Perspectives

MARTHA BIGELOW, Associate Co-Editor University of MELISSA ENGMAN, Co-Editor Queen’s University Belfast

THE ISSUE

Doing Indigenous Language Reclamation

THIS YEAR’S PERSPECTIVES COLUMN generational interactions on or with the natural follows on the heels of the United Nations’ Inter- world, land-based literacies and nonverbal partici- national Year of Indigenous Languages (2019), pation can become as important as oral language. with contributions from scholars who have rich This perspective necessitates an expanded view and varied experiences maintaining and re- of language and requires frames that can address claiming Indigenous languages. This column the complexities of learning and knowing with embraces the shifting ideological terrain of In- language. digenous language efforts and its rejection of the Together and separately, the views expressed in language-as-object paradigm in favor of perspec- this column represent a critical area of research in tives that encompass language’s entanglements applied linguistics. Language reclamation efforts with social, historical, and material relations. The provide profound examples of how scholarship position piece by Richard Henne–Ochoa, Emma can be deeply rooted in local practice while simul- Elliott–Groves, Barbra Meek, and Barbara Rogoff taneously addressing social, environmental, and embraces the collaborative nature of language political concerns on a global scale. Indigenous in use and in context in order to complicate our language reclamation work requires us to think conception of what constitutes language and this across longstanding disciplinary boundaries and work of doing Indigenous language reclamation. to embrace the interconnected nature of humans Ideological frames such as language as social in relation with one another and their natural, interaction and language as relationality offer historical, political, and social environments. By alternative views of language that require a re- arguing for ideologies of language that espouse consideration of core practices in the field of situated, collaborative action, this column should language teaching and learning. For instance, inspire locally grown, alternative conceptions of when we conceptualize language as something language teaching and learning for languages that both mediates and originates from inter- around the world.

The Modern Language Journal, 104, 2, (2020) DOI: 10.1111/modl.12643 0026-7902/20/480–525 $1.50/0 C National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations Perspectives 481

THE POSITION PAPER

Pathways Forward for Indigenous Language Reclamation: Engaging Indigenous Epistemology and Learning by Observing and Pitching in to Family and Community Endeavors RICHARD HENNE–OCHOA Indiana University, Bloomington EMMA ELLIOTT–GROVES University of Washington, Seattle BARBRA A. MEEK University of , Ann Arbor BARBARA ROGOFF University of California, Santa Cruz

Over the last 40 years or so, especially in the last taken for granted as mutually understood across two decades, the world’s Indigenous peoples and bodies of interdisciplinary scholarship. their allies have responded in earnest to threats Yet, just what exactly are these terms taken to to the vitality of their Indigenous languages. mean in Indigenous communities? As Leonard Our main purpose in this article is to offer a (2017) recently pointed out, those who engage in reconsideration of by language work, that is, “language documentation, examining foundational ideologies and related description, teaching, advocacy, and resource de- practices. We believe that doing so will inform velopment” (p. 16)—as well as learning—do not scholars and practitioners of language work and, necessarily share the same meanings in common. ultimately, serve Indigenous communities who Complicating matters, definitions of learning want to better align their language revitalization itself vary across contexts. We draw on Gutiér- efforts with Indigenous concepts and practices. rez and Rogoff’s (2003) understanding that Similar to mainstream discourse related to “learning is conceived of as a process occurring climate change, mainstream discourse about her- within ongoing activity, and not divided into sep- itage language frames the issue as a crisis that can arate characteristics of individuals and contexts” result in the extinction of not only people, plants, (p. 20). That is, learning is situated deeply in local and animals but also Indigenous language and family and community contexts, and observation cultural practices (Baldwin, Noodin, & Perley, and evaluation of learning takes place across 2018). Furthermore, the discourses of crisis or generations. For example, while Elliott–Groves death are a function of the settler colonial ideol- (second author) was conducting research in her ogy of Indigenous erasure (Wolfe, 2006), whereby home community—Cowichan Tribes on Vancou- participation in such discourses perpetuates a ver Island, —she was asked to sense of loss of life. In this context, responses to participate in the end-of-life ceremony for a com- Indigenous heritage have been varied. munity member (Elliott–Groves & Meixi, 2020). The responses have been labeled most com- Given that Elliott–Groves was born and raised monly as “language retention” (Bauman, 1980), in the community, Elders and other community “language renewal” (Brandt, 1988; St. Clair & members have observed and evaluated her per- Leap, 1982), “reversing language shift” (Fish- formance in relation to cultural and community man, 1991), “language revitalization” (Davis, commitments across her lifetime. Each opportu- 2018; Grenoble & Whaley, 2006; Hinton & Hale, nity provided her the opportunity to learn new 2001; Hinton, Huss, & Roche, 2018; Jacob, 2013; skills and acquire new knowledge, while provid- Meek, 2010), and “language reclamation” (De ing a chance for the community to evaluate her Korne & Leonard, 2017; Leonard, 2012, 2017, learning (Elliott–Groves & Meixi, 2020). 2019; Perley, 2011). These terms, especially Differences in conceptions of what language is language revitalization, are ubiquitous today in or what learning constitutes will inevitably result discourse about responses to language endanger- in differing notions of what language revitaliza- ment. The meanings of these terms are usually tion is and how it should be done. In particular, 482 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020) we note how Leonard (2017) pointed out that use these products and assess their value. (Leonard, non-Indigenous linguists working as allies to 2017, p. 19) Indigenous communities in their language work tend to conceive of language as an object, owing Engagement with Indigenous language revital- in large part to their education and training in ization activities is preconditioned by ideologies Euro-Western schools and universities. Empha- of what language is and what constitutes learning sizing structural properties, language is framed a language, which is reflected in the approach by such allies as a ‘thing’ that can be captured to language revitalization. This, of course, is true through linguistic elicitation from speakers and whether or not those engaged in this type of lan- the recording of narratives—in the Boasian guage work state their ideologies of language and tradition—and turned into documents such as learning explicitly or are even cognizant of them dictionaries, grammars, and texts (Leonard, (Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer, 1998; Kroskrity, 2017; see also Darnell & Valentine, 1999). In this 2009, 2018). Further, we recognize that language sense, a language may be understood as a code practices reinforce certain ideologies of language that is separable from context. in a dialogic relationship (Schieffelin, Woolard, While this language-as-code ideology is a useful & Kroskrity, 1998). way of conceiving of language for certain intents It seems reasonable to wonder, then, what and purposes, such framing exists “at the expense ideologies of language and learning exist in lan- of social practices” (Leonard, 2017, p. 18; see also guage work, as well as how they are manifested in Hymes, 1962, 1972, 1974). It masks an un- social practices. That is, what are the most basic derstanding of language as social interaction, conceptual foundations undergirding language situated within and in dynamic and dialogic rela- revitalization and how are they tied to language tionship with multiple layers of context, including revitalization efforts? To be sure, there is a sub- historical, sociocultural, political economic, de- stantial body of work concerning ideologies of velopmental, and psychological. We suggest that language (e.g., Joseph & Taylor, 1990; Kroskrity, rendering language as a code is an attempt to 2000; Schieffelin et al., 1998; Silverstein, 1979). remove Indigenous concepts of language from Scholarly attention has been given specifically to the social and cultural context, resulting in In- Indigenous language ideologies or “beliefs and digenous erasure. Indigenous understandings of feelings about language and discourse” (Field language are intertwined with Indigenous con- & Kroskrity, 2009, p. 4) held by Indigenous cepts of land, identity, and thought, and as such, community members (e.g., Davis, 2018; Hill & cannot be successfully compartmentalized and Hill, 1986; Jacob, 2013; Kroskrity & Field, 2009; transmitted. Kulick, 1997; Makihara & Schieffelin, 2007; Importantly, the conception of language as an Morgan, 2009). Yet there is a need for attention object fails to acknowledge the social work and focused on Indigenous conceptions of language cultural meanings of language, including its im- itself and of what language revitalization means, portance for understanding cultural concepts of and how such conceptions shape and are shaped identity and the associated relational and moral by language revitalization initiatives that occur fabric of the community. Efforts at language within and across various contexts. revitalization need to design their efforts around To this end, we focus on three areas: (a) Indige- ethical commitments to the community (Greno- nous ideologies of language and language revital- ble, 2009; Kroskrity & Meek, 2017; Meek, 2017). ization, (b) Euro-Western ideologies of language And because language revitalization is most often and how they are (intentionally or unintention- a collaborative endeavor, differences in concep- ally) built into many current indigenous language tions of what language is may be consequential to revitalization initiatives and programmatic ac- coordinating language work: tions, and (c) a family- and community-based re- However it is conceptualised, ‘language’ provides sponse to language endangerment founded on a the basic framework through which people plan, broader enterprise than language revitalization— execute, and assess language work. When speaker– language reclamation—that foregrounds Indige- consultants participate in language documentation, nous ideologies of language while also supporting for instance, it is their understanding of ‘language’ a way of learning, prevalent in, but not exclusive that informs their motivations in doing such work. When they negotiate ethical and other concerns, it to, Indigenous communities, called “learning is with this as a backdrop. When community mem- by observing and pitching in to family and bers engage with language documentation or with community endeavors” (LOPI; Rogoff, 2014). pedagogical materials based on documentation, it In this way, we hope to contribute to the is with their understanding of ‘language’ that they decolonization and Indigenization of language Perspectives 483 revitalization taken up by others (e.g., Hermes, INDIGENOUS IDEOLOGIES OF LANGUAGE 2005; Hermes & Haskins, 2018; Leonard, 2017). AND LANGUAGE RECLAMATION, AND We consider a perspective on decolonization and RELATED PRACTICES Indigenization informed by Wilson and Yellow Bird (2005), who stated that decolonization is We begin by suggesting that language recla- “the intelligent, calculated, and active resistance mation should be consistent with Indigenous to the forces of colonization that perpetuate the perspectives and goals. That is, we support a subjugation and/or exploitation of our minds, language-as-a-process-of-sustaining-relationality bodies, and lands, and ( …) is engaged for the ul- ideology. This is not to suggest that Indigenous timate purpose of overturning the colonial structures and Euro-Western ideologies of language do not and realizing Indigenous liberation” (p. 5, emphasis mutually influence one another or that there are added). To this end, we theorize Indigenous ‘pure’ Indigenous ideologies of language. In fact, language revitalization using an analytical frame- we recognize the existence of “conceptual con- work including Indigenous conceptions of land, vergence” or “what could be called ideological language, thought, and identity. Drawing on Tuck syncretism” (Meek, 2009, p. 165) as it relates to and Yang’s (2012) discussion of decolonization, ideologies of language. Rather, we mean to exam- we hope to offer suggestions for the repatria- ine areas where the different cultural meanings of tion of Indigenous languages that emerge from language are apparent and consequential, even Indigenous ways of knowing. if interconnected and sometimes challenging to By complicating the very notion of language distinguish. itself, we push back against Euro-Western ideolo- A conception of language as social interaction gies of language that privilege structure and code. frames language as a process or , not an Instead, we advance Indigenous ideologies of lan- object or , and foregrounds relationships guage, which we suggest are, in many instances, through interaction. Important to this concep- language-as-social-interaction ideologies (Du- tion is the centrality of relational reciprocity ranti, 1997), language-as-performance ideologies in Indigenous notions of language; ethical re- (Bauman, 1977, 1986, 2011; Bauman & Briggs, lationships with people and the natural world 1990), and, more broadly, language-as-social- are integral to the how and why languages are action in the ethnography-of-speaking tradition learned in context across generations. We are, (Bauman & Sherzer, 1975, 1989; Hymes, 1962, in other words, suggesting that an appropriate 1972, 1974). We do this to recenter Indigenous conceptual framework for understanding Indige- conceptions of language itself, particularly by nous ideologies of language is an Indigenous promoting a language-as-a-process-of-sustaining- relational epistemology. relationality ideology. It is important to first reframe language ‘revital- We also seek to contribute to the deconstruc- ization’ within a language reclamation paradigm tion of common Euro-Western–based ideologies to foreground Indigenous and decolonizing of language revitalization and language instruc- ideologies and practices. This encompasses tion tied to those ideologies. We call attention conceptions of language as relationality, as well to how such ideologies and practices obscure as language practices that honor Indigenous Indigenous conceptions of language and In- ways of speaking (Henne, 2009; Henne–Ochoa, digenous language reclamation. Our interest in 2018). It also includes Indigenous pedagogies problematizing ‘language revitalization’ stems that reclaim Indigenous languages by sustaining from how ubiquitous and seemingly dominant and reclaiming Indigenous cultures (McCarty & conceptions of it mask the role of settler colo- Lee, 2014). For us, to reclaim a language refers nialism in Indigenous language endangerment. to the active recovery of language processes and Instead, we consider how language reclama- practices that have been impacted by coloniza- tion (see, e.g., De Korne & Leonard, 2017; tion and, in this way, allows us to acknowledge Leonard, 2012, 2017, 2019), a concept which that Indigenous languages were never forfeited. derives from a decolonized/decolonizing and These Indigenous conceptions of language, Indigenized/Indigenizing paradigm, is a more language practices, and pedagogies have existed apt, productive, and dynamic concept to facil- for millennia, but in many cases they have been itate pedagogical transformation. We further weakened and are still under threat by settler respond to the need to offer critical perspectives colonialism. Thus, rightfully, many Indigenous on language revitalization practices that center people seek to reclaim them. language learning in Indigenous social, cultural, We are suggesting that language reclamation relational, and spiritual contexts. is a more apt term than language revitalization, 484 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020) given the expressed language goals of Indige- McKenzie, & McCoy, 2014). Without heritage lan- nous communities. It is so because it calls out guage, many Indigenous people believe that their settler-colonial impacts while also charting a communication with the land and spirit world process of decolonizing Indigenous language could be adversely impacted, thus shifting con- ideologies and practices by reconfiguring them cepts of Indigenous identity. Many communities within self-determined Indigenous social struc- have stories embedded in particular landscapes tures in which family and community interaction that demonstrate a collective identity associated is (re)embedded. with generations of responsible relations with a particular place (Cajete, 1994). Indigenous INDIGENOUS IDEOLOGIES OF LANGUAGE notions of self, then, are also deeply intertwined IN RELATIONSHIP WITH LAND, LANGUAGE, with Indigenous understandings of language, THOUGHT, AND IDENTITY thought, identity, and relationship to land.

Iñupiaq scholar MacLean (2010) shared her ex- EURO-WESTERN IDEOLOGIES OF pertise on the intimate relationship between land, LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE language, and thought from . Language is REVITALIZATION, AND RELATED used to organize everyday life by communicating PRACTICES local meaning (MacLean, 2010). For Iñupiaq, whose way of life and livelihood is contingent How do Euro-Western notions of language upon respectful relations with land and sea, as a neutral, representational, and autonomous language is used to direct attention quickly to code align with dominant language revitalization the accurate location of an object, with respect ideologies and practices? To revitalize Indige- to visibility, proximity, and safety (MacLean, nous languages, many Indigenous communities 2010). was developed in rela- whose Indigenous language is severely endan- tion to the land, and as such, their number of gered or dormant have, out of necessity, relied demonstrative to describe objects in primarily on formal educational institutions relation to the environment is higher than in and Indigenous-language-as-a-second-language the . In English, demonstrative (ILSL) programs (Coronel–Molina & McCarty, pronouns include this and that in the singular 2016). In ILSL programs in schools, language in- form, whereas the Iñupiaq language has at least struction is commonly, though not always, based 22 stems used to create demonstrative pronouns. on Western pedagogy, involving what Rogoff The mere quantitative differences across the two (2014) has called assembly-line instruction (ALI), languages illustrate the process-oriented nature with efforts to transmit isolated bits of knowledge of Iñupiaq language, while MacLean’s descrip- separate from the contexts of their use. tion of language in relation to life, livelihood, Moreover, ILSL programs have typically been and safety illustrates a vastly different perspective educational institution-sited approaches that are and function of language itself. not supported outside of the formal learning For most, if not all, Indigenous peoples, being environment by family- and community-based In- Indigenous means “to live in relationship with digenous language programs. de García, Axelrod, the place where one is born” (Guerrero, 2003, and Lachler (2009) described it this way: p. 66). Therefore, Indigenous conceptions of self, including what it means to be a person, are Problems related to language loss and shift in strongly rooted to the land. Among Cowichan, Indigenous communities seem to be not only that for example, many believe that the land holds Indigenous languages are no longer spoken by the bones of their ancestors, and therefore, their the younger generation and that the contexts for speaking the language within the community are relationship to the land constitutes their individ- diminishing but also that dominant-culture ways ual and collective identities across generations of addressing these challenges are being adopted. (Elliott–Groves, 2019). Responsibility for revitalizing languages is most To honor their commitment to respecting commonly situated within the institutions that are plant, animal, and natural world relations, some constructed to mirror dominant culture values: the communities have members who have been schools and the tribal bureaucracy. (p. 118) trained by Elders to speak up on behalf of the land and water during every community decision. The result, often, is that while Indigenous Indigenous language has evolved from Indige- children and youth may develop some knowledge nous relationship to land, and in this way, can of their Indigenous language in school, they do be understood as emergent from the land (Tuck, not develop enough communicative competence Perspectives 485 to speak it outside of their Indigenous language here in order to unearth the ideologies inherent lessons for more than a narrowly restricted range in many ILSL programs and also to problematize of domains and purposes. Instead, they ordinar- and rethink ILI programs that are designed ily speak the language-of-wider-communication according to conventional Euro-Western philoso- (such as English or Spanish) elsewhere in and phies of schooling and pedagogy. around the school and in family and community domains. In the long term, they do not ordinarily Facet 1: What Is the Community’s Social develop Indigenous language communicative Organization? competence to the point that they are well pre- pared, when they become parents, to immerse In daycare- and school-based Indigenous lan- their own children in the language at home guage revitalization (including both ILSL and within everyday activities. many ILI programs), language learning takes Pointing to the effectiveness of language nests, place in formal educational institutions, which particularly in connection with the Maori¯ (see, are segregated from family and community en- e.g., King, 2001) and Hawaiian (see, e.g., Wilson deavors. The learning community is bureaucrati- & Kamana,¯ 2001) languages, Indigenous com- cally controlled such that one learns the language munities have increasingly turned to Indigenous according to the normative procedures and rules language immersion (ILI) programs. However, of the institution, a ‘language regime’ of sorts. unlike the total immersion programs for the Maori¯ and Hawaiian languages, many of these Facet 2: What Motivates a Person’s Involvement? other ILI programs situate immersion solely in formal daycare facilities and schools (Coronel– As in all ALI, motivation to learn an Indigenous Molina & McCarty, 2016). We have observed that language through ILSL programs stems from the many of these daycare- and school-based ILI pro- learner seeking extrinsic rewards and avoiding grams do not have learners using the language to threats (Rogoff, 2014). Grades, for instance, serve accomplish culturally relevant endeavors. Instead, as prods in ILSL programs to get learners to apply they carry out typical Euro-Western schooling ac- themselves to language learning exercises so as tivities. For example, among the Lakota, a to show ‘proof’ of competence to others and not Native American group whose current homeland to be deemed incompetent by them. At the same is the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota, and time, teachers’ involvement is motivated by the in other Lakota communities on the Northern bureaucratic system to deliver the curriculum Plains of North America, Henne–Ochoa (2020) to students, and to attempt to control student has observed that ILI programs have been operat- involvement and to rank students’ language ing for about the past two decades, serving a small knowledge and skill via points and grades. number of children and youth. However, extrinsic motivation to learn, rather immersion is occurring in some daycare facilities. than intrinsic motivation, does not always result In a few schools, there are Lakota immersion in a sustained commitment to learning. In fact, “if programs in early elementary grades. But as with there isn’t a considerable amount of interest and the ILSL programs, based on what Henne–Ochoa commitment on the part of the learner, learning (2020) has observed and what Pine Ridge Reser- doesn’t occur at all” (Simpson, 2014, p. 15). For vation residents have said to him, immersion in example, among the Lakota of Pine Ridge Reser- daycare facilities and schools involves doing activ- vation, children and youth are often unmotivated ities prescribed by Euro-Western school curricula. to learn Lakota through ALI in school. As they Further, children who participate in Lakota im- and their Lakota language teachers have reported mersion programs rarely use Lakota outside of to Henne–Ochoa (28 April 2019), and as he has those contexts, in family and community life. observed in Pine Ridge Reservation classrooms, Our study of the nature of ILSL revitalization extrinsic rewards and direct assessment of their programs reveals several characteristics common linguistic competence stifles, rather than kindles, to ALI, “which aims to control the learners’ atten- their participation, even though they otherwise tion, motivation, and behavior in settings isolated express support for the goal of revitalizing Lakota from productive contributions to the community” and hold it in very high regard. (Rogoff, 2014, p. 75). Rogoff’s (2014) seven facets of ALI are useful for organizing the description of Facet 3: How Is Group Interaction Organized? many ILSL revitalization programs built on that model and tied to Euro-Western language-as-code In ILSL programs, social organization is ar- ideologies. We draw on the seven-facet ALI prism ranged for direct instruction that follows a typical 486 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020) teacher–student participation structure in order ted within organizational structures of formal to learn language in didactic fashion. There is learning. Specifically, communication is regi- a clear division of labor between the teacher mented according to step-by-step instruction and students, a unilateral arrangement (Philips, in the subjects of the curriculum. True, there 1992). Teachers control students’ attention to- is some communication that is organized less ward and motivation for engaging in activities formally, such as that occurring in gaps between designed to foster language learning. There are formal lessons. But the bulk of communication predetermined learning activities that are regi- involves teacher-directed discourse designed to mented by prepared teacher–student scripts that lead students in a pre-scripted sequence that is prompt asymmetrical participation. In ILI pro- often expressed through known-answer ques- grams, although the aims are consistent with pro- tions, followed by student answers, followed by ducing new speakers, it is usually carried out in a the teacher’s verbal assessment of those answers. school and in a form of immersion that is far from These scripts occur orally and through written in- being immersed in culturally relevant contexts. teraction in order to lead students to knowledge and insights about each school subject, framed in Facet 4: What IS Learning? terms of the Indigenous language.

What is the goal of learning an Indigenous Facet 6: How Do People Communicate? language in ILSL and ILI programs? While, according to many local adults and Elders, the Communication in ILSL programs is limited ultimate goal may be to restore intergenerational to formats that do not usually approximate those Indigenous language learning and sustain and found in ordinary social interaction. In ILI pro- revitalize Indigenous culture, ILSL programs, in grams, communication is based on the life of the effect, transmit from teacher to students isolated daycare or school, and not always or usually on knowledge of, and very limited skills for, using the life outside of those spaces. For example, in ILSL Indigenous language. They do so by reducing the programs communication tends toward didactic language learning to knowing rules of grammar; interaction. And in ILI programs, communica- memorizing word lists and stock phrases; and tion is typically organized around a curriculum creating sentences, questions, and commands that does not include a broad range of family and by following linguistic patterns found in pre- community interests and activities. fabricated examples. Teachers and parents may implicitly expect children and youth to use their Facet 7: Why Evaluate? And How? rudimentary Indigenous language competence in other settings where the language is spoken, When students are assessed for Indigenous as prerequisite linguistic knowledge and skill for linguistic knowledge and skill in ALI-based day- inclusion in society at large. care and school programs, especially in middle school and high school programs, it is done to Facet 5: How Does Learning Occur? sort learners according to proficiency standards set forth in the language curriculum. Language Daycare- and school-based ILSL programs tend assessment procedures and language learning to promote language learning by means of lessons are separate activities. Teachers provide students and exercises. For example, the language teacher with feedback that essentially tells them how they will say a word or phrase in the Indigenous lan- rank relative to their peers and what degree of guage and the students are expected to repeat competence they must display in order to receive what they hear, either collectively or in individual rewards, such as pleasing the teacher and getting turns. Often, literacy activities are a major focus good grades, and avoid threats, such as embar- of instruction, cutting into opportunities for rassment in front of their teacher and classmates developing aural and oral competence in the for not knowing how to say something properly Indigenous language. This entails silent indivi- or not comprehending and responding appro- dual seatwork, typically translation exercises from priately to verbal messages directed at them. the Indigenous language to the world-majority Thus, the very heart of the life of the In- language, and vice versa. digenous language—intergenerational language ILI programs embed language learning within learning by infants and children from caregivers, the activities of the institution, which typically through engagement in informal, everyday conform to ALI. This means communication interaction—often receives little direct nourish- occurs in the immersion language, but it is situa- ment from school-based language revitalization Perspectives 487 programs—particularly ILSL programs, which who participate in it are socialized to the Indige- are built largely on an ideology of language as nous language in a way that alienates them from bounded knowledge separate from social interac- seeing it as synonymous with social interaction. tion. Instead, in many communities, school-based language revitalization programs are socializing INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE RECLAMATION children and youth into their Indigenous lan- guage such that they come to view the language Perhaps all language teachers need pedagogies for as a school subject, restricted to school use only. learning and teaching that account for living in and It may be said that language socialization of this through our languages. Ways of teaching that we can feel in our whole bodies, not just our minds. sort is effectively a colonizing practice because (Hermes, 2016, p. 574) it removes the Indigenous language from its relations with multiple Indigenous lifeways. As we have articulated in the previous section, Some Indigenous communities have chal- when Indigenous languages are taught using lenged this intergenerational Indigenous lan- ALI, students are socialized away from the idea guage interaction rift and paired Indigenous that their Indigenous language is about relation- language speakers (usually Elders) with indi- ality. Another way in which such institutional vidual family or community members (usually approaches alienate students from their Indige- from among the younger generations) who nous languages is by creating expectations based learn the language outside of formal educational on the structure of schooling that are not (and institutions. These master–apprentice pairings often cannot be) met by the Indigenous language have resulted in considerable language learning curriculum. Students expect reading and writing (Hinton, 2013). Other communities have estab- to be a significant part of the curriculum (by lished home- and community-based language third or fourth grade), they expect the lessons instruction involving small groups of learners. to advance their knowledge as they advance For example, Grant and Turner (2013) de- through primary and secondary education, and scribed the Kawaiisu Language at Home program they expect some form of evaluation or assess- in California. While the master–apprentice model ment and feedback. When these expectations are involves pairing a fluent adult speaker with an- not met, students often are incapable of using or other person seeking to learn the language—who choose to avoid using the Indigenous language, together use the language for communication resulting in a form of alienation from the lan- in everyday activities—the Kawaiisu Language at guage. For example, this type of alienation arose Home program extends the model to include when Kaska students chose to take French rather whole families engaged in ‘immersion sets.’ than Kaska, further distancing them from their Adults and children take part in scripted interac- own Indigenous language practices (Meek, 2009, tion activities prepared by a development team p. 170; see also Meek, 2010). and led by at least one fluent speaker. Families We turn now to providing a sketch of an ap- are trained monthly through communication proach to language revitalization that situates exercises, and assessed for communicative com- Indigenous language learning within everyday petence through built-in comprehension checks Indigenous life. We think of it as but one of and review of videotaped sessions. many ways Indigenous peoples can learn their While making some progress toward restoring Indigenous language through interaction in intergenerational language learning, home- and family and community endeavors. By offering community-based language instruction such as this approach, we do not mean to suggest that that found in the Kawaiisu language program formal educational institutions have no role to often involves planned language lessons or other- play in language revitalization efforts; on the wise scripted instruction. The relatively few peo- contrary, we recognize that schools have played, ple who are able to devote themselves to language and will continue to play, a crucial role in In- learning this way do so during time away from digenous language revitalization around the normal, day-to-day family and community endeav- world, particularly in communities that have few ors. And yet, the very design of these programs or no Indigenous language speakers (see, e.g., limits opportunities for participants to become McCarty & Lee, 2015; Moquino & Blum Martinez, conversant in the Indigenous language through 2017). Rather, we mean to expand attention and immersion in culturally relevant endeavors. resources to informal Indigenous language learn- If an Indigenous language revitalization pro- ing in ordinary family and community endeavors, gram is designed according to an ideology of lan- a way that socializes language learners into and guage as grammatical code and vocabulary, those through an ideology of language as relationality. 488 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020)

LEARNING BY OBSERVING AND PITCHING tion efforts need to recognize and understand IN TO FAMILY AND COMMUNITY community-based knowledge, including rela- ENDEAVORS tional dynamics, and how these understandings facilitate Indigenous language learning and In keeping with a language reclamation education more broadly. For Kaska children, paradigm, we offer a strategy for language this socialization process involves learning about learning that involves participation in family and respect, both in relation to how to behave to- community endeavors. The strategy entails a form ward older family members and Elders and in of learning that, while not exclusive to Indigenous relation to understanding what it means to be families and communities, is especially prevalent Kaska (Meek, 2007). Discourses of respect teach in them, at least insofar as it has been documented everyone about the social structure of their com- in South, Central, and North America. It is LOPI, munity and their place in that community. LOPI which Barbara Rogoff and colleagues have abun- promotes such socialization. dantly described (Alcalá et al., 2014; Coppens et al., 2014; Correa–Chávez, Mejía–Arauz, & Ro- goff, 2015; López et al., 2012; Mejía–Arauz et al., Facet 2: What Motivates a Person’s Involvement? 2018; Paradise & Rogoff, 2009; Paradise et al., Learner motivation in LOPI-based language 2014; Rogoff, 2014; Rogoff et al., 2003; Rogoff, reclamation is not dependent on a desire to learn Mejía–Arauz, & Correa-Chávez, 2015; Rogoff, the language exclusively but is tied to partici- Najafi, & Mejía–Arauz 2014; Urrieta, 2015). pants’ desire to be involved in and contribute Learning an Indigenous language through and belong to family and community life (Rogoff, observing and pitching in to family and com- 2014). In other words, language learning occurs munity endeavors is certainly not the only way as a by-product, of sorts, of getting things done. Indigenous languages may be learned outside For example, a tradition of stick gambling exists of formal educational institutions. Its promise in the Yukon Territory, along with an annual stick has, however, already been suggested by Meyer gambling competition. People are motivated to (2017) based on her research in Oaxaca, Mexico. participate in stick gambling not specifically or Following Meyer, we present LOPI as an example not only to practice using their Indigenous lan- of a language reclamation strategy that aligns guage but instead to contribute their share to the well with Indigenous ideologies of language and gambling. The camps that have Indigenous pedagogy, while at the same time been run by the Kaska and by the supporting decolonization and Indigenization. Liard Aboriginal Women’s Society (LAWS) have As with our treatment of ALI, we present a necessarily involved everyday activities such as LOPI-based approach to language reclamation berry-picking, moosehide preparing, storytelling, by organizing it according to seven facets, each food preparation and cooking, and other ordi- framed by a question. The questions labeling nary tasks (e.g., wood chopping; Moore, 2003; each facet of the LOPI prism, and those of the Meek, 2010). More choreographed events such ALI prism discussed earlier, come from Rogoff’s as plays (of traditional narratives or translated unpublished 2019 revision of the prism, and children’s books) have also motivated child and resemble the labels used in the 2014 prisms adult participation in language revitalization (Rogoff, 2014). activities (Carr & Meek, 2013). This same source of motivation—a desire to belong and get things Facet 1: What Is the Community’s Social done—would drive participation in endeavors in Organization? a LOPI-based approach to revitalization.

Participants in LOPI-based language reclama- Facet 3: How Is Group Interaction Organized? tion develop communicative competence in the Indigenous language through participating in Interaction in LOPI-based Indigenous lan- family and community endeavors. Indigenous guage learning involves groupings of participants language use occurs through intra- and inter- who collaborate in a way that is similar to musical generational interaction in everyday activities. ensembles in which coordinated performances Language learning through a LOPI-based way of emerge organically (Mejía–Arauz et al., 2018; learning socializes learners into and through the Rogoff, 2014). language such that it is inseparable from daily life. This approach has been a mainstay of Aborig- In order for language revitalization efforts to inal Head Start programming for Kaska children be effective, those engaged in language reclama- in Yukon Territory, where Elders are invited to Perspectives 489 share childhood stories, traditional tales, and ice cream,’ and fishing. Kaska language learning some basic skills (such as sewing ) with occurred directly, as part of the instructions and children. The interactions are organized around explanations, and indirectly as part of the ambi- the visiting Elder who addresses the children, ent conversation among more fluent Kaska users. teaching them about their Indigenous culture and demonstrating basic techniques in the lan- Facet 6: How Do People Communicate? guage Dene k’éh (‘in a Dene way’). The teachers direct students’ attention toward the Elder, elabo- LOPI is based in the shared activity itself. The rating when necessary. The Elders would typically participants coordinate through nonverbal and try to involve the children by either having them verbal means, where these serve the activity at participate in the skill being demonstrated or by hand. In other words, participants provide or posing questions that encouraged the children ask for information that is needed in the activity, to relate to the narrative through their own ex- and because it is based in what they all can periences and responsibilities (such as watching see and hear in the ongoing shared context, it younger siblings or cousins). Embedded in such can be economical. Explanations do not need activities is mutual respect among the adults and to be lengthy when the context is shared, and children as they work together. questions ask for needed information, unlike the quizzing questions common in schooling. Facet 4: What IS Learning? and Facet 5: How Does Narratives or ribbing may indirectly provide a Learning Occur? lesson to correct someone’s misbehavior. Stories may provide analysis of related situations that may As discussed earlier, Indigenous ways of learn- help to figure out how to handle a challenging ing, including LOPI, take learning as “a process situation. Communication unfolds organically occurring within ongoing activity, and not di- throughout the endeavor, as people engage with vided into separate characteristics of individuals all modalities in accomplishing the endeavor at and contexts” (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003, p. 20). hand. The way people communicate in LOPI, Understood in this way, it becomes obvious that therefore, is embedded in ordinary social life learning occurs everywhere, all the time; it is not and emerges in ways that are with the relegated to only specific sites and instances, like rhythms of everyday practices and consistent with schools and formal learning exercises. Learning, Indigenous ways of being. as an ongoing process situated within ordinary— as well as extraordinary—activity, is, thus, a Facet 7: Why Evaluate? And How? ubiquitous aspect of all social life. From this perspective, a LOPI-based approach to language LOPI-based language reclamation includes reclamation occurs as the cumulative outcome mostly subtle assessment and evaluation of indi- of family and community members communi- viduals’ contributions to collaborative endeavors. cating with one another in order to accomplish While those with more experience and expertise everyday endeavors. Learning the Indigenous may occasionally give novices overt signs of ap- language happens through verbal and nonverbal proval or disapproval during and following an communication that is inextricably bound with activity, most often they avoid calling the group’s collaborative pursuits. attention to the quality of an individual’s contri- It is important to note, however, that communi- bution. Instead, for example, an Elder will respect cation among participants in the endeavor is not all contributions regardless of their quality and limited to only what is directly related to it. There timeliness, giving only positive feedback to indi- is also communication that occurs concomitant to viduals by subdued gesturing or otherwise softly the collaborative purpose, including: the sharing and quietly signaling approval with a smile, a kind of narratives, especially stories; showing consider- and reassuring glance, loving words, or delicate ation and respect toward others; joking; honoring touch. But it should be noted that such assessment culturally patterned norms of participation; and and evaluation is not really intended to judge other communication that may seem ‘peripheral’ contributions per se; rather, it is to recognize oth- to non-Indigenous outsiders but is, nonetheless, ers’ commitment to the family and community an important aspect of accomplishing shared and to show appreciation for their responsible goals. behavior. In addition to assessing individuals’ con- For example, consider an event for Kaska lan- tributions, LOPI involves assessing the supports guage learning involving harvesting birchbark for that are provided. For example, in talking with a making baskets, soapberries for making ‘Indian 2-year-old, if a directive fails to have its effect, an 490 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020) adult evaluates what can be done to better sup- employs a relational epistemology, in the inclu- port the child’s understanding. For example, the sion of learners and more experienced people in adult might point to the desired object, when the shared endeavors of importance in the commu- child looks confused after being told hand me that. nity. We would add that this would include recog- In terms of verbal interaction, which is nition of the role of place and land as a key basis paramount to novices’ learning the Indigenous within shared endeavors of importance in the language, LOPI-based learning affords opportu- community. A LOPI-based approach also places nities to engage with and use language in situ and central importance on the interdependence of under guidance. Speakers can and do provide people across generations in both a particular feedback on learners’ productive and receptive collective endeavor and in the long-term collec- competence by repeating acceptable versions of tive good. Further, LOPI recognizes and is built what they are trying to say, for direct compar- on decades of Indigenous scholarship describing ison, and providing opportunities for them to Indigenous ways of learning (see also Rosado May rehearse without receiving a more explicit, and, et al., 2020). Finally, recent scholarship regarding thus, a less overtly judgmental, kind of teaching. LOPI increasingly specifies the role of local It is this mild ‘correction’ of efforts at verbal moral or axiological understandings (see e.g., communication that promotes continued efforts. Bang et al., 2015; Elliott-Groves & Meixi, 2020). A LOPI-based approach to reclaiming Indige- To be sure, we recognize the need for schools nous languages would be based in intergenera- to play a role in Indigenous language learning, tional interaction in which children are included too. However, reclaiming Indigenous languages as contributors to an event with some value to the by recentering them in family and community family or community. It would be structured in life more directly targets informal, inter- and a collaborative fashion encouraging the initiative intragenerational language learning—the heart and coordination of everyone involved, and of language vitality. As it fosters social interaction supporting the group’s learning and innovation. within everyday out-of-school endeavors, so too Learners’ inclusion as contributors would provide does it contribute to the rebuilding and prolifera- them with purpose to observe and listen, and tion of Indigenous pedagogies, as well as cultures. to speak as they pitch in to the activity at hand, Of course, reclaiming Indigenous languages and more experienced participants would subtly demands more than just a LOPI-based strategy guide their contributions. combined with school-based programs. A more The LOPI strategy thus offers the possi- robust vision of Indigenous language reclama- bility of recentering Indigenous ideologies tion would include ongoing and future work of language, that is, language-as-a-process-of- to decolonize and Indigenize various other sustaining-relationality ideologies, and privileges social institutions, such as community centers, Indigenous pedagogies coupled with a commit- by reestablishing Indigenous ideologies of lan- ment to Indigenous epistemologies, ontologies, guage and Indigenous pedagogies and language and axiologies. practices within those institutions. This would require us to rethink language revitalization from CONCLUSION its ideological foundations and corresponding practices, and move into a paradigm of language We hope that we have contributed important reclamation. Such language work would be groundwork toward a new framework of language holistic in scope, integrated into life across the reclamation. As we reconsider and work toward lifespan, and carried out as one aspect of overall the transformation of current approaches that Indigenous community healing and wellness. center on Euro-Western ideologies and ALI, our aim is to reclaim Indigenous ideologies of language and pedagogies. We think a LOPI-based REFERENCES approach to language reclamation is one effective strategy for creating new Indigenous language speakers who have linguistic knowledge plus Alcalá, L., Rogoff, B., Mejía–Arauz, R., Coppens, A. D., & Dexter, A. L. (2014). Children’s initiative in contri- communicative competence in various domains butions to family work in Indigenous-heritage and and situations. cosmopolitan communities in Mexico. Human De- A LOPI-based strategy for language reclama- velopment, 57, 96–115. tion is consistent with a number of important In- Baldwin, D., Noodin, M., & Perley, B. (2018). Surviv- digenous concepts (which are at odds with ALI). ing the sixth extinction: American Indian strate- A LOPI-based language reclamation approach gies for life in the New World. In R. Grusin (Ed.), Perspectives 491

After extinction (pp. 201–234). Minneapolis, MN: de García, J. G., Axelrod, M., & Lachler, J. (2009). En- University of Minnesota Press. glish is the dead language: Native perspectives on Bang, M., Marin, A., Medin, D., & Washinawatok, bilingualism. In P. Kroskrity & M. Field (Eds.), Na- K. (2015). Learning by observing, pitching in, tive American language ideologies: Beliefs, practices, and and being in relations in the natural world. In struggles in Indian country (pp. 99–122). Tucson, R. Mejia–Arauz, B. Rogoff, & M. Correa–Chavez AZ: University of Arizona Press. (Eds.), Children learn by observing and contributing to De Korne, H., & Leonard, W. Y. (2017). Reclaiming lan- family and community endeavors: A cultural paradigm, guages: Contesting and decolonising ‘language (pp. 303–313). Amsterdam: Elsevier. endangerment’ from the ground up. Language Bauman, J. J. (1980). A guide to issues in Indian language Documentation and Description, 14, 5–14. retention. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Lin- Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology.NewYork: guistics. Cambridge University Press. Bauman, R. (1977). Verbal art as performance. Prospect Elliott–Groves, E. (2019). A culturally grounded biopsy- Heights, IL: Waveland Press. chosocial assessment utilizing Indigenous ways of Bauman, R. (1986). Story, performance, and event: Contex- knowing with the Cowichan Tribes. Journal of Eth- tual studies of oral narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge nic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 28, 115– University Press. 133. Bauman, R. (2011). Commentary: Foundations in per- Elliott–Groves, E., & Meixi, I. (2020). Why and how com- formance. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15, 707–720. munities learn by observing and pitching in: Indigenous Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and perfor- axiologies and ethical attunements in LOPI. Unpub- mance as critical perspectives on social life. Annual lished manuscript. Review of Anthropology 19, 59–88. Field, M., & Kroskrity, P. (2009). Introduction: Reveal- Bauman, R., & Sherzer, J. (1975). The ethnography of ing Native American language ideologies. In P. speaking. Annual Review of Anthropology, 4, 95–119. Kroskrity & M. Field (Eds.), Native American lan- Bauman, R., & Sherzer, J. (Eds.). (1989). Explorations guage ideologies: Beliefs, practices, and struggles in In- in the ethnography of speaking (2nd ed.). New York: dian Country (pp. 3–28). Tucson, AZ: University of Cambridge University Press. Arizona Press. Brandt, E. A. (1988). Applied linguistic anthropology Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoreti- and American Indian language renewal. Human cal and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened Organization, 47, 322–329. languages (Vol. 76). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Mat- Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of in- ters. digenous education. Durango, CO: Kivakí Press. Grant, L., & Turner, J. (2013). The Kawaiisu language Carr, G. L., & Meek, B. A. (2013). The poetics of at home program. In L. Hinton (Ed.), Bringing our language revitalization: Text, performance, and languages home (pp. 189–208). Berkeley, CA: Hey- change. Journal of Folklore Research: An International day Books. Journal of Folklore and Ethnomusicology, 50, 191–216. Grenoble, L. A. (2009). Linguistic cages and the limits Coppens, A. D., Alcalá, L., Mejía–Arauz, R., & Rogoff, of linguists. In J. Reyhner & L. Lockard (Eds.), In- B. (2014). Children’s initiative in family house- digenous language revitalization: Encouragement, guid- hold work in Mexico. Human Development, 57, 116– ance and lessons learned (pp. 61–69). Flagstaff, AZ: 130. Northern Arizona University. Coronel–Molina, S., & McCarty, T. L. (Eds.). (2016). In- Grenoble, L. A., & Whaley, L. J. (2006). Saving languages: digenous language revitalization in the Americas.New An introduction to language revitalization.NewYork: York: Routledge. Cambridge University Press. Correa–Chávez, M., Mejía–Arauz, R., & Rogoff, B. Guerrero, M. J. (2003). “Patriarchal colonialism” and (Eds.). (2015). Children learn by observing and con- Indigenism: Implications for Native feminist spir- tributing to family and community endeavors: A cultural ituality and Native womanism. Hypatia, 18, 58– paradigm. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 69. Darnell, R., & Valentine, L. P. (Eds.). (1999). Theorizing Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of the Americanist tradition (Vol. 13). Toronto: Univer- learning: Individual traits or repertoires of prac- sity of Toronto Press. tice. Educational Researcher, 32, 19–25. Dauenhauer, N. M., & Dauenhauer, R. (1998). Techni- Henne, R. (2009). Verbal artistry: A case for educa- cal, emotional, and ideological issues in reversing tion. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 40, 331– language shift: Examples from Southeast Alaska. 349. In L. A. Grenoble & L. J. Whaley (Eds.), Endan- Henne–Ochoa, R. (2018). Sustaining and revitaliz- gered languages: Language loss and community response ing traditional Indigenous ways of speaking: An (pp. 57–98). New York: Cambridge University ethnography-of-speaking approach. Language & Press. Communication, 62, 66–82. Davis, J. L. (2018). Talking Indian: Identity and language re- Henne–Ochoa, R. (2020). Indigenous language revi- vitalization in the Chickasaw renaissance.Tucson,AZ: talization through observing and pitching in to University of Arizona Press. family and community endeavors: A rationale and 492 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020)

description. Infancia y Aprendizaje: Journal for the Kroskrity, P. V., & Field, M. C. (Eds.). (2009). Native Study of Education and Development. American language ideologies: Beliefs, practices and Hermes, M. (2005). “Ma’iingan is just a misspelling struggles in Indian country. Tucson, AZ: University of the word wolf”: A case for teaching culture of Arizona Press. through language. Anthropology & Education Quar- Kroskrity, P. V., & Meek, B. A. (Eds.). (2017). Engaging terly, 36, 43–56. Native American publics: Linguistic Anthropology in a Hermes, M. (2016). A response to Ennser–Kananen’s “A new key. New York/London: Routledge. pedagogy of pain.” Modern Language Journal, 100, Kulick, D. (1997). Language shift and cultural reproduc- 573–575. tion: Socialization, self and syncretism in a Papua New Hermes, M., & Haskins, M. (2018). Unbecoming stan- Guinean village. Cambridge: Cambridge University dards through immersion: The wolf meets Press. ma’iingan. In G. Wigglesworth, J. Simpson, & J. Leonard, W. Y. (2012). Framing language reclamation Vaughn (Eds.), Language practices of indigenous chil- programmes for everybody’s empowerment. Gen- dren and youth: The transition from home to school. der and Language, 6, 339–367. (pp. 99–116). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Leonard, W. Y. (2017). Producing language reclamation Hill, J. H., & Hill, K. C. (1986). Speaking Mexicano.Tuc- by decolonising ‘language.’ Language Documenta- son, AZ: University of Arizona Press. tion and Description, 14, 15–36. Hinton, L. (Ed.). (2013). Bringing our languages home. Leonard, W. Y. (2019). Indigenous languages through Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books. a reclamation lens. Accessed 30 October 2019 at Hinton, L., & Hale, K. (Eds.). (2001). The green book https://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/ of language revitalization in practice. Leiden, the 2019/09/19/indigenous-languages-through-a-rec Netherlands: Brill Publishers. lamation-lens/ Hinton, L., Huss, L., & Roche, G. (2018). The Routledge López, A., Najafi, B., Rogoff, B., & Mejía–Arauz, R. handbook of language revitalization.NewYork:Rout- (2012). Collaboration and helping as cultural ledge. practices. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In T. of culture and psychology (pp. 869–884). , IL: Gladwin & W. C. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology Oxford University Press. and human behavior (pp. 13–53). Washington, DC: MacLean, E. A. (2010). Culture and change for Inupiat Anthropological Society of Washington. and Yup’ik people of Alaska. In R. Barnhardt & O. Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language K. Angayuqaq (Eds.), Alaska Native education: Views and social life. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), from within (pp. 41–58). Fairbanks, AK: University Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of com- of Alaska Fairbanks. munication (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart Makihara, M., & Schieffelin, B. B. (Eds.). (2007). Con- and Winston. sequences of contact: Language ideologies and sociocul- Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An tural transformations in Pacific societies. Chicago, IL: ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University Oxford University Press. of Pennsylvania Press. McCarty, T., & Lee, T. (2014). Critical culturally sustain- Jacob, M. M. (2013). Yakama rising: Indigenous cultural re- ing/revitalizing pedagogy and Indigenous educa- vitalization, activism, and healing. Tucson, AZ: Uni- tion sovereignty. Harvard Educational Review, 84, versity of Arizona Press. 101–124. Joseph, J. E., & Taylor, T. J. (Eds.). (1990). Ideologies of McCarty, T. L., & Lee, T. S. (2015). The role of language. New York: Routledge. schools in Native American language and culture King, J. (2001). Te Kohanga¯ Reo: Maori¯ language revi- revitalization: A vision of linguistic and educa- talization. In L. Hinton & K. Hale (Eds.), The green tional sovereignty. In W. J. Jacob, S. Y. Cheng, book of language revitalization in practice (pp. 119– &M.K.Porter(Eds.),Indigenous education: Lan- 131). Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill Publishers. guage, culture and identity (pp. 341–360). New York: Kroskrity, P. V. (Ed.). (2000). Regimes of language: Ideolo- Springer. gies, polities, and identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of Meek, B. A. (2007). Respecting the language of Elders: American Research Press. Ideological shift and linguistic discontinuity in a Kroskrity, P. V. (2009). Language renewal as sites northern Athapascan community. Journal of Lin- of language ideological struggle: The need for guistic Anthropology, 17, 23–43. “ideological clarification.” In J. Reyhner &L. Meek, B. A. (2009). Language ideology and Aborigi- Lockard (Eds.), Indigenous language revitaliza- nal language revitalization in Yukon, Canada. In tion: Encouragement, guidance & lessons learned P. Kroskrity & M. C. Field (Eds.), Native American (pp. 71–83). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona language ideologies: Beliefs, practices and struggles in University. Indian country (pp. 151–171). Tucson, AZ: Univer- Kroskrity, P. V. (2018). On recognizing persistence in sity of Arizona Press. the Indigenous language ideologies of multilin- Meek, B. A. (2010). We are our language: An ethnography of gualism in two Native American communities. language revitalization in a Northern Athabaskan com- Language & Communication, 62, 133–144. munity. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Perspectives 493

Meek, B. A. (2017). Native American languages and digenous American heritage and learning by ob- linguistic anthropology: From the legacy of sal- serving and pitching in. Human Development, 57, vage anthropology to the promise of linguistic 82–95. self-determination. In P. V. Kroskrity & B. A. Meek Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejía–Arauz, R., Correa– (Eds.), Engaging Native American publics: Linguis- Chávez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand tic anthropology in a new key (pp. 3–24). New York: learning through intent participation. Annual Re- Routledge. view of Psychology, 54, 175–203. Mejía–Arauz, R., Rogoff, B., Dayton, A., & Henne– Rosado–May, F. J., Urrieta, L., Jr., Dayton, A., & Rogoff, Ochoa, R. (2018). Collaboration or negotiation: B. (2020). Innovation as a key feature of Indige- Two ways of interacting suggest how shared think- nous ways of learning: Individuals and communi- ing develops. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, ties generating knowledge. In N. S. Nasir, C. D. 117–123. Lee, & R. Pea (Eds.), Handbook of the cultural foun- Meyer, L. M. (2017). Resisting westernization and dations of learning. New York: Routledge. school reforms: Two sides to the struggle to com- Schieffelin, B. B., Woolard, K. A., & Kroskrity, P. V. munalize developmentally appropriate initial ed- (Eds.). (1998). Language ideologies: Practice and the- ucation in Indigenous Oaxaca, Mexico. Global Ed- ory. New York: Oxford University Press. ucation Review, 4, 88–107. Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguis- Moore, P. J. (2003). Lessons on the land: The role tic ideology. In P. R. Clyne, W. F. Hanks, & C. L. of Kaska Elders in a university language course. Hofbauer (Eds.), The elements: A parasession on lin- Canadian Journal of Native Education 27, 127– guistic units and levels (pp. 193–247). Chicago, IL: 139. Chicago Linguistic Society. Moquino, T., & Blum Martinez, R. (2017). Keres Chil- Simpson, L. (2014). Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg dren’s Learning Center: The search for a linguis- intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decol- tically and culturally appropriate education. In T. onization: Indigeneity, Education, & Society, 3,1– B. Peele–Eady (Ed.), Integrating home and heritage 25. languages in schools: Pedagogy and promise.NewYork: St. Clair, R., & Leap, W. (1982). Language renewal Routledge. among American Indian tribes: Issues, problems, and Morgan, M. J. (2009). Bearer of this letter: Language ideolo- prospects. Washington, DC: US Department of gies, literacy practices, and the Fort Belknap Indian com- Education. munity. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Tuck, E., McKenzie, M., & McCoy, K. (2014). Land edu- Paradise, R., Mejía–Arauz, R., Silva, K., Dexter, A., & cation: Indigenous, post-colonial, and decoloniz- Rogoff, B. (2014). One, two, three, eyes on me! ing perspectives on place and environmental edu- Adults attempting control versus guiding in sup- cation research. Environmental Education Research, port of initiative. Human Development, 57, 131– 20, 1–23. 149. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a Paradise, R., & Rogoff, B. (2009). Side by side. Ethos, 37, metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & 102–138. Society, 1, 1–40. Perley, B. C. (2011). Defying Maliseet : Emer- Urrieta, L., Jr. (2015). Learning by observing and pitch- gent vitalities of language, culture and identity in East- ing in and the connections to native and Indige- ern Canada. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska nous knowledge systems. Advances in Child Develop- Press. ment and Behavior, 49, 357–380. Philips, S. U. (1992). The invisible culture: Communication Wilson, W. A., & Yellow Bird, M. (2005). For Indigenous in classroom and community on the Warm Springs In- eyes only: A decolonization handbook.SantaFe,NM: dian Reservation. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland School of American Research Press. Press. Wilson, W. H., & Kamana,¯ K. (2001). “Mai Loko Mai Rogoff, B. (2014). Learning by observing and pitching 0 Ka’in’ini: Proceeding from a dream”: The ‘Aha in to family and community endeavors: An orien- Punana¯ Leo connection in Hawaiian language re- tation. Human Development, 57, 69–81. vitalization. In L. Hinton & K. Hale (Eds.), The Rogoff, B., Mejía–Arauz, R., & Correa–Chávez, M. green book of language revitalization in practice (pp. (2015). A cultural paradigm: Learning by observ- 147–176). Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill Publish- ing and pitching in. Advances in Child Development ers. and Behavior, 49, 1–22. Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination Rogoff, B., Najafi, B., & Mejía–Arauz, R. (2014). Constel- of the native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8, 387– lations of cultural practices across generations: In- 409. 494 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020)

THE COMMENTARIES

Learning by Observing and Pitching In in the Context of Sleeping Language Reclamation WESLEY Y. LEONARD University of California, Riverside

In “Pathways Forward for Indigenous Language context and adjust for the cultural lens(es) of the Reclamation,” Henne–Ochoa et al. contend person(s) who curated the documentation. that a language-as-social-interaction ideology is This commentary reflects my experiences as more consistent with Indigenous worldviews than a professional linguist focused on Indigenous Western notions of language as an object, and language work across North America, and as a by extension, that learning by observing and myaamia scholar, practitioner, and beneficiary pitching in (LOPI; Rogoff, 2014) aligns with of a community reclamation process that has Indigenous values about language learning and allowed me access to a language I did not grow use. They further observe that uncritical use of up with. Though it was others who performed Euro-Western models of teaching and talking the initial work of interpreting and learning about language can reinforce structures, ideolo- myaamiaataweenki from archival records, I have gies, and practices that work against Indigenous long been involved in reclamation efforts. I am community needs and values. This is indeed true, a continuing language learner and researcher of as is the reverse: Uncritical adherence to In- community language ideologies and practices, digenous traditional language learning practices and for many years was involved in developing brings its own challenges, particularly in contexts language programming. where cultural ruptures have been so severe that Arising from these experiences, and especially initial stages of reclamation might require devia- by observing reclamation leaders’ insistence on tion from otherwise desirable cultural norms. In guiding language work on our own tribal terms— this commentary, I address this issue and offer often in defiance of naysayers, including many thoughts about LOPI as it applies specifically in linguists who claimed sleeping language recla- contexts of reclaiming sleeping languages—those mation was not possible—the idea of language that have gone out of use, but that have the poten- reclamation emerged (Leonard, 2011, 2012, 2017). tial for future use by virtue of being documented As built upon by Henne–Ochoa et al., language and actively claimed by a community. reclamation is a decolonial framework of doing Key for sleeping language reclamation, at least Indigenous language work that identifies and in the initial stages of this multigenerational addresses the underlying issues that precipitate process, is that language learning will not oc- language shift in a given community, and centers cur in the prototypical way that it has occurred community goals and views of ‘language’ in all ar- historically. To my knowledge, no Indigenous eas of language work. As a tenet of reclamation is community has a tradition of learning language that language work should be planned, executed, from old, written, often decontextualized doc- assessed, and described in response to specific uments crafted largely by non-Indigenous men, community histories, needs, and goals, I begin and yet this is an increasingly common process with an overview of the myaamia story that guides across North America and beyond. It is what this commentary. occurred in my myaamia (Miami) community Indigenous to what is now Indiana and the sur- starting around 1990, when some members of my rounding area—but later also spoken in community started learning our then-sleeping and following forced removals by the language, myaamiaataweenki, from our ancestors’ U.S. government of part of the myaamia commu- voices as they were recorded in a large corpus of nity from tribal homelands—myaamiaataweenki written documentation.1 Learning from histor- largely fell silent in the 1960s. This extreme ical documents clearly differs from prototypical level of language shift resulted from several language learning, though both entail observing processes of settler colonialism, including the what was said by language speakers. Archival work two removals along with the associated theft of adds to this the need to carefully interpret the lands, and the forced assimilation of my ancestors Perspectives 495 through boarding schools and similar institutions. With their special focus on language, youth More commonly referred to at the time by its camps at times have language lessons that in the English names Miami and Miami–, myaami- moment resemble an assembly-line-instruction aataweenki was then labeled ‘extinct’ by linguists. model of teaching where an adult explains Members of my community contested the colonial language concepts to a group of youth who logic of ‘extinction’ and exercised our linguistic have assembled for this purpose. However, most sovereignty by instead using the term sleeping lessons are grounded in LOPI since they are to describe our language during its dormancy accompanied by activities that actively bring (Baldwin, Noodin, & Perley, 2018; Leonard, language into community relations and prac- 2011), recognizing our agency and responsibility tices. For example, at one year’s camp where the to bring it back from written documentation. theme was miiwa, aawiki, myaamionki ‘path, time, Using the same metaphor, our broader cultural Miami place,’ participants learned the language reclamation story has come to be called myaamiaki associated with different positions of the sun. eemamwiciki ‘(the) Miamis awaken.’ They then observed ecological markers, such as Indeed, myaamiaataweenki has come back shadow movement and the location of the sun into the community to a significant degree. relative to features in the landscape, while also While English remains the primary language noting the behavior of animals as a way of further of communication for events such as business determining the various periods within ‘daytime,’ meetings, I now also hear myaamiaataweenki at which myaamiaataweenki demarcates to a higher tribal gatherings, parts of which are entirely in level of detail than does English. This activity the language. Though it is frequently pointed fostered ecological awareness, which could then out that myaamiaataweenki is a verb that liter- be leveraged for a useful task—determining time ally means ‘speaking the Miami language,’ our and organizing the day, a point around which language is now also produced in written form camp participants were collectively accountable in tribal publications and signage, and appears to each other. Camp activities largely took place online in media created by community members. relative to sun location and to when the group was Both in the narrow sense of language learning ready. and also in the broader sense of engaging in the Part of the responsibility of learning myaamia cultural practices embedded in our language, culture is to teach and otherwise support other LOPI’s tenets have long been a theme in myaamia members of the community, and camps reflect reclamation efforts. Our programs employ cultur- this principle. One of my favorite camp activ- ally sustaining and revitalizing pedagogies (Mc- ities was the creation of a language-learning Carty & Lee, 2014), which recognize “the need CD by camp participants, in this case where most to reclaim and revitalize what has been disrupted were language beginners. Each person recorded a and displaced by colonization” (p. 103). As noted phrase they had learned during the week, and the earlier, the effects of colonization for my people idea was that others could learn from this CD. An- entail damaging disruptions in our relationships other example is pakitahaminki ‘lacrosse’ games with each other and with our lands, ancestors, and at these camps (as well as at most other tribal language. Thus, cultural programs focus signifi- gatherings). Each team normally includes people cantly on restoring relationships through activi- at diverse levels of game skills and experience, ties that draw upon and celebrate our shared kin- and the main communication within the game oc- ship, history, values, and language. LOPI emerges curs in our language with recurring phrases like naturally in such relationally oriented activities. pimaahkiilo ‘throw it’ and ahtoolo ‘put it [in the Summer youth camps provide an example. goal].’ It is expected that more experienced play- Though some participants have long been con- ers will guide newer players in game vocabulary nected to their tribal community and come with and in key game practices, such as how to cradle some language proficiency, others are newly the ball. experiencing cultural programming and come Thus far, I have been primarily discussing with little language knowledge. Regardless, all children’s learning, in recognition that this is participants in these camps have roles and re- how LOPI is usually discussed in academic con- sponsibilities to each other and collaboratively texts. However, in sleeping language reclamation contribute to building a healthy camp commu- (and, in my experience, also in situations where nity. For example, at the camps I codirected in there are a few speakers), equally important the 2000s, the participants formed groups (called are learning and socialization across the full clans), which had rotating responsibilities such community—even when the explicit focus is on as cleaning and tending the fire. supporting youth language development and use. 496 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020)

I end this commentary with a cautionary note that school, and by younger people from older people emerges from my observations about language who have more life experience. reclamation in such contexts, where there is As reclamation is a local process embedded frequently some misalignment between ideal and in specific community needs and dynamics, I actual community dynamics. Reclamation efforts suggest that crafting specific ‘best practices’ for are often predicated on a goal of embracing addressing this issue would be odd, though I traditional roles and practices, including those propose that it is always appropriate to recognize associated with language transmission and social- and discuss norms and possibilities of language ization. However, many activities associated with learning in a given community so that an appro- reclamation efforts—those of sleeping or recently priate response can emerge. Where this issue has sleeping languages in particular—entail disrupt- come up in my professional work, I have found ing certain traditional practices along with the it most useful to discuss how temporary modi- customary roles of a person by virtue of kinship, fication of certain historical cultural practices age, , occupation, and experience. can serve as a means to address deeper needs: While the story of myaamiaki eemamwiciki ‘(the) In my community, given the severe historical Miamis awaken’ (i.e., our reclamation story) disruptions in our relationships with each other has evolved to the point where children are and with our lands, ancestors, and language, cul- increasingly learning language in ways that are tivating relationships has been especially crucial. congruent with traditional myaamia culture, Even when the particular dynamics differ from as with the summer camps discussed earlier or historical norms, speaking our language is one of in their homes, the initial stages of the story the ways we have done this, and our community involved re-creating myaamia language practices, has become stronger as a result. along with several associated cultural practices, through research. For this reason, it was common at the time for tribal leaders, even some Elders, to learn language from younger tribal members NOTE who researched archival materials. As I noted in earlier work with fellow myaamia scholar 1 Miami is our English name; myaamia (normally writ- Scott Shoemaker, language reclamation in our ten in lower case, plural: myaamiaki) is our endonym. community “is a reciprocal process that requires Members of my community often also informally refer speakers, in both the literal and metaphorical to our language as myaamia, but it is more specifically sense [which includes people with knowledge of named with the verb myaamiaataweenki. the language’s cultural contexts], to listen to the non-speakers ( …) just as much as in the other direction” (Leonard & Shoemaker, 2012, p. 207). REFERENCES As is also the case for many other Indigenous communities, ‘pedagogy’ in myaamia programs includes both learning and teaching. In our Baldwin, D., Noodin, M., & Perley, B. C. (2018). Surviv- language, these ideas are formed off the same ing the sixth extinction: American Indian strate- verb root, and I increasingly hear reciprocal gies for life in the New World. In R. Grusin (Ed.), After extinction (pp. 201–232). Minneapolis, MN: forms like neepwaantiinki ‘learning from each University of Minnesota Press. other.’ Leonard, W. Y. (2011). Challenging “extinction” Aside from initial misgivings by a few Elders, I through modern Miami language practices. have observed that most members of my commu- American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 35, nity accept the contemporary norms of myaamia 135–160. pedagogy, and some even embrace it. For exam- Leonard, W. Y. (2012). Framing language reclamation ple, I have heard grandparents commenting on programmes for everybody’s empowerment. Gen- how much they value learning language from der and Language, 6, 339–367. their grandchildren, noting how language en- Leonard, W. Y. (2017). Producing language reclamation gagement brings the family together. In other by decolonising ‘language.’ Language Documenta- tion and Description, 14, 15–36. contexts of language reclamation across North Leonard, W. Y., & Shoemaker, S. M. (2012). “I heart this America, however, I have several times observed camp”: Participant perspectives on the role of Mi- strong warnings about breaking protocol, espe- ami youth camps. In K. S. Hele & J. R. Valentine cially as it regards how language is ‘supposed (Eds.), Papers of the 40th Annual Algonquian Confer- to be’ learned—for example, orally rather than ence (pp. 186–209). Albany, NY: State University of through writing, in the home rather than in New York Press. Perspectives 497

McCarty, T. L., & Lee, T. S. (2014). Critical culturally Rogoff, B. (2014). Learning by observing and pitching sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy and Indigenous in to family and community endeavors: An orien- education sovereignty. Harvard Educational Review, tation. Human Development, 57, 69–81. 84, 101–124.

Rethinking Ideologies of Learners’ Speech and the Multilingual Learning Process HALEY DE KORNE University of Oslo

In “Pathways Forward for Indigenous Language possibly correcting, learners’ communicative Reclamation,” Henne–Ochoa et al. make clear competence. They specify that in the learning-by- the importance of an approach to language observing-and-pitching-in (LOPI) approach, “as- revitalization shaped by relationality. This ap- sessment and evaluation is not really intended to proach does not objectify language and separate judge contributions” but rather to recognize and it from speakers, context, and use (‘assembly line appreciate learners’ efforts (p. 489). They suggest instruction’), but fosters shared experiences and that speakers might give “mild ‘correction’” to meaningful communication through observing learners “by repeating acceptable versions of what and pitching in (Rogoff, 2014). The call to decolo- they are trying to say, for direct comparison, and nize Euro-Western ideologies of language—from providing opportunities for them to rehearse” an object that can best be preserved by expert (p. 490). Such an approach offers a constructive, linguists in printed books, to a way of making nondeficit way to consider learners’ commu- meaning and a process of sustaining relationality nicative contributions to the group, and takes that is controlled and defined by speakers—is a seriously the danger of demotivating learners much-needed shift. In this response, I will focus through “overtly judgmental” teaching (p. 490). on a related concern that poses a challenge in Nonetheless, in practice there are many thorny many language reclamation initiatives: ideologies questions about what correction is mild enough, and praxis around learners’ speech and the when someone is understood to make an error relationality of the different languages and styles or produce an unacceptable form of communica- in learners’ communicative repertoires. Lan- tion, and when their speech is accepted. For ex- guage learners, in particular Indigenous lan- ample, if a learner communicates successfully by guage learners, often navigate multiple stigmas using elements from both the language they are and uncertain or conflicting expectations about learning and another language they already know, how they may be considered legitimate speakers. (when) is that acceptable? If their grammar is With the goal of supporting the learning process correct but not idiomatic for the communicative as an integral part of language reclamation work, context, (when) should they be corrected? How I pose some questions that have no universal an- participants in language reclamation projects swers, but that can best be answered by educators address these kinds of questions is influenced and learners in specific contexts: What ideologies by often unexamined ideologies about learners’ of the learning process and learners’ speech speech and about the relation of the Indigenous might help to move away from deficit views of language with other languages in the learners’ learners’ speech? What ideological and practical repertoire. Even if the facilitators of reclama- approach to bi- and multilingualism would best tion initiatives are whole-heartedly supportive of support language reclamation? learners’ emerging abilities and potential mixing These questions are unavoidable in language of diverse communicative resources, learners are education programs where students are explicitly all too likely to experience critical and deficit assessed and compared to their peers; they are discourses about language learners’ speech from also important in less formal learning settings, other social or educational sources. where unwritten social norms may lead to im- I write as an educational or applied linguist plicit forms of evaluation and critique in daily of white settler colonial American background, interactions. Henne–Ochoa et al. propose a who has been involved in Indigenous language subtle, activity-based approach to assessing, and education initiatives as an assistant, collaborator, 498 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020) and researcher. My perspective is shaped by my a paradigm of ‘parallel monolingualism’ (Heller, experiences learning from language activists, 1999) whereby multilinguals can only be legiti- linguists, education scholars, and anthropologists mate if they produce monolingual-like speech in from different Indigenous and non-Indigenous all of their languages. While a bias toward lan- communities. I have experienced and observed guage form is deeply ingrained in the discipline an ideological bias in favor of language form and of linguistics in particular, applied linguistics monolingualism (and prejudice against language and language pedagogy have spread an equally use and multilingualism) in a variety of academic, damaging deficit view of learners’ speech and ide- educational, and activist settings. The ideolo- alization of monolingual native speakers (Ortega, gies that lead teachers and learners to equate 2019). There is a lot that must and can be done knowledge with linguistic form and to strive for by scholars in linguistics and related fields to try an idealized competence are often harmful in to change these ideological biases, in conjunction language reclamation settings, as Henne–Ochoa with other processes of decolonizing our research et al. point out. I have also seen both language practices and our curricula (Battiste, 2013; Davis, activists and scholars who reject these biased 2017; de Sousa Santos, 2014; Smith, 1999). ideologies and work with other paradigms. In In language reclamation praxis, it is especially line with Henne–Ochoa et al.’s call to rethink problematic to ignore the diversity within the and decolonize ideologies about language and speech community and the sociopolitical context learning in language reclamation, I suggest that that motivates language work, as Henne–Ochoa critically examining ideologies about learners’ et al. and others have argued (Dorian, 1994; Eira speech and the multilingual contexts in which & Stebbins, 2008; Leonard, 2012). In practice, learning occurs is an integral part of this process. there is no speaker with perfect competence Deficit ideologies of learners’ speech and mul- and no homogenous speech community; even tilingual speech communities are well established in supposedly monolingual communities, there in Euro-Western academic institutions and prac- is variation in style in relation to social groups tices. We can trace such ideologies back toward and contexts. Indigenous language communities de Saussure’s division of structured langue and that have not been subjected to the same kind of messy parole (de Saussure, 1916/2011) and on- standardization policy processes as many nation– ward via Chomsky’s (1965) focus on perfect states have are often especially diverse in terms competence over imperfect performance. In of spoken and writing practices (Costa, addition to directing interest away from faulty De Korne, & Lane, 2017). The ideology that one performance, Chomsky famously encouraged kind of speech style or communication practice linguists to focus on the “ideal speaker–listener is better than others has been used to disad- in a completely homogenous speech community” vantage learners along social, gender, religious, (1965, p. 3). Scholars with anthropological and and ethnic lines (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Heath, educational orientations resisted this decontex- 1982; Philips, 1972). This is almost certainly a big tualized perspective, putting forward counter part of why this ideological orientation toward arguments such as a focus on communicative language and learners’ speech has been repro- competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes, duced and institutionalized so extensively—not 1968, 1972; Savignon, 1972) and the need to because some academics liked it, but because recognize the sociopolitical environment of lan- it serves the power structures of settler-colonial guage research and use (Cameron et al., 1992; and postcolonial societies. Following this logic, Zentella, 1997). Scholars working in culturally language learners, multilinguals, and people with responsive pedagogy (Ladson–Billings, 1995) nondominant dialects speak worse than others and culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris & Alim, and consequently are worth less than others. 2017) have also made strong arguments in line A language learner must navigate implicit and with a relational and politically conscious orien- explicit ideologies and expectations about their tation toward language teaching and learning. language use on the way toward becoming an Nonetheless, the bias toward linguistic form and accepted speaker. Indigenous language learners idealized speakers has also been present in the and speakers often experience a double stigma, fields of second language acquisition, applied lin- whereby they are subject to external prejudice as guistics, and language pedagogy (Firth & Wagner, members of a minoritized speech community as 1997; Rampton, 1990) and has disadvantaged well as stigma for not speaking their heritage lan- learners in many language classrooms (Heller & guage, or not speaking in an approved way (Gal, Martin–Jones, 2001). This ideology has also cast 2006; Muehlmann, 2008). Of the many injustices multilingual speakers in a dubious light, creating that make language reclamation work necessary, Perspectives 499 the layers of stigma that minoritized multilinguals de repente hay dos tres palabras en and learners of Indigenous languages have to español o más. cope with is one that I find especially wrenching. Well the ideal would have been that we would This double stigma is present in many contexts. speak the language exactly—that we would con- In the time I have spent doing ethnographic serve it as best as possible. But there is so much contamination, so much acculturation, research on Indigenous language education and so much influence of, of Spanish that I tell you activism in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico, again, listen to us speak, suddenly there are two I have spoken with many people who are dissat- or three words in Spanish or more. (Interview, isfied with their abilities in Diidxazá (Isthmus Za- 25 September 20141) potec), the local Indigenous language, and many young adults who said they gave up speaking be- Multilinguals and learners should not have to cause they were often corrected or mocked. From feel that their speech is ‘contaminated.’ They young adults I often heard comments such as: should not have to give up one of their languages to avoid excessive critique. Yet this is the case in EXCERPT 1 far too many contexts. In the past few years, I have Mi papá era el que siempre me decía que lo hablaba been working at the University of Oslo, and have mal o esa no era la pronunciación y en vez de begun to learn a bit about Sámi language work in motivarme, no pues yo me sentía muy mal y mejor Sápmi (a territory which spans Norway, Sweden, ya no lo—ya no lo hablaba, dejaba pasarlo y ya. Finland, and Russia). While the Arctic region at the top of Europe is different from postcolonial My father was the one that always told me that I spoke it Mexico in countless ways, I often hear echoes badly or that was not the pronunciation, and instead of of the same insecurities and painful learning motivating me, no, well I felt really bad, and better not to– experiences. Ase-Mette˚ Johansen has recorded then I didn’t speak it, I let it go, that’s all. (Interview, 17 experiences of Sámi speakers and learners in her July 17 2014) home community of Manndalen. One 60-year-old Among adults who grew up and kept using man she interviewed commented: both languages, the bias against multilingualism still exerted a negative influence. In the following EXCERPT 3 excerpt, one highly educated man tells me about Da eg vokste opp, så ( …) man va jo bare lokalt i his experiences: bygda her, men når man kom ut fra bygda og skulle begynne på realskole, da følte eg jo at eg hadde ikke lært orntli’ norsk, og eg hadde ikke lært orntli’ EXCERPT 2 samisk, og man blei apt med det språket. Enrique: Lo peor del asunto es que ni hablo bien el español ni hablo bien el zapoteco. When I grew up, so ( …) people were just local in the village The worst part of it is that I speak neither Span- here, but when one [I] left the village and would begin in ish nor Zapotec well. secondary school, then I really felt that I had not learned Haley: ¿Cómo, por qué dices eso? Norwegian properly, and I had not learned Sami properly, How, why do you say that? and one [I] was mocked with that kind of language. Enrique: Porque si tú has observado bien, escuchas (Johansen, 2010, p. 16; translation mine) bien, el zapoteco de nosotros, nuestro di- A deficit view of learners, as semi-speakers idxazá ya no es totalmente auténtico, orig- inal. Ya lleva por ahí—entre diez palabras who must strive to remove their errors in order que decimos hay una por lo menos que es to become full, native-like speakers, has been en español—( …) critiqued in mainstream second language acqui- Because if you have observed well, listen well, sition (Douglas Fir Group, 2016; Kachru, 1994; our Zapotec, our Diidxazá, now isn’t totally au- Kumaravadivelu, 2014). Such a deficit view is thentic, original, now it has there—among ten also clearly rejected by Henne–Ochoa et al.’s words that we say, there’s one at least that is in approach to language reclamation. Yet these Spanish—(…) experiences continue from Tehuantepec to Man- Haley: ¿y eso para ti es signo de mal? ndalen, and many places in between. It is clear And that’s a sign of bad [speech] for you? that academics need to redouble their efforts, Enrique: Pues lo ideal hubiese sido que habláramos la lengua tal y como—que la con- and language reclamation practitioners need to serváramos lo mejor posible. Pero es take up an ideological position and related praxis tanta la contaminación, es tanta la acul- in opposition to discourses that devalue learners. turación, es tanta influencia de la, del Even where a language reclamation program español que te repito, escúchanos hablar takes a positive approach to learners’ speech, 500 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020) learners may have internalized deficit ideologies withheld from them. Discussing and rethinking through their participation in other contexts, ideologies of learners’ speech in collaboration making this an important topic to explore and with all language reclamation participants is an discuss explicitly and repeatedly throughout the important step in that direction. learning process. In an attempt to move away from such deficit views, learners of minoritized languages in Eu- ACKNOWLEDGMENT rope have been labeled ‘new speakers,’ with attention given to the unique challenges they This work was partly supported by the Research Coun- experience navigating identity and authority cil of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding (e.g., Ortega et al., 2015; Smith–Christmas et al., scheme, project number 223265. 2017). Whether this term provides positive recog- nition or a polite way to hold learners perpetually at arm’s from full legitimacy, or a bit of both, is open to debate. The term ‘emergent NOTE multilingual’ has been used increasingly in North American scholarship in recent years to articu- 1 Parts of this interview have also been reported in De late a glass-half-full understanding of language Korne (2017). learners (e.g., Gallagher & Haan, 2018). In our modern contexts, Indigenous languages are almost never learned in a monolingual situation; learners should be able to proudly develop a REFERENCES multilingual repertoire if they choose, and the opportunity to identify with a nondeficit label Battiste, M. (2013). Decolonizing education: Nourishing the may be a small support in that endeavor. The rela- learning spirit. Saskatoon, AB: Purich Publishing tionality among different languages in a language Ltd. reclamation setting can be a hard topic, and Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, B., & there are often justifiably negative views of other Richardson, K. (1992). Researching language: Issues languages, which are sometimes seen as threats, of power and method. New York: Routledge. enemies, contamination, and worse. Learners Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language who use them, or whose speech is perceived to teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47. be colored by them, may be told and/or expe- Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax.Cam- rience this to be a negative, undesirable thing. bridge, MA: MIT Press. Fundamentally, minoritized language learners Costa, J., De Korne, H., & Lane, P. (2017). Standar- should be able to choose their own ways of con- dising minority languages: Reinventing periph- ceptualizing and naming the processes they are eral languages in the 21st century. In P. Lane, J. going through, and how they want to relate to the Costa, & H. De Korne (Eds.), Standardizing minor- different parts of their communicative repertoire. ity languages: Competing ideologies of authority and I agree with Henne–Ochoa et al. that uncon- authenticity in the global periphery (pp. 1–23). New sidered ideologies—whether about language, York/London: Routledge. Davis, J. L. (2017). Resisting rhetorics of language the learning process, or the desired outcome of endangerment: Reclamation through Indigenous learning—may lead to praxis that does not sup- language survivance. Language Documentation and port the ultimate aims of language reclamation. Description, 14, 37–58. With this in mind, how can language activists De Korne, H. (2017). The multilingual realities of lan- (and academic allies) work to dismantle or at guage reclamation: Working with language con- least diminish the deficit views and stigmas that tact, diversity, and change in endangered lan- learners encounter in their learning process? guage education. Language Documentation and De- Following the paradigm of language reclamation scription, 14, 111–135. (Leonard, 2012, 2017), the goals of language de Saussure, F. (2011). Course in general linguistics.(P. work must be defined by the community in- Meisel & H. Saussy, Eds.). New York: Columbia University Press. (Original work published in volved. There can be no universal answer to the 1916). question of what the desired competence is for de Sousa Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Jus- a learner to achieve. However, I think there may tice against epistemicide. New York: Routledge. be a universal desire to avoid making learners Dorian, N. C. (1994). Purism vs. compromise in lan- feel inadequate, and to avoid creating a dynamic guage revitalization and language revival. Lan- where the status of legitimate speaker is forever guage in Society, 23, 479–494. Perspectives 501

Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary frame- Leonard, W. Y. (2012). Framing language reclamation work for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Lan- programmes for everybody’s empowerment. Gen- guage Journal, 100(Supplement 2016), 19–47. der and Language, 6, 339–367. Eira, C., & Stebbins, T. N. (2008). Authenticities and Leonard, W. Y. (2017). Producing language reclamation lineages: Revisiting concepts of continuity and by decolonising ‘language.’ Language Documenta- change in language. International Journal of the So- tion and Description, 14, 15–36. ciology of Language, 2008, 1–30. Muehlmann, S. (2008). “Spread your ass cheeks”: And Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, commu- other things that should not be said in Indigenous nication, and (some) fundamental concepts in languages. American Ethnologist, 35, 34–48. SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285– Ortega, A., Urla, J., Amorrortu, E., Goirigolzarri, J., & 300. Uranga, B. (2015). Linguistic identity among new Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: speakers of Basque. International Journal of the Soci- Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity ology of Language, 2015, 85–105. in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85, 149– Ortega, L. (2019). SLA and the study of equitable multi- 172. lingualism. Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supple- Gal, S. (2006). Contradictions of standard language in ment 2019), 23–38. Europe. Social Anthropology, 14, 163–181. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustain- Gallagher, C. E., & Haan, J. E. (2018). University faculty ing pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a beliefs about emergent multilinguals and linguis- changing world. New York: Teachers College Press. tically responsive instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52, Philips, S. (1972). Participant structures and commu- 304–330. nicative competence: Warm Springs children in Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Nar- community and classroom. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Bilin- rative skills at home and school. Language in Soci- gualism and language contact: Anthropological, lin- ety, 11, 49–76. guistic, psychological and social aspects—Acquisition of Heller, M. (1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A rules for appropriate speech usage (pp. 77–101). Wash- sociolinguistic ethnography. London: Longman. ington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Heller, M., & Martin–Jones, M. (2001). Voices of author- Rampton, M. B. H. (1990). Displacing the “native ity: Education and linguistic difference.Westport,CT: speaker”: Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. Ablex. ELT Journal, 44, 97–101. Hymes, D. (1968). The ethnography of speaking. In J. Rogoff, B. (2014). Learning by observing and pitching Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the sociology of language in to family and community endeavors: An orien- (pp. 99–138). The Hague: Mouton. tation. Human Development, 57, 69–81. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative competence: An ex- Holmes & J. B. Pride (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected periment in foreign language teaching. Philadelphia, readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, UK: Pen- PA: The Center for Curriculum Development. guin. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research Kachru, Y. (1994). Monolingual bias in SLA research. and Indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 795–800. Smith–Christmas, C., Ó Murchadha, N. P., Hornsby, M., Kumaravadivelu, B. (2014). The decolonial option in & Moriarty, M. (Eds.). (2017). New speakers of minor- English teaching: Can the subaltern act? TESOL ity languages: Linguistic ideologies and practices.Lon- Quarterly, 50, 66–85. don: Palgrave MacMillan. Ladson–Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of cultur- Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican ally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Re- children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub- search Journal, 32, 465–491. lishers.

Approaching From Many Angles: Seeing the Connections for Our Languages to Live JAMES MCKENZIE University of Minnesota

As a revitalizer, someone who work. In their carefully articulated piece, Henne– has made life-changing decisions to pursue a Ochoa et al. draw important attention to what has better understanding of, and identify successful been a complicated aspect of holistic language forms of, Indigenous language revitalization, revitalization, the underlying concepts we use to “Pathways Forward for Indigenous Language define and guide our work, and how we envision Reclamation” is a welcome call to new vision in language efforts that break loose from the binds our efforts to decolonize and Indigenize our of colonization and empower toward realizing 502 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020)

(re)Indigenized ways of intergenerational lan- met with some criticism by those who embrace guage cultivation. For Indigenous language learn- purely Western forms of language education. But ers, educators, and researchers who have seen all it is this approach that learners comment on as too many efforts designed and guided solely by enabling them to best connect not only with the language-as-code oriented thinking, the authors’ language but with each other and our homelands focus on a social–relational approach, as well as as well. But how does this approach fit into what critical consideration of revitalization–reclamation we mean by language revitalization–reclamation? helps frame important aspects of praxis that must be considered if we are to decolonize and Indigenize our efforts. Drawing on my own expe- DEFINITIONS, GOALS, AND INDIGENOUS- riences, in addition to addressing some key foci GROUNDED SOLUTIONS of the authors, I also reflect on other related and Like Henne–Ochoa et al., I see that terminol- integral elements that can help illuminate the ogy can be confusing in language work. In Navajo, many paths we must take to see our languages as in many communities, views can vary widely live through revitalization–reclamation. as to what language and language revitalization mean, and clarifying their definitions is of crucial REORIENTING: PERSPECTIVE FROM importance. Having worked with many of my peo- NAVAJO REVITALIZATION THROUGH ple over the past 10 years to understand what we ADULT IMMERSION mean by ‘revitalization,’ a variety of concepts have arisen from diverse voices such as grade school ed- The perspectives I bring to this discussion ucators, Elders, youth, scholars, traditional knowl- come from having been privileged to spend edge holders, leaders, community-based commit- significant time learning other languages in tees, and community-wide revitalization summits various settings and through what I would later for all stakeholders. I should note here that I come to see as quite different approaches, and will use the terms revitalization and revitalization– especially from years spent, first as an Indigenous reclamation throughout, as I agree with the con- language learner, and then in efforts to promote ceptual framing of reclamation shared by Henne– immersion experiences and revitalization on Ochoa et al., Leonard (2012, 2017), and others Navajo Nation. One set of initiatives that I feel (and importantly the call for critical considera- particularly blessed to have participated in is the tion of what we mean by revitalization)—and I planting, nurturing, and ongoing development also see that much of what has been called revital- of adult immersion programming in Navajo. ization in my community has been, and is being, Growing from a volunteer-led initiative with little carried out with this conceptual frame in mind. support to normalized college courses at Diné Even prior to building common community College, our immersion group aimed to do things ideas of key terms, perhaps more important to ac- differently, rooting our learning experiences in complishing understanding is critical reflection Indigenous (Navajo) settings, lifeways, natural on our own ideologies and definitions, which can environment, cultural practices, relationality, lead to better alignment of expectations with ef- learning from and with Elders, learning by doing, forts, and more stable group decisions. By openly and repetitious daily settings. While basing our and thoughtfully considering and clarifying our programming in culturally grounded learning own notions of language, we can help avert misun- in context, we also found great success in struc- derstandings that detract from our efforts. Tied tured parameters of immersion commitments to this, the prioritization of Euro-Western notions (by students, teachers, speakers), as well as some of language and responses to language endanger- formal instruction (somewhat ‘untraditional’ ment (Leonard, 2017; Manatowa–Bailey, 2008) or ‘unorganic’) to provide communicative re- that we see in our communities today is not only sources for the culturally grounded learning pushed by outside forces, but at times (knowingly that participants experience. Learners in the or unknowingly) by our own people as well. The immersion courses engage all their senses, and devaluation of Indigenous concepts of language, connect meaningfully with our language as they described by Henne–Ochoa et al., perpetuates learn about, with, and on our lands, including colonial constructs in language programs that using our language as they observe and take part have proven frustrating, or even (re)traumatizing in collaborative processes like harvesting wood; to Indigenous language learners. What is clear building fires; preparing and maintaining camp; is that Indigenous-driven information sharing, and making meals, including traditional foods. dialogue, engagement, and collaboration are This approach took time to nurture, and was critical to efforts to identify what communities Perspectives 503 mean by language and language revitalization– with immersion on our traditional lands, cooking reclamation, and it is up to each community to traditional foods, learning and interacting with define these terms for themselves. In a Navajo plants, making traditional tools, and listening context, on a larger scale this type of thinking to traditional stories in culturally appropriate has led to initiation of Navajo Nation-wide efforts settings and times. These have been the aspects like the Navajo Language and Culture Revital- that students have commented on as helping ization Summit, with participation by a wide them to best connect with and use our language. range of stakeholders from across Navajo Nation. For those of us who believe in the sociocultural, While on a smaller scale it drives the iterative the interactive (like Henne–Ochoa et al.), and the process—by which the Navajo immersion efforts spiritual basis of language, there is great value in I described earlier strive for cycles of continuous language development opportunities that lead to improvement—that, while not perfect by any organic emergence of authentic communication means, have strengthened our efforts. through collaborative experiences. That said, Related to definitions are goals for language another extremely important piece that must be revitalization–reclamation. The goal shared factored in to our practice is the precious and all by the authors, allowing learners to increase too limited resource of time, that is, time spent in participation in and contribution to commu- our languages. Oftentimes in programs it is diffi- nity will likely align well with many Indigenous cult for authentic communication to emerge as it communities’ ways of thought. However, some naturally would due to limitations of time. Some- communities also strong interest in culti- times speakers are few or increasingly elderly, vating new speakers as a highest priority. This seasonal or nature-guided activities occur infre- is certainly heard from many Navajo voices. De- quently or for short duration, and/or abilities pending on circumstances, having both goals in to have critical mass of speakers and learners is mind when we frame what we mean by language limited due to many factors. These all impact the revitalization–reclamation may provide the open- time necessary to see authentic communication ness we need in addressing community needs for naturally emerge, especially for second language diverse situations. If our goal, as has been artic- learners of our languages. And this may push us to ulated in Hawai‘i, is revernacularization (Wilson strategically utilize some approaches that may be & Kamana,¯ 2011), or further, to re-establishing less natural, but which have potential to help learn- natural cycles of cultivation and transmission of ers participate in natural interactions, and to cre- language and culture (lifeway), we should be ate speakers who can return to the natural as their cautious of approaches that are not grown from language abilities improve. In realizing solutions Indigenous ways of being—but we should also be for any particular community or program, utiliz- open to how building communicative language ing all tools that can help us reach our goals (as proficiency can go hand in hand with nurturing we define them) can expand the benefits ofour context, understanding, and Indigenous lifeway. practices. The authors astutely point out that ini- Henne–Ochoa et al. also address praxis in tiatives that have been built on language-as-code language revitalization efforts. Their descriptions ideology will limit what is possible through our ef- of (some) Indigenous-language-as-a-second- forts. From my experiences as a language learner language and Indigenous language immersion and educator, I could not agree with this more. (ILI) programs illustrate that fitting our Indige- However, I also ask, if we create language cultiva- nous languages into the dominant systems of ‘ed- tion that is grounded in and organized primarily ucation’ that force them rigidly into mainstream from Indigenous ways of being, is there no use for lanes of thought and interaction is at best frus- any aspects of what are considered nonnatural, trating, and at worst perpetuates colonization’s nonorganic, or non-Indigenous ways of learning? disastrous effects on our languages. Along with Or, are there ways to employ tools, useful to meet- the benefits of participation and contribution ing our revitalization–reclamation goals, that sup- seen in the learning-by-observing-and-pitching-in port and fuel organic language development? His- (LOPI)-type instruction described by the authors, torically, this idea aligns with Navajo practice—as I would suggest that ILI programs provide space we have always learned from, borrowed, and and opportunity for students to (re)orient to incorporated various tools, not in displacement a multitude of aspects of Indigenous ways of of our own lifeway and worldview, but to help us being, like those demonstrated in their example maintain them for a good life. This means nurtur- of activities in the Kaska language camps. For ing and growing from foundations in who we are, Navajo, we have experienced great success not and using only what outside pedagogical tools only with collaborative learning but even more so will support positive development as we define 504 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020) it. For adult Navajo immersion programming, with thoughtfully addressing decolonization and we have strived to develop an approach, pro- Indigenization of our approaches to language viding some direct instruction (minimizing and revitalization, this careful planning also involves tweaking it as needed) in ways that support nat- critical consideration of how best to utilize our ural, communicative interaction within limited limited resources, and how best to connect all of timeframes. Our work has involved an ongoing our efforts (e.g., family, school, media, political) process with which we have seen positive devel- to and within strong Indigenous networks of sup- opment. Of course, how much direct instruction port, as it will be extremely difficult for any one of aspects like grammar will be part of language of the many players in the fight for our languages cultivation is dependent on a program’s char- to bear the full weight of revitalization alone. acteristics, such as the age of learners, number Realistic, thorough, multi-level, multi-stake- of speakers or teachers, contexts outside of a holder planning and preparation along with formal learning environment, time, and other communication with community, are critically factors that are specific to each set of learners important to the success or failure of our efforts. and Indigenous group. Nowhere is this more apparent than when com- munity members perceive a lack of long-range or SOME OTHER KEY FACTORS IN cohesive plans for language revitalization. Also LANGUAGE REVITALIZATION critical is to build capacity among our peoples, individuals, and groups who can weather the In their article, Henne–Ochoa et al. note the challenges of revitalization work, which often “multiple layers of context, including historical, requires extra doses of effort and , and little sociocultural, political economic, developmental, time for rest. We need to be realistic to the tune of and psychological” (p. 482) to which under- ‘eliminating magical thinking,’ like not expecting standing of language as social interaction is tied. to cultivate culturally grounded speakers from With this in mind, I now turn my attention to language-as-code, didactic-heavy approaches other factors, intricately related to—and equally (Harper & Manatowa–Bailey, 2019). This involves as important as—ideology and praxis to Indige- knowing that our natural cycles of intergenera- nous language revitalization, focusing first on tional transmission have been severely disrupted, broader preparation, followed by the concepts accepting potential new approaches and power of education, healing, and our own attitudes and dynamics, and asking hard questions to align our behaviors related to revitalization–reclamation. programs with purpose, method, and capacity If addressing any one layer alone, in isolation, (Harper & Manatowa–Bailey, 2019). These new will limit our progress, then we must carefully approaches are what I often call doing somewhat plan both broad system-wide approaches and unnatural or untraditional things to help us small local approaches, which must be inten- reestablish the natural cycles of cultivation. tionally coordinated and prioritized. In my work With this in mind, we have great opportuni- with Navajo communities, leaders, students, and ties to disrupt dominant forms of colonizing others, I often ask the question, “What factors education by realizing language revitalization are related to maintenance and revitalization as community building. Not only is it a right of Navajo language?” After taking a number of of a community to identify what language answers, I show a slide I created after making revitalization–reclamation will look like for itself a presentation to some of our tribal leaders (Leonard, 2012), but by working together to years ago, in which I was asked how a plan for buildconsensusonwhatwemeanbylanguage a small immersion initiative would solve seem- and how we envision and concretely plan for ingly everything related to our language decline. revitalization–reclamation, there is greater com- The current slide has more than 60 factors in- mitment and participation than if initiatives come cluding ideas as diverse as youth, government, from the outside. As Ojibwe language revitalizer pedagogy, television, historical trauma, adult Mary Hermes put it, “Everyone has a place in this learners, intergenerational transfer, language struggle, but sometimes finding the place is diffi- status, curriculum, family, lexicon, and more. cult” (Hermes, 2004, p. 50). In Navajo we say, T’áá The sheer volume of factors can be overwhelm- hó ájít’éego and T’áá nihí ádaniit’éego—not only in- ing, which is why we must thoroughly map out dividually, ‘it is up to me’ but also collectively, ‘it is our intentions and objectives and identify how up to us,’ as grandparent, teacher, leader, parent, any part of what we are doing (ideology, praxis, learner, brother, grandchild, sister, child. Key policy, programs, etc.) fits into our ultimate goals, to this idea is fighting the cycles of internalized both at the system-wide and local levels. Along oppression that make conflict amongst us our Perspectives 505 own greatest challenge. Returning to Indigenous negative feelings at not speaking one’s Indige- ways of being, participation, and community nous language and negative effects on overall building will help us see our efforts succeed. health or well-being (Taff et al., 2018; Whalen, Moss, & Baldwin, 2016). As a result, increasingly, EDUCATION, HEALING, AND OUR PART IN revitalization–reclamation movements are being KEEPING OUR LANGUAGES ALIVE tied to well-being and seeing our people heal (Hallett, Chandler, & Lalonde, 2007; Hermes, As we look to Indigenous ways of being for 2004; McCarty, Nicholas, & Wigglesworth, 2019; ideology, praxis, and planning, we should not Thompson, 2014). Regardless of how well we plan limit our thoughts for change to language cultiva- or how pedagogically effective our approaches, tion alone—it is also a question of looking at the we may perpetually struggle to reach what is truly broader notion of what we define as education.To possible in language revitalization–reclamation deconstruct Euro-Western ideologies of language without engaging with the process of healing. revitalization, we must also confront the idea For many Indigenous people it has been, or is of Euro-Western institutions of education and becoming, abundantly clear that language is the great challenges they pose to any form of medicine. Our Elders and our ceremonial practi- Indigenous ways of knowledge cultivation. To tioners have long shared this understanding. The have truly restorative effects on natural lines question is then: How can we best help our peo- of cultivation and transmission of Indigenous ple, in all the roles they represent in Indigenous languages (and in conjunction with them, In- language revitalization, to find and experience digenous knowledge systems and ways of being) healing through our languages? The answers we must create space for learning initiatives that may lie in what Tlingit scholar X̲ʼunei Lance are founded in Indigenous-grounded (not just Twitchell called Indigenous counterhegemonic relevant or sustaining) ways of knowing. In a transformation (ICT), which “seeks to expel revernacularization context, I agree that if we cultural guilt & shame, external value systems, continue to focus on language development that racist hierarchies & structures, and lateral oppres- is either heavily or only didactic and structural sion & violence by embracing respect, healthy or code focused, within school walls alone, we communication, kindness, and unfragmented will limit what we can accomplish in language existence” (Twitchell, 2018, p. 125). Critical to revitalization–reclamation. In order to break our survival will be efforts that identify how our away from the shackles of institutions that focus peoples actually take proactive and restorative language development only or mostly on contexts steps to help re-establish balance and wellness of the institution, we must create situations that within all members of our communities through promote development of language of, in, and and with language revitalization. This certainly for community and relations as a priority. What goes beyond the notion of language as code. will happen when we redefine school (culturally Finally, for language revitalization–reclamation grounded learning) based on life in the commu- to be successful, change must also come in our nity and world (Indigenous ways of being)? More own minds, attitudes, and behaviors. Educational importantly, we need to ask to what extent we are institutions are not the only entities that affect willing to (re)Indigenize learning for our peoples. change for revitalization. What of the political, Rather than continuing to sprinkle limited ele- the structural, the human? What of the commu- ments of Indigenous ways of being into dominant nity (however that is defined), and what of the mainstream school structures, let us truly reenvi- family role? How much do we invest in collectively sion what education looks like for our peoples, and individually deciding (and then carrying out) and then choose what limited aspects we might how we will promote and nurture the lives of our want to include from mainstream paradigms. languages into future generations? There are still, As we engage in the decolonization that in our communities, people who devalue our lan- Henne–Ochoa et al. suggest through unmasking guages, who elevate the status of English or other “the role of settler colonialism in language endan- dominant languages (many of us do this to some germent” (p. 483), healing will be of utmost im- extent in at least some contexts, knowingly or portance. Today we are hard pressed to find any not) and are content with giving meager support family unaffected by negative psychosocial ef- to the languages that have sustained us and made fects related to not speaking our languages. As us who we are for countless generations. We must discourse increasingly links historical trauma work with our families, with our communities, with decline of Indigenous languages, some with all our relatives, to breathe positive energy researchers have begun identifying links between and enthusiasm for and into our languages and 506 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020) their use. We must share information about the E. R. Meiners (Eds.), Public acts: Disruptive read- importance of our languages to our well-being, ings on making curriculum public (pp. 43–54). New and especially to the well-being of future genera- York/London: Routledge Falmer. tions. We must continue to counter the ‘English Leonard, W. Y. (2012). Framing language reclamation as prosperity’ idea in our communities (Hermes, programmes for everybody’s empowerment. Gen- der and Language, 6, 339–367. 2004), as well as Euro-Western hegemony of Leonard, W. Y. (2017). Producing language reclamation thought. This will take commitment. It will take by decolonising ‘language.’ Language Documenta- a greater shift in how we do things. It is not tion and Description, 14, 15–36. simple and easy. Yes, there are small things that Manatowa–Bailey, J. (2008, May). Waiting for the mythical we can do, and are doing, and even the smallest dictionary: The language researcher within Native com- effort counts toward the whole of revitalization– munities. Paper presented at Native American Lan- reclamation—but if we set our goals high, to guages in Crisis conference, University of Pennsyl- reach for once again living our lives through our vania, Pittsburgh, PA. languages, then it will take major commitments, McCarty, T. L., Nicholas, S. E., & Wigglesworth, G. major resources, major shifts in not only our daily (2019). A world of Indigenous languages: Resur- gence, reclamation, revitalization and resilience. routines and conveniences but also in our ways In T. L. McCarty, S. E. Nicholas, & G. Wigglesworth of thought about mainstream American ways of (Eds.), A world of Indigenous languages: Politics, ped- living,andhowmuchwewantthemtobepartof agogies and prospects for language reclamation (pp. 1– who we are. In Navajo we say nihizaad hiná ‘our 26). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. language is alive.’ This idea (and the worldview Taff, A., Chee, M., Hall, J., Hall, M. Y. D., Martin, K. that comes with it) represents a very different N., & Johnston, A. (2018). Indigenous language epistemological orientation than one that focuses use impacts wellness. In K. L. Rehg & L. Campbell on language only for its utility or potential for (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of endangered languages economic prosperity. Our commitments to our (pp. 861–884). Oxford: Oxford University Press. languages are commitments to who we are as Thompson, J. (2012). Hedekeyeh Hots’ih K!hidi – “Our ancestors are in us”: Strengthening our voices through peoples. It is within us to keep them alive. language revitalization from a Tahltan worldview (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada. Twitchell, X. L. (2018). For our little grandchildren: Lan- REFERENCES guage revitalization among the Tlingit (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, Hilo, HI. Hallett, D., Chandler, M. J., & Lalonde, C. E. (2007). Whalen, D. H., Moss, M., & Baldwin, D. (2016). Healing Aboriginal language knowledge and youth sui- through language: Positive physical health effects cide. Cognitive Development, 22, 392–399. of indigenous language use. F1000Research, 5, 852. Harper, L., & Manatowa–Bailey, J. (2019, October). Cre- https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8656.1 ating new infrastructure within the emerging field of In- Wilson, W. H., & Kamana,¯ K. (2011). Insights from digenous language revitalization. Paper presented at indigenous language immersion in Hawai‘i: The the 2019 National Indian Education Association case of Nawah¯ ¯ıschool.InD.J.Tedick,D.Chris- Convention & Trade Show, Minneapolis, MN. tian, & T. W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion educa- Hermes, M. (2004). Waadookodaading indigenous lan- tion: Practices, policies and possibilities (pp. 36–57). guage immersion: Personal reflections on the gut- Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. wrenching start-up years. In F. Ibáñez-Carrasco &

On Autonomy and Transformative Traditions TROY RICHARDSON Cornell University

The ongoing revitalizing of Indigenous languages injustices against Indigenous women and gay and in the United States and Canada occurs in com- queer persons, and navigating the creative and plex contexts and struggles. Broad efforts for technical efforts for tribally controlled digital defending rights in hostile legal landscapes, di- networks and social media platforms would name rect actions to protect lands and waters, fighting only a few topics within the broad themes of Perspectives 507 Indigenous governance and Indigenous resur- suggest, however, that local expressions of and for gence taken up in American Indian and Indige- tradition and decolonization are not obviously nous Studies. Addressing these issues as speakers crucial to how I do the work to critique ideology of Native languages is a decisive and fundamental but at best to also build the alternatives as Henne– concern. How those languages are taught and Ochoa et al. forcefully suggest is necessary. Yet by whom are critical questions to consider when considering the differing contexts of Nigeria or there is an interest in how community practices the autonomous towns of Zapata or Diecisiete de inform governance decision-making and resur- Noviembre in Chiapas can be a useful exercise in gence for autonomy. Put differently, it may make reflecting on how I do (or do not) use terms of a significant difference in decision-making for traditional and decolonization ‘at home.’ topics such as (tribal) rights of queer citizens if a I am also thinking with Henne–Ochoa et al. speaker comes from a context-rich, community- on the question of the teachers of Native lan- activity-driven language-learning environment or guages and their critique of those teachers’ class- from a second language classroom. I intentionally room practices as masking colonial ideologies. say may make a difference here because context does From the inside of such efforts, it is often friends matter—the language instructor, perhaps most and relatives who are teachers, and more often centrally—and the relations between changes in they are women who have committed to language language learning processes and (traditional?) education. I want to acknowledge that and be ideologies for Indigenous autonomy may not be clear about my respect for and deference to these reducible to how a language is learned. speakers, their profound commitments, and often The position paper by Henne–Ochoa et al. in- their life’s works. I also respect the point of view spires me to consider the above themes and revisit of Henne–Ochoa et al., yet the lifework of Native some thinkers that I struggle with and against. women and men language teachers represented The efforts of Henne–Ochoa et al. for conceptual as flattened out, one-dimensional practice en- clarifications between language revitalization and abling colonialism seems reductive. Even where reclamation invites readers to assess sedimented we may agree on neoliberal ideologies at work in pedagogical practices and the ideologies that many classroom practices—maybe even my own can undermine a wide range of commitments to university teaching insofar as I do not always em- Indigenous autonomy. For them, any pedagogy ploy portfolio type assessments—this is often not (classroom-based in particular) that undermines the entirety of their practice as fluent native teach- the participatory everyday practices within which ers. Instead, it is more like the experience of be- language is acquired—what I will call here In- ing around Native women who say, “ok, we’ll do digenous autonomy—misses the goals not only of this and this and this and this” and do it all in the creating speakers that are able to enact language face of sometimes significant skepticism, particu- as communication and not code but also of larly from men. Thus, there are many dynamics of enacting broader, robust forms of Indigenous and sites for critique of ideologies, especially for commitments. Native language workers who in their own ways In the reflections that follow I seek to com- enact local forms of mandar obedeciendo ‘leading plement their pursuits of conceptual clarity by obeying’ and I am grateful for the opportunity for ‘tradition.’ At best, my thoughts here will to think with those committed to reclaiming lan- be impressionistic and recollecting; fluctuating guage in the most robust forms of community life. between essay form and academic argument. In Mamdani (2012) wrote on decolonization in doing so, I am working to be in conversation with several national contexts on the African conti- Henne–Ochoa et al. on the use of traditional and nent: “Decolonization was the preoccupation of decolonization as categories. I draw from several two groups that propelled the nationalist move- other regional contexts as a way to challenge my- ment; the intelligentsia and the political class,” self, reconsider my own contexts, and think with asking “how far have we gone beyond either set- their essay as I understand it. That is, in deploying tler claims to being custodians of cosmopolitan the terms traditional and decolonization, there is pluralism and nativist preoccupations with origin something like an accountability to the breadth and authenticity?” (p. 85). Mamdani as a theo- of these terms outside North America that can rist of indirect (colonial or neocolonial) rule is challenge me to work against the dichotomy as deeply suspicious of discourses of tradition upon a sedimented concept. Exploring the differing and through which authenticity for decolonial valences of such terms can help me reassess what nationalisms might be promoted. For Mamdani, kind of normative force is being enacted that is indirect rule occurs where the subjectivities of the specific to my own local contexts. This is notto colonized emerge through categories, such as 508 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020)

‘customary law,’ that emanate from histories ‘tradition’ in projects of decolonization as one of racist colonial administration; the Native has of indirect control, their position would then be unchanging custom, the settler cosmopolitan plu- that university faculty who call for tradition as ralism. Historical dynamism and change in this a mode of decolonization are registering their model only comes from the outside, as custom is own anxieties regarding professionalization and written as having no internal vigor. Discussing the integration into a market economy. I think the historical process of ‘tradition’ with Nigerian his- authors overstate this argument and are inatten- torian Usman, two important points are made that tive to the transformative efforts and resistances are, I think, useful juxtapositions to a critical ped- occurring within the terminologies and practices agogical project for conceptual clarity on decolo- of such movements. Perhaps unlike Mamdani nization and tradition in language reclamation. and Usman, I do not think this is necessarily a First is the notion of which tradition. Usman’s bad thing, particularly where these practices con- in-person conversations with Mamdani (2012) stitute checks that reassert alternative economies elaborated a position that traditional or custom- like those Coulthard (Yellow Knife Dene) (2014) ary knowledges are historically situated such that described as “bush” or “mixed bush-market” in trying to discuss the “tradition of Katsina for economies to disrupt social-land-water-other than example, one has to choose which traditional human relations organized through capitalism. governance and customary law system,” is to Yet, the basic point I am thinking with here is be put forward as tradition (Usman quoted in to take seriously the challenge of Mamdani and Mamdani, 2012, p. 95). Would it be the period Usman to historicize the concepts of ‘tradition’ of autonomous towns (pre-1450), Saruata (1450– in discourses of education broadly, and language 1804), the Jama (1796–1804), the Fulani or the reclamation for decolonization specifically. Emirate (1816–1903)? “If you want to say what is I find Mamdani’s (2012) clarifications onthe the traditional political system in Katsina,” Usman intended function of the category of tradition for stated, “you will have to identify which of the five indirect colonial rule compelling. Likewise with to choose” (Usman quoted in Mamdani, 2012, his descriptions of the importance of multiple p. 95). Reflecting on the historical contexts of centers of authority as crucial to communities tradition leads to an appreciation of the kinds of to counter any singular traditional authority of broad, intersecting forces out of which tradition culture or customary law—often wielded against is articulated. women, denying Native women drumming This gives rise to the second observation of Us- groups in some U.S. contexts, for example. By man that “what is believed to be traditional society suggesting multiple social authorities I may be is not something that has existed in any past. It more flexible than Henne–Ochoa et al. to the is essentially what has existed in the colonial and idea of plausible contexts for engaging language neocolonial present” (Usman quoted in Mam- revitalizing as code as a complementary shared dani, 2012, p. 96). From Usman’s point of view, authority for differing tasks in the life and lan- to speak of ‘tradition’ in politics, governance, guage of a community. Mamdani would argue that and culture entails a probing analysis of history. locating a singular authority for language learn- Usman interprets a discourse on tradition that ing within customary practices reveals colonial does not take up this task of rigorous historical ideologies where they were least expected. Even analysis as “an admission of historical ignorance” as I have some questions and concerns about such (Usman quoted in Mamdani, 2012, p. 94). With a suggestion, I want to take seriously any such this thought, Mamdani noted more broadly critique because I respect the rigor with which he that Usman was thus compelled to argue that interrogates his own contexts with that question “the contemporary significance of tradition [is] in mind. At the same time, with Mamdani, I want political ( …) part of an overall effort to check to affirm that “definers of tradition could come the integrative effects of the market economy” from women’s groups, age groups, clans, religious (Mamdani, 2012, p. 96). groups and so on” (Mamdani, 2012, p. 49). For Usman and Mamdani, decolonization ef- It was with this in mind that I raised my ear- forts in the contexts of Nigeria and Darfur, among lier question of who the language teachers are. others, that assume immediate access to ‘tradi- Perhaps naively, I am assuming they are Native tional’ practices may be more accurately read as peoples themselves and more specifically, fluent an intelligentsia and political class trying to check first-language speakers. If a Native speaker is most their integration into the university/knowledge, comfortable providing opportunities to learn with market economy (Mamdani, 2012). If Usman something like language as code, can that author- and Mamdani are deeply skeptical of a role for ity not coexist with other authorities? Or is it the Perspectives 509 case that a form of tradition and decolonization think, warranted, yet traditions in the movement would see such practices as always corrupting tra- of history are also practices through which Indige- ditional authorities? Henne–Ochoa et al. are of nous peoples resist certain kinds of integration course right in their critique of the ideologies that while perhaps negotiating others, and they can be inform most classroom environments. But I think discussed. In this sense of tradition, Usman and flexibility to changing circumstances—technical Mamdani may have overstated their notion of a and otherwise—can be useful. ‘discourse of tradition’ (Mamdani, 2012). For me, Scott Lyons (Ojibwe/Dakota) provided an these are precisely the questions and discussions example of such a moment where inflexibility in the enactments of Indigenous autonomy. on these issues are on display: “Years ago I wrote With the scene Lyons (2010) described, situ- about witnessing ( …) [a] conflict between what ated in the contexts of the themes of tradition, I called ‘new Elders’ and ‘new traditionalists’ decolonization, and autonomy, I am reminded of at an Ojibwe language retreat. Basically, the the Tseltal and Tojolabal Zapatista women who young traditionalists—or culture cops—visibly engaged with Mora (2017) for Kuxlejal Politics.For disrespected the new Elders who were present- these Zapatista women, tradition was not an act of ing, because what they presented were Christian reception of premade practices but one of critical hymns translated into Ojibwe ( …) Ojibwe ‘hymn reflection, learning with the heart and moving singers’ like these are not only fluent speakers into differing, complex contexts with a deference of Ojibwemowin but also widely recognized for to the people. These are “active processes of their knowledge of traditional arts and crafts, transmission, selection and re-appropriation of skills in hunting and gathering practices, and practices and concepts as part of collective politi- other arcana” (Lyons, 2010, p. 99). Lyons posed cal actions” (Mora, 2017, p. 197). Tradition in this the question then of whether, as fluent speakers context might be said to be under constant rene- with an interest in teaching language, these ‘new gotiation as differing groups—new Elders, youth, Elders’ have a place in Henne–Ochoa et al.’s men, women, teachers, researchers—bump up paradigm if they may lean in the direction of against each other trying to address the current teaching language as code. Similarly, I would needs of community life from their own unique note that Lyons made a point that the language perspectives. Staying engaged in the process, retreat itself was organized by middle-aged despite the differences, is to take up the work of women, visibly angry at the disrespectful actions Indigenous autonomy—of “governing by learning of the ‘young traditionalists.’ Along with Lyons to govern” as the Zapatista enact it in Diecisiete (2010), I also think fluent speakers as formal or de Noviembre (Mora, 2017, p. 193), a town in informal teachers are complex persons deserving Mexico. As Henne–Ochoa et al. direct our atten- of considerable deference and respect. tion to the transformative power in reclaiming Indigenous women who lead efforts for ro- language, they likewise highlight the importance bust community-based experiences in language of these sites to reconceive tradition as part of the learning may not always fit easily into categories historical movement of a people for autonomy in such as traditional or decolonization—at least as all the bumping up against each other that this these categories are most often deployed by the entails. ‘intelligentsia’ in the ‘political class,’ as Mamdani (2012) called us. If Mamdani was correct about the discourse of tradition being a tool for indi- rect neocolonial rule that ignores tradition as a REFERENCES historical development, perhaps the viability of the term is limited to some narrow contexts. Dale Coulthard, G. (2014). Red skins white masks: Rejecting the Turner (Temagi First Nation) made a similar colonial politics of recognition. Minneapolis, MN: Uni- argument in his book This Is Not a Peace Pipe versity of Minnesota Press. (Turner, 2006). To paraphrase Turner’s general Lyons, S. (2010). X-marks: Native signatures of assent. Min- positions: He suggested that for those of us who neapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. are not fluent speakers, getting into discussion Mamdani, M. (2012). Define and rule: Native as political identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. of Indigenous ‘ways,’ Indigenous ‘ontologies,’ or Mora, M. (2017). Kuxlejal politics: Indigneous autonomy, Indigenous ‘epistemologies’ is going to be very race and decolonizing research in Zapatista communi- difficult and at worst can become more mysti- ties. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. fication and less clarification when we want to Turner, D. (2006). This is not a peace pipe: Toward a crit- use Native languages as a base for legal, political, ical Indigenous philosophy. Toronto: University of or ideological critique. Turner’s cautions are, I Toronto Press. 510 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020)

Yucatec-Maya Language Revitalization: A Reconceptualization of Indigeneity and Call for Action ANNE MARIE GUERRETTAZ Washington State University MIGUEL OSCAR CHAN DZUL and IRMA YOLANDA POMOL CAHUM Universidad de Oriente, Yucatán, México

1 “Are you Indian, then?” A friendly U.S. acquain- “Pathways Forward for Indigenous Language tance posed this question to Yucatec-Maya-speaking Reclamation” by Henne–Ochoa et al., which we and self-identified maya [Maya] co-author Miguel believe is largely framed through the contexts Oscar Chan Dzul during his first visit to the United that those authors hearken—namely Native States a decade ago. Miguel Oscar’s response was a clear “no.” American, First Nations, and in particular Lakota language projects. The context of the Yucatán (Chapel Hill, NC, April 2009) Peninsula, Mexico differs in many important re- spects from the aforementioned more northern My family and I—all speakers of Yucatec Maya—we didn’t think that my cousin Julio spoke Yucatec Maya lands. because we’d never heard his parents or brothers use it with him. We’d only ever heard them use Spanish together. But one day, while in the park CRITICAL FRIENDSHIP FROM A YUCATEC of my Maya-speaking-village, I noticed a group of MAYA PERSPECTIVE boys speaking in Yucatec Maya, and was surprised to see that one of them was Julio. He was speaking This commentary is co-authored by two ex- Yucatec Maya with his friends, having learned it pert Yucatec-Maya speakers, born and raised in from these classmates of his, and from others in our the Yucatán—Irma Pomol Cahum and Miguel community. Oscar Chan Dzul—and one White middle-class applied linguist from the United States—Anne – Irma Pomol Cahum Marie Guerrettaz. Explanations of researchers’ (Hunuku, Yucatán, México, November 2019) positionalities are customary in language revital- These vignettes are perhaps confusing to many ization scholarship. Building on that tradition, English-speaking readers of this journal, language we explain our ‘collective’ positionality as long- education scholars, and even language revitaliza- term collaborators, noting that such research tionists who work outside of the Yucatán, Mexico. practice is unfortunately not frequently discussed Nonetheless, both involve aspects of ‘Indigenous’ in the literature on applied linguistics research identity and sociolinguistic tendencies that many methodology. Nonetheless, a moral and pro- speakers of Yucatec Maya, a language of Southeast fessional imperative in language revitalization Mexico, would consider relatively ordinary. Such inquiry is that scholars who are not lifelong contextual considerations—namely, local con- insiders learn to see the world through the eyes structions of social identity and local significance of the cultural group in question, for example, of the language—are critical for understanding through close collaborations with community language revitalization. We speak to these mat- members. ters in the context of the Yucatán Peninsula in Spouses Irma and Miguel Oscar were among order to contribute to the overarching goal of Anne Marie’s first Yucatec-Maya teachers, begin- this column: to rethink ‘Indigenous language ning in 2008. Often, Anne Marie has engaged in revitalization.’2 long-term ethnographic research—in 2010, 2012, Our observations are firmly rooted in the 2015, and 2016—by collaborating in many dif- context of language revitalization that we know ferent ways with Irma and Miguel Oscar, who are best, that of Yucatec Maya. This is the minori- experts in linguistics, revitalization, and pedagogy tized language of the Yucatán Peninsula and vis-à-vis Yucatec Maya. Moreover, with deep roots one of the 68 original languages of current in the Yucatán, Irma and Miguel Oscar naturally day Mexico (Instituto Nacional de Lenguas In- have close familial, personal, and professional dígenas, 2015), where the dominant colonial relationships there; they also have expertise in language, Spanish, is also spoken. Our com- locally relevant and culturally sustaining research mentary article complements the position paper methods (see Paris, 2012). Perspectives 511

The ways that we have grown to work together INSIGHTS FROM AND ON YUCATEC-MAYA might, in English, be called a critical friendship LANGUAGE REVITALIZATION (Brighouse & Woods, 1999; Costa & Kallick, 1993; McDonald, 1989; Stoll & Thomson, 1996), which Approximately 860,000 individuals speak Yu- “is a flexible form of assistance for development catec Maya (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y and research” (Swaffield, 2008, p. 323). Key Geografía, 2015), in a quite different political, characteristics thereof include “trust, provocative socioeconomic, geographical, historical, and questioning, an alternate perspective, and con- cultural context from those that are referenced structive critique and advocacy” (Swaffield, 2008, in the anchor article (Henne–Ochoa et al., p. 328). Critical friendships among insiders and this issue). About 20% of individuals in the Yu- researchers who arrive more from the outside catán Peninsula speaks Yucatec Maya, based on Guerrettaz’s (2013) analysis of regional language can “inject ( …) more realism” into the “extrap- 3 olations” (Hansson & Lindh, 2018, p. 115) that censuses. Thus, one salient contextual difference certain academics—non-Indigenous applied lin- among the Yucatec-Maya language group and guists in this case—might otherwise make. Such many First Nations, Native Alaskan, and Native realism allows for the language revitalization American language groups relates to the number work—be it research, practice, or combination of speakers. These latter, more northern groups thereof—to be better grounded in local realities. are often more focused on reclamation of sleep- In the Yucatán, such perspectives have the poten- ing languages or of languages whose number of tial to transform problematic assumptions both speakers may range from a handful to a few dozen, of Mexican academics who do not have close ties from one hundred to a few thousand, for exam- to Yucatec-Maya-speaking communities and of ple (Hinton & Meek, 2016; McCarty & Coronel– foreign scholars. Molina, 2016). Such situations seem implicit in The notion of a critical friendship is imbued Henne–Ochoa et al.’s compelling and insightful with the meanings and epistemologies of this article, which is quite logical because these are the English-language phrase. These do not quite cap- contexts in which most of these authors have lived ture the exact nature of our collaboration, which and worked. Importantly, we do not view number is further explained through a Yucatec-Maya of speakers as a measure of language vitality concept—a central processual component of our or of any other criterion that fails to recognize critical friendship vis-à-vis Yucatec-Maya language the tremendous value and uniqueness of each work. This is múul tsikbal (Berkeley, 2001; Canul, Indigenous language, culture, and community. 2011; Cocom, Cal, & Rodríguez, 2015), which Rather, we simply view the question of numbers loosely translates as a mutual dialogic conversa- of speakers as a situational difference—one that tion that is informal in nature. Individuals in close can affect how language revitalization is concep- relationship to one another may engage in múul tualized in a given context (Hinton & Meek, 2016; tsikbal, which involves certain Yucatec-Maya cul- McCarty 2016). In considering such differences tural norms that one must know or learn: a central and analyzing our experiences with Yucatec-Maya skill for engaging in múul tsikbal is being a good lis- language revitalization, we believe that salient tener. Also, múul tsikbal cannot be rushed; a single dimensions of the Yucatán deserve particular múul tsikbal event can at times continue for hours. attention for the purposes of this column: (a) In writing this article, we engaged in múul local constructions of social identity, particularly tsikbal, with much of the substantive response in relation to Indigeneity and personhood, and to Henne–Ochoa et al. guided by Irma and (b) the local significance and sociopolitics of the Miguel Oscar, which Anne Marie processed and language, specifically with regard to linguistic framed for an English-speaking applied linguist human rights and language in education. audience, drawing on her 11 years of experience researching Yucatec-Maya language revitalization INDIGENEITY, LANGUAGE IDENTITY, AND while frequently living in the Yucatán. In the next PERSONHOOD sections, we explore some realities of Yucatec- As those of us who live and work in the Yu- Maya speakers, many of which U.S. researchers catán often do when considering the construct such as Anne Marie might not adequately under- of ‘Indigeneity’ in other parts of the world, we stand without ever-important critical friendships Yucatecanists are intrigued by the notion of with lifelong insiders like Irma and Miguel Indigenous identity that is implicit in the anchor Oscar. article. Indeed, Indigenous is a social identity label 512 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020) that has different meanings and degrees of rel- concepts seem to be in other contexts, like evance across the globe, as Maori¯ scholar Smith Canada, Europe, the United States, and beyond. (2012) has explained (see also Guerrettaz, 2020). Social identity in the Yucatán—and much of Moreover, the notion of Indigeneity is at the heart Latin America—is less of a bio-genealogical con- of the very concept of Indigenous language revi- struct and much more fluid. Choice of language talization: Thus, we believe that our observations use and/or dress, way of life, class status, and about this construct from the Yucatán contribute educational level are all often more salient mark- to this Perspectives column’s overarching reconcep- ers of one’s social identity than constructions of tualization of Indigenous language revitalization one’s ‘racio-ethnic’ lineage (Guerrettaz, 2020). within the field of applied linguistics. In various regions of Latin America, individuals In English, the word Indigenous seems an accept- may move in and out of the social category of able social identity term that is widely used in the indígena throughout their lives (García, 2005; language revitalization literature. Arguably, the Hornberger, 2014), depending, for example, on term Indigenous even has affirming connotations how they prefer to position themselves and/or for many individuals and groups who self-identify on changes to their social class. as such in English. However, the most common In the Yucatán in particular, as alluded to in translation of this in Spanish—indígena—carries the first vignette at the beginning of this article, a pejorative connotation in the Yucatán (Guer- speakers of Yucatec Maya increasingly refer to rettaz, 2020),4 though this Spanish term is used themselves as maya, though we believe this is most extensively there in research and even in names prevalent in academic circles of Yucatec-Maya of government institutions (e.g., Dirección General speakers, which are somewhat elite. Another de Educación Indígena ‘General Directorate of alternate social identity term is mayero/mayera, Indigenous Education’). Nonetheless, speakers which does not denote prestige but is more of Yucatec Maya do not typically use this identity widely used in colloquial speech: Interestingly, term—indígena—though outsiders might naively this term is used by Yucatec-Maya speakers for refer to them as such (Guerrettaz, 2020). Many self-identification but not for official, governmen- Yucatec-Maya-speaking language professionals tal purposes. Yucatec-Maya speakers self-identify and revitalization activists instead use the term in other complex ways as well, often in reference originario/originaria ‘originary.’ Thus, throughout to a specific local community (e.g., village) with this article, we speak in terms of originary lan- which they strongly affiliate (see Gabbert, 2001; guages, cultures, and people, in lieu of the term Guerrettaz, 2020; Rhodes & Bloechl, 2019, for Indigenous. The English term Indigenous and the in-depth explanations). (Yucatán) Spanish term indígena seem to be false Such social identity constructs have direct cognates of one another, which are nonetheless implications for Yucatec-Maya language and inappropriately and widely used as synonyms cultural revitalization. Part of this relates to the within the discourse of language revitalization prominent and oftentimes problematic role that scholarship and practice. By proposing the En- regional and federal governments play in both glish term originary when discussing Yucatec-Maya constructing Indigeneity in the Yucatán and in language revitalization, we hope to help disrupt controlling Yucatec-Maya language planning this widespread confusion of terminology. efforts (see also Rhodes & Bloechl, 2019). Some Digging deeper into local constructions of In- examples of both types of government agencies digeneity and social identity, Mexicans in general, include the Institute for the Development of the including residents of the Yucatán Peninsula, do Maya Culture of Yucatán State (INDEMAYA), not typically see themselves as members of distinct National Institute of Indigenous Peoples (INPI), races or ethnicities, but rather as members of and departments of public education concerned one mestiza/mestizo ‘mixed’ race and nation (e.g., with originary languages, namely the Educación Gabbert, 2001; L. King, 1994). Of course, the area Indígena ‘Indigenous Education’ system. Indi- now known as Mexico was first inhabited by origi- viduals who may identify as maya can receive nary people, including speakers of Yucatec Maya, social services from such government agencies, and this region was brutally colonized by Euro- including financial support. Moreover, entire peans beginning in the 1500s. Nonetheless, social communities—typically in rural areas—that identity has evolved over the past 500 years in are externally identified by the government as Mexico, including in its originary communities, predominantly indígena may collectively receive such that race, ethnicity, and even the construct public education that purportedly includes bilin- of Indigeneity are not nearly as relevant as these gual instruction in Yucatec Maya and Spanish. Perspectives 513 Yet such government systems do not adequately p. 25). This “allows persons to be consubstan- account for the complexity of social identity in tial with” other entities (Glaskin, 2012, p. 305), the Yucatán—namely, the fact that most Yucatec- meaning that living persons, ancestors, places, Maya-speaking individuals do not identify as things, and other creatures are entangled in this indígena and relatively few readily identify as view of personhood. As such, the Yucatec-Maya maya. Nonetheless, individuals are frequently ac- language is entangled in local understandings of knowledged or designated as indígena by regional personhood in the Yucatán. or federal government agencies, based on the To put it in other terms, Irma describes the following types of stereotypical identity markers: Yucatec-Maya language (máaya t’aan)asaway occupying low socioeconomic status, having a of life. It is the way that she and others who Yucatec-Maya-sounding last name, and/or resid- have grown up in rural village communities have ing in a rural village community—where many always communicated with parents, siblings, Yucatec-Maya speakers have historically lived. In and other relatives. She and her sisters have all , many other Yucatec-Maya speakers— noted that they “don’t feel comfortable” speaking and others with varying degrees of proficiency to their nieces, nephews, and children in the who grow up in Yucatec-Maya-speaking families— dominant colonial language, Spanish, which the may be excluded from receiving such services younger generation is shifting to, and simply feel because they happen to have a Hispanic-sounding better speaking to them in Yucatec Maya. Simi- last name or are city dwellers. This is problematic, larly, Miguel Oscar considers the Yucatec-Maya since many such individuals undoubtedly deserve language as a “part of himself, part of life in these externally controlled social services desig- general, part of family life.” Miguel Oscar grew nated for those that the government describes as up in the city of Saki’ (sometimes spelled Zací, indígenas ‘Indigenous people.’ and ‘renamed’ in the colonial Importantly, in the midst of this fraught situa- as Valladolid). While his parents, like many across tion involving questions of social identity—which the peninsula, avoided speaking Yucatec Maya Rhodes and Bloechl (2019) argued to be a form to him in his early childhood (beginning in the of symbolic violence and source of psychological late 1980s) because of the associated stigma, he trauma—the Yucatec-Maya language itself is nonetheless learned it growing up by using it profoundly significant for many Yucatecans when daily with others in his household, namely his it comes to their self-understandings and ways Yucatec-Maya-speaking grandparents. Moreover, of life. Meaning, language identity is a powerful like many Yucatec-Maya-speaking urbanites, he social identity construct in the Yucatán, more has often relied on the language to communicate relevant than notions of ethnic or racial identity with his cousins and other relatives who have such as indígena ‘Indigenous.’ Language identity grown up in more rural areas.6 is deeply and enduringly shaped through overt It is difficult to explain with words alone to behaviors such as one’s language use and lin- those who are not intimately familiar with the guistic practices. Language identity also involves Yucatán just how central language identity is one’s ‘inner language’—meaning, one’s ways of to one’s sense of personhood in this context. thinking, feeling, and being—and one’s personal, Yucatec Maya is inextricably intertwined with familial, and community relationship with the local communities, land, worldviews, and cultural language in question (Ortega et al., 2015).5 practices. Taking the significance of local lan- Use of Yucatec Maya is often a primary marker guage in relation to personhood a step further, of what it means to be an originary person from this is also a useful lens through which to view the and of the Yucatecan Peninsula, and to be en- broader sociopolitical dynamics of language in grained with the lifeworlds that are associated the Yucatán: “[Yucatec] Maya language and per- with this type of personhood—a central concept in sonhood are regularly conceptualized [not only] the discipline of Indigenous studies (see Astor– in relation to each other, [but also] in relation to Aguilera & Harvey, 2018). Personhood is about Spanish” (Rhodes & Bloechl, 2019, p. 17). “the mutuality of being” (Sahlins, 2011, p. 10) for Because language is entangled with what many originary people, including many through- it means to be a person—to be human— out Mesoamerica (Astor–Aguilera, 2018). Rather sociolinguistic dynamics that privilege Spanish than focusing on “the person” as a bounded over Yucatec Maya have ramifications for local corporal individual—one of the core concepts of people’s sense of personhood. For example, Irma Western social science—many originary people has found that in many Yucatec-Maya-speaking often see the “animistic person” as intrinsically communities across the region, the language is “relational and situational” (Bird–David, 2018, profoundly important to parents in the context 514 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020) of their own families, even if they are sometimes conceived, and not so much in his immediate fam- unsure or simply unaware of the complex dy- ily or formal schooling itself. Regarding the last, namics of how to transmit it to their children. we have observed that not much effort is typically Moreover, in such communities where children put toward teaching Yucatec Maya itself in school and youth are increasingly Spanish monolingual, nor toward teaching content (e.g., language arts, Irma has found that many are deeply interested mathematics, civics) through the language. in learning Yucatec Maya. During one of her Seeing that hundreds of thousands of in- research projects, Irma came to know an ado- dividuals speak Yucatec Maya as their pri- lescent girl named Karina7 who had not learned mary language—including some Yucatec-Maya the language as a child. Karina shared with Irma monolinguals—it is critical that they have the that she was now trying to do so in her teens, chance to obtain education in their language, upon discovering that no family member of her among other linguistic rights. Yet these rights generation (i.e., none of her cousins) spoke are often, at the time of this writing, still vio- Yucatec Maya. With this realization, Karina began lated daily in the Yucatán. Gustafson, Guerrero, to fear that soon her family would not be able and Jiménez (2016) noted that such a rupture to pass the Yucatec-Maya language on to new between progressive policies that support origi- generations. She reported that such a situation is nary languages and the implementation thereof one she simply cannot accept. is a common tendency across Latin America. This is, in our view, deeply disconcerting in the LINGUISTIC HUMAN RIGHTS, LANGUAGE context of the Yucatán because of the signifi- EDUCATION, AND A CALL FOR ACTION cance of the Yucatec-Maya language vis-à-vis local actualizations of personhood. Communication patterns in the Yucatán are Examples of existing laws that theoretically pro- shaped, in complex ways, by power dynamics tect the linguistic rights of Yucatec-Maya speakers that often privilege Spanish over Yucatec Maya include Mexico’s Ley General de Derechos Lingüís- (Armstrong–Fumero, 2009; Canul, 2011; Guer- ticos de los Pueblos Indígenas ‘General Law of Lin- rettaz, 2019, 2020). Such situations are widely guistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples,’ the United documented in the language planning and Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, language revitalization literature (e.g., Cooper, and local legislations. Though these laws and 1989; Fishman, 1991; Hornberger, 2008; K. King, policies are not typically or adequately adhered 2001): We mention them here because they offer to in the Yucatán, they have had some positive out- important context for this part of our response comes concerning local language politics. One to the anchor article. We have observed in the such recent sociopolitical shift in the Yucatán, Yucatán that many individuals know how to speak as with much of Latin America, has been the Yucatec Maya, but choose not to speak it in par- integration of local originary languages into the ticular situations because of the stigma associated curriculum and school day, even in ‘mainstream’ with the language. In other situations, notably in urban schools designed for Spanish-monolingual education, Yucatec-Maya speakers often do not populations. Such public schools exist in the have this choice: Instead, they are forced to speak Yucatán alongside the separate Educación Indígena or to learn to speak Spanish. Such sociolinguistic system, which mostly operate in rural areas. Many, power dynamics have widespread implications for but not all, Educación Indígena schools are purport- interrelationships between language and person- edly bilingual (Yucatec-Maya–Spanish), meaning hood within the schools of Yucatec-Maya-speaking they are part of a subsystem called Educación families across the peninsula. Intercultural Bilingüe ‘Intercultural Bilingual Ed- For many decades, since the implementation ucation,’ (henceforth EIB). Nonetheless, certain of mandatory public schooling in Mexico (Heath, linguistic challenges affect both overarching types 1972; L. King, 1994), Yucatec-Maya-speaking fami- of schools: (a) ‘mainstream’ schools, which serve lies have felt the pressures to teach children Span- populations that are allegedly Spanish monolin- ish, which has arguably had the effect of pushing gual and teach Yucatec Maya much like a ‘foreign’ Yucatec Maya out of more private, intimate do- language, and (b) Educación Indígena EIB schools, mains as well—namely, the home. This is evident which supposedly offer bilingual education. in the second vignette at the beginning of this arti- Regarding the first, urban ‘mainstream’ cle about Irma’s cousin Julio. We believe his learn- schools that teach Yucatec Maya on occasion and ing of Yucatec Maya was attributable to the impor- with a focus on decontextualized grammar and tant presence of the language in the day-to-day vocabulary can improve local language attitudes. life of his friends and village community broadly However, they do not typically foster the abilities Perspectives 515 of Spanish-monolingual or Spanish-dominant plan that Henne–Ochoa et al. propose in the children to communicate in the language with anchor article on the learning-by-observing-and- Yucatec-Maya-speaking relatives or community pitching-in (LOPI) framework. Building on that members. Nor do they do adequately serve urban framework, we believe that a focus on language children who are themselves Yucatec-Maya speak- learning is important for advancing revitaliza- ers (i.e., Yucatec-Maya dominant or Yucatec-Maya tion projects in Yucatán. We thus suggest that monolingual). language revitalizationists there—and in other Regarding the second, Educación Indígena EIB regions—consider adding the following to the schools, in reality, often do not offer instruction LOPI framework: “What is language learning?” in Yucatec Maya but rather almost exclusively (Facet 4 expanded) and “How does language in Spanish. While fewer children are currently learning occur?” (Facet 5 expanded). learning Yucatec Maya in their families and Importantly, our call for addressing these con- broader communities than in years past, within cerns around language learning in the Yucatán the smallest and most remote villages of the hinges on pedagogical–political action and local Yucatán, researchers such as Irma and Miguel agents. We believe that local, action-based plans Oscar still encounter widespread Yucatec-Maya for revitalizing Yucatec Maya represent an impor- monolingualism. Moreover, even in less remote tant path forward; such plans must (a) carefully and larger villages, Anne Marie has encountered consider the nature of language learning, and many preschoolers who begin school as Yucatec- (b) be led by Yucatec-Maya-speaking community Maya monolinguals—in studies conducted in insiders and teachers. 2015 and 2016. In such cases, the education sys- Regarding the first, the LOPI framework and tem has an ethical obligation to hire teachers who Western applied linguistics scholarship both ac- speak this language for the well-being of these knowledge that language learning is more likely children. For youngsters who begin their formal to occur through immersion and/or content education as Yucatec-Maya monolinguals or with learning in the language (e.g., Yucatec Maya), in little Spanish proficiency, Spanish-monolingual contrast to occasional Yucatec-Maya grammar and schooling is an unconscionable barrier to their vocabulary lessons conducted in Spanish. Indeed, learning and a probable source of trauma. the field of applied linguistics has made great re- Based on our observations, when schools do search advances in recent decades when it comes make an effort to teach Yucatec Maya, it is often to understanding effective and appropriate teach- a ‘purist’ version of the language, which attempts ing practices, yet many classrooms worldwide to remove Spanish language influences that have ultimately do not benefit from these empirical transformed Yucatec Maya over half a millennium advances (see Freeman & Johnson, 1998). One of language contact (see Rhodes, Cahum, & Dzul, might even argue that the field has made ad- 2018). Many argue that such a purist version of vances in what we might call culturally sustaining Yucatec Maya is unintelligible to most speakers language teaching practices (Paris, 2012)— (although see Cru, 2017; Guerrettaz, 2019). examples of which include ‘language nest’ and Arguably, ‘real-life’ languaging practices in the ‘master–apprentice’ models of language revi- Yucatán are best understood through “heteroglos- talization (Hinton & Hale, 2001)—though the sic language ideologies” (Rhodes & Bloechl, 2019, gap between research and practice remains (al- p. 5). Such orientations consider multilingualism though see McCarty, Nicholas, & Wigglesworth, as “normal” and “resist ( …) bounded classifi- 2019). Language revitalization is a field that we cations of languages” (Rhodes & Bloechl, 2019, believe must be action centered, which implies p. 5) thereby accepting and affirming translan- that the broader field of applied linguistics must guaging and the outcomes of language contact, work to become more practice centered in order like Spanish borrowings in Yucatec Maya. to support these efforts. Such an institutional Considering these linguistic and human-rights- paradigm shift would involve increased valoriza- related challenges in public schooling within the tion of language revitalization activities, including Yucatán, one cannot help but recall that many, pedagogical, political, and relational work. though not all, language revitalizationists have Such a paradigm shift also requires that the long questioned the utility of formal schooling locus of power move away from ‘traditional in efforts to revitalize and reclaim originary academic experts’ to the originary community languages (see Canché Teh, 2014; Hornberger, itself. This is the second component of the action- 2008). Along these lines, addressing the perennial based plans that we wish to see and experience gap between community and formal schooling more of in Yucatec-Maya language politics and is at the center of what we view as the action revitalization. The central importance of local 516 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020) agents is widely acknowledged in the language from ‘mainstream’ applied linguistics: this is revitalization literature, yet academic and other what we consider an ontological gap in the field institutionalized projects in the Yucatán often fall (also see Kubota, 2016). This is not so much short on this regard, in our experience. In the Yu- the case in other closely related disciplines, catán, many revitalizationists—such as Irma and like (critical) anthropology, cultural studies, Miguel Oscar—who have close ties to Yucatec- Indigenous studies, and area studies (e.g., Latin Maya-speaking communities are frequently American studies, African studies, American pushed to the peripheries or made absent from studies, and more). Such disciplines have largely governmental and academic revitalization efforts. been keenly aware for decades now of a great Broader sociopolitical dynamics that shape these diversity of social identity paradigms that exist hierarchies are difficult to change. Nonetheless, in the world, including those that differ from within the field of language revitalization itself, Euro-Western paradigms such as ‘race’ and ‘eth- we urgently feel and see on the ground that such nicity.’ Thus, language revitalization and the change is needed, especially considering how aforementioned related disciplines are areas important the Yucatec-Maya language is for local where applied linguistics has room to improve understandings of personhood. its epistemological grounding and expand its transdisciplinary reach (see also the Douglas Fir DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Group, 2016). Such expansion has the potential to offer radically new understandings of core con- The LOPI framework presented in the anchor cepts in our field, such as language, identity, and article offers language education scholars and learning. practitioners with much-needed direction for A prime example of this is how the notion language revitalization and reclamation work. of personhood—derived from our work in In- Inspired by their sophisticated yet practical digenous studies—allows us in this commentary framework, in this commentary article we (a) article to reconceptualize the construct of ‘In- call for a new or renewed focus on pedagogical digenous’ identity. Moreover, considering the and political action within applied linguistics notion of personhood as a way of understanding especially regarding originary languages, and (b) humanity, this construct also serves as an impor- invite readers to rethink and even problematize tant reminder that language rights are ultimately the notion of ‘Indigenous’ identity. human rights. Indeed, language revitalization Regarding the first point above, academic projects are closely tied to our humanity, as citi- power structures often offer little support for zens of the world and of local communities—in the day-to-day realities of the language teach- that language reclamation and education in ers and learners that applied linguistics aims originary languages are a means of acknowledg- to serve,8 particularly in originary language ing those whose very humanity has often been communities. This is paradoxical—if not a bit unconscionably disregarded. hypocritical—given that our field often defines Looking outside the Yucatán, we are similarly itself as one that is dedicated to “dealing with the struck by terms that several ‘Indigenous’ commu- practical problems” (International Association of nities have historically used to refer to themselves, Applied Linguistics, n.d.) and “real world” chal- which foreground shared humanity—unlike lenges related to language (Applied Linguistics, Euro-Western paradigms of race and ethnicity. 2020). For example, the Ojibwe term and Regarding the second point above, any time the Haida word Haida are respectively used by that one joins efforts to revitalize an ‘Indigenous’ each group in self-reference, and both mean language, one must consider what exactly this ‘the humans’ in each language (respectively, and other parallel identity labels (e.g., Aborigi- Anishinaabe, 2005; Vaillant, 2009, p. 56). Sim- nal, Native) mean in the context in question, in ilarly, speakers of Spokane Salish report: “If part because such social identity considerations someone asked, ‘what are you?’ - we would say have profound political and practical implica- ˇcn sqélixʷ [meaning] ‘I am a human being’” tions. Thus, we would suggest that a LOPI-based (M. Wynne, personal communication, February approach to language revitalization also involves 26, 2020; Wynne, 2015).9 Language learning the following question: How is social identity often affords new cultural and linguistic insights, constructed locally, especially with regards to the thereby representing a journey in discovering concept of Indigeneity? what it means to be human. For language re- Paradigms of identity that differ from those vitalization efforts in particular, such language prevailing in the West may seem disconnected learning journeys are particularly significant Perspectives 517 opportunities to (re)define personhood in local Similarly, we believe that many experiences that Irma terms. has with the language are representative of those of speakers who have been born and raised in rural areas. 7 ‘Karina’ is a pseudonym. 8 Aspects of our critique are perhaps most relevant to ACKNOWLEDGMENTS the national and regional contexts with which we are most familiar, namely areas of Mexico and the United Washington State University (WSU) funded some States. 9 of the research by Anne Marie Guerrettaz that is ref- We thank Mel M. Engman and Martha Bigelow for erenced in this article and other travels that fostered these insights regarding Ojibwe and Haida languages, collaborations among the three authors. WSU Pullman respectively. is located on the ancestral homelands of the Palus people and on the ceded lands of the Nimíipuu (Nez Perce) Tribe. Much of the academic work and writing that made this article possible happened on those REFERENCES lands. The Universidad de Oriente (UNO) also funded travels that made this article possible. The authors also thank Ken Lokensgard, Brian McNeill, Melodi Wynne, Anishinaabe. (2005). The Ojibwe Peoples Dictionary. and WSU’s Center for Native American Research and Accessed 22 February 2020 at https://ojibwe.lib. Collaboration as well the Mestizo Collaborative for umn.edu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=anishin their enduring support and insights. Additionally, aabe&commit=Search&type=ojibwe the authors are grateful to Carolina Silva and Nancy Applied Linguistics. (2020). About “Applied Linguistics.” Carvajal Medina for their collaboration. Accessed 21 February 2020 at https://academic. Dyoos bo’otik xan tu xoknáalilo’ob UNO lek u tsikbaltik oup.com/applij/pages/About to’on ba’ax u yoojelo’ob yéetel u yáantiko’on múul tuukul Armstrong–Fumero, F. (2009). Old jokes and new multi- yóoklal ba’ax ku yúuchul yéetel in maaya t’aano’on. [Un culturalisms: Continuity and change in vernacular agradecimiento a los estudiantes de la UNO por compartir sus discourse on the Yucatec Maya language. American experiencias con nosotros y crear un clima de reflexión en torno Anthropologist, 111, 360–372. a nuestra lengua maya.] ‘With thanks to UNO students Astor–Aguilar, M. (2018). Maya-Mesoamerican polyon- for sharing their experiences with us and for creating a tologies: Breath and Indigenous American vital reflective environment around our Maya language.’ essences. In M. Astor–Aguilar & G. Harvey (Eds.), Rethinking relations and animism: Personhood and ma- teriality (pp. 133–155). New York: Routledge. Astor–Aguilar, M. & Harvey, G. (Eds.). (2018). Rethink- NOTES ing relations and animism: Personhood and materiality. New York: Routledge. 1 We use an English translation of the commonly used Berkeley, A. R. (2001). Respecting Maya language re- Spanish term estadounidense here, to avoid ethnocentri- vitalization. Linguistics and Education, 12, 345– cally using American (americano) to refer just to the por- 366. tion of the Americas that is the United States. Bird–David, N. (2018). Persons or relatives? Animistic 2 In English we capitalize the identity term Indigenous, scales of practice and imagination. In M. Astor– in line with common practice in Indigenous studies. Aguilar & G. Harvey (Eds.), Rethinking relations In Spanish, Yucatec Maya, and Yucatec-Maya–Spanish and animism: Personhood and materiality (pp. 25–34) translanguaging, we use lowercase for identity terms New York: Routledge. (e.g., indígena), in line with academic publishing con- Canché Teh, B. F. (2014). Uso, actitudes y aprendizaje del ventions for these languages. maya en la UIMQRoo [Use, attitudes, and learn- 3 In the state of the peninsula (Yucatán State) where ing of Maya in the UIMQRoo]. (Doctoral disser- Irma and Miguel Oscar live, 30% of residents is esti- tation). Retrieved from Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa mated to speak Yucatec Maya (Instituto Nacional de Es- (B 13087-2014). tadística y Geografía, 2010). Canul, H. C. (2011). La vitalidad del maaya t’aan: Estu- 4 The term indígena has different connotations in dio etnográfico de la comunicación intergeneracional de other varieties of Spanish that seem to be more positive los mayas de Naranjal Poniente [The vitality of Yu- and empowering than those in Yucatán Spanish—a vari- catec Maya: An ethnographic study of intergener- ety of Mexican Spanish. ational communication among Naranjal Poniente 5 Meaning, one may or may not necessarily be an ex- Mayas]. La Paz, Bolivia: FunPROEIB Andes. pert speaker of the language in question in order for it Cocom, J. A. C., Cal, Á., & Rodríguez, T. R. (2015). to be a significant dynamic of one’s identity. El tsikbal: Paradigma de investigación maya [El 6 One reason we describe Miguel Oscar’s experiences tsikbal “Dialogic conversation”: A paradigm of is because we believe that they are representative of Yucatec Maya research]. In E. M. Canul Gón- those of many other urban speakers of Yucatec Maya. gora (Ed.), Diálogos e intersaberes: Interculturalidad 518 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020)

y vida cotidiana [Dialogues and inter-knowledges: (Eds.), Indigenous language revitalization in the Amer- Inter-culturalism and daily life] (pp. 20–46). icas (pp. 57–75). New York: Routledge. Chetumal, Mexico: Malú de Balam Publicaciones. Hornberger, N. H. (Ed.). (2008). Can schools save Indige- Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social nous languages? Policy and practice on four continents. change. New York: Cambridge University Press. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Costa, A. L, & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a Hornberger, N. H. (2014). “Until I became a profes- critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51, 49–51. sional, I was not, consciously, Indigenous”: One Cru, J. (2017). Bilingual rapping in Yucatán, Mexico: intercultural bilingual educator’s trajectory in In- Strategic choices for Maya language legitimation digenous language revitalization. Journal of Lan- and revitalisation. International Journal of Bilingual guage, Identity & Education, 13, 283–299. Education and Bilingualism, 20, 481–496. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2010). Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary frame- Diversidad [Diversity]. In Cuéntame …información work for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Lan- por entidad [Tell me … Information according guage Journal, 100 (Supplement 2016), 19–47. to identity group]. Accessed 22 February 2020 Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical at http://www.cuentame.inegi.org.mx/mono and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened grafias/informacion/yuc/poblacion/diversidad. languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. aspx?tema=me&e=31 Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualiz- Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2015). ing the knowledge-base of language teacher edu- Lenguas indígenas en México y hablantes (de 3 años y cation. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417. más) al 2015 [Indigenous languages in Mexico and Gabbert, W. (2001). Social categories, ethnicity and the speakers (of 3 years and older) in 2015]. Accessed state in Yucatán, Mexico. Journal of Latin American 14 February 2020 at http://cuentame.inegi. Studies, 33, 459–484. org.mx/hipertexto/todas_lenguas.htm García, M. E. (2005). Making Indigenous citizens: Identi- Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas. (2015). Las ties, education, and multicultural development in Peru. 364 variantes de las lenguas indígenas nacionales, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. con algún riesgo de desaparecer: INALI [The 364 Glaskin, K. (2012). Anatomies of relatedness: Consider- varieties of national Indigenous languages, at risk ing personhood in Aboriginal Australia. American of disappearing]. Accessed 14 February 2020 at Anthropologist, 114, 297–308. https://www.inali.gob.mx/comunicados/451-las- Guerrettaz, A. M. (2013). Yucatec Maya teacher education 364-variantes-de-las-lenguas-indigenas-nacionales- and the struggle for a standard language (Unpub- con-algun-riesgo-de-desaparecer-inali.html lished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, International Association of Applied Linguis- Bloomington, IN. tics/Association Internationale de Linguistique Guerrettaz, A. M. (2019). Yucatec Maya language plan- Appliquée. (n.d.). What is AILA: Mission and activ- ning and the struggle of the linguistic standardiza- ities. Accessed 22 February 2020 at https://aila. tion process. International Journal of the Sociology of info/about/ Language, 260, 61–83. King, K. (2001). Language revitalization processes and Guerrettaz, A. M. (2020). “We are the mayas”: Indige- prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes. Cleve- nous language revitalization, identification, and don, UK: Multilingual Matters. postcolonialism in the Yucatan, Mexico. Linguistics King, L. (1994). Roots of identity: Language and liter- and Education. acy in Mexico. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Gustafson, B., Guerrero, F. J., & Jiménez, A. (2016). Pol- Press. icy and politics of language revitalization in Latin Kubota, R. (2016). The multi/plural turn, postcolonial America and the Caribbean. In T. McCarty & S. theory, and neoliberal multiculturalism: Complic- Coronel–Molina (Eds.), Indigenous language revital- ities and implications for applied linguistics. Ap- ization in the Americas (pp. 35–54). New York: Rout- plied Linguistics, 37, 474–494. ledge. McCarty, T. L. (2016). Policy and politics of language Hansson, K., & Lindh, K. (2018). The hamburgers in revitalization in the USA and Canada. In T. L. Mc- the fridge: An interview with Professor Nikolas Carty & S. Coronel–Molina (Eds.), Indigenous lan- Rose about interdisciplinary collaboration, neuro- guage revitalization in the Americas (pp. 15–34). New science and critical friendship. Culture Unbound: York: Routledge. Journal of Current Cultural Research, 10, 115–122. McCarty, T. L., & Coronel–Molina, S. (Eds.). (2016). In- Heath, S. B. (1972). Telling tongues: Language policy in digenous language revitalization in the Americas.New Mexico; Colony to nation. New York: Teachers Col- York: Routledge. lege Press. McCarty, T. L., Nicholas, S. E., & Wigglesworth, G. Hinton, L., & Hale, K. (Eds.). (2001). The green book (Eds.). (2019). A world of Indigenous languages: Poli- of language revitalization in practice. Boston, MA: tics, pedagogies and prospects for language reclamation. Brill. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hinton, L., & Meek, B. (2016). Language acquisi- McDonald, J. P. (1989). When outsiders try to change tion, shift, and revitalization processes in the USA schools from the inside. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 206– and Canada. In T. McCarty & S. Coronel–Molina 212. Perspectives 519

Ortega, A., Urla, J., Amorrortu, E., Goirigolzarri, J., & Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research Uranga, B. (2015). Linguistic identity among new and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London, UK: Zed speakers of Basque. International Journal of the Soci- Books. ology of Language, 215, 85–105. Stoll, L., & Thomson, M. (1996). Moving together: Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A A partnership approach to improvement. In P. needed change in stance, terminology, and prac- Earley, B. Fidler, & J. Ouston (Eds), Improvement tice. Educational Researcher, 41, 93–97. through inspection? Complementary approaches to school Rhodes, C. R., & Bloechl, C. (2019). Speaking Maya, development. London: David Fulton. being Maya: Ideological and institutional medi- Swaffield, S. (2008). Critical friendship, dialogue and ations of language in contemporary Yucatan. In learning in the context of leadership for learn- S. D. Brunn & R. Kehrein (Eds.), Handbook of the ing. School Leadership and Management, 28, 323– changing world language map (pp. 861–883). Cham, 336. Switzerland: Springer. Vaillant, J. (2009). The Golden Spruce: A True Story of Myth, Rhodes, C. R., Cahum, I. Y. P., & Dzul, M. O. C. (2018). Madness and Greed. United States: Knopf Canada. Exploración lexicográfica de seis diccionarios del Wynne, M. (2015, February). A perspective from the maya yucateco [Lexicographical exploration of six Spokane Tribe. In A. M. Guerrettaz & G. Ernst– Yucatec Maya dictionaries]. Estudios de Lingüística Slavit (Chairs), Indigenous perspectives and method- Aplicada, 36, 9–57. ologies. Discussion session conducted at the Glob- Sahlins, M. (2011). What kinship is (part one). Journal alization, Diversity and Education Conference. of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17, 2–19. Spokane, WA.

