Visual Images as Mnemonic Devices in the Context of Language Revitalisation: Some Notes with Sample illustrations
Abstract
This article gives an example of how visual data can be used as an educational aid in the context of language revitalisation. Here the language for presenting the use of visual data in interactive learning is Noghay, a small Kipchak Turkic language spoken in the Northern Caucasus. Noghay is relatively close to Mishar Tatar, a variant of Tatar spoken in the Volga region and in the Tatar diaspora of the northern Baltic Sea region.
Today the use of Noghay is rapidly decreasing, as a growing number of children and young people prefer to speak Russian, which is the socially dominant language. The transmission of the language from one generation to another is also endangered by migration to cities and resulting bilingual situations, where children are not forced to actively speak Noghay. Elderly persons however still prefer Noghay to Russian, and children could be motivated by contact with the older generation to activate their knowledge of the family language.
The purpose of using visual data in reawakening a language is to trigger linguistic memories of the community’s heritage language in young bilingual children, which they do not use actively or in their everyday life. We assume that visual data, especially photos depicting realistic situations from their community life, are well suited to stimulate emotional attention and elicit memories of situations in which the heritage language is preferably used. Our approach combines materials gathered during field research and from language and cultural documentation with methods mainly drawn from pedagogy and linguistics.
Keywords
References
- Austin, Peter & Sallabank, Julia (2018). “Language documentation and language revitalization: Some methodological considerations”. Hinton, Leanne; Huss, Leena; Roche, Gerald (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization. Abingdon: Routledge. p. 207–215.
- Brown, H. D. (2019). Language assessment: principles and classroom practices. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education (third edition).
- Himmelmann, N. P. (2006). Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for? Gippert, J., Himmelmann, N. P., & Mosel, U. (eds.). Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. p. 1–30.
- Karakoç, Birsel (forthcoming). Noghay, Johanson, Lars & Csató, Éva Á. (eds.). The Turkic languages. London & New York: Routledge. (Second revised edition).
- Nathan, David and Fang, Meili (2009). Language documentation and pedagogy for endangered languages: a mutual revitalisation, Peter K. Austin (ed.). Language Documentation and Description, volume 6. London: SOAS. p. 132–160.
- Penfield, Susan D. & Tucker, Benjamin V. (2011). From documenting to revitalizing an endangered language: where do applied linguists fit? Language and Education 25:4. p. 291–305.
- Sapién, Racquel-María and Hirata-Edds, Tracy (2019). Using existing documentation for teaching and learning endangered languages. Language and Education 33:6. p. 560–576.
- Stahlberg, Sabira (2020). Multicoloured language. Helsingfors/Helsinki: Bokpil.
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Linguistics
Journal Section
Research Article
Publication Date
July 24, 2021
Submission Date
June 3, 2021
Acceptance Date
July 24, 2021
Published in Issue
Year 2021 Volume: 11 Number: 19