Vatandaşlar, konuşurlar (yok olma tehlikesi altındaki) dillerin ve kültürlerin belgelenmesi

Abstract

Son 30 yılda dilbilimciler küresel dil çeşitliliğine yönelik büyük tehditler olduğunun farkına vardılar. Bu, 21. yüzyılın sonuna gelindiğinde dünya üzerindeki 7.000 dilin yaklaşık %50’sinin, yok olma tehlikesi altında olup gelecek nesillere aktarılmadıkları için artık konuşulamayacağı anlamını taşımaktadır. Buna yönelik akademik araştırmacılardan gelen tepkilerden biri, Dil Belgelenmesi (ya da Belgeli Dilbilim) altında, çok sayıda bilim insanının ve araştırma fonunun ilgisini çekerek kendi kuramsal temelini, iyi uygulamalar için önerilerini ve eğitim kurslarını geliştirmiş olan yeni bir alanın oluşturulması olmuştur. The Language Archive (www.tla.mpi.nl) ve Endangered Languages Archive (https:// www.elararchive.org/) gibi küresel kapsamlı olanların yanı sıra bö lgesel ve yerel arşivler de dahil olmak üzere çeşitli türlerde dil arşivleri kurulmuştur. Bu akademik gelişmelerin yanı sıra, konuşmacılar ve diğer insanlar tarafından oluşturulan dil materyallerini toplamak ve bu katkıları bir tür ‛vatandaş bilimi’ olarak kataloglayıp eşleştirmek için çeşitli girişimler olmuştur. Bu makalede, bu tü r ü ç girişimi eleştirel bir gözle inceleyeceğiz. Bunlardan ilki Wikitongues (https://wikitongues.org/), diğerleri ise Londra Üniversitesinde SOAS öğrencileri tarafından başlatılan Language Landscape projesi (www.languagelandscape.org) ile Google tarafından başlatılan ve şu anda ABD’de Hawaii Üniversitesinde (Manoa) bulunan Endangered Languages projesidir (http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/). Makalede tartışılan konular arasında şunlar yer almaktadır: 1. toplanan ve açıklanan materyallerin niteliği, web arayüzü ile veri depolama tasarımı, insan kaynakları ve karar alma süreçleri dahil olmak üzere projelerin altyapısı 2. olası telif hakkı veya diğer yasal ihlaller de dahil olmak ü zere, kullanıcı katkılı içerik ve geri bildirimlerin yö netimi ve güvenlik incelemesi 3. katkıda bulunanların ve diğer paydaşların belirlenmesi 4. üstveri ve içerik etiketleme ve kataloglama 5. toplumsal yardım ve kullanıcı/katılımcı yükümlülüğüne yönelik mekanizmalar Makalede, vatandaş bilimi ve kitle kaynaklı veri toplama, araştırma yöntemleri olarak cazip görünse de, bunların yok olma tehlikesi altındaki dillerin araştırılmasında etkili olabilmeleri için aşılması gereken bir takım zorlayıcı sorunun olduğu sonucuna varıyoruz.

Keywords

• Vatandaş bilimi
• kitle kaynaklı veri
• yok olma tehlikesi altındaki diller
• üst data
• üst belgeleme

Citizens, speakers, and documentation of (endangered) languages and cultures

Abstract

Over the past 30 years linguists have come to realise that there are immense threats to global linguistic diversity that may mean that around 50% of the world’s 7,000 languages may no longer be spoken by the end of the 21st century because they are endangered and not being passed to future generations. One response by academic researchers has been the creation of a field of Language Documentation (or Documentary Linguistics) that has attracted a host of researchers and large amounts of grant funding, and has developed its own theorisation, recommendations for good practices, publications, and training courses. Language archives of various sorts have been established, including those with global coverage like The Language Archive (www.tla.mpi.nl) and the Endangered Languages Archive (https:// www.elararchive.org/), as well as regional and local archives. Alongside these academic developments, there have been several initiatives to collect language materials created by speakers and others, and to catalogue and map these contributions as a form of ‘citizen science’. In this paper, we will critically examine three such initiatives, Wikitongues (https://wikitongues. org/), the Language Landscape Project (www.languagelandscape.org) originated by students at SOAS, University of London, and the Endangered Languages Project (http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/) initiated by Google and now based at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, USA. Among the issues discussed are: 1. infrastructure for the projects, including web interface and data storage design, human resources, decision-making processes 2. management and vetting of user-contributed content and feedback, including possible copyright or other legal violations 3. identification of contributors and other stakeholders 4. metadata and content tagging and cataloguing 5. mechanisms for outreach and user/contributor engagement We conclude that while citizen science and crowd-sourced data collection may appear to be attractive as research methods, there are a number of challenging issues to be overcome for them to be effective for endangered languages study.

