Native Speakers and Fieldworkers

Chapter

Abstract

Having decided what language to work on and having arrived at the field site, the fieldworker must find native speakers to work with. Here are seven basic questions that s/he should consider when looking for speakers: 1. When should I begin looking for and hiring native speakers for fieldwork? 2. What is the role of each native speaker in my project? 3. What characteristics should the native speakers have? 4.How many speakers should I work with? 5. How do I maintain good relations with the native speakers I hire? 6. Do I have the needed permissions to work with native speakers? 7. What are my obligations towards speakers, and can I fulfill them?

Keywords

Native Speaker Target Language Speech Community Language Teacher Good Consultant 
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. 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
  3. Ballmer, Thomas. 1981. A Typology of Native Speakers. In A Festschrift for the Native Speaker, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 51–67. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, J. A. 1963. Some ethical problems in modern fieldwork. British Journal of Sociology14:118–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benedicto, Dolores and Guillermo McLean. 2002. Fieldwork as a Participatory Research Activity: The Mayangna Linguistic Teams. Berkeley Linguistics Society 28:375–386.Google Scholar
  6. Bernard, H. Russell, P. Killworth, D. Kronenfeld, and L. Sailer. 1984. The problem of informant accuracy: the validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology13:495–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhat, D. N. S. and M. S. Ningomba 1997. Manipuri Grammar.Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
  8. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1964. Literate and Illiterate Speech. In Language in Culture and Society, ed. by Dell Hymes, 385–396. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  9. Bouquiaux, Luc, Jacqueline M. C. Thomas, and James Roberts. 1992. Studying and Describing Unwritten Languages.Dallas, TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
  10. Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic Fieldwork. A Practical Guide. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  11. Brumble, H. David III. 1983. Indian Sacred Materials: Kroeber, Kroeber, Waters, and Momaday. In Smoothing the Ground. Essays on Native American Oral Literature, ed. by Brian Swann, 283–300. Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cameron, Deborah. 1998. Problems of empowerment in linguistic research. In Le travail du chercheur sur le terrain. Questionner les pratiques, méthodes, les techniques de l’enquête, ed. by Mahmoudian, Mortéza, and Lorenza Mondada, 23–38. Lausanne: Cahiers de l’ILSL 10, Université de Lausanne.Google Scholar
  13. Cameron, Deborah, Elizabeth Frazer, Penelope Harvey, M. Ben H. Rampton, and Kay Richardson, eds. 1992. Researching Language: Issues of Power and Method. Politics of Language. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Cameron, Deborah, Elizabeth Frazer, Penelope Harvey, M. Ben H. Rampton, and Kay Richardson. 1993. Ethics, advocacy and empowerment: Issues of method in researching language. Language and Communication13(2):81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carden, Guy. 1990. Polylectal Grammars, Randomly Distributed Lects and Introspective Judgements: A Replication of Legum’s while-clause Studies. In Development and Diversity, Language Variation Across Time and Space. (A Festschrift for Charles James N. Bailey.) ed. by Jerold A. Edmondson, Crawford Feagin and Peter Mühlhausler, 205–226. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
  16. Coulmas, Florian, ed. 1981. A Festschrift for the Native Speaker. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  17. Crowley, Terry. 2007. Field Linguistics. A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 2009. Research Models, Community Engagement, and Linguistic Fieldwork: Reflections on Working within Canadian Indigenous Communities. Language Documentation and Conservation3(1):15–50. Online: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4423.Google Scholar
  19. Davies, Alan. 1994. Native Speaker. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by R.E. Asher, Volume 5, 2719–2725. New York, Seoul, Tokyo: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Davies, Alan. 2003. The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  21. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2001. Places and People: fieldsites and informants. In Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 55–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dixon, R. M. W. 1984. Searching for Aboriginal Languages. Memoirs of a Field Worker. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dixon, R. M. W. 1992. Naive linguistic explanation. Language in Society21:83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume 1 Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dobrin, Lise M. 2005. When our values conflict with theirs: Linguists and community empowerment in Melanesia. In Language Documentation and Description, vol. 3, ed. by Peter K. Austin, 42–52. London: Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project.Google Scholar
  26. Dobrin, Lise M. 2008. Discussion note: From linguistic elicitation to eliciting the linguist: Lessons in community empowerment from Melanesia. Language84(2):300–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dorian, Nancy C. 2001. Surprises in Sutherland: linguistic variability amidst social uniformity. In Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 133–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Dwyer, Arienne. 2006. Ethics and practicalities of cooperative fieldwork and analysis. In Essentials of Language Documentation, ed. by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus Himmelmann and Ulrike Mosel, 31–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Ehlich, Konrad. 1981. The native speaker’s heritage: On the philology of “dead” languages. In A Festschrift for the Native Speaker, Florian Coulmas, ed. 153–165. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  30. England, Nora C. 1992. Doing Mayan linguistics in Guatemala. Language68(1):29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Evans, Nicholas. 2001. The last speaker is dead – long live the last speaker. In Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 250–281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Foley, William A. 1991. The Yimas Language of New Guinea. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gerritsen, Rupert. 2004. Historical problems and methodological issues regarding Nhanda, an aboriginal language of Western Australia. Anthropological Linguistics64(1):84–99.Google Scholar
  35. Glenn, Akiemi. 2009. Five dimensions of collaboration: Toward a critical theory of coordination and interoperability in language documentation. Language Documentation and Conservation3(2):149–160. Online: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4437.Google Scholar
  36. Grimes, Joseph E. 1995. Language Survey Reference Guide.Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of linguistics.Google Scholar
