hinton2018-Approaches-Strategies For Lang-Revitalization

Approaches to and Strategies for Language Revitalization

Oxford Handbooks Online

Approaches to and Strategies for Language
Revitalization
Leanne Hinton
The Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages
Edited by Kenneth L. Rehg and Lyle Campbell
Print Publication Date: Sep 2018

Subject: Linguistics, Sociolinguistics, Documentary Linguistics
Online Publication Date: Aug 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190610029.013.22
Abstract and Keywords
There are many paths language revitalization can take, but they are not mutually
exclusive. A central aspect of language revitalization is the creation of new speakers. One
path is for families to learn and transmit the endangered language at home. Schools are
major venues for language learning. Language nests and immersion schools have been
especially effective. Adult language education has also become a critical part of language
revitalization. Universities and “bootstrap” methods such as the Master-Apprentice
Program have been able to bring adults to high proficiency. Linguistic archives have been
useful for access to language, especially when there are no speakers left. Modernization
of the language is also unavoidable, including new vocabulary and the development of
writing systems if necessary. Most importantly, language revitalization should involve
increased use of the language, by native speakers and learners alike.
Keywords: immersion schools, language nests, family language revitalization, master-apprentice programs,
modernization of endangered languages
1. Introduction
Language revitalization is not an automatic response to language endangerment. In fact,
endangerment itself is to a large extent driven by community-internal attitudes that their
language is inferior to the encroaching socially dominant language, and no longer useful.
These internal feelings are in turn driven in part by external evaluations of the language
as useless and should be given up for the sake of assimilation to the larger society. This
sense of inferiority of the language and culture is constantly reinforced through
Page 1 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

education and policies of the larger society. Furthermore, even those who love their
language can easily feel a paralyzing sense of despair and hopelessness as they observe
people ceasing to use it and children not learning it.
A change of attitude needs to happen before language revitalization can occur (Bradley
2003; A. King, Chapter 23, this volume, and J. King, Chapter 26, this volume). How this
change can occur tends to relate to several factors from both outside the community
(such as a change in language policy) and inside (such as economic improvement within
the community). But in my experience with endangered languages, I have most often seen
language revitalization develop steam primarily through the actions and inspiration of
individuals within the community—and usually these are individuals of the generation
that did not learn their language in the home, and feel the loss. There are many stories of
people who have begun a language revolution through their own personal acts, either
with the encouragement of their community or simply on their own (e.g., Fellman 1973;
Baldwin et al. 2013; Grounds and Grounds 2013; little doe baird1 (p. 444) 2013; see also
Baldwin and Costa, Chapter 24, this volume). People outside the speech community—
funders, researchers, consultants, teachers—can be helpful and even inspiring in the
process, but it takes inspiration and commitment from within for language revitalization
to begin and to make progress.
I will focus on four main aspects to the revitalization of endangered and sleeping
languages: child learning, adult learning, modernization, and language use. Child
learning would include school and home as the main venues; adult learning can occur
through university classes, community classes, Master-Apprentice approaches, or
learning from documentation (all of which can shade into each other). Modernization
includes new vocabulary development and other kinds of language engineering, and use
of new writing systems. Language use is the ultimate goal of the other aspects, but for
endangered languages, using the language has to begin as a consciously planned
endeavor with its own approaches and strategies. Each of these four aspects of language
revitalization function as strategies for success of the other three aspects as well, as we
shall see. In the best of all worlds, all four of these aspects synchronize for a strong
program.
2. Child learning
A community begins to be aware that their language is endangered when it becomes
obvious that many of their children are not learning their heritage language at home, or
are ceasing its use at school age. But as mentioned above, the call to action is often later
than that, when the parents themselves have grown up without their language and feel
the significance of this loss. The home has faltered as a venue for learning the heritage
language, and the school both historically and currently focuses on the mainstream
language of the larger society, overtly or unconsciously discouraging the use of the
Page 2 of 26

heritage tongue. Yet children are the master language learners of humanity, so if they can
be exposed to the local language early enough, thoroughly enough, and long enough, it
can be hoped that the community’s shift away from the language can be reversed.
2.1. Language at home
It seems like the obvious place to begin language revitalization would be in the home
itself. And it is often the case that individuals take the reins of language revitalization in
just that way. The Miami language is one case in point (Baldwin and Costa, Chapter 24,
this volume), where what has become a strong community-wide revitalization program
began with a single family using their language at home. The inspiration for Hebrew
language revitalization is often said to be Ben Yehuda’s decision to speak only Hebrew to
his son (Fellman 1973). There are many examples that can be found of people choosing to
use their endangered language at home with their children (Hinton 2013). This approach
(p. 445) to language revitalization allows children to learn their language early and
naturally, the way everyone learns their first language.
While there are many families that have committed to using their endangered language at
home with their children, they are generally taking the plunge on their own. Community-
based language revitalization rarely starts with family language support programs.
Community-based efforts at language revitalization have tended to ignore family-based
possibilities or treat them as an afterthought. In fact, I have sometimes seen that even the
teachers teaching the endangered language in schools fail to use it in their own home
environment.
But in recent years, there have been a number of family-based programs developed,
among them notably the Thousand Homes Māori language program in New Zealand
(Kotahi Mano Kāika -1000 Ngāi Tahu Homes, http://www.kmk.maori.nz/home/). An
excellent resource for Māori parents is Kei Roto I te Whare: Māori language in the home
(Te Kāwanatanga o Aotearoa 2008). It is downloadable from the web (https://
www.tpk.govt.nz/en/a-matou-mohiotanga/language/kei-roto-i-te-whare-reprinted). In
Scotland, Finlay Macleoid used to run the Taic/CNSA Family Language Plan for young
parents (MacLeoid 2013). In 2016, the Tolowa nation in California started a program for
five families, led by Pyuwa and Ruby Bommelyn, the first family to use the Tolowa
language at home with their children in this era of revitalization (see an interview with
Ruby, in Medina 2015). In these programs, in almost all these families the parents are
second-language learners, sometimes learning along with their children. Also, as new
generations of children grow up who have learned their language from second-language
parents or from immersion schools, many of them are choosing to use the language at
home with their children. Thus language revitalization in the family is a growing
phenomenon and a very hopeful result of the hard work people have been doing over
decades of other approaches to language revitalization.
Page 3 of 26

Family language programs first must make sure that parents have the opportunity to
learn the kind of language they need at home with their children. Even parents who have
become proficient through school or university programs find that once they are trying to
use the language with their babies they lack the vocabulary they need for the intimate
details of their interaction. So family language programs teach the language that parents
would use with their children. The Māori (O’Regan 2013) and Scots Gaelic programs
teach domains of language such as getting children dressed or changing an infant’s
diapers, waking up in the morning, feeding children, getting into car seats, praise and
endearments, and getting children to bed at night (McLeoid 2013). Families learning on
their own may seek elders who know the language to ask for instruction in these domains
(Grounds 2013) and, more, may seek to learn some traditional aspects of child-rearing.
Parents who are learning the language may learn alongside their children in a family
program, or may bring home what they learn in an adult program and teach it to their
children. Parents learning their language as a second language may try to be consistent
in using what they know even though they might have to use the mainstream language
the rest of the time (Baldwin 2013).
(p. 446)Inserting the language into a household where English has been used is often
tricky. It may feel unnatural to start interacting with one’s family in that language, and
the tendency to slip back into the first language is hard to overcome. Reminding each
other to stay in the language is important; parents can remind a child who has slipped
into English that they know how to say it in their other language, or may even refuse to
respond unless the child says it in the language. It can be fun for the children to turn
tables and remind the adult to speak the language.
Children may feel uncomfortable with the shift into a different language at first. One
strategy to get their cooperation is to start with games and other fun activities that use
the language (Hinton 2013b). It is also critical to talk to your children about why using
this different language is important and what the benefits of it are. Both the Māori and
Scots Gaelic programs suggest making a family language plan where all members of the
family are involved in the planning, including children. Families trying to make their
heritage tongue a language of home also benefit by forming relations with other families
with the same goals, and get together socially, showing the usefulness of the language
beyond the walls of the household.
Re-establishing the heritage language as a home language is language revitalization at its

best. It recreates natural language transmission across generations and makes it a
normal part of life. But language at home by itself does not guarantee its survival in the
lives of the children. Without additional support from sources outside the nuclear family—
the extended family, other families, community programs, and/or school programs—the
family may not be able to raise children who are strong enough and dedicated enough
speakers able to pass the language on to their own children. While the home may have
been the last bastion of endangered languages while they were in decline, the language
faltered there too in the end, because of lack of support outside the home. This could
Page 4 of 26

easily happen again to families using their language at home if there were nothing else to
support it.
2.2. Language nests
With language loss in indigenous communities around the world at a critical point in the
1980s, it was clear that if people wanted to save their languages something drastic would
have to be done. Various programs involving the schools were and are being developed
(see section 2.3), but some people realized that if families were not using the language at
home, it would be best to start bringing the language to the children at the earliest
possible age by other means. In 1982, New Zealand, followed in 1984 by Hawai‘i,
developed the system of “language nests” (Kōhanga Reo in Māori, Pūnana Leo in
Hawaiian), and this has been replicated in many locations throughout the world. Ideally,
language nests are locations where pre-school-age children can spend a large part of
their day, and the grandparent generation, who (again ideally) know the language, will
communicate with the children entirely in that language. Thus even if the home is using
the mainstream (p. 447) language, the children can be exposed sufficiently to the local
language to become near-native speakers.
There are now language nests all over the world—Besides New Zealand and Hawai‘i,
there are language nests (and immersion preschools for endangered languages by other
labels) in mainland United States (for example, the Esther Martinez fund of the
Administration for Native Americans funded proposals for nine ongoing or planned
language nests and other pre-school immersion programs in 2015 (http://
www.acf.hhs.gov/ana/resource/native-languages-immersion-esther-martinez-initiative). In
British Columbia, the First Peoples’ Cultural Council was funding ten language nests in
2016 (Aliana Parker and Suzanne Gessner, personal communication, July 4, 2016). The
Northwest Territories of Canada alone has over twenty language nests (https://
www.ece.gov.nt.ca/early-childhood-and-school-services/early-childhood/language-nests).
There are also language nests in Mexico (Meyer and Soberanes Bojórquez 2009, 2010). In
Europe, both the Skolt Saami and Inari Saami have language nests (Latomaa and Sirkku
2005, 171, Olthuis, Kivela, and Skutnabb-Kangas 2013), along with Lower Sorbian (http://
www.witaj-sprachzentrum.de/index.php/de).
In the ideal language nest, the mainstream language of the nation is never heard, and
children are engaged at all times in activities where the heritage language is being used.
But this ideal is sometimes not reached, since even the grandparents are often so used to
speaking the mainstream societal language to their younger relatives that they may have
a hard time maintaining their heritage tongue with the children. And as the decades pass
by, the number of elders who speak the language is declining, so that it is harder to staff
the language nests. Strategies for making language nests function as they are supposed
to are always evolving, including developing strong curriculum and training speakers in
how to remain in the language, make themselves understood, and engage the children. As
Page 5 of 26

the number of adult native speakers declines, various means to produce new fluent adult
second-language speakers are also developed to fill the teacher gap (see section 3).
Many language revitalization programs begin with language nests. While the very best
time to introduce the language to children is at infancy and even in the womb, the years
before school age are still a very fine time for language learning. Since many countries do
not require formal pre-school education, laws and policies are more lenient toward
minority language immersion in language nests than they are in the primary and
secondary schools, making it easier for communities to implement a language nest than a
school program. It is a delight to everyone involved to hear a tiny child singing or
chattering easily in the heritage language.
However, language nests have only temporary success in developing new speakers if that
is the only input a child has of the heritage language. Without further programs or use at
home, once a child has left the language nest there will be no way to continue learning
and using the language. Thus language nests are ideally followed by bilingual education
or immersion schooling in the language (see section 2.3.2).
(p. 448) 2.3. The role of schools in language revitalization
Formal education is a requirement in virtually all countries, and although school has been
and is even now one of the most important reasons why local languages are endangered,
there are many reasons why people turn to the schools for language revitalization. First,
it is where a community’s children are together for a large portion of their waking hours;
if some or all of those hours can be in the heritage language, a whole generation of young
speakers might be created. Second, by changing a school’s orientation to the language
and culture of the local community it can hopefully stop being an agent for language loss.
Beyond that, it can become a location for teaching traditional culture and values as well—
knowledge that has faded in the wake of colonization and mainstream education. In
Hawai‘i, for example, the schoolday at an immersion school begins with Hawaiian song
and teachings that inculcate Hawaiian values. Highschool electives may include such
options as Hawaiian chant, hula, sailing and canoe navigation, and traditional gardening
(Wilson and Kamanā 2001).
School programs are often developed and mandated across a broad swath of languages
by national governments. In Australia, for example, part of government policy since 2009
has been to support “language and culture nests” (using the term “language nest” as a
program in public primary schools, a different definition from the Māoris and Hawaiians).
Aboriginal Language and Culture Nests are an initiative of OCHRE, the NSW
Government’s community-focused plan for Aboriginal affairs. They support local
communities with realising their visions and aspirations to revitalise, reclaim, and
maintain their traditional languages through the teaching of Aboriginal languages in
Page 6 of 26

schools. https://www.aboriginalaffairs.nsw.gov.au/policy-reform/language-and-culture/
nests.
Similarly, Mexico has a nation-wide bilingual education program for indigenous

languages, with centralized training of bilingual teachers. Government-run programs are
often criticized and often ineffectual for language retention (e.g., see Hamel 2008). But
on a more local scale, there are also ways for communities to be in control of their own
language programs and their own schools, easier done perhaps in some locations than
others. A high level of local control tends to produce better results (Hamel 2008, 328).
2.3.1. Bilingual education

In the 1970s and 1980s, bilingual programs were set up in many countries. Governments
support bilingual education as a way to improve the educational prospects for students
whose first language was not the mainstream language of the school, while at the same
time making sure that the children are learning the mainstream language. There are two
main models of bilingual education—the transitional model and the maintenance model.
The transitional model suggests that once the child is proficient in the school language,
education in their home language can be dropped. In the maintenance model, education
in both languages is continued throughout, so that the first language continues to be
supported. (A comparison of the transitional and maintenance models (p. 449) can be
found at http://www.idra.org/IDRA_Newsletter/
April_2001_Self_Renewing_Schools_Early_Childhood/
Boosting_Our_Understanding_of_Bilingual_Education/. But for endangered languages,
many communities see bilingual education as something else—an opportunity to
strengthen their languages, and to bring the local language into the school even if it is
not the home language. Thus bilingual education became one approach to language
revitalization. Children were coming to school knowing English or some other
mainstream language and not knowing their local heritage language. Bilingual education
became an avenue for learning the local language as well as using it for a good deal of
the [instructional content] (Watahomigie and Yamamoto 1987).
Page 7 of 26

2.3.2. Immersion schools

Immersion schooling is an intense response to the loss of the heritage language in home
and community. Immersion schools go beyond bilingual education in that most or all
education takes place in the heritage language. In the most intense form, the mainstream
language will be introduced only as a “foreign” language, although the students generally
know the mainstream language anyway, from exposure at home and in their daily lives
outside of school.
Children may not know the heritage language at all when they arrive for their first days
in the immersion school. But immersion learning at any age takes place through the
medium of actions and activities which allow “comprehensible input” for language
learning (Krashen 1983). A very first communication, for example, might be when the
children come into the room and the teacher greets them and shows them where to put
their jackets and other belongings, talking about it all at the same time in the target
language. She may lead them to the rug in the center of the room and tell them to sit
down, using understandable gestures as nonverbal cues. She will use pictures to tell
stories or to explain various topics, or talk about items that are passed around the room.
Weather may be a daily topic, with pictures that the teacher can point to. She can ask
questions such as “Is it raining?” in the target language, and by the second day, if not the
first, the students are likely to be able to say “yes” or “no” at least—and soon when she
asks what the weather is like students will be able to say “It’s raining,” or other
appropriate response. When it’s snack time, the foods will be named in normal
conversation as they are given to the children.
These strategies for bringing students into the language come out of applied linguistics,
where they were developed not with endangered languages in mind, but rather for
foreign language teaching and teaching English as a second language (ESL). For
example, a resource that has been used frequently in teacher-training for immersion
schools is Asher (2000), the developer of the popular TPR (Total Physical Response)
method. Applied linguistics has much to offer to language learning of all kinds, including
endangered languages (Cope and Penfield 2011).
Since an endangered language almost by definition exists within a society where a

mainstream language surrounds it, it is usually deemed necessary to learn to use the
mainstream language. Most activists in language revitalization desire that their children
will grow up to be bilingual. If their children go on to higher education, it is likely
(p. 450) to be at universities that teach in the mainstream language; and they will most
likely get jobs that require it as well. Full-scale K-12 immersion schools must find a
balance between the two languages in order to send their children forth in life as strong
bilingual speakers. Immersion schools have found that it is important not to introduce the
mainstream language too soon, since the endangered language is so vulnerable. Ke Kula
Nawahiokalaniopu’u in Hilo, Hawai‘i, for example, will introduce English as a “foreign
language” in high school, and occasionally uses English-language textbooks for some of
Page 8 of 26

their classes in the upper grades, even though even in those classes, classroom
interaction is entirely in Hawaiian (Hinton, personal observation, 2014).
There are immersion schools all over the world, for both endangered and non-endangered
languages. The most effective outcomes of the language nests described above are of
programs that also provide primary and secondary education in the language.
2.3.3. Minority language classes in Majority-language schools

Many speech communities do not have the resources for a bilingual or immersion school.
Even so, they may be able to develop language classes in the local schools. While a
language class is rarely sufficient to create fluent speakers (as most of us know from our
foreign-language classes in primary and secondary school), a language class can help
students gain some level of knowledge of and appreciation for their heritage language
that can serve as a foundation for further development. In the diverse Native American
communities of California, for example, there are a number of small communities that
teach language classes in the local schools. A few out of many possible examples:
• The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation has founded their own school, the Yocha Dehe
Wintun Academy, where language and culture is a strong component of their children’s
education (http://www.yochadehe.org/tribal-government/yocha-dehe-wintun-academy).
Through an imaginative language curriculum (pre-K through eighth grade) and a core
of talented teachers, they have produced students with strong enough proficiency in
their Patwin (Wintuan) language that at least one student has used it to pass her high
school “foreign” language requirement (Leland Kinter, personal communication, May
21, 2015).
• The Yurok tribe has been teaching their language to tribal children and other
interested students for many years now in five public schools in Humboldt County (Los
Angeles Times, 2013).
• On the Round Valley Reservation, the talented teacher Cheryl Tuttle has been
teaching the previously “extinct” (dormant) Wailaki language to fourteen excited high
school students, partnering with University of California linguists and working with the
extensive documentation on the language to develop her language lessons (North
Coast Journal News Blog, June 9, 2015: http://www.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog/
archives/2015/06/09/welcome-back-wailaki-an-extinct-native-language-rebounds.)
In the public schools, teachers need a teaching certificate in order to run a

(p. 451)
classroom. This creates difficulties for teachers of endangered languages—there are very
few people, especially in small speech communities such as those of Native California,
who have both a teaching degree and strong speaking knowledge of their heritage
language. To address this problem, pressure and planning by California Indians led to the
passage of AB544 by California State Legislature, which states that any federally
recognized California Indian Tribe may develop and administer an assessment of fluency
of a person and recommend that person to receive a language teaching credential, which
Page 9 of 26

authorizes the holder to teach that language in California public schools and adult
education courses.
3. Adult language learning

Even though it seems commonsense to focus on little children for language revitalization,
who are such great language learners, adult speakers are critically necessary for
language revitalization. Home-based language revitalization can’t happen without parents
who can use the language. Language nests and immersion schools can’t function without
teachers who speak the language. But it is typically the case that language revitalization
is taking place during a time when adult speakers are diminishing in number, especially
those of parental and professional age. A language revitalization program without a
strong adult language-learning program will have great difficulty moving forward
successfully. Thus adult language teaching and learning is an extremely important part of
language revitalization.
Approaches to adult language learning are varied. I will examine a few of the dominant
approaches: university and other institutional classes, the Master-Apprentice approach,
and learning through linguistic documentation. Almost any program for adult language
learning will have different results for different people, with some people gaining much
higher proficiency than others. Much of the success in language learning depends on the
learner’s degree of commitment and dedication, and his own ingenuity. Other factors are
also important, such as amount of available resources, previous exposure, and degree of
difference between the target language and the first language (http://
www.languagetesting.com/how-long-does-it-take).
3.1. University and other institutional classes
All language-learning courses involve the teaching of vocabulary and grammar by some
means. The most successful language classes at colleges and universities utilize
immersion strategies to teach these, and go further to teach conversation and cultural
aspects of language use as well. There are a growing number of successful language
programs for endangered languages around the world. Māori, Hawaiian, Irish, and other
endangered languages, especially those where a country or other large political unit has
a single endangered language that is emblematic to that area, have strong language
(p. 452) education at the university level. Universities in regions of great linguistic
diversity have a harder time finding ways to assist in the learning of endangered
languages, but there are some great models, including the University of Victoria in British
Columbia. There intensive course sequences on particular languages is rare, but they
have developed a major program in language revitalization itself, where a student can
Page 10 of 26

work toward a certificate or an MA in language revitalization, which also includes self-

study of one’s heritage tongue through the Master-Apprentice approach (see section 3.2).
Excellent language learning programs have also been developed in college and university
settings. For example, the aboriginal-owned and operated Six Nations Polytechnic on the
Six Nations Reserve, in Ontario, Canada, teaches Mohawk using a special method of their
own (the “Root-Word Method”) which also includes teaching in total immersion—always
the most important factor in any method that puts out proficient speakers (Hinton,
personal observation, March 29, 2016). Another home-grown method is the Accelerated
Second-Language Acquisition method (ASLA), developed by Arapaho speaker Stephen
Neyooxet Greymorning, and taught at the University of Montana. This is a image-based
method, also taught entirely through immersion. Greymorning has done trainings on
ASLA in many places in North America, as well as Australia, and the method has become
an important language-teaching tool by an increasing number of endangered languages.
3.2. The Master-Apprentice approach
The Master-Apprentice Language Learning Program was developed in California by the

Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival, a native-run organization which
was founded in 1992 as a response to the critical endangerment of all California Indian
languages. California has the situation of extreme linguistic diversity and very small
populations, which makes it difficult or impossible for universities to develop effective
language-learning programs.
The Master-Apprentice approach is a bootstrap language-learning strategy based on the

strategies that individuals have used to learn language on their own. It was developed in
response to the critical endangerment of the diverse indigenous languages of California.
The Advocates run workshops for one-on-one teams of a speaker and a learner (usually
self-selected), and train them to immerse themselves together so that the learner can
develop proficiency in the language. The “10 points for language learning” are the basis
of the approach. The “10 points” are informal and have been restated in various ways; the
original instantiation of the rules are below.
1. Leave English behind

2. Make yourself understood with non-verbal communication
3. Teach in full sentences
4. Aim for real communication in your language of heritage
5. Language is also culture
(p. 453) 6. Focus on listening and speaking (not reading and writing)
7. Learn and teach the language through activities

8. Use audio and video recording
9. Be an active learner
Page 11 of 26

10. Be sensitive to each other’s needs; be patient and proud of each other and
yourselves!
Explanations and details of each of these points can be found in Hinton, Vera, and Steele
(2002, 10–19). The explanations of these points for language learning and exercises to
practice them take place over a two- to three-day workshop. From then on the teams are
essentially on their own, although in Master-Apprentice programs there is usually regular
mentoring by phone, occasional visits, and follow-up workshops at least once a year.
The Master-Apprentice approach (or Mentor-Apprentice approach as it is alternatively

named) has spread to many places, including Canada, Brazil, Australia, Scandinavia, and
elsewhere in the United States. A recent list of Master-Apprentice programs has been
developed by Ryan Henke, a graduate student in Linguistics studying language
documentation and revitalization at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. At the point of
this writing, his list shows 123 languages around the world that are using or attempting
or planning to use the Master-Apprentice program (Ryan Henke, personal
communications, June 18–August 11, 2016).
The Master-Apprentice approach is popular because it is relatively simple in concept,

commonsense, and based on approaches that individuals have used throughout history to
learn a language through immersion in a speech community. All one needs is a speaker
and a person with a passion to learn the language. The difficulties come, though, from not
actually having a location where there are lots of people using the language all day, every
day. The team has to create their own speech community and their own immersion.
3.3. Learning from documentation
In this era of rapid decline of linguistic diversity, there are hundreds of languages that
can no longer be labeled “endangered,” and are instead “extinct.” But even in these
cases, so long as there is documentation, it may be possible for people to reconstruct,
learn, and use the language. Because of this and other reasons, language activists prefer
not to use the term “extinct” at all but instead use the terms “dormant” or
“sleeping” (Hinton 2001).2 Linguist Wesley Leonard (2008, 23) writes that there is no
such thing as an extinct language unless it has never been documented.
Miami was reclaimed from extinction within a proposed category of “sleeping

languages,” which I define as those that are not currently known but that are
documented, claimed as part of one’s heritage, and thus may be used again.
A documented language always has the possibility of revival among its people,
(p. 454)
and Leonard’s own tribe’s language, Myaamia (Miami) is a strong example (Leonard
2008; Baldwin 2013, ). Thus a documented language is not “extinct,” but rather it is
dormant, or “sleeping.” The Ethnologue uses both the terms “extinct” and “dormant” now,
defining the latter on the basis of community rather than documentation:
Page 12 of 26

Although a dormant language is not used for daily life, there is an ethnic
community that associates itself with a dormant language and views the language
as a symbol of that community’s identity. Though a dormant language has no
proficient users, it retains some social uses. In contrast, an extinct language is no
longer claimed by any extant community as the language of their heritage identity.
Extinct languages are lacking in both users and societal uses. (https://
www.ethnologue.com/enterprise-faq/what-difference-between-dormant-language-
and-extinct-language-0.)3
The term “language revival” is sometimes used instead of “revitalization” for the re-
introduction of a dormant language into modern use. Hebrew is the most famous (and
perhaps the only) example of a fully revived language that was once dormant. The
Cornish language (the Brittanic Celtic language indigenous to Cornwall) is another
example of a dormant language that is in advanced stages of revival (Ferdinand 2013;
Welsh Center for Language Planning 2015). In the United States, Miami (Baldwin 2013),
Wampanoag (Makepeace 2011; littledoe 2013), and Chochenyo Ohlone are three
examples of languages being revived; and in Australia, Kaurna is one of the best-known
examples of language revival (Amery 2016).
A community without speakers needs to know how to access and utilize documentation
for language revival purposes. Nicholas Thieberger has written a fine guide on this for
Australian languages, based on a workshop held at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) in 1993 (Thieberger 1995). Starting with the
issue of how to identify one’s language, the guide gives instruction on how to find
publications and materials on one’s language, how to understand the documentors’
writing systems and read the words, how to develop a consistent spelling system for one’s
community, how to understand and use the grammar of one’s language, and how to use a
computer to organize the data and create good learning resources.
In 1995, the Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival developed the Breath
of Life Language Restoration Workshop for California Languages, which has now been
going on biennially ever since. Berkeley has a set of archives of field notes and recordings
covering a century and a half of documentation on California Indian languages, and also
even older documents from early scholars, and from the Mission era when California was
part of Mexico. Participants in the program come to learn how to find archival materials,
how to read and analyze them, and how to use them for language learning and teaching,
materials development, and actual use in their daily lives. Here (p. 455) are just a few
recent examples of how Breath of Life has been useful in helping people do language
revitalization from documentation:
• The comprehensive Mutsun dictionary co-authored by long-time BOL participant

