[RNLD] Best practice wrt authentic data

[Joseph Brooks]

Hi Joe,
Chiming in late in the game here. Another relevant resource (one mentioned
in the LSA panel on this topic from last year) is from when Sally Thomason
was editor of Language. Really worth reading and touches on much of what
you write:

Thomason, Sally. 1994. The Editor's Department. Language, Vol. 70:2.
409-413.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:01 AM, 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 <+61%202%209850%208089>  |   *Mob*: +61-409-88-1153
> *E*: joe.blythe at mq.edu.au  |  *Web*
> <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/YZ52BmiwQZnKfO?domain=mq.edu.au>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/resource-network-linguistic-diversity/attachments/20171126/c6e4fedf/attachment.html>