On July 31, 1882, a boy was born in Jerusalem who had no name for what he was. His father, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, had arrived in the city the previous year with a plan that most people around him considered somewhere between quixotic and deranged: he would speak only Hebrew, raise his children in Hebrew, and in doing so resurrect a spoken vernacular after approximately 1,700 years in which the language had served for prayer and scholarship but not for groceries, arguments, or asking to stay up late.
The boy, Itamar Ben-Avi, grew up to be the first native Modern Hebrew speaker in recorded history. Hebrew is the one documented case of a language with no native speakers becoming a community’s mother tongue again: a language that ceased to function as a daily spoken tongue for roughly seventy generations, and is now the everyday language of the State of Israel and the mother tongue of millions.
If a dead language can be pulled back from 1,700 years of disuse, why are thousands of languages dying right now, while fluent speakers are still alive? What the Hebrew revival required makes the outlook for most dying languages look considerably worse.
The direction of travel
Papua New Guinea has approximately 840 living languages spoken by a population of around ten million — more than any other country on earth, and nearly 12% of the world’s total. Nobody is suppressing them: the PNG government runs no campaign against indigenous language use, and no colonial authority bans Huli, Kewa or Melpa.
Researchers who surveyed more than 6,000 secondary school students found speakers of 392 languages among them, nearly half of PNG’s total. About 91% of the students’ parents were fluent in their indigenous language. Among the students themselves, the figure was 58%. For the next generation of secondary students, the researchers’ model projects just 26%, and even across the whole next generation of young adults, only about half.
Their study traces that slide across three generations to ordinary pressures, none of them a ban: urbanization, cash-economy participation, mixed-language households (only 16% of which used indigenous languages at home, against 38% of same-language households), and formal schooling conducted in English.
School runs in English, with Tok Pisin as the lingua franca everywhere outside the classroom. In 2013 PNG dropped its decades-long experiment with indigenous-language early education and moved to an English-only plan.
Worldwide, more than 3,200 of the roughly 7,170 living languages, nearly half, are endangered. In Brazil, linguists estimate that more than 1,000 indigenous languages were spoken when the Portuguese arrived in 1500. The 2022 census, whose language results came out in 2025, recorded 295 still in use at home, yet only about 29% of Indigenous people aged two and over speak one at home. The pull runs through the same channels as in PNG: urbanization drawing communities into Portuguese-mediated cash economies, and schools where Portuguese is the language of instruction and advancement. At the far end of the scale, a language can come down to a single household: the Akuntsu of Rondônia numbered just three people in 2017.
In Siberia, Russia’s 2020–21 census counted 1,088 Kets, but only 61 of them said they speak the Ket language, and field linguists put the number of people who can speak it at no more than about 50, almost all of them older adults. Across the 40 peoples Russia officially lists as small-numbered indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East, almost every language is now endangered, most of them severely.
The pattern is identical across places whose political histories could hardly differ more: a post-colonial Pacific state, an independent South American republic, what remains of the Soviet sphere. Economic integration arrives; the dominant language follows the economy; children grow up making different calculations than their grandparents made.
The UNESCO endangerment scale
UNESCO grades languages on six levels: Safe (spoken by all generations, transmission uninterrupted), Vulnerable (most children speak it, though use may be restricted to certain domains), Definitely Endangered (children no longer learn it as mother tongue at home), Severely Endangered (spoken by grandparents; parents may understand but don't pass it to children), Critically Endangered (youngest speakers are grandparents or older, minimal transmission), and Extinct. UNESCO rates each language on its own transmission pattern, and the PNG figures are averages across hundreds of languages — but the direction is unmistakable: 91% parental fluency to 58% student fluency to a projected 26% is a slide down this scale, toward the grade where children no longer learn the language at home, within a single lifetime and without any language ban. The Expanded GIDS, used by Ethnologue, adds further granularity at both ends of the scale.What colonialism did
The objection forms immediately: colonialism created these economic conditions. The British empire, Spanish conquest and Soviet Russification were coercive restructurings of entire societies, designed to make indigenous people economically dependent on the colonizer’s language. That is true, but the objection points to the mechanism, which is economic; it does not rescue colonialism as a stand-alone explanation for what is happening now. The economic logic persists long after the political authority that created it has gone.
