Perhaps one of the most notable and reliable indicators of a speaker’s attitude towards a language is the varying scenarios in which the language in question is used, whether in written or spoken form. Generally, a bilingual or multilingual speaker will have a different linguistic identity tied to a specific area of speech – as such, these speakers have multiple linguistic identities to choose from, depending on what the situation requires. These different practices of language usage eventually develop into more refined attitudes and usage norms, after which they might very well affect the speaker’s perception of the language used – if language A is used in a higher echelon scenario, such as official legislative documents, whereas language B is only used sparsely in friendly conversations, it stands to reason that an eventual difference in perception will develop regarding these two languages within the speaker (Kircher, et al., 2022). Language revitalization efforts often encounter challenges related to speaker attitudes. For example, some speakers may not see the value in learning or using the endangered language, or may feel that the language is too difficult to learn or use. Additionally, speakers may feel that their identity is tied to the dominant language and culture, and therefore may not see a need to maintain their ancestral language. However, there are also examples of positive speaker attitudes in language revitalization. For example, in the case of the Maori language in New Zealand, there has been a resurgence of interest and pride in the language and culture among young people, resulting in an increase in language use and learning (Harrison, 2011). Similarly, in Hawaii, the Hawaiian Language Immersion Program has been successful in part due to the strong sense of identity and pride among speakers (Kuali’i, 2009).

There are a variety of factors that can influence speaker attitudes in language revitalization. These can include: socioeconomic factors: speakers from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may face greater barriers to language learning and use, such as lack of access to resources or limited educational opportunities; political factors: the presence or absence of government support for language revitalization efforts can have a significant impact on speaker attitudes; intergenerational transmission: the ability to pass on the language from one generation to the next is crucial for language revitalization, and the attitudes and language use of parents and grandparents can influence the language learning and use of children.

Another important factor that can influence speaker attitudes in language revitalization is the level of community involvement and ownership in the revitalization process. When members of a community are actively engaged in the planning, implementation and evaluation of language revitalization initiatives, they are more likely to feel invested in the success of the language and to take ownership of its revitalization. This can lead to increased motivation and participation in language learning and use. For example, the revitalization of the Welsh language in Wales has been largely driven by the efforts of community-based organizations, such as Welsh-language schools, cultural societies and language classes (Thomas, 2017). The community-based approach has enabled the Welsh language to be passed down from one generation to the next, and has also helped to create a sense of pride and ownership among speakers. It is also important to note that speaker attitudes towards language revitalization can change over time. For instance, in the beginning stages of a revitalization effort, speakers may be skeptical or resistant to the idea of reviving their ancestral language. However, as revitalization efforts gain momentum, and as speakers begin to see the tangible benefits of language revitalization such as increased job opportunities, improved educational outcomes and strengthened cultural identity, they may become more motivated to participate in the revitalization process.

With this notion in mind, the issue of language perception raised in Chapter 1 becomes all the clearer: if the perception of a language shifts in the speaker, then the public perception of language A and language B is, albeit to a lesser degree, expected to follow this norm as well. This is of course amplified in scenarios where the differentiation between languages shifts to such a degree that they develop into “high” and “low” languages. One of the most notable examples of this phenomena is what happened to Irish Gaelic after the mass emigration into the U.S. following the Great Famine of 1845–1852. This dreadful event did not only have a toll on human lives, but on language as well; the usage of Irish Gaelic by emigrants was looked down upon, so much so that native speakers sought to be rid of their L1 (and by association, their respective linguistic identity) in favour of English.

This raises two critical points regarding the communal aspects of linguistic identities, and minority languages – while the public perception of a “high” language might be seen as dismissible, the same can not be said for a minority language; the light in which a language and its identity is viewed can be, and most certainly was an extremely important matter for those affected, as discussed in previous research “…The only time those dock workers spoke Irish was to their priest…” (O’Sullivan, 1997). While certainly a somewhat extreme example, less serious instances of negative public perception based on linguistic identity are most assuredly not uncommon (Duray, 2014; Kumala, 2021). Based on this phenomena, the public and personal perception of the language in question will only continue to feed this trend, spiralling down into ever more negative aspects, and eventually resulting in the L1 declining to the point of reaching stage 7 of Fishman’s (1991) Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS), effectively meaning that the language is still retained to some extent by the current generation, but they are unwilling/unable to pass it onto their children.

Based on this line of thought, the second point is concerned with the vitality of the affected language; if the overall perception surrounding it reaches a point such as the one discussed previously, the language in question will eventually cease to be used as the L1 of relevant speakers. Because of this change, the language will eventually lose it’s intergenerational transmission as a means of reciprocating it, and as such will decline into obscurity – not only because of the receding numbers of language speakers, but additionally because of the implications of the linguistic identity associated with it. After a certain point, clinging to such a declining language might be seen as weird and unnecessary; such was the case with Scots Gaelic. The “Scottish Cringe” as described by Beveridge and Turnbull (1989) refers to phenomena wherein Scottish language speakers are experiencing the drive, personal and political confidence in their ability to govern themselves as their own respective group, be it in terms of language or general politics.

Beveridge and Turnbull (1989) argue that this is due to the Scottish population suffering from a sense of psychological inferiority, which had been building up throughout the country’s history (mostly regarding England). Due to this development, individuals have come to see themselves and they are seen by the England of old, i.e., as being inferior to and dependent upon the entirety of England, not unlike some sort of vassal state. Continuing their line of thought, the authors emphasize that by some Scots belittling, or in some more extreme cases disregarding their own nation’s historical background and importance, it only then further serves to reinforces the idea of Scotland itself yielding to England. The argument presented is that by seeing their own independent history as finished, and as such gone, the individuals are not only giving up a part of their social identity, but in a more relevant case, their linguistic identity – the authors argue that this event results in them becoming “Scottish-English speakers”, as opposed to them being ”Scots who also speak English”. The culmination of this is that they never give a thought to reclaiming the identities in their own right again as an independent nation, and as such they fail to challenge their own alienation. Such an outlook is greatly detrimental to not only the development of the languages in question, but more so serves as an immense setback to the development of the affected speakers’ linguistic identity – instead of developing as multilingual individuals, with Scots Gaelic as their L1 and English as their L2, the results are instead shifting towards an almost monolingual society with only an L1 English language being used.