DOCSLIB.ORG

An Historical Perspective on Contemporary Linguistic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Historical Perspective on Contemporary Linguistic Page 20 Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL 7, No. 2 Fall-Winter 2000-2001 An Historical Perspective on to the other (for this reason, Kuhn's concept of "scientific revolution" does Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology not fully apply here). The co-existence Alessandro Duranti of two or more paradigms might be a source of confusion for those outside UCLA of a specific field. Introduction1 surveys, introductions and encyclope- My hypothesis is that the impact of A recent review of a several popular dia entries. But I also think it is impor- the fundamental changes within linguis- textbooks in cultural anthropology has tant to provide an historical analysis of tic anthropology that have taken place confirmed my suspicion that there is a major theoretical and methodological starting in the 1960s has not been fully significant gap between what linguis- trends. Stephen Murray's American recognized by our colleagues in other tic anthropology means to me and what Sociolinguistics: Theorists and Theory fields, who often continue to think of it means to my colleagues in cultural Groups (1998) is a step in this direc- linguistic anthropologists as if they anthropology (and probably in other tion, but the author's lack of termino- were still operating within the first para- sub-fields as well). One easy explana- logical rigor3 and his reluctance to syn- digm. Support for this hypothesis can tion of this gap would be to say that the thesize movements and trends beyond be found by comparing the organiza- authors of these textbooks are simply the work of small groups make it diffi- tion, topics and theoretical perspective uninformed of what linguistic anthro- cult to use, especially by non-special- of the chapters on language in cultural pologists have been doing in the last 20- ists. anthropology textbooks with the topics, 25 years. But this could be easily shown issues and theoretical concepts that cur- rently constitute the bulk of research in to be only partly accurate. Our colleagues in other fields linguistic anthropology. As I will ar- For one thing, in at least some of the have not fiilly recognized the gue below, the emphasis on descriptive chapters I have examined so far, sec- fundamental changes within linguistics, the interest in language as a tions are often dedicated to recent de- linguistic anthropology classificatory tool and the recurrent ref- bates, such as Ebonics, or topics such beginning in the 1960s. as language and gender, which show erence to the "Sapir-WhorfHypothesis" that our colleagues in cultural anthro- are all indications of a conception of the pology do follow at least some of what scope of the field and its basic assump- Paradigm shifts tions that are part of the first paradigm. goes on in our field. Furthermore, the AfleT a recent Teview of the history criticism might be unfair because most of linguistic anthropology and its con- The Boasian Tradition and the Birth of the chapters on language I have ex- temporary trends (Duranti 2001a), I of Anthropological Linguistics amined seem conceived as a mini-in- have come to the conclusion that since troduction to linguistics rather than to Linguistic anthropology as practiced the 1880s, there has been at least one in the U.S. (and Canada) is part and linguistic anthropology. This is shown major paradigm shift (and perhaps two) by the considerable space usually oc- parcel of the Boasian tradition of four- in the study of language from within field anthropology. This tradition, as cupied by basic information on lan- anthropology in the U.S. These shifts guage structure (e.g. phonology, mor- far as I know, is not found anywhere are represented by various names by else in the world and certainly not in phology, syntax) and the coverage of which the study of languages is called topics like animal communication, typi- Europe, where linguists until recently within anthropology. The first shift took have not been part of anthropology de- cally found in introductory linguistics place in the early 1960s and has con- textbooks (but not as part of mainstream partments. Instead, in the U.S., linguis- tinued to develop in ways that could be tics in the modern sense of the term linguistics or contemporary linguistic interpreted as the signs of a subsequent anthropology). started from within anthropology. The shift in the late 1970s and early 1980s. first issues of the American Anthropolo- Finally, it would be too easy to blame I should point out that I am using gist are full of articles on (especially) cultural anthropologists for this gap the term "paradigm" to mean something American Indian languages, and Boas' without seriously considering the pos- related to but different from that found Introduction to the Handbook of Ameri- sibility of failure on the part of linguis- in Kuhn (1962). Simply stated, by can Indian Languages (1911) can be tic anthropologists to communicate "paradigm shift" I mean a change in considered the modern manifesto for the more effectively across disciplinary what phenomena are studied, with what study of non-Indo-European languages. boundaries. I believe that to the extent methods and with what goals. I do not It has influenced several generations of to which we are committed to a holistic assume that the rise of a new "para- linguists in the U.S. and abroad. view of anthropology, we should pro- digm" implies the end of the immedi- Boas writings and teachings estab- vide teaching tools and accessible re- ately prior one. I assume that it is pos- view pieces for our colleagues in other lished what I consider the first paradigm sible for several paradigms to co-exist for the study of language within anthro- fields. My efforts in this direction in and even for individual researchers to 2 pology. It is a paradigm that originated the past have been rewarded and I think shift back and forth from one paradigm we should continue to provide useful with the support of John Wesley Powell Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL 7, No. 2 Fall-Winter 2000-2001 Page 21 at the Bureau of (American) Ethnology, pological linguistics became largely liam Labov for his study of language and it was meant to collect information identified with descriptive (and often variation in urban communities, and on American Indian languages as a tool historical) linguistics of non-Indo-Eu- adopted as a general term for the study for the classification of American In- ropean languages with no indigenous of language use, as shown by the fact dian tribes in the US. Through Boas tradition of writing (see the definition that Gumperz and Hymes' 1972 collec- and others, it became an important part given by Hoijer 1961). Therefore, it tion was entitled Directions in of "salvage anthropology," a project that was identified with a non-theoretical Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of continues today with efforts to docu- approach to the study of language, with Communication. ment and revitalize endangered lan- one important exception: the misnamed guages (Grenoble & Whaley 1998; "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis—the two The last few years have produced Moore 1999). scholars never collaborated on a joint a new mixture of linguistic and Most of the work done within this definition—also known as "linguistic cultural anthropologists who are first paradigm was (and still is) dedi- relativity." There are at least two popu- attracting scholars from related cated to what we call now descriptive lar versions of this "hypothesis": (i) dif- fields, including applied linguis- linguistics. In this paradigm, linguistic ferent languages provide different tics, communication, discourse analysis is an important tool for cultural conceptualizations of reality; (ii) lin- analysis, second language (and historical-genetic) analysis. Over guistic categorization has an impact on acquisition and education. time, this view of linguistics within an- speakers' thinking (and acting) in the thropology turned into an either ac- world. Whereas no linguist would have cepted or forced upon "service mental- any qualms with the first version, which This second paradigm sharply dif- ity," whereby the presence of the lin- is routinely experienced by any trans- ferentiates itself from the first in two guist was justified as long as he or she lator, the second version has been highly important ways: (i) linguistic expres- provided basic fieldwork training for controversial, especially since the sions are studied in context, meaning (cultural) anthropology students (Pike 1960s. Berlin and Kay's (1969) study that researchers pay special attention to 1963; Voegelin & Harris 1952). With of color terms was the harshest (al- at least some of the attributes of the situ- the expansion of linguistics departments though still controversial) blow to the ations in which language is used. (This in the U.S. during the 1960s and 1970s, relativists (Hill & Mannheim 1992; is a radical departure from the almost this function of the linguist in the an- Gumperz & Levinson 1996; Levinson exclusive reliance on elicitation that thropology department became less cru- 2000). characterized the first paradigm from cial. It is thus not surprising that sev- Boas to Berlin and Kay's survey of in- eral departments in the 1970s and 1980s First Paradigm Shift: Linguistic dividual color terms and beyond.) (ii) decided not to replace their linguists Variation and the Ethnography of Speaking itself is studied as a cultural after they retired or moved to other in- Communication activity, with its own organization to be stitutions. A reversal of this change has In the early 1960s a new paradigm described through ethnography (see been seen in the last decade. appeared which redefined what kinds Hymes 1972a and his Speaking Model). Boas1 students and the generation of linguistic phenomena one should These are major shirts with respect immediately following saw themselves study, how they should be studied and to the first paradigms for a number of primarily as "linguists," and this ex- the theoretical perspective through reasons.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Linguistics for the Use of African History and the Comparative Study of Bantu Pottery Vocabulary
