Proceedings published July 2012
kellogg.nd.edu/STLILLA
Exploring a Heritage Language:
Linguistic Ideologies, Identity, and Revitalization of Belizean Mopan*
Yuki Tanaka
Yuki Tanaka is a PhD student of linguistic anthropology at Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale. Her research focuses on the interrelationships of language and culture, language
ideologies, language shift and documentation, language maintenance and revitalization, identity,
and the affect, with an areal focus on the lowland Maya. Currently, she is working on the
documentation of Belizean Mopan spoken in Toledo district, Southern Belize. As a heritage
speaker, she is also interested in documentation and revitalization of Miyako, a Ryukyuan
language spoken in the Miyako Island, Japan. She holds an MA in Anthropology from SIUC and
a BA in History from Ibaraki University, Japan. At SIUC, she has taught introductory linguistic
anthropology and Japanese classes as an instructor of record and introductory anthropology
classes as a TA.
*
I thank Dr. C. Andrew Hofling, Dr. Anthony Webster, and Dr. Juan Luis Rodriguez for their insightful comments,
as well as the Endangered Language Fund (ELF) for their grant, supporting this research.
Abstract
This paper explores the current interaction of linguistic ideologies, identity, and revitalization of
Belizean Mopan, a Mayan language spoken in Toledo District, Southern Belize. Inspired by two
theoretical frameworks: Korskrity’s (2009) notion of multiple language ideologies as a means of
forming social and individual identities; and Webster’s (2010b) “intimate grammar” that focuses
on a speaker’s felt attachment to a language, I consider individuals’ linguistic biographies as an
effective means to understand ongoing linguistic practices in the area. Analyzing the linguistic
biographies of three Mopan-Q’eqchi’ teachers who participated in the creation of a Belize
Mopan dictionary, Kamb’al Ich T’an Mopan Maya, I argue that the individual’s emotional
attachments to their language and the sense of belonging to their linguistic community are the
crucial keys for effective language documentation and revitalization.
Resumen
Esta presentación explora la interacción entre las ideologías lingüísticas, la identidad y la
revitalización del mopan de Belize, una lengua maya hablada en el distrito de Toledo en el sur de
Belize. Inspirada por dos marcos teóricos: La noción de múltiples ideologías lingüísticas de
Kroskity (2009) y la noción de gramáticas intimas de Webster (2010), la cual se enfoca en los
sentimientos de arraigo a las lenguas, yo considero las biografías lingüísticas de los individuos
como medios efectivos para comprender las prácticas lingüísticas en esta área geográfica. A
través del análisis de las biografías lingüísticas de tres maestros de habla mopan y q’eqchi’,
quienes participaron en la creación de un diccionario Mopan, yo propongo que el arraigo
emocional a sus lenguas y el sentido de pertenencia a sus comunidades lingüísticas son
elementos cruciales para la efectiva documentación y revitalización de sus lenguas.
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
1
Introduction
This paper explores the current interaction of linguistic ideologies, identity, and revitalization of
Belizean Mopan, a Mayan language spoken in Toledo district, Southern Belize. Inspired by two
theoretical frameworks: Korskrity’s (2009) notion of multiple language ideologies as means of
forming social and individual identities; and Webster’s (2010b) “intimate grammar” that focuses
on a speaker’s felt attachment to the language, I consider individuals’ linguistic biographies as an
effective means to understand ongoing linguistic practices in the area. Analyzing the linguistic
biographies of three Mopan-Q’eqchi’ teachers who participated in the creation of a Belize
Mopan dictionary, Kamb’al Ich T’an Mopan Maya, I argue that the individual’s emotional
attachments to the language and the sense of belonging to one’s linguistic community are crucial
keys for effective language documentation and revitalization.
The Relationship between Language and Identity
Bucholtz and Hall (2005: 585–586) state that identity is a “relational and sociocultural
phenomenon that emerges and circulates in local discourse contexts of interaction rather than as
a stable structure located primarily in the individual psyche or in fixed social categories”.
According to Kroskrity (2000a; 2000b), social identity is a socially constructed membership in a
social category or group. Thus, all speakers in a society would have multiple levels of social
roles and categories as well as different kinds of identities that are negotiated, hidden, or
emphasized according to speakers’ social interaction, environment, and relation to others.
It is assumed by many sociolinguists and linguistic anthropologists that the negotiation of
an identity has a close connection to language varieties such as dialects, jargons understood only
within certain social networks, and languages that are not mutually intelligible, such as English
and Spanish (Mesthrie 2000). For example, Bailey’s (2000; 2001) study on the language of
Dominican Americans shows that their identity construction strategy is primarily done by
switching their languages. Barrett (2008) demonstrates that younger Sipakpense speakers of
Guatemala adopt more linguistically Mayan speech patterns as well as hyper-differentiate
between Spanish and Maya with iconic grammatical markers of “authentic” Maya identity.
Fuller (2007) also argues that full- or semi-bilingual grade school children strategically choose
their languages to construct social identity while also accommodating themselves to the social
occasion and expectation. As Shenk (2007) reported, being “pure” not only by blood but also by
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
2
language fluency is often considered as an important factor for constructing ethnic identities.
However, the ways that people understand their language in relationship to other
languages and why such a relationship matters is not always the same. As Webster pointed out,
assuming a relationship between language and identity is deeply connected to ideological
positions (Webster 2010a, 2010b, 2011). For example, traditional language ideologies found
among multilingual Native American tribes historically did not link language to identity (Bunte
2009, Loether 2009, and Kroskrity 2009). Navajo youths in a reservation or Miyakoan
descendants in Japan including myself, who cannot speak their heritage languages, would still
claim themselves as Navajo or Miyako, respectively (Webster 2010, personal communication;
Tanaka 2010). Yet still in many cases, those Native non-speakers of a given indigenous language
often express a nostalgic felt attachment to their heritage language (Ahlers 2006, Cavanaugh
2004, Tanaka 2010) and a belief that language can iconically and indexically mark ethnic
authenticity (Barrett 2008, Shenk 2007). This nostalgia is clearly articulated in examples of the
loss of aesthetic expressions and terms that cannot be translated into another language
(Woodbury 1998). In these cases, the loss of language is deeply connected to the ways in which
people express and identify themselves. For example, examining affective suffixes in Cup’ik,
one of Central Alaskan Yup’ik Eskimo dialects, Woodbury (1998) argues that certain suffixes
have great rhetorical effects in Cup’ik speech and cannot be replaced by equivalent English
terms. Even though “in a situation of language shift, a language of wider communication (such
as English) can be adapted ideologically, if not always structurally, to communicative ends that
are continuous with those earlier fulfilled by an ancestral language (Woodbury 1998: 235),” such
rhetorical, aesthetic and expressive suffixes are nearly impossible to transfer and maintain, and
thus will probably disappear because this affective suffixation is a “form-dependent expression”
(Woodbury 1998: 256).
Taking examples from Navajo poetic practices in Navajo, Navlish, and Navajo English,
Webster (2010a) extended Woodbury (1998)’s notion of “form-dependent expression” and
suggest that understanding “intimate grammars” is key to understand real Navajo linguistic
practices among the Navajo speech community. He also argues that individuals’ engagement
with languages varies; yet the concept of “intimate grammars” reveals that language is “not
purely an abstract system” (Webster 2010a: 202) and there are always people involved in their
expression. It is through “intimate grammars” that people build emotional attachments to their
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
3
languages even when those languages are stigmatized or negatively viewed (also see Webster
2011). For them, intimate grammars can be a form of resistance, an icon of ethnic identity and a
means of indexing “Navajoness”. Based on Irvine (1990)’s notion of “affective registers,”
Webster (2010b) also argues that in a heteroglossic multilingual society, “the choice of language
or languages can be seen as an affective display. In such cases, languages can sometimes become
affective registers (Webster 2010b: 44).” The concepts of “intimate grammar” (Webster 2010b),
“the intimacy of language ideologies” (Webster 2010a) and “affective registers” (Irvine 1990)
suggest that speakers’ attitudes towards languages are affected by their felt attachments to their
languages. Such affects are constructed through language ideologies and the emotional bonds
between individuals and their heritage languages are informed by the multiple language
ideologies that contribute to social and individual identities (Korskrity 2009, Webster 2010b: 40).
Language Ideologies and Linguistic Biographies
Silverstein defines linguistic ideologies as “sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as
a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use (1979: 193).” To extend
this more socio-culturally, language ideologies can be viewed as multiple and constructed from
specific political economic perspectives that influence “the cultural ideas about language”
(Kroskrity 2009: 11). This suggests that language ideologies may differ and conflict even for a
single individual (Field 2009: 46, Irvine and Gal 2000). Kroskrity (2009) expands this notion of
individual differences by means of understanding language ideology of a particular individual.
He suggests that individual’s life history can be a crucial key to understand language ideological
change and the identity construction of that individual (also see Basso ed. 2010).
The notion of the multiplicity of language ideologies calls attention to individuals’
linguistic biographies. Linguistic biography could capture the dynamics of language choice,
linguistic preferences and competence in a multilingual individual (Verschik 2002: 40). In this
respect, linguistic biographies can be a crucial tool for understanding complexity and multiplicity
of identity formation processes. By the same token, I believe that the degree and kinds of
speakers’ felt attachments to languages could also be analyzed through their linguistic
biographies.
In summer 2011, I conducted interviews with Mopan speakers who engage in language
revitalization efforts in multiple locations in Toledo, Belize. The main questions addressed were:
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
4
1) How they view “Belizean” Mopan, and how that affects their language revitalization
strategies; 2) What kind of linguistic ideologies are found among them and the degree to which
they are shared; and 3) How individuals’ linguistic biographies affect their language ideologies,
engagement in the Mopan language and their identity as “Belizean” Mopan.
General Information
Mopan Maya is a member of the Yukatekan branch of the Mayan language family spoken in the
southern Petén region of Guatemala and in the Maya Mountains region of southern Belize
(Hofling 2009: 97). According to Ethnologue, it is spoken by 8,375 people in Belize as of 2000
and by 2,600 people in Guatemala as of 1990 (Gordon 2005). Although the estimated number of
remaining Mopan speakers both in Belize and in Guatemala has increased (9200 as of 2006,
according to Lewis 2009, and 3000–4000 as of 2008, according to Hofling 2011, respectively),
Mopan is still classified as a severely endangered language (Moseley ed. 2010). Guatemalan
Mopan has been fairly well documented by the missionary based language documentation
program of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc (SIL) (Ulrich and Ulrich 1976) and by the
Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG) (ALMG 2001, 2003, 2004; also see
England 1998). Its distinct grammatical features have also drawn attention from several linguists
(Danziger 1996, 2001; Hofling 2007, 2009, 2011; Kaufman 1991, 2003; Schumann Galvéz
1997). However, no intensive dialect variation study and documentation has been conducted on
Belizean Mopan, despite the fact that many Mopan speakers in Belize claim that each Mopan
village has distinctly different variants that are also different from Guatemalan Mopan (TKCL
2009: 1).
All existing Mopan dictionaries (ALMG 2001, 2003, 2004), except Hofling (2011), are
written in Spanish using the orthography approved by the ALMG. Without having knowledge of
Spanish, those dictionaries are not accessible to most English-Mopan speakers in Belize. In
response to that, Tumul K’in Center of Learning, a local Mayan high school incorporating
heritage languages and cultures into their curriculum, created a small Belizean Mopan MayaEnglish dictionary1. However, its purpose is not language documentation, but rather providing a
teaching guide based on Guatemalan Mopan.
1
Kamb’al Ich T’an Mopan Maya (TKCL 2009). This book is widely called the “Red Book.”
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
5
Belizean Mopan is distinct from Guatemalan Mopan on account of its unique linguistic
environment. Located on a borderland, there has been longstanding movement of Mopan
populations between Belize and Guatemala. Although English is an official language of Belize
and is taught in schools, many elders cannot use English and Spanish is still a lingua franca for
them. Immigration of Q’eqchi’ Maya speakers into some villages as well as interaction with
Belizean Creole speakers in a city also contribute to multilingualism among Belizean Mopan
speakers.
Currently, San Antonio, San Jose, Na Luum Caj, Santa Elena, and Pueblo Viejo are
considered Mopan villages, while other villages such as Blue Creek are Q’eqchi’ villages.
However, there are high numbers of intermarriages as well as job-related short-term migrations
within the area due to the lack of an efficient transportation system. For example, most of the
grade school teachers are relocated within Toledo district every 3 to 5 years regardless of their
linguistic background. That means a Creole teacher who does not speak either Mopan or
Q’eqchi’ may be sent to a Mopan village, or a Mopan teacher who used to teach in a Mopan
village can be transferred to a school where the majority of students only understand Q’eqchi’,
which the teacher does not speak. There are daily busses from Punta Gorda to Jalacte, a small
village bordering Guatemala, via San Antonio, the largest village in the area. However, the
majority of villages have only two busses to go back and forth to Punta Gorda four times a week
and there are no means of commuting between distant villages unless one has private
transportation (which is very rare). Therefore, those teachers who are relocated usually rent a
house for the weekdays, or even months until the semesters are over. Interethnic marriages
between Mopan and Q’eqchi’ are not uncommon. In many cases, a husband and a wife do not
speak or understand each other’s language during their courtship or in the beginning of their
marriage. Their children usually grow up as either Mopan or Q’eqchi’ based on the majority of
their residential community. Thus, it is highly possible that even within a village that claims to
be solely Mopan, we can find several Q’eqchi’ families and good number of people are actually
ethnically Mopan-Q’eqchi’ mix.
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
6
Interviews
In what follows, I compare three young teachers, Ms. Elvia Bo at Blue Creek, Ms. Alora Coc
from San Antonio, and Mr. Richard Peck from San Jose. All of them participated in the creation
of a Belize Mopan dictionary, Kamb’al Ich T’an Mopan Maya (TKCL 2009, also called the “Red
Book”). However, interestingly, they are all ethnically a Mopan-Q’eqchi’ mix, hence not “pure”
Mopan.
Ms. Elvia Bo (E.B):
Elvia is a 23-year-old Mopan Maya teacher at Tumul K’in Center of Learning/High School. She
herself was also a graduate of Tumul K’in. She was born and raised in the village of Pueblo
Viejo. Her father is Mopan but her mother is Q’eqchi’. In her house, her mother speaks Q’eqchi’
to the father and he responds in Mopan. According to Elvia, her parents do not really follow
“tradition” and did not ask her to speak a certain language. Elvia also speaks Standard English
and Creole. She said she is not planning to teach a specific language to her children, it depends
on her future husband. She thinks the Mopan language is not dying and that people will keep
speaking it. However, the younger generation is more influenced by English and Creole. They
have not forgotten their own language but prefer to use Creole and English.
Although she is a Mopan language teacher, Elvia thinks she does not speak fluent Mopan.
She often forgets Mopan words and uses Q’eqchi’ instead. Sometimes, in her Mopan language
class, her Mopan students point out she is using a Q’eqchi’ term or having different
pronunciations. Her boyfriend, who is “really” Mopan, always tells her that her Mopan is funny:
it sounds like Q’eqchi. She also thinks her Q’eqchi’ is limited. She said she understands it but
does not speak it fluently. In fact, she had to take a Q’eqchi’ class when she was a student of
Tumul K’in, because a Mopan class was not offered then. However, she did not pay much
attention to the class and failed. That is why she “knows” she is not 100% pure Mopan nor
Q’eqchi’. She is a mix and does not speak either language fluently.
For her, getting this teaching position was an accident. After graduation, she went to
Cayo in North Western Belize looking for a job, but her mother got sick so she came back home
to stay with her. Then, Tumul K’in contacted her. They were looking for someone, preferably a
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
7
female and a Tumul K’in graduate, who could go to San Luís, Guatemala for five months to be
trained as a Mopan language teacher. She was available at that time, and met their requirements.
Needing a job, she accepted the offer. When I asked whether she liked to teach, she said yes, but
did not sound enthusiastic about it. She feels she is still learning and developing her teaching
skills as she teaches. The available teaching materials are very limited and that was one reason
why the “Red Book”—a dictionary—was created as a teaching guide. Eventually, she wants to
do something different, getting a job other than teaching Mopan in school.
Ms. Alora Coc (A.C):
Ms. Alora Coc is a 33-year-old grade school teacher at San Antonio. She is one of the narrators
of the stories on the CD accompanying the “red book.” She is also a head member of the
Congress of Maya Teachers (CMT), the organization promoting quality education for indigenous
people (UNICEF 2010).
She was born and raised in San Antonio. Her mother is Mopan and her father is Q’eqchi’
but he learned Mopan and speaks it to his wife and children. Currently, she is a single mother,
which is very rare in the local community, and has a son with whom she mostly speaks Mopan.
Even though she grew up in a household and community where everyone speaks Mopan, she
always felt that she does not speak “fluent” Mopan. She said she is “guilty” because her Mopan
is quite different. This is not only because she has a Q’eqchi’ father who does not speak “pure”
Mopan, but also she mixes her Mopan with English. She thinks she tends to use more English
and blend it into her Mopan and that is not proper. If she is speaking Mopan, it should be fluent,
meaning “pure” not mixing with English. By the same token, she thinks Mopan should not be
mixed with Creole. Mixing languages is the weakness that she has and she sees it in children as
well. Developing interests in speaking “pure” Mopan as a marker of her Mopan identity, Ms.
Coc decided to take a linguistic class at Tumul K’in taught by teachers from San Luís, affiliated
with the Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG). She took the class along with
other Mopan teachers of San Jose, where she taught for one year. However, there was no
feedback or continuation of discussions among teachers who completed the class. She thinks
Mopan will die out if they do not look into developing some resources to have children read and
learn how to go about using language. That motivated her participation in the “red book” project.
Ms. Coc points out that the “red book” is not really “Belizean” Mopan because many materials
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
8
are from Guatemala, but it is written in English so that people can understand it. She still uses it
a lot, not only for teaching Mopan but to teach children English because it contains the alphabet.
For her, language is who you are. Her parents also put emphasis on the importance of
language. Her sister does not understand Q’eqchi’ but she learned it when she taught at
Aguacate, one of the Q’eqchi’ villages. Teaching at Aguacate gave her new experiences and
affected her perspectives on language, culture and tradition in relation to one’s own identity. She
claims that in Aguacate, people have more awareness of who they are and both language and
culture are much more embraced compared to San Antonio. Parents also participate and are
aware of the importance of promoting language and culture through activities, such as spelling
contests and wearing traditional cloth as a school uniform.
“In (Aguacate) everywhere I go, I feel comfortable wearing my cultural
clothing. That’s just of me. I’m not afraid to say who I am, but and then in, in
this institution (in San Jose), now it’s, it is little different because some people,
some teachers say what children should learn is…you just see them not want
them to participate in anything. You know…so it is a little…it’s hard. It’s hard
to get by. (A.C. 6-21-11)”
Being in both Mopan and Q’eqchi’ schools made her more aware of interest gaps in one’s
heritage language and culture. In Aguacate, she felt comfortable to embrace her identity as Maya
and all villagers have positive attitudes toward their language and culture. On the other hand,
according to her, Mopan schools and their teachers, especially those of San Antonio have a much
more apathetic attitude toward revitalization and promotion of their own culture and language.
For example, Ms. Coc is teaching first grade children who are mostly still Mopan monolinguals.
She uses grammatical English in class but uses Mopan to explain concepts and meanings that
children do not understand in English. However, other teachers, even Mopan ones, complain that
she speaks too much Mopan to students because they think children should speak more English.
In her view, teachers in San Luis Rey School are different. They came there for a job to
get money and everyone goes home after 3:30. Teachers do not meet after school hours and do
not discuss academic or school related issues. They only have staff meetings. In contrast, at
Aguacate school, teachers get together after school and discussed where the school should go,
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
9
what to do to improve the school and what is better for the children. For her, education is not just
teaching but it should go beyond that.
“…You need to reach out to parents, you need to reach out to other, involve the
community…but again, it’s hard to do that here. It’s really hard to do that here.
(A.C. 6-21-11)”
She looks at language and tradition as a whole. She thinks Maya people should appreciate
who they are. And they should pass these feelings on to their children through education. For her,
it is not only languages but also cultures that encounter endangerment. For example, in Aguacate,
elders come voluntarily and teach children how to make a bowl out of a calabash. So now
children know what to do with a calabash. But in San Antonio, if you ask children to get a
calabash, they will ask you what you would do with it because there is no cultural education at
home from parents. These calabash bowls can easily be an indexical and iconic material of
Mayan ethnic identity, because the Mayan people have used calabash bowls for long time
(Aoyama and Inomata 1997). For her, this calabash case was a striking example indicating that
Mopan people do not really have much interest in passing down their language and culture.
“…people they don’t really have that interests. Interest is not here at San Luis
Ray School. It’s hard to say that, but you know, it begins from us. (A.C. 6-2111)”
She said she will not be in San Antonio next year, because she will be done teaching this
coming September and will take time to study for about two years to finish her education at the
University of Belize.
Mr. Richard Peck (R.P):
Mr. Richard Peck is a grade school teacher in San Jose. He is in his late 20’s and also the
chairman of the village. He was also another narrator for the “Red Book” CD. His wife is a
Mopan speaker from Santa Cruz and they have a son and a daughter. His father is Q’eqchi’ and
his mother is Mopan. His mother cannot speak Q’eqchi’ but his father is bilingual so that they
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
10
communicate in Mopan. He speaks Mopan, a little bit of Q’eqchi, Standard English, a little bit of
Spanish and understands but does not particularly speak Creole, which he learned in high school
in Punta Gorda. He mentioned that when he was at high school, there was a certain
discrimination against indigenous students. Because of that, students were afraid of speaking
their first language and wanted to fit in to Creole society by speaking Creole. Teachers also
encouraged them to speak “English”, by which they actually meant Creole, because they were
Creole speakers. Being exposed to the ideologies that indigenous Mayan languages and cultures
are inferior than other languages and cultures such as English and Creole, many children want to
assimilate to or become more like Americans or Creoles. Mr. Peck said that he feels the higher
you go in education, the more you forget your language.
Unlike the majority of teachers in other schools, many San Jose teachers grew up in and
have taught in San Jose for a much longer time. Richard has also been teaching in San Jose for
10 years and never taught in any other location. They share interests in promoting language and
took the linguistic class in Tumul K’in to learn Mopan grammar and acquire Mopan literacy.
Recently, San Jose was chosen to be a modeling school of Tumul K’in and CMT’s
bilingual program, sponsored mostly by UNICEF and UNESCO. This bilingual program does
not offer any language immersion class but officially allows teachers to use Mopan to explain
things they teach at school. Many San Jose teachers said it had a huge impact on children’s
learning ability. There were drastic changes in students’ performance such as on national exams.
However, not all teachers are Mopan speakers and therefore they cannot participate in the
program. It is also up to teachers to figure out how to incorporate Mopan into the classroom.
Some teachers including Richard teach children how to write and read in Mopan using their own
materials, while others use Mopan only to explain things.
Discussion 1—Language Purity
Belizean Mopan is distinct from Guatemalan Mopan on account of their unique linguistic
environments and socio-politico-economical situations. Many studies show that this kind of
language contact often results in the emergence of linguistic variation (Anderson 1998, Hill and
Hill 1986, Webster 2010a), changes in discourse markers, speech styles, linguistic practices
(Brody 1987, Innes 2004, 2006; Kroskrity 1993, 1998; Jackson and Linn 2000) and semantic
shifts and extensions (Basso 1990). In fact, Hanks (2010) argues for a strong influence of
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
11
Spanish on colonial Yukatek Maya in the Northern Yucatan peninsula. Brody (1995) also
reported extensive borrowings from Spanish into Mesoamerican languages. Having been a
British colony and exposed to English, the development of contemporary Mopan in Belize must
have undergone different processes than those of Guatemala.
In fact, many Belizean Mopan speakers express their feelings that Guatemalan Mopan is
very different from Belize Mopan. However, when I asked what the differences are, they often
point out that Belizean Mopan contains more Spanish loan words than Guatemalan Mopan,
hence it is not “pure.” Some still attribute differences to accents and pronunciations, but it is
highly possible that such differences are affected by their second (or sometimes first) languages
which are often times either Spanish or English. The differences people notice are actually often
not differences between Mopan dialects but rather between English and Spanish. That Mopan
Maya teachers from San Luis offer a workshop at Tumul K’in using both Mopan and Spanish to
communicate with students also indicates that for Guatemalan Mopan speakers, there are not big
differences and both Mopan dialects are mutually intelligible. Thus the dialectal issues of Mopan
would not be comparable to the case of Lacandon Maya whose North and South varieties are
distinctively different and are reportedly not mutually intelligible (Hofling 2011, personal
communication). But if there are not many linguistic dialectal differences between Mopan
dialects, why do Belizean Mopan speakers emphasize the differences while Guatemalan Mopan
speakers do not? What is the motivation to create the “Belizean Maya” dictionary and learning
guide instead of just directly translating Guatemalan Mopan dictionaries and grammar book?
