Rather serendipitously a colleague from the Basque Country sent me these two articles today. Many of you maybe familiar with the projects. Both were published in the last few months and discuss methods in digital archiving.
<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/26/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Susan Penfield</b> <<a href="mailto:susan.penfield@gmail.com">susan.penfield@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>Thanks for this, Dan,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I was recently asked if analysis was part of the documentation process -- I said yes. In truth, though, it comes late in the process -- the urgency of collecting and archiving data comes first -- given time, some analysis happens (this is my experience at least). Ideally, that would not be the case.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for calling attention to the divide between documentation and revitalization -- something which many of us don't like much. Really, these are complimentary activities -- and should not exist in isolation from one another.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Susan<br><br> </div><div><span class="e" id="q_115dce1905755aeb_1">
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/26/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Dan Harvey</b> <<a href="mailto:HarveyD@sou.edu" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">HarveyD@sou.edu</a>> wrote:
</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">As one who is not a linguist, my focus is on language revitalization,<br>not on documentation. I think both are important. I understand why a
<br>linguist would want to collect data as fast as possible before languages<br>go extinct. But I disagree that analysis be done later, after the<br>languages have died.<br><br>This is a field that spans disciplines. Documentation and analysis can
<br>be done in parallel if linguistic materials were easily available to<br>researchers in other disciplines. I'm a computer scientist and am<br>especially interested in creating better software tools that puts data<br>
into forms that language teachers find helpful. The more I see what<br>linguists produce, the easier my job can be.<br><br>Thanks for listening, dan<br><br>>>> phil cash cash <<a href="mailto:cashcash@EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
cashcash@EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU</a>> 10/25/2007 11:38 PM<br>>>><br>My apologies for the delay. And, I just want to add that I appreciate<br>your<br>response.<br><br>What you have just outlined in relation to the creation of legacy
<br>materials<br>is perhaps an ethical though practical solution to the broader problem<br>of<br>documenting a dying language. Certainly, it is a linguist's practical<br>solution given that there is an emphasis on "gathering data" and
<br>besides<br>there may not be a more practical way.<br><br>After having gained some varied experience in linguistic fieldwork, I<br>can<br>readily agree with everything you propose. However, there is one<br>unique<br>
element that can be additionally considered in the long term and that
<br>is<br>the aspirations of the endangered language community. It is certainly<br>true<br>that endangered language communities and linguists share the same<br>concerns<br>over preserving a dying language. What needs to be recognized,
<br>however, is<br>that the aspirations of the endangered language community are<br>sometimes<br>expressed differently than those of professional linguists.<br><br>Linguists (perhaps mostly field linguists) must make an effort to
<br>re-examine<br>their privileged status by taking into account the aspirations of<br>endangered<br>language communities and the concerns they have towards their heritage<br>language. For example, it is not uncommon for endangered language
<br>communities to express distrust of linguists over the control of<br>language<br>materials. Lack of access creates inequity. While this situation may<br>be a<br>thing of the past, this sentiment was expressed to me quite frequently
<br>during my own fieldwork. A common question posed to me was "how do we<br>get<br>our elder's words back?" The solution seems easy enough. If they<br>want<br>everything back then we, as linguists, should be able to assist them
<br>in<br>this goal. If they do not want their language recorded then we should<br>be<br>prepared to offer alternatives. If they want language materials<br>destroyed<br>or restricted due to certain taboos then we should be prepared to do
<br>so.<br>Just to identify a few. Too, it might be a good idea if we do not<br>insist<br>that the practice of linguistic field research, including the<br>linguistic<br>standards they pose, somehow predominates over other interests. For
<br>example, in the eyes of a linguist, one community intellectuals<br>life-work<br>can be dismissed outright as "sub-standard" in much the same way as<br>other<br>historical works. As I have learned in my graduate seminars,
<br>linguists<br>crush other linguists over research. But going into an endangered<br>language<br>community its just not the same. Power differentials (or simple<br>uncaring)<br>between a linguist and endangered language speakers is not a good
<br>thing.<br><br>My own experience confirms that documenting a dying language can't be<br>done<br>in isolation. This is certainly not a new idea nor should I be<br>regarded as<br>being any more thoughtful when I say this. It's just that every
<br>speech<br>community, every speaker, semi-speaker, dialect, and language is truly<br>unique and so goes one's work there. But certainly linguists just<br>can't be<br>"parachuting in" (as I heard in Australia recently in regard to the
<br>media<br>surge of late) to collect data. Careful collaborative field work<br>between<br>linguists and community speakers/intellectuals can powerfully resonate<br>with<br>community aspirations and endangered language communities stand to
<br>benefit<br>far more than any linguist or discipline can imagine.<br><br>Just a few more thoughts here,<br>Phil Cash Cash<br><br><br>Quoting William J Poser :<br><br>> Phil Cash Cash writes:<br>><br>>> I should add that the recent trends in the linguistics field are
<br>>> focused almost exclusively on the creation of legacy materials<br>>> and less so on current archived materials despite their relatively<br>>> equal status.<br>><br>> Two comments:<br>><br>
> First, there is a very good reason for this: when we're dealing with<br>dying<br>> languages, it is important to gather data now, while they are still<br>> alive. Analysis of legacy materials can be done in the future, when
<br>> there are no more native speakers; gathering of new material cannot.<br>> In a world with infinite resources, we could do both, but in the<br>real<br>> world, with very limited resources, time spent studying legacy
<br>materials<br>> is time not spent gathering new material.<br>><br>> Indeed, for this reason some of us have made conscious decisions<br>about<br>> where to place our priorities. In my case, while I am quite
<br>interested<br>> in historical linguistics, some time ago I made the decision not to<br>> spend very much of my time on it because it is something that<br>someone<br>> else can do in the future.<br>><br>> Second, generally speaking legacy materials and new material do not
<br>> have "relatively equal status". Of course, the relationship depends<br>> on exactly what legacy materials are available and what the current<br>> state of the language is. If the language is still in sufficiently
<br>> good condition to yield copious new data, it is very likely that<br>> legacy materials will be inferior to new material for reasons<br>> including the following:<br>><br>> (a) legacy material is often poorly transcribed. Relatively recent
<br>> material recorded by professional linguists is likely to be<br>accurate,<br>> but material recorded by non-professionals, such as<br>missionaries,<br>> fur traders, and, often, anthropologists, is often poor. Earlier
<br>> materials recorded by professional linguists, insofar as there<br>> were such things, is often not very good, or, even if the<br>linguist<br>> heard well, may be very difficult to interpret due to the lack
<br>of<br>> a standard notation at the time. (Harrington's work is a major<br>> exception - he had an unusually good ear and his transcription<br>> was very accurate, though it does pose difficulties of
<br>interpretation<br>> since he was known to do such things as switch notation in the<br>> middle of a page of notes.)<br>><br>> (b) legacy material is often restricted in genre. For example, in<br>> one major anthropological tradition, the principal activity
<br>> was to collect texts, where the texts usually consist primarily<br>> if not exclusively of legends and/or oral history. Such texts<br>> are often of great cultural and historical interest, and they
<br>> do yield insight into the language, but they are also quite<br>> defective as a source of information. For one thing, such texts<br>> are often in a form of the language different from the ordinary
<br>> spoken variety. In many cultures there are special conventions<br>> for telling such stories and the language is often archaic.<br>> One misses the language of ordinary conversation, of speeches,
<br>> of prayer, etc. One may even miss common grammatical forms.<br>> For example, narratives may contain few or no 1st and 2nd person<br>> forms since everything is told in the third person.<br>>
<br>> (c) linguists of earlier times tended to focus on lexicon and<br>morphology<br>> but to have very little to say about syntax, semantics, and<br>> discourse.<br>><br>> On the other hand, if the language is in poor shape, the material
<br>> that can be obtained from the last few speakers may itself be<br>> limited. The last "fluent" speakers often have a narrower range<br>> of genres than their parents or grandparents and may also have
<br>> a narrower range of vocabulary due to the decreasing range of<br>> circumstances in which they use the language. Their language<br>> may even be "degenerate" (no moral judgment intended here) in<br>
> exhibiting such effects of language death as simplification of<br>> morphology and loss of phonological distinctions.<br>><br>> In sum, where the language is still in sufficiently good shape<br>> as to provide good data, it generally makes sense to devote
<br>> limited resources to gathering new material at the expense of<br>> analyzing legacy material.<br>><br>> Bill<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br></span></div>-- <br>____________________________________________________________
<br>Susan D. Penfield, Ph.D.<br><br>Associate Director, Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language and Literacy (CERCLL)<br>Department of English (Primary) <br>American Indian Language Development Institute (AILDI)
<br>Second Language Acquisition & Teaching Ph.D. Program (SLAT)<br>Department of Language,Reading and Culture<br>Department of Linguistics<br>The Southwest Center (Research)<br>Phone for messages: (520) 621-1836<br><br>
<br>"Every language is an old-growth forest of the mind, a watershed of thought, an ecosystem of spiritual possibilities." <br> <br> Wade Davis...(on a Starbucks cup...)
</blockquote></div><br>