call for papers: 3/97 language structure & constituency workshop

David Robertson drobert at tincan.tincan.org
Fri Dec 6 03:16:58 UTC 1996


(fwd)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 3091

Hello to all Endangered Languages subscribers!  In case you've not seen
this yet:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:54:29 PST
From: nat-lang at gnosys.svle.ma.us
To: Multiple recipients of list NAT-LANG <NAT-LANG at TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: call for papers: 3/97 language structure & constituency workshop

Original Sender: allen at mpi.nl (Shanley Allen)
Mailing List:    NAT-LANG (nat-lang at gnosys.svle.ma.us)

                        CALL FOR PAPERS

			                          WORKSHOP ON
						                 STRUCTURE AND
						                 CONSTITUENCY
						                 IN THE
								                    LANGUAGES
						                 OF THE
						                 AMERICAS

								                      University
								                      of
								                      Manitoba
										                             March
								                      21-23,
								                      1997

										      Invited
										      Speakers:
										      Henry
										      Davis,
										      University
										      of
										      British
										      Columbia
										                         Alana
										      Johns,
										      University
										      of
										      Toronto

										      Special
										      Session:
										      The
										      Pronominal
										      Argument
										      Hypothesis
										      Roundtable:
										      Language
										      Endangerment

										      We
										      invite
										      papers
										      on
										      specific
										      topics
										      which
										      speak
										      to
										      the
										      general
										      questions
										      of
										      phonological,
										      morphological
										      and
										      syntactic
										      structure
										      and
										      constituency
										      in
										      the
										      analysis
										      of
										      native
										      languages
										      of
										      North
										      and
										      South
										      America. Individual
										      papers
										      might
										      address
										      questions
										      in
										      such
										      areas
										      as
										      constraint
										      interaction,
										      templatic
										      approaches
										      to
										      phonology,
										      analysis
										      and
										      formal
										      treatment
										      of
										      syllable
										      structure,
										      interface
										      and
										      division
										      of
										      labour
										      between
										      syntax
										      and
										      morphology
										      and
										      phonology,
										      inventory
										      and/or
										      projection
										      of
										      lexical
										      and
										      functional
										      categories,
										      analysis
										      and
										      formal
										      treatment
										      of
										      syntactic
										      or
										      semantic
										      relations,
										      structural
										      restrictions
										      on
										      syntactic
										      or
										      semantic
										      relations,
										      etc. Papers
										      for
										      the
										      special
										      session
										      on
										      the
										      pronominal
										      argument
										      hypothesis
										      are
										      especially
										      welcome. The
										      workshop
										      will
										      also
										      include
										      a
										      roundtable
										      discussion
										      of
										      linguistics
										      and
										      language
										      endangerment
										      with
										      participation
										      encouraged
										      from
										      all
										      workshop
										      contributors.

										      Abstracts
										      should
										      be
										      no
										      longer
										      than
										      1
										      page
										      (a
										      second
										      page
										      with
										      references
										      and
										      extra
										      examples
										      may
										      be
										      included).
										      Abstract
										      submission
										      by
										      e-mail
										      is
										      preferred.
										      Abstracts
										      may
										      also
										      be
										      submitted
										      by
										      regular
										      mail
										      in
										      3
										      copies:
										      1
										      camera-ready
										      copy
										      with
										      the
										      author's
										      name
										      and
										      affiliation,
										      and
										      2
										      anonymous
										      copies.
										      An
										      additional
										      page
										      giving
										      the
										      title
										      of
										      the
										      paper
										      and
										      the
										      author's
										      name,
										      address,
										      affiliation,
										      phone
										      number,
										      fax
										      number,
										      and
										      e-mail
										      address
										      should
										      accompany
										      the
										      abstracts.
										      Each
										      talk
										      will
										      be
										      allotted
										      30
										      minutes
										      plus
										      time
										      for
										      questions.
										      Deadline
										      for
										      submissions
										      is
										      February
										      2,
										      1997.

										      E-mailed
										      abstracts
										      should
										      be
										      sent
										      to
										      Leslie
										      Saxon
										      at
										      <saxon at uvic.ca>.
										      Please
										      use
										      the
										      header
										      "Structure
										      Workshop".
										      Surface
										      mail
										      abstracts
										      should
										      be
										      sent
										      to:

										      STRUCTURE
										      WORKSHOP
										      c/o
										      Leslie
										      Saxon
										      Department
										      of
										      Linguistics
										      University
										      of
										      Victoria
										      Victoria,
										      British
										      Columbia
										      Canada
										      V8W
										      3P4

										      The
										      program
										      will
										      be
										      announced
										      in
										      the
										      second
										      week
										      of
										      February.
										      For
										      further
										      information,
										      contact
										      Leslie
										      Saxon
										      (e-mail:
										      saxon at uvic.ca)
										      or
										      Shanley
										      Allen
										      (e-mail:
										      allen at mpi.nl).

										      ----
										      Endangered-Languages-L
										      Forum:
										      endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
										      Web
										      pages
										      http://carmen.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
										      Subscribe/unsubscribe
										      and
										      other
										      commands:
										      majordomo at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
										      ----
									      =========================================================================
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:20:59 -0500 (EST)
From: DORIAN at HENRY.BOWDOIN.EDU
To: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
CC: DORIAN at HENRY.BOWDOIN.EDU
Subject: factors in holding endangerment at bay seometimes
Sender: owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 4799

One item among Henry Kammler's listing of fields of
interest would lend itself especially well to discussion of
the dynamics of language fortunes and maybe shed some light on
the complexities of social and linguistic factors that combine
in sometimes predictable but sometimes startling ways to help
or hinder the viability of a language, namely those villages
in Mexico in some of which Nahuatl is held in high esteem but
in others of which it's not. Can Henry Kammler himself shed
any light on why Nahuatl is well regarded in some locations
but not in others? Are there differences in degree of prosperity
from locality to locality, differences in the availability of
educational or intellectual leadership, differences in the
degree of politicization, or perhaps even differences in
regional prestige dating back to pre-conquest days (e.g.
localities which were leadership centers pre-conquest that
still retain an aura of indigenous prestige for that reason)?
What's the role of greater or lesser geographic isolation, &
of greater or lesser participation in the national economy?

Along with Nicholas Ostler & Nancy Lutz, I'd welcome
more discussion of these issues, and especially some consideration
of particular cases. To mention a couple that I've found interesting
recently, there seems to be some consensus among Welsh speakers
that one man's mobilizing speech made a real difference in the
long-term fortunes of Welsh, namely Saunders Lewis' radio
broadcast in 1962, 'The fate of the language' (given in Welsh).
And in Macedonia (former Yugoslavia) one man seems to have made
a difference, too, both in mobilizing intellectual and sociopolitical
well and in more or less single-handedly crafting a standard form
of the Macedonian language (Blaze Koneski, who died in 1993). I
mention these two cases as instances of the difference intellectual
and political leadership can make, and I wonder if others can add
to them? One other that occurs to me, maybe more relevant to the
indigenous Americas, is the case of "Miss Nora, rescuer of the
Rama language: A story of power and empowerment", described by
Colette Craig in a volume called "Locating Power. Proceedings
of the Second Berkeley Women & Lg Conference" (1992). I'm not
arguing in any way for the primacy of individual impact or
charismatic leadership, but only offering an example of one
potential factor as it seems to have appeared in several very
different locations and sets of circumstances.

At a completely different part of the spectrum of
possible factors, there's a potential power in appropriating
cultural purity as a rallying point (& a very effective weapon
in maintenance of cultural & linguistic tradition). There's a
wonderfully successful case of this in Pulap Island, in
Micronesia. Pulap wasnt one of the islands particularly high
up in the pre-colonial hierarchy of dominance (which is still
very much in evidence -- that's why I mentioned it as a possible
factor among Nahuatl-speaking villages above), but the Pulapese
have successfully turned relative economic backwardness to
their own advantage by proudly retaining indigenous dress,
indigenous food-preparing techniques, indigenous navigational
techniques, & even the highly conspicuous traditional practice
in which females stoop in the presence of their brothers. The
Pulapese glory in these traditional practices and claim a
superiority in retention of their own culture. Their claim
is acknowledged by residents of other islands, and the
Pulapese assert their claim so successfully that they
carry their traditional behaviors over onto the land (a
sort of community-in-exile) they own in the capital of
their Micronesian state, which is to say, since that capital
is a center of American political & social influence, they
maintain a proud traditionalism under the very nose of the
heaviest assimilationist pressure in their part of the world.
Juliana Flinn writes about Pulap Island and its cultural
retentions, & it makes wonderful, slightly improbable reading.
I'll be glad to supply references to anyone who might be
interested.

These are just a couple of instances, particularly
interesting ones to me, of factors that can play a role in
helping potentially "weak" languages assert themselves. There
must be many more cases that some of our members are aware of
& I hope some of you will add more examples of the two factors
I've offered cases for here and also let us hear about other
factors you've found to be important elsewhere.

Nancy Dorian
----
Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Web pages http://carmen.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
----




More information about the Endangered-languages-l mailing list