Languages Ideologies and Practice From the Land and the Classroom SAMANTHA DISBRAY University of Queensland, Australia ROSEMARY PLUMMER Community Language Educator and Activist, Tennant Creek, Northern Territory, Australia BARBARA MARTIN Warlpiri Education and Training Trust, Yuendumu, Northern Territory, Australia

Ideologies of language and of learning are local, right to speak a language and the associated goals underpinned and shaped by shared historical and set in response to community needs and perspec- current spiritual, cultural, social, and political tives. In the larger effort of reclaiming language, understandings and experiences. We are keenly identity, and power, schools may or may not be pri- reminded of this in Henne–Ochoa et al.’s posi- ority sites. With gratitude to the authors for shar- tion paper. Contesting language ideologies that ing their thoughtful critique and practice from privilege language-as-code at the expense of social our positions as educators, in this short response practices, the authors put forward alternative ide- we reflect on language ideologies and the chal- ological frames to center Indigenous conceptions lenges of decolonizing classrooms in Australia. of language, learning, and language reclamation. We are Rosemary Narrurlu Plummer, a Waru- They open our eyes wider to learning—and mungu educator and poet, Barbara Napanangka to learning in informal contexts. They draw Martin, a member of the Warlpiri Education and our attention to ideologies dominant in formal Training Trust and retired Warlpiri educator, and schooling settings, and the colonizing prac- Samantha Disbray, a non-Aboriginal education tices they perpetuate, while acknowledging that linguist. For more than a decade, we have worked schools have played, and will continue to play, a individually and together in Central Australia crucial role in Indigenous language revitalization on language teaching and learning in schools (p. 487). (Anderson et al., 2018; Disbray & Martin, 2018; In approaching this response, we learned of O’Shannessy et al., 2019) and in informal con- Leonard’s (2012) language reclamation frame- texts (Disbray & Bauer, 2016; Disbray & Guenther, work: the larger effort by a community to claim its 2017; Disbray et al., 2019). 520 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020)

EVERYTHING COMES FROM AND GOES recognise the holistic understanding of a people’s BACK TO THE LAND way of living, the connectivity of past–present– future, belonging and the connectivity of all the Co-author Martin, Warlpiri educator, bilingual living organisms on their country. (Joachim, 2019) education advocate, and scholar, shares her conceptualization of language-as-being, stating, Such language ideologies, with their con- “I don’t ‘speak’ Warlpiri, I ‘am’ Warlpiri.” In nections to tracts of country, descent-based Martin’s account of Warlpiri language genesis custodianship and set within social, spiritual, and and custodianship, the Warlpiri landscape and its multilingual practice, are distinct from Western, features were brought into existence by the trav- particularly Anglo, conceptions of ‘language’; els of ancestral beings moving across the country compartmentalized and ever needing the re- 1 in the Jukurrpa ‘Dreaming,’ naming places and minder that language and culture go together. speaking Warlpiri as they went, then descending Nevertheless, the recently released Framework into the ground (for an exploration of the term for Aboriginal Languages and Torres Strait Islander Dreaming, see Green, 2012). They, like languages, Languages (ACARA, 2019a), does seek to rec- eternally inhabit the country. Those born or con- ognize and reconcile these frames. Indeed, it ceived upon the country belong to it. Plummer’s articulates an ideological frame, which under- account of Warumungu genesis resonates with pins a de facto language policy. We ask, how this Warlpiri one. The land, languages, and social well can they be reconciled, in words and in order are lasting, as Martin (in Disbray & Martin, action? 2018) wrote:

We are talking about living culture ‘warnkaru.’ It’s WORDS OF RECONCILIATION, ACTS OF alive in the country and in each person. There are RECONCILIATION: ABORIGINAL AND proper ways to act and live and move in places, TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER LANGUAGES IN that show that everything is connected—law, land, SCHOOLS country, songs, people and language. When we are on country, the right person or right skin2 must The Framework (ACARA, 2019a) is the first call to the spirits, we call it ‘wintaru’—calling to the national curriculum for traditional Australian spirits. (p. 37; footnote in original) languages (Disbray, 2019) and drives current sup- port for language teaching, learning, and mainte- Arrernte Elder Mary Margaret Turner set nance through Indigenous-language-as-a-second- out similar connections in a system, where “ev- language (ILSL) programs, and somewhat less erything comes from the land” (Turner, 2005, enthusiastically, Indigenous-language-as-a-first- p. 1) and Jawoyn man David Mowaljarlai ex- language (ILFL) programs (Disbray, 2016). plained the core of language and land custo- Developed in consultation with Indigenous dianship as “everything goes back to the land” educators across the country, their language ide- (quoted in Rumsey, 1993, p. 204). Describing ologies represented the Framework’s “Rationale” language ideologies among Arrernte and Jawoyn, (ACARA, 2019b): non-Aboriginal anthropologist Rumsey (1993) wrote of ancestral beings, often multilingual Each language is unique to the Country/Place on themselves, who encountered speakers of other which it arose ( …) [giving] voice to the landscapes, languages in this creation time. The sites at thoughts and ways of seeing and interpreting the which they met and interacted signify and mark world, [while encompassing] the relationships boundaries: of Dreamings, of moiety groups, of of these people with one another and with the countries, songs, and languages. Through these landscape, past, present and future. Learning a enduring acts of sociality and relationality, are language incorporates the realities of its people and links between people and languages, grounded facilitates students’ deep engagement with knowl- in the landscape, yet “languages were already edge, ways of being and ways of knowing. ( …) The placed on the landscape before any people came ongoing and necessary revival, maintenance, and development of these languages also contributes to on the scene” (Rumsey, 1993, p. 204). reconciliation. Finally, Ebony Joachim, a young language champion for the revival of her language Yorta Yorta similarly expressed the enduring nature of The “Rationale” includes statements from these links: Indigenous educators, such as Deminhimpuk Francella Bunduck (Murrinhpatha), a teacher Language and culture come hand in hand. They in a remote mother-tongue bilingual program belong to each other. Without both, it is hard to (Bunduck & Ward, 2019), and Taylor Power, a Perspectives 521

Kaurna teacher in an urban language revival DECOLONIZING LEARNING IN setting. In Power’s words (ACARA, 2019b): CLASSROOMS

To me, teaching Kaurna means sinking my toes into Martin and her colleagues in the four Warlpiri this sacred soil and embracing who I am. It means communities teach and advocate for bilingual ed- being so proud of my language and culture that I ucation in their communities (Minutjukur et al., want to share it with whoever wants to listen, learn 2014; O’Shannessy et al., 2019). We consider the and be a part of my journey. decolonizing moves within this program as a first Ngathaitya, ngathu Kaurna Warra nguthu-atpama, site of exploration. Initially, the Northern Terri- ngai tidna kuinyunta yartangka ngatpanthi. Naku’athu, tory Bilingual Education Program was designed yailty’athu ngana ngai tiyati. Ngai kararrinthi ngaityu as an early-transfer bilingual model in the 1970s; warraku, ngaityu tapa purrunaku kuma. Ngai pad- however, as more teachers were trained and a lurninthi ngaityu warra pirrki-apititya ngapidluku, professional network formed, their goals for ngana padlurninthi yuringkarnititya, tirkatitya, ku- their school programs crystalized into a broader mangka ngathaityangka padnititya. program of Indigenization (or decolonization) through curriculum, pedagogy, and leadership The words are right, but for various reasons (Disbray & Devlin, 2017; Stockley et al., 2019; reconciliation and realization are difficult to Yunupingu, 1990). By developing local curricu- achieve. There has been a history of teaching lum, teachers crafted content expressing local some of the over 300 languages of Australia; knowledge, relationships, and knowledge systems however, for most there is a massive implemen- (Disbray & Martin, 2018; Marika, 1998, 1999; tational task ahead—in terms of support for Marika–Mununggiritj & Christie, 1995; Marika– schools and communities in adult language Mununggiritj, 2002) and literacy workers created learning, staff training and remuneration, com- rich collections of literature, emergent and dis- munity engagement for protocols, creation of tinct, in first languages (Christie et al., 2014; individual languages syllabus and teaching mate- Gale, 1994). Indigenous pedagogies developed rials, and prioritizing and timetabling planning that intersect with ways of organizing knowledge and teaching (First Languages Australia, 2018). and learning experience. Strong elements of On the ground, power must shift, and those programs include country visits, lasting from a in institutions must make space for the real- day to a week, involving Elders, family members, ization of ideological frames articulated in the and school staff (Disbray & Guenther, 2017; Framework. Fogarty, 2013). Government policy swings have Seizing the ideological and implementational repeatedly threatened the bilingual program space (Hornberger, 2005) to allow the emergence (Nicholls, 2005), driven hard most recently by and enactment of authentic pedagogies present standardized English language test regimes (Dev- in Australian schools settings, distinct from the as- lin, 2011; Simpson, Caffery, & McConvell, 2010). sembly line of instruction (Henne–Ochoa et al.), Moreover, local policy, in particular the power of is complex. The Framework has some promise, individual principals, can pose equal or greater with the broader framing of language learning in threat (Hoogenraad, 2001). However, Indige- the National Curriculum as: nous educators and communities have protested, and some have triumphed (Freeman et al., 2017; 1. extending capability to communicate and Nganbe, 2019; Ross & Baarda, 2017). Currently to understand linguistic and cultural sys- only a handful of schools operate bilingual pro- tems grams, including two in the Warlpiri region. 2. enhancing analytic, reflective, creative, and The fight for bilingual programs continues, with critical thinking, which goes well beyond limited action from government. learning words for things in other lan- As another example, Maningrida College, an guages elementary–secondary remote Arnhem Land 3. developing in the learner intra- and in- school in the Northern Territory has a long tercultural understanding and respect history of bilingual education and a strong Abo- for diverse experiences and perspectives. riginal staff in classrooms and in the school’s (ACARA, 2019b) Lúrra Language and Culture Centre. The school But once again, these are words. We look to community strives for local and culturally rele- some leaders sharing their craft to see their re- vant real-world curriculum and pedagogy, with alization of relational and situated learning in learning on and off country, in students’ first lan- schools. We select three sites for this. guages (Godinho et al., 2017; Townsend, 2006). 522 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020)

In a recent collaboration, Lúrra Language and First term is local history—looking at our home Culture Centre staff, teachers, a teacher linguist, before and after contact, trying to build a picture for and a department linguist, along with medical re- our students that we have always been here, and to searchers and community clinic staff, developed a get the students to realise that what is around them unit of work on acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and now is not the way it has always been ( …) [The forced movement of people] can be confronting rheumatic heart disease (RHD) (TakeHeartTV, for some of our students, so we try to do it in age- 2018). These are common and dangerous condi- appropriate ways and sensitive to the community. In tions found in remote Australia (Mitchell et al., one regard we’re trying to build up our kids from 2019). First, so that educators and students would the inside out and say, ‘Look, this is who you are, this fully understand the information, the collabora- is your strength,’ and in order to do that we need to tors developed verbal messages and visual meth- face those hard truths that make up our history. ods to effectively communicate accurate medical information. Next, the school staff devised a range Term 2 we look more specifically at kinship. Term of staged activities and accompanying resources 3 is Gurugulu, which is our dry season. We talk about bush tucker, hunting, weather and anything for different levels of the school, from primary that’s connected to the theme of seasons. That’s to secondary school, and in the community—all a really good term because we spend a lot of time in first languages. These included activities tode- outside the classroom, and working on a walking velop vocabulary and understanding of how the trail we’re re-establishing. In Term 4 we look at arts heart functions, how germs and white blood cells and artefacts from Yarrabah and the wet tropics area act, how medicines support white blood cells, how because there’s a lot of material culture that’s been to recognize the symptoms of RHD, and how treat- developed by different groups up here, things like ment fights the disease. Teaching and learning shields, boomerangs, head-dresses. It’s really handy involved carrying out echograms on hand-held having our Arts and Crafts Centre just down the devices to understand diagnosis, and students road from the high school. We connect with them, and also look at contemporary art, e.g. photography, created videos, labeled diagrams, community pottery, canvas painting, woven baskets. (quoted in posters, t-shirt designs, and songs, all with rich Angelo & Poetsch, 2019, p. 18) oral language cultivated by teaching staff to com- municate concepts and by students to enquire Like the previous examples, Schrieber’s prac- and display their knowledge to and for their com- tice is broad and locally situated, encompassing munity (RHD Australia, 2018). The Maningrida relationships in histories, places, and past and College team show us that responsive and pedago- present practice. gies can emerge in school settings through mean- ingful and collaborative social learning processes. CLOSING, AND KEEPING GOING Aboriginal teachers in newer programs, smaller programs, and in diverse language ecolo- Communities across Australia are working gies (Angelo & Poetsch, 2019) also push back to hard to reclaim their languages, learning, and decolonize the spaces they teach in and realize socialization in and out of schools. For Rosemary their community goals for language reclamation. Plummer, there are no boundaries to her and her Nathan Schrieber teaches Gunggay language and community’s endeavors to reclaim Warumungu. culture on Gunggay country in his community, In her family, she lives her daily life speaking Yarrabah, in tropical Far North Queensland, near her traditional language, as well as local ways of Cairns. He explained: talking, which embrace Warumungu language and being (Morrison & Disbray, 2008). She uses I let the Principal know that for the program to traditional medicines to heal, and contemporary run well, the school would need to let go of it and media, such as radio and the arts to model for it would need to be built up from the community. and reach family and others (Disbray et al., 2019). He left it in my hands. I needed to consult with At home and in the school programs she teaches community, our Elders. They were very aware of the in Tennant Creek, along with other Warumungu language situation in terms of (limited) daily use teachers, such as colleague and kinswoman of the language and in terms of what information Annie Morrison, they share knowledge of Waru- we had. We were faced with all these challenges. mungu history, language, and the knowledge (quoted in Angelo & Poetsch, 2019, p. 17) it holds; of country, seasons and animals, and stories learnt from family. Through songs and Challenges included the development of re- stories, they teach Warumungu-heritage children sources and local curriculum, which Schrieber and young people, those from other Aboriginal and community Elders developed and deliver to- countries and languages, and non-Aboriginal gether, in a theme-based learning teaching cycle: students, aware of the different understandings Perspectives 523 they bring to and take from their classes. Waru- ACARA. (2019b). Rationale. Accessed 20 February mungu students connect to and build on their 2020 at https://www.australiancurriculum.edu. knowledge, their country, and (extended and au/f-10-curriculum/languages/framework-for- classificatory) family. Those from other countries aboriginal-languages-and-torres-strait-islander- think about and make links to their languages, languages/rationale/ Anderson, L., Andrews, T., Gibson, F., Kantawara, M., country, and families. Non-Aboriginal students Martin, B., Oldfield, Y., … Hall, L. (2018). We learn new ideas, and learn about Warumungu always stay: Stories from seven remarkable Aboriginal country and its history and people, through lan- teachers in remote Australia. Batchelor, Northern Ter- guage. All can see and hear Warumungu country ritory: Batchelor Institute. more keenly, in and out of the classroom. Angelo, D. & Poetsch, S. (2019). From the ground up: There are many challenges for communities, How Aboriginal language teachers design school- their languages, and custodians in reclaiming based programs in their local language ecology, languages. Institutions such as schools often with Carmel Ryan, Marmingee Hand, Nathan pose more challlenges than they do affordances. Schrieber and Michael Jarrett. Babel: Special Issue However, there are signs of reconciliation of Teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Lan- guages, 54, 11–20. Indigenous and non-Indigenous language ide- Bunduck, D. F., & Ward, T. (2019). The program at Wad- ologies, at least at the level of discourse in eye, past and present. In B. Devlin, S. Disbray, & significant policy documents, such as the Aus- N. Friedman Devlin (Eds.), History of bilingual edu- tralian Curriculum. Where language learning cation in the Northern Territory: People, programs and in schools is a goal, its success lies in Aboriginal policies (pp. 285–292). Singapore: Springer. people decolonizing and reclaiming space. For Christie, M., Bow, C., Devlin, B., & Simpson, J. (2014). this, language custodians on the ground must The living archive of Aboriginal languages.Darwin: lead these endeavors, with their leadership em- Charles Darwin University, The Northern Insti- braced by non-Indigenous people in the space, tute. guided by the (de facto) policy from above. The Devlin, B. (2011). The status and future of bilingual education for remote Indigenous students in the exemplars detailed above show the potential and northern territory. Australian Review of Applied Lin- realization of reclamation in education spaces. guistics, 34, 260–279. Disbray, S. (2016). Spaces for learning: Policy and prac- tice for indigenous languages in a remote context. Language and Education, 30, 317–336. NOTES Disbray, S. (2019). Realising the Australian curriculum framework for Aboriginal languages and Torres 1 Jukurrpa is used here to evoke one sense of this Strait Islander Language. Babel, 54, 21–25. Warlpiri term and its common English translation, Disbray, S., & Bauer, R. (2016). A place to learn and ‘Dreaming,’ acknowledging that they are shorthand for work: Yuendumu learning centre. Learning Com- complex cultural meanings (see Green, 2012). In its munities: International Journal of Learning in Social sense here, it refers to the creative time of ancestral be- Contexts, 19, 26–45. ings, and their enduring acts and stories. Disbray, S., & Devlin, B. (2017). Consolidation, power 2 ‘Skin’ is a classificatory moiety system. There are through leadership and pedagogy, and the rise of eight skin groups, with eight male names and eight fe- accountability, 1980–1998. In B. Devlin, S. Disbray, male names. Every Warlpiri person has a skin name & N. Friedman Devlin (Eds.), History of bilingual ed- through their mother and father. This links all Warlpiri ucation in the Northern Territory: People, programs and through as classificatory kin, such as mother and father policies (pp. 101–112). Singapore: Springer. and also husband and wife, and so the skin system pre- Disbray, S., & Guenther, J. (2017). Review, assess- scribes relationships between people. Patri- and matri- ment and development of future options for the moiety groups are linked to places, sites and Dream- Warlpiri Education and Training Trust (WETT) and ings belonging to a skin group. Many other Aboriginal its programs: Final report. Accessed 18 February groups across Australia share similar skin systems. 2020 at https://www.clc.org.au/files/pdf/WETT- review-report-2017.pdf Disbray, S., & Martin, B. (2018). Curriculum as knowl- edge system: The Warlpiri theme cycle. In G. REFERENCES Wigglesworth, J. Simpson, & J. Vaughan (Eds.), From home to school: Language practices of In- ACARA. (2019a). Framework for Aboriginal languages and digenous and minority children. London: Palgrave Torres Strait Islander languages. Accessed 20 Febru- MacMillan. ary 2020 at https://www.australiancurriculum. Disbray, S., Plummer, R., Morrison, S., & Morrison, R. edu.au/f-10-curriculum/languages/framework-for- (2019). Ankkinyi Apparr, Ankkyiny Mangurr. In aboriginal-languages-and-torres-strait-islander- N. Cumpston (Ed.), Tarnanthi Festival of Contem- languages/ porary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art 201 524 The Modern Language Journal 104 (2020)

(pp. 206–211). Adelaide: Art Gallery of South Aus- Mitchell, A. G., Belton, S., Johnston, V., Gondarra, tralia. W., & Ralph, A. P. (2019). “That heart sick- First Languages Australia. (2018). Nintiringanyi: Na- ness”: Young Aboriginal people’s understanding tional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lan- of rheumatic fever. Medical Anthropology, 38,1– guages teaching and employment strategy. Accessed 14. 20 February 2020 at https://www.firstlanguages. Morrison, B., & Disbray, S. (2008). Warumungu chil- org.au/resources/nintiringanyi dren and language in Tennant Creek. In R. Fogarty, W. (2013). Country as classroom. In J. Altman Amery & J. Nash (Eds.), Warra wiltaniappendi & S. Kerins (Eds.), People on country: Vital land- = Strengthening languages. Proceedings of the Inau- scapes, Indigenous futures (pp. 82–93). Annandale, gural Indigenous Languages Conference (ILC) 2007 Australia: The Federation Press. (pp. 107–111). South Australia: University of Ade- Freeman,L.,Bell,N.,Andrews,T.,&Gallagher,P. laide. (2017). The Areyonga case: Utulu Kutju Nin- Nganbe, T. N. (2019). Defending our program at Wad- tiringanyi ‘learning together.’ In B. Devlin, S. eye. In B. Devlin, S. Disbray, & N. Friedman Devlin Disbray, & N. Friedman Devlin (Eds.), History of (Eds.), History of bilingual education in the Northern bilingual education in the Northern Territory: People, Territory: People, programs and policies (pp. 179–185). programs and policies (pp. 219–236). Singapore: Singapore: Springer. Springer. Nicholls, C. (2005). Death by a thousand cuts: Indige- Gale, M. (1994). Dhangu Djorra’wuy Dhawu: A brief his- nous language bilingual education programs in tory of writing in Aboriginal language. Aboriginal the Northern Territory of Australia, 1972–1998. Child at School, 22, 22–34. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Godinho, S., Woolley, M., Scholes, M., & Sutton, G. Bilingualism, 8, 160–177. (2017). Literacies for remote schools: Looking be- O’Shannessy, C., Disbray, S., Martin, B., & Macdonald, yond a one size fits all approach. Literacy Learning: G. (2019). (Re)turning research into pedagogical TheMiddleYears, 25, 28–40. practice: A case study of translational language re- Green, J. (2012). The Altyerre Story: ‘Suffering Badly by search in Warlpiri. Archival Returns: Central Aus- Translation.’ TAJA The Australian Journal of Anthro- tralia and Beyond. Language Documentation and Con- pology, 23, 158–178. servation, 18, 139–151. Hoogenraad, R. (2001). Critical reflections on the his- RHD Australia. (2018). Nurse takes home top honours tory of bilingual education in Central Australia. In for her work in Maningrida and shares how her J. Simpson, D. Nash, M. Laughren, P. Austin, & community is working to end rheumatic heart disease. B. Alpher (Eds.), Forty years on: Ken Hale and Aus- Accessed 18 February 2020 at https://www. tralian languages (pp. 123–150). Canberra: Pacific rhdaustralia.org.au/news/nurse-takes-home-top- Linguistics. honours-her-work-maningrida-and-shares-how- Hornberger, N. (2005). Opening and filling up im- her-community-working-end plementational and ideological spaces in heritage Ross, T., & Baarda, W. (2017). Starting out at Yuen- language education. Modern Language Journal, 89, dumu school: Teaching in our own language. 605–609. In B. Devlin, S. Disbray, & N. Friedman Devlin Joachim, E. (2019). Language and culture go hand in (Eds.), A history of bilingual education in the North- hand for Yorta Yorta woman Ebony Joachim. Accessed ern Territory: People, programs and policies. Singapore: 23 February 2020 at https://www.abc.net.au/ Springer. life/yorta-yorta-woman-helping-keep-language- Rumsey, R. (1993). Language and territoriality in strong/11041818 Aboriginal Australia. In M. Walsh & C. Yallop Leonard, W. Y. (2012). Framing language reclamation (Eds.), Language and culture in Aboriginal Aus- programmes for everybody’s empowerment. Gen- tralia (pp. 191–206). Canberra: Aboriginal Studies der and Language, 6, 339–367. Press. Marika, R. (1998). The 1998 Wentworth lecture. Aus- Simpson, J., Caffery, J., & McConvell, P. (2010). Main- tralian Aboriginal Studies, 1,3–9. taining languages, maintaining identities: What Marika, R. (1999). Milthun latju wanga romgu Yolŋu: bilingual education offers. In Indigenous language Valuing Yolŋu knowledge in the education system. and social identity: Papers in honour of Michael Walsh. Ngoonjook: A Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics, College of 16, 107–120. Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National Uni- Marika–Mununggiritj, R. (2002). Some notes on princi- versity. ples for Aboriginal pedagogy. Ngoonjook, 22, 44–45. Stockley, T., Ganambarr, B., Munuŋgurr, D., Marika–Mununggiritj, R., & Christie, M. (1995). Yolngu Munuŋgurr, M., Wearne, G., Wunuŋmurra, metaphors for learning. International Journal of the W. W., … Yunupiŋu, Y. (2019). The quest for com- Sociology of Language, 113, 59–62. munity control at Yirrkala school. In B. Devlin, S. Minutjukur, M., Patterson, V., Anderson, S., Gibson, F., Disbray, & N. Friedman Devlin (Eds.), History of Kitson, M., Martin, B., … Shannon, S. (2014). bilingual education in the Northern Territory: People, Voices from the ‘Red Dirt’ on education. Journal programs and policies (pp. 141–148). Singapore: of Australian Indigenous Issues, 17, 158–163. Springer. Perspectives 525

TakeHeartTV. (2018). Traditional owner takes ac- Turner, M. K. (2005). Everything comes from the tion on preventing RHD in Maningrida—Take land [chart]. Alice Springs, Australia: IAD heart. Accessed 17 February 2020 at https://www. Press. youtube.com/watch?v=I3PkemUovbs Yunupingu, M. (1990). Language and power: The Yol- Townsend, H. (2006). Studying spiders as medicinal venom ngu rise to power at Yirrkala school. In C. Walton factories. Accessed 18 February 2020 at https:// & W. Eggington (Eds.), Language: Maintenance, www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/studying-sp power and education in Australian Aboriginal contexts. iders-as-medicinal-venom-factories Darwin, Australia: NTU Press.