Cover not available
Part of
Language, Culture and Identity – Signs of Life
Edited by Vera da Silva Sinha, Ana Moreno-Núñez and Zhen Tian
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts 13] 2020
► pp. 43–62

Chapter 3
North-South relations in linguistic science

Collaboration or colonialism?

| Université Lumière Lyon 2
| Hunan University
In this chapter, we attempt to unmask the ideological bias inherent in influential conceptions of the methods, motivations and practices of endangered language documentation research (ELDR). We highlight the extent to which common justifications for ELDR suppress the sociocultural and historical relations within which its practices are situated. We review the historical evolution of language documentation research, and its relationship to language preservation and revitalization. We ask what it is that makes ELDR scientific, critically analysing the models of “language” and of “science” that are frequently deployed in arguments for its importance, and question the value-neutrality of the notion “scientific community” in this context. We suggest that the conjunction of dominant concepts of “language” and “data” generates an ideological construction of unequal competence that operates to justify unequal North-South exchange relations. We document this claim of unequal and at times abusive North-South exchange with brief, anonymized case studies. We conclude by noting that, in comparison with other social science disciplines, linguistics seems resistant to reflexive and self-critical analysis of its ideological dimension; and suggesting possible ways of raising awareness and generalizing models of good practice.
Keywords: endangered languages, ideology of linguistics, language documentation, language preservation, language revitalization
Article outline
  • Introduction: Why document endangered languages?
  • ELDR: Evolving paradigms
  • North-South relations: Unequal exchange between academics and communities
  • North-South relations: Unequal exchange inside the academe
    • Case study 1: Does “data collection” count as research?
    • Case study 2: Are field sites “open territory”?
    • Case study 3: To what extent, and when, should data be in the public domain?
    • General discussion
  • Concluding reflections on theory, methodology, goals and values
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.13.03gri
References (37)
References
Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter. 2016. “Language Documentation 20 years on.” In Endangered Languages and Languages in Danger: Issues of documentation, policy and language rights [IMPACT Series 42: Studies in Language and Society], Martin Pütz and Luna Filipovic (eds.), 147–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, Peter and Sallabank, Julia (eds.) 2010. The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2010. “The forms of capital.” In Cultural Theory: An anthology, Szeman, Imre and Timothy Kaposy (eds.), 81–93. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Brenzinger, Matthias (ed). 2006. Endangered Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cabral, Ana Suelly Arruda C., Sampaio, Wany and Silva Sinha, Vera da. 2016. “Indigenous language policies in Brazil: training indigenous people as teachers and researchers.” In Endangered Languages and Languages in Danger: Issues of documentation, policy and language rights [IMPACT Series 42: Studies in Language and Society], Martin Pütz and Luna Filipovic (eds.), 45–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah, Frazer, Elizabeth, Harvey, Penelope, Rampton, M. Ben H. and Richardson, Kay. 1992. “Introduction.” In Researching Language: Issues of Power and Method, 1–28. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chandler, Michael J., Christopher Lalonde, Bryan Sokol, Darcy Hallett and James Marcia. 2003. “Personal persistence, identity development, and suicide: A study of native and non-native North American adolescents.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 68 (2): i–138.Google Scholar
Clifford, James and Marcus, George E. 1986. Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Michael, John Gay, Joseph Glick and Donald Sharp. 1971. The Cultural Context of Learning and Thinking: An exploration in experimental anthropology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette. 1992. “Miss Nora, rescuer of the Rama language: A story of power and empowerment.” In Locating Power, Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference [vol. 1]. Kira Hall, Mary Bucholtz and Birch Moonwomon (eds.), 80–89. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Commentary on: Ethics, Advocacy and Empowerment: Issues in methods in researching language.” Journal of Language and Communication 13 (2): 81–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dorian, Nancy C. 1982. Defining the Speech Community to Include its Working Margins. In Sociolinguistic Variation in Speech Communities, Suzanne Romaine (ed), 25–33. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Emmanuel, Arghiri, Charles Bettelheim and Brian Pearce. 1972. Unequal exchange: A study of the imperialism of trade. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
England, Nora C. 2003. “Mayan language revival and revitalization politics: Linguists and linguistic ideologies.” American Anthropologist, 105, 4: 733–743.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2005. “Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã” [including commentary]. Current Anthropology 46: 621–646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Pirahã culture and grammar: A response to some criticisms.” Language 85: 405–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergen, Kenneth J., Aydan Gulerc, Andrew Lock and Girishwar Misra. 1996. “Psychological science in cultural context.” American Psychologist 51: 496–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gippert, Jost, Himmelman, Nikolaus P., Mosel, Ulrike (eds.). 2006. Essentials of Language Documentation [Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs, 178]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grenoble, Lenore and Whaley, Lindsay J. 2006. Saving languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grinevald, Colette. 1998. “Language Endangerment in South America: A Programmatic Approach.” In Endangered Languages, Lenore A. Grenoble and Lindsay J. Whaley (eds), 124–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “Los lingüistas frente a las lenguas indígenas.” In As línguas amazônicas hoje, Francisco Queixalos and Odile Renault-Lescure (eds), 35–53. São Paulo: IRD MPEG Instituto Socioambiental.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Linguistique et langues mayas du Guatemala.” Faits de Langues Meso-Amerique, Caraibes, Amazonie 20 (1): 17–27. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
. 2006. “A view from the field: An Amerindian view, worrying about ethics and wondering about informed consent.” In Lesser Known Languages in South Asia: Status and policies, Case Studies and Applications of Information Technology [TiLSM 175], Anju Saxena and Lars Borin (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grinevald, Colette and Bert, Michel (eds). 2010a. “Linguistique de terrain sur langues en danger: Locuteurs et linguiste.” Faits de Langues: 35–36. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
. 2010b. “Speakers and community.” In The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages, Peter K. Austin and Julia Sallabank (eds.), 45–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Whose ideology, when and where: Revitalization of Rama (Nicaragua) and Francoprovençal (France).” In Endangered languages: Ideologies and beliefs, Peter K. Austin and Julia Sallabank (eds.), 357–385. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hallett, Darcy, Chandler, Michael and Lalonde, Christopher. 2007. “Aboriginal language knowledge and youth suicide.” Cognitive Development 22: 392–399.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2006. “Language Documentation: What is it and what is it good for?” In Essentials of Language Documentation. Jost Gippert, Nikolaus. P. Himmelmann and Ulrike Mosel (eds.), 1–30. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2014. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Available at [URL]. Retrieved 29 July 2015.
Minasyan, Anahit. 2014. “UN Discourse on Linguistic Diversity and Multilingualism in the 2000s: Actor Analysis, Ideological Foundations, and Instrumental Functions.” In Endangered languages: Ideologies and beliefs. Peter. K. Austin and Julia Sallabank (eds.), 385–406. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, Pesetsky, David and Rodrigues, Cilene. 2009. “Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment.” Language 85: 355–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, Paul. 2003. “The endangered languages issue as a hopeless cause.” In Language Death and Language Maintenance, Mark Janse and Sijmen Tol (eds.), 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pütz, Martin and Luna Filipovic (eds.). 2016. Endangered Languages and Languages in Danger: Issues of documentation, policy and language rights [IMPACT Series 42: Studies in Language and Society], 147–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad (ed). 2015. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Tony and England, Nora. 2004. “Training speakers of indigenous languages of Latin America at a US university.” In Language Documentation and Description [vol 2], Peter K. Austin (ed), 122–139. London: SOAS.Google Scholar