May 50, 2002
Page 9
THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES LANGUAGE LESSON-
Spilyay Tymoo, Warm Springs, Oregon
Stabilizing Indigenous Languages:
When You Lose Your Language
G. Cantoni (Ed.)
(1996), Stabilizing Indigenous Languages
Flagstaff: Center for Excellence in Education, Northern
Arizona University
http:wvvw.ncbe.edumiscpubsstabilizeiii-familieslQSe.htm
What Do You Lose When You Lose Your Lan
guage? Joshua Fishman
The first paper that I wrote in 1 948 on
native languages had to do with what is the im
pact of bilingualism on students. There were still
parents then who were concerned that if their
children learned another language it would ruin
their English accent. If you would hear the tones
of another languages every time they spoke
English, how would they get a job and what would
people think of them? Today, forty-five years
later, we are still not "home" at convincing public
opinion and the authorities that it is worth having
all the languages we have today. Therefore, I want
to start with this question, "What is lost when a
language is lost?" It is amazing how people are
uncomfortable about answering that question. I
remember my mother always telling me, "When
you start off a talk, make sure people know what
the question is and ask a good question. A good
question is worth everything." And I would say to
her, "Ma, you know, Americans, they start off a
conference with a joke. You have to tell a joke for
people to know that you're about to speak?" She
said, Jokes? Ask a good question" That is an old
Jewish tradition, if you have a good question, you
have something worthwhile to worry about.
Attitudes toward language-loss depend on
your perspective. When a language is lost, you
might look at that from the perspective of the
individual. Many individuals suppressed their lan
guage and paid the price for it in one way or
another that remaining, fumbling insecurity
when you are not quite sure whether you have the
metaphor right in the expression that you are
going to use and you know the one that comes to
mind is not from the language that you are speak
ing at the moment. So, there is an individual price,,
in every sense.
You can also speak from the point of view
of the culture lost. The culture has lost its lan
guage. What is lost when the culture is so dislo
cated that it loses the language which is tradition
ally associated with it? That is a serious issue for
Native Americans. We can ask it from the national
point of view. What is lost by the country when
the country loses its languages? We have had this
very haphazard linguistic book-keeping where you
pretend nothing is lost except the language. It
is just a little language. But, after all, a country is
just the sum of all of its creative potential. What
does the country lose when it loses individuals
who are comfortable with themselves, cultures
that are authentic to themselves, the capacity to
pursue sensitivity, wisdom, and some kind of
recognition that one has a purpose in life? What is
lost to a country that encourages people to lose
their direction in life?
Today, I would like to just talk about lan
guage loss from only one of these perspectives,
the perspective of the culture. Because losing
your language is, technically, an issue in the rela
tionship between language and culture. What is
the relationship between language and culture? Is
it like the relationship of my handkerchief and my
trousers: you can take it out and throw it away
and put another handkerchief in? Or is there some
kind of more substantive relationship between a
language and culture? Even there, there are vari
ous perspectives. There is an "outsider," often
disciplinary, perspective as we anthropologists and
linguists sit and think about it. When we consider
the relationship between language and culture, it
occurs to us as outsiders, not being members of
those cultures, what the relationship might be and
then we try to gather insightful comments, even
from the outside. There is a kind of lexical or, I
would say, an indexical relationship between lan
guage and culture. A language long associated
with the culture is best able to express most
easily, most exactly, most richly, with more appro
priate over-tones, the concerns, artifacts, values,
and interests of that culture. That is an important
characteristic of the relationship between lan
guage and culture, the indexical relationship.
It is not a perfect relationship. Every lan
guage grows; every culture changes. Some words
hang on after they are no longer culturally active.
Memorial Day
"Little Miss Muffet sat on a tuffet eating her
curds and whey." Well, who knows what a tuffet
is any more, and you can not find anybody who
knows what curds and whey are any more without
doing research. Those are frozen traces. Even if
there is often a good relationship between the
words of the language and the concerns of the
culture, there are more important relationships
between language and culture than the indexical
one.
The most important relationship between
language and culture that gets to the heart of
what is lost when you lose a language is that
most of the culture is in the language and is ex
pressed in the language. Take it away from the
culture, and you take away its greetings, its
curses, its praises, its laws, its literature, its
songs, its riddles, its proverbs, its cures, its wis
dom, its prayers. The culture could not be ex
pressed and handed on in any other way. What
would be left? When you are talking about the
language, most of what you are talking about is
the culture. That is, you are losing all those things
that essentially are the way of life, the way of
thought, the way of valuing, and the human reality
that you are talking about.
There is another deep relationship between
language and culture, the symbolic relationship.
That is, the language stands for that whole cul
ture. It represents it in the minds of the speakers
and the minds of outsiders. It just stands for it
and sums it up for them the whole economy,
religion, health care system,
philosophy, all of that together is represented by
the language. And, therefore, any time when we
are at outs with some other culture, we begin to
say snide things about the language. "Oh, it
sounds so harsh. And it sounds so cruel" because
we think its speakers are cruel or it sounds so
poor or it sounds so primitive because we think
they are primitive. The language symbolizes for us
the whole relationship.
Actually I do not care much for this presen
tation of the outside view that I have made to
you. It is a highly intellectualized abstraction. Jf
you talk to people about what the language means
to them, if you talk to members of the culture,
they do not mention indexicality. They do not say
anything about its symbolism for the whole ball of
wax. They talk in totally different terms. And this
tells you what they think they lose. They tell you
some things about the sanctity of the language.
Sanctity is not a little thing to throw around. At
least, I have never felt so. Now sometimes you do
not exactly mean holy holy, holy, holy. But
. nevertheless, when people tell you that there is a
cultural view of how that language came about,
that it came to be when the earth was created,
when the worlds were created, when heaven and
earth was created, when humanity was created,
they are giving you what you might think of as a
myth, but the importance of it is beyond its truth
value. That is actually the definition of a myth
something that is so important that you hold on
to it because it has an importance beyond its
truth. They may have the view that it was created
before the creation of the world, as white fire or
black fire. Every time the Lord spoke out, it came
out as white fire or black fire in their own
ethnocultural letters. That may sound ridiculous to
you, but it is a sense of sanctity. People tell you
things like that; ordinary people in ordinary Native
American groups will tell you things like that. They
will tell you things that have to do with the great
Creator. They will tell you about the morality that
is in the language. Morality is, after all, just sanc
tity in operation. The things you have to do to be
good, to be a member in good standing, to meet
your commitments to the creator. Some lan
guages that are holy in themselves, and other
languages have brought holy thoughts and holy
dictums and holy commandments. People tell you
metaphors of holiness. This is the most common
thing, the most common expression of holiness
that people tell you about their language. And
that means they are going to lose the metaphor
about the language being the soul of the people
The language being the mind of the people. The
language being the spirit of the people. Those are
just metaphors, but they are not innocent meta
phors. There is something deeply holy implied,
thereby, and that is what would be lost. That
sense of a holy, a component of holiness that
pervades people's life the way the culture per
vades their life, through the language.
!
"1
1
il7 -- I
pro
Taken at the Wish-Xum Cemetery. Spearfish, WA.
Part of June in North American Indian
History
by Phil Konstantin
Copyright Phil Konstantin (1996-2002)
http:www.americanindian.netJune.html
June 1st
1 868: After the "long walk" to the Bosque
Redondo Reservation in New Mexico, the NAVAJOs
suffered from the poor conditions on the reserva
tion, and from homesickness for their old lands.
After numerous visits from Washington represen
tatives, General Sherman visited the NAVAJO.
They again asked to go back to their old lands.
They promised the keep the peace and the old
treaties. Sherman talked with them, and he lis
tened to them. With a new treaty in hand,
Sherman says he will let them go, if they sign, and
obey, the new treaty. The NAVAJOs agree, even
though they will lose some of their land as a part
of the new agreement. On this date, Barboncito,
Armijo, Delgadito, Herrero Grande, Manuelito, and
others sign the new treaty.
1 934: A legal definition of "Indian" is made
today.
June 2nd
1 788: Today, forces under General John Sevier,
will attack the CHEROKEE village of Hiwassee. The
American forces will be victorious, with many of
the CHEROKEEs fleeing the area. The village will be
burned. 4
1 924: Indians become U.S. citizens today.
June 3rd
1 539: Having been in Florida for only a few
days, today, Hernando de Soto formally claims
Florida for the King of Spain.
1 833: Today, Secretary of War Lewis Cass gives
orders directly to the United States Marshal's
office to remove white settlers, and trespassers,
from CREEK lands in Alabama.
June 4th
1 647: Chief Canonicus, Chief of the
NARRAGANSETSs when the Pilgrims landed at
Plymouth Rock, dies today. He is approximately 88
years old.
1 871 : General George Crook takes command of
the Department of Arizona, today. He believes the
Indians should be treated fairly, but kept under
control.
June 5th
1 728: Today, DELAWARE Chief Sassoonan will
address the Pennsylvania Provincial Council. He will
complain of German immigrants settling on Indian
lands in Tulpehocken valley. The complaint would
not be resolved until 1 732, when the lands were
purchased from the Indians with trading goods.
1 866: This day will start the formal treaty
conference at Fort Laramie in southeastern Wyo
ming. Leaders from many tribes and bands will be
present. The purpose of the treaty will be to allow
passageway for trails, roads, and railroad lines
across indian lands. The meeting will be postponed
for almost a week, at Red Cloud's request, to
allow for the arrival of additional Indians.
June 6th
1 885: Sitting Bull signs contract today to work
in Buffalo Bill"s Wild West Show.
1 868: On this date, Captain D.Monahan, and
troops from Troops G and I, 3rd Cavalry, leave
Fort Sumner, in western New Mexico. The troops
are chasing a group of NAVAJO Indians, who have
been accused of killing 4 settlers about 1 2 miles
from the fort. After following their trail for 1 00
miles, the army surprises the NAVAJOs, who are in
a ravine. The Army reports killing 3 Indians, and
wounding 1 1 ; the rest escape. No soldiers are
killed.