Investigating the Concept of Success in the Bachelor of Education in Indigenous Language Revitalization Program in the W̱SÁNEĆ Community and at the University of Victoria
By
Hossein Ghanbari
B.A. Payam-e-Noor University, Shahr-e-Kord, 2006 M.A. Azad University, Najaf Abad, 2011
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction
©Hossein Ghanbari, 2021 University of Victoria
All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author.
Investigating the Concept of Success in the Bachelor of Education in Indigenous Language Revitalization Program in the W̱SÁNEĆ Community and at the University of Victoria
By
Hossein Ghanbari
B.A. Payam-e-Noor University, Shahr-e-Kord, 2006 M.A. Azad University, Najaf Abad, 2011
Supervisory Committee
Dr. Theodore Riecken, Supervisor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction Dr. Tim Anderson, Committee member, Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Abstract
Indigenous languages account for many of the languages worldwide and, importantly, they help to maintain Indigenous knowledge and epistemologies. However, many of these languages will not be handed down to future generations. Given this, language revitalization programs are designed to preserve and revitalize endangered languages as well as equip language revitalizers with the capabilities to teach those languages and explore methods to marry non-Indigenous and Indigenous knowledges. Currently, language revitalization programs are investigated for their success in providing for the linguistic and pedagogical needs of the people involved in the programs. In Canada, approaches to maintain and preserve Indigenous languages are developed via Indigenous language revitalization programs through consultation with Indigenous
knowledge keepers about their languages and pedagogies. The Bachelor of Education in
Indigenous Language Revitalization (BEDILR) program is offered at the University of Victoria and the W̱SÁNEĆ community in British Columbia, where it focuses on the W̱SÁNEĆ
epistemology and revitalizes the SENĆOŦEN language. This doctoral research examined the concept of success in the BEDILR program for the W̱SÁNEĆ people. In doing so, the researcher conducted participatory action research (PAR) as well as semi-structured interviews to collect data from five academic and community participants in the W̱SÁNEĆ community and the
University of Victoria. Next, the researcher followed Owen’s (1984) thematic network to analyze the data for codes and themes. Findings suggest there are four themes of Indigenous person, approach of the BEDILR program, Indigenous pedagogy, and assessment and seven sub-themes of method, approach dynamics, Indigenous pedagogy of language of instruction, content of the program, and objectives of the program, assessor from inside community and external assessor for the W̱SÁNEĆ community participants. Also, there were four themes of Indigenous person,
approach, pedagogy, and assessment and six sub-themes of method, approach dynamics, content of the program, objectives of the program, assessor, and what to assess for the academic
participant. Specifically, participants in this study believed the BEDILR is a successful language revitalization program because it incorporates Indigenous pedagogy and follows an approach and assessment method based on the W̱SÁNEĆ worldviews, knowledge, epistemology, and the SENĆOŦEN language.
Keywords: Languages loss, Indigenous language revitalization, Success, W̱SÁNEĆ, SENĆOŦEN, Indigenous pedagogy, Indigenous knowledge,
Table of Contents Abstract………...………..………....….iii Table of Contents………... v List of Tables……….………..………...x List of Figures………...………...………..……..…..…....xi Acknowledgement………...………..………..……..…….…...…...xii Dedication………...……….………..…….………xiii Chapter One………...…..……...………..……….1
1.1.The Rationale of the Study………….……….………..……….1
1.2. Indigenous Peoples in Canada and the US: Past, Present, and Future………..………….…3
1.3. Challenges Ahead………...………..….….…...6
1.4. My Positionality ………...………...……….………....7
1.5. Focus of the Study………..…………..…….…...…...…11
1.6. Indigenous Peoples in British Columbia………...………...……11
1.7. University of Victoria: Location and History ………..…...12
1.8. History of the W̱SÁNEĆ People………...………..13
1.9. History of The W̱SÁNEĆ School Board ………...15
1.10. Language Revitalization Practices in the W̱SÁNEĆ Community…..………….………..16
1.10.1. Pre-School Language Nest (K–4 Immersion Program)……….….…16
1.10.2. ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ (Tribal School)……….………..….16
1.10.3. W̱SÁNEĆ Language Department (SȾÁSEN TŦE SENĆOŦEN)………….……….….17
1.11. Research Questions………..………..18
2.1.1. Language Loss………..………...………..…..….21
2.1.2. Language Shift……….……….…...….22
2.1.3. Indigenous Language Loss in the US and Canada……….23
2.2. Prediction About the Survival of Indigenous Languages………..…….…….….25
2.3. Advent of Language Revitalization………...……….………..26
2.4. Why Does Language Maintenance Matter?...27
2.5. Approaches to Language Revitalization………...…...………..…..……29
2.5.1. Success in Language Revitalization ……….30
2.6. Indigenous Knowledges………...………..……..………...……31
2.7. Assessment of Indigenous Language Learning in Language Revitalization…………..…..33
2.8. Incorporating Indigenous Knowledges in Indigenous Research…………..……….…...…36
2.9. Indigenous Language Revitalization Methods……..………..….…....37
2.9.1 Immersion Programs/Language Nest Schools………...………..…..38
2.9.1.1. Home-Based Immersion……….………..………...…38
2.9.1.2. School-Based Immersion Program………...………...…..38
2.9.1.3. Successful Immersion Schools in Canada………..……….…..39
2.9.2. Bilingual Schools ………..………..….41
2.9.2.1. Rough Rock Demonstration School………..……….…42
2.9.2.2. Hualapai Bilingual/Bicultural Program……….………..…..42
2.9.2.3. Lower Kuskokwim Bilingual Programs………...……….…....42
2.9.2.4. American Indian Language Development Institute…….………..……..…..43
2.9.2.5. Oklahoma Native American Language Development Institute…….………..……..…44
2.9.2.6. Northwest Indian Language Institute……….………44
2.9.2.7.Canadian Indigenous Language and Literature Development Institute………..45
2.9.2.8. Indigenous Language Revitalization Programs at the University of Victoria...46
2.9.2.8.1. Certificate in Indigenous Language Proficiency……..………...46
2.9.2.8.2. Certificate in Indigenous Language Revitalization…..……….……….46
2.9.2.8.3. Diploma in Indigenous Language Revitalization……..……….47
2.9.2.8.4. Bachelor of Education in Indigenous Language Revitalization….…….………..….47
2.9.3. Documentation and Materials Development………..…....….……...49
2.10. Successful Language Revitalization………...……..…….……...….51
2.10.1. Successful Language Revitalization from a Community Perspective………..……..…51
2.10.1.1. Conducting Language Revitalization in the Community………..…..…….…51
2.10.2. Successful Language Revitalization from an Academic Perspective…….…….…...53
2.10.2.1. Conducting Language Revitalization Programs in Academia………..….…..55
Chapter Three: Methodology………..…59
3.1. Introduction……….…………...………..……...59
3.2. Acknowledging the ‘Other’………..………..……..…..….59
3.3. The Importance of Indigenous Research Methodologies in Language Revitalization ………..………..61
3.3.1. Epistemology………....62
3.3.1.1. The W̱SÁNEĆ Knowledge and Epistemology ……….63
3.3.1.1.1. The W̱SÁNEĆ Reef Net Fishery or SXOLE ……….64
3.3.1.1.2. Saanich Seasonal Cycle ……… 65
3.3.2. Ontology………..……….………66
3.3.3. Axiology………...………...…….68
3.4. Indigenous Methodologies………..………69
3.5. My Research Methodology in this Study……..………...72
3.6. Participatory Worldview………..………...…….…73
3.6.1. Action Research and Participatory Action Research………....73
3.6.2. Participatory Action Research in the Social Sciences………..……75
3.7. Community-Based Research in an Indigenous Context ……….…………...78
3.8. Theoretical Framework of the Study……….………….….79
3.9. Grounded Theory………... 81
3.10. Thematic Analysis………...……..83
3.11. Developing Codes and Themes………..85
Chapter Four: Data Collection and Analysis………...……….90
4.1. Participants……….……….………90
4.1.1 Recruiting Participants………..………90
4.1.2. Community Participants………..…….92
4.1.3. Academic Participants………..………93
4.2. Letters of Consent and Ethics Approval……….………...94
4.3. Data Collection………..………...…...94
4.4. Formulating Interview Questions ………..………..………...96
4.5. Conducting and Transcribing Interviews……….………...…96
4.6. Rationale for the Research Methodology……….………...98
4.7. Code Pool………..………..98
4.7.1. Codes Identified from the Interviews………..100
4.7.1.1. Defining What it Means to Be Indigenous………..……….……100
4.7.1.2. Components of Indigenous Pedagogy………..…………...……101
4.7.1.3. Participants’ Ideas Regarding the Differences Between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Education………..102
4.7.1.4. Factors to Be Included in the BEDILR Based on Participants’ Ideas……….………104
4.7.1.5. How to Maintain Indigenous Knowledges Based on Participants’ Ideas…….…...…105
4.7.1.6. Developing Curricula in the BEDILR……….………107
4.7.1.7. How to Assess the BEDILR Based on Participants’ Ideas……….……….109
4.7.1.8. Participants’ Concept of Success in the BEDILR……….….………..111
4.7.1.9. Participants’ Recommendations for the Future of the BEDILR………..113
4.7.2. Interview Themes………..…….114
4.7.2.1. Identified Themes and Sub-Themes………...….115
4.7.2.2. Discussion on the Themes and Sub-Themes in the Study……….……..….116
4.7.2.3. Community Participants………...116
4.7.2.4. Academic Participants………...…..122
5.1. Summary………...126
5.2. Answers to the Research Questions in this Study……….…………..……….….128
5.2.1. What Are the Concepts of Success in the BEDILR in the W̱SÁNEĆ Community and the University of Victoria?...128
5.2.1.1. Success in the BEDILR Program in the W̱SÁNEĆ Community…………..………..128
5.2.1.2. Success in the BEDILR at the University of Victoria……….131
5.2.2. How do these concepts of success impact the design, delivery, and assessment of the BEDILR in the W̱SÁNEĆ community?...132
5.2.3. How Do These Concepts of Success Impact the Design, Delivery and Assessment of the BEDILR at the University of Victoria?...135
5.3. Limitations of the Study……….…………...….…136
5.4. Recommendations for Future Studies………..………..138
5.5. Conclusion………..…………...…140
References………...………143
APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS …………..………..….…….….166
APPENDIX 2: LETTER OF INFORMED CONSENT……….167
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: THEMES IDENTIFIED FOR THE W̱SÁNEĆCOMMUNITY ... 117
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: PARTICIPANTS’ DEFINITIONS OF INDIGENOUS ... 101
FIGURE 2:COMPONENTS OF INDIGENOUS PEDAGOGY ... 102
FIGURE 3:INDIGENOUS EDUCATION VERSUS NON-INDIGENOUS EDUCATION ... 104
FIGURE 4:FACTORS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BEDILR ... 105
FIGURE 5:MAINTAIING INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGES ... 107
FIGURE 6: DEVELOPING CURRICULAR IN THE BEDILR ... 109
FIGURE 7:ASSESSMENT CRITERIA IN THE BEDILR ... 111
FIGURE 8:SUCCESS IN THE BEDILR ... 112
Acknowledgement
I acknowledge the Lekwungen peoples on whose traditional territory the University of Victoria stands, and the Songhees, Esquimalt and W̱SÁNEĆ peoples whose historical relationships with the land continue to this day. I am equally thankful to my supervisor, Professor Theodore Riecken, and my committee members, Dr. Carmen Rodriguez de France and Dr. Tim Anderson. In my personal life, I am greatly indebted to all those who have helped and provided me with the opportunity to conduct this research to gain invaluable expertise and experience. I am grateful to the W̱SÁNEĆ people and community and the participants at the University of Victoria because without their help and generous time and insights, I would not be able to conduct this research. I am thankful to Dr. Mahdi Rahimian for his unwavering support and guidance over the last 15 years of our friendship. I would also like to express my special thanks of gratitude to Mrs. Nancy Ami at the Centre for Academic Communication Centre at the University of Victoria for her kind, support, and encouragement, and to Mr. Ian Alexander for his support when it was most unexpected.
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my late father who strived to let me thrive. I also dedicate this dissertation to my wife, Zeinab, and our son, Nikan, who have always encouraged me through thick and thin.
Chapter One
In this chapter, I discuss the rationale and the focus of the study as well as the challenges that lay ahead in keeping Indigenous and minority languages alive. Next, I discuss my
positionality in this research prior to presenting a discussion on the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people and their knowledge. I also present a discussion on the history of the W̱ŚÁNEĆ School Board and the language revitalization practices in the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community. Finally, a description of the University of Victoria is given before I detail my research questions.
1.1. The Rationale of the Study
Peoples of the world are different and speak diverse languages to converse with each other. According to McIvor and McCarty (2017), Indigenous peoples comprise 4.3% of the population in Canada and 17.2% of them can converse in an Indigenous language. However, Indigenous languages are declining at a rapid rate, which has led to widespread language loss worldwide. It is estimated that from the 450 Indigenous languages and dialects spoken in Canada at the time of first contact with settlers only 70 of them continue to be spoken by Indigenous peoples (McIvor & Anisman, 2018).
Language loss is a common phenomenon insofar as 46% of the languages in the world may not be handed down to future generations by the end of the 21st century (Child Language Research and Revitalization Working Group, 2017). According to Grenoble and Whaley (2006), language loss has been analogized with the loss that occurred during the agricultural revolution a millennium ago. To appreciate the depth of language loss, while the last speakers of endangered languages are dying, a few younger generations seem to acquire their Indigenous or minority
languages. In addition to Indigenous language extinction, the diverse knowledge systems that accompany those languages will vanish as a consequence (Hinton, Huss, & Roche, 2018). Therefore, not only is it important to maintain these languages but they are vital in preserving and reviving the worldviews and epistemologies of the people who speak them (Rosborough, 2012).
Luo, Wiseman, and Wiseman (2000) argue that the language we speak, along with the culture attributed to it, shapes our personal and group identity, and Indigenous identity is a sense of personhood linked to history and traditions (Lin & Yudaw, 2016). Thus, when a language dies, it induces complex and varied reactions among its speakers or those associated with it (Hinton et al., 2018). The pre-colonial multilingualism in Canada has changed insofar as a significant percentage of Indigenous peoples cannot communicate in their languages and have become marginalized as a result (Hornberger & Coronel-Molina, 2004). In response, McIvor and Anisman (2018) state that Indigenous communities have been honing methods to reclaim and revitalize their Indigenous languages through Indigenous language revitalization programs.
The history and causes of language loss have concerned many scholars and triggered diverse preservation and revitalization movements. Thus, before one effectively preserves and revitalizes endangered languages and their embedded worldviews, it is helpful to explore the factors that lead to their loss. As a result, language revitalization programs have been designed and implemented to revive and preserve endangered languages. Language revitalization is an interdisciplinary field of study influenced by applied linguistics, linguistics, psychology, education, and linguistic anthropology (Hinton et al., 2018; McIvor, 2020). It is a personal and political endeavour (Hermes, Bang, & Marin, 2012) that appeals to Indigenous researchers because it revives and reverses language shift (Fishman, 1991). According to the study done by
Battiste (2000), language revitalization equips language revitalizers in Indigenous communities with the skills to teach their Indigenous knowledge and languages and explore methods to marry their Indigenous and Eurocentric perspectives. In addition, McCarty et al. (2005) state that language revitalization demonstrates an Indigenous resistance toward enforced assimilation and opposes hegemonic state forces.
With their implementation, these language revitalization programs need to be
investigated individually to determine how successfully they have provided for the needs of the people involved, and whether appropriate Indigenous factors are embedded in their curricula. For that, language revitalizers are advised to set realistic goals and explore macro- and micro-level issues when designing their programs (Grenoble & Whaley, 2006). For example, based on Smith (2012), researchers are advised to follow a decolonized research methodology and avoid over-generalizing among Indigenous peoples because although there are similarities among them, there exist differences between them as well (Rice, 2005). Thus, it is safe to argue that one language revitalization program will not meet the needs of different peoples, and scholars should investigate what a successful language revitalization program is for individual communities. 1.2. Indigenous Peoples in Canada and the US: Past, Present, and Future
Philips (2011) reports that before European arrival in the Americas, many distinct languages were present in this part of the world. In Canada, several scholars (e.g., McIvor & McCarty, 2017), have reported on the pre-colonial multilingualism, with many Indigenous languages were spoken by distinct peoples. Having appreciated the existing multilingualism at the time, Europeans often learned Indigenous languages to communicate with the locals and accomplish the church and state’s colonizing goals (Coronel-Molina & McCarty, 2016).
peoples in the way that only in the last century ten of the Indigenous languages in Canada became extinct (McIvor & Anisman, 2018). Additionally, the Indian Act of 1876 and the British North American Act of 1867 gave authority to the government to forcibly remove Indigenous peoples from their lands, send them to reserves, and establish residential schools (Coronel-Molina & McCarty, 2016), which played a significant part in inducing language loss among the Indigenous peoples.
To manage what they considered the problem of the Indigenous peoples and their
languages, the US Government authorised the use of force against Indigenous peoples, who were now regarded as inferior—a sentiment embodied revealingly in the establishment of residential schools. The residential school concept was modelled after American industrial schools in which agriculture, religion, and basic learnings were taught to Indigenous students as their primary education subjects (Coronel-Molina & McCarty, 2016). Following the establishment of the first residential school in the US in 1879 (Coronel-Molina & McCarty, 2016), many schools were modeled after it to replace Indigenous languages with English and to assimilate Indigenous peoples to the new dominant language and culture (Lomawaima, 2015).
Residential schools had a detrimental effect on Indigenous languages. For example, based on Lajimodiere (2014), 100,000 Indigenous children were removed from their families and sent to residential schools where teachers and school officials showed no tolerance for any
Indigenous languages. That is because they considered tradition “the Enemy of Progress” (Reyhner & Eder, 2004, p. 18). Consequently, the Indigenous children who inadvertently or willingly spoke or were heard speaking their Indigenous language would be severely punished. In a study by Fontaine (2010), one of his participants, an Ojibway man, pointed out:
couple of boys laughed at my comment. She yelled and [she] washed my mouth with soap […] I was shoved into a closet behind her chair. It was under the stairs leading to the second floor and was used to store brooms and other cleaning material. I don’t remember how long I was in there, but it seemed like an eternity […] Eventually she let me out. Her first word was ‘Tiens! (Take that!)’ followed by a warning not to speak my ‘savage’ language. (pp. 106–7)
According to Galla (2018), Canadian residential schools were strongly influenced by the American system and were first established in the mid-1880s and continued for more than a century. She furthers that the first residential school in Canada was the Mohawk Institute, which was built in 1831 in Brantford, Ontario. Canadian residential schools were modelled after those in America, and the First Nations peoples of Canada and their languages were no better off compared with their counterparts in the US. Similar to the US residential schools, if an Indigenous student was found speaking their mother tongue, they were punished (Fontaine, 2017). However, it was thought that change was on the way in Canada when the Pierre Trudeau Government (1968–1972) developed its policy of multiculturalism (Ghosh & Abdi, 2004). Additionally, in 1969, Jean Chrétien, Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs in the Trudeau Government, indicated that changes would be made to the management of Indigenous affairs in Canada. He argued that Canada should put an end to treaty rights, to the Department of Indian Affairs, and to the Indian Act, and instead bestow rights to Indigenous peoples to manage their own affairs (Haque & Patrick, 2015). However, Coronel-Molina and McCarty (2016) report that, much to Indigenous peoples’ surprise—the Canadian multiculturalism policy that resulted adopted only a French-English framework and Indigenous peoples, their languages, and customs
continued to be disregarded.
Indigenous peoples in Canada have continually asserted the need to educate themselves based on their Indigenous knowledge and education. Given this, the Indian Control of Indian Education policy was the first Indigenous-authored treatise on education for Indigenous peoples and children (National Indian Brotherhood, 1972). The Canadian Multiculturalism Act and Statement of Reconciliation were passed in 1987 and 1998, respectively, to promote Indigenous languages and cultures and to acknowledge the abuse perpetrated in residential schools.
However, the former Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, apologized and condemned such an assimilation policy and stated that such a policy was no longer in place in Canada. In addition, in 2016, current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, announced the introduction of Indigenous Languages Act (McIvor & Anisman, 2018) to act according to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) which include Calls to Action 10 and 14 that focus on language maintenance and revitalization. TRC was established on June 1, 2008, to provide the opportunity for the Indigenous peoples of Canada to share their experience and document the lasting impacts of the Canadian Residential Schools on Indigenous students and their families. McIvor and Ball (2019) argue that despite these efforts, very little has been done to raise awareness and create demand for learning an Indigenous language either as a subject of study or medium of
instruction, and limited support exists to implement Indigenous language-medium immersion or bilingual programs in Canada with the exception of that provided in the Yukon and Nunavut. 1.3. Challenges Ahead
The long journey toward Indigenous peoples becoming responsible for their education and revitalizing their Indigenous languages has just begun. According to Article 14.1 of the United Nations (2007), Indigenous peoples are entitled to take control of their education and to
do so in a manner consistent with their Indigenous cultures and languages. Additionally, the national policy on Indigenous languages was passed to acknowledge the First Nations languages in Canada (Coronel-Molina & McCarty, 2016). However, not many Indigenous peoples in Canada can communicate in their Indigenous languages except for the 86% of Indigenous students in Nunavut who are involved in bilingual programming (McIvor & Ball, 2019). The currently high enrollment of students in Nunavut in bilingual programming is due to to the passing of the Official Languages Act in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut in 1990 and 2008, respectively, that recognizes English, French, Inuktitut, and Inuinnaqtun as official languages in the Nunavut (Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2018). On the other hand, although Indigenous peoples have always been concerned about the preservation of their culture and languages, there are other, perhaps more urgent, factors that require
consideration. MacDonald and Wilson (2013) refer to recent scholarship and argue that half of the status First Nations children in Canada live in poverty, rendering that language reclamation “is profoundly linked to issues of educational equity, Indigenous self-determination, and the (re)construction of community well-being via culturally distinctive worldviews, identities, and life orientations” (McCarty & Nicholas, 2014, p. 2).
1.4. My Positionality
It is customary among Indigenous peoples to introduce themselves when they address others. My given name is Hossein Ghanbari; however, I go by Odivi to revitalize a part of my family name. I am a male, married, and originate from Bakhtiari, Haft Lang, a tribe from Iran. I speak Bakhtiari as my mother tongue and Persian (the term I prefer to use for the language, also known as Farsi) as my second language. I was born during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) into a crowded family of nine children in Ahvaz, a city in Iran’s
southwest a few hours from the Iran-Iraq border. I have the utmost respect for all those who have nurtured and educated me toward achieving my goals. Regarding my teachers, I am morally bound to pay voluminous respect to Professor Ted Riecken, my mentor and supervisor, with whom I would delve into critical subjects and seek refuge in the world of philosophy, one of my passions. I am equally indebted to Dr. Carmen Rodriguez de France for the insightful discussions we had in our Indigenous Epistemologies class and for her acceptance of a position on my Ph.D. committee. Finally, I wholeheartedly adore Dr. Tim Anderson and am indebted to him for his help and academic guidance.
I was born in a traditional nomadic Bakhtiari family and have found myself exposed to the numerous cultural and linguistic aspects of living nomadically. My late father was deeply interested in living on our lands, where he could look after his sheep and migrate between our ancestral lands (Garmesir and Sardesir) in the pursuit of fresh pasture for his sheep. Even so, he had to migrate to Ahvaz to provide education for his nine children. I always understood he longed for his old life on the plains and, consequently, before I came of age, we would spend our summers in Kohrang, Charmahal and Bakhtiari province only to return to Ahvaz at the beginning of the school year. After spending the first 12 years of my childhood in Ahvaz, we moved to Esfahan—half of the world, as it is known—where I managed to complete my high school education. It is rather painful to admit I was not the best student in high school. As I approached my late teenage years, however, I fortunately became an avid reader, turning to the Persian poets Mawlānā (known as Rumi in the West), Khayyam, Sa’di and Hafez, with all of whom I am deeply enamoured. I am also deeply passionate about learning Iranian languages.
Importantly, I would consider my compulsory military service a turning point in my life. As I came of age, I was required to complete my compulsory service. Consequently, I spent 21
months in a military garrison in Tehran. It was an eye-opening experience for me, where I had to live far from my family for a period of approximately two years. Although I knew money would be an issue going forward, it was during this service I decided to study at university and become an academic. As I have always been interested in the English language, meeting new people and in the way one thinks and learns I became an English teacher. I enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts with a major in English translation studies and, as I was profoundly interested in becoming a teacher, I became a part-time teacher and full-time undergraduate student. I completed my BA and then pursued a master’s degree in Applied Linguistics in 2009. As an English teacher, I found myself busy with living, reading and working. Yet, there continued to be something in my life that obstructed feelings of happiness. In 2011, I enrolled in a Ph.D. program in Applied Linguistics at Azad University of Shiraz branch only to drop out after the first year because I was no longer interested. It was then I sought a new life in the neighbouring country of Turkey.
Living as an Iranian ex-pat in Istanbul was replete with vicissitudes. Having settled in beautiful Istanbul, I would spend my days teaching English to Turkish and international students and reading books at night. It was then I realized my son was predominantly speaking Turkish and not my mother tongue, Bakhtiari. It was a strange experience to see my son speak Turkish with his friends. I longed to hear him speak my mother tongue. Although my wife, Zeinab, is Bakhtiari, she cannot speak the language as fluently as I can, and since she is not sufficiently proficient in our language, there was limited opportunity for my son to also learn it. It seemed I had found a new goal to pursue. As I witnessed the language loss and shift in my own family, I grew to appreciate such phenomena more and feel its impact on a personal level.
As a native speaker of Bakhtiari, I have been concerned about the gradual loss of and shift in of the Bakhtiari language along with the cultural elements it houses. Although language
loss does not occur overnight, I believe the current trend may mean Indigenous and minority languages in Iran will exist only in history unless they are maintained, promoted or revitalized. On a personal level, and in my Bakhtiari community, I have witnessed a gradual language shift toward the lingua franca, Persian, and have decided to bring attention to this before it is too late. For various reasons, I have seen many of my family members refrain from speaking Bakhtiari. Moreover, many younger generations do not seem to value speaking the Bakhtiari language, listening to Bakhtiari music, performing Bakhtiari dances, or revealing their Indigenous
background. Indeed, they often act as if they do not know our Indigenous language at all! Unless proper action is taken to address this gradual language loss, I argue many of the elements of Bakhtiari language and culture will be replaced with non-Bakhtiari cultural and linguistic representations.
I believe countries’ national languages will gradually push Indigenous or minority languages aside, leading to the fall of these languages from use or their absorption by national languages insofar as they will no longer be considered Indigenous. For example, although I believe an Indigenous language can remain so as long as its associated Indigeneity, cultural values and beliefs are maintained, Bakhtiari has been referred to as a dialect of Persian, even by linguists who have a Bakhtiari background. As an Iranian researcher, I am deeply concerned about language loss in my home country as well as in the world more generally. Thus, I decided to do my doctoral research on language revitalization and equip myself with the expertise to help preserve and revitalize minority languages worldwide. Indigenous and minority language
revitalization programs are concerned with the linguistic and cultural aspects of Indigenous languages and strive to overcome the reasons that have engendered language loss. In so doing, and as the main purpose of language revitalization efforts, effective methods—those congruent
with Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies—are developed to help Indigenous learners become proficient in the communication and production of their Indigenous languages (Czaykowska-Higgins, Burton, McIvor, & Marinakis, 2017).
In appreciating the similarities and differences among Indigenous peoples (Rice, 2005), it is useful to develop methodologies in Indigenous language revitalization programs that are based on idiosyncratic cultural and linguistic features of the Indigenous languages and communities involved. Importantly, language revitalizers seek academic advice along with consultation from Indigenous communities and elders to incorporate these elements into their programs. Therefore, in this research, I aim to investigate the concept of success in the Bachelor of Education in Indigenous Language Revitalization (BEDILR) program for the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people from the perspectives presented by the academy and the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community to assess and develop its praxis.
1.5. Focus of the Study
As Indigenous language revitalization programs have been launched in Canada to maintain and revive endangered Indigenous languages, it is reasonable to investigate the extent to which these programs revitalize Indigenous languages and meet the needs of the people in the programs. The Bachelor of Education in Indigenous Language Revitalization (BEDILR) is one such program and has been offered at the University of Victoria in partnership with the
W̱ŚÁNEĆ people in Victoria. In my doctoral research, and with the blessing of the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people, I aimed to investigate the notion of success in the BEDILR in revitalizing the
SENĆOŦEN language from an academic and community perspective. 1.6. Indigenous Peoples in British Columbia
First Peoples’ Cultural Council (FPCC) (2014), there are 203 Indigenous communities in BC who speak 60% of all the Indigenous languages in Canada. Gessner et al. (2018) report that there are 34 Indigenous languages spoken in at least 93 distinct dialects in BC which belong to seven different languages families: Wakashan, Salish, Tsimshian, Dene, Algonquian, Haida and Ktunaxa. Additionally, Michif, the language of the Métis people, is spoken in BC, and Chinuk Wawa used to be spoken in here. Out of all the Indigenous languages in BC, 32 of them, apart from Cree and Anishnaubemowin, have fewer than 1000 speakers, and some are reported to have fewer than 100 speakers (Gessner et al., 2018). However, since 2010, there has been a significant increase in the number of Indigenous communities in BC who have recordings of their languages (FPCC, 2014) which, according to McIvor and Ball (2019), means that the status of the
Indigenous languages in BC is recovering although more work needs to be done. 1.7. University of Victoria: Location and History
The University of Victoria is located seven kilometres north of downtown Victoria on the territory of the Songhees, Esquimalt, and the W̱ŚÁNEĆ nations in Greater Victoria, BC. As the first post-secondary academic institution in British Columbia, it was launched in 1903 under the name “Victoria College” and as an affiliation of McGill University. According to Rodriguez de France (2013), the faculty of Education at the University of Victoria launched its first
program on education for Indigenous peoples in Prince Rupert, Terrace, and Hazelton in 1974. Ever since, the University of Victoria has provided education for Indigenous peoples and has been focusing on language revitalization strategies through different programs. McIvor et al. (2018) report that a one-year certificate was launched in 2000s focusing on language
revitalization strategies and a three-year pilot program pivoted around the teaching of Indigenous languages. Marinakis and McIvor (2015) state that in 2008, a course was created for all teacher
education programs at the University of Victoria, which was the first of its kind in Canada. Additionally, in 2009, the University of Victoria changed the name “Aboriginal Education” to “Indigenous Education” to reflect and acknowledge the international scope of its members and its commitment toward the shared responsibility of decolonizing education. Since 2011, an undergraduate Diploma, the Bachelor of Education in Indigenous language revitalization (BEDILR), Graduate Certificate and Master’s Degree in Indigenous language revitalization programs have been developed and delivered in partnership with the University’s Department of Linguistics in the University of Victoria (Marinakis & McIvor, 2015).
As the focus of this research is to investigate the notion of success of the BEDILR program for the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people, in the following sections I present the history of the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people, W̱ŚÁNEĆ knowledges, the W̱ŚÁNEĆ School Board, and the language revitalization practices in the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community.
1.8. History of the W̱SÁNEĆ People
The W̱ŚÁNEĆ people are of the Salish language family and the Coast Salish sub-family (FPCC, 2014), whose homelands used to be rich and plentiful in natural resources and whose SENĆOŦEN language flourished (Swallow, 2005). The W̱ŚÁNEĆ are the Strait Salish People— also known as saltwater people—and chose this place and have based their life on its ocean and land for thousands of years. The W̱ŚÁNEĆ people speak SENĆOŦEN Indigenous language, an oral language transmitted inter-generationally. Following the arrival of European settlers, the W̱ŚÁNEĆ was anglicized to “Saanich,” and they were forced to live on four small reservations (firstvoices.com, 2019). David Elliott Sr. (1990), from the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community, states:
Our people [W̱SÁNEĆ] lived as part of everything. We were so much a part of nature; we were just like the birds, the animals, the fish. We were like the mountains. Our people
lived that way. We knew there was an intelligence, a strength, a power, far beyond ourselves. We knew that everything here didn't just happen by accident. We believed there was a reason for it being here. There was a force, a strength, a power somewhere that was responsible for it. That is the way our people lived. They lived according to that belief, according to that knowledge. The universe lies before you. (p. 75)
According to Jim (2016), the W̱ŚÁNEĆ, translated by Elliott Sr. (1990) as “the land which is raised up” or “emerging people”, comprises four communities: BO,ḰE,ĆEN, W̱JOȽEȽP, SȾÁUTW̱ and W̱SÍḴEM (Tseycum). Among all these communities, W̱JOȽEȽP (Tsartlip) and SȾÁUTW̱ (Tsawout) are the largest, followed by BO,ḰE,ĆEN (Pauquachin), and then W̱SÍḴEM, which is the smallest community both demographically and geographically. Jim (2016) states that BO,ḰE,ĆEN politically emancipated themselves because they claimed to be a separate people who came to live permanently among the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people. The W̱ŚÁNEĆ people summer in the Gulf Islands and San Juan Islands and winter on the Saanich Peninsula in Victoria. To the south, their territory stretches to PKOLS (Mount Douglas), to the west to SELE₭TEȽ (Goldstream Provincial Park), to the east through the San Juan Islands, and to the northeast across Georgia Strait to Boundary Bay (Elliott Sr., 1990; Jim, 2016). This was at a time when the W̱ŚÁNEĆ territories stretched throughout the Saanich Peninsula—along with many of the surrounding islands—to Washington State. In 1846, however, and after the Oregon treaty, the W̱ŚÁNEĆ peoples were divided based on Canadian or American territory (Horne, 2012). There are approximately 1,750 people in the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community who have connected their
environment with their social activities, ceremonies and everyday learning (FPCC, 2014). They used to spend most of the year fishing, hunting, and gathering their catch in their temporary
homes (Jim, 2016).
The First Peoples Cultural Council (FPCC) (2014) reports that the number of semi- speakers of an Indigenous language is increasing. Dunlop et al. (2018) define semi-speakers as those who “can speak and understand their language to the degree that they self-identify or are identified by fellow community members as having the ability to converse and understand with no use of English” (p. 9). Having realized the threat to his SENĆOŦEN language, the late David Elliott Sr. (who was from WJ̱OȽEȽP) devised the SENĆOŦEN writing system in 1978 and made it accessible to the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people. The alphabet was adopted by the W̱ŚÁNEĆ School Board to help preserve SENĆOŦEN language learning at the ȽÁU,WEL,ṈEW̱ Tribal school (Jim, 2016). 1.9. History of The W̱SÁNEĆ School Board
The W̱ŚÁNEĆ School Board is located fifteen kilometers from Victoria and was established to save and revitalize the SENĆOŦEN language and provide an opportunity for the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people to regain control of their education based on their Indigeneity. It was built on the W̱JOȽEȽP land and offers educational programs to the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community members and has an ongoing working partnership with Camosun College and the University of Victoria (Jim, 2016). Before the new school was built, the W̱ŚÁNEĆ children attended a one-room school, which was later replaced with a five-room school. Both schools were run by Christian nuns. However, according to Claxton (2015), the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people formed the Saanich Indian School Board because they were dissatisfied with the way the school did not include them and their teachings in the curriculum. Unfortunately, the school was burned down by a fire in 1976, but with the establishment of the new school and the Saanich Indian School Board, the W̱ŚÁNEĆ children were taught in portable units from 1976–1989. This eventually led to the establishment
of the ȽÁU,WEL,ṈEW̱ Tribal School, which is named after the sacred mountain
ȽÁU,WEL,ṈEW̱, a mountain known for saving the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people from the Great Flood. Jim (2016) states that according to the W̱ŚÁNEĆ stories, when XALS, the Creator, saw the
W̱ŚÁNEĆ people were not living within their teachings, XALS came down to them in the form of a man to warn them about a flood to come. However, some of the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people did not pay attention and perished when the flood came. Those who had prepared “tied themselves and their canoes to an Arbutus Tree with the cedar woven rope at the top of ȽÁU,WEL,ṈEW̱ mountain, named as the place of escape, healing and refuge” (Jim, 2016, p. 50).
1.10. Language Revitalization Practices in the W̱SÁNEĆ Community 1.10.1. Pre-School Language Nest (K–4 Immersion Program)
There is a successful SENĆOŦEN immersion experience (i.e., EWENE W̱ENITEM ḴEN SḰÁL, where no English Language is spoken) that offers K–4 classes to children to learn the SENĆOŦEN language through circle time, outdoor play in playgrounds and in the forest located around the school (McIvor & Anisman, 2018). Teachers teach SENĆOŦEN in this program and meet the Ministry Prescribed Learning Outcomes of the Kindergarten Curriculum. The
W̱ŚÁNEĆ children spend 3.5 hours in the classroom learning what is outlined in the
Kindergarten Provincial Curriculum through a SENĆOŦEN medium and spend 2.5 hours in the playgrounds and forests around the school or in the neighbourhood to foster a connection with nature. At this level, children can enter the LE,NOṈET immersion stream after a year of the LE,NOṈET immersion stream. 1.10.2. ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ (Tribal School)
1989, the four W̱ŚÁNEĆ communities, W̱SÍḴEM, W̱JOȽEȽP, BOḴEĆEN, and SȾÁUTW̱ created the Saanich Indian School and the ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ Tribal School that continue to support the Saanich Indian School politically and financially. Jim (2016) states that the school is named ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ (Mount Newton) and acts as a spiritual place for the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people, when they took refuge in it in the Great Flood. 1.10.3. W̱SÁNEĆ Language Department (SȾÁSEN TŦE SENĆOŦEN)
The W̱ŚÁNEĆ Language Department is part of the W̱ŚÁNEĆ School Board and is called SȾÁSEN TŦE SENĆOŦEN. As the SENĆOŦEN-speaking elders in the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community were decreasing, the elders and the community felt the need to maintain their Indigenous language. In 2009, therefore, a language apprenticeship program was delivered to focus on SENĆOŦEN-language teaching and positioning teachers under the name of the SȾÁSEN TŦE SENĆOŦEN (the Mentor-Apprentice Method) (PENÁĆ, 2017). In this method, an elder (a fluent first-language speaker) is paired with an apprentice a new language learner to expose them with language (Hinton et al., 2018). It is through this method that SENĆOŦEN learners practice their Indigenous language by listening to archived audio-recordings as well as attending gatherings to practice their language, translate their stories, and record new information (Jim, 2016).
There have been a series of second-language instruction methods in the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community: total physical response (TPR), sign language, and the Greymorning method, all of which offer second-language instruction (FPCC, 2014). Total Physical Response is a language teaching method through the use of physical movements, and sign language advocates the use of visual and manual modalities to teach language. The Greymorning method advocates the
educators and language revitalizers develop curriculum and resources, hold meetings with the W̱ŚÁNEĆ elders, and assist teachers in their classrooms. These efforts led to the establishment of LE,NOṈET SCUL,ÁUTW̱ (the language immersion/language survival school) and the SENĆOŦEN W̱ UĆISTENEḴ (language teachers) in 2012. The W,SENĆOŦEN IST: Diploma in Indigenous Language Revitalization (DILR) is delivered in community-based contexts and offered through the University of Victoria. This is a 20-month or two-year program that supports learners who want to build on their Indigenous language proficiency, basic
language-teaching skills to better understand the contexts in which they teach, and their ability to teach Indigenous languages. According to PENÁĆ (2017), the DILR provides a ladder into the Bachelor of Education in Indigenous Language Revitalization (BEDILR), which has been offered in the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community and University of Victoria since 2012. 1.11. Research Questions
Based on Huaman and Stokes (2011), the primary goal in language revitalization
programs is often geared toward producing speakers, where fluency in the Indigenous language is a major aim and project funders do not entertain proposals outside of these goals. However, although there is a close connection between Indigenous languages, environments, cultures, and epistemologies (Alfred & Corntassel, 2005), Indigenous peoples differ from each other
idiosyncratically (Rice, 2005). One of the Indigenous language revitalization programs offered at the University of Victoria is the Bachelor of Education in Indigenous Language Revitalization program (BEDILR). According to McIvor et al. (2018), the BEDILR has been designed around four characteristics: 1) The program components ladder into each other, providing successful exit opportunities for students at multiple key points throughout the program, 2) The programs
increase language proficiency through coursework, 3) The programs are designed for delivery in a community setting, in full or in part, and 4) The programs result in language skills and
professional teacher certification that will prepare graduates to teach in immersion language schools. (p. 6)
However, to what extent the BEDILR has successfully provided for the linguistic and pedagogical needs of the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people plays a critical role in this research. In other words, this dissertation examines the notion of success of the BEDILR program for the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people from an academic and community perspective. It is hoped the results of this study will provide insight toward improving the BEDILR for the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community in the future. Therefore, this research seeks to answer the following research questions:
1) What are the concepts of success in the BEDILR program in the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community and the University of Victoria?
2) How do these concepts of success impact the design, delivery and assessment of the BEDILR in the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community?
3) How do these concepts of success impact the design, delivery and assessment of the BEDILR in the University of Victoria?
In summary, I discussed the rationale and focus of the study as well as the challenges that lie ahead for Indigenous peoples with regard to revitalizing their Indigenous languages. I then discussed my positionality in this research before I presented a discussion on the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, specifically the W̱ŚÁNEĆ people and their knowledge. Next, I discussed the history of the W̱ŚÁNEĆ School Board, and the language revitalization practices of the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community. A description of the University of Victoria was given before a history
of The W̱ŚÁNEĆ and their knowledge, and the language revitalization practices in the W̱ŚÁNEĆ community and the research questions in this project.
Chapter Two
Literature Review
The importance of language revitalization programs cannot be fully appreciated without a discussion on the history of language loss and shift. In the following section, I present a
discussion on language loss and shift, along with an account on the advent and importance of language revitalization. As it is effective to design Indigenous language revitalization programs based on the Indigeneity of the stakeholders, I explore the importance of Indigenous knowledges in Indigenous language revitalization programs. Finally, I end this chapter with a description of several Indigenous language schools in which Indigenous languages are maintained and
revitalized. 2.1. Language Loss and Language Shift 2.1.1. Language Loss
Evans (2010) defines language loss as the gradual loss of a language, where the speakers of a dominated language eventually lose their language proficiency, knowledge systems, and cultures. Hinton (2008) argues that this is due to their proximity to a dominant language and unequal power relations between the dominant and dominated languages and occurs as a result of both external and internal factors. Scholars attribute language loss to different reasons and argue that it can result from such external factors as colonization and death (Hinton et al., 2018); assimilation policies and residential schools (Bell & Napoleon, 2008; FPCC, 2014); disease, genocide, and forced relocation (McIvor & Anisman, 2018); world economic growth (Amano et al., 2014); and globalization (Grenoble & Whaley, 2006). Based on the study done by
Lomawaima and McCarty (2006), language loss occurs when required education is offered in a dominant language with encoded cultural knowledge, where its social and linguistic domination
over the weaker language(s) leads to a decrease in the number of speakers and contexts of the weaker language (Shaul, 2014). More specifically, it occurs when a language loses its use within a community, is under pressure from one or more competitor languages, or because of the vast migration of the native speech society that affects the whole speech community (Hinton, 2010; Swiggers, 2007).
While studying the Indigenous language of the Sami people of Sweden, Nutti (2018) blames their language loss on several factors. She believes the Swedish education system, Sami parents, and Sami teachers are responsible for the language loss among the Sami people.
Specifically, she believes Sami teachers did not receive any cultural training to teach in their Indigenous language and Sami parents were not confident their children would benefit from learning the Sami language as their children would have to compete in national examinations in the Swedish language. Internal factors can also be blamed for language loss. I believe language loss occurs when individuals arrive at the belief that their language is not worth speaking or handing down to future generations, and consider their language as having low prestige because they fear being ridiculed by the speakers of the dominant language. As a consequence, they will willingly step away from their mother tongue and favor the dominant language, which they believe to be more prestigious. 2.1.2. Language Shift
Huaman and Stokes (2011) state that there is a reciprocal relationship between language loss and shift, and further that while the former is a reduction in the linguistic abilities of an individual, the latter is a collective or communal process. Namei (2012) argues that language shift happens when economical, psychological, and social factors induce minority language speakers to favor a dominant language. In this sense, language shift is a speaker’s own choice
(Hinton et al., 2018) because they do not use their language themselves and, as a result, will not pass it to the next generation. It is the gradual shift in a language that eventually leads to the death of that particular language.
Despite this favor shown as a result of a speaker’s own choice, Sarivaara, Uusiautti, and Määttä (2013) believe that language shift is more precisely a consequence of the unequal treatment of minority and Indigenous languages by non-Indigenous societies. For example, as schools and their medium of instruction emphasize standardization in the development of literacy, they induce language shift, and their language classes do not seem to be very effective in producing minority or Indigenous language speakers (Cru, 2017). Additionally, Indigenous and minority youths are encouraged to leave their communities in the pursuit of higher education and adopt the dominant language in their societies (Huaman & Stokes, 2011). Thus, when a dominant language replaces another one for political and social reasons, it encourages
monolingualism under the pretext of the common good for everyone (Hinton, 2010). In this case, language shift occurs because the speakers of a minority language shift toward the (dominant) language with more social power to gain a grounding in that society. 2.1.3. Indigenous Language Loss in the US and Canada
After European settlement in the Americas, Indigenous peoples were introduced to a new way of living and thinking that disregarded their Indigenous epistemologies (Regan, 2010). Due to assimilation among Indigenous peoples to Europeans’ ways of livings, their Indigenous languages were (and continue to be) imperiled, where only 70 out of the 450 Indigenous languages in Canada are being spoken (McIvor & Anisman, 2018). Consequently, Indigenous peoples in the US and Canada became concerned with preserving their languages and
Canadian Indian Brotherhood (Smith, 2012).
Based on the study done by Coronel-Molina and McCarty (2016), the abovementioned language loss can be divided into three stages, as follows. The first stage lasted until the late 19th century and is referred to as the period of guns, germs, and steel. During this stage, Indigenous peoples were introduced to new diseases, massacred, displaced from their lands, mandated to live on reservations away from their native territories, and assimilated into European and American ways of living. In the US, this led to the foundation of the first boarding school in 1879 in Philadelphia to assimilate Indigenous peoples to the dominant culture and drag them out of their Indigeneity. In the second stage, known as Relocation, Indigenous peoples were offered jobs away from their communities in cities in distant locales. They were forcibly assimilated to fulfill Termination, the redistribution of reservation land to non-Indigenous individuals. Stage three is known as the period of language loss in Canada and the US and has continued to date through increasing non-Indigenous population growth, developing economic opportunities, and other modes of technology and discrimination against Indigenous peoples.
Looking into Indigenous language loss in Canada, Fontaine (2017) argues that Canada’s policy to extinguish Indigenous languages and culture began in the British North American Act of 1867. Based on this, politicians began to devise policies for assimilation and provided the federal government with the jurisdiction to legislate on issues related to Indians (I avoid the use of the term “Indian” unless it is included in a quote or I am paraphrasing, as is the case when referring to the abovementioned Act). This, based on McIvor and McCarty (2017), provided the federal government with legal and political authority over Indigenous peoples—a power that ultimately meant practical control over the daily activities of Indigenous peoples (Coronel- Molina & McCarty, 2016) with a deliberate course of removal, genocide, and linguicide.
As a consequence of this legislation, Indigenous children were taken away from their families to be taught English or French as their primary means of communication, and to undergo a process of acculturation to the ways of the white man (Fontaine, 2017) until all Indigenous peoples in Canada were assimilated to the dominant society (Milloy, 1999). In other words, eradication of Indigenous languages was emphasized because they embed Indigenous cultures and identities. 2.2. Prediction About the Survival of Indigenous Languages
The reality that Indigenous peoples and communities continue even today to lose their language and traditions (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) has caused scholars to speculate about the survival of languages, and Indigenous languages in particular. Given this, knowing that many of the world’s Indigenous languages do not have many speakers (Walsh, 2005) could be an indicator that the number of speakers of a language is not a reliable factor in predicting the survival of a language (McIvor & Anisman, 2018). Thus, scholars look for different methods to determine the health and survival of a language. Grenoble (2016) reports that linguists have used the Language Endangerment Index (LEI) to determine language vitality through four criteria: intergenerational transmission, number of speakers, increasing or
decreasing number of speakers, and domains of language use. Additionally, while Barrena et al. (2007) argue the health of a language is determined by its intergenerational transmission and the number of the children who are learning it, Ball and McIvor (2013) believe that is done through the role of the government policies targeting that language. In the same line of argument, Fontaine (2017) believes the health of a language is determined through the status of that language in the education system. Accordingly, Galla and Goodwill (2017) state that the Cree, Ojibway, and Inuktitut languages are still learned by the younger generations of these peoples,
and therefore, it could be argued that they are in a good health. 2.3. Advent of Language Revitalization
Language revitalization is a practical way to devise methods to revive endangered languages and preserve those that are current. Sarivaara et al. (2013) argue that language
revitalization focuses on increasing the number of language speakers and expanding the domain of a language. Diverse definitions of language revitalization have circulated. For example, Hinton et al. (2018) refer to Joshua Fishman as the father of language revitalization and define language revitalization as the rejuvenation of a language that has fallen out or has been
decreasing in use. Costa (2016) argues language revitalization is the linguistic emancipation of a language that reinforces the structure and use of that language and the position of its speakers. Additionally, Sarivaara et al. (2013) argue that language revitalization is performed through creating a fair societal structure and equal opportunities for participation toward widening linguistic rights so that people use their language. Thus, it is a multidimensional and complex process that requires both societal and individual action (Pietikäinen et al., 2010). At a societal level, language revitalization is connected to the national and international legislation and
cultural policy whereas, at an individual level, it is affected by attitudes, cultural heritage and the circumstances in which the speakers of the language live (Pietikäinen et al., 2010).
With regard to the incentive of language revitalization, various ideas have been proposed. Hinton et al. (2018) believe although research on language revitalization goes back to research done on language loss and shift by Weinreich (1953), it was Fishman’s (1966) study on the support among immigrant groups for language maintenance that foretold the language
revitalization movement. Thus, upon realizing the threat of losing their languages and cultures, minority and Indigenous communities attempted to preserve and revive their languages toward
active use. In other words, language revitalization can be traced in Indigenous peoples’ desires and efforts to revive their languages and to provide generations with the opportunity to learn and use their mother tongue appropriately, both orally and in written form (Sarivaara et al., 2013).
There have been historical attempts to save languages. To begin with, Costa (2016) argues since the second half of the 16th century, antiquarians in Western Europe compiled dialect words, and Dorian’s (1981) Language Endangerment focuses on endangered languages and explores the sociological and economic reasons for language shift. In a similar vein, Dauzat’s (1938) Dialects are Fast Disappearing investigates the state of dialects, and Swadesh (1948) focuses on language obsolescence and disappearing languages, who argues that the knowledge that one gains from how a language disappears enables them to picture the events in the past, leading to the death of languages. Finally, Indigenous communities passionately began to seek methods to maintain their Indigenous languages. With regard to language documentation as one of the methods of language revitalization, Ken Hale aroused linguists to document endangered languages (Hinton et al., 2018). However, regardless of its origins, Muehlmann (2008) argues language revitalization produces expertise and power for different people, and Hermes et al. (2012) believe it is an effective practice that appeals to Indigenous researchers as a personal, political and passionate endeavour and has encouraged scholars in various disciplines (e.g.,
cultural activism) to preserve and revive Indigenous languages. 2.4. Why Does Language Maintenance Matter?
Spolsky (1995) states that language revitalization was inspired by the revitalization of Hebrew, when Jewish people, as a small population, were determined to revive their language and strengthen their Jewish identity. Hinton et al. (2018) argue that language revitalization contributes to the study of the relationship between language and identity because, when a
language dies, it induces complex and diverse feelings and reactions because language is an essential part of one’s identity. Additionally, as argued by Rosborough (2012), one’s identity is shaped by their surroundings and by the language in which they communicate with others. In other words, one’s identity is shaped by their culture and how one associates and attributes themselves to that culture.
Luo et al. (2000) state that one seeks connection with others based on their shared language as it is an important attribute toward becoming a member of an ethnic group and being categorized ethnically by that language. Furthermore, an individual’s belonging draws them nearer to their native language, traditions, homelands, and history (Lin & Yudaw, 2016). Thus, Indigenous languages are living species that should be maintained to enliven their embedded Indigenous epistemologies (Hermes et al., 2012). For example, the rich repertoire of grammar and vocabulary in Kalaallisut, the Indigenous language of Greenland (which is closely related to the Inuit languages of eastern Canada), enables its speakers to relate spatial knowledge with environmental knowledge and culturally specific ontologies (Grenoble et al., 2019).
There are terms in Kalaallisut (i.e., qaqqaq, qaarsoq, and ujarak) that enables speakers to relate spatial knowledge with environmental and culturally specific ontologies. For instance, there are three terms in Kalaallisut that refer to the rocky convex and natural shapes that characterize the landscape of Greenland. In Kalaallisut, qaqqaq is the term that refers to the convexities that lie in the rocky landscapes. Although one may think the word “mountain” in English is a close translation for Qaqqaq, they should know Qaqqaq refers to all sizes of rocky convexities and hills. Also, the term Qaqqaq and its derivatives, such as qaqqaaraq (little mountain) and qaqqarsuaq (big mountain), refer to Greenland’s curved landscape, which has some vegetation and snow for much of the year. Ujarak is a rocky landscape that is not attached
to the land. It is a more direct match for the English word “rock,” which can be picked up if not too heavy. However, the most difficult word to translate is Qaarsoq because it is a rounded rock
landform with a flat top surface that people can sit on (Grenoble et al., 2019). 2.5. Approaches to Language Revitalization
In the following section, a few language revitalization programs are presented to discuss the need to design and implement appropriate language revitalization programs as an
appreciation for Indigenous and minority languages and knowledges and to reverse language shift and death. One must explore the intellectual fields that impact revitalization attempts as they provide the guidelines that help find what has been lost. With reference to that, Hinton et al. (2018) argue that linguistics, applied linguistics, psychology, education, and linguistic
anthropology can positively affect language revitalization. Additionally, Hinton (2010)
investigates the role of academic institutions in revitalizing Indigenous languages and argues that academic institutions can help revitalize minority or Indigenous languages through immersion programs, as they are the most effective programs for increasing the number of Indigenous language speakers. On top of that, the Master-Apprentice Language Learning Program (MALLP) is a highly effective language revitalization method because it pairs an Indigenous elder (a fluent speaker) with an apprentice (a learner) to provide a natural immersion with the authentic
exposure of an Indigenous language (Hinton et al., 2018).
In contrast to the approaches outlined above, Hermes et al. (2012) argue that Indigenous language revitalization programs conducted within academic institutions offer only a partial solution to language endangerment. Also, Hinton (2010) states it became clear that the bilingual education at academic institutions, where Indigenous peoples were taught in bilingual classes with their Indigenous language and the lingua franca of that society, was an insufficient tool for
saving languages. This is because universities are grounds of contention (Alfred, 2004),
hierarchical institutions that shape the dominant worldviews toward knowledge (Heath Justice, 2004), and could be places of colonialism (Smith, 2012). Such insufficiency is also noticeable insofar as teaching non-Indigenous languages is different from teaching Indigenous and minority languages and academic institutions have not de-colonized their ways of knowledge production, which are firmly rooted in colonial epistemologies (Heleta, 2016).
2.5.1. Success in Language Revitalization
Due to the existing differences among Indigenous peoples (Rice, 2005), there is little chance for one language revitalization program to meet the needs of all Indigenous communities and peoples. Thus, language revitalizers explore the concept of success for each Indigenous community and base their programs on the Indigeneity of the specific Indigenous community in the program to avoid over-generalization among Indigenous peoples. This stems from the notion that success is defined differently (Hinton, 2015). For example, based on Hinton (2010) language revitalization programs should help Indigenous community members become language
revitalizers and maintain their Indigenous languages. She further argues that success is creating oral fluency in speakers through “the focus on orality, language immersion, and situational learning use of language, and community control of the language” (Hinton, 2010, p. 3). In addition, success could only mean reviving some Indigenous words, as in the case of a group of Mexican rappers who insert Mayan words in their Spanish music to revitalize their Indigenous language (Cru, 2017).
Given the above arguments, creating successful language revitalization programs depends in part on determining the attitudes that Indigenous language speakers hold about their language. In other words, if a language is not favored by its speakers, language revitalization is likely not
