Cover not available
Part of
Language Contact and Change in the Americas: Studies in honor of Marianne Mithun
Edited by Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker, Diane M. Hintz and Carmen Jany
[Studies in Language Companion Series 173] 2016
► pp. 247–272

Language documentation and historical linguistics

| University of Hawai‘i Manoa

This paper examines the relationship between language documentation, especially documentation of endangered languages, and historical linguistics. It address the questions, why is language documentation important to historical linguistics? and what can historical linguistics contribute to language documentation? Several ways in which the two are interconnected, mutually supportive, and together contribute to linguistics generally are discussed, illustrated by examples from a number of indigenous languages of the Americas.

Keywords: endangered languages, historical linguistics, language documentation
Published online: 19 April 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.173.11cam
References
Bellwood, Peter
2001 Early agriculturalist population diasporas? Farming, languages, and genes. Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 181-207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Farmers, foragers, languages, genes: The genesis of agricultural societies. In Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, Peter Bellwood & Colin Renfrew (eds), 17-28. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1925 On the sound system of Central Algonquian. Language 1: 130-56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1928 A note on sound-change. Language 4: 99-100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1933 Language. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
1946 Algonquian. In Linguistic Structures of Native America [Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 6], Harry Hoijer (ed.), 85-129. New York: The Viking Fund.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert
1990 Summary report: Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology in the Austronesian language family. In Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology, Philip Baldi (ed.), 133-54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
1985 The Pipil Language of El Salvador. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Linguistic reconstruction and unwritten languages. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Ronald E. Asher & James M.Y. Simpson (eds), 3475-80. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
1996 On sound change and challenges to regularity. In The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds), 72-89. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003 What drives linguistic diversity and language spread? In Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, Peter Bellwood & Colin Renfrew (eds), 49-63. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
2013 Historical Linguistics: An Introduction, 3rd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, and Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Grondona, Verónica
2010 Who speaks what to whom?: Multilingualism and language choice in Misión La Paz – A unique case. Language in Society 39: 1-30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Linguistic acculturation in Nivaclé (Chulupí) and Chorote. International Journal of American Linguistics 78: 335-67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Muntzel, Martha
1989 The structural consequences of language death. In Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Death, Nancy Dorian (ed.), 181-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Poser, William J
2008 Language Classification: History and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nick
2010 Dying Words: Endangered Languages and What They Have to Tell Us. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. & Wilson, Robert
1971 Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border in India. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, Dell Hymes (ed.), 151–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R
1941 Tunica. (Extract from Handbook of American Indian Languages, Vol. IV.) New York NY: J.J. Augustin.Google Scholar
1946 A grammatical sketch of Tunica. In Linguistic Structures of Native America [Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 6], Harry Hoijer (ed.), 337-66. New York: The Viking Fund.Google Scholar
1950 Tunica texts. University of California Publications in Linguistics 6: 1-174.Google Scholar
1953 Tunica dictionary. University of California Publications in Linguistics 6: 175-332.Google Scholar
1969 The Prehistory of Languages [Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 57]. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken
1998 On endangered languages and the importance of linguistic diversity. In Endangered Languages: Current Issues and Future Prospects, Lenore Grenoble & Lindsay Whaley (eds), 192-216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrison, K. David
2007 When Languages Die: The Extinction of the World’s Languages and Erosion of Human Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heaton, Raina
2013 Active-stative agreement in Tunica. Paper presented at the annual Linguistic Society of America meeting.
Hetzron, Robert
1997 The Semitic languages. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus
1998 Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36: 161-95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for? In Essentials of Language Documentation, Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, & Ulrike Mosel (eds), 1-30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Linguistic data types and the interface between language documentation and description. Language Documentation and Conservation 6: 187-207. [URL]Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F
