Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization

Language & Communication xxx (2015) 1–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Language & Communication journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/langcom

Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization Jenny L. Davis University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, United States

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Language revitalization Ethnolinguistic identity Chickasaw Native American

While the primary focus in language revitalization centers on fluent Speakers, such movements occur in a wider community of partial speakers, language learners, and nonspeakers. In this paper, I explore the linguistic and semiotic strategies within the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma that establish an ethnolinguistic definition of Chickasaw community membership, focusing on how such strategies are utilized by those who do not hold Speaker status. Specifically, I demonstrate how non-Speakers take up and reinforce ethnolinguistic language ideologies that connect them to the Chickasaw language through discourses of language affiliation via (1) a familial relationship to Speakers; (2) some level of Chickasaw language learning or activism; and/or (3) a familial relationship to the language learners and activists in the second category. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Native American communities, like most endangered language communities, face a linguistic double bind in which they come up against competing ideologies that at once demand the use of so called dominant languages in order to be considered local, national, and global citizens while simultaneously expecting them to maintain the use of their heritage languages in order to be deemed authentically indigenous. For generations, overt and covert language policies dramatically halted the transmission of indigenous languages to younger generations and limited the domains in which existing speakers could use their languages. Speaking other dominant languages such as English or Spanish, rather than indigenous languages, was the path toward economic, educational, and social success. At the same time, ethnolinguistic ideologies that equate indigenous identity with indigenous language use de-authenticate Native Americans who do not speak their heritage language. In his commentary on a special journal issue dedicated to “Indian Languages in Unexpected Places,” Philip Deloria concludes that, “when it comes to language, it seems cleardat least in terms of expectationsdthat Indians are in a no-win situation” (2011: 175). Language revitalization, then, is often an attempt to disrupt this linguistic double bind by creating opportunities for community members to learn their heritage language(s) and broadening the contexts in which those languages can again be used (see also Shulist, 2015). In the case of the Chickasaw Nation, the first half of the bind is undermined by reconnecting economic and social success to speaking the Chickasaw language, even as the second half of the bind is reinforced through the promotion of an ethnolinguistic ideology that constructs the Chickasaw language as a primary element of Chickasaw culture and identity. Within the history of the Chickasaw Nation, a seemingly unending barrage of obstacles has contributed to the decline in Chickasaw language use and transmission, including repression-oriented language and education policies; competition with

E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.04.005 0271-5309/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Davis, J.L., Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization, Language & Communication (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.04.005

2

J.L. Davis / Language & Communication xxx (2015) 1–12

dominant languages for association with prestige, economic gain, and educational success; the limited financial and political resources dedicated to linguistic endeavors; and the diasporization of potential and existing Speakers. Utilizing newly acquired economic resources, the Chickasaw Nation is working to counteract these historical realities through the promotion of language documentation and revitalization and efforts to connect socioeconomic value to Speaker status. Even as language revitalization efforts in the Chickasaw Nation work to challenge the first half of the linguistic double bind, which devalues indigenous languages in modern socioeconomic marketplaces, they also reinforce the second half of the double bind, which defines Chickasaw identity in terms of ethnolinguistic ideologies. In the case of the Chickasaw Nation, language revitalization efforts hinge strongly on connecting Chickasaw identity to the language. While much of the focus in language revitalization efforts centers around fluent Speakers, such activities occur in a wider community dynamic of partial speakers, language learners, and non-speakers who nonetheless support language revitalization. In this paper, I explore the various linguistic and semiotic strategies within the Chickasaw Nation in Southeastern Oklahoma that establish an ethnolinguistic definition of Chickasaw community membership with a focus on how such strategies are utilized by those who do not hold Speaker status within the community. As Patrick Eisenlohr (2004) argues, the “use of ancestral languages for creating ethnolinguistic identities represents a different way of figuring community” (81). This paper thus examines how language affiliates negotiate the ethnolinguistic framework of individual and community identity. In doing so I demonstrate that holding Speaker status within a community and having the ability to speak or understand a language are not always the same thing, even while the social prestige granted to Speakers is available to those without those linguistic skills. 2. Methodology and context When examining language revitalization efforts, any number of social, economic, and political dynamics must be taken into account, as they determine what is possible. As with any social or political movement, language revitalization efforts are inherently contextualized by the communities in which they occur. These contexts include everything from the day-to-day lived experiences of community members to overarching governmental systems and policies at all levels. Whether a community’s leadership supports revitalization endeavors, structurally or economically, can dramatically affect how such efforts are executed, and who is able to participate in them. For example, in her research on the revalorization and revitalization of the Kaska language in Yukon Territory, Canada, Barbra Meek (2010) demonstrates that social shifts have the potential to constrain as well as support language revitalization efforts. In this case, policies that promote Speakers may render others invisible or even stigmatized, thereby creating a disjuncture between the overall goals of language revitalization and its ultimate impact in the community. Thus, language revitalization efforts must be examined each in their own unique contexts of development and implementation. This paper explores the ways that language ideologies regarding the status and valuation of Speakers intersect with language revitalization efforts that link the Chickasaw language to an authentic, or essential, Chickasaw identity. This research developed from ongoing fieldwork that I conducted with my tribe, the Chickasaw Nation, as a linguist and researcher at several stages of the Chickasaw language revitalization and documentation process, as well as being informed by my personal and familial membership in the community. The majority of the research was conducted over a period of 5 years (2007–2011), amounting to over 16 months total in the field in Southeastern Oklahoma. During this time, I was based in Ada, Oklahoma, which serves as the government headquarters of the Chickasaw Nation. The nature of the research and my role as a researcher have varied throughout this time, ranging from working as a summer intern in the History and Culture Department (before the formation of the Chickasaw Language Department) to collecting narratives and oral histories from Speakers as a contract linguist, and finally conducting ethnographic fieldwork of the many facets of language revitalization within the tribe. Throughout my fieldwork, my access to tribal events was in many ways facilitated by my community membership, even as it became contextualized through my research interests. This is particularly true of my access to arenas of daily life not specifically related to language revitalization, such as the tribe’s recreation center, hospital, and library, as well as my access to materials available specifically to citizens: the Chickasaw Times newspaper, the yearly calendar, and even a swag bag from the annual meeting. My research was also strongly influenced by my relationship to my maternal grandfather, with whom I lived for the majority of my research. I regularly ran into the people at places such as the grocery store, Wal-Mart, and the local park whom I had encountered in participant observationdfor instance, past or future interviewees, providers of narratives in Chickasaw, and language students. Thus, my familial and personal relationships throughout the community were integral to my experience both in the interactions I had with people and in the networks I had available to me in obtaining interviews. My analysis includes data from fieldnotes produced from participant observation and audio recordings of interviews with a range of individuals and small groups including Speakers of Chickasaw; parents and relatives of children in language programs; employees of the Chickasaw language department; participants in the various language activities; and individuals involved in other arenas of cultural revitalization. Interviews were conducted during the latter part of my fieldwork in 2011. It should be noted that many of the individuals interviewed fit into several of these categories, and not all identified as Chickasaw (politically or ethnically). A variety of additional media collected also provided invaluable material. These include language materials produced by the Chickasaw language department and items produced by the Chickasaw Nation such as the Chickasaw Times newspaper, books, t-shirts, and recordings of television commercials produced by the Nation. My aim here is to capture identity negotiation at both a micro and macro level in order to uncover how ideologies bound up with language revitalization efforts inform our understanding of the relationship between language and identity: that is, to Please cite this article in press as: Davis, J.L., Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization, Language & Communication (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.04.005

