Advertisement

Researching Language Loss and Revitalization

  • Leena Huss
Reference work entry
Part of the Encyclopedia of Language and Education book series (ELE)

Abstract

Language loss refers to a societal or individual loss in the use or in the ability to use a language, implying that another language is replacing it. Revitalization, in turn, is commonly understood as giving new life and vigor to a language that has been decreasing in use and is today a rapidly growing field of study. Both fields are highly multidisciplinary, drawing from linguistics, sociology, education, psychology, anthropology, political science, and other disciplines.

Since the 1990s, the research interest in endangered languages and consciousness of the need to contribute to their survival have grown among researchers, and numerous studies have been undertaken to present what has been done to curb language decline and to explain why some languages survive and others do not. Researchers have also tried to pinpoint the most relevant factors and the ways in which they interact. Still, to establish language revitalization more firmly as an independent field of study, more research and theorization are needed.

Many revitalization efforts are connected with ethnic revival movements as revitalization of the language is often seen as a crucial part of the overall ethnic revival. As a reaction to former forced assimilation and oppression, revitalization movements are often seen as ways to healing, redress, and empowerment. Therefore, a growing part of revitalization research is today being done by, or in close collaboration with, researchers and other members coming from the language communities themselves.

The chapter deals with research approaches in the field of language loss and revitalization, as well as challenges faced by scholars in this area.

Keywords

Assimilation Language maintenance Language shift Language revitalization Minority languages Indigenous languages The Sámi The Kven Tornedalians 

References

  1. Aikio, M. (1988). Saamelaiset kielenvaihdon kierteessä. Kielisosiologinen tutkimus viiden saamelaiskylän kielenvaihdosta 1910–1980 [The Saami in the process of language shift. A sociolinguistic study on language shift in five Sámi villages during 1910–1980]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
  2. Amery, R. (2000). Warrabarna Kaurna! Reclaiming an Australian language. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  3. Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  4. Cruz, E., & Woodbury, A. C. (2014). Collaboration in the context of teaching, scholarship, and language revitalization: Experience from the Chatino. Language Documentation, 8, 262–286.Google Scholar
  5. Crystal, D. (2000). Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dorian, N. (1981). Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dorian, N. (1993). Discussion note, a response to Ladefoged’s other view of endangered languages. Language, 69(3), 575–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorian, N. (1998). Western language ideologies and small‐language prospects. In L. A. Grenoble & L. Whaley (Eds.), Endangered languages, language loss and community response (pp. 3–21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dorian, N. C. (2014). Small-language fates and prospects. Lesson of persistence and change from endangered languages [Collected Essays]. Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, J. (1991). Multilingualism. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Edwards, J. (2002). Forlorn hope? In L. Wei, J.‐. M. Dewaele, & A. Housen (Eds.), Opportunities and challenges of bilingualism. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Eisenlohr, P. (2004). Language revitalization and new technologies: Cultures of electronic mediation and the refiguring of communities. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fillmore, L. W. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fishman, J. (1966). Language loyalty in the United States; the maintenance and perpetuation of non‐English mother tongues by American ethnic and religious groups. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  15. Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Fishman, J., & García, O. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of language and ethnic identity. The success-failure continuum and ethnic identity efforts (Vol. 2). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gal, S. (1979). Language shift: Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual Austria. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Granadillo, T., & Orcutt-Gachiri, H. A. (2011). Introduction. In T. Granadillo & H. A. Orcutt-Gachiri (Eds.), Ethnographic contributions to the study of endangered languages (pp. 1–12). Arizona: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  19. Grenoble, L. A., & Whaley, L. J. (Eds.). (1998). Endangered languages: Current issues and future prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Haugen, E. (1953). The Norwegian language in America: A study in bilingual behavior I–II. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  21. Henderson, J. (2013). Language documentation and community interests. In M. C. Jones & S. Ogilvie (Eds.), Keeping languages alive. Documentation, pedagogy, and revitalization (pp. 56–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hinton, L. (Ed.). (2013). Bringing our languages home. Revitalization for families. Berkeley: Heyday Books.Google Scholar
  23. Hinton, L., & Hale, K. (Eds.). (2001). The green book of language revitalization in practice. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Holton, G. (2011). The role of information technology in supporting minority and endangered languages. In P. K. Austin & J. Sallabank (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hornberger, N. (Ed.). (2007). Can schools save indigenous languages? Policy and practice on four continents. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Huss, L., & Lindgren, A.-R. (2011). Introduction: Defining language emancipation. In L. Huss & S. Nolan (Eds.), The many faces of language emancipation [Special Issue]. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 209, 1–15.Google Scholar
  27. Huss, L., Camilleri Grima, A., & King, K. (2003). Transcending monolingualism. Linguistic revitalization in education. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  28. Jaakkola, M. (1973). Språkgränsen: en studie i tvåspråkighetens sociologi [Language border: A study in the sociology of bilingualism]. Stockholm: Aldus/Bonnier.Google Scholar
  29. King, K. (2001). Language revitalization processes and prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  30. King, K. A., & Hermes, M. (2014). Why is it so hard?: Ideologies of endangerment, passive language learning approaches, and Ojibwe in the United States. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 13(4), 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krauss, M. (1992). The world’s languages in crisis. Language, 68(1), 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kulick, D. (1992). Language shift and cultural reproduction: Socialization, self, and syncretism in a Papua New Guinea Village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lambert, W. E. (1974). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F. E. Aboud & R. D. Mead (Eds.), Cultural factors in learning and education. 5th Western Washington Symposium on Learning, Bellingham.Google Scholar
  34. Makoni, S., & Pennycook, S. (Eds.). (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  35. May, S. (2014). Contesting metronormativity; exploring indigenous language dynamism across the urban-rural divide. Journal of Language Identity & Education, 13(4), 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCarty, T. L. (2002). A place to be Navajo: Rough rock and the struggle for self‐determination in indigenous schooling. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Norberg, M. (1996). Sprachwechselprozess in der Niederlausitz. Soziolinguistische Fallstudie der deutschsorbischen Gemeinde Drachhausen/Hochoza [Language shift process in Niederlausitz: A sociolinguistic case study on the GermanSorbian community Drachhausen/Hochoza] (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (C503412).Google Scholar
  38. Olthuis, M.-L., Kivelä, S., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2013). Revitalising indigenous languages: How to recreate a lost generation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  39. Reyhner, J. (1999). Introduction: Some basics of indigenous language revitalization. In J. Reyhner, G. Cantoni, R. N. St. Clair, & E. P. Yazzie (Eds.), Revitalizing indigenous languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
  40. Roche, G., Ban+de mkhar, Bkra shis bzang po, G.yu lha, Snying dkar skyid, Tshe ring rnam gyal, Zla ba sgrol ma, Charles Kevin Stuart (2010). Participatory culture documentation on the Tibetan Plateau. In I. Gunn & M. Turin (Eds.), Language documentation and description: Vol. 8. Special issue on oral literature and language endangerment (pp. 140–158). London: SOAS.Google Scholar
  41. Sicoli, M. (2011). Agency and ideology in language shift and language maintenance. In T. Granadillo & H. A. O. Gachiri (Eds.), Ethnographic contributions to the study of endangered languages, (pp. 161–176). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  42. Skutnabb‐Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Stiles, D. B. (1997). Four successful indigenous language programs. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Teaching indigenous languages (pp. 148–262). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
  44. Stordahl, V. (1996). Same i den moderne verden. Endring og kontinuitet i et samisk lokalsamfun [To be Sámi in the modern world: Change and continuity in a Sámi community] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tromsø, Norway.Google Scholar
  45. Todal, J. (2002). “-jos fal gáhttet gollegielat”: vitalisering av samisk språk i Noreg på 1990-talet [“‐if only you safeguard your golden language”: Vitalization of the Sámi language in Norway in the 1990s. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
  46. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Hugo Valentin CentreUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations