Advertisement

Language Endangerment: Diversity and Specificities of Native American Languages of Oklahoma

  • Emmanuelle S. ChioccaEmail author
Reference work entry

Abstract

Native American languages have faced more than half a millennium of decline, and efforts at revitalization and revival have drawn the attention of scholars, community leaders, and policymakers from around the country and world. With one of the highest numbers of federally recognized Native American tribes, a large number of Native American languages, and one of the highest proportions of Native American language speakers, Oklahoma presents a perfect case study for examining the causes and effects of Native American language decline as well as the successes and limitations of revitalization programs. Drawing on Fishman’s Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale, and discussing the theory of language ideology, this article argues that for many Oklahoma tribes, the goals of language remediation may be starkly different from what non-native linguists and anthropologists prescribe for them. Though this study finds some examples of relative growth and success in Native American language revitalization and a shift in the language policies of the state of Oklahoma, it ultimately rests with each Native American community to decide for itself what constitutes success given its contextual and demographic limitations.

Keywords

Native American languages Language endangerment Language revitalization Language ideologies Language policies Oklahoma 

References

  1. Aguilera, D., & LeCompte, M. D. (2007). Resiliency in native languages: The tale of three indigenous communities’ successful experiences with language immersion [Special Issue]. Journal of American Indian Education, 46(3), 11–37.Google Scholar
  2. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, L. (1997). American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cherokee Nation. (2014). Available at http://www.cherokee.org/Services/Education/ImmersionSchool.aspx. Accessed 8 Sept 2016.
  5. Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  6. Fishman, J. A. (Ed.). (2001). Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language shift, revisited: A 21st century perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  7. FNX (First Nations Experience Television). (2011). Available at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/09/27/fnx-native-television-channel-launches-55806. Accessed 19 Aug 2016.
  8. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  9. Greymorning, S. (1999). Running the gauntlet of an indigenous language program. In J. Reyhner, G. Cantoni, R. N. St. Clair, & E. P. Yazzie (Eds.), Revitalizing indigenous languages (pp. 6–16). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
  10. Hinton, L. (1997). Survival of endangered languages: The California master-apprentice program. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 123, 177–191.Google Scholar
  11. Hinton, L. (2001a). Language revitalization: An overview. In L. Hinton & K. Hale (Eds.), The green book of language revitalization in practice (pp. 3–18). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hinton, L. (2001b). The master-apprentice language learning program. In L. Hinton & K. Hale (Eds.), The green book of language revitalization in practice (pp. 217–226). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hinton, L. (2008). Learning and teaching endangered indigenous languages. In N. Hornberger & N. van Deusen-Scholl (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 4. Second and foreign language education (pp. 157–168). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Hinton, L. (2010). Language revitalization in North America and the new direction of linguistics. Transforming Anthropology, 18(1), 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hinton, L. (2011). Language revitalization and language pedagogy: New teaching and learning strategies. Language and Education, 25(4), 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hinton, L., Vera, M., & Steele, N. (2002). How to keep your language alive: A commonsense approach to one-on-one language learning. Berkeley: Heyday Books.Google Scholar
  17. Johnston, B., & Johnston, K. (2002). Preschool immersion education for indigenous languages: A survey of resources. A Canadian Journal of Native Education, 26(2), 107. Ethnic News Watch.Google Scholar
  18. Kickham, E. (2015). Purism, prescriptivism, and privilege: Choctaw language ideologies and their impact on teaching and learning. Dissertation, University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
  19. Krauss, M. (1998). The condition of native North American languages: The need for realistic assessment and action. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 132, 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kroskrity, P., & Field, M. C. (2009). Native American language ideologies: Beliefs, practices, and struggles in Indian country. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  21. May, S. (1999). Language and education rights for indigenous peoples. In S. May (Ed.), Indigenous community-based education (pp. 42–66). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  22. Morgan, J. (2011). Background and motivation of students studying a native American language at the university level. In Working papers in literacy, culture, and language education (Vol. 1, pp. 27–49). Available at http://www.academia.edu/2614804/Background_and_Motivation_of_Students_Studying_a_Native_American_Language. Accessed 19 Aug 2016.
  23. NALA (Native American Languages Act). (1990). (NAL, P.L. 101-477, October 30, 1990).Google Scholar
  24. NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures). Available at http://www.ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx. Accessed 10 Feb 2016.
  25. Oklahoma Historical Society. Available at http://www.okhistory.org/research/aicp. Accessed 16 July 2015.
  26. Oklahoma State Department of Education. (2015). Oklahoma Standards for world languages. Available at http://sde.ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/2015%20World%20Languages%20Standards.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2016.
  27. Oklahoma State Department of Education. http://sde.ok.gov/sde/indian-education. Accessed 10 Feb 2016.
  28. Peacock, T., & Day, D. (1999). Teaching American Indian and Alaska native languages in the schools: What has been learned. Eric Digest. ED438155.Google Scholar
  29. Peter, L. (2007). “Our beloved Cherokee”: A naturalistic study of Cherokee preschool language immersion. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 38(4), 323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peter, L., et al. (2003). Assessing the impact of total immersion on Cherokee language revitalization: A culturally responsive, participatory approach. In J. Reyhner, O. V. Trujillo, R. L. Carrasco, & L. Lockard (Eds.), Nurturing native languages (pp. 7–23). Flagstaff: Center for Excellence in Education, Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
  31. Pratt, R. (1964). Battlefield and classroom: Four decades with the American Indian, 1867–1904. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  32. Reyhner, J., & Lockard, L. (Eds.). (2009). Indigenous language revitalization: Encouragement, guidance & lessons learned. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
  33. Reyhner, J. A., & Oyawin Eder, J. M. (2004). American Indian education: A history. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  34. Shaul, D. L. (2014). Languages and language loss. In Linguistic ideologies of Native American language revitalization (pp. 1–9). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spolsky, B. (1995). Conditions for language revitalization: A comparison of the cases of Hebrew and Maori. Current Issues in Language and Society, 2(3), 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tsunoda, T. (2005). Language endangerment and language revitalization: An introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2010). Native North American Languages spoken at home in the United States and Puerto Rico: 2006–2010. Retrieved on 12 Feb 2016, from http://www.census.gov/library/publications/2011/acs/acsbr10-10.html
  38. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2012). The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010. Retrieved 12 Feb 2016, from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf
  39. UNESCO. Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages. (2003). http://www.unesco.org/languages-atlas/index.php
  40. Warhol, L. (2012). Creating official language policy from local practice: The example of the Native American Languages Act 1990/1992. Language Policy, 11, 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wurm, S. (1991). Language death and disappearance: Causes and circumstances. Diogenes, 39(153), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wyman, L. T. (2009). Youth, linguistic ecology, and language endangerment: A Yup'ik example. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 8(5), 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum, Jeannine Rainbolt College of EducationUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations