Before diving right into everything, I would like to provide you with a general outline of what we will cover. I will begin with a more theoretical conception of the relationship between language and culture as it relates to ontology or the study of existence. That is in one sense, the layers of intersections that can influence all aspects of something in its situated reality. These intersections can involve aspects of culture, language, law, and politics to name some general areas of human association. I want to start here to establish paths for some common threads- common threads that can be collectively developed, embodied, and promoted through dialogue.

Moving past theoretical characteristics of language and culture into the realm of real-world practice, I will describe a proposed program that melds these topics into a would-be 5-week summer program called the Linguistic, Cultural, and Legal Leadership program that would seek to teach the importance of language, culture, and mobility. To conclude this presentation, I will describe my account of a communicative paradigm related to the United Nations that involves a broad scope ranging from language revitalization to interfaces with the Federations of Aboriginal Nations of the Americas and more.

However, before arriving at that point, we shall begin with the idea that the relationship between language and culture is complex, its multidimensional and it is an entirely customizable process that one can guide through their own interpretation of the world. Yet, with a mechanism to express individual perceptions emanating from a seemingly infinite array of energy and information; how does organization occur?; How are modes of existence communicated through generations who are themselves living out legacies of ever-evolving orders? Seeing that these are rather big questions to address with the time and space we have here, I will attempt to clarify a path to answering these questions as we parse through these materials.

Processes of making meaning are a foundation that identity is built upon. One can gain access to the different levels that identity can be built upon by learning about processes of signification, or in other words, semiotics. Semiotics has all to do with signs, symbols, interpretation, and the endlessly creative ways we can create meaning with one another. Language and culture are the variables that inform any sign or symbol and can be found wherever one perceives any level of meaning. Thus, the relationship between language and culture is a highly important one to keep in mind with respect to the continuity of lifeways. The ways in which we come to express entire sagas of cultural legacy flow through socialization, which in many instances directly engages language.

Here, an inquiry into ontology or modes of existence can begin to answer that heavy philosophical question of how organization can occur. It is no mystery that humans are highly social beings; we look around and can find countless manifestations of humans creating meaning with one another- in one sense, it depends on what one calls art. However, to gain insights into different modes of existence, we must use language and cultural knowledge to make sense of the multifaceted ways organization can take form. From a theoretical viewpoint, a paradigm consisting of the interplay between time and space can be a fruitful locus for interpretation when directing language and culture to broaden one’s meaning-making processes.

The dialogic theory called chronotope accounts for just that: time, space, and how personhood is constructed therein. What is organization but a composite of individuals etching their energy into time and space? In one sense, language is a means to gain access to organizational strategies, into complex social processes, and into the layers that inform one’s identity. Here, language can be signposts for how culture evolves through generations. One example to look for is how many new words and semantic shifts occur within the youths' exploration of linguistic function. Even being part of the youth, I still sometimes have no clue what some of the other people my age and those younger, are saying. However, these are life-long processes of cultural generation that occur through different levels of linguistic performance. Thus, as an index or signpost to gain insights as to how organization occurs, we can measure time, space, language, and culture to illuminate why a mode of existence is there.

Chronotope, or the measure of time and space with regard to culture, is but one means to begin answering that question of organization. It is also a mechanism to start asking how solidarity is established among those organized and the manners in which ontological orientations are transmitted generationally. That is, studying the relationship between language and culture as it is situated within time and space can reveal how political statuses, cultural customs, and traditions are expressed to others. For example, studying what we are doing here can provide tremendous insights into how culture is perceived, transmitted, and how these modes of existence are expressed to advance Placemaking as a cultural and economic strategy to interface with our ever-evolving world. Expanding our perceptions of how language and culture can play off one another, we can trace paradigm shifts through the means by which we, ourselves, shift meanings, and enact those objectives in the world.

Part of the beauty inherent in learning about solidarity and the transmission of lifeways is that we must do this together.  As such, there are many ways to achieve cohesion and expand interfaces with heritage- and dialogue is a highly effective strategy therein. When we come to the understanding that the relationship between language and culture signals a larger paradigm of creative potential and world-building processes, we can begin to add both breadth and depth to how we exist in the world in accordance with the time and space we find ourselves in. Moreover, when the relationship between language and culture is practiced through a balanced approach, levels of primary meaning production come into play.

Thus, with deliberate action, an individual in concert with those in solidarity, can quite effectively establish levels of significance for those who may only have access to world-building initiatives through literature or media for example. So when I listen to Chief Two Hawks talk about “shifting the ways in which our story is told and sold”, my mind ques a specific chronotopic or communicative paradigm. It ques one of innovation, unabating and deliberate work, and the pursuit to speak a world into existence that reflects an honor for the sacred while interfacing with the evolution of technological and social structures.

This is the point in which I think additional and deliberate action through a community-oriented lens can be of service. For example, if we perceive shortcomings among educational systems, or marginalization from engaging the world stage, we can develop solidarity as a community and arrange the necessary tools and pathways to integrate with the world stage in our own innovative ways. Here I will venture to propose that the Linguistic, Cultural, and Legal Leadership program is but one mechanism to promote these activities.

Community development initiatives are contextual endeavors that must reflect specific cultural values. The tentative program and framework I will be describing reflects initiatives that seek to bridge the intersections between language, culture, and mobility. Here is a proposal for the development of the Linguistic, Cultural, and Legal Leadership Program (LCLLP), a proposed five-week summer program that supports the Federation of Aboriginal Nations of the Americas (FANA) and their member Nations initiatives (see FANA.global). FANA’s mission is to “provide leadership and serve as the collective voice for the development of the mass unification of the Aboriginal Tribes and Nations of the Americas” (FANA.global). A central element to serve as a collective voice requires a focused and deliberate dialogue to expand the mass unification of these Tribes and Nations through sustainable development. Upholding this central element, the key features involved in the Linguistic, Cultural, and Legal Leadership Program (LCLLP) promote linguistic revitalization, culture-based education, and legal education to advance FANA’s sustainable self-determination (see Corntassel, 2008), social cohesion, and community well-being.

In our ever-globalizing world, community or social resilience is a mainstay for groups seeking to engage the world in more connected ways. Striking a balance between one’s cultural expression and interfaces with our diverse world requires social cohesion (Wilson, 2012) and the deliberate performance of language. Yet, it is argued that there is “little [research conducted] on the possible [connections] between community resilience and different forms of human and environmental capital” (Wilson, 2012). Human capital refers to the knowledge, skills, and understanding that an individual or group maintains while environmental capital refers to the benefits an ecosystem can yield. This Program has the potential to initiate a practical example that demonstrates the interconnection between community resilience, human capital, and environmental capital.

The relationship between language and society is highly important when navigating and teaching people about our world. As a side, it is also worth noting that sociolinguistic concepts account for various levels of language in society (see Isakov, 2024).  These concepts can be very influential when consciously applied to an educational environment, as they can facilitate a productive medium for conveying the central objective of the program: to advance FANA’s motto- “Strength Through Unity” (see FANA.global).

In this way, the mission of this program is to empower the FANA community through linguistic and culturally-based knowledge systems with legal insights. Interweaving these meaning-making approaches into the fabric of the program is one facet to ensure that a strategic and effective transmission of information takes place. In doing so, this can teach those participating the importance of language and culture. Still, loosely talking about these efforts is but one step in the process of implementation. Precise and developed ways of talking about these actions are a crucial aspect towards the program's success.

Studies framing the linguistic dynamics between time and space are applied to areas of practice such as education, legal subjectivities, and political subjectivities (see applied) to professional programs that call forth a language of success. A chronotope supporting the Linguistic, Cultural, and Legal Leadership program would frame each interaction through the communication of empowerment, integrity, and progress to advance the development of FANA’s community initiatives. Productive developments are driven forward through solidarity, cooperation, and action that occurs in a web of interconnection.

