Post 7 (340): Preserving Truku Part 2
Future Programs Recommendation
Existing revitalization plans have played an important role in helping the endangered language situation to a certain extent. Nevertheless, many improvements can be made to these programs. In this section, I will make three suggestions for the current Truku language revitalization plan to solve some of the problems.
First of all, in the Indigenous Language Immersion Program (ILIP) of macro-language planning, the difficulty that people face is that the teachers in the course are not fluent enough to always use Truku for lecturing. My suggestion is the Master-Apprentice project. According to Hinton, the Master-Apprentice program can help adults learn and use language in various social environments (2018: 127). By adopting this program in ILIP, each teacher can be paired with an older, fluent speaker, practice Truku in daily life, and make themselves become proficiency learners. Kindergarten teachers can arrange regular meetings according to their own time every week, so as not to affect their normal life.
Secondly, there is a general lack of Truku immersion, which is also the task ILIP faces. In order to solve this problem, if conditions permit, I suggest language promotion measures for learning Irish. In order to revitalize Ireland, people with the same revitalization goals build communities and gather to live together. People see multiple benefits from having such a community. For example, it is believed that communities more efficiently help people practice a language than scattered individuals or families. More importantly, living in a community with the same language revitalization goals, children can not only learn to speak Truku in school but also use Truku as the default language to communicate with others after school (Mac Poilin 2015).
However, if the economic (or political) environment cannot make building communities and gathering families a viable option, then forming a language nest in schools can also be considered. A language nest represents a specific area or time where people will communicate with each other through a specific language (Todal 2018). By adopting language nesting in the Truku community, people will use Truku more frequently in more social environments, thereby achieving an overall Truku immersive environment. In addition, the language nest of schools should start from kindergarten, because young children are best at learning new languages easily (Zahir 2018).
Finally, I will emphasize the importance of having a permanent plan or a permanent environment in order to rejuvenate and use language in order to maintain the effect of the language revival plan (Aikio-Puoskari 2018: 359). Due to the importance of persistence, immersive courses focused on kindergarten alone are not enough to make children become fluent speakers or use Truku after school graduation. There should be a lasting process for students to learn and practice Truku so that they will not become less fluent after graduation. This means that the Truku community will need to offer language immersion courses in elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, and even universities. The continuity of the program will ensure that the use and proficiency of Truku is maintained because it allows people to practice Truku throughout their lives.
Conclusion
All in all, although various language revitalization programs to save Truku have appeared in Taiwan, there is still much room for improvement in these programs to better save the language. However, I am very relieved to see that Taiwan has made so many plans to protect endangered languages. Countless languages around the world are “dying”, and not every language attracts the same resources as Truku does. I feel unfortunate for Truku, for a beautiful language that represents family and community is on the verge of extinction. At the same time, I am also lucky for this language, because people are working hard to protect it, and there are various programs to maintain it.
References (in both Part 1 and Part 2):
Aikio-Puoskari, Ulla. 2018. Revitalization of s ́ami languages in three nordic countries: Finland, norway, and sweden. The routledge handbook of language revitalization, Routledge.
Cooper, Robert. 1989. Language planning and social change. Cambridge University Press.
Hinton, Leanne, et.al. 2018. Conclusion: What works in language re- vitalization. The routledge handbook of language revitalization, Routledge.
Nieto, Sonia. 2002. “Language, culture and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century — Response”. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72: 611–612.
Mac Ṕoilin, Aod́an. 2013. Belfast’s neo-gaeltacht. In Bringing our language home: Language revitalization for families. Heyday Books.
Tang, Apay, et.al. 2018. Language Revitalization in Kindergarten: A Case Study of Truku Seediq Language Immersion. Oxford University Press.
Tang, Apay. 2015. “Indigenous Language Policy and Planning in Taiwan: Truku Seediq as an Example”. Taiwan Journal of Indigenous Studies Vol.8: 3.
Tang, Apay. 2015. “Preliminary results of a community-based language revitalization initiative in Truku Seediq”. Journal of Taiwanese Languages and Literature Vol.9: 2.
Todal, Jon. 2018. Preschool and school as sites for revitalizing languages with very few speakers. The routledge handbook of language revitalization, Routledge.
Zahir, Zalmai. 2018. Language nesting in the home. The routledge handbook of language revitalization, Routledge.
