Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Book part
- 1 Premises of multi-competence
- 2 Research questions and methodology of multi-competence
- 3 Multi-competence in second language acquisition: inroads into the mainstream?
- 4 Not through a glass darkly: refocusing the psycholinguistic study of bilingualism through a “bivocal” lens
- 5 Multilingualism research
- 6 Multi-competence and dynamic/complex systems
- 7 Multi-competence and Dominant Language Constellation
- 8 Consequences of multi-competence for sociolinguistic research
- 9 A usage-based account of multi-competence
- 10 Multi-competence and syntax
- 11 Syntactic processing
- 12 Language and cognition in bilinguals
- 13 Gestures in multi-competence
- 14 Pragmatic transferin foreign language learners: a multi-competence perspective
- 15 Multi-competence and endangered language revitalization
- 16 Multi-competence and first language attrition
- 17 Cognitive consequences of multi-competence
- 18 Space, motion and thinking for language
- 19 Multi-competence and personality
- 20 Multi-competence as a creative act: ramifications of the multi-competence paradigm for creativity research and creativity-fostering education
- 21 Multi-competence and language teaching
- 22 Multi-competence and emotion
- 23 Multi-competence and English as a lingua franca
- 24 A critical reaction from second language acquisition research
- 25 Questions of multi-competence: a written interview
- 26 Epilogue: multi-competence and the TranslanguagingInstinct
- Bibliography of ‘multi-competence’ (and related topics)
- Index
- References
15 - Multi-competence and endangered language revitalization
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2016
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Book part
- 1 Premises of multi-competence
- 2 Research questions and methodology of multi-competence
- 3 Multi-competence in second language acquisition: inroads into the mainstream?
- 4 Not through a glass darkly: refocusing the psycholinguistic study of bilingualism through a “bivocal” lens
- 5 Multilingualism research
- 6 Multi-competence and dynamic/complex systems
- 7 Multi-competence and Dominant Language Constellation
- 8 Consequences of multi-competence for sociolinguistic research
- 9 A usage-based account of multi-competence
- 10 Multi-competence and syntax
- 11 Syntactic processing
- 12 Language and cognition in bilinguals
- 13 Gestures in multi-competence
- 14 Pragmatic transferin foreign language learners: a multi-competence perspective
- 15 Multi-competence and endangered language revitalization
- 16 Multi-competence and first language attrition
- 17 Cognitive consequences of multi-competence
- 18 Space, motion and thinking for language
- 19 Multi-competence and personality
- 20 Multi-competence as a creative act: ramifications of the multi-competence paradigm for creativity research and creativity-fostering education
- 21 Multi-competence and language teaching
- 22 Multi-competence and emotion
- 23 Multi-competence and English as a lingua franca
- 24 A critical reaction from second language acquisition research
- 25 Questions of multi-competence: a written interview
- 26 Epilogue: multi-competence and the TranslanguagingInstinct
- Bibliography of ‘multi-competence’ (and related topics)
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-Competence , pp. 321 - 337Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Albers, P. and Albers, E. 2013. ‘Karuk language and the Albers basket’, in Hinton, L. (ed.), pp. 33–40.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. D. S. 2011. ‘Language hotspots: what (applied) linguists and education should do about language endangerment in the twenty-first century’, Language and Education 25, 273–289.Google Scholar
Baldwin, D., Baldwin, K., Baldwin, J. and Baldwin, J. 2013. ‘myaamiaataweenki oowaah: “Miami spoken here”’, in Hinton, L. (ed.), pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. 2013. Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Christopher, D. 2010. ‘Chickasaw culture in Oklahoma: Chickasaw medicine, language and books, Chickasaw press, Chickasaw arts and the Chickasaw cultural center’, NewsOK Online.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J. 2003. Effects of the Second Language on the First. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
