Language Ecology: A Course Proposal

Language Ecology – A Course Proposal (2002)

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 concerned 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 regionally 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 recognize 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, language 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 languages. 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 research, 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 aforementioned 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)
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
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