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. 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 declining or moribund language).
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. Language revitalization can face significant barriers, not the least of which can come from governments, such as a general lack of support or funding for the projects, or a system that may actively repress the minority language. Other barriers could be a lack of speakers, a lack of relevant teaching material, or vocabulary loss.
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. For example, between first contact with Europeans and around 2000, it is thought that the number of Indigenous languages in Canada fell from 450 to 60 and in Australia from 250 to 145. In 2012, the UN estimated that more than half of the languages spoken had fewer than 10,000 speakers and that a quarter had fewer than 1,000 speakers—and that, without some efforts to maintain them, most of these would become extinct within a century. 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". A community often sees language as a unique part of its culture, connecting it with its ancestors or with the land, making up an essential part of its history and self-image. Endangered or at risk languages can be elevated by making them into a national language, for example the Quechua language of Peru.
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. The task of documentation is often taken on with the goal of revitalization in mind,New Perspectives on Endangered Languages. Ed. José A.F. Farfán and Fernando F. Ramallo. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010. pp. 1-7. Print. or can otherwise encourage concern for revitalization.
Reasons for language endangerment Language endangerment can occur for a variety of reasons, though one of the most common is colonialism. In 2006, it was estimated that around 30%-50% of languages might vanish within the following century. Language-loss is often the result of genocide, cultural assimilation, and discrimination leading to fewer native speakers. Other reasons may be illiteracy, poverty, or human-rights violations. In 2015, 560 Indigenous languages were in use in Latin America, but about one fifth of Indigenous people had lost their ancestral native language(s) during "recent decades"."Indigenous Latin America in the Twenty-First Century: The First Decade" (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 2015). In the Caribbean, nearly all Indigenous languages have disappeared. Colonial powers have used discriminatory educational practices against Indigenous languages; in 20th-century Mexico, schools taught almost exclusively Spanish, in an attempt to assimilate Indigenous Mexicans into a uniform Mexican identity; similarly, institutions in the United States and Canada forcibly assimilated Indigenous children, banning all Indigenous languages, and "operated under a mission of linguicide".
Creole languages also face endangerment. "Creoles" are often typically formed via the mixing of two or more distinct languages, and are often, but not always formed from so-called "pidgin" languages. Furthermore, Creoles have historically been formed due to colonialism; perhaps the most common instance of Creole languages being used is in former plantation colonies. Creole languages have historically been suppressed in favor of the colonizing language; in St. Lucia, where the majority of the people spoke a Creole language (St. Lucian Kwéyòl), English was made the only national language. Globalization poses a threat to the continued use of Creoles; as Errington (2003) argues, globalization's sociolinguistic impact restrict the ability for Creole and other marginalized languages to survive by creating a climate in which already dominant languages are valued.
Degrees of language endangerment
UNESCO Language Vitality and Endangerment framework Uses a six-point scale is as follows: Safe: All generations use language in variety of settings Stable: Multilingualism in the native language and one or more dominant language(s) has usurped certain important communication context. Definitively Endangered: spoken by older people; not fully used by younger generations. Severely Endangered: Only a few adult speakers remain; no longer used as native language by children. Critically Endangered: The language is spoken only by grandparents and older generations. Extinct: There is no one who can speak or remember the language.
Other scales 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. They also propose nine factors or criteria (six of which use the six-degree scale) to "characterize a language's overall sociolinguistic situation". 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.
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,Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language Shift: Theory and Practice of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon : Multilingual Matters.Fishman, J. A. (ed.) (2001). Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon : Multilingual Matters. 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: