Revitalizing Indigenous Languages edited by Jon Reyhner Gina Cantoni Robert N. St. Clair Evangeline Parsons Yazzie Flagstaff, Arizona 1999 Revitalizing Indigenous Languages is a compilation of papers presented at the Fifth Annual Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium on May 15 and 16, 1998, at the Galt House East in Louisville, Kentucky. Symposium Advisory Board Robert N. St. Clair, Co-chair Evangeline Parsons Yazzie, Co-chair Gina Cantoni Barbara Burnaby Jon Reyhner Symposium Staff Tyra R. Beasley Sarah Becker Yesenia Blackwood Trish Burns Emil Dobrescu Peter Matallana Rosemarie Maum Jack Ramey Tina Rose Mike Sorendo Nancy Stone B. Joanne Webb Copyright © 1999 by Northern Arizona University ISBN 0-9670554-0-7 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 99-70356 Second Printing, 2005 Additional copies can be obtained from College of Education, Northern Ari- zona University, Box 5774, Flagstaff, Arizona, 86011-5774. Phone 520 523 5342. Reprinting and copying on a nonprofit basis is hereby allowed with proper identification of the source except for Richard Littlebear’s poem on page iv, which can only be reproduced with his permission. Publication information can be found at http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/TIL.html ii Contents Repatriated Bones, Unrepatriated Spirits iv Richard Littlebear Introduction: Some Basics of Language Revitalization v Jon Reyhner Obstacles and Opportunities for Language Revitalization 1. Some Rare and Radical Ideas for Keeping Indigenous Languages Alive 1 Richard Littlebear 2. Running the Gauntlet of an Indigenous Language Program 6 Steve Greymorning Language Revitalization Efforts and Approaches 3. Sm’algyax Language Renewal: Prospects and Options 17 Daniel S. Rubin 4. Reversing Language Shift: Can Kwak’wala Be Revived 33 Stan J. Anonby 5. Using TPR-Storytelling to Develop Fluency and Literacy in Native American Languages 53 Gina P. Cantoni 6. Documenting and Maintaining Native American Languages for the 21st Century: The Indiana University Model 59 Douglas R. Parks, Julia Kushner, Wallace Hooper, Francis Flavin, Delilah Yellow Bird, Selena Ditmar The Role of Writing in Language Revitalization 7. The Place of Writing in Preserving an Oral Language 84 Ruth Bennett, Pam Mattz, Silish Jackson, Harold Campbell 8. Indigenous Language Codification: Cultural Effects 103 Brian Bielenberg Using Technology in Language Revitalization 9. Enhancing Language Material Availability Using Computers 113 Mizuki Miyashita and Laura A. Moll 10. The New Mass Media and the Shaping of Amazigh Identity 117 Amar Almasude 11. Self-Publishing Indigenous Language Materials 129 Robert N. St. Clair, John Busch, B. Joanne Webb Contributors 138 iii Repatriated Bones, Unrepatriated Spirits Richard Littlebear We were brought back. We were brought back here to a place we don’t know. We were brought back here to a place where we left no tracks. We were brought back here to a place we’ve only passed through when we moved camp or were hunting, or were looking for enemies. We were brought back here and yet we are lost. We were brought back to a place where we are confused. But now we are starting to sing our songs. We are singing our songs that will help us find our way. We are singing our songs because we want to rest in peace. We are singing our songs so that the people who have been so friendly to us will also be at rest. We came back to a people who look like us but whose language we do not understand anymore. Yet we know in our hearts they are feeling good too, to have us back here among them. We are back here now but preparing to journey on. We are singing our songs of joy and we are gradually, gradually becoming happy knowing we can now travel on and finally be at rest. iv Introduction Some Basics of Indigenous Language Revitalization Jon Reyhner Drawing from papers presented at the five Stabilizing Indigenous Languages symposiums held since 1994, activities are recommended for language revitalization at each of Joshua Fishman’s eight stages of language loss. The role of writing in indigenous language revitaliza- tion is discussed, and two types of language use, primary and second- ary discourse, are described. The conclusion stresses the importance of motivating language learners and using teaching methods and ma- terials that have proven effective in indigenous communities. Symposiums on teaching indigenous languages have been held annually since 1994 under the cosponsorship of Northern Arizona University’s Bilingual Multicultural Education Program in its Center for Excellence in Education. The symposiums have featured a wide range of presentations, ranging from market- ing the value of native languages, to implementing immersion teaching pro- grams, to using Total Physical Response teaching techniques, to developing in- digenous language textbooks useful for children, and even to teaching languages over the telephone. In the United States there is an “English-Only” political movement that questions the value of teaching languages other than English, including indig- enous languages. Throughout the symposiums there has been a theme of how language and culture are intimately entwined and cannot be separated. The im- portance of cultural retention, and thus indigenous language retention, was brought home to me at the third symposium in Anchorage, Alaska, when I picked up a card describing Iñupiaq Eskimo values. One side of the card read: Every Iñupiaq is responsible to all other Iñupiat for the survival of our cultural spirit, and the values and traditions through which it sur- vives. Through our extended family, we retain, teach, and live our Iñupiaq way. The other side read, “With guidance and support from Elders, we must teach our children Iñupiaq values” and then the card listed the values of “knowledge of language, sharing, respect for others, cooperation, respect for elders, love for children, hard work, knowledge of family tree, avoidance of conflict, respect for nature, spirituality, humor, family roles, hunter success, domestic skills, humil- ity, [and] responsibility to tribe.” The card concluded with “OUR UNDER- STANDING OF OUR UNIVERSE AND OUR PLACE IN IT IS A BELIEF IN GOD AND A RESPECT FOR ALL HIS CREATIONS.” I have kept this card in my wallet as a reminder that indigenous language revitalization is part of a larger Revitalizing Indigenous Languages attempt by indigenous peoples to retain their cultural strengths in the face of the demoralizing assaults of an all-pervasive modern individualistic, materialistic, and hedonistic technological culture. The card reminds me of why it is so impor- tant to do everything we can to help the efforts of any person or group that wants to work to preserve their language. It is the earnest hope of the editors of this volume that the papers gathered here from the Fifth Annual Stabilizing Indig- enous Languages Symposium held in Louisville, Kentucky, in May 1998 will, along with the two previous symposium publications: Stabilizing Indigenous Languages (Cantoni, 1996) and Teaching Indigenous Languages (Reyhner, 1997), help indigenous language teachers and activists in their efforts to save their lan- guages and cultures. The renowned sociolinguist and expert on endangered languages Joshua Fishman emphasized in speeches at the first two Stabilizing Indigenous Lan- guages symposiums that schools can only have a limited role in keeping indig- enous languages alive. Other symposium speakers and participants echoed Dr. Fishman’s belief that the intergenerational transmission of language in the home from parents to young children is the key to keeping indigenous languages alive; however, schools can play either a positive or negative role in supporting the efforts of indigenous parents and communities. Fishman’s eight stages of language loss Based on his study of minority languages worldwide, Fishman postulated in his landmark 1991 book Reversing Language Shift a continuum of eight stages of language loss with stage eight being the closest to total extinction and stage one being the closest to dynamic survival. Fishman’s eight stages are summa- rized below and in Figure 1 along with suggestions on what can be done to promote indigenous language use at each stage based on presentations at the Stabilizing Indigenous Languages symposiums and other sources. It is impor- tant to remember that one of Fishman’s stages can only roughly approximate the real situation of a particular indigenous language, and it is imperative to under- stand that different approaches to language revitalization are called for depend- ing upon the current health of a language and unique local conditions. The most seriously endangered languages are in Fishman’s stage eight and have only a few isolated elderly speakers. Partly as a result of years of concerted language suppression by the United States government, many American Indian tribes, such as the Salish and Kootenai in Montana, Pawnee in Oklahoma, Arikara in North Dakota, and almost all of the remaining fifty Indian languages of Cali- fornia, are in Fishman’s eighth stage. Stage eight languages are on the verge of extinction. Speakers need to be recorded using media that is not subject to deg- radation over time, such as VHS videotapes are, and through written transcripts using phonetic alphabets that catch the nuances of the language’s sound system. However, this archiving of language knowledge can be tantamount to an admis- sion of defeat, with the language becoming a museum piece. While, stage eight elders seldom have the stamina to teach young children, especially in large groups, they can teach young adults singly or in small groups. The Native California vi Some Basics of Indigenous Language Revitalization Figure 1. Suggested Interventions Based on Different Stages of Language Endangerment [Adapted from Fishman’s (1991, pp. 88-109) Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale for Threatened Languages] Current Status Suggested Interventions to Strengthen Language of Language Stage 8: Only a Implement Hinton’s (1994) “Language Apprentice” Model few elders speak where fluent elders are teamed one-to-one with young adults the language.