Mounting a Spirited Defense of

Mounting a spirited defense of the rights of individuals to be able to use their native language, Nancy Hornberger in "Language Policy, Language Education, Language Rights: Indigenous, Immigrant, and International Perspectives" provides unique insight into the disappearance of indigenous languages. Her main thrust is that language is a resource, and as such, it is worth protecting and preserving. Therefore, the loss of indigenous languages impoverishes the entire world. The dominance of English and other languages needs to be counterbalanced by preserving ethnic languages.

Within these languages, there is a wealth of culture and heritage that cannot be replaced. To demonstrate her position she uses vignettes from several qualitative studies. Each vignette underscores the need to preserve a language and demonstrates how preservation and revitalization may be enhanced by policy actions and educational practices. She begins with a case study from her experience in Amazonian Brazil. This case shows the benefits of allowing native language speakers to develop educational material and curricula. This is followed by an articulation of the benefits of bilingual program.

Enmeshed bilingual programs that are within the communities have the potential to revitalize flagging languages. The substantive thread that unites the work is the demonstration of the value of policy and government action to aid the preservation and revitalization of native language. The author notes that a disconnect exists between the passage of legislation and the implementation process. However, in spite of this gap legislative support for language is useful as it legitimizes the experiences and culture of the people who speak the language.

The overarching argument is that language policy and education animates, and stabilizes languages. This resuscitation of an indigenous language is necessary as an acceptance of the rights of individuals to address the world in their language. The support for this position is derived from dual sources. The first is legal and government policy documents such as constitutions and United Nations resolutions. The second is empirical examples provided by other researchers. In the author's argumentation, there is evidence of careful thought and stringent logical analysis.

The author mixes these elements together to produce a compelling narrative that supports the advanced position. The author however addresses the issue of power in and its impact on language revitalization without sufficient depth and nuance. The author admits that power has a pivotal role; simultaneously however there is a tactic position, that the people who are losing their language acquiesce to the powerful to retain the language. The reality is that they are in that position because of their powerlessness.

The author does not address the question of; how can the powerless enforce rights? Additionally, it is evident that the subject matter is holds some emotive elements for the author. The author while having no stake appears to have an emotive connection to the issue because of past advocacy. Passion in and of itself is not a concern per se, the concern is, does it obfuscate the issues? The majority of the writing appears to be free of such judgments.

However, it is interesting to note that indigenous languages are considered as valuable without a demonstration of their value. The reader is asked to accept this valuableness as inherent without question. The position that loss of these languages is part of the survival framework is not given ample consideration. Based on the data.