"When We Talk": Okanagan Ways of Speaking of Elders/Fluent Speakers in Social Domains of Language-In-Use Implications for Okanagan Language Revitalization
AuthorBaptiste, Maxine Rose
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction, presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
AbstractOkanagan is a Southern Interior Salish language spoken in south-central British Columbia and north central Washington State. Okanagan is considered an endangered language having 132 fluent speakers (Dunlop, Gessner, Herbert & Parker, 2018) remaining. There has not been a body of work done on conversation and discourse patterns by fluent speakers of this language. A descriptive study which focuses on conversation patterns, naturally occurring speech patterns, language use, functions and communication—descriptive features of Okanagan Edler talk-- is the focus of this research. The components of the study will be used in pedagogical materials and for reference by language learners and will be invaluable in the teaching of language, as it would best serve the needs of the language learner in learning the language in context and provide the learner with proper discourse patterns. I wanted to answer the question "What do language learners need to know about the social use of language in order to use the Okanagan language appropriately and gain fluency?" How do we as Okanagan people use D/discourse? To answer this question, I recorded Elders and fluent speakers to document their language use in conversation with each other. The data showed that language speakers use language in a variety of genres such as teasing, word play, and metaphor with very descriptive language through the use of morphologically complex words. The data also showed the importance of fluent speakers' ideology of language, language teaching and the need for revitalizing the language and the urgency of developing fluency in the language learners. Elders/fluent speakers’ highly fluent language is important for informing the development of materials for language revitalization within our communities.
Degree ProgramGraduate College
Language, Reading & Culture
Degree GrantorUniversity of Arizona
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Acquisition versus long-term retention of Japanese words and syntax by children and adults: Implications for the critical period hypothesis in second language learning.Boswell, Paul Duane; Reyna, Valerie; Brainerd, Charles; Aleamoni, Lawrence M. (The University of Arizona., 1993)The critical period hypothesis for second language learning, which states that young children learn additional languages better than adults, lacks unambiguous empirical support as well as a coherent theoretical model. An experimental study was conducted which analyzed child-adult differences in difficulty of acquisition and long-term retention for rules of syntax and words in Japanese, a language unfamiliar to the subjects. The results of this study found no advantage for children over adults either in acquisition or long-term memory. However, relative to the difficulty of acquisition, the children had lower forgetting rates for words than for rules when both materials were learned completely. In the lexical study, the children's performance at retention was closer to the adults' than at acquisition, whereas in the syntax study, the opposite was the case. These results confirm the existence of developmental differences in the forgetting rates of different materials. Such results imply that, if there is an advantage for learning language at an early age, it might be localized in lexical retention.
THE USE OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS IN LANGUAGE REMEDIATIONChalfant, James C.; Foster, Georgiana Elizabeth (The University of Arizona., 1980)The purpose of the investigation was to examine the effect of training on the use of morphology and syntax of language delayed children. Performance with no instruction was compared to performance with two methods: (1) a Standard Remedial Instruction Approach and (2) the Individualized Instruction Approach. The intent was to determine if a standard method would be superior to no instruction; and then, if individualization of training procedures, based on a functional analysis of the child's approach to learning tasks, would facilitate progress over what might be achieved with the standard method. Finally, a follow-up test was done to check if skills were maintained. Three language delayed children in a Primary Resource Classroom served as the subjects. A multiple baseline across subjects design was employed, with a sequential multiple intervention component added. Using each subject as his own control, his performance was compared across adjacent phases. Instructional phases were introduced to subjects in a staggered fashion rather than at the same time to test the power of each intervention. The method chosen as the Standard Remedial Instruction approach was the Interactive Language Development Teaching method. The Individualized Instruction approach was devised from a functional analysis. Diagnostic teaching provided the means for doing the functional analysis, during which the child's responsiveness to varied stimulus, response, affective and cognitive dimensions of tasks was observed. Performance under the different phases of the study was measured by experimenter-made criterion referenced tests on the specific language forms being taught. Each test required a degree of generalization since novel stimulus materials were used. Visual analysis of the data was facilitated by use of trend lines made by the method of least squares, to determine changes between phases. Trend lines of adjacent phases were compared in terms of level and slope. The procedures described above yielded the following results: (1) All three subjects showed notable improvement in performance with Standard Remedial Instruction as compared to Baseline performance; (2) All three subjects displayed some improvement with Individualized Instruction over Standard Remedial Instruction, but by trend analysis, only one exhibited marked improvement; and (3) The performance of two subjects on follow-up testing was commensurate with the level of performance obtained during Individualized Instruction. The findings of the study indicate that, within the context of the public schools, improvement in morphology and syntax of language delayed children is dependent upon the use of systematic language instruction. Provision of such instruction, and the establishment of more efficient screening procedures for identifying expressive syntax problems, therefore seem warranted. If a standard remedial instruction program does not seem to be effective, an individualized program may be needed. A functional analysis of the child's learning characteristics appears to provide a sound basis from which to develop an individualized program. Speech and language clinicians, thereby, could increase their effectiveness by learning to conduct a functional analysis. The study further documents the promise of time-series research for use with a handicapped population. A public school system could use such a design to evaluate methods or programs. It would be relatively easy and inexpensive to conduct. A limitation of the particular design used for this study was that the effect of method two could not be separated from the effect of method one since it was always preceded by method one. An alternation of methods could alleviate the problem. A study of this type has minimal significance by itself but in a series can make a contribution.