Language and Cultural Construction in the Post-Soviet States at the Beginning of the XXI Century
(英文) 42nd Annual Symposium on the American Indian; Revitalizing Endangered Languages Conference (RELC-2014)
發表題 目
(中文) 西伯利亞的游牧及泰加林學校:逃避現實還是消除種族差別 待遇?
(英文) Nomadic and Taiga Schools in Siberia – Escapism or Integration?
一、參加會議經過
Researchers from the USA, Canada and Taiwan took part in 42nd Annual Symposium on the American Indian and RELC-2014. The particular interest for our project was caused with reports presented by Dr Hinton (University of California at Berkeley and Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival, U.S.A.)
“Making Sure the New Generation of Speakers is Not the Next Last Generation”; Dr Kirk and Dr Montgomery-Anderson (Northeastern State University, U.S.A.) and Peter Wilson (Nepean High School, Canada). The Program of RELC – 2014 is attached to this report.
二、與會心得
The main goal of my trip was not only to present the paper and to participate in symposium and conference work, but also to collect the information on the real situation in the sphere of modern language planning in the U.S.A. and to get acquaintance to a real experience in this sphere. It was necessary for me in order to compare the principal rules of the modern US and Russian language planning and to reveal those tendencies, that will be useful | useless for the language construction in R.O.C.
In public consciousness thanks to TOEFL for immigrant workers there is a myth about language unity of the U.S.A. But language unity never existed and doesn’t exist. First, in XIX c., the American state pursued a pragmatic policy concerning immigrant languages as it needed support of all immigrant population. Bilingual training was typical for that historical period. There were Dutch, German, Swedish, etc. schools, and the U.S.A. have been created as a republic with the united political base and the united political principles, therefore, the ethnic and language problems were unimportant for this republic. The question of language
began to be considered later. The basic language laws adopted in the XX c. included “The right for bilingual education” and “The Right for equal opportunities concerning education”.
In comparison with immigrants, the indigenous peoples of the U.S.A. found themselves in extremely vulnerable situation in XIX-XX cc. First of all we should note that – as well as in the Russian Empire – the language policy among indigenous peoples of the U.S.A. was guided in the XIX c. by missionary workers, but the ethnic segregation in the U.S.A. was much stronger, than in Russia. As the result, the majority of Indian language speakers at RELC-2014 (representatives of American natives) have used the word “genocide”
addressing to the inner policy of former and modern US authorities.
Historical offenses of Indians are still alive in spite of the fact that for our days the number of indigenous communities (not – languages!) increased. The English language was compared at RELC-2014 to “fast food”:
the huge money from the federal budge is spend for its advertizing and at the same time the state gives a very small financial support to promotion of indigenous languages and cultures. As a result, the Indians consider their ethnic identity to be connected with their maternal languages only “theoretically”. All American native languages are in danger, it means they quickly disappear. In practice the English which is carrying out the role of “social elevator” everywhere dominates: the Indians who speak English have much more opportunities for integration into modern economic life.
The results of my interview to colleagues from different universities (University of California at Berkeley, Northeastern State University, University of Texas at Arlington, University of Oklahoma that are considered to be the main centers of studying of a language situation among indigenous peoples in the U.S.A.) permit to come to the conclusion that all North American Indian languages are the subjects for school and university studying as nonnative languages, but not the languages of teaching. In this regard the language situation in Russia is much better: in this country 25 languages of ethnic minorities are the languages of teaching at the higher schools. All school and university teachers of American indigenous languages who took part at RELC-2014 have assured me that there is no any centralized language planning concerning indigenous people in the U.S.A. In every state the situation is individual.
My interview to students of Northeast State University (young Indian language speakers) has permitted me to find out that their native idioms have a very low social prestige. Some of students even have a feeling of a shame to use their native language outside their families, and because of this nobody uses a mother tongue in Internet. Indian languages practically aren't presented as the Internet communication idioms, though there are special programs for them (it became clear from the talk with R. Boney who presented a report “From Talking Leaves to Pixels: the Development of the Cherokee Syllabary”). The Cherokee students who are learning their native (Cherokee) idiom at the university and who, according to their words, deeply like their native culture – these students prefer to read only the English-translated parts in the unique Cherokee-language newspaper (this newspaper prints a parallel translation of articles). None of my respondents (American colleagues or students) didn't hear about existence of TV channels in languages of indigenous people of the U.S.A.
The absence of the centralized language planning in the U.S.A. leads to the situation when a very important role in language preservation and revitalization is played by enthusiasts. These rare people find a financial support for their educational projects in various charity and public foundations. It doesn’t mean that Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Office of Indian Education (OIE) at US Department of Education do nothing. It means that they don’t do enough. Till our days BIA is an agency of the federal government within the Department of the Interior (see, f. ex., its budget justifications in 2012:
http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc013161.pdf ). I was told that BIA doesn’t pay attention for the system native language planning as well as OIE. However OIE grants conferences, individual and collective projects, etc. The style of its work becomes to be clear, f. ex., from:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oie/nacie061713.pdf .
In such conditions only home schooling of maternal tongues is able to improve the American native language situation. The reports of representatives of indigenous peoples (Renee and Richard Grounds, Charlotte Wolf, Angelina Dayton) were devoted to this subject. One more solution is a work of the rare professional teachers with pupils in small groups (it was described in the reports presented by Katheryn Grant, Joshua Hinson and – on the example of nomadic and taiga schools of Siberian indigenous peoples – in my report that provoked the great interest to many RELC participants). In some reports the technique of endangered languages teaching was emphasized (Christine McClour). The report on multidimensional teaching the Cherokee language at the Northeastern State University was presented by organizers of RELC-2014 – Dr Kirk &. Dr Montgomery-Anderson (Cherokee &. Indigenous Studies Dept., N.S.U.). The students who have been graduated from the Cherokee &. Indigenous Studies Dept. are able to work as educators of the Cherokee language.
In my opinion, the modern state language planning among indigenous peoples in the Russian Federation brings more positive results. Especially such forms of teaching as nomadic and taiga schools.
三、發表論文全文或摘要
Nomadic and Taiga Schools in Siberia – Escapism or Integration?
The paper is devoted to the analysis of activity of the nomadic and taiga schools created for children of the Siberian natives. The schools are supposed to solve the following problems.
1. The schools will lift the prestige of the native languages. With regret one can note that the languages of ethnic minorities still belong to low-prestigious idioms even among the members of ethnic communities.
These languages are important for self-identification only “theoretically”. Statistically, the vast majority of Siberian natives prefer only the Russian language communication in all spheres of social and personal life.
None of them object to the opinion that it’s necessary to know well the ethnic languages and the cultures. But the Soviet russification led them to the idea that the Russian idiom has a higher prestige. Though Siberian ethnic intellectuals call for preservation of native languages and cultures, in practice they send their children to study at the Russian schools and higher education institutions, and, if possible, they replace the native language lessons with lessons of a foreign language. The “national component” in school programs can be replaced with “foreign”, and this tendency is supported by schoolchildren parents. Native ethnic and f. ex.
English idioms are equally “foreign” languages for Russian-speaking Siberian peoples. Good knowledge of the Russian language is still perceived as “a social elevator” that allows the citizens to solve successfully their career and business problems at the all-Russian sphere. Life examples of persons like Tuvinian Sergey Shoygu (Russian Minister of Defense) promote such ideas.
2. Nomadic and taiga schools will lift prestige of native folk cultures. The neglect to customs of ancestors is supposed to be eliminated by young generation of “computer gamers” with the help of school teachers and parents who are occupied in traditional economic spheres of local life. They will teach children to real national and cultural traditions, instead of global pseudo-ethnic practices like Europeanized “Chinese”
feng shui, “Indian” yoga, etc. (these cases met at the Siberian ethnic schools with weak parental control). The schools will promote preservation and protection of primordial habitat of natives.
3. Nomadic and taiga schools will lift prestige of traditional managing, crafts and a traditional way of life. These schools will create conditions for education of national advantage and will reestablish the broken inter-generational links.
In the paper there are briefly characterized the Russian laws on nomadic schools and types of these educational institutions (nomadic school-kindergarten, taiga stationary school, seasonal (summer) nomadic school, etc.), as well as their national structure and orientation according to a local economy (reindeer-breeding, fishing, hunting, etc.). There are given the types of education depending on education levels (preschool education, the primary general education, the main general education, the senior general education) and examples of school programs.
These schools are the results of the modern state language and cultural policy pursued in the educational sphere among local population. Russian and foreign mass media say that nomadic schools are the only real means of revival of traditional language culture. However when we discuss the native language education among Siberian indigenous peoples it is better to use not a revitalization metaphor, but a metaphor of reincarnation. Comparative data of the All-Russian censuses confirm it, but, we hope, these schools will change the situation for better.
四、建議
1. Taiwan needs the centralized and well-constructed language planning among ethnic minorities. The experience of not-centralized and not-complex (“fragmentary”) language planning (like among indigenous people of the U.S.A.) leads to strengthening the social tension even among ethnic communities with high economic level.
2. The special attention of the state has to be paid to the ethnic intellectuals – educators of endangered languages who are able not only to teach, but also to form a public opinion and express it with the help of mass-media.
3. It is necessary to develop system school and high school language programs for preservation of a language variety of indigenous peoples of Taiwan. These programs – individual in detail for every ethnos –
will have to save and to strengthen the indigenous cultural codes (not to destroy them as it has happened at former boarding schools). We must take into account the specifics of the traditional ways of life of these indigenous peoples and unite the intellectual forces of representatives of these peoples.
五、攜回資料名稱及內容
Now in N.C.C.U library funds there are no many works devoted to the language planning and experience of cultural construction among indigenous people of the world. For example, I didn't meet in the catalogs the following books: 1) Encyclopedia of the World’s Endangered Languages (ed. by Y. Taylor and R. Snowdon), 2) Language Planning and Policy in Native America History, Theory, Praxis: Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (by T. L. McCarty), 3) Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages? Policy and Practice on Four Continents: Palgrave Studies in Minority Language and Communities (by N. Hornberger), etc. My acquaintance to the special bibliography published in the U.S.A. found out that it would be good to include in N.C.C.U. library (and our research practice) many of books, published at University of Oklahoma Press. They describe details that will be useful for knowing. I attach the Catalogue to this report.
六、其他
At the moment organizers of RELC-2014 are looking for resources in order to publish the papers of the participants.