A query...

[Gwen Alexandra Frishkoff]

Hello. I agree that there is a good case to be made for databasing in 
linguistics. Moreover, there is a healthy & growing field in computational 
science that can support these kinds of activities. Linguists should not 
feel that they need to go it alone. I think NSF would be pleased to 
support well-conceived proposals for linguists and computational 
scientists to collaborate.

Best wishes,
Gwen F

**************************************************************************
Gwen Alexandra ("Sasha") Frishkoff, Ph.D.

Research Fellow					Research Scientist
Learning Research and Development Center	NeuroInformatics Center
3939 O'Hara St, room 642			University of Oregon
University of Pittsburgh			1600 Millrace Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15260				Eugene, OR 97403

gwenf at pitt.edu OR sasha at cs.uoregon.edu
tel 412-260-8010 (cell)
     412-624-7081 (office)
fax 412-624-9149
**************************************************************************

"Maybe in order to understand mankind we have to look at that word itself.
MANKIND. Basically, it's made up of two separate words 'mank' and 'ind.'
What do these words mean? It's a mystery and that's why so is mankind."
 							-- Jack Handy

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Daniel L. Everett wrote:

> Claire's objections are not unreasonable. Everyone of us who does fieldwork 
> knows that it horrendously complicates our jobs to do this kind of archiving 
> and data processing.
>
> But I still believe that what I have (vaguely) suggested should be a goal, a 
> very important one. People in the sciences cannot fail to document data 
> precisely in a way that any third-party could check it simply because it is 
> too hard and time-consuming. These are certainly factors to consider in 
> preparing for field research or deciding whether one is cut out for that. But 
> they are not decisive. And, sure, this makes linguistics much more expensive. 
> But one reason that linguistics grants are lower is because we have given 
> less service in the past by not doing these things. Linguistics research, 
> especially grammars, should involve teams, not individuals only, and need to 
> have higher budgets. I would rather see fewer languages studied and grants 
> more competitive if it comes to that.
>
> It is not part of linguistics culture to do this. I am saying that perhaps it 
> should be. It won't be of course unless field researchers begin to reconceive 
> their task. Why do we write grammars? If there isn't documentation that 
> future generations can use, then we have provided a much-inferior service. 
> Money, personnel, and level of difficulty cannot be excuses for poorer 
> science.
>
> I have always used them as excuses, however! So I am not claiming to have any 
> moral high ground in this. I have been doing field research for 30 years, 
> every year (and every year I wonder why I am still putting up with bugs, mud, 
> humidity, and accusations that I am with the CIA). This 'quality control' 
> movement in language documentation is relatively recent. Many of us haven't 
> been trained for it. But in my last grants I was able to get enough money to 
> hire postdocs and PhD students who can do all the stuff in this regard that I 
> haven't learned to do well. I think that we need to take up the challenge.
>
> I have always found that the money is there if the case is made well.
>
> Dan
>
> On Oct 24, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Claire Bowern wrote:
>
>>> Solutions to this kind of thing include peer-review (I believe that
>>> it fails a lot, but it is still vital), making data available, and
>>> replication of results. In today's fieldwork, for example, I would
>>> like to see every fieldworker (with appropriate permissions from
>>> native speakers, governments, etc.) make their data available
>>> on-line, field notes, sound files, etc. To do this, future grants
>>> would need to have funds for digitization of data and storage of
>>> data, following guidelines that are now becoming standard in the
>>> field.
>> 
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> Three points on why I don't think this is a blanket good idea:
>> 
>> . Some grant organisations don't allow data processing as a grant expense. 
>> ELDP grants, for example, do not allow funds to be disbursed for things 
>> like paying someone to get files ready for digital archiving or metadata 
>> documentation, so I have to do it. That obviously puts a limit on what can 
>> be done. And of course, web-storage and archiving aren't the same thing, 
>> and both need doing.
>> 
>> . Applying for such funds would put the grant totals through the roof. Not 
>> only are linguistics grants usually smaller than physics grants, etc, the 
>> pool of available money is much smaller. If more people apply for bigger 
>> grants which include a large digitization component (on top of other 
>> expenses) we're soon going to have to choose between recording the last 
>> speakers of undescribed language Xish and putting materials of Yish on the 
>> web.
>> 
>> . Such work is incredibly time-consuming, even when the materials are 
>> recorded digitally in the first place. To put it bluntly - I can't spend 
>> time creating a Bardi online digital archive, even assuming I got speakers' 
>> permission (which I don't think they'd give), because a) it would take time 
>> away from doing things that the Bardi community can access; b) it would 
>> hurt my tenure chances, because it would take time away from doing work 
>> that counts in tenure cases (and I already spend as much time as I think is 
>> wise on point (a)); c) I have a heap of things that I want to write about 
>> on the language, and I'd rather do that than let someone else do it because 
>> I've spent my time making data available. After all, that sort of work is 
>> the main reason I'm an academic linguist.
>> 
>> Even the "permissions" aspect Dan mentions is not a minor issue. How do you 
>> get informed consent for putting language materials on the web from people 
>> who've never used a computer?
>> 
>> I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, just wanting to urge some caution.
>> 
>> Claire
>> 
>> -----------------
>> Dr Claire Bowern
>> Department of Linguistics
>> Rice University
>
> **********************
> Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics & Anthropology and Chair,
> Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures
> Campus Box 4300
> Illinois State University
> Normal, Illinois 61790-4300
> OFFICE: 309-438-3604
> FAX: 309-438-8038
> Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp
> Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/
> Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/
>
> and
>
> Honorary Professor of Linguistics
> University of Manchester
> Manchester, UK
>