12. Linguistics as a community activity: The paradox of freedom through standards

Abstract

The Internet has given us a new playing field for global collaboration. It could transform the practice of linguistics through universal access to huge quantities of digital language documentation and description. But this transformation can happen only if certain aspects of community practice are formalized by defining and adhering to shared standards. After expanding on the vision for what linguistics could be like in the twentyfirst century, this essay attempts to clarify the role of standards by considering two case studies of life with and without standards-using solar time versus standard time, and using language names versus language identifiers. The essay then develops two metaphors that seek to put standards in a positive light: "linguistics as community" and "development as freedom." The ultimate conclusion is that only by submitting to the constraints of shared standards will the community be free to develop the riches of knowledge it is seeking.

Voice Onset Time (VOT) at 50: Theoretical and practical issues in measuring voicing distinctions

“…Here, we will describe the labels as elements in a Praat TextGrid, though labels from any annotation program would function equivalently. Although the label names are arbitrary, adopting a standard can help with reanalysis of archival material (Simons, 2009). There is a procedure, “prepopulate.praat,” that creates a new annotation tier (“Phone”) that will have all the recommended VOT labels inserted for every stop.…”

Language rules and language ecology

“…(Thibault, 2011: 216) It is these patterns and expectations that have been taken as 'language' and hence the object of study in the discipline of linguistics and, as noted in my opening paragraph, its predecessors. The concept has consequently arisen of language as being these normative patterns, and of the scholar's task as specifying them in terms of systems of rules (Sellars, 1954;Simons, 2009). However, if an ecological approach to linguistics has any claim to be an empirical scientific discipline, with genuine potential for application to social issues, it must go beyond this very partial concept of the object of study.…”

“…When second-order language is taken to be the only form of language worth studying, inevitably language itself comes to be seen as consisting in a comprehensive system of rules (Sellars, 1954;Simons, 2009). These rules are-so the argument runs-in principle fully describable, and they must govern every aspect and level of language, otherwise mutual understanding would be impossible.…”