In later work, Kulick demonstrates that certain loud speech performances called *um escândalo*, Brazilian travesti (roughly, 'transvestite') sex workers shame clients. To speak Tok Pisin is to index a modern, Christian (Catholic) identity, based not on *hed* but on *save*, that is an identity linked with the will and the skill to cooperate. ) To speak the Taiap language is associated with one identity-not only local but "Backward" and also an identity based on the display of *hed* (personal autonomy). (Linguistic anthropologists use "indexical" to mean indicative, though some indexical signs create their indexical meanings on the fly, so to speak. Kulick explored how the use of two languages with and around children in Gapun village-the traditional language (Taiap) not spoken anywhere but in their own village and thus primordially "indexical" of Gapuner identity, and Tok Pisin (the widely circulating official language of New Guinea). Linguistic anthropologist Don Kulick has done this in relation to identity, for example, in a series of settings, first in a village called Gapun in Papua New Guinea. IdentityĪ great deal of work in linguistic anthropology investigates questions of sociocultural identity linguistically. Several areas related to the third paradigm, the study of anthropological issues, are particularly rich areas of study for current linguistic anthropologists. Areas of interestĬontemporary linguistic anthropology continues research in all three of the paradigms described above. Popular areas of study in this third paradigm include investigations of social identities, broadly shared ideologies, and the construction and uses of narrative in interaction among individuals and groups. In the third paradigm, which has emerged since the late 1980s, instead of continuing to pursue agendas that come from a discipline alien to anthropology, linguistic anthropologists have systematically addressed themselves to problems posed by the larger discipline of anthropology-but using linguistic data and methods. Anthropological issues studied via linguistic methods and data However, Hymes' ambition in a sense backfired the second paradigm in fact marked a further distancing of the subdiscipline from the rest of anthropology. The name certainly stresses that the primary identity is with anthropology, whereas "anthropological linguistics" conveys a sense that the primary identity of its practitioners was with linguistics, which is a separate academic discipline on most university campuses today (not in the days of Boas and Sapir). Hymes had hoped to link linguistic anthropology more closely with the mother discipline. Hymes also pioneered a linguistic anthropological approach to ethnopoetics. Whereas the first paradigm focused on ostensibly distinct "languages" (scare quotes indicate that contemporary linguistic anthropologists treat the concept of "a language" as an ideal construction covering up complexities within and "across" so-called linguistic boundaries), the unit of analysis in the second paradigm was new-the "speech event." (The speech event is an event defined by the speech occurring in it-a lecture, for example-so that a dinner is not a speech event, but a speech situation, a situation in which speech may or may not occur.) Much attention was devoted to speech events in which performers were held accountable for the form of their linguistic performance as such. It would involve taking advantage of new developments in technology, including new forms of mechanical recording.Ī new unit of analysis was also introduced by Hymes. ĭell Hymes was largely responsible for launching the second paradigm that fixed the name "linguistic anthropology" in the 1960s, though he also coined the term " ethnography of speaking" (or "ethnography of communication") to describe the agenda he envisioned for the field. In any case, it was Harry Hoijer (Sapir's student) who coined the term. The so-called Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis is perhaps a misnomer insofar as the approach to science taken by these two differs from the positivist, hypothesis-driven model of science. The unresolved issue of linguistic relativity (associated with Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf but actually brought to American linguistics by Franz Boas working within a theoretical framework going back to European thinkers from Vico to Herder to Humboldt).Typological classification (see typology), and. The field was devoted to themes unique to the subdiscipline-linguistic documentation of languages then seen as doomed to extinction (these were the languages of native North America on which the first members of the subdiscipline focused) such as: The first paradigm was originally referred to as " linguistics", although as it and its surrounding fields of study matured it came to be known as " anthropological linguistics". Main article: Anthropological linguistics
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |