There are different traditions that focus on ‘capturing’ endangered languages such as field linguistics and documentary linguistics. They position themselves somewhat differently to the language or practices they aim to represent, their user community(/ies), and the nature of the enterprise. Focusing on aspects such as research goals, methods, outcomes, and agents, this chapter examines the similarities and differences between these traditions to uncover their ideological underpinnings based on an assessment of (classic) training manuals or guides. Despite critical voices and changes in these traditions, both remain preoccupied with amassing data to feed Northern scientific activities, notions such as objectivity, representativeness, replicability, and, among other things, asymmetries between speakers’ and researchers’ interests are not resolved. Change has not fundamentally transformed the research paradigm on endangered languages, freeing it from its colonial origins, because there is a reluctance among linguists to embrace reflexivity as part of their research process.
Field Linguistics: A Guide to Linguistic Field Work.
