The high mortality rate of COVID-19 among the elderly population and the discrimination in access to health care put the elders of these communities at higher risk. Thus, in the post-COVID world, we would witness the acceleration of language endangerment, and there aren't enough linguists, researchers and (safe) research methods to counter this threat.
Ever since WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic, I am being bothered by a question in my mind. What is going to be the consequence of this pandemic in the field of Endangered Language Documentation? The realisation that COVID-19 is here to stay has forced me to relook at the discipline and my own practice. Since 2014, I have worked on four endangered language documentation projects. In all the projects I took part in, our involvement has been on a 'one-way street' model. The project goals were decided a priori to the commencement of the documentation activity. On most occasions, the endangered language community members had no option but to work with us for various reasons. And this is the case of most language documentation work in India. In fact, the two primary endangered language documentation supports in India: SPPEL (Scheme for Protection and Preservation of Endangered Languages), administered by Central Institute Indian Languages and Funding Support to Universities for the Study and Research in Indigenous and Endangered Languages of India, through UGC (University Grants Commission), have clearly defined outcomes that are to be produced at the end of the project. Both of them demand a sketch grammar, a dictionary and some text, i.e. narratives and songs recorded and transcribed. In their essence, both these projects are restrictive and often self-defeating for the very purpose stated in their names. Neither the community nor the linguist have any significant say on the goals of the project.
While this model of language documentation is problematic for various reasons, most linguists welcome it, as it is nonetheless an effort that has been long overdue. But all these efforts have now come to a grinding halt. Since mid-March, all language documentation projects in India have cancelled their fieldwork plans for evident and valid reasons. But will we be able to restart it any time soon? With the spread of COVID-19 to every state in India, the answers are a definite NO. Even if the restriction of movement and advisory on the suspension of fieldwork is revoked, the possibility of restarting fieldwork amid an ongoing pandemic is immoral, unethical and dangerous for the already vulnerable communities.
Is it moral for us to make COVID-19 an excuse, to wash off our responsibilities to help preserve and promote these languages? NO. The spread of COVID-19 among the members of endangered language communities has only increased the vulnerability of their language and culture. Knowledge of the language and traditional knowledge is often restricted to elderly speakers. The high mortality rate of COVID-19 among the elderly population and the discrimination in access to health care put the elders of these communities at higher risk. Thus, in the post-COVID world, we would witness the acceleration of language endangerment, and there aren't enough linguists, researchers and (safe) research methods to counter this threat.
Instead of washing our hands off these responsibilities, can we make this an opportunity to introspect on the 'one-way street' model? YES. We should. If not now, then when will we undo these colonial forms of knowledge production? Researchers around the world, and especially those in India should take this pandemic as an opportunity to decolonise Language Documentation.
Moving away from this 'one-way street' model would benefit all the stakeholders in this effort. A decolonised approach to language documentation will fulfil the needs of all the stakeholders.
Community:
During my six years of language documentation, I have often faced questions like the following from community members: what use is the work (language documentation) you do for us? You will get a PhD or book, what will we get? You will record me today but will it ensure tomorrow my children will speak the language? These questions were not posed only to me; they are being raised towards all linguists. Lines from Abhay Xaxa's immortal poem "I am not your data, nor am I your vote bank, I am not your project, or any exotic museum object" from I am not your data, haunts me every time I go to do fieldwork. When the goals of a language documentation project are decided a priori, aren't we objectifying and reducing fellow humans to data? The only way to address this potentially disastrous resentment among speakers of endangered languages is to abandon our 'one-way street' model and democratise decision making powers. Community member participation at all stages, from proposal to archiving, will address this concern. Who is better aware of the problems of language maintenance than the community members? Letting communities members make informed choices about language documentation outcomes will directly address the issue of endangerment and linguistic oppression. This will give a rocket booster to our efforts to conserve the linguistic diversity.
Policymakers:
Policymakers are concerned at the numbers of endangered languages and the effective policy to ensure that the numbers don't look bad. What better solution than participatory policymaking can we find? Participation of members of the speech community and linguists in policymaking would not just decolonise language documentation but will decolonise governance itself.
Linguist:
Having speech community members as one of the collaborators from the beginning is a double win for a linguist. The quality and the quantity of the language documentation will improve multiple folds if native speakers even partly step into the shoes of the researchers. And the linguist will get an excellent opportunity to work with more languages in her lifetime. Which will, in turn, enrich our knowledge on how the language works.
The advantages of a democratised language documentation project are not new. Linguists and institutions that support language documentation have chosen to ignore it for a long time. Continuing to do so in the post-COVID world will not just display our arrogance but also insincerity to the cause. In this post-COVID world, we all must devise and demand policy, methods and workflows that will support collaborative projects. We must take this first effort to decolonise language documentation.
The author works as a Research Associate Cum Digital Archivist at the Center For Endangered Languages, Sikkim University, Sikkim University, India.
Comments