"we can't feel our language": making places in the city for aboriginal language...

“We Can’t Feel Our Language”

Making Places in the City for Aboriginal Language Revitalization

natalie j. k. baloy

The Squamish teens . . . show an appreciation of their culture. It may

not be to the same level or depth as their elders, but it may help to en-

sure that it lives on, even if in a different form. They have all heard their

traditional language spoken at story-tellings, and at gatherings and fu-

nerals. Even though they don’t understand it, they enjoy hearing it. “It

sounds better,” says Ralphie, “it’s a lot more pretty than English.”

Belinda, growing up in urban Port Alberni, is one teen who feels a strong

and deep connection to both her language and culture. Yet she still faces

numerous stumbling blocks in her quest to learn more about it. . . . “I

want to learn more prayers. When we go to workshops, I want to hear

the prayers from beginning to end. If I knew the prayers, I would say

them. I told my grampa that, so he’s been teaching me, taking me out

on the road, and now I’m learning about medicinal plants and foods.”

Belinda recognizes that there are teachings associated with her people’s

songs and dances. “I want to understand what they mean, so I go and ask

my grampa. I don’t want to sing without knowing what it means.”

Native language revitalization efforts are overwhelmingly located in ru-ral environments, despite the fact that aboriginal people are increasingly choosing to live and raise families in urban settings.1 This profoundly affects aboriginal people living in cities, many of whom, like the Squa-mish and Port Alberni teens quoted above, are anxious to learn, speak, hear, see, and feel their languages. This article explores possibilities for extending aboriginal language education opportunities into the urban domain based on qualitative research in Vancouver, British Columbia. I

516 american indian quarterly/fall 2011/vol. 35, no. 4

argue that aboriginal language revitalization efforts have a place in the city, as demonstrated by emerging language ideologies of urban aborigi-nal people expressed in interviews for this study.

I identify three central challenges facing language workers and learn-ers. I suggest possible ways to address these issues through urban lan-guage revitalization projects. First, language workers and learners must work against the sometimes subtle but pervasive idea that a strong ab-original identity and an urban lifestyle are mutually exclusive.2 Many people acknowledge that urban aboriginal people can and do maintain strong connections to their heritage and homelands; however, language revitalization projects are located primarily on reserves, perpetuating a divide between language and the city. I present several approaches to re-conceptualizing urban aboriginal identity that can support urban-based language initiatives.

Second, language workers must consider how to address linguistic and cultural diversity among urban aboriginal people through language projects. Research participants suggested that attention to the local lan-guages ought to be the fi rst step, particularly for public use of language. Participants emphasized important links between land, language, and identity. Acknowledgment of local peoples, their lands, and their lan-guages offers a starting point for addressing diverse language needs in the city. I call this step “placing language.”

Third, language workers and learners must identify how ties between land, language, and identity can be fostered and nurtured in urban spaces not only for local peoples but also for those who have moved to the city from elsewhere. For nonlocal urban aboriginal peoples, connec-tions with homelands can be strengthened through enhanced access to language and culture.3 I suggest several approaches for “making places” for language and culture in the city. Including the urban dimension in language revitalization efforts is of pressing importance as languages continue to lose speakers and aboriginal people continue to dwell in urban spaces.4 Through recognition and promotion of connections be-tween land, language, and identity, language workers and learners can

make places for aboriginal language education in the city.

talking about language: language ideologies

Linguistic anthropologists and other scholars have recognized the so-

ciocultural implications of language and examined its social functions.

Baloy: Making Places for Aboriginal Language Revitalization 517

The study of “language ideology” has emerged as a “mediating link be-

tween social structures and forms of talk.”5 Language ideology refers to

the social connections people make with their own or others’ languages,

dialects, or language variations.6 John Myhill argues that “the fate of

many minority languages is likely to be determined to a large extent by

ideology.”7

Analysis of language ideologies reveals rich possibilities for under-

standing how people think about and value language. Identifying how

language ideologies are constructed, maintained, and contested can

meaningfully inform strategies for language documentation, planning,

education, and revitalization in contexts of language loss. Addressing

new and emerging ideological trends has particular salience, as “ideo-

logical clarifi cation” in language revitalization projects can help to avoid

wasting human and material resources on ineffective projects and to in-

stead channel energy in innovative and productive ways.8

Contemporary aboriginal language ideologies evolve out of historical

experiences and are shaped by mainstream attitudes toward language,

government policies, and demographic changes. Deeply entrenched at-

titudes and governmental policies have perpetuated mainstream ideolo-

gies that position English as a powerful international lingua franca and

aboriginal languages as outmoded. Aboriginal languages are often un-

recognized, unknown, and unappreciated by nonaboriginal society, as

Patricia Shaw points out:

Despite our national sensitivities to multilingualism, . . . most peo-

ple—including many of the most highly educated and politically

infl uential—are largely ignorant of the sheer diversity, the com-

plexity, the cognitive and cultural richness of the native languages

of the First Nations peoples. . . . In not according recognition, let

alone respect, to the distinctive linguistic and cultural identities

that have shaped First Nations peoples, the majority culture con-

tinues to exert a signifi cantly negative infl uence on identity, on

self-esteem, on pride in one’s cultural heritage, and on one’s sense

of self and of place in the broader society.9

Historical policies and processes have contributed to this devaluation of

aboriginal languages in Canada and continue to resonate today, includ-

ing residential schools, the Sixties Scoop, and the galvanization of ab-

original leaders and communities in the aftermath of the White Paper.10


Aboriginal people and communities have experienced these policies and

attitudes in a myriad of ways.

Policies like residential schools and the Sixties Scoop served to fur-

ther an assimilation agenda. Disruptions in family and community life

greatly damaged Native language transmission and devalued aboriginal

languages.11 As a result, many aboriginal parents refrained from speaking

their heritage languages to their children in efforts to boost their chances

for success in mainstream society as well as to protect them from the

shame and pain they themselves experienced in schools and everyday

life.12 As generations of young aboriginal children grew up monolingual

in English, the number of aboriginal language speakers dropped steadily

at fi rst and now rapidly as elder speakers age and pass on.

Grief and anger over language loss is increasingly expressed as Native

leaders and community members voice their concerns over past wrongs

and seek redress. For many, loss of language has become symbolic of

government oppression and assimilation policies. In turn, language re-

vitalization represents opportunities for reclamation of Native identity

and pride, decolonization, and assertion of sovereignty.13

In an interview for this study, linguist Henry Davis stated: “If you

talk to anybody on the reserve[s], the chiefs will stand up and say two

things are of utmost importance: language and land.”14 The dual signifi -

cance of language and land for contemporary aboriginal people is unde-

niable, yet as Dr. Davis later asked, What happens to urban aboriginals?

They are often living far from home on the territories of other peoples

and have little access to language revitalization projects on their home

reserves. How do they relate to land and language? This question has

formed the foundation of my research.

Working in Vancouver, British Columbia, I designed an exploratory

study to identify prospects for urban language revitalization efforts. As a

nonaboriginal researcher, I sought guidance in works detailing research

methodologies with, among, and for aboriginal peoples.15 Because my

objective was to explore a range of possibilities for Native language edu-

cation and use in an urban context, I chose not to focus on one aborigi-

nal community in the city. Instead, I interviewed a range of stakeholders,

including urban aboriginal community leaders, educators, and experts

in the fi elds of Native education, culture, and language revitalization.16

Research participants shared their knowledge and expertise on the ma-

jor themes in my study: attitudes toward language loss and current lan-


guage revitalization efforts, demographic trends of aboriginal urbaniza-

tion, and similarities and differences between language learning in cities

and on reserves.

For urban aboriginal people in Vancouver, their diverse experiences

in the city, coupled with the considerable linguistic diversity of British

Columbia and western Canada, have contributed to innovative and re-

ordered ideas about the social signifi cance of aboriginal languages. Ideo-

logical perspectives on the place and signifi cance of aboriginal languages

in the city emerged in interviews with research participants. Through-

out the following discussion, I highlight areas of ideological synthesis,

identifying shared perspectives on possibilities for language revitaliza-

tion efforts in the city.17 Understanding aboriginal language ideologies

in the understudied urban context can have fruitful and productive ap-

plications, offering language workers guidance and support in language

planning and project development.

coast salish territories/vancouver

Vancouver is situated on the traditional lands of the Musqueam, Squa-

mish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples. The Katzie, Kwantlen, Sto:lo, Tsaw-

wassen, and others are also recognized as local First Nations. These

groups are often placed under the umbrella term “Coast Salish,” and

Vancouver is considered to rest on “Coast Salish territories.” The Squa-

mish and Musqueam have urban reserves, and their traditional lands

extend beyond city lines to include waterways and other features of

the landscape. The Musqueam Nation’s residential reserve is located in

southwestern Vancouver along the north arm of the Fraser River. Their

language, Həńq́əmińəḿ, has no fully fl uent speakers, though there are

some semifl uent adults, and efforts are under way to restore and revital-

ize the language.The Squamish Nation’s main residential reserve is in

North Vancouver along the northern banks of the Burrard Inlet. Their

language, Sḵwx_wú7mesh Sníchim, has some fl uent adult speakers. The

Squamish people are also working toward language revival; a language

program has been developed and is operating in their territory.18

Local First Nations were recognized as hosts of the 2010 Winter Olym-

pic Games in Vancouver, emphasizing their ties to their lands and their

symbolic status as hosts to the multitude of Olympic visitors and the

many immigrants who have settled in Vancouver over the past century.19


From the beginning of Vancouver’s development, nonlocal aboriginal

people have also made their way to the city for temporary, long-term, or

permanent settlement. There is now a great diversity of aboriginal peo-

ple living on traditional Coast Salish homelands, and their population is

growing. They continue to come to Vancouver for jobs, education, and

services and to be close to other family members who preceded them.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples reported that over

thirty-fi ve First Nations groups are represented in the city in addition

to Métis and Inuit peoples.20 There are now over forty thousand people

who identify as aboriginal in the Metro Vancouver area—one-fi fth of

the total aboriginal population of the province.21 The number of aborig-

inal people in Vancouver has risen nearly 30 percent since 1996.22 The

number of aboriginal people living in cities continues to grow across

British Columbia and Canada. In the early 1950s less than 7 percent of

aboriginal people in Canada lived in urban settings.23 Today, approxi-

mately 54 percent of aboriginal people now live in cities. In British Co-

lumbia that number rises to 60 percent. People are not only moving to

cities from reserves. They are moving back and forth, sometimes several

times throughout their lives.24 There is also a signifi cant and growing

population of urban aboriginal people who identify as aboriginal and

were raised solely in the urban domain. Though they may identify with

a particular Native heritage and homeland, their aboriginal identity is

situated in city life.

reconceptualizing urban aboriginality

Despite growing rates of aboriginal urbanization, language revitalization

work has maintained mostly an on-reserve, rural focus.25 This refl ects

wider trends in social science research on aboriginal people as well as

mainstream understandings of aboriginal identity. It is imperative that

language workers challenge these trends through emphasis on the urban

dimensions of language revitalization. In an important contribution to

American Indian studies, Susan Lobo and Kurt Peters published an ed-

ited volume titled American Indians and the Urban Experience.26 In the

introduction Susan Lobo questions why there is “so little urban-focused

interest among researchers, writers, poets, and artists, and why there are

so few books on urban themes and contexts.”27 She cites three reasons

for this gap in scholarship:


1. Rural aboriginal homelands. Lobo argues that Native homelands

have been located primarily in rural areas. For this reason, re-

search themes of genocide, dispossession of land, and aboriginal-

government relations emphasize these geodemographic pat-

terns. The fact that most aboriginal homelands have been rural is

bound up in colonial histories that remapped territories, recon-

fi guring zones of activity and exchange.28 Geographers Kathi

Wilson and Evelyn J. Peters argue that the making of reserves and

the continuation of band governance have served to limit aborigi-

nal spaces on Canadian land: “Reserves became ‘Native space’ and

the lands in between were ‘emptied’ for settlement, materially

and conceptually.”29 According to geographer Nicholas Blomley,

cities, even ones in close proximity to reserves, were not part of

these “Native spaces.”30 Cities, or places that had the potential for

economic development, were not favorable spots for government

placement of reserves.31 By interrogating these processes, scholars

can avoid reifying colonial practices that have contributed to a

trope of rural aboriginal homelands.

2. The infl uence of anthropology on American Indian studies. Lobo

explains that anthropology’s predominantly rural focus, coupled

with its ongoing interest in aboriginal peoples, has created a gap

in scholarship about urban aboriginal affairs: “A desire to avoid

turf wars led to an unspoken code by academics that anthropolo-

gists could ‘have’ Indians, while sociologists could ‘have’ urban

studies.”32 This agreement has resulted in a situation whereby ur-

ban aboriginal people are largely left out of two central disciplines

in the social sciences, which in turn impacts other areas of study

such as linguistics and interdisciplinary American Indian studies.

Language workers from all disciplines must take these academic

trends into account when seeking scholarly guidance for their

projects.

3. Popular stereotypes. Throughout the 1970s, when larger num-

bers of Native people began moving to cities, social research on

aboriginal urbanization focused primarily on the loss of cultural

identity and adaptation to modern city life for Native people

relocating to urban centers. According to Lobo, perspectives

generated from this research have contributed to the “lingering

stereotype that ‘Indian’ is synonymous with rural and that urban


is somehow not genuinely Indian.”33 These stereotypes are rein-

forced in mainstream media representations, which continue to

separate traditional aboriginal identities from contemporary life.

To confront these gaps in scholarship and to challenge lingering ste-

reotypes, several scholars have reconsidered urban aboriginal identity

through new theoretical approaches. Their work can help to reorient

language revitalization work to be more inclusive of urban aboriginal

peoples. Sociologist Bonita Lawrence explains that notions of authentic

“Indianness” can be distressing for urban aboriginal people, particularly

those with mixed heritage.34 These individuals negotiate their identities

in various ways: reclaiming their Native heritage by learning traditions

or asserting Native pride; claiming hybrid identities in an otherwise po-

larized context; maintaining band membership and ties to Native lands;

anchoring their Native identities through language and “blood mem-

ory”; and participating actively in their urban aboriginal communities.

Lawrence’s observations resonate with Vancouver research participants

who repeatedly expressed that aboriginal identities can indeed be nur-

tured in the city.35 JoAnn Archibald, professor of education and member

of the Sto:lo Nation, remarked: “People do engage in their own cultural

traditions and practices of various sorts, whether it’s spiritual, cultural.

. . . There are different feasts, different ways to engage with one another.

I think aboriginal culture is quite vibrant in the city. . . . [P]eople may

think it’s not but it sure is.”36

In their article “‘You Can Make a Place for It,’” Wilson and Peters

characterize urban Anishinabek people as transnational—people who

live in the city while also maintaining ties with their home nation/First

Nation. They explain that transnational aboriginal people are “citizens

of both their home and host societies, . . . participating in various ways

in the economic, political, and cultural lives of their countries of origin

as well as their adopted countries.”37 Although sovereign nation-to-na-

tion relationships between First Nations and the Canadian government

are not yet a reality for most communities, Wilson and Peters suggest

that the distinct cultural identity of one’s home community can be con-

ceptualized as national identity. Moving from one’s home community,

often located on reserve lands, to urban centers therefore implies a move

from one political and cultural entity to another. Maintaining ties to

one’s homeland is thus similar to a diasporic connection. For example,


Sherry Small, program director at the Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship

Centre, sometimes returns home to strengthen her knowledge of her

language and culture: “[Language] is connected to the land base—you

don’t have to be on the land, but you can go home to nourish it.”

American Studies scholar Renya Ramirez also views cities as trans-

national spaces for aboriginal people and emphasizes the diasporic na-

ture of urban aboriginal people’s ties to their heritage. She emphasizes

connections between cities and homelands through her concept of the

“hub,” placing urban aboriginals at the heart of political networking:

“Like a hub on a wheel, urban Indians occupy the center, connected to

their tribal communities by social networks represented by the wheel’s

spokes.”38 She argues that the term “transnational” highlights this main-

tenance of ties with one’s homeland as well as integration into urban life.

Together, these scholars’ approaches provide a useful framework for

acknowledging and understanding the fl uidity and diversity of contem-

porary urban aboriginal identities. By actively adopting more nuanced

ideas of urban aboriginality, language workers can be more sensitive to

the linguistic needs of urban aboriginal peoples. This is a critical step in

attending to the urban dimension of language renewal. Including urban

people represents a more holistic commitment to language revitalization

and better refl ects current realities.

placing language

Another challenge for language revitalization work in the city is how

to address the diversity of languages and cultures represented. With so

many aboriginal people moving from elsewhere and maintaining ties

with nonlocal homelands, how can language workers adequately meet

the various linguistic needs of the urban aboriginal community? Where

can work even begin? Research participants suggested that protocol of-

fers an initial solution: local territories and languages ought to be pri-

oritized, particularly in public use of aboriginal languages. Local First

Nations individuals and nonlocal urban aboriginal people agreed that

the ties between land, language, and identity must be acknowledged and

respected by emphasizing local peoples. By adhering to protocol, lan-

guage workers can participate in placing language: localizing the con-

nections between land, language, and identity. This ideological position,

a response to the relatively new phenomenon of urban aboriginal life,


demonstrates a continued dedication to traditional ways. Placing lan-

guage offers a way to honor local peoples and their languages as well as

to initiate language revitalization efforts in the city.

The city of Vancouver has been built upon Coast Salish homelands;

much of their lands have been zoned as city property, built upon, and

reworked. Today, tall concrete buildings join the mountains to form the

city’s skyline. Public beaches are located on traditional food-gathering

spots. Most aboriginal place-names have been supplanted with English

ones. Still, the Musqueam, Squamish, and other local nations have not

disappeared from view. In fact, their populations are growing and assert-

ing a more visible presence.39 Connections between land, language, and

identity remain strong and resilient for local peoples.

Many aboriginal people emphasize the close connection between lan-

guages and land.40 The languages of British Columbia developed over

time in specifi c environments, and their vocabularies often heavily re-

fl ect the activities conducted on the land, particularly relating to the

natural environment. Xálek’, a Squamish hereditary chief, explained: “I

strongly encourage our people to keep getting out on the land because

that’s where it makes sense, that’s where our language is directly mani-

fested from our connections to our lands and territory.”41 He also ex-

pressed a literal interpretation of the effect of land on language, noting

that the sounds of the language emulate the landscape:

In all my travels, I hear people speak in different languages. [And

then I think of] our infl ections now—the guttural [sounds] [re-

peats sounds of his language], the harshness of our language. . . .

I realized that it’s the shape of our land. When the winds hit our

mountains and they come over, they drop into the valleys, they

kind of move around through the forest. That’s kind of the struc-

ture of the language—it has a lot of sharp infl ections like that. . . .

We adapt to our environment. Our language mimics that.

Social analyst Mary Jane Norris echoes Xálek’s sentiments, noting

that geography infl uenced the evolution of languages and dialects in

Canada: “Geography is an important contributor to the diversity, size

and distribution of aboriginal languages across Canada. . . . [T]he diver-

sity of languages in BC, most of them small in population, is likely the

outcome of the province’s mountainous geography, which would im-

pose physical barriers to communication.”42


People from communities across British Columbia and Canada have

now moved to Vancouver to live, dwelling on Coast Salish homelands in

an urban environment. Negotiating cultural protocol in such a diverse

context can become somewhat simpler when local peoples are empha-

sized.43 Staff at the Native Education College, a local institution of higher

learning, have prioritized local peoples and customs in their program-

ming. Their cultural coordinator, Mark Hall, states:

We have such a diverse range of cultural backgrounds of aborigi-

nal students from BC and other provinces. To avoid confusion, for

ceremonies we follow the nations of this territory. . . . We found

that it made things smoother when we indicated that we are fol-

lowing the protocols for this territory. . . . People seem to appreci-

ate that we’re following those protocols rather than having a lot of

different sorts of styles.44

Xálek’ appreciates the acknowledgment of the local nations by other

First Nations visiting or living in the area: “There’s a lot of recognition

of our territory. We’re very grateful that many of the First Nations from

across the country when they come here always recognize the Coast Sal-

ish people. . . . That’s our laws, our protocols.” Indeed, aboriginal people

I interviewed who hailed from other cultural backgrounds than Mus-

queam, Squamish, or any local First Nations expressed that they recog-

nize and honor that they are on Coast Salish territory, and they respect

the local languages and efforts to revitalize them. Josephine Young, a

Cree woman and director of an aboriginal family services agency, stated:

“It’s a challenge once you move into a city where there is diversity. But

I think the rule is—it comes back to protocol—you teach the languages

specifi c to that territory in each locale, and that’s where you should

start.”45

A primary way of respecting and honoring local peoples, land, and

language is through public use and display of Coast Salish greetings and

place-names. For example, in service organizations and learning institu-

tions for aboriginal people, staff can learn basic greetings in the local

languages as a sign of respect for their hosts. Including local greetings

or specifi c place-names in newsletters or announcements, accompanied

by an English translation, offers a profound yet relatively simple way

to honor local peoples, lands, and languages. Hearing or seeing Native

words can serve as a reminder of the host peoples, protocols, and cul-


ture and language revitalization efforts. Similarly, visible signs in local

languages on the urban landscape can also trigger people to consider the

aboriginal peoples and languages of the area.46

Several research participants also expressed a strong desire to see op-

portunities created in the public school system for learning, hearing, or

seeing local aboriginal languages. Including local aboriginal languages in

conventional school programming serves as a way to educate aboriginal

and nonaboriginal students about local Native groups and incorporate

this local knowledge into curricula about Native peoples more generally,

an argument supported by activist and educator Marie Battiste.47 These

prospects for public aboriginal language learning and use need to be

explored in more detail and in collaboration with the local peoples. Ac-

knowledging the local First Nations and their languages mitigates poten-

tial confl ict about choosing which of the dozens of aboriginal languages

in Canada to recognize publicly.

Susan Lobo states: “Urban is a place, a setting where many Indian

people at some time in their lives visit, ‘establish an encampment,’ or

settle into. Urban doesn’t determine self-identity, yet the urban area

and the urban experiences are contexts that contribute to defi ning

identity.”48 The city is also a place where local First Nations identity is

grounded. Recognizing local peoples as hosts and acknowledging the

diversity of their aboriginal guests enables a nuanced interpretation of

the experiences people in the city have with each other and with Native

languages. Research participants did not suggest that there be an expec-

tation for people to stop speaking English and speak Həńq́əmińəḿ or

Sḵwx_wú7mesh Sníchim or for nonlocal aboriginal people to learn a lo-

cal language instead of their heritage language. Instead, they recommend

honoring the local languages as a starting point—as an opportunity to

bolster aboriginal language education generally using a particularly local

approach. Through supporting the local connection between land and

language, respect can be cultivated for aboriginal language learning and

use more widely.

Placing language is thus empowering not only for local First Nations

but also for those who have ties with nonlocal lands and languages. Ac-

knowledging their hosts helps to defi ne their relationships with their

new home and its indigenous peoples. Donald Morin, a Métis man and

former host of an aboriginal radio show, explains: “Understanding the


cultural protocol of each territory is very important. The demograph-

ics of each environment defi ne our relations to each other.” For urban-

raised individuals with tenuous ties to their aboriginal languages or cul-

tures, emphasizing and honoring the local peoples and their languages

can ease their feelings of disconnectedness, locating them as aboriginal

people on specifi c First Nations territories.49 Finally, recognition of local

languages supports broader language revitalization efforts within the lo-

cal First Nations’ communities.

making places for language

The local First Nations peoples represent only part of the diversity of

urban aboriginal people in Vancouver. While recognizing and honor-

ing their lands and languages is an important step in addressing urban

aboriginal language revitalization, language workers must also consider

how to support links between other urban aboriginal peoples, their

homelands, and their languages. Personal connections between language

and identity, land and language, and identity and land triangulate as in-

fl uencing forces on emerging urban language ideologies. Though these

connections are sometimes stretched or severed as a result of movement

to and from homelands and the city or permanent urban settlement, the

urban environment does not in and of itself break ties with language,

land, and identity. People make accommodations and adapt their ex-

pressions of aboriginality in creative ways. They make places for it in

their everyday lives. Language workers can support these everyday ef-

forts by identifying and implementing ways of making places for lan-

guage in the city. “Places” for language do not necessarily have to be

physical spaces, though that may be an important aspect of language

learning for some. Instead, making places for language means creating

and sustaining a place in an individual’s life to learn, speak, hear, or use

aboriginal language.

Making places for aboriginal languages is both an ideological and a

practical pursuit. Making places for language ideologically involves iden-

tifying, recognizing, and honoring what is offered in the potential inclu-

sion of Native languages in the lives of aboriginal peoples (i.e., identity

development, pride, community) and making mental room to accom-

modate Native languages. Making places for language practically means

creating possibilities for language learning and use that are conducive


to an urban environment. Without designated places, ideologically or

practically, aboriginal languages can be absorbed into the dominant lan-

guage and society and left with no room for growth.

making ideological places for language

Making places for language ideologically means defi ning how aboriginal

languages can fi t into an urban aboriginal person’s life. This is an ongo-

ing challenge for language workers and learners in all locales. Linguist

Henry Davis explained: “For us who are trying to fi nd a way that the lan-

guage can fi t into the contemporary First Nations world—a lot of what

we’re trying to do is fi nd a place or places where it can be used. And that

isn’t at all easy.” Aboriginal languages developed in close proximity with

land and environment, building a rich vocabulary linked to processes for

living on the land. These languages and their speakers experienced heavy

pressure from governmental policies that posited that Native languages

had no place on the road to “progress” in a modern world engulfed in

a sea of change. As a result, English has become the language that ab-

original people need to get and keep jobs, get through school, alleviate

racism, and communicate with the mass of people converging on their

lands. Aboriginal languages were dispossessed of their primary place in

the worlds of their speakers. In order to restore a place for Native lan-

guages in the lives of aboriginal people, this history has to be recognized,

and complex questions about the value of Native languages in people’s

lives today must be addressed.

Despite generations of assimilation policies, contemporary aboriginal

people have maintained distinct cultural identities. Many people have

found ways of incorporating traditional beliefs, lifeways, and protocols

into contemporary life in the city and elsewhere. Finding meaningful

ways of integrating aboriginal heritage into urban lifestyles can extend

to making places for aboriginal languages. Despite the “lingering ste-

reotype” equating rural with tradition or authenticity and urban with

assimilation, aboriginal individuals are striving to maintain cultural

identity in unique ways in the urban setting. It is through these already

existing avenues that aboriginal language revitalization efforts can po-

tentially make inroads into the city and urban aboriginal people’s lives.

This is a conscious effort that takes planning to achieve.


Xálek’ stressed that aboriginal cultural identity can fl ourish in urban

spaces, though it can require modifi cation and adaptation:

We can’t go back to the way it was. I can’t sustain myself economi-

cally the way my ancestors did, through our professions. . . . It’s just

not feasible. So it demands that I have to adapt, or I succumb. It’s

the same story of the fl ood. My land was fl ooded before glaciation.

They could never go back to the way it was—we were traumatized,

shaken up, many peoples were decimated. . . . I look around me

today, and my land is fl ooded again—it’s the same story. . . . I look

at our mythology, it has many chapters, and in each one of those

chapters there’s always a catalyst of change, where you can never

go back to the way it was for your great-grandparents. You had to

learn to draw forward those traditional knowledges, apply it in a

modern context.

In this compelling blend of traditional mythology and contempo-

rary events, Xálek’ demonstrates cultural continuity in the face of great

change, noting that adaptation is a part of cultural continuity. Gayle Bu-

chanan, an aboriginal education consultant for the Vancouver School

Board, agrees: “We’re not static. We’re carrying some of our traditional

practices, but we’re also expanding in other ways.”50 Other aboriginal

research participants explained the various ways they integrate their ab-

original heritage into their urban lives, such as through participation

in singing and dance groups, talking with elders, and attending cultural

events. Though the urban setting represents new terrain in many ways

for aboriginal languages, individuals and families have designated ideo-

logical places for cultural expression in their lives.

Integral to making ideological places for language in the city is engag-

ing in processes of “ideological clarifi cation.” Nora Marks Dauenhauer

and Richard Dauenhauer explain that it is important for language work-

ers and learners to clarify motivations for aboriginal language learning

so that learners can create reasonable goals and maintain their initial

enthusiasm. Drawing on their research with the Tlingit in southeastern

Alaska, Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer state:

Assuming that we have motivated and well-trained teachers sup-

plied with adequate and acceptable materials, we are still faced with

the real and nagging question: why learn Tlingit? Other than a ca-


reer as a Tlingit teacher or materials developer, there are no eco-

nomic benefi ts. Every year there are fewer people alive to speak it

with. . . . Tlingit is neither “practical” nor “relevant,” so why bother?

The Dauenhauers argue that the ultimate motivation for learning Tlin-

git, Həńq́əmińəḿ, Sm’algyax, or any other aboriginal language, unlike

learning Spanish or French, is ultimately spiritual: “We can offer no mo-

tivation other than satisfaction, that it feels good to learn Tlingit. Or—it

could feel good. [I]t is spiritual and psychological; learning the ancestral

language gives peace, real identity, and intellectual pleasure.”51 In an ur-

ban setting, learning an aboriginal language can enrich one’s links with

other people from the same nation or strengthen connections to one’s

aboriginal heritage on a deeper personal level. Learning or using an ab-

original language in the city can also enhance bonds with one’s home-

land. Identifying the ideological reasons for learning an aboriginal lan-

guage in the city can help language workers and learners to create more

meaningful projects and lessons.

A related endeavor involves determining the level of fl uency a learner

is hoping to achieve. Although language revitalization efforts are often

aimed at teaching and maintaining long-term knowledge of a language,

with an ultimate goal of renewed intergenerational transmission, not all

language learners are able to sustain this level of time and commitment.52

For some, the objective is only to learn enough to introduce themselves

in their heritage language in public settings. For others, knowing par-

ticular songs or stories in a language is their prime motivation. Meet-

ing these language goals requires approaches different from long-term

language learning. The most intensive projects for language workers and

learners aim to develop conversational, everyday use of the language.

For everyday language users and learners, city life may require lan-

guage innovation. Words for such daily activities as taking a bus, using

the Internet, and riding in an elevator are not always readily available in

Native languages. Many languages were declining in use as new technol-

ogy and urban habits formed. The English language has had to bring

in new words to cope with these changes, but it can be more diffi cult

for languages with few fl uent speakers to keep up with rapid shifts in a

changing world. Conversely, words that aboriginal languages do have in

abundance, such as vocabulary related to local food procurement and

specifi c land features, can have limited use in an urban setting. Xálek’


explains: “Huge parts of our language become obsolete because we

stopped going to some areas and drying kelp or whatever it may be. . . .

We just lost tons of language because it [became] so obsolete.”53

For some aboriginal communities, then, a signifi cant dimension of

language revitalization projects involves updating the vocabularies of

their languages to refl ect the everyday activities of their potential speak-

ers. According to linguist Suzanne Gessner, “If you want it to be a liv-

ing, useable language, there’s going to have to be adaptation and new

vocabulary. . . . Some languages do that easily, some languages not so

much. And with some speakers, there’s a resistance to creating new vo-

cabulary too.”54 Though linguists emphasize that languages change and

evolve and have done so throughout history, Dr. Gessner explained that

it is ultimately up to community members to decide whether and how

to update their language and create new words. For those communities

that undertake special efforts toward language innovation, paying atten-

tion to the unique vocabulary needs of city-dwellers is a necessary exer-

cise to achieve maximum relevance for all potential speakers.

Making ideological places for language in the city involves identify-

ing how aboriginal languages can fi t into urban people’s lives, integrat-

ing language with other forms of urban cultural expression, engaging in

ideological clarifi cation to determine motivations and goals for learning,

and updating vocabularies to refl ect city lifestyles. It also entails hon-

oring what is offered in the inclusion of Native languages in the lives

of urban aboriginal peoples. Research participants suggested that urban

language learning can have wide-ranging effects: it can strengthen indi-

viduals’ bonds with their own identity and their ties to homelands, en-

hance their pride and sense of self, and contribute to wider community-

building efforts.55

making practical places for language

While making places for language ideologically provides a foundation

for aboriginal language learning in the city, language workers and speak-

ers must also engage in making practical places for language through

activities, events, and daily interactions. Making practical places for lan-

guage means identifying and securing possible places and times for lan-

guage learning and use that are conducive to an urban environment.

Unlike reserves, where language education might be located in a band


offi ce or band school, the city has few designated places for such activi-

ties. Like reserves, however, cities can offer many nonoffi cial places for

language learning and use. Examples include studying at home, meeting

with elders and peers, singing or speaking at cultural events, or applying

newly learned words to new contexts like the public transit system or

grocery shopping. JoAnn Archibald explains:

When you look at the Maori, [language revitalization] didn’t hap-

pen until they had a . . . place, an expectation to learn it. So if you

set it up in a community . . . they’re going to learn various phrases,

or ways that you’re going to conduct part of the meeting in the lan-

guage, or various languages. Just make it an everyday life of that . . .

school [or] organization. And then even families themselves, once

they start learning the language, [the parents] can start speaking it.

Taking Dr. Archibald’s cue to identify practical places for language ed-

ucation and use, I turn now to fi ve practical options for integrating Na-

tive language into the lives of urban aboriginal individuals and groups.

These options represent personal and collective journeys for language

learning and revitalization. Focusing on action allows us to move be-

yond theoretical arguments for language revitalization toward putting

theoretical insights into practice.

building relationships between homeland

communities and urban populations

Research participants emphasized the importance of strong links be-

tween urban aboriginal people and their homeland communities, in-

cluding reserves. Because many members of the urban aboriginal

population move between the city and their traditional territories,

participants stated that language revitalization partnerships should be

forged between homeland communities and urban people with the

same language heritage. Many communities in British Columbia have

language programs in place, such as language immersion schools and

camps, language classes for adults and children, and language documen-

tation projects.

The First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council (FPHLCC)

provides annual funding for many of these initiatives.56 Kway’Waat, the

FPHLCC language coordinator, endeavors to use provincial funds ef-


fectively to help communities meet their goals.57 During our interview,

Kway’Waat discussed a number of programs currently running through-

out the province funded through her agency. Most are based on reserves,

though the council does have urban representation and receives appli-

cations for urban language education programs each year. Kway’Waat

stressed that all communities receiving funding are strongly encouraged

to share language education resources.58 In addition to sharing language

materials, homeland communities can also reach out to their urban con-

stituents by establishing outreach language classes in the city or encour-

aging city members to participate in their programs.59 Including home-

land communities in urban language revitalization efforts underscores

the heavily emphasized connection between land and language. A place

in the city can be made for this connection through homeland-urban

partnerships.

Language Immersion Camps

Language immersion camps are short-term, intensive programs aimed

at bringing together fl uent speakers and a group of language learners,

especially youth, to spend time together, often on their homelands, im-

mersed totally in the ancestral language of their territory.60 Programs

typically last one to two weeks. Participation in a language immersion

camp, even if it is based in a nonurban homeland, can serve as a catalyst

for making places for language in the city by fostering a sense of con-

nection with one’s language and territory. When camps are the only op-

portunity for language exposure for an urban aboriginal person, they

can take on even greater signifi cance. Language immersion camps are

already happening across the province. Actively encouraging and sup-

porting urban participation should be an important component of

these programs. Urban groups can also apply for funding and support to

create their own programs in the city.

The Internet

For many research participants, the Internet is considered a new frontier

for language access.61 Sherry Small, program director for the Vancouver

Aboriginal Friendship Centre, states: “With modern technologies today,

there should be ways for [people] to learn their language . . . develop-


ing resources so that all of our people can relearn no matter where they

live.” Online and other media resources have already been developed for

many aboriginal languages in Canada. The FirstVoices project, an on-

line aboriginal language portal, was developed by the First Peoples Cul-

tural Foundation, and the FPHLCC supported the initiative from the

beginning.62 “There’s so much language learning that’s available through

FirstVoices. . . . [W]e fi nd it to be a popular tool right now for all across

Canada and the world,” Kway’Waat remarked. Individuals can access

audio, video, and text of dozens of Canadian aboriginal languages.63

Learners can play language games, practice, and listen to speakers saying

words in their language.

Some communities have also developed other online language re-

sources through documentation work. Suzanne Gessner helped create

an online dictionary as part of her doctoral research with the Dakelh

language and its speakers. She highlights the potential the Internet of-

fers for connecting language learners and users, such as through social-

networking sites like Facebook and Bebo. Though the lack of readily ac-

cessible fonts in some aboriginal languages with detailed orthographies

poses a challenge, the possibility of audio and video technology in com-

munication helps to mitigate the literacy component required by textual

communication. Because the Internet can be accessed in many First Na-

tions people’s homes and communities as well as in public libraries in

the city, Internet resources provide virtual places for urban aboriginal

language learning.

Cultural Expression

Singing and dance groups offer urban aboriginal people opportunities

to be together and strengthen their ties with their cultures, as do cultural

events such as powwows, canoe journeys, and weekly dance nights at the

Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre. Language can be incorporated

into these groups and events through songs, personal introductions, and

storytelling. Many groups already include varying amounts of language

in their activities.

In their discussion of Tlingit technical, emotional, and ideological at-

titudes toward the Tlingit language, Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer note

that language-learning efforts were fi nding limited success in communi-

ties, while singing and dancing groups were thriving: “Singing and danc-


ing are easier, more fun, more tangible, and less threatening than language learning.”64 They list reasons for the imbalance between singing and danc-ing initiatives and language education, and they voice concern that sing-ing and dancing provide only surface exposure to language learning.

Research participants for this study viewed their involvement in sing-ing and dancing groups differently. Gayle Buchanan states: “Teaching in that formal set-up that we use for learning languages . . . doesn’t give those students an opportunity to practice and carry it on. But with songs, some of the words can stick with them for their rest of their lives.” Likewise, Kway’Waat refl ects on communities applying to the FPHLCC for tradi-tional culture programming: “We allow the community to do those types of projects that [will] promote language. . . . I’ve heard communities say, ‘Well, if we didn’t have this traditional song class, learning the language while we’re doing it, it never would have sparked the whole community. It never would have motivated [them].” Urban singing and dance groups have already formed in Vancouver, sometimes joining together individu-als from different nations, other times bringing together members from the same cultural background. Motivation to learn an aboriginal language can develop out of these groups, as Kway’Waat mentions. The groups can also foster language learning collectively through song.

Aboriginal languages are also included in cultural activities like pow-wows and Tribal Journeys, an annual canoe event held in association with the North American Indigenous Games. These occasions allow for cultural expression, relationship building, and celebration of cultural survival. Incorporating ancestral languages in these events is another way to make places for Native languages in people’s lives. Like song and dance performances and immersion camps, the inclusion of Native lan-guages does not necessarily translate into the daily use of languages by urban aboriginal people, but the events serve as memorable occasions for those involved to explore their heritage in corporeal and tangible ways. The presence of aboriginal language can enhance these experi-ences. Weekly dance nights at the Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Cen-tre offer regular opportunities for incorporating language into cultural performance and practicing its use.65

Master-Apprentice Learning and Language Groups

Linguist Leanne Hinton, along with other stakeholders in Native Califor-

nian language revitalization efforts, developed the intensive Master-Ap-


prentice Language Learning Method in the early 1990s.66 In their guide-

book for masters and apprentices, Hinton and her coauthors explain:

The Master-Apprentice Language Learning Method is a mentored

learning approach, created for people who may not have access

to language classes, but, instead, have access to a speaker. . . . The

program is designed so that a highly motivated team consisting

of a speaker and a learner can go about language teaching/learn-

ing on their own without outside help from experts. The teaching

and learning is done through immersion: the team members com-

mit themselves to spending ten to twenty hours per week together,

speaking primarily in the language.67

The urban aboriginal language context, particularly in a linguistically di-

verse place like Vancouver, is an appropriate environment for this form

of language learning.

Fluent elders from communities around the province have moved to

Vancouver during their lifetimes for employment, education, family, and

other personal reasons. Some move temporarily for health reasons, stay-

ing in healthcare facilities in the city. Just like individuals seeking to learn

their language in the city, few obvious opportunities exist for urban el-

ders to speak their language. Master-apprentice learning is a promising

possibility for fl uent speakers who want to make places for speaking

their languages and for potential speakers to learn and practice. It in-

volves dedication and patience from both individuals in a partnership.

Master-apprentice partnerships can take time to establish, and pairs

have to determine how to maintain commitment to their shared en-

deavor. The fi rst step is identifying and matching interested fl uent speak-

ers and potential learners. Matching speakers and learners through word

of mouth is an appropriate place to begin when there is an established

network of members from a nation or cultural group.68

Competing priorities of city life can also pose a major challenge for

masters and apprentices. People have many responsibilities and activities

to juggle. Nonetheless, urban aboriginal people have made places in their

lives for cultural expression, and making places for language through the

master-apprentice method is an opportunity to explore their culture in

another way. It is more amenable to the urban setting than a system-

atic class because it allows fl exibility. Masters and apprentices can talk

in their ancestral language while caring for children, grocery shopping,


or taking walks. In fact, these activities might be ideal environments for fostering a living relationship with the language, as apprentices learn to apply Native words and ideas to their everyday lives. If the pair is com-mitted, they can incorporate life routines into their time together. Edu-cation scholar Mark Fettes emphasizes that doing things together in a language, telling stories in a language, and creating living relationships through language learning and use are essential components of success-ful language renewal.69 The master-apprentice approach opens up these possibilities for social, cultural, and linguistic connections.

Although intensive, long-term master-apprentice partnerships are ideal for achieving maximum fl uency, smaller scale approaches can also be used to pair speakers and learners in informal language-learning projects. Since 2007 I have participated in the Cree Speakers Group, a weekly gathering of language learners led by our Cree teacher and lo-cated in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside neighborhood. The initiative was organized by my friend and colleague Juliet Van Vliet to create a place for her to practice Cree outside of a course she was taking in the University of British Columbia’s First Nations Languages Program. It has since grown to include three regular learners and many occasional visitors. With a speaker and dedicated learners, projects like this one of-fer a relatively simple model for bringing language into the lives of ur-ban aboriginal people.

With dedication and enthusiasm, making practical places for urban aboriginal language learning can be an enriching exercise for all involved. These practical approaches present possibilities for language workers and learners to build upon and tailor programs to individuals’ specifi c lin-guistic needs. Emerging language ideologies expressed in interviews for this study indicate that keen individuals are ready to make places in their urban lives for language. Knowing one’s options allows for exploration,

trial and error, and adaptation toward urban language learning.

conclusion

During an interview with Jerilynn Webster, executive director of the

Knowledgeable Aboriginal Youth Association, she explained:

Our bodies are made a certain way so you could speak your lan-

guage. . . . If you look at different languages, languages are what the

land looks like. So it’s according to what your environment is. If


you’re not in that environment, you’re displaced. Cut. That’s why

the language isn’t happening, because we’re not feeling that. . . . We

can’t feel our Mother, we can’t feel our language.

