiction: A grammatical and discourse function
analysis
Lisa Conathan (Linguistics, in progress), Syntax and pragmatics
in linguistic areas: A study of northwestern California
Paige Daniel (Education, in progress), Intercultural competence on-line?
Aspects of telecollaboration between American and German language
learners
Daniela Dosch Fritz (German, 2001), Language socialization, communicative
competence, and identity: Literary representations of the language
learner in 20th century German literature
Aimée Lahaussois (Linguistics, 2002), Aspects of the grammar
of Thulung Rai [an endangered language of Nepal]
Eva Lam (Education, in progress), Second language
literacy and identity formation on the Internet:
The case of Chinese immigrant youth in the U.S.
Ellen Langer (Slavic, 2001), Individuality and grammar: Instrumental
singular variation in nineteenth-century Russian literary prose
Karin Larsen (Slavic, in progress), The evolution of the system of
long and short adjectives in medieval Slavic and Old Russian
R. B. Lindert (Psychology, 2001), Hearing families with deaf children:
Linguistic and communicative aspects of American Sign Language development
Saul Mercado (Anthropology, in progress), Arabic, Catalan, and Castilian:
Language in power, performance, and context
Kevin Moore (Linguistics, 2000), Spatial experience and temporal
metaphors in Wolof: Point of view, conceptual mapping, and linguistic
practice
_. Özçal¦_kan (Psychology, 2002), Metaphors we
move by: A crosslinguistic-developmental analysis
of metaphorical motion events in English and Turkish
Mary Romero (Education, in progress), Language shift and the socialization
of Pueblo children
Phillip Schaffer (Spanish & Portugese, in progress), Analysis
of 1683 New Mexico documents
Christine Sims (Education, in progress), Factors
affecting language maintenance and revitalization
in an American Indian Pueblo community
Sarah Shull (Slavic, 2000), The experience of space: The privileged
role of spatial prefixation in Czech and Russian
Sabine Stoll (Slavic, 2001), The acquisition of Russian aspect
Makiko Takekuro (Linguistics, in progress), Indexical analysis of
honorific usage in Japanese
Robert Train (French, 2000), Getting past the ideology of “the language”:
The standardization of French and Spanish, and
its implications for foreign language pedagogy
Juliette Wade (Education, in progress), Searching for “place” in
the Japanese language classroom: Implicit culture
in classroom discourse and the acquisition of Japanese sociopragmatics
Suzanne Wertheim (Linguistics, in progress), Language choice,
change, and viability: Tatar in Tatarstan
Anne Whitesides (Education, in progress), Second language literacy
practices among Yucatec Maya immigrants to the Bay Area
Kevin Wiliarty (German, 2001), Turns of phrases: Formulaic directionals
and grammaticalization in Dutch language change and German second
language acquisition
4.4. References
Bickel, Balthasar. 1997. Spatial orientations in deixis, cognition,
and culture: Where to orient one-self in Belhare. Language and conceptualization,
ed. by Jan Nuyts and Eric Pederson, pp. 46-83. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Blench, Roger, and Matthew Spriggs, eds. 1998. Archaeology and language
II: Correlating archaeological and linguistic hypotheses. London:
Routledge.
Boone, Elizabeth Hill, and Walter D. Mignolo, eds. 1994. Writing
without words: Alternative literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Brenzinger, Matthias; Akira Yamamoto; et al. 2002. Language endangerment.
Draft position paper prepared by the Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered
Languages, Intangible Cultural Heritage Unit, UNESCO.
Cheshire, J.; V. Edwards; H. Munstermann; and B.Weltens, eds. 1989.
Dialect and education: Some European perspectives. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Clifford, James. 1988. The predicament of culture: Twentieth-century
ethnography, literature, and art. Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Crystal, David. 2000. Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cummins, Jim. 2000. Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children
in the crossfire. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Emeneau, M. B. 1956. India as a linguistic area. Language 32: 3-16.
Emeneau, M. B. 1965. India and linguistic areas. In M. B. Emeneau,
India and historical grammar, pp. 25-75. (Department of Linguistics
Publication 5.) Annamalai: Annamalai University.
Fill, Alwin, and Peter Mühlhäusler, eds. 2001. The ecolinguistics
reader: Language, ecology and environment. London:
Continuum.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1966. Language loyalty in the United States.
The Hague: Mouton
Fishman, Joshua A. 1985. The rise and fall of the ethnic revival.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing language shift: Theoretical and
empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon,
U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, Joshua A., ed. 2001. Can threatened languages be saved?
Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Mat-ters.
Fleming, Juliet. 2001. Graffiti and the writing arts of early modern
England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gándara, Patricia. 2000. In the aftermath of the storm: English
learners in the post-227 era. Bilin-gual Research
Journal 24(1-2): 1-13.
Gentner, D., and S. Goldin-Meadow. 2003. Advances in the investigation
of language and thought. Cam-bridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Gibbs, W. Wayt. 2002. Saving dying languages. Scientific American
287/2 (August 2002): 79-85.
Grenoble, Lenore A., and Lindsay J. Whaley, eds. 1998. Endangered
languages: Language loss and com-munity response. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gumperz, J. J., and Stephen C. Levinson, eds. 1996. Rethinking linguistic
relativity. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.
Gutiérrez, Kris; Patricia Baquedano-López; and Jolynn Asato.
2000. “English for the children”: The
new literacy of the old world order, language policy
and educational reform. Bilingual Research Journal
24(1-2): 87-112
Hale, Ken. 1992. Language endangerment and the
human value of linguistic diversity. Language 68:
35-42.
Hale, Ken, and Leanne Hinton, eds. 2001. The green book of language
revitalization in practice. New York: Academic Press.
