Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40078691›Full record

ReviewCambridge prisms. Extinction2023

Language endangerment: Using analytical methods from conservation biology to illuminate loss of linguistic diversity.

Lindell Bromham

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cambridge prisms. Extinction, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Lindell BromhamMacroevolution and Macroecology Group, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2202-2609

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Language diversity is under threat, with between a third to a half of all languages considered endangered, and predicted rates of loss equivalent to one language per month for the rest of the century. Rather than reviewing the extensive body of linguistic research on endangered languages, this review focuses specifically on the interdisciplinary transfer of methods developed in conservation biology, macroecology and macroevolution to the study of language endangerment and loss. While the causes of language endangerment and loss are different to those for species, studying patterns of diversity of species and languages involves similar analytical challenges, associated with testing hypotheses and identifying causal relationships. Solutions developed in biology can be adapted to illuminate patterns in language endangerment, such as statistical methods that explicitly model phylogenetic nonindependence, spatial autocorrelation and covariation between variables, which may otherwise derail the search for meaningful predictors of language endangerment. However, other tools from conservation biology may be much less use in understanding or predicting language endangerment, such as metrics based on International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria, population viability analysis or niche modelling. This review highlights both the similarities and the differences in approaches to understanding the concurrent crises in loss of both linguistic diversity and biodiversity.

Indexed as

biocultural diversityDiversity losshotspotsIndigenous languageslanguage revitalizationmacroecology

Identifiers

PMID40078691
PMCPMC11895721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.