Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rmmm20

Understanding how language revitalisation works: a

realist synthesis

Brandon Wiltshire, Steven Bird & Rebecca Hardwick

To cite this article: Brandon Wiltshire, Steven Bird & Rebecca Hardwick (2024)
Understanding how language revitalisation works: a realist synthesis, Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 45:9, 3946-3962, DOI:
10.1080/01434632.2022.2134877
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2134877

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by

Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &
Francis Group

Published online: 25 Oct 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8653

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmm20
JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT 2024, VOL. 45, NO. 9, 3946–3962
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2134877

Understanding how language revitalisation works: a

realist synthesis
Brandon Wiltshire a, Steven Bird a and Rebecca Hardwick b
a b
Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia; Peninsula Medical School,
University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Indigenous communities, linguists, teachers, and language Received 7 February 2022
activists have been developing methods to revitalise Accepted 3 October 2022
endangered languages over several decades. Not only are
KEYWORDS
these methods diverse, they are usually implemented in Indigenous
various ways according to local needs and aspirations. languages;
Language revitalisation methods focus on proficiency, but wellbeing;
there is also interest in strengthening identity, resilience, decolonising
and wellbeing. Aside from a handful of successes, programs methods; realist
may not be achieving desired outcomes. One could try to review; Aboriginal
evaluate specific programs. However, we believe that a Australia
necessary first step is to examine published literature of
revitalisation efforts to develop initial understandings of how
they work. In particular, we seek to understand how
revitalisation efforts tap into the speech community, how
local participation affects outcomes, and how this
involvement is supported and sustained by external
programs, with a focus on language revitalisation efforts in
Australia. We conduct a realist synthesis, and through
analysis of 125 pieces of literature, we identify 13 initial
theories. In analysing these theories, we identify two major
gaps in our understanding of language revitalisation: how
revitalisation programs work to strengthen communities and

Introduction
Indigenous communities are increasingly engaging in efforts to strengthen their traditional
languages through language revitalisation strategies (Grenoble and Whaley 2021). In Australia,
these efforts began to flourish in the 1970s following decades of government policies and practices
that disrupted intergenerational language transmission (Gooda 2009; Walsh 2014). Discussions
around endangered languages have brought awareness of language loss but have not contributed
much to developing revitalisation methods (Grenoble and Whaley 2021) and little is known
about which strategies produce the best results (cf. Obiero 2010). Hebrew is still the most well-
known successful example of language revitalisation (Szul 2015). However, we know little about
the success of language revitalisation efforts of smaller Indigenous speech communities, such as
those in Australia.

CONTACT Brandon Wiltshire [email protected] Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University,

Darwin, NT 0909, Australia
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 3947

Language revitalisation literature tends to present what has been done and where it has been
done but lacks causal accounts for how and why specific outcomes are produced (cf. Obiero
2010). Even the most well-resourced, long-running language programs are not necessarily achiev-
ing the desired results (Roche 2020). Evaluations that focus on measuring language vitality reveal
that programs may not necessarily create new speakers (McIvor and Anisman 2018; O’Grady
2018). As a result, we have insufficient explanations for what outcomes programs produce, and
why their results vary (Bell 2013). Communities lack a principled basis for choosing from the wide
range of methods to use, given local contextual factors. In short, we need to develop theory on
what makes language revitalisation efforts work (cf. Obiero 2010).
In this paper, we analyse language revitalisation literature and build initial theory to shed light
on the role of speech communities in language revitalisation and how their role influences
outcomes of language programs. We view language revitalisation as community-level action, not
just a language- specific focus (cf. Leonard 2017). As this synthesis is part of a larger research
project based in Aus- tralia, our synthesis prioritises research that discusses Australian Indigenous
language programs and efforts. We do not claim these initial theories apply to all Indigenous
communities engaged in language revitalisation, but we expect that communities can adapt our
methods and findings to their own situations.

Language revitalisation
Language revitalisation covers a diverse range of informal efforts and formal programs from ‘top-
down’ to ‘bottom-up’ approaches, with various goals. In this section we map out the space in prep-
aration for a realist synthesis of what has been reported in the literature.

Language shift and revitalisation

All traditional Indigenous languages in Australia are at risk of language shift (Marmion, Obata,
and Troy 2014), a situation where people ‘abandon their original vernacular language in favour of
another’ (Kandler and Steele 2017, 1) until only the eldest generations speak it (Lewis and Simons
2016). Language shift is often linked to interrupted intergenerational language transmission (Fish-
man 2001), usually a consequence of discrimination, oppression, colonisation, and cultural geno-
cide (Hill 2002; Hinton, Huss, and Roche 2018b; Zuckermann 2020).
Language revitalisation is the process of reversing language shift by implementing methods to
strengthen the language (Fitzgerald 2021; Hinton 2001). Various terms are used, such as language
maintenance, reversing language shift, language reclamation, language revival, etc. We favour
language revitalisation, following Hinton, Huss, and Roche (2018b) who observe that this is the
most common term for all efforts to maintain or reverse declining language use. Similarly, we
follow Lewis and Simons (2016) in discussing ‘speech communities’, rather than ‘language
communities’, since it is the former who are connected by a sense of shared identity, shared
linguistic repertoire, and shared norms of language use.
Communities, language activists, teachers, and linguists employ a variety of revitalisation
methods including community language classes, language camps, language nests, language use in
formal and informal education, master-apprentice programs, and so on (Hinton 2001; Lewis and
Simons 2016). Some argue that this plethora of options results from there being no clear optimal
strategy, from limited understanding of how language revitalisation works, and from a lack of con-
sensus on how to evaluate programs (cf. Henderson, Rohloff, and Henderson 2014; Zuckermann
and Walsh 2011). Others have observed that success depends on community aspirations (Mufwene
2017), on new uptake of a language (Hinton 2010), and on adopting realistic goals (Lewis and
Simons 2016).
3948 B. WILTSHIRE ET AL.

Measuring success
The assumed aim of language revitalisation programs is to increase proficiency and create new
speakers (Fishman 2001; Hinton 2001; Szul 2015). Accounts of language revitalisation discuss
acquisition, motivation, difficulties in language learning, and attitudes towards language learning
(Bradley 2002, 2019; Lewis and Simons 2016; Olawsky 2013). Similarly, Target 16 of Australia’s
Closing the Gap strategy states the ultimate goal of Indigenous language efforts is to restart inter-
generational language transmission.
However, communities may define success as encompassing more than just fluency. Language
is a vital part of belonging to a community and drives cultural transmission (McIvor 2013).
Language programs have been shown to increase pride in the community, even if they do not
increase language proficiency (O’Grady 2018). Leonard argues that focusing on linguistic rather
than cul- tural outcomes is colonising, and that success might be tied to the ‘integration of
community needs and worldviews’ into language revitalisation efforts (Leonard 2017, 15).
In the National Indigenous Languages Survey 2014, Indigenous respondents stated that they
prioritised goals such as helping people connect with their language and culture, increasing aware-
ness of the language among the community, promoting the language to the general public, and
improving the wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Marmion, Obata, and
Troy 2014, 19–21). Similarly, Grenoble and Whaley (2021, 912) assert that language revitalisation
is ‘more about the empowerment of language users, or potential language users, than the language
per se’ and that it can be a mechanism to improve community health. The reality is that commu-
nities may be just as interested in extra-linguistic outcomes as language-specific goals.
While accepting the importance of language acquisition in language revitalisation, we go
further to explore the additional parts of the process that not only contribute to acquisition, but also
strengthen culture and wellbeing.
Indigenous Australian communities tend to be collectivist (Miller 2015). Therefore, this
research examines the literature through the lens of the speech community making shared
decisions, especially in the context of communities where the elders have final say on cultural and
linguistic matters. However, we also recognise that there may be individuals within speech
communities who have alternate aspirations (Fishman 2001).

Mapping the territory

Realist synthesis requires an initial model to guide the analysis (Luetsch, Rowett, and Twigg 2021;
Pawson 2006; Wong et al. 2013). In order to create an initial model, we browsed peer-reviewed
and grey literature on language revitalisation as well as reflected on our own experiences. We
consulted around 30 experts and stakeholders (roughly two-thirds were Indigenous and two-
thirds women)

Table 1. Elements of Indigenous language revitalisation programs.

Language Skills and training Funding Space and support
community The skills and training needed Money for programs, Physical space for
commitment to run a language participants, workers, language activities as
Motivation and commitment program provided by people resources, training, and well as organisational
from the speech community such as linguists and teachers physical spaces provided support
either through government
grants or other sources
Resources Goals and planning Getting language
Wider community Resources need for Goals matching the into the wider
recognition language activities such as aspirations of the community Moving
Acknowledgement from documentation, learning community and what the language from
people outside of the speech materials, elders, and language is achievable given learning
community of the importance speakers local circumstances environments into
of revitalising the language everyday use around the
community
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 3949

working in language revitalisation centres and programs around Australia. From this, we syn-
thesised an initial model of eight elements that language revitalisation activities supposedly require
(Table 1).
Table 1 is merely a list of concerns. There is nothing in it to show how these elements
contribute to the success of Indigenous language revitalisation programs, which elements are
essential versus optional, or which should be prioritised when resources are scarce. There is a need
to investigate programs on a deeper level to better understand how they function, drawing on
what we can learn from the literature. The aim is not to produce more lists, but to gain a better
understanding of how contextual factors enable underlying causes to produce outcomes. In
essence, we want to understand how language programs work, for whom, in what circumstances
and why.
While one could start by investigating a few programs in depth, we believe that it is more
helpful to first explore published accounts of revitalisation efforts and develop initial theories of
how such efforts work which can be refined through further research on the ground with
Indigenous commu- nities. To accomplish this, we conducted a realist synthesis of the literature.
We examine language revitalisation from the perspective of the indigenous speech community and
their role in this pro- cess and, in view of a decolonising agenda, we consider a more fundamental
question: What is the speech community’s role in language revitalisation? More specifically we
ask: how does their involvement influence outcomes and how can programs encourage and
sustain involvement from the speech community?

Methods
The realist approach to data analysis seeks to understand how programs work in particular settings
(Pawson and Tilley 1997) and to provide explanatory accounts of why programs produce outcomes
(Luetsch, Rowett, and Twigg 2021) through unpacking the inner workings of programs by
identify- ing how contextual factors or ‘context’ of programs trigger the underlying causes or
‘mechanisms’ to produce ‘outcomes’ (Dalkin et al. 2015). Realist synthesis is an iterative
approach that starts by constructing initial theories, analysing the literature to refine those theories,
returning to the litera- ture as needed, to produce a deeper understanding of how and why
programs achieve their outcomes.
According to realist thinking, ‘mechanisms’ are hidden causal processes which produce out-
comes and explain what it is about a program that ‘makes things happen’ (Pawson 2006, 23)
under the right circumstances (Dalkin et al. 2015). For example, we might notice an increase in
Indigenous student attendance during Indigenous language school programs. One could assume
that the program itself is the cause of the increased attendance. However, on closer examination,
we may find that it is the family connections between language teachers and students which motiv-
ates the students to attend more regularly, because seeing their relatives teaching makes students
feel proud. Here, the mechanism would be an increase in pride. In realist synthesis, the researcher
proposes mechanisms from the literature to explain how programs achieve outcomes, however,
there will always be a gap between the mechanisms proposed by researchers and the real mechan-
isms that cause change (Williams 2018).
‘Context’ is the circumstances or factors that affect whether a program’s mechanism
‘triggers’ (Pawson and Tilley 1997, Pawson 2006). Context can be anything that enables or
impedes program effectiveness (Greenhalgh and Manzano 2021). For example, the presence of
family mem- bers in language learning sessions might motivate students to participate more in the
session because they feel more comfortable with that familial support. Here, the context is the
presence of family members, which triggers a feeling of comfort in the students, encouraging them
to par- ticipate more.
The central units of analysis in realist inquiry are program theories (Dalkin et al. 2015). These
program theories, or hypotheses, are causal explanations about how, for whom, in what circum-
stances and to what extent a policy, program, strategy, or initiative is intended to work (Pawson
3950 B. WILTSHIRE ET AL.

and Tilley 1997). These theories are synthesised by looking at how certain contexts trigger mech-
anisms to produce outcomes. Policy makers or practitioners can use these causal explanations to
modify existing or future programs to produce desired outcomes (Wong et al. 2013). While realist
literature references program theory, the theories we propose here do not necessarily apply to a
specific program, e.g. the Master Apprentice Program, but instead a broader understanding of
language revitalisation efforts.

Initial theory building

We build initial theory for this review following the iterative steps to realist synthesis (Pawson et
al. 2005; Wong et al. 2013). After constructing an initial model (Table 1), the first author
conducted searches, selected articles, extracted and organised data, and synthesised findings, from
which we propose initial theories. Searching for primary studies is an iterative process guided by
the research questions, includes a wide range of literature, and is likely to be revisited as the
researchers find new information pertaining to the programs being investigated (Wong et al. 2013).
Using the eight elements identified in Table 1 as a guide, the first author conducted a broad
search to identify relevant literature, followed by smaller, targeted searches to build program
theory. This involved accessing databases such as Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts
(ProQuest) in tandem with forward and backward citation searching (cf. Luetsch, Rowett, and
Twigg 2021; Wong et al. 2013). Database search strings included ‘language revitalisation’,
‘Indigenous language programs’, and terms from the eight elements of the initial model. The first
author employed for- ward and backward citation searching especially in the identification of
studies with data on Aus- tralian programs and efforts. All papers were imported into Zotero for
screening (Corporation for Digital Scholarship 2017).
A realist synthesis ‘requires a series of judgments about the relevance and robustness of particu-
lar data for the purposes of answering a specific question’ (Wong et al. 2013, 10). In following
other realist syntheses, the first author screened titles, abstracts, and the full paper, if necessary, of
the identified literature and included only those articles which could help answer our research
ques- tions and develop program theory. Literature that discussed Australian language programs
was gen- erally included as contextual information is likely to offer relevant insights for this paper
and future research.

Data analysis
The first author conducted the coding process by importing selected literature into NVivo 12 (QSR
International Pty Ltd. 2018), reading all included articles, and coding segments that helped answer
the research questions using the initial model of Table 1 as a framework. The first round of coding
identified information relevant to the 8 elements and coded it into 8 corresponding codes in
NVivo. For example, he coded passages that discussed programs being driven by the community
into the ‘language community commitment’ code. The first author analysed the coding and
separated the broad initial 8 codes into 23 narrower codes across the domains. For example,
language community commitment was broken down into commitment, community driven,
awareness, and support and involvement. During the coding and analysis stage, the authors met
regularly to discuss the initial thoughts and categorisation of emerging codes. The first author
augmented the analysis with further literature searches as needed (cf. Luetsch, Rowett, and Twigg
2021; Wong et al. 2013).

Findings
After completing the screening process, the first author identified 125 pieces of literature from aca-
demic and grey literature (readers can find the full database of literature included in the synthesis
at https://bit.ly/wiltshire_et_al2022lit-database or by contacting the primary author), primarily
from
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 3951

Table 2. 13 Initial program theories.

Initial program theories IPT7: attitudes towards language varieties
IPT1: language awareness IPT8: language in use
IPT2: connecting to culture IPT9: feeling safe
IPT3: sense of belonging IPT10: community control of language
planning
IPT4: sharing stories IPT11: access to language
IPT5: elders are key IPT12: small steps
IPT6: language ecology IPT13: sufficient time

Australia, the United States, New Zealand, and Canada. As English is the main language in these
four countries, most research on the topic is likely to be in English (cf. Taylor et al. 2019).
Consider- ing the importance of contextual information in realist synthesis, having predominantly
English sources from four countries that are similar in their relationships to Indigenous peoples
and colo- nisation is relevant to a study based in Australia.
The literature that the searching process identified as relevant to our research questions spans
1989–2021, of which 103 articles were from 2010 or later. The first author conducted initial
searches in 2020 and iterative searches through 2021 as required. Given the relative lack of
explanatory accounts about how language revitalisation programs achieve their outcomes, we
propose initial theories (hypotheses) synthesised from available literature, which can then be
refined through further research with local speech communities in Australia. From the 125 papers,
we synthesised the literature and now propose 13 initial theories to address our research questions
(see Table 2). In the next section we discuss relevant points from the literature and present
theories we developed.

Initial program theories

IPT1: language awareness
To revitalise a language, the speech community needs to get involved, either through formal pro-
grams or informal efforts. Community awareness of language shift can motivate participation and
promote local agency (Budrikis 2021; Disbray et al. 2018). However, the community may not be
aware of language shift because when people hear the language spoken, even in limited circum-
stances, the community may feel a false sense of security (Bell 2013).
If awareness of language shift is key to getting people involved in language activities, then
language programs can increase participation by spreading awareness, a convenient feedback
loop. For example, Indigenous Australians have said that spreading awareness is one of the reasons
they engage in language activities (Marmion, Obata, and Troy 2014). Even a single person or
small group from the community can drive efforts and encourage others (Grenoble and Whaley
2006); ‘strong, charismatic leaders’ are a feature of many successful language programs (Fettes
1997, 313; cf. Amery and Buckskin 2012). Therefore, an early activity could be for an individual
or group of people in the speech community to spread awareness of language shift.
Initial Program Theory 1: Language revitalisation activities can help the community recognise language shift.
Highly motivated individuals or small groups can drive initial efforts that can raise community awareness.
Once the community is aware, they may be motivated to participate in language activities.

IPT2: connecting to community

Adult Indigenous language learners often have limited opportunities to hear the language (Disbray
et al. 2018). Sometimes, disconnection from community or culture may prevent people from using
their traditional language (Marmion, Obata, and Troy 2014). Motivation to participate in language
activities might also come from a desire to (re)connect with culture (Laginha and Mahboob 2018).
The Master-Apprentice model leverages this idea by trying to establish strong relationships
between elders and adult learners (Fettes 1997). For example, the Alutiiq Language Club (ALC)
program in
3952 B. WILTSHIRE ET AL.

Alaska, based on the Master-Apprentice model, creates opportunities for participants to connect
and learn from elders, opportunities which are rare outside the club (Bach 2014).
Moreover, learning language and culture from elders helped ALC participants strengthen relation-
ships. One participant stated that ALC is ‘exciting, contagious’ and it ‘creates greater group
cohesion, and fosters a family-like environment for learning’ while another participant stated that
ALC strengthens community relationships (Bach 2014, 89). Community members create bonds
through participating in ALC and interacting with elders, fostering previously absent generational
connec- tions: ‘the act of gathering, in and of itself, creates space and time to nurture the [ALC]
community’ (Bach 2014, 90). Getting more community members involved in language
revitalisation efforts can help rebuild communities through ‘individual and collective
remembering’ (Bell 2013, 402).
Initial Program Theory 2: In situations where community members feel disconnected from other people,
language activities that establish a communal environment to help people learn about language and culture,
as well as get to know each other, can strengthen community relationships. These strengthened relationships
can increase the amount of language exposure learners receive because they have more opportunities to inter-
act with speakers.

IPT3: sense of belonging

Family-like environments encourage participants to share culture, tradition, and language which
helps strengthen identity and facilitate healing from trauma associated with colonisation (Bach
2014). In these family-like environments there is a sense of belonging and of being cared for:
So I think that my attachment to the language movement is striving for that sense of family and that connec-
tion. And so, I do it because of that feeling that I get by feeling that I belong somewhere and that people care
about me (participant 8). (Bach 2014, 90)

Elders and other community members experience empowerment and healing through learning
about each other, which is facilitated by family-like environments (Bach 2014). Furthermore,
language activities create a sense of belonging through sharing language and culture (Jenni et al.
2017).
Initial Program Theory 3: If language activities provide family-like atmospheres that promote a sense of
belonging, where culture, tradition, and language are shared, then participants may experience healing and
pride because their identities are affirmed and strengthened.

IPT4: sharing stories

Sharing stories can contribute to strengthening community relationships and improving wellbeing.
People can process and heal from traumas while strengthening community connections through
sharing stories (McCaffery 2005), therefore, storytelling can be crucial to language revitalisation
(Fettes 1997). For sharing to achieve these outcomes, the process should be part of multigenera-
tional learning opportunities with elders, and include cultural teachings, histories, worldviews,
and perspectives of participants (Desmoulins, Oskineegish, and Jaggard 2019). Bach (2014) suggests
that elders contribute to community pride and healing by transmitting their knowledge of language
and culture. More generally, community members and participants in language activities enjoy
learning from elders (Bach 2014; Fettes 1997).
Initial Program Theory 4: Multi-generational learning opportunities that encourage elders to share stories and
knowledge strengthen community connections and improve wellbeing because participants enjoy learning
from elders.

IPT5: elders are key

While the existence of a next generation of speakers is key to intergenerational language trans-
mission, the involvement of elders in the revitalisation process is beneficial. Elders build
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 3953

relationships (Bach 2014) and improve community wellbeing (Jenni et al. 2017) through sharing
stories. By learning from elders, participants can connect to culture (Salmon et al. 2018) and
strengthen community relationships (Bach 2014). The Alutiiq Language Club provides opportu-
nities for people to interact with elders, which is what motivates some people to participate
(Bach 2014). Furthermore, elders can feel renewed pride through sharing their linguistic history
with the community (Bell 2013).
Initial Program Theory 5: Language activities that have opportunities for elders to share knowledge, experi-
ences, and stories can strengthen community relationships, wellbeing, and connection to culture because of
the satisfaction that community members receive from interacting with elders.

IPT6: language ecology

Language activities are more effective when based on an understanding of the local language ecol-
ogy, which includes the repertoire of language varieties and their domains of use (Lewis and
Simons 2016; Meakins 2010). Language activities need to consider how each generation is using
language (Bell 2013). People with varying levels of proficiency can still communicate, using even
limited language skills and mixing languages (Higgins 2019). In fact, immersion-based language
activities may impede existing language practices if they interfere with grassroots language
revitalisation practices and ultimately hinder language revitalisation efforts (Meakins 2010). This
means that pro- grams might need to legitimise local linguistic practices, such as language mixing,
and take care not to impose outside views that may valorise fluency, ancestral ways of speaking,
and language immer- sion (Higgins 2019; Meakins 2010; Thieberger 2002).
Initial Program Theory 6: If language revitalisation efforts do not consider the local language ecology, they
may discourage community participation because they do not align with community goals.

IPT7: attitudes towards language varieties

Revitalisation efforts may not reproduce the ancestral variety and purist attitudes can lead to unrea-
listic expectations for learners which might discourage language learning (Dorian 1994; Fettes
1997;
Zuckermann and Walsh 2011). Hinton states that
a belief [in] a goal where everyone in the community will speak Karok to each other again is unrealistic.
Language revitalisation in areas of language diversity and small populations is going to be very different
than for languages like Hebrew, Hawaiian and Maori. (Hinton 2015, 39:00m)

Communities may disagree about the authenticity of language (Hornsby 2019), making some
learners feel inadequate compared to native speakers (Higgins 2019) and discouraging younger
community members from speaking and learning (Bradley 2002). In one example, some commu-
nity members spoke less because they were afraid of making mistakes and felt ashamed of their
per- ceived lack of proficiency (Higgins 2019). For some multilingual Indigenous people who
make use of all linguistic resources available to them, debates about authentic language may not be
important (Higgins 2019). As Bell (2013, 408) observes:
Some of us share a strong desire to see our traditional languages survive in some way, even if it’s just in a
modified, reduced form, along with surviving adapted cultural practices, which we regard as critical to our
identity and distinctiveness as Aboriginal people.

Partial speakers, non-speakers, and learners may be the best candidates for revitalisation programs
due to their prior exposure to language and connection to the community, and alienating them can
harm revitalisation efforts (Davis 2016).
Initial Program Theory 7: If all language varieties used by the community are recognised as legitimate and
the community can use whatever variety they are comfortable with, then more people are more likely to
partici- pate in language learning activities, because they may be less afraid of judgement from others.
3954 B. WILTSHIRE ET AL.

IPT8: language in use

Active use strengthens languages (Marmion, Obata, and Troy 2014), re-establishing them as
living, working languages in families and communities (McIvor and Anisman 2018). Community
mem- bers need to learn the language, but they also need opportunities to use it (Hinton 2001;
Poetsch 2013). This means that a language with no uses will have no users and will not be
transmitted to the next generations (AIATSIS & FATSIL 2005; Lewis and Simons 2016).
Functions can be identified through the community selecting life-crucial bodies of knowledge
they want to preserve, then focussing on developing language to sustain that knowledge (Lewis
and Simons 2016). Lewis and Simons argue that associating language with highly valued
functions, such as ceremonial functions, will help sustain language use, because it shows the
usefulness and the value of the language as a community tool and marker of identity.
Initial Program Theory 8: If community members identify functions for the target language through selecting
life-crucial bodies of knowledge they would like to preserve, more people may be motivated to speak and
learn the language because the community assigns more value to the language.

IPT9: feeling safe

Spaces where people learn and use their language need to be designed in such a way as to ensure
community members feel safe. People may feel distressed when they are unable to speak their
ances- tral language (Simpson, Disbray, and O’Shannessy 2019). This distress, and related
emotions of shame, shyness, and lack of confidence (Higgins 2019; Jenni et al. 2017; McIvor
2020) may discou- rage people from learning and using the language (Marmion, Obata, and Troy
2014). The impor- tance of this point is underscored by studies in second language learning more
generally, where the emotional state of learners and their environment can negatively impact
learning outcomes (Gard- ner and Ciotti 2018; Krashen 1982). This point extends to interactions,
such as when a negative comment or a correction is discouraging or traumatic (Hinton 2011;
Johnson 2013).
Language activities need to provide a space for participants to learn without worrying about
mis- takes, which can improve confidence and reduce shame (Chrisp 2005). These spaces should
focus on communication rather than grammatical correctness, allowing participants to experience
suc- cess and build confidence (Amery 2018; Chrisp 2005; Gardner and Ciotti 2018). To help
partici- pants feel more comfortable, they might begin with isolated words and important names
(cf. Amery 2009), which can strengthen their identities (Fettes 1997; Walsh 2018).
Initial Program Theory 9: If learners have lower self-confidence or feel ashamed of their language abilities,
activities may need to provide a safe space where participants can learn and use the language without
criticism or fear of failure. This safe space can help communities overcome lack of confidence and shame
because par- ticipants feel safe and experience less anxiety.

IPT10: community control of language planning

The self-determination of a speech community, including the setting of goals and the design and
delivery of programs, is essential for the success and sustainability of language activities. Commu-
nities need to approve and have ownership of language activities (Marmion, Obata, and Troy
2014), and to be involved in planning those activities (Bach 2014), which can ensure they are
realistic (Obiero 2010), encouraging long term commitment (Lowe and Giacon 2019).
Communities should decide on their goals first and then employ language activities to target those
goals (Lewis and Simons 2016). This self-determination can help strengthen identity, language,
and culture (Laginha and Mahboob 2018). Additionally, each community has different needs and
strengths (Ash et al. 2010) and the community are best positioned to identify their needs and utilise
their strengths. Indi- genous Australians participate in language revitalisation first and foremost to
strengthen their con- nection to language and culture (Marmion, Obata, and Troy 2014) and these
extra-linguistic benefits can be just as valuable as increasing language proficiency (Johnson 2014).
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 3955

Initial Program Theory 10: If language planning happens at the local level with the community in control,
targeted goals may be more realistic, and the community may be more motivated to engage and sustain revi-
talisation efforts because the community has ownership of the process.

IPT11: access to language

Community autonomy includes determining who can access, use, teach, and speak the language.
Consequences of colonisation, such as loss of land and separation from family, leave the
possibility that the language is one remaining emblem of sovereignty not yet stolen from a
community (Olawsky 2010). There may be a concern that if outsiders learn to speak the language
before the community does, there may be a sense that the language is being stolen (Gale 2011).
Community control may also prevent outsiders from using the language incorrectly, as well as
ensuring that cul- tural protocols are respected (Newry and Palmer 2003) while enabling the
community to choose not only what knowledge is transmitted, but to whom it is transmitted (Lewis
and Simons 2016).
Initial Program Theory 11: If the speech community can decide who can learn and use the language, this may
help restore or strengthen a sense of authority over language and culture because the community feels in con-
trol of language efforts.

IPT12: small steps

Language revitalisation is a gradual, ongoing process which might start off slowly, progressing to
more ambitious goals as needed (Hinton, Huss, and Roche 2018a). Community members who
do not understand the process of second language acquisition may misjudge the time it takes to
learn language, creating unrealistic expectations (Chrisp 2005; Lewis and Simons 2016), which
can hinder language revitalisation efforts and discourage ongoing participation (Grenoble and
Whaley 2006). Therefore, efforts should aim to progress in stages with participants experiencing
success at each stage (Jolly 1995). Celebrating these small successes can encourage participation,
help bridge communities to the next challenge, and promote long-term success (Bell 2013;
Fishman 2001; Hinton, Huss, and Roche 2018a).
Initial Program Theory 12: If program goals are broken down into smaller, more visibly achievable segments
where participants can experience success at each stage, they may be more motivated to participate and work
towards larger goals because they feel a sense of achievement and pride in their abilities.

IPT13: sufficient time

The availability of community members to participate may be outside the control of a language
pro- gram (Bell 2013; Bowern 2017; McIvor 2015). As an example, the Miriwoong Master-
Apprentice Program initially suffered because participants found it difficult to fit the program
into their daily routines (Olawsky 2013). A counterargument is sometimes made that people
will make time if something is important, however, this argument comes from a position of
‘privilege of good job security and salary’ (Bowern 2017, e246). Furthermore, social issues such
as substance abuse and poor community health might result in language revitalisation efforts being
low priority for some, impacting the level of involvement from the community (Meakins 2010).
The scale of language revitalisation efforts needs to be adjusted depending on the time available.
For example, the Yawuru community teachers realised they were spending most of their time
preparing and deli- vering language programs to school children, leaving them limited time to
improve their own language skills. They decided to focus instead on strengthening the language
skills of a small group of key community members who could then use their language skills to
teach their language to the wider community (Disbray et al. 2018).
Initial Program Theory 13: If community members have competing responsibilities or other social issues that
limit their availability, language activities may suffer from lack of participation due to community members ’
not having enough spare time to participate.
3956 B. WILTSHIRE ET AL.

Discussion
We have presented 13 initial theories that address the speech community’s role in language revita-
lisation, looking at how their involvement influences outcomes and how programs can encourage
and sustain involvement. In this section, we explore connections between the theories and discuss
further nuances. We elaborate on how our proposed theories relate to commitment, strength, and
wellbeing. Finally, we discuss some limitations of this study.

Promoting commitment
Language revitalisation success may depend on encouraging and sustaining community involve-
ment. Here we look at program theories that shed light on how to promote speech community com-
mitment (see Table 3).
It is not only important for the community to be aware of language shift (IPT1), but for the
com- munity to have control over designing revitalisation efforts (IPT10), and who is involved
(IPT11). Commitment and motivation may be connected to the amount of autonomy a speech
community has over language work. Ensuring local control of language revitalisation can promote
long term commitment and sustainable efforts, in addition to delivering a range of outcomes such
as motiv- ation to participate, setting realistic goals, and having a stronger sense of authority over
their own language and culture (IPT10). This connects language revitalisation to decolonisation
through communities reclaiming sovereignty and self-determination (Eira 2007).
Recognising the validity of all language varieties that the community speaks (IPT6, IPT7) can
promote participation from more of the community and increase the effectiveness of efforts. Com-
munities can build on what they know, increasing confidence while learning at the same time,
which aligns with decolonising practices (Stebbins, Eira, and Couzens 2017).
Increasing fluency and numbers of speakers may take time. Smaller steps (IPT12), such as
teach- ing younger generations the traditional names of places, might be something that
communities can target, achieve, and celebrate in the short-term, while progressing towards long-
term goals. Such

Table 3. Initial program theories (hypotheses) relating to promoting commitment.

IPT1: language awareness Language revitalisation activities can help the community recognise language
shift.
Highly motivated individuals or small groups can drive initial efforts that can
raise community awareness. Once the community is aware, they may be
motivated to participate in language activities.
IPT6: language ecology If language revitalisation efforts do not consider the local language ecology,
they may
discourage community participation because they do not align with community goals.
IPT7: attitudes towards If all language varieties used by the community are recognised as legitimate
language varieties and the community can use whatever variety they are comfortable with, then
more people are more likely to participate in language learning activities,
because they may be less afraid of judgement from others.
IPT8: language in use If community members identify functions for the target language through
selecting life-
crucial bodies of knowledge they would like to preserve, more people
may be motivated to speak and learn the language because the community
assigns more value to the language.
IPT10: community control If language planning happens at the local level with the community in control,
of language planning targeted goals may be more realistic, and the community may be more
motivated to engage and sustain revitalisation efforts because the
community has ownership of the process.
IPT11: access to language If the speech community can decide who can learn and use the language, this
may help
restore or strengthen a sense of authority over language and culture because
the community feels in control of language efforts.
IPT12: small steps If program goals are broken down into smaller, more visibly achievable
segments where
participants can experience success at each stage, they may be more
motivated to participate and work towards larger goals because they feel a
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 3957
sense of achievement and pride in their abilities.
IPT13: sufficient time If community members have competing responsibilities or other social issues
that limit
their availability, language activities may suffer from lack of participation due to
community members’ not having enough spare time to participate.
3958 B. WILTSHIRE ET AL.

proximal goals could focus on highly valued language functions (IPT8). Motivation and commit-
ment to keeping languages strong is one part of the equation which may require prioritising and
balancing many facets of life; therefore, it is important to design language activities that consider
the social realities of the speech community (IPT13).

Strengthening communities
When we look across the remaining initial theories, we see a consistent theme of ‘strengthening
communities’ (see Table 4). This aligns with independent calls to rebuild relationships and
commu- nities as part of language revitalisation efforts (Fettes 1997).
When language programs create a family-like atmosphere for language activities, this strength-
ens identity and wellbeing through a feeling of belonging, which has been linked to positive health
outcomes (Caxaj and Gill 2017). Establishing communal environments that promote community
interaction can strengthen relationships and identity (IPT2, IPT3). The more the community inter-
acts, the more exposure to language they receive. This can include sharing stories (IPT4), which
helps people connect and heal from past traumas. The pleasure of interacting with elders can
encou- rage participation (IPT5). Prioritising effective communication over grammatical
correctness can help community members feel safe during language activities (IPT9) which can
increase self-esteem and self-confidence. While there are examples in the literature and even in our
initial theories about the importance of motivated individuals, here we see a community element:
community strength comes from inclusiveness, more than from policing authenticity and purity.

Language revitalisation from the community’s perspective

Of the two themes discussed, promoting commitment has been explored more in the literature, not
only in language maintenance and revitalisation (e.g. language attitude and vitality surveys) but
also more broadly through studies on motivation. However, we believe that the theme of
strengthening communities and its role in language revitalisation is under-theorised.
The work of strengthening communities can be connected to community health and wellbeing.
Wellbeing is generally theorised as a long-term benefit resulting from language work. Learning
language can make people feel good (Gale 2011), strengthen identity and confidence (Jenni et al.
2017) and help children find their identity, self-confidence, and pride (Laginha and Mahboob
2018). Language revitalisation efforts should be structured as one part of community wellbeing

Table 4. Initial program theories (hypotheses) relating to strengthening communities.

IPT2: connecting In situations where community members feel disconnected from other people, language
to culture activities that establish a communal environment to help people learn about language
and culture, as well as get to know each other, can strengthen community relationships.
These strengthened relationships can increase the amount of language exposure learners
receive because they have more opportunities to interact with speakers.
IPT3: sense of If language activities provide family-like atmospheres that promote a sense of
belonging belonging, where culture, tradition, and language are shared, then participants may
experience healing and pride because their identities are affirmed and strengthened.
IPT4: sharing stories Multi-generational learning opportunities that encourage elders to share stories and
knowledge strengthen community connections and improve wellbeing because
participants enjoy learning from elders.
IPT5: elders are key Language activities that have opportunities for elders to share knowledge, experiences,
and stories can strengthen community relationships, wellbeing, and connection to
culture because of the satisfaction that community members receive from
interacting with elders.
IPT9: feeling safe If learners have lower self-confidence or feel ashamed of their language abilities, activities
may need to provide a safe space where participants can learn and use the language
without criticism or fear of failure. This safe space can help communities overcome lack of
confidence and shame because participants feel safe and experience less anxiety.
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 3959

(Grenoble and Whaley 2021). However, to the best of our knowledge, language programs rarely
tar- get wellbeing alongside language proficiency in the short term.
Fettes (1997, 303–304, emphasis added) states ‘a theory of language renewal must begin with
the speakers, with people “doing language” together in meaningful ways and work out from
there’. We build on this position to propose that language revitalisation is not only a process of
sustaining language and culture, but of communities growing stronger. When communities
are stronger, they have better capacity to ensure that programs respond to their needs
(Chakraborty et al. 2021).

Some limitations
We have limited our focus to elements that helped us explore the role of the local speech commu-
nity. Of the eight elements identified in Table 1, we did not address program funding, wider com-
munity commitment, and getting the language into the wider community. Some aspects of the
other five elements are also not under local control, such as training for specialised skills that is
only avail- able outside the community. For many programs, resources are limited and focusing on
macro-level concerns, such as policy, can be less helpful for small, more disadvantaged languages
(Fishman 1991, 2001), such as those in Australia. Therefore, we focused on the role of the local
speech com- munity, rather than more ‘external’ components.
The initial theories were developed from the language revitalisation literature, and so any limit-
ations in that literature carry over. This would include the lack of evaluative evidence, and the lack
of clarity regarding to what degree Indigenous voices and experiences are reflected in the
literature. As stated earlier, we do not claim our findings apply to all language revitalisation
contexts, however, we expect that many of these initial theories are worth considering wherever
people are exploring how Indigenous language programs work, particularly in smaller speech
communities. Further work is needed to understand how language revitalisation works from the
perspective of the speech commu- nity themselves. There will be important aspects of theory that
we have not uncovered, and further research is needed on the ground, leading to refined theory and
a better understanding of the processes.

Conclusion
For several decades, communities, linguists, and language activists have designed programs to
maintain and revitalise indigenous languages. However, not much is known about what causes
these programs to be successful.
In this paper, we have identified initial theories that might lead to more successful revitalisation
efforts by investigating how the involvement of local communities influences language
revitalisation outcomes. We note that others have argued that existing language revitalisation
methods have not necessarily delivered desired results (Olawsky 2013; Roche 2020) and that there
is a need for a new conceptualisation of language revitalisation (Grenoble and Whaley 2021).
Based on our realist syn- thesis of the literature, we have proposed that language revitalisation
efforts need to include a focus on strengthening communities and promoting commitment. In other
words, two necessary con- texts for successful revitalisation are a strong community and a
committed community.
Two implications flow from this work. First, if strengthening communities and promoting com-
mitment are building blocks to more successful language revitalisation efforts, achieving them is
as important as increasing language proficiency. In cases where language programs are not
delivering desired results, addressing these factors may improve efforts.
Second, in addition to increasing language proficiency, the commissioning and evaluation of
language programs might expand its scope to explicitly include strengthening communities and
promoting commitment. Language activities might target an extended range of positive outcomes
such as creating opportunities for the community to spend time together. Language programs could
recognise and celebrate new milestones in building community strength. This, in turn, offers a for-
3960 B. WILTSHIRE ET AL.
mula for sustainability.
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 3961

In view of this, it is clear that language revitalisation is not a mere reversal of language loss, but
instead a new path forward that fosters more resilient Indigenous communities (cf. Budrikis 2021;
Leonard 2017). Our work in examining the literature and drawing out these initial theories lays a
foundation for new, community-based research to understand the dynamics of language revitalisa-
tion. Such research will continue unpacking the mechanisms of language revitalisation efforts,
shed- ding light on how mechanisms produce outcomes, and ensuring that program design takes
local aspirations seriously. The result, we hope, will be more effective programs for revitalising
languages and for promoting strong identity, resilience, and wellbeing.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship to the first author,
and by Australian Research Council [grant number DP210100228] Investing in Aboriginal Languages.

ORCID
Brandon Wiltshire http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1270-1907
Steven Bird http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3782-7733
Rebecca Hardwick http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2488-829X

References
Amery, R. 2009. “Kaurna Language Reclamation and the Formulaic Method.” In Language is Life: Proceedings of
the 11th Annual Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Conference (Vols. 10–13 June 2004, at University of
California at Berkeley. Report 14, Survey of California and other Indian Languages), edited by W. Y. Leonard,
and S. E. B. Gardner, 81–99.
Amery, R. 2018. “Revitalization of Kaurna.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization, edited by L.
Hinton, L. Huss, and G. Roche, 330–341. New York: Routledge.
Amery, R., and V. K. Buckskin. 2012. “Handing on the Teaching of Kaurna Language to Kaurna Youth.”
Australian Aboriginal Studies 2: 31–41.
Ash, A., P. Hooler, G. Williams, and K. Walker. 2010. “Maam ngawaala: Biindu ngaawa nyanggan bindaayili.
Language centres: Keeping language strong.” In Re-Awakening Languages: Theory and Practice in the
Revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous Languages, edited by J. Hobson, K. Lowe, S. Poetsch, and M. Walsh,
106–118. Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and Federation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Languages. 2005. National Indigenous Languages Survey Report 2005. Canberra: Dept. of
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.
Bach, M. J. 2014. “Community Space for Decolonization and Resistance: Kodiak Alutiiq Language Club
Participant Perspectives.” Master’s thesis, University of Alaska. In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Bell, J. 2013. “Language Attitudes and Language Revival/Survival.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 34 (4): 399–410.
Bowern, C. 2017. “Language Vitality: Theorizing Language Loss, Shift, and Reclamation (Response to Mufwene).”
Language 93 (4): e243–e253.
Bradley, D. 2002. “Language Attitudes: The Key Factor in Language Maintenance.” In Language Endangerment and
Language Maintenance, edited by D. Bradley, and M. Bradley, 1–10. New York: Routledge.
Bradley, D. 2019. “Resilience for Minority Languages.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Minority Languages and
Communities, edited by G. Hogan-Brun, and B. O’Rourke, 509–530. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Budrikis, A. 2021. “New Speakers’ Perspectives on Reinstating the Intergenerational Transmission of Endangered
Indigenous Languages in Western Australia.” Doctoral Thesis, The University of Western Australia.
Caxaj, C. S., and N. K. Gill. 2017. “Belonging and Mental Wellbeing Among a Rural Indian-Canadian Diaspora:
Navigating Tensions in Finding a Space of Our Own.” Qualitative Health Research 27 (8): 1119–1132.
Chakraborty, A., M. Daniel, N. J. Howard, A. Chong, N. Slavin, A. Brown, and M. Cargo. 2021. “Identifying
Environmental Determinants Relevant to Health and Wellbeing in Remote Australian Indigenous
3962 B. WILTSHIRE ET AL.

