“ē-nitomikoyahkik kakīwēyahk [They’re Calling Us Home]”: Kinship, Land, and Wellness in Indigenous Language Revitalization

Abstract

This paper examines the experiences of adult participants in the nēhiyawak Language Experience (nLE), a land-based Cree language immersion camp aimed at reclaiming nēhiyawēwin (Cree). Using Indigenous methodology, this study explores the following question: What are the experiences of adult learners and teachers in a land-based nēhiyawēwin immersion camp? The research design is based on a co-researcher model, where six participants (three learners and three teachers) engaged in a collaborative process of reflection and storytelling. Through three sharing circles held over a year, we shared stories of our camp experiences, then co-transcribed and analyzed these stories. Our study emphasizes relationship-building and nēhiyaw protocols as central to Indigenous knowledge generation. We address three key themes in this paper – kinship, land, and wellness – and demonstrate how these elements contribute to language learning and well-being. By situating the research within Indigenous epistemologies, this paper offers valuable insights into the role of land-based language camps in supporting language resurgence and fostering community wellness. It also provides recommendations for language practitioners, communities, and researchers committed to Indigenous language revitalization.

Keywords: Indigenous languages, kinship, land-based learning, language camp, wellness and healing

Résumé

Cet article examine les expériences des participants adultes à l’expérience linguistique nēhiyawak (nLE), un camp d’immersion en langue crie basé sur la terre et visant à récupérer le nēhiyawēwin (le cri). En utilisant une méthodologie autochtone, cette étude explore la question: Quelles sont les expériences des apprenants adultes et des enseignants dans un camp d’immersion nēhiyawêwin terrestre ? La conception de la recherche est basée sur un modèle de co-chercheur, dans lequel six participants, trois apprenants et trois enseignants, se sont engagés dans un processus collaboratif de réflexion et de narration. À travers trois cercles de partage organisés sur un an, nous avons partagé des histoires de nos expériences de camp, co-transcrit et analysé les histoires. Notre étude met l’accent sur l’établissement de relations et les protocoles nēhiyaw comme étant essentiels à la génération de connaissances autochtones. Nous abordons trois thèmes clés dans cet article: la parenté, la terre et le bien-être, démontrant comment ces éléments contribuent à l’apprentissage des langues et au bien-être. En situant la recherche dans les épistémologies autochtones, cet article offre des informations précieuses sur le rôle des camps linguistiques terrestres dans le soutien à la résurgence des langues et dans la promotion du bien-être communautaire. Il fournit également des recommandations aux praticiens des langues, aux communautés et aux chercheurs engagés dans la revitalisation des langues autochtones.

Abstract (nēhiyawēwin)

ōma masinahikan, nikinwāpahtēnān kā-ēsi mōsihtācik kā-kīsi-ohpikicik okiskinwahamākanak ēkota anima nēhiyawak Language Experience (nLE), ēyako anima askiy kiskinwahamākēwin nēhiyaw pīkiskwēwin kapēsiwin ēta kā-nohtē waniskāpitamāhk nēhiyawēwin (Cree). apacihtāhk iyiniw itōtamōwin, ōma kinwāpahcikan nikwēcihkēyimonān: kīkwaya anihi kā-ēsi mōsihtācik kā-kīsi-ohpikicik okiskinwahamākanak ēkwa okiskinwahamākēwak ēkotawihk askiy kiskinwahamākēwin nēhiyawēwin pīkiskwēwin kapīsiwin? ōma kinwāpahcikan kā-ēsi osihcikātēk anima isi nīso-nitonikēwin ītōcikan, ēta nikotwāsik ayisiyiniwak-nisto okiskinwahamākanak ēkwa nisto okiskinwahamākēwak-māmiskōtamwak ēkwa ācimowak kā-ēsi wāpahtahkik. Isi nisto wāsakām apiwin ācimowina ispayiki pēyak askiy, nitācimonān kā-ēsi wāpahtamāhk nikapēsiwināna, nīso masinahīnān, ēkwa nikinwāpahtēnān anihi ācimowina. nikiniwāpahcikaninān ninīkānastānān wahkohtowin osihcikēwin ēkwa nēhiyaw nīkānascikēwina ēkota tāwāyihk isi iyiniw kiskēyihtamowin osihcikēwin.nisto kīkway nipīkiskwātīnān ōta masinahikanihk: wahkohtowin, askiy, ēkwa miyomahcihowin, ka-wāpahtamihk tānisi ōhi kīkwaya ēsi wīcihihtāsōmakahkik isi pīkiskwēwin kiskinwahamāsowin ēkwa miyomahcihowin. ēta kā-astāyāhk anima nitonikēwin isi iyiniw kiskēyihtamowina, ōta masinahikanihk, misinahikātēwa mistahi mistēyihtākwahki kikwaya isi kā-miywāsiki askiy kiskinwahamākēwin pīkiskwēwin kapēsiwina ka ēsi sihtoskamihk pīkiskwēwin waniskāpicikēwin ēkwa ka-ispitamihk māmawinitowin miyomahcihowin. masinahikātēnwa mīna wihcikēwina osci pīkiskwēwina kā-atoskātahkik, māmawinitowina, ēkwa nitonikēwak kā-asotahkik iyiniw pīkiskwēwin waniskāpicikēwin.

Mots clés : langues autochtones, parenté, l’apprentissage basé sur la terre, camp linguistique, bien-être et guérison

itwēwina kika-misken ōta: iyiniw pīkiskwēwina, wāhkōhtowin, askiy kiskinwahamākēwin kiskinwahamāsowin, iyiniw pīkiskwēwina kapēsiwinihk, miyo-macihowin ēkwa nātawihowin

¹ Indigenous Education, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

² Faculty of Education, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

³ Department of Indigenous Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

⁴ University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo, Hilo, Hawaii, USA

⁵ Indigenous Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

⁶ Saskatoon Catholic Schools, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Correspondence should be addressed to Belinda Daniels, Indigenous Education, University of Victoria, MacLaurin Building A260, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, V8W 2Y2; email: belindadaniels@uvic.ca.

Received 17 December 2024; Revision received 8 May 2025; Accepted 14 May 2025; Published online 20 August 2025.

In this paper, we share and discuss findings from a study examining the experiences of six learners and teachers in a land-based nēhiyawēwin (Cree language) immersion camp attended by people of all ages. The nēhiyawak Language Experience is an annual summer language camp that brings learners and their families together to speak, listen, and participate collectively in nēhiyawēwin resurgence. Over the past 20 years, over 650 individuals have participated in this annual experience. This camp is guided by nēhiyaw (Cree) pedagogy and onto-epistemology. In her development of this program, Belinda kakiyosēw Daniels, camp creator and first author of this paper, drew on the ways that the nēhiyawak (Cree people) traditionally lived and oriented themselves to the world and each other. Being on the land is a foundational aspect of the nēhiyawi-kapēsiwin (Cree camp) because “if you want to learn about something, you need to take your body onto the land and do it. Get the practice” (Simpson, 2017, p. 165). Recognizing that a “full-blown language revival is a long and arduous journey” (Walsh, 2018, p. 8), the ultimate goals of the camp are to provide opportunities to practice speaking and to build language awareness.

The camp described in this paper, and other initiatives like it, exist because we currently live in an era of Indigenous language revitalization. Indigenous languages play a central role in inter-generational language transmission by contributing to the continuance of Indigenous knowledge and science. Indigenous languages also function as a health-promoting strategy, thus ensuring individual, family, and community wellness. Recognizing the importance of Indigenous languages and ongoing threats to their vitality, Indigenous peoples in Canada have developed multiple strategies to ensure the revitalization of Indigenous languages (McIvor & Anisman, 2018). There are many different language programs, instructional approaches, and delivery models for children and adults taking place right across Canada, including school-based immersion programs for children and youth (Jung, Klein, & Stoll, 2018; McIvor & McCarty, 2017), adult immersion programs (DeCaire, 2023), language houses (Johnson 2014, 2017), the Mentor-Apprentice Program (McIvor, Jacobs & Jenni, 2023; Sandy, 2022), language camps (Rorick, 2018), language nests (Chambers & Saddleman, 2020; Kennedy, 2022; McIvor & Parker, 2016), programs using the Root-Word Method (Green & Maracle, 2018), and initiatives drawing on the Where Are Your Keys? approach (Gardner & Ciotti, 2018). Indigenous languages are important, and many Indigenous nations, communities, and individuals are working hard to develop ways to strengthen the relationships with their languages.

In our study, we are simultaneously co-researchers and study participants (four nēhiyawak, one nīhithaw, and one settler). This design recognizes that Indigenous research methodology blurs the lines between researcher and participant, thus providing opportunities for co-learning (Castelden et al., 2017; Daniels et al., 2021). Our co-constructed narrative tells a story of language speakers in relation to a language – in this case, nēhiyawēwin (Cree). In this paper, we will be using both the English exonym “Cree” and the endonym “nēhiyawēwin” to refer to the language. While we find it preferable to use “nēhiyawēwin,” we recognize that the term “Cree” remains in common use in society as well as in our sharing circle stories. For this reason, we claim both terms for use in this paper. In the sections that follow, we begin by introducing ourselves, then we move on to a review of the literature relevant to our study, discuss our methodology for the paper, present a discussion of sharing circle stories in relation to three themes (kinship, land, and wellness), and conclude with a summary of our findings and our recommendations.

Situating ourselves

This is who we are. We are language warriors, academics, and researchers. Introducing ourselves is a “way of ensuring that those who study, write, and participate in knowledge creation are accountable for their own positionality” (Absolon & Willett, 2005, p. 97). Four of the authors are nīhithaw hiyawak (Plains Cree), one is nēhithaw (Rock Cree), and one is a white settler accomplice. First, kakiyosēw Belinda Daniels comes from Sturgeon Lake First Nation, Saskatchewan. She is a grandmother, mother, wife, auntie, and teacher. She is a low-intermediate, adult speaker of nēhiyawēwin, an assistant professor at the University of Victoria, and the founder of the nēhiyawak Language Experience, a not-for-profit language-revitalization organization. Andrea Sterzuk is a white settler accomplice, professor of language education at the University of Regina, and a beginner learner of nēhiyawēwin. She believes settler scholars have a responsibility to speak out in support of Indigenous knowledges and Indigenous languages.

Randy (Boyce) Morin is from Whitefish First Nation, Saskatchewan. He is a father, uncle, and fluent speaker and teacher of nēhiyawēwin. Randy is a storyteller who holds a master’s degree from the University of Victoria and is an assistant professor in the Department of Indigenous Studies at the University of Saskatchewan. William (Bill) Cook is from Southend, Peter Ballyntyne First Nation, Saskatchewan. He is a husband, father, and fluent speaker and teacher of nīhithawīwin. Bill has a master’s degree from the University of Regina and is a doctoral student in Hawaiian and Indigenous Language and Culture Revitalization at the University of Hawai’i at Hilo. He is also currently the Indigenous language lead for Cowessess First Nation. Peter Turner is from James Smith Cree Nation, Saskatchewan. He is a husband, father, teacher, and beginner learner of nēhiyawēwin. He is a teacher at St. Frances Cree Bilingual School in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Dorothy Thunder is from Little Pine First Nation, Saskatchewan. She is a grandmother, mother, auntie, sister, wife, and fluent speaker and teacher of nēhiyawēwin. Dorothy has a master’s degree in linguistics and is a faculty member in Indigenous Studies at the University of Alberta.

Literature review

Indigenous languages and land

Understanding the relationships between Indigenous languages, land, and knowledge systems begins with recognizing that these languages are rooted in place. Through long-term association, strong relationships form between Indigenous peoples, Indigenous languages, the environment, and more-than-human counterparts (i.e., other living things and spiritual forces) that share the land (Gagnon et al., 2020; McGinnis et al., 2019; Rayne et al., 2022). Through these associations, Indigenous languages are connected to Indigenous knowledge and place. Research from multiple academic disciplines employing many different research methodologies has considered the relationship between Indigenous languages and land. These perspectives include the study of place names, ecolinguistics, and land-based language learning, to name just a few (Schreyer, 2008). Because of these deep connections between land and Indigenous languages, language revitalization efforts can benefit from also being grounded in relationships with land.

Scholars across disciplines share a focus on the interconnections between Indigenous languages, land, and cultural knowledge, a focus which also grounds this paper. For example, a recent study of wildlife populations in British Columbia, Canada, revealed the long-term associations between Indigenous languages, their speakers, and grizzly bears in an area of that province (Henson et al., 2021). In this study, a research team consisting of Indigenous peoples from Gitga’at, Haíɫzaqv (Heiltsuk), Wuikinuxv, Nuxalk, and Kitasoo/Xai’xais territories, as well as scientists from fields such as geography, biology, and biotechnology, non-invasively collected grizzly bear hair samples over a 23,500 km² area. Through landscape genetic analysis, the study found spatial alignment between the grizzly bear genetic group territories and the geographies of three Indigenous language families (Tsimshian, Northern Wakashan, and Salishan Nuxalk). The research team explained that this alignment shows that grizzly bears and Indigenous peoples in this territory have been shaped by the land in similar ways. This process has created “a convergence of grizzly bear genetic and human linguistic diversity” (p. 14). Most importantly, this is not the only ecological study to find these patterns between Indigenous languages and genetic diversity in wildlife. Patterns of co-localization are also found in other studies of nature and Indigenous languages (see Maffi, 2005; Gorenflo et al., 2012).

Research on the relationship between land and Indigenous languages has also been conducted by anthropologists. During a career spanning roughly 5 decades, Keith Basso conducted a 30-year study of landscape with the Western Apache in the American state of Arizona. His 1996 book, Wisdom sits in places, is made up of four essays based on the stories of four Western Apache about the significance of place in their culture. These essays on place and Apache language show that place names and stories of place are central to how Western Apache imagine and produce their world. Place names figure centrally in Apache storytelling as “conventionalized verbal instruments for locating narrated events and in the physical settings where the events occurred” (p. 47). Basso positions the study of place-name systems as having the potential to “reveal a great deal about the cognitive categories with which environmental phenomena are organized and understood” (p. 44). Finally, Basso’s work also points to the ways that Western Apache conceptions of land shaped their understanding of themselves as well as “patterns of social action” (p. 67). Apache understandings of knowledge, behaviour, and oral history are deeply intertwined with place and the language they use to describe that landscape. Taken together, this research demonstrates that land is not only central to the structure and meaning of Indigenous languages but also suggests that land can play a role in how these languages are taught, learned, and revitalized. This understanding informs the emergence of Indigenous language camps as an approach to Indigenous language revitalization.

Indigenous language camps

In the past decade, Indigenous land-based learning has been a growing focus in educational research literature (Bowra, Mashford‐Pringle, & Poland, 2021; McGinnis & Kincaid, 2024; Simpson, 2014; Styres, 2017; Tuck, McKenzie, & McCoy, 2014; Wildcat et al., 2014). Indigenous language-learning initiatives also increasingly include land-based experiences in both community language initiatives (Rorick, 2018) and university and school initiatives (Engman & Hermes, 2021; Fayant & Griffith-Brice, in press; Moore, 2003; Fayant & Sterzuk, 2018). One popular community-based approach to Indigenous language learning is commonly known as a language camp. These Indigenous language experiences are short term, (partially or fully) immersive, land-based, and typically hosted within an Indigenous nation or community in summer months. Some camps are primarily focused on adult language learning. Other camps focus on adolescent learners to foster cultural and language experiences among the youth. Finally, there are those that are multi- or cross-generational, recognizing the need or value for families to create habits and patterns of language use that can be sustained after the camp ends.

Many of the studies of Indigenous language camps are conducted by people who are camp organizers as well as researchers in Indigenous language revitalization. The work by Leonard and Shoemaker (2008) is an exploration of two Miami language and culture camps that began in the early 1990s in Oklahoma and Indiana. Drawing on participant observation, informal interviews, and pre- and post-camp student questionnaires collected in 2007 and 2008 for camp assessment purposes, that study explores three themes: (a) place, (b) identity, and (c) the relationship between participant experiences of camp and Miami language and cultural resurgence. The authors – both involved in the land-based camps as learners in the 1990s and later as camp staff members, teachers, organizers, and language committee chairs – suggest that these camps create “Miami space within a Miami place” and “empower participants to enrich their own Miami identities and community roles” (p. 187). This paper also relates these participant perspectives to a broader “narrative rooted in the past but developed in the present for future generations of Miami people” (p. 187).

Daniels-Fiss (2008) and Rorick (2018) explore two short-term language camps. Rorick (2018) describes a study of a 4-day, place-based language immersion camp that was designed to revitalize the critically endangered Hesquiaht language and that was delivered by a Hesquiaht second language learner in collaboration with her extended family and the Hooksum Outdoor School. The camp integrated traditional Indigenous knowledge with language immersion techniques, aiming to reconnect younger participants with their language, land, and kinship ties. Findings from the research determined that the camp fostered a collective commitment among participants to continue language revitalization efforts, thus marking a positive step toward the inter-generational transmission of the Hesquiaht language. Daniels-Fiss (2008) describes Belinda’s journey towards Cree language reclamation and includes a discussion of the nēhiyawak Language Experience camp in the initial years of development. At that time, the camp consisted of just nine learners and two teachers. Belinda’s reflections on the camp include several conclusions. First, instructors need to have not only strong language fluency but also knowledge of second language acquisition and teaching methodologies. Second, in terms of language development, Belinda determines that the camp provided an opportunity to relearn and reclaim Cree. Finally, the author concludes that “being with others who wanted to learn Cree provided a comforting source of mutual encouragement and inspiration.” (p. 243). In both papers, then, the importance of this collective commitment to language reclamation is a key point.

Indigenous languages and Indigenous health and wellness

In recent health literature, settler colonialism is recognized as a determinant of Indigenous health (Carson et al., 2007; Czyzewski, 2011; Wispelwey et al., 2023). Health and wellness in Indigenous communities is lower than in the general population (Adelson, 2005; Anderson et al., 2016; Gracey & King, 2009; Kolahdooz et al., 2015) and the loss of land, language, and spiritual ways continue to impact Indigenous wellness (Whitbeck et al., 2004). Cultural connectedness, knowing, and engaging with aspects of an Indigenous culture are keys to improving Indigenous wellness (Snowshoe, 2015). According to Gonzalez and colleagues (2017, p. 176), “Language is one component of culture and therefore may be a means to improve health among Indigenous populations.” In a review of 130 publications examining the effects of language use and revitalization on mental and physical health, Whalen and colleagues (2022, p. 169) conclude that Indigenous language revitalization programs should be “considered a cost-effective way of improving outcomes” in health and wellness of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous language use and learning has positive and protective effects on the health and wellness of Indigenous peoples (Jenni et al., 2017; McIvor, Napolean, & Dickie, 2009; Sullivan, 2018; Whalen et al., 2022).

In the study conducted by Gonzalez and colleagues (2021), university researchers partnered with five Anishinaabe communities in Minnesota and Wisconsin to study relationships between spirituality, Anishinaabemowin use, and positive mental health. The study used a 14-item survey to assess emotional, social, and psychological components of well-being. Data for the study was collected from 161 participants across the five communities at four different points between 2013 and 2017. Through structural equation modelling, the study found that Anishinaabemowin use in the home was “significantly and positively associated with more frequent spiritual connectedness, which in turn was significantly and positively associated with positive mental health” (p. 751). The study concluded that language revitalization efforts are “critical aspects of redressing historical trauma, healing communities, and promoting community wellbeing” (p. 754).

While much of the literature examines the relationship between Indigenous language use and well-being of people who are first language speakers of Indigenous languages, there are studies and discussion papers that increasingly explore these links for Indigenous peoples who are reclaiming languages. Jenni and colleagues (2017) share findings from a study of participants in a Mentor Apprentice Program in British Columbia, Canada. This study did not set out initially to focus on well-being in Indigenous language learners; however, as the study’s 60 adult participants responded to interview questions about how the program had impacted them, the researchers noticed the frequency with which the participants shared the positive impacts of the program on both their well-being and that of the larger community. The researchers concluded that these results provided support for additional research into the links between Indigenous languages, health, and well-being.

James McKenzie (2022) provides a thoughtful discussion of Indigenous language learning as “relational medicine for healing” (p. 73). Drawing on his own experiences of learning world languages as well his own Indigenous language, he reflects on the additional challenges associated with reclaiming Diné bizaad (Navajo language) as well as the healing that is made possible through this process. He focuses on the role of the language teacher in this work, emphasizing the importance of teacher awareness, preparation, and responsiveness to the effects of historical trauma. In his conclusions about supporting healing through language reclamation, he points to the significance of “language cultivation grounded in Indigenous values and ways of restoring balance and wellness” (p. 75). This statement interests us because we see land-based learning as closely aligned with nēhiyaw values. In a reflective paper of her own experiences of reclaiming Cree through land-based experiences, Tammy Ratt (2022), who is a Cree language teacher and scholar, explains the significant role that land plays in teaching and learning Cree language, connecting this relationship to positive impacts on personal self-worth:

All my experiences on the land with those who love learning and teaching the language have brought me pure joy. It is in these moments that I feel exactly where I need to be. These experiences on the land, I know I belong. It is where I connect with my ancestors that have passed and where I feel connected to all the good things about being Indigenous. A big part of why I want to teach on the land is because it is good for the mental health, identity development, cultural learning, and learning good life skills. I have come to find myself on the land – miskâsowin askîhk. I have learned to honor and love myself on the land and through learning my language. I know the students I teach will come to know and love themselves in the same way. (p. 44)

Finally, Sivak and colleagues (2019) focus on the well-being impacts of reclaiming an Indigenous language in the context of Australia. In this study, the researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 Barngarla community members. The interviews focused on participant perceptions and experiences of mental health and well-being in language reclamation activities. Findings from this study suggest a strong positive relationship between language revitalization and well-being. The researchers explain that the “frequency with which participants expressed a feeling that ‘something was missing’ from their lives until they began to engage with their language and culture and the ways in which they articulated healing and wholeness in the context of learning language was striking” (p. 13). While further study is needed in this area (for possible future directions, see Sivak et al., 2023), results of this study point to the potential for language reclamation to serve as an “innovative wellbeing intervention in high-risk communities” (p. 15).

Methodology

Our study uses Indigenous methodology (Absolon, 2022; Kovach, 2021) to explore the following research question: What are the experiences of adult participants in a land-based nēhiyawēwin immersion camp? In this study, we are simultaneously co-researchers and co-participants (three language learners and three language teachers). Belinda is the camp founder and an adult additional language learner of nēhiyawēwin. She plays multiple roles at camp including organizer, teacher, and learner. Randy, Dorothy, and Bill are first language speakers of nēhiyawēwin-nīhithawēwin with teaching experiences at the camp ranging from 10 to 19 years. Over the years, they have also each had family members join them as participants at camp. Finally, Peter and Andrea are learners. Peter has attended the camp with his children for 7 years. Andrea, a settler language learner, has attended the camp as a learner for 6 years.

Attendees of camp, both teachers and learners, often have ties to Treaty 6 territory, a large area of central Alberta and Saskatchewan that also includes parts of Manitoba. Treaty 6 was signed in 1876 and predates the existence of these three provinces. Camp attendee connections to this area can be heard in the Cree dialects people speak at camp, because “most Cree-speaking people can determine people’s origin from the dialect that they speak within the prairie region” (Daniels, 2021, p. 34). These connections to the land are also found in the stories told in this territory: “we have many stories, memories, songs, and ceremonies of past storied lives that take place in the hills, valleys, and lakes of these precise tracts of land and water” (Daniels, 2021, p. 34). For Cree people, these stories hold reminders of connections to these lands. For many consecutive years, the camp has been held at Sturgeon Lake First Nation, which is Belinda’s home community. Throughout the 20 years it has existed, the camp has also sometimes been held in other parts of Saskatchewan (but always in Treaty 6 territory). Attendees have connections to broad swaths of this region because Cree peoples from this region travelled all over to hunt, trade, gather, and visit. In reclaiming language in these places, camp attendees “remember and embrace ties to the land and replenish and reaffirm distinct identities” (Daniels, 2021, p. 36).

Using Indigenous research methodology means that we aligned our methodology with knowledge generation practices of the Cree nations of which Belinda, Randy, Bill, Dorothy, and Peter are citizens (Absolon, 2022; Kovach, 2021). We followed cultural protocols and incorporated methods used to access spiritual knowledge, including smudging and prayer. Relationship-building as co-researchers was another important aspect of our methodology. While we knew each other as teachers and learners at camp, we as researchers invested in actions designed to strengthen our ties. Prior to our circles, we always ate meals together. While we do not live in the same cities, we found ways to connect through conference calls and texts. When together, we planned opportunities for visiting because “visiting is lateral sharing in the absence of coercion and hierarchy and in the presence of compassion. Visiting is fun and enjoyable and nurtures intimate connections and relationship building. Visiting is the core of our political systems” (Simpson, 2017, p. 165). Another aspect of our relationship-building was the way we use humour in our relationships. As Little Bear (2000, p. 79) explains, “Maintaining good feelings is one reason why a sense of humour pervades Aboriginal societies.” In this way, humour, teasing, and laughing served the larger purpose of maintaining connectedness through the development and maintenance of relationships.

Our team used three sharing circles to explore the efficacy of language camps as a revitalization strategy (Baskin, 2005; Kovach, 2021; Lavallée, 2009). Sharing circles are an effective, culturally appropriate, and generative method that help researchers and participants make meaning of complex experiences. Our data collection and analysis took place over 1 year. Since our team lives across Alberta and Saskatchewan, we travelled in order to work with each other in the cities of Saskatoon, Edmonton, and Regina. The first circle, held in December in Saskatoon, invited us to share our camp experiences. It was video-recorded, and we subsequently co-transcribed the recording virtually as a research team. The second circle took place in Edmonton in March and provided the opportunity to discuss the first circle. As co-researchers, we co-constructed another story based on the stories shared in the first circle. Our third circle, held in Regina, was where we made meaning of everything. We coded and categorized our ideas into themes. We used a layered approach to align with larger Indigenous research methodology. We practiced open coding, holistic coding, and regrouping data into categories. The final portion of our day of analysis involved identifying and discussing linkages (McGinnis et al., 2019). We initially grouped our data into six categories: spirit, focus, kinship, wellness, land, and nēhiyaw conscientization. There were many overlapping aspects between these excerpts, and we often placed our utterances into more than one category. We chose to focus on kinship, land, and wellness because we seemed to talk about these themes more than the others and because of the links between these themes and other literature. Throughout our analysis process, we worked towards the goal of relational co-construction of meaning and findings by connecting personal and individual learning experiences to the more communal experience of camp. We share both types of experiences in the excerpts that follow and use these examples to offer some conclusions about Indigenous language learning on the land.

Story-ing and discussion

When we first read the transcripts from our sharing circles, it felt to us as if the spirit of the language was speaking to us through our voices encapsulated within the collective stories we shared around three interconnected themes: kinship, land, and wellness. In our sharing circles, we used the term kinship to represent not only the relationship of everything and everyone (not just people), but also the feeling of being connected when at Cree camp. Cree camp is home for the six of us. Land was also a powerful theme that ran through the stories we shared about camp. Our stories highlight the collective sense we hold that land is alive, and that we live with it, as opposed to owning or using land. The theme of wellness connected to being out on the land and learning to speak nēhiyawēwin. Working towards this goal together was healing, nurturing, safe, and enjoyable. Being together felt comforting to all of us. In the next subsections, we present these three themes separately but, despite being different concepts, they are very much interrelated.

wāhkōhtowin (kinship)

Cree and Métis scholars have already written extensively about the principle of wāhkōtowin (see Cardinal & Hildebrandt, 2000; MacDougall, 2010; McAdam, 2015). Matthew Wildcat (Ermineskin Cree Nation) explains this concept as “kinship or being related to each other” (2018, p. 14). He breaks the concept into three parts: (a) the act of being related, (b) a worldview that everything is related and animated (including languages), and (c) a set of laws or obligations around how to conduct good relationships. The principle of wāhkōtowin reminds us that relationships in research come with responsibilities, that understandings of language include recognizing the animacy of the Language Spirit, and that the work we do is important because of our place among others in this world. Recognizing the interconnected nature of relationships, communities, and natural systems also means recognizing that Indigenous languages are connected to all of us, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, whether we are speakers of these languages or not. We are all part of this ecology; the well-being of these languages matters to us all.

wāhkōtowin allows us to situate our knowledge and grounds that knowledge in our relationships. In the story excerpts in this section, the researcher-participants discuss nēhiyawēwin as a living entity with relationships to people, animals, and land. These relationships are not metaphors; rather, their words suggest an understanding of the world that aligns with nēhiyaw onto-epistemologies. The following comment from Randy points to the relationship between land and language:

I want it to flourish, not only Cree, but other languages to be spoken, because the land misses the language. Everywhere you go. You just hear English from our people.

Randy’s statements are suggestive of a relationship damaged by colonialism and in need of renewal. In our subsequent discussion of this sharing circle excerpt, Randy also draws comparisons between the displacement of Indigenous languages from these lands and the displacement of buffalo since Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains recognize the buffalo as kin. Schneider (2023) examines the relationships between Indigenous resurgence and buffalo restoration. Through reference to the work of Cree filmmaker and writer Tasha Hubbard (2009, 2014, 2023), Schneider writes that the buffalo were not just important to “plains tribal nations, they were ancestors, teachers, helpers, healers, and guardians” (p. 804). The principle of wāhkōtowin is evident in this description. Schneider also draws on the words of Winona LaDuke (Ojibwe) to highlight the relationship of buffalo and land, explaining that “because of their size and numbers, as well as behavior and migration patterns,” buffalo played a key role in “dramatically shaping the land itself” (p. 804).

These land-language kinship relationships are also discussed in the following sharing circle excerpt offered by Belinda. Here, she shares a small story that her uncle often tells in his visits with language learners at Cree camp. In this story, the relationship between language and land is again made apparent:

My Uncle Willie says, he gives an example. He’s like, “Bill, Bill. Peter, Peter. Do you not like your names being called? Isn’t it nice when someone calls your name and it’s an, it’s from a friendly person from a friendly voice like myself?” He goes, “because just think about that. When we’re praying and we’re praying to the trees, to the wind, to the rocks, in Cree. The rocks miss their name. The trees miss their name, like, in Cree. The river misses their name. The flowers, the bugs miss their name, being called out by a familiar voice. And that’s how language misses land.”

Language learners at camp often refer to themselves as family or as a community. But the kin of this camp are not limited to humans. Randy describes the disruption of language transmission as being like the feeling of a parent missing their children, again drawing a parallel to human kinship ties:

And now that’s not spoken. It’s like this empty feeling. It [the land] misses the language. It’s like you’re in a house with all your kids. And they all suddenly leave. You miss them. That’s how the land misses the language.

Camp learners experience the feeling of coming home to the land and their renewal with it and the language. This camp represents a home/land/language reunion. Everything in creation in this territory has heard nēhiyawēwin spoken for a long time.

iyiniw pīkiskwewini-kiskinwahamākosiwina askīhk ohci (Indigenous language learning on, with, and from the land)

Within the nēhiyawak Language Experience camp, we understand land as another teacher, one which teaches us how to be. Peter describes the significance of this role:

It’s hard to go back [i.e., reclaim/relearn Indigeneity] and I don’t want that to happen to my children or their children. That’s something that I am working against, and I see language and land as two ways to maintain our identity and our citizenship in our community.

We see land as central to reclaiming and renewing Indigenous identities and language. In our circles, we discussed the mechanisms of this relationship. Belinda initiated this discussion because of the frequency that she is asked about this relationship by conference audiences when she gives keynotes:

I always get the question from an audience, they always ask me, “So, Belinda, give us some examples of how language and land create identity. Do you have any examples?” They want tangible examples. Like, just people from the audience, they go, “Give us examples of how language comes from the land.”

Belinda’s words sparked a lot of discussion within our group as we thought through how being on the land might influence the experience of learning Cree. We began by focusing on how the Cree language reflects or aligns with the natural environment. These examples began with a discussion of the words for colours in Cree. We have organized these examples in Table 1.

Table 1: Cree colours (Table view)

English item	Cree item	Natural element
Blue	sīpihko	Related to sīpiy (river)
Green	askihtako	Related to askiy (earth)
Red	mihkwāw	Related to mihko (blood)

After this initial discussion of colours, other ideas started to flow. Randy moved to the topic of Cree months of the year. In Cree, these terms reflect moon seasons, changes in weather, and changes in animals and plants. These terms also differ according to the territory where the language is spoken. In Table 2, we provide the terms in English, Cree (Th dialect), and Cree (Y dialect).

Table 2: Cree months (Table view)

English	nīhithawīwin (Cree Th dialect)	nīhithawīwin (Cree Y dialect)
January	opāwahcikanasīsipīsim (Frost-Exploding Moon)	kisē-pīsim (Great Moon)
February	kisīpīsim(Great Moon)	mikisiwi-pīsim(Eagle Moon)
March	mikisiwipīsim(Eagle Moon)	niski-pīsim(Goose Moon)
April	niskipīsim(Goose Moon)	ayīki-pīsim(Frog Moon)
May	athīkipīsim(Frog Moon)	sākipakāwi-pīsim(Leaf-Budding Moon)
June	opiniyāwīwipīsim(Egg-Laying Moon)	pāskāwihowi-pīsim(Egg-Laying Moon)
July	opaskowipīsim(Moulting Moon)	paskowi-pīsim(Moulting Moon)
August	ohpahowipīsim(Flying-Up Moon)	ohpahowi-pīsim(Flying-Up Moon)
September	nimitahamowipīsim(Rutting Moon)	nōcihitowi-pīsim(Mating Moon)
October	pimahamowipīsim(Migrating Moon)	pimihāwi-pīsim(Migrating Moon)
November	kaskatinowipīsim(Freeze-Up Moon)	ihkopīwi-pīsim(Frost Moon)
December	thithikopīwipīsim(Hoar-Frost Moon)	pawācakinasīsi-pīsim(Frost-Exploding Moon)

After Randy shared the example of months of the year, Andrea turned the conversation to the topic of trees. At the time, she was enrolled in a BA in Cree Language Literacy, an undergraduate language program at First Nations University of Canada, and taking an independent study course with a highly respected Cree language professor, Solomon Ratt:

I’ve been learning tree names from Solomon. That’s one of the things I wanted to learn because I don’t know tree names in English. When I look at a tree, I don’t know what it’s called. And so, I just call them all trees. Or I’ll say the big tree over there. Like that’s how I think about them. So, I said to Solomon, can you teach me the names of the trees? That we see out the window? So, we started there. And what’s different about the tree names in Cree than in English is that they tell you something about that tree. So, like, wīkin, what’s wīkin? The tamarack tree…wīkin? What’s the tamarack called in Cree? wīkin? wīkin? Like…it bends?

As Andrea, a language learner, searched her memory for terms, the fluent Cree speakers in the group immediately replied with the Cree word for it, wakaw (“it bends”). This term then led the group to arrive at the related Cree term for the tamarack tree, wākāhtik. As Andrea had learned from Solomon, the term reflects the properties of the tree. Tamarack trees are supple: They bend easily and can be used to create snowshoes or other things that require the bending of wood to build a form. This Cree term, like many others, provide insight into the relationship between the natural world and the Cree language. While Andrea learned this example in a university setting, camps offer more opportunities for this type of learning. As learners experience camps, they are exposed to the language, the land, and Indigenous knowledge about how to live in harmony with, and in, a territory.

We carried on with our discussion, and Andrea shared more about the tree names she was learning. Next, she provided an example in the Th dialect of the Cree language. In this instance, she spoke about the word for spruce tree:

And, like, the ithith…the spruce tree? ithināhtik? Like, it’s the same [root] as “the people,” ithiniw, you know? Like, a common everyday thing. So, the reason they’re called that is because they’re everywhere. Just like, you know, the people are everywhere. And what’s the word for blueberry?

In their response, the answer was provided in the Th dialect: ithinimin.

Yeah, okay. Same thing. They’re common. They’re, they’re there. They’re always there. So, there are stories in the words, in those Cree names.

As Andrea worked hard to explain what she was learning from Solomon, the group scaffolded her emerging understanding with their knowledge of the Cree language. We engaged in a form of collective knowledge building. While Andrea searched for the right word to describe the meaning of the root (or particle), she settled on the imperfect placeholder of “common” or “every day.” Another way of describing ithini – the same Cree morpheme found in the words for people, spruce, and blueberries – might be to say that it is found in words that describe people and plants that are Indigenous to the territory. Indeed, the term ithiniw (or iyiniw in the Y dialect) is reserved for Indigenous peoples from the territory and not used to describe non-Indigenous people. The root, ithini, reflects the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the land.

In our discussion, we were excited by these examples. Belinda can be heard exclaiming “that’s what I’m talking about!” Andrea carried on with explanations of her partial understanding of Cree words for trees:

Or like mītos [white poplar] and mayi-mītos [black poplar, but literally bad poplar]. So that you know which one you’re supposed to use for the firewood. Yeah, for burning a fire. Not a black poplar.

By learning the words for white poplar and black poplar in Cree, Andrea, who had little to no experience of chopping trees or starting campfires, had also begun to develop some ecological awareness. The word for black poplar tells a speaker the lesson of what not to use. In this instance, Andrea learned from Solomon that black poplars would create a smoky fire and should be avoided for this purpose. Through learning Cree, Andrea has also acquired the ability to spot white poplars in the forests where she goes to learn and speak Cree in the summer months. After first learning these words in a classroom setting, she sought these trees out at Cree language camp.

miyo-mâcihowin ēkwa nātawihowin (wellness and healing)

The nēhiyawi-kapēsiwin (Cree camp) provides a path towards greater cultural connectedness; it serves as a therapeutic process (Bals et al., 2010). This healing process includes drawing on and renewing kinship, coming together as nēhiyawak people, being together with the land, coming home, and being able to talk about suppressed feelings. Early on in our circles, Randy described camp in the following way:

It’s a place of dignity, integrity, honour, pride, and respect, because there are no labels, no hierarchy; everyone is just human. We go there as human beings. It’s a place I go to feel human to recharge, to reconnect, to give my spirit a break from this concrete jungle with all kinds of nationalities always having to fight to be here. It’s a place of laughter and acceptance of decolonization.

Randy’s words highlight the wellness-promoting aspects of camp. As a group, we came back to his words in a subsequent circle and decided to discuss them more. Randy expanded on his thinking in further comments that focused more closely on the role of land in influencing his positive feelings associated with camp:

Yeah. Being out on the land is where your spirit just awakens. And just, you just have your senses come alive. You can be yourself with this. You don’t have to be this high and mighty person, you know. You can release your emotions. You can laugh freely. You can talk freely.

When we pressed Randy to identify aspects of camp that promote wellness in this way, he attributed this wellness to “being outside,” to “the beings out there,” and to our relationships to each other.

Building on Randy’s ideas, Dorothy moved the discussion to the topic of how our bodies feel when we are learning and using the language on the land together. She begins by describing how her body feels in her workplace environment at a university and moves to how that changes as she begins living in Cree on the land:

And we’re like, feeling crippled when we are there [at the university]. Because of their rigid deadlines, or this or that? And then we need to, like, re-energize and just let go of all of that. nakata [leave it behind]. It’s not for you to carry when we go out into nature. And it’s like, wow, you’re getting rid of all of that. Our land is helping you, the people that you’re surrounded by. Like, whoever it is, you’re there for a reason.

Dorothy’s description resonated with us all. The following exchange shows the development of our thinking:

Randy: And you can actually feel your body.

Bill: I was just going to say that.

Dorothy: You’re not carrying that burden anymore. Like, your shoulders, you can just be yourself again.

As the exchange continues, Randy goes on to explain that the feelings of wellness extend to sleeping better, feeling “lighter,” and laughing more. He describes the role of laughter as healing. Next, Belinda asks Randy about love and whether Randy felt loved on the land, to which he quickly agreed. Moving from Randy’s words, Belinda makes connections between this feeling of being loved, land as kin, and the healing role of language and land.

Belinda: It’s the healing spirit of the land. When first learning the language, it was traumatic. I remember having a tickle in my throat when trying to speak Cree. I think about this language process, for me, as part of healing, a big part of it has been healing I think Cree camp brings nēhiyawak back from being lost.

Dorothy: So that they don’t have to feel frustrated. I want them to enjoy being there in a very safe environment.

Bill: Randy was saying that too, recharge, reconnecting, that’s how I feel. But yeah, something happens, there’s something that happens. I don’t know why it happens, but something happens. The healing spirit of the land and also the language. They [the camp participants] are smiling, they are laughing, they are calm, they are not afraid anymore, they try to do it, they are open. You can see the calmness and confidence.

The nēhiyawi-kapēsiwin is an example of facilitating an immersive experience that creates brief regenerative encounters of language and wellness. We do this camp because the time is right, and the collective consciousness of the teachers, the land, and the spirit of the language all make this happen. It would be ideal just to live outdoors and be in a nēhiyaw context all the time, but that is not possible in these times. The Cree camp is like all other ceremonies, such as the Sun Dance, memorial feasts, and annual pow-wows. It is a special time. It is a celebration. It is unique and sacred. Our ancestors are waiting there for our annual return. The land, plants, trees, waters, insects, and the weather elements are waiting for us, the language learners and speakers, to join and say their names, their prayers, and their songs.

Conclusion ekwani

In this paper, we, niyanān (all of us, but not you), have discussed kinship ties between land, language, and Indigenous language speakers. We are extensions of the land and of the language. We are shaped by the naturalness of the land that we come from. In this respect, Dei and colleagues (2022, p. 113) explain that “there is an intricate inter-play between Land and Indigeneity so much so that to use the term ‘Indigenous’ is to refer to the relationship between Land and place, being with and on the Land, and is the claiming of territorial space and a sense of belong to the Land.” Similarly, Manriquez (2001, p. 544) tells us that “every land has its own language.” We want to speak the land’s language. Not because the language and land are for us to acquire or own; instead, we want to foster relationships with land and language, and, in turn, land and language also hope for relationships with us. This is part of our way of being.

The camp we discuss in this paper is a safe space and a place intended for all. We do this work not only for ourselves but also for future generations. This camp is a resurgence of tribal maintenance. A homecoming. We are puzzle-building our identity, kinship, and, ultimately, our nationhood. We are remembering and re-storying. We are forging ahead, picking up the remnants of language, and revitalizing it. But it takes long-term planning, connection, and relationships for all of this change to happen. As a result of this care and commitment, feelings of safety, support, and security are fostered.

A question we have for ourselves is whether Indigenous language learning is best achieved on the land or in an institution. For all the reasons we have shared in this paper, we believe strongly in the value of land-based Indigenous language learning. And, at the same time, given the urgency of Indigenous language revitalization, this is not a time to restrict opportunities for language learning to one setting over another. Not everyone has access to land (some learners live in urban settings) and we think Indigenous language learning should take place wherever and whenever there are learners who want to learn. If our answer is that work on Indigenous language revitalization can occur in institutions, then we wonder how we can practically incorporate concepts, teachings, and principles that we have learned from the land into a classroom setting. One example of how this incorporation can be achieved is by using the nature that is around us in urban settings. Andrea began learning tree names in Regina. Although she was not on the land, she was able to learn how these trees were connected to their territories and the Cree language spoken in those places. Once at camp, however, she began to notice these trees and use the language for them in context. Our challenge to ourselves, and our invitation to others, is to consider how we can decolonize our language-learning programs and find ways to replicate what we are doing at the nēhiyawak Language Experience camp. We need to bring our bundles of knowledge regenerated from land-based settings and apply them to the work we do in our respective work environments.

We must take up the action of building relationships and make it a part of our daily work. We must embed this value not only in our language programs but also in our departments and institutions. Land-based language camps represent both a new and old way of teaching and learning language. We must ask ourselves what the focus of our language programs is. We want to create speakers. We need to ask and create opportunities of time and space, a commitment from higher learning to have a sense of groundedness. This groundedness is needed for everyone, not just Indigenous peoples. At the same time, we need to build and maintain relationships with Indigenous peoples, who are connected to land, language, and wellness.

It is time for institutions to ask, “What can we do for you?” because settler colonial institutions have benefited from the Indigenous lands upon which these institutions are built. Research in Indigenous languages, well-being, and land needs greater institutional support. We recognize that Indigenous peoples must lead the way in Indigenous language resurgence, but institutions of higher education also have a role to play in terms of helping the academic field of Indigenous language revitalization (Daniels & Sterzuk, 2022; McIvor, 2020). This role can be fulfilled through fostering relationships between applied linguistics, linguistics, and the field of communication sciences through interdisciplinary funding opportunities and cross-appointments of faculty members in order to build capacity quickly within universities. It can also take the shape of increased funding for graduate students in Indigenous language revitalization so that the next generation of Indigenous revitalization scholars can emerge. This financial support will ensure the success of other potential initiatives, such as more research chairs in Indigenous language revitalization.

We also want to address the matter of sources of research funding. Research funds are used to generate knowledge about complex problems. Indigenous language revitalization is an urgent problem that deserves dedicated funding. As we have shown in this paper, ensuring the vitality of Indigenous languages is not simply a matter of developing teaching strategies or curricular materials, although these social sciences and humanities initiatives are certainly part of this research landscape. In Canada, we also see a need for adequate funding for research of Indigenous language initiatives through the 13 Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). We envision a future with collaborative funding opportunities from these institutes because we recognize that “the cost of revitalization is quite comparable to those health programs addressing a single issue, yet it demonstrates positive effects for multiple health issues” (Whalen et al., 2022, p. 9). Indigenous language revitalization is a promising area of health and wellness research. For this reason, funding programs can be developed to support and foster greater research in this area.

In this paper, we have shared and discussed our reflections from a collected co-constructed study examining our experiences as learners and teachers in a land-based Indigenous language immersion camp. We told a collective narrative. The camp achieves an immersive experience over a short duration that enhances its potential for optimal learning and instruction. This potential is capitalized on through repeated attendance. Both learners and instructors benefit, and the language and land do too. The nēhiyawak Language Experience is a ceremony, a celebration that brings learners and their families together to speak, listen, and participate collectively in nēhiyawēwin (Cree language) resurgence. They are calling us home…kin, land, and the spirit of wellness.

References

Absolon, K.E. (2022). Kaandossiwin: How we come to know: Indigenous re-search methodologies (2^nd ed.). Fernwood Publishing.

Absolon, K.E., & Willett, C. (2005). Putting ourselves forward: Location in Aboriginal research. In L. Brown & S. Strega (Eds.), Research as resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches (pp. 97–126). Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Adelson, N. (2005). The embodiment of inequity: Health disparities in Aboriginal Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 96(S2), S45–S61. Crossref

Anderson, I., Robson, B., Connolly, M., Al-Yaman, F., Bjertness, E., King, A., Coimbra, C.E.A., Jr., Pesantes, M.A., Amigo, H., Andronov, S., Armien, B., Obando, D.A., Axelsson, P., Bhatti, Z.S., Bhutta, Z.A., Bjerregaard, P., Bjertness, M.B., Briceno-Leon, R., Broderstad, A.R., … Yap, L. (2016). Indigenous and tribal peoples’ health (The Lancet–Lowitja Institute Global Collaboration): A population study. The Lancet, 388(10040), 131–157. Crossref

Bals, M., Turi, A.L., Skre, I., & Kvernmo, S. (2010). Internalization symptoms, perceived discrimination, and ethnic identity in Indigenous Sami and non-Sami youth in Arctic Norway. Ethnicity & Health, 15(2), 165–179. Crossref

Baskin, C. (2005). Storytelling circles: Reflections of Aboriginal protocols in research. Canadian Social Work Review, 22(2), 171–187. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41669834

Bowra, A., Mashford‐Pringle, A., & Poland, B. (2021). Indigenous learning on Turtle Island: A review of the literature on land‐based learning. Canadian Geographies, 65(2), 132–140. Crossref

Cardinal, H., & Hildebrandt, W. (2000). Treaty Elders of Saskatchewan: Our dream is that our peoples will one day be clearly recognized as nations. University of Calgary Press. https://press.ucalgary.ca/books/9781552387153/

Carson, B., Dunbar, T., Chenhall, R.D., & Bailie, R. (Eds.). (2007). Social determinants of Indigenous health. Routledge.

Castleden, H.E., Martin, D., Cunsolo, A., Harper, S., Hart, C., Sylvestre, P., Stefanelli, R., Day, L., & Lauridsen, K. (2017). Implementing Indigenous and Western knowledge systems (part 2): “You have to take a backseat” and abandon the arrogance of expertise. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(4), 1–18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48767538

Chambers, N.A., & Saddleman, D. (2020). Moving towards a language nest: Stories and insights from nḱmaplqs. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 15(1), 27–43. Crossref

Czyzewski, K. (2011). Colonialism as a broader social determinant of health. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 2(1), 1–14. Crossref

Daniels, B. (2021). ē kakwē nēhiyaw pimātisiyān ōta nīkihk: The lifelong journey home [Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan]. https://harvest.usask.ca/items/d2df1a4c-32f1-42e5-a82d-7d558f4603ff

Daniels, B., Sterzuk, A., Turner, P., Cook, W.R., Thunder, D., & Morin, R. (2021). ē-ka-pimohteyāhk nīkānehk ōte nīkān: nēhiyawēwin (Cree language) revitalization and Indigenous knowledge (re)generation. In K. Heugh, C. Stroud, K. Taylor-Leech, & P.I. De Costa (Eds.), A sociolinguistics of the South (pp. 199–213). Routledge. Crossref

Daniels-Fiss, B. (2008). Learning to be a Nêhiyaw (Cree) through language. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 2(3), 233–245. Crossref

DeCaire, O.R. (2023). The role of adult immersion in Kanien’kéha revitalization (Publication No. 30522398) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/openview/d3e05d65dfbe8f36a09dce21a907478b/1?

Dei, G.J.S., Karanja, W., & Erger, G. (2022). Elders’ cultural knowledges and the question of Black/African Indigeneity in education. Springer. Crossref

Engman, M.M., & Hermes, M. (2021). Land as interlocutor: A study of Ojibwe learner language in interaction on and with naturally occurring ‘materials.’ The Modern Language Journal, 105(S1), 86–105. Crossref

Fayant, R., & Griffith-Brice, M. (in press). An intellectual bannock slap: What we learned as Métis/Michif researchers. In L. Forsythe & J. Markides (Eds.), Métis methodologies. University of Manitoba Press.

Fayant, R., & Sterzuk, A. (2018). Michif language revitalization within a post-secondary context. Canadian Diversity, 15(1), 18–21. https://acs-metropolis.ca/studies/michif-language-revitalization-within-a-post-secondary-context/

Gagnon, C.A., Hamel, S., Russell, D.E., Powell, T., Andre, J., Svoboda, M.Y., & Berteaux, D. (2020). Merging Indigenous and scientific knowledge links climate with the growth of a large migratory caribou population. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(9), 1644–1655. Crossref

Gardner, E., & Ciotti, S. (2018). An overview of Where Are Your Keys? A glimpse inside the technique toolbox. In L. Hinton, L. Huss, & G. Roche (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language revitalization (pp. 137–145). Routledge. Crossref

Gonzalez, M.B., Aronson, B.D., Kellar, S., Walls, M.L., & Greenfield, B.L. (2017). Language as a facilitator of cultural connection. ab-Original: Journal of Indigenous Studies and First Nations and First Peoples’ Cultures, 1(2), 176–194. Crossref

Gonzalez, M.B., Sittner, K.J., Saniguq Ullrich, J., & Walls, M.L. (2021). Spiritual connectedness through prayer as a mediator of the relationship between Indigenous language use and positive mental health. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 27(4), 746–757. Crossref

Gorenflo, L.J., Romaine, S., Mittermeier, R.A., & Walker-Painemilla, K. (2012). Co-occurrence of linguistic and biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots and high biodiversity wilderness areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(21), 8032–8037. Crossref

Gracey, M., & King, M. (2009). Indigenous health part 1: Determinants and disease patterns. The Lancet, 374(9683), 65–75. Crossref

Green, T.J., & Maracle, O.B. (2018). The root-word method for building proficient second-language speakers of polysynthetic languages: Onkwawén:na Kentyókhwa adult Mohawk language immersion program. In L. Hinton, L. Huss, & G. Roche (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language revitalization (pp. 146–156). Routledge. Crossref

Henson, L.H., Balkenhol, N., Gustas, R., Adams, M., Walkus, J., Housty, W.G., Stronen, A.V., Moody, J., Service, C., Reece, D., vonHoldt, B.M., McKechnie, I., Koop, B.F., & Darimont, C.T. (2021). Convergent geographic patterns between grizzly bear population genetic structure and Indigenous language groups in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Ecology & Society, 26(3), Article 7. Crossref

Hinton, L., Huss, L., & Roche, G. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of language revitalization. Routledge. Crossref

Hubbard, T. (2009). Buffalo genocide in nineteenth-century North America: “Kill, skin, and sell.” In A. Woolford, J. Benvenuto, & A.L. Hinton (Eds.), Colonial genocide in Indigenous North America (pp. 292–305). Duke University Press. Crossref

Hubbard, T. (Director). (2014). Buffalo calling [Short film]. Red Quill Films. https://cinelasamericas.org/documentary-shorts-competition-claiff17/2014/buffalo-calling/

Hubbard, T. (Director). (2023). Singing back the buffalo [Film]. National Film Board of Canada. https://buffalosong.com/

Jenni, B., Anisman, A., McIvor, O., & Jacobs, P. (2017). An exploration of the effects of mentor-apprentice programs on mentors’ and apprentices’ wellbeing. International Journal of Indigenous Health, 12(2), 25–42. Crossref

Johnson, S.M.K. (2014). yaʕ̓tmín cq^wəlq^wilt nix^w, uł nix^w, ul nix^w, I need to speak more, and more, and more: Okanagan-Colville (Interior Salish) Indigenous second-language learners share our filmed narratives. Language Documentation & Conservation, 8, 136–167. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/items/e6cb840a-843c-4301-bbbf-f363bcc24504

Johnson, S.M.K. (2017). Syilx language house: How and why we are delivering 2,000 decolonizing hours in Nsyilxcn. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 73(4), 509–537. Crossref

Jung, D., Klein, M., & Stoll, S. (2017). Language transition(s): School responses to recent changes in language choice in a Northern Dene community (Canada). In G. Wigglesworth, J. Simpson, & J. Vaughan (Eds.), Language practices of Indigenous children and youth: The transition from home to school (pp. 49–68). Palgrave Macmillan. Crossref

Kennedy, D.A.D. (2022). Nahkawēwin revitalization: A mini language nest created with hope and determination. in education, 27(2b), 3–18. Crossref

Kolahdooz, F., Nader, F., Yi, K.J., & Sharma, S. (2015). Understanding the social determinants of health among Indigenous Canadians: Priorities for health promotion policies and actions. Global Health Action, 8(1), 27968. Crossref

Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts (2^nd ed.). University of Toronto Press. https://utppublishing.com/doi/book/10.3138/9781487525644

Lavallée, L.F. (2009). Practical application of an Indigenous research framework and two qualitative Indigenous research methods: Sharing circles and Anishnaabe symbol-based reflection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 21–40. Crossref

Leonard, W.Y., & Shoemaker, S.M. (2008). “I heart this camp”: Participant perspectives within the story of Miami youth camps. Algonquian Papers-Archive, 40, 186–209. https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/ALGQP/article/view/1281/1168

Little Bear, L. (2000). Jagged worldviews colliding. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision (pp. 77–85). University of British Columbia Press. Crossref

Macdougall, B. (2010). One of the family: Métis culture in nineteenth-century northwestern Saskatchewan. UBC Press. https://www.ubcpress.ca/one-of-the-family

Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 599–617. Crossref

Manriquez, L.F. (2001). Silent no more: California Indians reclaim their culture – and they invite you to listen. In L. Maffi (Ed.), On biocultural diversity: Linking languages, knowledge, and the environment (pp. 540–545). Smithsonian Institution Press.

McAdam, S. (2015). Nationhood interrupted: Revitalizing nêhiyaw legal systems. Purich.

McIvor, O. (1998). Building the nests: Indigenous language revitalization in Canada through early childhood immersion programs [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Victoria. https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstreams/33b75859-2638-4ba0-b2cd-f88e562f1b93/download

McIvor, O. (2012). îkakwiy nîhiyawiyân: I am learning [to be] Cree [Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia]. Crossref

McIvor, O. (2020). Indigenous language revitalization and applied linguistics: Parallel histories, shared futures? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 78–96. Crossref

McIvor, O., & Anisman, A. (2018). Keeping our languages alive: Strategies for Indigenous language revitalization and maintenance. In Y. Watanabe (Ed.), Handbook of cultural security (pp. 90–109). Edward Elgar.

McIvor, O., Jacobs, P., & Jenni, B. (2023). 32 Reviving languages: Outcomes of a Mentor-Apprentice style learning study. In C. Dagostino, M. Mithun, & K. Rice (Eds.), The languages and linguistics of Indigenous North America: A comprehensive guide (pp. 717–740). De Gruyter Mouton. Crossref

McIvor, O., & McCarty, T.L. (2017). Indigenous bilingual and revitalization-immersion education in Canada and the USA. In O. García, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education: Encyclopedia of language and education (3^rd ed.) (pp. 421–438). Springer. Crossref

McIvor, O., Napoleon, A., & Dickie, K.M. (2009). Language and culture as protective factors for at-risk communities. International Journal of Indigenous Health, 5(1), 6–25. Crossref

McIvor, O., & Parker, A. (2016). Back to the future: Recreating natural Indigenous language learning environments through language nest early childhood immersion programs. The International Journal of Holistic Early Learning and Development, 3, 21–35. https://ijheld.lakeheadu.ca/article/view/1444

McGinnis, A., & Kincaid, A.T. (2024). Walking a common path: Decolonizing land-based education with the more-than-human world. In A.-L. King, K. O’Reilly, & P.J. Lewis (Eds.), Unsettling education: Decolonizing and Indigenizing the land (pp. 189–212). Canadian Scholars’ Press.

McGinnis, A., Kincaid, A.T., Barrett, M.J., Ham, C., & Community Elders Research Advisory Group. (2019). Strengthening animal-human relationships as a doorway to Indigenous holistic wellness. Ecopsychology, 11(3), 162–173. Crossref

Moore, P.J. (2003). Lessons on the land: The role of Kaska Elders in a university language course. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 27(1), 127–139. Crossref

Ratt, T. (2022). Miskasowin askîhk: Coming to know oneself on the land. in education, 27(2b), 37–51. Crossref

Rayne, A., Blair, S., Dale, M., Flack, B., Hollows, J., Moraga, R., Parata, R.N., Rupene, M., Tamati-Elliffe, P., Wehi, P.M., Wylie, M.J., Steeves, T.E. (2022). Weaving place‐based knowledge for culturally significant species in the age of genomics: Looking to the past to navigate the future. Evolutionary Applications, 15(5), 751–772. Crossref

Rorick, c.L. (2018). wałyaʕasukʔi naananiqsakqin: At the home of our ancestors: Ancestral continuity in Indigenous land-based language immersion. In L.T. Smith, E. Tuck, & K.W. Yang (Eds.), Indigenous and decolonizing studies in education (pp. 224–237). Routledge. Crossref

Ross, J.B. (2016). Indigenous intergenerational teachings: The transfer of culture, language, and knowledge in an intergenerational summer camp. The American Indian Quarterly, 40(3), 216–250. Crossref

Schneider, L. (2023). Decolonizing conservation? Indigenous resurgence and buffalo restoration in the American West. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 6(2), 801–821. Crossref

Schreyer, C. (2008). “Nehiyawewin Askîhk”: Cree language on the land: Language planning through consultation in the Loon River Cree First Nation. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9(4), 440–463. Crossref

Simpson, L.B. (2014). Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3(3), 1–25. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/22170

Simpson, L.B. (2017). As we have always done: Indigenous freedom through radical resistance. University of Minnesota Press. Crossref

Sivak, L., Westhead, S., Gee, G., Wright, M., Rosen, A., Atkinson, S., Richards, E., Richards, J., Dare, H., Brown, N., Zuckermann, G., Walsh, M., Howard, N.J., & Brown, A. (2023). Developing the Indigenous Language and Wellbeing Survey: Approaches to integrating qualitative findings into a survey instrument. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 19(3), 656–668. Crossref

Sivak, L., Westhead, S., Richards, E., Atkinson, S., Richards, J., Dare, H., Zuckermann, G., Gee, G., Wright, M., Rosen, A., Walsh, M., Brown, N., & Brown, A. (2019). “Language breathes life” – Barngarla community perspectives on the wellbeing impacts of reclaiming a dormant Australian Aboriginal language. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(20), 3918. Crossref

Snowshoe, A. (2015). The Cultural Connectedness Scale and its relation to positive mental health among First Nations youth [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Western Ontario. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/3107/

Statistics Canada. (2023). Indigenous languages across Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-X/2021012/98-200-X2021012-eng.cfm

Styres, S.D. (2017). Pathways for remembering and recognizing Indigenous thought in education: Philosophies of lethi’nihsténha Ohwentsia’kékha (land). University of Toronto Press.

Sullivan, D. (2018). The connection between health and well-being and Indigenous language use and learning – An annotated bibliography. NET/OLṈEW̱ Research Partnership. https://hdl.handle.net/1828/16488

Tuck, E., McKenzie, M., & McCoy, K. (2014). Land education: Indigenous, post-colonial, and decolonizing perspectives on place and environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 1–23. Crossref

Walsh, M. (2018). “Language is like food…”: Links between language revitalization and health and well-being. In L. Hinton, L. Huss, & G. Roche (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language revitalization (pp. 5–12). Routledge. Crossref

Wildcat, M., McDonald, M., Irlbacher-Fox, S., & Coulthard, G. (2014). Learning from the land: Indigenous land based pedagogy and decolonization. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3(3), i–xv. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/22248

Wispelwey, B., Tanous, O., Asi, Y., Hammoudeh, W., & Mills, D. (2023). Because its power remains naturalized: Introducing the settler colonial determinants of health. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1137428. Crossref

Whalen, D.H., Lewis, M.E., Gillson, S., McBeath, B., Alexander, B., & Nyhan, K. (2022). Health effects of Indigenous language use and revitalization: A realist review. International Journal for Equity in Health, 21, Article 169. Crossref

Whitbeck, L.B., Adams, G.W., Hoyt, D.R., & Chen, X. (2004). Conceptualizing and measuring historical trauma among American Indian people. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33(3–4), 119–130. Crossref

Author Information

Belinda kakiyosēw Daniels comes from Sturgeon Lake First Nation, Saskatchewan. She is an assistant professor at the University of Victoria and the founder of the nēhiyawak Language Experience, a not-for-profit language-revitalization organization.

Andrea Sterzuk is a professor of education and Associate Vice-President, Research at the University of Regina. She is a white settler from Saskatchewan. She teaches and researches in the area of language education.

Randy Morin is from Whitefish First Nation, Saskatchewan. Randy is a storyteller and holds a master’s degree from the University of Victoria. He is an assistant professor in the Department of Indigenous Studies at the University of Saskatchewan.

William (Bill) Cook is from Southend, Peter Ballyntyne First Nation, Saskatchewan. Bill is a doctoral student at the University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo. He is currently the Indigenous Language Lead for Cowessess First Nation.

Dorothy Thunder is from Little Pine First Nation, Saskatchewan. Dorothy has a master’s degree in linguistics and is a faculty member in Indigenous Studies at the University of Alberta.

Peter Turner is from James Smith Cree Nation, Saskatchewan. He is a teacher at St. Frances Cree Bilingual School in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.