As linguists theorize about language endangerment and loss (LEL), we must understand the big picture: the coexistence of languages in particular polities and how the competition that sometimes arises is resolved. Many concerns have been voiced about LEL since the early 1990s, but theoretical developments regarding language vitality lag far behind linguists’ current investment in language advocacy. While discussing issues such as the failure to connect the subject matter to language evolution in general, the framing of LEL as deleterious almost exclusively to ‘indigenous peoples’, a lack of historical time depth, and the omission of the ecological factors in typical approaches to LEL, I argue that linguistics should theorize about language vitality more adequately than has been the case to date.

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.

I am grateful for the generally thought-provoking commentaries on my target article (Mufwene 2017), which reveal how multifaceted and complex the subject matter of LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT AND LOSS (LEL) is. They also show how difficult it is to develop a position that addresses all of the issues. Because of space limitations, my responses focus on the most critical ones.