Communities: A Scoping Review of Grey Literature.” International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health 18 (8): 4167.
Chrisp, S. 2005. “Maori Intergenerational Language Transmission.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language
2005 (172): 149–181.
Corporation for Digital Scholarship. 2017. “Zotero (Version 5).” [Computer software]. https://www.zotero.org/
download/.
Dalkin, S. M., J. Greenhalgh, D. Jones, B. Cunningham, and M. Lhussier. 2015. “What’s in a Mechanism?
Development of a Key Concept in Realist Evaluation.” Implementation Science 10 (1): 49.
Davis, J. L. 2016. “Language Affiliation and Ethnolinguistic Identity in Chickasaw Language Revitalization.”
Language & Communication 47: 100–111.
Desmoulins, L., M. Oskineegish, and K. Jaggard. 2019. “Imagining University/Community Collaborations as Third
Spaces to Support Indigenous Language Revitalization.” Language and Literacy 21 (4): 45–67.
Disbray, S., C. Barker, A. Raghunathan, and F. Baisden. 2018. Global Lessons: Indigenous Languages and
Multilingualism in School Programs. First Languages Australia. https://www.firstlanguages.org.au/resources/
global-lessons.
Dorian, N. C. 1994. “Purism vs. Compromise in Language Revitalization and Language Revival.” Language in
Society 23 (4): 479–494.
Eira, C. 2007. “Addressing the Ground of Language Endangerment.” In Working Together for Endangered
Languages: Research Challenges and Social Impacts – Proceedings of Foundation for Endangered Languages
Conference xi, edi- ted by M. K. David, N. Ostler, and C. Dealwis, 82–98. Kuala Lumpur: Foundation for
Endangered Languages.
Fettes, M. 1997. “Stabilizing What? An Ecological Approach to Language Renewal.” In Teaching Indigenous
Languages, edited by J. Reyhner, 301–318. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.
Fishman, J. A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened
Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, J. A. 2001. “Why is it so Hard to Save a Threatened Language?” In Can Threatened Languages be
Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective, edited by J. A. Fishman, 1–22.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fitzgerald, C. M. 2021. “A Framework for Language Revitalization and Documentation.” Language 97 (1): e1–e11.
Gale, M.-A. 2011. “Rekindling Warm Embers: Teaching Aboriginal Languages in the Tertiary Sector.”
Australian
Review of Applied Linguistics 34 (3): 280–296.
Gardner, E., and S. Ciotti. 2018. “An Overview of Where are Your Keys? A Glimpse Inside the Technique
Toolbox.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization, edited by L. Hinton, L. Huss, and G. Roche,
137–145. New York: Routledge.
Gooda, M. 2009. “The Perilous State of Indigenous Languages in Australia.” In Social Justice Report 2009, 57–105.
Canberra: Australian Government.
Greenhalgh, J., and A. Manzano. 2021. “Understanding ‘Context’ in Realist Evaluation and Synthesis.” International
Journal of Social Research Methodology 25 (5): 583–595.
Grenoble, L. A., and L. J. Whaley. 2006. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Grenoble, L. A., and L. J. Whaley. 2021. “Toward a New Conceptualisation of Language Revitalisation.” Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 42 (10): 911–926.
Henderson, B., P. Rohloff, and R. Henderson. 2014. “More Than Words: Towards a Development-Based Approach
to Language Revitalization.” Language Documentation & Conservation 8: 75–91.
Higgins, C. 2019. “The Dynamics of Hawaiian Speakerhood in the Family.” International Journal of the Sociology
of Language 2019 (255): 45–72.
Hill, J. H. 2002. “Expert Rhetorics in Advocacy for Endangered Languages: Who is Listening, and What do They
Hear?” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12 (2): 119–133.
Hinton, L. 2001. “Language Revitalization: An Overview.” In The Green Book of Language Revitalization in
Practice, edited by L. Hinton, and K. Hale, 3–18. San Diego: Academic.
Hinton, L. 2010. “Language Revitalization in North America and the New Direction of Linguistics.” Transforming
Anthropology 18 (1): 35–41.
Hinton, L. 2011. “Revitalization of Endangered Languages.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered
Languages, edited by P. K. Austin, and J. Sallabank, 291–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hinton, L. 2015. What Counts as Success in Language Revitalization? https://ikblc.ubc.ca/leanne-hinton-2/.
Hinton, L., L. Huss, and G. Roche. 2018a. “Conclusion: What Works in Language Revitalization.” In The
Routledge
Handbook of Language Revitalization, edited by L. Hinton, L. Huss, and G. Roche, 495–502. New York:
Routledge. Hinton, L., L. Huss, and G. Roche. 2018b. “Introduction: Language Revitalization as a Growing Field of
Study and Practice.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization, edited by L. Hinton, L. Huss, and G.
Roche, xxi–
xxx. New York: Routledge.
Hornsby, M. 2019. “Positions and Stances in the Hierarchization of Breton Speakerhood.” Journal of Multilingual
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 3963
and
Multicultural Development 40 (5): 392–403.
3964 B. WILTSHIRE ET AL.

Jenni, B., A. Anisman, O. Mcivor, and P. Jacobs. 2017. “An Exploration of the Effects of Mentor-Apprentice
Programs on Mentors’ and Apprentices’ Wellbeing.” International Journal of Indigenous Health 12: 25–42.
Johnson, M. K. 2013. “n’łəqwcin (Clear Speech): 1,000 hours to Mid-Intermediate N’syilxcn Proficiency
(Indigenous Language, Syilx, Okanagan-Colville, n’qilxwcn, Interior Salish).” Doctoral dissertation,
University of British
Columbia.
Johnson, M. K. 2014. “ y a ʕ t̓m í n cqwəlqwilt nixw, u\l nixw, ul nixw, I Need to Speak More, and More, and More:
Okanagan-Colville (Interior Salish) Indigenous Second-Language Learners Share our Filmed Narratives.”
Language Documentation & Conservation 8: 136–167.
Jolly, L. 1995. “Waving a Tattered Banner? Aboriginal Language Revitalisation.” The Aboriginal Child at School 23
(3): 1–19.
Kandler, A., and J. Steele. 2017. “Modeling Language Shift.” Proc Natl Acad Sci 114 (19): 4851–4853.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Laginha, K.-J., and A. Mahboob. 2018. “You Can’t Just Rely on What You Know Now: Community Teachers’
Perspectives on Language Education in a Revitalization Context.” Ab-Original: Journal of Indigenous Studies
and First Nations’ and First Peoples’ Cultures 2 (1): 48–73.
Leonard, W. Y. 2017. “Producing Language Reclamation by Decolonising Language.” Language Documentation
and Description 14: 15–36.
Lewis, P., and G. Simons. 2016. Sustaining Language Use: Perspectives on Community-Based Language Development.
Dallas: SIL International.
Lowe, K., and J. Giacon. 2019. “Meeting Community Aspirations: The Current State of Aboriginal Language
Programs in NSW.” Babel 54 (1/2): 46–49.
Luetsch, K., D. Rowett, and M. J. Twigg. 2021. “A Realist Synthesis of Pharmacist-Conducted Medication Reviews
in Primary Care After Leaving Hospital: What Works for Whom and Why?” BMJ Quality & Safety 30: 418–430.
Marmion, D., K. Obata, and J. Troy. 2014. Community, Identity, Wellbeing: The Report of the Second National
Indigenous Languages Survey. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
Canberra.
McCaffery, J. 2005. “Using Transformative Models of Adult Literacy in Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding
Processes at Community Level: Examples from Guinea, Sierra Leone and Sudan.” Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education 35 (4): 443–462.
McIvor, O. 2013. “Protective Effects of Language Learning, Use and Culture on the Health and Wellbeing of
Indigenous People in Canada.” In FEL XVII: Endangered Languages Beyond Boundaries: Community
Connections, Collaborative Approaches and Cross-Disciplinary Research: Proceedings of the 17th FEL
Conference, edited by M. J. Norris, 123–131. Foundation for Endangered Languages, in association with the
University of Carleton, Ottawa, ON.
McIvor, O. 2015. “Adult Indigenous Language Learning in Western Canada: What is Holding us Back?” In Living
Our Languages: Papers from the 19th Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium, edited by K. A. Michel, P.
D. Walton, E. Bourassa, and J. Miller, 37–49. Ronkonkoma, NY: Linus Learning.
McIvor, O. 2020. “Indigenous Language Revitalization and Applied Linguistics: Parallel Histories, Shared Futures?”
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 40: 78–96.
McIvor, O., and A. Anisman. 2018. “Keeping Our Languages Alive: Strategies for Indigenous Language Revitalization
and Maintenance.” In Handbook of Cultural Security, edited by Y. Watanabe, 90–109. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Meakins, F. 2010. “The Importance of Understanding Language Ecologies for Revitalisation.” In Re-Awakening
Languages: Theory and Practice in the Revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous Languages, edited by J. Hobson,
K. Lowe, S. Poetsch, and M. Walsh, 225–239. Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Miller, K. 2015. “Balancing Individualism and Collectivism in an Australian Aboriginal Context.” In Balancing
Individualism and Collectivism: Social and Environmental Justice, edited by J. McIntyre-Mills, N. Romm, and
Y. Corcoran-Nantes, 199–209. Cham: Springer.
Mufwene, S. 2017. “Language Vitality: The Weak Theoretical Underpinnings of What Can be an Exciting Research
Area.” Language 93 (4): e202–e223.
Newry, D., and K. Palmer. 2003. “Whose Language is it Anyway?” In Rights to Restrict Access to Endangered
Languages: A North-East Kimberley Example, in Maintaining the Links: Language, Identity and the Land:
Proceedings of the Seventh Foundation for Endangered Languages Conference, Broome, WA, edited by J.
Blythe, and R. M. Brown, 101–106.
Obiero, O. J. 2010. “From Assessing Language Endangerment or Vitality to Creating and Evaluating Language
Revitalization Programmes.” Nordic Journal of African Studies 19 (4): 201–226.
O’Grady, W. 2018. “Assessing Language Revitalization: Methods and Priorities.” Annual Review of Linguistics 4: 317–
336.
Olawsky, K. J. 2010. “Going Public with Language: Involving the Wider Community in Language Revitalisation.” In
Re-Awakening Languages: Theory and Practice in the Revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous Languages, edited by
J. Hobson, K. Lowe, S. Poetsch, and M. Walsh, 75–83. Sydney: Sydney University Press.
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 3965

Olawsky, K. J. 2013. “The Master-Apprentice Language Learning Program Down Under: Experience and
Adaptation in an Australian Context.” Language Documentation & Conservation 7: 41–63.
Pawson, R. 2006. Evidence-Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London: Sage.
Pawson, R., T. Greenhalgh, G. Harvey, and K. Walshe. 2005. “Realist Review – A New Method of Systematic
Review Designed for Complex Policy Interventions.” Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 10 (Suppl. 1):
21–34.
Pawson, R., and N. Tilley. 1997. Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage.
Poetsch, S. 2013. “Communities, Linguists and Strengthening Indigenous Languages in Australia.” Studi Italiani di
linguistica teorica e applicata 42 (2): 271–293.
QSR International Pty Ltd. 2018. “NVivo (Version 12).” [Computer software]. https://www.qsrinternational.com/
nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home.
Roche, G. 2020. “Abandoning Endangered Languages: Ethical Loneliness, Language Oppression, and Social
Justice.”
American Anthropologist 122 (1): 164–169.
Salmon, M., K. Doery, P. Dance, J. Chapman, R. Gilbert, R. Williams, and R. Lovett. 2018. Defining the
Indefinable: Descriptors of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Cultures and Their Links to Health
and Wellbeing. Canberra: Australian National University.
Simpson, J., S. Disbray, and C. O’Shannessy. 2019. “Setting the Scene: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Languages Learning and Teaching.” Babel 54 (1/2): 7–10.
Stebbins, T. N., K. Eira, and V. L. Couzens. 2017. Living Languages and New Approaches to Language
Revitalisation Research. New York: Routledge.
Szul, R. 2015. “Only Hebrew? Conditions for Successful Revitalisation of Languages.” ALPPI Annual of Language
& Politics and Politics of Identity 9: 113–129.
Taylor, J. L., W. W. A. S. Council, A. Soro, P. Roe, and M. Brereton. 2019. “A Relational Approach to Designing
Social Technologies that Foster Use of the Kuku Yalanji Language.” Proceedings of the 31st Australian
Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction, 161–172.
Thieberger, N. 2002. “Extinction in Whose Terms? Which Parts of a Language Constitute a Target for Language
Maintenance Programmes?” In Language Endangerment and Language Maintenance, edited by D. Bradley, and
M. Bradley, 310–328. London: Routledge Curzon.
Walsh, M. 2014. “Indigenous Language Maintenance and Revitalisation.” In The Languages and Linguistics of
Australia, edited by H. Koch, and R. Nordlinger, 329–362. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Walsh, M. 2018. “Language is Like Food … .” In The Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization, edited by L.
Hinton, L. Huss, and G. Roche. New York: Routledge.
Williams, M. 2018. “Making up Mechanisms in Realist Research.” In Doing Realist Research, edited by N. Emmel,
J. Greenhalgh, A. Manzano, M. Monaghan, and S. Dalkin, 25–40. Sage. doi:10.4135/9781526451729
Wong, G., T. Greenhalgh, G. Westhorp, J. Buckingham, and R. Pawson. 2013. “RAMESES Publication Standards:
Realist Syntheses.” BMC Medicine 11 (1): 21.
Zuckermann, G. 2020. Revivalistics: From the Genesis of Israeli to Language Reclamation in Australia and Beyond.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Zuckermann, G., and M. Walsh. 2011. “Stop, Revive, Survive: Lessons from the Hebrew Revival Applicable to the
Reclamation, Maintenance and Empowerment of Aboriginal Languages and Cultures.” Australian Journal of
Linguistics 31 (1): 111–127.