Challenges in Researching Endangered and Vulnerable Languages in Serbia within the Project “Vulnerable Languages and Linguistic Varieties in Serbia”: Methodological and Ethical Issues
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v19i1.12Keywords:
methodology of field work, language documentation, endangered languages, vulnerable languages, methodological challenges, ethical issuesAbstract
In the paper we define, elaborate and illustrate what language documentation is, firstly by focusing on the global context where the large number of vanishing languages warrants such an approach in applied linguistics, and then by narrowing our scope to the local context of the Republic of Serbia, which itself has a certain number of endangered and vulnerable languages and language varieties. Indicating the discrepancy between official records found in world catalogues and databases (UNESCO’s Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, Ethnologue, and The Catalogue of Endangered Languages (ELCat)) and the situation in the field as described by researchers familiar with the local context, we investigate the experiences of a team of researchers currently working on documenting Aromanian, Banat Bulgarian, Vojvodina Rusyn (Ruthenian), Judezmo (Ladino), Romani (Gurbet and Arli varieties), Megleno-Romanian and Romanian (Bayash and Vlach varieties) as endangered and vulnerable languages and language varieties in Serbia. Using interviews as a method for collecting data, conveying the researchers’ experiences in the field and their ways of dealing with various issues that come up in the process of language documentation, we have singled out two broad fields of topics. The first one tackles methodological challenges encountered prior and during field work, whereas the second focuses on ethical issues that necessarily must be resolved due to the participation of human subjects. In terms of the first group of topics, we have focused on research design (considerations involved in the project preparation), sampling (usually relying on researchers’ previous experiences more than on official records), personal involvement (often inevitable, but researchers do present strategies that help them maintain objectivity), and establishing first contact and recruiting informants (which also relies on previous work in the community). As for the second group of topics, that concerns ethical issue, the researchers have discussed the ways of getting informants’ consent for research and how they explain the importance of language documentation for that particular community and its members. Additionally, it addresses the issue of compensation that sometimes occurs, where informants expect either material or other kind of reward for helping out the research team. The paper also discusses how researchers deal with various sensitive topics that may range from personal issues to political opinions, and finally, the ethical responsibility that the researchers have towards the community they are studying in terms of giving something back and providing a sustainable relationship towards the language in question. We conclude by positioning the process of language documentation in the wider field of social studies, indicating its importance not only for sociolinguistics but also for the sociology of language, sociology of ethnicity and other related disciplines.
Downloads
References
Austin, Peter. 2006. “Data and language documentation”. In Essentials of Language Documentation, edited by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, 87–112. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197730
Austin, Peter and Julia Sallabank, eds. 2011. The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berez, Andrea, Jean Mulder, and Daisy Rosenblum, eds. 2010. Fieldwork and Linguistic Analysis in Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Berge, Anna. 2010. “Adequacy in documentation”. In Language Documentation. Practice and Values, edited by Lenore Grenoble and Louanna Furbee, 51–66. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.158
Bošnjaković, Žarko. 2008. „Fonetske osobine govora istočne Šumadije.“ Srpski dijalektološki zbornik 55/1: 7–321.
Bošnjaković, Žarko, and Dragana Radovanović. 2009. „Fonetske varijacije u govoru izbeglica u Novom Sadu.“ U Govor Novog Sada. Sv. 1, Fonetske osobine, uredio Žarko Bošnjaković, 310–348. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.
Bošnjaković, Žarko, and Biljana Sikimić. 2013. Bunjevci: etnodijalektološka istraživanja, 2009. Subotica: Nacionalni savet bunjevačke nacionalne manjine.
Comrie, Bernard, and Lucía Golluscio, eds. 2015. Language Contact and Documentation. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Creswell, John. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crystal, David. 2003. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139106856
Ćirković, Svetlana. 2015a. „Istraživanja srpskih zajednica u županiji Arad u Rumuniji: antropološkolingvistička analiza narativa o pravljenju česnice.“ Ishodišta 1: 455–472.
Ćirković, Svetlana. 2015b. „Uloga istraživača u kreiranju korpusa konverzacionih narativa.“ Filolog 11: 267–280.
Dwyer, Arienne. 2006. “Ethics and practicalities of cooperative fieldwork and analysis”. In Essentials of Language Documentation, edited by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, 31–66. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197730
Dwyer, Arienne. 2010. “Models of successful collaboration”. In Language Documentation. Practice and Values, edited by Lenore Grenoble and Louanna Furbee, 193–212. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.158
Đurić-Milovanović, Aleksandra, Biljana Sikimić, i Mirča Maran. 2011. Rumunske verske zajednice u Banatu: Prilog proučavanju multikonfesionalnosti Vojvodine. Vršac: Visoka škola strukovnih strudija za obrazovanje vaspitača „Mihailo Palov“.
Essegbey, James, Brent Henderson, and Fiona McLaughlin, eds. 2015. Language Documentation and Endangerment in Africa. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/clu.17
Fajgelj, Stanislav. 2010. Metode istraživanja ponašanja. Beograd: Centar za primenjenu psihologiju.
Flores Farfán, José Antonio, and Fernando Ramallo, eds. 2010. New Perspectives on Endangered Languages. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/clu.1
Furbee, Louanna. 2010. “Language documentation: Theory and practice”. In Language Documentation. Practice and Values, edited by Lenore Grenoble and Louanna Furbee, 3–24. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.158
Gerdts, Donna. 2010. “Beyond expertise. The role of the linguist in language revitalization programs”. In Language Documentation. Practice and Values, edited by Lenore Grenoble and Louanna Furbee, 173–192. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.158
Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, eds. 2006. Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197730
Grenoble, Lenore. 2010. “Language documentation and field linguistics: The state of the field”. In Language Documentation. Practice and Values, edited by Lenore Grenoble and Louanna Furbee, 289–309. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ttps://doi.org/10.1075/z.158
Grenoble, Lenore, and Louanna Furbee, eds. 2010. Language Documentation. Practice and Values. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.158
Grenoble, Lenore, and Lindsay Whaley. 2006. Saving Languages. An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615931
Hill, Jane. 2006. “The ethnography of language and language documentation”. In Essentials of Language Documentation, edited by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, 113–128. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197730.113
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 1998. “Documentary and descriptive linguistics”. Linguistics 36 (1): 161–195. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.1.161
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2006. “Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for?”. In Essentials of Language Documentation, edited by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, 1–30. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197730.113
Jarić, Isidora, i Miloš Milenković. 2014. „Romi u Srbiji na preseku začaranih krugova siromaštva i identiteta: preliminarni rezultati istraživanja“. U Društveni i kulturni potencijali Roma u Srbiji, uredila Valentina Sokolovska, 143–159. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.
Labov, William. 1971. “The study of language in its social context”. In Advances in the Sociology of Language, edited by Joshua A. Fishman, 152–216. The Hague: Mouton.
Macri, Martha. 2010. “Language documentation. Whose ethics?”. In Language Documentation. Practice and Values, edited by Lenore Grenoble and Louanna Furbee, 37–47. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.158
Maxwell, Judith. 2010. “Training graduate students and community members for native language documentation”. In Language Documentation. Practice and Values, edited by Lenore Grenoble and Louanna Furbee, 255–274. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.158
McLaughlin, Fiona and Thierno Seydou Sall. 2001. “The give and take of fieldwork: Noun classes and other concerns”. In Linguistic Fieldwork, edited by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 189–210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110363685-020
Migge, Bettina and Isabelle Léglise, eds. 2013. Exploring Language in a Multilingual Context: Variation, Interaction and Ideology in Language Documentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979002
Milenković, Miloš, Isidora Jarić, i Ognjen Radonjić. 2014. „O uticaju benevolentne asimetrije na metodološki dizajn istraživanja na primeru jednog tekućeg interdisciplinarnog istraživanja Roma u Srbiji“. Antropologija 14(3): 27–44.
Milenković, Miloš, Isidora Jarić, i Valentina Sokolovska. 2014. „O nekim teorijsko-metodološkim problemima istraživanja romske populacije u sociologiji i etnologiji/sociokulturnoj antropologiji na primeru jednog tekućeg istraživanja u Srbiji”. Etnoantropološki problemi 9(4): 879–900. https://doi.org/10.21301/EAP.v9i4.3
Miloradović, Sofija. 2003. Upotreba padežnih oblika u govoru paraćinskog pomoravlja. Balkanistički i etnomigracioni aspekt. Beograd: Etnografski institut SANU.
Miloradović, Sofija. 2023. „Srpski dijalekti – dokumenti o tradiciji našeg narodnog života i neizostavni deo kulturnog nasleđa.“ Ishodišta 9: 163–176. https://doi.org/10.46630/ish.9.2023.12
Mirić, Mirjana, and Svetlana Ćirković. 2018. “Report on documenting the Gurbet Romani variety in East Serbia and creating the Romani-Serbian dictionary.” Studia Ethnologica Pragensia: Romové: etnologické reflexe/Roma: Ethnological Reflections 1: 105–113.
