Last week I wrote about why language death is such a big deal. This week I wanted to expand on this idea a bit further and talk about some of the ongoing difficulties with language revitalization that linguists have to deal with.
Why Language Revitalization can be Difficult
Linguists who work in language revitalization have their work cut out for them. Each language is different, and comes with its own challenges that linguists must contend with:
- Language ideologies
- Loss of land and culture
- Lack of information
- Lack of support
Each and all of these problems could arise with any given language, and it’s important for linguists to know how to deal with each one.
Before you go trying any of this yourself: Linguists who spend their time on language revitalization usually specialize in it. They have experience, education, a knowledge of the culture, knowledge of the language, and often a certain rapport with the people they are helping. Vigilante revitalization work might do more harm than good.
Language Ideologies and Revitalization
I spoke briefly last week about why language ideology can contribute to language death. It can also make revitalization a lot harder, for similar reasons:
Preservation
Language revitalization work often requires recording information about a language to teach it to others. But some groups don’t want their language recorded. This could be due to a spiritual or cultural belief, or something more personal.
For example, some groups might see their language’s preservation/ recording as a means of (intentionally or otherwise) controlling their language. It could also be seen as something that will stagnate their language and stop it from changing over time (a value that could be important for certain cultures).
As a final example, different dialectal groups might disagree on whose version of the language should be recorded.
Modernization
Another important aspect of language revitalization is modernizing the language. As I talked about in my last post, economic opportunities often play a role in language death.
One way to help combat this is to bring in words for modern ideas. For example, words for “television” or “computer” might not exist yet in the language. There can be disagreement between outsiders and native speakers (or only among native speakers) about whether this should be done at all. The inability to modernize the language will make it harder to encourage people to learn it, but modernizing it might take away some of the heart of the language.
Even if it’s agreed upon that the language should be modernized, the question of how might cause disagreement. Sometimes, linguists or native speakers might want to simply make up new words. Other times, they may just borrow the word that another language uses. (Shoshoni, for example, at least in the Northern Shoshoni dialect, borrowed the word television without changing it at all.)
Of course, natural development is often best, but if there are too few speakers, then the language simply won’t be able to keep up with new concepts.
Protection
Some cultures have very particular beliefs about who should be able to use their language. Some believe it should be shared with anyone they meet, while other groups might guard their language from outsiders.
Other cultures might be less extreme, but still have concerns about how outsiders will use their language. They wouldn’t want it to be used to ridicule their culture or otherwise defame it.
Even if the person learning their language and engaging with revitalization has the best of intentions, there’s always a fear that something could go wrong.
Information about the language could also get into the hands of someone with less benevolent intentions.
The Importance of Reputation
Everything I just talked about should make it clear why there are entire fields of study dedicated to revitalization and why it’s important for linguists to establish a good reputation with the people they’re helping. If native speakers know that suggestions come from a place of genuine concern and good faith, they’re much more likely to listen.
When some random person tries to learn their language and start teaching it in schools, native speakers might question their authority on the topic, their knowledge of the language, or their reasons for helping. If they know the person well, though, then it’s much less of an issue.
Loss of Land and Culture
You might not realize it, but land, language, and culture are deeply connected.
At its most basic level, a culture develops out of nearby geography. Local plants, animals, natural resources, and landmarks all play a significant part in any culture.
Separating people from their land separates them from valuable cultural symbols. This, in turn, removes the cultural background surrounding the language. It’s harder to make associations and understand the viewpoints and ideas behind a language without the proper context. In order to bring back land, language, or culture, you often need to bring back all three at once, if possible.
Displaced language groups have a much harder time bringing back their language without these foundations underneath. Linguists in these areas have to fight an uphill battle to bring back the language.
Lack of Information
If a language, especially one with few speakers, doesn’t have much recorded data, it’s a lot harder to revitalize.
This could be a lack of data about the language itself or about the factors causing its death. Either way, it forces linguists to spend precious time researching these factors or learning about the language.
If they’ve built up a reputation, then they likely know something about the language already, which is a huge boon.
A lack of language data can also make it more difficult to study how the language should be taught to new speakers or how it should be modernized. Compiling language data becomes more complicated when speakers disagree on preservation, like I said above.
Lack of Support
I mentioned in my last post that the ideologies of outsiders can create similar problems in revitalization.
Lack of support from a government or community will make linguists’ jobs much harder.
Implementing a language course into the education system can’t be done without government support. If part of a community supports revitalization efforts while another doesn’t care or actively interferes, a linguist will have a much harder time getting work done.
In Ireland, for example, there is a lot of government support for revitalizing Irish Gaelic. The sign in the image at the top of the post was one of the first things I saw upon arriving to the airport there. It has directions in both English and Irish Gaelic.
All over Ireland, in fact, there are signs with Irish Gaelic and English. This is a big deal for revitalization efforts, as it exposes locals to the language consistently and gets them engaging with it. It also gives people more incentives to learn.
In addition, there are TV channels and radio stations that only use Irish Gaelic.
Entertainment, news, and signage all over the country is pushing to bring back this language.
On the other hand, I have heard from Irish Gaelic speakers that there are a lot of problems with the education system surrounding the language. I don’t know the specifics, but without proper change, the revitalization efforts there might stagnate.
Imagine how tough it must be for a language with less government support than Irish. They won’t have the infrastructure or ability to increase the presence of their language. Without help, the language can’t come back. One of the many jobs of linguists and researchers trying to revitalize the language is finding ways to increase this support.
How Linguists Handle Language Revitalization
As you could probably guess, language revitalization is a lot of work.
It is the subject of constant study among many linguists, who work to find new methods and means of revitalizing and recording languages then share these efforts with other researchers. It’s a constant process of research, observation, and feedback to find what works in a community, and every community is different.
Sometimes, these efforts seem like an insurmountable wall, but linguists climb it all the same. It’s always possible to make great strides in revitalization efforts, assuming that the linguists involved in the project know what they’re doing.
Community support goes a long way, too. Establishing radio stations and podcasts or increasing access to language resources makes it easier for members of that community to engage with their native language.
Conclusion
I said before that I would talk about how you could help with language revitalization in this post. I ended up going into a lot more detail about language revitalization itself than I thought I would, so I wrote an additional post to expand on those details!
If you missed my post last week, I talked about why language death is such a big deal. I strongly encourage you to read it here!
I hope this was an enjoyable or at least interesting read. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to let me know below.
Thanks for reading!