  37. Hale, Kenneth L. 2001. Ulwa (Southern Sumu) Places and People: the beginnings of a language research project. In Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 76–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Healey, Alan. 1964. Handling Unsophisticated Linguistic Informants. (Linguistic Circle of Canberra Publications, Series A, Occasional Papers No. 2.) Canberra: Linguistics, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
  39. Hoijer, Harry. 1958. Native reaction as a criterion in linguistic analysis. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists, Eva Sivertsen, ed. Oslo: Oslo University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hopkins, Jill D., and Louanna Furbee. 1991. Indirectness in the interview. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology1(1):63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1977. The Methodology of Field Investigations in Linguistics. (Setting up the Problem.)(Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 142.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  42. Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 2007. Collective field work. In Perspectives on Grammar Writing: Special Issue of Studies in Language 30:2(Benjamins Current Topics 11.), ed. by Thomas E. Payne and David J. Weber, 25–44. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  43. Kroskrity, Paul V. 1993. Language, History, and Identity. Ethnolinguistic Studies of the Arizona Tewa. Tucson and London: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kroeber, A.L. 1900. More Mohave Myths. Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  45. Labov, William. 1969. The logic of non-standard English. In Georgetown Monographs on Language and Linguistics22, ed. by J. Alatis, 1–44. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University PressGoogle Scholar
  46. Ladefoged, Peter. 2003. Phonetic Data Analysis: An Introduction to Fieldwork and Instrumental Techniques. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Larson-Hall, Jenifer. 2009. A Guide to Doing Statistics in Second Language Research Using SPSS. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Macaulay, Monica. 2004. Training linguistics students for the realities of fieldwork. Anthropological Linguistics46(2):194–209.Google Scholar
  49. Mackey, A. and Gass, S. 2005. Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Maddieson, Ian. 2001. Phonetic fieldwork. In Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 211–229. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics70(4):369–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mc Laughlin, Fiona, and Thierno Seydou Sall. 2001. The give and take of fieldwork: noun classes and other concerns in Fatick, Senegal. In Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 189–210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Milroy, Lesley. 1980. Language and Social Networks. London: Basil Blackwell and Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  54. Milroy, Lesley. 1987. Observing and Analysing Natural Language. A Critical Account of Sociolinguistic Method. (Language in Society 12.) Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Mithun, Marianne. 2001. Who shapes the record: the speaker and the linguist. In Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 34–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. 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, 41–68. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 167.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  57. Newman, Paul, and Martha Ratliff, eds. 2001a. Linguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Newman, Paul, and Martha Ratliff. 2001b. Introduction. In Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Nida, Eugene A. 1949. Morphology. The Descriptive Analysis of Words. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  60. Nida, Eugene A. 1981. Informants or colleagues? In A Festschrift for the Native Speaker, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 169–174. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  61. Okuda, Osami. 1995. On the Objectives of Linguistic Research on the Ainu. In Studies in Endangered Languages, Papers from the International Symposium on Endangered Languages, Tokyo, November 18–20, 1995, ed. by Kazuto Matsumura, Linguistic StudiesVol. 1, 143–148. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
  62. Paikeday, Thomas M. 1985. The Native Speaker is Dead! An Informal Discussion of a Linguistic Myth with Noam Chomsky and Other Linguists, Philosophers, Psychologists, and Lexicographers. Toronto and New York: Lexicography, Inc. (formerly Paikeday Publishing Inc.).Google Scholar
  63. Paul, Benjamin D. 1953. Interview techniques and field relationships. In Anthropology Today: Selections, ed. by Sol Tax. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Rice, Karen. 2006. Ethical issues in linguistic fieldwork: an overview. Linguistic Fieldwork Preparation. A Guide for Linguists. Online: http://www.ch2006.ass.utoronto.ca/lingfieldwork/pdf/2.pdf.
  65. Samarin, William J. 1967a. Determining the meanings of ideophones. Journal of West African Languages6(2):35–41.Google Scholar
  66. Samarin, William J. 1967b. Field Linguistics. A Guide to Linguistic Field Work. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  67. Scollon, Ronald. 1979. The Context of the Informant Narrative Performance: From Sociolinguistics to Ethnolinguistics at Fort Chipewyan, Alberta. (National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 52. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.Google Scholar
  68. Sutton, Peter and Michael Walsh. 1979. Revised linguistic fieldwork manual for Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
  69. Sprigg, R.K. 1991. The spelling-style pronunciation of Written Tibetan, and the hazards of using citation forms in the phonological analysis of spoken Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 14.2:93–96.Google Scholar
  70. Vaux, Bert, and Justin Cooper. 1999. Introduction to Linguistic Field Methods. (Lincom Course books in Linguistics 1.) Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
  71. Vaux, Bert, Justin Cooper, and Emily Tucker. 2007. Linguistic Field Methods. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.Google Scholar
  72. Udell, Gerald, (in collaboration with John McKenna, Sara Chapman, Francis Xavier, and Johnie D. Ragsdale, Jr.). 1972. Responses of Co-Workers to the Word Informant. In Studies in Linguistics in Honor of Raven I. McDavid, Jr,ed. by Lawrence M. Davis. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  73. Whaley, Lindsay and Fengxiang Li. 2006. The Challenge of Assessing Fluency for Documentation of Moribund Languages. Linguistic Society of America poster session.Google Scholar
  74. Wong, I. F. H. 1975. Field procedures in generative grammar. Anthropological Linguistics17(2):43–52.Google Scholar
  75. Yamamoto, Akira Y. 1998. First Things First: on Language Preservation/Revitalization Efforts. In Studies in Endangered Languages: Papers from the International Symposium on Endangered Languages, ed. by Matsumura Kazuto, Tokyo, November 18–20, 1995, 213–252. (International Clearinghouse for Endangered Languages linguistic studies 1.)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations