Speech, Language and Hearing

ISSN: 2050-571X (Print) 2050-5728 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yslh20

The role of new technology and social media in

reversing language loss

Carmen Jany

To cite this article: Carmen Jany (2017): The role of new technology and social media in reversing
language loss, Speech, Language and Hearing, DOI: 10.1080/2050571X.2017.1368971

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2050571X.2017.1368971

Published online: 27 Aug 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yslh20

Download by: [University of Florida] Date: 19 October 2017, At: 17:50

 SPEECH, LANGUAGE AND HEARING, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/2050571X.2017.1368971

The role of new technology and social media in reversing language loss
Carmen Jany
Department of World Languages & Literatures, California State University, San Bernardino, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The relationship between technology and language endangerment has experienced a shift in Received 1 February 2017
attitude, whereby previously perceived as a threat to the vitality of endangered and minority Accepted 4 August 2017
languages, new technology and social media are now viewed as rich and important tools in
KEYWORDS
the endeavor or language maintenance and revitalization. This paper examines several Language endangerment;
examples of how new and social media can play a role in language maintenance and language loss; language
revitalization and discusses practical issues relating to literacy development. Overall, it is maintenance; language
shown that new technology and social media are beneficial for language preservation rather revitalization; social media
than causing language death.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 17:50 19 October 2017

Introduction
Many of the world’s almost 7000 languages are quickly
disappearing and in great need of documentation,
maintenance, and revitalization efforts. It is estimated
that about half of the world’s languages will disappear
within one century (Brenzinger, 2015; Harrison, 2007;
Nettle & Romaine, 2000). Similar to the urgency of pre-
serving our plant and animal species, linguists over the
past two decades have stressed an immediate call to
action to attend to the imminent problem of language
endangerment and death (Krauss, 1992). The UNESCO
and others (Gorenflow, Russell, Mittermeier, & Walker-
Painemilla, 2012) draw parallels between biodiversity
and linguistic diversity. Interestingly, areas of high bio-
logical diversity are also areas where approximately
70% of the world’s languages are spoken. Some
studies even suggest that the degradation of the
natural environment, such as traditional habitats,
provoke a loss of cultural and linguistic diversity,
which in turn then has a negative impact on biodiver-
sity conservation (Gorenflow et al., 2012). It is thus
without a doubt that language loss and language
death needs to be reversed.
Since the call to action in the early nineties,
UNESCO-lead (Brenzinger et al., 2003) and other
groups have developed assessment scales for language
endangerment, such as one developed by Simons and
Lewis (2013) (see Table 1). Languages can be extinct or
dormant, show various levels of endangerment, be
threatened or vulnerable, or be safe. In addition to
developing assessment tools for language endanger-
ment, linguists have tried to find ways to keep
languages alive and to encourage in particular
younger speakers to continue to use or start using
their native or heritage language. One of the nine cri-
teria used in assessing the vitality of a language is
the response to new domains and media (Brenzinger
et al., 2003). As we modernize and adapt our ways of
communicating with one another and new conditions
for social and communicative exchanges emerge, lin-
guistic communities need to expand their own
language into these new domains to ensure mainten-
ance. This entails using language on the internet and
in social media.
Over the years, the perceived relationship between
technology and language endangerment has drasti-
cally changed. As Cazden (2003) suggests, ‘there is a
paradox in suggesting that technology can be useful
in revitalizing indigenous languages and cultures.
After all, one kind of technology, television, has been
influential in language and culture loss’ (p. 59). This
has also been noted by Krauss (1992), who viewed
technology such as radio and television as driving
forces of language loss (i.e., cultural nerve gas).
Today, the role of technology in language maintenance
and revitalization efforts is viewed as a very positive
and enabling one (Jones, 2014). Previously, the internet
was perceived as only serving to expand the scope and
power of a dominant language at the expense of
endangered languages. However, it has become clear
that the use of endangered languages in social media
and on the internet is empowering a new generation
of language users and learners, therefore contributing
to the success of reversing language shift. As Scannell
(2012) describes ‘social media will not “save your
language”’, however media can play an important
role in broader revitalization efforts by breaking
down the idea that indigenous languages have no

CONTACT Carmen Jany cjany@csusb.edu Department of World Languages & Literatures, California State University, San Bernardino, USA
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2 C. JANY

Table 1. Assessment scale for language endangerment and loss (taken from Simons & Lewis, 2013).
Level Label Description UNESCO
0 International The language is widely used between nations in trade, knowledge exchange, and international policy. Safe
1 National The language is used in education, work, mass media, and government at the nationwide level. Safe
2 Provincial The language is used in education, work, mass media, and government within official administrative Safe
subdivisions of a nation.
3 Wider The language is widely used in work and mass media without official status to transcend language Safe
Communication differences across a region.
4 Educational The language is in vigorous oral use and this is reinforced by sustainable transmission of literacy in the Safe
language in formal education.
5 Developing The language is vigorous and is being used in written from in parts of the community though literacy is Safe
not yet sustainable.
6a Vigorous The language is used orally by all generations and the situation is sustainable. Safe
6b Threatened The language is still used orally within all generations but there is a significant threat to sustainability Vulnerable
because at least one of the conditions for sustainable oral use is lacking.
7 Shifting The child-bearing generation can use the language among themselves but they do not normally Definitely
transmit it to their children. Endangered
8a Moribund The only remaining active speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation. Severely
Endangered
8b Nearly Extinct The only remaining speakers of the language are elderly and have little opportunity to use the Critically
language. Endangered
9 Dormant There are no fully proficient speakers, but some symbolic use remains as a reminder of heritage identity Extinct
for an ethnic community.
10 Extinct No one retains a sense of ethnic identity associated with the language, ever for symbolic purpose. Extinct
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 17:50 19 October 2017

place in the world of computing and technology, and
by getting people to use their language more
frequently.
This paper examines several examples of how new
and social media can play a role in language mainten-
ance and revitalization. First, a number of practical
issues are discussed. Second, examples from Facebook
and other social platforms contributing to language
preservation and revitalization are examined. Conclud-
ing remarks address the impact of social media and
new technologies in preserving linguistic diversity.
Practical issues
There are two major practical issues that arise in the
endeavor of using social media and new technologies
for the purpose of language preservation and revitali-
zation. One is to have reliable internet connections in
remote rural areas, as well as for local communities to
have access to the necessary equipment and knowl-
edge to use it. The other is to develop a written rep-
resentation of the mostly oral languages for use on a
computer, tablet, or smart phone in a way that is
easy and understandable for users. The first issue
depends on the location, local conditions, the
resources, and the capacity building in the community.
The second issue relates to matters arising in orthogra-
phy development and has been widely discussed in the
literature (Seifart, 2006).
Introducing literacy for an oral language can have
many implications, positive and negative. In general,
orthography design follows linguistic, pedagogical,
sociopolitical, and practical principles, such as phone-
mic or morphological orientation, maximum ease of
learning, local acceptability, and ease of use with
new media. Once a language is written, a speaker
may lose control over who has access to the
language, and the natural course of the oral trans-
mission, whereby narratives are constantly being
shaped and adapted, is interrupted by having narra-
tives fixed in time. However, in a time when oral
and written communication are converging, when
written communication is assuming the communica-
tive roles of traditionally oral communication, and
when linguistic features of oral and written language
are becoming more similar, it seems unavoidable to
develop written representations of the otherwise
oral languages.
Sebba (2007) has suggested that written represen-
tations of a language serve as markers of identity,
and there may be diverging opinions as to how a
language should be written, which can create divisions
within a language community. Most people, however,
agree that an important factor in the development of
new orthographies is ease of use with computers and
new media. With the worldwide web reaching
remote areas of the world and expanding in use, it
becomes clear that a new orthography should be
designed in a way so that its graphemes are readily
available on standard keyboards. This has been an
issue for many languages where some phonemes
cannot be easily represented using standard
keyboards.
It is thus no surprise that some communities invest
time in creating custom keyboards to the written rep-
resentation of their language. There are several case
studies relating to this issue. For instance, native
Me’phaa writers created a special keyboard layout
that was later reused for different operating systems
(Jones, 2014). Galla (2009) describes a case study
whereby Hale Kuamo’o created a custom keyboard
and font that encompasses diacritical marks of Hawai-
ian, ‘okina (glottal stop) and kahakō (long vowel). In
addition, some Apple software was customized with

drop-down menus displayed in the Hawaiian
language.
Overcoming these practical obstacles may seem like
a daunting task, especially considering the number of
endangered languages and the fact that an endan-
gered or moribund language may only have a very
small number of speakers. Thus, the developed ortho-
graphy and technological customization may solely
serve the purpose of a few users. Notwithstanding,
more endangered languages are appearing on the
web and in social media. Interestingly, younger users
are taking control of their native or heritage language
and actively creating and adapting written represen-
tations for use on the web and with new technology.
How Facebook and social platforms aid in
language maintenance and revitalization
Social media and new technology that includes video
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 17:50 19 October 2017
chats allow for connecting people across the globe
and providing access to information and data without
the necessity of being physically present. Such tools
can facilitate the collaboration between academics,
activists, and language communities, provide a plat-
form for promoting common goals, involve language
learners and engage younger speakers in using their
native or heritage language (Alia, 2010; Jones, 2014).
As Jones (2014) notes, technology both furthers, and
in some cases makes possible, increased community-
academic collaboration and community involvement.
The universal information access by means of the inter-
net enables academics and language communities to
engage more fully with each other. Moreover, language
communities experiencing similar processes of
language loss are able to connect and build alliances
through communication. In addition, speakers of an
endangered language are able to connect and use
their language even if they migrate to a different
place. Here, I examine two uses of new technology
and social media: a) for teaching purposes and b) to
establish and keep social connections, in particular
through Facebook.
New technology now allows for the creation of col-
laborative spaces that can be used for productive
language learning. Google hangouts, Skype, and free
video chats are alternatives to being physically
present in front of a teacher. Interactive technology
that facilitates the exchange of information and com-
munication in written form can also be beneficial to
the learning process. E-mail and chat applications, as
Bourget (2016) notes ‘can support written literacy as
the interactive nature of the exchange, though
delayed, forces both sender and receiver to think
deeply about the language’ (p. 183). This can also
include web-based wikis, as developed in Navajo
and Maori, search engines, as in Hawaiian, and
online dictionaries with audio now present on the
SPEECH, LANGUAGE AND HEARING 3
web for ever more languages (Galla, 2009). A
number of language communities whose languages
are in danger of extinction have partnered with com-
mercial software developers, such as Rosetta Stone, to
create tools for language maintenance and learning.
Among them are the Kanien’kéha (Mohawk Nation
located near Montréal, Québec), Inupiaq in Alaska as
well as the Chitimacha tribe in Louisiana (Galla,
2009). This brings them into the twenty-first century,
and they no longer have to rely on the traditional
language learning setting, but rather expand the
domains of use for the language. Social media, such
as Facebook, can also support interactive language
learning (Bourget, 2016).
Facebook is a popular tool used by millions across
the globe, and especially among younger speakers.
Scannell (2012) indicates that many indigenous and
minority language groups are turning to Facebook as
a way for small and scattered speaker populations to
connect with each other online. One use of Facebook
is to create groups for connecting people and dissemi-
nating information. Scannell (2012) has noted that
endangered language activity on Facebook is often
centered around ‘groups’ devoted to a given language,
where discussions in or about the language can take
place. This has been the case for Cree and Ojibwe, for
instance, among many other languages. Other
languages that have used Facebook as a medium to
encourage younger people in the language mainten-
ance process and for empowerment are Yucatec
Maya, Cherokee, Quechua, and Aymara. Facebook
users can request a language through the website
and if there is enough demand the language will
then be included in the translation application. In
Bolivia, a group of volunteers is currently working on
translating the Facebook interface into Aymara. Some
of the challenges of such a task include creating new
words for new concepts, such as ‘mobile phone’ and
‘password’.
Social media has become a crucial tool for activists
and young people who want to preserve their
language and heritage and who embrace their indigen-
