Language Recovery Paradigms
Oxford Handbooks Online
Language Recovery Paradigms Alan R. King The Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages Edited by Kenneth L. Rehg and Lyle Campbell
Print Publication Date: Aug 2018 Subject: Linguistics, Sociolinguistics, Documentary Linguistics Online Publication Date: Aug 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190610029.013.25
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter argues that successful language recovery evolves over time through a series of stages characterized by distinct paradigms (sets of assumptions), each of which in turn challenges deep-rooted assumptions of the preceding stage. The exposition draws on the narratives of Basque and Nawat language recovery to illustrate this, focusing on paradigm transitions which question typical priorities of orthodox approaches, such as the language’s oral character, its purity, native speakers, descriptivism, teaching children, and bonds with the rural world and a traditional lifestyle. A successful recovery process should transcend these constraints. It should recognize the importance of writing, neologisms, new speakers, prescriptive proposals, adult learners, urban settings and ideological neutrality. This alternative paradigm justifies current developments in the Nawat movement powered by the internet, social media, incorporation of new adult speakers, and a new generation of young, university-educated language enthusiasts.
Keywords: Basque, Nawat, language recovery, language revitalization, language recovery sequence, written language, social media, language purity, new speakers, adult language learning
In memory of Txomin Aizagirre and Paula López
1. Introduction
This chapter will review two experiences of revitalization of endangered languages which exemplify some common principles that I will claim are shared by successful processes of language recovery (LR).1 I will maintain the view that, for an LR process to achieve success, it must periodically question some of its assumptions and undergo conceptual transitions to reach the next “level” (i.e., stage). Identifiable major stages are (p. 532)
Page 1 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms arranged on a five-stage, directional Language Recovery Sequence (LRS)2 ranging from complete absence of any LR awareness to the completion of recovery. Evidence will be presented for transitions in both case studies between two stages called I and II. This transition in Basque LR commenced after the middle of the twentieth century; in Nawat LR, a comparable transition is now taking place.
The paradigms3 associated with each successive stage consist of distinctive clusters of doctrines (beliefs and value judgments), strategies (actions considered necessary), or focuses (emphasis on certain dimensions of the issue). At any given time, however, a LR process may be in a state of flux, where the main tension is normally between paradigms pertaining to two adjacent stages on the LRS.
The following stages, each associated with a characteristic paradigm, are assumed: 0 (Pre-LR), I (Ineffective LR), II (Effective LR), III (Mainstream LR), IV (Post-LR).4 Therefore the transitions expected are 0/I, I/II, and so on. A short description of each stage now follows.
At Stage 0 (Pre-LR) there is no effective social awareness of the need for language recovery. This is followed by an incipient stage of LR proper, Stage I, when a society (p. 533) becomes aware that its language is at risk, recognizes its importance, and becomes concerned about the survival of the language in the future.
Stage I (Ineffective LR) begins with a social debate in which some members of the community will adopt a Stage 0 (pre- or anti-LR) position opposed to LR activity, perhaps denying that the language is at risk or arguing the language has no value and is not worth saving, while others adopt a Stage I (pro-LR) position. At this phase, LR success requires a “win” for arguments favoring steps toward language revitalization, so that a significant part of society adopts the Stage I paradigm (see section 4 below), recognizing that something should be done to save the language. Although this step is necessary it does not imply that effective ways to achieve LR have yet been found or implemented.
For successful LR, Stage I must be followed by a second paradigmatic transition, in which part of the LR movement abandons some of the earlier premises and moves on to a Stage II (Effective LR) paradigm. This is the I/II transition, the phase with which this chapter will be chiefly concerned.
Stage III (Mainstream LR) is assumed to be a stage at which the society at large takes on board the LR goal, declaring its support for the effort needed to recover the endangered language. This change may be manifested in a notable growth and expansion of institutions dedicated to supporting LR or in which LR goals are incorporated, effective legislation and assignment of significant resources in support of LR goals, official recognition of the language, official status and explicit declarations of the rights of members of the language community, as well as the flourishing of mass media in the target language, and so forth.
Page 2 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
The last stage, Stage IV (Post-LR), is the attainment of a situation where full recovery will have been achieved and consequently the LR process is at an end.
In this chapter we will look at the recovery movements of two endangered languages with which I have had prolonged and intensive involvement: Basque and Nawat. Although neither process is in any sense complete, both have achieved a certain degree of partial success within their own contexts.
Section 2 of the chapter will venture a working definition of LR, after which section 3 sketches the progress of Basque LR in the twentieth century. In the light of the Basque experience, section 4 examines a set of conventional assumptions about endangered languages and language recovery which will then be challenged through counterarguments, drawing attention to the main themes of the I/II transition. This section echoes a major debate which took place within Basque LR during the second half of the twentieth century.
Section 5 offers a sketch of the situation of the Nawat language in the period prior to the recently begun language recovery process. Section 6 outlines early steps in Nawat LR in the first years of the present century. Section 7 explains new developments in the second decade which challenge some conventional ideas. Section 8 re-examines this narrative, interpreting it in terms of the I/II transition on the LRS. The chapter ends with a brief summary in section 9.
Page 3 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
(p. 534) 2. Retreat, renewal, or normalization?
Language recovery is a reversal of language loss, undertaken by a group at risk of losing its language. At Stage I, “reversal” here is sometimes understood as a return to a real or supposed former stage of language health. At Stage II, however, it is understood that the object of language recovery is not to turn back the clock (an impossibility) but to change the vector of change in the language’s fortunes. Recovery is not a retreat to the past but a renewal and a forward movement toward a new stage for the language, different from both the present stage of language attrition and that of any earlier historical period.
Stage I strategies tend to emphasize efforts to slow down the language’s decline, whereas Stage II is powered by a growing awareness that the only way to save the old is by making it new. The change of perspective means switching mind-sets from one which sees the language as a fragile link to the past, to a new mentality which dares to visualize the old language, revived, as a powerful new key to a different future (though rooted in the past). The language, while still endangered, becomes empowered, imbued with new social and cultural meaning, as a tool of renewed cultural and perhaps political identity.
Stage II involves reconstructing the language as a vigorous, evolving medium of genuine communication and the enabler of new realities; a common possession of the whole language community (including those members who may have previously lost it—one of the meanings of recovery), and a valid instrument for doing all the things any of its members wish to do; a malleable and versatile instrument which may be adapted to diverse and changing media, channels, genres, styles, uses, domains, settings, fashions, technologies, registers, functions, and discourses.
For the meaning of language recovery at Stage III, we may turn to current Basque LR discourse where a much used concept is normalization, expressing the idea that for language recovery to be complete one needs to go beyond mere precarious survival. The place of the language in society, both de jure and de facto, should resemble that assumed to apply to “normal” languages. The rationale for this demand is that any language that lacks a normalized situation will always remain vulnerable and potentially endangered. That, however, is a far cry from the situation in which Basque found itself only 100 years ago! How did it get here?
