Language Revitalization

Language revitalization is the attempt to maintain 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)

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.

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

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. According to the Ethnologue, there is currently about 87,000 speakers.

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. 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).

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

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

• Manchu language revitalisation programs

• Karelian language revitalization programs
• Manx Language Revival
• Inari Sámi (anarâškielâ) revitalization
• Nivkh Language Revival
• Welsh Language Revival
• Other ideas: Maori, 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 appears as 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