English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In much of his work on reversing language shift, Fishman cautioned those devoted to improving the sociolinguistic circumstances of regional, ethnic, and religious languages against a premature dependence on schools, especially schools controlled by speakers of the dominant societal language. He argued that efforts on behalf of minoritized languages that seek such recognition before intergenerational transmission has been established within the group frequently leads to intergroup conflict and to disillusionment. In this article, I draw from Fishman’s stated concern about the limitations of school effectiveness in connection with mother tongue transmission as put forth in his discussions of reversing language shift, but I problematize the notion of language maintenance and intergenerational transmission from the perspective of current theoretical shifts in the fields of sociolinguistics and applied linguistics. I focus on the dilemmas facing the implementation and design of heritage language teaching and assessment programs given the various mechanisms involved in  curricularizing  language: that is, in the process of treating language as if were an ordinary academic subject.

From language maintenance and intergenerational transmission to language survivance : will “heritage language” education help or hinder?