Breathing New Life into Algonquian Languages: Lessons from the Breath of Life Archival Institute for Indigenous Languages
OLIVIA N. SAMMONS AND WESLEY Y. L EONARD University of Alberta and Southern Oregon University
The year 2011 marked the ¿rst Breath of Life Archival Institute for Indigenous Languages held in Washington, DC, the primary goal of which was to enable participants to explore, interpret, and utilize archival language resources in the District of Columbia area for revitalization purposes. The Institute was noteworthy in that it marked the ¿rst time that Algonquian languages were signi¿cantly represented at a Breath of Life program, and hence offered the opportunity to conduct a case study on how interaction among members of groups from different but similar languages and cultures can further language revitalization and reclamation efforts. This paper reports on our investigation of several Algonquian-related aspects of the Institute, emphasizing the bene¿ts of collaboration among the Algonquian language teams. Despite signi¿cant diversity in the status, demographics, and extent of documentation for the languages in question, participants bene¿ted greatly from the sense of shared Algonquian identity present at the Institute. As discussed in more detail below, members of Indigenous language communities apply to participate in Breath of Life through a competitive process, and successful applicants are grouped into language teams that are then paired up with a volunteer linguist. Within the discourse of Breath of Life, the people in these two roles are referred to as “participants” and “mentors,” respectively. However, for the purposes of this paper, we will use “participant” to refer to everybody who attended the Institute, and “learner-teacher” to refer to those who applied to the program to research their languages. The Institute also included professional staff members who took on organizational roles, gave lectures, and led workshops on topics related to archival language documentation. We follow the convention of the Institute in referring to this last group as “faculty.” Beyond this, there
207 208 OLIVA N. SAMMONS AND WESLEY Y. L EONARD were additional stakeholders, such as archive staff members, representatives from sponsoring agencies, and others who were involved with the planning or implementation of the Institute. This case study begins with our own perspectives as participants in the 2011 Institute, as the ¿rst author was a co-mentor for the Central Algonquian team, and the second author was a member of both the faculty and the organizing committee.1 The ¿rst author is a linguist with previous involvement in language documentation and revitalization with Algonquian communities in Canada and the United States. The second author is a Miami tribal member and linguist specializing in language reclamation. We have both also participated in earlier Breath of Life programs, the design of which informed the 2011 Institute and is outlined below. Beyond our participant- observation in the 2011 Institute and in related programs, this case study is also informed by the following three additional sources. First, we consulted formal written evaluations of the 2011 Institute, which were completed by the majority of participants. The second source consists of ongoing conversations with Institute participants. Lastly, we solicited additional feedback speci¿cally from the Algonquian participants in the form of questionnaires. These were distributed electronically and included questions about levels of interaction with other participants, ideas about perceived bene¿ts of those interactions, views on the overall experience, and ideas for future workshops. Space was also provided to comment on any aspects of the Institute that were not speci¿cally addressed in the questionnaire. The quotations used in this paper are from responses to these questionnaires.
1. Although the status of “Central Algonquian” as a linguistic subgroup of the Algonquian language family has been challenged (see, e.g., Proulx 2003), we adopt this term for two reasons. First, it was the name assigned by the Institute organizers for the group comprised of learner-teachers investigating Sauk, Meskwaki, and Shawnee, as well as their three mentors, and was thus the label used throughout the Institute. Second, the similarities among these languages facilitated many discussions among participants and contributed to their sense of solidarity. 2. Unless otherwise speci¿ed, the term “Breath of Life” will be used as a general term to refer to the model as applied both in California and Washington, DC, while “2011 Institute” or “Institute” will refer speci¿cally to the Breath of Life program held in Washington, DC. BREATHING NEW LIFE INTO ALGONQUIAN LANGUAGES 209
HISTORY OF BREATH OF LIFE
As a name and metaphor, “Breath of Life” reÀects the focus of the series of archival language workshops from which the 2011 Institute evolved.2 The workshop in its original form began in 1993 at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) with the name “Breath of Life––Silent No More Native California Language Workshop,” and has since evolved into a biennial one- week program for up to 50 learner-teachers representing various sleeping languages of California. “Sleeping languages” are those that are not known by any living person, but that exist in documentation and are claimed by a heritage community (Leonard 2008). In other words, these are languages that have potential future use but for which many common revitalization methods, such as full immersion, are not possible. The knowledge contained in documentation therefore becomes crucial, and archival materials such as ¿eld notes, unpublished grammars, and audio recordings become essential sources for language learning. A corollary is that linguistic training becomes important to this process. Because most of the archival materials in question involve signi¿cant technical terminology and description, Breath of Life programs incorporate a series of lectures and workshops on such topics. The programs’ general goals are to use this knowledge to ¿nd relevant documentation, interpret it, and then apply it to learning and speaking these languages. The model that has developed for Breath of Life reÀects these goals. After promotion in various Native-oriented media and the application process, the program begins with the formation of language teams. Learner- teachers working on the same language (or in some cases a single person) form a team with a volunteer linguist mentor whose role is to assist in the interpretation of linguistic materials.3 Aside from those who are local, participants stay in campus housing for the duration of the program, each day of which is structured around issues in using archival language
3. These mentors are professionally trained linguists, most commonly graduate students or university faculty. Some are assigned to a language team based on previous experience with the language in question, either through their own research or from previous Breath of Life programs, while others do not have experience with the language to which they are assigned. 210 OLIVA N. SAMMONS AND WESLEY Y. L EONARD documentation. Mornings involve lectures and workshops on topics such as identifying and retrieving archival materials, reading phonetic writing, principles of grammatical analysis, and various issues associated with language learning and teaching. These are followed up with homework assignments in which the teams investigate and report on these issues for their own languages. Afternoons consist of tours of the four archives on the UCB campus, with the full group of teams split into four smaller ones, which visit a different archive each day. One evening usually has a cultural sharing event, but most other evenings are devoted to homework and research. The program culminates with the presentation of projects that each team develops over the week. Projects have included conversations, skits, and songs in the languages. Participants report that these presentations are very inspiring, particularly since many of the languages are still referred to as “extinct” by wider society. Unlike programs that focus on learning from speakers, the original purpose of Breath of Life was to bring these “extinct” languages out of historical documentation, and this is a de¿ning part of its history. While the complete history of Breath of Life is beyond the scope of the current paper, certain details become important in that they explain why no Algonquian languages had been formally investigated until 2011.4 This story originates with the people and the institutions involved in the program’s establishment, both of which inform its goals and regional focus. One instigator was L. Frank Manriquez, a Native California artist and founding member of the Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival (AICLS), an organization that creates, promotes, and funds programs for language revitalization and maintenance in California.5 She comes from a community whose language was sleeping prior to the efforts that she and others made to learn and speak it, and she recognized that other revitalization programs excluded languages like hers because they focused on methods of learning from speakers. While neither author of this paper was involved with Breath of Life at that time, others present at the beginning note that L. Frank asked “What about the languages with no speakers?” In response, L. Frank, Leanne Hinton, and other language activists created Breath of
4. A more thorough overview of the California Breath of Life’s design and development is provided by Hinton (2001). 5. For more information about the AICLS language programs, see
Life. Sponsored by UCB and AICLS, it began and continues to be held at UCB, whose Department of Linguistics was founded primarily to research California languages. As much of the resulting material is housed in campus archives, Breath of Life developed as a workshop for the revitalization of California’s sleeping languages. It is because of this focus that Algonquian languages have previously fallen outside the scope of Breath of Life. In California, Yurok and Wiyot are the only possible contenders in that they are within the larger Algic linguistic classi¿cation, which includes the Algonquian family. Of these, Yurok has never been a sleeping language and is thus outside the target of the program. Conversely, Wiyot has been represented and might fall into “Algonquian” in a broad sense, but normally has not been referred to in this way. Its community’s culture reÀects Northwest California, and its relationship to the Algonquian family is distant (Goddard 1975, 1979; Golla 2011:61–62). However, this is not to say that there was never an Algonquian presence at Breath of Life in California. Daryl Baldwin and his family have participated as instructors because of their experience with reclaiming the formerly sleeping Miami language, and Jessie Little Doe Baird, noted for her similar efforts with the Wampanoag language, has served as an instructor as well. The second author of this paper has also held various roles since 2002. Additionally, several mentors with background in Algonquian languages and cultures have been involved. Starting in 2010, Breath of Life programs have also been offered in Oklahoma by the Department of Native American Languages at the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History.6 Largely following the California model, the Oklahoma Breath of Life program was created for
6. The ¿rst Oklahoma Breath of Life occurred May 24–28, 2010, and was held primarily at the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, on the University of Oklahoma campus, with additional ¿eld trips to the Western History Collection at the University of Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma Historical Society. Its sessions followed the California model in covering topics such as language use in the home and community, grammatical analysis, and archival research methods. For more information on the 2010 workshop, see:
THE 2011 INSTITUTE
The 2011 Institute grew out of a vision held by several of the organizers from California Breath of Life programs, the idea being that signi¿cant archives in the Washington, DC area could contribute to an archival language workshop that was not restricted to California. This gave rise to discussions that eventually resulted in an award from the National Science Foundation Documenting Endangered Languages program, which provided the primary source of funding for the Institute.7 Like earlier Breath of Life workshops, this one followed the basic structure in which learner-teachers were paired with volunteer mentors. Participants stayed in a common location, in this case a block of rooms in a dormitory at a local university, and the day-
7. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0966584, which covered housing and most transportation costs of participants, breakfasts and lunches, administrative expenses, and various other program costs. Additional support came from the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress, Consortium for World Cultures, Endangered Language Fund, National Museum of Natural History, Native Voices Endowment, Recovering Voices, and the National Museum of the American Indian. BREATHING NEW LIFE INTO ALGONQUIAN LANGUAGES 213 to-day schedule was also similar. Workshops on topics of linguistics and language revitalization were held in the morning at the National Museum of the American Indian, and most afternoons were devoted to archive visits. A series of homework assignments also culminated with presentations of projects that the language teams had developed over the course of the Institute. The formal workshops were the following:
• From Paper to Talk: Language Revitalization from Archival Materials • Finding Language Documentation: Introduction to Research • Introduction to Phonetics • Grammar without Tears, Part 1 [focused on general principles and terminology] • Grammar without Tears, Part 2 [focused on grammatical analysis] • Finding Useful Language in Texts • Community-Based Archives • Access, Ethics, and Intellectual Property • Teaching Methods • Creating Lesson Plans • Language Revitalization Planning • Politics of Language
In many other ways, however, the 2011 Institute represented a new model for Breath of Life, and several of its new features become important to this discussion. First, it lasted for two weeks instead of one, and thus provided participants with more time to interact and develop relationships. Second, it was not restricted to sleeping languages. Many learner-teachers came from communities with Àuent speakers, some of whom participated as learner-teachers. Rather than framing documentation as the only source of information, the focus this time was simply on an active commitment to using archival materials for revitalization purposes. Third, while the topics 214 OLIVA N. SAMMONS AND WESLEY Y. L EONARD of the morning sessions largely paralleled those of previous Breath of Life workshops, the 2011 Institute had a special focus on the scienti¿c aspects of language revitalization from archival sources. One rationale behind the National Science Foundation’s funding of the Institute was that linguistic science could be promoted and applied. A speci¿c result was that two sessions were devoted to grammar, whereas most previous Breath of Life workshops had only one. There was an increased discussion of grammar— particularly of morphology—in several other sessions as well. Similarly, when