I agree, a set of relationships between local and global structures
makes sense. One certainly doesn't want to eliminate the local level,
which is what people identify with closely and provides insight into
local goals and needs. But it's the global level that allows for
certain economies of scale and helps ensure cooperation and eliminate
duplication.
I wonder whether this local/global structure would also help with the
languages question, which I think is both knotty and important. I do
think it's important that a global organization (or one which aspires
to attain greater globality) conduct itself in more than just
English, or at the very least provide good-quality points of contact
and entry in languages other than English. To some extent, this has
to be an outreach activity--if we're really interested in broadening
our membership and scope, we can't wait until we have consituencies
in language X before providing materials in language X, or it will
never happen. It would be also to some degree a remedial effort,
since the groups we're talking about (at least ACH, TEI, and NINCH,
maybe ALLC?) are currently almost exclusively English-language, and
at least the TEI and ALLC have a broader linguistic base of users.
[I'm leaving vague for the moment the question of who the "we" here
really is; trying to think in general terms for now.]
But since I suspect limited resources (which are what got this
investigation started in the first place) will make it difficult for
the global organization(s) to be fully and broadly multilingual, it
might be necessary to think of workable compromises to start off
with. Giving the local organizations responsibility for providing
access in the locally needed languages, and providing for liaisons
between each local group and the larger organization to facilitate
whatever linguistic points of contact are needed there, would provide
a structure for multilinguality without a top-down approach which
might not be very efficient.
I'm not sure if an account this vaguely and generally put is of any
use at all; I'm mostly just reflecting on Elisabeth's comment and
hoping that there's a practical way of achieving what I imagine to be
her goal.
>Now, lets perhaps look at the question from another point. I am for
>example also a member of
>the German Association for Applied Linguistics which itself as all
>the other regional chapters
>is member of AILA, some sort of umbrella organisation but which is
>acting also as such on a
>world wide level by organising really big conferences. I do not know
>whether we would like to
>go for the last bit if we talk about synergies, but a combination of
>regional and global structure
>could be something to think about. If we take up this question then
>we have to think straight
>away also about what position we take to languages and cultures. In
>my opinion for ALLC be-
>ing European this question becomes more and more vital. And if I
>think of the American situation
>it should become vital, too. And if we think of having a global
>umbrella then we cannot do away
>with it at all. Internet, computing etc. is, in a way, really about
>languages and cultures and naturally
>cultural heritage which, however, cannot be separated from the
>language it has been produced in,
>either.
>
>I leave it like that for the time being
>Elisabeth
>
>HD Dr. Elisabeth Burr
>Fakultt 2 / Romanistik
>Gerhard-Mercator-Universitt
>Geibelstr. 41
>47058 Duisburg
>
>http://www.uni-duisburg.de/FB3/ROMANISTIK/PERSONAL/Burr/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Sep 12 2002 - 14:48:18 EDT