honor the language, honor the people, honor the scholar too

[rankin at ku.edu]

> I wish someone would publish a series on the people and motivations
and visions behind the work being done with native languages.

That might be revealing (I can certainly recite horror stories of how
little some administrators value "field work" that doesn't produce
immediate results.  Telling them your grammar may take a lifetime to
produce doesn't cut the mustard), but, even in the case of the most
jaded and selfish field investigators, there's always "The Law of
Unintended Consequences."  Take John P. Harrington for example.  We
would look upon some of his expressed, early 20th century attitudes as
ante-diluvian today -- he was the product of another time.  BUT, where
would the Mission Indian groups of California be without the work he
did?  For all his obsessiveness about "wringing the last few words" from
dying speakers, he churned out a MILLION pages of data in his (very
non-lucrative) career.  Remember . . . our clientele includes Indian
People who are already monolingual English or Spanish speakers.

> 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.

I don't see the responses we've gotten as defensive at all.  I think
there are those among us who may feel that you've stereotyped an entire
profession and wonder what got you to this point.  But, to extend my
skyscraper analogy from earlier, I don't feel the least bit guilty, in
my role as an "architect", that I am not also a plumber or a skilled
carpenter.  It's expecting too much to ask me to produce materials for
4th graders -- I can't do that; I lack the talent, or at least the
training.  It would also be unfair to ask Native teachers to figure out
the best way to present the active/stative split in Dakota or possessor
raising or K-palatalization.  Everybody has his or her job, and all are
essential if language has to be presented in school instead of in the
home.  And, like it or not, that's the most common situation.

I guess I also feel that it seems at least a little elitist to assume
that White, unfeeling, uncaring, Ivory Tower scientists are just
bamboozling those poor, ignorant Native Americans in order to make a
buck off their language, and they aren't smart enough to see through it.
Actually, I've found that, after 200+ years of bad experiences with
Whites, Indians have become pretty good judges of character.  The fellow
who descends on the Rez to find out whether the 25 outlandish sentences
of Dakota he has constructed from his Theory are "grammatical" or not
isn't going to make a lot of friends.  Even if such people exist, it
won't do to damn the profession of linguist up and down and then say
"But . . . I didn't mean YOU guys."  Who ARE we talking about, then?
It's Hallowe'en and I'd like to meet some of these monsters.

Yeah, I confess, I didn't learn to speak fluent Kaw or Quapaw. But there
wasn't anybody left to talk with at that point.  Plus, I'd already
learned French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Romanian, Provencal,
Catalan, Russian and a few others AND MY BRAIN WAS FULL!!  But I
wholeheartedly recommend learning to speak the language plus absorbing
as much of the rich North American cultures as possible (without turning
into an obsessed Wannabee).

> 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.

Why?  Isn't language a reasonable object of scientific curiosity?  Even
if languages are dying all around us?  Where would medicine ever have
gotten if it were restricted to treating sick people and cultivating a
pleasant bedside manner?  Pasteur, Jenner and Salk would probably have
died of whooping cough.  And besides, as Henning points out, no linguist
is ever going to "save" a language, single-handedly or otherwise --
that's up to the speech community.  But we can produce some very helpful
reference materials and help with literacy and codification if that is
desired.  And in many of our cases, that's all that's left.

> 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.

I can't imagine how.  I can see that inexperience may lead to mistakes
in analysis but "irreversible damage"?  Isn't that just a bit extreme?
At worst the linguist is just a harmless drudge.

> And probably the effects trickle out to other communtities as well
through the work of other linguists.

It's true that an incompetent analysis is often projected through
several generations of other linguists, but let's not take the
incompetent as the norm.  And let's not assume that such errors really
affect speech communities.

> The work of linguistics, . . . is inherently dehumanizing,
objectifying, and of little use to the health of the language and
community.

This is the sort of sterotyping that I find so strange in someone who
says he enjoys the study of language(s).  What are you thinking of that
would justify those feelings?  What is it about, say, Boas and Deloria's
Dakota Grammar that is "dehumanizing (and) objectifying"?  I just don't
get it.  And since when is the health of the language and community the
responsibility of the linguist?  That's not to say we can't volunteer
our services, such as they are, but is that the sole goal of the
profession?

> 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'd go even farther and say that linguists as such cannot "save"
languages, but I think it follows that's it's silly then to hold them
somehow accountable for much of anything having to do with language
obsolescence.  No amount of touchy-feely maundering is going to
accomplish the kind of salvation you have in mind.  Only 3 and 4 year
olds making the (largely unconscious) decision to adopt their parents or
grandparents language and use it will do that.  What we CAN be
responsible for is providing useful references for a future when the
language may no longer be spoken.  I should add that we can also
sometimes affect the political process with expert testimony aimed at
those who control the purse strings of government.

> 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.

But again you seem to be assuming an incompetent product.  What works
are you thinking of?

> 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,

I'd have to say that the Defense Language Institute and Foreign Service
Institute belie this generalization.  They use careful structural
analyses (done by linguists)to prepare graded instructional materials to
teach points of grammar that are important in the target language.  And
they manage to turn out a fairly good product, especially given the
education level of the enlistees they often have to work with.  I
learned my Romanian with one of these courses and it works quite well.
I'd love to see this tried more thoroughly in Native communities.
Adults CAN learn other languages -- it just takes a lot of time and
effort.  Unhappily, soldiers and diplomats have the time to spend on the
task, whereas most of us ordinary folks have to use that time to feed
our families.


> 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.

As I've said, I don't think this is remotely the case.  But I'd add that
learning ABOUT the language is a worthy goal for Indian People too --
and perhaps the only option for those who don't have the time to put in
learning it.

> The linguistics done with native languages that converts it to english
makes people feel like important work is being done to save the
language.

Ah, yes.  That can be a problem.  Mary Haas warned linguists about
"translating languages into English and they analyzing the English."
That's simply bad linguistics.  But we all know that already, and I
think that the false promises of language maintenance and retention are
being made, not by descriptivists, but by those who go around the
country holding "workshops" for Native People that promise a linguistic
salvation that they cannot deliver, and that, in most cases, will not be
forthcoming.  I must say I have a real problem with such workshops,
"institutes" and revival meetings.

> 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.

I think most linguists do their very best in this direction, so why do
assume they don't/won't?  However, fluency is just as hard for us as for
any other adult learner and we have to operate with this in mind.
Linguists simply do not "contribute ... to the death of the language."
They are at best helpful and at worst harmless.  And, of course, their
goals may legitimately include things far-removed from language
maintenance.

Perhaps John should invoke cloture to this not-terribly-informative
exchange after another round or two.

Bob