Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity Author(s): Luisa Maffi Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 34 (2005), pp.

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

Cultural, Linguistic, and Biological Diversity

Luisa Maffi
Terralingua, Salt Spring Island, British Columbia V8K email: maffi@terralingua.org 2N6, Canada;

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

the past decade, the field of biocultural diversity has arisen

of transdisciplinary research concerned with investigat

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

nings of this field and on its philosophical and ethical underpinnings,

and then on surveys three trating

links between linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity; the mea

surement and assessment of biocultural diversity; and the protection concludes emerging with field. and maintenance some considerations of biocultural about review diversity. The future prospects for this

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

revitalization of biocultural diversity; and (d)

development rights. of the related aspects of human

DEVELOPMENTOF CURRENT
LINES OF RESEARCH.

This review first outlines the history of the

field's aspects emergence of the and relevant then body appraises of various literature.

AND PHILOSOPHICAL
ETHICAL UNDERPINNINGS.

LINGUISTICAND BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: GLOBALAND

REGIONAL STUDIES. DIVERSITY... 604

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS
Parallels and affinities between evolutionary

MEASURING AND ASSESSING

BIOCULTURAL 610

biology and historical linguistics and between

languages and species were already drawn by

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

biodiversity?in was coined

to natural of languages organisms. Analogies between and species became dis languages to the shelves credited and were of relegated misconceived ideas until recently.

human-made the diversity

As for the links between language and the

environment, interest in this topic has prece

in nature?then

1990s might be dubbed the decade o? biocul

tural timate diversity?when link between the concept of cultural, an in and biological,

dents in the history of anthropology.

North the urally American study led of Native to such such by the

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

thropologists were struck indigenous ried, among local

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

small but significant body of literature on bio

cultural olinguistic) (or, in a less widespread diversity has version, bi and a accumulated,

languages other landscape Sapir of the

characteristics and fauna. bears in reflect en

of

the

its flora that

related field of both scholarly research and

practical applications is emerging.

In particular, "the which ing stamp the "the

The main foci of this emerging field are

as follows: {a) the parallels and correlations

speakers interest of features" Boas's

physical are placed" the

language environment while

people

in such

between biodiversity and linguistic diversity,

the overlaps guages between the of in the global distribution and of lan and biodiversity, language, common the relationships knowledge, and assessments biodiversity, and

vironmental 229). From

famous

1912, pp. 228, (Sapir on Eskimo notes

words for snow (Boas 1911; seeMartin

Pullum 1989 on the later vast misinterpreta

1986,

traditional (b) studies threats to

environment; the

tions and distortions, both scholarly and pop

ular, of this topic) toWhorf s related remarks

cul

tural diversity, and linguistic diversity and of

the sociocultural and environmental conse

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

list only list only

On vertebrate

On both language and vertebrate list

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

a foundational ever, this was

role not

anthropology. to the specifically

in

How effect of

full understanding of culture" (Kroeber 1963,

p. 1)?a statement for grammatic that might the current be taken lines of as pro research,

giving rise to a distinct tradition of research on

the ture) relations and between language By and (and/or cul the environment. on the large, these of the en the devel

ifwith the addition that recognition of these

also is, conversely, relationships full understanding of nature. central to the

early vironment

observations rather

language to contributed

opment of concepts of linguistic and cultural

relativity. Another pioneer of North American an

DEVELOPMENT OF CURRENT LINES OF RESEARCH

Despite such significant antecedents, the de

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

Kroeber's students (including Julian Steward)

Kroeber's approach

gists and ethnoecologists

knowledge ecosystems, ested interest on in and use of as place from as well indigenous also stems by

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

networks pass not

of human only but the also

ecologies," that relationships and

linguistics seen as encom envi

linguistic the physical

social

ronment,

environment,

nationalist theories of geographic and biolog

ical determinism. unpopularity in light of Kroeber's area of offered inquiry "a modern, which This is somewhat conviction a special of a para that opportunity this

