4
Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
targets. Guidelines and suggestions as to how to go about setting such limits
and targets are further discussed below and in the remaining chapters of
this book. But to begin with, the fundamental importance of taking a prag-
matic stance in all matters of language documentation needs to be empha-
sized once again. There are major practical constraints on the usefulness of
targets and delimitations for language documentations which are exclu-
sively based on theoretical considerations regarding the nature of language
and speech communities. In most if not all documentation settings, the
range of items that can be documented will be determined to a significant
degree by factors that are specific to the given setting, most importantly,
the availability of speakers who are willing and able to participate in the
documentation effort. In fact, recent experiences make it clear that encour-
aging native speakers to take an active part in determining the contents of a
documentation significantly increases the productivity of a documentation
project. Consequently, a theoretical framework for language documentation
should provide room for the active participation of native speakers. While
the input of native speakers and other factors specific to a given setting is
not completely unpredictable, it clearly limits the level of detail of a general
framework for language documentation which can be usefully explored in
purely theoretical terms.
This assessment, however, should not be construed as denying the rele-
vance of theorizing language documentations. Not everything in a docu-
mentation is fully determined by the specifics of a given documentation
situation. Speakers and speech communities usually do not have a fully
worked-out plan for what to document. Rather, the specifics of a documen-
tation are usually established interactively by communities and research
teams. On the part of the research team, this presupposes a theoretically
grounded set of basic goals and targets one wants to achieve.
Furthermore, without theoretical grounding language documentation is
in the danger of producing “data graveyards”, i.e. large heaps of data with
little or no use to anyone. While language documentation is based on the
idea that it is possible and useful to dissociate the compilation of linguistic
primary data from any particular theoretical or practical project based on
this data, language documentation is not a theory-free or anti-theoretical
enterprise. Its theoretical concerns pertain to the methods used in recording,
processing, and preserving linguistic primary data, as well as to the question
how it can be ensured that primary data collections are indeed of use for a
broad range of theoretical and applied purposes.
Among other things, documentation theory has to provide guidelines for
determining targets in specific documentation projects. It also has to develop
Chapter 1 – Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for?
5
principled and intersubjective means for evaluating the quality of a given
documentation regardless of the specific circumstances of its compilation.
A further major concern pertains to the interface between primary data and
analysis in a broad range of disciplines. Based on a detailed investigation
and evaluation of basic analytical procedures in these disciplines, it has to
be determined which type and format of primary data is required for a par-
ticular analytical procedure so that it can be ensured that the appropriate
type of data is included in a comprehensive documentation.
The present book provides an introduction to basic practical and theo-
retical issues in language documentation. It presents specific suggestions
for the structure and contents of language documentations as well as the
methodologies to be used in compiling them. To begin with, it will be useful
briefly to address the question of what language documentations are good
for. That is, why is it a useful enterprise to create lasting, multipurpose re-
cords of a language?
2. What is a language documentation good for?
From a linguistic point of view, there are essentially three reasons for engag-
ing in language documentation, all of them having to do with consolidating
and enlarging the empirical basis of a number of disciplines, in particular
those branches of linguistics and related disciplines which heavily draw on
data of little-known speech communities (e.g. descriptive linguistics, lin-
guistic typology, cognitive anthropology, etc.). These are language endan-
germent, the economy of research resources, and accountability.
Certainly the major reason why linguists have recently started to engage
with the idea of multipurpose documentations is the fact that a substantial
number of the languages still spoken today are threatened by extinction (see
Grenoble and Whaley 1998; Hagège 2000; Crystal 2000; or Bradley and
Bradley 2002 for further discussion and references regarding language en-
dangerment). In the case of an extinct language, it is obviously impossible to
check data with native speakers or to collect additional data sets. Creating
lasting multipurpose documentations is thus seen as one major linguistic
response to the challenge of the dramatically increased level of language
endangerment observable in our times. In this regard, language documenta-
tions are not only seen as data repositories for scientific inquiries, but also
as important resources for supporting language maintenance.
Creating language documentations which are properly archived and
made easily accessible to interested researchers is also in the interest of