Received: 15 September 2022

| Accepted: 10 November 2022

DOI: 10.1111/muan.12274

EXHIBIT REVIEW

Indigenous language use in museum spaces
Julia Schillo1| Mark Turin2

1

Simon Fraser University2

The University of British Columbia

Correspondence
Julia Schillo, Department of Linguistics,
Simon Fraser University, 8888 University
Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.
Email: schilloji@gmail.com

Abstract
In the summer of 2020, two museums in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, simultaneously hosted art exhibitions by Indigenous artists. The Vancouver Art Gallery (VAG)
hosted an exhibition of works by Shuvinai Ashoona, an Inuk artist part of the Dorset
Fine Arts Co-­operative, based in Kinngait, Nunavut. At the same time, the Museum ofAnthropology (MOA) hosted an exhibition of the work of Kent Monkman, a Cree artist
known for exploring themes of colonization and sexuality in his work. Each exhibition
offered signage in an Indigenous language: in Inuktitut and Cree, respectively. Reflecting
on the ways Inuktitut and Cree were used in these exhibitions has led us to write this review article, in which we draw on recent scholarship that addresses questions of language
in museum spaces (Sönmez et al., 2020; Lazzeretti, 2016).
K EY WOR DS
Cree, Indigenous, Inuktitut, language, signage

I N T RODUC T ION
In the summer of 2020, two museums in Vancouver, BritishColumbia, Canada, simultaneously hosted art exhibitions byIndigenous artists. The Vancouver Art Gallery (VAG) presented works by Shuvinai Ashoona, an Inuk artist part of theDorset Fine Arts Co-­operative, based in Kinngait, Nunavut.
At the same time, the Museum of Anthropology (MOA) at
the University of British Columbia exhibited the work of Kent
Monkman, a Cree artist known for exploring themes of colonization and sexuality in his work. Each institution offeredsignage in an Indigenous language: Inuktitut and Cree, respectively. Reflecting on how these exhibitions used these languages has led us to write this review article, in which we draw
on recent scholarship addressing questions of language in museum spaces (Lazzeretti, 2016; Sönmez et al., 2020).

T H E E X H I BI T IONS
Ashoona's work was displayed in a VAG exhibition titledShuvinai Ashoona: Mapping Worlds. Upon entering, visitors
were immediately faced with a large wall of text introducing
the exhibit (Figure 1). The text on the left was in Inuktitut,written in syllabics, while on the right, the text was rendered
in English. Ashoona's work covers a diversity of subject matter, ranging from landscapes, such as scenes of boats in abay, and depictions of everyday people, including portraits124|© 2023 American Anthropological Association.

of individuals, often wearing parkas, to iconographic work,
such as her 2016 drawing Composition (Red Headed Octopus)(Vancouver Art Gallery, 2020b). While descriptive plaques
beside each work provided information in both Inuktitut
and English, audio guides were available in English only
(Vancouver Art Gallery, 2020a).
Monkman's work was displayed at MOA in a touring exhibition titled Shame and Prejudice: A Story of Resilience. Theexhibition recounts Canadian history, framed through an
Indigenous, two-­spirit lens. Multimedia works depict scenesof exchanges between Indigenous people and settlers, with
Monkman's alter ego—­Miss Chief Eagle Testickle—­appearing
as a recurring figure. The exhibition is divided into chapters,
each of which is introduced by large-­format introductory text,
in Cree (syllabics), English, and French; an example is shownin Figure 2. Descriptive plaques are provided alongside eachwork in the same three languages. The exhibition's accompanying booklet includes a foreword by Monkman, as well astext from each chapter as shown in the exhibition itself and anacknowledgments section. The booklet is bilingual, with theCree preceding the English text and no French translation.
We find it noteworthy that these two recent exhibitions
incorporate Indigenous languages into both the display texts
and the exhibitions themselves, albeit in quite distinct ways.
Museum spaces can be productive sites of language revitalization and reclamation, and to this end, we examine language
use in museum spaces through comparative and theoreticallenses.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/muan

Museum Anthropology. 2023;46:124–128.

   

| 125

F I G U R E 1 Bilingual Inuktitut and English text introducing Shuvinai Ashoona's exhibition at the Vancouver Art Gallery. Source: Photo by Julia Schillo,
August 26, 2020.

R E CE N T SCHOL A R SH I P ON M USEU MS
A N D L A NGUAGEIn Museums of Language and the Display of Intangible CulturalHeritage, Margaret Sönmez et al. (2020) bring together a seriesof papers that document language museums in different countries. These museums represent many languages and, indeed,varying approaches to representing and talking about language itself. Sönmez et al. note that “the interest in exhibiting
languages and the establishment of language museums is verymuch a phenomenon of the late twentieth and early twenty-­
first centuries, as is the recognition of intangible cultural heritage” (17). The book's introductory chapter describes the rolethat language plays in intangible cultural heritage (Eaton andTurin, 2022) and discusses various ways that language museums can contribute to heritage preservation. Sönmez et al.
warn that while language is an integral component of cultural
heritage, it is also at great risk from globalization and linguistic
imperialism.
Each chapter is written by a language museum representative who offers a description of their museum, its exhibits, history, mission, and goals. Many authors also outline their futureplans, alongside challenges and successes. Additionally, mostchapters address the different stakeholders involved in a language museum, including the institution's primary audience,as well as any visitor feedback that has been gathered.

While some of the museums covered in this collection arefocused principally on describing aspects of language structure and linguistic topics, others highlight linguistic diversity
within a geographic region. The goals of such museums areoften more explicitly political. For example, a stated goal of theCanadian Language Museum in Ontario is to “facilitate dialogue on fundamental language issues that are at the heart of
the future of Canadian society, such as bilingualism, multilingualism, language endangerment, preservation, and revitalisation” (Sönmez et al., 2020, 134). Other museums showcase thediversity of written language and orthographic systems anduse historical documents and artifacts to identify and explore
links to the past.
Museums of Language and the Display of Intangible Cultural
Heritage offers a broad overview of the many kinds of language
museums that exist around the world, showcasing their diversity as well as their commonalities. This is a very readable volume, with a wide range of topics that will be of interest to manyreaders. In terms of organization, however, a reader looking
to compare approaches to representing language in museum
spaces might appreciate a more consistent approach across allchapters. As it is, each chapter presents information in its own
order and format, making it harder for the reader to tease out
common threads across and between chapters. The volume
editors' introduction and afterword are nonetheless helpful insummarizing the central themes of the collection.

15481379, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/muan.12274 by University Of British Columbia, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE USE IN MUSEUM SPACES

|   INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE USE IN MUSEUM SPACESF I G U R E 2 Trilingual Cree, English, and French text introducing chapter 9 of Kent Monkman's touring exhibition at the Museum of Anthropology,
Vancouver. Source: Photo by Julia Schillo, August 27, 2020.

In The Language of Museum Communication: A Diachronic
Perspective, Cecilia Lazzeretti (2016) investigates how museums' written communication has evolved since 1950. Using
formal linguistic analysis on a corpus of museum press releases, Lazzaretti determines how the lexical choices andstructure of these documents have evolved over time, particularly with the evolution from primarily print to mostly digitalcommunication.
Lazzeretti views museum communication “as a combination of different, yet overlapping discourse types” (2), namely
art discourse, promotional discourse, and media discourse.
The author describes the lexical changes in museum press releases over time, showing how
the increase of the words culture and cultural, bothstrictly related to the content featured by exhibitions, suggests an intention to provide visitors withan in-­depth exploration of an artist's work or artistic subject that embraces all of the relevant contextand adds great educational value to the visit. (127)In conclusion, Lazzeretti considers whether the genre of museum
press releases will survive the transition to new digital mediumsof communication. She ultimately argues, based on her findings,“that museum press releases are likely to live on for some time,as they have proved themselves able not only to survive the introduction of new media, but also to coexist side by side with them”(221).
The Language of Museum Communication is a comprehensive
study, offering rich analysis of museum communication whileat the same time remaining very approachable. Since the bookcovers a niche topic, it may not have wide appeal to a broader
audience, but within the field of museum and heritage studies,
it is certainly a valuable contribution about a particular aspect ofmuseum practice.

L A NGUAGE A S BOT H SY M BOL A N D
M ET HOD OF C OM M U N IC AT ION
Rodrigue Landry and Richard Bourhis outline how a linguistic landscape can serve either an informational or symbolic function (1997, 25). A language has an informational
function when, for example, it serves as a marker of the geographical territory of a given language community or it is
the primary means of communication. Symbolic function
is “most likely to be salient in settings where language has
emerged as the most important dimension of ethnic identity” (27). A particularly potent site of symbolic language use
is public signage (28).

15481379, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/muan.12274 by University Of British Columbia, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

126

Using such a theoretical lens helps to differentiate between
language use for communicative and symbolic purposes.
Lazzeretti describes language use in museum contexts thatis entirely communicative, or informational. By contrast, thevarious museums described in Sönmez et al. blur the line. In
those museums, language often serves a symbolic purpose:
museums such as the Canadian Language Museum host exhibitions whose explicit purpose is to draw attention to minority and Indigenous languages spoken in Canada and theirplace in the linguistic landscape—­but, at the same time, thelanguages they use for communicative purposes are mostcommonly dominant national languages, such as English andFrench (Gold and Turin, 2021). In other museums, such as theLithuanian Hearth Language Museum, the national language
serves as both the subject of the museum and as the metalanguage used in exhibits to discuss the very role of language
itself. In this case, Lithuanian has both symbolic and communicative functions.
In light of this discussion, how might we best characterize Inuktitut and Cree, as represented and used in the two
Vancouver exhibitions discussed above? Unlike in the museums documented in Sönmez et al.'s volume, neither Indigenous
language was the subject of the associated exhibition. At thesame time, neither was a primary communicative language
for most exhibition audiences: both Inuktitut and Cree are endangered, and their speech communities are far removed from
Vancouver, the exhibition site. Yet we can characterize the useof Inuktitut and Cree in these exhibitions as serving both symbolic goals and communicative purposes.
Appearing in the exhibitions' bi-­and trilingual signage,
Inuktitut and Cree appear, on the surface, to be used for informational and communicative purposes. However, it is unclear
how many visitors have the aptitude or take the time to readthe Inuktitut or Cree syllabics. Given this, the use of these two
Indigenous languages can be seen as having a powerful symbolic and political role, signaling to the exhibition visitor thatthey are entering an Indigenous space shaped (at least in part)by an Indigenous language. This aligns with some of the usesof language described by Lazzeretti, specifically art exhibitions' increasing efforts to present artistic subjects within their| 127

own cultural context. Similarly, Sönmez et al. demonstrate
how some museums attempt to draw links between language
and broader cultural practices and tangible cultural heritage.
In some ways, the Inuktitut and Cree museum signage andplaques documented in this review article are not dissimilar from the street signage becoming more prevalent in settler colonial nations, in which Indigenous place-­names exist
alongside toponyms in the colonial language (Seal, 2018).
On the Vancouver (Point Grey) campus of the University ofBritish Columbia, for example, street names are given in bothhən̓qə̓ min̓əm̓ and English (Figure 3). Even though most viewers may not be conversant in the hən̓qə̓ min̓əm̓ language, thelanguage's visible presence has a symbolic impact, signaling
to pedestrians that might reconsider and more deeply interrogate their perspective on the linguistic landscape in which
they are walking. Likewise, in Kent Monkman's exhibition on
Canadian history from a Cree perspective, the presence of theCree language is critical for audiences to shift their symbolicand referential perspective. Similarly, in Shuvinai Ashoona'sexhibition, Inuktitut provides a powerful framework for audiences to immerse themselves in Kinngait, the geographicalsetting of the exhibition. Even for those visitors who cannot
read the language, the use of Inuktitut nonetheless specificallycontextualizes the space through a Inuit lens.

M USEU MS A S SPACE S FOR
L A NGUAGE R E V I TA L I Z AT ION
A N D R E C L A M AT ION
In helping to create a distinct linguistic space, symbolic language use can align with the goals of language reclamation(Pine and Turin, 2017). In so doing, it also helps to situate
museums as productive spaces for language reclamation, asa dynamic site for symbolic language use. As Bernard Perleyexplains, “Cultural institutions such as museums are also
playing an important role in honoring Indigenous languages.
Exhibitions offered in multiple languages can create experiential spaces where Indigenous worlds can be shared with a wide
variety of visitors” (2022, 8).

F I G U R E 3 Bilingual English and hən̓q ə̓ min̓əm̓ street signs on the University of British Columbia's Vancouver campus. Source: UBC Campus andCommunity Planning (2018).

