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 rigor3an d 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. One is the emphasis on what plains the term "anthropological lin- which to think about language. The new speakers jjo. with language (see connec- guists" that they adopted for themselves perspective had two main foci of re- tions with speech act theory, i.e. Austin in the 1950s (see Duranti 2001 for a search interests: (i) social variation in 1962; Searle 1969). Another is the fo- discussion of the meaning of various language use, and (ii) language use in cus on social units (e.g. speech com- terminological choices). Like all lin- communicative events. The two re- munities, speech events and speech situ- guists then and most linguists today, search interests were united in John ations) as opposed to grammatical units they elicited linguistic expressions from Gumperz and Dell Hymes' collabora- (e.g. the word, the sentence). A third is native speakers in order to describe tion (1964, 1972), resulting in the the importance of an ethnographic un- grammars and lexicons of up to then school known as "the Ethnography of derstanding of the interactions in which unwritten languages. This had two ef- Communication." language is used, e.g. in order to de- fects. One was that some of these schol- During the early period of this new scribe communicative competence ars found a home in linguistics depart- paradigm, two important terminologi- (Hymes 1972b). A fourth reason is the ments (e.g. Mary Haas), and the other cal changes also took place: First, attempt to take variation seriously and was that their mission of collecting in- Hymes argued for the term "linguistic make sense of it through a theory of formation and documenting American anthropology" over "anthropological "relevant context." Indian languages was adopted by lin- linguistics," to stress that the field A consequence of this shift was the guists with very little or no training in should assume anthropological con- temporary abandonment of linguistic anthropological history and theory. cerns (Hymes 1964). Second, the term relativity, at least in its popular version. Given these trends, eventually, "anthro- sociolinguistics was introduced by Wil- Its identification with ways of classify- Page 22 Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL7,No.2 Fall-Winter 2000-2001 ing experience—the infamous multi- in which it occurs or the entities that is Whether one looks at Michael plication of the words of 'snow' in Es- supposed to refer to (e.g. social iden- Silverstein's (1976) elaboration of kimo from four to one hundred and tity, social relationships). Although this Jakobson's notion of "shifter" and more—is a primary example of this (see idea is already found in Hymes' (1972a) Peirce's notion of "index," or Elinor Martin 1986 for an analysis of this concept of "speech event" (an event Ochs' (1979) argument that "transcrip- myth). largely defined by speech, e.g. an oral tion is theory" (a position that predates In a paradoxical twist of fate, while examination, an interview) and Blom Clifford and Marcus' (1986) invitation stressing the need to relocate the field and Gumperz' (1972) notion of "meta- to rethink the process of writing cul- within anthropology, Hymes (1964) si- phorical shift" (a type of code switch- ture), what we have seen in the last multaneously set the stage for fuller ing that brings about a change in con- twenty five years is increased attention theoretical and methodological au- text), it becomes a leading and perva- paid to the mechanisms through which tonomy for ethnographers of speaking sive concept in the linguistic anthropol- speakers and analysts use language as from the rest of anthropology. The con- ogy of the 1980s and 1990s. It is also a a resource for the constitution of the centration on ritual encounters as op- research focus that eventually contrib- very social reality they are trying to posed to grammar and lexicon (Erving utes to the separation of linguistic an- describe. The notion of indexicality is Goffman had a noticeable influence on thropologists from quantitative one way of making sense of the histo- those operating within this paradigm) sociolinguists for whom context is still ricity and context-ness of language freed them from the old "service men- an independent variable (see Duranti (Hanks 1990,1999). tality." At the same time, it exposed 2001b; Goodwin and Duranti 1992). In the last two decades we have also them to two risks: the overlap with re- seen an increased attention to the de- search areas usually studied by cultural Cultural anthropology textbooks tails of face-to-face encounters, inspired anthropologists and the associated [need to reflect] a fuller under- in part by interactional sociology, abandonment of their most valued good, standing of the role that lan- ethnomethodology and conversation namely, their expertise in language guage plays in the context of our analysis (Heritage 1984). In addition, structures (in both a synchronic and daily life. new recording technologies (video in diachronic perspective). ^—^_^_^_•—^__^^ particular) have allowed us to collect These two risks have unfolded in My view is that one can make sense audio-visually rich data that can be interesting ways in the last few years, of most of the work done within lin- played again and again, and thus be sub- producing a new generation of young guistic anthropology since the mid- mitted to more systematic scrutiny by scholars who are a mixture of linguis- 1970s as an attempt to sharpen the ana- ourselves and by others (Duranti 1997: tic and cultural anthropologists, and at- lytical tools for the study of context and chapter 5). The attention to detail has tracting other scholars from related its relevance to an understanding of how helped us deconstruct the speaker- fields, including applied linguistics, language is used by social actors. In hearer dyad and refine Goffman's communication, discourse analysis, particular, it is the challenge to define (1981) intuitions about participation second language acquisition and edu- context and make it into an object of frameworks. By looking at language cation. This has been made possible for study that motivates three important use in classrooms, neighborhoods and a number of reasons, one being more areas of contemporary research: perfor- workplaces, linguistic anthropologists recent theoretical developments. mance, indexicality and participation have shown that the ways in which (Duranti 1997:14-21). problem-solving, conflict and narrative Recent Developments or Paradigm Performance originated in different activity are organized are much more Three? traditions. Chomsky (1965) used it in- complex than what is usually assumed One of the important contributions stead of Ferdinand de Saussure's (1966) by those who interpret language as of the second paradigm is the focus on notion of parole, Bauman (1975) and "content" or as a series of monologic language in context. Context is used to Hymes (1975) used it as a creative and "stories." explain variation (why people's pronun- emergent mode of using language, and More generally, there has been in ciation or lexical choice changes across Austin (1962) implied it as the domain recent research in linguistic anthropol- time and space), and is also the object of 'doing things with words' in his no- ogy a radical—albeit often too im- of ethnographic description (e.g. com- tion of performative. More recently, plicit—criticism of the elicitation tech- municative events). Rather than being feminist theorists have extended the niques used by grammarians and eth- studied as isolated forms (as done in the notion of performance to performativity nographers. Michael Silverstein's first paradigm), linguistic expressions to account for the ways in which gen- (1981) work on the limits of awareness are embedded within larger activities or der is discursively produced (Hall as well as the myriad empirical studies events. A further development of this 1999). The main point here is that lan- of the social organization of verbal per- new interest in context is the focus on guage is considered a domain of action formance in ritual and mundane en- language as context. The use of lan- in which agency is constantly an issue counters (e.g., Hill and Irvine 1993) are guage is seen as constituting (some- as opposed to a system of predefined evidence of this trend. Some of these times actually "creating") the contexts rules that are separate from social life. challenge past and current ideas about Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL7fNo.2 Fall-Winter 2000-2001 Page 23 gender roles (Goodwin 1990) and nar- ogy textbooks is a fuller understanding Bauman, Richard rative structure (Ochs & Capps 1996, of the role that language plays in the 1975 Verbal Art as Performance. 2001). In the context of these new stud- context of our daily life. For this un- American Anthropologist 77:290- ies, the very notion of linguistic rela- derstanding to occur we need specific 311. tivity needs to be reassessed. We need conceptual tools. In their study of per- Berlin, Brent, and Paul Kay to explore further Whorf's original in- formance, indexicality and participation 1969 Basic Color Terms: Their Uni- tuitions about how linguistic categori- linguistic anthropologists have devel- versality and Evolution. Berkeley: zation is analogically transferred to oped and refined such tools. Students University of California Press. other cognitive realms (Lucy 1992a, in cultural anthropology and other sub- Boas, Franz 1992b). We also need to rethink rela- fields should be exposed to current work 1911 Introduction. In Handbook of tivity in terms of the new research on in linguistic anthropology and thus