Reciprocity and language work: Considering the role of the outsider linguist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the early twentieth century, non-Indigenous linguistic researchers have beenstudying languages spoken by the Indigenous Peoples in North America and participating in linguistic fieldwork within Indigenous communities (e.g., Rosenblum & Berez-Kroeker 2010; Crowley 2007; Floyd 2018). In undertaking these endeavors, many of these “outsider” linguists tended to prioritize the needs and desires of their own research without actively identifying or taking into account those of the local language community. Historically, this linguist-focused framework in North America has led to inequitable and unethical research practices resulting in extractive, exploitative language work that disadvantages Indigenous Peoples (e.g., Davis 2017; Wilson 2008). With these histories in mind, I explore within this dissertation how outsiderlinguists can more ethically design and carry out language work with Indigenous Peoples and languages in Canada. I consider how one of these four Rs – reciprocity – factors into relationships in language work between outsider linguists and Indigenous communities in Canada. Guided by an Indigenist methodology, I conduct interviews with Indigenous and non-Indigenous language workers to explore how reciprocity is expressed in language work and how outsider linguists can leverage reciprocity to inform ethical practices in language work with Indigenous Peoples. Participants share explicit recommendations to help outsider linguists incorporate and improve upon reciprocal relationships with Indigenous communities in language work. Knowledge and perspectives shared by participants also highlight the intimateties between reciprocity and relationships and emphasized that reciprocity in language work can be best understood in how these relationships connect to and express other important values such as respect, responsibility, and relevance. Though this study began by isolating reciprocity from the other four Rs, I reflect on the perspectives shared by participants and conclude with a discussion of how a framework of relational reciprocity better represents how reciprocity can guide relationships between outsiders and Indigenous communities in language work.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".