Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Languages
Gina Cantoni, Editor
ii
Table of Contents
Introduction
Gina Cantoni
v
Preface
Richard E. Littlebear
xi
2
3
15
21
iii
67
68
71
82
86
90
92
97
iv
100
101
106
110
114
117
119
128
135
137
137
141
144
145
146
155
162
165
176
178
187
Introduction
Gina Cantoni
In November 1994 and May 1995, with funding and sponsorship from the
United States Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs
(OBEMLA), Northern Arizona Universitys Center for Excellence in Education
hosted two symposia on stabilizing indigenous languages attended by participants from 21 states, two U.S. territories, and Canada. The Flagstaff Roundtables
on Stabilizing Indigenous Languages sought through the bringing together of
tribal educators and experts on linguistics, language renewal, and language teaching to lay out a blueprint of policy changes, educational reforms, and community initiatives to stabilize and revitalize American Indian and Alaska Native
languages. These symposia included a survey of the historical, current, and projected status of indigenous languages in the United States as well as extensive
dialogues on the roles of families, communities, and schools in promoting their
use and maintenance. In addition to listening to a variety of experts, the participants turned their attention to documenting how language maintenance and transmission can become a reality, with emphasis on success stories. The broad
areas of family, community, and school naturally fell into subtopics such as preschool, adult education, arts and the media, and so forth.
Each symposium highlighted talks by well-known scholars. In November:
Dr. Dang T. Pham, Deputy Director, OBEMLA
OBEMLAs Commitment to Endangered Indigenous Languages
Dr. Joshua A. Fishman, Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Ferkauf Graduate School, Yeshiva University
Reversing Language Shift: Challenges, Strategies, and Successes
In May:
Dr. Richard Littlebear
Director of the Multifunctional Resource Center in Anchorage
A Review of the Findings of the First Symposium
Dr. Michael Krauss, University of Alaska
Status of Native North American Languages:
Why Should We Care?
James Crawford, Author, Consultant
Sociological and Historical Perspectives on Language Shift
vi
These are not startling innovations; what we need is a critical mass of committed people, and this critical mass can only be created through continuous
capillary infiltration of information and encouragement. This volume is intended
to be a part of such an effort. It will be disseminated not only to those who
attended one or both of the sessions, but to a much wider audience consisting of
Native and non-Native individuals and institutions. The message this volume
carries begins with an alert about the severity of impending language loss. Many
people are not aware of the danger, and researchers may not agree about exact
figures. We are told that 80% of existing American Indian languages are moribund perhaps 50% of the languages existing in todays world are endangered,
only 600 are reasonably safe because of the large number of speakers (at least
100,000). About 90% of the worlds languages may be extinct in the next century, to be supplanted by those, such as English, Spanish, or Chinese, that have
been more widely taught and used. The danger of language extinction and of the
loss of linguistic diversity parallels and exceeds the severity of the decline of
plant and animal diversity on our earth.
Languages are more likely to disappear as a result of the destruction of the
cultural habitat of their speakers than because of direct attack upon their use (as,
for example, when they are forbidden by political powers, especially in schools
and public offices). But it is important to remember that there are political forces
pushing national and state constitutional amendments to make English the official language of this country that could harm efforts to save indigenous languages. Because states are being asked to ratify a constitutional amendment to
make English our official language, it is important that indigenous language
advocates make their concerns known at all levels of government: local, tribal,
state, federal, and international. In addition, state governments need to be lobbied to ensure that traditional native speakers be included as eminent educators along with certified teachers.
It is feasible, though far from easy, to prevent and even reverse linguistic
extinction. It is possible to halt the repression of local culture and promote the
production of materials, written texts, and radio and television broadcasts in
minority languages. One can preserve taped and written samples; one can encourage the use of a traditional language for songs, special social events, ceremonies, and rituals.
vii
viii
ix
Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future
generations their histories, languages, oral
traditions, philosophies, writing systems and
literatures, and to designate and retain their
own names for communities, places and
persons.
Indigenous children have the right to all
levels and forms of education of the State.
All indigenous peoples also have the right
to establish and control their educational
systems and institu-tions providing education in their own languages, in a manner
appropriate to their cultural methods of
teaching and learning.
United Nations Draft Declaration of the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 1993
Preface
Richard E. Littlebear
Our Native American languages have been oral since time immemorial.
Some of them have been written only in the last three centuries. We must remember this oral tradition when we teach our languages.
We sometimes negate this oral tradition by blindly following the only model
for language teaching we know: the way we were taught the English language
with its heavy emphasis on grammar. Teaching our languages as if they had no
oral tradition is one factor which contributes to the failures of our Native American language teaching programs so that we now have what amounts to a tradition of failure.
Probably because of this tradition of failure, we latch onto anything that
looks as though it will preserve our languages. As a result, we now have a litany
of what we have viewed as the one item that will save our languages. This one
item is usually quickly replaced by another.
For instance, some of us said, Lets get our languages into written form
and we did and still our Native American languages kept on dying.
Then we said, Lets make dictionaries for our languages and we did and
still the languages kept on dying.
Then we said, Lets get linguists trained in our own languages and we
did, and still the languages kept on dying.
Then we said, Lets train our own people who speak our languages to become linguists and we did and still our languages kept on dying.
Then we said, Lets apply for a federal bilingual education grant and we
did and got a grant and still our languages kept on dying.
Then we said, Lets let the schools teach the languages and we did, and
still the languages kept on dying.
Then we said, Lets develop culturally-relevant materials and we did and
still our languages kept on dying.
Then we said, Lets use language masters to teach our languages and we
did, and still our languages kept on dying.
Then we said, Lets tape-record the elders speaking our languages and we
did and still our languages kept on dying.
Then we said, Lets video-tape our elders speaking and doing cultural activities and we did and still our languages kept on dying.
Then we said, Lets put our native language speakers on CD-ROM and
we did and still the languages kept on dying.
Finally, someone will say, Lets flash-freeze the remaining speakers of our
languages so when technology catches up these speakers can be thawed-out and
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
Section I
Jon Reyhner
Facilitator
November Roundtable
Needs and Rationale Group Abstract
1.) The legal right to maintain indigenous languages has been accepted for the
most part in this country, but the effective right is not in the hands of American Indian tribes. They do not have the tools to do the job in spite of recent
reversals in government policy in the direction of self-determination.
2.) Accepting Joshua Fishmans emphasis on the necessity for the
intergenerational transmission of mother tongues, the Group expressed its belief
that a well-planned investment in Indian languages, and indigenous languages
generally, would be extremely effective in terms of addressing pressing national and international problems.
3.) The Group emphasized:
a) the importance of language as irreplaceable cultural knowledge.
b) the importance of bilingualism and an English Plus philosophy.
c) the Native American Languages Acts impact on government policy
changes.
d) the importance of family values in language survival.
e) the work of the Indian Nations at Risk Task Force and the White House
Conference of 1992.
4.) The Group recommended several courses of action in developing the effective right of Native peoples to maintain their languages:
a) fostering of new, innovative, community-based approaches.
b) directing more research efforts toward analyzing community-based successes.
c) fostering communication and partnerships between communities and organizations trying new approaches to maintaining languages.
d) promoting heightened consciousness of the catastrophic effects of language
loss both among members of language minority populations and among
members of the mainstream population.
5.) Because of the federal and state governments long-term roles in creating the
current endangered status of American Indian and Alaskan Native languages,
it is appropriate for them to provide assistance in helping American Indians
and Alaskan Natives to stabilize and renew their languages.
ber 17, 1994, and consisted of Elizabeth Brandt, Arizona State University; Damon Clarke,
Northern Arizona University; Willard Gilbert, Northern Arizona University; Juana Jose,
Office of Indian Education, Arizona Department of Education; Alvin Kelly, Quechan
Nation, Yuma; Paul Platero, Navajo Division of Education; Kathryn Stevens, Director,
Office of Indian Education, Arizona Department of Education. Thanks also go to Gary D.
McLean and Ed Tennant for their contributions to this document.
10
11
References
Atkins, J.D.C. (1887). Annual report of the commissioner of Indian affairs
to the secretary of the interior for the year 1887. Washington: Government Printing Office.
Baker, C. (1988). Key issues in bilingualism and bilingual education.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
References
Ahenakew, Freda. (1988). Program evaluation and quality control in Native language education. TESL Canada Journal, 5(2), 51-55.
Assembly of First Nations. (1990). Towards linguistic justice for First Nations. Ottawa: Assembly of First Nations, Education Secretariat.
Basso, Keith. (1967). Semantic aspects of linguistic acculturation. American Anthropologist, 69, 471-477.
Battiste, Marie. (1987). Mikmaq linguistic integrity: A case study of a
Mikmawey school. In Jean Barman, Yvonne Hbert, & Don McCaskill (Eds.),
Indian education in Canada: Volume 2: The challenge (pp. 107-125). Vancouver:
University of British Columbia.
Bauman, James. (1980). A guide to issues in Indian language retention.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Benton, Richard. (1978). Problems and prospects for indigenous languages
and bilingual education in New Zealand and Oceania. In Bernard Spolsky &
Robert Cooper (Eds.), Case studies in bilingual education (pp. 126-166). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
31
32
33
34
35
36
Section II
Language Policy
William Demmert
Robert Arnold
Facilitators
37
November Roundtable
Native American Language Policy Group Abstract
Recommendations:
1. Native American children must be exposed to a stimulating language, cultural, and
learning environment.
2. Native children must be provided with equal schooling opportunities early in the educational process, in order to learn their Native languages as well as learning English
and other languages.
3. Proficiency in two or more languages must be promoted for all Native American students.
4. Students must have an early access to teachers who are proficient Native language
speakers.
5. Native American tribes, parents, schools, and universities must form partnerships for
Native language development.
6. Opportunities for the economic development of individuals and tribes in collaboration
with businesses and scientific, artistic, commercial, and industrial enterprises must
be encouraged, initiated, expanded, and supported.
7. Procedures for the identification of students with special needs, including the gifted
and talented, must reflect Native American tribal linguistic, social, and cultural values and practices.
8. For the use and survival of indigenous languages and cultures, it is essential to encourage access to modern telecommunications tech-nology.
Strategies:
1. Encourage local initiatives to carry out policies in support of indigenous languages
and cultures.
2. Build national and regional Native consortiums.
3. Propose legislative recommendations to appropriate House and Senate legislators and
committees.
4. Submit recommendations to Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Depart-ment of
Education, and other agencies that support Indian education.
5. Encourage partnerships between organizations interested in supporting Native education, language and culture (e.g., National Advisory Council for Indian Education,
National Indian Education Association, and so forth).
6. Capitalize on America 2000 and Improving Americas Schools Act requirements to
develop local education plans with tribal/state agencies that coordinate federal programs serving schools and tribes.
7. Encourage the reorganization of colleges of education involved in teacher preparation
and recruitment.
8. Support successful language renewal and development projects.
9. Require research funding to include the development and promotion of assessment
instruments and procedures consistent with tribal and cultural values.
38
39
40
41
42
References
Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. (1976). Young Native Americans and their
families: Educational needs assessment and recommendations. Washington, DC:
Author.
Hakuta, Kenji, et al. (1993). A blueprint for the second generation: Report
of the Stanford Working Group on federal education programs for limited-English-proficient students. Stanford, CA: Stanford Working Group.
Indian nations at risk: An educational strategy for action. (1991). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (1990). Language development: A base for educational policy planning. Portland, OR: Author.
White House conference on Indian education: Final report. (1992). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
43
It is very good for me to get out of Washington at this point and to come to
Arizona. This is my first time in Flagstaff, but it is the fourth time in Arizona. I
think as a former refugee from Viet Nam, I understand clearly what the issue is
when your language is not being used every day; I know very well that sense of
losing something. So it is natural and proper that I have a commitment and that
I work for the U.S. Department of Educations Office of Bilingual Education
and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA), which shares my commitment to
help American Indians to regain and preserve some type of education in their
own language.
Before I get into my remarks, I would like to bring the greetings of the
White House, of Secretary Riley of the Department of Education, Dr. Eugene
Garca, and the entire staff of OBEMLA.
On October 20, 1994, President Clinton went to Framingham, Massachusetts, to sign into law the Improving Americas Schools Act of 1994, which
people sometimes refer to as the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). You should know that ESEA was passed by the
House of Representatives on September 30 by a large majority vote, 262 to 132,
and finally in the Senate, 77 to 20. With only 56 Democrats in the Senate, we
nevertheless got 77 votes, which shows tremendous efforts by both sides of the
aisle to prove to you that the administrations education bill is not just a Democrat issue or a Republican issue, but an American issue. I think that set the whole
tone of the ESEA, which now becomes law.
[The Deputy Director then launched into a discussion and explanation of
the new ESEA, and especially the new connections between Title I (formerly
Chapter I), Title VII (Bilingual Education), and Title IX (Indian Education). The
changes shift much more responsibility to the states and local schools and communities, loosening direct control and long-distance decisions from Washington. However, the changes have little effect on our concerns for indigenous language stabilization. The Deputy Director concluded with an interesting account
of his own history in this country, including his studies at Boston College, his
work for Governor Dukakis in Massachusetts, his involvement in the governors
campaign for the presidency in 1988, and his recruitment in 1991 by Governor
Clinton of Arkansas for his campaign in 1992. Following are his concluding
remarks, which Dr. Joshua Fishman immediately recognized as making this
evenings program an historic occasion.] Dr. Pham continued:
On behalf of OBEMLA, we are very proud to be part of this universitys
efforts to revitalize the indigenous languages of Indian communities, and we
assure you that we certainly have a commitment to make this happen. Remember, this is the first time ever in the history of the Department of Education that
something like this has happened.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
References
Atkins, J.D.C. (1887). Annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Rpt. in James Crawford, ed. (1992). Language loyalties: A source book on
the official English controversy (pp. 47-51). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Crawford, James. (1995). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and
practice. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services.
Debo, Angie. (1940). And still the waters run: The betrayal of the five civilized tribes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Fishman, Joshua. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Hoxie, Frederick E. (1984). A final promise: The campaign to assimilate
the Indians, 1880-1920. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska.
Indian Office, U.S. (1888). Correspondence on the subject of teaching the
vernacular in Indian schools. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Krauss, M. (1992). Statement of Mr. Michael Krauss representing the Linguistic Society of America. In U.S. Senate, Native American Languages Act of
1991: Hearing before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs (pp. 18-22). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Platero, Paul R. (1992). Navajo Head Start language study. Abridged version. Window Rock, AZ: Navajo Division of Education.
59
60
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the Native American Languages Act.
FINDINGS
SEC. 102. The Congress finds that
(1) the status of the cultures and languages of native Americans is unique
and the United States has the responsibility to act together with Native Americans to ensure the survival of these unique cultures and languages;
(2) special status is accorded Native Americans in the United States, a status that recognizes distinct cultural and political rights, including the right to
continue separate identities;
(3) the traditional languages of native Americans are an integral part of
their cultures and identities and form the basic medium for the transmission, and
thus survival, of Native American cultures, literatures, histories, religions, political institutions, and values;
(4) there is a widespread practice of treating Native Americans languages
as if they were anachronisms;
(5) there is a lack of clear, comprehensive, and consistent Federal policy on
treatment of Native American languages which has often resulted in acts of suppression and extermination of Native American languages and cultures;
(6) there is convincing evidence that student achievement and performance,
community and school pride, and educational opportunity is clearly and directly
tied to respect for, and support of, the first language of the child or student;
(7) it is clearly in the interests of the United States, individual States, and
territories to encourage the full academic and human potential achievements of
all students and citizens and to take steps to realize these ends;
(8) acts of suppression and extermination directed against Native American
languages and cultures are in conflict with the United States policy of self-determination for Native Americans;
(9) languages are the means of communication for the full range of human
experiences and are critical to the survival of cultural and political integrity of
any people; and
(10) language provides a direct and powerful means of promoting international communication by people who share languages.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 103. For purposes of this title
(1) The term Native American means an Indian, Native Hawaiian, or Native
American Pacific Islander.
(2) The term Indian has the meaning given to such term under section
5351(4) of the Indian Education Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2651(4)).
61
62
63
64
65
Section III
Family and Community
Joshua Fishman
Benjamin Barney
Dan McLaughlin
Facilitators
66
November Roundtable
Family and Community Group Abstract
Issues:
1. All Native American languages are severely threatened.
2. The consciousness levels of Native American families about the threat of
language loss tend to be low.
3. Native language is inseparable from cultural identity and spirituality.
4. The impact of non-Native cultural elements on Native American youths
interferes with native language acquisition.
5. Language stabilization efforts must proceed in culturally appropriate ways.
6. New effective strategies for intergenerational language transmission can be
implemented at various levels, from individual to tribal.
7. Hypercritical native speakers tend to discourage the efforts of less fluent
learners.
Strategies:
Individual level: Native speakers must help latent speakers and non-speakers
learn the native language by utilizing existing language learning material,
taped stories, and by creating new materials.
Family level: Organize family reunions and family-based summertime and weekend language immersion activities; encourage families to limit the intrusion of English-language media; and establish parental support groups for
native language.
Community level: Encourage senior citizens centers to have seniors use their
native language with young children, for example in language nests at
local preschools and Head Start centers; promote community seminars in
the native language, community meetings and conferences about native language, language institutes for families and communities, and programs for
parents of children in bilingual programs; and establish banks of language learning materials.
Tribal Nations level: Encourage elected officials to use and promote the native
language; develop networks of Native American language supporters across
tribal boundaries.
Promotion of attitudes: Use every means to promote native language and the
virtues of bilingualism: radio announcements, air speakers testimonials,
posters, bumper stickers, T-shirts. Document successful efforts.
67
68
69
70
The first paper that I wrote in 1948 on native languages had to do with what
is the impact of bilingualism on students. There were still parents then who were
concerned that if their children learned another language it would ruin their
English accent. If you would hear the tones of another languages every time
they spoke English, how would they get a job and what would people think of
them? Today, forty-five years later, we are still not home at convincing public
opinion and the authorities that it is worth having all the languages we have
today. Therefore, I want to start with this question, What is lost when a language is lost? It is amazing how people are uncomfortable about answering
that question. I remember my mother always telling me, When you start off a
talk, make sure people know what the question is and ask a good question. A
good question is worth everything. And I would say to her, Ma, you know,
Americans, they start off a conference with a joke. You have to tell a joke for
people to know that youre about to speak? She said, Jokes? Ask a good question That is an old Jewish tradition, if you have a good question, you have
something worthwhile to worry about.
Attitudes toward language-loss depend on your perspective. When a language is lost, you might look at that from the perspective of the individual.
Many individuals suppressed their language and paid the price for it in one way
or another that remaining, fumbling insecurity when you are not quite sure
whether you have the metaphor right in the expression that you are going to use
and you know the one that comes to mind is not from the language that you are
speaking at the moment. So, there is an individual price, in every sense.
You can also speak from the point of view of the culture lost. The culture
has lost its language. What is lost when the culture is so dislocated that it loses
the language which is traditionally associated with it? That is a serious issue for
Native Americans. We can ask it from the national point of view. What is lost by
the country when the country loses its languages? We have had this very haphazard linguistic book-keeping where you pretend nothing is lost except the
language. It is just a little language. But, after all, a country is just the sum of all
of its creative potential. What does the country lose when it loses individuals
who are comfortable with themselves, cultures that are authentic to themselves,
the capacity to pursue sensitivity, wisdom, and some kind of recognition that
one has a purpose in life? What is lost to a country that encourages people to
lose their direction in life?
Today, I would like to just talk about language loss from only one of these
perspectives, the perspective of the culture. Because losing your language is,
1This paper is adapted from the speech given by Dr. Fishman at the first Stabilizing
Indigenous Languages symposium on November 16, 1994.
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
I grew up in an environment that many of you may have shared. My grandparents raised me. They taught me our language, our culture, and all our relatives. They taught me a lot. I remember when my uncle (a year older than me,
hes like a brother to me) and I would listen to the conversations they had with
one another and with visitors. We would listen to them and if we got caught,
theyd verbally reprimanded us: Gak nyu wi:jm de ; Mi yam ja ; Ya mi
wija; Ya mi wika; Op kyu Gak nyum wijam de.
To us, this was the natural way, wed take this reprimand serious, this was a
way of life. It was taken as, there it is, we got caught. It didnt matter to us
because it wasnt the first time and it sure wasnt going to be the last. We listened well; they taught us a lot as did others in the family. But we continued on;
we learned the language, experimenting with words, especially the bad words.
(I need to remind you now; we were curious, crazy little kids running around,
snotty nosed, no shoes, and hair uncombed.)
We didnt know any better, we didnt care. We were just small, we were
Alive and Happy. We didnt know or understand we were poor. Later on
we found this out. Someone came up to us and told us, Hey, youre poor! I
believe it was a government person that told us. This was saddening, because to
me, I wasnt poor. I had my grandparents, they teach me, and youre telling me
Im poor? Man, my head went down, I was like a little puppy that was scolded.
But, I remember those times: my uprearing, my language taught by my
grandparents. It has been uplifting to me. I was pulled away from a lot of the ties
after a short period of time when both my grandparents died. I then lived with
my Great Uncle VK and Auntie in Peach Springs. It was my choice to live
with them or my aunt in Kingman. My aunt was sort of mean, but the gentleness
and care from an older person was more pleasing. There, I learned more about
my relatives, my language, and the land. I met more older people, learned from
them much of the older terminology of the Hualapai language.
But, as with my grandparents, ties were severed, many of the older people
have gone on. This is one of the biggest concerns we need to address. We need to
help our grandparents. We need to listen to their teachings, their knowledge.
Today, Im afraid because if all the older persons are gone, my generation could
be considered the elderly. In a few years Ill be a grandparent, and thats scary!
We speak of the older people, and now the younger people look at me. I think
and say, Golly, Im still young and realize the impact.
Languages are an issue and an everyday reality with everyone. For example,
if I came up to you we would shake hands, we meet, and we converse. All in
English. It used to be, we would come to the Flagstaff Pow Wow. I remember
seeing some of the older people going into tents. They would be meeting, conversing, and speaking all languages: Hopi, Tewa, Hualapai, Navajo, Maricopa,
82
83
84
85
The language activist panel that presented on May 6, 1995, had a number of
concerns. Rosemary Christensen (Ojibwe), member of the National Advisory
Council on Indian Education (NACIE) and chair of its Native Tribal Languages
Subcommittee, noted that we need to change the ways Indian conferences are
done and emphasized the importance of communicating in traditional ways such
as the Talking Circle where everyone gets to speak as a discussion works its way
around the circle. She stated that if we want to keep our languages and cultures
we need to demonstrate the old ways and if native languages are important we
need to use them. If our language is to live our children must speak it. She
suggested simultaneous translation at conferences to help demonstrate that some
ideas cannot be voiced in English.
She thought elders need to be more involved in our lives and need to come
to conferences such as this. She emphasized commitment and stated that she
started a language program by cashing out her teacher retirement. She also emphasized the importance of fighting English-Only laws. Tribal codes were not
enough; tribal languages must be spoken in the marketplace. Tribal councils
should use their language in their meetings, and it should be used in the media.
Lorena Zah-Bahe (Navajo), president of the National Indian Education Association, gave her personal perspective on activism and shared information
from the American Indian/Alaska Native Summit held on March 20-22, 1995.
She was the lone minority teacher when in 1974 she started teaching fifth grade
at Winslow, Arizona, on the border of the Navajo Nation. As a teacher she started
a Native American Parent Action Committee that met at her house. The committee drafted proposals for Indian programs that got funded under the Indian Education Act and the Bilingual Education Act. She also became involved in teaching General Equivalency Diploma (GED) classes at the Indian Center. Later she
served as an elected local government (chapter) official in the Navajo tribal
government. Her mother is monolingual Navajo and is proud to be a native
speaker of her language. She is teaching Navajo to her grandchildren. She noted
how children who speak Navajo act differently when their grandmother is in the
house. These actions reflect Indian family values that are passed on through the
familys first language.
The American Indian/Alaska Native Summit represented the first time that
the National Advisory Council on Indian Education, the National Congress of
1The language activist panel consisted of Lorena Zah-Bahe, President of the National
Indian Education Association; Rosemary Christensen, Member of the National Advisory
Council on Indian Education; Marjorie Thomas, Associate Superintendent Chinle Public
Schools; Radford Quamahongnewa, Hopi Traditional Leader; Kauanoe Kamana and
William Wilson, Punana Leo Schools, Hawaii; and Ofelia Zepeda, University of Arizona.
86
recommendations to tribes
a tribal perspective on Goals 2000
sovereignty and the trust relationship between tribes and the federal government
the need for a comprehensive policy statement on Indian education
She saw education as part of self determination, and she described a study
session that was held in Boulder, Colorado, to work on a policy statement for the
federal government that affirmed commitment to preserve tribal nationhood,
including cultures and language, and to provide a challenging school curriculum.
President Zah-Bahe said that while the federal Goals 2000 plan has many
admirable components, it is a state-oriented plan that ignores both Indian nations and the government-to-government relationship between these nations and
the federal government.
In the past tribal leaders have put tribal economics in front of education.
When Zah-Bahe spoke to the tribal leaders from 180 tribes represented by the
National Congress of American Indians at their 1994 national conference, she
called on them to put education on tribal agendas. She wants tribes exempted
from state educational mandates, and she wants tribal languages to be first,
not foreign, languages in schools. She called for more parent involvement,
teacher training with tribal language fluency requirements, scope and sequence
for Native education, technology, certification requirements waived for elders,
immersion language programs, and community-centered and family-based education. The new federal educational super-centers need Indian support departments and there needs to be one major Indian education support center for the
country. She decried the fact that 47 Indian education programs were being eliminated despite the efforts of Senators Kennedy and Dashale.
While the federal Goals 2000 program is flawed in terms of its emphasis on
states to the exclusion of tribes, it has positive points Indian people need to look
at. The program has a strong local leave it up to the community, leave it up to
the parents focus. In the past Indians have seen the Bureau of Indian Affairs as
their parents, bringing them up in boarding schools. Indian people need to let go
of the federal government and assert local control. Indian people also need to
become more active in lobbying and dealing with Congress and get more involved in national elections.
87
88
89
Written Statement
Rosemary Ackley Christensen
90
91
This session revolved around the power of the Native language when used
in the media, writing, and the arts. The consensus of the presenters was that the
power of language is that it heals; it sets the mind negatively or positively in
whatever endeavor is undertaken and that it is critical to being whole and well.
A recurring theme was that the use of the native language is a catalyst toward strengthening the concept of becoming. This was expressed or defined as
recognizing the importance of self, getting to know and accepting self.
Another theme that threaded through the presentations was that of the role
of knowledge. Contrary to popular belief that knowledge is power, it was stated
that the organization and use of knowledge is instead the power source. This
originates from cultural beliefs and teachings that any endeavor or undertaking
has both the potential for good as well as evil. It is important how we care for
and use the knowledge we possess.
Three cases of indigenous language use were cited:
1.
2.
3.
92
93
94
95
96
Written Statement
Ofelia Zepeda
97
98
Section IV
Education
John Oller
Richard Littlebear
Facilitators
99
November Roundtable
Education Group Abstract
4. The interface between institutions of higher education and native communities needs to be defined more sharply. Changes need to be made in the
certification and preparation of teachers by shifting to competency-based
approaches and by bringing tribal leaders into the decision-making process.
100
Education
Group Summary1
This group discussed how schools could best serve the goal of native language restoration and preservation. It identified key issues of sovereignty, policy
control, self determination, local community initiative, teaching methods, and
teacher training, which are discussed below. Appended to this report are the
groups six recommendations for improving native language education in schools.
Sovereignty, Policy Control, and Self-determination
Lucille Watahomigie maintained that unless the people, parents, children,
and especially the tribal leaders, own a given education program, it will fail.
There must be support at the local level. As a result, as Radford Quamahongnewa
argued, language activists have a selling job to do at the local level. People have
to believe that it is possible to remove former barriers, gain more control of the
schools, and shape their own childrens destiny in a more wholesome way. Children need self-esteem, which cannot come unless linguistic, cultural, and traditional values are restored to their proper place.
A key problem raised by Quamahongnewa was the matter of where, when,
and to whom it is appropriate to teach the native language. Roberto Carrasco
pointed out that it is also important to know where, when, and how the language
is currently being used before, during, and after school. In some communities,
especially among the Pueblos, the language or some stories in the language are
not shared with outsiders or unqualified persons. There was substantial consensus that this kind of problem must be dealt with by tribal elders at the local level.
However, where possible, the group agreed that all personnel working in the
schools should study and meet proficiency requirements in the native language
of the community.
Anita Pfeiffer and others see some Christian Navajos standing in the way of
progress. She sees them as regarding native children as heathen and Navajo
culture as evil. She stressed that many native children do not speak either Navajo or English well. They need to be convinced of the importance of learning
Navajo. She also mentioned the intense problems of alcohol, drugs, suicide, and
violence faced by native youth.
1The education group met on November 17 and 18, 1995, and was co-chaired by Richard
Littlebear, Alaska Multifunctional Resource Center, and John Oller, University of New
Mexico. Participants included Roberto Luis Carrasco, Northern Arizona University;
Damon Clarke, Northern Arizona University; Kristine Anstrom, National Clearinghouse
for Bilingual Education; Constantino Ghini; Juana Jose, Office of Indian Education, Arizona Department of Education; Lorene Legah, Navajo Community College; Gary McLean,
Assistant Superintendent Tuba City Public Schools; Deborah Moon; Phyllis Norton; Anita
Bradley Pfeiffer, Director, Navajo Division of Education; Radford Quamahongnewa,
Northern Arizona University; Vernon Sells, Navajo Community College; Pamela Sharpe,
Northern Arizona University-Yuma; and Lucille Watahomigie, Federal/State Programs
Director, Peach Springs Public Schools.
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
Big Mountain
Malcolm Benally
In Big Mountain begins a corn pollen path;
in her home an old grandma has begun weaving a rug many times
and many times her rug was finished in song.
Many times a grandfather has gone
to water his horses and to tend his sheep;
into the distance his figure disappeared
only to return singing a new song.
Under Big Mountain, inside a hogan,
many stories have been told by the fire,
in this way much is remembered.
In Big Mountain
grandfathers and grandmothers and ancestors before
with freezing hands and feet and failing eyesight
walked into the howling snow storms
to pick up new born lambs
wet and cold from the womb
into this world;
held the lambs close to their hearts all the way home to comfort,
to rest only a few hours before they join the flock;
beside the fire their stories have been told,
in this way
much is remembered.
In Big Mountain,
the first sounds of a newborn child have been heard many times;
this child walked and grew
and learned the language of the People
to pray for his people
and left from the people again
into the wind, into the sun.
Yet, these stories are still heard
in the calm winds and the dancing of the harvests
and so this path is still followed on the corn pollen path
and in this way all is done in beauty.
Today in Big Mountain
grandfathers and grandmothers sit by the fire
at this moment with their children under this sun
waving their weathered hands above the crackling fire,
fire dancing in the aging eyes and on the faces of children,
gesturing slowly at their soft spoken words of peace
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Additional Papers
American Samoa
Language Arts and Culture Program
Bernadette Manase, Elisapeta Luaao, and Mataio Fiamalua1
As early as 1965, the Samoan Director of Education mandated Samoan be
taught to levels 1-4 in public schools. The concern at that time was the apparent
deterioration of some of the basic Samoan courtesies expected from students. It
should have started in Early Childhood Education, but the thought was nevertheless important in later thought about the place of Samoan in the Department
of Educations Language planning. At about this time, television was a medium
of instruction in public schools, and it was a convenient method for the nonSamoans in particular. The course included reading and writing.
During the 1970s, levels 7 and 8 were added. The high school program
included Samoan as an elective. In the latter half of the 70s, the government of
American Samoa through the Department of Education (DOE) launched a very
aggressive bilingual program in public school s with federal funding. Much of
the funding was used for developing instructional materials, training personnel,
and providing workshops. Some of the workshops and fact finding missions
were conducted in the independent state of Western Samoa, which at that time
had a very strong program going in all public schools from kindergarten through
high school.
Toward the end of the 1970s, the Samoan Studies section of the Department
of Curriculum and Instruction (DCI) was developing a separate Samoan curriculum to be offered to Levels 1-12. By the mid-80s, the DCI began to shift its
focus from bilingual programs to development of monolingual programs in Samoan for all levels. This section of the DCI has at this time changed its name to
Samoan Studies. An ambiguity in the latter title as well as the nature of the
instructional materials thus far developed are slowly giving preference to Samoan Language Arts and Culture (Gagana ma Aga a Samoa) as a more appropriate title.
It is no longer political rhetoric to say that were losing our culture. It is a
reality, and language is a vital component of culture that is now being encouraged to prevent this loss. America Samoa is already fighting, hopefully not a
losing battle, to recapture its culture. The impact of the mass media in these tiny
islands and the high mobility of the people, especially to Mainland USA, are
posing some very serious problems about the role and functions of the Samoan
language. School students from early childhood to high school prefer to use
English rather than Samoan both in classrooms and during social interactions.
These students fall into two general classifications:
1Samoan Department of Education Department of Curriculum and Instruction
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
References
Cummins, J. (1989). Language and literacy acquisition in bilingual contexts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 10(1), 17-29.
Cerrn-Palomino, R. and Lpez, L.E. (1990). La escritura en lenguas
indgenas y la experiencia de Oaxaca. Amrica Indgena, 50( 2-3), 265-290.
Danesi, M. (1991). Revisiting the research findings on heritage language
learning: Three interpretative frames. The Canadian Modern Language Review,
47(4), 650-659.
Direccin General de Educacin Indgena. (1990). Fundamentos para la
modernizacin de la educacin indgena. Mexico City: Secretara de Educacin
Pblica.
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
References
Acuerdo nacional para la modernizacion de la educacion basica. (1992).
Mexico City: Secretara de Educacin Pblica.
Coronado, S.G. (1993). Educacion bilingue en Mexico: Propositos y realidad.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 96, 53-70.
Coordinacion Estatal de la Tarahumara. (1984). Programa de reforma a la
educacion indigena tarahumara. Diagnostico de necessidades y propuesta curricular.
Chihuahua: Oficina de Estudios Especiales.
De Velasco, P. (1987). Danzar o morir. Religion y resistencia a la dominacion
en la cultura tarahumara. Coyocan, Mexico: Ediciones CRT.
Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Hidalgo, M. (1994). Bilingual education, nationalism and ethnicity in
Mexico: from theory to practice. Language Problems and Language Planning,
18 (3), 185-207.
Kennedy, G. J (1978). Tarahumara of Sierra Madre: Beer, ecology, and
social organization. Arlington Heights: AHM.
Merrill, W. L (1983). Tarahumara social organization, political organization, and religion. In W. C. Sturtevant (Ed.), The handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 10. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Modiano, N. (1988). Public bilingual education in Mexico. In Cristina Bratt
Paulston (ed.), International handbook of bilingualism and bilingual education.
New York: Greenwood.
Pennington, C. W. (1983). Tarahumara. In W. C. Sturtevant (Ed.), The handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Poder Ejecutivo Federal. (1993). Ley General de Educacion. Mexico City:
Author.
Prawda, J. (1984). Teoria y praxis de la planeacion educativa en Mexico.
Miguel Hidalgo, Mexico: Editorial Grijalbo.
Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educacion. (1994). Primero
Congreso Nacional de Educacion: Documentos de trabajo para su discusion.
El reto de la pluralidad cultural y etnica a la educacion publica, laica, nacional
y democratica de calidad. Mexico: Author.
161
Tuba City
Gary D. McLean and Jon Reyhner
Tuba City, Arizona, is located in the heart of Indian country on the western
part of the Navajo Nation adjacent to the Hopi tribal lands. Nevertheless, only
some fifteen percent of the Navajo children who enter kindergarten each year at
Tuba City comprehend and speak their ancestral language. The situation is far
more precarious for the Hopi language. The challenges faced by residents of
Tuba City to preserve the Navajo and Hopi languages mirror those faced by
many American Indian communities throughout the U.S. and other indigenous
peoples around the world.
In September, 1993, workshops were held across the Navajo Reservation
aimed at the maintenance of the Navajo language. Joshua Fishman served as the
key facilitator. He cited findings from a study he is currently finishing up that
compares successful and unsuccessful actions of threatened speech communities, involving seventy-five endangered languages. During presentations and
informal discussions, Fishman continually returned to a key pointwhen overrelied upon, or relied upon exclusively, schools fail to save languages.
Examples reinforced this message. Innovative schools have been founded
to save languages. Some have been well funded, employed dedicated teachers,
used excellent materials, and focused an enormous amount of time on the endangered language. Nevertheless, despite all the expertise, funding, and hard
work, most children failed to learn their endangered language. Why? Fishman
noted that schools are generally successful in preparing students for a reality
outside of school, but not very good at teaching what is beyond the out-of-school
reality for children, regardless of whether the subject is an endangered language,
social studies, or algebra.
Efforts to save languages must ultimately deal with the intergenerational
transmission of mother-tongues. This is, to a large extent, a family and community issue. Exclusive focus on education compounds, rather than solves, the problem of language shift. Groups who are succeeding in saving their language (the
Basque of Spain, for example) find ways to revitalize and stabilize their speech
community. In these cases, schools play a role, but the community is the primary focus of action.
Redirecting Efforts
Several courses of action would greatly assist American Indian communities in developing the effective right to maintain their languages. Such actions
include: 1) fostering of new, innovative, community-based approaches to
strengthen and stabilize threatened languages; 2) directing more research efforts
toward analyzing community-based successes in resisting loss of Native American languages and other minority languages as well; 3) fostering communication and partnerships between communities and organizations trying new approaches to maintaining languages; and 4) promotion of heightened consciousness of the catastrophic effects of language loss both among members of lan-
162
163
164
CONCLUSION
Maintaining Languages
What Works? What Doesnt?1
Joshua Fishman
The last time many of us were assembled at this university Dang Pham,
Deputy Director of the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages
Affairs, indicated that the United States Government recognizes a special debt
of responsibility to assist Native American peoples to foster and strengthen their
languages. This second conference at Northern Arizona University was to be a
more concrete step in that direction, listening to ideas, perhaps formulating plans
that could benefit from such support, and I am sure that all of you are going to be
very alert, just as I am, are going to be very alert, to see if any of the promises
that were made at the first meeting will materialize. It is an understatement to
say that I am pleased and honored to be here. The opportunity to interact with
American Indian languages and their activists is an experience that very few
sociolinguists in the United States have been able to have. The reason old-timers
like myself still come to these meetings is because sometimes we hear a younger
colleague saying things that make us understand language maintenance even
better than before, let alone finding out what they are doing, which is what we
really have to keep up with.
But it will take more than conferences to keep most American Indian languages from becoming extinct. If all it took was conferences, then the languages
would not be in the sad condition that most of them are in now because many of
them have been exposed to anthropologists and conferences before. If not conferences, what then? Lots of different approaches have been tried. Is there anything that can be learned from these past efforts, not just among American Indians, but all over the world? A huge proportion, perhaps even the majority, of the
worlds languages are faced by the very same problems, and people all over the
world have tried the best they could. So what can be learned from all that experience?
I spend my summer and winter months at Stanford in the Linguistics Department and my fall and spring days in New York on the campus of the Albert
Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University. I told one of my medical
colleagues there that I would be talking today on the topic What works? What
doesnt? So my medical colleague, hearing that, said, Oh, what works? What
doesnt? What disease are you into? So I looked him straight in the eye and I
said, Lack of sufficient inter-generational mother-tongue transmission. And
he said, Oh, you must be in speech pathology. He was not too far wrong,
except that most of the pathology that I am into is sociolinguistic in nature.
1
This paper is adapted from the speech given by Dr. Fishman at the second Stabilizing
Indigenous Languages symposium on May 4, 1995.
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Appendices
Contributors
Dr. Barbara Burnaby taught in the Department of Adult Education and the
Modern Languages Centre at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Her
research interests include the teaching and development of Aboriginal languages
in Canada and language issues for adult immigrants to Canada. Two special foci
for her in both these fields are literacy and policy.
Dr. Gina Cantoni is Regents Professor Emeritus of Education at Northern
Arizona University. She has had a long time interest in Indian education and is
author of Content-Area Language Instruction: Approaches and Strategies
(Addison-Wesley, 1987).
Dr. Damon Clarke is a member of the Hualapai tribe and a former teacher at
Peach Springs Public Schools, Peach Springs, Arizona.
James Crawford is a Washington-based writer and the former Washington
editor of Education Week. His books include Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice and Hold your tongue: Bilingualism and the politics of
English Only.
Rosemary Ackley Christensen has been a Curriculum Specialist, for the
Ojibwe Mekana Learning Research and Curriculum Materials Laboratory in
Duluth, Minnesota, and a member of the National Advisory Council on Indian
Education (NACIE)
Dr. Joshua Fishman is Distinguished University Research Professor, Social
Sciences, Emeritus, at Yeshiva University (New York City) and a former Fellow
at Centers for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University.
He is an author or co-author of more than 700 professional publications (over 60
of them being books and monographs), and he is the general editor and founder
of the International Journal of Sociology of Language.
Kathy Gross is a Language Development Specialist for the Lower
Kuskokwim School District. Her expertise is in intermediate elementary school
teaching strategies and ESL methodologies. She taught in several rural Alaska
villages before joining the Curriculum-Bilingual Department in 1995.
Deborah House was Chair of the Social Sciences/Education Division at
Navajo Community College and currently teaches at Texas Tech University.
Dr. Michael Krauss is a former president of the Society for the Study of the
Indigenous Languages of the Americas and is currently Director of the Alaska
Native Language Center at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Duane Magoon has been a Language Development Specialist for the Lower
Kuskokwim School District. He worked with Yupik students in five villages at
the secondary level.
Dr. Gary McLean has been Superintendent of Schools for Bowie Public
School District, Bowie, Arizona, and was Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the Tuba City Public School District, Tuba City, Arizona, from 1990 to 1995.
176
177
Selected Resources
on Native American Language Renewal
Jon Reyhner
The annual Stabilizing Indigenous Languages conferences have sought since
1994 to bring together of tribal educators and experts on linguistics, language
renewal, and language teaching to lay out a blueprint of policy changes, educational reforms, and community initiatives to stabilize and revitalize American
Indian and Alaska Native languages. Much of the relevant previous literature on
the subject is cited in the various papers included in this monograph, especially
in Dr. Burnabys paper in Section I, which emphasizes the Canadian experience.
Since the original publication of Stabilizing Indigenous Languages in 1996,
Northern Arizona University has published five related books:
Reyhner, J.; Trujillo, O.; Carrasco, R.L.; & Lockard, L. (Eds.). (2003). Nurturing Native Languages. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.
On-line at http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/NNL/
Burnaby, B., & Reyhner. J. (Eds.) (2002). Indigenous Languages Across
the Community. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. On-line at
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/ILAC/
Reyhner, J.; Martin, J.; Lockard, L.; Gilbert, W.S. (Eds.). (2000). Learn in
Beauty: Indigenous Education for a New Century. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. On-line at http:// jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/LIB/
LIBconts.html
Reyhner, J.; Cantoni, G.; St. Clair, R.; & Parsons Yazzie, E. (Eds.). (1999).
Revitalizing Indigenous Languages. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona
University. On-line at http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/ RIL_Contents.html
Reyhner, J. (Ed.). (1997). Teaching Indigenous Languages. Flagstaff, AZ:
Northern Arizona University. On-line at http:// jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/
TIL_Contents.html
The proceedings of the 1999 Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Conference in
Tucson, Arizona, was published by the Center for Indian Education, Arizona
State University in 2006 as One Voice, Many Voice--Recreating Indigenous Language Communities and it is edited by Teresa McCarty and Ofelia Zepeda. It
contains 23 papers from the conference and it is dedicated to the memory of Ken
Hale. It is highlighted by Wayne Holm's keynote speech on "The 'Goodness' of
Bilingual Education for Native Children."
This paper describes some of the other important literature with an emphasis on the United States of America along with a list of organizations supporting
language revitalization.
The Summer 2007 issue of Cultural Survival Quarterly is dedicated to rescuing endangered Native American languages. Arizona State University's Center for Indian Education published in 2006 a monograph describing the results
of their five year Native Educators Research Project titled The Power of Native
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192