i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This narrative was envisioned through collaborations with the Hopilavayi Project and

Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Of the numerous goals we had set out to achieve, the most

notable was that it might provide a comprehensive report about what is being done to reverse the

trend of Hopi language loss. In this pursuit, I am indebted to the following people for their

guidance, expertise, time commitment, and contributions.

Foremost, I must express my deepest gratitude and admiration to Emory Sekaquaptewa,

whose selfless commitment to the revitalization of the Hopi language has been an influence of the

most profound sort. Without the time he so generously allocated to me, I would not have had the

opportunity to work with the Hopilavayi Project or pursue the writing of this narrative.

Anita Poleahla and Marvin Lalo, of the Hopilavayi Project, as well as Ferrell Secakuku,

have been the finest of colleagues, teachers, and friends that I have had the privilege to work

with. Their commitment to the Project’s objectives has yet to recognize the influence it will have

upon future generations of Hopi speakers.

I also wish to thank Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma, Director of the Hopi Cultural Preservation

Office, for his guidance and support in developing this project, and Sheilah Nicholas, Director of

the American Indian Languages Development Institute, for her continued assistance and

numerous contributions.

At Northern Arizona University, I am particularly indebted to Dr. Miguel Vásquez and

Dr. Gary Nabhan for their assistance throughout the writing of this narrative. Not only did they

provide me with their guidance and expertise, but they also established for me a high standard in

ethical and reciprocative scholarship, and they have been the finest of mentors.

Finally, I wish to thank Dr. Sandra Lubarsky, Director of the Master of Liberal Studies

program at Northern Arizona University, for having the vision to develop an interdisciplinary

program that teaches scholarship for the common good, for her support and guidance throughout

my days at NAU, and for providing an environment in which to pursue the education that I had

for so long been seeking.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 The Death of the World’s Languages _________________________________________ 1

Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 1

Estimating the Living Languages ______________________________________________________ 2

The Languages In World History ______________________________________________________ 3

World Language Diversity and Distribution, 2001 ________________________________________ 5

Language Extinction ________________________________________________________________ 6

Understanding Language Shift ________________________________________________________ 9

Recognizing Levels of Language Shift _________________________________________________ 13

Identifying Endangered Languages and Problems with Prediction _________________________ 15

Chapter 2 The Current State of Native American Languages in North America ____________ 17

Federal Intervention _______________________________________________________________ 20

The Imperative Tenet: Family and Community _________________________________________ 22

Recommendations _________________________________________________________________ 23

The First Step: Recognizing the Stage of Language Loss _________________________________ 25

Chapter 3 Why It Matters, Why We Should Care ______________________________________ 28

Myths about the benefits of Monolingualism ___________________________________________ 29

Language, Diversity, and the Sustainability of Societies __________________________________ 30

Identity __________________________________________________________________________ 31

The Link Between Linguistic and Biological Diversity ___________________________________ 33

Chapter 4 The Hopi _________________________________________________________________ 36

First Mesa ________________________________________________________________________ 38

Second Mesa ______________________________________________________________________ 39

Third Mesa _______________________________________________________________________ 39

History, Culture, and Modernity _____________________________________________________ 40

Chapter 5 Hopi Language and the Uto-Aztecan Family _________________________________ 43

Hopi Dialects ______________________________________________________________________ 46

ii

Chapter 6 Current Status of the Hopi Language _______________________________________ 50

Language Shift at Hopi _____________________________________________________________ 53

Hopi’s Response to Language Shift ___________________________________________________ 54

HLAP Design, Administration, Training, and Data Analysis ______________________________ 56

HLAP Results _____________________________________________________________________ 59

First Language and Language Use in the School ________________________________________ 64

When, Where, and With Whom do Hopi Youth Speak the Language _______________________ 64

Hopi Language Transmission ________________________________________________________ 66

Concluding Comments about the Interpretation of the HLAP Results ______________________ 68

Chapter 7 Resource Assessment at Hopi _______________________________________________ 72

Available Resources: Hopi Schools and Educational System ______________________________ 73 I. Hopi Head Start _____________________________________________________________ 74 II. Hopi Junior / Senior High School _______________________________________________ 76 III. Hopi Mission School _________________________________________________________ 78 IV. Keams Canyon School ________________________________________________________ 79 V. Moencopi (Munqapi) Day School _______________________________________________ 80 VI. Second Mesa Day School _____________________________________________________ 82 VII. Tuba City Junior High School __________________________________________________ 83

Other Resources: __________________________________________________________________ 84 • Emory Sekaquaptewa ___________________________________________________________ 84 • Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni: A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect (1999) _______ 85 • Cultural Resources Advisory Task Team (CRATT) ___________________________________ 86 • Hopi Advisory Task Team (HATT) ________________________________________________ 87 • Hopi Cultural Preservation Office (HCPO) __________________________________________ 87 • Northern Arizona University (NAU) _______________________________________________ 87 • Hopi Radio ___________________________________________________________________ 88 • The Hopi Board of Education _____________________________________________________ 89 • Recent Language Education Programs. _____________________________________________ 89 • Hopi language Specialists in the Community ________________________________________ 90

Concluding Remarks on the Inventory of Available Resources at Hopi _____________________ 90

Chapter 8 Action Plans for the Revitalization of the Hopi language ______________________ 92

Hopi Action Plans __________________________________________________________________ 96 I. The Hopi Tribe _____________________________________________________________ 96 II. The Hopi Villages ___________________________________________________________ 99 III. The Hopi Schools and Education System ________________________________________ 102 IV. The Hopi Reservation Community _____________________________________________ 106

Concluding Remarks on the Hopi Tribe’s Initial Action Plans ____________________________ 107

iii

Chapter 9 Implementation of the Hopilavayi Project ___________________________________ 109

Funding for a Hopi Language Preservation Program ___________________________________ 110

Hopilavayi Professional Positions ____________________________________________________ 111

The Hopilavayi Project: Philosophy – Approach – Process – Curriculum __________________ 115 Hopilavayi Philosophy on Language Development _____________________________________ 116 Hopilavayi: A Child Approach to Early Learning ______________________________________ 117 Hopilavayi Education Process ______________________________________________________ 118 Hopilavayi Curriculum ___________________________________________________________ 120

What will Hopilavayi Accomplish? __________________________________________________ 120

The Three Phases of the Hopilavayi Project ___________________________________________ 122 PHASE I. ______________________________________________________________________ 122 PHASE II. _____________________________________________________________________ 123 PHASE III. ____________________________________________________________________ 124

Evaluation _______________________________________________________________________ 125

Sharing Materials Plan ____________________________________________________________ 127

Preservation of Materials Plan ______________________________________________________ 127

Chapter 10 Hopilavayi Project: Phase I (Year One) Achievements ______________________ 128

Recommendations for Year Two ____________________________________________________ 139

Chapter 11 Hopilavayi Project: Phase II (Year Two) Achievements _____________________ 140

Recommendations for Year 3 _______________________________________________________ 149

Chapter 12 Hopilavayi Project: Phase III (Year Three) Achievements ___________________ 155

Year Three Concluding Remarks ____________________________________________________ 178

Chapter 13 Concluding Remarks on the Hopilavayi Project and Recommendations for the Preservation of the Hopi Language __________________________________________________ 180

References Cited __________________________________________________________________ 192

APPENDIX A: Other resources for Indigenous language revitalization programs _____________ 197

iv

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Variation in Estimations of the World’s Languages ------------------------------------------------------ 2

Figure 2. Language Decline & Population increase (National Geographic, August, 1999) -------------------- 4

Figure 3. World Language Diversity ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5

Figure 4. The Speakers of the World’s Languages -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

Figure 5. Eight Stages of Language Loss (Fishman, in Reyhner, 1999: vii) ------------------------------------ 26

Figure 6 The Hopi Mesas and Villages (Page, 1982) -------------------------------------------------------------- 37

Figure 7. The Present Day Uto-Aztecan Languages (Hopiìkwa Lavaytutuveni, 1999) ------------------------ 44

Figure 8. The Hopi Mesas and Villages (Page, 1982) -------------------------------------------------------------- 47

Figure 9. Number of Households & Individuals Interviewed by Village of Residence ------------------------- 59

Figure 10. Current Hopi Language Ability -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60

Figure 11. Hopi Conversational Ability by Age --------------------------------------------------------------------- 61

Figure 12. Hopi Conversational Ability by Age: Five Year Projection ------------------------------------------ 62

Figure 13. Percent of individuals at each level of language ability ---------------------------------------------- 63

Figure 14. First Language Use and Use in the School ------------------------------------------------------------- 64

Figure 15. How important is it for your Children / grandchildren to speak Hopi ------------------------------ 66

Figure 16. Where Should Hopi Be Taught --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66

Figure 17. Other Survey Question Responses. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 68

1

Chapter 1

The Death of the World’s Languages

“There is agreement among linguists who have considered the situation that over half of the world’s languages are moribund, i.e. not effectively being passed on to the next generation. We and our children, then, are living at the point in Human history where, within perhaps two generations, most languages in the world will die out…”

-The Foundation for Endangered Languages, 1995

Introduction

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, social scientists and indigenous

peoples throughout the world have conceded upon a distressing trend: one after another

of the world’s languages are being extirpated. By the end of the twenty-first century, as

many as 90% of the world’s languages will have died; only 600 of the estimated 6,000

languages spoken today may be ‘safe’ from the threat of extinction. Approximately 50%

of the world’s estimated 6,000 languages are ‘moribund,’ spoken only by adults and no

longer being taught to the next generation. Another 40% will soon be threatened because

the number of children learning their mother-tongue language is declining measurably.

At the 1996 Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Conference held in Flagstaff, Arizona,

linguist Michael Krauss lowered the number of languages he considered ‘safe’ to as few

as 300 (Krauss, 1992: 7; 1996: 19).

The phenomenon of linguistic dominance by one lingua franca at the expense of

another is not an outcome of language superiority and inferiority; it is neither a case of

survival of the fittest nor the natural outcome of fair competition or free choice among

equals in the common market. Rather, language death “is instead the result of unequal

rates of social change resulting in striking disparities in resources between developed and

2

developing countries” (Nettles and Romaine, 2000: 18). Considering the intellectual,

ecological, and cultural losses this decline promises, the situation is considered by many

to be “the greatest intellectual loss the world has ever known” (Crystal, 2000: viii).

Estimating the Living Languages

Estimating the number of languages spoken at any given point in history has

proven to be an arduous endeavor (Figure 1). Since the early 1980s, however, most

source figures estimate that between 6,000 and 7,000 languages are still spoken around

the world, though speculations range from 3,000 to 10,000. Despite the range of

estimations, linguists who are most familiar with the crisis of language death have

suggested that 6,000 is a reasonable number that most agree upon (Krause, 1992: 5).

Figure 1. Variation in Estimations of the World’s Languages

Year Estimate Source 1874 1,000 Whitney on Language (Silverstein, 1971) 1944 1,500 The Loom of Language (Bodmer, 1944) 1956 3,000 Language: A Modern Synthesis (Whatmough, 1956) 1977 4,500 Index of the World’s Languages (Voegelin & Voegelin, 1977) 1987 5,000 A Guide to the World’s Languages (Ruhlen, 1987) 1988 6,500 Ethnologue (Grimes, 1988) 1994 6,796 Atlas of the World’s Languages (Mosely and Asher, 1994) 1996 6,703 Ethnologue (Grimes, 1996) 1997 10,000 Global Language Register (Dalby, 1997) 1999 6,784 Ethnologue (Grimes, 1999) 2000 6,809 Ethnologue (Grimes, 2000)

The failure to accurately estimate the number of the world’s living languages is

multifaceted. Initially, the problem was an empirical one; until the second half of the

twentieth century, worldwide surveys were too small in scope and estimates were based

largely on guesswork. Confounding the dilemma were the surveys’ lack of completeness,

forcing linguists to compensate statistically, usually overestimating or underestimating.

3

Depending upon the surveyor’s method, there was also variance in the estimation of rate

of language loss and new language discovery. Each language’s circumstance being

unique to itself, it is always difficult to gauge a little-known language’s viability. In

many parts of the world, it is still unknown how many languages remain within a region.

Some over-seas social-affairs offices report the discovery of new languages almost every

year (Crystal, 2000: 4).

Finally, the problem has been exacerbated by the fact that some languages have

been given numerous names. The Summer Institute of Linguistics, a fundamentalist

mission group based in the United States, is considered to have the world’ largest survey

of languages (Crystal, 2000: 3; Nettles and Romaine, 2000: 7). In its 1996 publication of

the Ethnologue, the 6,703 languages it listed also generated as many as 39,304 different

names (synonyms) for them, and there is a continuing debate about whether certain

dialects should be elevated to the rank of being considered their own distinct languages

(Krause, 2000: 6).

The Languages In World History

Only a fraction of the languages that have existed in world history are still in use

today. However, because there are no fossil remnants of extinct languages, it is

impossible to calculate the number of languages that have died in the past, and such

estimates should be regarded with caution.

While the numbers are highly speculative, Pagel (1995: 6) used an index based on

two primary criteria and concluded that as many as 600,000 languages may have existed

through time, or as few as 31,000. His criteria included, first, evidence from the known

span of recorded Western history about the number of languages and civilizations that

4

have died. Second, historical linguistics provides some evidence about the rate at which

languages change (though it is impossible to generalize from population alone about the

rate at which languages die). He also assumed that the language faculty in humans arose

between 100,000 to 20,000 years ago (Crystal, 2000: 11, 17).

Figure 2. Language Decline & Population increase (National Geographic, August, 1999)

Of the languages remaining today, Michael Krauss writes, “I consider it a

plausible calculation that – at the rate things are going – the coming century will see

either the death or the doom of 90% of mankind’s languages” (Krauss, 1992: 7).

Assuming a middle position for language loss in the next century, “50% is 3,000

languages. 100 years is 1,200 months. To meet that time frame, at least one language

must die, on average, every two weeks or so.” (Crystal, 2000: 19).

5

World Language Diversity and Distribution, 2001

While there are some 6000 languages worldwide, they are found within 200

countries, and the distribution of languages among them is remarkably skewed.

However, recognizing where language diversity is concentrated is not problematic. Asia

has the greatest diversity, maintaining 32% of the world’s languages; Africa has 30%; the

Pacific has 19%; the Americas have 15%; and the final 4% of languages reside in Europe

(Ethnologue, 2000).

Figure 3. World Language Diversity

The dominant 8 languages are each spoken by more than 100 million people

(Mandarin, Spanish, English, Bengali, Hindi, Portuguese, Russian, Japanese), totaling

almost 2.4 billion speakers. Over half the world’s population, 3.2 billion, speaks one of

dominant 20 languages. Keeping in mind that that there are some 6,000 languages in use

today, we recognize that 96% of the world’s population speaks only 4% of its total

languages. Inversely, 96% of the world’s languages are spoken by only 4% of its

population (Crystal, 2000: 14).

Africa30%

The Americas15%

The Pacific19%

Asia32%

Europe4%

6

In Figure 4, the middle-left column labeled # languages shows us that nearly 500

languages have less than 100 speakers; approximately 1,500 have less than 1,000; and

3,340 have less than 10,000. On the last column, we see that one-quarter of the world’s

languages are spoken by populations of less than 1,000 people; over one-half of the

world’s languages are spoken by populations of less than 10,000 people. Worldwide,

there are also 51 known languages with only a single speaker: 28 in Australia, 8 in the

United States, 3 in South America, 3 in Africa, 6 in Asia, and 3 in the Pacific Islands

(Crystal, 2000: 15).

Figure 4. The Speakers of the World’s Languages

Cumulative Population # Languages % upwards %

More than 100 million 8 .13 99.9 10 – 99.9 million 72 1.2 99.8 1 – 9.9 million 239 3.9 98.6 100,000 – 999,999 795 13.1 94.7 10,000 – 99,999 1,605 26.5 81.6 1,000 – 9,999 1,782 29.4 55.1 100 – 999 1,075 17.7 25.7 10 – 99 302 5.0 8.0 1-9 181 3.0 ----

Language Extinction

The term “extinction” is often used metaphorically to describe the loss of a

language, just as biologists refer to plant and animal species that have become extinct.

Language loss is considered by some as analogous to the pressures that threaten to

extirpate existing species thereby leading to loss of overall biodiversity. Through both

the alteration and fragmentation of ecosystems, the viability of both plant and animal

species are diminished as their vulnerability and exposure to various external pressures is

increased. Consider, for example, what occurs to an animal population when a new

7

predator or a new virus comes into contact with it. Linguist Stephen Wurm argues that

these circumstances are analogous to the crisis of language loss:

“changes in the environment would mean that the cultural and social settings in which a given language had been functioning, usually for a very long time, have been replaced by new and quite different ones as a result of irresistible cultural contact and clash, with the traditional language unsuited for readily functioning as a vehicle of expression of the new culture. The newly introduced dangerous animal and plant species…can be compared with the…destructive attitudes towards this traditional language by the carriers of the newly introduced culture...” (Wurm, 1991: 3)

Such comments are not to be interpreted that certain languages are inferior to

others in complexity, or as living, vital languages. Indeed,

“It is a finding of modern linguistics that all languages are roughly equal in terms of overall complexity.” (Dixon, 1997: 118)

Other linguists and anthropologists agree: “We know no natural languages with vocabularies so limited that their speakers must eke them out with gestures; which lack definite systems of sounds or grammar; which lack standards of usage; which, because of lack of system or of writing, change more rapidly in structure than other languages; which lack abstract terms or capacity for forming them; which cannot serve significant intellectual and aesthetic expression. We know, indeed, no demonstrated characteristics which would place together the languages of “primitive” peoples as against those of the “civilized” peoples.” (Hymes, 1966: 74)

“…the reasons most non-Eurasian languages are in danger has nothing to do with the intrinsic properties of those languages – which are just as complex, expressive, and creative as any others – nor with the greater intelligence, virtue, or industry of their speakers compared to speakers of other languages.” (Nettles and Romaine, 2000: 151)

Simply put, the mother-tongue language of an economically weaker-community is not

initially perceived as useful in the new cultural constructs, thus, the inexorable trend

toward language shift. While ‘cultural clash’ alone does not lead to the extinction of

minority languages, the economic strength and political power of the dominant culture is

8

often dramatic enough to effect the linguistic minority’s attitude toward the usefulness of

their own. MIT linguist Kenneth Hale writes,

“The pressure comes, not, of course, from the dominant language itself, but from the subtle and not so subtle propaganda of the associated economically dominant culture and society which encourages speakers of local languages to believe that their futures depend on switching from their native languages to the dominant one” (1992: 4).

Levels of complexity differ in certain areas of a language only, not within

languages taken as a whole. While one language may have a simple verb structure and

complex nouns, others languages will display the reverse of this. To understand the

complexity of any language and the worldview it embodies, languages must be looked at

individually and in comparison of the frameworks which characterize their features.

Some object to the use of the terms “language extinction” and “language death,”

suggesting that languages do not die natural deaths, and prefer to use the term “language

murder.” In this context, language is strategically targeted for removal. Here, language

has no tangible existence in the way that plants and animals do; they are not self-

sustaining entities and do not die of old age (Nettles & Romaine, 2000: 16-18). Rather, a

language is regarded as an activity, a culturally rather than genetically-derived means of

communication, something that exists only where there is a community of people active

in transmitting it. In this sense, then, a language is not analogous to a species and cannot

be maintained merely by the transmission of a cultural community’s genes to the next

generation. Languages can be lost even when the genetic populations of humans from

which they emerged continue. It is the language, specifically, that is strategically

extinguished, a function of forced assimilation.

9

Regardless of the context in which language loss is perceived, all agree that just

as we recognize the necessity to be better stewards of nature in order to avoid bringing

irreparable harm to it, we also recognize that many languages need the same attention in

order to avoid the same irreparable result. A complex of pressures – including warfare,

genocide, disease, natural disaster, habitat destruction and social displacement, forced

assimilation and assimilatory education, and the bombardment of popular culture through

the electronic media – all contribute to language death.

Species have always gone extinct and languages have always died, but the rates of

loss today are unprecedented in both cases. Today, extinction, whether linguistic or

biological, is the result of unrestrained human activity, particularly in the alteration of the

natural and social environment. With an increase in the ecological and cultural

destruction that accompanies globalization, today the world faces a cultural,

environmental, and intellectual crisis that is unmatched in history.

Understanding Language Shift

“In today’s global village… about 100 [of the 6,800] languages are spoken by around 90% of the world’s population.” (Nettles and Romaine, 2000: 18)

Cause implies (1) correlation, (2) precedence, and (3) elimination of causality of

other correlated factors (Nabhan, personal conversation: March 2001); the causes of

language loss are not themselves linguistic. Language decline is often reflective of what

is happening within a society at large. When there is change within a language’s use, it is

usually a sign of underlying social disruptions or stresses that may be environmental,

economical, or political.

10

The first phase of language death often comes with population loss, and this

trajectory has been particularly common during the past 500 years. When people die,

languages die. In the Americas alone, between 50 and 95% of all Native Americans died

during European expansion from successive epidemics of smallpox, measles, malaria,

and yellow fever (Nettles and Romaine, 2000: 79, 91, 117; Thornton, 1987: 44).

Countless languages were lost as entire cultures succumbed to diseases for which they

had no resistance, particularly smallpox.

But while population loss due to epidemic disease, warfare, genocide, and natural

disasters have all contributed to language extinction, language death is most often the

result of a complex series of sociocultural pressures expressed as language shift: the

transition away from the mother-tongue language of one community in favor of another.

The pressures that hasten language shift can be both internal and external, inducing a

community to sacrifice its own language for what is usually the language of a more

dominant society. Cultural, economic, and political pressures of the dominant culture

work against the minority language resulting not only in language shift but also in the

adoption of the economic, social, and political values of the dominant culture (Crawford,

1995: 22).

Nettles and Romaine (2000: 90) point out that there are two types of language

shift. The first is forced-shift by a dominant culture. Means of forced-shift include

enslavement, forcing groups into subordinate roles through military or economic strength,

or by taking control of their natural resources by altering or destroying the natural

environment which is the basis of the weaker culture’s self-sufficiency. Because

language eradication is not the focus of these strategies, these instances show how

11

language should not be seen in isolation but as a function of socioeconomic and cultural

pressures.

Language suppression through forced assimilation or assimilatory education has

also had a profound impact on worldwide language loss. The colonial histories of both

North America and Australia are classic examples of such practices. In both cases, an

imposing dominant culture influenced the local culture through various means, and the

local culture began to lose its identity and character as a result of its members adopting

the behaviors and mores of the dominant culture (Krauss, 1992: 6). Large numbers from

a dominant culture may arrive as colonists and “swamp” the local culture in their own

territory, though demographic superiority is not always necessary for cultural dominance.

An imposing culture may exercise its dominance through either military enforcement or

economic impositions. Either way, language suppression of the weaker culture usually

takes its role, either through forced assimilation or assimilatory education (Crystal, 2000:

77).

Individuals that, in time, live within the cultural framework of an economically

stronger community – but cannot speak the language of that community – will have a

difficult time existing within it. Knowledge of the language of the stronger economic

community leads to advantages which are otherwise unobtainable by the weaker

economic community. Employment, monetary gain, and material accumulation of goods

all work to influence the speakers of the weaker economic community that their own

language is becoming of less use to them. Soon to follow is the adoption of economic,

political, and social behaviors and mores of the dominant culture (Wurm, 1991: 5).

12

The second form of language shift is voluntary-shift. Here, a community of

people perceive that their language does not serve them as well as another would.

Voluntary shift is different from forced shift in that the community has, at least by

appearance, the option of staying with their mother-tongue language. Notable instances

of such voluntary shift have taken place among the Cornish people, Austrians shifting

toward German rather than their Hungarian orientation, and among numerous indigenous

groups in Papua New Guinea. Voluntary-shift can be gradual over a period of decades,

or it can take hundreds of years. However, since the industrial revolution, the pace at

which languages have shifted voluntarily has increased as extraordinary differences in

lifestyles among neighboring communities have expressed themselves (Nettles and

Romaine, 2000: 14).

Finally, there is overlap, a “grayness” between forced-shift and voluntary-shift,

which likely affects more languages than either of the two alone. In certain

circumstances where agricultural societies have spread into regions largely inhabited by

“residual” hunter-gatherer societies, the hunter-gatherers may by appearance have the

option of retaining their lifestyle, however, the best lands on which they are used to living

will likely be lost to the agriculturists as they divide up the best lands for farming.

Further, the ecological shift from the natural to agricultural environment will result in

impacting the species in which the hunter-gatherers depend. In this situation, the hunter-

gatherers usually have two options: they can retain their cultural lifestyle by modifying

their nomadic practices in order to find depleted resources, or they can make the shift into

the new agricultural society. While this may be, by appearance, the proliferation and

voluntary adoption of a seemingly good-idea, such conversion comes with profound costs

13

to both cultural and environmental sustainability. There is a fine line distinguishing this

form of choice and indirect coercion; notions of the volantariness of such situations are

clearly questionable (Nettles and Romaine, 2000: 93).

No matter which of the pressures occur that cause language shift, all of them

support the theory that language loss occurs as a result of social, political, and

environmental change. In population loss, changes in either the natural or disease

environment cause language loss. In forced-shift, the social or natural environment is

oppressed through coercive action of a foreign culture. In voluntary-shift, the weaker

culture adapts to dominant norms brought about by changes in the human environment

(Nettles and Romaine, 2000: 97).

Recognizing Levels of Language Shift

Numerous classification systems to categorize a language’s level of endangerment

have been developed in order to gauge the threat to languages. The most frequently used

system recognizes four levels. Safe languages are neither experiencing, nor are at risk of,

language decline. Endangered languages are spoken by enough people to make survival

possible, but only in favorable circumstances and with growth in community support.

Moribund languages are no longer learned as a mother-tongue by children, and surpasses

endangerment because it lacks intergenerational transmission. Extinct languages have no

speakers left that converse with one another, although tapes, documents, and other

remnants may persist (Crystal, 2000: 20).

The use of the term minority language is given to languages that are particularly

threatened; their speakers are considered the linguistic minority amidst the dominant

culture’s language. Languages for whom its speakers battle against the pressures of

14

encroaching dominant languages are referred to as minority languages (Wardhaugh,

1987: 30).

Simpson (1981: 235) outlines a number of characteristics that minority languages

exhibit. First, a minority language is not the language indulged by its speakers in all

areas of activity; it lives in the shadow of a dominant language; there may be some within

its community working to see its eradication; its speakers may borrow heavily from the

dominant language; bilingualism is characteristic of many or all if its speakers; there may

be reluctance to pass the language on to new learners; opponents of the language, within

the community, may work to point out its deficiencies; there may be an overt struggle for

power within the community itself in order to extinguish or revitalize the language.

Wardhaugh (1987: 19) adds that there are signs when a language is in decline.

These include: the mother-tongue language is being spoken by fewer monolinguals;

speakers perceive the need to become bilingual in order to function in the dominant

culture; the bilingual population also becomes an aging population; it is often associated

with numerous forms of population dispersion and migration; the community

experiencing language shift may also be experiencing decline in other social, political,

and economic areas. The clearest signs that a language is in serious decline include

linguistic insecurity, when speakers lack confidence in their abilities because they have

no strong sense of what is correct or incorrect in their usage. A great deal of borrowing

from the dominant language is common – from various parts of syntax, phonology,

morphology, and vocabulary.

From a structural perspective, there are common aspects of a declining language

that may show rapid change. Grammatical features express shift, or erode, often times

15

reflecting the inflection styles of the dominant language. Few syntactical structures of all

the possible ones are used. Knowledge of vocabulary declines among the younger

individuals who often adopt words from the dominant culture; older individuals are

generally unfamiliar with the borrowed vocabulary. While healthy languages are always

changing and borrowing from other languages, the changes that characterize a language

in decline are likely to have differences in extent, rate, range, and quality of change.

Declining languages have more features being effected simultaneously, change more

rapidly, and show change in the direction of a dominant language.

Often, such a community may be unable or unwilling to focus its attention upon

the issue of language decline alone, other cultural matters may seem more pressing and in

demand of a more immediate attention. Cultural activities are much more likely to

receive attention than are linguistic ones, thus, the common occurrence that cultural

behaviors are retained while their languages disappear.

“Just because people can evidently survive without their languages and traditional cultures does not necessarily mean that enforced uniformity is a good thing, or that nothing of consequence is lost when a people loses a language.” (Nettles and Romaine, 2000: 23)

Identifying Endangered Languages and Problems with Prediction

“The ‘health’ of a language can also be used as some kind of gauge of the assimilation of those who use it. This is why it is so important to know how a minority language is faring at any time and what measures are being taken up to keep it alive. Assimilation is almost certainly an irreversible process just as is language loss. When one group merges into another, it has lost its identity forever, and when one language is given up for another, it is lost to those who might have spoken it in following generations.” (Wardhough, 1987: 28) The procedure for identifying endangered languages is not necessarily clear.

Given a community’s total population, its number of mother-tongue speakers, and

16

impending internal and external pressures, a language’s safety must be ascertained on a

case-by-case basis. Where 500 speakers might seem like an obvious number to indicate

at-risk status, there are communities where less than 500 speakers have maintained

language stabilization. Numerous variables within a community may effect the viability

of its language, including total population, number of sub-populations functioning as

speaker communities, average number (or range) of speakers per communities, and

contact between communities (Nabhan, personal conversation: March 2001).

Nonetheless, while the number of total speakers a language has should be considered

relatively as a percentage of its total population, there is evidence that shows that the total

number of speakers a language has, regardless of its population, should be considered as

an indicator of its chances for survival. Common sense tells us that the more speakers a

language has, the better its chances are for survival (Crystal, 2000: 12).

Factors such as the rate of bilingualism, urbanization, modernization, language

restrictions, legal or economic deterrents, migration, industrialization, population size,

uses of language within a community, speaker and community attitude, rate of acquisition

by children, the threat of peripheral languages, death rate, and fertility rate all have an

impact upon language stabilization and loss. Such factors interact within a society in

unique ways and are not necessarily predictable.

While language-loss indicators are being developed for scholarly consensus, we

need to bear in mind that predictable pressures interact in different capacities and result

with incongruous outcomes. Every case needs to be gauged relative to its own

circumstances and should not be generalized to a worldwide mathematical index. Crystal

(2000: 15) states that since conditions vary so greatly around the world, it is impossible to

17

generalize from population alone about the rate at which languages die out; complex

indices that have been developed to predict language loss should be regarded as little

more than well-informed guesswork.

“Worldwide some 300 million people, roughly 5% of the global population, still retain a strong identity as members of an indigenous culture, rooted in history and language and attached by myth and memory to a particular place. Yet increasingly their unique visions of life are being lost in a whirlwind of change… the current wave of species loss caused by human activities has no precedent…. Languages, like cultures and species, have always evolved, but today languages are being lost at an alarming rate. As languages disappear, cultures die. The world becomes inherently a less interesting place, but we also sacrifice raw knowledge, the intellectual achievements of millennia.” (Davis, 1999: 65)

Chapter 2

The Current State of Native American Languages in North America

1887

“…Through sameness of language is produced sameness of sentiment and thought; customs and habits are molded and assimilated in the same way,

18

and thus in process of time the differences producing trouble would have been gradually obliterated. By civilizing one tribe others would have followed…. In the difference of language today lies two-thirds of our trouble. Schools should be established, which children should be required to attend; their barbarous dialect should be blotted out and the English language substituted. The object of greatest solicitude should be to break down the prejudices of tribe among the Indians; to blot out the boundary lines which divide them into distinct nations, and fuse them into one homogenous mass. Uniformity of language will do this – nothing else will.”

- a letter from Atkins, Commissioner of Indian Affairs; Americanizing the American Indians, Prucha, 1973

1998

Only 20 Native American languages–of the 300 original, or 175 existing– are expected to survive the next 60 years.

- Institute for the Preservation of the Original Languages of the Americas (IPOLA), 1998

Of the estimated 20,000,000 Native American inhabitants of North America at the

onset of European colonial invasion, some 2,000,000 remain. Out of the more than 300

indigenous languages that once existed in the United States and Canada prior to European

contact, approximately 210 are still spoken. 175 of these languages are in the United

States. It was expected that, by the year 2000, 45 of the remaining 175 were expected to

become extinct. At the time of this report, however, the official count is yet unknown.

(Krauss, 1996: 17; Crawford, 1996: 53).

In the United States, 125 of the remaining 175 languages are spoken only by

middle-aged or older adults; 55 of these are spoken by only 1 to 6 people, and only 20 of

all the remaining languages are spoken by children. It is estimated that by the year 2060,

only 20 languages, of the more than 300 that once existed, will survive (IPOLA, 1997: 1).

The viability of the remaining living languages varies, but all are endangered;

some, effectively, are already extinct. To further understand the viability of each of these

19

languages, Krauss (1996: 17) has distinguished five distinct categories of viability in

which to place them.

