Wednesday evening I attended a screening of “The Linguists” at Stanford, which was followed by a panel discussion involving Penny Eckert, Jim Fox, Alex Jaker, and myself. There were probably about 50 people there for the screening, which was nice to see, and most of the audience stayed for the subsequent discussion. (If you haven’t seen it yet, you can view it free online here).
The organizer and emcee for the event, Alistair Isaac, began by asking the panel members to give their general impressions of the movie. The tone was set by the first panelist, who was dismayed at what he termed the “driveby linguistics” depicted in the movie. Another panelist wondered aloud if David Harrison and Greg Anderson were actually linguists, and not some reality show adventurers who dabbled in linguistics. The other members of the panel quickly assured him that they were in fact real linguists, and a member of the audience who had worked with David and Greg also assured the audience that they did real language documentation, and that the film was not an accurate representation of their normal methodology.
Quite a lot more criticism of the movie followed, which I will omit here, since much of it was along the lines of my comments in this post. Moving on from there, we had an interesting discussion about the generational locus of language shift, prompted by a question from an audience member regarding a comment David Harrison made in the movie that gave the impression that it was children who were the key players in language shift, since it was they who chose not to speak the minority language spoken by their parents. In the language shift situations familiar to the panelists, however, it is parents’ choices to ensure that their children learn the regionally or nationally dominant language at the expense of the minority language they speak that drives language shift and loss. Nevertheless, I’ve heard observations similar to those of Harrison’s from other linguists, which makes me wonder if there are two distinct but important routes to language shift.
We also had an interesting discussion, spurred by the portion of the film devoted to Callahuaya, regarding to what degree it is reasonable to treat the lexicon of a language as a repository of cultural knowledge, and to what degree the lexicon, and hence the knowledge associated with the notional distinctions made by the lexicon, are practically, if not literally, untranslatable. In When Languages Die, David Harrison argues that specialized lexicons are uniquely well-adapted to expressing the knowledge they encode, and that consequently, language loss entails the loss of cultural knowledge. Harrison’s perspective certainly influenced the film, but my own experience suggests that the loss of cultural knowledge in contexts of language shift has much to do with the perceived or actual utility to the community of the conceptual distinctions encoded by the lexicon. In other words, it seems to me that there are grounds for arguing that in many cases it is the knowledge as such that is not being reproduced, and not that knowledge is a casualty of lexical contraction due to language loss. The important thing to realize, I think, is that language loss normally occurs in contexts of the broad erosion of indigenous lifespheres, and that cultural knowledge and language can each suffer from this erosion independently.
In any event, it was an interesting evening. One thing that I was left wondering, however, given the criticism that ‘the linguists’ leveled at “the Linguists”, is what the broader reaction of linguists has been to the movie. Any insights, dear readers?