[RNLD] Best practice wrt authentic data

Nick Thieberger thien at unimelb.edu.au
Thu Jun 8 15:55:59 EDT 2017

Hi Joe,

It it central to any proper scientific endavour to use citable data that
allows an analysis to be verified. In language documentation this means
creating a corpus of primary data in the course of fieldwork so that it can
both serve our research and also be citable and reusable by others. Stephen
Morey and I both developed methods for citation of primary data in our PhD
dissertations and this allowed us to have playable versions of examples
that readers could hear in context. At the time there were no tools to
facilitate this, but with Elan it is now a simple matter to create textual
corpora from dynamic media.

Digital linguistic archives have been developed so that data can be
persistently located and cited.

Journals require or will soon require citation that allows readers to hear
examples (if they are from recorded sources)

There has been a working group on these issues that presented at the LSA in
January this year (https://sites.google.com/a/hawaii.edu/data-citation/

All the best,


See also:
Thieberger, Nicholas. 2009. Steps toward a grammar embedded in data. Epps,
Patricia and Alexandre Arkhipov. (eds.) New Challenges in Typology:
Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions. Berlin; New York,
NY: Mouton de Gruyter Mouton. 389-408. http://repository.
Thieberger, Nicholas and Andrea Berez. 2012. Linguistic data management. In
Thieberger, Nicholas. (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork.
Oxford: OUP. [A pre-print copy is available

On 8 June 2017 at 17:01, Joe Blythe <joe.blythe at mq.edu.au> wrote:

> Dear RNLDers
> In just about every linguistics paper I’ve written, I’ve always mentioned
> which recording an example comes from (with a recording reference and
> time-codes), or which field notebook an example comes from, if elicited. I
> always thought that this practise speaks to the authenticity of the data. I
> assumed that if such a trail is trackable then you are unlikely to be
> accused of making stuff up!
> I know that there are many other researchers that do this, so I’m
> wondering there are references to this being best practice, or at least
> being advisable.
> Also, turning this around, is it reasonable to expect (in 2017) that
> researchers writing about an endangered language follow such a protocol, if
> is in fact a protocol?
> Best
> Joe
> Dr Joe Blythe
> Department of Linguistics
> Macquarie University
> Room 566, Building C5A
> Balaclava Rd, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia
> *Ph*: +61-2-9850-8089 <(02)%209850%208089>  |   *Mob*: +61-409-88-1153
> *E*: joe.blythe at mq.edu.au  |  *Web*
> <http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_human_sciences/linguistics/linguistics_staff/dr_joe_blythe/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/resource-network-linguistic-diversity/attachments/20170609/4910500c/attachment.html>

More information about the Resource-network-linguistic-diversity mailing list