Search for: All records

With more than seventy named languages, and many more locally distinctive varieties, the Cameroonian Grassfields are known for their impressive linguistic diversity. At the same time, the languages of the Grassfields also show a considerable degree of structural homogeneity and lexical similarity which is suggestive of both genealogical relatedness and prolonged processes of contact-induced convergence. However, fine-grained comparative analyses reveal puzzling situations of similarities and differences among neighboring languages and varieties. Often left unaddressed or viewed as “irregularities”, these cases might in fact provide insights into low-level language dynamics that have contributed significantly to the development of the regional linguistic configuration. In this paper, we focus on two such cases involving noun classes and tense-aspect marking and propose a model of language change based on a notion that we term the social semiosis layer, which is viewed as a specific part of a linguistic feature pool. When paired with the existing notion of neighbor opposition, it can account for situations where there is evidence that specific forms have been deliberately manipulated to create salient distinctions among varieties in a given local sociolinguistic context. 

Commonly recommended methods for documenting endangered languages are built around the assumption that a given documentary project will focus on a single language rather than a multilingual ecology. This hinders the potential usability of documentary materials for the study of language contact. Research in domains such as ethnography and sociolinguistics has developed conceptual and analytical tools for understanding patterns of multilingual usage, but the insights of such work have yet to be translated into concrete recommendations for enhancements to documentary practice. This paper considers how standard documentary approaches can be adapted to multilingual contexts with respect to activities such as the collection of metadata, the use of ethnographic methods, and the recording and annotation of naturalistic multilingual discourse. A particular focus of the discussion are ways in which documentary projects can create better records of multilingual practices even if these are not the focus of the work.

 

Purpose: To contribute to the establishment of a novel approach to language documentation that includes bilingual and multilingual speech data. This approach would open this domain of study to work by specialists of bilingualism and multilingualism. Approach: Within language documentation, the approach adopted in this paper exemplifies the “contemporary communicative ecology” mode of documentation. This radically differs from the “ancestral-code” mode of documentation that characterizes most language documentation corpora. Within the context of multilingualism studies, this paper advocates for the inclusion of a strong ethnographic component to research on multilingualism. Data and Analysis: The data presented comes from a context characterized by small-scale multilingualism, and the analyses provided are by and large focused on uncovering aspects of local metapragmatics. Conclusions: Conducting language documentation in contexts of small-scale multilingualism requires that the adequacy of a corpus is assessed with regard to sociolinguistic, rather than only structural linguistic, requirements. The notion of sociolinguistic adequacy is discussed in detail in analytical terms and illustrated through an example taken from ongoing research led by the authors. Originality: To date, there are no existing publications reviewing in the detail provided here how the documentation of multilingual speech in contexts of small-scale multilingualism should be structured. The contribution is highly original, in particular, for its theoretical grounding of the proposed approach. Significance/Implications: This article can serve as a reference for those interested in methodological and theoretical concerns relating to the practice of language documentation in contexts of small-scale multilingualism across the world. It may also help clarify ways for sociolinguists to engage more closely with work on language documentation, a domain that has thus far remained primarily informed by structural linguistic approaches. 

In the wake of widespread and ongoing travel restrictions that began in early 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many documentary linguists worldwide shifted to remote work methods in order to continue or, in some cases, begin new projects. This pandemic situation has prompted questions about both methodological and ethical considerations in doing remote fieldwork. In this paper, we discuss the pros and cons of working remotely and discuss ways of working remotely based on our experiences working on projects in West Africa, northwest Amazonia, and Indonesia. We argue that elements of remote fieldwork should become a permanent part of linguistic fieldwork, but that such methods need to be considered in the context of decolonizing language documentation and centering the community’s needs and interests.