On "standardized" Chinook Jargon

[David D. Robertson]

A comment that someone made to me the other day brought memories of heated
discussions past about standardizing Chinook Jargon.  The following
quotation from www.und.edu/dept/linguistics/theses/1997Anonby.pdf could be
food for thought.  I've replaced all mentions of Anonby's subject
language, Kwak'wala, with CJ:

"At [Joshua Fishman's term:] stage seven [i.e. the present state of severe
endangerment], concerns about the correct usage of Chinook Jargon should
be deferred, and all resourcs should be spent on promoting opportunities
to communicate in Chinook Jargon -- without undue attention to
the 'proper' form.  Although 'pure Chinook Jargon' may be encouraged,
people speaking broken Chinook Jargon, Chinook Jargon with a lot of
English borrowings, or divergent dialects should not be made to feel
embarrassed.  A standard is advisable, but it does not pay to enforce one
version of Chinook Jargon before the communities are ready.  The emotional
cost brought on by infighting over these problems is far too high.  It is
best to save the energy for getting Chinook Jargon into homes and
communities.  After this is accomplished, the matter of a standard may be
looked at again, but it should be a flexible standard, not one which is
rigidly enforced."  (page 38)

Maybe here I should repeat my own view that I don't think anyone's
seriously promoted a standardized Chinook Jargon, despite the frustration
some folks have experienced in trying to master the imperfectly, if
nowadays most readily, available variety from Oregon.  Some would-be
students of the Grand Ronde variety have reacted with understandable anger
upon being offered corrections to their efforts:  On the one hand, it
makes sense that Grand Ronde people -- participants in a very tiny
language community -- would recognize speech that resembles or diverges
from theirs.  On the other, learners from outside that community probably
have significant previous exposure to CJ that includes their having heard
an old truism that goes something like, "Chinook Jargon has/had no grammar
of its own; you can talk it any way you want, and be understood."
[Thanks, Michael Silverstein and a bunch of turn-of-the-century
plagiarists, for perpetuating this.]

That old saw has plenty of elements of the truth in it, but there are
definite rules to Chinook Jargon in general and to Grand Ronde's variety
in particular.  Adding to the complications, nearly everyone who has a
strong interest in Chinook Jargon seems to feel he/she has a stake in it,
seeing this language as a link to one's own ancestry and history in the
Northwest.  I'll say again that it's understandable for a few people to
suspect a few other people of plotting to take over the Chinook Jargon
world -- but what a ridiculous accusation to make, and what a ridiculous
ambition to have.

Keep on learning.  That's what we're all doing here.