MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617449374

Losing a Vital Voice: Grief and Language Work

2017· article· en· W2617449374 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Racquel-María Sapién, Tim Thornes

Bibliographic record

VenueScholar Works (Boise State University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefConversationReflexivityField (mathematics)LinguisticsPsychologySubject (documents)SociologyCommunicationSocial scienceComputer sciencePsychotherapist
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Working with speakers of endangered languages often involves developing a rapport with the eldest members of a community and spending a great deal of time with them. These intense relationships present the outsider researcher with challenges unique to this type of work. The undertaking typically involves navigating great losses—not only of the language, but also the death of its speakers. The rationale for this talk resides in the recognition that grief and loss in language work bring with them a complex array of both personal and professional crises that require an open and cogent attempt to identify, explore, and deal with them. This talk draws on case study examples from the authors' own linguistic field research to examine the emotional component of language work through grief and loss. Reflexive consideration of a researcher's emotional state, and specifically grief, have been a part of the methodological fabric of field research in anthropology for decades (Rosaldo, 1993; Hedican, 2006; Throop, 2010; Henry, 2012). By contrast, linguists have only rarely delved into the stresses and emotional aspects of field research in print (Macaulay 2012 is a notable exception), and such receive a light touch in even the most comprehensive recent works (Chelliah & deReuse, 2011; Austin & Sallabank, 2015; Thieberger, 2012). Although it is often an unavoidable part of working with speakers of endangered languages, the subject of grief and loss is largely unexamined. With this talk, the authors hope to stimulate conversation about the emotional challenges that are unique to field research with endangered languages. This talk represents an attempt to problematize the experience of death in the field in two key ways. One is as a methodological issue that arises for those operating under collaborative models (Czaykowska-Higgins, 2009; Author, 2007; Leonard & Haynes, 2010) where investment by the community and participatory research by the fieldworker are the norm. Concerns include: the researcher's relationship to the circle of bereavement, questions raised regarding proper use of data and recordings, and how personal and professional aspects of loss are managed. The other is as a training issue involving responsibilities we bear to those we mentor in understanding the reality of close work with speakers, particularly of endangered languages. Concerns include: providing adequate preparation, managing responsibility--to the language, community, and profession--in a way that can be borne through loss, and expectations held by the community with regard to participation in death traditions. REFERENCES Austin, Peter K. & Julia Sallabank (eds). 2015. The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Author, 2007. Chelliah, Shobhana L. & Willem J. de Reuse, 2011. Handbook of Descriptive Linguistic Fieldwork. New York: Springer. Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 2009. Research Models, Community Engagement, and Linguistic Fieldwork: Reflections on Working within Canadian Indigenous Communities. Language Documentation & Conservation, 3 (1), 15-50. Manoa: University of Hawai'i Press. Hedican, Edward J. 2006. Understanding Emotional Experience in Fieldwork: Responding to Grief in a Northern Aboriginal Village. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (1): 1-8. Sage Publications. Henry, Rosita. 2012. Gifts of Grief: Performative ethnography and the revelatory potential of emotion. Qualitative Research 12 (5): 528-539. Sage Publications. Leonard, Wesley Y. & Erin Haynes. 2010. Making “collaboration” collaborative: An examination of perspectives that frame linguistic field research. Language Documentation & Conservation 4: 268-293. Macaulay, Monica. 2012. Training Linguistics students for the realities of fieldwork. Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork, Nick Thieberger (ed.), 397-411. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rosaldo, Renato. 1993. Introduction: Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage. Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon Press. 1-21. Thieberger, Nick (ed). 2012. Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Throop, C. Jason. 2010. Latitudes of Loss: On the vicissitudes of empathy. American Ethnologist 37 (4): 771-782. American Anthropological Association.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholar Works (Boise State University)Same topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207