From Linguistic Landscape to Semiotic Landscape:Indigenous Language Revitalization and Literacy
Abstract
7
Full text
From Linguistic Landscape to Semiotic Landscape: Indigenous Language Revitalization and Literacy Lorena Córdova Hernández, Mario E.López-Gopar, William M.Sughrua ABSTRACT: For endangered indigenous languages in Mexico, new forms of symbolic representation have been generated by linguistic landscapes. These forms involve the written use of these languages in public spaces, which in turn (re)incorporates the languages into traditional and new contexts. In addition, linguistic landscape production aids indigenous language literacy. Yet the notion of linguistic landscape seems limited to alphabetic writing and grammar standardization through the production of signage, outdoor advertising, and signs. Usually the social actors involved in linguistic landscape production, such as researchers, activists, and public officials, do not recognize the linguistic landscape as inseparable from the concepts of indigenous people. This article argues that the relationship between linguistic landscape and indigenous concepts cannot be mediated only through the linguistic landscape itself, but also through the interconnection of language and remembering as well as the retrieval of the endangered language through strategies of recalling experiences mediated through that particular language. These additional dimensions involving remembering and retrieval become what we refer to as the semiotic landscape. This landscape, including multimodal and multiliteracy methodologies (Kress, 2009), can be considered achannel of language revitalization, as it serves as aspace for the interconnection between language and remembering. In this manner, the semiotic landscape allows written language (discourse) to interact with other discourses (visual images, spatial practices, and cultural dimensions), thereby aiding the emergence of indigenous self-representation and cultural values and hence working toward language revitalization. In particular, this pathway to language revitalization can be seen when considering the Ixcatec language in southern Mexico. KEY WORDS: endangered languages, indigenous language revitalization, linguistic landscape, multiliteracies, semiotic landscape INTRODUCTION The linguistic landscape (LL) “consists of all visual forms of language present in the public space of apre-determined geographic area” (Lou, 2016, p.2). Hence LL is considered part of the language planning and policies of acountry or region. At the global level, LL as an area of interdisciplinary studies is spreading rapidly. In Latin America and Mexico, LL studies have primarily focused on the various languages such as English, French, and Chinese used within the tourism industry. Avariation of LL is the indigenous language landscape (ILL). Following from the above definition, the ILL consists of the visual display of language within the public spaces of indigenous communities. Recently, ILL has been initiated as away of exercising the cultural rights of indigenous peoples. For example, in Mexico and Peru, community projects of language revitalization have resulted from ILL production (Yataco— Córdova, 2016). OPEN ACCESS
8 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 2/2017 Although LL production is often used for economic and governmental purposes (Cenoz— Gorter, 2009; Moriarty, 2014), research on LL has shown that its variant, ILL, is an integral part of ethnic and linguistic demands (Pavlenko, 2012). Following from and building upon this ILL-related research, the present article argues that the relationship between LL and indigenous concepts cannot be mediated only through the LL itself, but also through the interconnection of language and remembering as well as the retrieval of the endangered language through strategies of recalling experiences mediated through that particular language. These additional dimensions which involve remembering and retrieval become what we refer to as the semiotic landscape (SL). This landscape, including multimodal and multiliteracy methodologies, can be considered achannel of language revitalization, as it serves as aspace for the interconnection between language and remembering. In this manner, the SL allows written language (discourse) to interact with other discourses (visual images, spatial practices, and cultural dimensions), thereby aiding the emergence of indigenous self-representation and cultural values and hence working toward language revitalization. In particular, this pathway to language revitalization can be seen when considering the Ixcatec language in southern Mexico.1 LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPE AND INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES LL studies show that multiple historical, social, and power processes coexist within LL production (e.g., Shohamy— Gorter, 2009; Blommaert, 2013). Likewise, studies suggest that LL, though supported by language, depends heavily on the public space within both multilingual and multicultural contexts. For instance, Ben-Rafael (2009, p.40; parenthesis in original) states: “The notion of ‘linguistic landscape’ (LL) refers to linguistic objects that mark the public space, i.e. inscriptions— LL items— that may refer to any written sign one finds outside private homes, from road signs to private names to names of streets, shops or schools.” In the case of Mexico, indigenous languages— which are historically minoritized— occupy minimal visible space within the communities where their speakers live, as these languages are mostly confined to private spaces (e.g., home or religious rituals). Therefore, increasing the visibility of these indigenous languages in the public space would allow the languages to recover some of the communicative spaces from which they have been displaced. This displacement is due to the fact that most of Mexico’s indigenous languages are considered to have low social prestige and, as mentioned above, mostly dwell within private spaces. These languages, therefore, can be deemed “endangered”; and some of them are at high risk of disappearance. Thus, in contexts where such languages are threatened, the ILL has significant social relevance, not only because the LL publicly displays the existence of alanguage in agiven territory, but also because it motivates areorganization of the existing power relations. 1 Ixcatec, from the Popolocan group within the Oto-Mangue family, is the most endangered language in the Mexican state of Oaxaca. OPEN ACCESS
LOrENA CórDOVA HErNáNDEZ, MArIO E.LóPEZ-GOPAr, WILLIAM M.SUGHrUA 9 In this regard, Landry and Bourhis’ (1997) classic perspective on the dual function of LL has bearing. Based on their research in Belgium and Québec, Landry and Bourhis refer to LL as the representation of languages in public spaces such as communication routes, government buildings, and shopping centers, and they describe LL as having an informative as well as symbolic function. They state: The most basic informational function of the linguistic landscape is that it serves as adistinctive marker of the geographical territory inhabited by agiven language community. The linguistic landscape also serves to delineate the territorial limits of the language group it harbors relative to other linguistic communities inhabiting adjoining territories. (...) The symbolic function of the linguistic landscape is most likely to be salient in settings where language has emerged as the most important dimension of the ethnic identity. It is in such settings that the presence of the in-group language in the linguistic landscape can contribute most directly to the positive social identity of the ethnolinguistic groups (Landry — Bourhis, 1997, pp.25–27). In this excerpt, Landry and Bourhis suggest that, for indigenous languages, both the informative and symbolic function should be activated at the same time. The activation of both functions allows performative speech acts in the indigenous language to resonate not only with what is “said” but also what is “done”.2 In other words, the presence of the ILL within apublic space generates aphysical action by the indexicality of places that are important to the daily lives of the social actors because the uttering of certain words (and not others) is necessary. Likewise, amental action is generated because the presence of the indigenous language becomes revalued not only in symbolic but also political terms. These physical and mental actions involving indigenous languages within the LL work toward reversing language loss and initiating the language revitalization process. Generally, actions taken to produce the LL promote the informative rather than symbolic function. For example, in Mexico, the LL has been developed through the initiatives of various governmental institutions or civil society organizations over the past two decades.3 The central premise is to display the written language and indicate some important places within the space where its speakers live. Unlike the urban landscape, whose interests may be related to tourism, commerce, and similar concerns, the ILL highlights the presence of the speakers through written language. This does not mean there are no tourism-related interests promoted through ILL, but rather that tourism is not one of its main objectives. By displaying the written forms 2 We refer here to Austin’s (1962, p. 25) concept of the “performative utterance [...] as not, or not merely, saying something but doing something, as not atrue or false report of something”. 3 It is important to recognize the work of the INALI in developing LL in the different regions of Mexico, as well as local institutions or organizations that have collaborated with INALI and communities in LL production. CEDELIO in the state of Oaxaca is an example of one of these organizations. OPEN ACCESS
10 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 2/2017 of these languages, ILL fosters acertain degree of ethnolinguistic vitality. However, the production of this landscape has, in our opinion, fulfilled only the information and not the symbolic function. In Mexico, ILL has mainly focused on signage. This seems to be because speakers and promoters generally believe that the best way to revitalize an indigenous language is through its written form and in particular its “correct” alphabet and spelling. In our experience, speakers and promoters make alist in Spanish of places to signalize and later develop adirect translation into the indigenous language. In this case, there is no interest to prioritize or think about the names that had been used previously or the meanings that those places had for the elderly people. On the contrary, through signage, the speakers and promoters produce automatic translations and thus generate unintelligible neologisms for the inhabitants of the communities. For this reason, the landscape fulfills only an informative function. The processes of revitalization or linguistic claim are very slow and, in many cases, null. If, on the contrary, LL is deemed as having adual function (informative and symbolic), then the production of LL should not be limited to signage. This is because the LL emerges from the cultural dynamics of the social actors. With this cultural influence the LL then takes on asymbolic function, which can intensify in the case of an ILL. Furthermore, if the initial premise is that LL has been reduced to the use of written language, that same premise suggests that LL has the capacity to be wider or denser and to expand outward or complexify with symbolic dimensions. Consequently, it seems necessary to problematize LL as to its limits and potential as well as to consider the semiotic landscape (SL) which essentially would be atype of LL displayed in public spaces but not limited or reduced to the production of signaling. LANGUAGES AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOCIAL WORLD The LL is agraphic and visual synthesis delimiting different territories. In this sense, the symbols and icons used in aLL speak to the sociocultural identities of the groups that inhabit acertain region. The use of different graphic elements for the construction of the LL refers to the writing within the landscape. For this reason, it can be stated that “linguistic landscaping is as old as writing” (Coulmas, 2009, p.13). The LL makes use of writing that is not only alphabetic but also iconographic, chromatic, and so on. Nevertheless, some linguists with little training in LL studies— mainly descriptive linguists and sociolinguists— affirm that “if the LL is about the language, it must be about the alphabetic writing, [and that] any other type of non-alphabetic writing is not linguistic”.4 Although this view may lead to extensive debates on the meaning of writing, it does not seem conducive to adialogue treating LL in abroader sense, beyond that of alphabetic writing. This seems especially the case in Mexico, where indigenous peoples, after 500 years of an imposed colonialist 4 These comments were made by agroup of linguists and sociolinguists at Sociolinguistics Symposium 21, Murcia, 2016. OPEN ACCESS
LOrENA CórDOVA HErNáNDEZ, MArIO E.LóPEZ-GOPAr, WILLIAM M.SUGHrUA 11 ideology, have ceased to recognize their traditional writings such as iconography in textiles, ceramics, and murals. The idea that LL represents language not though the traditional forms just mentioned but rather through alphabetic writing has caused indigenous communities to consider signage as synonymous with LL. This perspective is reinforced by the belief that languages, in order to be revitalized, need to be written and, in order to be written, need an alphabet. In this way, searching for an alphabet as well as translating words and phrases occupies the bulk of the time and human resources available to LL producers. The need to write an indigenous language so that the language obtains the status quo of Spanish is an ideology embedded in the communities (López-Gopar, 2007). This ideology does not develop language; on the contrary, it generates contradictory attitudes. On the one hand, materials are not produced in the indigenous language, because it is thought that speakers do not have the perfect alphabet. On the other hand, an indigenous language such as Zapoteco can have two or three proposed alphabets, each corresponding to aparticular variant of the same language such as “Zapoteco of the Central Valley” and “Zapoteco of the Isthmus”. Inevitably often one proposed alphabet (e.g., the alphabet corresponding to the variant “Zapoteco of the Central Valley”) would be selected to represent all the variants of the language (e.g., Zapoteco), though those variants may be widely divergent.5 As aresult, the particular language group, whose alphabet has been selected (e.g., “Zapoteco of the Central Valley”), in effect, delegitimizes the other language group or groups within the same language (e.g., “Zapoteco of the Isthmus”), who now need to conform to a“standard” Zapotec alphabet, which actually is not based on their own language variant but that of another. This practice of delegitimization, which results from the attempts at standardization of the linguistic systems of indigenous languages consisting of significantly different language variations, is often reinforced by researchers who study the internal structure of the indigenous language as well as by different state agents such as indigenous education teachers and public servants. In both cases, language revitalization is difficult to achieve. This is because while the search for the perfect alphabet and writing proceeds, communicative practices are becoming obsolete and the remaining speakers are dying out. The ideology of indigenous language alphabetic writing relegates or rejects other forms of traditional writing. Scarcely any thought is given to what, for whom and why to write. In addition, the intention to use the direct translation (Spanish-indigenous language) of words or phrases to generate didactic materials as well as the LL also motivates contradictory actions in promoting the indigenous language and deal5 Often these variants of indigenous languages in Mexico (e.g., Zapoteco) are so widely divergent that some researchers as well as some language users themselves consider the variants not as “variants” per se but rather as distinct “languages” in and of themselves. In the case of the present example, then, “Zapoteco of the Central Valley” would be considered one language and “Zapoteco of the Isthmus” another language. However, taking up this debatable issue of “variants” versus “languages” would be beyond the scope of the present paper. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity, and while not taking sides within this debate, we refer to “variants“. OPEN ACCESS
12 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 2/2017 ing with its elderly speakers. The direct translation of words or phrases takes place as aresult of two factors associated with the work of the cultural promoters. On the one hand, the production of LL is financed or initiated by external institutions or organizations. The administrative project timelines, however, often do not coincide with the community dynamics which almost always necessitate more time than that allowed in the project. Nonetheless, the project timelines determine the development of the LL; and as aresult, the direct translation of words, in many cases unintelligible to the community in general, becomes ameans of reducing the time invested. On the other hand, speakers who collaborate on the construction of the LL have also worked with different researchers or institutions to translate lists of words or texts (e.g., political constitutions, the national anthem, and legislations). In most cases, these speakers are hired without having had any previous training in the complexities of translating. For these reasons, it is necessary to rethink the way in which the production process of the ILL is perceived not only in terms of writing and translation but also in terms of the issues pertaining to the visual and material culture of indigenous peoples. For example, if one’s starting point were to be the idea that LL helps to visualize historically minoritized languages, then it would be necessary to prioritize the activation of the linguistic and cultural memory of the speakers. In other words, it would prove vital to recreate or introduce discussions regarding other visual elements into the community, regardless of whether or not the visual elements are supported by alphabetical writing or translation. The LL, as its own name indicates, is about the language, but the language cannot be disconnected from the culture. In this sense, it is important to refer to the “language in the material world” (Scollon— Scollon, 2003). Alanguage is acultural marker that allows the labelling of agiven group’s social world. Even in the absence of alphabetic writing, alanguage helps to classify and establish social relations. Thus, it can be affirmed that for centuries language has given names and meanings to the places where the social group using the language has lived. Such names can remain in the community memory, even if the speakers of that particular language no longer exist. For example, in the municipality of Tlacotepec Plumas (Oaxaca, Mexico), there are no living speakers of the Chocholtec language, the last of the Chocholtec speakers having died about thirty years ago.6 However, one of the Chocholtec municipalities retains the names of its hamlets in the Chocholtec language. Although the inhabitants of the municipality do not speak their indigenous Chocholtec language, they refer to the hamlets by their names in Chocholtec. The above example shows that the language can have apresence in the social world even though it no longer has any speakers. In other Chocholtecan municipalities (e.g., Teotongo, San Miguel Tulancingo, and others) that do have small groups of Chocholtec speakers, the place names in this language have begun to assimilate into 6 Chocholtec is the second endangered indigenous language in Oaxaca, Mexico. The first endangered language is Ixcatec. Both languages are part of the Popocolan language group or subfamily within the Oto-Manguean language family. OPEN ACCESS
LOrENA CórDOVA HErNáNDEZ, MArIO E.LóPEZ-GOPAr, WILLIAM M.SUGHrUA 13 the Nahuatl language (the imperial language in Prehispanic times) and Spanish. It is important to note that the maintenance of the names in Chocholtec and the displacement by Nahuatl or Spanish has not required signage in an alphabetical or written form. This shows that, despite the displacement of Chocholtec by Spanish, there are still sociocultural elements codified in the Chocholtec language as well as in the memory of speakers and non-speakers who inhabit these municipalities. The cultural and historical memory of the indigenous people is dying out and the production of LL only in the sense of alphabetic writing and literal translation is contributing to this extinction process. It therefore seems necessary to prioritize the processes by which cultural memory can nourish the landscape. As aresult, the SL seems to be the best means of promoting avisual and communicative culture closer to the interactions of its social actors. The SL has the potential to fully activate the symbolic function of the LL, as referred to by Landry and Bourhis (1997). CULTURAL MEMORY AND SEMIOTIC LANDSCAPE In the context of language revitalization, the production of the LL should be seen as apretext for promoting collaborative work among speakers, authorities, institutional representatives, and researchers. In contexts of language loss, minority language speakers usually lose communicative skills because these speakers encounter few, if any, opportunities to use their minority language in “spaces of use” such as classrooms, marketplaces, and government offices. Likewise, the speakers leave aside the cultural knowledge they acquired from their ancestors since such knowledge is considered obsolete. In these situations, the LL becomes an important form of symbolic input. However, if the LL production process were to be accelerated, poorly thought-out, or non-collaborative, the symbolic function of the produced landscape would be temporary. For this reason, the construction of the LL needs to conform to the norms and dynamics of the communities, which do not necessarily coincide with the administrative timelines of the institutional grants. Therefore, if aprocess of collaboration between the institutional grants and the community dynamics is followed, then the possibilities of ILL production would expand and create new materials and, in this way, new communicative dynamics could be generated in languages which are at ahigh risk of dying out. For this reason, in Mexico in 2016, the Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (National Institute of Indigenous languages; INALI), Secretaría de Asuntos Indígenas (Secretary of Indigenous Affairs; SAI), Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca (Benito Juárez Autonomous University of Oaxaca; UABJO), and Centro de Estudios yDesarrollo de las Lenguas Indígenas de Oaxaca (Center of Study and Development of Indigenous Languages in Oaxaca; CEDELIO) joined forces on aresearch project involving the endangered Ixcatec language in Oaxaca, Mexico. The coalition of INALI, SAI, UABJO, and CEDELIO collaborated on this research project with the municipality of Santa María Ixcatlán (Oaxaca, Mexico), where the Ixtapec speakers primarily reside. This project was aimed at producing LL (signage) in the Ixcatec language. As mentioned previously, Ixcatec is the most endangered language of Oaxaca. It has OPEN ACCESS
14 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 2/2017 less than adozen speakers and the majority of those speakers are people over the age of seventy. In addition, Ixcatec has not been used in community communication for more than forty years. The proposal to produce an ILL in Ixtapec was well received by the municipal authorities, most likely because Santa María Ixcatlán is an important Catholic religious centre in Mexico and receives many visitors during the year. In this way, the production of Ixcatec in the form of aLL would become an effective symbolic input for introducing the language and its speakers to the community public space. Initiating the production of aLL in Ixcatec was motivating for all the participants. However, the process was complex. This was especially because, although the project was met with enthusiasm, only three Ixcatec speakers decided to participate. The methodology of the general work was as follows: — Meetings with municipal authorities in order to present the project.7 — Reflections about which spaces would be signaled and how the signaling would be realized. — Elicitation of audio information from the three Ixcatec speakers. — Phonetic transcription. — Analysis of transcriptions conducted by the interinstitutional team along with the Ixcatec speakers as well as aguest specialist / researcher of the Ixcatec language.8 — Photographing for iconography design. — Selection of iconography and emerging alphabetic writing. In this section of the paper, we direct our attention to the second phase listed above, namely the reflections regarding which spaces to signalize. We have selected only this phase for discussion here because it is the most relevant to the issue of signage (as in LL) and semiotics (as in SL). The reflection phase began with questions regarding which places should be signaled or were important to signal. The first response of the Ixcatec speakers to the institutional representatives was: “It is better to give us the list of words you want to translate and we will translate it.” This response propped up amethodological barrier. It was, therefore, necessary for the institutional representatives to change the questions to trigger more reflection on the part of the Ixcatec speakers. In order to achieve this, the team posed indirect questions, such as: 7 INALI, SAI, UABJO, and CEDELIO provided the technical and linguistic advice; INALI provided the funding for the LL production; UABJO directed the LL design; and the municipal authority of Santa María Ixcatlán had the task of organizing the Ixcatec speakers and displaying the final version of the LL. 8 The guest specialist / researcher belongs to the Juan de Córdova Research Library, Oaxaca, Mexico. This researcher helped, through email exchanges, to discern the use of some spelling and words although he advised the interinstitutional team to respect the decisions that the Ixcatec speakers made regarding the writing. OPEN ACCESS
LOrENA CórDOVA HErNáNDEZ, MArIO E.LóPEZ-GOPAr, WILLIAM M.SUGHrUA 15 — What were the places that their grandparents visited? — What was the name, in Ixcatec, of the road that goes from Coixtlahuaca to Nodon? — What did their grandparents call the market? — What was the name of the hill behind us? “Correct” or “specific” answers to these questions were not expected. The answers had two outcomes. First, the speakers began to remember how some community spaces were named or labeled in the Ixcatec language. Second, alist of ancestral or important places that could be signaled began to be emerge from the answers. This does not mean that all places would be signaled, but arange of possibilities was compiled for their subsequent selection. From this exercise, although the answers were names in Spanish, an attempt was made to revive the cultural memory of the speakers. This is one of the most important aspects of the SL construction, as Assman (2008, p.111) indicates: Cultural memory is akind of institution. It is exteriorized, objectified, and stored away in symbolic forms that, unlike the sounds of words or the sight of gestures, are stable and situation-transcendent: They may be transferred from one situation to another and transmitted from one generation to another. As Assman (2008) explains, cultural memory depends on the intergenerational transmission performed by the community. However, in the Ixcatec case, this memory has not been transmitted in aconstant way. The cultural memory of Ixcatec has been displaced for more than four decades. In this way, language revitalization can be seen as heavily reliant on the cultural memory of its speakers, because it is from that memory that cultural events can be recreated or resignified. However, it is also recognized that in the process of language loss, cultural memory fades because it includes reduced spaces of interaction. As Assman (2008, p.111) states: “Our memory, which we possess as being equipped with ahuman mind, exists only in constant interaction not only with other human memories but also with ‘things’, outward symbols.” Therefore, in the Ixcatec project, it was necessary to promote the activation of memory. But that would not be achieved if the Ixcatec language was treated only as asystem of sounds. Other symbolic input was also needed to motivate the reactivation of memory, but this was not achieved through the construction of the ILL, because “memory” appeared to be perceived by the speakers as Ixcatec signage. Despite the production of the Ixcatec LL (see Figure 1), it was not possible to alter the dependence on signage. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the process in creating the LL shown in Figure 1 below did allow us to set up aplatform for collaborative work. Firstly, the institutional representatives had to change or adjust their working methodology, and secondly, the speakers and authorities demonstrated awillingness to continue collaborating. From this collaborative platform, the team began work on another type of LL: the SL. OPEN ACCESS