Mosel, Ulrike. 2006. “Fieldwork and community language work”. In Essentials of Language Documentation, edited by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, 67–85. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197730
Moseley, Christopher, ed. 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000187026
Pérez Báez, Gabriela, Chris Rogers, and Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada, eds. 2016. Language Documentation and Revitalization in Latin American Contexts. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Prelić, Mladen. 2008. (N)i ovde (n)i tamo: etnički identitet Srba u Mađarskoj na kraju XX veka. Beograd: Etnografski institut SANU.
Radović, Srđan. 2020. „Naučno-istraživački rad u narodu i na (gradskom) terenu: etnologija grada u Etnografskom institutu i Srbiji u socijalističkom periodu”. Glasnik Etnografskog instituta SANU 68(1): 53–73. https://doi.org/10.2298/GEI2001053R
Radović, Srđan. 2022. „Studije granica i etnologija jugoistične Evrope“. Zbornik Matice srpske za društvene nauke 181: 35–45. https://doi.org/10.2298/ZMSDN2281035R
Rice, Keren. 2010. “The linguist’s responsibilities to the community of speakers”. In Language Documentation. Practice and Values, edited by Lenore Grenoble and Louanna Furbee, 25–36. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.158
Sikimić, Biljana, ur. 2004. Skrivene manjine na Balkanu. Beograd: Balkanološki institut SANU.
Sikimić, Biljana. 2005. „Izazov terenskog rada – Etnolingvistika ili antropološka lingvistika.“ U Etnologija i antropologija: stanja i perspektive. Zbornik Etnografskog instituta SANU, uredila Ljiljana Gavrilović, 235–244. Beograd: Etnografski institut SANU.
Sikimić, Biljana. 2010. „Ibarski Kolašin između tradicije i svakodnevice.“ U Kosovo i Metohija u civilizacijskim tokovima, uredila Sofija Miloradović, 275–289. Kosovska Mitrovica: Univerzitet u Prištini, Filozofski fakultet.
Sikimić, Biljana. 2012a. „Timski terenski rad Balkanološkog instituta SANU. Razvoj istraživačkih ciljeva i metoda.“ U Terenska istraživanja – poetika susreta, uredila Milina Ivanović-Barišić: 167–198. Beograd: Etnografski institut SANU.
Sikimić, Biljana. 2012b. „Višejezičnost banatskih Roma: romski, srpski i rumunski jezik u svakodnevnoj komunikaciji.“ U Promene identiteta, kulture i jezika Roma u uslovima planske socijalno-ekonomske integracije, uredili Tibor Varadi i Goran Bašić, 419–434. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti.
Sikimić, Biljana. 2014. „Istraživač je prisutan: hrana kao tema i povod za razgovor i razmišljanje.“ U Obredna praksa – rečima o hrani, na materijalu iz srpskih govora Vojvodine, uredila Sofija Miloradović, 97–111. Novi Sad: Matica srpska.
Sokolovska, Valentina. 2014. “O metodologiji i uzorku istraživanja: društveni i kulturni potencijali romske etničke zajednice u Srbiji”. U Društveni i kulturni potencijali Roma u Srbiji, uredila Valentina Sokolovska, 7–26. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.
Sorescu-Marinković, Annemarie, Mirjana Mirić, and Svetlana Ćirković. 2020. “Assessing Linguistic Vulnerability and Endangerment in Serbia. A Critical Survey of Methodologies and Outcomes”. Balcanica 51: 65–104. doi.org/10.2298/BALC2051065S
Sorescu-Marinković, Annemarie, Thede Kahl, and Biljana Sikimić, eds. 2021. Boyash Studies: Researching “Our People”. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Sorescu-Marinković, Annemarie, Svetlana Ćirković, Mirjana Mirić, Anđela Redžić, Neda Pons, Valentina Sokolovska, Biljana Radić-Bojanić, Stefana Paunović Rodić, Dalibor Sokolović, Mirjana Ćorković, Dušan Vlajić, and Maja Miličević Petrović. 2022. “Vulnerable Languages and Linguistic Varieties in Serbia (VLingS)”. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7376595
Thomason, Sarah. 2015. Endangered Languages. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139033817
Todorović, Dragan. 2011. „Romi na Balkanu i u Srbiji“. Teme XXXV/4: 1137–1174.
Todorović, Dragan. 2014. „Kulturni identitet Roma“. U Društveni i kulturni potencijali Roma u Srbiji, uredila Valentina Sokolovska, 57–77. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.
Woodbury, Anthony. 2003. “Defining documentary linguistics”. In Language Description and Documentation vol. 1., edited by Peter Austin, 35–51. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.
Zakon o nauci i istraživanjima, Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije, 49/19. https://prosveta.gov.rs/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Zakon-o-nauci.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
ERIH PLUS - European Reference Index for the Humanities
World Cat
AnthroSerbia
