{"id":3726,"date":"2008-09-07T22:19:56","date_gmt":"2008-09-07T22:19:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.paradisec.org.au\/blog\/2008\/09\/glossed-texts-the-fiddle-factor\/"},"modified":"2011-02-05T07:49:19","modified_gmt":"2011-02-05T07:49:19","slug":"glossed-texts-the-fiddle-factor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.paradisec.org.au\/blog\/2008\/09\/glossed-texts-the-fiddle-factor\/","title":{"rendered":"Glossed texts — the fiddle factor"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a recent blog post<\/a>, Jane Simpson reported on opinions expressed by a group at ANU meeting to discuss grammar writing:<\/p>\n

“We all agree it’s a good thing to publish glossed texts so that readers can check out the hypotheses proposed in the grammar, and expressed by the glossing.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I’d like to inject a note of caution here. It seems to me that many times published texts, with interlinear glossing or not, and especially those that derive from transcriptions of spoken language, have often been fiddled with (or to put it more politely ‘edited’) on their way from recording to printed page. This is also often true of published texts that are based on written originals produced by literate native speakers. It is rarely the case that, as Wamut commented about Jeffrey Heath’s work on Ngandi<\/a> at the end of Jane’s blog post:<\/p>\n

\n“What is especially great, is that when you go back to Heath’s archived field recordings, the spoken texts are there in pristine form, that is, the spoken text and written text correlate perfectly<\/b>” [emphasis added]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Heath adopted the same principle of “perfect correlation” in his published work on other languages such as his 1980 Nunggubuyu Myths and Ethnographic Texts<\/a> which clearly states in the introduction: “in the texts presented here I have not ‘weeded out’ false starts, intrusive English words, or grammatical errors by the narrators”.
\nIn many other cases of text publication, I know editing has taken place — I have done it myself, and some other researchers have admitted to it (though rarely indicating exactly what<\/b> editorial changes were made — more on this below). The texts in my 1997 book of Texts in the Mantharta Languages, Western Australia<\/i>. [Tokyo: ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies] were heavily edited, though I didn’t mention that in print at the time, and it was only when it came to creating a multimedia Jiwarli website<\/a> where both published texts and original recordings were presented that I had to confess<\/a>: “[y]ou may also notice that the Jiwarli texts are not word for word identical to the sound files, as Jack Butler, after recording the stories, made his own corrections in the texts”. There was no attempt to deceive here, rather it was Jack’s explicit wish that the stories be edited for publication.
\nAs an example, consider published Text 50<\/i> (which appears on the website here<\/a>) and the way it corresponds to the original recording (italics<\/i> indicates material on the tape which was deleted in the editing process, bold<\/b> indicates text added during editing, and { x == y} indicates substitution during editing):<\/p>\n


\nNhukuramartuthu ngurrunyjarri julyumartu ngunha nhanyaartu {porcupinemanha<\/i> == jiriparrinha<\/b>} puniyanha. {porcupine<\/u> == Jiriparri<\/b>} ngunha jakuparlarrirarru. Ngurntirarri jakuparlarru parnajipithu<\/u> ngunha warrirru nhanyapuka. Ngurrunyjarrilu yarnararnilaartu ngurntapuka ngunhapa<\/u> jakuparla. Wangkirarringu. Yarnararrima nhurra. Yarnararrima nhurra<\/u>. Ngatha {nhurranha<\/b> murrurrpa manara nhurranha<\/u>}. Yarnararrima<\/u>. Ngatha {nhurranha<\/b> murrurrpa manara nhurranha<\/u>}. Yarnararrima. Ngatha murrurpa manara nhurranha<\/u>. Kunyarnurru ngunha kumpanhu. {Porcupinemanha<\/u> == Jiriparri<\/b>} ngunha kurlkanyunthurru yarnararrira. When he<\/u> Yarnararrirathu<\/u> parnarru thangkalpuka wurungku wirntupinyangurru pirrurru yanararri thikaru.
\nEditorial changes that Jack and I made are the following:<\/p>\n