Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-kv2lp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T16:22:51.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

It's still worth theorizing on LEL, despite the heterogeneity and complexity of the processes (Response to commentators)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Salikoko S. Mufwene
Salikoko S. Mufwene*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
*
[s-mufwene@uchicago.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I am grateful for the generally thought-provoking commentaries on my target article (Mufwene 2017), which reveal how multifaceted and complex the subject matter of LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT AND LOSS (LEL) is. They also show how difficult it is to develop a position that addresses all of the issues. Because of space limitations, my responses focus on the most critical ones.

Keywords

language endangerment and lossecologyevolutionpopulation structure

Information

Type
Perspectives
Information
Language , Volume 93 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. e306 - e316
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baptista, Marlyse. 2017. On the role of agency, marginalization, multilingualism, and language policy in maintaining language vitality: Commentary on Mufwene. Language 93 (4). e298–e305.10.1353/lan.2017.0073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2017. Language vitality: Theorizing language loss, shift, and reclamation (Response to Mufwene). Language 93 (4). e243–e253.10.1353/lan.2017.0068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2017. On how and why languages become endangered: Reply to Mufwene. Language 93 (4). e224–e233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Ans, André-Marcel. 1996. Essai de sociolinguistique historique à partir d'un témoignage inédit sur l'emploi des langues, notamment africaines, en Haiti au cours de la guerre de libération et des premières années de l'indépendance. Etudes Créoles 19. 11022.Google Scholar
DeCamp, David. 1971. Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum. Pidginization and creolization of languages, ed. by Hymes, Dell, 349–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Di Carlo, Pierpaolo, and Good, Jeff. 2017. The vitality and diversity of multilingual repertoires: Commentary on Mufwene. Language 93 (4). e254–e262.10.1353/lan.2017.0069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Jared. 2005. Collapse: How societies choose to fall or survive. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, Colleen M. 2017. Understanding language vitality and reclamation as resilience: A framework for language endangerment and ‘loss’ (Commentary on Mufwene). Language 93 (4). e280–e297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Nala H. 2017. The vitality or endangerment of some nonindigenous languages: A response to Mufwene. Language 93 (4). e234–e242.10.1353/lan.2017.0067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lüpke, Friederike. 2017. African (ist) perspectives on vitality: Fluidity, small speaker numbers, and adaptive multilingualism make vibrant ecologies (Response to Muf- wene). Language 93 (4). e275–e279.10.1353/lan.2017.0071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, Amy. 2011. The history of Southern Africa. New York: Britannica Educational Publishing.Google Scholar
Miles, William. 1998. Bridging mental boundaries in a colonial microcosm. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Moseley, Christopher (ed.) 2007. Encyclopedia of the worlds endangered languages. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1997. The ecology of Gullah's survival. American Speech 72. 6983. DOI: 10.2307/455608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2004. Language birth and death. Annual Review of Anthropology 33. 201–22. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2008. Language evolution: Contact, competition and change. London: Continuum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2013. Language as technology: Some questions that evolutionary linguistics should address. In search of universal grammar: From Norse to Zoque, ed. by Lohndal, Terje, 327–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2016. A cost-and-benefit approach to language loss. Endangerment of languages across the planet, ed. by Filipovic, Luna and Pütz, Martin, 115–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2017. Language vitality: The weak theoretical underpinnings of what can be an exciting research area. Language 93 (4). e202–e223.10.1353/lan.2017.0065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Sarah J. 2005. The emergence of Hawai‘i Creole English in the early 20th century: The sociohistorical context of creole genesis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1914. Die Sprache der Saramakkaneger in Surinam. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller. [English translation published as ‘The language of the Saramaccans’ in The ethnography of variation: Selected writings on pidgins and creoles, trans. & ed. by T. L. Markey, 73–108. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma, 1979.].Google Scholar
Tria, Francesca, Servedio, Vito d. P., Mufwene, Salikoko s.; and Loreto, Vittorio. 2015. Modeling the emergence of creole vernaculars. PLoS ONE 10 (4):e0120771. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120771.10.1371/journal.pone.0120771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyron, Darrell. 2006. Language endangerment and globalization in the Pacific. Language diversity in the Pacific: Endangerment and survival, ed. by Denis Cunningham, D. E. Ingram, and Sumbuk, Kenneth, 97–111. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Willans, Fiona, and Jukes, Anthony. 2017. How far can the language ecology metaphor take us? A Pacific perspective on language vitality (Response to Mufwene). Language 93 (4). e263–e274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar