Who speaks Shoshone, and when?

A comment on last Sunday's Weekend Edition radio program inspired me to think about two questions. A participant in the Shoshone/Goshute Youth Language Apprenticeship Program (SYLAP) commented:

Someone will step in. You can even bring in a white man to [run a business]. But there isn't going to be a white man who can speak your language.

I wrote about the first of my two questions on Sunday. (What is a "white man"?) Today I'd like to think more about questions of identity and language, particularly in terms of language preservation and revitalization.

Let me preface this by saying that I applaud SYLAP and programs like it. Native American languages are disappearing at an alarming rate. Even those that are not already disappearing because they are not being acquired by young children are shrinking year after year. I in no way mean to downplay the value of the work being done by apprenticeship programs or other projects that help get more young people interested in learning and using Native American languages.

Furthermore, I applaud the young woman who made the comment I quoted above. I am happy and excited to see intelligent young people seeking out ways to serve their communities and the world around them. And every smart and dedicated person coming into a linguistics program is a cause for celebration in my book.

Still, I would like to unpack the notion that "there isn't going to be a white man who can speak your language." I'm going to suggest that such ideas might do as much harm as good to the cause of language preservation. And a good portion of the blame for such thinking may be due to linguistic anthropology, though other fields and practices share in the culpability.

From its earliest days, linguistic anthropology explored the links between the cultural practices of various groups of people and the forms of language that they use. Let me note the differences between early twentieth century views of language and culture in anthropology and those of nineteenth century philosophers such as Herder and von Humboldt. Where the philosophers saw language and culture as essentially and indissolubly linked, the anthropologists suggested merely that, "In the main they [language and culture] have grown up together, constantly influencing each other" (Whorf 1941). In terms of their effect on contemporary thought, this may be a distinction without a difference. The idea that each language reflects a unique worldview, which in turn effects culture, is probably associated more with the linguists Sapir and Whorf than with any other individuals.

A problem for languages like Shoshone, Mohawk, or Lakota - not to mention Corsican, Ainu, Paiwan or literally thousand of others around the world - is that they are not associated with a nation-state. Shoshone is a nationality, but most Shoshone people are citizens of the United States. The idea that it is "natural" for all Americans to speak English (often only English), as well as efforts by the US government during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to suppress indigenous languages, have pushed the language to endangered status. It is estimated that perhaps no more than 3,000 people in the entire world speak Shoshone today.

In this marginalized state, many endangered languages continue to exist in specialized "culture" realms. I know very little about contemporary Shoshone cultural practices (Don't let my confident writing style fool you), but in ethnic and linguistic minority communities I do know, people often talk about "our culture" as something distinct from everyday life. In these cases "our language" is too often thought of as something separate from our lives.

Language is an important part of the culture of any community. It is not mistaken or wrong to think of the language practices shared within the group as a special, or in some sense even a sacred part of culture and community life. But by treating language as distinct from other aspects of daily life, don't we promote the idea that it is a specialized activity to be pursued by those with the leisure and the inclination to do so?

I don't have a solution. I don't know how we can come to think of communication in many languages, vitally including Native American languages, as an everyday part of life. But I can't help but think that if somehow we could get all Americans to think of multilingualism as an ordinary part of life, and of Shoshone as an everyday language in Shoshone communities, then preserving the language might be a little easier. And we might even find it unremarkable if a white man who moved in, say to run a business, would learn Shoshone, too.

Language Ownership: Does the French language belong to France?

Praising the work of a French-speaking singer from Charlemagne, Quebec, France's current president Nicolas Sarkozy revealed an interesting attitude toward the French language. Through a complex rhetoric, Sarkozy seemed to imply that the French language is, somehow, associated almost exclusively with the state of which he has been president for just over a year.

Céline Dion was recently awarded the title of «chevalier de la Légion d'honneur» (Knight of the Legion of Honour) by Sarkozy. In a speech he gave during the event, Sarkozy made several comments about languages and nations. I haven't located a complete transcript of Sarkozy's speech but several of the comments made have been covered by media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
For instance, in Agnès Gaudet's transcription, in Quebec's Canoë news outlet (emphasis mine):

«La France vous remercie, a-t-il dit, car vous contribuez par votre succès et votre talent à faire rayonner notre langue au-delà de nos frontières, sur tous les continents, alors que la tendance partout dans le monde est de s'aplatir sur un seul modèle, une seule langue.»

My semi-literal translation:

"France thanks you, said he, because you contribute through your success and your talent to making our language radiate beyond our borders, on all continents, while the tendency everywhere in the world is to flatten ourselves out on a single model, a single language."

«Faire rayonner» is idiomatic. Its literal meaning is "to make radiate" but it usually refers to acts which "give exposure to," "increase widespread knowledge of," "expand the horizons of," or "spread the word about" some social institution. Journalists have been translating this part of the speech in different ways:

• "her talent and success has contributed to the influence of the French language outside of France's borders." (NBC Philadelphia)
  

• "France thanks her as because of her talent and success; the influence of French language has increased outside the nation’s borders." (IndiaServer)
  

• "for spreading the French language beyond their borders." (Mister-info.com)
  

In all versions, the association between the French language and the French territory (defined by national borders) remains intact. And this association triggered, for me, some thoughts on language and nationalism.
The "French=France" association seems problematic given the fact that (according to Ethnologue, among others), there are more native and second-language speakers of the French language outside of France than there are French-speakers in France. La Francophonie goes much beyond France's borders as it officially includes 68 member states and governments.
While the French language has had national recognition in France since 1539, other languages have been and are still in use through the French territory. Since the French Revolution, the expansion of the language throughout La République française's territory has been long and partly coercive (Holsti 1995, citing Hobsbawm). During the 20th Century, French has almost become the exclusive language of France with (judging from Ethnologue's statistics for France) around 85% of the French population speaking French natively. Yet, to this day, other languages still share the French national territory. Surely, France's language planning and language policies must take all of these elements into account...
Granted, Sarkozy has not said that Dion is unique in "making French radiate outside of France" or that speaking the French language is an exclusively French prerogative. In fact, the thrust of his speech seems to be that the French language should be spoken by more people, worldwide. But the implication remains that, somehow, the French language belongs to the country of France. By «notre langue» ("our language") and «nos frontières» ("our borders"), Sarkozy was referring to an imagined community which excludes more people than it includes.

It's especially interesting to note that Sarkozy situated his speech in the context of linguistic plurality. Comments about a "single model" and a "single language" seem to emanate from a fear of linguistic domination (and dominance) which goes much beyond France or La Francophonie. But other comments Sarkozy made during the same speech are more marked and specific.
For instance, Sarkozy explicitly avoids pitting French against English.
A partial transcription from France's Libération:

«Il faut comprendre que si nous sommes tellement attachés» à la langue française, «ce n’est pas par opposition à l’anglais», a dit M. Sarkozy, pour qui le «monde est plus heureux avec plusieurs langues» car «la diversité est une richesse».

My semi-literal translation:

"It must be understood that if we are so attached to the French language, it is not by opposition to English," said Mr. Sakozy, for whom the "world is happier with various languages" as "diversity is a resource."

Mister-info.com translation:

"We must understand that if we are so committed" to the French language, "we are not opposed to English," said Sarkozy, for whom the world is more pleasant with several languages "because diversity is a treasure. "

"Treasure" seems like an appropriate translation for «richesse» in this context but «richesse» also means "resource," as in «richesse naturelle» ("natural resource") and "wealth" or "richness." In a political context, «la diversité est une richesse» easily resonates with a discourse
of resource management.

Unsurprisingly, Sarkozy's speech seems to have been politically motivated at several levels. He apparently made a special effort, this time, to talk about both Quebec and Canada. According to Montreal's Le Devoir, Sarkozy has used this speech to refine his message about France's position toward both Quebec and Canada:

«Je fais partie de ces Français qui considèrent que le Québec sont nos frères et que le Canada sont nos amis. Je n'oppose pas les deux.»

Semi-literal translation:

"I am among those Frenchmen who consider that Quebec are our brothers and that Canada are our friends. I don't oppose both."

The Agence France Presse version (through Yahoo! Québec) ends by «nous avons besoin des deux» ("we need both").
Christian Rioux, in Montreal's Le Devoir has a more elaborate version, which makes more grammatical sense and seems more neutral.

«Je sais les liens très forts qu'il y a entre le Québec et la France. J'aurai l'occasion de venir très bientôt dire tout ce que je pense de cette histoire. Le Québec, c'est notre famille. Le Canada, ce sont nos amis. Et moi, je veux plus pour les deux.»

Semi-literal translation.

"I know the very strong links which exist between Quebec and France. I will have the opportunity to come very soon to tell all of what I think about this history. Quebec, it is our family. Canada, they are our friends. And me, I want more for both."

Says Rioux, in this same article from Le Devoir, a previous speech of Sarkozy's, giving equal status to both Quebec and Canada, had been received negatively. The political impetus behind his speech seemed clear to those journalists.

According to Radio-Canada and others, Dion was awarded the Légion d'honneur in 2005, before Sarkozy became the French president (May, 2007). It thus sounds like Sarkozy used a ceremony planned before his presidential mandate to make revealing statements about languages and nations.