A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
Language revitalization, also referred to as language revival or reversing language shift, is an attempt to halt or reverse the decline of a language or to revive an extinct one.[1][2] Those involved can include linguists, cultural or community groups, or governments. Some argue for a distinction between language revival (the resurrection of an extinct language with no existing native speakers) and language revitalization (the rescue of a "dying" language). There has only been one successful instance of a complete language revival, the Hebrew language, creating a new generation of native speakers without any pre-existing native speakers as a model.[3]
Languages targeted for language revitalization include those whose use and prominence is severely limited. Sometimes various tactics of language revitalization can even be used to try to revive extinct languages. Though the goals of language revitalization vary greatly from case to case, they typically involve attempting to expand the number of speakers and use of a language, or trying to maintain the current level of use to protect the language from extinction or language death.
Reasons for revitalization vary: they can include physical danger affecting those whose language is dying, economic danger such as the exploitation of indigenous natural resources, political danger such as genocide, or cultural danger/assimilation.[4] In recent times[when?] alone, it is estimated that more than 2000 languages have already become extinct. The UN estimates that more than half of the languages spoken today have fewer than 10,000 speakers and that a quarter have fewer than 1,000 speakers; and that, unless there are some efforts to maintain them, over the next hundred years most of these will become extinct.[5] These figures are often cited as reasons why language revitalization is necessary to preserve linguistic diversity. Culture and identity are also frequently cited reasons for language revitalization, when a language is perceived as a unique "cultural treasure".[6] A community often sees language as a unique part of their culture, connecting them with their ancestors or with the land, making up an essential part of their history and self-image.[7]
Language revitalization is also closely tied to the linguistic field of language documentation. In this field, linguists try to create a complete record of a language's grammar, vocabulary, and linguistic features. This practice can often lead to more concern for the revitalization of a specific language on study. Furthermore, the task of documentation is often taken on with the goal of revitalization in mind.[8]
Degrees of language endangerment
 | This section needs additional citations for verification. (October 2021) |
Five point scale
One possible five-point scale is as follows:
- Healthy/strong: all generations use language in variety of settings
- Weakening/sick: spoken by older people; not fully used by younger generations
- Moribund/dying: only a few adult speakers remain; no longer used as native language by children
- Dead: no longer spoken as a native language
- Extinct: no longer spoken and has few or no written records[dubious – discuss]
Another scale
Another scale for identifying degrees of language endangerment is used in a 2003 paper ("Language Vitality and Endangerment") commissioned by UNESCO from an international group of linguists. The linguists, among other goals and priorities, create a scale with six degrees for language vitality and endangerment.[9] They also propose nine factors or criteria (six of which use the six-degree scale) to "characterize a language’s overall sociolinguistic situation".[9] The nine factors with their respective scales are:
- Intergenerational language transmission
- safe: all generations use the language
- unsafe: some children use the language in all settings, all children use the language in some settings
- definitively endangered: few children speak the language; predominantly spoken by the parental generation and older
- severely endangered: spoken by older generations; not used by the parental generation and younger
- critically endangered: few speakers remain and are mainly from the great grandparental generation
- extinct: no living speakers
- Absolute number of speakers
- Proportion of speakers within the total population
- safe: the language is spoken by approximately 100% of the population
- unsafe: the language is spoken by nearly but visibly less than 100% of the population
- definitively endangered: the language is spoken by a majority of the population
- severely endangered: the language is spoken by less than 50% of the population
- critically endangered: the language has very few speakers
- extinct: no living speakers
- Trends in existing language domains
- universal use (safe): spoken in all domains; for all functions
- multilingual parity (unsafe): multiple languages (2+) are spoken in most social domains; for most functions
- dwindling domains (definitively endangered): mainly spoken in home domains and is in competition with the dominant language; for many functions
- limited or formal domains (severely endangered): spoken in limited social domains; for several functions
- highly limited domains (critically endangered): spoken in highly restricted domains; for minimal functions
- extinct: no domains; no functions
- Response to new domains and media
- dynamic (safe): spoken in all new domains
- robust/active (unsafe): spoken in most new domains
- receptive (definitively endangered): spoken in many new domains
- coping (severely endangered): spoken in some new domains
- minimal (critically endangered): spoken in minimal new domains
- inactive (extinct): spoken in no new domains
- Materials for language education and literacy
- safe: established orthography and extensive access to educational materials
- unsafe: access to educational materials; children developing literacy; not used by administration
- definitively endangered: access to educational materials exist at school; literacy in language is not promoted
- severely endangered: literacy materials exist however are not present in school curriculum
- critically endangered: orthography is known and some written materials exist
- extinct: no orthography is known
- Governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies (including official status and use)
- equal support (safe): all languages are equally protected
- differentiated support (unsafe): primarily protected for private domains
- passive assimilation (definitively endangered): no explicit protective policy; language use dwindles in public domain
- active assimilation (severely endangered): government discourages use of language; no governmental protection of language in any domain
- forced assimilation (critically endangered): language is not recognized or protected; government recognized another official language
- prohibition (extinct): use of language is banned
- Community members' attitudes towards their own language
- safe: language is revered, valued, and promoted by whole community
- unsafe: language maintenance is supported by most of the community
- definitively endangered: language maintenance is supported by much of the community; the rest are indifferent or support language loss
- severely endangered: language maintenance is supported by some of the community; the rest are indifferent or support language loss
- critically endangered: language maintenance is supported by only a few members of the community; the rest are indifferent or support language loss
- extinct: complete apathy towards language maintenance; prefer dominant language
- Amount and quality of documentation.
- superlative (safe): extensive audio, video, media, and written documentation of the language
- good (unsafe): audio, video, media, and written documentation all exist; a handful of each
- fair (definitively endangered): some audio and video documentation exists; adequate written documentation
- fragmentary (severely endangered): limited audio and video documentation exists at low quality; minimal written documentation
- inadequate (critically endangered): only a handful of written documentation exists
- undocumented (extinct): no documentation exists
Theory
One of the most important preliminary steps in language revitalization/recovering involves establishing the degree to which a particular language has been “dislocated”. This helps involved parties find the best way to assist or revive the language.[10]
Steps in reversing language shift
There are many different theories or models that attempt to lay out a plan for language revitalization. One of these is provided by celebrated linguist Joshua Fishman. Fishman's model for reviving threatened (or sleeping) languages, or for making them sustainable,[11][12] consists of an eight-stage process. Efforts should be concentrated on the earlier stages of restoration until they have been consolidated before proceeding to the later stages. The eight stages are:
- Acquisition of the language by adults, who in effect act as language apprentices (recommended where most of the remaining speakers of the language are elderly and socially isolated from other speakers of the language).
- Create a socially integrated population of active speakers (or users) of the language (at this stage it is usually best to concentrate mainly on the spoken language rather than the written language).
- In localities where there are a reasonable number of people habitually using the language, encourage the informal use of the language among people of all age groups and within families and bolster its daily use through the establishment of local neighbourhood institutions in which the language is encouraged, protected and (in certain contexts at least) used exclusively.
- In areas where oral competence in the language has been achieved in all age groups, encourage literacy in the language, but in a way that does not depend upon assistance from (or goodwill of) the state education system.
- Where the state permits it, and where numbers warrant, encourage the use of the language in compulsory state education.
- Where the above stages have been achieved and consolidated, encourage the use of the language in the workplace.
- Where the above stages have been achieved and consolidated, encourage the use of the language in local government services and mass media.
- Where the above stages have been achieved and consolidated, encourage use of the language in higher education, government, etc.
This model of language revival is intended to direct efforts to where they are most effective and to avoid wasting energy trying to achieve the later stages of recovery when the earlier stages have not been achieved. For instance, it is probably wasteful to campaign for the use of a language on television or in government services if hardly any families are in the habit of using the language.
Additionally, Tasaku Tsunoda describes a range of different techniques or methods that speakers can use to try to revitalize a language, including techniques to revive extinct languages and maintain weak ones. The techniques he lists are often limited to the current vitality of the language.
He claims that the immersion method cannot be used to revitalize an extinct or moribund language. In contrast, the master-apprentice method of one-on-one transmission on language proficiency can be used with moribund languages. Several other methods of revitalization, including those that rely on technology such as recordings or media, can be used for languages in any state of viability.[13]
| Method | Degree of endangerment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Weakening | Moribund | Dead/extinct | |
| Immersion | effective | ineffective | ineffective |
| Neighborhood | effective | ineffective | ineffective |
| Bilingual | effective | ineffective | ineffective |
| Master-apprentice | effective | effective | ineffective |