Volume 47, Issue 2-3
  • ISSN 0302-5160
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9781
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In the first decades of the 20th century, fieldwork — collection of language data through direct interaction with a native speaker — was foundational to American linguistics. After a mid-century period of neglect, fieldwork has recently been revived as a means to address the increasing rate of language endangerment worldwide. Twenty-first century American fieldwork inherits some, but not all, of the traits of earlier fieldwork. This article examines the history of one controversial issue, whether a field worker should adopt a monolingual approach, learning and using the target language as a medium of exchange with native speakers, as opposed to relying on interpreters or a lingua franca. Although the monolingual approach is not widely practiced, modern proponents argue strongly for its value. The method has been popularized though ‘monolingual demonstrations’ to audiences of linguists, which, curiously, are not wholly consistent with the character of 21st-century fieldwork.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2007 “Linguistic Fieldwork: Setting the scene”. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung60:1.3–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Andresen, Julie Tetel
    1990Linguistics in America 1769–1924: A Critical History. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin, Peter K.
    2006 “Data and Language Documentation”. InGippert, Himmelmann & Mosel, 87–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Berman, Judith
    1994 “George Hunt and the Kwak’wala Texts”. Anthropological Linguistics36:4.482–515.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1917 “Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis”. University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature3:2–4.157–566. Champaign, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1944 “Preface”. Linguistic Structures of Native Americaed. byHarry Hoijer, 5. New York: Viking Fund Publications in AnthropologyNo.6.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Boas, Frans
    1966 “Introduction”. Handbook of American Indian Languages, Part 1ed. byPreston Holder, 1–79. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press. [Originally published by Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 1911.]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Boas, Franz
    1917 “Introductory”. International Journal of American Linguistics1:1.1–8. 10.1086/463708
    https://doi.org/10.1086/463708 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bochnak, M. Ryan & Lisa Matthewson
    eds. 2015Methodologies in Semantic Fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Borchgrevink, Axel
    2003 “Silencing Language: Of anthropologists and interpreters”. Ethnography4:1.95–121. 10.1177/1466138103004001005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138103004001005 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bouquiaux, Luc & Jacqueline M. C. Thomas
    1992Studying and Describing Unwritten Languagestrans. byJames Thomas. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. [Originally published asEnquête et description des langues à tradition orale. Paris: Société d’Études Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France, 1st ed. 1971; 2nd ed. 1976.]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bowern, Claire
    2008Linguistic Fieldwork: A practical guide. New York: Palgrave Macmillian. 10.1057/9780230590168
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230590168 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bulletin of the Linguistic Society of America
    Bulletin of the Linguistic Society of America 1940 No.13.
  14. Bulletin of the Linguistic Society of America
    Bulletin of the Linguistic Society of America 1946 No.19.
  15. Bulletin of the Linguistic Society of America
    Bulletin of the Linguistic Society of America 1947 No.20.
  16. Burling, Robbins
    1984Learning a Field Language. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press. (2nd ed.Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press 2000.)
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cameron, Deborah, Elizabeth Frazer, Penelope Harvey, M. B. H. Rampton & Kay Richardson
    1992 “Introduction”. Researching Language: Issues of power and methoded. byDeborah Cameron, Elizabeth Frazer, Penelope Harvey, M. B. H. Rampton & Kay Richardson, 1–28. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chelliah, Shobhana L.
    2001 “The Role of Text Collection and Elicitation in Linguistic Fieldwork”. InNewman & Ratliff 2001a, 152–165. 10.1017/CBO9780511810206.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810206.008 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chelliah, Shobhana L. & Willem J. de Reuse
    eds. 2011Handbook of Descriptive Linguistic Fieldwork. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9026‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9026-3 [Google Scholar]
  20. Chomsky, Noam
    1966 “The Current Scene in Linguistics: Present directions”. College English27:8.587–595. 10.2307/374695
    https://doi.org/10.2307/374695 [Google Scholar]
  21. Chronology of the Life and Work of KL Pike
    Chronology of the Life and Work of KL Pike 2019 Posted on the website of SIL International. Accessed6 October 2019athttps://www.sil.org/chronology-life-and-work-kl-pike
  22. Cowan, George
    1975 “The Monolingual Approach to Studying Amuzgo”. Language Learner’s Field Guideed. byAlan Healey, 272–276. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Crowley, Terry
    2007Field Linguistics: A beginner’s guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa
    2009 “Research Models, Community Engagement, and Linguistic Fieldwork: Reflections on working within Canadian indigenous communities”. Language Documentation and Conservation3:1.15–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dallas International University
    Dallas International University 2019 “Language Learning Demonstration Promo”. Dallas, Texas: Dallas International University. Video accessed6 October 2019athttps://www.diu.edu/demo/
  26. Darnell, Regna
    1990 “Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, and the Americanist Text Tradition”. Historiographia Linguistica17:1/2.129–144. 10.1075/hl.17.1‑2.11dar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.17.1-2.11dar [Google Scholar]
  27. 1998And Along Came Boas: Continuity and revolution in Americanist anthropology (= Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, 86). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sihols.86
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.86 [Google Scholar]
  28. Debenport, Erin
    2010 “The Potential Complexity of ‘Universal Ownership’: Cultural property, textual circulation, and linguistic fieldwork”. Language and Communication30.204–210. 10.1016/j.langcom.2009.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2009.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  29. DeLancey, Scott
    2016 “Fieldwork Elicitation Showcase (Parts 1–3)”. Video filmed27 November 2016. Eugene, Ore.: University of Oregon. Accessed6 October 2019athttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRC5wFm0RADJhcGvwkHsPFA
  30. Dixon, R[obert] M[alcolm] W[ard]
    2007 “Field Linguistics: A minor manual”. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung60:1.12–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Dobrin, Lise M.
    2008 “From Linguistic Elicitation to Eliciting the Linguist: Lessons in community empowerment from Melanesia”. Language84:2.300–324. 10.1353/lan.0.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0009 [Google Scholar]
  32. ed. 2009 “SIL International and the Disciplinary Culture of Linguistics”. Language85:3.618–658. 10.1353/lan.0.0132
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0132 [Google Scholar]
  33. Dobrin, Lise M. & Saul Schwartz
    2016 “Collaboration or Participant Observation? Rethinking Models of ‘Linguistic Social Work’”. Language Documentation and Conservation10.253–277.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Dobrushina, Nina & Michael Daniel
    2018 “Field Linguistics in Daghestan: A very personal account”. InSarvasy & Forker, 79–94. 10.1075/slcs.194.06dob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.194.06dob [Google Scholar]
  35. Dwyer, Arienne M.
    2006 “Ethics and Practicalities of Cooperative Fieldwork”. InGippert, Himmelmann & Mosel, 31–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Escalante, Fernando
    1990 “Setting the Record Straight on Yaqui Passives”. International Journal of American Linguistics56:2.289–292. 10.1086/466155
    https://doi.org/10.1086/466155 [Google Scholar]
  37. Everett, Daniel L.
    1983 A Língua Pirahã e a Teoria da Sintaxe: Descrição, perspectivas e theoria. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2001 “Monolingual Field Research”. InNewman & Ratliff 2001a, 166–188. 10.1017/CBO9780511810206.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810206.009 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2002 “Monolingual Fieldwork”. Video filmedApril 2002 atLive Issues in Descriptive Linguistic Analysis: A seminar in honor of Kenneth L. Pike, produced byA. L. Becker & Mark Sicoli. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan. Accessed29 February 2020athttps://youtu.be/lVo2WJFeFe4
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2005 “Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language”. Current Anthropology46:4.621–646. 10.1086/431525
    https://doi.org/10.1086/431525 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2012Language: The cultural tool. New York: Pantheon.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2013 “Monolingual Demonstration”. Video filmed atLinguistic Society of America Institute, 24Juneto19July 2013, produced byLSA-ISS Media Center Productions. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan. Accessed29 February 2020athttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYpWp7g7XWU&feature=youtu.be
  43. Falk, Julia S.
    2014 “The LSA Linguistic Institutes”. Presentation at theNinetieth Anniversary of the Linguistic Society of America: A Commemorative Symposium, January 4, 2014. Posted on the website of theLinguistic Society of America. Accessed6 October 2019athttps://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/2014-annual-meeting-90th-anniversary-presentation-materials
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Foley, William A.
    1999 Review of The Korowai of Irian Jaya, byGerrit van Enk & Lourens de Vries. New York: Oxford University 1997 Language in Society28:3.470–472.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Fowler, Catherine S. & Don D. Fowler
    1986 “Edward Sapir, Tony Tillohash and Southern Paiute Studies”. New Perspectives in Language, Culture, and Personality: Proceedings of the Edward Sapir Centenary Conference (Ottawa, 1–3 Oct. 1984) (= Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series III, 41) ed. byWilliam Cowan, Michael K. Foster & E. F. K. Koerner, 41–65. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sihols.41.05fow
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.41.05fow [Google Scholar]
  46. Gil, David
    2001 “Escaping Eurocentrism: Fieldwork as a process of unlearning”. InNewman & Ratliff 2001a, 102–132. 10.1017/CBO9780511810206.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810206.006 [Google Scholar]
  47. Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Ulrike Mosel
    eds. 2006Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197730
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197730 [Google Scholar]
  48. Gleason, Harold A.
    1961An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. Rev. ed.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Haas, Mary R.
    1976 “Boas, Sapir, and Bloomfield”. American Indian Languages and American Linguistics: Papers of the Second Golden Anniversary Symposium of the Linguistic Society of America, held at the University of California, Berkeley, on November 8 and 9, 1974, 59–69. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. 10.1515/9783110867695‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110867695-007 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hale, Kenneth L.
    1965 “On the Use of Informants in Field-Work”. Canadian Journal of Linguistics10:2/3.108–119. 10.1017/S0008413100005582
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100005582 [Google Scholar]
  51. 1966 Review of Handling Unsophisticated Linguistic Informants, byAlan Healey. Canberra: Linguistic Circle of Canberra 1964 American Anthropologist68.807–808.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hale, Ken[neth L.], Michael Krauss, Lucille J. Watahomigie, Akira Y. Yamamoto, Colette Craige, LaVerne Masayesva Jeanne & Nora C. England
    1992 “Endangered Languages”. Language68:1.1–42. 10.2307/416368
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416368 [Google Scholar]
  53. Harris, Zellig S. & C[harles] F. Voegelin
    1953 “Eliciting in Linguistics”. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology9:1.59–75. 10.1086/soutjanth.9.1.3628494
    https://doi.org/10.1086/soutjanth.9.1.3628494 [Google Scholar]
  54. Haspelmath, Martin
    2000 Review of Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In Memoriam Johannes Bechert, Bände 1–2byWinfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner & Wolfgang Wildgen. Tübingen: Narr.Studies in Language24:3.747–750.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Healey, Alan
    1964Handling Unsophisticated Linguistic Informants. (= Pacific Linguistics Series A, No. 2). Canberra: Linguistic Circle of Canberra.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hill, Jane H.
    2006 “The Ethnography of Language and Language Documentation”. InGippert, Himmelmann & Mosel, 113–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hill, Kenneth C.
    2002 “On Publishing the Hopi Dictionary”. Making Dictionaries: Preserving indigenous languages of the Americased. byWilliam Frawley, Kenneth Hill & Pamela Munro, 299–311. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    1989 “Documentary and Descriptive Linguistics”. Linguistics36. 161–195.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 2008 “Reproduction and Preservation of Linguistic Knowledge: Linguistics’ response to language endangerment”. Annual Review of Anthropology37.337–350. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085226
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085226 [Google Scholar]
  60. Hockett, Charles F.
    1958A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1958.tb00870.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1958.tb00870.x [Google Scholar]
  61. 1999 “Leonard Bloomfield: After fifty years”. Historiographia Linguistica26:3.295–311. 10.1075/hl.26.3.07hoc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.26.3.07hoc [Google Scholar]
  62. Kibrik, A[leksandr] E[vgen’evič]
    1977The Methodology of Field Investigations in Linguistics (Setting up the problem) (= Janua Linguarum Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata, Series Minor 142). The Hague: Mouton. [Originally published asMetodika polevyx issledovanij. Moscow: Publications of the Department of Structural and Applied Linguistics, Monograph10 1972.] 10.1515/9783111351452
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111351452 [Google Scholar]
  63. Koerner, E. F. K.
    2004 “Notes on Missionary Linguistics in North America”. Missionary Linguistics / Lingüística misionera: Selected papers from the First International Conference on Missionary Linguistics, Oslo, 13–16 March 2003 (= Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 106) ed. byOtto Zwartjes and Even Hovdhaugen, 47–80. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sihols.106.06koe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.106.06koe [Google Scholar]
  64. Leonard, Wesley Y. & Erin Haynes
    2010 “Making ‘Collaboration’ Collaborative: An examination of perspectives that frame linguistic field research”. Language Documentation and Conservation4.268–293.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Lindenfeld, Jacqueline
    1973Yaqui Syntax. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Loving, Aretta
    1975 “On Learning Monolingually”. Language Learner’s Field Guideed. byAlan Healey, 267–271. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Lowie, Robert H.
    1940 “Native Languages as Ethnographic Tools”. American Anthropologist42:1.81–89. 10.1525/aa.1940.42.1.02a00050
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1940.42.1.02a00050 [Google Scholar]
  68. Makkai, Adam
    1986 “The Lexio-centric Approach to Descriptive Linguistics”. Language in Global Perspective: Papers in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the Summer Institute of Linguistics 1935–1985ed. byBenjamin F. Elson, 47–61. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Margetts, Anna & Andrew Margetts
    2012 “Audio and Video Recording Techniques for Linguistic Research”. InThieberger, 13–53. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571888.013.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571888.013.0002 [Google Scholar]
  70. McDonnell, Bradley, Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker & Gary Holton
    eds. 2018 “Reflections on Language Documentation: 20 years after Himmelmann 1989”. Language Documentation and Conservation Special Publication 15. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. McLaughlin, Fiona & Thierno Seydou Sall
    2001 “The Give and Take of Fieldwork: Noun classes and other concerns in Fatick, Senegal”. InNewman & Martha Ratliff 2001a, 189–210. 10.1017/CBO9780511810206.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810206.010 [Google Scholar]
  72. McLeod, Ruth A.
    1961 “Monolingual Approach”. Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session5:Article11.33–35. 10.31356/silwp.vol05.11
    https://doi.org/10.31356/silwp.vol05.11 [Google Scholar]
  73. Mead, Margaret
    1939 “Native Languages as Field-work Tools”. American Anthropologist41:2.189–205. 10.1525/aa.1939.41.2.02a00010
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1939.41.2.02a00010 [Google Scholar]
  74. Mithun, Marianne
    2001 “Who Shapes the Record: The speaker and the linguist”. InNewman & Ratliff 2001a, 34–54. 10.1017/CBO9780511810206.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810206.003 [Google Scholar]
  75. Moore, Leslie C.
    2009 “On Communicative Competence…in the Field”. Language and Communication29.244–253. 10.1016/j.langcom.2009.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2009.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  76. Mosel, Ulrike
    2006 “Fieldwork and Community Language Work”. InGippert, Himmelmann & Mosel, 67–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 2012 “Morphosyntactic Analysis on the Field: A guide to the guides”. InThieberger, 72–89. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571888.013.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571888.013.0004 [Google Scholar]
  78. Murray, Stephen O.
    1994Theory Groups and the Study of Language in North America: A social history (= Amsterdam Studies in the History and Theory of Linguistic Science, 69). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sihols.69
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.69 [Google Scholar]
  79. Newman, Paul
    2009 “Fieldwork and Field Methods in Linguistics”. Language Documentation and Conservation3:1.113–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Newman, Paul & Martha Ratliff
    eds. 2001aLinguistic FieldworkCambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810206 [Google Scholar]
  81. 2001b “Introduction”. InNewman & Ratliff, 1–14. 10.1017/CBO9780511810206.001
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810206.001 [Google Scholar]
  82. Nida, Eugene A.
    1947 “Field Techniques in Descriptive Linguistics”. International Journal of American Linguistics13:3.138–146. 10.1086/463944
    https://doi.org/10.1086/463944 [Google Scholar]
  83. 1949Morphology: The descriptive analysis of words. 2nd ed.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 1981 “Informants or Colleagues?” A Festschrift for Native Speakered. byFlorian Coulmas, 169–174. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110822878‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822878-012 [Google Scholar]
  85. Penfield, Susan D., Angelina Serratos, Benjamin V. Tucker, Amelia Flores, Gilford Harper, Johnny Hill Jr. & Nora Vasquez
    2008 “Community Collaborations: Best practices for North American indigenous language documentation”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language191.187–202. 10.1515/IJSL.2008.029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2008.029 [Google Scholar]
  86. Pike, Kenneth L.
    1977 “Into the Unknown: Learning language by gesture”. DVD 1 in the series Pike on Language, produced byMack Woodruff & Marcia Jablonski. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Television Studios.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 1982Linguistic Concepts: An Introduction to Tagmemics. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 1993Talk, Thought, and Thing: The emic road to conscious knowledge. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Posted on the website ofSIL International. Accessed6 October 2019athttps://www.sil.org/about/klp/publications/talk-thought-and-thing-emic-road-toward-conscious-knowledge
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 1998 “A Linguistic Pilgrimage”. InFirst Person Singular III: Autobiographies by North American scholars in the language sciences (= Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 88) ed. byE. F. K. Koerner, 143–158. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sihols.88.09pik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.88.09pik [Google Scholar]
  90. Postal, Paul M.
    1979 Some Syntactic Rules in Mohawk. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Rice, Keren
    2006 “Ethical Issues in Linguistic Fieldwork: An overview”. Journal of Academic Ethics4.123–155. 10.1007/s10805‑006‑9016‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-006-9016-2 [Google Scholar]
  92. 2011 “Documentary Linguistics and Community Relations”. Language Documentation and Conservation5.187–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 2012 “Ethical Issues in Linguistic Fieldwork”. InThieberger, 407–429. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571888.013.0019
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571888.013.0019 [Google Scholar]
  94. Rohner, Ronald P.
    ed. 1969The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters and diaries of Franz Boas written on the northwest coast from 1886 to 1931trans. byHedy Parker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Sakel, Jeanette & Daniel L. Everett
    2012Linguistic Fieldwork: A student guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139016254
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139016254 [Google Scholar]
  96. Samarin, William J.
    1967Field Linguistics: A guide to linguistic field work. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Sapir, Edward
    1923 “Text Analyses of Three Yana Dialects”. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology20.263–294.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Sapir, Edward & Alfred L. Kroeber
    1984The Sapir–Kroeber Correspondence: Letters between Edward Sapir and A. L. Kroeber 1905–1925ed. byVictor Golla (=Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, Report 6). Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Sarvasy, Hannah
    2016 “Monolingual Fieldwork in and Beyond the Classroom: The Logooli experience at UCLA”. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society51.471–484.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Sarvasy, Hannah & Diana Forker
    eds. 2018Word Hunters: Field linguists on fieldwork (= Studies in Language Companion Series, 194). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.194
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.194 [Google Scholar]
  101. Shulist, Sarah
    2013 “Collaborating on Language: Contrasting the theory and practice of collaboration in linguistics and anthropology”. Collaborative Anthropologies6.1–29. 10.1353/cla.2013.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1353/cla.2013.0006 [Google Scholar]
  102. Stanley, Richard John
    1969 The Phonology of the Navaho Verb. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.]
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Stocking, George W., Jr.
    1974 “The Boas Plan for the Study of American Indian Languages”. Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and paradigmsed.Dell Hymes, 454–484. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Sumbatova, Nina
    2018 “My Fieldwork, from Georgia to Guinea”. InSarvasy & Forker, 123–137. 10.1075/slcs.194.09sum
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.194.09sum [Google Scholar]
  105. Thieberger, Nicholas
    ed. 2012The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Thieberger, Nicholas & Andrea L. Berez
    2012 “Linguistic Data Management”. InThieberger, 90–118. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571888.013.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571888.013.0005 [Google Scholar]
  107. Udell, Gerald, John McKenna, Sara Chapman, Francis Xavier & Johnnie D. Ragsdale, Jr.
    1972 “Responses of Co-Workers to the Word ‘Informant’’’. Studies in Linguistics in Honor of Raven I. McDavid, Jr.ed. byLawrence M. Davies, 441–453. Tuscaloosa, Ala.: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Uhlenbeck, E[ugenius] M[arius]
    1961 “The Study of the So-Called Exotic Languages and General Linguistics”. Lingua9.417–434. 10.1016/0024‑3841(61)90094‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(61)90094-8 [Google Scholar]
  109. Voegelin, C[harles] F.
    1959 Review of Eastern Ojibwa: Grammatical sketch, texts, and word list, ed. byCharles F. Hockett. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press 1957 Language35:1.109–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 1974 Review of A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology, ed. byCharles F. Hockett. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press 1970; Mentalism and Objectivism in Linguistics: The source of Leonard Bloomfield’s psychology of language, byEdwin Esper. New York: American Elsevier 1968; and ‘Review of Hockett’s Anthology, byZ[ellig] S. Harris, International Journal of American Linguistics39.252–255 1973 Language Sciences30.35–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Voegelin, Charles F. & Leonard Bloomfield
    1987 “Correspondence in Ojibwa”. Anthropological Linguistics29:1.1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Voegelin, Charles F. & Zellig S. Harris
    1951 “Methods for Determining Intelligibility among Dialects of Natural Languages”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society95:3.322–329.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Voegelin, C[harles] F. & Florence M. Robinett
    1954 “Obtaining a Linguistic Sample”. International Journal of American Linguistics20:2.89–100. 10.1086/464259
    https://doi.org/10.1086/464259 [Google Scholar]
  114. Wallis, Ethel Emily & Mary Angela Bennett
    1959Two Thousand Tongues to Go: The story of the Wycliffe Bible translators. New York: Harper and Brothers.
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Werner, Oswald
    1994 “Ethnography and Translation: Issues and challenges”. Sartoniana7.59–135. Ghent: Communication and Cognition.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Werner, Tom
    2017 “Tracking the Parallelism of Difference with Ostension Schemes”. Language Sciences62.139–159. 10.1016/j.langsci.2017.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2017.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  117. White, Leslie A.
    1963 “The ethnography and ethnology of Franz Boas”. Bulletin of the Texas Memorial Museum Bulletin6.1–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Wilner, Isaiah Lorado
    2015 “Friends in This World: The relationship of George Hunt and Franz Boas”. The Franz Boas Papers. Vol. 1: Franz Boas as public intellectual – theory, ethnography, activismed. byRegna Darnell, Michelle Hamilton, Robert L. A. Hancock & Joshua Smith, 163–189. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Wise, Mary Ruth, Thomas N. Headland & Ruth Margaret Brend
    eds. 2003Language and Life: Essays in memory of Kenneth L. Pike. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Wolff, John U.
    1987 “Bloomfield as an Austronesianist”. Historiographia Linguistica14:1.173–178. 10.1075/hl.14.1‑2.16wol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.14.1-2.16wol [Google Scholar]
  121. Woodbury, Anthony C.
    2011 “Language Documentation”. The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languagesed. byPeter K. Austin & Julia Sallabank, 159–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Yamada, Racquel-María
    2007 “Collaborative Linguistic Fieldwork: Practical application of the empowerment model”. Language Documentation and Conservation1:2.257–282.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Yegerlehner, John
    1955 “A Note on Eliciting Techniques”. International Journal of American Linguistics21:3.286–288. 10.1086/464341
    https://doi.org/10.1086/464341 [Google Scholar]
  124. Zgusta, L[adislav]
    1968 Review of Handling Unsophisticated Linguistic Informants, byAlan Healey. Canberra: Linguistic Circle of Canberra 1964 Archiv Orientalini36.332.
    [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error