1948 Implications of Bloomfield's Algonquian studies. Language 24: 117-31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1994 Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2011 Principles of Linguistic Change: Cognitive and Cultural Factors. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Leem, Knud
1748 En Lappisk grammatica, efter den dialect, som bruges af Field-Lapperne udi Porsanger-Fjorden, samt et register over de udi samme grammatica anførte obervationers indhold. Copenhagen: Gottman Friederich Risel.Google Scholar
1768-81 Lexicon Lapponicum bipartitum: Lapponico-Danica-Latinum & Danico-Latino-Lappinicum, cum indice Latino. Vol. 1: Trondheim, Vol. 2: Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Peter C
1979 Dual-lingualism: Passive bilingualism in action. Te Reo 22: 65-72.Google Scholar
Maffi, Luisa
2005 Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 599-617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine & Cohen, Marcel
1924 Les langues du monde [Collection Linguistique 16]. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Nadkarni, Mangesh V
1975 Bilingualism and syntactic change in Konkani. Language 51: 672‑83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nettle, Daniel & Romaine, Suzanne
2000 Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, John Wesley
1891 Indian linguistic families of America north of Mexico. Seventh annual report, Bureau of American Ethnology, 1-142. Washington DC: Government Printing Office. Reprinted 1966, in: Franz Boas: Introduction to Handbook of American Indian languages; J.W. Powell: Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico, Preston Holder (ed.). Lincoln NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Rask, Rasmus K
1818 Undersøgelse om det gamle nordiske eller Islandiske sprogs oprindelse. Copenhagen: Gyldendal. English translation by Niels Ege, 1993, Investigations of the Origin of the Old Norse or Icelandic Language [Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 26]. Copenhagen: The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Rehg, Kenneth L
2007 The language documentation and conservation initiative at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. Documenting and revitalizing Austronesian languages. In Language Documentation and Conservation, Special Publication No. 1, Documenting and Revitalizing Austronesian Languages, D. Victoria Rau & Margaret Florey (eds), 13-24.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin
1996 Language families and the spread of farming. In The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, David R. Harris (ed.), 70–92. London: University College London Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Richard, Grenoble, Lenore A., Berge, Anna, & Radetzky, Paula
2007 Adequacy of Documentation. (A preliminary report to the CELP.) Linguistic Society of America Committee on Endangered Languages and their Preservation.
Sajnovics, Jo[h]annis [János]
1770 Demonstratio idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse. First edition 1770 Copenhagen: Typis Collegi societatis Iesu; second edition 1770 Trnava (Tyrnau), Hungary. Photolithic reproduction of Second edition 1968, Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), [Ural and Altaic Series 91]. Bloomington IN: Indiana University; The Hague: Mouton. German translation 1972, by M. Ehlers. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1913, 1915-1919. Southern Paiute and Nahuatl: A study in Uto-Aztecan. Journal de la Société des Américanists de Paris, Part 1, 10: 379-425, Part 2, 11: 433-88. Part 2 also printed 1915 American Anthropologist 17: 98-120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1931 The concept of phonetic law as tested in primitive languages by Leonard Bloomfield. In Methods in Social Science: A Case Book, Stuart A. Rice (ed.), 297-306. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Reprinted 1949, in: Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Personality, David Mandelbaum (ed.), 73-82. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Stipa, Günter Johannes
1990 Finnisch-ugrische Sprachforschung. Helsinki: Finno-Ugric Society (Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura).Google Scholar
Swanton, John R
1921 The Tunica language. International Journal of American Linguistics 2: 1-39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terraza, Jimena
2008 Gramática del Wichí: Fonología y Morfosintaxis. PhD dissertation, Université du Québec à Montréal.
Woodbury, Anthony
2010 Language documentation. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, Peter Austin & Julia Sallabank (eds), 159-186. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Ciucci, Luca
2021. From Fieldwork to Reconstruction: Historical Issues in Hotspots of Linguistic Diversity*. Studia Linguistica 75:2 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Lewis, M. Paul
2022. Promoting Linguistic Human Rights Through Language Documentation. In The Handbook of Linguistic Human Rights, ► pp. 613 ff. DOI logo
Rhee, Seongha
2023. Intertwined grammaticalization, degrammaticalization, and pragmaticalization: The case of ppwun ‘share’ in Korean. Lingua 291 ► pp. 103559 ff. DOI logo
Szeverényi, Sándor
2021. Proceedings of the 5th Mikola Conference [Proceedings of the 5th Mikola Conference, 54], ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 march 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.