De Vries, J. 1992. ‘Language maintenance and shift: problems of measurement’, in Fase, W., Jaspaert, K. and Kroon, S. (eds), Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages, pp. 211–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. 2006. ‘What is reversing language shift (RLS) and how can it succeed?’, in Hornberger, N. H. and Pütz, M. (eds), Language Loyalty, Language Planning, and Language Revitalization: Recent Writing and Reflections from Joshua A. Fishman, pp. 79–112. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Originally in Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development (1990) 11 (1–2), 5–36.Google Scholar
Gorter, D. 2015. ‘Multilingual interaction and minority languages: proficiency and language practices in education and society’, Language Teaching 48 (1), 82–98.Google Scholar
Harmon, D. and Loh, J. 2010. ‘The index of linguistic diversity: a new quantitative measure of trends in the status of the world’s languages’, Language Documentation and Conservation 4, 97–151.Google Scholar
Harrison, K. D. 2007. When Languages Die: The Extinction of the World’s Languages and the Erosion of Human Knowledge. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinton, L. 1994. Flutes of Fire: Essays on California Indian Languages. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.Google Scholar
Hinton, L. 2001b. ‘New writing systems’, in Hinton, L. and Hale, K. (eds), pp. 239–250.Google Scholar
Hinton, L. 2001c. ‘Sleeping languages: can they be awakened?’, in Hinton, L. and Hale, K. (eds), pp. 413–417.Google Scholar
Hinton, L. (ed.) 2013a. Bringing Our Languages Home: Language Revitalization for Families. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.Google Scholar
Hinton, L. and Hale, K. 2001. The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hinton, L., Vera, M. and Steele, N. 2002. How to Keep Your Language Alive: A Commonsense Approach to One-on-One Language Learning. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.Google Scholar
Hornberger, N. H. 2003. ‘Continua of biliteracy’, in Hornberger, N. H. (ed.), Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Education Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings, pp. 3–34. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. 1999. Ideologies in Action: Language Politics in Corsica. New York, NY: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
King, J. 2001. ‘Te kōhanga reo: Māori language revitalization’, in Hinton, L. and Hale, K. (eds), pp. 119–131.Google Scholar
Kornai, A. 2013. ‘Digital language death’, PLoS ONE 8 (10): article e77056. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077056Google Scholar
Krauss, M. 1996. ‘Status of Native American language endangerment’, in Cantoni, G. (ed.), Stabilizing Indigenous Languages, pp. 16–21. Flagstaff, AZ: Center for Excellence in Education.Google Scholar
Krauss, M. 2007. ‘Mass extinction and documentation: the race against time’, in Miyaoka, O., Sakiyama, O. and Krauss, M. (eds), The Vanishing Languages of the Pacific Rim, pp. 3–24. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. E., Genesee, F., Holobow, N. and McGilly, C. 1984. An Evaluation of a Partial Mohawk Immersion Program in the Kahnawake Schools. Montreal: McGill University.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. P. and Simons, G. F. 2010. ‘Assessing endangerment: expanding Fishman’s GIDS’, Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 55, 103–120.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F. and Fennig, C. D. 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 17th edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. www.ethnologue.comGoogle Scholar
Wei, Li 2011. ‘Moment analysis and translanguaging space: discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain’, Journal of Pragmatics 43, 1222–1235.Google Scholar
McCarty, T. L. 2003. ‘Revitalizing Indigenous languages in homogenising times’, Comparative Education 39, 147–163.Google Scholar
McCarty, T. L., Romero-Little, M. E. and Zepeda, O. 2008. ‘Indigenous language policies in social practice: the case of Navajo’, in King, K. A., Schilling-Estes, N., Fogle, L., Lou, J. J. and Soukup, B. (eds), Sustaining Linguistic Diversity: Endangered and Minority Languages and Language Varieties, pp. 159–172. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, T. and Watahomigie, L. J. 1999. ‘Preservation on the reservation (and beyond): reclaiming Indigenous languages’, in Common Ground: Archaeology and Ethnography in the Public Interest. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior.Google Scholar
Moseley, C. (ed.) 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, third edition. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlasGoogle Scholar
Penfield, S. and Tucker, B. V. 2011. ‘From documenting to revitalizing endangered language: where do applied linguists fit?’ Language and Education 25, 291–305.Google Scholar
Peter, L. 2007. ‘Our beloved Cherokee: a naturalistic study of Cherokee preschool language immersion’, Anthropology and Education Quarterly 38, 323–342.Google Scholar
Peter, L. 2014. ‘Language ideologies and Cherokee revitalization: narratives of impracticality, legitimacy, and hope’, Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 2, 96–118.Google Scholar
Peter, L. and Hirata-Edds, T. 2006. ‘Using assessment to inform instruction in Cherokee language revitalization’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9, 643–658.Google Scholar
Peter, L. and Hirata-Edds, T. 2009. ‘Learning to read and write Cherokee: toward a theory of literacy revitalization’, Bilingual Research Journal 2, 207–227.Google Scholar
Peter, L., Hirata-Edds, T. and Montgomery-Anderson, B. 2008. ‘Verb development by children in the Cherokee language immersion program with implications for teaching’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18, 166–187.Google Scholar
Peter, L., Sly, G. and Hirata-Edds, T. 2011. ‘Using language assessment to inform instruction in Indigenous language immersion’, in Tedick, D. J., Christian, D. and Fortune, T. Williams (eds), Immersion Education: Practices, Policies, Possibilities, pp. 187–208. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Simons, G. F. and Lewis, M. P. 2013. ‘The world’s languages in crisis: a 20-year update’, in Mihas, E., Perley, B. C., Rei-Doval, G. and Wheatley, K. M. (eds), Responses to Language Endangerment: In Honour of Mickey Noonan; New Directions in Language Documentation and Language Revitalization, pp. 3–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorensen, B. and Weston, J. 2011. ‘I love Sauk language’, Cultural Survival 35. http://issuu.com/culturalsurvival/docs/csq-35-4Google Scholar
Stiles, D. B. 1997. ‘Four successful Indigenous Language programs’, in Reyhner, J. (ed.), Teaching Indigenous Languages, pp. 148–262. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
Tehee, C. 2014. Negotiating Acceptance: A Sociocultural Analysis of Second Language Users’ Construction of Speakerhood in Cherokee Nation Language Revitalization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.Google Scholar
UNESCO 2003. Language Vitality and Endangerment. Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages: Programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages. Paris.Google Scholar
Virtue, H. A., Gessner, S. and Daniels, D. Xway’Waat 2012. B.C.’s Master–Apprentice Language Program Handbook. British Columbia: First Peoples’ Cultural Council.Google Scholar
Warner, S. L. No’eau 2001. ‘The movement to revitalize Hawaiian language and culture’, in Hinton, L. and Hale, K. (eds), pp. 133–146.Google Scholar
Whalen, D. H. and Simons, G. F. 2012. ‘Endangered Language Families’, Language 88, 155–173.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. H. and Kamanā, K. 2001. ‘“Mai Loko Mai O Ka ‘I’ini”: proceeding from a dream: the ‘Aha Pūunana Leo connection in Hawaiian language revitalization’, in Hinton, L. and Hale, K. (eds), pp. 147–176.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. H. and Kamanā, K. 2011. ‘Insights from Indigenous immersion in Hawai’i’, in Tedick, D. J., Christian, D. and Fortune, T. Williams (eds), Immersion Education: Practices, Policies, Possibilities, pp. 36–57. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. H. and Kamanā, K. 2013. ‘E Paepae Hou ‘Ia Ka Pōhaku: reset the stones of the Hawaiian house platform’, in Hinton, L. (ed.), pp. 101–117.Google Scholar
Wong, L. 1999. ‘Authenticity and the revitalization of Hawaiian’, Anthropology and Education Quarterly 30, 94–115.Google Scholar
Yamada, R.-M. 2007. ‘Collaborative linguistic fieldwork: practical application of the empowerment model’, Language Documentation and Conservation 1, 257–282.Google Scholar
Yamada, R.-M. 2011. ‘Integrating documentation and formal teaching of Kari’nja: documentary materials as pedagogical materials’, Language Documentation and Conservation 5, 1–30.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, A., Brenzinger, M. and Villalón, M. E. 2008. ‘A place for all languages: on language vitality and revitalization’, Museum International 60, 60–70.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by