local reactions to language family terms

[Lameen Souag]

I'm not sure whether this was the author's intention, but Bryan's
comments gave me the impression of saying that what we say about a
given language should to some extent be determined by the preferred
ideologies of their speakers.

Now whether to call two more-or-less mutually intelligible speech
varieties the same or different languages is usually determined by
political as well as linguistic factors (you don't often hear people
talk about dialects of the Scandinavian language, for example); and
it's hard to see what calling a given variety a "language" or a
"dialect" of some other language says that can't be said more
precisely by talking about degrees of mutual intelligibility.  Even
the name of a language family is essentially arbitrary; if words like
"Bantu" or "Caddoan" are found to be politically problematic, changing
them is inconvenient but possible.

But it is worth setting out such justifications clearly, if only to
encourage thinking about where linguists should draw the line.  If
some speakers of Wichita were to object not just to the term "Caddoan"
but to linguists saying their language is related to Caddo (the way
some Hungarians object to the idea that their language is related to
Finnish), should linguists working on the language steer clear of
doing any classification or reconstruction?  If some speakers of
Hebrew object to Hebrew being described as a descendant of
Proto-Semitic or any other implication that Hebrew has not been around
since the creation of the universe (as a few do), should linguists
stop attempting to reconstruct Proto-Semitic?  If the Libyan
government insists that Berber/Tamazight is descended from Arabic (as
it does), should linguists working on Libyan Berber languages make the
same claim and cite government-approved papers in support of it (thus,
incidentally, offending at least some speakers of those languages)?  I
would hope not; yet scenarios are easily conceivable where these would
have exactly the same practical advantages as the far less problematic
practice of not calling two mutually intelligible varieties the same
language.

- Lameen Souag

On 04/06/07, Bryan Gordon <linguista at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>