ABSTRACT
When a “cross-cultural” investigation involves a less commonly studied, endangered indigenous minority language, practical goals of language conservation should take precedence over theoretical sociolinguistic goals. Researchers may also need to accept the frustrating reality that it is never possible to interpret the limited data as quickly, accurately, and adequately as when studying dominant languages. The goals of and data collection methods for a variationist sociolinguistic study of a minority language differ from those of urban dialectology. Endangered indigenous languages take much longer to develop a basic understanding of the language before studies of variation can even be attempted. Data collection is usually restricted to word lists and narratives, as the researcher’s proficiency in the language is limited. In addition, the range of linguistic variables is also compressed, as the consultants who assist in data transcription may edit out some “variations,” both to make the language look more “standard” and because the transcriber naturally transcribes in their own dialect.
