Thanks for not throwing that away: How archival data (unexpectedly) inform the linguistic and ethnographic record

Abstract

Witnessing the explosion in the amount of digital data over the past decade many authors have concluded that not everything can be preserved, that we must instead develop strategies for prioritizing objects for digital preservation (Ooghe and Moreels 2009). Digital language archives have been at least partly immune to these arguments, owing both to the nature of the data they preserve and to their status as early adopters. From the outset language archives have worked closely with the documentary linguistics community to develop standards for data portability which greatly simplify preservation and access (Bird and Simons 2003). The products of modern language documentation are by design much easier to archive than, say, eBooks or video games. Moreover, digital language archives have generally had privileged access to large computing infrastructures, often through particular arrangements with cyber-infrastructure built for hard science data storage and analyses. As digital archiving comes of age and digital language archives are brought within the fold of larger digital preservation efforts, the pressure to prioritize preservation goals will increase. Before we decide to discard materials as superfluous, it is useful to consider some of the ways language archives are being used. In this paper I review some current uses of materials housed at the Alaska Native Language Archive (ANLA). Though designed exclusively as a repository of linguistic knowledge, ANLA is now increasingly recognized by its user community as a rich source of ethnographic information. Language documentation is for the most part a holistic effort, and though language documenters may not be specialists in topics such as botany, kinship, or geography, they are often the only ones to record this knowledge. Hence the value of language archives as repositories of traditional knowledge. Of course, ANLA is also a rich source of more traditional linguistic documentation. This is not surprising in cases where little or no published documentation exists. However, increasingly we are discovering important information which was excluded from published reference works, ostensibly because it was not thought to be important at the time. Archival documents have revealed errors and oversights in the published records for even the most well-documented Alaskan languages. While anecdotal, these experiences demonstrate the value of preserving all linguistic data, even in cases where good published documentation exists. Digital language archives must resist pressure from the wider library and archives community to prioritize preservation efforts and triage collection. Fortunately, digital language archives are already ahead of the curve, having developed inter-institutional frameworks which stress regional focus and avoid duplication of preservation efforts (Barwick 2004, AIMS Working Group 2012). On this tenth anniversary of PARADISEC it is encouraging to note the great progress which has been made in the development of digital ethnographic archives; however, we must also be prepared for a new era in which digital archiving is a quotidian effort and we face increasing pressure to discard materials. References AIMS Working Group. 2012. AIMS Born-Digital Collections: An Inter-Institutional Model for Stewardship. Barwick, Linda. 2004. Turning It All Upside Down . . . Imagining a distributed digital audiovisual archive. Literary and Linguistic Computing 19.253-63. Bird, Steven and Gary Simons. 2003. Seven dimensions of portability for language documentation and description. Language 79(3).557-82. Ooghe, Bart, Heritage Cell Waasland and Dries Moreels. 2009. Analysing selection for digitisation. D-Lib Magazine 15(9/10).1082-9873