Strategies and Methods for Anishinaabemowin Revitalization
Abstract
Anishinaabeg (including Odawa, Potawatomi, Ojibwe, Saulteaux, and Chippewa) are striving to maintain and revitalize Anishinaabemowin (their Anishinaabe language) throughout their territories. This research project explored Anishinaabemowin revitalization (AR) efforts through interviews with 22 community activists, scholars, and teachers of Anishinaabemowin as a second language (AnSL). The interviews queried the various methods and mobilization strategies being used and developed. The project provides insights into different AnSL pedagogies and teaching strategies, as well as barriers and challenges facing the AR movement. Interviews were conducted in six Canadian cities as well as four First Nation reserve communities. Research participants discussed innovative AR strategies and techniques while acknowledging concerns that AR has yet to produce enough fluent speakers to reverse the decline of Anishinaabemowin.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Indigenous language learners need to find technology culturally engaging and integrated in an accessible, current and user-friendly way that enables language learning beyond isolated words or decontextualized phrases.
“Indigenous language learners need to find technology culturally engaging (Pitawanakwat, 2018) and integrated in an accessible, current and user-friendly way that enables language learning beyond isolated words or decontextualized phrases (Galla, 2009).”
From Decolonizing the digital landscape: the role of technology in Indigenous language revitalization (2021) · cites this paper as Pitawanakwat, 2018
The aim of many community ILR initiatives is to promote Indigenous language usage in domains such as the home or everyday social contexts.
“The aim of many community ILR initiatives is to promote Indigenous language usage in domains such as the home or everyday social contexts (Hinton, 2003, 2013; Pitawanakwat, 2018).”
From Decolonizing the digital landscape: the role of technology in Indigenous language revitalization (2021) · cites this paper as Pitawanakwat, 2018
Cites
Peoplehood: A Model for the Extension of Sovereignty in American Indian Studies
Holm, T., Pearson, J. D., & Chavis, B. (2003) · Wicazo Sa Review · doi:10.1353/wic.2003.0004 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Decolonizing the digital landscape: the role of technology in Indigenous language revitalization
Meighan, P. J. (2021) · AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples · doi:10.1177/11771801211037672 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pitawanakwat, B.
- Corresponding author
- Pitawanakwat, Brock
- Venue
- The Canadian Modern Language Review
- Published
- 2018-08
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 460-482
- ISSN
- 0008-4506 (ISSN-L)
- 1710-1131
- OpenAlex
- W2868516924
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 5.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic and Sociocultural Studies
- Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
- Keywords
- Anishinaabemowin, language revitalization, Anishinaabe language, second language teaching, language teaching strategies, community mobilization, language loss, Ojibwe, Potawatomi, Saulteaux, Odawa
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
