Collaborative Linguistic Fieldwork: Practical Application of the Empowerment Model

Academic linguists working to document and describe minoritized and endangered languages share with speech community members a devotion to the language of study. For the academic, language provides a window into cognition and the capacity of the human mind. For the speech community member, language represents cultural heritage and, for many, a tie to place and a sense of identity. Both parties have a vested interest in the documentation, description, and preservation of lesser-spoken languages as a way to perpetuate global linguistic and cultural diversity and maintain ties to heritage. Many who conduct linguistic fieldwork with endangered languages have noted that the needs and desires of the speech community are often subordinated in favor of those of the academic linguist. Some academics fear that time spent meeting community needs diminishes the field-worker’s academic productivity. This paper describes several collaborative, community-based projects that address the needs of both academics and the speech community, using case-study examples from the author’s own fieldwork with a Kari’nja community in Suriname. In discussing each project, emphasis is given to practical methods of meeting needs of both the academic and speech communities, and to how this ensures more balanced participation of each in the linguistic fieldwork endeavor .

[1]  B. J. Hoff Evidentiality in carib Particles, affixes, and a variant of Wackernagel's law , 1986 .

[2]  K. Hale,et al.  Book Review: The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice , 2001 .

[3]  Spike Gildea,et al.  On Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban Morphosyntax , 1998 .

[4]  Russell S. Tomlin,et al.  Language and conceptualization: Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: the role of attention in grammar , 1997 .

[5]  Vine Deloria Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto , 1969 .

[6]  N. Louanna Furbee,et al.  A collaborative model for preparing indigenous curators of a heritage language , 2002 .

[7]  Arienne M. Dwyer,et al.  Ethics and practicalities of cooperative fieldwork and analysis , 2006 .

[8]  Russell S. Tomlin,et al.  Focal attention, voice, and word order: an experimental, cross-linguistic study , 1995 .

[9]  Dan I. Slobin,et al.  The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events , 2004 .

[10]  Ulrike Mosel,et al.  Dictionary making in endangered speech communities , 2002 .

[11]  B. J. Hoff Configurationality and Nonconfigurationality in the Carib Language of Surinam , 1995, International Journal of American Linguistics.

[12]  David P. Wilkins Linguistic research under aboriginal control: A personal account of fieldwork in central Australia 1 , 1992 .

[13]  Marianne Mithun,et al.  Linguistic Fieldwork: Who shapes the record: the speaker and the linguist , 2001 .

[14]  Desmond C. Derbyshire Hixkaryana and Linguistic Typology , 1985 .

[15]  Keren Rice,et al.  Ethical Issues In Linguistic Fieldwork: An Overview , 2007 .

[16]  Colette Grinevald,et al.  Endangered languages: Language endangerment in South America: a programmatic approach , 1998 .

[17]  Margaret J. Florey,et al.  Countering purism: confronting the emergence of new varieties in a training program for community language workers , 2004 .