Language (re)vitalization: What characterizes a sensible policy?

Abstract

Many small languages are in danger of extinction. How to stop and reverse this process is an important topic in the sociolinguistic literature. In addition to the revitalization of languages, there are also some examples of vitalizing (bringing to use) new languages, for example the introduction of Ivrit (modern Hebrew) in Palestine/Israel. Generally speaking, for a language to be used, no matter which language, the users must find it attractive and useful. At least two factors are important here: the value attributed to the language by its users as a means of communication and as a carrier of culture and identity. It is assumed that these factors can be influenced by language-policy measures. The impact of various measures on the vitality of the language is an empirical matter. However, one can draw some general conclusions regarding which measures are sensible in order to vitalize or revitalize which languages when the financial resources of the policy-maker are limited. In this introductory text to the theme issue, we apply the methodology of cost-effectiveness analysis to discuss the connection between the types of the policy measures employed and characteristics of the language communities addressed, such as size, social status, and residential patterns. The cost-effectiveness ratio of street signs in a minority language might, for instance, be higher for a community spread over a whole country than for a community of the same size concentrated in one geographically limited jurisdiction. On the other hand, a decision to publish the texts of laws and decrees of a country in a minority language will have approximately the same effect for both types of minorities. The articles in this special issue of LPLP address and evaluate different types of policy measures for different linguistic minorities and illustrate important aspects of the main questions in this paper.