<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1264" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>David Kaufman asked:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Does the "typical linguist" normally study a language (on paper presumably)
but never attempt to speak it?</DIV>
<DIV>If 'typical' means the majority of linguists then I would have to say yes,
most linguists don't need to learn a language in order to study it. What
I've found over my many years in linguistics is that there are many types of
linguists studying a wide range of topics and languages. Even in the realm
of the field linguist, it is not necessary to learn the language (the hours of
pouring over tapes and writing and rewriting though can give one a good working
knowledge of the language...but does this mean we 'know' the language).
For many linguists, our work is to 'distill' the order out of
language. When my introductory linguistic students asked me if I
had to learn all the languages I used for examples, I told them that as
linguists we can 'cheat'. To learn and know a language as a speaker
requires the memorization of thousands of lexical items and idioms and then
putting them together in the accepted manner. As linguists we often don't
have to do the memorization. Our joy seems to come from finding
those regular patterns that the lexical items fit into. </DIV>
<DIV>But it all depends on what type of linguistics you are doing. It
would be a real hindrance to linguistics if we had to learn all the languages we
deal with.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>John Kyle<BR><A href="mailto:jkyle@ku.edu">jkyle@ku.edu</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>**************************************<BR>"We need an energy bill that
encourages consumption."<BR> — Pres.
Bush, Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=dvklinguist2003@yahoo.com
href="mailto:dvklinguist2003@yahoo.com">David Kaufman</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=siouan@lists.colorado.edu
href="mailto:siouan@lists.colorado.edu">siouan@lists.colorado.edu</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, October 25, 2003 10:39
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Volkswagen acquires the
Hochank language</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Kathleen,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I want to respond to your email because both you and Pat raised an
interesting point:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>--linguists would do well to inspire by example and at least aspire to
speak the language they are studying.--</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As I said before, I'm new to all this (the world of linguistics and
academia), and at the risk of sounding naive, I intend to learn from this
experience. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> I find this odd, especially for a spoken language. (I
could understand it more in the case of Latin or Ancient Greek, for example,
where there are no more "native" speakers and just a basic understanding
of written genders and cases is all one really needs to "know" the
language.) But if a linguist is doing field work and having interaction
with native speakers, how could they not "speak" the language to some
degree? Especially since an understanding of accent, pitch, or tone may
be crucial, one would have to hear the spoken language at some point, and one
should be able to communicate in the language (albeit possibly not altogether
correctly!) at some level. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I guess I would equate "studying" a language with learning to "speak"
it. If I'm helping to document a language and taking part in its
revitalization efforts, I would naturally want to learn to "speak" it with the
native speakers I come into contact with, if for no other reason than to make
sure I've got it right before writing about it or committing anything to
paper. Plus, again, by learning to speak the language and communicating
in it to some degree, I would be gaining better understanding and insight on
the culture and people who speak it natively. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But, it's sounding like this may not be standard practice among most
linguists? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dave</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM>Kathleen Shea <kdshea@ku.edu></EM></STRONG>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">I
think that we all have our built-in biases and that learning to
function<BR>within another culture can often be an uncomfortable process,
even though<BR>it's ultimately worthwhile and rewarding. Often we don't
learn without<BR>making mistakes and stepping on someone's toes, and it
seems that growth<BR>doesn't occur without some struggle and overcoming
obstacles. I don't know<BR>if Pat is Hocank or has ever tried to work within
a community on language<BR>maintenance, but it can be a humbling experience.
Often there are many<BR>seemingly more immediate problems to be overcome,
hindered in their solution<BR>by many political and economic limitations.
Every community is different,<BR>and a "one-size-fits-all" approach doesn't
work. Sure, it would be great if<BR>languages could be passed down as they
traditionally have been, orally, from<BR>parent to child, but what do you do
if! the speakers are all<BR>great-grandparents of not-very-good health, even
if a preschool exists?<BR>What do you do if a federally funded program that
helps parents with young<BR>children get their GED's (i.e., Even Start)
won't let the parents or<BR>children learn their ancestral language as part
of the program? And so<BR>on.... A grassroots effort is definitely needed,
with people in the<BR>community aware enough of the need to be behind it,
and it takes more than<BR>just one person--if that's what the community
wants. The logistics can be<BR>daunting. I don't think any of us academic
"experts" know what works best<BR>when it comes to passing on a language,
other than the tried-and-true<BR>traditional way, but I would think that the
more approaches used the better.<BR>I do agree with Pat, though, that
linguists would do well to inspire by<BR>example and at least aspire to
speak the language they are studying. (I<BR>believe it was Durbin Feeling at
a sovereignty conference in Tu! lsa several<BR>years ago who first
encouraged me to do this.)<BR><BR>Kathy Shea<BR><BR>----- Original Message
-----<BR>From: "warr0120" <WARR0120@UMN.EDU><BR>To:
<SIOUAN@LISTS.COLORADO.EDU>;
<DAKOTA-NET@MAIL.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU>;<BR><OJIBWE-NET@MAIL.SOCSCI.UMN.EDU><BR>Sent:
Saturday, October 25, 2003 5:52 PM<BR>Subject: Re: Volkswagen acquires the
Hochank language<BR><BR><BR>> Well, Henning, I wish YOU had been the one
to inform people in the first<BR>> place about the project and a Hocank
person and scholar's perspective on<BR>> it. Thank you for addressing
some of the issues that were not addressed in<BR>> Johannes' email.
Seeing the project from a Hocank perspective is exactly<BR>> what I find
most important, and almost always missing from linguists' and<BR>>
anthros' work who claim authorship or directorship and leave no space
for<BR>> the voices of the community being studied to come through
enedited, as far<BR>> as how they view the project. (except see! Young
Bear and Theisz 1994,<BR>> Standing in the light a Lakota way of seeing,
with an introduction written<BR>> by the primary
informant.)<BR>><BR>> My immediate concern is the extreme emphasis on
documentation, which to be<BR>> done well and usefully does require
expertise and much attention to<BR>detail.<BR>> But documentation can be
a distraction, one of those activities that can<BR>> let you feel busy
and productive while the real problems continue<BR>> unhindered, and can
even exacerbate the problems of identity as reliance<BR>on<BR>> experts
from outside the community becomes more acute.<BR>><BR>> I know the
powerful roles that documentation can play for self-empowerment<BR>> and
language revitalization in particular. But I wish people's first<BR>>
initiative when big sums of money came around was NOT to manufacture<BR>>
objects: dictionaries, grammars, "children's" books, videotapes, or<BR>>
interactive cdroms, that make you fe! el proud, but are static. It
would<BR>seem<BR>> much more important to spend every penny possible
getting all the fluent<BR>> speakers together with children in the
community so the language can be<BR>> passed on in the most efficient and
natural way possible. And probably the<BR>> only really lasting way of
language transmission for a whole culture. I<BR>> hope the Hocank nation
is successful in its current use of natural<BR>language<BR>> learning
methods, but I will NOT rest assured. Every step toward<BR>>
strengthening natural language and culture transmission is an amazing
and<BR>> important experience. But it will never be enough. The tide
against the<BR>> language and culture is so very strong. (By the way I'm
offering these<BR>> thought in general, not just as response to you,
Henning - you clearly<BR>> emphasized much of this in your own
email.)<BR>><BR>> I see the training of new generations of teachers as
essential, people<BR>with<BR>&! gt; voracious scholarly appetites (I
hope you're hungry Henning, and from the<BR>> emails you send to the
Siouan languages list, I think you fit my<BR>stereotype<BR>> of a healthy
native scholar) and acccess to great materials, who can<BR>create<BR>>
new materials: but all so that ADULTS who need to learn the language
can<BR>> learn. Kids don't need dictionaries or picture books. They need
fluent<BR>> adult speakers who care for them and spend extended time with
them, giving<BR>> them encouragement, love, and a positive identity in
the language. You<BR>> can't get that from materials, not matter how
interactive they are.<BR>><BR>> I don't intend to criticize the Hocank
nation's choices of whom to work<BR>> with. I mean to arouse some
discussion as to individual motivations and<BR>> hopes. People always
discuss their Grand Projects in objectified terms (at<BR>> least in
writing, I'm sure it's sometimes different when you do get
to<BR>meet<BR>&! gt; people in person) and never tell what their
feelings are on the issue.<BR>That<BR>> may scare off the academic in
many of you, but I see a healthy<BR>relationship<BR>> as one in which
feelings are expressed openly and intellectualization is<BR>>
minimized.<BR>><BR>> When motives and hopes aren't discused, I fear
the continuation of the<BR>> colonization and genocide project. No one is
doing it intentionally, but<BR>if<BR>> the sum of many well-funded
projects continues to shift focus away from<BR>the<BR>> real activities
of language empowerment (fluent speakers spending lots of<BR>> caring
time with younger people, most especially), I fear that people with<BR>>
amazing skills and inspiration like you, Henning, will spend mountains
of<BR>> effort on endeavors with very low leverage, as far as getting the
language<BR>> to the next generation, and insuring the language as a
source of<BR>> life-giving identity for everyone (not just the fe! w kids
who excel in<BR>> language classes). At the very least when someone
promotes a project, I<BR>> wish they would say WHY they're doing it, what
their feelings about the<BR>> situation and propsed project are.
Motivation, to me, is always more<BR>> important than credentials,
because motivation seems a greater determinant<BR>> of good work than
initials after your name. Though it seems the longer<BR>your<BR>> CV, the
less people feel they should explain themselves. But that is<BR>>
definitely my stereotype of academics (though not totally
unfounded).<BR>><BR>> I envision using all resources to get people who
are fluent in the<BR>language<BR>> and culture together with young people
in a positive environment where<BR>> healthy identities can be nurtured
in the language. It is those people who<BR>> learn the natural way that
will grow up and produce the great literature<BR>> appropriate to a
healthy literate language. It's great when a few<B! R>> individuals
create strong indentities in their traditional cultures, but a<BR>> few
people commited to acquiring and documenting the language, even<BR>>
supported by a whole army of (non-speaking) linguists isn't going to
tip<BR>> the balances against the forces of hundreds of years of ever
more refined<BR>> and invisible genocide. (see<BR>>
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/drafts/ for the
original<BR>> United Nations definition of genocide, before the big
nations who<BR>regularly<BR>> practice it trimmed the convention down a
lot, and see Churchill 1997, A<BR>> little matter of genocide, Chapter 7
"The United States and the Genocide<BR>> Convention" p.363-398, for an
enlightnening discussion of the<BR>> matter...actually no, you should
just read the whole book.)<BR>><BR>> When it comes down to it, I see
myself and all other academics, as agents<BR>> of the dominant culture.
(see Churchill 1997 p.93-94, "The specter of<BR>! > Hannibal Lecter", for
discussion of some unintended (at least consciously)<BR>> consequences of
academic work) Whether or not we want to admit it, and<BR>it's<BR>>
really better if we DO admit it, we are possbily the ones who
will<BR>finalize<BR>> the genocide (e.g., by focusing everyone's
attention away from what would<BR>> really make the difference, like
dealing with the social problems that<BR>lead<BR>> to negative identity
and hence language loss), or else we finalize the<BR>> acculturation of
indigenous people into the dominant culture (e.g., by<BR>> convincing
people of the necessity of being liguists and converting the<BR>>
language to a corpus of bastardized english-dependent texts; when IS<BR>>
somebody going to write a real native language dicitonary? an
english<BR>> dictionary doesn't explain everything in Hocank, so why do
native language<BR>> dictionaries convert everything to english?). So
when intiative (even my<BR>> own) ! comes from outside a native community
and works its way into the<BR>> community, I fear for what we are all not
seeing.<BR>><BR>> At least the Hocank nation gets to archive the
material at home, and they<BR>> already do have strong language efforts
underway. Now why didn't Johannes<BR>> mention that? Sorry if I've
attacked individuals too strongly (or whole<BR>> nations). But criticism
is a good thing, I think. It's all the talk about<BR>> etymolgies and
semantics and dictionaries (which I do enjoy) while I know<BR>> there's
little kids who could be learning the language who are being<BR>>
forgotten.<BR>><BR>> If only at the heart of linguistics was the
commitment to personally<BR>> acquire and transmit the language(s) you
study... But why do academics<BR>> RALLY do their work? (see Hull 1988,
Science as a process, for the best<BR>> psychosocial analysis of academia
I've ever seen...then you'll see where<BR>my<BR>> stereotypes come fro!
m, personified by real people I know/am.)<BR>><BR>><BR>> I'll stop
talking now,<BR>> Pat Warren<BR>><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<BR>Exclusive Video Premiere - <A
href="http://launch.yahoo.com/video/?1093432&fs=1&redirectURL=http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/">Britney
Spears</A> </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>