In this commentary, we argue that examining the topic of language endangerment and loss requires close attention to culturally specific local factors that influence patterns of language choice and that shifting the emphasis of investigation from language endangerment to language vitality can yield significant research insights. Drawing largely on lessons from the investigation of patterns of multilingualism in rural Africa, we also suggest that examination of language ideologies and the use of ethnographic methods in language documentation can play an important role in understanding global patterns of language vitality.

This article scrutinizes the diachrony of relativizers and complement clause subordinators in Russian, Polish, and Czech. Historical morphology indicates a development from agreeing relative pronouns via noninflected relativizers to complement clause subordinators. This concurs with recent findings on Germanic (Axel-Tober 2017), but contradicts more traditional proposals that derive subordinators from demonstratives. The respective syntactic reanalyses are demonstrated on diachronic Slavic corpus data. Moreover, a quantitative comparison of sixteenth- to seventeenth- century East Slavic texts with and without West Slavic interference suggests that the use of kotoryj ‘which’ as a relative pronoun spread into Russian as an inner-Slavic contact-induced change.

In this response to Mufwene's (2017) target article we discuss the benefits and disadvantages of extending the ecology metaphor into studies of language vitality, focusing on contexts from the South Pacific. We show that an ecological perspective allows us to focus on the local and particular and can help us to avoid a simplistic reliance on broad phenomena such as ‘globalization’ to account for language endangerment and loss (LEL). However, we contend that this endeavor runs the risk of abstracting away from the human experience of LEL into a ‘survival of the fittest’ or ‘balance sheet’ approach. We conclude that, while it has benefits, the ecology metaphor does not ultimately offer a compelling basis for an overarching theory of language vitality.

This paper addresses language vitality from an Africanist perspective. I identify central components for the paradigm Mufwene (2017) invites us to conceive: the investigation of communicative practices in language ecologies (rather than the study of a language), of fluid speech and its relation to imaginary reifications, of indexical functions of speech and language, and of language ideologies and the perspectives contained in them. I argue that the study of small-scale multilingual ecologies driven by adaptivity, rather than by fixed ethnolinguistic identities and ancestral languages, and the recognition of small languages as causally related to language vitality, not to endangerment, are crucial for a rethinking of linguistic vitality and diversity.

Drawing extensively from Indigenous scholarship, I argue for more holistic and inclusive notions of LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE VITALITY. This enables a better understanding of language revitalization's role as a protective factor, as well as how to evaluate its success. I present data from the Indigenous communities of the United States and Canada showing that language shift correlates with a host of negative outcomes: educational, economic, and well-being. In contrast, language revitalization may confer protective effects, suggesting that it is better understood through RESILIENCE. A more holistic framework also provides an intellectually coherent integration of language revitalization, language documentation, and language itself.

This commentary focuses on three main topics raised in MufWene's (2017) target article, in addition to language policy, which I propose must be taken into account in order to support language vitality. First, this commentary explores the nature and role of speakers’ agency regarding the fate of their language. Second, it addresses whether it is always the case that populations shift because they sense that preserving a language can marginalize them, since this is presented as a possible cause of language loss in MufWene's article. Third, it reflects on the role of multilingualism in language death. I argue that multilingualism and/or competing languages need not result in language loss but may rather result in language coexistence, as long as each language fulfills a distinct function. Finally, I explore the key role of language planning and policy in determining the life or death of languages, likely to be one of the most effective ways to ensure language vitality, if the right language policy is adopted.