Language 'revitalisation'

[Greg Dickson]

I'm not sure how this has turned from a discussion of the value of  
online petitions to questioning the value of endangered language  
programs but i can't resist from chucking in my 'yirrwarrini gudaru'.

I think Margaret's assessment shows a touch of naivety as well as  
pessimism.  I don't think anyone would believe that a language  
program delivering one lesson per week to students could produce  
fluent speakers.  Essentially, the goal would be to 'teach language',  
not produce speakers.  The point of contention is to determine *how  
much* language should be taught.  In the Northern Territory, the  
"Indigenous Language and Culture - Language Revitalisation" section  
of the NT Curriculum Framework provides a good guide and benchmarks  
to aim for.

Having said that, the language revitalisation program Margaret is  
referring to did have a track record of positive direct and indirect  
outcomes.  Having had direct experience with this community since  
2004, I can say that direct outcomes were evident:
- increased awareness by all students of their linguistic heritage  
(the community has at least 7 heritage languages, all significantly  
endangered.  The language program heightened students' awareness of  
the languages of their region and their familial affiliations)
- increased comprehension and speaking skills: on several occasions a  
majority of students were tested for acquisition of oral and aural  
skills pertaining to keywords and phrases taught during the half hour  
lessons.  Testing results showed a significant number of students  
understood and recalled a majority of content words - words that were  
out of common use in the community and student's vernacular.   
Anecdotally, parents regularly reported children recalling language  
words and singing songs in language at home - language that the  
parental generation had often not acquired due to the level of  
endangerment of the languages.
- increased literacy skills and awareness of traditional language  
literacy.  All upper primary/secondary students participated in  
reading and literacy activities, consolidating the oral/aural  
components of the language lessons.

Aside from the direct benefits, the indirect benefits of implementing  
such programs are arguably of greater significance including:
- provision of casual employment for Indigenous community members  
(including elders) working on the language program
- provision of training for Indigenous community members working on  
the language program - both informal/on-the-job training and formal  
tertiary education through RTOs.
- development of teaching resources (which included readers,  
flashcards, wordcards, computer games, audio recordings) for teaching  
endangered languages
- increased participation by elders and Indigenous community members  
in the local government school
- improved language skills/fluency by non-fluent language teachers  
assisting with the program
- PD and networking opportunities for language teachers which  
included attending workshops in neighbouring communities and the ILC  
conference in Adelaide in 2007.
- greater awareness of features of local languages and cultures by  
non-Indigenous schools staff

I would agree that the outcomes of some endangered language  
activities/programs are overstated, but in the instance Margaret  
refers to, there is strong evidence that it was effective, perhaps  
only modestly so, but nonetheless effective.  Given that many others  
also felt positively towards the program, I think that pessimism is  
at play in assessing such a program negatively.  Perhaps there is  
another factor at play for those with 3-4 decades experiences in that  
they remember times past when these endangered languages were  
healthier and perhaps are inclined to see the cup as half empty when  
looking at the state of the same languages today, rather than  
acknowledging the contemporary achievements of language  
revitalisation activities.

Cheers,
Greg Dickson


On 02/04/2009, at 1:13 PM, Margaret C Sharpe wrote:

> Hi Piers and all, I won't give any judgement on online petitions,  
> but you make a point about them being so easy and conscience- 
> appeasing!
>
> But I'd endorse your other concerns about language endangerment  
> issues and whether action on some of these are not doing what they  
> are claimed to/wanted to/supposed to do.
>
> I was linguist at one community for some 7 months last year, and  
> felt what we were doing was not very effective and in some cases  
> counter-productive:  classes of young school pupils found the  
> lessons fun, but the middle and high school pupils were, in some  
> cases, bored, or not challenged enough, or disruptive in class.  I  
> have to add that one of the language teachers has been happy with  
> what has been done in the past, and that the language teachers have  
> learnt how to spell and write down their own languages.  But the  
> very small time allowed in school for traditional language (30  
> minutes per week per age group) was clearly not producing speakers  
> of the language, or even thorough recall of the words taught. in  
> many cases.
>
> I'm either the pessimist or the realist on this issue.  But others,  
> who like me, have been nibbling at this issue for 3-4 decades tend  
> to agree with my pessimism on language revitalisation.
>
> Margaret Sharpe
>