Cover not available
Part of
Language Documentation and Endangerment in Africa
Edited by James Essegbey, Brent Henderson and Fiona Mc Laughlin
[Culture and Language Use 17] 2015
► pp. 277–312

Describing endangered languages

Experiences from a PhD grammar project in Africa

The present contribution deals with documenting underdocumented and endangered languages in Africa. It focuses on the documentation of languages through PhD programs as most grammatical descriptions produced today stem from PhD theses. The focus lies on facets of the organization and conception of a PhD grammar project on the endangered Bantu language Yeyi. This project resulted in a published grammatical description in about 4 years. The article describes important aspects of the research program as they relate to the development of the grammatical description as well as the writing process of the grammatical description itself. In doing so the relationship between the creation of a comprehensive grammatical description and prior preparation for the fieldwork, e.g. survey work, developing cultural expertise, the team environment both in the field and at home, are elaborated against a backdrop of stateof- the-art theorizations about descriptive grammars. I situate the work on the Yeyi grammar in the context of the newly emerging documentary-linguistics discipline, and provide some suggestions for how PhD documentation projects should be carried out in the 21st century.
Published online: 22 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/clu.17.12sei
References (68)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007. Linguistic fieldwork: Setting the scene. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60: 1–11.Google Scholar
Baumbach, Erdmann J.M. 1997. Bantu languages of the Eastern Caprivi. In Namibian Languages. Reports and Papers, Wilfrid H.G. Haacke & Eduard D. Elderkin (eds). Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1911. Introduction. In Handbook of American Indian Languages, Part 1 [Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40], Franz Boas (ed.), 3–83. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Botne, Robert & Kershner, Tiffany L. 2006. Tense and cognitive space: On the organization of tense/aspect systems in Bantu languages. Ms. (later published in Cognitive Linguistics 19).
Bouquiaux, Lux & Thomas, Jaqueline (eds). 19762. Enquête et description des langues à tradition orale, Vols. I, II, & III. Paris: Société des Études Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France.Google Scholar
Bright, William. 2005. Contextualizing a grammar. Studies in Language 30(2): 245–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Botne, Robert D. 1983. On the notion ‘inchoative verb’ in Kinyarwanda. In Le Kinyarwanda. Étude linguistices [Langues et cultures africaines], Francis Jouannet (ed.). Paris: Société des Études Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic Fieldwork Methodology: An Introduction to Data Elicitation Methods in the Field and the Classroom. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Breu, Walter. 1985. Handlungsgrenzen als Grundlage der Verbalklassifikation. In Slavistische Linguistik 1984. Referate des X. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens [Slavistische Beiträge 184], Werner Lehfeldt (ed.), 9–34. München: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
. 1994. Interactions between lexical, temporal and aspectual meanings. Studies in Language 18(1): 23–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chelliah, Shobbana L. & de Reuse, Willem J. 2011. Handbook of Descriptive Linguistic Fieldwork. Berlin: Springer DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Mary. 1988. An accentual analysis of the Zulu noun. In Autosegmental Studies on Pitch Accent, Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds), 51–93. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. & Goldsmith, John. 1984. Autosgemental Studies in Bantu Tone. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Patricia. 2010. Digital keys for unlocking the humanities’ riches. The New York Times, November 16, 2010.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1988. The role of the field linguist. Notes on Linguistics 41: 4–6.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2006. The organization of reference grammars: A typologist user’s point of view. In Catching Language. The Standing Challange of Grammar Writing, Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds), 136–170. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2011. The Meaning and Use of Ideophones in Siwu. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Methodology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2007. Field linguistics: A minor manual. Sprachtypologie und Universalien Forschung 60(1): 12–31.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. & Rice, Keren. No date. Cambridge Grammatical Descriptions. Guidelines for potential contributors.
Dryer, Matthew S. 2006. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory. In Catching Language. The Standing Challange of Grammar Writing, Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds), 207–234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dwyer, Arienne M. 2010. Models of successful collaboration. In Grenoble, Lenore A. & Furbee, N. Louanna (eds), Language Documentation. Practices and Values, 193–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Ethics and practicalities of cooperative fieldwork and analysis. In Essentials of Language Documentation, Jost Gippert, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Ulrike Mosel (eds), 31–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Dench, Alan. 2006. Introduction: Catching language. In Catching Language. The Standing Challange of Grammar Writing, Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds), 1–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleisch, Axel. 2000. Lucazi Grammar. A Morphosemantic Analysis. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Good, Jeff. 2010. Valuing technology. Finding the linguist’s place in a new technological universe. In Grenoble, Lenore A. & Furbee, N. Louanna (eds), Language Documentation. Practices and Values, 111–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guarisma, Gladys & Möhlig, Wilhelm J.G. (eds). 1986. La methode dialectometrique appliquée aux langues africaines. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Hale K., Krauss, Michael, Watahomigie Lucille J., Yamamoto Akira Y., Craig Colette G., LaVerne, Jeanne Masayesva & England, Nora C. 1992. Endangered languages. Language 68: 1–42Google Scholar
Hellwig, Birgit. 2003. The Grammatical Coding of Postural Semantics in Goemai (A West Chadic Language of Nigeria). PhD dissertation, Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik and Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2008. Reproduction and preservation of linguistic knowledge: Linguistics’ response to language endangerment. Annual Review of Anthropology 37: 337–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006a. How to miss a paradigm or two: Multifunctional ma- in Tagalog. In Ameka, Dench & Evans (eds), 487–526.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Language Documentation: What it is and what is it good for? In Essentials of Language Documentation, Jost Gippert, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Ulrike Mosel (eds), 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36: 161–195. <[URL]> or <[URL]> DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kershner, Tiffany Lynne. 2002. The Verb in Chisukwa: Aspect, Tense, and Time. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 2005. Collective field work. Advantages or disadvantages? Studies in Language 30(2): 259–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2004. Data in linguistics. The Linguistic Review 21:175–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Documentation of endangered languages. A priority task for linguistics. ASSIDUE, Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt Nr. 1. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Philosophische Fakultät, Universität Erfurt.
. 1980. Aufbau einer Grammatik zwischen Sprachtypologie und Universalistik. In Wege zur Universalienforschung, Gunter Brettschneider & Christian Lehmann (eds), 29–37. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lukusa, Stephen. 2009. Shiyeyi-English Dictionary. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Lukusa, Stephen T.M. 2002. Groundwork in Shiyeyi Grammar with a Shiyeyi-English Glossary. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lüpke, Friederike. 2005. Small is beautiful: Contributions of field-based corpora to different linguistic disciplines, illustrated by Jalonke. Language Documentation and Description 3: 75–105.Google Scholar
Marten, Lutz. 2010. Review of “A Grammar of Yeyi. A Bantu Language of Southern Africa” by Frank Seidel. Afrika und Übersee 91: 137–140.Google Scholar
Mettouchi, Amina. 2013. Segmenting spoken corpora in lesser-described languages: New perspectives for the structural analysis of speech. Plenary talk at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Split (Croatia) 18–21 September. <[URL]> and <[URL]>
Möhlig, Wilhelm J.G. 2003. The prosodological structure of Herero. FAB 15: 165–179.Google Scholar
. 1982. Dialektometrie in Afrika. Methoden zur Messung synchroner sprachlicher Nähe. In Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur in Afrika. Vorträge gehalten auf dem III. Afrikanistentag, Köln 14–15 Oktober 1982, Ulrike Claudi & Rainer Vossen (eds), 209–254. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
. 1967. Die Sprache der Gciriku. Phonologie, Prosodologie und Morphologie. PhD dissertation, University of Cologne.
Moseley, Christopher (ed.). 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, 3rd edn. Paris, UNESCO Publishing. <[URL]> (13 April 2014).Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike. 2006. Grammaticography: The art and craft of writing grammars. In Ameka, Dench & Evans (eds), 41–68.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Simon & Thieberger, Nick. 2012. Language description and hypertext: Nunggubuyyu as a case study. In Electronic Grammaticography [Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication 4], Sebastian Nordhoff (ed.), 63–77. <[URL]> (28 November 2013).Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 2005. Grammar writing for a grammar-reading audience. Studies in Language 30(2): 351–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, Paul & Ratliff, Martha (eds). 2001. Linguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 2005. A grammar as a communicative act or What does a grammatical description really describe? Studies in Language 30(2): 367–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2005. A typology of good grammars. Studies in Language 30(2): 385–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1991. Aspekttheorie. In Aspektsysteme [Arbeitspapier Nr. 14 N.F.]), Hans-Jürgen Sasse (ed.), 1–35. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Seidel, Frank. 2004. Review of “Groundwork in Shiyeyi Grammar with a Shiyeyi-English Glossary” by Stephen T.M. Lukusa. Annual Publication in African Linguistics 2: 135–137Google Scholar
. 2008. A Grammar of Yeyi: A Bantu Language of Southern Africa. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Seyfeddinipur, Mandana. 2012. Gesture: Understanding the role of gesture in communication: How gestures can be described. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork, Nicholas Thieberger (ed.), 147–164. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Simone, Raffaele. 2001. Sull’ utilita e il danno della storia della linguistica. In Storia del pensiero linguistico: linearità, fratture e circolarità. Atti del Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia, Verona, 11–13 novembre 1999, Giovanna Massariello Merzagora (ed.), 45–67. Roma: il Calamo.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane (ed.). 2007. When is a linguist’s work done and dusted? <[URL]> (3 December 2013).
Smith, Carlota. 1997[1991]. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommer, Gabriele. 2010. Review of “A grammar of Yeyi. A Bantu language of southern Africa” by Frank Seidel. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 30(1): 142–144.Google Scholar
. 1995. Ethnographie des Sprachwechsels: Sozialer Wandel und Sprachverhalten bei den Yeyi (Botswana). Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Sommer, Gabriele & Vossen, Rainer. 1995. Linguistic variation in Siyeyi. In The Complete Linguist. Papers in Memory of Patrick J. Dickens, Anthony Traill, Rainer Vossen & Megan Biesele (eds), 407–479. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Thieberger, Nicholas (ed.). 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaux, Bert, Cooper, Justin & Tucker, Emily. 2007. Linguistic Field Methods. Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosopy. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C. 2003. Defining documentary linguistics. In Language Documentation and Description, Vol. 1, Peter K. Austin (ed.), 35–51. London: SOAS.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Steigertahl, Helene
2019. Chapter 1.4. Introducing a corpus of English(es) spoken in post-independence Namibia. In Corpus Linguistics and African Englishes [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 88], ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.