Subject: Comments on UNESCO Meeting Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 10:29:07 -0300 From: "Bruna Franchetto" To: Some (personal) comments on the International Expert Meeting of the UNESCO Programme: Safeguarding of Endangered Languages. Paris, 10-12 March 2003 Bruna Franchetto Kuikuro Project My participation in the UNESCO Meeting followed my invitation to make up part of the Panel Discussion in the Sixth session, whose theme was "The Americas: state of the art, needs and solutions." Along with Raquel Guirardello and Sebastian Drude, I had previously commented on the draft version of the document "Language Vitality and Endangerment," proposing a number of modifications, most of which were included in the version presented at the Meeting. This is an important and carefully worded document. The criteria listed for defining a language’s degree of endangerment are clear and fairly exhaustive. At the Meeting, the document was re-evaluated and discussed, resulting in a small number of suggestions for modification, one of these being to explain the criterion relating to governmental attitudes and policies (those of each individual country) concerning the acknowledgment or official recognition of minority and non-dominant languages. This proposal was presented with particular vehemence by the African linguists and representatives of African institutions, due to the contemporary relevance of this question in Africa. In my opinion, though, this is also of political interest to various other situations in the world, since government recognition – or its absence – results for example in the presence of these languages or their exclusion in communications media (writing, television, etc). This in turn is one of the most effective causes of endangerment. I also ended up taking part in the drafting of the final document of the meeting "Recommendations for Action Plans" to be sent to the Director-General of UNESCO. The document (i) reiterates the principles proclaimed by the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001), by the Programme "Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity," the international convention on the safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, the resolution on "Implementation of a language policy for the world based on multilingualism," and the Final Communiqué of the Round Table of Ministers of Culture (2002); (ii) reproduces the observations and recommendations of the document "Language Vitality and Endangerment," in particular the criteria that should be used to determine a language’s actual degree of endangerment. Subsequently, the same document recommends that UNESCO assume an active and concrete role in (i) mobilizing the member states in order for these to recognize the linguistic diversity existing within their national territories, encouraging the documentation of endangered languages, as well as creating the conditions for the revitalization and strengthening of such languages; (ii) creating support mechanisms, including forms of funding, for projects involving documentation and linguistic strengthening and revitalization; (iii) functioning as a center for resources on language diversity and endangerment, establishing an international network, supporting regional centers and increasing public awareness of the problem of language endangerment in the world. In summary, the Recommendations aim to provide definitive safeguarding of the heritage represented by the world’s linguistic diversity as an integral part of the "Intangible Heritage of Humanity" and to stimulate a more active and productive role for UNESCO. Discussions during the Meeting were intense and extremely interesting. A striking aspect was the role of experts – the ‘militant’ linguists – involved not only in documentation projects but also in projects of local and/or supra-local political intervention. This double identity, or double work, characterizes many of us, especially those of us who live and work in countries from the ‘southern hemisphere.’ All of us have been involved for a long time in "the application of our theoretical, descriptive and methodological advances to individual endangered situations" (part of the Key Notes by David Crystal, who opened the Meeting with a lengthy speech). This is, for example, the responsibility of each linguist in Brazil; none of us is engaged solely in theoretical and descriptive work. We live in the field, in constant communication with the people with whom we are working. It was extremely interesting to get to know the identity, proposals and work of various institutions and NGOs who provide support to such projects. The presentation by Peter Wittenburg on the DoBeS Program clearly revealed, to my mind, that this is the best initiative in the international setting. I must admit to feeling a certain pride and satisfaction in being a member of this Programme, given its efficiency, plus the knowledge and experience it has already accumulated, its respect for clear and open ethical principles, as well as a respect for the freedom and creativity of each team or researcher, cultivated by a healthy dynamic of internal plurality. I felt pride in being a colleague and friend of the figures who perhaps most stood out in the Meeting, Aryenne Dwyer and Ruth Spriggs. On the other hand, I was surprised to see a mission such as the Summer Institute of Linguistics, which has caused such damage in South America, particularly in Brazil, present itself as a simple NGO (SIL International) devoted to research and the safeguarding and educational programs without any mention of its role as an agency for religious conversion and ‘civilization,’ practicing what I call the double lemma "transform (and annihilate) the culture, save the language". I was also surprised (and frustrated) to see the unequal representation of world regions at the Meeting. Except for the strong and organized African presence, institutions and researchers from the ‘north’ (Europe, USA, etc.) were predominant, while Central America, for example, but above all South America were completely under-represented or absent. I was frustrated to have traveled so far only to have less than five minutes to ‘speak about Brazil,’ a situation of extreme complexity, richness and with many novelties (both positive and negative) to be recounted in terms of its recent history, at least from the 1990s to the present day. In the short time conceded to me, I was asked to concentrate on the desired outcomes of the meeting and concrete recommendations to be addressed to UNESCO. I had to make an effort to consider Brazil in the wider world and select the needs which would be more pressing and palatable for an organization such as UNESCO, with all its possibilities and limitations. UNESCO will publish the results of the Meeting and the contributions of its individual participants: this chance to put into the article everything I was unable to say will probably compensate somewhat for my feelings of surprise and frustration.