It’s come to my attention that I never posted my last two blog entries for Module 1, as intended.  So I decided to post them together now, since they are are on the same topic and by the same author and hopefully helpful to anyone looking at language revitalization in their research.

Post 4

Language Revitalization in North America and the New Direction of Linguistics, Leanne Hinton.

This article discusses the changing relationships between linguistic communities and the communities which they study. In the past, linguistic studies were done for the benefit of academia and advancing the field.  However, the focus with regard to language preservation and revitalization is now shifting in a more ethical and respectful direction to seek and provide benefit to the community whose language is being documented.  Revitalization, rather than documentation, becomes the goal in this new ethical approach that encourages “(1) the preservation of indigenous languages, (2) the promotion of literacy, (3) the development of new speakers, (4) the actual use of the indigenous language, and (5) community control of the language.”

I found this article to be incredibly enlightening and as to the motivations of linguistic studies of endangered languages, both historical and modern, and a solid starting point for research into the field.  Hinton’s references opened doors that I wouldn’t otherwise have known existed as I researched the topic for a paper in another course.  Hinton also maintained and encouraged a culturally respectful and relevant approach that I value and  try to maintain perspective of in my own work and research.

Hinton, L. (2010) Language revitalization in North America and the new directions of linguistics. Transforming Anthropology, 18(1), 35-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-7466.2010.01068.x

Post 5

Language Revitalization, Leanne Hinton

This article outlines the change in practice from language maintenance, to language revitalization over the past three decades for endangered and dying indigenous languages.  As recently as 1990, much focus was placed on maintaining the status quo of these languages and did not address the insufficiency of such measures.  Since then concerted efforts have been made to grow the languages.  Hinton introduces many factors that are problematic to attempts at revitalization in the article and describes some successful programs.  Some of these include: the adequacy of documentation of endangered and “extinct” languages, literacy and the lack of orthographies in primarily oral languages, policies of bilingual education as process toward dominant-language fluent speakers versus plural fluencies, indigenous “language nest” immersion programs, dilution of resources in regions with many indigenous languages, and cultural control of language as a cultural artifact.

Though not exhaustive, this article makes many of the difficulties and complexities facing language revitalization clear and provides a depth of perspective that is valuable to those researching the topic.

Hinton, L. (2003) Language revitalization. Annual review of applied linguistics. 23, 44-57. doi: 10.1017/S0267190503000187