Quirina Geary and linguist Natasha Warner (now a professor at the University of
Arizona), who Geary first met at Breath of Life. This dictionary took over fifteen years
of collaboration and includes every word ever recorded by the various linguists that
Page 13 of 26

worked with the last speakers. The dictionary is published by the online Journal of
Language Documentation and Conservation (Warner, Butler and Geary 2016).
• The Wailaki language class being taught to high school students on the Round Valley
reservation by the talented teacher Cheryl Tuttle, who attended Breath of Life in 2014,
and has since worked with her linguistic partners Justin Spence and Kayla Begay
regularly to develop the curriculum and language lessons that she delivers to her
students. An article about Tuttle’s course can be seen at http://
www.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog/archives/2015/06/09/welcome-back-wailaki-an-
extinct-native-language-rebounds. A new participant from Round Valley attended
Breath of Life in 2016, to study Yuki, the second of six languages in Round Valley, in
order to start preparing to teach that language as well.
• The escalating career of Vincent Medina, Chochenyo, who first came to Breath of
Life in 2012, now a very proficient speaker. He is an invited speaker at many events,
giving welcomes in Chochenyo, telling stories, and advocating for language revival. He
was one of the main editors at the office of the News from Native California magazine
for some time, and while there conceived and implemented the regular column “In our
words,” where in each issue there is a poem, a story, or other contribution in a
California Indian language. He started the column off with an essay in Chochenyo that
he composed himself (Medina 2014). In July 2016, he put together an exhibit on
California Indian languages at the Maidu Museum in Roseville, California. Now deeply
involved in a project of bringing California Indian foods to the public (see https://
www.makamham.com/makamham-means-our-food/), Vince brings the vocabulary of
food into the forefront, and still continues to teach Chochenyo to his family and use it
with his friends.
• Louis Trevino, Rumsen, who was a talented undergraduate in Political Science at
Berkeley, came to Breath of Life in 2014 and immediately declared a minor in
Linguistics. He now runs a Facebook blog for Rumsen researchers and learners called
“Learning and Using the Rumsen Language,” doing a sentence a day with context and
analysis and adding a recording of the sentence; he generally sticks to a theme for
several weeks, such as “Greetings,” “Emotions,” etc.
• A fairly large number of parents who have attended Breath of Life make it a priority
to use their language at home with their children, as well as sharing songs and
traditional activities learned or enhanced by research at the workshop. Even when
they are still learning the language themselves, this is perhaps the ultimate goal of
language revitalization—transmitting the language and culture naturally again across
generations.
Breath of Life by name and model has spread to other locations, including
(p. 456)
Oklahoma and Washington, DC (which also runs a biennial event on the odd years
between Berkeley). The Washington, DC Breath of Life is for all languages of the United
States and Canada, and works with the vast archives at the National Anthropological
Archives, the Library of Congress, and the Museum of the American Indians. It has for
the last several events been organized by Daryl Baldwin and the staff of his Myaamia
Page 14 of 26

Center at Miami University in Ohio. In 2015 a partnership was formed between the
Myaamia Center and the Recovering Voices Project of the Smithsonian Institution, so that
the two groups would together work on both funding and organizing of Breath of Life DC.
4. Language modernization
The problem with reviving languages with no speakers is that the documentation of a
language is never complete. There may be many things missing in grammar and
vocabulary, and even whole functions of conversation—such as conversational patterns,
or how to talk to children. A large part of language revival is actually language creation.
Daryl Kipp describes it this way:
Our languages are adaptive, incorporating all we know since the beginning of our
time. Think of how they describe our worlds; when our tribes first saw the horse,
automobile and airplane. Think how our language stays with us no matter what
inventions we encounter. It is only when we stop using them do they become
inflexible and static. If we keep our language alive in our children, it will stay with
them well past I-Pod, bio-fuel, MTV and the million other innovations coming
towards them. Our languages can serve us to the end of time. . . . (Kipp 2009, 6–
7).
4.1. New words
In an active language, new words are created and spread to others in all sorts of ways.
Commercial companies hire people to do “product naming”; biologists seeking and
finding new species of plants and animals have specific rules for developing scientific
nomenclature. New items and concepts coming from other cultures may be named
through borrowing from the language that created it. Or it can be an informal, organic
process, such as the creative development and spread of slang.
A language that has not been used on a daily basis for awhile is behind the times in
vocabulary development, and new topics and venues need new words in order for the
language to be used again in daily life. Depending on the size and intensity of a language
revitalization program, approaches to vocabulary development may range from informal,
impromptu use of descriptive phrases or borrowings in conversations between language
learners trying to use their language, to full-on official language committees and new-
word dictionaries. Some examples of dictionaries that focus on including (p. 457) new
words are Māmaka Kaiao: A Modern Hawaiian Vocabulary (Hua’ōlelo2003) and A
Student’s Dictionary of Modern Cornish (Gendall 1991).
Here are some of the many possible strategies for developing new vocabulary:
Page 15 of 26

• borrow a word from the language that the concept comes from (probably with
phonological and (if relevant) spelling changes: for example, Koyukon kelaandas,
“pencil,” from Russian karandásh (Denser-King 2008); Cornish bytt, from English byte,
in computer jargon (Glendall 1991).
• adopt a word from a related language that is still in use (for example, Hawaiian
pounamu “jade,” borrowed from Māori (Hua’ōlelo 2003). (While this would also count
as an example of the strategy of borrowing a word (see above), the point here is that it
is often considered more authentic to borrow from a closely related language.)
• make a loan translation. A term in another language might consist of more than one
word, such as a compound, whose components can be translated into one’s own
language (for example: Kaurna wirltu yarlu “sea eagle” is a loan translation from
English “sea eagle: wirltu “ eagle”, yarlu “sea” (Amery 2016).
• expand or shift the meaning of a word that already exists in the language to a new
meaning (for example, the Havasupai word tñudga “to write” is expanded from its
original meaning “to make a design (e.g., on a basket)”) (Hinton et al. 1984).
• modify a word that already exists, using affixation or other grammatical process to
signal a new meaning. For example, Umatilla Sahaptin pluuswit’awas, “computer,” for
pluus, “brain” + wit, abstractive suffix + awas, instrumentative suffix (Denser-King,
2008).
• create a phrase that describes the object or concept (example: Havasupai “Bible”—
tñud ñaa glab (literally “flat black book”, tñud “book”, ñaa “black”, glab “flat”) (Hinton
et al. 1984).
People at work reviving their languages can study the documentation to find the
strategies that the former speakers used to coin new words.
A small group of people trying to revive their sleeping language through informally using
the language together can just use these various strategies together informally as they
struggle to converse. But some kind of authoritative decision-making is essential in large
groups that are doing immersion schooling, simply to teach the subject matter of the
classroom. The Hawaiians and the Cherokees are among the many groups that have
official language committees, to decide on systematic principles, choose between
suggested alternatives, and keep their language developing in a single direction between
multiple communities and schools.
Page 16 of 26

4.2. Writing systems
For indigenous languages that do not have a long history of written literature, writing
systems must be devised and/or chosen from available choices. This is an involved
process that may take years or even generations to settle, as intellectual and
(p. 458)
social changes affect people’s choices (Grenoble and Whaley 2006; Hinton 2014). There is
often a strong history of documentation of otherwise unwritten languages by linguists and
other people who have taken on the task of documentation. Some groups have decided to
use these linguistic orthographies. Some First Nations programs in coastal British
Columbia have done that; famed for their large numbers of consonants with unusual
points and manners of articulation, the special symbols of the International Phonetic
Alphabet seem most appropriate to represent them. Using the same writing system in
which their language may already have a large amount of documentation also gives
people access to that documentation, which may be an important resource for language
revitalization.
In other cases, it is deemed beneficial to design a new writing system, which is often
modelled after existing writing systems for the mainstream language that the community
people already know. Thus we see that most revitalizing languages in colonized and post-
colonial countries of Europe and the New World will have alphabetic writing systems,
using the symbols that are already familiar to the local community and easily available on
typewriters and computers. Sounds not in the mainstream language can be represented
by digraphs, diacritics, or redefinitions of how a given letter is pronounced.
In some cases, writing systems were developed within a community while the language
was still strong. These orthographies may be very different from the mainstream
language, and may even not be alphabetic. In North America, two of these systems are in
use today in speech communities—the Cherokee syllabary and the Canadian Aboriginal
Syllabics, used by many languages, and taught in immersion schools. Writing systems
such as these, that have a long history within communities, are seen as part of the
cultural traditions to be revitalized.
It is not necessary for a community to settle on a writing system before language

teaching and learning take place. But certain important venues must use a writing
system, such as immersion schools. Once established, a writing system has many
important benefits for language revitalization, such as access to or community
development of dictionaries, pedagogical grammars, reference grammars, children’s
books and other kinds of creative writing in the language, and ability to communicate on
social media through writing. Writing also gives the opportunity for more public display
of the language, on street signs and maps, newspapers, and flyers. Many communities
make pocket-sized phrasebooks that can be distributed to community members, not just
for possible use but also to increase awareness and interest in the language.
Page 17 of 26

4.3. Reconstructing grammar
Documentation may also be incomplete with regard to the wide range of grammatical
constructions that would have existed when the language was being used in daily
communication. Further research on documentation, possibly from deep in the history of
the language, and borrowing grammatical features from related living languages, are
two of the main ways that the grammar of a language in the process of
(p. 459)
reclamation can be expanded. As Ferdinand writes for Cornish:
An additional obstacle faced by Revived Cornish was the incompleteness of its

syntax, semantics and lexicon. Since Cornish had been silent for about a century,
there was no possibility of consulting with traditional speakers in order to fill in
gaps or resolve inconsistencies. The issue of grammar and syntax was basically
resolved by Nance and A. S. D. Smith between 1920 and 1940 using the works of
Lhuyd (1707), Stokes (1872) and Breton grammar, the closest language to
Cornish, as a comparative model. Although there were some mistakes in the
reconstruction, these were rectified as soon as they came to light. (Ferdinand
2013, 213)
In some cases, there is simply no further documentation, and no related languages. This
was the case for the California language Esselen, the first California language to go
dormant (Golla 2011, 112). Linguist David Shaul has retrieved as much of the grammar
as possible through analysis of the small corpus of words and phrases that exists (Shaul
1995) and has worked with members of the Esselen community on language revitalization
at the Breath of Life workshops in Berkeley. Esselen may seem like a close to hopeless
case. But despite the minimum of information on morphology and syntax, what has come
out of the Esselen efforts of language revival is some lovely verbal art by people who
identify with the Esselen languages: storytelling audio recordings by Louise Ramirez,
powerful poetry by Deborah Miranda (published in Miranda 2012), and Esselen raps by
Melissa Leal (Indian Country Today 2013. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/
2013/02/28/california-educator-bridges-generation-gap-hip-hop-147707).
This brings up the question of “authenticity” in revitalizing languages. Linguists and

language activists alike may wish that the language they are bringing back could
replicate closely the language of their ancestors. However, the new versions of languages
in revitalization are very likely to be quite different, and not just because of the necessity
of adding new vocabulary. In the case of Hebrew, for example, it has been argued that
modern Hebrew is a “hybrid” language, bringing in many elements of grammar from
European languages (Zuckermann 2009).
Some people have suggested more than just to be tolerant of the kinds of language
change that occur in revitalization but even to consciously teach a new version. An
interesting article by Gary Holton discusses the kinds of phonological and grammatical
Page 18 of 26

changes that occur in the speech of second-language learners of endangered languages,

and suggests accepting this and just teaching them that way (Holton 2009).
5. Language use
The biggest hurdle for both native speakers and language learners is to actually start
using the language on a daily basis. For endangered languages, this is a major challenge.
Just as elders in a community that has undergone language shift cease to use the
(p. 460)
language they grew up with because most of the community doesn’t know it, so do
second-language learners find themselves without interlocutors. Furthermore, there are
various social and psychological factors that make people silent, even if they know the
language well.
The main strategy for developing the habits of language use is to join or create groups,
times, and physical spaces where the language can happen. Of course an immersion
school is one such space; and the home is another possible space. Beyond those
important venues, sometimes people have set up “language houses” where the rule is
that the language must be used most or all of the time. The Yurok tribe of California set
up a program of “language pods,” a regular gathering where people are using the
language together—with a facilitator to make sure it happens (http://www.yuroktribe.org/
departments/education/Yurok_Tribe_Language_Program/documents/
PodParticipants2011.pdf). The Karuks have developed their own language pod program
as well.
Lack of fluency should not preclude the use of the language. Language use can and
should take place as a part of language learning. One strategy for a learner is to replace
English words and phrases with the target language as he learns them. Learning through
conversation also helps beginners start using the language. The Master-Apprentice
Language Learning Program described above is focused strongly on language learning
through conversational practice. The team practices speech related to different domains
of activities, usually related to daily routines.
Lushootseed language teacher Zalmai Zahir has given added structure to learning
domain by domain, asking his students to consider their daily activities within a certain
room of their house, such as the kitchen or bathroom, and to ask for utterances related to
those activities, which Zahir then translates into Lushootseed. The students must utter
these sentences every day as they practice those activities, and build on them each week.
Note that this practice is not exactly conversational in nature—it is commonly sequences
of phrases such as “I am taking the knife,” “I am getting an onion,” “I am cutting the
onion,” what Zahir calls “self-narration”(originally a literary term about first-person
genres of writing). The goal is that over a period of months the student will master
enough domains within that particular room—for example, in the kitchen it would consist
Page 19 of 26

of various domains around cooking, eating, cleaning, etc.—that the kitchen can become a
“language nest” for the language being learned, and English will no longer be spoken in
that space (Zahir 2015).
There are many ways to use language besides conversation. Robert Amery has pointed
out that for the Kaurna language of Australia the primary use of the language is in the
public sphere, where memorized ceremonial speech and prepared talks may be used
(Amery 2016). In many programs, prepared self-introductions are a very common genre
that learners develop early. People might compose songs in their language, or poems.
They might learn traditional tales or translate English versions of tales back into their
language, and tell them at gatherings. Even the tiniest gesture toward language use can
have symbolic importance for revitalization, such as a tribal council deciding to vote
(p. 461) “yes” or “no” in their language instead of English. A family may decide to give a
traditional name to their children or their pets.
Other public uses of the language take place in writing—street names and other public
signs can be a way to bring the language back into a community. The internet gives
people other ways to practice using their language. Language learners and second-
language speakers can and do email each other or post on Facebook or other social
media.
6. The role of linguistics

Woven throughout this chapter and this volume as a whole are examples of how analytical
and applied linguistics is useful to language revitalization. An understanding of the
grammatical rules of a language is essential to using it. Children learn these rules
naturally through long-term exposure and practice, but adults learning their endangered
language for the first time may need to become conscious of the rules in order override a
tendency to use the grammar of their first language (e.g., English) in place of their
heritage tongue. Analytical linguistics can help with figuring out the grammar of a
language; applied linguistics can help with ways people can learn their language
effectively. Linguistics is also necessary to understand linguistic documentation—how
linguists write down languages that do not already have a writing system (and how and
why they might use linguistic transcription even for those languages that do have a
writing system); how to pronounce the words written in linguistic orthography; and how
the grammatical rules are figured out through elicitation or the analysis of texts. Through
applied linguistics, the community members can learn how to effectively teach others the
language. Linguists coming into a community to document the language may be utilized
for revitalization projects the community is interested in. Communities may hire linguists
to help create dictionaries, pedagogical grammars, materials of various sorts, and
curriculum for the schools.
Page 20 of 26

Much of the content of the field of Linguistics is changing in response to community

needs and demands for language maintenance and revitalization. Analytical and
theoretical linguists are learning applied linguistics in order to be of use to the
communities. Documentary linguists have a new understanding of domains that should be
documented to be helpful to present or future language revitalization efforts. A new ethic
in linguistics has taken root, where members of speech communities are seen as partners
in mutually beneficial endeavors, rather than the old colonialist view of speakers as
subjects to benefit science (see Good, Chapter 11, this volume).
But increasingly, it is the community members themselves who have decided to get the
education they need to become linguists. Many of the linguists mentioned in this chapter
are indigenous people who have gotten degrees in order to learn their language and
benefit their communities.
(p. 462) 7. Other important factors

I have said little about language planning, which is dealt with elsewhere in this volume
(see Cahill, Chapter 14, this volume; Wright, Chapter 28, this volume). Almost any speech
community that is doing language revitalization will (either from the beginning or at some
later point) develop councils or committees that plan strategies for advancing
revitalization. Frequent review of the strategies for improving language learning,
increasing language use, and increasing the public profile of the language is itself an
important strategy for revitalization.
Language revitalization within a community is generally part of a constellation of efforts

involving the revitalization of other aspects of its culture—reclaiming traditional lifeways
in a broader sense. Communities may be reviving forms of ceremony and spiritual
activities. They may be reclaiming aspects of knowledge of care and use of wild or
domestic plants, hunting, butchering and food preparation, or traditional arts such as
dancing, song, material arts such as basketry, weaving, and traditional clothing, and
traditional child-rearing practices and social values. Language revitalization can also be
preceded or accompanied by efforts to regain control of a land base, or claim increased
autonomy with regard to important social and political aspects of a community, such as
education and lawmaking. Language is part of all these different aspects of life, and can
inspire and be inspired by efforts to strengthen any of them.
References
Amery, Rob. 2016. Warraparna Kaurna!: Reclaiming an Australian Language. Adelaide:
University of Adelaide Press.
Page 21 of 26

Asher, James J. 2000. Learning Another Language Through Actions. 6th ed. Los Gatos,
CA: Sky Oaks Productions.
Baldwin, Daryl, Karen Baldwin, Jessie Baldwin, and Jarrid Baldwin. 2013.
“Myaamiaataweenki oowaaha: ‘Miami Spoken Here.’” In Bringing our Languages Home:
Language Revitalization for Families, edited by Leanne Hinton, 3–18. Berkeley, CA:
Heyday Books.
Bradley, David. 2003. “Language Attitudes: The Key Factor in Language Maintenance.” In
Language Endangerment and Language Maintenance, edited by David Bradley and Maya
Bradley, 1–10. London: Routledge Curzon.
Cope, Lida and Susan D. Penfield. 2011. “Applied Linguist Needed’: Cross-Disciplinary
Networking for Revitalization and Education in Endangered Language Contexts.”
Language and Education 25: 267–271.
Denser-King, Ryan. 2008. “Neologisms in Indigenous Languages of North America.” In

Proceedings from the Eleventh Workshop on American Indigenous Languages, edited by
Joye Kiester, and Verónica Muñoz-Leo, 25–39. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 19: 25–
39. http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.ling.d7/files/
sitefiles/research/papers/19/Denzer-King_vol19.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2016.
Fellman, Jack. 1973. The Revival of a Classical Tongue: Eliezer Ben Yehuda and
(p. 463)
the Modern Hebrew Language. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
Ferdinand, Siari. 2013. “A Brief History of the Cornish Language, Its Revival and Its
current Status.” e-Keltoi:Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies 2: 199–227.
Gendall, Richard. 1991. A Students’ Dictionary of Modern Cornish. Menheniot: Teer ha

Tavas.
Golla, Victor. 2011. California Indian Languages. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Grenoble, Lenore A. and Lindsay J. Whaley. 2006. Saving Languages: An Introduction to

Language Revitalization. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grounds, Richard A. and Renée T. Grounds. 2013. “Family Language Without a Language
Family.” In Bringing our Languages Home: Language Revitalization for Families, edited
by Leanne Hinton, 41–58. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.
Hamel, Rainar E. 2008. “Bilingual Education for Indigenous Communities in Mexico.” In

Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd ed., Vol. 5: Bilingual Education, edited by
Jim Cummins, J. and Nancy H. Hornberger, 311–322. New York: Springer Science +
Business Media LLC.
Page 22 of 26

Hinton, Leanne. 2001. “Sleeping Languages: Can They Be Awakened?” In The Green Book
of Language Revitalization in Practice, edited by Leanne Hinton and Ken Hale, 413–417.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hinton, Leanne, ed. 2013a. Bringing Our Languages Home: Language Revitalization for
Families. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.
Hinton, Leanne. 2013b. “Bringing Your Language into Your Own Home.” In Bringing Our
Languages Home: Language Revitalization for Families, edited by Leanne Hinton, 225–
255. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.
Hinton, Leanne. 2014. “Orthography Wars.” In Developing Orthographies for Unwritten

Languages, edited by Michael Cahill and Keren Rice, 139–168. Dallas, TX: SIL
International.
Hinton, Leanne, Matt Vera, and Nancy Steele. 2002. How to Keep Your Language Alive: A
Commonsense Approach to One-on-One Language Learning. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.
Hinton, Leanne and Past and present staff members of the Bilingual Education Program
and the Havasupai Community. 1984. A Dictionary of the Havasupai Language. Printed by
the Havasupai Bilingual Education Program (ms). Supai, AZ.
Holton, Gary. 2009. “Relearning Athabascan Languages in Alaska: Creating Sustainable

Language Communities Through Creolization.” In Speaking of Endangered Languages:
Issues in Revitalization, edited by Anne Marie Goodfellow, 238–265. Newcastle upon
Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hua’ōlelo, Kōmike. 2003. Māmaka Kaiao: A Modern Hawaiian Vocabulary. Hilo: University
of Hawai‘i Press.
Kipp, Daryl. 2009. “Encouragement, Guidance and Lessons Learned: 21 Years in the
Trenches of Indigenous Language Revitalization.” In Indigenous Language Revitalization:
Encouragement, Guidance & Lessons Learned, edited by Jon Reyhner and Louise
Lockard, 1–9. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University, College of Education.
Krashen, Stephen D. and Tracy D. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language
Acquisition in the Classroom. San Francisco: The Alemany Press.
Latomaa, Sirkku and Pirkko Nuolijärvi. 2005. “The Language Situation in Finland.” In
Language Planning and Policy. Vol. 1: Europe: Hungary, Finland and Sweden, edited by
Robert B. Kaplan and Richard B. Baldauf, 125–232. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Leonard, Wesley. 2008. “When Is an ‘Extinct Language’ Not Extinct? Miami, a Formerly
Sleeping Language.” In Sustaining Linguistics Diversity: Endangered and Minority
Languages (p. 464) and Language Varieties, edited by Kendall A. King, Natalie Schilling-
Page 23 of 26

Estes, Jia Jackie Lou, Lyn Fogle, and Barbara Soukup, 23–33. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
little doe baird, jessie. 2013. “How Did This Happen to My Language?” In Bringing Our
Languages Home: Language Revitalization for Families, edited by Leanne Hinton, 19–30.
Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.
Lhuyd, Edward 1707. Archæologia Britannica. Oxford: Theater.
Macleoid, Finlay M. 2013. “Taic/CNSA and Scottish Gaelic.” Bringing Our Languages
Home: Language Revitalization for Families, edited by Leanne Hinton, 209–221. Berkeley,
CA: Heyday Books.
Makepeace, A. 2011. We Still Live Here—As Nutayunean: A documentary on Native

American Language Revival (film). Independent Lens, PBS.
Medina, Vincent. 2014. “In Our Language. Chochenyo.” News from Native California.
Spring 2014.
Medina, Vincent. 2015. “Heartbeats of the Language: Home-schooling in Tolowa.”

