<!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=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></BODY></HTML>