75
Arctic Yearbook 2014
Participants seek, and already somewhat dated, since the survey was conducted in 2008. Data from
official census sources are synthesized in Barry et al. (2013), which arguably gives the most
comprehensive snapshot of language vitality today. Such reports provide, at best, a broad overview
of indigenous languages but draw on official census data, which rely on self-reporting of language
proficiency and use. Self-reporting is notoriously unreliable, with problems in terms of both underreporting and over-reporting language proficiency. Speakers often interpret questions about their
“mother tongue” as referring to their heritage language, and thus may inadvertently signal that they
“know” a language that is the ancestral tongue known by previous generations although they
themselves are monolingual speakers of a majority language. Alternatively, in cases where use of a
language has low prestige, speakers may under-report to avoid negative repercussions, perceived or
real. Census data reports fail to give the kind of detail and accuracy needed to make the best
decisions possible about how to leverage resources.
The language assessment committee plans to create a “language profile” for each indigenous
language. The assessment profile should include both linguistic and sociolinguistic information, such
as data on language proficiency as well as domains of usage and language attitudes. Specifically, the
group intends to collect information on proficiency across generations, and in different domains and
conversational situations, recognizing that some speakers may fluently discuss some topics and not
others. One goal is to create an indigenously defined metric for proficiency, something that is
currently in development. An assessment of attitudes should include the attitudes of a wide range of
different people: individual speakers, communities, states, and academics about the language, about
language standardization and other language survival strategies. Recognizing that indigenous
language ecologies are situated within a complex social dynamic of speakers of one or more other
languages, the assessment group is interested in the attitudes of community members as well as
those of external, non-community members. Included here are members of the majority language(s)
group and speakers of other indigenous languages who are in contact with the target language.
Another important component of the assessment is information about domains of use. A vital
language is used by all generations in all domains (Fishman, 1991). The assessment committee seeks
to identify language usage across domains, defining relevant domains with input from the
communities themselves. Two concrete examples illustrate the importance of this principle. One is
that in many Arctic indigenous societies, language usage is highest in domains associated with
subsistence activities, such as hunting, fishing, or berry picking, in addition to traditional folklore
and ritual activities. At the same time, participants are interested in assessing language usage outside
of traditional activities, that is, in the home, on the street, in public spaces. People have a general
sense that usage varies according to such factors as the proficiency of both and the interloctor(s), the
relationship between them, topic of conversation and the setting, and seek concrete data about such
variables. Finally, detailed information about speaker proficiency levels is needed in order to make
decisions about what measures are needed to foster vitality. Current metrics provide numbers of
speakers, recognizing speakers and non-speakers. The project participants are interested in
determining a greater range of speaker abilities.
A full assessment of Arctic indigenous language vitality is a multi-year project, requiring significant
financial and human resources. Beyond the general lack of funding for such a project, we currently
Language & Well-Being in the Arctic