The Nine Lives of "Linguistic Deficiency"

[Richard J Senghas]

Hey Hal and all,

I think there may be more common ground than may be apparent at  
first....


On 9 Feb 2007, , at 9:19 PM, Harold F. Schiffman wrote:

> My take on this issue has to do with the following:
>
> 1.  Whether we like it or not, knowledge and skill with "standard"
> language and orthography has "cash value", and trying to teach
> teachers-to-be that it's just "all ideology" won't get far with them.

I haven't seen any linguistic anthropologists who have been  
interested in language ideologies deny this point.  What I think is  
the tricky part of such "language economies" is determining which  
choices and actions had which intended and unintended effects.  Short- 
term costs/benefits might need to be weighed against long-term costs/ 
benefits.  Is it possible or worth it for individuals or groups to  
resist hegemony?  Is it even possible to comply?


> 2. One of the problems I have with the ideology paradigm is that it  
> has
> become the dominant paradigm in linguistic anthropology, and thus  
> it has
> become a "dominant discourse" and doesn't get challenged very  
> often, or if
> it does, the challenges are dismissed as stemming from ignorance.

I don't see there being a single "ideology paradigm"; I've seen  
several schools of thought that deal with ideology or ideologies in  
very different ways, both in terms of theorizing and in methodologies  
in the field and lab.


> I would
> like to see the use of the term be more nuanced:

I agree, I would like to see the use of the terms [plural] be more  
nuanced.


> For example:
>
> 1.  It seems to me that language ideologies that are 'state-sponsored'
> such as French ideas about language, or the Marrist ideology that  
> was part
> of Soviet language policy, are much different from run-of-the-mill  
> ideas
> or folk notions about language that are not particularly coherent  
> or well
> thought-out.

Indeed.  Ideologies are (must be) "systems of ideas," not  
independent, unrelated notions.  This has been expressed by those who  
discuss ideology/ideologies, for example, Woolard's Annual Review of  
Anthropology article on linguistic ideology, if I recall correctly.   
(I can't confirm this at the moment, as I am away from my library.)



> 2.  Similarly, religious ideologies such as those associated with  
> Arabic
> (Islam), Sanskrit (Hinduism), Hebrew (Judaism), and even the King  
> James
> version of the Bible (Christianity) are qualitatively different  
> from other
> kinds of ideas and notions.

Yes, we could do with some better taxonomies, better descriptions,  
better explanations.  But it takes us some steps along the way, which  
is where I see us at this point.



> 3.  Myths about language and/or its origin are qualitatively different
> from many other kinds of ideas. (According to the Tamil origin  
> myth, the
> god Murukan taught the rules of Tamil [not Tamil itself] to the sage
> Agesthya, who brought them to mortals.)
>
> Such ideology types as 1-3 are much more difficult to challenge  
> than more
> mundane ideas about language; in fact, you might be taking your  
> life in
> your hands if you were to challenge them, as happened to an Egyptian
> scholar recently, who wanted to do a concordance of vocabulary in the
> Koran.

I'm more interested in changing those mundane, quotidian ideas about  
language if and when I see them as parts of systems.


> I therefore try to use the term 'ideology' very sparingly, or not  
> at all,
> because for me, the term implies something large and powerful like
> Communism or Fascism, not something like "standard languages are  
> better
> than non-standard ones.

Well, it depends on what then follows.  "Standard languages are  
better than non-standard ones, therefore we must... [or mustn't....]   
It's what follows that tells us how large and powerful that  
particular ideology and what its implications are, and whether its  
worth attending to, resisting, supporting, or whatever.


> I'd also like to see a way to challenge the ideology paradigm, with a
> metric such as we are equipped with in Linguistics, i.e. here's a  
> set of
> criteria we can use to know whether you've got a phonemic contrast  
> (i.e.
> here's how we know we are dealing with an ideology, and not some other
> kind of idea), and if it doesn't meet the criteria, then it's not an
> ideology. I currently see no way to determine whether something is or
> isn't an ideology about language, so in fact almost any idea (notion,
> feeling, guess, folk notion...) is treated as on a par with all  
> others. So
> we get umpteen panels at every AAA meeting on ideologies about  
> language,
> and nobody ever challenges whatever is said (and hardly anybody
> distinguishes between myths, religious ideologies, state-sponsored  
> ones,
> etc.) It's just "ALLLL ideology!"

But the most interesting pieces are exactly the ones that are  
specific, descriptive, explanatory.  We're still muddling through at  
times, but I think that the muddling through just means we're right  
in the thick of things, and that we're at an interesting part of the  
problem.


> (I realize that some people see such metrics or criteria as  
> "postivist"
> and positivism has also been sent to the trash heap, but doesn't  
> this lead
> to reductionism? Every idea on a par with others, except those that  
> are
> morally reprehensible?)
>
> As for the fact that this is now what I call a dominant discourse,  
> as we
> know (I think) dominant discourses tend to discourage or squelch  
> dissent,
> and therefore the "ideology of language" and beliefs about it are  
> taken
> for granted in linguistic anthropology, and anyone who doesn't  
> agree is
> ostracized, marginalized, or just dismissed as irrelevant.
>
> If anyone thinks these terms are too strong, I refer you to the  
> review of
> my book "Linguistic Culture and Language Policy" which appeared on- 
> line on
> this listserv--my analyses were dismissed because I failed to use the
> dominant discourse, and never once used the term "ideology."

Of course dominant discourses should be challenged; isn't that  
exactly part of the central points of those who are presenting  
analyses of ideologies?!   We're human, subject to the same  
principles, forces, blind spots, human strengths & weaknesses that  
are our areas of study.  I think it's still useful to try to improve  
the ideological studies, more so than abandoning the whole effort.

When I teach about language ideologies in my university courses, I  
try to show my students how complex the issues are, the strengths and  
weaknesses of past and current studies, but I leave it to the  
students to decide for themselves where they want to take a stand, if  
any.  I'm more interested in *how* they draw upon (or develop new)  
linguistic methods and knowledge, and how they couple those with  
ethnographic methods and knowledge, so that having studied language  
this way, they can develop approaches to deal with all the new  
information they'll encounter (maybe even collect) long after I'm out  
of the picture.  And I sure hope their understandings eventually  
surpass the ones we have now!

Best regards,

-RJS


Richard J Senghas  (Professor of Anthropology, Sonoma State U,  
California)
Visiting Researcher, Institutionen för nordiska språk
Stockholms universitet
S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Richard.Senghas at nordiska.su.se
Richard.Senghas at sonoma.edu