<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>We're talking about language ecology here.
It's kind of ironic that disenfranchised minorities seek to improve the
situation of their group; but in doing so, they change the ecology in which
their language flourished. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Stan </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=FBriscoe@utsa.edu href="mailto:FBriscoe@utsa.edu">Felicia Briscoe</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu
href="mailto:'lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu'">'lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu'</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 12, 2004 3:58
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: printability and
standardization</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=172024319-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Bernard,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=172024319-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=172024319-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Thanks for letting me know about your very relevant publication.
I do so much agree with you that we need to look at how any language policy
fits into the overall economic, political, and social structure and if our
"esoteric" linguistic knowledge is to be of benefit to them, then we need to
share it as much as possible in a form that doesn't descend into specialized
jargon. The problem is that the mass media does such a poor job of
making this information available to the very public who are most directly
affected by langauge policies (see Santa Ana's 2002 book, <FONT
color=#000000 size=3> <FONT face="Times New Roman">Brown Tide Rising:
Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse,</FONT>
</FONT>for more on how the mass media shapes discourse around particular
issues). And, I think if we would deal directly with the practices that
bring about subordination or oppression of certain groups then language
policies would become less pressing. But when language policies act
within a political/economic circumstances to further oppress a particular
group then they need to be changed. What I am saying, is that I think
its impossible to mandate any particular policy without knowing the particular
circumstances of a cultural/economic/social group. But in general, as
much as possible I think people should have easy access to knowledge
(including linguistic) and also to languages of power and of their home and
communities. And I think that we have drastically
underestimated linguistic abilities of most children and in fact their
overall ability to learn.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=172024319-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=172024319-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Felecia</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Bernard Spolsky
[mailto:spolsb@mail.biu.ac.il]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 12, 2004 1:34
PM<BR><B>To:</B> lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:
printability and standardization<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=296352519-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Felicia</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=296352519-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>At
that time, most Navajos lived in traditional homes a good distance from
their neighbors, and from water. That was the point she was making - she
could choose city life with indoor plumbing etc (but living among
non-Navajos where her children would pick up English/ As time went by,
demographic conditions changed - roads were build, water and electricity
provided in small semi-urban settlements and towns, where children also
switched to English. I describe it in <FONT face=Arial>Spolsky,
Bernard. (2002). Prospects for the survival of the Navajo language: a
reconsideration. <I>Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33</I>(2), 1-24.
But I think the central point is that you should not try to separate the
language issue from the social, political, demographic, cultural, religions,
economic etc context.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=296352519-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Bernard</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=296352519-12012004>
<P><FONT size=2>Bernard Spolsky spolsb@mail.biu.ac.il
</FONT></P></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
owner-lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu
[mailto:owner-lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>Felicia Briscoe<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 12, 2004 9:06
PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu'<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:
printability and standardization<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=083470919-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Bernard,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=083470919-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=083470919-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Your statement is interesting on so many levels...like why
does one have to make a choice between speaking the major language of
one's cultural group or carrying water a mile in a bucket? Or why
those who stay on the Reserveration are speaking Navajo less and
less...which of course brings the whole concept of "revervations for some
people" into the arena for questioning.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=083470919-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=083470919-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Felecia</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Bernard Spolsky
[mailto:spolsb@mail.biu.ac.il]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 11, 2004
9:51 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: printability and
standardization<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671134703-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Christina's comment reminds me of a remark made by a Navajo
graduate student of mine many years ago: by moving to the city, she knew
it was unlikely that her son would grow up speaking Navajo, but at least
she wouldn't have to carry water a mile or two every day.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671134703-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Of course, those who stayed on the Reservation are speaking
Navajo less and less.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=671134703-12012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Bernard</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
owner-lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu
[mailto:owner-lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>Christina Paulston<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 11, 2004 9:54
PM<BR><B>To:</B> lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B>
Re: printability and standardization<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>I must
express myself extremely badly to be so misunderstood. Of course a
person can be literate in more than one language or dialect - I read
some seven languages, eight, myself. We are not, that is, I am
not talking about a linguistic problem but a social. Of course the LSA
comment "from this perspective" they noted, was perfectly sound. It
was the Black community across the country who rose up in protest at
having AAVE imposed on them and you can give them all the linguistic
information you want and it is not going to help.
<BR> What about South Africa, now with 11
official languages? Many Afrikaners for "pedagogically sound" reasons
now urge the African population to send their children to mother
tongue schools - exactly the same policy enforced under apartheid for
reasons of segregation. Parents prefer education in English for
their children - are you going to tell them they suffer from false
consciousness ( a singularly brilliant concept, that)? There are as
always other circumstances, quality of teachers, texts, etc but
parents still want English. And I think it should be their
choice.<BR> The problem of course becomes worse
when the children and the parents disagree over that choice - which is
not uncommon with immigrant groups. I just object to linguists
playing omniscient gods and recommending options for life
decisions on the basis of linguistic criteria. Most people want
a decent life, at least for their children, a good job, good health
care (Bush should take note), a secure old age, etc, and if that
necessitates another language, they don't care. Of course they can
remain bilingual but the children usually don't think it is worth
it.<BR> Etc. My very last comment,
Christina<BR><BR>----------<BR>From: Ronald Kephart
<rkephart@unf.edu><BR>To:
lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu<BR>Subject: RE: printability and
standardization<BR>Date: Sun, Jan 11, 2004, 11:15 AM<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>At 11:02 AM -0600 1/10/04, Felicia Briscoe
wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>...There also seems to be an underlying assumption in
much of the recent writing that<BR>bilingualism is either very
difficult to attain or that it is someway is detrimental to the
person who is bilingual. I find this a very strange
assumption. Why can't a person be fully literate in AAVE and fully
literate in standard English. Why is it so often posed as an
either/or option?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I think part of the answer
lies in what anthropological linguist MJ Hardman calls our
linguistic postulates: specifically, the importance of singularity.
This manifests itself in all sorts of ways not only within our
language but also how we think about language, as well as more
widely: one "right" answer, one god, preference for individual over
collective work, "most valuable players," the totalitarian nature of
our corporations, even the prescriptive insistence on "he" rather
than "they" as a generic pronoun. And of course, "one
language."<BR><BR>See: Hardman, 1978, Linguistic postulates and
applied anthropological linguistics, in<I> Papers on linguistics and
child language</I>, edited by V. Honsa and M.J. Hardman-de-Bautista,
117-36. The Hague: Mouton.<BR><BR>-- <BR>Ronald
Kephart<BR>Sociology, Anthropology, & Criminal
Justice<BR>University of North Florida<BR><FONT
color=#0000ff><U>http://www.unf.edu/~rkephart<BR></U></FONT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>