<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<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></BODY></HTML>