local reactions to language family terms

[Bryan Gordon]

Mark's comments are well-thought out and on target. I was speaking
with a fellow graduate student (éshti waxé skáxti tHaN - quite white)
about field work in indigenous communities earlier in the spring. As
is typical of academics who know nothing about indigenous communities,
she was completely shocked that there exist indigenous people who
would reject the accumulated knowledge of the discipline of
linguistics even in the face of rapidly shrinking speaker populations.
She was also quite sure that there must be a simple, theoretically
acceptable way to describe indigenous languages without offending
anyone.

That's just not the case. Linguists may grow tired of putting entries
in their paper like "Language X, also known as Y, a member of the Z
family, referred to as W by speakers from place V, as U by speakers
from place T, and not considered to be the same language by speakers
of mutually intelligible language S..." but that's just a hazard of
the profession! The reality is that the landscape of political
designation and cultural designation is constantly shifting, and that
linguists, even indigenous linguists, are a part of a colonial
academic system that has no right to make those decisions on behalf of
any indigenous community.

As I see it, we are faced with two choices: either we fill our papers
with long-winded descriptions like the one above, or we choose to
behave disrespectfully towards speaker communities. I know which
choice I prefer! C'mon, our rep is already bad enough, let's not make
it worse for the sake of brevity in one section of a paper. There is
no easy answer, and as soon as we think we have found one, we are
already beginning down the path of entitlement and disrespect.

- Bryan Gordon

PS: Here are a couple of templates I use regularly in my writing:
Ponca is a language indigenous to the area of the Niobrara Valley,
part of present-day Nebraska and South Dakota. The language's main
speech community is currently located in north central Oklahoma. Ponca
is mutually intelligible with the Omaha language, but is not
considered by Ponca and Omaha people to be the same language.
Linguists usually speak of the "Omaha-Ponca" language, of the
"Dhegiha" family (Siouan - Central - Mississippi Valley).
Ojibwe is the name of some closely related languages and also of a
family of languages. Minnesota Ojibwe, also called Chippewa, is spoken
in present-day Minnesota. Closely related forms are also spoken in
Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Salteaux, from western
Ontario and eastern Manitoba, is considered by some, but not all,
speakers, to be the same language. In the language itself,
"Anishinaabemowin" is used to describe this particular language, while
"Ojibwemowin" may be used to describe either this language or the
whole family. The family also includes "Nishnaabemwin," or Ottawa,
which is spoken in central and eastern Ontario, and is similar to
forms spoken in the islands of Lake Huron. This form is not considered
to be the same language, but is sometimes referred to as "Ojibwe" as
well. Anishinaabemowin and Nishnaabemwin fluent speakers enjoy
extensive mutual intelligibility, but this may not be the case for all
speakers.
These descriptions are long, it is true, but I believe they only
barely pass the muster of descriptive sufficiency.

2007/6/3, Mark J Awakuni-Swetland <mawakuni-swetland2 at unlnotes.unl.edu>:
> Yes, it can be an emotion-driven mess.
>
> I recall the discussion raised by our Wichita hosts at the Anadarko SCLC a
> few years ago. They voiced opposition to the label "Caddoan" being applied
> to their language. David Rood gave a credible explanation about it being a
> linguist-applied term that did not intend any classification or attack upon
> the individual tribe's status, language, or sovereignty... to little avail.
>
> In a recent grant application I described an O/P dictionary project... with
> the O/P reflecting Dorsey's classification. When I approached the Southern
> Ponca for a letter of support their first comments were about that
> designation. They requested I change the project title to "Omaha and Ponca"
> so as to reduce the impression that the Ponca are somehow part of the
> "Omaha".
>
> Bryan suggests asking an Odaawaa person for clarification on tribal
> preferences. Yet we all know that one person cannot represent the tribe
> (although outsiders routinely settle on the approachable or pliable
> individual's opinion as being representative of the whole).
>
> Even in the Southern Ponca situation, the former Council's ideas did not
> represent the current Council's ideology... and neither were guaranteed to
> represent all of the factions of the community.
>
> Uthixide
> Mark Awakuni-Swetland
> oNska abthiN!
>
> -----owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu wrote: -----
>
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> From: "Bryan Gordon" <linguista at gmail.com>
> Sent by: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Date: 06/02/2007 03:59PM
> Subject: Re: obviation
>
> Actually, that can be a pretty serious issue (speaker preference).
> There are some Odaawaa speakers who dislike having their language
> called Ojibwe, others who consider Ojibwe a "family" to which Odaawaa
> belongs. Most Ojibwe/Chippewa people around these parts (Minnesota,
> Wisconsin, Upper Peninsula) consider Odaawaa a different language from
> their varieties, but there is great mutual intelligibility. Maybe a
> safe, neutral terminology that would satisfy both linguists and
> speakers would be something like "Odaawaa Ojibwe". I suppose you'd
> have to ask an Odaawaa speaker to find out whether that would solve
> the problem. I don't know any in this area.
>
> - Bryan
>
> 2007/6/2, Marino <marino at skyway.usask.ca>:
> > I think of Odawa as a variety of Ojibwe and I tend to refer every named
> > variety in the respective regions to either *Ojibwe* or *Cree* - I am sure
> > that this is very inexact from an Algonquianist perspective.  Is there an
> > issue here with the speech community?  Do speakers of the varieties of
> > Odawa object to having their languages referred to as Ojibwe?
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > At 11:05 AM 6/1/2007, you wrote:
> > >Odawa, to be exact.
> > >
> > >David
> > >
> > >
> > > > I need to correct my earlier e-mail:   Nishnaabemwin (Piriyawiboon's
> paper)
> > > > is Ojibwe, not Cree.
> > > >
> > > > Mary
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>