The Welsh case is the most instructive test. The Welsh Not, a wooden plaque hung around children’s necks as punishment for speaking Welsh in school and used through the mid-19th century, is the image that survives in cultural memory as the symbol of English language suppression. By the 1921 census, Welsh had approximately 37% of the population as speakers. The Welsh Not was long gone. Then came half a century of economic upheaval: depression and mass out-migration between the wars, then a postwar economy of English-speaking urban employment, English-language broadcasting and a welfare state administered in English. By 1971, Welsh had fallen to approximately 21% of Wales’s population. The language had survived the suppression and was nearly killed by economic change.
The decisive test is Ireland. British rule had already pushed Irish into retreat: by 1851, Irish speakers were down to 29% of the population in what is now the Republic. Then came independence. Ireland made Irish the first official language of the Republic, mandated it in schools, spent heavily on preservation in the Gaeltacht. The language continued to decline. Parents in the Gaeltacht, under no coercion, shifted toward English because English meant opportunity: within the Republic, and especially in emigration to Britain and America. The state wanted revival, but the economic logic hadn’t changed. As a home language, revival failed: in 2022 about 1.87 million people in the Republic said they could speak Irish, but only about 72,000 used it daily outside the education system.
Soviet policies in Siberia are the case of outright coercion: explicit Russification through boarding schools and forced settlement. These schools removed children from their communities for months or years at a stretch, so they became functionally fluent in Russian before they’d consolidated their native language at home. The suppression and the economic restructuring were entangled; coercion accelerated what economic pressure was already beginning to accomplish. But the fatal blow, as everywhere else, came when intergenerational transmission failed. Once children stopped being raised in the indigenous language at home, no degree of adult cultural attachment could restore natural transmission.
Ireland shows where the colonialism frame misidentifies the mechanism: remove colonial political authority entirely, replace it with a government committed to the language’s survival, and if the economic conditions don’t shift, the language still dies.
The threshold
In 1991 the sociolinguist Joshua Fishman introduced the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale, or GIDS. It runs from Stage 8, where a handful of elderly speakers remain and the language has no community function, down to Stage 1, where a language is fully operational across institutional life. The hinge is Stage 6: intergenerational transmission within the home and family.
Fishman’s central argument, now standard in the field, is that everything else is secondary if Stage 6 fails. A language can have official status, a literary canon, government subsidies, broadcast media, and university departments, and still die if parents don’t speak it to their children. The argument also runs the other way: a language with none of those things survives as long as grandmothers are speaking it to grandchildren in the kitchen.
The PNG data makes Stage 6 failure visible in real time. In the survey, 88% of the students who were fluent in an indigenous language said they intended to teach it to their own children. The intention is there, and the trajectory still runs from 91% to 58% to 26%. The gap between what people say they will do and what the economic logic produces opens up wherever the costs are lopsided: when the costs of not transmitting the dominant language are immediate and concrete (worse opportunities and a smaller world for your child) and the costs of not transmitting the indigenous language are diffuse and future-facing, the dominant language wins.
The threshold is crossed in an accumulation of ordinary mornings. Someone switches to Tok Pisin or English because this particular conversation requires it, then the next, and the children grow up mostly in one language and partially in another, and by the time the following generation arrives the other tongue has become a heritage artifact rather than a mother tongue. The moment a language loses its last generation of fluent adults who could teach it to children, natural transmission ends. Children acquire a language from fluent speakers; once those speakers are gone, any comeback has to be rebuilt from texts, recordings and adult learners, which is the slow, rare route the Wampanoag of Massachusetts are attempting today. Even Hebrew had more to work with: it had lost its native speakers, but never its readers, scholars and learned speakers. What makes this particularly hard to address is that the threshold is almost impossible to perceive in real time, even for the last generation of fluent adults. The decisions accumulate silently and only become legible in retrospect, when the generation that might have acted is already past the window where it was possible.