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

and other local peoples, and of the significant

extent tices such knowledge and and prac encoded, transmitted

for

nonsimplistic would almost

environmental certainly stimu (Kroeber

study late analogous

research

elsewhere"

1928, quoted
work in no

in Heizer
represented

1963) and that his

"a relapse to

through More ships

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

cal diversity, their global overlapping distribu

tions, and the common threats they are facing

environment"

emerged in the mid-1990s

alarming and thought-provoking

in the wake of an
observation:

made
tures never

it clear that "[w]hile it is true that cul

are be rooted completely to that .[t]he in nature, and can therefore with understood piece of nature causes cultural the and except

reference they tural ena. tion nor

in which of phenom recogni culture, to the cul

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,..

immediate are other not

phenomena .. does .[T]his of relations the importance

prevent nature these

between of

relations

www.annualreviews.org

Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity

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

Biocultural diversity: oflifeinallits diversity

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

Environments," in 1996. This

Knowledge, Endangered in California, Berkeley, conference brought together held in the natural linguistic, so

scholars cial, with

and practitioners and of

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

of biodiversity loss andwith the

by biologists to stem

undertaken

1996 with knowledge

versity

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

the specific purpose to promote and protection of biocultural di

research, education, action. of these and policy and on-the-ground of the confluence

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

increasingly knowledges, by human that the

cultural veloped guages risk by cesses

and practices as the as well are and being placed

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

various degrees of resolution, from a global

to view picture a local some scale. The following aspects recent of sections this emerging First, re of the key the

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.

found implications for themaintenance

on earth. It became clear that an

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

PHILOSOPHICAL AND ETHICAL UNDERPINNINGS

Harmon has offered the as yet most thorough

(Harmon 1995, 1996; Krauss 1996).

Among an the events that effort was catalyzed the such interna Lan interdisciplinary

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

indicator for cultural di

richness" richness." as On

"language loss of "cultural

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

and planet as the biosphere?-a

or region as a worldwide, measure of linguistic diversity Logosphere: the

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

of philosophical, biological, psychological, and linguistic literature from the Enlighten

ment to the present. Through this excursus,

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

condition of life on earth. The

crease of biocultural diversity,

continued de
he concludes,

would "staunch the historical flow of being it

self, the evolutionary processes through which

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

tionary significance of diversity not only in

nature a way but of also in culture options and alive" "keeping language for the as fu

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

tic diversity and has ignored or even denied

any connection world, between it was it is because and the real language born of the nomi

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"?

real world. Within

itself is seen as an that bears little

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

Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity

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

LINGUISTIC AND BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: GLOBAL AND REGIONAL STUDIES

The tasks of systematically testing the claim

thor, nominalist philosophy in fact lies behind

most about of the discourse both language of "colonizing cultures" and the environment,

that biodiversity
tural diversity the are state assessing

and linguistic and/or cul

mutually of each of related these and diversi of

and behind the increasing tendency for this

discourse nomenon at worst. to treat at best diversity and a nuisance as an and epiphe a threat

ties in relation to the others depend largely

on the availability locate, of effective ways these to rep resent, and measure diversities.

On tends cent to

the that

other

hand,

Wollock does not

also

con

The of
ning

the response

lie in the re in reaction

biocultural
with

focus of much of the "first generation" diversity research, begin

Harmon's groundbreaking work

postmodernist the centralizing of modernism, overarching

trend, and

which,

dencies of any

ten homogenizing the existence denies of meaning and

(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

on biodiversity and linguistic diversity (and, to

a lesser sity), extent, as other by the for aspects recent of cultural development geospatial diver of as well

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

data [that is, geographic

information systems
challenge, Harmon

(GIS)].
In approaching this

that only a shift from viewing

grammar social ble and to talk to viewing natural world adequately as it as action

language as
within the it possi

(1996, 2002) first revisited the once-tabooed

of species and lan comparison an the that guages, misperception dispelling two lan between the equating implies analogy He illustrated guages with natural organisms. issue the how, although (and the concepts speciation of species and fuzzy language categories and lan of

can make about the

relationship

of linguistic diversity to biodiversity, of how

languages and guides scape and of cultural repositories can influence to action memory the land

its biodiversity.

In understanding

guages sis) are

gene with

unquestionably are not

and celebrating unity in diversity, he con cludes, lies our best hope for a sustainable
future. From yet another complementary angle,

porous boundaries and defy ironclad defini

tion, they arbitrary and correspond to

real entities (and processes) in the world. (For

another recent view of languages as species,

Suckling (2000) suggests that the deep con

nections thus between the mutual language consequences diversity loss, and ecology, of and linguistic are apparent es

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 the role of metaphor

and the extent based metaphors support

in human
to which our bi un

heightened both species

attention and

communication

languages

Drawing on global biodiversity data aswell

as catalogs of the world's showed languages notable (Harmon correlations 1995), Harmon

derstanding of the world. As both biological

and these linguistic diversity are eroded, are he also argues, being fundamental metaphors

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,

see also Hunn

2001, Maffi 2001b, Smith 2001.) In contrast, M?hlh?usler (1996) called at

tention tural absence among broadly guages lated contact, ous or to the fact that can linguistic develop for and also cul in the distinctiveness of mutual human defined are groups cultural

IUCN: The World

Conservation Sympatric linguistic formation: development linguistic distinctiveness between absence human in the of communities boundary the of Union

1998 higher vertebrate species (see Maffi for the earliest printed version of this map)
(Figure 1, see color insert) brought out a re

isolation: belonging area, to be

example, to the same lan 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

considered undergone occupy niches.

to have and who

extensive the same or

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.

emerged and languages correlations,

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

(1996) also pointed

to several
could they

factors that large-scale biogeograpbic account for these correlations because

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

ries, especially with internal geophysical bar

riers; numbers or climates, higher tropical fostering In addition, and densities of species).

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.

She identifies biogeographic of

Harmon's, which affect

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

groups which, with

bution of lineage density. She lists features

in such fall, as low latitude, coastlines, among the and mountains high factors rain posi

environment,

ifying it as they adapted to it and developing

specialized knowledge of it, as well as special

tively correlated with high lineage diversity,

lb these, such she adds historical and economic factors as scale of economy?large-scale

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

by and specifically adapted

environments. Along

socioecological

pecially in theOld World

whereas early human

(Africa and Eurasia),

of the New

the same lines, M?hlh?usler

notes, "Life in a particular

(1995, p. 155)
human environ

colonization

World
of

ment
about

is dependent on people's ability to talk

it." (On the evolutionary relationships coevolution dimensions and of cultural, the is lin

and the Pacific brought about very high lineage density. On this basis, she distin
guishes spread zones, characterized by rapid

human-environment sue of the possible

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

residual zones with high genetic diversity and

no Residual zone: area by appreciable families. study on density of human languages spread of languages or lan guage

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

agencies concerned with

mandate of sustainable

implementing
development

the
issued

this process

language

risk: Ecological level of risk that

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

patterns of rainfall, as the key factors affecting

the distribution He of linguistic these diversity factors world the wide. subsumes under

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

with higher rainfall and longer or constant

growing torial bers of seasons regions) (such correlate as in tropical with and equa num groups higher

plete catalog of the world's languages; Grimes

2000) was taken as a convenient proxy for cul

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

risk, whereas logical can be more self-sufficient

mitigate in the latter

to which

cultural diversity abounds in those

and threatened ecoregions.

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

A map of the global overlapping distributions

of ecoregions and languages was produced for

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

the highest concentration of ethnolinguistic

groups whereas desert with Oviedo in terms occurs lower in tropical forest are found densities (a finding above, provide ecosystems, in arctic and

mote

a more

sustainable

and

equitable

use

of natural resources" (CEESP 2004). UN

ESCO's recent Universal Declaration on Cul

environments Nettle's, reviewed

that coincides and an for which explanation

tural Diversity
not tural tural recognizing

CEESP: IUCN's
Commission on Environmental, and Economic, Social Policy

(UNESCO
an explicit

2001), although
link between cul

et al. similarly of subsistence

strategies).

