The literature on language revival reveals conflicting opinions as to what constitutes a successful revival and what factors are relevant to its success. This paper suggests that many of the controversies over what methods revivalists should adopt and what results they should be seeking could be reduced if a clear distinction were recognised between two possible goals of language revival: the process of restoration, which aims at returning the language to a previously more healthy state, and the process of transformation, which seeks to forge new roles for the language. A survey of the methods adopted by various revivalist groups is used to support the conclusion that, while revivalists often dream of restoration, they are far more likely to succeed in achieving a measure of transformation.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 91 citations exist upstream.