Between Indiana Jones and aDoctor Without Borders: a Problematization of the “Field” in Contemporary Linguistics
https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2021-3-238-253
EDN: TIUOTR
Abstract
This paper is devoted to the problematization of field linguistics, a discipline, as defined by A.E. Kibrik, which develops and practices methods of obtaining information about a language unknown to the researcher on the basis of working with the language’s speakers. We examine the discipline’s colonial genealogy (XVI-XIX centuries), the marginalization of field methods and the subdiscipline in linguistics of the 1960s and 1980s, due to the flowering ofstructural and generative linguistics, and the rediscovery of the field, already on a new level, due to the understanding of the need to record and preserve thousands of dying languages. In contrast to social and cultural anthropology, where the collapse of colonial empires forced a rethinking of the field as an obligatory departure to exotic territories, in linguistics the emphasis on dying languages ties fieldwork to places that survived colonialism, i.e. affirms the opposition of dying “primitive” cultures and the modernity that destroysthem. Since the defense of languages under the threat of extinction is proclaimed asthe main foundation of the discipline, the scholars may perform their work insofar as the local communities help them, and they are obliged to repay this debt indefinitely. In other words, the ethos of field linguistics is constructed primarily in relation to informants (the host community) - purely scientific goals are understood as self-evident and do not require separate motivational texts. Particular attention is paid to the ambivalence of the new legitimation of field linguistics (isit possible to preserve languages?), the empirical opposition of “empiricists” versus “arm-chair” linguists, and the critical analysis of field mythologiesin linguistics and the implicit conflict between ethical and aesthetic self-justifications of the discipline - despite all distancing from Victorian science, with its gentlemen scholars, the latter is still present as a reference point, as the foundation of the discipline. This article was written on the basis of analysis of books, articles, and textbooks by linguists, as well as a series of in-depth interviews (N=6) with Russian linguists, experts in the languages of India (conducted in 2021)
About the Author
Artyom A. Kosmarski
State Academic University for the Humanities; HSE University, Moscow, Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
MA in Sociology (CEU/University of the State of New
York), senior researcher, Centre for Applied and Field Research, Institute of Cultural Studies, Faculty of Urban and Regional Development, HSE University; deputy head of the Laboratory for the Study of Blockchain in Education and Science
(LIBON), State Academic University forthe Humanities (GAUGN)
References
1. Aikhenvald A.Y. (2007) Linguistic fieldwork: setting thescene. Linguistic Fieldwork. A Special issue of Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 60: 1-11.
2. Bowern C. (2008) Linguistic Fieldwork. A Practical Guide, New York: Palgrave MacMillan
3. Brögger J. (1966) Linguistics and social anthropology. Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology,
4. (1-4): 151-160.
5. Calhoun D. (2018) Colonial collectors: missionaries’ botanical and linguistic prospecting in French colonial Africa. Canadian Journal of African Studies/Revuecanadienne
6. des études africaines, 52 (2): 205-228.
7. Chelliah Sh.L., de Reuse W. J. (2011) Handbook of Descriptive Linguistic Fieldwork, London; New York: Springer.
8. Chomsky N.A. (1957) Syntactic Structures, The Hague: Mouton.
9. Considine J. (2008) Dictionaries in early modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Considine J. (2017) Small dictionaries and curiosity. Lexicography and fieldwork in postmedieval Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Cooper F. (2005) Colonialism in question: theory, knowledge, history, Berkeley: University
12. of California Press.
13. Crowley T. (2007) Field Linguistics. A Beginner’s Guide, Oxford: Oxford University
14. Press.
15. Dimmendaal G. J. (2001) Places and people: field sites and informants. P. Newman, M. Ratliff (eds) Linguistic Fieldwork, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:
16. -75.
17. Errington J. (2008) Linguistics in a Colonial World: A Story of Language, Meaning, and
18. Power, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
19. Everett D.L. (2001) Monolingual field research. P. Newman, M. Ratliff (eds) Linguistic
20. Fieldwork, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 166–188.
21. Everett D.L. (2004) Coherent fieldwork. P. van Sterkenburg (ed.) Linguisticstoday—Facing a greater challenge, Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 141-162.
22. Hale K.L. (1992) Language endangerment and the human value of linguistic diversity. Language, 68 (1): 35-42.
23. Harrison D. (2010) The last speakers: The quest to save the world’s most endangered languages, Washington, D.C.: National Geographic.
24. Hyman L.M. (2001) Fieldwork as a state of mind. P. Newman, M. Ratliff (eds) Linguistic
25. Fieldwork, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 15-33.
26. Hymes D.H., Fought J. (1981) American Structuralism, The Hague: Mouton.
27. Laughlin R.M., Haviland J.B. (1988) The Great TzotzilDictionary of SantoDomingo Zinacantán, with Grammatical Analysis and Historical Commentary. (Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, No. 31.), Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
28. Lee R.M. (1995) Dangerous Fieldwork. (Qualitative Research Methods, 34), Newbury
29. Park, CA: Sage.
30. Macaulay M. (2011) Training linguistics students for the realities of fieldwork.
31. N. Thieberger (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 456-472.
32. Makkai A. (1986) The Lexo-Centric Approach to Descriptive Linguistics. B. F. Elson
33. (ed.) Language in Global Perspective: Papers in Honor of the 50th Anniversary of the Summer Institute of Linguistics 1935–1985, Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics:
34. –61.
35. Meakins F., Green J., Turpin M. (2018) Understanding Linguistic Fieldwork, London;
36. New York: Routledge.
37. Mithun M. (2007) Grammars and the Community. T.E. Payne, D. J. Weber (eds) Perspectives on Grammar Writing. (Benjamins Current Topics 11), Amsterdam; Philadelphia:
38. John Benjamins: 45–69.
39. Newman P. (1992) Fieldwork and field methods in linguistics. California Linguistic
40. Notes, 23 (2):2-8.
41. Newman P., Ratliff M. (eds) (2001) Linguistic Fieldwork, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Newmeyer F. J. (1980) Linguistic Theory in America. The First Quarter-Century of Transformational Generative Grammar, New York: Academic.
43. Ortner Sh.B. (1984) Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in
44. Society and History, 26 (1): 126-166.
45. Ottenberg S. (1990) Thirty years of fieldnotes: changing relationships to the text.
46. R. Sanjek (ed.) Fieldnotes: The Makings o f Anthropology, Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press:
47. -160.
48. Pike K. (1947) Phonemics: a technique for reducing languages to writing, Ann Arbor, MI:
49. University of Michigan Press.
50. Rice K. (2011) Ethical issues in linguistic fieldwork. N. Thieberger (ed.) The Oxford
51. Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 407-429.
52. Samarin W. J. (1967) Field Linguistics. A Guide to Linguistic Field Work, New York: Holt,
53. Rinehart & Winston.
54. Sturtevant W.C. (2005) History of Research on theNative American Languages ofthe
55. Southeast. H.K. Hardy, J. Scancarelli (eds) Native Languages of the Southeastern United
56. States, Lincoln; London: University of Nebraska Press.
57. Talmy L. (2018) Introspection as a Methodology in Linguistics. Ten Lectures on Cognitive Semantics. Brill: 218–262.
58. Thieberger N. (ed.) (2011) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork, Oxford: Oxford
59. University Press.
60. Wolfram W. (1998) Scrutinizing Linguistic Gratuity: Issuesfrom the Field. Journal of
61. Sociolinguistics, 2: 271-279.
62. Zwartjes O. (ed.) (2000) Las gramáticas misioneras detradición hispánica (siglos XVI-XVII),
63. Amsterdam: Atlanta: Rodopi.
64. Zwartjes O., Hovdhaugen E. (eds) (2004) Missionary Linguistics/Lingüística Misionera:
65. Selected Papersfrom the FirstInternational Conference on Missionary Linguistics (Oslo, 13–16
66. March 2003), Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Review
For citations:
Kosmarski A.A. Between Indiana Jones and aDoctor Without Borders: a Problematization of the “Field” in Contemporary Linguistics. Sociology of Power. 2021;33(3):238-253. https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2021-3-238-253. EDN: TIUOTR
Views:
1
Email this article 