EGIDS - Revision history

Zachariah Yoder: /* Suggested Readings */ --Fixed a broken link

2014-05-01T20:14:32Z

Suggested Readings: --Fixed a broken link

Brian Paris at 05:44, 5 July 2011

2011-07-05T05:44:31Z

Brian Paris at 05:08, 5 July 2011

2011-07-05T05:08:59Z

Brian Paris at 04:57, 5 July 2011

2011-07-05T04:57:10Z

Brian Paris at 04:54, 5 July 2011

2011-07-05T04:54:22Z

Brian Paris at 04:49, 5 July 2011

2011-07-05T04:49:22Z

Brian Paris at 03:40, 4 July 2011

2011-07-04T03:40:56Z

Brian Paris at 01:56, 4 July 2011

2011-07-04T01:56:41Z

Brian Paris at 01:46, 4 July 2011

2011-07-04T01:46:11Z

Brian Paris at 23:46, 3 July 2011

2011-07-03T23:46:33Z

@@ Line 204: / Line 204: @@
 A 21st century perspective. Multilingual Matters Ltd: Clevedon, UK .
-Lewis, M. Paul, & Simons, Gary. F. (2010). Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman's GIDS. Romanian Review of Linguistics, 55(2), 103-120. [http://www.lingv.ro/resources/scm_images/RRL-02-2010-Lewis.pdf available online]
+Lewis, M. Paul, & Simons, Gary. F. (2010). Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman's GIDS. Romanian Review of Linguistics, 55(2), 103-120. [http://www-01.sil.org/~simonsg/preprint/EGIDS.pdf available online]
 Lewis, M. Paul., & Simons, Gary. F. (2010). Strategy Formulation Model for Language Development. Unpublished.

@@ Line 195: / Line 195: @@
 ==Suggested Readings==
-Brenzinger, M., A. Yamamoto, N. Aikawa, D. Koundiouba, A. Minasyan, A. Dwyer, C. Grinevald, M. Krauss, O. Miyaoka, O. Sakiyama, R. Smeets, O. Zepeda. 2003. Language vitality and endangerment. UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting on Endangered Languages: Paris.  [http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages available online]
+Brenzinger, M., A. Yamamoto, N. Aikawa, D. Koundiouba, A. Minasyan, A. Dwyer, C. Grinevald, M. Krauss, O. Miyaoka, O. Sakiyama, R. Smeets, O. Zepeda. 2003. Language vitality and endangerment. UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting on Endangered Languages: Paris.  [http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages Check out UNESCO's website for endangered languages]
 Cooper, Robert L. 1989. Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale==
-EGIDS is an expansion of Joshua Fishman's Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale. Fishman first introduced GIDS in his book ''Reversing Language Shift'' (1991). GIDS was designed with European languages in mind, especially Yiddish which is close to Fishman's heart. When GIDS was applied to languages outside of Europe, problems arose. Paul Lewis and Gary Simons took the task of expanding GIDS so that any language in the world could be scored using it, hence the ''Expanded'' Intergenerational Disruption Scale. Each level has a number and label, given in the table below.
+EGIDS is an expansion of Joshua Fishman's Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale. Fishman first introduced GIDS in his book ''Reversing Language Shift'' There are eight levels in GIDS, which distinguishes languages on the more vital side of things. When GIDS was applied to languages outside of Europe, problems arose. Paul Lewis and Gary Simons took the task of expanding GIDS so that any language in the world could be scored using it, hence the ''Expanded'' Intergenerational Disruption Scale. To do this they combined GIDS with UNESCO's six level scale (Brenzinger et. al. 2003). The UNESCO scale focused more on endangered languages labeling anything above a 6 on GIDS as "Safe". By combining the two scales, they came up with a 13 level scale that is rich enough in every category to score any language in the world. Each level has a number and label, given in the table below.
 ===EGIDS Table===
@@ Line 195: / Line 195: @@
 ==Suggested Readings==
 Cooper, Robert L. 1989. Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
@@ Line 202: / Line 204: @@
 A 21st century perspective. Multilingual Matters Ltd: Clevedon, UK .
-Lewis, M. Paul, & Simons, Gary. F. (2010). Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman's GIDS. Romanian Review of Linguistics, 55(2), 103-120 [http://www.lingv.ro/resources/scm_images/RRL-02-2010-Lewis.pdf available online]
+Lewis, M. Paul, & Simons, Gary. F. (2010). Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman's GIDS. Romanian Review of Linguistics, 55(2), 103-120. [http://www.lingv.ro/resources/scm_images/RRL-02-2010-Lewis.pdf available online]
 Lewis, M. Paul., & Simons, Gary. F. (2010). Strategy Formulation Model for Language Development. Unpublished.

