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) by addressing the unequal exchange that frequently characterizes the relationship between the linguistic researcher, on the one hand, and the language community and, in some cases, local researchers, on the other. We highlight the extent to which common answers to the question “Why document endangered languages?” suppress the sociocultural and historical relations within which ELDR practices are situated. We review the historical evolution of the conceptualization 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”, and the relations between “international” and “local” ELD researchers, 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.
Anderson, B. 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso Books.
Austin, P. & Sallabank, J. (eds). 2010. The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, 45–65. Cambridge: CUP.
Brenzinger, B. (ed.). 2006. Endangered Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bourdieu, P. 2010. The forms of capital. In Cultural Theory: An Anthology, I. Szeman & T. Kaposy (eds), 81–93. New York NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, B. & Richardson, K. 1992. Introduction. In Researching Language: Issues of Power and Method, 1–28. London: Routledge.
Chandler, M.J., Lalonde, C., Sokol, B., Hallett, D. & Marcia, J. 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.
Clifford, J. & Marcus, G.E. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J. & Sharp, D. 1971. The Cultural Context of Learning and Thinking: An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology. New York NY: Basic Books.
Craig, C. 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, K. Hall, M. Bucholtz & B. Moonwomon (eds), 80–89. Berkeley.
Craig, C. 1993. Commentary on: Ethics, advocacy and empowerment: Issues in methods in researching language. Journal of Language and Communication 13(2): 81–94.
Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: OUP.
Dorian, N.C. 1982. Defining the speech community to include its working margins. In Sociolinguistic Variation in Speech Communities, S. Romaine (ed.), 25–33. London: Edward Arnold.
Emmanuel, A., Bettelheim, C. & Pearce, B. 1972. Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade. New York NY: Monthly Review Press.
Everett, D. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology 46: 621–646.
Everett, D. 2009. Pirahã culture and grammar: A response to some criticisms. Language 85: 405–422.
Gergen, K.J., Gulerc, A., Lock, A. & Misra, G. 1996. Psychological science in cultural context. American Psychologist 51: 496–503.
Gippert, J., Himmelman, N. & Mosel, U. (eds). 2006. Essentials of Language Documentation [Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 178]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grenoble, L. & Whaley, L. 2006. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: CUP.
Grinevald, C. 2000. Los lingüistas frente a las lenguas indígenas. In As Línguas Amazônicas Hoje, F. Queixalos & O. Renault-Lescure (eds), 35–53. Saõ Paolo: IRD MPEG Instituto Socioambiental,
Grinevald, C. 2002. Linguistique et langues mayas du Guatemala. Faits de Langues. Meso-Amerique, Caraibes, Amazonie 20(1): 17–27.
Grinevald, C. 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, A. Saxena & L. Borin (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grinevald, C. & Bert, M. (eds). 2010a. Linguistique de Terrain sur Langues en Danger: Locuteurs et Linguiste. Faits de Langues, 35–36. Paris: Ophrys.
Grinevald, C. & Bert, M. 2010b. Speakers and community. In Austin & Sallabank (eds), 45–65.
Grinevald, C. & Bert, M. 2014. Whose ideology, when and where: Revitalization of Rama (Nicaragua) and Francoprovençal (France). In Austin & Sallabank (eds), 357–385.
Hallett, D., Chandler, M. & Lalonde, C. 2007. Aboriginal language knowledge and youth suicide. Cognitive Development 22: 392–399.
Himmelmann, N.P. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36: 161–196.
Himmelmann, N.P. 2006. Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for? In Gippert, Himmelman & Mosel (eds), 1–30.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2014. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals, 29 July 2015. <[URL]>
Minasyan, A. 2014. UN discourse on linguistic diversity and multilingualism in the 2000s: Actor analysis, ideological foundations, and instrumental functions. In Austin & Sallabank (eds), 385–406.
Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D. & Rodrigues, C. 2009. Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85: 355–404.
Newman, P. 2003. The endangered languages issue as a hopeless cause. In Language Death and Language Maintenance [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 240], M. Janse & S. Tol (eds), 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sharifian, F. (ed.). 2015. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Abingdon: Routledge.
Woodbury, A. & England, N. 2004. Training speakers of indigenous languages of Latin America at a US university. In Language Documentation and Description, 2, P.K. Austin (ed.), 122–139. London: SOAS.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Yamane, Maxwell & Mary Phillips
2024. ‘The stories are told by us’/U.S.: politics of telling stories about Indigenous languages with (and without) music. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 45:1 ► pp. 22 ff.
2021. ¿Por qué, para qué y para quién documentar una lengua indígena? Documentación lingüística desde una perspectiva situada. Visitas al Patio 15:2 ► pp. 167 ff.
H. Ekkehard Wolff
2019. The Cambridge Handbook of African Linguistics,
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 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.