Jerilynn and other urban aboriginal people can feel disconnected from their identities, lands, and languages, and it is increasingly important to identify ways to reconnect and strengthen these ties as more aboriginal people live in cities. Urban language learning and use is one way to fos-ter connections to local peoples, faraway homelands, and fellow urban community members.

Based on emerging language ideologies of research participants, I have identifi ed three challenges for language workers and learners: con-fronting lingering stereotypes about urban aboriginal people, addressing diverse linguistic needs of the urban aboriginal population, and iden-tifying and implementing approaches for connecting urban aboriginal people with their homelands, languages, and identities. With support from Wilson and Peters, Ramirez, Lawrence, and research participants, I have demonstrated that aboriginal people make places in their lives for cultural connection and expression. I have also argued that the city and its aboriginal peoples act as a hub for individuals who move or travel between their homelands and their urban homes. Language workers and learners can draw on these existing practices and relationships to estab-lish a network of skilled and knowledgeable individuals. These efforts can work to redefi ne urban aboriginal identity, refuting stereotypes that separate urban lifestyles from authentic aboriginal identity.

I have suggested that placing language—acknowledging local peoples, lands, and languages—is an important part of addressing linguistic and cultural diversity in the city. Respecting and honoring local languages follows protocol. Public use of local languages signals dedicated connec-tion to local place and peoples.

Finally, I have detailed how language workers and learners can engage in making places for language in the city. This entails both ideological and practical processes. Language workers and learners can identify mo-tivations and obstacles for learning aboriginal languages and tailor their projects accordingly. Suggested approaches include establishing home-land-urban partnerships, encouraging urban participation in language immersion camps, utilizing Internet resources, bringing language into

already existing forms of urban cultural expression, and forming mas-

ter-apprentice partnerships and informal language groups.


Language revitalization is a key concern for contemporary aboriginal

people. This pressing issue deserves attention and action, and integrat-

ing urban aboriginal people into wider language revitalization efforts is

an essential step. Bringing urban aboriginal people together with their

heritage languages can enhance connections between peoples, home-

lands, and cultural identities. Encouraging Jerilynn and others to feel,

hear, speak, and see their aboriginal languages in the city is a powerful

and important endeavor.

notes

The epigraphs are quoted from Jacqueline Windh, “Native Youth, Clinging to Their Culture: ‘At potlatches they speak in our language. I’ve no idea what’s going on,’” Tyee, July 30, 2010, http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/07/30/ClingingToCulture.

1. I use various terms to refer to the descendants of the original people living on the land that is now Canada. I use “aboriginal” and “Native” to refer to all Indigenous Canadians, regardless of political status, and to identify those who identify themselves as descendants of Canada’s First Peoples. I also use the term “First Nations.” This distinguishes aboriginal people who do not identify as Mé-tis or Inuit, other major aboriginal groups in Canada.

2. Language workers include linguists, language activists, educators, and re-source material developers.

3. In our interview, Sherry Small, a Nisga’a woman employed at the Van-couver Aboriginal Friendship Centre, stated her preference for the term “homeland(s)” over “reserve(s)” when talking about her own and others’ home communities. I respect this distinction and use the term “homelands” when appropriate.

4. The recently published Urban Aboriginal Peoples Study examined urban aboriginal people’s experiences in Vancouver and other Canadian cities. Among other questions about connections to cities and homelands, identity and culture, and experiences with aboriginal service organizations, participants were asked which aspects of aboriginal culture they feel are most important to be passed on to their children and grandchildren. Language ranked highest on this list at a 72 percent response rate. This valuation lends further support to the fi nd-ings of my own study, underlining the signifi cance of language for many urban aboriginal Vancouverites. It is also consistent with the Urban Aboriginal Peo-ples Study’s fi ndings in other cities. Aboriginal Vancouverites also commented on the increasing strength of aboriginal culture in the city and their growing confi dence in maintaining their cultural connections in an urban environment. See Environics Institute, “Urban Aboriginal Peoples Study: Vancouver Report,”

http://uaps.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/UAPS-Vancouver-report.pdf, 32.


5. Kathryn A. Woolard and Bambi B. Schieffelin, “Language Ideology,” An-nual Review of Anthropology 23 (1994): 55–82.

6. This article focuses on the social aspects of language ideology, with no concentration on microprocesses of language and how they are affected by speakers’ ideologies. Language ideology emerges from the discipline of linguis-tic anthropology. While heavily infl uenced by linguistics and its subject matter, students of language ideology and linguistic anthropology more generally have emphasized the social aspects of language alongside or in place of microanalysis. For an in-depth and wide-ranging discussion of the study of language ideolo-gies in (rural) Native North American contexts, see Paul V. Kroskrity and Mar-garet C. Field, eds., Native American Language Ideologies: Beliefs, Practices, and Struggles in Indian Country (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2009).

7. John Myhill, “Identity, Territoriality, and Minority Language Survival,” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 20, no. 1 (1999): 34.

8. Nora Marks Dauenhauer and Richard Dauenhauer explain that “ideo-logical clarifi cation” involves understanding language learners’ motivations and goals. I discuss their ideas in more detail in a later section. Nora Marks Dauenhauer and Richard Dauenhauer, “Technical, Emotional, and Ideological Issues in Reversing Language Shift: Examples from Southeast Alaska,” in Endan-gered Languages: Current Issues and Future Prospects, ed. Lenore A. Grenoble and Lindsay J. Whaley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 57–98; see also David Bradley, “Language Attitudes: The Key Factor in Language Mainte-nance,” in Language Endangerment and Language Maintenance, ed. David Brad-ley and Maya Bradley (London: Routledge, 2002), 1–10; Kroskrity and Field, Na-tive American Language Ideologies.

9. Patricia A. Shaw, “Language and Identity, Language and the Land,” BC Studies 131 (2001): 45–46.

10. Federally funded and church run, residential schools were modeled on boarding schools developed in the United States; these schools removed Native children from their parents and put them on a path toward assimilation. In the 1980s some residential survivors began sharing stories of abuses they endured while attending the schools. There were numerous accounts from residential school survivors of particularly severe punishments meted out for those who spoke in their Native language. Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology for the residential school program on June 11, 2008, and a federal com-pensation package has been implemented for residential school survivors. De-spite these gestures, the residential school system continues to exert its painful legacy for many survivors and their families. See Agnes Grant, No End of Grief: Indian Residential Schools in Canada (Winnipeg: Pemmican Publications, 1996); Jennifer J. Llewellyn, “Dealing with the Legacy of Native Residential School

Abuse in Canada: Litigation, ADR, and Restorative Justice,” University of Toronto

Law Journal 52, no. 3 (2002): 253–300.


During what has come to be known as the Sixties Scoop, hundreds of aborig-

inal children were placed under the jurisdiction of Child Welfare Services. They

were placed in a series of foster homes or permanently in the homes of nonab-

original adoptive parents. One research participant was in fi fteen foster homes

between the ages of one and four and was separated from his twin brother for

many years. The effects of this policy produced fragmentation of families and

damaged cultural and linguistic transmission in aboriginal communities. Ab-

original children are still overrepresented in Child and Family Services care to-

day. See Andrew Armitage, Comparing the Policy of aboriginal Assimilation: Aus-

tralia, Canada, New Zealand (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press,

1995); Suzanne Fournier and Ernie Crey Jr., Stolen from Our Embrace: The Ab-

duction of First Nations Children and the Restoration of Aboriginal Communities

(Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1997).

A tipping point in the cumulative government attempts to eradicate aborigi-

nality occurred in 1969 with the publication of the White Paper written by Min-

ister of Indian Affairs Jean Chrétien. This policy paper sought to eliminate the

Indian Act, the statute that stipulates legal rights of registered Indians. In an

attempt to address the societal inequalities between Native people and non-Na-

tives, Chrétien also proposed that treaties and the reserve system be abandoned

so that Native people could assimilate fully into mainstream Canadian society.

Many First Nations people were outraged by the White Paper’s disregard of their

colonized histories and federal responsibilities to them. The National Indian

Brotherhood put forward a rebuttal called “Citizens Plus,” commonly known as

the Red Paper, admonishing the government for reneging on treaty obligations

and federal fi duciary responsibilities. According to one research participant, the

White and Red Papers served as “a lightning rod that unifi ed [Native] people

within the province and across the country.” The bold reaction to the White

Paper and the policies it proposed ushered in a new era of assertion of aborigi-

nal rights and political engagement. Political recognition of aboriginal rights, a

key part of this ongoing struggle, came when the Constitution was repatriated

to Canada and the Constitution Act of 1982 was enacted. The Canadian Char-

ter of Rights, section 35 states: “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the

aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affi rmed.” As aborigi-

nal peoples continue to voice their concerns and seek redress, language has be-

come symbolic of reclamation of and pride in Native identity. Language revival

is therefore sometimes associated with decolonization and sovereignty.

11. Jane Hill reminds us that the term “value” signifi es an economic worth

and/or commodifi cation. Appreciation of aboriginal languages often falls under

a different concept of value and may take on new meaning. Jane Hill, “‘Expert

Rhetorics’ in Advocacy for Endangered Languages: Who Is Listening, and What

Do They Hear?,” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12, no. 2 (2002): 119–33.


12. Several research participants shared their personal connections to the res-

idential school system. The executive director of a youth organization, Jerilynn

Webster, discussed her grandfather’s experience with residential schools: “My

grandpa knew his language. He knew two dialects. But the residential school

said, ‘Your language is ugly. You are ugly. If you say it, I’m going to beat you.’

So he said [as an adult], ‘I’m not going to teach my daughter because I don’t

want her to get that.’” Richard Vedan, then acting director of the First Nations

House of Learning at the University of British Columbia, discussed the legacy of

residential schooling, recounting his father’s experience receiving punishment

for speaking Shuswap in residential school. Years later, his father only spoke his

language with his brother or cousin in private. Refl ecting on the effects of his fa-

ther’s experience, Dr. Vedan stated: “It’s human nature that when a young child

sees people . . . doing things in a surreptitious manner, you get the idea, ‘Well,

this must be bad. If you can’t do it in open public, there must be something

wrong.’ . . . In terms of self-identity, it becomes self-internal oppression—it be-

comes internalized, and that gets passed on over generation to generation.”

13. Ms. Webster agrees: “I wish I could think in my language. . . . It’s all about

decolonizing or unlearning. Because we have it in our blood, in our minds, in

our spirits, in our hearts—it’s still there.”

14. The 17th Annual Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium, Eugene,

Oregon, June 25–26, 2010, emphasized the connections between land and lan-

guage by organizing the conference around the theme of language and place.

15. Devon Mihesuah, So You Want to Write about American Indians? A Guide

for Writers, Students, and Scholars (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005);

Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peo-

ples (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999); Onowa McIvor, “Building the Nests:

Indigenous Language Revitalization in Canada through Early Childhood Im-

mersion Programs” (MA thesis, University of Victoria, British Columbia, 2005).

16. I designed this exploratory study to elicit a broad and diverse range of

perspectives from experts in language revitalization, aboriginal education, and

urban aboriginal community services. I contacted specifi c individuals based

on their local expertise in these fi elds as well as relevant and important local

aboriginal organizations. Participating organizations included the Native Edu-

cation College, the Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre, the University of

British Columbia First Nations House of Learning, aboriginal co-op radio pro-

grams, and the Squamish Nation, among others. These organizations chose ap-

propriate representatives to speak on relevant issues for my research. Research

participants generously shared their ideas during semistructured qualitative in-

terviews. They also put me in contact with other individuals who in turn par-

ticipated in the study. My interviews ranged from February to July 2008. It is my

hope that this study, though exploratory, illuminates the great need for research


that closely examines further complexities, possibilities, challenges, and alterna-

tive approaches to urban aboriginal language revitalization.

17. My focus on areas of synthesis and agreement does not suggest that there

is a consistent “dominant language ideology” emerging among urban aboriginal

people, nor do I wish to gloss over contestation. Instead, I hope to point out

possible syntheses of ideas that may be useful when considering if and how ef-

forts in the city should commence, develop, and continue. For discussion of the

multiplicities and complexities of language ideologies within and across aborig-

inal communities, see Kroskrity and Field, Native American Language Ideologies.

18. Kirsten Baker-Williams, “Na mi k’anatsut ta Sḵwx_wú7mesh sníchim chet:

Squamish Language Revitalization: From the Hearts and the Minds of the Lan-

guage Speakers” (MA thesis, University of British Columbia, 2006); Squamish

Nation Education Department, Sḵwx_wú7mesh sníchim xwelí ten sní chim: Skex-

wts/Squamish–English Dictionary (North Vancouver, BC: Squamish Nation Edu-

cation Department; Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2011).

19. See Nicholas Blomley, Unsettling the City: Urban Land and the Politics

of Property (New York: Routledge, 2003); and Robert McDonald, Making Van-

couver: Class, Status, and Social Boundaries, 1886–1913 (Vancouver: University of

British Columbia Press, 1996).

20. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Perspectives and Realities (Ot-

tawa: The Commission, 1996).

21. “2010 Census Bulletin: Data on Aboriginal Peoples” (City of Vancouver,

May 2008), http://www.metrovancouver.org/region/aboriginal/aboriginal%20

Affairs%20documents/2006CensusBulletinOnaboriginalPeoples.pdf.

22. “2006 Census: Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and

First Nations: An Increasingly Urban Population” (Statistics Canada, 2008),

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-558/p3-eng.cfm.

23. David R. Newhouse and Evelyn J. Peters, eds., Not Strangers in These Parts:

Urban Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa: Policy Research Initiative, 2003), 5.

24. For detailed discussions of aboriginal mobility, migration, and popula-

tion rates, see Eric Guimond, “Fuzzy Defi nitions and Population Explosion:

Changing Identities of Aboriginal Groups in Canada,” and Mary Jane Norris

and Stewart Clatworthy, “Aboriginal Mobility and Migration within Urban Can-

ada,” both in Not Strangers in These Parts, ed. David R. Newhouse and Evelyn J.

Peters (Ottawa: Policy Research Initiative, 2003).

25. For the purposes of this study, I have maintained a focus on Vancouver in

particular, British Columbia and Canada more generally, and the United States

to some extent. The work of Susan Lobo and Kurt Peters, Bonita Lawrence, and

Renya Ramirez, among others, demonstrates the potential for cross-fertilization

of conceptualizations of urban aboriginality in diverse contexts. As Ramirez

points out, we can also learn from and engage with scholars and activists in


other colonized places, such as Latin America, New Zealand, and Australia. Still,

there are signifi cant local, regional, national, historical, and demographic dif-

ferences among urban aboriginal people that must be taken into consideration

when embarking on language revitalization projects. I have attempted here to

focus on local issues and contextualize them within broader historical and po-

litical processes. I hope that the ideas generated here can link up with urban

aboriginal people’s experiences elsewhere to illustrate areas of potential synthe-

sis as well as divergent needs, approaches, and processes of urban identity and

language revitalization.

26. Susan Lobo and Kurt Peters, eds., American Indians and the Urban Experi-

ence (Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 2001).

27. Susan Lobo, introduction to Lobo and Peters, American Indians and the

Urban Experience, xi.

28. See Cole Harris, Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Re-

serves in British Columbia (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press,

2002); Renisa Mawani, Colonial Proximities: Crossracial Encounters and Juridical

Truths in British Columbia, 1871–1921 (Vancouver: University of British Colum-

bia Press, 2009); and Renisa Mawani, “Legal Geographies of Aboriginal Segrega-

tion in British Columbia: The Making and Unmaking of the Songhees Reserve,

1850–1911,” in Isolation: Places and Practices of Exclusion, ed. Carolyn Strange and

Alison Bashford (London: Routledge, 2003), 173–90.

29. Kathi Wilson and Evelyn J. Peters, “‘You Can Make a Place for It’: Remap-

ping Urban First Nations Spaces of Identity,” Society and Space 23 (2005): 399.

30. Using a Lockean notion of property enacted by settlers, Blomley ex-

plains: “Colonial cities, simply put, cannot be conceived as native spaces be-

cause they have so obviously been occupied, built upon and improved” (Unset-

tling the City, 119).

31. One research participant remarked that to fi nd most reserves in rural

British Columbia, one ought to look for out-of-the-way places: “Where the re-

serves are—you look for billboards, you look for railway tracks, you look for

bridges—you look for marginalized land.”

32. Lobo, introduction, xiv.

33. Susan Lobo, “Is Urban a Person or a Place? Characteristics of Urban Indian

Country,” in Lobo and Peters, American Indians and the Urban Experience, 76.

34. Bonita Lawrence, “Real Indians” and Others: Mixed-Blood Urban Na-

tive Peoples and Indigenous Nationhood (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,

2004).

35. See also Susan Applegate Krouse and Heather A. Howard, eds., Keeping

the Campfi res Going: Native Women’s Activism in Urban Communities (Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press, 2009).

36. For example, a local art center, W2: Community Media Arts, recently put


a call out for artists to participate in an exhibition celebrating urban aborigi-

nal culture and identity, acknowledging the vibrant and active art scene among

Vancouver’s aboriginal communities: “This exhibition from Coast Salish–based

Aboriginal Artists tells the story of cultural, political and social revival and re-

silience. Through visual and media arts, readings and live performance, colo-

nial policies and practices are challenged. Predominantly a younger population,

a majority of urban Aboriginal People fi nd the ‘Urban rez’ to be ‘home’ and

are making and keeping their cultural identity strong.” The exhibition is called

REZillience and is part of the Surge Festival, an “Urban Digital Culture Festival.”

Irwin Oostindie, “REZillience Exhibition—Call for Submissions,” W2 Commu-

nity Media Arts, July 20, 2010, http://www.creativetechnology.org/profi les/blogs/

rezilliance-exhibition-call.

37. Wilson and Peters, “‘You Can Make a Place for It,’” 397.

38. Renya Ramirez, Native Hubs: Culture, Community, and Belonging in Sili-

con Valley (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007), 15.

39. The 2010 Winter Olympic Games featured local First Nations promi-

nently through activities at the downtown Aboriginal Pavilion and other sites

around the city, aboriginal designs on Olympic medals and merchandise, and

representation among Canadian heads of state during the opening ceremony.

The partnership between Olympic organizers and the Squamish and Lil’wat Na-

tions has also produced the Squamish-Lil’wat Cultural Centre in Whistler, Brit-

ish Columbia. In a related initiative, the Sea-to-Sky Highway, which connects

Vancouver to Whistler, has recently been updated with Squamish place-name

signage and roadside kiosks with information about local people’s stories and

uses of the landscape. At the same time, land claims for local groups remain

unresolved, and assertions of sovereignty and land rights garner media atten-

tion. Examples include the Squamish Nation’s decision to erect large electronic

billboards on their urban lands, the Musqueam Nation’s contestation over a golf

course on their territories, and the Tsleil-Waututh’s demands for consultation

for development projects on their lands.

40. See Shaw, “Language and Identity”; Wilson and Peters, “‘You Can Make

a Place for It.’”

41. Xálek’s English name is Chief Ian Campbell.

42. Mary Jane Norris, “Canada’s Aboriginal Languages,” Canadian Social

Trends 51 (Winter 1998): 8–16.

43. It is clearly important to recognize that the local aboriginal groups may

have overlapping claims to urban territory and that the choice of which lan-

guage to use publicly in the ways described here may be a challenging process.

My aim is to communicate the prospects for public language use as communi-

cated by research participants who emphasized that acknowledging the local


peoples and their languages demonstrates respect and adherence to protocol.

Knowledge of and sensitivity to diverse local traditions is important.

44. Mark Hall is a pseudonym.

45. Josephine Young is a pseudonym.

46. For example, road signs in the languages of the Squamish and Lil’wat

Nation and roadside kiosks depicting their art and stories were erected

through the Sea-to-Sky Cultural Journey project. The purpose of the proj-

ect is to remind visitors of the continual Squamish and Lil’wat occupa-

tion of and presence on the landscape. Jennifer Miller, “Cultural Journey In-

creases Nations’ Visibility: Highway Signs, Info Kiosks, New Book Help Tell

Story of Squamish, Lil’wat,” Chief, July 2, 2010, http://www.squamishchief

.com/article/20100702/SQUAMISH0101/307029972/-1/SQUAMISH/cultural

-journey-increases-nations-146-visibility.

47. Learning about local groups allows for development of knowledge about

other aboriginal people and their distinct traditions and experiences. See Marie

Battiste, Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision (Vancouver: University of Brit-

ish Columbia Press, 2000); Norbert Francis and Jon Reyhner, Language and Lit-

eracy Teaching for Indigenous Education: A Bilingual Approach (Clevedon: Mul-

tilingual Matters, 2000).

48. Lobo, “Is Urban a Person or a Place?,” 73.

49. I realize that privileging land-based connection to aboriginal heritage

may be problematic for aboriginal people who do not or cannot link their heri-

tage with a specifi c homeland or who have multiple aboriginal heritages. It is

therefore important to exercise sensitivity when applying placing language as a

model of urban aboriginal language revitalization support.

50. Gayle Buchanan is a pseudonym.

51. Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer, “Technical, Emotional, and Ideological Is-

sues,” 94–95.

52. Many language workers advocate for intergenerational transmission as

the primary way to keep languages alive and healthy.

53. Xálek’ links obsolescence of language with land dispossession.

54. At the time of our interview, Suzanne Gessner was the acting head of the

University of British Columbia’s First Nations Languages Program.

55. See Darcy Hallett, Michael J. Chandler, and Christopher E. Lalonde, “Ab-

original Language Knowledge and Youth Suicide,” Cognitive Development 22, no.

3 (2007): 392–99.

56. The FPHLCC was established in 1990 as a provincial organization and is

supported through the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Act, a pro-

vincial act of legislation.

57. Kway’Waat’s English name is Deanna Daniels.

58. A requirement for funding specifi cally aimed toward the development of


language education materials is that materials be made available to community

members free of cost.

59. The Nisga’a Nation has already seized this opportunity by creating an ur-

ban society of Nisga’a Nation members. Sherry Small explained that her nation

has “specifi c services for Nisga’a only” in the city. The urban Nisga’a society is

connected with her homeland, and she suggests that other nations could follow

a similar model. Language and culture classes are offered and other services are

extended to Nisga’a living in three urban centers: Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and

Terrace. By giving urban members opportunities to learn more about Nisga’a

culture and language, the Nisga’a Nation is strengthened and a strong trans-

national community is created. Similar efforts are under way at the Intertribal

Friendship House in Oakland, California, for Lakota and Cherokee languages

and likely elsewhere as well. Further research into the successes and challenges

of these programs will help to establish best practices for new initiatives.

60. See Christine P. Sims, “Native Language Planning: A Pilot Process in the

Acoma Pueblo Community,” in The Green Book of Language Revitalization in

Practice, ed. Leanne Hinton and Kenneth Hale (San Diego: Academic Press,

2001), 70.

61. See Laura Buszard-Welcher, “Can the Web Help Save My Language?,” in

Hinton and Hale, The Green Book, 331–48; Patrick Eisenlohr, “Language Revitaliza-

tion and New Technologies: Cultures of Electronic Mediation and the Refi guring

of Communities,” Annual Review of Anthropology 33 (2004): 21–45; Patrick Moore

and Kate Hennessy, “New Technologies and Contested Ideologies: The Tagish

FirstVoices Project,” American Indian Quarterly 30, nos. 1 and 2 (2006): 119–37.

62. First People’s Cultural Foundation, First Voices (2000–2010), http://www

.fi rstvoices.com/en/home.

63. Media developments for language revitalization are especially important

considering the pervasive mainstream media, which competes against cultural

traditions and events for the attention of aboriginal youth. According to Mary

Ann Norris, “aboriginal youth today have to contend with the prevailing infl u-

ence of English and French through the mass media, popular culture, and other

aspects of their daily lives such as education and work” (“Aboriginal Languages

in Canada: Emerging Trends and Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition,”

Canadian Social Trends 83 [Summer 2007]: 24). See also Windh, “Native Youth,

Clinging to Their Culture.”

64. Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer, “Technical, Emotional, and Ideological Is-

sues,” 67–68.

65. The Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre hosts Powwow Night on

Tuesday evening and West Coast Night on Wednesday evening each week.

66. Hinton and Hale, The Green Book.

67. Leanne Hinton, Matt Vera, and Nancy Steele, How to Keep Your Language


Alive: A Commonsense Approach to One-on-One Language Learning (Berke-

ley: Heyday Books, 2002), xiii–xiv. Ideally, the master-apprentice team would

get funding to compensate for the extensive time commitment required. New

funding opportunities are available through the FPHLCC for master-apprentice

pairs but are limited in number. Committed individuals who participate in this

approach and cannot secure funding will have to rely on personal motivation to

begin and continue their partnership.

68. Linguists Suzanne Gessner and Henry Davis both expressed the need

for a coordinator to match pairs. Dr. Gessner explained: “You would want to

have someone sort of overseeing all of the groups, and maybe organizing ev-

ery couple of weeks or once a month a meeting where everyone gets together

and shares their experiences and so on.” She got the idea from an apprentice

who developed an apprentice group in her community. Their meetings allow

the apprentices a space to vent frustrations, share success stories, and practice

their language together. The master-apprentice coordinator could also apply for

funding in collaboration with master-apprentice teams and collect resources for

language learning. More research will need to be done to fi nd out ways to fi -

nance a master-coordinator position and to determine how best to create and

sustain the role.

69. Mark Fettes, “Stabilizing What? An Ecological Approach to Language Re-

newal,” in Teaching Indigenous Languages, ed. Jon Reyhner (Flagstaff: Center for

Excellence in Education, 1997).

Copyright of American Indian Quarterly is the property of University of Nebraska Press and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

"we can't feel our language": making places in the city for aboriginal language...

Documents