Fishman's Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS)
Stage 8: The only remaining speakers are elderly members of the grandparent generation. Stage 7: An active adult community still speaks the language, but it is no longer passed on to children; this is the last window for intervention. Stage 6: Intergenerational transmission within home and community: the critical threshold. Stage 5: The language is also written and read within the community. Stage 4: The language is used in children's schooling, so literacy passes through education. Stage 3: Used for local and regional work, including with outsiders. Stage 2: Used in local and regional government services and mass media. Stage 1: Full use at the national level in higher education, work, government and national media. Fishman's prescription: secure Stage 6 before attempting Stage 1 interventions. The Expanded GIDS (EGIDS), now used by Ethnologue, splits Stages 6 and 8 and adds levels at both ends: 0 (International) at the top, 9 (Dormant) and 10 (Extinct) at the bottom.The three that pushed back
Ben-Yehuda understood Stage 6 instinctively, decades before Fishman named it. His solution was to start there, with the Hebrew-speaking household from which everything else would have to grow, and then work outward to create the social and institutional context that would make more such households possible, then necessary. The Language Committee (Va’ad HaLashon), founded in 1890, standardized vocabulary and coined terms for modern objects and concepts.
The method was to engineer conditions under which Hebrew was the only viable option. The Yishuv, the pre-state Jewish community assembling in Palestine, drew immigrants speaking Yiddish, Ladino, Arabic, Russian, and Polish, with no common vernacular. Hebrew was the only language that could function as a shared tongue for this specific community in this specific place, so its economic usefulness wasn’t argued for; the situation itself manufactured it. By 1922, the British Mandate recognized Hebrew as one of three official languages of Palestine. By 1948, it was the primary language of the new Israeli state.
The Yiddish question
The Hebrew revival was historically contingent in ways the standard account tends to suppress. At the founding of the Yishuv, Yiddish had more speakers than Hebrew and a rich modern literary culture; Isaac Bashevis Singer would win the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1978 for work written in it. Inside the Yishuv, Hebrew had won the decisive skirmish early, in the 1913–14 "War of the Languages" over teaching at the new Technion, and the British Mandate made it an official language in 1922. But across the wider Jewish world, Yiddish remained the far larger language right up to the Second World War. The Holocaust, which murdered some six million Jews, destroyed the Yiddish-speaking heartland of Eastern Europe, and with it the demographic reservoir that had kept Yiddish a serious rival. The revival's conditions included the erasure of the most plausible competitor, which complicates the idea that it is a cleanly replicable model.Welsh and Māori achieved something more modest. Starting from more than half a million speakers for Welsh and a far narrower speaker community for Māori, they slowed the collapse and built conditions under which stabilization might eventually hold.
Welsh had been declining for decades, from half the population in 1901 to approximately 37% by the 1921 census. By the 1970s the trajectory was unambiguous. The response came in waves: S4C, the Welsh-language television channel, in 1982; the Education Reform Act 1988 making Welsh a core subject in Welsh-medium schools; the Welsh Language Act 1993 requiring public bodies to treat Welsh and English on a basis of equality; the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 giving Welsh official status in Wales and establishing enforceable standards for public-service use. As of January 2026, Welsh-medium schools teach about one pupil in five, and a further 6% attend dual-language schools. The 2021 census counted about 538,000 Welsh speakers, 17.8% of the population, down from 19% in 2011. The Welsh government’s target is one million speakers by 2050.
Welsh is in managed decline. The intervention has slowed the rate of loss; it hasn’t reversed it. What Welsh had that most dying languages don’t: half a million speakers, territorial identity, UK Parliament-level political infrastructure, and Welsh-medium institutions that need Welsh speakers to function.
The Māori case arrived at the same crossroads through different political architecture and with a narrower window. The kōhanga reo (“language nest”) movement in New Zealand began in 1982 with a specific and time-limited logic: there were still fluent kaumātua (elders) available to staff total-immersion programs for infants, and a decade later they would have been gone. Five founding locations expanded to more than 300 within three years.
Te reo Māori was recognized as an official language of New Zealand under the Māori Language Act 1987. In 2018 almost half of Māori adults (48%) said they could speak more than a few words or phrases of te reo Māori, down from 55% in 2013. Among all New Zealanders, 7.9% spoke it at least fairly well in 2021, up from 6.1% in 2018.
Why the model doesn’t travel
Of the three cases, one is a complete vernacular resurrection and two are managed declines that may be stabilizing. Each depended on conditions that most of the world’s 3,200-plus endangered languages don’t have:
State-level institutional power. The Zionist movement operated at the scale of a state-in-formation. Welsh had the UK Parliament, the Senedd (until 2020 the National Assembly for Wales), devolved government with real budgets and legislative authority. Māori had the Treaty of Waitangi and its tribunal: in the mid-1980s the Waitangi Tribunal upheld a claim that te reo is a taonga (treasure) the Crown is obliged to protect, and official-language status followed in 1987. A language with 200 speakers in a PNG highland village has none of this. Without institutional support, even students who intend to transmit their indigenous language will raise their children in Tok Pisin and English anyway — because English is what the schools teach, and the two of them are what the economy operates in and what the media speaks.
A critical mass of fluent adult speakers still alive when the intervention starts. Every revival required them. Ben-Yehuda’s generation had studied Hebrew textually and could speak it functionally. Welsh in the 1980s still had hundreds of thousands of fluent adults who could teach, broadcast, and staff institutions. The kōhanga reo worked because fluent kaumātua were still available in 1982. For the hundreds of languages now at Stage 8 of Fishman’s scale, where the only speakers left are elderly, that window is all but closed; at Stage 7 it is closing fast. Once the last fluent elders are gone, there is no one to staff an immersion nest. Documentation remains possible — and it is what makes any later reclamation possible: Wampanoag, unspoken since the mid-nineteenth century, is being rebuilt from archival texts. But that is a project measured in generations, not a rescue, and confusing the two sets expectations no program can meet.
An economic argument that operates in daily life. Hebrew speakers in the early Yishuv couldn’t function without Hebrew, the only language their colleagues shared. Welsh speakers in Wales exist in a market where some employers require Welsh, particularly in public service and Welsh-medium education, and where Welsh identity carries real institutional weight. Māori has been embedded in New Zealand government services, media, and schooling. The cultural argument for a language’s survival, that it carries irreplaceable knowledge and embodies a unique way of making sense of the world, is true. It has never, in any documented case, reversed language shift at scale on its own. The argument speaks to guilt and conscience, to linguists and policymakers. The people who make the transmission decision are parents calculating what language will give their child a viable future, and they can see that future clearly.
The PNG data shows the slide plainly: 91% to 58% to a projected 26% over three generations, in a country where the state is not hostile to indigenous languages, communities say they want to preserve them, and 88% of fluent students said they intended to pass them on.
The mechanism proceeds regardless, because it is economic and needs no hostility or malice to operate. For most of the world’s 3,200-plus endangered languages, the conditions for revival do not exist and will not exist.
Somewhere right now, a fluent speaker of a language with two hundred remaining speakers is talking to a grandchild in the dominant regional tongue. She was not told to, and she has not forgotten her own language. She loves the grandchild, and the grandchild’s future is going to require the dominant tongue.
No ceremony or formal decision marks the moment. The language just doesn’t get passed down in this household one morning, or the next, and eventually the window closes. When it does, rescue is off the table, because no fluent speakers are left who could staff the school or be the grandmother in the kitchen.
The survey’s projection, 26% for the generation after the students surveyed, marks how far that threshold process is on course to carry entire linguistic communities, even where 88% of fluent young speakers said they’d pass the language on.
Hebrew was pulled back. For most of the languages dying now, the conditions that made even the partial recoveries of Welsh and Māori achievable are already foreclosed. What remains is documentation, and most of what is being lost will not come back.
Gen AI Disclaimer
Some contents of this page were generated and/or edited with the help of a Generative AI.
Media
Square Jehan-Rictus with the plaque with je t’aime = eu te iubesc in 311 laguages – Wikipedia
Key Sources and References
Kik, Alfred, et al., “Language and Ethnobiological Skills Decline Precipitously in Papua New Guinea, the World’s Most Linguistically Diverse Nation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(22): e2100096118, 2021. doi:10.1073/pnas.2100096118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8179190/
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons and Alison J. Robinson (eds.), Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 29th edition, SIL Global, Dallas, 2026 (“How many languages are endangered?” and “How many languages are there in the world?”, archived copies; Papua New Guinea country profile). https://web.archive.org/web/20261004182755/https://www.ethnologue.com/insights/how-many-languages-endangered/ · https://web.archive.org/web/20260822154558/https://www.ethnologue.com/insights/how-many-languages/ · https://web.archive.org/web/20251113131005/https://www.ethnologue.com/country/PG/
UNESCO, Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, 3rd edition, UNESCO Publishing, Paris, 2010 (archived online edition). https://web.archive.org/web/20170103131252/http://www.unesco.org/languages-atlas/
Lewis, M. Paul and Gary F. Simons, “Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS,” Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 55(2): 103–120, 2010. https://www.lingv.ro/RRL%202%202010%20art01Lewis.pdf
Fishman, Joshua A., Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, 1991. doi:10.21832/9781800418097. https://api.crossref.org/works/10.21832/9781800418097
Reshef, Yael, “Revival of Hebrew: Sociolinguistic Dimension,” in Khan, G. et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2013, vol. 3, pp. 408–415. https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1163/2212-4241_ehll_ehll_com_00000703
Zuckermann, Ghil’ad, Revivalistics: From the Genesis of Israeli to Language Reclamation in Australia and Beyond, Oxford University Press, New York, 2020. doi:10.1093/oso/9780199812776.001.0001. https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093/oso/9780199812776.001.0001
Encyclopaedia Judaica, “Hebrew Language” and “Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer,” via Encyclopedia.com. https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hebrew-language-0 · https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/ben-yehuda-eliezer
Harshav, Benjamin, Language in Time of Revolution, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520079588.001.0001
Haifa City Museum, “War of the Languages: Founding of the Technion/Technikum”; The Palestine Mandate (1922), Art. 22, Avalon Project, Yale Law School. https://www.hcm.org.il/eng/Exhibitions/432/War_of_the_Languages:_Founding_of_the_Technion%7Cfs%7CTechnikum · https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Documenting Numbers of Victims of the Holocaust and Nazi Persecution,” Holocaust Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística), Censo Demográfico 2022: Etnias e línguas indígenas, IBGE, Rio de Janeiro, 2025, as reported in “IBGE: 391 etnias indígenas falam 295 línguas no Brasil,” InfoMoney, October 24, 2025; IBGE results presentation. https://www.infomoney.com.br/?p=3075920 · https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/media/com_mediaibge/arquivos/b585c49fcba7fa962e3d5b3344aa7f78.pdf
Instituto Socioambiental, “Akuntsu,” Povos Indígenas no Brasil. https://pib.socioambiental.org/en/Povo:Akuntsu
Russian Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat), All-Russian Population Census 2020 (conducted 2021); census data on Ket as compiled in the Atlas of the Languages of Indigenous Minorities of Russia (atlaskmns.ru). https://atlaskmns.ru/page/en/lang_kety_all.html
Government of the Russian Federation, Order No. 536-r of 17 April 2006 (list of small-numbered indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East), as amended. https://legalacts.ru/doc/rasporjazhenie-pravitelstva-rf-ot-17042006-n-536-r/
Kozhemyakina, V. A., T. I. Retinskaya and S. V. Kirilenko, “Indigenous Languages of the North, Siberia and the Far East: Current Status and Development Prospects,” Science Journal of VolSU. Linguistics 21(6), 2022. https://l.jvolsu.com/index.php/en/archive-en/803-science-journal-of-volsu-linguistics-2022-vol-21-no-6/materials-and-reports/2497-kozhemyakina-v-a-retinskaya-t-i-kirilenko-s-v-indigenous-languages-of-the-north-siberia-and-the-far-east-current-status-and-development-prospects
Welsh Assembly Government, Iaith Pawb: A National Action Plan for a Bilingual Wales, 2003 (Table 1, census figures 1901–1991). https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/Documents/Living/Planning/Policy/LDP/Examination-Documents-2015/Iaith-Pawbe-A-National-Action-Plan-for-a-Bilingual-Wales-2003.pdf
Office for National Statistics, “Welsh language, Wales: Census 2021,” ONS, 2022. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/language/bulletins/welshlanguagewales/census2021
Office for National Statistics, “Language in England and Wales: 2011,” ONS, 2013. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/language/articles/languageinenglandandwales/2013-03-04
Welsh Government, Cymraeg 2050: A Million Welsh Speakers, gov.wales, 2017; Welsh Government, “Welsh language in Wales (Census 2021),” 2022. https://www.gov.wales/cymraeg-2050-welsh-language-strategy · https://www.gov.wales/welsh-language-wales-census-2021-html
Welsh Government, Schools’ census results: January 2026, gov.wales, 2026. https://www.gov.wales/schools-census-results-january-2026-html
Welsh Language Act 1993; Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, s.1; Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020, legislation.gov.uk. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/38/introduction · https://www.legislation.gov.uk/mwa/2011/1/section/1 · https://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2020/1/introduction
Hindley, Reg, The Death of the Irish Language: A Qualified Obituary, Routledge, London, 1990. https://archive.org/details/deathofirishlang0000hind
Central Statistics Office Ireland, Census of Ireland 1926, Volume 8: Irish Language, Tables 1–2 (census figures 1851–1926). https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/census1926results/volume8/C_1926_VOL_8_T1,2.pdf
Central Statistics Office Ireland, Census of Population 2022 – Summary Results: Education and Irish Language, CSO, Dublin, 2023. https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cpsr/censusofpopulation2022-summaryresults/educationandirishlanguage/
Manatū Taonga – Ministry for Culture and Heritage, “History of the Māori language” and “First kōhanga reo opens,” NZHistory (archived copies). https://web.archive.org/web/2025/https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/maori-language-week/history-of-the-maori-language · https://web.archive.org/web/2025/https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/first-kohanga-reo-opens
Stats NZ, Te Kupenga: 2018 (final) – English, Statistics New Zealand, 2020; “More than 1 in 6 Māori people speak Te reo Māori,” Stats NZ, 2020. https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/te-kupenga-2018-final-english · https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/more-than-1-in-6-maori-people-speak-te-reo-maori/
Te Puni Kōkiri (Ministry of Māori Development), “Te reo Māori,” Te Puni Kōkiri, updated 2026. https://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/nga-putea-me-nga-ratonga/te-reo-maori
Stats NZ, “Te reo Māori proficiency and support continues to grow” (New Zealand General Social Survey 2021), Statistics New Zealand, 2022. https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/te-reo-maori-proficiency-and-support-continues-to-grow/
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, “Jessie Little Doe Baird,” MacArthur Fellows, Class of 2010. https://www.macfound.org/fellows/class-of-2010/jessie-little-doe-baird
