NATIONAL: National Indigenous Languages Survey Report 2005 (fwd)

[Mia Kalish]

Hello All,

--Mia wrote--
where you are standing. (English spoken in England is an Indigenous
Language, while in Wales it is not, and if England had colonized Wales,
it
would be a Colonial Language). 
--
. . . then Daniel . . .
But again, this is problematic, particularly when language gets tied
into national identity. Most Welsh people are not Welsh speakers,
English is the "native tongue" of most Welsh people. Suggesting that
this makes them less Welsh is a very dangerous game to play - for many
reasons. Does there come a point when English should be considered an
indigenous language of Wales, or a non-colonial language (does the
language perhaps become assimilated and naturalised)? If we look into
history to decide how a language should be labelled, how far back do we
go?
. . . .

Ahhh, a perfect example of Barthes: Where in the explicit statement is the
suggestion that having English as a "native tongue" makes them "less Welsh"?
That's the kind of thing people don't talk about when they consider
language. Lilly Wong Fillmore, in her address to the Colorada ABE conference
said that for many people, English is not a language but an ideology. She
said that if people - and she was talking about here in the US, but I
wouldn't be surprised if it were true elsewhere - that speaking English is a
sign of loyalty. People who don't speak it haven't given up their old
loyalties to pledge their loyalty to "America". People who don't speak
English are treated as "interlopers". 

--Mia wrote--
They think that for people who are not in the culture to apply terms is
inappropriate. They want the right to name themselves, and they don't
believe they should be overridden. 
--
. . . then Daniel . . .
Again it all comes down to perspectives - presumably the label
"colonist" would work quite nicely ;-)

It's also important not to loose sight of the positive aspects of
labelling, whether this is an assertion of identity, or recognition of
legal entitlement and so on. For example, the sense of "minority or
regional" in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is
limited to "indigenous" languages, and recognition under the charter is
very significant as it imposes obligations on the state to support that
language. The inclusion of Cornish under the UK governments ratification
of the charter was seen as very significant for the language. In this
sense at least being labelled minority (or regional?) can be seen as a
positive rather than a negative. 

I guess the issue with "heritage" comes down to whether you view it as a
positive or a negative, where languages are able to use it as a positive
then why not. My own context makes me interpret it as a negative.
 . . . .

Yes, from this example, it is easy to see the "positive" benefits of
labeling. I like the version that says, "LightScribe enabled", and "FireWire
enabled", also things like "Poison", "Radiation" and things like that.
Teresa McCarty talks about a process called "minoritizing", where People are
transformed into minorities through the combination of perspective and
language. 

But the whole issue is very complicated, and deserves much more discussion
and consideration than it is usually accorded. I really like Fauconnier &
Turner's analytical structure for looking at the relation between concepts
and the ideas and words that compose them. Here's also where Fodor stands
orthogonal to Barthes: Fodor sees these kinds of things as "modular," having
transformed via an alchemy that has obliterated the original inputs. F&T see
the things as decomposable down to their original roots. . . . and what you
see are all the components that were necessary to create the final result.
It is again a kind of sequence of chemical reactions, except done on words
instead of atoms, elements and compounds. Barthes recognizes that signified
and signifier vary by culture, and produce a sign, that also varies by
culture. And "culture" includes disciplines, as we can demonstrate by using
the sign O-b-j-e-c-t. In law, it is a verb; in common parlance, it is a noun
or a verb; and in computer science, it is a complex structure with
properties, methods and procedures, extensible, sharable, and sometimes,
modifiable. Actually, you could say it was the poster child for
post-structuralism.  


--Mia--
as for example in the battle we have had here about "Indian Mascots". 
--
 . . . then Daniel . . . 
First nation mascots?
 . . . .

Mmmmm. People had it that having people dress up as American Indians, make
and sell all kinds of memorabilia (we would call them "kitsch"), etc., etc.,
was "honoring" them. The Native People didn't see it that way. They
complained. Funny how the people who were doing the "honoring" refused to
respect the Native People's wishes. . . . 

Daniel.