Category A, the smallest of the four categories, includes those languages that are

still being transferred through generations the traditional way: children learn the language

directly from parents and elders. In the United States, about 20 of the 175 languages

(11%) are being taught from parents directly to their children. In Canada, about 30% of

the languages are being directly taught to children. These languages are considered

‘safe’.

Category B includes those languages which are still spoken by parents and elders,

who could theoretically turn around and teach these languages to their children, but

generally do not. Both the United States and Canada have about 30 languages in this

category, about 17%. These languages are considered ‘endangered’.

Category C includes those languages that are only spoken by the middle-aged and

older, and are not being effectively taught to children. About the same percentage of

such languages are found in the United States and Canada. These languages are

considered ‘moribund’.

Category D includes those languages that are only spoken by very few of the

eldest generation. The language may be completely out of use, or only remembered, so it

is not yet extinct. Krauss notes that California has the highest number of indigenous

languages in North America; approximately forty of these languages are remembered by

one or two people that are in their eighties and nineties. These languages are not

recoverable and will become extinct.

20

Finally, Krauss adds the fifth separate category, Category E, consisting of more

than 100 languages that are extinct.

In Alaska alone, only 2 languages are still spoken by children; 18 have no

speakers that are children. In the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Coast, no Native

American language is spoken by children. Arizona and New Mexico have the largest

concentration of indigenous languages that are still spoken, including Cocopah,

Havasupai, Hualapai, Yavapai, Yaqui, Hopi, Tewa, Navajo, Tohono O’odham, Western

Apache, Mescalero, Jemez, Zuni, some Tiwa, and some Keresan are still spoken by some

children. In Oklahoma, some Cherokee is still spoken, as is the Alabama language in

Louisiana and Choctaw in Mississippi. Pasamaquoddy is still spoken in Maine and

several of the Iroquoian languages are still spoken in New York (Krauss, 1996: 18).

Eyak has 2 aged speakers; Mandan has 6; Osage has 5; Abenaki-Penobscot has 20; Iowa

has 5. According to reports from 1977, Coeur d’Alene had fewer than 20 at that time;

Tuscarora had fewer than 50; Yokuts had fewer than 10 (Krause, 1992: 4).

Federal Intervention

The United States Congress confirmed in the Native American Languages Act of

1990 and 1992 that these languages are an integral part of their cultures and identities and

form the most important medium of transmission for cultural survival. Congress also

found convincing evidence that student achievement and performance, community and

school pride, and educational opportunity are clearly tied to the mother-tongue language

of the child (Reyhner, 1996: 10). While implementation of federal intervention has been

slow in light of these findings, in 1994 the Clinton Administration allotted $1million in

21

grants for the situation, the regulations for such funding guided by the Administration for

Native Americans (ANA), a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services

(for information on the Hopi Tribe’s funding from the ANA, see Chapter 9,

Implementation of the Hopi Language Preservation and Education Plan: The Hopilavayi

Project). Since the program’s inception, however, little federal intervention or funding

has transpired despite its strong policy statement, and it is uncertain how much longer the

federal government is going to fund any kind of bilingual education programs.

Nonetheless, it is quite likely that plausible amounts of funding can be raised for

language revitalization programs through non-governmental sources, such as private

foundations, corporate donors, and from the tribes themselves. Foremost, it is

encouraging to note that the most promising approaches for language preservation and

revitalization programs are extremely low-tech (Crawford, 1996: 64).

In the face of continued assimilationist biases, there is likely to remain strong

opposition of any kind for public expenditure on the preservation of ethnic cultures.

Since the wider public knows very little about the value of indigenous languages, there

will likely be little progress relative to language conservation and renewal. Without

substantial growth in resources and a stronger commitment from levels higher than tribal

bureaucracies, the potential for retarding the pace at which language shift is progressing

seems bleak. Yet while there are heroic stories of language revitalization programs

progressing worldwide, there is favorable opinion about the chances for renewal among

languages that are still learned by children (Crawford, 1995: 32).

22

The Imperative Tenet: Family and Community

The point is that despite the advances in teaching methods and technology and our increasing dependency on them, our languages are still dying (Littlebear, 1996: xiv).

Following the advice of numerous specialists, Native American communities have

done everything that seemed logical in the endeavor to revitalize their dying languages.

These groups have recorded their languages in dictionaries, trained linguists in the use of

their language, trained native speakers to become linguists, applied for federal and state

grants in support of language revitalization, implemented language programs in the

schools and developed materials and curricula, recorded elders speaking their language

with audio and video tape, and have put their language into software programs. Still,

their languages keep dying.

Both Native American communities and scholars agree that there is one

imperative tenet that language revitalization programs must meet if they are to achieve

language stabilization: families must retrieve their rightful positions as the first teachers

of languages, and the community must play the primary role in language promotion and

attitude (Littlebear, 1996: xiv).

Further, Native American communities that desire to incorporate their language

into school curricula must also demonstrate continual support of these education

programs, and foster oral-based teaching methods. Finally, all other potential resources

and methods that may contribute to language transmission should be utilized in support

of these primary efforts, rather than reliance upon one general strategy. Nonetheless, if

the community is unable to take the lead role as the primary source for language

promotion and transference, there is no chance that the pace at which their language is

23

declining can be interrupted (Nettles & Romaine, 2000: 186; Crystal, 2000: 136;

Littlebear, 1996: xiv).

Recommendations

While it is recommended to take account of all resources at hand and come up

with creative ideas for language preservation, it is more difficult to organize people and

consistently manage and carry out the adopted methods. While it is less problematic to

arouse support and encourage positive attitudes toward the preservation of one’s mother-

tongue language, it remains a difficult task to implement the strategies that are necessary

to shift the forces of individualism, pragmatism, and materialism which may exist within

the community and contribute to problems in winning community-wide support

(Crawford, 1996: 63).

At the 1996 Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Conference held in Flagstaff,

Arizona, The Native American Language Policy Group (in Cantoni, 1996: 43)

summarized that the reversal of language shift can only be reversed by those within that

community itself. Local autonomy and voice must be central in building language

preservation consensus, ensuring a participatory democracy at all levels of community

policy, programs, and practice. Outsiders, however well meaning, cannot effectively be a

force for change and shift reversal. The policy group proposed the following 5 principles

to function as guidelines for the community and schools in which they operate:

(1) Native American Children must be exposed early in their lives to a stimulating

native language, cultural, and learning environment that is consistent with the

best tribal and early childhood practices available.

24

(2) Native children must be provided with equal schooling opportunities early in

the educational process for learning their native languages as well as for

learning English and other languages.

(3) Proficiency in two or more languages must be promoted for all native

students; this enhances cognitive development, social growth, and the ability

to communicate and promote understanding among diverse peoples and

cultures.

(4) Students must have early access to teachers that are proficient Native

American language speakers, who are capable of expanding the domains of

tribal languages into content areas such as mathematics, sciences, social

studies, art, and vocational applications.

(5) Native American tribes, parents of young children, schools, and universities

must form partnerships to provide the best home and school environments

possible for young children to acquire and develop Native American language

skills.

Usually, schools are perceived as outside institutions in Indian communities, unless

they are under tribal authority. The familiar need to employ help from specialists outside

of the community is usually perceived as sacrificing control and power and can be

detrimental to the endeavor. Outside administrators and specialists bring with them their

own agendas, and the only way to avoid such potential problems is to train native talent

25

within the community to do these jobs. However, while outsiders cannot lead the

movement, they can serve as helpful allies and contribute most by providing resources,

training, and encouragement (Crawford, 1996: 64, 66).

Crawford (1996: 64) points out another prevalent problem: dependence on federal

funding for language revitalization programs. Such dependence, though familiar to

Indian education systems, fosters program instability. The Title VII bilingual education

grants were not established to provide permanent entitlement but to function as “seed

money” to implement and begin programs, with the position that such programs would

develop the capacity to become self-supporting. In most cases, alternative resources to

provide the funding for such programs is usually lacking, and after the federal grant ends

in three to five years, the language programs usually end as well.

Finally, there is the tendency for parents in tribal communities to assume that schools

can solve the problem rather than understanding their roles as primary teachers of

language. This usually reflects the difficulties that programs have in maintaining the

public consciousness that the family and community are the primary environments of

language transmission, and that schools play a supportive role to that effort.

The First Step: Recognizing the Stage of Language Loss

No one has developed a comprehensive strategy for preserving Native American

languages. Obviously, what is an appropriate strategy for language revitalization in one

community – with its unique degree of language loss, awareness of the problem,

community support, logistics, and available resources – may not be appropriate for other

communities. The first step for reversing language shift is understanding the stage of

26

language loss the community is currently in. (To see how the Hopi Tribe achieved this,

see Chapter 6, The Current Status of the Hopi Language).

Figure 5. Eight Stages of Language Loss (Fishman, in Reyhner, 1999: vii)

Current Status of the Language Suggested Interventions to Strengthen Language 8: Only a few elders speak the language Implement Hinton’s (1994) “language apprentice model”

where fluent elders are teamed 1-to-1 with young adults who want to learn the language. Isolated elders connected with use of phone / electronic devices to teach others the language.

7: Only adults beyond child bearing Establish “language nests” after the Maori & Hawaiian years speak the language (fluently) models where fluent older adults provide pre-school childcare;

where children are immersed in their language. 6: Some intergenerational use of the Develop places in the community where language is

language still in practice encouraged, protected, and used exclusively. Encourage more young parents to speak the indigenous language in home and around their young children.

5: Language is still very much alive Offer literacy in minority language. Promote voluntary and used in community programs in the schools and other community institutions to

improve the use and prestige of the language. Use language in local government functions, especially social services. Give recognition to special local efforts through awards, etc.

4: Language is required in elementary Improve instructional methods utilizing TPR (Asher, 1996),

schools TPR-Storytelling (Cantoni, 1996), and other immersion teaching techniques. Teach reading and writing and higher level language skills. Develop two-way bilingual programs where appropriate where non-speaking elementary students learn the indigenous language and speakers learn a national or international language. Need to develop indigenous language textbooks to teach literacy and academic subject matter.

3: Language is used in places of Promote the language by making it the language of work used business and by employees in less throughout the community. Develop vocabulary so that the specialized work areas workers in an office could do their day-to-day work using

their indigenous language. 2: Language is used by local Promote use of written form of language for gov. and business government and in the mass dealings / records. Promote indigenous language newsletters media in the minority community newspapers, radio and television stations. 1: Some language use by higher Teach tribal college subject matter classes in the language. levels of government and in Develop an indigenous language oral and written literature higher education through dramatic presentations and publications. Give tribal

awards for language publications and other notable efforts that promote the indigenous language.

27

Once the level of loss is understood, the community must recognize leaders and

develop group leadership and a strategic plan for language preservation. All available

information about the status of the language, what is currently being done, and news on

plans, events, and meetings must be centralized in order to foster the leadership position.

All the communities contributive resources to the cause must be accounted for. Resource

guides, successful program models, educator training, and alliances with sympathetic

outsiders must be acquired (Crawford, 1996: 67).

While schools can play a significant role in the teaching of indigenous languages,

they can play another role that is just as vital: attitudinal change toward mother-tongue

language prestige. Some Native American students are still subjected to subtle forms of

rejection or ostracism for using their Native language. However, school-wide campaigns

in support of their Native language must include the dissemination of information about

the language, attitudinal support, and sustained action for preservation.

In short, all levels of community – home, village, children, senior citizens,

schools, elected officials, tribe – must work in unison if the preservation of their Native

Language is to be achieved. The dissemination of information about the language and

what is being done is vital to the cause. Materials promoting native language use in both

the written and oral form should be used as widely as possible.

The most important initial steps a Native American community needs to pursue

for the preservation of their language are (1) ascertain the level of language loss within

the community, (2) develop a community-based team to develop indigenous project

leadership, and (3) begin the continual effort to promote community-wide, positive

attitude and pride for the language.

28

“We must quit endlessly lamenting and continuously cataloguing the causes of language death; instead, we must now deal with these issues by learning from successful language preservation efforts.” (Littlebear, 1996: xv)

Chapter 3

Why It Matters, Why We Should Care:

Arguments for the Stabilization of the Worlds Languages

Why does it matter if seemingly insignificant, rarely known languages – spoken

by a small population of seemingly inconsequential peoples – should disappear?

Languages have always died. Aren’t most of these minority languages spoken by odd

29

tribes likely to disappear anyway, a function of modernization or social evolution? Isn’t

there some logic to the notion that one primary language would contribute to mutual

understanding and peace? Can languages descended from ancient hunter-gatherers, who

are often resource poor, actually contribute something that the dominant languages in the

world haven’t already brought us?

While it can be argued that languages are interesting in themselves and this alone

is reason enough to stabilize language decline, there are more inestimable reasons to

support language diversity. There is evidence that linguistic diversity contributes to

human sustainability and health, sociopolitical identity, enhanced social relationships,

and ecological sustainability.

Myths about the benefits of Monolingualism

The notion that monolingualism will increase sustainability or contribute to

harmony obscures the numerous reasons for social conflict, and the notion that

multilingualism is merely an obstacle for mass communication, economic development,

and modernization is short-sighted, at best.

Many individuals within the world’s dominant cultures share the utilitarian

position that monolingualism is the path to social cohesion and often express some

contempt for those who struggle to retain their mother-tongue language, cultural identity,

and unique worldview. But such utilitarianist perspectives of a monolingual society are

little else than misinformed theories reflecting unenlightened and ethnocentric tendencies.

Monolingualism – which has been the recent goal in Northern Ireland, the Republics of

the former Soviet Union, and Somalia – has never equated with unity.

30

Switzerland, Finland, and Singapore – to name only a few countries with

profound linguistic diversity – have not experienced the social unrest that the defenders

of monolingualism have projected. Multilingualism alone is rarely an important cause of

civil unrest, and the notion that monolingualism yields harmony is a complete myth

(Thieberger, 1990:336).

“Because language and dialects are often potent symbols of class, gender, ethnicity, religion, and other differences, it is easy to think that language underlies conflict. Yet disputes involving language are not really about language, but instead about fundamental inequalities between groups who happen to speak different languages.” (Nettles and Romaine, 2000: 19)

While the argument that uniformity renders harmony and understanding is

proved by history to be false, it is undisputed that, in times of crisis, the greater

the diversity that exists in a community, the greater the pool of knowledge from

which to draw from in times of need.

Language, Diversity, and the Sustainability of Societies

“Increasing uniformity holds dangers for the long term survival of a species…. The diversity of living things is apparently directly correlated with stability… variety may be a necessity in the evolution of our natural systems…. If diversity is a prerequisite for successful humanity, then the preservation of linguistic diversity is essential, for language lies at the heart of what it means to be human.” (Crystal, 2000: 33) “A nation that incorporates linguistic diversity will be stronger than a nation that is largely monolingual.” (Thieberger, 1990: 335)

31

“Any Reduction of language diversity diminishes the adaptational strength of our species because it lowers the pool of knowledge from which we can draw.” (Bernard, 1992:82)

In the same way that diversity is understood to be beneficial for healthy

ecosystems, diversity in the human environment also encourages healthy systems. The

strongest, most sustainable ecosystems embody the greatest diversity, and language is the

chief identifier to the diversity of cultures. If we are to assure the success of human

systems, then the presence of linguistic diversity is essential.

Sustainable systems – self-sustaining only through the interactions of all their

living organisms, plants, animals, and languages – embody networks of

interrelationships: the unique characteristics that constitute the environment. Members of

a sustainable community seek to link the structure and organization of their human

community to interactions within the local environment; damage to any one of the

elements within the system can result in unforeseen consequences (Crystal, 2000:32).

Identity

“Identity is what makes the members of a community recognizably the same. It is the summation of the characteristics which make it what it is and not something else….And of all these…language is the most ubiquitous.” (Crystal, 2000: 39) “Languages constitute the core values of many, probably most cultures. If these are lost or destroyed, the cultures become residual and intellectually deactivated.” (Smolicz, 1984: 39) Thieberger (1990: 340) suggests that language has three identity functions:

(1) Language is a marker of self-identity. Language can be consciously used by

people in their attempts to identify themselves and their affiliations both with society and

32

across societies. Language is used partly as a series of acts of identity in which people

reveal both their personal identity and their search for social roles.

(2) Language is a marker of group identity.

“If a minority group is to maintain its ethnic identity and social cohesion it must retain its language. Once a group has lost its language it will generally lose its separate identity and will, within a few generations, be indistinguishably assimilated into another, more dominant group.” (Dixon 1980: 79)

The same way that an individual can consciously use language in their attempts to

identify themselves across societies, so do groups use language to distinguish themselves

from other groups, using certain markers and features of language to identify members

and nonmembers of the group. Here, more than the language identifies insiders, it is

more commonly used to mark outsiders who lack the usage of critical features. Further,

language affiliation is one variable which a particular group uses in associating itself with

a part of the country, geographic marker, or sociopolitical grouping.

(3) Language is a link with a group’s tradition and its past. Just as cultures

change over time, a cultures identity changes over time. Nonetheless, tradition and

history are transmitted through a language’s imagery, narrative, structure, and the lexicon

of the stories it tells. People are dependent upon language for their full sense of their

origins and development as a people. The desire and need to understand ones cultural

heritage is a universal inclination, and it takes a language to satisfy it. Those of unwritten

languages, more so than those with written languages, use sophisticated linguistic

techniques to ensure the transmission of history into memory. While the knowledge

content is seemingly too massive to comprehend, all the insights of a groups past social

structure and history are often carried on within the breadth of such oral traditions.

33

Groups who rely on oral traditions for the transmission of their origins recognize the

significance of such oration, given the notion that otherwise such living memories would

be lost (Crystal, 2000: 43).

The Link Between Linguistic and Biological Diversity

If much of people’s knowledge about the natural world is encoded in their indigenous language, the same knowledge cannot easily be imparted in another foreign language which has not developed a specific vocabulary to describe local conditions, biota, and land management practices. (Nabhan & St. Antoine, 1993: 243)

It was once thought that indigenous cultures spoke inferior languages, containing

only a few hundred words and were restricted in creative expression. Colonial

governments relied on such beliefs in order to justify their eradication and replacement

with their own languages. However, investigation of the world’s indigenous languages

has proved to show profound insight into the relationships these cultures have with their

local environments. Indigenous languages are a rich source of information concerning the

structure of ecological categories and are a window into the creativity of the human mind

(Nettles & Romaine, 2000; 60).

These languages embody complex understandings of local ecological knowledge,

including the classifications of flora and fauna, animal behaviors and reproductive

patterns, geology and soils, climatic cycles, and the overall balance of the local

ecosystem. Such knowledge is the product of generations of trial and error practice,

observation, and is the cumulative wisdom built from experience. For those who live in

these cultures, such knowledge is the business of survival; for those who have lived their

lives within industrialized cultures, such an intricate understanding of natural

34

surroundings may be hard to comprehend. Writing on this very phenomenon, Tove

Skuttnabb-Kangas (2000: 32) writes:

“The Okanagan word for “our place on the land” and “our language” is the same. We think of our language as the language of the land. This means that the land has taught us our language. The way we survived is to speak the language that the land offered us as its teachings. To know all the plants, animals, seasons, and geography is to construct a language for them.” Many indigenous worldviews integrate community well-being with

environmental sustainability and can serve as models for human-ecological sustainability.

Here, we need to remind ourselves that indigenous peoples (some 200 million people or

4-5% of the world’s population) are yet responsible for roughly one fifth of the world’s

surface; they are the active stewards of some of the most ecological rich and biological

diverse regions in the world (Crystal, 2000: 51; Harmon, 1995).

Though perhaps a self-serving reason to promote the stabilization of the world’s

languages, what these cultures and their languages can teach us – provided the relative

health of the languages – is yet to be fully realized. Such complex knowledge systems

are often referred to as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), or Indigenous

Knowledge (IK), and have provided valuable insights toward animal management, aqua-

culture, agriculture, botany, hydrology, geomorphology, medicine, and many other fields.

In many ways, these are just a few areas where traditional knowledge has proved more

helpful than, or complimentary to, the Western scientific method of empirical

observation, induction, and deduction (Crystal, 2000: 49). Berkes (1999: 8) defines TEK

as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes

and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of

living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment.” The

35

potential for discovery through the use of such ecological knowledge and indigenous

language is considerable.

It is significant to remember that the world’s nations that are most monolingual in

ability and attitude are those with a history of major colonial or religious expansion

(Crystal, 2000: 45). These projections of linguistic inferiority were/are erroneous. The

vocabulary of any culture is an inventory of the items that the culture talks about, and has

a characterized order to make sense of its environment and to survive in its local

ecosystem.

Initial perception of the limited capacity for expression is likely reflected in the

culture’s economy of words, a creative result of linguistic evolution within a culture’s

unique environment. Often, those whom are unfamiliar to the particularities and

linguistic dynamics of an unfamiliar culture have a difficult time interpreting the wisdom

within the character of the language. To the seemingly nonsensical use of metaphor that

many indigenous groups practice, Radin (1916: 137) suggests,

“Ideas about the habitat are frequently set forth in elaborate similes and metaphors which equate disparate objects in a fashion that at first seem quite unfathomable. Yet once these tropes are uncovered, it can be seen that they rest upon firm assumptions about the workings of nature which, though different from our own, fit together intelligibly.”

Most likely, projections of linguistic inferiority or intellectual lag are greater indicators of

the dominant culture’s limited interpretative skills than are they a gauge of the

complexity and utility of minority languages.

Not all linguistically encoded insights of a culture will render new discoveries

contributing to environmental and social sustainability. However, to function on the

notion that thousands of minority languages have little to contribute to the world is to live

36

ignorant of the mosaic of wisdom that language has to offer. Kenneth Hale (1992: 36)

puts it this way:

“In this circumstance [the embodiment of intellectual wealth in language], there is a certain tragedy for the human purpose. The loss of local languages, and the cultural systems that they express, has meant an irretrievable loss of diverse and interesting intellectual wealth, the priceless products of human mental industry.”

Chapter 4

The Hopi1

“…I see the Hopi as a culture and society with a history stretching back more than a thousand years and with a future that will have been shaped by the struggle with modernity which has framed much of the last century-and-a-half of the world’s history.” (Clemmer, 1995: introduction)

The Hopi reservation embodies some 1.6 million acres in Northeastern Arizona.

However, this demarcated territory resembles only the federal reservation land; the

1 All information in this section was provided by the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office’s Northern Arizona Univeristy office, and the Hopi Tribe.

37

Hopis’ aboriginal homelands consist of more than 18 million acres spread across the

Colorado Plateau. On the reservation, approximately 6,500 Hopi, of the 11,000-plus total

population, dwell in 12 independent villages. Here, the Hopi people continue their

traditions of dry farming, native food preparation and storage, ceremonial life, and

storytelling in an ancient language belonging to the Uto-Aztecan language family. The

Hopi villages are located on the top or at the foot of three mesas – First, Second and

Third Mesa, which project out in three fingers from the enormous Black Mesa to the

north. Most Hopi people live in or near these twelve villages. Figure 6, below, shows the

location of the twelve villages.

Figure 6 The Hopi Mesas and Villages (Page, 1982)

The arrangement of Hopi villages typifies pueblo village layouts, with dense

room-blocks surrounding a central plaza. Traditionally, houses served multiple purposes:

38

shelter for families, work and storage space, and a variety of ceremonial roles. In the past,

the Hopi stored a several years supply of corn and other staples in interior rooms. Hopi

villages slowly and deliberately evolved in response to changing times and the needs of

families and clans. As a clan grew, families in need of more space built upward, adding

more rooms above their existing house. In other cases, old rooms or even entire houses

were abandoned or carefully disassembled when no longer needed. All traditional Hopi

houses faced east to greet the rising sun

First Mesa (incorrect English spellings of villages in parenthesis)

The eastern-most community at Hopi is Keams Canyon, but it is not a Hopi

Village; it is a government settlement and is the seat of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Hopi

Agency. The only commercially or privately owned structures are two trading-posts and

their adjoining structures. The community of Polacca lies about eleven miles west of

Keams Canyon and rests at the foot of the First Mesa. Atop the mesa are the traditional

villages of Hanoki (Hano/Tewa), Sitsomovi (Sichomovi), and Waalpi (Walpi). Hanoki

was originally settled by Tanoan-speaking, Rio-Grande pueblo people from New Mexico

shortly after the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. Tewa, of the Kiowa-Tanoan language family, is

the native language of the village of Hanoki and is still spoken there, along with Hopi.

Next to Hanoki is the village of Sitsomovi, which was founded in the mid 1600's when

Waalpi became too crowded. The village of Waalpi is the oldest village on First Mesa,

and was established in 1150. Terraced onto a narrow rock table, Waalpi is the most

pristine of the Hopi villages, with cliff-edge houses and vast scenic vistas. The village

recently underwent restoration to preserve the beauty of the village and to make it safer

for residents to live and perform their religious ceremonies.

39

Second Mesa

Second Mesa, located 10 miles west of First Mesa, is comprised of three villages,

Musungnuvi (Mishongnovi), Supawlavi (Sipaulovi), and Songoopavi (Shungopavi).

Musungnuvi and Supawlavi occupy the east-most edge of the mesa-top, while

Songoopavi is located southwest of these two villages, also atop the mesa. Said to be the

first of all the Hopi villages, Songoopavi was originally at the base of the mesa, but

moved to its present site after the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. Many clans joined each other

here as they moved into the area. Supawlavi was established shortly after the 1680

Pueblo Revolt to save the Hopi from possible Spanish reprisal. Musangnuvi moved from

below the mesa to its present site in the early 1700's. Musungnuvi villagers are

responsible for protecting Corn Rock, an important shrine just below the edge of the

mesa. On the east side of Musungnuvi is a community of Christianized Hopis; it is not

recognized as a Hopi village.

Third Mesa

The villages of Orayvi (Oraibi), Kiqotsmovi (Kykotsmovi), Hoatvela (Hotevilla),

and Paaqavi (Bacavi) are located on Third Mesa, 10 miles west of Second Mesa.

Although Munqapi (Moenkopi) is located 40 miles west of Third Mesa near Tuba City,

it is a satellite of Orayvi, and is therefore also one of the Third Mesa villages. The

community was established as a summer farming area for Orayvi. Since the village was

not established under a traditional form of government, many problems arose and the

village split in two: Upper and Lower Munqapi. The Upper village adopted a Constitution

in 1958, but Lower Munqapi chose to remain under a traditional way of life. Kiqötsmovi,

located at the base of Third Mesa, is the seat of the Hopi Tribal Government. It is the

40

youngest Hopi village, and branched from Orayvi in the 1800's. Orayvi, established in

approximately 1100 A.D., is considered the oldest continuously inhabited settlement in

North America. However, it is not the oldest Hopi village since it branched from

Songoopavi prior to that village's move to the top of Second Mesa. Likewise, Orayvi was

also originally established at the base of Third Mesa below its present site. Hoatvela was

built in 1906 after a dispute in Orayvi. Clans from Hoatvela established Paaqavi, located

across from Hoatvela soon after leaving Orayvi in 1906. Third Mesa is known for its

agricultural accomplishments.

History, Culture, and Modernity

The Hopi are descended from a mixture of prehistoric peoples often referred to as

the “Basketmaker” that migrated throughout the Colorado Plateau region around 800

A.D. Hopi, a western Pueblo, absorbed numerous other Puebloans from abandoned

settlements such as Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde, Walnut Canyon and Sunset Crater

(Wupatki and Wukoki) near present-day Flagstaff, Homolovi near the Little Colorado

River, the Mimbres River area, and other small Puebloan settlements in the Grand

Canyon and the Painted Desert of Arizona (Clemmer, 1995:3). In this context, their

aboriginal lands included some 18 million acres.

Upon first European contact in 1540, the Hopi likely numbered between 5,000

and 6,000 plus. When the United States formally extended itself into the Hopilands in

1870, several smallpox epidemics resulted in profound loss of population to fewer than

2,400. In the last 150 years, however, the number of villages has increased from seven to

twelve and the population has exceeded 11,000. While the Spanish colonial era brought

with it many changes – political power, ideology, material conditions – the Hopi retain a

41

strong connection to their historical and cultural roots (Clemmer, 1995: 4; Hopi Cultural

Preservation Office, 2001).

The Puebloans share distinctive characteristics such as nucleated dwellings and

villages built of two or three story apartment homes arranged around a central plaza,

ceremonies performed at certain times of the year, a pantheistic religion and maintain the

practice of dry land, subsistence agriculture. As a matrilineal society, the Hopi determine

their descent, inheritance of non-moveable property such as houses and farm lands, and

clan affiliation through the female line of the family (Clemmer, 1995: 13; Hopi Cultural

Preservation Office, 2001). Farming and gardening are the most essential elements of

Hopi culture. They have adapted to their arid, high-desert climate by using various

agricultural methods, including dry farming in washes and valleys – which is completely

dependent on natural precipitation – as well as gardening on man-made, irrigated terraces

built along mesa cliffs. These terraces utilize and are dependent upon the perennial

springs that trickle from the flanks of the mesas. Some of the gardens at the Third Mesa

village of Paaqavi have been in use since 1200 A.D.

Today, as an internationally recognized indigenous nation, as well as an American

Indian tribe with federal recognition, the Hopi

“…are participants in a worldwide political and economic system in which efforts at modernization and attempts to maintain cultural pluralism often clash. Therefore, the Hopi provide a good case study not only for how a modern Puebloan group is handling the tensions of modernization and cultural preservation, but also of how a small indigenous nation is faring in the complex forces of worldwide modernization within the U.S. political and economic framework.” (Clemmer, 1995: 4)

This socially intriguing and provocative position in which the Hopis have found

themselves has situated them as the subject of numerous scholarly and not-so-scholarly

42

research. While the Hopi are not actually a secretive people, most, today, are reluctant to

share their stories, perceptions, experiences, and world-view with non-Hopi people. Too

often when they have shared this knowledge in the past they were discouraged to learn

that the resulting interpretations were largely misrepresentative, distorted, and promoted

untruths about the Hopi people and their culture, or revealed esoteric and restricted

knowledge to all the world. Government reports, scientific journals, stories written by

explorers and missionaries, television and movies, newspaper and magazine articles, and

random works of fiction and memoir have all contributed to massive accumulation of

materials that have contributed to confusion about and misrepresentation of the Hopi

(James, 1994: introduction). It is significant to remember that while the Hopi’s

population at any one time has rarely exceeded 11,000 people – and had once plummeted

to fewer than 2,400 – the bibliography of published “research” on Hopi alone has nearly

3,000 entries; some 735 pages embody this listing of articles and texts (James, 1994:

introduction; Laird, 1977).

“The issues that Hopis confront in their everyday lives are part of a more global contest. This contest involves strategizing, battling, and negotiating for control over territories, resources, populations, and loyalties. It is a contest of politics, economics, and culture, full of unexpected outcomes, played out through the latest phase of human history – the phase of modernism and modernization. Despite apparent isolation, Hopis have been participants in this contest for 150 years.” (Clemmer, 1995: 2)

43

Chapter 5

Hopi Language and the Uto-Aztecan Family

We have all gone out and searched our hearts for answers for the true Hopi way of life. Important in all this is communication – in our language. We need to maintain our Hopi language and to realize the importance of it. We think and communicate with it; we feel with it within ourselves, spiritually. We should preserve our language and with it the purpose of the Hopi way of life.

- Crossroads of Cultural Change: Report of the Second Hopi Mental Health Conference, 1982

The Hopi language belongs to the great Uto-Aztecan language family, one of the

largest in terms of numbers of languages and in geographical reach: its languages extend

from Oregon in the United States to Panama in Central America. The Uto-Aztecan

44

family is undisputedly one of the oldest language families; glottochronology, though

speculative, gives the divergence from Proto-Uto-Aztecan at about 5,000 years ago

(Campbell, 1997: 133). Among the many linguistically related groups that migrated

through the Colorado Plateau area, the Hopi are the only Uto-Aztecan group that have

maintained a distinctly Puebloan culture (Clemmer, 1995: 3).

In contrast to Hopi culture, its language has received a great deal less attention.

Linguistically, the Hopi language is considered relatively unique because of its status as a

separate branch within the Northern Uto-Aztecan (Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni, 1999:

Introduction). Figure 7, below, provides a bare outline of the present day Uto-Aztecan

languages:

Figure 7. The Present Day Uto-Aztecan Languages (Hopiìkwa Lavaytutuveni, 1999)

Northern Uto-Aztecan:

Hopi - Hopi Californian - Serrano - Cahuilla, Cupeño, Luiseño - Tübatulabal Numic - Ute/Southern Paiute/Chemehuevi, Kawaiisu - Shoshone, Comanche - Mono, Northern Paiute/Paviotso Southern Uto-Aztecan:

Tepiman - Tohono O’odham, River Pima, Lowland Pima, Mountain

Pima, Northern and Southern Tepehuan (Tepecaho)

Taracahitan - Tarahumara, Guarijío, Cahíta (Yaqui/Mayo), Tubares

Corachol/Aztecan - Cora, Huichol

45

In total, there are approximately 62 living languages in the Uto-Aztecan family;

13 in the Northern group – where Hopi has its own separate branch – and 49 in the

Southern group, where exist 28 Nahuatl languages in Mexico alone (Ethnologue, 2000).

It is reported that there are some 5,000 to 10,000 speakers of Hopi, but these

numbers are optimistic and provide a misleading picture: variation in the comprehension

of the language is profound and the majority of completely fluent speakers are 60 years

of age and older.

The complexities and richness of the language demonstrate the cultural creativity

and intelligence of its speakers. Harry C. James (1994: xii) reported that intelligence

tests given to Hopi children that were fluent in Hopi language show scores that rate high

above the average of Anglo children in the United States.

Hopi has generally been considered a non-literate language as it has not been

written or read. Until only recently, all Hopi words had been spelled phonetically in an

English context, so no uniformity of spelling or orthography had ever been achieved. In

Hodge’s Handbook of American Indians, for example, there are more than two dozen

spellings alone for the Third Mesa village of Orayvi. While several Hopi orthographies

exit – including those developed by Heinrich Voth in the 1890s; Carl and Florence

Voegelin in the 1950s; Roy Albert and David Shaul in the 1960s and 1970s; and both

Seaman and Malotki in the 1980s – each of them is slightly different in their use of both

spellings and characters (Clemmer, 1995: xiv).

The problem is exemplified by The Board on Geographic Names, Department of the

Interior, who in 1952 recommended spellings for the Hopi villages and other place

names. The board ‘developed’ these recommended names based on drawing the closest

46

sounds these Hopi words had in the English alphabet. Given the profound differences

between English phonetics and an accurate Hopi orthography, the resulting problems

were immediately recognizable, though they have been used ever since (James, 1994:

xiv). Still today, when traveling across the Hopi reservation and viewing the names of

villages, families, artisans’ studios, and places of business, one reads the words spelled

phonetically by non-Hopi speaking people. In attempts at pronouncing these distorted

spellings, the speaker at best makes sounds that only express the breadth of

misunderstanding of the Hopi language today.

In 1999, with the completion and publishing of Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni: A Hopi-

English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect, by the Hopi Dictionary Project (see

Chapter 7, Resource Assessment at Hopi), the Hopi language was for the first time

comprehensively documented in an approved form under the guidance of numerous Hopi

consultants. Despite the completion of the dictionary, however, it is still considered a

non-literate language because the Hopi community is in the very early stages of

implementing a Hopi language curriculum in the Hopi schools.

Hopi Dialects

Most Hopi recognize three dialects of their language – one on each of the three

mesas. However, linguistically, there seem to be 4 distinct dialects, though all are

mutually intelligible (Hopíikwa Lavaytutuveni, 1999: introduction):

(1) First Mesa Hopi is spoken by the villages of Wàlpi, Sitsom’ovi, Pollaca, and Hanoki

(Hanoki is a Tewa-language speaking community; Tewa comes from the Kiowa-

Tanoan Family and is found among a number of the New Mexican Pueblos).

(2) Second Mesa Hopi is spoken by the villages of Supawlavi and Songòopavi.

47

(3) Second Mesa Hopi, Musangnuvi dialect is spoken only by Musangnuvi village; it is

similar to First Mesa Hopi.

(4) Third Mesa Hopi is spoken by Orayvi, Kiqötsmovi, Hotvella, Paaqavi and Mùnqapi.

Figure 8: The Hopi Mesas and Villages (Page, 1982)

Distinct dialects have long been recognized among the Hopi people, and it should be

noted that they do not interfere with communications among them. While the exact

nature of the dialect differences are unknown, the differences are rather easily recognized

among the Hopi and they do not reflect profound language use divisions.

In regard to these dialects, some concern has been voiced relative to the teaching of

the Hopi language. It has been assumed that the teaching of the language in the Hopi

schools would lead to the standardization of a certain dialect over time. Because dialects

ascribe village affiliation and are cultural identifiers, concerns about which of the four

dialects would then become the “standardized” dialect within the Hopi schools were

predictable. The situation is common among endangered languages; speakers of various

48

dialects become disenfranchised upon the thought that their particular speech patterns are

not being considered in the face of language “standardization.”

The common method of dealing with this issue is to develop one writing system but

using it to incorporate all dialects; one writing system does not necessarily negate the use

of separate dialects. Once it is realized that other dialects may be used within the

structure of the new system, the conflict is often resolved.

In the case of the Hopi tribe, a dialect survey that was conducted in order to gauge the

significance of dialect in the community revealed that the problem was largely overstated

(See Chapter 6: Current Status of the Hopi Language). To quote a comment from the

1995 Hopi Education Summit, “Dialects pay qa hinta”, Dialects are not a problem. This

was also confirmed in several of the village meetings that followed shortly thereafter, and

also by several members of the survey team at its training session.

Though the Hopi villages have always existed and operated as autonomous socio-

political units, they have always lived and worked together successfully, despite the

dialect differences. Most Hopis see the teaching of their language as a village initiative

and responsibility rather than a tribal initiative. The majority feel that the transmission of

the language should start in the home and, ideally, remain the responsibility of the family.

Villagers want to “teach their own” and desire to teach their own dialect. From this

perspective, then, dialect is a non-issue (Hopi Language Education and Preservation

Plan, 1998).

Further, it appears that oral language development is a greater priority than is the

learning of writing the language. The definition of language loss, for most Hopis, is

losing the ability to speak Hopi. While the ability to read and write Hopi is desirable, it

49

does not appear to be the most immediate concern. It was evident, based upon the

survey’s results, that conversational Hopi is most important.

Because the earliest findings of the survey reported that the majority of Hopis desire

village-based instruction upon the oral use language (implying that the villages take

primary responsibility for the transmission of the language to children), it was decided,

since dialect differences appeared to be a non-issue, that the dialect survey be

discontinued. The issue of dialect could be revisited in the future should the villages

desire, and it did in fact become an issue again at the onset of the Hopilavayi Project (see

chapter 9, Implementation of the Hopilavayi Project, and Chapter 6, Current Status of the

Hopi Language).

The Hopi language has always been an integral and vital part of Hopi culture. It is

the wellspring of Hopi ceremonial life; it expresses kinship and clan relationships; it

retains Hopi eco-agricultural knowledge; it holds the Hopi’s history; it is the foundation

of creative expression and cultural continuity that stretches back over one thousand years.

However, many Hopi people have expressed their fear that the younger generations were

losing the ability to speak Hopi, and with it, the centuries-old heart of the Hopi way of

life.

50

Chapter 6

Current Status of the Hopi Language2

100% of Hopi people over the age of 60 (surveyed) are conversational in Hopi language. Only 8% of Hopi children between the ages of 2–19 have the same ability.

- Hopi Language Assessment Project, 1997 “If we lose our language, we lose our culture.”

- Comment, Hopi Language Assessment Project, 1997

“I have no knowledge of Hopi phonics.” - Hopi Teacher, Hopi Junior/Senior High School, School Resource Assessment, 1998

2 All of the information in this section was provided by the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office and comes directly from the Hopi Language Assessment Project (1997), and the Hopi Language Education and Preservation Plan (1998).

51

The Hopi people have long recognized the declining use of their language and are

particularly alarmed by the lack of use among children; this concern led to a survey

project to assess the current status of the Hopi language. In 1997, with funding from the

Administration for Native Americans, the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office (CPO)

joined with the University of Arizona’s Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology

(BARA) in conducting the Hopi Language Assessment Project (HLAP).

The goal of the language assessment was to quantify, for the first time, the current

status of language fluency in the Hopi community. This data would then be used to

develop a comprehensive plan for revitalizing and preserving the language. The three

objectives of the plan were:

(1) Survey Hopi language fluency among the entire Hopi population.

(2) Assess the current available resources for language instruction in local schools and

Head Start Programs.

(3) Publish a plan for language education and preservation programs for the Hopi

villages, schools, and off-reservation communities.

The results of this assessment would also yield a brief background for understanding

the reasons for language shift at Hopi and responses to that shift; a description of design

and implementation of the survey; a dialect assessment; a resource assessment; and

recommendations based upon the survey results and community input for establishing a

language preservation and education program (See Chapter 8, Action Plans for the

52

Revitalization of the Hopi Language, and Chapter 9, Implementation of the Hopilavayi

Project).

Throughout the administering of the HLAP, participants repeatedly stressed that

language education needs to begin immediately in the homes, villages, and schools. Of

the 1,293 individuals surveyed, 98% of them answered that they want their children and

grandchildren to learn the Hopi language. One participant commented, “We all need to

work together. This is not a small project. This is a very important and big project.”

Indeed, the vitality of the Hopi culture is contingent upon the activity of the Hopi

language. Another participant concluded, “We should teach our children the Hopi

language so they may learn the Hopi life.”

The language preservation plan states that it is important to bear in mind four things

when reviewing data of the current status of the Hopi language and considering the

unique social dynamics of the Hopi culture:

(1) Each of the twelve Hopi villages are historically autonomous and self-governing.

Each has unique demographic profiles, speak different dialects, and face varying

degrees of language loss. Thus, a single undifferentiated language program will not

meet the needs of each individual village. Resources must be developed and

allocated on the basis of need.

(2) Eight schools are located on the Hopi Reservation. The Bureau of Indian Affairs’

Office of Education Programs operates Moencopi Day School, Polacca Day School,

and Keams Canyon School. Grant and/or Contract schools are Hotevilla-Bacavi

Community School, Hopi Day School, Second Mesa Day School, and Hopi Jr./Sr.

53

High School. The Hopi Mission School is privately owned and operated. Each

school has a governing school board which is responsible for assisting with the

development of the curriculum. The Hopi Tribal Council mandates that Hopi

language instruction is to be included in the Hopi School system.

(3) There are navoti’at (prophecies) regarding the Hopi language. The Hopi people

strongly believe that only Hopis be allowed to learn the Hopi language. According to

Hopi navoti, Hopis have earned the right to speak Hopi. The language is a Hopi

birth/clan-right.

(4) The issue of dialect variation has been discussed throughout the village presentations

for the HLAP. Although each village has dialect variations, dialect does not appear to

be an issue. Proper dialect will be taught at home, by parents, guardians, family

members, and community members. The Overriding concern is to maintain the Hopi

language as a “conversational language.”

Language Shift at Hopi

At Hopi, the predominant triggers of language shift can be attributed to external

pressures. The suppression of the Hopi language was policy; until only the 1960s,

schools were controlled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Christian denominations.

The HLAP provides compelling testimony to the implications of this policy. Numerous

individuals who took the survey testified that they were often punished, sometimes

physically, for speaking Hopi in school. This experience fostered an English-only

attitude among many people who are now the parents of school-age children. More

54

recently, the influx of outside radio, television, and other modern media have lured the

younger generations into giving a disproportionate attention to English.

Within the Hopi community, there were numerous factors that contributed to the

resistance of a reservation-wide Hopi language program. First, the various dialects

contributed to notions that only individual villages could accurately convey their specific

dialect and speech patterns, or that certain dialects would be systematically eradicated.

Further, the Hopi language embodies the cultural and religious knowledge that embedded

in their daily life. Thus, many felt that the only place of transmission of the Hopi

language should be the home, kiva, or village, but not in the white man’s schools. Such

prevailing attitudes and cultural perspectives have shaped the historical response to

language shift in the Hopi community.

Hopi’s Response to Language Shift

Following two decades of concern about these shifts, the Hopi Tribal Council

adopted Hopi Tribal Resolution H-127-94 in 1994, authorizing the Hopi Tribe’s CEO to

“execute all necessary documents to begin immediate initiatives to assist schools,

villages, and the tribal departments on strategies and goals to deal with language fluency

and to place this project into effect.” In 1995, the Hopi Tribal Council adopted the Hopit

Pötskwaniat (Hopi Tribal Consolidated Strategic Plan) to direct the Hopi Cultural

Preservation Office and other tribal programs to implement the following:

(1) Mandate all schools on the Hopi reservation to develop Hopi language curriculum. (2) Seek funds and proposals to develop Hopi language programs for villages to include

Hopi language and tapes.

55

(3) Develop, adopt, fund, and fully support a total Hopi language and cultural immersion

program to be incorporated within the villages, off-reservation Hopi organizations,

and educational systems on the Hopi Reservation.

Further, by 1997, three of the twelve Hopi villages had already shown a commitment to

language preservation by implementing their own language programs. These projects

included:

Village of Paaqavi – Third Mesa

From June through August 1997, Paaqvi sponsored a Hopi youth program for all

children aged 4 through 19. The youth program provided educational programs in the

areas of Hopi language, customs, culture, values, and etiquette. The “Katsina Initiates”

also received some teaching about katsina ceremonies during special hours of the day and

week.

Village of Songoopavi – Second Mesa

Beginning in the summer of 1997, the Songoopavi Youth Center sponsored

educational activities for Songoopavi youth. The youth classes include language, culture,

customs, etiquette, and arts and crafts. Knowledgeable community members familiar

with Songoopavi’s dialect taught the language classes. As at Paaqavi, separate sessions

are conducted for male students who are “Katsina Initiates.”

Village of Supawlovi – Second Mesa

Two village members conducted a Hopi language and cultural program at

Supawlovi during the summer of 1997. Topics included in the program were Hopi

language, culture, arts and crafts, preparation of Hopi foods, clothing, customs, values,

etiquette, and traditions. For example, Hopi youth were taught the names of food items,

56

how to gather and prepare them, and how to present and consume the food according to

Hopi etiquette. The entire activity was conducted in the Hopi language.

In addition, other efforts to reduce language shift were pursued, including several

programs that were developed to promote Hopi literacy – the reading and writing of the

language. For two years, such instruction was provided at Hopi High School in Keams

Canyon, where a course was taught once a week through an arrangement among the high

school, the Northern Arizona University satellite network, and the University of Arizona

Communications interactive television service.

Additional opportunities were provided by St. Gregory College Preparatory

School in Tucson, Arizona, to accommodate four Hopi students in their cultural

enrichment studies. The program provided Hopi students from the University of Arizona

(Tucson) as interns for the development of curriculum and assistance in instruction.

The American Indian Language Development Institute (AILDI) at the University

of Arizona is a four-week program of intensive study in linguistics, bilingual-bicultural

education, and culture-based curriculum development. The program brings together

lingusits, tribal elders, second language specialists, teachers, parents, and school

administrators in an integrated learning experience. The Hopi Language and Culture

class is an introduction to the written Hopi language based on the orthography established

for Hopìikwa Lavaytutveni: Hopi Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect (See chapter 7,

Resource Assessment at Hopi).

HLAP Design, Administration, Training, and Data Analysis

The language assessment survey was designed by the Cultural Preservation Office

in consultation with the Hopi Cultural Resources Advisory Task Team (CRATT). Each

57

of the twelve villages had the opportunity to review the initial survey and their

commentary and insights were included in revisions. The extensive review process

allowed the Hopi CPO to obtain the input of Hopi leaders and tribal members from the

reservation and from Hopi and non-Hopi professional consultants. Based on these

consultations, the Hopi CPO decided to conduct the survey at the household level,

allowing the head of the household to provide information about all members of that

dwelling. Information was gathered about the extent to which Hopi is spoken in the

home and the attitudes of the head of the household toward the Hopi language and

instruction. Several questions were asked about language use, frequency of use, the

context in which Hopi is spoken, and persons with whom family members speak Hopi.

The age and gender of each family member were recorded, as was the first language of

the individual and the primary language used after entering school. The survey was

modified several times in response to reviewer’s comments and recommendations. The

final version of the survey was produced and used in each of the twelve villages.

The survey was administered by two person teams of Hopi volunteers and CPO

personnel. Each team included at least one individual who is a fluent Hopi speaker. In

most cases, the teams conducted the surveys within their own villages; in Hopi society,

this was determined to be the most appropriate.

On May 12-13, 1997, twenty-five survey volunteers were trained by the HLAP

Consulting Team from the University of Arizona and the University of Nevada-Reno.

Volunteers were provided information about the purpose of the survey, the rationale

behind the survey instrument, and the way results would best be used. Volunteers

learned how to elicit information in the survey, how to conduct interviews, and how to

58

respond to questions about the survey. They practiced administering the survey in teams

under various conditions (e.g., cooperative, hesitant, and uncooperative respondent) and

in both Hopi and English. Volunteers were instructed in the basics of sampling design so

they would be able to respond to questions about why some individuals were being

surveyed and others were not.

The survey utilized a stratified random sampling design in selecting households to

be interviewed. The survey was conducted in twenty-five households per village, or

village pair in the case of a village with less than twenty-five households. The Hopi CPO

chose to conduct fifty surveys in two of the large villages to avoid possible concerns

about whether or not those villages had been adequately surveyed. The survey was

administered between May 13, 1997 and July 18, 1997. Because the spring and early

summer months are a busy period of Katsina dances, the survey required more than two

months to administer within the households.

After the interviews were completed, the volunteers brought their surveys to the

Hopi CPO. Any problems were brought to the attention of the survey volunteers so they

could correct them in their remaining interviews. Following completion, each survey was

reviewed and any questions about the handwriting or missing information were answered.

Survey data were analyzed using Microsoft Access software. The surveys were reviewed

for missing data and such data was recovered prior to data entry and analysis. Two

members of the Hopi CPO staff traveled to the University of Arizona for three days, June

8-11, 1997, for intensive training on data entry and processing using Microsoft Access.

These personnel returned to Hopi to complete data entry. When all data had been entered

into the database and checked, the data were sent to the University of Arizona for

59

analysis. A preliminary summary of the survey results was prepared by the University of

Arizona and members of the HLAP Consulting Team and presented to representatives of

the Hopi Tribe on July 21, 1997.

HLAP Results

As shown in Figure 9 below, 347 households representing 1,293 individuals were

surveyed. Because of the number of households in the villages of Sitsomovi and Walpi

was less than 25, these neighboring villages were combined to account for 25 households.

On December 10, 1996, the total population of Hopis living on the reservation

was 6,434 persons; the 1,293 persons interviewed in the survey represents 20% of the

total reservation population. In all of the surveys, only one individual refused to

participate. In addition, 22 surveys were conducted in the Hopi community in Winslow,

Arizona.

Figure 9.

Number of Households & Individuals Interviewed by Village of Residence

----Gender---- ----------Age Group---------- Village # of Households # Individuals Men Women 60+ 40-59 20-39 2-19 Hotvela 25 82 50 72 21 29 29 43 Kiqötsmovi 25 99 36 46 14 20 22 26 Lower Munqapi 25 83 63 54 23 24 29 41 Musangnuvi 25 113 61 62 13 22 33 55 Orayvi 25 85 39 40 21 15 13 30 Paaqavi 25 101 53 63 16 21 31 48 Polacca 25 88 9 9 3 5 6 4 Sitsomovi 19 41 37 47 22 24 17 21 Songoopavi 50 212 96 117 36 37 55 85 Supawlovi 25 94 55 63 14 27 34 43 Upper Munqapi 50 181 63 80 20 31 33 59 Walpi 6 10 18 16 6 9 2 17 Winslow 22 104 NA NA NA NA NA NA Total 347 1,293 604 689 212 275 315 491

60

A primary issue of concern in the survey was the extent to which language shift is

occurring in the home, and therefore, information about language use in the home was

gathered. The head of each household was asked which language was most often spoken

in the home – English, Hopi, or Other. It was discovered that English was the

predominant language spoken in at least half of the homes.

They were then asked to provide information about each person’s current ability

to speak Hopi, in one of four categories: (1) conversational; (2) understand and speak a

little; (3) understand but can’t speak; and (4) none. No attempt was made to define these

categories because the goal of the survey was to assess the community’s perceptions

about language ability and use. Figure 10 – reflecting all individuals at all age groups in

the survey – shows the percent of all individuals current abilities to speak Hopi.

Figure 10. Current Hopi Language Ability

These data were further analyzed per village. Information was also gathered and

analyzed to reflect the use of Hopi language as used by each clan. The number of

49%

29%

12%10% Conversational

Understand andspeak a littleUnderstand but can'tspeakNone

61

households within each clan varies widely, and some households reported affiliation with

more than one clan while others indicated a single affiliation.

While current language ability were analyzed in relation to variables such as clan

affiliation, village of residence, gender, and age, the strongest relationship – and one that

illustrates the most recognizable trends in language shift – is the relationship between

Hopi language ability and age. Figure 11 plots the percentage of individuals who are

conversational in Hopi against age. Clearly, among the Hopi, language shift is significant

among the youngest generation – from 2 to 19 years of age – where conversational ability

is only 8%.

Figure 11. Hopi Conversational Ability by Age

Due to the significant pattern observed in these data, a preliminary five-year

projection was developed. The projection does not account for births and deaths, only the

advanced age of each cohort. Five years was added to each individual’s age and the data

were reorganized into age groups. As shown in Figure 12, the most significant changes

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

60+ 40 to 59 20 to 39 2 to 19

62

are in the drop in percentage of individuals 60 and older and 20 to 39 years old. This

indicates that the individuals 55-59 and 15-19 already show greater language shift than

those people 60 and above and 20 to 39, respectively.

Figure 12. Hopi Conversational Ability by Age:

Five Year Projection

The percent of individuals reported to be conversational in Hopi was analyzed for

each village, and the results are statistically significant. In all of the twelve villages

combined, Hopi conversational ability for children between the ages of 2 and 19 is 8%.

Only one village, Orayvi, reported more than 20% of the children with conversational

ability. Nine villages reported that children’s conversational ability at lower than 10%.

Four villages – Walpi, Supawlavi, Sitsomovi, Pollaca – reported that no children between

2 and 19 were conversational. In all of the villages, the pattern of language shift as it

descends from the oldest generation to the youngest is the same. This pattern exists

despite the differences in the percent of households that reported Hopi as the primary

language spoken in the home. For example, while over 80% of households reported Hopi

as the primary language and less than 20% reported English as the primary language,

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

60 + 40 to 59 20 to 39 2 to 19

63

only 50% of individuals 20 – 39 and just 8% of individuals 2 – 19 years old were

reported to be conversational in Hopi.

Figure 13, below, compares Hopi language ability of all individuals by age. In

each chart, the percent of individuals at each level of language ability is shown. These

data provide additional insight into the language shift that is occurring at Hopi. The most

rapidly expanding segments of the population, moving from elders to the youth, are those

representing individuals who are reported to speak no Hopi at all.

Figure 13. Percent of individuals at each level of language ability

Elder Hopi Ability (60 & Above)

Conversational

None

Speak a little

Understand butcan't speak

Adult Hopi Ability (40-59)

Conversational

None

Speak a little

Understand butcan't speak

Young Adult Hopi Ability (20-39)

Conversational

None

Speak a little

Understand butcan't speak

Youth Hopi Ability (2-19)

Conversational

None

Speak a little

Understand butcan't speak

64

First Language and Language Use in the School

Additional information about language shift was gained from questions about the

first language learned and the primary language spoken after starting school. As shown

in Figure 14, a significant change has already occurred among the Hopi people. Whereas

the older Hopi individuals were most likely to have learned Hopi as children, only half of

the young adults and less than one fourth of the youth reported to have learned Hopi as

their first language. Similarly, whereas the majority of elders maintained Hopi as a

primary language after starting school, the majority of individuals, beginning with those

in the 40 – 59 age group, spoke English as a primary language from that point on.

Among youth, the vast majority (93%) reported to speak English as their primary

language once they started school.

Figure 14. First Language Use and Use in the School

“What was the first language you learned to speak as a child?” Age Group Hopi English Other 2 – 19 23.8% 79.6% 1.3% 20 – 39 54.9% 49.8% 1.0% 40 – 39 82.6% 19.6% 2.2% 60 & Above 97.6% 1.9% 2.8%

“What was the main language you spoke after you started school?” Age Group Hopi English Other 2 – 19 12.6% 93.1% 2.2% 20 – 39 29.2% 80.3% 0.3% 40 – 59 54.2% 66.2% 0.4% 60 & Above 79.7% 37.3% 1.9%

When, Where, and With Whom do Hopi Youth Speak the Language

Data were also gathered about the relationship between the youth’s ability to

speak Hopi and the frequency with which Hopi is spoken in the home. These data

65

showed that there was a direct relationship between a youth’s ability to speak Hopi and

the frequency with which it is spoken in the home. All youth that were conversational in

Hopi live in households where Hopi was reported as spoken at least some of the time; no

Hopi youth that cannot speak Hopi live in households where Hopi is spoken all the time.

Indeed, the vast majority of Hopi youth who cannot speak Hopi live in households where

it is never spoken at all.

Other significant findings showed that youth that are conversational in Hopi speak

it at home and in the village, and more than half of these individuals speak Hopi in their

school. However, as a youth’s ability drops, so does the range of places in which he or

she speaks Hopi. While more than three fourths of the youth who can understand and

speak a little Hopi are reported to speak Hopi at home, less than half of these youth speak

in the village and barely one-fourth speak at school. Understandably, few of those who

understand Hopi but cannot speak it are able to use the language in any way.

Youth who are conversational in Hopi speak with individuals of all age levels.

However, as a youth’s ability drops, so does the range of people with whom he or she

speaks Hopi. While more than half of the youth who can understand and speak a little

Hopi speak with elders and grandparents, and nearly three-fourths speak with their

parents, only one-third of them speak Hopi with other youth.

Finally, data showed that Hopi youth that do not speak Hopi in the home, but

report the ability to speak it, actually use the language. One-third or fewer of these youth

reported to speak some Hopi in their village; 10% of the youth that understand and speak

a little Hopi do so in their school.

66

Hopi Language Transmission

In addition to the information about Hopi language ability and use, the head of

each household was asked to respond to questions about Hopi language transmission.

Questions were asked about (1) the importance of the language, (2) where, when, and by

whom it should be taught, and (3) interest in reading and writing the Hopi language. As

shown in Figure 15, below, almost all survey participants reported that they believe it is

very important for their children and/or grandchildren to be able to speak Hopi.

Figure 15. How important is it for your Children / grandchildren to speak Hopi

Survey participants were also asked where they thought the Hopi language should

be taught. They express support for four choices: in the (1) home, (2) school, (3)

community classes, and (4) religious societies, as shown in figure 16 below.

Figure 16. Where Should Hopi Be Taught

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very Some Not

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CommunityClasses

Home ReligiousSociety

School

67

Clearly, the majority of the Hopi people believe that the Hopi language should be

taught in the home. However, more than two-thirds of the participants are supportive of

the Hopi language being taught in the schools, and more than half believe it should be

taught in community classes and religious societies.

To further explore the issue of institutional instruction of the Hopi language,

participants were asked whether knowledgeable community members should be involved

in teaching the language and whether classes in Hopi language and culture should be a

requirement for graduation from Hopi High School. As shown in Figure 17, below, there

is broad support for the involvement of community members in language instruction in

schools and community classes.

Responses to the question about including classes in Hopi language and culture as

a graduation requirement were less clear. Neither opponents nor supporters of this idea

represent a clear majority of the participants. In addition, nearly one-fifth of the

participants either did not know the answer to the question or did not respond. Further

discussion is needed in this area.

Finally, participants were asked, by age group, if they would like to be able to

read and write in the Hopi language. Over three-fourths of participants expressed a

desire to read and write in Hopi. The only significant difference was that tribal elders

were less likely to state that they wanted to read and write Hopi. Approximately one-fifth

of them stated they did not want to learn and another one-fifth did not know.

68

Figure 17. Other Survey Question Responses.

“Should knowledgeable community people be involved in formal education of Hopi language?”

Yes 73.5% No 1.7% Don’t know 6.1% No response 4.0%

“Should classes in Hopi language and culture be required for graduation from Hopi High School?” Yes 46.1% No 35.2% Don’t know 15.3% No response 3.5% “Would you like to be able to read and write Hopi?”

Yes 78.4% No 12.7% Don’t know 6.9% No Response 2.0%

Concluding Comments about the Interpretation of the HLAP Results

The results of the 1997 Hopi Language Assessment Project provide much useful

information for the design and implementation of a Hopi language program for the

schools on the Hopi Reservation.

(1) Although the results demonstrate that language shift is in advanced stages among

young adults and youth, there are still large numbers of elders and adults, and many

young adults, who are able to converse in the Hopi language. These individuals can

provide support for a comprehensive language program and serve as language models

in homes, villages, and schools on the Hopi Reservation.

69

(2) Results from survey questions express that the majority of Hopi adults and elders

desire to take an active role in teaching the language to Hopi youth in various

settings.

(3) The home is perceived as the best place for the Hopi language to be taught, and there

is a strong relationship between youth’s ability to speak Hopi and the frequency with

which Hopi is spoken in the home. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of young

adults cannot speak Hopi and many youth are not conversational in Hopi, even in

homes where Hopi is spoken at least some of the time. Also, only a small percent of

Hopi youth speak the language with other youth.

(4) A continuation of this trend is particularly troublesome if the Hopi language is to

continue as a vibrant and living language. Based on findings of the HLAP survey, a

multifaceted approach to Hopi language instruction is needed.

(5) The results of this survey indicate that an overwhelming majority of Hopi people

believes that the Hopi language should be preserved and revitalized. They support

language instruction in homes, schools, village and community classes, and special

places such as religious societies.

(6) The majority of households expressed a desire to read and write Hopi. Therefore,

continued development of teaching materials is needed.

The results of The Hopi Language Assessment Project (1997), village meetings,

and other community input were summarized and put into a preliminary draft version of

the Hopi Language Education and Preservation Plan (1998). Each of the twelve

70

villages, local school administrators, and the Hopi Board of Education received the

preliminary draft for review, critique, and feedback, in order to develop a plan that would

encompass a wide range of opinions and community deliberation. Follow-up interviews

were conducted with the Village administrators and local educators to assess their goals

and needs for Hopi language programs. All of the information collected was

incorporated into the final draft of The Hopi Language Education Preservation Plan and

was approved by the Hopi Tribal Council on March 5, 1998.

The Hopi Language Assessment Project (1997) provided the Hopi community with

two needs vital to the preservation of the Hopi language. First, survey results provided

the Hopi community with the information necessary to design effective programs

targeted to specific needs. Second, The use of community volunteers and a significant

degree of community consultation generated leadership and interest in language programs

from within the Hopi community.

In this chapter we have seen how the Hopi Tribe achieved Crawford’s (1996) first

step for language preservation: identification of the current status of language decline

and loss. Through the Hopi Language Assessment Project survey conducted in 1997, the

Hopi Tribe gained an understanding of language shift reservation-wide, by separate

villages, by age group, and they recognized that the Hopi language is endangered in all

villages and moribund in some.

As we shall see in the following chapter, extensive work for the revitalization of the

Hopi language had already taken place by the time the plan for the Hopilavayi Project

had been implemented, and Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni (1999), the Hopi-English dictionary,

was about to be published after nearly three decades of work. We will see how the Hopi

71

Tribe developed leadership for the reservation-wide language revitalization program;

promoted the positive attitude, value, and pride for the Hopi language; and implemented

the reservation-wide Hopilavayi Project.

“The answers to living a good life are simple. We must be industrious and work hard. We must search within our hearts and follow a proper road of life. We must be respectful to others and grateful to the Great Spirit for giving us life. We must be humble and thankful for the rain and our crops. We must pray. We must teach our children and other Hopi youngsters the meaning of Hopi, our language and traditions.”

- Crossroads of Cultural Change: Report of the Second Hopi Mental Health Conference, 1982

72

Chapter 7

Resource Assessment at Hopi3

“I do not want to cause controversy about what I teach. I would need a specific set of resource materials that are sanctioned by the Hopi people to use in the classroom…”

- Comment by a teacher at Hopi Junior/Senior High School, School Resource Assessment, 1998

As Crawford (1996) and Reyhner (1999: vii) remind us, if language shift is to be

slowed, the community must first understand the current level of language shift that the

community is in. For language preservation programs to be effective, the community

must develop internal leadership to formulate action plans and oversee the project’s

primary goals. Finally, in preparation for the implementation of a language preservation

program, the community must take an inventory of the resources available for the cause.

Fluent speakers, community volunteers, resource guides, successful program models,

educator training, alliances with sympathetic outsiders, existing programs and action

plans, language consultants, education specialists, and all other potential resources must

be accounted for.

Information about (1) the status of the language, (2) what is currently being done

about language loss, and (3) relevant information about plans, meetings, and events must

be centralized through one team in order to foster leadership and community support

(Crawford, 1996: 67). With the completion of the Hopi Language Assessment Project

3 All information in this section was provided by the Hopi Tribe, the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, and the Hopilavayi Project. Materials utilized includes the Hopi Language Education and Preservation Plan (1998) and the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office’s grant proposal to the Administration for Native Americans for the Hopilavayi Project (1998).

73

and the Hopi Language Education and Preservation Plan, these initial objectives were

achieved.

The Hopi community was prepared to develop and implement the Hopilavayi Project.

First, the Hopi Tribe would need to take an inventory of all the available resources that

the tribe could utilize to assist in the project’s development, implementation, and

activities.

Available Resources: Hopi Schools and Educational System

A resource assessment was conducted in 1998 in the Hopi Schools and education

system to find out (1) if the Hopi language was being taught, (2) what resources were

available to assist teachers with language instruction, and (3) the use or potential interest

in using computers. The assessment would also identify Hopi educators who may need

some type of training to assist them with the Hopi instruction in the classroom setting.

With the exception of the Polacca Day School, all of the schools on the Hopi Reservation

participated in filling out the questionnaire.

The assessment would inquire in each of these schools of the (1) current Hopi

language instruction at the school; (2) current instruction in Hopi culture at the school;

(3) current available resources to the school; (4) training materials needed by the school

to strengthen their existing program (if applicable); (5) comments on the potential for

using computers to assist with language instruction; and (6) optional comments by school

faculty and administrators about Hopi language education.

The Resource Assessment indicated that computer software is not currently used

to teach Hopi language and culture in the classroom. Teachers expressed a desire to

develop computer software to teach Hopi writing and to give students hands-on computer

74

skills. The use of computer software to teach written Hopi was reported to be of interest

if the Hopi tribe could adopt a standardized Hopi orthography. The orthography would

need to address the four Hopi dialects (see p. 82, Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni).

I. Hopi Head Start

The Hopi Head Start program is a federally funded program administered by the

Hopi Tribe. There are Five Head Start Centers on the Hopi Reservation: (1) Munqapi,

(2) Hot’vela, (3) Kiqötsmovi, (4) Second Mesa, and (5) Polacca. There are 29 Head Start

staff personnel, including eight Hopi teachers, nine Hopi teacher aides, three Hopi home

base teachers, and three Hopi parent aides.

Current Hopi Language Instruction at Head Start Centers: • Hopi vocabulary, including numbers (1-10); colors; body parts; seaasons; clothing;

names; and clans. • Hopi Calendar and activities associated with different months, in Hopi. • Singing Hopi songs • Hopi clothing: what they are made of, when they are worn, etc. • Simple sentence structure • Basic conversation, including “Where are you going?”; “Sit down,”; “Eat,” etc. • Hopi games, food preparation, and nature walks speaking Hopi throughout • Visit to Hopi homes to learn crafts, identification of furniture, etc. • English alphabet with Hopi picture identification associated with each letter • Basic Hopi greetings, nursery rhymes, family member identification, and basic daily

communication in Hopi. Current Instruction in Hopi Culture at Head Start Centers: • Agricultural activities, including planting seeds and caring for plants • Dining etiquette and safety, Hopi etiquette, Hopi dancing, etc. • Hopi arts and crafts demonstrations by community members, including hands-on

experience • Hopi cultural day: clan runs and Hopi games

75

Current Available Resources at Head Start Centers: • Tape recordings of Katsina and social dance songs • Knowledgeable Hopi community members, classroom volunteers, and Hopi elders • Hopi Cultural Preservation Office staff members • Books written in Hopi • Video tapes on Hopi subjects • Training workshops

Training and Materials Needed at Head Start Centers: • Curriculum development • Hopi language class including reading and writing • Standard Hopi orthography • Basic Hopi conversational skills • Tape recordings at Hopi • Training in Hopi arts and crafts suitable for students • Hopi games • Training from Hopi elders • Hopi food preparation; nutritional values of Hopi foods • Parent training to reinforce Hopi language in the home • Training in the “old” Hopi language and meanings • Hopi Advisory Task Team (HATT) to review and correct acceptable Hopi language

and culture curriculum • Translations of Hopi songs, Hopi dictionary • Clan identifications and responsibilities • Training on culturally-appropriate subjects and teaching materials • Training in dialects and adaptability • Training in Hopi names and their meaning • Interpreting petroglyphs • Higher education courses; classes from the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office • Computer training

Comments on the Potential for Computers at Head Start Centers: • The use of adaptable computers and software might be okay if programmed properly,

including some type of control so that it doesn’t get on to the internet. • Hopi language should be taught orally with hands-on experience.

76

Other Comments from Head Start Centers: • Hopi language should be taught by Hopis themselves. • There needs to be support for the Hopi Department of Education, the Hopi Head Start

Program, school administrators, and the school boards in order for the language and cultural immersion program to work successfully.

• Once a Head Start staff person enters the classroom, speak only in Hopi throughout the day. Maybe children will learn Hopi a lot easier [sic]. Their comfort levels can be increased, and they may not be ashamed to speak Hopi. Avoid speaking English as much as possible.

• The teaching of the Hopi language should begin in the home. II. Hopi Junior / Senior High School

The Hopi Junior / Senior High School is located at Polacca, Arizona, at the

eastern foot of First Mesa. The student enrollment is 508. The school employs seven

Hopi teachers and eleven Hopi teacher aides, out of a total staff of 130.

Current Hopi Language Instruction at Hopi Junior / Senior High: • Hopi vocabulary and phonetics • Students write ideas in Hopi and present to the class as a class project

Current Instruction in Hopi Culture at Hopi Junior / Senior High: • Welding/metals class fabricates clan symbols in brass, copper, and steel • Basic Hopi etiquette • Art: create pictures of relevant cultural themes • Hopi-style architecture and preparation of Hopi foods • Sharing Hopi cultural knowledge/teachings • Hopi activities during Indian week • Inform students that they can learn from their uncles, grandparents, parents, etc., and

that they should listen and try to learn as much as they can • Reading and interpreting of the Hopi Constitution and By-laws • Weaving Hopi textiles; students make weaving combs and tools • Recognizing various geographical, geological, and biological items that are

indigenous to Hopi lands

77

Current Available Resources at Hopi Junior / Senior High: • Textbooks written and translated in Hopi • Oral Hopi teachings • Materials gathered on the school grounds for building projects • Students use community members as resources for writing projects • Curriculum based on acceptable teachings for gender and age groups

Training and Materials Needed at Hopi Junior / Senior High: • Training from Hopi Head Start elders to refresh previous knowledge and oral

teachings • Storytelling as a curriculum program; oral contemporary history • New Hopi teachers would benefit from quarterly workshops on Hopi • A book of Hopi stories which all of the villages agree upon • A Hopi Dictionary developed for word processing spell checkers

Comments on the Potential for Computers at Hopi Junior / Senior High: • There are numerous web pages on the Internet concerning Hopi culture. I feel the

students benefit from viewing this material. I do not use it to teach because I am not sure if I should or not.

• The use of computers would be good to scan Hopi cultural art projects. • I would think that computers would depersonalize Hopi language/traditions. It should

remain as human as possible.

Optional Comments from Hopi Junior / Senior High • Hopi language, ceremonies and songs are oral, and should be taught through oral

teachings by the Hopis themselves • All students at Hopi High should take Hopi language and be a requirement for

graduation. • There is a need by the young Hopi people to learn the language; culture; religion;

customs; traditions; clan/respect; myths. • Hopi teachers should seriously consider Hopi language and culture and include these

subjects in their curriculum on a daily basis. • Non-Hopi staff personnel should be more sensitive to the Hopi beliefs, culture, and

tradition. • The Hopi Tribe should become involved with ensuring that this purpose is adhered to. • There needs to be school administration/board support in order for this initiative to

work. • I would teach Hopi plants if given materials and training in Hopi Ethnobotany.

78

• I would be interested in teaching Hopi history in relation to US and Southwest history.

• I do not want to cause controversy about what I teach. I would need a specific set of resource materials that was sanctioned by the Hopi people to use in the classroom.

• I have no knowledge of Hopi phonics. • School sign for placement by school entrance would provide significant contribution

to concept of Hopi culture. • Vocational area can integrate art with learned vocational trades (i.e. metal fabrication,

welding and design) • I think there should be more sensitivity to Hopi ways among non-Hopis. I have been

here many years and have learned much. • Much that is taught is ignored. We had a tragedy this year and many non-Hopis

ignored Hopi tradition in handling it. It bothered Hopis and it even bothered me. • Many “ways” of the Hopi were obviously born out of common sense and good taste.

Hopis should not have to put up with people who lack common sense and good taste [with reason] at the expense of Hopi tradition and culture.

• I need to know what is permissible and what time of year we can and can’t use Hopi stories.

• I would love it if someone from the Cultural Preservation Office would come out and speak to all of the English teachers before school begins in August.

• We would like to teach more literature, but we are not sure what is allowed. • I would also like a list of people you consider to be “knowledgeable community

members” and tell us how we can get in touch with them so they can speak in our classes.

• Translations should be provided for non-Hopi speakers when Hopi is spoken. This would serve to eliminate the sense of exclusion that non-Hopis feel sometimes. One of the reasons I do not have people in to talk with the kids is that they end up speaking Hopi and me and some students feel as though they don’t want us to know what they’re saying.

• I’m not Hopi and therefore feel (no matter what amount of training given) I am not qualified to teach Hopi language and culture.

III. Hopi Mission School

The Hopi Mission School is a private school located it Kiqötsmovi, Arizona, at

the foot of Third Mesa. The School has a total enrollment of 37 students from throughout

the Hopi Reservation and a staff of ten. There are two Hopi teacher aides and one Hopi

teacher.

79

Current Hopi Language Instruction at Hopi Mission School: • Archaeology: When Studying the Hisatsinom (Ancient Puebloans), some Hopi words

are utilized. • Gardening: Hopi terminology for plants and tools are used. • Hymns: Singing every week using the Hopi Hymnal

Current Available Resources at Hopi Mission School: • Some knowledgeable community members assist with appropriate Hopi teachings. IV. Keams Canyon School

Keams Canyon School is located in Keams Canyon, Arizona, at the foot of First

Mesa. It serves both Hopi and Navajo Students. The village of Keams Canyon is not a

Hopi Village; it is a government settlement and is the seat of the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Hopi Agency.

Current Hopi Language Instruction at Keams Canyon School: • Songs and finger plays • Storytelling and nursery rhymes • Vocabulary: counting, colors, food

Current Instruction in Hopi Culture at Keams Canyon School: • Encouragement of students to discuss and be proud of their culture and heritage • Hopi cultural traditions that are feasible in day-to-day learning activities, and that are

culturally appropriate • Hopi games • Reinforcement of Hopi clans and symbols during Indian week

Current Available Resources at Keams Canyon School: • Listening center tape recordings in Hopi • Knowledgeable Hopi community members • Personal Knowledge • Personal tape recordings of Hopi songs

80

Training and Materials Needed at Keams Canyon School: • Curriculum development on culturally-appropriate activities • Orientation or in-service training for non-Hopis on culturally-appropriate subjects • Training in basic Hopi language and culture • Video and tape recordings • Use of knowledgeable community members • Year-long curriculum development and instruction • Research on Hopi history and culture

Comments on the Potential for Computers at Keams Canyon School: • Use of computer software may be useful in teaching stories, tales, etc., and teaching

the written Hopi language • Games and activities are a social event and in order to foster cooperation within the

group or sub-group, these activities would be best without computers V. Moencopi (Munqapi) Day School

Moencopi Day School is located in Munqapi village and serves Hopi students

from Lower and Upper Muqapi and the Tuba City area. It also serves Navajo students

from the Tuba City area. Munqapi is located 40 miles west of Third Mesa near Tuba

City; it is a satellite of Orayvi, and is therefore also one of the Third Mesa villages.

Current Hopi Language Instruction at Moencopi Day School: • Vocabulary: one Hopi word per week as a part of the letter of the week; counting

from 1 to 10 in Hopi, daily; colors; animals; family members; village names • Hopi language activities with a theme, such as dances, kivas, etc. • Some discussions are presented in Hopi • Basic conversation with students in math, counting, colors, etc. • Telling Hopi stories and sharing Hopi songs

Current Instruction in Hopi Culture at Moencopi Day School: • Helping in the crop fields • Observation of cultural activities throughout the classrooms integrated with reading,

math, and language classes • Hopi calendar and events associated with each month • Hopi values

81

Hopi Available Resources at Moencopi Day School: • Pictures with Hopi word identifying subject • Hopi books • Hopi teacher and teacher aides provide help • Self-knowledge • Emory Sekaquaptewa’s books • Hand-made books with Hopi numbers, family members, etc. • Traditional storytelling, in season

Training and Material Needs at Moencopi Day School: • Conversational Hopi for non-Hopi teachers • Hopi orthography • Basic conversational Hopi and Hopi language courses • Training and appropriate Hopi curriculum development • Support to attend the American Indian Languages Development Institute (AILDI) at

the University of Arizona in Tucson.

Comments on the Potential for Computers at Moencopi Day School: • Use of computers may not be a good idea • How do you program a computer for a language that is only spoken? • Computers can be used as a supplementary teaching tool • You learn by listening and imitating sounds • Word processing could be used effectively for teaching reading and writing of the

Hopi language • Computer graphics can be used to teach symbols and art themes • Computers may endanger the outcome that you expect

Optional Comments from Moencopi Day School: • Formulate a plan as soon as possible • Language screening: what will it be and who will conduct assessments? • Don’t let too much time pass before you take action • Implement from Head Start and work your way up through the higher grades

82

VI. Second Mesa Day School

Second Mesa Day School employs six Hopi teachers, seven Hopi teacher aides,

and sixteen other Hopi personnel. Student enrollment is 235, serving the villages of

Kiqötsmovi, Songoopavi, Musangnuvi, Supawlavi, and the Polacca Area. Second Mesa

Day School rests at the foot of Second Mesa.

Current Hopi Language Instruction at Second Mesa Day School: • Vocabulary: Hopi numbers 1-20, daily; Hopi colors, daily; clothing; foods; body

parts; words related to corn • Matching games; singing Hopi songs • Letters written in Hopi (third grade) • Talks by community members on retaining language, proper behavior, life in the past,

etc. • Reading in Hopi to students, including the Hopi Coyote Tales • Writing activities on daily village life; utilize animal dictionary • Hopi words that might be derived from Spanish words • General Hopi conversation • Hopi name, place of residence, village affiliation, kinship terms, etc.

NOTE: Lessons may be once a week for 30 minute or on a daily basis for approximately 30 minutes per day.

Current Instruction in Hopi Culture at Second Mesa Day School: • Hopi clan symbols • Hopi dancing for Indian Day • Hopi art fair activities associated with arts and crafts • Hopi clan runs • Field trips, some on history and some on current lifestyles; visit to Wupatki National

Monument; compare past and present life Current Available Resources at Second Mesa Day School: • Simple dictionary with Hopi words • Self-help reading materials from the Hopi Guidance Center • Hopi Coyote Tales • Teacher’s own curriculum materials • Hopi tape recordings for dances • Flash cards: numbers and colors • Hopi singing • Privately owned video tape collection

83

• Assistance from Hopi community members and teacher aides in the classroom Training Materials and Needs at Second Mesa Day School: • Intense, one-year study of writing in the Hopi language • Background on what is culturally appropriate material for different ages • Appropriate curriculum development for different grade levels • Instruction in Hopi language, speaking and understanding • Instruction in Hopi culture • More books on Hopi for various grade levels • Language acquisition courses; different styles of learning language • Emory Sekaquaptewa’s Hopi orthography • Instruction in clan and extended family relationships; proper names of relationships • History materials including the establishment of the Hopi villages and Spanish

contact • Map studies: location of original Hopi boundaries; place names and meanings • Proper behavior and responsibilities for different genders Comments on the Potential for Computers at Second Mesa Day School: • If there are adaptable computers and software to be utilized, I would be willing to

learn • Any methods of instruction should be utilized • Using computers as a resource would be an invaluable way to learn Hopi; especially

in teaching the language (written and oral) and creative writing activities Optional Comments from Second Mesa Day School: • All school administrators, school boards, the Hopi Department of Education, the Hopi

Board of Education, the communities and villages, the BIA, etc. need to give support and make commitments to this project.

• A total pre-school Hopi language immersion program [is needed]. • A department at each school should oversee Hopi culture and language instruction,

including 2 teachers each from K-3 and 4-6; 2 teacher aides each from K-3 and 4-6; a resource person; and an illustrator or artist.

VII. Tuba City Junior High School

Tuba City Junior High School is located in Tuba City, Arizona and serves both

Navajo and Hopi students from the area.

84

Current Hopi Language Instruction at Tuba City Junior High: • Cardinal directions and colors Current Instruction in Hopi Culture at Tuba City Junior High: • Cultural differences between the Hopi and the Navajo • The four worlds Other Resources:

• Emory Sekaquaptewa, Research Anthropologist, The Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

Emory Sekaquaptewa has dedicated over three decades to the Study and

revitalization of the Hopi Language. He co-authored and served as the Cultural-Editor

for Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni: A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect

(1999), after more than 25 years of research in the orthographic and grammatical aspects

of the Hopi language. He has taught the Hopi language class each spring at the

University of Arizona and at the American Indian Languages Development Institute

(AILDI) for many years. Mr. Sekaquaptewa provides training for school and village-

based teachers, as well as interested parents, through the University of Arizona’s

Communications’ interactive television service and in workshops on the Hopi

reservation. In addition, Mr. Sekaquaptewa spends a minimum of 1 week per month

teaching numerous classes on Hopi language to elementary, Junior High, and High

School students in reservation schools. He also utilizes this week to teach school

teachers and community members the Hopi language in the evenings.

85

• Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni: A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect

(1999)

The origins of the Hopi Dictionary Project, in principle, go back three decades or

more. Emory Sekaquaptewa (above), a Hopi speaker and member of the faculty of

anthropology at the University of Arizona, has long had a dream of compiling such a

dictionary as a vehicle for cultural preservation and the revitalization of his language,

especially as a mean of the development of literacy in Hopi. Over the years he has

attracted others to help him in the pursuit of his vision, including the other participants in

the present project. The project utilized over twenty Hopi people as language

consultants, faculty from the University of Arizona’s Bureau of Applied Research in

Anthropology (BARA), faculty from Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, and

numerous other consultants and assistants (Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni, 1999: introduction).

The entirety of this dictionary is based on present-day Third Mesa speech. Its

preparation has also involved a comprehensive survey of the ethnographic and linguistic

literature to identify Hopi vocabulary. Each item found has been checked against

existing Third-Mesa knowledge of Hopi (Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni, 1999: introduction).

The dictionary is valuable not only for the number of its entries but also for its

many illustrative sentences and abundance of information on aspects of Hopi culture,

such as expressions concerning time and space that are often misunderstood. Main

entries, presented for the simplest and most common forms of words, contain full

information on inflection in addition to definitions and examples. Cross-references are

made for inflected forms that are not easily predictable, such as plurals, less common

variants, and combining forms. Many definitions are illustrated with line drawings. The

86

volume also features an English-Hopi word-finder list and a sketch of Hopi grammar,

which makes it possible for the user to determine the structure of almost any Hopi

sentence. All royalties from the sale of the dictionary go to the Hopi Foundation and to

the Hopi Tribe (Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni, 1999: introduction).

Reviewing the Hopi Dictionary, MIT linguist Kenneth Hale writes,

“It exceeds in its coverage not only all other Hopi vocabularies but the majority of other dictionaries of Native American languages… I believe that this dictionary of Hopi ranks among the very best dictionaries in the world, in any language…. In Uto-Aztecan linguistics and language scholarship, it is probably the most important contribution since the Nahuatl documents of the sixteenth century.” Pamela Munro of UCLA writes,

“It is an amazing achievement, certainly the most complete dictionary of any northern Uto-Aztecan language and quite possibly of any language in the family, and it compares with the very best available for any language of the continent…. This book will be the classic reference on Hopi forever. I cannot exaggerate the importance of this work, or the quality and care of the research it reflects.”

The completion and publishing of Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni: A Hopi-English

Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect provided the first comprehensive compilation of the

Hopi language, and it will provide Hopi families, villages, schools, teachers, and the

Hopilavayi Project with the comprehensive orthography necessary for a consistent

language education program. (Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni, 1999: introduction. For a

technical account of the construction of this dictionary, see Hill 1996.)

• Cultural Resources Advisory Task Team (CRATT)

The Cultural Resources Advisory Task Team is composed of elders from across

the Hopi Reservation who are recognized for their knowledge and fluency in the history,

culture, and language of the Hopi people

87

• Hopi Advisory Task Team (HATT)

The Hopi Advisory Task Team (expanded in Chapter 8, Action Plans for the

Revitalization of the Hopi Language) is comprised of the Hopilavayi Project Manager,

the Hopilavayi Curriculum Developer, the Director of the Cultural Preservation Office, a

representative from the Hopi Department of Education and the Hopi Board of Education,

a representative from the Hopi Head Start Program, and one teacher and representative

from each Hopi village. The HATT will seek ways to promote the overall goal of

language preservation and education in the villages, schools, and reservation and off-

reservation communities.

• Hopi Cultural Preservation Office (HCPO)

The Hopi Cultural Preservation Office is responsible for tribal efforts to maintain

and develop the tribe’s historic, archeological, cultural, and linguistic resources.

• Northern Arizona University (NAU)

In 1995, the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office (HCPO) and Northern Arizona

University (NAU) signed a memorandum agreement to establish a cooperative training,

education, and recruitment program. This includes a branch office of the HCPO at

Northern Arizona University. The agreement calls upon NAU to “Encourage faculty

cooperation to provide consultation services to the HCPO branch office.” Dr. Miguel

Vásquez, Applied Anthropologist and Director of the program at NAU, has contracted to

donate his time to recruit Hopi students interested in research or language preservation

and will coordinate possible internships for Hopi students interested in curriculum

development and evaluation.

88

At the time of the initial resource assessment in1998, Anita Poleahla, Program

Coordinator for the Environmental Outreach Program at NAU, was contracted to assist in

the development of and evaluation of curriculum. She had already developed Hopi

language curriculum using Hopi stories and folk tales to teach children about both the

Hopi language and environmental science. In addition to her own work, she will have the

assistance and support of both the Environmental Education Outreach Program and the

faculty of the Anthropology Department.

Later that same year, Ms. Poleahla became the Curriculum Developer for the

Hopilavayi Project (see Chapter 9, Implementation of the Hopilavayi Project).

• Hopi Radio

Long in planning and development, Hopi Radio (KUYI, FM 88.1) finished

construction and first aired in 2001. Through funds raised by the Hopi Foundation, Hopi

Radio estimated that would be able to air at least 30 hours of yearly programming in Hopi

language instruction. This is an especially valuable tool for home-based language

instruction and parental involvement. This language programming will focus on

providing parents with suggestions for dialogues and other activities that promote

conversational skills in their everyday lives. Hopi Radio will most likely be contributing

and underwriting fee for this programming, but they have not established the regular rate

of that fee (at the date of this assessment). Thus, Hopi Radio will be contributing an

underwriting fee for this programming, but they have not established an in-kind service

of great value to the Hopilavayi Project, but they are included in the non-Federal budget

because no concrete numbers were available.

89

• The Hopi Board of Education

The Hopi Board of Education (HBE) is comprised of representatives of each local

school board. The Executive Director coordinates its activities. The Hopi Board of

Education is committed to supporting the establishment of school-based language

programs. They will commit the time of the Executive Director and members of the

board to assist in the implementation and evaluation of the school-based pilot program.

• Recent Language Education Programs.

The Hopilavayi Project will also benefit from the resources and experiences of

professional educators and fluent speakers who have undertaken language education on

their own initiative. First, the Hopi Head Start program has already developed elements

of a Hopi language and culture curriculum. It has revised its curriculum and included

more input from teachers and addressed the issue of dialect. The pilot program (to be

established by the Hopilavayi Project) will build on these efforts by helping with

revisions, creating additional teaching material, and by developing a scope-and-sequence

outline to coordinate language education in Head Start and elementary schools. Head

Start has already done a great deal of the work in curriculum development. In addition,

both Hotevilla-Bacavi Community School and Second Mesa Day School have developed

some basic language education materials that can also be built upon. Finally, the

programs at Paaqavi, Supawlavi, and Songoopavi have provided valuable experience for

village-based programs taught by fluent speakers from the community. All of these

resources have provided a sound base for the development of the Hopilavayi Project.

90

• Hopi language Specialists in the Community

The Hopilavayi Project will utilize volunteers from the community. Fluent

speakers and elders will provide their knowledge of Hopi vocabulary, pronunciation,

dialect, and grammar. They will assist in recording audio tapes for vocabulary and oral

skills exercises. The Hopi Language Assessment Project survey resulted with a great

deal of interest for Hopi language preservation among community members. Thus, the

Hopi Cultural Preservation Office is confident that numerous volunteers will provide

their assistance throughout the entirety of the Hopilavayi Project.

Concluding Remarks on the Inventory of Available Resources at Hopi

With the completion of the Resource Assessment (1998) at Hopi, the Tribe was

able to (1) distinguish what actions the schools had undertaken prior to the

implementation of the Hopilavayi Project and (2) ascertain if these resources should be

built upon and/or disseminated throughout the villages for use at other schools. The

inventory of existing Hopi language and cultural instruction, needed materials, and

training workshops informed the tribe what existing programs needed for program

improvement and/or reinforcement.

The inventory of potential language and education consultants, institutions, and

materials in development indicated both internal and external allies that would be of

assistance to the Hopilavayi Project and existing language programs.

With the completion of this inventory, the Hopi Tribe had clear understanding of

(1) the decline of the language; (2) the level of language loss at Hopi; (3) potential

leadership to oversee the project, (4) and the internal and external resources that were

available for the cause. The Hopi Tribe could now focus on formulating comprehensive

91

action plans for the implementation of the Hopilavayi Project and the revitalization of the

Hopi language.

92

Chapter 8

Action Plans for the Revitalization of the Hopi language4

“Formulate a plan as soon as possible…. Don’t let too much time pass before you take action.”

- Comment by a teacher at Second Mesa Day School, Resource Assessment, 1998

Concern for Hopi natural resources, land, education, economic issues, and culture

has long been at the forefront of the Hopi community. The common thread that runs

through all of these concerns is the desire to maintain Hopi cultural integrity and to

sustain a society that remains uniquely Hopi. Recognized as the key component in

meeting this goal has been the retention of the Hopi language.

Prior to the Hopi Language Education and Preservation Plan (1998), concern for

the decline of the Hopi language goes back many decades, but nowhere is it more evident

than in a 1994 Tribal Council Action Plan, the result of HTC Resolution H-129-94, which

summarizes this goal and objective:

Goal: To ensure the preservation of the traditional Hopi values and language.

Objective: To bring back the Hopi language from the brink of extinction and encourage

programs which reflect Hopi values.

Over the past two decades, various attempts have been made to establish Hopi

language education programs. However, these programs were often met with fierce

resistance on at least three fronts.

4 All information in this section comes directly from the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office’s grant proposal to the Administration for Native Americans for development of the Hopilavayi project (1998), and the Hopi Language Education and Preservation Plan (1998).

93

First, until the 1960s, it was the expressed policy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA) to suppress the use of native languages by native students in schools that were

controlled by the BIA. This fostered and “English-only” attitude among many

individuals who are now the parents of school-age children.

Second, four varying dialects have been recognized among the twelve Hopi

villages. This further added to the resistance to establishing Hopi language programs

because it was believed that only individuals from their respective mesa or village could

accurately convey its dialect, whereas others could not.

Third, a “societal factor” continues to be one of the strongest arguments against

institutionalized education in the Hopi language. The Hopi language carries with it much

of the cultural and religious understanding that embodies the daily life of the Hopi

people. It was believed that the only proper place for conveying this understanding –

from one generation to the next – was in the home, kiva, or village, but not in the white-

man’s schools.

But even in the years prior to the HLAP and resource surveys, many Hopi people

had begun to realize how much the Hopi language had slipped away. Students had

started to ask for Hopi language classes; school boards had become alarmed by how few

children could speak the language. By the time the HLAP and resource assessment had

been completed, momentum had grown throughout the community in support of a

formalized Hopi language education program and for reservation-wide measures to

stabilize language shift.

The survey results and community input from the HLAP and the Resource

Assessment, revealed that the Hopi people favor a multi-faceted approach from the

94

grassroots for Hopi language preservation. While more than 90% of survey participants

believed that Hopi language should be taught in the home, more than two-thirds support

teaching Hopi in schools on the Hopi Reservation. Further, there are many pre-existing

grassroots efforts to teach Hopi language in both the schools and villages. However, it is

significant to remember that these programs had (1) been conducted on an ad hoc and

uncoordinated basis; (2) a comprehensive Hopi orthography had not been available until

the publication of Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni (1999); (3) there had been no consistent

reservation-wide Hopi language curriculum; and (4) lesson plans in writing, spelling,

dialects, and education strategies varied widely across the reservation schools.

Because of this variance, The long range goal of The Hopi Language Education

and Preservation Plan (1998) was to develop a comprehensive, reservation-wide

language education program by supporting, expanding, and coordinating local language

preservation efforts that already exist in the community and schools. The Hopi Cultural

Preservation Office (CPO) would take a vital role in the project, acting as the

headquarters and coordinating office for the project, and as a resource for local efforts.

The Hopi CPO would also:

1. assist villages and schools in seeking more funding for their existing programs

and coordinate teacher training efforts;

2. act as a clearinghouse for information related to language education materials that

were created in the communities and schools;

3. and they would monitor and evaluate pilot programs in order to share the most

effective programs with other villages, schools, and community efforts.

95

The main objectives of the Hopi Language Education and Preservation Plan (1998) are:

1. Establish the Hopilavayi (Hopi Language) Project within the Hopi Cultural

Preservation Office. This would include hiring a program manager and a

curriculum specialist, as well as establishing the Hopi Advisory Task Team

(HATT), that would be comprised of the Hopilavayi Project Manager, the

Hopilavayi Curriculum Developer, the Cultural Preservation Office Director, the

Hopi Department of Education Director, the Hopi Head Start Director, a

representative of the Hopi Board of Education, and one representative from each

Hopi village.

2. Design and implement two pilot programs in language education in two of the

Hopi villages.

3. Design and implement pilot programs in language education in Head Start and

one reservation day school. This includes developing a Hopi language education

curriculum and teaching materials for the schools. Teaching materials would

include audio and video-tapes, computer programs, books, and visual aides.

4. Assist each Hopi village in establishing language instruction and cultural

immersion programs.

5. Provide training in language instruction and in Hopi literacy for teachers and

parents.

6. Revise the Hopi Tribe’s education ordinance and develop an education master

plan to include Hopi language instruction within the school system.

7. Develop and implement Hopi language programming for the Hopi radio station.

96

Hopi Action Plans

The following plan is organized into four areas: (I.) The Hopi Tribe has 4 objectives;

(II.) The Hopi Villages have 2 objectives; (III.) local Hopi schools and the educational

system have 4 objectives; and (IV.) The Wider Hopi Reservation Community has 1

objective.

Each section discusses current language education goals and initiatives, current

constraints on those efforts, and an action plan for meeting language preservation goals.

I. The Hopi Tribe

The Hopi Tribe has stated its commitment to language preservation in the Hopit

Pötskwaniat and in the Hopi Tribal Resolution H-129-94 (see Hopi Tribal Council

Resolution H-022-98 in Chapter 9, p. 102). Specifically, the Hopi Cultural Preservation

Office conducted the Hopi Language Assessment Program in 1996 and 1997.

Current constraints on the potential to further language programs include:

(1) lack of coordination (2) lack of funding (3) lack of clear organizational authority

Action Plan for the Hopi Tribe

Objective 1: Establish the Hopilavayi (Hopi language) Project within the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office.

Activities:

1. Seek funding from the Hopi Tribal Council and/or other sources for a permanent

position, the Hopilavayi Project Manager. The manager will be responsible for

promoting Hopi language education efforts in the villages, schools, and the

reservation and off-reservation Hopi communities. They will write grant proposals

for funding; coordinate teacher education; help evaluate Hopi language instruction

97

pilot programs in the schools and villages; and maintain a library clearinghouse of

language instruction materials for use by local teachers and community members.

2. Appoint a Hopi Language Advisory Task Team (HATT) to be comprised of the

Hopilavayi Project Manager, a Hopi Language Curriculum Developer, the Cultural

Preservation Office Director, a representative from the Hopi Department of

Education, a representative from the Hopi Board of Education, a representative form

the Hopi Head Start program, and a teacher and representative from each village. The

HATT council will seek ways to promote the overall goal of language preservation

and education in the villages, schools, and reservation and off-reservation Hopi

communities. They will also assist in the evaluation of home and village-based

teaching materials and programs. The HATT council will recognize the importance

of gender difference in the Hopi language.

Objective 2: Develop two pilot programs in language education in two of the Hopi

villages.

Activities:

1. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will seek proposals from the villages for pilot

language education programs.

2. The HATT council will select two programs to serve as pilot programs and develop

funding proposals.

3. Upon funding, the HATT council will monitor and evaluate the program on a

quarterly basis.

98

4. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will prepare a written report evaluating the pilot

programs at the end of one year.

5. The HATT council will review the report and make recommendations for the future

village-based language programs.

6. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will seek funding to expand the revised pilot

programs to other villages.

7. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will create a library or a clearinghouse of the

language education materials. These materials will be a resource for the development

of additional and refined village-based programs.

8. The Hopilavayi Project Manager, building upon the experience of the pilot programs,

will assist other villages with the development of funding proposals and

implementation of additional village-based educational programs.

Objective 3: Develop a pilot program for language instruction in Head Start.

Activities:

1. The Hopilavayi Manager, The Hopilavayi Curriculum Developer, and the Hopi Head

Start Staff will develop curriculum and teaching materials for the Head Start program.

2. Upon implementation, the HATT council will monitor and evaluate the program on a

quarterly basis.

99

3. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will prepare a written report evaluating the pilot

program at the end of one year.

4. The HATT council will review the report and make recommendations for the future

language programs in Head Start.

5. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will seek funding to expand the revised pilot

program into a comprehensive language and cultural immersion program.

Objective 4: Develop a standard Hopi orthography to assist in the development of teaching materials. Activities:

1. The Hopilavayi Project Manager, along with other Hopi Cultural Preservation Office

Staff, cultural advisors, and professional consultants will assist in the creation of a

standard Hopi orthography. The orthography should be able to incorporate dialect

difference.

2. Establish Hopi language orthographies will be reviewed and considered in the

recommendations and adoption of a standard Hopi writing system.

II. The Hopi Villages

The results of the HLAP survey and village consultation meetings show that a

majority of the Hopi public sees the home and village as the most important place for

language instruction. The village is the place where dialect can be taught. The home is

the place where young children can be taught in the crucial early years of language

acquisition. Finally, the home and the village are central to the development of Hopi as a

100

conversational language, a priority for much of the Hopi community. As this narrative

has outlined, several villages, including Paaqavi, Songoopavi, and Supawlavi have

already instituted Hopi language education programs on their own. One of the primary

recommendations of this action plan is to provide more support for these grassroots

efforts and assist in the coordination between villages.

In follow-up interviews, village administrations expressed the following long-

term goals for language preservation in their communities:

(1) Hopi language and culture classes

(2) Youth programs that incorporate language education

(3) Evening classes for people of all ages and speaking abilities

(4) Provide a learning center with computers

Current constraints to achieving these goals include:

(1) Buildings

(2) Teaching materials

(3) Trained teachers

(4) Funding

Action Plan for the Hopi Villages

Objective 1: Develop two pilot programs in language education in two of the Hopi villages.

Activities:

1. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will seek proposals from the villages for pilot

language education programs.

101

2. The HATT council will select two programs to serve as pilot programs and develop

funding proposals.

3. Upon funding, the HATT council will monitor and evaluate the program on a

quarterly basis.

4. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will prepare a written report evaluating the pilot

programs at the end of one year.

5. The HATT council will review the report and make recommendations for the future

village-based language programs.

6. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will seek funding to expand the revised pilot

programs to other villages.

7. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will create a library or a clearinghouse of the

language education materials. These materials will be a resource for the development

of additional and refined village-based programs.

8. The Hopilavayi Project Manager, building upon the experience of the pilot programs,

will assist other villages with the development of funding proposals and

implementation of additional village-based educational programs.

Objective 2: Establish village-based instruction programs in each Hopi village.

Activities:

102

1. With the assistance of the Hopilavayi Project Manager, each village may seek

funding and materials through the language instruction library and clearinghouse to

be developed by the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office.

2. Each village may consult with the HATT council on the progress of the pilot

programs and adapt them to suit their own individual needs.

3. Develop Home-based teaching materials, with the assistance of the Hopilavayi

Project Manager, the HATT council, and the Hopi Language Curriculum Developer.

III. The Hopi Schools and Education System

While the survey results showed that the Hopi people believe that the home is the

first place for language instruction, nearly 70% of those surveyed also identified school

as a place where language should be taught. The Hopi Language Preservation and

Education Plan, therefore, needed to include a school-based component. In addition, the

Resource Assessment revealed that many individual Hopi teachers have instituted some

Hopi language instruction on their own initiatives. Finally, the survey revealed mixed

attitudes regarding Hopi language as a graduation requirement from Hopi High School;

more work needs to be done to gauge community attitudes on this question. Nonetheless,

at the time of the survey, there was a broad base of support for including Hopi language

instruction – whether as a requirement or not – in the local school system.

The Resource Assessment conducted as a part of the Hopi Language Assessment

Project showed that many Hopi teachers wanted additional training and teaching

materials for Hopi language instruction in their classrooms. Those needs are

incorporated into the following action plan.

103

In addition, school personnel, in follow-up interviews, expressed the following

long-term goals:

(1) A K-3 oral language program

(2) A K-6 oral and written language program

(3) Development of a Hopi Language Institute within the schools

(4) A full immersion program for kindergarten.

Current constraints to achieving these goals include:

(1) Lack of school board approval

(2) Lack of curriculum and teaching materials

(3) Lack of trained and certified teachers

(4) Lack of funding

(5) Lack of a standard Hopi orthography

Action Plan for the Hopi Schools and Education System

Objective 1: Revise the Hopi Tribe’s education ordinance and develop and Education Master Plan to include Hopi language and appropriate cultural instruction within the school system.

Activities:

1. The Hopi board of Education, with the assistance of the Hopi Department of

Education and the Hopilavayi Project Manager, will review the Hopi Tribes’

Education Ordinance and revise it to include language education goals as mandated

by the Hopit Pötskwaniat and as recommended by the results of the HLAP.

2. The Hopi Board of Education will approve the final amendments to the Hopi Tribe’s

Education Ordinance.

104

3. The Executive Director of the Hopi Board of Education will coordinate the

presentation of the proposed amendments to the Hopi Tribal Council.

4. Upon approval to the Hopi Tribal Council, the Hopi Board of Education will

implement the revised ordinance.

5. The Hopi Board of Education will include the revisions and the goal of the language

education into its Education Master Plan.

Objective 2: Establish pilot programs for language education in the local schools.

Activities:

1. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will seek proposals from teachers, administrators,

and local school boards for pilot education programs.

2. The HATT council will select proposals to serve as pilot programs and develop

funding proposals.

3. Upon funding, the HATT council, the Hopilavayi Project Manager, and the Hopi

Curriculum Developer will monitor and evaluate the program on a quarterly basis.

4. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will prepare a written report evaluating the pilot

programs at the end of the year.

5. The HATT council will review the report and make recommendations for future

school-based language programs.

105

6. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will seek funding to expand the revised pilot

programs to other schools.

7. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will create a library or clearinghouse of language

education materials.

8. The Hopilavayi Project Manager, building upon the experience of the pilot programs,

will assist other schools with the development of funding proposals and

implementation of additional school-based educational programs.

Objective 3: Develop a Hopi language education curriculum and teaching materials for the schools. Teaching materials should include audio and video tapes, computer programs, books, and visual aids.

Activities:

1. The HATT council will seek proposals from local teachers and educational

consultants to develop Hopi language curriculum and teaching materials.

2. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will seek funding for curriculum development

projects.

3. The HATT council will seek proposals to develop a pilot computer program for

language instruction.

4. The HATT council will meet quarterly to evaluate curriculum development efforts.

106

5. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will work with the Hopi Curriculum Developer and

the Hopi Board of Education to distribute curriculum and teaching materials to the

local schools.

Objective 4: Provide Training in language instruction and in Hopi literacy for teachers and parents.

Activities:

1. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will seek funds and university partnerships for the

development of a distance-learning program to bring classes in reading and writing

Hopi to teachers and other interested individuals on the Hopi reservation.

2. The Hopilavayi Project Manager, with the assistance of the Hopi Department of

Education, will coordinate in-service training and workshops in teaching methods for

local teachers and village-based educators.

3. The Hopilavayi Project Manager will seek funding to support the attendance of local

teachers at the American Indian language Development Institute.

IV. The Hopi Reservation Community

The wider Hopi Reservation community is interested in developing language

education and preservation initiatives that are based in their wider communities. On the

Hopi reservation, a group of individuals has successfully raised the funds to build and

operate a Hopi radio station. They have gained FCC approval and will begin

construction of a transmitter in the spring of 1998. It is planned that they radio station

107

will go on the air in the winter of 1998 (Hopi Radio went on the air in the winter of

2001). Hopi Radio will be committed to providing programming in the Hopi language.

Action Plan for the Hopi Reservation Community

Objective 1: Develop and implement Hopi language programming for the Hopi radio station. Activities:

1. The HATT council will work with the Hopi radio station to develop Hopi language

education programs and daily lessons to be conducted on the radio.

2. The Hopilavayi Manager will compile a list of Hopi people who are willing and able

to provide radio programming in the Hopi language.

Concluding Remarks on the Hopi Tribe’s Initial Action Plans

With the action plans for the multi-faceted, reservation-wide language education

program, the Hopi Tribe had outlined the objectives for the Hopilavayi Project, and

finalized the formal planning process for language restoration. With the completion of

action-plans, the Hopi Tribe had:

(1) recognized the decline of the Hopi language;

(2) conducted a survey in order to assess the level of language loss at Hopi;

(3) established leadership and project centralization to oversee the reservation-

wide plan, manage available resources, and act as a clearinghouse of

information for each of the twelve Hopi villages;

(4) taken a comprehensive survey of internal and external resources that were

available to the language project; and

108

(5) developed formal action plans to develop and enact a multi-faceted approach

to attack language decline at Hopi and implement a formalized language

preservation and education program.

With the action plans completed, the Hopi Tribe could now concentrate on the

implementation of the Hopi Language Preservation and Education Plan by pursuing

funding for the development and implementation of the Hopilavayi Project.

109

Chapter 9

Implementation of the Hopilavayi Project5

Hopi Tribal Resolution H-022-98 WHEREAS, the Hopi Tribal Council, in H-129-94, recognized the problem of Hopi language loss

and approved the Hopi Language Assessment Project and authorized the Chief Executive Officer to “execute all necessary documents to place this project into effect; and

WHEREAS, The Hopi Tribal Council in the Hopit Pötskwaniat, directed the Cultural

Preservation Office to promote and preserve the Hopi language by developing a total Hopi language and cultural immersion program; and

WHEREAS, the Hopi Tribe received funding from the Administration For Native Americans in

1997 to conduct a survey of Hopi language fluency and a local resource assessment; and WHEREAS, the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office conducted the aforementioned survey and

resource assessment and presented the results to the community; and WHEREAS, the survey results showed a) significant language loss in the younger generations of

Hopi; and b) clear support for instruction of the Hopi language in community- and school-based programs; and

WHEREAS, the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office used the survey and community input to

develop the attached Hopi language Preservation and Education Plan, which was reviewed and supported by the Hopi Board of Education;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Hopi Tribal Council that the aforementioned

plan is hereby approved; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Hopi Tribal Council reaffirms its commitment to the

continuance and revitalization of the Hopi language and culture by supporting the implementation of the Hopi Language Preservation and Education Plan;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, the Hopi Department

of Education, and the Hopi Board of Education are hereby directed to administer and manage the implementation of the Hopi Language Preservation and Education Plan;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Hopi Tribal Council encourages the villages and local

school boards to participate in the implementation of the Hopi Language Preservation and Education Plan.

5 All information in this section was provided by the Hopi Tribe, the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, and the Hopilavayi Project. Materials utilized include the Progress Report to the ANA, 03/30/99; the Progress Report to the ANA, 08/31/99; the Hopi Language Education and Preservation Plan (1998); and the grant proposal to the ANA for the Hopilavayi Project (1997).

110

As outlined in the 1998 Hopi Language Education and Preservation Plan, The

Hopi Tribe’s primary objective was to develop a comprehensive scope-and-sequence

language program that would foster early Hopi language instruction in the home, schools,

and villages. This program would be multi-faceted in approach and would serve to

coordinate the three existing individual village programs, and build upon the curriculum

and materials that had been developed independently. Now, with the Hopi Tribe’s

resolution for support and the Hopi community’s backing for the development of a

formal language preservation program, the tribe would now need to seek funding to

support such an undertaking.

Funding for a Hopi Language Preservation Program

On March 27, 1998, the Hopi Tribe submitted a grant proposal to the

Administration for Native Americans (ANA) for monies intended to fund the tribes

language preservation program, The Hopilavayi Project.

In 1994, the Clinton Administration allotted $1million in grants to go toward Native

American language education programs; the regulations for such funding was to be

guided by the Administration for Native Americans, a branch of the Department of

Health and Human Services. Since the program’s inception, however, little federal

intervention or funding has transpired despite the Federal government’s strong policy

statement, and it is uncertain for how much longer the federal government is going to

fund any kind of bilingual education programs.

The Hopi Tribe’s grant proposal abstract (1997) to the ANA reads:

The Hopilavayi Project will design, implement, and evaluate pilot language instruction programs in 2 villages, Hopi Head Start, and one reservation elementary school. In Phase I, curriculum and teaching materials will be

111

designed and teachers will be trained for all programs. In Phases II and III, instructors will teach the pilot programs and the programs will be subject to a series of evaluation and revisions to address weaknesses. In addition, training and support materials for parents will be created. All of the materials from the project, including curriculum guides, visual aides, audio tapes, and evaluation instruments will be will be made available to the Hopi community. The entire Hopi community will benefit from rigorously evaluated language programs that fir their own need. In addition, the evaluation methodologies can be replicated to measure the effectiveness of language program over time. Thus, the vitality of the Hopi language and culture will be preserved for future generations.

Later that same year, the ANA granted the Hopi Tribe $300,000 over three years

for the development and implementation of the Hopilavayi Project. The grant was

considered “seed money,” and the project was to be self-supporting by the end of the

three-year period. The tribe could now focus on the implementation of the Hopilavayi

Project as outlined in the grant proposal to the ANA.

Hopilavayi Professional Positions

Acting as the headquarters for the Hopilavayi Project, the Hopi Cultural

Preservation Office would develop and hire two primary positions for the project: the

Program Manager and the Curriculum Developer. The HCPO would also direct the

search for the Hopi Advisory Task Team.

Hopilavayi Program Manager:

The Hopilavayi Program Manager would oversee and manage the Hopilavayi

Project. Some of the Program Manager’s duties would include:

1. Plan, coordinate, implement, and monitor the Hopilavayi Project in compliance with

applicable grant guidelines and tribal goals.

2. Manage the development of materials for Hopi language instruction, including

curriculum, audio and video-tapes, visual materials, and computer programs.

112

3. Implement specific plans for the Hopi language education programs in the villages,

schools, and off-reservation communities.

4. Identify the HATT members and potential community-based teachers who will assist

with Hopi language instruction and establish training programs for language

instructors.

5. Provide technical assistance in Hopi language instruction.

6. Prepare and/or present monthly progress reports to funding agencies and the Hopi

Tribe as required.

7. Perform other related tasks as assigned to meet the Hopilavayi Project’s guidelines.

The Program Manager’s work would include various duties requiring many different

and unrelated processes and methods applied to a broad range of activities. Decisions

require the analysis of situations to determine the best approach. The work requires a

continuous effort to refine programs and resolve major problems. The incumbent

provides technical advice and direction to several major organizational components and

requires an in-depth understanding of applicable regulations.

After the second round of screening and interviews, Ms. Maxine Wadsworth was

hired as the Hopilavayi Project Manager and began employment on 02/01/99.

Hopilavayi Curriculum Developer:

The Hopilavayi Curriculum Developer will design and write curriculum materials

for a comprehensive language education program. Responsibilities would include:

113

1. Develop Hopi language curriculum and teaching materials for the villages, the

elementary schools, and Head Start.

2. Direct and coordinate the preparation and use of educational material with village,

school, and Head Start Staff.

3. Cooperate and confer with the Cultural Preservation Office Director, the Hopi Dept.

of Education, the Hopi Head Start Program, Village administrators, the Hopi Board of

Education, the Cultural Resources Advisory Task Team, and the general public in

order to develop curriculum to meet the needs of students and the community and to

ensure that all materials are culturally appropriate.

4. Analyze data from questionnaires, interviews, and group discussions to evaluate

curriculum, teaching materials, teaching methods and community participation in

language education programs.

5. Assist in the evaluation of education curricula and programs, advising school officials

on implementation to insure conformance to state, federal, tribal, and school board

standards.

6. Stay abreast of developments in curriculum and native language revitalization,

furnishing leadership and determining appropriateness for inclusion in the Hopi

language education programs.

7. Study, prepare, and recommend acquisition of instructional materials, teaching aids,

and related equipment that meets educational needs and language education goals.

8. Maintain liaison and active participation with educational leaders in curriculum and

native language revitalization at state, regional, and national levels.

114

9. Provides direct application of a Hopi Language Orthography through the teaching and

use of the writing system.

The incumbent’s supervisor defines the overall project and objectives, priorities, and

deadlines. The incumbent plans and carries out work assignments independently and

keeps supervisor informed of progress or potentially controversial issues. Work is

renewed from an overall standpoint of feasibility and effectiveness in meeting department

and project objectives.

On the third round of interviews, Anita Poleahla was hired as the Hopilavayi

Curriculum Developer and began employment on 02/08/99.

Hopi Advisory Task Team

The Hopi Advisory Task Team (HATT) would be comprised of the Hopilavayi

Project Manager, the Hopilavayi Curriculum Developer, the Cultural Preservation Office

Director, the Hopi Department of Education Director, the Hopi Head Start Director, a

representative of the Hopi Board of Education, and one representative from each Hopi

village.

Letters were disseminated to each of the villages requesting for community

members to serve as representatives to the Hopi Advisory Task Team. Several of the

villages responded by assigning specific individuals and identifying alternates to serve on

the committee. To date, the HATT is represented by one individual from each of the

twelve villages, including alternates.

Organizational Chart for the Hopilavayi Project:

115

Department of Natural Resources Cultural Resources Cultural Preservation Office (CPO) Hopi Advisory Advisory Task Team Director Task Team (CRATT) (HATT)

*Hopilavayi Project Manager Hopi Board Of Ed. *Hopi Curriculum Developer Hopi Dept. of Ed.

Hopi Head Start Hopi Villages Emory Sekaquaptewa Volunteers

CPO Admin. Assistant (10%)

CPO Secretary (10%) CPO Archivist (10%)

*Anita Poleahla fulfilling both positions

The Hopilavayi Project: Philosophy – Approach – Process – Curriculum

The new Hopilavayi Project staff would design, implement, and evaluate pilot

Hopi language instruction programs in two villages, Hopi Head Start, and one of the eight

reservation elementary schools. The pilot programs would include two major objectives:

(1) Designing, implementing, and evaluating Hopi language curriculum

(2) Train Hopi educators, parents, and community members in Hopi language basics

and teaching methods.

The project developed a philosophy, approach, and process for Hopi language

learning and transmission to Hopi youth. These formalized statements prevail as the

philosophy embodied while pursuing the various goals as outlined in the Hopi language

Education and Preservation Plan (1998).

116

Hopilavayi Philosophy on Language Development

The development of language does not occur in isolation, without connection to

other aspects of a person’s life, but is a part of the total cultural experience of the

individual. Hopilavayi learning is a social phenomenon that develops in the context of

community life. Its is shaped by culturally defined rules for using it and by the specific

social situations in which it is applied. Language is intimately bound with the cognitive

and social development of children. They must learn to deal at the same time with the

underlying rules of Hopilavayi and the different ways the language can be used according

to the social setting. Hopilavayi is also tied to children’s physical development in the

sense that people communicate non-verbally through culturally specific sets of notions.

Language is the medium through which a person communicates his or her joys,

doubts, successes and sorrows. The source of these intimate emotions is most frequently

at home, and consequently, the language of the home comes to have powerful affective

associations for the individual. The child’s first definition of self comes to him or her

through the home and through the language used there. If children are pressured to

abandon the language of their home, it is likely that their self-image will suffer –

a situation that may have long-term impact on their learning power.

If, on the other hand, the home language is respected and nurtured in educational

settings, there is a greater chance that the child will remain receptive to learning. The

home language will be available for use as a foundation for continued concept

development and will provide an avenue for learning a second language that may be

needed for the child’s access to the larger society.

117

There are many different degrees of bilingualism, ranging from complete fluency

in both languages to dominant use of one language and very limited use of the other. The

Hopilavayi curriculum is designed to promote fluency in two languages for all the

children in the program.

Hopilavayi: A Child Approach to Early Learning

The project’s approach to early learning is a process that builds on a foundation of

knowledge about the young child. That knowledge has three aspects:

1. Awareness of the interests and developmental patterns characteristic of young

children;

2. Awareness of the specific knowledge that the children have already acquired

through membership in a particular family, group, and community; and

3. Awareness of young children’s growing capacity to use language to describe

and relate to their world.

Persons using Project Hopilavayi need to be clear about each of these aspects,

understanding what the term ‘child-centered’ means from the point of view of the

Hopilavayi Project, and understanding how these three aspects of the program affects all

that the teacher does in the course of a typical day.

What is ‘child-centered’ teaching? The term ‘child-centered’ has been understood

to mean that teachers do not do any “real” planning at all. Instead, teachers simply set

out materials in the classroom and the children spend the day in free play. The teacher

does not teach acts as a parent figure or as a facilitator of the children’s activity. Here,

the children make the decisions, and the teacher at all times follows the children’s lead.

118

The Hopilavayi Project’s approach to early learning maintains a balance between

teacher-centered and child-centered teaching. The adults in the classroom do plan very

carefully. They set up the learning environment for the children. They change that

environment frequently enough to keep it stimulating; they design specific learning

activities for small clusters of children and for large groups as well. And they interact

with the children in deliberate ways to introduce them to new concepts or strengthen

concepts already present. They do all of this on the basis of frequent observation of both

the children’s interest and development levels (present skills).

Activities always reflect the life of the children themselves. In planning, the

activity learning characteristics of young children, their ways of processing information,

their current interest, and the cultural traditions of their parents are all essential

considerations. This is why the Hopilavayi Project does not use a set of pre-planned

activities for teaching young children. Instead, The Hopilavayi Project prepares teachers

to be child-centered in their thinking so that all their planning revolves around

recognition of the strengths and dispositions that the children bring with them to the

learning situation in the context of their multi-cultural environments.

Hopilavayi Education Process

Teachers using the Hopilavayi Process should begin with a fundamental

understanding of the most basic characteristics of the curriculum process. The

Hopilavayi Project is first and foremost a child-centered curriculum, grounded in a firm

understanding of child development and respect for the individual. Being aware that

every individual belongs to a group with a heritage and past. The Hopilavayi Project

draws from and builds upon the traditions that the child brings to the center as upon the

119

individual’s current experience in the community where he or she lives. Another basic

characteristic of the project, therefore, is that it is bilingual in approach.

The Hopilavayi Project encourages teachers to form partnerships with parents of

the children they serve, with other teacher, administrators, community resources, and

with the children themselves in order to identify and make use of the children’s

capabilities on the introduction of new learning activities. Through such partnerships,

teachers first collect information on the developmental characteristics and cultural

experience of the children, then select and arrange materials in their learning spaces to

reflect the present cultures of all the children enrolled in the center. With the appropriate

materials, teachers carefully review commercially available books, toys, games, and

accessories to identify those that accurately represent aspect of the collected experience

of their children. When commercial materials do not accurately illustrate aspect of the

cultures of the families, teachers can draw upon the Hopilavayi Project and community

resources to construct the materials needed.

As the center comes more and more to reflect the population it serves, teachers

observe the children’s use of the materials and equipment and subsequently note the

interest, knowledge, and skills the children display. The teachers then use their

observations as the foundation for designing new learning activities for children, always

building the introduction of new concepts on those that the children have already

acquired. In each new activity, teachers make a conscious attempt to use materials

representing aspects of the Hopi culture of individual children and the communities

where they live.

120

Hopilavayi Curriculum

The curriculum is divided into four units: (1) the child, (2) the home, (3) the

community, and (4) the Hopi Tribe. The units begin in September, Nasanmuya,

extending through the school year, ending in May, Hakitonmuya. In order for this

curriculum to be effective, the teacher is responsible for establishing a team effort for its

implementation and involvement of staff in its planning.

Step 1: Review the scope-and-sequence for the monthly topics. Identify topics and

sequence them out throughout the month.

Step 2: To meet the objectives, brainstorm using the web-sheet in developing the lesson

plan.

Step 3: Write out the lesson plan. Step 4: The activity form is used as a resource in identifying suggested topic objectives,

skills, etc.

Step 5: The large groups will be teacher directed. The learning areas will provide free

choice child-initiated and hands-on activities that relate to the topic of the week.

Step 6: Stories and illustrations are provided as resources to reinforce the topic

objectives. The activities and materials all pertain to the topic objective.

Step 7: Implement the lesson plan. Step 8: Fill out the evaluation section on the lesson plan. What will Hopilavayi Accomplish?

The Hopilavayi Project has four primary goals. It is expected that the use of the

Hopilavayi curriculum will:

1 Promote each child’s appreciation of herself or himself as a person capable of a wide

variety of intellectual and physical activities.

121

2 Encourage the children’s positive recognition of the ways people from various groups

are the same as well as the ways they are different from one another.

3 Promote the continued development of the Hopi language in all aspects of their

learning.

4 Effect the acquisition of the Hopi language in all the children participating in the

program.

The Hopilavayi Scope-and-Sequence Curriculum Model can be used in

Kindergarten, Head Start Programs, or any other type of early childhood program. The

process that Hopilavayi represents can in fact be used at any education level. Then the

model is adopted by a head start center, two assumptions are made regarding the centers

in which its adoption is desired.

First, it is assumed that the basic premises and goals of head start are accepted.

Second, it is assumed that the center is implementing the performance standards for Head

Start programs set out by the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families. The basic

premises underlying Head Start’s approach for early learning are now held in common by

many early childhood programs. They are:

All children share certain needs and can benefit from a comprehensive, interdisciplinary program that will foster development and remedy problems through a broad range of services. Within this comprehensive program, careful planning should be done to meet the individual differences and needs of the children. The child’s entire family as well as the community should be involved as direct participants in the program. Such involvement is seen as necessary in order to maximize the strengths and make use of the unique experiences of each child in learning.

122

Parents should be assisted to increase their knowledge, skills in child development, and the Hopi culture and language.

The Hopilavayi Project is an expansion of these premises into a particular

approach in the actual operation of an early childhood language problem with a strong

bilingual focus. To get the maximum benefit from use of Hopilavayi, it is expected that

persons choosing it will be implementing the Head Start Program Performance Standards

in their [education] center.

The Three Phases of the Hopilavayi Project

The Hopilavayi Project will design, implement, and evaluate pilot Hopi language

instruction programs in two villages, Hopi Head Start, and one of the eight reservation

elementary schools. The pilot programs would include two major objectives:

(1) Design, implement, and evaluate Hopi language curriculum

(2) Train Hopi educators, parents, and community members in Hopi language basics and teaching methods.

These two primary goals would be met in three phases:

PHASE I.

The first phase (year one) will include designing the pilot programs for the

villages, Hopi Head Start, and one reservation elementary school, including the

development of a scope-and-sequence curriculum and teaching materials. It will also

include parent and teacher training to implement these materials. The design of the pilot

programs will include both educational professionals and fluent speakers from the Hopi

community. The HATT council will include one representative from each of the Hopi

villages. Each member of the HATT must be a fluent Hopi speaker and will assist in the

123

design of the pilot programs by contributing their knowledge of Hopi vocabulary and the

pronunciation and word meanings in each specific Hopi dialect.

The design of language education materials will build upon the experiences and

resources of recent and ongoing language initiatives in the Hopi community. The

Hopilavayi Project will also utilize the knowledge of fluent Hopi speakers and elders in

building vocabulary exercises, creating audio-tapes in different dialects, and in reviewing

the materials to ensure that they are culturally appropriate.

PHASE II.

The second phase (year two) will begin with the actual implementation of the

programs in two of the selected villages, Hopi Head Start, and one elementary school.

Teachers and/or aides fluent in the Hopi language will teach the elementary and Head

Start classes. Fluent members of host communities would teach the village pilot

programs. Students in all programs will be evaluated quarterly to measure language

acquisition. Oral tests would be administered to measure whether or not students have

learned a defined set of vocabulary and grammatical principles. The evaluation of

language acquisition will serve two purposes: (1) it will provide the basic measure of

effectiveness of the pilot language programs themselves and enable the Hopi Tribe to

identify and address weaknesses early on. (2) It will enable the Hopi Tribe to develop a

Hopi Language Competency Assessment Instrument6 that could be applied to other

language education programs.

Twice during Phase II, teachers and parents will be able to complete

questionnaires designed to evaluate whether the materials engage students, promote

124

conversational skills, and are culturally appropriate. Finally, instructional methods will

be evaluated twice by observation. Professional educators and fluent speakers from the

community will sit in on at least one classroom session for each pilot program. They will

observe how effective the teachers and their materials are in engaging the interests of

students and promoting conversational skills. The observers will rate the levels of class

participation to locate weaknesses in the curricula and to identify training needs for the

teachers. Phase II will conclude with the revisions to strengthen the curriculum and

teacher materials. Recommendations for further teacher and parent training would be

included at this time.

PHASE III.

The third Phase (year three) will begin with the implementation of the revised

pilot program. Again, the programs will receive evaluations throughout the year to judge

their effectiveness in language acquisition and revitalization. At the end of the third and

final phase, a reservation-wide language summit meeting will be held to share these

evaluations with other schools, villages, and the Hopi community as a whole.

At the end of the project, the Hopi Tribe and village communities will have a

wide range of materials and resources to apply to language education and preservation.

Each school, village, and family will be able to utilize these resources, make informed

decisions on language education, and develop strategies and programs to target their

individual needs. In addition, fluent speakers from the community will have benefited

from teacher training and be able to share this training with others.

6 For more information on the Hopi Language Competency Assessment Instrument (HLCAI), see Chapter 11, Hopilavayi Project: Phase II and Chapter 12, Hopilavayi Project: Phase III )

125

Finally, the development of the Hopi Language Competency Assessment

Instrument (HLCAI) will enable the Hopi community to measure language acquisition

over time and modify programs as needed. Rigorously evaluated pilot programs would

give the Hopi community and schools the experience and resources needed to implement

a comprehensive and multi-faceted language program, allowing individuals and

institutions to learn from one another while still maintaining the flexibility required to

sustain Hopi language and traditional Hopi values.

Evaluation

In all phases of the project, an outside evaluator will be brought in near the end of

the year. They will examine the project records and the final products. In Phases II and

III, the evaluator will also observe the pilot programs. He/she will submit a written

report to the Program Manager and the Director of the CPO. The report will include an

evaluation of the program management and administration, including suggestions on how

to improve efficiency. The evaluator will also submit recommendations for ways in

which the project can improve the likelihood of the achievements of the tribe’s long-term

goals for language acquisition.

In Phases II and III of the project, language acquisition will be measured by the

teachers. Mastery of vocabulary and basic grammar will be assessed with a quarterly oral

exam. Conversational skills will be assessed, in part, in the same oral exam. Teachers

will also fill out written evaluations on speaking skills based upon observation of

everyday classroom behavior. For the elementary school programs, a written component

may be included as well. For the village and Head Start programs, mastery or language

acquisition will be defined as the following:

126

a) The ability to recite basic Hopi vocabulary, including numbers (1-20) and

directions, and to identify familiar objects, etc, from pictures.

b) The ability to create simple Hopi sentences, such as , “My name is _______.”

c) The ability to converse with teachers about basic and familiar topics.

(greetings, answering simple questions about family, clan, etc.)

d) The ability to follow simple classroom instructions in Hopi.

e) The ability to ask simple questions in Hopi.

For the elementary school programs, some additional skills will be measured.

a) More Hopi vocabulary on a wider range of subjects, including other school

subjects, the ability to count to 20, etc.

b) More complex Hopi sentence structure, including compound sentences,

c) More spontaneous conversation with teachers and fellow students about their

everyday lives and school activities.

d) The ability to follow more complex classroom instruction in Hopi

e) The ability to ask what unfamiliar words mean.

The evaluation of language acquisition will be used for the following purposes:

a) to revise pilot programs in Phase II and III and to make recommendations for

expanded language education programs. If basic language skills are not being

mastered by students, curricula and instructional methods need to be revised

in order to address weaknesses.

b) To develop reasonable expectations for language acquisition at various age

and educational levels.

127

c) To develop a Hopi Language Competency Assessment Instrument, based

upon actual experience teaching Hopi in a variety of settings to a variety of

age levels.

Sharing Materials Plan

All of the materials from the Hopilavayi Project – including curricula and

teaching materials, project reports and evaluations, research materials, and the

proceedings of the Hopi Summit – will be permanently archived in a language collection

in the CPO archives. The CPO archivist will prepare a catalogue summarizing the

available materials and send them to project participants, as well as other interested

tribes. CPO staff will be available to provide technical assistance to other tribes

interested in replicating portions of the project. The CPO will also propose to present

papers at professional meetings, including the annual Symposium to Stabilize Indigenous

Languages

Preservation of Materials Plan

The materials from the Hopilavayi Project will be preserved in the CPO archives

according to standard procedures. The materials will be reproduced on acid-free paper

and stored in fire-proof cabinets at the proper temperatures. Any computer software,

audio tapes, and video tapes will be stored in the fireproof, temperature controlled vault

at Cline Library, Northern Arizona University. This material will be refreshed at regular

intervals and migrated to digital storage mediums in order to ensure that they do not

become obsolete as technology changes. The CPO archivist will also be responsible for

providing access to unrestricted materials to the Hopi community as well as other tribes.

128

Chapter 10

Hopilavayi Project: Phase I (Year One) Achievements7

“You have accomplished, almost single handedly, a great deal amid many challenges. In particular, the visible evidence of your efforts – the collection and development of materials – is impressive. Most significant are the connections and relationships that your efforts have initiated. I applaud your commitment and professionalism.”

- Hopilavayi Performance Evaluation Report – Year 1, (1999) In order to gauge the Hopilavayi Project’s first year achievements, a review of the

Phase I Action Plans should first be reviewed (Chapter 8, Action Plans for the

Revitalization of the Hopi Language, and Chapter 9, Implementation of the Hopilavayi

Project, section entitled The Three Phases of the Hopilavayi Project, p. 123-126). Year

one for the Hopilavayi Project was one of establishing the projects in-house entities,

including:

(A) Curriculum Developer, Program Developer, Hopi Advisory Task Team (HATT),

Cultural Resources Advisory Task Team (CRATT);

(B) soliciting and selecting language proposals for village and school pilot programs;

(C) developing language education materials and curriculum; and

(D) providing Hopi language workshops for those involved in the pilot programs.

7 All information in this section was provided by the Hopi Tribe, the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, and the Hopilavayi Project. In particular, Sheilah Nicholas’ Hopilavayi Performance Evaluation Report – year 1 (1999); the Progress Report to the ANA, 03/30/99; the Progress Report to the ANA, 08/31/99; and the grant proposal to the ANA for the Hopilavayi Project (1998).

129

The Hopilavayi Project’s activities identified above as A and B will be reviewed first,

followed by activities C and D in the Objectives Overview.

Early in Phase I, the unexpected resignation of Ms. Maxine Wadsworth created a

vacancy for the position of Project Manager. Ms. Anita Poleahla, the Hopilavayi

Project’s Curriculum Developer, continued toward meeting the project objectives serving

in both position capacities, Curriculum Developer as well as Program Manager.

Mr. Marvin Lalo joined the Hopilavayi Project shortly thereafter as the Assistant

Curriculum Developer and coordinator.

(A) - The Hopi Advisory Task Team (HATT) was established with representatives

from each of the twelve villages with one alternate in addition to individuals representing

tribal entities: Head Start, Hopi Board of Education, Hopi Department of Education, and

the Cultural Preservation Office. The HATT will provide technical assistance toward

generating future curriculum requirements within tribal policies for mandating Hopi

language instruction.

The Hopi Board of Education (HBE), the policy-making entity, has been in the

process of revising Education Ordinance 36 to include a Hopi language requirement

This is a challenging task – despite recent interest in revitalizing a reservation-wide

educational system – because the HBE director reports that there are numerous issues that

must be addressed. The Hopi Department of Education (HDE) provides the historical

background to the dialogue regarding the curriculum component of the HDE. Local

schools have voiced the need for a policy statement addressing Ordinance 36. It is

viewed as a needed change in order to gain support for implementing Hopi Language and

130

Culture classes in the schools. There appears to be reluctance on the part of school

leadership to address this issue in the absence of such a policy statement.

The Cultural Resources Advisory Task Team (CRATT) was established and is

comprised of village members who serve as spokespersons. These individuals were

identified by Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Director of the CPO, as knowledgeable and

willing to support the Cultural Preservation Office in assessing and approving the content

and dialects of teaching materials for cultural appropriateness. Within the first year of

the CRATT’s implementation, they met on a monthly basis and twice exclusively with

Hopilavayi Project personnel.

A major challenge for these task teams (HATT & CRATT) is that their

membership is very diverse in the degree of educational backgrounds, age, and in their

level of understanding about the goals of the Hopilavayi Project. Their meetings have

engaged them in discussion topics such as: (1) village dialect; (2) where language

instruction is to or should begin; (3) defining both “language” and “meaning”; and (4)

men’s vs. women’s language in regards to who should be responsible for providing this

instruction.

(B) – The number of applicants submitted to the Hopilavayi Project was regarded

as a good response (seven village and two school submissions). The criteria for selection

as outlined in the tribe’s Hopi Language Education and Preservation Plan (1998) was

used to make the selections.

Musangnuvi Village (02/19/99 submission date) and Songoopavi Village

(03/17/99 submission date) were selected to be the two village pilot programs.

Musangnuvi Village is interested in expanding their summer Hopi language program for

131

the village youth to include an after-school language instruction program. The

Songoopavi Village Board of Directors would like to develop a Hopi Language

Curriculum that will teach their youth “why it is imperative that the Hopi language and

culture be maintained for all generations and those yet to come.”

Second Mesa Day School (01/27/99 submission date) was selected as the

reservation school pilot program site. Their primary goal is to make the Hopi language

the formal method of instruction in the school and enable their students to converse in

Hopi. Their program activity then is to develop a written Hopi language curriculum. The

Head Start Program was designated to be a pilot program within the Hopi Tribe’s Hopi

Language Education and Preservation Plan (1998). The Participation of Head Start in

the Hopilavayi Project is based on the premise that the language is very important and

should become an integral part of the Head Start Curriculum as stated in the mission

statement of the tribal document, Hopit Pötskwaniat.

At the conclusion of Year One, Songoopavi Village has provided no evidence

that the Interim Board of Directors is actively pursuing Hopi language goals as outlined

in their proposal submission. There has been no response to inquiries by the project.

For Hopi Head Start, the year end progress report expresses that not all eight

centers throughout the reservation are active participants in the Hopilavayi Project. Two

classes at Polacca Village, one class each at Second Mesa and Munqapi, and one home

school are actively participating. The reasons for this have not been made clear to the

Hopilavayi Project although the Head Start centers and classes do operate under the

direction of the Hopi Head Start Director.

132

Musangnuvi Village has become the model pilot program and is demonstrating

what potential villages have in providing their youth. They have implemented their after-

school Hopi language instruction program, “Power Hour”. The instructor, from

Supawlavi Village, is a retired elementary school teacher and volunteers her time to

instruct this class. Musangnuvi Village demonstrates community interest and

commitment toward Hopi language maintenance and revitalization efforts; many village

residents volunteer their time tot he Hopilavayi Project.

Second Mesa Day School, at a follow-up meeting on 09/14/99, reported slow

progress in accomplishing the goals outlined in its proposal. The Hopilavayi Project staff

is in collaboration with Second Mesa Day School to improve the school’s situation.

Objective 1

BY THE END OF THE TWELFTH MONTH, THE HOPI TRIBE WILL COMPLETE

PHASE I OF THE HOPILAVAYI PROJECT BY DESIGNING PILOT PROGRAMS,

INCLUDING CURRICULA AND TEACHING MATERIALS, TO BE BASED IN TWO

VILLAGES, HEAD START, AND ONE RESERVATION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

A primary objective was to build upon existing curricula and teaching materials.

In actuality, the lack of written curricula and the scarcity of teaching materials

determined that the Hopilavayi Project would be the primary developer of these materials

for the pilot programs. Additionally, collecting samples and examples of Hopi language

materials already in use by these programs posed some challenges. The issue of

“ownership” and the loss of personal recognition for such materials development caused

some reluctance toward materials collection.

133

The following materials were developed and received approval for culturally

appropriate content and village dialectal differences by the CRATT:

• The Hopi Orthography established by Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni: A Hopi-English

Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect for use in Hopi language instruction and

development of teaching materials.

• Numbers 1-20 in the Hopi language; specifically for counting in the Nominative and

Nominal forms.

• Colors significant in Hopi culture • Hopi directional words

For Second Mesa Day School, the following plan of collaboration between the

Hopilavayi Project and the school was developed on September 24, 1999.

• No written curriculum has yet been developed but the process has been initiated. • The Hopilavayi Project will assist the Hopi language instructor in developing and

creating new teaching materials as well as expanding on those available for use in the

school. The materials will be developed following the school’s scope-and-sequence

curriculum guide.

• Current Hopi language practices are not being assessed/evaluated for effectiveness or

improvement. Both the Hopilavayi Project and the school will work toward the

development of an assessment instrument.

• The goal of making Hopi language the formal method of instruction will continue to

be pursued.

• Extending the Hopi language instruction beyond the current practice of daily 30

minute sessions will remain, but evening and/or study-hall sessions will be considered

as a means to address this objective.

134

• Hopi language teaching-materials developed by the previous language instructor have

been submitted to the Hopilavayi Project and will be professionally produced and

distributed by the Project Office. These include:

1. Hopi Cardinal directions illustrated with ears of corn 2. Colors: student coloring book depicting Hopi objects (rattle, bow & arrow,

drum, etc.)

3. Parts of the body: face, whole child’s body, internal organs, etc.

4. Animals/Simple Sentence Structure Booklet

For the village pilot programs, a series of workshops that included showing

cultural movies and nature walks provided brainstorming for developing units around

specific topics. At this time, language activities on Hopi numbers, colors, and cardinal

directions submitted to CRATT for cultural appropriateness were approved.

Additionally, utilizing the Hopi orthography (Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni, 1999) received

approval and support from members of CRATT.

Head Start teachers were active participants in training offered by Northland

Pioneer College (NPC). Anita Poleahla, Hopilavayi Curriculum Developer, was

designated to address the revision of the current Head Start Curriculum by developing a

curriculum based on the Hopi Worldview Plan (Maynard, 1987) and subject to the

objectives of the Master Education Plan, and incorporate those documented at previous

education summits. The first draft of this new curriculum was reviewed at a meeting

between Ms. Poleahla, Mr. Marvin Lalo, Mr. Emory Sekaquaptewa, and Mrs. Sheilah

135

Nicholas. The concept of “self” set within the framework of the Hopi seasonal calendar

was the focus in this curriculum. During this review session, it was the consensus of the

review team that utilizing this framework of the Hopi seasonal calendar was not

appropriate for presenting the concept of “self”. It is undergoing a second review by this

team.

By the end of the first year, lesson plans, games, curriculum packets, handbooks,

and other materials for all grade levels had been developed, or collected, and distributed

to teachers in pilot programs.

Objective 2

BY THE END OF AUGUST 1999, THE HOPI TRIBE WILL HAVE TRAINED

FOUR(4) VILLAGE BASED TEACHERS (SONGOOPAVI & MUSANGNUVI),

EIGHT (8) HEAD START TEACHERS, AND FOUR (4) SECOND MESA DAY

SCHOOL TEACHERS.

At the conclusion of year one, the Hopilavayi Project had coordinated a training

schedule that provided five Hopi language instruction sessions during July and August in

1999. Emory Sekaquaptewa, as guest instructor offered these classes on the Hopi

language in its written from.

These sessions provided 60 hours of training as stipulated in Objective 2. The

accumulation of hours toward the 60-hour requirement for completion of the Hopi

Language Training Component varied for each participant. These language-training

sessions included:

• An explanation of and exposure to the Hopi orthography;

136

• Rationale for accommodating change in regard to the Hopi language though literacy

development;

• Reapplication of English grammatical skills to Hopi language; and • Practice in the use of the Hopi language in its written form.

Within these, several key elements were the focus of initial and subsequent sessions,

which included:

• The Hopi alphabet evolving from the system of borrowing English letters to adapt

to/accommodate the sounds of Hopi; i.e [ts], [kw], [ng].

• Arbitrary selection of particular English letters; i.e. taawa vs. daawa, bahana vs.

pahaana considered the best visual and auditory.

• The development of the Hopi writing system as a “phonetic” process. • This phonetic process accommodates dialectical differences: i.e. Third Mesa-tupko

vs. Second Mesa/Songoopavi-tuvko.

• This process is also dependent on the identification of syllables auditorally and

visually.

• Short/Long vowels in Hopi as “drawing out” the sound; i.e. [I] sihu vs. [ii] siihu, [e]

pehu vs. [ee] peehu.

• Listening to Hopi words, and articulating/enunciating Hopi words/sounds… essential

to oral and literacy development.

• The Hopi language consists of a precise and well-defined syntactical order in the

construction of its sentences: subject/predicate; subject-object-verb.

• The Hopi language consists of speech parts similar to the English language: nouns,

verbs, adverbs, adjectives, post-positions (as opposed to prepositions).

137

• The Hopi language is complex and expresses the Hopi world view. • The Hopi language has all the essential elements which allow it to become a formal

language of study.

• The school is/can be responsible to present study of the language. • The teaching of cultural meanings embedded in the language remain the

responsibility of the home and village.

Approaching the maintenance of the language through oral and written Hopi is a

response to the nature of an oral language, Hopi, which has never been seen by speakers

of the language as having a separate aspect to its learning. It has traditionally been

learned through natural acquisition or by participating in formalized conventions and

everyday work application.

The Hopi language as a written language presents new challenges especially

within the modern school situation where writing does not recognize boundaries between

culturally restricted knowledge and that which is everyday unrestricted usage.

The new issue presented to Hopi communities is determining what can be taught

in schools. Therefore, reading and writing must be emphasized because it parallels the

schools’ mission. Within this focus, it is important that written text recognize and define

secular usage.

The training sessions have provided participants a forum of opportunity to think

about the Hopi language, to reflect on the experience of “looking” at the language, and to

re-examine its value in these contemporary times. The following statements were made

138

following the first year achievements; they summarize beliefs about the Hopi language,

as well as its status within the Hopi communities:

“Children appear to move in and out of differing language interactions, but we must recognize that very little reason is offered to children to maintain the Hopi language. This must become an important objective of Hopi language programs. The Hopi language should not be politicized. Personal commitment is the means by which individuals can plan an essential role in revitalizing the language among children.” “Hopi language is like water – a life sustaining source. Once it disappears, we will see our culture vanish.” “Hopi language instruction has provided a new perspective on the language. Through literacy, we can visualize the potential of the language within each person. The language is embedded in each person – we can now share it among one another. Everyone is inherently the teacher of the language and culture.” “We all want our children to speak Hopi.” “If we support and encourage each other, we can accomplish much in maintaining the language. This responsibility rests in our hands and we must not let factionalism distract or interrupt this effort.” “We create conflict for our children.” “Commitment does not require money. There has been too much emphasis placed on money.” “The process of collaboration is essential.”

There appears to be consensus among the Hopi language participants that

the Hopi language is valuable. This valuing/re-valuing of the language becomes

the motivation to act upon. There are constant barriers that will continue to

challenge the efforts toward Hopi language revitalization. The action of each

participant undertakes is a personal one.

139

Recommendations for Year Two

The Hopilavayi Project maintained the majority of its objectives in their

original form. However, recommendations toward continued maintenance of

objectives were offered. Foremost, (1) the development of a written curriculum

and teaching materials based on existing resources and language initiatives needs

to be continued; and (2) development of written, oral, and visual teaching

materials for village-based language education – with the input of village

community members – needs to be furthered, especially in regards to dialectical

differences.

140

Chapter 11

Hopilavayi Project: Phase II (Year Two) Achievements8

“Hopi language instruction has provided a new perspective on the language. Through literacy, we can visualize the potential of the language within each person. The language is embedded in each person – we can now share it among one another. Everyone is inherently the teacher of the language and culture.”

-Hopilavayi Performance Evaluation Report, Year One (1999)

“I saw the greatest challenge and obstacle to the Project’s effectiveness was the inconsistent participation of those representing [the] pilot programs.”

-Hopilavayi Performance Evaluation Report, Year Two (2000)

In order to gauge the Hopilavayi Project’s Second year achievements, a review of

the Phase II Action Plans should first be reviewed (Chapter 8, Action Plans for the

Revitalization of the Hopi Language, and Chapter 9, Implementation of the Hopilavayi

Project, section entitled The Three Phases of the Hopilavayi Project, p. 123-126). The

original objectives of Phase II included: the implementation of the pilot program designs

with language instruction conducted by teachers, teacher aides, and community members

fluent in the Hopi language. Measures/evaluation of Hopi language acquisition by

student participants in these pilot programs were to be conducted on a quarterly basis.

Such evaluation was to consist of oral testing of predetermined vocabulary sets and

grammatical principles. The purpose of evaluation was to measure the effectiveness of

the pilot programs as well as offering a means to identify the programs strengths and

weaknesses. It would also offer the means for developing a Hopi Language Competency

8 All information in this section was provided by the Hopi Tribe, the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, and the Hopilavayi Project. In particular, Sheilah Nicholas’ Hopilavayi Performance Evaluation Report – year Two(2000); and the grant proposal to the ANA for the Hopilavayi Project (1998).

141

Assessment Instrument which would serve to assess a baseline of Hopi language

comprehension and language acquisition over time. Additionally, evaluation of materials

was to be conducted via teacher/parent questionnaires while teaching methodology would

undergo evaluation via classroom observation by professional educators and community

speakers. Such evaluations could offer recommendations for improvement in curriculum

and teaching materials and further teacher and parent training.

By the end of the 12th month (of Phase II, or the 24th month since the projects

inception), the Hopi Tribe was to implement the pilot language instruction courses in two

selected villages, Head Start, and the selected reservation elementary school.

Phase II Achievements

Year two for the Hopilavayi Project was developing, piloting, and evaluating

teaching materials, strategies, and assessment tools for the village, schools, Head Start,

and elementary school pilot programs.

The Project’s pilot programs include:

1. Musangnuvi and Songoopavi Villages

2. Head Start Classes at Second Mesa (2 classes)

3. Polacca (2 classes)

4. Munqapi (2 classes)

5. Kiqötsmovi ( class)

6. Hot’vela (1 class)

7. Second Mesa Elementary School (1 class)

The Pilot Programs

Musangnuvi Village’s initial motivation for participating in the Hopilavayi

Project was to expand the summer Hopi language program for village youth by

establishing an after-school Hopi language instruction program. The After-school

142

program has been established and offers two one-hour classes on two days of the week,

totaling sixteen hours per month. The classes are open to all who are interested in the

Hopi language. The instructor is a Supawlavi Village member and retired elementary

school teacher. She currently provides instruction on a volunteer basis. Musangnuvi’s

interest and active involvement in their Hopi language program was recognized in the

Hopi Tribe’s newspaper, Tutuveni.

At the conclusion of year one, the Songoopavi Village pilot program was noted as

“not actively pursuing its Hopi language goals as outlined in their proposal submission”

due to an unstable village administration that could oversee it as a pilot program. At the

conclusion of year two, this situation remains unresolved. The Hopilavayi Project staff

continues to maintain contact but village response has been minimal.

There are eight Head Start Centers located at various villages throughout the

reservation. The Hopilavayi Project goals mandated automatic inclusion of the Head

Start centers as pilot programs. At the conclusion of year one, the program evaluation

noted, “…not all eight centers throughout the reservation are active participants in the

Hopilavayi Project…. The reasons for this have not been made clear to the Hopilavayi

Project although the Head Start centers and classes do operate under the direction of the

Hopi Head Start Director.”

According to the ANA Objective Progress Report for the period ending 02/29/00,

the Hopi language was a significant medium of interaction and instruction in five of the

eight Head Start classrooms that operate five hours daily over a four-day week.

Additionally, these head Start students receive 20 – 45 minutes of Hopi language

instruction daily (task 3).

143

At the conclusion of year two, due to the resignation of the Hopi language

instructors in two of the aforementioned Head Start classes, they are no longer

participants in the Hopilavayi Project, and the position of Head Start Director was vacant

at the end of year two. The remaining Head Start classrooms where the Hopi language

curricula and instruction is utilized continue to be assisted by the Hopilavayi Project.

Second Mesa Day School–the chosen elementary school, pilot program site– and

the Hopilavayi Project continue to collaborate in accomplishing goals for effective Hopi

language instruction despite a slow beginning, and in addition to the hiring of a new Hopi

language instructor. According to the ANA Objective Progress Report for the period

ending 02/29/00, grade levels K-6 are receiving Hopi language instruction five days a

week for 30–45 minutes daily (task 4). One Hopi language instructor provides lessons to

individual classes at all grade levels.

Polacca (2 classes); Munqapi (2 classes); Kiqötsmovi ( class); Hotevela (1 class);

Second Mesa Elementary School (1 class): information unknown at this time.

Year 2 Task Achievements (as outlined in the ANA grant proposal)

The report for tasks 1 – 3 is outlined in the review of pilot programs above.

Task 4: Design teacher and parent questionnaires to identify gaps in the teaching

materials and future training.

The project findings demonstrated the need to develop and provide Hopi language

instructors in the project’s pilot programs with teaching methods that would establish

consistency and/or standardization in presenting language lessons, use of teaching

materials, and evaluation of these for effectiveness of both instruction methodology and

144

developed materials. The Hopilavayi Project scheduled and conducted Teaching

Strategies workshops for instructors to provide this assistance.

Task 5: Revise and finalize draft of the Hopi Language Competency Assessment

Instrument (HLCAI), to be administered by teachers, to measure student’s

acquisition of vocabulary, grammar, and conversational skills. Include interviews

with fluent speakers to set baseline vocabulary goals.

and

Task 6: Distribute, collect, and summarize first student evaluations using the

draft… from all teachers.

This continues to be an ongoing collaborative effort between the Hopilavayi

Project and the HATT (the HLCAI was completed during year 3). At this point, the

project has developed an alternate assessment tool, Language Assessment for Classes.

Task 7: Distribute, collect, and summarize teacher and parent questionnaires.

The Hopilavayi Project staff determined the necessity to address this task by first

implementing a series of Teaching Strategies workshops for the purpose of establishing

consistency in teaching methodology and use of teaching materials among the language

instructors in each of the pilot programs. These workshops have also been designed to

incorporate and build on teaching strategies, activities, and materials already utilized in

existing and/or established classes. Appropriate village dialect continues to be a

prominent concern of the community and therefore for Hopi language instructors.

Attaining an understanding of Hopi dialects is essential for developing, as well as

determining, the effectiveness of teaching methodology and materials.

145

Task 8: Conduct first evaluation of teaching materials, methods, and students

abilities by observation… to measure levels of classroom participation and

conversation by students.

The project both observed and documented Hopi language use in instruction and

conversation in the following classrooms:

• Head Start, Second Mesa (1 class – 15 students)

• Polacca (2 classes – 21 students)

• Second Mesa Day School, grade 1 (2 classes – 28 students)

grade 6 (1 class – 22 students)

The language samples collected provide a significant and sufficient amount of data for

analysis toward the development of appropriate language assessment criteria at different

grade levels of instruction. Of particular importance is the amount of Hopi language that

is used in the Head Start classrooms. Throughout the daily two-hour sessions, Hopi is

utilized as the primary means of interaction, communication, and instruction.

Task 9: Distribute, collect, and summarize second student evaluation by teachers

using the Hopi Language Competency Assessment Instrument.

and

Task 10: Prepare first written report on the pilot programs, summarizing student

evaluations, parent and teacher questionnaires, and observations by the Hopilavayi

Advisory Task Team and other program participants.

The project has given priority and considerable time during year two for

preparation toward developing an effective and appropriate Hopi Language Competency

Assessment Instrument (Higgins, 2000). The language data samples collected at the Head

146

Start and Elementary school levels provided the staff with preliminary data that can be

analyzed for determining age-appropriate, oral proficiency level as well as developing

appropriate language activities within these early phases. Analysis of such data also

revealed the “natural” instructional/interactional approach currently utilized by Hopi

language instructors in their classrooms.

Task 11: Distribute, collect, and summarize second student evaluation by teachers

using the Hopi Language Competency Assessment Instrument.

The draft of HLCAI is scheduled to be submitted to the HATT for review in

Ocotober, 2000, followed by a submission to the CRATT for review to determine cultural

appropriateness.

Task 12: Distribute, collect, and summarize second teacher and parent

questionnaires.

These questionnaires have been addressed by the project as outlined in the ANA

Objective Progress report period ending 02/09/2000.

Task 13: Conduct second evaluation of teaching materials and methods and student

abilities by observation including rating level of class participation and student

conversation in Hopi.

and

Task 14: Distribute, collect, and summarize fourth student evaluation by teachers

using the HLCAI.

and

147

Task 15: Prepare written draft report on Phase II teaching activities, including

parent and teacher questionnaires on deficiencies in teaching materials and

training; student language acquisition evaluations of the teaching materials and

methods by the HATT and other program participants.

The project addressed these tasks early in year two by collecting data on Hopi

language usage in pilot programs. The language samples confirmed that early levels of

second language acquisition, Hopi speech emergence progresses from one/two word

responses to teacher questioning to students responding in longer phrases of complete

sentences. Also confirmed is that teachers should try to model the correct responses

while encouraging spontaneous speech from students. Instruction should continue to

expand vocabulary with activities designed to develop high levels of language use. The

vocabulary introduced in these classes has been documented in the language samples as

well.

Task 16: Present written draft report to village communities hosting pilot

programs; elementary school educators and school boards hosting pilot programs;

the HATT. Get feedback on how to improve programs in Phase III and set realistic

goals and expectations for students, parents, and teachers in Phase III (see

Recommendations for Year 3, this chapter, p. 150).

According to the project’s “Statement of Accomplishment”, no feedback from

pilot program participants have been received. In viewing such feedback as both meeting

the project objectives and essential to improving the effectiveness of the program during

Phase III, the Project Manager (Anita Poleahla, also the Curriculum Developer) will

address this by conducting on-site visitations to solicit feedback.

148

Task 17: Revise curriculum and teaching materials to reflect input from program

participants and community. Focus on addressing weaknesses identified in

evaluation process of Phase II and suggestions provided in community and

participant meetings.

The Teaching Strategies and teacher training workshops have provided the time,

place, and collaboration opportunities to develop Hopi language teaching materials.

Task 18: Archive teaching materials, evaluations, and meeting transcripts from

Phase II. Add materials to catalog and database for retrieval and public access.

The Hopilavayi Project will comply with the request of the Hopi Tribal Archivist

to archive the three year compilation of materials at the culmination of the project

timeline.

Notes on teacher and parent training

To meet the ANA objective of airing parent language-training on Hopi Radio, the

Hopi Foundation would work collaboratively with the Hopilavayi Project to utilize the

radio program to provide public access to language instruction while specifically

targeting Hopi children. This would place both entities in complementary roles in

bringing the Hopi language to the Hopi people; the Foundation would provide a

technological specialist while the Project would provide language instruction.

Parent and teacher training workshops for year two were scheduled and included

topics such as “The Insect Unit”, “A Helping Hand”, and “Ribbon Weaving”. At the

conclusion of year two, two the two workshops that had not yet been conducted were

pursued in year three. The workshop format included demonstration of the topic by the

149

project staff or guest instructor and time was allocated to pilot program language

instructors to adapt teaching materials with appropriate village dialects represented in the

classrooms. Community resource persons were invited to collaborate with the project

staff in developing and presenting topic demonstrations. All materials developed went

through a thorough review from the HATT and CRATT, while editing and revision drafts

were carefully approved by Mr. Emory Sekaquaptewa.

Teaching Strategies and Teacher training workshop were held throughout the year

and included teaching methods for Hopi language, developing teaching materials,

continued practice in Hopi phonology, grammar, and the Hopi writing system. Again,

Mr. Emory Sekaquaptewa conducted many of the workshops, which included Hopi

language training for interested parents.

All other year two tasks and objectives – including third and fourth quarter

teacher training workshops and the coordination of the Hopi Summit – were conducted as

outlined in the grant proposal to the ANA.

Recommendations for Year 3

There is the challenge to do things in the language because fluency is acquired by

speaking the language. Therefore, to teach the language means the language should be

spoken. This is essential for fluency and coherence and should be taught in the context of

everyday conversation, not in isolated words or by emphasizing writing over speaking.

To teach the language requires utilizing natural and functional language situations

(cooking, planting, basket-making, etc.) or, in the context of the classroom, recreating

approximations of the natural contexts for the language. This requires and understanding

of first and second language acquisition principles. Teachers should learn these

150

principles. They must also learn about the most effective teaching methods or revise and

adapt them accordingly. To test the effectiveness of teaching plans, methods, and tools

requires consistent financial support over many years. Most importantly, as stated most

eloquently by Dr. Richard Littlebear, Cheyenne, “Since this is the first time and only time

we are going to lose our languages, we have to devise new strategies accordingly.”

The Hopi language maintenance/revitalization initiatives undertaken by the

Hopilavayi Project continue to adhere to meeting the objectives as outlined in their grant

application to the ANA. However, to determine the overall effectiveness of the

curriculum guidelines, instructional units and activities, and assessment tools developed

and implemented during year two requires continued monitoring and grant/tribal/project

support. The following recommendations are premised on the status of language

instruction activity and teacher/parent training at the conclusion of year two.

(A) The Hopilavayi Project’s Curriculum Developer has:

1. drafted a Head Start curriculum;

2. developed a curriculum guide entitled “Tutuqay Pötskwani” with an

accompanying evaluation instrument;

3. accumulated Hopi language data through classroom observations in

addition to numerous instructional activities/units; and

4. conducted teacher training and materials development workshops.

The amount of materials developed and drafted within a limited timeframe (under two

years) and under numerous unforeseen challenges is impressive and commendable.

The curriculum drafts have been submitted to the CRATT for review to determine

cultural appropriateness and therefore have not been piloted or evaluated for

151

effectiveness. This process will need to be undertaken and will likely exceed the

remaining timeframe of the current ANA grant period. Therefore, it is recommended

that further funding be pursued though application to complete the process of

materials development, piloting, evaluation, revision, and distribution of a final draft.

(B) The Hopi language remains vital and relevant to and for the Hopi people. Yet, the

real threat is that too few tribal members appreciate how endangered it is; they don’t

always know how much is at stake or how much of a role as speakers they play. This

has been clearly demonstrated by the inconsistent activity and participation of Hopi

language teachers, program and village administrators, and community members

representing the Hopilavayi Project’s pilot programs. This inconsistency is the result

of varying factors: change of employment, lack of release time for teachers,

family/cultural priorities, etc. It is important to note here that the project

initiatives and objectives externally designed and implemented did not allow for

orientation or commitment from those who would be key players and

representatives of Head Start, elementary school, and village pilot programs. In

order to document effective outcomes for projects and activities distributed for

implementation, it is recommended that a core group of pilot program participants be

identified, recruited, and provided with additional support (financial and/or release

time) to collaborate fully with the Hopilavayi Project staff in contributing to such

outcomes and data collection, and function as a Project Hopi Language Committee.

152

(C) Hopi literacy training for language instructors is crucial to developing effective

teaching methods and materials. The tremendous responsibility of developing

language curriculum and language materials in addition to teaching the language is

often placed upon language instructors who are fluent speakers of the language. It is

important that their speaking ability is maximized for its language teaching potential

in the classroom context. They also face the challenge of doing things in the

language which requires them to have sufficient knowledge about the Hopi language

to develop appropriate teaching materials based on this knowledge. This requires a

study of the language. Its is recommended that the teacher/parent training component

of the project continue to provide Hopi language literacy training and incude the

study of the Hopi language.

(D) Hopi language instructors and other fluent speakers of Hopi (i.e. parents, elders,

community members) are the cultural and linguistic experts on Hopi. They can play a

vital role in generating Hopi language and cultural content for the curriculum

development, developing assessment criteria, and general community input into and

support of tribal language revitalization efforts at community and participant

meetings. Therefore, it is recommended that parents, elders, and community

members be identified and actively recruited as members of a core language

committee (referred to above) and provided financial support to contribute toward

effective outcomes of the Hopilavayi Project’s language revitalization activities.

153

(E) Such a cohort of trained individuals will be instrumental in maintaining project

language activities beyond the completion of the ANA grant period. Its is also

recommended that this core participant group receive training for conducting student

evaluations of Hopi language acquisition as well as inclusion in analyzing such data

for the purpose of noting effective teaching methodology being utilized in existing

language programs/classroom.

(F) The establishment of a core participant group committed to supporting the activities

of the Hopilavayi Project can be encouraged and guided toward generating local

interest, effort, and input into expanding on and developing further Hopi language

and cultural goals that will ensure that the efforts initiated by the Hopilavayi Project

as well as the success of future programs be continued. It is recommended that the

establishment of such a core participant group be actively pursued and created.

(G) A culminating activity of the Hopilavayi Project is the hosting of a language summit

to present the Hopi Tribe and village communities the activities/projects undertaken

and the successes of the program. It is recommended that a crucial component of the

language summit be a forum where the challenges, obstacles, and weaknesses of the

program be addressed as experiences to learn from as well as provide a planning

agenda for future language and cultural programs.

(H) There is abundant, current literature about indigenous language revitalization efforts

being undertaken by tribal communities as well as literature on language learning –

154

first and second language acquisition and various language programs. It is

recommended that investigation of such effective programs – and networking with

these programs – and essential literature specifically on indigenous language

revitalization be encouraged and pursued9.

Chapter 12

9 See References Cited at the end of this narrative; also see Appendix A, Other Resources for Indigenous Language Revitalization Programs.

155

Hopilavayi Project: Phase III (Year Three) Achievements10

In order to illustrate the Hopilavayi Project’s third year achievements, a brief

review of the general objectives is necessary, followed with an overview of the specific

projects that would help achieve these objectives.

Initial Phase III Objectives:

The Third Phase (year three) was to begin with the implementation of the revised

pilot program. The programs were to be evaluated throughout the year to judge their

effectiveness in language acquisition and revitalization. At the end of the third phase, a

reservation-wide language summit meeting was to be held to share these evaluations with

other schools, villages, and the Hopi community as a whole.

At the end of the project, the Hopi Tribe and villages would have a wide range of

materials and resources to apply to language education and preservation. Each school,

village, and family would be able to utilize these resources, make informed decisions on

language education, and develop strategies and programs to target their individual needs.

In addition, fluent speakers from the community would benefit from teacher training and

be able to share this training with others.

Finally, the development of the Hopi Language Competency Assessment

Instrument (Higgins, 2000) would enable the Hopi community to measure language

10 All information in this section was provided by the Hopi Tribe, the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, the Hopilavayi Project, and the grant proposal to the ANA for the Hopilavayi Project (1998). In particular, Sheilah Nicholas’ Hopilavayi Third Year Status Report (2001) was particularly vital.

156

acquisition over time and modify programs as needed. Rigorously evaluated pilot

programs would give the Hopi community and schools the experience and resources

needed to implement a comprehensive and multi-faceted language program, allowing

individuals and institutions to learn from one another while still maintaining the

flexibility required to sustain Hopi language and traditional Hopi values.

In both Phases II and III, an evaluator would observe the pilot programs. He/she

would submit a written report to the Program Manager and the Director of the CPO. The

report would include an evaluation of the program management and administration,

including suggestions on how to improve efficiency. The evaluator would also submit

recommendations for ways in which the project could improve the likelihood of the

achievements of the tribe’s long-term goals for language acquisition.

In both Phases II and III of the project, language acquisition would be measured

by teachers. Mastery of vocabulary and basic grammar would be assessed with a

quarterly oral exam. Conversational skills would be assessed, in part, during the same

oral exam. Teachers would also fill out written evaluations on speaking skills based upon

observation of everyday classroom behavior. For the elementary school programs, a

written component may have been included as well (see Chapter 9, p. 114 for further

information on evaluation and materials sharing).

Overview of Village Programs

During year two, the Musangnuvi village program had established an after school

Hopi language instruction program to expand its summer program for village youth.

During year three, the village administration offices were closed down and the language

program, under the umbrella of village administration, was closed as well. The current

157

status of the Hopi language program is that it has been incorporated in a new village non-

profit organization, The Pu’tavi Program. As such, it has no affiliation with the village

administration. The Hopilavayi Project currently provides only minimal assistance to this

program.

At the conclusion of year two, an “unstable village administration” was the

primary obstacle for effective implementation of the Songoopavi Village pilot program.

Throughout year three, this situation continues to interfere significantly with the

implementation of a successful village Hopi language program.

Head Start Centers

There are eight Head Start Centers located in various villages throughout the

reservation. At the conclusion of year two, participation of the Head Start Program in the

Project remains minimal. Key factors include the resignation of two Head Start Center

instructors who were active Project participants. A vacancy of the position for the Head

Start Center Director followed. By the end of the third year, the Director’s position had

not been filled, and currently only half (4) of the centers continue to participate in

Hopilavayi Project activities. With this key position remaining vacant, directives are

delegated to the Hopi Tribes Director of Education, who neither required, nor

encouraged, the participation of Head Start teachers in the Hopilavayi Project.

During year three, the Hopi Tribe Department of Education / Head Start

Curriculum Specialist position was filled by a former Head Start instructor who actively

participated in the Hopilavayi Project. As Head Start Curriculum Specialist, she has

mandated that Head Start teachers participate in the Hopilavayi Project activities. This is

a fortunate occurrence that ensures continued participation of the former Head Start

158

instructor as the Head Start Curriculum Specialist. More importantly, she is providing

administrative support of the Hopilavayi Project.

Elementary School

Second Mesa Day school and the Hopilavayi Project continues to collaborate in

providing students with Hopi language instruction. The current language instructor is a

recent hire to the school and has been receiving support from the Hopilavayi Project.

Objective Work Plan: Year III

Statement of Objective 1 – Year III

By the end of the 12th month, the Hopi Tribe will have completed Phase III of its

comprehensive pilot language programs, including the implementation of the revised

language courses in two villages, Head Start, and one elementary school and the final

evaluation of these programs.

Task 1

At least 30 students will receive language instruction for 6 hours per week for 40 weeks

in their villages. They will be taught by fluent speakers from their villages. They will

receive quarterly evaluations on language acquisition to measure Hopi vocabulary,

grammar, and oral skills.

Criteria for Benefits Expected:

159

At least 30 students will receive certificates of completion for one year of language

instruction in their village program, upon demonstration of a mastery of simple Hopi

vocabulary, basic sentence structure, and basic conversational skills. At the end of the

third year, they will undergo final oral evaluation by their teachers to measure the

following skills: (1) orally reciting the numbers1-20 and Hopi and Hopi directions; (2)

identifying colors, foods, plants, and animals from pictures; (3) creating simple Hopi

sentences; (4) the ability to respond to simple questions in Hopi. In the village programs,

students will also be evaluated for using the correct dialect pronunciations in the

aforementioned exercises.

Achievement at the end of Phase III:

During year two, the Musangnuvi village program had established an after school

Hopi language instruction program to expand its summer program for village youth.

During year three, the village administration offices were closed down and the language

program, under the umbrella of village administration, was closed as well. The current

status of the Hopi language program is that it has been incorporated into a new village

non-profit organization, The Hopi Pu’tavi Project, Inc. As such, it has no affiliation with

village administration. The Hopilavayi Project currently provides only minimal

assistance to this program.

At the conclusion of year two, an “unstable village administration” was the primary

obstacle for effective implementation of the Songoopavi Village pilot program.

Throughout year three, this situation continues to interfere significantly with the

implementation of a successful village Hopi language program.

160

Tasks 2 & 3 (achievements reported together, below)

Approximately 195 Head Start students will receive at least 10 hours of language

instruction in the classroom each week, and they will receive quarterly evaluations on

language acquisition to measure Hopi vocabulary, grammar, and oral skills.

Criteria for Benefits Expected:

Approximately 195 Head Start students will receive certificates of completion for one

year of language instruction in their schools, upon demonstration of a mastery of simple

Hopi vocabulary, basic Hopi sentence structure, and conversational skills. At the end of

the year they will undergo a final vocabulary evaluation by their teachers to measure the

following skills: (1) orally reciting the numbers1-20 and Hopi and Hopi directions; (2)

identifying colors, foods, plants, and animals from pictures; (3) creating simple Hopi

sentences; (4) the ability to respond to simple questions in Hopi. In the village programs,

students will also be evaluated for using the correct dialect pronunciations in the

aforementioned exercises.

Task 3

Approximately 180 elementary school children will receive at least 3 hours of language

instruction each week, and they will receive quarterly evaluations on language

acquisition.

Criteria for Benefits Expected:

161

Approximately 180 elementary students will receive certificates of completion for 1 year

of language instruction in their school, upon demonstration of a varied vocabulary, more

complex sentence structure, and conversational skills appropriate to each grade level. At

the end of the year, they will undergo a final oral evaluation by their teachers to measure

the following skills, depending on their grade level: (1) orally reciting the numbers 1-20

and Hopi directions; (2) identifying colors, foods, plants, animals, familiar household

objects, etc. from pictures; (3) creating simple Hopi sentences; (4) for higher level

students, creating complex sentences, including the use of tenses and post-positional

phrases; (5) the ability to respond to simple questions in Hopi; (6) for higher level

students, the ability to carry on a short conversation and follow classroom instructions in

Hopi.

Achievement at the end of Phase III:

Materials were distributed for the present quarter period and are being utilized in the

classrooms as per instructions developed for the teaching activities by the Hopilavayi

Project. Teachers have provided little or no oral and/or written feedback to the

Hopilavayi Project regarding weaknesses & ineffectiveness or strengths & effectiveness

of these materials. This has been viewed positively by the Hopilavayi Project.

Therefore, revisions of draft materials is unnecessary.

Before developing Hopi language teaching materials, the Project staff conducted an

investigation via classroom observation of the content, teaching methodologies, and

activities currently in use by classroom teachers. These observations indicated that Hopi

language curriculum and instruction were in various stages of development and

162

implementation as well as diverse content focus. This inquiry led the project staff to

develop language activities that were not grade specific, thereby allowing teachers to use

the material at any grade level. Hopi language instructors at the junior high school, as

well as adult-education teachers, have utilized this material. Additionally, teachers are

introduced to, and learn how to use these materials during in-service workshops provided

by the Hopilavayi project. The Project Curriculum Developer emphasizes that the

teaching materials/topics can be expanded and elaborated upon as well as to incorporate

other content or culture area topics.

This evaluator was invited to attend an in-service workshop on presenting the Hopi

language lesson Nu’ Kuwansivut aqw Morokinta – I am Dipping into the Paint Can. The

workshop participants were students enrolled in a collaborative teacher preparation

program between the Hopi Tribe and Northern Arizona University (NAU). The first

evening (evaluator was not present), these future Hopi teachers were provided with a

Hopi language lesson. The students were introduced to the Hopi vocabulary used in the

lesson activity. This was followed with a lesson on Hopi sentence structure in

comparison to English sentence structure. Hopi words such as kuwansivu – paint can –

offered an opportunity to present the combining form of Hopi words (kuwan: paint +

siivu: metal container = kwuansivu). Students were taken through the steps of creating a

hands-on activity that would provide the necessary student manipulatives for the lesson:

paint can and paintbrush.

The primary lesson of this particular activity was the teaching of colors – green,

purple, blue, blue-gree, yellow, red – colors of the rainbow and their significance in the

Hopi culture. The vocabulary and sentence structure would be introduced to the children

163

through song and pantomime. The words of the song were set to the music rhythm of

traditional Hopi “grinding” [of corn by young maidens] and “women’s basket dance”

songs. Children would kinesthetically act out the painting of a landscape using their

manipulatives while singing the words to the rhythm of the songs. The Hopilavayi

Project Curriculum Developer pointed out that this lesson could be expanded to

incorporate a lesson on corn, an important aspect of Hopi philosophy and traditional

subsistence, as well as how such colors of the landscape are used to represent geographic

directions, etc. Her emphasis was to point out that lesson activities could lend themselves

to further lesson/unit development in other content/subject areas and provide an

opportunity to incorporate Hopi culture.

Participants comments such as “that’s good,” or “you could do this to it,” were

viewed as positive feedback.

Task 4

Benefits Expected:

Two village programs, the Head Start program, and the elementary school program will

be evaluated twice for their effectiveness, using parent teacher questionnaires, and

modified to strengthen the language programs. Teachers and parents will identify needs

for modified or additional teaching materials and training, focusing on how the language

programs promote oral skills.

Criteria for Benefits Expected:

164

A written summary of teacher and parent questionnaires, which must include a list of

suggestions to modify teaching materials, will be developed in order to create additional

materials to address gaps in the pilot programs, and to delete materials that are

ineffective. Further, a list of training needs will be compiled to improve instructional and

evaluation methods in future programs.

Achievement at the end of Phase III:

While the Hopilavayi Project has succeeded in establishing a cohort of Hopi

community members, and the membership has supported Hopilavayi Project activities,

they have been unable to provide essential evaluative input and feedback because “not

only has the Hopi language never been taught before, but [for them, the CRATT] to look

at [evaluate] developed teaching materials, [and] the idea of teaching [Hopi language] is

new and foreign to them.” Currently, their input continues to be sought and they have

provided minor instructional suggestions but more importantly, they are supportive

participants in the project’s efforts to address language shift in Hopi communities.

According to the Hopilavayi Project, compiling a baseline data of Hopi language

proficiency among students was essential for further student evaluations, particularly

Hopi conversational proficiency. Therefore, it became a priority to encourage the use of

“Hopi conversation” and move away from previous Hopi language instruction that

focused primarily on vocabulary building (naming or “labeling” items/objects). The

purpose of developing the “Language Assessment for Classes”, then, was to provide

language instructors with vocabulary and phrases that would be conducive to engaging

students in Hopi language conversation. Encouraging the use of conversational phrases

165

that and directives would provide the Hopilavayi Project observation team members with

a baseline from which to determine whether an increase in the use of Hopi conversation

was noticeable and which words and phrases were used prevalently in classroom

conversations.

The Hopilavayi Project Curriculum Developer, also a member of the observation

team, stated that in the second evaluation or classroom observation (feb. 2000), “…I

could see advancement…” the first observation team consisted of five members

including the Project Curriculum Developer and Program Coordinator. The Project

Curriculum Developer developed the assessment tool and therefore provided training in

collecting classroom language data to team members.

As part of this initial observation, classroom dialogue was recorded and provides a

collection of data regarding Hopi language used in classroom interaction initiated by

teachers with their students. Songs were utilized in several classrooms. Although the

task item refers to “summarized report”, this in fact is a transcription of classroom

dialogue as well as an itemized version of the dialogue listed as words and phrases and

distributed to teachers. This language transcription was also utilized in completing the

Language Assessment for Classes checklist for which Hopi words and phrases used in the

classroom dialogue were matched against the compiled list of 112 words and phrases.

The Curriculum Developer has emphasized the necessity to have baseline data

against which to compare subsequent measures of increased Hopi language used in the

classroom, and between teachers and students. The concept of “assessment” in addition

to how best to determine and develop an appropriate and effective means of assessing

language presented its challenges. At the end of the grant period, the Hopilavayi Project

166

staff have met the objectives of developing an assessment tool and implementing its use

in the classroom to assess Hopi language use. A “starting point” has been established and

documented.

Tasks 4,5,7,8,10,12,13; Tasks 10,12, 13

(a) The village, Head Start, and elementary school programs will receive two written

evaluations to assess the effectiveness of teaching materials and instructional methods,

based upon both professional educators and fluent speakers in the community. The

observers will assess how the materials and teaching styles engage students by rating

student participation and conversational exercises (i.e. on a scale from 1 to 10, do

students try to speak Hopi most of the time, sometimes, never?…)

(b) More effective curriculum, teaching materials, and teaching strategies will be

designed for the Hopi villages, educational system, and the general public. The

evaluations will be used to refine teacher training, targeting identified weaknesses.

Furthermore, a series of evaluations can be used to measure improvement over time and

determine reasonable expectations for students. Finally, a Hopi Language Competency

Assessment Instrument (HLCAI) will be finalized, based upon the actual performance of

students in the pilot programs, as measured in their quarterly evaluations, and input from

teachers and observers from the community. The assessment instrument can be used by

future language education programs to measure language acquisition and levels of

mastery.

167

Criteria for Benefits Expected:

(a) A written summary of the ratings of class participation by both professional

educators and community observers, which must include a calculation of the ratings and

suggestions for making teaching materials and styles more engaging.

(b) Revised curricula and teaching materials will be printed for the villages, Head Start,

and the reservation elementary schools, based upon parent and teacher questionnaires and

community observation and approved by the Hopi Advisory Task Team. The revised

materials must address (1) improvements in the curricula for promoting language

acquisition based upon vocabulary, grammar, and conversational skills detailed above;

(2) improved methods for integrating Hopi language into everyday Hopi lifeways; (3)

training needs for teachers identified in the evaluation process in order to improve

training methods. In addition, the revised curricula must include a Hopi Language

Competency Assessment Instrument (HLCAI) to be based upon reasonable expectations

of language acquisition (including vocabulary, grammar, and conversational skills)

developed during the evaluation process of the pilot programs. The HLCAI must include

basic standards in vocabulary, grammar, and conversational skills for different levels, as

well as questionnaires, written tests, and other tools to measure those basic standards.

Achievement at the end of Phase III:

The Hopi Language Competency Assessment Instrument was submitted as

Attachment #3 for Year II 6-Month Progress Report by the Hopilavayi Project. The draft

of the tools was implemented in Year II and no submissions from the Hopi language

instructors calling for revisions or concerns to address weaknesses were received by the

168

Hopilavayi Project. Its is therefore considered by the Hopilavayi Project as “revised” and

“approved” by both the CRATT members and classroom teachers who have utilized it.

Currently, the HLCAI is in the process of final printing. One visible change will be that

Hopi graphics will replace the conventional clip art graphics used in the first draft. A

final print copy was not available for review.

The next step outlined by the Hopilavayi Project will be to provide further training in

how to administer the assessment but this is contingent upon continued funding. The

training process that follows is developed and a computer program to calculate scores is

available as well.

The development of the HLCAI was contingent upon establishing a baseline

language data against which increased Hopi language use or development of speaking

ability could be measured. This was accomplished via the first student evaluation using

classroom observation and the Language Assessment for Classrooms to gather and

document baseline data. The second student evaluation was a follow-up with classroom

observation and documenting continued and/or increased use of Hopi language. Hopi

language use gathered from classroom observations in addition to gathering existing Hopi

language activities/instruction determined the direction for the Hopilavayi Project to

proceed in developing Hopi language teaching materials.

Initially, the HATT was comprised of representatives from every village, totaling 20

members. Their purpose and function was to assist with the design, development, and

implementation of Hopi language teaching materials. While fluent Hopi speakers, they

were presented with a charge for which they were not fully prepared: not literate in the

169

Hopi language which was an essential part of their role. The Project Curriculum

Developer describes the three year grant period as a “learning process” for HATT

members. This “learning process” pointed out that all community members need to be

educated about the multi-faceted and complex issues surrounding the dynamics of

confronting and reversing language shift.

Accommodating “teaching styles” required investigating teaching methods and

content materials already being utilized in the classrooms. Such investigation revealed

that Hopi language instruction was occurring at different levels and at different stages.

This diversity could not be adequately accommodated through creating and developing

language teaching-materials for specific grade levels. The goal became that of providing

content/subject lesson-activities that could be expanded upon to other areas by teachers.

The difficulty for and reluctance of teachers to take personal initiative toward this

objective was a newfound concern for the Project staff. It became a significant focus in

developing lesson activities to demonstrate this during in-service workshops, and

particularly in addressing Hopi cultural content.

The Hopilavayi staff encourages teachers to view the curiosity of students as a means

to address the issue of cultural content. For example, the lesson Kuwansivut Akw

Morokinta – I am Dipping into the Paint Can, previously described, could be

incorporated to include a lesson on corn, an important aspect of Hopi philosophy and

traditional subsistence, as well as how such colors of the landscape are used to represent

geographic directions. Because much of this delves into Hopi culture, it is suggested that

170

classroom or Hopi language teachers encourage students to take such lessons into the

home where further discussion and cultural knowledge can be provided to them by family

members. As such, the view of the Hopilavayi Project staff is that Hopi cultural

knowledge should remain primarily in the home and family sphere.

Tasks 15 & 16

A “Hopi Language Summit” meeting will allow parents, educators, village and school

administrators, and other members of the community to share the results of the pilot

programs so that additional programs can be implemented and/or improved in the other

villages and schools.

Criteria for Benefits Expected:

Proceedings of the Hopi Language Summit meeting will be made available to

villages, schools, and community members.

Achievement at the end of Phase III:

The first Hopi Language Summit was held on October 26, 2000 and a subsequent

meeting to present the Hopilavayi Project activities was held. An outline of activities

titled, Language Reflects Life, Culture, and Defines a People, was submitted as

attachment #2 with the ANA Objective Progress Report Period ending 8/31/01. The

Hopi Language Summit was held in the Hopi Civic Center, May 11, 2001. The Summit

agenda included prayer, Presentation of the Hopi Flag, keynote speaker Dr. Gary Paul

Nabhan, three concurrent morning and afternoon workshop sessions featuring five

different Hopi language lessons and activities, lunch, and closing remarks. The following

is a summary of a few of the afternoon workshops:

171

Workshops

(1) Tanul Pa’pa / Is Wuhtaga (This Old Man)

Objective: song to teach Hopi language, build Hopi vocabulary, engage students in

Hopi language.

Focus: Animals

Activity: children’s song “Old McDonald” is used to introduce Hopi vocabulary for

farm animals: waakasi-cow; moosa-cat; pooko-dog; kaneelo-sheep; mooro-burro;

paawikya-duck; kawayo-horse; kowaako-chicken; pitsooti-pig.

Additional vocabulary: wuutaqa-old man; possessive forms of animals listed above.

Manipulatives: pictures of animals on Popsicle sticks.

Teacher materials: song in written form; complete lesson activity.

(2) Qöngöwungpaya-Hopi Stone Kick Game.

Objective: traditional game to teach Hopi culture; significance of the game is a foot

race; engage students in the game and language.

Focus: traditional foot race; its cultural significance; the physical challenges it poses.

Activity: Tribal elders provided the historical/cultural context of the game; how the

traditional kicking stone was made using natural materials; participants kicked a stone

around a designated route.

Teacher materials: written lesson activity.

(3) Yuwsi-traditional Clothing

172

Objective: traditional clothing to illustrate cultural symbolism; students able to view

clothing worn by men and women during the specific cultural events with respect and

appreciation; understand that cultural symbols are embedded in clothing.

Focus: Cultural symbolism

Activity: pictures of and presenters wearing items of traditional clothing as visual aids

to discussion of symbolism by community members and tribal elders.

Hopi vocabulary: kweewa-belt; napna-shirt; hovinapna-pants/trousers; höömi-hair;

tuukwavi-turquoise necklace; maapona-wrist bracelet; tootsi-shoes; kwasa-dress;

siitapalo-shawl; mantootsi-girl’s shoes/leggings; poli’ini-girls hairstyle/whorls;

naasomi-boy’s hairstyle.

Teacher materials: written lesson activity; pictures of Hopi boys and girls in

traditional clothing; Hopi words for clothing items that can be used to label items on

the pictures.

(4) Titavtawi-Lullabies/Children’s songs

Objective: songs/lullabies of animals and insects; teach Hopi language

Focus: Follow up on Hopilavayi Project lesson: tootim-insects. Significance of songs

which are stories, lullabies, and game songs.

Activity: participants were taught words to the song and motions to act out the song’s

story.

Vocabulary: oral and visual presentation of Hopi language

Teacher materials: handouts of all songs, complete written lesson plan.

173

(5) Other workshops included:

Naatoyla-Clan Totem: Discussion and presentation of Hopi clans

Kuwanat aqw Morokinta – Dippin’ in the Paint Box: Learn colors in the Hopi

language through song and motion.

Nanamuna: participants were invited to participate in a run for a long and good life

around a designated course.

Hopilavayvenpit Sisirokya: Participants introduced to the Hopi alphabet and led

through the process of blending the sounds to make Hopi words visible.

Humitiniiy Wahokna: interactive listening, speaking, reading, and writing activity.

Paakwat Amum Tawlalwa – Sing with the Frog: Using puppets to teach a Hopi

children’s song.

Task 17 and 18

Proceedings of the summit meeting and copy of curriculum and teaching materials

will be placed in the CPO archive and made available to the public. Revised materials –

including the curriculum and Hopi Language Competency Assessment Instrument – to be

archived for the teachers, schools, and communities use.

Criteria for Benefits Expected:

A collection of Hopi language materials will be available to the public from the CPO

archives. The CPO must develop a written catalog describing the holdings for the

general public.

Achievement at the end of Phase III:

174

The revised curriculum has been distributed to pilot programs and distribution to

other villages will be done via Community Service Administrators (CSAs), in August

2001. Teachers have used the activities as developed but have provided no feedback for

the Hopilavayi Project to incorporate in the revised edition. The requested revised

curriculum was not available at the time of this review.

The Hopi Tribe’s Archivist has informed the Hopilavayi Project that archiving the

materials will be conducted at the closing of the project, August 30, 2001.

As of the end of August, 2001, the Hopilavayi Project has not received information

regarding how materials would be archived. Of importance to the Project staff is that all

materials developed remain accessible to the public. With little information forthcoming,

the Project staff is currently unable to inform their pilot program participants about

procedures to access this material for their programs. Additionally, Project funds are

unavailable for designing a system to address this. It is an assumption that the Cultural

Preservation Office (CPO) will assume responsibility for archiving and designing a

systems for public access.

Statement of Objective 2 – Year III

By the end of the 12th month, the Hopi Tribe will have completed Phase two of the

parent-teacher training, including quarterly workshops for the village-based teachers and

workshops for parents in the villages and on Hopi Radio. In Phase III, the teacher and

parent materials will be refined to address weaknesses and needs identified in Phase II.

Teachers and fluent speakers involved in Phases II of the pilot programs will assist in the

training, building on their actual experience and knowledge. Finally, teacher training

175

participants will develop recommendations for an expanded training program in the

future.

Task 9 (report is combined with task 10)

Four village-based teachers, at least 8 Head Start teachers, and 4 elementary school

teachers and aides (all of whom must be fluent speakers of Hopi) will attend four

workshops to improve their teaching and evaluation skills and share ideas about making

their methods more effective. They will develop recommendations for and expanded

teacher training program. They will also become knowledgeable resources as teachers

for future teacher training programs in the Hopi community.

Task 10

Parents will attend two workshops on home-based language instruction in support of

the village and school programs. They will be given basic instruction in the Hopi

grammar and vocabulary that will be taught to their students in the pilot programs. They

will be provided with some suggestions on activities and approaches to incorporating

vocabulary, grammar, and vocabulary skills into their everyday lives at home. Parents

who participate in the parent training component will also be asked to submit suggestions

for future expanded parent training programs, and they will be valuable community

resources for any future parent training programs.

Criteria for Benefits Expected:

(Task 9) At least 40 parents will receive certificates of completion for two workshops

on language education in the home, upon demonstration of their attendance and

participation in the group discussion. Participants must also submit a list of

176

recommendations for future expanded parent training programs, which must address the

value of the training material and sample exercises, the format and timing of the

workshop, and subjects that need to be addressed further.

(Task 10) Four village-based teachers, at least 8 Head Start teachers, and 4

elementary school teachers and aides will receive certificates of completion for four

teaching methods workshops, upon demonstration of their attendance and participation in

the group discussion and understanding the basic Hopi grammar. Participants must also

submit a list of recommendations for improving teacher training and student evaluation,

which must address the value of the training materials, the format of the workshops, and

subjects that need to be addressed further. Finally, the CPO must compile a list of

teacher training graduates willing to assist with future teacher training programs.

Achievement at the end of Phase III:

According to the ANA Objective Progress Report for Period ending 8.31/01, under

category “Accomplishment”, teacher and parent training workshops have been held as a

combined workshop for Hopilavayi Pilot Program participants who are parents or

teachers. Workshops have been conducted by Hopi language consultant Emory

Sekaquaptewa.

Fourth quarter teacher workshop was held at Northern Arizona University (NAU);

Sheilah Nicholas was also in attendance.

Task 11

Hopi Radio will air at least 30 hours of programming during the year on ideas for

parents to reinforce language education in the home, including suggestions on exercises

177

to expand vocabulary to improve conversational skills in everyday life (such as songs,

crafts, cooking activities, etc.). These programs will be made available through Hopi

radio and the CPO archive to members of the community unable to listen to the programs

as broadcast.

Criteria for Benefits Expected:

The Hopi Radio station will have at least 30 hours of taped programming from the

year in their archive on ideas for parents to reinforce language education in the home.

The CPO archive will print a catalog of language programming in order to provide public

access to these materials.

Achievement at the end of Phase III:

Hopi Radio, KUYI FM 88.1, finished construction and first aired in 2001.

END OF PHASE III:

At the conclusion of the funding period for the third year, Phase III, of the Hopilavayi

Project, expectations included:

1. To have an established clearinghouse of language materials and resources available

for continued Hopi language programs.

2. To have a working language assessment tool (HLCAI)

3. To have a foundation of experience, language knowledge, and programs from which

to grow.

4. To have a core of literate individuals in the Hopi language to carry out modification

and expansion of programs developed and implemented by this project.

178

As addressed earlier, a system for the disbursement of archived Hopi language materials

to teachers, schools, parents, and community members has yet to be developed.

Nonetheless, all the goals and objectives for year three have been achieved by the

Hopilavayi Project.

Year Three Concluding Remarks11

The Hopilavayi Projects overarching goal was to support, expand, and coordinate

local language revitalization efforts already existing in the community and schools. In

this process, the expectations of the project included establishing a clearinghouse of

language materials and resources available for continuing Hopi language programs,

develop a working language assessment tool, building a foundation of experience,

language knowledge, and programs from which to grow, and to identify a core of

individuals literate in Hopi language to carry out modification and expansion of programs

developed and implemented by this project.

Assuredly, the objectives of the Hopilavayi Project outline have been

accomplished. More importantly, the project has brought Hopi language to a highly

conscious level of discussion and action among the Hopi people and its activities have

not gone unnoticed. Hopi language instructors, individual community members, and

village programs have made inquiries into project activities and sought involvement to

address specific language program or personal language needs. These individuals have

been strongly influenced by their involvement in the Project and have essentially initiated

a movement from discussion and dialogue toward action. They have taken personal

responsibility and steps toward ensuring Hopi cultural and linguistic continuity.

179

11 This section comes from Sheilah Nicholas’ Hopilavayi Third Year Status Report (2001).

180

Chapter 13:

Concluding Remarks on the Hopilavayi Project

and Recommendations for the Preservation of the Hopi Language12

Revitalizing endangered languages is difficult and complex. It is about

developing something the community can trust while producing something of value. The

Hopilavayi Project’s overarching goal to support, expand, and coordinate local language

efforts already existing in the community and schools underscores the diversity of

solutions and complexity of bringing together a unified effort. The difficulty and

complexity has been documented throughout the period of program implementation.

Year three of the Hopilavayi Project re-confirms the challenge undertaken in

encompassing existing Hopi language programs operating in village communities and

reservation schools within the scope of its comprehensive, reservation-wide language

instruction program implemented to teach Hopi youth how to speak Hopi.

Particularly challenging has been establishing and sustaining Hopi language

programs at the village, Head Start, and school pilot sites. Program implementation has

been consistently subjected to internal “administrative instability / politics” beyond

project control. More disconcerting has been confronting the reality that establishing a

cohesive front to address Hopi language erosion remains elusive. The need to clarify

issues related to such community attitudes and behaviors becomes crucial.

181

Also disconcerting, especially for project staff, has been to convince Hopi

language instructors to view themselves as cultural or linguistic experts. Their apparent

lack of confidence in their own abilities to teach Hopi youth to speak Hopi language has

been demonstrated by a reluctance to provide feedback on materials developed, and to

contribute fully to program and materials development.

It is more important to recognize that the Project has brought the Hopi language to

a highly conscious level of discussion and action among Hopi people. Its activities have

not gone unnoticed. Hopi language instructors, individual community members, and

village programs have independently inquired into Project activities and sought

involvement to address their specific language program or personal language needs.

These individuals have been strongly influenced by their involvement in the Project and

have essentially initiated a movement from discussion and dialogue toward action. They

have taken personal responsibility and steps toward ensuring Hopi cultural and linguistic

continuity.

Especially commendable is that the project expectation of establishing a

clearinghouse of language materials and resources for continuing Hopi language

programs and developing a working language assessment tool have been realized. The

materials described in the body of this report attest to the commitment of the project staff

in meeting this expectation.

The Project’s challenges might be viewed in terms of moving toward realizing

what Fishman terms, “inter-generational re-vernacularization” or transmitting the

language to the next generation automatically and naturally. He states, “Vernaculars are

12 This section is provided by Sheilah Nicholas’ Performance Evaluation Report Year-Three: The Hopilavayi Project; Part V. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations, 2001

182

acquired in infancy, in the family, which means in intimacy. They are handed on that

way, in intimacy and in infancy… vernaculars are inter-generational and on informal,

spontaneous bases, outside any formal institutionalized bases.” (Fishman, in Cantoni,

1996: 192). When the responsibility for teaching the “mother tongue” is placed on the

hands of institutions such as tribal councils, education departments, schools, and grant

programs (Hopilavayi Project), language teaching and learning become extremely

challenging and more often than not, subject to the objectives of the institutions and/or

programs which operate from outside the intimacy of the home and family. Additionally,

the function of institutions, particularly schools, remain foremost as that of preparing the

students for the working world of mainstream society and “are programmed and not

generally inter-generational institutions” (Fishman, in Cantoni, 1996: 192). Language

maintenance and revitalization efforts, on the other hand, seek to reaffirm and strengthen

the personal and collective identity of a people and ensure their cultural and linguistic

continuity through the language. These conflicting ideologies then “have almost

completely opposite constellations of forces” and create obstacles for developing

effective language teaching and learning programs (Fishman, in Cantoni, 1996: 192).

That the Hopi language is “ideally Hopituy tutuqay’am”, ideally in the hands of

the Hopi people, remains to be evident (A. Poleahla, Hopilavayi Project Curriculum

Developer). While the Hopi language remains as a living language, the circumstances of

modern times – transformations in lifestyle and residence brought about by a wage

economy – access to English media and technology, and particularly English-only

schooling, maintaining the life of the languages becomes severely challenged. Hopi

language learning and teaching, then, will require motivation, devotion, dedication,

183

persistence, and support from everyone living in the community and more importantly,

trusting our abilities to develop and direct our own community plan of language

revitalization (Adley-Santa Maria, 1999).

Recommendations

The recommendations outlined below offer suggestions for Hopi Elders, parents,

children, and educators – with the support of community, tribal government, schools, and

education agencies – to maintain, strengthen, and ensure that the Hopi language continues

to be the means of communication, instruction, and the unifying bond among all

generations. At the heart of the mission is to encourage and promote the use of the Hopi

language in our daily activities at home and in the community so that it is transmitted and

acquired naturally.

1. Utilize the available data to assist in the continuing work of revitalizing the Hopi

language. The Pueblo communities strongly emphasize the need for a substantiated

body of data to help place obstacles in their proper perspective and more importantly

to provide insight in the salient social attitudes influencing the language transmission

processes in the community. The annual evaluation reports for the Hopilavayi Project

constitute a substantial body of data addressing obstacles experienced during the three

phases of program implementation. It is recommended that they annual evaluation

reports of the Hopilavayi Project be utilized in gaining insight and providing

perspective and direction to those who will continue the work in Hopi language

revitalization initiated by the Hopilavayi Project.

184

2. Utilize community support. The Hopilavayi Project has generated support and

involvement of community members representing villages, school programs, and

interested individuals. It is recommended that these community members be invited

and strongly encouraged to maintain their involvement as a core group of Hopi

people willing to build a foundation of understanding about issues of language loss

and revitalization in Hopi communities.

3. Develop a teacher cohort to receive Hopi language teacher-training. The

Hopilavayi Project has established a collaborative relationship with teachers from the

Head Start Program, village after-school programs, and school Hopi language

programs. It is recommended that these teachers be invited and encouraged to

become a teacher cohort to receive training for language teaching that incorporates

(1) appropriate methods for second language teaching; (2) information about oral

language development; (3) the role of native language literacy; (4) and the

development of a working approach for teaching youth and adults.

4. Involvement of the Hopi Education Endowment Fund members. The Hopi Tribe

has established the Hopi Education Endowment Fund with financial oversight

provided by a General Board Membership and Executive Committee comprised of

Hopi professionals in various fields. The duties of the General Board Membership

and Executive Committee encompass supporting and furthering the educational needs

and goals of the Hopi people and its members. It is recommended that the

185

membership of this fund be invited and encouraged to support the inclusion of and

become actively involved in Hopi language revitalization activities and programs.

5. Enlistment of Hopi Tribal Chairman’s support. The Hopi Tribal Chairman’s

office has given full and active support to the establishment of the Hopi Education

Endowment fund. The Pueblo communities of New Mexico have emphasized the

crucial role the tribal leadership has in sustaining language revitalization efforts. It is

highly recommended that the Hopi Tribal Chairman’s support be enlisted to (1)

establish an advisory language committee charged with developing future language

initiatives; and (2) gain the support of the Hopi Tribal Council toward successful

implementation of future language initiatives and funding.

6. Involving the entirety of Hopi human resources. “Language revitalization means

getting people to be able to learn and use the language again” (Hinton and Hale,

2001: 10). This requires undertaking the responsibility of planning: (1) setting the

goals and objectives; (2) determining the kind of language programs that will be

developed and implemented; (3) making crucial decisions about development and

implementation (immersion classes, literacy development, immersion camps, after-

school programs, family immersion programs); and (4) investigating human and

physical resource potential. It is recommended that the cadre of human resources

(Hopilavayi Coordinator, Cultural Preservation Office Director, Hopi language

consultants, Project Evaluator, Former Project Curriculum Director, Current Head

186

Start Curriculum Specialist) be invited to initiate planning for continued program

implementation.

7. Hopi Tribe establishment of permanent funding source. The ending of the

funding period for the Hopilavayi Project has meant a stopping of all Project

activities. The reliance on outside funding sources for sustaining and continuing the

language program has created worry and distraction among staff and program

participants for most of the final year of the Project. Additionally, more distraction

has ensued in directing time and energy from continued implementation of the

language program to packing and storing program materials and closing out the

project office. The Hopi Tribal government must make its language program a key

funding priority. It is recommended the Hopi Tribe demonstrate its commitment to

Hopi linguistic and cultural continuity by establishing a permanent funding source

within the tribal budget and eliminating the sole dependence on short-term outside

funding.

8. Hopi language and education summits. The issue of language revitalization has

been gaining a global and national attention, yet it has not harnessed a great deal of

thought or support in tribal communities for a variety of reasons: distractions of

contemporary times, resistance to change, misunderstanding the advantages of

bilingualism. Community support for sustaining a language revitalization project is

an essential aspect of a language revitalization program. It is recommended that

education and language summits be held regularly with a component to provide a

187

forum for awareness building about the importance of language revitalization as well

as utilizing the community newspaper and radio station to inform and to invite

community dialogue.

9. Head Start: the focus of continued Hopi language instruction efforts. At the

conclusion of the Hopilavayi Project, the continuance of the Project activities can be

maintained in Head Start and Second Mesa Elementary school pilot sites. At Head

Start, classroom instructors, under the new leadership of Ms. Anita Poleahla, (Former

Curriculum Developer for the Hopilavayi Project) provide potential for training a

cadre of Hopi language teachers to undertake a more concerted effort of Hopi

language instruction program development focused at this level. It is recommended

that the Head Start program become the focus of continued Hopi language efforts.

10. Language teacher-training. Getting people to be able to learn and use the Hopi

language requires teaching the language in such a way that someone can actually end

up using it. It is recommended that Hopi language teachers – Head Start teachers,

classroom teachers aides responsible for teaching Hopi language, and Hopi certified

teachers desiring to include Hopi language in the classroom – be encouraged and

financially assisted as participants in language teaching training. It is also

recommended that training be sought in a local regional area. LINA (Linguistic

Institute for Native Americans, run by Christine Sims in New Mexico) and/or the

American Indian Language Development Institute, a four-week residential program at

the University of Arizona in Tucson, are local training sites. Both have developed

188

coursework and workshop topics in response to the need for good training for

community people being hired in schools. Both also place a priority on recruiting

native educators as institute instructors. It is also recommended that teachers who

speak the Hopi language are afforded special recognition and respect for this

knowledge and provided with the linguistic and pedagogical training to teach

11. Curriculum development. According to linguist Leanne Hinton, “Perhaps the

greatest cause of failure in the teaching of endangered languages is inadequate teacher

training in language-teaching pedagogy…” (Hinton, et al, 2001: 349). Additionally,

those delegated with the responsibility of indigenous language teaching are the

speakers of the language who may not have any background in teaching and may be

an elder as well. Compounding this is that young teachers may not have any

background in language teaching or may not be speakers of Hopi language. It is

recommended that a Hopi language curriculum be developed that first and foremost

has learning to use the language as the basic focus of all planned activities and

allowing the learner to see how the language is used in a natural way. The curriculum

should help the learner build the appropriate language skills over time toward the goal

of understanding so as to participate in specific activities, situations, or events. It is

further recommended that a cohort of individuals including elders, community

members, educators, and language teachers work to design culturally-responsive

(incorporate Hopi values, history, traditions, ethnobotany, and other cultural

knowledge) curriculum and develop language activities and materials.

189

12. Other community’s involvement with language revitalization. The importance of

utilizing the appropriate teaching methods for getting people to learn to use the

language are guided by the goal and objectives for (1) producing speakers of the

language and / or may include (2) developing literacy skills in the language; both

concerned with real communication, and (3) based on what determines “good Hopi

citizenship”. It is recommended that those involved with curriculum development

visit other communities with language revitalization projects to observe their

approaches to teaching language as well as examine curricula.

13. Hopi literacy as an alternative tool to language learning. While the Hopi language

has a developed orthography, it is important to note that Hopi language literacy is not

a prerequisite to learning to speak Hopi. There remains the need for awareness

building regarding the writing system put forth by Emory Sekaquaptewa, particularly

in addressing the debate over dialectical differences. It is recommended that

developing Hopi language literacy be viewed as an alternative tool to language

learning and included in the overall curriculum goals and activities.

14. Recommendations for “language as subject” classes. Currently Hopi language

teaching in the schools provides advantages and problems. According to Hinton

(Hinton, et al.: 2001), the problems exist in not providing enough exposure time to

bring about fluency and the school environment is not conducive to creating real

situations for communication. The advantages have resulted in instilling pride in

linguistic heritage, some degree of conversational ability, and have motivated some to

190

create their own language use situations. Its is recommended that such “teaching the

language as subject” classes be modified to endure either maximum beneficial

exposure (one-hour or one-half hour) and/or provide training in appropriate teaching

methodology. Additionally, it is recommended that information on “good language-

as-subject” programs is collected. Hinton recommends the Humboldt County,

California Program (Hinton, 1999).

15. Assist parents in attaining maximum Hopi language utilization in the home.

Hinton compares the speaking of one’s native language to the beating of one’s heart.

Like the cessation of a heartbeat when a trauma or disease or deterioration stresses the

body beyond that which life can tolerate, it stops beating and death ensues. In the

same way, the stresses and demands of the dominant society and its language

eventually lead to the cessation of the endangered language. For a person in danger

of dying, the first job of the medics caring for that person is to start the heart again.

For an endangered language, the first job is to get the native speaker speaking again

(Hinton and Hale, 2001: 13). The problem to address is the absence of

communicative situations in which the language can be used meaningfully.

Encouraging parents and community adults – who are non-speakers or passive

speakers of Hopi – to create a circle of speakers requires assistance from the Hopi

language programs. It is recommended that classes and support groups for parents be

developed in order to assist them in working toward using the language at home as

the primary language of communication..

191

16. Educational priorities. Establishing an Indian Education Committee / Education

Task Force charged with setting educational priorities for community members to

deal with community education concerns, and setting Hopi language as the first

priority is recommended. The primary charge would be to develop an integrated

language program for the reservation communities and begin building the capacity of

the community to direct its own plan encompassing these recommendations as

outlined above.

192

References Cited Hopi Tribe Resources Grant Proposal for The Hopilavayi Project (1998). Unpublished, Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Higgins, Daniel B. (2000). Hopi Language Competency Assessment Instrument. The Hopilavayi Project,

Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Hopi Cultural Preservation Office (2001): Information provided directly from the HCPO offices in

Kykotsmovi, Arizona & Northern Arizona University Office, Flagstaff. Hopi Education Proposal 1987. Unpublished, Hopi Tribe. Hopi Education Ordinance 36: Proposed Amendments (1999). Hopi Tribe. Hopi Language Assessment Project (1997). Unpublished, Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Hopi Language Education and Preservation Plan (1998). Unpublished, Hopi Tribe. Hopi Tribal Goals and Objectives (1999). Unpublished, Hopi Tribe. Hopi Tribe Education Ordinance (1981). Unpublished, Hopi Tribe Department of Education; Oriabi,

Arizona. Hopilavayi Performance Evaluation Report – Year 1, (1999). Unpublished, Hopi Tribal Council:

Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Hopilavayi Performance Evaluation Report – Year 2, (2000). Unpublished, Hopi Tribal Council: Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Hopilavayi Performance Evaluation Report – Year 3, (2001). Unpublished, Hopi Tribal Council:

Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. IPOLA: Native Languages Revitalization Resource Directory (1998). The Institute for the Preservation

of the Original Languages of the Americas, Sante Fe, New Mexico. Maynard, S. (1987) Hopi Worldview Plan. Hopi Dept. of Education, The Hopi Tribe. Nocholas, Sheilah (1999). Hopilavayi First Year Status Report, The Hopilavayi Project. _______(2000). Hopilavayi Second Year Status Report, The Hopilavayi Project. _______(2001). Hopilavayi Third Year Status Report, The Hopilavayi Project. _______(2001). Performance Evaluation Report Year-Three: The Hopilavayi Project; Part V. Concluding

Remarks and Recommendations. Poleahla, Anita (2000). Hopi Curriculum Guide. Hopi Tribal Council: Hopilavayi Project. Sekaquaptewa, Emory, and Kennith Hill (Eds.), (1999). Hopìikwa Lavaytutuveni, a Hopi-English

Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

193

General References Adkins, J.D.C. (1887). “The English Language in Indian Schools.” In Prucha, Francis Paul (ed.) (1973),

Americanizing the American Indians: Writings by the “Friends of the Indian” 1880-1900. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Adley-Santa Maria, Bernadette. (1999). “Interrupting White Mountain Apache Language Shift: An

Insider’s View”. In McCarty, et al. (Eds), Practicing Anthropology. Vol. 2. No. 2. Albert, Roy and David Leedom Shaul, comp. (1985). A Concise Hopi and English Lexicon. N.P.: John

Benjamins. Bauman, James J. (1980). A Guide to Issues in Indian Language Retention. Washington, D.C.: Center for

Applied Linguistics. ERIC Reports. Basso, Keith H. (1996). Wisdom Sits in Places. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Berkes, Fikret (1999). Sacred Ecology. Ann Arbor, MI: Taylor & Francis. Bernard, H.R. (1992). “Preserving Language Diversity.” Human Organization, Spring 1992, Vol. 51(1), p.

82, 8p. Bodmer, Frederick, (1944). The Loom of Language. London: Allen and Unwin. Brandt, Elizabeth (1988). “Applied Linguistic Anthropology and the American Indian Language Renewal.”

Human Organization, Vol. 47(4), pp. 322-329. _______. (1989). “Language Renewal and Language Maintenance: A Practical Guide.” Canadian Journal

of Native Education, Vol. 16(2), pp. 42-77. Campbell, Lyle (1997). American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. New

York: Oxford University Press Cantoni, Gina (Ed.) (1996). Stabilizing Indigenous Languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University’s

Center for Excellence in Education Monograph Series, Perspectives. Cantoni, Gina, Jon Reyhner, Robert St. Clair, and Evangeline Parsons Yazzie (Eds.) (1999). Revitalizing

Indigenous Languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University’s Center for Excellence in Education Monograph Series, Perspectives.

Clemmer, Richard O. (1995). Roads in the Sky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Crawford, James (1992). Hold Your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of “English Only.” Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley. _______. (1995). “Endangered Native American Languages: What Is To Be Done, and Why?”

Bilingual Research Journal, Vol. 19(1), pp. 17-38. _______. (1996). “Seven Hypothesis on Language Loss and Causes.” In G. Cantoni (Ed.), Stabilizing

indigenous Languages (p. 51-68). Flagstaff, AZ. Northern Arizona University. Crystal, David (2000). Language Death. U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Dalby, David, (1997). Exploring the Logosphere: review of results. Paper presented at the Logosphere

workshop, School of Oriental and African Studies, London, 11 September 1997. Davis, Wade (1999). “The issue is whether ancient cultures will be free to change on their own terms.”

National Geographic, Vol. 196(2), August, 1999; pp. 64-89.

194

Dixon, R.M.W. (1997). The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge. U.K.: Cambridge University Press. _______. (1980). The Languages of Australia. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Grenoble, Lenore A. and Lindsay J. Whaley, (1998). Endangered Languages: Current Issues and Future

Prospects. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Grimes, Barbara F., ed. (1996). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 13th Edn. Dallas, TX; Summer

Institute of Linguistics. _______. (1999) Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 13th Edn, Revised. Dallas, TX; Summer Institute of

Linguistics. _______. (2000) Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 14th Edn. Dallas, TX; Summer Institute of

Linguistics. Hale, Kenneth L. and others (1992). “Endangered Languages.” Language, Vol. 68(1), p. 1-42. Mar. 1992 _______. (1992) “Language Endangerment and the Human Value of Language Diversity.” Language,

68(4), p. 10. Harmon, David (1995). “Losing Species, Losing Languages: Connections Between Biological and

Linguistic Diversity.” Southwest Journal of Linguistics, (1995). Hill, Kennith C. (1996). A Technical Report on the Hopi Dictionary Project. Dictionaries, 17: 156-179. Hinton, Leanne, Matt Vera and the Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival, (1999). “A

Manual for the Master-Apprentice Language Learning Program”. Academic Press. Hinton, Leanne, and Hale, Ken, Editors. (2001). The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice.

Academic Press. Hinton, Leanne, Rebecca Blum Martinez and Christine Sims, (2001). Native Language Revitalization: A

Manual for Native Language Communities. Linguistic Institute for Native Americans, Inc.: Albuquerque, NM.

Hymes, Dell (1966). Introduction to Part 2 of Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper & Row. James, Harry C. (1974). Pages From Hopi History. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Krauss, Michael. (1992). “The World’s Languages in Crisis.” Language, 68(1), 1-40. _______. (1996). “Status of Native American Language Endangerment.” In G. Cantoni (Ed.), Stabilizing

indigenous Languages (p. 16-21). Flagstaff, AZ. Northern Arizona University. Laird, David W (1977). Hopi Bibliography. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Littlebear, Richard (1996). Preface in G. Cantoni (Ed.), Stabilizing indigenous Languages. Flagstaff, AZ.

Northern Arizona University. Medin, Douglas L. and Scott Atran (1999). Folkbiology. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press. Mosely, Christopher, and R.E. Asher, eds. (1994). Atlas of the World’s Languages. London: Routledge. Mühlhäusler, P. (???). “The Interdependence of Linguistic and Biological Diversity.” In Myers, D. (Ed.),

The Politics of Multiculturalism in the Asia/Pacific, Northern Territory University Press, pp. 154-161.

Nabhan, Gary Paul (1997). Cultures of Habitat. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint

195

Nettle, Daniel and Suzanne Romaine (2000). Vanishing Voices. New York: Oxford University Press. Native Languages Revitalization Resource Directory: The Americas, Alaska, Hawaii, Pacific Region.

IPOLA: The Institute for the Preservation of the Original Languages of the Americas, (Work in Progress Publication), IPOLA (1998).

Prucha, Francis Paul (Ed.) (1973). Americanizing the American Indians: Writings by the “Friends of the

Indian” 1880-1900. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. Reyhner, Jon (1996). Rationale and Needs for Stabilizing Indigenous Languages. In G. Cantoni (Ed.),

Stabilizing indigenous Languages (p. 16-21). Flagstaff, AZ. Northern Arizona University. _______. (1997). Teaching Indigenous Languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University’s

Center for Excellence in Education Monograph Series, Perspectives. _______. (1999). Revitalizing Indigenous Languages. Flagstaff, AZ. Northern Arizona University. Center

for Excellence in Education Monograph Series, Perspectives. Robins, R.H. and E.M. Uhlenbeck (Eds.) (1991). Endangered Languages. Oxford, U.K.: Berg Publishers

Limited. Ruhlen, Merritt (1987). A Guide to the World’s Languages. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Silverstein, M., (1971) Whitney on Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Simpson, J.M.Y. (1981). The Challenge of Minority Languages. In Haugen et al. 1981: 235-41. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (2000). Linguistic genocide in Education – or, Worldwide Diversity and Human

Rights. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Smolicz, J.J. (1984). Minority Languages and the Core Values of Culture: Changing policies and ethnic

responses in Austrailia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 5: 1, p. 23-41. Stiles, Dawn B. (1997). “Four Successful Indigenous Language Programs”. In Reyhner, Jon (Ed.).

Teaching Indigenous Languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University’s Center for Excellence in Education Monograph Series, Perspectives.

St. Clair, Robert and William Leap (Eds.) (1982). Language Renewal among American Indian Tribes:

Issues, Problems, and Prospects. Rosslyn, VA.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Thieberger, Nicholas (1990). “Language Maintenance: Why Bother?” Multilingua, (9) 4, p. 333-358 Thornton, Russel (1987). American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492.

Norman, OK. University of Oklahoma Press. Voegelin, C.F. (1957). Hopi Domains: A Lexical Approach to the Problem of Selection. International

Journal of American Linguistics Memoir No. 14. Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics. Baltimore: Waverly Press.

Voegelin, C.F. and F.M. Voegelin (1977). Classification and the Index of the World’s Languages. New

York: Elsevier. Voth, Heinrich (1901). The Oraibi Powamu Ceremony. Field Colombian Museum. Anthropological Series.

Vol. 3, No. 2. Chicago: Field Museum. _______. (1905). Traditions of the Hopi. Field Colombian Museum. Publication 86, Anthropological

Series 8, Chicago: Field Museum. Wardhaugh, Ronald (1987). Languages in Competition. Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell, Inc.

196

Whatmaugh, Joshua (1956). Language: A Modern Synthesis. London: Secker and Warburg. Wurm, Stephen A. (1991). “Language Death and Disappearance: Causes and Circumstances.” Endangered

Languages. Oxford, U.K.: Berg Publishers Limited. (pp.1-17) Zepeda, Ofelia (1995). “the Continuum of Literacy in American Indian Communities.” Bilingual Research

Journal, Vol. 19(1), p. 5-15. Winter.

197

APPENDIX A: Other resources for Indigenous language revitalization programs American Indian Language Development Institute The University of Arizona College of Education PO Box 210069 \Tucson, AZ. 85721-0069

Native language programs in schools

Rosier, paul, & Holm, Wayne. (1980). The Rock Point experience: A longitudinal study of a Navajo school program (Saad Naaki Bee Na’anitin). Papers in Applied Linguistics, Bilingual Series: 8. Washington D.C: Center for Applied Linguistics.

School-based indigenous language maintenance program.

Reyhner, Jon. (Ed.). (1990). Effective language education practices and native language survival. (Proceedings of the 9th annual NALI Institute). Choctaw, OK: Native American Language Issues (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 342 512).

Part of the published proceedings of the Native American Languages Issues (NALI) Institute.

Zepeda, Ofelia, & McCarty, Teresa. (1995) “Indigenous Language Education and Literacy.” Bilingual Research Journal. Winter (Vol. 19 #1).

Four sections including: (1) conceptualizing indigenous literacies; (2) status of indigenous languages; (3) models of indigenous language education; (4) synthesis and discussion: the communities role in language renewal.

Burnaby, Barbara, John Nichols, & Kellen toohey (1980). Northern Native Languages Project. Final

Report. Sioux Lookout, Ontario: Northern Nishnawbe Education Council.

Discusses survey results from Cree and Ojibwa speaking communities in Ontario with recommendations on both aboriginal languages and English in the schools.

Freeden, Shirley. (1988). A Foundation for Cree Immersion Education. Unpublished masters dissertation.

University of Saskatchewan.

Discusses the Cree language immersion program for children that do not speak Cree. Shkilnyk, Anastasia (1986). Canada’s Aboriginal Languages: An Overview of Current Activities in

Language Retention. Unpublished report, Department of the Secretary of State, Ottawa.

Discusses the Mohawk language immersion program for children that do not speak Mohawk (p. 61-62). Provides a great deal of information on Aboriginal language activities in schools and communities across Canada.

Battiste, Marie. (1987). “Mi’kmaq Linguistic Integrity: A case study of a Mi’kmawey school.” In Jean

Barman, Yvonne Hébert, & Don McCaskill (Eds.), Indian Education in Canada: Volume 2: The Challenge (pp. 107-125). Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

Discusses the Micmac language immersion program for children that do not speak Micmac.

198

Csapo, Marg, & Bryan Clark. (n.d.). Native Indian Language Programming in British Columbia. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia.

Survey of aboriginal language programs in British Columbia.

MacPherson, James. (1991). Tradition and education: Towards a vision of our future. Ottawa:

Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

In his studies of Indian education in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, ad the United States, MacPherson compares and states that the operation of Indian education in the US and Canada is quite poor, and that he sees great potential in New Zealand’s Kohanga Reo (‘language nests’ or community language preschools) and suggests that Canada and the US study this approach as a model.

Brandt, Elizabeth, & Ayoungman, Vivian. (1989). “Language Renewal and Language Maintenance: A

Practical Guide.” (pp. 42-77). The Canadian Journal of Native Education: Language is a Gift from the Creator, (Vol. 16 #2).

Watahomigie, Lucille J., & McCarty, Teresa. (1994). “Bilingual/Bicultural Education at Peach Springs

[Arizona]: A Hualapai Way of Schooling.” Peabody Journal of Education (pp. 26-42), Winter (Vol. 69 #2).

Reyhner, Jon, & Tennant, Ed. (1995). “Maintaining and Renewing Native Languages.” Bilingual

Research Journal (pp. 279-304). Winter (Vol. 19 #2). www.nwrel.org The Home Page on the World Wide Web for American Indian Education. Includes information on endangered Indian languages, maintained by the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory Program for Research and Development for Indian Education. It has linkages to other such resources. Further information through: Robey Clark at clarkr@nwrel.org

Teachers and Teacher Training Stairs, Arlene. (1991). “Learning processes and teaching roles in Native education: Cultural base and

cultural brokerage.” The Canadian Modern Languages Review, 47 (2), 280-294.

Discusses complex issues surrounding training and support for Aboriginal teachers who will work in schools that aim to attend to both mainstream and Aboriginal values and language.

Assembly of First Nations. (1990). Towards Linguistic Justice for First Nations. Ottawa: Assembly of

First Nations, Education Secretariat.

The AFN 1990 Survey discussed the planning and resources context for Aboriginal language programs in schools on reservations and noted lack of funding, trained instructors, and curriculum and materials as the greatest problems.

More, Arthur. (1980). “Native Indian Teacher education in Canada.” Education Canada,

32-41. Comprehensive survey of Aboriginal teacher education Burnaby, Barbara & Marguerite MacKenzie. (1985). “Reading and Writing in Rupert House.” In Barbara

Burnaby (Ed.), Promoting Native Writing Systems in Canada (pp.57-81). Toronto: OISE Press.

Implications of Native language teacher training.

199

Materials Development Mitchell, Mary. (1985). “Syllabic Literacy: The First Year”. In Barbara Burnaby (Ed.), Promoting Native

Writing Systems in Canada (pp. 89-94). Toronto: OISE Press.

Examples of Aboriginal language materials development - using fluent speakers to create reading materials for a school program.

Shkilnyk, Anastasia (1986). Canada’s Aboriginal Languages: An Overview of Current Activities in

Language Retention. Unpublished report, Department of the Secretary of State, Ottawa.

Examples of Aboriginal language materials development - using local leadership to mobilize community resource people to help with an Aboriginal language immersion program.

Leavitt, Robert. (1991). “Langauge and cultural content in Native education.” The Canadian Modern

Language Review, 47 (2) 266-279.

-and- Stairs, Arlene. (1985). “The developmental context of Native language literacy: Inuit children and

Inuktitut education.” In Barbara Burnaby (Ed.), Promoting Native Writing Systems in Canada (pp. 33-48). Toronto: OISE Press.

Examples of Aboriginal language materials development - incorporating culturally appropriate behaviors into materials and teaching strategies for aboriginal children

Evaluation/Assessment More, Arthur. (1984). “Quality of education of Native Indian Students in Canada: A review of research.”

Paper given to The Mokakit Indian Education Research Conference, London, Ontario Native language program evaluation – emphasize the need for special methodologies and sensitivity to the goals and contexts of the community; it does not appear that this article provides hard examples of evaluation, merely issues surrounding them.

Hébert, Yvonne. (1987). “Evaluation of Indian Education: Issues and Challenges.” In Jean Barman,

Yvonne Hébert, & Don McCaskill (Eds.), Indian Education in Canada: Volume 2: The Challenge (pp. 228-249). Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

Native language program evaluation – emphasize the need for special methodologies and sensitivity to the goals and contexts of the community; it does not appear that this article provides hard examples of evaluation, merely issues surrounding them.

Ahenakew, Freda. (1988). “Program evaluation and quality control” in Native Language Education. TESL

Canada Journal, 5(2), 51-55.

Native language program evaluation – discuss the important issues surrounding evaluation of indigenous language evaluation; again, this article does not appear to illustrate examples, but addresses issues around them.

Leap, William (1981). “American Indian Languages.” In Charels Ferguson & Shirley Brice Heath (Eds.)

Language in the USA (pp. 111-115). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University. ------------ (1982). “Semilingualism as a form of linguistic proficiency.” In Robert St. Claire & William

Leap (Eds.) Language Renewal Among American Indian Tribes (pp. 149-159). Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

200

Native language program evaluation – discuss the important issues surrounding evaluation of indigenous language evaluation; again, this article does not appear to illustrate examples, but addresses issues around them.

Bauman, James. (1980). A guide to issues in Indian language retention. Washington, D.C: Center for

Applied Linguistics.

Gives guidance for student assessment in the Aboriginal language. Manuel-DuPont, Sonia. (1987). “Setting up a language assessment program for Native American

children.” In Freda Ahenakew and Shirley Fredeen (Eds.), Seventh Annual Native American Language Institute: Our Languages: Our Survival: Proceedings (pp.125-154). Saskatoon: Sask.: Saskatchewan Indian Languages Institute.

Evaluation for individual student progress in Aboriginal language programs – gives thorough review of language assessment literature in general and contextual issues in Aboriginal education but does not mention measures that would be required if the children’s Aboriginal language proficiency were to be evaluated.

Literacy in Native Languages

Burnaby, Barbara & Marguerite MacKenzie. (1985). “Reading and Writing in Rupert House.” In Barbara

Burnaby (Ed.), Promoting Native Writing Systems in Canada (pp.57-81). Toronto: OISE Press.

A collection of articles on the implementation of Aboriginal language orthographies in Canada, covers a wide range of issues on making writing systems really useful in Aboriginal communities.

MacKenzie, Marguerite. (1985). “Spelling reform among the James Bay Cree.” In Barbara Burnaby (Ed.),

Promoting Native American Writing Systems in Canada (pp. 49-55). Toronto:OISE Press.

In Quebec, for a number of years, there was a program that trained fluent speakers of Aboriginal languages in literacy, education, and research skills so that they could work on field research and development of their languages, including orthographies – is outlined here.

Leap, William. (1982). “Roles for the linguist in Indian bilingual education.” In Robert St. Claire &

William Leap (Eds.) Language Renewal Among American Indian Tribes (pp. 19-30). Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Provides a helpful insight on the role of Non-Aboriginal linguists and other professionals in the current climate of local control over the language resources and their development.

Community Programs – Non School

Assembly of First Nations. (1990). Towards Linguistic Justice for First Nations. Ottawa: Assembly of

First Nations, Education Secretariat.

The AFN survey collected information about language used in the sample communities in everyday conversation, cultural ceremonies, churches, radio stations and television, government reports, community meetings, and the justice system (p. 21). When the results were broken down by level of fluency in the community, it was clear that those communities which had the highest levels of fluency were those with the most Aboriginal language services (newspapers, radio/television, community meetings, government publications, justice system), (p. 33). The AFN made recommendations about community and school language development activities designed for the levels of fluency in different communities (pp. 33-34).

201

White, Lena (1983). “Native Language Revival Program on Walpole Island.” In Jim Cummins (Ed.),

Heritage Language Education: Issues and Directions: Proceedings of a conference organized by the Multiculturalism Directorate of the Dept. of the Secretary of State, Saskatoon (pp. 73-74). Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.

__________(1984). “Teachers speak: A Native language survey report: An attempt to determine needs and strategies for language development.” Unpublished masters research paper, York University, Toronto, Ontario. Both include further research and discussion of Native language development outside of school contexts

Upper, Mary, & Modina McKay. (1987). “The Acquisition of Oji-Cree as a first language: A preliminary

study.” In Freda Ahenakew & Shirley Fredeen (Eds.), Seventh Annual Native American Languages Institute: Our languages: Our survival: Proceedings (pp.169-196). Saskatoon: Sask.: Saskatchewan Indian Languages Institute.

Provide rare data on the language development of a child growing up in an Oji-Cree speaking family.

For general guidance to Native language retention in the US:

Bauman, James. (1980). A guide to issues in Indian language retention. Washington, D.C: Center for

Applied Linguistics.

Bauman includes his scale of language vitality and stresses having realistic goals, the self-esteem value of Native language study, the need for parents to speak the language to children, and the essential role of the community in creating and implementing policies.

Leap, William (1981). “American Indian Languages.” In Charels Ferguson & Shirley Brice Heath (Eds.)

Language in the USA (pp. 111-115). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.

Describes various kinds of Native language programs , talks about contradictions in policies, and stresses the need for basic language research, functional writing systems, staff training, teaching materials, and evaluation.

St. Claire, Robert, & William Leap (Eds.) Language Renewal Among American Indian Tribes (pp. 19-30).

Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

St. Claire and Leap provide context specific examples of issues and solutions that have come up in various actual Aboriginal language programs.