Editing Language Revitalization

Language revitalization is the attempt to maintain endangered langauges or to revive extinct ones. The vitality of languages that have lost or are losing their attributes is restored. Other names for those activities are e.g. language maintenance, language revival, language preservation, language reproduction, language reversal, language renewal and linguistic revival. (Tsunoda 2006: 169)

Nowadays, hundrets of languages around the world are endagered or disappearing due to a decline in number of native speakers. Language revitalization programs exist in most regions of the world and try to revive a language by taking measures against the decrease of speakers. The programs differ from region to region and language to language. Some of them operate on a nation-wide level like in the case of Irish while others involve a small community. (Grenoble & Whaley 2006: 1)

Three of the most common language revitalization models are community-based, partial-immersion or bilingual, and total-immersion programs. There is a large variety in approaches, though, which share similar [[Goals of Revitalization|goals]].

=== References ===
Grenoble, Lenore A & Lindsay J. Whaley. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006

Tsunoda, Tasaku. Language Endangerment and Language Revitalization: An Introduction, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2006
== '''Community-based programs''' ==
These programs address the problem of creating a network for using the local language. Sometimes, however, the language is enrooted so deeply in the community that it refuses imposing of different, foreign teaching styles. Many communities use what are called informal learning styles, or natural learning, which is sometimes in strong opposition to standard revitalization programs.

This does not come without any issues. Local languages are often replaced by languages that are well-established, have a tradition of writing and are used in formal education. Furthermore, there is the risk of potential culture clash.  (Grenoble & Whaley 2006: 60-61)

==== '''Concrete examples'''<ref>Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization</ref> ====

===== Võro language revival =====
One of the languages with a more significant number of speakers is Võro, a language belonging to the Finnic branch of the Uralic languages. It is spoken in Southern Estonia. Võro is sometimes considered a dialect of Estonian, sometimes it is considered a separate language with its own literary standard. In the past, Võro was also referred to as Ugandi language. The Võro language has all the typical characteristics of South Estonian and all the features distinguishing it from other Balto-Finnic languages.<ref>Võro Language

https://wi.ee/en/voro-language/</ref> According to the Ethnologue, there is currently about 87,000 speakers.<ref>Võro at Ethnologue

https://www.ethnologue.com/language/vro/25</ref> 

It is possible to study the Võro language in the University of Tartu for two semesters; there have been courses for adult learners in Võro Institute, too.<ref>Võro Language

<nowiki>https://wi.ee/en/voro-language/</nowiki></ref> However, Võro currently does not have any special status, which means, that it is not granted any special treatment. Also, it is said that all Võro speakers are bilingual. 

=== References ===
Grenoble, Lenore A & Lindsay J. Whaley. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006

== '''Partial-immersion or bilingual programs''' ==
The main idea of partial-immersion or bilingual programs is that some classes are conducted in the local language, and some – in the language of wider communication. This puts the local language into the position of a foreign or second language. Most activists advocate against such programs, however they have been found appropriate, when a certain language community is unable or unwilling to commit the time, effort and costs needed to provide instruction in the local language as the primary one. In cases or partial-immersion the goal is to transmit at least some kind of knowledge of the local language to children (Grenoble & Whaley 2006: 55-56).

Typically, a local language is introduced as “foreign” when there is no vital speaker base. In these cases, one approach advocates that language revitalisation should begin with the adult, who can then create a domain for their children to use the language, once they start learning it as well, while also avoiding a potential “lost” middle generation (where only elders and children speak the language). However, language learning is difficult, since adults have passed the critical stage of language learning, and it is harder to find the time in between other responsibilities. Another approach claims that revitalisation should begin with a new generation of speakers, in preschool programs. This requires a step-wise approach, since the curriculum and learning materials should be created one year at a time, as children move through their grades (Grenoble & Whaley 2006: 56-58).

===== [[The case of Livonian]] =====

==== References ====
Grenoble, Lenore A & Lindsay J. Whaley. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006

== '''Total-immersion programs''' ==
Total-immersion programs follow the idea that a language is best learned when the learner immerses in an environment in which only that language is constantly used. However, the implementation of these programs is only possible in communities who have enough speakers, approve the concept and hold the financial resources. Out of the different models for total-immersion programs, many assume the center of the program to be school and formal education instead of other areas of community life. The school-based programs require that the regional and national governments do not interfere but invest in the program. (Grenoble & Whaley 2006: 51-52)

=== The language nest model ===
[[Māori language revitalization]]

One example for a total-immersion program is Te Kohanga Reo, the language nest model, developed in the 1970s/1980s to revitalize the Māori language in New Zealand. It was also adopted for the revitalization of Hawaiian and influenced e.g. the Blackfeet revitalization program. The revitalization program of Māori is one of the best-documented ones, and has been thoroughly discussed. Following the immigration of English-speakers after 1642 and the ban of Māori use in school in 1867, by the 1970s the opposition with English led to the disappearing of Māori as a language. It was used by less than 20 percent of the population with most speakers being over 50 years old. Problematic was that it was only used at the traditional Māori tribal meeting place and at church. The language nests were created to help transmission of language from older people to the youngest children. Fluent elders came to preschools to teach how to speak and live Māori. In 1985, the program Kura Kaupapa Māori was established in which students receive all instructions in Māori and teaching follows a Māori philosophical framework. The program helped the Māori to become the only indigenous numerical minority in the world with an official national status for their language. (Grenoble & Whaley 2006: 52-55)

==== Concrete examples ====

===== [[Cherokee language revitalization]] =====

===== [[Manchu language revitalisation programs]] =====

===== [[Karelian language revitalization programs]] =====

===== [[Manx Language Revival]] =====

===== [[Inari Sámi (anarâškielâ) revitalization|Inari Sámi (''anarâškielâ'') revitalization]] =====

===== [[Nivkh Language Revival]] =====

===== [[Welsh Language Revival]] =====

===== Other ideas: =====

* Khoisan languages (their amount and relations not well known & different names used create challenges), Basque language, Hawaiian, Amazigh

==== References ====
Grenoble, Lenore A & Lindsay J. Whaley. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006

== '''The local language as a second language''' ==
Endangered languages are often not any longer spoken by younger generations. When attempting to revitalize the language by teaching it in school, it is almost like a foreign language to the students. Pedagogical materials have to be revised to teach the students the local language before teaching in that language. Total-immersion programs can only be implemented then. (Grenoble & Whaley 2006: 56-57)

In this approach, two lines of action exist. In the first, favoured by UNESCO, the middle generation is taught first by linking local language knowledge of elderly to literacy programs. It is based on the idea that literacy is a merit when it comes to the economic situation of the community, and that the local language is best learned at home. The advantages are that the adults can later teach the children, and that the middle generation is not excluded from learning the local language. However, adults have more difficulties and less time learning a new language than children. The second approach therefore targets the youngest generations first. The language nest model described previously is a good example for such a program. Pedagogical materials can be developed as a class moves on. (Grenoble & Whaley 2006: 57-58)

==== References ====
Grenoble, Lenore A & Lindsay J. Whaley. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006

== '''Other approaches''' ==

=== Master-apprentice program ===
The Master-apprentice program was developed in California in 1992 to account for the rapid loss of numerous indigenous languages located in the state. While in the eighteenth century approximately 100 indigenous languages were found, only about 50 languages remained in the beginning of the twenty-first century, and only 4 languages had more than 100, only elderly, speakers. In comparison to other cases like Māori or Hawaiian, no language was obviously revivable and no community existed to support the learning. Therefore, in the program, learners ("apprentices") are paired with elderly speakers ("masters"). The principles of the program are: the team is not allowed to speak English with each other, the apprentice is asked to fully participate in the program, the focus is on oral, not written, language, the language-learning team meets in real-life situations instead of a classroom, and the apprentice will lean to understand through the activity paired with nonverbal communication. The program runs three years for each learner, and a small stipend serves as additional motivation for the participants. The final goal is not fluency of the learner but that apprentice and master develop a relationship which will further support the learning. (Grenoble & Whaley 2006: 60-63)

=== Language reclamation models ===
In cases where languages are no longer spoken, approaches to reverse this are referred to as language reclamation, resuscitation, revival and awakening among others. While in language revitalization living native speakers can be consulted, language reclamation needs to rely on existing documentation. Hebrew is considered to be the most succesful language reclamation case. However, it had always been in use as liturgical language and is written down extensively. A more examplary case for language reclamation is the Kaurna language of Australia which has not been spoken for more than a century before it was revitalized. Since there are no sound recordings, the community has to consult the incomplete written texts which were documented by outsiders. A basic grammar and lexicon is created. To attempt to reconstruct the lost parts of the language, the comparative methods helps to alsot take information from sister or other related languages into account. In language reclamation cases it is important not to expect too much. In the case of Kaurna, for example, the limited but active use in songs or speeches is a huge success. (Grenoble & Whaley 2006: 63-67)

==== References ====
Grenoble, Lenore A & Lindsay J. Whaley. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006

<references />
[[Category:Addressing language endangerment]]
[[Category:Language documentation]]
[[Category:Quality Education]]
[[Category:Language maintenance]]
[[Category:Linguistic diversity]]
Latest revision		Your text
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Language revitalization is the attempt to maintain ~~[[Language Endangerment\|~~endangered ~~languages]]~~ or to revive extinct ones. The vitality of languages that have lost or are losing their attributes is restored. Other names for those activities are e.g. language maintenance, language revival, language preservation, language reproduction, language reversal, language renewal and linguistic revival. (Tsunoda 2006: 169)		Language revitalization is the attempt to maintain endangered langauges or to revive extinct ones. The vitality of languages that have lost or are losing their attributes is restored. Other names for those activities are e.g. language maintenance, language revival, language preservation, language reproduction, language reversal, language renewal and linguistic revival. (Tsunoda 2006: 169)

	Nowadays, hundrets of languages around the world are endagered or disappearing due to a decline in number of native speakers. Language revitalization programs exist in most regions of the world and try to revive a language by taking measures against the decrease of speakers. The programs differ from region to region and language to language. Some of them operate on a nation-wide level like in the case of Irish while others involve a small community. (Grenoble & Whaley 2006: 1)		Nowadays, hundrets of languages around the world are endagered or disappearing due to a decline in number of native speakers. Language revitalization programs exist in most regions of the world and try to revive a language by taking measures against the decrease of speakers. The programs differ from region to region and language to language. Some of them operate on a nation-wide level like in the case of Irish while others involve a small community. (Grenoble & Whaley 2006: 1)