DOCSLIB.ORG

Doctoral Dissertation Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Doctoral Dissertation Template UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE THE LEARNER VARIETIES OF THE CHIKASHA ACADEMY: CHICKASAW ADULT LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, CHANGE, AND REVITALIZATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By JULIET LIANE MORGAN Norman, Oklahoma 2017 THE LEARNER VARIETIES OF THE CHIKASHA ACADEMY: CHICKASAW ADULT LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, CHANGE, AND REVITALIZATION A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY BY ______________________________ Dr. Racquel-María Sapién, Chair ______________________________ Dr. Sean O’Neill ______________________________ Dr. Kimberly J. Marshall ______________________________ Dr. Marcia Haag ______________________________ Dr. Daniela Busciglio © Copyright by JULIET LIANE MORGAN 2017 All Rights Reserved. Acknowledgements The first and biggest thanks are to the Chickasaw Nation for allowing me to carry out my research with them. I especially thank the Chickasaw Language Revitalization Program, the speakers and learners, and the director, Lokosh / Joshua D. Hinson. Thank you so much, for so much. I of course also thank my committee for their time and support. Dr. Mary Linn was my original dissertation chair for the first two years of research. Her work in Oklahoma has and will continue to strongly inspire and influence me. Dr. Gus Palmer, Jr. served on my dissertation committee for four years before retiring; always a source of cheerful support. Thank you to Dr. Sean O’Neill for many incredibly intelligent research discussions. Thank you to Drs. Kimberly Marshall and Daniela Busciglio for joining the committee and your contributions to the research. Thank you to Dr. Marcia Haag for being such a wonderful teacher. Thank you, Racquel, for taking me in – you are a steadfast and socratic advisor and I have learned so much from you. I thank the National Science Foundation and National Endowment for the Humanities for supporting this research through a Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (#1500730). I also owe a huge thanks to Keli Mitchell, Anthropology staff assistant, for all her help with grant-related paperwork. While our research was not usually our purpose for getting together, I have enjoyed my Anthropology cohort: Anne, Will, Tom, Nicole, Kiley, Ali, Andy, Warren, and Donna. I feel so fortunate to have been in graduate school in Oklahoma when I did with the many wonderful people who were there during this time. Being able to experience OWNAL, ONLA, and OKBOL was very special. And finally thank you also to my husband Stephen for his many months of extra honey-do work while I researched – I love you. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. v List of Figures ................................................................................................................. vii Abstract .......................................................................................................................... viii Chapter One: Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Key Concepts in Language Shift .......................................................................... 4 1.2 A Brief Chickasaw Language Ecology .............................................................. 17 1.3 Chickasaw Language Revitalization Efforts ...................................................... 29 1.4 Profiles of Speakers and Learners ...................................................................... 41 1.5 Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................... 50 Chapter Two: Chikashshanompaꞌ ................................................................................... 54 2.1 Orthography and Phonology ............................................................................... 56 2.2 Noun Morphology .............................................................................................. 59 2.2.1 Possession .................................................................................................. 59 2.2.2 Case and Word Order ................................................................................ 62 2.2.3 Derivation .................................................................................................. 65 2.2.4 Phrase Structure ......................................................................................... 65 2.3 Verb Morphology ............................................................................................... 66 2.3.1 Agreement (I and II) .................................................................................. 67 2.3.2 Derivation .................................................................................................. 75 2.3.3 III-Dative Agreement ................................................................................ 80 2.3.4 Tense, Modality, and Aspect ..................................................................... 94 2.3.5 Negatives and Questions ........................................................................... 98 2.4 Discourse Structure .......................................................................................... 101 2.4.1 Complex Sentences ................................................................................. 101 2.4.2 Clause-level Switch-reference ................................................................. 104 2.4.3 “Paragraph-level” Switch-reference ........................................................ 113 2.5 Variation ........................................................................................................... 114 2.5.1 Agreement ............................................................................................... 115 2.5.2 Case and Word Order .............................................................................. 119 2.5.3 Switch-reference and Questions .............................................................. 121 2.6 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 122 Chapter Three: Language Change, Acquisition, and Revitalization ............................ 124 3.1 Language Change in Endangered Languages ................................................... 126 3.1.1 Contexts of Change ................................................................................. 127 3.1.2 Sources of Change ................................................................................... 132 3.1.3 Mechanisms of Change ........................................................................... 140 3.1.4 Facilitating Factors .................................................................................. 151 3.1.5 Rhetoric of Change .................................................................................. 155 3.1.6 Summary .................................................................................................. 159 3.2 Adult Language Acquisition in the Context of Language Revitalization ........ 161 3.2.1 Adult Language Acquisition .................................................................... 162 3.2.2 Reframing Acquisition Research for Language Revitalization ............... 167 3.2.3 Mediating Language Change ................................................................... 172 v 3.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 175 Chapter Four: Research Methods ................................................................................. 179 4.1 Data Collection Sites ........................................................................................ 179 4.1.1 Chikasha Academy Recordings ............................................................... 180 4.1.2 Interviews ................................................................................................ 183 4.2 Data Collection Methods .................................................................................. 184 4.2.1 Language Experience Interviews ............................................................ 184 4.2.2 Grammaticality Judgment Tasks ............................................................. 186 4.3 Data Analysis Methods and Workflow ............................................................ 188 4.3.1 Describing Chickasaw Varieties .............................................................. 188 4.3.2 Data Analysis Workflow ......................................................................... 199 Chapter Five: Discussion of Data ................................................................................. 202 5.1 Order of Acquisition ......................................................................................... 202 5.1.1 Agreement ............................................................................................... 203 5.1.2 Word Order .............................................................................................. 211 5.1.3 Case ......................................................................................................... 212 5.1.4 Negation .................................................................................................. 214 5.1.5 Tense, Mode, and Aspect
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Agenda OK Indigenous Languages Conference
    United Nations International Year of Indigenous Languages Tribal Nations in Oklahoma Working to Preserve, Protect and Revitalize Our Languages November 15 & 16, 2019 Chickasaw Cultural Center, Sulphur, Oklahoma Agenda Coffee, tea, water and light snacks will be available throughout the Conference days 1st Day: Friday, November 15th 8:00 AM Registration and Continental Breakfast 8:30 AM Opening Prayer: Stanley Smith, Chickasaw Nation 8:45 – 9:15 AM Opening Words of Welcome and Introduction to the Conference ● Honorable Jefferson Keel, Lieutenant Governor of the Chickasaw Nation ● Rodney Factor, Assistant Band Chief, Seminole Nation, Board Member, International Indian Treaty Council ● Andrea Carmen, Yaqui Nation, Executive Director, International Indian Treaty Council 9:15 – 9:45 AM The United Nations Year of Indigenous Languages: Objectives, Outcomes and plans for an International Decade • Grand Chief Ed John, Hereditary Chief of Tl’azt’en Nation, Indigenous Co-Chair of UNESCO International Year of Indigenous Languages Steering Committee (via Skype) • Kristen Carpenter, Chair of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 9:45 – 10:00 AM Questions, comments and discussion. All participants. 10:00 AM – 11:15 AM Panel 1: How did we get here? Impacts of Colonization, Historical Trauma and Current Threats to Indigenous Languages • Casey Camp, Councilwoman of the Ponca Tribe, Hereditary Drumkeeper, Ponca Scalp Dance Society, Elder and Matriarch • Rodney Factor, Assistant Band Chief Seminole Nation • Miryam Yataco, Quechua, Peru, Language Educator • Richard A. Grounds, Ph.D., Yuchi/Seminole, Yuchi Language Project • Moderator: Bineshi Albert, Yuchi/Annishinaabe, Movement Building Coordinator, Indigenous Environmental Network 11:15 – 11:45 AM Questions, comments and discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • A Model for the Implementation of Non-Formal Language Acquisition in Language Revitalization: the Case Study of Irish
    A Model for the Implementation Of Non-Formal Language Acquisition In Language Revitalization: The Case Study of Irish Anne Beltman 12299448 MA Thesis Language and Society University of Amsterdam Supervisor: prof. F. Gobbo 06-08-2019 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Prof. dr. Gobbo, my thesis supervisor, for his guidance throughout this project. In agreeing to take on this project, he has taught me a lot about sociolinguistics, but also about academia itself. I would like to thank my friends and family for all their support, for proofreading all the drafts I sent and calming me down in cases of panic. Finally, my thanks to Fien, Kim, Zach and Jenna for being there always. 2 Abstract Non-formal language acquisition (NFLA) is language acquisition that is embedded in planned activities that are not explicitly designated as learning and is intentional from the learner’s point of view (Colardyn & Bjornavold, 2004). Using existing frameworks, a model was created to test whether a threatened language has enough support to implement NFLA- based programs, in order to help revitalization of the language. To test the proposed model, it has been applied to Irish. From this case study, it can be concluded that while the model provides a good basis, there are still improvements to be made. 3 Table of contents 1. Introduction 6 1.1. Background 6 1.2. Relevance 7 1.3. Research question 8 2. Methodology 10 3. Theoretical Background 11 3.1 Non-formal language acquisition 11 3.2 Terminology 12 3.3 Language Revitalization 12 3.4 Frameworks 14 3.4.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Chickasaw Soldier Survives Attack, Completes Iraq Duty KADA
    Chickasaw Times Official publication of the Chickasaw Nation Vol. XXXIX No. 4 April 2004 Ada, Oklahoma Jared Willis latest Chickasaw Purple Heart recipient Chickasaw soldier survives attack, completes Iraq duty After nearly a year in Iraq, themselves, trying to make their beginning to improve. To protect against future at- operate normally. where he survived an explosion, own lives better.” “When we got there, they were tacks, they replaced the standard Those reinforcements almost suffered through sandstorms, Spc. E-4 Willis was among throwing money at us,” said Spc. issue window with a metal one certainly saved Spc. Barrett weathered intense heat and the members of the 1245th Willis. “The Iraqi dinars with and placed a metal cage around made the best of difficult liv- Transportation Company that Saddam’s picture, they’d just the gunner’s area, making sure See Jared Willis, page ing conditions, Jared Willis, a was deployed Feb. 10, 2003 give them to us. They’d get tired the gun could still rotate and 14 22-year-old Chickasaw soldier and returned to Ardmore, Okla., of them and it was like ‘Here.’ from Mannsville, Okla., returned March 19 of this year. “Now their money is starting home feeling U.S. efforts helped “Jared makes us all very to be worth something, since make a difference for the people proud,” said Chickasaw Na- they came out with the new di- of Iraq. tion Governor Bill Anoatubby. nars without his picture on it.” “I think their life over there is “We commend him, and all the Spc. Willis, who was a gunner getting better,” said Spc.
    [Show full text]
  • Kathrin Brandt
    A QUESTION OF LANGUAGE VITALITY? - ON INTERROGATIVES IN AN ENDANGERED CREOLE Kathrin Brandt Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität zu Köln im Fach Englische Philologie vorgelegt von Kathrin Brandt TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES IV LIST OF FIGURES VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS VII 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Creole studies 1 1.2 LanguAge endAngerment 4 1.3 Minimalist syntax and wh-questions 5 1.4 Research questions and the orgAnizAtion of this study 7 2 LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT 9 2.1 The linguistic situAtion 9 2.2 In favor of linguistic diversity 10 2.3 Models of lAnguAge loss 13 2.4 Assessing lAnguAge vitality 18 2.5 StructurAl consequences 29 3 SYNTACTIC THEORY OF INTERROGATIVES 34 3.1 Accounting for cross-linguistic vAriAtion 36 3.2 Landing sites 38 3.3 ConstrAints on wh-movement 42 3.4 Movement triggers 44 3.5 ClAuse typing 47 4 LOUISIANA CREOLE – HISTORY, SOCIOLINGUISTIC SETTING AND LINGUISTIC PROFILE 51 4.1 History 51 4.2 The genesis of LouisiAnA Creole 56 i 4.3 The sociolinguistic profile of South LouisiAnA 58 Louisiana Creole 58 Louisiana Regional French 60 Multilingual South Louisiana 61 Louisiana Creole as an endangered language 65 4.4 Selected aspects of LouisiAnA Creole grAmmAr 71 The verbal system 73 The nominal system 75 Constituent structure 77 The lexicon 80 5 METHODOLOGY 82 5.1 Field methods 82 5.2 Consultants, AnAlysis and the quAlitative approAch 91 5.3 Notation 96 6 SOCIOLINGUISTIC FINDINGS 98 6.1 DemogrAphics 98 Region 101 Education and occupation 102 6.2 LanguAge competence
    [Show full text]
  • 2) Economy, Business
    2) Economy, Business : The majority of tribes' economies rely on Casinos. There are a huge amount of Casinos in Oklahoma, more than in any other state in the USA. But they also rely on the soil resources, there are tribes who are very rich thanks to their oil resources. Natural resources After 1905 deposits of lead and zinc in the Tri-State Mining District made the Quapaws of Ottawa County some of the richest Indians of the USA. Zinc mines also left hazardous waste that still poisons parts of their lands. The Osages became known as the world's richest Indians because their “head right” system distributed the royalties from their “underground reservation” equally to the original allottees. The Osage's territory was full of oil. Gaming revenues The Chickasaw are today the richest tribe in Oklahoma thanks to their Casinos they make a lot of profit. On their website you can read : “From Bank2, Bedre Chocolates, KADA and KYKC radio stations and the McSwain Theatre to the 13 gaming centers, travel plazas and tobacco stores, the variety and prosperity of the Chickasaw Nation's businesses exemplifies the epitome of economic success!”. The Comanche Tribe derives revenue from four casinos. The Comanche Nation Casino in Lawton features a convention center and hotel and has a surface of 45,000 square feet. The others are the Red River Casino at Devol north of the Red River, and two small casinos : Comanche star casino east of Walters and Comanche Spur Casino near Elgin. Enlargements of the casinos are planned . There are smoke shops and convenience stores in the casinos.
    [Show full text]
  • MIXED CODES, BILINGUALISM, and LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requi
    BILINGUAL NAVAJO: MIXED CODES, BILINGUALISM, AND LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Charlotte C. Schaengold, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Brian Joseph, Advisor Professor Donald Winford ________________________ Professor Keith Johnson Advisor Linguistics Graduate Program ABSTRACT Many American Indian Languages today are spoken by fewer than one hundred people, yet Navajo is still spoken by over 100,000 people and has maintained regional as well as formal and informal dialects. However, the language is changing. While the Navajo population is gradually shifting from Navajo toward English, the “tip” in the shift has not yet occurred, and enormous efforts are being made in Navajoland to slow the language’s decline. One symptom in this process of shift is the fact that many young people on the Reservation now speak a non-standard variety of Navajo called “Bilingual Navajo.” This non-standard variety of Navajo is the linguistic result of the contact between speakers of English and speakers of Navajo. Similar to Michif, as described by Bakker and Papen (1988, 1994, 1997) and Media Lengua, as described by Muysken (1994, 1997, 2000), Bilingual Navajo has the structure of an American Indian language with parts of its lexicon from a European language. “Bilingual mixed languages” are defined by Winford (2003) as languages created in a bilingual speech community with the grammar of one language and the lexicon of another. My intention is to place Bilingual Navajo into the historical and theoretical framework of the bilingual mixed language, and to explain how ii this language can be used in the Navajo speech community to help maintain the Navajo language.
    [Show full text]
  • John Walsh and Bernadette O'rourke
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Heriot Watt Pure TITLE OF EDITION: John Walsh and Bernadette O’Rourke (editors). ‘Comparing “new speakers” across language contexts: mobility and motivations’. Thematic edition of Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 1 Introduction Bernadette O’Rourkea* and John Walshb aDepartment of Languages and Intercultural Studies, School of Social Sciences, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK; bSchool of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland * Department of Languages and Intercultural Studies School of Social Sciences Heriot Watt University Edinburgh EH14 4AS UK Email: b.m.a.o’[email protected] 2 Introduction In this Special Issue we describe and analyse the practices and ideologies of ‘new speakers’ of minority languages. The ‘new speaker’ label is used to describe individuals with little or no home or community exposure to a minority language but who instead acquire it through immersion or bilingual educational programmes, revitalisation projects or as adult language learners (O’Rourke, Pujolar and Ramallo 2015). Dominant discourses in linguistics and its associated strands have tended to prioritise native speech over learner varieties. In applied linguistics native speech has often been presented to learners as the only authentic and desirable variety (Davies 2003). The revitalisation of minority languages has been framed within a preservationist rhetoric often with little tolerance for linguistic innovation or transgressive practices such as code-switching, translanguaging, or hybridisation (O’Rourke and Pujolar 2013). Work on new speakers has been informed by a theoretical framework which critiques such an approach to language revitalisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating Sustainable Models of Language Documentation and Revitalization
    Colleen M. Fitzgerald Creating sustainable models of language documentation and revitalization Abstract: In the years since the alarm was raised by linguists (Hale et al. 1992) regarding the survival of many of the world’s estimated 7,000 languages, many programs have developed to support language maintenance and revitalization. These programs have been situated in both academic and tribal/grassroots insti- tutions. After at least three decades of such programs, it is clear that many of these programs do not survive. In this paper, I outline the essential properties of successful and sustainable approaches, in part drawing from my own work at the University of Texas at Arlington’s Native American Languages Lab. In analyz- ing the components of a sustainable model, I focus on collaborations primarily in the United States, in Texas and Oklahoma. This case study thus presents one exemplar of how community-based research operates in a larger regional context. This makes the case that long-term capacity building and training is essential. * This material is based upon work supported by, and conducted while serving at the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this material are tho- se of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. I would like to acknowledge the many colleagues, partners and funding sources without whose support this paper would not be possible. For the Oklahoma Breath of Life workshop activities, thanks to Co-Director Mary Linn and the National Science Foundation for grant BCS-1065068. My thanks to Jim Parrish and Teri Billie of the Choctaw Language Program and to Candessa Tehee and Roy Boney, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Chickasaw Nation
    Customer Success Story: Chickasaw Nation Public Sector | Custom Language Revitalization Preserving an endangered language to keep an ancient heritage alive A tribe with a vibrant culture Headquartered in Ada, Oklahoma, the Chickasaw Nation is the 12th largest federally recognized Indian tribe in the United States. The Nation has more than 60,000 citizens across the globe who celebrate their vibrant culture and “It is essential to revitalize our are dedicated to the preservation of their community. For centuries, the Chickasaw language and preserve language of the Chickasaw Nation was Chikashshanompa’, a Muskogean it for future generations, because language that was not formally written until the 20th century. The Nation still so much of our culture is bound recognizes its native language as a critical component of their culture and history. However, language loss has occurred over time due to forced removal in the knowledge of our language. of the Chickasaw people from their Homelands in the 1830s – 1850s, the We believe the collaboration proclamation of private and federal Indian boarding schools, and the between our fluent speakers predominance of English in daily life. and Rosetta Stone has been a significant step toward ensuring A language at risk of extinction As of the early 2000s, the Chickasaw Nation had roughly 120 fluent speakers our language is documented of their native language still living—the majority of whom were over the age of and accessible for future 55. Passionate about preserving their language and heritage, the Chickasaws generations. This relationship felt an obligation to care for their language by speaking and teaching it to their with Rosetta Stone offers an youth.
    [Show full text]
  • Purism, Variation, Change and 'Authenticity'
    This is the accepted version of an article published by Cambridge University Press in European ​ Review. Published version available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798717000400 ​ ​ Accepted version downloaded from SOAS Research Online: http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/25200/ ​ Purism, variation, change and ‘authenticity’: Ideological challenges to language revitalisation Julia Sallabank SOAS University of London Abstract 1 This paper is based on recent research into the small, highly endangered language Giernesiei 2 (Guernsey, Channel Islands). Language documentation has found unexpectedly rich variation and change in Giernesiei usage, not all of which can be accounted for by regional and age-related factors. At the same time, our research into language ideologies and efforts to maintain and revitalise Giernesiei have revealed deep-seated purist or ‘traditionalist’ language attitudes which resist and deny language change. This nostalgic view of language and culture can hyper-valorise ‘authentic’ traditions (arguably reinvented: Johnson 2013) and can lead to reluctance to share Giernesiei effectively with younger generations who might ‘change the language’, despite an overt desire to maintain it. This mismatch between ideologies and practices can be seen at language festivals, in lessons for children, and in the experiences of adult learners who were interviewed as part of a British Academy-funded project. I present a taxonomy of reactions to variation in Giernesiei, which confirms and extends the findings of Jaffe (2008) in Corsica. I also discuss recent revitalisation efforts which try to bring together older and ‘new’ speakers and promote the role of adult learners and ‘re-activate’ semi-speakers. The findings support the view that full evaluation of language vitality should include documenting the processes and ideologies of language revitalisation (Sallabank 2012; Austin and Sallabank 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Language Ideology, Linguistic Differentiation, and Language Maintenance in the California
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Language Ideology, Linguistic Differentiation, and Language Maintenance in the California Mixtec Diaspora A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics by Anna C. Bax Committee in charge: Professor Mary Bucholtz, Chair Professor Eric W. Campbell Professor Lal Zimman Professor Gabriela Pérez Báez, University of Oregon September 2020 The dissertation of Anna C. Bax is approved. ____________________________________________ Eric W. Campbell ____________________________________________ Lal Zimman ____________________________________________ Gabriela Pérez Báez ____________________________________________ Mary Bucholtz, Committee Chair July 2020 Language Ideology, Linguistic Differentiation, and Language Maintenance in the California Mixtec Diaspora Copyright © 2020 by Anna C. Bax iii Acknowledgements I respectfully acknowledge that this dissertation was researched and written while I was living on the unceded lands of the Chumash and Kumeyaay people. I am deeply grateful to so many people whose time, labor, and love have made this dissertation possible. Completing and defending this work from quarantine in the midst of a global pandemic has made me reflect on the many individuals who have helped me along the way, so many of whom I eagerly await the opportunity to see again in person. First, none of this work would have been possible without the generosity, patience, and enthusiasm of the Mixtec residents of Ventura County who have so graciously shared their lives, thoughts, time, and energy with me over the years. I am especially grateful to Isabel, Nina, and Ita Ndivi, the focal participant-researchers in this dissertation, for their dedication to this project and their trust. Thanks also go to their friends and family who participated in this research, particularly to Nina’s mother, who aided with transcription and translation of her variety of Mixtec.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chickasaw Nation, Muscogee Creek Nation, Sac & Fox Nation, and Choctaw Nation Present
    The Chickasaw Nation, Muscogee Creek Nation, Sac & Fox Nation, and Choctaw Nation present NATIVE AMERICAN Language & Culture Newspapers for this educational program provided by: Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 List of Tribes in Oklahoma ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 The Chickasaw Nation ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5-8 Sac & Fox Nation ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9-13 Choctaw Nation ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14-18
    [Show full text]