Between Indiana Jones and a Doctor Without Borders: a Problematization of the “Field” in Contemporary Linguistics

Authors

  • Artyom A. Kosmarski State Academic University for the Humanities , HSE University Автор

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2021-3-238-253

Keywords:

linguistics, fieldwork, ethos of science, mythology of science

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).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Арно А., Лансло К. (1990) Грамматика общая и рациональная Пор-Рояля, М.: Прогресс.

Amauld A., Lancelot C. Grammaire generate et raisonnee de Port-Royal, M.: Progress. - in Russ

Бурдье П. (2005) Поле науки. Социология под вопросом. Социальные науки в постструктуралистской перспективе. Альманах Российско-французского центра социологии и философии Института социологии РАН, М.: Праксис: 15-56.

Bourdieu P. Le champ scientifique. In: Sociology in Question. Social Science in Poststructuralist Perspective. An Almanac of the Russian-French Center for Sociology and Philosophy of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, M: Praxis: 6 15-56. - in Russ

Кибрик А. (без даты) Полевая лингвистика. Энциклопедия "Кругосвет" (https://www.krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitarnye_nauki/lingvistika/POLEVAYA_LINGVISTIKA.html)

Kibrik A. Field linguistics. Encyclopedia "Krugosvet". (https://www.krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitamye_nauki/lingvistika/POLEVAYA_LINGVISTIKA.html). - in Russ

Тимофеева Н. (2010) Интроспекция как предмет и метод лингвистики. Вестник НГУ. Серия: История, филология, 9 (2): 3-12.

Timofeeva N. (2010) Introspection as a subject and method oflinguistics. Vestnik NSU. 11 Series: History, Philology, (9): 2. - in Russ

Хедрик Д. (2018) Власть над народами. Технологии, природа и западный империализм с 1400 года до наших дней, М.: ИД "Дело".

Headrick D. (2018) Power over Peoples. Technology, Environments, and Western Imperialism, 1400 to the Present, M.: Publishing house "Delo". - in Russ

Aikhenvald A. Y. (2007) Linguistic fieldwork: setting the scene. Linguistic Fieldwork. A Special issue of Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 60: 1-11

Bowern C. (2008) Linguistic Fieldwork. A Practical Guide, New York: Palgrave MacMillan Brogger J. (1966) Linguistics and social anthropology. Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology, 31 (1-4): 151-160

Calhoun D. (2018) Colonial collectors: missionaries' botanical and linguistic prospecting in French colonial Africa. Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des etudes africaines, 52 (2): 205-228.

Chelliah Sh.L., de Reuse W. J. (2011) Handbook of Descriptive Linguistic Fieldwork, London; New York: Springer.

Chomsky N. A. (1957) Syntactic Structures, The Hague: Mouton.

Considine J. (2008) Dictionaries in early modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Considine J. (2017) Small dictionaries and curiosity. Lexicography and fieldwork in postmedieval Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cooper F. (2005) Colonialism in question: theory, knowledge, history, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Crowley T. (2007) Field Linguistics. A Beginner's Guide, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dimmendaal G. J. (2001) Places and people: field sites and informants. P. Newman, M. Ratliff (eds) Linguistic Fieldwork, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 55-75.

Errington J. (2008) Linguistics in a Colonial World: A Story of Language, Meaning, and Power, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Everett D. L. (2001) Monolingual field research. P. Newman, M. Ratliff (eds) Linguistic Fieldwork, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 166-188.

Everett D. L. (2004) Coherent fieldwork. P. van Sterkenburg (ed.) Linguistics today-Facing a greater challenge, Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 141-162.

Hale K. L. (1992) Language endangerment and the human value of linguistic diversity. Language, 68 (1): 35-42.

Harrison D. (2010) The last speakers: The quest to save the world's most endangered languages, Washington, D. C.: National Geographic.

Hyman L. M. (2001) Fieldwork as a state of mind. P. Newman, M. Ratliff (eds) Linguistic Fieldwork, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 15-33.

Hymes D. H., Fought J. (1981) American Structuralism, The Hague: Mouton.

Laughlin R. M., Haviland J. B. (1988) The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of Santo Domingo Zina-cantdn, with Grammatical Analysis and Historical Commentary. (Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, No. 31.), Washington D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Lee R. M. (1995) Dangerous Fieldwork. (Qualitative Research Methods, 34), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Macaulay M. (2011) Training linguistics students for the realities of fieldwork. N. Thieberger (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 456-472.

Makkai A. (1986) The Lexo-Centric Approach to Descriptive Linguistics. B. F. Elson (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: 47-61.

Sociology of Power Vol. 33 № 3 (2021)

Meakins F., Green J., Turpin M. (2018) Understanding Linguistic Fieldwork, London; New York: Routledge.

Mithun M. (2007) Grammars and the Community. T. E. Payne, D. J. Weber (eds) Perspectives on Grammar Writing. (Benjamins Current Topics 11), Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 45-69.

Newman P. (1992) Fieldwork and field methods in linguistics. California Linguistic Notes, 23 (2):2-8.

Newman P., Ratliff M. (eds) (2001) Linguistic Fieldwork, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Newmeyer F. J. (1980) Linguistic Theory in America. The First Quarter-Century of Transformational Generative Grammar, New York: Academic.

Ortner Sh.B. (1984) Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties.Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26 (1): 126-166.

Ottenberg S. (1990) Thirty years of fieldnotes: changing relationships to the text. R. Sanjek (ed.) Fieldnotes: The Makings of Anthropology, Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 139-160.

Pike K. (1947) Phonemics: a technique for reducing languages to writing, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Rice K. (2011) Ethical issues in linguistic fieldwork. N. Thieberger (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 407-429.

Samarin W. J. (1967) Field Linguistics. A Guide to Linguistic Field Work, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Sturtevant W. C. (2005) History of Research on the Native American Languages of the Southeast. H. K. Hardy, J. Scancarelli (eds) Native Languages of the Southeastern United States, Lincoln; London: University of Nebraska Press.

Talmy L. (2018) Introspection as a Methodology in Linguistics. Ten Lectures on Cognitive Semantics. Brill: 218-262.

Thieberger N. (ed.) (2011) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wolfram W. (1998) Scrutinizing Linguistic Gratuity: Issues from the Field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2: 271-279.

Zwartjes O. (ed.) (2000) Las gramdticas misioneras de tradition hispdnica (siglos XVI-XVII), Amsterdam: Atlanta: Rodopi.

Zwartjes O., Hovdhaugen E. (eds) (2004) Missionary Linguistics/Lingmstica Misionera: Selected Papers from the First International Conference on Missionary Linguistics (Oslo, 13-16 March 2003), Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Errington J. (2008) Linguistics in a Colonial World: A Story of Language, Meaning, and Power, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Everett D. L. (2001) Monolingual field research. P. Newman, M. Ratliff (eds) Linguistic Fieldwork, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 166-188.

Everett D. L. (2004) Coherent fieldwork. P. van Sterkenburg (ed.) Linguistics today-Facing a greater challenge, Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 141-162.

Hale K. L. (1992) Language endangerment and the human value of linguistic diversity. Language, 68 (1): 35-42.

Harrison D. (2010) The last speakers: The quest to save the world's most endangered languages, Washington, D. C.: National Geographic.

Hyman L. M. (2001) Fieldwork as a state of mind. P. Newman, M. Ratliff (eds) Linguistic Fieldwork, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 15-33.

Hymes D. H., Fought J. (1981) American Structuralism, The Hague: Mouton.

Laughlin R. M., Haviland J. B. (1988) The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of Santo Domingo Zina-cantdn, with Grammatical Analysis and Historical Commentary. (Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, No. 31.), Washington D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Lee R. M. (1995) Dangerous Fieldwork. (Qualitative Research Methods, 34), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Macaulay M. (2011) Training linguistics students for the realities of fieldwork. N. Thieberger (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 456-472.

Makkai A. (1986) The Lexo-Centric Approach to Descriptive Linguistics. B. F. Elson (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: 47-61.

Sociology of Power Vol. 33 № 3 (2021)

Meakins F., Green J., Turpin M. (2018) Understanding Linguistic Fieldwork, London; New York: Routledge.

Mithun M. (2007) Grammars and the Community. T. E. Payne, D. J. Weber (eds) Perspectives on Grammar Writing. (Benjamins Current Topics 11), Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 45-69.

Newman P. (1992) Fieldwork and field methods in linguistics. California Linguistic Notes, 23 (2):2-8.

Newman P., Ratliff M. (eds) (2001) Linguistic Fieldwork, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Newmeyer F. J. (1980) Linguistic Theory in America. The First Quarter-Century of Transformational Generative Grammar, New York: Academic.

Ortner Sh.B. (1984) Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties.Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26 (1): 126-166.

Ottenberg S. (1990) Thirty years of fieldnotes: changing relationships to the text. R. Sanjek (ed.) Fieldnotes: The Makings of Anthropology, Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 139-160.

Pike K. (1947) Phonemics: a technique for reducing languages to writing, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Rice K. (2011) Ethical issues in linguistic fieldwork. N. Thieberger (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 407-429.

Samarin W. J. (1967) Field Linguistics. A Guide to Linguistic Field Work, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Sturtevant W. C. (2005) History of Research on the Native American Languages of the Southeast. H. K. Hardy, J. Scancarelli (eds) Native Languages of the Southeastern United States, Lincoln; London: University of Nebraska Press.

Talmy L. (2018) Introspection as a Methodology in Linguistics. Ten Lectures on Cognitive Semantics. Brill: 218-262.

Thieberger N. (ed.) (2011) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wolfram W. (1998) Scrutinizing Linguistic Gratuity: Issues from the Field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2: 271-279.

Zwartjes O. (ed.) (2000) Las gramdticas misioneras de tradition hispdnica (siglos XVI-XVII), Amsterdam: Atlanta: Rodopi.

Zwartjes O., Hovdhaugen E. (eds) (2004) Missionary Linguistics/Lingmstica Misionera: Selected Papers from the First International Conference on Missionary Linguistics (Oslo, 13-16 March 2003), Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Downloads

Published

2021-05-15

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Kosmarski A.A. Between Indiana Jones and a Doctor Without Borders: a Problematization of the “Field” in Contemporary Linguistics // Sociology of Power. 2021. Vol. 33, no. 3. P. 238–253. https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2021-3-238-253

Коды статьи

  • EDN TIUOTR
  • Тип статьи (РИНЦ) Научная статья (Научная статья)