Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:16:33.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Purism vs. compromise in language revitalization and language revival

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2009

Nancy C. Dorian
Nancy C. Dorian
Affiliation:
Departments of German and Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conservative attitudes toward loanwords and toward change in grammar often hamper efforts to revitalize endangered languages (Tiwi, Australia); and incompatible conservatisms can separate educated revitalizers, interested in historicity, from remaining speakers interested in locally authentic idiomaticity (Irish). Native-speaker conservatism is likely to constitute a barrier to coinage (Gaelic, Scotland), and unrealistically severe older-speaker purism can discourage younger speakers where education in a minority language is unavailable (Nahuatl, Mexico). Even in the case of a once entirely extinct language, rival authenticities can prove a severe problem (the Cornish revival movement in Britain). Evidence from obsolescent Arvanitika (Greece), from Pennsylvania German (US), and from Irish in Northern Ireland (the successful Shaw's Road community in Belfast) suggests that structural compromise may enhance survival chances; and the case of English in the post-Norman period indicates that restructuring by intense language contact can leave a language both viable and versatile, with full potential for future expansion. (Revival, purism, attitudes, norms, endangered languages, minority languages, contact)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , September 1994 , pp. 479 - 494
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anonymous (1990). Le cornique: Renaissance d'une langue celtique. Ar Men 29:3–19.Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian(1989). Language adaptation. In Coulmas, Florian (ed.), Language adaptation, 1–25. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dorian, Nancy C. (1978). East Sutherland Gaelic. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Dorian, Nancy C.(1981). Language death. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drapeau, Lynn (1992). Language birth: An alternative to language death. Paper presented at the XVth International Congress of Linguists, Québec.Google Scholar
Ellis, P. Berresford (1974). The Cornish language and its literature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Fishman, Joshua A. (1989). Language and ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, Joshua A.(1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon, England: Miltilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamp, Eric P. (1989). On signs of health and death. In Dorian, Nancy C. (ed.), Investigating obsolescence, 197–210. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar (1977). Norm and deviation in bilingual communities. In Hornby, Peter A. (ed.), Bilingualism: Psychological, social and educational implications, 91–102. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Heyd, Uriel (1954). Language reform in modern Turkey. Jerusalem: Israel Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane H. & Hill, Kenneth C. (1986). Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of syncretic language in Central Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Hindley, Reg (1990). The death of the Irish language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huffines, Marion Lois (1989). Case usage among the Pennsylvania German sectarians and non-sectarians. In Dorian, Nancy C. (ed.), Investigating obsolescence, 211–26. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibrahim, Muhammad H. (1989). Communicating in Arabic: Problems and prospects. In Coulmas, Florian (ed.), Language adaptation, 39–59. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuter, Lois (1989). A note from the editor. Bro Nevez 32:40.Google Scholar
Lee, Jennifer (1987). Tiwi today: A study of language change in a contact situation. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Lee, Jennifer(1988). Tiwi: A language struggling to survive. Australian Aborigines and Islanders Branch, Summer Institute of Linguistics, Work Papers 13 (series B), 75–96Google Scholar
Maguire, Gabrielle (1987). Language revival in an urban neo-Gaeltacht. In MacEoin, Gearóid et al. (eds.), Third International Conference on Minority Languages: Celtic papers, 72–88. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Maguire, Gabrielle (1991) Our own language: An Irish initiative. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
ÓBaoill, Dónall P. (1988). Language planning in Ireland: The standardization of Irish. In Riagáin, Pádraig Ó (ed.), Language planning in Ireland (International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 70), 109–126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
O'Callahan, Joseph (1989). Cornish. Bro Nevez 31:27–31.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Annette (1985). Young people's Dyirbal. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tschirch, Fritz (1969). Geschichle der deutschen Sprache, 2: Entwicklung und Wandlungen der deutschen Sprachgestalt vom Hochmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar