Language Dynamics in Society (LanDS): The LanDS Analytical Framework for Majority and Minority-Language Ethnolinguistic Vitality Abstract Language Dynamics in Society (LanDS) is an analytical framework to reappraise ethnolinguistic vitality (EV) which is key to societal processes affecting the stability of language groups. LanDS proposes an enhanced academic analysis of EV and Language Promotion and Protection. This EV approach addresses the dynamics of how social players participate in the processes which are beneficial or detrimental to EV. LanDS posits four analytical Developmental Quadrants: Language Transmission and Acquisition, Socialisation and Reinforced Acquisition, Civic Expansion, and Coherent Ethnicisation. Each Quadrant is affected by the four core concepts of Direction, Process, Participation, and Competition. Collective community continuity or instability are shaped by the language group’s participation in these key developmental stages. Keywords  ethnolinguistic vitality, societal language dynamics, language transmission, ethnicisation, LanDS framework, minority sociolinguistics Conchúr Ó Giollagáin 1 , Daniel Bourgeois 2 , Brian Ó Curnáin 3 , Iain Caimbeul 1 , Gordon Cameron 1 TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES RAZPRAVE IN GRADIVO REVIJA ZA NARODNOSTNA VPRAŠANJA 94 / 2025, p. 25–75 Corresponding author Conchúr Ó Giollagáin, UHI Language Sciences Institute, The University of the Highlands and Islands, Inverness, Scotland; e-mail: conchur.ogiollagain@uhi.ac.uk, or CID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001- 8383-2782 UHI Language Sciences Institute, The University of the Highlands and Islands, Inverness, Scotland Institut Beaubassin, Moncton, Canada Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies, School of Celtic Studies, Dublin, Ireland DOI:10.2478/tdjes-2025-0002 Received 31. 3. 2025, Accepted 2. 6. 2025 © Author 2025. This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 1 2 3 C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 1. Introduction Ethnolinguistic vitality (EV) is contingent on language dynamics in so- ciety (LanDS), functioning according to interrelated and mutually re- inforcing societal processes. These complex dynamics may be positive and beneficial to the overall EV or negative and detrimental, resulting in ethnolinguistic fragility. Both positive and negative aspects – EV and fragility – can, of course, occur simultaneously. For ease of presenta- tion, we discuss these issues from the positive EV viewpoint. From this dynamic perspective, EV ensues from the collective and organisational capacity of a language group to protect and regenerate key intergen- erational, communal/social, institutional, and civic processes which are critical to the societal stability and continuity of the group. Therefore, the societal continuity of a language minority is based on its socio-po- litical organisational competence, reinforcing communal activities, and institutional support (cf. Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1998, 76–82; Grin 2016; 2024), as well as the amalgamation of individual competences, ideologies/motivations, and practices within viable demolinguistic den- sities. The holistic and systemic heuristic proposed here as LanDS strives to delineate a planned approach to the protection and promotion of EV as both a consequence and an objective of these socio-economic, civic, and cultural assemblages, which involve various linguistic repertoires and other forms of ethnolinguistic capital. The structure of this article is as follows. We first introduce the ra- tionale for this new LanDS theory, which we justify through a review of core publications in the existing literature. This review concludes with a discussion of key concepts from our co-authored 2024 publica- tion on Language Policy and Planning (LPP) and Language Protection and Promotion (LPrPr). We then present the LanDS structural theory of circular, sustainable EV; first regarding LanDS’ General Tenets (GTs), followed by the discussion and analysis of the social dynamics involved in four Developmental Quadrants (DQs). We elaborate on an initial sim- plified model to demonstrate the roles of various participants and their interactions. This is followed by a short minority-language (Min-L) case study of Irish. We then argue for the advantages of this new framework and its improvements on much current LPP discourses which are over- reliant on post-structuralist assumptions. We conclude by suggesting further steps to elaborate our theoretical framework and related LPrPr interventions. This LanDS concept emerges from various sociolinguistic research contexts that demonstrate significant discrepancies and divergence 27 between empirical findings and policy aspirations inherent in formal provision for minority speakers and their communities (cf. Ó Giollagáin et al. 2007a; 2007b; Ó Giollagáin & Charlton 2015; Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020; Bourgeois 2024a; 2024b). We propose our LanDS framework to improve academic analysis of EV and Language Promotion and Protec- tion (LPrPr) approaches (cf. Ó Curnáin & Ó Giollagáin 2024; Ó Giollagáin & Caimbeul 2021), and Language Policy and Planning (LPP) aimed at sustaining vulnerable Min-L communities. This would entail reassessing efforts to address the inequity in the distributions of public and private resources and agencies. The LanDS approach encompasses both the Min-L and Maj-L perspectives, but in this article we emphasise the Min-L standpoint on EV. For reasons of brevity, this article concentrates on the asymmetrical societal relationship between minoritised bilingualised Min-L communities and socio-politically dominant, often monolingual, Maj-L communities. Nonetheless, the analysis can also be of relevance to many multilingual contexts. 2. Theoretical Conceptualisation The LanDS approach posits a theory of EV based on the multifaceted societal interactions which determine a minority group’s collective con- tinuity, instability, or decline. As societal demise is ubiquitous among language minorities (Crystal 2000; Harrison 2007; Bradley & Bradley 2019), understanding the social dynamics which may culminate in eth- nolinguistic shift is an analytical prerequisite for describing, explaining, and prescribing collective, institutional, or state initiatives to seek to arrest or reverse the destabilising trajectory. Min-L societal sustain- ability or demise are features of complex interactional dynamics and, therefore, operate according to “complex adaptive systems” (Larsen- Freeman & Cameron 2008, 4). LanDS interdisciplinary analysis focuses on the communal/social dynamics within a minority group as well as between the minority and the majority (and other groups). These dy- namics frame individual and communal ethnolinguistic behaviour and social psychology. Our framework rests on key concepts relating to how minority eth- nolinguistic societal dynamics operate in socio-political competition with subordinating language majorities, regardless of whether this sub- ordination is accidental or intentional, formal or informal, implicit or explicit. It seeks to address the limitations of existing frameworks, and how they inform or influence existing LPP dispensations for minoritised language groups. Many current LPP approaches are insufficiently fo- TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 28 cused on minority societal dynamics or their challenging socio-cultural reality. Since Min-L provision is first filtered through Maj-L political con- cerns or tolerance, much current minority LPP fails to accommodate or prescribe for many central societal dynamic contexts for Min-L com- munities. Our main contention is that sufficiently sociologically informed posi- tive EV outcomes should be maximally explicit in how LPP is formally pursued. Contemporary approaches to LPP tend to leave struggling Min-L communities in a disempowered reactive relationship to highly circumscribed formal, sectoral Min-L official provision, and of course in an even more disempowered relationship to Maj-L dynamics. Much of current LPP fails to increase the capacities and opportunities of the minority group to be proactive players in prescribing feasible strate- gies to address their societal concerns (see our Irish case study below). As a corollary, the influence of existing EV frameworks on current LPP has not adequately enhanced the collective facilities of Min-L groups to counteract the Maj-L dominated competitive dynamics inherent in the various societal challenges of (post-)modernisation, e.g. how Maj-L dynamics dominate cultural, communicative, and technological innova- tion. Our EV-informed empirical approach to LPrPr is primarily focused on creating the socio-political and civic conditions capable of increasing the proactive and prescriptive abilities of Min-L groups. The LanDS framework argues for a reappraisal of current approaches to EV and LPP in order to identify and proactively engage with core social processes underpinning both. This includes processes of primary so- cialisation in the Min-L; secondary peer-group socialisation of the Min-L and its culture among the young; processes of civic and socio-economic reinforcement of the Min-L in more formal or institutional contexts; and processes that enable participation in formal and informal reflexive social interactions (Giddens 1991, 20–23) in which affiliation processes to the minority’s ethnolinguistic identity are experienced as a coher- ent collective identity. WEIRD 1 modernity (cf. Henrich 2020) involves processes of Maj-L advantages and Min-L disadvantages, entailing an inherent threat to Min-L group stability. Nevertheless, instances of rela- tive stability of Min-Ls are found in WEIRD societies where small-scale cantonisation (local autonomy) applies. Due to the complex relations between the four DQs in the LanDS framework, our analysis is rooted in Complexity Theory. Complexity Theory seeks to account for the interdependence and interactivity of constituent factors in how dynamic systems are sustained or disrupted. Bastardas-Boada (2013) sets out the challenges involved in adapting as- C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 29 pects of Complexity Theory to sociolinguistic dynamics that determine ethnolinguistic group stability or instability: Organizations of systems of meaning used between humans, which, although subject to constant intergenerational replacements, maintain (or not) the former in operation and modify them in accordance with their global socio-communicative needs. Linguistic structures live, therefore, in this incessant flow, just as the socio-meanings that are adhered to them, changing and innovating in accordance with the vicissitudes of the general socio-cultural current of peoples. Our challenge, therefore, is to go beyond prevailing perspectives that are more static than dynamic […] (Bastardas-Boada 2013, 161). Complexity Theory in language sciences addresses the dynamic, non- linear, and emergent aspects (cf. Larsen-Freeman & Cameron 2008, 2–4) of how various social players adapt and contribute to societal processes. These determine personal and collective affiliation to, social and institutional practice of, and adherence to the civic reinforcement of language(s), as well as the general level of salience of language(s) as embodied dynamic competence and lived dynamic identity. Build- ing on other EV models, especially those proposed by Fishman (1991), Lewis and Simons (E)GIDS (2016), and Landry et al. (2022), our LanDS framework models the complex progression of the individual or cohort as they develop through various social stages. LanDS EV offers an ana- lytical model to explain the influence of competitive social pressures on the individual or cohort as they move from one developmental or collective stage to another (see Figure 3 below). Given that the majority of the world’s living languages are experi- encing various degrees of societal fragility and endangerment (Crystal 2000; Ó Curnáin & Ó Giollagáin 2024, 398–399; Lewis & Simons 2016, 3), speakers of these threatened languages are increasingly constrained in their individual and collective capacity or communal agency to adapt to a social dynamic which would support the continuity of the language and culture as lived social practice. From this perspective, participants in endangered language cultures are enmeshed in various mal-adaptive competitive dynamics with a more dominant language culture, dynam- ics which include a multitude of psychological and interpersonal issues (cf. Bradley 2022, 456; Krauss 1992; Crystal 2000; Nettle & Romaine 2000; Batibo 2005; Hagège 2009; Ó Giollagáin et al. 2007a; 2007b; Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020; Ó Curnáin 2009). This reality is insufficiently addressed in much of the academic literature and discussions of LPP . Indeed, Min-L sociolinguistic discourses which disregard, deny, or TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 30 minimalise this challenging Min-L societal reality risk undermining their own relevance as Min-LPP analyses (e.g. the debate following the pub- lication of Ó Giollagáin et al. (2020) in: Nance (2021), McLeod et al. (2022), Armstrong (2021a, 2021b) and Armstrong et al. (2022); for an alternative view in response, see: Ó Giollagáin et al. (2022a; 2022b), Ó Curnáin & Ó Giollagáin (2021) and McEwan-Fujita (2006). In short, post-structuralist LPP has propagated an approach to (Min-L) promo- tion which has enabled a neo-liberal laissez-faire outlook detrimental to vernacular groups in decline (see also our Analysis below). 3. Existing Ethnolinguistic Vitality Frameworks and Their Limitations Giles et al. (1977) proposed the first EV framework. It posits a struc- tural analysis of intergroup relations based on three variables: status, demography and institutional support. Four status indicators are pre- sented: social, economic, sociohistorical, and language (within and without the minority group). Demographic factors are divided into two categories: numbers (absolute, birth rate, mixed marriages, immigra- tion and emigration) and distribution (national territory, concentration, and proportion). Institutional support can be formal (mass media, edu- cation, government services) or informal (industry, religion, culture). They contend that “these three types of structural variables […] interact to provide the context for understanding the vitality of ethnolinguistic groups” (1977, 309). The framework is based on Tajfel’s (1974) theory of intergroup rela- tions and Giles’s (1973) theory of speech accommodation. The former posits that individuals use social categories to define themselves and the world around them. Their knowledge of membership in various social (ethnic) groups, as well as the value they attribute to their membership in such groups in positive or negative terms, shape their social identity and conception of self. Relatedly, Ehala’s (2010) EV conceptualisation relies on four social psychological factors: perceptions of group strength differentials, intergroup distance, utility of socio-cultural capital, and in- tergroup discordance. In their article, Giles et al. (1977) posit that the more a language group has strong demographics (numbers and proportions), the more it controls important societal institutions, and the higher its status in society, the more it is likely to “survive and thrive as a collective entity in an intergroup context” (1977, 308), thereby enhancing its vitality and C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 31 increasing its ability to transmit its language and culture to subsequent generations. However, “a group’s subjective assessment of its vitality may be as important as the objective reality” (1977, 318). Edwards’ (1992) taxonomic-typological model describes the com- plexity of Min-L community make-up based on geographic, demograph- ic, economic, political, and other variables. For instance, he categorises Min-L environments regarding: a language being unique to one state; attitudes of the majority to the minority; community support for the Min-L; type and strength of association between Min-L and religion; and economic development of the region. Similar to Strubell’s (2001) Catherine Wheel Model, 2 Mac Donna- cha’s (2000) Integrated Language Planning Model stresses the central- ity of social and institutional capacity-building measures to reinforce the societal sustainability of the Min-L community and to maintain the relevance of the civic provision for their concerns. In 2003, UNESCO published a Language Vitality and Endangerment (LVE) framework. It presents an inventory of factors that should be considered when evaluating language vitality, including the rate of in- tergenerational language transmission, the number and proportion of speakers, the loss of existing language domains, community members’ attitudes towards their own language, and governmental and institu- tional language attitudes and policies. The methodology produces an analysis to determine the level of vitality/endangerment, ranging from “extinct” to “safe” (Brenzinger et al. 2003). Borrowing from Fishman’s (1991) EV framework, presented as the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS), Lewis and Simons (2016) propose a Sustainable Use Model (SUM) and an expanded GIDS (EGIDS). Fishman’s GIDS measures the degree of disruption in inter- generational language transmission, the fundamental pillar of EV. He argued that there were eight levels of EV, ranging from the lowest (the only remaining speakers of the Min-L are members of the grand-parent generation) to the highest (the Min-L is used in education, work, mass media, and government at the national level). Lewis and Simons adapted Fishman’s framework by adding dimen- sions (official recognition, vehicularity, educational use, intergenera- tional transmission, identity, and documentation) and levels (motiva- tion, literacy, use in literature, face-to-face functions, etc.). They specify that language use at any level can only be achieved if five conditions are met (Lewis & Simons 2016, 125). First, functions associated with the language must exist and be recognised by the community. Second, a means of acquiring the needed proficiency to use the language for TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 32 those functions must be in place and accessible to community members. Third, motivation: community members must perceive that the use of the language for those functions is beneficial in some way. Fourth, the policy environment must not be hostile to the use of the language for those functions. And finally, societal norms must clearly delineate the functions assigned to the Min-L marking the group as distinct from the functions for other languages. Over the years, Landry (2015; 2018; 2020) and his colleagues (Landry et al. 1989; 1990; 1992a; 1992b; 1994; 1996; 1997; 2003; 2005; 2006; 2007; 2008; 2009; 2022; Allard et al. 1986; 1994; 2005; Deveau et al. 2005; Godin et al. 2022) expanded the EV model, specified variables, hypothesized relations, and measured the interrelations between vari- ables and the impact of each variable on EV, mostly in minority Fran- cophone communities in Canada. Their detailed empirical research produced two main conclusions. First, significant links exist between all variables and between the variables and EV. Second, some links are stronger than others. Thus, outside the family, schools are the most important contributor to linguistic and cultural acquisition and mainte- nance. Min-L schools, especially if they are managed by minority mem- bers and do not only teach subject matters in the Min-L but also teach the group’s history and culture, act as a compensatory weight to the family on the scale to tip the balance in favour of additive bilingualism (added ability in language B without loss of language A), rather than subtractive or replacive bilingualism (loss of ability in language A with added ability in language B). Their initial findings motivated Landry et al. to propose their Self- determination and Ethnolinguistic Development (SED) model (2007; 2022). This “macroscopic” model is based on the proposition that “group vitality in an intergroup context can be conceived of as a power struggle between a top-down force of social determinism and a bottom-up force of minority group self-determination” (2022, 242). The authors explain that social determinism occurs when EV structural factors favour- ing the dominant language at the societal level lead to subtractive bi- lingualism among the minority group members and Min-L loss, while self-determination is a force based on a critical social consciousness of these external forces and on strategies and action that focus on social change fostering additive bilingualism and Min-L maintenance (2022, 243). The model posits that objective EV is related to three types of socialisation experiences of minority group members (“enculturation, personal autonomisation, and critical consciousness-raising” (2022, 242); see also Bourhis and Landry’s (2008) group vitality and cultural C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 33 autonomy model), and how each of these is related to four crucial bi- lingual development variables: language competencies, group identity, community engagement and subjective ethnolinguistic vitality. The model also posits that different linguistic socialisation experiences and bilingual development have specific effects on Min-L use in different social domains like the family, friends, media consumption and public spaces. Landry et al.’s model and hypotheses, based on enculturation, per- sonal autonomisation, and critical consciousness-raising, provide an excellent framework for describing, measuring, and predicting EV. How- ever, like the Lewis and Simons framework, it does not grant sufficient importance to the political dynamics involved in almost every step of LPP . They neglect the “black box” in which political decisions are made (Easton 1965a: 1965b), including bureaucratic specifics and implemen- tational challenges of LPP (Bourgeois 2006). They simply assume that requests for EV strategies drawn from empirical research or community initiatives (inputs) will be transformed rationally into effective policies (outputs). The literature in policy analysis shows how irrational the various stages of policy formulation, notably implementation, as well as the various stakeholders involved in each stage, can be (Edwards & Sharkansky 1978; Demszky & Nassehi 2014, 11; Marume et al. 2016; Godenhjelm 2024). Both frameworks (Landry et al. and Lewis & Simons) assume im- plicitly that politics is involved, but only as abstract manifestation of interrelations between majority/dominant and minority/subordinate language groups. Our LanDS EV framework, on the other hand, makes this competitive political dimension explicit in its various communal, civic, and broader societal contexts. Account should be taken of the fact that minority and majority groups are not necessarily homogenous in their socio-political and economic objectives. For instance, some may oppose other members of the same language group, for ideological or practical reasons, regularly or sporadically. On the other hand, some members of the majority group may support the minority group’s initia- tives and defend them in the face of other members of the majority and the majoritarian government. The bureaucracies responsible for the implementation of LPP , which can include both the majoritarian bodies and seconded minority stakeholders, may make or break LPP efficacy. Indeed, bureaucrats may implement policy à la lettre, deviate from it, sabotage it, etc., to protect their organisational or individual interests (Wilson 1989; Niskanen 1971; 1994; Gaspard 2024). TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 34 In general, the (E)GIDS and other existing EV models risk an overly static interpretation of Min-L sustainability, given their predominant linearity. Our cyclical and multidimensional LanDS framework, on the other hand, incorporates insights from previous models while present- ing the key developmental and societal dynamics to include a more socially, individually, and psycho-sociologically attuned representation of EV. 3 4. Minority Language Protection and Promotion versus Language Neglect and Demotion Our reconceptualisation of Min-L societal dynamics through our frame- work builds on two complementary concepts previously developed in Ó Curnáin and Ó Giollagáin (2024, 397, 409): a) There are positive and negative aspects to the Min-L vitality/fragility spectrum, entailing the propensity for non-optimal Min-L promo- tion to descend into or acquiesce with Min-L Neglect and Demotion (LND); LND often occurs when Min-L Promotion is pursued as a pol- icy dispensation with insufficient focus on Min-L Protection of the existing speaker group, i.e. Language Promotion without sufficient Language Protection, as discussed in Ó Giollagáin and Caimbeul (2021); Figure 1: Positive language protection and promotion and negative language neglect and demotion Source: Ó Curnáin and Ó Giollagáin (2024, 397). C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 35 b) Unidirectional factors in Maj-L power dynamics drive Min-L affilia- tion (homophily) and praxis (homopraxis) towards mal-adaptive in- teraction (heterophily) and interconnectedness (heteropraxis) with the Maj-L language and culture which threatens Min-L individual and community continuity, i.e. a trajectory towards ethnolinguistic shift and even societal erasure; Figure 2: Two-dimensional space of ethnolinguistic identity scale with ethno- linguistic praxis scale Source: Ó Curnáin and Ó Giollagáin (2024, 409). 5. General Tenets in Minority Social Dynamics of Direction, Process, Participation, and Competition Our LanDS framework is predicated on the four key General Tenets (GTs): Direction, Process, Participation, and Competition, which we set out below. These four tenets are of central relevance in each of the four Developmental Quadrants (DQs). Ideally, the four DQs entail a progres- sive movement from one stage to the next, while the internal dynamic in each DQ is affected by these four GTs. The overarching crucial con- cept of comprehensiveness in sustainable EV, LPrPr and LPP (Ó Curnáin & Ó Giollagáin 2024, 412) entails all these GTs and DQs in dynamic complementary interaction. The four GTs are ever-present influences on the structured and inter-related dynamics of LanDS EV. It is impor- tant, however, not to assume an overly categorical interpretation of the TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 36 DQ stages, as we envisage an iterative dynamic within and between the processes, as EV is comprised of multiple reinforcing cross-contextual variables. These DQs can be viewed as sequential stages for the indi- vidual, as well as spheres of action, participation, and development for the ethnolinguistic group. Other relevant processes can be added to the framework as identified, but the purpose of the LanDS approach is to concentrate on what we consider the core societal issues. 5.1 Direction The concept of direction in minority social dynamics in Figure 3 4 can be viewed as operating on two directional axes. Firstly, there is a verti- cal axis indicating the social transfer of the Min-L between generations, including the transmission of the social and cultural capital (Bourdieu 2017, 183–184) associated with the language. The key component, therefore, on the Y-axis (Figure 3) is the transfer of language skills and associated culture from the previous generation(s) to the young. Figure 3 below illustrates this as a vertical trajectory from the primary trans- fer of the Min-L entailing stages in social DQ1–2 to socialised transfer pertaining also to institutional/formal DQ3–4; as socialised transfer is a continuation from primary transfer of intergenerational transmis- sion on the vertical axis. Critical-period bilingual acquisition can clearly occur outside the home or primary socialisation, for instance in Min-L preschools where Maj-L children can acquire the Min-L. However, the programmed acquisition (Calvet 2006, 60–61) of a Min-L as a secondary language also operates according to a vertical dynamic as it is mostly dependent on the transfer of skills and knowledge from teachers and authority figures in school and educational settings. The cyclical LanDS model is based on the order of four primary DQs from micro- to macro- levels, encompassing the biological and chronological development of the individual or cohort and the expanding nature of the societal and civic networks as the individual or cohort mature and develop socially (see the discussion below about Process). Levels in Fishman’s GIDS diagnostic schema can be easily accommo- dated in our LanDS cycle: GIDS levels 4 to 1 correspond to DQ3–4, while GIDS levels 5 and 6 correspond to DQ1–2 EV activities. Aspects of GIDS levels 7 to 8 (EGIDS 7 to 10) occur in DQ3–4 reflecting societal issues in DQ1–2. Similar to other complex systems, our DQs can be subdivided to delineate further categorical differentiation. Figure 3 depicts the four Developmental Quadrants in the sustain- able inter-generational social dynamic: C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 37 Developmental Quadrant 1 – Transmission and Acquisition of the Lan- guage; Developmental Quadrant 2 – Socialisation and Reinforced Acquisition of the Language; Developmental Quadrant 3 – Civic, Socio-economic and Institutional Elaboration; Developmental Quadrant 4 – Coherent Ethnicisation. Figure 3: Four developmental quadrants of sustainable EV in language com- munity dynamics Source: Authors’ own representation. The directional arrows of the circular dynamics in Figure 3 represent sustainable EV flows through the four DQs. Direction in the dynamic can also be observed as operating on a horizontal axis, i.e. the practice of Min-L and culture, i.e. homopraxis, in various (inter-)generational social TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 38 and geographic settings. This would include Min-L practice in communi- ties, schools, civic institutions and promotional sectors. Figure 3 above illustrates this as a horizontal trajectory from the Social Practice of lan- guage entailed in DQ1–2 to Civic and Socio-economic Practice pertain- ing to DQ3–4 institutional/formal processes, operating on a monodirec- tional micro- to macro-context trajectory, as Civic and Socio-economic Practice and positive identity formation, i.e. homophily, is proceeded by the more informal Social Practice in the vernacular social context. The widening DQ stages portrayed in the LanDS framework involves expand- ing networks of communities of practice, encompassing the dynamic progress from the more micro to societally expansive macrocontexts. 5.2 Process The concept of Process pertains to the social dynamic of moving pro- gressively within, through, and from one social or developmental stage to another. In this societal dynamic framework, the progression through four DQs indicates optimal adherence to the developments leading to greater societal sustainability. In this context, we can now discuss the four DQs. Quadrant 1: Transmission. This pertains to the critical-period acqui- sition of the Min-L and culture through their transmission in the family or primary care context in which the initial processes of primary sociali- sation occur and embodied socio-cultural competences initially develop (Clark 2009; Montrul 2008; Péterváry 2016; Benmanoun et al. 2013). Quadrant 2: Socialisation. This involves the maturational and social reinforcement in youth or peer-group practice of the Min-L and culture, following primary transmission in DQ1 (cf. Hasan 1988). This social re- inforcement emerges from communal contexts in which the minority group has the capacity to generate sufficient social densities of young people who have previously experienced primary socialisation. This is the Process by which young people become socialised into their minor- ity peer group beyond the home/family context. From this perspective, DQ2 can be portrayed as minority secondary socialisation. This encom- passes the social opportunities in which linguistic competences can be reinforced and enhanced through social and cultural exchange between proficient speakers (as relevant to the age cohort). Quadrant 3: Civic and Socio-economic Expansion. This emerges from the civic reinforcement of the Min-L practice in schools, collective organisations, civic institutions, and other public bodies or fora. Spheres C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 39 of employment and socio-economic mobility take place in DQ3. Partner selection and family/household formation occur within DQ3. These pro- cesses serve to reinforce formally or institutionally that which has been previously experienced in intimate, informal, and non-programmed social or communal contexts, entailing the advanced developmental stages of adults and groups (cf. Bernstein 1971 (regarding elaborated codes); Hulstijn 2017 (regarding higher language cognition)). The credibility and effectiveness of the formal and informal lan- guage politics in DQ3 and DQ4 may determine: a) the relevant strategic efficacy/traction of Min-LPP; b) actual acceptance level of Min-LPP by the Min-L community; and c) the efficiency and relevance of Min-LPP to the socio-economic, psycho-social and other benefits of adherence to the Min-L group. Indeed, Min-L opinion formation processes, rooted in the doxa of DQ4 public discourses which are only weakly relevant to the episteme of DQ3’s societally attested evidence, will inevitably mili- tate against the possibilities of achieving coherent ethnicisation/cogent identity formation, and thus undermine meaningful community-wide adherence to collective rationales to support EV. Quadrant 4: Coherent Ethnicisation. This creates the broader so- cietal context in which disparate members of the minority group con- tribute and adhere to sustainable identity, ideological formation, and social reinforcement practices. In the context of competition with Maj-L Ethnicisation, each Min-L generation negotiates and formulates their identity through intra-Min-L and inter-ethnic discourses and participa- tion. The aim of these continual negotiations is to achieve a sustainable compromise between assimilatory majoritarian ethnicisation on the one hand and the attainment of Min-L Civic Expansion with sustain- ing and (re)vitalising homophily in homopraxis on the other hand (see Figure 2, Q1). This DQ encapsulates aspects of individual and collective processes in which ethnolinguistic issues are consolidated or formalised as consequential and recognisable elements of the group’s collective identity. This includes processes of how the identity is individually per- ceived and collectively ascribed and prescribed. The collective coher- ence of a minority group’s sense of identity can be demonstrated by the desire and capacity of the minority to align identity ascription processes with praxis, including practical efforts to protect or enhance their soci- etal position vis-à-vis competing cultural groups. Part of the essence of assimilatory processes is the naturalisation of the prescriptive Maj-L capacities and the denaturalisation of the prescriptive Min-L capacities. The normalisation of Maj-L Civic Expansion is driven by the linguistic pragmatic concept of prioritisation of a common code for communica- TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 40 tion. The Process in DQ4 is dependent on the individual’s experience of DQ1–3 (see Figure 3), and on how those experiences align with identifi- able or common perceptions of the rewards, challenges, and socio-po- litical benefits/disruptions of ascribing to a Min-L collective identity. Im- portantly, participation in this DQ provides a sense of coherence to the minority’s collective identity. It is through involvement in, or experience of, DQ4 that members of the minority community feel that their identity is psychologically, collectively, and societally meaningful to them. In the case of recessive minorities or language groups experiencing significant ethnolinguistic fragility or demolinguistic decline, individuals may main- tain a sense of minority identity, but due to issues of the demographic disruption and contraction, it becomes more challenging for them to see how their individual identity can contribute to sustaining a coherent sense of collective identity aligning with embodied praxis. Through engagement in the psychological and societal identity- forming interactions of DQ4 Processes, individual minority speakers can gain or demonstrate a sense of solidarity through their collective ad- herence to the group. The Process also encapsulates actions by which groups of people support and take pride in minority organisations that seek to demonstrate and foster positive perceptions of the minority group and a productive sense of collective identity. This perception of a coherent identity is often dependent on community and civic leaders articulating realistic views of both the advantages and challenges to the minority’s societal condition. Positing a feasible minority social identity into the future becomes increasingly difficult if minority speakers can- not attest to collective coherence vis-à-vis Min-L identity. Incoherent or sectionalist assertions of minority identity, especially appeals to mi- nority identity that are overly dependent on participation in (DQ2–4) formal and informal organisations, or in programmed acquisition in schools (e.g. New-speakerism, cf. O’Rourke & Walsh 2020), 5 can create the social conditions in which individual Min-L identity on the one hand and processes of collective affiliation with minority culture on the other begin to diverge. This divergence in individual and collective identity formation processes (cf. Jenkins (1997, 12–14) on cultural differentia- tion) has been exacerbated, chiefly discursively but also practically, in recent years by the influence of post-structuralist approaches on formal Min-LPP frameworks (cf. e.g. the discussion on Gaelic LPP in Williams (2023, 110–148, 154–211) and McLeod (2020); MacLeod & Smith- Christmas (2018) and Royles et al. (2024) for Welsh LPP). The post- structuralist approach to Min-LPP can be summarised as prioritising the individualised take-up of Min-L opportunity or programmed practice, C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 41 arising from official Min-L promotion, to the detriment of the necessary organisational and strategic focus on the collective societal concerns of the minority group. An all-pervasive challenge for EV, present in all four DQs, is the contraindication of late-modernity and collective par- ticipation and action, i.e. the gap between elaborated and fragmenting individualism, including mediatised mobilities, and the necessity for col- lective identity formation and participation. The emergence and elaboration of language politics pertains to DQ4. Language politics here refers to: a) How language issues impinge on the general politics of the Min-L community; b) The politics of the language minority’s engagement with sympa- thetic or hostile majority politics; 6 c) The reflexive engagement of the minority with formal language pro- motion agencies; d) The minority’s engagement with informal as well as officially or aca- demically derived discourses. In some cases, the lack of political adroitness or weak societal relevance of the formal administration or implementation of DQ3 civic initiatives can have a detrimental effect on DQ3–4 operating as positive dynam- ics for the Min-L. DQ3–4 are of vital relevance in stabilising the Min-L in society as these DQs provide the critical collective context in which a Min-L cohesive group devises and implements creative approaches to bolster their situation (cf. Fishman 2001). As discussed in Ó Curnáin and Ó Giollagáin (2024, 403) regarding “Anglobalisation” and World Language Systems, demographically large and even mega languages (e.g. French, Hindi, Bengali, non-English European languages, etc.) are involved in this dynamic interplay of individual and collective agency as both minoritised and minoritising language cultures in what can be characterised in its negative aspects as the tragedy of the global socio- linguistic commons. 5.3 Participation as Praxis The concept of Participation in the dynamics refers to the various so- cial players, participants, groups or communities of practice in varying social, socio-economic, political, and cultural activities pertaining to minority society across DQs, including their involvement in institutional sectors, such as sports clubs and schooling, that aim to serve the com- munal requirements of the Min-L group. TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 42 The social players encompassing the societal dimensions of minority social dynamics include: • Minority primary language speakers entailing participants in primary Language Culture; • Minority secondary language speakers entailing participants in a Minority Tangential Culture (see below) relating to the primary Lan- guage Culture; • Minority secondary language learners/speakers encompassing ad- herents or participants in a Minority Neo-culture (see below); • Majority members in favour of provisions for the minority; • Majority members opposed to provisions for the minority; • Community leaders of the primary Language Culture, and impor- tantly those leaders based in the Min-L social geography; • Sectoral leaders in the Min-L civic promotion or in LPP bodies; • Political, bureaucratic and institutional leaders influencing (posi- tively or negatively) civic provision for the primary Language Culture and Min-L civic sectors. The implication of our framework is that the individual and collective actions (and inactions) of all participants during each of the four pro- cesses shape the LPP outcomes and affect Min-L EV. 5.4 Competition between Participants The fourth GT of Competition between Participants concerns the pivot- al competitive dynamics between the various Participants in relation to prescriptive and political power, geo-demography, and socio-economic, civic and cultural resources. A key aspect of the competitive dynamic in EV is the comparative dimension, as Maj-L developments may far outstrip those of the Min-L group, producing a perception of Min-L un- derdevelopment and restricted options. This competition contributes to positive or negative societal forces determining a supportive or a detrimental dynamic for maintaining the social integrity and the in situ salience and EV of the Min-L. From the Min-L group’s perspective, the Min-L Participants require greater power to allow for the productive progression through the four DQs. Min-L group relative competitive ad- vantage builds minority confidence and affords the minority collective capacity to address the competitive dynamic with majority speakers and their societal advantages. On the other hand, a Min-L disadvantage and impediments to minority speakers progressing through the four DQs undermines the Min-L and culminates in: C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 43 a) the growth of majoritarian power in the minority societal context; b) the increasing assimilation of minority members into the majority’s dominant social and cultural praxis; and, ultimately; c) the monolingualisation in the Maj-L of a formerly differentiated Min-L group. The LanDS theory of EV will have obvious LPP and LPrPr implications as interventions in relevant DQs will vary dependent on the measurable effects of contributing variables in specific DQs and in the overall LanDS dynamics (see the discussion in Analysis below). 6. Social Dynamics of Progression through the Developmental Quadrants of Minority-Language Ethnolinguistic Vitality Figure 4 illustrates the circular progression from DQ to DQ in Min-L EV. The contracting flow represents the typical threatened ethnolinguistic minority – the contraction of the flow indicating demolinguistic deterio- ration in the social dynamic, as in the case of language shift pressures. The comparative contraction in the Min-L flow also represents the disjunctures and impediments for the Min-L community to reproduce commensurately its group vitality from generation to generation and to maintain its demolinguistic status. As sections of the Min-L vernacular (L1) community have been experiencing assimilative pressures from the competing stronger ethnolinguistic group(s), the contracting flow depicts the lack of continuity in Min-L transmission from a generation with Min-L competence and social capital to the subsequent genera- tion raised in the language of the competing ethnolinguistic group. As stated regarding Figure 3, Min-L EV is dependent on the four key GTs of Directional, Processual, Participatory and Competitive progression through the DQs by individuals, cohorts and groups. As a fluvial meta- phor, EV’s directional tenet is that of an intergenerational cycle, recall- ing, for instance, the familiar water cycle from rain to stream to river to evaporation and rain again. The LanDS logic, therefore, encompasses an evolving, intergenerational, biological/chronological cyclical dynamic operating in the linguasphere with its myriad internal and external inter- relations (cf. Mufwene 2001). TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 44 Figure 4: The four developmental quadrants in minority-language contracting social dynamics Source: Authors’ own representation. The demographic extent of the linguistic minority is a primary factor in a minority’s capacity to preserve its ethnolinguistic vitality, as argued by Giles et al. (1977). Relatedly, Ó Giollagáin et al. (2007a; 2007b; 2020) indicated that maintaining high proportional densities of active speak- ers in the specific social geographies of the vernacular group is the strongest determining factor in ensuring the social reproduction of the minority in the next generation(s) (see also Norris 2004; Ó Riagáin 1997). The correlation between geodemographic factors and EV is a common conclusion in the literature (Fishman 1991; Landry et al. 2002; Lewis & Simons 2016). Ongoing contractions, therefore, in the absolute demographic extent of the minority group, and significant demise in the geographic social densities of the minority speakers, obviously imply that there are fewer and fewer individuals participating in the four DQs. C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 45 Reductions in numbers of participants experiencing the benefits of socialised transfer, and peer and civic reinforcement, militate against possibilities for the successful collective and socio-economic progres- sion from one stage to the next in sufficient numbers and cohort den- sities to make these processes salient features of the youth minority intra- and inter-group relations. Figure 4, therefore, depicts the social dynamic of a Min-L group contending with the societal pressure of lan- guage shift to the dominant language and the ongoing assimilation of the minority group in the normative functions of the dominant culture. 7. Social Dynamics – Majority-language Speakers in the Minority Context Figure 5: Majoritarian culture in the minority-language social dynamic Source: Authors’ own representation. TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 46 Figure 5 expands on the presentation of the LanDS structure by illus- trating the influence of the Maj-L Participants in the Min-L social dy- namic. The Figure includes a darker grey, expanding flow with direc- tional arrows indicating that the majority speakers act in accordance with a positive dynamic through the DQs in the context of the Maj-L and culture. The expanding dimension to the Majoritarian flow indi- cates the demolinguistic growth of Maj-L speakers through the DQs, and, by corollary, expresses the detrimental or subtractive effect, from a minority perspective, caused by the (dominant) practice of the Maj-L in the social geography, as well as the civic and institutional contexts of the minority group. The outer Majoritarian Culture flow encircles the Minority flow to indicate that minority cultures undergoing LS have to function within the strictures of their subordinate relationship to the power structures, civic dominance and normativising influence of the Majoritarian Culture. From a Maj-L/Lingua Franca perspective, their interventions and influences typically intensify initially at DQ2–4, often implicating the recruitment of parental/early-years input into LS. The mid- and high-level Maj-L interventions are reflected in similar level Min-LPP attempts to generate agency in DQ2–3 concerns in particular. 8. Social Dynamics – Participants in the Tangential Culture and Neo-culture in the Minority Context In Figure 6, two additional semi-circular bands are added to the Min-L social dynamic – one representing the Tangential Culture in the Min-L society and the other indicating the Minority Neo-culture. The semi- circular band, attached to the outside of the Minority Culture, with a dotted border portrays the Tangential Culture in the Min-L social dy- namic. This Tangential semi-circle represents the role in the minority social dynamic of some Min-L speakers who are not L1 speakers of the Min-L. A Participant in the Tangential Culture refers to a speaker who has acquired the Min-L through participation in some communal as- pects of the Min-L peer-group socialisation in the social geography of the Min-L L1 community. The Tangential Participants (TP) may be con- sidered to be in a tangential relationship with the L1 community as they have had social experience of witnessing the L1 language and culture in their in situ social milieu, rather than relying entirely on school-based acquisition of some Min-L competence. As they have not experienced Min-L primary socialisation (DQ1) and have only partial experience of the Process of secondary socialisation (DQ2), their inclusion in the minority social dynamic commences at the intersection of DQ2–3. The C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 47 TPs have, therefore, participated in some of secondary socialisation and have the linguistic competence to avail of and contribute to the Civic Reinforcement of the Min-L, hence the Tangential semi-circle pertaining to DQ3–4 and adjacent to the Minority Culture flow. The trajectory on the Tangential partial circle can be considered to align favourably with positive aspects of the Min-L social dynamic in DQ2–4. The trajectory of the TP circle continues through DQ2–4 (marked by a dotted circle). Figure 6: Tangential Culture and Neo-culture in the minority-language social dynamic Source: Authors’ own representation. An example of a TP would be an L1 speaker of the competing Maj-L who had the opportunity to actively participate in higher-density minority L1 social networks and to acquire aspects of his or her Min-L competence in social interactions. The TP can be differentiated from the minority L2 learner in that the L2 learners are generally dependent on school-based TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 48 pedagogical inputs. Due to aspects of the in situ Min-L acquisition pro- cess, the TP can be distinguished from Min-L L2 learners in that TPs generally are more likely to achieve a higher level of linguistic attain- ment in the Min-L and to be more aware of aspects of the social culture associated with the minority than those solely reliant on school-based Min-L learning. 9. Social Dynamics – Participants in the Neo-cul- ture in the Minority Context Also in Figure 6, an inner semi-circle, adjacent to the Majoritarian Cul- ture and bordered by a dashed line, is added to the social dynamic to represent the Participants who pertain to the Min-L Neo-culture. This semi-circle, therefore, represents the L2 dimension in the minority soci- etal condition, and the effects of the L2 learners’ and speakers’ interac- tions in the minority dynamic. Participants in the Neo-culture (Neo-Ps) can be differentiated from both the L1 speakers and Participants in the Tangential Culture in that they have not experienced or gone through DQ1 primary socialisation or DQ2 secondary socialisation as practiced by the L1s or the partial societal experience of TPs in Min-L peer-group practice. In general, the Neo-Ps may ascribe or assert a Min-L identity by virtue of benefitting from pedagogical or curricular provision in Min-L schooling, either by participating in Min-L classes in the Maj-L school system or by virtue of being enrolled in Min-L immersion programmes. The Neo-Ps – in the circumstances where they wish to ascribe to the minority identity – conform to a process of programmed acquisition which entails little or no interaction with those who have been involved in social networks where Min-L socialisation is communally possible, hence the Neo-culture semi-circle pertaining to DQ3–4 and adjacent to the Majoritarian flow in Figure 6. Neo-Ps can be considered to have a beneficial effect on the dynamic when their concerns align with those of the minority L1 and TPs. This can often be the case when the interests of the Neo-Ps evolve beyond them having a focus on the Min-L as a school subject. As educational provision for Min-L curricular concerns can be costly from the per- spective of human resources, institutional energy, political focus, and financial expenditure, a schools-based focus on the minority that fails to develop or engender a societal dimension may be deemed as a drain on resources and energy, and a deflection from the required societal focus. Therefore, from this resource-allocation and outcomes perspec- tive, Neo-Ps may be depicted as contributing negatively or detrimentally C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 49 to the minority dynamic. This occurs where the interests or engage- ment of the Neo-Ps in the Min-L are realised as a desocietalised and decontextualised focus on the Min-L culture. We see this phenomenon in New-speakerist Min-L identity ascriptions and assertions crowding out the group identification practices of vulnerable L1 communities undergoing LS. 7 In such cases, language minorities who are losing their local societal pre-eminence in their traditional social geography find themselves being subsumed into the symbolic requirements that the majority group and majority speakers may have for the Min-L and cul- ture. Put simply, the civic promotion of the Min-L on the one hand and the societal realities of the existing community of Min-L speakers on the other may diverge ideologically. However, in the cases where initial schools-based engagement with the Min-L may evolve into a more societal and cultural focus (as with the TPs), the Neo-culture can be deemed to align with a positive, sup- portive minority social dynamic. Hence, certain Neo-Ps in the overall Min-L context can contribute beneficially, particularly in DQ3–4. Intra- diasporic Min-L speakers from other jurisdictions or social geographies, especially where they are Maj-L speakers, may also boost Min-L EV (cf. the case of the Min-L Austrian Slovenians being boosted by Maj-L Slove- nian immigrants to Austria discussed in Zorčič & Sorgo (2025)). 10. Social Dynamics – (Re)assimilation of the Participants in the Minority Social and Cultural Dynamic into the Majoritarian Social and Cultural Context Figure 7 expands the model further by illustrating the assimilatory pull towards the majoritarian culture, associated with the various Min-L Par- ticipants. The curved unidirectional arrows represent the assimilatory pull from the Minority, Tangential Cultures, and the Neo-culture to the Majoritarian Culture and to its social dynamics. Figure 7, in essence, expresses the ubiquitous assimilation of minority speakers into major- ity society. This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in the case of threatened Min-L groups experiencing the detrimental social dynamic of LS. Figure 7 includes three important flows represented by specific curved arrows: Black curved arrows: The four curved arrows in each DQ from the Minority Culture to the Majoritarian Culture represent the loss of Min-L TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 50 speakers to Maj-L assimilation during the various DQ social dynamics, indicating: disruption to primary and secondary socialisation of DQ1–2; Min-L speakers having no recourse to Min-L Civic Reinforcement as in DQ3; and circumstances where participation in coherent Min-L affilia- tion, identity-formation, or feasible Min-L politics becomes collectively untenable or societally impossible as in DQ4. Dotted curved arrows: The two dotted curved arrows in DQ3–4 de- pict the (re)assimilatory force on TPs back to the Majoritarian Culture. TPs originally emerged out of the Maj-L group via community exposure to Min-L secondary socialisation. However, for those TPs in the social geography of the minority culture who no longer attach social or cul- tural value (capital) to the social practice of the Min-L, or for those for whom the Min-L no longer holds symbolic value, the re-integration or re-assimilation of the TPs back into the Majoritarian culture becomes inevitable. This occurs for the TPs for whom their practice of the Min-L was both time- and process-specific. Square-dotted curved arrows: The two square-dotted curved ar- rows in DQ3–4 depict the (re)assimilatory force on Neo-Ps back to the Majoritarian Culture. Similar to the TPs, the Neo-Ps originally emerged out of the Maj-L group via the Maj-L’s interest in the symbolic value of the Min-L. These arrows, therefore, represent the re-integration or re- assimilation of the Neo-Ps back into the monolingualising and mono- ethnicising dynamic of the Majoritarian culture for those whose interest in or commitment to the Min-L has waned. In the case of endgame LS, the differentiation of the social dynamics of the various participants becomes an irrelevance as assimilation into the subordinating majoritarian culture necessarily becomes the only vi- able societal option. Figure 7 depicts the disruption engendered by the majority speak- ers to the potentially positive dynamic of the minority speakers and the disturbance to their progressive movement through the DQs. For ex- ample, the participation of monolingual Maj-L speakers in the schooling of minority speakers will almost certainly lead to the situation where the lingua franca of the primary pupils will be the Maj-L, thus precluding the possibility of the undisrupted progress of the young minority speakers through the Min-L peer-group social reinforcement of DQ2 Processes. In this case, for the young minority speakers, their language will be con- fined to a home language which has limited wider social functions. The narrowing of the social function of the Min-L to increasingly isolated family units or formal contexts is a typical process in LS. C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 51 Figure 7: The (Re)assimilatory pull from the minority-language participant categories into the majoritarian culture Source: Authors’ own representation. 11. Brief Case Study for the LanDS Framework: The Irish-speaking Community The following subsection includes data on the Irish language and speaker communities in Ireland as an initial case study to illustrate the analyti- cal relevance of the LanDS framework, as Irish is conceivably the most supported Min-LPP endeavour in modern times, providing a wealth of relevant data to all of the theoretical concepts relevant to the theory expounded in LanDS. Some of this data is presented according to our DQ structure: Quadrant 1 – Transmission: Various studies and data sources indi- cate that the Irish-speaking vernacular or native-speaking community in the official Gaeltacht now numbers around 20,000 people (Ó Giollagáin TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 52 et al. 2007a; 2007b; Ó Giollagáin & Charlton 2015; the demolinguis- tic data, including age profiles, of the Irish Census on the amount of Daily Speakers of Irish in the Gaeltacht 8 ). This statistic represents the demolinguistic extent of the speaker cohorts in the community with the capacity to provide the social-linguistic context in which the Gael- tacht youth cohort can experience the Process of primary socialisation in Irish. Quadrant 2 – Socialisation: Sociolinguistic surveys in the Gaeltacht indicate that the peer-group use of Irish among the young is less than the proportions of Irish speakers reporting a fluent competence in Irish. For instance, in Ó Giollagáin et al. (2007b), 24% of the respondents in the higher Irish-speaking social density Category A Gaeltacht districts (67%+ daily speakers of Irish) reported in the study’s Teenager Survey that they mainly spoke Irish to their friends, despite 91% of the Catego- ry A teenagers reporting a fluent or good competence in Irish. See also data from Mac Donnacha et al. (2004) and Péterváry et al. (2014). This implies that only a quarter of the youth in the strongest Irish-speaking Gaeltacht areas have experienced Secondary Socialisation in Irish. The corresponding youth cohort statistic for the whole of the official Gaeltacht districts is 9% of the youth cohort. Attendance at Gaeltacht summer colleges by L2 learners, and other youth courses, provides the social context for Tangential speakers of Irish to emerge. Quadrant 3 – Civic Expansion: Irish is arguably the most civically re- inforced Min-L in the world. Irish is provided for in constitutional recog- nition, various legislative provisions, official promotional and other civic agency supports (see Ó Giollagáin (2008) for a discussion on the scope of the official provision for Irish-language civic promotion). Primary and secondary schools in the Irish Republic teach Irish as a core curricular subject. This provision in the educational system creates the institution- al context in which the young are initially exposed to the symbolic and cultural appeal of Irish as a second language. The status and teaching of Irish in the educational sector provides the pedagogical basis for the growth of the Irish-language L2 Neo-culture (see Figure 6). Academia, arts and media sectors receive relatively generous public subventions to provide Min-L services and conduct Irish-language initiatives and ongoing projects. All the mainstream political parties operating in the Irish State attest to the symbolic value of Irish and the important role of Irish as a significant component of Irish identity. The British Parliament ratified legislation, the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill, in 2022 to recognise Irish as an official language of Northern Ireland. C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 53 Quadrant 4 – Coherent Ethnicisation: Ó Giollagáin and Ó Curnáin (2016; 2024) have argued that the collective coherence of Irish-language identity has been compromised by the prioritisation of L2 concerns in the official approach to Irish-language civic promotion. Ó Giollagáin’s (2014b) analysis contends that the official reluctance to differentiate between L1 and L2 sociolinguistic concerns has led to the counterpro- ductive LPP approach where L2 sociolinguistic perspectives are being foisted on the remaining L1 Gaelic communities of the official Gael- tacht, now in crisis. The analysis argues that this L2 prioritisation in the L1 context has contributed to the demise of the Gaeltacht via a LPP mis- diagnosis of the sociolinguistic situation, while also encouraging a form of civic denialism about the ongoing societal collapse of Irish-speaking communities in the Gaeltacht. In the Irish context, feasible, differenti- ated LPP approaches to L1 and L2 requirements have been replaced by irrelevant institutional orthodoxies which are obstructing those with a sincere sense of affiliation with Irish-language identity from engaging in relevant political and institutional endeavours to bolster and protect their language. 12. Analysis Frameworks and models are measured by their heuristic contribution: whether they encapsulate most (if not all) of the pertinent variables and situations they seek to illustrate. In this case, does the social dynamic theory discussed here describe, explain, and predict the societal phe- nomena underpinning the prospects for the EV of a minority group? If so, they may also provide a practical (normative) purpose by suggesting effective policies and programmes to enhance the societal sustainability of an ethnolinguistic group. Our contribution is academic: we hope our LanDS framework improves upon existing frameworks, notably those of Fishman, Landry et al., and Lewis & Simons. Our framework is based on our review of the literature on EV, including other frameworks, and on fieldwork experience as well as Min-LPP analysis in several Min-L contexts (cf. Ó Giollagáin et al. 2007a; 2007b; Ó Giollagáin & Charlton 2015; Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020; Bourgeois 2024a; 2024b). The improve- ment introduced by the LanDS structural theory is that it accounts for the progress of the individual through key developmental (DQs) stages while also indicating the parallel reinforcing social developmental pro- cesses (see Figure 3), which entails sociolinguistically relevant General Tenets (GTs) such as comparative resource distribution among Min-L and Maj-L speakers and groups. LanDS focuses on, therefore, the in- TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 54 terplay between the individual and society, and society’s impact on the individual. Our LanDS evidence-based and universalising approach provides a useful structured approach for devising policies to improve EV and assessing actual impacts on minority situations. Implicitly, the frame- work suggests that effective Min-LPP will work as a holistic integration of DQ1–4 and the four GTs, aiming at comprehensiveness pertaining to the individuals and the ethnolinguistic groups, while recognising the foundational relevance of DQ1–2. DQ3–4 build on the formative socialisation processes in DQ1–2. Indeed, prioritising DQ3–4, at the expense of DQ1–2, is unlikely to produce the most beneficial societal outcomes or the optimal cost-effective results from LPP inputs (cf. Grin 2003; 2024). The case for this new social dynamic approach to EV stems from the growing awareness of a “reality gap” between the formal aspirations for Min-L promotion and the lack of traction of aspirational Min-LPP in existing speaker communities (cf. Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020; 2007a; 2007b; Ó Giollagáin & Caimbeul 2021; Lenoach et al. 2012; Ó Giollagáin & Ó Curnáin 2016; Brookes & Roberts 2013; Ó Riagáin 2008; Iurrebasso 2023; 9 Bourgeois 2024b). Similarly, we propose this new EV framework to: a) support more socially attuned diagnostics of minority speaker realities; and b) provide an analytical context for reformulations of Min- LPP to address issues of societal endangerment in the contemporary Min-L condition (cf. Bradley & Bradley 2019, 1–5). Individualised (or often atomised) language promotion at the expense of Min-L com- munity protection is in danger of eliding the obvious reality that Min-L groups are perishable ethnolinguistic entities. Unless an ethnolinguistic group possesses/generates the social (interpersonal), societal, cultural, institutional, and political capabilities and related collective capacities that frame and orient individual and collective behaviour to maintain and replenish themselves intergenerationally (cf. Ó Curnáin & Ó Giol- lagáin 2024; Bastardas-Boada 2013, 161) in sufficient societal densities, the prospects of language minorities sustaining themselves as differen- tiated ethnolinguistic groups will inexorably fade. As languages are socially perishable, it is critical to understand the social dynamics by which they defend or maintain their vitality in the societal spheres most relevant to their collective maintenance. The expenditure of public money and human resources on providing the institutional opportunities for individual take-up of Min-L opportunities or symbolic practices can only make strategic and financial sense if it is balanced by a policy and support framework that aims to attenuate the C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 55 trajectory of demolinguistic decline in the existing minority vernacular group. Admitting officially this Min-L societal challenge would be a first step in mitigating collective Min-L anxieties about minority-community demise (cf. Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020, Chapter 5). Our assessment of the limitations of existing EV frameworks is that they are not sufficiently cognisant of: a) the interactional, intra-stage social dynamics in the various societal processes that govern and sus- tain Min-L practices in primary socialisation (DQ1 above), secondary socialisation (DQ2), civic reinforcement (DQ3), and the processes of psycho-social affiliation and adherence to the minority cultural group (DQ4); and b) the inter-stage interdependency of the productive partici- pation in the various processes to progress positively to subsequent DQ stages in the overall Min-L social dynamic. A new model incorporating these social dynamics and facilitating dynamic progression is required. The Min-L planning cycle, as discussed in Gazzola et al. (2024, 4–5; cp. 2016), for instance, falls within our systemic approach primarily under the scope of DQ3 Processes and initiatives. However, non-optimal Min-L politics emanating from approaches to DQ4 concerns can often lead to dereliction or inertia in what are initially conceived as positive re- commendations for Min-LPP engagement with DQ3 concerns. A corol- lary of these DQ3 impediments to DQ4 progress is that chronic social dynamics in DQ4 language politics can void the civic aspirations and institutional efforts of DQ3, especially when the societal collapse of the Min-L community becomes evident (see Fishman (1991, 143) on the “Irelandization” problem in LPP , where in our terms, DQ3 prioritisation, supported by post-structuralist discourses, offers symbolic institutional engagement to Min-L communities without sufficiently addressing their (post)modern assimilation to Maj-L societal normativity, involved in our DQ1–4). Put simply, the common prioritisation of DQ3 civic concerns at the expense of DQ1–4 comprehensiveness is ineffectual as Min-LPP . The archetypal trajectory indicated by the grey circle in Figure 3 refers to the societal condition of relatively stable language-in-society maintenance in both multi- / monolingual contexts as experienced in premodernity. Although not central to our framework, Figure 3 can pro- vide a heuristic overview of Maj-L stability historically and in modernity. The central theme in LPP is the unprecedented instability of language- in-society at a global and local level which occurs in (post)modernity caused by the increases in physical and virtual mobility, entailing, for instance, migration and digital revolution. Our framework helps to anal- yse the four major thematic GTs (Direction; Process; Participation and Competition) which are central to the dynamics of (in)stability in (post) TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 56 modernity. This overall framework displays the processes of (post)mod- ern reflexivity in that it engages with actual Min-L societal conditions which both drive the instability and inform the analytical tools and prac- tical interventions to address the socio-cultural, economic, political, demolinguistic, and identitarian interactions between Min-L and Maj-L speakers and groups. It must be acknowledged, however, that formal Min-LPP is either impractical or unfeasible for most ethnolinguistic groups “because of their subordination to an exclusive Dominant MA- JLPP” (Ó Curnáin & Ó Giollagáin 2024, 405). In order to address modern problems, one needs to use modern tools. The progression from Figure 3 to 7 is an indication of the processes of sociolinguistic complexifica- tion in modernity, where in particular DQ3–4 increase their intensity and, therefore, their societal relevance. Figure 5 typifies common Min-L contexts with rudimentary and clearly unsuccessful Min-LPP . Figure 5 illustrates the exceptional situa- tions of extensive Min-LPP where there are formal Min-L interventions concentrating in DQ2–3. In a global context, of course, the type of Min-L represented in Figure 6 is mainly found in the highly modernised soci- eties, although even in those societies it is rare. Figure 7 is illustrative of the societal collapse of the Min-L group, again within the rare context of highly modernised LPP interventions. The overall framework also provides an analytical tool to help clarify the academic, political and civic discussions and approaches to these issues, especially Min-L instability. For instance, an over-prioritisation of any DQ will be less than optimal in addressing Min-L realities. Much of current LPP discussions and interventions revolve around what are primarily DQ3 Processes. The prioritisation of DQ3 contexts appears to be based on the capacity for formal agency among civic bodies to intervene at this level. The romanticisation and aesthetisation of the Min-L culture (i.e. the aesthetic version of linguism) 10 also emanates from these dynamics primarily from within DQ3 (cf. Cronin 2019), and risk deflecting focus through naïve or deliberate attention away from pressing Min-L social concerns. Interventions should encapsulate all DQs holistically (cf. the discussion in Ó Curnáin and Ó Giollagáin (2024) on Min-L comprehensiveness). As much of current Min-LPP is primarily concerned with supporting institutional provision for Min-Ls, 11 officially backed Min-L provision is chiefly focused on institutional concerns pertaining to DQ3 Processes, such as Min-L media, arts, schooling, and the symbolic civic/adminis- trative visibility of Min-Ls. Formal supports which align with the social dynamics of DQ1–2 rarely occur in Min-LPP . Indeed, the Irish govern- C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 57 ment discontinued a DQ1-targeted initiative in 2011, Scéim Labhairt na Gaeilge (the Gaeltacht Irish-speaking family grant scheme). One hun- dred years of the Irish State’s LPP exertions and expenditure already abundantly illustrate that the DQ3 institutional focus is unlikely to com- pensate for deficiencies in DQ1–2 social prerequisites. The basis to the academic contentions between the mainstream language-in-society approach (cf. Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020, § 8.4.1) and some of the practitioners of the “barren verbiage” of the post-structur- alist approach (Edwards 2012, 38) can be located in the lack of agree- ment about what constitutes the core meaningful unit for assessing a group’s EV (i.e. DQ1 Transmission, DQ2 Socialisation, DQ3 Civic and Socio-economic Expansion, and DQ4 Coherent Ethnicisation): the indi- vidual practitioner of the Min-L on the one hand, or the interactional capacity of the minority speakers to develop and maintain meaning- ful levels of collective salience for the Min-L on the other (cf. Williams 2023, 148–151). Both individual needs and collective requirements should be addressed; however, given the reality of language as a social phenomenon, the communal-focused interventions are more effective, as would be expected. Indeed, although the options for the post-struc- turalist individual may appear to open a broad vista of experimental possibilities, an amalgamation of individualised possibilities can never amount to a coherent sense of ethnolinguistic minority identity in the absence of the social salience of the Min-L in a given geography. This salience axiomatically stems from the in situ transmission and socialised transfer of the Min-L (see DQ2 above), i.e. the “[o]rganizations of sys- tems of meaning” (Bastardas-Boada 2013, 161). This language-in-society/post-structuralist dichotomy is akin to academic debates in oncological biology between those concentrating their analysis on individual cells, referred to by Smithers 1962 (cited in Ball 2023, 407–409) as “cytologism”, on the one hand, and those whose analysis leads them to argue that “[c]ancer is a disease of organization not a disease of cells” on the other. The analogy in the language sciences would be that the key to understanding language maintenance and shift is not primarily analysable at the level of individual speakers’ circum- stances, but at the organisational societal level which determines the competitive social and intergenerational dynamics between speakers of Min-Ls and those practising or affiliating with Maj-Ls. Just as studying “internal-combustion engines would not help anybody to understand our traffic problems” (Ball 2023, 407–409), studying exclusively the per- spectives of small samples of individual minority speakers in contextual isolation will never lead to a cogent analysis of their societal condition. TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 58 Min-L groups mired in a trajectory of societal decline, while also being subject to formal LPP interventions, often manifest common so- cietal and institutional features. We posit six common societal features and five common institutional features: 12.1 Common Min-L Societal Features 1. The loss in absolute numbers and in social densities of vernacular Min-L speakers (Ó Giollagáin et al. 2007a; 2007b; 2020; Ó Giollagáin & Charlton 2015; Roberts & Ó Giollagáin 2024); 2. The ongoing contraction in the social geography of higher density Min-L areas, i.e. an erosion of the social geography of the Min-L (Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020; Jones 2012); 3. A recognisable preference for social use of Maj-L, especially among younger Min-L speakers (Mac Donnacha et al. 2004); 4. Evidence of higher linguistic attainment of the Maj-L among signifi- cant proportions of younger Min-L speakers, indicating levels of non- optimal Min-L acquisition even in vernacular contexts (Péterváry et al. 2014; Montrul 2008; Lenoach 2012; 2014); 5. A reduction in the social esteem of Min-L cultural capital (beyond aesthetic or symbolic performance/practice), i.e. Maj-L cultural capital crowding out Min-L socio-cultural practice (Ó Giollagáin & Ó Curnáin 2016; 2024); 6. An observable social trend towards the monolingualisation of the formerly bilingualised minority, i.e. the bilingualisation of the Min-L community as a stepping stone to its ultimate Maj-L monolinguali- sation (Ó Riagáin 2008). 12.2 Common Min-L Institutional Features 1. Much of official Min-LPP is implemented while simultaneously di- sregarding the societal reality of Min-L group endangerment or era- sure, i.e. Min-LPP often operates in a contradictory relationship with speaker group social challenges (20-Year Strategy for the Irish Lan- guage (Government of Ireland 2010): cf. Ó Giollagáin 2014b); 2. Bureaucratic official language plans struggle to achieve more than anaemic levels of social traction in non-institutional speaker com- munities or social networks (Ó Giollagáin & Caimbeul 2021); 3. Min-LPP tends to emphasise symbolic civic engagement with the Min- L at the expense of pursuing meaningful engagement with speaker group realities, based on credible societal diagnostics of the commu- nities’ challenges (e.g. Council of Europe 2023; cf. MacKinnon 2021); C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 59 4. Min-L communities observe a gap between aspirations for Min-LPP and day-to-day struggles of the average speaker, i.e. the difficulty of reconciling Min-LPP official assertions with the lived experience of the Min-L speakers (Camshron 2021); 5. Much of the Language-in-Institutions approach, stemming from post- structuralist LPP , operates incongruously vis-à-vis pressing Min-L community Language-in-Society requirements (Lenoach et al. 2012). The combined effect of the Common Societal and Institutional Features is that state support for Min-LPP has been based on and has propa- gated a confused analysis of the societal problem it is purporting to address. Thus, it is perceived as undermining its own Min-LPP credibility by promoting a misdiagnosis of identifiable social challenges. In short, by favouring an individualistic (rather than collective) approach to Min- LPP , many in the Min-L community associate the official provision for the minority with the naïve prioritisation of resources and effort. The preference in Min-LPP for the symbolic expression of the Min-L culture, mainly in schools, 12 while discounting evidence of deeper societal pres- sures often serves to alienate the existing speaker group from language politics of Min-L officialdom (MacLean 2022). Ineffectual official Min-L engagement via the sectoralist approach (arts, media, educational pro- vision, and the symbolic use of the Min-L in civic bureaucracy) to Min-L promotion can create the institutional conditions for the emergence of a clientelist hierarchy (Ó Giollagáin 2024; cf. McLeod 2020, 52–53). As is the case in the Gaelic LPP in Scotland and Ireland, the scope of the standardised political focus (Ó Giollagáin & Ó Curnáin 2024) of the Min-L speaker concerns is constrained by the sectoral interests of this hierarchy. Indeed, the obfuscatory emphasis on the symbolic aspects of the Min-L and of the Min-LPP is in itself a mechanism for control which the Min-L sectoral hierarchy can deploy in acquiescence with Maj-L containment of Min-L problems. In the circumstances where of- ficial Min-LPP is in denial or pays scant regard for the difficult societal challenges of Min-L communities, Min-L promotion inevitably becomes enveloped in a pseudo-politics of language issues which is of limited intellectual or political value to communities in societal demise. Politically and sociolinguistically, Min-L groups undergoing the so- cio-political process of minoritisation have been subject to five stages of demise: 1. Their political subjugation to a more dominant ethnolinguistic group (delineated in O’Neill 2018; Canny 2010; cf. Hagège 2009, and Kauf- man 2004, 6–8); TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 60 2. The integration of the dominated ethnolinguistic group into the so- cio-economic market of the dominant ethnic group on terms that are advantageous to the majority’s control over the minority (Ó Ria- gáin 1997); 3. The minoritisation of the subjugated group in the established social geography of the dominated group, entailing the extension of the institutional influence of majoritarian concerns in that geography (Gaeltacht Act 2012; cf. Ó Giollagáin 2014a; 2014b); 4. The desocietalisation of the social and cultural capital of the domi- nated ethnolinguistic group, indicating the socio-cultural assimila- tion of the minoritised group into the societal norms of the majority, which can occur in tandem with the institutional promotion of the Min-L and culture (Meek 2019, 238–242; Ó Giollagáin & Ó Curnáin 2024); 5. The four previous stages culminate in the erasure of the remain- ing societal salience of the minority’s language and social culture, beyond possible or optional ritualised practice in sanctioned institu- tions facilitating the symbolised heritage of the eroded culture (Cal- vet 2006; Ó Giollagáin 2021). The sectoralist approach to Min-L promotion and its post-structuralist individualised perspective are of limited relevance to Min-L groups en- during the desocietalisation of their social and cultural capital (Meek 2019, 238–242; Ó Giollagáin & Ó Curnáin 2024) which precedes Min-L social erasure. Post-structuralist Min-LPP is realised societally as com- pulsory bilingualism for the minority speakers and optional, occasional bilingualism for the majority speakers (cf. Ó Giollagáin 2010; 2012). The compulsion involved in the minority experience of bilingualism indi- cates that the power dynamic favours the majoritarian culture and its discretionary engagement with the Min-L and its speakers. From this perspective, the presentism 13 in much of Min-L formal promotion (cf. May 2005), emanating from the post-structuralist Min-LPP approach, is akin to an analysis at a synchronic level only. Our social dynamic ap- proach, by contrast, entails a diachronic level of analysis, incorporating key stage-to-stage (DQ) Processes in the Min-L social dynamic, and ac- counts strategically for the historical legacy of prolonged minoritisation, particularly in modernity, but also in historical LS scenarios. The four DQs in the Figures indicating the four Processes fall into two broad societal categories. The left-hand side of the Min-L social dynamic (DQ1–2) in Figure 6 above expresses the social (more informal) aspects of the broader societal context of Min-L in situ practice, while C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 61 the more formal, institutional and political aspects of the social dynamic are conveyed on the right hand of the LanDS framework (DQ3–4). This left-right contrast in the Min-L social dynamic also corresponds to the emic and etic perceptions of Min-L society and culture. As Min-L official promotion is commonly dependent on majoritarian political sanction, Min-LPP is largely derived from outgroup or etic assessments of Min-L requirements, which can often occur as colonial-like control, contain- ment and/or majoritarian othering. The social dimensions of language transfer and peer group socialisation and Min-L cultural reinforcement represented on the two left hand side DQs of the Min-L social dynamic diagrams (Figures 3–7) are more likely to operate according to emic concerns, as the social dynamics entailed in the left-hand Processes are derived from interpersonal and communal interactions. In many cases, these are social dynamics which occur independently of formal Min-L initiatives and aspirations emanating from DQ3 institutional concerns, especially. This emic vs. etic dichotomy in Min-L promotion perhaps also explains why official Min-L promotion is more likely to align or curtail its remit to DQ3 concerns rather than formally engaging with the scope of Min-L social dynamics across all four DQs. There is a problem in the reluctance or refusal of post-structuralist LPP to engage strategically with the full scope of minority dynamics in society, beyond its pragmatic alignment with a DQ3 focus. This reluctance explains the perceived in- ertia and lack of authority of formal Min-L promotion in the minority first-language language community. Such post-structuralist LPP is all the more challenging in neoliberal contexts (cf. Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020; Ó Giollagáin & Ó Curnáin 2024; MacLean 2022; and Ó Giollagáin & Caim- beul (2021, 190–191) on the Min-L “referent class”). Indeed, post-structuralist discourses (e.g. Glaser 2007, 305–308; Dunmore 2018, 38 14 ) often ascribe essentialist motivations to ingroup Min-L concerns. However, in such post-structuralist discourses, the Min-L identity, having been desocietalised by Maj-L assimilation, is further undermined by the outgroup essentialisation or “othering” of the disempowered Min-L group identity. Typically, challenges from the Min-L group to the dominance of the Maj-L group tend to be branded as essentialist. This occludes actual essentialised dominance of the Maj-L outgroup. To over-ascribe essentialising ideologies to the Min-L group is to be blind to the essentialised dominance of the Maj-L group (ironically, even when symbolically supportive of the Min-L perspec- tive). In short, the Min-L ideology perceived by Maj-L “gatekeepers” as exhibiting symbolic essentialism is discursively subordinated to the empowered essentialised hegemony, which emerges from the Maj-L TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 62 perspective (although this hegemonic discursivism is not recognised as essentialised). Much of the DQ3-focused Min-LPP can be incognisant of the essentialising dynamics of these imbalanced power relations, which in turn risks perpetuating the destabilising imbalances, and, thus, pro- vides an unsound basis for Min-L diagnostics and strategies. Nonethe- less, an over-essentialising Min-L tendency should be avoided so as not to fall into the identity trap, entailing a loss of philosophical universal- ism as a basis for action (Mounk 2023). 13. Conclusion The LanDS framework makes the case for an analytical social dynamic approach to the DQs contributing to the EV of a group in a minority setting. The framework visualises the sustainability of a language group as a series of the core component social and formal processes which determines a Min-L group’s viability or vulnerability: a positive social/ formal dynamic contributes to a groups’ viability, and negative or sub- tractive dynamic processes in the Min-L group culminate in its societal decline and erasure. The LanDS framework portrays EV as a societal emergent feature of a Min-L group’s capacity to cultivate and enact key social processes of primary and secondary socialisation (entailing the socialised transfer of the minority’s language and cultural capital). LanDS EV also entails the Civic Reinforcement of the Min-Ls language and culture, and affiliation processes generating a meaningful sense of belonging to a coherent collective identity. EV is realised, therefore, as the societal outcome of a group’s organisational facility to generate and sustain key inter-related social, institutional, civic and affiliative pro- cesses on which the societal continuity relies. Just as individual-focused and sectoral-specific interventions will fail to ensure Min-L EV, so will other LPPs that do not follow holistic, communal, and long-term (mul- tiple generations) goals towards sustainability. In contrast with more circumscribed current approaches which overconcentrate resources, particularly in DQ3, the LanDS approach provides a framework by which empirical evidence from various eth- nolinguistic contexts can be tested for positive impact and for assessing returns on investment. Our LanDS EV framework suggests that signifi- cant aspects of current LPP approaches to Min-Ls require substantial revision to align Min-LPrPr to the developmental social and formal dynamics indicated in this initial delineation of feasible Min-L societal sustainability. C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 63 Applying the LanDS framework entails: a) Examining the existing levels of focus in current Min-LPP regarding LanDS; b) Devising Min-LPP approaches that are more relevant to DQ social dynamics and to more optimal EV outcomes; c) Quantitative and qualitative assessments through demolinguistic and sociolinguistic surveys of the actual, meaningful (rather than purely or predominantly symbolic) engagement with the social dy- namics entailed in the four DQs of LanDS and their EV outcomes; d) Adjusting and amending the ongoing Min-LPP based on the ongoing EV research. Undoubtedly, existing research evidence (e.g. Ó Giollagáin et al. 2020; cf. Mac Giolla Chríost 2022) already demonstrates the need for an in- creased and more pertinent focus in Min-LPP on holistic, multi-level solutions with ideological coherence. Issues relating to integrating primary and secondary socialisation of Min-L cohorts and individuals into formal Min-L promotion and protection are pivotal for ensuring the societal viability of Min-L communities. References Allard, R. & Landry, R., 1986. Subjective Ethnolinguistic Vitality Viewed as a Belief System. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7 (1), 1–12, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1986.9994226 Allard, R. & Landry, R., 1994. Subjective Ethnolinguistic Vitality: A Comparison of Two Measures. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108, 117– 144, doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.1994.108.117 Allard, R., Landry, R. & Deveau, K., 2005. Conscientisation ethnolangagière et comportement engagé en milieu minoritaire. Francophonies d’ Amérique 20, 95–109, doi: https://doi.org/10.7202/1005339ar Armstrong, T., 2021a. Long-term, is Gaelic Viable as a Network Language? In Cuan Dubh Drilseach, 28 May 2021, https://drilseach.net/2021/05/28/long-term- is-gaelic-viable-as-a-network-language/ (accessed 16 June 2025). Armstrong, T., 2021b. Eugsamhlachd ann an Saoghal na Gàidhlig. In Cuan Dubh Drilseach, 18 December 2021, https://drilseach.net/2021/12/18/eugsamhla - chd-ann-an-saoghal-na-gaidhlig/ (accessed 16 June 2025). Armstrong, T., McLeod, W., Dunbar, R., Dunmore, S., O’Rourke, B. & Macleod, M., 2022. Gaelic and Identity: A Response to Iain MacKinnon. Scottish Affairs 31 (1), 64–83, doi: https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2022.0398 Ball, P ., 2023. How Life Works. Picador, London. TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 64 Bastardas-Boada, A., 2013. General Linguistics and Communication Sciences: Sociocomplexity as an Integrative Perspective. In À. Massip-Bonet & A. Bastar- das-Boada (eds.) Complexity Perspectives on Language, Communication and Society. Springer, Berlin, 151–173. Batibo, H., 2005. Language Decline and Death in Africa: Causes, Consequences and Challenges. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S. & Polinsky, M., 2013. Heritage Languages and their Speakers: Opportunities and Challenges for Linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 39 (3/4), 129–181, https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0009 Bernstein, B., 1971. Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies Towards a Socio- logy of Language. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Bourdieu, P ., 2017 [1977]. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bourgeois, D., 2006. Canadian Bilingual Districts. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal, Kingston. Bourgeois, D., 2024a. Bilan de la pleine gestion scolaire en Acadie de l’Île-du-Prin- ce-Édouard. Institut canadien de recherche sur les minorités linguistiques, Moncton. Bourgeois, D., 2024b. Priorisation et autonomisation en éducation. [Mémoire présenté au Comité de la Chambre des Communes sur les langues officielles]. Institut Beaubassin, Moncton. Bourhis, R. Y . & Landry, R., 2008. Group Vitality, Cultural Autonomy and the Well- ness of Language Minorities. In R. Y . Bourhis (ed.) The Vitality of the English- speaking Communities of Quebec: From Community Decline to Revival. CEETUM, Université de Montréal, Montreal, 185–212. Bradley, D., 2022. Language Endangerment, Loss and Reclamation Today. In S. Mufwene & A. M. Escobar (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Language Con- tact. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 455–472. Bradley, D. & Bradley, M., 2019. Language Endangerment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Brenzinger, M., et al., 2003. Language Vitality and Endangerment. UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages, https://ich.unesco.org/doc/ src/00120-EN.pdf (accessed 5 May 2025). Brooks, S. & Roberts, R. G. (eds.), 2013. Pa Beth Yr Aethoch Allan i’w Achub? Gwasg Carreg Gwalch, Llanrwst. Calvet, L-J., 2006. Towards an Ecology of World Languages. Polity, Cambridge. Camshron, G., 2021. Resisting Dismissal in the Gàidhealtachd. Scottish Affairs 30 (2), 240–250, doi: https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2021.0363 Canny, N., 2010. Making Ireland British, 1580–1650. Oxford University Press, Oxford. C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 65 Central Statistics Office / Phríomh-Oifig Staidrimh, 2022. Census of Population 2022 Profile 8 - The Irish Language and Education: Irish Language and the Gaeltacht (19 December 2023). Central Statistics Office, https://www.cso. ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cpp8/censusofpopulation2022profile8- theirishlanguageandeducation/irishlanguageandthegaeltacht/ (accessed 11 June 2025). Clark, E., 2009. First Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Council of Europe, 2023. Sixth Periodical Report Presented to the Secretary Gene- ral of the Council of Europe in Accordance with Article 15 of the Charter on European Regional and Minority Languages: United Kingdom (3 August 2023). Council of Europe, Strasbourg. (Adopted 19 June 2024), https://rm.coe.int/ ukpr6-en/1680ac30bb (accessed 5 May 2025). Cronin, M., 2019. Irish and Ecology | An Ghaeilge agus an Éiceolaíocht. FÁS, Dublin. Crystal, D., 2000. Language Death. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dauenhauer, N. M. & Dauenhauer, R., 1998. Technical, Emotional, and Ideological Issues in Reversing Language Shift: Examples from Southeast Alaska. In L. A. Grenoble & L. J. Whaley (eds.) Endangered Languages: Language Loss and Community Response. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 57–98. Demszky, A. & Nassehi, A., 2014. The Role of Knowledge in Scientific Policy Advice. In T. Fenwick, E. Mangez & J. Ozga (eds.) World Yearbook of Education: Gover- ning Knowledge: Comparison, Knowledge-based Technologies and Expertise in the Regulation of Education. Routledge, London, 113–127. de Sousa Santos, B., 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemi- cide. Routledge, London. Deveau, K., Landry, R. & Allard, R., 2005. Au-delà de l’autodéfinition: composan- tes distinctes de l’identité ethnolinguistique. Francophonies d’ Amérique 20, 79–93, doi: https://doi.org/10.7202/1005338ar Dunmore, S., 2018. New Gaelic Speakers, New Gaels? Ideologies and Ethnolingui- stic Continuity in Contemporary Scotland. In C. Smith-Christmas, N. Ó Mur- chadha, M. Hornsby & M. Moriarty (eds.) New Speakers of Minority Langua- ges: Linguistic Ideologies and Practices. Palgrave, London, 23–44. Easton, D., 1965a. A Framework for Political Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Easton, D., 1965b. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Wiley, New York. Edwards, G. & Sharkansky, I., 1978. The Policy Predicament. W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco. Edwards, J., 1992. Sociopolitical Aspects of Language Maintenance and Loss Towards a Typology of Minority Language Situations. In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert, K. & S. Kroon (eds.) Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. John Benja- mins, Amsterdam, 37–54. Edwards, J., 2012. Multilingualism: Understanding Linguistic Diversity. Continuum, London. TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 66 Ehala, M., 2010. Ethnolinguistic Vitality and Intergroup Processes. Multilingua 29 (2), 203–22, doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2010.009 ELEN – European Language Equality Network, 2024. European Language Equality Network backs Kontseilua Resolution That Basque Is in a “Linguistic Emer- gency.” 12 November 2024, https://elen.ngo/2024/11/12/elen-backs-kont- seilua-resolution-that-basque-is-in-a-linguistic-emergency (accessed 11 June 2025). Fishman, J. A., 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. Fishman, J. A., 2001. Reversing language shift. In R. Mesthrie (ed.) Concise Encyclo- pedia of Sociolinguistics. Pergamon, Oxford, 672–678. Gaeltacht Act 2012. ISB – Irish Statute Book 38 (2012), https://www.irishstatute- book.ie/eli/2012/act/34/enacted/en/htm (accessed 5 May 2025). Gaspard, H., 2024. Principles for Language Policy Implementation. In M. Gazzola, F. Grin, L. Cardinal & K. Heugh (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language Policy and Planning. Routledge, Abingdon, 303–317. Gazzola, M., Grin, F., Häggman, J. & Moring, T., 2016. The EU‘s Financial Support for Regional or Minority Languages: A Historical Assessment. Treatises and Documents / Razprave in gradivo 77, 33–66. Gazzola, M., Grin, F., Cardinal, L. & Heugh, K., 2024. Language Policy and Plan- ning: From theory to practice. In M. Gazzola, F. Grin, L. Cardinal & K. Heugh (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language Policy and Planning. Routledge, Abingdon, 1–31. Giles, H., 1973. Accent Mobility: A Model and Some Data. Anthropological Lin- guistics 15, 87–105, https://www.jstor.org/stable/30029508 (accessed 4 June 2025). Giles, H., 1977. Social Psychology and Applied Linguistics: Towards an Integrative Approach. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics 35, 27–42, doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.35.02gil Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y . & Taylor, D. M., 1977. Towards a Theory of Language in Ethnic Group Relations. In H. Giles (ed.) Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. Academic Press, London, 307–348. Giddens, A., 1991. Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Glaser, K., 2007. Minority Languages and Cultural Diversity in Europe: Gaelic and Sorbian perspectives. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. Godenhjelm, S., 2024. Language Policy Implementation from an Interactive Gover- nance Perspective. In M. Gazzola, F. Grin, L. Cardinal & K. Heugh (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language Policy and Planning. Routledge, Abingdon, 318–330. Godin, G., Landry, R. & Allard, R., 2022. Conscientisation, engagement commu- nautaire et pratiques pédagogiques du personnel enseignant en contexte C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 67 francophone minoritaire. Linguistic Minorities and Society 18, 3–36, https:// doi.org/10.7202/1089178ar Government of Ireland, 2010. 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language: 2010–2030, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/20-year-strategy-for-the-irish-langua- ge-20102030-31b63748-3912-4a7c-8664-d1c512d269d1.pdf (accessed 11 June 2025). Grin, F., 2003. Economics and Language Planning. Current Issues in Language Planning 4 (1), 1–66, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200308668048 Grin, F., 2016. Challenges of Minority Languages. In V. Ginsburgh & S. Weber (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Economics and Language. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 616–658. Grin, F., 2024. Language Policy Design and Programme Theory. In M. Gazzola, F. Grin, L. Cardinal & K. Heugh (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language Policy and Planning. Routledge, Abingdon, 229–243. Hagège, C., 2009. On the Death and Life of Languages. Yale University Press, New Haven. Harrison, K. D., 2007. When Languages Die: The Extinction of the World’s Langua- ges and the Erosion of Human Knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hasan, R., 1988. Language in the Processes of Socialisation: Home and School. In J. Oldenburg, T. van Leeuwen & L. Gerot (eds.) Language and Socialisation: Home and School. Macquarie University, North Ryde (NSW), 36–96. Henrich, J., 2020. The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psy- chologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous. Penguin, London. Henrich, J., Heine, S. & Norenzayan, A., 2010. The Weirdest People in the World. Behavorial and Brain Sciences 33 (2/3), 81–83, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0140525X0999152X Hulstijn, J. H., 2017. Language Proficiency in Native and Non-native Speakers: Theory and Research. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Iurrebaso Biteri, I., 2023. Hizkuntza gutxituen jarraipena, ordezkapena eta indar- berritzea neurtzeko demolinguistikazko tresna metodologikoak garatzen. Euskal Herrirako aplikazio praktikoa. [Doctoral thesis]. University of the Basque Country – EHU/UPV, Leioa, https://addi.ehu.es/handle/10810/60061 (accessed 5 May 2025). Jenkins, R., 1997. Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations. Sage, London. Jones, H. M., 2012. A Statistical Overview of the Welsh Language. Welsh Langua- ge Board, Cardiff, https://www.welshlanguagecommissioner.wales/media/ witfawoe/a-statistical-overview-of-the-welsh-language.pdf (accessed 4 June 2025). Kaufmann, E. P . (ed.), 2004. Rethinking Ethnicity: Majority Groups and Dominant Minorities. Routledge, London. TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 68 Krauss, M., 1992. The World’s Languages in Crisis. Language 68 (1), 4–10, doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0075 Landry, R., 2015. L’État et les minorités linguistiques: la perspective de l’autonomie culturelle. Éditions Yvon Blais, Montreal. Landry, R., 2018. The Key Actors in Language Revitalization. Canadian Diversity 15 (1), 12–17. Landry, R., 2020. L’ Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick et l’autonomie culturelle: un modèle conceptuel (2009). Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities, Moncton. Landry, R. & Allard, R., 1989. Vitalité Ethnolinguistique et Diglossie. Revue québé- coise de linguistique théorique et appliquée 8 (2), 73–101. Landry, R. & Allard, R., 1990. Contact des langues et développement bilingue: Un modèle macroscopique. The Canadian Modern Language Review 46 (3), 527– 553, doi: 10.3138/cmlr.46.3.527 Landry, R. & Allard, R., 1992a. Subtractive Bilingualism: The Case of Franco-Ameri- cans in Maine’s St-John Valley. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Deve- lopment 13 (6), 515–544, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1992.999 4513 Landry, R. & Allard, R., 1992b. Ethnolinguistic Vitality and the Bilingual Deve- lopment of Minority and Majority Group Students. In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert & S. Kroon (eds.) Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 223–251, doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.1.17lan Landry, R. & Allard, R., 1994. Diglossia, Ethnolinguistic Vitality and Language Beha- viour. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108, 15–42, doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1994.108.15 Landry, R. & Allard, R., 1996. Vitalité ethnolinguistique: une perspective dans l’étude de la francophonie canadienne. In J. Erfurt (ed.) De la polyphonie à la symphonie. Méthodes, théories et faits de la recherche pluridisciplinaire sur le français au Canada. Leipziger Universitätsverlag, Leipzig, 61–87. Landry, R. & Bourhis, R. Y ., 1997. Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality: An Empirical Study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16 (1), 23–49, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X970161002 Landry, R. & Rousselle, S., 2003. Éducation et droits collectifs. Les Éditions de la francophonie, Moncton. Landry, R., Allard, R., Deveau, K. & Bourgeois, N., 2005. Autodétermination du comportement langagier en milieu minoritaire: un modèle conceptuel. Fran- cophonies d’ Amérique 20, 63–78, doi: https://doi.org/10.7202/1005337ar Landry, R., Allard, R. & Deveau, K., 2006. Revitalisation ethnolinguistique: un modèle macroscopique. In A. Magord (ed.) Innovation et adaptation: expériences acadiennes contemporaines. Peter Lang, Bruxelles, 105–124. C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 69 Landry, R., Allard, R. & Deveau, K., 2007. A Macroscopic Intergroup Approach to the Study of Ethnolinguistic Development. International Journal of the Socio- logy of Language 185, 225–253, doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2007.032 Landry, R., Allard, R. & Deveau, K., 2008. Un modèle macroscopique du déve- loppement psycholangagier en contexte intergroupe minoritaire. Diversité Urbaine (numéro hors-série), 45–68, doi: https://doi.org/10.7202/019561ar Landry, R., Allard, R. & Deveau, K., 2009. Self-determination and Bilingualism. Theory and Research in Education 7 (2), 203–213, https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1477878509104325 Landry, R., Allard, R., Deveau, K. & St-Onge, S., 2022. Minority Language Lear- ning and Use: Can Self-determination Counter Social Determinism? Journal of Language and Social Psychology 41 (3), 240–269, https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0261927X211041153 Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L., 2008. Complex Systems and Applied Lingui- stics. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lenoach, C., 2012. An Ghaeilge iarthraidisiúnta agus a dioscúrsa [Post-traditional Irish and Its Discourse]. In C. Lenoach, C. Ó Giollagáin & B. Ó Curnáin (eds.) An Chonair Chaoch: An mionteangachas sa dátheangachas [The Blind Alley: The Minority Language Condition in Bilingualism]. Leabhar Breac, Indreabhán, 19–109. Lenoach, C., 2014. Sealbhú Neamhiomlán na Gaeilge mar Chéad Teanga sa Dátheangachas Dealaitheach [Incomplete Acquisition of Irish as a First Lan- guage in Subtractive Bilingualism]. (PhD Dissertation). National University of Ireland, Galway; An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelsco- laíochta [Council for Gaeltacht and Irish-Medium Education], Dublin, http:// www.cogg.ie/wp-content/uploads/phd-ciaran-lenoach.pdf (accessed 5 May 2025). Lenoach, C., Ó Giollagáin, C. & Ó Curnáin, B. (eds.) 2012. An Chonair Chaoch: An mionteangachas sa dátheangachas [The Blind Alley: The Minority Language Condition in Bilingualism]. Leabhar Breac, Indreabhán. Lewis, M. P . & Simons, G. F., 2016. Sustaining Language Use: Perspectives on Com- munity-Based Language Development. SIL International Publications, Dallas. MacLean, M., 2022. Policy Failure in the Gaelic Heartland: One Size Does Not Fit All [Conference paper]. Soillse conference Rooting Minority Language Policy in the Speaker Community, 29–31 August 2022, Stornoway, https://guthan. wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/macgilleain-co-labhairt- shoillse-lunasdal-2022.pdf (accessed 11 June 2025). MacKinnon, I., 2021. Recognising and Reconstituting Gàidheil Ethnicity. Scottish Affairs 30 (2), 212–230, doi: https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2021.0361 MacLeod, M. & Smith-Christmas, C. (eds.), 2018. Gaelic in Contemporary Scot- land: The Revitalisation of an Endangered Language. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 70 McLeod, W., 2020. Gaelic in Scotland: Policies, Movements, Ideologies. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. McLeod, W., Dunbar, R., Macleod, M., O’Rourke, B., Dunmore, S. & Armstrong, T., 2022. Against Exclusionary Gaelic Language Policy: A Response to Ó Giollagáin and Caimbeul. Scottish Affairs 31 (1), 84–103, doi: https://doi.org/10.3366/ scot.2022.0399 Mac Donnacha, J., 2000. An Integrated Language Planning Model. Language Problems & Language Planning 24 (1), 11–35, doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/ lplp.24.1.03mac Mac Donnacha, S., Ní Chualáin, F., Ní Shéaghdha, A. & Ní Mhainnín, T., 2005. Staid Reatha na Scoileanna Gaeltachta [Study of Gaeltacht Schools]. An Chomhai- rle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta [Council for Gaeltacht and Irish-Medium Education], Dublin. Mac Giolla Chríost, D., 2022. Review: Conchúr Ó Giollagáin et al., The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Community. A Comprehensive Sociolinguistic Survey of Scottish Gaelic. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 23 (1), 205–212. Marume, S. B. M., Mutongi C. & Madziyire, N. C., 2016. An Analysis of Public Policy Implementation. Journal of Business and Management 18 (4), 86–93, doi: https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-1804018693 May, S., 2005. Language Rights: Moving the Debate Forward. Journal of Sociolingui- stics 9 (3), 319–347, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2005.00295.x McEwan-Fujita, E., 2006. Gaelic Doomed as Speakers Die Out? The Public Dis- course of Gaelic Language Death in Scotland. In W. McLeod (ed.) Revitalising Gaelic in Scotland: Policy, Planning and Public Discourse. Dunedin Academic Press, Edinburgh, 279–293. Meek, D., 2019. Seòl Mo Bheatha: Turas eadar Croit is Eilean is Oilthigh. Clàr, Inverness. Montrul, S., 2008. Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Mounk, Y ., 2023. The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time. Pen- guin, London. Mufwene, S., 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Nance, C., 2021. The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Community: A Comprehensi- ve Sociolinguistic Survey of Scottish Gaelic by Conchúr Ó Giollagáin, Gòrdan Camshron, Pàdruig Moireach, Brian Ó Curnáin, Iain Caimbeul, Brian MacDo- nald, and Tamás Péterváry, Aberdeen, Aberdeen University Press, 2020 [book review]. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 43 (7), 694– 697, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1884942 Nettle, D. & Romaine, S., 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford University Press, Oxford. C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 71 Niskanen, W., 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Routledge, New York. Niskanen, W., 1994. Bureaucracy and Public Economics. Elgar, Cheltenham. Norris, M. J., 2004. From Generation to Generation: Survival and Maintenance of Canada’s Aboriginal Languages, within Families, Communities and Cities. TESL Canada Journal 21 (2), 1–16. Ó Curnáin, B., 2009. Mionteangú na Gaeilge [Minoritizing Irish]. In B. Ó Catháin (ed.) Sochtheangeolaíocht na Gaeilge: Léachtaí Cholm Cille 39 [The Sociolin- guistics of Irish, Colmcille Lectures XXXIX]. An Sagart, Maynooth, 90–153. Ó Curnáin, B. & Ó Giollagáin, C., 2021. Reply to Claire Nance’s Review. The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Community: A Comprehensive Sociolinguistic Survey of Scottish Gaelic by Conchúr Ó Giollagáin, Gòrdan Camshron, Pàdruig Moi- reach, Brian Ó Curnáin, Iain Caimbeul, Brian MacDonald, and Tamás Pétervá- ry, Aberdeen, Aberdeen University Press, 2020. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–3, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.202 1.1927513 Ó Curnáin, B. & Ó Giollagáin, C., 2024. Minority Language Protection and Pro- motion. In M. Gazzola, F. Grin, L. Cardinal & K. Heugh (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language Policy and Planning. Routledge, Oxon, 396–415. Ó Giollagáin, C., 2008. Linguistic Dimensions of the Globalised Frontier: Old and New Minorities in Contact and Context. International Journal of Anthropology 23 (3–4), 247–260. Ó Giollagáin, C., 2010. The Eclipse of the First Language Minority Speaker: Deficiencies in Ethnolinguistic Acquisition and Its Evasive Discourse. In H. G. Lewis & N. Ostler (eds). Reversing Language Shift: How to Re-awaken a Lan- guage Tradition: Proceedings of the 14th Foundation for Endangered Langua- ges Conference, Carmarthen, Wales, 13–15 September 2010. Foundation for Endangered Languages, Bath, 11–22. Ó Giollagáin, C., 2012. An Mionteangachas agus na hEolaíochtaí Teanga [The Minority Language Condition and the Language Sciences]. In C. Lenoach, C. Ó Giollagáin & B. Ó Curnáin (eds.) An Chonair Chaoch: An Mionteangachas sa Dátheangachas. Leabhar Breac, Indreabhán, 193–236. Ó Giollagáin, C., 2014a. Unfirm Ground: A Re-assessment of Language Policy in Ireland Since Independence [First of a two-part article]. Language Pro- blems and Language Planning 38 (1), 19–41, doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/ lplp.38.1.02gio Ó Giollagáin, C., 2014b. From Revivalist to Undertaker: New Developments in Official Policies and Attitudes to Ireland’s ‘First Language’ [Second of a two- part article] Language Problems and Language Planning 38 (2), 101–127, doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.38.2.01gio Ó Giollagáin, C., 2021. Irish Language Will Not Be Saved by Symbolic-focused Bureaucracy. The Irish Times, 11 March 2021, https://www.irishtimes.com/ TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 72 opinion/irish-language-will-not-be-saved-by-symbolic-focused-bureaucra- cy-1.4506684 (accessed 5 May 2025). Ó Giollagáin, C., 2024. Gaelic is Being Held Back by an Institutional “Cosy-ocracy”. Stornoway Gazette, 29 March 2024, https://www.stornowaygazette.co.uk/ education/gaelic-is-being-held-back-by-an-institutional-cosy-ocracy-4574257 (accessed 5 May 2025). Ó Giollagáin, C., Mac Donnacha, S., Ní Chualáin, F., Ní Sheaghdha, A. & O’Brien, M., 2007a. Comprehensive Linguistic Study of the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht: Principal findings and recommendations. The Stationery Office, Dublin. Ó Giollagáin, C., Mac Donnacha, S., Ní Chualáin, F., Ní Sheaghdha, A. & O’Brien, M., 2007b. Staidéar Cuimsitheach Teangeolaíoch ar Úsáid na Gaeilge sa Gha- eltacht: Tuarascáil chríochnaitheach [Comprehensive Linguistic Study of the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht: Final report]. The Stationery Office, Dublin. Ó Giollagáin, C. & Charlton, M., 2015. Nuashonrú ar an Staidéar Cuimsitheach Teangeolaíoch ar Úsáid na Gaelige sa Ghaeltacht: 2006–2011 [An Update of the Comprehensive Linguistic Study of the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht: 2006–2011]. Údarás na Gaeltachta, Na Forbacha/Furbogh, (Galway). Ó Giollagáin, C. & Ó Curnáin, B., 2016. Beartas Úr na nGael: Dálaí na Gaeilge san Iar-Nua-Aoiseachas [A New Deal for Irish: The Condition of Irish in Postmo- dernity]. Leabhar Breac, Indreabhán/Inverin (Galway). Ó Giollagáin, C., Camshron, G., Moireach, P., Ó Curnáin, B., Caimbeul, I., MacDonald, B. & Péterváry, T., 2020. The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Com- munity: A Comprehensive Sociolinguistic Survey of Scottish Gaelic. Aberdeen University Press, Aberdeen. Ó Giollagáin, C. & Caimbeul, I., 2021. Moving beyond Asocial Minority-Language Policy. Scottish Affairs 30 (2), 178–211, doi: https://doi.org/10.3366/scot. 2021.0360 Ó Giollagain, C., Caimbeul, I., Ó Curnáin, B., Camshron, G. & Moireach, P., 2022a. Including the Threatened First-language Vernacular Community in Gaelic Promotion and Protection: A Rebuttal to McLeod et al. Scottish Affairs 31 (1), 122–132, doi: https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2022.0402 Ó Giollagain, C., Caimbeul, I., Ó Curnáin, B., Camshron, G. & Moireach, P., 2022b. Reality of the Gaelic Crisis Needs Addressed: A Response to McLeod and Others, from Conchúr Ó Giollagáin, Iain Caimbeul, Brian Ó Curnáin, Gòrdan Camshron, Pàdruig Moireach. West Highland Free Press, 20 January 2022. Ó Giollagáin, C. & Ó Curnáin, B., 2024. A Tolerable Decline for le Chic Gaelique. The Village: Ireland’s Political and Cultural Magazine 83 (June–July), 56–58, https://villagemagazine.ie/a-tolerable-decline-forle-chic-gaelique/ (accessed 7 May 2025). O’Neill, J., 2018. The Nine Years War, 1593–1603. Four Courts Press, Dublin. Ó Riagáin, P., 1997. Language Policy and Social Reproduction: Ireland 1893–1993. Clarendon Press, Oxford. C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 73 Ó Riagáin, P., 2008. Irish-Language Policy 1922–2007: Balancing Maintenance and Revival. In C. Nic Pháidín & S. Ó Cearnaigh (eds.) A New View of the Irish Lan- guage. Cois Life, Dublin, 55–65. O’Rourke, B. & Walsh, J., 2020. New Speakers of Irish in the Global Context: New Revival? Routledge, London, New York. Péterváry, T., 2016. Language, Ideology and Power in Contemporary Ireland. [Unpublished PhD thesis], NUI Galway. Péterváry, T., Ó Curnáin, B., Ó Giollagáin, C. & Sheahan, J., 2014. Iniúchadh ar an gCumas Dátheangach: An sealbhú teanga i measc ghlúin óg na Gaeltachta / Analysis of Bilingual Competence: Language Acquisition among Young People in the Gaeltacht. An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelsco- laíochta, Dublin, https://www.cogg.ie/wp-content/uploads/iniuchadh-ar-an- gcumas-datheangach.pdf (accessed 5 June 2025). Roberts, R. G. & Ó Giollagáin, C., 2024. Prosiect BRO Compendium of Language Statistics Based on Census 2021 Data: Research Compendium to the Report of the Commission for Welsh-speaking Communities on Communities with a Higher Density of Welsh Speakers. Empowering Communities, Strengthe- ning The Welsh Language. The Language Science Institute, https://www.gov. wales/sites/default/files/publications/2024-08/Prosiect%20BRO%20Com- pendium%20of%20Language%20Statistics%20based%20on%20Census%20 2021%20data_0.pdf (accessed 11 May 2025). Royles, E., Jones, R. & Lewis, H., 2024. Adroddiad ar ddulliau asesu hyfywedd iaith / Methods of Assessing Linguistic Vitality Report. Prifysgol Aberystwyth / Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth. Smith-Christmas, C., Ó Murchadha, N., Hornsby, M. & Moriarty, M. (eds.), 2018. New Speakers of Minority Languages: Linguistic Ideologies and Practices. Pal- grave, London. Strubell, M., 2001. Catalan a decade later. In J. Fishman (ed.) Can Threatened Lan- guages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift Revisited: A 21st Century Perspec- tive. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, 260–283. Tajfel, H., 1974. Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour. Social Science Informa- tion 13 (2), 65–93, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204 Williams, C., 2023. Language Policy and the New Speaker Challenge: Hiding in Plain Sight. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wilson, J. Q., 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. Basic Books, New York. Zorčič, S. & Sorgo, L., 2025. Multilingualism in Minority Schools: New Realities. In W. Wei & J. Schnell (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of the Endangered and Minority Languages. Routledge, London, 243–258. TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025 74 Notes 1 WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic – first coined by Henrich et al. (2010). 2 See the discussion in Ó Giollagáin et al. (2020, 370–372) on Strubell’s Catherine Wheel model. 3 For reasons of space, we cannot discuss in detail insights from the academic literature relevant to many of the processes entailed in our EV framework, as illustrated in Figures 3–7. This introduction to the LanDS theoretical framework cannot be exhaustive as the framework can easily incorporate additional conceptual tenets, structural quadrants, and inputs (see General Tenets and Developmental Quadrants). 4 The authors are grateful to Nóirín Ní Ghiollagáin for her design work on preparing the LanDS conceptual diagrams (Figures 3–7). Áine Uí Ghiollagáin prepared Figures 1–2, previously published in Ó Curnáin and Ó Giollagáin (2024). 5 In his case study of minority-language education in Prince Edward Island, Canada, Bourgeois (2024a) discusses community and formal support, such as youth extra-curricular Min-L activities and identity reinforcement, needed to counter the assimilatory trend towards the Maj-L when schools replace parents as the principal (often only) agent of transmission of the minority language and culture. 6 It should be acknowledged, of course, that many Min-L groups are not integrated into broader societal contexts by which they can develop a political approach to their concerns beyond their communal situation. This results from them being ignored or too isolated from the political apparatus or discourses that dominate the polity in which they reside (cf. de Sousa Santos (2014, 172) on people living below the “abyssal line”). 7 See the discussions on New-speakerism in Ó Curnáin and Ó Giollagáin (2024, 406) and Ó Giollagáin et al. (2020, 386–388). 8 In the 2022 Irish Census (Central Statistics Office / Phríomh-Oifig Staidrimh 2022), 1.7 million people reported an ability in spoken Irish (cf. Ó Giollagáin and Ó Curnáin (2024) for a discussion on the divergence between the symbolic appeal of L2 Irish and the limited vernacular reality of L1 communities). 9 See also the European Language Equality Network statement on the Kontseilua Resolution that Basque-language communities are in a “linguistic emergency” (ELEN 2024). 10 Linguism here refers to a focus in LPP discourses on language without sufficient emphasis on the societal and political context of speaker groups. 11 E.g. states’ efforts to adhere to the LPP criteria of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages; the prioritisation of L2 concerns in the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language (Government of Ireland 2010); the institutional focus in various iterations of the National Gaelic Language Plan in Scotland. C. Ó GIOllAGáIN, D. BOURGEOIS, B. Ó CURNáIN, I. CAIMBEUl, G. CAMERON Language Dynamics ... 75 12 In Canada, minority-language schools are the most important public institution in support of (or, often, in replacement of) parental transmission of the minority language and culture (Bourgeois 2024b). However, schools cannot by themselves save a minority language and culture (Landry & Rousselle 2003). If they are to be of societal relevance, steering them towards EV is required. 13 Presentism here refers to an overemphasis on present Min-L concerns without sufficient cognisance of past and future issues and dynamics. This overemphasis decontextualises historical and generational legacies and ongoing processes and thereby impedes any current and future realistic Min-LPP . 14 Smith-Christmas et al. (2018), containing Dunmore’s article, has multiple instances of the term “essentialist”, all of which are disapproving. Acknowledgement The authors are grateful to the Scottish Funding Council for the financial support to the UHI Language Sciences Institute which helped fund this research project. Jezikovna dinamika v družbi: analitični okvir za etnično-jezikovno vitalnost večinskega in manjšinskega jezika Izvleček Jezikovna dinamika v družbi (ang. Language Dynamics in Society, LanDS) predstavlja analitični okvir za presojo etnolingvistične vitalnosti (EV). Ta je ključna za družbene procese, ki vplivajo na stabilnost jezikovnih sku- pin. LanDS omogoča izboljšano akademsko analizo EV ter spodbujanja in zaščite jezika. Omenjeni pristop se osredotoča na dinamiko sodelovanja družbenih akterjev v procesih, ki EV škodijo ali koristijo. LanDS tako pred- laga štiri analitične razvojne kvadrante: prenos in pridobivanje jezika, so- cializacija in okrepljeno pridobivanje, družbena ekspanzija in koherentna etnizacija. Na vsak kvadrant vplivajo štirje osnovni koncepti: smer, proces, sodelovanje in konkurenca. S sodelovanjem v teh ključnih razvojnih fazah lahko jezikovna skupina vpliva na kolektivno kontinuiteto oz. nestabilnost skupnosti. Ključne besede etnično-jezikovna vitalnost, družbena jezikovna dinamika, prenos jezika, etničnost, okvir LanDS, manjšinska sociolingvistika TREATISES AND DOCUMENTS JOURNAL OF ETHNIC STUDIES 94 / 2025