1
NOW: THE CRUCIAL POINT
Now: The Crucial Point for
Native American Language and Culture
Blake A. Mellencamp
Ball State University
NOW: THE CRUCIAL POINT
2
The Native American populations of the United States are at a crucial point in
their history. Their languages have been systematically eliminated and by those means
their cultures have been harmed. However, the present is a different time from the
historical past of Native and English relations. An old world method of linguistics may
have been in part responsible for the decline in Native American languages, and with the
emergence of modern linguistics as a social science gives us a new perspective. The
times of English-Only boarding schools are gone and have been replaced by an era of
strong political policy. With the emergence of new educational techniques in
multicultural education, native language teaching, and whole language learning, is it too
late for Native American populations to prevent language decline, or is there new hope?
Certainly it should first be stated that when writing on Native American
languages, the arguments made in this paper are of broad scope. In the New World there
are an estimated 200 independent language families, each quite distinct from the next
(Ruhlen 2000). The linguistic and cultural experiences discussed here come from
examples taken from a great number of Native American tribes, all of them collectively
introduced to the same struggle between indigenous languages and English.
The conflict waged against Native American language is one well known to the
linguistic community. During the discovery of the New World, English and the
indigenous languages met. There were few possible outcomes to the interaction of these
languages. As linguist Don Ringe puts it, “the normal results of interlanguage contact are
two: either one speech community abandons its language and adopts the other, or else the
languages borrow from one another” (2000). With this language contact, it was the
former.
NOW: THE CRUCIAL POINT
3
A long and hard language war was fought, but though dwindling in number some
Native tongues remain alive. However, the numbers of Native speakers are dropping with
each generation. Languages “remain ‘alive’…because they are replicated in succeeding
generations of native speakers by the process of first language acquisition” (Ringe 2000).
With more Native Americans moving toward English and toward participation in
American society, what hope is there for the dying languages? Culture is the key to
retaining hope, for culture holds significant meaning to any group and can only function
in regards to language. Culture is what makes a dying language worth fighting for.
The notion that any language and its respective culture are intertwined is evident.
We are used to culture being described in terms of customs. People are often defined by
what clothes they wear or what foods they eat. However, in Wendy Kasten of the
University of South Florida’s article “Bridging the Horizon: American Indian Beliefs and
Whole Language Learning” culture is described as “ways of thinking, ways of believing,
and ways of valuing” (1992). Culture and language share a reciprocal relationship.
Culture unites the speakers of a language, but language forms the way in which its
speakers think.
The same can be applied to Native American language and culture. Many
indigenous beliefs affect the language, for instance, “many [Pueblo tribes] prohibit
writing or recording their language in any form because of the secrecy procsriptions and
the functional role the language plays in traditions” (Suina, 2004). In the mainstream
American culture, written language is regarded as a necessity and the idea of prohibiting
it sounds strange. However, we can interpret the prohibition of written language by
Pueblos as placing a great value on language as being sacred and meaningful.
NOW: THE CRUCIAL POINT
4
In the same way that the Pueblo cultural belief affected their language, so can
elements of a language affect the ways in which we think.In the Kickapoo language,
nouns are divided into animate and inanimate categories, with animate nouns “having the
potential for spirituality”. The Navajo language also has many ways of classifying
objects, with the highest order classifications dealing with the relatedness to humanity
and the capacity for having intent or purpose. In the Keres language, a body part cannot
be named without being in conjunction with its possessor. The language of the Eastern
Pomo people has greatly diverse and complex kinship terms, reaching into much farther
specificity than English (Yamamoto & Zepeda 2004).
All of these qualities are important because they reflect aspects of their respective
cultures. Just as important, the culture that functions within English-speaking
communities greatly differs from and at some point clashes with these cultural aspects of
indigenous populations. The Native language features involving classifying living and
spiritual things differently than inanimate objects points to the Native American “notion
that humans must maintain a harmony with nature and with the Earth [and] that all
humans have value”. The Keres feature of a body part not being able to be mentioned
without indicating whose it is shows a culture that is less attached to the concepts of
possession and ownership than the American consumer culture. The in depth familial
terms of the Eastern Pomo language, provide a strong emphasis on family and
community, as opposed to individually being based (Kasten 1992).
There is an additional point of contention with Western culture in that Native
American culture teaches “that confrontation is inappropriate,” as opposed to “the
emphasis that mainstream society places on competition”. Alongside competition are
NOW: THE CRUCIAL POINT
5
rushed schedules, future oriented rather than present oriented orientations, and an
urgency for talk. However, this urgency for talk is absent from Native American cultures,
whose participants “are not uncomfortable with silence and believe that talk should be
purposeful and important, not just used as something to fill an uncomfortable silence”
(Kasten 1992).
With a culture so unique, there are many Native Americans still deeply attached
to their language. Some Pueblo communities of Southwest America remain the most
unchanged tribes and the most steadfast in their roots. In these communities there are
many teachers of Native Language, some of whom participated in a study on the subject
by Joseph Suina. Asked about the origins of their passions for Native language one such
teacher whose native language was English was told by her grandmother upon moving
into the Pueblo lifestyle, “You are now part of the Pueblo culture and you will need our
language for certain things where English will not do”. She went on to share more
insight:
As you’re growing up here you will hear things, see things and be involved in
activities where the white man’s tongue has no place. They can never be
explained in English because that language does not have the capacity to explain
these things (Suina 2004).
Another Native Language teacher from the Pueblos explains about how “All of
that [culture] is based on our native language. Without our language we have nothing.
The language is what makes us who we are as Indian people” (Suina 2004). These
examples all confirm the deep tie between Native American language and culture, but
what about its relationship with the English language?
NOW: THE CRUCIAL POINT
6
The conflict between these two cultures has spanned centuries. In order to think
about native languages in the crucial context of the present, the long history of this
conflict and its linguistic origins must be examined. The state of native languages in the
modern era is dismal, but if there is hope for revival, one must understand how it has
come to this point.
A major problem that Columbus brought with him to America’s shores was a
linguistic one. He knew fully well that there were many resources for the taking in this
new land, but there was the problem of establishing effective communication with the
native peoples. However, it would prove difficult, especially coming from a perspective
of cultural superiority that viewed the natives as savage others. Later explorers, James
Axtell writes in his essay “Babel of Tongues”, would find natives they described as “so
barbarous that we could never make any communication with them, however many signs
we made to them” (2000).
The Europeans who would come to inhabit the New World brought with them not
only their languages, but another central facet of their culture: Christianity. Religion in
the era was very much influential on early linguistics. From a Christian perspective they
confessed that “Due to the lack of language we were unable to find out by signs or
gestures how much religious faith these people we found possess…We think they have
neither religion nor laws, that they do not know of a First Cause or Author…nor do they
even practice any kind of idolatry” (Axtell 2000). The further could not be from the truth
given what we have already reviewed about the Native American culture in regards to
spirituality.
NOW: THE CRUCIAL POINT
7
The focus on Christianity as a cultural difference may seem like a departure in
topic from a discussion of linguistics. However, at the time of the language encounter in
the New World, religion and linguistics were deeply connected. The field of linguistics
has grown into a comprehensive social science over the centuries, but at the time
Christianity, namely the story of the Tower of Babel, informed the scholarly view of
linguistics. The Tower of Babel myth holds that the origin of differing human languages
was a direct action by God as a punishment for human pride. Language was also thought
to be an indicator of genetics and a way of dividing people into solid ethnic groups
(Axtell 2000).
The question raised by the discovery of native peoples on the new continents was
where did these people and their language come from? If people and their languages were
sent out from the central point of Babel, then how were the Americas populated and
which people were they descended from? The unaccountability of these new people by
the Bible, and a primitive understanding of linguistics, not merely the natives’ more
primitive lifestyle, is what lead to the Western characterization of Native Americans as
savages.
This origin of savage characterization would not be the end of the religious
linguistic conflict between Native Americans and the European colonists. Later in the
1700s, Christian settlers made attempts to spread the gospel to the Mohawks in the
province of New York. Now, with the large native populations having been driven into
despair by colonization, missionary John Ogilvie found the Mohawks “universally
degenerate…[entirely] given up to Drunkenness…hav[ing] lost all sense of religion”
(Hart 2000).
NOW: THE CRUCIAL POINT
8
The commonly held view at the time was that “piety and literacy go hand in
hand” and when English-Dutch translators failed to promote God to the Mohawks due to
differences in language, there was a new attempt to connect with the Mohawk population
by recruiting Mohawk schoolmasters to teach the religion in their own language. The
plan was the brainchild of missionary William Andrews who conceived that a generation
of literate, pious Mohawks “would sell Christianity to succeeding generations throughout
Mohawk country and the rest of Iroquoia” (Hart 2000).
However, both the cultures and languages were incompatible. For instance, the
Mohawk words Niyoh for “God”, Raniha for “Father”, and Karonia for “heaven” each
“carry images and meanings that are specific to Iroquois thought. There is…no
comparable Iroquois word for “Jesus Christ” (Hart 2000). Niyoh conflicted with the
Mohawk conception of many spiritual entities, not replacing their worldview with a
monotheistic one, but only allowing the Christian God into their pantheon. Raniha caused
problem because the Mohawk creator spirit was characterized as a woman, not a man like
the Judeo-Christian God.
However, many Mohawks were persuaded into conversion. They typically still
observed traditional Mohawk rituals, but also began participating in baptism and
communion, viewing it as taking protection against their cultural calamities and gaining
status in their communities. It has been observed by scholars that “it is not necessary to
become a believer in a ‘world religion’ to be a convert” (Hart 2000).
The greatest attack on Native American language came with the English-Only
boarding schools of the 1880s. Native American “children were compelled to attend
boarding schools for the express purpose of introducing them to English and the
NOW: THE CRUCIAL POINT
9
dominant culture and providing them with (marginal) job skills” (Wiley 2004). However,
there were strict English-Only policies operating within the schools. One tribe member
recalls that “a piece of soap which was always handy, was shoved in [their mouths] if
[they] spoke [their native languages]” (Suina 2004). These boarding schools are largely
credited with systematically removing native languages from use and assimilating Native
American populations into the mainstream American culture.
However, today the tides have changed. Linguistics is now informed by a
perspective that denotes all spoken languages as equal and valuable to their respective
culture. In the 1970s real policy change occurred with the introduction of the Indian
Education Act and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. In a
commentary on the latter act, four key points were offered for school improvement:
1 Promoting students’ Native language and culture as a responsibility of the
school
2 training Native people to be teachers
3 school administrators and educators bringing the cultural perspectives of the
students (cultural, historical and contemporary) into the school
4 expanding all curricula to include a wide range of multicultural components in
order to promote understanding and eliminate racism (Tippeconnic and
Saunders 2007).
While Native American groups are now smaller and often forgotten, there are
efforts being made to maintain the languages that remain. Many tribes on reservations
have made new agreements with local school systems to introduce Native Language
programs as well as bilingual education programs. Notable are the previously mentioned
NOW: THE CRUCIAL POINT
10
Native Language teachers of the Southwestern Pueblos, working with local schools to
develop programs to help maintain the Native cultures of the area.
Another great hope for Native American education lies in the Whole Language
method of learning. For instance, “whole language teaching emphasizes process over
product…[just as] Native American culture is frequently characterized as a process
oriented culture”. Also, “whole language emphasizes group, cooperative working….[just
as]…Native American cultures tend to emphasize noncompetitive, cooperative living
(Kasten 1992). This view would at least allow the Native American culture to survive in
some regard, rather than being disadvantaged in the mainstream American educational
climate. As we’ve seen before, though, culture and language go hand in hand. A victory
for one can be seen as a victory for the other.
The fact of the matter is that now is the crucial point. After a twisted and dark
history, light has finally been shed on the problem of Native American language conflict
thanks to modern linguistics. Will a change in perspective be enough to save the
remaining Native Languages, or has too much damage been done to these precious
cultures? Only time will tell if the new programs being installed in American schools in
all the places where Native populations still dwell will have enough effect to reverse the
tide of language war, or at least stop the Native decline. However, one thing is certain:
these efforts do bring new hope to a war thought lost.
NOW: THE CRUCIAL POINT
11
Axtell, J. (2000). Babel of Tongues: Communicating with the Indians in Eastern
North America. In E. G. Gray & N. Fiering (Eds.) The Language Encounter in
the Americas, 1492-1800. (pp. 15-60). New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Hart, W. B. (2000). Mohawk Schoolmasters and Catechists in Mid-EighteenthCentury Iroquoia: An Experiment in Fostering Literacy and Religious Change.
In E. G. Gray & N. Fiering (Eds.) The Language Encounter in the Americas,
1492-1800. (pp. 230-257). New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Kasten, W. C. (2012). Bridging the Horizon: American Indian Beliefs and Whole
Language Learning. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23, 108-118.
Lomawaima, K. T. (2002). When Tribal Sovereignty Challenges Democracy:
American Indian Education and the Democratic Ideal. American Educational
Research Journal, 39(2), 279-305.
Ringe, D. (2000). Some relevant facts about historical linguistics. In C. Renfew (ed.),
America Past, America Present: Genes and Languages in the Americas and
Beyond. (pp. 139 – 162). Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
Ruhlen, M. (2000). Some unanswered linguistic questions. In C. Renfew (ed.),
America Past, America Present: Genes and Languages in the Americas and
Beyond. (pp. 163-175). Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
Suina, J. H. (2004). Native Language Teachers in a Struggle for Language and
Cultural Survival. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35(3), 281-302.
NOW: THE CRUCIAL POINT
12
Tippeconnic III, J. W. , & Saunders, S. R. (2007). Policy Issues in the Education of
American Indians and Alaska Natives. In R. Joshee & L. Johnson (Eds.),
Multicultural Education Policies in Canada and the United States. (pp. 69-82).
Vancouver, TO: UBC Press.
Wiley, T. G. (2004). Language planning, language policy, and the English-Only
Movement. In E. Finegan & J. R. Rickford (Eds.) Language in the USA: Themes
for the Twenty-First Century. (pp. 319-338). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Yamamoto, A. Y.,& Zepeda, O. (2004). Native American Languages. In E. Finegan & J.
R. Rickford (Eds.) Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-First Century.
(pp. 153-181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.