legacy materials

[Susan Penfield]

Thanks for this, Dan,

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.

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.

Susan


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



-- 
____________________________________________________________
Susan D. Penfield, Ph.D.

Associate Director, Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language
and Literacy (CERCLL)
Department of English (Primary)
American Indian Language Development Institute (AILDI)
Second Language Acquisition & Teaching Ph.D. Program (SLAT)
Department of Language,Reading and Culture
Department of Linguistics
The Southwest Center (Research)
Phone for messages: (520) 621-1836


"Every language is an old-growth forest of the mind, a watershed of thought,
an ecosystem of spiritual possibilities."

                                                          Wade Davis...(on a
Starbucks cup...)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ilat/attachments/20071026/7f218250/attachment.htm>