J.L. Davis / Language & Communication xxx (2015) 1–12

3

examine how ethnolinguistic identity plays out in the spontaneous utterances of individuals, in the official statements provided by the Chickasaw Nation, and in the range of discursive practices that take place between these levels. 3. Ethnolinguisticly defined community The Chickasaw Nation is one of the ‘Five Civilized Tribes’ relocated as part of the Trail of Tears from the Southeastern United States to Oklahoma from 1837 to 1838. Before removal to Oklahoma, the Chickasaws had claim to a large section of the Southeastern US, including areas in Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee; after removal, the Chickasaw were relegated to a territory in Southcentral Oklahoma. Linguistically, Chickasaw, and its close sibling Choctaw, make up the Western Branch of the Muskogean language family, which also includes Muskogee (Creek), Alabama, and Seminole, among others. The Chickasaw and Choctaw tribes lived in neighboring territories, and their language(s) were major contributors to the Mobilian Jargon, a pidgin used as a trade language along the Mississippi River (Munro, 1984; Drechsel, 1987). In a broad sense, the history of the Chickasaw language runs parallel with so many throughout the world where colonial endeavors doggedly impacteddand continue to affectdindigenous communities and their languages (Dorian, 1989; Harrison 2007; Leonard, 2011; Adkins, 2013; Shulist, 2013; Romero this volume). The influence of European languages on Chickasaw began almost immediately after the arrival of the European colonizers in continental North America: The Spanish language, then French, and then, finally, English became the dominant tongue in the Chickasaw lands. Over the centuries, more and more Chickasaw people came to be bilingual in English and Chickasaw; eventually, the transmission of Chickasaw from parents to children decreased to the point that the majority of Chickasaw citizens are monolingual English speakers. In the late 1990s, the Chickasaw Nation language program began to offer small language classes to community members and Chickasaw Nation employees to counteract this dynamic. However, as I will discuss in more detail in subsequent sections, larger scale efforts in language revitalization did not begin until almost 15 years later. After securing a grant from the Administration for Native Americans in 2006, the Chickasaw Nation established the Chickasaw Language Revitalization Program in 2007, and founded the Chickasaw Nation Language Department in 2009. As of 2011, the department operates out of its own dedicated building and employs seven full-time employees, a 24-member Chickasaw Language Committee, and a number of Speakers who work as language instructors and contract employees on specific projects. Growth in language revitalization efforts over the past decade has resulted in a language revitalization program with four main elements: a Master/Apprentice program1; youth language activities (Children’s Language Club, Summer Camps, Family Immersion Camp); free community language classes for adults offered throughout the geographic territory of the Chickasaw Nation; and language courses at a local area high school and university (East Central University) that fulfill second language requirements. Currently, the Chickasaw Nation language program estimates there to be only about 75 fluent Speakers of Chickasaw; however, over 1000 people have some passing knowledge of the language, and around 5000 participate in Chickasaw language programs annually. These last two groups, whom I refer to as language affiliates, are the focus of this article. In recent decades Chickasaw language revitalization efforts have grown concomitant with economic development in which the Chickasaw Nation has seen a growth of industries that it operates, including over 13 casinos, a gourmet chocolate factory, a bank, a book press, and a number of public radio stations. This has created a dynamic in which the Chickasaw Nation is now the largest employer of Chickasaw citizens, with over 12,000 employees in 2010 (compared to under 2000 in 1987). These new job arenas within the tribe have started a trend of de-diasporization, or “coming home” of citizens geographically. This demographic change caused by Chickasaw people moving back into the Nation’s tribal jurisdiction has contributed to a great shift in both community members’ day-to-day interactions with the tribe as an employer and in the presence of more Chickasaws within the tribal jurisdiction in Southcentral Oklahoma. In this time of shifting population, both the discursive norms of negotiating identity and the broader semiotic systems in which they occur become even more relevant. Identity, as I use the term here, does not refer to an essential quality or internal state of an individual, but rather to the practices of locating the self and others in various positions of subjecthood. That is, individual identity is seen as being in part a result of individual agency, including both deliberate performances and less conscious habitual practices, as well as the product of social structures that the individual does not directly control. Furthermore, individuals do not have a single, unitary identity, but are located relative to a variety of available sociocultural positions (Bucholtz and Hall, 2004). In interrogating the intersections of community, place and identity, Gayley Modan’s concept of centralized and marginalized identities is useful. In her analysis of how inhabitants of the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood of Washington, DC work to frame themselves as authentic members of the neighborhooddand others as inauthentic, or unacceptabledModan proposes three kinds of local identities: “1) various identities for the neighborhood itself, 2) identities that speakers create for themselves as core community members, which we can call centralized identities, and 3) identities that speakers create for others as lesser community members, which we can refer to as marginalized identities” (2007: 7). Negotiations over which identities count as authentically Chickasaw as well as those about the type of place the Chickasaw Nation used to be, is, or should be are articulated through a wide variety of social contexts and linguistic mediums. Residents draw on different discourses of community membershipdand reinforce or contest themdin their interactions with each other as well as with broader institutions.

1 Based on a language-learning model designed by linguistic anthropologist Leanne Hinton, Master/Apprentice programs are designed to allow adults to acquire language in a near-immersion setting. Adults interested in learning the language are paired with speakers for an average of ten to twenty hours a week in a non-classroom setting for one to three years.

Please cite this article in press as: Davis, J.L., Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization, Language & Communication (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.04.005

4

J.L. Davis / Language & Communication xxx (2015) 1–12

Four discourses are commonly employed to discuss belonging with regards to these three local identities in the Chickasaw Nation. The first discourse defines the Chickasaw Nation as a group of people who live, and have always lived, within the geographic and political boundaries of the Chickasaw Nation. This discourse positions life-long residents of the tribal jurisdiction in Southcentral Oklahoma as centralized members of the community. Those who are from families with deep history in the region fit that categorization particularly strongly, while individuals who have lived in diaspora for part or all of their lives are accorded a more marginalized status. In this discursive framework, statements such as “She still lives on her family’s original allotment” (Fieldnotes 9/10/2010), made by a man bragging about how is maternal aunt is a “true Chickasaw” during lunch at one of the Nation’s senior centers, authenticate the referent’s centralized identity position. A second discourse delineates the community on the basis of blood quantum or phenotype, with core identities given to those with full or high blood quantum and/or “identifiably Indian” physical characteristics. In this context, identifying oneself or someone else as “F.B.I” (Full Blooded Indian) establishes a centralized identity position; in fact, T-shirts bearing “F.B.I.: Full Blood Indian” can frequently be purchased at powwows and other Native events. Identifying someone as having low blood quantum on the other hand, such as “only 1/32,” “only 1/64,” or a “pinky toe/nosebleed Indian” (someone who would no longer have any Native blood if they got a nosebleed or lost their smallest toe) delegitimizes such individuals as not fully Chickasaw and denotes their marginalized status. Such comments can frequently be overheard in both serious and jovial commentary about members of the community in daily conversations. For example, the descriptor, “he looks like one of those toe nail Indians”, was provided by one man to explain an unknown youth who was perceived by several adults as being too rowdy during a community event (Fieldnotes 6/12/2009), and individuals of mixed Chickasaw and non-Chickasaw heritage will often be teased not to obtain any injuries causing even minor blood loss lest they lose their “Indian card”. These discourses co-exist with a third discourse: the Chickasaw Nation’s official definition of membership, which determines tribal citizenship. The Chickasaw Nation requires proof of descent from an individual listed on the tribe’s Dawes Roll (a government register of tribe members from 1893 used to dissolve the reservation system into one of individual allotment) and does not have a minimum blood quantum requirement for citizenship. Not surprisingly, referencing one’s citizenship, and more specifically the number of generations one’s family has held citizenship, is a means for authenticating centralized membership. For instance, in her application for the annual Chickasaw Junior Princess competition, where Chickasaw girls compete to serve as community ambassadors at various functions and events across several states, one applicant included the following statement in her self-description: “I am the daughter of Justin Seeley and Stephanie John Scott, both Chickasaw citizens” (Chickasaw Times, Sept. 2012). Referencing a direct connection to “original enrollees” – i.e. those whose names are on the original Dawes Rolls, which were closed in 1907 – is a common discursive strategy in this framework. Take, for example, this very typical excerpt from the 2011 election issue of the Chickasaw Times about incumbent candidate, Judge Cheri Bellefeuille-Gordon, who was running for a position in the Chickasaw Nation Supreme Court: Excerpt 1: Chickasaw Election Background Info Cheri Bellefeuille-Gordon was born in Ardmore, Oklahoma, on December 29, 1968, to Russell and Donna Bellefeuille. She had one sister, Cris Bellefeuille and has one brother, Chuck Bellefeuille and his wife, Kendall Chadwick. Her grandparents are Ben and Viola Seeley and her greatgrandparents were original enrollees, Mamie Tushkatomby and Walter Seeley. Chickasaw Times, 2011 Tribal Election Issue, 6/2011, p. 2 (emphasis mine)

This linguistic strategy positions the candidate as a central member of the community via her connection to “original enrollees” – no doubt a desirable trait for someone running for elected office in the Nation. However, it is important to note that citizenship is not the same as centralized community membership. The next strategy I discuss highlights the ways in which one’s stance toward the Chickasaw language, and its revitalization, emerges as a way to authenticate an individual as a ‘real’ Chickasaw. A fourth prominent discourse for defining Chickasaw membership observed during my fieldwork is the primary focus of this article: ethnolinguistic identity. Noting the importance of language ideologies to people’s conceptualization of self, linguistic anthropologist Michael Silverstein defines ethnolinguistic identity as: People’s intuitions of social categoriality emerging from certain cultural assumptions about language. These construe language as constituting a basis for the divisions among types or kinds of people, especially as people conceive languages to be the central and enabling vehicle or channel of thought and culture. (Silverstein, 2003: 532) Discursive negotiations of identity simultaneously draw from and create larger-scale language ideologies. In Silverstein’s terms (1979), language ideologies are “any sets of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use.” Kroskrity later broadened the definition of language ideologies to include “beliefs, or feelings, about languages as used in their social world” (2004: 498) Anthony Webster and Leighton Peterson (2011) note in their discussion of the expected (and unexpected) domains of indigenous languages that, “Native American communities (as do all communities) often reflect multiple and competing language ideologies” (5). This is true for the ideologies that frame languages as endangered and those that combat or aid language revitalization efforts. While much has been said about the importance of language for maintaining biodiversity and contributing to human knowledge more generally, such discussions are often articulated on a global scale. Concerned with the maintenance of knowledge that is contained “in” those languages, this brand of scholarship appeals to individuals outside

Please cite this article in press as: Davis, J.L., Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization, Language & Communication (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.04.005

J.L. Davis / Language & Communication xxx (2015) 1–12

5

of endangered language communities for funding and support. But these arguments are not usually the ones made within localized language revitalization efforts. For groups like the Chickasaw, arguments for language revitalization are much more likely to hinge on the maintenance of ethnolinguistic identity. Ethnolinguistic identity is particularly evident in the research that examines the role of language ideologies in defining nations or ethno-national groups (Kroskrity, 2004; Silverstein, 2003). In the ethnonational context of Catalonia, for instance, political debates in various types of media seek to define boundaries of the Catalan nation against both non-Catalan Spanish society and immigrant populations in Spain (Pujolar, 2007). These discourses, which are put forward by both language professionals and philologists as well as Catalan language media, present monolingual speakers of Catalan as those who hold the authentic identity, thereby delegitimizing or erasing bilingual speakers and monolingual Spanish speakers of Catalan ethnicity and political affiliation as well as their linguistic practices. In sum, these ideologies inscribe an “ethnolinguistic” definition of identity. While the connection between group or national identity and language is often centered on European nationalist discourse (Anderson, 1991; Jaffe, 1999), ideologies linking identity and language are not exclusive to Western nation states. Researchers such as those who contributed to the volume Native American Language Ideologies (Kroskrity and Field, 2009) have documented comparable ideologies in various indigenous communities in North America. Pamela A. Bunte’s (2009) research among the San Juan Southern Paiute, for instance, demonstrates that Paiute-speaking families emphasize that language is not the primary aspect of identity distinguishing groups in the community. However, these same families revealed a belief that they are different from other Southern Paiutes specifically because they have kept or maintained their language through storytelling while others have shifted to speaking English and/or Navajo instead. Circe Sturm’s (2002) research among the Cherokee of Oklahoma found that even those who did not speak the Cherokee language named that ability as a primary indicator of Cherokee identity: “For most Cherokees, speaking the Cherokee language represents a symbolic and practical marker of social connections with and commitment to Cherokee community life. Fluency stands for time shared” (121). Among many within the Chickasaw Nation, language ideologies privilege the Chickasaw language as the most important aspect of Chickasaw culture, raising the prestige of the language within the community. This prestige is then available to both native speakers and those dedicated to learning it2. In combination with Modan’s framework, then, an ethnolinguistic definition of place or community delineates centralized and marginalized identities based on knowledge of, or connection to, the Chickasaw language. This echoes Silverstein’s assertion that, “ethnolinguistic identity intuits that there are differential claims to social participation based on differences of membership in what we can term a language community” (Silverstein, 2003:532). What my analysis uncovers is how these differential claims are made and negotiated in the discourse of Chickasaw community members. Discourses that draw on and promote this framework are evident in statements like the one found in the excerpt below, which is taken from a video of three generations of Chickasaw women who are involved in language revitalization posted on the Nation’s Chickasaw.tv website. Excerpt 2: 3 Generations of Chickasaw Women video 8 J 9 10 11

the most Chickasaw thing about my mother is probably her language. I think everyone who knows about her knows that she is a fluent speaker and they go to her to help translate words and phrases and um I think that it’s very nice of her to do that.

Posted on the Chickasaw.TV website, accessed on 10/23/2012

Joana’s statement that “the most Chickasaw thing about my mother is probably her language” is typical of ethnolinguistic ideologies in which the Chickasaw language is equated with Chickasaw culture and also provides a succinct example of community discourses that promote the importance of Speaker status. 4. Speaker valorization For those who adhere to an ethnolinguistic definition of the Chickasaw Nation, fluent Speakers of the Chickasaw language are placed at the center of the Nation’s community and culture, even as they comprise a very small percentage of the population. Their centrality to Chickasaw identity has been formalized through a growth in recognition within the community and the creation of employment positions available solely to Speakers. Perhaps one of the most visible ways in which the status of Speaker has not just been established but also elevated to a high social ranking is by recognizing those who have this linguistic expertise with honors and awards. As the intergenerational transmission of Chickasaw dwindled over the past century, two things occurred to the cultural capital the Chickasaw language offered tribal members. First, cultural discursive norms, such as how one introduces oneself, were transferred to English; as such, everyday linguistic capital was demonstrated by most Chickasaw community members not in the Chickasaw language, but in English. More pressingly, the ability to speak English, especially ‘standard’ English, began to provide greater access to both economic capital and cultural capital in dominant American culture. Second, the ability to speak Chickasaw to any extent shifted from being embodied cultural capital toward being objectified cultural capital

2

However, learners of the language do not necessarily have equal access to such prestige.

Please cite this article in press as: Davis, J.L., Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization, Language & Communication (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.04.005

6

J.L. Davis / Language & Communication xxx (2015) 1–12

for most Chickasaw people. In other words, rather than being an unconsciously inherited property of every Chickasaw, the language began to serve more as a cultural good, or even an artifact, which could be appreciated and understood only by those with the cultural capital to recognize it (Bourdieu, 1986:47). In current times, this is perhaps most apparent in the increasing value placed on owning one or both of the two dictionaries of Chickasaw, as well as other Chickasaw language objects such as flashcards or t-shirts given out during language department events. In the past two decades, cultural and linguistic pride has seen a revival on the national and global scale corresponding with various grassroots movements and legislative acts supporting indigenous language revitalization. Perhaps the most notable of these within the United States is the Native American Languages Act in 1990, in which the US Congress rejected past policies of eradicating indigenous languages and instead formally declared that Native Americans were entitled to use their own languages. Later, organizations such as the Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project in 2002, the Enduring Voices Project in 2007, and the World Oral Literature Project in 2009 began to support language documentation and revitalization worldwide. In alignment with these developments, the government and community members of the Chickasaw Nation began to place a higher social value on the language and the hundred or so people remaining that could speak Chickasaw. As such, where historically the ability to use Chickasaw would have operated as embodied (linguistic) capital–which typically includes everyday practices like informal conversations as well as use in ceremonial and official contexts, it began to emerge as a means of symbolic capital, which as Bourdieu (1977) notes, is not limited to economic capital, but perhaps most importantly for this study, “is readily convertible back into economic capital” (Bourdieu, 1977:197). The increasing interest in and support for language programs has created new positions, both occupational and social, for those few who demonstrate a certain level of competence in the Chickasaw language. In essence, language revitalization is creating a shift in the conceptualization of speaking a heritage language from something that someone does or a desirable skill set that someone has, and into something that someone is. To bring about this change, the growing importance of the ability to speak Chickasaw has necessarily facilitated the valorization of Speaker as a status. Perhaps one of the most visible ways in which the status of Speaker has not just been established but also elevated to a high social ranking is through the recognition of those who have this linguistic expertise with honors and awards. Particularly important is the juxtaposition between these honors and those given to people in highly ranked positions with more established statuses such as elder or member of a historically powerful family within the community. Although the recognition of community members who work to preserve or document aspects of traditional culture, such as language, is not a new practice, the identifying of awardees specifically as Speakers only began in recent decades. A few key examples demonstrate this trend. In 1999, the Chickasaw Nation created the Silver Feather Award in order to recognize Chickasaws who “have committed their lives to the preservation and revitalization of Chickasaw language, culture, and life ways” (Chickasaw Times, 2011:13). The award’s description asserts, “each recipient is a Chickasaw treasure who is held in the highest regard by the Chickasaw Nation.” This description is reminiscent of what Jane Hill (2002) refers to as hyperbolic valorization in which endangered languages are conceptualized through metaphors of wealth. This quote represents and interesting extension of that metaphor to the speakers of those languages, who, as individuals who “contain” such valuable riches, become treasures themselves. Within only a few years, this award became a highly recognized accolade in the community. For instance, in an award ceremony on October 4, 2007, Stanley Smith was given the Silver Feather Award by the Governor of the Chickasaw Nation, Bill Anoatubby, for his work as a Speaker, and the Senior Language Master of the Master/ Apprentice program. Also awarded honors alongside Stan that evening were fellow Chickasaws Oklahoma State Representative Lisa Johnson-Billy, John Herrington (the first Native American Astronaut in space), and tribal legislator Billy Jo Green. Later in the same year, Pauline Carpenter-Brown was one of two citizens inducted into the Chickasaw Nation Hall of Fame alongside Pulitzer Prize winning author and poet Linda Hogan. These honors quite visibly put the status of Speaker on equal footing with other very highly valued social statuses and positions within the nation. The prestige attached to being a Speaker, and the occupations available to individuals with that status, can be seen in Chickasaw language activities throughout the tribe. For example, in spring of 2011, the Chickasaw Children’s Language Club performed a play created by various community members titled “Hofantili tahlikmat (When I grow up!),” in which the children presented six potential occupations with high social capital within the Nation: policemen, doctors, soldiers, firemen, governors, and finally language teachers. The inclusion of language teachers on the list is by itself noteworthy; however, the final lines of the play work to add even more prestige to this occupation: Excerpt 3: Script form Hofantili Tahlikmat Child#1: Amafo’si, Sappo’si! Nanna yammi sabanna ithánali mako’no! Grandpa, granny! I know what I want to be! Grandpa: Ba nanta? What? Child#1: Anakot anompa’ Holisso pisachi’ sayahookmano anhili. I want to be a language teacher when I grow up.

After being presented with all 6 occupation choices, the child chooses the profession of language teacher even over that of Governor (Chief). Magnus Pharao Hansen (2010a, 2010b) observed a similar trend in a sub-community of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Hueyapan, Mexico, in which the re-valorization of the Nahuatl language within the congregation led to new access to prestige for

Please cite this article in press as: Davis, J.L., Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization, Language & Communication (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.04.005

J.L. Davis / Language & Communication xxx (2015) 1–12

7

speakers of Nahuatl. Specifically, Hansen noted a shift in the prestige and congregational participation for elder speakers when the local congregation switched the congregation’s official language from Spanish to Nahuatl: Elderly publishers who used to be on the fringe of the congregation’s social network suddenly found themselves to be sought out for advice by the younger publishers who felt they had to work harder to achieve the prestige associated with commenting in Nahuatl . This again contributes to the heightened prestige of elderly publishers, who in this way receive crucial responsibility for theological considerations which are otherwise always reserved for only the highest echelons of the Watchtower Organization (Hansen, 2010a:131). The context Hansen describes differs from that of the Chickasaw Nation in significant ways. Most notably, the increase in value of Nahuatl is not the result of a language revitalization movement but rather of the implementation of specific religious ideologies pertaining to language. However, it demonstrates that changes in the religious landscape, like economic growth and de-diasporization, may produce conditions in which the social or economic value of indigenous languages and their speakers may shift. 5. Language affiliation An ethnolinguistic framework for community membership may seem like an odd ideology to have taken hold in a community of 50,000 citizens of which only 75 or so are fluent speakers of the community’s native language. According to the most stringent application of this ideology, very few members of the Chickasaw community could be classified as centralized or core members. However, the community discourses I encountered during my fieldwork demonstrate that a centralized identity can also be established by showing language affiliation through participation in language revitalization activities or relationships to language speakers and learners. These displays are the subject of the remainder of this paper. While fluent speakers are clearly an integral component in language revitalization efforts they are joined in these dynamics by partial speakers, language learners, and non-speakers who nonetheless support language revitalization. Within the Chickasaw Nation, for example, there is a wide range of individuals whodalthough not Speakers themselvesdhave some connection to the Chickasaw language. This connection plays out in three main ways: (1) a familial relationship to Speakers; (2) some level of Chickasaw language learning or activism; or (3) a familial relationship to the language learners and activists in the second category. I use the term language affiliate to refer to the individuals who hold at least one of these connections. And while only a small percentage of the population can claim the centralized status available to Speakers, the identity position of language affiliate is available to a much larger portion of the community. This connection between linguistic affiliation and identity has been observed among various indigenous communities, as Bea Medicine notes in her discussion of the relationship between language and Lakota identity: Relating to a tribal language, however tenuous the tie might be, is one aspect of “being Native” that permeates much of the total identity question. Memory of linguistic ties that are evoked as ethnic markers is a prevalent theme. (Medicine and Jacobs, 2001: 28) The characteristics of language affiliation are negotiated through a number of discursive means. This section examines how language affiliates negotiate the ethnolinguistic framework of community identity; specifically, I analyze the role of discourses of language affiliation in creating a broader semiotics of core community membership that goes beyond displays of native or fluent linguistic competence. One trend I observed in my fieldwork is a current tendency for members of the Chickasaw community within Southeastern Oklahoma to mention to others that while they themselves are not Speakers, they are related to someone who is. The practice reveals a community oriented toward not only the importance of language affiliation, but also shared discursive practices expected for authenticating it. As a means of marking their kinship relationships with Speakers, community members use the same qualifying markers as those employed by Speakers to authenticate their own statusdcloseness of relation to (other) Speakers, how often that relative spoke with them, or whether the family member was monolingual in the Chickasaw language. Thus, whereas traditionally a Chickasaw member would introduce herself with information about her family and the geographic region from which she hails, today a display of language affiliation is also a part of this introduction. This reference of language affiliation then acts in an in-group parallel to what Jocelyn Ahlers (2006) calls Native Language as Identity Marker (NLIM) through which the use of Native languages at the beginning and end of speech acts marks both the talk and speaker as authentically Native in multi-tribal gatherings. As such, referencing a close relation to someone who is or was a Speaker of Chickasaw garners cultural capital even for those who lack their own linguistic expertise. At the same time, the incorporation of this reference reinforces the idea that linguistic fluency is an authoritative element of cultural identity. For example, in the annual special edition of the Chickasaw Times that introduces contestants in the Chickasaw Nation’s Chickasaw Princess Pageants (specifically, Chickasaw Princess, Chickasaw Junior Princess, and Little Miss Chickasaw), potential Chickasaw Princesses submit brief biographies of themselves for publication shortly ahead of the competition. The following two excerpts are taken from these introductions. In them, the would-be Princesses use part of the limited space provided to them (approximately 150–200 words) to establish their direct familial link to speakers of Chickasaw (or the closely related Choctaw). Please cite this article in press as: Davis, J.L., Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization, Language & Communication (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.04.005

8

J.L. Davis / Language & Communication xxx (2015) 1–12

Excerpt 4: Chickasaw Times, Sept. 2011 Princess Contestants Issue My Grandma is a fluent speaker of the Choctaw language and has taught me some language and hymns. Excerpt 5: Chickasaw Times, Sept. 2012 Princess Contestants Issue I am the granddaughter of Bernie and Velma Seeley and Luther and Norma John, and the great-granddaughter of Dorothy Green, all fluent speakers of the Chickasaw language.

In the first excerpt, the contestant demonstrates her affiliation with the language as both the granddaughter of a fluent speaker and as someone with some knowledge of the language. In the second excerpt, a similar discursive strategy is employed by a candidate in the subsequent year. She links herself to not one, but four grandparents and one greatgrandparent who are fluent Speakers of Chickasaw. Clearly, Princess candidates feel they can benefit from demonstrating direct links to Speakers. Language affiliation is also demonstrated in narratives where familial connection is made not only to remaining Speakers, but importantly also to the Speakers of recent generationsdas is evident in the narratives told by a large portion of the people interviewed such as the one I conducted in 2011 with Amy. In the following transcript, Amy presents a narrative of Chickasaw language use in her family as woman who was raised by her grandmother who was a Speaker, and had recently started taken community language classes.

Excerpt 6: Interview with Amy 23 J: 24 A: 25 J: 26 A: 27 27 28 29 J: 30 A: 31 32 33 J: 34 A: 35

Why do you think the language classes are so important? well, my grandma was a fluent speaker mmhmm and she’s passed she’s been gone for about twenty years now but my grandma was a fluent speaker and when my aunts would come over well then she would speak [Chickasaw] mmmhmm you know how aunts come along and you know how it was so she spoke very much with them and they never I don’t recall them ever speaking English to each other mmm, mmhmmm it was always uh Chickasaw that they spoke together and we learned words but it wasn’t a whole lot.

Such narratives serve multiple purposesdthey establish a connection between teller and related Speaker, but usually also explain the point(s) at which language transmission declined or ended and why this occurred. Thus this discursive demonstration of language affiliation maintains a discursive link between the language and potential heritage language learners by explicitly focusing on the familial connection to Speakers (on top of a broader cultural or community connection). However, a connection to Speakers is not the only means of establishing a language affiliation. Individuals also establish affiliation by demonstrating their connection to those who are participating in language revitalization activities. This significantly expands and increases the number of people connected to the language. The excerpt below is taken from an interview with Lynnie, a Chickasaw woman who demonstrates several levels of language affiliation. Specifically, she is the daughter of a fluent Speaker, knows some of the language herself, and is the mother and grandmother of language learners.

Excerpt 7: Lynnie interview 38 J. 39 L. 40: 41: 42: 43: 44: 45:

Um, and now how are you involved with the language activities? Oh I love goin with the language club I love goin and not only because my grandkids are in there or maybe that’s why I love it more is because my grandkids...I’m a grandma and I follow them around and uh I, my grandkids know more Chickasaw than I do which I’m I’m happy about that uh huh I’m happy, thrilled

Here, Lynnie responds to a question asking how she is involved with language activities (line 38) by discussing her involvement through her grandkids, who are active in language groups and events. She asserts that “[her] grandkids know more Chickasaw than [she does]” (lines 41–43), thus establishing her connection to young learners of the Chickasaw language and her participation in language revitalization through them. Similar comments can be heard throughout the community, where individuals of all ages make known their connections to Speakers and other language affiliates. Such identity Please cite this article in press as: Davis, J.L., Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization, Language & Communication (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.04.005

J.L. Davis / Language & Communication xxx (2015) 1–12

9

negotiations do not rely on spoken and written linguistic practices alone but exist within a broader system of semiotic practices of self presentation and assumptions, which both give meaning to and gain meaning from those uses of language. These discursive practices of identity negotiation are also supplemented through the wearing and displaying of language program products such as t-shirts, bumper stickers, lapel pins and so on. These products similarly function as recognizable emblems of language affiliation through participation in language learning and revitalization efforts. Wearing one of these shirts, such as the one bearing “Chokka-chaffa’ chikashshanompali albinachi” (family language-speaking camp), is the discursive equivalent of an individual declaring that she is a Chickasaw language learner, or in some cases, the close relative of someone learning the language, thereby authenticating her or his status as a centralized member of an ethnolinguistically delineated community. 6. Re-thinking the “numbers” The emergence of this new identity is a classic example of Judith Irving and Susan Gal’s concepts of iconization and fractal recursivity. With iconization, linguistic features are understood through a direct, non-arbitrary link to specific qualities or identities of those who produce them (Irvine and Gal, 2000:37). In the case of the Chickasaw Nation, the ability to speak the Chickasaw language fluentlydand especially as a native speakerdis iconically linked with core community membership. Fractal recursivity occurs when points of differentiation recur at other levels within those groups. As such, the distinction of Speaker and non-Speaker is mirrored in a new distinction among non-fluent speakers between those that have language affiliation and those that don’t. Such new levels of distinction “provide actors with the discursive or cultural resources to claim and thus attempt to create shifting communities, identities, selves, and roles at different levels of contrast” (Irvine and Gal, 2000, 38). Mary Andronis (2003) notes a process of fractal recursivity at work in the context of Quichua language revitalization in Ecuador, where differences between non-Indigenous populationsdassociated with modernity and urban contexts, and Quichua populationsdassociated with rurality and “backwardness” are reproduced within the Quichua population between Sierra and Amazonian populations. Like the non-Indigenous/Quichua split, the Sierra Quichua are ideologically associated with being urban and “neotraditional” in contrast with the Amazonian Quichua who are aligned with the ideologies of being rural and un-modern. Within the Chickasaw context, the ideologies associated with being a Speaker, especially those positioning them as centralized community members, are projected onto non-Speaker language affiliates, contrasting them with less centralized non-affiliated Chickasaws. In this way, language affiliates are able to contest their status as marginal on the dimension of Speakers versus non-Speakers and position themselves as central on the affiliate versus non-affiliate dimension.(Fig. 1) In this case, the distinction opens up a new level of negotiating shifting community dynamics that are both resultant of and causal to language revitalization. I should note that there is strong potential for additional levels of fractalization within the level of language affiliate between those that are partial speakers (central) versus non-speakers (marginal), or between those who are directly connected to existing Speakers (central) versus those who are language learners (marginal) and so on. However, these types of fractalization were not prominent at this point of language revitalization, probably because the majority of people who are language affiliates are connected to the language through multiple points of access (direct relationship to Speakers; active learners of the language; and/or direct relationship to other learners) so these points of distinction are less likely to be salient. This particular community dynamic, like that described by Andronis, demonstrates the complexity of a category like speaker, which carries important implications for language maintenance and revitalization. While the designation of Quichua as both a single language and cohesive group of speakers in Ecuador might suggest a larger, unified Speaker group, actual community dynamics create splits in the category. In contrast, the inclusion of non-fluent or non-speaking family members into a broader category of language affiliate broadens the numbers of those possibly affected by and invested in language revitalization. Such factors may influence the likelihood of Speakers and non-speakers to use or learn the language as well as expanding the pool of people who may be drawn upon to participate in these efforts. Rubrics for classifying languages often depend both on these seemingly unambiguous speaker counts, as well as more nebulous aspects of language use. Many nuanced discussions have already outlined the benefits and drawbacks of the types of

Speakers central

Non-Speakers marginal

Language affiliate central

Non-affiliated marginal

Fig. 1. Fractal recursivity in Chickasaw language ideologies.

Please cite this article in press as: Davis, J.L., Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization, Language & Communication (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.04.005

10

J.L. Davis / Language & Communication xxx (2015) 1–12

enumeration surrounding language revitalization (Urla, 1993; Hill, 2002; England, 2002; Errington, 2002; Muehlmann, 2011). One issue with these numbers, such as those that attempt to quantify first language or fluent speakers, is that they do not accurately represent the entire language revitalization context of languages like Chickasaw. Simply noting that there are approximately 75 speakers of Chickasaw erases the amount of positive support provided not only for Speakers, but also those working to learn the language at various skill levels. Let us consider the numbers pertaining to the Chickasaw language from a community presentation in 2011 (Hinson, 2011):

Slide 6 from “Chihoowa’kot pioyimmi billi’ya: Faith, Language, and identity in the Chickasaw Nation”: Chikashshanompa’ [Chickasaw language]  1963, 3500 speakers  1994, >1000 speakers  2007, 88 self-identified native speakers responded to tribal survey  2009, 120 speakers identified by language committee  2011, 75 native speakers, amidst of tribal population of approximately 50,000 citizens  5 competent second language learners  200 passive bilinguals  >1000 persons with more than passing knowledge of the language  4–5000 persons served by language program annually

To be sure, even a contextualized look at the numbers points to a language that is critically endangered. Notably, this list already extends past the typical consideration of only native speakers often cited in language endangerment statistics to consider second language learners, passive bilinguals, and people participating in language revitalization activities. It should be noted that multiple levels of linguistic competency are sometime included in official enumeration projects, such as those described by Jacqueline Urla (1993) in the Basque community in Spain. In this case, the creation of categories, like fluent, partial, and non-speakers for official census data collection, and subsequent collection and circulation of numbers for those categories, created a tripartite linguistic division of the population. Interestingly, this division similarly split up the assumed binary categories of “Basque” and “non-Basque” to create a division in which Basque people are further divided along ethnolinguistic lines. Like the dynamics which position Chickasaw Speakers as centralized members of the tribe, Urla notes that, “the active Basque speaker becomes a core within the large Basque community” (830). While the percentage of Chickasaw Speakers (75) in the whole community (50,000) is less than .15%3, the broader group of people with some knowledge of the language is between 200 and 1000 (or .4%–2%). This group of partial speakers and language affiliates is particularly relevant to language revitalization efforts because they are the strongest potential candidates for extending their linguistic knowledge through the Master/Apprentice program4 and other language programs due to both their previous exposure to the language and their connection to fluent Speakers. In fact, when the language department was setting up the first group of participants for the Master/Apprentice program, they specifically selected only those potential apprentices with some existing knowledge of or exposure to the Chickasaw language. Furthermore, as with many communities whose original language is endangered, the 75 Chickasaw Speakers are all Elders; however, the inclusion of language learners broadens the age spectrum from toddlers in the Children’s Language Program and Head Start programs, to high school and college language class participants, to elders attending community language classes. Such details are often a critical point of consideration in assigning the vitality or level of endangerment of a language (Grenoble and Whaley, 1998, UNESCO, 2003). When we add in the number of people participating in a single year in the Chickasaw Language Department’s programs, the percentage of people somehow directly associated with the language jumps up to 13.9%. More impressively, assuming some overlap in participants, accumulation of participants over the years increases that number to over 25% of the community that can boast that connection. Importantly, language affiliation is available not only to those who are directly connected to the languagedsuch as Speakers and language learners, which comprise at least 25% of the communitydbut also to individuals related to them. As a result, language affiliates represent a significant percentage of community members who are now stakeholders in ethnolinguistic language ideologiesdand therefore Chickasaw language revitalization more generally. 7. Conclusion In her discussion of teaching her daughters to speak Anishinaabemowin, Margaret Noori asks, “How can a language that takes hold in the safety of a home.venture out into the wider world and be welcomed and find support and acceptance?”

3 This percentage is actually much higher within the tribal jurisdiction of the Chickasaw Nation, as all but 1 of the 75 remaining Chickasaw Speakers live within in tribal boundaries, but only one third to one half of the Chickasaw citizens do. 4 Based on a language-learning model designed by linguistic anthropologist Leanne Hinton, Master/Apprentice programs are designed to allow adults to acquire language in a near-immersion setting. Adults interested in learning the language are paired with speakers for an average of ten to twenty hours a week in a non-classroom setting for one to three years.

Please cite this article in press as: Davis, J.L., Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization, Language & Communication (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.04.005

J.L. Davis / Language & Communication xxx (2015) 1–12

11

(2013: 119). In the case of the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma, ideologies that hold the Chickasaw language as an integral part of Chickasaw culture were present both within and outside of the tribe long before current movements in language revitalization began. However, language revitalization efforts champion these ethnolinguistic ideologies, thereby elevating the status of the remaining speakers of Chickasaw while simultaneously making the language available to a wider group of learners. For those who adhere to an ethnolinguistic definition of the Chickasaw Nation, fluent Speakers of the Chickasaw language are placed at the center of the Nation’s community and culture, even as they comprise a very small percentage of the population. Their centrality to Chickasaw identity has been formalized through a growth in the creation of employment positions available solely to Speakers. The creation these employment positions has happened concurrently with increased social recognition for Speakers. The combined effect of these processes has created an increased value ondand scrutiny ofddemonstrations of linguistic expertise and affiliation within the Community. In the examples discussed throughout this article, Chickasaw community members negotiate not just their linguistic expertisedand the social and economic capital it brings with itdbut also their position as core members of an ethnolinguistically defined community. As these efforts raised the value of language affiliation, they also broadened the means by which language affiliation is possible (and therefore who has access to that status). Language affiliation is an inherent aspect of native Speaker identitydwhere fluency comes as a result of intergenerational familial language transmission: In other words, native Speakers are inherently directly related to Speakers of the language. This quality of familial connection, once separated from language fluency, becomes something affiliates share with Speakers, and therefore links them to that social prestige. Thus, the splits in access to social and economic capital at the level of Speaker versus non-Speaker are mapped onto distinctions between non-Speakers where those that have language affiliation have greater access to ethnolinguistically assigned capital. Having the ability to speak or understand Chickasaw is not necessarily synonymous with having Speaker status in the community even as a (more) centralized position with the tribedmost directly available to Speakersdmay also be available to those without those linguistic skills if they have direct language affiliation. Thus, as quantified categories, community statuses, and identities, ‘Speaker’ and ‘non-Speaker’ involve much more than possessing specific linguistic knowledge or lack thereof, and untangling those distinctions allows us to interrogate assumptions about ethnolinguistic ideologies that traditionally define speakers in more top-down ways. Furthermore, as revitalization efforts such as those within the Chickasaw Nation progress, it will be useful to continue to follow how “new” speakers will shift both the ideologies concerning who qualifies as a speaker and the tactics through which claims to such a status are made (see also Weinberg and deKorne, 2015). Such new positions also highlight current tensions in the effort to draw attention to barriers to indigenous language use and transmission without replicating existing tendencies to circulate discourses that may ultimately maintain settler colonial desires to quantify, regulate, and erase indigenous communities. For example, the over-emphasis on declining speaker populations, and especially “counting down” speakers (Muehlmann, 2011) fits a much longer tradition of lasting. Historian and Native studies scholar Jean O’Brien (2010) identifies lasting as a discursive process through which indigenous populations are framed within local New England histories as “vanishing” first by defining Indians based on a singular characteristic–full blood quantum in the case of nineteenth century New Englanddand then lamenting the passing of the “last” Indians assumed to have that characteristic in local texts. As language activists, community members, and academics writing about the complex dynamics surrounding indigenous languages, we must make sure that we are equally exuberant in highlighting and developing as robust a vocabulary for counting Speakers up and outdultimately recognizing the continued connections indigenous people have to their languagesdand to language revitalization endeavors more generally. Acknoweldgements To the people of the Chickasaw Nation for granting me access to some of their homes, families, and lives–a huge debt is owed to the Chickasaw Language Department, Speakers, and language revitalization participants for their constant inspiration and for sharing the work that they have dedicated their lives to. I am also grateful for the feedback of Madeleine Adkins, Rusty Barrett, Kira Hall, and Lal Zimman; thanks also go to this volume’s editor, Sarah Shulist for her invaluable suggestions and insights. Parts of this article were presented at the 2013 meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Chicago. Funding for fieldwork came from the Center for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the West, University of Colorado, Boulder. This article was completed during a Lyman T. Johnson postdoctoral fellowship in the Linguistics Program at the University of Kentucky. References Adkins, Madeleine, 2013. Will the real Breton please stand up? Language revitalization and the problem of authentic language. Int. J. Soc. Lang. 223, 55–70. Anderson, Benedict. ([1983] 1991). Imagined communities. New York, Verso. Andronis, Mary Antonia, 2003. Iconization, fractal recursivity, and erasure: linguistic ideologies and standardization in quichua-speaking ecuador, 2003. Texas Linguistic Forum 47: 263–269. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Symposium about Language and SocietydAustin April 11–13, 2003. Ahlers, Jocelyn, 2006. Framing discourse: creating community through native language use. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 16 (1). Bourdieu, Pierre, 1986. The Forms of Capital. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood Press, New York. Bourdieu, Pierre, 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bucholtz, Mary, Hall, Kira, 2004. Theorizing identity in language and sexuality research. Lang. Soc. 33 (4), 469–515. Bunte, Pamela, 2009. “You keep listening with your ears!” Language ideologies, language socialization, and paiute identity. In: Kroskrity, P.V., Field, M.C. (Eds.), Native American Language Ideologies: Beliefs, Practices, and Struggles in Indian Country. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Please cite this article in press as: Davis, J.L., Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization, Language & Communication (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.04.005

12

J.L. Davis / Language & Communication xxx (2015) 1–12

The Chickasaw times, 2011. Sulphur, OK. Chickasaw Advisory Council. November. Deloria, Philip, 2011. On leaking languages and categorical imperatives. Am. Indian Cult. Res. J. 35 (2). Drechsel, Emanuel, 1987. On determining the role of Chickasaw in the history and origin of Mobilian Jargon. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 53, 21–29. Dorian, Nancy, 1989. Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Eisenlohr, Patrick, 2004. Temporalities of community: ancestral language, pilgrimage, and diasporic belonging in Mauritius. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 14 (1), 81–98. England, Nora, 2002. Commentary: further rhetorical concerns. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 12 (2). Errington, Joseph, 2002. Getting language rights: the rhetorics of language endangerment and loss. Am. Anthropol. 105 (4), 723–732. Grenoble, Lenore, Whaley, L. (Eds.), 1998. Endangered Languages: Language Loss and Community Response. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hansen, Magnus P., 2010a. Nahuatl among Jehovah’s witnesses of Hueyapan, Morelos: a case of spontaneous revitalization. Small languages and small language communities 65. Int. J. Soc. Lang. 203, 125–137. Hansen, Magnus P., 2010b. In the Beginning was the Word: Ideologies of Language and Religion in a Rural Mexican Community. Paper Presentation at the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans (17–21 Nov). Harrison, K. David, 2007. When Languages Die: the Extinction of the World’s Languages and the Erosion of Human Knowledge. Oxford University Press, New York. Hill, Jane, 2002. “Expert rhetorics” in advocacy for endangered languages: who is listening and what do they hear? J. Linguist. Anthropol. 12 (2), 119–133. Hinson, Joshua, 2011. Chihoowa’kot pioyimmi billi’ya: Faith, Language, and Identity in the Chickasaw Nation (Community presentation). Irvine, Judith T., Gal, Susan, 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In: Kroskrity, Paul V. (Ed.), Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Politics, and Identities. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 35–83. Jaffe, Alexendra, 1999. Ideologies in Action: Language Politics on Corsica. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Kroskrity, Paul, 2004. Language ideologies. In: Duranti, Alessandro (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA. Kroskrity, Paul, Field, Margaret (Eds.), 2009. Native American Language Ideologies: Beliefs, Practices, and Struggles in Indian Country. The University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, AZ. Leonard, Wesley, 2011. Challenging “extinction” through modern Miami language practices. Am. Indian. Cult. Res. J. 35 (2). Medicine, Bea, Jacobs, Sue-Ellen, 2001. Learning to Be an Anthropologist and Remaining “Native”: Selected Writings. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Meek, Barbra A., 2010. We are Our Language: An Ethnography of Language Revitalization in a Northern Athabaskan Community. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Modan, Gabriella G., 2007. Turf Wars: Discourse, Diversity, and the Politics of Place. Blackwell, Malden, MA. Muehlmann, Shaylih, 2011. Von Humboldt’s parrot and the countdown of last speakers in the Colorado Delta. Lang. Commun. Munro, Pamela, 1984. On the western muskogean source for mobilian. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 50 (4), 438–450. Noori, Margaret, 2013. Anishinaabemowin: language, family, and community. In: Hinton, Leanne (Ed.), Bringing Our Languages Home : Language Revitalization for Families. Heyday, Berkeley, California. O’Brien, Jean M., 2010. Firsting and Lasting: Writing Indians Out of Existence in New England. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Pujolar, Joan, 2007. The future of Catalan: language endangerment and nationalist discourses in Catalonia. In: Duchêne i, A., Heller, M. (Eds.), Discourses of Endangerment: Interest and Ideology in the Defense of Languages. Continuum International, London, pp. 121–148. Shulist, Sarah A., 2013. In the House of Transformation: Language Revitalization, State Regulation, and Indigenous Identity in Urban Amazonia. University of Western Ontario. Ph.D. Dissertation. Shulist, Sarah, 2015. “Graduated Authenticity”: Multilingualism, identity, and revitalization in the Northwest Amazon. Lang. Commun. Silverstein, Michael, 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In: Clyne, Paul R., Hanks, William F., Hofbauer, Carol L. (Eds.), The Elements: A Parassession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, pp. 193–247. Silverstein, Michael, 2003. The whens and wheres – as well as hows – of ethnolinguistic recognition. Public Culture 15 (3), 531–557. Sturm, Circe, 2002. Blood Politics: Race, Culture and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. UNESCO, 2003. Language Vitality and Endangerment (Paris: Document by UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages). Urla, Jacqueline, 1993. Cultural politics in an age of statistics: numbers, nations, and the making of basque identity. Am. Ethnol. 20 (4), 818–843. Webster, Anthony, Peterson, Leighton, 2011. Introduction: American Indian languages in unexpected places. Am. Indian. Cult. Res. J. 35, 2. Weinberg, Miranda, deKorne, Haley, 2015. Who can speak Lenape in Pennsylvania? Authentication and language learning in an endangered language community of practice. Lang. Commun.

Please cite this article in press as: Davis, J.L., Language affiliation and ethnolinguistic identity in Chickasaw language revitalization, Language & Communication (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.04.005