Linguistic anthi Relativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. language(called field language). The process of analyzing its structure and use is therefore closely tied Ochs E, Schieffelin B B 1984 Language acquisition and soci- to the process of language learning. This means that alization: Three developmental stories. In: Shweder A, the choice of research topics, the sequence in which Le vine R A(eds Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. UK d the ch methods and pp.276-320 techniques depend on the fieldworkers' progress in Schieffelin bb. woolard K P(eds )1998 Language learning. The better they understand and speak the New York language, the higher the quality of their data will be Silverstein M 1976 Shifters categories,and cultural because they will have to rely less on translation. description. In: Basso K H, Selby HA(eds ) Meaning in Although the progress of learning a field language Anthropology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, depends on the structure of the language and the talent of the researchers and their teachers, experience show ngs of Benjamin Lee Whorf(ed Carroll J B). MIT Press. that the methods which have been developed for Cambridge MA learning and analyzing a field language work well for Zentella A C 1997 Growing Up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children very different types of languages and people in New york. blac Oxford UK Since languages are never homogenous systems, bu show regional societal. and situational variation the A Duranti linguists and the speech communities they work with have to decide which variety should be the object of their first investigation. Only when they have a good command of one variety can they endeavor to study another Linguistic fieldwork 3. Time plan 1. History Before leaving for fieldwork, the researchers gather as The history of linguistic fieldwork began in the much information as possible about the field language, nineteenth century when linguists started to explore and the political and sociocultural situation of the the dialects of European languages. The most famous peech community they are going to visit. If no helped the Swiss dialectologist Jules Gillieron to collect able, they should try to access information about data for the Atlas linguistique de france. Cycling to related languages in order to get an idea of what to 639 locations, he interviewed 700 dialect speake xpect. For the work in the field itself, the ideal time Chambers and Trudgill 1980, p. 20). Non-European plan consists of at least three field trips. The first trip is unwritten languages were first systematically investi- used for establishing contact and collecting the first ted on a large scale by the anthropologist Franz Boas samples of data. On the second trip the main body of (1858-1942), who started to do fieldwork on American data is collected, while the last trip will be used for Indian languages at the end of the nineteenth century unclea Boas was also the teacher of a number of influential after the analysis and description of the results of the twentieth century anthropologists and linguists, e.g revious t Mead, Edward Sapir, and Leonard Data collection during the fieldwork is not confined to audio or video recording of spoken language and Until recently linguistic fieldwork on unwritten non taking notes during interviews. Rather, all recordings European languages did not attract much attention in need to be transcribed and translated with the help of mainstream linguistics. It is only since the early 1990s native speakers who understand exactly the context of that the linguistic departments of universities and the the speech situation and what the people are talking professional societies have become increasingly aware about. In addition, the fieldworker should at least of the need for researching these languages, about 90 draft a rough analysis of the data, as only analysis and rcent of which are endangered( Grenoble and description reveal gaps and unclear items in the data Whaley 1998, Krauss 1992) If for practical and financial reaso ns it is not possibl to visit the fieldwork site several times the fieldworker has to structure her/his stay into comparable phas 2. Learning and Analyzing Unresearched of work, so that phases of interviews and recording translation, and transcription alternate with phas where the researcher steps back from data collection in Fieldwork on languages which have not yet order to concentrate on analysis and description described differs from other kinds of linguistic The question of how much time has to be planned work in that the linguist comes to the speech for doing fieldwork with the purpose of writing a munity with no or only marginal knowledge grammar, compiling a dictionary, or editing a reason- Copyright 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. International Encyclopedia of the Social Behavioral Sciences ISBN:0-08-043076-7RelatiŠity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 407–37 Ochs E, Schieffelin B B 1984 Language acquisition and soci￾alization: Three developmental stories. In: Shweder R A, LeVine R A (eds.) Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 276–320 Schieffelin B B, Woolard K, Kroskrity P (eds.) 1998 Language Ideologies. Oxford University Press, New York Silverstein M 1976 Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In: Basso K H, Selby H A (eds.) Meaning in Anthropology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 11–56 Whorf B L 1956 Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf [ed. Carroll J B]. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Zentella A C 1997 Growing Up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Blackwell, Oxford, UK A. Duranti Linguistic Fieldwork 1. History The history of linguistic fieldwork began in the nineteenth century when linguists started to explore the dialects of European languages. The most famous fieldworker of this time was Edmond Edmont who helped the Swiss dialectologist Jules Gillie!ron to collect data for the Atlas linguistique de France. Cycling to 639 locations, he interviewed 700 dialect speakers (Chambers and Trudgill 1980, p. 20). Non-European unwritten languages were first systematically investi￾gated on a large scale by the anthropologist Franz Boas (1858–1942), who started to do fieldwork on American Indian languages at the end of the nineteenth century. Boas was also the teacher of a number of influential twentieth century anthropologists and linguists, e.g., Margaret Mead, Edward Sapir, and Leonard Bloomfield. Until recently linguistic fieldwork on unwritten non￾European languages did not attract much attention in mainstream linguistics. It is only since the early 1990s that the linguistic departments of universities and the professional societies have become increasingly aware of the need for researching these languages, about 90 percent of which are endangered (Grenoble and Whaley 1998, Krauss 1992). 2. Learning and Analyzing Unresearched Languages Fieldwork on languages which have not yet been described differs from other kinds of linguistic field￾work in that the linguist comes to the speech com￾munity with no or only marginal knowledge of the language (called field language). The process of analyzing its structure and use is therefore closely tied to the process of language learning. This means that the choice of research topics, the sequence in which they are studied, and the research methods and techniques depend on the fieldworkers’ progress in learning. The better they understand and speak the language, the higher the quality of their data will be, because they will have to rely less on translation. Although the progress of learning a field language depends on the structure of the language and the talent of the researchers and their teachers, experience shows that the methods which have been developed for learning and analyzing a field language work well for very different types of languages and people. Since languages are never homogenous systems, but show regional, societal, and situational variation, the linguists and the speech communities they work with have to decide which variety should be the object of their first investigation. Only when they have a good command of one variety can they endeavor to study another. 3. Time Plan Before leaving for fieldwork, the researchers gather as much information as possible about the field language, and the political and sociocultural situation of the speech community they are going to visit. If no information of the structure of the language is avail￾able, they should try to access information about related languages in order to get an idea of what to expect. For the work in the field itself, the ideal time plan consists of at least three field trips. The first trip is used for establishing contact and collecting the first samples of data. On the second trip the main body of data is collected, while the last trip will be used for filling gaps and checking what has remained unclear after the analysis and description of the results of the previous trip. Data collection during the fieldwork is not confined to audio or video recording of spoken language and taking notes during interviews. Rather, all recordings need to be transcribed and translated with the help of native speakers who understand exactly the context of the speech situation and what the people are talking about. In addition, the fieldworker should at least draft a rough analysis of the data, as only analysis and description reveal gaps and unclear items in the data. If for practical and financial reasons it is not possible to visit the fieldwork site several times, the fieldworker has to structure her}his stay into comparable phases of work, so that phases of interviews and recording, translation, and transcription alternate with phases where the researcher steps back from data collection in order to concentrate on analysis and description. The question of how much time has to be planned for doing fieldwork with the purpose of writing a grammar, compiling a dictionary, or editing a reason- 8906 Linguistic Anthropology Copyright # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences ISBN: 0-08-043076-7