INUVIALUIT LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY:
PERSPECTIVES ON THE SYMBOLIC MEANING OF INUVIALUKTUN IN
THE CANADIAN WESTERN ARCTIC

by

Alexander C. Oehler
B.A., University o f Northern British Columbia, 2010

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
July 2012

© Alexander C. Oehler, 2012

1+1

Library and Archives
Canada

Bibliotheque et
Archives Canada

Published Heritage
Branch

Direction du
Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada

395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada
Your file Votre reference
ISBN:

978-0-494-94104-1

Our file Notre reference
ISBN:

978-0-494-94104-1

NOTICE:

AVIS:

The author has granted a non­
exclusive license allowing Library and
Archives Canada to reproduce,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve,
communicate to the public by
telecommunication or on the Internet,
loan, distrbute and sell theses
worldwide, for commercial or non­
commercial purposes, in microform,
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.

L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive
permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives
Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter,
distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le
monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur
support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou
autres formats.

The author retains copyright
ownership and moral rights in this
thesis. Neither the thesis nor
substantial extracts from it may be
printed or otherwise reproduced
without the author's permission.

L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur
et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni
la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci
ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement
reproduits sans son autorisation.

In compliance with the Canadian
Privacy Act some supporting forms
may have been removed from this
thesis.

Conform em ent a la loi canadienne sur la
protection de la vie privee, quelques
formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de
cette these.

W hile these forms may be included
in the document page count, their
removal does not represent any loss
of content from the thesis.

Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans
la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu
manquant.

Canada

A bstract: The revitalization o f ancestral languages has been an issue o f great concern to
Aboriginal communities across North America for several decades. More recently, this
concern has also found a voice in educational policy, particularly in regions where
Aboriginal land claims have been ratified, and where public schools fall under a mandate
to offer curricula that meet the needs o f Aboriginal students. This research seeks to
explore the cultural significance o f Inuvialuktun, a regional Inuit language comprised of
three distinct dialects traditionally spoken by the Inuvialuit o f the northern Northwest
Territories, Canada. More specifically, the research seeks to examine the role o f current
Inuvialuktun language revitalization efforts in the establishment of Inuvialuit collective
and individual identities across several age groups. Tying into the sociolinguistic
discourse on ancestral language revitalization in North America, the research seeks to
contribute a case study from a region underrepresented in the literature on language and
identity. The applied aim o f the study is to provide better insight on existing language
ideologies and language attitudes subscribed to by current and potential learners of
Inuvialuktun in the community of Inuvik, NWT. Data obtained by the study is intended to
aid local and territorial language planners in identifying potential obstacles and
opportunities regarding language learner motivation. The project was conducted in
partnership with the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC), the Inuvialuit Cultural
Resource Centre (ICRC), the Beaufort Delta Education Council (BDEC), and Aurora
College, providing qualitative access to current and potential learners, as well as current
and future teachers across several educational contexts.
[Keywords: Inuvialuit, language revitalization, identity, hybridity, ideologies, attitudes]

Table o f Contents

Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Acknowledgement

ii
iii-v
v
v
vi-vii

Chapter One - Introduction
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Why the Western Arctic, why Inuvik?
1.2 General context: land and language
1.3 Current linguistic vitality
1.4 Disciplinary context within the Canadian Arctic
1.5 Purpose and problem
1.6 Necessity and importance o f the study
1.7 Applicability to the Northwest Territories
1.8 Theoretical perspectives
1.9 Conclusion

1
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
12
14

Chapter Two - Literature Review
2.0 Introduction
2.1.0 General historical background
2.1.1 Inuvialuit culture in context
2.1.2 From Paleoeskimo to Inuvialuit culture
2.1.3 Age of discovery: trade and epidemics
2.1.4 The whaling era (1889-1908)
2.1.5 The trapping era and settlement expansion
2.1.6 Militarization and oil boom
2.1.7 The advent of Inuvialuit self-determination
2.2.0 Recent language history
2.2.1 The Herschel Island Trade Jargon
2.2.2 Early advantages o f English
2.2.3 Residential schools and English-only ideologies
2.2.4 The Inuvialuktun Language Commission & Program
2.2.5 The Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre
2.3 Language, society and identity as a field o f study
2.3.1 Language inequality
2.3.2 Language ideology
2.3.3 Language identity
2.3.4 Language shift and ethnic identity
2.3.5 Language and identity in Aboriginal North America
2.4.0 Residential schooling and Aboriginal languages in North America
2.4.1 Witness accounts
2.4.2 An archival perspective
2.4.3 Inuit activism

15
15
16
16
17
18
19
19
20
21
21
22
22
23
24
25
25
27
28
31
33
34
34
35
37

iii

2.4.4 Residential school repercussions
2.5.0 Heritage language as second language
2.5.1 Psycholinguistics and forgotten languages
2.5.2 Who decides when to learn? A perspective from the
American Southwest
2.5.3 An example o f tokenization in Yup'ik terms
2.6.0 Language revitalization and Indigenous identities in North America
2.6.1 'Lived' versus 'spoken' identity in Hopi
2.6.2 Disjunctive language ideologies in Navajo and Pueblo
2.6.3 Agency and stereotype deconstruction in Sami
2.7.0 Theoretical perspectives: Blumer & Bourdieu
2.7.1 Symbolic interactionism
2.7.2 Symbolic power and violence
2.8 Conclusion

38
40
40
42
44
45
45
47
48
49
50
51
52

Chapter Three - Methodology
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Ethical considerations
3.1.1 Community access & community partners
3.1.2 Community collaboration
3.1.3 Research partners and local co-researchers
3.1.4 Informed consent & remuneration
3.1.5 Ownership and accountability
3.2 Data Collection
3.2.1 Participant observation
3.2.2 Questionnaires
3.2.3 Semi-structured interviews
3.2.4 Group interviews (focus groups)
3.2.5 Population focus: age and gender
3.2.6 Interview sites
3.2.6.1 Samuel Heame Secondary School
3.2.6.2 Aurora College
3.2.6.3 Aurora College Learning Centre
3.2.6.4 Community at large
3.3 Methods of analysis
3.3.1 Inductive & deductive approaches
3.3.2 Methods from an epistemological perspective
3.4 Conclusion

54
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
60
62
63
65
66
68
71
71
72
72
73
73
74
76

Chapter Four - Findings
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Ideological disjuncture
4.2 The symbolic value of Inuvialuktun
4.3 Inuvialuktun acquisition and identity
4.4 Language ideologies: bom o f (and giving birth to) definitions o f self
4.5 Definitions o f identity: Blumer's perspective

77
77
78
80
81
83

4.5.1 Inuvialuit identity in light o f freedom and constraint
4.5.2 Fluidity and stability o f Inuvialuit identity
4.5.3 Inuvialuit identity in social contexts o f cause and effect
4.5.4 Constructing Inuvialuit identity in similarity & difference
4.5.5 Inuvialuit identity in the context o f multiple social others
4.6 Language ideologies: Bourdieu's perspective
4.6.1 Internalized language hierarchies
4.6.2 Language inequality and Aboriginal independence
4.6.3 Relegation of Inuvialuktun to the historical domain
4.6.4 The symbolic meaning o f Inuvialuktun
4.6.5 Language attitudes toward Inuvialuktun
4.7 Conclusion

85
89
92
96
101
104
106
108
109
112
114
116

Chapter Five - Conclusion
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Linguistic beliefs & Inuvialuit community
5.2 Motivators for language acquisition
5.3 Some recommendations to language planners
5.4 Conclusion

118
118
120
122
123

Appendixes
Appendix I - Adult Consent Form
Appendix II - Consent Form for Minors
Appendix III - Interview Guide
Appendix IV - General Questionnaire
Appendix V - Questionnaire for Current Learners
Appendix VI - Research Ethics Approval UNBC
Appendix VII - Research Relationship Agreement
Appendix VIII - Aurora Letter of Consent
Appendix IX - BDEC Letter o f Consent
Appendix X - NWT Research License

126
128
130
131
134
135
136
137
138
139

List o f Tables
Table 1 List o f Co-researchers (demographic breakdown)

140

List of Figures
Figure 1 - Map of Inuit Nunangat
Figure 2 - Samuel Heame Secondary School
Figure 3 - Aurora College (ALCIP)
Figure 4 - Aurora College Community Learning Centre
Figure 5 - Town o f Inuvik

5
69
69
70
70

Bibliography

141

v

Acknowledgem ents

First o f all, my gratitude goes to my wife who has stood by me throughout the course o f
this project. I am also very thankful to my sons, Lars and Bergen, who continually remind
me that language policy is made in the home, and who have accompanied me in most o f
my research endeavors. I express my gratitude to all the community members who gave
of their precious time and insights, especially the students o f the Aboriginal Language
and Culture Instructor Program (ALCIP) at Aurora College. I would like to thank
Catherine Cockney from the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre (ICRC) for her advice
and listening ear, Suzanne Robinson, senior instructor o f the Community Education
Preparation Program at Aurora College for her collaboration, and Dwayne Drescher who
put in many hours o f work at the computer and in the community as my research
assistant. For archival assistance and information on the history o f language revitalization
in the ISR, I would like to thank Dr. Dave Button from the Arctic Institute o f North
America. At the University o f Northern British Columbia my gratitude goes out first and
foremost to Dr. Michel Bouchard who invested countless hours o f teaching, guiding, and
mentoring me, and without whom this project would not have taken place. I would like to
thank Dr. Ross Hoffman, my First Nations Studies advisor whose community-based
research experience was much appreciated in this project. My thanks also go out to Dr.
Angele Smith (Anthropology) and Dr. Antonia Mills (First Nations Studies) who have
stimulated my thinking through their seminars. I wish to thank the University o f Northern
British Columbia for granting me multiple postgraduate research awards, as well as a
SSHRC research award made available through aid to small universities. At Universite
Laval in Quebec City, I would like to thank Dr. Louis-Jacques Dorais who supported my

vi

work as linguistic advisor. It was a special honor to work with Dr. Dorais as he was the
initial linguist called upon by the Inuvialuit to facilitate a systematic analysis o f
Inuvialuktun in the early 1980s, which he did by sending his then PhD student Ronald
Lowe, author o f all Inuvialuit grammars and dictionaries to date. I would also like to
thank Kristeen McTavish from the N asiw ik Centre for Inuit Health and Changing
Environments for her commitment to supporting this project by overseeing our N asiw ik
Summer Student Research Award. Finally, I would like to thank my institutional project
partners who kindly allowed me to access their staff and students, time, space, and
resources enabling me to conduct interviews and participant observation within their
domains. Among these are the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre (ICRC), the Inuvialuit
Regional Corporation (IRC), the Beaufort Delta Education Council (BDEC), Aurora
College, the Aurora Learning Centre, and Samuel Heame Secondary School (SHSS).

Chapter One - Introduction
1.0 Introduction
While browsing the online archives o f the New York Times a few years ago, a
tantalizing article by journalist Christopher Wren caught my eye:
“Precise Eskimo Dialect Threatened with Extension”
July 9, 1985: “Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories— The Inuvialuktun
Language Project has embarked on a venture more curious than selling
iceboxes to Eskimos. It is teaching them how to speak their own
disappearing dialects.” (Wren 1985)
As a student o f anthropology, I was quickly drawn into W ren’s article, in which he
outlined some of the efforts that were put forth by federal and territorial governments to
revive the three Inuvialuktun dialects o f Inuvialuit, the Western Arctic Inuit who were
formerly known also as Mackenzie Delta Eskimo. Reading his article raised several
questions for me: What are some of the factors that may contribute to the loss o f a
language that presumably has been spoken for several thousand years? W hat must it be
like to attempt to re-leam such a language in an indigenous context? Can a cultural
identity be maintained in the absence o f ancestral language?
After perusing academic literature on several similar scenarios from around the
world, a desire grew in me to explore this topic with greater depth. Following an
exploratory trip to the Inuvialuit Settlement Region during the summer o f 2009, the
opportunity arose for my family and I to relocate to Inuvik the following winter. It was
from our new home in the Arctic that I was able to translate my earlier sociolinguistic
curiosities into two main research questions: 1) what are contemporary Inuvialuit

perceptions o f Inuvialuktun and how do these perceptions relate to Inuvialuit identity?
And, 2) what motivates/discourages current and potential learners of Inuvialuktun to
pursue the language acquisition process? Thus began, for all o f us, a rewarding and lifechanging journey of over three years, during which time I was privileged to learn about
contemporary Inuvialuit life, culture, language, and identity in the community o f Inuvik.
1.1 Why the Western Arctic, why Inuvik?
This research and its location was in many ways inspired by the work o f Shelley
Tulloch (2004), who focused on Inuit youth and their language attitudes on Baffin Island
in order to assist Nunavut language planners. Tulloch chose Iqaluit, the capital o f
Nunavut, as one of three communities for data collection. In her words, “[t]he intensive
contact between English and Inuktitut, and the evident shift from Inuktitut to English
taking place among the Inuit o f Iqaluit, make the capital city an interesting (and
important) starting point for a study o f the promotion o f Inuktitut” (2004: 91). While the
language situation in Iqaluit is somewhat unique within Nunavut, the predominance o f
English language use in Inuvik is more or less representative o f the Inuvialuit Settlement
Region as a whole.
I chose Inuvik for many o f the same reasons Tulloch chose Iqaluit as one o f her
research communities. Inuvik is a multi-ethnic1 community o f 3,504 people (Bureau o f
Statistics GNWT 2011: 1), and it is a regional center with a high turnover o f southerners
who come here for work, reinforcing English as a default language in the work place. As
a government town, Inuvik offers a relatively large number o f waged employments,
whereby participation in traditional on-the-land activities is somewhat inhibited. Due to

1 The population o f Inuvik consists o f approx. 1/3 Inuit, 1/3 Gwitch’in, and 1/3 non-Aboriginal (Statistics
Canada 2010b).

2

greater access to imports coming in on trucks for most of the year, as well as a greater
variety of public services, the lifestyle of many Inuvik residents is much closer to the
culture of southern Canada than it has been in the past (Kolausok 2003a: 173). A more
traditional lifestyle is maintained in remoter settlements (Lyons 2010: 32). Unlike Iqaluit,
Inuvik is also home to a significant percentage o f Gwitch’in (Dene) First Nation
residents, who possess their own official minority language2 rooted in the land directly
south of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR). Besides the presence o f more than one
local minority language, members o f all linguistic groups (Inuvialuit, Inupiat, Gwitch’in,
and Euro-Canadian) have intermarried (Lyons 2010: 25). While Inuit language retention
may be at its lowest in Inuvik, it is here also that the highest institutional support for the
language exists. Among the institutions advocating on behalf o f Inuvialuktun are the
Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre, the Office of the Language Commissioner o f the
NWT, and Aurora College’s Aboriginal Language and Cultural Instructor Program
(ALCIP). All of these reasons potentially increase the diversity in language attitudes and
ideologies, making Inuvik a sensible choice for this research.
1.2 General context: land and language
The Inuit o f the northern Northwest Territories refer to themselves as Inuvialuit,
or “the real people” (Morrison 2003a: 1). Their homeland, the Inuvialuit Settlement
Region (ISR), traditionally also referred to as Nunaqput, is the westem-most o f four Inuit
Nunangat3 (Inuit territories o f Canada), the other Inuit territories being the territory o f
Nunavut, Nunavik in northern Quebec, and Nunatsiavut of northern Labrador (cf. Figure
2 Gwitch’in is a Na-Dene language and belongs to the Athapaskan-Eyak language family. It has also been
referred to as Kutchin, Loucheux, and Tukudh and is currently spoken in the communities o f Tsiigehtchic,
Fort McPherson, Aklavik, and Inuvik (Lewis 2009). Aklavik and Inuvik fall into the ISR. Like
Inuvialuktun, Gwitch’in possesses a modified Latin script.
3 Inuit Nunangat stands for land, water, and ice, all o f which constitute Inuit homelands (ITK 2012).

1), Inuvialuit residing in the ISR represent 6% o f all Canadian Inuit, as contrasted by
Nunavut where almost 50% o f Canadian Inuit reside (Gionet 2008: 59). The vast majority
o f approx. 5,0004 (IRC 2007) Inuvialuit live in 6 communities scattered across the ISR:
Inuvik, Aklavik, Tuktoyaktuk, Sachs Harbour, Paulatuk, and Ulukhaktok. The settlement
region covers nearly 91,000 square kilometers o f land, and encompasses 344,000 square
kilometers of sea (DAAIR 2008). The ISR includes the Beaufort Sea coast from the
Yukon border in the west to the border o f Nunavut in the east, as well as Banks Island
and part o f Victoria Island. Inuvialuit have Inupiat (Alaskan Inuit) neighbors to the west,
while bordering with Gwitch’in and Hare First Nations in the south, and with Central
Arctic Inuit5 to the east.
Until the end o f the Second W orld War, most Inuvialuit predominantly spoke the
Inuit language in the home. This language belongs to the larger Eskaleut language family,
where it is identified under the Eskimo branch and further placed under the Inuit-Inupiaq
sub-branch (Dorais 2010: 9). Variants o f the Inuit language are spoken from Alaska to
Greenland: Alaskan Inupiaq, Western Canadian Inuktun, Eastern Canadian Inuktitut, and
Greenlandic Kalaallisut. Inuvialuit refer to their language as Inuvialuktun, which is a
modem

cover

term

for

three

language

variants:

Siglitun,

Inuinnaqtun,

and

Uummarmiutun. Siglitun and Inuinnaqtun are Western Canadian Inuktun language

4 In the 2006 census, 3,230 individuals residing in the “Inuvik region” (i.e. ISR) indicated Inuit identity as
single response (Statistics Canada 2010). It must be noted that not all Inuvialuit beneficiaries may indicate
single response identity due to intermarriage, and the IRC also counts Inuvialuit beneficiaries residing
outside the ISR. In 2011 the IRC made year-end distribution payments o f its profits to a total o f 4,131
beneficiaries (IRC 2009b). Some fluctuation is also to be expected in these numbers due to occasional
status switching in descendants o f mixed marriages (i.e. Gw itch’in/Inuvialuit).
5 Historically known as “Copper Inuit” o f the Central Arctic, members o f this group belong to the
Kitikmeot Region o f Nunavut.

4

variants, while Uummarmiutun6 is a North Slope variant o f Alaskan Inupiaq (Dorais
2010: 32-33). Inuinnaqtun consists o f four related variants, one of which is known as
Kangiryuarmiutun, spoken by Inuvialuit in the community o f Ulukhaktok (Dorais 2010:
33). Inuvialuit from the communities of Tuktoyaktuk, Sachs Harbour, and Paulatuk
traditionally speak Siglitun, while Uummarmiutun is traditionally spoken in Aklavik and
Inuvik where it now overlaps with Siglitun. Thus, when referring to the ‘Inuit language’
in the context o f Inuvialuit, I have in mind one or all of the three dialects comprising
Inuvialuktun.

Inuit Nunaat
Inuvik
] Inuvialuit
I

J N u n avu t
N unavik
N u n a tsia v u t

Vti'son

~ /

...............

Northwest Territories
Newfoundland
a n d Labrador

Quebec

U sed with permission from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami

Figure 1 - Map o f Inuit Nunangat

6 Beginning in the 1890s, many Nunatarmiut (Inupiat “inland people”) from Alaska, as w ell as a number o f
coastal Inupiat, migrated into the Delta region (Morrison 2003c:91), bringing with them Inupiaq variants.
To this day some o f Aklavik’s residents are land claimants in both Alaska and Canada (Lyons 2010:25).

5

1.3 Current linguistic vitality
According to the 2004-07 NWT statistics, there were 2,743 Inuvialuit within the
ISR, of whom 552 had the Inuit language as mother tongue, while only 130 used it in the
home (Dorais 2010:293, appendix IV). In 2006 the Canadian census counted 1,030
individuals in the NWT who were able to speak the Inuit language, 800 o f whom had it as
their mother tongue (Dorais 2010:238). This suggests that 248 Inuit mother tongue
speakers lived outside the ISR but within the NWT. This is congruent with 2009 data
from NWT statistics, which indicates that 240 Inuktitut speakers primarily from Nunavut
lived in Yellowknife (NWTALP 2010:36). If we subtract these 240 Inuktitut speakers
from the 2006 Canadian census total o f 1,030 Inuit speakers in the NWT, we arrive at
790 Inuit speakers, presumably residing within the ISR. If we divide the total Inuit
population o f the ISR of 2006, by the total speaker number o f the same year, we arrive at
28% of the population able to converse in the Inuit language.
Before looking at more recent data, it is important to understand that the
government o f the NWT (GNWT) identifies Inuvialuktun7 and Inuinnaqtun as separate
official languages (OLA 1988:4). According to a 2009 community survey by the Bureau
of Statistics o f NWT8, there were a total o f 499 individuals across the territory able to
converse in Inuvialuktun. O f this total, 16 individuals were aged 0-14 (3.2%), 100
individuals were aged 15-39 (20%), 157 individuals were aged 40-59 (31.5%), and 226
individuals were aged 60 and over (45.3%). For Inuinnaqtun there were a total o f 196
individuals able to converse in the language. O f this total number, 11 individuals were
7 Uummarmiutun is counted under Inuvialuktun in the 2009 NW T Community Survey (personal
communication, Bureau o f Stats., NWT, March 6, 2012). L.-J. Dorais counts 56 individuals as
Uummarmiut first language speakers for the community o f Aklavik, based on 2004-7 N W T statistical data
(Dorais 2010:193, appendix 4).
8 Cited in the 2010 Northwest Territories Aboriginal Languages Plan (NW TALP 2010:36).

between the ages of 0-14 (5.6%), 42 were between 15-39 (21.4%), 89 were between 4059 (45.4%), and 54 were 60 years and older (27.6%). When combining the total results
for Inuvialuktun and Innuinaqtun (not considering the 240 Inuktitut speakers o f
Yellowknife), there were 694 individuals in the NWT able to converse in a Western
Canadian Inuktun dialect. Comparing the 2004-07 data with that o f 2009, we can detect a
decline in the total speaker number: there were 96 fewer speakers. The drop may be
accounted for in part by the number o f Inuvialuit elders who passed on in the three years
between surveys.
1.4 Disciplinary context within the Canadian Arctic
In light o f these speaker numbers, the primary intention of this study was to
examine the role of ancestral language loss, revitalization, and maintenance efforts in the
construction of contemporary Inuvialuit cultural identity. The relative absence of
sociolinguistic data from literature available for the western Canadian Arctic9 further
encouraged this research. While extensive work has been conducted in Nunavut and
Alaska on Inuit language and identity (e.g., May 2005; Dorais 1995; 1997; Kaplan 2001;
Patrick 2004, 2006; Shearwood 2001; Tulloch 1999), as well as on language maintenance
and revitalization (e.g., Tulloch 2005; Johns 2002; Dorais & Krupnik 2005; Patrick 2004,
etc.), little is available for the ISR. In Nunavut and Nunavik Inuktitut dialects are still
being passed on to younger generations in the home, even if decreasingly so (c.f. Tulloch
2004:73-74). The situation in the ISR is markedly different, as language maintenance
efforts are largely limited to optional school instruction and Language N est programs in
early childhood settings, and consequently as few as 38% o f Inuvialuit children between
9 Although little sociolinguistic research has been conducted in the Western Arctic region, other types o f
research have been so prevalent that a common phrase I heard from Inuvialuit elders was, “W e have been
researched to death!”

the ages o f 2 and 5 understood Inuvialuktun in 200610 (Tait et al. 2010:7). While the
sociolinguistic and demographic realities o f the ISR may place it in a somewhat
peripheral position vis-a-vis Nunavik and Nunavut, the Inuvialuit experience serves as a
good example of identity formation in face o f progressed language shift within a
community strongly affected by the hegemonic forces o f the English language.
1.5 Purpose and problem
The purpose o f this study was to gain a better understanding o f how several
Inuvialuit individuals in the community o f Inuvik" personally assessed the importance o f
Inuvialuktun, their heritage language, as constituent o f a shared cultural identity. In other
words, “how integral is the maintenance o f ancestral dialects to protecting Inuvialuit
cultural identity?” The interview guide (Appendix III) that directed my discussions with
co-researchers was based on a series o f questions that were originally inspired by the
literature for various other languages shift scenarios in North America and Europe. Some
o f the original questions were: If Inuvialuktun is no longer a communicative vehicle, then
what is the symbolic function of the language in the maintenance of cultural identity?
Does language re-acquisition solidify Inuvialuit identity? Does the importance o f heritage
language acquisition differ for people o f varying ages and/or between life stages? What
language attitudes and ideologies exist in potential and current learners, and what do they
tell us about obstacles to and/or opportunities for language learner motivation? As
evident in the last question, a more practical aim o f this study was to help shed light on
the place of Inuvialuktun in the lives o f several current and potential learners in order to
10 Only Nunatsiavut (Labrador) had lower values: here only 33% o f Inuit children were able to understand
their heritage language (Tait et al. 2010:7).
11 Not all participants considered Inuvik their primary home; som e were originally from outlying
communities and had either recently moved to Inuvik, or were in Inuvik only for the purpose o f
employment or education.

aid local Inuvialuit language planners, in identifying possible strategies for language
learner motivation.
1.6 Necessity and importance of the study
The larger context for this study is the accelerating decline of minority languages
through assimilative processes, a tendency that has increasingly been warned about by
linguists since the early 1990s (e.g., Robins and Uhlenbeck 1991; Brenzinger 1992;
Krauss 1992; Crystal 2000; Nettle and Romaine 2000; Dalby 2003, Harrison 2007). In
response to the loss of linguistic diversity, there have emerged many voices speaking on
behalf of protection and maintenance o f minority languages. The rational for linguistic
advocacy has ranged from claims o f loss in environmental, medical, philosophical, and
artistic systems o f knowledge, to the demise o f unique human cognitive models (Hale
1998:193; Hinton and Hale 2001:4-5), and from the demise o f diversity in the ways the
world is seen (Nettle and Romaine 2000:66) to an increased threat to democracy at large,
and minority rights in particular (Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 2009:325). M any o f these
arguments for linguistic diversity share a common foundation in linguistic ecology (e.g.,
Maffi 2001; Harmon 2002; Romaine 2008), a model that compares human languages to
ecological systems, and in which the loss o f diversity is seen to parallel the consequences
o f homogenization in ecosystems. While an ecological view o f language can give us a
more holistic perspective of speech forms and their interconnections with various
environments, its underlying biological approach falls short because o f the inorganic
nature of language. “Languages themselves obey no natural imperatives, they have no
intrinsic qualities that bear upon any sort o f linguistic survival o f the fittest, they possess
no ‘inner principle o f life’ (Edwards 2009:323). If we accept that some or all o f the above

9

listed attributes o f minority languages are integral to the identities o f their respective
speakers, then we must also ask whether it is at all possible to maintain unique cultural
identities in absence of heritage languages?
Many language specialists today agree that language and cultural identity are
inseparable entities, and that the loss o f language invariably leads to a loss in traditional
knowledge and epistemology - cornerstones o f traditional indigenous identities. One o f
the best-known proponents for this inseparability o f language and cultural identity is
Joshua Fishman (1991: 4). While Fishman does not deny that even diasporic societies are
able

to

possess

sustained

“ethnocultural

label-maintenance

and

self-concept-

maintenance,” he argues that their ability to regulate cultural contact and cultural change
begins to crumble in the absence o f their heritage languages (1991:17). W hen applying
Fishman’s insights to the Inuvialuit context, one might wonder whether Inuvialuit
cultural identity is not weakened by the loss o f ancestral language. In reference to
Canadian Inuit at large, linguist Louis-Jacques Dorais suggests the possibly that with the
increasing loss o f the heritage language “more fundamental cultural identity will [...]
grow weaker and weaker for want o f ancestral linguistic support,” as opposed to ethnic
identity, which is retained by “social and political relations a native group maintains with
the majority society” (2010:272). As we can see, Dorais— like Fishman— points to the
mere symbolic value that ancestral language begins to assume when ethnic identity starts
to take the place of a deeper cultural identity.
This view is somewhat contested by a number o f observers who point to the
importance of non-linguistic factors in the maintenance o f cultural identity (e.g., specific
foods, traditional practices, ties to ancestral land, narratives, beliefs, etc.) for North

10

American Indigenous populations (c.f., Kwatchka 1992, 1999; Tulloch 1999; 2004;
Nicholas 2010). Here the argument is made that much o f an ethnic culture can be
maintained through the keeping o f traditional practices, even in absence o f a spoken
heritage language. However, even these authors do not deny the importance o f language,
especially when it comes to maintaining traditional narratives and beliefs (e.g. Nicholas
2010).

Whether language is heralded as the primary pillar of ethnocultural identity, or as
one important factor among many, success or failure of language revitalization is
dependent upon potential learners’ attitudes toward their heritage language. To better
understand the place o f a heritage language in the lives o f individual minority members,
it is paramount to establish what are some o f the existing ideologies that govern language
attitudes, a concept that is discussed with greater detail in chapter two.
1.7 Applicability to the Northwest Territories
In the Northwest Territories there exists a shared desire to protect and revitalize
Aboriginal languages. This desire is paralleled by a nationwide, statistically observed,
trend in indigenous individuals to acquire an Aboriginal language as second language,
rather than as mother tongue (Norris 2007:20). Honorable Jackson Lafferty, Minister
Responsible for Official Languages in the Northwest Territories, has stressed the
importance of protecting heritage languages within the territory because they are “the
foundation of northern cultures” (from the introductory words to the Northwest
Territories Aboriginal Languages Plan) (NWTALP 2010:2). The language plan
emphasizes that many scholars of language, identity, and cultural heritage from around
the world echo the minister’s concern through their research findings. The Language Plan

11

also reiterates that many o f these scholars see the loss o f heritage languages as leading to
the loss o f ‘worlds of knowledge,’ because indigenous ways o f knowing are embedded in
Aboriginal languages. The Government o f Northwest Territories has consequently taken
an ideological side in the sociolinguistic debate mentioned above.
According to the Northwest Territories’ Official Languages A ct Inuvialuktun is
an official language represented by a member on the Aboriginal Languages
Revitalization Board (OLA 1988:4,14). Strategic language planning and its subsequent
development of language materials, as produced by the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource
Centre in Inuvik, represents a practical response to the voiced concern over language and
heritage loss within the territory. However, reviving a heritage language is a large and
difficult task, calling for a network o f language specialists on multiple levels. Recent
research in New Zealand and North America has shown that successful language
planning, and “effective promotion strategies to encourage [Aboriginal] language use,”
gain much from an in-depth knowledge o f local language attitudes (King 2009:106). An
understanding o f how potential learners view their own heritage language (i.e. attitudes
held in regard to language) allows language planners to strengthen positive existing
sentiments, while creatively transforming negative ones. It is precisely here that I have
attempted to anchor the rationale o f this study.
1.8 Theoretical perspectives
Without question, all activities conducted by individuals and organizations
everywhere are subject to motivations that originate somewhere and with someone. To
better understand how motivations for or against language maintenance are generated and
sustained, I have referred to several theoretical models that can aid in thinking about

12

human decision making processes in general, and about language motivations in
particular. These theories are explored with greater detail in chapter two, but I briefly
mention them here because they influence my perspective as a researcher, which needs to
be evident to the reader from the beginning. These perspectives also constitute a
framework that is integral to my conclusions.
In order to better understand how individuals may establish values that inform
their motivations and subsequent actions, I draw on the work o f Herbert Blumer (1969).
In what he calls symbolic interactionism, Blumer explains how a person develops
meanings for things based on how other people view him or her in relation to the thing,
but also as the result o f internal communication with the self (Blumer 1969:4-5). In the
context of this study, the ‘thing’ represents language, and the value of language for the
individual is established in relation to how other people view the individual in light o f
that language, as well as how the individual reasons about the language. Blum er’s
perspective lends itself well to an exploration of language motivation in current and
potential learners o f ancestral languages.
To throw light on larger societal dynamics that encompass but also reach beyond
individual motivations, I call on Pierre Bourdieu’s (1998) concepts of symbolic capital,
violence and power. For Bourdieu, symbolic capital is what an oppressor possesses when
a subject has accepted certain predicated divisions or oppositions. In this case, the act o f
predication itself does not call for an application o f physical violence and is thus referred
to as symbolic, while no less violent. An oppressor attains symbolic power when, thanks
to the acceptance of predicated divisions or values, a subject not only submits to, but also
identifies with the oppressor’s agenda. Combined with Blumer’s approach, Bourdieu’s

13

concepts lend themselves well to a critical examination of the hegemonic position o f the
English language in minority contexts across Aboriginal North America.
1.9 Conclusion
As we have seen in this chapter, the ancestral lands o f Inuvialuit are vast, their
population relatively small, and the advancement o f English nearly absolute. These
realities, combined with the ongoing efforts o f Inuvialuit and the territorial government to
bring back Inuvialuktun as second language, make Nunaqput an ideal location to learn
about Inuit identity under conditions o f progressed language shift. While this study aims
to contribute to the academic discourse on language and identity, it offers community
voices and traverses literatures, first o f all, to benefit Inuvialuit language planners. It is
hoped that not only the reviewed literatures and collected voices, but also the theoretical
stances, will provide fresh insight and inspiration to anyone actively involved in building
the Inuvialuit Way.

