1932

Abstract

We review the development of methodologies and technologies of empirical linguistic work done outside traditional academic laboratories. The integration of such results with contemporary language documentation and linguistic theory is an increasingly important component of language analysis. Taking linguistic inquiry out of the lab and away from well-described and familiar data brings challenges in logistics, ethics, and the definition of variability within language use. In an era when rapidly developing technologies offer new potential for collecting linguistic data, the role of empirical or experimental work in theoretical discussions continues to increase. Collecting linguistic data on understudied languages raises issues about its aim vis-à-vis the academy and the language communities, and about its integration into linguistic theory.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124915
2015-01-14
2024-06-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/1/1/annurev-linguist-030514-124915.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124915&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abramson AS. 2013. Tones and voice registers. South and Southeast Asian Psycholinguistics Winskel H, Padakannaya P. 223–32 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramson AS, Luangthongkum T, Nye PW. 2004. Voice register in Suai (Kuai): an analysis of perceptual and acoustic data. Phonetica 61:147–71 [Google Scholar]
  3. Abramson AS, Nye PW, Luangthongkum T. 2007. Voice register in Khmu’: experiments in production and perception. Phonetica 64:80–104 [Google Scholar]
  4. Abramson AS, Tiede MK, Luangthongkum T. 2013. Mon voice registers: acoustics and laryngeal control. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134:4199 [Google Scholar]
  5. AnderBois S. 2012. Focus and uninformativity in Yucatec Maya questions. Nat. Lang. Semant. 20:349–90 [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson AH, Bader M, Bard EG, Boyle E, Doherty G et al. 1991. The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Lang. Speech 34:351–66 [Google Scholar]
  7. Anderson VB. 2008. Static palatography for language fieldwork. Lang. Doc. Conserv. 2:1–27 [Google Scholar]
  8. Arppe A, Järvikivi J, Lachler J, Trosterud T, Snoek C. 2014. 21st Century Tools for Indigenous Languages Alberta, Can.: Univ. Alberta Dep. Linguist. http://www.linguistics.ualberta.ca/Research/Projects/21stCenturyToolsforIndigenousLanguages.aspx [Google Scholar]
  9. Avelino H. 2010. Acoustic and electroglottographic analyses of nonpathological, nonmodal phonation. J. Voice 24:270–80 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bell-Berti F, Harris KS. 1981. A temporal model of speech production. Phonetica 38:9–20 [Google Scholar]
  11. Berlin B, Kay P. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Evolution and Universality Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  12. Bird S. 2011. Phonetic fieldwork in the Pacific Northwest. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences Lee W-S, Zee E. 76–79 Hong Kong: City Univ. Hong Kong [Google Scholar]
  13. Bloomfield L. 1925. Why a linguistic society?. Language 1:1–5 [Google Scholar]
  14. Boas F. 1911. Introduction. Handbook of American Indian Languages Boas F. 1–83 Washington, DC: Gov. Print. Off. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bohnemeyer J. 2011. Spatial frames of reference in Yucatec: referential promiscuity and task-specificity. Lang. Sci. 33:892–914 [Google Scholar]
  16. Borchardt N. 2011. The Numeral System of Ikaan, a Benue-Congo Language of Nigeria Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz [Google Scholar]
  17. Chitoran I, Tiede MK. 2013. Gestural reorganization under rate pressure interacts with learned language-specific phonotactics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133:3568 [Google Scholar]
  18. Chomsky N, Halle M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English New York: Harper & Row [Google Scholar]
  19. Crowhurst M, Trechter S. 2014. Vowel-rhotic metathesis in Guarayu. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 80:127–73 [Google Scholar]
  20. Demolin D. 2011. Aerodynamic techniques for phonetic fieldwork. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences Lee W-S, Zee E. 84–87 Hong Kong: City Univ. Hong Kong [Google Scholar]
  21. DiCanio CT. 2012a. Cross-linguistic perception of Itunyoso Trique tone. J. Phon. 40:672–88 [Google Scholar]
  22. DiCanio CT. 2012b. The phonetics of fortis and lenis consonants in Itunyoso Trique. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 78:239–72 [Google Scholar]
  23. DiCanio CT, Nam H, Amith JD, Castillo García R, Whalen DH. Vowel variability in elicited versus spontaneous speech: evidence from Mixtec. J. Phon. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  24. Dingemanse M. 2011. Ezra Pound among the Mawu: ideophones and iconicity in Siwu. Semblance and Signification Michelucci P, Fischer O, Ljungberg C. 39–54 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  25. Dingemanse M. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Lang. Linguist. Compass 6:654–72 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dwyer AM. 2006. Ethics and practicalities of cooperative fieldwork and analysis. Essentials of Language Documentation Gippert J, Mosel U, Himmelmann NP. 31–66 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  27. Eisenbeiss S, McGregor WB, Schmidt CM. 1999. Story book stimulus for the elicitation of external possessor constructions and dative constructions (‘the circle of dirt’). Manual for the 1999 Field Season Wilkins D. 140–44 Nijmegen, Neth.: Max Planck Inst. Psycholinguist. [Google Scholar]
  28. Enfield NJ, Kendrick K, De Ruiter JP, Stivers T, Levinson SC. 2011. Building a corpus of spontaneous interaction. Field Manual Vol. 14 Kenrick K, Majid A. 29–32 Nijmegen, Neth.: Max Planck Inst. Psycholinguist. [Google Scholar]
  29. Flemming E, Ladefoged P, Thomason S. 2008. Phonetic structures of Montana Salish. J. Phon. 36:465–91 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gerfen C, Baker K. 2005. The production and perception of laryngealized vowels in Coatzospan Mixtec. J. Phon. 33:311–34 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gick B. 2002. The use of ultrasound for linguistic phonetic fieldwork. J. Int. Phon. Assoc. 32:113–21 [Google Scholar]
  32. Goddard PE. 1905. Mechanical aids to the study and recording of language. Am. Anthropol. 7:613–19 [Google Scholar]
  33. Goddard PE. 1907. The Phonology of the Hupa Language Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Goddard PE. 1912. Texts and Analysis of Cold Lake Dialect, Chipewyan New York: Trustees [Google Scholar]
  35. Goddard PE. 1929. The Bear Lake Dialect of Athapasca Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Hale K, Krauss M, Watahomigie LJ, Yamamoto AY, Craig C et al. 1992. Endangered languages. Language 68:1–42 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hamilton A, Perla J, Robinson LC. 2013. A psycholinguistic assessment of language change in eastern Indonesia: evidence from the HALA project. Keeping Languages Alive: Documentation, Pedagogy and Revitalization Jones MC, Ogilvie S. 16–28 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  38. Hammond M, Warner N, Davis A, Carnie A, Archangeli D, Fisher M. 2014. Vowel insertion in Scottish Gaelic. Phonology 31:123–53 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hargus S. 2012. Deg Xinag rounding assimilation: a case study in phonologization. Lab. Phonol. 3:163–93 [Google Scholar]
  40. Haun DBM, Rapold CJ, Call J, Janzen G, Levinson SC. 2006. Cognitive cladistics and cultural override in Hominid spatial cognition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103:17568–73 [Google Scholar]
  41. Haun DBM, Rapold CJ, Janzen G, Levinson SC. 2011. Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition covary across cultures. Cognition 119:70–80 [Google Scholar]
  42. Himmelmann NP. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36:161–95 [Google Scholar]
  43. Holton G. 2011. Landscape in Western Pantar, a Papuan outlier of southern Indonesia. Landscape in Language: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Mark DM, Turk AG, Burenhult N, Stea D. 143–66 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  44. Holton G, Lovick O. 2008. Evidentiality in Dena’ina Athabaskan. Anthropol. Linguist. 50:292–323 [Google Scholar]
  45. Iskarous K, McDonough J, Whalen DH. 2012. A gestural account of the velar contrast in Navajo. Lab. Phonol. 3:195–210 [Google Scholar]
  46. Klatt DH, Klatt LC. 1990. Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87:820–57 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kolbert E. 2014. The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History New York: Holt [Google Scholar]
  48. Labov W, Karen M, Miller C. 1991. Near-mergers and the suspension of phonemic contrast. Lang. Var. Change 3:33–74 [Google Scholar]
  49. Ladefoged P. 1964. A Phonetic Study of West African Languages: An Auditory-Instrumental Survey Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  50. Ladefoged P. 1975. A Course in Phonetics New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich [Google Scholar]
  51. Ladefoged P. 2003. Phonetic Data Analysis: An Introduction to Fieldwork and Instrumental Techniques Malden, MA:: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  52. Ladefoged P, Ladefoged J, Turk A, Hind K, Skilton SJ. 1998. Phonetic structures of Scottish Gaelic. J. Phon. 28:1–41 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ladefoged P, Maddieson I. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages Oxford, UK:: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  54. Levinson SC. 2008. Landscape, seascape and the ontology of places on Rossel Island, Papua New Guinea. Lang. Sci. 30:256–90 [Google Scholar]
  55. Levinson SC, Brown P. 2012. Put and take in Yélî Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island. Events of Putting and Taking: A Crosslinguistic Perspective Kopecka A, Narasimhan B. 273–96 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  56. Li P, Abarbanell L, Gleitman L, Papafragou A. 2011. Spatial reasoning in Tenejapan Mayans. Cognition 120:33–53 [Google Scholar]
  57. Liberman AM, Whalen DH. 2000. On the relation of speech to language. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4:187–96 [Google Scholar]
  58. Lounsbury FG. 1956. A semantic analysis of the Pawnee kinship usage. Language 32:158–94 [Google Scholar]
  59. Maddieson I, Ladefoged P, Sands B. 1999. Clicks in East African languages. African Mosaic: A Festschrift for J.A. Louw Finlayson R. 59–91 Pretoria: Univ. S. Afr. Press [Google Scholar]
  60. Maddieson I, Spajic S, Sands B, Ladefoged P. 1993. Phonetic structures of Dahalo. Afr. Arbeitspap. 36:5–53 [Google Scholar]
  61. Matthewson LC. 1996. Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: evidence from Salish. PhD thesis, Univ. B.C., Vancouver. 380 pp.
  62. Matthewson LC. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 70:369–415 [Google Scholar]
  63. Matthewson LC. 2013. Gitksan modals. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 79:349–94 [Google Scholar]
  64. McDonough J. 2003. The Navajo Sound System Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  65. McDonough J, Lachler J. 2010. Toy game. Work. pap., Dep. Linguist., Univ. Rochester
  66. McDonough J, Tucker BV. 2012. Replicating Goddard: a contemporary airflow and EGG study of Dene Sųłiné. Work. pap., Dep. Linguist., Univ. Rochester
  67. McDonough J, Willie MA. 2000. Allowable variability: a preliminary investigation of word recognition in Navajo. Work. pap., Dep. Linguist., Univ. Rochester
  68. Mielke J, Baker A, Archangeli D, Racy S. 2005. Palatron: a technique for aligning ultrasound images of the tongue and palate. Coyote Pap. 14:96–107 [Google Scholar]
  69. Mielke J, Olson KS, Baker A, Archangeli D. 2011. Articulation of the Kagayanen interdental approximant: an ultrasound study. J. Phon. 39:403–12 [Google Scholar]
  70. Miller AL. 2013. C-V co-articulation in consonants with multiple lingual constrictions. Proc. Meet. Acoust. 19:060299 [Google Scholar]
  71. Miller AL, Brugman J, Sands B, Namaseb L, Exter M, Collins C. 2009. Differences in airstream and posterior place of articulation among N|uu clicks. J. Int. Phon. Assoc. 39:129–61 [Google Scholar]
  72. Miller AL, Finch KB. 2011. Corrected high-frame rate anchored ultrasound with software alignment. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 54:471–86 [Google Scholar]
  73. Miller AL, Namaseb L, Iskarous K. 2007. Posterior tongue body constriction locations in clicks. Laboratory Phonology Vol. 9 Cole J, Hualde J. 643–56 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  74. Murray S. Evidentials and illocutionary mood in Cheyenne. Int. J. Am. Linguist. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  75. Narayanan SS, Nayak K, Lee S, Sethy A, Byrd D. 2004. An approach to real-time magnetic resonance imaging for speech production. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115:1771–76 [Google Scholar]
  76. Norcliffe E. 2009. Head marking in usage and grammar: a study of variation and change in Yucatec Maya. PhD thesis, Stanford Univ. 262 pp .
  77. O’Meara C, Bohnemeyer J. 2008. Complex landscape terms in Seri. Lang. Sci. 30:316–39 [Google Scholar]
  78. Podesva RJ, Zsiga E. 2014. Sound recordings: acoustic and articulatory data. Research Methods in Linguistics Podesva RJ, Sharma D. 169–94 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  79. Proctor MI, Bundgaard-Nielsen R, Best CT, Goldstein LM, Kroos C, Harvey M. 2010. Articulatory modelling of coronal stop contrasts in Wubuy. Proceedings of the 13th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology Tabain M, Fletcher J, Grayden D, Hajek J, Butcher A. 90–93 Melbourne: La Trobe Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  80. Remijsen B. 2013. Tonal alignment is contrastive in falling contours in Dinka. Language 89:297–327 [Google Scholar]
  81. Rousselot P-J. 1897–1908. Principes de phonétique expérimentale Paris: H. Welter http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5727902b [Google Scholar]
  82. Samuel AG. 2011. Speech perception. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62:49–72 [Google Scholar]
  83. Sands B, Brugman J, Exter M, Namaseb L, Miller AL. 2007. Articulatory characteristics of anterior click closures in N|uu. Proceedings of the XVI International Conference of Phonetic Sciences Trouvain J, Barry WJ. 401–4 Dudweiler, Ger.: Pirrot [Google Scholar]
  84. Sauppe S, Norcliffe E, Konopka AE, Van Valin RD, Levinson SC. 2013. Dependencies first: eye tracking evidence from sentence production in Tagalog. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society Knauff M, Pauen M, Sebanz N, Wachsmuth I. 1265–70 Austin, TX: Cogn. Sci. Soc. [Google Scholar]
  85. Schäfer M, Haun DBM. 2010. Sharing among children across cultures. Field Manual Vol. 13 Norcliffe E, Enfield NJ. 45–49 Nijmegen, Neth.: Max Planck Inst. Psycholinguist. [Google Scholar]
  86. Schultz T, Wand M. 2010. Modeling coarticulation in EMG-based continuous speech recognition. Speech Commun. 52:341–53 [Google Scholar]
  87. Scobbie JM, Wrench AA, van der Linden M. 2008. Head–probe stabilisation in ultrasound tongue imaging using a headset to permit natural head movement. Proceedings of the 8th International Seminar on Speech Production Sock R, Fuchs S, Laprie Y. 373–76 Strasbourg, Fr.: INRIA [Google Scholar]
  88. Sherkina-Lieber M. 2011. Comprehension of Labrador Inuttitut functional morphology by receptive bilinguals. PhD thesis, Univ. Toronto. 263 pp.
  89. Sherkina-Lieber M, Perez-Leroux AT, Johns A. 2011. Grammar without speech production: the case of Labrador Inuttitut heritage receptive bilinguals. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 14:301–17 [Google Scholar]
  90. Shosted RK. 2011. Articulatory and acoustic characteristics of whistled fricatives in Changana. Selected Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: African Languages and Linguistics Today Bokamba EG, Shosted RK, Ayalew BT. 119–29 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla [Google Scholar]
  91. Simons GF. 2009. Linguistics as a community activity: the paradox of freedom through standards. Time and Again: Theoretical Perspectives on Formal Linguistics: In Honor of D. Terence Langendoen Lewis WD, Karimi S, Harley H, Farrar S. 235–50 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  92. Stone ML. 2010. Laboratory techniques for investigating speech articulation. The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences Hardcastle WJ, Laver J, Gibbon FE. 9–38 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  93. Sutherland WJ. 2003. Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and species. Nature 423:276–79 [Google Scholar]
  94. Svantesson J-O, House D. 2006. Tone production, tone perception and Kammu tonogenesis. Phonology 23:309–33 [Google Scholar]
  95. Traill A. 1991. Pulmonic control, nasal venting, and aspiration in Khoisan languages. J. Int. Phon. Assoc. 21:13–18 [Google Scholar]
  96. Valbret H, Moulines E, Tubach JP. 1992. Voice transformation using PSOLA technique. Speech Commun. 11:175–87 [Google Scholar]
  97. Whalen DH. 2004. How the study of endangered languages will revolutionize linguistics. Linguistics Today: Facing a Greater Challenge van Sterkenburg P. 321–42 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  98. Whalen DH, DiCanio CT, Shaw PA. 2011. Phonetics of endangered languages. Acoust. Today 7:35–42 [Google Scholar]
  99. Whalen DH, Simons GF. 2012. Endangered language families. Language 88:155–73 [Google Scholar]
  100. Wieling M, Tomaschek F, Arnold D, Baayen RH. 2014. Large-scale analysis of articulatory trajectories using generalized additive modeling. Presented at Int. Symp. Speech Prod., 10th, May 5–8, Cologne, Ger.
  101. Wilkins D. 1999. A questionnaire on motion lexicalisation and motion description. Manual for the 1999 Field Season Wilkins D. 96–115 Nijmegen, Neth.: Max Planck Inst. Psycholinguist. [Google Scholar]
  102. Woodbury AC. 2003. Defining documentary linguistics. Language Documentation and Description Austin P. 35–51 London: Sch. Orient. Afr. Stud. [Google Scholar]
  103. Yeou M, Honda K, Maeda S. 2011. A palatographic, photoglottographic and airflow study of some coronal geminates in Figuig Berber. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences Lee W-S, Zee E. 2216–19 Hong Kong: City Univ. Hong Kong [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124915
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124915
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error