MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005276891 · doi:10.1353/lan.2011.0026

Endangered languages of Austronesia. Ed. by Margaret Florey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Pp. 448. ISBN 9780199544547. $165 (Hb).

2011· article· en· W2005276891 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gary Holton

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndonesianContext (archaeology)Endangered speciesHistoryAustronesian languagesDocumentationLinguisticsGeographySociologyDemographyArchaeologyComputer sciencePopulationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Endangered languages of Austronesia Gary Holton Endangered languages of Austronesia. Ed. by Margaret Florey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Pp. 448. ISBN 9780199544547. $165 (Hb). As described by the editor, this book ‘canvasses a range of language endangerment scenarios encountered across Austronesia’ (4). Though not explicitly acknowledged, the volume was clearly inspired by the International Conference on Austronesian Endangered Language Documentation, held June 2007 in Taiwan. Four papers from that conference appear in this volume: those by Florey and Himmelmann, Thieberger, Sercombe, and Rau and Yang. An additional eleven papers from that conference were published in a proceedings volume (Rau & Florey 2007). The paper by Rau and Yang appears in both volumes. Most of the papers appear to have been prepared in 2007, as no works later than that date are cited in the list of references. The fourteen individual chapters discuss language situations in Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, East Timor, and Vanuatu. The coverage is by no means even across the region. Five of the fourteen chapters focus on languages of Indonesia, while two of them are devoted to Vanuatu. This unevenness is perhaps best summed up by Adelaar’s overview of language documentation efforts, which refers to the ‘West Austronesian world and Vanuatu’ (12). This West Austronesian, or more specifically Indonesian, bias obscures variations in language policy across the region. While there are clearly interesting points of comparison to be drawn within the Indonesian context, language policies and the endangerment context are largely similar. Much could be gained by comparing the Indonesian situation with that in other Austronesian states to the east. In this regard the absence of studies from Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Hawaii, and New Zealand is particularly notable. In each of those places Austronesian languages are under different kinds of threats. The title of the book refers to Austronesia rather than Austronesian. The choice of the geographic term Austronesia seems to imply a focus on a geographic rather than linguistic region, but given that all of the languages discussed in the volume belong to the Austronesian family, it is not clear that any substantive difference is intended by this choice of terminology. The seemingly opportunistic coverage in this volume leads one to ask whether the endangered languages of Austronesia form any kind of coherent grouping. In other words, what is it about the endangered languages of this region that is unique and different from endangered languages in other parts of the world? It is not at all clear that shared linguistic history correlates in any way with endangerment status or pathways of language decay. Political and social history would seem a much better correlate. Florey justifies the focus on endangered Austronesian languages by drawing parallels with other recent works devoted to endangered languages of particular regions. Yet, this comparison sells the book short, since such works are focused for the most part either (i) on languages within a particular sociopolitical context (e.g. Australia, Canada) or (ii) on linguistic descriptions of languages within a region that happen to be endangered (cf. Wetzels 2007). The current volume differs from these in two important ways. First, it is not a survey; it makes no claim to be representative. The strength of this approach is that it permits the contributors to provide detailed descriptions of community responses to endangerment scenarios. Understanding language endangerment requires a long view. While language documentation can be undertaken in a period of months or years, understanding language endangerment, shift, maintenance, and revitalization often requires decades of fieldwork. We are unlikely to have such detailed information from every language in a family, but where we do have it, it is very useful. A second and even more important feature of this volume is its focus on endangerment rather than endangered languages per se. Many recent volumes that purport to be about language endangerment turn out instead to be areal studies of languages from a particular region or family. This volume is different: it is not merely a set of linguistic descriptions of Austronesian languages that happen also to be endangered; rather, the focus is on why and how these languages have become endangered, and on what is being done to address...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.029

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguageSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207