the brief context of my ideas, and then Ill be quiet

[David Kaufman]

Hello again:
I just thought I’d add a couple more thoughts before the closing of this discussion.  Perhaps we are discussing two different things: linguistics and revitalization.  It seems to me the purpose of the linguist is to research and publish mainly for other linguists, for the further development and growth of the science of linguistics and a deeper understanding of languages in general—their differences and similarities, their genealogies, origins, etc.  But, while looking at the “overall picture” of language appeals to us as linguists, this really does little to serve individual language communities and cultures involved in revitalization efforts.  As I think Henning pointed out, the Hocaks will probably care little about what “family” their language belongs to and what similarities and differences their language shares with Dakota or Hidatsa.  Their only goal will be to revitalize their own language and culture, and how to go about that the best way, and how to receive funding!
 for that
 purpose.  While linguists may certainly be able to help out in some way or other on these endeavors, I would imagine revitalization efforts would require more assistance from educators/teachers who are more acquainted with second language acquisition and language teaching and who may be able to assist more in curriculum development, lesson planning, etc.

That being said, what may be more helpful to a tribe’s revitalization efforts (and what might make this discussion more substantive) would be a tribe’s interaction and communication with people involved in other revitalization projects which have shown a good deal of success.  I may have mentioned that I’m currently taking a Hawaiian language class taught by a teacher who graduated from U of Hawai’i in Hilo (the center of Hawaiian’s revitalization project) and who now teaches part-time at Stanford University, which apparently just graduated its first two grad students in Hawaiian language and studies.  (I don’t go to Stanford.  She comes to Sacramento once a week to teach a private class here!)  Thus, not only are Hawaiians learning their language in Hawai’i, but now degrees are also offered at universities in other states.  It seems a big boost to any revitalization program is to be recognized by some major schools and universities which will hopefully develop a curriculum !
and even
 degree programs for those who would like to actually get a degree in the language and culture.  I can give anyone who is interested the email address of our Hawaiian kumu (teacher), but rather than post it here for anyone and everyone, I’d rather give it only to those who are interested (especially those who are members of tribes involved in or wanting to start revitalization work) and who would like to contact me individually.  I’m sure she’d be willing to give whatever info she can on the Hawaiian program, or at least can give you more leads of whom to contact involved in Hawaiian’s quite successful project.  I’m sure if anyone knows about funding for things like this, they would!

Lastly, I think linguists do serve a positive role at least as far as exploring the nature of language and its origins.  And I agree to have linguists involved in revitalization programs probably can't hurt and can only ultimately be helpful.  Also, we hear a lot in the media about environmental crises and the mass extinction of flora and fauna, but I think few people out there (nonlinguists) really know the extent of the language and cultural extinctions that are occurring.  I don't know if this would ultimately make a difference, but more publicity and awareness of the general public of the situation probably couldn't hurt either!  I myself often encounter reactions of surprise when I tell people that a majority of the world's current languages, including ones like Hawaiian, Hidatsa, and (I'm sad to learn) Hocak have 200 native speakers or less left on the earth.

Dave Kaufman

dvklinguist2003 at yahoo.com


Pat Warren <warr0120 at umn.edu> wrote:Since I am now being attacked personally I'll share a few fundamental views
I have that will put the rest of what I've tried to say into context.

I brought this on myself. Normally I keep quiet. If the info about the
Hocank project had come from the community saying "look what we're doing"
(which they probably woudln't, since it's for themselves, not for
linguists' aproval), and if it had been said that the material will be
archived at the community too and not just in the netherlands, I would have
been very happy for them.

For the rest, I brought in more ideas than I wish I would have. I have
different basic assumptions than many people on this list, which makes
constructive critical discussion very difficult. Most people in the
dominant culture don't see themselves as agents of domination, but that's
what I see, myself included. It's no longer explicit as it was even
recently (you don't call "them" heathen anymore). And I don't see personal
choice such as practicing linguistics as being a personal choice alone. I
see it within the larger framework of a culture still committed to the
destruction or acculturation of pretty much every culture in the world.
When the errors of the past are made too obvious too ignore, I see dominant
cultural institutions adapting, but not making systemic change to a
non-dominating existence. I see the linguistics that is done of languages
other than your own as an act of
domination. It's not just an objective, worthy scientific pursuit, it's
part of the larger process of our culture to contain and eventually
eliminate diversity from the world.

And that's my problem. How can you make a statement like that and expect
constructive talk with people who think very differently? I forgot that
difficulty. To me it's basic. But to others...well there's certainly
diversity of opinion there. I see myself as an agent and subject of the
dominant culture in which I was raised and live. And so I know that I'm a
dangerous person to much of the world. I don't have the respect for the
rest of creation that I would like to. I work on myself and try to change
that, but I know it's there, and I see it in the people around me. But we
are not encouraged by our ideology, roles, or experiences to be aware of
how fundamentally different we are from most people who have lived
throughout history, though I don't pretend
there are perfect societies, just that most people haven't been at war with
life. I am not fully responsible for the precarious state of the world
around me, nor the violence of my culture towards the world and itself, but
I try to stay aware of it, and creatively subvert it. Oddly, I don't see
this as at all cynical. I'm critical, but I have much hope. But it requires
rethinking structures I see as dominant, and trying to find ways to reverse
the trend. And that's what I work on. My first step is in doing linguistics
is acquiring the languages I'm interested in. Next is finding theories that
empower the meanings and structures native to the language. There's plenty
out there, like Bill Croft's radical construction grammar and Anna
Wierzbicka and Cliff Goddard's natural semantic metalanguage
lexicographical approach. Tools that respect the language on its own terms
of meaning like these two approaches can make a huge difference. This
versus the lexicographical tradition of leaning on english glossing, or
assuming essentialist universal grammatical categories.
Another essential concept is making sure that work done is available to the
community, economically, physically, etc. I don't think the rights to works
should be sold by linguists to publishers. This HAS changed somewhat
recently, and that's very good. The language must remain free of outisde
control.

I hope some of my differing views are a bit clearer. But it's so very hard,
I think, when people in a discussion have such opposing viewpoints. It's
hard to remember this sometimes. Last week I made someone extremely upset
when I suggested that nonhuman animals have essentially the same emotional
potenital as humans. But that's basic to me that all the nonhuman animals
I've known are feeling, intentional, autonomous beings - which means
they're people. But different assumptions, and it's hard to understand each
other.

Thanks for you time,
Pat




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20031027/01918aef/attachment.htm>