This chapter reviews available information on the phonetics and phonology of indigenous language bilinguals published in the last few decades, focusing on both of the bilinguals’ languages, the interplay between their phonological systems, and the phonetic realizations of the sounds present in their languages. We understand indigenous languages as predominantly minority languages spoken by linguistically distinct and often socially marginalized and vulnerable ethnic groups, autochthonous to a specific region of the world, and found in diglossias with majority international languages resulting from colonization. Indigenous language bilingualism is usually small-scale and involves speaking at least one minority indigenous language and at least one majority international language, thus being a step toward a seemingly inevitable language shift and in some cases an eventual indigenous language disappearance. The dynamic and asymmetrical character of indigenous bilingualism, along with the vast number of language combinations and the speaker community size differences between the members of these language pairs, sets it apart from other types of bilingualism considered in this book.

This chapter discusses Slavic literary micro-languages, language forms typically used by Slavic minority groups with (to some extent) established traditions of literacy. In the past, these languages were often dealt with under dialectology, with a special note that a given dialect has a written form. The status of those minority languages is often disputed, in the sense that there are discussions – often politically oriented – on whether to give them the status of languages of their own, or of dialects of a language X, or some status between the two (with or without a written form). This chapter presents geographical distribution, status, and other characteristics of these languages and goes on to generalize their status and features into broader, theoretically relevant patterns.

The final chapter rounds off the discussion, highlighting the distinctive nature of argumentation in the development of functional grammars informed by SFL and the importance of assembling data as a corpus of texts designed on the basis of a linguistic theory of register and genre.

This chapter investigates the identities and motivations of learners of small, endangered and minoritized heritage languages, especially adults. Our case studies are from two contexts which have both similarities and contrasts: Guernesiais, a small, highly endangered language in Guernsey, Channel Islands; and Māori, a larger minoritized language spoken in New Zealand. We compare and contrast our findings with regard to salient factors that emerge as adults decide to learn these languages: motivation, identity construction and empowerment. Established frameworks of motivation and identity did not to match our contexts and emerging findings. Many interviewees reported being motivated by a desire to reconnect with roots, or to reclaim elements of their identity or culture which they feel have been denied to them. Our new speakers of minoritized languages actively seek revitalization through language as an enrichment of their individual or group identity, rather than profit- or prestige-related orientations, or lofty yet vague aspirations to ‘save the language’. The concept of muda, or ‘act of identity’ as a pivotal stage in learning a new language, is especially salient to our findings.

While some heritage languages enjoy large numbers of speakers and vibrant communities, centuries-old and ongoing sociohistorical and sociolinguistic oppression has resulted in the extreme endangerment of many Indigenous languages. To counter this linguistic and cultural loss, a growing number of communities have engaged in language revitalization efforts that are tied to broader objectives of ethnic reclamation and cultural resistance, aiming not only to maintain but also to strengthen what has been lost. Heritage language revitalization is a long-term project that demands change and engagement across many aspects of community life, work that is ripe with tensions and contradictions. This chapter considers three recurrent questions in heritage language revitalization: what efforts should be prioritized in language revitalization, who should take responsibility in revitalizing a language, and how should revitalization efforts navigate the perceived need to establish linguistic norms and standards while concomitantly supporting linguistic diversity. To date, these questions have been described as tensions or problems that reveal conflicting priorities, often the result of historical inequalities, and that frequently hinder language revitalization efforts. Rather than framing these questions as problems, the present chapter considers how communities have responded to these challenges to create new opportunities for collaboration and new approaches that embrace ambiguity and pluralism.

China is one of the most multilingual countries in the world. The government of the People’s Republic of China promotes the country as a harmonious and unified nation with 56 distinct ethnic groups who speak more than 400 heritage languages. The government has not only legally recognized multilingualism but also publicly encouraged a climate where the teaching and learning of a variety of heritage languages can flourish. This chapter provides insights into our understanding of Chinese language policy and implementation and heritage language maintenance and is based on empirical research and case studies in China’s multilingual regions and provinces. It examines the application of the Chinese government’s language policy and heritage language practices over the last 30 years with its underlying language ideology and practices, revealing de facto language policies. While modern standard Chinese (Putonghua) continues to be a powerful factor in both consolidating and probing educational, cultural, social, and political discourse as well as the spatial environment, Xi Jinping’s recent “One Belt and One Road” project has created a new linguistic environment, which has affected the use of heritage languages within diverse minority groups. This has accelerated the deep concern shared among those advocating heritage language maintenance in China.

Chapter 3 describes the fundamental research questions, empirical approaches and findings of language documentation and descriptive linguistics. These are two closely interrelated linguistic subfields concentrating on the collection and/or analysis of primary data for the purposes of documenting and describing languages (corpora and grammars). Methodological issues include considerations on research objects, fieldwork, as well as techniques and procedures of data collection, editing, and analysis such as transcription, annotation, and elicitation. The chapter ends with recommendations for further reading and a list of short exercises and ideas for small research projects.

This book is for anyone interested in stopping local languages from falling into disuse. It provides practical guidance on how to approach and plan language revitalization. It is for community members and language activists, as well as educators, students and academics interested in developing fair and non-patronizing ways of responding to communities’ initiatives and needs. The book stresses that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution and that every language situation is different. It presents case studies and examples of language revitalization in a broad range of contexts. The book is practitioner-oriented and aims to provide multiple perspectives on approaches and issues to consider when planning language revitalization. Founded in the profound respect the authors have developed for different knowledge systems and approaches, it aims not only to decolonize research and practices in language revitalization contexts, but also to help develop more effective language revitalization strategies. By encouraging critical discussions about new ideas and real situations, the intention is to provide readers with the tools they need to make their own decisions.

This chapter addresses the current political climate in Canada with respect to language politics through an examination of historical settler-colonial and Indigenous relations. The focus is the interplay, and the inherent contradictions, between the state and Indigenous language interests. This includes a consideration of language and education rights, policies, and moves to reconciliation on behalf of state and Indigenous actors. The diverse goals and outcomes of Indigenous educational policies and practices will be examined with a focus on the Canadian Arctic, the role of Indigenous land-based pedagogies, and the necessary conceptualization and reaffirmation of languages as unbounded, action-oriented practices that resist objectification and enumeration.

Despite surface-level changes to the Heritage Languages Program in Ontario, heritage language instruction continues to exist at the margins of school life in Ontario. Public deliberations over this policy have led to intense, racialized conflict among stakeholders. At their most fundamental level, these conflicts have centred on who has – or should have – the power (or the “right”) to determine linguistic and cultural practices within publicly funded schools. To address this question, the chapter builds on my previous work sketching out a political-economy perspective on language policy analysis. Most salient is this theory’s insight that, while capitalism relies on human labour to create all profit and value, it has no internal system for reproducing that labour in the first place. I situate language socialization within this contradiction. When speakers of minoritized and/or racialized languages make demands for access to their languages in the public sphere (be it at work, at school, etc.) they directly challenge this separation between production and social reproduction. Understanding this contradiction moves us beyond searching for better metaphors for framing language policy, and towards concrete political strategies for undermining language-based oppression.