Among whom is the idea that Guatemalan Mopan is pure shared? Why do some people still
believe that the “Red Book” does not represent “pure Belizean”? I seek the answers for these
questions in local language ideologies, in the speakers felt attachments to their language and
social identity and in discourses surrounding “language purity.”
All teachers believe that language mixing is bad because it loses the essence of language.
Both Elvia and Ms. Coc express that their Mopan is mixed, hence they feel that their language is
not “pure.” Such feelings grew after taking the class and learning “how you are supposed to
speak.” On the other hand, Mr. Peck thinks that after completing the class, he is more aware of
his Mopan and now speaks much more “purely” and even better than before and than other
people. He believes mixing is losing the essence of language. Sometimes people laugh at him
for using “pure” Mopan because no one understands it. However, he wants to speak the way
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
12
Mopan people used to speak—“pure” and “correct.” That makes more sense to him because he is
Mopan.
“For example, a term “bridge.” When I was a child, I always wanted to say “my
house is over the bridge” but I did not know the word “bridge” in Mopan…
Now I know and I can say it in Mopan. It’s maneeb’ xot-ja’ and that makes
more sense. (R.P 6/28/11)”
Hofling (2011, personal communication) pointed out that their strong ideology of
language “purity” is probably influenced by San Luís teachers and ALMG who emphasize the
idea that Guatemalan Mopan determined by ALMG is the correct form of Mopan and that the
language should be “pure”.
The ideology of language purism also cannot be separated from the issue of language
standardization. When a language is recorded and made into a dictionary and/or a grammar book,
variations tend to be ignored and the choice of what form should be recorded and become a
standard one is strongly influenced by local language ideologies. The process also involves the
materialization of language, in which a given language is turned into actual physical objects
(texts). This making of textual objects is what Blommaert (2008) called “practices of
artefactualisation” of languages. The process also relates to indexicalization and iconization of a
certain ethnic identity through a language. Since the majority of Mayan speakers speak Spanish,
there is a strong expectation for Belizean Mopan speakers to speak Spanish to authenticate their
ethnic identity as “Maya”. There is also a widespread ideology that those who engage in the
study of indigenous people and languages of Latin America should be literate in Spanish in order
to share the results of one’s study, to continue their work and education, or just simply to make
materials available to indigenous people. However, such Spanish ideology excludes a country
like Belize where the official language and lingua franca is English. For example, there is not
much reading and educational material available in Mopan without Spanish literacy. To learn
one’s own language (Mopan), one needs to learn another language (Spanish).
Recently, the government of Belize installed Spanish as a second language program in
order to promote cooperation with and to strengthen competitive power over other Central
American countries. Now, Spanish is taught in school in addition to Standard British English. As
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
13
Hymes (1996) argued, all languages are not equal because there are power hierarchies and
inequalities among speakers. Ideologies that English and Spanish are more valuable—having
superior position in a linguistic market—would negatively affect students’ motivation to keep
their indigenous languages. It may also introduce the idea that Spanish is more valuable than
English. For example, Elvia mentioned that among young Mayan males, having a Spanish
speaking girlfriend is very “hot.” San Luís Peten, Guatemala has been a cultural center for
Mopan people for long time. Now, it is the academic center as well. Going to San Luís and
taking workshop is more privileged than taking a class in Tumul K’in.
The adoration for Spanish and Spanish speakers, placing their roots in Guatemala and
attributing cultural and academic center to San Luís Peten may affect the common positioning of
Guatemalan Mopan as “better,” “correct” and “pure” than Belizean Mopan.
Individual’s Role in Language Documentation and Revitalization
There have been increasing demands for the documentation of the heritage language and
traditional speech genres and oratorical performances among Mopan villagers. However, no
distinct language documentation project has been conducted yet. Mr. Juan Mes, another San Jose
Mopan teacher who is deeply committing to language revitalization and documentation, is trying
to record old stories from elders, but because of the lack of equipment, not much work has been
completed. Sometimes, Ak’ Kutan Radio, a multilingual radio station promoting indigenous
language and culture, broadcasts local stories, traditional knowledge, and so forth in both Maya
and Q’eqchi’. However, no effective archiving of those programs has been done.
Being a member of Tumul K’in and having access to Ak’ Kutan Radio station, Elvia
could play a more active role in the revitalization and documentation process. For example,
having a radio program promoting Mopan (or even Q’eqchi’) literacy or even offering a
language learning class over the radio2. However, as she described, her appointment was
accidental. She is also very self-conscious about her language ability and claims she is not
“fluent” in Mopan despite the fact that she teaches Mopan at high school. Webster points out that
both iconic relations and felt attachments between speakers and languages are “created”
(Webster 2010a), “imagined” (Webster 2010b: 44, also see Agha 2003), or “expected” (Webster
2011, also see Webster and Peterson 2011) through metapragmatic terms that are associated with
2
Such language learning courses are one of the most popular programs in Japanese public radio station.
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
14
indignity as well as metadiscourses on the role and value of languages. The degree of social and
linguistic intimacy is also construed, constrained and constructed through language ideologies.
Elvia does not seem to put a strong ideological emphasis on or to express deep felt attachment to
a specific language she uses.
On the other hand, Ms. Coc shows strong interest in promoting culture and language. Her
attitudes toward language and culture are strongly influenced by the revitalization movement
among the Q’eqchi’. Having a son may affect her urgent feeling for passing down cultural and
linguistic knowledge. Her motivation seems to be influenced by her sense of frustration and guilt
as well as of the responsibility. That Ms. Coc said she is ashamed of not speaking Mopan
properly indicates she has strong felt attachment and ideological commitment to Mopan language.
Looking for the effective means to promote language and culture, she is inclined toward
institutional and communal approaches.
Interestingly, both females do not particularly engage in creating or performing many
linguistic activities, such as writing a diary, songs, or poems, or translating English books into
Mopan etc. Webster argues that “(l)anguage is more than mere reference. It is more than a
communicative tool. It is also a set of poetic, aesthetic, and expressive utterances to and through
which individual speakers build felt attachment...individuals create language through use, and
such uses create felt attachments to linguistic forms” (Webster 2010a: 204). Such a playful use of
language and affects does not seem to be exercised in both Elvia and Ms. Coc’s daily discourse.
They have felt attachments to their heritage language but they do not seem to deal with their
feelings as individuals. Their attitudes toward Mopan are strongly influenced by the ideology of
language purity—how they should speak—not by how they want to utilize and play with their
own language.
In contrast, Mr. Peck and other San Jose teachers are much more actively engaging in
both inputs and outputs. They utilize their Mopan literacy not only for education but also for
entertainment. For example, they write songs about their personal life, emotions, and sensitive
feelings or songs encouraging hard work and teaching values of life to the children. Mr. Mes
translated English carols into Mopan and sang with his students. They encourage children to use
Mopan terms instead of English as well as to engage in creative writing in Mopan. Some of
teachers, for example Mr. Mes, also write poems and tell stories for themselves or for the
children. In the future, they hope to assemble a Mopan storybook for the children and use it for a
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
15
reading class. For them, songs and poems are effective means to index their intimacy to their
social, cultural and linguistic identity (Webster 2010b, also see Abu-Lughod 2000, Fox 2004,
and Samuels 2004).
Even though there are still limitations in pedagogical materials and funding, they want to
expand the “bilingual” program and install more activities, not only language related, but also
addressing culture and tradition. They believe the program gave them the opportunity and power
to promote a positive view and value of the Mopan language and culture. However, it is they
who made the program effective, and hence are the agency of language revitalization.
Conclusion
Long ago, Sapir (1949) pointed out that language is a force of socialization and a vocal
actualization of the reality that is constrained through culture—an accumulation of individuals’
experiences through time. For him, culture is not a unitary whole and it differs in each individual
(Sapir 1949); and language is a summary of individual intuition (Sapir 1921). He suggests that
language and culture are inseparable, and so are language and the individual. The individual
engagement with language spoken in a given society may differ depending on the degree of
attachment to collective identity and culture, of secrecy and formality of situation, and of social
status (Sherzer 1983, Woodbury 1998). Understanding multiple factors such as linguistic
competition (Barrett 2008), the politics of identity (England 2002, Hill and Hill 1986), and the
multilayered linguistic ideologies (Field 2009, Kroskrity 2009, Kroskrity and Field eds. 2009)
that influence individuals’ linguistic biographies is crucial for effective language revitalization
and maintenance.
Although institutional support provides help for a revitalization movement and people in
Toledo ideologically support that, it is the power of individuals that makes true revitalization
possible and effective. Webster (2010a: 40) suggested that the iconic relations between speakers
and languages are mediated by speakers’ felt attachment to their languages. Speakers’ attitudes
towards languages are affected by their felt attachments to each language that are constructed
through their language ideologies and identities.
During my interviews, many people who have ethnic backgrounds other than Mopan
expressed their sense of belonging to Mopan because they grew up with Mopan culture and
speak Mopan as their first language. One thing that distinguishes Richard and other San Jose
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
16
teachers from Elvia and Ms. Coc is that they grew up and have taught in San Jose for a long
period of time. They not only have an attachment to the language but also to the place and the
community in which they belong. They also have a sense of acceptance of other Mayan cultures,
that of Q’eqchi’s, and of Guatemalan Mopans. They place their Belizean Mopan identity within
Belize’s multilingual multiethnic society. That they are all Belizean, distinguishes them from
Guatemalan Mopans. Regardless of their ethnic background, whether Mopan, Q’eqchi’, mestizo
or mixed, they know they belong to the land of Belize, and the land of the Maya. Their identity is
attached to their Mopan Maya community. It is Mopan language to which they feel emotional
attachment and which they consider as their “mother” tongue, and thus are willing to make
efforts to pass it onto the next generation.
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
17
Bibliography
Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2000. Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. Berkeley:
California University Press.
Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG). 2001. Tojkinb'eeb' T'an Mopan:
Gramática Descriptiva Mopan. Guatemala City, Guatemala: ALMG.
———. 2003. Muuch't'an Mopan: Vocabulario Mopan. Guatemala City, Guatemala: ALMG.
———. 2004. Tojkinb'eeb' Tz'iib' T'an Mopan. Guatemala City, Guatemala: ALMG.
Agha, Asif. 2003. The Social Life of Cultural Value. Language and communication 23 (3/4):
231-273.
Ahlers, Jocelyn C. 2006. Framing Discourse: Creating Community through Native Language
Use. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 16(1): 58-75.
Anderson, Jeffrey. 1998. “Ethnolinguistic Dimensions of Northern Arapaho Language Shift.”
Anthropological Linguistics. 40(1): 43-108.
Aoyama Kazuo and Inomata Takeshi. 1997. Mesoamerica no Koukogaku (Mesoamerican
Archaeology). Tokyo: Dosei sya.
Bailey, Benjamin. 2000. Language and Negotiation of Ethnic/Racial Identity Among Dominican
Americans. Language in Society 29: 555-582.
———. 2001 The language of multiple identities among Dominican Americans. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology 10(2): 190-223.
Barrett, Rusty. 2008. Linguistic differentiation and Mayan language revitalization in Guatemala.
Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(3): 275-305.
Basso, Ellen B. ed. 1992. Native American Cultures through Their Discourse. (Special
Publications of the Folklore Institute, Indiana University). Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Basso, Keith. 1990. Western Apache Language and Culture. Tucson: University of Arizona
Press.
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
18
Blommaert, Jan. 2008. Artefactual ideologies and the textual production of African languages.
Language and Communication 28(4): 291-307.
Brody, Jill. 1987. “Particles Borrowed from Spanish as Discourse Markers in Mayan Discourse.”
Anthropological Linguistics. 29(4): 507-521.
———. 1995. Lending the ‘Unborrowable’: Spanish Discourse Markers in Indigenous American
Languages. In Spanish in Four Continents: Studies in Language Contact and
Bilingualism, ed by Carmen Silva-Corvalán. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University
Press. Pp. 132-147.
Bucholtz, Mary and Kira Hall. 2005. Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic
Approach. Discourse Studies 7(4-5): 585-614.
Bunte, Pamela A. 2009 “You Keep Not Listening with Your Ears!” Language Ideologies,
Language Socialization, and Paiute Identity. In Native American Language Ideologies:
Beliefs, Practices, and Struggles in Indian Country. Paul V. Kroskrity and Margaret C.
Field eds. Pp. 172-189. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Cavanaugh, Jillian. 2004. Remembering and Forgetting: Ideologies of Language Loss in a
Northern Italian Town. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 14(1): 24-38.
Danziger, Eve. 1996. Split Intransitivity and Active-inactive Patterning in Mopan Maya.
International Journal of American Linguistics 62(4): 379-414.
———. 2001. Relatively Speaking: Language, Thought, and Kinship among the Mopan Maya.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Debenport, Erin. 2010. The potential complexity of ‘universal ownership’: Cultural property,
textual circulation, and linguistic fieldwork. Language & Communication.30 (3): 204-210.
England, Nora. 1998. Mayan efforts toward language preservation. In Endangered Languages:
Current Issues and Future Prospects. eds. Lenore A. Grenoble and Lindsay J. Whaley.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Pp. 99-116.
———. 2002. Maya Linguists, Linguistics, and the Politics of Identity. Texas Linguistic Forum
45: 33-45.
———. 2003. Mayan language revival and revitalization politics: linguists and linguistic
ideologies. American Anthropologist 105 (4): 723-732 (Special Issue: Language Politics
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
19
and Practices).
Evans, Nicholas. 2010. Dying Words: endangered languages and what they have to tell us.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Field, Margaret C. 2009. Changing Navajo Language Ideologies and Changing Language Use. In
Native American Language Ideologies: Beliefs, Practices, and Struggles in Indian
Country. eds. Paul Kroskrity and Margaret Field. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Pp. 31-47.
Fox, Aaron. 2004. Real Country: Music and Language in Working-Class Culture. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Fuller, Janet M. 2007 Language choice as a Means of Shaping Identity. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 17(1): 105-129.
Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel. eds. Essentials of Language
Documentation. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goodfellow, Anne, 2005. Talking in Context: Language and Identity in Kwakwaka Society.
Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.). 2005. Ethnologue: languages of the world, Fifteenth edition.
Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com, accessed
March 7th, 2009.
Grenoble, Lenore A. and Lindsay J. Whaley. eds. Endangered Languages: Current Issues and
Future Prospects. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hale, Ken. 1998. On endangered languages and the importance of linguistic diversity. In
Endangered Languages: Current Issues and Future Prospects. eds. Lenore A. Grenoble
and Lindsay J. Whaley. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Pp. 192-216.
Hanks, William. 2010. Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross (The Anthropology of
Christianity). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Haviland, John B. 2006. Documenting lexical knowledge. In Essentials of Language
Documentation. eds. Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp.129-162.
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
20
Haymes, Dell H. 1996. Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward an
Understanding of Voice. London: Taylor and Francis.
Hill, Jane. 2002. “Expert rhetorics” in advocacy for endangered languages: who is listening, and
what do they hear? Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12(2): 119-133.
———. 2006. The ethnography of language and language documentation. In Essentials of
Language Documentation. eds. Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Ulrike
Mosel. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 113-128.
Hill, Jane and Kenneth Hill. 1986. Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of a Syncretic Language in
Central México. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 1980. Fieldnotes on Yucatec Maya Collected in Pustunich, Yucatan
From 1/15/80 to 2/19/80. Manuscript in possession of the author.
———. 1984. On Proto-Yucatecan Word Order. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 4 (2): 35-64.
———. 1991. Itza Maya Texts With a Grammatical Overview. Salt Lake City: University of
Utah Press.
———. 1997. Itzaj Maya-Spanish-English Dictionary / Diccionario Maya Itzaj-Español-Inglés
Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
———. 2000. Itzaj Maya Grammar. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
———. 2004. Language and Cultural Contacts Among Yukatekan Mayans. Collegium
Antropologicum 28, Suppl. 1:241-48. Zagreb, Croatia.
———. 2007 Notes on Mopan Lexicon and Lexical Morphology. Proceedings of the Conference
on Indigenous Languages of Latin America-III.
———. 2009. Voce and Auxiliaries in Mopan Maya. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 59:
New Perspectives in Mayan Linguistics, eds. by Heriberto Avelino, Jessica Coon, and
Elisabeth Norcliffe, Pp. 97-108.
———. 2011. Mopan Maya-Spanish-English Dictionary. Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press.
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
21
Hymes, Dell 1962 The Ethnography of Speaking. In Anthropology and Human Behavior. T.
Gladwin and William C. Sturtevant, eds. Washington: Anthropological Society of
Washington. 12.
———. 1971. Sociolinguistics and the Ethnography of Speaking. In Social Anthropology and
Language. Edwin Ardener, ed. London: Tavistock Press.
Innes, Pamela. 2004. Medicine-Making Language among the Muskogee: The Effects of
Changing Attitudes. Linguistic Diversity in the South. (ed. Bender, Margaret). Athens:
University of Georgia Press. Pp. 90-103.
———. 2006. The interplay of genres, gender, and language ideology among the Muskogee.
Language in Society. 35(3): 231-259.
———. 2010. Ethical problems in archival research: Beyond accessibility. Language &
Communication 30 (3): 198-203.
Irvine 1990. Registering Affect: Heteroglossia in the Linguistic Expression of Emotion. In
Language and the Politics of Emotion. eds. Lila Abu-Lughod and Catherine Lutz.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 126-161.
Irvine, Judith. and Susan Gal 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Regimes
of Language: Ideologies, Politics, and Identities. ed. Paul Kroskrity,Pp. 35-83.
Jackson, Jason Baird and Linn, Mary S. 2000. Calling in the Members: Linguistic Form and
Cultural Context in a Yuchi Ritual Speech Genre. Anthropological Linguistics. 42(1): 6180.
Kaufman, Terrence. 1991. Notes on the Structure of Yukateko and other Yukatekan Languages.
Manuscript.
———. 2001. Two Highly Effective Models for Large-scale documentation of Endangered
Languages. In Lectures on Endangered Languages: 2 – From Kyoto Conference 2000-.
(Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim (ELPR) Publication Series C002). Kyoto,
Japan: Nakanishi Printing Co., Ltd. Pp. 269-284.
Kaufman, Terrance (with John S. Justeson). 2003. A Preliminary Mayan Etymological
Dictionary. Electronic Document: http://www.famsi.org/reports/01051/pmed.pdf.
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
22
Kroskrity, Paul. 1993. Language, History, and Identity: Ethnolinguistic Studies of the Arizona
Tewa. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
———. 1998. “Arizona Tewa Kiva Speech as a Manifestation of a Dominant Language
Ideology.” In Language Ideologies. eds. Bambi Schieffelin, Kathryn Woolard, and Paul
Kroskrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.103-122.
———. 2000a. Regimenting Languages: Language Ideological Perspectives. In Regimes of
Language: Ideologies, Politics, and Identities. P. Kroskrity, ed. Pp. 1-34. Santa Fe:
School of American Research Press.
———. 2000b. Identity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(1-2): 111-114.
———. 2009. Embodying the Reversal of Language Shift: Agency, Incorporation, and
Language Ideological Change in the Western Mono Community of Central California. In
Native American Language Ideologies: Beliefs, Practices, and Struggles in Indian
Country. eds. Paul Kroskrity and Margaret Field. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Pp. 190-210.
Kroskrity, Paul. and Margaret C. Field. eds. 2009. Native American Language Ideologies: Beliefs,
Practices, and Struggles in Indian Country. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Lewis, M. Paul (ed.), 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, TX:
SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/.
Loether, Christopher. 2009. Language Revitalization and the Manipulation of Language
Ideologies: A Shoshoni Case Study. In Native American Language Ideologies: Beliefs,
Practices, and Struggles in Indian Country. Paul V. Kroskrity and Margaret C. Field eds.
Pp. 238-254. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Lowtax: Global Tax & Business Portal. Belize: Labour Regulation. Electronic document:
http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/jbzlab.html, accessed April 18th, 2011.
Meek, Barbra A. 2010. We Are Our Language: An Ethnography of Language Revitalization in a
Northern Athabaskan Community. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Mesthrie, Rajend, Joan Swann, Andrea Deumert and William L. Leap. 2000. Introducing
Sociolinguisitcs. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
23
Mithun, Marianne. 1998. In Endangered Languages: Current Issues and Future Prospects. eds.
Lenore A. Grenoble and Lindsay J. Whaley. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, Pp. 163-191.
Moore, Robert. 2006. Disappearing, Inc.: Glimpsing the sublime in the politics of access to
endangered languages. . Language & Communication 26 (3-4): 296-315.
Moseley, Christopher (ed.). 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, 3rd edition. Paris:
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Publishing.
Online version: http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas.
Neely, Amber A. and Gus Palmer, Jr. 2009. Which Way is the Kiowa Way?: Orthography
Choices, Ideologies, and Language Renewal. In Native American Language Ideologies:
Beliefs, Practices, and Struggles in Indian Country. eds. Paul Kroskrity and Margaret
Field. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Pp. 271-297.
Nettle, Daniel. and Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing Voices: The extinction of the World/s
Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
Newman, Paul and Martha Ratliff eds. 2001. Linguistic Fieldwork. New York: cambridge
University Press.
Reynolds, Jennifer. 2009. In Native American Language Ideologies: Beliefs, Practices, and
Struggles in Indian Country. eds. Margaret Field and Paul Kroskrity. Tucson: University
of Arizona Press. Pp. 213-238.
Samuels, David W. 2004. Putting a Song on Top of It. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Specch. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Company.
———. 1949. Mandelbaum, David. ed. Selected Writings in Language, Culture and Personality.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schmidt, Annette. 1985. Young People's Dyirbal: An Example of Language Death from
Australia. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schumann Galvéz, Otto. 1997. Introducción al Maya Mopán: Los Itzáes desde la época
prehispánica hasta la actualidad estudio interdisciplinario de un grupo maya. D.F.
México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Instituto de Investigaciones
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
24
Antropológicas.
Shenk, Petra Scott. 2007 ‘I’m Mexican, remember?’ Constructing ethnic identities via
authenticating discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(2): 194-220.
Sherzer, Joel. 1983. Kuna Ways of Speaking: An Ethnographic Perspective. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In the Elements: A
Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. P.R. Clyne, William F. Hanks, and Carol L.
Hofbauer, ed. Pp. 193-247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Tanaka Yuki. 2010. Exploring a Heritage Language: Linguistic Ideologies, Identity and
Revitalization of Miyako. Paper presented at AAA 2010.
Tumul K’in Center of Learning (TKCL). 2009. Kamb’al Ich T’an Mopan Maya: Learning to
Read and Write in Mopan Maya. Blue Creek, Belize: TKCL.
Ulrich, Mateo and Rosemary de Ulrich. 1976. Diccionario Bilingüe Maya Mopán y Español,
Español y Maya Mopan. Guatemala: Impreso de los talleres del Instituto Lingüístico de
Verano en Guatemala.
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2010. UNICEF 2010 Final Report to United Nation
Permanent Forum (UNPF)II, Electronic Document,
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/2010%20UNICEF%20report%20to%20
UNPFII_final.doc. Accessed September 15th, 2011.
Verschik, Anna. 2002 Linguistic Biographies of Yiddish Speakers in Estonia. Folklore:
Electronic Journal of Folklore 20:38-52.
Webster, Anthony K. 2010a. “On Intimate Grammars, with examples from Navajo, Navlish, and
Navajo English.” Journal of Anthropological Research. 66(2): 187-208.
———. 2010b. Imagining Navajo in the Boarding School: Laura Tohe's No Parole Today and
the Intimacy of Language Ideologies. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 20(1): 39-62.
———. 2011. “Please Read Loose”: Intimate Grammars and Unexpected Languages in
Contemporary Navajo Literature. American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 35(2):
61-86.
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
Tanaka
25
Webster, Anthony K. and Leighton C. Peterson. 2011. Introduction: American Indian Languages
in Unexpected Places. American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 35(2): 1-18.
Woodbury, Anthony C. 1998. Documenting rhetorical, aesthetic and expressive loss in language
shift. In Endangered Languages: Current Issues and Future Prospects. eds. Lenore A.
Grenoble and Lindsay J. Whaley. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Pp. 234258.
———. 2011. Language Documentation. The Handbook of Endangered Languages, eds by Peter
K. Austin and Julia Sallabank. Pp. 159-186. New York: Cambridge University Press.
STLILLA-2011 Proceedings
The 2011 Symposium for Teaching and Learning Indigenous Languages of Latin America
(STLILLA) was the second in a biennial series of symposia organized by the Association for
Teaching and Learning Indigenous Languages of Latin America (ATLILLA). The Kellogg
Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame hosted STLILLA-2011 in
collaboration with partner institutions.
For more information: kellogg.nd.edu/STLILLA