To Save Our Languages, We Must Change Our Teaching Methods

Richard Littlebear: “By teaching isolated words, we are creating whole tribes that will speak only in numbers, colors, or body parts with nothing linking them.” Photo by Kyle Brehm

The speakers of American Indian languages are breaking camp and journeying on to camps in the spirit world. Unless we start saving our languages immediately, we will lose them. In my travels over the years to various language teaching programs in Alaska, Canada, and many of the contiguous 48 states, I have seen certain practices that make us unwitting accomplices in this loss.

Emphasizing writing over speaking

We learned to speak our languages from other speakers. If we made a mistake when we spoke, our elders would repeat the utterance, and we would catch on. Thus we acquired the smallest sounds of our languages. The simple act of speaking taught us to speak them correctly.

We seem to forget that we acquire fluency by speaking. That may sound trite, but in our language classes, we often emphasize writing over speaking. There is no clear understanding of first and second language acquisition principles. I think all teachers regardless of their specialties or endorsements should learn these principles, but that’s another article.

Our languages must be taught orally. Many teachers assume that we must first write our languages in order to speak them. How did we come to this assumption? We had bad language teaching models. Most of our language teaching programs imitate the way English is taught–emphasizing grammar.

We all remember learning the tenses and parts of speech, conjugating verbs, and writing English, usually as punishment. Remember how tedious that was? Yet we persist in making our students do the same things in our own languages. Many language teachers teach writing even when that language has no writing system–and even when those teachers have minimal skills in writing in English or their own tribal languages. This is amazing for languages that were, up until very recently, primarily oral.

We should simply speak our languages or teach speaking to anyone who will listen. When taught that way, our languages are acquired in a natural context, which is essential for fluency and coherence.

Teaching words out of context

Our languages must be taught in the context of every day conversation, not as isolated words. A person can say in English, “tie your shoes,” and it is acceptable. In Cheyenne, we could also say that, but it would evoke a ridiculous image of someone taking a pair of shoes and literally tying two shoes into a knot. In Cheyenne the whole group of words changes; there is no reference to “tying” or to “shoes.” The correct Cheyenne command simply means “lace your shoes.” Similar linguistic phenomena occur in other American Indian languages.

By teaching isolated words, we are creating whole tribes that will speak only in numbers, colors, or body parts with nothing linking them. Speakers will dutifully utter “nine,” or “knee,” or “red” whenever they receive the right stimuli. But numbers have to connect to something; something has to have color; body parts must have functions.

It is good to know the basic words, but these words often get modified or disappear entirely when used in the proper conversational environments. Let’s teach our languages as they are spoken while we can.

Not inventing new words

“Ko’konôxo’êustonestôtsetseohketo’seto’taamenôtove-ohetanoto” could be the Cheyenne word for “computer.” The word means “the tapping-writing object that almost knows how to think for itself.” It “could be” the Cheyenne word for computer, but it will never be because our language has quit inventing and accepting new words that designate contemporary phenomena.

In an earlier time, despite its formidable length, this word would have been easily acquired and used orally by potential speakers of Cheyenne. That’s because when it is taught orally, we have no idea of the length of this word. It’s just a series of sounds, and therefore we cannot attribute degrees of difficulty to it.

Because we don’t invent new Cheyenne words, our language is overwhelmed by each new object, term, or idea that appears on the contemporary social scene. When we have no word, we just pucker our lips and point them towards the object we are talking about. Instead of puckering up our lips, we should make new words.

Changing our ways

Our tribes now have to use schools to teach and perpetuate our languages. Schools are hostile venues for languages, which were not meant to be taught that way. As we try to mold our languages to fit into schools, we must develop curricula, teaching methods, and assessment instruments that are acceptable to state standards, parents, teachers, and American Indian elders. We have never had to do these things before for our languages, but now we must. We have no choice because our families are no longer teaching the youth how to speak.

Our elders must help us save our languages instead of ridiculing their grandchildren and other potential speakers who happen to make a mistake in pronunciation. We should sensitize our elders to the damage of such ridicule.

We wrongly assumed our languages would live forever, but they are dying. Our language teaching programs cannot afford to fail. Our failures heap disrespect on our holy languages.

I believe that the Cheyenne language is sacred and holy and came from the Great Spirit. Did it come from Ma’heo’o as isolated words, in neatly written form? Was it intended to be stagnant and never grow?

I think not. We are attempting to preserve our languages in a hostile environment, contemporary America. We must change many of our teaching practices if we are to succeed.

Richard Littlebear was born on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation where his first language was Cheyenne. He earned a master’s degree in school administration in 1986 at Montana State University and a doctorate in education from Boston University in 1994. His proudest academic achievement was learning to read and write his own Cheyenne language. The president of Dull Knife Memorial College, he is married to Janice, who currently resides in Anchorage where she teaches elementary school. His article about the Montana language certification process appeared in TCJ, Vol. IX, N.2.