sharing features of their languages and in their ¿nal presentations, several language teams made signi¿cant use of linguistic terminology such as “allomorph,” “polysynthetic,” and technical descriptions of speech sounds. Beyond this focus on linguistic terminology and concepts, there were also lectures and discussions on ethical issues of recent interest to linguistics as a discipline, such as language ownership, intellectual property rights, and the appropriate roles of the many stakeholders involved in language revitalization efforts. Finally, and crucially for the current discussion, the 2011 Institute was not restricted to California, resulting in representation from across the United States and from western Canada. Speci¿cally, there were 32 learner- teachers who were teamed up with 20 mentors to work on 24 languages, representing a total of eight language families and four language isolates. Of those eight language families, Algonquian had the largest representation. Learner-teachers investigated Sauk, Kickapoo, Meskwaki, Shawnee, Ojibwe, and Penobscot. Although Miami was not formally investigated, it also maintained a strong presence as it was drawn upon heavily for examples in the workshops.8 Moreover, these Algonquian languages represented diverse language ecologies despite their grammatical similarity. First, Kickapoo, Ojibwe, and Meskwaki represented languages with comparatively large speaker populations of at least several hundred, Meskwaki being of special importance because two Àuent speakers participated and provided valuable linguistic insights and information to the other Algonquian participants. Next, there were three languages with very few ¿rst-language speakers,
8. For this paper, we adopt common spellings of these language names. However, in the actual program, there was a certain degree of variability in the documentation itself and in the language teams’ spelling conventions. Quotations in this paper preserve their original spellings. BREATHING NEW LIFE INTO ALGONQUIAN LANGUAGES 215 these being Sauk, Penobscot, and Shawnee. Finally, Miami has no ¿rst- language speakers.9 These languages also exhibited diversity in the amount and quality of documentation available to language teams on-site in the archives. For instance, Ojibwe and Meskwaki had ample documentation, while documentation of Sauk was limited. Nevertheless, because these three languages are closely related, the Sauk language team was able to ¿ll in gaps in the documentation by means of comparison, which included real-time questions posed to the Meskwaki speakers. In other cases, documentation of the language was available, but not in the particular variety of interest to the participants. This was the case for the Shawnee language team since most of the available documentation was on Absentee Shawnee, but the two learner- teachers were both Eastern Shawnee. Thus, even when documentation was available for a particular language, a certain degree of comparison was still required. Some participants remarked that the process of making comparisons among these varieties contributed to an overt awareness that this was a shared “Algonquian” endeavor. From this emerged several themes, which we discuss next.
THEMES EMERGING FROM THE ALGONQUIAN PARTICIPANTS’ PERSPECTIVES
Of the many themes that developed during the Institute, most prevalent were (i) the importance of focused linguistic comparison, (ii) the multilateral nature of learning and teaching observed during the Institute, and (iii) a sense of solidarity fostered through collaboration among Algonquian relatives. As we discuss below, these themes are actually highly interrelated, though for ease of presentation we begin by outlining them each individually.
Focused Lexical and Grammatical Sharing and Comparison Are Helpful
One major theme that arose during the Institute was the bene¿t that participants derived from focused lexical and grammatical comparison of
9. Some children are starting to learn Miami as a ¿rst language following its recent reclamation efforts (Leonard 2008) and may be considered ¿rst-language speakers (albeit with limited pro¿ciency). However, Miami is spoken by adults only as a second language. 216 OLIVA N. SAMMONS AND WESLEY Y. L EONARD their languages. Although such exchanges have occurred at previous Breath of Life workshops, the extent to which comparison was possible at the 2011 Institute was greatly facilitated by the presence of participants representing multiple Algonquian languages. They already shared a foundation of common linguistic terms and concepts speci¿c to Algonquian languages, such as verb categories (Inanimate Intransitive, Animate Intransitive, Transitive Inanimate, Transitive Animate), animacy, derivational strategies, and obviation, among others. Working from this foundation allowed a level of comparison that was more involved, focused, and therefore more enriching than what is typically possible among participants of unrelated language backgrounds. Participants engaged in many informal conversations about these issues throughout the Institute while in the workshops, when touring the archives, at the dormitory in the evenings, over meals, and during unscheduled time. Because Àuent speakers attended the Institute as learner-teachers, some learners of closely related languages were able to practice speaking with them, and could also ask them more speci¿c grammatical questions as they arose. In the following statement, a learner-teacher remarks on how helpful it was to be able to interact with Àuent speakers of a related language:
I learned a lot from the Mesquakies. They were completely Àuent and were able to answer a lot of my questions on grammar and vocab. Mesquakie, Kickapoo, and Sauk are all mutually intelligible languages. So the Sauk representative, myself, and the Mesquakies all bene¿ted from each other.
A mentor from the Central Algonquian group also commented on this element of sharing while working on a homework assignment comparing the sounds among the languages:
It was especially wonderful to work out the phoneme charts together. There was a lot of laughter over all the outlandish non-Algonquian sounds and over all the “wrong” (each other’s) pronunciations of the actual Algonquian sounds.
This statement refers to a homework assignment near the beginning of the Institute in which language teams were asked to create phoneme charts for their languages. Many of the Algonquian learner-teachers worked on this assignment together, making comparisons along the way. The reference to laughter and playful teasing in the second sentence also demonstrates the BREATHING NEW LIFE INTO ALGONQUIAN LANGUAGES 217 sort of solidarity that we detail below. Here, the in-group nature of teasing serves to highlight individual differences, while also contributing to a sense of group cohesion. Other examples can be found as well. One learner-teacher commented on how helpful the daily interaction with other Algonquian groups was in drawing attention to regional dialect differences. Another learner-teacher discovered a possible etymology of a phrase only after a Meskwaki speaker shared his analysis of a cognate form with her. Another example arose one morning when several Algonquian participants presented the numbers one to ten in their respective languages. Presenting the numbers in a system- atic sequence in each of these languages highlighted their similarities and differences. Thus, the involvement of many Algonquian participants facilitated linguistic comparison and sharing that went beyond what was possible for other participants at the Institute. Many Algonquian participants commented on how they came away with a heightened understanding of morphology, technical grammatical points, and vocabulary as a result of this comparison. This sharing not only allowed these interrelationships to be better recognized, but also reinforced them. These participants thus learned and bene¿ted from each other, leading to the next theme under discussion—the multilateral nature of teaching and learning that occurred at the Institute.
Learning and Teaching Are Multilateral 10
Another aspect of the Institute was a breakdown of the formally designated roles of participants. As described earlier, the main of¿cial roles were that of “faculty,” “mentor,” and “participant”—the last being the category that we have renamed “learner-teacher.” One reason we adopted this term was that we needed a systematic means of unambiguously referring to the entire group. A second was that the appropriateness of using the term “participant” to refer to those who had applied to investigate their languages had begun to be challenged by the end of the Institute. Given that everyone who attended was a “participant” in the generic sense of the word, the use of this term to refer to one particular subgroup was problematic. This was augmented by
10. We thank Christopher Cox for suggesting this term. 218 OLIVA N. SAMMONS AND WESLEY Y. L EONARD the fact that others had speci¿c titles such as “mentor”—ones that formally referenced and valorized a particular type of knowledge that they held. As the Institute progressed, it became increasingly apparent that everyone had special expertise, and that different TYPES of knowledge were being shared and used to build upon each other. Those with professional training in linguistics, some of whom were also members of Native communities, shared linguistic expertise. Additionally, members of Native communities, some of whom were professionals in areas of language education and revitalization, also shared their expertise. This happened both serendipitously and also through ad hoc workshops in which participants (faculty, mentors, and learner-teachers alike) shared relevant specialized knowledge, such as information technology planning, and tools associated with the creation of pedagogical materials. In this way, learning occurred in all directions, not just from the top down, and therefore can be said to have been multilateral. Although this pattern of multidirectional knowledge sharing occurred throughout the Institute among all participants, that which occurred within the Algonquian group was especially apparent. Comments from group members articulate how common cultural and linguistic traits facilitated application of these new insights:
[It was] particularly helpful to have other Algonquian speakers and Algonquianists around.
I learned a lot about the structure of Sauk words from the Meskwaki speakers and I learned a lot from [the linguists].
One mentor even noted cultural information that he had received from another mentor who had had previous experience working with Algonquian groups:
Having [other linguists with a background in Algonquian was helpful]. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have known that you can’t tell certain stories except during winter.
Beyond the ideas expressed in these quotations, there were several additional examples of multilateral learning. One occurred in the dormitory one evening when the Sauk language team was practicing a dialogue they had prepared for the following day. A Miami faculty member overheard them and was able to understand large parts of the dialogue. A conversation ensued about similarities BREATHING NEW LIFE INTO ALGONQUIAN LANGUAGES 219 and differences between Sauk and Miami. They all then explored how well they could be understood by conversing with one another in their respective languages. In fact, such hybrid conversations were frequent throughout the Institute. The fact that many of the participants were able to converse with each other in their languages, at least to some extent, further strengthened a sense of solidarity, an issue we will now describe in more detail.
Collaboration among Algonquian Relatives Strengthens a Sense of Solidarity
The third theme that emerged from the questionnaires is intertwined with the earlier discussion about the value of language comparison, but went beyond this in that the term “collaboration” as we use it covers not only the actual process of working together, but also an accompanying ideology that these interactions were positive. One participant expressed this sentiment, framing it in terms of a longstanding Algonquian precedent of collaboration:
Algonquian peoples have a long history of interaction and alliance with each other. As an instructor it was very encouraging for me to see so many Algonquian speaking groups participating in [the 2011 Institute]. It made me think of our deeply connected histories and how many times through the generations different Algonquian communities have had to come together in support of something we all felt was important.
This pattern was established early in the Institute, perhaps partially because some of the Algonquian participants already knew each other, but also because we—both authors included—formed an Algonquian group for purposes of touring the archives. Like the California Breath of Life workshops, the entire Institute group was divided into subgroups so that only one-fourth of the participants would visit a given archive at a given time. As archives are often organized by region or language family, it made sense for the Algonquian participants to travel together. Though this began for practical reasons, it ended up contributing to the group’s solidarity. Many participants took photographs of the Algonquian group during these tours, producing what we have subsequently come to think of as “language family pictures.” Since that time, many participants have shared these photographs with each other, further reinforcing the group’s cohesion. Informal Algonquian dinner nights also ensued, a point that was referenced in comments such as the following: 220 OLIVA N. SAMMONS AND WESLEY Y. L EONARD
I spent a great amount of time with other Algonquians . . . I spent all the time outside of our meetings at the museum with other Algonquian speakers . . . We ate dinner together, we all did homework together, and we talked about language.
Others referenced the possibilities that could arise through the sharing of resources:
We exchanged words and sometimes they were the same or at least close and other times they were very different. But it made me think of how related we all are and that in some point in history we may have all shared the same language. If we were ever to share curriculum or grammar works, it would be easily adaptable to each other’s language.
We believe that part of this sentiment was facilitated not only by the similarity of the Algonquian languages represented at the Institute, but also by their ecological diversity. That is, by exposure to this diversity, the Algonquian team members gained an appreciation of the wider possibilities associated with being Algonquian and speaking an Algonquian language.
LESSONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Ongoing in the larger conversations centered around the themes in this paper have been speci¿c discussions regarding how they can be translated into better practices for future programs. Below we offer three major lessons from the Institute.
7KH%HQH¿WRI)OXHQW6SHDNHU,QYROYHPHQW
One lesson that we can discern from the Institute is that it was very helpful to have Àuent speakers attend and participate. Learners of related languages with few remaining speakers found it very bene¿cial to interact and converse with these speakers. By the same token, the Àuent speakers themselves also commented on how much they had learned in this process. These exchanges offered the Àuent speakers the chance to glean perspectives from other Algonquian learner-teachers whose languages have no Àuent speakers. Due to the history and design of previous Breath of Life workshops aimed speci¿cally at sleeping languages, organizers of the 2011 BREATHING NEW LIFE INTO ALGONQUIAN LANGUAGES 221
Institute were originally concerned about the dynamics and methodological implications associated with the participation of language teams from such a wide spectrum of language ecologies, particularly regarding the role of Àuent speakers. However, although we recognize that some fundamental differences between sleeping language learners and Àuent speakers remain, members of both groups can inform each other.
7KH5HFRJQLWLRQWKDW/HDUQLQJ,V0XOWLODWHUDO
We have adopted the term “learner-teacher” in lieu of “participant” in this paper, and conversations are currently under way among Breath of Life organizers about the appropriateness of existing terms. One speci¿c suggestion has been to focus more on language teams than on the roles within those teams, perhaps by soliciting team rather than individual applications, as has been the case thus far. Another suggestion is a new designation of “cultural mentors.” The addition of this role would help to emphasize the importance of cultural knowledge, not only for understanding the communicative context of a given language, but also for interpreting its grammatical patterns and lexicon. A related lesson is that there is a need to better establish opportunities for learner-teachers to teach mentors. One possibility for this would be to include a formal activity in which learner- teachers describe their languages’ cultural signi¿cance to their mentors, who usually are not members of the communities in question. In fact, while it did not come up in our discussions with the Algonquian participants, this was a frequently expressed area of concern among other participants. Some noted, for example, that they experienced conÀicts because team members had different goals or ideas about what their roles should be, and had not reconciled or even recognized the existence of these differences. Kroskrity (2009) argues that “ideological clari¿cation” is necessary in language revitalization efforts, noting that problems can occur when differences are not worked out or recognized. Our ¿ndings lend support to this view. While different ideologies were certainly held by the Algonquian participants, they worked together well because the open exchange established early in the Institute facilitated the discussion of ideologies among group members. One area of agreement was the notion that “Algonquian” itself is a meaningful unit that should be incorporated in the development of future programs. We turn to this discussion next. 222 OLIVA N. SAMMONS AND WESLEY Y. L EONARD
7KH$GYDQWDJHVRI/DQJXDJH)DPLO\)RFXVHG:RUNVKRSV
One question posed to Algonquian participants was, “Would you like to see and/or participate in a Breath of Life workshop speci¿cally for Algonquian languages?” Responses were overwhelmingly enthusiastic about this possibility, and many referenced the lessons discussed above in noting why they thought such an Algonquian-focused program would be bene¿cial:
That would be great. Teaching phonology, morphology, syntax, etc. through an Algonquian lens would be so productive! And the meta-linguistic knowledge that would come from comparing related constructions in sister languages would be great.
I think that would be amazing, if you could pull it off. The languages have a lot in common, so I think having something speci¿cally tailored to Algonquian languages would be really, really helpful.
Beyond these sorts of references to the practical bene¿ts associated with linguistic and cultural similarities, many participants also took a more emo- tional stance when expressing their views:
I would do everything and anything to be able to go to a Breath of Life workshop for Algonquian languages.
One participant gave an especially succinct but strong answer:
Yes!
This sort of motivation and enthusiasm was not new for the 2011 Institute, but rather has been exhibited throughout the history of Breath of Life, with many participants opting to attend multiple programs. As Grenoble and Whaley note, “[m]otivation can often be enhanced by contact with other groups working on revitalization, even when the languages are unrelated. There is still a common experience, in particular if the groups work within the same national context” (2006:177). Indeed this is true, but we suggest that this sort of common experience can be even more enriching when the context is a language family and cultural grouping in which people have BREATHING NEW LIFE INTO ALGONQUIAN LANGUAGES 223 similar revitalization goals and certain shared cultural norms, yet like a real family, also exhibit internal diversity such that every member contributes something different.11 As discussed earlier, several Algonquian terms and concepts arose during the 2011 Institute, such as animacy, Algonquian-speci¿c word formation strategies, stress assignment, and obviation. A workshop speci¿cally designed for Algonquian languages would provide an opportunity to focus on these topics to a degree that would not be appropriate at a workshop for a wider audience. In addition, revitalization programs for these languages share several pedagogical needs. These include strategies for teaching and learning polysynthetic morphology, and how to integrate Algonquian cultural norms into lessons. A workshop structured around a particular language grouping can help to create a network for participants to pool resources, develop strategies, and generally learn from one another. In addition to funding, various logistical questions regarding details such as the location, time, and frequency of such a workshop are points to consider. In this particular context, drawing upon the Algonquian experience to frame these and related questions can inform the focus of future programs. Cultural and historical background provide some clues as to what possible locations could be, both in the United States and in Canada. For instance, there has been some desire to hold such a workshop in Algonquian homelands, such as in the Great Lakes area. Issues of timing also raise questions. First, what time of year would be most appropriate? Second, would this be a one-time or recurring event, and if recurring, how often? Finally, would such a workshop be aimed at Algonquian language learners, teachers, or others? Although our ¿ndings suggest that it would be bene¿cial to include individuals from many different backgrounds due to the multilateral nature of learning in these contexts, questions of which areas within language revitalization to target still remain. Discussions of these topics are ongoing at the time of writing this paper.
11. Commenters on earlier versions of this paper have questioned whether the bene¿ts and dynamics of an Algonquian-focused workshop would apply to Plains Algonquian languages, which are noted for their differences with respect to the languages discussed in this paper. While speci¿c linguistic points may vary, especially in terms of phonology and lexicon, we suggest that there would still be enough in common for such an experience to be bene¿cial. 224 OLIVA N. SAMMONS AND WESLEY Y. L EONARD
In conclusion, individuals from Algonquian groups who are working to learn, teach, and revitalize their languages face many similar challenges, especially in terms of language acquisition and teaching. Providing a space for them to come together allows for discussion of various grammatical and pedagogical points, in addition to sharing resources and experiences related to language revitalization. We end with the comments of a participant who captured these ideas and related them to future endeavors:
I am sure our ancestors could not have foreseen the day coming when we as Algonquian speaking people would rally around such a cause as the revitalization of our languages. Just as our languages are interconnected so too is our success in keeping them alive for a future generation.
REFERENCES
Goddard, Ives. 1975. Algonquian, Wiyot, and Yurok: Proving a distant genetic relation- ship. /LQJXLVWLFV DQG DQWKURSRORJ\ ,Q KRQRU RI & ) 9RHJHOLQ ed. by M. Dale Kinkade, Kenneth Hale, and Oswald Werner, pp. 249–262. Lisse: Peter de Ridder. Goddard, Ives. 1979. Comparative Algonquian. The languages of Native America: His- torical and comparative assessment, ed. by Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, pp. 70–132. Austin: University of Texas Press. Golla, Victor. 2011. &DOLIRUQLD ,QGLDQ ODQJXDJHV. Berkeley: University of California Press. Grenoble, Lenore A., and Lindsay J. Whaley. 2006. Saving languages: An introduction to language revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinton, Leanne. 2001. The use of linguistic archives in language revitalization: The native California language restoration workshop. 7KHJUHHQERRNRIODQJXDJHUHYL- talization in practice, ed. by Leanne Hinton and Ken Hale, pp. 419–423. San Diego: Academic Press. Kroskrity, Paul V. 2009. Language renewal as sites of language ideological struggle: The need for ‘ideological clari¿cation.’ ,QGLJHQRXVODQJXDJHUHYLWDOL]DWLRQ (QFRXUDJH- PHQW JXLGDQFH OHVVRQV OHDUQHG, ed. by Jon Reyhner, and Louise Lockard, pp. 71–83. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University. Leonard, Wesley Y. 2008. When is an “extinct language” not extinct?: Miami, a formerly sleeping language. 6XVWDLQLQJ OLQJXLVWLF GLYHUVLW\ (QGDQJHUHG DQG PLQRULW\ ODQ- guages and language varieties, ed. by Kendall King et al., pp. 23–33. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Proulx, Paul. 2003. The evidence on Algonquian genetic grouping: A matter of relative chronology. Anthropological Linguistics 45:201–225. Sammons, Olivia N. 2014. Algonquian languages in Oklahoma. Papers of the 42nd Algonquian Conference, ed. by J. Randolph Valentine and Monica Macaulay, pp. 230–253. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.