Definition and Goals of Descriptive Linguistic Fieldwork

Chapter

Abstract

We define descriptive linguistic fieldwork as the investigation of the structure of a language through the collection of primary language data gathered through interaction with native-speaking consultants. Many other definitions emphasize the notion that the fieldworker must live like and with the native speakers of the language to be studied. For example, Everett (2001:168) defines linguistic fieldwork as:…the activity of a researcher systematically analyzing parts of a language other than one’s native language (usually one the researcher did not speak prior to beginning fieldwork) within a community of speakers of that language, prototypically in their native land, living out their existence in the milieu and mental currency of their native culture.

Keywords

Native Speaker Textual Critic Endangered Language Reference Grammar Descriptive Goal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abbi, Anvita. 2001. A Manual of Linguistic Field Work and Indian Language Structures. (Lincom Handbooks in Linguistics 17.) Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
  2. Abley, Mark. 2003. Spoken here: travels among threatened languages. New York: Mariner books.Google Scholar
  3. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002. Language Contact In Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007. Linguistic fieldwork: setting the scene. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (Focus on Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald) 60(1):3–11.Google Scholar
  5. Ameka, Felix K., Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans, eds. 2006. Catching language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 167.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Amery, Rob, and Mary-Anne Gale. 2008. But our language was just asleep: a history of language revival in Australia. In Encountering Aboriginal Languages: Studies in the History of Australian Linguistics, ed. by William B. McGregor, 339–382. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
  7. Austin, Peter K., ed. 2003. Language Documentation and Description. Volume 1. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  8. Austin, Peter K., ed. 2004. Language Documentation and Description. Volume 2. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  9. Austin, Peter K., ed. 2005. Language Documentation and Description. Volume 3. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  10. Austin, Peter K., ed. 2007. Language Documentation and Description. Volume 4. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  11. Austin, Peter K., ed. 2008. Language Documentation and Description. Volume 5. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  12. Austin, Peter K., ed. 2009. Language Documentation and Description. Volume 6. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  13. Austin, Peter K., ed. 2010a. Language Documentation and Description. Volume 7. (Special issue: Lectures in Language Documentation and Description.) London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  14. Austin, Peter K. 2010b. Current Issues in Language Documentation. In Language Documentation and Description, Vol. 7, ed. by Peter K. Austin, 1–3. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  15. Austin, Peter K., and Lenore Grenoble. 2007. Current Trends in Language Documentation. In Language Documentation and Description, Vol. 4, ed. by Peter K. Austin, 12–25. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  16. Austin, Peter K., and Julia Sallabank, eds. 2010. Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Austin, Peter K., and Andrew Simpson, eds. 2007. Endangered languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Baker, Mark C. 2005. The Impact of Typology on Theoretical Syntax and Morphology. Paper presented at the Typology Workshop of the Linguistic Society of America Meeting, January 9th, 2006. Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Bakker, Peter. 1997. A Language of Our Own. The Genesis of Michif, the Mixed Cree-French Language of the Canadian Metis. (Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 10.) New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Basset, A. 1951. L’enquête linguistique. Conférence de l’Institut de Linguistique de l’Université de Paris. X. Années 1950–1951, 7–22. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  21. Bausani, Alessandro. 1974. Nuovi materiali sulla lingua Chono. In Atti del XL Congresso Internazionale degli Americanisti, Roma-Genova 3–10 Settembre 1972. Vol. 3:107–116. Genova: Tilgher.Google Scholar
  22. Beeler, Madison S. 1967. The Ventureño Confesionario of José Señán, O.F.M. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 47.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Beeler, Madison S. 1971. Noptinte Yokuts. In Studies in American Indian Languages, ed. by Jesse Sawyer, 11–76. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 65.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Blanchet, Philippe. 2000. La linguistique de terrain. Méthode et théorie. Une approche ethno-sociolinguistique. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
  25. Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic Fieldwork. A Practical Guide. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  26. Bradley, David, and Maya Bradley, eds. 2002. Language Endangerment and Language Maintenance. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
  27. Brenzinger, Matthias, ed. 1998. Endangered Languages in Africa. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
  28. Brenzinger, Matthias, ed. 2007. Language Diversity Endangered. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Bunn, Gordon. 1974. Golin Grammar. (Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages 5.) Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute Linguistics.Google Scholar
  30. Burnaby, Barbara, and Jon Reyhner, eds. 2002. Indigenous Languages Across the Community. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University. Online: http://jan.ucc.nau.edy/~jar/ILAC/ Google Scholar
  31. Cantoni, Gina, ed. 1996. Stabilizing Indigenous Languages. Flagstaff, Arizona: Northern Arizona University. Online: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/stabilize/index.htmand http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/SIL_Appendix.html Google Scholar
  32. Casad, Eugene. 1974. Dialect Intelligibility Testing. Dallas, TX: SIL.Google Scholar
  33. Chambers, Jack K., and Peter Trudgill. 1980. Dialectology. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Chomsky, Noam A. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  35. Chomsky, Noam A. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. In The Structure of Language. Readings in the Philosophy of Language, ed. by Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz, 50–118. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Colinet, Ph. 1896. Het dialect van Aalst, eene phonetisch-historische studie. Leuvense Bijdragen 1.1–59, 97–206, 223–308.Google Scholar
  37. Comrie, Bernard. 1988. The Role of the field linguist. Notes on Linguistics 41:4–6.Google Scholar
  38. Comrie, Bernard. 2007. Documenting and/or Preserving Endangered Languages. In The Vanishing Languages of the Pacific Rim, Osahito Miyako, Osamu Sakiyama, and Michael Krauss, 25–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Craig, Colette G. 1992. A constitutional response to language endangerment: The case of Nicaragua. Language 68(1):17–24.Google Scholar
  40. Crowley, Terry. 2007. Field Linguistics. A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Crystal, David. 2000. Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Dalby, Andrew. 2003. Language danger. The loss of linguistic diversity and the threat to our future. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  43. De Dominicis, Amedeo, ed. 2006. Undescribed and Endangered Languages; the Preservation of Linguistic Diversity. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. De Wolf, Paul P. 1997. Esbozo del Mayo Sonorense. Two vols. Hermosillo, Sonora: Editorial Unison, Universidad de Sonora.Google Scholar
  45. DeChicchis, Joseph. 1995. The current state of Ainu language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16(1/2):103–24.Google Scholar
  46. Dixon, R. M. W. 2007. Field Linguistics: a minor manual. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (Focus on Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald) 60(1):12–31.Google Scholar
  47. Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume 1 Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Dixon, R. M. W., and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, eds. 1999. The Amazonian Languages. (Cambridge Language Surveys.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Dwyer, Arienne. 2006. Ethics and practicalities of cooperative fieldwork and analysis. In Essentials of Language Documentation, ed. by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, 31–66. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 178.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  50. Enfield, Nicholas J., ed. 2002. Ethnosyntax. Explorations in Grammar and Culture. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. England, Nora C. 1992. Doing Mayan linguistics in Guatemala. Language 68(1):29–35.Google Scholar
  52. Evans, Nicholas. 2010. Dying Words. Endangered Languages and What They Have to Tell Us. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  53. Evans, Nicholas, and Alan Dench. 2006. Introduction: Catching language. In Catching language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, ed. by Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans, 1–39. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 167.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  54. Evans, Nicholas, and Stephen Levinson. 2009. The Myth of Language Universals: Language Diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5):429–492.Google Scholar
  55. Everett, Daniel L. 2001. Monolingual field research. In Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 166–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Everett, Daniel L. 2004. Coherent fieldwork. In Linguistics today—Facing a greater challenge, ed. by Piet van Sterkenburg, 141–162. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  57. Everett, Daniel L. 2005. Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã. Another Look at the Design Features of Human language. Current Anthropology 46(4):621–646.Google Scholar
  58. Fishman, Joshua, ed. 2001. Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language Shift, Revisited: A 21 st Century perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  59. Foley, William A. 2002. Field methods. In The Linguistics Encyclopedia. Second ed., ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, 131–137. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Francis, W. N. 1983. Dialectology. An Introduction. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  61. Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, eds. 2006. Essentials of Language Documentation. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 178.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  62. Good, Jeff. 2006a. The Descriptive Grammar as a (Meta)Database. Online: http://emeld.org/workshop/2004/jcgood-paper.html
  63. Good, Jeff. 2006b. The Ecology of documentary and descriptive linguistics. Position paper for the 2006 E-MELD Workshop on Digital Language Documentation: Tools and Standards: The State of the Art. Online: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcgood/jcgood-Tool_Ecology.pdf
  64. García, Bartolomé. 1760. Manual para administrar los Santos Sacramentos de Penitencia, Eucharistia, Extrema-Uncion, y Matrimonio: Dar Gracias Despues de Comulgar, y Ayudar a Bien Morir A los Indios de las Naciones: Pajalates, Orejones, Pacaos, Pacóas, Tilijayas, Alasapas, Pausanes, y otras muchas diferentes, que se hallan en las Missiones del Rio de San Antonio, a Rio Grande, pertenecientes â el Colegio de la Santissima Cruz de la Cuidad de Queretaro, como son: Los Pacuâches, Mescâles, Pampôpas, Tâcames, Chayopînes, Venados, Pamâques, y toda la Juventud de Pihuiques, Borrados, Sanipaos, y Manos de Perro. [Mexico City]: Imprenta de los Herederos de Dona Maria de Rivera.Google Scholar
  65. Grenoble, Lenore, and Lindsay J. Whaley, eds. 1998. Endangered languages: Language loss and community response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Grenoble, Lenore, and Lindsay J. Whaley. 2006. Saving languages: An introduction to language revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Grimes, Joseph E. 1995. Language Survey Reference Guide. Dallas: Summer Institute of linguistics.Google Scholar
  68. Grinevald, Colette. 2007. Linguistic Fieldwork among Speakers of Endangered Languages. In The Vanishing Languages of the Pacific Rim, Osahito Miyako, Osamu Sakiyama, and Michael Krauss, 35–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Gudschinsky, Sarah C. 1957. Handbook of Literacy, rev. ed. Santa Ana, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  70. Gumperz, John. J. and Stephen C. Levinson. 1996. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 17.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Hale, Kenneth L. 1972. Some questions about anthropological linguistics: The role of native knowledge. In Reinventing anthropology, ed. by Dell Hymes, 382–97. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  72. Hale, Kenneth L. 1992a. On Endangered languages and the safeguarding of diversity. Language 68(1):1–3.Google Scholar
  73. Hale, Kenneth L. 1992b. Language endangerment and the human value of linguistic diversity. Language 68(1):35–42.Google Scholar
  74. Harrison, K. David. 2007. When Languages Die. The Extinction of the World’s Languages and the Erosion of Human Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Harrison, K. David, David S. Rood, and Arienne Dwyer, eds. 2008. Lessons from Documented Endangered Languages. (Typological Studies in Language 78.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  76. Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie, eds. 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Haugen, Einar I. 1969. The Norwegian Language in America. A Study in Bilingual Behavior. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Hickerson, H., G. D. Turner, and Nancy P. Hickerson. 1952. Testing procedures for estimating transfer of information among Iroquois dialects and languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 18:1–8.Google Scholar
  79. Hill, Jane, H., and Kenneth C. Hill. 1986. Speaking Mexicano. Dynamics of a Syncretic language in Central Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  80. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36:161–195. Online: http://corpus.linguistics.berkeley.edu/ling240/himmelmann.pdf or http://hrelp.org/events/workshops/eldp2005/reading/himmelmann.pdf Google Scholar
  81. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2006. Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for? In Essentials of Language Documentation, ed. by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, 1–30. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 178.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  82. Hinton, Leanne, and Kenneth Hale, eds. 2001. The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  83. Hinton, Leanne, Matt Vera, Nancy Steele, and the Advocates for Indigenous Language Survival. 2002. How to Keep Your Language Alive: A Common Sense Approach to One-on-One Language Learning. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.Google Scholar
  84. Hyman, Larry M. 2001. Fieldwork as a state of mind. In Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 15–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Janse, Mark, and Sijmen Tol, eds. 2003. Language death and language maintenance: theoretical, practical and descriptive approaches. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  86. Jeanne, Laverne Masayesva. 1992. An institutional response to language endangerment: A proposal for a Native American Language Center. Language 68(1):24–28.Google Scholar
  87. Johnson, Heidi. 2004. Language documentation and archiving, or how to build a better corpus. In Language Documentation and Description. Volume 2, ed. by Peter K. Austin, 140–53. London: SOAS, Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project.Google Scholar
  88. Kasten, Erich, ed. 1998. Bicultural Education in the North: Ways of Preserving and Enhancing Indigenous Peoples’ Languages and Traditional Knowledge. Münster and New York: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  89. Kennedy, Graeme. 1998. An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  90. Krauss, Michael E. 1992. The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68(1):4–10.Google Scholar
  91. Labov, William. 1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1:97–120.Google Scholar
  92. Labov, William. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In Language in use. Readings in Sociolinguistics, ed. by John Baugh and Joel Sherzer, 28–35. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  93. Ladefoged, Peter. 1992. Another view of endangered languages. Language 68(4):809–11.Google Scholar
  94. Ladefoged, Peter, and Daniel Everett. 1996. The status of phonetic rarities. Language 72(4): 794–800.Google Scholar
  95. Lehmann, Christian. 1999. Documentation of endangered languages. A priority task for ­linguistics. ASSIDUE, Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt Nr. 1. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Philosophische Fakultät, Universität Erfurt.Google Scholar
  96. Lehmann, Christian. 2004. Documentation of grammar. In Lectures on endangered languages 4. Papers from the Kyoto Conference on Language Endangerment, 2001, ed. by Osamu Sakiyama, Fubito Endo, Honore Watanabe, and Fumiko Sasama, 61–74. Osaka: Osaka Gakuin University. (Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim Publication Series, C–004)Google Scholar
  97. Lindenfeld, Jacqueline. 1973. Yaqui Syntax. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 76.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  98. López Morales, Humberto. 1994. Métodos de Investigación Lingüística. Salamanca: Ediciones Colegio de España.Google Scholar
  99. Lounsbury, Floyd. 1953. Field methods and techniques in linguistics. In Anthropology today: an encyclopedic inventory, ed. by Alfred L. Kroeber, 401–416. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  100. Lucy, John A. 1985. Whorf’s View of the Linguistic Mediation of Thought. In Semiotic Mediation, ed. by Elizabeth Mertz and Richard J. Parmentier. Orlando: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
  101. Lucy, John A. 1992a. Language, Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Lucy, John A. 1992b. Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Machoni de Cerdeña, Antonio. 1877. Arte y vocabulario de la lengua lule y tonocoté. Buenos Aires: Pablo E. Coni.Google Scholar
  104. MacKay, Carolyn J., and Frank R. Trechsel. 2005. Totonaco de Misantla, Veracruz. (Archivo de lenguas indígenas de México.) Mexico City: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
  105. Matsumura, Kazuto, ed. 1998. Studies in endangered languages: Papers from the international symposium on endangered languages, Tokyo, November 18–20, 1995. (International Clearinghouse for Endangered Languages linguistic studies 1.) Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
  106. Matthews, G. Hubert. 1965. Hidatsa Syntax. (Papers on Formal Linguistics 3.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  107. McEnery, Tony, and Andrew Wilson. 1996. Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Meijs, Willem, ed. 1987. Corpus Linguistics and Beyond. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  109. Metzger, Bruce M. 1992. The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Third enlarged ed. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Milroy, Lesley. 1987. Observing and Analysing Natural Language. A Critical Account of Sociolinguistic method. (Language in Society 12.) Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  111. Miyaoka, Osahito, Osamu Sakiyama, and Michael Krauss, eds. 2007. The Vanishing Languages of the Pacific Rim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Mosel, Ulrike. 1987. Inhalt und Aufbau deskriptiver Grammatiken (How to write a grammar). Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln, Arbeitspapier Nr. 4 (Neue Folge.) Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Köln.Google Scholar
  113. Mosel, Ulrike. 2001. Linguistic Fieldwork. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 13, ed. by Niel J. Smelser and Paul B. Baties, 8906–8910.Google Scholar
  114. Mosel, Ulrike. 2006. Grammaticography: The art and craft of writing grammars. In Catching language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, ed. by Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans, 11–68. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 167.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  115. Moseley, Christopher. 2007. Encyclopedia of the World’s Endangered Languages. Oxford and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  116. Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1998. The Ecology of Language: New Imperatives in Linguistics Curricula. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 28(2):135–145.Google Scholar
  117. Munro, Pamela. 2003. Field Linguistics. In The Handbook of Linguistics, ed. by Mark Aronoff and Janie Rees-Miller, 130–149. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  118. Nathan, David. 2006. Thick interfaces: Mobilizing language documentation with multimedia. In Essentials of Language Documentation, ed. by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, 363–379. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 178.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  119. Nettle, Daniel. 1998. Linguistic diversity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  120. Nettle, Daniel, and Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing voices: the extinction of the world’s languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  121. Newman, Paul. 1998. We have seen the enemy and it is us: the endangered languages issue as a hopeless cause. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 28(2):11–20.Google Scholar
  122. Newman, Paul, and Martha Ratliff, eds. 2001. Linguistic fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Oostdijk, Nelleke. 1988. Corpustaalkunde in perspectief. TTT, Interdisciplinair Tijdschrift voor Taal en Tekstwetenschap 8(3):209–224.Google Scholar
  124. Ostler, Nicholas, ed. 1998. Endangered Languages: What Role for the Specialist? Proceedings of the second FEL conference. Bath: The Foundation for Endangered Languages.Google Scholar
  125. Pauwels, J. L. 1958. Het Dialect van Aarschot en Omstreken. Two vols. Tongeren: Belgisch Interuniversitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek.Google Scholar
  126. Payne, Thomas E, and David J. Weber, eds. 2007. Perspectives on Grammar Writing. (Benjamins Current Topics 11.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [originally published as 2006, Special Issue of Studies in Language 30(2)]Google Scholar
  127. Pickford, G. R. 1956. American linguistic geography: a sociological appraisal. Word 12:211–33.Google Scholar
  128. Pittman, Dean. 1948. Practical Linguistics. A Textbook and Field Manual of Missionary Linguistics. Cleveland, OH: Mid-Missions.Google Scholar
  129. Reyhner, Jon, ed. 1997. Teaching Indigenous Languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University. Online: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/TIL_Contents.html Google Scholar
  130. Rice, Keren. 2006. Let the language tell its story? The role of linguistic theory in writing grammars. In Catching language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, ed. by Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans, 235–268. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 167.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  131. Robins, Robert H., and Eugenius M. Uhlenbeck, eds. 1991. Endangered Languages. Oxford and New York: Berg Publishers (Diogenes Library).Google Scholar
  132. Ruz, Mario Humberto, and Diana Birrichaga, eds. 1997. Las lenguas del Chiapas Colonial. Manuscritos en la biblioteca nacional de París. Vol. dos: lengua zoque. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
  133. Sakiyama, Osamu, ed. 2004. Lectures on Endangered Languages 5. (Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim C-005.) Osaka: Osaka Gakuin University.Google Scholar
  134. Sakiyama, Osamu, and Fubito Endo, eds. 2001. Lectures on Endangered Languages 2. (Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim C-002.) Osaka: Osaka Gakuin University. Online: elpr@utc.osaka-gu.ac.jpGoogle Scholar
  135. Sakiyama, Osamu, Fubito Endo, Honoré Watanabe, and Fumiko Sasama, eds. 2004. Lectures on Endangered Languages 5. (Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim C-004.) Osaka: Osaka Gakuin University.Google Scholar
  136. Samarin, William J. 1967. Field Linguistics. A Guide to Linguistic Field Work. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  137. Sampson, Geoffrey. 2002. Empirical Linguistics. London and New York: Continuum. FIGoogle Scholar
  138. Sapir, Edward. 1933. La réalité psychologique des phonèmes. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 30:247–65.Google Scholar
  139. Seay, Elizabeth. 2003. Searching for Lost City. On the Trail of America’s Native Languages. Guiford, Conn.: The Lyons Press.Google Scholar
  140. Seifart, Frank. 2006. Orthography development. In Essentials of Language Documentation, ed. by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, 275–299. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 178.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  141. Smalley, William A. 1957. Finding out how close related dialects are. Part II: conducting a dialect survey. The Bible Translator 8:114–26.Google Scholar
  142. Teubert, Wolfgang, and Anna Cermáková. 2007. Corpus Linguistics. A Short Introduction. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  143. Troike, Rudolph C. 1996. Sketch of Coahuilteco, a Language Isolate of Texas. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17, Languages, ed. by Ives Goddard, 644–665. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
  144. Tuttle, Siri G. 2003. Archival Phonetics: Tone and Stress in Tanana Athabaskan. Anthropological Linguistics 45(3):316–36.Google Scholar
  145. Vanacker, F. 1948. Syntaxis van het Aalsters Dialect. (Werken Uitgegeven door de Koninklijke Commissie voor Toponymie en Dialectologie 4) Tongeren: George Michiels.Google Scholar
  146. Vaux, Bert, and Justin Cooper. 1999. Introduction to Linguistic Field Methods. (Lincom Course books in Linguistics 1.) Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
  147. Vaux, Bert, Justin Cooper, and Emily Tucker. 2007. Linguistic Field Methods. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.Google Scholar
  148. Voegelin, Carl F., and Zellig S. Harris. 1951. Methods for Determining Intelligibility Among Dialects of Natural Languages. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 45:322–329.Google Scholar
  149. Watahomigie, Lucille J., and Akira Y. Yamamoto. 1992. Local Reactions to perceived language decline. Language 68(1):10–17.Google Scholar
  150. Weinreich, Uriel. 1974. Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
  151. Wolff, Hans. 1959. Intelligibility and Inter-Ethnic Attitudes. Anthropological Linguistics 1(3):34–41.Google Scholar
  152. Woodbury, Anthony C. 2003. Defining documentary linguistics. In Language Documentation and Description Vol. 1, ed. by Peter K. Austin, 35–51. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  153. Woodbury, Anthony C. 2007. On thick translation in linguistic documentation. In Language Documentation and Description Vol. 4, ed. by Peter K. Austin, 120–135. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  154. Wynne, Martin, ed. 2005. Developing Linguistic Corpora: a Guide to Good practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Online: http://ahds.ac.uk/linguistic-corpora/ Google Scholar
  155. Zaefferer, Dietmar. 2006. Realizing Humboldt’s dream: Cross-linguistic grammatography as data-base creation. In Catching language: The Standing Challenge of Grammer Wrinting, ed. by Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans, 113–35. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 167.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations