LANGUAGE REVITALIZATION and DOCUMENTATION a Framework for Language Revitalization and Documentation

Home , Endangered language, Koasati language, Language documentation, Language revitalization

LANGUAGE REVITALIZATION AND DOCUMENTATION A framework for Language Revitalization and Documentation

COLLEEN M. FITZGERALD Texas A&M University—Corpus Christi As a journal, Language has a substantial history of publishing articles about areas of linguistics now commonly identified as language documentation, revitalization, and reclamation. The signif- icance of this vein of research is exemplified by the collection of articles published by Ken Hale and colleagues in this journal in 1992 (Hale et al. 1992). These articles present themselves as case studies of language revitalization, outlining arguments for the importance of linguistic training and assessing language vitality and diversity, all with more relevance than ever nearly three decades later. Language Revitalization and Documentation, a new section of the journal, will build upon the base of knowledge as a venue for peer-reviewed research articles in language revitalization and documentation. As the inaugural associate editor for this journal section, I out- line a framework for the section as a starting point for submissions. 1. Language documentation and revitalization. Over the four years I recently spent running a federal funding program on the documentation of endangered languages,1 I found that it was useful and sometimes necessary to draw on the distinction Himmelmann (1998) makes between documentary and descriptive linguistics in his seminal paper arguing for language documentation as its own subfield. They are by no means equivalent. Himmelmann notes that ‘language documentation … aims at the record of the linguistic practices and traditions of a speech community ... [and] may include a description of the language system’ (1998:166). Language documentation represents a broader ecosystem within which the linguistics component operates alongside others, given the much wider role that speech practices play in societies, organizations, and human behavior. Accordingly, language documentation involves a number of language-related subdisciplines, as listed in 1. (1) Language-related subdisciplines influencing the contents and makeup of language documentation (Himmelmann 1998:167) a. sociological and anthropological approaches to language (variationist linguistics, sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, linguistic and cognitive anthropology, language contact, etc.) b. theoretical, comparative, and descriptive linguistics c. discourse analysis, spoken language research, rhetoric d. language acquisition e. phonetics f. ethics, language rights, and language planning g. field methods h. oral literature and oral history i. corpus linguistics j. educational linguistics The more traditional Boasian trilogy of descriptive linguistic products—a grammar, a dictionary, and a set of analyzed texts—takes on a different life in this ecosystem.

1 I am referring to the federal funding initiative known until 2019 as Documenting Endangered Languages, which is a joint funding partnership between the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National En- dowment for the Humanities (NEH). The program continues as a joint funding initiative, renamed as NSF Dynamic Language Infrastructure – NEH Documenting Endangered Languages. e1

Woodbury (2003:42) argues that these are not the ‘end-product of documentation’ but ‘part of the apparatus—the descriptive and explanatory material—that annotates a documentary corpus’. Linguistic description and language documentation are not isomor- phic. And as the list in 1 suggests, the documentation of a language is multifaceted and interdisciplinary. We turn to language revitalization, which is the process of reversing language shift to ensure the language’s survival. Hinton (2001:5) distills this into ‘the development of pro- grams that result in re-establishing a language which has ceased being the language of communication in the speech community and bringing it back into full use in all walks of life’. McIvor (2020) characterizes the field of Indigenous Language Revitalization as interdisciplinary and distinct from applied linguistics, with numerous research questions still unanswered, and she calls for an expansion on the existing empirical body of research, especially as it pertains to Indigenous language learning contexts. Austin and Sal- labank (2018) argue for greater ‘attention to wider contexts of local histories, ethnographies’, and language ideologies as part of language revitalization (and also documentation). The loss of Indigenous languages cannot be divorced from the legacies of colonialism, including forcible and often violent language shift from Indigenous to colonial languages. Language revitalization in practice and in theory has increased its engagement with approaches that directly address power inequities, democratizing knowledge, and decolonizing approaches. Such approaches may be framed in or draw from Indigenous methodologies, as theorized in Wilson 2008, Kovach 2010, or Smith 2012. Action-based or participatory or community-based models, highlighted in articles such as Rice 2006, Yamada 2007, Czaykowska-Higgins 2009, and Leonard & Haynes 2010, among others, also provide a framework for ethical models; these papers draw to varying degrees from Indigenous approaches as well. Overall, a synthesis of the relevant influences on language revitalization, parallel to Himmelmann’s identification of subdisciplines (1) can illustrate the breadth and depth of the subfield of language revitalization, synthesized in 2. (2) A possible synthesis of the disciplines and subdisciplines influencing research into Indigenous language revitalization a. decolonization theory b. Indigenous knowledge and ways of being c. linguistics d. education e. second language acquisition f. the learning sciences g. social justice h. language teaching and learning contexts i. trauma studies j. ethics, language rights, and language planning k. teaching methods l. oral literature and oral history m. Indigenous methodologies n. well-being and resilience One might as well imagine a third list that merges all items in 1 and 2 and applies equally to both documentation and revitalization. Being cognizant of critiques of the colonial dimensions of linguistics in terms of underdocumented and minority languages (Errington 2008, Leonard 2017, 2020), a greater integration of the foundations of each LANGUAGE REVITALIZATION AND DOCUMENTATION e3 might be valuable in terms of sustainable models of language documentation. The fram- ing and decisions made in documenting a community’s language has implications that persevere beyond and outside of that community. Davis (2017:48) prioritizes ‘the cen- tering of languages within social contexts, individual lives, and embodied experiences [which] provides counter-strategies to linguistic extraction’. Her discussion focuses on the rhetorics used to discuss Indigenous and underdocumented languages, but it is a vision of a more holistic and human theory of language documentation. The relationship between language revitalization and documentation is also a research question of interest, much like the phonetics-phonology or syntax-semantics interface that has occupied many researchers. Language revitalization and documentation are not necessarily discrete entities with no intersections, and the role and relationship between the two is also being explored in a larger scholarly literature. Austin and Sallabank (2018) note many reasons why language documentation may be unusable by communities as language revitalization, such as the inclusion of topics that are sacred (or equally unusable, for those that are profane) or the overuse of linguistic jargon and analysis in documentation, making it inaccessible. Drawing from a long-term case study on Chickasaw, a Muskogean Native American language, Fitzgerald and Hinson (2013) argue that language documentation and revitalization are two parts of a feedback loop that includes linguistic analysis and training, and that each stage benefits from the feedback from the stage before it, enhancing final documentary and revitalization products (see also Fitzgerald 2017, 2020), illustrated by the model in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The Chickasaw model (Fitzgerald & Hinson 2013:59).

Case studies in language revitalization, documentation, and training are direct prog- eny of the articles by Hale et al. (1992). Himmelmann (1998) credits the articles with sparking the emergence of a newly distinct subfield, language documentation. Within that collection, England 1992 and Watahomigie & Yamamoto 1992 serve as classic exemplars of the value of democratizing linguistic knowledge and of training community members in what is relevant for them in their language efforts. This new section of Lan- guage will build upon those exemplars and, in doing so, augment the base of knowledge on language revitalization and documentation. 2. Language documentation as scholarly contributions. Our new section of Language will also provide a formal venue for the recognition of the scholarly contributions of language documentation. After all, one way that academia marks the value of a contribution is in the awarding of a doctoral degree, in the labor market through hiring, and in the tenure and promotion of scholars involved in language documentation. Peer-reviewed publications play a key role in those activities. If work in language documentation is considered a valuable intellectual contribution, then the reward system should encourage it. Rice (2002) argues that professional associations have played a e4 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 97, NUMBER 1 (2021) key role in the reconsideration of different scholarship types, including the scholarship of engagement, which includes community-based research and collaborative practices so centered in many approaches to language documentation and revitalization. O’Meara (2011) observes that professional associations can serve as either a catalyst or a barrier in tenure and promotion policies. Although other factors like institution or ap- pointment type play a greater role, her findings highlight the fact that institutions have lagged in revising tenure and promotion policies to recognize new dissemination ven- ues or more expansive notions of scholarship. More recently, in linguistics Dobrin and Berson (2011:206) note that ‘in order to make lasting shifts … departmental hiring and employment priorities must change’. Montoya (2020:e244) advocates for a better align- ment of academic reward systems to ‘a broadened notion of excellence and to inclusion’ in order to address structural inequities and barriers that particularly disadvantage scholars and communities of color. The Linguistic Society of America (LSA) has tried at different points to highlight the value of such contributions, with formal statements or resolutions in 1994, 2010, and 2018,2 and by commissioning a journal article on how to assess scholarship in documentary linguistics. The founding of a new section dedi- cated to this topic reflects another outgrowth of those efforts, as it will create a platform for peer review of documentary collections and provide a disciplinary endorsement to validate this kind of scholarship. Minimal best practices in digital deposits of language documentation have been es- tablished by the Digital Endangered Languages and Music Archiving Network (DELA- MAN); these focus on using a repository with a commitment to long-term preservation and access; adhering to recommended archival digital formats that are nonproprietary and, if possible, also open-source; creating a deposit that can be accessible (where downloadable is one part of that); and recording on equipment that produces quality sound and video (DELAMAN 2018). The deposit should also include both metadata that uses a standard format, such as the Open Languages Archive Community format or Dublin Core, and a description of the collection, and it should be predominantly public- access or should identify how access can be obtained. In terms of the peer review of language documentation, models do exist for ensuring that such scholarly production better aligns to the reward system in the discipline. As part of a separate discussion of this issue by the Australian Linguistic Society in con- junction with public-access requests by the Australian Research Council, Thieberger et al. (2015) identified three criteria for how to approach the peer review of corpora: accessibility, quality, and quantity. Not all deposits are suitable for peer review. For example, Thieberger et al. (2015) give two examples of cases where peer review is impos- sible: a language documentation corpus that consists of recordings but is not annotated, or an annotated set of language documentation that is restricted and inaccessible. In other words, all criteria should be met to some degree, but under evaluation, we expect that a given language documentation corpus may be stronger in some areas than others. The criteria in 3 serve as a rubric for how a researcher can review a documentary corpus by another researcher or team of researchers, or how a scholar would write an article serving as a guide to their own deposit.

