_____________________________________________________
[1] Article 13: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons. 2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means.
Article 14: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. 2.Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination. 3. States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.
_______________________________________
Article 16: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and to have access to all forms of non-indigenous media without discrimination. 2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that State-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. States, without prejudice to ensuring full freedom of expression, should encourage privately owned media to adequately reflect indigenous cultural diversity.
-----------------------------------—
These articles provide a frame to channel nuanced community context aTo this extent, the implementation of UNDRIP would reflect the performance of this paradigm for linguistic revitalization. Before the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, I found that UN officials were promoting the performance of this paradigm through different avenues leading up to the forum.
A good example preceded this year's Forum in March of 2024 when I attended a UN training for best practices while at the forum.
The training session underscored effective communication strategies, aligning with the UN's chronotopic paradigm for Indigenous language revitalization. The moderators of the training explained that the permanent forum is an advisory council and a place to make statements regarding the ways UNDRIP is implemented in communities.
To be clear with these ideas in mind, one must be strategic with their communication at the forum, as a basis of strategic participation lies in one's approaches to expression. In alignment with this year’s theme, the moderators emphasized to participants first to understand what the UN can do, seeing that the UN acts as a mechanism to advance a community’s initiatives. In this way, the UN can only aid a community in accordance with the ways the community clearly articulates what they need assistance with, such as the elements of linguistic revitalization infrastructures.
Thus, as a pretext to the forum itself, the training moderators expressed the importance of participating in the chronotopic paradigm that is developed, in part, through UNDRIP. My role as a representative of the Sand Hill Band and FANA at the UN was to identify key aspects of communicative performance that inform paths and strategies for effective practices regarding revitalization.
One of these key aspects to generate awareness and appropriate paths forward at the Forum this year is that performing this paradigm effectively manifests through direct references to applications of UNDRIP and what that looks like in practice in one’s community. For example, a good practice can be noted through the establishment or advancement of a tribe’s educational committee whose task is to transmit language, culture, and tradition intergenerationally as indicated in article 13 of UNDRIP. Furthermore, the moderators also suggested developing awareness around other resources that utilize UNDRIP such as the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP).
The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) contains seven members who “are appointed by the Human Rights Council and are selected on the basis of competence and experience in the rights of Indigenous Peoples, [with] due consideration for experts of Indigenous origin, and gender balance.” (OHCHR 1996-2024). EMRIP identifies key elements that can hinder the realization of UNDRIP in communities. The Human Rights Council of the UN maintains in clause sixty-four of the sixteenth session of EMRIP (2023, p.15) that:
“[UNDRIP] is not readily accessible to large numbers of indigenous peoples for a multitude of reasons, including their wide cultural and linguistic diversity, geographic factors [such as](remoteness and wide dispersion), sociopolitical and educational marginalization, and limited access to telecommunications and other information resources”.
Addressing these elements that can hinder UNDRIP’s actualization in communities can be found through a clear and effective pattern for communication. These patterns may rest upon symbolic interactions that can be informed through a focus on disaggregated data, for example. Disaggregated data refers to each data point that contributes towards a broader picture. Here, challenges of accessibility may be brought to task by the promotion of networks that support the integration of specific aspects of information and resources.
In doing so, these interpretations of agency align with what Dr. Tennant (1994, p. 30) explains where “[t]he meanings of self-determination must not only be tailored to "each country and region of the world, but they must also "include the entire range of political arrangements[1]" so they can provide opportunities for a community to engage UNDRIP in a culturally representative manner that can be expressed through disaggregated datasets.
These accumulated points of information can shed light on distinct issues, such as a community’s endeavors and challenges with revitalization. From another angle, a paradigm for linguistic initiatives can also readily highlight signals that queue one to pay attention to particular rights and effective ways to express the application of those rights. In line with this, EMRIP (2023, p. 10-11) maintains that “it is necessary to develop specific indicators for the distinct collective rights of indigenous peoples, for example rights relating to their lands and territories, cultures, languages, and traditional economic activities”. These indicators can be regarded as semiotic features of this paradigm as meaning is produced for intended recipients.
_________________________________________________
[1] “from complete independence as a separate state, to some form of association with an existing state, to participation in a federal system of partly self-governing regions or provinces, to complete political integration or assimilation.”
_______________________________________________
Here, Tennant (1994, p. 29) points out that “[t]he United Nations, other international agencies, states, and indigenous peoples are all actors in what is understood to be a process of mutual engagement.” Part of mutual engagement with respect to linguistic initiatives entails establishing a reciprocally agreed-upon procedure for pursuing revitalization. To this extent, the active construction of a chronotopic paradigm is positively influenced by mutual interfaces and signposts that signal broader levels of value while grounding them in individual expression.
Dr. Leonard (2023, p. 116) points out that “[he] know[s] that the field of Linguistics [for example] is going to continue to study Indigenous languages. Therefore [he] want[s] to ensure that those interactions and associated interventions will happen in good ways.” Assurance that interactions and associated conduct happen in good ways can be more soundly developed through more transparent and beneficial mutual engagements.
Conversely, groups that establish negatively generalized perceptions of other peoples, and disseminate those perceptions through their own chronotopic paradigms, must be addressed to promote association from mutually beneficial terms. Here, as Dr. Greymorning (2018, p. 17) explains, “[g]overnments in both Canada and the United States have worked to create an inaccurate and myth-like image of the political subjugation they sought to exert over Indigenous North Americans''.
In one sense, for linguistic preservation and revitalization to maintain viability, these negatively oriented chronotopic paradigms that compromise semiotic infrastructures must be navigated through more developed scopes of dialogue. For effective measures to be taken these levels of communication should adhere to common causes, for example, language tuned for self-determination, cultural, and linguistic retention, and should be channeled through the proper forums that may uphold appeals to accountability. As such, in the globally networked world we inhabit, the common threads of dialogue should reflect pursuits in a more ecologically minded fashion that seeks a common understanding.
A chronotope focused on linguistic initiatives can point to exactly what methods, plans, and programs will drive the processes involved. There are a variety of linguistic revitalization methods that can be adequately inserted into programs and can take on many different paths to achieve proper implementation. In concert with the UN’s decade of indigenous languages, conversational methods that focus on visualization rather than memorization promote the acquisition of language in ways that can advance critical assessments of the processes at hand.
As Dr. Greymorning (2018, p. 209) builds “a house of language” his students are enabled through linguistic exposure that aligns them “more closely as ‘emic’ learners” (Greymorning 2018, p. 210) when working with Accelerated Second Language Acquisition. Through the construction of houses of language, individuals and their communities may assess the building materials necessary to foster viability. In this way, ASLA may also be approached in clear and cohesive ways that identify exactly what conditions are needed to promote continuity. These conditions and features themselves can contribute towards the UN’s paradigm of revitalization by highlighting the elements of each layer that yield productive results of ASLA’s application in communities.
Bridging this conceptual approach to an UNPFII panel, and accounting for these nuances is very important when connecting linguistic initiatives with technology for example. At the Forum, panelists in a linguistic revitalization presentation pointed out algorithmic biases embedded in digital resources that are reflective of an asymmetrical linguistic marketplace. They indicated that just about half of these digital resources, such as translators, digital keyboards, and other language interfaces like websites in general are informed through an English content language and have very little access to disaggregated Indigenous language datasets for training data, if there are any available in the first place.
These sorts of challenges identify key layers at play within the UN’s chronotope- namely a need for community members to have more access, mobility, and participation in the processes of how linguistic revitalization resources are established.
Through a grassroots or bottom-up approach decentralized characteristics of communication that promote a critical analysis of social, cultural, and political factors can address best practices to invigorate the UN’s chronotopic paradigm. This UN chronotope is multifaceted in its organizational arrangement and opens the space for a variety of interpretations and applications.
In line with this, Dr. Clegg (1998, p. 45) maintains that “hence, the juxtaposition of organizational discretion and distributed powers always will entail heterodoxy and pluralism, [that is] many organizational viewpoints and conversations rather than a singular monologue capable of representation as such”.
Another common thread to the UN’s chronotopic paradigm lies in the notion of coordination and dialogue between institutions. Thus, the importance of the Sand Hill Band and FANA’s participation in UNPFII and the wider chronotope reflects the advancement of dialogue that illuminates pathways for cultural mobilization. These opportunities to mobilize perspectives on best practices serve to contribute to the UN’s chronotope from a basis of open discourse that promotes an ebb and flow of information.
The social symbol that both the Sand Hill Band and FANA promote- one of unification, one of empowerment, and the mobility of culture- aligns with this paradigm and is developed in concert with those who incorporate meaningful dialogue into this communicative paradigm.
It is clear that these processes I am attempting to describe are effectively developed and exercised together. Moving forward, through annual events like the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Meshanticut Placemaking Confestival, platforms for community organizing can advance awareness around these topics as we strengthen pathways of interacting into existence, with unity.
References: (LCLLP)
Bahktin, MM. (1981). “The Dialogic Imagination”. Ed. M. Holquist. Austin. University of Texas Press.
Báez, Gabriela Pérez. Vogol, Rachel. Patolo, Uia. (2019). “Global Survey of Revitalization Efforts: A Mixed Methods Approach to Understanding Language Revitalization Practices”. Language Documentation and Conservation. Vol. 13: 445-513.
Bell, S. R., & Carrillo, N. (2007). Characteristics of effective summer learning programs in practice. New Directions for Youth Development, 2007(114), 45-63.
Cajete, Gregory A. & Pueblo, Santa Clara. (2010). Contemporary Indigenous Education: A Nature-Centered American Indian Philosophy for a 21st Century World. The University of New Mexico. Elsevier, Futures 42, p. 1126-1132.
Coffey, W., & Tsosie, R. (2001). Rethinking the tribal sovereignty doctrine: cultural sovereignty and the collective future of Indian nations. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 12(2), 191-222. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/stanlp12&div=22&g_sent=1 casa_token=gGuEKKMNFHEAAAAA:VWtMYoUzTyMK_tSQ9sR85pYybN9GOLOFO5FGOzUhkna5mhGff24rGX9a56_dYirLC5nulJ_a&collection=journals
Corntassel, J. (2008). Toward sustainable self-determination: Rethinking the contemporary Indigenous-rights discourse. AlterNatives, 33(1), 105–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/030437540803300106 [Crossref] [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Finn, S., Herne, M., & Castille, D. (2017). The value of traditional ecological knowledge for the environmental health sciences and biomedical research. Environmental health perspectives, 125(8), 085006.
Federation of Aboriginal Nations of the Americas. (2024). FANA.Global. https://www.fana.global/about-fana
Greymorning, Neyooxet S. (2020). Accelerated Second Language Acquisition (ASLA): A Pathway for Effective Native Language Instruction and Rejuvenation. University of Montana. Isakov, A. A. (2024). Sociolinguistic Profile Research Importance of Social Factors in Language Teaching and Learning. American Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education (2993-2769), 2(1), 358-365.
Law, John. (2008). Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics. The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, edited by Bryan S. Turner, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Lixinski, Lucas. (2013). International Cultural Heritage Regimes, International Law, and the Politics of Expertise. International Journal of Cultural Property. 20:407-429. https://forms-lib-umt-edu.weblib.lib.umt.edu:2443/illiad/MTG/illiad.dll?Action=10&Form=75&Value=648368
Manderson, Desmond. (2017). Chronotopes in the scopic regime of sovereignty. Visual Studies, 32:2, 167-177, DOI: 10.1080/1472586X.2017.1324252
McIvor, Onowa. (2020). “Indigenous Language Revitalization and Applied Linguistics: Parallel Histories, Shared Futures?”. Cambridge University Press. Vol. 40. 78-96.
O’Grady, William. (2018). “Assessing Language Revitalization: Methods and Priorities”. Annual Review of Linguistics. Vol. 4: 317-336.
Ritella, Giuseppe; Rajala, Antti; and Renshaw, Peter. (2021). Using chronotope to research the space-time relations of learning and education: Dimensions of the unit of analysis. Language, Culture, and Social Interaction.
United Nations General Assembly. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). United Nations Plenary Meeting. 13 September 2007. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
Vine, Deloria. (1997). Self-Determination and the Concept of Sovereignty. Journal of Native American Sovereignty.
Wilson, Geoff A. (2012). Community Resilience, Globalization, and Transitional Pathways of Decision-making. Geoforum, vol 43. No. 6. p. 1218-1231.
World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium. (2002). https://winhec.org
Woolard, Kathryn A. (2013). Is the personal political? Chronotopes and changing stances toward Catalan language and identity, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16:2, 210-224, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2012.720670
References: (UN Chronotope)
American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (2016). Organization of American States. General Assembly. Regular Session. 46th.
Agha, Asif. (2007). Recombinant Selves in Mass Mediated Spacetime. Language and Communication, 27, 320-335. Science Direct.
Bakhtin, MM. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. (1937) in 'Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel'. Ed. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Clegg, S. (1998). Foucault, power and organizations. Foucault, management and organization theory, 29-48.
Christine Schreyer, Tania Granadillo & Michelle Daveluy. (2022). The risk of ‘taking urgent steps’: linguistic diversity and the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43:3, 195-199, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2022.2048840
Greymorning, Neyooxet. (2018). Being Indigenous : Perspectives on Activism, Culture, Language and Identity. ProQuest Ebook Central . Taylor & Francis Group. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.weblib.lib.umt.edu:2443/lib/msoumt/detail.action?docID=5614828.
Leonard, W. Y. (2023). Thoughts on the ethics of the international decade of indigenous languages. Colorado Environmental Law Journal, 34(Special Issue), 115-120.https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/colenvlp34&id=315&men_tab=srchresults#
Tennant, C. (1994). Indigenous Peoples, International Institutions, and the International Legal Literature from 1945-1993. Human Rights Quarterly, 16(1), 1–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/762410
United Nations General Assembly: Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (2023). Efforts to Implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Establishing Effective Monitoring Mechanisms at the National and Regional Levels for the Implementation of the Declaration*. Report of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
United Nations General Assembly. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). United Nations Plenary Meeting. 13 September 2007. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium. (2002). https://winhec.org
