<div>I agree Susan,</div><div><br></div><div>Language is an internal organ in the body non-functioning on its own.</div><div>Sure it can be discected ,and brined in alcohol ,sliced and diced or studied in a jar.<br></div>
<div>but then its no longer an organ in vicarious communication with the body.</div><div>Its only "communicating" to minds of students or specialists studying its mechanics.</div><div><br></div><div>your example (politeness) was a good one.</div>
<div>we have ways of expressing thanks,and then we have ways of expressing THANKS.</div>Expressions are appropriate only in specific context<br><div class="gmail_quote">In the "lab" they would be only sorted as intellectual file material.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">But spoken - they convey specific emotional reverence or casual gratitude.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Richard Zane Smith</div><div class="gmail_quote">Wyandotte,Oklahoma</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 8:35 AM, susan.penfield <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:susan.penfield@gmail.com">susan.penfield@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div>Phil and all,</div>
<div>My two cents is that the notion of content itself should be community-driven -- although, there are ways to look at content which bridges the language/culture interface in a general way that could invite community definition, but still accomplish very focused attention on linguistic structure. I'm reminded here of the move in the 1980's to build syllabi for language teaching around 'speech acts' or pragmatics -- like 'politeness formulas' -- or even around how to talk about community events -- Staging the content to be relevant first, then focusing on particular syntactic constructions recurring in this type of content still seems like a logical and somewhat organized approach to bridging the language / culture /content issues.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>S.<br><br></div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:47 PM, phil cash cash <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cashcash@email.arizona.edu" target="_blank">cashcash@email.arizona.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="padding-left:1ex;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:#ccc 1px solid">Bill & everybody, <br><br>My feeling is that one should never be too reductive in recognizing one's own linguistic diversity (such as reducing it to grammar/structure). For most community advocates, grappling with a preferred grammar-centric view is a continuous quandary and challenge because such views often eliminate the vital links to culture entirely. Linguists and native scholar/community educators who have taken a committed approach to diversity and endangerment repeatedly show that an integrated approach is a worthwhile endeavor. When I go to conferences like Stabilizing Indigenous Languages and the like, I no longer see the diversity & flux of teaching strategies as "fads" (as I once did) rather they all seem to privilege the notion of whole utterances & constructions (usage-based) rather than simply grammar in isolation. I like your/Bill's idea that "content" has to come first...but the question emerges whose conception of "content"? Recognizing the real diversity of indigenous languages may be at least part of the answer in addition to real acts of revitalization. <br>
<br>later,<br><br>Phil Cash Cash<br>UofA<br><br>Quoting William J Poser <<a href="mailto:wjposer@ldc.upenn.edu" target="_blank">wjposer@ldc.upenn.edu</a>>:<br><br>> Perhaps the general point that should be made about teaching techniques<br>
> is that what needs to be taught is determined by the nature of the<br>> language, not by what teaching methods may be felt to be effective<br>> or culturally preferred. If a language has a complex verbal system<br>
> and you don't provide that content your students will not learn the<br>> language, regardless of what the fad is in language teaching methods<br>> or what politicians claim about traditions. The content has to come<br>
> first. Once you know what you have to teach you can try to find the<br>> best way to do it.<br>><br>> Bill<br><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br></div></div>-- <br>**********************************************************************************************<br>
Susan D. Penfield, Ph.D.<br>(Currently on leave to the National Science Foundation.<br>E-mail: <a href="mailto:spenfiel@nsf.gov" target="_blank">spenfiel@nsf.gov</a>)<br><br><br>Department of English (Primary)<br>Faculty affiliate in Linguistics, Language, Reading and Culture, <br>
Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (SLAT), <br>American Indian Language Development Institute (AILDI)<br>The Southwest Center<br>University of Arizona,<br>Tucson, Arizona 85721<br><br><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>"if you don't know the language you will only see the surface of the culture..The language is the heart of the culture and you cannot separate it."<br>Elaine Ramos, TLINGIT<br>