The actor-network theory (Law, 2008) treats everything in our social and natural worlds as interconnected aspects of a whole that influence one another in complex ways. Here, an important aspect of the program lies in levels of mentorship that can guide future community activities around specific areas of study. Mentorship that instills leadership characteristics is a key to advancing community engagement and growth. With foundations of linguistic revitalization, culture-based education, and legal community’s integrity and to socialize future generations with global perspectives.

Educational pursuits that bridge the youth and older generations are key for sustainable development and self-determination (see Corntassel, 2008) within culture-based education. These connections themselves must be flexible to reflect the complexities of our contemporary world while simultaneously foregrounding traditional worldviews. There are a variety of approaches toward effective educational frameworks. A more generalized approach that can be filtered through community contexts would be an effective model to follow for the program. Doctors Cajete and Pueblo (2010, p. 1127) elucidate an effective framework that can be adapted when they write that:

“Indigenous educational cultural studies combine an evolving and integrative theory and practice to affirm and demonstrate Indigenous pedagogy through: (1) [the] creati[on] of a new language [to approach educational environments with]; (2) [by] transcending Western academic boundaries; (3) [and] decentering the historic and contemporary consciousness and assimilative power of colonial authority; (4) [by] rewriting the institutional and discursive story of Indigenous people; and (5) applying the essence of democracy as an active political principle for reasserting Indigenous rights, self-determination, and economic viability.”

In line with what Vine Deloria Jr. said, this program can provide “a means of allowing human energies and understandings to converge and come together to form a more sensible picture of human life” (Deloria 1997, p. 28). To properly engage linguistic revitalization initiatives, the program would strategically approach linguistic revitalization efforts through a phase-by-phase method. These phases would focus on what the goal of the community is, whether that be to increase conversational skills, develop specific frames to understand legal concepts, or to establish an arena for general linguistic exposure, for example. Supporting a flexible approach, Targeted componential assessments (TCA) focus on particular bits of a language. Dr. O’Grady (2018, p. 2.2) describes these assessments as language “performance on individual, narrowly focused components of language—specific vocabulary items, selected phonological contrasts (or the differences in the sounds produced and the meanings constructed therein), particular morphosyntactic patterns (or the interplay between word forms and sentence structure), and so on”.

Targeted Componential Assessments, mixed with other methods such as Accelerated Second Language Acquisition (ASLA) produced by Arapaho Scholar Dr. Greymorning (see Greymorning, 2020) can provide an avenue for student and teacher training workshops to be both a fun and effective environment to transmit language and culture through. In the program, individuals with various levels of linguistic exposure may be accommodated to produce practical results. For example, targeted componential assessments can be focused, at first, on language essential to progress cultural endeavors like ceremonial speech, oral histories, and traditions.

Moving toward a more broad scope, Holistic assessments as a method for language acquisition and revitalization incorporate general uses of a given language. More specifically, Dr. O’Grady (2018, p. 2.1) explains that a holistic approach is “characterized by a focus on overall communicative ability rather than mastery of any particular component of language”. Focusing on communicative ability can be interwoven with other aspects of cultural education to provide an avenue for program participants to engage their environment in more ecologically connected ways.

Here is a bridge between linguistic educational processes and culturally based education. Otherwise known as traditional ecological knowledge in some frames, scholars Finn et al (2017) explain that “Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is a term, relatively new to Western science, that encompasses a subset of traditional knowledge maintained by Indigenous nations about the relationships between people and the natural environment.” The Linguistic, Cultural, and Legal Leadership Program proposes to provide an environment to reinvigorate relationships between the FANA community and practical knowledge of natural environments that as a byproduct can support social cohesion.

This five-week program would seek to instill leadership qualities and the knowledge to develop actionable world-views in service of the FANA community. With potential access to legal scholars and professionals, part of the program would focus on contemporary uses of internationally recognized standards for conduct. One standard flows through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP contains forty-six articles (2007, p. 8) that are “recognized in the charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and international human rights law”.

A program that strengthens cultural and linguistic nuance in concert with lessons on UNDRIP can provide the FANA community with assets to further develop and advance community well-being. Numerous aspects of laws are of the highest importance to understand and exercise throughout one’s life. For example, the connections between heritage and intellectual property law can serve as a great workshop to highlight the importance of legal protections on cultural expression. To provide more accessibility to develop in these ways, this program proposes to generate an environment that can advance awareness around these legal and cultural spheres and is proposed to operate through workshops, a short conference panel, and a cultural event.

What is more, this program proposes to provide a nexus point to advance community conversations around the topics of language, culture, and legal knowledge in innovative ways. These ways of communication may also serve as measures of evaluation to calculate the program's success. As a framework for effective summer programs, this program proposes to gain insights from nine characteristics that can advance this program's reach. These characteristics are proposed by Doctors Bell & Carillo and include: (see Bell & Carillo, 2007):

“1) Intentional focus on accelerating learning 2) [through a] Firm commitment to youth development 3)[and] Proactive approach to summer learning 4) [with] Strong, empowering leadership 5) [that is] Advanced, [by] collaborative planning 6) [providing] Extensive opportunities for staff development [to be more effective overall] 7) [and through establishing]  Strategic partnerships 8) [and a] Rigorous approach to evaluation and commitment to program improvement 9)  [with a] Clear focus on sustainability and cost-effectiveness.”

This framework has the potential to be internally evaluated through surveys, community response questionnaires, and post-program interviews. Externally, this program can gain insights from the World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC), an accreditation institution that sets standards for educational conduct. WINHEC  “was established in August 2002 at the World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education (WIPCE) in Alberta, Canada. Their aim is to bring professionals together to achieve common goals through higher education.” (WINHEC 2002).

This program proposes to generate leadership and professionals to advance common educational goals that support social cohesion and community development. In line with Dr. McIvor’s point: where “a decolonization approach, then, brings a social justice aim to one’s academic and personal work” (McIvor 2020, p. 79)---

This program would serve to produce broad impacts and wide community engagement by creating a path for participants to advance expertise in language, culture, and law. This is important, as another scholar Lixinski (2013, p. 410) points out, “experts play a key role in determining what is relevant in a certain field of knowledge. Expertise is a discourse, and according to Foucault, discourses do not simply reflect their objects of analysis, but in fact create them, and in the process position and license certain people to speak about it at the expense of others.”

In this way, the Linguistic, Cultural, and Legal Leadership Program proposes to encompass a central point that serves as a conduit to bridge still even larger cultural

projects. This program proposes to contribute to cultural reinvigoration and provide solid avenues for cultural and social mobility, such as interfacing with United Nations frameworks. Mobilizing action between the junction of a community's social challenges and the United Nations is most effectively brought forth through proper dialogue.

Ahead of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in April of 2024, there were some key questions to address in assessing how to effectively engage others while at the forum. These questions were informed through the theme for the 23rd session. The theme for this year's program focused on enhancing Indigenous peoples‘ rights to self-determination in connection to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and sustainable youth development. With such a diverse potential for the application of these themes, a focus on how these topics are communicated and strategized supports the impetus for my inquiry.

Moving from the broad implications of language in information dissemination, let's delve into its critical role in Indigenous language revitalization efforts. Individuals and organizations interface with data through a variety of methods. Building on this understanding, a semiotic analysis of UNDRIP can offer compelling avenues to contextualize information, which is crucial in strategies for Indigenous language revitalization.

A semiotic analysis involving an assessment of the processes of signification can reveal that UNDRIP in itself can be viewed as a symbol of self-determination that indexes or signals ways to promote cultural continuity.  For our purposes here, I will discuss an approach to meaning-making with regard to language revitalization as the activities that promote it must consider adequate paths to appropriately shape the language viabilities.

Levels of importance lie in the identification of paradigmatic structures that support these processes. Paradigmatic elements reflect appeals to how contexts are created and in what manner such contexts may or are intended to interact with one another. In this way, the United Nations Decade of Indigenous Languages (see un.org) can be considered through a paradigmatic lens that seeks to advance how linguistic reclamation proceeds. Through this process, the Decade of Indigenous Languages serves as a temporal frame that highlights symbolic qualities that have the potential to foster productivity with respect to advancing the viability of linguistic revitalization.

Exploring Bakhtin’s concept of chronotope, we can apply this framework to understand the interplay between time and space, in language revitalization efforts. In this light, such a paradigm can serve as an index or a signpost that highlights what is important to talk about with respect to the developments of coordinated conversations as they relate to measures taken for revitalization.

Bakhtin (1981, p. 252) posited that “chronotopes are mutually inclusive, they coexist, they may be interwoven with, replace or oppose one another, [they may] contradict one another or find themselves in ever more complex interrelationships”. Here we will find that time and space are not semiotically isolated and are frames in which discursive practices become operative, that is, how different qualifications of value interact with one another as communication flows through the layers of a subject.

It is important to consider that revitalization strategies vary depending on the unique circumstances of each community. Nonetheless, establishing a general framework can provide essential guidance for communities striving to preserve critical cultural elements. The concept of a chronotopic paradigm, as advocated by the United Nations, underscores pivotal activities that can drive linguistic revitalization efforts forward.

At the forefront of these efforts lies a multifaceted initiative driven by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), which has consistently advocated for constitutional and legal recognition of Indigenous languages. According to the UN (2022), this includes robust efforts towards preservation, revitalization, and securing adequate funding for these measures.

As the Forum calls for these levels of recognition, central elements that fill out this paradigm are set into motion. Actions that support the Forum's call for constitutional and legal recognition of Indigenous languages can be advanced through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The articles comprising UNDRIP provide a foundation and direction for communities to pursue their rights when these policies are incorporated into their respective political networks.

Moreover, UNDRIP signifies much-needed developments in international legal norms and also reflects the UN’s paradigm by signaling communicative strategies that underlie the organization. UNDRIP contains various articles addressing language (see UNDRIP, 2007), such as articles thirteen, fourteen, and sixteen[1].

_____________________________________________________

[1] Article 13: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons. 2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means.

Article 14: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. 2.Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination. 3. States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.

_______________________________________

Article 16: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and to have access to all forms of non-indigenous media without discrimination. 2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that State-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. States, without prejudice to ensuring full freedom of expression, should encourage privately owned media to adequately reflect indigenous cultural diversity.

-----------------------------------—

These articles provide a frame to channel nuanced community context aTo this extent, the implementation of UNDRIP would reflect the performance of this paradigm for linguistic revitalization. Before the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, I found that UN officials were promoting the performance of this paradigm through different avenues leading up to the forum.

A good example preceded this year's Forum in March of 2024 when I attended a UN training for best practices while at the forum.

The training session underscored effective communication strategies, aligning with the UN's chronotopic paradigm for Indigenous language revitalization. The moderators of the training explained that the permanent forum is an advisory council and a place to make statements regarding the ways UNDRIP is implemented in communities.

To be clear with these ideas in mind, one must be strategic with their communication at the forum, as a basis of strategic participation lies in one's approaches to expression. In alignment with this year’s theme, the moderators emphasized to participants first to understand what the UN can do, seeing that the UN acts as a mechanism to advance a community’s initiatives. In this way, the UN can only aid a community in accordance with the ways the community clearly articulates what they need assistance with, such as the elements of linguistic revitalization infrastructures.

Thus, as a pretext to the forum itself, the training moderators expressed the importance of participating in the chronotopic paradigm that is developed, in part, through UNDRIP. My role as a representative of the Sand Hill Band and FANA at the UN was to identify key aspects of communicative performance that inform paths and strategies for effective practices regarding revitalization.

One of these key aspects to generate awareness and appropriate paths forward at the Forum this year is that performing this paradigm effectively manifests through direct references to applications of UNDRIP and what that looks like in practice in one’s community. For example, a good practice can be noted through the establishment or advancement of a tribe’s educational committee whose task is to transmit language, culture, and tradition intergenerationally as indicated in article 13 of UNDRIP. Furthermore, the moderators also suggested developing awareness around other resources that utilize UNDRIP such as the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP).

The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) contains seven members who “are appointed by the Human Rights Council and are selected on the basis of competence and experience in the rights of Indigenous Peoples, [with] due consideration for experts of Indigenous origin, and gender balance.” (OHCHR 1996-2024). EMRIP identifies key elements that can hinder the realization of UNDRIP in communities. The Human Rights Council of the UN maintains in clause sixty-four of the sixteenth session of EMRIP (2023, p.15) that:

“[UNDRIP] is not readily accessible to large numbers of indigenous peoples for a multitude of reasons, including their wide cultural and linguistic diversity, geographic factors [such as](remoteness and wide dispersion), sociopolitical and educational marginalization, and limited access to telecommunications and other information resources”.

Addressing these elements that can hinder UNDRIP’s actualization in communities can be found through a clear and effective pattern for communication. These patterns may rest upon symbolic interactions that can be informed through a focus on disaggregated data, for example. Disaggregated data refers to each data point that contributes towards a broader picture. Here, challenges of accessibility may be brought to task by the promotion of networks that support the integration of specific aspects of information and resources.

In doing so, these interpretations of agency align with what Dr. Tennant (1994, p. 30) explains where “[t]he meanings of self-determination must not only be tailored to "each country and region of the world, but they must also "include the entire range of political arrangements[1]" so they can provide opportunities for a community to engage UNDRIP in a culturally representative manner that can be expressed through disaggregated datasets.

These accumulated points of information can shed light on distinct issues, such as a community’s endeavors and challenges with revitalization. From another angle, a paradigm for linguistic initiatives can also readily highlight signals that queue one to pay attention to particular rights and effective ways to express the application of those rights. In line with this, EMRIP (2023, p. 10-11) maintains that “it is necessary to develop specific indicators for the distinct collective rights of indigenous peoples, for example rights relating to their lands and territories, cultures, languages, and traditional economic activities”. These indicators can be regarded as semiotic features of this paradigm as meaning is produced for intended recipients.

_________________________________________________

[2] “from complete independence as a separate state, to some form of association with an existing state, to participation in a federal system of partly self-governing regions or provinces, to complete political integration or assimilation.”

_______________________________________________

Here, Tennant (1994, p. 29) points out that “[t]he United Nations, other international agencies, states, and indigenous peoples are all actors in what is understood to be a process of mutual engagement.” Part of mutual engagement with respect to linguistic initiatives entails establishing a reciprocally agreed-upon procedure for pursuing revitalization. To this extent, the active construction of a chronotopic paradigm is positively influenced by mutual interfaces and signposts that signal broader levels of value while grounding them in individual expression.

Dr. Leonard (2023, p. 116) points out that “[he] know[s] that the field of Linguistics [for example] is going to continue to study Indigenous languages. Therefore [he] want[s] to ensure that those interactions and associated interventions will happen in good ways.” Assurance that interactions and associated conduct happen in good ways can be more soundly developed through more transparent and beneficial mutual engagements.

Conversely, groups that establish negatively generalized perceptions of other peoples, and disseminate those perceptions through their own chronotopic paradigms, must be addressed to promote association from mutually beneficial terms. Here, as Dr. Greymorning (2018, p. 17) explains, “[g]overnments in both Canada and the United States have worked to create an inaccurate and myth-like image of the political subjugation they sought to exert over Indigenous North Americans''.

In one sense, for linguistic preservation and revitalization to maintain viability, these negatively oriented chronotopic paradigms that compromise semiotic infrastructures must be navigated through more developed scopes of dialogue. For effective measures to be taken these levels of communication should adhere to common causes, for example, language tuned for self-determination, cultural, and linguistic retention, and should be channeled through the proper forums that may uphold appeals to accountability. As such, in the globally networked world we inhabit, the common threads of dialogue should reflect pursuits in a more ecologically minded fashion that seeks a common understanding.

