linguapax review7 2019 Old7 kava in new gourds: language revitalization and schooling in Hawaii Kava vell en carabasses noves: revitalització lingüística i escolarització a Hawaii Linguapax Review 2019 Old kava in new gourds: language revitalization and schooling in Hawaii Kava vell en carabasses noves: revitalització lingüística i escolarització a Hawaii Editat per: Amb el suport de: Generalitat de Catalunya Departament de Cultura Generalitat de Catalunya Departament d’Acció Exterior Relacions Institucionals i Transparència Secretaria d’Acció Exterior i de la Unió Europea Coordinació editorial: Rubèn Fernández Asensio Disseny i maquetació: Grafia, serveis gràfics Traduccions: Marc Alba / Violeta Roca Font Aquesta obra està subjecta a una llicència de Reconeixement-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional de Creative Commons Linguapax Review 7 3 CONTENTS CONTINGUTS • Introduction . 5. • Introducció . 9. RUBÈN FERNÁNDEZ ASENSIO • The demise of Hawaiian schools in the 19th century . 13. • La desaparició de les escoles hawaianes al segle XIX . 31. RUBÈN FERNÁNDEZ ASENSIO • ʻAha Pūnana Leo - Advancing from the grassroots . 49 . • ʻAha Pūnana Leo - Avançant des de la base. 71 DR. WILLIAM H. WILSON DR. KAUANOE KAMANĀ • Take My Word: Mahalo no i to’u matua tane. 93 • Tens la meva paraula: Mahalo no i to‘u matua tane . 113. KEAO NESMITH • Hawaiian Performing Arts and the Resurgence of the Hawaiian Language . 133. • Les arts escèniques hawaianes i el ressorgiment del hawaià . .141 . DR. KALENA SILVA • A Perspective on Kula Kaiapuni . 149 . • Una mirada a les Kula Kaiapuni . 159 . ANN PAULINO • The role of school and language networks in the Hawaiian language revival . .169 • El paper de l’escola i de les xarxes de parlants en la recuperació . 181 de la llengua hawaiana MATTHIAS BRENZINGER PATRICK HEINRICH Linguapax Review 7 5 INTRODUCTION Rubèn Fernández Asensio Linguapax Review saw the light of day in 2010 aiming to be «a “watchtower” on the situ- ation of linguistic rights in the world, to make progress in promoting and identifying good practice, and denouncing the contravention of linguistic rights». Although all of its issues have been monographic in one way or another by focusing on a particular topic or aspect of linguistic rights and minority language promotion, its international scope naturally led to a systematic comparison of similar issues in different locales. However, with the com- memoration in 2019 of UNESCO’s Year of Indigenous Languages it has been decided to more directly link this publication to the bestowal of the Linguapax Award, which was established a few years later than the review as a tribute to outstanding action carried out in different areas in favor of the preservation, revitalization and reactivation of linguistic communities, to recognize the exceptional work of individuals or entities in favor of linguis- tic diversity and multilingual education. And there’s no better way of commemorating such year than granting the award to Larry Kimura, the ‘grandfather’ and pioneer of the Hawai- ian language revitalization movement, which he set in motion practically single-handedly in the 70’s when the fate of Hawaiian seemed already sealed, first as an educator, then as a radio host, later on as a language documentalist, terminologist and writer, and still later in a myriad of other capacities. The Linguapax Award jury, made up of forty international experts, has valued especially Kimura’s foundation of ʻAha Pūnana Leo and his leadership in the Hawaiian language revitalization movement for the last 35 years and his continuing efforts to expanding the Hawaiian language. So the award is also a fair recognition of the work of all Hawaiian scholars and language activists. The success of the Hawaiian revitalization movement demonstrates that languages on the brink of extinction can in fact be revitalized and be given a new lease of life. Thus, the Hawaiian Language revival is nowadays an important example and serves as a model for other indigenous languages movements. That is the reason that, for the first time, Linguapax has decided to publish a monograph on a single location. This issue of Linguapax Review, by examining Hawaiʻi as a case study from a variety of angles and perspectives, tries to unveil the reasons for the success that sets it apart from other attempts at revitalizing endangered languages and to assess its value as a model without shying away from its unique history, conditions and challenges. The first point of interest in the Hawaiian case is the crucial role played by schools in contrast with classical proposals for language revitalization and maintenance as laid out by Joshua Fishman, who granted much more importance to the home domain. The first paper in this collection reviews the history of language and schooling in 19th century Ha- waiʻi to provide a rationale for such a focus. Among endangered languages, Hawaiian is unique in having been the language of a sovereign polity, which in 1843 became the first non-European indigenous state to gain recognition as a nation, before the monarchy was overthrown by the US in 1893. Moreover, since the very beginning of its existence as a na- tion patterned along Western models, Hawaiʻi enjoyed a pioneering and comprehensive school network that reached every corner of the archipelago to teach its subjects in their 6 Linguapax Review 7 own language, before English was introduced to nominally strengthen the state’s inde- pendence while actually subverting it. Given that Hawaiian language revitalization goes beyond reclaiming the language and culture, reestablishing Hawaiian medium schools as a part of the original Hawaiian state was an essential part of restoring a degree of political sovereignty as well and amending the wrongs of the colonial past. The following paper by Pila Wilson & Kauanoe Kamanā takes us to the next historical pe- riod but on the opposite way, from language recession to language restoration, by chron- icling the beginnings of the language revitalization movement. While we follow the thread of Larry Kimura’s activities and then those of the non-profit organization ʻAha Pūnana Leo that he founded, we learn of the uphill battle that they all waged against bureaucratic cal- lousness and the inertia of colonial laws. An interesting lesson that the reader shouldn’t miss is how the language revitalization movement avoided being dissipated in its own popularity: rather than spreadind ‘horizontally’ by inserting Hawaiian language instruction as a mere subject in as many mainstream schools as possible, it chose to concentrate its strength ‘vertically’ both in the uppermost and lowermost points of the school system, the university and the preschool, until the whole middle range could be occupied. It is also worth noting that the home use of Hawaiian wasn’t dissociated from the efforts of introduc- ing it into schools, as the first Hawaiian language preschools were established to service Hawaiian speaking children both of ‘traditional’ (from Niʻihau) and ‘new speakers’ families. Unfortunately the interests of traditional and new speakers may easily clash and part ways, as explained in both this and the third paper, but from opposing perspectives. The needs of new speakers that are reclaiming a lost language through immersion education are difficult to reconcile with the preferences of communities that haven’t (yet) stopped transmitting it to their children, as the latter may still be under the diglossic spell of the majority language’s prestige and the urge of acquiring it as early as possible, putting little faith in the practical value of immersion education in their own language. The ensuing tension may split entire communities, as happened in Kekaha (Kauaʻi), where two schools service the Niʻihau community, one through Hawaiian immersion and the other through instruction in English. This problem plagues language revitalization attempts everywhere, but the Hawaiian case shows that rejection of minority language instruction doesn’t nec- essarily entail a low esteem of it. Instead, resistance to the role taken by new speakers in the direction of the community may take the form of a controversy on language standards and authenticity, with traditional speakers rejecting the language authority of new speak- ers and claiming the role of language models for themselves. This conflict was bound to happen in Hawaiʻi since the huge terminological needs caused by the decision of using Hawaiian for all purposes clashed with the distribution of domains with English dictat- ed by traditional diglossia. Keao neSmith’s paper is strongly colored by the perspective of traditional speakers, but is truly invaluable in probing to what extent the revitalization movement can take traditional speakers on board and use their language expertise to strengthen the authenticity claims that provide its very own rationale. Besides the historical importance of schooling in sovereign Hawaiʻi, there is another factor that underpins the importance of formal instruction in Hawaiian language revitalization beyond the home domain: it is the weight of traditional arts like hula, singing and chanting Linguapax Review 7 7 which propelled the prestige of Hawaiian culture and language, even internationally, be- fore language revitalization actually started. The forth paper by Kalena Silva attempts to answer how present-day performing arts with a Hawaiian language base have been able to survive the decline of the language, how healthy these arts are today, and the progno- sis for their future vitality. This overview again raises the question of authenticity, but the example of acculturated arts seems to afford an answer as well. With the fifth paper by the former principal of a Hawaiian medium school, Ann Paulino, we get a glimpse of the everyday challenges of running such a school in the midst of the English-medium mainstream. We learn how these schools cooperate under common umbrella organizations like ʻAha Kau Leo and the new Office of Hawaiian Education to be heard as one voice, but must also compete to some extent among themselves for scarce resources, the most valuable one being qualified teachers.