Fishman: Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS)

If elders (grandparents) in a community speak their traditional language but their grandchildren do not. This could mean that the language has not been transferred from the parent generation to their children and this is a sign that language shift has occurred (NWT Literacy Council 1999). In order to understand the situation in this community and many others Fishman (1991) provides a model called the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS). This model serves as both a framework to evaluate the degree of shift and ‘reversing language shift’ or according to Clyne (2003) is concerned with intergenerational discontinuity and how it can be arrested and reversed. Fishman’s (1991) model uses an’eight stage analysis and prescription’ to revive the threatened languages and for ensuring sustainability. Stages eight to five focus on assigning particular functions for the community language in order for it to be transmitted intergenerationally. Stages four to one involve what Fishman (1991:401) refers to as ‘increased power-sharing rather than diglossia’. On this scale the higher the rating, the lower the expectations of the language continuity of the group. These stages for language revival are as follows:

Stage 8: At this stage there are very few speakers (mainly the elderly) available. So the focus is on the reassembling of the language in its advanced stages of language shift or death. This stage does not apply to immigrant languages because their heartland lies outside the country in which they reside and the language will be actively used in their country of origin, such as the case of Emakhuwa in Durban.

Stage 7: This stage deals with the learning and relearning of the language. It relates to the acquisition of the language by adults, who actually act as apprentices, learning the language from the elderly through language classes. This is recommended when most of the remaining speakers of the language are few and socially isolated from other speakers of the language.

Stage 6: The third stage is the creation of a socially integrated population of active speakers (or users) of the language. The language is introduced in localities with a reasonable number of people habitually using the language to communicate with each other. The idea is to encourage the informal use of the language amongst people of all age groups, starting with the family domain and then strengthen its daily use throughout the domain of local

81 neighbourhood and its institutions where language is used, encouraged and protected. Fishman asserts that this is a crucial stage to reversing language shift because of the focus on a demographically concentrated area and on intergenerational transmission.

Stage 5: At this point the focus will be on the areas where oral competence in the language has been achieved in all the different age groups in the community and where literacy in the language is encouraged. However, this is not dependent on the assistance (or goodwill of) the state education system. Members of the language group understand the importance of their language and heritage, therefore introducing formal linguistic socialisation in the form of agencies and institutions like ethnic supplementary schools held after schools or on weekend day, madrassah (Islamic schools), cultural schools, etc.

Stage 4: At this stage the language group is in a position to advocate the use of the language in state education, provided that it meets minimal requirements for numbers of students. A good example based on Clyne’s research in Australia, where in the State of Victoria the acquisition of languages other than English is compulsory throughout primary school and in the first four years of secondary school (2003:61). Some of the major community languages are taught in mainstream Victorian schools, in addition to German and Mandarin.

Stage 3: Where the above stages have been achieved and consolidated, the focus is turned to encouraging the use of the language in the workplace. The aim is to enable or reinforce the implementation of a government policy that promotes a multilingual work environment. An example can be drawn from the South African context with government’s multilingual policies. Job applicants are often required to be fluent in English and one indigenous language, preferably an indigenous language spoken by the majority of people in the area, like isiZulu in Kwa-Zulu Natal.

Stage 2: At this stage in the process of language revitalisation the focus is on encouraging the use of the language in local government offices and in the mass media. This means ensuring that radio transmissions in the community languages and newspapers are accessible to the community. Also, that the local government offices ensure that documents are translated in the local languages and information is readily available to the communities.

82 Stage 1: This is the last stage, prior to which the other stages have been achieved and consolidated. The focus is on encouraging the use of the language in higher education and government, which would strengthen and support the efforts of the previous stage.

This model of language revival is intended to direct efforts to where they are most effective and to avoid wasting energy to achieve the later stages of recovery when the earlier stages have not been achieved. For example, advocating the use of a language in the media, television or in government services when the community, the family domain in particular do not use the language. Language classes were introduced in the local Summerfield Primary School in the area, however this was not sustainable because the programme was not properly and systematically organised. The programme lacked materials, qualified teachers, a teaching plan, community engagement and partnership (it wasn’t a collective effort, the elders were not involved, parents were not consulted, and so forth). The idea was good, but it lacked research, planning and proper implementation.

According to Lambert (2008:17) scholars tend to conceive intergenerational language transmission as a form of language planning, according to which parents set specific goals on behalf of their children and elaborate appropriate linguistic strategies. For example, if English is considered as the language of progress, and in relation to the community of study a key to entry in schools in Chatsworth, then it was encouraged in the community. However, Fishman (1997) believes that if a language is to be maintained by a particular speech community, then the community needs to use their language in the home domain.

Fishman cited by Clyne (2003:63) emphasised that the intention of this model should be to serve as an instrument for diagnostic and programmatic location of a particular language and that it should provide the basis for the development of linkages between high and low-order stages of reversing language shift. He adds that this scale should serve as a tool to enable people to identify where their language stands and what needs to be done to improve the position of their language. However, it has been noted that this model is not as straightforward or clear-cut as it may appear.

According to Lewis and Simons (2009:7) have done an assessment of GIDS and concluded that, a) its description of the level of disruption is fairly static, and does not adequately account for the directionality of LS versus language development, b) it does not provide an

83 adequate description of all the possible statuses of a language, c) it is lacking as a framework for describing languages at any or all stages of its life cycle. They add that it should have several additional levels, which they provide in their model.