Counting the losses: numbers as the language of language endangerment
Abstract
This paper provides a set of critical reflections on the use(s) of numbers to communicate facts about the changing dynamics of speech communities undergoing language shift. Such numerical representations are widespread, and they are of important in segments of language expertise. After a literature survey of counting practices, the paper focuses on three language-ideological decisions underpinning language counting: First, decisions need to be made as to who counts as a speaker. In discussions of language endangerment, speaker counts are the most important single index of the endangered character of the language. Secondly, in order to count the number of distinct languages in a region, country, or world area, decisions must be made which privilege a notion of languages as bounded, closed, and geographically fixed entities. Finally, decisions need to be made with respect to the domains in which “small,” endangered, or minority languages continue to be used. From the discussion of domains we develop an alternative vision that centers not on distinct, named, countable languages, but on speakers and repertoires, and on the actual resources that speakers deploy in actual contexts. The contemporary situation of speakers of indigenous Sami, African and Native American languages will be drawn upon for examples.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Even in sociolinguistic work that challenges nation-state monolingualism, languages are sometimes still conceptualised as bounded systems linked with bounded communities.
“even in sociolinguistic work that sets out to challenge nation-state monolingualism, languages are sometimes still conceptualised as bounded systems linked with bounded communities (Heller 2007, Moore, Pietikänen, and Blommaert 2010, Urla 1995).”
From Language and Superdiversity (2015) · cites this paper as Moore, Pietikänen, and Blommaert 2010
Cites
Warner, M. (2002) · Public Culture · doi:10.1215/08992363-14-1-49 · Cited by 3,862 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
(2015) · Language and Superdiversity · doi:10.4324/9781315730240-8 · Cited by 885 · see citing works
Bromham, L. (2023) · Cambridge Prisms: Extinction · doi:10.1017/ext.2022.3 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- Moore, R. E., Pietikäinen, S., & Blommaert, J.
- Affiliations
- Dublin City University (IE)
- University of Jyväskylä (FI)
- Tilburg University (NL)
- Venue
- Sociolinguistic Studies
- Published
- 2010-10-06
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-26
- ISSN
- 1750-8649 (ISSN-L)
- 1750-8657
- OpenAlex
- W2119320261
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 40.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Sociolinguistic Studies (publishedVersion)
- Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic and Sociocultural Studies
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Language and Culture
- Keywords
- endangered languages, language shift, language ideology, language boundaries, language domains, minority languages, indigenous languages, Sami language, African languages, Native American languages
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review