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.