honor the language, honor the people

[Louanna Furbee]

>Pat, Sorry to have upset you.  I just didn't recognize the linguists
>or linguistics that I know in your characterization, so probably
>reacted defensively.  I apologize if I misrepresented your
>point-of-view.  Louanna



>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


--
Prof. N. Louanna Furbee
Department of Anthropology
107 Swallow Hall
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO  65211 USA
Telephones: 573/882-9408 (office)
	   573/882-4731 (department)
	   573/446-0932 (home)
	   573/884-5450 (fax)
E-mail:  FurbeeL at missouri.edu