threatened language-speakers at the forefront of the action and debate. ... sociolinguist's responsibility in the reproduction and preservation of linguistic.
In: Flores Farfán, José Antonio and Ramallo, Fernando (ed.) (2010). New perspectives on endangered languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147-149
Linking three agendas Opening a debate and directions for the future Fernando Ramallo & José Antonio Flores Farfán
The principal justification of this book is that if we are to overcome the gap that exists between documentary practice and the revitalization of languages, it is necessary to contemplate the role of a critical sociolinguistics that positions threatened language-speakers at the forefront of the action and debate. Considering the current sociolinguistic regression taking place in many parts of the world, the sociolinguist’s responsibility in the reproduction and preservation of linguistic knowledge is paramount (Himmelmann 2008). Of course, the dialogue between documentarians and sociolinguists should produce methodological clues that reverberate into increasingly sustainable approaches to address the challenges related to work in the field of linguistic diversity. In order for this to happen it is also necessary for sociolinguistics to delve deeper into the importance of the presence and function of language in the sociopolitical landscape and in the construction and reproduction of power relations, social exclusion and inequality that also operate in the academic world. Naturally, this has much to do with the understanding of the term sociolinguistics, what it contributes to the advancement of knowledge and what talking about sociolinguistic information presumes to accomplish, among other things (Hambye & Siroux 2009). This entails positioning oneself in a sociolinguistics that is context-sensitive, that goes deep into the difficulties of the field and that, in addition to trying to overcome the tensions that are generated by its very own internal debate, not only favors cross-fertilization between different linguistic disciplines, but most of all contributes to the emancipation of linguistic communities. As it is a relatively new field, documentary linguistics has only recently begun to benefit from the theories, methods and advances of sociolinguistics. This is largely due to the forms in which work in the area of linguistic documentation has been developed. Although significant changes are being produced in what we understand as the appropriate direction, much in the sense enunciated by the present volume, much of the work done in the past two decades has been designed based on proposals that are far from what we would call revitalization sociolinguistics and this continues to be the prevailing trend.
Fernando Ramallo & José Antonio Flores Farfán
It is true that documentary linguistics during the last decades has contributed a good deal to the renovations of its theoretical focuses and its traditional methodological strategies. Since the beginning of the 1990s knowledge of linguistic extinction processes and of the world panorama of threatened languages has fostered a critical conscience about the future viability of linguistic diversity, going as far to provoke a shift in linguistic research priorities. Even though this is by no means a new problem, the last two decades have witnessed the configuration of standardized research and action protocols with the local communities of speakers of languages in regressive sociolinguistic situations, not to speak of the emergence of best practices protocols (see, for example, Barwick & Thieberger 2006). In the face of continuing decrease in linguistic diversity on the planet, anthropologists, linguists, documentarians, sociolinguists, educators, etc. have for decades worked tirelessly on language documentation projects, linguistic community projects, linguistic repertoire projects and registering other communicative practices. Such endeavors, based on the logic of the protection of immaterial heritage, have served to create vast linguistic archives albeit their primary purpose has not always been and rarely is revitalization; rather it has been linguistic research itself. (cf. Austin & Grenoble 2007). In any case, the missing element has frequently been greater professional cooperation among people with similar and even dissimilar interests, such as academic interests when compared with those of the language-speaking communities. The consequence of such absence of cooperation is that rarely have personal agendas converged in the search of solutions which transcend the personal gains experienced by the researchers or groups of investigators, outstandingly linguists. For this reason it is essential that we continue pushing for a quality standard which demands practices destined to promote a model of collaborative research or engaged linguistics that reports benefits not only for those performing the research but for all of those being researched. Moreover, appropriation of the research itself by the subjects of investigation themselves is an outstanding goal for the purposes of revitalization. In fact, this research-subject logic must give way to a new model of cooperative work that guarantees the creation of those vast documentary archives but also aims to strengthen the linguistic revitalization processes which seek to give continuity to linguistic groups, getting them to dialogue, something which only until recently is beginning to take shape. This is why the need for further supportive efforts on the part of documentarians and sociolinguists, naturally with the cooperation of the very speakers of the languages, is such an urgent matter, as the authors of this book have emphasized in one way or another. A more sociolinguistic approach to the issue of documentation is understood not only as documenting linguistic and cultural practices. Pursuing to change specific linguistic ideologies with respect to endangered languages, and becoming
Linking three agendas
relevant for the interest and perspectives of speakers themselves, are just a couple of a series of goals which in turn raise a number of questions that require further discussion. Some such topics include: How can we not limit linguistic archives and repositories to linguists? How can we start thinking in even a more general public including non speakers? Documentary linguistics requires going beyond “pure” linguistic description, for which sociolinguistics provides theoretical, methodological and empirical ground. Bringing together the active practice of the two agendas in one supporting an integrated epistemology leads almost naturally to the issue of revitalization. Even when these three subfields in linguistics have much in common and could benefit from each other, as suggested little communication within them has been so far established. Because of this, it is important to promote a model of documentary linguistics in which interdisciplinarity is not seen as a handicap but rather as an asset in the development of the linguistic communities and in which different strands of linguistic knowledge can contribute to a single goal, namely, the revitalization of endangered languages. This must be done with the active participation of community members, a sine qua non condition to ensure the survival of linguistic diversity in the near future.
References Austin, Peter K. & Grenoble, Lenore A. 2007. Current trends in language documentation. In Language Documentation and Description 3, Peter K. Austin (ed.). 12–25. London: The Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project. Barwick, Linda & Thieberger, Nicholas (eds). 2006. Sustainable data from digital fieldwork. Sydney: Sydney University Press. Hambye, Phillipe & Sirioux, Jean-Louis. 2009. Approaching language as a social practice: Reflections on some implications for the analysis of language. Sociolinguistic Studies 3(2): 131–147. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2008. Reproduction and Preservation of Linguistic Knowledge: Linguistics’ Response to Language Endangerment. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37: 337–350.
