2009
University of Arizona Press
The linguistic anthropologists and other writers of the 13 chapters in
Native American Language Ideologies look at how differently languages can be viewed by different groups in different places, specifically across the United States as well as in Canada and Guatemala. These chapters, written by both knowledgeable “outsiders” and some “insiders,” who have participated in revitalization efforts focus on various facets of language ideologies; the “beliefs and feelings about language and discourse” (p. 4). One does not have to delve very deeply into the literature on language revitalization to find examples of local controversies over dialects, writing systems, who are the language experts, and so forth that have slowed or even killed revitalization efforts.
The severe endangerment of most Native American languages is well documented and there is a lot written on the various ongoing revitalization efforts, however much less is available about how language ideologies can aid or hamper revitalization efforts. Arguments over whether a previously oral language should be written, whether there is a “correct” way to pronounce words (language purism), who should be allowed to learn the language, and other controversies can sap revitalization efforts. “Linguistic purism on the part of elders may trigger linguistic insecurity on the part of younger imperfect speakers, which may lead to younger speakers’ refusal to speak the language and intensify language shift” (p. 47). “[E]lder purism” can be “deadly” for languages as younger learners when it causes them to be criticized for not speaking just like the elders (p. 45). Another contentious idea is that Native language is only for esoteric - not for public consumption - traditional/ceremonial practices.
The contributing authors to this book document the large amount of “heterogeneity” in indigenous language ideologies among, and even within, various groups (p. 7). Outside experts, linguists and language teachers can help clarify the issues involved in language revitalization, however Indigenous peoples can be “deeply suspicious” of academics based on past, too often exploitive, encounters (p. 15).
1 However, because of the extreme endangerment of many Indigenous languages resulting from past colonial “English-only” educational policies and social disruption, revitalization efforts need all the help they can get. Ironically responsibility today for revitalizing languages is commonly located in schools and tribal bureaucracy that are associated with the dominant culture.
The introductory chapter by the editors includes a historical overview of American Indian education and summarizes the issues brought up by the authors of the various chapters. The history of Indian education shows that English was often sold to Indigenous peoples on a utilitarian basis as the “language to get ahead” economically (p. 42). However, financial success too often did not ensue for individuals even when they no longer spoke their Indigenous language. The unfulfilled promises of learning English can be one cause for a turning back to a Native language. Some Indigenous groups shared a utilitarian view of language generally while others saw their language as something sacred. On the other hand, Christopher Loether in chapter eleven maintains that the Shoshoni are an example of a group who just use whatever language is more convenient at the time.
As Indigenous languages become more and more endangered as older fluent speakers pass on, there has been an increased urgency to teach them to the younger generation, but some widespread beliefs about language enumerated by Loether can subvert revitalization efforts. These include the “linguistic form of Social Darwinism” shared by many non-Indigenous people that a “superior” more fit language, like English, will naturally replace an “inferior” more “savage” language (p. 245). Some Indigenous people think that they are born with a genetic predisposition to learn and speak their language. A third fallacy is the idea that Indian languages don’t change. There are also romanticized notions of native language as linked to “a more harmonious or spiritual worldview” (p. 109).
One interesting topic taken up by the contributors to this book is the perception by some Indigenous peoples that the English language is “’dead’ in both a spiritual and expressive sense” and “is a cold language” (p. 100). In contrast Native languages are more expressive and spiritual, which is associated with the fact that sometimes the spiritual and ceremonial domains are the only domains left for the Native language. One speculates about whether this perception is the result of many people not learning English beyond a conversational proficiency and never accessing the vast literature written in the English language, as well as an example of the “white man’s shadow” phenomena where whites are portrayed as monolithically greedy, materialistic, etc. and Natives as the opposite: being generous, spiritual, etc.
2 However, there is not a simple dichotomy between speaking a Native language and holding on to traditional Indigenous religious beliefs. For example, Margaret Bender notes in chapter six that speaking Cherokee today is associated with older devout Christians.
While in some places language and culture are viewed as inseparable,
3 in others Native identity is linked to cultural activities that can be practiced in an English-speaking environment. However, as a language becomes more endangered it can become “a badge of identity” (p. 20). “What many Native groups say they really want to teach is identity, and language serves as part of that identity” (p. 108). A strong sense of identity can be seen as the key to success in life.
Critical issues faced by language revitalization efforts are discussed throughout this book concerning the maintenance of dialects versus language standardization, the standardization of writing systems, sharing (or not sharing) language teaching methods and materials, and appropriate uses, if any, of modern technology in keeping traditional languages alive. This book represents a sharing of experiences with - and knowledge of - language revitalization efforts that enhances their chances of success. Past examples of this are the spread of successful practices such as the Maori language nests to Hawaii and the mainland United States. Most of the various constraints faced by language revitalization programs are addressed in one of more of the chapters in this book, which contains extensive references to the literature related to language revitalization. I would rank this book up there with the classics on language revitalization, including Joshua Fishman’s
Reversing Language Shift (Multilingual Matters, 1991) and Leanne Hinton and Kenneth Hale’s
The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice (Academic Press, 2001) that are “must reads” for anyone interested in language revitalization.
Notes 1. For a discussion of the role linguists can play in language revitalization efforts see chapters 3-6 in Indigenous language revitalization: Encouragement, guidance & lessons learned edited by Jon Reyhner and Louise Lockard (Downloadable at
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/ILR/ ).
2. See e.g., J. Simard. (1990). White ghosts, red shadows: The reduction of North American Indians. In J.A. Clifton (Ed.),
The invented Indian: Cultural fictions and government policies (pp. 333-369). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
3. A counter example to the common idea that a particular language and culture are inseparably linked and that when a language dies the culture dies are the Yurok, Karuk, and Hupa of California who while having very different languages share very similar cultures as described by Sean O’Neil in
Cultural contact and linguistic relativity among the Indians of Northwestern California (University of Oklahoma Press, 2008).
Reviewed by Jon Allan Reyhner, Bilingual Multicultural Education Northern Arizona University
Make a difference. Know the history. Change the future.
Find other great books on Indigenous Peoples via our Secure Bookstore.
North America 
