Essentials of Language Documentation

30

    Nikolaus P. Himmelmann 

context of language documentations it is useful to distinguish between different 

types of metadata (in this broad sense), and it is now a widely-used practice to 

use the term “metadata” in the context of language documentations exclusively 

for data types which have a cataloguing or organizational function and to use 

“annotation” (or “commentary”) for other types of information accompanying 

segments of primary data. 

11.  The structuralist idea of language as an abstract system has been articulated in 

a variety of oppositions including the well-known Sassurean distinction of 

langue  vs.  langage  vs.  parole and the Chomskyan distinction of competence 

vs. performance. For the present argument, the details of how the abstract lan-

guage system is conceived of do not matter and thus are ignored. 

12. With regard to falsifiability (point (b)), not providing access to the primary 

data is indeed a major problem for the scientific status of these descriptions. 

However, the basic assumption here appears to have been that whoever wanted 

to replicate and possibly falsify a descriptive analysis on the basis of material 

other than the one made available in examples and texts could compile their 

own set of primary data. This assumption is no longer viable in the case of en-

dangered languages and, as already pointed out in Section 2, it is hence not by 

chance that a close connection exists between language endangerment and the 

recent increased concern for the preservation of primary data in linguistics and 

related disciplines. 

13. The part called “descriptive analysis” in the rightmost column could also be 

added in other ways to the overall format, for example as an additional column 

of its own, on a par with “primary data” and “apparatus”. While there are theo-

retical issues associated with these alternative overall organizations, these do 

not play a role for the argument in this section and hence can be safely ignored. 

14.  Essentially the same points made here and in the following with regard to de-

scriptive grammars could also be made with regard to conventional dictionaries 

and ethnographic monographs (see Chapter 6 for a brief discussion of different 

types of dictionaries, which is also relevant here). Including these two other 

main analytical formats in the discussion would, however, unnecessarily com-

plicate the exposition. Hence, dictionaries and ethnographies are not further 

discussed in this section. The choice of descriptive grammars as the main ex-

ample is simply due to the fact that it is the format the author is most familiar 

with. 

15. Very occasionally, though, especially in the interaction between parents and 

children, unacceptable or highly marked structures might be attested in admon-

ishments of the form: Don’t say X, say Y. 

 

 

 

---

Chapter 2 

 

Ethics and practicalities  

of cooperative fieldwork and analysis 

 

Arienne M. Dwyer 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

 

This chapter examines central ethical, legal, and practical responsibilities of 

linguists and ethnographers in fieldwork-based projects. These issues span 

all research phases, from planning to fieldwork to dissemination. We focus 

on the process of language documentation, beginning with a discussion of 

common ethical questions associated with fieldwork: When is documenta-

tion appropriate in a particular community, and who benefits from it? Which 

power structures are involved, both in and out of the field? Section 1 ex-

plores key concepts of participant relations, rights, and responsibilities in 

fieldwork in the context of ethical decision-making. It introduces a set of 

guiding principles and examines some potential pitfalls. Section 2 discusses 

the legal rights issues of data ownership (intellectual property rights and 

copyright) and data access. Such information aids planning before field-

work and especially the archiving phase.  

 

Sections 3 and 4 cover the more concrete practical aspects of the field-

work situation: developing a relationship with a speech community and 

organizing and running a project. We survey what may be termed “the five 

Cs” critical to planning and executing a project: criteria (for choosing a 

field site), contacts, cold calls, community, and compensation. Finally, since 

even the best-planned projects encounter logistical and interpersonal chal-

lenges, we present several generic case studies and some possible methods 

of resolving such disputes.  

 

Such ethical and logistical planning is essential to successful commu-

nity-centered knowledge mobilization, from which documentation products 

useful for both academics and community members are produced in an 

environment of reciprocity. It is the linguist’s responsibility to focus on 

process (Rice 2005: 9)

1

 as much as the end goals. 

---

32

    Arienne M. Dwyer 

1.     Ethics 

 

1.1. Research as mediation 

 

Ethical behavior is often assumed to flow intuitively from the noble goals 

of scientific research. Most fieldworkers consider themselves well-inten-

tioned, rational people. But have all participating individuals and groups 

been considered in these research goals? Have their ethical standards been 

considered? 

 

Fieldwork methodology has in the last decades progressed from a typi-

cally non-cooperative model (research on a community) to a cooperative 

model which in its strongest form explicitly empowers speech communities 

(research  on,  for, and with  a community) (Cameron et al. 1992: 22–24). 

Assumptions about what is ethical for a particular field situation are best 

avoided, especially assumptions on the part of the researcher about what 

participants want.

2

 The researcher should also have a grasp of the legal 

implications (local, national, and international) of data ownership.

3

 An un-

derstanding of ethical and legal responsibilities also facilitates the building 

of trust – and thus a successful relationship – with a community research 

team. Finally, making ethical and legal premises explicit, helps to anticipate 

and avoid problems. A field researcher mediates between speakers, their 

communities and the fieldworker’s own community,  which includes an 

institution, a funding body, and possibly an archive. Inevitably, all partici-

pants in a language documentation will face ethical dilemmas, in which no 

course of action seems quite satisfactory. There may be “no right decision, 

only… [one] ‘more right’ than the alternatives” (Hill, Glaser and Harden 

1995: 19).  

  Distilled to its essence, the ethics of field research entails indigenous 

people and field researchers mediating each other's cultural imperatives. 

This contextualization of ethical principles can only occur through produc-

tive mutual negotiation at the local level. The ethical principles presented 

here may seem as both imperious and overly generic, given that in this 

chapter broad-brush principles are often preceded by the cajoling impera-

tive should or the bossy must. But these are suggestions awaiting contextu-

alization in a particular research situation. And this mediation of ethical 

principles by all participants forms the nucleus of any research project. 

 

 

 

---