legacy materials

[Mia Kalish]

Hi, People, 

 

The unavailability of funding for revitalization is easily observable, but I
think Natasha was overly kind in her assessment of the reasoning. 

Historically, there has been a movement in the US to eradicate American
languages, replacing them with the Lingua Franca. I think that the funding
categories support this bias. I think that by documenting languages, we make
them available for scholars, thus increasing the total knowledge available
for non-Indigenous people. We also snap-shot them as anthropological
artifacts, ensuring that they do not change as they would if they were
alive. So the funding sources are doing their job of increasing knowledge,
and also following their social and anthropological mandates for
assimilation. 

 

It is impossible for me to believe that funding sources could be so cruel in
their allocations, depriving human beings of their last opportunity to save
and re-establish vestiges of their linguistic, social and cultural identity
unless the mid-19th century Eureka! that "White Man is G_d's supreme
creation" were not alive and well and living in the hearts of many. 

 

Mia 

 

  _____  

From: Indigenous Languages and Technology [mailto:ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Susan Penfield
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 1:56 PM
To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [ILAT] legacy materials

 

All,

Natasha makes some great points here -- among them is the fact that there is
a real

disconnect between communities who want and need linguists and linguists who
want

to work at the community level, but are often frustrated by the powers that
be at the institution they

work for. 

 

More education is needed at the community level about what / who

can best serve their needs --understanding the difference between
theoretical linguists, descriptive 

linguists, field linguists (who wear many hats) and applied linguists.
Further, how to find a linguist

who is familar with the language, or related languages -- and how to get a
good reference for a good linguist. 

 

And, there needs to be more general support for revitalization activities
among funding agencies and institutions

alike. We all understand, I think, that documentation activities are more
well defined and exacting -- more easy

to report on and quantify. However, communities are crying out for more
support of revitalization -- both those with

'dormant' languages, those with still active languages. They need support
for teachers, materials development, 

money to hire the appropriate linguist, etc...and this type of funding is
hard to come by in the amounts usually

needed. Wish I had a solution; all I can do is offer this observation: Seems
like, with more documentation projects

under way these days, that agencies should logically follow with funds to
help spin this work into materials for

revitalization....perhaps wishful thinking on my part...

 

 

Susan

 

On 10/28/07, Natasha L Warner <nwarner at u.arizona.edu> wrote: 

Hi,

I've been out of town and am just now picking up on this interesting
discussion about analysis of existing (archival) data vs. new data 
collection.

I agree with the things Bill said _if_ the language still has fluent
speakers, which is the situation he was addressing.  (I especially
agree about all the problems with archival data itself that he listed, 
since I work with it!)  However, if we look at the bigger picture of
archival data vs./and new data collection across languages, there is
another issue.  I work on revitalization of a dormant California language, 
Mutsun, through archival data.  There hasn't been a fluent speaker since
1930, but the community has been working on revitalization since 1996, and
is making good but slow progress.

For Mutusn, we desparately needed funding in order to enter thousands of 
pages of Harrington microfilm data into a database and analyze it, in
order to make a good dictionary and teaching materials.  We've been told
by various funding agencies that they won't fund revitalization, they'll 
only fund new data collection from living speakers.  I see a couple of
reasons for this:  1) the idea that you have to get the data from living
speakers while they're alive, so that's a higher priority, whereas 
existing archival data won't change, and 2) the emphasis of the field of
linguistics on getting data to answer theoretical questions, more than to
help the community increase use of their language. (Analysis of archival 
data might be funded for theoretical purposes, but not to run community
language-learning workshops or to write a textbook.)

I understand the motivation on point 1 (higher priority if speakers are
elderly), but work on archival data can't just be done later, either. 
The reason is that the community, right now, has motivation, people who
have gained skills to work on language, and just plain momentum.  It's
cruel to tell them "Sorry, you're low priority because your language is 
already dead [we say "dormant"]), please come back in 20-30 years, because
then maybe everybody else's language will be in as bad a shape as yours,
and we can afford to give you the money then."  I completely understand 
that resouces for both documentation and revitalization are very, very
limited, and one has to make choices.  However, from the position of
applying for grants to get the data out of Harrington into usable form, 
being told that the language is dead and therefore unfundable has been
extremely frustrating.

As for the second point above, about collecting data for linguistic theory
vs. collecting or analyzing data for the community's benefit, I really do 
believe that one gets both benefits (data for theory and for community
use) out of analyzing a large set of archival materials, if there isn't
any source of new data available for the language.  But many granting 
agencies just have "documentation"  as the scope of their funding mission.
I also understand that granting agencies define what they're interested in
funding, and of course they have every right to do so.  Again, it's just 
frustrating.

By the way, we did eventually get funding to analyze the Harrington data:
from the NEH's Preservation and Access program, which tries to make
materials of cultural or historical importance more accessible.  Putting 
handwritten microfilmed unanalyzed field data into a database makes it
accessible.  The grant program isn't specific to language at all.

So my overall point is that in addition to considering priorities within 
one language, we should also look at how resources and energy get
allocated across languages.  The archival analysis vs. new data decision
is different if we look across languages, unless we're willing to tell all 
the dormant language communities to just forget about it and stop trying.

Oh, one more thing:  Bill, you mention there being no shortage of
linguists willing to work on archival data analysis.  I agree that there 
are probably more out there who would be interested in taking projects on,
but given that revitalization work frequently is not valued by one's
department and not counted as linguistic work toward tenure, and that many 
tribes can't afford to just hire themselves a full-time linguist, I'm not
so sure there are so many who really would like to take on the full scope
of a revitalization project.  If one follows it through, from digging up 
the old sources through creating a database, producing a dictionary,
writing a textbook and other materials, collaborating with the community
(if one isn't community oneself) on all parts of the work, getting 
funding, and figuring out with the community how to get fluency and spread
fluency through the community, it's a lifetime project.  I don't know many
linguists who are so interested in taking on a language to do this, while 
trying to maintain the part of their careers they get hired by a
department for as well.  I do think there are lots more who would like to
help out with parts of the work, though.

Thanks,

Natasha

****************************************************************************
***
Natasha Warner
Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics
University of Arizona
PO Box 210028
Tucson, AZ 85721-0028
U.S.A.

Until August 2008:
Visiting Researcher
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
PO Box 310
6500 AH Nijmegen
the Netherlands




-- 
____________________________________________________________ 
Susan D. Penfield, Ph.D.

Associate Director, Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language
and Literacy (CERCLL)
Department of English (Primary)   
American Indian Language Development Institute (AILDI) 
Second Language Acquisition & Teaching Ph.D. Program (SLAT)
Department of Language,Reading and Culture
Department of Linguistics
The Southwest Center (Research)
Phone for messages: (520) 621-1836


"Every language is an old-growth forest of the mind, a watershed of thought,
an ecosystem of spiritual possibilities." 
           
                                                          Wade Davis...(on a
Starbucks cup...) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ilat/attachments/20071031/3c199412/attachment.htm>