International Journal Of Lexicography, 2022, 35, 378–395
https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecac003
Advance access publication 22 March 2022
ReviewMark Turin1 and Natália Oliveira Ferreira2
University of British Columbia, Canada (mark.turin@ubc.ca)
University of British Columbia, Canada

1
2

Abstract
In this review essay, we compare five recent publications relating to dictionary work with Indigenous
languages. The review covers three dictionaries, one monograph about lexicography in service
of Indigenous language revitalization and the second volume of a two-volume dictionary-cumencyclopedia. The structure of this review essay is as follows: following a brief introduction to each of
the languages covered in these five publications, we include sections comparing orthographic choices
and representations, internal structure and entry design, an examination of each dictionary’s approachto the incorporation of neologisms and the software choices made by compilers. In addition, we offer
an analysis of each dictionary’s intended audience and access requirements, some structured reflections on authorship and ownership, an exploration of each project’s commitment to community engagement, strategies for the representation of dialectal variation and finally, relevant information about
how each dictionary project was funded and resourced.

1. Introduction
In this article, we offer a comparative review of five recent publications relating to dictionary work with Indigenous languages. The review covers three dictionaries, one monograph focussing on lexicography in service of Indigenous language revitalization and thesecond volume of a two-volume dictionary-cum-encyclopaedia. All works were publishedin the last five years. Considering both the content, format and methods of work, we find it
significant to note that all five publications were published in and/or relate to the linguistic
context of settler-colonial Anglophone nations. Three of the five publications under review
are geographically situated in North America—the works on Ponca, SENĆOŦEN (Saanich)and Tunica respectively—while the other two publications originate in Australia, and in
the Northern Territories in particular, their focus being the Ngarinyman and Yanyuwa languages respectively. Before engaging substantively with the texts under review, we offer astructural overview of each publication, organized by release date.
Published over the course of two years, Wuka nya-nganunga li-yanyuwa
li-anthawirriyarra: Language for Us, the Yanyuwa Saltwater People: A Yanyuwa
Encyclopaedia, is authored by Yanyuwa Families and John Bradley. The two volumes
were published by the independent academic publisher Australian Scholarly (ASP) in© 2022 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

Indigenous Lexicography: A Review of
Recent Dictionaries and Works Relating to
Lexicography

Indigenous Lexicography379

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

2016 and 2017. This is a massive work: the first volume clocking in at 618 pages and thesecond at 792 pages. Taking advantage of this expansive format, the first volume introduces the Yanyuwa people and their traditional territories, with sections on the historyof language recording made in the community, texts in the Yanyuwa language, as well
as Yanyuwa songs and poetry. This first volume also includes appendices with Yanyuwa
word games, Yanyuwa Sign Language and Yanyuwa string games. The second volume ismore focussed on linguistic description, and is helpfully subdivided into sections entitled
Grammar, Dictionary, and Word Finder.
Timothy Montler’s SENĆOŦEN: A Dictionary of the Saanich Language was publishedby the University of Washington Press in 2018. At 1,520 pages, this is the longest publication
covered in this review. While the central component of the monograph is the SENĆOŦENEnglish dictionary, the publication opens with an introduction to SENĆOŦEN (also known
as Saanich), followed by general information pertaining to the dictionary, its format, a reflection on the choice of symbols and a discussion of how annotations are used. At the conclusion of the dictionary, Montler includes an English-SENĆOŦEN index, an affix index as
well as a root index as additional resources for the reader.
Published by the Aboriginal Studies Press in 2019, the Ngarinyman to English Dictionary
was compiled by Caroline Jones, Eva Schultze-Berndt, Jessica Denniss and Felicity Meakins,
with many other additional contributions listed on the cover. Totalling 292 pages, the publication opens with an introductory section that describes the speech community and thewider project, followed by sections on skin names and kinship, an explanation of the alphabet and the chosen orthography, followed by a general grammatical introduction to thelanguage. This section also offers context about the production of the dictionary and somesuggestions on how it might be best used. Thereafter begins the Ngarinyman to English
dictionary, followed by an English to Ngarinyman word finder. An English to Ngarinyman
scientific name finder offers pathways for users to look up Ngarinyman terms for faunaand flora.
Written by Louis Headman with Sean O’Neill and with the Ponca Council of Elders—Vincent Warrior, Hazel D. Headman, Louise Roy, and Lillian Pappan Eagle—the Dictionaryof the Ponca People (DPP) was published by the University of Nebraska Press in 2019.
Comprising 416 pages, the book is structured in three sections: an introduction—with
notes on Ponca orthography, pronunciation, and grammar, as well as some information
about the dictionary entries—a Ponca to English dictionary, and thereafter an English to
Ponca dictionary.
Finally, while not a dictionary per se, and therefore somewhat of an outlier in this comparative review, we have included Revitalization Lexicography: The Making of the New
Tunica Dictionary by Patricia Anderson on account of the relevance of this recent workto our discussion. Published in 2020 by the University of Arizona Press, this short book of
160 pages outlines how dictionaries can be designed to facilitate the reversal of language
shift and foster linguistic innovation. Through the lens of Tunica, one of the heritage languages of the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Marksville, Louisiana, Revitalization Lexicography
provides a detailed account of the complex processes and technical steps involved in creating a dictionary that can assist a once sleeping language become a language of active
daily use once again.
With these introductory comments complete, we now offer a brief introduction to each of
the languages covered in these five publications, followed by sections in which we compareand contrast the publications under review with regard to their chosen orthographic representation; their internal structure and entry design; their perspective on neologisms andchoice of software; their anticipated audience and accessibility; their approach to authorship, ownership, and access; their commitment to community engagement (when relevant);
their strategies for the representation of varying dialects (if applicable); and finally, information about how the dictionary projects were funded and supported.

380

Mark Turin and Natália Oliveira Ferreira

2. Language, culture, and territory

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

Ngarinyman is a language of the Pama-Nyungan language family with around 234 speakers(2016 census, as cited in AIATSIS collection, n.d.) and is classified as moribund1 (8a) on
the EGIDS2 scale according to the Ethnologue (Eberhard et al., 2021). Ngarinyman is amember of the Ngumpin subgroup of Pama-Nyungan languages, which also includes otherlanguages such as Gurindji, Bilinarra, Malngin, Wanyjirra, Mudburra, Karrangpurru, Jaru,
Nyininy and Walmajarri (p. 1). Ngarinyman is spoken in the Victoria River District, in the
Northern Territory of Australia.
Yanyuwa is also a member of the Pama-Nyungan language family and is spoken by
only around 39 individuals (2016 census, as cited in AIATSIS Collection, n.d.) and classified as shifting3 (7) on the EGIDS scale (Eberhard et al., 2021). Yanyuwa is spoken in andaround the township of Borroloola. While the language forms its own subgroup (Eberhard
et al., 2021), Yanyuwa is geographically close to speakers of Garrwa, Binbingka, Gudanji,
Wilangarra, and Marra (p. 6 and map 2).
The three languages spoken in North America that we cover in this review are unrelated
to one another. In 2007, Ponca was documented as having around 87 speakers (Golla,
2007, as cited by Eberhard et al., 2021), and is classified as moribund (8a) on the EGIDS
scale. Ponca is a language of the Siouan family, closely related to the language spoken by the
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, and more distantly to Osages, Kaws, and Quapaws, all of which
are described as Đégihà languages in the text (pp. ix-x). The Ponca language is spoken in
the states of Oklahoma and Nebraska in the United States.
SENĆOŦEN is a dialect of Northern Straits, a Salish language related to Klallam. It has
around 112 speakers (Eberhard et al., 2021), and is classified as nearly extinct4 (8b) on the
EGIDS. SENĆOŦEN is spoken on both sides of the Canadian and U.S. border, with communities in the Saanich Peninsula of southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia (Canada),
and on the islands of the Haro and Rosario Straits and southern Strait of Georgia, in
Washington state (U.S.).
Finally, Tunica is a language isolate with around 32 speakers, and classified as reawakening5 (9) on the EGIDS scale. The Tunica language is the traditional and ancestrallanguage of the Tunica people, now known and federally recognized as the Tunica-Biloxi
Indian Tribe located in east-central Louisiana. Historically, the Tunica migrated south—from the Central Mississippi Valley to the Lower Mississippi—eventually moving westward
to settle around present-day Marksville, Louisiana, where the current Tunica-Biloxi Indian
Reservation is located.
While it can be challenging to gain a rich cultural understanding about a community fromthe pages of a dictionary, most of the publications under review use their introduction or
preface to offer readers some insights into the history of the speakers of the language and theirtraditional territory. In the DPP, the reader learns about the community’s rich and complex
history, their orthographical choices through the years, and how their ancestral language(Đégihà) has been replaced by English. Similarly, the preface to the Ngarinyman to English
Dictionary introduces readers to the development of the research project that generated thedictionary and names the many collaborators who contributed to its compilation, alongside
relevant cultural and historical background in a section entitled “Language and History”. In
the case of SENĆOŦEN: A Dictionary of the Saanich Language, the brief preface is dedicatedsolely to situating the Saanich language, and a later section entitled “About the Dictionary”
provides details about the project and the compilation of the dictionary.
Making use of the more comprehensive format offered by an encyclopaedia, the Yanyuwa
Families and Bradley took the opportunity to dedicate several pages of their first volume
to the history of the Yanyuwa language, the speech communities, and their territories andto offer some remarks on the education system. In terms of visual representations, boththe Ngarinyman and the Yanyuwa publications include a map showing the location of theIndigenous Lexicography

381

language communities and outlining the distribution of languages in nearby territories, offering readers helpful geographical context. By contrast, Revitalization Lexicography, DPP,
and SENĆOŦEN offer fewer visuals and images.

While some Indigenous languages have well-established practical writing systems (Schillo
and Turin, 2020), it is not uncommon for under-resourced languages to use elements of the
English alphabet to serve as a basis of their orthography. This is the case for four of the
publications under discussion in this review.
According to Revitalization Lexicography, while the Tunica orthography was developed
decades ago, it was only more recently adapted for contemporary use. The Tunica orthography was based on the NAPA (North American Phonetic Alphabet) system, with a few
salient diacritics. Choosing to maintain the earlier orthography was a decision that benefited the community, since it facilitated access to historical texts and older materials without
requiring that individuals learn two entirely different orthographies.
The Ngarinyman and Yanyuwa publications both use Roman orthography, although unlike in English, there is a clear and consistent correspondence between letters and sounds
that represent the phonological inventory of each language. The intention in each casewas to provide written words that would reflect the way that Elders speak while at thesame time maintaining a writing system that would be familiar to users. Each volume issupplemented with a pronunciation guide. The Ponca and the SENĆOŦEN publications,on the other hand, make use of a practical orthography that mixes elements of the English
alphabet with associated diacritics, in order to better capture the phonological inventoryof the language.
While a Ponca-specific orthography was developed by linguist James O. Dorsey somedecades ago, which he used in his many publications on the Ponca language, Dorsey’s
writing system has not gained traction within the community. The DPP instead makes useof a practical orthography based on the ‘Americanist system’, using orthographical andtypographical conventions such as acute [á] and grave [à] accents, the ogonek/forward
hook [ą] and the hacek [š], with the goal being that the language in general and this text inparticular remain maximally accessible to community users. The alphabet and diacritics are
explained in a pronunciation guide, located in the publication’s Introduction.
The SENĆOŦEN practical orthography was developed by Dave Elliott, an Elder fromthe community and an L1 speaker of the language. This orthography is based on a onesymbol-per-sound alphabet, making use of uppercase letters from the English alphabet withadded diacritics/symbols, such as acute accents [Ć], forward slash [Ⱥ], cedilla [M¸] line
below [Ḵ], and stroke [Ŧ]. The dictionary includes a pronunciation guide to assist readers
unfamiliar with the orthography.

4. Entry design and ordering
In this section, we briefly analyse the structural design and lexical ordering of entries ineach publication. Deciding what should be included in word entries and how such entries
are best organized within the pages of a dictionary are decisions that should be based on
the anticipated needs of the users of that dictionary. These decisions are discussed in a comprehensive manner in chapter 4 of Revitalization Lexicography, in which Anderson raises
many key questions that must be considered before settling on a specific design. Whichwords should be headwords? How much information should a definition or gloss contain?
Should entries be ordered alphabetically, semantically, or grammatically? How should verb
paradigms be presented in the dictionary? Should neologisms be included? These are just a

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

3. Orthography

382Mark Turin and Natália Oliveira Ferreira

Figure 1: Entries for Tunica verb erusa and its derived forms (p. 69).

Figure 2: Entry for English verb ‘know’ with Tunica gloss (p. 70).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

few of the important issues raised in Revitalization Lexicography, some of which are discussed later in this review.
Reviewing the proposed microstructure for the New Tunica Dictionary, Figures 1 and
2 below offer snapshots of how, according to Revitalization Lexicography, an irregularverb (erusa ‘know’) would be portrayed in the Tunica-English section of the dictionary.
This includes a principal entry with greater detail along with several independent entries(spread across the dictionary in alphabetical order), with derived forms of irregular verbs
referencing back to the relevant principal entry. In terms of entry design, Anderson explains how this was a conscious choice to facilitate word lookup, noting that the EnglishTunica section of the dictionary does not offer the same feature, rather referring users to
the appendix for additional help with verb derivation. In general, both directions of the
New Tunica Dictionary are organized alphabetically and semantically, sometimes locating
related cultural vocabulary under generic if significant words like dance (in the EnglishTunica section) in order to direct users to a centralized reference.
The entry design of the Ponca dictionary includes head words written in the practicalorthography, followed by a phonetic key (separated by syllables), the part of speech (adjective, article, noun, etc.), an English definition(s), and, when applicable, related words orexamples (see Figures 3 and 4). Ponca verbs are listed in their basic form, with only some of
the required affixes, sometimes followed by verb paradigms for person and number. Whenarchaic terms are included, they are labelled as such, and their approximate period of use

Indigenous Lexicography383

Figure 3: Example entries for two closely related Ponca verbs (p. 94).

Figure 4: Example English-Ponca entry for the verb ‘bathe’ (p. 224).

Figure 5: Example Ngarinyman entry for the verb gurl (p. 124).

Figure 6: Example English-Ngarinyman entry for the verb ‘drink’ (p. 248).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

is given. Turning to macrostructure, in order to accommodate diacritics and the absence ofsome English letters in the orthography, the order of Ponca entries follows a customizedalphabetical order that deviates significantly from English. All Ponca entries are listed beginning with an uppercase letter.
The Ngarinyman dictionary entries are composed of a head word, the word class (case,noun, verb, etc.) to which the entry belongs, an English definition(s), Ngarinyman synonyms as appropriate, examples, and related words or sub-entries (see Figures 5 and 6). In
some cases, usage is identified—in particular if a term is used only in certain communities—
while entries for fauna and flora contain both scientific names and additional information
about how to locate or use them. Ngarinyman verb entries are presented as a headword
in the present tense followed by sub-entries with other tense forms and combinations. The
different tense forms of verbs can also be found as independent headwords throughout
the dictionary—a decision that facilitates ease of browsing by beginner language learners,
as they can easily look up the meaning of a verb they have heard or read without having
to derive the verb’s paradigm. As a bonus, the Ngarinyman dictionary offers illustrations
throughout the Ngarinyman-to-English section, providing a visual reference for several
entries (see Figure 5). As for entry order, Ngarinyman entries are organized following theEnglish alphabetical order, albeit with the addition of Ngarinyman-specific phonemes (likeng and ny) and skipping letters that do not exist in the Ngarinyman orthography or do notoccur in word-initial position. All entries are listed beginning with a lowercase letter, withthe exception of proper names.

384Mark Turin and Natália Oliveira Ferreira

Figure 7: Example Yanyuwa entry for the verb marninymantharra (p. 319).

Figure 8: Example English-Yanyuwa entries for the verb ‘jumping’ and ‘jumping over’ (p. 641).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

Entries in the Yanyuwa dictionary consist of a headword followed by the word class towhich the term belongs, an English definition(s), example sentences in Yanyuwa and theirtranslations, and related words or concepts when applicable and as appropriate (see Figures
7 and 8). The Yanyuwa example sentences derive from collected texts, actual day-to-day
conversations and interactions, and some demonstrations of ‘formal’ language. In addition,
the Yanyuwa publication includes drawings in the English–Yanyuwa Word Finder section,offering full-page visual representations of events, dances, animal parts and the like between subsections divided by letter. While verbs in the dictionary are listed in the present
participle form as this is the form commonly used by speakers during elicitation and whenciting verbs, other forms can be derived by referring to chapter 6 of the Yanyuwa Grammar,
which precedes the dictionary section. Different affixes—such as noun-class prefixes andtense and pronoun suffixes—used in the language are also covered in the grammar section.
Entries in the Yanyuwa dictionary are organized roughly following an English alphabeticalorder (according to the available sounds in Yanyuwa) with the addition of some combinations of Roman letters that are particular to the Yanyuwa phonology (such as lh, ng,
and rn), resulting in a language-specific ordering. All entries are listed beginning with alowercase letter, except for proper nouns (including clan related words).
In the SENĆOŦEN dictionary, each entry begins with a SENĆOŦEN headword (themost used variant), followed by a phonemic form in the North American phonetic alphabet,an English definition(s), commentaries about the cultural context and usage of the wordwhen helpful, and an example sentence, followed by variants of the word if applicable (seeFigures 9 and 10). Part of speech is not included in the SENĆOŦEN dictionary. Entries
also include the initials of the Elder(s) who served as the source for or contributed a particular word. At the end of each entry, word variants and a hypothetical morphologicalIndigenous Lexicography

Figure 10: English-SENĆOŦEN entry for the verb ‘sleep’ (p. 1022).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

Figure 9: SENĆOŦEN entry for the verb ITET (p. 281).

385

386

Mark Turin and Natália Oliveira Ferreira

5. Megastructure and language production versus reception
An important element of dictionary design is what may be referred to as megastructure,
which according to Revitalization Lexicography ‘can include front matter, back matter,and general ordering of languages in multilingual dictionaries’ (pp. 99-100). Looking at
the front matter of the dictionaries under review, we note that all contain an introduction to the language alphabet or a pronunciation guide, and all but one include a section
explaining the basics of the language grammar, which can be helpful for new learners of
the language. The exception is the SENĆOŦEN publication, which offers only a few paragraphs introducing three basic elements of SENĆOŦEN sentence structure. While Montler
states that a full grammar is in progress, he directs the reader to his previous works formore info about SENĆOŦEN syntax and verb paradigms. Referencing the New Tunica
Dictionary, Revitalization Lexicography notes that its anticipated front matter will also
contain a sketch grammar6 of Tunica for pedagogical reference.
An additional element of megastructure relates to the order of languages in a bilingual dictionary, namely which language (Indigenous or dominant) is listed first in thevolume. Reading the titles of the texts under review: Ngarinyman to English Dictionary,
DPP, SENĆOŦEN: A Dictionary of the Saanich Language, and Wuka nya-nganunga
li-yanyuwa li-anthawirriyarra: Language for Us, the Yanyuwa Saltwater People: A Yanyuwa
Encyclopaedia, in addition to the New Tunica Dictionary described in Revitalization
Lexicography, each of these dictionaries list the Indigenous language first in their titles, andin each case, the Indigenous language is presented first in the text. While we acknowledge
that a dictionary of an Indigenous language with very few or no living native speakers
might be more focused on language production (speaking and writing) rather than language reception (reading, listening and comprehension), by listing the Indigenous language
first, more authority and visibility are accorded to the language (cf. Sear and Turin, 2021).
The difference between the two sections of a bilingual dictionary extends beyond theorder or sequence in which the languages are presented and relates to the amount of information contained in the entries of each section. Bilingual dictionaries tend to be fairly asymmetrical for both logistical and financial reasons, with one direction (usually the Indigenous
language to English) often carrying considerably more information than the other. This iscertainly the case for most of the dictionaries reviewed, except for the DPP, in which the
Ponca-English and English-Ponca seem to contain the same amount of entry information.
With a more symmetrical distribution of information, the Ponca dictionary is likely focussed on supporting both reception and production of the language, benefiting advanced
speakers, scholars and new language learners alike.
On the other hand, the Ngarinyman to English Dictionary includes considerable detail and encyclopaedic information in the Ngarinyman to English section, but only wordclass and gloss in the English to Ngarinyman word finder, and the same in the scientificword finder which lists scientific names in Latin followed by word class and Ngarinyman

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

analysis of the root or affixes of a given word are also occasionally offered. The entries
are in broad strokes organized following an English alphabetical order, although with theaddition of diacritics the result is really a customized alphabetical order. This customizedalphabet is helpfully printed at the bottom of each page of the dictionary for easy reference.
While SENĆOŦEN verb entries use English infinitive forms, as in ‘to + verb’ in their definition, the author points out that SENĆOŦEN does not exhibit infinitive forms per se, andthat the motivation for using putative infinitives in the definitions is simply to differentiate
verbs from nouns. Plurals, diminutives, actuals, reciprocals, reflexives, and verbs marked
for direct object are all listed as independent entries, and the dictionary includes root andaffix indexes at the end of the volume, assisting readers in making sense of the different
components that make up SENĆOŦEN words.

Indigenous Lexicography

387

6. Neologisms and software choices
A question posed by Anderson in Revitalization Lexicography is whether or not to include neologisms in a dictionary of an Indigenous language. This question is as relevant
for non-Indigenous dictionaries as it is for Indigenous lexical collections, and more established lexicographical programs—we may think of Merriam-Webster or the Oxford
Dictionaries—have well-established processes and protocols for adding new terms.
In the Tunica Language Project, there was agreement that new words would need to beincorporated into the language in order to fill lexical gaps relating to newer technologies
and missing terminology, all with the goal of reintroducing Tunica as an active language ina wide variety of social contexts. To create those words, the project organized and hosted
workshops with community members who were encouraged to play creatively with Tunica
morphology and through this process, suggest names for animals, plants, and other nouns.
The suggestions were then evaluated by the KYLY, and some were ultimately approved andchosen as official entries for the New Tunica Dictionary. This initiative combined aspectsof community engagement and ownership with practical pedagogical opportunities for
Tunica learners to become more familiar with Tunica morphology and processes of word
formation.
While the four dictionaries under review do not in general clearly state their approachto the inclusion of neologisms, across the publications and with the exception of Yanyuwa,
more contemporary terms such as ‘phone’, ‘cellphone’, ‘camera’, and ‘computer’ have been
included with Indigenous glosses, suggesting that at least some neologisms have been added
to the languages. Making this process more explicit, the DPP states that the volume’s ‘expanded set of words includes some that deal with modern devices used in today’s world'(p. vii).
Given the complexity of the task of dictionary compilation, we find it relevant to include a discussion of the software that each dictionary project used to organize its lexicographic data. Two of the publications under review make explicit reference to theirsoftware choices, with Anderson (the author of Revitalization Lexicography) making use

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

correspondence. Similarly, the English-Yanyuwa side of A Yanyuwa Encyclopaedia, labelledsimply as ‘Word Finder’, lists only English headwords and their Yanyuwa glosses. This approach requires users to perform a double lookup: first looking at the English for a quickreference and cross-checking the words in Yanyuwa against the other side of the dictionary
for further information on meaning and use.
The SENĆOŦEN dictionary, while carrying more information on the SENĆOŦENEnglish side, still includes a fair amount of information in the English-SENĆOŦEN Index,
with entries listing English meanings for multiple potential SENĆOŦEN glosses and—when
applicable—sub-entries of different forms of the word (diminutive, passive, collective, etc.)
or related terms under a similar category.
Distinct from the other dictionaries, the New Tunica Dictionary discussed in Revitalization
Lexicography offers more information in the English-Tunica direction. ‘Since the English–
Tunica side is used for production, KYLY7 felt it was important to pack the entries withmore information that might lead to correct usage’ (Anderson, 2021: 65). This decision isparticularly relevant in the case of Tunica because the language had no living L1 speakers,
and investing in language production was a community priority for revitalization purposes
and to stimulate its return to a position of daily use. However, it is relevant to note that
the Tunica-English side of the eventual dictionary will contain more than a simple English
gloss, and will include part of speech labels, an English gloss, a Tunica example sentence(with English translation) and some additional extralinguistic information. The Tunica
Dictionary team opted for this approach to avoid the challenge of ‘double lookup’ and to
improve the usability of the final dictionary.

388Mark Turin and Natália Oliveira Ferreira

7. Intended audience and accessibility
As Sear and Turin note, ‘lexical collection in general and dictionaries in particular offer
significant value and lasting importance to language documentation, preservation, and revitalization projects, in large part because of their imagined comprehensiveness and relative
accessibility’ (2021: 238). In this section, we explore the target audience of each publication, how accessible each text is to its anticipated readers, and consider the medium of
publication and purchase price.
The DPP is available in print and online versions, with a paperback copy costing
35.00USD and a hardback or an eBook (pdf or Epub) costing 65.00USD, as reported on
the University of Nebraska Press website (Nebraska Press, n.d.). The reviewers are somewhat mystified as to why a digital and downloadable file would cost the same as a hardback
copy, and additionally why a digital file is priced higher than a paperback edition given that
this format has no associated printing costs. While the Ponca dictionary states that it is ‘notintended to recover or regain a cultural period or practice’ but rather to ‘serve as a reference to the spoken language of the people’ (p. vii), the testimonies on the back cover might
indicate otherwise, demonstrating how users view the dictionary as being much more thana reference volume and rather as a key tool for language preservation and revitalization:‘Through assimilation and termination policies of the United States, our language is critically endangered. The Ponca Community Dictionary will be a vital tool in preserving
and revitalizing the Ponca language. The Ponca Tribe of Nebraska will be utilizing it for
future generations of Ponca speakers.’ - Larry Wright Jr., chairman of the Ponca Tribe of
Nebraska.9

The Ngarinyman to English Dictionary is available in paperback for only 25.39USD,
through the digital store front of the AIATSIS website (AIATSIS Shop, n.d.). An eBook version can also be found on many different websites and is currently priced at 13.25USD
on Amazon.com.10 The Ngarinyman dictionary was published under the auspices of
the AIATSIS Indigenous Language Preservation: Dictionaries Project which emerged in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

of FLEx8 for their lexical database and Montler (the author of SENĆOŦEN) opting for the
Field Linguist’s Toolbox for the dictionary, Lexware for the finderlist and subentry structure, and AutoHotKey for coding source of words.
Anderson addresses the pros and cons of using existing lexicographic software versus
designing a proprietary database for the work. Developed by SIL International, Andersonsuggests that FLEx was a strong option on account of its multiple user function and wide
support of ‘non lexicographic components such as an interlinear analysis section, a grammar
section, and even a parser to speed up the analysis of future texts’ (p. 52). Anderson concludes the discussion noting that while FLEx was ostensibly designed for technically-trained
linguists, and that its impressive feature list can be intimidating for non-linguist community
members, the potential for multi-user collaboration and the support offered by SIL’s online
community and staff were deciding factors in its adoption for the Tunica project.
While recognizing that Field Linguist’s Toolbox (also developed by SIL International)
was designed for a ‘one-lexicographer’ project, Montler chose this software on account of
its flexibility, functionality, and ease of use. For the SENĆOŦEN project, Toolbox was used
to “enter all handwritten notes as analysed interlinear text with word, morpheme, and freeglosses” (p. xv). Montler adopted Lexware (developed by Robert Hsu at the University of
Hawaii, specifically for the compilation of bilingual dictionaries) to support the development of subentries and to generate the English-SENĆOŦEN finderlist, which were not functions covered by Toolbox. In addition, Montler recognizes AutoHotKey and EditPad Pro asimportant tools for source referencing and for minor editing, respectively.

Indigenous Lexicography389

8. Ownership, control, access, and possession
For many Indigenous communities, the institutional momentum behind open access imperatives can run the risk of infringing—and in some cases even violating—long-held cultural protocols about who should be privy to certain forms of information and traditional
knowledge, and when and how these are to be shared. The First Nations principles of
OCAP®—Ownership, Control, Access and Possession—are important standards that lexicographers in particular and language workers in general could benefit from better understanding (First Nations Information Governance Centre, n.d.).13 All of the publications
analysed in this review article explicitly acknowledge Elders and other community members who contributed to the compilation and production of these works.
Revitalization Lexicography offers a helpful reflection on this very topic: ‘community
members own their language and their traditional knowledge; and the community has aright to decide how it is represented in all printed materials, dictionary or otherwise’ (p. 80).
With this in mind, and as outlined throughout the publication, Anderson consulted about
every aspect of their work with the Tunica Language Project (TLP) as well as with the community at large, with the goal of ensuring that the community felt ownership about what
data was included and what could appropriately be shared with a public readership. At thevery start of the book, Anderson also highlights community ownership and control of the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

response to the growing crisis of language endangerment across Australia. The Ngarinyman
dictionary is intended to serve a broad audience, from interpreters and translators to all
Ngarinyman speakers (from beginner to advanced levels) and will be valuable to any individual interested in the language and culture. More recently, a project has emerged todevelop a talking e-dictionary for Ngarinyman that will contain sound files for each headword (ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language, 2021).
A Yanyuwa Encyclopaedia covers a great deal of material in its two expansive volumes
that will be highly relevant to linguists and ethnographers. These volumes were also produced with the goal of stimulating young, new and future generations of speakers to learn
more about their ancestral language and culture. On the Australian Scholarly website, eachvolume is individually priced at 59.95AUD in paperback, and the two volumes can be purchased together for 99.95AUD (Australian Scholarly Publishing, n.d.). The reviewers are
not aware of a publicly available digital file for purchase or download.
SENĆOŦEN: A Dictionary of the Saanich Language is a costly publication, available inhardcover for 150.00USD through the University of Washington Press website (Universityof Washington Press, n.d.). While the price tag is high, it is in keeping with the weight andsize of this hardback publication and with the quality of its print. The author provides alink to a webpage11 with a simpler Saanich wordlist and other useful resources for writing,along with morphological and pronunciation guides designed to support learners of thelanguage. The print dictionary is a result of a revitalization program for the SENĆOŦEN
language, and the publication is intended to reach a wide audience, including future generations of SENĆOŦEN speakers. The degree of grammatical information included relating
to the morphological composition of words and the inclusion of specific indexes for affixes and roots indicate that a significant academic audience is also anticipated for thispublication.
Revitalization Lexicography is available in both hardcover and eBook versions for
50.00USD, through the University of Arizona Press website (University of Arizona Press,n.d.). This publication is aimed at a readership of Indigenous and non-Indigenous activists
involved in language revitalization and lexicography projects, guiding them through themany steps, decisions and potential challenges involved in producing a dictionary. The New
Tunica Dictionary, discussed in this volume, already has an online webpage12 that hosts a
simplified version of the dictionary currently freely accessible to any interested user.

390Mark Turin and Natália Oliveira Ferreira

9. Community investment and engagement
We now turn to examine the broader research context that brought these texts to life bylooking at the involvement of the speech community in the production of each publication.
While it is clear from the high-profile recognition of the contributions of Elders in eachcase that traditional knowledge holders and language speakers were invaluable resources
for data collection and analysis, we find it instructive to learn more about how community
members were involved in decision-making and how (or whether) each publication wasshaped to meet the needs of the speech community. Afterall, ‘community collaboration indesigning the dictionary’s structure and organization helps ensure that the dictionary will
be usable to and accepted by generations of new language speakers’ (Anderson, 2020: 102).
The Tunica Language Project (TLP) described in Revitalization Lexicography is acommunity-driven research project that trained community members in the relevant
software and necessary linguistics skills so they would have autonomy in designing and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

project by noting that ‘the TLP is a community-driven language revitalization effort owned
and directed by the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe; which is to say that while anyone associated with
the TLP can propose revitalization ideas and projects they’d like to work on, communityproposed initiatives are given priority and Tunica-Biloxi leadership ultimately determines
which proposals are pursued’ (p. 4).
A further way of highlighting ownership, control, access and possession of a language
by a community is through the explicit acknowledgement of a community’s participation
by recognizing their contributions to the dictionary project itself (see Turin, 2021, for additional discussion). In the case of the DPP, the authors Louis Headman (Ponca elder andsenior researcher) and Sean O’Neill (anthropologist) are listed alongside the Ponca Councilof Elders (Vincent Warrior, Hazel D. Headman, Louise Roy, and Lillian Pappan Eagle) on
the title page. In the very first pages of the publication, individual Elders and community
groups are recognized by name for their contributions to this joint project.
In the Ngarinyman to English Dictionary, recognition is made highly visible on the
cover of the publication, which lists compilers Caroline Jones, Eva Schultze-Berndt, Jessica
Denniss, and Felicity Meakins, followed by a list of Elders and other community members who are recognized as having contributed to the project. The Ngarinyman to English
Dictionary also dedicates four pages to photographs in memory of some of the contributing
Elders.
In A Yanyuwa Encyclopaedia, a choice was made to list the community as a wholealongside a specific scholar, with authorship taking this form: ‘Yanyuwa Families and John
Bradley’. Locating the Yanyuwa families before the name of the linguist compiler serves tohighlight the centrality of intellectual contributions by the community. In the publication
itself, many Yanyuwa individuals who played a role in the work are also acknowledged by
name.
In SENĆOŦEN: A Dictionary of the Saanich Language, Montler is accorded sole authorship, albeit in collaboration with Elders, even though their names do not grace the cover ofthe publication. Further into the publication, four pages are dedicated to acknowledging
each Elder by name, together with an image and additional information that addresses their
specific contribution to the volume. The initials of each contributing Elder are included inboth entries and example sentences throughout the dictionary, offering a tangible indication of the provenance of linguistic information. An important manifestation of community
control over the publication can be located in the decision to omit traditional personalnames from the dictionary, as these are considered to be private property belonging to specific Saanich (WSÁNEĆ) families. Listening to community wishes and being respectful of
protocols and cultural traditions are central features of community-based language projects(see Sear and Turin, 2021).

Indigenous Lexicography391

10. Dialects and strategies for representing variation
The ‘ubiquitous challenge of balancing descriptivism and prescriptivism in dictionary projects of Indigenous languages can take many forms, a common issue being how to represent(describe) different dialects or variations of a language in a dictionary without identifying astandard form (prescribe)’, write Sear and Turin (2021: 246). A well-documented if collateral by-product of the publication of a dictionary is that standardization can creep into language use as a consequence of certain forms being elevated and available for consultation

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

implementing their lexicography project long term. A Tunica working group named KYLY
was formed to advance the work and serve as the decision-making body each step of theway, always in response to the needs of the Tunica community. Regarding project aims,
Anderson notes that ‘the process of clarifying our goals was one of regular and direct consultation with Tunica community members, with the support and collaboration of the tribally run Language and Culture Revitalization Program’ (p. 43).
In the introduction, the DPP speaks to how the project was inherently and very intentionally community-based, with the senior researcher—Headman—himself a member of
the Ponca Council of Elders. The project benefited from several meetings with Ponca Elders
to learn, review, discuss and critique Ponca words and their pronunciations, spellings andmeanings. Headman collected many notes and multiple recordings over the years fromfamily, friends and other community members, all of whose collected knowledge contributed to the making of the Ponca dictionary.
The cover of Ngarinyman to English Dictionary offers a tangible indication of how many
people were involved in this project. While only four individuals are listed as compilers, 28
more names grace the cover as contributors to the project, and many of these are members of the Ngarinyman community. This prominent billing on the face of the publication
indicates a powerful level of involvement on the part of the community in this important
dictionary project. Moreover, this work and the published product have a deep history—23
years of collaboration—and a very interdisciplinary bent, the dictionary being the resultof longstanding collaborations between linguists, an ethnobiologist and the Ngarinyman
community.
The Yanyuwa Encyclopaedia volumes are similarly the result of a three-decade long relationship between the author (Bradley) and the members of the Yanyuwa community.
Bradley mentions by name the many Yanyuwa teachers, mentors, families and friends
who were intimately involved in the language learning and documentation journey, andspeaks to the continuous support of the community which made it possible to produce
these encyclopaedic volumes. Across the two volumes, there is generous evidence of theyears of interviews, word recordings, transcriptions, and the collection of stories and songsby Bradley during his extensive work with the Yanyuwa community. The resulting text is
culturally rich and engages directly with the desire of the community to transmit and teachtheir language and culture to future generations.
SENĆOŦEN: A Dictionary of the Saanich Language recognizes each of the 26 Elderspeakers who contributed their knowledge to the dictionary, both at the outset of the publication and subsequently in each entry. In the Acknowledgements, the authors highlight thesignificant contributions of two specific Elders—Lou Claxton and Belinda Claxton—who
spent many hours working on specific entries and transcriptions; acknowledge the additional help of the Elliott siblings (John, Linda, and Jim) and their insights on insect andbird names in SENĆOŦEN; and recognize the support of the WSÁNEĆ School Board, theSaanich Adult Education Centre (SAEC), and the Tsawout (East Saanich) band offices. Such
explicit recognition points to a high level of community involvement in the production ofthis dictionary and speaks to the manner in which the team worked with multiple research
assistants, apprentices, and linguists.

392Mark Turin and Natália Oliveira Ferreira

11. Funding and support
Creating lexicographic material for minoritized and under-documented languages isno small task. As Anderson (2020: 10) notes, ‘dictionary creation is a time-consuming,
resource-intensive process, yet broad groups such as language communities, academics, andfunding organizations all agree that dictionaries are worthwhile investments’. All the publications analysed in this review article would not have been possible without considerable
financial, social, and administrative support.
The DPP received financial support from the Indian Center, Inc., with the ANA(Administration for Native Americans) grant ‘Community—Based Ponca Language
Dictionary’, and from the Endangered Language Fund (ELF), who also supported the Ponca
Council of Elders (p. xii). In the case of the Yanyuwa volumes, funding was provided by
the McArthur River Mine Community Benefits Trust, with additional support from Alison
Doyle of the Mabunji Aboriginal Resource Association, the Yanyuwa li-Anthawirriyarra
Sea Ranger, and li-Yanyuwa li-Wirdiwalangu (the Yanyuwa elders group) (p. iv).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

in print form. For this reason, we find it relevant to explore how these publications grapple
with dialectal variation within and across each language.
Given that there have been no living native speakers of Tunica for decades, the Tunica
Language Project decided to adopt a more standardized language in order to reintroduce
language production and use into the community. According to the publication, the dictionary was necessarily prepared using old texts and previous works by earlier academics,
at the same time as adapting grammar and vocabulary to simplify learning and bring thelanguage back with the goal of generating new users. Because dictionaries carry such weight
and authority, this standardization was seen as an important and even necessary step to elevate the status of the language and stimulate further pedagogical efforts in the community.
The DPP identifies two Ponca tribes, one resident in Oklahoma and the other in Nebraska.
While the majority of the lexicographical project focuses on the Oklahoma tribe, the authors assure the reader that there is insufficient variation within the Ponca speech community to justify representing differences in pronunciation and meaning held by particularfamilies or groups in the entries. For that reason, the dictionary assumes a standardized
form of written Ponca, using an approachable vocabulary that contains clear and familiar
definitions accessible by any speaker of Ponca (p. 7).
The Ngarinyman language, on the other hand, comprises three speech communities—
Wurlayi (western), Yarralin and Timber Creek—each of which are clearly identified in the
publication. The dictionary makes an explicit effort to represent and include all three language varieties, ensuring that when a word is typically used in one or more speech communities, the relevant dialectal information is identified in the usage section of the word entry.
The Yanyuwa language introduces a different form of variation, since the language
boasts a women’s dialect and a men’s dialect, mainly marked by differences at the morphemic level. When applicable and appropriate, both forms are shown across all dictionary
entries (with men’s forms as the default, followed by women’s forms), and the difference
between these two gendered dialects is thoroughly explained in the grammatical sectionof the publication. Additionally, the Yanyuwa Encyclopaedia includes relevant remarks onsacred ceremonial language, avoidance or respectful language (usually when speaking to ornear specific family members), island versus mainland words, and older word forms.
As outlined in the dictionary itself (p. vii), SENĆOŦEN is not a language per se, butrather a variety of Northern Straits. This language cluster includes other dialects such as
Sooke, Songish, Lummi and Samish. According to Montler, only SENĆOŦEN and Samish
can still count living first language speakers. Each dialect of Northern Straits has its own orthography and community-specific revitalization programs and, while the dialects are mutually intelligible, they are considered to be separate languages by the speech communities.

Indigenous Lexicography393

12. Conclusion
Each of the five publications under review in this comparative article are significant contributions to the field of Indigenous lexicography and dictionary making. While the approaches the authors and compilers have taken to their work vary widely, each project andpublication situates ethical engagement and community participation at its core as these are
key aspects of Indigenous language work. As will have become clear from this comparative
review, lexicography for, by and with speakers of Indigenous languages is a space of great
innovation and creativity, engaging with and challenging aspects of mainstream dictionarymaking in ways that we find to be generative and inspiring.

Funding
This work was supported by a University of British Columbia Work Learn International
Undergraduate Research Award and by funds from the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced
Studies.

Notes
1 ‘The only remaining active users of the language are members of the grandparent generation andolder.’ – As described under Ethnologue Language Status (Eberhard et al., 2021).
2 Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale.
3 ‘The child-bearing generation can use the language among themselves, but it is not being transmitted
to children.’ – As described under Ethnologue Language Status (Eberhard et al., 2021).
4 ‘The only remaining users of the language are members of the grandparent generation or older
who have little opportunity to use the language.’ – As described under Ethnologue Language Status(Eberhard et al., 2021).
5 ‘The ethnic community associated with a dormant language is working to establish more uses andmore users for the language with the results that new L2 speakers are emerging.’ – As described underEthnologue Language Status (Eberhard et al., 2021).
6 The term ‘sketch grammar’ is widely and variously used to describe different linguistic products.
Mosel identifies at least five types of ‘sketch grammar’, the two most pertinent of which are ‘the preliminary grammar that presents the very first account of a language’s structure on the basis of a small
corpus’ and ‘the grammar in the front matter of a dictionary (dictionary grammar)’ (2006: 301).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

