Pathways Forward for Indigenous Language Reclamation

Perspectives MARTHA BIGELOW, Associate Co-Editor University of Minnesota 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 Michigan, 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 language revitalization 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, British Columbia—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

Load more