The Educational Renaissance: A Deep Dive into Indigenous Language Revitalization Initiatives
A recently emerging subfield of linguistics known as language revitalization is dedicated to reversing the erasure of languages. With an aim of re-instilling interest and undoing assimilative practices, this field focuses intensely on education and cultural awareness. Eliana Steele, a Laidlaw Scholar researcher at Barnard College, discussed with the journal her research on indigenous language revitalization in the United States: its cultural context in transnational perspectives, common educational practices for breathing new life into dormant languages, and the different governmental factors that impact language studies.
“The Wisdom of the Universe,” an indigenous acrylic painting displayed in the Toronto Art Gallery. Image Credit: Christi Belcourt
Steele discussed her focus on indigenous languages in the United States, specifically in the context of cultural norms regarding the construction of indigeneity. Generally, scholars agree that indigeneity “goes beyond just genetics” and race. In a purely anthropological context, Steele remarked that most scholars would define indigeneity as, “less about a single defining factor that makes a group indigenous and more of a mutual agreement that they have a certain shared identity, culture, or experience with other groups.” Yet this definition, though inclusive, has largely failed to advise governmental categorizations of what it might mean to be indigenous in the United States. Steele acknowledges that a disconnect certainly exists between this paradigm of what indigeneity means and the varying ways that indigeneity is viewed in different countries. “In the US, if you’re half Navajo and half white, you’re still separate from the rest of the population. You’re still… a minority” Steele remarks.
In the United States, even being white-passing does not necessarily divorce a partially Native American person from indigenous identity. Steele theorizes that intergenerational trauma is heavily linked to this trend. She points specifically to Indian boarding schools as a source of this trauma. Established throughout the United States, these boarding schools were key in attempts to assimilate indigenous communities– students sent to these live-in schools were given haircuts, European names, and told to “abandon their way of life” – including their native languages.
In August of 2023, The National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition published reports detailing the pervasiveness of these institutions in the United States, the most comprehensive to date. 523 Indian boarding schools were identified, operating from 1801 to the present, and of those 408 received federal funding. Though these schools were not direct government endeavors, Ulysses S. Grant’s 1868 Peace Policy explicitly permitted church sovereignty to build and operate these institutions, and simultaneously force many indigenous communities onto reservations.
Even today, this “cultural deprivation” (as Steele calls it) can be observed in the categorization of certain indigenous communities in the eyes of the government. “Having your identity in the hands of a government agency deciding whether your culture exists,” as Steele puts it, defines many indigenous livelihoods today, and it hinders efforts to preserve language. Steele specifically points to the example of Lushootseed, a “lingua franca often used as a bridge between indigenous languages of the Pacific Northwest”. Efforts to revitalize the language have largely been left up to tribes, who are continually pressing the government to allocate funds for Lushootseed education. In recent years and especially following COVID, staffing issues have been at an all-time high– to the point where preschoolers have to join a waitlist just for the chance to potentially be admitted into Lushootseed language education programs. Though local leaders are pushing for more funding from the state of Washington, the fact that language education is only minimally available even at the most basic level is telling.
A preschool lesson focusing on Lushootseed words and sentence building. Image Credit: Karen Ducey/The Seattle Times
Steele then discussed mechanisms of language education, primarily focusing on language immersion, often deemed the “gold standard” of language education. Immersion generally refers to the implementation of the language being learned as a fixture in the classroom: instead of merely being learned, the language is often used in instruction, and is typically contextualized by education about cultural practices and traditions often practiced by its speakers. Although Steele advocates language immersion education as the best tool for reinforcing learning in children and fostering effective memorization, she also points out that “immersion can work for Navajo and bigger indigenous languages… but it would be difficult for many languages to have any type of immersion program.” As described in her research, immersion has an “extremely high cost” and requires significant demand– and it also requires fluent adults willing to teach. And when speakers of a language are spread thinly or not on a reservation– and especially if very few speakers are still alive– implementing these education techniques from the get-go is difficult.
While many have pointed out the utilization of AI and alternative virtual learning methods as a potential solution for this, and countries like South Korea have even implemented virtual metaverses with a goal of language learning, these practices have never been implemented for non-majority indigenous languages by the U.S. government. Furthermore, Steele points out that despite the current popularity of these programs, “Duolingo’s not going to bring your language back… an important component to indigenous language education is having an in-person classroom and having traditional social bonds. We’re not at a point right now where students can have that level of camaraderie over the internet.”
This does not even take into account the fact that 18 percent of indigenous persons in the United States lack internet access. Indeed, it seems an in-person classroom experience with an intersection of cultural knowledge and language education appears to be the most effective from a pedagogical perspective. For example, when Kenyan pastoralist schools implemented a cultural framework in mother-tongue instruction, which often involved directly converting the stories of community members into written works for educational purposes, student achievement increased. Through collaboration with local indigenous leaders, educational programs implementing indigenous teachings and actively involving indigenous practices such as storytelling in the curriculum were constructed. These required a uniquely in-person environment: the ability to collaboratively craft storybooks, synchronously read them out and share, and easily interact with other students in mother tongues wouldn’t be able to be as effectively facilitated online. Other studies detailing similar programs in the Navajo nation reinforce this idea.
Steele also points out that “the defining factor as to why a language is taught in immersion programs or not is just politics.” If a populace is politically united in revitalizing language or if a government has “a specific reason to benefit” from utilizing these practices, then implementation is more likely to occur. Steele elaborates, “For example, Irish Gaelic has a stronger speaker base now than it did a few decades ago. The reason it has government support is because of what happened in the 1990s.” Irish immersion schools skyrocketed during this time, largely inspired by nationalistic sentiments prevalent in Ireland. Nationalism is not the only way to push for further revitalization efforts, however, as Steele remarks, “One of the strongest indigenous languages in the U.S. is Hawaiian… It helps that there is a unified indigenous Hawaiian identity, when it comes to revitalization.” Statehood for Hawaii legitimated concerns about language revitalization, and due to the relative cultural unity around language found on the islands, strong efforts to revitalize have been implemented, including establishing Hawaiian as the official language and contracting direct support for education from the United States government.
Inspiring political will and normalizing indigenous language education is not a “far-fetched” reality, Steele argues, and there may be a unique benefit in capitalizing on the continued emergence of ethnic studies classes in schools. In regards to this, Steele explains, “Conversations about race and ethnicity are non-stop in America… the more we talk about the environment from a young age, the more we can be comfortable in our society. Ethnic studies has an amazing potential to improve the lives of students.” Steele recognizes that although controversial, many states such as California have been implementing ethnic studies as a high school graduation requirement, and issues related to funding and implementation may be able to be in part resolved by “tying” indigenous language education to ethnic studies and including its practices within certain curricula, especially focusing on areas where revitalization could be determined to have the most targeted success. Although it seems that the advancement of language revitalization efforts for indigenous communities may prove a long-winded battle, Steele remains optimistic that this is a winnable battle– and at the very least, something worth fighting for.
Interview Credit: Eliana Steele
