<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<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></BODY></HTML>