Keywords

• citizen science
• crowd-sourced data
• endangered languages
• metadata
• metadocumentation

References

1. Austin, Peter K. (2003). The linguistic ecology of Lombok. PELBBA 16, 165–198. http://www.peterkaustin. com/docs/Austin_2003_Sasak_PELBBA.pdf
2. Austin, Peter K. (2008). Training for language documentation: Experiences at the School of Oriental and African Studies. In: Florey, Margaret & Rau, Victoria (eds.) Documenting and revitalising Austronesian languages. Language Documentation and Conservation Special Publication No. 1. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. 25–41.
3. Austin, Peter K. (2010a). Current issues in language documentation. Language Documentation and Description 7, 12–33.
4. Austin, Peter K. (2010b). How long is a piece of string? Post on Endangered Languages and Cultures blog 14 April 2010. https://www.paradisec.org.au/blog/2010/04/how-long-is-a-piece-ofstring/
5. Austin, Peter K. (2016). Language documentation 20 years on. In: Pü tz, Martin & Filipović, Luna (eds.) Endangered languages and languages in danger: Issues of ecology, policy and human rights. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 147–170.,
6. Austin, Peter K. (2018). Colonialism in language documentation and revitalization – the times they are a changin’? Talk given at University of Malaya, 6 December 2018. Slides available at http://www.peterkaustin.com/docs/teaching/2018-12-06_UM.pdf
7. Austin, Peter K. (2021). Corpora and archiving in language documentation, description, and revitalisation. Ethnorema 17, 53–65.
8. Austin, Peter K. & Grenoble, Lenore A. (2007). Current trends in language documentation. Language Documentation and Description 4, 12–25.

9. Austin, Peter K. & Sallabank, Julia (2011). Introduction. In: Austin, Peter K. & Sallabank, Julia (eds.) Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–24.
10. Burke, Mary & Zavalina, Oksana L. & Chelliah, Shobhana L. & Phillips, Mark E. (2022). User needs in language archives: Findings from interviews with language archive managers, depositors, and end-users. Language Documentation & Conservation 16, 1–24.
11. Campbell, Lyle & Belew, Anna (2018). Introduction: Why catalogue endangered languages? In: Campbell, Lyle & Belew, Anna (eds.) Cataloguing the world’s endangered languages, Chapter 1. London: Routledge.
12. Crystal, David (2000). Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Dohle, Ebany (2015). Language landscape. Unravel Blog, 1 June 2015. https://unravellingmag. com/dialogue/language-landscape/
14. Dohle, Ebany & Grzech, Karolina & Hemmings, Charlotte (2014). Language landscape: A digital platform for mapping languages. Book 2.0, 4(1–2), 71–89.
15. Garrett, Andrew & Harris, Alice (2022). Assessing scholarship in documentary linguistics. Language 98(3), e156–e172.
16. Gippert, Jost & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Mosel, Ulrike (eds.) (2006). Essentials of language documentation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
17. Grenoble, Leonore A., & Whaley, Lindsay J. (eds.) (1998). Endangered languages: Current issues and future prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grzech, Karolina & Dohle, Ebany (2018). Language landscape: An innovative tool for documenting and analysing linguistic landscapes. Lingue e Linguaggi 25, 65–80.
18. Hale, Ken & Krauss, Michael & Watahomigie, Lucille J. & Yamamoto, Akira Y. & Craig, Colette & Jeanne, LaVerne M. & England, Nora C. (1992). Endangered languages. Language 68(1), 1–42.
19. Henke, Ryan & Berez-Kroeker, Andrea L. (2016). A brief history of archiving in language documentation, with an annotated bibliography. Language Documentation and Conservation 10, 411–457.
20. Nettle, Daniel, & Romaine, Suzanne (2000). Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world's languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Ritchie, Sandy & Goodchild, Samantha & Dohle, Ebany (2016). Language landscape: Supporting community-led language documentation. In: Ferreira, Vera & Bouda, Peter (eds.). Language documentation and conservation in Europe. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. 121–132.
22. Robins, Robert H. & Uhlenbeck, Eugenius M. (eds.) (1991). Endangered languages. Oxford: Berg.
23. Seifart, Frank & Evans, Nicholas & Hammarstrom, Harald & Levinson, Stephen C. (2018). Language documentation twenty-five years on. Language 94(4), e324–e345.
24. UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages (2003). Language vitality and endangerment document submitted to the International Expert Meeting on UNESCO Programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages Paris, 10–12 March 2003. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/ src/00120-EN.pdf.
25. Wasson, Christina & Holton, Gary & Roth, Heather S. (2016). Bringing User-Centered Design to the field of language archives. Language Documentation and Conservation 10, 641–681.
26. Williams, Nicholas & Silva, W. D. L. & McPherson, Laura & Good, Jeff (2021). COVID-19 and documentary linguistics: Some ways forward. Language Documentation and Description 20, 359–377.
27. Woodbury, Anthony C. (2003). Defining documentary linguistics. Language Documentation and Description 1, 35–51.
28. Woodbury, Anthony C. (2011). Language documentation. In: Austin, Peter K. & Sallabank, Julia (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 159–186.