Advertisement

Language Policy

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 443–475 | Cite as

Planning for the survival of linguistic diversity

  • Suzanne Romaine
Open Access
Article

Abstract

The prospect of the loss of linguistic diversity on a large scale has prompted scholars such as Fishman and others to propose programs of intervention to ‚reverse language shift’ (RLS). RLS theories and efforts are byproducts of European indigenous minority problems, and the ideological bias of Fishman’s model of RLS privileges intergenerational transmission in the context of stable diglossia. This article examines the ideological underpinnings and utility of this framework as an appropriate model for stabilizing and revitalizing indigenous languages. I question the assumptions and theoretical perspectives underlying terms such as RLS and reconceptualize what it might mean for a language to be maintained and survive without intergenerational mother tongue transmission. As an increasing number of communities around the world face the impending loss of their languages, it is imperative to clarify these issues not just for theory’s sake, but in the interest of providing sound advice.

Keywords

Language revitalization diglossia intergenerational transmission language shift 

Abbreviations

RLS

Reversing Language Shift

X/Xish

Language undergoing shift

Xmen

Speakers of language undergoing shift

Y/Yish

Dominant language

H

High language

L

Low language

GIDS

Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale

ELTSP

English Language Teaching Support Programme

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to a number of scholars and audiences for constructive feedback, including Elana Shohamy, two anonymous referees, and participants at GURT 2006 (Georgetown University Roundtable on Linguistics) and at the Workshop on Language Ideologies and Change in Multilingual Communities at the University of California, San Diego. I would also like to thank Harold Schiffman for discussions concerning development of scientific terminology.

