Essentials of Language Documentation

66

    Arienne M. Dwyer 

Wittenburg, Peter 

 

2001–05  Code of Conduct. http://www.mpi.nl/DOBES/INFOpages/applicants/ 

DOBES-coc-v2.pdf 

World Trade Organization (WTO) 

 

1994 

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. 

Annex C of the OAS Summary Description of the Uruguay Round 

Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. 

http://www.sice.oas.org/summary/ur_round/ur19.asp 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 

 

1996 

Amendments to Articles 6,

 

7,

 

8,

 

10,

 

12,

 

13

 

and

 

14 of draft treaty No.

 

1. 

http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/diplconf/distrib/12dc.htm 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)  

 

1998–99  Intellectual property needs and expectations of traditional knowl-

edge-holders.   

http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/tk/ffm/report/final/pdf/part1.pdf  

World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau  

 

1886– 

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.  

 1979  http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html 

World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau 

 

1998 

The Protection of Expressions of Folklore: The Attempts at Inter-

national Level. Intellectual Property in Asia and the Pacific, WIPO 

Publication No. 435 (E), January-June, No. 56/57. 

 

http://www.wipo.int/arab/en/documents/pdf/expressions_folklore.pdf 

 

 

---

Chapter 3 

 

Fieldwork and community language work 

 

Ulrike Mosel 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

 

Linguistic fieldwork, especially language documentation, relies heavily on 

the

 

working

 

relationship

 

between

 

the professional

 

linguist

 

and

 

the

 

indigenous 

language workers – a challenging relationship because except for their in-

terest in the community language, both parties do not share much common 

ground in terms of background and aims. This chapter will first outline the 

differences

 

between

 

the

 

linguist’s

 

and

 

the

 

community’s

 

approach

 

to

 

language 

documentation and then describe the kind of input the linguist can give into 

the community’s linguistic training and language work. Drawing from expe-

riences in the Primary Education Materials Project in Samoa (1997–2000) 

and the Language Documentation Project of Teop in Bougainville, Papua 

New Guinea (2000–2005), the chapter will deal with individual apprentice-

ship and teamwork and conclude with a short section on workshops. 

 

 

1.  Research aims and personal motivations 

 

If we take a close look at why researchers and indigenous people engage in 

linguistic fieldwork, we can distinguish between research aims and per-

sonal motivations. In most general terms, the linguists’ research aim is to 

contribute to our scientific knowledge of the world’s languages or to lin-

guistic theory, while the local language workers’ aim is to do something for 

the maintenance and development of their language and culture. Thus lin-

guists and local language workers research the same language, but take 

different perspectives. While the linguists ask what makes this language 

interesting for general linguistics, historical linguistics, linguistic typology, 

or linguistic anthropology, the native speakers may ask what does their 

language and culture contain that they want future generations to learn, or at 

least to remember. As a consequence, academic field researchers focus their 

attention on otherness, on what makes this language unique in comparison 

---

68

    Ulrike Mosel 

to already researched languages, whereas the community members see their 

language in relation to the dominant official language and their neighbors’ 

languages.  

 

Beyond intellectual curiosity, linguists are also motivated by academic 

career prospects, just as the indigenous people are concerned with their 

status within the community and earning money as fieldworkers. The lin-

guists must meet the expectations of their funding institution and deliver 

the work they had planned in their application for funding. In many cases, 

this will be a PhD thesis with a focus on theory or some specialized inves-

tigation, rather than a dictionary for the speech community or a language 

documentation. In contrast, the objectives are less clearly defined for the 

indigenous people. Frequently, a dictionary ranks highest on their list of 

priorities, followed by educational reading materials, or translations of texts 

that are important for the community (e.g. religious texts).  

 

Table 1.  Linguists’ and local language workers’ perspectives on fieldwork projects 

 

 

Linguists 

Local language workers 

Aims academic 

educational, 

cultural 

Perspective 

focus on otherness 

focus on identity 

Motivation intellectual 

curiosity 

academic career advancement 

intellectual curiosity 

status, money 

Products PhD 

thesis, 

specialized investigation 

dictionary, reading materials, 

translations 

 

These different viewpoints, which are summarized in Table 1, can give rise 

to conflicts. If linguists make a strong commitment to the community’s 

interests, they (or their supervisors) may feel that the academically relevant 

aspects of the fieldwork are not receiving sufficient priority. Neglecting the 

community’s interests on the other hand may lead to feelings of guilt to-

wards the language community, who are being exploited with no real bene-

fit in return (see also Chapter 2). The sections below try to show that true 

cooperation, in which each party recognizes the other’s interests, can lead 

to fruitful results (see also Mithun 2001). But before discussing in detail 

how such a cooperation can work, I’ll briefly outline further differences 

between linguists and local language workers’ interests when collaborating 

in compiling a language documentation. 

---