{"title":"The monolingual approach in American linguistic fieldwork","authors":"Margaret Thomas","doi":"10.1075/HL.00078.THO","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In the first decades of the 20th century, fieldwork — collection of language data through direct interaction with\n a native speaker — was foundational to American linguistics. After a mid-century period of neglect, fieldwork has recently been\n revived as a means to address the increasing rate of language endangerment worldwide. Twenty-first century American fieldwork\n inherits some, but not all, of the traits of earlier fieldwork. This article examines the history of one controversial issue,\n whether a field worker should adopt a monolingual approach, learning and using the target language as a medium of exchange with\n native speakers, as opposed to relying on interpreters or a lingua franca. Although the monolingual approach is not widely\n practiced, modern proponents argue strongly for its value. The method has been popularized though ‘monolingual demonstrations’ to\n audiences of linguists, which, curiously, are not wholly consistent with the character of 21st-century fieldwork.","PeriodicalId":51928,"journal":{"name":"Historiographia Linguistica","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historiographia Linguistica","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/HL.00078.THO","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In the first decades of the 20th century, fieldwork — collection of language data through direct interaction with
a native speaker — was foundational to American linguistics. After a mid-century period of neglect, fieldwork has recently been
revived as a means to address the increasing rate of language endangerment worldwide. Twenty-first century American fieldwork
inherits some, but not all, of the traits of earlier fieldwork. This article examines the history of one controversial issue,
whether a field worker should adopt a monolingual approach, learning and using the target language as a medium of exchange with
native speakers, as opposed to relying on interpreters or a lingua franca. Although the monolingual approach is not widely
practiced, modern proponents argue strongly for its value. The method has been popularized though ‘monolingual demonstrations’ to
audiences of linguists, which, curiously, are not wholly consistent with the character of 21st-century fieldwork.
期刊介绍:
Historiographia Linguistica (HL) serves the ever growing community of scholars interested in the history of the sciences concerned with language such as linguistics, philology, anthropology, sociology, pedagogy, psychology, neurology, and other disciplines. Central objectives of HL are the critical presentation of the origin and development of particular ideas, concepts, methods, schools of thought or trends, and the discussion of the methodological and philosophical foundations of a historiography of the language sciences, including its relationship with the history and philosophy of science. HL is published in 3 issues per year of about 450 pages altogether.