2 Readers may wish to review these documents, especially those undergoing tenure and/or promotion. The 2010 resolution ‘support[ed] the development of appropriate means of review of such works so that their functionality, import, and scope can be assessed relative to other language resources and to more traditional publications’, and the 2018 ‘Statement on the evaluation of language documentation for hiring, tenure, and promotion’ lays out specific standards and approaches to peer-review of language documentation corpora. LANGUAGE REVITALIZATION AND DOCUMENTATION e5

(3) Criteria for evaluating archival deposits of language documentation (adapted from Thieberger et al. 2015) a. Accessibility (i) deposited in a repository committed to providing long-term curation and access, including a persistent identifier and a citation form for items within the deposit (ii) has a landing page or file with a basic description (iii) includes access to metadata and a clear path to accessing the data in the corpus (iv) files are in formats that are nonproprietary (v) if files are restricted, they are not evaluated; only the accessible por- tions of the deposit are reviewed (note: accessible includes as a reg- istered user of the archive) b. Quality (i) the nature and amount of contextual and background information (ii) the structure of the deposit (iii) metadata quality (iv) the nature of linguistic annotation of the data (v) structural linking between raw data and their annotations (i.e. time- aligned transcriptions) c. Quantity (i) content (range of speakers of various ages, genders, dialects; a range of genres) (ii) amount of data (i.e. amount of text, number of items, and diversity among items), with more academic value given to deposits with more analytical work The journal Language Documentation & Conservation (LDC) has published several articles from this genre; the new section of Language is also being created in part to provide an additional peer-reviewed platform for corpus overview articles. For example, Salffner (2015) produced a peer-reviewed publication in LDC covering her post- doctoral documentary work on Ikaan, characterized as one of four languages or dialects of the Ukaa cluster, from the Benue-Congo language family, spoken in southwestern Nigeria. This corpus is deposited at the Endangered Language Archive (ELAR). An- other example is Caballero (2017), who describes the documentary corpus of Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara), a member of the Uto-Aztecan language family spoken in northern Mexico. Both papers include geographic and linguistic information about the language, existing resources, key linguistic features guiding the investigation, identification of the team involved in the project, recording formats, a description of methodology and the corpus content, and photographic documentation. The descriptive paper and the corpus itself play a role in fostering open science practices in the language sciences. Accessible annotated language materials enable other scholars to probe the original findings and to test whether those findings and claims are reproducible if another researcher seeks to use the same procedure and materials as in the original analysis (NSF 2015). Public access to data sets—here the documentary corpora and annotations—ensures integrity of the data and analyses in linguistics. Berez- Kroeker et al. (2018:9) cite several studies or papers alluding to peer-reviewed publications that contain erroneous data, and note that ‘scant few journal authors … [provide] sufficient citation of numbered examples from unpublished sources, or a minimal description of methods of data collection and analysis’. e6 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 97, NUMBER 1 (2021)

The scientific value of linguistics is strengthened by making one’s documentary (or other linguistic data) collections accessible. Language documentation has an immense humanistic and humanitarian value. Individuals and communities are revealing their stories, lives, beliefs, and knowledge through the documentation itself. The valuing of this through a possible peer review aligns that value with the reward system of academia and the expressly stated goals of LSA statements and resolutions. It also means that collections are accessible to communities, honoring the trust of those shared stories and the lives of the people involved. Finally, with the capability of including supple- mentary materials, these collection-description papers can utilize the full digital capa- bilities of Language. 3. Other possible contributions. The previous two sections highlighted several kinds of papers that will be welcome in the new section. Case studies and process papers from language documentation and revitalization are welcome, as are corpus overview articles, but several other kinds of articles are also appropriate for Language Revitalization and Documentation. Of particular interest are articles that bring new methodologies, technologies, theoretical models, or other topics to a general linguistics audience. Changing approaches growing out of the subfields of language revitalization and documentation reflect the rapid developments in technology, data sets, inclusive practices in the discipline, and interdisciplinary collaborations. It would benefit the larger Language audience to have access to a curated collection of articles presenting cutting-edge approaches useful beyond linguists working with endangered or Indige- nous language communities—for example, for teaching the department’s research methods courses or just remaining current with recent developments, just as one might do in syntactic or phonological theory. These kinds of papers do exist, and some have been published in Language. They advance the field of linguistics more generally, establishing best practices at a given point in history for the discipline or laying out the theoretical and empirical contributions of adopting a particular framework. The topic of ethics is one of great importance to many subdisciplines of linguists, not just field linguistics, although that subfield’s contributions of importance include Wilkins 1992, Craig 1993, Rice 2006, Czaykowska-Higgins 2009, and Bowern 2010. These papers often draw from other social science research frameworks, non-Western frameworks, or both. I have personally used Rice 2006 in ap- plications to institutional review boards for human subject research; the article is a source that validates practices common in language documentation, such as identification of participants by name. Bowern 2010 has been equally useful in arguing for emergent approaches to data collection, as opposed to a predetermined and limiting approach to col- lecting language data. Peer-reviewed articles transform colloquial and conventionalized practices into an acceptable shorthand that can be used in a wide range of academic contexts to confer legitimacy, especially valuable given that linguistics is a younger social science and a smaller field as compared to psychology, anthropology, or sociology. Interdisciplinarity as it intersects with the language sciences (or among the subfields of the language sciences) is another way to advance knowledge in the discipline and is viewed as valuable or even essential throughout many fields in science and engineering. As a definitional foundation and starting point, the National Science Foundation (Na- tional Academies 2004:2) uses the following: Interdisciplinary research is a mode of research by teams or individuals that integrates information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts, and/or theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge to advance fundamental understanding or to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline or area of research practice. LANGUAGE REVITALIZATION AND DOCUMENTATION e7

On a more local scale, interdisciplinarity within linguistics disciplines is characteriz- able by the cross-pollination of fields like sociolinguistics and language documentation, which for Childs et al. (2014:169) involves ‘sociolinguistic documentation … [of ] the sociolinguis tic contexts in which those codes are used, placing particular emphasis on the dynamics holding among multiple languages in a given environment’. Barwick (2005) offers a musicological approach to documenting songs and more. Music and po- etry have helped advance metrics, metrical stress theory, and phonological typology. On a less local scale, Charity Hudley et al. (2020) argue that a lack of theoretical grounding or models of race in linguistics is extremely limiting and that the language sciences would benefit from disciplines that have developed race as a theoretical concept, like sociology, anthropology, and psychology, as well as interdisciplinary fields that ‘center critical engagement with race and racism’ like Indigenous studies or Latinx studies (Charity Hudley et al. 2020:e202). 4. Advancing the language sciences through inclusion of diverse language scientists. As a final point, the need for highlighting the ways in which a more diverse and inclusive group of scientists can advance linguistics and language documentation has never been more urgent. A diverse set of scholars are working in language revitalization and documentation. The research questions and epistemologies that they ask and employ often differ from those that have more traditionally been in focus. The potential to advance knowledge of language through the investigations of questions that have never been asked or researched is high. In fact, the lack of Indigenous scholars in Language is highlighted by the themed collection published as part of the Interna- tional Year of Indigenous Languages (Thomason 2019), which notes that in its earliest years of publication languages from the United States and Canada comprised the bulk of those articles focusing on Indigenous languages. In tandem with that note, I observe that the first Indigenous authors of articles in the journal appear to be Lucille Wata- homigie and LaVerne Masayesva Jeanne (in the Hale et al. 1992 collection). To give an example from a different discipline, medical research: Nielsen et al. (2018) observe that as the proportion of women increased in medical research in the 1980s, a concurrent development occurred as underresearched areas pertinent to women’s health became more active foci of research; the authors draw a similar parallel in biological anthropology, correlating with the increase of women primatologists. Also in biological anthropology, Bolnick et al. (2019) assembled a collection of articles on the impact of diversity on scientific knowledge in their discipline. In ecology, Haines et al. (2020:19) analyze the authorship of papers on birdsong, showing that authors of papers on female birdsong are ‘significantly more likely to be women’, ultimately arguing that ‘increas- ing diversity in science can lead to new approaches for studying behaviour, ecology and conservation’. Other arguments for the value of diverse teams in science and innovation include Leshner 2011 and Hunt et al. 2015. Returning to the language sciences from the per- spective of Native American Studies, Leonard (2020:e288) proposes that the field might in part address the lack of representation of Native Americans in linguistics by better incorporating ‘a critical approach in which linguists recognize diverse epistemologies and research methodologies, and thoughtfully select their approach for a given research need from this larger pool’. 5. Summary. In this section, I explicitly enumerate the different types of submissions that we will consider. To further help potential authors determine whether their paper might be appropriate for the Language Revitalization and Documentation section of e8 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 97, NUMBER 1 (2021)

Language, I illustrate these types with citations. In all cases, prospective authors should consider implicitly what the article’s contribution would be to an audience of general linguists, as opposed to those working in language documentation and revitalization. The first type of article is a traditional article of the type that has appeared in Lan- guage, as well as other journals and edited collections. Here, the articles would be ex- pected to cover topics like research ethics and methodology, as well as case studies and models of language documentation and revitalization, highlighted in various points in §§2 and 4. Briefly, let me provide guidance with citations to similar articles, although bear in mind that a number of these are written for specialized audiences. For example, Rice 2006 and Czaykowska-Higgins 2009 address ethics through discussions of different models, with Czaykowska-Higgins building extensively on the empirical base of a collaboration case study. Articles typifying methodologies include those using interdisciplinarity approaches from music (Barwick 2005; see also McPherson 2019), archival research (Linn 2014), sociolinguistics (Childs et al. 2014), or ethnography (Shulist & Rice 2019). Case studies and models of language documentation and revitalization noted above include Fitzgerald & Hinson 2013 and Fitzgerald 2020, as well as Florey 2018, which analyzes a model developed in Australia, and Vallejos 2014, interrogating a documentary project in the Amazon. Yet another example is Langley et al. 2018, de- picting a US collaboration led by the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana. The second type is the corpus overview article, discussed in more detail above in §3, both in the abstract and via a discussion of Salffner 2015 and Caballero 2017. Other examples of this genre, covering sign and spoken languages worldwide, include Schembri et al. 2013, Gawne 2018, Hildebrandt et al. 2019, and Hemmings 2020. These illustrate what such papers should look like, if submitted to the section. 6. Conclusion. Meek (2016) explicitly contrasts two sets of bureaucratic charts produced by the Aboriginal Language Ser vices in the Yukon Territory, characterizing the state of local Indigenous languages. She argues that an analysis of the visual rhetoric of early charts characterizes this state as dire, in decline, and ‘shrinking’, but this changed as Indigenous communities gained sovereignty and autonomy. Later charts use metrics framed in more positive ways and expressing ‘the new “we”’ of First Nations communities identifying the questions and metrics of importance and value to them and highlighting opportunities like potential fluent speakers or potential instructors. Meek (2016:71) observes: ‘these charts suggested future “potential” for expansion’. This new section, Language Revitalization and Documentation, also represents the future ‘potential’ for expansion of these subfields of our discipline.