15481379, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/muan.12274 by University Of British Columbia, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License   INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE USE IN MUSEUM SPACES

|   INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE USE IN MUSEUM SPACESHowever, for museums to truly engage with the goals andethics of language reclamation, signage cannot be restricted
to individual exhibitions. Both MOA's and VAG's permanentcollections house numerous works by well-­k nown Indigenousartists, including from the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam IndianBand), Sḵwx̱w ú7mesh (Squamish Nation), and səlilwətaɬ
(Tsleil-­Waututh Nation), on whose territory Vancouver is situated. To our knowledge, their languages are not currently
consistently incorporated into the plaques and labels displayedwith any of these works.
Additionally, while museums can serve as supportive
sites for language reclamation, they have an opportunity toassume a more active role in language revitalization. They
can do so by supporting Indigenous languages to serve widerpractical and communicative roles for speakers and learners,
alongside important symbolic functions. At the VAG, for example, including Inuktitut audio guides would have helped
to introduce greater dynamic range and practical utility forthe language.

C ONC LUSION
As museums increasingly engage with intangible heritage, wefind it exciting to witness the emergence of museums devoted
to language and to see museums engaging with and representing Indigenous languages in innovative ways. At the VAG exhibition of Ashoona's work and in Monkman's exhibition atMOA, Indigenous languages—­while not the subject—­play acentral role in creating Indigenous spaces. We celebrate thisdevelopment and find it indicative of the positive role thatmuseums can play in language reclamation and revitalization
going forward.
ORC I D
Julia Schillo
Mark Turin

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0560-2564
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2262-0986

R EFER ENCES
Eaton, Jonathan, and Mark Turin. 2022. “Heritage Languages and Language
as Heritage: The Language of Heritage in Canada and Beyond.”
International Journal of Heritage Studies 28 (7): 787–­802. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13527​258.2022.2077805.
Gold, Elaine, and Mark Turin. 2021. “Interview between Elaine Gold andMark Turin.” Book 2.0 11 (1): 125–­37.
Landry, Rodrigue, and Richard Y. Bourhis. 1997. “Linguistic Landscape andEthnolinguistic Vitality: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Language andSocial Psychology 16 (1): 23–­49.
Lazzeretti, Cecilia. 2016. The Language of Museum Communication: A
Diachronic Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Perley, Bernard. 2022. “Working toward Language Justice.” American Indian
23 (2): 8–­9.
Pine, Aidan, and Mark Turin. 2017. “Language Revitalization.” In Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Linguistics, edited by Mark Aronoff. New York: Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref​ore/97801​99384​655.013.8.
Seal, Andrew. 2018. “UBC Adds Musqueam Language to Street Signs onCampus.” The Globe and Mail, April 6, 2018. https://www.thegl​obean​dmail.com/canad​a /educa​t ion/artic​le-­ubc-­adds-­musqu​eam-­langu​a ge-­to-­stree​t-­signs​-­on-­campus.
Sönmez, Margaret J.-­M., Maia Wellington Gahtan, and Nadia Cannata,eds. 2020. Museums of Language and the Display of Intangible CulturalHeritage. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
UBC Campus and Community Planning. 2018. “Musqueam Street Signs
at UBC.” University of British Columbia, April 25, 2018. https://indig​
enous.ubc.ca/2018/04/25/musqu​eam-­stree​t-­signs​-­at-­ubc-­2 .
Vancouver Art Gallery. 2020a. “Shuvinai Ashoona: Mapping Worlds” (audioguides). Accessed May 26, 2022. https://sound​cloud.com/vanar​tgall​ery/sets/shuvi​nai-­ashoo​na-­mapping.
   . 2020b. Shuvinai Ashoona: Mapping Worlds; Final List of Works. Accessed
May 26, 2022. https://vagal​lery.s3.us-­west-­2.amazo​naws.com/wp-­conte​nt/
uploa​ds/2019/11/07155​649/VAG-­Ashoo​na-­Final​-­LOW-­2020.pdf.

How to cite this article: Schillo, Julia and Mark Turin.
2023. “Indigenous Language use in Museum Spaces.”
Museum Anthropology 46(2): 124–128. https://doi.
org/10.1111/muan.12274.

15481379, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/muan.12274 by University Of British Columbia, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License128