Podcast Transcripts

According to UNESCO, 43% of the world’s languages are “endangered.” As language revitalization efforts are led by experts and linguists across the world, many overlook the glaring reality of language preservation— it has intricate ties to other issues, such as land and territorial rights, climate change, women’s rights, and more.

Figures of Speech aims to highlight these interdisciplinary connections by focusing on indigenous languages to better understand and reshape the methods we use to approach language revitalization. With the use of numerical figures, rhetorical figures, and figures who are experts and experienced in these topics, this podcast will shine a light on connections that need to be made in order to better support the efforts indigenous peoples have led for decades.

I want to acknowledge that as a mestiza, Mexican-American woman, I will not be able to fully understand the extent of injustice that indigenous peoples face across the world. This podcast is not meant to give a voice to indigenous peoples, because they have one, they have and continue to share their stories, and many choose not to listen. Instead, it’s a call to action: to future and current linguists, professors, politicians, social activists, “change-makers,” and myself, to raise awareness, to listen to their stories, to teach about this in the classrooms, and to lead with methods that truly center the needs and livelihoods of indigenous peoples.

My name is Sel, and thank you for listening to Figures of Speech. Visit figuresofspeech-sel.com, that’s S-E-L, to find more resources, unique stories, and to learn about this project.

Episode 1: Let’s Dive into the History

Language is a fickle thing, isn’t it? From one year to the next, a language undergoes so many changes that it can be difficult to keep up. And, I’m not just talking about trending phrases or lingo. If we take a wider look, and consider how languages have been morphed over decades and centuries, you’ll realize there are even bigger, more dangerous changes taking place.

Let’s consider our first rhetorical figure of speech to start unraveling how language affects the way we perceive the world. When you hear the phrase “endangered species” what comes to mind? I imagine biological organisms, scientific processes, evolutionary timelines, and if I’m completely honest, I even feel as though there is not much I, the individual, can do to prevent the species from going extinct, the inevitable next step considering the state of the world (a bit pessimistic, I’ll admit). A biologist or someone who studies the species may be inclined to study it, record facts and data, anything to try to save the species or make sure that the human race will have a record of the species that once existed.

But here’s the issue: these terms, endangered and extinct, are also being applied to languages. In particular, languages that are seeing fewer and fewer people speak it around the world. Now, while the use of these terms may make the gravity of the situation much more apparent, anthropologists Baldwin, Noodin, and Perley emphasize that it also brings about “unintended constraints.” As they refer to them, these invasive concepts then prompt linguists and experts to save these languages using the tools and methods most familiar to them: I’m talking recordings, writings, archives, websites, and more methods that try to preserve the language. Now, these methods take time and resources and money -- all things that could be redirected to have a more permanent, broader, impact. Because if their language is “endangered,” then what about the livelihoods of those who speak it right now?

Now, you may be thinking, surely linguists and researchers are doing everything they can, right? While I don’t doubt that there are linguists and experts who taking the best approach they can, according to the Linguistic Society of America when asked about what they do to preserve endangered languages, “Researchers make videotapes, audiotapes, and written records of language use in both formal and informal settings, along with translations. In addition, they analyze the vocabulary and rules of the language and write dictionaries and grammars. Linguists also work with communities around the world that want to preserve their languages, offering both technical and practical help with language teaching, maintenance, and revival. This help is based in part on the dictionaries and grammars that they write. But linguists can help in other ways, too, using their experience in teaching and studying a wide variety of languages. They can use what they've learned about other endangered languages to help a community preserve its own language, and they can take advantage of the latest technology for recording and studying languages.”

Of course, this all sounds helpful and great in theory, especially coming from a western point of view. Dictionaries, grammar books, videos and recordings? Sounds like when I started taking French in middle school, or pulled aside in elementary school to receive extra help with learning English since I only spoke Spanish at home. These tools were helpful to me, because I was taught that that’s how learning a language looked like. Therefore, it makes sense that these linguists and experts are using teaching and learning methods that are taught in western education models. These methods that are based on western modes of knowledge acquisition -- think, dictionaries, videos, grammar books, sitting in a classroom studying for several hours -- may not be as helpful to communities who acquire knowledge and understandings differently.

So, now let’s bring it back to our rhetorical figures of speech: endangered and extinct. It’s clearer now to

see how these simple terms affect not only the way that we perceive the situation, but the approaches experts take in response. On the one hand, creating these records and archives makes the situation feel as though it could be a lost cause, so linguists must make sure there is a record for when the language is gone. And when you take it a step further, and consider who these records and archives are for, I think it starts to make more sense as to why different approaches to language preservation must be taken. Are these archives really going to help the current population of speakers of an endangered language, or is it just for posterity’s sake? While I’m sure it’s a bit of both, it leads to another question of why is this community’s language endangered in the first place? Why are they unable to practice their language, and what kind of obstacles and barriers are in the way of keeping their language alive?

So already, there are a plethora of questions that need to be further explored when considering language revitalization and preservation. There’s a need to examine the way we speak about languages, the way we approach language preservation, and a need to look at the problem from a wider angle to ensure that we understand how language is related to politics, economics, history, international business, law and human rights, and more.

In this first season of Figures of Speech, I will be focusing on an indigenous language revitalization program developed in Ecuador, called EIB, Educacion Intercultural Bilingue, or Bilingual Intercultural Education. I’ll be looking at the way that EIB has impacted two indigenous languages spoken in Ecuador, Shuar historically spoken in the Amazonian region of Ecuador, and Kichwa, historically spoken in the northern region of Ecuador. I say historically because a variety of factors have forced a lot of Kichwa and Shuar people to leave their native lands and migrate to different parts of Ecuador for jobs, health, and forced migration as their lands are bought and sold. Both are recognized as official languages of the country, along with Spanish.

Before looking specifically at EIB, however, let’s tackle 3 questions in this episode: What is EIB, how was it developed, and what is the mission?

So first, what exactly is EIB?

Educacion Intercultural Bilingue is a current teaching model used in a large array of Latin American countries -- it is not just present in Ecuador, but across countries who have indigenous populations, so we’re talking Bolivia, Mexico, Peru, Guatemala, and Paraguay. Now, of course, every country in Latin America has indigenous populations, but these are the ones who have implemented an EIB program that is, in most cases, overseen by the Ministry of Education of each country.

So the two components are of course bilingualism and interculturality: bilingualism being the recognition of an indigenous language being used to teach in all curriculums, and for interculturality, I want to share the words of Luis Enrique Lopez to share what exactly interculturalism means:

“Interculturalism in education refers to learning that is rooted in one’s own culture,

language, values, worldview and system of knowledge but that is, at the same time,

receptive, open to and appreciative of other knowledges, values, cultures and languages.

The final aim of intercultural education is learning to live together, since systems of

knowledge, civilizatory patterns, cultures and languages are seen in complementary

distribution rather than from the angle of segregation or opposition.”

So together, bilingualism and interculturalism come together to ideally create a model of instruction that views indigenous languages and cultures as instrumental in education. In theory.

So now, how was it developed, in Ecuador specifically?

This is where the deep dive begins. I mentioned previously that often times, western modes of teaching or knowledge acquisition impact the methods of language revitalization. And as countries in Latin America were in development after gaining independence from their colonists, western modes of teaching became the norm for them as well, emulating the Western powers that had a hold on the world. Ideas such as monolingualism and monoculturalism were seen as the norm and desired, according to researcher Luis Enrique Lopez.

Before I continue, though, I want to emphasize that the need for education for indigenous peoples has roots in the fight for participation and inclusion in the Ecuadorian state, one of the first examples being participating in the programs of agrarian reform laws. Learning how to read and write was for many the first step in litigating for the injustices that indigenous peoples were facing, or to exercise the right to vote, which was only granted to literate citizens. So already we can see how language is inherently tied to other issues, before language revitalization became a bigger concern.

Therefore, in the very beginning, education for indigenous peoples in Ecuador mainly revolved around literacy and assimilation, and not to mention that it was often inaccessible and poorly funded. For example, in 1883 a state ruled decree mandated schooling for indigenous peoples in each parish, which is the equivalent of a district in the US, but funding for these schools was the responsibility of Catholic missions or indigenous communities themselves. In other cases, agrarian estate masters were also required to provide schooling up to the age of 14 for indigenous peoples on their estates, but this again was the financial responsibility of the estate owner and unsurprisingly, they were not very eager to teach them how to read and write. Let’s remember that numerous times throughout history, learning to read and write became instruments for revolts, revolutions, and fighting against oppressive systems.

So we fast-forward a bit to 1938 in which the Law of Education created schools for teaching indigenous teachers and for indigenous students to become a part of “national culture,” heavily focusing on literacy in Spanish -- but this soon became an opportunity that non-indigenous students took advantage of, especially with its focus of assimilation.

It wasn’t until the progressive democratic government of Roldos-Hurtado that bilingual and bicultural education became officially recognized by the state in 1981, in regions with Kichwa and Shuar majorities. This recognition was possible thanks to the efforts of indigenous communities and organizations who put in decades of work to have a say in the government, but it wasn’t until 1988 that the direction of EIB was handed from progressive left political leaders and religious entities such as Catholic, Salesian, and Protestant missions, to the National Directorate of Intercultural Bilingual Education, or DINEIB. DINEIB was a combined team of the Ministry of Education and Confederation of the Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador, or CONAIE, a leading indigenous organization. After this change in leadership, the mainstream model of education was renamed “Hispanic,” meaning not indigenous, and finally, indigenous organizations managed EIB autonomously. Ecuador is one of the few instances in which indigenous leaders and organizations had an active and involved role in policymaking of national politics, and the platform they gained was used as a way of advancing the agenda of indigenous organizations. (Luis Enrique Lopez)

Luis Enrique further explains, “When indigenous leaders demand IIBE, simultaneously they claim territorial rights, the right to freely use the water provided by Mother Nature, the right to conduct themselves according to their own social organizations, ways of living and knowing and worldviews.”

So even though the mission of EIB is not explicitly stated as being able to gain those aforementioned rights, it’s clear that the mission of EIB is rooted in a desire for socioeconomic mobility that would allow indigenous peoples to have active roles in their own legal battles and to move away from being treated as second-class citizens. As researcher and professor Dr. Carmen Novo states, the school was perceived as a mechanism for acquiring the modern or Western knowledge that would make socioeconomic inclusion feasible for rural Indigenous populations.

While EIB was not initially created as a method of language revitalization, with its intricate ties to the way language is utilized and practiced, EIB has had a huge influence on language revitalization efforts in Ecuador over the past several decades. Therefore, I want to analyze and inspect this relationship that exists between the two, specifically by asking and beginning to answer the question that will be the focus of the next episode: what are the shortcomings of EIB? I think it’s very rare in politics and policy-making specifically that a system or program can truly solve the problem it’s tackling. Both as a program that is meant to promote socioeconomic mobility and language revitalization, EIB had grand intentions, and its shortcomings are not only due to the way that program was structured and designed, but the barriers and obstacles that indigenous communities have had to face as they had a more involved role in politics. Joined by guest Sebastian Granda, professor and expert of EIB at the Universidad Politécnica Salesiana in Quito, Ecuador, stay tuned to dig deeper into Figures of Speech with Sel. See you next time.

For more information, resources, and the academic articles that helped inform this podcast, visit my website at figuresofspeech-sel.com.