American Indian Languages. F language ideology (Schieffelin, given a chance to test their power to Boas, editor, Vol. BAE-B 40, Part I. Woolard, Kroskrity 1998; Kroskrity explain how and why language plays Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian In- 2000) and in terms of how access to lin- such an important part in our lives. stitution and Bureau of American guistic resources presupposes and em- Ethnology. bodies access to other kinds of resources Notes Blom, J. P, and J. J. Gumperz. in economic, intellectual and moral 1 This essay briefly expands on some 1972 "Social Meaning in Linguistic spheres. of the discussion found in Duranti Structures: Code-Switching in Nor- Instead of having to choose between (2001b). A more detailed discussion of way," in Directions in taking for granted or ignoring altogether paradigm shifts in linguistic anthropol- Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography the "power of language," linguistic an- ogy will be presented in a forthcoming of Communication. Edited by J. J. thropologists have developed analyti- paper entitled "Three Paradigms for the Gumperz and D. Hymes, pp. 407- cal tools that allow us to look closely at Anthropological Study of Language in 434. New York: Holt. what language does versus what speak- the U.S." Chomsky, Noam ers qua social actors do. If we attempt 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syn- to understand this distinction, includ- 2 For example, when I organized a spe- tax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ing its validity and the implicit rethink- cial "educational" session at the 1998 Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus ing of the concepts of intentionality and AAA Meetings in which I invited 28 1986 Writing Culture: The Poetics agency that it requires, we get a clearer colleagues to talk (for 7 minutes each) and Politics of Ethnography. Berke- picture of language structure and lan- about the latest perspectives on "lan- ley: University of California Press. guage use that we need to present to our guage matters," many colleagues from Duranti, Alessandro students. Linguistic forms would be other fields, especially cultural anthro- 1997 Linguistic Anthropology. Cam- shown to get their meaning from the pology, enthusiastically attended the bridge: Cambridge University Press. historical and moment-by-moment con- session, enduring 3 hours and 45 min- 2001a Key Terms in Language and structed context of their use. utes of non-stop talk. (The proceedings Culture. Maiden, MA: Blackwell. of that session, expanded to include 74 Duranti, Alessandro Conclusions authors, were published as a special is- 2001b Linguistic Anthropology: I have presented here a hypothesis sue of the Journal of Linguistic Anthro- History, Ideas, and Issues. In 2001c, about what I see as an intellectual gap pology, Duranti 1999, and as a book, pp. 1-38. between the discussion of language in Duranti 2001a.) 2001c Linguistic Anthropology: A anthropology textbooks and the great Reader. A. Duranti, ed. Maiden, bulk of research within contemporary 3 For example, despite the fact that the MA: Blackwell. linguistic anthropology. I have sug- book is called "American Duranti, Alessandro, ed. gested that to a great extent cultural Sociolinguistics," the first sentence of 1999 Language Matters in Anthro- anthropology textbooks remain within the first chapter reads: "This study of pology: A Lexicon for the New Mil- the logic, topics and issues identified postwar anthropological linguistics in lennium. Special Issue of the Jour- within what I call the first paradigm in North America..." (Murray 1998:1). nal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9. linguistic anthropology. This started The ambiguity about the focus and [Reprinted as Duranti 2001a] over a century ago with Boas' program boundaries of the study unfortunately Goffman, Erving for a four-field anthropology and con- remain throughout the book, which ends 1981 Footing. In Forms of Talk. E. tinues today with the study of endan- without a concluding statement about Gofrman, ed. Pp. 124-57. Philadel- gered languages and with comparative general trends. phia: University of Pennsylvania studies of isolated (i .e. taken out of con- Press. text) linguistic forms (e.g. color termi- References Goodwin, Charles, and Alessandro nology). What is particularly missing Austin, J. L. Duranti then in much of contemporary treatment 1962 How to Do Things with Words. 1992 Rethinking Context: An Intro- of language within cultural anthropol- Oxford: Oxford University Press. duction. In Rethinking Context: Lan- Page 24 Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL 7, No. 2 Fall-Winter 2000-2001 guage as an Interactive Phenom- Utrecht and Antwerp: Spectrum Murray, Stephen O. enon. A. Duranti and C. Goodwin, Publishers. 1998 American Sociolinguistics: eds. Pp. 1-42. Cambridge: Cam- Hymes, Dell Theorists and Theory Groups. bridge University Press. 1964 General Introduction. In Lan- Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Goodwin, Marjorie Harness guage in Culture and Society: A Benjamins. 1990 He-Said-She-Said: Talk as So- Reader in Linguistics and Anthropol- Ochs, Elinor cial Organization among Black Chil- ogy. D. Hymes, ed. Pp. xxi-xxxii. 1979 Transcription as Theory. In dren. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Uni- New York: Harper & Row. Developmental Pragmatics. E. Ochs versity Press. 1972a Models of the Interaction of and B.B. Schieffelin, eds. Pp. 43-72. Grenoble, Lenore A., and Lindsay J. Language and Social Life. In Direc- New York: Academic Press. Whaley.eds. tions in Sociolinguistics: The Eth- Ochs, Elinor, and Lisa Capps 1998 Endangered Languages: Cur- nography of Communication. J.J. 1996 Narrating the Self. Annual Re- rent Issues and Future Prospects. Gumperz and D. Hymes, eds. Pp. 35- view of Anthropology 25:19-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University 71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and 2001 Living Narrative. Cambridge, Press. Winston. MA: Harvard University Press. Gumperz, John J., and Dell Hymes, eds. 1972b On Communicative Compe- Pike, Kenneth L. 1964 The Ethnography of Commu- tence. In Sociolinguistics. J.B. Pride 1963 The Teaching of Linguistic nication. American Anthropologist and J. Holmes, eds. Pp. 269-285. Anthropology: Choices in Course 66, 6, part II. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Design. In The Teaching of Anthro- 1972 Directions in Sociolinguistics: 1975 Breakthrough into Perfor- pology. D.G. Mandelbaum, G.W. The Ethnography of Communica- mance. In Folklore: Performance Lasker, and E.M. Albert, eds. Pp. tion. New York: Holt, Rinehart and and Communication. D. Ben-Amos 315-31: American Anthropological Winston. and K.S. Goldstein, eds. Pp. 11-74. Association. Memoir 94. Hall, Kira The Hague: Mouton. Saussure, F. de 1999 Performativity. Journal of Lin- Kroskrity, Paul V, ed. 1966. Course in General Linguistics. guistic Anthropology 9(1-2): 184-7. 2000 Regimes of Language: Ideolo- Edited by Charles Bally and Albert [Reprinted in Duranti 2001c] gies, Politics and Identities. Santa Sechehaye in collaboration with Hanks, William F. Fe, NM: School of American Re- Albert Riedlinger. Translanted and 1990 Referential Practice: Language search Press. with an introduction by Wade and Lived Space Among the Maya. Kuhn, Thomas Baskin. New York: McGraw Hill. Chicago: University of Chicago 1962 The Structure of Scientific Schieffelin, Bambi B., Kathryn Press. Revolutions. Chicago: University of Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity, eds. 1999 Indexicality. Journal of Linguis- Chicago Press. 1998 Language Ideologies: Practice tic Anthropology 9.124-6. [Re- Levinson, Stephen C. and Theory. New York: Oxford Uni- printed in Duranti 2001c] 2000 YelT Dnye and the Theory of versity Press. Heritage, John Basic Color Terms. Journal of Lin- Searle, John R. 1984 Garfinkel and Ethnometho- guistic Anthropology 10(1). 1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the dology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Lucy, John A. Philosophy of Language. Cam- Hill, Jane H., and Kenneth C. Hill 1992a Grammatical Categories and bridge: Cambridge University Press. 1986 Speaking Mexicano: Dynam- Cognition: A Case Study of the Lin- Silverstein, Michael ics of a Syncretic Language in Cen- guistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cam- 1976 Shifters, Linguistic Categories, tral Mexico. Tucson: University of bridge: Cambridge University Press. and Cultural Description. In Mean- Arizona Press. 1992b Language Diversity and Cog- ing in Anthropology. K.H. Basso and Hill, Jane H. and Judith T. Rivine, eds. nitive Development: A Reformula- H.A. Selby, eds. Pp. 11-56. Albu- 1993 Responsibility and Evidence in tion of the Linguistic Relativity Hy- querque: University of New Mexico Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cam- pothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. bridge University Press. University Press. 1981 The Limits of Awareness. Hill, Jane H., and Bruce Mannheim Martin, Laura Sociolinguistic Working Paper No. 1992 Language and World View. 1986 Eskimo Words for Snow: A 84. Austin: Southwest Educational Annual Review of Anthropology Case Study in the Genesis and De- Development Laboratory. 21:381-406. cay of an Anthropological Example. Voegelin, Charles F., and Zellig S. Hoijer, Harry American Anthropologist 88:418- Harris 1961 Anthropological Linguistics. In 423. 1952 Training in anthropological lin- Trends in European and American Moore, Robert E. guistics. American Anthropologist Linguistics 1930-1960. C. 1999 Endangered. Journal of Lin- 54:322-7. TA Mohrmann, A. Sommerfelt and J. guistic Anthropology 9:65-8. Whatmough, eds. Pp. 110-25.