A query...

Tue Oct 24 15:40:32 UTC 2006

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