<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=250322819-11012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Susan,
thanks for responding, I was hoping to hear from community members on the list
regarding this topic. I had a discussion with a web developer and online
educator who did many presentations at the community level regarding
connectivity, and in our discussion he emphasized the desire of communities
to control their own communication networks and educational output. Sovereignty
is the key he said in relation to indigenous knowledge and learning networks. I
wondered how much of the desire for sovereignty in knowledge sharing might
affect any efforts in language and cultural revitalization by non
community members who would like to collaborate or work "for" or "with" the
community? And if there is a barrier to collaboration due to the desire of the
communities to control their collective knowledge of the language and the
sharing of that knowledge. Just a thought that could affect any
efforts by outsiders to help or affect the direction or focus of
outsider support to language revitalization.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=250322819-11012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=250322819-11012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Jan</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=250322819-11012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=250322819-11012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Indigenous Languages and
Technology [mailto:ILAT@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Susan
Penfield<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:53 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
ILAT@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ILAT] "In", "for", or
"with"? (was Re: [ILAT] LSA 2006)<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Jan,</DIV>
<DIV>Of course...these are good points and important to mention. Increasingly
, communities are choosing to do their own work which is great -- but if they
decide to involve a linguist, then that linguist needs to really think through
the relationship with the community -- on many levels. I actually agree with
Scott -- working 'with' is the current model and a good one -- or at least an
improved one. My personal hope is that communities feel empowered in terms of
choosing or not choosing a linguist and in terms of being able to outline how
a linguist might or might not be of specifi use to them fro either
documentation or revitalization. </DIV>
<DIV>Best,</DIV>
<DIV>Susan<BR><BR> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 1/11/06, <B class=gmail_sendername>Jan
Tucker</B> <<A
href="mailto:jtucker@starband.net">jtucker@starband.net</A>> wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Scott,
great points here. It would be good to hear from community
members<BR>regarding working "for" the community. How do the communities
want <BR>"outsiders"<BR>working "for" them. Also, do the communities even
want outside<BR>collaborators in<BR>their revitalization programs? Would
they rather train their own community<BR>members<BR>working on
revitalization to document language and develop language <BR>revitalization
tools?<BR><BR>Jan<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Indigenous
Languages and Technology<BR>[mailto:<A
href="mailto:ILAT@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU">ILAT@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU</A>]On
Behalf Of Scott DeLancey <BR>Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:48
AM<BR>To: <A
href="mailto:ILAT@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU">ILAT@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU</A><BR>Subject:
[ILAT] "In", "for", or "with"? (was Re: [ILAT] LSA 2006) <BR><BR><BR>On Wed,
11 Jan 2006, Susan Penfield wrote:<BR><BR>> Jeff's session) is supportive
of the community's efforts. This requires a<BR>> second set of 'Best
Practices' -- still being defined -- for working with <BR>> communties
(actually, I think we should think in terms of working FOR<BR>>
communities --a step beyond working 'IN' or even 'WITH' ) ...<BR><BR>I may
be splitting hairs here, but then, that's what I do for a living ...
<BR><BR>A lot of folks in linguistics now put these in the other order--once
upon<BR>a time we worked *in* the communities, then we learned we had to
think<BR>about working *for* the community, now we work *with*
them.<BR><BR>To me the difference is: if you are working *for*
the community, that<BR>sounds like you design and carry out the project, and
the community<BR>benefits. Sounds cool, but it can't work that
way--no revitalization<BR>program can get anywhere unless the community is
involved all the way<BR>along, not just in goal-setting but in
implementation too--if you're<BR>not working *with* the community then the
community isn't going to end<BR>up getting much out of your work.
<BR><BR>Scott DeLancey<BR>Department of Linguistics<BR>1290 University of
Oregon<BR>Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA<BR><BR><A
href="mailto:delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu">delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu</A><BR><A
href="http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/prohp.html">http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/prohp.html</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Susan D. Penfield, Ph.D.<BR><BR>Department of
English<BR>Affiliate faculty: Department of Linguistics <BR>and the Second
Language Acquisition and Teaching Program <BR>American Indian Language
Development Institute<BR>Phone for messages: (520) 621-1836
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>