| 000 | 00000nab a2200000 a 4500 |
|---|
| 001 | 40784 |
|---|
| 002 | 2 |
|---|
| 004 | 51340 |
|---|
| 005 | 202007220905 |
|---|
| 008 | 160819s2011 | a 000 0 eng d |
|---|
| 009 | 1 0 |
|---|
| 035 | [ ] |a 1456365596 |
|---|
| 039 | [ ] |a 20241125202830 |b idtocn |c 20200722090550 |d huongnt |y 20160819104529 |z khiembt |
|---|
| 041 | [ 0] |a eng |
|---|
| 100 | [ 1] |a Whaley, Lindsay J. |
|---|
| 245 | [1 0] |a Some ways to endanger an endangered language project / |c Lindsay J. Whaley |
|---|
| 260 | [ ] |c 2011 |
|---|
| 300 | [ ] |a p. 339-348 |
|---|
| 362 | [ 0] |a Vol. 25 (July 2011) |
|---|
| 520 | [ ] |a The success of programs that are focused on revitalizing an endangered language de¬pends on careful implementation. This paper examines four common mistakes that are made when linguists and anthropologists get involved with documenting endangered languages or participating in revitalization efforts: a failure to appreciate the complexity of the notion of ‘the community’; an overly simple understanding of the notion of ‘the language’; a neglect of the social dynamics and needs that underlie language use; and assuming too much control of the revitalization efforts. In the process of laying out these issues, a framework for how cultural outsiders can participate in an endangered language project will emerge. Fundamental to this framework is the recognition that language is a social practice, and as a consequence, working with an endangered language entails engagement with a range of complex, and often countervailing, social dynamics |
|---|
| 650 | [1 7] |a Ngôn ngữ |2 TVĐHHN. |
|---|
| 653 | [ ] |a Revitalization. |
|---|
| 653 | [ ] |a Standardization. |
|---|
| 653 | [ 0] |a Endangered language. |
|---|
| 653 | [0 ] |a Language documentation. |
|---|
| 773 | [ 0] |t Language and education |g 2011, Vol25, N.3 |
|---|
| 890 | [ ] |a 0 |b 0 |c 0 |d 0 |
|---|