The Nine Lives of "Linguistic Deficiency"

[jschlege at kutztown.edu]

Thank you for such an interesting discussion!

I'd like to offer an ethnographic anecdote (old story, different population):

In my research on the obsolescence of Pennsylvania German in nonsectarian communities, "standard" language and orthography has huge capital in the revitalization movement because it becomes the brass ring - with a history of multiple competing orthographies and very little literacy, PG teachers have come to rally around a "standard" language and orthography for classroom instruction and language preservation. There's very little cultural capital in that as adult students who enroll in the classes hope to learn to speak the language before grandma dies. There's very little interest in what the teachers/preservationists are offering in terms of literacy skills. And yes, I write about their being conflicting local (my attempt at specificity) ideologies. 

For the older fluent speakers of PG, PG was taken to be a detriment/impediment to their children's success and they prohibited their children from speaking it (in the 1920s, 30s and 40s) couched within their understandings of what it meant to be a good parent. And these understandings of language and parenthood come to guide their orientations to many practices. Their (now adult) children (whom I call 'overhearers') conceptualize PG as an artifact of the past (with a weak heartbeat) and to be the good children, it's important for some of them to honor their parents and their past with an attempt to learn the language they heard (not read) as children. These understandings of language and a child's perspective of honoring thy father and mother guides their orientations to many practices (and effectively prevents them from orientating themselves to their own positions as parents responsible for aiding their own children's acquisition of the language).

These adult overhearers show up in class and there's conflict because of the different language ideologies at work. It's more than belief, perspective or even orientation. It's about conceptualizations of their selves. IMHO, I find language ideology a most useful analytical framework for presenting this work.



Jennifer Schlegel, Ph. D.
jschlege at kutztown.edu
Department of Anthropology/Sociology
Kutztown University
P.O. Box 730
Kutztown, PA 19530
610.683.4724

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold F. Schiffman" <haroldfs at ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: Friday, February 9, 2007 3:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Linganth] The Nine Lives of "Linguistic Deficiency"
To: R Senghas <Richard.Senghas at sonoma.edu>
Cc: John McCreery <mccreery at gol.com>, linganth at cc.rochester.edu


> 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've had such students in my classes, and just preaching to them that
>  ideologies have got it all wrong doesn't go very far.  I think our
>  pedagogy (the way we teach this) has got to be improved, or we'll continue
>  to have a bunch of students sitting glumly in our classes, resisting 
> our
>  ideas and not adopting any of them.
>  
>  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 would
>  like to see the use of the term 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.
>  
>  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.
>  
>  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 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."
>  
>  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!"
>  
>  (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."
>  
>  Hal Schiffman
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, R Senghas wrote:
>  
>  >
>  > On 9 Feb 2007, , at 1:29 AM, John McCreery wrote:
>  > > Given the choice between taking steps suggested by the language
>  > > ideologies now current among linguistic anthropologists and the future
>  > > welfare of my daughter, this conscientious teacher did what
>  > > Alexandre's father did, chose to focus on the future welfare of the
>  > > child for whom she felt responsible. I am grateful to her for that
>  > > choice.
>  >
>  > John,
>  >
>  > Likely unintentionally, I fear that this sort of response
>  > mischaracterizes the language ideology work I see in anthropology.
>  > Very few of the anthropologists who focus on language ideologies (i.e.,
>  > those I know or work with, which have been quite a few) deny the social
>  > implications involved when an individual adopts or resists prevailing
>  > prescriptions.  In fact, these language ideology folks (including me)
>  > are trying to make explicit that these are indeed (often subconscious,
>  > but often conscious) moral choices, or choices of social marking and
>  > identity.  What we are fighting is the perpetuation of false
>  > "scientific explanations" that one language is superior to another, 
> is
>  > "more linguistic" than another, etc.  (Ron's "whack-a-mole" description
>  > feels all too appropriate!)  We are also fighting the stereotypes that
>  > usually deny the cognitive and other human qualities that linguistic
>  > minority speakers have, but qualities that they aren't acknowledged 
> as
>  > having, because of the false stereotypes associated with those in
>  > subordinate social positions (for whatever reasons).
>  >
>  > By explicitly labelling language ideologies, describing them and
>  > developing accurate explanations of how and why they work (i.e. proper
>  > theorizing), language ideology folks provide a very useful service 
> to
>  > society as a whole, and to those individuals who are encountering
>  > challenges along the way.  "Why do people keep treating me like I am
>  > stupid when I know I am not?" or "Why do they act as if they don't
>  > understand me at all when I know that they at least understand some 
> of
>  > what I say?" or "Why don't they seem to care?" --these questions 
> can be
>  > answered by such anthropological approaches.
>  >
>  > We don't write or speak in certain ways simply because that is the 
> only
>  > way that works.  We do so for all kinds of reasons, social, cultural,
>  > psychological, linguistic, etc.  These are choices made by society, 
> and
>  > by being more informed, we increase our options.  Having more options
>  > is useful for both the teachers and the learners.
>  >
>  > -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
>  >
>  >
>