Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
599-617 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25064900 . Accessed: 04/02/2014 16:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005. 29:599-617 First published online as a Review inAdvance on June 28,2005
Key Words linguistic diversity, cultural diversity, biodiversity, biocultural diversity Abstract
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org doi: 10.1146/ annurev.anthro. 34.081804.12043 Copyright ? 2005 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved 0084-6570/05/1021 0599$20.00
Over
as an area
ing the links between the world's linguistic, cultural, and biologi cal diversity asmanifestations of the diversity of life. The impetus for the emergence of this field came from the observation that all
three diversities are under threat by some of the same forces and
from the perception that loss of diversity at all levels spells dramatic consequences for humanity and the earth. Accordingly, the field of biocultural diversity has developed with both a theoretical and a
side, practical as well as with provides some the on work and policy, focusing on-the-ground and human This review component. rights on the historical and begin antecedents background latter an ethics on biocultural the key literature diversity, main and regional studies aspects: global concen on the
599
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
quences of loss of these interlinked diversities; Contents INTRODUCTION. HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS.. 600 600 601 602
(c) approaches to the joint maintenance and
DEVELOPMENTOF CURRENT
LINES OF RESEARCH.
AND PHILOSOPHICAL
ETHICAL UNDERPINNINGS.
HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS
Parallels and affinities between evolutionary
PROTECTINGAND MAINTAINING
BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY... FUTURE PROSPECTS. 612 612
Charles Darwin (in both his Origin of Species and The Descent of Man; Darwin 1859, 1871) and commented on by linguist August Schle
icher in Darwinism Tested by the Science of Lan
guage (Schleicher
marks soon what led was to against
1863), although
a reaction interpreted in as
such re
linguistics a likening
INTRODUCTION
If the 1980s might
decade biodiversity massive, ening of
be remembered
which to call attention extinction of life crisis the
as the
term to the threat the
to natural of languages organisms. Analogies between and species became dis languages to the shelves credited and were of relegated misconceived ideas until recently.
in nature?then
In the
linguistic diversity was put forth and its im plications for life in both nature and culture
began to be explored. By the mid-2000s, a
tradition, anthropological nat American languages as an interest, linguistic as Boas, and Whorf Sapir, elaborate encoded things, and noted the ways and in which invento
of
the
people
in such
famous
1986,
environment; the
cul
in his popular 1940 article "Science and Lin guistics" (Whorf 1940), these early studies had
6oo
Maff
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
On
language
On vertebrate
Figure World
1 map showing overlap of endemism inMaffi 1998. Reproduced with in languages permission. and higher vertebrates. Original work by D. Harmon, based
on Ha
published
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
?Sa
Figure Plant
2 diversity and language distribution. From Stepp et al. 2004. Used with permission.
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
role not
in
How effect of
early vironment
observations rather
language to contributed
thropology, Alfred Kroeber, studied the re lationships between Native American cul
ture would areas say and the natural or areas ecological (today, we ecosystems niches)
velopment of an integrated field of research on cultural, linguistic, and biological diversity has long been in the making. Recent interest in
the ment out links has over between arisen the past language in part from few decades and the environ carried the work by
of the North
continent, finding significant geographical correlations between the two (Kroeber 1963).Whereas several of
later developed specific a focus on cultural in this ecology, classic
American
ethnobiolo
studying indigenous
local flora, fauna, and inter this researchers In part, in
work did not directly result in an established research tradition on the links of cultures (and/or languages) and biogeography. Rather, the idea of such correlations tended to be un
popular Kroeber's among work, scholars, because as it was it evoked also before romantic
naming. research
the notion
of "linguistic
social
ronment,
environment,
as interrelated parts of awhole (M?hlh?usler 1996). Investigation of these topics has led to
increasing logical of the value of the eco recognition of indigenous and practices knowledge to which are developed, language. specifically, linguistic, a focus on the relation
dox
for
research
elsewhere"
1928, quoted
work in no
in Heizer
represented
way
between
cultural,
and biologi
ward
the old environmentalism which be lieved it could find the causes of culture in
(Kroeber 1963, p. 1). Kroeber
environment"
in the wake of an
observation:
made
tures never
that the ongoing worldwide loss of biodiver sity is paralleled by and seems interrelated to the "extinction crisis" affecting linguistic and cultural diversity (Krauss 1992;Harmon 1996, 2002; Nabhan 1997; Posey 1999;Maffi 2001c). In the early 1990s, linguists started call
ing attention to a worrisome trend that was
occur,..
between of
relations
www.annualreviews.org
601
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of the apparent: Many increasingly becoming world's those especially spoken by languages, and minority small-scale societies, indigenous were under threat of replacement by seriously "larger," majority languages, whether national
guages,
Endangered
Knowledge, Endangered in California, Berkeley, conference brought together held in the natural linguistic, so
behavioral, members
sciences, peoples,
manifestations? cultural, biological, and linguistic? which are within a interrelated complex socio-ecological adaptive system
or transnational (Robins & Uhlenbeck 1991, Hale et al. 1992). This loss of linguistic di
versity was estimated to endanger the survival
indigenous
along to iden
of 50%-90% of the 6000+ currently spoken languages by 2100 (Krauss 1992). In the effort to rally linguists and others around this issue,
parallels were drawn with the better-known
tify avenues for theoretical investigation of and applied work on what was beginning to be labeled as "biocultural diversity." (For the outcome of the conference, seeMaffi 2001c)
The conference was organized (http://www.terraluigua.org), tional nonprofit organization by Terralingua an interna also created in
phenomenon
endeavors
undertaken
this loss (Krauss 1992). This clarion call did not go unnoticed by
nonlinguists, contingent of soon social reaching scientists a small and but active conserva
through
development, As a result
tionists who had independently been point ing to the links between and the common threats to cultural and biological diversity (Dasmann 1991,Harmon 1992,Nietschmann 1992, Clay 1993, Durning 1993; see also the Declaration of Bel?m issued in 1988 by the International Society of Ethnobiology, which affirmed the existence of an "inextricable link"
cultural and biological that diversity). the variety It of de lan at apparent beliefs, societies, them,
other related endeavors, amultifaceted field of inquiry on linguistic, cultural, and biolog ical diversity, with both a theoretical and an
applied esting side, case to inter has begun develop?an in of a new domain of interlinked and practice in the from arising real world, a per similar
vestigation ceived
between was
urgent to the bi of conservation prior development to in extinc the response biodiversity ology a tion crisis. At this point, of language picture at is environment interrelations shape taking
need
embody
socioeconomic the
political and
pro
threatening
integrity
the very
through
literature.
survival of indigenous and local cultures and of the environments inwhich they live?and
that this massive and rapid change has pro
though, itmay be useful to touch on some of the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of this new field, as they have been explored
in some of this literature.
of life
interdisci
plinary effort was needed to bring together these different threads and begin to portray an integrated picture of the state of the diversity of life in all its forms?biological, cultural, and is it undergoing, and linguistic?the pressures
the possible actions to ensure its perpetuation
and thoughtful approach to the philosophi cal and ethical foundations for the field of biocultural diversity. In his work, he has pro vided the first comprehensive review of the state of linguistic diversity and the geographi cal overlaps between linguistic and biological
tional working
conference
"Endangered
6o2 Maffi
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
diversity pointing to the "converging extinc tion crises" of these diversities (Harmon 1995, 1996; see next section for details). With ap
propriate caveats, he takes linguistic diver
best gained through a diversity of languages." (And see Fishman 1982 for an early, mas terful treatment of this topic from a Whor fian perspective.) Along similar lines, Krauss (1996) has proposed that global linguistic di
versity of life, as such or constitutes an intellectual web "logosphere," is as essential concept that envelops the to human survival of course remi
richness: Language the total number of distinct found languages in a given or country
sity to be a major
versity a proxy and for the the
loss of
this basis,
he addresses
a fundamental
question
(Harmon 2002): If the world's diversity in na ture and culture is indeed rapidly diminishing, why should we care?
His answer stems from an examination
niscent of Teilhard de ChardnVs "noosphere" and of the classical notion of the Logos. Further, from both a psychological and an ethical perspective, Harmon (2001,2002) pin points the enduring fallacy of equating unity with uniformity (which underlies all efforts to
promote homogenization, states or by the forces tion). Rather, he argues whether of economic that by nation globaliza of
symbolic planetary web of the "logos," or spoken word, represented by the global network of languages
he shows the interwoven (and possibly coe volved) diversity in nature and culture to be
the "preeminent fact of existence," the basic
human
the perception
continued de
he concludes,
diversity is the basic condition for the func tioning of human consciousness (through the distilling of sameness from difference) so that
if consciousness then is what defines us as humans, From this, he di makes diversity a "moral derives us human. imperative"
the vitality of all life has come down to us through the ages" (Harmon 2002, p. xiii).
Others have similarly stressed the evolu
to preserve
versity and to strive not for uniformity but for unity in diversity. Wollock (2001) reaches analogous conclu Western linguistic sions through a critique of
science. dition He has suggests largely that, been if this silent tra scholarly about linguis
ture of humanity and the earth (Maffi 1998, 2001a). Bernard (1992, p. 82) has suggested that "[l]inguistic diversity... is at least the
correlate sity of "any of (though not ideas" of language the and cause that of) diver adaptational reduction therefore dimin
diversity
ishes the adaptational strength of our species because it lowers the pool of knowledge M?hlh?usler (1995, from which we can draw."
p. 160) has argued that convergence toward
nalist philosophical tradition that has taken Western thought. Nom hold in the history of
inalism ing social treats all universal and "nature" constructs (includ concepts as "community") arbitrary no connection to the with
majority cultural models increases the like lihood that more and more people will en
counter the same "cultural blind spots"?
this tradition,
system
language
of signs
arbitrary or no relation
to the extralin
undetected
cultural lutions
instances in which
fails to provide
the prevailing
adequate Instead, he so pro
model to societal
problems.
poses, "[i]t is by pooling the resources of many understandings that more reliable knowledge
can arise"; and "access to these perspectives is
guistic world (on this point, see also Pawley 2001). Such a conception of language, Wol lock argues, is by definition incapable of ad dressing the relationship between language and the environment or with the ways in which language may orient the mind in
www.annualreviews.org
603
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
certain
directions?including
directions
that
may
GIS: of geographic information systems, a for technology representing analyzing georeferenced data and
be either beneficial
the environment.
to or destructive
to the au
According
that biodiversity
tural diversity the are state assessing
On tends cent to
the that
other
hand,
also
con
The of
ning
the response
biocultural
with
trend, and
which,
dencies of any
(Harmon 1995, 1996), has thus been on de veloping such tools. This effort has been facil
itated by the progressive accumulation of data
system
only admits of diversity, decrying unity as an illusion. Wollock observes that all great
metaphysical as versity deed traditions the reality of recognize the planet, endless and di in
electronic
means
the universe,
while
perceiving
a funda
representing
mental unity in it?the unity of the Logos, whose likeness can be approximated only
through the maximum diversity. He argues
information systems
challenge, Harmon
(GIS)].
In approaching this
language as
within the it possi
relationship
its biodiversity.
In understanding
gene with
and celebrating unity in diversity, he con cludes, lies our best hope for a sustainable
future. From yet another complementary angle,
seeMufwene
2001.) The factual observation that the global distributions of species and lan
guages out, significantly then begs for overlap, pointed as as well explanation to the common threats are undergoing. Harmon
and biological
pecially
ologically
in human
to which our bi un
attention and
communication
languages
lost as tools for thought and for recognition of identity and otherness. 6o4 Maffi
between linguistic and biological diversity on a global scale (Harmon 1996). He found that 10 out of the top 12 "megadiversity"
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
countries for biodiversity [as defined by World Conservation Union; IUCN?The et al. 1990] also figure among the McNeely most 25 top linguistically diverse countries.
His global cross-mapping of languages and
guistic,
and biological
diversity,
1998 higher vertebrate species (see Maffi for the earliest printed version of this map)
(Figure 1, see color insert) brought out a re
or whose historically
markable overlap between linguistic and bio logical diversity throughout the world, with the highest concentration of bioculturally
megadiverse America, Asia, from and a countries central Africa, in Central South Similar of These and results and South Southeast
mutual contigu
ecological
Such
circumstances?
high concentrations
communities communicating of multilingualism?have coexisting
of linguistically distinct
in the same areas and complex occurred networks frequently
geographic discontinuity Lineage density: the ratio of distinct linguistic lineages a areas within continent well-defined Spread zone: area by or other region to
the Pacific.
global plant
comparison species.
through
flowering
Harmon
argued, suggest that both biological and linguistic diversity in such countries are
especially vulnerable economic, to the effects and social of adverse and processes
throughout human history (Hill 1997) and still do today in many parts of the world, the Pacific being a prime example. This phe
nomenon formation of "sympatric" to the points linguistic role of boundary sociocultural
political, policies.
Harmon
to several
could they
factors, along with biogeographic factors, in the development of linguistic diversity. Other research conducted by linguists and anthropologists during the 1990s also sought
to correlate the global distribution of lin
geographic characterized
might comparably affect the development of both biological and linguistic diversity (such
as extensive rains, climates, land masses with a variety island of ter territo and ecosystems;
rapid spread of or languages language families and presenting genetic diversity linguistic low
guistic diversity with both environmental and social factors. Nichols (1990, 1992) devel a of oped theory linguistic diversity in space
and time in her work on linguistic typology.
factors similar to
distri
he hypothesized
small tems, teracted human through closely
a process of coevolution
with over the their time, local ecosys humans mod
the worldwide
environment,
ized ways of talking about it.Thus the local languages, through which this knowledge was
encoded and transmitted, would in turn have
economies historically bring about both eco nomic and linguistic spread and thus lower di
versity. This, she shows, has been the case es
become molded
to their
socioecological
(1995, p. 155)
human environ
colonization
World
of
ment
about
and the Pacific brought about very high lineage density. On this basis, she distin
guishes spread zones, characterized by rapid
spread of languages or language families and with low genetic linguistic diversity, from
www.annualreviews.org Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity 605
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
In a
geographic characterized
generalizability of his otherwise significant findings.] Early work on the links between bio diversity and linguistic and cultural diver
sity vation soon attracted the and attention other of conser organizations international
high genetic
linguistic diversity no and presenting appreciable languages language or families the spread of
inNorth America, Mace & Pagel (1995) hy pothesized that group boundary formation in
human related that societies with may be an active over process resources lead to cor and competition in turn may
implementing
development
the
issued
this process
language
diversification. On a smaller scale,Hill (1996) reported comparable findings in a study of dialectal variation in Tbhono O'odham (a
Uto-Aztecan language spoken in Arizona, in
by the Rio Summit of 1992, and particu larly with the call for protection and pro
motion indigenous ing traditional and of the and "innovations local lifestyles sustainable and practices embody the con biological of communities relevant use for of
factors ecological such as climate and rainfall pose population's subsistence for a
UNESCO: United
Nations Educational, and Scientific, Cultural
States), where the differential sociolinguistic characteristics of two dialect communities of Tohono O'odham (a localist versus a distributed stance) correlate with the
extent cure to which claims over each vital community resources can make such se as water.
the United
servation
diversity" (Convention on Biological Diver sity, Article 8j; CBD 1992). The United Na tions Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Or ganization (UNESCO), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), theWorld Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Society for Conservation Biology, and IUCN all com missioned and published articles and studies on biocultural diversity (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004, Harmon & Maffi 2002, Maffi 1998, Maffi et al. 1999, Oviedo et al. 2000, Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 2003), propelling this
work into the domain Oviedo In particular, took the further of policy. et al. (2000) under
Organization
UNEP: United
Nations Environment Program
On similar grounds, Nettle (1998, 1999) aimed to develop a theory of linguistic diver sity and its global distribution by correlating this distribution with ecological and socioe
conomic factors. He identified with seasonal the ver sus nonseasonal climates, attendant
WWF: WorldWide
Fund for Nature
Ecoregion: relatively large land or water unit a set of containing natural communities that share most their species, and dynamics, environmental conditions of
of ecological risk. His data show that concept areas with lower rainfall and shorter growing are at where subsis seasons, people higher tence risk, with tend to correlate geograph ically and fewer more extended different ethnolinguistic languages, whereas groups areas
development
of Harmon's
initial work on the global overlaps between biological and cultural diversity through the
use of GIS. Again with due caveats, the distri
bution of the world's languages (based on the GIS database elaborated by SIL International,
the makers of Ethnologue, the as yet most com
smaller-scale
ethnolinguistic
and thus higher linguistic diversity. He at tributes this difference to the fact that in the
former networks case of people exchange need to to establish their case larger eco peo local
tural diversity at large and plotted against the distribution of theworld's ecoregions (as iden tified byWWF), with special reference to the as priori ~200 ecoregions chosen byWWF
ties for conservation, to detennine the extent
ple
to which
in their
biodiversity-rich
ized ecological niches. [See Harmon (2002) and Skutnabb-Kangas & Harmon (2002) for some of the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of Nettle's work that limit the 6o6 Maffi
inclusion in the publication. An initial analy sis of the results of this mapping showed that
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
mote
a more
sustainable
and
equitable
use
tural Diversity
not tural tural recognizing
CEESP: IUCN's
Commission on Environmental, and Economic, Social Policy
(UNESCO
an explicit
2001), although
link between cul
strategies).
(Article 7) and affirms that "cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature" (Article 1). The
tions ther has
gions and of biodiversity at large, through mutually beneficial partnerships with indige nous and traditional peoples living in those regions and the promotion of their land and traditional resource rights and linguistic and cultural rights. At this level, the project drew
some criticism from observers (e.g., Mclntosh
correla
both fur academic to the de and data
research
environment velopment
contributing methodology,
shift from a lo
cal to an ecoregional (thus often transnational) actu in their conservation scale efforts may ally purport a move involved particularly away in from the greater
accountability conservation,
in
counterparts. digenous ture are part of a larger the goals and modus and
(Concerns ongoing
this na about
pares both the global distribution and the extinction risk of languages and species (Sutherland 2003), reaching conclusions that are largely in line with earlier findings and forecastings. In particular, by applying to
both species and languages the internation
the
operandi successes
development
paradigm;
ally agreed criteria for classifiying extinction risk in species, he finds that languages (as per
are at far the Ethnologue risk greater catalog) are mam birds and species (specifically he chooses for comparison). His mals, which than quantifications on in the early endangerment confirm current the conjectures on 1992). With found language some
time,
between
pointing
biodiversity
out that
literature
this finding
(e.g., Krauss
number of biogeographic correlations in the distribution of languages and species, high di versity in both cases being positively associ ated in his data with area, low latitude, forest cover, and altitude, but not with rainfall. In his
calculations, he also finds period since settle
icy (CEESP) now includes, among the pri orities for its 2005-2008 mandate, the "im proved understanding of the synergy between cultural diversity and biological diversity and on how this may be harnessed and applied
towards processes shared that values, enhance tools, mechanisms conservation and and pro
ment to have little effect on language diversity. Because of the high visibility of its pub lisher (the journalNature), Sutherland (2003) triggered several media stories, including a scathing essay by Berreby in the New York Times (Berreby 2003), in which the author
www.annualreviews.org Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity 607
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
inveighed
against parisons vitalize
(mostly on
ideological
grounds)
com or re let
the random
effect
of historical
factors,
but
re
ters from
the Times
the public
vigorously
later published
countered Berreby's
by
calling
arguments.
Collard & Foley (2002) follow the lines of earlier studies such asMace & Pagel (1995) and Nettle (1998) in exploring biogeograph
ical human of using correlates cultural and possible determinants of In this case, instead diversity. as for the world's proxies languages
in turn reflects
between to environmental resi
and resource factors" (Collard & Foley 2002, p. 379). Another significant point Collard & Foley make is that, although the distribution
of shows clear global pat diversity at resolution and smaller terns, analysis higher scale also reveals differences from significant to region. This discrepancy between cultural
cultures, they derive the distribution of cul tural diversity from Atlas ofWorld Cultures
(Price but very caveats databases tion of 1990). useful The article contains of some a concise of the main discussion of such
region
cultures, itself
comparative global as well as of the no analytical about (e.g., unit? languages Harmon
as an those
caveats noted by
researchers
authors
as state di
This
searchers
point
is widely
shared among re
diversity. Stepp et al.
on biocultural
cultural
main
of biocultural authors
ist" (Collard & Foley 2002, p. 374) and con sider this unit as valid both temporally and spatially for their analytical purposes. On this basis, they map out the distribution of world
cultures according to latitude, which shows a
these
contribution to the refinement of global bio cultural analyses by bringing greater sophisti cation to the use of GIS in such studies. Their
work, still at a preliminary stage, marks a shift
diversity is higher in tropical areas and lower at higher latitudes, in both the northern and
the southern hemisphere, "older" ones continents such and in both such evo lutionarily and "newer" as Africa with
tion tool to illustrate the patterns of biolog ical and linguistic (and cultural) diversity, to using it for the in-depth exploration of factors
that may of correlate with observed about patterns these and pat to ex the hypotheses explanatory terns. This is also research the roster of data
as the Americas,
Europe
reflection thors tural
pand
diversity
temperature
rainfall.
These findings suggest to them that the pat tern of human cultural diversity is not simply 6o8 Maffi
links between biological and linguistic diver sity (the latter again being taken as a proxy for cultural diversity, with data from Ethnologue). One significant advance is the adoption of a
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(specifi
not stud
ical requirements and on the kinds of data and integration thereof needed for in-depth stud ies at a subglobal level. Especially highlighted is the need for historical perspective both
on processes of environmental movements economic, affected on human sions and population other social, have change and expan and the politi location and
ies but by diversity zones (standardized units of area), which allows for comparable diver
sity categories on a global scale (database de
veloped byWilhelm Barthlott and coworkers at theUniversity of Bonn). A GIS mapping of the two data sets shows a high geographical correlation between
biodiversity, particularly
that may
Andes, West Africa, theHimalayas, and South Asia/Pacific (Figure 2, see color insert). As in
previous research, the observed correlation is
and their populations on the environ effects of a better factors understand may sim
importance environmental
significant
ilarly or differentially
and gree species, as well of resolution
is a correlation
as issues
of the analyses,
foreground.
and impact on
densi
In this connection, Manne (2003) provides a critical appraisal of biodiversity?cultural diversity links through a study focused on
Central bution and South America, as indicator using the distri di of languages of cultural
pings that will allow for better exploration of such patterns, with the inclusion of possible
social and historical factors.
versity and that of Passeriform birds for bio diversity. Her main finding is that the scale
of resolution coarse scale, strongly affects the results. At over a the respective distributions
cluding amap of indigenous peoples and envi ronments in Central America (Chapin 1992);
an overview of biodiversity and cultural diver
relationship
numbers research
Mexico (Toledo 1994); a study of cul sity in tural and biological diversity in Latin Ameri can ecoregions (Wilcox & Duin 1995); an eco West logical approach to language diversity in Africa (Nettle 1996); cross-mappings between the locations of South American indigenous peoples and habitat types as well as between
South sphere American reserves indigenous and national reserves parks and bio (Lizarralde
variables
kinds instead found to be significant in other studies reviewed above) affecting the distribu
tion of differences overlaps ranges languages in between of birds are and species. She range and also sizes finds and geographical species larger
2001); a study of the correlation of linguis tic, cultural, and biological diversity inAmer ica north ofMexico (Smith 2001); an analysis of the distribution of cultural and biological diversity in Africa (Moore et al. 2002); and
overviews in the of the Colorado Plateau United southwestern States ecoregion as a
ping than those of languages and the cultural groups who speak them. [But note that this finding may be skewed by the lack of ade
quate data on and ways of representing the de
gree of "porousness" of cultural and linguistic borders. Both linguists and anthropologists, e.g.,M?hlh?usler (1996), Turner et al. (2003),
have shown such borders to be and the locus of significant cross-linguistic cross-cultural
www.annualreviews.org
609
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
i tor
the
state to
of
world.
Harmon al diver
identify
gauging in relation
state
biodiversity, cultural di
Sutherland, threat
internationally
thus
for determining
whether
for species. Her find categories is that even at a coarse scale the dis of threatened languages to some and species
diet,
ical as well as data availability factors that might account for this finding, but from both this result and her data on distribution of lan
guage "we and should species not richness she concludes expect of richness spatial or of that con en
forms
In later work,
gruence
generally in distribution
dangerment between biological and cultural diversity" (Manne 2003, p. 526). Interestingly,
a global map of threatened ecosystems et al. 2003), and al languages (Skutnabb-Kangas
the first three indicators listed above owing to the ready availability of global data sets on languages (Grimes 2000) and ethnicity and religion indicators has focused
(Barrett Harmon et al. 2001). and Loh In a collaborative have developed effort, a frame
on
work
for an Index of Biocultural Diversity (IBCD) (Harmon & Loh 2004, Loh &
2005), which and trends is meant to measure diver level at in biocultural basis (the
Harmon
the condition
on a country-to-country sity
rial Africa, South Asia, and the Pacific. This finding suggests that establishing the extent
to which Manne's to statement may indeed be level subglobal analyses generalizable on the future of a greater availability depends and on more standard of such studies number ized and therefore and data sets. comparable methodologies at a
which the available data sets are organized) by aggregating data on the three cultural indi
cators species with and data on diversity species of bird/mammal as indicators for plant
biodiversity (also selected on the basis of data availability). The IBCD features three
components: component, measure of and biological a biocultural which a is the richness diversity sheer aggregated in cultural richness component,
country's diversity;
an areal
which
land diversity extent; adjusts
bility is also central to another aspect of the field of biocultural diversity, that is,work con
cerned with the joint measurement and assess
population
which component, population for a country's human indicators thus measures and biocultural
to a in relation country's diversity population size. For the overall IBCD each country,
liest efforts in this connection go back to Harmon (1992) in the context of affirming
the tected versity relevance area were of cultural diversity Indicators used for pro conservation. by then of biodi to mon
then aggregates the figures for these three components, yielding a global picture of the state of biocultural diversity in which three
areas emerge as core regions of exceptionally
commonly
6 io
Maffi
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and
Indomalaysia/Melanesia. the geographical work reviewed or ethnicities diversity. to a number caveats corre above, were
confirms in other
in which used as
either proxies
Harmon itations of
of lim
knowledge
tors (such
concerning
concerns tural
dicators tural
portrays
under
latter
diversity
terms ing the time-series should sheer fully guages,
linguistics,
for evaluat
in
of more state
do,
the main
become trends in
if Even languages. the number of languages in the near available future, language richness of the are not state of lan rec a
indicator
in this on numbers
field of
well
and other
particularly transmission,
of whose
speakers vital statis sociolinguistic on lan intergenerational contexts of use, availabil education, An and expert etc., will group main be on
is the pro mentioned, previously of traditional and promotion knowl and practices relevant currendy of linguis to
endangerment a set
language
has
the
tic diversity as a possible indicator of the state and trends of traditional knowledge. The IBCD is a potential candidate to fulfill this
role. Also some out the by of very the relevant recent in this connection work and carried assess eco is
assessment of linguistic vitality (UNESCO 2003), which should provide useful guidance
also for the development of linguistic diver
sity indicators.
education and on through educational quantitative to measure loss of
ethnobiologists and
persistence
traditional
nance of linguistic diversity, see Skutnabb Kangas (2000). On structural and functional
indicators of language obsolescence, see Hill
logical knowledge (TEK). Researchers such as Zent (1999, 2001), Lizarralde (2001), Ross
(2001).]
www.annualreviews.org
611
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tional
policies, of of
as an and
increase other
in the
to promote of biocultural
understanding
ability be, without
of biocultural
measure, action
diversity
we would
and
itmay still,
at various
much
more
to represent,
and assess
appropriate
most
likely, be presiding over the demise of our bioculturally rich world, given the forces
causing its erosion. This is why the relevance
on the loss of linguistic diversity (e.g., Crystal 2000, Dalby 2003, Nettle & Romaine 2000)? which generally point to a link between lan
guage and help loss in some increase and cases culture also and knowledge loss, loss?may biodiversity awareness of biocultural
general
diversity and its predicament, which should be a key to political action. Ultimately, themost fundamental impetus
for the protection tural efforts, diversity but can only and maintenance come, not the from of biocul top-down action
the biodiversity conservation area (WWF, UNEP, IUCN) and in that of linguistic and cultural diversity (UNESCO), have noted the significance of the biocultural perspective and
incorporated their own it to a greater approaches and or lesser extent in activities.
from
ground-up
Developments in the field of human rights, such as theUnited Nations' Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other
advances in the definition of indigenous peo
land rights,
traditional
surprise, efforts
and cultural property rights, are also relevant to the rights, linguistic di and biocultural of promotion protection are to the es All these versity. contributing
to maintain
tablishment of a link between biodiversity and cultural and linguistic diversity in the arena
of human of a new rights, vision as well in which as to the promotion the protection of
and mak
human rights (both individual and collective) is intimately connected to the affirmation of
human ship over responsibilities humanity's toward heritage and steward and in nature
ing the lessons as widely available as possible is the goal of some of the ongoing work in biocultural diversity (L. Maffi & E.Woodley, Global Source Book on Biocultural Diversity, in
preparation).
culture. (For reviews, seeMaffi 2001a, Posey 2001, Skutnabb-Kangas 2000.) The dissemination of research activities,
along tial these amount with success issues. of advocacy, in has thus general resulted had some ini of producing It has even awareness
FUTURE PROSPECTS
Over the course of about has 10 years, emerged the field as an ex of biocultural diversity
ample of an integrated, transdisciplinary field (Somerville & Rapport 2000), spanning the
natural and social sciences, as well as linking
change
in national
6i2
Maffi
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ethics, present
and
human this
rights. field
No needs
doubt, an
at opportu
the
stage
plinary new
teams, synthesis
and about
thus
to the elaboration
of a
the connections
between
academic
Above
bring to this field the benefit of scientific rigor We can also hope that the and critical analysis. adoption of biocultural diversity as a domain
for academic turn inquiry will foster leading a transdisci to greater among by disci plinary in academe,
Harmon
culture hope over
cultural late.
interdisci
can be
achieved?before
it is too
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Research relevant to the preparation of this article was conducted with support from two grants
LITERATURE CITED
A Comparative Survey Barrett DB, Kurian GT, Johnson TN. 2001.World Christian Encyclopedia: Modern World. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 2nd ed. ofChurches and Religions in the
Bernard Berreby R. D. 1992. 2003. Preserving Fading language and species diversity. dying Hum. tongues: 51:82-89 Organ. when the two part ways. New York Times,
May27,p.F-3
Blythe J,McKenna
Land. Lang. Proc.
Conf.
1th, Broome,
Found.
Borrini Feyerabend G, MacDonald K, Maffi L, eds. 2004. History, Culture and Conservation. PolicyMatters 13:1?308 (Spec, issue) CBD 1992. Approved by the contracting parties at the United Nations Conf. Environ. Dev. Rio de Janeiro, 5 June. Available at http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp CEESP. 2004. Commission onEnvironmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP)Mandate 2005 2008. Gland, Switz.: IUCN?The World Conservation Union
Chapin M. 1992. The co-existence of indigenous peoples and environments in Central America.
Res. Explor. 8(2):map Chapin M. 2004. A challenge to conservationists. World Watch Nov./Dec.:17-31 Clay JW. 1993. Looking back to go forward: predicting and preventing human rights violations. In State of thePeoples:A Global Human Rights Report on Societies inDanger, ed.MS Miller,
pp. 64?71. Boston: Beacon
Collard IF, Foley RA. 2002. Latitudinal patterns and environmental determinants of recent human cultural diversity: Do humans follow biogeographical rules? Evol. Ecol. Res. 4:371? 83
Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity
www.annualreviews.org
613
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Crystal D. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Dalby A. 2003. Language inDanger: The Loss ofLinguistic Diversity and theThreat toOur Future. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Darwin C. 1859. On theOrigin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: Murray Darwin C. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection inRelation toSex. 2 vols. London: Murray Dasmann RF. 1991.The importance of cultural and biological diversity. In Biodiversity: Culture, Conservation, andEcodevelopment, ed.ML Oldfield, JB Alcorn, pp. 7-15. Boulder: Westview World 1993: A Worldwatch Durning AT. 1993. Supporting indigenous peoples. In State of the Institute Report onProgress Toward a Sustainable Society, pp. 80-100. New York: Norton Fishman JA. 1982.Whorfianism
societal asset. Lang. Soc.
diversity as a worldwide
11:1-14
Grimes BF. 2000. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas: SIL Int. 14th ed.
Hale K, Krauss M, Watahomigie L, Yamamoto A, Craig C, et al. 1992. Endangered languages.
Language 68:1-42
Harmon Parks Harmon D. D. 1992. Indicators of the world's 4th, of cultural diversity. Presented atWorld Congr. Nati. and Protected 1995. The Areas, status Caracas, Venezuela languages as reported in Ethnologue. Southwest J.
the world's
Ling. 14:1-33 Harmon D. 1996. Losing species, losing languages: Connections between biological and lin guistic diversity. Southwest J. Ling. 15:89-108 Harmon D. 2001. On the meaning and moral imperative of diversity. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 53-70 Harmon D. 2002. In Light of Our Differences: How Diversity inNature and Culture Makes Us
Human. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Harmon D, Loh J. 2004. The IBCD: ameasure of theworld's biocultural diversity. See Borrini Feyerabend et al. 2004, pp. 271-80 Harmon D, Maffi L. 2002. Are linguistic and biological diversity linked? Conserv. Biol. Pract. 3(l):26-27 Heizer RF. 1963. Foreword. See Kroeber 1963, pp. v-ix Hill JH. 1996. Languages of the land: toward an anthropological dialectology. Presented at David Skomp Disting. Lect. Ser. Anthropol., Indiana Univ., Dept. Anthropol., 21March Hill JH. 1997.The meaning of linguistic diversity: knowable or unknowable? Anthropol. Newsl. 38(1):9-10 Hill JH. 2001. Dimensions of attrition in language death. SeeMaffi 2001c, pp. 175-89
Hunn ES. 2001. Prospects for the persistence of "endemic" cultural systems of traditional
68:4--10
Kroeber AL. 1963 [1939]. Cultural andNaturalAreas of Native North America. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press (originally published in Calif. Publ. Am. Archaeol. Ethnol. Vol. 38) Lizarralde M. 2001. Biodiversity and loss of indigenous languages and knowledge in South America. SeeMaffi 2001a, pp. 265-81 Loh J,Harmon D. 2005. A global index of biocultural diversity. Ecol. Indie. 5(3):231-41 Mace R, Pagel M. 1995. A latitudinal gradient in the density of human languages inNorth
America. Maffi L. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 261:117-21 for nature. Nature Resour. UNESCO J. Environ. Nat. Resour. 1998. Language: a resource
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Maffi L. 2001a. Language, knowledge, and indigenous heritage rights. See Maffl 2001c, pp. 412-32 Maffl L. 2001b. Linking language and environment: a co-evolutionary perspective. InNew Di
rections in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections, ed. CL Crumley, pp. 24-48. Walnut
Maffi
Conservation
bridging
See Borrini-Feyerabend
et al. 2004, pp. 256-66 Maffl L, Skutnabb-Kangas T, Andrianarivo J. 1999. Linguistic diversity. See Posey 1999, pp. 21-57 Manne LL. 2003. Nothing has yet lasted forever: current and threatened levels of biological diversity. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:517-27
Martin L. 1986. "Eskimo words for snow": a case study in the genesis and decay of an anthro
pological example. Am. Anthropol. 88:418-2 3 Mclntosh IS. 2001. Plan A and plan B partnerships for cultural survival. Cult. Surv. Q. 1(2):4?6 Worlds McNeely JA,Miller KR, Reid WV, Mittermeyer RA,Werner TB. 1990. Conserving the DC: The WRI, CI, WWF-US, IUCN, Gland, Switz./Washington, Biological Diversity. World Bank Moore JL,Manne L, Brooks T, Burgess ND, Davies R, et al. 2002. The distribution of cultural and biological diversity inAfrica. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:1645-53 Mufwene S S. 2001. The Ecology ofLanguage Evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press M?hlh?usler P. 1995.The interdependence of linguistic and biological diversity. In The Politics Multiculturalism in theAsia/Pacific, ed. D Myers, pp. 154-61. Darwin, Aust.: North. of
Territory Univ. Press
M?hlh?usler P. 1996. Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in thePacific Rim. London: Roudedge Habitat. Washington, DC: Counterpoint Nabhan GP. 1997. Cultures of Nabhan GP, Joe T, Maffi L, Pynes P, Seibert D, et al. 2002a. Safeguarding the Uniqueness of the Colorado Plateau: An Ecoregional Assessment ofBiocultural Diversity. Flagstaff, AZ: Cent.
Sustainable Environ., Terralingua, the Colorado Grand Canyon to Wildlands Counc.
Nabhan GP, Pynes P, Joe T. 2002b. Safeguarding species, languages, and cultures in the time
of diversity loss: from Plateau global hotspots. Ann. Mo. Bot. Garden
89:164-75 West Africa: an ecological approach. J. Anthropol. Ar Nettle D. 1996. Language diversity in
chaeol. 15:403-38
Nettle D. 1998. Explaining global patterns of linguistic diversity. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 17:3 54? 74 Nettle D. 1999. Linguistic Diversity. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Nettle D, Romaine S. 2000. Vanishing Voices:The Extinction of theWorlds Languages. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press Nichols J. 1990. Linguistic diversity and the first settlement of the New World. Language 66:475-521 Nichols J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press Nietschmann BQ. 1992. The interdependence of biological and cultural diversity. Occas. Pap. 21, Cent. World Indig. Stud., Olympia, WA World and Ecore Oviedo G, Maffi L, Larsen PB. 2000. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the to the Conservation: An Worlds Conserving Biological and Cultural Integrated Approach gion
Diversity. Gland, Switz.: WWF-Int., Terralingua
www.annualreviews.org
615
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Pawley A. 2001. Some problems of describing linguistic and ecological knowledge. See Maffi 2001c, pp. 228-47
Posey DA, ed. 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. London/Nairobi: Intermed.
and cultural diversity: the inextricable, linked by language and See Maffi 2001c, pp. 379-96 politics. Price D. 1990. Atlas of World Cultures. London: Sage Pullum GK. 1989. The great Eskimo vocabulary hoax. Nat. Lang. Ling. Theory 7:275-81 Robins RH, Uhlenbeck EM, eds. 1991. Endangered Languages. Oxford: Berg Ross N. 2002. Cognitive aspects of intergenerational change: mental models, cultural change,
and environmental behavior among the Lacandon Maya of southern Mexico. Hum. Organ.
61:125-38
Sapir E. 1912. Language and environment. Am. Anthropol. 14-.226-A2
Weimar: Boehlau H. Schleicher A. 1863. Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Skutnabb-Kangas T. 2000. Linguistic Genocide inEducation?Or Worldwide Diversity andHuman Rights?Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Skutnabb-Kangas T, Harmon D. 2002. Review of Daniel Nettle, "Linguistic Diversity." Lang.
Policy 1:175-82 Skutnabb-Kangas T, Maffi L, Harmon D. 2003. Sharing a World ofDifference: The Earths Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity and companion map The Worlds Biocultural Diversity: People, Languages, and Ecosystems. Paris: UNESCO Smith EA. 2001. On the coevolution of cultural, linguistic, and biological diversity. SeeMaffi 2001c, pp. 95-117 Somerville MA, Rapport DJ. 2000. Transdisciplinarity: ReCreating IntegratedKnowledge. Oxford:
EOLLS
Stepp JR, Cervone S, Casta?eda H, Lasseter A, Stocks G, et al. 2004. Development
for global biocultural diversity. See Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004, pp. 267-70
of aGIS
Suckling K. 2000. A house on fire: linking the biological and linguistic diversity crises. Anim. Law 6:193-202 Sutherland WJ. 2003. Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and species. Nature 423:276-79 Mexico. Differ. Drummer 1(3): 16-19 Toledo VM. 1994. Biodiversity and cultural diversity in Turner NJ, Davidson-Hunt IJ,O'Flaherty N. 2003. Living on the edge: ecological and cultural
edges as sources of diversity for social-ecological resilience. Hum. Ecol. 31:439-61
UNESCO.
2001. Universal declaration on cultural diversity. Approved by UNESCO's 31st Session, Paris. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271 Conf.,
Gen.
/127160m.pdf 2003. Language vitality and endangerment. Int. Expert Meet. UNESCO Intan UNESCO. Cult. Heritage Units Ad Hoc Expert Group Endanger. Lang. Paris-Fontenoy, 10-12 gible March. Document approved by the participants on 31 March 2003, available at http://portal.unesco.org/culttire/en/nle-download.php/la41d53cf46el0710298d31 4450b97dfLanguage-hVitality.doc Whorf BL. 1940. Science and linguistics. Technol. Rev. (MIT) 42:229-31, 247-48 Wilcox BA, Duin KN. 1995. Indigenous cultural and biological diversity: overlapping values of Latin American ecoregions. Cult. Surv. Q. 18(4)49-53 Wollock J. 2001. Linguistic diversity and biodiversity: some implications for the language sciences. SeeMaffi 2001c, pp. 248-62 Zarger RK, Stepp JR. 2004. Persistence of botanical knowledge among Tzeltal Maya children. Curr. Anthropol. 45(3)413-18 6i6 Maffi
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Zent
S.
1999. The
quandary
of
conserving
Athens: Zent
Resources, Press
and Rights,
ethnoecological ed. TL
knowledge: Gragson, BG
a Piaroa Blount,
In
and ethnobotanical
knowledge
loss among
the Piaroa
of Venezuela:
and change E. 2004. Ethnobotanical S, Lopez-Zent convergence, divergence, In and Conservation of the Venezuelan Ethnobotany of Biocultural Guayana. 15. Bronx: New L Maffi, Bot. Ser. Vol. ed. TJS Carlson, pp. 37-78. Adv. Econ. Press
Garden
www.annualreviews.org
617
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:15:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions