Revitalization “Handbook”: Mapping Language Classifications, Goals, and Methodologies

Campbell, Jennifer L. (M.A., Linguistics) Revitalization Handbook: Mapping Language Classifications, Goals, and Methodologies Thesis directed by Dr. Maria Thomas-Ruzic and Dr. David Rood According to Cowell (2012), the language revitalization literature and speech communities’ efforts have been characterized by three major swings over the past fifty years: additional language teaching methods, “revitalization” emphasis, and now an anthropological approach. This thesis is a “revitalization manual” that brings the three waves together, redefining troublesome areas while maintaining useful concepts. By considering certain pre-existing literature helps identify the benefits of a usage-based demographics/domain assessment for each individual language such that achievable goals are matched to language teaching methodologies, creating a system of revitalization that works within the ideological frameworks of the speech communities. Such a system contributes to new, more nuanced measures of “success” for revitalization efforts and outcomes. Four languages—Irish Gaelic, Hawaiian, Arapaho, and Wichita—and their various efforts to reverse their conditions are examined as case study examples for understanding usage-based domain assessment. These case languages also contribute to the refined classification typology proposed, and the mapping of language teaching methods to revitalization efforts based on achievable goals for success. Revitalization Handbook iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincerest gratitude goes to my Committee Chair, Dr. Maria Thomas-Ruzic, Co-Chair, Dr. David Rood, and committee member Dr. J. Cowell. Dr. Thomas-Ruzic has helped in the writing process from brainstorming to editing, and I am ever thankful for her guidance as a mentor. I want to acknowledge Dr. David Rood as the professor who helped inspire my study of Wichita and shape my linguistic philosophies. Special thanks to Dr. Cowell for his patience in interviews and guiding me to the final conclusions presented in this thesis. Thanks to the Chyanne and Arapahoe Spring 2013 conference members and speakers who hosted me and gave me valuable insight into the practicality of my thesis. I also want to thank my family: my mom who listened from the beginning to my “thesis defenses”; my dad who supported me in the tough times; and my sister who is always willing to “chant” when things get stressful. Their support over the years has been invaluable. Revitalization Handbook v CONTENTS CHAPTER Preface 1 I. Introduction 3 Global Context 3 General Situation 3 Focus Language Sample and Rationale 4 Purpose of Study 4 Integrating the “Three Swings”: The thesis statement 5 Organization of Thesis 6 II. Revitalization/Endangerment Background 7 Terminology: “endangerment” and “revitalization” 7 Endangerment/revitalization literature review 7 Statement of Problem: Three drawbacks to current models 10 III. Case Studies—reassessing endangerment assessment 13 Usage-based Demographics 14 Fold One: Becoming Acquainted –Demographic Features 15 Fold Two: Usage-based Domains 20 Case Studies: “Domains of Use” Examples 23 IV. Language Status and Revitalization Strategies and Goals 31 The current problems with “status” and “success” 31 Reevaluating Statuses and Successful Goals 33 The Five Statuses and Seven Outcome Goals 37 Classifications and Goals for Usage-Based Domains 39 V. Methodologies of Teaching Additional Languages. 43 Background 43 Terminology 43 Methods Overview 45 Literature review: Teaching Indigenous Languages 50 Applying methods to revitalization efforts 57 VI. Conclusions 61 The Final Mapping 61 Discussion/Implications 62 Conclusion 63 REFERENCES 64 APPENDIX 70 A. Appendix of Relevant Websites [from Ni Ghallachair, 2008] 70 B. Language Policy for the Northern Arapaho Tribe Declaration 71 C. Ethnologue’s Explanation of Language Clouds (from Lewis et al., 2013) 73 D. Original Four Domains Argument 74 E. Table 13: Proposed Classifications & Goals (with “drawbacks”) 77 Revitalization Handbook vi TABLES 1. Schema for classifying languages according to degree of viability (Krauss, 2007). 8 2. Demographics of Irish Gaelic and Hawaiian (adapted from Ethnologue data). 15-16 3. Demographics of Arapaho and Wichita (adapted from Ethnologue data). 17 4. Irish Gaelic—Domains of Use to Consider for Language Expansion. 24 5. Hawaiian—Domains of Use to Consider for Language Expansion. 26 6. Arapaho—Domains of Use to Consider for Language Expansion.28 7. Wichita—Domains of Use to Consider for Language Expansion. 30 8. Language Survival Status and Corresponding Retention Strategy (Bauman, 1980). 32 9. Language Classification—the proposed typology.38 10. Irish Gaelic Status of Usage-Based Domains.40 11. Arapaho Status of Usage-based Domains.41 12. Mapping Usage-based Domains, Classification Goals, & Methodologies in Irish.62 13. Appendix E: Table 13—Proposed Classifications & Goals (with “drawbacks). 77 Revitalization Handbook vii FIGURES 1. Suggested Interventions Based on Different Stages of Language Endangerment [Adapted from Fishman’s (1991, pp. 88-109) Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale for Threatened Languages]. (from Reyhner, 1999). 12 2. Ethnologue’s Langauge Clouds (from Lewis et al, 2013). 18-19 a. Hawaiian b. Irish Gaelic c. Arapaho d. Wichita Revitalization Manual 1