LINGUISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY

Introduction: 1

Since language enters into almost every facet of human experience, it is hardly surprising that it should
be examined from a wide variety of perspectives. Philosophers, teachers, lawyers, advertisers,
historians, politicians, comedians, and poets, to mention but a few, take a professional interest in
language. Within the scientific study of language (linguistics) there is also great diversity, but the
purpose of the present volume may best be clarified by contrasting four approaches to the study of
language that are currently adopted by scholars. The approach that is dominant in most U.S. university
departments is that associated with the theories of Noam Chomsky. Starting with the publication of
Syntactic Structures in 1957, Chomsky has placed the emphasis on studying "the system of knowledge
attained and internally represented in the mind/brain" (1986:24). Central to Chomsky's purposes is a
characterization of the universal qualities of language, that is, the features of language that make it
possible for any normal infant to develop a knowledge of any human language, under widely varying
conditions. Chomsky's approach requires a high degree of idealization: "Linguistic theory is concerned
primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homeogeneous speech community" (1965: 3). In
contrast, the authors of the chapters in this book are concerned with the speech of imperfect human
beings in communities in which there is great diversity of speech. A second approach, which deals with
the "investigation of language within the social context of the community in which it is spoken" (Labov
1966:3), is that of sociolinguists. Most sociolinguists follow Labov's example in using quantitative
methods to study the correlation of linguistic features with social factors. Quantitative measures and the
asterisks of statistical significance will be rare (but not totally absent) in the pages that follow.
Sociolinguists have generally concentrated on phonological and morphological features, and the central
focus of Labov's work has been tracking sound changes in progress. The chapters in the present volume
are less concerned with linguistic form and more with how language is used. The empirical work of the
scholars represented here relies more on observation and the qualitative analysis of texts than on
counting occurrences of variables. A third approach to language is that employed by the practitioners of
Conversation Analysis. The conversation analysts examine the ways in which speakers accomplish the
remarkable task of participating in the fluent exchange of

Introduction:2

Utterances in a turn-taking schema that requires split-second timing and yet is accomplished without
strain by almost every member of a speech community. The conversation analysts, however, for the
most part deliberately ignore the social context in which the conversation takes pface. In their own way,
they are as concerned with abstract features as theoretical linguists, such as Chomsky. The approach
that characterizes the chapters in this volume sometimes falls under the rubric of ethnography of
speaking (Hymes 1974) and sometimes under linguistic anthropology (Schieffelin 1993). Schieffelin
summarized some of the interests of scholars in this discipline: In studies of language socialization, we
look at how persons are socialized to use language(s) and socialized through language(s), throughout the
life cycle, in households, workplaces and educational settings. How language is used in constituting
power relationships, for example, in colonial and postcolonial contexts, in constructing ethnicity, gender
and social class, are matters of concern. (1993:1)

Other areas of interest examined in this volume are verbal art and performance, including
narrative, joking, and humor. Theoretical linguists, taking physical science as the model for the scientific
study of language, have, as it were, attempted to study language through a microscope, on the
assumption that the universal structural characteristics of language can be identified in this way. Just as
the specimen on the slide is often a fragment separated from a larger body, the forms of language
studied by linguists using this approach are isolated from any actual situation in which they might have
been used and examined as abstract, decontexualized, static examples. This approach emphasizes the
importance of form over function. An alternative scientific model for the description of language is that
of the natural scientist studying animal behavior. In such an approach, the linguist observes how
individuals in a society use language and attempts to create a coherent description of this usage. (The
pioneer in this approach was Bronislaw Malinowski [1884-1942] whose work laid the foundations for
anthropological linguistics.) Scholars working in this tradition take a dynamic view of language, seeing
meaning, not in terms of dictionary definitions but as something socially negotiated. As M. M. Bakhtin
pointed out, "it is not, after all, out of a dictionary that the speaker gets his words" rather he hears them
"in other people's mouths, in other people's contexts, serving other people's intentions" (Bakhtin
1981:294).

The ethnography of speaking lies at the core of a range of perspectives often labeled discourse
analysis. Characteristic of these perspectives is a commitment to the thoroughgoing analysis of talk-and
other uses of language-as social practice. Language is taken to be firmly lodged not only in immediate
contexts of performance and use but within broader relationships often characterized by disparities in
and contests over power and inflected by past events. In one sense discourse analysis denotes a cluster
of related techniques for describing what goes on when people speak with or to each other. Transcripts
of an introduction

Introduction: 3

Actual talk play an important role in such descriptions as they make the detailed consideration of the
contents and styles of particular events. Several of the chapters in this book provide detailed examples
of such transcript analysis, whether in dinner table conversations (Ochs, Smith, and Taylor) or gossip
(Brenneis). Other pieces, for example, Silverstein's examination of the notion of "standard language" or
Feld and Schieffelin's consideration of "hardness" in Kaluli culture highlight particular key terms within
specific discourses. Although scholars in other fields such as cultural studies often use discourse analysis
to convey primarily this latter, meaning-focused sense (see Williams 1976 for examples of this strategy
at its best), the linguistic anthropological studies represented here suggest the value of a fuller picture in
which both the content and conduct of communication figure significantly.
 In addition to denoting a range of techniques, discourse analysis often connotes a theoretical
orientation within which language is seen as both reflecting and consequential for relationships of
conflict, cooperation, and dominance within society. The chapters in Part Two illuminate the
complexities of these relationships and of how they might be studied-in regard to the question of
gender and power. Several of the chapters in Part Three are concerned, at least in part, with the political
meanings and implications of particular genres, as in Lim6n's consideration of joking in south Texas. The
political· dimensions of discourse lie at the heart of Part Four, although the chapters are concerned with
a wide range of points at which language and power intersect. Brenneis and Myers, for example, are
concerned with the constitutive role of particular communicative events, that is, with how they weave
an interactional web, making both specific relationships and broader sociability possible. Other pieces,
for example, Hill's, consider the complex ties among economic and political position and history,
consciousness, and identity. In all cases, however, the critical nexus is discourse, language as a social
activity, both embodying old relationships and offering at times the possib,ilities of transformation.
Rather than trying to encompass the entire range of issues within linguistic anthropology, in this volume
we have selected four general and intersecting topics as the organizational framework. We believe that
these four clearly heuristic topics speak in useful ways to each other and intersect with other fields, for
example, psychology, gender and feminist studies, literature and folklore, political theory, and
sociocultural anthropology more generally. They provide a range of methodological models for students
to consider and, perhaps, employ and help them to triangulate toward a better understanding of the
interaction of language, culture, and social practice at the heart of linguistic anthropology as a field. We
have not excerpted sections from the chapters, so that readers can have the chance to understand and
evaluate the authors' strategies, arguments, and empirical data as fully as possible. The first topical
cluster deals with language socialization and the broader questions of social and cultural knowledge

Introduction:4

Theories and social practices with which it is entangled) linked to becoming a member of a community?
Given that children are innately endowed with a language acquisition capacity, what role do caregivers
play in their language development? Is it possible that some forms of early language socialization are
maladapted for the roles speakers will be asked to play in later life? The second topical cluster has to do
with issues of gender and language. Central to these pieces is an ongoing debate about the relationship
between culture and power in explaining differences between men's and women's speech in various
societies. The chapters in this part reflect a range of theoretical and methodological perspectives. One
of our broader goals in Part Two is to help students engage in principled ways with contentious issues
and to suggest some methods through which they can explore and add to the discussion. There are also
enough cautionary examples in the published literature to discourage premature interpretive claims.
The third part, dealing with genre, style, and performance, draws primarily upon work in the
ethnography of speaking. Central questions here focus on the role of verbal art and performance,
including such critical genres as narrative, joking, and humor. The chapters illustrate the usefulness and
complexity of understanding situated language through a genre-based approach. This part also raises
methodological questions for social science more generally. Finally, the fourth topic focuses on the
relationship between language and social. And political life. Several of the chapters deal with language
and power in faceto- face communities, viewing language as both reflective of and active in constituting
political relationships. The other chapters are concerned with the broader political economy of
language, treating such issues as the economic implicationsof verbal skill, linguistic ideology, and code-
switching as a nexus of identity and consciousness. Part Four comes closest to a classic focus of language
and culture studies-the relationship between language and thought. These studies, however, locate such
connections in the flow of everyday social life and interaction, and not in a more abstract and
decontextualized notion of cognition. It is our hope that those who use this reader will approach the
chapters and the topics with a constructively critical frame of mind. There is much to be learned from
these studies in terms of both the assumptions and methodologies employed and also from the
conclusions of the investigations. But the study of language as a dynamic, contextualized social
phenomenon is still in its infancy. There is much work to be done, but with help of pioneers like the
scholars represented in this collection, anyone can take up the challenge set out by Edward Sapir sixty-
six years ago: "Language is primarily a cultural or social product and must be understood as such .... It is
peculiarly important that linguists, who are often accused, and accused justly, of failure to look beyond
the pretty patterns of their subject matter, should become aware of what their science may mean for
the interpretation of human conduct in general.'' (1929:214) Commented [P1]: Brenneis, D. (2018). The matrix of language:
Contemporary linguistic anthropology. Routledge.

Brenneis, D. (2018). The matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology. Routledge.

linguistic anthropology goes beyond analyzing the structure and patterning of language integrations in
which language is used. It looks at how language might have began how it is learned how it is changes
and how it is written down read and played with. Looks at how we use words( or silences) relations
exert power or influence others and how we react to different accents and ways of speaking. Ideas we
have about languages and how they should be used the the words we use for things influenced the way
we experience them and it wanders weather speaking different languages causes youmans to view the
world differently from one another.

Because linguistic anthropology is the part of anthropology it is important to take a moment to describe
anthropology more generally and to show where linguistic anthropology fits in. Anthropology can be
briefly define as the study of all people at all times and in all places. broadly conceived and comparative
in nature anthropology 6 to understand differences and to discover similarities in human behavior..
Anthropology is the study of what it means to be human stick it is comparative and it is field work-
based.

According to pamela j ennis of the University of Wyoming, because their research involves the collection
and analysis of cultural property which is the language, linguistic anthropology a must adhere to a code
of ethics. They frequently collect information that is of great interest to the people who speak the
language they are studying and me cover some sensitive topics. The also work closely with elders and
other respected members of society whose trust and confidence must be retained through ethical
conduct. Their feedback allows for an accurate portrayal of the emic or insider perspective on linguistic
issues.

Through anthropology we can get beyond our sense of ethnocentrism and learn to understand different
systems on their own terms to do this we need to shift or frames of reference so that we can see
interpret and understand the world in different ways. By comparing different frames of reference we
can discover underlying similarities different cultures.

Collecting data in the language of people quality of understanding of their cultural and linguistic system.
Learning about other languages and cultures also helps to better understand your own language and
culture.

How language reflects culture

Anthropologies have always been fascinated by the complex interrelationship between language and
culture. different languages appear to encapsulate different worldviews, one who has tried to translate
between languages will agree. Some languages have words for things that others do not, most
languages divided up and name the world differently from one another. The father of american
anthropology franz boas, must have encountered such differences in migrating from germany to the
united states the one reason why he argued that ethnographers should learn and use the language of
the people they were working with. Rather than trying to do the research through interpreters. The idea
that language reflects the culture suggest also that areas of linguistic emphasis, areas of cultural
emphasis. in other words, then snow is probably an aspect of the culture of the speakers of that
language cultural emphasis.

Linguistic relativity

Different languages vary in the semantics 2 means that they identify and in the distinction made
between those domains. They differ in the prototypes and taxonomy that they identify and within
taxonomy they differ in the number and range of levels in each taxonomy. Parts foods diseases kinfolk
colors animals furniture and many more semantic domains are group and name differently in different
language., weather system of dividing the world and naming it appears to be arbitrary, there does not
seem to be any clear connection between the physical world being named how it is divided and named.
Take for example the words for moon and sun in french and german. Each of these languages has a
system in which nouns are marked by some sort of classifier. Jesus words like la and le to indicate the
category of its noun. German uses words like their der, die and das to indicate the category its noun.

Linguistic relativity and cultural emphasis

The ways in which different languages divided the world of color and name colors and dramatically
different. Some languages combined blue and green under a single term.

linguistic anthropology goes beyond analyzing the structure and patterning of language integrations in
which language is used. It looks at how language might have began how it is learned how it is changes
and how it is written down read and played with. Looks at how we use words( or silences) relations
exert power or influence others and how we react to different accents and ways of speaking. Ideas we
have about languages and how they should be used the the words we use for things influenced the way
we experience them and it wanders weather speaking different languages causes youmans to view the
world differently from one another.

Because linguistic anthropology is the part of anthropology it is important to take a moment to describe
anthropology more generally and to show where linguistic anthropology fits in. Anthropology can be
briefly define as the study of all people at all times and in all places. broadly conceived and comparative
in nature anthropology 6 to understand differences and to discover similarities in human behavior..
Anthropology is the study of what it means to be human stick it is comparative and it is field work-
based.

According to pamela j ennis of the University of Wyoming, because their research involves the collection
and analysis of cultural property which is the language, linguistic anthropology a must adhere to a code
of ethics. They frequently collect information that is of great interest to the people who speak the
language they are studying and me cover some sensitive topics. The also work closely with elders and
other respected members of society whose trust and confidence must be retained through ethical
conduct. Their feedback allows for an accurate portrayal of the emic or insider perspective on linguistic
issues.

Through anthropology we can get beyond our sense of ethnocentrism and learn to understand different
systems on their own terms to do this we need to shift or frames of reference so that we can see
interpret and understand the world in different ways. By comparing different frames of reference we
can discover underlying similarities different cultures.

Collecting data in the language of people quality of understanding of their cultural and linguistic system.
Learning about other languages and cultures also helps to better understand your own language and
culture.

How language reflects culture

Anthropologies have always been fascinated by the complex interrelationship between language and
culture. different languages appear to encapsulate different worldviews, one who has tried to translate
between languages will agree. Some languages have words for things that others do not, most
languages divided up and name the world differently from one another. The father of american
anthropology franz boas, must have encountered such differences in migrating from germany to the
united states the one reason why he argued that ethnographers should learn and use the language of
the people they were working with. Rather than trying to do the research through interpreters. The idea
that language reflects the culture suggest also that areas of linguistic emphasis, areas of cultural
emphasis. in other words, then snow is probably an aspect of the culture of the speakers of that
language cultural emphasis.

Linguistic relativity
Different languages vary in the semantics 2 means that they identify and in the distinction made
between those domains. They differ in the prototypes and taxonomy that they identify and within
taxonomy they differ in the number and range of levels in each taxonomy. Parts foods diseases kinfolk
colors animals furniture and many more semantic domains are group and name differently in different
language., weather system of dividing the world and naming it appears to be arbitrary, there does not
seem to be any clear connection between the physical world being named how it is divided and named.
Take for example the words for moon and sun in french and german. Each of these languages has a
system in which nouns are marked by some sort of classifier. Jesus words like la and le to indicate the
category of its noun. German uses words like their der, die and das to indicate the category its noun.

Linguistic relativity and cultural emphasis

The ways in which different languages divided the world of color and name colors and dramatically
different. Some languages combined blue and green under a single term. Commented [P2]: Ottenheimer, H. J., & Pine, J. M. (2018). The
anthropology of language: An introduction to linguistic
anthropology. Cengage Learning.
Ottenheimer, H. J., & Pine, J. M. (2018). The anthropology of language: An introduction to linguistic
anthropology. Cengage Learning.

Words socially charged live. Language is not a neutral medium for communication but rather a set of
socially embedded practices. The starting point in the search for answers to all questions within
linguistic anthropology is this fundamental principle: Language is inherently social. It is not just a means
through which react about the social world; speaking is itself a form of social action, which is a cultural
resource available for people to use (Duranti, 1997). Even when we speak or write to ourselves are very
choice of words, as well as our underlying intentions and desires, are influenced by the social context in
which we have seen heard or experienced those words, intentions, and desires before. Linguistic
anthropologist therefore maintain that the essence of language cannot be understood without
reference to the particular social context in which it is used. But those context do not stand apart from
linguistic practices are somehow contain them, as a soup bowl would contain soup. Rather social
context and linguistic practices ritually constitute.

Within the field of linguistics, a similar approach to language is dominant which language is reduced to a
set of formal rules.

What do you need to know in order to know a language

In order to understand what it means to study language as a linguistic anthropologist would, it is helpful
to us what it means to know a language. Linguist generally used the Comskyan distinction between
competence, the abstract and usually unconscious knowledge that one has about list of a language,
performance practice sometimes imperfectly of those rules Commented [P3]: Ahearn, L. M. (2016). Living language: An
introduction to linguistic anthropology (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Ahearn, L. M. (2016). Living language: An introduction to linguistic anthropology (Vol. 2). John Wiley &
Sons.