Acceso usuarios
William Egginton
A typical scenario: a language revitalization plan is developed within a language ecology that contains a dominant language, e.g. English. The plan is implemented in ways that inculcate the wishes of minority language speakers. Sadly, significant language shift toward the dominant language continues. The policy seems to have had little effect. What went wrong? I assert that a partial explanation lies in the failure within the language policy and plan to account for a human socio-economic behavioral pattern described by Hardin as ‘the tragedy of the commons’ ([1969]. Science, 162, 1243–1248). With respect to language shift, the commons tragedy proceeds thusly: ‘I am the head of a household and a member of a community that speaks a threatened language. We want to preserve our finite, shared language resource (the commons). However, it is very beneficial for my children to acquire high proficiency in English. The cost is diminished first language proficiency. That cost, however, is shared with the total speech community, and thus represents a significant fraction of the benefit to me. I will encourage English proficiency’. In essence, self-interest trumps community investment. This paper explores ways that language planners and policy-makers can address understandings of the commons tragedy in language planning.
