Volkswagen and politicizing documentation, teaching & maintenance.

[R. Rankin]

It is hard to know exactly where to start with all
of the assertions, counter-assertions and
word-eating that has gone on around this topic,
but please let me re-emphasize one or two points
that I strongly agree with and add one or two that
haven't been mentioned or have been covered only
obliquely.  Maybe a couple of caveats too.

First, I strongly agree with Pat that, if the
situation permits, monies first be funneled
into putting older, fluent speakers in close and
prolonged contact with children, preferably under
the age of puberty, i.e., within the language-
learning "window" that allows acquisition
of easy fluency.  This may be possible with at
least three Siouan languages:  Dakotan, Hochunk
and Crow.  Realistically, it will probably not be
possible with the majority of Siouan languages.

Second, it is also a great idea for the linguist
to try to learn to speak the language s/he is
studying, especially if there is a significant
body of speakers.  This has been the philosophy of
the best field linguists among us, including Ken
Hale and Bob Dixon.  But there are plenty of
exceptions.  Some linguists are good polyglots,
but others are not.  This doesn't mean they are
not good analysts or lexicographers.

And there is the additional
factor some of us have encountered.  If we are
documenting languages with only a handful of
elderly speakers remaining, we may encounter
resentment if we show off our speaking ability
among younger people who didn't learn the language
of their grandparents.  I've seen this happen more
than once.  It is generally not their fault if the
language wasn't propagated to them in childhood,
and it's not our place to rub their nose in it.

Pure documentation *is* very important.  (a)  you
can't teach what you don't know, and, (b) in the
case of most Siouan languages, we are providing
for the future of the language, whether or not it
remains fluently spoken.  Even if the language
becomes extinct (as at least 5 Siouan languages
have just in the span of my academic lifetime),
there will be future generations who will want to
learn all they can of it or about it.  Either goal
is
laudable.

This brings me to a point many have missed.  In
places like Oklahoma, where I do most of my work,
the vast majority of Indian People are not only
*not* speakers, they are not very conservative or
traditional either.  And, like it or not,
acculturation is only going to become more
prevalent.  Yet it is our job to provide for that
audience too -- and I reiterate, *they are the
majority*.  And they are Indians.

Linguists, (like Indian People), come in all
shapes, sizes and personality types.  Some are
shy, inarticulate and analytical; others glory in
being down-to-earth, "touchy-feely".
Personally, I think each linguist should do what
s/he does best.  Some of each group are successes
and some are failures.  There are plenty of
grammars and dictionaries out there that were
assembled by incompetent Ivory Tower linguists.
And Lord only knows, the number of "language
maintenance" (not even to mention "revival")
programs that have been crashing failures over the
past 3 decades must approach 99% with all the
empathy in the world behind them.  The success
record certainly doesn't justify much
name-calling.

But whining about opposite personality types only
exacerbates the situation.  There is clearly room
for everyone who wants to make the effort and who
has the talent to do the work.  When I explain
this in class, I liken it to building a
skyscraper.  You can't do it without architects
and engineers in addition to a lot of bricklayers,
carpenters, plumbers and electricians, iron
workers and all the rest.  You don't ask the
architect to do the plumbing -- he'd screw it up.
Nor do you ask the stone mason to draw the
blueprints or select the material for the
building's support structure for the same reason.
And, yes, the architect will probably spend a lot
of time in his Ivory Tower -- so what?  That's his
job.

And, as if these real problems weren't enough,
there is a lot of BS in the air on all sides of
these questions.  There's the notion, oft-repeated
at language maintenance workshops, that we can
accomplish ANYthing we want if we "just have the
faith."  Or the idea that "the language 'embodies'
the culture".  Or the idea that Native American
languages don't have all that "grammar stuff" like
English -- "You just form a picture in your head
and 'talk' it."  But I'll leave those conceptions
and misconceptions for another time.

Bob