Language documentation and meta-documentation (original) (raw)
Language documentation 20 years on
In the last decade of the 20th century a new sub-field of linguistics emerged that has come to be known as ‘language documentation’ or ‘documentary linguistics’ (Himmelmann 1998, 2002, 2006, Lehmann 2001, Austin 2010a, Grenoble 2010, Woodbury 2003, 2011). In this paper we explore how it was defined in the seminal work of Himmelmann (1998) and others, including what were presented as significant characteristics that distinguished language documentation from language description, and how the field has changed and evolved over the past 20 years. A focus on best practices, standards, tools and models for documentary corpora appeared in the early years, which led later to more critical discussions of the goals and methods of language documentation. The paper examines some current developments, including new approaches to language archiving, and suggests that there are opportunities for language documentation to adopt a more socially-engaged approach to languages to and linguistic research, including better engagement with language revitalisation. There are also opportunities to work towards addressing what is currently a language documentation output gap through experimentation new genres and innovations in writing and publication.
An Annotated Bibliography of Language Documentation
Since the development of language documentation as a separate sub-field of Linguistics is relatively new, there are only a few reference works that deal with theoretical and practical issues. Gippert et al. 2006 covers definitional concepts, and the practicalities of data collection, analysis and archiving. Many of the authors are researchers associated with the DOBES (Documentation of Endangered Languages) program funded by the Volkswagen Foundation. Chapters vary in complexity but most will be useful for beginning researchers. A Spanish translation of the volume is available. Gippert et al. 2006 is critically reviewed by Evans 2008, who argues that the approach it takes, which excludes grammar writing, is detrimental to the field. Austin 2010 is a series of lectures from the 3L Summer School 2009 and is aimed at beginning students. Grenoble and Furbee 2010 originated in discussions at a series of meetings of concerned researchers in 2004-2006, and a conference at Harvard University in 2005. It addresses praxis and values in documentation, measures of documentary adequacy, technologies, collaboration models, and training needs. Its audience is more advanced practitioners. Austin and Sallabank 2011 deals with a wide range of endangered languages issues and is intended for students; Part II and Part IV of the book have seven chapters on language documentation. The edited series Language Documentation and Description, published since 2003 by the Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project at SOAS, University of London, contains articles on language documentation theory and practice, mostly arising from workshops organized by the project. Austin, Peter K. Language Documentation and Description, Volume 7. London : SOAS, 2010.
In the last fifteen years, we have seen the emergence of a branch of linguistics which has come to be called Documentary Linguistics. It is concerned with the making and keeping of records of the world’s languages and their patterns of use. This emergence has taken place alongside major changes in the technology of linguistic data representation and maintenance; alongside new attention to linguistic diversity; alongside an increasing focus on the threats to that diversity by the endangerment of languages and language practices around the world, especially in small indigenous communities; and perhaps most importantly of all, alongside the discipline’s growing awareness that linguistic documentation has crucial stakeholders well beyond the academic community; in endangered language communities themselves, but also beyond. The purpose of this paper is to discuss documentary linguistics, how it has been emerging, and where it may be headed.
on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 2. London: SOAS. or
2015
© 2009 The Authors No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, on any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author(s) of that part of the publication, except as permitted by UK copyright law. ISBN: 978-0-7286-0392-9 Printed in the United Kingdom Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project
Reflections on the role of language documentations in linguistic research
2018
I reflect the role of language documentations in linguistic research beyond its most common linguistic use as a high-quality database for descriptive work. I show that the original Himmelmann-ian conception of documentations, as multi-varied and multi-purpose, and to some extent community-driven, enable a range of research outcomes that would not have been foreseeable within the traditional descriptive, typological and theoretical agendas. I argue that it is overall more fruitful for innovative linguistic research to invest into the processing of haphazard language documentation data rather than attempting to collect precisely the kind of data demanded by specific analytic goals.
Language documentation twenty-five years on
Language, 2018
This discussion note reviews responses of the linguistics profession to the grave issues of language endangerment identified a quarter of a century ago in the journal Language by Krauss, Hale, England, Craig, and others (Hale et al. 1992). Two and a half decades of worldwide research not only have given us a much more accurate picture of the number, phylogeny, and typological variety of the world's languages, but they have also seen the development of a wide range of new approaches, conceptual and technological, to the problem of documenting them. We review these approaches and the manifold discoveries they have unearthed about the enormous variety of linguistic structures. The reach of our knowledge has increased by about 15% of the world's languages, especially in terms of digitally archived material, with about 500 languages now reasonably documented thanks to such major programs as DoBeS, ELDP, and DEL. But linguists are still falling behind in the race to document the planet's rapidly dwindling linguistic diversity, with around 35-42% of the world's languages still substantially undocumented, and in certain countries (such as the US) the call by Krauss (1992) for a significant professional realignment toward language documentation has only been heeded in a few institutions. Apart from the need for an intensified documentarist push in the face of accelerating language loss, we argue that existing language documentation efforts need to do much more to focus on crosslinguistically comparable data sets, sociolinguistic context, semantics, and interpretation of text material, and on methods for bridging the 'transcription bottleneck', which is creating a huge gap between the amount we can record and the amount in our transcribed corpora.*
Language Documentation and Language Revitalization
2018
One of the main responses of academia to language endangerment has been the development of the sub-field of Language Documentation (LD, also called Documentary Linguistics). Himmelmann (1998: 161) presented its main goal as 'to provide a comprehensive record of the linguistic practices characteristic of a given speech community' Himmelmann (2006: v) restated this as a focus on 'the methods, tools, and theoretical underpinnings for compiling a representative and lasting multipurpose record of a natural language or one of its varieties'. This approach emphasizes transparency and multifunctionality, as well as ethical engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, including speech community members. As Himmelmann (1998: 161) also pointed out, LD 'differs fundamentally from... language description [which] aims at the record of a language... as a system of abstract elements, constructions, and rules.' The reawakened interest in language practices in context can be traced to the Ethnography of Communication pioneered by Hymes (1964), Ethnopoetics and the study of verbal art developed by Tedlock (1983) and Hymes (1981), and the discourse-based approach of Sherzer (1987), who argues for a change in focus to contextualized language in use rather than fixed objects with grammatical structure. Language Documentation is generally understood as the creation of a corpus of archivable audio, video and textual recordings, and translating and annotating them, paying attention to relevant contextual metadata (Austin 2013). The corpus and analysis should be available and accessible to a wide range of users. These goals have been facilitated by advances in information and communication technologies and digital media, and by large infusions of funding, e.g. from the Volkswagen-Stiftung, the Arcadia Fund and the Documenting Endangered Languages Programme. Both of these developments have influenced the methodologies and directions of research. 1.1 Recordings and Contextualization Documentary linguistics places a strong emphasis on the production of high-quality recordings. Techniques influenced by principles and practices in recording arts pay particular attention to such things as the choice and positioning of microphones, 1 reducing background noise, and lighting, framing and editing for video. Data collection methods have
Language Documentation: An Introduction
In this article, I briefly explain the basic notions of language documentation, as a rather new approach to linguistic research practice, and provide the differences between language docu~nentation and language description, and will afterwards address the role of linguistic typology in language docun~entation. The present work aims to show how linguistic typologycontl-ibutes to language documentation, and wliy the docu~nentation of languages can be so important for linguistic typology.
Annotated bibliography of language documentation
Oxford Bibliographies Online, 2012
This is a pre-publication version of Peter K. Austin. 2012. Language Documentation. In Mark Aronoff (ed.) Linguistics Bibliography. New York: Oxford Bibliographies Online. It covers works published up to June 2011.
Language documentation in the 21st century
Language documentation emerged as a new sub-field of linguistics in 1995 and has developed and expanded over the past 20 years. In this paper we outline the defining characteristics of language documentation as presented in the late 1990s and discuss some of the changes in the field that have occurred since. These include a move away from concern for best practices, standards and tools to a more critical and reflexive approach that highlights diversity and flexibility of individual documentation projects in their social, cultural and political contexts, as well as the need for greater attention to goals and outcomes. There have also been developments in archiving that build upon social networking models linking people to each other, rather than seeing documentation as being primarily about ‘data’ and ‘resources’.
Documentary and Descriptive Linguistics (full version
Much of the work that is labeled 'descriptive' within linguistics comprises two activities, i.e. the collection of primary data and a (low-level) analysis of these data. These are indeed two separate activities as shown by the fact that the methods employed in each activity differ substantially. To date, the field concerned with the first activity-called 'documentary linguistics' here-has received very little attention from linguists. It is proposed that documentary linguistics be conceived of as a fairly independent field of linguistic inquiry and practice which is no longer linked exclusively to the descriptive framework. A format for language documentations (in contrast to language descriptions) is presented and various practical and theoretical issues connected with this format are discussed. These include the rights of the individuals and communities contributing to a language documentation, the parameters for the selection of the data to be included in a documentation, and the assessment of the quality of such data. 1
Language Documentation meets Language Technology
Credits This is the written version of my speech at the international scientific conference on "Electronic Writing of RF Peoples". It builds on my ongoing projects, which are carried out in very close collaboration with several colleagues 1 and the preliminary results of which are published (or are prepared to be published) in [1, 2, 3, 4].
Impact of Language Documentation
2021
Throughout this book we have seen that the activities of language documentation (curation, analysis, and archiving) have impacts on language science but also on people, products, and methods. For students of linguistics, language documentation is a way of learning about the world, traveling to new places and making new friends. For native language users, language documentation projects are a way to build capacity in the community and, for individuals interested in further linguistic study, to become a part of the international documentation effort. Indigenous linguists have knowledge of social networks and language use. Language documentation brings to the scientific community unique perspectives on climate change, traditional ecological knowledge, musical traditions, biological diversity and more. New data and new types of data afforded by language documentation have also increased computational tools, theories, and algorithms to automate transcription. Language documentation provides materials for language pedagogy and revitalization, strong positive personal and professional impact on language documenters.