Interview with Ruby Tuttle. News from Native California Blog, Spring 2014, 6–7. http://
newsfromnativecalifornia.com/blog/heartbeats-of-the-language-home-schooling-
in-tolowa/. Accessed August 11, 2016.
Meyer, Lois and Fernando Soberanes Bojórquez. 2009, 2010. El Nido de Lengua:
Orientación para sus guías. Oaxaca, MX: CMPIO, CNEII, CSEIIO. http://
jaf.lenguasindigenas.mx/docs/el-nido-de-lengua.pdf. Accessed August 11, 2016.
Miranda, Deborah. 2012. Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.
O’Regan, Hana. 2013. “Māori: My Language Story.” In Bringing Our Languages Home:
Language Revitalization for Families. edited by Leanne Hinton, 80–100. Berkeley: Heyday
Books.
Olthuis, Marja-Liisa, Suvi Kivela, and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas. 2013. Revitalizing

Indigenous Languages: How to Recreate a Lost Generation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Shaul, David Leedom. 1995. The Huelel (Esselen) language. International Journal of
American Linguistics, 51(2):191–239.
Stokes, Whitley. 1872. Beunans Meriasek: The Life of Saint Meriasek, Bishop and
Confessor: A Cornish Drama. London: Trübner and Co.
Te Kāwanatanga o Aotearoa. 2008. Kei Roto i te Whare: Māori Language in the Home
(Booklet.). Auckland: Te Puni Kōkiri. https://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/a-matou-
mohiotanga/language/kei-roto-i-te-whare-reprinted).
Page 24 of 26

Thieberger, Nicholas, ed. 1995. Paper and Talk: A Manual for Reconstituting Materials in
Australian Indigenous Languages from Historical Sources. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies
Press.
Warner, Natasha, Lynnika Butler, and Quirina Geary. Mutsun-English English-Mutsun

Dictionary, mutsun-inkiS inkiS-mutsun riica pappel. Mānoa, HI (Language Documentation
& Conservation Special Publication 11). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. http://
nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/?p=988. Accessed August 11, 2016.
Watahomagie, Lucille J., and Akira Y. Yamamoto. 1987. “Linguistics in Action: the
Hualapai Bicultural Bilingual Education Program.” In Collaborative Research and Social
Change: Applied Anthropology in Action, edited by D. D. Stull and J. J. Schensul, 77–98.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Welsh Centre for Language Planning. 2015. Cornish Language Strategy 2015-25.
Evaluation and Development Report. Newcastle Emlyn, Carmarthenshire: Welsh Centre
for Language Planning.
Wilson, William H. and Kauanoe Kamanā. 2001. “‘Mai Loko Mai O Ka ‘I’ni:
(p. 465)
Proceeding from a Dream’—The ‘Aha Pūnana Leo Connection in Hawaiian Language

Revitalization.” In The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice, edited by
Leanne Hinton and Ken Hale, 147–176. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zahir, Zalmai. 2015. “Language Revitalization Lecture” (Lecture notes). Lecture given at
the 2015 National Breath of Life Archival Institute for Indigenous Languages, June 8.
http://nationalbreathoflife.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Zalmai-Zahir_-
Lang_revitalization-June8-15-BOL.pdf.
Zuckerman, Ghil’ad. 2009. “Hybridity versus Revivability: Multiple Causation, Forms and
Patterns.” Journal of Language Contact 2: 40–67.
Notes:
(1) little doe baird purposely spells her name with lower case.
(2) People sometimes react to the term “extinct” as somewhat of an insult. L. Frank, a
Tongva artist and activist for her dormant language, often refers to this with humorous
sarcasm when she introduces herself: “Hello, I’m L. Frank, and I’m extinct.”
(3) The Ethnologue also uses the term “awakening language” for a language in the
process of revitalization.
Leanne Hinton
Page 25 of 26

Leanne Hinton is professor emerita of linguistics at the University of California at

Berkeley and advisory member of the Advocates for Indigenous California Language
Survival. She has written, edited, and co-edited numerous books and articles on
Native American languages and language revitalization, including her most recent
Bringing Our Languages Home and The Routledge Handbook of Language
Revitalization (2018). She works with endangered languages as an advocate and
practicing trainer in the field of language revitalization. With other language
activists, she has helped found organizations devoted to language revitalization, and
helped design language learning methods that are now used worldwide.
Page 26 of 26

hinton2018-Approaches-Strategies For Lang-Revitalization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

hinton2018-Approaches-Strategies For Lang-Revitalization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

hinton2018-Approaches-Strategies For Lang-Revitalization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Approaches to and Strategies for Language Revitalization

Oxford Handbooks Online

Print Publication Date: Sep 2018

Abstract and Keywords

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

2.1. Language at home

naturally, the way everyone learns their first language.

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

Re-establishing the heritage language as a home language is language revitalization at its

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

2.2. Language nests

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

(p. 448) 2.3. The role of schools in language revitalization

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

Similarly, Mexico has a nation-wide bilingual education program for indigenous

2.3.1. Bilingual education

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

2.3.2. Immersion schools

Since an endangered language almost by definition exists within a society where a

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

2.3.3. Minority language classes in Majority-language schools

In the public schools, teachers need a teaching certificate in order to run a

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

3. Adult language learning

3.1. University and other institutional classes

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

work toward a certificate or an MA in language revitalization, which also includes self-

3.2. The Master-Apprentice approach

The Master-Apprentice Language Learning Program was developed in California by the

The Master-Apprentice approach is a bootstrap language-learning strategy based on the

1. Leave English behind

7. Learn and teach the language through activities

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

The Master-Apprentice approach (or Mentor-Apprentice approach as it is alternatively

The Master-Apprentice approach is popular because it is relatively simple in concept,

3.3. Learning from documentation

Miami was reclaimed from extinction within a proposed category of “sleeping

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

• The comprehensive Mutsun dictionary co-authored by long-time BOL participant

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

4.1. New words

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

4.2. Writing systems

It is not necessary for a community to settle on a writing system before language

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

4.3. Reconstructing grammar

reclamation can be expanded. As Ferdinand writes for Cornish:

An additional obstacle faced by Revived Cornish was the incompleteness of its

This brings up the question of “authenticity” in revitalizing languages. Linguists and

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

changes that occur in the speech of second-language learners of endangered languages,

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

traditional name to their children or their pets.

6. The role of linguistics

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 13 January 2019

Much of the content of the field of Linguistics is changing in response to community