The Catalogue of Endangered Languages (ELCat) is one of several similar responses
to a perceived need for better data on language vitality. My remarks here are
framed as a direct reply to Lee & Van Way's article, but
really address larger issues in the ongoing debate about a perceived need to
classify, inventory, and enumerate endangered languages. Lee & Van
Way focus on one aspect of ELCat, the Language Endangerment Index (LEI),
discussing a number of shortcomings in other current models. As an instrument
for determining the level of language endangerment, the LEI is presented as a
preferable alternative to other metrics, including Fishman's (1991)
Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS), or EGIDS, the Expanded scale,
based on the work of Lewis & Simons (2010), or UNESCO's
(2003) expert scale. Lee & Van Way's discussion
presupposes that such metrics are needed, and that it is beneficial to have a
method for measuring vitality. Specifically, they argue that ‘for
those concerned with preserving the world's fragile linguistic
diversity, it is desirable to be able to quantify language vitality’.
This is the underlying assumption of not only ELCat and LEI, but of other
language catalogues, such as the Ethnologue (Lewis, Simons,
& Fennig 2015), UNESCO's Atlas (Moseley 2010), and other
vitality metrics, as discussed in Lee & Van Way.