Cover not available
Part of
Language Documentation and Endangerment in Africa
Edited by James Essegbey, Brent Henderson and Fiona Mc Laughlin
[Culture and Language Use 17] 2015
► pp. 215–238

Folk definitions in linguistic fieldwork

ORCID logo
Informal paraphrases by native speaker consultants are crucial tools in linguistic fieldwork. When recorded, archived, and analysed, they offer rich data that can be mined for many purposes, from lexicography to semantic typology and from ethnography to the investigation of gesture and speech. This paper describes a procedure for the collection and analysis of folk definitions that are native (in the language under study rather than the language of analysis), informal (spoken rather than written), and multi-modal (preserving the integrity of gesture-speech composite utterances). The value of folk definitions is demonstrated using the case of ideophones, words that are notoriously hard to study using traditional elicitation methods. Three explanatory strategies used in a set of folk definitions of ideophones are examined: the offering of everyday contexts of use, the use of depictive gestures, and the use of sense relations as semantic anchoring points. Folk definitions help elucidate word meanings that are hard to capture, bring to light cultural background knowledge that often remains implicit, and take seriously the crucial involvement of native speaker consultants in linguistic fieldwork. They provide useful data for language documentation and are an essential element of any toolkit for linguistic and ethnographic field research.
Published online: 22 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/clu.17.09din
References (62)
References
Agar, Michael. 2009. Ethnography. In Culture and Language Use [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 2], Gunter Senft, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds), 110–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ameka, Felix K. 2008. Constructing and describing meanings. Plenary lecture presented at the West African Languages Congress, University of Education, Winneba.
Bernard, H. Russell. 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology. Lanham MD: Altamira Press, Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Blench, Roger. 2010. The sensory world: Ideophones in Africa and elsewhere. In Perception of the Invisible: Religion, Historical Semantics and the Role of Perceptive Verbs, Anne Storch (ed.), 275–296. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Bouquiaux, Luc & Thomas, Jacqueline M.C. (eds). 1992. Studying and Describing Unwritten Languages. Dallas TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bowern, Clair. 2007. Linguistic Fieldwork: A Practical Guide. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casagrande, Joseph B. & Hale, Kenneth. 1967. Semantic relationships in Papago folk definitions. In Studies in Southwestern Ethnolinguistics: Meaning and History in the Languages of the American Southwest, Dell Hymes & William E. Bittle (eds), 165–193. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana L. & de Reuse, Willem J. 2011. Handbook of Descriptive Linguistic Fieldwork. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Childs, G. Tucker. 1993. Lexicography in West Africa: Some problems and issues. Lexikos 3: 13–28.Google Scholar
. 1994a. African ideophones. In Sound Symbolism, Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala (eds), 178–204. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1994b. Expressiveness in contact situations: The fate of African ideophones. Journal of Pidgin and Creole languages 9(2): 257–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowley, Terry. 2007. Field Linguistics: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Diffloth, Gérard. 1972. Notes on expressive meaning. Chicago Linguistic Society 8: 440–447.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 1995. Studying lexical-semantic fields in languages: Nature versus nurture, or where does culture come in these days. Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter 7: 1–28.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2011. The Meaning and Use of Ideophones in Siwu. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen. <[URL]>
. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10): 654–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Ideophones and gesture in everyday speech. Gesture 13(2): 143–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Blythe, Joe & Dirksmeyer, Tyko. 2014. Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages: An exercise in pragmatic typology. Studies in Language 38(1): 5–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2007. Field linguistics: A minor manual. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60(1): 12–31.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2003. The definition of what-d’you-call-it: semantics and pragmatics of recognitional deixis. Journal of Pragmatics 35(1): 101–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J., Kendrick, Kobin H., de Ruiter, Jan Peter, Stivers, Tanya & Levinson, Stephen C. 2011. Building a corpus of spontaneous interaction. In Field Manual, Vol. 14, Kobin H. Kendrick & Asifa Majid (eds), 29–32. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 2001. Monolingual fieldwork. In Linguistic Fieldwork, Paul Newman & Martha Susan Ratliff (eds), 166–188. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Karl J. 1971. Some comments on eliciting cultural data. Anthropological Linguistics 13(7): 339–348.Google Scholar
