The Community Diploma in the
Sociolinguistics of Language
Revitalization
An experiment in training
with
Mayangna Indians of Nicaragua’s
Caribbean Coast region.
Dr Jane Freeland (University of Southampton)
jane@freeland2.plus.com
STRUCTURE
• The Mayangna and their position within a multi-ethnic,
multilingual social ecology:
- ‘the Mayangna’ not a homogeneous group:
- sub-group identities and variation;
- differences in language ideology and their
relationship to the ‘official’ language ideology;
• The Diplomado Comunitario course:
- aims and structure;
- selection criteria;
- methodology
- changes between starting and finishing points
• Achievements?
• What did we learn?
Demography of Nicaragua’s Caribbean
Coast Region
(PNUD 2005)
ETHNIC
GROUP
Mestizos
Mískitu
Creoles
Mayangna/Sumu
Ulwa/
Sumu
Rama
Garífuna
(Black
Caribs)
FIRST
LANG
Spanish
Miskitu
English
Creole
Sumu
Miskitu
(C. 14,000)
(Ulwa)
English
Creole
(Rama)
English
Creole
(Garífuna)
11.83
5.23
0.41
0.55
0.43
% of
C Coast
Pop’n
72.0
40.88
The Mayangna speak ‘Northern Sumu’
• Member of the ‘Misumalpan’ family = Miskitu
+ Sumu + Matagalpan
• Speakers call it ‘Sumu’, ‘Mayangna’, or the
name of the variant they speak, depending on
context.
• 2 variants spoken in Nicaragua: Panamahka
(c. 10-12,000), Tuahka (c. 2000);
• a 3rd variant spoken in Honduras: Tawahka
(850-1000)
Indigenous peoples and ethnic communities of
Nicaragua
(Buss 2004:10)
ETHNOLINGUUISTIC ‘CHAIN HIERARCHY’ OF
NICARAGUA’S CARIBBEAN COAST REGION
Key: NAME OF GROUP; (language spoken daily by group); [original language, not
in general use]; O/W = Oral / Written (in 1979)
MESTIZOS
(Spanish O+W)
MISKITU
(miskitu O+W)
GARIFUNA
RAMA
(Creole)
(Rama Cay Creole)
[Garifuna]
[Rama]
SUMU-MAYANGNA
Panamahka (O) Tuahka (O) Ulwa (O)
CREOLES
([Kriol O])/
Standard English =
O,W
Key differences between Reserve and Mining Triangle villages
Reserve
•Mayangna villages contiguous over an area
• less interethnic contact intensive
* strict rules on intermarriage and language
preserve intergenerational transmission in
multilingual context
•* traditional activities now acquiring new validity in
modern economy
* language use therefore still rooted in traditional
activities and can also extend into new domains
Mining triangle
* Mayangna villages scattered among Miskitu and
Mestizo villages + many ethnically mixed villages 
intensive interethnic contact
* no rules on intermarriage and language 
growing predominance of Miskitu in family and
community life
* traditional activities compete/conflict with money
economy , associated by some with poverty
* increasing discontinuity between traditional
language and extension into new domains
* Traditional territories fell within war zone –
military tested claims to be Mayangna by
demanding they speak Sumu  language now
strongly ‘iconized’
* no strategic involvement in contra war – many
villages received both Miskitu and Mayangna
refugees
* Miskitu spoken only with Miskitu community
outsiders
* Miskitu used as part of within-community
repertoire
Language ideology/ discourse on
language
• Reserve language communities: language strongly ‘iconized’ i.e. an
indicator of indigenous identity, and associated with territory
- a certain purism, especially concerning Miskitu ‘interference’ 
rejection of Tuahka variant as ‘contaminated’
- this ideology also reflected in communicative practice
- ideology coincides with that underlying bilingual-intercultural education
and language rights discourse;
• Mining triangle villages: language ‘iconized’ in their public rhetoric on
revitalization, derived from minority rights discourse and legislation on
language rights
- this ideology not reflected in communicative practices;
- identity expressed/negotiated through both Mayangna and Miskitu,
though Spanish still regarded as ‘outsider’ language;
- mismatch therefore between local language ideology and discourses
on
revitalization of Reserve and public discourses;
Conception of the Diplomado Comunitario
Central assumption:
- urgent need for training that centred in the social aspects of Mayangna
revitalization, to enable communities to develop their own strategies, based in
local language ideologies and practices;
- this would complement training in language documentation already going forward;
Central aims:
- to enable communities to research and understand the sociolinguistics of
Mayangna in their own community, including language attitudes / local language
ideologies;
- to enable students to stimulate actions and strategies to revitalize and maintain
Mayangna, based in the results of this research, including ‘prior ideological
clarification’ of what their own communities mean by, expect from, and worry
about ‘revitalization
- to get rid of the ‘guilt factor’;
- to enable students to generate ideas and materials that would encourage people in
the community to use their language in enjoyable ways;
[In the event, this process centred on collecting examples of Mayangna culture still
alive in the village: songs, stories, riddles, artefacts, recipes…, and returning
them to the communities]
Selection criteria
- Mining Triangle communities prioritized, but with good representation of
Reserve communities. Eventual proportion: 11Mining Triangle: 4Reserve;
- Community leaders (from each community, one anciano/a and one
younger leader, with some training), selected by the community, and
approved by territorial authorities; ancianos/as feel marginalized from
revitalization processes currently centred in schools or with linguistics
teams; school teachers feel they carry too much responsibility
- Speakers of Panamahka or Tuahka, but able to understand Spanish –
course to be co-taught by Freeland and Eloy Frank, Mayangna coordinator of the Institute for Research and Promotion of Langauge and
Culture at URACCAN;
- Literate. This criterion changed on consultation with communities and
territorial authorities, since it effectively excluded all ancianos/as. Instead,
literacy classes were included, at the request of the ancianas/os
themselves, as a ‘transversal’ course running throughout;
 An URACCAN Community Diploma – this format allows more teaching
time with less academic content and less formal testing; also emphasised
that revitalization would be a community matter.
Methodology
* Beginning in debate and discussion of students’ experience as members of
their communities;
* Moving on to analysis of key issues, using relatively simple sociolinguistic
research instruments
- observation of contexts of use;
- community house-to-house surveys, linking language and ethnic
allegiance;
- interviews and focus group work, especially on life histories;
* These techniques practised in class, with discussion of their cultural
appropriateness; class practice based on students’ experience in their
communities, then carried out in two local communities;
* Findings analysed and shared in class, comparing communities and noting
differences;
* Units in each session considered examples of revitalization strategies in Latin
America and other parts of the world (USA, New Zealand, etc.) and the
possibility of adapting them to these communities (or not);
* Units in each session assisting students to design and develop strategies for
and with their own communities – choice of collecting cultural artefacts made by
the class;
* Final session based on sharing students’ work on this aspect, discussing
intellectual property rights, decisions about how best to return results to the
communities
Contexts of use compared across
communities
Contexts of use compared across communities
Checking representations
Fenicia – village map
Walangwas – mapping the village
Map transferred to paper for photocopying into dossier
Cultural resource added at later stage
Mapping of Bethlehem on tuna bark
Mobility map - Españolina
Collating data – community visit
Wisihbin (Fenicia) census data
Group work – comparing communities
Learning to use recorders
Literacy homework
Recording Mayangna hymns for CD
Whistle for attracting casucos
Demonstrating hunting whistle
Collecting traditional recipes
Story-telling
Radio Rosita - broadcasting in Mayangna
Meeting with Moravian pastors
Lineup for graduation procession
Graduates and teachers
Problems, modifications, lessons 1
•
Course originally designed as a research project, to be funded by Ford
Foundation, from whom initially good reaction. But a change in their
policy on indigenous education ruled it out.
• Eventually funded by SAHI Norway, at URACCAN’s request, as part of a
package of courses;
•
As an URACCAN course, became subject to unforeseen constraints:
- Issues over payment of student grants –university made unannounced
changes, based on their experience with undergraduates, paying grants in
kind with no cash. Students interpreted this as disrespect for their status
leaders, accusing university of spending their money on the new
dormitory and eating facilities. Several ancianos/as left the course and
sent replacements:
 Lack of continuity; difficulties especially for Eloy as both university
staff and a Mayangna leader; upset selection criteria, disturbed balance
between young/old, male/female, slackened criteria of community
endorsement.
•
Encuentro system too intensive – not enough time for people to digest,
despite ‘spiral’ construction of teaching units. At end of course, students
asked whether regular one-week workshops could be arranged from time
to time – this would fit better with their cultivation patterns, require shorter
absences from communities, but depend on funding.
Problems, adaptations, lessons 2
* Initially too much based in writing: over-estimated literate skills in younger
leaders – they were to have worked in pairs with non-literate in the use of some
texts written in Spanish – e.g. Fishman’s GIDS scale.
 Requests for materials to be translated in Mayangna – not possible in
the time;
 Moved to entirely oral presentation in 2 languages, with conclusions,
or research instruments developed, written up on whiteboard, in Mayangna.
These then typed up and included in a dossier presented at the end of the
encuentro. Very positive – rich discussions about translation; excitement at
seeing what we had done in writing;
* Relationships between ancianos/as and younger members, especially women –
our concern to end anciano marginalization led to over-emphasis on their views
(see examination of this in Kroskrity and Field, 2009: introduction); need to
combat a pattern where they made long speeches, to which younger people
listened silently and with respect
 group work, with differently composed groups sometimes decided by
lot, to allow for different styles; constant re-arrangement of seating; then
sharing views in plenary sessions; a gradual process of change;
* Follow-up is delayed by University: final tranche of funding, not yet disbursed:
- follow-up to consist of cleaning up recordings of songs and stories,
putting them on to CD for distribution to communities, in response to
community and student request, + some transcription and creation of e.g.
songbooks, storybooks – not for school use; mounting a website
Graduation hairdo