    LINGUISTICS FOR THE USE OF AFRICAN HISTORY AND THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BANTU POTTERY VOCABULARY Koen Bostoen Université Libre de Bruxelles1 Royal Museum for Central Africa Tervuren 1. Introduction Ever since African historical linguistics emerged in the 19th century, it has served a double purpose. It has not only been practiced with the aim of studying language evolution, its methods have also been put to use for the reconstruction of human history. The promotion of linguistics to one of the key disciplines of African historiography is an inevitable consequence of the lack of ancient written records in sub-Saharan Africa. Scholars of the African past generally fall back on two kinds of linguistic research: linguistic classifi- cation and linguistic reconstruction. The aim of this paper is to present a con- cise application of both disciplines to the field of Bantu linguistics and to offer two interesting comparative case studies in the field of Bantu pottery vocabulary. The diachronic analysis of this lexical domain constitutes a promising field for interdisciplinary historical research. At the same time, the examples presented here urge history scholars to be cautious in the applica- tion of words-and-things studies for the use of historical reconstruction. The neglect of diachronic semantic evolutions and the impact of ancient lexical copies may lead to oversimplified and hence false historical conclusions. 2. Bantu languages and the synchronic nature of historical linguistics Exact estimations being complicated by the lack of good descriptive ma- terial, the Bantu languages are believed to number at present between 400 and 600. They are spoken in almost half of all sub-Saharan countries: Camer- 1 My acknowledgement goes to Yvonne Bastin, Claire Grégoire, Jacqueline Renard, Ellen Vandendorpe and Annemie Van Geldre who assisted me in the preparation of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Contesting Regimes of Variation: Critical Groundwork for Pedagogies of Mobile Experience and Restorative Justice
    Robert W. Train Sonoma State University, California CONTESTING REGIMES OF VARIATION: CRITICAL GROUNDWORK FOR PEDAGOGIES OF MOBILE EXPERIENCE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Abstract: This paper examines from a critical transdisciplinary perspective the concept of variation and its fraught binary association with standard language as part of the conceptual toolbox and vocabulary for language educators and researchers. “Variation” is shown to be imbricated a historically-contingent metadiscursive regime in language study as scientific description and education supporting problematic speaker identities (e.g., “non/native”, “heritage”, “foreign”) around an ideology of reduction through which complex sociolinguistic and sociocultural spaces of diversity and variability have been reduced to the “problem” of governing people and spaces legitimated and embodied in idealized teachers and learners of languages invented as the “zero degree of observation” (Castro-Gómez 2005; Mignolo 2011) in ongoing contexts of Western modernity and coloniality. This paper explores how regimes of variation have been constructed in a “sociolinguistics of distribution” (Blommaert 2010) constituted around the delimitation of borders—linguistic, temporal, social and territorial—rather than a “sociolinguistics of mobility” focused on interrogating and problematizing the validity and relevance of those borders in a world characterized by diverse transcultural and translingual experiences of human flow and migration. This paper reframes “variation” as mobile modes-of-experiencing- the-world in order to expand the critical, historical, and ethical vocabularies and knowledge base of language educators and lay the groundwork for pedagogies of experience that impact human lives in the service of restorative social justice. Keywords: metadiscursive regimes w sociolinguistic variation w standard language w sociolinguistics of mobility w pedagogies of experience Train, Robert W.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Causes of Language Frames, Biases, and Cultural Transmission
    Natural causes of language Frames, biases, and cultural transmission N. J. Enfield language Conceptual Foundations of science press Language Science 1 Conceptual Foundations of Language Science Series editors Mark Dingemanse, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics N. J. Enfield, University of Sydney Editorial board Balthasar Bickel, University of Zürich, Claire Bowern, Yale University, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, University of Helsinki, William Croft, University of New Mexico, Rose-Marie Déchaine, University of British Columbia, William A. Foley, University of Sydney , William F. Hanks, University of California at Berkeley, Paul Kockelman, Yale University, Keren Rice, University of Toronto, Sharon Rose, University of California at San Diego, Frederick J. Newmeyer, University of Washington, Wendy Sandler, University of Haifa, Dan Sperber Central European University No scientific work proceeds without conceptual foundations. In language science, our concepts about language determine our assumptions, direct our attention, and guide our hypotheses and our reasoning. Only with clarity about conceptual foundations can we pose coherent research questions, design critical experiments, and collect crucial data. This series publishes short and accessible books that explore well-defined topics in the conceptual foundations of language science. The series provides a venue for conceptual arguments and explorations that do not require the traditional book- length treatment, yet that demand more space than a typical journal article allows. In this series: 1. N. J. Enfield. Natural causes of language. Natural causes of language Frames, biases, and cultural transmission N. J. Enfield language science press N. J. Enfield. 2014. Natural causes of language: Frames, biases, and cultural transmission (Conceptual Foundations of Language Science 1). Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Intersubjectivity Evolved to Fit the Brain, but Grammar Co
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2008) 31, 489–558 Printed in the United States of America doi:10.1017/S0140525X08004998 Language as shaped by the brain Morten H. Christiansen Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, and Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501 [email protected] http://www.psych.cornell.edu/people/Faculty/mhc27.html Nick Chater Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom [email protected] http://www.psychol.ucl.ac.uk/people/profiles/chater_nick.htm Abstract: It is widely assumed that human learning and the structure of human languages are intimately related. This relationship is frequently suggested to derive from a language-specific biological endowment, which encodes universal, but communicatively arbitrary, principles of language structure (a Universal Grammar or UG). How might such a UG have evolved? We argue that UG could not have arisen either by biological adaptation or non-adaptationist genetic processes, resulting in a logical problem of language evolution. Specifically, as the processes of language change are much more rapid than processes of genetic change, language constitutes a “moving target” both over time and across different human populations, and, hence, cannot provide a stable environment to which language genes could have adapted. We conclude that a biologically determined UG is not evolutionarily viable. Instead, the original motivation for UG – the mesh between learners and languages – arises because language has been shaped to fit the human brain, rather than vice versa. Following Darwin, we view language itself as a complex and interdependent “organism,” which evolves under selectional pressures from human learning and processing mechanisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Confessional Reflexivity As Introspection and Avowal
    Establishing the ‘Truth’ of the Matter: Confessional Reflexivity as Introspection and Avowal JOSEPH WEBSTER University of Edinburgh The conceptualisation of reflexivity commonly found in social anthropology deploys the term as if it were both a ‘virtuous’ mechanism of self‐reflection and an ethical technique of truth telling, with reflexivity frequently deployed as an moral practice of introspection and avowal. Further, because reflexivity is used as a methodology for constructing the authority of ethnographic accounts, reflexivity in anthropology has come to closely resemble Foucault’s descriptions of confession. By discussing Lynch’s (2000) critical analysis of reflexivity as an ‘academic virtue’, I consider his argument through the lens of my own concept of ‘confessional reflexivity’. While supporting Lynch’s diagnosis of the ‘problem of reflexivity’, I attempt to critique his ethnomethodological cure as essentialist, I conclude that a way forward might be found by blending Foucault’s (1976, 1993) theory of confession with Bourdieu’s (1992) theory of ‘epistemic reflexivity’. The ubiquity of reflexivity and its many forms For as long as thirty years, reflexivity has occupied a ‘place of honour’ at the table of most social science researchers and research institutions. Reflexivity has become enshrined as a foundational, or, perhaps better, essential, concept which is relied upon as a kind of talisman whose power can be invoked to shore up the ‘truthiness’ of the claims those researchers and their institutions are in the business of making. No discipline, it seems, is more guilty of this ‘evoking’ than social anthropology (Lucy 2000, Sangren 2007, Salzaman 2002). Yet, despite the ubiquity of its deployment in anthropology, the term ‘reflexivity’ remains poorly defined.
    [Show full text]
  • The Society of Linguistic Anthropology
    Anthropology News February 2000 SECTION NEWS Emory U, Georgia Institute of Technology and in anthropology is marginal and he considers his anthropological approaches. Likewise, I have International Society for the Study of Narrative main interests as sociolinguistics. learned greatly from their dedication to studies of Literature will sponsor an International Confer- At the U of Auckland, until very recently, lin- NZ English, Maori and languages of the Pacific. ence on Narrative Apr 6-9,2000. See the Meeting guists belonged to two departments: English and Calendar for further details. Anthropology. Now, all linguists belong to a Us@l Addresses. Susan Gal, SLA Presidenl;.Dept Lmguistics Dept. I still have limited knowledge of of Anth, U of Chicago, 1126 E 59th St, Chicago IL Sociolinguistics and Anthropology in these liiguists, but my understanding is that 60637-1539; [email protected]. New Zealand those who were under the English department Alessandm Wanti, Journal of Linguistic An- are mostly formal (Chomskian) people, whereas thropology Edim; Dept of Anth, UCLA,CA 90095- By Yukako Sunaoshi (V of Auckland, New Zealand) those who were under the Anthropology depart- 1553; [email protected]. As an American-trained sociolinguist, I wasn’t ment are mostly descriptive people. It should be Laura Milk, SLA Progrmn Orgrmizer;.Dept of Soc sure what to expect when I first arrived in New noted, however, that many of these linguists are and Anthm, Lopla U, 6525 North Sheridan Road, Zealand. What I found was people doing very interested in the sociocultural aspects of language Chicago, IL 60626; tel 773/508-3469, fax 508- interesting work in sociolinguistics, but very little use and that the division between formal and 7099, lmil&[email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph Harold Greenberg
    JOSEPH HAROLD GREENBERG CORRECTED VERSION* Joseph H. Greenberg, one of the most original and influential linguists of the twentieth century, died at his home in Stanford, California, on May 7th, 2001, three weeks before his eighty-sixth birthday. Greenberg was a major pioneer in the development of linguistics as an empirical science. His work was always founded directly on quantitative data from a single language or from a wide range of languages. His chief legacy to contemporary linguistics is in the development of an approach to the study of language—typology and univerals—and to historical linguistics. Yet he also made major contributions to sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, phonetics and phonology, morphology, and especially African language studies. Joe Greenberg was born on May 28th, 1915, in Brooklyn, New York, the second of two children. His father was a Polish Jew and his mother, a German Jew. His father’s family name was originally Zyto, but in one of those turn-of-the- century immigrant stories, he ended up taking the name of his landlord. Joe Greenberg’s early loves were music and languages. As a child he sat fascinated next to his mother while she played the piano, and asked her to teach him. She taught him musical notation and then found him a local teacher. Greenberg ended up studying with a Madame Vangerova, associated with the Curtis Institute of Music. Greenberg even gave a concert at Steinway Hall at the age of 14, and won a city-wide prize for best chamber music ensemble. But after finishing high school, Greenberg chose an academic career instead of a musical one, although he continued to play the piano every evening until near the end of his life.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Anthropology in 2013: Super-New-Big
    AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST Linguistic Anthropology Linguistic Anthropology in 2013: Super-New-Big Angela Reyes ABSTRACT In this essay, I discuss how linguistic anthropological scholarship in 2013 has been increasingly con- fronted by the concepts of “superdiversity,” “new media,” and “big data.” As the “super-new-big” purports to identify a contemporary moment in which we are witnessing unprecedented change, I interrogate the degree to which these concepts rely on assumptions about “reality” as natural state versus ideological production. I consider how the super-new-big invites us to scrutinize various reconceptualizations of diversity (is it super?), media (is it new?), and data (is it big?), leaving us to inevitably contemplate each concept’s implicitly invoked opposite: “regular diversity,” “old media,” and “small data.” In the section on “diversity,” I explore linguistic anthropological scholarship that examines how notions of difference continue to be entangled in projects of the nation-state, the market economy, and social inequality. In the sections on “media” and “data,” I consider how questions about what constitutes lin- guistic anthropological data and methodology are being raised and addressed by research that analyzes new and old technologies, ethnographic material, semiotic forms, scale, and ontology. I conclude by questioning the extent to which it is the super-new-big itself or the contemplation about the super-new-big that produces perceived change in the world. [linguistic anthropology, superdiversity, new media, big data,
    [Show full text]
  • JUDITH R. H. KAPLAN Integrated Studies Program University of Pennsylvania 175 Claudia Cohen Hall 249 South 36Th Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324 [email protected]
    JUDITH R. H. KAPLAN Integrated Studies Program University of Pennsylvania 175 Claudia Cohen Hall 249 South 36th Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324 [email protected] Updated December 2019 ACADEMIC POSITIONS 2017-Present University of Pennsylvania, Integrated Studies Program, Teaching Fellow / History and Sociology of Science, Lecturer 2016-17 Wolf Humanities Forum (formerly, PHF), Andrew W. Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow / University of Pennsylvania, History and Sociology of Science, Lecturer 2016 Bard College Berlin, Contributing Lecturer 2013-16 Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Postdoctoral Fellow EDUCATION 2012 University of Wisconsin, Madison: PhD in History of Science Dissertation Title: “Language Science and Orientalism in Imperial Germany” Committee: Lynn K. Nyhart, chair; Thomas H. Broman; Ronald L. Numbers; Joseph C. Salmons; Richard A. Staley Preliminary Examination Fields: History of Modern Biology (Nyhart), History of Science and Religion (Numbers), History of Scientific Methodology (Shank) PhD Minor: Modern European Intellectual History, Rudy J. Koshar, advisor Languages: German, French reading knowledge 2006 University of Wisconsin, Madison: MA in History of Science 2004 University of Illinois, Chicago: MS in Disability and Human Development 2002 Hampshire College: BA in Cultural Studies Kaplan CV 2 FELLOWSHIPS AND AWARDS 2017 Consortium for the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine, NEH Postdoctoral Fellowship (declined) 2011 DAAD-Center for German and European Studies, Graduate Research Assistantship
    [Show full text]
  • Patience Epps Department of Linguistics Professor RLP 4.304 the University of Texas at Austin 305 E
    Patience Epps Department of Linguistics Professor RLP 4.304 The University of Texas at Austin 305 E. 23rd Street, STOP B5100 Austin, TX 78712-0198 USA email: [email protected] phone: 512-471-9015 RESEARCH INTERESTS Indigenous languages of Amazonia (Brazil; Naduhup/Makú, Tukanoan, Arawakan, other families) Language documentation, description, and preservation Linguistic typology, functional linguistics Historical linguistics, language contact and convergence Language and prehistory Linguistic anthropology and verbal art EDUCATION 2005 Ph.D. Linguistic Anthropology. University of Virginia. Dissertation: A Grammar of Hup. 2000 M.A. Linguistic Anthropology. University of Virginia. 1994 B.A. Anthropology, magna cum laude. College of William and Mary, Virginia. EMPLOYMENT AND TEACHING Sept. 2016-present Professor, The University of Texas at Austin. Sept. 2010–Sept 2016 Associate Professor, The University of Texas at Austin. Jan. 2006–Sept. 2010 Assistant Professor, The University of Texas at Austin. Summer Schools 2018 Faculty, Moscow Summer School for Areal Linguistics and Languages of Russia. Sept. 10-14. 2015 Faculty, 68th LSA Summer Institute, The University of Chicago. July 5-31. 2009 Faculty, 65th LSA Summer Institute, The University of California, Berkeley. July 27-Aug. 13. GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIPS 2019 NEH-DEL award PD-266994-19: ‘Documentation of Nadëb (mbj), a Naduhup language of Brazil’. Funding period: 9/1/2019 – 8/31/2022. ($323,717). 2018 NEH-DEL award PD-260978: ‘Archiving significant collections of endangered languages: Two multilingual regions of northwestern South America’, Co-PI Susan Kung. Funding period: 9/1/2018 - 8/31/2021. ($227,365). 2018 The University of Texas at Austin ‘Research Apprenticeship’ award (for project ‘Investigating Nadëb Word Order’).
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnolinguistics in the Year 2016∗
    Ethnolinguistic 28 Lublin 2017 I. Research articles DOI: 10.17951/et.2016.28.7 Jerzy B a r t m i ń s k i (UMCS, Lublin, Poland) Ethnolinguistics in the Year 2016∗ This article is the voice of Etnolingwistyka’s Editor-in-Chief on the current tasks of ethnolinguistics as a scholarly subdiscipline, as well as those of the journal. According to the author, of the two foundations of Slavic ethnolin- guistics mentioned by Nikita Tolstoy (i.e., its pan-Slavic character and the unity of language and culture) it is mainly the latter that has preserved its topicality: language is the source of knowledge about people and human com- munities, as well as the basis for building one’s identity (individual, national, regional, professional). The agenda of cultural linguistics has been followed by the contributors to the present journal and its editorial team with a focus on various genres of folklore, the problems of the linguistic worldview, and in recent issues with studies on the semantics of selected cultural concepts (FAMILY, DEMOCRACY, EQUALITY, OTVETSTVENNOST’, etc.). An ethnolinguistics that thus seeks “culture in language” (i.e. in the semantic layer of linguistic forms) is close – especially in its cognitivist variant – to Western cultural or anthropological linguistics. When Slavic ethnolinguistics focuses on the semantics of value terms, it stands a good chance of engaging in a dialogue with Western anthropological linguistics and contribute original insights to the common body of research on values. A specific proposal in this direction is the international project EUROJOS. Key words: cultural linguistics, culture in language, Etnolingwistyka, EUROJOS, Axiological Lexicon of Slavs and their Neighbours, cultural concepts ∗ This is a revised and extended version of the paper presented at the conference Slawische Ethnolinguistik: Methoden, Ergebnisse, Perspektive (17–19 December, 2015), organized by the Department of Slavonic Studies at the University of Vienna.
    [Show full text]
  • White Noise: Bringing Language Into Whiteness Studies
    Introduction ■ Sara Trechter CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, CHICO ■ Mary Bucholtz TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY White Noise: Bringing Language into Whiteness Studies Although the burgeoning field of whiteness studies encompasses a pan- oply of disciplines within the humanities and social sciences, including edu- cation (Fine et al. 1997), literary criticism (Morrison 1990), ethnic studies (Almaguer 1994; Lipsitz 1998), gender studies (Frankenberg 1993; Pfeil 1995), and history (Roediger 1991; Saxton 1990), it owes a special debt to anthro- pology. After all, the fundamental postulate of whiteness studies—that race is socially constructed—is based on extensive anthropological research ex- tending back to Boas and continuing to the present moment (e.g., Harrison 1995, 1998). Moreover, as a phenomenon grounded in what Hill (this issue) calls the “culture of racism,” the racial project of whiteness is especially suited to anthropological study. Indeed, anthropologists have been at the vanguard of scholarship in the critical investigation of whiteness. The in- fluential studies of such researchers as Karen Brodkin (1998) and John Hartigan (1999) have enriched the field by demonstrating the importance of historical, geographic, and ethnographic specificity in understanding the workings of whiteness. It is important to acknowledge, too, that these insights, which Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(1):3–21. Copyright © 2001, American Anthropological Association. 3 4 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology are currently getting renewed attention under the rubric of whiteness studies, have long been fundamental to the work of scholars of color in numerous disciplines, including anthropology. From W. E. B. Du Bois (1935) to James Baldwin (1985) to bell hooks (1990, 1992) and beyond, African Americans and other scholars of color recognized early on that race is a politicized social construction (see Roediger 1998 for an excellent compilation of such work).
    [Show full text]