The SENĆOŦEN dictionary project was funded by the Phillips Fund of the American
Philosophical Society, the Jacobs Funds of the Whatcom Museum, the University of North Texas
and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The dictionary itself is a product ofa grant from the Documenting Endangered Languages Project managed by the NEH (p. vii).
The Ngarinyman dictionary mentions many different grants and funding bodies that
supported the project in various ways, including covering the cost of trips, equipment, personnel, accommodation, and fieldwork. The funding and general support came from: the
Diwurruwurru-jaru Aboriginal Corporation, an Australian Research Council fellowship,
the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language. a
DOBES (Documentation of Endangered Languages) grant and the Yarralin School (p. xi).
The American Philosophical Society provided funding for Anderson’s dissertation, which
resulted in the Tunica publication under review. The Tunica-Biloxi Tribe also sponsoredAnderson’s attendance at and participation in revitalization workshops in the region, andfunded the Language and Culture Revitalization Program (LCRP) with the stated goal ofrevitalizing language and cultural practices. In 2018, the Tribe also won a multi-year grantfrom the Administration for Native Americans to fund the training of language apprentices
who are destined to become the next generation of Tunica language teachers. Anderson
helpfully includes a resource guide for the reader, listing a number of organizations that
regularly provide funds for lexicography projects.

394Mark Turin and Natália Oliveira Ferreira

References
A. Dictionaries
Headman L., O'Neill S. 2019. Dictionary of the Ponca People. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press(DPP)
Jones C., Schultze-Berndt E., Denniss J., Meakins F. 2019. Ngarinyman to English Dictionary. Canberra,
ACT: Aboriginal Studies Press.
Montler T. 2018. SENĆOŦEN: A Dictionary of the Saanich Language. Seattle: University of Washington
Press.
Families Yanyuwa, Bradley J. 2016-2017. Wuka nya-nganunga li-yanyuwa li-anthawirriyarra: Language
for Us, the Yanyuwa Saltwater People: A Yanyuwa Encyclopaedia. North Melbourne, Vic: Australian
Scholarly.

B. Other literature
AIATSIS Collection. Austlang. Accessed on 2 January 2022. https://collection.aiatsis.gov.au/austlang/searchAIATSIS Shop. Ngarinyman to English Dictionary. Accessed on 2 January 2022. https://shop.aiatsis.gov.
au/products/ngarinyman-to-english-dictionary?_pos=1&_sid=a8b723a09&_ss=r#.
ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language.2021.Ngarinyman e-dictionary brings together linguists
and community. Accessed on 16 January 2022. http://www.dynamicsoflanguage.edu.au/news-and-media/
latest-headlines/article/?id=ngarinyman-e-dictionary-brings-together-linguists-and-community
Anderson P. 2020. Revitalization Lexicography: The Making of the New Tunica Dictionary. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Australian Scholarly Publishing. Wuka nya-nganunga li-Yanyuwa li-Anthawirriyarra. Language for Us,
The Yanyuwa Saltwater People. A Yanyuwa Encyclopaedia: Volume 1 and 2. Accessed on 2 January
2022. https://scholarly.info/book/wuka-nya-nganunga-li-yanyuwa-li-anthawirriyarra-language-forus-the-yanyuwa-saltwater-people-a-yanyuwa-encyclopaedia-volume-1-2/
Eberhard D. M., Simons G. F., Fennig C. D. 2021. Ethnologue: Languages of the world (24th ed.). Dallas:
Texas: SIL International. https://www.ethnologue.com/
First Nations Information Governance Centre [FNIGC]. The First Nations Principles of OCAP®. Accessedon 15 January 2022. https://fnigc.ca/ocap-training/Montler T. Senćoŧen Sənčáθən. Saanich Language. Accessed on 15 January 2022. http://saanich.montler.
net/
Mosel U. 2006. ‘Sketch Grammar’ in Gippert J., Himmelmann N. P. and Mosel U. (eds), Essentials of
Language Documentation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 301–309.]
Nebraska Press. Dictionary of the Ponca People. Accessed on 2 January 2022. https://www.nebraskapress.
unl.edu/nebraska/9781496204356/.
Schillo J., Turin M. 2020. ‘Applications and innovations in typeface design for North American Indigenous
languages.’ Book 2.0, 10(1), 71–98.
Sear V., Turin M. 2021. ‘Locating Criticality in the Lexicography of Historically Marginalized Languages.’
History of Humanities, 6(1), 237–259.
Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana. 2018. Tunica-English Dictionary. Webonary. Accessed on 15 January
2022. https://www.webonary.org/tunica/

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022   7 Kuhpani Yoyani Luhchi Yoroni (KYLY), a Tunica working group established to advance the projectsof the Tunica Language Project.
   8 FieldWorks Language Explorer.
   9 Testimony retrieved from the back cover of the Dictionary of the Ponca People (Headman andO’Neill, 2019)10 On sale; original price, 23.85USD. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.amazon.com/
Ngarinyman-English-Dictionary-Caroline-Jones-ebook/dp/B0821WBP6M.
11 http://saanich.montler.net/. (Montler, n.d.)
12 https://www.webonary.org/tunica/. (Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana, 2018)13 OCAP® is a registered trademark of the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC).

Indigenous Lexicography

395

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/35/3/378/6551878 by University of British Columbia user on 29 November 2022

Turin M. 2021. ‘Recognizing Authority and Respecting Expertise in Language Work.’ In McGranahan C.
and Weiss E. (eds), Rethinking Pseudonyms in Ethnography. American Ethnologist website. Accessedon 15 January 2022. https://americanethnologist.org/panel/pages/features/collections/rethinkingpseudonyms-in-ethnography/recognizing-authority-and-respecting-expertise-in-language-work/
edit
University of Arizona Press. Revitalization Lexicography. Accessed on 2 January 2022. https://uapress.
arizona.edu/book/revitalization-lexicography
University of Washington Press. SENĆOŦEN. Accessed on 2 January 2022. https://uwapress.uw.edu/
book/9780295743851/sencoten/