Advertisement

Linguistics: Community-based Language Revitalization

Community-based language revitalization
  • Nariyo KonoEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter explores ethical aspects of research in a field within linguistics that has developed in just the last several decades: “Language Maintenance and Revitalization.” According to Austin and Sallabank (Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011), currently, about 7000 languages are spoken worldwide, and 50–70% of them will be extinct by 2020. The latest version of the online UNESCO Atlas (2010) captured about 2500 endangered languages out of an estimated total of 3000. The field of endangered languages has attracted wide attention from linguists as well as general public for the last several decades. This chapter focuses on aspects of ethical research surrounding the Indigenous language maintenance and revitalization area, in particular regarding the aspect of participants’ language ownership, highlighting some of the core ethical aspects by examining the history of community practices and community-based research.

Keywords

Indigenous languages Language maintenance and revitalization Linguistics Community-based learning Empowerment 

References

  1. Akumbu PW (2018) Babanki literacy classes and community-based language research. In: Bischoff S, Jane C (eds) Insights from practices in community-based research: from theory to practice around the globe. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, pp 266–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Academy of Arts & Sciences (2017) The future of undergraduate education: the future of America. Final report and recommendations from the commission on the future of undergraduate education, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin P (2010) Communities, ethics and rights in language documentation. In: Austin P (ed) Language documentation and description, vol 7. School of Oriental and African Studies, London, pp 34–54Google Scholar
  4. Austin P, Sallabank J (2011) Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bath H (2008) The three pillars of trauma-informed care. Reclaiming Children and Youth 17(3):17–21Google Scholar
  6. Bianco JL (2015) Ethical dilemmas and LP advising. In: De Costa PI (ed) Ethics in applied linguistics research. Routledge, New York, pp 83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bischoff ST, Jany C (eds) (2018) Insights from practices in community-based research: from theory to practice around the globe. De Gruyter Mouton, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron D, Frazer E, Harvey P, Rampton MBH, Richardson K (1992) Researching language: issue of power and method. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Chirkova K (2018) Revitalization of Duoxu. In: Hinton L, Huss L, Roche G (eds) The Routledge handbook of language revitalization. Routledge, New York, pp 446–454Google Scholar
  10. Denzin NK (2003) Performance ethnography: critical pedagogy and the politics of culture. Sage, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denzin NK (2010) Grounded and indigenous theories and the politics of pragmatism. Sociol Inq 80(2):296–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eckert P (2015) Ethics in linguistic research. In: Podesva R, Sharma D (eds) Research methods in linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 11–26Google Scholar
  13. Fishman JA (1991) Reversing language shift: theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Multilingual Matters, ClevedonGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitzgerald CM (2007) 2006 presidential address: Indigenous languages and Spanish in the United States: how can/do linguists serve communities? Southwest J Linguist 26(1):1+. http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A176592040/AONE?u=s1185784&sid=AONE&xid=da022b5c. Accessed 5 Aug. 2019
  15. Fitzgerald CM (2018) Creating sustainable models of language documentation and revitalization. In: Bischoff S, Jane C (eds) Insights from practices in community-based research: from theory to practice around the globe. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, pp 94–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbons R, Thomas D, Black G (2002) The residential school experience: a century of genocide in the Americas. Mayhew: University of Washington. Native Voices; No Damn Eagles (Firm). Native voices at the University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  17. Himmelmann N (1998) Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36:161–195Google Scholar
  18. Hinton L, Huss L, Roche G (2018) The Routledge handbook of language revitalization. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holkup PA, Tripp-Reimer T, Salois EM, Weinert C (2009) Community-based participatory research: an approach to intervention research with a native American community. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 27(3):162–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hornberger NH (2011) Dell H. Hymes: his scholarship and legacy in anthropology and education. Anthropol Educ Q 42(4):310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hymes D (1996) Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: toward an understanding of voice. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Kono N (2010) Gifts of master-apprenticeship: development of the revitalizing endangered indigenous languages (REIL) certificates. In: Galla CK (ed) American Indian language development institute: thirty year tradition of speaking from our heart. American Indian Language Development Institute. University of Arizona, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  23. Kono N (2013) Ethics in research. In: Chapelle CA (ed) The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, vol 4. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 2014–2024Google Scholar
  24. Kramsch C, Whiteside A (2007) Three fundamental concepts in second language acquisition and their relevance in multilingual contexts. Mod Lang J 91(5):907–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kroskrity PV, Field MC (eds) (2009) Native American language ideologies: beliefs, practices, and struggles in Indian Country. The University of Arizona Press, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  26. Leonard WY, Haynes E (2010) Making “collaborative” relationship collaborative: an examination of perspectives of that frame linguistic field research. Lang Doc Con 4(2010):268–293Google Scholar
  27. Mercier A (2014) Trauma-informed research and planning: understanding government and urban native community partnerships to addressing substance-exposed pregnancies in Portland, OR. Dissertations and Theses. Paper 1803Google Scholar
  28. Nind M (2014) What is inclusive research? Bloomsbury Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Rice K (2006) Ethical issues in linguistic fieldwork: an overview. Journal Acad Ethics 4(Springer):123–155Google Scholar
  30. Rice K (2018) Collaborative research: visions and realities. In: Bischoff S, Jane C (eds) Insights from practices in community-based research: from theory to practice around the globe. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, pp 13–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith LT (1999) Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Thieberger N, Jones C (2017) Indigenous linguistics and cultural heritage ethics policy. ARC Centre of excellence for the dynamics of language. http://www.dynamicsoflanguage.edu.au/research/indigenous-linguistics-and-cultural-heritage-ethics-policy/. Accessed 17 Oct 2018
  33. Thieberger N, Musgrave S (2007) Documentary linguistics and ethical issues. In: Austin PK (ed) Language documentation and description, vol 4. SOAS, London, pp 26–37Google Scholar
  34. Thorne SL, Suelmann S, Charles W (2015) Ethical issues in indigenous language research and interventions. In: De Costa PI (ed) Ethics in applied linguistics research. Routledge, New York, pp 142–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (2010) UNESCO Atlas of the World languages in danger. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/atlas-of-languages-in-danger/
  36. Whalen DH, Moss M, Baldwin D (2016) Healing through language: positive physical health effects of indigenous language use. [version 1; referees: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 5:852.  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8656.1. Accessed 17 Oct 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yamada R-M (2007) Collaborative linguistic fieldwork: practical application of the empowerment model. Lang Doc Con 1(2):257–282Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Public Service and University StudiesPortland State UniversityORUSA

Personalised recommendations