No tags yet.
Picture - http://www.olelo.hawaii.edu/enehana/leoki.php
In 1978, Ward Christensen and Randy Suess began developing a special computer software to communicate with other computers. This software utilized a modem to create an online space that would resemble a distant predecessor to the hyperconnected Internet that we have become so familiar with today. When a telephone connected to the modem would ring, the modem would detect the call and start this home-brewed system into a special host program. Once connected to this program, users would be able to access to articles and messages left by users who had previously called in. The two creators of this program called this system “Ward and Randy’s Computerized Bulletin Board System (CBBS)” because it functioned similarly to community bulletin boards used throughout the world. Once word spread on how to how Christensen and Suess were able to achieve this, hundreds of these small CBBS systems began to appear all over the United States. Each system had their own unique telephone number to reach it, and by 1983 there were 275 public BBS systems spread out over 43 states. Because these systems relied on the technology of the telephone, the majority of BBS systems remained local in order to avoid expensive long-distance calling fees. This was the first signs of the potential connectivity to come, and a foreshadowing of the popularity of social media.
As BBS systems were becoming more established and gaining popularity, there was a cultural renaissance movement forming in Hawai'i. The Hawaiian people were pushing to restore the almost-extinct indigenous language as a living, relevant language. Hawaiian scholars working towards this goal understood the importance of ensuring that the language could be used in the context of relevant communicative technology. By 1995, with the help of computer, lexical, and pedagogical specialists, Hale Kuamo’o was able to turn the FirstClass Bulletin Board System software into Leoki, a BBS that was completely translated into Hawaiian. In terms of features, it contained features that many of the BBS systems throughout the world.
As the leoki paper describes, the main features of Leoki included:
• Leka Uila (Electronic Mail): Each user has a private mailbox for sending and receiving mail to and from other users on Leokï, as well as via the Internet.
• Laina Kolekole (Chat Line): An on-line chat area for real-time interaction. Users also have the ability to create their own private chat rooms.
• Ha'ina Uluwale (Open Forum): Public synchronous computer conferences for discussion, debate, and surveys.
• Ku'i ka Lono (Newsline): Advertisements, announcements and information about Hawaiian language classes and important upcoming events.
• Hale Kü'ai (Marketplace): Announcements and online order forms for the purchase of
Hawaiian language books and materials from Hale Kuamo'o and other agencies.
• Papa Hua'ölelo (Vocabulary List): Dissemination of Hawaiian words being coined by the lexical committee. Users can suggest new words and offer input on terms being considered.
Dictionary databases can be searched from within Leokï via a link to the Hale Kuamoÿo's
database system.
• Nä Maka o Kana (The Eyes of Kana): The current and all back issues of the Nä Maka o Kana
newspaper published by and for the Hawaiian immersion program.
• Noi'i Nowelo (Search for Knowledge): Shared resource area for old and new Hawaiian
materials. Posting of stories, newspaper articles, and songs.
• Nä Ke'ena 'Ölelo Hawai'i (Hawaiian Language Offices): An information section about the various agencies which provide Hawaiian educational support for Hawaiian studies coursework and Hawaiian medium programs throughout the state.
When considering the relationship between BBS systems and the effort to revitalize the Hawaiian language, the limitations of these early online communication services could have served to be an advantage. When trying to implement a language on the brink of extinction, it is important to create total linguistic immersion. As mentioned earlier, BBS systems were still contained to the physical location that was represent by the system’s telephone number. Because of this, Leoki was unaffected by any sort of influence or connection with any other BBS system. This created a state of total immersion with the Hawaiian language- a Hawaiian microcosm of the present-day Internet. Creating total immersion in today’s internet would be virtually impossible. Besides the few examples of the Internet restrictions of specific hyper-surveilled countries, everyone has access to anything as long as they have access to an internet connection. Nonetheless, establishing an online environment for the Hawaiian language to be used has more benefits than just immersion. By choosing to use an online space, the ability to access this immersive environment is no longer dictated by geographic location. Indigenous people, especially in the United States, are scattered all over the continent.
By the second half of the 20th century, the Hawaiian language was on the brink of disappearing. When trying to reintegrate the language into day-to-day use, one of the most prominent issues is that the language will no longer have a relevant vocabulary. When European colonizers first discovered the Hawaiian Islands, they also attempted to retrofit the language to their standards. In situations where missionaries were unable to find a Hawaiian synonym for English words, they decided to simply transliterate the words based on the English language. For example, “Christ” became Kristo, “David” became Kawika, and kula became the Hawaiian term for “school”. This strategy of using transliteration was also used at first to describe terms used with the computers and digital technology at the time. Some of these examples included laina, which was the transliteration of “line”. “Telephone” became kelepona, and pipa was used to describe “beep”. Developing new vocabulary for a language is a very difficult task, and transliteration may seem like a simple solution. However, in a way, this contradicts efforts to successful reintegrate the Hawaiian language into current civilization. To bring back an indigenous language is to preserve the oral culture of that people. For Hawaiians, and Polynesians all over the Pacific, there is great cultural significance in the orality and performance of their language. Using phonetical transliterations based on a different culture’s language compromises the future of the indigenous language. By doing so, the cultural value of the language itself becomes lost in translation.
Fortunately, as Hawaiian-integrated computer programs continued to develop, the vocabulary was able to expand without transliteration. The Hawaiian children that were using computers were able to malama, or save, their work. In the Hawaiian language, the concept of malama is very significant. The word means “to take proper care” of something and is often used in the term ‘malama ‘aina’, or to take care of the land. The Hawaiian word for upload became ho’okua, which was the term previously used for loading gear into a canoe. While this was a step in the right direction, there were also instances where these newly coined words had to compete with the popular transliterations that were previously used. For example, the transliterated word for ‘computer’ in Hawaiian was kamepuila. Later, lolo uila, which translated into “electric brain”, was developed as an alternative term. Despite lolo uila aligning with the cultural aspect of the Hawaiian language better, kamepuila was already and established term for a computer.
In the scholarly article “Indigenous Language Revitalization and Technology from Traditional to Contemporary Domans”, Candace K. Galla breaks down the use of technology with indigenous language integration into three distinct categories. These categories are not necessarily based on the technology itself, but rather how the technology is used. Galla explains the first category as “low-tech initiatives”. These methods address a singular sensory mode, by portraying the indigenous language in a visual or auditory manner. Examples of low-tech initiatives are books or any other sort of printed material that is published only in the indigenous language. Contemporary forms of these products could be newspapers are any sort of printed material. Bringing back an indigenous language requires relevancy and immersion, which low-tech initiatives are unable to provide on their own merit. However, low-tech initiative products are very effective at preserving the language. In many cases, the recovery of old scriptures or texts are extremely valuable to understanding indigenous languages that have long been extinct. Galla described the second category, “mid-tech initiatives”, as bisensory. These products display the language through both sight and hearing, and in many contemporary examples require a mouse and keyboard. Multimedia, like films and television programs, are mid-tech initiatives. Much of the content of the internet could be considered part of this, too. Hawaiian scholars have created search engines and online dictionaries that are fully functional with the Hawaiian language. Mid-tech initiatives are important because much of the media that we consume today falls into this category. Movies, television programs, and websites that we visit are all part of this category. In a situation where there is emphasis on an indigenous language, mid-level initiatives are essential for the language to maintain relevancy in whatever period of time it is being used.
The last category, “high-tech initiatives”, is the culmination of mid-tech initiatives with the added aspect of connectivity. The opportunities for us to travel large physical distances to establish new lives and communities means that geographic location can no longer be completely representative of an indigenous population. With indigenous populations scattered throughout the world, high-tech initiatives provide the opportunity for people to connect with each other. Galla breaks down high-tech initiatives into three different categories; asynchronous, synchronous, and interactive media. Some examples of asynchronous tools are blogs, emails, discussion boards, or any other forum-like structure. These tools allow people to interact with each other over a period of time regardless of physical location, with the added benefit of convenience. People can respond at their own will. Chatting services and audio/video calls are examples of synchronous media, which provide communication through real-time immediacy. These tools don’t always require the use of wider communication, and instead allows learners and speakers of the indigenous language to use that language over the phone or typed. The last category of high-tech initiatives is interactive multimedia. Asynchronous and synchronous tools allow communication by establishing a medium for communication. They create an environment for the users, with the intention to allow communication between individuals. Interactive multimedia acts in a similar way, but the environment itself is the communicative tool. Users manipulate the environment—which is a culmination of graphics, audio and visual media—to establish immersion. Leoki, the Hawaiian BBS system, is an example of an interactive multimedia. One of the most prominent present-day example of these tools are video games.
Understanding these communicative technologies and the roles that they play in the use of language is essential to the revitalization an indigenous language. These tools are not meant to be the sole or main strategy to produce speakers. Instead, technology should be used in a supplementary form to create an authentic way to use the language. Young indigenous people can be taught as much of the language as possible in school, but if there is no practical way to use that language outside of school then it just won’t be used. Whether it be through a chosen spoken language in a household, the online services that are used, or the immersive medias that we interact with, opportunities for authentic engagements using an indigenous language must occur through as many aspects of a learner’s life as possible.