here - Linguistic Society of America

WorkshopSunday, 6 JanuaryCarrie Dyck (Memorial University of Newfoundland)Amos Key, Jr. (Woodland Cultural Centre)The ethics of research on Cayuga (Gayogoho:nǫˀ)Language vitalization projects can constitute an unacknowledged kind of social engineering (c.f., Meek, 2010), where decisionsnot made at the community level have long-term community consequences. We illustrate with writing systems for Cayuga(Gayogoho:nǫˀ), an Iroquoian language spoken at Six Nations, (Brantford, Ontario), with about 60 fluent speakers. The linguisticorthography is a ‘neutral’ technology (Sebba 2007, 2009), based purely on linguistic criteria. The Henry orthography, developedby a Gayogoho:nǫˀ speaker, capitalizes on community familiarity with English spelling. Although the Henry orthography ispreferred, important materials exist in the linguistic orthography, and are not accessible to the community, making the writingsystem a barrier to language vitalization. This example illustrates that the community-based research is never neutral. Researchersmust identify and assume responsibility for the community transformations and outcomes of their research (Wilson 2007, 2008).They must ensure that community decision-making is an integral part of collaborative research design.Kristine A. Hildebrandt (Southern Illinois University Edwardsville)‘Community’ and ‘collaboration’ in the South Asian context: a case study from NepalThis poster illustrates the ongoing shift towards collaborative research methods in language documentation in South Asia, byexamining a research project underway in Nepal. Documentation initiatives in South Asia have traditionally embraced a “topdown”approach, organized by scholars with primarily academic goals, with management involving the P.I. and selected speakersonly, with outputs primarily for scholar access, and with asymmetrical exchange relationships between participants. This ischanging, with team-structure projects providing wider participant remuneration, and with outputs for community access. Thisposter illustrates a logical next step in the evolution of collaborative documentation in Manang, Nepal. This approach issimultaneously “top-down” and “bottom-up” in that methodologies and outputs are co-constructed between researchers andcommunity leaders. It includes outputs on local, national, and international scales and also strives to approximate task-delegationand reciprocation models appropriate to Nepal, respecting community elder leadership, village-level social hierarchies, and localschools as loci of decision-making.Gwendolyn Hyslop (Australian National University)Karma Tshering (Australian National University)Charity Appell McNabb (Firebird Foundation)Ratu Drukpa (Firebird Foundation)Oral literature in Bhutan: a case study in collaborative language documentationThe (re-)emergence of language documentation has brought with it a rigorous and collaborative research agenda. In thispresentation we suggest that combining Woodbury’s (2003) guidelines for language documentation with Dwyer’s (2006)proposals regarding ‘cooperative fieldwork’ results in a productive and rewarding documentation model in Bhutan, where threecollaborative partners involved in the Bhutan Oral Literature and Language Documentation Projects have been documentingBhutan’s endangered languages and traditional ecological knowledge. We present the Bhutanese model as a case study incollaborative language documentation.Specifically, a Bhutanese project manager receives training in data collection, annotation, archiving, and basic linguistic concepts.For each language, two speakers receive training from the project manager to collect, transcribe, and translate oral literature intheir communities. The linguists work in collaboration to develop an orthography. We argue that the result is an efficient systemwhich produces lasting results of benefit to local communities, governmental bodies, and science.Mary Paster (Pomona College)Collaborative linguistic research in a refugee community: challenges and prospectsThis poster describes projects undertaken in Pittsburgh and San Diego with speakers of Maay, a Somalian language spoken by‘Somali Bantus’. It explores Somali Bantus’ language attitudes and discusses the linguist’s role in, and special challenges for,language preservation in refugee communities. Somali Bantus are marginalized, having been pushed out of Somalia by economicnecessity or by force. Recently a large-scale initiative has brought many Somali Bantus to the US. Though spoken by over onemillion people, Maay is threatened due to the speakers’ situation in Somalia; it is indisputably ‘locally endangered’ in the US.Work with speakers reveals that language preservation is especially problematic among refugees. Somali Bantus in the US are115