the argument for language maintenance

[KJ Olawsky]

"Economizing" language maintenance seems to be a typically Western
approach to the issue. Certainly this approach is pragmatic and takes
into account the reality of what is achievable and what is not.

In Aboriginal societies, a focus on relationships and ideals tends to
outweigh material interests. Individuals would feel very strongly if
their language was wiped off the maintenance chart, even if it had no
realistic chance of survival.

This sounds like an "emotional" argument but on what grounds is it
weaker than a quantitative approach based on economy? The respective
speakers of a language should be the ones to have a say regarding the
maintenance of their language. 

If compromises are made by default (i.e. through lack of funding), who
would want to decide which languages are to be filtered out? It seems
that commitment and dedication of the language speakers are major forces
in this process. However, this should not deter us from aiming at the
best possible outcome as any loss of any language will lead to loss of
identity.


================================ 
Dr. Knut J. Olawsky
Senior Linguist/Coordinator
Mirima Dawang Woorlab-gerring, 
Language and Culture Centre
P.O. Box 2420
Kununurra, WA 6743
Phone: (08) 9169 1029
E-mail: manager at mirima.org.au
================================ 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Morey [mailto:S.Morey at latrobe.edu.au]
> Sent: Friday, 26 March 2010 8:31 AM
> To: r-n-l-d at unimelb.edu.au
> Subject: RE: the argument for language maintenance
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Very interesting discussion. I thought I'd say something about this.
> 
> I'm facing a situation in North East India where we have a group of
> languages currently listed by Ethnologue and ISO as a single language,
> but there are 71 distinct groups, at least some of which are mutually
> unintelligible (though some are plainly intelligible) - there could be
> 10s of languages on a mutual intelligibility criterion.
> 
> We don't have good descriptions of them, though one or two varieties
> now have reasonable text corpora in perparation, each group has a low
> population (200 to 1000, I'd say, with maybe 3 groups a little more
> than that). There are not yet any successful literacy programmes in
any
> of them. Maybe 50% of the population is Christian and there are bible
> translations. The one printed bible is in a variety for which there is
> just bible and hymn book, no books of stories, childrens books or
> anything like that, and as far as I can tell no teaching of the
> orthography to children or any kind of literacy program. Two of the
> non-Christian communities have books in English which include
fragments
> of their own traditional stories and songs in non-standard
> orthographies. My best estimate is that there are 6 Tangsa
> orthographies in India, mostly only used and understood by those who
> devised them.
> 
> Given the way that the world's resources are divided up, I'm afraid
> there is almost no chance that there will be literacy programs
> developed for these communities before most of the linguistic
diversity
> is lost. In this situation, its no wonder that those people in the
> Tangsa community interested in language development would like to
> develop 'a common language'. But there's no sign that that is
> succeeding either.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: alex blaszak [ablaszak at hotmail.com]
> Sent: 26 March 2010 10:48
> To: aidan at usyd.edu.au; r-n-l-d at unimelb.edu.au
> Subject: RE: the argument for language maintenance
> 
> Hello,
> 
> The one language, or go with the stronger languages only argument
seems
> to be simply a "too hard basket" approach. Its sort of like saying we
> will only give housing support to one group of Aboriginal people, not
> all groups. On what basis?
> 
> Focussing only on stronger languages misses the point that language
can
> be a perfect opportunity for capacity-building, empowerment (and
> engaging the local non-inidigenous community too), as it can be so
> localised, and can work on a really relevant and manageable scale.
> 
> Focussing on the stornger languages only to some degree defeats the
> purpose of maintenance on any language, because it means that you are
> no longer doing it for the sake of the community and people to whom it
> is relevant, but just for posterity's sake. Of course that is always
> important too, and every language has something to offer the world and
> enhancing our understanidng of it, but it surely must also be driven
by
> the need and relevance to the people from whom the language comes...
> 
> > Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:23:51 +1100
> > From: aidan at usyd.edu.au
> > Subject: RE: the argument for language maintenance
> > To: r-n-l-d at unimelb.edu.au
> >
> > I remember being in an undergraduate class and going to a local
> Aborigial
> > Language centre, in Glebe I think, where this bloke gave a short
talk
> > about how important language was to him.
> >
> > He'd grown up without any knowledge of his language (may have been
> Dharug,
> > I suppose, but I can't remember) and was pretty messed up because of
> it -
> > drugs and alcohol, abuse of others, etc. He said that when he was
> able to
> > find out something about his own culture and language, he more or
> less
> > found a bit of his identity that had been lacking before and - you
> know
> > the story - quit grog and drugs and became a better husband.
> >
> > Anecdata I know, but I think it's true that one's language,
> especially if
> > it's a minority/indigenous language specific to a small ethnic group
> as is
> > the case in most of Aboriginal Australia, is incredibly important in
> > people's lives. We Anglophones tend not to realise this because
> there's
> > absolutely no chance in our lifetimes that we'll find ourselves in
> the
> > minority.
> >
> > -
> >
> > I have a mate who's an ecologist and works with endangered amphibian
> > species. A very intelligent and friendly guy. One night though, he
> started
> > asking me why I bother with language maintenance on Wagiman, a
> language
> > with around 4-7 speakers (depending on where you draw the line on
> > fluency). Why wouldn't we, as linguists, put all our efforts into
> 'saving'
> > one of the languages that is most likely to survive. I thought this
> was
> > extremely odd coming from someone who works with endangered frogs.
> >
> > (Tangent: there's a nice analogy with native frog species and the
> virulent
> > spread of Cane Toads - reported in both Sydney and Kununurra last
> week)
> >
> > To get back to the main point, I haven't yet had anyone seriously
> claim
> > that there were too many aboriginal languages, just that we
shouldn't
> be
> > doing quite so much to maintain the most critically endangered but
> instead
> > support the stronger languages, the most likely to survive. As a
> > syntactician, I'd probably counter that Australia represents a
> massively
> > diverse linguistic area and each language has the potential to
> increase
> > our understanding of how language works. Letting languages die
> without
> > doing anything about it is like shredding evidence.
> >
> > --
> > Aidan Wilson
> >
> > The University of Sydney
> > +612 9036 9558
> > +61428 458 969
> > aidan.wilson at usyd.edu.au
> >
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Dr Christina Eira - VACL wrote:
> >
> > > One position would be that the argument is only taking into
account
> the
> > > single, relatively recent nation 'Australia' and forgetting that
> the
> > > older continent has/had many nations (and cultures and languages).
> It's
> > > kinda like saying there should only be one language for Africa.
> > >
> > > Dr Christina Eira
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Margaret Carew [mailto:margaret.carew at batchelor.edu.au]
> > > Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:40 PM
> > > To: r-n-l-d at unimelb.edu.au
> > > Subject: FW: the argument for language maintenance
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi there
> > >
> > > I got this question - see below - from a (non-linguist) colleague.
> I
> > > thought it would be interesting to conduct a quick survey amongst
> RNLD
> > > members, so please read on...
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > When you have a quiet reflective moment...
> > >
> > > re: the argument for language maintenance
> > >
> > > What are the standard replies given to people who complain that
> there
> > > are too many Aboriginal languages for language maintenance, that
> > > supporting all those languages will cost too much, etc.
> > >
> > > And New Zealand is given as an example where language maint is
> > > practical, because only 1 language.
> > >
> > > I'm thinking there must be some standard ideas on this question in
> > > linguistic circles.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> ________________________________
> Download a free gift for your PC. Get personal with
> Windows.<http://experience.windows.com>
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2770 - Release Date:
> 03/26/10 04:50:00

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2770 - Release Date: 03/26/10
04:50:00
-------------- next part --------------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2770 - Release Date: 03/26/10 04:50:00