3. Basque in the twentieth century
Concern about the decline of Basque5 had already been expressed before the twentieth century; so had the opinion that it was a useless language not worth keeping (p. 535) alive.6 Although still spoken in the countryside, where traditional Basque culture had
Page 4 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms been preserved best, the Basque language was already being replaced by Spanish or French in urban centers. Language shift was particularly drastic in districts of southern Euskal Herria where industrialization led to influxes of workers from poor regions of Spain at various times in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Early initiatives to turn the tide on language loss date back to the start of the century, but these were thwarted by the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), won by Francisco Franco’s side and followed by a lengthy dictatorship (1939–1975). Founded on the premise of a politically, culturally, and linguistically unified and uniform state, the Franco regime systematically persecuted expressions of Basque nationalist sentiment in the part of the Basque Country it ruled.7 Already in decline, the Basque language was virtually outlawed throughout most of this period, and Basque people’s reactions alternated between shunning the language as a defense mechanism or discreet defiance of prohibition.
The Spanish regime’s attempt to stamp out the Basque language backfired in the long run, however. The Basques, inheriting a strong and deep-rooted sense of ethnic and cultural identity, first reacted with despair and outrage. Then Basque society, pulling itself together, came to the collective realization that their ancestral language was fast losing ground and their identity as a distinct people was in danger, and perceived that a decisive moment had now been reached when either something would have to be done or they would disappear as a people. They saw their language as a key to survival: as long as they still spoke Basque they would not be assimilated. But how could they keep Basque alive?
This realization was felt first, and most intensely, not in rural areas where the language continued to be spoken but in the places where urbanization had advanced, contact with non-Basque-speakers was frequent, and Spanish had already become or was fast (p. 536) becoming dominant. Thanks to the urban environment and the social effects of industrialization, these also happened to be the areas where the enthusiasts of the language movement were best equipped materially, ideologically, and practically to take effective action in support of the language.
The change that occurred at this point, part way though the era of the Franco dictatorship, also played out as a generational conflict. Many young people were critical of their elders for their meek silence (as they saw it) and lack of action in response to authoritarian, anti-Basque oppression. Although still at risk under a belligerent police state, a radical underground political and cultural movement crystallized, attracting many adherents in different cities and regions. The new movement was not limited to the young and reckless, however; families and people of all ages and walks of life, sharing the frustration and concern about the future, joined in and offered their support.
Thus a vigorous new drive for language recovery got under way in the midst of harsh times, bent on action rather than talk. Many Basques devoted their energy to establishing secret schools where children could study in Basque8; Basque language classes for non- Basque-speaking adults and Basque literacy classes for Basque-speaking adults who had received their education in Spanish9; a clandestine press,10 lively literary, musical, and
Page 5 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms cultural movements; and a redefined ideology of national liberation. It was a time of mobilization and perseverance, creativity, and imagination. The Basque language was one of the main emblems of this multifaceted movement.
The Spanish monarchy was restored after Franco’s death in 1975, and following constitutional changes the 1980s saw the creation of a new system of autonomous regions with self-governing powers. Two “autonomous communities” were set up in distinct regions of the southern Basque Country, whose parliaments eventually established and implemented language policies. Owing to different political alignments, those of the Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) were highly supportive of Basque LR, while (p. 537) those of the Community of Navarre were less so. France has yet to recognize constitutionally the specific identity of the part of the Basque Country in its territory as a political entity.
In its recent history, Basque LR has undergone three important transitions: a 0/I phase up to around 1960 (although there had been earlier initiatives defending Basque before the civil war), a I/II phase preceding the creation of the BAC, and a II/III phase that is now under way.
In the 0/I phase, the language movement defended the importance of keeping the Basque language alive in the face of an opposing discourse (supported by the Spanish establishment along with certain conservative factions in the Basque Country and part of the Spanish immigrant community) which made every effort to deny the heritage language’s value, importance, and future.
From the 1960s onward the language movement moved on to the I/II phase focusing on a different debate between the Stage I paradigm now supported by the pro-Basque old guard, which saw Basque as the language of rural Basques tied to traditional customs and values which should be kept alive if possible, and a (at the time, radical) vision of Basque as a modern language, the use of which could be equally valid in the city or in the country, by young people as well as by old, among new speakers as well as traditional ones, in writing as well as in speech, in all domains, settings, and functions. Adult language and literacy schools mushroomed, Basque language militancy spread, and language standardization was also adopted as a flag, linked to new roles for the old language.11
Following this period came another in which the democratic transition in Spain, which permitted self-governing communities in the Basque Country and elsewhere, led to the removal of some (though not all) legal and political obstacles to Basque, the creation of new institutions and opportunities to pursue language recovery, and a sharp increase in available financial resources. These developments gave the language movement a needed boost, consolidated the legitimacy of the drive for LR, and resulted in a further considerable increase in the numbers of people learning and using Basque. They led to the current II/III phase where the main focus is on normalization.
Page 6 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
(p. 538) 4. Two paradigms of language recovery
Here I will list some contrasting ideas about language recovery, current at one time or another in the history of the Basque LR movement (and also others), which characteristically pertain to two distinct ideological frameworks or paradigms which we can associate with Stages I and II respectively. The replacement of one set of premises by the other in different periods as the dominant ideas guiding LR efforts is an example of what I refer to as paradigm shift.
The following ideas form a standard doctrine that was rarely challenged in Stage I. In the Basque case, this paradigm was prevalent up to around 1960 (i.e., up to the first part of Franco’s dictatorship). Each premise is labeled by a letter and a mnemonic key word:
a) SPOKEN: “Our language has always been a spoken language and should remain so.” b) PURE: “Our language, which is starting to be corrupted by foreign influence, should be kept pure.” c) NATIVE: “Our language belongs to the native speakers, especially the elders, and they are its sole guardians and authorities on what is allowed or correct.” d) DESCRIBED: “Use of the language by native speakers should be described without prescribing what is correct or suggesting innovations.”12 e) CHILDREN: “Language recovery depends on learning from the elderly native speakers and teaching children their language.” f) RURAL: “The stronghold of our language is in the rural areas, so that is where language recovery should be focused.” g) VALUES: “Our language is the vehicle of an old, traditional culture whose values and way of thinking are to be tied to the survival of the language.”
(p. 539) The next stage, however, saw growing criticism of this paradigm, especially among the more advanced sectors in the third quarter of the century, on account of what was increasingly perceived as its narrowness and conservative limitations. Following the same list of premises, here is a summary of some of the counterarguments adduced in support of their replacement by a new (Stage II) paradigm.
4.1. a) SPOKEN: “Our language has always been a spoken language and should remain so.”
Counterargument: LR strategies may involve the creation of a written language (unless it already exists), for two important reasons:
(1) In LR a language’s use needs to expand into new functions and domains, in some of which writing is appropriate and necessary.
Page 7 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
(2) A written form of the language is necessary or useful for the implementation of new channels of language transmission such as language schools, immersion schools, teaching materials, language documentation, etc.