and biological cul diversity, emphasizes as the of creativity" diversity "wellspring

The applied goal of this project was to pro

mote the an integrated biocultural of WWF's conservation approach ecore priority to

(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

topic of global biocultural

continued and as well, of theory, to critiques stimulate in the

correla
both fur academic to the de and data

research

environment velopment

contributing methodology,

sets for this field of study and to the refine

ment of research Apparently ous research Harmon's), and parameters. hypotheses unaware of some of the previ on the same topic (particularly an com Sutherland, ecologist,

2001) concerned thatWWF's

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,

community-based to in regards of debate

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

organizations of the sustainable

the

operandi successes

of conservation and failures see

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

Chapin 2004, Maffi

At the same

2004 for reviews.)

these critics saluted

time,

the key finding that emerged from this map

ping exercise, that is, the strong correlations

between
pointing

biodiversity
out that

and cultural diversity,

stresses the cen

literature

this finding

(e.g., Krauss

tral role of indigenous peoples in the global

conservation initiative. The significance of

discrepancies (perhaps due to different meth

ods of analysis), Sutherland also confirms a

this issue, and more generally of the role of

culture to work in conservation, its way into has in fact continued organiza conservation

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

tions, particularly IUCN, whose Commission

on Environmental, Economic, and Social Pol

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

the validity and of endangered

of species-languages to maintain efforts languages. Several

flects both the length of population history in

a given location carrying context, and the constraints of and po tential In this capacity while the environment. for more studies

ters from
the Times

the public
vigorously

later published
countered Berreby's

by

calling

of the behavioral and cultural factors leading

to boundary formation, they argue that "social

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

boundary formation, which

social dential behavior units, and interaction is responsive

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

in the use on culture

cultures, itself

comparative global as well as of the no analytical about (e.g., unit? languages Harmon

global and sub-global patterns leads them to

call for smaller-scale sensitive to the role analyses of local, that will be more his especially

as an those

caveats noted by

that mirror other

torical, factors in altering patterns of global

diversity.

researchers

1996, 2002; Oviedo

also point to historical that may expansion)

et al. 2000). The

factors have reduced (such

authors
as state di

This
searchers

point

is widely

shared among re
diversity. Stepp et al.

on biocultural

cultural

(2004) explicidy stress the need for developing

studies on a vestigators and mutual cern causal regional to better influences factors and time, loss scale identify that will the allow in correlations even dis

versity andmasked the impact and visibility of

older the "how unit ecological importance easy from factors. of They stress, out the though, issue cultural units ex of separating

it is to define the issue

any particular of whether such

and perhaps in the development,

main

tenance, the same

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

At diversity. a make major

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

pattern fully consistent with that of the distri

bution of languages in earlier studies: Cultural

in the intended use of GIS: from employ

ing this technology mostly as a demonstra

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

showing the lowest diversity, a likely

of empire find formation there. The of au cul also positive with correlations and

pand

beginning to used explore

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

GIS database of global biodiversity

cally, by countries vascular or plant

(specifi
not stud

2002a,b). All these data variously help focus

attention on the theoretical and methodolog zones: Diversity units of area (10,000 sq. km.) that the categorize world's biodiversity on the basis of the number plant of vascular species per unit

diversity) organized as in ecoregions previous

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

linguistic diversity and

inMesoamerica, the

cal factors and numbers relationships ment. The ing of how

that may

of human with and

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

strongest in the tropics. Another

pattern noted by Stepp et al.

significant

ilarly or differentially
and gree species, as well of resolution

affect cultural groups

of scale and de is also in the

is a correlation

as issues

between low population density and high bio

cultural diversity, perhaps due to an increase in

of the analyses,

foreground.

both linguistic homogenization

the ties. the environment In the authors further plan at higher development to elaborate

and impact on
densi

population of their work, regional map

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

A number of continental and regional stud

ies, some descriptive, data, some are based already on mappings in and quantitative available,

lap significantly in the region of study. At a

finer scale, however, the with between Manne's correlation no simple is con mono of species also shows (of the siderably tonic and no weakened,

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

languages. common environmental

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

the languages; and more overlap

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

hotspot of biocultural diversity (Nabhan et al.

www.annualreviews.org

Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity

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

interaction and of higher levels of diversity of linguistic and cultural traits.]

IBCD: Biocultural Index of Diversity Manne species as did nized and also compares degrees adapting the of threat to languages, recog for languages,

i tor

the

state to

of

the natural indicators the to state the

world.

Harmon al diver

set out low sity and for

identify

that might of cultural of

gauging in relation

state

biodiversity, cultural di

Sutherland, threat

internationally

thus

for determining

whether

ing here tributions

for species. Her find categories is that even at a coarse scale the dis of threatened languages to some and species

versity is indeed diminishing and whether it is diminishing in tandem with biodiversity.

He proposed tors: from crops, a number language, of potential and indica to ethnicity, religion med practices, and

do not tend to coincide in Central and South

America. She points possible histor

diet,

land management social organization,

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

ical practices, of artistic

forms

expression. Harmon's choice of cultural

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

though showing a similarly limited correla

tion in South America, in Mexico as parts of North presents and Central America, a significant America, Equato correlation as well

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;

MEASURING AND ASSESSING BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY

The issue of standardization and compara

an areal

which
land diversity extent; adjusts

adjusts the indicators for a country's

area and relative and the a thus to measures the country's biocultural physical

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

ment of the global conditions and trends of

biodiversity and cultural diversity. The ear

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

high biocultural diversity: the Amazon Basin,

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

Central This lations

Africa, largely found

and

Indomalaysia/Melanesia. the geographical work reviewed or ethnicities diversity. to a number caveats corre above, were

(2002), Zarger & Stepp (2004), Zent & Zent

(2004), velopment and others are contributing methods and to the de for the transmis ecological ethnoecological knowledge in TEK: traditional of quantitative of the

confirms in other

in which used as

either proxies

languages for cultural point and

vestigation acquisition sion of ethnobotanical and

Harmon itations of

and Loh the IBCD

of lim

knowledge
tors (such

and for the identification of fac

as age, formal education, bilingual

concerning

its use, making

any index, should

it clear that this index, like

be used only to measure

ability, length of residency, change in subsis

tence tenance affect etc.) that may practice, or loss of TEK. As more the main of these

general conditions and trends and should not

be of expected the to provide an at hand, in-depth analysis as phenomenon within-country particularly in biocul that, in its the

studies become available, they will likely con

stitute data for an the of diversity increasingly elaboration the conditions in support significant of more and of source refined trends a better of of in cul

concerns tural

variation also point IBCD only out

diversity. They current the version,

dicators tural

portrays

under

state of biocultural diversity at the beginning

of the trends of future data, twenty-first are as yet research. used century, missing whereas and are the data on object

standing of the state of biocultural diversity and of the development of appropriate

policies. Likewise, measurement to the contributions significant and assessment of biocultural

latter

conclude that these They in conjunction with careful

qualitative analyses, will ultimately provide a

more adequate and accurate picture of the

diversity
terms ing the time-series should sheer fully guages,

should come from

elaborate of data the world's on criteria

linguistics,
for evaluat

in

of more state

global state of biocultural diversity. They

however, openly acknowledge as to raise among that

do,

the main

value of such an index will be largely practical

and political, biocultural opinion promote restoration. It is in fact noteworthy that the Conven such diversity makers, needed and awareness decision about makers, and and

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

the general public for its protection action

adequate as researchers Better data

indicator

in this on numbers

field of

well

ognize. over time tics, guage

and other

particularly transmission,

tion on Biological Diversity?one

goals, tection as

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

ity of mother needed language for

tongue this purpose.

innovations, edge, the conservation considering the

endangerment a set

language

of biodiversity?is state and trends

tenance recendy gathered by UNESCO

put forth of recommendations for

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

[Specifically on the role of

a mother-tongue policies in medium the mainte

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

Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity

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

PROTECTING AND MAINTAINING BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY

Of course, no matter how sophisticated our

tional

availability in support tion

policies, of of

as well financial efforts

as an and

increase other

in the

resources the protec diversity is needed,

to promote of biocultural

and maintenance levels. Yet,

understanding
ability be, without

of biocultural
measure, action

diversity
we would

and
itmay still,

at various

much

more

to represent,

and assess

especially in terms of change in general atti

tudes and behaviors. stories The recent as of proliferation popular books of news as well

appropriate

most

likely, be presiding over the demise of our bioculturally rich world, given the forces
causing its erosion. This is why the relevance

of affecting policy and public opinion is high

on the minds of researchers in this field, giv

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

ing it its characteristic mixture of theory and

practice, research and advocacy, and knowl

general

edge building and knowledge dissemination.

As several indicated international at various points above, both in organizations,

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

of indigenous and other societies worldwide

whose languages, cultural identities, and lands

are being threatened by global forces. A per

ceived tity, such and link between land (rather iden cultural language, than an abstract notion among Blythe many in

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

as nature) societies It is no explicit

is common (see, e.g., then,

digenous 2003). most

& Brown of the revital

ples' and minorities'

resource and rights,

land rights,

traditional

surprise, efforts

that many and

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

ize linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity

jointly endogenous tional and ing about are grassroots efforts, whether or and assisted promoted international and from organizations. these efforts entirely na by Learn

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

in a certain and interna

ample of an integrated, transdisciplinary field (Somerville & Rapport 2000), spanning the
natural and social sciences, as well as linking

change

in national

theory with practice and science with policy,

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

nity to better define its theoretical and philo

sophical assumptions, and on the its research its overall topic settings of questions, goals. The biocultural promises to its methodologies, focus increasing diversity in

linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. A

transdisciplinary more research and research and other approach sensitive findings applications. more to should also make needs real world relevant all,

academic

Above

for policy a transdis

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,

ciplinary study of biocultural diversity should

contribute to our understanding that, as

Harmon
culture hope over

(2002) puts it, diversity in nature and

makes us human. respect natural In this resides stewardship heritage the for and and

that greater our shared

communication plines, as well

and exchanges as more work

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

awarded byThe Christensen Fund toTerralingua (2003-2004,2005).

acknowledged. I am also grateful to Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Dave

This support is gratefully

Harmon for their careful

reading of and helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

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.

Brown R, eds. 2003. Maintaining

Found. Endanger. Lang,

the Links. Language,

Aust. Bath, UK:

Identity and the

Endanger.

Conf.

1th, Broome,

Found.

Boas F. 1911. The Handbook of North American Indians, Vol.

1. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.

1. Bur. Am. Ethnol. Bull. 40, Part

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.

of the third kind: ethnolinguistic

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

environmental knowledge: aZapotee example. SeeMaffi

Krauss M. 1992. The world's languages in crisis. Language

2001c, pp. 118-32

68:4--10

Kroeber AL. 1928. Native 23:375-98

culture of the Southwest. Univ. Calif Publ. Am. Archaeol. Ethnol.

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

i.^. 34(4):12-21 6i4 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

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

Creek, CA: AltaMira

Maffl L, ed. 2001c. On Biocultural DC: Smithson. and Washington, L. 2004. Diversity: Linking Inst. Press the "two cultures": Language, Knowledge, the gap. and the Environment.

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

Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity

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.

Technol. Publ., UNEP Posey DA. 2001. Biological

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

Ethnoecology: Knowledge, Univ. Georgia S. 2001. Acculturation

Resources, Press

and Rights,

ethnoecological ed. TL

knowledge: Gragson, BG

a Piaroa Blount,

example. pp. 90-124.

In

and ethnobotanical

knowledge

loss among

the Piaroa

of Venezuela:

demonstration of a quantitative method 2001c, pp. 190-211

Zent Hoti

for the empirical study of TEK change. SeeMaffi

among the

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

Diversity, York Bot.

Garden

www.annualreviews.org

Linguistic Diversity and Biodiversity

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