What is a killer language?

When ”big” languages are learned subtractively (at the cost of the mother tongues) rather than additively (in addition to mother tongues), they become KILLER LANGUAGES. "Being" a killer language is NOT a characteristic of a language. It is a question of how a language functions in relation to other languages. ANY language can become a killer language in relation to some other language. Besides, "languages" do not kill each other. It is the power relations between the speakers of the languages that are the decisive factors behind the unequal relations between the languages which then cause people from dominated groups to learn other languages subtractively, at the cost of their own. What are subtractive and additive teaching and learning? Subtractive teaching through the medium of a dominant language replaces indigenous and minority children’s mother tongue. It subtracts from their linguistic repertoire. Additive teaching through the medium of indigenous and minority children's mother tongue, with good teaching of the dominant language as a second language, adds to children’s linguistic repertoire and makes them high level bilingual or multilingual. They learn both their own language and other languages well. Killer languages pose serious threats towards the linguistic diversity of the world. English is today the world’s most important killer language but most dominant languages (Russian, Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, French, Hindi, Swedish, Hausa…) function as killer languages vis-�-vis smaller or less powerful languages. There is a nested hierarchy of languages, and glottophagy (”language cannibalism”). An example: English is functioning as a killer language even in relation to Finnish and other ”big” Finno-Ugric languages in some domains, for example some areas of research and publishing. Finnish, in turn, is functioning as a killer language in relation to both immigrant minority languages in Finland in most domains, and in relation to other much smaller Finno-Ugric languages (e.g. Saami). ALL oral (spoken) languages can function as killer languages, in relation to Sign languages through enforced oralism. Oralism means that Deaf students are taught through speech (as if they were hearing) and Sign languages have no place in the curriculum. Official/national oral languages may be especially important killer languages vis-�-vis Sign languages. The American Sign Language may pose serious threats towards all other Sign languages, if it is learned subtractively. It may be the worst killer language among Sign languages When speakers shift to another language, and their own language disappears, the incoming new language can thus function as a killer language. In studying causes for the disappearance of languages we find two explanatory paradigms: language death and language murder. When languages, ”the vast libraries of human intangible heritage”, disappear, is it (natural) death or is it murder?

The two paradigms for analysing situations where languages ”the vast libraries of human intangible heritage” disappear can be summarized as follows: In the DEATH paradigm, languages just disappear naturally. Languages are seen as "committing suicide"; speakers are leaving them voluntarily for instrumental reasons and for their own good.

In the MURDER paradigm, the libraries are set on fire - it is arson. The educational systems, mass media, etc., participate in committing linguistic and cultural genocide according to the UN 1948 Genocide Convention definitions, Art. 2b & 2e (see article on linguistic genocide).

Does it matter which paradigm is followed? The difference between seeing the disappearance of languages as death or as murder is that if we believe that languages just disappear naturally, there is no agent. The only ones to blame are the speakers themselves. It is THEIR individual and collective responsibility … and they (seem to) have profited by language shift. If we, on the other hand, believe that languages have been murdered/ killed, we can analyse the structural and ideological agents responsible: the world’s economic, techno-military and political systems. Even when language shift has happened with what seems like speakers’ ”consent”, ideological factors behind this ”consent” can be analysed. In most cases indigenous or minority parents who cease to speak their own language to their children, or who place their children in a school with a dominant language as the language of teaching and learning, have had no choice. A school with their own language as the main medium of teaching does not exist. Or they do not have enough research-based knowledge about what kind of education best supports children's bilingual/multilingual development. They do not have enough knowledge of the long-term consequences of their choices. Many have been made to believe that it is either/or: EITHER you speak your own language to your child, and have the child in a school where your own language is used, and the child may learn your language and traditions but does not learn the dominant language or get a job: her/his life chances, especially on the labour market, are ruined. OR you speak the dominant language and the dominant language is used as the teaching language and the child gets a (good) job; unfortunately, you have to sacrifice your own language and culture, if you want to support your child. This "manufactured consent" is difficult to analyse if we believe that languages, like plants, just die - they are born, they flourish, and they die, they have a certain life-span, and now it is over for most small languages. Instead, of course, it is perfectly possible to follow a both/and/and path. If indigenous and minority children are taught additively, with their own language as the main teaching language during minimally the first 6-8 years, while they also receive good teaching in a dominant language as a second language (preferably given by bilingual teachers), they have a very good chance of becoming high level bilingual (or multilingual, if other languages are added later).

Based on Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education - or Worldwide Diversity and Human rights? Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.