Does speaking your Native language make you healthier? What if we rephrase that question and consider wellbeing more generally. Australian linguist Michael Walsh suggests that we should consider not only physical and mental health but also economic, educational, political and social wellbeing. Phrased in those broader terms many people will agree that Native language contributes to a greater sense of wellbeing. But lately evidence has emerged that Native language is also associated with better physical health in the more traditional medical sense.
Language and Diabetes
A study published last October by a team at University of Alberta (Oster et al. 2014) has lately been receiving a lot of media attention (Toronto Sun, Edmonton Journal). These researchers link diabetes rates inversely to Native language retention. Specifically, for the 31 Canadian First Nations communities in Alberta the authors found lower rates of adult-onset (Type II) diabetes in those communities with higher rates of indigenous language use. More language = less diabetes. This is summarized in the graph below.
Actually the researchers wanted to explore the relationship between diabetes rates and what they call "cultural continuity," which they define as "being who we are." We all have intuitive sense of what this means, but the concept of cultural continuity is difficult to define precisely and even harder to measure in a quantitative study. In contrast, language knowledge is relatively easy to measure; just count up the number of speakers. This is of course more difficult in practice than in theory (and is worthy of a blog post of its own), but it is still at least possible to quantify language knowledge. Turns out there is information about about levels of language knowledge from the Canadian census data available on the Aboriginal Affairs website. As for diabetes rates, the researchers could draw from a special system set up to identify diabetes cases in the Alberta Health service. Public reaction to this research was overwhelming. A Toronto Sun newspaper headline declared: "Aboriginal diabetes epidemic linked to loss of mother tongue" (Jan 23, 2015). But we have to be careful here. The researchers didn't actually show that language use reduces diabetes risk. What they showed was a correlation. Intriguing, but not necessarily a causal relationship. It's very common for people to confuse correlation with causation; the worrisome thing here is that the researchers themselves make this error when they conclude:
"First Nations differences in diabetes prevalence are due in part to differences in cultural continuity.... [T]he key to improving Indigenous health and lessening the burden of type 2 diabetes is the contemporary revitalization and continuation of the culture."
The notion that traditional lifestyles are associated with better health is not new. An experiment conducted over 30 years ago in Western Australia found that even a temporary reversion to a traditional lifestyle lowered diabetes risk factors (O’Dea 1984). In that field study 14 Aboriginal men and women from the Mowanjum Community agreed to be monitored over a seven week period while they switched from an urban diet to a completely subsistence diet, living off the land hunting and gathering traditional foods. Before heading out to the land the main components of the urban diet included flour, sugar, rice, carbonated drinks—with approximately 50% of calories from carbohydrates. In contrast, the traditional diet included kangaroo, fish, yams, honey, figs, birds, crocodile, turtle, and crayfish—with 5-33% of calories from carbohydrates. Participants had no access to non-traditional, store-bought food. As a result all showed improvements in insulin secretion and insulin action, two of the major metabolic defects in type II diabetes. So living a traditional lifestyle and eating traditional foods can lower diabetes risk factors, even short-term.
But what about the role of language? O’Dea makes no mention of Aboriginal language in the study. The Worroorran languages are moribund today but would presumably have been more vibrant 30 years ago when the study was conducted. The participants were an average of 54 years old, and they were out on the land with a single non-Aboriginal researcher. One imagines at least some Aboriginal language being used during this time. But even if O’Dea had measured language use, the point remains that just as in the Oster et al. study, language remains a proxy for traditional lifestyle.
Other recent studies correlating language with wellbeing
While Oster et al. (2014) is the latest study on language and wellbeing to receive a lot of media attention, the research in this area has been growing steadily over the past few years. Some of this literature is reviewed in McIvor et al. (2009). I'll mention just a few studies here.Rowley et al. (2008) found lower rates of mortality and cardiovascular disease among Aboriginal populations living a decentralized lifestyle away from urban centers. While the study did not consider the effects of language and culture, the authors conclude that "Conventional measures of employment, income, housing and education did not account for this health differential." The implication is that culture must play a role in accounting for the lower health risks among the decentralized populations, specifically "connectedness to culture, family and land." Again, language is mentioned here specifically.
Another recent study by Hallet et al. (2007) found that Native language knowledge varies inversely with suicide rates across British Columbia communities. None of the other six cultural continuity factors considered in the study was a better predictor of suicide rates. In fact, youth suicide rates effectively dropped to zero in those few communities in which at least a third of band members reported a conversational knowledge of Native language.
A study by Biddle and Swee (2012) examined factors associated with happiness among Australian Aboriginals, drawing on data from a large-scale social survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They find a positive relationship between language and wellbeing. Specifically:
"Even after controlling for a range of socio-economic variables, living on one’s homelands/ traditional country and undertaking harvesting activities is associated with a higher level of self-reported happiness for Indigenous Australians. So too were learning an Indigenous language and participating in Indigenous cultural activities."Again, this correlation is not necessarily a causative relationship. It may simply be that happy people like to use their Indigenous language and live out on the land. But even an association between language and wellbeing is significant if it might eventually increase our understanding of what makes people healthy.
Language is a health issue
Even if we can't yet show that language use causes greater wellbeing, the fact that a correlation exists should be enough for us to take the issue seriously. Native language is not a magic bullet. Native language will not cure diabetes. In the end we have to acknowledge that diabetes is not a cultural disease but a metabolic disease. Unless we acknowledge the role of diet in diabetes then no amount of cultural continuity will cure the disease. Increased consumption of traditional fatty foods may help, but only if also accompanied by decreased consumption of non-traditional foods like soft drinks and baked goods. That is, we need to recognize the nutritional value of indigenous foods, not just their cultural value.That said, if Native language can make even a small contribution to overall wellbeing, then Native language revitalization and maintenance is worthy of pursuing. The potential contribution of language and culture to health maintenance has already been recognized by the Public Health Agency of Canada. What they and others realize is that Native language doesn't need to be a magic bullet or magic cure-all in order to have positive health effects, nor should we expect it to be. Given the skyrocketing costs of health care and the high rates of chronic disease in Alaska, even a small effect is valuable. Of course most of us already see an intrinsic value in Native language, regardless of any potential health effects. But not everyone shares this view. So next time someone questions the value of Native language maintenance efforts remind them that Native language is a health issue.
A version of this post also appeared on the discussion blog for the Linguistic Society of America Committee on Endangered Languages and their Preservation (CELP).
No comments:
Post a Comment