Language Shift as Cultural Memory Loss: Quantifying the Erosion of Ethnobiological Knowledge across Three Generations in an Endangered Language Community
Main Article Content
Abstract
Approximately 40% of the world’s 7,000 languages are endangered, with many located in biodiversity hotspots. Language shift may accelerate the loss of traditional ecological knowledge, but quantitative, three‑generation studies are lacking. To quantify the relationship between heritage language shift and ethnobiological knowledge erosion across three generations in an endangered language community. Ninety participants (30 grandparents, G1; 30 parents, G2; 30 children, G3) from 30 families completed standardized language proficiency measures (adapted PPVT, oral fluency) and ethnobiological knowledge tasks (free‑listing, species identification and use). Covariates included age, education, and nature contact. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and hierarchical regression. Language proficiency declined significantly across generations (G1: M=42.1/50; G2: 28.4; G3: 12.7; η²=0.67). Ethnobiological knowledge showed a parallel decline (G1: M=38.6/80; G2: 24.3; G3: 9.8; η²=0.68). The bivariate correlation between language proficiency and knowledge was strong (r=0.72, 95% CI [0.61, 0.80], p<0.001). Regression confirmed language proficiency as a unique predictor (β=0.61, p<0.001) after controlling for covariates, explaining 45% of variance in knowledge. Language shift and ethnobiological knowledge erosion are tightly coupled processes, supporting the view that heritage languages serve as critical scaffolds for cultural memory. Rapid intergenerational loss (70% vocabulary, 88% knowledge) within two generations indicates a biocultural emergency. Integrated interventions—community‑based language revitalization, heritage‑language environmental education, and biocultural conservation policies are urgently needed to preserve both linguistic and ecological diversity.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.Penulis.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (Refer to The Effect of Open Access).
References
Assmann, J. (2011). Communicative and cultural memory. In P. Meusburger, M. Heffernan, & E. Wunder (Eds.), Cultural memories: The geographical point of view (pp. 15–27). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8945-8_2
Berkes, F. (2018). Sacred ecology (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123843
Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., Skirgård, H., Ritchie, A., Cardillo, M., Meakins, F., & Greenhill, S. J. (2022). Language and ethnobiological skills decline precipitously in Papua New Guinea, the world‘s most linguistically diverse nation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(21), e2110096119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2110096119
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Connerton, P. (2009). How modernity forgets. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627187
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). NCS Pearson.
Hanazaki, N., Herbst, D. F., Marques, M. S., & Vandebroek, I. (2013). Evidence of the shifting baseline syndrome in ethnobotanical research. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 9, 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-75
Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2016). Why are there different languages? The role of adaptation in linguistic diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 649–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.005
Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437
Maffi, L., & Woodley, E. (2012). Biocultural diversity conservation: A global sourcebook. Routledge.
McCarty, T. L. (2021). Language planning and policy in Indigenous education. In J. W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 567–585). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190458898.013.30
Münevver, S. (2019). Language shift and traditional medicinal plant knowledge in Tilantongo, the Mixteca, Mexico (Master‘s thesis). University of Kent.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.2.1) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Savo, V., Caneva, G., & Kumbaric, A. (2026). When minority language persistence is not enough: The decline of foraging knowledge in German- and Ladin-speaking Alpine communities of Northern Italy. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 22, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-026-00845-2
Terralingua. (2018). Measuring traditional environmental knowledge: The VITEK protocol. https://terralingua.org/vitek/
UNESCO. (2026). UNESCO Atlas of the World‘s Languages in Danger. https://unesco.org/languages-atlas
Walsh, M. (2020). Patterns in the transmission of traditional ecological knowledge: A case study from Arnhem Land, Australia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 16, 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-00415-2