“Natural” and “elicited” language data: why we don’t need these terms
- Vol. 24 Núm. 2 (2025): V. 24, N. 2 (2025)
- Enviado: oct 14, 2025
- Publicado: jun 16, 2026
- DOI 10.25189/rabralin.v24i2.2382
Resumen
Language documentation discourse commonly divides language data into two large types: natural(istic) vs. elicited. The goal of this paper is to put this dichotomy under critical scrutiny. By examining key publications on linguistic fieldwork, I show that the two terms seldom receive any clear definition and are often used inconsistently, giving rise to evident contradictions. The analysis reveals that the terms are typically distinguished by two parameters – linguistic unit (texts vs. not texts) and method of obtaining the data (controlled vs. uncontrolled) – but the distinction is virtually never thoroughly maintained. I argue that the dichotomy natural(istic) vs. elicited is insufficient to capture the complexity of possible scenarios and forms under which language is produced. Building upon previous literature, I propose a more detailed classification of language data, which abandons the notion of ‘natural(istic)’ and ‘elicited’ altogether. The paper concludes by discussing the gains of a more careful reflection on language data types.
##plugins.themes.abralinUk.article.references##
AIKHENVALD, Alexandra Y. Linguistic fieldwork: setting the scene. Language Typology and Universals, v. 60, n. 1, p. 3-11, 2007.
BOWERN, Claire. Linguistic fieldwork: A practical guide. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
CHELLIAH, Shobhana L. The role of text collection and elicitation in linguistic fieldwork. In: NEWMAN, Paul; RATLIFF, Martha. Linguistic fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 152-165.
CHELLIAH, Shobhana L.; DE REUSE, Willem J. Handbook of descriptive linguistic fieldwork. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Me-dia, 2011.
CROWLEY, Terry. Field Linguistics: A Beginner’s Guide. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
DIMMENDAAL, Gerrit J. Places and people: field sites and informants. In: NEWMAN, Paul; RATLIFF, Martha. Linguistic fieldwork. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 55-75.
DIXON, R. M. W. Field linguistics: a minor manual. Language Typology and Universals, v. 60, n. 1, p. 12-31, 2007.
EVERETT, Daniel L. Monolingual field research. In: NEWMAN, Paul; RATLIFF, Martha. Linguistic fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 2001, p. 166-188.
HATTON, John; HOLTON, Gary; SEYFEDDINIPUR, Mandana; THIEBERGER, Nick. 2021. Lameta [soft-ware] https://github.com/onset/laMETA/releases
HIMMELMANN, Nikolaus P. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics, v. 36, n. 1, p. 161-196, 1998.
HIMMELMANN, Nikolaus P. Linguistic data types and the interface between language documentation and description. Language Docu-mentation & Conservation, v. 6, p. 187-207, 2012.
HYMAN, Larry M. Fieldwork as a state of mind. In: NEWMAN, Paul; RATLIFF, Martha. Linguistic fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 2001, p. 15-33.
MANNHEIM, Bruce; VAN VLEET, Krista. The Dialogics of Southern Quechua Narrative. American Anthropologist, v. 100, n. 2, p. 326-346, 1998.
MEAKINS, Felicity; GREEN, Jennifer; TURPIN, Myfany. Understanding linguistic fieldwork. New York: Routledge, 2018.
MITHUN, Marianne. Who shapes the record: The speaker and the linguist. In: NEWMAN, Paul; RATLIFF, Martha. Linguistic fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 34-54