[SLLS] Sign language 'fieldwork'

[Onno Crasborn]

Yes, I would agree with Adam, and similarly consider myself a fieldworker on Sign Language of the Netherlands.

It reminds me of an experience as a young BA student in linguistics. I met someone studying anthropology somewhere, and thinking about going to do 'fieldwork' somewhere. Anthropology! I immediately had images of rain forests, frozen Siberian plains, and the like. But no: the student was thinking of joining a research group in a poor area of Amsterdam, looking at interactions between immigrants! I had never realised that there are members of the species 'anthropos' in the Netherlands as well...

It's clear that Western sign languages are still poorly described, and that researchers in industrialised societies with large budgets for science would simply start studying the sign language that is nearby. That would count as fieldwork, I'd say. On the other hand, I can't remember from the literature on dialectology that people have described work on nearby dialects as 'fieldwork'. I can't think of a reason why not.

Best,

Onno

____________________________________________
Dr. O.A. Crasborn

Department of Linguistics & Centre for Language Studies
Radboud University Nijmegen
PO Box 9103, NL-6500 HD Nijmegen, Netherlands

http://www.let.ru.nl/sign-lang
http://www.corpusngt.nl
http://www.slls.eu
http://www.ru.nl/slcn

T +31 24 3611377
F +31 24 3611070


On 2 feb. 2012, at 06:03, Adam Schembri wrote:

> Hello SLLING-L and SLLS list members,
> 
> Recently, a language documentation colleague asked me why there were so few sign language researchers conducting 'fieldwork'. She was reasonably well-informed about the field, and could name a few sign language linguists who were collecting data from micro-community/ 'village' sign language communities (e.g., in Bali), or from macro-community sign language communities in developing countries (e.g., Uganda), and identified them as doing sign language 'fieldwork'. 
> 
> I could see her point, but I thought this was an interesting perspective, because (without wanting to diminish the challenges of those who work on sign languages in places like Bali and Uganda), I have always considered myself an 'urban fieldworker' working on the sign language varieties cities in Australia and the UK. I read the definition below, and I feel that the Auslan and BSL corpus projects I have worked on do (more or less) fit the bill:
> 
> Bowern (2008:7) “…what is ‘fieldwork’? My definition is rather broad. It involves the collection of accurate data in an ethical manner. It involves producing a result which both the community and the linguist approve of. That is, the ‘community’ (the people who are affected by your being there collecting data) should know why you’re there, what you’re doing, and they should be comfortable with the methodology and the outcome. You should also be satisfied with the arrangements. The third component involves the linguist interacting with a community of speakers at some level. That is, fieldwork involves doing research in a place where the language is spoken, not finding a speaker at your university and eliciting data from them". 
> 
> What do others think? Are many more of us 'fieldworkers' in Bowern's sense than our colleagues realise?
> 
> Cheers,
> Adam
> 
> 
> -- 
> Assoc. Prof. Adam Schembri, PhD
> Director | National Institute for Deaf Studies and Sign Language
> La Trobe University | Melbourne (Bundoora) | Victoria |  3086 |  Australia
> Tel: +61 3 9479 2887 | Fax: +61 3 9479 3074 |http://www.adamschembri.net/webpage/Welcome.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SLLS-list mailing list
> SLLS-list at slls.eu
> https://list.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/slls-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20120202/57cd6908/attachment.htm>