December 4, 2017 4 Comments latl ITML3 Which factors can ensure or undermine the vitality of a minority language within a political bilingual or multilingual context? Iva Batusic, MA student in Bilingualism and Multilingualism Trinity Saint David, University of Wales CC BY 4.0 Cite as: Batusic, I. (2017, December). Which factors can ensure or undermine the vitality of a minority language within a political bilingual or multilingual context? Paper presented at the Third UC Intergenerational Transmission of Minority Languages Symposium: Challenges and Benefits. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5661658 SCROLL DOWN TO END OF PAGE FOR COMMENTS This discussion will focus primarily on language maintenance, shift, revitalisation or death and factors which keep the language alive or contribute to its possible death. The following theoretical frameworks of language revitalisation and their usefulness in the process of language planning will be investigated: framework of Giles, Bourhis and Taylor (1977) which incorporates status factors, demographic factors and institutional support factors, Fishman’s (1990, 1991) Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale for Threatened Languages, as well as other approaches of academics who have made a valuable contribution to this field of study. Fishman’s model of Reversing Language Shift has prioritised the transmission of a minority language in the family as a crucial foundation for its revival, which is also presented in the UNESCO Language Vitality and Endangerment document (2003) as Factor 1 in the process of language revitalisation. Keywords: Language maintenance, revitalisation, language planning, intergenerational transmission, societal bilingualism
