The world is facing a crisis of language loss that rivals, or exceeds, the rate of loss of biodiversity. There is an increasing urgency to understand the drivers of language change in order to try and stem the catastrophic rate of language loss globally and to improve language vitality. Here we present a unique case study of language shift in an endangered Indigenous language, with a dataset of unprecedented scale. We employ a novel multidimensional analysis, which allows the strength of a quantitative approach without sacrificing the detail of individual speakers and specific language variables, to identify social, cultural, and demographic factors that influence language shift in this community. We develop the concept of the ‘linguatype’, a sample of an individual’s language variants, analogous to the geneticists’ concept of ‘genotype’ as a sample of an individual’s genetic variants. We use multidimensional clustering to show that while family and household have significant effects on language patterns, peer group is the most significant factor for predicting language variation. Generalized linear models demonstrate that the strongest factor promoting individual use of the Indigenous language is living with members of the older generation who speak the heritage language fluently. Wright–Fisher analysis indicates that production of heritage language is lost at a significantly faster rate than perception, but there is no significant difference in rate of loss of verbs vs nouns, or lexicon vs grammar. Notably, we show that formal education has a negative relationship with Indigenous language retention in this community, with decreased use of the Indigenous language significantly associated with more years of monolingual schooling in English. These results suggest practical strategies for strengthening Indigenous language retention and demonstrate a new analytical approach to identifying risk factors for language loss in Indigenous communities that may be applicable to many languages globally.
This study tests the effect of multilingualism and language contact on consonant perception. Here, we explore the emergence of phonological stratification using two alternative forced-choice (2afc) identification task experiments to test listener perception of stop voicing with contrasting minimal pairs modified along a 10-step continuum. We examine a unique language ecology consisting of three languages spoken in Northern Territory, Australia: Roper Kriol (an English-lexifier creole language), Gurindji (Pama-Nyungan), and Gurindji Kriol (a mixed language derived from Gurindji and Kriol). In addition, this study focuses on three distinct age groups: children (group i, 8>), preteens to middle-aged adults (group ii, 10–58), and older adults (group iii, 65+). Results reveal that both Kriol and Gurindji Kriol listeners in group ii contrast the labial series [p] and [b]. Contrarily, while alveolar [t] and velar [k] were consistently identifiable by the majority of participants (74%), their voiced counterparts ([d] and [g]) showed random response patterns by 61% of the participants. Responses to the voiced stimuli from the preteen-adult Kriol group were, however, significantly more consistent than in the Gurindji Kriol group, suggesting Kriol listeners may be further along in acquiring the voicing contrast. Significant results regarding listener exposure to Standard English in both language groups also suggests constant exposure to English maybe a catalyst for setting this change in motion. The more varied responses from the Gurindji, Kriol, and Gurindji Kriol listeners in groups ii and iii, who have little exposure to English, help support these findings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.