Document Open Access Logo

Can Computational Meta-Documentary Linguistics Provide for Accountability and Offer an Alternative to "Reproducibility" in Linguistics?

Author Tobias Weber

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

OASIcs.LDK.2019.26.pdf
  • Filesize: 278 kB
  • 8 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Tobias Weber
  • Institut für Finnougristik, LMU Munich, Germany

Cite AsGet BibTex

Tobias Weber. Can Computational Meta-Documentary Linguistics Provide for Accountability and Offer an Alternative to "Reproducibility" in Linguistics?. In 2nd Conference on Language, Data and Knowledge (LDK 2019). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 70, pp. 26:1-26:8, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2019)
https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.LDK.2019.26

Abstract

As an answer to the need for accountability in linguistics, computational methodology and big data approaches offer an interesting perspective to the field of meta-documentary linguistics. The focus of this paper lies on the scientific process of citing published data and the insights this gives to the workings of a discipline. The proposed methodology shall aid to bring out the narratives of linguistic research within the literature. This can be seen as an alternative, philological approach to documentary linguistics.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Applied computing
  • Applied computing → Anthropology
  • Applied computing → Publishing
Keywords
  • Language Documentation
  • meta-documentary Linguistics
  • Citation
  • Methodology
  • Digital Humanities
  • Philology
  • Intertextuality

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Peter K. Austin. Data and language documentation. In Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, editors, Essentials of Language Documentation, pages 87-112. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 2006. Google Scholar
  2. Peter K. Austin. Language documentation and meta-documentation. In Mari Jones and Sarah Ogilvie, editors, Keeping Languages Alive. Documentation, Pedagogy, and Revitalisation, pages 3-15. Cambridge University Press, 2013. Google Scholar
  3. George Basalla. The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge University Press, 1988. Google Scholar
  4. Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker, Lauren Gawne, Susan Smythe Kung, Barbara F. Kelly, Tyler Heston, Gary Holton, Peter Pulsifer, David I. Beaver, Shobhana Chelliah, Stanley Dubinsky, Richard P. Meier, Nick Thieberger, Keren Rice, and Anthony C. Woodbury. Reproducible research in linguistics: A position statement on data citation and attribution in our field. Linguistics, 56(1):1-18, 2018. Google Scholar
  5. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Department of Linguistics. Leipzig Glossing Rules. Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. URL: https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php.
  6. Lise M. Dobrin and Josh Berson. Speakers and language documentation. In Peter K. Austin and Julia Sallabank, editors, The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, pages 187-211. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Google Scholar
  7. Jan Engh. Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature. An inventory of defective documentation. Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo, Oslo, 2006. Google Scholar
  8. Bela Gipp. Citation-based Plagiarism Detection. Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden, 2014. Google Scholar
  9. Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for? In Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, editors, Essentials of Language Documentation, pages 1-30. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 2006. Google Scholar
  10. Gary Holton. Mediating language documentation. In David Nathan and Peter K. Austin, editors, Language Documentation and Description 12: Special Issue on Language Documentation and Archiving, pages 37-52. SOAS, London, 2014. Google Scholar
  11. R. Burke Johnson and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie. Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7):14-26, 2004. Google Scholar
  12. William Lewis. ODIN - The Online Database of Interlinear Text. URL: http://odin.linguistlist.org/.
  13. David Nathan. Archives 2.0 for endangered languages: From disk space to MySpace. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 4(1-2):111-124, 2010. Google Scholar
  14. David Nathan and Peter K. Austin. Receonceiving metadata: language documentation through thick and thin. Language Documentation and Description, 2:179-187, 2004. Google Scholar
  15. Gonzalo Navarro, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Erkki Sutinen, and Jorma Tarhio. Indexing Methods for Approximate String Matching. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 24:19-27, 2001. Google Scholar
  16. OpenEdition. URL: https://www.openedition.org/.
  17. Frank Seidel. Documentary linguistics: A language philology of the 21st century. Language Documentation and Description, 13:23-63, 2016. Google Scholar
  18. Emil Nestor Setälä. Über die transskription der finnisch-ugrischen sprachen. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen, 1:15-52, 1901. Google Scholar
  19. Edward Shils. Tradition. The University of Chicago Press, 1981. Google Scholar
  20. Benno Stein, Sven Meyer zu Eissen, and Martin Potthast. Strategies for retrieving plagiarized documents. In Wessel Kraaij and Arjen P. de Vries, editors, Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 825-826. ACM, 2007. Google Scholar
  21. Nicholas Thieberger. Steps toward a grammar embedded in data. In Patricia Epps and Alexandre Arkhipov, editors, New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions, pages 389-407. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 2009. Google Scholar
  22. Web of Science. URL: http://wokinfo.com/.
  23. Tobias Weber. Kraasna - A page on the Estonian Kraasna maarahvas and its dialect. URL: https://kraasna.wordpress.com/.
  24. Anthony C. Woodbury. Archives and audiences: Toward making endangered language documentations people can read, use, understand, and admire. In David Nathan and Peter K. Austin, editors, Language Documentation and Description 12: Special Issue on Language Documentation and Archiving, pages 37-52. SOAS, London, 2014. Google Scholar
  25. Jian Wu, Pradeep Teregowda, Juan Pablo Fernández Ramírez, Prasenjit Mitra, Shuyi Zheng, and C. Lee Giles. The Evolution of a Crawling Strategy for an Academic Document Search Engine: Whitelists and Blacklists. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference, WebSci '12, pages 340-343, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2380718.2380762.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact