What is lost when a language dies?

Abstract

Nowak argues that the problem with language loss is not linguists’ loss of data or that the loss of a language is often a result of discrimination against its speakers. Instead, the real problem is its speakers’ loss of illocutionary force. I argue that Nowak’s argument rests on two premises that are both empirically unjustified: that cultural knowledge is a prerequisite for illocutionary force, and that language is a prerequisite for illocutionary force. Languages are among the most fascinating accomplishments of mankind, surpassing Machu Picchu and the Great Wall of China in the eyes of many. I think language loss is comparable to loss of species. The intuition that the death of a language is a significant event, reflects that: Something that evolved gradually over hundreds of years, passed on through hundreds of generations and thousands of individual speakers, is irreversibly gone, once and for all. The illocutionary force of its individual speakers is not.