Life in Communities

Given the widely recognized danger the world’s languages face at the present time, there has been a major expansion of language documentation and linguistic description, which requires what has been traditionally referred to as linguistic fieldwork. We generally prepare our students to undertake this work through field methods courses but “[w]hile we generally do a very thorough job of teaching how to elicit and analyze data, we often forget to tell them that there is a personal and practical side to fieldwork that can very well derail their research if they are not prepared for it.” (Macauley, 2004:194). The overall goal of this workshop is, therefore, to familiarize the students with the personal and practical dimensions of fieldwork.2015 NSF/BCS 1500841: CoLang 2016: Institute on Collaborative Language Research – ALASKA Alaska Native Language Cente

Grant-Writing

Workshop Syllabus for Grant-Writing, CoLang 2016This course provides an overview of the key national and international funding agencies. The essential information that is commonly required by funding agencies is reviewed and explored section-by- section. Students will practise writing sections of a mock proposal and will receive feedback about what works and what doesn’t in grant applications. Ethical and intellectual property issues are discussed and we examine the requirements for carrying out effective projects consistent with community protocols.2015 NSF/BCS 1500841: CoLang 2016: Institute on Collaborative Language Research – ALASKA Alaska Native Language Cente

20. Language Work Outside Your Own Community (D, E)

In the face of widespread language endangerment, there has been a major expansion of language documentation, linguistic description, and language revitalization. Such projects usually require what has historically been called fieldwork, the situation in which a researcher (usually an outsider) enters a community (sometimes for extended periods of time) for the purposes of studying the language and/or culture of the people in that community. Modern language documentation and revitalization projects that involve an outside researcher usually require deep engagement with community collaborators, as well as recognition of Indigenous Research Methodologies. Outside researchers generally prepare for “fieldwork” through field methods courses, but “[w]hile we generally do a very thorough job of teaching how to elicit and analyze data, we often forget to tell them that there is a personal and practical side to fieldwork that can very well derail their research if they are not prepared for it.” (Macauley, 2004:194). Speech communities rarely have any preparation for such projects. The overall goal of this workshop is, therefore, to familiarize both linguistic researchers and community members with the personal and practical dimensions of cross-cultural fieldwork. We want to stimulate conversations about how language work outside of our own communities can meet both researcher and community needs and goals, recognize and respect Indigenous Research Methodologies, and help the researcher learn about cultural institutions, protocols, values, and needs. This orientation will guide us in discussing how researchers and speech communities establish contact, set up and maintain productive and satisfying work relations, and balance research and social goals. This workshop will also cover topics on how to negotiate cross-cultural boundaries that deal with more personal matters that sometimes become challenges for the outside researcher (self-care). In this way, all involved can have the most rewarding experience possible. Questions you will consider (and maybe answer for yourself) in this workshop: From the outsider researcher’s perspective: How do I prepare myself to conduct work on a language outside of my own community? Are there general principles that guide successful language work outside of my own community? What ethical principles do I need to know about language work? What ethical principles do I need to know about the community? What principles of cross-cultural communication do I need to be aware of? How much can I be a linguist and only a linguist in the community? How do I balance scientific work and community work? How do I involve community members and Indigenous Research Methodologies in my project? What kinds of resources do I need? What is the role of my primary relations in the community? Whom do I contact first? What are the risks associated with me being an outsider, for me and for the community? How do I negotiate cultural and ideological differences? Should I keep any of my personal information (gender, sexual orientation, religious, etc.) confidential? How do I take care of myself, both physically and emotionally? From the community’s perspective: What is the community’s role in the proposed language work? Does the researcher’s presence/stay need to be addressed in a public meeting? What do we need to know about the researcher? What will be the outcomes of the language work? How will they benefit the community/participants

Is Greenberg’s “Macro-Carib” viable?

In his landmark work Language in the Americas, Greenberg (1987) proposed that Macro-Carib was one of the major low-level stocks of South America, which together with Macro-Panoan and Macro-Ge-Bororo were claimed to comprise the putative Ge-Pano-Carib Phylum. His Macro-Carib includes the isolates Andoke and Kukura, and the Witotoan, Peba-Yaguan, and Cariban families. Greenberg’s primary evidence came from person-marking paradigms in individual languages, plus scattered words from individual languages collected into 79 Macro-Carib ‘etymologies’ and another 64 Amerind ‘etymologies’. The goal of this paper is to re-evaluate Greenberg’s Macro-Carib claim in the light of the much more extensive and reliable language data that has become available largely since 1987. Based on full person-marking paradigms for Proto-Cariban, Yagua, Bora and Andoke, we conclude that Greenberg’s morphological claims are unfounded. For our lexical comparison, we created lexical lists for Proto-Cariban, Proto-Witotoan, Yagua and Andoke, for both Greenberg’s 143 putative etymologies and for the Swadesh 100 list. From both lists, a total of 23 potential cognates were found, but no consonantal correspondences were repeated even once. We conclude that our greatly expanded and improved database does not provide sufficient evidence to convince the skeptic that the Macro-Carib hypothesis is viable

Referential hierarchies: A new look at some historical and typological patterns

This paper proposes a diachronic typology for the various patterns that have been referred to as Hierarchical Alignment or Inverse Alignment. Previous typological studies have tried to explain such patterns as grammatical reflections of a universal Referential Hierarchy, in which first person outranks second person outranks third person and humans outrank other animates outrank inanimates. However, our study shows that most of the formal properties of hierarchy-sensitive constructions are essentially predictable from their historical sources. We have identified three sources for hierarchical person marking, three for direction marking, two for obviative case marking, and one for hierarchical constituent ordering. These sources suggest that there is more than one explanation for hierarchical alignment: one is consistent with Givón’s claim that hierarchical patterns are a grammaticalization of generic topicality; another is consistent with DeLancey’s claim that hierarchies reflect the deictic distinction between present (1/2) and distant (3) participants; another is simply a new manifestation of a common asymmetrical pattern, the use of zero marking for third persons. More importantly, the evolution of hierarchical grammatical patterns does not reflect a consistent universal ranking of participants – at least in those cases where we can see (or infer) historical stages in the evolution of these properties, different historical stages appear to reflect different hierarchical rankings of participants, especially first and second person. This leads us to conclude that the diversity of hierarchical patterns is an artifact of grammatical change, and that in general, the presence of hierarchical patterns in synchronic grammars is not somehow conditioned by some more general universal hierarchy

Referential hierarchies: A new look at some historical and typological patterns

This paper proposes a diachronic typology for the various patterns that have been referred to as Hierarchical Alignment or Inverse Alignment. Previous typological studies have tried to explain such patterns as grammatical reflections of a universal Referential Hierarchy, in which first person outranks second person outranks third person and humans outrank other animates outrank inanimates. However, our study shows that most of the formal properties of hierarchy-sensitive constructions are essentially predictable from their historical sources. We have identified three sources for hierarchical person marking, three for direction marking, two for obviative case marking, and one for hierarchical constituent ordering. These sources suggest that there is more than one explanation for hierarchical alignment: one is consistent with Givón's claim that hierarchical patterns are a grammaticalization of generic topicality; another is consistent with DeLancey's claim that hierarchies reflect the deictic distinction between present (1/2) and distant (3) participants; another is simply a new manifestation of a common asymmetrical pattern, the use of zero marking for third persons. More importantly, the evolution of hierarchical grammatical patterns does not reflect a consistent universal ranking of participants - at least in those cases where we can see (or infer) historical stages in the evolution of these properties, different historical stages appear to reflect different hierarchical rankings of participants, especially first and second person. This leads us to conclude that the diversity of hierarchical patterns is an artifact of grammatical change, and that in general, the presence of hierarchical patterns in synchronic grammars is not somehow conditioned by some more general universal hierarchy