Talk:Language revitalization

message: Number 5 under "Steps in reversing language shift" reads:
:Where the state permits it, and where numbers warrant, encourage the use of the language in lieu of compulsory state education.
I am a native speaker of English, and I do not understand how a language could be used "in lieu of" education. Is this a standard expression in some form of English? I am from the US, and it makes no sense to me, but perhaps it makes sense in some other dialect(s). I see how a language could be used "in lieu of" the official state language in compulsory education, and would recommend changing the wording here.
Jalopeura (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "in lieu of"? 

message: Why is Old Norwegian a revived language? Old Norwegian is the dialect of Old Norse spoken in Norway, that later evolved into modern Norwegian. I don't see how you can "revive" such a language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiven (talk • contribs) 06:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Akkurat! I've nothing against Old Norwegian but it has no business here. Robert Greer (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Old Norwegian had to go, then so do Greek Katharevousa, Latin, and Sanskrit, which have all evolved into other modern languages. Suomichris (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry seems to refer to Modern Norwegian (in the form of standardised written languages), especially Nynorsk. Nynorsk isn't based on Old Norwegian, however (otherwise it would be much more similar to Modern Icelandic), but on modern dialects that are still spoken. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Norwegian 

message: "Indigenous languages of the Americas" should be replaced with specific languages -- I'll make a list and add it here. --babbage 22:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous languages of the Americas 

message: The Ladino article says that it is in decline everywhere. Is this correct? Should it be removed from this page? Jd2718 20:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ladino? 

message: I wouldn't say Catalan has ever been an endangered language as a whole, particularly in Catalonia. It was a banned language, which is different. Nowadays it may be considered endangered, though, in France and Italy. Purplefire 08:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalan 

message: I don't understand how Galician, spoken and/or understood by the vast majority of the population at the time it was made a joint co-offciial language following the demise of the Franco regime could ne "revived". Whether or not it is actually enjoying a social revival is also a moot question. Surely this article should be claerer about wahat is meant by "revival" as opposed to standardisation of fully normal social usage of a language. Neal  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.79.142 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galician 

message: A lot of the languages listed seem odd to include as examples of 'language revitalization', especially Czech (with 12 million speakers), Basque (with more than 1 million), and Taiwanese (with between 15 and 49 million speakers).  On the ground language revitalization is usually working with only a few speakers (if any) on languages.  I wonder about making two categories for this page: a section for languages with language populations of speakers, but which are still under threat (such as Basque), and languages, for example, of North America, with a very low number of speakers.  These situations warrant different treatments, I think.  It would also be nice to have citations that these languages listed are 'endangered'.
Thoughts? Suomichris (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And when was it endangered? The Czech language article makes no mention of it ever being so.Yobmod (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Czech National Revival is relevant for the revitalization of Czech. Man vyi (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages Listed? 

message: In thinking about this article yesterday, I wonder if there isn't space for two articles.  'Language revitalization' on the one hand, to cover endangered languages and attempts to revive them, and 'Language revival', which could cover efforts to promote languages such as Latin, Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, etc., which are not dead in that they have descendant languages.
Thoughts on this?  Another possibility would be to put a separate section in 'language revitalization' to clarify how it is different than efforts to promote Latin, Sanskrit, etc.
Suomichris (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate section sounds good to me. At the very least, I'd say that a qualifier would require actual communication in the language, not merely (for example) translating or writing things into the language. For instance, I'm a speaker of Old English, and there are a few people whom I communicate with, and this is often our medium of choice. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split this article? 

message: There's no section on criticism of language revitalization, while there probably should be. Many people have criticized it as being divisive and keeping people poor or isolated from the larger world culture, as it isolates them by preventing them from communicating as well. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think such section is needed. As it speaks of reviving languages, not promoting monolingualism and poor education. Nothing prevents bein open to the world numerous cultures and economy in your own language. Easy example : Wikipedia in many endangered languages. Though critics might have a purpose if the article refers to a specific case promoting monolingualism. Which I think it is not the case for the moment. 70.50.46.202 (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I happen to believe that revitalization is a worthwhile goal, I support the need for a section on criticism of the endeavor. Such a section would be useful even to supporters of revitalization, as it would help them to be more informed. babbage (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No criticism? 

message: Many of the supposedly "revived" languages discussed here were never even endangered, let alone near extinction. Either the definition is wrong, or the examples are, either way this article is original research and in desperate need of citations.Yobmod (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: I'm just asking (I have no intention of inserting this into the article at all), would the recent minor revival of Old English be considered a legitimate (or even semi) language revitalization? I know of several people who speak it, and some of us actually use it as a preferred means of communication, but there arent any modern native speakers– yet. So far, its primary use is among those interested in ancient European history, as well as adherents to Heathenry. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question but I would hazard a guess that it doesn't count as language revival if a community is not aiming to establish at least a nucleus of native speakers. Manx is small but definitely has always aimed for neo-native speakers. Same goes for Palawa kani. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-Saxon 

message: I removed the line about many linguists not caring about revitalization because the source given, a book on revitalization by Tasaku Tsunoda is not likely to support such an assertion. I haven't read the book, but I checked a peer-reviewed book review, written by another linguist who works in revitalization, who did not mention or seem concerned about anything in the book being against revitalization efforts. I suppose there could be a line or two about linguists' lack of concern as a description of the problems revitalization efforts face, but in that case those linguists should probably be referenced. As it was, it appeared that Tsunoda was against revitalization, which is disingenuous. Feel free to add the line back in if you have a more reasonable source, though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshisanonymous (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind the possibility that Tsunoda talks about other linguists, not himself. Moreover, reading a review isn't an acceptable substitute for checking what the book actually says, so you shouldn't be surprised that your edit was undone. That said, you do have a point: a verbatim quote from the book would be helpful. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I've since checked the cited pages on Google Books and he is in fact referring to other linguists. Shouldn't the page at least refer directly to Tsunoda's sources instead of Tsunoda, though? Joshisanonymous (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on what these sources say, and how many there are. It doesn't make sense to refer to, say, a dozen or even only half a dozen linguists who say they don't care about revitalisation because 1) it would be cumbersome to list them all 2) these sources would need to be checked first (to avoid misrepresenting them too), and they may not be freely available in Google Books or elsewhere online 3) we should use summaries and review-style articles 4) we should not use primary sources 5) the sampling is not necessarily representative (what if there are 20 more linguists who say they do care?) 6) we should not engage in compilation (synthesis!) or OR. There's nothing wrong with referring to Tsunoda's reporting of other linguists' attitudes, and in fact, it is the much easier and better solution. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: We're told that "some lovers" are revitalising Manx. This strikes me as comical (and incorrect) use of English, since "lovers" without any further qualification (such as "art lovers" or "pasta lovers") can really only mean people in a sexual relationship! Of course the meaning isn't unclear, but surely "some enthusiasts" (or something else) would be better?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.28.182 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lovers" 

message: From the article:
"In addition, literary languages have sometimes risen to the level of becoming first languages of very large language communities. An example is standard Italian, which originated as a literary language derived from the language of 13th-century Florence, especially as used by such important Florentine writers as Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio. This language existed for several centuries primarily as a literary vehicle, with few native speakers; even as late as 1861, on the eve of Italian unification, the language only counted about 500,000 speakers, many non-native, out of a total population of c. 22,000,000. The subsequent success of the language has been through conscious development, where speakers of any of the numerous Italian languages were taught standard Italian as a second language and subsequently imparted it to their children, who learned it as a first language.[citation needed]"
While this is true, it is very ironic to use as an example in this article because the success of standard Italian came at the expense of the other languages of Italy... Alternatively, this could be considered dialect leveling since the languages that it was replacing were all closely related to standard Italian. I propose that a better example be sought. Alázhlis (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The case of Italian--not a great example 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Language revitalization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140409141047/http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/ to http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017090003/http://www.ahg.gov.ie/en/20YearStrategyfortheIrishLanguage/Publications/Report%20of%20Coimisi%C3%BAn%20na%20Gaeltachta.pdf to http://www.ahg.gov.ie/en/20YearStrategyfortheIrishLanguage/Publications/Report%20of%20Coimisi%C3%BAn%20na%20Gaeltachta.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630141837/http://schola.ning.com/ to http://schola.ning.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Language revitalization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706051224/http://www.gorsethkernow.org.uk/english/welcome.htm to http://www.gorsethkernow.org.uk/english/welcome.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810115929/http://www.jessielittledoe.com/jessie_CV.pdf to http://www.jessielittledoe.com/jessie_CV.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This seems to be unnecessarily tokenistic as an article. There's been so much written about the successful revival of Cornish, its recognition by the UK government, its funding, large-scale publication of literature, introduction on public signage, swearing in of MPs from Cornwall in Cornish, .... (I could go on). 
The rather lame 'several attempts' seems to be damning with faint praise or implying failure. Very POV. Suggest either removing the section until someone can take the time to deliver something more objective or at least a partial upgrade.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.77.71 (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornish 

message: Hello, I have added/started a section addressing current revitalization efforts. I think it will be beneficial to distinguish examples of successful revitalization from current efforts going on around the world. Kc cotton (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Revitalization Efforts 

message: Just out of curiosity: should Kenan Malik's criticisms be included in this section?
I am asking because he isn't a linguist, unlike McWhorter. Additionally, his criticism seems to ignore a lot of the cultural aspects of language; it's too simplistic and reduces language to a utilitarian object. Basically, I don't really think he has a strong case against revitalization. While I am for revitalization, I do think the criticisms need to be more thought-provoking than his to warrant being used on this page.
On the other hand, McWhorter's criticism are much more fitting.
Hello all, I will be briefly editing this page for my ANTHROPOLOGY 473 Living Languages class. Please feel free to add/change anything I add or let me know of errors etc. Thanks, Lindsay LindsayBotterill (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Hi everyone, I'll briefly be editing this page for my Indigenous Studies class on Endangered Languages and Language Revitalization. Feel free to change, add, or tag me to correct errors. 
I'm going to add to this section a brief description of the role that immersive learning plays in language revitalization - giving the examples of modern Hebrew and Maori
Chaalb123 (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factors in successful language revitlization 

message: This article would benefit from the inclusion of efforts to document, preserve, and revitalize sign languages as well. The vast majority of the world's documented sign languages face an especially potent combination of threats, including the rarity of generational transmission, small population size, scarcity of use in educational contexts, low social prestige, decreasing population size (due in part to the increasing availability in hearing technologies that lead to language shift favoring spoken languages), and contact with (& corresponding language shift toward) more globally-dominant sign languages (among which American Sign Language is the primary offender).
Good references include:
https://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/10e_95.1Braithwaite.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.06.008
https://www.mdpi.com/2226-471X/6/2/98
NONAKA, A. (2004). The forgotten endangered languages: Lessons on the importance of remembering from Thailand's Ban Khor Sign Language. Language in Society, 33(5), 737-767. doi:10.1017/S004740450404504X
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26191233
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/52754243/SignLanguageRevitalizationChapter_author_preprint-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1650387396&Signature=TRZ2aWqP6N-lJq5XG3npKsbTbIIkT2EJbrDsTyp8sol65GviZvjGbp-DZjrykv-YQhjelH6FmeyhijC-31zX79CRszBNFKUURgV6gXPP8stEOhbcRulDDpicADuJHrKiK38jfVyDchTEa17AO7ZWsWx~dgy06LJy0LcWHhQzyQoQosIH8JbZIyKS33WsFd43kcd5~KOsG7oweDSTVP6b8XBngiyd3LJaL6gl6zC7co4xL981G3CWfoWRJpB1C6ALksOvwSb5CcZBtrNvACtEVd25vyNIIMQPOKExC7z8s96JRuwvnG0N1HvZDPytYHkd59qawZRAMIHhvsfZoiaruA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
Matthall.research (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of sign languages 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Language revitalization →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Also just makes more sense.90.252.42.166 (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

text: sorry, meant to propose this for moving to Language revival 90.252.42.166 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, fixed the template/→ part for you. Best! TartarTorte 21:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. I think revitalisation isn't just less used, it is wrong, because it has a different meaning. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose. "Revitalization" is by far the more common term in the literature: just have a look at the article's references section, there are twice as many texts with that in its title than with "revival". – Uanfala (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 April 2023 

message: Spanish is in no way experiencing a revival in the Philippines. Just because former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed a decree re-introducing the language as an elective in schools does not mean the language is seeing an increase in usage. In fact, the number of Spanish speakers has declined from a little less than 500,000 during her administration to 400,000 in 2020. Additionally, more students are choosing to picking up Mandarin and Japanese instead. As of 2020, nearly as many students chose Japanese as their foreign language elective versus Spanish, and Mandarin is the fastest growing.Plurilingualism and Foreign Language Education: A Review of the FL Curriculums in the Philippines, 2021 The average Filipino could not care less about reintroducing Spanish into schools or society.Should We Replace Filipino With Spanish? Here’s What ‘Redditors’ Think, La Jornada Filipina, 3 September 2020. What's more, the section is written with a very biased stance. There has been no government promotion of the language since Arroyo's administration and "demand for Spanish-speakers"? Absolutely not. - 139.135.147.25 (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish in the Philippines