printability and standardization

[Joshua Fishman]

While agreeing with Luykx and King, i would like
to repeat what I expressed in my 1991 "Reversing
Language Shift": premature standardization and
lexical innovation turns off exactly those elders
who are likely to speak the local variety best.
It is rarely clear to them why such "meddling" is
necessary and no one has usually consulted them
about it and tried out various solutions (among
them: "not now") with their participation. The
young are often more amenable but less
influential and more into LWCs. Both motivation
and criteria re gains and losses need to be
agreed upon in advance. The experiences of the
dialectally varied Romansh and Rusyn are very
relevant to all of the above.





--- Kendall King <AKK25 at georgetown.edu> wrote:
> I agree with Aurolyn's interpretation and the
> two points she makes here
> concerning the potentially harmful impact of
> efforts to standardize
> minority languages. Since publishing the book
> in 2000, I've become
> increasingly concerned by the very mixed nature
> of such efforts (including
> those deemed both "bottom-up" and "top-down").
> (The co-edited book by Leena
> Huss, _Transcending Monolingualism_,
> illustrates examples of this.)
> Further, I think it is critically important to
> keep in mind that indigenous
> and minority communities are very often diverse
> and divided. There are
> typically numerous political factions and
> contentious issues. In such
> contexts, language policy and language usage
> can easily become a further
> source of tension, exacerbating existing
> divisions in the community, or in
> some cases, creating new ones. Thus, language
> policies which are intended
> to strengthen and unite communities
> linguistically, culturally, and
> politically might have the opposite effect, as
> different groups engage in
> lengthy (and not always friendly) debates
> concerning orthographic decisions
> and so on.
> Kendall
>
>
> At 09:07 1/12/2004 -0800, Aurolyn Luykx wrote:
> >King's argument is rather complex, but to
> briefly
> >summarize part of it here, she reports that
> the
> >successful standardization of Quichua and its
> >incorporation into schooling has indirectly
> led to an
> >even greater stigmatization and avoidance of
> >pre-existing non-standard dialects. Also that
> while
> >the standardized Quichua has gained some
> ground in
> >symbolic contexts, it continues to lose ground
> in
> >functions that are communicatively more
> important on a
> >day-to-day basis. Admittedly, it may be hard
> to get
> >worked up over prestige hierarchies between
> different
> >dialects within an indigenous language, when
> the more
> >immediate problem is that rapid disappearance
> of so
> >many languages altogether, but I'd argue that
> the two
> >issues are not unrelated. In other words,
> policies
> >meant to strengthen indigenous languages may
> >indirectly contribute to their demise, via
> unintended
> >ideological effects that elevate a new
> standard which
> >few people speak and denigrate more widespread
> >(non-standard) dialects. One more reason why
> it's just
> >as important for linguists to study their own
> >ideologies as those of "common speakers." And
> to
> >recall that parents' language choices for
> their
> >children are always embedded in these shifting
> >ideological sands. Kendall, care to weigh in
> on any of
> >this?
> >Aurolyn
> >p.s. to Stan -- certainly the isolation of
> many
> >indigenous groups is what has helped their
> languages
> >survive as long as they have. In Bolivia,
> bilingual
> >education will now make schooling accessible
> to so
> >many more indigenous children who were
> previously
> >marginalized from it, but that very act of
> bringing
> >them into the educational fold will most
> likely lead
> >many or most of them to abandon the indigenous
> >language, eventually.
> >
> >--- Stan & Sandy Anonby
> <stan-sandy_anonby at sil.org>
> >wrote:
> > > I'd like to read King.  I haven't, so I
> might be off
> > > base, but aren't stratification,
> sociogeographical
> > > isolation, and disparities forces which
> help
> > > maintain languages and cultures?  If these
> problems
> > > didn't exist in Brazil, my feeling is that
> all the
> > > Indian communities would've switched to
> Portuguese
> > > by now.  I don't know the sociolinguistic
> dynamic in
> > > Ecuador and I think it's great that
> indigenous
> > > people there have won a political place in
> the
> > > wording of the constitution.  However, I
> wonder how
> > > much Quechua is really benefiting from this
> Indian
> > > zeitgeist.   If the situation is like
> Brazil, then I
> > > would bet that the Indians who were
> instrumental in
> > > bringing about these political changes do
> not speak
> > > their Indian languages well, if at all.  I
> don't
> > > doubt all this has had a positive
> > > social-psychological effect on minority
> children and
> > > within their communities, but does this
> mean they
> > > are speaking more Quechua?
> > >
> > > Stan
> > >   ----- Original Message -----
> > >   From: Rachel Reynolds
> > >   To: lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
> > >   Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 7:16 AM
> > >   Subject: RE: printability and
> standardization
> > >
> > >
> > >   I am wondering why no one has quite
> mentioned that
> > > language is just a single part of the
> ethnic/racial
> > > stratification scene in the United States
> (and
> > > elsewhere).  There is only so much that
> educating
> > > people about language can accomplish when
> race
> > > relations have a lot to do also with clean
> water
> > > supplies, prison, health care disparities
> (Christina
> > > mentioned this!), sociogeographical
> isolation of the
> > > poor, the impetus towards empire, enduring
> and
> > > changing commercialization of black bodies
> and
> > > sounds, etc. etc. etc.   The efficacy of
> language
> > > consciousness education depends of course
> on
> > > historical and cultural contexts of other
> forms of
> > > consciousness raising and the ethnic/class
> struggle
> > > (i.e. timing is everything).  Someone
> mentioned
> > > Kendall King's book earlier on Quechua,
> > > standardization and the classroom where,
> for
> > > example, in the introduction King points
> out that
> > > her ethnography takes place in a setting
> where
> > > indigenous people in Ecuador had just won a
> > > political place in the wording of the
> constitution
> > > and that the wide ranging effects of this
> will have
> > > mattered at a more pervasive level than the
> efforts
> > > of a single educational consortium.
> Nonetheless,
> > > this educational consortium arose at the
> time of
> > > political change and was probably more
> effective
> > > because of its correlation with the
> zeitgeist. (that
> > > last part is me talking, not necessarily
> King whose
> > > book I do not presently have by my side).
> That's
> > > related to why King concludes that language
> > > revitalization may not necessarily fully
> reinstate
> > > languages within all domains, but that it
> has a
> > > positive social-psychological effect on
> minority
> > > children and within their communities.
> (again, I
> > > hope I've summarized that accurately).
> > >
> > >   Wasn't it Marvin Harris who points out
> that
> > > changing superstructural concerns from the
> top, like
> > > language and its ideologies, have less
> likelihood of
> > > affecting the infrastructure or the
> structure of a
> > > social group?  While changes form the base,
> in the
> > > infrastructure and the structure will have
> > > wider-ranging on the superstructure?  When
> and how
> > > are minority language planning efforts
> likely to
> > > change the structure, I guess, is what I'm
> asking...
> > >
> > >   Rachel Reynolds
> > >
> > >   At 05:51 AM 1/12/2004 +0200, you wrote:
> > >
> > >     Christina's comment reminds me of a
> remark made
> > > by a Navajo graduate student of mine many
> years ago:
> > > by moving to the city, she knew it was
> unlikely that
> > > her son would grow up speaking Navajo, but
> at least
> > > she wouldn't have to carry water a mile or
> two every
> > > day.
> > >     Of course, those who stayed on the
> Reservation
> > > are speaking Navajo less and less.
> > >     Bernard
> > >       -----Original Message-----
> > >       From:
> owner-lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
> > >
> [mailto:owner-lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Christina Paulston
> > >       Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 9:54
> PM
> > >       To: lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
> > >       Subject: Re: printability and
> standardization
> > >
> > >
> > >       I must express myself extremely badly
> to be so
> > > misunderstood. Of course a person can be
> literate in
> > > more than one language or dialect - I read
> some
> > > seven languages, eight, myself. We are not,
> that is,
> > >  I am not talking about a linguistic
> problem but a
> > > social. Of course the LSA comment "from
> this
> > > perspective" they noted, was perfectly
> sound. It was
> > > the Black community across the country who
> rose up
> > > in protest at having AAVE imposed on them
> and you
> > > can give them all the linguistic
> information you
> > > want and it is not going to help.
> > >           What about South Africa, now with
> 11
> > > official languages? Many Afrikaners for
> > > "pedagogically sound" reasons now urge the
> African
> > > population to send their children to mother
> tongue
> > > schools - exactly the same policy enforced
> under
> > > apartheid for reasons of segregation.
> Parents
> > > prefer education in English for their
> children - are
> > > you going to tell them they suffer from
> false
> > > consciousness ( a singularly brilliant
> concept,
> > > that)? There are as always other
> circumstances,
> > > quality of teachers, texts, etc but parents
> still
> > > want English.  And I think it should be
> their
> > > choice.
> > >           The problem of course becomes
> worse when
> > > the children and the parents disagree over
> that
> > > choice - which is not uncommon with
> immigrant
> > > groups.  I just object to linguists playing
> > > omniscient gods and recommending  options
> for life
> > > decisions on the basis of linguistic
> criteria.  Most
> > > people want a decent life, at least for
> their
> > > children, a good job, good health care
> (Bush should
> > > take note), a secure old age, etc, and if
> that
> > > necessitates another language, they don't
> care. Of
> > > course they can remain bilingual but the
> children
> > > usually don't think it is worth it.
> > >           Etc.  My very last comment,
> Christina
> > >
> > >
> > >       ----------
> > >       From: Ronald Kephart
> <rkephart at unf.edu>
> > >       To: lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
> > >       Subject: RE: printability and
> standardization
> > >       Date: Sun, Jan 11, 2004, 11:15 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >       At 11:02 AM -0600 1/10/04, Felicia
> Briscoe
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >       ...There also seems to be an
> underlying
> > > assumption in much of the recent writing
> that
> > >       bilingualism is either very difficult
> to
> > > attain or that it is someway is detrimental
> to the
> > > person who is bilingual.  I find this a
> very strange
> > > assumption. Why can't a person be fully
> literate in
> > > AAVE and fully literate in standard
> English.  Why is
> > > it so often posed as an either/or option?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     I think part of the answer lies in what
> > > anthropological linguist MJ Hardman calls
> our
> > > linguistic postulates: specifically, the
> importance
> > > of singularity. This manifests itself in
> all sorts
> > > of ways not only within our language but
> also how we
> > > think about language, as well as more
> widely: one
> > > "right" answer, one god, preference for
> individual
> > > over collective work, "most valuable
> players," the
> > > totalitarian nature of our corporations,
> even the
> > > prescriptive insistence on "he" rather than
> "they"
> > > as a generic pronoun. And of course, "one
> language."
> > >
> > >     See: Hardman, 1978, Linguistic
> postulates and
> > > applied anthropological linguistics, in
> Papers on
> > > linguistics and child language, edited by
> V. Honsa
> > > and M.J. Hardman-de-Bautista, 117-36. The
> Hague:
> > > Mouton.
> > >
> > >     --
> > >     Ronald Kephart
> > >     Sociology, Anthropology, & Criminal
> Justice
> > >     University of North Florida
> > >     http://www.unf.edu/~rkephart
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus"
> Sweepstakes
>
>http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
>
**********************************************************
> Kendall King, Ph.D.
> Department of Linguistics, Georgetown
> University
> Intercultural Center 458, Washington D.C. 20057
> Ph: 202-687-7117        Fax: 202-687-6174
> Email: AKK25 at georgetown.edu
> www.georgetown.edu/faculty/akk25/
>
**********************************************************
>
>
>
>
**********************************************************
> Kendall King, Ph.D.
> Department of Linguistics, Georgetown
> University
> Intercultural Center 458, Washington D.C. 20057
> Ph: 202-687-7117        Fax: 202-687-6174
> Email: AKK25 at georgetown.edu
> www.georgetown.edu/faculty/akk25/
>
**********************************************************
>


=====
____________________________________________________________
HOME: 3616 Henry Hudson Pkwy., Apt. 7B-N, Bronx NY 10463
home tel: 718-796-8484; home fax: 718-796-8155 (3 page limit); OFFICE tel: 718-430-3850; office fax: 719-430-3060.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus