Linguistic Anthropology

1. Linguistic Anthropology • Mutually constitutive relationships among language, culture, and society or human sociality. Constitutive because language doesn’t reflect society/culture but constitutes it and is constituted by it as well. • To understand role of language in people’s lives we must looks into the world of social action where words are embedded in and constitutive of specific cultural activities (telling stories, asking favors, greetings, praying, directions, insults, etc)

2. QUESTIONS asked in/by linguistic anthropology/ists: • Why do kids in communities all over the world acquire 1st languages at ~same age? • How do kids learn to use language in cult-specific, socially appropriate ways? • Why do groups who share the same language sometimes use it in different ways? • Does one’s language affect how one perceives/experiences the world? • How do some languages come to be regarded as “standard” variety and others as “non-standard? • How/why does language use relate to social variables (ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, class, gender, age and education)? • What is the relationship between language and power? • Why/how does cross-cult miscommunication occur and what are its larger consequences?

3. Linguistic relativism • Languages are arbitrary systems; one can’t predict how they will classify the world.

4. ‘linguistic relativity’ (or the inaptly named Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis) • Aphenomenon in which the relationship between notions and the language founded upon them cause their speakers to hold a certain perspective (Duranti 2001:11). • According to Boas, the linguistic practice of objective categorization imposes itself upon our thoughts and thus directs our way of perceiving and knowing. • For a beautiful example, see Basso’s Wisdom Sits in Places (2006)

5. Irreducibility thesis • Language reigns a “tyrannical hold” (Sapir [1931]1964:168 in Duranti 2001:12) over individuals through its predefined code of vocabulary and grammar. • Despite the uniqueness of each individual’s experience and perspective, he/she must translate his/her thoughts using a predetermined collection of words and grammatical rules. Therefore, just as with culture and society, there is a mutually constitutive relationship between language and thought, and thus perception.

6. Language Ideologies • Hierarchical nature of language (forms of power, inequality) • Individuals’ speech acts not only negotiate power, but languages themselves exist hierarchically.

7. The Logic of Non-standard English • Labov sets out to invalidate the theory that black children from urban ghettos fair poorly in the school system due to verbal deprivation. The “myth” of verbal deprivation parallels other “blame the victim” theories, such as the culture of poverty and notions of the underclass rather than addressing the actual deficiencies of the educational system. • Labov compares the verbality and verbosity of lower- and working-class speakers to middle-class speakers.

8. The Logic of Non-standard English • In the first scenario, an adult interviewer attempts to engage Leon in both complex and neutral topics, but Leon only replies monosyllabically. While this data appears to support Bereiter’s claims, Labov modifies the interview scenario to determine the true motivators for Leon’s monosyllabic replies. When the interview includes potato chips, Leon’s closest friend, and the interviewer at a comparable height, discussing taboo subjects, Leon’s responses grow louder, longer, and more detailed. The distinct outcomes of these two interview scenarios reveal that Leon’s terse replies were not evidence of verbal deprivation but rather awareness of the asymmetrical power relations inherent in adult-child communication.

9. Larry ]L: What happens to you after you die? Do you know? • Larry: Yeah, I know. (What?) After they put you in the ground, your body turns into-ah-bones, an' shit. ]L: What happens to your spirit? • Larry: Your spirit-soon as you die, your spirit leaves you. (And where does the spirit go?) Well, it all depends …(On what?) You know, like some people say if you're good an' shit, your spirit goin' t'heaven ... 'n' if you bad, your spirit goin' to hell. Well, bullshit! Your spirit goin' to hell anyway, good or bad. ]L: Why? • Larry: Why? I'll tell you why. 'Cause, you see, doesn’ nobody really know that it's a God, y'know, 'cause I mean I have seen black gods, pink gods, white gods, all color gods, and don't nobody know it's really a God. An' when they be sayin' if you good, you goin' t'heaven, tha'sbullshit, 'cause you ain'tgoin' to no heaven, 'cause it ain't no heaven for you to go to.

10. Larry’s argument • 1. Everyone has a different idea of what God is like. • 2. Therefore nobody really knows that God exists. • 3. If there is a heaven, it was made by God. • 4. If God doesn't exist, he couldn't have made heaven. • 5. Therefore heaven does not exist. • 6. You can't go somewhere that doesn't exist. • (-B) Therefore you can't go to heaven. • (C) Therefore you are going to hell.

11. Charles CR: Do you know of anything that someone can do, to have someone who has passed on visit him in a dream? • Charles: Well, I even heard my parents say that there is such a thing as something in dreams, some things like that, and sometimes dreams do come true. I have personally never had a dream come true. I've never dreamt that somebody was dying and they actually died, {Mhm) or that I was going to have ten dollars the next day and somehow I got ten dollars in my pocket. (Mhm). I don’t particularly believe in that, I don't think it's true. I do feel, though, that there is such a thing as-ah-witchcraft. I do feel that in certain cultures there is such a thing as witchcraft, or some sort of science of witchcraft; I don't think that it's just a matter of believing hard enough that there is such a thing as witchcraft. I do believe that there is such a thing that a person can put himself in a state of mind (Mhm), or that-ersomething could be given them to intoxicate them in a certain-to a certain frame of mind-that-that could actually be considered witchcraft.

12. Charles’ argument The basic proposition can be stated simply in five words: But I believe in witchcraft. However, the idea is enlarged to exactly 100 words and it is difficult to see what else is being said. In the following quotations, padding which can be removed without change in meaning is shown in parentheses. • "I (do) feel, though, that there is (such a thing as) witchcraft.'' Feel seems to be a euphemism for 'believe'. • "{I do feel that) in certain cultures (there is such a thing as witchcraft).” This repetition seems designed only to introduce the word culture, which lets us know that the speaker knows about anthropology. Does certain cultures mean 'not in ours' or 'not in all'? • "(or some sort of science of witchcraft.)" This addition seems to have no clear meaning at all. What is a "science" of witchcraft as opposed to just plain witchcraft? The main function is to introduce the word science, though it seems to have no connection to what follows. • "I don't think that it's just (a matter of) believing hard enough that (there is such a thing as) witchcraft." The speaker argues that witchcraft is not merely a belief; there is more to it. • "I (do) believe that (there is such a thing that) a person can put himself in a state of mind ... that (could actually be considered) witchcraft." Is witchcraft as a state of mind different from the state of belief, denied in 4? • "or that something could be given them to intoxicate them (to a certain frame of mind) ... " The third learned word, intoxicate, is introduced by this addition.

13. Language ideologies: AAVE > SE, SE > AAVE? • The initial impression of him as a good speakerissimply our long-conditioned reaction to middle-class verbosity. We know that people who use these stylistic devices are educated people, and we are inclined to credit them with saying something intelligent. Our reactions are accurate in one sense. Charles M. is more educated than Larry. • But is he more rational, more logical, more intelligent? • Is he any better at thinking out a problem to its solution? • Does he deal more easily with abstractions? • There is no reason to think so. Charles M. succeeds in letting us know that he is educated, but in the end we do not know what he is trying to say, and neither does he.

14. Lippi-Green