This diagram above is used to demonstrate the whole scope of language work that language groups can do to support their languages.
Deciding how strong a language is with measures of age and number can miss out on what is happening in the community. For example, if a language is said to have only one remaining fluent speaker linguists will say the most important thing to do is document – to make a grammar or dictionary. But there may be a lot of motivation in the family to learn language and knowledge from this speaker. The work needed to develop a grammar or dictionary cannot include the family in the way they would like.
For a community with a number of fluent speakers, the suggestion is often a school program and resource-making (e.g. bilingual books and teaching resources). But there may be speakers of more than one language in the community, speakers might not want to go into the school, or there may be other social concerns the community as a whole has decided need to be dealt with first. So the language may continue to disappear because focus is not put on supporting the certain people or groups within that community who have the motivation for language continuation.
Identifying solutions to language loss in this way is what the KLRC refers to as a 'linguistics-driven' approach to language continuation. This approach chooses the outcome or activity before first gaining an understanding of how the group or community see the loss of their own languages. It does not include them in developing and managing the appropriate activities.
This diagram below demonstrates that when the foundation of Teaching On Country is strong all other types of language continuation have a solid base to build on.