Community-Beneficial Outcomes of Language Documentation Projects in Latin America

Community-beneficial outcomes of Language Documentation Projects in Latin America. An investigation of projects funded by the ELDP.

Masterarbeit

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Master of Arts (MA)

an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz

vorgelegt von Andrea URCAN

am Institut für Sprachwissenschaft Begutachterin: Assoz. Prof. Mag. Dr.phil. Dina El Zarka

Graz, 2018

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Professor El Zarka for her guidance and support, My family for always believing in my decisions, And my friends for making me laugh even in the darkest of times.

Table of contents

1 Introduction ...... 5 2 Language Endangerment ...... 7 2.1 Assessing the status of a language ...... 8 2.2 Degrees of language endangerment ...... 9 2.3 Why do languages become endangered?...... 11 2.4 Why care about endangered languages? ...... 13 2.4.1 What the community loses ...... 13 2.4.2 What science and humanity lose ...... 14 2.5 Language endangerment in Latin America ...... 17 2.5.1 Linguistic background ...... 17 2.5.2 The main causes for language endangerment in Latin America ...... 19 3 Language documentation and resources for indigenous communities ...... 21 3.1 What is language documentation and why is it important? ...... 22 3.2 Different frameworks for language documentation ...... 24 3.2.1 Linguist-focused model ...... 25 3.2.2 Participatory research model ...... 26 3.2.3 Community-based research model ...... 27 3.2.4 Linguistic-training ...... 30 3.3 Resources for indigenous communities ...... 31 3.3.1 Storybooks ...... 33 3.3.2 Audio and video materials ...... 35 3.3.3 Thematic dictionaries ...... 37 3.3.4 Vocabulary collections ...... 40 3.3.5 Other materials for learning purposes ...... 41 3.4 Language revitalization ...... 44 3.5 Types of revitalization programs ...... 46 3.5.1 Language classes ...... 47 3.5.2 Immersion-schools ...... 48 3.5.3 Master-apprentice program ...... 48 4 Factors influencing language documentation projects ...... 50 4.1 External support ...... 50 4.2 Language attitudes ...... 52 3

4.3 Expectations concerning research outcomes ...... 54 4.4 Community engagement ...... 56 4.5 Types of speakers ...... 57 4.6 Funding and time ...... 58 4.7 Accessibility and usability of materials ...... 59 5 An investigation of community-beneficial outcomes of documentation projects in Latin America ...... 61 5.1 The ELDP and the projects funded in Latin America ...... 61 5.2 The questionnaire ...... 64 5.2.1 Results and assessment ...... 65 5.3 Case studies ...... 77 5.3.1 The documentation of Chuxnabán Mixe, Carmen Jany ...... 77 5.3.2 The Iquito Language Documentation Project, Christine Beier ...... 80 5.3.3 The documentation of Paunaka and Guarayu, Swintha Danielsen ...... 85 6 Summary and conclusion ...... 91 Table of Illustrations ...... 95 References ...... 96 Appendix ...... 106

1 Introduction

It is an established fact that the future of the numerous languages spoken around the world is not looking bright. According to researchers around 50% of the existing languages are going to die out over the next years. As a result, a number of linguists started to engage in language documentation projects which aim at securing as much linguistic data as possible for the future. In the course of collecting the relevant data, the linguists will work closely with a speech community whose language is under threat of disappearing. After the finalization of a project, plenty of articles can be found in books and journals describing the special linguistic features of the investigated language. But which part do the communities play in the projects apart from providing language input? How do communities benefit from the collaboration with the linguists? The topic of this thesis resulted from these initial deliberations. As the title indicates, the central theme of this thesis revolves around the benefits indigenous communities in Latin America receive because of their collaboration with linguists in language documentation projects. The significance for addressing this topic resulted from the fact that although most researchers feel the need to give something back to the indigenous communities, outcomes produced for their benefit are hardly discussed in the literature. I decided to focus on projects carried out in Latin America for two main reasons. Firstly, according to Peréz Báez et al. (2016: 1) the current literature does not extensively approach the topic of the implementation and the outcomes of language documentation projects in Latin America. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to contribute to this insufficiently studied field of investigation. Secondly, I wanted to concentrate on this area because of the personal connection I have with the people of this continent.

In what follows, I will give a brief outline of the present thesis and additionally, I will display the methodology and the objectives of the investigation which was carried out within the context of the thesis.

The first chapter provides a brief introduction to the thesis. The second chapter is meant to give an insight into the topic of language endangerment. For this purpose, some general information about the assessment of language vitality and degrees of language endangerment will be presented. Further, the importance of language diversity will be outlined. This chapter also provides facts about the linguistic background of Latin America and lists factors responsible for the language endangerment in South-and Central America.

The third chapter is dedicated to language documentation with emphasis on community- beneficial efforts. After discussing the importance of language documentation, three frameworks concerning the involvement of community members in language documentation projects will be presented. In order to demonstrate what the notion of “giving something back” can include, various materials produced in the course of documentation projects are described. Community-beneficial work can also consist in the implementation of different language revitalization programs. Some of these programs will be described at the end of the chapter.

The fourth chapter provides the reader with some factors which have to be considered when conducting a language documentation project. All of the presented factors can influence the implementation of activities related to documentation and preservation in both positive and negative ways. The chapter discusses seven possible factors and each section provides examples of experiences from researchers working in Latin America.

Chapter five deals with the investigation of the thesis. The methodology of the investigation is based on a questionnaire which I designed with the aim of gathering information about the kind of outcomes different projects carried out across Central-and South America produced. For this purpose, I chose projects which have been funded by the Endangered Language Documentation Programme (ELDP). The ELDP has awarded grants for 104 Projects in Central-and South America between 2003 and 2017. Additionally, three projects are presented as case studies. I will describe these projects and especially focus on the outcomes and the associated challenges. The requested information was gathered via email from the linguists Carmen Jany and Christine Beier and through a Skype interview with Swintha Danielsen.

Concerning the objectives, the investigation aims to ascertain what kind of materials were produced and which other activities took place with the aim to benefit indigenous language communities. The results serve to give an overview over the different outcomes which were produced in order to accomplish this goal and show the most common outcomes of language documentation projects in Latin America. What is more, I gathered information about issues the researchers had or still have to deal with during the various projects. It is important to outline these challenges as they constitute an inevitable part of all documentation projects. Researchers will benefit from the assessment of the questionnaire as they will get an overview over community-beneficial efforts and possible challenges gathered from many projects across Central-and South America.

The last chapter will summarize the information presented in the thesis and present a conclusion based on the results gathered in the investigation. 6

2 Language Endangerment

This chapter addresses the topics and the issues concerning language endangerment. Language death as a consequence of language endangerment is occurring at a rapid rate nowadays. As a result, the concern about the disappearance of languages has gained significant attention within the last years. The estimated number of languages spoken around the world today is around 7,000. The available literature predicts that half of the existing languages are going to become extinct within the next couple of years (cf. Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 1). Generally, the literature refers to these languages as languages in danger, or endangered languages (cf. Austin, Sallabank 2011: 1). Language endangerment results from external pressure caused by multiple factors, e.g. the military, the economy, national forces or religion. Conversely, it may be the result of internal factors, such as negative attitudes towards one’s own language. In addition, many speakers of minority languages blame their ancestral language as the source of discrimination and, consequently, they resolve to abandon their language (cf. Brenzinger et al. 2003: 2). In the past, language death was regarded as a natural cycle of change and the resulting consequences were ignored completely. Today, however, the commitment of saving and documenting these languages was induced by the awareness of the disappearance of invaluable cultural traditions and unique linguistic systems (cf. Austin, Sallabank 2011: 6,7).

The chapter is organized as follows: In section 2.1, I will concentrate on the topic of language vitality and expound the importance of assessing the current condition of a language. The aim of section 2.2 is to illustrate the scale proposed by Krauss 2007. Here, the author classifies languages into different categories ranging from ‘safe’ to ‘extinct’. Section 2.3 will give an insight into the main factors which are likely to provoke the endangered status of a language. It is worth keeping in mind that each language situation is unique, therefore multiple variables can be accountable for the condition of a language. In section 2.4 the discussion centers on the significance of saving endangered languages. For this purpose, section 2.4.1 will depict what communities would lose if their language would vanish, whereas section 2.4.2 concentrates on the loss science and humanity would have to endure in losing a language. Section 2.5 is going to focus on the situation in Latin America concerning language endangerment. Firstly, section 2.5.1 gives an overview over the linguistic background and then, section 2.5.2, which describes the endangered situation in Latin America, will bring the chapter to a close.

2.1 Assessing the status of a language

Based on the increasing interest in language endangerment, many authors set themselves the goal of developing principles which should be applied in order to assess the current condition of a given language. In this section, I will describe the scheme depicted in the UNESCO document ‘Language vitality and endangerment’ from 2003. The respective framework is one of the most comprehensive classifications for assessing language vitality. The authors who contributed to the document emphasize that establishing generally applicable factors constitutes a difficult challenge as each language situation is complex and unique. Hence, depending on various circumstances, some factors will be more relevant than others. In order to assess the status of a language, the framework provides a set of nine factors which aims to provide a description of the overall sociolinguistic situation of a language (cf. Brenzinger et al. 2003: 7). Most importantly, the UNESCO document underlines that multiple factors should be used in conjunction with one another because the vitality of a language cannot be determined thoroughly in absence of any one factor.

1 Intergenerational Language Transmission 2 Absolute Number of Speakers 3 Proportion of Speakers within the Total Population 4 Trends in Existing Language Domains 5 Response to New Domains and Media 6 Materials for Language Education and Literacy. 7 Governmental and institutional language policies, including official status and use 8 Community members’ attitudes toward their own language 9 Amount and quality of documentation

The list expounds that factors one to three revolve around the numbers of speakers of a language. The next four factors describe how the language is used in different locations. Factor eight deals with the attitudes concerning the speaker’s heritage language, and the last factor addresses the question of existing language documentation (cf. Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 4). The first three factors indicate the importance of assessing the number of speakers in order to perceive the vitality of a language. In this regard, the common conception is that languages with a large speaker community are more likely to be vital than languages with few speakers. However, this presumption cannot be posed that easily (cf. Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 5). The case of Quechua should illustrate this issue. Quechua is an indigenous language spoken across South America and counts around ten million speakers. Although elders are still fluent in 8

Quechua and some people in remote places remained monolingual, there is a great tendency to abandon the language in order to be able to participate in social and economic developments. The younger generation is especially vulnerable to this pressure (cf. Adelaar 1991: 50). Therefore, the current situation of Quechua is far from ‘safe’. This example indicates that the number of speakers is not always a reliable factor.

The most salient of these factors is factor one, which aims to display the vitality of a language on the basis of intergenerational transmission. Intergenerational transmission describes the extent of language acquisition among children (cf. Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 6). More precisely, if children do not learn the language from their parents, due to different circumstances, the chance that they will pass on the language to the next generation is almost non-existent (cf. Lewis, Simons 2010: 5). As a consequence, transgenerational transmission will be interrupted and the language will die with its last speaker (cf. Krauss 2007).

Many schemes, like the framework established by the authors of the UNSECO document, have been suggested in order to assess the vitality of languages. In this regard, one might wonder why it is relevant to have an overview over the current condition of a language. Grenoble and Whaley (2005: 7) emphasize that these schemes can serve a variety of purposes. First, if the same language is spoken in different locations or countries, such scales can be consulted in order to compare the vitality of these languages. Second, and more importantly, the assessment will contribute to the choice of an appropriate language revitalization program. Because of this, the UNESCO document underscores the relevance “for more reliable information about the situation of minority languages as a basis for language support efforts at all levels.” (Brenzinger et al. 2003: 3)

2.2 Degrees of language endangerment

Various linguists have tried to come up with classifications to describe the given degree of endangerment of a language. Again, Grenoble and Whaley (2006: 16) point out that it is important to have these scales, as they contribute to the choice of different language revitalization programs. In this section, I will focus on the classification provided by Krauss (2007) as it is considered to be one of the most elaborate and comprehensive frameworks.

safe a+ stable a- All speak, children & up instable; a Some children speak; all children eroded speak in some places definitively b Spoken only by parental endangered indecline endangered generation and up severely c Spoken only by grandparental endangered generation and up critically d Spoken only by very few, of endangered great-grandparental generation extinct e No speakers Table 1: Language endangerment classification after Krauss (2007)

Krauss (2007) provides a detailed scale for the assessment of the vitality of a language, consisting of seven levels. The three basic categories are 'safe', 'extinct', and 'endangered', whereas the category 'endangered' is further divided into the following subcategories: either 'stable' or in 'decline'. In the last case, the language can be further divided into the subcategories 'instable; eroded', 'definitively endangered', 'severely endangered', and 'critically endangered'. Moreover, the author assigns different designators to the different states of a language, ranging from a+ to e. Krauss (2007: 4) clarifies that the designators follow the grading system in the American public school. Furthermore, the addition of a plus or a minus to the letters provides the possibility to determine the grading even more precisely. In the following, I will briefly describe the author’s description of each category.

The first category of the scale defines the condition 'safe'. If a language is considered 'safe' it is learned as a mother-tongue by children. The prediction regarding the state of a 'safe' language is that it will still have a viable community of speakers and children will continue to learn it. Most of the languages with large numbers of speakers and national status fall into this category. Krauss (2007: 2) explains that currently only 5% of the languages spoken in the world can be considered 'safe', as they are supported by the state and used in education. On the other side of the scale lies the category 'extinct'. 'Extinct' languages are those who are not spoken by anyone due to the death of all their speakers. As already mentioned above, between these two categories there is the entire spectrum of 'endangered languages', to which probably 95% of the existing languages can be allocated (cf. Krauss 2007: 3). The top of the scale in the category of 10

endangered languages is occupied by the class 'stable'. A language can be classified as 'stable' as long as it is learned by children and used at home with parents and grandparents. However, another language might be used in other domains like work and school. The next subcategory of 'endangered' is qualified as 'instable' or 'partly stable'. 'Instable' implies, on the one hand, that some children still speak the language in some parts of the language area. On the other hand, it can mean that children speak the language some of the time with the grandparental generation, but among themselves they speak the dominant language (cf. Krauss 2007: 4). The next subclass is called 'definitely endangered'. In this state, the language is no longer being learned by children as their mother-tongue. Therefore, the youngest generation of speakers are found in the parental generation. The children might have a passive understanding but they do not speak or respond in the language they were addressed in by their parents and grandparents. Consequently, the disruption of the intergenerational transmission transpires in this category. In the subclass 'severely endangered' the youngest speakers of the language are found in the grandparental generation and parents do not possess the proficiency to teach the heritage language to their children. The last subclass in the category 'endangered' is 'critically endangered', which comprises of languages where the youngest speakers are found in the great-grandparental generation (cf. Krauss 2007: 5).

This classification clearly demonstrates that Krauss puts strong emphasis on the aspect of intergenerational transmission. This factor is particularly relevant for the assessment of language endangerment because if children stop learning their parents and grandparents language, the future vitality of a given language is doomed.

2.3 Why do languages become endangered?

In this section, I will enumerate three significant factors which are likely to cause the endangered status of a language.

Bernard (1996: 141) points out that about 95% of people living in the world speak 5% of the world’s languages, while about 95% of the world’s languages are spoken by about 5% of the world’s population. In other words, few people who are likely to live in small communities speak the vast majority of the still existing languages. The problem, however, is that communities with a small number of speakers are especially in danger of losing their languages. Nevertheless, the number of the speakers does not necessarily designate the status of a language. 11

Some cases have been reported where language communities with just a few hundred speakers did not undergo language shift. That holds true for very remote communities which can be found in the Amazon, among others. However, even if a language has many thousands or even millions of speakers and some of the children acquire it as their first language the language may become endangered. Such a case was already displayed on the basis of the situation concerning Quechua in section 2.1.

Another trigger which can be responsible for the endangered situation of a language is language contact. Generally, if the contact between two languages gets increasingly intense, there is a large chance that people become bilingual. Bilingualism does not automatically determine that the community is going to endure the loss of their native language, however, it paves the way for language endangerment (cf. Thomason 2015: 11). In most cases, the language of a dominant group has more social, political, economic power, and relevance, and consequently replaces the language of a subordinate linguistic group. Besides this, many parents feel the pressure of assimilating to the dominant groups’ language and culture as quickly as possible in order to survive economically. As a result, they cease to talk to their children their native language. Furthermore, Thomason (2015: 20) stresses that “in most cases of endangerment via conquest, a complex mix of political, social, and economic factors, together with hard-to-analyze attitudinal factors, contribute to language decline.” In other words, what reinforces the language shift is that the language of the dominant culture is regarded as the language of economic, political and social success.

As already mentioned in Thomason’s statement above, another crucial factor which is likely to exert influence over the future of a language is the attitudes speakers have towards their heritage language. It is of great importance that speakers acknowledge and value their language and, moreover, they have to think about their language both as useful and as a contributor to their culture. The appreciation of speaking a useful language can save it from becoming extinct. If a community does not value its language it most certainly becomes endangered. In addition, these kinds of attitudes can hamper later efforts to revitalize the language. In other words, the attitude speakers have can either harm the preservation efforts or benefit them in the way that people are proud of their ancestral language (cf. Thomason 2015: 26-28). In agreement with this assertion, Thomason (2015: 31) emphasizes that “the most common favorable factor by far, however, is the perceived importance of a community’s language as a symbol of the group’s identity.”

2.4 Why care about endangered languages?

The following question might arise in the discussion about endangered languages: Why should researchers even bother to document and try to save endangered languages around the world? Moreover, most of these languages do not have political, economic, or global relevance (cf. Tsunoda 2005: 135). The importance of linguistic diversity and the value for the entirety of humankind are the most common answers to this question. Additionally, both language diversity and cultural diversity would vanish with unique ways of thinking. In the following, I would like to propound more detailed answers to the question and highlight what the respective communities, science, and humanity lose when languages die.

2.4.1 What the community loses

The majority of communities who are concerned about losing their language know that their language is not linked to economic success. Rather, they want to preserve their language in order to maintain the group’s identity. Some languages might not have a communicative value because they are not used for daily conversations anymore. However, these languages might have a symbolic value as an “ethnic marker”. To illustrate this statement, I will consider the Rama project in Nicaragua. The Rama language is spoken on the Caribbean coast in Nicaragua and only 30 fluent speaker could be traced. However, many people claimed to speak the language even if they knew just a few words. The people used these words to address each other in public with the objective to demonstrate that they belonged to the same ethnic group. Yet, if two Ramas had a conversation, they used the creole spoken in their area and which they regard as their mother-tongue. This means that, the people demonstratively used their language for identity purposes only (cf. Pivot 2011: 11). In this regard, Tsunoda (2005: 135,141) stresses the relevance of acknowledging languages as a source of pride and self-esteem.

Furthermore, the community might regard their language as a gift from the ancestors. This belief can be observed in communities where speakers are closely connected with their languages and their land. In these communities, people think that their language is inseparable from their land as certain ceremonies can only take place on their ancestors land in combination with their heritage language. Thus, if their language dies, Littlebear (1992: 2 quoted in Tsunoda 13

2005: 138) explains that their “land ceases to be sacred and becomes looked on as only a commodity to be bought and sold.” For this reason, many indigenous tribes believe that it is their duty to maintain and preserve their native languages. In this context, it is important to attribute significance to place names, as many indigenous communities believe that their language is still preserved if place names remain in their heritage language. Therefore, place names might also play a crucial role in language revitalization efforts (cf. Tsunoda 2005: 137,138).

It is worth bearing in mind that the loss of a language implicates as well the loss of a unique culture (cf. Thomason 2015: 78). What is more, a native language entails cultural knowledge with great significance, e.g. for telling stories, for carrying out specific ceremonies and for keeping a range of traditions concerning their ancestors and their land alive. Therefore, the fear of losing the language is linked to the fear of losing a special way of thinking and acting (cf. Tsunoda 2005: 138). Additionally, many claim that if they speak a language other than their native language, what they say does not come from their heart. On top of this, people might not feel like themselves if they have to adopt a new language (cf. Thomason 2015: 74-75).

If a language disappears special culture-specific terms of different lexical domains get lost. This deprivation occurs in the case where the speakers shift to a language which does not have the possibility to express these specific lexical domains (cf. Thomason 2015: 82). For example, essential knowledge about medicinal plants would be lost. Thomason (2015: 84) describes an example from Suzanne Romaine concerning Mexican highland communities. These communities lost their traditional knowledge of medicinal plants, and, as a consequence, they must rely on health workers for treatments they used to administer with their own medicines.

2.4.2 What science and humanity lose

The statement formulated already years ago says that language loss inevitably entails the loss of linguistic diversity. More importantly, linguistic diversity is relevant not only for the science of linguistics but also for all human beings in general. Tsunoda (2005: 153) proclaims that the major reason for researchers working on endangered languages is the value of linguistic diversity. This statement seems to emphasize more on the linguist’s interests in lieu of the community members’ wish to keep their languages alive. Yet, the following examples should

underline that linguistic diversity benefits not only linguists but focuses on the contribution for the respective communities and the entire humankind as well (cf. Tsunoda 2005: 153).

Every language in the world is different, therefore it is crucial to understand each of these languages in order to comprehend how human languages work in general. Hence, losing this knowledge would have a huge negative impact on the understanding of human history, human cognition, and the natural world. The diversity of patterns found in different languages serve to compare these languages and understand distinct structures. For instance, if someone wants to translate a story from one to another language, the translation can never be thoroughly correct due to the artistic and cultural peculiarities each language contains (cf. Thomason 2015: 79). As a result, the loss of a language takes away the opportunity for science to investigate unique features and the comprehension of specific human minds (cf. Thomason 2015: 100). Therefore, it is crucial to document minority-languages comprehensively in order to prevent unique linguistic elements from disappearing without us noticing. An interesting example is mentioned by Thomason (2015: 103,104) regarding the metaphorical reversal of time and space orientation in Aymara, an indigenous language spoken in Bolivia and parts of Peru and Chile. For most Westerners the future lies in front of us, as the prepositional phrase ‘in front of’ indicates. In contrast, the past lies behind us, as indicated by the preposition ‘behind’. In Aymara, however, the basic form for ‘front’ constitutes also a basic expression meaning ‘past’, and the basic word for ‘back’ is a basic expression for ‘future’. Thomason further explains that: “The linguists Rafael Núñez and Eve Sweetser explore the cognitive implications of this contrast, taking into consideration both the Aymara words and Aymara speakers’ gestures in developing a ‘taxonomy of spatial metaphorical mappings of time’”. This illustration proves that with the increasing disappearance of languages unique domains of knowledge cease to exist and will be lost forever.

Another example should highlight the diversity of existing and intriguing structures found in the languages of the world. Evans (2010: 75,76) gives a description of the work of the researcher David Fleck. This linguist is working on the language of the Matses, which belongs to the Panoan language and is spoken in Amazonia along the Brazilian-Peruvian border. The system of this language is able to “locate both the reported events and the weighing up of the evidence separately in time, with independent yardsticks for each” (Evans 2010: 75) On the basis of this information, let us imagine a story where a hunter is returning to his village from the jungle. He found the tracks of a white-lipped peccaries (shëktenamë) in a particular location. Kuen which means ‘pass by’ gets either the suffix şh or k meaning it and they. The following part is

astounding: The speakers can choose between three suffixes in order to designate how much time elapsed between the event and the detection of the evidence. The three suffixes are ak (a short time period), nëdak (a long time period), or ampik (a very long time period). In addition, the speakers have to distinguish more suffixes, depending on the time difference between the detection of the evidence and the report. Here, they choose between o (short time period), onda (a long time period), or denne (a very long time period). The first suffix which has to be attached is the one detonating the detection time, then the suffix expressing the report time can be applied.

- shëktenamë kuenakoşh = White-lipped peccaries (evidently) passed by. (Fresh tracks were discovered a short time ago.)

- shëktenamë kuenakondaşh = White-lipped peccaries (evidently) passed by. (Fresh tracks were discovered a long time ago.)

- shëktenamë kuennëdakoşh = White-lipped peccaries (evidently) passed by. (Old tracks were discovered a short time ago.)

- shëktenamë kuenakdennek = White-lipped peccaries (evidently) passed by. (Fresh tracks were discovered a very long time ago.) (Evans 2010: 76)

With the knowledge of this existing system, the aim lies in making sure that representational logics developed for evidential systems “do not simply classify evidential judgments by type, but locate them in time as well.” (Evans 2010: 76)

The two examples should point out the significant contributions to general and linguistic theories which were made possible on basis of the documentation of endangered languages (cf. Tsunoda 2005: 156).

One more illustration is going to be presented in order to underscore the importance of language diversity for all of humankind. The following example depicts the case of practical folk knowledge which has the potential to benefit all humans. For this purpose, I adduce an example from Evans (2010: 20). The author describes the Seri language, an isolate which is spoken by a community in Baja California, Mexico. The researchers Edward and Mary Moser detected the special use of eelgrass in the community. The members harvested the grain and the fieldworkers spotted a whole vocabulary which was linked to the harvesting and the products of eelgrass. Furthermore, it turned out that eelgrass was the only known grain from the sea that

was harvested as a human food resource. Thus, eelgrass may be a potential general food source for all humans.

As already mentioned, researchers claim that documenting endangered languages with the purpose of maintaining linguistic diversity would benefit the respective communities as well. In this regard, the linguist Patricia Shaw (quoted in Tsunoda 2005: 157) described a case where a rare phenomenon was found in an indigenous language. As a consequence, the people of this tribe felt very proud to speak the language as it got international recognition and esteem. Therefore, such findings do benefit the communities albeit indirectly and delayed.

2.5 Language endangerment in Latin America

It can be asserted that all indigenous languages in Latin America are under constant influence of Spanish and Portuguese (cf. Crevels 2012: 168). Consequently, almost all languages are under constant threat of replacement of their ancestral language due to poverty, racism and insecurity (cf. Haboud et al. 2016: 201). The following sections are going to deal with the linguistic diversity found in languages across South-and Central America. Furthermore, I will give an overview over the main causes responsible for language endangerment in Latin America.

2.5.1 Linguistic background

Lizarralde (2001: 266 quoted in Moore 2007: 29) provides an estimate of the existing indigenous groups before the invasion of the Europeans. He claims that there were around 1,200 ethnic groups in South America and that 65 percent of their native languages have since vanished.

Today, the estimated number of indigenous languages spoken in Latin America lies around 400 (cf. Grinevald 1998: 127). In comparison to the continents size, the number of indigenous languages is not very high. Nevertheless, they belong to 100 languages families (cf. UNESCO 2010 quoted in Haboud et al. 2016: 203) and a considerable number of languages are isolates (cf. Adelaar 1991: 45). Isolates are languages that are not known to be related to any other language. Most of the isolates counted in the world are found in Latin America. These

languages are very important providers for linguistic knowledge because if an isolate dies, its linguistic and cultural features are going to be lost forever as it does not leave any relatives (cf. Thomason 2015: 10). According to Grinevald (1998: 127), considering the extreme genetic variety of the continent the linguistic diversity in Latin America is comparable to New Guinea. However, many communities are unaware of the linguistic diversity in their regions and continent (cf. Mithun 1998: 163).

Brazil is the country with the biggest number of indigenous languages. That is attributable to the fact that Brazil possesses a big part of the Amazon which is home to many remote indigenous communities. Colombia and Peru have around 60 indigenous languages each, and Bolivia and Venezuela count about 35. At the end of the scale is Uruguay, which has no indigenous languages left (cf. Grinevald 2007: 126). The three countries Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia are stated to be the countries with the highest concentration and highest proportion of Indian population. The biggest population consists of highland Quechua and Aymara speakers, however, the country’s lowlands are home to a very diverse Amazonian population (cf. Grinevald 2007: 133). Central America’s population was numerous before the arrival of the Europeans. The literature suggests that the number of native peoples in the region reached 25 million in 1519. But due to the contact with the European conquerors, the population diminished dramatically to one million, which is deemed as one of the greatest losses of indigenous population (cf. Grinevald 2007: 59).

Grinevald (2007: 60) explains that Nahuatl and Yucatec in Mexico and the Quichean complex in Guatemala are one of the largest language communities with over a million speakers. Additionally, there are more than 20 languages spoken across Central America with more than 100,000 speakers. Still, all languages are under constant threat of becoming extinct.

Crevels (2012: 169) provides two explanations concerning the linguistic diversity in Latin America. On the one side, she explains that there were just a few major empires in pre- Colombian times which had the power to achieve language change through domination. On the other hand, there are still a number of language communities which remain uncontacted due to their remoteness. As a result, they managed to maintain their languages over a long period.

2.5.2 The main causes for language endangerment in Latin America

The native languages spoken in Latin America experienced great deprivation over the past decades, which resulted in dramatic loss of languages and cultures. There are various circumstances which contributed to the present situation of Latin American indigenous languages (cf. Adelaar 1991: 45).

There are four main causes which led to drastic loss of languages in Latin America (cf. Grinevald 2007: 137). First, language endangerment and language loss were caused by depopulation in many parts of Latin America in the course of colonization. Consequently, the elimination of indigenous tribes caused their languages to die with them. This tragic circumstance was triggered by a combination of the extremely brutal European conquistadors and the epidemic diseases they brought with them (cf. Adelaar 1991: 45).

Second, Thomason (2015: 19) points out that some Native empires in Mesoamerica and South America replaced numerous indigenous languages due to aggressive warfare against their neighbors. To give an example, Quechua replaced various indigenous languages across Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. That implies that language replacement was exerted quite effectively before the Spanish colonization (cf. Grinevald 2007: 137). According to Tsunoda (2005: 4), even after the invasion of the Spaniards, the language of the Incas continued to replace other indigenous languages for some time. The reason for this is that Quechua had acted as a lingua franca for Spanish colonization and Christianization purposes.

Third, language shift was caused by the exerted pressure of the native population to resign their native language and use the language of the dominant group instead. Additionally, as a result of arranged marriages between indigenous people and Europeans, mixed families emerged. These families chose to use the language and the cultural practices of the colonizers and therefore abandoned their languages entirely (cf. Adelaar 1991: 45). Furthermore, the abundance of a native language is caused by prevailing poverty and the social discrimination against indigenous people. Many parents want to guarantee their children a better life and think that changing to the dominant language constitutes the only possibility (cf. Adelaar 1991: 50). In other words, in Latin America, as well as in other former colonies, the dominant languages are regarded as the languages of social, economic and political power (cf. Austin, Sallabank 2011: 1).

Fourth, the disappearing of Latin America's linguistic diversity was propelled by the governments in the respective countries because they did not see any importance in fostering their indigenous languages and cultures. More precisely, the governments had ignored the existence of non-national languages completely. As a result, the communities had to take action on their own to preserve their ancestral languages and cultures (cf. Adelaar 1991: 46). Nowadays, fortunately, there is a general consent about the importance of preserving these native languages. Even multiple governments are aware of this fact and recognized indigenous languages as national languages next to Spanish. Many indigenous languages enjoy the official status in their territories and the government's promise to support the maintenance of the languages in order to ensure linguistic diversity (cf. Harboud et al. 2016: 204). What is more, the introduction of bilingual education and the creation of materials (in native languages) are being implemented extensively (cf. Adelaar 1991: 46). The problem, however, remains that speakers consider their own language as less valuable and do not believe that their language could be used in education (cf. Haboud et al. 2016: 204). Therefore, linguistic policies hardly have the power to prevent language loss around the continent.

The only native language which can be considered as vital is Guarani, which has around three million speakers. Guarani is officially recognized as the national language of Paraguay next to Spanish. In addition, the language enjoys prestige and language loyalty across the entire country and a great amount of literature exists (cf. Grinevald 1998: 140). Adelaar (1991: 52) explains that “Guarani is an Indian language, but it is no longer a language of Indians.” In other words, the language is spoken by Mestizos rather than indigenous people.

Nowadays, a lot of endangered languages are the object of research projects. However, there are still a lot of languages hidden in remote parts of the Amazon and because of their difficult accessibility, more research has to be conducted in these parts. Additionally, many existing recordings of indigenous languages are fragmentary and incomplete, and therefore, detailed reference grammars are indispensable for later language revitalization and preservation efforts (cf. Adelaar 1991: 47,48).

The best way to ensure a long durability of indigenous languages is to get the support of the government as well as support by national societies. Furthermore, it is important that communities appreciate their language as a part of their ethnic identity. Most importantly, a policy of tolerance should be implemented in order to change attitudes towards indigenous languages and their speakers (cf. Adelaar 1991: 51).

3 Language documentation and resources for indigenous communities

In this chapter I am going to discuss topics concerning language documentation and community-beneficial work including language revitalization. The interest in documenting languages in Central-and South America has grown immensely in the past ten years (cf. Franchetto, Rice 2014: 251). The commitment for saving endangered languages in Latin America results from the necessity to document the remaining indigenous languages comprehensively. Particularly in the Amazon, there are many languages which still lack a detailed documentation or a documentation altogether. Hence, linguists try to contribute with their documentations to both linguistic research and the preservation of native-American languages. In order to ensure a comprehensive documentation, many institutions and funding agencies have emerged in the past years. They aim at supporting researchers who want to document and support preservation efforts of speech communities who are in danger of losing their heritage language (cf. England 2012: 12).

Community participation has resulted in many discussions regarding the responsibilities linguists are confronted with whilst conducting linguistic fieldwork in indigenous communities. Ideally, the documentation projects should be ethical, what is more, they should aim at integrating the community’s knowledge and their participation should be implemented in a natural way. If community members are involved actively in documentation, description and revitalization the results are going to benefit the researchers and communities alike (cf. England 2012: 11).

The contents of language documentation and revitalization comprise the implementation of various linguistic disciplines. In this thesis, however, the focus is on community-beneficial outcomes. Therefore, I will not discuss all sides of language documentation and revitalization, rather, I will concentrate on community-beneficial aspects concerning these two fields.

The structure of the chapter is as follows: Section 3.1 details the notion of language documentation and emphasizes the necessity of developing a comprehensive documentation comprising raw data rather than analyzed results. Section 3.2 gives an overview over the most known research models which differ in terms of the community involvement in their respective documentation projects. Examples from different projects in Latin America will demonstrate the multiple benefits which ensue if communities are regarded as equal partners in the 21

documentation and description process. Section 3.3 describes some materials which are commonly produced in order to benefit indigenous communities. For this purpose, several materials are listed and a couple of illustrations are given. The following sections deal with the topic of language revitalization and revitalization programs. After describing the concept behind revitalizing an endangered language in section 3.4, I end the chapter by mentioning some revitalization programs which aim at stabilizing the languages concerned to different degrees.

3.1 What is language documentation and why is it important?

Language documentation deals with the “creation, annotation, preservation and dissemination of transparent records of a language” (Woodbury 2011: 159). The aim is to compile a “representative and multipurpose record of a natural language or one of its varieties” (Gippert et al. 2006: v). Due to the concern about the worldwide loss of languages, the discipline of language documentation, also known as documentary linguistics, gained great relevance in recent years (cf. Woodbury 2011: 162). The main assignment of language documentation is to document a language in its entirety as long as the possibility still exists. In other words, “the goal is to create a record of a language in the sense of a comprehensive corpus of primary data which leaves nothing to be desired by later generations wanting to explore whatever aspect of the language they are interested in” (Himmelmann 2006: 3). These primary data are the most important components of a language documentation and should comprise audio and/or video recordings of communicative events including e.g. narratives and conversations. Also field notes taken during documentation and description work should be included. It is essential that every aspect of a language is documented as each aspect might be of interest and relevant for future use. In order to make these records accessible, the data need to be annotated and commented within a structured corpus (cf. Tsunoda 2006: 230, 231; Himmelmann 2006: 1).

The recordings can be used by different people ranging from speech communities to national and international agencies and researchers of different disciplines. Researchers, for instance, can benefit greatly from the existence of diverse recordings if they plan to start a documentation project. Based on these data, linguists can get an insight into the structure of a language beforehand (cf. Woodbury 2011: 160; Tsunoda 2005: 237). Across Latin America, however, many indigenous languages are still documented insufficiently and researchers are required to

carry out their projects with the last remaining speakers of a language. As an illustration, I will consider the situation of the Puruborá language in Brazil. Puruborá belongs to the Tupian family and is the only known language of the Puruborá branch. For many years, the tribe and its language were considered extinct, however, some families where tracked down some years ago. Even though there were no remaining fluent speakers, two semi-speakers could be identified. With funding from the ELDP, a language documentation project was initiated in order to document as much as possible of this endangered language. One of the main issues was that there were barely any recordings of the language, therefore the researchers had to rely on the knowledge of the semi-speakers and some rememberers (cf. Moore, Vilacy Galucio 2016: 34- 35).

Existing recordings are also of great value for speech communities as they constitute a link to their ancestors. The following example is going to serve as an illustration for this statement. Yamada (2007: 259) was working on the endangered language Kari’nja, which is spoken in Suriname and belongs to the Cariban language family. The total number of speakers lies around 10,000 across South America, in Suriname, however, there are around 1,200 speakers left. As children are not acquiring the language natively, there are ongoing revitalization efforts. One day, Yamada contacted the linguist who worked on the language 50 years before her and asked if she could digitize his recordings in order to distribute them among the descendants of his consultants. After the successful digitalization and the subsequent distribution, elders stopped the linguist on the street to thank her for the opportunity to listen to their ancestors voices again (cf. Yamada 2007: 259,269,270,276).

In sum, a comprehensive language documentation which aims at publishing primary data serves a variety of purposes as recordings constitute significant goods for researchers, communities and national and international agencies alike. Further, good records provide the foundation for linguistic analysis. Based on this analysis, researchers can yield a variety of outcomes for different use and communities can implement revitalization activities.

Some argue that analyzed materials constitute more valuable outcomes than a corpus of raw data. The traditional view represented by Boas (1917 quoted in Woodbury 2011: 163) was that it is indispensable for a documentation project to publish the three following materials: texts, grammars, and dictionaries. These outcomes are known under the term “Boasian trilogy” or “triumvirate”. Even though researchers nowadays are yielding more materials than just the ones proposed in the Boasian trilogy, the primary aim in the course of a language documentation

project is the creation of a comprehensive corpus of primary data in order to secure data for the future. The main argument is that recordings serve a wider audience as analyzed materials might be too intricate to understand for certain interested parties (cf. Tsunoda 2005: 245,246). Even if a researcher will not have the time to analyze all the recordings, the data will serve future researchers and the posterity in general (cf. Stenzel 2014: 288)

3.2 Different frameworks for language documentation

In every field work situation there are power relations between the two entities who work together. However, these relations are not determined beforehand. In the past, the general assumption was that documentation is carried out solely under the control of the researcher and that the results are beneficial for the researcher and the academic world only (cf. Cameron et al. 1997: 145).

As a result, the models applied did not include the communities’ collaboration but were oriented towards the collection and description of records in order to serve academic purposes. Community members served the researchers solely to gather data they were interested in. Consequently, these two parties were separated and did not work as a team at all. Only the researchers decided how the work was conducted and which activities would be implemented. Nowadays, however, linguists mostly work with community members as their partners and try to create a satisfactory collaboration situation. The pursued aim is to combine the skills of every participant involved in order to obtain optimal outcomes for both sides (cf. Czaykowska- Higgins 2009: 17; Woodbury 2011: 175).

In 2013 there was a conference about the topics of language documentation and revitalization in the Americas. In this conference, the researchers especially concentrated on collaborative work and the “need to develop models that fit the local situation” (Franchetto, Rice 2014: 258). As a result, there are various research models which emerged in recent years in humanities regarding the active involvement of community members. These methods do not dictate how a research project has to be carried out, rather, it explains that it is impossible to state a generally applicable method because different places and circumstances require distinct methods (cf. Franchetto, Rice 2014: 258).

The proposed models are labeled with different names like Participatory research, Action Research, Participatory Action Research, Community-Based Research, among other designations. The main goal of these models is the efficient collaboration with the communities and the social benefit and improvement of their situations (cf. Czaykowska-Higgins 2009: 18; Rice 2011: 188).

As already stressed, it is critical to bear in mind that it is important not to generalize over situations and to think that one model can be applied to all situations. In the following, three different research models are presented and discussed. The models differ in the degree the researchers and the communities engage in the fieldwork. Linguists will choose a model depending on the goals and needs the communities, the linguists themselves, or both have (cf. Czaykowska-Higgins 2009: 18, 27).

3.2.1 Linguist-focused model

In the past, documentation projects were always conducted by someone coming from outside, i.e. someone who does not belong to the community. Usually, these people were linguists, anthropologists, missionaries and explorers, among others. They entered a community in order to collect a certain amount of linguistic data and to produce grammars and dictionaries subsequently. Community members played the role of informants and were of interest because they provided the respective researchers with desired information (cf. Czaykowska-Higgins 2009: 20). Put in another way, the entire research was centered ON social subjects rather than FOR them or WITH them, according to Cameron et al. (1997: 148).

The idea was to gather more information about exotic languages in order to contribute something valuable to the linguistic and academic world. Thus, the model focused on the linguists’ knowledge and interests only. As a result, the outcomes reflected their priorities as their aim was to detect as many unique features as possible in order to publish their findings.

There are at least two serious issues which have to be discussed concerning the application of this model. First, it is not justified to regard the linguists’ needs and knowledge as superior over those of the community. Further, Western assumptions about how to carry out a documentation project should not be the only ones considered. Second, the model designates the linguist as an observer and collector of information who ignores the linguistic and social conditions the

research takes place in. In this regard, it is criticized that the linguists do not care about possible effects their research might have upon the community's social situation. According to Czaykowska-Higgins (2009: 29) “acting as if research were conducted in a vacuum, can have unintended and even negative consequences in the kinds of social and political situations that many indigenous languages find themselves in today.” What is more, the framework does not require researchers to give something back to the communities. If they do, it is considered an additional outcome serving community needs, but as long as no harm is done to a speech community, the situation is ethically accepted (cf. Cameron et al. 1997: 148; Czaykowska- Higgins 2009: 21, 22).

In summary, the model presupposes the intellectual superiority of a researcher in the documentation situation. The linguists’ ideas and knowledge are privileged over those of the community. The academic gathers the required data and leaves without having produced any community-beneficial outcomes. Therefore, there is a clear separation between the researchers on the one side and the community members on the other side. This kind of conduct can be accepted if the documentation is carried out in communities with millions of speakers where the language is spoken in a powerful nation and is supported politically. However, in situations where the language under investigation is an endangered language spoken by a small community, this framework should be considered as inadequate. Therefore, the following sections are going to focus on research-models where the boundaries between the researchers and the communities are being dissolved (cf. Czaykowska-Higgins 2009: 22).

3.2.2 Participatory research model

The participatory model, also known as advocacy research, serves as an intermediate model between the linguist-focused and the community-based research. This model differs from the linguist-focused research model in that it includes the research FOR the subjects rather than exclusively ON the subjects. In this framework, the linguist should act like an expert regarding the documentary work and should support the community in their initiatives concerning education programs, political rights and healthcare, among others (cf. Czaykowska-Higgins 2009: 23). If a community agrees to work with a linguist, they offer their time, knowledge and support. Therefore, Schilling (2013: 268) stresses that researchers owe their “research participants at least something in return”.

Further, the model demands that the linguists be familiar with the social and linguistic context the community is situated in. However, the researchers still pursue their aims regarding the documentation of a language and collect data which is significant for their academic studies. Nevertheless, it should be regarded as positive that the model includes the wishes of the communities to some extent. The separation between the two entities is slightly minimized in this model (cf. Czaykowska-Higgins 2009: 23; Cameron et al. 1997: 149).

3.2.3 Community-based research model

Czaykowska-Higgins (2009: 24) proposes the Community-based research model. In this model, community members are considered equal experts. Consequently, they organize the documentation project together with the researchers and participate actively in every part of the documentation process. Moreover, the model not only welcomes but highly values the contributed knowledge from the communities in order to achieve the best results possible for both sides. Every participant has an equal voice and is able to utter ideas and proposals in the course of the project. Therefore, the focus in this model is on interaction and active inclusion of the indigenous communities. The most important characteristic of the community-based model is that research is done BY the language communities. The gathering of data is conducted by different participants coming from the community and the researchers function mainly as supporters during this process (cf. Cameron et al. 1997: 154; Czaykowska-Higgins 2009: 23, 26).

According to Vallejos (2014: 43) it is crucial that speech communities take the lead in the process of both documentation and the preservation activities. The community has to understand that it is their project they are working on and that the benefit will contribute to further preservation efforts. Vallejos’ role within the documentation project consisted in directing logistical efforts and providing advice. Further, she was dealing with different issues including funding and equipment, among others. The community was responsible for recording different events in order to create a comprehensive corpus. Stenzel (2014: 296) also reports that she mainly functioned as a coordinator of activities. Additionally, she was responsible for dealing with funding agencies. All documentation activities were conducted by community members ranging from students to teachers and parents.

Another example is reported by Yamada (2007: 262). Before starting her documentation project, the linguist already worked in the community as a volunteer for three years. As a result, she had strong connections with some members. The indigenous community was interested in documenting, maintaining and revitalizing their language. The problem, however, was that they did not have the training, the tools nor the materials to initiate such a project without help from outside. Hence, it was not difficult to animate community members to take active parts in the documentation and revitalization process. For instance, a group of three sisters decided that every day they would speak the native language for an hour in the entire village with everyone. This small project was called the “language hour”. In doing so, they wanted to raise awareness among the community regarding the importance of speaking and using their heritage language. Yamada supported their project and was able to record some valuable conversations which were produced in these hours.

The community-based model also states that it is essential to invest enough time in order to build tight relationships with the communities (cf. Czaykowska-Higgins 2009: 41). Vallejos (2014: 44) stresses the fact that, thanks to the close relationship she had with one of the community members, many obstacles could be overcome easily. Her community partner played an important part in establishing connections, arranging meetings with authorities and other communities and in creating trust among the speakers towards the linguist and her project.

However, there is also criticism concerning the implementation of community-focused and participatory models in general. Frequently, participatory models are criticized as being community development projects instead of research projects. Therefore, they are not considered as academic research among certain scholars. Other opinions include the notion that linguists should concentrate solely on studying the language under investigation, as community needs do not fall into their responsibilities (cf. Czaykowska-Higgins 2009: 43; Rice 2011: 192). In addition, there are researchers who fear that if a community-based model is implemented, the gathered data are going to be beneficial for the community only and linguists are forced to neglect their own research interests and goals (cf. Yamada 2007: 257).

In this regard, Yamada (2007: 258) reports that when she started to work on the endangered language Karin’ja, she was advised not to spend too much time concentrating on community- needs as this would diminish her productivity. Instead, she should focus on their wishes after the achievement of her own goals. Yamada, however, did not listen to these advices as she believed that community-focused collaboration would result in more satisfying outcomes for

both sides. Her plan was to combine the community's knowledge with her own expertise in order to yield mutually beneficial results. In addition, the linguist explains that the community would not have agreed in collaborating with her if no immediate benefit for themselves would have been achieved.

Based on the collaboration with the community, the data gathered during Vallejos' project also resulted in more valuable outcomes for both sides. One of Vallejos' community partners conducted the interviews with fluent native-speakers. The linguist herself carried out some interviews before but she noticed that in her interviews the speakers would speak prosodically more plain and the morphology was very simple. In other words, the speakers were simplifying their speech when talking to the linguist. In contrast, when community members conducted the interviews, speakers would use “more prosodically vivid and morphologically complex language” (Vallejos 2014: 47). This example should underline the fact that different kind of data was gathered depending on who was conducting the interviews (cf. Vallejos 2014: 39,47,48). To sum up, “the leadership of community members in data gathering has crucially contributed to the naturalness, richness, and variety of the collected material” (Vallejos 2014: 53). This example demonstrates that the data which were recorded by community members are highly valuable for both academic use and language revitalization efforts.

Another example is reported by Caballero (2017: 227). The linguist is working on the endangered language Choquita Rarámuri, a Uto-Aztecan language which is spoken by around 100.000 people in Mexico. During the documentation project, community participants carried out interviews with elders about various topics including agriculture, rituals, history and biographical information, among others. They focused on domains which contained significant cultural knowledge. Accordingly, the gathered recordings were useful for both sides. On the one hand, the community could create a comprehensive record of their culture and language. On the other hand, the recordings served the linguist to analyze a great variety of different speech-genres. In sum, the participation of the community helped the linguist to create a broader documentation (cf. Caballero 2017: 242,243). In this regard, Rice (2011: 196) claims that “data that arises out of community-based research may well be richer than it would be without this methodology.”

3.2.4 Linguistic-training

Another point emphasized in the community-based model is that ideally, some community members should be trained by the linguists in the basics of linguistic description. With this knowledge, community members can support the researchers in the description of the data and in other activities. Training also constitutes an important part in revitalization efforts as stated by Hinton (2011: 309):“the training of indigenous language activists in linguistics is potentially of great benefit to community efforts in language revitalization” Therefore, with the acquisition of linguistic skills community members are going to be able to conduct research and consequent revitalization activities without the assistance of a linguist (cf. Hinton 2011: 309; Jukes 2011: 423). In the following, some examples are presented where community members engaged as “community linguists” (as Beier 2009 refers to them) concerning data analysis.

The linguists Christine Beier and Lev Michael conducted the Iquito Language Documentation Project. The Iquito language is spoken in the Peruvian Amazon. It belongs to the Zaparoan family and is highly endangered as only few fluent speakers remain. From the start on, the project was conceptualized as a community-participatory project. Their priority was to involve community members in all aspects of documentation and revitalization activities. For this purpose, literate community members were trained in basic analysis. Based on their acquired skills, these “community linguists” contributed significantly to the project (cf. Beier 2009: 1- 5). “They made concrete decisions about orthography and other aspects of language policy and played an active role in language teaching and the design of pedagogical materials”, Beier (2009: 4) explains.

The Rama documentation project in Nicaragua had an engaged community member at command who “turned out to be a rare natural linguist” (Grinevald, Pivot 2013: 189). This community member, whose name was Miss Nora, participated in elicitation sessions and enjoyed working with the researchers. Grinevald and Pivot (2013: 189) report that Miss Nora “genuinely took great pleasure in watching [us] do morphological analysis, which she described as ‘chopping words with a machete’”. In collaboration with her, the researchers worked on phonological, morphological and syntactic descriptions (cf. Grinevald, Pivot 2013: 188).

Yamada (2007: 259) also recognized the importance of training some members in basic linguistic aspects in order to involve these members in both documentation and description activities. After the training, the “community linguists” were able to explain difficult

constructions in their heritage language Yamada did not understand before. As a result, these trained members contributed valuable input to Yamadas’ analysis and descriptions (cf. Yamada 2007: 264-266). In sum, community members contribute enormously to the understanding of different phenomena in their own native-language (cf. Rice 2011: 195).

Mihas (2012: 2) was working on the Arawak language Ashéninka Perené, which is spoken by some 1 000 people in Central-Eastern Peru. From the beginning, training community members was one of her primary objectives. The linguist wanted to ensure that the community carries on with the documentation after the finalization of the project. Further, training would enable community members to initiate their own revitalization efforts. For that purpose, in every session, new skills in language description were taught and participants learned how to conduct interviews, how to use the technology and how to collect, transcribe and translate research data. Mihas (2012:16) states that “training is by far the most important step toward the goal of forming an indigenous linguist team in the context of the language documentation project.” What is more, the trained community members gained more respect within their community due to their acquired knowledge (cf. Mihas 2012: 13,14,16).

Cruz and Woodbury (2014: 278) report that local Mexican authorities supported their documentation project as they especially concentrated on the training of young people so they could study their own language and. Further, the researchers held workshops for young adults interested in teaching different Chatino varieties. In these workshops, the participants “learned to work as linguists to hear, analyze, and write different Chatino varieties, including the tonal systems” (Cruz, Woodbury 2014: 279).

There are also university programs which provide indigenous speech community members with linguistic training. For example, at the University of Texas, the Centre for Indigenous Languages of Latin America (CILLA) was established. They emphasized at offering training in language documentation and description to students coming from indigenous communities in Central-and South America (cf. Woodbury, England 2004: 124).

3.3 Resources for indigenous communities

As already discussed, the primary aim of language documentation projects is to compile a broad corpus of data in order to secure linguistic knowledge for the future. These data serve to develop

a range of materials for both academic purposes and community use. While plenty of publications about academically relevant topics concerning endangered languages can be found on the internet, articles about materials produced for the indigenous communities are hardly detectable.

A great number of researchers, however, produce community-beneficial outcomes as they want to leave something significant for the indigenous communities. Often, these are the first written (or audio) materials the communities possess as stories and songs are usually passed on orally (cf. Mosel 2012: 114). Therefore, these products constitute meaningful resources of enormous value for the communities. In most cases, communities feel overwhelmed by simple booklets of traditional stories or CD’s containing narratives and tales from elders. Some of these basic materials are likely to be produced during short-term documentation projects and are not primarily intended to serve communities for revitalization activities. Rather, they should contribute to the communities desire to preserve stories and the voices of their ancestors even if their languages might die. It is critical to bear in mind that even few produced materials can reinforce the communities’ pride as they realize that their heritage language can be used to produce written materials just as other languages. Therefore, “[h]aving community-accessible print materials supports pride in the language in a concrete way” (Yamada 2011: 23). Besides, stories and songs can serve children who do not speak the language to learn some words and simple phrases. Projects which receive funds over a longer period of time will probably also produce pedagogical materials which can be used by communities for teaching purposes. It is worth mentioning that the production of community-beneficial outcomes also benefits linguists for their linguistic research (cf. Mosel 2012: 114).

The variety of different community-beneficial outcomes, their production, distribution and their impact on indigenous communities are hardly described in publications concerning language documentation projects. While some articles concentrate on the development and implementation of learning materials for language classes, other community-beneficial materials are just casually mentioned. Therefore, this section aims at describing some common materials produced for indigenous communities in the course of documentation projects. For this purpose, I will use materials encountered in the internet in order to illustrate certain examples. Additionally, I will describe the materials briefly and if possible, depict their impact on indigenous communities based on descriptions by linguists.

3.3.1 Storybooks

Stories play an important role in communities all around the world. Stories are passed on from one generation to another and contain knowledge about various topics related to nature, animals, history and the communities’ ancestors, among many others. Most importantly, stories have “tied people together, connected generations, established cultural identity, grounded people in place, and helped transmit cultural values, beliefs, knowledge, practices, and languages.” (Maffi 2014: 4). Therefore, if communities stop transmitting their stories important parts of their language and culture will get lost. As a result, communities are considerate of preserving their stories in a way that they still remain within the community even if their language dies (cf. Maffi 2014: 4).

To state an example, Terrill (2002: 214) produced a story book for the Lavukal community she was working with in the Solomon Islands. She was not certain if the community would value the book compared to the developed dictionary which seemed to have much more prestige. However, the community was very proud to have their stories written down in a book and everyone was eager to have an own copy at home. Terrill (2002: 215) describes that “[f]or the whole couple of months I was there on that trip, every day I would encounter families sitting down reading parts of the stories out to each other, often with a certain amount of hilarity.”

The following illustration (Figure 1) shows a passage from a children’s book which contains a folk tale from the Chatino community. The present story is written in the San Juan Quiahije variety of Chatino. The book was illustrated by Averie Prenguber and transcribed by Emiliana Cruz who was conducting language documentation and preservation activities in Mexico with some Chatino communities. The story is written in three languages, namely San Juan Quiahije, Spanish, and English. It describes the story of a young girl who was held responsible by her father for stealing their neighbor’s corn. In the end, the girl showed her mother a secret place and disappeared.

Figure 1: Chatino folk tale “The Neighbors’ Corn” (2013). Source: Cruz, Emiliana & Averie Prenguber. 2013. El maíz del vecino. The Neighbor’s Corn. Trilingual Chatino folk. [Online]. https://sites.google.com/site/lenguachatino/recursos-pedagogicos/san-juan-quiahije. [2018, June 02]

During his documentation project in Brazil and Colombia, Wilson Silva produced several printed materials for the Desano community. As the use of technology in the Amazon is increasing, the linguist aimed to create also digital materials, having children and young people as the target audience in mind. Especially digital animations of traditional stories should get children to watch cartoons in their heritage language instead of Portuguese or Spanish. The community was actively involved in the creation of these digital materials. As a result, a handful of stories told by speakers of different Desano dialects have been animated until today. By involving speakers from different villages, all Desano varieties should be valued equally.

Figure 2: “The Hunter and the Monkey” (2016). Source: Silva, Wilson, Herculino Sampaio & Isabel Marte. 2016. The Hunter and the Monkey. [Online]. https://vimeo.com/160387346. [2018, June 02]

The figure illustrates the animated story “the Hunter and the Monkey” told by a sixty-year old community member. The speaker retells an anecdote from his grandfather about hunting a monkey. The grandfather wanted to kill the animal by using a traditional technique, however, he needed a second attempt to finally kill the monkey. The story should display that hunting wild animals is a dangerous task. The community decided that the story should include subtitles in Desano in order to support the peoples’ reading skills. The story was made available to the community in the form of DVD’s. These digital materials can be used on computers and DVD players without need of internet access. The community members were proud of the developed products and want to produce more videos in the future (cf. Silva 2016: 485-492).

In sum, many researchers try to fulfill the communities’ wishes concerning the transmission of cultural significant topics by providing them with books or digital materials containing their ancestors’ stories.

3.3.2 Audio and video materials

Audio and video recordings constitute valuable resources for all community members. They can contain a range of different topics and they can be even used in communities that do not have internet access. Another advantage of such materials is that stories, songs and narratives are transmitted in their original form, i.e. “without resorting to opaque symbolic ethnopoetic conventions commonly used in written materials” (Holton 2011: 376).

On the one hand, CD’s can be used for learning purposes, i.e. community members might use learning materials together with CD’s in order to learn the language and to improve their listening and their pronunciation skills. Also elderly people can benefit from such recordings by using them in order to keep their language proficiency stable. In other words, it will be easier for elders to memorize certain words if they can listen to recordings over and over again (cf. Yamada 2011: 24). On the other hand, audio and video recordings serve to convey important cultural knowledge from generation to generation. Many communities are overwhelmed if they get the chance to listen to their ancestors’ voices again. In this regard, Yamada (2011: 25) reports that the distribution of recordings, which were made by a linguist in the 1950s, caused emotional outbursts within the community she worked with. People were both laughing and crying while listening to stories and songs of their grandparents. These recordings did not only preserve songs, tales and personal narratives but gave the community the opportunity to listen to their deceased relatives again. Yamada (2011: 25) explains that

“[t]hese kinds of benefits cannot be quantified and are rarely a part of our public discussions, but they are of increasing importance in situations of language endangerment. The connection to heritage that was revived with listening to the old recordings has strengthened the bonds between today’s generations and has renewed the younger people’s dedication to reviving Kari’nja.”

In this context, Vallejos (2014: 55) reports about the impact of recordings in the Kokama community. Several community members asked the researcher about copies of CD’s with traditional songs and other contents. As a result, Vallejos distributed some copies of recordings she made back in 1999. Like in the situation described previously by Yamada, the community loved the recordings and played the CD’s all day long. Based on these recordings, the community started to feel a stronger connection to their linguistic heritage. In addition, a DVD containing traditional songs, stories and personal narratives was produced for the community.

Concerning the importance of recorded songs, Marett and Barwick (2003: 144) state that “songs are considered by culture bearers to be the “crown jewels” of endangered cultural heritages whose knowledge systems have hitherto been maintained without the aid of writing.” In this regard, Figure 3 shows a segment of a traditional Baures song, taken from a booklet produced by Swintha Danielsen. The booklet also contains stories, vocabulary lists and pictures.

Figure 3: “Canción de Baures”. Source: Danielsen, Swintha. Booklet To vekori to waworonev “The language of the Baures” (scanned in). [Online]. http://research.uni- leipzig.de/baureprojekt/activities/booklet.pdf. [2018, June 02]

The given examples demonstrated that simple recordings containing traditional songs, stories and personal narratives have a huge emotional value for indigenous communities.

3.3.3 Thematic dictionaries

Dictionaries constitute significant resources for communities as they can have a big impact on the communities’ self-esteem. If a researcher decides to develop a dictionary which is useful and accessible not only for academics but also for the indigenous communities, it is important to include the communities’ ideas and wishes into the process of compiling a dictionary. However, researchers may not be financially supported over the needed period of time in order to produce a broad dictionary. As a result, linguists might decide to develop a thematic dictionary instead. On the one hand, these thematic dictionaries concentrate solely on a specific semantic domain and therefore, are not very comprehensive concerning the languages’ vocabulary. On the other hand, due to its small size a thematic dictionary can be produced in the course of a short documentation project. What is more, it covers a culturally important domain broadly and it can be used not only by communities but also by linguists for their research. Generally, communities are eager to participate in creating a dictionary which contains vocabulary regarding activities of their daily lives related to their cultural knowledge. Most importantly, the domains that will provide the vocabulary for such a dictionary include “specialized vocabulary [which] is less frequently used than general vocabulary.” (Mosel 2011:

350) In other words, thematic dictionaries preserve vocabulary which is likely to disappear before basic vocabulary does (cf. Mosel 2011: 337, 339, 341, 350).

Hill (2012) reports that the community she was working with on the Solomon Islands wanted to take part in the development of a dictionary. Due to a conflict, the Longgu community was losing culturally important language domains. Therefore, the community was most interested in creating a dictionary containing information about their traditions. Consequently, Hill and the community decided upon a thematic dictionary about weaving as this activity plays an important role in the communities’ life. With this dictionary, the community wanted to maintain their cultural knowledge in a tangible form in order to teach their children how to weave in the future. This dictionary was regarded as highly beneficial by the community and contributed to an increase of their pride and self-esteem. As a consequence, the community decided to develop two more dictionaries including traditional knowledge about carving and fishing (cf. Hill 2012: 277-279).

In the course of the Rama language documentation project Colette Grinevald also produced a thematic dictionary containing the knowledge the community has about fish. The entries are provided in Rama, English, Spanish and Kriol. There is general information about each fish as well as lexical and ethnographic notes. After these entries, there are pictures of some of the fish and an index.

Figure 4: Rama language Dictionary (2009). Source: Grinevald, Colette. 2009. Turkulka. Rama Language Dictionary. Diccionario de la lengua Rama. Campo semántico Peces. Semantic field Fish. [Online]. http://www.turkulka.net/docs/2010/diccionario-rama- salpka.pdf. [2018, June 02]

Swintha Danielsen produced a flora and fauna dictionary of the nearly extinct language Guarasu. Based on previously gathered Guarasu vocabulary, Danielsen compiled a significant ethnobiographic dictionary. The dictionary is bidirectional and includes an introduction about how to use it properly, images and an appendix with the taxonomy of the flora and fauna. Figure 5 shows the cover of the dictionary.

Figure 5: Flora and Fauna dictionary (2016). Source: Danielsen, Swintha. 2016. Diccionario flora y fauna Guarasu. [Online]. http://research.uni- leipzig.de/baureprojekt/papers/diccionarioFloraFaunaGaurasu.pdf. [2018, June 02]

In this context, Yamada (2011) reports that the Kari’nja community mostly valued the dictionary which was produced. All community members regarded it as a useful “reference tool” and additionally, “its mere existence has increased the prestige of the language in the community” (Yamada 2011: 23).

As could be shown, thematic dictionaries are valued immensely by indigenous communities as they serve as repositories for culturally significant information. Additionally, these dictionaries can contribute to an increase of the communities’ pride and self-confidence.

3.3.4 Vocabulary collections

Vocabulary collections are small booklets which mostly contain some vocabulary accompanied with illustrations referring to a specific domain, for example animals, family, housing or work, among many other topics.

During his documentation project in Bolivia Noé Gasparini worked with a native Siriono speaker whose name is Victor Hugo Dicarere Mendez. Together, they developed a series of publications including a bilingual Siriona-Spanish dictionary and three books about animals (mammals, fish, birds) and one poster with fruits.

Figure 6: “Ae nyakukiakia – Mamíferos” (2015). Source: Gasparini, Noé & Victor Hugo Dicarere Mendez. 2015. Ae nyakukia kia. Mamíferos. [Online]. http://www.academia.edu/17852382/Libreto_Siriono_-_Mam%C3%ADferos. [2018, June 02]

The illustrations are taken from the book about the mammals. Each page contains the drawing of a mammal together with its designation in Siriono and Spanish. Additionally, short sentences are given in order to represent the word in a context and to provide some more vocabulary. After the enumeration of various animals there are some pages with exercises, questions and a poem which should serve to better memorize the presented vocabulary. Therefore, this book can be used both at home and at school in order to learn simple words in the indigenous language.

Grinevald developed plenty of materials for the Rama community in Nicaragua. Among dictionaries, calendars, schoolbooks and journals she produced a range of booklets containing vocabulary about various topics. Figure 7 shows a page from a booklet concerning the topic of rain. Short sentences are presented in three languages and every page has an illustration. At the end of the book there is a wordlist with all used words.

Figure 7: “Sii aatsi/It is raining/Está lloviendo” (1994). Source: Grinevald, Colette. 1994. Sii aatsi/It is raining/Está lloviendo. [Online]. http://www.turkulka.net/docs/RMA001R036I005.pdf. [2018, June 02]

To sum up, these vocabulary collections can be used by children in order to learn individual words and simple phrases in their heritage language. Moreover, these materials constitute important resources for preserving basic vocabulary of various domains.

3.3.5 Other materials for learning purposes

Often, researchers want to support communities in language learning activities. Therefore, they produce materials which can be used by children and adults alike in order to learn some basics of the language either in a school environment or at home. Learning materials include pedagogical grammars, dictionaries, school books, posters and flashcards, among other products (cf. Yamada 2011: 15-23).

Pedagogical grammars, teachers’ guides and schoolbooks together with accompanying audio files constitute common products for language learners. Figure 8 shows two of three books which were published in a series of pedagogical books for the endangered language Pilagá. Alejandra Vidal conducted a language documentation project in the community and together with others she developed a pedagogical grammar, an exercise book for students and a teacher’s guide book. The grammar can be used by teachers, students and other people who are interested in the language alike. The other two books are designed for students and teachers exclusively. The books are used as resources in schools in the province of Formosa, Argentina.

Figure 8: Pilagá pedagogical grammar and exercise book (2013). Sources: Vidal, Alejandra. 2013. Gramática pedagógica. Libro 1. Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Formosa. [Online]. http://lenguapilaga.com.ar/-descargas/gramatica-pedagogica_libro-1.pdf. [2018, June 02]/ Vidal, Alejandra. 2013. Actividades y Consignas. Libro 2. Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Formosa. [Online]. http://lenguapilaga.com.ar/-descargas/actividades-y-consignas-libro- 2.pdf. [2018, June 02]

The following two figures show the content of booklets from two different language documentation projects. The illustration on the left was produced in the course of the Iquito language documentation project. Christine Beier developed several learning materials in order to benefit the community. The presented booklet serves to teach community members the newly established orthography. At the beginning of the booklet, there is some general information about the alphabet, the intonation and the pronunciation of the words. Words are given in Iquito and in Spanish.

The illustration on the right side is taken from a booklet which was produced for the indigenous community Matses. The booklet is intended to be used by families at home. With this book, parents should practice with their children to read and to pronounce the given words adequately.

Figure 9: “Vamos a escribir el idioma iquito” (2017), “200 palabras Matsés” (2016). Sources: Beier, Christine. 2017. P´-ı-na´ajuuyaa ik´ıituwaaka kuwas´ıini. Vamos a escribir el idioma iquito. Cuarta edición. [Online]. http://www.cabeceras.org/beier_et_al_2017_p+-naajuuyaa- ikiituwaaka-kuwasiini_pnik.pdf. [2018, June 02]/ Fleck, David. 2016. Onquiaid 200 ted: Aton Shubunouësh Bacuëbo Bëquiadte. 200 palabras Matsés. Cartilla para Aprendizaje de Lectura en el Hogar. [Online]. https://acateamazon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/REDUCED- Cartilla-200-palabras-interiores-vesrion-FINAL.pdf. [2018, June 02]

Other materials include posters and flashcards with illustrations and words or grammatical information. The illustrations should facilitate the understanding of certain terms and can serve in order to talk about diverse objects and actions. These materials are mostly used for teaching children basic concepts of a language.

Figure 10: Chatino flashcards “La Lotería” (2016). Source: Cruz, Emiliana. 2016. La Lotería. Planillas. [Online]. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4aXv2amWeZ4RVhVTjhCZW1mWE0/view. [2018, June 02]

There are also online learning activities which are created for supporting language learners. Such learning activities are well known concerning the teaching of national languages, however, several researchers started to develop online learning activities for endangered languages as well (cf. Holton 2011: 381).

For example, Femmy Admiraal created an online course for learning the indigenous language Baure. On the website, there are explanations for different grammatical aspects as well as vocabulary for different domains and exercises. Likewise, there is a website for learning the Iquito language. There are words and texts which are accompanied by sound files. In that way, one can read short dialogues about different topics and listen to them at the same time or afterwards (cf. Cabeceras Aid Project 2018; Shi vikarow to vekori n.d.).

Undoubtedly, there are many more different materials which are produced for indigenous communities who decide to initiate language classes for children and adults alike. In order to ensure optimal language lessons, researcher try to support the communities by developing adequate language materials which are usable and understandable for everyone interested in learning the concerned language.

3.4 Language revitalization

Language revitalization can be divided into two subcategories, namely language maintenance and language revival. In the case of maintenance, the crucial method is to support the vitality of the language as first indications of decline are clearly visible. In contrast, language revival

deals with already extinct languages and speakers might decide to revitalize their ancestral language based on existing documentation (cf. Tsunoda 2005: 168). More generally, language revitalization can be described as a “phenomenon of attempting to bring endangered languages back to some level of use within their communities (and elsewhere) after a period of reduction in usage” (Hinton 2011: 291).

There are many projects around the world which have the goal to revitalize endangered languages. When addressing the field of language revitalization, it is important to pose the question whether it is even possible to revitalize a language. Do language revitalization programs succeed in their efforts? There are no satisfactory answers to these questions as the success of a given project depends on the respective situation, the engagement and the aim of the communities (cf. Tsunoda 2005: 169). What is more, it is important to keep in mind that “language revitalization is hard work and requires years of continuous work” (Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 49).

Concerning the aims of a revitalization project, different views are available. Some people might consider a project successful if the younger generation learns to talk fluently in their heritage language. This is, however, very unrealistic and not many communities pursue this goal. Others might be content to learn some basic phrases and words which they could use actively in future conversations (cf. Thomason 2015: 163). To give an example, some members of the Rama community started to learn some words and simple phrases in their heritage language. The members were proud to use these phrases when addressing each other in public, what is more, they started to feel a renewed connection to their language (cf. Grinevald, Pivot 2013: 195). Vallejos (2014: 49,50) also reports that the elders of the Kokama community were proud to see young people who made an effort to learn their heritage language even if their endeavors did not convert them into fluent speakers. In addition, this group of neo-speakers were zealous to preserve their heritage language and contributed significantly and actively to revitalization activities.

Language revitalization activities can take place in big and small communities. The challenge in implementing revitalization activities in small indigenous communities, however, is that in the majority of the cases there are insufficient materials available (cf. Hinton 2011: 294). Therefore, as already mentioned in previous sections, it is crucial to have a good and comprehensive documentation of the language, because without it revitalization efforts can be limited enormously.

If a community decides to initiate revitalization activities, linguists might support and advise them in order to maintain and promote their heritage language. What is more, many linguists even take roles as language teachers and provide suitable language materials. In order to assist communities in their revitalization efforts efficiently, many linguists start to acquire knowledge in various fields like language teaching and learning theory, among other qualifications (cf. Hinton 2011: 307,308).

It is critical to bear in mind, however, that even if a revitalization project does not succeed in the first attempt, many valuable resources remain with the respective communities. If the language vanishes with the death of its last speaker, materials gathered in the course of the documentation and revitalization process can still serve various purposes. The younger generation might use different outcomes in future activities in order to gain an insight into their heritage language and culture. For instance, based on the existing descriptions, some people might decide to initiate new language reclamation activities or might start to investigate specific features (cf. Thomason 2015: 170). Therefore, according to Hinton (2001: 6) researchers should engage in revitalization efforts even if the situation is complex because gathered materials can serve the community even years after the finalization of a project.

3.5 Types of revitalization programs

Revitalization programs serve to revalorize a language and its culture and even outsiders may become aware of the language. Consequently, if the respective community realizes that more and more outsiders are interested in their language, they in turn feel proud to speak their language and their self-esteem will grow (cf. Tsunoda 2005: 172). For example, Cruz and Woodbury (2014: 284) report that their “goal has been to promote interest, awareness, and respect for the Chatino languages through, and alongside, language documentation.”

It can be stated that there is no universal language revitalization program which could be applied to many different situations around the world (cf. Hinton 2001: 4). For this reason, a variety of different activities have been suggested in order to revitalize endangered languages. School- based programs constitute an important part in the support of revitalization activities as children learn their native language very quickly when they are at a young age (cf. Hinton 2011: 292- 295). As a result, these children might be the future language teachers and preservers of their heritage language (cf. Thomason 2015: 164). 46

Most of the programs presented here also focus on revitalization employing educational settings and environments. The following revitalization programs are going to be discussed: 1) programs concentrating on language classes, 2) immersion-schools and 3) the master- apprentice program.

3.5.1 Language classes

Many revitalization activities include language classes which last around an hour per day and usually, the language of instruction is the dominant language of the region. The applied methodologies vary from situation to situation as they can emphasize either on literacy or on conversation strategies, among other objectives. The more often the language classes take place, the better the results are going to be. However, many community members are satisfied even if they do not become fluent but are able to use some conversational phrases and words. Concerning small communities, language classes generally take place in local settings (cf. Hinton 2011: 295). Even if language classes are held only an hour per week, they can cause an increasing awareness and eagerness towards a given indigenous language. In addition, when a community sees that their native language can be taught in school, they might start to attribute more prestige to their linguistic heritage (cf. Hinton 2001: 7).

Furthermore, the initiation of language classes involves the production of more educational materials in the indigenous language. Writing systems have been developed for previously unwritten languages in order to produce school materials. Children and parents alike can avail themselves of these materials in order to learn about their heritage language. Many indigenous communities hope that these language classes would prevent their native languages from disappearing (cf. Hinton 2011: 296).

However, there are some problems concerning language classes. In many cases, there are no sufficiently trained language teachers available to teach an indigenous language. Many bilingual teachers are more proficient in the dominant language of the respective region. Consequently, language classes are conducted in the dominant language which contributes to the gradual assimilation to the dominant language and culture (cf. Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 56). The following sections are dealing with programs which overcome this issue.

3.5.2 Immersion-schools

Immersion-schools require an environment where the heritage language is spoken and heard all the time. The setting for this method could be a school, a course or a weekend camp, among others. Most importantly, immersion-schools employ fluent speakers who are able to teach the language. The best known program is known as “the language nest” and was carried out in New Zealand and Hawaii. In these settings, all the language classes are conducted in the native language (cf. Tsunoda 2005: 202). Hinton (2011: 298) reports that in Mexico, ten language nests for Mixtec, Zapotec and Cuicatec languages existed until 2009. Initially, some parents were worried about the competence their children would lack concerning the dominant language. However, it could be proved that the children who attended these immersion-schools had great educational achievements. It is also of great importance that higher education is provided for endangered languages because if children do not receive further input they might replace their native language with the dominant language of the region or country. All in all, it can be stated that immersion-schools are highly beneficial and are likely to achieve the best results concerning the revitalization of endangered languages. In addition, students who attend these schools will gain proficiency in both their native and the dominant language (cf. Hinton 2011: 299; Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 50).

The biggest problem concerning this type of program, however, is that only few communities possess the resources which are necessary for the initiation of immersion-schools (cf. Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 50).

3.5.3 Master-apprentice program

The master-apprentice language program was founded in California and first implemented in order to revitalize Californian languages. The basic idea in this program is to pair a fluent speaker (a master) and a committed learner (the apprentice) together. The fluent speaker, who acts as a language teacher, should speak and use only the endangered language and should correct his interlocutor if s/he commits any mistakes. In this way, the apprentice will be able to develop both his listening and speaking skills (cf. Hinton 2011: 303; Tsunoda 2005: 206). Most importantly, the language is used in natural environments which mirror real communicative situations rather than school settings. The master-apprentice program enables both community members and researchers to become more proficient and confident in the respective language 48

(cf. Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 61; Hinton 2011: 304). To state an example, Beier (2009: 4) reports that during their Iquito project fluent community members worked in master-apprentice collaborations with both other community members and the Western researchers. In that way, the linguists could acquire more proficiency in the language and support the community's revitalization efforts more efficiently. Yamada (2007: 268) also reports that in the course of her documentation project a group of young adults recognized the importance of learning their heritage language and as a result, they initiated a kind of master-apprentice collaboration with elderly community members.

Therefore, this program provides “a new kind of transmission mechanism for languages with very few remaining speakers” (Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 63).

4 Factors influencing language documentation projects

The topic of this chapter revolves around factors which have to be considered as they can influence the progression of language documentation projects. Various factors can have positive or negative impacts on the conducting of documentation and preservation projects. This is due to the fact that when working on languages which are under threat of disappearing a range of different circumstances have to be considered, including “social, cultural and political dimensions” (Bowern 2011: 468). Also, it is critical to consider that communities are not homogenous and therefore, certain factors can have different impacts in each situation. In this chapter, I will concentrate on factors and circumstances which influenced projects carried out in Latin America. For this purpose, some examples from different projects will illustrate the impact of certain factors.

The chapter will proceed as follows. Section 4.1 discusses external support which can be provided by different institutions. Communities can benefit in many ways by being supported, however, the lack of support can hamper certain efforts. Section 4.2 concentrates on language attitudes and their significance for language preservation activities. In section 4.3 the discussion centers on distinct expectations concerning the outcomes of a documentation project. Section 4.4 deals with community engagement and emphasizes the relevance of engaged community members for the success of a project. Section 4.5 considers the importance of involving speakers of different degrees of language proficiency into the documentation project. The purpose of section 4.6 is to address the two ubiquitous factors funding and time. Finally, in section 4.7 I present comments on the necessity of accessible and usable outcomes of a documentation project.

4.1 External support

The government can support indigenous communities and their heritage languages in several ways. For instance, the government could implement a language policy where an indigenous language is officially recognized and used in all public domains next to the dominant language of the country. In this situation, its vitality will be fostered. Even if the recognition of a minority language is just symbolic, it can cause communities to become proud of their language and its

use might be encouraged. This recognition might raise awareness of the endangerment of a certain language and make this issue known to a wider audience. Language policies also determine the support communities get in education. The introduction of indigenous languages into school constitutes an important factor if a community wants to preserve their linguistic knowledge. Government support can also consist in financial support.

However, language policies can also have negative impacts on endangered languages if multilingualism is regarded as something undesirable. In these cases, the national language might be promoted in all domains and the minority languages might be neglected completely (cf. Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 27-33; Tsunoda 2005: 183,184).

In cases where the government does not support the indigenous languages of a country adequately, non-governmental institutions and international organizations try to contribute to the preservation of the languages. In this regard, Hornberger and King (2001: 182,183) describe the situation of Quechua. Quechua is an indigenous language spoken by some 10 million people, however, the language can be considered as endangered. This situation is mainly due to the government and the Spanish speaking majority. In Peru, for instance, Quechua was declared an official language in 1975 next to Spanish. Education should be in Quechua and court actions involving Quechua speakers should be carried out in the indigenous language. However, the government did not implement these objectives satisfactorily. As a result, a few non-governmental institutions emerged in order to promote the Quechua language and culture more efficiently. These institutions also promoted literacy outside the regular school classes.

Another example concerning the implementation of language policies is taken from Rosés Labrada (2017: 10). The linguist was working on Mako, a Sáliban language spoken in the Amazonian part of the country. Based on an important law from 2008, all indigenous languages in Venezuela are officially recognized and protected by the government. That means that the country guarantees the preservation and usage of the languages and education in the indigenous languages respectively. The law also stipulates that researchers should document and describe the country’s indigenous languages. Although few declarations have been implemented until now, a minority language institute was created with the aim to implement the law efficiently and to coordinate the research on the indigenous languages (cf. Rosés Labrada 2017: 30-34).

The last example concerning language and education policies is taken from Vilacy Galucio. The linguist was working in Brazil with the Puruborá community. Their language belongs to the Tupi languages and is regarded as one of the most endangered within the language family. 51

In an interview published in Franchetto (2017), Vilacy Galucio describes the legislation concerning indigenous rights in Brazil. The constitution from 1988 declared that the existence of all indigenous languages and cultures is recognized and that education is guaranteed according to the community’s circumstances. Additionally, laws concerning the training of indigenous teachers were launched in order to ensure optimal educational achievements. Even though there is still a gap between these legislations and the actual implementation for the indigenous communities, positive impacts can be found. In the case of the Puruborá community, a school has been inaugurated and Puruborá teachers have been trained to teach basic words and phrases of the language to the children (cf. Franchetto 2017: 29-36).

4.2 Language attitudes

Community attitudes can influence a documentation project in positive and negative ways. It is of great importance how the community perceives its heritage language, whether with or without the support and recognition of the country’s government. Language documentation projects benefit enormously if communities are proud to speak their heritage language and think that it is valuable. In these cases, it will be easy to involve community members in activities related to documentation and preservation alike (cf. Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 39,40; Tsunoda 2005: 191,192). To illustrate this statement with an example, I consider the documentation project conducted in the Mako community in Venezuela. Rosés Labrada reports that the community’s attitude toward their language is very positive. Most members Rosés Labrada worked with value their language as a tool for daily communication and want to preserve it for future generations (cf. Rosés Labrada 2017: 34).

In other cases, communities might adopt the wider believe that it is more relevant to be fully proficient in the national language. In other words, negative national attitudes can influence community attitudes and consequently documentation projects. In this context, I consider the project described by Vilacy Galucio. The linguist was working with the Sakurabiat community in the Brazilian Amazon. Their language, Mekens, belongs to the Tupian language family and was spoken by elders only. Vilacy Galucio reports that especially elderly people were proud of their language and thus desired their language to be spoken in the future as well. However, external negative attitudes started to influence the communities’ attitude. Several people claimed that the elders would speak a “weird” Portuguese because it was influenced by Mekens.

Consequently, various families stopped speaking Mekens to their children. Therefore, Vilacy Galucio started to implement literacy workshops and to work on the re-valorization of the language. First, she eliminated the use of the pejorative term “slang” used by non-indigenous people and some community members to refer to Mekens. Further, Vilacy Galucio explained to the speech community that by speaking Mekens their Portuguese will not be influenced as various people believed. As a result, parents started to accept that children mixed words from their heritage language into their Portuguese. In addition, young adults who did not learn to speak Mekens as children started to ask for copies and recorded materials in order to learn about their ancestors traditions and stories (cf. Franchetto 2017: 26-28).

Sometimes, indigenous communities might even feel ashamed to speak their ancestors’ language because of attitudes coming from a wider population. In this regard, Craig (1992: 19,23) reports that based on negative attitudes which were introduced by missionaries, an elderly fluent Rama speaker claimed before he died that Rama was no real language and that he was ashamed to use such an ugly language. However, in the course of the documentation and revitalization project, community members started to value their heritage language and regarded it as a “good” language as it was used in order to produce many materials for community use.

The last example considers the case of a Chatino community described by Villard and Sullivant (2016). Attitudes concerning the language are throughout positive, however, the communities are not interested in any revitalization efforts. The researchers explain this behavior in the following way: “The pro-language attitude may itself be a badge of ethnicity for a community, even if the community may not have any strong desires to maintain or relearn their local language” (Villard, Sullivant 2016: 298). Due to the increasing migration to the United States, the communities started to favor English over their heritage language. As Spanish is promoted nationally as the most important language to acquire as a mother tongue, Chatino parents are urged to decide between their heritage language and English as a second language for their children. Based on the notion that English brings more economic benefits, most indigenous people decide not to teach Chatino to their children. This behavior is reinforced by the belief that learning two languages (here Chatino and English) simultaneously is too demanding, therefore it is relevant to make a choice. As a result, the community does not request the production of language materials in their native language, rather they demand the linguists to function as English language teachers. This attitude has complicated the cooperation between the linguists and the community. Therefore, linguists tried to motivate individual members in 53

the hope of achieving a certain change in their attitudes (cf. Villard, Sullivant 2016: 283, 292,300).

The examples illustrate that varying attitudes can be found within communities across Latin America ranging from positive to rather negative views. Often, communities become aware of the importance of their heritage language in the course of documentation and revitalization projects (cf. Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 39,40; Tsunoda 2005: 191,192). For that reason, some researchers have to create awareness before trying to implement any projects (cf. Pérez Báez et al. 2016: 18).

4.3 Expectations concerning research outcomes

“The term outcomes refers to the tangible and intangible end products of a project. Project outcomes can be classified in several different ways.” (Bowern 2011: 478) Tangible outcomes are described as products which exist in a physical form including dictionaries, story books and teaching programs, among other products. Intangible items are results which cannot be perceived in a way written products can be. Bowern (2011: 478) expounds the following example for an intangible outcome: If a young community member gets the chance to acquire some basic recording skills, it may be conducive to his self-confidence.

Regarding expected outcomes of a documentation project, researchers and communities will have different expectations. Generally, researchers believe that all communities would value the production of language materials and other community-beneficial outcomes. It can occur, however, that communities are not interested in these products (cf. Pérez Báez et al. 2016: 18). For instance, if most community members live in extreme poverty then “the idea of producing dictionaries is a goal that comes far behind feeding the children” (Grenoble 2010: 297). Therefore, it is crucial that every documentation and revitalization project defines their objectives and sets the priorities from the beginning on. Otherwise, “assumptions that seem perfectly obvious to one participant will seem to be incomprehensible to another” (Dwyer 2010: 211).

Most importantly, project goals should be realistic, i.e. their implementation should be feasible. Unrealistic goals are a possible source for declining motivation among community members (cf. Grenoble, Whaley 2006: 176). Researchers and communities have to discuss and agree

upon achievable outcomes they want to yield. The challenge lies in the elaboration of mutually beneficial outcomes in a way that they leave nothing to be desired by communities and funding agencies alike (cf. Bowern 2008: 158). However, it should be kept in mind that even if researchers and communities have common project outcomes in mind, the goals still remain distinct (Beier 2009: 6).

In some cases, communities do not want linguists to support them in activities concerning the preservation of their heritage language, but rather want them to engage in activities related to their identity (cf. Pérez Báez et al. 2016: 20). As an illustration, Rogers (2016: 252) describes the situation concerning the Xinkan community. The term “Xinka” comprises four language varieties which are mutually unintelligible. Only one speaker of any of the four languages is left and only a few community members claim to understand some aspects of certain varieties. The clannishness of the community results from the fact that indigenous communities are assigned certain rights in Guatemala. The community does not speak the heritage language nor practices any cultural activities. Thus they are mostly considerate of intangible outcomes. These intangible outcomes include the recognition as a Xinkan community by the government and the desire to develop and foster their social and cultural identity. The only tangible outcomes they were interested in were materials which should underline the languages’ uniqueness. In other words, the community was eager to obtain linguistic descriptions demonstrating specific features distinctive for their language but they were not interested in other materials, e.g. pedagogical materials. The community’s aim was to put an end to the marginalization of their members and considered the documentation of their heritage language as an opportunity to do so. In order to achieve the community’s objectives, certain activities were implemented. For example, extracurricular courses were offered for children interested in Xinkan languages and culture. These courses, however, were not intended to serve as language classes but were aimed to teach children to value their ancestors’ culture (cf. Rogers 2016: 248-260).

A second example concerning this topic should illustrate that in some situations, it also may be the case that there is disagreement between community members regarding the outcomes of the project. Vallejos (2014) reports that different aims were persecuted within the Kokama community. On the one hand, elders preferred materials which indicated the special features of their language. On the other hand, the younger generation was interested in pedagogical materials in order to learn words and phrases in their ancestors’ language. Regarding the linguists’ and the community’s objectives, community members were especially eager to record and talk about traditional stories and festive celebrations in the interviews. However, in order 55

to yield data with a variety of grammatical constructions, the linguist needed conversations and texts about various topics. Without offending the members in any way, Vallejos came up with a range of topics and suggested them as alternatives for the interviews. The community members were happy to talk about other topics as well and in the end the majority of the community was pleased with the produced outcomes (cf. Vallejos 2014: 50,51).

4.4 Community engagement

The engagement in projects varies from community to community. In chapter three different research models were discussed and the importance of implementing a community-based model was underlined as all parties involved would benefit from its application. There are communities who are committed to actively participating in documentation projects, whereas others are not. Depending on the commitment and the motivation coming from the communities, the results of a documentation project can vary greatly. Outcomes for community use as well as results for academic use depend on community engagement (cf. Pérez Báez et al. 2016: 17,21).

The first example in this regard should demonstrate that it is not possible to engage everyone from the community in documentation and revitalization activities. Cruz and Woodbury (2014) report that they were very excited about their work with the Chatino community. The researchers were eager to collaborate with the teachers as they assumed that the collaboration will result in the implementation of various activities and the production of useful language materials which the teachers could use in their classes. It was, however, rather demanding to collaborate with the teachers as they did not understand the purpose behind the documentation and revitalization project. Hence, the researchers decided to focus on the collaboration with local authorities and young people instead. For instance, several young people were trained and with that contributed significantly to the project (cf. Cruz, Woodbury 2014: 269-276).

If a community is down to only a few fluent speakers and attitudes towards the language are rather negative, it can be challenging to find community members who are willing to participate in different projects. In this regard, I consider the case reported by Grinevald and Pivot (2013) who were working with the Rama community. In the beginning, only one community member who spoke Rama as a second language was motivated to participate in their documentation and revitalization project. With the help of this participant, the researchers were able to motivate a 56

second fluent speaker to join their activities. Generally, it was not easy to identify fluent speakers as many were ashamed of their ancestors’ language or it was simply not possible to work with them (cf. Grinevald, Pivot 2013: 192). It is not unusual that community members who are not fluent in their heritage language are more aware that they have to engage in activities in order to preserve an indigenous language (cf. Bowern 2011: 461).

I will conclude this section with an example taken from Stenzel (2014). The linguist was working with the two indigenous communities Kotiria and Wa’ikhana, which live in the northwestern Amazon in Brazil and Colombia. Their languages belong to the East Tukano language family. Stenzel worked with the communities which lived in Brazil. The collaboration between the researcher and both communities was flawless and various community members were participating in workshops as well as interviews. Based on the active participation, the workshops were successful and every participant enjoyed the collaborative work. In addition, the Kotiria worked productively on the documentation even without the presence of Stenzel. The Wa’ikhana, however, did not work that independently without the assistance of the linguist. Still, both communities valued the outcomes of the projects and benefited from the participation as they started to feel more secure in speaking their languages. In the end, however, both communities did not continue with documentation activities after the project came to an end. Continuity and sustainability play an important role in most language documentation projects. But they are hard to achieve (cf. Stenzel 2014: 298,303). In this context, Stenzel (2014: 304) makes it clear that one of the “greatest challenges is to better understand and deal with these ‘post-project’ contexts.”

4.5 Types of speakers

When working on endangered languages, the respective community will consist of speakers who have different degrees of language proficiency ranging from fluent to knowing some words only (cf. Tsunoda 2005: 238). Depending on available participants and the fluency among the community, different objectives have to be set for documentation and revitalization efforts. Therefore, as already claimed in chapter 2, it is important to assess the number of the remaining speakers of a language community (cf. Whaley, Grenoble 2006: 41).

It is critical to bear in mind that also speakers who are not fluent can contribute significantly to a project. Grinevald and Bert (2011: 49) propose seven types of speakers: fluent speakers, semi- 57

speakers, terminal speakers, rememberers, ghost speakers, neo-speakers and last speakers. In most cases, documentation projects involve fluent-speakers only. In this regard, Vallejos (2014) argues that including other types of speakers in the documentation has multiple advantages. She worked with the Kokama community in Peru and recorded fluent-speakers, semi-speakers and neo-speakers for the documentation of the language. Fluent-speakers served to record traditional stories and personal narratives. Although semi-speakers had difficulties in their production, their speech patterns could be used in order to study language attrition. The speech of neo-speakers contributed to a broader understanding of second language acquisition as these speakers learned Kokama through second language methodologies in order to become bilingual teachers. What is more, the neo-speakers were most conscious of the fact that their heritage language is under threat of disappearing and therefore engaged actively in preservation activities (cf. Vallejos 2014: 47-49).

4.6 Funding and time

Researchers who are planning to conduct documentation projects and want to assist communities in their revitalization efforts depend on the financial support of funding agencies in order to get equipment, pay community participants and store their results, among other expenses (cf. Bowern 2011: 461). Especially in countries where the linguistic diversity is high and documentation is needed urgently, many researchers are reliant on international funding agencies as national funding institutions are frequently challenged by the amount of needed funding (cf. Pérez Báez et al. 2016: 11).

Another significant factor concerns the time the community and the researchers are able and willing to invest in a documentation project in order to achieve impactful goals. There are researchers who complain about not having enough time to train community members or to organize and hold workshops where the objectives of the project could be discussed together (cf. Yamada 2010: 116,117). Due to the necessity of funding and their work back in their countries, many researchers are not able to spend sufficient time or live permanently for some years in a community (cf. Gerdts 2010: 183,185).

4.7 Accessibility and usability of materials

There are many archives nowadays where a plethora of recordings of endangered languages are brought together. These archives have the purpose to preserve all materials which were collected during field trips by researchers. The stored materials can be used for a variety of purposes including language revitalization, teaching and research. Especially digital archives give communities, researchers and other interested people all over the world the opportunity to access these recordings quickly and easily. In other words, these archives enable researchers to share their results with a wide community. As a result, it is relevant that recordings in all archives are accessible and understandable for all interested entities (cf. Woodbury 2014: 19- 22; Conathan 2011: 250).

For instance, the data which is stored in a local archive in the Peruvian Amazon in Iquitos can be accessed by all indigenous communities when they are in the city. Moreover, many take the opportunity to make copies of materials in their languages and distribute them in their communities afterwards. Seifert et al. (2008: 132) explain that “one of the aims of the archive in Iquitos is to contribute to changing the tendency of exporting objects and data towards a culture of sharing data with the national institutions of the countries where these data were collected.” Other local archives can also be found in Colombia, Brazil and Argentina (cf. O’Meara, González Guadarrama 2016: 64).

One problem, however, remains that many remote communities still lack technological devices or internet connectivity in order to access data stored online. In these situations, researchers are considerate of how to make the produced materials accessible to the indigenous communities they worked with. In this context, O’Meara and González Guadarrama (2016) describe their situations of sharing materials with two communities in Mexico. Due to lack of computers and adequate internet connectivity, the researchers had to think about other ways of making their outcomes accessible. For instance, González Guadarrama, who was working in one community of Nahuatl speakers, installed a local archive in a school. O’Meara worked in the Seri speech community and could not find an adequate place for a local archive. Hence, she distributed the materials to people who participated in the project or to other interested community members. O’Meara was not content about sharing the outcomes with just a few community members but there was no other possibility at that time (cf. O’Meara, González Guadarrama 2016: 67-72).

As previously mentioned, another concern regarding research results addresses usability. Materials should be written in a way that the community understands them. In addition, it is significant to use a language known by most community members. In this regard, Yamada (2007: 268) decided to provide all of her academic descriptions not only in English but also in the language understood by most of the community members. Furthermore, materials should not include specific linguistic expressions only understood by academics but rather they should try to explain the used terminology in a way that it “can be understood by intelligent community members who happen not to have a university degree in Linguistics.” (Shaw 2001: 190).

Concluding this chapter, it can be stated that the process of language documentation projects depends on a variety of factors. These factors can either benefit a project or they can hamper certain implementations. However, there are many more factors than the ones described in this thesis which have to be taken into account when implementing and conducting both documentation and preservation activities. Therefore, this chapter served to give some information about the most common factors researchers are confronted with.

5 An investigation of community-beneficial outcomes of documentation projects in Latin America

In this chapter I present my investigation concerning outcomes which have been produced in order to benefit communities in Latin America. Even though researchers are not required to produce community-beneficial materials during their language documentation projects as a part of their research outcomes, many linguists feel the need to give something back to the communities. The aim of this investigation is to show the diverse outcomes produced during language documentation projects in Latin America and to appreciate the work of the researchers and their support for the indigenous communities. Additionally, issues emerging due to the intersection of language documentation and language revitalization will be emphasized. The methodology and the objectives of the investigation were presented in the introduction.

The chapter is organized as follows. Section 5.1 begins with some general information about funding agencies around the world. One of the biggest of these agencies is the ELDP. After describing the ELDP and its objectives, I concentrate on the projects which were funded by this organization in order to preserve endangered languages in Latin America. In section 5.2 I present the questionnaire which I used to compile data on community-beneficial outcomes of the documentation projects and explain the idea behind the chosen questions. The assessment of the gathered responses in section 5.2.1 will give information about community-related efforts and issues in documentation projects in Latin America. The results will be presented and some of the researchers’ comments will serve to depict their experiences during the projects. The last section, section 5.3., is dedicated to three case studies. I have chosen three researchers who conducted and still conduct documentation projects in the three countries Mexico, Peru and Colombia. The aim is to describe these projects and illustrate the researchers' work, the community-beneficial outcomes (both tangible and intangible) and the issues which the researchers came across in the course of the documentation and revitalization processes.

5.1 The ELDP and the projects funded in Latin America

A range of funding agencies have emerged around the world in order to fund a great number of language documentation projects. These funding agencies, which are either governmental or 61

private, try to support researchers who aim at documenting and preserving endangered languages of indigenous communities globally. Most of these agencies primarily support the documentation (i.e. the compilation of a broad corpus) of threatened languages and the archiving of the gathered data. However, researchers are encouraged to use the funds to benefit the respective language communities with materials or the implementation of certain activities as well. There are also some funding agencies which concentrate on language revitalization projects only. In the following, I will briefly describe the four biggest agencies. The DoBeS programme (Dokumentation bedrohter Sprachen) was financially supported by the Volkswagen Foundation with €28 million from 2000 to 2011. In total, 67 projects have been carried out in this time. The gathered data are stored in the DOBES Archive which is located at the Max- Planck-Institute in Nijmegen. The ELDP (Endangered Language Documentation Programme) was founded as part of the Hans Rausing Endangered Language Project (HRELP) which supports research, training, and archiving of languages in danger of disappearing. The DEL (Documenting Endangered Languages) is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). These two foundations award annually around $4,5 million to the program. Lastly, the ELF (Endangered Language Fund) awards grants for both language documentation and revitalization efforts since 1996. Ever since, plenty of projects have been carried out in over 60 countries. Additionally, several minor charitable organizations dependent on private donors co-exist. (cf. Austin, Sallabank 2011: 14,15; Franchetto, Rice 2014: 251; DOBES 2018a,b; Endangered Languages Documentation Programme 2015a; The Endangered Language Fund n.d.; National Science Foundation n.d.).

In my thesis, I concentrate on projects which received research grants from the ELDP. The Endangered Language Documentation Programme is funded by Arcadia and is part of SOAS, University of London. Arcadia is a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin. It supports institutions and organizations which aim at preserving endangered cultures and endangered ecosystems. Additionally, everyone receiving funds from Arcadia has to make all gathered data online accessible as “knowledge should belong to all” (ARCADIA 2018). The ELDP was founded in 2002 and has supported researchers and institutions financially since 2003. By awarding annually around £1 million, the ELDP ensures the documentation of threatened languages and the archiving of language data. Every applicant who receives grants from the ELDP is required to deposit the gathered data within the Endangered Languages Archive (ELAR). The deposited materials are then accessible online for everyone interested in the data. The ELDP awards four different types of grants: small grants, individual graduate

scholarships, individual postdoctoral fellowship and major documentation project. Depending on the type of grant, the projects can last up to thirty-six months (cf. Endangered Languages Documentation Programme 2015e).

The ELDP sets a range of conditions and principles regarding the outcomes and the collaboration with the language communities during the documentation process. For example, researchers are encouraged to produce materials which are “accessible to and usable by members of the language community and the wider scientific community” (Endangered Languages Documentation Programme 2015c). Other requirements include e.g. the production of a corpus which should be as comprehensive as possible. Even though the ELDP does not fund projects which focus solely on the revitalization of endangered languages, it is stated that “applicants are strongly encouraged to create documentation in ways that assist communities to maintain and strengthen their languages” (Endangered Languages Documentation Programme 2015c). Regarding the collaboration with the communities, the ELDP points out that it is crucial that researchers involve the communities in their projects in an appropriate way (depending on the circumstances) as their knowledge would contribute significantly to the entire documentation process. Researchers are also encouraged by the ELDP to train community members in order to yield more beneficial outcomes for both sides (cf. Endangered Languages Documentation Programme 2015c,e).

Since 2002 the ELDP has funded over 400 documentation projects globally. Concerning Latin America, 104 projects have been carried out across Central- and South America. Concerning the linguistic background of Latin America, there are around 400 indigenous languages which belong to 100 language families. Moreover, the highest number of isolates were counted in this part of the world. Regarding the endangerment of the languages, it can be stated that almost all indigenous languages of Central-and South America can be considered as threatened (cf. Grinevald 1998).

The projects which have been funded by the ELDP have been conducted in sixteen countries. Over 50 projects have taken place in Mexico and Brazil. This is due to the fact that these two countries are the most populated in Latin America. Nine projects have been conducted in Bolivia and Peru respectively; seven projects have been carried out in Ecuador and six in Colombia. The remaining projects have been carried out in descending order in Paraguay, Guatemala, Panamá, Honduras, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Argentina. Two projects have been conducted in the countries Suriname and Belize. These two countries are not

considered Latin American countries as their official languages are Dutch and English. However, I included these two countries in my investigation as well. Most applicants received small field trip grants which enabled the researchers to start their work on different endangered languages in order to create a first corpus of language data (cf. Endangered Languages Documentation Programme 2015d).

5.2 The questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed for the purpose of collecting information about the topic of community-beneficial outcomes and associated issues which are likely to emerge in language documentation projects. The questionnaire is divided into four sections and consists of sixteen questions. The first section deals with general information including the year a project was initiated and the question whether the documentation project is ongoing.

Section two focuses on the research outcomes the different projects have yielded. The aim of this section is to ascertain what kind of outcomes are the most common in Latin America. This information allows me to establish a statement over the preference and necessity of some outcomes over others. In order to gather information about the tangible outcomes of the projects a range of possible materials are listed. The most frequently produced outcomes can be selected. Researchers may add more information about other outcomes they produced if they are not included in the list. The following question revolves around intangible outcomes. These kinds of outcomes do not exist in a physical form but rather comprise certain activities which are implemented in order to benefit the communities and the project in general. Most of the time, these activities include some kind of training, for example training in language documentation or training regarding teaching methods. The last part in the second section approaches the question of external support for the implementation of the projects and lists possible supporters ranging from governmental institutions to individual persons.

Section three covers different topics and includes questions about accessibility, the communities’ desires and the appreciation of the communities for the produced materials. One of the most important questions in this survey asks the researchers about their contentment concerning the outcomes of their language documentation project. A scale from one (very content) to five (not content) served to collect the researcher’s responses in this regard. Most importantly, the researchers were then asked to explain their choice. Their comments are helpful 64

in order to get a better insight into the topic of community-beneficial efforts. Some comments will serve to explain possible obstacles and issues which occurred during the projects and which influenced the implementation or production of community-beneficial outcomes.

The last question in the last section is optional and invites the researchers to leave additional comments regarding their positive or negative experiences and impressions during their documentation project. In what follows, I will present the results of my survey and assess the gathered responses.

5.2.1 Results and assessment

As previously mentioned, at the time I started my investigation, the ELDP had funded 104 projects in Latin America (including Suriname and Belize). These projects were carried out by 93 researchers, as some researchers conducted various projects in different years within the same country. Unfortunately, I was not able to find the contact details of all researchers in order to send them the questionnaire. In the end, I found the email addresses of 76 researchers. However, I assume that some of these addresses might not be used any longer by the researchers. After sending out my questionnaire twice (once in January and a second time in March) I received a total of 37 responses. The researchers who filled in my survey conducted (or are still conducting) projects in eleven Latin American countries including Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Colombia, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Unsurprisingly, almost half of the projects (18) were carried out in Mexico and Brazil as the ELDP has funded plenty of projects in these two countries due to their population size and quantity of indigenous languages. Four different projects have been funded in Bolivia and three projects in the countries Ecuador, Peru and Colombia respectively. The remaining five projects have been conducted in Guatemala, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Nicaragua and Venezuela. In what follows, I describe and discuss the collected results of the survey. Before evaluating the results, I will display the questions asked in each section.

Mexico 10 Brazil 8 Bolivia 5 Ecuador 3 Peru 3 Colombia 3 Paraguay 1 Guatemala 1 Nicaragua 1 Venezuela 1 Costa Rica 1 Table 2: Projects carried out in each country

Section one: (1) “When did you start your language documentation project?” and (2) “Is your Language Documentation Project ongoing?”

Section one was intended to start the questionnaire by asking the researchers two general questions. First, it can be stated that the different projects were initiated between 1986 and 2017. Seven of these projects have been initiated before the ELDP started to award its research grants for the first time. Second, it is noteworthy that 17 out of 37 projects are ongoing. In addition, it is worth mentioning that six of the projects which have been initiated before 2003 are ongoing.

Section two: (3) “Has your project produced any materials for community use?”, (4) “If yes, what kind of materials have been produced?”, (5) “Did other community-oriented activities take place?”, (6) “If yes, what kind of activities?”, (7) “Did/Do you get any support from public institutions/actors concerning the preservation of the language/culture of the speech community?”, (8) “If yes, from whom?”, (9) ”If you got help from entities please enter their name(s) here.”

Section two of the questionnaire deals with the developed outcomes of the projects. Concerning question 3, the majority responded with yes i.e. 32 out of 37 researchers produced community- beneficial outcomes (Figure 11).

Figure 11: “Has your project produced any materials for community use?”

In the following, question 4 asked the researchers about the materials they developed for community use. Twelve possible outcomes were given and the linguists were able to select all the outcomes they produced. Additionally, the researchers could add information about other products they produced.

20 19 17 15 12 8 8 7 7 5

4 3 32 researchers32

Figure 12: “What kind of materials have been produced?”

According to the gathered results, 20 out of 32 researchers developed story books or folktale books and 19 researchers produced audio and video materials for community use. Further, 17 linguists produced a vocabulary collection and 15 researchers developed an orthography design for the communities. Other popular and commonly produced products include learning 67

materials (12), dictionaries (either bilingual, trilingual or multilingual, 8), multimedia materials (8), pedagogical grammars (7), guides for teachers (7), language learning games (5), websites (4) and calendars (3). In addition, three researchers mentioned that they produced some posters with vocabulary, other posters for learning purposes or some other kind of books related to the community’s culture. To sum up, the results show that common materials produced in projects around Latin America are especially story books and audio and video materials. These materials are crucial for the preservation of old stories and cultural significant traditions. In other words, the result shows that materials linked to the communities’ culture (i.e. booklets with traditional stories and recordings of stories and cultural practices) are more commonly produced than materials related to teaching the language. Undoubtedly, teaching materials are valued by communities. However, preserving their ancestors’ stories and traditions for future generations seems important in most of the projects. Also vocabulary collections and dictionaries serve as repositories for culturally significant information. What is more, many researchers (15) helped the communities to establish an adequate orthography in order to produce language materials. The rest of the materials are designed for the purpose of teaching and learning the respective endangered languages.

Question 5 evaluates if other community-oriented activities took place during the documentation projects. The survey shows the following result (Figure 3):

Figure 13: “Did other community-oriented activities take place?”

The chart demonstrates that 28 out of 37 researchers were considerate of the implementation of additional activities in order to benefit the communities. Again, the researchers were able to select more than one of the five given options or add information.

Figure 14: “What kind of activities have been implemented?”

Most researchers (24 out of 28) concentrated in their projects on training community members in different aspects of language documentation. Several linguists (19) also supported the communities by providing other technical and practical (linguistic) advice. Additionally, 14 researchers implemented different kinds of teaching workshops and another 14 supported the communities in local preservation initiatives. Community language classes (13) also constitute an important part of many language documentation projects. Further activities include radio and TV programs and competitions, literacy workshops and orthography workshops. The different responses to this question outline that training community members in areas of language documentation constitutes one of the most significant additional activity in order to benefit the project. Many researchers think that the training of community members will benefit both academic research results and community-beneficial outcomes. What is more, many researchers hope that these “community linguists” will continue with the documentation work after the researchers leave the communities. In order to ensure the adequate teaching of a language, many researchers hold workshops for teachers and support community languages classes. In many cases, researchers are also considerate of supporting the communities in their preservation activities.

The last three questions (7-9) in section two asked the researchers about external support in order to implement and fulfill their preservation purposes. Besides receiving funds from the ELDP, 24 researchers got support from (other) governmental institutions, local organizations, NGO’s and individuals such as language activists and community leaders, among others.

Section three: (10) ”Does the community have (full or restricted) access to printed/online materials and data?”, (11) ”If yes, for what purpose?”, (12) ”Did the community express a desire…”, (13) ”Did/Does the community value the outcomes of the documentation project?”, (14) ”How content are you with the outcomes of your language documentation project?” and (15) “Please explain your previous choice in a few words.”

Section three of the survey comprises questions concerning various topics. Question 10 concentrates on the topic of the accessibility of the produced language materials (either printed or online). All researchers who receive funds from the ELDP are required to guarantee that all the produced materials are stored in an online archive (ELAR) in order to ensure worldwide access. Because of that, all communities have full access to the stored online materials. In this regard, question 11 asked the researchers the following: “For what purpose does the community have access to printed/online materials and data?” Researchers could select more than one of the three given options. The question was answered by 36 researchers, i.e. one linguist did not respond to this question. The results show that in the first place, the stored materials are used by communities for private use (27). Other than that, the materials are used for language classes (21) or other community activities (18). Additionally, researchers have commented that the communities use the materials for whatever they feel they need it for. Two researchers addressed the issue of internet connectivity. In one community, internet access has not been implemented yet and in another community, computers and the internet are hardly used, which means that online materials cannot be accessed by many.

Question 12 asked about the desires the communities themselves had concerning materials or support. Three possibilities could be selected. Here, 32 out of 36 researchers (one linguist did not respond) indicated that the communities expressed a desire for language materials. I did not further specify the question by asking what sort of language materials the communities were interested in but as could be seen in section two, many projects produced story books and audiovisual materials for community use and therefore, I assume that these materials are especially desired by communities. In this regard, some researchers additionally commented

that the communities desired recordings of older people talking or the documentation of their culture. Furthermore, 16 researchers reported that the communities expressed a desire for support in language revitalization activities and 15 linguists stated that the initiation of language classes was desired. This information demonstrates that many communities desire materials in order to preserve their linguistic and cultural heritage in tangible forms. In addition, many communities desire to preserve their language either through language classes or other activities. As many communities lack the resources and the ability to produce their own materials or to implement other preservation activities on their own, they depend on external support. Numerous researchers are considerate of fulfilling the communities’ wishes as satisfactorily as each different situation allows. It is critical to bear in mind, however, that every community is different and so are their desires. What is more, even within the same community, desires between individual community members can vary greatly.

Question 13 was rather challenging to answer as it is generally difficult to assess attitudes and opinions of community members regarding different topics.

Figure 15: “Did/Does the community value the outcomes of the documentation project?”

Nevertheless, 26 out of 37 researchers believe that the communities they were or are working with value the community-beneficial outcomes they produced. Some researchers, however, commented that they cannot give a clear response to this question as there are always community members who value the outcomes whereas others simply do not care. One of the researchers additionally commented that the community s/he was working with did not 71

specifically value the tangible outcomes but rather valued the fact that their language was recognized by others as a “real” language after the initiation of the documentation project.

The last question (14) in the third section asked the researchers about their contentment concerning the developed outcomes. The following chart represents the distribution of the answers; number one stands for ‘very content’ and number five for ‘not content’:

Figure 16: “How content are you with the outcomes of your language documentation project?”

As can be seen from the chart, over half of the researchers are quite content with the outcomes they have yielded (20 researchers selected either 1 or 2). The remaining researchers are a little discontent due to different circumstances. In order to comprehend the choices of the researchers, they were asked to explain them in a few words (question 15). The researchers who stated that they are very content or rather content (1 and 2) about their outcomes gave some of the following explanations for their choices:

 One researcher commented that s/he was content because a lot of usable materials were produced within a limited period of time and that the outcomes will serve as a basis for further research in the future.  Likewise, another linguist was satisfied about the development of plenty of CDs, DVDs with bilingual subtitles and other materials which were made available for the community.  One linguist also reported that based on the produced outcomes the community became aware that it was necessary to preserve their heritage language.  Two of the researchers who were quite content (2 on the scale) with the outcomes of their documentation projects commented that even though the production of materials has been

successful, it has been challenging to put these materials into use for educational purposes due to problems caused by the education policy of the country.

Generally, it can be stated that the researchers who are content with their outcomes fulfilled their project goals and produced the planned written and audiovisual materials. Additionally, some researchers are content if they were able to train some community members in language documentation. However, many researchers claim that more work is needed to be done in the future even if their projects created a good foundation for further investigations.

Most of the comments from researchers who have not been entirely content with their project outcomes relate to the topic of sustainability in combination with funding. Various researchers are concerned about the future of the indigenous communities and their languages after the projects are finalized. In order to support the communities (adequately) over a longer period of time researchers depend on financial support from funding agencies. Often, communities do not continue with documentation or revitalization activities after the outside researchers have left.

 In this context, one researcher explained that her/his project had a good start and good materials were produced and further activities have been implemented. However, without continuing financial support and the presence of the linguist, the community did not carry on with further documentation or made use of the materials.  Another researcher reported that due to lack of funding s/he had to start working on another language with another community. Even though the outcomes were useful and beneficial, the linguist would have liked to continue the work in order to further support the (first) community.  A third researcher commented that it was hard to establish collaborative research during the project. The linguist explained that due to the work at the university, the field trips were short and there was always a feeling of discontent in the community when s/he returned.

In sum, many researchers would like to support the communities on a long-term basis in order to develop more materials and implement additional activities. For this purpose, they rely on the support of funding agencies and universities alike.

The last situation I want to present is provided by Lemus Serrano who was working with a community in the Colombian Amazon. The comment should illustrate that sometimes

unexpected events can lead to the miscarriage of a project and subsequently to disappointment concerning the research outcomes:

“In my experience, many unexpected problems of different nature can arise during short, 1-year documentation projects that negatively affect its outcomes. In my case, a change in the socio-political situation of the area of work (growing presence of members of the Colombian guerrilla), and in the regulations of my host institution concerning the allowed locations of fieldwork, made it impossible for me to return to this area after just one 2-month fieldtrip in 2015. I continue, however, working on the description of the language (from another location, accepted by my university) and hope that, in the future, I will be able to return to the […1] region to work with the local indigenous authority on the creation of pedagogical material. In the meantime, I intend to send all my data to the indigenous organization […], through the NGO […], in close contact with the various indigenous groups of this region."

In addition, Lemus Serrano explains that even though the data collected in the two months were stored in an online archive, it did not serve the community for any purposes because they did not have internet access in their village. Therefore, Lemus Serrano continues to work on the language in order to support the production of community-beneficial materials in the future.

To summarize this section, 20 out of 37 researchers were content about their work as they achieved their planned goals and created a good basis for further implementations. It is noteworthy that many linguists plan to provide more materials for community use in the future and to support the communities in different activities. However, if funding is not available over a longer period of time, some researchers cannot support the communities as efficiently as they would like to. The last example demonstrated that sometimes unexpected issues can affect the planned outcomes of a project negatively.

Section four: (16) “Do you want to leave any additional comments regarding your experience during your project?”

In the last part of the questionnaire the researchers could leave additional comments regarding their experiences during their projects. In the following, I will elaborate on the comments of four researchers as I think that these comments contain important information to better

1 Information in brackets were deleted at the request of Magdalena Lemus Serrano 74

understand the combination of language documentation projects and community-beneficial efforts.

The first researcher reported about her/his positive experience during the documentation project. The intergenerational transmission of the language has stopped and because of that the community is aware that they have to take actions in order to preserve their heritage language. Both the researcher and the community are content with the outcomes which have been produced so far and more products are on their way as the project has just started a year ago. Additionally, some community members have been trained in different aspects of language documentation. From the beginning, the researcher explained to the community that the project is not intended to be a revitalization project. Rather, the aim of the project is to compile a comprehensive corpus of language data and to produce community-beneficial materials which could be used by the community if they want to implement any revitalization efforts in the future.

Likewise, the next researcher stated that s/he was very content with the project because a large amount of materials have been produced and native speakers have been trained. As a result, the community has been satisfied and wanted to use some of the outcomes for teaching purposes, among others. The only issue, however, concerned the participation of the local teachers. Many teachers did not want to participate in workshops organized by the researchers and what is more, they did not want to use the materials which were produced by the linguist in the language classes. In the end, the researcher was able to convince some of the teachers to attend the workshops, however, it is not clear if they will make use of the materials in the future.

Anne Schwarz worked with a community in the Amazon of Ecuador. She reports that in the course of her documentation project some community members have been trained and language classes have been initiated. What is more, story books have been produced and more materials are currently under progress. The only issue addressed by the linguist concerned the availability of time together with participative work:

“The time was too short, even though I was already working with the speakers before the ELDP project started. Participative work needs sometimes much more time, especially if the speakers have a lot of other problems (water, oil, land protection, etc.). I think long-compromise projects, low-scale, allowing less than 100% engagement in the project, but including some intense (100%) stages, might be interesting in cases like ours."

The last comment I present comes from Jorge Gómez Rendón who worked with a community on the Pacific Coast of Ecuador. Numerous materials have been produced for community use and a range of other activities have been implemented. However, Gómez Rendón explains that sustainability of the project was absent. In addition, the linguist left the following comment:

“My views of Language Documentation have (fortunately) evolved from the standard practices that are current worldwide. Language loss is only the tip of the iceberg. That is why a good Language Documentation Project, if any, cannot be reduced to language but be concerned with other major issues such as access to education, health and, above all, respect for indigenous territories and autonomy. Linguistic documentation by itself serves only the narcissism of most linguists today and does not have real, sustainable effects on languages, cultures, and most of all, people concerned.”

Gómez Rendón emphasizes that conducting an impactful language documentation project is very challenging as researchers cannot only concentrate on the language but have to consider social, cultural and political circumstances of the communities as well (cf. also Bowern 2011: 468).

To summarize this section, it can be stated that researchers who are conducting language documentation projects in Latin America experience both rewarding and challenging situations. On the one hand, researchers are content if they produce beneficial materials and have enough time to train community members or to implement workshops or other activities. Additionally, linguists regard it as a big achievement if communities start to be aware that their heritage language has to be preserved. On the other hand, it is important that researchers take social, cultural and political dimensions into consideration when conducting language documentation projects. Indigenous communities often have to deal with problems related to their land and social rights. Therefore, implementing a collaborative research might be challenging in some situations. What is more, due to lack of funding and time, many linguists try to find ways to ensure good results within short periods of time. Still, all researchers are trying to support the communities by producing materials and implementing activities. Most importantly, many researchers try to find solutions to certain problems in order to solve possible issues.

5.3 Case studies

This section is dedicated to three researchers who received different grants from the ELDP in order to conduct a language documentation project in Latin America. The aim of this section is to give a more detailed insight into the work of researchers who are trying to combine their documentation projects with community-beneficial efforts in order to preserve the indigenous languages of Latin America. I have chosen researchers who conducted and still conduct projects in three different Latin American countries namely Mexico, Peru and Bolivia. As mentioned previously, there are many researchers who work on endangered languages in Mexico and therefore, I wanted to get a better insight into one project carried out in this country. Also, many projects have been funded in the Peruvian Amazon as this area is home to plenty of indigenous communities. I have chosen to describe the work of a researcher who has been working in this region since 2001. Only twenty years ago researchers started to increasingly document indigenous languages in Bolivia. For that reason, I wanted to concentrate on projects conducted in Bolivia.

Thanks to the participation of all three researchers I was able to get a more detailed insight into their documentation projects and their efforts to support communities which entails rewarding as well as challenging aspects. In the following, I describe the projects and the language communities the three researchers were or are working with. Based on the information from the survey and additional questions/ a Skype-interview I was able to gather more facts about their work in the communities. The collected information is going to serve to describe the current situations of the projects and the researchers’ future plans concerning their documentation projects. I will first describe the projects of the two researchers Carmen Jany and Christine Beier who I contacted via Email and second, I will depict the two projects of Swintha Danielsen, with whom I was able to conduct a Skype-interview.

5.3.1 The documentation of Chuxnabán Mixe, Carmen Jany

The name of the principal investigator is Carmen Jany. She received a small grant from the ELDP in order to work with a community of about 900 speakers in a village in the eastern midlands of Oaxaca, Mexico. The language under investigation, Chuxnabán Mixe, belongs to

the Mixe-Zoque language family and was not described before Carmen Jany started to work on the language in 2005. She received funds from the ELDP from 2008 to 2009.

There are about 290 communities which live in the Mixean territory in Mexico. The Mixean languages can be divided into three main languages: Lowland Mixe, Midland Mixe and Highland Mixe. Chuxnabán Mixe belongs to Midland Mixe. Each village has its own Mixe variety, some being more mutually intelligible than others. Generally, the Mixean languages are not documented comprehensively as only some materials were published. Chuxnabán Mixe is still spoken by children and adults alike, i.e. the intergenerational transmission is not interrupted. However, the language is in danger of being replaced by Spanish. This can be attributed to the fact that classes in school are conducted in Spanish only. What is more, when people from different Mixean communities meet and talk to each other they mostly use Spanish. The number of speakers is also decreasing as many young people move to bigger cities or to the United States which often causes the abandonment of the heritage language (cf. Jany 2010: 231-233). As the language was not previously documented, the aim of the documentation project (as described on the ELDP website) was to develop materials including audio files, an electronic trilingual dictionary and a sketch grammar. For this purpose, Carmen Jany aimed at establishing an orthography for the community (cf. Endangered Languages Documentation Programme 2015b).

Figure 17: “Stories from Chuxnabán”. Jany, Carmen. 2008. Source: Cuentos de Chuxnabán. Unpublished document.

To start with, I sent Carmen Jany my questionnaire in order to gather more general information about her documentation project. As already mentioned, she started to work on the language in 2005 and conducted fieldwork in 2006 and 2008 in Mexico. In order to benefit the community, she produced the following materials: a vocabulary collection, story books, multimedia materials and an orthography design. Further community-oriented activities were not implemented. Carmen Jany left additional comments in the survey where she mentioned that due to insufficient funding and lack of time, she could not continue to work with the language community. In order to get more information about her work and the finalization of her project, I contacted the researcher via email and she accepted to answer eight additional questions. Primarily, I asked about the initiation of her work on Chuxnabán Mixe. Carmen Jany first started to work with a Mixe speaker from San Juan Bosco Chuxnabán in Los Angeles. The speaker had moved from Mexico to the US and found an advertisement from the researcher who was looking for Mixe speakers. Thanks to this speaker, the linguist was able to get a first insight into the language in order to be prepared for her visit to the community. In the course of her first stay in the community, Carmen was able to get in contact with some community members and already collected some language data in order to design a first orthography. Two years later, she returned to the community in order to continue with her documentation work. In her second field trip, she talked to the local government about her project and asked for community members who would potentially participate in her work. In order to record more language data she worked together with elderly community members and concerning the development of the orthography she was advised to collaborate with young adults. Generally, the community welcomed the idea of establishing an orthography as they knew that other Mixean communities were already able to write their languages and to use them in language classes. In addition, they were eager to preserve their stories and traditions in tangible ways for the next generations and most importantly, they “felt a sense of pride in having their language written and, thus, being more similar to the dominant language, Spanish” (Jany 2010: 234). However, Carmen Jany describes that she had difficulties in motivating the community to work constantly on the development of the orthography. On the one hand, the community had to deal with other problems including e.g. agriculture and on the other hand, without constant financial support it was hard to keep community members motivated. What is more, even though the community was eager to preserve their stories and traditions for the future, the linguist does not think that the community is aware that their language will be critically endangered in some years. According to Pérez Báez (2016: 177) “the lack of community concern or awareness about language endangerment is not uncommon in the Mexican context.”

Finally, I asked Carmen Jany about other materials she produced for community use. As described on the ELDP homepage, her aim was to compile a web-based trilingual dictionary. At the end of the project, the dictionary consisted of approximately 600 entries (words together with pictures, sounds and transcriptions). The linguist describes the work on the dictionary as “a very time-consuming process” and she tried to motivate some community members to continue with the dictionary after she left the community. However, due to limited internet access in the community at that time the work was not continued. Concerning the printed materials she produced for community use, she cannot tell if the materials are being used actively, however, some of them have been placed in a village museum in order to be accessible for interested community members.

Due to lack of funding, as already mentioned, Carmen Jany could not continue to work on the language. She states:

“I tried to continue working on the language, applying for grant to continue work. There is still a lot to be done and I had to put it aside to work on other things and to keep up with my busy tenure-track position.”

In addition, she adds that she “would have liked to have the resources to train local linguists and to have a more sustainable process of working in the community long-term.” The issue of financial support can be found in many language documentation projects. According to Tsunoda (2005: 184) “funding is essential, but it is (almost?) always and everywhere inadequate; it is insufficient, partial, and short term.”

5.3.2 The Iquito Language Documentation Project, Christine Beier

The second researcher I contacted by email was Christine Beier. She is working on the highly endangered language Iquito since 2001. The language belongs to the Zaparoan language family and counted 25 fluent native speakers and 25 passive speakers in 2006. The passive speakers were all older than 30 years and the fluent speakers were all over 55 which means that there is no transgenerational transmission. The language is spoken in the Peruvian Amazon in and near the community of San Antonio, which is situated about 100 km from the biggest Amazonian city Iquitos in the department of Loreto. As previously mentioned, Christine Beier and her colleague Lev Michael started to work with the community in 2001. In this year, they agreed

upon a multi-year, community-participatory project with the community who was seeking external support in order to preserve their heritage language. In this time, the researchers visited the community as representatives of the NGO Cabeceras Aid Project which was founded in 1996 by Christine Beier and Lev Michael with the aim to document and revitalize endangered languages, among other objectives. The project was funded with a Major Documentation Grant by the ELDP from 2003 to 2006 (cf. Beier 2004).

From the beginning, the project was designed as a documentation and revitalization project. Therefore, the aim was to document the language as comprehensively as possible and to produce a range of community-beneficial materials in order to support revitalization activities. One of the biggest concerns was to involve community members actively in various activities as “the philosophy behind this project is that the people best-positioned to do revitalization work on a language are its very speakers and inheritors” (Beier 2002). For this purpose, some people were trained as “community linguists” in language documentation and description. These community linguists together with four Iquito native speakers (all selected by the community) transcribed and translated texts and collected language data for the documentation. Based on the participation of these community members, the benefits have been numerous in the first years of the project. First, the community linguists have contributed to the production of various pedagogical materials. Second, in the process of data collection, “their knowledge of the local environment, of local technologies, and of Iquito social practices has resulted in a very fine-grained account of many important semantic domains” (Beier, Lev 2006). Third, the community linguists also supported bilingual teachers in school. In order to produce materials which are usable and beneficial for the community over a long time, the documentation project was adjusted to the communities’ priorities and wishes and has been adapted to their needs repeatedly.

Some people were asking Chrinstine Beier the question if it is even worth implementing all these actions to revitalize the language if only a few fluent speakers are left. In order to answer this question is it important to first mention the goals of the revitalization efforts. As a community-based project the goals and the desired achievements were set by the community members themselves. From the beginning of the project, the community expressed their long- term goals which included two important implementations. On the one hand, they wanted to preserve their heritage language by producing tangible materials in and about the Iquito language. On the other hand, the community desired the implementation of language classes so that the children could learn their heritage language. It would have been unrealistic to think that 81

the revitalization project could produce a new generation of fluent Iquito speakers. The goals set by the community, however, were realistic and the researchers were considerate of achieving these goals in the course of the project (cf. Beier 2002).

Initially, there have been some difficulties concerning the desired bilingual language classes. The first teacher who was working in the school did not speak Iquito, therefore, the community was not content with the bilingual education. As a result, some community members were eager to receive technical support and training in teaching from the researchers in order to make bilingual education successful. Another issue the researchers were confronted with from the beginning was how to ensure sustainability. As the project was designed as a multi-year project it was important to keep up the long-term motivation and involvement of the community. In order to achieve that, the researchers’ strategy consisted in “consistently producing tangible results that demonstrate to everybody that we are setting and then reaching goals and that good things are coming of all of this work” (Beier 2002).

There is more information about the Iquito project on the homepage of the “Cabeceras Aid Project” and a lot of produced materials can be accessed. Most of the information, however, concerns the first phase of the project (2001-2006) as information about the second phase (2007-present) is not yet available (cf. Cabeceras Aid Project 2016). In order to give an insight into the development of the project, I firstly present the results and comments from my questionnaire and secondly, I describe some aspects of the current situation of the project using the responses from Christine Beier gathered through additional questions. As already mentioned, the researchers produced plenty of materials for community use over the years including a vocabulary collection, a website with online learning games and audio files, other printed language learning games, story books, school books and learning materials, guides for teachers and an orthography design. Many of these materials can be accessed online on the “Cabeceras Aid Project” website. Materials which serve to teach and to learn the Iquito language include a variety of traditional stories, online reading, hearing and speaking exercises, booklets with animal names and songs. Some of the traditional stories are also accompanied by audio files which makes it possible to listen to fluent Iquito speakers. In addition, a bilingual dictionary from 2006 can be downloaded on the website. Other materials about the project and the language include journal articles, book chapters and reports from different researchers who worked in the community.

Figure 18: “Pedagogical story” and booklet “Let’s write in Iquito”. Source: Beier, Christine. 2017. Aamikáaka k-i´ıkwakura k´ı-nasiku kw-aájinati-játa. Ayer me he ido a mi chacra arriba con mi nieta. Un cuento pedagógico basado en un cuento contado y grabado en agosto 2003 por Ligia Inuma Inuma. Segunda edición. [Online]. http://www.cabeceras.org/beier_inuma_2017_ikiitu_cuento-del-shihui.pdf. [2018, June 02]

As previously discussed, the project was designed as a participatory research and revitalization project from the beginning and as a result, many community-oriented activities have been implemented ranging from language classes over training in basic linguistic description to language promotion activities. Concerning the external support the documentation project received, Christine Beier reported that other than receiving funds from the ELDP and the ELF (Endangered Language Fund) the project was both financially and logistically supported by the NGO Cabeceras Aid Project. In addition, the linguist reports that

“[r]epresentatives of Peru's Ministry of Education and Ministry of Culture, as well as representatives of the regional government of Loreto, have been involved in various ways over the years in activities intended to support Iquito language/culture preservation -- but not by supporting the ILDP2's work itself; it is the case, though, that some of their efforts and activities have built upon ILDP language work and materials.”

2 Iquito Language Documentation Project 83

The Iquito community values the outcomes produced in the course of the project as they are able to use them in a variety of activities. The researchers are considerate of supporting the community’s wishes as adequately as possible even if it is not always an easy task as stated by the researcher:

“The project has encountered many challenges over the years. We have had to adjust many of our goals and expectations. We've done the best we could, and we'll keep doing the best we can.”

In order to get an insight into the current situation of the Iquito language documentation project I sent Christine Beier seven additional questions via Email. Firstly, I asked about the situation in the community today and if community linguists still hold language classes. As already mentioned, the project can be divided into a first and a second phase. The first phase came to an end in December 2006 and with this the community linguists stopped holding language classes. Christine Beier and Lev Michael visited the community again in 2008 and 2009, but their active relationship with the community re-started in 2014, which marks the beginning of the second phase of the project. In order to continue with the community language classes, Christine Beier compiled a curriculum which she uses as a framework for her own teaching:

“Every time that I visit the community, I offer classes for an hour a day, 4 or 5 times a week, organized around serving different levels and ages of learners. Each ‘cycle’ of classes is 3 or 4 weeks long, depending on the length of my stay in the village. The classes have been consistently well-attended. Students have ranged in age from ~5 years old to ~50 years old.”

During these language classes the linguist uses the learning materials she produced especially for this purpose. As already shown, she has produced many diverse materials in the course of the first and second phase of the project and is still producing more materials for the language community. Other than the materials which can be found on the homepage of the “Cabeceras Aid project”, Christine Beier has produced handmade flashcards and other printed language learning games. Additionally, teaching materials with audio files were put on USBs and on a computer which was donated to the community. Further, I asked the researcher why she decided to create and provide materials intended to benefit the language community. She explained that

“[t]he ILDP was designed from the start as a documentation and revitalization project. In my view, revitalization requires written teaching materials (as well as other kinds of resources), so the goal of creating and distributing pedagogical materials was there from the start. In addition, I feel that ‘documentation’ work comes with an ethical responsibility that the documenters share the outcomes of their work in locally appropriate and usable forms.”

The materials which were produced over the many years contributed to a positive change in the attitudes of many individuals of Ikíitu heritage, according to Christine Beier. These individuals started to view their language as an important part of their indigenous history. Even though the language is not considered to be useful as a tool for communication, it serves the community members “as an emblem and symbol of other things that are of social, political, and potentially economic value”.

Finally, I asked the linguist the following question: “Which do you think are the important factors to make sure that language revitalization efforts succeed over the years?” It is difficult to give a general answer to this question as every project and its circumstances are different. However, based on her experience gained during the Iquito project, Christine Beier lists the following factors which she regards determining for a language revitalization project to succeed: It is important that all participants of the project show a long-term commitment and patience as challenges are likely to emerge and project goals often have to be re-defined. In addition, language advocates (including linguists) have to understand the complex social, political and economic circumstances concerning the community as they are likely to influence the project. Lastly, it is relevant that researchers and outsider language activists listen to the wishes of the community, i.e. that they “take local participants’ values and objectives seriously, even when, and especially when, they don’t align comfortably”.

5.3.3 The documentation of Paunaka and Guarayu, Swintha Danielsen

The last researcher whose work I describe is Swintha Danielsen. She is working in Bolivia and received grants from the ELDP for two language documentation projects. In the following, I will describe the two projects separately, beginning with the first one.

The first project received a Major Documentation Project grant from 2011 to 2013. The language under investigation was Paunaka, a critically endangered language which is spoken in the Bolivian Chaco and belongs to the Arawakan language family. There are only about ten fluent and semi-speakers of the language and all speakers speak additionally Spanish and Chiquitano, the dominant languages of the region. Children have stopped to acquire Paunaka as their first language long time ago and nobody uses the language in daily conversations. In addition, many community members have been assimilated by the dominant Chiquitano culture. Therefore, rather than trying to revitalize the language, the primary aim was to document the language and to describe the collected data as only fragmentary materials existed before the beginning of the project. The remaining speakers welcomed the initiation of the project and wanted to participate in the documentation process as they regarded it as a chance to preserve some of their knowledge for the future generations. For this purpose, the researchers recorded narratives and personal stories of the last speakers in order to compile a broad corpus of audio and video data. Afterwards, the gathered data was analyzed and then used to establish comparative studies.

Concerning materials for community use, the project has produced the following outcomes according to the results gathered from the survey: Story books, multimedia materials, posters with body parts vocabulary (which were put in the local school) and an orthography design. In order to agree on an orthography, Swintha Danielsen organized a workshop for all descendants of Paunaka heritage. The aim of the workshop was to establish an orthography and to produce a book with the established alphabet for the Paunaka community. Speakers of the language as well as children contributed to the development of this book. The remaining speakers collected plenty of words in order to discuss their spellings and the childrens’ task was to draw images for the words which were then presented in the book. After the book was produced, some children used it to learn some isolated words (cf. The paunaka documentation project n.d.).

Figure 19: A story from the book “Cuentos y relatos en la lengua Paunaca” (2009). Source: Danielsen, Swintha & Lucrecia Villafañe. 2009. Cuentos y relatos en la lengua Paunaca. Recogido en Concepción de Chiquitos entre los años 2005 – 2008. [Online]. http://research.uni-leipzig.de/paunakadocu/paunaca-librito1.pdf. [2018, June 02]

In addition to the orthography workshop, a second workshop offered community members training in recording. Interested speakers could learn how to use technical equipment including cameras, video recorders and a sound recorder. After the finalization of the training sessions, the speakers started to record different events including agricultural work, hunting and fishing, ceremonies and celebrations and interviews about the history of the Paunakas. The linguist states that it was very important for her to produce materials and to initiate activities which were beneficial for the speakers. In this regard, she demanded that every researcher involved in the project contributed something beneficial to the community as she regarded it as her obligation to give something back to the community.

The community has full access to all recorded data and produced materials. In order to make the materials accessible for the entire community, a local archive has been implemented (in addition to the archive in London, ELAR) where all the gathered recordings and documents are stored. In that way, the speakers are able to copy and print materials for the application of different activities, i.e. private use, community activities, language classes. The community values the outcomes of the documentation project and Swintha Danielsen reports that some materials are still on their way.

Based on the Skype-interview I was able to conduct with the researcher, I gathered some more information about the current situation of the Paunakas. As already mentioned, the project is not ongoing, however, Swintha Danielsen is still in close contact with the Paunakas. She reports that she visits the community whenever possible because the speakers she worked with are 87

already old and she wants to keep in touch with them as long as it is possible. Community members also call her in order to keep her informed about new activities and happenings in the community. What is more, the linguist reports about one big achievement. Since 2012 the Bolivian constitution recognizes 36 indigenous languages officially. Paunaka, however, is not mentioned in the constitution. In this context, Swintha Danielsen explains that after she gave an interview on the Bolivian radio in 2017 about the languages of Bolivia, she was contacted by the organization “Instituto de Lengua y Cultura” (ILC). Since 2012 such institutes were founded in many regions of the country in order to support indigenous communities and their languages. Together with the help of the linguist the organization wants to achieve the inclusion of Paunaka in the Bolivian constitution. This means that thanks to the documentation project the language is starting to get recognized and noticed also by a wider audience.

The second project is ongoing and was initiated in 2014. The language under investigation is Guarayu which is spoken in the province Guarayos, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. The language belongs to the Tupí-Guaraní family and is spoken by about 8,000 people. Only few descriptions of the language have been produced by Franciscans including grammars and some translations of parts of the bible. No recent descriptions of the language existed before the initiation of the project. It is noteworthy that the transmission of Guarayu is still vital and the community uses the language actively in their daily lives. In addition, even people who moved to the area and belong to other communities started to acquire the language. Also, the language is taught by trained language teachers in school. This situation is considered very rare as the dominant language Spanish already caused language shift in many communities in the lowlands of Bolivia. Even though all Guarayu people are bilingual with Spanish, they feel very proud about their heritage language and use it in TV, radio, posters, announcements, as well as on Facebook and WhatsApp. However, depending on a range of circumstances (e.g. family, peers and occupation) speakers use each language to different degrees. The fact that the language is still very vital allows the researchers to investigate many different aspects of the language, for example language acquisition and youth language. In this regard, there are sometimes conflicts between the younger and the older speakers as the language of the younger speakers shows some new features including language mixing, borrowing and shortening of forms, among others.

The aim of the project was to compile a corpus with annotated audio and video materials. In addition, some of the old grammars should be digitized and published and a new grammar should be produced. Concerning other materials which were produced for community use, the survey shows the following outcomes: a dictionary, a website, language learning games, story books, multimedia materials and an orthography design. Additionally, the researchers developed a keyboard with special symbols for computers and for Android smartphones. Plenty of other additional activities have been implemented since the beginning of the project. These activities include the training of community members in different aspects of language documentation, technical and practical advice and orthography workshops which were held together with the local linguistic institute (ILC). What is more, university classes in Ascención have been established with the aim to train speakers to produce texts in Guarayu. In order to promote the use of the language in the media, diverse Facebook groups and Whatsapp groups have been formed (cf. Danielsen 2017a,b).

The community has access to all the produced materials. However, Swintha Danielsen does not think that the community is going to use all the materials they developed for them. The reason is that both individual speakers and the local language institute produce many teaching materials themselves including manuals for language teaching and booklets with stories for language classes. Due to the communities’ productivity, the researchers did not want to intervene so much even if they initially planned to produce much more materials. In this regard, the linguist explains that

“in this project, it was not so important to personally become active in initiatives, since the institution that has been founded for this purpose (ILC) is very active and competent. Also the teachers are. So, we saw our work rather in preparing (digital) infrastructure, such as keyboards and training in transcription etc, also documenting, and these data can then be accessed and used by the community.”

Today, Swintha Danielsen is often working together with the institute in order to ensure the production of good and useful language materials. She also works together with language teachers and supports them by leading different kinds of workshops.

In this section, three researchers and their documentation projects have been presented. Different circumstances and factors were accountable for both rewarding and challenging situations in the course of the projects. On the one side, all researchers were able to compile a corpus of language data for the endangered languages respectively. What is more, the linguists

produced a range of community-beneficial materials, established orthographies and often, community members have been trained. On the other side, Carmen Jany lacked more time in order to implement additional activities and Christine Beier had to reorganize the project repeatedly according to the communities’ needs. Despite these issues, the researchers were/are considerate of supporting the communities as efficiently as possible in order to ensure the preservation of their ancestors’ languages and cultures.

6 Summary and conclusion

This thesis dealt with language documentation projects and how indigenous communities derive a benefit from working together with linguists in such projects. In order to explain the necessity of documentation projects the second chapter depicted the current situation of the languages of the world. The issue of language death caused linguists worldwide to take diverse actions against the vanishing of languages. Before any activities can be implemented, however, it is important to assess the current condition and subsequently the degree of endangerment of a language. For this purpose, I concentrated on the nine factors depicted in the UNESCO document and the framework developed by Krauss (2007). The assessment of the vitality of a language can contribute significantly to comparative studies, to the process of documentation projects and to the choice of adequate revitalization programs. The chapter continued with the enumeration of several factors which can be held responsible for the endangerment of languages. The factors discussed include the number of speakers, language contact and language attitudes speakers have towards their heritage language. The factors are also likely to influence language documentation projects in different ways as could be shown in chapter four. Furthermore, it has been described that the dead of a language entails a great loss for communities, humanity and science alike. Not only would communities lose important parts of their culture but also would science miss out on the opportunity to gain significant insights into human cognition. Since this thesis focused on Latin America, some general information about its linguistic diversity and language endangerment were given. Great genetic variety as well as a high number of isolates could be found on the continent. However, due to the colonization and external pressure the language diversity in Latin America is at risk.

Concerning the topic of language documentation it can be stated that the importance of the compilation of a broad corpus of language data constitutes the primarily aim of a researcher who conducts a documentation project. Recently, many discussions revolved around the topic of community involvement in these projects. For this purpose, I concentrated on three models described in Czaykowska-Higgins (2009). The linguist advocates the community-based research model which involves the communities actively into the documentation process. Community members function as partners and contribute to both the gathering of data and the description of the language. To this effect, many linguists train certain community members in different aspects of language documentation. Examples taken from Yamada (2007), Vallejos (2014), Caballero (2017) and other researchers illustrate the numerous benefits of involving the

community actively in documentation projects. However, not only the benefits for linguists and their research but also benefits for the indigenous communities are described in the thesis. Materials which are produced in order to benefit communities are hardly discussed in the literature. Nevertheless, some researchers such as Terrill (2002) and Hill (2012) report about the impact of story books and dictionaries on the communities they worked with. Communities are most certainly proud to hold a book written in their heritage language in their hands. Moreover, based on written or audio materials the communities can preserve their stories, songs and further cultural significant knowledge for the future generation. The section showed that even little contributions from the linguist can have a huge impact on the communities concerned. Another benefit for communities constitutes the implementation of language preservation activities. These activities cannot be applied to all communities whose language is in danger of disappearing as many factors have to be considered in this regard. What is more, the concept “revitalization” can differ widely based on the circumstances of a community. Revitalization activities can aim to either establish a new generation of fluent speakers or solely teach certain words and phrases. Researchers mostly focus on supporting communities in their revitalization initiatives by establishing language classes, immersion-schools or other language programs.

Apart from the concern about involving community members adequately in the documentation project and producing community-beneficial outcomes, linguists will have to take additional factors into consideration when conducting a language documentation project. It has been shown that different factors are likely to have positive or negative impacts on indigenous communities and as a result, affect the work of the linguists. It is critical to bear in mind that there are many more factors than the ones described in this thesis and that all factors are interrelated and therefore, may occur within the same situation.

The results of this investigation were presented in chapter five. The aim of the investigation was to ascertain the kind of materials produced in the course of language documentation projects in order to benefit indigenous communities in Latin America. The questionnaire was send to 76 linguists who conducted or still conduct a documentation project which at some point at time was funded by the Endangered Language Documentation Programme (ELDP). Considering the fact that some of the 76 encountered email addresses might not be in use any longer, the outcome of 37 responses can be regarded as a successful feedback from the linguists. The questionnaire which was sent out twice is divided into four sections and contains sixteen questions. The results of the gathered responses can be depicted as follows: Although various

researchers did not receive sufficient funding in order to carry out their projects long-term, the results show that the majority of researchers are considerate of producing materials relevant for the communities in the course of their documentation projects. Concerning tangible outcomes, the results show that the most common developed materials are linked to the communities’ culture and traditions. In other words, the production of story books, audio and video materials with songs and stories and vocabulary collections prevail in most documentation projects. These results confirm what has been reported by various linguists in chapter three. Terrill (2002) reported that the community she worked with valued the produced story books immensely, even more than the dictionary. Likewise, Yamada (2011) and Vallejos (2014) reported about the communities’ joy generated by listening to their ancestors’ stories and narratives. The development and distribution of vocabulary collections and specialized dictionaries are important contributors to language attitudes as they can raise the self-esteem of communities tremendously. Therefore, the results also demonstrated that the majority of the researchers think that the communities value the produced materials. Although materials produced for learning purposes are important resources, they are not relevant for all communities as the implementation of language classes is not possible in every situation. In summary, it can be stated that researchers respond to the communities’ desire to preserve their traditions in tangible forms and therefore, provide booklets and CD’s, among other materials. These products seem rather simple but are of great importance for communities whose language is in danger of disappearing.

Further, it could be shown that a great number of the researchers implemented additional activities during their projects in order to benefit the communities. Most researchers concentrated on training community members in different aspects of language documentation. This training will influence the documentation and description of a language positively as researchers can collaborate with the trained community members in both activities. Moreover, the skills acquired in training will enable community members to conduct their own documentation and preservation activities in the future (cf. Hinton 2011).

Other important findings concerned the contentment of the researchers regarding the developed outcomes. Several researchers were quite content as they produced their planned materials and fulfilled their project goals successfully. Researchers who were not entirely pleased with the outcomes of their projects reported about problems concerning the topics continuity, sustainability and funding. Plenty of researchers would like to support the communities on a long-term basis, however, they depend on financial support in order to do so. The last section

of the questionnaire gave the linguists the possibility to leave additional comments regarding their experience during their documentation projects. The gathered comments reported about both rewarding and challenging situations caused by different circumstances. In general, it can be stated that researchers try to support the communities as efficiently as the given situations allow them to.

The last part of the investigation consisted of introducing three researchers and their documentation projects. The linguists were confronted with different factors which influenced their documentation projects. Carmen Jany worked on the description of Chuxnabán Mixe and established an orthography together with some community members. The project successfully produced both academic research outcomes and community-beneficial materials. However, Carmen Jany would have liked to continue her work in the community as the time was too short to implement additional activities. Christine Beier has implemented various activities since the initiation of the Iquito language documentation project in 2001. Up to today, new language materials have been produced and Christine Beier supports the preservation of the language by holding language classes every time she visits the community. Swintha Danielsen had to deal with two different language communities. Both communities collaborated with Swintha Danielsen, however, the Guarayu were very productive on their own. Therefore, they did not ask for language materials or story books but rather needed assistance in digital infrastructure and training. The Paunaka community, on the other side, valued the outcomes produced by the researchers and were happy to be part of the documentation project. To sum up, even though engaging with a community in a language documentation project entails challenging situations, these three linguists accepted the challenge in order to preserve valuable linguistic data and support the concerned communities in an impactful way.

Table of Illustrations

Tables

Table 1: Language endangerment classification after Krauss (2007) ...... 10 Table 2: Projects carried out in each country ...... 66

Figures

Figure 1: Chatino folk tale “The Neighbors’ Corn” (2013) ...... 34 Figure 2: “The Hunter and the Monkey” (2016) ...... 35 Figure 3: “Canción de Baures” ...... 37 Figure 4: Rama language Dictionary (2009) ...... 38 Figure 5: Flora and Fauna dictionary (2016)...... 39 Figure 6: “Ae nyakukiakia – Mamíferos” (2015) ...... 40 Figure 7: “Sii aatsi/It is raining/Está lloviendo” (1994) ...... 41 Figure 8: Pilagá pedagogical grammar and exercise book (2013) ...... 42 Figure 9: “Vamos a escribir el idioma iquito” (2017), “200 palabras Matsés” (2016) ...... 43 Figure 10: Chatino flashcards “La Lotería” (2016)...... 44 Figure 11: “Has your project produced any materials for community use?” ...... 67 Figure 12: “What kind of materials have been produced?” ...... 67 Figure 13: “Did other community-oriented activities take place?” ...... 68 Figure 14: “What kind of activities have been implemented?” ...... 69 Figure 15: “Did/Does the community value the outcomes of the documentation project?” .... 71 Figure 16: “How content are you with the outcomes of your language documentation project?” ...... 72 Figure 17: “Stories from Chuxnabán” ...... 78 Figure 18: “Pedagogical story” and booklet “Let’s write in Iquito” ...... 83 Figure 19: A story from the book “Cuentos y relatos en la lengua Paunaca” (2009) ...... 87

References

Adelaar, Willem F.H. 1991. The Endangered Languages Problem: South America. In R.H. Robins and E.M. Uhlenbeck (eds.), Endangered Languages. Oxford/New York: Berg, 45-92.

ARCADIA. A charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin. 2018. What Arcadia does. [Online]. https://www.arcadiafund.org.uk/about-peter-baldwin-lisbet-rausing/. [2018, June 04]

Austin, Peter K. & Julia Sallabank. 2012. Introduction. In Austin, Peter K. and Julia Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge [et al.]: Cambridge University Press, 1-24.

Beier, Christine. 2002. Creating a lasting infrastructure for the ILDP. Talks at the Special Colloquium of the Department of Linguistics at the University of Texas at Austin, "The Iquito Language Documentation Project: Launching a community-based language documentation and revitalization effort.” [Online].http://www.cabeceras.org/colloq_chris.pdf. [2018, June 02]

Beier, Christine. 2004. Report from the Field on the 2004 Team Research Phase of the Iquito Language Documentation Project. [Online]. http://www.cabeceras.org/ildp04_report_eng.pdf. [2018, June 02]

Beier, Christine and Lev Michael. 2006. The Iquito Language Documentation Project: Developing Team-Based Methods for Language Documentation. Linguistic Discovery: 4(1). [Online]. https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi- bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/1/article/303?htmlOnce=yes. [2018, June 02]

Beier, Christine. 2009. Implementing community involvement in collaborative language documentation: The Iquito case. First International Conference on Language Documentation and Conservation. [Online]. http://www.cabeceras.org/beier_ildp_icldc_090312.pdf. [2018, June 02]

Bernard, H. R. 1996. Language preservation and publishing. In Hornberger, Nancy H. (ed.), Indigenous literacies in the Americas: Language planning from the bottom up. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 139-153.

Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic Fieldwork. A Practical Guide. Basingstoke [et al.]: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bowern, Claire. 2011. Planning a language-documentation project. In Austin, Peter K. and Julia Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge [et al.]: University Press, 459-482.

Brenzinger, Matthias et al. 2003. Language vitality and endangerment. Paris: UNESCO. [Online]. https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/00120-EN.pdf. [2018, June 02]

Caballero, Gabriela. 2017. Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) language description and documentation: a guide to the deposited collection and associated materials. Language Documentation and Preservation 11, 224-255. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24734. [2018, June 02]

Cabeceras Aid Project. 2016. [Online]. http://www.cabeceras.org/ILDP_home.htm. [2018, June 04]

Cabeceras Aid Project. 2018. ¡Leer, escuchar... y hablar iquito! [Online]. http://www.cabeceras.org/ikiitu/cabeceras_hablar_iquito.htm. [2018, June 04]

Cameron, Deborah et al. 1997. Ethics, Advocacy and Empowerment in Researching Languages. In Coupland, Nikolas and Adam Jaworski (eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook. Basingstoke [et al.]: Macmillan, 145-162.

Conathan, Lisa. 2011. Archiving and language documentation. In Austin, Peter K and Julia Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge [et al.]: University Press, 235-254.

Craig, Colette. 1992. A constitutional response to language endangerment: The case of Nicaragua. In Hale, Ken et al. (eds.), Endangered Languages. Languages 68 (1), 17-24. [Online].http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/416368.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ad1ebc009 3415799fad0648574ba88fcd. [2018, June 02]

Crevels, Mily. 2012. Language endangerment in South America: The clock is ticking. In Campbell, Lyle and Veronica Grondona (eds.), The indigenous languages of South America. A comprehensive guide. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 167-234.

Cruz, Emiliana & Anthony Woodbury. 2014. Collaboration in the Context of Teaching, Scholarship, and Language Revitalization: Experience from the Chatino Language

Documentation Project. Language Documentation and Preservation 8, 262-286. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24607. [2018, June 02]

Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 2009. Research Models, Community Engagement, and Linguistic Fieldwork: Reflections on Working within Canadian Indigenous Communities. Language Documentation and Preservation 3 (1), 15-50. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4423. [2018, June 02]

Danielsen, Swintha. 2017a. Recent tendencies in the Guarayu language (Tupi-Guaraní), Bolivia: young speakers, Whatsapp, Facebook, and printed materials. Unpublished presentation. November 16, 2017 at the University of Cologne.

Danielsen, Swintha. 2017b. Aktuelle Mehrsprachigkeit im plurinationalen Bolivien: Gesetze und ihre Umsetzung, Träume und Realität. Unpublished presentation. University of Leipzig/Guarayos, Santa Cruz.

DOBES Documentation of Endangered Languages. 2018a. ARCHIVE INFORMATION. [Online]. http://dobes.mpi.nl/archive_info/. [2018, June 04]

DOBES Documentation of Endangered Languages. 2018b. DOBES PROGRAMME. [Online]. http://dobes.mpi.nl/dobesprogramme/. [2018, June 04]

Dobrin, Lise M. & Josh Berson. 2011. Speakers and Language documentation. In Austin, Peter K. and Julia Sallabank (eds.), The cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge [et al.]: Cambridge University Press, 187-211.

Dwyer, Arienne M .2010. Model of successful collaboration. In Grenoble, Lenore A. and N. Louanna Furbee (eds.), Language Documentation. Practice and values. Amsterdam/Phhiladelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 193-212.

Endangered Languages Documentation Programme. 2015a. ABOUT US. [Online]. http://www.eldp.net/en/about+us/. [2018, June 04]

Endangered Languages Documentation Programme. 2015b. Chuxnaban Mixe. [Online]. http://www.eldp.net/en/our+projects/projects+list/. [2018, June 04]

Endangered Language Documentation Programme. 2015c. Documentation Grants. Small Grant Information Pack for Applicants. [Online]. http://www.eldp.net/en/our+grants/documentation+grants/. [2018, June 04]

Endangered Language Documentation Programme. 2015d. Languages documented. [Online]. http://www.eldp.net/en/our+projects/projects+list/. [2018, June 04]

Endangered Language Documentation Programme. 2015e. [Online]. http://www.eldp.net/. [2018, June 04]

England, Nora. 2012. The Study of Indigenous Languages in Latin America. Lasa Forum 43 (1), 11-14. [Online]. https://lasa.international.pitt.edu/forum/files/vol43- issue1/OnTheProfession3.pdf. [2018, June 02]

Evans, Nicholas. 2010. Dying Words. Endangered Languages and What They Have To Tell Us. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Franchetto, Bruna and Keren Rice. 2014. Language Documentation in the Americas. In Language Documentation and Preservation 8, 251-261. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24606. [2018, June 02]

Franchetto, Bruna. 2017. Entrevista: Ana Vilacy Galúcio. Revista LinguíStica/ Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro 13 (1), 20-41. [Online]. https://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/rl/article/viewFile/10418/7910. [2018, June 02]

Gerdts, Donna B. 2010. Beyond expertise: The role of the linguist in language revitalization programs. In Grenoble, Lenore A. and N. Louanna Furbee (eds.), Language Documentation. Practice and values. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 173-192.

Gippert, Jost et al. 2006. Editors’ Preface. In Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus Himmelmann and Ulrike Mosel (eds.), Essentials of language documentation. Berlin: de Gruyter, v-vii.

Grenoble, Lenore A. 2010. Language documentation and field linguistics: The state of the field. In Grenoble, Lenore A. and N. Louanna Furbee (eds.), Language Documentation. Practice and values. Amsterdam/Phhiladelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 289-309.

Grenoble, Lenore A. & Lindsay J. Whaley. 2006. Saving languages: an introduction to language revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grinevald, Colette. 1998. Language endangerment in South America: A programmatic approach. In Grenoble, Lenore A. (ed.), Endangered Languages: language loss and community response. Cambridge [et al.]: Cambridge University Press, 124-159.

Grinevald, Colette. 2007. Endangered Languages of Mexico and Central America. In Brenzinger, Matthias (ed.), Language Diversity Endangered. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 59-86.

Grinevald, Colette & Michel Bert. 2011. Speakers and communities. In Austin, Peter K. and Julia Sallabank (eds.), The cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge [et al.]: Cambridge University Press, 45-65.

Grinevald, Colette & Bénédicte Pivot. 2013. On the revitalization of a ‘treasure language’: The Rama Language Project of Nicaragua. In Jones, Mari C. and Sarah Ogilvie (eds.), Keeping Languages Alive. Documentation Pedagogy and Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 181-197.

Haboud, Marleen et al. 2016. Linguistic Human Rights and Language Revitalization in Latin America and the Caribbean. In Coronel-Molina, Serafin M. and Teresa L. McCarty (eds.), Indigenous Language Revitalization in the Americas. New York: Routledge, 201-224.

Hill, Deborah. 2012. One Community’s Post-Conflict Response to a Dictionary Project. Language Documentation and Conservation 6, 273-281. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4554. [2018, June 02]

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2006. Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for? In Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus Himmelmann and Ulrike Mosel (eds.), Essentials of language documentation. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1-30.

Hinton, Leanne. 2001. Sleeping languages: Can they be awakened? In Hinton, Leanne and Ken Hale (eds.), The green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. San Diego [et al.]: Academic Press, 413-417.

Hinton, Leanne. 2001. Language Revitalization: An Overview. In Hinton, Leanne and Ken Hale (eds.), The green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. San Diego [et al.]: Academic Press, 3-18.

100

Hinton, Leanne. 2011. Revitalization of endangered languages. In Austin, Peter K. and Julia Sallabank (eds.), The cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge [et al.]: Cambridge University Press, 291-311.

Holton, Gary. 2011. The role of information technology in supporting minority and endangered languages. In Austin, Peter K. and Julia Sallabank (eds.), The cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge [et al.]: Cambridge University Press, 371-399.

Hornberger N. H. & K. A. King. 2001. Reversing Quechua Language Shift in South America. In Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.), Can threatened languages be saved? Clevedon [et al.]: Multilingual Matters, 166-194.

Jany, Carmen. 2010. Orthography Design for Chuxnabán Mixe. Language Documentation and Conservation 4, 231-253. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4481. [2018, June 02]

Jukes, Anthony. 2011. Researcher training and capacity development in language documentation. In Austin, Peter K. and Julia Sallabank (eds.), The cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge [et al.]: Cambridge University Press, 423-445.

Krauss, Michael. 2007. Classification and Terminology for Degrees of Language Endangerment. In Brenzinger, Matthias (ed.), Language Diversity Endangered. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1-8.

Lewis, M. Paul,& Gary F. Simons. 2010. Assessing endangerment: expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Revue roumaine de linguistique 55 (2), 103-120. [Online]. http://www- 01.sil.org/~simonsg/preprint/EGIDS.pdf. [2018, June 02]

Maffi, Luisa. 2014. Introduction. Documenting and Revitalizing Oral Traditions 4, 4-6. [Online]. http://terralingua.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/tk_4_lit.pdf. [2018, June 02]

Marett, Allan & Linda Barwick. 2003. Endangered songs and endangered languages. Foundation for endangered languages, 144-151. [Online]. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/1314/1/EndangeredSongs.pdf. [2018, June 02]

Mihas, Elena I. 2012. Subcontracting Native Speakers in Linguistic Fieldwork: A Case Study of the Ashéninka Perené (Arawak) Research Community from the Peruvian Amazon. Language Documentation and Conservation 6, 1-21. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4502. [2018, June 02] 101

Mithun, Marianne. 1998. The significance of diversity in language endangerment and preservation. In Grenoble, Lenore A. (ed.), Endangered Languages: language loss and community response. Cambridge [et al.]: Cambridge University Press, 163- 191.

Moore, Denny. 2007. Endangered Languages of Lowland Tropical South America. In Brenzinger, Matthias (ed.), Language Diversity Endangered. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 29-58.

Moore, Denny & Ana Vilacy Galucio. 2016. Perspectives for the documentation of indigenous languages in Brazil. In Pérez Báez, Gabriela, Chris Rogers and Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada (eds.), Language Documentation and Revitalization in Latin American Contexts. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 29-58.

Mosel, Ulrike, 2011. Lexicography in endangered language communities. In Austin, Peter K. and Julia Sallabank (eds.), The cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge [et al.]: Cambridge University Press, 337-353.

Mosel, Ulrike. 2012. Creating educational materials in language documentation projects – creating innovative resources for linguistic research. Language Documentation and Conservation 3, 111-117. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4524. [2018, June 02]

National Science Foundation. Where Discoveries Begin. n.d. Documenting Endangered Languages (DEL). [Online]. https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=12816. [2018, June 04]

O’Meara, Carolyn & Octavio Alonso González Guadarrama. 2016. Accessibility to results and primary data of research on indigenous languages of Mexico. In Pérez Báez, Gabriela, Chris Rogers and Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada (eds.), Language documentation and Revitalization in Latin American Contexts. Berlin/Boston: DeGruyter, 59-80.

Pérez Báez, Gabriela. 2016. Addressing the gap between community beliefs and priorities and researchers’ language maintenance interests. In Pérez Báez, Gabriela, Chris Rogers and Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada (eds.), Language documentation and Revitalization in Latin American Contexts. Berlin/Boston: DeGruyter, 165-194.

Pérez Báez, Gabriela & Chris Rogers & Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada. 2016. Introduction. In Pérez Báez, Gabriela, Chris Rogers and Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada (eds.), Language documentation and Revitalization in Latin American Contexts. Berlin/Boston: DeGruyter, 1-28.

102

Pivot, Bénédicte. 2011. ¿Qué didáctica para una lengua tesoro? El caso de la revitalización de la lengua rama de Nicaragua. STLILLA. Kellogg Institute for International Studies, University of Notre Dame, 1-17. [Online]. http://www.academia.edu/2470042/_Qu%C3%A9_did%C3%A1ctica_para_una_lengu a_tesoro_El_caso_de_la_revitalizaci%C3%B3n_de_la_lengua_rama_de_Nicaragua. [2018, June 02]

Rice, Keren. 2011. Documentary Linguistics and Community Relations. Language Documentation and Conservation 5, 187-207. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4498. [2018, June 02]

Rogers, Chris. 2016. Indigenous authenticity as a goal of language documentation and revitalization: Addressing the motivations in the Xinkan community. In Pérez Báez, Gabriela, Chris Rogers and Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada (eds.), Language documentation and Revitalization in Latin American Contexts. Berlin/Boston: DeGruyter, 247-272.

Rosés Labrada, Jorge Emilio. 2017. Language Vitality among the Mako communities of the Ventuari River. Language Documentation and Conservation 11, 10-48. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24723. [2018, June 02]

Schilling, Natalie. 2013. Sociolinguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seifert, Frank et al. 2008. Language documentation and Archives in South America. Language Documentation and Conservation 2 (1), 130-140. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/1775. [2018, June 02]

Shaw, Patricia. 2004. Negotiating against loss: Responsibility, reciprocity, and respect in endangered language research. In Sakiyama et al. (eds.), Lectures on Endangered Languages 4. Osaka: Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim (ELPR) Series C004, 181-194. [Online]. http://www.ucalgary.ca/dflynn/files/dflynn/shaw04.pdf. [2018, June 02]

Shi vikarow to vekori. n.d. [Online]. http://research.uni- leipzig.de/baureprojekt/activities/Shi_vikarow_to_vekori_2_2/Curso_Baure.htm#. [2018, June 04]

103

Silva, Wilson. 2016. Animating Traditional Amazonian Storytelling: New Methods and Lessons from the Field. Language Documentation and Conservation 10, 480-496. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24703. [2018, June 02]

Stenzel, Kristine. 2014. The Pleasures and Pitfalls of a ‘Participatory’ Documentation Project: An Experience in Northwestern Amazonia. Language Documentation and Conservation 8, 287-306. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24608. [2018, June 02]

Terrill, Angela. 2002. Why make books for people who don’t read? A perspective on documentation of an endangered language from Solomon Islands. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 155 (1), 205-219. [Online]. http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:57889/component/escidoc:57890/T errrill_2002_small.pdf. [2018, June 02]

The Endangered Language Fund. n.d. Who we are. Supporting the documentation and revitalization of the world’s endangered languages. [Online]. http://www.endangeredlanguagefund.org/about-elf.html. [2018, June 04]

The paunaka documentation project. n.d. [Online]. http://research.uni- leipzig.de/paunakadocu/index.html. [2018, June 04]

Thomason, Sarah G. 2015. Endangered Languages. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tsunoda, Tasaku. 2005. Language endangerment and language revitalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Vallejos, Rosa. 2014. Integrating Language Documentation, Language Preservation, and Linguistic Research: Working with the Kokamas from the Amazon. Language Documentation and Conservation 8, 38-65. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4618. [2018, June 02]

Villard, Stéphanie & J. Ryan Sullivant. 2016. Language documentation in two communities with high migration rates. In Pérez Báez, Gabriela, Chris Rogers and Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada (eds.), Language documentation and Revitalization in Latin American Contexts. Berlin/Boston: DeGruyter, 273- 304.

Woodbury, Anthony & Nora England. 2004. Training speakers of indigenous languages of Latin America at a US university. In Austin, Peter K. (ed.), Language Documentation and Description 2. London: SOAS, 122-139. 104

Woodbury, Anthony. 2011. Language Documentation. In Austin, Peter K. and Julia Sallabank (eds.), The cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge [et al.]: Cambridge University Press, 159-186.

Woodbury, Anthony C. 2014. Archives and audiences: Toward making endangered language documentations people can read, use, understand, and admire. In Nathan, David and Peter K. Austin (eds.), Language Documentation and Description 12: Special Issue on Language Documentation and Archiving. London: SOAS, 19-36.

Yamada, Racquel-María. 2007. Collaborative Linguistic Fieldwork: Practical Application of the Empowerment Model. Language Documentation and Conservation 1 (2), 257-282. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/1717. [2018, June 02]

Yamada, Racquel-María. 2010. Speech community-based documentation, description, and revitalization: Kari’nja in Konomerume. Dissertation of University of Oregon Graduate School. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/1794/11304. [2018, June 02]

Yamada, Racquel-María. 2011. Integrating Documentation and Formal Teaching of Kari’nja: Documentary Materials as Pedagogical Materials. Language Documentation and Conservation 5, 1-30. [Online]. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4486. [2018, June 02]

105

Appendix

The online questionnaire:

106

107

108

109

110