Original file was afterFeedback tex

2 History and issues of language documentation

In order to understand how certain aspects of language documentation might prove relevant to theatre, it is important to situate language documentation within a specific history and specific intellectual agenda. This will be compared to the history and agenda of theatre and performance studies in a subsequent section.

Linguists have a long history of documenting languages, if we understand documentation to be the collection of data from various languages. This was (and still is in some subfields) usually done with the end goal of analyzing these languages, in order to make theoretical contributions to the field of linguistics with regard to language structure. In the 90s, linguists began to recognize the threat posed by language endangerment.

Language documentation as a field in its own right sprung as a reaction towards language endangerment. Krauss (1992) predicted that as much as ninety percent of the world's languages may become "doomed" by the end of this century. Similarly, UNESCO (2003) stated that at least fifty percent of the world's languages were losing their speakers, and that by the end of the 21st century, about ninety percent of the languages may be replaced by dominant languages. More recent numbers show that the situation may be slightly less dire, with an average of three languages dying every three months (Campbell et al. 2013). Regardless, language death is highly consequential for reasons including the loss of cultural or ethnic identity, the loss of part of the sum of human knowledge, and the loss of languages themselves which compromises the linguists’ ability to understand the full range of what is possible in human language and cognition (Lee and Van Way 2016). With a better understanding of the magnitude of what is at stake, a good number of linguists are now in the race to document languages, in particular endangered and underdocumented languages.

The notion of documentation is still contested. For some, language documentation should not include description. Himmelmann (2006, 5) states that language documentation is "concerned with the methods, tools, and theoretical underpinnings for compiling a representative and lasting multipurpose record of a natural language or one of its varieties". In the same vein, Woodbury (2003, 39) proposes that the primary project of language documentation is the "direct representation of naturally occurring discourse", while "description and analysis are contingent, emergent byproducts which grow alongside primary documentation but are always changeable and parasitic on it". To scholars who hold this view, any additional activities detract from the time and effort needed for collecting, representing and archiving. This approach differs from the view of others such as Rhodes et al. (2006) who state that description and analysis are crucial steps in accounting for how adequately a language is documented. Thus, for some, language documentation is also focused on the analysis of materials and the creation of products such as grammars. There is in some sense, never an end to the extent a language can be satisfactorily documented, and some steps in documenting a language such as transcription would necessarily depend on how certain elements of a language are analyzed. Unfinished and unfinishable projects are also well known in theatre studies. Regardless of approach, language documentation as a coherent field has emphasized methods of language data collection (both audio and video) (e.g. Margetts and Margetts 2012), its representation (through transcription and proper use of metadata), and its archiving (usually through digital means). While language documentation as a discipline focused on these areas only emerged in recent times, the field has experienced rapid growth, particularly with regard to technological best practices.

The best practices within language documentation target a range of goals from collection to representation to archiving. Austin (2014, 60-61) identities five types of language documentation activities, including (i) the recording "of media and text (including metadata) in context"; (ii) the transfer of data "to a data management environment", (iii) the adding of value by "transcription, translation, annotation and notation and linking of metadata to the recordings", (iv) the creation of "archival objects" and the assignment of access and usage rights, and (v) mobilization, which is the "creation, publication and distribution of outputs, in a range of formats for a range of different users and uses". While this is a non-exhaustive list, important considerations in language documentation include the following. First, that language material collected is of high-enough quality. Second, that the language and its metadata are represented in such a way that they are useful for a wide range of users. Third, that language material is properly archived into perpetuity. These are but some of the primary concerns of language documentation, other concerns include the ethics and genres of data collected (such as conversations, religious ceremonies, or storytelling).Best practices surrounding collection, representation and archiving are particularly well developed, and can be potentially applied in other fields for a methodical approach to documentation, especially if language is involved. However, these best practices are also useful for materials that may or may not be based in language, such as images and videos.

Language documentation offers projects from which theatre and performance scholars can derive inspiration: shared repositories and specialized conferences.

Examples of shared repositories include the Pacific and Regional Archive for Digital Sources in Endangered Cultures (PARADISEC) and Kaipuleohone: The University of Hawai'i Digital Ethnographic Archive. In performance, to the best of our knowledge there are no shared repositories, since most archive makers are themselves the depositors. Digital theatre archives, like several digital literature archives are, as Price (2009) notes, more like special editions than proper archives. In a useful practice, language repositories enable the deposition of materials that have different copyright agreements and access criteria. However, establishing depositories with clear guidelines is only half the battle. Observing the relative dearth of depositions in 2004 within the well-funded EDLP (Endangered Languages Documentation Project), Thieberger decried: "if a funding body like the ELDP cannot get all of its grantees to deposit in an archive in a timely fashion (or at all), how can unfunded researchers be expected to make use of an archive?" (Thieberger 2004, 131). The situation has much improved since then and Thieberger's own PARADISEC is now a leader in the field of shared repositories and their easy and comprehensive guidelines should be basic reading for anyone setting up a digital archive in the humanities (PARADISEC 2016).

Copyright and access are important issues for the makers of theatre archives as well. As Borgman notes, in the humanities, researchers don't usually own their data (Borgman 2009, 2015). This is similar to language data that arguably belongs to the speakers more than to the linguists who collect them. Ethical concerns that come together with collecting, representing, and archiving data are as important to theatre as they are to language documentation.

Examples of conferences dedicated to language documentation include the International Conference on Language Documentation and Conservation and the Documentary Linguistics Asian Perspectives series. Examples of journals include Language Documentation and Conservation and Language Documentation and Description. These venues allow for an exchange of ideas regarding important conceptual issues, as well as practical considerations at different levels: what types of microphones to use, what metadata standards are recommended, etc. Certain conferences for theatre documentation have been organized in the past, most notably those by the Documenting Performance Working Group of Theatre and Performance Research Association (TaPRA) (TaPRA 2012). But more permanent forums need to be established for the field to move forward.

The participants in the theatre documentation debate also need to become more technical. The conversation needs to be pushed to the intersection of the technical and conceptual tools and expertise. Importing the framework directly from linguistics is not ideal in many ways, but language documentation is one place that we can look at for the intersection of technical and conceptual concerns.