“What is language for us?”: Community-based Anishinaabemowin language planning using TEK-nology

Abstract

AbstractLanguage planning and policy (LPP), as a field of research, emerged to solve the “problem” of multilingualism in newly independent nation-states. LPP’s principal emphasis was the reproduction of one-state, one-language policies. Indigenous languages were systematically erased through top-down, colonial medium-of-instruction policies, such as in Canadian residential schools. To this day, ideologies and policies still privilege dominant classes and languages at the expense of Indigenous and minoritized groups and languages. To prevent further erasure and marginalization, work is required at multiple levels. There is growing consensus that top-down, government-led LPP must occur alongside community-led, bottom-up LPP. One shared and common goal for Indigenous language reclamation and revitalization initiatives across the globe is to promote intergenerational language transmission in the home, the community, and beyond. The affordances of digital and online technologies are also being explored to foster more self-determined virtual communities of practice. Following an Indigenous research paradigm, this paper introduces theTEK-nology(Traditional Ecological Knowledge [TEK] and technology) pilot project in the Canadian context.TEK-nologyis an immersive, community-led, and technology-enabled Indigenous language acquisition approach to support Anishinaabemowin language revitalization and reclamation. TheTEK-nologypilot project is an example of bottom-up, community-based language planning (CBLP) where Indigenous community members are the language-related decision-makers. This paper demonstrates that Indigenous-led, praxis-driven CBLP, usingTEK-nology, can support Anishinaabemowin language revitalization and reclamation and more equitable, self-determined LPP. The CBLPTEK-nologyproject has implications for status and acquisition language planning; culturally responsive LPP methodologies; and federal, provincial, territorial, and family language policy.