14

Chapter Two - Literature review
2.0 Introduction
In this chapter I present a detailed review of literature relating to language shift and
revitalization, particularly those involving indigenous contexts. I begin with a sketch o f the
Inuvialuit past in general, followed by recent Inuvialuit language history, in order to provide
the reader with specific context to which the following reviewed information can be applied.
This is followed by an introduction to several sociolinguistic concepts— ideas that directly
informed my research design. Because language shift and revitalization in Aboriginal North
America have unequivocally been tied to colonial realities, I include a section on the role o f
residential schools in language loss, as well as a psycholinguistic perspective on re-leaming
forgotten ancestral languages. To show how the discussed sociolinguistic concepts are
practically played out in contemporary indigenous contexts of language shift and
revitalization—and in order to ethnographically position this study—I include several recent
case studies from the United States (and one from Scandinavia). Each o f these cases provides
pointers for my own analysis of the data and experiences collected during my stay in the
Western Arctic. I conclude my review by taking a deeper look at the theoretical perspectives
touched upon in the introductory chapter, which allows me to establish an epistemological
framework that is meant to inspire the reader to view language loss and revitalization from an
angle that seeks to disclose hegemonic patterns, while pointing to the potential o f human
agency.
2.1 General historical background
In the following paragraphs I summarize several milestones of the Inuvialuit past,
closely following archaeologists David Morrison (2003a; 2003b; 2003c) and Robert

15

McGhee (1974), as well as well-known Inuvialuit author Eddie Kolausok (2003), with
some reference to the memories o f Inuvialuit elder Nuligak (Metayer 1966) and Canadian
ethnologist-explorer Vilhjamur-Stefansson12 (1909; 1922a; 1922b), combining some o f
the few voices currently available in print for this period. The geographical, prehistorical, and historical contexts will aid the reader in following the later discussion.
2.1.1 Inuvialuit culture in context
What sets Inuvialuit apart from all other Inuit communities across the North
American Arctic is perhaps the uniqueness o f their region. With a dense combination o f
highly diverse ecozones, the traditional Inuvialuit settlement area was centered by the
Mackenzie Delta with its thousands o f lakes and winding channels, encompassing the
Richardson Mountains in the west, and stretched along the shallow coast line o f the
Beaufort Sea. Surrounded by barren tundra, this land still provides Inuvialuit with access
to two large caribou herds, muskoxen, moose, dall sheep, brown and polar bears, Arctic
foxes, muskrats, wolverines, wolves, waterfowl, ringed and bearded seal, and bowhead
and beluga whales (Morrison 2003a:5-6). It is also a place where intricate relationships
between plants and people existed, as they harvested them for food, medicine, and as
building materials (Bandringa & Inuvialuit Elders 2010). To this day, the unique land o f
the western Canadian Arctic constitutes an important characteristic of Inuvialuit identity.
2.1.2 From Paleoeskimo to Inuvialuit culture
Archaeologically, all Inuit share a common Thule culture heritage, which
originated in Alaska a millennium ago and spread to Greenland in under two centuries
(e.g. Condon 1996:14; Morrison 2003a:10). Among other things, the Thule culture shared
12 It has to be mentioned that som e Inuvialuit elders, such as Vijlhalmur Stefansson’s own Inuvialuit
grandson have critiqued the explorer’s ethnographies as errant due to “problems with the early translations
from Inuvialuktun languages” (Lyons 2010:33).

16

a Japanese innovation o f animal skin floats to aid in whale hunting, making it very
successful and replacing previous Paleoeskimo (or Dorset) culture, which had begun to
migrate from Alaska to Greenland some 3,000 years previously (Condon 1996:6-10;
Wilson & Urion 1995:44-47). Although Inuvialuit descendants o f the Thule culture were
innovators themselves, markedly for their fish netting and beluga hunting techniques
developed between 1300-1400, their material culture changed little over the half
millennium between the culture’s origins and its first contact with Europeans (Morrison
2003a: 10). Thus a century-old trend o f relative cultural consistency would soon come to
an end.
2.1.3 Age of discovery: trade and epidemics
At the time o f first European contact in the early 19th century, approximately 2,500
Inuvialuit lived across some 8 regional groups13 between Barter Island and Franklin Bay,
each group deriving their name from their village14 used for the annual beluga hunt
(McGhee 1974:7-8; Morrison 2003a: 13-17). One o f the largest of these villages was
Kitigaaryuk15, which consisted o f a series of cross-shaped winter sod houses
{igluyuaryuk) that were inhabited by extended families, some o f them year-round. During
the summer additional tents were pitched along the shore, allowing the population of the
village to swell to approx. 1000 people (McGhee 1974:12; Morrison 2003a: 19). While
Inuvialuit culture was little affected by the many explorers o f the 18th century, new fur
trading posts of the Hudson Bay Company (HBC) in the lower Delta increasingly brought
Inuvialuit into contact with Gwitch’in (Dene) neighbors, European goods, and

13 The exact number o f regional groups is unclear and contradictory (see M cGhee 1974:8).
14 The suffix -miut stands for ‘the people o f as exem plified in ‘Igluyuaryungm iut’.
15 It is also now referred to as Kitigaaryuit and the official spelling is Kittigazuit, based on the spelling
attempt o f a non-speaker o f the language prior to the standardization o f Siglitun spelling (Heart 2 0 1 1 :30).

17

devastating epidemics

(Morrison 2003b:57,68).

But the most cardinal

cultural

transformations were yet to come.
2.1.4 The whaling era (1889-1908)
In 1894 the first whaling ships from San Francisco arrived at Herschel Island to
spend the winter. Over the course o f their many subsequent visits, these vessels brought
Europeans, Siberian Eskimo, Alaskan Inupiat, Polynesians, and Cape Verde Islanders to
the Beaufort Delta (Morrison 2003c:80). A flourishing multi-ethnic settlement was soon
established at Herschel Island, where Inuvialuit and whalers intersected on a regular
basis, and where many Inuvialuit women became mothers to children o f ethnically
diverse ancestry (Morrison 2003c:82). The influx of firearms and other new tools led to
the abandonment o f communal hunting and the traditional tool kit; even umiaq16 and
qayaq17 were replaced by whaling boats (McGhee 1974:5; Morrison 2003c:84-85). In
1902 a measles epidemic led to the abandonment o f the villages of Kitigaaryuk and
Nuvugaq, marking "the end o f traditional Inuvialuit life," and leaving only 150 Inuvialuit
survivors by 1910 (Morrison 2003c:89). With the decline o f caribou herds in Alaska,
Nunataarmiut (Alaskan Inuit, or "inland people") who had come with the whalers from
Alaska in the 1890s moved into the Mackenzie Delta where they became known as
Uummarmiut (Morrison 2003c:91). By 1908 the whaling industry had wound down due
to new alternatives to baleen18, and because of a decline in the whale population
(Morrison 2003c:l08; Stefansson 1922a:40,61).
16 Umiaq is a traditional skin on frame built, sea worthy whaling boat that was also used to m ove entire
households.
17 Qayaq is the original Inuit word for the English adaptation o f kayak. It is a highly specialized and sea
worthy hunting boat for one hunter made from waterproof seal intestine, and is equipped with a harpoon,
float, and other hunting gear for whaling.
18 Baleen, also referred to as whale bone, is part o f a w hale’s filter feeder system, which allow s water to
flow out o f the mammal’s mouth, while smaller animals remain in it. Because o f its high flexibility, baleen
was used in umbrellas, corsets, and other applications that now rely on plastics.

18

2.1.5 The trapping era and settlement expansion
As the last ships were leaving, some whalers stayed behind with their Inuvialuit
wives in order to trade furs. The 1915 opening o f a trading post at Herschel Island
allowed all Inuvialuit to become systematic trappers in the wintertime (Morrison &
Kolausok 2003:113-115). Between 1920 and 1945 some 50 trading posts opened across
the Delta and Beaufort coast, eight o f which were in Inuvialuit hands (Morrison &
Kolausok 2003:115). In 1912, the Hudson’s Bay Company opened a post at Pokiak Point,
eventually sending the community at Herschel Island into decline, but giving rise to
Canada’s new fur capital, the multi-ethnic19 community o f Aklavik (Morrison &
Kolausok 2003:116). Several Inuvialuit families were now exploring uninhabited land
between Cape Bathurst and Victoria Island for the purpose of trapping, thereby
influencing the formation of the communities of Sachs Harbour on Banks Island,
Ulukhaktok on Victoria Island, and Paulatuk on the eastern mainland coast (Morrison &
Kolausok 2003:121-128). The collapse o f fur prices in 1949 subsequently pressed many
families to trade life on the land for life in the new settlements where government family
allowances were made to parents o f school-attending children (Morrison & Kolausok
2003:128,130). With this transition, Inuvialuit entered into a new and uncertain era,
which posed many unprecedented demands and opportunities.
2.1.6 Militarization and oil boom
In 1955 construction of 11 Distant Early W arning stations had begun on Inuvialuit
land, providing modem training and employment to Inuvialuit (Kolausok 2003a: 166167). More jobs became available when the government decided in 1953 to replace

19 Uummarmiut, Metis, White, and Gwitch'in

19

Aklavik, by building Inuvik20 as part o f prime minister John Diefenbaker’s “Northern
Vision” (Kolausok 2003a: 170). While employment increased for a while, discrimination
and social segregation were strongly felt during the early days o f the new town (Kolausok
2003a: 173). By 1958 Imperial Oil had come to Inuvik, to conduct seismic tests in the
Mackenzie Delta. A significant strike on Inuvialuit land in 1970 triggered a genuine oil
boom with all its jobs, money, and social problems (Kolausok 2003a: 176-177). By 1975
oil was found also in the Beaufort Sea and a major pipeline was discussed, only to be
halted by the collapse o f global oil prices and a 10-year pipeline moratorium called for by
the Berger Commission (Kolausok 2003a: 178), giving Inuvialuit leaders time to work on
a comprehensive land claim for the Western Arctic.
2.1.7 The advent of Inuvialuit self-determination
During the early 1970s, in the midst o f an oil and gas boom, the Inuvialuit
Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement (COPE) was formed to protect the rights of
all its members, and to ensure that the oil industry would benefit Inuvialuit. In 1977
COPE submitted a regional land claim to the federal government, and after 7 years o f
negotiations the federal government signed the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) in 1984,
with it creating the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) (Kolausok 2003a: 179). The IFA
stands for three core principles: “(a) to preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity and values
within a changing northern society; (b) to enable Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful
participants in the northern and national economy and society; and (c) to protect and
preserve the Arctic wildlife, environment and biological productivity” (IFA 1987:5).
While full self-determination will come to pass only with the establishment o f self­

20 Initially called “East 3,” the monthly Aklavik Journal kept residents up to date on the building progress
o f Inuvik (Bern W ill Brown 1996).

20

government (which does not stand to date), there exists a mandate to protect Inuvialuktun
as part of the preservation of cultural identity mandated by the IFA.
2.2 Recent language history
Up to this point, I have touched on roughly 500 years o f Inuvialuit past, providing
a cultural and historical canvas against which I will now sketch the language history o f
Inuviluktun since the advent o f sustained Euro-American (and Canadian) influence in the
Delta region some 140 years ago. Although an account o f the past may not strike the
reader as essential to the discussion o f contemporary sociolinguistic dynamics in an
indigenous community, I believe that any honest examination of current language
motivations and ideologies must assume an inseparability o f a community’s present
circumstances from its historical course. Thus, beginning with a brief outline o f an early
event of language contact and pidginization (ca. 1870-1920), I will look at the rapid
progression of language loss and revitalization efforts beginning in the 1940s.
2.2.1 The Herschel Island Trade Jargon
During the whaling era, Inuvialuit at Herschel Island used the Hershel Island
Trade Jargon to communicate with international crews (Stefansson 1909:218). This trade
jargon was "[a] pidgin based on the Inupiaq and Siglitun Inuktun dialects,” for which
there exist “data from about 1870 until about 1920” (van der Voort 1996:1083)21.
Canadian ethnologist Vilhjalmur Stefansson, in his personal account o f life among the
Mackenzie Eskimo, recounts that many of the outsiders stationed at Herschel Island were
convinced that the extremely small vocabulary and inflection-lacking trade jargon
represented the “real Eskimo language” (1922b: 101). Up until 1920 there had been few

21 Vilhjalmur Stefansson gives a first-hand account o f the jargon in an article published in the American
Anthropologist in 1909 (see Stefansson 1909).

21

Inuvialuit with a command o f the English language, and the presence o f whalers, fur
traders, and missionaries had little impact on the vitality o f Inuvialuktun (Kolausok
2003b:204-205). However, according to King (1999:52), the rise of significantly larger
Inuvialuit business ventures in the early 1940s ensured that the ability to speak English
would become a serious asset alongside other skills attained through the presence o f
southerners.
2.2.2 Early advantages of English
A relatively early competence o f English gave Inuvialuit an edge over federal
attempts at regulating Delta affairs, particularly because Inuvialuit were aware o f what
was going on outside of their region, thanks to understanding English-speaking radio
(King 1999:53). In this way, it would seem that knowledge of English as second language
served Inuvialuit to their social and political advantage vis-a-vis other northern
indigenous populations. However, Inuvialuit were interested in promoting English as
second language on their own terms, which differed significantly from the federal course
o f action. Government surveys from the 1950s show that Inuvialuit were in favor o f an
education system that would further enhance the success o f their already blossoming
business ventures (King 1999:51). In this context Inuvialuit saw fluency in English as
important, and sought an education system that would strengthen Inuvialuit culture and
values, for which purpose it was considered essential that children stay with their parents,
especially in the winter months when much o f the cultural transmission took place (King
1999:54).
2.2.3 Residential schools and English-only ideologies
Following the Second World War, the language situation began to change more

22

dramatically, primarily as a result o f implementing English as sole instructional language
in residential schools after they had been taken over by the federal government (Patrick &
Shearwood 1999:251). Donna Patrick and Perry Shearwood point to early reports o f
Wright (1946), Moore (1947), and Lamberton (1948), all o f which considered English,
rather than Inuktitut or French, as the most appropriate choice for an instructional
language in Inuit education, a tendency that is mentioned in reports as late as 1964
(1999:251). Although exact statistics reflecting the impact o f this path o f action seem to
be lacking, it has been reported that by the 1950s, competency in the use o f Inuvialuktun
was lost by a whole generation o f children as the result of assimilative pressures put on
students in these schools (Kolausok 2003b:205). Clearly the traumatic experiences
brought upon Inuvialuit children and their families during the residential school era had
nothing in common with previous Inuvialuit suggestions for a better education system in
the delta region.
2.2.4 The Inuvialuktun Language Commission & Program
With the formation o f COPE in the 1970s, the shared Inuvialuit concern for
preservation of “cultural identity and values within a changing northern society,” as later
outlined in the IFA (1987:5), could be given formal attention for the first time. It was
largely in response to this urgent concern that COPE founded the Inuvialuktun Language
Commission in 1981, which consisted o f a committee of fluent Inuvialuktun speakers
chosen by members of the three variants o f Inuvialuktun (Osgood 1985a:viii; Kolausok
2003b:205). This Inuvialuktun Language Commission formed the Inuvialuktun Language
Program, an initiative that sought to address the very concerns set forth in the IFA
regarding the rapid loss o f Inuvialuit language and cultural heritage. However, according

23

to Lawrence Osgood, coordinator o f the COPE Inuvialuktun Language Project in 1985,
language revitalization activities initiated by the project were at first perceived by many
Inuvialuit to be coming “from above” and consequently were initially met with
opposition and skepticism (Osgood 1985b:ix). Over time however, Inuvialuit were
increasingly in support o f the project’s activities, and financial assistance from the
Government of Northwest Territories allowed for much needed linguistic research,
curriculum development, community summer language camps, and a host o f other
specialized training courses under the committee’s supervision (Osgood 1985b:ix-x). All
of these activities were founded on a ‘four-phase program,’ which included the recoding,
analysis, and description o f Inuvialuktun dialects, the development of teaching materials
and language instructors, the implementation o f Inuvialuktun in the school system, and
the promotion and oversight o f Inuvialuktun into the future (Osgood 1983:xi). Today,
many of the activities introduced under the Inuvialuktun Language Commission and
Program are carried on under the auspices o f the Beaufort Delta Education Council
(BDEC).
2.2.5 The Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre
The department of Education, Culture and Employment (ECE) o f the Government
of Northwest Territories (GNWT) maintains a Teaching and Learning Centre (TLC)
Program across all NWT communities. The learning centers that are supported by this
program are responsible for implementing the department’s mandate o f teaching and
promoting regional Aboriginal languages and culture through the production o f
educational materials and continuous support o f teachers employed by the schools (cf.
ECE 2005:34; NWTALP 2010:53). The Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre (ICRC)

24

represents one of ECE’s Teaching and Learning Centers in service of Inuvialuit culture
and language and is supervised by the Beaufort Delta Education Council (BDEC).
Although not directly funded through Inuvialuit resources, the center is operated by the
Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and receives the majority o f its annual funding from
federal and territorial sources— primarily out o f Aboriginal languages funding. While the
ICRC is supervised by the BDEC, its work is carried out in fulfillment o f the mandate set
forth by the Inuvialuit Social Development Program, established under Section 17 o f the
Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA 1987:70) (C. Cockney to A. Oehler, personal
communication, May 17, 2011). Considering its comprehensive mandate, the ICRC
clearly shoulders some daunting responsibilities— a fact that is only magnified by many
o f the complexities involved in minority language maintenance.
2.3 Language, society and identity as a field o f study
In order to place the situation o f Inuvialuktun within a larger sociolinguistic
context, the following paragraphs offer an overview o f several applicable disciplinary
concepts among which are language inequality, language ideology, language identity, and
language shift. Finally, the role o f language and identity in Aboriginal North America is
discussed in order to point out some o f the particularities regarding indigenous minority
language contexts.
2.3.1 Language inequality
Donna Patrick discusses language dominance and how it is “naturalized” within
larger structures such as the nation state (2010:177). She shows how language dominance
is the outcome o f a hierarchy that is established in the attribution of different values to
languages and their varieties, as well as to those who speak them (Patrick 2010:178).

25

Because the creation o f social boundaries is reliant on value hierarchies, the boundaries
o f which are flexible, construction o f individual identity can encompass multiple and
contradictory allegiances to both minority and majority groups (Patrick 2010:176).
Language dominance can be achieved through what Patrick calls ‘naturalization,’ or
universal acceptance o f a language, which is implemented through hegemonic ideological
processes (2010:177). The representation o f a majority language as justifiably dominant
is often accompanied by the representation o f minority languages as homogenous,
structurally inferior, and belonging to the past (Patrick 2010:178).
These tendencies in the minorization o f some languages and the naturalization of
others are not new. In fact, the promotion o f unification and standardization o f a
dominant language variety has been attributed, among others, to romanticist thinkers such
as Herder (1744-1803). For Herder the securing o f a single national language was
foundational to the effort of maintaining a singular national spirit. This is evident when
he speaks of “one people, one fatherland, one language” [“ein Volk, eines Vaterlandes,
einer Sprache”] (Herder 1883:347). To illustrate the nature o f “Western dominantlanguage ideologies,” Patrick (2010:179) lists five o f the most prominent ones: 1) the
‘ideology of contempt,’ which sees minority speakers and their language as “barbarous,”
2) the belief that some languages embody progress, lending themselves to modernity,
while others do not, 3) that monolingualism is most efficient for the state, and that if
minority languages are to persist, they must be modernized to the standards o f the
dominant language, 4) that state integrity is dependent upon keeping accepted languages
to a minimum, and 5) that multilingualism is cognitively inhibitive to speakers (Patrick
2010:182). Although minorization o f smaller languages has led to discrimination,

26

minority language maintenance has also served minority groups in maintaining unique
cultural identities, although the flexible nature o f identity, and the geographical
dispersion o f group members has caused ambiguity in deciding who belongs and who
does not (Patrick 2010:184, 185). Language inequalities that are sustained by largely
accepted language ideologies can also be found across the Beaufort Delta, where they
have a heritage that leads back to the beginnings o f English language instruction at public
schools.
2.3.2 Language ideology
According to Paul V. Kroskrity, language ideologies are “beliefs, feelings, and
conceptions about language structure and use which often index the political economic
interests of individual speakers, ethnic and other groups, and nation states” (2010:192).
More simply put, language ideologies attempt to rationalize the ways in which language
is being used. However, in any given language situation, there usually exist many
ideologies, each of which belongs to a particular context, and is drawn upon by the
individual in relation to their social and cultural position. This perspective on language
and behavior is relatively new to linguistics and anthropology.
Michael Silverstein was among the first to popularize a focus on language
ideologies in linguistics and anthropology (Silverstein 1979:194). By drawing on
Benjamin Lee W horf s work, Silverstein pointed to the role o f cultural ideology in
justifying and directing the structure of language. Unlike Boasian anthropological
linguistics, which favored an etic analysis o f language behavior, this new field o f study
emphasized the importance o f local interpretations and perceptions o f language as
integral to our understanding o f language in general, and language meaning in particular.

27

For Silverstein, language meaning refers to the non-referential functions o f language, and
with it he opened the doors to an ‘ethnography o f communication’ (Silverstein
1998:410), a field concerned with the meaning that language attains in relation to
circumstances, matters, and institutions.
Kroskrity identifies several conceptual angles from which we may examine
language ideology. Language ideologies can be hegemonic when particular social or
cultural groups benefit from a certain perception o f language by others. This can be
observed in ‘standard language ideology’ (Lippi-Green 1994:166), which is promoted by
many nation states and usually represents the values o f an upper middle class rather than
those o f its various citizens. According to Kroskrity it is important to speak o f many
language ideologies, because individuals always subscribe to multiple social groups,
acquiring a bouquet o f contradictory ideologies. In this context, a speaker may even be
aware of these ideologies to varying degree (Kroskrity 2010:200-201). As will become
evident in the final two chapters, standard language ideology influences all efforts o f
Inuvialuktun revitalization in the Western Arctic region. To better understand how
existing language ideologies can influence a person’s desire to learn or relearn an
ancestral language, it is vital to take into account the role o f language identity.
2.3.3 Language identity
‘Identity’ began to be featured in social science context in the 1950s and 1960s,
and then not particularly in relation to language. Erik Erikson (1968) was among the first
to call renewed attention to the subject in his work “Identity, Youth and Crisis.” For
Erikson, “identity formation employs a process o f simultaneous reflection and
observation,” a process in which the “individual judges him self in the light o f what he

28

perceives to be the way in which others judge him in comparison to themselves and to a
typology significant to them” (1968:22-23). Erikson’s perspective clearly shares elements
of Herbert Blumer’s symbolic interactionism (1969) (discussed below), in which a person
chooses the meanings of things in relation to circumstances, and through the social act of
communication with the self. However, neither Erikson, nor Blumer were focused on
language identity. According to John Edwards, linguistic aspects of identity came into
focus only in the 1980s (2009:15-16).
Examining the differences between personal and social identity, Edwards
observes that “[t]he essence o f identity is similarity,” as is evident in its Latin root ''idem,'’
referring to constancy in the personality o f the individual (acting similarly throughout
life), as well as constancy in the nature o f the social group (expressed through shared
history and tradition) (Edwards 2009:19). Edwards believes that because individual
personality draws from all elements available to the individual in society, we cannot
make a clear distinction between personality and social identity (2009:20). Language can
be viewed as an indicator o f individual identity, especially in terms o f a person’s
‘ideolect’ (i.e. combinations o f accent, dialect, stress, intonation, etc.), for which reason
ideolect can indicate affiliations to larger social groups and identities (Edwards 2009:21).
Although individual identities constitute group identities (and vice versa), more relevant
insight is obtained from the study o f the simplified and generalized stereotypes that are
generated between groups (Edwards 2009:22). Responding to the late-modem tendency
among sociolinguists, to emphasize trans-nationalism and cosmopolitism, Edwards draws
on Anthony Smith (1999), who shows that national allegiances remain the most powerful
and inclusive o f all collective identities to date (2009:22). Edwards shows how this has

29

been related to the fact that modernity largely eliminated the safety that once was found
in smaller identities (i.e. church, kinship, and family), leaving individuals without
guidance in their construction o f purpose and meaning, for which reason “ ‘im agined’
ethnonational communities” are a natural response (Edwards 2009:23).
Edwards goes on to illustrate how groupedness is constructed and maintained,
especially through the emphasis o f ethnonational boundaries over cultural content, an
idea sparked by Fredrik Barth (1969:24) in reference to societies that embody multiple
economic subsistence strategies, yet share the same ethnic identity. Although identity is
still asserted by Inuvialuit through affiliation with particular traditional subsistence
practices, Inuvialuit political and economic negotiations with the state have favored a
quasi ethnonational identity22. Dorais (1995) outlines a similar discrepancy between
cultural and ethnic identity. His data stem from residents o f Nunavut and Nunavik in the
early 1990s, where Inuktitut was most closely associated with Aboriginal life ways. Here
hunting and gathering activities constituted a sense of cultural identity. Yet, as citizens of
the Canadian state, Inuit from Nunavut and Nunavik were also consciously representing
themselves as one of many ethnicities within a larger national mosaic, where it was
necessary to “define themselves as an organized collectivity” (1995:302). This
observation reckons to ask what is the relationship between ancestral language loss and
cultural and ethnic forms o f identity maintenance. This is particularly pertinent in the
case o f Inuvialuit, where the desire to bring back the ancestral language is voiced by
many. The following paragraphs explore what may happen in regard to cultural and
ethnic identities when a shift occurs from the ancestral minority language to a majority
language, as is the case with Inuvialuit.
221 say ‘quasi’ because unlike many First Nations, Inuit rarely seem to speak o f themselves as a ‘nation’.

30

2.3.4 Language shift and ethnic identity
Joshua Fishman (1991) explains some o f the ideological foundations for reversing
language shift (RLS). He outlines the debate over whether one can be a true member o f
one’s cultural group without speaking its language, and discusses the cultural agenda o f
RLS. He also examines the lexical advantages o f heritage languages. Furthermore,
Fishman asks: how is cultural identity impacted by language loss? Because so many
ethnic groups (e.g., Jews, Irishmen, Puerto Ricans in the US) have maintained their ethnic
identities well past language shift, it is common to believe that it is possible to be, e.g.,
Jewish, all the while speaking German, rather than Yiddish, or Hebrew23. Yet, cultural
leaders (e.g. Jewish rabbis) are critical o f language shift, because it inevitably loosens a
person’s connection to the “total ethnocultural pattern” (Fishman 1991:16) o f the group,
leaving behind a mere “ethno-cultural label-maintenance” (Fishman 1991:17), which
affects the way in that cultural self-regulation occurs. RLS, then, is an attempt to increase
“cultural-self-regulation” (Fishman 1991:17).
Fishman establishes that RLS is inseparable from a historical cultural agenda. He
proposes, most promoters of RLS are unhappy with the state o f their minority culture,
and want to revert it to something they believe is more in line with their traditional
cultural values (Fishman 1991:20). In this context, the belief is that cultural authenticity
is secured only in conjunction with the heritage language, because it embodies the
essence of the heritage culture. Although culture changes with time, and competing

23 It also has to be mentioned that in contemporary “multi-cultural” Canada the fastest growing ethnicity is
“Canadian” (cf. Statistics Canada 2008:159). This may suggest a trend in the children o f immigrants to
purge themselves o f a ‘residual’ sense o f ethnic identity anchored outside o f Canada, since in Canada such
identities are relegated to the ‘multicultural other’ (c.f. Mackey 2002:149). In the US the trend has been a
kind o f “benevolent assimilation” by which the traces o f ethnic origin are swept away as quick as possible
(Ong 2003:73).

31

languages may begin to better reflect many o f these changes, the advantages o f
indigenous lexicality are reflected in their pertinence to the “particular brand and content”
of a given culture (Fishman 1991:22). This is also evident in the symbolic link that exists
between culture and language in the minds o f members and nonmembers. For members,
language is often a pivotal element o f identity, while in the case of a dying language it
can also be symbolic o f socio-historical disadvantages and increasing irrelevance
(Fishman 1991:23).
In either case, for Fishman, attempts at reversing language shift are usually a form
of cultural self-critique. Proponents o f RLS claim that often there exists a difference
between ethnic identity and true cultural continuity. Cultural continuity ensures that the
“Gestalt or ‘feel’” (Fishman 1991:27) o f what a culture ‘ought to be’ remains, while
identity can amount to a label with content untrue to actual heritage. In this vein, ‘ethnic
identity’ that has survived language shift cannot stand for the same cultural content it
once represented. For this reason, proponents o f RLS have two culturally inspired goals:
1) to search the past for direction useful in the future, and 2) to reinforce cultural
boundaries to increase cultural continuity across generations (Fishman 1991:28).
A good awareness of existing ideological drivers for language revival efforts in
the ISR is beneficial not only to the academic observer, but to all who are involved in the
design and delivery o f Inuvialuktun programs. Inuvialuit language activists benefit from
an understanding o f possible discrepancies between their own ideological convictions
relating to Inuvialuktun and the motivations o f potential and current learners. Reflexivity
of this kind allows language activists to make informed decisions for curricular design
that would represent a form o f cultural self-critique, as Fishman puts it, especially where

32

decisions are made regarding the teaching o f ancestral language either as a symbol o f
cultural heritage, or as a communicative tool for day-to-day concerns.
2.3.5 Language and identity in Aboriginal North America
While the study o f language in Aboriginal North America makes use o f the same
methods and perspectives as applied elsewhere by sociolinguists, Teresa McCarty and
Ofelia Zepeda (2010) point out a number o f specificities that they and others have
encountered primarily in the American Southwest and Alaska. Firstly, they emphasize
how essential it is to recognize the ties between people and ancestral land, if one wishes
to understand issues o f language and identity in indigenous communities, and hopes to
overcome many of the consequences o f colonialism. McCarty and Zepeda also show the
importance o f examining communicative repertoires, language attitudes, and ideologies
in contemporary Native youth in order to gauge language shift. While my emphasis did
not lie on communicative repertoires, I pursued language attitudes and ideologies
through interviews.
McCarty and Zepeda point to language attitudes and ideologies in the context o f
North American indigenous communities. Here language attitudes are generally positive
and negative towards ancestral languages and English, and language ideologies are also
mixed. English is primarily viewed as the language o f survival, o f practicality, o f social
class and prestige, but also as a symbol o f conquest and forced assimilation (McCarty &
Zepeda 2010:329). Heritage language is perceived sentimentally, as a prime pillar o f
ethnic identity, as in need of protection, but also as a cause o f linguistic shame. On the
one hand, this is shame for the language’s perceived ‘backwardness’ when faced by
mainstream values. On the other hand, it is shame experienced as a result o f individual

33

non-fluency in the language and the inability to satisfy community expectations. Such
mixed and disjunctive ideologies inform learners’ linguistic attitudes and can lead youth
to think they have to make an either/or decision about their language practice (McCarty
& Zepeda 2010:330-331).
2.4

Residential schooling and Aboriginal languages in North America

As McCarty and Zepeda have made evident, language attitudes within North
American Aboriginal communities are inseparable from systematic hegemonic influence.
In fact, the residential school model has arguably played one o f the most influential roles
in Aboriginal language loss across the continent. The following section provides a brief
overview o f the nature and impact o f residential schooling from the perspectives o f
witness accounts, archival research specifically for the NWT, and current Inuit activism.
The section concludes with a description o f the residential school era and its legacy,
which continues to influence communities to this day.
2.4.1 Witness accounts
Many scholars have devoted extensive attention to the historical analysis o f the
residential school era in recent years (e.g. Fumiss 1995; Haig-Brown 1998; Miller 1996;
Milloy 1999). In his detailed history o f Native residential schools, J.R. Miller (1996)
devotes only a few pages to the issue o f Aboriginal languages. In these pages, he points
out that the discouragement o f Native languages continues to be remembered as one o f
the most prominent ways in which cultural assimilation was pressed upon students.
Although many missionary-led schools vehemently opposed the use o f indigenous
languages, Miller takes care to point out some exceptions, especially where government
and missionary views of Native languages differed, drawing on evidence that shows how

34

some missionaries “opposed a total ban on the use o f Inuktitut or Indian languages”
(Miller 1996:200). He also shows how some missionaries were generally supportive of
Aboriginal languages24, and that it was government directive that pressured them to use
an English-only curriculum. A common response in Anglican schools was to assign
“different languages for different times” (Miller 1996:201). Miller points to evidence
showing that at some schools students were whipped for speaking their language, while at
other schools there were hopes to one day teach the Native language at least from grade
five to grade six (1996:202). Miller also provides examples o f cases in which English (or
French) was learned more swiftly because it aided students from different linguistic
backgrounds in communicating with each other (1996:203). Although there are some
former residential school students who believe that their experience caused them no
harm, the majority of individuals experienced intense cultural alienation through the
application o f language restrictions (Miller 1996:203, 205). It follows that the treatment
o f Indian and Inuit children in their use o f indigenous languages differed between schools
and principals, according to Miller.
2.4.2 An archival perspective
David P. King’s (1999) MA thesis is the first historical research focusing
specifically on the residential school experience o f Inuit. While it does not focus on
language per se, it goes into some detail regarding the impact o f residential schools on
language. His work is based on documents from government and church archives,
concluding that both missionary and state approaches were the result of double standards
and ethnocentrism evident in recordings o f meetings and other crucial communication on

24 Perhaps missionaries sometimes took a more lax approach to English-only ideologies because the Bible
was w idely available in Inuktitut, rendering English superfluous to conversion (David King 1999:31).

35

matters of education. Until 1945, education in the north had been neglected by the state
and thus lay in the hands of missionaries who generally did not teach life skills that were
applicable to traditional Inuit subsistence economies (King 1999:31). When the federal
government took control o f education in 1958 a secular approach was taken and curricula
from Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario were implemented across the Arctic, perpetuating
pedagogical and epistemological discord between the various curricula (King 1999:60).
Deliberate isolation from Inuit culture and social structure was implemented to prepare
students for the coming “new north” which would be dominated by white society (King
1999:15). Four major residential schools were built: Chesterfield Inlet (1955),
Yellowknife (1958), Inuvik (1959), and Churchill (1964), and their hostels continued to
be run by either Anglican or Catholic churches (King 1999:63). Most former attendants
o f residential school in this study had attended the school in Inuvik. In 1970 control over
these schools went to the territory, but major changes in the curriculum did not occur, and
by the 1980s it was public knowledge that an entire generation of Inuit had been ill
prepared for life in either Inuit or southern systems (King 1999:150). Although the
Department of Northern Affairs strongly stressed the need for English in all northern
schools, it never had a policy regarding the Inuit language itself, which allowed for some
leeway o f interpretation at each school (King 1999:158). Church and government
officials had been aware o f the schools’ devastating effect on Inuktitut. They had also
been informed of the fact that the loss of language would cause the loss o f Inuit culture
(King 1999:159,169). Inuktitut was seen as a primitive language unfit for the ‘new north,’
and thus Northern Affairs had decided against its inclusion in the syllabus, relegating its
use to short extracurricular activities (King 1999:170). The extent of this neglect becomes

36

most apparent in the extensive measures Inuit activists have taken to bring healing to the
victims of this system.
2.4.3 Inuit activism
In 2005 Pauktuutit Inuit Women o f Canada (Pauktuutit) summarized the
residential school trauma for Inuit and lay out a series o f strategic steps to be taken
toward individual and collective recovery from residential school trauma in a publication
entitled Sivumuapallianiq: Journey Forward. Language recovery is listed as the number
one priority in this context (Pauktuutit 2005:3,26). The text is directed toward survivors,
relatives, and those involved in assisting three generations o f Inuit children who were
separated from their families to attended residential school (those who "went away")
(Pauktuutit 2005:8). Although residential schools came later for Inuit than for First
Nations (1860 in NWT), by 1963, 3,997 Inuit children were attending residential school
(Pauktuutit 2005:8-9). Among the motivations listed for parents allowing children to be
taken away are fear o f losing government issued family subsidies, or that children would
forcefully be removed. Both had occurred. While many Inuit parents believed education
was important, they were often unaware o f the abuse that took place (Pauktuutit 2005:9).
Today many residential school survivors continue to live with a perpetual fear o f
punishment, which in some cases has led to a breakdown in the use o f Inuktitut with
children (Pauktuutit 2005:10). Parents o f former students experience great anger and
guilt, while many former students feel "they let their family down by being away"
(Pauktuutit 2005:11). The ‘Journey Forward’ attempts to "increase awareness o f the
negative effects of residential schools for Inuit," while pointing out that better “access to
Inuit-led healing programs," can "restore what was taken away from our families and

37

communities" (Pauktuutit 2005:18-19). It is reported that language loss breaks down
communication with elders who carry traditional knowledge. Strengthening language and
culture, on the other hand, reduces "non-Inuit policies and structures,” while having a
"healing effect on school survivors" (Pauktuutit 2005:26).
While only a few Inuvialuit residential school survivors were among the voices
that came to contribute to this study, it is reasonable to ask what the impact o f an older
generation’s experience might be on that o f younger generations. Among such elders
would have been several parents and grandparents o f younger participants, many o f who
attended residential school in Inuvik. Transitioning now to a First Nations context in
Alaska, the following author provides a brief but concise picture o f how the magnitude o f
residential school atrocities is not only underestimated by majority culture, but also
continues to effect the internalization o f failure among many Aboriginal students today.
2.4.4 Residential school repercussions
Caskey Russell (2002) discusses various aspects o f the relationship between
language revitalization and the boarding school experience in the United States,
specifically for Tlingit of Alaska. He opens his article by drawing a connection between
language, worldview, and spiritual wellness. Because a culture's language is able to
communicate fine tuned aspects o f a unique worldview, there likely exists a connection
between the "spiritual malaise"25 o f some Aboriginal communities and language loss. To
illustrate this point, Russell points to the various languages that were spoken by adherents
to Christianity throughout the ages o f church history and how each o f them shaped the
perception o f this world religion. Russell points to residential schooling as an example o f
deliberate symbolic violence. It is violent in that its repercussions are covered up by
25 This is a term first introduced in a Tlingit context by Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer (1994:93)

38

'cognitive dissonance,' the act in which past and present colonizers "whitewash [...] past
actions" (Russell 2002:98). For Russell, the two primary tools used in the United States
to systematically assimilate Indians were religion and education. Both systems were
rooted in the fear o f applied violence, a violence that was not theoretical, but directly
applied through "deliberate separation" o f children from their parents and “ritualized
shame” as punishment for conversation in the mother tongue (Russell 2002:99-100).
Russell points out that, within an oppressive system, the potentiality of an application o f
violence is sufficient for "... people [to] punish themselves ... through a deep sense o f
shame" (Skutnabb-Kangas 1982 in Russell 2002:100). Here shame is being rationalized
by new ideologies. Schools are thus a means by which "norms and ideology" are
"confirm[ed]" and "inculcate[d]" to such an extent that the student cannot retrace the
origin of these values by which she now judges herself (Russell 2002:101). One
consequence of such ‘mis-education’ is that "Indian children have internalized failure..."
to the extent that, sometimes "success is equated with being non-Indian." (Russell
2002:101). Russell shows how for Tlingit "[t]he truly insidious aspect o f structural
violence is that the promise o f Indian education was itself a lie" (Russell 2002:101). This
is hardly surprising, given the fact that some school principles possessed little or no
knowledge of Aboriginal languages and consequently misjudged these languages as
incapable o f expressing complex thought26. For Russell, bilingualism in the United States
is an issue that has less to do with language and more to do with power-relations. For this
reason the survival o f a language is directly tied to institutional power structures, and the

26 Steckley (2008: 72) describes a similar example o f colonial ignorance regarding expressive depth o f
Aboriginal languages, focusing on Inuktitut.

39

revival o f a language largely dependent upon the support o f these structures (Russell
2002:104).
2.5 Heritage language as second language
Russell’s observations seem to ring true also for much o f the Inuvialuit context
where anguish is expressed over the ‘foreign’ nature o f the education system, a fact that
is likely not going to change until an Inuvialuit self-government will be able to affect
more significant changes. Meanwhile, heritage language as second language continues to
represent a real struggle in the ISR, which is mirrored across many similar sites in North
America. In the following section I outline a psycholinguistic perspective on relearning
‘forgotten languages,’ and then turn to two case studies in the Southwest United States
and Alaska, which are concerned with the role of human agency in minority language
reacquisition and the symbolization o f ancestral terminology.
2.5.1 Psycholinguistics and forgotten languages
In recent years, more research has been conducted on language memory in
individuals who were exposed to a heritage language during childhood. Jeffrey S.
Bowers, Sven L. Mattys, and Suzanne H. Gage (2009) summarize an experiment
conducted to assess whether or not language exposure during childhood can benefit the
relearning of a language in adult years, even if the individual has “forgotten” it since
(Bowers et al. 2009:1064). Because exposure to language in early life is cardinal in order
for a speaker to develop “native-like competence,” it is thought that implicit memory
retained from childhood would give an adult re-leamer advantage (especially in
pronunciation) over adult new-leamers (Bowers et al. 2009:1064). The participants for
their study were 7 English mother-tongue speakers who had learned either Hindi or Zulu

40

as a second language during childhood and 4 native English speakers who had not been
exposed to either Zulu or Hindi during childhood. In a pre-test, monolingual English
speakers and participants with a language background were asked to match narrated
Hindi and Zulu words to English words on paper. Both groups scored similarly, showing
the extent to which the participants with language background had undergone language
loss. After only 30 similar matching sessions, "2 individuals under the age o f 40 with a
Zulu background ... and the 1 individual under the age of 40 with a Hindi background
[...], showed dramatic and selective improvement for the [unique sound] contrasts in
their respective "forgotten" language" (Bowers et al. 2009:1066). Although an early life
language can be entirely forgotten, "the current findings provide clear evidence o f
preserved implicit knowledge of a forgotten language" (Bowers et al. 2009:1066). The
data also suggests that individuals who have been isolated from the forgotten language
for more that 40 years have no retention o f it, this however will need further research to
be confirmed. The authors conclude that even minimal exposure to a language and its
unique sounds throughout life can help guard against language loss. In the case o f
residential school survivors who are now attempting to relearn the language o f their
childhood, these findings are very encouraging.
However, the majority of individuals who are engaged in one form or another o f
ancestral language acquisition are o f a younger age and have no direct experience o f the
target language. Instead, many o f these younger learners grow up in homes where the
language is not spoken at all. For such learners, one might think, the ancestral language
would be acquired much like any other second language. This is not quite so, however.

41

As the following authors reveal, the dynamics surrounding ancestral minority languages
in indigenous contexts are quite specific.
2.5.2 Who decides when to learn? A perspective from the American
Southwest
Teresa L. McCarty, Mary Eunice, Larisa Warhol, and Ofelia Zepeda (2009) report
on a long-term ethnographic study in the American Southwest, conducted across seven
schools, each of which had significant Native American enrollment. In this study, the
researchers examined “the impact o f Native language shift and retention on American
Indian children’s language learning, identity formation, and school performance”
(McCarty et al. 2009:292-293). Based on their data, the authors argue that youth’s
language behavior constitutes agency that sets language policy in the home27 (2009:292).
They refer to Harrison, who has shown how youth often act as “tiny social barometers”
that are “acutely sensitive to the disfavored status o f their elders' language..." (Harrison
2007:8). In their data, McCarty et al. not only found that there exists a 'continuum' o f
Aboriginal language proficiency in bilingual Navajo students in some settings, but that
there also exist different varieties o f English use, as well as forms o f translanguaging,
depending on social context. Within these complicated linguistic ecologies, the authors
identify "Indigenous-language insecurity and shame" (McCarty et al. 2009:300) as
relating to a fear o f ridicule in the presence o f elders and peers, much along the lines o f
other authors cited in this review. However, McCarty et al. also report shame for
Aboriginal language use itself, especially in contexts where the status o f English is
socially ranked higher than that o f Aboriginal languages. Shame, based on feelings o f

27 My four-year-old son provides an example o f implicit language policy made at home. W hile I attempt to
speak to him in German only, he has told me: “M ommy and I speak English.”

42

unworthiness, can cause students to conceal the desire to speak or learn a heritage
language. In spite of differing forms o f shame, there persists a "symbolic link between
the Indigenous language and a unique Indigenous identity" (McCarty et al. 2009:302),
which leads to disjunctures between existing language ideologies within communities. It
is amidst these ideological disjunctures, heteroglossy, hybrid repertoires, and conflicting
ideologies that "implicit language policies" manifest themselves (M cCarty et al.
2009:302). The authors refer to Homberger (2006) who suggests that such linguistic
ecologies may provide unprecedented "ideological and implementational spaces" (in
McCarty et al. 2009:302) that can be used toward the revitalization o f Aboriginal
languages. The authors believe that it is necessary to utilize existing peer pressure by
turning it around and using it as a positive force in the creation o f avenues where
language can “engage issues of relevance in their everyday lives..." (McCarty et al.
2009:303).
Many of McCarthy’s observations can be transferred directly to the Inuvialuit
context. Even in a setting where little to no Aboriginal language is being used on a daily
basis, unwritten language policies can regulate where, when, and why it is or isn’t used.
After all, implicit language policies and agency o f young language planners are lived out
through activities, time, and space. The following study provides practical examples o f
how varying degrees o f fluency were negotiated in a swiftly progressing language shift
scenario in Alaska. While language shift in Inuvialuit may have progressed beyond the
Alaskan example, the study helps throw light on some o f the dynamics that come to play
in the use o f Inuvialuktun among new speakers o f varying competency levels.

43

2.5.3 An example of tokenization in Yup’ik terms
Leisy Wyman (2009) reports on a longitudinal study o f language shift among
Yup’ik youth, conducted between 1992 and 2001. Wyman was able to witness the
transition between students who were considered the last “real speakers” and their
younger siblings who assumed English as dominant or sole language o f communication
(Wyman 2009:338). Among Yup’ik, language had traditionally been considered part of
larger subsistence and land claims, which served as primary markers o f identity.
Consequently, "adult responses to changing youth practices fed vicious cycles o f
increasing doubts about reduced resources for bilingualism" (Wyman 2009:336). The
author shows how Yup’ik language resources are still formed across varying activities,
over time, and in different locations (i.e. in- and outside o f school), emphasizing how the
educational system continues to influence language retention and loss. After the
community’s bilingual school program was deemed ineffective in the 1980s, English
became the main language of instruction. From then on, children began using primarily
English after school, shaping local youth culture. Surrounding communities had been
affected similarly, and inter-community mobility o f students did not provide better
language resources.
Youth were aware o f community expectations regarding Yup’ik fluency, an
expectation that was accompanied by a growing language ideology that positioned Yup'ik
as a marker o f ethnic identity, traditional values, and socialization with elders (Wyman
2009:340). Although the secondary student population of the village was divided into
fluent-, minimal-, and non-speakers by 2001, even speakers who claimed to have
‘forgotten’ their language were still using Yup'ik terms and simplified Yup'ik

44

demonstratives in English, when referring to the seal hunt. According to the author, such
language behavior "counter[s] the common assumption that youth who speak dominant
languages in endangered language communities orient away from local practices,
physical spaces, and/or marginalized identities" (Wyman 2009:343). Even in younger and
less secure generations of Yup’ik speakers, single terms are used as a form o f tokenism
connecting the speaker to the community and to higher status among peers (Wyman
2009:345). These findings leave the reader wondering what will happen when even this
Yup’ik tokenism will no longer be part o f Y up’ik English speaker’s repertoires. W ill they
cease to feel themselves as Y up’ik? The following study attempts to provide us with
some clues on how to best answer this question.
2.6 Language revitalization and Indigenous identities in North America
McCarty et al. (2009) and Wyman (2009) have hinted at the existence of
disjuncture in language ideologies within Aboriginal speech communities in the two
previous case studies. I will now take a closer look at more concrete examples of
ideological disjuncture in the context o f language shift and identity; because similar
observations were made for the Inuvialuit situation, as will become evident in chapter
four. Let us now turning to two very insightful comparative accounts from Hopi, Navajo,
and Pueblo contexts.
2.6.1 ‘Lived’ versus ‘spoken’ identity in Hopi
The study o f language and identity, especially in indigenous context, has been a
busy field in recent scholarship around the world (e.g., Huss & Lindgren 2010; May
2010; McCarty & Ofelia Zepeda 2010; Nicholas 2010; Schiffman 2010). Sheila Nicholas
(2010) examined language shift among the Hopi people, looking at the role o f ancestral

45

language in the lives o f Hopi youth. The author observes diminishing use and function o f
the Hopi language as the direct result o f modernity (especially through the educational
system), leading to the question o f whether a contemporary Hopi identity can be lived
without proficiency in the heritage language. Through a selection o f quotes from research
participants, Nicholas gives voice to two contradictory, but not mutually exclusive,
perspectives. On the one hand she stresses that not only is it a prerequisite to be fluent in
the Hopi language to engage in tribal politics, but the very cultural knowledge o f Hopi is
encoded in the language and cannot be transmitted without it. For this reason, young
adults find it difficult to teach their children about their cultural heritage in English.
Language is also at the heart of Hopi personality and thus, a viable future for the Hopi
way of life depends on bilingualism and biculturalism. On the other hand, the author
asserts, "there are many ways that one can experience culture, language only being one o f
them" (Nicholas 2010:142). "I live Hopi, I just don't speak it" is a common quote
throughout the article (Nicholas 2010:137). Thus, being Hopi does not require knowledge
of the language, because one is Hopi by birthright, and because “thinking, feeling, and
acting” Hopi are all based on the ancestral work ethic o f “com as a way o f life,” which is
the foundation of a shared Hopi identity (Nicholas 2010:138, 139). In conclusion,
Nicholas finds that the continual importance o f traditional practices, such as engaging in
oral tradition, encourages youths to releam their heritage language, thereby forming an
integral part o f their identities. While the survival of traditional practices may encourage
language retention and even revival, there also exist conflicting language ideologies
among young re/leamers, as the following study further confirms.

46

2.6.2 Disjunctive language ideologies in Navajo and Pueblo
Tiffany S. Lee (2009) reports on data collected from two studies in the American
Southwest, inquiring into the role of heritage language in the lives of Navajo and Pueblo
teenagers and college students. In her data she identified themes o f respect, shame,
marginalization, identity, and agency in relation to heritage language. Her research
problem was based on two main questions. Firstly, why did parents, who had been raised
in a K-12 Navajo immersion curriculum, choose to raise their own children in English?
And secondly, what influenced language choice at home, at school, and in the
community? (2009:307) Her research found that a sense of Aboriginal identity, as well as
language choice, among youth is influenced by two opposing understandings: Firstly,
Aboriginal language retention is paramount to Aboriginal identity, which is called for by
the community, and secondly, English is essential to larger economic and societal
expectations (Lee 2009:308). Lee connects the second point to an agenda o f national
identity: the state promotes English as a modern language and Native languages as
traditional or reminiscent of the past (2009:310). This ideology speaks directly to Native
youths’ ideas about the relevance o f their heritage language28. Under the theme o f
respect, Lee found that all participants respected their heritage language— often in
relation to an understanding o f a shared heritage that is to be understood in its depth only
through the language, as well as out o f respect for their elders who spoke the language
exclusively (Lee 2009:313).

28 For an excellent commentary on the division o f society (in 17* century Europe) into "rural (or
aboriginal), lower class, ignorant, old-fashioned, indigenous - in a word, provin cial - versus urban, elite,
learned, cosmopolitan, that is to say, modem" class based on language and language use, see Bauman &
Briggs (2003:2).

47

In terms o f shame, the data suggested that language was not a cause, but that
shame or embarrassment was felt about one’s self for not being able to speak the
language. As a result, youth would not participate in community activities that strengthen
speaking skills for fear of embarrassment in front o f elders (Lee 2009:313-314).
Conversely, the strength of Native identity was found to stand in relation to a speaker’s
fluency. In terms o f marginalization, participants in this study showed that "modernity,
economic development, and social integration" are stronger causes for language shift than
"repressive language policies o f schools," because they come from within the community
(Lee 2009:316). Participants expressed agency once they had realized the communal
denial o f language shift, and saw that they were able to influence their families to work
against it. Especially when judged for not being fluent in the heritage language,
participants were able to remain confident o f their Navajo identity because they felt that
they were making an effort in learning the language, while helping their community
move in that same direction (Lee 2009:316-317). In order to see how this tendency o f
cultural reformation may accommodate language retention without abandonment or
rejection o f more traditional forms o f identity, I will now turn to a Sami example from
Finland that invites us to consider a future for heritage language within a nonstereotypical environment.
2.6.3 Agency and stereotype deconstruction in Sami
Juha Ridanpaa and Annika Pasanen (2009) offer a look at how the deconstruction
o f ethnic stereotypes can contribute to a more dynamic sense of identity. Language
revitalization plays a significant role in this effort. Their case study focuses on Inari-Sami
Mikkal Morottaja, son of the Inari-Sami language activist Matti Morottaja. Mikkal,

48

known as ‘Amoc,’ is the first rapper to sing in Inari-Sami. According to the artist, the use
o f his language in music is important because it represents the fight for survival and selfpreservation. Part o f this agenda is to strengthen the pride o f young Sami to “feel proud
o f their language and culture" (Ridanpaa and Pasanen 2009:214). Part o f this effort is
predicated on the development o f new words to express non-traditional ‘gangsta’-style
lyrics that find their cultural origin in urban North America. By 2005, M ikkal’s
popularity among young Sami listeners was accompanied by a growing desire to learn
Inari-Sami, and by a strengthened pride in the community. The authors conclude that
pride increased as the result o f artistic transcendence o f stereotypes of backwardness that
exist for Sami culture among non-indigenous Finns and among Sami. The authors assert
the importance o f deconstructing stereotypes, while simultaneously using them in order
to reaffirm an identity. By self-consciously appropriating elements of the majority culture
without succumbing to their hegemonic sway, the artist does not “'demand' justification
for the old tradition through his music, nor does he try to bring the marginalized and
partly destroyed heritage back, but rather he is striving to sustain the culture and language
through the practice o f modem urban culture" (Ridanpaa and Pasanen 2009:225-226). As
a result, Sami culture and language emerge twice strengthened, at least for this individual.
2.7 Theoretical perspectives: Blumer & Bourdieu
Ridanpaa and Pasanen’s case is a perfect example o f the transcendence o f
hegemonic oppression that can occur when agents identify common language beliefs and
deliberately revolt through everyday forms o f resistance, to borrow a term coined by
James C. Scott (1985). Having reviewed a number of sociolinguistic concepts, the impact
and role of residential schools, specificities o f heritage language as second language, and

49

Aboriginal language revitalization and identity, I now conclude this chapter with a view
to two theoretical perspectives. These perspectives lend themselves to a critical analysis
of language attitudes and ideologies as they are encountered throughout this literature
review, and in the data presented in chapter four.
2.7.1 Symbolic interactionism
As pointed out in the introduction, my theoretical approach has in part been
guided by Herbert Blumer’s (1969) qualitative paradigm o f symbolic interactionism.
According to Blumer, a person develops meanings o f things based on how other people
view him or her in relation to the thing, but also as the result o f internal communication
with the self (Blumer 1969:4-5). Through the social act o f communication with the self, a
person "selects, checks, suspends, regroups, and transforms” the meanings o f things in
relation to the circumstances she finds herself in (1969:5). This interpretation becomes "a
formative process” in which meanings are flexible tools guiding individual action
(Blumer 1969:5). With language as the object o f study, a person’s relationship to it grows
from how the person perceives others to see her in view of that language, and from the
personal process o f interpretation o f these perceived meanings. Using the terms o f
sociolinguists, we might speak o f circulating language ideologies and/or perceived
language attitudes that play upon the minds and actions o f potential and current language
learners. To better understand how these meanings, attitudes, and ideologies (which often
are o f hegemonic nature) come to act upon a person, I will employ Pierre Bourdieu’s
(1998) concepts o f ‘symbolic power’ and ‘symbolic violence.’

50

2.7.2 Symbolic power and violence
For Bourdieu, symbolic capital is “perceived through categories o f perception that
are the product of the embodiment o f divisions or o f oppositions” (Bourdieu 1998:47).
These divisions can be imposed by a powerful entity on a less powerful individual,
constituting an act o f symbolic violence. In John B. Thompson’s introductory elucidation
o f Bourdieu’s concept, symbolic power is dependent upon "active complicity" by the
oppressed (1991:23). The idea being, that "[djominated individuals are not passive bodies
to which symbolic power is applied, as it were, like a scalpel to a corpse" (Thompson
1991:23). Instead, it is absolutely necessary that the subjugated themselves are firm
believers in the legitimacy of the powers that be. The reason why the oppressed accept
symbolic power to work against them is summed up in what Bourdieu calls
meconnaissance ('misrecognition') o f power, meaning that the disadvantaged interpret
'invisible power' exercised against them as something legitimized by a shared belief,
rather than identifying it as being arbitrary and thus rejecting it (Thompson 1991:23;
Bourdieu 1991:60). Symbolic violence takes place when the dominated individual— in
service to the oppressor—begins to judge her own behavior according to the values o f the
dominant population. To quote Bourdieu directly, “symbolic power ... can be exercised
only with the complicity o f those who do not want to know that they are subject to it or
even that they themselves exercise it” (Bourdieu 1991:164). Thus, symbolic violence
constitutes a means by which hegemony can be perpetuated without any direct or
immediate application of physical force.
In other words, symbolic power can function only where the majority o f people
share a common belief in the legitimacy o f the institutions that uphold the class order. To

51

Bourdieu, “[o]ne only preaches to the converted” (1991:126). What he means is that, in
order to derive personal fulfillment, external recognition, and justification o f purpose
from a role assigned to oneself by an accepted institutional framework, the framework
itself must be embraced by all others, the “consensus o m n i u m or else the assigned role
is subject to laughter and belittlement (Bourdieu 1991:126). But Bourdieu’s concept o f
symbolic power is perhaps most clearly illustrated in its ability to exert itself through
invisible violence, which takes place in the mundane day-to-day activities o f people.
These acts are violent because they demand o f the dominated party "an attitude which
challenges the usual dichotomy o f freedom and constraint" without being visible or
audible to those who are not predisposed to submission (Bourdieu

1991:51).

Consequently, it is not the dominating party that visibly or even consciously intimidates
the dominated, but rather it is their mere presence that is interpreted as intimidating by
the oppressed, resulting in self-censorship. "Thus, the modalities o f practices, the ways o f
looking, sitting, standing, keeping silent, or even o f speaking ('reproachful looks' or
'tones', 'disapproving glances' and so on) are full o f injunctions that are powerful and hard
to resist precisely because they are silent and insidious, insistent and insinuating"
(Bourdieu 1991:51).
2.8 Conclusion
This chapter attempted to draw together a host o f literatures, all o f which
potentially speak to the specific language situation o f Inuvialuktun. The selection is the
result of many months o f research that took place largely prior to the collection o f
primary data. Much o f this literature influenced the design o f this research in a manner
that could be referred to as deductive, a quality I will touch on in the next chapter. At the

52

same time, the literature review, a process o f research that generally takes place while the
anthropologist is not yet in the field, for me took place during a semester spent at the
university, after I had moved to Inuvik. For this reason the selection of literature reflects
my previous experience o f the Inuvialuit language.

53

Chapter Three - Methodology
3.0 Introduction
In chapter one I discussed the rationale for selecting the community o f Inuvik as
research site, outlined the project’s purpose and aim, and positioned it within its
academic and regional contexts. Chapter two provided a general historical overview o f
the Inuvialuit past with a brief excursion into recent Inuvialuit language history. Given
this regional context, the chapter also gave a brief summary o f the state of
sociolinguistics, providing basic disciplinary tools necessary to examine minority
language scenarios. Chapter two also examined the role o f individual and collective
traumatic experiences, focusing especially on residential schooling and its impact on
language behavior in Aboriginal communities today. These historical realities led to the
review of some unique features o f Aboriginal Language Acquisition (ALA), which were
explored through several empirical examples. The chapter then examined the role o f
ancestral language in contemporary Aboriginal cultural identities pointing to oftendisjunctive language ideologies. Finally, several theoretical means to identify and
disentangle such ideologies were offered through the views o f Herbert Blumer and Pierre
Bourdieu. This chapter provides a summary o f the ethics and methods that were applied
in obtaining the qualitative data o f this study. It also chronicles my experience as an
outsider and as a researcher in some detail.
3.1 Ethical considerations
Individual perceptions o f identity and language attitudes are very personal
concepts that are not easily given adequate voice through statistical surveys. For this
reason I used a qualitative approach focusing on the stories o f people and their personal

54

ideas regarding these issues. Clearly, such research requires utmost respect on behalf o f
the researcher towards all individuals participating in such a knowledge-generating
relationship. From my perspective, research is a relationship in which researcher and
participant are equal knowledge seekers. Conducting research together should be a
mutually enriching experience for all involved. In my work I attempted to follow the TriCouncil Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct fo r Research Involving Humans (TCPS2
2011) used by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council o f Canada
(SSHRC), ethical code o f the Association o f Canadian Universities for Northern Studies
(ACUNS 2003), as well as the ethical code o f the American Anthropological Association
(AAA 1998). But beyond these general guidelines for researchers working in indigenous
communities, I specifically looked to the direction given by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the
national Inuit representative organization, and the Nunavut Research Institute (ITK/NRI
2007). One of their emphases is a good relationship with the community.
3.1.1 Community access & community partners
In the summer of 2008, my family and I embarked on a preliminary community
visit of Inuvik from Prince George, B.C. where I was then studying for a Bachelor o f Arts
degree in anthropology at the University o f Northern British Columbia. During our tenday stay, which overlapped with the Great Northern Arts Festival of that year, I was able
to connect with several major institutions in Inuvik. Especially important was my first
encounter with Catherine Cockney o f the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre. She kindly
introduced me to a series of Inuvialuktun language materials, which the center had been
pivotal in producing. Realizing the potentially negative effects o f a researcher showing
up in a predominantly Aboriginal community, exclusively for the period o f their

55

proposed research, I decided to move to Inuvik with my family two years prior to
conducting any research. In January o f 2009 my family and I moved into a row house on
Mackenzie Road, the community’s main street. Our move allowed us to experience the
daily life o f Inuvik residents throughout the fluctuation o f the seasons. We were
privileged to participate in countless public events, and built rewarding relationships with
community members.
Throughout the three years o f living in Inuvik, I was able to maintain a good
relationship with the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Center, as well as get to know many o f
the staff and students at Aurora College. It was clear from the beginning that the ICRC
would be my primary community partner and that Aurora College would play an
important role in upcoming research. While coming to know many residents through
social gatherings and community participation, I was also introduced to the Inuvialuit
Community Corporation’s (ICC) language program, and to various language offerings
provided in early childhood care, preschool, kindergarten, primary school, and high
school. Community access and rapport thus occurred on multiple levels over an extended
period o f time. I believe the years our family spent in Inuvik increased the credibility o f
this researcher.
3.1.2 Community collaboration
In designing this research project I called on community input from the Inuvialuit
Cultural Resource Centre (ICRC), which resulted in a re-definition o f some o f the
project’s objectives. While I was initially focusing only on issues regarding language and
identity, talking to the staff of the ICRC helped make the study more applicable to
language planners of Inuvialuktun. The result was a stronger focus on language attitudes

56

and motivations for learning Inuvialuktun. This was a new focus for which I have to
thank the ICRC. Further guidance and creative input from ICRC staff also ensured that
questions vital to their work were included in the design. For this purpose I discussed
questionnaires and interview schedules with Catherine Cockney at the ICRC, and
remained open to changes until May o f 2011 when I submitted my application for a NWT
research license through Aurora Research Institute (ARI).
3.1.3 Research partners and local co-researchers
After receiving approval from UNBC’s research ethics board (Appendix VI),
setting up a formal Research Relationship Agreement between my community partner
organizations and myself (Appendix VII), and receiving a NWT research license
(Appendix X), I was able to start collecting data beginning in August of 2 0 1 1 .1 sought to
encourage my co-researchers to think of our conversations as stepping-stones to their
own further inquiries on language-related issues. The objective was to view my co­
researchers not as passive informants or research subjects, but as reflexive knowledgeseeking individuals who possess the agency necessary to derive equal benefit from this
project, an approach advocated by several authors (e.g., Wilson 2008:73,77; Smith
2008:26-27; Freire 2000:67,90). Through interviews and focus groups, but also through
informational sessions and taught classes, a number o f potential and current learners o f
Inuvialuktun were given the opportunity to explore their own views on language. As a
student of other languages, including Uummarmiutun at the time, many o f these
explorations into language and identity became a mutual sharing ground where I too was
able to relate my experience, albeit as an outsider.

57

3.1.4 Informed consent & remuneration
Prior to participating in this project, each willing research partner signed a
consent form (Appendix I & II), which familiarized them with the purpose and goals,
benefits, approach to dissemination o f results, data use, and potential risks o f the study.
As part o f this consent, each research partner also indicated whether they would choose
to remain anonymous, or to be credited in name, in all future publications that would
draw on their statements. Because a number o f co-researchers were under the age o f 18, a
special consent form was made available for school attendees. This form had to be taken
home for review and signed approval by a parent or guardian prior to any research
participation by the minor.
In the attempt to have this study and my reasons for conducting it remain as
transparent to the community as possible, all consent forms, questionnaires, and interview
schedules, together with other official documentation were made publically available via
the project website at inuvialuktun.unbc.ca. This potentially enabled any interested party
to review interview questions prior to a scheduled interview. The extent to which use was
made of this access by research partners is not clear. The website address was advertised
through project-related flyers distributed at all participating organizations (and handed
out with every consent form), as well as on posters that were hung at several points
prominent locations throughout the community (e.g. post office, cafe, copy shop, etc.).
While the time of all co-researchers was deeply respected, I was not able to pay
an hourly rate for interview participation. Instead, as a sign of gratitude for time
volunteered to this study, each co-researcher received a $15.00 gift card for the Internetbased Apple music store iTunes and was entered into a raffle for an iPod Touch music

58

player. The N asiw ik Centre for Inuit Health and Changing Environments paid my
research assistant a summer research assistance aw ard29 for which I had applied
previously. It must be clear, however, that no form o f remuneration, however small or
large, implied any claim o f data ownership by this researcher.
3.1.5 Ownership and accountability
Data ownership was important to protect from the beginning. As part o f the
application process for a research license in the NWT, the community partners and I
decided to enter into a Research Relationship Agreement (Appendix VII), which would
guarantee community ownership30 o f all collected data. Such an agreement carries with it
ethical implications o f anonymity and confidentiality, which were addressed in the
participant consent form, and signed by all co-researchers prior to participation. The
research licensing process calls for approval from all Aboriginal groups that might
participate in the research. Because this project focused on Inuvialuktun, I sought
permission only from the Inuvialuit review board, which meant that I was able to
interview only Inuvialuit beneficiaries.
In terms of the selection and representation o f gathered data, (i.e. recorded voices,
completed questionnaires, and /or field notes) I made every effort to represent community
voices as impartially as possible. Nonetheless, selection and arrangement o f data in this
thesis are affected by my personal subjectivity as author/observer. Consequently, I am

29 A side concern o f this research (not covered in this thesis) was the influence o f Aboriginal language
revitalization on mental health in Inuvik. I applied for the N a siw ik Centre for Inuit Health and Changing
Environments’ Summer Student Research Assistant Award, an award that can be obtained on behalf o f
undergraduate students who join a research project during the summer months. Findings specifically
relating to mental health, language, and identity will be published separately.
30 According to the First Nations Centre (2007:4), ownership “refers to the relationship o f a First Nations
community to its cultural knowledge / data / information. The principle states that a community or group
owns information collectively in the same way that an individual owns their personal information. It is
distinct from stewardship [or possession].”

59

responsible for all resulting error or bias. The raw data collected for this project and the
insights obtainable from it belong to the community. My communication strategy
regarding the research project and its findings are aimed to include five specific strategies
recommended by ITK/NRI: 1) to present in the community and at the schools involved in
the study, 2) to host an informational website containing downloadable documentation
regarding the research project, 3) to provide copies of transcripts, audio and video (where
applicable) to research partners upon request and with the written consent o f the
respective interviewee, 4) to provide hardcopies o f the final thesis to all institutions
involved, and 5) to distribute brochures summarizing the project and its findings, to all
community partner institutions involved.
3.2 Data collection
The methods used in this study included semi-structured interviews, focus groups
(semi-structured group interviews), questionnaires, and participant observation. In the
following paragraphs I will briefly explain the rationale for each method, as well as its
application within anthropological and Indigenous studies contexts, beginning with
participant observation. I will then outline population focus in terms o f age and gender
distribution, and conclude with a note on each o f the interview sites that were accessed.
3.2.1 Participant observation
Traditionally, participant observation is a long-term process in which the
researcher participates to some degree in the daily routines o f people, all the while
recording in ‘field notes’ what she observes during this period of cultural immersion
(e.g., Delamont 2007:206; Bernard 2006:344). It is an activity by which the learning
observer attains a deeper understanding o f the dynamics that are at play in the lives o f

60

research partners, and o f the “consequential presence” o f the researcher herself (Emerson
et al,1995:3). Participant observation and reflection were part of my community
immersion over a period of two years prior to interviewing. By living in Inuvik over the
course of two complete annual cycles, I was able to participate in many o f the daily
activities o f Inuvialuit community members. Activities ranged from traveling through the
Mackenzie Delta over ice in the depth o f winter, and on water in the height o f summer, to
chatting with local skidoo mechanics and hanging out with elders at the local super
market. It involved playing, laughing, and enjoying country foods at many a feast,
attending community language lessons, and spending time in homes and churches where
elders were still speaking and singing in Inuvialuktun. While my findings are primarily
based on data collected through interviews, my participatory observations greatly aided in
interpreting and grounding recorded voices. Between personally experiencing community
life, as well as studying field-specific literature (or the local weekly newspaper), and
gathering focused interviews and questionnaires, there was a kind o f triangulation at
work that is hoped to help insure some degree o f accuracy.
It must be noted, however, that in the past anthropological field observations have
had a tendency to be translated into ‘authoritative’ textual representations o f ‘the other.’
In such texts, a detached third person (or ‘voice o f God’) would declare an author’s
conclusions as though they were scientific fact. Beginning in the mid-1970s, the ideology
that upheld textual interpretation as a largely neutral act began to collapse, leaving the
discipline in somewhat o f a crisis o f representation. Critics o f traditional anthropological
“text making and rhetoric” now pointed to “the constructed, artificial nature o f cultural
accounts" (Clifford 1986:2). Consequently, “a literary consciousness to ethnography”

61

(Marcus 1986:263) emerged in anthropological texts o f representation. This more
reflexive approach acknowledges the dynamics o f power that invariably influence all
ethnographic writing, suggesting a less authoritative tone on behalf of the author and a
more literary reading. This critique o f traditional ethnographic tone is further echoed in a
collision of traditional anthropological texts on Inuit with contemporary Inuit
representations o f self in an “era o f Inuit empowerment” (Searles 2006:90)31. M y field
observations and interview excerpt selections must therefore be seen in light o f these
developments: they are non-authoritative, always subjective, and never free o f power
dynamics.
3.2.2 Questionnaires
Questionnaires have traditionally been used to obtain statistical data (Bernard
2006:252), but in more recent years have also been used by social scientists to
supplement their interpretative-ethnographic observations, especially in the case o f
specific phenomena with a relatively low variance applied not to a ‘universal’ (i.e.
statistical) reality, but to particular social populations (Gobo 2007:414). Following this
example, I administered a total o f 10 detailed questionnaires (Appendix IV & V). Two
current learners, seven potential learners32, and one language specialist responded to
questionnaires. The goal was to probe for possible changes in attitude that might result
from being involved in the actual learning process. Because the population and
phenomenon under study were demarcated, I was able to use the questionnaires within a
qualitative paradigm. In retrospect it would have been o f significantly more benefit to
31 For a humorous but critical Inuit response to past and present ‘authoritative’ representation o f Inuit by
non-Inuit in publication, view “Qallunaat! W hy White People are Funny,” directed by Mark Sandiford with
Zebedee Nungak, 2006 National Film Board o f Canada.
32 These would have been individuals who were not actively engaged in form ally or non-formally acquiring
Inuvialuktun as a second language at the time.

62

include the questionnaire content as a structured section with all interviews that were
conducted. This would have ensured that all research partners would have been exposed
to the questionnaire content. On the other hand, not all individuals who were invited to
participate in interviews agreed to take part, while some were willing to work through the
questionnaire one-on-one. Since I read the questions to the co-researcher and allowed for
often-elaborate answers, the administrative process o f the qualitative questionnaires may
be considered a form o f structured interviewing.
3.2.3 Semi-structured interviews
A total of 20 semi-structured individual interviews were recorded, and an effort
was made to equally distribute interviews between genders. However, due to an evident
female bias in most adult Inuvialuktun classes 3 3 (and most post-secondary learning
environments), this was not achievable. While interviews were conducted with a number
of current learners, there existed a numerical bias toward potential learners.
As with the static questionnaire, the semi-structured interview is based on a
schedule, or outline o f questions, which helps direct the course of the conversation.
However, unlike the questionnaire, this kind o f interview allows the interviewee to
pursue questions and issues that go beyond the schedule, while remaining relevant to the
topic. As such, the semi-structured interview is a moderated communication in which
“actually conversing with people enables them to share their experiences and
understandings” (King and Horrocks 2010:11). At the same time, the moderator
recognizes that the semi-structured interview— being a conversation—does not reflect or

33 While the fall o f 2010 may not have been a representative term for Uummarmiutun evening classes
offered through the Inuvik Community Corporation, I was the only male student in attendance then. In the
Aboriginal Language and Culture Instructor Program (ALCIP) at Aurora C ollege, my research assistant
Dwayne Drescher was the only male student.

63

reiterate the interviewee’s world or views as much as it is instrumental in creating them
(King and Horrocks 2010:17). In this very sense, the semi-structured interview is a site in
which two or more conversation partners co-produce meaning. While this realization of
interview-as-conversation democratizes the research process, it also calls for increased
reflexivity on behalf o f the conversational moderator to analyze her own role in the
production of meaning through conversation (Akerstrom et al. 2007:321). Akerstrom et
al. (2007:322) show how new meaning is produced when the voice of the interviewer is
transcribed with equal accuracy as that o f the interviewee. In their example, an initial
transcription of the interviewer’s voice had been simplified, thus masking a sense o f
embarrassment in the interviewer’s voice that became evident only upon a detailed re­
transcription (2007:322). Such discoveries reveal how meaning is established through
discourse, rather than merely through detached solicitation.
Some ethnographers argue that interview data is de-contextualized data, because
it is not the product of naturally occurring social interaction (e.g., Emerson et al.
1995:140). By tying interview data in with long-term participant observation,
ethnographers attempt to re-contextualize such data. In doing so, they produce what some
would call “proper ethnography,” in which the term “participant observation is used to
cover a mixture o f observation and interviewing” (Delamont 2007:206). However, to
concur with Emerson et al. (1995:140), it must be mentioned that the semi-structured
interview, ip which voice recording equipment is applied, differs in nature from the
ethnographic interview that is recorded non-verbatim in written field notes. A t the same
time, it can be argued that the recorded interview takes place in a social context also,
however ‘unnaturally occurring’ it may seem. All interviews during my fieldwork were

64

arranged for, placing them into a ‘not naturally occurring’ domain. At the same time,
most interviews took place within educational facilities, which already stand in
association with themes revolving around language, education, cultural change, etc.
Therefore, the degree of ‘unnatural occurrence’ for semi-structured interviews may have
varied from person to person and location to location.
3.2.4 Group Interviews (focus groups)
Focus groups originate from the world o f market research, but they are also used
widely in academia, among other things for their ability to identify the content and tone
for potential questions to be included with questionnaires (Bernard 2006:233). Most
importantly, focus groups can produce conversation that broadens the way we think about
an issue (Macnaghten and Myers 2007:68) because they can “provide prompts to talk,
correcting or responding to others, and a plausible audience for talk that is not just the
researcher” (Macnaghten and Myers 2007:65). Furthermore, Macnaghten and Myers
point out that “focus groups work best for topics people could talk about to each other in
their everyday lives - but don’t” (2007:65). In this research the goal for focus groups (or
group interviews) had been twofold. Firstly, they were expected to generate information
that may not have become apparent through questionnaires or individual interviews
alone. Such data consisted o f intra-group communication on the topic o f Inuvialuktun,
providing a window on language-related discourse among peers. Secondly, these group
interviews were to provide an opportunity to explore issues o f individual and collective
agency in regard to language policy and behavior. Most o f all, however, the group
interviews aided in settings where individuals felt intimidated by the invasiveness o f a
one-to-one arrangement. Because the group interviews followed the same interview

65

schedule as the individual interviews, it is most accurate to view them as merely another
interview format. There were four group interviews, ranging from two to 12 individuals.
3.2.5 Population focus: age and gender
As a qualitative study, the aim was not to provide a random and statistically valid
population sample, but to focus on a relatively small group o f individuals, exploring their
relationship with Inuvialuktun on a deeper and more personal level, primarily through
ethnographic interviews. This aim was accomplished in the successful recruitment o f a
total o f 45 individuals who participated in an individual interview, a group interview, or a
questionnaire34. Initially, I had planned to work with members o f three gender-balanced
age groups: (A) 16-19, (B) 20-39, and (C) 40-59, while focusing on the young adult
group. The goal was to rely on teenagers (A) and the middle aged (C) only to identify
possible differences that might occur in relation to age. Unexpectedly, four individuals
aged 6-15 (Z) became available for interviewing during fieldwork and were added for
breadth.
The breakdown o f the 45 individuals according to age was as follows: 4
individuals were between the ages o f 6-16 (8.9%), 5 individuals between 16-19 (11.1%),
27 individuals between 20-39 (60.0%), and 9 individuals between 40-59 (20.0%).
Consequently, as had been anticipated, the highest percentage o f individuals was young
adults (B) at 60%, followed by the mature group (C) with 20%. The remaining 20% was
divided nearly equally between primary and high school aged persons. The 4 youngest
co-researchers came from the Inuvialuktun language program at Samuel Heame
Secondary School (SHSS), while the teenagers were recruited from the community,
Aurora Learning Centre, SHSS, and Aurora College. The young adults were recruited
34 Five people participated in both an individual interview and a questionnaire.

66

largely from Aurora College and the community, while the mature group consisted
primarily of students attending the Aboriginal Language and Cultural Instructor Program
(ALCIP) at Aurora College.
In terms o f gender balance, I had initially feared it would be exceedingly difficult
to recruit men for at least two reasons: Firstly, because I was going to approach
individuals via educational institutions, while such are known to have a bias toward
female enrolment in the Delta Region, especially at the college level35. Secondly, it
seemed that women were professionally engaged with issues of language almost
exclusively36. This female bias is consequently reflected in the gender distribution o f my
co-researchers: Out o f 45 individuals 30 were female (66.7%)37 and only 15 were male
(33.3%). To ensure participation of men, we had to recruit primarily from outside the
institutional context (i.e. within the community) through snowball sampling, a form o f
respondent-driven sampling that relies on the recommendation o f friends and
acquaintances of individuals already participating (Bernard 2006:192).
Because young men were often reluctant o f being interviewed on their own, group
interviews were resorted to on several occasions. Reasons for this reluctance may have
been multiple. One possibility is that, because interviews took place primarily within
educational facilities, they may have been associated with an academic context in which
some males may not have felt comfortable after graduating from there (in the case o f high
school), or in which they would have constituted a visible minority (in the case o f Aurora

35 According to Aurora College, “[fjemale postsecondary students outnumber male students by a ratio o f
more than 2:1” (Aurora 2006:27).
36 The language commissioner o f the NW T, the em ployees o f the ICRC, and all Aboriginal language
teachers from pre-K through 12 in Inuvik were women at the time o f research.
37 It has to be mentioned that the female sample was boosted by a group interview of 12 w om en studying at
Aurora College.

67

College). In either case, the actual reasons for group interview preference in some males
remain unknown to me.
3.2.6 Interview sites
Four main sites served as recruitment hubs for co-researchers. While site selection
invariably played a role in who came to participate in the study, each site provided access
to a wide variety o f individuals who originated not only from varying sectors o f the
community, but also from several different communities across the ISR. Although the
research license limited my data collection to the community o f Inuvik, partnering with
Aurora College allowed me to speak to individuals who had come from the communities
o f Ulukhaktok, Sachs Harbour, Aklavik, and Tuktoyaktuk. A brief overview o f the four
main interview sites follows.

68

1

Figure 2 - Samuel Heame Secondary School

Photo: A. Oehler

llriri

Figure 3 - Aurora College (ALCIP)

Photo: A. Oehler

69

Figure 4 - A urora College C om m unity Learning Centre

Photo: A. Oehler

Figure 5 - Community o f Inuvik

Photo: A. Oehler

70

3.2.6.1 Samuel Hearne Secondary School
Four children from two 7th grade classes that were visited volunteered to be
interviewed individually or in a group setting at Samuel Hearne Secondary School
(SHSS). The school had a student population o f approx. 400, with a teaching staff o f 30,
and one Inuvialuktun teacher who administered the Inuvialuktun language curriculum for
grades 7-12 on an optional basis during school times. The school’s junior high and high
school level Inuvialuktun instruction program had been the result of a concerted effort
between the Beaufort Delta Education Council (BDEC), the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource
Centre (ICRC), and the department o f Education, Culture and Employment (ECE) which
had begun in 20 0338. At the time of the study the majority of attendees were o f Inuvialuit
heritage.
3.2.6.2 Aurora College
Aurora College was offering a 2-year Aboriginal Language and Culture Instructor
Program (ALCIP) during the time o f the research. The program was preparing future
Gwitch’in and Inuvialuktun instructors, who upon completion o f the program would be
able to work within the school system as language and cultural instructors. The majority
of students were between 40 and 59 years o f age. Several members o f the Inuvialuktun
section were interviewed individually, while four preferred a group interview. The only
male student of the program was willing to work with me as research assistant throughout
the course of my fieldwork. Interviews were also conducted with Aurora College students
who did not belong to ALCIP. A group interview with 12 female Inuvialuit students from
the Teacher Education Program (TEP) was conducted toward the end o f the data

38 Inuvialuktun as second language at SHSS (retrieved March 19, 2012): http://www.bdec.nt.ca/ourschools/second-language.shtml

collection period. In addition to collecting data, I was also given the opportunity to hold
workshops and lectures for the students o f both ALCIP and TEP, among other things on
the foundational concepts underlying the research.
3.2.6.3 Aurora College Learning Centre
A number of individual interviews and questionnaires were administered to
students attending classes at Aurora College’s learning center, a satellite campus in town
that offers educational upgrading to community members. M uch like the main College
campus itself, the student population here was predominantly female. W ith the help of
the center’s staff, I was able to call on the collaboration o f a number of students over the
course of several weeks to meet one-on-one, discussing language attitudes, especially
with the help o f the questionnaire.
3.2.6.4 Community at large
With the help o f my research assistant Dwayne Drescher, I was able to locate a
number of young Inuvialuit adults who were willing to participate in an interview. Some
of this recruitment occurred with the aid o f the social network Facebook, a medium that
lends itself to non-probability sampling, producing higher response rates than traditional
chain referral techniques, due to the researcher's profile information and group
membership being visible to potential respondents, thus increasing their level of
confidence in the researcher (Baltar & Brunet 2012:57). An additional advantage was that
individuals were able to click through to the research project website where they could
familiarize themselves with the nature o f the research, enabling individuals to make an
informed decision about participation. The downside o f all non-probability sampling is
that it can lead to a bias in the population sample due to the utilization o f existing

72

networks, thus making any kind o f generalization difficult. However, it seems that the
snowball technique served well within the small demographic context o f the ISR, where
it provided me with a number o f young adults representing varying ethnic, economic, and
geographic differences39.
3.3 Methods of analysis
As discussed previously in my ethical considerations, data analysis, or
hermeneutics, is a problematic issue especially for any non-indigenous anthropologist
writing about observations made within an indigenous community. Nonetheless, every
qualitative researcher must commit to interpreting the data that he/she has collected.
Where analysis is an open collaborative process that includes research participants, the
goal o f a democratized research design may have succeeded. Even so, it is understood
that the final text o f any ethnography always remains a production o f new meanings
based on subjective description, analysis, and interpretation (cf. Wolcott 1994:15).
3.3.1 Inductive & deductive approaches
To arrive at a subjective but descriptive text, I first transcribed all recorded
interview data with the help o f my research assistant, and then applied a mixed method
for analysis. Because I had already familiarized myself with comparative ethnographic
findings in the literature, a thematic approach to data analysis seemed most natural to me.
In either case, it would have been exceedingly difficult to read collected data without
naturally scanning them for phenomena known from other contexts described in the
literature. At the same time, the themes I found in the literature help establish a
conceptual framework for presentation and analysis o f my data. Rather than bedevil a
39 While all research partners were Inuvialuit beneficiaries, several shared a m ixed heritage (G w itch’in,
Caucasian, Russian, Sami, etc.). Individuals also belonged to families o f various degrees o f socio-econom ic
influence and originated from five o f six Inuvialuit communities.

73

‘top down’ deductive approach, I have employed it to the extent that I thought would
benefit the community partners who were integral in establishing what some o f the
questions would be. At the same time, I have tried to keep my mind as open as possible to
the discovery of the unexpected, and o f reoccurring themes in the text, in keeping with
inductive tradition.
3.3.2 Methods from an epistemological perspective
As a qualitative observer I came from an interpretive-experiential perspective,
which influenced the way in which I approached data collection. Following thinkers, such
as Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), who distinguished between social and natural reality, I
assumed that each requires separate methods o f exploration. Safia Azzouni (2010) points
out that Dilthey made a distinction between ‘explaining’ [erklaeren], fit for natural
reality, and ‘understanding’ [verstehen], or ‘experiencing’ [erleben], better fit for the
study o f social reality (Azzouni 2010:63-64; King and Horrocks 2010:13-14). He also
stressed that the ‘context of life’40 [Lebenszusammenhang] could not be ‘explained,’
especially not in positivist terms (Azzouni 2010:63). Instead, it had to be ‘experienced’ as
by a poet who offers an “objectivation o f the single and subjective experience" (Azzouni
2010:65). Such a deliberately subjective approach, which according to Dilthey stands
closer to poetics than positivist delineation, also echoes critique aimed at the claim to
“transparency of representation and immediacy o f experience" (Clifford 1986:2), which
was discussed previously. Given this direction, I view data collection not as

40 D ilthey’s ‘context o f life’ in many ways parallels aspects o f N ative Science as defined by Aboriginal
thinker and educator Gregory Cajete (2004). For Cajete “system s o f relationships” are understood and
expressed metaphorically “through abstract symbols, visual/spatial reasoning, sound, kinesthetic
expression, and various forms o f ecological and integrative thinking” (2004:51). In D ilthey’s terms, w e
might say that, Native Science is closer to human nature than Western Science, because it poetically seeks
to understand rather than to explain.

74

representative of a separate reality, but rather as being interconnected with the act o f data
gathering, arising out o f the discourse that research itself produces.
These epistemological assumptions lead a researcher to become a contextualconstractivist observer. The contextual view states that people experience their own lives
in the context of “cultural and historical meaning systems,” and that the researcher is also
“active in data generation” (King and Horrocks 2010:20), i.e. worldview, or
epistemology. The constructionist view adds that language, through which these views
are expressed, is not merely referential in nature, but that it has power to shape social
reality, because social meaning is produced through discourse (King and Horrocks
2010:21). In this view, the social and historical meaning systems that provide context to
social experiences are the product o f social discourse. Thus it becomes evident that the
constructionist mechanisms that generates social meaning through discourse tie directly
into Blumer’s second premise of symbolic interactionism, namely that meaning is seen as
“arising in the process of interaction between people" (Blumer 1969:4). To give an
example o f a constructivist perspective along these lines, we might refer to Natasha
Lyons’ explanation o f Inuvialuit ‘social memory’ as the product of social interaction
among Elders: “Depending on the individual or group assembled, any set o f
reminiscences will privilege certain memories at the expense o f others” (Lyons 2010:25).
Contemporary Inuvialuit identity is in large part based on how Inuvialuit see their past, a
view that is ‘constructed’ through the social discourse of Elders (Lyons 2010:26). This
‘constructivist’ concept can also be used in relation to interviews, because they are forms
o f deliberate discourse that shape ideas, rather than merely reproduce perfectly fixed
notions. In fact, there is a good chance that interviews will provide the time and space for

75

research partners to think anew about their relationship to Inuvialuktun, thereby
generating particular assertions or associations they may not have entertained previously.
These new associations and ideas may forever affect how interviewees view themselves
in relation to their language. The interviews in this study must then be seen from a
constructivist perspective, in this very sense.
3.4 Conclusion
In this chapter I set out with a series o f ethical considerations, ranging from issues
surrounding community access and community partners and collaboration to informed
consent, data ownership, and researcher accountability. Given the growing sensitivity and
inclusiveness of qualitative academic community-oriented research, these issues lay at
the very heart of every effort made under this project. Given this community orientation,
I summarized my methods o f data collection, which ranged from participant observation
and questionnaires to semi-structured interviews and group interviews (focus groups).
My population focus followed in terms o f age and gender distribution in the sample,
which was followed by a description o f the various interview sites that were used. Finally,
I mentioned my method o f analysis and interpretation, which were both inductive and
deductive in nature and framed by the phenomenological tradition, as pointed out in my
epistemological perspective.

76

Chapter Four - Findings
4.0 Introduction
Much in line with other researches on Aboriginal North American language
contexts, my research found that cultural identity in Inuvialuit is maintained primarily
through traditional practices that relate a person to the land. Leisy Wyman pointed out a
similar situation for Alaskan Yupik. In Yupik communities, even where the majority o f
community members had adopted English, language shift did not necessarily reduce the
degree of involvement in traditional on-the-land activities (Wyman 2009:343). Sheila
Nicholas made a similar observation in Hopi context where many young individuals no
longer knew their heritage language, yet claimed to “live Hopi” (Nicholas 2010:137).
Both examples echo my findings, which indicate that Inuvialuit cultural identity is being
maintained in the absence of ancestral language. Throughout the interviews most research
partners insisted that it was possible to be fully Inuvialuit even if one was not able to
speak Inuvialuktun. However, such statements do not necessarily indicate that the
ancestral language has lost its value as a marker o f cultural heritage. In fact, there exists a
degree o f ideological disjuncture.
4.1 Ideological disjuncture
As Nicholas and other scholars have pointed out (e.g., Meek 2010; Kroskrity
2010; Lee 2009), there exists ideological disjuncture in other similar language contact
scenarios. Several Inuvialuit individuals expressed that cultural wisdom is imbedded in
stories told by elders. They also believed that such stories are best communicated in
Inuvialuktun - not English. To truly benefit from such cultural data, it is paramount for a
person to understand the heritage language. In fact, several young individuals looked with

77

uncertainty to the day when they would have to teach their own children and
grandchildren about their cultural heritage without being able to relate these stories in
Inuvialuktun. Thus, my research confirms the findings of others in regard to the existence
o f divergent language ideologies often held by one individual. Charlie, a young Inuvialuit
man, perhaps gave the best example o f this disjuncture by saying that he was a true
Inuvialuk without Inuvialuktun, while the language did remain important - all in one
sentence: “You don’t need [Inuvialuktun], but it’s sort of crucial.” If Charlie had been
Hopi, he might have said, "I live Hopi, I just don't speak it" (Nicholas 2010:137). Charlie
makes the point that his heritage language is both important and not important at the
same time. Inuvialuktun is not important as a communicative vehicle for Charlie, because
he can conduct traditional activities speaking English. But at the same time, Inuvialuktun
is “crucial” to him as a marker o f the past, and therefore should not be lost entirely. In
this context then, language takes on a symbolic role.
4.2 The symbolic value of Inuvialuktun
The majority o f my research partners did not speak Inuvialuktun. W hile most o f
them had been exposed to varying degrees o f optional school-based language lessons
earlier in life, the knowledge they had retained from those days was minimal and did not
amount to any degree of fluency. Neither had these individuals recently engaged in any
other form of Inuvialuktun acquisition, such as evening classes or concerted effort to
leam from relatives who are elders. A smaller number o f research partners were in the
process of becoming language instructors through a college program. These individuals
held varying degrees of fluency in their respective dialects and represented a small group
o f language specialists. From all accounts, Inuvialuktun was not seen as a communicative

78

tool for most community members, with the exception o f elders who at the time o f
residential schooling had already been too old to attend, or had found other ways to evade
a system well remembered for its systematic destruction o f heritage language.
Consequently, for most other community members, Inuvialuktun had become a vestige o f
the past, of a way o f life no longer economically feasible41 in the town o f Inuvik.
However, because many individuals knew a few words o f Inuvialuktun, they did
feel connected to their cultural heritage through language. This limited knowledge o f the
ancestral tongue was primarily o f symbolic nature, as it did not allow individuals to
freely communicate with their elders. Those who knew a significant number o f
Inuvialuktun terms still lamented their inability to form coherent sentences. Although it
was often expressed that Inuvialuktun was important as an indicator of Inuvialuit cultural
identity, in the same breath individuals would ascertain that not being able to speak the
language did in no way detract from their being Inuvialuit. Consequently, the language
retains a symbolic function, but this function is not sole proprietor to the maintenance o f
cultural identity. Instead, other cultural markers dominated this function. Among them
were participation in on-the-land activities, such as hunting, trapping, whaling, fishing,
and camping, as well as participation in traditional drum dances and songs, the making
and wearing of traditional clothing, traditional games, and values such as sharing and
spending time together with the elders.

41 Hunting and gathering have becom e integral parts o f mixed econom ies for most Canadian Inuit (cf.
Poppel & Kruse 2009). It is increasingly difficult to maintain a life style entirely reliant on substance
hunting, since ammunition, modem transportation, and other necessities require financial resources that are
provided through employment. For many co-researchers, Inuvialuktun was associated with a w ay o f life
that existed only prior to the introduction o f highly mixed econom ies.

79

4.3 Inuvialuktun acquisition and identity
Although Inuvialuktun did not seem to serve as primary marker o f Inuvialuit
social or cultural identity, almost all potential learners were certain that acquiring their
heritage language would increase their pride as Inuit and strengthen their personal and
collective cultural identity. Individuals anticipated such qualities as greater selfconfidence, deeper connection with the land, and the ability to communicate with their
grandparents, thereby attaining access to their stories. However, the great demands in
terms o f time and resources required to attain a fluent knowledge o f Inuvialuktun seemed
to outweigh the relative benefits o f the language. This was especially true in light o f the
fact that Inuvialuktun was not perceived as a necessity, but merely as a precious benefit
to anyone already belonging to the Inuvialuit community.
Looking at the data, it seemed as if the desire to learn the ancestral language
fluctuated throughout life. Several children attending primary school expressed a desire
to learn the language, an enthusiasm that was encouraged by their language instructors
and elders. According to Wallace Goose, a primary school boy, learning Inuvialuktun is
very important: “I enjoy speaking Inuvialuktun and I enjoy learning about it. I really,
really like [my people] and I’m still learning how to pronounce Inuvialuit stuff and all
that, but it is still a lot o f fun.” During the teenage years, however, this desire often
recedes, in part due to the onslaught o f youth-oriented global media, but also because
teenagers realize that the majority o f their own parents are not able to speak their heritage
language, and that English is the only language in which serious economic transactions
take place. This wave o f disinterest in ancestral language is often reversed by the time an
individual enters a long term relationship, has children, or matures in other ways, which

80

bring about a stronger desire to know where one comes from. Usually this occurs around
the age of 20, or 30. As noted one young anonymous mother: “When I was younger ... it
wouldn’t really bother me, but now that I ’m older and have a child I want to learn
[Inuvialuktun]. I want to be able to tell [my daughter] words, tell her stories. All I can do
is tell her what I remember in English.” However, there were also several examples o f
individuals in their forties, especially women, who felt a strong desire to learn their
heritage language, or to relearn it if they had spoken it as children but lost it in the course
of residential schooling. With the coming o f age there also emerges a growing awareness
for the urgency with which the language must be protected because the sole carriers of
the ancestral language are quickly passing away.
4,4 Language ideologies: born of (and giving birth to) definitions of self
One o f my primary goals in studying language and identity in the community of
Inuvik was to obtain a better understanding o f the role that heritage language played in
contemporary Inuvialuit definitions o f identity. It was my hope that such an
understanding could then be applied to current and future efforts o f language
revitalization. Joshua Fishman’s (1991) work initially introduced me to the idea of
language and identity in the context o f revitalization. Fishman maintains that attempts to
reverse language shift (RLS) go hand in hand with an agenda, held by RLS proponents,
to revert the current state of a given culture to something they consider more in line with
its traditional heritage, an intention rarely shared by all members of any given ethnic
minority. Such RLS motivations, he points out, are not centered on efficiency but are
irrational. At the same time, these motivations are “authentic” and “unique” because they
seek to protect what sets the group apart as “themselves” (Fishman 1991:20). M ost o f my

81

own findings in Inuvik echoed Fishman’s observations. My research partners represented
a spectrum o f voices spanning from one end o f the debate to the other: There were those
who yearned for a return to the old ways o f life, coupled with a strong desire to bring
back the language as a medium o f day-to-day communication, and there were those who
believed that Inuvialuit culture would live on into the future even without a fluent
knowledge o f Inuvialuktun, or any knowledge o f it at all. The later far outweighed the
prior for reasons I describe in this chapter.
Before delving into an analysis o f existing beliefs about the use and role of
language, it is important to establish markers that individuals identified as representative
of Inuvialuit culture and identity. In other words, I am making the assumption that how
individuals perceive their own heritage language is influenced by how they define
themselves in the present world, and vice versa. In the following section I focus on
definitions o f Inuvialuit social identity, using Blumer’s (1969) perspective o f symbolic
interactionism. In the second part o f this chapter I examine the role o f language
ideologies relating to Inuvialuktun, as seen through Bourdieu’s (1991) concepts o f
symbolic power and violence. I divided the chapter into two sections, each with its own
theoretical lens, because my aim is to highlight the strengths of each perspective.
Blumer’s (1969) interactionist model lends itself particularly well to an analysis o f
identity formation arising from social discourse, while Bourdieu’s (1990; 1991; 1998)
viewpoint provides a focus on power relations, institutional constraints, and the dynamics
o f habitus that perpetuate social realities and co-govern language behavior.

82

4.5 Definitions of identity: Blumer’s perspective
In the following paragraphs I examine some o f the definitions o f Inuvialuit
identity that were collected through interviews, questionnaires and field observations. In
doing so, I assume a symbolic interactionist perspective. What sets the symbolic
interactionist research approach apart from other approaches, according to Blumer, is that
it not only focuses on action, but that human activity "begins with an inner impulse rather
than with an external stimulus" (1937:192)— an impulse that is "tantamount to tension
and discomfort," and which "impels the organism to act" (Baugh 2006:13). In other
words, human communication is not merely a stimulus-response affair, but collective and
individual interpretation play a major role in formulating a response. Among the fathers
of this idea were Charles H. Cooley, W. I. Thomas, George H. Mead, and Herbert Blumer
(Vryan et al. 2003:367). Blumer, one o f M ead’s former students, offered a widely
recognized interpretation of symbolic interactionism in which he summarized the concept
into three main notions: 1) Individuals act on things in relation to the meanings they have
for them, 2) such meanings are produced through interaction with others, and 3) how a
person acts in relation to such meanings is dependent on how he or she interprets them
individually (Blumer 1969:2-5). In the context o f this study this leads to at least two
questions: 1) How can Blumer’s scheme be used to examine identity, and 2) what is a
useful explanation of identity given his scheme?
Gregory Stone (1962), a former student o f Blumer’s, provided an explanation of
identity that suits itself very well to the symbolic interactionist perspective: "One's
identity is established when others place him as a social object by assigning him the same
words of identity that he appropriates for him self or announces. It is in the coincidence o f

83

placements and announcements that identity becomes a meaning of the self' (Stone
1962:93 quoted in Vryan et al. 2003:368; emphasis in original). Stone’s explanation can
easily be applied to an Inuvialuit context: If an Inuvialuk were to assert his group
membership on the basis of participating in hunting activities, then his announcement that
he is a hunter would have to be confirmed by social others who ascribe the same meaning
to the act of hunting, i.e. that it is an accepted marker o f social identity and, secondly, that
he indeed is known to participate in this act. Stone’s explanation is useful, because it
acknowledges the constructivist view that language not only possesses referential
qualities, but that it is endowed also with the power to shape social identities. In this case,
the symbolic meaning o f hunting is established through discourse among social agents,
while personal identity remains open to individual interpretations o f the meaning o f
hunting.
Vryan et al. allude to the fact that the founders o f symbolic interactionism "did
not directly address the concept o f identity in the way they did the related, extensively
explored, concept of self' (2003:367)42. For this reason, the authors present several facets
of identity that have been explored by interactionists since the concept o f identity has
become more established in sociocultural and linguistic circles. Among the identityrelated topics explored by Vryan et al. are, identity in light o f “creativity and conformity,”
identity in terms o f fluidity or stability, identity as produced by social contexts and vice
versa, identity that asserts similarities and differences within and between groups, and
identity as based on allegiance to multiple social others (2003:378-384). In this chapter I

42 The differences and similarities between social and personal identity were discussed in chapter tw o based
on a summary o f John Edwards’ (2009) explanation.

84

follow several of these dimensions o f identity, making use o f V ryan’s et al., couplets (e.g.
“freedom-constraint”) to arrange material from the interviews and field observations.
4.5.1 Inuvialuit identity in light of freedom and constraint
Freedom and constraint always seem to be present at the same time. There may
exist freedom for a student, for instance, to experiment within a certain musical genre,
but at the same time there may be constraint to stay within the genre itself. The tendency
of most Chicago school interactionists was to follow Mead in stressing creative freedom
(i.e. agency) over structural approaches (e.g., Gergen 1982; Valsiner 2000:37) that
emphasize social constraint and imposed guidelines for personal behavior and creative
identity enactment (Vryan et al. 2003:380). I select three examples dealing with the
tension between freedom and constraint in relation to defining Inuvialuit social identity:
freedom and constraint in reference to a) land as marker o f identity, b) the selection of
identity markers, and c) use of traditional versus contemporary identity-related narratives.
These examples are pertinent because traditional markers of Inuvialuit identity, such as
ties to land, fluency in the ancestral language, and blood ties, are becoming increasingly
problematic.
However, to this day, one o f the most common associations made in regard to
Inuvialuit identity is knowledge o f the land. To know the ways o f the land, and to know
one’s own way around the land are considered key factors to surviving on the land.
Sitting in a heated class room at Aurora college, together with five young Inuvialuit men,
Scott was the first to point out that knowledge o f the land continued to live on in all the
men who were present: “We may sit in a warm room, but we still know our way around
the land.” Looking for ways to explain to me what is the Inuvialuit Way, another young

85

man, Charlie, said with pride: “It is the way we survived in such harsh environments.”
For him and the other men, the Inuvialuit Way was embodied in the ability to survive on
the land. However, this common marker o f Inuvialuit identity is becoming increasingly
problematic for a generation that has much more restricted access to a traditional life
style. For Brent, a high school student, the Inuvialuit Way consisted primarily o f
traditional activities he had seen in old videos during his childhood. Although his father
had been hunting and skinning animals as he was growing up, Brent was certain o f
himself that he could not survive on the land in the way his ancestors had— “not even for
a week.” In his opinion, people o f the past had been “one hundred percent Inuvialuit,”
while people o f the present were “probably ten percent” Inuvialuit, if measured by their
active knowledge o f traditional survival skills. While Scott and Charlie established their
Inuvialuit identity in conformity to the traditional importance o f knowing the land, Brent
sought greater freedom in defining what it meant to be Inuvialuit in the modem world,
especially in light o f his preparations to attend college somewhere in the south.
In spite o f the strong ties to the land, young people often must leave the region for
education or employment in the south. In such cases alternative markers o f identity
become even more important. For Alecia, a young woman in her early twenties, it was
clear how difficult it would be to maintain an Inuvialuit identity when away from the land,
especially when raising a child in the city: “It would be hard because a lot o f the stuff that
we do practice, we practice in the Delta. In the city you can't just go out the back door
and be out on the land. Go to your backdoor in the city and you're in someone else’s
backyard!” Alecia felt free to move to a big city in the south, but she also felt constrained
in her ability to pass on her culture and identity to a child in the absence o f Inuvialuit land.

86

Inuvialuit social identity may not depend on a single marker o f identity, but it does seem
that most other markers tie into notions o f the land in some way. At the same time, in
response to the question, “How would you describe the Inuvialuit way?” an anonymous
young woman replied that it is “who we are— the people.” In her words, “it doesn't matter
where we are, we're still Inuvialuit. This is still us.” Consequently there may be a slight
difference between being Inuvialuit and feeling Inuvialuit. One’s status as a beneficiary is
not affected by lifestyle or location o f residence. The degree to which one lives according
to the Inuvialuit Way, however, is not prescribed by one’s ancestral or legal status.
While an Inuvialuit city dweller is not able to bring the land with her to the urban
locale, she may continue speaking or learning her heritage language while away from
home. However, even a perfect knowledge o f the language would not replace lacking ties
to the land. This was confirmed during a group interview at Aurora College, where a
female college student in her early twenties clarified that “you can't say that somebody
who knows his language is more Inuvialuit than the next person. Maybe the person that
practices the language doesn't go out on the land.” Thus Inuvialuit social identity is
contingent not on a single marker, but all other markers tend to be evaluated in terms o f
the relation to land. While this may hint at a democratization of access to Inuvialuit
identity, freedom of choice remains within the confines o f collectively legitimized
‘cultural activities,’ the strongest one being the land.
Another display o f freedom and constraint in defining Inuvialuit identity is
illustrated in the different ways two young women related to story telling. One young
lady at Aurora College stressed the importance of freely telling stories from the land.
What she meant were not legends, but accounts o f what happened to one’s ancestors,

87

friends, or even oneself on the land. She felt a sense o f responsibility to keep old stories
in circulation, but also to add new personal stories to this canon: “There is a lot o f oral
history today that needs to be shown, and much o f it is based on your knowledge, your
experience. After all we do live in this area. If you have resources, speak up! Speak up o f
your own experience. Resources meaning the Internet, libraries, previous oral history
projects, etc.” The latter part pointed to non-traditional means through which on-the-land
experiences could be communicated to people in cities far removed from the land.
Another young anonymous woman pointed out that ancestral language and cultural
knowledge could also benefit from modem technology: “We could use modem electronic
devices to communicate with each other, like we [already] do, connecting with [each
other] globally. And then at the same time still have that connection to your culture and
identity.” Her point was that adopting modem information technology did not contradict
one’s efforts of maintaining a sense o f collective cultural identity. Instead, these media
could be used to strengthen cultural awareness. However, not all individuals shared the
same enthusiasm for modem stories and technology, as pointed out another young
woman: “Old stories are different because most o f them involve hunting or helping one’s
mother with sewing. All our stories [of the current generation] are of skidooing for fun
and about activities for their own sake rather than for other people.” This woman felt that
a core cultural value was missed in most stories told by young people, and that therefore
they were different from those told by the elders. Here one person emphasized the
importance of freely voicing new experiences as genuinely Inuvialuit, while the other
person was missing conformity to traditional values. Yet both women communicated

88

Inuvialuit identity in relation to land, and through stories, thus conforming to a larger
cultural consensus about what is and is not Inuvialuit.
4.5.2 Fluidity and stability of Inuvialuit identity
Role theorists, in the tradition o f Mead (1934), when speaking o f the fluidity and
stability of identity, generally refer to personal, situational, and social spheres (e.g.
Antonucci et al. 2010:436). Personal identity changes only in as much as an individual
undergoes cardinal life changes. Situational identity on the other hand is flexible so as to
be able to adapt to the demands o f any given social setting (e.g., Ting-Toomey 1999:36).
Social (or cultural) identity is relatively stable because it is established through the
presence o f largely unchanging social settings. By adapting to the nature and demands o f
any given social setting, the constancy of that setting is ensured, thus solidifying social
(or cultural) identity (Vryan et al. 2003:381-382). In societies undergoing major socio­
cultural transitions, such as Inuvialuit, social settings also experience a high degree o f
transformation, which in turn calls for adaptation, affecting the formation o f identity. The
following examples look at changing social settings and how they are culturally
accommodated. Some o f these social settings pertain to increased cross-cultural
intermarriage; accelerated technological modernization; and contemporary presentation
of an ethno-culturally fluid past.
As is evident from Inuvialuit history since the whaling era, there have existed
various ethnic components that make up Inuvialuit society. Today intermarriages
between Gwitch’in and Inuvialuit, or between non-Aboriginal individuals and Inuvialuit
are quite common. These influences can challenge blood-ties as marker o f Inuvialuit
identity, which were mentioned to play an important role. For Barbara, a middle aged

89

Inuvialuktun instructor at the college, “you are Inuit if you have the blood”. One young
lady’s response to this reality was to emphasize culture-specific upbringing over descent:
“It's the way my mom and dad raised me. I'm not pure Inuvialuit. I don't have [purely]
Inuvialuit blood, but it's the way my parents raised me. I grew up knowing that I was
Inuvialuit, and that that would never change.” Thus, the Inuvialuit Way is not merely a
matter of descent, but also a matter o f upbringing that is often decided upon by where
parents in an inter-ethnic marriage choose to reside (i.e. on Inuvialuit, Gwitch’in, or nonAboriginal land). Because ethnic belonging o f offspring is officially recognized in the
choice of becoming either a Gwitch’in or an Inuvialuit land claims beneficiary43— an
allegiance that does not have to correspond to personal cultural upbringing— there exists
a degree o f potential fluidity in the identity o f many young Inuvialuit. Scott, a mature
student at Aurora College remarked, “it’s not unusual to see someone who has a little bit
of a different culture or ethnicity in them. Right away you know that they are half-breed.
It’s not hard to tell and it’s pretty common. I think that’s one o f the parts o f modem
Inuvialuit in my generation.” While this ‘modem Inuvialuit’ component o f hybrid
ancestry may be challenging for some individuals in establishing their personal identity,
it is no longer possible to imagine Inuvialuit society without this openness to the world.
The ability to accommodate change in the ethnic fabric of Inuvialuit society is therefore
an integral component of its social stability.
While traditional on-the-land practices continue to be closely associated with the
Inuvialuit Way, several individuals who since have become respected elders were among
43 A beneficiary o f an Aboriginal group is a person drawing on the financial dividends generated through
the administrative business activities conducted with land claims settlement funds. A person can only be
the beneficiary o f one group at a time, and therefore expresses a degree o f personal belonging by making
that choice. In the case o f children o f mixed ancestry, often this choice w ill be based on which group they
had the most exposure to as they were growing up.

90

the initial modernizers, perhaps redefining the Inuvialuit Way for the 20th century. In fact,
according to Scott, “probably the best guy to tell you about innovation would be Eddie
Gruben, my dad.” Eddie Gruben is the founder of ‘Tuktoyaktuk’s E. Gruben's Transport
Ltd.,’ the largest privately held company in the Mackenzie Delta region. Mr. Gruben was
also one of the directors o f COPE and a signatory to the IFA. According to Scott, his
grandson:
“H e’s 93 years old now and he always told us stories o f how ‘you have to change
with the times. ’ He said that that was his key to success. One funny moment was
when we were watching a TV program once, and he saw an elder on the show
talking about how everything should go back to the old ways. And my dad said:
‘Forget this guy! If I need light, I just go over here and do this [flicks light
switch]. If I need a fire, I just turn up the thermostat. That’s all!’ So you just have
to take the good with the bad and try to make it better. That’s all.”
From this conversation it seemed that Scott had largely accepted his father’s rationale for
life. While some individuals identified modernization as a potential threat to the integrity
of the Inuvialuit Way, most considered deliberate participation in modem ways o f life as
a rational extension of the age-old ability o f Inuvialuit to adapt to changing
environmental demands. Thus, in the context o f modernization, change can also be seen
as a form a socio-cultural stabilization.
Another example of a new practice that reinforces social identity, especially for a
younger generation, is Inuvialuit Day. This became evident during my visits with the
Inuvialuktun language program at Samuel Heame Secondary School, where I was able to
speak to several pre-teen students who were part of the program. When asked about what

91

sets Inuvialuit culture apart from other cultures represented within the community o f
Inuvik, the children generally mentioned language, life style, clothing, and other
traditions. However, Angie Edwards’ first association with Inuvialuit tradition was
Inuvialuit Day. Inuvialuit Day is celebrated annually on June 5 to commemorate the
Inuvialuit Final Agreement o f 1984. It is a day filled with drum dancing and an on-theland foods cookout in front o f the Inuvialuit Corporate Group office building. Inuvialuit
Day is a new tradition that represents an historical occurrence that predates Angie’s birth.
For her this commemoration constitutes part o f her Inuvialuit identity, along with other
markers, among them the consumption o f traditional foods, such as beluga oil and skin.
Several younger Inuvialuit children seemed to have a more consistent picture o f their
ethnic heritage under the Inuvialuit ethnonym, than did older generations who were more
cognizant o f the cultural and linguistic conglomeration that has taken place under the
Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Wallace, for instance, saw him self as being Inuvialuit, not
Siglit, Uummarmiut, or Kangiryuarmiut, while ultimately he spoke o f him self as
“Inuvialuit-Canadian,” alluding to an identity that ties into the larger national mosaic.
These generational changes in the validation and interpretation o f historical occurrences
bring about the kind o f social stability that is generally associated with the formation o f
nation states.
4.5.3 Inuvialuit identity in social contexts of cause and effect
As point out Vryan et al. “identities simultaneously create and are created by
social contexts” (2003:382). A common application o f this interplay is found in the study
of work (e.g., Shaffir & Pawluch 2003; Hughes 1993), where labor is used to construct
personal identity, as well as to form a "sense o f the identity o f others" (Gibson 2010:14).

92

At the same time, it may be argued that the changing demands put forth by individuals
belonging to professional associations facilitate changes to the social context o f labor,
which in turn shape these individuals’ identities. An example o f how Inuvialuit cultural
identity is both the cause and the effect o f social contexts can be illustrated in the pre­
contact mode of Inuit life that created a social context for seasonal games. Inuit played
these games for the purpose o f entertainment, but also to hone survival skills needed on
the land. After Inuvialuit had transitioned to a sedentary life style within permanent
communities, the social context o f survival-related games became obliterated. However,
in 1970 “increased interest in traditional activities led to the formalization o f the Northern
Games through the establishment o f the Northern Games Society” (NGS 2009; IRC
2010). Transformed to fit the needs o f contemporary Inuvialuit identity, the old social
context of Inuit games was reintroduced, and is now celebrated every five years, helping
create distinct social and cultural identities. The contemporary social context o f Inuvialuit
games has also become a showcase o f cultural pride to the world when the games were
featured at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. The following examples show cause-effect
scenarios in which Inuvialuit identity shapes social contexts while these social contexts in
turn shape Inuvialuit identities. Selected social contexts include communication at the
intersection o f environment, self, and social others; interaction between Inuvialuit and the
federal government; and interaction between Inuvialuit and other Inuit within the wider
context of nationalism.
Because Inuvialuit identity is expressed in relationship to land and animals, many
individuals and families spend time at hunting camps, especially in spring and summer.
Hunting camps represent social contexts that reflect traditional Inuvialuit social identity.

93

At these camps individuals, who live and work in town for most o f the year, adapt to an
on-the-land life style (i.e. situational identity). During these extended times out on the
land, individuals are able to experience a connection to the natural environment, which is
then shared and legitimized in face-to-face interaction with social others. How such
experiences can impact the course of action in an individual’s life becomes apparent in
Dwayne’s account: “What really got to me was being out on the land, grabbing those
fish, hunting the animals. Being there in the middle o f nowhere— that silence, hearing the
wind and everything. I felt as if I knew that where I was standing, my ancestors had lived.
They had done this all day, everyday.” For Dwayne a connection to his ancestors is
established by participating in their activities. He continues: “I had this sense o f my
ancestors’ past, and that is what really touched me: I was growing up. I was getting in­
tune with myself and with my identity. I knew that one thing had to be done and that was
the language aspect.” The cause-effect scenario takes place here in that Dwayne’s
Inuvialuit identity gave him access to the social context o f summer camping on the land.
His on-the-land experience reinforced his identity and set the trajectory for his higher
education, namely to become a high school teacher and Aboriginal language and culture
instructor.
Another social context for Inuvialuit has been the land claims process in which
Inuvialuit leaders and the government o f Canada have communicated extensively.
Conversing with Catherine Cockney, a specialist for Inuvialuit culture and history, and
director o f the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre, helped me gain a better understanding
of the significance o f the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) o f 1984 in terms o f Inuvialuit
identity: “The day that our land claims were signed defined us. It defined who exactly we

94

are, right down to the government o f Canada. It is a bill that stated who we are, where our
land is, and what is important to us.” Catherine described how the IFA represents an
agreement between two parties, demanding mutual recognition. Prior to the ratification o f
land claims, “we were just called Eskimos. But now it is official with the government o f
Canada that we are Inuvialuit.” Although ‘the real people’ have always considered this
territory their homeland, Catherine recalled her joy and disbelief on the day the
agreement had been achieved: “I was so amazed on June 5, when they signed the
agreement in Tuktoyaktuk. I was actually out in the bush with my mom, when we heard
live on the radio that, ‘Oh my god they did! They did do it!’” Inuvialuit desire to protect
their livelihoods and identity was the cause that formed the social context o f land claims
negotiations. The effect of this social context was a new and strengthened sense o f
Inuvialuit identity.
With the settlement o f land claims, Inuvialuit and other Inuit may be said to have
entered, what Searles (2006) has called, an era o f Inuit empowerment. Given these
circumstances, yet another social context for identity-related discourse has arisen, namely
that of Inuvialuit rights as citizens o f Canada (cf. Stem 2006). This social context is
exemplified especially well by the activities of the Canadian Rangers, “a sub-component
of the Canadian Forces (CF) Reserve,” and to whom belong Inuvialuit members in the
ISR, that “provide patrols and detachments for employment on national-security and
public-safety missions” (National Defense 2011). As a non-Aboriginal outsider I had
always perceived the integration o f Aboriginal and national identities as ambiguous due
to a history of colonialism. However, conversing with a young Inuvialuit Ranger, I
learned of the ease with which many young Inuvialuit men and women were able to

95

reconcile their pride o f being Inuvialuit and Canadian at the same time. According to
Catherine Cockney, protecting the Inuvialuit Way was important precisely because “it is
unique, and it is part o f Canadian history. We should acknowledge the Aboriginal history
of Canada.” The view of Inuvialuit heritage as part of a larger framework o f Aboriginal
history in Canada, and subsequently situating it within Canadian history at large,
resonated with what I had heard among younger people. On the question o f
reconcilability between Inuvialuit and Canadian identities Catherine said: “I don’t think
there is any conflict. It is just like what Jose Kusugak came up with for the new logo of
ITK. His slogan is ‘First Canadians, Canadians First.’ This means that we are Aboriginal
people— Inuit people—but we are also Canadians.” Her use o f Kusugak’s slogan ties
Inuvialuit into the greater pan-Inuit context, while it affirms Inuvialuit rights as Canadian
citizens.
4.5.4 Constructing Inuvialuit identity in similarity & difference
Stone’s (1962) idea that identity comes into being only when individual
announcement is confirmed by social others who place the individual in the same
category is illustrated especially well in examples o f perceived similarity and difference
within and between groups. It is widely understood that cultural identity is based on the
perpetuation o f accepted understandings o f difference and similarity between one's own
group and those of others (cf. Burke 1969:22; Erikson 1968:50). Thomas A. Acton and
Gary Mundy (1997), for instance, have illustrated the construction o f identity through
similarity and difference in their book Romani Culture and Gypsy Identity. In their
ethnographic context, shared patterns o f mobility were juxtaposed to patterns of
sedentary life, generating basis for similarity and difference. The following examples rely

96

on Stone’s (1962) emphasis on aspects o f identity expressed through recognition and
affirmation of cultural practices; common sensations o f loss within the group; and the
conscience o f unique social, cultural, and environmental traits o f the group.
A common way to affirm Inuvialuit identity is through engagement in, or
association with, ‘cultural activities.’ Among other things, I observed how such activities
included hunting, trapping, drum dancing, Inuit athletic games, sewing, consumption o f
on-the-land foods, and storytelling. Perhaps one o f the most prominent markers o f
cultural identity among these is hunting, as a young woman in the education program at
Aurora College remarked: “Everybody realizes that I am hunting. That's how my people
keep their tradition alive. My husband goes out and hunts. He brings his kids out hunting.
That's what my people rely on. That's probably the only tradition they have alive, that and
their dancing.” In this statement, the student announces her identity by affiliating herself
with a traditional practice. She also points out that through her participation she is being
placed into her announced identity by social others (i.e. “my people” and presumably
outsiders as well) who “realize that she is hunting.” Another similar way to establish
identity was voiced by a student o f the same program who pointed out the significance o f
comparison to non-Inuit groups residing in nearby territory. For her the Inuvialuit Way
was established in “the way they hunt and trap. It is different from the Gwitch'in because
they have different animals— Inuvialuit have Polar Bears.” Invariably, the polar bear
serves as a cultural symbol, setting Inuit apart from First Nations. Thus, Inuvialuit
identity can also be expressed in discourse focusing on the comparison between animals
harvested by each group.

97

While the Inuvialuit Way is seen as a set o f traditions that continue into the
present, an awareness of the possibility o f their loss surfaces in conversations. In order to
express the importance of hunting and the ancestral language as a cultural markers o f
Inuvialuit identity, a young Inuvialuit man rhetorically asked, “what if we lost our
hunting now? What if it were gone forever? What if we were to lose our language?” The
speaker assumed a hypothetical tone here, which was echoed by another young man in
the room: “It is like saying, ‘what if we were to lose our land or our animals?” ’ Hunting,
language, land, and animals all have been threatened to varying degree, but because all o f
these markers also remain to varying degree, the questions remain hypothetical. Yet,
according to Dwayne, much had changed in the Inuvialuit Way: “I see it broken down
into pieces. The only time you see someone wearing traditional clothing is during a
celebration or a wedding. It is just a lot simpler to buy a pair o f clothes [than to make
them].” Another young man bemoaned the impact o f Western individualism: “I think we
lost our togetherness. We always had feasts and everything together. For instance,
somebody would bring home a Caribou. They would share it with whoever was at that
camp. We lost that togetherness. Today it is ‘everybody for themselves’” Yet, as an
outsider I participated in many community feasts where food was shared, and witnessed
how families shared on-the-land foods with their relatives across the region. While social
identity continues to be derived from a common appreciation o f the Inuvialuit Way, a
collective awareness o f it being under threat seems to play into contemporary Inuvialuit
identity as well.
Many elements o f Inuvialuit social and cultural identity are either shared by
neighboring groups (e.g. hunting, resource sharing), or they are cultural adaptations to

98

outside influences (e.g. Scottish square dancing, or jigging). Simultaneously, a number o f
uniquely Inuit or Inuvialuit cultural features are being maintained. For the young women
at Aurora College, one of these culturally unique features was the polar bear hunt, in
which at least one o f them had participated. Beluga hunting and food processing, together
with traditional drum dancing, were also seen as original features that set Inuit apart from
First Nations. One social context in which cultural juxtapositions of this kind can enter
discourse is the Muskrat Jamboree in Inuvik, which takes place on the frozen Mackenzie
East Channel annually in April. Here Inuvialuit, Gwitch’in, and non-Aboriginal people
mingle to enjoy traditional games and on-the-land foods. To further distinguish Inuvialuit
identity from other Inuit identities in the Canadian Arctic, Dwayne emphasized the role
of landscape: “My thought is that we are not on the tundra. We are in the taiga, in the
Delta. And we adapted to the trees, and that is what really makes us different, it makes us
stick out from most other Inuit.” Thus, there exist several levels at which similarity and
difference finds expression across social inter- and intra-group contexts.
On a final level o f differentiation, Inuvialuit identity is asserted on an intra-group
level, where individuals establish dialectal differences and in-group boundaries. Thus,
Inuvialuit subdivide into Siglitun-speaking Tuktoyaktukmiut, (including residents o f
Sachs Harbour and Paulatuk), Uummarmiutun-speaking delta residents (Aklavik and
Inuvik), and Kangiryuarmiutun-speaking Ulukhaktokmiut. Although a more or less solid
political allegiance between the groups has been established since the 1970s under
COPE, especially elders continue to point out dialectal differences that reassert regional
specificities. Especially for younger persons who voice an interest in establishing a
stronger Inuvialuit identity by learning their heritage language, assertion o f these regional

99

differences can lead to significant demotivation. The following excerpt from Twyla, a
young mother and college student, profoundly illustrates the impact of linguistic taboos44
on language revitalization. Twyla’s son had spent his first two years with his Inuvialuit
grandparents, which exposed him to his heritage language, while her generation grew up
in an English-only environment:
“I did [attempt to leam the language] a few years back, because they were always
talking about how ‘your language is dying,’ and ‘it's important,’ and ‘you need to
teach your children.’ And my son, all he knew was Inuvialuktun until he came
home. And then he started joking and talking with my grandparents in a fun way,
talking about me, and I knew they were [talking about me too]. And I'd sit there
and ask myself, ‘what are they saying?’ He said, ‘I don't know. You should know !’
So with that I started taking Inuvialuktun classes at IRC. And I was really proud
of myself because I was learning a little bit. And I went back to my grandparents
and [began] saying sentences in the ways that I was being taught in the language
class. And I got in trouble because I was learning Siglitun, and we're
Uummarmiut. So because I got into so much trouble from my grandparents,
‘that's not our language,’ ‘that's not our dialect,’ I— I don't know— I just, I quit. I
told them, ‘at least someone is trying to teach m e.’ That was my throw back at
them, because they weren't teaching me. I had to go to somewhere else and leam a
different dialect, which is very similar to ours. But because I got in trouble for
that, now I'm afraid—discouraged— to leam the language because o f that.

44 ‘Taboo’ was a term used by some o f my co-researchers when they referred to the strictness often
encountered among their elders not to tolerate the use o f words from other dialects.

100

Because I was told from my two year old, ‘You should know what they're saying,’
and that was like a slap to my face. I want[ed] to leam the language. I tried.”
While my research partners related such mixing o f dialects to me as a kind o f taboo,
which was not to be trespassed even by learners, it can be argued also that such intra­
group differentiation contributes to the affirmation of Inuvialuit identity.
4.5.5

Inuvialuit identity in the context of multiple social others

Symbolic interactionists stress the singular and consistent nature o f personal
identity (i.e. personality) across varying social contexts, while pointing out that both
situational and social identities are fluid and multiple (Vryan et al. 2003:384). It is
commonly understood (if not uncontested) that personal identities are rooted in memory,
similarity and psychological continuity (cf. Noonan 2003:9-10; Edwards 2009:19). This
becomes evident in the following examples, which look at Inuvialuit social and cultural
identity in the contexts of coexisting local and global allegiances; overlapping regional
identities; and hierarchy between ethnic and national identities. In either case, the
singularity o f personality is always juxtaposed with the multiplicity of social identities to
which any given individual subscribes.
As is evident from Inuvialuit history, the way o f life in the Mackenzie Delta and
Beaufort coastal regions has always been marked by innovation. What once was the
schooner has now become the iPad. Yet, as one female college student expressed, identity
is situational and it can be derived from multiple sources simultaneously: “W e can use
modem electronic devices to communicate with each other, as in fact we do to connect
with others globally. At the same time, we can still have that connection to our culture
and identity.” This student explained that Inuvialuit cultural identity was derived from

101

traditional activities, and that it coexisted alongside modem cultural identity that was
derived from participation in a world defined by advanced technological innovations. The
fact that one social identity is not overwritten by the emergence o f another also becomes
evident in Alecia’s remark that juxtaposes geographic localities: “I think it is important to
know exactly who you are and where you came from, and to hold on to that. I have lived
in places in the south [where I have found that] you can take the girl out o f the Delta, but
you can’t take the Delta out o f the girl.” Evidently Alecia has experienced multiple social
identities across urban and rural environments. For her, switching between social
contexts does not result in the loss o f any one social identity she holds.
As much as individuals are able to switch back and forth between urban- and
Delta-related social identities, they also seem to fluctuate between diverse regional
identities. Overhearing a tantalizing statement that suggested that residents o f Ulukhaktok
did not feel they belonged under the Inuvialuit ethnonym, I attempted to clarify with my
middle-aged female research partners, how they felt in terms o f regional allegiances.
Acknowledging that “Inuvialuit” may not be the best term to use, her Ulukhaktokmiut
friend responded: “I am still an Inuk, though.” A third person interjected, “it’s just
labeling. Inuvialuktun, Inuinnaqtun— those are just labels. We are all Inuit.” The reason
that one of the conversation partners did not feel that people from Ulukhaktok should be
identified under the term Inuvialuit likely stems from the fact that ‘Inuvialuit’ historically
has been applied to the coastal people o f the Beaufort Delta region, namely Siglit, who
live primarily in the communities o f Tuktoyaktuk, Paulatuk, and Sachs Harbour. For my
middle-aged research partners regional group names and names for regional language
variants indicated that further social identities existed for them, underlying the collective

102

sense of being “Inuvialuit.” Each o f them held sustained allegiances to regional identities,
which were not as strongly developed in younger generations bom or raised after 1986
when the Inuvialuit Final Agreement was signed.
Finally, the weaving together of cultural, regional, ethnic, and national allegiances
into one personal identity does not seem to occur without some differential value
attribution by individuals. As mentioned previously, the act o f bridging Aboriginal and
national identities had always struck me as a deeply ambiguous experience. But in my
conversations with young Inuvialuit men and women, I found relatively little ambiguity.
The following excerpt from a conversation with a young Inuvialuit man seems to be
representative o f other conversations I have had: “I still consider myself to be Inuvialuit,
even when I speak English, because it is my heritage culture. M y grandmother came from
Alaska [Inupiat] and my grandfather came from Russia. I feel like I am Inuit, even before
the Canadian passport and things came in.” The fact that he attributes his Inuit identity to
Russian and Alaskan Aboriginal ancestry suggests a sense o f regionally defined identity,
as well as a sense o f pan-Inuit identity. The order in which he announces ethnic and
national allegiances— first Inuit, then Canadian—may be indicative o f a perceived
hierarchy o f identities. O f course, this hierarchy may have been part o f a situational
identity that adapted to his perception o f me as an outsider interested in Inuvialuit culture
and identity. To clarify the order o f his allegiance, the young man emphasized: “I am
more proud to be Inuvialuit than Canadian.” Personal identity is thus based on allegiance
to multiple social others, whether ancestral, regional, national, or global, while situational
identity can lend this tapestry hierarchical order.

103

Having shown Inuvialuit identity in terms o f its cultural, ethnic, social, situational
and personal dimensions, it is my hope that this examination will serve as a valid
contribution to our understanding o f the context in which Inuvialuktun language
revitalization finds itself embedded. As other researchers have shown in neighboring field
settings across Aboriginal North America, the relationship between language and identity
remains vital, even where language shift has occurred, and where a sense o f collective
cultural identity is increasingly maintained through non-linguistic markers o f identity. By
having provided some perspectives on what are “unique Indigenous identities,” to borrow
McCarty’s et al. (2009:302) term, I will now attempt to illustrate their symbolic link to
Indigenous language. Homberger (2006) speaks of "ideological and implementational
spaces" within these highly nuanced cultural and linguistic hybridities that must be
claimed for the benefit o f ancestral language revitalization (in McCarty et al. 2009:302).
T.o be able to build on such insights, we must familiarize ourselves with how identities
are negotiated, and what ideologies are most prevalent.
4.6 Language ideologies: Bourdieu’s perspective
Having examined some of the dynamics that play into the formation, maintenance,
and transformation of Inuvialuit identity, as seen from a symbolic interactionist
perspective, I now take a closer look at existing language attitudes and beliefs
surrounding Inuvialuktun. As Caskey Russell (2002) showed in the context o f residential
schooling in the United States, religion and education were used in service o f the state to
systematically assimilate Native individuals. Caskey indicated how the state appropriated
both systems to inculcate fear through the potential application o f violence. Such
violence became manifest in the separation o f children from their parents as well as

104

through pubic shaming as a form o f punishment for conversation in the mother tongue
(Russell 2002:99-100). While this type o f violence is no longer applied against the use o f
Aboriginal languages, I apply Bourdieu’s (1991) concepts o f symbolic power and
violence to identify the continued marginalization and stigmatization under which
Inuvialuktun perpetually suffers, and which are made evident in often unconscious or
tacit language attitudes held by many individuals in the Inuvialuit community itself.
Although Inuvialuktun is now officially protected under the legislation o f the
Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), there continues to exist a marked
inequality between Aboriginal languages o f the territory and national official languages.
The language requirement for participation within the economy at territorial, national,
and global tiers further reinforces an existing attribution o f lower status to ancestral
languages. The neglect o f heritage languages at the national level (vis-a-vis English and
French45) becomes evident in the internalization o f language hierarchies within
individuals based on accepted values o f ‘efficiency,’ ‘practicality’ or ‘good sense’ in an
increasingly neoliberal state. Not only does Bourdieu’s (1991) perspective o f symbolic
power account for the mechanisms at work within this deliberate marginalization o f
minority languages, it also lends itself to closer examination o f dynamics involved in the
isolation or relegation of Inuvialuktun to specific cultural and social domains.
In the following paragraphs I apply Bourdieu’s (1990; 1991; 1998) theoretical
perspective to the situation o f Inuvialuktun, particularly in regard to several language
ideologies I was able to identify in the interview data. Among the ideologies examined
here are internalization of language hierarchies, acceptance o f language inequalities,
45 Although French is a minority language in the Northwest Territories, a large percentage o f higher waged
employment across the territory is offered through the federal government. Bilingualism is an asset in
several o f these positions.

105

relegation o f language to an historical domain, and satisfaction with a symbolic meaning
for Inuvialuktun. Finally, I also take a brief look at language attitudes toward
Inuvialuktun as they were measured by the questionnaires. The aim of such a presentation
o f data is to show that what might look to an outsider like a free choice for or against the
daily use of Inuvialuktun can in fact be identified as an outcome of larger historical and
contemporary coercive processes that impose symbolic violence on the potential learner.
Symbolic violence in this sense stands for the situation in which a dominated
individual— in service to the oppressor—begins to judge her own behavior according to
the values o f the dominant population. Because I interviewed individuals who are
members o f a minority, data regarding internalization, acceptance, relegation, and
satisfaction can be analyzed in terms o f the extent to which they represent responses to
demands set by the majority population.
4.6.1 Internalized language hierarchies
While speaking to Inuvialuit individuals o f different ages, genders,

and

occupations, I noticed that there seemed to exist a commonly accepted hierarchy o f
languages. This hierarchy was established on the basis o f how each individual assessed a
language’s usefulness. While each language may have its own use and importance for the
individual, the most pervasive criteria for evaluation seemed to be a language’s relative
economic value. A young woman who was upgrading her education at the community
learning center, explained: “My dad thought that in high school I would be better o ff
studying French than Inuvialuktun. It would mean more job opportunities for me.” Her
father’s advice to learn French instead o f Inuvialuktun was based on a concern for her
future financial security, which would arguably benefit from knowledge o f both official

106

languages. Because salaried work has become an integral part of Inuvialuit society,
favoring minority languages over dominant ones has become in the minds o f many
people economically disadvantageous. Beverly, an Inuvialuktun language instructor in
training, spoke o f her frustration with parents who were not interested in sending their
kids to Inuvialuktun classes because these were perceived as counter productive to their
children’s education.
Another young woman at the learning center told me: “I love languages! I think it’s
good to know there are so many languages out there. The three languages I want to speak
are English, French, and Inuvialuktun.” The order she applied here seems indicative o f
the region where she lives: English is seen as indispensable to all daily affairs, French is
considered highly useful for higher and nation-wide employment, and Inuvialuktun
serves as a regional marker o f identity. In other words, this young woman was well aware
of the value of knowing multiple languages. Indeed, her emphasis was on “languages” at
large, not heritage language. In fact, she listed Inuvialuktun last, indicating that it may be
of high cultural value, but not o f equal priority when compared to English or French in a
national ‘equal opportunity’ environment. In Bourdieu’s (e.g., 1991:192) terms, symbolic
power functions in this situation because a majority o f people shares a common belief in
the legitimacy o f the institutions that call for and uphold this linguistic and cultural
hierarchy (i.e. the Canadian state). To further illustrate this point, I will now turn to an
example o f how Aboriginal leadership is perceived to be dependent upon the acceptance
of this language hierarchy.

107

4.6.2 Language inequality and Aboriginal independence
Majority language and minority identity seem to exist in a kind o f symbiotic
relationship characterized by power differentials. One individual commented on why she
thought English was so powerful throughout the region. According to her, people could
see that “some of the most powerful nations” were predominantly English speaking. She
also referred to these powerful nations as “big people,” indicating a kind o f subordinate
position taken by smaller numbered peoples. Identifying an existing inequality between
minority and majority peoples and their languages, she concluded that submission to this
reality was inevitable: “If you're going to do business, it needs to be in English.” Another
individual emphasized that: “In the Aboriginal world everything is in English. Now you
can't only speak one language and be an executive president o f some big corporation.”
This argument is o f uttermost importance given the fact that the relatively high degree o f
Inuvialuit regional independence is maintained in part through the success o f Inuvialuitowned corporations, a leader among them being the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation
(IRC). Because Inuvialuit leadership and self-regulation are largely exercised through
such corporations, which in turn depend on national and global economic connectedness,
it is not surprising that several individuals drew a symbolic association between
economic connectedness (e.g. as exemplified by year-round road access) and majority
language. Both had been brought to the region from the south, and both were enabling
Inuvialuit to participate in the global market economy. Consequently, the benefits of
contemporary Inuvialuit independence were perceived by many to be dependent upon
collective acceptance o f the dominant status o f English in the region.

108

While Bourdieu refers to individuals as being affected by symbolic power, every
corporation is made up o f individuals who understand that, “in order to derive personal
fulfillment, external recognition, and justification o f purpose from a role assigned to
oneself by an accepted institutional framework, the framework itself must be embraced
by all others, the ‘'consensus o m n iu m or else the assigned role is subject to laughter and
belittlement (Bourdieu 1991:126). Thus, Inuvialuit individuals who wish to become
leaders within given institutional frameworks realize that knowledge o f English is a
foundational expectation, if not prerequisite to success. In fact, if the very success o f
COPE, the organization that negotiated Inuvialuit land claims in the 1970s, was aided
only in part by its members’ early ability to negotiate with the government o f Canada in
English, then the very legitimization o f Inuvialuit identity, and the permanent placement
of the ISR on the map o f Canada, stand in direct relation to the use of a non-Aboriginal
language. In light o f the political and economic stakes that were and continue to be at
play for Inuvialuit, the concern over language inequality seems to recede to the
background. This raises the question o f what happens to a heritage language that enjoys
high respect in all generations, yet is not seen as lending itself to the material and
economic survival of the group46.
4.6.3 Relegation of Inuvialuktun to the historical domain
While some lament was expressed over the current marginalization of
Inuvialuktun in the ISR, such regrets did not seem to spurn a major increase in the
number of individuals actively seeking to leam the language. Instead, given alternative

46 This question is particularly intriguing because, to this day, Inuvialuit cultural identity is largely
associated with skills to thrive in a physical environment (i.e. the material world). One conclusion could be
that economic rationale presides over non-economic cultural sentiments, and that the tangible business
world mirrors subsistence activities traditionally conducted on the land.

109

markers o f identity, ancestral language seemed to take the role o f a beneficial supplement
to Inuvialuit identity assertion at best. A young woman expressed that an Inuvialuk’s
ability to speak “only English” would in no way render him or her less Inuit than “any
other Inuvialuk.” In fact, she observed that “some people are strong in their tradition,
while others are not as strong,” and that the ability to speak Inuvialuktun “could be
beneficial” in this strengthening process. Given present circumstances, “English could be
used to communicate in the modem world,” while Inuvialuktun would keep
communication open with elders who are consulted for stories o f the past. A t least two
things are made apparent in these statements, which are representative o f most
individuals that participated in the interviews. Firstly, most individuals do not perceive
Inuvilauktun as a prerequisite for community membership. Rather, it is seen as optional.
Under these circumstances a gradual disappearance o f the language would seem
inevitable (e.g., Nicholas 2010; Lee 2009; Crystal 2000:77). Secondly, Inuvialuktun is
perceived as a marker o f cultural strength, and therefore of benefit to all who would like
to deepen their sense of connection to Inuvialuit heritage. In either case, however, there
exists no immediate imperative that would lead to self-directed language acquisition
efforts.
While the use of English as communicative tool of the present is perceived as a
necessity, there exist moral grounds on which the death o f the heritage language is not to
be accepted: “I think Inuvialuktun is important in a more historical sense, for lack o f
better word. I don’t know how relevant it is in advancing within a modem society— if
that is your goal, and it seems to be for a lot o f people— but to let the language die seems
completely wrong.” The idea that knowledge o f Inuvialuktun was primarily ‘important in

110

a historical sense,’ while not being required to confirm ethnic or cultural belonging, was
echoed in many interviews. How the lack o f such knowledge separated individuals from
sharing an intimate knowledge of the past is evident in that one must understand
Inuvialuktun to benefit from the vast library o f Inuvialuit oral accounts that were
recorded among elders in the 1970s and 1980s, and which are now housed in digital
format at the Inuvialuit Cultural Heritage Centre. Being relegated primarily to the domain
of history, heritage language seems to be viewed by younger individuals at best as an
auxiliary resource to identity.
The relegation of heritage language to an historical domain is further aided by a
belief in the relative inseparability o f stories from Inuvialuktun. In relation to how
Inuvialuktun features in the perpetuation o f the Inuvialuit Way, one individual responded:
“It is our history. I think it is important to make sure that it is carried on to the next
generation.” Here stories that have their proper existence only in the ancestral language
are equated with history itself. This makes good sense for at least two reasons: a) the very
term ‘Inuvialuit W ay’ seemed to be understood as representing primarily the ways o f
Inuvialuit in the past; and b) stories are a common vehicle for the transmission o f the past
in all oral cultures. It is not surprising then that individuals identified a potential
connection between unique cultural knowledge and the ability to speak and understand
Inuvialuktun: “We would leam so much more from the elders who spoke our language.
We'd have so much more knowledge and so many more stories, because a lot o f the
stories that are passed down are converted into English. But maybe they missed
something. Maybe your cultural wisdom would be stronger if you had our language.”
This young woman seemed to express fear that in the course o f translation something o f

111

cultural significance might be lost. Her concern may either have had to do with the poor
quality o f a translation by an individual who does not know the language well enough, or
with the idea that there exists a degree o f untranslatability between the two languages. In
either case only an intimate knowledge o f the language would overcome these concerns.
That such an intimate knowledge o f the heritage language is going to be transmitted from
one generation to the next seems unlikely, given the currently accepted language
hierarchy and associated beliefs in the sufficiency o f Inuvialuktun as a symbolic
component o f cultural identity.
4.6.4 The symbolic meaning of Inuvialuktun
While conversing about the significance o f various cultural markers for Inuvialuit
identity in the contemporary world, one young man remarked, “Inuvialuktun should be
considered important too. When I have kids I want them to leam the language. At least
they should know some sentences. But I know that they are not really going to speak it
fluently.” Apparently this young man felt a need for intergenerational transmission o f
Inuvialuktun, but at the same time he already anticipated relatively poor success in regard
to fluency. Instead o f being upset with the factors that inhibit full language retention, he
seemed to accept them. Another person believed that even if a major revitalization effort
were to be undertaken by the community as a whole, such effort would serve primarily a
symbolic purpose: “If a large number of people really tried hard to leam Inuvialuktun,
and if they were learning more and more and began to teach their younger kids, then at
least the language would stay around— even if it is not a fluent knowledge o f the
language, at least people would be trying, right? They would be trying to leam it and
trying to teach their kids about it.” Outlooks of this kind indicate that a continual attempt

112

at language acquisition itself exemplifies reverence for cultural heritage. The degree o f
fluency obtained through such attempts, however, is not prioritized at this point. Instead,
an expression of appreciation and respect for the past comes to fore, and an effort to
ensure that Inuvialuktun “stays around.” Given the time and effort required to leam any
language to a degree o f fluency, a symbolic approach to heritage language is perceived as
more rational.
Although equipped with a strong passion for the maintenance o f her heritage
language, a middle-aged Inuvialuktun teacher in training seemed to accept the fields o f
application given to Inuvialuktun these days: “It’s okay. There is a time and place where
Inuvialuktun or Inuinnaqtun can be spoken, and that is within a group o f elders that are
speaking their language. If you want to listen and get Inuvialuktun back, that’s where you
should be.” This uncontested relegation of Inuvialuktun to the realm of the elders and o f
the past is a manifestation of the constraints put on the heritage language by society. As
the following example shows, such constraints are an integral element o f the current
accepted order, which is also transmitted to the next generation. Bourdieu refers to this
process as habitus. Habitus ensures social reproduction by governing daily practices.
Accepted domains for minority language use fall under habitus. Habitus teaches
individuals to desire only things within socially acceptable reach. Notwithstanding,
children who are introduced to the language during the first years o f their primary
schooling will often develop a keen desire to leam the language, a desire that is quenched
only when they are introduced to the accepted reality o f language inequalities, or the
boundaries o f habitus. As points out Catherine, who has grandchildren o f her own: “Most
of them wish they knew the language and they wish their parents would try to teach them.

113

My grand daughter is eight and I just wish I could speak Inuvialuktun, because she wants
to leam it. She really wants to leam it.” She continues: “When they get to be teenagers,
they realize that their parents don’t speak the language and they just accept the fact that
their parents or grandparents are not going to teach them. So they move on. It’s not their
fault; it’s just that they come to understand reality.” Thus, what children come to see as
reality is the extent o f the habitus with which they grow up.
This habitus is further exemplified by Brent, a college student who for many years
participated in Inuvialuktun classes while in school: “When I was little I always thought
that everybody must speak this language a little bit. But now ... I realize, that a lot o f
people never did, and that is weird.” It is evident from this passage that even as a child
Brent did not expect people to be fluent in Inuvialuktun. Quite the opposite; he had
expected everyone to be familiar with at least a symbolic amount o f the language. Having
graduated from high school, Brent—like many o f his peers— possessed a “little bit” of
Inuvialuktun knowledge, allowing him to refer to it as a symbolic marker o f his Inuvialuit
heritage. No longer a child, Brent also realized that his childhood anticipation o f one day
being able to communicate with others in his heritage language was largely disappointed
by the small number o f people actually able to converse in it. In terms o f where he stood
on language revitalization as a young adult, he said: “I don’t really have an interest [in
the language]” with the exception, perhaps, o f a few symbolic words and phrases.
4.6.5 Language attitudes toward Inuvialuktun
Having presented some o f the language beliefs held by representatives o f at least
three generations, I now turn to a brief summary of the questionnaire findings that were
conducted with 10 individuals, most o f whom were young women. The questionnaires

114

covered an extensive range o f topics regarding language attitudes and ideologies that
helped triangulate my data (i.e. informal observations - interviews - questionnaires).
While the questionnaire findings confirmed my interview and observational data, they
intentionally gathered data on language attitudes that the interviews did not probe for.
Among such data were comparative ratings o f Inuvialuktun vs. English in terms o f
musical, poetic, and practical values. The idea for such a comparative assessment came
from Leos Satava (2005:68), who has conducted extensive attitudinal research in Sorbian
minority language learners of eastern Germany. While the data presented here is not
representative of Inuvialuit as a community, or even o f the 45 research partners, the
questionnaires themselves suggest a promising direction for future research. The selected
results shown here are meant only to give a glimpse o f the type of data more extensive
research may provide.
Based on an excerpt of language attitudes by scale (Appendix IV), three out o f ten
individuals thought Inuvialuktun was more musical, while another three thought English
was more musical, and yet another three saw them as equal. Ten out o f ten persons
thought that English was easier to leam than Inuvialuktun. Eight out o f ten thought that
Inuvialuktun was very interesting, while English was less interesting, and nine out o f ten
thought that Inuvialuktun was slower, or significantly slower than English. Four out of
ten thought Inuvialuktun was less useful than English, while five thought it was equally
useful. Nine out o f ten people thought Inuvialuktun was either equally or more important
than English, and at least eight out o f ten individuals thought Inuvialuktun was either
equally, or more friendly than English. In this small non-representative test sample47, we

47 Only 10 individuals completed the questionnaire, 1 o f whom w as between 16-19, 2 between 4 0 -5 9 , and 7
between 20-39. O f the 10 individuals 9 were female and 1 was male.

115

can see that the sound of the language does not stand out in terms o f its perceived
musicality vis-a-vis English. In terms o f ease or leamability, English clearly won out,
indicating that all perceived Inuvialuktun as difficult. In terms o f interest, Inuvialuktun
won out over English, meaning that the majority was somewhat intrigued by the
language. Inuvialuktun was also perceived by most as being slower than English. In
terms of importance, Inuvialuktun was rated higher than English, and the majority also
saw it as being more friendly than English. W hat could be learned from such data is that
there exist a number o f attitudes toward Inuvialuktun that positively set it apart from
English.
4.7 Conclusion
The first part o f this chapter focused on markers o f Inuvialuit identity. It presented
data that indicates a continuum between two extremes: individuals who conform
primarily to markers of traditional Inuvialuit identity (i.e. on-the-land practices), and
individuals who seek freedom in defining contemporary Inuvialuit identity, especially in
light o f technological advancements and participation in a globally-shaped culture.
However, wherever a person might fall between these extremes, the ancient Inuvialuit
Way with its land-related activities always remains a deeply respected symbolic marker
o f collective cultural heritage to all. While some families are still able to spend the
majority of their free time at camps on the land, other families no longer have the means
to do so. The increasing divergence between traditional ways o f being Inuvialuit (i.e.
living on the land) and modem ways o f being Inuvialuit (e.g. in the board room) are
indicative o f a society in transition. Although many individuals share in both worlds, not
all do so to the same degree. Blumer’s (1969) interactionist perspective lends itself to an

116

analysis of the social contexts from which changing notions of identity arise. A better
understanding of how social, cultural, and ethnic identities come to be is important if we
wish to assess the role that language plays in each o f these. A major conclusion from the
findings was that contemporary Inuvialuit social identities are increasingly perceived as
non-dependent on spoken ancestral language. The result o f this development is that
Inuvialuktun is seen primarily in relation to the past. As such, the language acquires
symbolic status, and to maintain it in this capacity it is sufficient to transmit keywords
and phrases to the next generation as tokens o f one’s heritage.
The second part of the chapter focused on several shared beliefs that were found
to solidify the role o f Inuvialuktun in contemporary Inuvialuit identity. Bourdieu’s (1991)
perspective lends itself to an examination and interpretation o f commonly held language
beliefs, because it identifies them as being o f benefit primarily to those in power over the
social actors who subscribe to them. Therefore, the beliefs o f some Inuvialuit that ‘it is
too late to revive Inuvialuktun,’ or ‘it is too impractical to use Inuvialuktun in the modem
world,’ can be seen as beneficial not so much to Inuvialuit but to the larger nation which
shares no interest in maintaining functional capacity o f minority languages. At the same
time, following thinkers such as Joshua Fishman (1991), acceptance of beliefs that are in
line with those in power generally represents the only rational choice for individuals and
groups that must ensure their economic survival in a rapidly changing world. In this light,
the findings o f this study point to a consensus in the majority o f research partners that
Inuvialuktun is unlikely to come back as a functional medium o f day-to-day
conversations, but that it will survive into future generation as a symbolic marker o f
Inuvialuit heritage and identity.

117

Chapter Five - Conclusion
5.0 Introduction
The purpose o f this study was twofold. Firstly, I attempted to gain a better
understanding of how several Inuvialuit individuals assessed the importance o f
Inuvialuktun as shared marker o f Inuvialuit cultural identity. In conversing with
community members o f various ages, I therefore often asked how they felt about their
ancestral language in the context o f daily life. Secondly, I sought to obtain a better
understanding of existing beliefs relating to the heritage language and its role in the
Inuvialuit community, because such information might aid language activists, planners,
and curriculum designers in refining materials geared toward language maintenance. By
building on positive sentiments already held by community members, local language
activists could raise awareness, interest, and motivation in potential and current learners
(cf. King 2009; Homberger 2006; McCarty et al. 2009). In this concluding chapter I
briefly discuss both research aims and provide a number o f recommendations to local
language planners. I conclude with a brief look to future sociolinguistic research in the
ISR in light o f hybridity studies.
5.1 Linguistic beliefs & Inuvialuit community
Not one of the 45 individuals I worked with had ever heard another community
member comment negatively about existing efforts to keep Inuvialuktun alive. All
individuals were certain that the community was in support o f revitalizing Inuvialuktun,
even if this did not translate into an effort to learn the language. The majority o f research
partners were also confident that the image o f the language was positive throughout the
region and beyond. One research partner noted that, while non-Aboriginal educators had

118

in the past condemned the use of Inuvialuktun, today’s educators referred to elders who
possess a fluent knowledge o f their heritage language as “language specialists.” Thus,
previous contempt had changed to respect. Given the fact that the image o f Inuvialuktun
is quite positive, and that its status is officially recognized and protected within the NWT,
younger generations o f Inuvialuit no longer suffer from the shame that was impressed on
the parent and grandparent generation through the residential schools. However, the need
to use English in all business affairs with the outside world has led to internalized
language hierarchies. These hierarchies rarely favor Inuvialuktun and usually list English
as first priority, French as second priority, and the heritage language as a third option at
the level o f personal and regional identity marker lacking economic incentive. This
differential value attribution to languages is based on a labor market rationale.
Furthermore, it is understood that Aboriginal independence under the current state
of affairs is largely contingent on acceptance o f a general Aboriginal language inequality.
Aboriginal leaders must therefore speak English in order to be able to effectively
negotiate the wellbeing of their own people in contemporary Canada. Consequently,
Inuvialuktun is left with a marginal role. For the majority o f individuals from all age
groups, the heritage language is therefore relegated predominantly to an historical domain,
where it is associated with a unique Inuvialuit past that is recorded in oral accounts o f the
elders. Hence, Inuvialuktun and continuous revitalization efforts associated with it are
primarily given symbolic meaning. Community members sincerely hope that, given this
symbolic weight, Inuvialuktun will endure well into the future as a strong marker o f
Inuvialuit identity. Given current efforts to familiarize younger generations with a basic
understanding of Inuvialuit cultural heritage and language as part of the school system, a

119

symbolic association with Inuvialuktun will likely survive the elders who are currently
the only mother tongue speakers. While the availability o f language and culture
instruction programs in the school system serve as a motivation to engage in language
acquisition, there also exist a number o f motivators within the community that are not
directly tied to the offerings o f the school system. It is here that I recommend more work
be done in terms of highlighting how these existing motivators can be expanded.
5.2 Motivators for language acquisition
While Inuktitut still enjoys the role o f primary communicative device for many
individuals in Nunavut, Inuvialuktun in the ISR has largely shifted to symbolic use. A
direct comparison is therefore not appropriate. However, Inuvialuit individuals do look to
the larger Inuit context in relation to language, and Nunavut is usually the first object o f
comparison. Thus, some individuals expressed a kind of jealousy for the language
abilities of many Nunavumiut while they also stressed that the ISR was economically
more advanced, an advantage few were willing to give up. The belief that economic
disadvantage (i.e. geographic isolation) and minority language maintenance go hand in
hand seemed to be an accepted fact for most research partners. Yet, several individuals
reported that when they saw a child from Nunavut speaking fluently in his or her native
Inuktitut tongue on TV, they longed to see the same in the ISR. Other motivations
mentioned for Inuvialuktun revitalization by individuals were that a regional identity
would become visible again; that it would grant Inuvialuit an identity in the south; that it
would strengthen the identity and integrity of the community by providing an inside
language; that curiosity for what elders were saying would be satisfied; and that it would
be easier to follow through with a sense o f responsibility to pass on the language and

120

heritage to one’s own children. All o f these notions can be expanded and build upon by
language planners in their design o f promotional media.
Several individuals also provided constructive suggestions for what they thought
was important to them if they were to learn the language. Among these suggestions was
an Inuvialuktun immersion program akin to what local elementary and high schools were
offering for French. To further raise the profile of Inuvialuktun among youths, and to
increase awareness for and the desire to speak the language, a youth conference was
suggested. A common mention o f discouragement to learn the language was that there
were no peers to communicate with. On the other hand, many individuals said that if
peers already spoke some Inuvialuktun, then they would want to learn it too. Some also
mentioned that if more options for night classes existed, they would be more likely to
attend. Another observation was that having to go to the south for education inhibited
continued language study, especially after high school graduation. If more post secondary
education opportunities were to be offered in Inuvik, the likelihood o f continued
language involvement would be increased. Also, there existed the belief that if
Inuvialuktun learning materials were to make better use of modem technology, perhaps
learning the language would become easier. In either case, many individuals felt that
having a learning partner with whom they could study the language materials together
would greatly influence the level o f their motivation. Following, I would like to offer a
few ideas that are intended to encourage the continued efforts of community-based
language planners, instructors, and activists. These ideas are based on data volunteered
by my research partners during the study:

121

5.3 Some recommendations to language planners
1.

‘Language homes ’ away from

home: It was repeatedly mentioned that

Inuvialuktun was a marker o f Inuvialuit pride and identity, especially when away
from home. Yet, being away from the ISR is also one o f the most challenging
factors in language maintenance. Developing clubs or programs at colleges and
universities most commonly attended by Inuvialuit may reduce the language loss
that occurs during the transition from high school to post secondary education in
the south.
2. Maximizing coming-of-agepotential: Many young adults who are in their 20s and
30s experience a renaissance in their interest for their cultural and linguistic roots.
Programs and materials specifically geared to young parents who are searching
for ways to impart their cultural heritage to their young children represent an
opportunity to introduce concerted language study.
3. Facilitating learning partnerships: A common benefit mentioned in relation to
language acquisition was having a ‘study buddy.’ By setting up peer networks in
each community (online or otherwise) that can be consulted to find like-mined
individuals who can be contacted as study-partners for formal, informal, and
personal Inuvialuktun study, may increase the number and success o f learners.
4. Working towards increased dialectal acceptance48: It was repeatedly mentioned
how individuals had abandoned their efforts o f learning Inuvialuktun as a direct
result of criticism they had received for using the wrong dialect in a given
community. Such experiences may be reduced by propagating an image o f
Inuvialuit unity through diversity, especially among young people. To accomplish
48 In chapter four I point out the role o f dialectal differentiation in elders as a marker o f regional identity.

122

this, a greater acceptance o f all three dialects across the six communities o f the
ISR would be necessary. This could be accomplished in part by displaying
dialectal variation as a welcome indicator of regional belonging.
5. Introducing new sources o f motivation fo r language revitalization: Raise
language awareness in teenagers by hosting innovative language events, such as a
youth language conferences with speakers from other northern minority language
groups in order to facilitate a public exploration o f existing motivations for
language revitalization. For instance, young indigenous language activists from
Fennoscandia or Russia could be invited to share their motivations for learning
and maintaining their ancestral languages. Young Inuvialuit learners would thus
be invited to potentially see their own heritage language in a completely new light.
6. Exploring alternative linguistic domains: The profile o f Inuvialuktun in the eyes
of teenagers and young adults could potentially benefit from an opening up o f
venues for language use that are not directly associated with the historical domain.
By introducing language associations that connect the past with the future,
language domains could be diversified and perceptions of language relevancy
may be increased. An example o f this is the deliberate attempt to deconstruct
stereotypes that continue to exist for the use o f Sami dialects49.
5.4 Conclusion
Knowing that language is not the only means by which cultural identity is
maintained in many Aboriginal contexts across North America (c.f., Kwatchka 1992,
1999; Tulloch 1999; 2004; Nicholas 2010), the question remains whether cultural identity

49 For a good example o f new language domains refer to the work o f Juha Ridanpaa and Annika Pasanen
(2009), summarized in the literature review.

123

can be sustainably reproduced when land and blood ties become increasingly problematic
as well. If a large percentage o f the community were not to consider Inuvialuktun
essential to the maintenance o f cultural identity, then the survival of the language as a
viable mode of day-to-day communication would clearly be in jeopardy. Such an
assessment is often referred to as “prior ideological clarification50” (Grenoble & Whaley
2006:171). However, language could still be used as an auxiliary marker o f cultural
heritage, especially if expressed through the tokenized use o f common words and phrases
that would grant heritage language symbolic meaning (cf. W yman 2009:345). If access to
land-related activities becomes increasingly difficult due to wage labor and stronger ties
with southern culture, then the human-environment relationship is bound to assume
symbolic meaning as well. Finally, if emphasis on ancestry as traced through blood ties
increasingly gives way to multi-cultural heritage resultant from intermarriage, then
Inuvialuit cultural identity is likely going to slide towards a stronger emphasis on ethnic
identity.
In reference to Canadian Inuit at large, linguist Louis-Jacques Dorais suggests the
possibly that with the increasing loss o f the heritage language “more fundamental cultural
identity will [...] grow weaker and weaker for want o f ancestral linguistic support,” as
opposed to ethnic identity, which is retained by “social and political relations a native
group maintains with the majority society” (2010:272). Like Fishman, Dorais points to
the mere symbolic value that ancestral language begins to assume when ethnic identity
starts to take the place of a deeper cultural identity. W hile these observed tendencies ring
true for a good part also in Inuvialuit context, I would like to argue that it is because o f
50 Prior ideological clarification refers to the preliminary research that is ideally conducted in communities
that have undergone language shift in order to establish the extent to which a community would be in favor
o f planned revitalization efforts.

124

the perceived loss o f Inuvialuktun that Inuvialuit continue to stress their relation to the
land. While I cannot make any projections as to the future o f Inuvialuit cultural identity,
the relatively strong ties that are being maintained with the land within the community o f
Inuvik, and even more so in outlying communities, do suggest some stability in current
hybrid identities. Whether the maintenance o f Inuvialuit hybrid identities will be
successful in future generations remains an open question. Further research within the
field o f hybrid identities should examine whether cultural hybridity in the Inuvialuit
context contributes to social and cultural stability, or whether it is merely an intermediary
stage in the larger assimilation to ‘Canadian culture.’

125

Appendixes

Appendix I - Adult Consent Form

CONSENT FORM
Purpose & Goats:
Alexander Oetiiei, a graduate student in imerdSscipSnary studies (Amfiropofagy/Rrst Nations Studies! a t Sie University of
Northern British Columbia, is conducting an interview, a focus group, and/or administering a questionnaire a s part of his
m aster's thesis research entitled inuvialuit Language and kt&ntity: perspectives on m e symbolic moaning of tnwiakiklun in
me Canadian western Arctic.' As a research partitipsnt/co-invesiigatot, l understand dial I w as chosen a s a participant for
this study because I am an trarvialuii beneficiary, and l reaSze that Alexander Oehler wil interview me based on a series of
open-ended questions, a focus group, and/or a questionnaire o s pars of she research project.

Benefits:
The findings of thfe study a te hoped to provide a better understanding of the role of inuvialuktun in the Sves of current and
potential inuvialuktun language (earners. The gathered data is also expected to point out motivational factors encouraging or
discouraging current or potential learners of Inuvialuktun. insights gamed from this study will benefit inuvialuit coirsnumty
language planners and educators (IRC, ICRC, Aurora College! in the preparation of language teaching materials and
inuvialuktun promotion. As partiopant/co-irweotigatcr, I will also receive a $10.00 tTunes gift card upon completion of die
questionnaire, and w a b e entered to a draw for an iPod.

Dissemination of Results:
t understand that the results of this study will be m ade aval?,able to the public to electronic format via a project-related website
located at: inuvlaluklun.unbc.co. Printed summaries of research findings will also be m ad e available a t the Inuvialuit
CuSural Resource Centre. Additionally, Alexander Oehler is planning to hold several public presentations, disseminating
research resuits to die community of inuvik, which will be announced on the project web site.
D ata U se :
l understand that Alexander Oehler wSI use data coBected through my participation in totervsewfs), questionnaire{s), and/or
locus gtcup(o) for th e purpose of his Master's d re s s. Alexander Oehler wtil record and transcribe nil interviews for his u se. H e
will also share the transcripts o! interviews, along with questionnaire data, with the inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC), the
Imuvralurt Cultural Resource Centre (ICRC), Aurora Cdflege, and the Beaufort Delta Education Council (3QEC) for titeir
reference. Alexander Oehler will keep copies of the original sound tiles in a safe location lor a period oi up to one year post
the defense of his thesis^ alter which time all recorcSngs in his possession will b e destroyed permanently. Alexander Oefdst
may u se transcribed research data for academic writing and publication to academ ic journals, bosks, and conference
presentations after die original voice recordings have been destroyed. As a research participant, I understand dial l can
choose to remain anonymous, or be credited in n am e in ail of Alexander Oehleris future purifications end In all da ta shared by
indicating my choice below:

l choose to remain anonymous:___

I choose to be idenSSed by nam e: _

Potential Risk: I reafee that given the small research cample size, and the small size of inuviahiit communities, perfect
anonymity on a community level may not be achievable. Even if I chose to remain anonymous to aS publication and/or sntraorganizaiional d ata sharing, there may remain the risk of direct or todirect association betw een my petson and the d a ta t
provided, allowing the partnering organizations, other project participants,. 01 community m em bers to identify m e. For this
reason perfect confidentiality cannot be guaranteed, which could possibfy lead to the te e of information to a manner
potentially' disadvantageous to me. I also realize that Alexander Oehler cannot take responsiafity for the U3e of the da ta by
IRC, ICRC, Aurora CoBege, or BDEC.

126

I understand and agree that die information I have given to Alexander Oehler in our imerview(s), focus groups(s), and/or
questionnaire^) of the following date(s), MONTH:________ DAY:________ YEAR:_________ will b e treated a s follows:
1. tn the case that r opt to remain anonymous, this consent is given on the understam&ig that Alexander O ehler vvEI
use his best efforts to guarantee that my ideality is protected and my confidentiality maintained, both directly and
incmecity.
2. I participate in this study fresfy and understand that t may terminate my participation in the interview, focus group,
and/or questionnaire a t any point and can withdraw from the research process at any time.
3. tn the c a s e of an interview or focus group, audio and/or video recordings and/or hand written notes wil b e m ade
during our discussion. I can request discontinuation of electronic m eans of recording at any time during our
discussion, or opt against electronic means of recording all together, in which c a s e hand-written notes will b e taken.
4. All nam es will b e removed from data before it is shared with IRC, ICRC, and Aurora College, in c a s e I opted for
anonymity.
5. During the period of data collection (May 1. - December 20., 2011) all recorded data wiS be stored by Alexander
Oehler in a secure location in Ids private residence a t 52 Baotialte Road.
6. I can request a transcript of m y interview by contacting Alexander Oehler by phone: 887-777-3706, via postal mail:
P.O.BOX 2576, inuvik, NT, XQE 0T0, or by email: oehler@ imbc.ca.
7. All parties to the interview, focus group, and&r questionnaire will retain a copy of this agreem ent
8. 1 understand that if I have any comments or concerns f can contact Dr. Bouchard a t (258) 960-5643, or the
Research Ethics Board at UNBC at (250) 960-6735 or by email a t reb@ unbc.ca.

NAME:_________________________________

SIGNED:___________________________

DATE:.

RESEARCHER:

SIGNED:

DATE:

Appendix II - Consent Form for Minors

CONSENT FORM for MINORS (parent/guardian signature required)
P u r p o s e & G o a ls:
Alexander Oehler, a graduate student irt interdisciplinary studies (Anthropology/First Nations Studies) at th e University ot
Northern British Columbia, is conducting an interview, a tocus group, and& r administering a questionnaire a s part ot his
m aster's thesis research entitled Inuvialuit language and Identity: perspectives on the symbolic meaning ot Inuvialuktun ki
the Canadian Western Arctic* As parent or guardian of a potential research participant/co-investigator I understand that the
dependent w as chosen a s a participant for this study because s/he is an Inuvialuit beneficiary, a n d I realize that Alexander
Oehler will interview him/her based on a series ol open-ended questions, a focus group, and/or a questionnaire a s part ot the
research project
B e n e fits:
The findings ol ttris study are hoped to provide a better understanding of the rote of IrvuvSatuktun in the lives of current and
potential Inuvialuktun language learners, T he gathered dam is also expected to point out motivational factors encouraging o r
discouraging currant or potential learners ol InuviaJuksun. Insights gained from this study will benefit inuvialuit community
language planners and educators (IRC, ICRC, Aurora College) in the preparation of language teaching materials and
Inuvialuktun promotion. As participant/co-investigator, the minor will receive a $15.00 (Tunes gift card upon completion of the
questionnaire, and win b e entered in a draw tor an iPod,
D is se m in a tio n o f R e s u lts :
I understand that ihe results of Ihfs study will be made available to the public in electronic format via a project-related website
located at: tnvvletuktun.unbc.ca. Printed summaries of research findings will also b e m ade available at the Inuvialuit
Cultural Resource Centre. Additionally, Alexander Oehler Is planning to hold several public presentations, disseminating
research results fo the community of Inuvtit, which wil b e announced on the project web site.
O a ts U s e :
I understand that Alexander Oehler win use data collected fhrou^i my participation in lnterview(s). questfonnsEfe(s), andtor I understand
that Alexander denser Mil use data collected through my participation tn tnterview(S). quesJionnalre(o). and/or tocus groupfs) tot the pur­
pose ol his Mastefb thesis, Alexander Oehler wtll record and transcribe all interviews for his use. Ha will ateo stars die transcripts of in
ferviewa, along with questionnaire data, with the Inuvialuit Regions! Corporation (IRC), die inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centro (ICRC).
Aurora College, and the Beautart Delta Education Council (BOGC) for their reference, Alexander Oehler wig keep copies of the original
sound files si a safe location for a period of up to rare year paat ihe defense off has thesis, alter which time all recording in his possession
wil! be destroyed permanently, voice files wilt be transcribed either by Mr. Oehler, or by his research assistant Dwayne Dreseher, who has
signed a cdntidentiaHy agreement and will assist in data collection. Alexander Oehler may use transcribed research data for academic
witting end publication tn academic journals, books, and eanforenee presentations after the original voice recordings have been de­
stroyed. As a research participant, I understand that I can choose to remain anonymous, or be credited in name Inall ot Alexander
OsMor'e fixture publications and in ail data shared, by indicating my choice below:

1choose for the participant to
remain anonymous:____

1choose for the participant to
be identified by n am e:___

Potential Risk: I realize that given the small research sample size, and the small s e e of Inuvialuit communities, perfect
anonymity on a community level may not b e achievable. Even » I chose lor the minor in my care to remain anonym ous in alt
publication andfor Intra-organlzational data sharing, liters may remain the risk ot direct o r indirect association betw een the
minor’s person and the data s/he provided, allowing the partnering organizations, other project participants, or community
members to identify her/him. For this reason perfect confidentiality cannot b e guaranteed, which could possibly lead to the
use of Information In a manner potentially disadvantageous to m e minor. I also realize dial Alexander O ehler cannot take
responsibility for the u se of data by IRC, ICRC, Aurora College, or BOEC.

128

I understand and agree (hat infomrason provided By the minor ot my care io Alexander Oehler in their sttervtew(s), toous
groups(s), andfor ques8onnaife(s) ot the following date(s), MONTH:_______ OAY;________ YEAR;________ wiS b e treated
a s follows:
t.

а.
3.

<t.
S.
б.
7.
S.

to the case that I opt tor th e minor ot my care to remain anonymous, this consent is given on the understanding that
Alexander Oehier will u se his best efforts to guarantee that my dependent's identity is protected and her/his
confidentiality maintained, both diectfy an d fndireotly.
The minor of my care participates in this study freely, end I, the guardian, understand that my dependent may
terminate participator to the interview, focus group, and/or questionnaire a t any point and can withdraw from the
research process at arty time.
to the c a s e of an interview or focus group, audio and/or video recordings andfor hand written notes will bo m ade
during the discussion. My dependent can request discontinuation of electronic m eans o t recording a t any time during
the discussion, or opt against electronic m eans o t recording all together, in which c a se handwritten n o te s wilt b e
taken.
Alt nam es will b e removed from date before it is shared with IRC, ICRC, and Aurora College, in c a s e I opted for my
dependent’s anonymity.
During the period ol data coflactlon (June 1 • D ecember 20. 2011) all recorded d a ta will be stored by Alexander
Oehler In a sera/re location In his private residence at 52 Bootlake Road.
I can request a transcrfot andfor sound file of my dependent’s interview by contacting Alexander Oehler by phone:
867-777-3708, viapo3tal mail: P.O.Box 2576, inuvik, NT, XOE 0T0, or by em ai; oehler@unbc.ca.
All parties to toe Interview, focus group, andfor questionnaire will retain a copy of this agreement.
i understand toat if I have any comments or concerns t can contact Dr. Bouchard at (250) 860-5643, or toe
Research Elhics Board at UNBC at (250) 960-6735 or by email at reb@unbc.ca.

NAME OF MINOR;

NAME OF UNDERSIGNED PARENT/GUARDIAN:

RESEARCHER:

SIGNED:__________________________

DATE:

SIGNED:

DATE:

Appendix III - Interview Guide
Inuvialuktun Study - Interview Guide 1.1

1. How would you describe the Inuvialuit way?
2. What are your thoughts on protecting a unique identity?
3. Why is (or isn't) language important in keeping ihe Inuvialuit culture alive?
4. Has the increase o f English changed Inuvialuit culture? (How so, or why not?)
5. Are inuit from Nunavut who speak Inuktitut ‘more' inuit than Inuvialuit who speak only
English? Why or why not?
6. What would change in today’s culture, if every Inuk spoke Inuviatukfun?
7. How would people feel about themselves if they knew the language?
8. How has learning your language changed the way you feel as an Inuk? (Has it?)
9. How do you feel about the changes of the past 60 years?
10. What are your thoughts on national languages?
11. Today English is the language used by most Inuvialuit. Is this a good development?
(Why, or why not?)
12. Some people may not be in support of Inuvialuktun. What kind of opinions have you
heard?
13. Do people look up to Inuvialuktun as a language, or do they look down on it?
(Inuvialuit & southerners)
14. Has your ancestors’ experience in the residential schools influenced your
relationship with Inuvialuktun?
15. What motivates you to learn or teach Inuvialuktun?
16. How do you feel about Inuvialuktun as a language o f the future?
17. Can language study heal us?
18. What are your thoughts on the generational gap?.
19. Do young Inuvialuit have an interest in speaking Inuvialuktun? Why, or why not?
20. Has your own attitude towards Inuvialuktun changed over the years?

130

Appendix IV - General Questionnaire
inuvialuktun Questionnaire
A) T he foBowing 7 q u e stio n s a te c o n ce rn e d with la n g u a g e e x p o su re . P’e a s e a n sw e r either y e s,
o r no:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Yes / No
Y e s/N o
Y e s/N o
Y e s/N o
Y e s/N o
Yes /N o
Y e s/N o

i am currently enrolled in inuvlaJufctun ianpuaqe lessons
i have taken tnuviahiknm lancuage lessons in the past
l have learned (some) inuvialuktun in an informal setting (i.e. outside of school)
Some of my relatives u s e mtmatufcum m the hom e
l am exposed to Inuvialuktun on a daily basis
i know several ceoote who axe fluent in muvtafukmn
i speak/understand other languages besides Enafish and tnuvfahiktun.

B> P le a s e carefully c o n sid e r the following c h arac te ristic s in relation to Inuvialuktun. After e a c h
characteristic, s e le c t th e a n sw e r th a t is c lo s e s t to your opinion. W ould you s a y y o u agree a lot,
a g re e a little, a re neutral, d is a g re e a little, or d is a g re e a lot? T h e n d o th e s a m e for English: <1 =
A gree a lot, 2 = Agree, 3 = N eutral, 4 = D isag ree a Safe, 5 = D isa g re e a lot)

inuvialuktun is:
1

2

English is:
3

4

1

S

2

3

4

S

M u sical
P o etic
B eautiful
Funny
E a sy
In te re stin g
C olorful
P o p u la r
M odern
Q uick
U seful
Im p o rtan t
S cien tific
Alive
S tro n g
R ich
F rien d ly
W arm
N atural
C lo se

M usical
P o etic
Beautiful
Funny
E a sy
In te restin g
Colorful
P o p u la r
M o d em
Quick
Useful
im p o rtan t
S cientific
Alive
S tro n g
R ich
F riendly
Warm
N atural
C lo se

C> Kow would you rate your m usical p re fe re n c e s if Inuvialuktun lyrics w ere availab le for the
foBowing g e n re s ? P le a s e indicate your p re fe re n c e on a s c a le o f 1 to 5. ( t = Like a lot, 2 = U ke, 3
= N eutral, 4 = Like a little, 5 = D o n ot tike)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

1 2 3
! 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

Traditional tmiviaftm song
Pop
R&E&SouJ
Rock
Kip-Hop/Rao
Folk
Country
Metal
Smqer/Sonpwrtter
Electronic/Dance

CONTINUED O N NEXT PA G E

131

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

2

inuvialuktun Questionnaire

D) P le a s e carefully think a b o u t th e foDowing s ta te m e n ts . Aftet e a c h s ta te m e n t, s e le c t the a n sw e r
th at is c lo se st to youi opinion. W ould y ou s a y you a g re e a tot with th e s ta te m e n t, a g te e a little,
are neutral, d isa g re e a little, or d is a g re e a lot? (1 = A gree a lot, 2 = A gree, 3 = N eutral, 4 =
D isagree a little, 5 = D isag ree a lot)
t
2
3
4
5
e
7
a
9
10
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
30

I like to h ear [nuviatuksun
Inuvialuktun is central to cur culture
It is too late to revive tmrvialukiun
English works fine a s the only language in the ISa
It is difficult to team inuvialuktun
Public administration should u se muvtahrkam
Knowing inuvialuktun gives ysu a better chance in firafing a lob
l would like to spend part of my free tune learning tmmafuknm
inuvialuktun should become a commonly used second language in the (SR
l have a resocnsiiBtv toward mv ancestors to learn Enuvtalukrun
Schools should teach more practical subjects than inuvialuktun
To maintain tnuvialuktun m eans to look backward more than forward
in the S R Inuvialuktun should be d ie primary language
Everyone should decide for herfhrmself whether to learn muviafuScttm or not
Southerners should learn inuvialuktun if they wan: to work here
In future generations Inuvialuktun will becom e suonger in the tSR
To b e a good Inurvialuk, I should understand and speak Inuvialuktun
Euro-CanarSans took up to muvrafuktun
inuvialuktun should be a mandatory subject in our schools
There should be more radio and TV programming available in tmrvialukam
On-the-land is the best place to team and speak tnuvialuktun
inuvialuktun can be used to express modem life
Gwiichln have high respect for tnuvtaiuktun
Inuvialuktun can only express die life ways of our ancestors
Revitalizing inuvialuktun is an urgsn! concern for Inuvialuit leaders
There are inuvialuit cultural concepts that can only be expressed si inuvialuktun
in town Ss a good place to learn and speak Imrvrafukrtrrr
Inuvialuktun is deeply connected to a traditional life style
Stories of our elders are fust a s beautiful when shsv are told in Ertaksh
English and tnuvialuktun are equally capable languages
Inuvialuktun is a very important elem ent of inuvialuit identity
inuvialuktun h as a good image in the ISR
inuvialuit identity is defined by a particular life style
Learning and speaking muvsafuktim distances m e horn maBistream cufine
Each inuvialuktun variant {cfiafsctl must be kept alive in its ov/n right
It: makes practical s e is e to revive inuvialuktun now
Knowing English h as always been economically beneficial for our people
it is necessary to have many speakers of a language to keep it alrve
OT It wordd make sen se to bring Inuvialuktun closer to Eastern Arctic Inuktitut
40 Our economy would benefit if teaming inuvialuktun w ere required for employment
41 For a successful revitalization, inuvialuktun must becom e more standardized
4 2 Serious tnuvtafuknm (earners belong to a special in-group'
4 3 1feel mvself to be an inuvialrdt
44 Traditional obfecss should keep their tnuvialuktun nam es
45 To be an Biuvialuk, it is important to Bve in the ISR
46 It is impoitanl that traditional foods keep their inuvsafukSun nam es
47 P eers look up to those who have more knowledge of Inuvialuktun
48 l feel myself to be a Canadian, regardless of citizenship
49 1am more respected by mv community if l know som e inuvialuktun
50 My peers an d 1can be competitive over who knows the most inuvialuktun

CONTINUED ON NEXT PA G E

132

1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
b
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
b
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

3

Inuvialuktun Questionnaire
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
53
59
60

To have a life partner of the sam e ancestralfcuttural background is important
it is sufficient for modern inuvialuit identity to know a few words in irtuvraluktun
It is important to have a given nam e tnuviaiuktun
It is important to know that we have three distinct language variants
To b e a true tnuvsaluk, it i3 important to speak and understand tnuvialuktun
Our language mav have changed, but our cultural vatues remain the sam e
You should know which language variety (dialect) ycur ancestors belonged to
AD three inuvialuktun varieties (dialects) are eaualtv important
1 identify closely 'with the language group and variety of my ancestors
l would like to give my children Inuvialuktun names

1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5

E) In your opinion, w hich o f the foDowing la n g u a g e s, s p o k e n in th e north, is th e m o s t prestigious?
Kalaalisui (Greenland)
inupiaq (Alaska)
muktitut (Nunavut)
Sami (Scanriinaviafftussia)
Icelandic (Iceland)
No opinion
E1) If you c h o s e a la n g u a g e, w hat d o you a s s o c ia te w ith that la n g u a g e ? P rovide s o m e keyw ords:

F)

In your opinion, w hich o f th e following Inuvialuit va rie tie s (or d ia le cts) is the m o s t prestigious?
Siglitun (Tuksoyaktuk, Sachs Hatbour, Paulatuk)
Uummamtajtun (AkSavikflnuvft)
Kangiryuarmiuturt (Ufukhaktck)
No opinion

F1) II you c h o s e a v arian t (or d ie te d ) w h a t d o you a s s o c ia te with it? Provide s o m e keywords:

G)

W h at three g e n re s w ould you b e s t tflce to listen to in Inuvialuktun?
Traditinal inuvialuktun songs
Hip-Nop/Rap
Metal
Pop
Rock
Folk
SectronicfDance
Country
R&B/Soul
Singer/Songwriter

END O F G EN ERA L QUESTIONNAIRE
T h a n k y o u fo r y o u r p a rtic ip a tio n a n d d o n ’t fo r g e t y o u r R u n e s C ard !

133

Appendix V - Questionnaire for Current Learners
Inuvialuktun Questionnaire - Current Learner Supplement
H) T h e following q u estio n s a re in ten d ed for individuals w ho a re currem fy participating in
Inuvialuktun la n g u a g e le s s e n s . P le a s e carefully think a b o u t th e following s ta te m e n ts . After e a c h
sta te m e n t, s e le c t th e a n sw e r th a t is c lo s e s t to your opinion. W ould you s a y y o u a g re e a lot with
th e statem e n t, a g re e a tittle, a re neutral, d is a g re e a little, or d is a g re e a lot? (1 = Agree a tot, 2 =
A g ree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = D isag ree a little, 5 = D is a g re e a tot)
1
2
3
4
S
S
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

1loirted inuvaluktun classes because 1 heard good things about th e instructor
My grandparents would Eke me to speak Inuvialuktun with them
1 study inuvialuktun b ecau se I eniov the intellectual challenge
My grandparents expect me to m ake an effort to team inuvialuktun
Khowtedoe of Inuvialuktun increases mv sen se of belonging to the community
As l am learning inuvialuktun, I am becoming a stronger tnuvialuk
Since 1have begun to learn inuvialuktun. my view of the language h a s charmed
Taking Inuvsaluktun classes increases the value of mv education
l am learning inuvialuktun because rt will help me team other languages
1want to u se tnuvialuktun to communicate with friends
Studying tnuvraluktun is my personal choice
Learning tnuvialuktun helps me farm a personal identity
l am pieparing for the future by studying inuvialuktun
l am somewhat fearful of speaking tnuvrakrktun rn public
1 want to please my relatives by learning tnuvialuktun
My parents encouraged me to attend inuvialuktun classes
1like to u se tnuvialuktun a s a secret language
For me, studying tnuvialuktun is a way to show that I am proud of my heritage
l would rather learn Inuvialuktun than a foreign language
l fear that elders nfittiit criticize my Inuvialuktun when they hear it
l have always wanted to know what the elders are talking about in muviatuttun
F e a sts and gatherings are good spportunities to practice tnuvfeluktun
l would feel pride if mv peers overheard me speaking in fnuvratuksun
Som e of nw peers hold inuviaiuktun in tow esteem
l g e t a feeling of happiness from studying muvialuktun
It feels awkward to speak inuvialuktun in a place where the majority speak English
l am too shy to speak inuvialuktun when fluent tmrvtaJutam speakers are around
inuvialuktun corateca m e to tire land
l often use Drmvialukfun outside of class with peers who also attend class
Som e of mv peers cWcule m e to t attending touviatufctun classes
Sometimes 1Mttme myself for not making u se of public practicing opportunities

1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

t) In th e following list, s e le c t th e three b e s t re a s o n s for studying fnuvtafuktun in your opinion:
it improves the value of my education
it prepares m e for the future language situation in the ISR
it s a welcome intellectual challenge
it enables me to learn other tar^uages more easily
it strengthens my muviaiust identity
it allows me to participate in fun activities (travel, cam ps, etc.)
J ) For m e, three of th e b e s t Inuvialuktun la n g u a g e learning re s o u rc e s w ould b e :
More books and magazines
Computer gam es
Qn-tlse-laraf trips and activities
On-line interactive tutorial
Self-made YouTube 'videos
Audio books
Radio programming wiflr a ycung person an hour before bingo

T h a n k y o u fo r y o u r p a rtic ip a tio n a n d d o n ’t f o r g e t y o u r iT u n e s C ard !

134

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
b
5
5
5
5
5
5

Appendix X - NWT Research License
Licence Mo. 1 4 9 5 6
Fite Mo. 1 2 4 1 0 8 9 7
A u g u s t0 3 ,2 0 1 1

2011
Northwest Territories Scientific Research Licence
Issued by:

A u ro ra R e s e a r c h In s titu te - A u ro ra C o lle g e
inuvik, N o rthw est Territories

Issued to:

Mr. A lexander C. O ehler
U niversity o f N orthern S rife h C olum bia
P.O .B ox 2 5 7 6 / 5 2 B oofiake R d.
Inuvik, NT
X0E OTO C a n a d a
F ta n e : (8 6 7 )7 7 7 -3 7 0 6
Fax: (250) 960-5545
Snnai: oehJer©usr<hc.ca

Affiliation:

U niversity o f N orthern Sritiah C olum bia

Funding:

University o f N orthern B dtfeh C olum bia (UNBC) P o s tg ra d u a te R ese a rc h A w ards
Social S c ie n c e s a n d H um anities R e s e a r c h C o u n c i o l C a n a d a (SSH RC ) v ia U NBC

Team Members:
W e:

In u v ia lu it l a n g u a g e a n d id e n tity : p e r s p e c tiv e s o n t h e sy m b o lic m e a n in g o f
In u v ia lu k tu n in t h e C a n a d ia n W e s te rn A rc tic

Objectives:

To b e tte r u n d e rs ta n d th e rote of bsuvialuktun (an d its revitalization e fforts) in d ie
construction of Inuvialuit cultural identity.

Dates of data coSectkm:

A ugust 4, 2911 to D ecem ber 2 0 .2 0 1 1

Location:

Inuvik

lic e n c e No.14858 ex p ires o n D ecem b er 3 1 .2 0 1 1
Issu e d e i She Tow n o f h u v ft. o n A u g u st0 3 .2 0 1 1

* o rig in a l s ig n e d *
P jp p a Secoomfoe-Hett,
Director. A urora R e se a rc h Institute

139

Table 1 - List o f Co-researchers

Research Partner Demographic - Interview/Questionnaire Breakdown
6-15 (Z)
16-19 (A)
20-39 (B)
40-59 (C)
Current learners (CL)
Potential learners (PL)

INTERVIEWS
4
4
23
9
12
26

QUESTIONNAIRES
0
1
7
2
2
7

Language specialists (LS)
Female (F)
Male (M)

2
25
15

1
9
1

Aurora College (AC)
Learning center (LC)
Samuel Hearne (SH)
Community (X)
Total

24
2
4
9
20 (+4)* (+2)* (+2)* (+12)*

3
7
0
0
5 (+5)

‘ There were 4 group interviews: a) 4-B(PL)M(X); b) 11-B+1-A(PL)F(AC); c) 2-Z(CL)M/F(SH); d) 2A/B(PL)M(X). Total co-researchers: 45.

Abbreviations:
ILAI = Inuvialuit Language & Identity Z = 6-15 / A = 16-19 / B = 20-39 / C = 40-59 / (C L ) =
current learner / (P L ) = potential learner (L S ) = language specialist / N A M E / F/M = sex / (A C ) =
Aurora College Campus / (LC ) = Learning Centre / (S H ) = Samuel Hearne Secondary School /
(X) = other_____________________________________________________________

140

Bibliography
American Anthropological Association
1998

Code of Ethics o f the American Anthropological Association. Retrieved

from: http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethicscode.pdf
Acton, Thomas A. and Gary Mundy
2002

Romani Culture and Gypsy Identity. Hatfield: University o f Hertfordshire

Press.
Association o f Canadian Universities for Northern Studies
2003

Ethical Principles for the Conduct o f Research in the North. Ottawa:

ACUNS.
Akerstrom, Malin, Katarina Jacobsson, David Wasterfors
2007

Reanalysis of Previously Collected Material. In Qualitative Research

Practice. Clive Seale, Giampietro Gobo, Jaber F Gubrium, David Silverman, eds.
Pp. 314-327. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Antonucei, Toni C., Katherine L. Fiori, Kira Birditt, and Lisa M.H. Jackey
2010

Convoys o f Social Relations: Integrating Life-span and Life-course

Perspectives. In The handbook o f Life-span Development, Social and Emotional
Development. Richard M. Lemer, Michel E. Lamb, Alexandra M. Freund, eds. Pp.
434-473. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Aurora
2006

Strong Foundations - New Horizons: Continuity and Change at Aurora

College 2006-2015. Yellowknife: Aurora College.
Azzouni, Safia
2010

How Wilhelm Dilthey Influenced Popular Science Writing: Kurd

Lasswitz's "Homchen: Ein Tiermarchen aus der oberen Kreide". In Historical
Perspectives on Erklaren and Verstehen. Uljana Feest, ed. Pp. 61-80. New York:
Springer.
Bakhtin, Mikhail
1981

Discourse in the Novel. In The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. M.

Holquist, ed. Pp. 259-422. Austin: University o f Texas Press.
Bandringa, Robert W and Inuvialuit Elders

141

2010

Inuvialuit Nautchiangit: Relationships Between People and Plants. Inuvik:

Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre.
Barth, Fredrik
1969

Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social

Organization of Culture Difference. F. Barth, ed. Pp. 9-38. Bergen:
Universitetsforlaget.
Baugh, Kenneth Jr.
2006

The Methodology o f Herbert Blumer. New York: Cambridge University

Press.
Baumann, Richard and Charles L. Briggs
2003

Voices of Modernity: Language Ideologies and the Politics o f Inequality.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bernard, Russell H.
2006

Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. Oxford: AltaMira Press.
Blumer, Herbert
1937

Social Psychology. In Man and Society: A Substantive Introduction to the

Social Sciences. E.P. Schmidt, ed. New York: Prentice Hall.

1969

Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives and Methods. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1990

The Logic o f Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

1991

Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

1998

Practical Reason: On Theory o f Action. Stanford: Stanford University

Press.

142

Bowers, Jeffrey S., Sven L. Mattys, and Suzanne H. Gage
2009

Preserved Implicit Knowledge o f a Forgotten Childhood Language.

Psychological Science 20(9): 1064-1069.
Brenzinger, Matthias, ed.
1992

Language Death: Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special

Reference to East Africa. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Brown, Bern Will
1996

The Aklavik Journal: A Reprint o f the Community Newspapers o f Aklavik

North West Territories 1955-57. Colville Lake: Self Published.
Bureau of Statistics, Government o f Northwest Territories
2011

Inuvik - Statistical Profile. Bureau o f Statistics. Yellowknife: Government

of Northwest Territories.
Burke, Kenneth
1969

A Rhethoric of Motives. Berkeley: University o f California Press.

Cajete, Gregory
2004

Philosophy o f Native Science. In American Indian Thought: Philosophical

Essays. A. Waters, ed. Pp. 45-57. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Clifford, James
1986

Introduction: Partial Truths. In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics

of Ethnography. James Clifford, George E. Marcus, eds. Berkeley: University o f
California Press.
Condon, Richard G. with Julia Ogina and the Holman Elders
1996

The Northern Copper Inuit Toronto: University o f Toronto Press.

Creese, Angela and Adrian Blackledge
2010

Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning

and Teaching? The Modem Language Journal 94(1): 103-115.
Crystal, David
2000

Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DAAIR
2008

Inuvialuit Land Claim. Department o f Aboriginal Affairs and

Intergovernmental Relations. Yellowknife: Government o f Northwest Territories.

143

Retrieved from:
http://www.daair.gov.nt.ca/_live/pages/wpPages/InuvaluitLandClaim.aspx
Dalby, Andrew
2003

Language in Danger: The Loss o f Linguistic Diversity and the Threat to

Our Future. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dauenhauer, Nora & Richard Dauenhauer (Eds.)
1994

Haa kdusteeyi, Our Culture: Tlingit Life Stories. Juneau: Sealaska

Heritage
Foundation.
National Defense
2011

Canadian Rangers. National Defense. Ottawa: Government o f Canada.

Retrieved from: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/cr-rc/index-eng.asp
Delamont, Sara
2007

Field Relations In Qualitative Research Practice. Clive Seale, Giampietro

Gobo, Jaber F Gubrium, David Silverman, eds. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Dorais, L.-J.
1995

Language, Culture and Identity: Some Inuit Examples. The Canadian

Journal o f Native Studies 15(2): 199-207.

1997

Quaqtaq: Modernity and Identity in an Inuit Community. Toronto:

University o f Toronto Press.

2010

The Language o f the Inuit: Syntax, Semantics, and Society in the Arctic.

Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Dorais, L.-J. and I. Krupnik
2005

Preserving Languages and Knowledge o f the North/La preservation des

langues et des savoirs duN ord. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 29(1-2 ): 17-60.
Domyei, Zoltan
2009

The L2 Motivational Self System In Motivation, Language Identity, and

the L2 Self In Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Zoltan Domyei and
EmaUshioda, eds. Pp. 9-42. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

144

Duff, A. Patricia and Duanduan Li
2009

Indigenous, Minority, and Heritage Language Education in Canada:

Policies, Contexts, and Issues. The Canadian Modem Language Review 66(1): 1-8.
Department o f Education Culture and Employment
2005

Building on Our Success: Strategic Plan 2005-2015. Department o f

Education, Culture and Employment. Yellowknife: Government o f Northwest
Territories.
Edwards, John
2009

Language and Identity. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.

Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw
1995

Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Erikson, Erik H.
1968

Identity, Youth and Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.

Fabiola Baltar, Ignasi Brunet
2012

Social Research 2.0: Virtual Snowball Sampling Method Using Facebook.

Internet Research 22(l):57-74.
First Nations Centre
2007

OCAP: Ownership, Control, Access and Possession. Sanctioned by the

First Nations Information Governance Committee, Assembly of First Nations.
Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health Organization; and Kahnawake Schools
Diabetes Prevention Project Code o f Research Ethics. Kahnawake, Quebec.
Fishman, Joshua, A.
1991

Reversing language shift Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Freire, Paulo
2010

Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum International

Publishing Group Inc.
Fromkin, Victoria, Robert Rodman, Neil Hultin, Harry Logan
2001

An Introduction to Language. Scarborough: Nelson.

Fumiss, Elizabeth
1995

Victims o f Benevolence: The Dark Legacy o f the Williams Lake

Residential School Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press.

145

Garcia, Ofelia
2009

Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden:

Wiley-Blackwell.
Gergen, Kenneth J.
1982

Toward Transformtion in Social Knowledge. New York: Springer Verlag.

Gibson, William
2010

The Group Ethnic in the Improvising Jazz Ensamble: A Symbolic

Interactionist Analysis of Music, Identity, and Social Context. In Studies in
Symbolic Interaction. Christopher J. Schneider, Robert Owen Gardner, John
Bryce Merrill, Dong Han, eds. Pp. 11-28. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Gionet, Linda
2008

Inuit in Canada: Selected Findings of the 2006 Census. Statistics Canada.

Ottawa: Government o f Canada.
Gobo, Giampietro
2007

Sampling, Representativeness and Generalizability In Qualitative

Research Practice. Clive Seale, Giampietro Gobo, Jaber F Gubrium, David
Silverman, eds. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Grenoble, Leonore A. and Lindsay Whaley
2006

Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. New

York: Cambridge University Press.
Haig-Brown, Celia
1998

Resistance and Renewal: Surviving the Indian Residential School.

Vancouver: Arsenal Printing.
Hale, Ken
1998

On Endangered Languages and the Importance o f Linguistic Diversity. In

Endangered Languages: Language Loss and Community Response. Lenore A.
Grenoble and Lindsay J Whaley, eds. Pp. 192-216 Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Harmon, David
2002

In Light of Our Differences: How Diversity in Nature and Culture Makes

146

Us Human. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Harrison, David
2007

When the World's Languages Die: The Extinction o f the World's

Languages and the Erosion o f Human Knowledge. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Heart, Elisa J.
2011

Nuna Aliannaittuq - Beautiful Land: Learning About Traditional Place

Names and the Land from Tuktoyaktuk Elders. Inuvik: Inuvialuit Cultural
Resource Centre and the Prince o f Wales Northern Heritage Centre.
Herder, Johann Gottfried.
1883 Herders Saemtliche Werke. Bernard Suphan, ed. 33 vols. Berlin:
Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Hinton, Leanne and Ken Hale, eds.
2001

The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. San Diego:

Academic Press.
Homberger, Nancy H.
1998

Language Policy, Language Education, and Language Rights: Indigenous,

Immigrant, and International Perspectives. Language in Society 27(4):439-458.

2006

Voice and Biliteracy in Indigenous Language Revitalization: Contentious

Educational Practices in Quechua, Guarani, and Maori Contexts. Language,
Identity and Education 5(4):277-292.
Hughes, E. C.
1993

The Sociological Eye: Selected Papers. New Brunswick: Transaction

Publishers.
Huss, Leena and Anna-Riitta Lindgren
2010

Scandinavia In Handbook o f Language and Ethnic Identity: Disciplinary

and Regional Perspectives. Joshua A. Fishman, Ofelia Garcia, eds. Pp. 255-268.
New York Oxford University Press.

147

IF A
1987

The Western Arctic Claim: Inuvialuit Final Agreement, As Amended.

Communications Department. Inuvik: Inuvialuit Regional Corporation.
IRC
2007

Modem Inuvialuit Culture. Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. Inuvik:

Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. Retrieved from:
http://www.ire.inuvialuit.com/culture/modem.html

2009b 2011 Distribution o f Payments. Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. Inuvik:
Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. Retrieved from:
http://www.irc.inuvialuit.com/beneficiaries/payments.html

2010

Inuvialuit Final Agreement: Celebrating 25 Years. Inuvialuit Regional

Corporation. Inuvik: Inuvialuit Regional Corporation.
ITK
2012

Maps of Inuit Nunangat (Inuit Regions o f Canada). Inuit Tapirit Kanatami.

Ottawa: Inuit Tapirit Kanatami. Retrieved from:
http://www.itk.ca/publication/maps-inuit-nunangat-inuit-regions-canada
ITK/NRI
2007

Negotiating Research Relationships with Inuit Communities. Ottawa and

Iqaluit: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Nunavut Research Institute.
Jaspers, Jurgen
2010

Introduction: Society and Language Use. In Society and Language Use.

Jurgen Jaspers, Jan-Ola Ostman, Jef Verschueren, eds. Pp. 1-20. Handbook o f
Pragmatics Highlights, Vol. 7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Johns, A.
2002

Rigolet Inuktitut: On the Brink. 13th Inuit Studies Conference, Anchorage,

2002 .

Kaplan, Lawrence
2001

Inupiaq Identity and Inupiaq Language: Does One Entail the Other?

Etudes Inuit 25(l-2):249-257.

148

Kim, Tae-Young
2009

The Sociocultural Interface Between Ideal Self and Ought-to Self: A Case

Study of Two Korean Students’ ESL M otivation In Motivation, Language,
Identity and the L2 Self. Zoltan Domyei and Ema Ushioda, eds. Pp. 274-294.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
King, David Paul
1999

The History o f the Federal Residential Schools for the Inuit Located in

Chesterfield Inlet, Yellowknife, Inuvik and Churchill, 1955-1970, Canadian
Heritage and Development Studies, Trent University.
King, Janette
2009

Language is Life: The Worldview o f Second Language Speakers o f Maori.

In Indigenous Language Revitalization Encouragement, Guidance & Lessons
Learned. Jon Allan Reyhner, Louise Lockard, eds. Pp. 97-108. Flagstaff:
University o f Northern Arizona.
King, Nigel and Christine Horrocks
2010

Interviews in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kit-fong Au, Terry, Janet S. Oh, Leah M. Knightly, Sun-Ah Jun, and Laura F. Romo
2008

Salvaging a Childhood Language. Journal of Memory and Language

58(4):998-1011.
Kolausok, Eddie D.
2003a Boom, Bust and Balance: Life Since 1950 In Across Time and Tundra.
Ishmael Alunik, Eddie D. Kolausok and David Morrison, eds. Vancouver:
Raincoast Books.

2003b The survival o f a culture. In Across time and tundra. Ishmael Alunik,
Eddie D. Kolausok and David Morrison, eds. Vancouver: Raincoast Books.
Krauss, Michael E.
1992

The World's Languages in Crisis. Language 68(1):4-10.

Rroskrity, Paul V.
2010

Language Ideologies - Evolving Perspectives In Society and Language

Use. Jurgen Jaspers, Jan-Ola Ostman, Jef Verschueren, eds. Pp. 192-211.

149

Handbook o f Pragmatics Highlights, Vol. 7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Kwachka, Patricia
1992

Discourse Structures, Cultural Stability, and Language Shift. International

Journal of the Sociology o f Language 93:67-74.
Kwatchka, Patricia
1999

Language Shift and Local Choice: On Practicing Linguistics in the 21st

Century. Practicing Anthropology 21(2):23-27.
Lee, Tiffany. S.
2009

Language, Identity, and Power: Navajo and Pueblo Young Adults'

Perspectives and Experiences with Competing Language Ideologies. Journal o f
Language Identity Education 8(5):307-320.
Lewis, M. Paul (ed.)
2009

Gwitch'in: A Language o f Canada. In Ethnologue: Languages o f the

World. Dallas: SIL International.
Lippi-Green, R.
1994

Accent, Standard Language Ideology, and Discriminatory Pretext in the

Courts. Language and Society 23(2): 163-198.
Lyons, Natasha
2010

The Wisdom o f Elders: Inuvialuit Social Memories of Continuity and

Change in the Twentieth Century. Arctic Anthropology 47(l):22-38.
Maclsaac, Daniel
2000

The Delta in Print. Inuvik Drum, February 18, 2000.

Mackey, Eva
2002

The House o f Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in

Canada. Toronto: University o f Toronto Press.
Macnaghten, Phil and Greg Myers
2007

Focus Groups In Qualitative Research Pratice. Clive Seale, Giampietro

Gobo, Jaber F Gubrium, David Silverman, eds. Thousand Oaks Sage Publications
Ltd.
Maffi, Luisa, (ed.)

150

2001

On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the

Environment. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Marcus, George E.
1986

Afterword: Ethnographic Writing and Anthropological Careers. In Writing

Culture: the Poetics and Politics o f Ethnography. Berkeley: University o f
California Press.
May, Stephen
2005

Language Rights: Moving the Debate Forward. Journal o f Sociolinguistics

9(3):319-347.

2010

Aotearoa/New Zealand. In Handbook o f Language and Ethnic Identity:

Disciplinary and Regional Perspectives. Joshua A. Fishman, Ofelia Garcia, eds.
Pp. 501-518. New York: Oxford University Press.
McCarty, Teresa L. and Ofelia Zepeda
2010

Native Americans In Handbook o f Language and Ethnic Identity:

Disciplinary and Regional Perspectives. Joshua A. Fishman, Ofelia Garcia, eds.
Pp. 323-339. New York: Oxford University Press.
McCarty, Teresa L., Mary Eunice, Warhol, Larisa and Zepeda, Ofelia
2009

Indigenous Youth as Language Policy Makers. Journal of Language,

Identity, and Education 8(5):91-306.
McGhee, Robert
1974

Beluga Hunters: An Archaeological Reconstruction of the Mackenzie

Delta Kittegaryumiut. Memorial University o f Newfoundland.
Meek, Barbara
2010

We Are Our Language: An Ethnography of Language Revitalization in a

Northern Athabascan Community. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Metayer, Maurice (ed.)
1966

I, Nuligak: The Autobiography o f a Canadian Eskimo. Richmond Hill:

Peter Martin.
Miller, James Roger
1996

Shingwauk’s Vision: A History o f Native Residential Schools Toronto:

151

University o f Toronto Press.
Milloy, John Sheridan
1999

A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School

System, 1879-1986. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Morrison, David
2003a Ingilraqpaaluk (A Very Long Time Ago). In Across Time and Tundra.
Ishmael Alunik, Eddie D. Kolausok and David Morrison, eds. Vancouver:
Raincoast Books.

2003b The Arrival o f Strangers, 1789-1889. In Across Time and Tundra. Ishmael
Alunik, Eddie D. Kolausok and David Morrison, eds. Vancouver: Raincoast
Books.

2003c The Winds of Change Blow Hard: The Whaling Era, 1890-1910. In
Across Time and Tundra. Ishmael Alunik, Eddie D. Kolausok and David
Morrison, eds. Vancouver: Raincoast Books.
Morrison, David and Eddie D. Kolausok
2003

Trappers, Traders and Herders, 1906-. In Across Time and Tundra.

Ishmael Alunik, Eddie D. Kolausok and David Morrison, eds. Vancouver:
Raincoast Books.
Nettle, Daniel and Suzanne Romaine
2000

Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World's Languages. New York:

Oxford.
Northern Games Society (NGS)
2009

Northern Games Society: History and Philosophy. Inuvik: Northern

Games Society. Retrieved from: http://www.northemgames.org/history/
Nicholas, Sheila E.
2010

Language, Epistemology, and Cultural Identity: "Hopiqatsit Aw

Unangvakiwyungwa" ("They Have Their Heart in the Hopi Way o f Life").
American Indian Culture Research Journal 34(2): 125-44.
Noonan, Harold W.

152

2003

Personal Identity. London: Routledge.

Norris, M.J.
2007

Aboriginal Languages in Canada: Emerging Trends and Perspectives on

Second Language Acquisition in Canadian Social Trends. Ottawa: Statistics
Canada.
Northwest Territories Aboriginal Languages Plan (NWTALP)
2010

Northwest Territories Aboriginal Languages Plan: A Shared

Responsibility. Education, Culture and Employment. Yellowknife: Government
o f the Northwest Territories.
Oh, Janet S., Terry Kit-Fong Au, and Sun-Ah Jun
2010

Early Childhood Language Memory in the Speech Perception o f

International Adoptees. Journal o f Child Language 37(5): 1123-1132.
Official Languages Act
1988

Official Languages Act. Education, Culture and Employment.

Yellowknife: Government o f Northwest Territories
Ong, Aihwa
2003

Buddha is Hiding: Refugees, Citizenship, the New America. Los Angeles:

University o f California Press.
Ortner, S. B.
1984

Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society

and History 26:126-166.
Osgood, Lawrence
1983

Foreword. In Kangiryuarmiut uqauhingita numiktittitdjutingit: Basic

Kangiryuarmiut Eskimo Dictionary. R. Lowe, ed. Inuvik: Committee for Original
Peoples Entitlement (COPE).

1985a Foreword. In Sight Inuvialuit Uqausiita Ilisarviksait: Basic Siglit
Inuvialuit Eskimo Grammar. R. Lowe, ed. Inuvik: Committee for Original
Peoples Entitlement (COPE).
Patrick, D.
2004

The Politics of Language Rights in the Eastern Canadian Arctic In

153

Language Rights and Language Survival: Sociocultural and Sociolinguistic
Perspectives. J.F.a.D. Patrick, ed. Pp. 171-190. Manchester: St. Jerome Press.

2006

English and the Construction o f Aboriginal Identities in the Eastern

Canadian Arctic. In English and Ethnicity. Jane Freeland and Donna Patrick, eds.
Pp. 167-190. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Press.

2010

Language Dominance and Minorization. In Society and Language Use.

Jurgen Jaspers, Jan-Ola Ostman, Jef Verschueren, eds. Handbook o f Pragmatics
Highlights, Vol. 7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Patrick, D. and P. Shearwood
1999

The Roots of Inuktitut-Language Bilingual Education. The Canadian

Journal of Native Studies 19(2):249-261.
Pauktuutit
2005

Sivumuapallianiq: Journey Forward. Ottawa: Pauktuutit Inuit W omen o f

Canada.
Poppel, Birger and Jack Kruse
2009 The Importance o f a Mixed Cash- and Harvest Herding Based Economy to
Living in the Arctic - An Analysis on the Survey o f Living Conditions in the
Arctic (SLiCA). Quality o f Life and the Millennium Challenge: Social Indicators
Research Series 35(l):27-42.
Ridanpaa, Juha and Annika Pasanen
2009

From the Bronx to the Wilderness: Inari-Sami Rap, Language

Revitalisation and Contested Ethnic Stereotypes. Studies in Ethnicity and
Nationalism 9(2):213-230.
Robins, Robert Henry and E. M. Uhlenbeck
1991

Endangered Languages. New York: Berg.

Romaine, Suzanne
2008

Linguistic Diversity, Sustainability, and the Future o f the Past. In

Sustaining Linguistic Diversity: Endangered and Minority Languages and
Language Varieties. Kendall A. King, Natalie Schilling-Estes, Lyn Fogle, Jia

154

Jackie Lou, and Barbara Soukup, eds. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Russell, Caskey
2002

Language, Violence, and Indian Mis-education. American Indian Culture

and Research Journal 26(4):97-l 12.
Satava, Leos
2005

Sprachverhalten und Ethnische Identitat [Linguistic Behavior and Ethnic

Identity]. Volume 39. Bauzen: Domowina-Verlag.
Schiffman, Harold F.
2010

South and Southeast Asia. In Handbook o f Language and Ethnic Identity:

Disciplinary and Regional Perspectives. Joshua A. Fishman, Ofelia Garcia, eds.
Pp. 452-469. New York: Oxford University Press.
Scott, James C.
1985

Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms o f Peasant Resistance. New

Heaven: Yale University Press.
Searles, Edmund (Ned)
2006

Anthropology in an Era o f Inuit Empowerment. In Critical Inuit Studies.

Pamela Stem, Lisa Stevenson, eds. Pp. 89-104. Lincoln: Nebraska University
Press.
Shaffir, W. and Pawluch, D.
2003

Occupations and Professionals. In Handbook o f Symbolic Interactionism.

L. T. Reynolds and N. J. Herman-Kinney, eds. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Shearwood, P.
2001

Inuit Identity and Literacy in a Nunavut Community. Etudes/Inuit/Studies

25(1-2).
Silverstein, M.
1979

Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In The Elements: A

Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. P. Clyne, W. Hanks & C. Hofbauer,
eds. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

1998 Contemporary Transformations o f Local Linguistic Communities. Annual

155

Review of Anthropology (27):401-426.
Skutnabb-Kangas, Robert Phillipson, Minati Panda, and Adjit K. Mohanty
2009

Multilingual Education Concepts, Goals, Needs, and Expense: English For

All or Achieving Justice? In Social Justice Through Multilingual Education. R.P.
Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Ajit K. Mohanty, and Minati Panda, eds. Tonawanda:
Multilingual Matters.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai
2008

Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. New

York: Zed Books.
Spolsky, Bernard
2010

Second-language learning. In Handbook o f language and ethnic identity:

disciplinary and regional perspectives O.G. Joshua A. Fishman, ed. Pp. 172-185.
New York Oxford University Press.
Statistics Canada
2008

Canada Year Book 2008. In Ethnic Diversity and Immigration. Statistics

Canada. Ottawa: Government o f Canada. Retrieved from:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/ll-402-x/2008000/pdf7ethnic-ethnique-eng.pdf

2010

2006 Aboriginal Population Profile. Statistics Canada. Ottawa:

Government o f Canada. Retrieved from: http://wwwl2.statcan.ca/censusrecensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92594/details/page. cfm?Lang=E&Geo 1=CD&Code 1=6107&Geo2=PR&Code2=61
&Data=Count&SearchText=Inuvik&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B 1=A1
l&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=6107

2010b 2006 Community Profiles. Statistics Canada. Ottawa: Government o f
Canada. Retrieved from: http://wwwl2.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92591 /details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo 1=CSD&Code 1=6107017&Geo2=PR&Code
2=61 &Data=Count&SearchT ext=Inuvik&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B
l=All&Custom=

156

Steckley, John
2008

White Lies About the Inuit. Peterborough: University of Toronto Press.

Stefansson, Vilhjalmur
1909

The Eskimo Trade Jargon o f Herschel Island. American Anthropologist

11(2):217-232.

1922a My Life With the Eskimo. New York: The Macmillan Company.

1922b Hunters o f the Great North. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc.
Stem, Pamela
2006

Land Claims, Development, and the Pipeline to Citizenship. In Critical

Inuit Studies: An Anthology o f Contemporary Arctic Ethnography. Pamela Stem
and Lisa Stevenson, eds. Lincoln: Univeristy o f Nebraska.
Stone, Gregory
1962

Appearance and the Self. In Human Behavior and Social Processes. A.M.

Rose, ed. Pp. 86-118. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Tait, Heather, Elisabeth Cloutier and Eveline Bougie
2010

Inuit Language Indicators for Inuit Children Under the Age o f Six in

Canada. Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
TCPS2
2011

TCPS 2— 2nd edition o f Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct

for Research Involving Humans. Panel o f Research Ethics. Ottawa: Government
of Canada.
Thompson, John B.
1991

Editor’s Introduction. In Language & Symbolic Power. P. Bourdieu.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ting-Toomey, Stella
1999

Communicating Across Cultures. New York: The Guildford Press.

Tulloch, Shelley
1999

Language and identity: an Inuit perspective Twenty-Third Annual M eeting

157

of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association Mount Allison University,
Sackville, NB 1999 Print Atlantic.

2004

Inuktitut and Inuit Youth: Language Attitudes as a Basis for Language

Planning, Department o f Languages, Linguistics and Translation, Universite
Laval.

2005

Preserving Inuit Dialects in Nunavut. Research Report Prepared for the

Office o f the Languages Commissioner o f Nunavut.
Ushioda, Ema
2009

A Person-in-context Relational View o f Emergent Motivation, Self and

Identity. In Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Zoltan Domyei and
Ema Ushioda, ed. Pp. 215-228. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Valsiner, Jaan
2000

Culture and Human Development: An Introduction. London: Sage

Publications Ltd.
van der Voort, Hein
1996

History of Eskimo Interethnic Contact and its Linguistic Consequences. In

Atlas o f Languages o f Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the
Americas. Stephen Adolphe Wurm, Peter Miihlhausler, Darrell T. Try on, eds.
Trends in Linguistics, Documentation 13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ventureyra, Valerie A. G., Christophe Pallier, and Hi-Yon Yoo
2004

The Loss o f First Language Phonetic Perception in Adopted Koreans.

Journal o f Neurolinguistics 17(1):79-91.
Vryan, Kevin D., Patricia A. Adler, and Peter Adler
2003

Identity. In Handbook o f Symbolic Interactionism. Larry T. Reynolds,

Nancy J. Herman-Kinney, eds. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
White, Frederick
2006

Rethinking Native American Language Revitalization American Indian

Quarterly 30(1 &2):91-109.
Wilson, Roderick and Carl Urion

158

1995

First Nations Prehistory and Canadian History. In Native Peoples: The

Canadian Experience. Bruce Morrison and C. Roderick Wilson, eds. Pp. 22-66.
Don Mills: Oxford.
Wilson, Shawn
2008

Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Black Point:

Femwood Publishing.
Wolcott, Harry F.
1994

Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and Interpretation.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Wren, Christopher
1985

Precise Eskimo Dialect Threatened With Extinction. New York Times,

July 9.
Wyman, Leisy T.
2009

Youth, Linguistic Ecology, and Language Endangerment: A Yup'ik

Example. Journal o f Language, Identity & Education 8(5):335-349.

159