“Words That Open Your Heart”—Overcoming Social Barriers to Heritage Language Reclamation in Ishigaki City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article covers considerable ground, succinctly and clearly describing and analysing a number of details of the sociolinguistic dynamics of language minoritization and revitalization in Ishigaki Yaeyaman. As someone who previously knew very little about the Ryukyuan languages, I found the discussion generally easy to follow and thought-provoking. It certainly made me think about the parallels and contrast with the linguistic communities I am more familiar with.

It was instructive to read a detailed account of the implementation of master-apprentice programme with two groups of participants, the differences in approach between the two groups, and the strengths and weaknesses of the method more broadly, as well as its adaptability to the Covid-19 situation and new technologies.

 

In line with the aims of this special issue, the article successfully transcends ‘established boundaries’ through exploring the ambiguous space between the ‘teacher-student’ relationship and other forms of interaction and learning, and in the discussion of purism. This avoids the reductive assumption ‘purism (/prescriptivism) is bad’ which often pervades linguists’ analysis of language revitalization contexts, demonstrating nuanced sensitivity to the importance speakers attach to particular linguistic forms and registers, as well as the tensions these can cause.

Some specific areas for possible clarification or improvement: 

Line 28 – it might be helpful to cite some examples of the descriptive grammars etc. for readers unfamiliar with the field.

Line 29 – ‘language ideological clarification is a key step in any language revitalization effort’. Some of the standard references for this should be cited (e.g. Fishman 1991, Dauenhauer and Dauhenhauer 1998, Kroskrity 2009), but note also that the concept is not regarded as self-evident or unproblematic by all scholars, see e.g. Costa (2016: 39, 52, 98–99).

Line 61 – ‘new instances of the token usage of Yaeyaman’ – worth discussing the concept of postvernacularity here?

Line 296 – ‘linguistic hygiene’ – Is this equivalent to Cameron’s (1995) ‘verbal hygiene’, or a further development of the concept? A reference would be useful here.

Line 473 – I must admit I am somewhat sceptical about the concept of ‘translanguaging’, which often seems to be more of a buzzword than a theoretically coherent concept (cf. Pavlenko 2018). However, if you wish to use this concept it might be better to introduce it earlier in the article and expand more on what you mean by it, rather than leaving it to the conclusion.

‘forgiveness’ – this is clearly an important concept in your analysis of speaker’s behaviour and ideologies, but I don’t feel the word quite works in English in this context. ‘Forgiveness’ usually refers to an individual instance of forgiving someone, rather than the state or disposition of being forgiving (adjective). ‘Forgivingness’ might work but is a bit clumsy; perhaps ‘tolerance’, ‘compassion’ etc. but I will leave it to you and the editors to think further about exactly what this concept means in light of the equivalent in the original language(s). 

References: 

Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.

Costa, James. 2016. Revitalising language in Provence: A critical approach. Revitalising Language in Provence: A Critical Approach. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

Dauenhauer, Nora Marks & Richard Dauenhauer. 1998. Technical, emotional, and ideological issues in reversing language shift: examples from Southeast Alaska. In Lenore A. Grenoble & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds), Endangered Languages Language Loss and Community Response, 57–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Kroskrity, Paul V. 2009. Language Renewal as Sites of Language Ideological Struggle: The Need for “Ideological Clarification”. In Jon Reyhner and Louise Lockard (eds), Indigenous Language Revitalization: Encouragement, Guidance & Lessons Learned, 71–83. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.

Pavlenko, Aneta. 2018. Superdiversity and why it isn’t: reflections on terminological innovation and academic branding. In Barbara Schmenk et al. (eds), Sloganization in Language Education Discourse: Conceptual thinking in the age of academic marketization, 142−168. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Line 28: I added a footnote providing two sources: One for grammar sketches of several Ryukyuan varieties, and a one for a full-scale grammar of a Ryukyuan language.

Line 29: I opened up the discussion of language ideology by positing some questions central to the work, and then provided context with the sources you recommended: To what degree is distinction between Okinawan and Yaeyaman important?

To what degree are honorifics important? Up to what linguistic domain should Yaeyaman be revitalized? The first point is the broad gap that often exists between verbally expressed goals and unstated but deeply felt emotions and anxieties regarding the language in question. Understanding what is at stake in RLS by focusing on the internal struggles of the stakeholders engaged in the activity. Fishman 1991 stresses the importance of stage 6 in his eight-stage typology of language shift.

Line 61: An explanation of postvernacularity was added with relevant citations.

Line 296: “Linguistic hygiene” is an expression that came up in discussion with another editor/advisor, but it is not found in the literature. The relevant concept and reference are now introduced in section 1.

Line 473: I have elected to introduce the concept of translanguaging in section 3.1 instead of relegating it to the conclusion.

Forgiveness: I agree that “forgiveness/forgiving words” is a somewhat awkward translation for the sociolinguistic phenomenon in question, and for now will include “compassion/compassionate” in the discussion in order to leave it open to interpretation. This point of definition may require further consultation with the other editors.

- The author

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 68-69: USCAR should be spelled out as United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands.  During the US occupation era, Okinawa Prefecture was not recognized. Thus "Government of the Ryukyu Islands" is the correct usage for the administrative organization. 

Line 135: Maher & Katsuragi are the editors of the book. A specific article should be mentioned here.

Line 224-225: I understand that a "matching up" is what the MA method does. Did she make the recommendation without knowing about MA?

Line 234-235: According to surveys by Ryukyu Shimpo, the prefecture-wide number of passive native speakers is big. I wonder if the author should mention this "fact." Probably in the notes?

Line 245-249 & Line351-352: What are mentioned in these lines is that language loss is linked to culture loss. This aspect of language loss should be emphasized.

Line 336-339: What is said in these lines in an example of what hinders language reclamation on the side of youngsters. This aspect should be emphasized. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Line 68-69: I have spelled out the acronym USCAR in full, and replaced “Okinawa Prefecture” with “the region”, since political affiliation is not relevant to the context of that part of the sentence.

Line 135: The citation has been amended to refer to the author in question, not the editors.

Line 224-225: Participant F made this statement in regard to general Ryukyuan language learning, but was not directly referring to Master-Apprentice. Does review think it is necessary to include a statement like this in text? No such change has been made at present.

Line 234-235: The recommended information was added as a footnote.

Line 245-249/351-352: This point was emphasized accordingly in the two areas noted in the text.

Line 336-339: This aspect hindering intergenerational transmission of Ryukyuan languages was emphasized in the text.

- the author

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting article and, by and large, easy to access for readers not necessarily familiar with the ML situation in Japan. 

The introduction sets out the context well but it would be useful to provide a few more references to enable readers less familiar with the language situation to explore the background in more detail.
The methods section is solid but I would have liked to see the role of the co-ordinators explained in a little more detail; I realise this might not be possible due to space constraints.
Section 3 is detailed and interesting throughout; the quotes are used to good effect and there is enough background to the master-apprentice scheme supplied to enable the readers to follow easily. I would like to see more connections drawn to the underlying theory and concepts as the section is fairly descriptive. 
The conclusion is precise and provides a good summary.

Specific comments:
line 88ff: Could you expand unpack here?
line 300: Does this alo raise questions regarding 'authenticity'?
line 405f.: The chronology is confusing here - could you amend this?
line 452: 'jaima-pitu' - could you gloss this?

From a technical perspective, there are a few instances where edited books are referenced in-text; I would have expected to see a more specific reference to a chapter - if it really is the case that the entire book is relevant, then that's ok.
Throughout there are a few typos/punctuation issues but these are minor:
line 41-2: verb missing?
line 157; 307: word missing? 
line 492: full stop missing

Overall, there are a few minor aspects where clarification/expanding would be helpful.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Line 88: Reviewer appears to be referring to the sentence beginning with “These, depending on the geographic area in question...” This sentence is an isolated subject in the paragraph, and I have therefore deleted it.

Line 300: This point does, indeed, raise a question of “Yaeyaman authenticity”, and this was added to the text without carrying on at length.

Line 405: The chronology of the sentence in question was amended, removing the confusing “six years later” phrase.

Line 452: The relevant Yaeyaman lexeme has been glossed.

Line 41-42: The word “details” after the colon in the sentence “Many details about the language are still under-described: details in grammar...” was uncapitalized in order to clarify reviewer’s misunderstanding.

Line 157, 307: I do not know what the reviewer is referring to in the lines they have indicated.

Line 492: Full stops have been added to any footnotes that were lacking them.

- Author