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 *Sustainable Literacy: This corresponds to EGIDS level 4
-The idea is that a language is in a transitory state if it resides between these sustainable levels. It will either move up the scale toward a higher level of sustainability if active language development is occurring, or it will slide down the scale to a lower level of sustainability if there is no language development occurring. So if a language is a 6b, it is missing something crucial to keep up from the sustainable orality level of 6a. If something is not done to develop the language, it will never be a 61 and will in fact slide down to the sustainable identity level, EGIDS 9, eventually.
+The idea is that a language is in a transitory state if it resides between these sustainable levels. It will either move up the scale toward a higher level of sustainability if active language development is occurring, or it will slide down the scale to a lower level of sustainability if there is no language development occurring. So if a language is a 6b, it is missing something crucial to keep up from the sustainable orality level of 6a. If something is not done to develop the language, it will never be a 6a and will in fact slide down to the sustainable identity level, EGIDS 9, eventually.
 ===Sustainable History===

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 				|}
-from Lewis and Simons EGIDS (2010).
+from Lewis and Simons ''Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman's GIDS'' (2010).
 [[Category:Tools]]
@@ Line 192: / Line 192: @@
                                  | Descendants of the language community use the dominant language for all functions (oral and written).
 				|}
-from Lewis and Simons SFM (2010).
+from Lewis and Simons ''Strategy Formulation Model for Language Development'' (2010).
 ==Suggested Readings==
 Cooper, Robert L. 1989. Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
-Fishman, J. A. 1991. Reversing language shift. Multilingual Matters Ltd: Clevedon, UK.
+Fishman, Joshua. A. 1991. Reversing language shift. Multilingual Matters Ltd: Clevedon, UK.
-Lewis, M. P., & Simons, G. F. (2010). Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman's GIDS. Romanian Review of Linguistics, 55(2), 103-120 [http://www.lingv.ro/resources/scm_images/RRL-02-2010-Lewis.pdf available online]
+Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.). 2001. Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language shift, revisited:
-Lewis, M. P., & Simons, G. F. (2010). Strategy Formulation Model for Language Development. Unpublished.
+Lewis, M. Paul, & Simons, Gary. F. (2010). Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman's GIDS. Romanian Review of Linguistics, 55(2), 103-120 [http://www.lingv.ro/resources/scm_images/RRL-02-2010-Lewis.pdf available online]

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 				|}
-from Lewis, M. P., & Simons, G. F. (2010).
+from Lewis and Simons EGIDS (2010).
 [[Category:Tools]]
 ==Sustainable Use Model==
@@ Line 123: / Line 122: @@
 ====Positive Government====
 A government that is positive towards a language has a positive policy on the books, and backs it up, primarily with funding. Funding provides a language community with the possibility of sustainable literacy through institutionalized education in and of the language. A positive government can also help towards a high motivation to learn/use the language as well, but not necessarily.
 ===Distinct Niche===
@@ Line 189: / Line 191: @@
                                  | Descendants of the language community use the dominant language for all functions (oral and written).
 				|}
+from Lewis and Simons SFM (2010).
 ==Suggested Readings==
@@ Line 195: / Line 197: @@
 Lewis, M. P., & Simons, G. F. (2010). Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman's GIDS. Romanian Review of Linguistics, 55(2), 103-120 [http://www.lingv.ro/resources/scm_images/RRL-02-2010-Lewis.pdf available online]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:46, 4 July 2011
Line 128:		Line 128:

	In previous literature this was called 'Diglossic Norms'. Everything that was said of it applies here.		In previous literature this was called 'Diglossic Norms'. Everything that was said of it applies here.
		+
		+	===FAMED Conditions Applied to EGIDS===
		+	Using this table it should be a simple task to score a language after a survey in the FAMED conditions. Using the FAMED scores an overall EGIDS score can be assigned. Remember that in order to be at any of the sustainable levels in EGIDS, the score must be at or above the sustainable level in '''all''' FAMED conditions.
		+	{\|class=wikitable border=0 cellpadding=5
		+	\|-
		+	! align=left \| Level
		+	! align=left \| Function
		+	! align=left \| Acquisition
		+	! align=left \| Motivation
		+	! align=left \| External Environment
		+	! align=left \| Distinct Niche
		+	\|-
		+	\| '''4: Educational''' ''Sustainable Literacy''
		+	\| Adequate vernacular literature exists in every domain for which vernacular writing is desired.
		+	\| Vernacular literacy is being taught by trained teachers under the auspices of a sustainable institution.
		+	\| Members of the language community perceive the economic, social, religious, and identificational benefits of reading and writing in the local language.
		+	\| Official government policy calls for the cultivation of this language and cultural identity and the government has put this policy into practice by sanctioning an official orthography and using its educational institutions to transmit local language literacy.
		+	\| Members of the language community have a set of shared norms as to when to use the local language orally and in writing versus when to use a more dominant language.
		+	\|-
		+	\|'''5: Written'''
		+	\| Enough literature exists in some domains to exemplify the value of vernacular literacy.
		+	\| There are adequate materials to support vernacular literacy instruction and some members of the community are successfully using them to teach others to read and write the language.
		+	\| Some members of the language community perceive the benefits of reading and writing their local language, but the majority still do not.
		+	\| Official government policy encourages the development of this language. '''OR''' Official government policy has nothing to say about ethnolinguistic diversity or language development and thus raises no impediment to the use and development of this language.
		+	\| Members of the language community have a set of shared norms as to when to use the local language orally versus when to use a more dominant language, but for writing, some members of the language community use the local language in written form for particular functions while others use a more dominant language for many of the same functions.
		+	\|-
		+	\| '''6a: Vigorous''' ''Sustainable Orality''
		+	\| Adequate oral use exists in every domain for which oral use is desired (but there is no written use).
		+	\| There is full oral transmission of the vernacular language to all children in the home (literacy acquisition, if any, is in the second language).
		+	\| Members of the language community perceive the economic, social, religious, and identificational benefits of using their language orally, but they perceive no benefits in reading and writing it.
		+	\| Official government policy affirms the oral use of the language, but calls for this language to be left in its current state and not developed.
		+	\| Members of the language community have a set of shared norms as to when to use the local language orally versus when to use a more dominant language, but they never use the local language in written form.
		+	\|-
		+	\| '''6b: Threatened'''
		+	\| Adequate oral use exists for some domains for which oral use is desired (but not for all).
		+	\| The language is used orally within all generations but only some of the child-bearing generation are transmitting it to their children in the home.
		+	\| Members of the child-bearing generation perceive the benefit of using their language orally for some purposes, but for others find more benefit in shifting to a more dominant language.
		+	\| (as above)
		+	\| Some members of the child-bearing generation use the local language orally for functions that were traditionally reserved for the local language, while others use a more dominant language for many of the same functions.
		+	\|-
		+	\| '''7: Shifting''' '''8a: Moribund''' *'''8b: Nearly extinct'''
		+	\| There are entire generations that no longer have full oral use of the language.
		+	\| The only transmission of the languages is for identificational use (often in institutional settings rather than the home).
		+	\| The child-bearing generation finds no practical benefit in speaking the language, though they may still find sentimental benefit.
		+	\| (as above)
		+	\| (as above)
		+	\|-
		+	\| '''9: Dormant''' ''Sustainable Identity''
		+	\| Enough oral use exists to symbolize the identity of the group (but not for full communication). '''OR''' Adequate documentation of the language exists so that revitalization would be possible.
		+	\| (as above)
		+	\| Members of the language community have a strong sentimental attachment to their language, but are no longer able to speak it regularly.
		+	\| (as above)
		+	\| The only remaining domain of local language use is identificational.
		+	\|-
		+	\| '''10: Extinct''' ''Sustainable History''
		+	\| Enough documentation of the language exists to ensure the historical identity of the people.
		+	\| There is no transmission of the language.
		+	\| Descendants of the language community have abandoned all use of their heritage language and do not regret it.
		+	\| Official government policy is hostile toward ethnolinguistic diversity and calls for the elimination or suppression of this language.
		+	\| Descendants of the language community use the dominant language for all functions (oral and written).
		+	\|}
		+

	==Suggested Readings==		==Suggested Readings==

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 				|}
-from Lewis, M. P., & Simons, G. F. (2010). Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman's GIDS. Romanian Review of Linguistics, 55(2), 103-120 [http://www.lingv.ro/resources/scm_images/RRL-02-2010-Lewis.pdf available online]
+from Lewis, M. P., & Simons, G. F. (2010).
 [[Category:Tools]]
@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 ===Sustainable History===
-A language is at the level of sustainable history when there are no longer any speakers of the language (L1 or otherwise), but there is enough documentation and it is being stored in a way to make it retrievable. All FAMED conditions must be at a level 10 or higher. See [[REAP]]
+A language is at the level of sustainable history when there are no longer any speakers of the language (L1 or otherwise), but there is enough documentation and it is being stored in a way to make it retrievable. All FAMED conditions must be at a level 10 or higher.
 ===Sustainable Identity===
@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 *'''A'''cquisition
 *'''M'''otivation
-*'''E'''nvironment
+*'''E'''xternal Environment
 *'''D'''istinct Niche (formerly Diglossia)