References

  1. Abdulaziz M. H. 1988. Development of scientific and technical terminology with special reference to African languages. Kiswahili 56:32–49Google Scholar
  2. Abley M. 2003. Spoken here. Travels among threatened languages. Toronto: Random House of CanadaGoogle Scholar
  3. Amery R. 2001, Warrabarna Kaurna! Reclaiming an Australian language. Lisse: Swets & ZeitlingerGoogle Scholar
  4. Ammon U. 2001. English as a future language of teaching at German universities? A question of difficult consequences, posed by the decline of German as a language of science. In: Ammon U. (eds) The dominance of English as a language of science. Effects on the non-English languages and language communities. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 343–361Google Scholar
  5. Annamalai E. 2005. Nation-building in a globalised world: Language choice and education in India. In: Lin Angel M. Y., Martin P. (eds) Decolonisation, globalization. Language-in-education policy and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 20–38Google Scholar
  6. Benton, R. (1999). Maori language revitalization. Wellington, NZ. Final reportGoogle Scholar
  7. Black P. 1990. Rethinking domain theory, part 1: how should it be applied? Ngoonjook 3: 22–31Google Scholar
  8. Black P. 1993. Rethinking domain theory, part 2: what about code-mixing? Ngoonjook 8: 44–57Google Scholar
  9. Bourhis R. Y. 2001. Reversing language shift in Quebec In: Fishman J. (eds) Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language shift, revisited: A 21st century perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp 101–141Google Scholar
  10. Brink C. 2006. No lesser place. The taaldebat at Stellenbosch. Stellenbosch: Sun PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Brock-Utne B. 2000. Whose education for all? The recolonization of the African mind. London: Falmer PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown R. M. 1998. A brief cultural history of the Guatemalan highlands. In: S. Garzon, R. M. Brown, J. B. Richards, & Wuqu’Ajpub’ (Arnulfo Simón) (Eds), The life of our language. Kaqchikel Maya maintenance, shift, and revitalization (pp. 44–61). Austin, TX: University of Texas PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Burridge K. 2002. Steel tyres or rubber tyres – maintenance or loss: Pennsylvania German in the ‚horse and buggy’ communities of Ontario. In: Bradley D., Bradley M. (eds) Language endangerment and language maintenance. London: RoutledgeCurzon. pp. 203–229Google Scholar
  14. Calvet L. J. 1993. La sociolinguistique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de FranceGoogle Scholar
  15. Canagarajah A. S. 2005. Accommodating tensions in language-in-education policies: An afterword. In: Lin A. M. Y., Martin P. (eds) Decolonisation, globalisation. Language-in-education policy and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 194–202Google Scholar
  16. Criper C., Dodd W. 1984. Report on the teaching of English language and its use as a medium of education in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: The British CouncilGoogle Scholar
  17. Crystal D. 2000. Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Dalby A. 2003. Language in danger. How language loss threatens our future. Harmondsworth: PenguinGoogle Scholar
  19. Dauenhauer N. M., Dauenhauer R. 1998. Technical, emotional, and ideological issues in reversing language shift: examples from Southeast Alaska. In: Grenoble L. A., Whaley L. J. (eds) Endangered languages. Current issues and future prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 57–99Google Scholar
  20. De Fréine S. 1965. The great silence: the study of a relationship between language and nationality. Dublin: Mercier PressGoogle Scholar
  21. de Nebrija, A. [1492] (1926). Gramàtica de la lengua castellana. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  22. del Valle J. 2000. Monoglossic policies for a heteroglossic culture: Misinterpreted multilingualism in modern Galicia. Language and Communication 20(1):105–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dua H. R. 1994. Hegemony of English. Mysore: Yashoda PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  24. Eckert P. 1980. Diglossia: separate and unequal. Linguistics 18:1053–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eurydice (2005). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice European UnitGoogle Scholar
  26. Fabian J. 1983. Time and the other. How anthropology makes its object. New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
  27. Fasold R. 1984. The sociolinguistics of society. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  28. Ferguson, C. A. [1959] (1964). Diglossia. In: D. Hymes (Ed.), Language in culture and society: A reader in linguistics and anthropology (pp. 429–439). New York: Harper and Row (reprinted from Word 15:325–340)Google Scholar
  29. Fermino, J. L. D. (2001). You are a dead people. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 25(2), 44–47. Summer Issue. Endangered Languages. Endangered Lives. edited by Eileen QuinnGoogle Scholar
  30. Fishman J. A. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23(2): 29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fishman J. A. 1974. Language modernization and planning in comparison with other types of national modernization and planning. In: Fishman Joshua A. (eds) Advances in language planning. The Hague: Mouton & Co pp. 79–102Google Scholar
  32. Fishman J. A. 1991. Reversing language shift. Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual MattersGoogle Scholar
  33. Fishman J. A. 1997. Maintaining languages. What works and what doesn’t. In: Cantoni G. (eds) Stabilizing indigenous languages. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. Pp. 186–198Google Scholar
  34. Fishman J. A. (eds) 2001. Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language shift, revisited: A 21st Century perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual MattersGoogle Scholar
  35. Fishman J. A., Markman B. R. 1979. The ethnic mother tongue school in America: Assumptions, findings, directory. New York: Yeshiva UniversityGoogle Scholar
  36. Giliomee, H., & Schlemmer, L. (2001). Kruispad: Die toekoms van Afrikaans as openbare taal. [Crossroads: The future of Afrikaans as public language] Stellenbosch: TafelbergGoogle Scholar
  37. Gill S. K. 2004. Medium of Instruction Policy in Higher Education in Malaysia: Nationalism versus Internationalization. In: Tollefson J. W., Tsui A. B. M. (eds) Medium of instruction policies – which agenda? whose agenda?. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 135–152Google Scholar
  38. Gilpin A., Garrett R. M., Kapinga D., Kanyelele M. 1996. Tanzania English language support project (ELTSP). Final report. London: Overseas Development AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  39. Gordon, R. G. Jr. (Ed.) (2005). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (15th ed.). Dallas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/, accessed May 28, 2006Google Scholar
  40. Harris S. 1994. ‚Soft’ and “hard’ domain theory for bicultural education in indigenous groups. Peabody Journal of Education 69(2):140–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hill J. H. 2002. “Expert rhetorics” in advocacy for endangered languages: Who is listening, and what do they hear? Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12(2):119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hornberger N., King K. 1999. Authenticity and unification in Quechua language planning. In: May S. (eds) Indigenous Community-based Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 160–180Google Scholar
  43. Hornsby M. 2005. Néo-breton and questions of authenticity. Estudios de Sociolingüística 6(2):191–218Google Scholar
  44. Hudson A. 2002. Outline of a theory of diglossia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jaffe A. 1999. Ideologies in action. Language politics on Corsica. Berlin: Walter de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  46. Jones M. 1998. Language obsolescence and revitalization: Linguistic change in two Sociolinguistically contrasting Welsh communities. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  47. King K. A. 2001. Language revitalization processes and prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes. Clevedon: Multilingual MattersGoogle Scholar
  48. Krauss M. 1992. The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68: 4–10Google Scholar
  49. Littlebear, R. (1999). Some rare and radical ideas for keeping indigenous languages. In: J. Reyhner, G. Cantoni, St. Clair, N. Robert, E. P. Yazzie (Eds), Revitalizing indigenous languages (pp. 1–5). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University PressGoogle Scholar
  50. Maguire G. 1991. Our own language: An Irish initiative. Clevedon: Multilingual MattersGoogle Scholar
  51. Malik K. 2000. Let them die. Prospect 57(November):16–17Google Scholar
  52. Martel A. 2001. When does knowledge have a national language? Language policy- making for science and technology. In: Ammon U. (eds) The dominance of English as a language of science. Effects on the non-English languages and language communities. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 27–57Google Scholar
  53. Martin-Jones, M. (1989). Language, power and linguistic minorities: the need for an alternative approach to bilingualism, language maintenance and shift. In: Grillo, Ralph (Ed.), Social anthropology and the politics of language (pp. 106–125). London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  54. McConvell P. 1992. Review of Fishman, J. A. 1991. Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 12(1): 209–220Google Scholar
  55. Mühlhäusler P. 2002. Why one cannot preserve languages (but can preserve language ecologies). In: Bradley D., Bradley M. (eds) Language endangerment and language maintenance. London: Routledge Curzon. pp. 34–39Google Scholar
  56. Nettle D., Romaine S. 2000. Vanishing voices. The extinction of the world’s languages. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  57. O’Rahilly T. F. 1932. Irish dialects past and present:, with chapters on Scottish and Manx. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced StudiesGoogle Scholar
  58. Ó Riagáin P. (1997). Language policy and social reproduction. Ireland 1893–1993. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  59. Ó Riagáin, P. (2001). Irish language production and reproduction 1981–1996. In: J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language shift, revisited: A 21st century perspective (pp. 195–215). Clevedon: Multilingual MattersGoogle Scholar
  60. Pedraza, P. Jr., Attinasi, J. & Hoffman, G. (1980). Rethinking diglossia. In: R. V. Padilla (Ed.), Ethnoperspectives in bilingual education research: Theory in bilingual education (pp. 76–97). Ypsilanti, MI: Department of Foreign Languages and Bilingual Studies. Eastern Michigan UniversityGoogle Scholar
  61. Rajabu R., Ngonyani D. 1994. Language policy in Tanzania and the hidden agenda. In: Rubagumya C. (eds) Teaching and researching language in African classrooms. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp 6–15Google Scholar
  62. Robins R. H., Uhlenbeck E. M. (eds) 1991. Endangered languages. Oxford: BergGoogle Scholar
  63. Romaine, S. (1999). Women, land and language: Shifting metaphors and shifting languages. In: S. Wertheim, A. C. Bailey, & M. Corston-Oliver (Eds), Engendering communication (pp. 473–486). Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley Women and Language Group. Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  64. Romaine S. 2002a. Can stable diglossia help to preserve endangered languages? International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Romaine S. 2002b. Signs of identity, signs of discord: Glottal goofs and the green grocer’s glottal in debates on Hawaiian orthography. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12(2):189–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Romaine, S. forthcoming. Linguistic diversity, sustainability, and the future of the past. In: K. King, N. Schilling-Estes, L. Fogle, J. Lou, & B. Soukup (Eds), Endangered and minority languages and varieties; Defining, documenting and developing. Washington, DC: Georgetown University PressGoogle Scholar
  67. Schiffman, H. F. forthcoming. Language policy and language conflict in Afghanistan and its neighbors. An introduction and overviewGoogle Scholar
  68. Stille A. 2002. The future of the past. How the information age threatens to destroy our cultural heritage. New York: Farrar, Straus and GirouxGoogle Scholar
  69. Shohamy, E. forthcoming. At what cost? Methods of reviving, maintaining and sustaining endangered and minority languages. In K. King, N. Schilling-Estes, L.␣Fogle, J. Lou, & B. Soukup (Eds), Endangered and minority languages and varieties; Defining, documenting and developing. Washington, DC: Georgetown University PressGoogle Scholar
  70. Spolsky B. 2003. Reassessing Māori regeneration. Language in Society 32:553–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Spolsky B., Shohamy E. 2001. Hebrew after a century of RLS efforts. In: Fishman J. A. (eds) Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language shift, revisited: A 21st century perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp 350–364Google Scholar
  72. Villanueva, M., Bishop, M. & Meyer, K. N. forthcoming. American Sign Language: Endangered and endangering? In K. King, N. Schilling-Estes, L. Fogle, J. Lou, & B. Soukup (Eds), Endangered and minority languages and varieties; Defining, documenting and developing. Washington, DC: Georgetown University PressGoogle Scholar
  73. Williams G. 1992. Sociolinguistics. A sociological critique. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  74. Williams G., Morris D. 2000. Language planning and language use. Welsh in a global age. Cardiff: University of Wales PressGoogle Scholar
  75. Woolard K. A. 1998. Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In: Schieffelin B., Woolard K. A., Kroskrity P. V. (eds) Language ideologies: Practice and theory. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 3– 47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Merton CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations