LSA 2006

[Susan Penfield]

Mia and all,
Your comments are feeding into the distinction I've been emphasizing between
documentation (of major concern and receiving international attention
through OLAC, SOAS, EMELD, etc) and revitalization (still receiving little
attention internationally, though robust and active at  a community level).
The question remains as to how these two 'camps' can better serve one
another (if they should).

This is part of the point I was trying to make on Sunday at LSA -- If one
works in a community, with all the technical expertise available for
documentation, and does not envision or consider how their work may impact
local revitalization efforts -- its a problem (I think I said
'irresponsible') ....As field linguists, we must make sure that our work on
documentation (using all the 'best practices' which were the subject of
Jeff's session) is supportive of the community's efforts. This requires a
second set of 'Best Practices' -- still being defined -- for working with
communties (actually, I think we should think in terms of working FOR
communities --a step beyond working 'IN' or even 'WITH' ) ...

That said, I'm leaning toward proposing a session focused on products (the
type Mia is developing) not techniques for data collection (Jeff's thing).
The Lakota Language Consortium (winners of the Ken Hale prize from SSILA)
are making some amazing materials. I think a session that asked participants
to
 1) share their products and
2) discuss the theoretical underpinnings -- i.e. STEM in Mia's case and
3) discuss the type of community
connections/support/interactions for implementation of these products
...might be really interesting to present to linguists.

This could be done as a techie-poster session -- or  a regular session with
individual papers....either would be good. The LSA poster session on
Endangered Languages this time was very rich (I thought)...

OK -- that's my two cents...
S.

On 1/11/06, Mia Kalish <MiaKalish at learningforpeople.us> wrote:
>
>  Hmmmm. I somehow missed this was posted on the list. . .
>
>
>
> Here was my response to Claire:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi, Claire,
>
>
>
> Thanks, on both counts.
>
>
>
> Revitalization has 3 foci, actually. Jeff Good's is only one; from what I
> understood from friends who attended the session, it was about choosing and
> employing different field collection technologies. I don't talk about that
> sort of thing, other than to recommend digital recorders.
>
>
>
> I talk about two other things: 1) deciding what will be collected for STEM
> materials support (right now there is very close to 0 across all
> collections); and 2) how materials can best be presented to the learner to
> facilitate learning.
>
>
>
> Words on paper with a teacher repeating them individually once or twice a
> week doesn't work. Further, all the rich lexical information is excellent
> for learning MORE ABOUT the language, but interruptive for those who are
> LEARNING THE language. One needs to make sure not to clutter up the
> cognitive paths, and while lots of related information looks good for
> accomplishment reports, it is Really, Really Bad for learners who are trying
> to develop skills in the language patterns.
>
>
>
> Further, other that what Powell write in 1881, there seems to be little
> written on the importance or method of gathering STEM information. While
> there is overwhelming physical evidence that STEM skills existed and
> flourished, there is no reflection of this in elicitations.
>
>
>
> And lastly, the process of developing revitalization materials is robust.
> There are lots of components that go into it, given that people have
> realized that dictionary NOT = revitalization (maybe they haven't). So I
> talk a lot about the cognitive learning processes, and how the brain will
> use the patterns you give it to develop IT'S OWN understanding of the
> language (as opposed to what someone else thinks is important ABOUT the
> language). Research coming out of psychology (in which I hold a Master's
> degree) is pointing out to people that the brain makes its own decisions
> about what it will learn and how. The attention process in many cases has
> little to do with direct learning, and more and sometimes only to do with
> presenting the buffet of opportunities to the brain so it can make its own
> choices (which it will anyway no matter what you do. . . . if the brain
> doesn't have enough of the right information for it to Learn, it just blows
> you off . . . [people don't realize this. . .]).
>
>
>
> So I don't think there is duplication . . . do you? If you do, forward
> this along to Jeff and see what he thinks. If he thinks there is potential
> duplication, he can write to me.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mia
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Indigenous Languages and Technology [mailto:
> ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Susan Penfield
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:51 AM
> *To:* ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [ILAT] LSA 2006
>
>
>
> Thanks Claire,
> Jeff Good and I spoke initially about somehow overlapping our sessions
> this time, but it just wasn't feasible -- However, that is something we
> might be able to do down the line ( i.e., a session on techniques AND a
> session on fieldwork concerns/revitalization efforts).  We are also
> discussing what might be offered at the next LSA Institute (Stanford 2007)
> and or at Berkeley (2009)...time to start planning for those events as well!
> Ideas would be welcomed I'm sure and there is a flyer (not sure if it is
> available online yet) which will call for course proposals for 2007.
>
> Glad you enjoyed Sunday's session!
> Best,
> Susan
>
> On 1/10/06, *Anggarrgoon* <anggarrgoon at gmail.com > wrote:
>
> Hi Mia,
> first off, many apologies for not making your session - there was so
> much going on and the handbook was so hard to follow there were several
> I meant to go to and missed.
>
> I was at the final session on Sunday and thought it was great, and I
> hope that there will be something similar at future LSAs.
> The CELP committee and Jeff Good will be organising another session
> (Jeff was talking about making the 'techniques' workshop a regular item,
> with a different focus each year, so maybe email him so there's no
> duplication of efforts? Let me know if you need his email address.
>
> Claire
>
>
>
>
> --
> Susan D. Penfield, Ph.D.
>
> Department of English
> Affiliate faculty: Department of Linguistics
> and the Second Language Acquisition and Teaching Program
> American Indian Language Development Institute
> Phone for messages: (520) 621-1836
>



--
Susan D. Penfield, Ph.D.

Department of English
Affiliate faculty: Department of Linguistics
and the Second Language Acquisition and Teaching Program
American Indian Language Development Institute
Phone for messages: (520) 621-1836
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ilat/attachments/20060111/f2577e56/attachment.htm>