<html>
<font size=4>Don:<br>
<br>
Let me first clarify something that I just
expressed in a contrary way in my note to you this morning. I meant to
say that I did not want to react improperly/inadequately to things that
may otherwise be well stated. Unfortunately I omitted "not" in
my statement and sounded like I am so uncooperativc I would just look for
the worst interpretation. I really think that "indigenous" just
adds more confusion in a subject matter where things must be sorted out
very cautiously.<br>
<br>
I am rather reluctant now to discuss the
subject matter of language endangerment itself, because it is very
complex and I am not sure that things have been sorted out to my
satisfaction. (Incidentally the Nettle & Romaine book is very
informative and quite an improvement over the current literature.) I need
the kind of format I chose (review article and general response) to
articulate my thoughts carefully. Overall, those discussing language
endangerment the most (especially theoretical linguists) have not clearly
distinguished language preservation (please think of food preservation in
a jar in this context) from language maintainance and from language
revitalization. It is not clear to me, as a person affected by
globalization as a form of Westernization (one of its many
interpretations, as I read again this morning) that the point of view of
the victim has hardly been considered, from the point of view of
adaptation to changing ecology. (Loss of heritage or of diversity is a
humane way of protecting the subject matter of linguistics--at least
Michael Krauss was straightforward about that in 1992.) Sometimes I
wonder whether linguists can really think of speakers of languages as
human beings needing to survive rather than as sources of information.
(Oh, that's Mufwene as a "Tiers-mondiste" that cannot always be
suppressed--I am sorry.) But at a more technical level, it would help to
learn what really leads to language endangerment--is it other languages?
speakers? or ecological systems over which the vast majority of speakers
and their languages have no control? (I am amused by phrases such as
"killer languages," because the metaphor is terribly
inadequate.) Some interventions make me wonder why try to fix things with
the victims when we should be dealing with the victimizers? Can we deal
with the victimizers and at what cost? Believe me, I would very much like
to see my language saved, not just preserved and even as a linguist I
feel so helpless, knowing why some of my people are shifting to Kituba or
Lingala (NOT to French in this case)... Well, I should really remain
relunctant to discuss the subject matter now.<br>
<br>
<font size=4>Thanks for your attention,<br>
<br>
Sali.<br>
<br>
</font><font size=3>>I'm pleased that you found my modest comments
useful. I think some people are a little<br>
>too quick to say a group has died out when all of them have shifted
over the another<br>
>language. If you spend some time with Indians you see that
their culture is not dead,<br>
>just rapidly and sometimes drastically mutated. Scholars all
over the U.S. are still<br>
>seeing German or French culture in some areas several generations
after the group has<br>
>completely shifted over to English. There's an active
Swedish-American historical society<br>
>and museum in the middle of Kansas. I suppose what
differentiates these people from<br>
>"indigenous" "natives" is that the latter do not
have the financial, political,<br>
>educational, or technological means to accomplish cultural
preservation after losing their<br>
>language. Movements to save languages usually begin after it's
too late. Will home<br>
>dialects of Irish vernacular remain two generations from now.
Young people may learn book<br>
>language in school, but that's not what the people speak at home --
instead a kind of<br>
>nonce "classical" form from earlier written documents, not
one that would enable a<br>
>teenager to carry on lengthy conversations with grandpa while the
lure of rock bands etc.<br>
>lurks outside. It seems that I heard someone discussing similar
developments in the<br>
>Telugu area of southeastern India. Because some areal variety
was used widely in writing<br>
>at some recent time in history, as reforms came in, that's the
variety that became<br>
>enshrined as "the language." If it happens that no
literature or laws were written out,<br>
>then there is no record to serve as an anchor to hold the language in
place. I'm sure I'm<br>
>exaggerating. Have you seen my article on lingering features of
German phonology in<br>
>Missouri? -- in Heartland English (Tim Frazer, ed.) -- not awfully
deep, but Bill Labov<br>
>liked it.<br>
><br>
>I hope to see you in WashDC.<br>
><br>
>DMLance<br>
> </font><br>
<font color="#800000">**********************************************************<br>
Salikoko S.
Mufwene
</font><font color="#800080">s-mufwene@uchicago.edu<br>
</font><font color="#800000">University of
Chicago
</font><font color="#800080">773-702-8531; FAX 773-834-0924<br>
</font><font color="#800000">Department of Linguistics<br>
1010 East 59th Street<br>
Chicago, IL 60637<br>
</font><font color="#000000"><a href="http://humanities.uchicago.edu/humanities/linguistics/faculty/mufwene.html" eudora="autourl">http://humanities.uchicago.edu/humanities/linguistics/faculty/mufwene.html</a><br>
</font><font color="#800000">**********************************************************<br>
</font></html>