Language death should not be confused with language attrition (also called language loss) which describes the loss of proficiency in a language at the individual level.[2]
Types of language death
Language death may manifest itself in one of the following ways:- gradual language death
- bottom-to-top language death: when a language begins to change in a low level place such as the home.
- top-to-bottom language death: when a language begins to change in a high level place such as the government.
- radical language death
- linguicide (a.k.a. sudden language death, language death by genocide, physical language death, biological language death)
Languages with a small, geographically isolated population of speakers can also die when their speakers are wiped out by genocide, disease, or natural disaster.
A language is often declared to be dead even before the last native speaker of the language has died. If there are only a few elderly speakers of a language remaining, and they no longer use that language for communication, then the language is effectively dead. A language that has reached such a reduced stage of use is generally considered moribund.[2] Once a language is no longer a native language - that is, if no children are being socialised into it as their primary language - the process of transmission is ended and the language itself will not survive past the current generation. This is rarely a sudden event, but a slow process of each generation learning less and less of the language, until its use is relegated to the domain of traditional use, such as in poetry and song. Typically the transmission of the language from adults to children becomes more and more restricted, to the final setting that adults speaking the language will raise children who never acquire fluency. One example of this process reaching its conclusion is that of the Dalmatian language.
[edit] Consequences on grammar
![]() | This section requires expansion. |
- overgeneralization;
- undergeneralization;
- loss of phonological contrasts;
- variability;
- changes in word order;
- morphological loss, such as was seen in Scottish Gaelic in East Sutherland, Scotland (Dorian: 1978) as fluent speakers still used the correct plural formation, whereas semi-speakers used simple suffixation or did not include any plural formation at all;
- synthetic > analytic;
- syntactic loss (i.e. lexical categories, complex constructions);
- relexification;
- loss of word-formation productivity;
- style loss, such as the loss of ritual speech;[3]
- morphological leveling;[4]
- analogical leveling.
[edit] Language revitalization
Main article: Language revitalization
Language revitalization is an attempt to slow or reverse language death. Revitalization programs are ongoing in many languages, and have had varying degrees of success.The revival of the Hebrew language in Israel is the only example of a language which has become a language with new first language speakers after it became extinct in everyday use for an extended period, being used only as a liturgical language.[5] And even in the case of Hebrew, there is a theory that argues that "the Hebrew revivalists who wished to speak pure Hebrew failed. The result is a fascinating and multifaceted Israeli language, which is not only multi-layered but also multi-sourced. The revival of a clinically dead language is unlikely without cross-fertilisation from the revivalists' mother tongue(s)."[6]
Other cases of language revitalization which have seen some degree of success are Irish, Welsh, Hawaiian and to a lesser extent Navajo, which was used for a WWII radio code never deciphered by the Japanese.[7]
As a response to English linguistic imperialism, de-anglicisation became a matter of national pride in some places and especially in regions that were once under colonial rule, where vestiges of colonial domination are a sensitive subject.[8][9] Following centuries of English rule in Ireland and English imposition of the English language, an argument for de-anglicisation was delivered before the Irish National Literary Society in Dublin, 25 November 1892; "When we speak of 'The Necessity for De-Anglicising the Irish Nation', we mean it, not as a protest against imitating what is best in the English people, for that would be absurd, but rather to show the folly of neglecting what is Irish, and hastening to adopt, pell-mell, and indiscriminately, everything that is English, simply because it is English."[8] Language was one of the features of Anglicisation in Ireland: although it never died out and became an official language after independence, Irish had lost its status as the island's principal vernacular to become a minority language during the period of English rule, as is the case in North America where their indigenous languages have been replaced by that of the colonists.
No comments:
Post a Comment