A chronotope focused on linguistic initiatives can point to exactly what methods, plans, and programs will drive the processes involved. There are a variety of linguistic revitalization methods that can be adequately inserted into programs and can take on many different paths to achieve proper implementation. In concert with the UN’s decade of indigenous languages, conversational methods that focus on visualization rather than memorization promote the acquisition of language in ways that can advance critical assessments of the processes at hand.

As Dr. Greymorning (2018, p. 209) builds “a house of language” his students are enabled through linguistic exposure that aligns them “more closely as ‘emic’ learners” (Greymorning 2018, p. 210) when working with Accelerated Second Language Acquisition. Through the construction of houses of language, individuals and their communities may assess the building materials necessary to foster viability. In this way, ASLA may also be approached in clear and cohesive ways that identify exactly what conditions are needed to promote continuity. These conditions and features themselves can contribute towards the UN’s paradigm of revitalization by highlighting the elements of each layer that yield productive results of ASLA’s application in communities.

Bridging this conceptual approach to an UNPFII panel, and accounting for these nuances is very important when connecting linguistic initiatives with technology for example. At the Forum, panelists in a linguistic revitalization presentation pointed out algorithmic biases embedded in digital resources that are reflective of an asymmetrical linguistic marketplace. They indicated that just about half of these digital resources, such as translators, digital keyboards, and other language interfaces like websites in general are informed through an English content language and have very little access to disaggregated Indigenous language datasets for training data, if there are any available in the first place.

These sorts of challenges identify key layers at play within the UN’s chronotope- namely a need for community members to have more access, mobility, and participation in the processes of how linguistic revitalization resources are established.

Through a grassroots or bottom-up approach decentralized characteristics of communication that promote a critical analysis of social, cultural, and political factors can address best practices to invigorate the UN’s chronotopic paradigm. This UN chronotope is multifaceted in its organizational arrangement and opens the space for a variety of interpretations and applications.

In line with this, Dr. Clegg (1998, p. 45) maintains that “hence, the juxtaposition of organizational discretion and distributed powers always will entail heterodoxy and pluralism, [that is] many organizational viewpoints and conversations rather than a singular monologue capable of representation as such”.

Another common thread to the UN’s chronotopic paradigm lies in the notion of coordination and dialogue between institutions. Thus, the importance of the Sand Hill Band and FANA’s participation in UNPFII and the wider chronotope reflects the advancement of dialogue that illuminates pathways for cultural mobilization. These opportunities to mobilize perspectives on best practices serve to contribute to the UN’s chronotope from a basis of open discourse that promotes an ebb and flow of information.

The social symbol that both the Sand Hill Band and FANA promote- one of unification, one of empowerment, and the mobility of culture- aligns with this paradigm and is developed in concert with those who incorporate meaningful dialogue into this communicative paradigm.

It is clear that these processes I am attempting to describe are effectively developed and exercised together. Moving forward, through annual events like the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Meshanticut Placemaking Confestival, platforms for community organizing can advance awareness around these topics as we strengthen pathways of interacting into existence, with unity.

References: (LCLLP)

Bahktin, MM. (1981). “The Dialogic Imagination”. Ed. M. Holquist. Austin. University of Texas Press.

Báez, Gabriela Pérez. Vogol, Rachel. Patolo, Uia. (2019). “Global Survey of Revitalization Efforts: A Mixed Methods Approach to Understanding Language Revitalization Practices”. Language Documentation and Conservation. Vol. 13: 445-513.

Bell, S. R., & Carrillo, N. (2007). Characteristics of effective summer learning programs in practice. New Directions for Youth Development, 2007(114), 45-63.

Cajete, Gregory A. & Pueblo, Santa Clara. (2010). Contemporary Indigenous Education: A Nature-Centered American Indian Philosophy for a 21st Century World. The University of New Mexico. Elsevier, Futures 42, p. 1126-1132.

Coffey, W., & Tsosie, R. (2001). Rethinking the tribal sovereignty doctrine: cultural sovereignty and the collective future of Indian nations. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 12(2), 191-222. 

Corntassel, J. (2008). Toward sustainable self-determination: Rethinking the contemporary Indigenous-rights discourse. AlterNatives, 33(1), 105–132. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/030437540803300106  [Crossref] [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

Finn, S., Herne, M., & Castille, D. (2017). The value of traditional ecological knowledge for the environmental health sciences and biomedical research. Environmental health perspectives, 125(8), 085006.

Federation of Aboriginal Nations of the Americas. (2024). FANA.Global. https://www.fana.global/about-fana

Greymorning, Neyooxet S. (2020). Accelerated Second Language Acquisition (ASLA): A Pathway for Effective Native Language Instruction and Rejuvenation. University of Montana.                Isakov, A. A. (2024). Sociolinguistic Profile Research Importance of Social Factors in Language Teaching and Learning. American Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education (2993-2769), 2(1), 358-365.

Law, John. (2008). Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics. The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, edited by Bryan S. Turner, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Lixinski, Lucas. (2013). International Cultural Heritage Regimes, International Law, and the Politics of Expertise. International Journal of Cultural Property. 20:407-429. 

Manderson, Desmond. (2017). Chronotopes in the scopic regime of sovereignty. Visual Studies, 32:2, 167-177, DOI: 10.1080/1472586X.2017.1324252

McIvor, Onowa. (2020). “Indigenous Language Revitalization and Applied Linguistics: Parallel Histories, Shared Futures?”. Cambridge University Press. Vol. 40. 78-96.

O’Grady, William. (2018). “Assessing Language Revitalization: Methods and Priorities”. Annual Review of Linguistics. Vol. 4: 317-336.

Ritella, Giuseppe; Rajala, Antti; and Renshaw, Peter. (2021). Using chronotope to research the space-time relations of learning and education: Dimensions of the unit of analysis. Language, Culture, and Social Interaction.

United Nations General Assembly. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). United Nations Plenary Meeting. 13 September 2007.  https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-

Vine, Deloria. (1997). Self-Determination and the Concept of Sovereignty. Journal of Native American Sovereignty.

Wilson, Geoff A. (2012). Community Resilience, Globalization, and Transitional Pathways of Decision-making. Geoforum, vol 43. No. 6. p. 1218-1231.

World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium. (2002). https://winhec.org

Woolard, Kathryn A. (2013). Is the personal political? Chronotopes and changing stances toward Catalan language and identity, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16:2, 210-224, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2012.720670

References: (UN Chronotope)

American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (2016). Organization of American States. General Assembly. Regular Session. 46th.

Agha, Asif. (2007). Recombinant Selves in Mass Mediated Spacetime. Language and Communication, 27, 320-335. Science Direct.

Bakhtin, MM. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. (1937) in 'Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel'.  Ed. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Clegg, S. (1998). Foucault, power and organizations. Foucault, management and organization theory, 29-48.

Christine Schreyer, Tania Granadillo & Michelle Daveluy. (2022). The risk of ‘taking urgent steps’: linguistic diversity and the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43:3, 195-199, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2022.2048840

Greymorning, Neyooxet. (2018). Being Indigenous : Perspectives on Activism, Culture, Language and Identity. ProQuest Ebook Central . Taylor & Francis Group. 

Leonard, W. Y. (2023). Thoughts on the ethics of the international decade of indigenous languages. Colorado Environmental Law Journal, 34(Special Issue), 115-120. 

Tennant, C. (1994). Indigenous Peoples, International Institutions, and the International Legal Literature from 1945-1993. Human Rights Quarterly, 16(1), 1–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/762410

United Nations General Assembly: Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (2023). Efforts to Implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Establishing Effective Monitoring Mechanisms at the National and Regional Levels for the Implementation of the Declaration*. Report of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

United Nations General Assembly. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). United Nations Plenary Meeting. 13 September 2007

World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium. (2002).