August 2021

Language Documentation Accessibility in Indigenous Languages: A

Study in the Chittagong Hill Tract

Souvik Barua
Independent Researcher
Email: bsouvikr@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Protecting endangered indigenous languages from extinction due to multiple threats is one way to foster
cultural diversity across regions. However, documenting these endangered languages with no access barriers
has proven difficult. This research explores the language documentation accessibility efforts among indigenous
populations living in the Chittagong Hill Tract region. Protecting these vulnerable languages through proper
linguistic documentation practices remains essential. Therefore, the study aims at identifying and proposing
practical strategies for increasing access while identifying possible barriers hindering their preservation
efforts. The findings from this study will reveal technological infrastructure issues alongside socio-political
factors that obstruct effective language documentation practices and recommend innovative best practices for
previously unknown issues not identified before. During the investigation, the accessibility of digital technology
for effective documentation practice is assessed again for improved inclusiveness that serves all relevant
groups concerned. A community-driven approach should be encouraged for safeguarding vulnerable
indigenous populations’ cultures and promoting wider dissemination of inclusive practices recommended
within and beyond the Chittagong Hill Tract region context.

Keywords: language documentation, language documentation accessibility, endangered indigenous languages,

Chittagong hill tract, language preservation

INTRODUCTION
Language diversity is a critical element of human cultural heritage, embodying a vast range of knowledge,
history, and identity (Harrison, 2007; Romaine, 2006). Unfortunately, some indigenous languages worldwide
are approaching extinction due to language endangerment and a lack of resources (Grenoble & Whaley, 2005).
The Chittagong Hill Tract area in Bangladesh is home to various indigenous communities that include the
Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Mru, Bawm, Khumi, and Pankho ethnic groups. Each has its language and is
currently under threat of extinction, necessitating immediate preservation and documenting initiatives (Austin,
2016).

The preservation and revitalization of endangered indigenous languages rely on simple accessibility to
language documentation (Woodbury, 2003). Language documentation refers to recording and examining
linguistic data utilizing the creation of written records such as dictionaries, grammar, and audio recordings
(Austin, 2013; Grenoble, 2010; Himmelmann, 2006; Lehmann, 2001). Through these resources, critical aspects
such as the language’s symbolic and traditional narrative expressed through its linguistic structures are
brought to light, all of which are essential information providing invaluable, knowledgeable insights into these
languages (Gippert et al., 2006). However, this procedure is affected by several obstacles, limiting the
availability of language documentation for endangered indigenous languages.

Page | 1
 August 2021

This research study explores the accessibility of language documentation for endangered indigenous languages
spoken in the Chittagong Hill Tract region. This investigation centers on seven ethnic languages: Chakma,
Marma, Tripura, Mru, Bawm, Khumi, and Pankho. This study’s ultimate aim is to contribute towards
preserving these unique endangered languages by assessing their current state of documentary accessibility.
Furthermore, it also proposes efficient ways to remove obstacles that impede access.

Research Question
1. What is the current state of accessibility of language documentation resources for endangered
indigenous languages in the Chittagong Hill Tract region?

2. What are the main challenges and barriers that hinder the accessibility of language documentation in
endangered indigenous languages in the Chittagong Hill Tract region?

3. How can community engagement and involvement be effectively utilized to enhance the accessibility of
language documentation for endangered indigenous languages in the Chittagong Hill Tract region?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study lies in investigating the state of language documentation for endangered indigenous
languages situated within the Chittagong Hill Tract region. Through an examination of current practices
associated with language documentation alongside their challenges, our goal is twofold: firstly, shedding light
on requirements made towards fulfilling gaps; secondly, contributing a deeper understanding of governing
factors relevant to efficient preservation and better accessibility strategies for safeguarding such minority
linguistic heritage.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Safeguarding endangered indigenous languages for the sake of posterity is an urgent responsibility that
demands comprehensive documentation practices. The process involves ensuring accessibility to these
linguistic traditions for future generations, a task requiring careful attention to detail. This literature review
comprehensively explores the theme of language documentation accessibility and its implications for the
survival and flourishing of endangered indigenous languages by examining numerous research studies closely.
It delves deep into current issues such as meta-documentation techniques, language revitalization strategies,
digital scholarship trends, and cultural concepts such as symbolic power and identity formation.

Sands’ (2018) study underscores how crucial it is to have accessible documentation when embarking on efforts
to revitalize endangered indigenous languages. Comprehensive language documentation is critical to
promoting these programs and ensuring that all people have access to linguistic resources. It is an essential
tool used in recording details concerning endangered indigenous languages - a fact previously established by
Himmelmann (1998). Nevertheless, Austin’s (2010) work highlights multiple challenges with contemporary
attempts at linguistic documentation; he assumes that comprehensive approaches would be more successful in
ensuring accuracy and accessibility. Therefore, it is evident that quality language documentation serves as the
bedrock upon which both revitalization efforts occur, per Gumperz (1982), while simultaneously preserving
cultural heritage, as illustrated in Romaine’s (2006) work. Similarly, Cardoso’s (2014) research highlights
challenges experienced when attempting to protect endangered indigenous languages - these underscore why it
is so crucial to have accessible records of them.
Page | 2
 August 2021

Austin’s contributions have had a significant impact on the field of linguistics. His study on current issues in
language documentation addresses challenges related to accessibility and emphasizes the need for a
comprehensive approach for better results. Reflecting on his research, Austin (2016) highlights how important
it is to use accessible methods when sustaining language preservation efforts. In addition, further discussions
about this topic include Austin’s (2013) study on meta-documentation, which notes how important it is to
document how we document languages themselves so access can be gained more effectively. Austin’s (2021)
recent work also explores aspects of documentation processes as they relate to revitalization initiatives today. A
critical factor remains accessible solutions, ensuring that resources supporting linguistic research remain
accessible not only by researchers but also by impacted communities themselves, such as those involved with
education or even native groups seeking higher levels of relevance (Grenoble & Whaley, 2005).

In examining meta-documentation, Austin (2013) brings attention to documenting the process of capturing an
endangered language essence-helping make it more accessible through the contextualization of information
about methods and resources used throughout the documentary process. In one of his previous publications,
Austin (2005) draws upon SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies), discussing training experiences for
implicating communities responsibly towards preserving their language, underlining how, if appropriately
done, it enables linguists’ objectives within given target communities who need additional support to ensure
successful learning outcomes. Given our technological advancements, today is entirely different from years
past. New possibilities have arisen; coordinating data management using modern technology could help
integrate efforts-most challenging tasks such as archiving films reflecting indigenous cultural traditions - this
is where Borgman’s (2006) study comes into play - she emphasizes how innovations emphasize the importance
of the use of digital information in preserving numerous facets of society, including endangered indigenous
dialects. However, to ensure equity in access and participation in cross-border engagements, delicate
considerations for integrating language accessibility infrastructure must be well thought out. Mager et al.’s
(2018) article explores the opportunities and challenges inherent in making language documentation more
readily available across borders by developing unique language technology that supports the unique linguistic
characteristics of specific dialects or languages that are endangered within these border regions, leading
toward promoting linguistics’ shared notions towards the revitalization of a historically marginalized language.

Various obstacles confront the accessibility of language documentation. Himmelmann (2006) offers standard
procedures and ethical concerns in the documentation process to overcome them. Meanwhile, Gippert et al.
(2006) emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in addressing intricate linguistic, cultural,
and technological issues. An inclusive approach must involve indigenous communities in the documentation
process while valuing their knowledge and perspectives, as evidenced by Smith (2021), and producing
culturally sensitive resources.

Accessible language documentation is crucial in efforts to revitalize endangered languages. The assessment
conducted by Grenoble (2010) on the state of field linguistics shows that community engagement and the
development of practical resources are paramount aspects that lead to successful outcomes in endeavors
toward preserving linguistic diversity. By documenting language, it becomes more feasible for indigenous
communities to regain and revive their unique languages while strengthening cultural identity and fostering
pride, as evidenced by Hinton’s (2003) work.

Page | 3
 August 2021

Bourdieu (1991) discussed the connection between language and symbolic power. By documenting endangered
indigenous languages, communities can preserve their cultural heritage and knowledge while gaining
empowerment. Bucholtz and Hall (2004) highlight the link between language, identity, and social dynamics,
emphasizing how accessible language documentation is crucial for maintaining cultural identities.

Language conservation endeavors intersect with documented languages significantly. The contributions made
by organizations such as UNESCO (2003) emphasize how crucial linguistic preservation is in addressing
endangered languages and enhancing diversity in this field. Sutherland et al.’s (2014) findings draw further
attention to global matters affecting language endangerment by proposing that access to linguistic
documentation needs prioritization under broad conservation agendas. Harrison’s article (2007) highlights
how dire the consequences can be if a particular language becomes extinct, highlighting a real need for
incremental work already being done toward documenting endangered languages and preserving linguistic
diversity that is rapidly eroding today. Also included are various reviews exploring different themes
surrounding linguistic documentation.

The literature review brings to light the crucial role of accessibility in language documentation in preserving
and regenerating endangered indigenous languages. It underscores the need for implementing comprehensive
strategies that involve technological advancements through interdisciplinary collaborations while engaging
with communities parallelly. With accessible language documentation resources also come ongoing research
opportunities and efficient approaches to conveying cultural knowledge and encouraging revitalization
initiatives. Language documentation accessibility is critical to sustaining linguistic diversity while at the same
time safeguarding cultural heritage, all leading towards empowering indigenous communities.

Theoretical Framework
A robust theoretical foundation is essential for conducting this research, which may involve drawing on
numerous pertinent theoretical frameworks. A potential method would be to provide multiple concepts and
sources that are relevant to the research objectives, allowing for seamless guidance throughout the study.

Losing a language means losing knowledge embedded within it - an irrevocable loss that threatens cultures on
a global level. Ensuring that such precious wisdom endures for future generations requires grappling with the
complex dynamics involved in linguistic preservation. Theoretical frameworks on language endangerment and
maintenance are crucial tools for this task. Fishman’s Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (1991) and
UNESCO’s Framework on Language Vitality (2003) offer critical insights into these dynamics, from the social,
cultural, and political factors to the economic factors that drive linguistic shift and decline to the interventions
needed to prevent or reverse them. By looking through these frameworks, we can move towards a more just
world where all communities have the opportunity to celebrate and share their heritage through their
languages.

Incorporating pertinent theories and concepts related to language documentation and revitalization could
enhance the research. One such concept is Himmelmann’s framework of language documentation
(Himmelmann, 1998). Drawing inspiration from these theories can provide valuable perspectives on how
endangered languages are documented and strategies for restoring them.

Page | 4
 August 2021

Theories that explore sociolinguistics, such as Bourdieu’s interpretation of the association between languages
and influence (Bourdieu, 1991) and Gumperz’s (1982) understanding of how communication works in
individual scenarios (Gumperz, 1982), can help us investigate the varying factors that may impede language
accessibility within prominent cultures. These concepts provide valuable insight into attitudinal leanings
towards different vernaculars while highlighting fundamental community background elements around power
structures existing within Chittagong Hill Tract group members.

To undertake effective collaborative research with communities, one must employ particular techniques drawn
from studies on community-based languages. These techniques target participation at all levels within the
researched society so that individuals have a sense of inclusivity concerning language protective measures of
the documentation processes. Through the incorporation into those practices of principles developed by
scholars such as Bucholtz and Hall (2018), researchers optimize the methods employed for those endeavors.
With community-based language research (CBLR) guidelines and practices, community members can feel
invested in the efforts as their involvement fosters ownership, community engagement, and empowerment.

The core tenet of accessibility theory revolves around facilitating ease of use, diminishing cost factors, and
guaranteeing the availability of services and resources intended for people living in urban centers and those
living in rural outposts (Borgman, 2010). Given this research context, it follows that accessibility theory
presents an indispensable tool for assessing accessibility levels associated with linguistic documentation such
as dictionaries, written works, and audio recordings, among others, within Chittagong Hill Tract areas. This
analysis will uncover any innate limitations or challenges hampering access by researchers, members of
different linguistic communities, and even aspiring linguistic experts.

This study seeks to gain a holistic comprehension of the availability of linguistic records in endangered native
tongues of the Chittagong Hill Tract area by blending various theoretical outlooks. One potential approach
would be to provide diverse concepts and sources that correspond to the research objectives, allowing for
efficient guidance throughout the study.

METHOD
Research Design
This research delves into assessing the accessibility of language documentation for indigenous languages from
the Chittagong Hill Tract region. The application of qualitative approaches results in an in-depth analysis.

Sampling
Our research focused on individuals from indigenous communities residing in the Chittagong Hill Tract region
who speak the Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Mru, Bawm, Khumi, and Pankho languages. We used a purposive
sampling technique to select participants with direct experience or knowledge concerning language
documentation in these target languages.

Data Collection
Intending to collect precise data from participating members, the researcher drafted a structured questionnaire
that considered various research objectives related to this study. These included exploring their connection
with Chittagong Hill Tract indigenous languages, gauging the accessibility levels of language documentation,
identifying obstacles causing hindrances in its availability, and analyzing technological challenges. Additionally,

Page | 5
 August 2021

we sought input regarding how limited resources affect language endangerment. Subsequently, we conducted
detailed one-on-one interviews with some participants to get an even deeper understanding of their
perspectives on why documenting these languages is inaccessible at present.

Data Analysis
To identify repetitive patterns, themes, and noteworthy findings, the study undertook a qualitative analysis of
the interview data through transcription followed by coding. The process included the categorization and
interpretation of the categorized data.

Ethical Considerations
The research endeavors held ethical values in high regard, primarily ensuring that participants gave informed
consent while maintaining the privacy and anonymity of those involved.

Limitations of the Study

It is critical to remember that while this study offers valuable insights into indigenous language use within the
Chittagong Hill Tract region, its reliance on purposive sampling means we may need to take its findings within
specific context considerations. While valuable for understanding language use within the seven indigenous
languages studied here, caution should be taken before generalizing broader trends across all indigenous
communities living in this region, as the presence of many other excluded indigenous languages points to a
limitation in this study’s methodology. Given these limitations, incorporating more quantitative analyses in
future research could be helpful toward a better understanding of the challenges faced by diverse linguistic
groups (Creswell, 2017). The absence of quantitative data poses a challenge when attempting to measure and
evaluate issues comprehensively. Such limitations could confine conclusions or recommendations applicable
exclusively to specific conditions (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010).

Significance of the Study

The study’s results enhance comprehension of the accessibility of language documentation for endangered
Chittagong Hill Tract indigenous languages. By discovering the challenges encountered, the technological
barriers faced, and the importance of community involvement, the research provides valuable insights. These
findings can lend a hand in formulating language documentation initiatives, developing policies, and allocating
resources that aim to improve accessibility while preserving these languages.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The main focus of this research study was investigating the ease of access to language documentation for
various indigenous languages spoken in the Chittagong Hill Tract area. The study specifically honed in on
ethnic languages such as the Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Mru, Bawm, Khumi, and Pankho that are present in
this geographic region.

The research outcomes indicated that the present accessibility of language documentation was considered
challenging and restricted. Participants had concerns about the limited comprehensive resources such as
written materials, grammar, dictionaries, and audio recordings for documenting languages. These resources
were not easily obtainable or readily available to community members, researchers, or language learners.

Page | 6
 August 2021

Writing on Chakma had some interesting archival sources, while there were fewer options for other languages,
namely Marma, Tripura, Mru, Bawm, Khumi, and Pankho.

Challenges abound in making languages accessible through documentation. Our participants cited insufficient
government and institutional support as one major challenge. Also at issue is limited funding, inadequate
infrastructure, or an absence of dedicated initiatives; all pose obstacles to accurate documentation methods,
which provided these languages with a predominantly oral nature. Complicating recording initiatives more is
the lack of standard written forms or regular graphs for representation purposes that may arise while
documenting them accurately. It has contributed to a general, palpable ignorance regarding endangered
language issues in education surrounding communities that affect revitalization efforts.

Inaccessible language documentation is often a result of various technological barriers that discourage its
widespread adoption. Digital tool usage is often hampered by a lack of access to such tools and low computer
literacy rates amongst users who desire to engage with such content online. Furthermore, challenges related to
inadequate infrastructure in remote regions within the Chittagong Hill Tract region only complicate matters
further.

Language documentation remains a major challenge because of cultural and social factors prevalent among
indigenous peoples. The prevalence of oral storytelling presents an obstacle to preserving these languages
through written formats due to its emphasis on face-to-face encounters and verbal communication instead of
written work. Furthermore, societal norms also play a role where stigmatization against indigenous languages
is not uncommon within education spheres or other establishments, leading those within the community with
less motivation towards actively participating in preservation initiatives.

Active community engagement is crucial to furthering accessible language documentation efforts. Participants
in such projects underlined the essential role played by community members who possess valuable knowledge
and expertise about their languages. Through their active involvement, linguistic features, cultural nuances,
and traditional practices associated with the language are documented accurately. This collaboration between
communities and documentation efforts supports sustainable language preservation initiatives by encouraging
intergenerational transmission, promoting daily language use, and bolstering community pride in indigenous
languages.

The accessibility of language documentation appeared to be influenced by institutional and policy-related

factors. Limited funding and resources posed significant obstacles to conducting thorough research, producing
quality documentation materials, and making them accessible. Participants highlighted a lack of language
policies or supportive measures from the government as exacerbating these challenges. Additionally, the lack of
official recognition or protective measures for indigenous languages’ negatively impacted efforts toward access
and preservation.

The research findings indicate that the indigenous languages in the Chittagong Hill Tract region face limited
accessibility and numerous challenges in language documentation. The outcomes underscore the urgency for
increased institutional support, awareness, and resource allocation to guarantee comprehensive language
documentation materials are available and accessible. To be more efficient in documenting languages, it is
crucial to overcome technological barriers by addressing cultural and social factors while actively engaging

Page | 7
 August 2021

with the community. Necessary steps towards conserving and documenting these endangered languages
include advocating for supportive policies, adequate funding, and official recognition of indigenous languages
for future generations.

Conclusion and Recommendations

To conclude, the study on the accessibility of language documentation for indigenous languages in danger in
the Chittagong Hill Tract region sheds light on the major hurdles encountered in accessing and retaining such
languages. Scarce comprehensive documentation resources, technological hindrances, cultural and social
factors, and institutional obstacles collectively contribute to inadequate accessibility. This research underscores
the urgent requirement for collaborative endeavors to tackle these obstacles and guarantee the preservation
and rejuvenation of these at-risk languages.

Recommendations:
Several recommendations have been made based on the findings of this study to increase the accessibility of
linguistic documentation for endangered indigenous languages in the Chittagong Hill Tract.

To begin, more robust institutional support through the allocation of necessary funding and resources, and the
formulation of specific guidelines regarding language preservation with a focus on enabling accessibility for all,
must be highlighted. Supportive measures must be adopted to guarantee the effective implementation of these
policies (Smith, 2021).

Invite indigenous communities to participate as engaged contributors in language documentation endeavors by

recognizing and respecting their wisdom and proficiency and fostering community-led efforts to document
their language (Hinton, 2003).

Employing digital resources and channels to produce, save, and share language documentation materials,
simultaneously addressing the issue of unequal internet access through enhanced technology access.

Raising awareness campaigns and advocacy programs can increase recognition and appreciation for
endangered indigenous languages among the broader society and educational institutions (Trudgill, 2011).

In efforts to maintain cultural diversity through language preservation and revitalization techniques, there is a
need for conducting regular training programs alongside relevant workshops aimed at enhancing linguistic
skills among participants, which include linguists, researchers, and community members (Sutherland et al.,
2014).

Incorporating the suggested measures can immensely enhance language documentation accessibility and
maintain endangered indigenous languages in the Chittagong Hill Tract. By upholding and revitalizing these
languages, we can celebrate the uniqueness of languages, promote a cultural legacy, and empower native
communities to conserve their precious linguistic traditions for future generations.

References
Austin, P. K. (2010). Current issues in language documentation. Language documentation and description, 7, 12-
33.
Page | 8
 August 2021

Austin, P. K. (2013). Language documentation and meta-documentation. Keeping languages alive:

Documentation, pedagogy and revitalization, 3-15.

Austin, P. K. (2016). Language documentation 20 years on. Endangered languages and languages in danger:
Issues of documentation, policy, and language rights, 147-170.

Austin, P. K. (2005). Training in language documentation: The SOAS experience. In Linguistics Society of
America Conference on Language Documentation: Theory, Practice, and Values. July (pp. 9-11).

Austin, P. K. (2021). 13 Language Documentation and Language Revitalization. Revitalizing Endangered

Languages, 199.

Borgman, C. L. (2010). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet. MIT Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. A companion to linguistic anthropology, 1, 369-394.

Cardoso, H. C. (2014). Language Endangerment and Preservation in South Asia. University of Hawai’i Press.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage publications.

Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to
threatened languages (Vol. 76). Multilingual matters.

Gippert, J., Himmelmann, N., & Mosel, U. (Eds.). (2006). Essentials of language documentation. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.

Grenoble, L. A. (2010). Language documentation and field linguistics: The state of the field. Language
Documentation, 289-310.

Grenoble, L. A., & Whaley, L. J. (2005). Saving languages: An introduction to language revitalization. Cambridge
University Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies (No. 1). Cambridge University Press.

Harrison, K. D. (2007). When languages die: The extinction of the world’s languages and the erosion of human
knowledge. Oxford University Press.

Himmelmann, N. P. (1998). Documentary and descriptive linguistics.

Himmelmann, N. P. (2006). Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for? Essentials of
language documentation, 178(1).

Page | 9
 August 2021

Hinton, L. (2003). 3. Language revitalization. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 44-57.

Lehmann, C. (2001). Language documentation: A program. a.

Mager, M., Gutierrez-Vasques, X., Sierra, G., & Meza, I. (2018). Challenges of language technologies for the
indigenous languages of the Americas. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.04291.

Romaine, S. (2006). Planning for the survival of linguistic diversity. Language policy, 5, 443-475.

Sands, B. (2018). Language revitalization in Africa.

Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Sutherland, W. J., Aveling, R., Brooks, T. M., Clout, M., Dicks, L. V., Fellman, L., & Watkinson, A. R. (2014). A
horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2014. Trends in ecology & evolution, 29(1), 15-22.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Putting the human back in ‘‘human research methodology’’: The
researcher in mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 4(4), 271-277.

Trudgill, P. (2011). Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford University
Press.

UNESCO. (2003). Language Vitality and Endangerment. Intangible Cultural Heritage Unit’s Ad Hoc Expert
Group.

Woodbury, A. C. (2003). Defining documentary linguistics. Language documentation and description, 1, 35-51.

Page | 10