Purism vs. compromise in language revitalization and language revival

TLDR

Conservative attitudes toward loanwords and grammatical change often hinder language revitalization efforts, creating divisions between historically oriented revitalizers and speakers seeking authentic idiomaticity. Structural compromise appears to improve survival prospects in languages such as Arvanitika, Pennsylvania German, and Irish in Northern Ireland, and historical contact-driven restructuring in English demonstrates that languages can remain viable and versatile. Keywords: revival, purism, attitudes, norms, endangered languages, minority languages, contact.

Abstract

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)