The Nine Lives of "Linguistic Deficiency"

[R Senghas]

On 9 Feb 2007, , at 1:29 AM, John McCreery wrote:
> Given the choice between taking steps suggested by the language 
> ideologies now current among linguistic anthropologists and the future 
> welfare of my daughter, this conscientious teacher did what 
> Alexandre's father did, chose to focus on the future welfare of the 
> child for whom she felt responsible. I am grateful to her for that 
> choice.

John,

Likely unintentionally, I fear that this sort of response 
mischaracterizes the language ideology work I see in anthropology.
Very few of the anthropologists who focus on language ideologies (i.e., 
those I know or work with, which have been quite a few) deny the social 
implications involved when an individual adopts or resists prevailing 
prescriptions.  In fact, these language ideology folks (including me) 
are trying to make explicit that these are indeed (often subconscious, 
but often conscious) moral choices, or choices of social marking and 
identity.  What we are fighting is the perpetuation of false 
"scientific explanations" that one language is superior to another, is 
"more linguistic" than another, etc.  (Ron's "whack-a-mole" description 
feels all too appropriate!)  We are also fighting the stereotypes that 
usually deny the cognitive and other human qualities that linguistic 
minority speakers have, but qualities that they aren't acknowledged as 
having, because of the false stereotypes associated with those in 
subordinate social positions (for whatever reasons).

By explicitly labelling language ideologies, describing them and 
developing accurate explanations of how and why they work (i.e. proper 
theorizing), language ideology folks provide a very useful service to 
society as a whole, and to those individuals who are encountering 
challenges along the way.  "Why do people keep treating me like I am 
stupid when I know I am not?" or "Why do they act as if they don't 
understand me at all when I know that they at least understand some of 
what I say?" or "Why don't they seem to care?" --these questions can be 
answered by such anthropological approaches.

We don't write or speak in certain ways simply because that is the only 
way that works.  We do so for all kinds of reasons, social, cultural, 
psychological, linguistic, etc.  These are choices made by society, and 
by being more informed, we increase our options.  Having more options 
is useful for both the teachers and the learners.

-RJS

Richard J Senghas  (Professor of Anthropology, Sonoma State U, 
California)
Visiting Researcher, Institutionen för nordiska språk
Stockholms universitet
S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Richard.Senghas at nordiska.su.se
Richard.Senghas at sonoma.edu