Hanks, William F. 1990. Referential practice: Language and lived
space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Haugen, Einar. 1972. The ecology of language: Essays by Einar Haugen.
Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Hinton, Leanne. 1994. Flutes of fire: Essays on California Indian
languages. Berkeley, Calif.: Heyday Books.
Hoffman, Christina, et al. 2002. Testing language proficiency at
higher levels. Presentation at the 2nd National Conference on Heritage
Languges, Tyson Corners, Virginia.
Hoiting, N., and Slobin, Dan I. 2001. Typological and modality constraints
on borrowing: Exam-ples from the Sign Language of the Netherlands.
In Foreign vocabulary in sign languages, ed. by Diane Brentari, pp.
121-137. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hymes, Dell H. 1972. Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic
approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Kern, Richard. 2000. Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kramsch, Claire. 1993. Context and culture in language teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, Claire, ed. 2002. Language acquisition and language socialization:
Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.
Krauss, Michael. 1992. The world’s languages in crisis. Language
68: 4-10.
Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of
California. (Bulletin of the Bureau of American
Eth-nology, 78.) Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Kroeber, A. L. 1939. Cultural and natural areas of native North America.
(University of California Publications in American Archaeology and
Ethnology, 38.) Berkeley: University of California Press.
Küntay, A., and Dan I. Slobin. 2002. Putting interaction back
into child language: Examples from Turkish. Psychology
of Language and Communication 6: 5-14.
Leather, Jonathan, and Henriette R. Van Dam, eds. In press.
The ecology of language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1996. Language and space. Annual Review of Anthropology
25: 353-382.
Lucy, J. 1992. Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study
of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Maffi, Luisa, ed. 2001. On biocultural diversity. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Makoni, Sinfree. 1998a. African languages as European scripts: The
shaping of communal memory. In Negotiating the past: The making of
memory in South Africa, ed. by S. Nuttall and C. Cotzee. Cape Town:
Oxford University Press.
Makoni, Sinfree. 1998b. In the beginning was the missionaries' word:
The European invention of African languages. In Between distinction
and extinction, ed. by K. Prah. Cape Town: Centre for Ad-vanced Studies
of African Societies.
Matsumura, Kazuto, ed. 1998. Studies in endangered languages. Tokyo:
Hituzi Syobo.
Merino, B.J.; H.T. Trueba; and F.A. Samaniego, eds. 1993. Language
and culture in learning: Teaching Spanish to native speakers of Spanish.
London: Falmer Press.
Mignolo, Walter. 1995. The darker side of the Renaissance: Literacy,
territoriality, and colonization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Mühlhäusler, Peter. 1992. Preserving languages or language
ecologies. Oceanic Linguistics 31: 163-180.
——. 1996. Linguistic ecology: Language change and linguistic imperialism
in the Pacific region. London: Routledge.
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The ecology of language
evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nettle, Daniel. 1999. Linguistic diversity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Nettle, Daniel, and Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing voices: The
extinction of the world’s languages. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Niemeier, S., and R. Dirven, eds. 2000. Evidence
for linguistic relativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in time and space. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Pederson, Eric, et al. 1998. Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization.
Language 74: 557-589.
Peyton, Joy K.; Donald A. Ranard; and Scott McGinnis, eds. 2001.
Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource. Washington,
D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing. language, and ethnicity among adolescents.
London: Longman.
Reyner, J., ed. 1997. Teaching indigenous languages. Flagstaff, Ariz.:
Northern Arizona University Center for Excellence in Education.
Schevitz, Tanya. 2002. Surprise on poll of Cal students. San Francisco
Chronicle, Thursday, Septem-ber 26, 2002, p. A1.
Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne Scollon. 2001. Intercultural communication:
A discourse approach. 2d ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Senft, Gunter, ed. 1997. Referring to space: Studies in Austronesian
and Papuan languages. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Slobin, Dan I. 1987. Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Thirteenth
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 435-444.
Slobin, Dan I. 1991. Learning to think for speaking: Native language,
cognition, and rhetorical style. Pragmatics 1: 7-26.
Slobin, Dan I. 2000. Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic
relativity and determin-ism. In Niemeier & Dirven 2000: 107-138.
Slobin, Dan I. 2003. Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences
of linguistic relativity. In Gentner & Goldin-Meadow 2003: 157-191.
Slobin, Dan I. In press. Language evolution, acquisition, diachrony:
Probing the parallels. To ap-pear in The rise of language out of
pre-language, ed. by T. Givón, J. Bybee, and B. Malle. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Talmy, Leonard. 1983. How language structures space.
In Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and ap-plication,
ed. by Herbert L. Pick and Linda P. Acredolo, pp.
225-282. New York: Plenum.
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure
in lexical form. In Language ty-pology and syntactic description,
ed. by Timothy Shopen, vol. 3, pp. 62-154. New York: Cambridge Unviersity
Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. In Topics
in cognitive linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, pp. 165-205.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Urban, Greg. 1991. A discourse-centered approach to culture: Native
South American myths and rituals. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Valdes, G.; A. G. Lozano; and R. Garcia-Moya, eds. 1981. Teaching
Spanish to the Hispanic bilingual: Issues, aims, and methods. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Van Lier, Leo. Forthcoming. The ecology of language learning. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Webb, J.B., and B. L. Miller, eds. 2000. Teaching heritage language
learners: Voices from the classroom. Yonkers, N.Y.: American Council
on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Wurm, Stephen A., ed. 2001. Atlas of the world’s languages
in danger of disappearing. 2nd ed. Unesco Publishing.
Back
to Language Ecology Course Home Page
|