REFERENCES. Austin, Peter K., and Julia Sallabank. 2018. Language documentation and language revitalization: Some methodological considerations. The Routledge handbook of language revitalization, ed. by Leanne Hinton, Leena Huss, and Gerald Roche, 207–15. London: Routledge. Barwick, Linda. 2005. A musicologist’s wishlist: Some issues, practices and practicalities in musical aspects of language documentation. Language Documentation and Descrip- tion 3.53–62. Online: http://www.elpublishing.org/PID/035. Berez-Kroeker, Andrea L.; Lauren Gawne; Susan Smythe Kung; Barbara F. Kelly; Tyler Heston; Gary Holton; Peter Pulsifer; David I. Beaver; et al. 2018. Reproducible research in linguistics: A position statement on data citation and at- tribution in our field. Linguistics 56(1).1–18. DOI: 10.1515/ling-2017-0032. Bolnick, Deborah A.; Rick W. A. Smith; and Agustín Fuentes. 2019. How academic diversity is transforming scientific knowledge in biological anthropology. American Anthropologist 121(2).464. DOI: 10.1111/aman.13212. LANGUAGE REVITALIZATION AND DOCUMENTATION e9

Bowern, Claire. 2010. Fieldwork and the IRB: A snapshot. Language 86(4).897–905. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2010.0048. Caballero, Gabriela. 2017. Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) language description and documentation: A guide to the deposited collection and associated materials. Language Documentation & Conservation 11.224–55. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24734. Charity Hudley, Anne H.; Christine Mallinson; and Mary Bucholtz. 2020. Toward racial justice in linguistics: Interdisciplinary insights into theorizing race in the discipline and diversifying the profession. Language 96(4).e200–e235. DOI: 10.1353/lan .2020.0074. Childs, Tucker; Jeff Good; and Alice Mitchell. 2014. Beyond the ancestral code: To- wards a model for sociolinguistic language documentation. Language Documentation & Conservation 8.168–19. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24601. Craig, Colette. 1993. Fieldwork on endangered languages: A forward look at ethical issues. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Linguists, vol. 1, 33–42. Sainte-Foy: Les Presses de l’Université Laval. Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 2009. Research models, community engagement, and linguistic fieldwork: Reflections on working within Canadian Indigenous communities. Lan- guage Documentation & Conservation 3.15–50. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125 /4423. Davis, Jenny L. 2017. Resisting rhetorics of language endangerment: Reclamation through Indigenous language survivance. Language Documentation and Description (Special issue on reclaiming languages) 14.37–58. Online: http://www.elpublishing.org/PID /151. Digital Endangered Languages and Music Archiving Network. 2018. Minimal checklist for the preservation of digital language documentation materials. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/55829 , accessed December 12, 2020. Dobrin, Lise M., and Josh Berson. 2011. Speakers and language documentation. The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages, ed. by Peter K. Austin and Julia Salla- bank, 187–211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511 975981.010. England, Nora C. 1992. Doing Mayan linguistics in Guatemala. Language 68.29–35. DOI: 10.1353/lan.1992.0073. Errington, Joseph. 2008. Linguistics in a colonial world: A story of language, meaning, and power. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Fitzgerald, Colleen M. 2017. The sounds of Indigenous language revitalization. Invited plenary address at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Austin, TX. Video recording online: https://youtu.be/wrPe_6KdoOo, accessed February 3, 2017. Fitzgerald, Colleen M. 2020. Understanding language documentation and revitalization as a feedback loop. Amazonian Spanish: Language contact and evolution, ed. by Stephen Fafulas, 81–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fitzgerald, Colleen M., and Joshua D. Hinson. 2013. ’Ilittibatoksali ‘We are working together’: Perspectives on our Chickasaw tribal-academic collaboration. FEL XVII: En- dangered languages beyond boundaries: Community connections, collaborative approaches, and cross-disciplinary research, ed. by Mary Jane Norris, Erik Anonby, Marie-Odile Junker, Nicholas Ostler, and Donna Patrick, 53–60. Bath The Foundation for Endangered Languages. Florey, Margaret. 2018. Transforming the landscape of language revitalization work in Australia: The documenting and revitalising Indigenous languages training model. In- sights from practices in community-based research: From theory to practice around the globe (Trends in linguistics 319), ed. by Shannon Bischoff and Carmen Jany, 314–37. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Gawne, Lauren. 2018. A guide to the Syuba (Kagate) language documentation corpus. Language Documentation & Conservation 12.204–34. Online: http://hdl.handle.net /10125/24768. Haines, Casey D.; Evangeline M. Rose; Karan J. Odom; and Kevin E. Omland. 2020. The role of diversity in science: A case study of women advancing female birdsong research. Animal Behaviour 168.19–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2020.07.021 Hale, Kenneth L.; Colette Craig; Nora England; Laverne Masayesva Jeanne; Michael Krauss; Lucille Watahomigie; and Akira Yamamoto. 1992. Endangered languages. Language 68.1–42. DOI: 10.1353/lan.1992.0052. e10 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 97, NUMBER 1 (2021)

Hemmings, Charlotte. 2020. Methods in language documentation and description: A guide to the Kelabit documentation project. Journal of Modern Languages 30(1).6–76. DOI: 10.22452/jml.vol30no1.1. Hildebrandt, Kristine A.; Tanner Burge-Beckley; and Jacob Sebok. 2019. Language documentation in the aftermath of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes: A guide to two archives and a web exhibit. Language Documentation & Conservation 13.618–51. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24914. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36.161–95. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1998.36.1.161. Hinton, Leanne. 2001. Language revitalization: An overview. The green book of language revitalization in practice, ed. by Leanne Hinton and Kenneth Hale, 3–18. San Diego: Academic Press. Hunt, Vivian; Dennis Layton; and Sara Prince. 2015. Diversity matters. New York: McKinsey & Company. Online: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey /business%20functions/organization/our%20insights/why%20diversity%20matters /diversity%20matters.ashx, accessed May 1, 2018. Kovach, Margaret. 2010. Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Langley, Bertney; Linda Langley; Jack B. Martin; and Stephanie Hasselbacher. 2018. The Koasati Language Project: A collaborative, community-based language documentation and revitalization model. Insights from practices in community-based research: From theory to practice around the globe (Trends in linguistics 319), ed. by Shannon Bischoff and Carmen Jany, 132–50. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10 .1515/9783110527018-007. Leonard, Wesley Y. 2017. Producing language reclamation by decolonizing ‘language’. Language Documentation and Description (Special issue on reclaiming languages) 14.15–36. Online: http://www.elpublishing.org/PID/150. Leonard, Wesley Y. 2020. Insights from Native American Studies for theorizing race and racism in linguistics (Response to Charity Hudley, Mallinson, and Bucholtz). Language 96(4).e281–e291. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2020.0079. Leonard, Wesley Y., and Erin Haynes. 2010. Making ‘collaboration’ collaborative: An examination of perspectives that frame linguistic field research. Language Documenta- tion & Conservation 4.269–93. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4482. Linn, Mary S. 2014. Living archives: A community-based language archive model. Lan- guage Documentation and Description (Special issue on language documentation and archiving) 12.53–67. Online: http://www.elpublishing.org/PID/137. Leshner, Alan I. 2011. We need to reward those who nurture a diversity of ideas in science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 6, 2011. Online: http://chronicle.com /article/We-Need-to-Reward-Those-Who/126591/. Linguistic Society of America. 1994. The need for the documentation of linguistic diversity. Online: https://www.linguisticsociety.org/files/lsa-stmt-documentation-linguistic -diversity.pdf. Linguistic Society of America. 2010. Resolution recognizing the scholarly merit of language documentation. Online: https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/resolution -recognizing-scholarly-merit-language-documentation. Linguistic Society of America. 2018. Statement on evaluation of language documentation for hiring, tenure, and promotion. Online: https://www.linguisticsociety.org /resource/statement-evaluation-language-documentation-hiring-tenure-and-promotion. McIvor, Onowa. 2020. Indigenous language revitalization and applied linguistics: Parallel histories, shared futures? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 40.78–96. DOI: 10.1017/S0267190520000094. McPherson, Laura. 2019. The role of music in documenting phonological grammar: Two case studies from West Africa. Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Meeting on Phonology. DOI: 10.3765/amp.v7i0.4493. Meek, Barbra A. 2016. Shrinking indigenous language in the Yukon. Scale: Discourse and dimensions of social life, ed. by E. Summerson Carr and Michael Lempert, 70– 88. Berkeley: University of California Press. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j .ctv9hvqvv.8. LANGUAGE REVITALIZATION AND DOCUMENTATION e11

Montoya, Ignacio L. 2020. Enabling excellence and racial justice in universities by ad- dressing structural obstacles to work by and with people from racially minoritized communities: Response to Charity Hudley et al. Language 96(4).e236–e246. DOI: 10.1353 /lan.2020.0075. National Academies. 2004. Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Committee on Facili- tating Interdisciplinary Research, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Pol- icy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. DOI: 10.17226/11153. National Science Foundation (NSF) Directorate of Social, Behavioral and Eco- nomic Sciences. 2015. Social, behavioral, and economic sciences perspectives on robust and reliable science. SBE Advisory Committee 2015 report. Online: https://www .nsf.gov/sbe/AC_Materials/SBE_Robust_and_Reliable_Research_Report.pdf. Nielsen, Mathias Wullum; Carter Walter Bloch; and Londa Schiebinger. 2018. Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation. Nature Human Behavior 2.726–34. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-018-0433-1. O’Meara, KerryAnn. 2011. Inside the panopticon: Studying academic reward systems. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, ed. by John C. Smart and Michael B. Paulsen, 161–220. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-0702 -3_5. Rice, Keren. 2006. Ethical issues in linguistic fieldwork: An overview. Journal of Aca- demic Ethics 4.123–55. DOI: 10.1007/s10805-006-9016-2. Rice, R. Eugene. 2002. Beyond Scholarship reconsidered: Toward an enlarged vision of the scholarly work of faculty members. New Directions for Teaching and Learn- ing 90.7–18. DOI: 10.1002/tl.51. Salffner, Sophie. 2015. A guide to the Ikaan language and culture documentation. Lan- guage Documentation & Conservation 9.237–67. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125 /24639. Schembri, Adam; Jordan Fenlon; Ramas Rentelis; Sally Reynolds; and Kearsy Cormier. 2013. Building the British Sign Language corpus. Language Documentation & Conservation 7.136–54. DOI: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4592. Shulist, Sarah, and Faun Rice. 2019. Towards an interdisciplinary bridge between documentation and revitalization: Bringing ethnographic methods into endangered-language projects and programming. Language Documentation & Conservation 13.36–62. DOI: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24798. Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2012. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peo- ples. 2nd edn. New York: Zed Books. Thieberger, Nick; Anna Margetts; Stephen Morey; and Simon Musgrave. 2015. As- sessing annotated corpora as research output. Australian Journal of Linguistics 36.1– 21. DOI: 10.1080/07268602.2016.1109428. Thomason, Sarah G. 2019. Special issue on Indigenous languages: Introduction. Lan- guage 95(5).e474–e478. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2019.0087. Vallejos, Rosa. 2014. Integrating language documentation, language preservation, and linguistic research: Working with the Kokamas from the Amazon. Language Documenta- tion & Conservation 8.38–65. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4618. Watahomigie, Lucille J., and Akira Y. Yamamoto. 1992. Local reactions to language decline. Language 68(1).10–17. DOI: 10.1353/lan.1992.0076. Wilkins, David. 1992. Linguistic research under Aboriginal control: A personal account of fieldwork in central Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics 12.171–200. DOI: 10.1080/07268609208599475. Wilson, Shawn. 2008. Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Winnipeg: Fernwood. Woodbury, Anthony C. 2003. Defining documentary linguistics. Language Documenta- tion and Description 1.35–51. Online: http://www.elpublishing.org/PID/006. Yamada, Racquel. 2007. Collaborative linguistic fieldwork: Practical application of the empowerment model. Language Documentation & Conservation1.257–82. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/1717.

[[email protected]] [Received 31 December 2020; accepted 31 December 2020]