Conference Agenda

The promotion of indigenous languages is more than ever a hot topic, especially in the Oceanic linguistic ecosystem, which contains almost 1/3 of the world's languages, most of which are vulnerable. In 2022, UNESCO launched the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, wishing to mobilize, on an international scale, on the urgency of promoting and preserving global glottodiversity. In this context, we propose an original study that puts language and education policies into perspectives in two neighboring territories: New Caledonia (NC) and Vanuatu. These territories have a rich endogenous (but endangered) linguistic diversity, with about 28 Kanak languages identified in NC, and 138 indigenous languages in Vanuatu, with different degrees of vitality and status at national level (Moseley, 2010).

We now have good evidence that national measures taken to ensure that every child can receive an education in his or her mother tongue reduce inequalities, promote inclusion and encourage the learning of basic skills, particularly reading and writing (Helot & Rubio, 2013). Thus, what educational actions are deployed in favor of the linguistic diversity in these two territories? The comparative perspective of language and education policies in New-Caledonia and Vanuatu will provide an overview of language revitalization initiatives in highly plurilingual and post-colonial contexts. (New Caledonia is engaged in a process of decolonization, while Vanuatu has been independent since 1980). The paper is based on an interview survey of more than thirty institutional stakeholders (conducted in 2022-2023), in New Caledonia and Vanuatu. This research is rooted in a multidisciplinary perspective, involving sociolinguistics, language didactics and political science.

HELOT Christine, RUBIO Marie-Nicole, 2013, Développement du langage et plurilinguisme chez le jeune enfant, Toulouse, Eres.

MOSELEY Christopher (éd.), 2010, Atlas des langues en danger dans le monde, deuxième édition, Paris, Éditions UNESCO [URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000189451]

Coined and influenced by Canada’s language policy perspective, the United States has developed the Heritage language (HL) practice over more than 20 years (Wiley et.al., 2014). These efforts have been identified as the Language as Resource or Right Orientations, in keeping with the theoretical framework put forth by Richard Ruiz (1984). According to Ricento (2005); however, there is a tendency “to focus on the instrumental values of heritage languages while ignoring (or downplaying) the human beings, communities, and socio-political dimensions of language acquisition…” (p.362). I recognize that there has been a positive movement within the HL initiative to include Indigenous languages, but there is still a gap between Indigenous and Immigrant language policy perspectives. I argue that a framework of “Trauma/Healing Informed”, which is now widely adopted, can inform a direction for HL policy development.

This framework has been embraced by educators in the health and child care fields for years (Nicholson et.al., 2019) as “historical and cultural forms of trauma are multigenerational/intergenerational involving a collective and cumulative emotional wounding” (P.21), and “trauma-sensitive strategies will promote healing over time” (p.25). Additionally, with the Obama administration’s back-up for this framework in education and our recent experiences of the COVID pandemic, the trauma-informed pedagogy has demonstrated its effectiveness as educational practice for all (Mays, 2020). Indigenous language revitalization groups have embraced the trauma/healing-informed framework (CTWS 2023; Kono, 2020; Kono & Switzler, 2021; Whalen, et.al., 2016; 2018). Whalen (2023) emphasized the healing aspects of language and the connection between Indigenous language and health; and that language learning contributes to emotional, physical and spiritual health, as well as improves graduation rates. Recognizing cultural and historical trauma, connecting with community, and specifically efforts to heal such trauma through language, can contribute to further development for HL policy.

It is imperative for Inuit to decolonize education today as the Canadian government's historical efforts to erase Inuit language and culture, particularly through policies and practices like residential schools, continue to have lasting effects. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada calls for Indigenous communities to have agency over protecting their languages and cultures. In an increasingly globalized world, Inuit must take action to reverse language loss and language shift. Drawing upon a comprehensive review of 60 research articles and related resources on Inuit, this commentary seeks to provide educational leaders in Inuit Nunangat with an overview of the far-reaching impacts of colonialism on education. It also highlights the urgent need to address the resulting educational and socioeconomic disparities that impact Inuit communities. This commentary outlines strategies for decolonizing education systems, with a focus on revitalizing and preserving language and culture and shares examples of how some communities have already begun the process. To decolonize education, Inuit must take agency to control our own educational programs, resist the influence of colonialism, selectively appropriate elements from southern (outside of Inuit Nunangat) systems, to centralize their own worldview in the curricula. Inuit language and culture can achieve vitality when interwoven with Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (traditional knowledge), traditional activities, and land-based practices. This can be facilitated in schools through the implementation of culturally responsive pedagogy and the inclusion of elders, ensuring a holistic approach to education.

Keywords: decolonization, Inuit, culture, language revitalization, language maintenance

In 2017/18, the “Many Voices, One Mind Action Plan” (MVOM Action Plan) consultations with Indigenous employees revealed that the language requirements of positions paired with lack of access to French language training posed a significant barrier to advancement for Indigenous federal employees (KCII 2017). It also found that English-speaking Indigenous employees were affected more so than French-speaking Indigenous employees. These barriers continue to manifest today.

The paper was written to address these issues more fully. A critical Indigenist lens shed light on how section 91 of the Official Languages Act (OLA) and other language of work legislation and policies appear fair on the surface, but in practice amount to disadvantage. Moreover, the intersections between the Official Languages Modernization Framework, Indigenous identity, self-identification, reconciliation, substantive equality, and linguistic and cultural pluralism indicate that systems are too rigid, and difference is not properly accounted for. All of which implies a need for government to reconsider how the Official Languages Act is operationalized, especially Part VI (equity) and section 39 (1).

The paper invites a deeper discussion on Indigeneity and linguistic and cultural plurality. And raises the question, how will government bring implementation of An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Indigenous Languages Act, the Multiculturalism Act, and the English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada framework into conversation with the OLA and its related instruments to achieve a more inclusive application of official language requirements? We argue that a substantive equality approach can address Indigenous employees’ language of work barriers and better account for difference, including Indigenous cultural and/or linguistic competencies in positions. A position aligning with the actions set out in both the MVOM Action Plan and the Clerk’s Call to Action on Anti-Racism, Equity, and Inclusion.

This research examines the role of language learning applications in modern education, highlighting their potential yet often neglect of underrepresented groups, including speakers of indigenous and less common languages. It emphasizes the need for inclusive language technologies that cater to diverse learners, including both young and adult populations. The study critically assesses the use of speech and language technology, identifying colonialist tendencies, and advocates for anti-colonial methodologies to support the preservation and revival of native languages. Examples include ChatGPT's application in Icelandic and potential uses in Mayan communities. The research proposes leveraging smaller, community-focused language models to preserve indigenous languages and resist corporate linguistic dominance. The abstract calls for a more inclusive, comprehensive approach in language learning technology, prioritizing varied learner needs and promoting decolonization.

References

Bamblett, L. (2018). Indigenous affairs and solution critique. Australian Aboriginal Studies, (2), 80-81.

Bird, S. (2010; 2020). Oral literature preservation; Decolonising language technology. ICADL 2010; Computational Linguistics Conf., 3504-3519.

Boyd, D. (2016). Critical pedagogy in online learning. Int. Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 7(1).

Gangaiamaran, R., & Pasupathi, M. (2017). Mobile apps in language learning. Int. Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12(21), 11242-11251.

Lawrence, G., et al. (2022). ePortfolios to integrative systems. Springer International Publishing, 73-90.

Mager, M., et al. (2018). Language technologies for indigenous languages. arXiv:1806.04291.

Meighan, P. J. (2021). Technology in Indigenous language revitalization. AlterNative, 17(3), 397-405.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Oppenneer, M. (2011). ICTs in Indigenous cultural preservation. Cultural attitudes towards technology, 510-520.

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97.