Where a writing tradition already exists, the controversy may now focus on written language standardization. In the Basque case, agreement on a new written standard went hand in hand with the development of a multitude of unprecedented written uses, both developments being essential ingredients of the LR roadmap and a requisite for subsequent normalization in Stage III.
4.2. b) PURE: “Our language, which is starting to be corrupted by foreign influence, should be kept pure.”
Counterargument: All living languages must grow, and growth is a form of change; if all change is viewed as “corruption” and “impurity,” the language’s development will be hampered. Excessively purist views on Basque in the first half of the twentieth century eventually gave way to a contrary reaction. The outcome was a redefinition of the balance between tradition and innovation (see Zuazo 1988).
4.3. c) NATIVE: “Our language belongs to the native speakers, especially the elders, and they are its sole guardians and authorities on what is allowed or correct.”
Counterargument: This idea of native speakers is correct up to a point and in a certain kind of context, and also resonates with the descriptivist axioms of modern structural linguistics about the priority of the spoken language as the spontaneous oral production of native speakers. But in an LR context the dictum that native speakers are the (p. 540) language’s guardians and sole authority is ingenuous and should not be adopted as a simplistic dogma. In a healthy language, to be sure, native speakers are the language’s main transmitters and users, but in a dying language, quite frankly, many native speakers may have failed to perform these functions adequately, leaving their real authority open to question. On the other hand, countless Basque language activists who were new speakers filled the ranks of the language movement in a crucial period, some playing prominent roles, providing linguists, language teachers, writers, producers of textbooks and learning materials, school staff, university professors and teacher trainers, students and transmitters of cultural traditions, publishers, producers and contributors of the Basque-language press, media, and so on, musicians and artists, organizers, and activists of support groups of the language movement. As new speakers, their command of the language was sometimes imperfect and this caused concern in some quarters, but when all is said and done their impact was mostly positive.
Page 8 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
Glorification of the native speaker as the be-all and end-all of the language’s universe can degenerate into false arguments and may have a negative effect which a successful LR movement must learn to sidestep. Moreover, the ideological and social outlook of a progressive LR movement should aim at inclusion.
4.4. d) DESCRIBED: “Use of the language by native speakers should be described without prescribing what is correct or suggesting innovations.”
Counterargument: This position is again supported by the tenets of twentieth-century structural linguistics. For LR, however, documentation is not an end in itself but a means to an end: the recovery of the language as a living, growing, vigorous medium of cohesion, expression, and progress. The purpose of documentation is to collect and generate the information needed for the language to carry on as an expression of a growing culture and serve the needs of a new generation living in its own world. Without losing sight of the distinction between description and prescription, responsible linguists committed to LR should not be afraid to propose new norms in appropriate contexts while taking descriptive knowledge as their ultimate basis for doing so.
4.5. e) CHILDREN: “Language recovery depends on learning from the elderly native speakers and teaching children their language.”
Counterargument: Old people and children cannot bring about language recovery! The brunt of this burden must be borne by adults able to work hard, fight the fight, push for change, make things happen, and lead the way forward. A large enough proportion of the adult population has to be brought into the LR movement for it to become viable. (p. 541) Therefore, emphasis must be placed on adult second-language learning; furthermore, in many cases such as that of Basque in the middle of the last century, the adult generation is the weakest link in spontaneous language transmission, where knowlege of the endangered language is at its most frail because of a break in transmission in their parents’ generation (that of today’s elderly native speakers) and the pressures exerted by modern life in a time of widespread economic and political hardship.
Adults are also of vital importance for another reason: as parents and active members of society, they are the primary example setters and role models for the young, who even if they revere the aged, learn more from their immediate elders. As parents, it is only useful to tell our children to speak Basque if we are capable of telling them in Basque!
4.6. f) RURAL: “The stronghold of our language is the rural area, so that is where language recovery should be centered.”
Page 9 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
Counterargument: Typically LR movements do not initially take hold in the heart of the traditional language community, especially if this is located in the remote countryside. More commonly, the functioning nucleus of the LR movement is found in urban settings, in places where the language is little heard but conditions can sustain the language movement and provide resources to fuel it.
This is not illogical, since effective LR is about the language expanding into new domains. Often an endangered language is only heard in certain places and certain functions, having become ghettoized and stereotyped; even in these conditions it continues to shrink (hence we call it endangered). Strategies to reverse language loss need to look at ways to counteract this by altering the relationship between the language and its possible settings, creating new opportunities for use in novel domains and places. Stereotypes should therefore be defied and denied, setting the language free and conveying a new message which says: “You don’t have to be old and poor to speak L, nor do you need to live far away from civilization; you don’t need to belong to the lower social classes, and lack education; look, L can even be spoken in the city by middle-class urbanized young folk.” Indeed, speaking L in the city is a strategy to stop it from dying in the countryside.
4.7. g) VALUES: “Our language is the vehicle of an old, traditional culture whose values and way of thinking are to be tied to the survival of the language.”
Counterargument: It is not true that people must subscribe to a certain philosophy, adhere to a particular way of life, belong to a certain religion or uphold particular values (p. 542) in order to speak a given language and be part of a language community which is made up of people who share the same language but not necessarily the same thoughts! Tying language choice to ideology or life choices runs counter to normalization. Language functions as both the ideal cement for continuity and the perfect vehicle of change. This is not an exclusive property of non-indigenous languages.
5. The Nawat language in the twentieth century
Nawat was once the most widely spoken language in the territory constituting the small Central American nation of El Salvador, which occupies an area of a similar size to the Basque Country.13 The language was brought there by the Pipils when they colonized the west and central regions of El Salvador, having migrated from what is now Mexico in several waves which, although they cannot be dated precisely, are believed to have taken place at least 1,000 years ago (see Campbell 1985, 6f). Where the Pipils settled they became neighbors of various other ethnic communities speaking unrelated languages, which included Lenca, Xinka, and Cacaopera in eastern El Salvador.14
Page 10 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
The language of the Pipils is called Nawat in the language itself, náhuat—formerly also nahuate—in Spanish, but in academic publications in [English] and other languages it is widely referred to as “Pipil.” The southernmost language of the Uto-Aztecan language family, Nawat is a member of the Nahua subgroup of Uto-Aztecan, closely related to “Nahuatl” of Mexico. More distantly related languages are or were spoken in what is now Mexico or the United States.
Nawat was already on the decline by the 1920s when serious documentation of the language began. Then it was crippled by a massacre of tens of thousands of Pipils in 1932 by soldiers under the orders of a military government in an episode referred to in history books as La Matanza (i.e., The Slaughter). The pretext was a peasant revolt triggered by unbearable conditions. The authorities treated all indigenous people as culprits (Ward 2002, 77). Thousands of male members of the native population were dragged away and (p. 543) shot. According to an infamous edict, the illiterate “enemies of the country” were to be recognized through two incriminating signs: traditional indigenous dress, and speaking an indigenous language.
Understandably, survivors saved themselves from the firing squad by adopting non- indigenous dress and refraining from speaking Nawat. The remnant of the Pipil nation was publicly invisible, politically ignored, economically deprived, socially marginalized, and psychologically still scarred and wary of the outside world. Descendants were still aware of their identity, but few people wanted to talk about it and only a small minority retained much knowledge of their ancestral language, now in danger of lapsing into permanent silence, as all the other indigenous language once spoken in El Salvador had done already.
Documentation of Nawat, mostly by foreigners, began early in the twentieth century but was limited and sporadic. Within the academic literature, the most important study for its coverage and quality is Campbell (1985).15 Besides direct documentation and the remaining speakers and semi-speakers (most of whom are now in the municipality of Santo Domingo de Guzmán, in the department of Sonsonate), which together provide the main basis of our knowledge of Nawat, insight about the language can also be aided by judicious use of comparison with related speech varieties in Mexico, collectively known as Nahuatl.
6. Nawat language recovery: first steps
At the time of my arrival in El Salvador in 2002, documentation had not advanced substantially beyond what had been done in the 1970s. There was no serious, well- informed project under way to promote revitalization, and reliable knowledge about the language was generally unavailable.16 In order to do something useful I therefore needed to begin by undertaking some basic groundwork to collect information about the language, contact members of the language community, and talk to anyone who could
Page 11 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms offer help and (p. 544) guidance.17 Until my departure in 2005 I participated in, and often initiated, a variety of projects and activities in support of Nawat, and since my return to Europe I have found ways to continue to do so thanks to the advances of modern technology, in collaboration with colleagues with whom I had worked in El Salvador and other components of the developing language movement that have since emerged.18
In 2003, following discussions with Jorge Lemus and Monica Ward, a project was started with backing from the Universidad Don Bosco which promised to introduce the effective teaching of Nawat to elementary school children in certain schools through a five-year language program with the objective of developing basic communicative skills in Nawat, as reported in King 2004b (some of the planned materials appeared as King 2005 and Universidad Don Bosco 2009).19
In a separate development, on my suggestion the IRIN association was founded in 2003.20 This was intended to be an umbrella organization to promote, coordinate, assist, or perform a range of activities, projects, and programs supporting the general objective of Nawat language recovery. Two basic tenets of the association were a specific agenda of Nawat language recovery and institutional independence. This was a grassroots initiative started by local citizens committed to the goal of Nawat language recovery, some of whom were native speakers of Nawat.
The creation of an organization with such characteristics was new and unprecedented. The peak of IRIN’s activity came a few years later after it undertook a project to collect Nawat language audio and video documentation with participation of Nawat speakers in a number of capacities.21 An attempt to obtain legal registration of IRIN as (p. 545) an association fell through because of inadequate support. Private printing and hand-to-hand distribution at cost price were resorted to in order to put into informal circulation various language materials and to provide a minimal flow of funds through the group to facilitate continued activities.
General developments which degraded the quality of life and the feasibility of group activities forced IRIN to discontinue its work subsequently. Nevertheless, this initiative made a lasting impact and cannot be considered a failure as a precedent and a pioneering effort, for it opened up the way toward language revival, helped to raise public awareness, and increased the visibility of the Nawat language and its speakers. Furthermore, it generated materials and experiences which laid the ground for a new kind of recovery movement to be discussed in section 7.
One text produced and distributed by IRIN is a set of booklets titled Shimumachti Nawat! [Learn Nawat!], which constituted a basic elementary language course on modern principles suitable for self-study by adults (King 2004d). Its lessons would later provide the basis for the most successful Nawat textbook for adult learners to date, Timumachtikan! [Let’s learn] (King 2011). Other IRIN “publications” included a basic
Page 12 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms vocabulary (King 2004a), a brief grammar (King 2004c), and a continuous text by a native speaker (Ramírez 2004).
A number of changes in circumstances following my departure from the scene ended up contributing in ways that could not have been foreseen to an interesting realignment of forces, a methodological reformulation, and a surprising growth in the Nawat language movement beyond what seemed possible at the beginning of the century. Developments such as my departure from the physical scene and the decline of IRIN required strategic changes. Just in time, however, new options started to make their appearance. Before the end of the decade, a new way to distribute Nawat language materials without selling printed copies became feasible, by means of PDFs distributed free of charge through social media. There is now a special website, Tushik, which facilitates information on all available resources and serves as a distribution hub.22 A perusal of Tushik shows how Nawat language materials have multiplied greatly, to include the elementary language course Timumachtikan (King 2011); a practical dictionary (Hernández 2016b); a Nawat grammar (King 2014a); listening materials (Mukaki!); a YouTube channel presenting well- made didactic clips teaching aspects of Nawat (Náhuat El Salvador); a variety of readings in Nawat (Masin et al. 2012; King 2013a, 2013b) and a textual and lexical corpus for researchers and advanced students (King 2014b, 2014c).
(p. 546) 7. New conditions and new directions
The first years of the twenty-first century everywhere have witnessed increasing availability of computers, phones, and the internet, along with the growth of social media, facilitating access to a wider range of knowledge and ideas in places where there was formerly none. In El Salvador, this period has coincided with the emergence of a new generation of young middle-class city dwellers with a university education who are benefiting from the new resources to become more discerning and socially active citizens than earlier generations. Some are taking an interest in their historical roots, eager to learn about the ethnic make-up of their country and curious about the cultural and linguistic heritage of the indigenous community in their midst. An awakening has begun, as intellectually capable and socially aware young adults start asking questions and discovering their capacity for effective action and exercising choices.
A decade ago somebody created a Facebook group called Salvemos el Idioma Náhuat.23 This group has now attracted over 6,000 men and women, in a country with a total population of 6 million, yet it is no longer even the largest Facebook group in the language movement,24 for there are now perhaps a dozen groups about the subject disseminating information, providing forums for discussion and forging a new kind of “language community.” The existence of such groups has stimulated an increasing demand for opportunities to study and practice Nawat through language classes, language groups, activities, events, and excursions to visit the Pipil areas where native
Page 13 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
Nawat speakers live. New on-the-ground groups dedicated to the Nawat language have flowered, such as Colectivo Tzunhejekat.
Given the uneven distribution of wealth and the continued marginalization of indigenous people in the country, however, there remains a gigantic gap between the new groups of young, urban, economically relatively comfortable, educated new speakers and the elderly, rural, economically impoverished, uneducated traditional speakers. This poses a new challenge to find ways to overcome the risk of a “disconnect” between the two communities, but given their social awareness and enlarged resources, it is a challenge that the new Nawat groups are attempting to address. Links are being forged through visits, events, activities, and various forms of interaction and mutual assistance. This may trigger social changes benefiting indigenous communities by opening up new, empowering opportunities of mutual interest for both groups, removing time-honored prejudices and altering established patterns of class and racial segregation.
These developments imply new ideas and novel strategies for Nawat language recovery. Traditional premises are being challenged; Stage II has arrived! Again, the new (p. 547) strategy is to broaden the scope of the endangered language, allowing it to be shared with new speakers while giving it a new lease on life for traditional ones. Rural Pipil population centers have already begun to benefit from this, with Nawat speakers experiencing a new self-respect and empowering sense of pride and optimism, as well as giving Nawat greater visibility within the society at large.
It may be another symptom of this change that representatives of official institutions have begun to venture out of their city offices, obviously eager to share the limelight when opportunities to celebrate Nawat in its own territory arise. A case in point was the sad occasion of the passing in 2016 of an important figure for Nawat, the native speaker, singer, and renowned language enthusiast Paula López. Representatives of official institutions as well as a variety of other entities vied for the chance to participate in the funeral and memorial ceremony,25 implying a degree of interest, visibility, and popularity for Nawat which certainly did not exist in Salvadorean society before the current drive for Nawat language recovery commenced.
8. Nawat between paradigms
The rapid change that has begun to take place in the Nawat LR process can be interpreted as an instance of a I/II transition, since it implies a paradigm shift comparable to that described in section 4.
8.1. a) SPOKEN?
Page 14 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
Nawat is increasingly being used as a written language serving as both a medium of communication and a tool in language teaching. Consensus-based development of a standard orthography was a necessary prior step (as in the Basque case).
8.2. b) PURE?
Nawat is still endangered, yet it is nevertheless growing, as it comes to be adapted to new functions and domains. As a result of this growth, Nawat is no longer a language only used by a few elderly people in remote rural communities for a diminishing number of purposes. With new uses comes the need for new linguistic forms, adaptation, and innovation. This challenges the idea of a pure language resisting change from a fictitious pristine state.
(p. 548) 8.3. c) NATIVE?
The number of speakers of Nawat is growing as a result of its being learned as a second language. In consequence, native speakers and semi-speakers no longer constitute the whole language community. It is now important to forge an alliance between old and new speakers to work together to preserve and reactivate the Nawat linguistic inheritance.
8.4. d) DESCRIBED?
Nawat is now being studied more thoroughly and intensively by more people than ever before. Linguistic consciousness among those who speak Nawat is reaching a new high. What is known has been described, but there is currently a need to go further by codifying the rules and patterns of Nawat. Lines will need to be drawn between correct and incorrect, good and bad Nawat; an anything-goes approach is not useful here. A balance between description and prescription is needed. Just because a native speaker said something, it is not always good Nawat—as another native speaker will sometimes be able to point out.
8.5. e) CHILDREN?
At this time it does not now favor recovery to place all the emphasis on the teaching of children. Adult learning is a very important activity, in order to pave the way for robust transmission to children in the future. At present there are not enough adults who can speak Nawat to provide an adequate workforce of effective Nawat teachers.26
8.6. f) RURAL?
Page 15 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
The center of gravity of Nawat LR has moved from the remote countryside to the city; the uneducated poor are being joined, as its protagonists, by members of the educated middle class; Nawat’s domain of use now spreads all the way from the kojtan (forest) and the mil (cornfield) to the weytechan (big city), matapan (internet), ishkalamat (Facebook), and tepustanutza (smartphone).
(p. 549) 8.7. g) VALUES?
Nawat will inherit the culture of the people through whom it has survived until now, but it will also participate in the progressive redefinition of this culture (like all cultures) and build it anew in each generation.
9. Conclusions
I have posited a Language Recovery Sequence which differentiates several stages of development through which successful language recovery processes may cycle, each of which is associated with a characteristic paradigm or set of ideas and recovery strategies based on those ideas.
The thinking typical of Stage I in this sequence is: Our language is a spoken language. We need to keep it pure and free from foreign influence. It belongs to the old native speakers, and it is their usage that documentation should describe uncritically. Our language will survive if we can just teach children the language of the last elders. The process should focus on the traditional rural stronghold. Survival of the language should be bound up with maintenance of the ways of old.
In the Basque LR movement a growing number of language activists broke away from this credo to embrace a different paradigm from the 1960s onwards. These are the new ideas: We need to develop both spoken and written forms of our language. Purity is relative: all languages change. Successful LR crucially involves action by adult second-language speakers. Documentation must serve continued development of the language, which is not achieved by treating the flawed utterances of the last semi-speakers as museum exhibits of a dead language. Adaptation of the language to new uses will allow it to grow and become stronger. It is legitimate to practise modern cultural options through the old language, which should not be ghettoized.
This chapter has suggested how to interpret internal debates within LR processes as transitions between paradigms of successive stages.
“The 0/I transition phase” is dominated by a debate between those who see no need for LR, who perceive no threat to their language or who do not value their language enough to care about its fate (Stage 0) and those who think it important to make an effort to keep
Page 16 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms the language alive, though there may well be confusion about how to achieve this (Stage I).
“The I/II transition phase” is one where the main debate is between those in the community who emphasize that we must preserve the language as it is, in its present state as spoken by remaining speakers in a traditional rural setting, together with old ways and ideas (Stage I), and others in the community who defend a new agenda which attaches importance to writing and standardizing the language, acknowledging linguistic innovation, transcending the limited knowledge of the remaining speakers, prioritizing adult (p. 550) language learning, transplanting the language to new environments, and promoting an inclusive concept of the extended language community which admits different social ideas and lifestyle choices (Stage II).
To conclude I would like to suggest three areas where these insights may be found useful by those involved in language recovery work: project design, awareness, and training.
9.1. Project design
At the beginning of any LR project, the key initial questions should be asked about current resources, needs, and problems; existing programs and materials; strategic priorities; prior requisites; the feasibility of implementation, etc. It seems it should not be necessary to point out the importance of these considerations, but in practice it sometimes is, perhaps because of a lack of sufficient preparation or training of would-be LR practitioners in these areas. There should also be a self-critical examination of background assumptions, and this is where the concept of stages and paradigm transitions is most pertinent. This chapter suggests we need to ask a set of questions about beliefs and attitudes aimed at diagnosing the historical background and present status of the LR scenario for the language community in question.
Sometimes mistakes have been made in LR project design because of the wholemeal adoption of a ready-made formula without analyzing the current scenario and relying on faulty assumptions. Suppose for example it is decided to create a program of language nests (cf. Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust; ʻAha Pūnana Leo; E Ola Ka ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi 1997) for a language like Nawat in a rural small town at a point in time when there are a few elderly (native) speakers, but none young enough or sufficiently well-trained to run a vigorous programme. A LRS Stage I mind-set will assume that the most important thing to focus on is putting little children in the care of the native speakers, although they lack educational expertise. The error is obvious from the perspective of a Stage II paradigm: such a program takes a lot of work and training, which a few elderly speakers cannot provide well, but which might be achieved in conjunction with a team of younger educated participants in the program. Of course, the latter should also be Nawat speakers, which means, in the context, new speakers rather than native ones, and perhaps people from a less traditional social background. This is a “Stage II solution.” It
Page 17 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms also presupposes the required technical and linguistic training of the younger teachers and so may entail a later start date and greater initial expense. If these requirements cannot be met, then perhaps the language-nest model is not the right strategy.