ous identities. This is the case for a number of Mexican
indigenous languages, such as Chatino, Mixteco, Mixe,
and others, where orthographic conventions are
created on the spot as young speaker post messages
on Facebook and other platforms. This new generation
of speakers is becoming more computer savvy and
sometimes moves far from home, but they are deter-
mined to connect with their friends and family in
their native tongue. Interestingly, at a time when
social media users are being criticized for changing
dominant languages by ignoring spelling conventions
or developing new ones and by posting abbreviated
versions instead of full words, these same social
media are facilitating language maintenance and may
actually be beneficial for some languages.
 4 C. JANY
Conclusion
This paper examined the shift in attitude whereby pre-
viously perceived as a threat to the vitality of endan-
gered and minority languages, new technology and
social media are now viewed as rich and important
tools in the endeavor or language maintenance and
revitalization. Endangered language communities
now have more access to resources and are able to
expand their language use into new domains. New
technology and social media are being used to
promote the use of native and heritage languages
and to build connections with other speakers and lear-
ners all across the globe. Many of today’s younger
speakers own smartphones, tablets, and computers,
and are committed users of this new technology. If
we aspire to maintain languages alive and pass them
on to the next generation, we need to use familiar
media and distribution tools. This refutes the idea
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 17:50 19 October 2017
that new technology and social media are causing
language death; rather they are beneficial tools to
ensure language maintenance and revitalization.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
References
Alia, V. (2010). New media nation: Indigenous peoples and
global communication. New York: Bergham Books.
Bourget, N. (2016). Case study: An evaluation of information
and communication technology use in Upriver
Halq’eméylem language programs. Language
Documentation and Conservation, 10, 165–187.
Brenzinger, M. (2015). Language diversity endangered. The
Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brenzinger, M., Yamamoto, A., Aikawa, N., Koundiouba, D.,
Minasyan, A., Dwyer, A., … Zepeda, O. (2003). Language
vitality and endangerment. Paris: UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert
Group Meeting on Endangered Languages.
Cazden, C. (2003). Sustaining indigenous languages in cyber-
space. In J. Reyhner, O. Trujillo, R. L. Carrasco, & L. Lockard
(Eds.), Nurturing native languages (pp. 53–57). Flagstaff, AZ:
Northern Arizona University.
Galla, C. (2009). Indigenous language revitalization and tech-
nology: From traditional to contemporary domains. In J.
Reyhner, & L. Lockard (Eds.), Indigenous language revitaliza-
tion: Encouragement, guidance and lessons learned (pp.
167–182). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.
Retrieved from http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/jar/ILR/ILR-13.pdf.
Gorenflow, L. J., Russell, S., Mittermeier, A., & Walker-
Painemilla, K. (2012). Co-occurrence of linguistic and bio-
logical diversity in biodiversity hotspots and high biodiver-
sity wilderness areas. In B. L. Turner (Ed.), Proceedings of the
national academy of sciences of the United States of America
Vol. 109. No. 21. Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/
content/109/21/8032.
Harrison, K. D. (2007). When languages die: The extinction of
the world’s languages and the erosion of human knowledge.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jones, M. C. (2014). Endangered languages and new technol-
ogies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krauss, M. (1992). The world’s languages in crisis. Language,
68(1), 4–10.
Nettle, D., & Romaine, S. (2000). Vanishing voices: The extinc-
tion of the world’s languages. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Scannell, K. (2012). Translating Facebook into endangered
languages. Retrieved from https://borel.slu.edu/pub/fel12.
pdf.
Sebba, M. (2007). Spelling and society: The culture and politics
of orthography around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Seifart, F. (2006). Orthography development. In J. Gippert, N.
Himmelmann, & U. Mosel (Eds.), Essentials of language
documentation (pp. 275–299). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Simons, G. F., & Lewis, P. (2013). The world’s languages in
crisis: A 20-year update. In E. Mihas, B. Perley, G. Rei-
Doval, & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Responses to language endan-
germent. In honor of Mickey Noonan (pp. 3–19). Studies in
Language Companion Series 142. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.