honor the language, honor the people

[Pat Warren]

It's been wonderful to hear personal perspectives on so many different
ideas. I really wish people would share more often like this. It would
certainly help to change how linguistics is done if people kept these kinds
of public discussions going regularly. There's such a massive amount of
insight, intelligence, and experience floating around I wish someone would
publish a series on the people and motivations and visions behind the work
being done with native languages.

I'm not sure if I'm having trouble expressing myself because I'm upset, or
if the point I'm making is subtle, or just one that people either flat-out
agree or disagree with.

I feel bad because some people haven't noticed my distinction between
"linguist" as a role and you as a person, and have gotten personally
defensive it seems. It's wonderful to hear more about a lot of the caring
things that people have done for/with the people that serve as their
informants/subjects when doing linguistics. I'm not criticizng linguists as
people. I'm criticizing (or trying to anyway) the inhumanity of linguistics
and the roles of linguists. My emphasized criticism of the study of
languages as an end in itself it essential. I know very well from my own
experiences that it's very intellectually satisfying to learn about
languages, to do linguistics. But I think that the study of languages that
is not accompanied, or preceded by the ACQUISITION of these languages and
active participation in the speech community leads to unintentional,
hard-to-see, and often irreversible damage to the speech communities
studied and to the individuals in those communities. And probably the
effects trickle out to other communtities as well through the work of other
linguists.

The work of linguistics, and I'm focusing primarily in the linguistics of
north american native languages, is inherently dehumanizing, objectifying,
and of little use to the health of the language and community. As people,
we all have much to offer, and many people do a lot, to help people in the
communities whose languages are studied. But as linguists, I think little
can be offered because of the theoretical structure and traditions of
linguistics, and the roles that linguists play in the relationships they
create while doing their work. I bet this is a tough distinction to see,
cause even I'm struggling to get it into words.

I think the near-total demise of native languages can't be helped with
linguistics as it is done, and how people construct their self-images as
linguists. I agree wholeheartedly that working with documentation,
especially when my ideal of getting fluent speakers together with children
is impossible, is THE primary activity. But I think the documentation that
is done by people who do not speak the language not only doesn't help, it
generally makes the situation worse as it acts as a placebo. While there
are a some incredibly dedicated individuals who can utilize linguistic and
missionary language materials in enhancing their acquistion of the
language, I think this is not due to the quality of the materials, but
happens in spite of them, due to the unshakable motivation of the learner,
which is unfortunately a rarity, or at least not universal enough to keep
these languages healthfully alive. Unless you learn the language and use
it, I don't think you can produce materials that facilitate acqusition, as
opposed to leanring ABOUT the language.

The linguistics done with native languages that converts it to english
makes people feel like important work is being done to save the language.
Sometimes learners manage to overcome the obstacles and incorporate some of
the language documented by linguists into their acquisition. But this is
due to extraordinary learners with powerful motivation, not to good
materials. I think linguists are fooling themselves to think that they're
helping, but I think they're serving a passifying function, making people
think "things are being done" to keep the languages alive. No community is
going to see a reversal of the process of language death due to the
production of language materials, unless those materials are produced by
speakers of the language. You can churn out all the linguistic work you
want, and enjoy it, but it will not contribute to the reversal of language
death, unless it is informed by your subjective knowledge of the language
and not dependent on another language for comprehension. No you don't need
to acquire a language to study it. But you are limited in what you can
study and the quality of your work. If you do not choose to learn the
language you study, to honor it and the people whose language it is, I
believe you are contributing, if unintentionally, to the death of the
language.

Thanks again for sharing,
Pat