Language & Communication 47 (2016) 94–99

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Language & Communication

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/langcom

Editorial

Language revitalization and the future of ethnolinguistic identity

This issue emerges from a panel that I organized for the 2013 Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Associ-
ation, which had as its conference theme “Future Publics, Current Engagements”. Language loss, reclamanation, and revi-
talization represent significant themes of contemporary linguistic and linguistic anthropological engagement with minority
and Indigenous peoples. In this issue, we raise questions about how these engagements are shaping the publics with whom
they are engaged, and specifically, call attention to the reconfiguration of ethnolinguistic identity in contexts not just of
endangerment, but of active efforts to combat it.
If the prediction of widespread language “extinction”1 – the oft-repeated claims that up to 90% of the world’s languages
will disappear within the next few generations (Krauss, 1992) – evokes a view of one possible future, then efforts aimed at
fighting against this prediction involve imagining, and working to create, an alternative one. In studies of language loss or
shift, the question of identity has played a central role in understanding the meaning of these experiences among the
Indigenous and minority populations affected (Battiste, 2000a; Heller and Duchene, 2007; Granadillo and Orcutt-Gachiri,
2011). The idea that languages constitute vital markers of identity, perhaps especially for marginalized peoples, has
become almost axiomatic, and the connection is invoked prominently in admonitions to contribute to efforts to “save” en-
dangered languages (Nettle and Romaine, 2000; Grenoble and Whaley, 2006; Evans, 2010). Despite this significance, the issue
of ethnolinguistic identity remains undertheorized, especially in work that responds to the challenges of language loss –
namely, in revitalization, revival, or reclamation projects. If these points of engagement represent opportunities to imagine
the identities of alternative, “future publics” of speakers and users of currently endangered languages, how are these publics
brought into being through the actions and activism grouped under the heading of revitalization?
The papers in this issue address how identities are being reconceptualized and transformed by the actors involved in
revitalization efforts, including anthropologists, policy-makers and public figures, speakers and learners, and even software
companies. The authors interrogate the ways revitalization practices intersect with the politics of authenticity in linguistic
communities, the implications of new linguistic and social contexts for language use, and the identification processes that
emerge in among learners of endangered languages. The ethnographic examples at the center of these discussions are drawn
from different language revitalization situations in the Americas, focusing primarily on Indigenous communities in the United
States, Guatemala, and Brazil, but also including an examination of diasporic heritage language revitalization efforts (Giles’
study of Irish immersion camps in Canada). While the papers describe a diverse range of languages, social environments, and
revitalization strategies, they all examine situations in which language use is overtly and powerfully politicized, and
demonstrate how those involved in revitalization activities work to transform understandings of the relationship between
language and identity.
Two broad thematic concerns characterize these papers. First, how do language and linguistic ability contribute to the
range of roles and identities that are open to different people, and what linguistic tools are at their disposal for improving
these roles and positions? This theme includes questions about how, given the prominence of discourses about the centrality
of language to minority and Indigenous identities, non-speakers position themselves and their identities in relation to their
communities (Davis), as well as the degrees of authenticity that are afforded to language-learners, including those who may
not be members of the ethnically-defined community (Giles). These concerns are further addressed in contexts in which
widespread multilingualism destabilizes the presumption of a binary between Indigenous and colonizing languages and
identities (Shulist). These questions of authenticity and identity also contribute to discussions about who is able to participate

1
The term “extinction” has itself been called into question as reifying an assumption of Indigenous languages and cultures as part of a static, unchanging
past (Leonard, 2011); its use here is intended to reiterate the extent to which it remains prevalent in linguistic discourses, rather than to reinforce the idea
itself.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.11.004
0271-5309/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Editorial / Language & Communication 47 (2016) 94–99 95

in different aspects of revitalization activities or political actions either within or on behalf of communities. In the second set
of thematic questions, authors examine how the domains and mediums for endangered language use themselves become
sites for contesting understandings of what identity should be, and how linguistic forms can or should represent different
identities. These range from considering the role of university classes in creating a community of practice (Weinberg & De
Korne), to how Indigenous hip hop artists reconfigure the symbolic attachments at work at multiple scales (local, national,
and global) in order to contest dominant discourses of unifying and homogenizing nationalism (Barrett). At the same time,
the entry of multinational corporations like Microsoft and Facebook into revitalization efforts creates new conditions of
commodification for the forms that are chosen (Romero). The central connecting idea running through these articles is that
the practices of revitalization involve consciously planning the makeup of the public that speaks, or will speak, these en-
dangered languages, with complex consequences on the ways in which identities are experienced and understood.

1. Identity, community, public

As a group, these papers revisit the central linguistic anthropological topic of how language use and linguistic forms shape
and reshape the identities of individuals and the constitution of communities and publics. Within linguistic anthropology and
sociolinguistics, it has been established through decades of research that, rather than a fixed psychological or social category,
identity is better understood as a category produced through discursive practice and in locally specific contexts (Bucholtz and
Hall, 2005). Similarly, neither languages and linguistic forms nor the indexed communities of their users can be understood
independently of the ideological work involved in their construction. As Gal and Woolard observe “the work of linguistic
representation produces not only individualized speakers and hearers as the agents of communication, but also larger,
imagined social groupings”, and “such representational processes are crucial aspects of power” (2001:1). The specific aspects
of identity that are most relevant in contexts of language loss and endangerment are expressions of nationalism or ethno-
linguisic categorization, which depend, ultimately, on both micro-level interactional features and on macro level dynamics of
power and ideology (Kroskrity and Field, 2009). In examining these multifaceted dynamics, the papers included here spe-
cifically demonstrate the ways in which tactics of intersubjectivity are at work (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005). That is to say,
relational principles of sameness vs difference, and the Bakhtinian forces through which they are enacted, establish both the
identifications that are being produced and the linguistic practices that determine inclusion or exclusion. The categories of
authentication and denaturalization, as well as of authorization and illegitimation, play a role in creating the fields within
which endangered language identities are expressed.
In these papers, several authors – notably Shulist, Davis, and Barrett – directly engage with the theoretical question of
what ethnolinguistic identity is in light of multilingualism and language loss/revitalization. In defining ethnolinguistic
identity, Silverstein observes that “people’s intuitions of social categoriality.construe language as constituting the basis for
the divisions among types of kinds of people, especially as people conceive languages to be the central and enabling vehicle or
channel of thought and culture” (2003:532). In that work, Silverstein raises questions about the nature of ethnolinguistic
identity in a context of globalization, change, and multilingualism, particularly as we observe consequences of the “suturing
together of language communities and the cultures that support them” (534). He further situates this discussion within the
“politics of recognition”, where certain “top-and-center folks”, themselves construed as outside of the paradigm of identity,
establish the political economic terms through which ethnolinguistic identities come to matter (535). The degree to which a
Herderian logic of connection between language and culture has come to be assumed (Bauman and Briggs, 2003) has created
a context in which people understand themselves to have an objectifiable language and culture, even if – as is often the case in
endangered language contexts – they do not speak the language that is “theirs” (537). The connection between the rise of
endangered language linguistics and a kind of “popular Whorfianism” that oversimplifies the relationship between language,
culture, and identity, has been widely recognized in linguistic anthropology (Fishman, 1982; Hill, 2002; Errington, 2003).
More careful consideration recognizes that in all cases (not just endangered language ones), ethnolinguistic identity is
complex – as John Joseph (2006:264) puts it, it involves “a complex interplay of construction and essentialism, in which
resistance and appropriation of essentialized identities are key processes”. In his description of linguistic identities as “double
edged swords”, then, he captures a point that is particularly potent in explicitly and highly politicized contexts like endan-
germent and revitalization, which bring these essentialisms and their meanings to their surface of metalinguistic discourses.

2. The politics of endangerment and endangered language communities

The context of endangerment, in which increasingly large numbers of people who identify as members of an ethnic group
are not speakers of the language(s) associated with that group, immediately disrupts assumptions about the nature of the link
between language and this form of identity, as well as of the construction of speech communities through the boundedness of
a shared variety (Ahlers, 2014). The work presented here productively engages with the ongoing conversations within lin-
guistic anthropology about the nature of “communities”, including through the deployment of concepts like “community of
practice” (Avineri and Kroskrity, 2014; Weinberg & De Korne, 2016). The ways in which communities are formed around and
through language varies and changes, especially where endangerment transforms the ideological and indexical connections
among multilingual practices. Revitalization actions introduce still more questions into the mix. In addition to ideologies of
purism or conceptualizations of cultural dynamism surrounding the language(s) themselves (Dorian, 1994; Hinton and
96 Editorial / Language & Communication 47 (2016) 94–99

Ahlers, 1999; Henze and Davis, 1999), practices of authentication and boundary making are indexically associated with
different types of speakers.
The relevance of this discussion of identity and community for situations of endangerment is highlighted by the fact that
two recent special issues of this journal (Swinehart and Graber, 2012; Avineri and Kroskrity, 2014) have addressed related
themes. The first of these brings together ideas about linguistic representation for particular “publics” and the increasing
prevalence of discourses of language endangerment applied primarily to Indigenous and non-state peoples. The authors of
those papers examine how the practices and discourses surrounding language endangerment, specifically in relation to
mediatized forms of the languages and the publics who access them, are adopted or transformed by responses to the rising
consciousness of language loss. In Avineri and Kroskrity’s (2014) more recent work, the authors examine how endangered
language contexts introduce complications to linguistic anthropological understandings of “communities”, and specifically
consider the types of practices and resources speakers (or non-speakers) deploy in acts of “boundary making”. As Aveneri and
Kroskrity point out in their introduction, the idea of “communities” has been a central point of discussion since the earliest
days of the discipline, but more recent theoretical interventions emphasize incorporating concepts of “communities of
practice” and examining how these communities are formed (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1992; Silverstein, 1998), or
investigating mediated and mediatized “communities” that do not necessarily share the same physical space (Appadurai,
1996; Eisenlohr, 2004; Agha, 2011). In their examinations of how acts of “boundary making” function within endangered
language contexts, the authors in that issue show how “endangered language communities construct themselves through
diverse ideological and interactional moves” (Avineri and Kroskrity, 2014:6).
The work presented here builds on these theoretical and ethnographic concerns in two ways. First, attention is drawn
specifically to the implications of practices of language revitalization rather than to processes of endangerment and shift.
While the former clearly takes place in response to the latter, as Shulist (2016) points out, they do not, in fact, function in
direct connection to each other. The impact of how revitalization has been introduced and implemented within a given
situation of endangerment brings a different lens than examination of how threats to a language have been created. This focal
point is also intended to respond, at least partially, to Swinehart and Graber’s (2012:96) contention that “language revital-
ization projects.often end up unreflectively reproducing the Enlightenment doctrine that cultural and social cohesion
universally depend on competence in a shared code, i.e., that language is culture”. In building on the productive linguistic
anthropological critiques of rhetorics of language loss, or “discourses of endangerment” (Hill, 2002; Errington, 2003; Heller
and Duchene, 2007), as well as of practices of language assessment and planning in relation to these concerns (Dobrin et al.,
2007), the articles collected here share a goal of applying that critical reflection directly to these types of projects.
The discussion of how the connections among language and identity are formed and reformed takes on additional
meanings in studies of efforts that respond to the challenges of language endangerment – namely, of revitalization, revival, or
reclamation projects. The intervention here is twofold – first, that language revitalization efforts, an important area of lin-
guistic and anthropological fieldwork, have only recently begun to receive critical anthropological attention2, and second,
that the specific topic of how these processes affect the construction of ethnolinguistic identities constitutes an important
area for attention. As Avinieri and Kroskrity (2014:1) provocatively suggest, endangered language communities have often
been presented as heterogeneous entities, when in fact endangerment itself creates the conditions for a range of diverse
positions among community members, specifically in relation to their ability to use the endangered language.
In this issue, we turn our attention to the related topic of how revitalization projects and programs introduced to
address language endangerment intersect with these practices of boundary making, community formation, and specif-
ically, the conflicting understandings of ethnolinguistic identity that emerge. As Meek (2011:46–7) points out, linguistic
anthropological work on questions of language loss has remained unidirectionally focused on “loss and domination” and
has been “less positively concerned with the sociolinguistic conditions of endangered languages or varieties in relation to
maintained elements and shifts toward growth and empowerment” (emphasis mine). The overall goal of this collection of
papers will be to present examples of some of the ways in which different types of language revitalization projects, in
different geographical and sociolinguistic environments, require the creative reformulation of community and individual
identities.
Responses to language loss or endangerment incorporate both linguistic action and sociopolitical activism focused on the
creation of new speakers, new roles for the languages, and new communities in which these speakers can gather to use them.
These practices revolve, at their core, around creative reimaginings of how the languages can or will be used in the future. On
the one hand, revitalization discourses draw on the importance of maintaining or reviving ‘traditional’ practices or knowledge
associated with the language (McCarty, 2003; Meek, 2007; Nicholas, 2009), while on the other, the need to bring the lan-
guages into new, ‘modern’ domains is also central to many revitalization projects (Hornberger and King, 1996; Luykx, 2004;
Eisenlohr, 2004; Moore and Hennessy, 2006). The practices involved bring to the surface a paradox that sits at the core of
revitalization movements in general, not just those focusing on language – while in many ways appearing to manifest the
desire to maintain or avoid change, in fact they demonstrate the ways in which interested actors work to control the direction
of cultural change. Although Anthony Wallace (1956) offers this definition in early anthropological work on the topic, the
increasing attention to revitalization within linguistic and linguistic anthropological circles often elides the necessary

2
See, for example, (Meek, 2011; Perley, 2011; Nevins, 2013; Debenport, 2014).
 Editorial / Language & Communication 47 (2016) 94–99 97

component of change in its analysis, especially as it relates to factors that are given a central place in the metadiscourses of
language activism – such as the connection between language and identity. The revitalization of an endangered Indigenous
language inevitably involves the assertion of identity in various ways for different audiences. At the same time, then, these
assertions of identity, and the articulation of a link between a particular speaker’s linguistic practices and the identity being
asserted, become open to scrutiny and judgment by these audiences. Assessments of the “authenticity” of such expressions
are based on many contextually-determined criteria, and those making these assertions are acutely aware of the stakes at
work, since political claims relating to Indigenous identities often hinge on the ability to effectively convince various audi-
ences not just of the validity of the claims, but of the identity itself (Fishman and García, 2010; Battiste, 2000b; Garcia, 2012).
With respect to language revitalization, the prototypical debates about authenticity revolve around assessments of the
language, including the question of how new terminology should be established, the implications of the use of new media or
new domains, and the ideological value of “purism” within a given community (Dorian, 1994; Eisenlohr, 2004; Jaffe, 2007).
Within linguistics, the documentation of endangered languages has become, for many scholars, an important form of
collaboration with Indigenous communities (Czaykowska-Higgins, 2009; Rice, 2009; Penfield et al. 2008); all too frequently,
however, researchers approach collaboration without calling into question in a significant way what constitutes the “com-
munity” itself, including fragmentations within them, and active processes through which they are formed and reformed
(Shulist, 2013). Ethnographic approaches, on the other hand, demonstrate that revitalization activism cannot simply insert
itself into a pre-existing community, but rather, in connection to local language ideologies, political structures, and re-
lationships among languages, involves creative strategies for creating new connections between people and ideas, and
indeed, for formulating the communities of speakers (Granadillo and Orcutt-Gachiri, 2011). Revitalization, by its nature,
changes the political economic conditions of belonging or not belonging to the community; the discursive practices that
differently situated people use to adapt to these new conditions, and to reformulate their identities in terms of them, then,
show the micro-level types of interactions that go into these establishments.
This work treats language revitalization efforts as a metacultural practice (Urban and Lee, 2001; McEwan-Fujita, 2011) that
responds to the situation of loss by taking up elements of the culture and making them “seem familiar and understandable
while also limiting the terms of the response” (McEwan-Fujita, 2011:49). As the papers in this issue demonstrate, the question
of how these links are established, contested, and re-established is one that requires examination of the relationship between
political and social processes occurring at multiple scales. The authors illustrate how revitalization itself is not a uniform
process, as it engages multiple actors and discourses simultaneously, and in doing so, invites re-examination of the meanings
of the identities being “protected” and the communities being strengthened. They do so by considering the experiences that
differently positioned individuals have to the changing politics of language use involved in revitalization programs and
practices. For example, Davis (2016) introduces the concept of “language affiliate” in order to illustrate how some members of
the Chickasaw nation place discursive emphasis on their proximity to the language (through familial relationships or
participation in language programs) even if they do not speak the language. In a context in which very few speakers remain,
the presence of revitalization programs has nonetheless shaped the re-emergence of identity categorizations in explicitly
ethnolinguistic terms. Similarly, Shulist (2016) demonstrates that, in the multilingual Northwest Amazon of Brazil, linguistic
ability has become a powerful way of marking Indigenous identities; the patterns of language shift, however, do not allow for
a neat mapping of a binary between “speakers” and “non-speakers”. Instead, a system of “graduated authenticity” emerges, in
which one’s ability to act as an authoritative member of specific Indigenous groups is directly connected to knowledge of
particular languages. The symbolic significance of each language for representing identity has been shaped by both local
cultural practices of exogamy and by the macro-politics of revitalization.
While both of these authors show the ways in which revitalization re-structures the political and social meaning of lin-
guistic knowledge for community members, Giles (2016) and Weinberg and De Korne (2016) each turn their attention to
language-learners who do not claim an identity-based connection to the endangered language community. Weinberg and De
Korne address the question of how new speakers of an endangered language – in this case, Lenape – are created in the process
of language learning. By orienting to the classroom as a community of practice, they highlight how participants in micro-level
aspects of revitalization projects are engaged not only in the acquisition of linguistic knowledge, but also in the formation of
speaker identities and in the negotiation of identity conflicts. Giles also approaches the language learning environment as a
community of practice, but instead focuses on the ways in which participation and membership is mediated by subjects’
ethnic identification with the language. His examination of Irish immersion camps in North America contrasts with the other
papers in this volume, all of which consider Indigenous communities in the Americas. The meanings associated with Irish
heritage identity, and with the Irish language as an ethnolinguistic marker, are both challenged and reinforced in the nar-
ratives of those participants who do not claim this identity. Both of these studies demonstrate how different participants’
involvement in revitalization activities is shaped by both their previous understandings of their own identities and by their
experiences with those activities.
The final two papers, by Romero (2016) and Barrett (2016) both concern Mayan revitalization, and both address articu-
lations between global and local meanings associated with identification practices. In Barrett’s analysis of Maya hip hop, he
points out that “language revitalization and hip hop are both global movements with profound effects on local un-
derstandings of identity” (in this volume). His work draws attention to the language used within Maya hip hop as a way of
challenging the binary between ladino and Maya identities in Guatemala, resulting in changing understandings not only of
the meaning of the Maya language, but also of Guatemalan identities. Romero offers a critical take on revitalizationist efforts
to challenge the binaries between “traditional” and “modern”, introducing questions about the impact of economic and
98 Editorial / Language & Communication 47 (2016) 94–99

corporate interests in the creation of Maya presence on social media platforms. In the conclusion to his paper, he emphasizes a
point that all of these authors allude to – subaltern communities use linguistic practices in creative ways to respond to the
ever-changing efforts of powerful actors to suppress their resistance to domination, with the ability to claim ownership and
authority over languages and the identities they represent serving as a battleground in these disputes.
Far from a homogenous set of situations, the contexts and sites of revitalization examined here include multilingual so-
cieties and identities, multi-ethnic communities of learners, mediatized spaces and globalized genres. They examine how
these particular social practices change the terms and conditions around what it means to be a member of a given community,
how different people take up or reject different components of identity-formation, and how these processes are embedded, at
their core, in relationships of power. Ideologies of identity cannot be disconnected from the economic and political capital
shifts that are part and parcel of the social, textual, and discursive practices taking place around revitalization; the papers here
critically engage with the objectification not only of the languages being targeted, but also of the identities that they come to
index.

References

Agha, Asif, 2011. Meet mediatization. Lang. Commun. 31 (3). Mediatized Communication in Complex Societies: 163–170.
Ahlers, Jocelyn C., 2014. Linguistic variation and time travel: barrier, or border-crossing? Lang. Commun. 38, 33–43.
Appadurai, Arjun, 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Avineri, Netta, Kroskrity, Paul V., 2014. On the (re-)production and representation of endangered language communities: social boundaries and temporal
borders. Lang. Commun. 38. Reconceptualizing Endangered Language Communities: Crossing Borders and Constructing Boundaries: 1–7.
Barrett, Rusty, 2016. Mayan language revitalization, hip hop, and ethnic identity in Guatemala. Lang. Commun. 47, 144–153.
Battiste, Marie, 2000a. Introduction: unfolding the lessons of colonialism. In: Battiste, Marie (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision. UBC Press,
Vancouver, pp. xvi–xxx.
Battiste, Marie, 2000b. Maintaining aboriginal identity, language and culture in modern society. In: Battiste, Marie (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and
Vision. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp. 192–208.
Bauman, Richard, Briggs, Charles L., 2003. Voices of Modernity: Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bucholtz, Mary, Hall, Kira, 2005. Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Stud. 7 (4/5), 585–614.
Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa, 2009. Research models, community engagement, and linguistic fieldwork: reflections on working within Canadian indigenous
communities. Lang. Doc. Conserv. 3 (1), 15–50.
Davis, Jenny, 2016. Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization. Lang. Commun. 47, 100–111.
Debenport, Erin, 2014. Fixing the Books: Secrecy, Literacy, and Perfectibility in Indigenous New Mexico. School for Advanced Research.
Dobrin, Lise M., Austin, Peter K., Nathan, David, 2007. Dying to be counted: the commodification of endangered languages in documentary linguistics. In:
Austin, Peter K., Bond, Oliver, Nathan, David (Eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory. SOAS, London.
Dorian, Nancy C., 1994. Purism vs. compromise in language revitalization and language revival. Lang. Soc. 23 (4), 479–494.
Eckert, Penelope, McConnell-Ginet, Sally, 1992. Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
21, 461–490.
Eisenlohr, Patrick, 2004. Language revitalization and new technologies: cultures of electronic mediation and the refiguring of communities. Annu. Rev.
Anthropol. 33, 21–45.
Errington, Joseph, 2003. Getting language rights: the rhetorics of language endangerment and loss. Am. Anthropol. 105 (4), 723–732.
Evans, Nicholas, 2010. Dying Words: Endangered Languages and What They Have to Tell Us. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK.
Fishman, Joshua A., 1982. Whorfianism of the third kind: ethnolinguistic diversity as a worldwide societal asset (The Whorfian hypothesis: varieties of
validation, confirmation, and disconfirmation II). Lang. Soc. 11 (01), 1–14.
Fishman, Joshua A., García, Ofelia, 2010. Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Oxford University Press.
Gal, Susan, Woolard, Kathryn A. (Eds.), 2001. Languages and Publics: The Making of Authority, first ed. Routledge, Manchester.
Garcia, Ofelia, 2012. Ethnic identity and language policy. In: Spolsky, Bernard (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 79–99.
Giles, Jonathan, 2016. “No it is a hobby for me”: Examining the motivations of non-Irish learners of the Irish language in North America. Lang. Commun. 47,
135–143.
Granadillo, Tania, Orcutt-Gachiri, Heidi A. (Eds.), 2011. Ethnographic Contributions to the Study of Endangered Languages. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
Grenoble, Lenore A., Whaley, Lindsay J., 2006. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Heller, Monica, Duchene, Alexandre, 2007. Discourses of Endangerment: Ideology and Interest in the Defence of Languages. Continuum, London.
Henze, Rosemary, Davis, Kathryn A., 1999. Introduction: authenticity and identity: lessons from indigenous language education. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 30 (1),
3–21.
Hill, Jane H., 2002. “Expert Rhetorics” in advocacy for endangered languages: who is listening, and what do they hear? J. Linguist. Anthropol. 12 (2), 119–133.
Hinton, Leanne, Ahlers, Jocelyn, 1999. The issue of “Authenticity” in California language restoration. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 30 (1), 56–67.
Hornberger, Nancy, King, Kendall A., 1996. Language revitalisation in the andes: can the schools reverse language shift? J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 17 (6),
427–441.
Jaffe, Alexandra, 2007. Corsican on the airwaves: media discourse in a context of minority language shift. In: Johnson, Sally, Ensslin, Astrid (Eds.), Language
in the Media: Representations, Identities, Ideologies. Continuum, London, pp. 149–172.
Joseph, John E., 2006. Linguistic identities: double-edged swords. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 30 (3), 261–267.
Krauss, Michael, 1992. The World’s languages in crisis. Language 68 (1), 4(7)–11.
Kroskrity, Paul V., Field, Margaret C., 2009. Native American Language Ideologies: Beliefs, Practices, and Struggles in Indian Country. University of Arizona
Press, Tucson.
Leonard, Wesley, 2011. Challenging “Extinction” through modern Miami language practices. Am. Indian Cult. Res. J. 35 (2), 135–160.
Luykx, Aurolyn, 2004. The future of Quechua and the Quechua of the future: language ideologies and language planning in Bolivia. Int. J. Sociol. Lang. 167
(1), 147–158.
McCarty, Teresa L., 2003. Revitalising indigenous languages in homogenising times. Comp. Educ. 39 (2), 147–163.
McEwan-Fujita, Emily, 2011. Language revitalization discourses as metaculture: Gaelic in Scotland from the 18th to 20th centuries. Lang. Commun. 31 (1),
48–62.
Meek, Barbra A., 2007. Respecting the language of elders: ideological shift and linguistic discontinuity in a Northern Athapascan community. J. Linguistic
Anthropol. 17 (1), 23–43.
Meek, Barbra A., 2011. We are our Language: An Ethnography of Language Revitalization in a Northern Athabaskan Community. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
Moore, Patrick, Hennessy, Kate, 2006. New technologies and contested ideologies: the Tagish firstvoices project. Am. Indian Q. 30 (1–2), 119–137.
 Editorial / Language & Communication 47 (2016) 94–99 99

Nettle, Daniel, Romaine, Suzanne, 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford University Press, New York.
Nevins, M. Eleanor, 2013. Lessons from Fort Apache: Beyond Language Endangerment and Maintenance. John Wiley & Sons.
Nicholas, Sheilah E., 2009. “I Live Hopi, I Just Don’t Speak It” – the critical intersection of language, culture, and identity in the lives of contemporary Hopi
youth. J. Lang. Identity, Educ. 8 (5), 321.
Penfield, Susan D., Serratos, Angelina, Tucker, Benjamin V., et al., 2008. Community collaborations: best practices for North American indigenous language
documentation. Int. J. Sociol. Lang. 191 (1), 187–202.
Perley, Bernard C., 2011. Defying Maliseet Language Death: Emergent Vitalities of Language, Culture, and Identity in Eastern Canada. U of Nebraska Press.
Rice, Keren, 2009. Must there be two solitudes? Language activists and linguists working together. In: Reyhner, Jon, Lockard, Louise (Eds.), Indigenous
Language Revitalization: Encouragement, Guidance, and Lessons Learned. Northern Arizona University Press, Flagstaff, AZ.
Romero, Sergio, 2016. Bill Gates speaks K’ichee!: The corporatization of linguistic revitalization in Guatemala. Lang. Commun. 47, 154–166.
Shulist, Sarah A., 2013. Collaborating on language: contrasting the theory and practice of collaboration in linguistics and anthropology. Collab. Anthropol. 6
(1), 1–29.
Shulist, Sarah, 2016. “Graduated authenticity”: Multilingualism, revitalization, and identity in the Northwest Amazon. Lang. Commun. 47, 112–123.
Silverstein, M., 1998. Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 27, 401–426.
Silverstein, Michael, 2003. The whens and wheres – as well as hows – of ethnolinguistic recognition. Public Cult. 15 (3), 531–557.
Swinehart, Karl F., Graber, Kathryn, 2012. Tongue-tied territories: languages and publics in Stateless nations. Lang. Commun. 32 (2). Languages and Publics
in Stateless Nations: 95–97.
Urban, Greg, Lee, Benjamin, 2001. Metaculture: How Culture Moves through the World. University of Minnesota Press.
Wallace, Anthony F.C., 1956. Revitalization movements. Am. Anthropol. 58 (2), 264–281.
Weinberg, Miranda, Haley, De Korne, 2016. Who Can speak Lenape in Pennsylvania? Authentication and language learning in an endangered language
community of practice. Lang. Commun. 47, 124–134.

Sarah Shulist
MacEwan University, Canada
E-mail address: shulists@macewan.ca

Available online 14 January 2016