Garvey, Catherine. 1977. The contingent query: A dependent act in conversation. In Interaction, Conversation, and the Development of Language, Michael Lewis & Leonard A. Rosenblum (eds), 63–94. New York NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Geurts, Kathryn Linn. 2002. Culture and the Senses: Bodily Ways of Knowing in an African Community. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Birgit. 2006. Semantics: Field work methods. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Keith Brown (ed.), 180–183. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Meaning and translation in linguistic fieldwork. Studies in Language 34(4): 802–831. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kockelman, Paul. 2010. Language, Culture, and Mind. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem J.M., Roelofs, Ardi & Meyer, Antje S. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(1): 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lydall, Jean. 2000. Having fun with ideophones: A socio-linguistic look at ideophones in Hamar, Southern Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the XIV International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Baye Yimam, Richard Pankhurst, David Chapple, Yonas Admassu, Alula Pankhurst & Birhanu Teferra (eds), 886–91. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Vols 1–2. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In The Meaning of Meaning, Charles Kay Ogden & Ivor Armstrong Richards (eds), 296–336. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Manes, Joan. 1980. Ways of defining: Folk definitions and the study of semantics. Forum Linguisticum 5: 122–139.Google Scholar
Mathiot, Madeleine. 1967. The place of the dictionary in linguistic description. Language 43(3): 703–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1979. Folk-definitions as a tool for the analysis of lexical meaning. In Ethnolinguistics: Boas, Sapir and Whorf Revisited, Madeleine Mathiot (ed.), 121–260. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1982. The synchronic and diachronic behavior of plops, squeaks, croaks, sighs, and moans. International Journal of American Linguistics 48(1): 49–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moshi, Lioba. 1993. Ideophones in KiVunjo-Chaga. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3(2): 185–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, Paul & Ratliff, Martha (eds). 2001. Linguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noss, Philip A. 1999. The ideophone: A dilemma for translation and translation theory. In New Dimensions in African Linguistics and Languages, Paul F.A. Kotey (ed.), 261–272. Trenton NJ: Africa World Press.Google Scholar
Nuckolls, Janis B. 2000. Spoken in the spirit of gesture: Translating sound symbolism in a Pastaza Quechua Narrative. In Translating Native Latin American Verbal Art, Joel Sherzer & Kay Sammons (eds), 233–251. Washington DC: Smithsonian Press.Google Scholar
Okpewho, Isidore. 1992. African Oral Literature: Backgrounds, Character, and Continuity. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax. A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Perchonock, Norma & Werner, Oswald. 1969. Navaho systems of classification: Some implications for ethnoscience. Ethnology 8(3): 229–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pole, Leonard M. 1982. Decline or survival? Iron production in West Africa from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries. Journal of African History 23(4): 503–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prietze, Rudolf. 1908. Die spezifischen Verstärkungsadverbien im Haussa und Kanuri. Mittheilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen 11(3): 307–317.Google Scholar
Rattray, Robert S. 1916. The iron workers of Akpafu. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 46: 431–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samarin, William J. 1967a. Determining the meaning of ideophones. Journal of West African Languages 4(2): 35–41.Google Scholar
. 1967b. Field Linguistics. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 1969. The art of Gbeya insults. International Journal of American Linguistics 35(4): 323–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1971. Survey of Bantu ideophones. African Language Studies 12: 130–168.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail & Sacks, Harvey. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2): 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlegel, Joh. Bernhard. 1857. Schlüssel der Ewesprache, dargeboten in den grammatischen Grundzügen des Anlodialekts. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
De Schryver, Gilles-Maurice. 2009. The lexicographic treatment of ideophones in Zulu. Lexikos 19: 34–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1981. The Limits of Awareness. Austin TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Vidal, Owen Emeric. 1852. Introductory Remarks. In A Vocabulary of the Yoruba Language, Samuel Ajayi Crowther (ed.), 1–38. London: Seeleys.Google Scholar
Voeltz, F.K. Erhard & Kilian-Hatz, Christa (eds). 2001. Ideophones [Typological Studies in Language 44]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, Richard L. 2001. A comparison of some Southeast Asian ideophones with Some African ideophones. In Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz (eds), 385–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1962. Lexicographic definition in descriptive semantics. In Problems in Lexicography, Fred W. Householder & Sol Saporta (eds), 25–44. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press & The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Werner, Oswald. 1993. Short take 10: Semantic accent and folk definitions. Cultural Anthropology Methods 5(2): 6–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Defina, Rebecca, Mark Dingemanse & Saskia van Putten
2024. Chapter 1. Linguistic fieldwork as team science. In Predication in African Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series, 235], ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo
Barnes, Kathryn & Cornelia Ebert
2023. The information status of iconic enrichments: modelling gradient at-issueness. Theoretical Linguistics 49:3-4 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
Badenoch, Nathan
2022. Silence, Cessation and Stasis: The Ethnopoetics of “Absence” in Bit Expressives. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 32:1 ► pp. 94 ff. DOI logo
Thompson, Arthur Lewis, Thomas Van Hoey & Youngah Do
2021. Articulatory features of phonemes pattern to iconic meanings: evidence from cross-linguistic ideophones. Cognitive Linguistics 32:4 ► pp. 563 ff. DOI logo
Nuckolls, Janis B.
2020. “How do you even know what ideophones mean?”. Gesture 19:2-3 ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.