[Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'

Martin Haspelmath haspelmath at shh.mpg.de
Tue Nov 24 09:48:49 UTC 2020 

"Bookwork" is nice, but isn't there a serious problem with "fieldwork"? 
Sorry, this is a bit off topic, but it seems that just as "grammar 
mining" does not sound very nice (to many people's ears), "fieldwork" is 
not a suitable term.

It seems that "fieldwork" derives from observational natural sciences 
such as geology or biology, and it was adopted into anthropology in a 
context when it was still strongly associated with archaeology and 
"natural history": Populations outside the major (especially European) 
civilizations were regarded as "Naturvölker" (= indigenous people close 
to nature), and the term "fieldwork" fits naturally into this earlier 
context.

In a modern context (where this sort of work increasingly happens via 
Facebook, Zoom, etc), it seems that a term such as "primary-data 
collection" or "primary linguistics" is much better.

Martin

Am 24.11.20 um 10:31 schrieb Guillaume Segerer:
> My vote goes to "bookwork". It contrasts nicely with "fieldwork", and 
> also suggests that it is not only about grammatical descriptions, but 
> also dictionaries, etc.
>
> Best
>
> Guillaume
>
> Le 24/11/2020 à 10:28, Miestamo, Matti M P a écrit :
>> Dear All,
>>
>> of all the alternatives suggested so far, I would vote for "grammar 
>> survey(s)" as argued for by Johanna. The term "survey" has similar 
>> uses in other fields of science as well.
>>
>> As for "grammar sampling", I would interpret it as building a 
>> collection of grammars (following certain principles perhaps), but 
>> not yet opening those grammars to extract data from them.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Matti
>>
>> -- 
>> Matti Miestamo
>> https://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/matmies/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Johanna Nichols <johanna at berkeley.edu> kirjoitti 24.11.2020 kello 7.02:
>>>
>>> What I usually use is "grammar survey(s)".    I describe my main
>>> sources of information in cross-linguistic work as grammar surveys,
>>> dictionary surveys (or dictionary work), elicitation, corpus work (or
>>> corpus searches), and consultation with experts.
>>>
>>> Johanna
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 8:47 PM Hartmut Haberland <hartmut at ruc.dk> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Has nobody ever considered this here?
>>>> “Library science (often termed library studies, bibliothecography, 
>>>> library economy, and informatics) is an interdisciplinary or 
>>>> multidisciplinary  field that applies the practices, perspectives, 
>>>> and tools of management, information technology, education, and 
>>>> other areas to libraries.” (English Wikipedia)
>>>>
>>>> In my view, this means that the term ‘library studies’ is already 
>>>> taken and cannot be redefined.
>>>>
>>>> Hartmut Haberland
>>>> emeritus, Roskilde University, Denmark
>>>>
>>>> Den 24. nov. 2020 kl. 05.27 skrev Bill Palmer 
>>>> <bill.palmer at newcastle.edu.au>:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> I very much like ‘grammar sampling’. The published grammars form 
>>>> the sample from which we take our data.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Associate Professor Bill Palmer
>>>>
>>>> University of Newcastle
>>>>
>>>> Lead Investigator, OzSpace project
>>>>
>>>> Landscape, language and culture in Indigenous Australia.
>>>>
>>>> Vice-President, Australian Linguistics Society
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> On Behalf 
>>>> Of Bohnemeyer, Juergen
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2020 3:22 PM
>>>> To: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org> 
>>>> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about ‘grammar sampling’ instead of ‘grammar mining’?
>>>>
>>>> Also, there is always the option of using a more descriptive 
>>>> phrase. For example:
>>>>
>>>> ‘A study based on a compilation of existing (language) 
>>>> descriptions’, or shorter (if less precise) ‘a grammar compilation 
>>>> study’.
>>>> ‘A study based on a sample of existing (language) descriptions’, or 
>>>> shorter (if less precise) ‘a grammar sampling study’.
>>>>
>>>> Best — Juergen
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 23, 2020, at 7:39 PM, Maia Ponsonnet 
>>>>> <maia.ponsonnet at uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello, I follow Bill and other about armchairs, but I don't mind 
>>>>> the mining metaphor: one mines what is precious, think gold, 
>>>>> diamonds... Perhaps my native French is an influence here: "une 
>>>>> mine d'information".
>>>>> Cheers to all, Maïa
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr Maïa Ponsonnet
>>>>> Senior Lecturer and Chair, Discipline of Linguistics
>>>>> Social Sciences Building, Room 2.36
>>>>> Faculty of Arts, Business, Law and Education
>>>>> The University of Western Australia
>>>>> 35 Stirling Hwy, Perth, WA (6009), Australia
>>>>> P. +61 (0) 8 6488 2870 - M. +61 (0) 468 571 030
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on 
>>>>> behalf of Bill Palmer <bill.palmer at newcastle.edu.au>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2020 6:58 AM
>>>>> To: chao.li at aya.yale.edu <chao.li at aya.yale.edu>; Bohnemeyer, 
>>>>> Juergen <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
>>>>> Cc: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org> 
>>>>> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>> For me armchair anything denotes amateurism, dilettantism, and 
>>>>> claims extrapolated beyond what is empirically supported. An 
>>>>> armchair expert is someone who makes pronouncements about 
>>>>> something without any direct experience of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t love the mining metaphor because to me it suggests using 
>>>>> data without the level of consideration and understanding of the 
>>>>> empirical facts that careful comparative work based on grammars or 
>>>>> whatever entails, as might be done by a machine algorithm. It 
>>>>> suggests to me a degree of blunt force. Grammar mining is a really 
>>>>> useful and important component, but the term doesn’t do justice to 
>>>>> the full nature of what typological and comparative research 
>>>>> involves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said all that, no really ideal term springs to mind 
>>>>> instead. Library study also doesn’t entirely do justice to the 
>>>>> work, but seems a bit better to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>> Associate Professor Bill Palmer
>>>>> University of Newcastle
>>>>> Lead Investigator, OzSpace project
>>>>> Landscape, language and culture in Indigenous Australia.
>>>>> Vice-President, Australian Linguistics Society
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> On 
>>>>> Behalf Of Chao Li
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2020 3:35 AM
>>>>> To: Bohnemeyer, Juergen <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
>>>>> Cc: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org> 
>>>>> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'
>>>>>
>>>>> What about "grammar perusing" (or "grammar perusal")?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Chao
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 1:54 AM Bohnemeyer, Juergen 
>>>>> <jb77 at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>>>> ‘Armchair linguistics’ to me denotes the kind of study that is 
>>>>> heavy on the theorizing, light on the data. I find it difficult to 
>>>>> see how that would intersect with anything I would want to 
>>>>> consider typology. (Perhaps the kind of study in the defunct 
>>>>> GB/P&P framework that would look at two or three — likely related 
>>>>> — languages and postulate a parameter would qualify.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I get the negative vibe attached to mining (though miners may beg 
>>>>> to differ), but to me (speaking as someone who’s married to a 
>>>>> computer scientist), ‘data mining’ doesn’t have a negative 
>>>>> connotation beyond the vague aura of scariness attached to all 
>>>>> things IT/AI these days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which adds to the vague aura of scariness and depression (no pun 
>>>>> intended) attached to mines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 23, 2020, at 1:16 AM, Nicholas Evans 
>>>>>> <nicholas.evans at anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Martin about grammars being inexhaustible and 
>>>>>> priceless goldmines, but with Johanna about 'grammar-mining' 
>>>>>> sounding derogatory. I think that 'data-mining' still has 
>>>>>> connotations of 'strip-mining' and exploitative practices – 
>>>>>> though happy to be overruled if I am being oversensitive about 
>>>>>> that. On the other hand for me 'library' remains very positive 
>>>>>> (and also allows the possibility of thoughtful reading and 
>>>>>> reflection of the contents of each grammar, rather than just 
>>>>>> sticking them all in some python script)
>>>>>> Best Nick
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nicholas (Nick) Evans
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Director, CoEDL (ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of 
>>>>>> Language)
>>>>>> Distinguished Professor of Linguistics
>>>>>> Coombs Building, Fellows Road
>>>>>> CHL, CAP, Australian National University
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nicholas.evans at anu.edu.au
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people as custodians of the land on 
>>>>>> which I work, and pay my respects to their elders, past, present 
>>>>>> and emerging. Their custodianship that has never been ceded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on 
>>>>>> behalf of Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 5:00 PM
>>>>>> To: Johanna Nichols <johanna at berkeley.edu>
>>>>>> Cc: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org> 
>>>>>> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every grammar is an inexhaustible goldmine that deserves to be 
>>>>>> exploited.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> „Armchair linguistics“ sounds derogatory to me, but what‘s the 
>>>>>> problem with „grammar mining“?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the 20th century, grammar mining studies had to be carried out 
>>>>>> in libraries. But nowadays all you need is access to the internet 
>>>>>> and some useful websites.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there an alternative that‘s still better?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 23.11.2020 um 06:42 schrieb Johanna Nichols 
>>>>>>> <johanna at berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know -- to me both "grammar mining" and "armchair 
>>>>>>> linguistics"
>>>>>>> sound derogatory. We all want grammar writing to be taken seriously
>>>>>>> in the linguistics reward system, so use of those grammars is an
>>>>>>> honorable undertaking and deserves an honorable label.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Johanna Nichols
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 9:17 PM Ian Maddieson 
>>>>>>>> <ianm at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps the term ‘armchair linguistics’ would have won the poll.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 22, 2020, at 20:15, Bohnemeyer, Juergen 
>>>>>>>> <jb77 at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear all — Many thanks to everyone who participated in my poll!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There were 39 responses. Exactly one third, 13, recognized 
>>>>>>>> ‘library study’ as an established term. However, nearly half of 
>>>>>>>> those who did proposed what they considered better 
>>>>>>>> alternatives. Meanwhile, two thirds of respondents did not 
>>>>>>>> recognize ‘library study’ as a technical term.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of the suggested alternatives, the one that stood out for me is 
>>>>>>>> ‘grammar mining’. Setting aside my lack of enthusiasm for 
>>>>>>>> ‘grammar’ as a term for language descriptions, ‘grammar mining’ 
>>>>>>>> seems to invoke just the right concept and has the edge of 
>>>>>>>> pizzaz/sexiness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best — Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2020, at 7:40 PM, Bohnemeyer, Juergen 
>>>>>>>> <jb77 at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear colleagues — The purpose of this message is not to start 
>>>>>>>> another debate on terminology. Rather, I’d simply like to 
>>>>>>>> gather data on how this community views a particular 
>>>>>>>> terminological choice. I created a survey that people can take 
>>>>>>>> anonymously, which should take them all of 60 seconds. I’ll be 
>>>>>>>> happy to report the results on this board. Here is the link to 
>>>>>>>> the survey:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/G953WP7
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The issue concerns the term ‘library study’, when used to 
>>>>>>>> designate any typological research design that draws primarily 
>>>>>>>> on existing language descriptions. I have long considered 
>>>>>>>> ‘library study’ to be a well-established technical term for 
>>>>>>>> this concept, and I’m unaware of equally well-established 
>>>>>>>> terminological alternatives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Within typology, ‘library studies’ in this sense would contrast 
>>>>>>>> with studies based on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * typological databases such as WALS and AutoTyp;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * primary data (prevalent in semantic typology; occurs more 
>>>>>>>> marginally elsewhere);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * expert questionnaires (as opposed to questionnaires 
>>>>>>>> administered to speakers and designed for primary data 
>>>>>>>> collection; e.g. Comrie & Smith 1977, as opposed to Dahl 1985);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * anything else?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’m just trying to find out whether I’m an outlier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, this is not about whether one finds the label fitting or 
>>>>>>>> unfortunate. All I’m trying to determine is whether to an 
>>>>>>>> audience of typologists it gets the intended meaning across.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks! — Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
>>>>>>>> Professor, Department of Linguistics
>>>>>>>> University at Buffalo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
>>>>>>>> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
>>>>>>>> Phone: (716) 645 0127
>>>>>>>> Fax: (716) 645 3825
>>>>>>>> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
>>>>>>>> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office hours will be held by Zoom. Email me to schedule a call 
>>>>>>>> at any time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm open 
>>>>>>>> specifically for remote office hours.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
>>>>>>>> (Leonard Cohen)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
>>>>>>>> Professor, Department of Linguistics
>>>>>>>> University at Buffalo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
>>>>>>>> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
>>>>>>>> Phone: (716) 645 0127
>>>>>>>> Fax: (716) 645 3825
>>>>>>>> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
>>>>>>>> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office hours will be held by Zoom. Email me to schedule a call 
>>>>>>>> at any time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm open 
>>>>>>>> specifically for remote office hours.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
>>>>>>>> (Leonard Cohen)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ian Maddieson
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Department of Linguistics
>>>>>>>> University of New Mexico
>>>>>>>> MSC03-2130
>>>>>>>> Albuquerque NM 87131-0001
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
>>>>> Professor, Department of Linguistics
>>>>> University at Buffalo
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
>>>>> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
>>>>> Phone: (716) 645 0127
>>>>> Fax: (716) 645 3825
>>>>> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
>>>>> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>>>>>
>>>>> Office hours will be held by Zoom. Email me to schedule a call at 
>>>>> any time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm open specifically 
>>>>> for remote office hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
>>>>> (Leonard Cohen)
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
>>>> Professor, Department of Linguistics
>>>> University at Buffalo
>>>>
>>>> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
>>>> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
>>>> Phone: (716) 645 0127
>>>> Fax: (716) 645 3825
>>>> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
>>>> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>>>>
>>>> Office hours will be held by Zoom. Email me to schedule a call at 
>>>> any time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm open specifically for 
>>>> remote office hours.
>>>>
>>>> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
>>>> (Leonard Cohen)
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-- 
Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de)
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig

More information about the Lingtyp mailing list