9.2. Awareness
LR cannot take place without the support of the community, which can only be driven by an argument founded on beliefs which motivate the LR movement by ascribing to it (p. 551) ethical, historical and logical reasons, i.e., a driving ideology. A society must strive to recover its language because of what it wants and believes. Thus ideology is an important dimension of LR movements, but it is important that the ideas should be the right ones which respond to the current experience of members of the community and are conducive to effective kinds of action and attitudes, with a discourse, a narrative, and a script that are understood and espoused by the community. A language-recovering community on its way to success is one that is LR-aware, and the policies pursued by LR practitioners should be coherent with that public awareness.
9.3. Training
The debates which are played out in language-recovering communities between competing paradigms should be understood, studied, and discussed at appropriate points in places where training for LR work is provided. In particular, care should be taken not to transmit to future practitioners the assumptions typically associated with the ineffectual Stage I of the LRS without pointing out their weaknesses and fallacies. Otherwise we will risk sending LR workers into the field who are poorly equipped to make good strategic decisions and may even exert a negative influence on the way the community thinks about LR. It would therefore be helpful if further studies could be performed to test the accuracy and wider applicability of these premises and document their impact in LR processes (especially successful ones).
References
Note: Items noted as “Preprint, IRIN” have been printed and distributed by IRIN without legal registration. Other items noted as “Preprint” are in electronic form, generally PDFs, listed and available through the Tushik website at the URLs indicated. (Tushik is a dedicated resource portal serving the Nawat and Lenca language recovery communities, http://tushik.org/.)
ʻAha Pūnana Leo. n.d. Website of the Hawaiian language nest organization. http:// www.ahapunanaleo.org/. Accessed January 8, 2017.
Page 18 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
Campbell, Lyle. 1976. “The Last Lenca.” International Journal of American Linguistics 42: 73–78.
Campbell, Lyle. 1985. The Pipil Language of El Salvador. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
E Ola Ka ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi. 1997. Video narrating the history of the Hawaiian language nest movement produced by ʻAha Pūnana Leo. Posted on YouTube. https://youtu.be/ ITMlt8dqKlc. Accessed January 8, 2017.
Fishman, J. A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Language. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hernández, Werner. 2016a. “Chuka tuyulu.” Tushik website. Last modified April 17. http://tushik.org/chuka-tuyulu/.
Hernández, Werner. 2016b. Nawat mujmusta. Revised edition. Preprint, Tzunhejekat. http://tushik.org/wp-content/uploads/HER-mujmusta.pdf.
King, Alan R. 2004a. ¡Conozcamos el náhuat! Preprint, IRIN.
(p. 552) King, Alan R. 2004b. “El náhuat y su recuperación.” Científica Year 4, nº 5: 51– 70. El Salvador: Universidad Don Bosco.
King, Alan R. 2004c. Gramática elemental del náhuat. Preprint, IRIN.
King, Alan R. 2004d. Shimumachti Nawat! Curso de lengua náhuat para adultos. Parts 1, 2 and 3. Preprint, IRIN.
King, Alan R. 2005. Ne Nawat, tutaketzalis! Amachti 1. San Salvador: Editorial Universidad Don Bosco.
King, Alan R. 2011. Timumachtikan! Curso de lengua náhuat para principiantes. Preprint. http://tushik.org/wp-content/uploads/timumachtikan-pdf-texto.pdf.
King, Alan R., trans. 2013a. Ne Yankwik Sentaketzat (El Nuevo Testamento en náhuat, lengua de los pipiles de El Salvador). Revised ed. Preprint, Ne Bibliaj Tik Nawat. http:// nebibliaj.org/.
King, Alan R. 2013b. Panuk Tik Ijtzalku (Sejse cuentoj tik Nawat te uij). Preprint. http:// tushik.org/panuk-tik-ijtzalku/.
King, Alan R. 2014a. Curso de gramática náhuat basado en el texto del Yankwik Sentaketzat. Preprint. http://tushik.org/curso-de-gramatica-nahuat/.
King, Alan R. 2014b. NawaCoLex 2.1. Software package. http://tushik.org/nawacolex/.
King, Alan R. 2014c. Nawat Corpus & Lexicon Database. NawaCoLex Version 2.1. Tutorial. Preprint. http://tushik.org/nawacolex/.
Page 19 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
King, Alan R. 2016. Conozcamos el Lenca, una lengua de El Salvador. Preprint. http:// tushik.org/conozcamos-el-lenca-sai/.
Lehmann, Walter. 1920. Zentral-Amerika. Teil I. Die Sprachen Zentral-Amerikas in ihrer Beziehung zueinander sowie zu Süd-Amerika und Mexiko. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Lewis, P. M. and Simons, G. F. 2009. “Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 55(2): 103–120.
Masin, Ynés et al. 2012. Tajtaketza pal Ijtzalku. Preprint. http://tushik.org/tajtaketza- pal-ijtzalku/.
Miranda, Jazz. 2016. “Paula López, voz del Río de Espinas.” La Zebra, May 1. https:// lazebra.net/2016/05/01/jazz-miranda-paula-lopez-voz-del-rio-de-espinas-cronica/.
Mukaki! 2016. Tushik. http://tushik.org/mukaki-el-nahuat-se-oye/. Accessed February 19, 2016.
Náhuat El Salvador. n.d. YouTube channel. By Alej Andro (Alejandro López Mendoza). https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbYqsaNZAzdRq94OfRO4odQ. Accessed June 30, 2016.
Ramírez Vásquez, Genaro. 2004. Naja ni Genaro. Preprint, IRIN.
Schultze-Jena, Leonhard. 1935. Indiana II: Mythen in der Muttersprache der Pipil von Izalco in El Salvador. Jena: Gustav Fischer.
Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust. n.d. Website of the New Zealand Maori language nest organization. http://www.kohanga.ac.nz/. Accessed January 8, 2017.
Torrealdai, Joan Mari. 1998. El libro negro del euskera. Ttartalo. https:// escueladesara.wordpress.com/tag/libro-negro-del-euskera/.
Universidad Don Bosco. 2009. Ne Nawat, tutaketzalis! Amachti 2. San Salvador: Editorial Universidad Don Bosco.
Ward, Monica. 2002. “A Template for CALL Programs for Endangered Languages.” MSc thesis, Dublin City University. Chapter 5, Nawat. http://www.computing.dcu.ie/ ~mward/mthesis.html.
Zuazo Zelaieta, Koldo. 1988. Euskararen batasuna. La unificación de la lengua vasca. L’unification de la langue basque. Bilbo: Euskaltzaindia.
Notes:
Page 20 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
(1) This chapter is based on a seminar talk at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa in October 2014. An expanded transcription of the original talk was posted in my blog Kia Weli! (http://kiaweli.blogspot.com/2014/11/pushing-paradigm-of-language-recovery.html) and a revised version was posted on the Tushik website (http://tushik.org/pushing-the- paradigm/) in 2016, under the title “Pushing the paradigm of language recovery: the cases of Basque and Nawat.” The theoretical dimension in particular has been considerably reformulated in the present chapter. I wish to express my gratitude to all who responded to my earlier versions, engaged with my ideas on the subject, and gave me much needed feedback, including Lyle Campbell. Jan Morrow is to be thanked for his constant support of my work on Nawat language recovery and that of other indigenous languages, and for his practical assistance over the years. I am also grateful for the opportunities to work with them that I have received over the years from many members of Basque, Nawat, and other language communities, in representation of whom I shall single out my first Basque-speaking friend Txomin Aizagirre and my Nawat-speaking friend Paula López, to whose memories this study is respectfully dedicated. I will talk about Paula later. I met Txomin as a young man who spoke Basque at home to his aging parents but rarely outside the home, who was influenced by me to learn Basque language literacy; his progress was rapid, and led to a new career choice, becoming a teacher of his native language and a lifelong activist in the language movement. Txomin was not a special case but one of countless other language militants who collectively, through strong determination and focused action, brought Basque back from the brink of endangerment; and it is precisely in this capacity of one among many that I honor Txomin’s priceless contribution and that of many like him. This chapter is built around a reflection upon what has taken place to bring about this remarkable achievement.
(2) Called the “Language Recovery Scale” in earler versions of this chapter. An anonymous reviewer has pointed out to me that the word “scale” could give rise to confusion given the existence of tools and constructs in the language revitalization discipline that are also referred to as scales, e.g., GIDS (Fishman 1991) and its expansion, EGIDS (Lewis and Simons 2009). These were proposed for diagnosing the state of health (degree of vitality) in which a language may find itself at any given time between the two extremes of international and extinct (0 and 10, respectively, on EGIDS). LRS, on the contrary, is an ordered series of stages through which language recovery processes have been observed to progress on the journey from the Pre-Language-Recovery stage (0) to the Post-Language-Recovery stage (IV). These stages are called “paradigms” since each is primarily characterized by beliefs and attitudes both in society at large and among LR practitioners about both the language itself and the concept of language recovery. The central purpose of this chapter is to discuss one paradigm change that constitutes a critical turning point for LR movements, that represented as the juncture between stages I and II in the LRS.
Page 21 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
(3) As noted (previous note), “paradigm” is used in the sense of a characteristic cluster of beliefs and attitudes which determine approaches to language recovery. It will be suggested that, historically, different LR paradigms may be prevalent in different language movements at certain times, that these characterize sequentially ordered stages of language recovery, and that in the course of development of a given language movement, at any one period it is likely that a transition between two principal paradigms is being played out in the form of ideological confrontations and differences of opinion about the language and the objectives of the language movement, and hence also about appropriate measures, methods, and expectations. Thus “paradigm” is primarily used, within the proposed theoretical framework, as a descriptor of a particular stage in the evolution of a language recovery process which can be observed from the outside, so to speak, by LR practitioners analyzing or diagnosing the state of a specific language movement. Nevertheless, it is also usually the case that these practitioners are themselves immersed within a particular paradigm which they bring to bear in their role in a language’s recovery efforts by adopting certain beliefs and attitudes themselves, and in this respect the issue of paradigms discussed in this chapter is intended to raise questions about assumptions often made in the LR field, some of which might need to be reexamined.
(4) It is to be understood that this sequence is found in successful LR processes (or ones that may be considered successful up to the point they have reached). For empirical purposes it would be of the greatest interest to attempt to compare these with unsuccessful processes, in order to discover how their development differs.
(5) Basque is an isolate of great antiquity spoken in a small region of western Europe now forming part of Spain and France. The history of Basque language recovery is relatively well-known and is the subject, wholly or in part, of an ever-increasing literature which I shall make no attempt to review here. For a general introduction in a cross-language perspective, see, for example, the documents presented by the Garabide NGO on its website: http://www.garabide.eus/. For resources of the government of the Basque Autonomous Community concerning the Basque language see its site http:// www.euskara.euskadi.eus/. The critical viewpoint of a non-governmental entity that works in the area of Basque language rights may be found on Kontseilua’s site: http:// kontseilua.eus/. The Academy of the Basque Language (Euskaltzaindia)’s website is at http://www.euskaltzaindia.eus/.
(6) The Basque-born Spanish-language author Miguel de Unamuno famously said in 1901: “Pero en el caso co//n//creto del vascuence estoy profundamente convencido de que se pierde, y que se pierde de pronto y sin remedio, y por su índole misma, por ser un idioma inapto para la cultura moderna” [But in the specific case of Basque I am deeply convinced that its days are numbered, and it will die out soon and irremediably, because it is a language not apt for modern culture] (quoted in Torrealdai 1998).
Page 22 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
(7) Conditions were and still are different in the northeastern region of the Basque Country ruled by France. Interestingly, persecution of Basque was less direct, yet the decline of the language has been more precipitous in recent years here than anywhere else. However, it would be too simplistic to posit a direct link between overt persecution and language recovery; other variables that need to be factored in include the socioeconomical: northern Euskal Herria is poor and predominantly rural except for the coast where French tourism and services dominate. In any case, it would be a mistake to think that French-language policies have been benign; on the contrary, minority languages still struggle under Parisian centralism.
(8) I.e., the ikastola movement, http://www.ikastola.eus/, a large country-wide network of non-governmental parent-owned Basque-medium schools. After the creation of the autonomous communities, Basque-medium education was also introduced in varying degrees into the public school system. The ikastolak, however, were the precursors and still lead the way in some respects.
(9) First known as gaueskolak [evening schools] because most adults only had time after work to attend such classes, at a later time they came to be known as euskaltegiak. Having started out as local grassroots initiatives, gaueskolak around the country were restructured as a coordinated group called AEK (Alfabetatzeko eta Euskalduntzeko Koordinakundea [coordinating body for literacy and Basque language teaching]). Originally under the auspices of Euskaltzaindia (the Basque language academy), AEK later broke away and became an independent organisation, http://www.aek.eus/.
(10) At first mainly through Basque-language magazines, but after the Spanish regime change reinstated publishing freedoms, Basque nationalist newspapers appeared, bilingual at first (with Spanish predominating), and later also a completely Basque- language daily newspaper, Euskaldunon Egunkaria. These initiatives, especially Egunkaria, still had to grapple with challenges from the Spanish courts which eventually closed the newspaper down on trumped-up charges which Spain’s own supreme court eventually overturned after many years of litigation, by which time a new Basque- language newspaper, Berria, had taken its place. Today there are also several Basque- language television channels and radio stations.
(11) Most people in Basque towns who could not speak Basque, which was by now a minority language in many places, self-identified as Basques (and still do). Therefore, except for a minority who wished to deny their ethnic heritage, it was seen as natural for them personally to wish to recover their ancestral language, often expressing the sentiment that until they did so they would be “incomplete Basques.” In this sense, a contrast may be noted with the traditional view in a country like El Salvador where, on the contrary, partially assimilated people of indigenous origin, who may have a minimal admixture of European blood in their veins but who do not maintain the language and traditional rural lifestyle, are regarded as Ladino (whose original meaning was “foreign”); the Nawat word for this is ejkuni literally meaning “one who arrives [from abroad].” These terms stand in contraposition to “native” or “autochthonous.” Such people would
Page 23 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms not expect or be expected to speak Nawat. However, it would seem that this traditional schema is no longer being accepted by the enlightened youth of today of the kind who become interested in studying Nawat, which they usually view as their ancestral language.
(12) In historical perspective this is a simplification. In fact, early in the twentieth century a concerted attempt was made in circles close to the newborn political movement of modern Basque nationalism to reform the language, particularly by replacing all words of foreign (e.g., Spanish) origin with neologisms. This resulted in an artificial kind of literary Basque which had too little in common with the ordinary language spontaneously spoken by native speakers, was difficult to understand, and met criticism in the second half of the century in particular from a post-war generation of writers who favored a new attempt at standardization of the written language based on due consideration for the full range of Basque dialects, historical literary precedent, and the common linguistic system underlying all its modern manifestations, while distancing themselves from the premises of excessive purism (particularly the dogmatic rejection of all lexical input from surrounding languages) and attempting to eliminate the consequences of capricious neologizing that had cluttered the literary language with “words” lacking any basis in traditional Basque. Ironically, defenders of the older artificial literary medium who opposed this new trend (which culminated in Euskara Batua, the universally accepted present-day standard language) accused the latter’s proponents of creating an artificial language. See Zuazo 1988 on the history of Basque language standardization. Similar phenomena, where there is an evident misfit between controversial claims and linguistic realities, users of highly unnatural, obscure, and incorrect forms accusing the most active pursuers of language recovery of promoting something other than the “real language,” can be observed in the histories of other LR processes including that of Nawat. Although this is frustrating and disheartening at times, common sense has a way of winning out at the end of the day.
(13) Both are roughly comparable in area to Israel or Wales. According to figures posted on English Wikipedia, the respective areas (in km2) are: Basque Country 20,947; El Salvador 21,041; Israel 20,770; Wales 20,779.
(14) Some evidence suggests that Nawat might have been used as a lingua franca in a wider area prior to the arrival of the Spanish. This supposition is supported by the presence of loans from Nawat into neighboring indigenous languages, such as Lenca (Lehmann 1920, 668–722; King 2016). For example, in Chilanga (Salvadoran Lenca) which was spoken until the 1970s (Campbell 1976), some words appear to be loans of Nawat origin, such as kotan “country, woods” < N[awat] kojtan; matz’ati “pineapple” < N matza(j)[*-ti]; mistu “cat” < N mistun; shikal “jar” < N shikal “gourd bowl”; shikit “basket” < N chikiwit; su(w)at “hat” < N suyat “palm”; taku “half” < N tajku; tetunte “hearthstone” < N tetunti; wat “sugarcane” < N u(w)at.
Page 24 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
(15) Half a century earlier, Leonhard Schultze-Jena published a voluminous work in German (Schultze-Jena 1935). In spite of its importance, the publication essentially had no impact in practical terms; for Pipils it was of course both unavailable and inaccessible. The lack of access to the textual corpus which makes up the second half of the study is particularly unfortunate. The linguistic description which makes up the first half is of some interest but clearly inferior to Campbell’s account in coherence and perspicacity.
(16) The last years of the twentieth century were not completely devoid of publications. However, with the exception of Campbell there was a steady decrease in the level of scholarship and originality in comparison to the best earlier achievements, which apart from Campbell include Schultze-Jena (1935). This is not the place for an exhaustive bibliography, the most important items of which are referenced on the Tushik website, while a bibliography covering the period up to its date of publication is to be found at the end of Campbell (1985).
(17) I acknowledge with gratitude the help I received from many individuals, each in their own way, particularly Lyle Campbell, Werner Hernández, Jorge Lemus, Paula López, Cecilia de Méndez, Genaro Ramírez, Gaio Tiberio, and Monica Ward.
(18) Although many of the items are not formal publications, a substantial literature has been generated and circulated through websites and social media over the past fifteen years. Much of the relevant information and materials is indexed on and can be downloaded from the Tushik website, a portal that was created by myself for Nawat and Lenca language resources: http://tushik.org/.
(19) Changes later made in the program have limited the program’s scope and effect, which have fallen short of the original goal (Werner Hernández, personal communication November 25, 2015).
(20) IRIN stands for “Iniciativa para la Recuperación del Idioma Náhuat” [Initiative for Nawat Language Recovery]. The Nawat words Te Miki Tay Tupal [What Is Ours Shall Not Die] was later appended to the association’s original name. The shorter version “IRIN” is used here for convenience. IRIN was founded at a meeting of Nawat enthusiasts in September 2003 held at the Casa de la Cultura in Santo Domingo de Guzmán, Sonsonate. Its first president was a well-known native Nawat speaker, the late Genaro Ramírez Vásquez. Most of IRIN’s activity was coordinated from Izalco under the supervision of the secretary Cecilia de Méndez Martínez and an assessor, Nardi Gómez Sampedro. One of IRIN’s most illustrious and active members was the late Paula López, an enthusiastic native speaker who played a key role in the language documentation project and in IRIN’s work generally.
Page 25 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
(21) The IRIN Nawat documentation project produced over twenty video and audio recorded interviews between thirty and sixty minutes among Nawat speakers, some of which have been transcribed while the transcription of others is still in progress. Translations and subtitled editions of some recordings have also been produced. Much of the production and post-production process was carried out by Nawat speakers and assistants with links to the local communities, with practical training as necessary. The project was promoted by Lyle Campbell and sponsored and funded by the University of Utah and the National Science Foundation. Audio recordings produced through the project are currently being released gradually on the Tushik website.
(22) Currently Tushik (http://tushik.org/) provides for the online resource needs of several indigenous language movements (Nawat, Salvadorean Lenca, and Honduran Lenca). In addition to portals and subportals targeting people interested in these LR processes, the site also houses a document archive containing several hundred published and unpublished relevant items which is freely available to specialists and scholars: the Tushik Library. Interested readers may contact the author for details on how to access the library.
(23) I.e., “Let’s save the Nawat language,” https://www.facebook.com/groups/ 33974937500/, created by Hector Castaneda.
(24) At the time of writing, the largest Facebook group for Nawat is that of the Colectivo Tzunhejekat, https://www.facebook.com/Tzunejekat/.
(25) See Hernández (2016a), and an obituary for Paula López in Miranda (2016).
(26) Some Nawat teaching is currently taking place in selected primary schools. Unfortunately, this is being attempted with limited materials and mostly by teachers whose knowledge of Nawat is very limited.
Alan R. King Alan R. King is a freelance linguist, language teacher, and specialist translator with a focus on issues relating to minority, endangered, and indigenous languages. His interests include grammatical analysis and practical/typological description, language standardization, and recovery strategies and techniques for endangered and extinct languages, taking into account social dimensions and the creative use of social media to promote learning, awareness, and effective action. His language of specialization includes Basque and several indigenous languages of Central America. After working mainly on Nawat (El Salvador) for a decade, he is currently developing materials for Honduran Lenca. King resides in the Basque Country.
Page 26 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018 Language Recovery Paradigms
Page 27 of 27 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 13 August 2018