This paper analyzes the extent to which new speakers are participating in an ongoing phonological change in Diné Bizaad (Navajo). The implications of these patterns are discussed as they relate to theories of new speakers and language change.
Methodology design:
I apply a variationist methodology to analyze the pronunciation of lateral affricates from speakers representing different generations and language learning contexts. I focus on comparing new speakers, who report acquiring the language primarily through school or in a language program, with their age-equivalent peers.
Data and analysis:
The data come from interviews recorded with 51 bilingual Diné Bizaad-English participants, ages 18–75. This includes four new speakers. The analysis focuses on variation in the lateral affricates in connected speech samples and an oral translation task.
Findings/conclusion:
Results reveal that new speakers diverge from other younger participants in their lack of participation in an ongoing change in the affricates. Instead, new speakers more closely resemble middle-aged and older speakers.
Originality:
This study applies the new speaker framework to an Indigenous North American language, an under-represented sociolinguistic context within the literature. These findings provide a counterexample to the more frequent finding of new speakers linguistically diverging from older, traditional speakers.
Significance/implications:
These results are interpreted as arising due to literacy practices, language usage networks, and community values. The orthographic representation of the affricates is thought to inhibit sound change. At the same time, due to their more formal language learning background, new speakers have developed a self-monitored speech style oriented toward the prestigious, older speakers. A lack of peer group language usage is thought to prevent the development of linguistically or ideologically distinct new speaker varieties. The confluence of these factors means that instead of constituting agents of language change, new speakers are more similar to older participants.
ArvisoM.HolmW. (2001). Tséhootsooídi Ólta’gi Diné Bizaad Bíhoo’aah [A Navajo Immersion Program at Fort Defiance, Arizona]. In HintonL.HaleK. (Eds.), The green book of language revitalization (pp. 23–46). Academic Press.
2.
BabelM. (2009). The phonetic and phonological effects of obsolescence in Northern Paiute. In StanfordJ. N.PrestonD. R. (Eds.), Variation in Indigenous minority languages (pp. 23–46). John Benjamins.
3.
BaldwinD.BaldwinK.BaldwinJ.BaldwinJ. (2013). Myaamiaataweenki oowaaha: Miami spoken here. In HintonL. (Ed.), Bringing our languages home: Language revitalization for families (pp. 3–18). Heyday.
4.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
5.
BenallyA.ViriD. (2005). Diné Bizaad [Navajo language] at a crossroads: Extinction or renewal?Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 85–108.
6.
BirdS.KellS. (2017). The role of pronunciation in SENĆOŦEN language. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 74(4), 538–569.
7.
BlevinsJ.GrawunderS. (2009). *KL>TL sound change in Germanic and elsewhere: Descriptions, explanations, and implications. Linguistic Typology, 13(2), 267–301.
8.
ChafeW. (Ed.). (1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Ablex.
9.
ChewK. A. B. (2016). Chikashshanompa’ Ilanompohóli Bíyyi’ka’chi [We will always speak the Chickasaw language]: Considering the vitality and efficacy of Chickasaw language reclamation [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona].
10.
ChodroffE.WilsonC. (2014). Burst spectrum as a cue for the stop voicing contrast in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(5), 2762–2772.
11.
CookM. J.SharpM. A. (1966). Problems of Navajo speakers in learning English. Language Learning, 16(1/2), 21–29.
12.
DavisJ. L. (2013). Learning to ‘Talk Indian’: Ethnolinguistic identity and language revitalization in the Chickasaw renaissance [Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado].
13.
de ReuseW. (2006). A practical grammar of the San Carlos Apache language. LINCOM Europa.
14.
FieldM. C. (1998). Maintenance of Indigenous ways of speaking despite language shift: Language socialization in a Navajo preschool [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara].
15.
FieldM. C. (2009). Changing Navajo language ideologies and changing language use. In KroskrityP. V.FieldM. C. (Eds.), Native American language ideologies: Beliefs, practices, and struggles in Indian country (pp. 31–47). University of Arizona Press.
16.
FlegeJ. (2002). Interactions between the native and the second-language phonetic systems. In BurmeisterP.PiskeT.RohdeA. (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp. 217–244). Wiessenschaftlicher Verlag.
FoxJ.HongJ. (2009). Effect displays in R for multinomial and proportional-odds logit models: Extensions to the effects package. Journal of Statistical Software, 32(1), 1–24. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v32/i01/
19.
GoodfellowA. (2003). The development of “new” languages in Native American communities. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 27(2), 41–59.
20.
GoodfellowA. (2005). Talking in context: Language and identity in Kwakwaka’wakw society. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
21.
GreymorningS. (1997). Going beyond words: The Arapaho immersion program. In ReyhnerJ. (Ed.), Teaching Indigenous languages (pp. 22–30). Northern Arizona University.
22.
HalléP. A.BestC. T. (2007). Dental-to-velar perceptual assimilation: A cross-linguistic study of the perception of dental stop + /l/ clusters. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 121, 2899–2914.
23.
HillJ. H. (2002). “Expert rhetorics” in advocacy for endangered languages: Who is listening, and what do they hear?Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 12(2), 119–133.
24.
HintonL. (2001). The master-apprentice language learning program. In HintonL.HallK. (Eds.), The green book of language revitalization in practice (pp. 217–226). Academic Press.
25.
HoltonG. (2009). Relearning Athabascan languages in Alaska: Creating sustainable language communities through creolization. In GoodfellowA. M. (Ed.), Speaking of endangered languages: Issues in revitalization (pp. 238–265). Cambridge Scholars Press.
26.
HouseD. (2002). Language shift among the Navajos. University of Arizona Press.
27.
JacobsenK. M. (2017). The sound of Navajo country: Music, language and Diné belonging. University of North Carolina Press.
28.
JaffeA. (2015). Defining the new speaker: Theoretical perspectives and learner trajectories. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 231, 21–44.
29.
KasstanJ. R. (2017). New speakers: Challenges and opportunities for variationist sociolinguistics. Language and Linguistics Compass, 11(8), Article e12249.
30.
KasstanJ. R. (2019). Emergent sociolinguistic variation in severe language endangerment. Language in Society, 48(5), 685–720.
31.
KawasakiH. (1982). An acoustical basis for universal constraints on sound sequences [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley].
32.
KennardH.LahiriA. (2017). Mutation in Breton verbs: Pertinacity across generations. Journal of Linguistics, 53(1), 113—145.
33.
KennardH. (2019). Morphosyntactic and phonological variation in Breton: a cross-generational perspective. Journal of French Language Studies, 29(2), 235—263.
34.
KentR.D.ReadC. (1992). Acoustic analysis of speech. Singular.
35.
LeeT. S. (2007). “If they want Navajo to be learned, then they should require it in all schools”: Navajo teenagers’ experiences, choices, and demands regarding Navajo language. Wicazo Sa Review, 22(1), 7–33.
36.
LeeT. S.McLaughlinD. (2001). Reversing Navajo language shift, revisited. In FishmanJ. A. (Ed.), Can threatened languages be saved? (pp. 23–43). Multilingual Matters.
37.
LeonardW. Y. (2011). Challenging “extinction” through modern Miami language practices. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 35(2), 135–160.
38.
Lokosh (Hinson, Joshua D) (2019). Nanna ittonchololi’ ilaliichi (we are cultivating new growth): Twenty years in Chikashshanompa’ revitalization [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma].
39.
MaddiesonI.SmithC. L.BessellN. (2001). Aspects of the phonetics of Tlingit. Anthropological Linguistics, 43(2), 135–176.
40.
McCartyT. L. (2002). A place to be Navajo: Rough Rock and the struggle for self-determination for Indigenous schooling. Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
McIvorO. (2012). îkakwiy nîhiyawiyân: I am learning [to be] Cree [Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia].
42.
McIvorO.JacobsP.RosboroughP.LoppieC.BallJ. (2017–2023). NEȾOLṈEW: ‘One mind, one people’—Working to understand and enhance Indigenous adult’s contributions to reviving Indigenous languages in Canada. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Partnership Grant. https://netolnew.ca/
43.
McLaughlinD. (1989). The sociolinguistics of Navajo literacy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 20(4), 275–290.
44.
MeekB. A. (2011). Failing American Indian languages. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 35(2), 51–54.
45.
MorganJ. (2017). The learner varieties of the Chikasha Academy: Chickasaw adult language acquisition, change, and revitalization [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma].
46.
NanceC. (2015). “New” Scottish Gaelic speakers in Glasgow: A phonetic study of language revitalization. Language in Society, 44(4), 553–579.
47.
NanceC.McLeodW.O’RourkeB.DunmoreS. (2016). Identity, accent aim, and motivation in second language users: New Scottish Gaelic speakers’ use of phonetic variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(2), 164–191.
O’RourkeB. (2018). New speakers of minority languages. In HintonL.HussL.RocheG. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language revitalization (pp. 265–274). Routledge.
50.
O’RourkeB.PujolarJ.RamalloF. (2015). New speakers of minority languages: The challenging opportunity—Foreword. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 231, 1–20.
51.
O’RourkeB.RamalloF. (2013). Competing ideologies of linguistic authority amongst new speakers in contemporary Galicia. Language in Society, 42(3), 287–305.
52.
PeterL.Hirata-EddsT.Montgomery-AndersonB. (2008). Verb development by children in the Cherokee language immersion program, with implications for teaching. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 166–187.
53.
PetersonL. C. (2006). Technology, ideology, and emergent communicative practices among the Navajo [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin].
54.
PlauchéM. (2001). Acoustic cues in the directionality of stop consonant confusions [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley].
55.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.4.2). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
56.
Palakurthy. (2019a). Many ways to sound Diné: Linguistic variation in Navajo [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara].
57.
Redacted for anonymity. (2019b). Variation in Diné Bizaad collection [Archived collection]. Alaska Native Language Archive. https://www.uaf.edu/anla/
58.
ReyhnerJ. (1990). A description of the Rock Point Community School Bilingual Education Program. In ReyhnerJ. (Ed.), Effective language education practices and native language survival (pp. 95–106). Native American Language Issues.
59.
RiceK. (1989). A grammar of Slave. Mouton de Gruyter.
60.
Rodríguez-OrdóñezI. (2019). The role of linguistic ideologies in language contact situations. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(10), Article e12351.
61.
SchaengoldC. C. (2004). Bilingual Navajo: Mixed codes, bilingualism, and language maintenance [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University].
62.
SchmidtA. (1985). Young people’s Dyirbal: An example of language death from Australia. Cambridge University Press.
63.
SpolskyB. (2002). Prospects for the survival of the Navajo language: A reconsideration. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33(2), 139–162.
64.
SpolskyB.IrvineP. (1982). Sociolinguistic aspects of the acceptance of literacy in the vernacular. In BarkinF.BrandtE. A.Ornstein-GaliciaeJ. (Eds.), Bilingualism and language contact: Spanish, English, and Native American languages (pp. 73–79). Teachers College Press.
65.
StevensK. N.BlumsteinS. E. (1978). Invariant cues for place of articulation in stop consonants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64(5), 1358—1368.
66.
SundaraM. (2005). Acoustic-phonetics of coronal stops: A cross-language study of Canadian English and Canadian French. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1026–1037.
67.
WarnerN.LunaQ.ButlerL. (2007). Ethics and revitalization of dormant languages. Language Documentation and Conservation, 1(1), 56–76.
68.
WebsterA. K. (2015). Intimate grammars. University of Arizona Press.
69.
WeinreichU. (1953). Languages in contact. Linguistic Circle of New York.
70.
WickhamH. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer.
71.
WongL. (1999). Authenticity and the revitalization of Hawaiian. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30(1), 94–115.
72.
WoodburyA. C. (2005). Ancestral languages and (imagined) creolization. In AustinP. K. (Ed.), Language documentation and description (Vol. 3, pp. 252–262). SOAS University of London.
73.
YoungR. W.MorganW. (1987). The Navajo language. A grammar and colloquial dictionary. University of New Mexico Press.
74.
ZepedaO.HillJ. H. (1991). The condition of Native American languages in the United States. Diogenes, 39(153), 45–65.
