Anthropological Linguistics

Reviewed by: Social structure, space and possession in Tongan culture and language: An ethnolinguistic study by Svenja Völkel Alexander Mawyer Svenja Völkel. 2010. Social structure, space and possession in Tongan culture and language: An ethnolinguistic study. Culture and Language Use: Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. xv + 272 pp., maps, figures, tables, appendices, references, glossary, index. ISBN: cloth 978-902-72-0283-3; e-Book 978-902-72-8772-4. €95.00, $143.00. Despite common genealogy and contemporary kinship, cultural anthropologists of Oceania and Oceanic linguists do not always find opportunities for practical engagement or scholarly cross-pollination. Strikingly, this is true for empirical as well as theoretical works. Völkel’s Social structure, space and possession in Tongan culture and language: An ethnolinguistic study is a memorable recent example of a volume that establishes a shared frame of reference in its scrutiny of kinship, social order and status, spatial analysis, and possession. Moreover, the author largely succeeds in her synthetic ambition. Only the most fastidious maintainer of disciplinary boundaries could fail to be stimulated by this inquiry into the connections between culture, language, cognition, social structure, space, and possession in Tonga. Hearkening to Alessandro Duranti’s (1997) leading voice for the value and necessity of examining “language through the lenses of anthropological concern” (3), Völkel’s volume is the result of extensive work with both everyday and unusually expert Tongan speakers. It is also informed by an ethnographic sensibility to the ebb and flow of talk in the crispness of the here-and-now in a Tongan village. Moreover, the methodological stance benefits from a close and robust conversation with the long-running work at the intersection of linguistics, culture, and spatial cognition. Nine chapters explore cross-cutting dimensions of culture and language in Völkel’s attempt to “reveal and analyse a connection between Tongan language and culture for the aspects of social structure, space, and possession” (2). Nonlinguistic manifestations of cultural practice and social structure are proposed to be encoded in, expressed by, and made salient-to-context through linguistic means. Her interpretive analysis of the elaborate hierarchical character of Tongan society, for instance in kinship as cultural system and practice, exemplifies the general approach. As patterns in the lexical categorization of kin relations are brought into nuanced visibility when used to express qualities of social relationships by kin in everyday talk, Völkel is positioned to offer strong evidence for the interdependent quality of language and culture and of otherwise seemingly discrete domains therein. Moreover, Tongan language of respect—an honorific system deeply anchored in social hierarchy that encodes the system of status inequalities among relatives—beautifully supports Völkel’s sense of possibility in the scrutiny of language in use through the lens of broader anthropological concern. The volume is divided into two parts, each of three substantial chapters. Each part is bracketed by a short concluding chapter. The first chapter covers four domains of anthropological concern particularly suited to structural analysis and, as such, perhaps well selected foci for inquiry at the language-culture nexus. Ch. 2 examines Tongan social structure [End Page 614] in both micro and macro social contexts. Ch. 3 opens up a wonderful and sometimes unexpectedly intimate and occasionally visceral sense of the historical and contemporary dynamics of Tongan land tenure. Ch. 4 takes the reader into a familiar discussion of nonlinguistic possession and gift exchange in a Polynesian context in which the rights and obligations of kith and kin, of individuals and families within the cusp of society, are entangled, or to hazard a more culturally appropriate set of metaphors, into which they are woven and bound. The title of ch. 5, “Connecting remarks on social structure,” appears as something of a double entendre in as much as Völkel’s foundational observation here is of the number and variety of “linkages” or, though it is a term she does not use, the palimpsest-like quality of cultural domains of social structure, spatial organization and practice, and material possession and gift exchange. Across all of these chapters, Völkel’s suggestion of a co-determination of language in use and cultural...

The concept of authenticity has received some attention in recent academic discourse, yet it has often been left under-defined from a sociolinguistic perspective. This volume presents the contributions of a wide range of scholars who exchanged their views on the topic at a conference in Freiburg, Germany, in November 2011. The authors address three leading questions: What are the local meanings of authenticity embedded in large cultural and social structures? What is the meaning of linguistic authenticity in delocalised and/or deterritorialised settings? How is authenticity indexed in other contexts of language expression (e.g. in writing or in political discourse)? These questions are tackled by recognised experts in the fields of sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, and contact linguistics. While by no means exhaustive, the volume offers a large array of case studies that contribute significantly to our understanding of the meaning of authenticity in language production and perception. The concept of authenticity has received some attention in recent academic discourse, yet it has often been left under-defined from a sociolinguistic perspective. This volume presents the contributions of a wide range of scholars who exchanged their views on the topic at a conference in Freiburg, Germany, in November 2011. The authors address three leading questions: What are the local meanings of authenticity embedded in large cultural and social structures? What is the meaning of linguistic authenticity in delocalised and/or deterritorialised settings? How is authenticity indexed in other contexts of language expression (e.g. in writing or in political discourse)? These questions are tackled by recognised experts in the fields of sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, and contact linguistics. While by no means exhaustive, the volume offers a large array of case studies that contribute significantly to our understanding of the meaning of authenticity in language production and perception.

Applied linguistics plays a pivotal role in shaping foreign language education by informing teaching methodologies, curriculum design, assessment practices, and language policy development. The present textbook is primarily intended for graduate and doctoral students of English philology in departments preparing future teachers and intercultural mediators. It comprehensively treats three branches of applied linguistics - sociolinguistics, pragmalinguistics, and psycholinguistics. The structure and content of the text, including content questions and suggestions for independent assignments, correspond to the function of a university textbook. The first chapter discusses sociolinguistics which is crucial for fostering effective foreign language learning and communication in diverse social contexts. Sociolinguistics, as a subfield of linguistics, focuses on the study of language in its social and cultural context, examining how language use varies according to factors such as social status, ethnicity, gender, age, and geographical region. It provides insights into the variation present in language use, both within and across different speech communities. By learning about sociolinguistic variation, students become better equipped to navigate diverse linguistic environments and interact appropriately with speakers from different languages and cultural backgrounds. Pragmalinguistics is discussed in the second chapter. It focuses on the study of language use in context, particularly how language is used to achieve communicative goals and convey meaning beyond the literal interpretation of words and sentences. In the study of English linguistics, pragmalinguistics plays a crucial role in enhancing our understanding of how language functions in real-life situations and social interactions. Pragmalinguistics examines how language is used to perform speech acts such as requests, offers, apologies, compliments, and refusals. By analysing the linguistic strategies and conventions associated with different speech acts, researchers gain insights into how speakers convey intentions and interact with one another in English discourse. Psycholinguistics, the subject of the third chapter, is the study of how language is processed and represented in the mind, providing valuable insights into learning about foreign languages. While it primarily focuses on understanding the cognitive processes involved in language comprehension, production, and acquisition, it intersects with the study of foreign language cultures, too. The publication introduces partial results of the project VGS B4/2022 funded by the Faculty of Education, University of Trnava, Slovakia.

This article examines the meanings and functions of Javanese traditional food through a linguistic anthropological lens. Food is approached not merely as a biological necessity, but as a cultural artifact embedded with social significance. Drawing on a corpus of traditional food names compiled by Endang Nurhayati (2013), this study analyzes how naming practices reflect the cultural logic and symbolic values of Javanese society. The findings demonstrate that the meanings and functions of traditional foods are flexible and contingent upon their socio-cultural contexts, whether in ritual ceremonies or everyday consumption. Naming conventions are shaped by sensory attributes (such as color, taste, texture, and form), sound symbolism (onomatopoeia), and acronyms. These linguistic strategies reveal how language mediates cultural understanding and expresses identity, history, and communal values. The study contributes to broader discussions on the role of food in semiotic systems and the intersection between language, culture, and social practice in Javanese tradition.

Cultural Anthropology and Linguistic Anthropology are two vital subfields within anthropology, each offering unique insights into the diverse and complex ways in which human societies operate. When these disciplines converge, a profound synergy emerges, providing a richer and more holistic understanding of the cultural, linguistic, and social dimensions of human life. This article explores the interplay between cultural and linguistic anthropology, revealing how their synergy enhances our grasp of the intricacies of human existence. The fields of cultural and linguistic anthropology have long been distinguished by their unique focuses, methodologies, and research interests. Cultural anthropology delves into the intricacies of human societies, exploring cultural practices, beliefs, and social structures, while linguistic anthropology focuses on the role of language in culture and society. However, a synergetic paradigm is emerging that seeks to bridge these two disciplines, recognizing the intricate connection between language and culture. This paradigm acknowledges that linguistic and cultural anthropology are not mutually exclusive but, instead, complementary lenses through which to view the complex tapestry of human societies. Cultural and linguistic anthropology, though distinct in their focuses, share a fundamental interest in understanding the dynamics of human societies and cultures. When it comes to exploring shifts in value systems, these two subfields of anthropology often employ similar research methods. In this article, we will delve into the methods that cultural and linguistic anthropologists commonly share in their investigations of evolving value systems. Keywords: Linguistic anthropology; Cultural anthropology; Shared methodology; values.

Special Section Colloquium Meditation on Michael Carrithers' "Anthropology as irony and philosophy."

Attending to Difference in Indigenous People's Experiences of Cyberbullying: Toward a Research Agenda

I review scholarship in linguistic anthropology produced in 2011 with attention to the continuing influence of Franz Boas' program for the anthropology of language laid out in his 1911 “Introduction” to the Handbook of American Indian Languages. Although the aims of linguistics and cultural anthropology have changed, many of the tenets of the Boas plan remain central to the subdiscipline of linguistic anthropology. The scope of linguistic anthropological inquiry today includes more than language as denotational code, covering practices of signification and communication in their social and cultural contexts. This expansion has brought new perspectives to the questions pursued by Boas and his students, and this review considers the current place of topics such as indigenous language change, language and race, linguistic relativity, and secondary rationalization alongside approaches to performativity, intertextuality, circulation, and semiotic mediation with an eye to the Americanist legacy of the subdiscipline. [Franz Boas, intertextuality, relativity, ritual performativity, race].

Language documentation, also known as documentary linguistics, is the subfield of linguistics that deals with creating multipurpose records of languages through audio and video recording of speakers and signers and with annotation, translation, preservation, and distribution of the resulting materials. It shows by its nature multidisciplinarity and draws on theoretical concepts and methods from linguistics, ethnography, folklore studies, psychology, information and library science, archiving and museum studies, digital humanities, media and recording arts, pedagogy, ethics, and other research areas. Its major goal is the creation of well-organized, long-lasting corpora that can be used for a variety of purposes, including theoretical research and practical needs such as language and cultural revitalization (see Mobilization and Revitalization). Another prominent feature is attention to the rights and desires of language speakers and communities and collaboration with them (see Speakers and Collaboration) in the recording, analysis, archiving, dissemination, and support of their own languages. The term “language documentation” historically has been used in linguistics to refer to the creation of grammars, dictionaries, and text collections for previously undescribed languages; however, works defining language documentation as a distinct subfield of linguistics emerged around 1995 as a response to the crisis facing the world’s endangered languages, about half of which could disappear in the 21st century, and the urgent need to record and analyze languages and speakers’ linguistic knowledge while they continue to be spoken, and to work with communities on supporting threatened languages before opportunities to do so become reduced. It was also prompted by developments in information, media, communication, and archiving technologies, which make possible the collection, analysis, preservation, and dissemination of documentary records in ways that were not feasible previously. It was also facilitated by high levels of research funding support from three main sources: the Documentation of Endangered Languages (DOBES) program sponsored by Volkswagen Foundation in Germany (2000–2013), the Endangered Languages Documentation Programme (ELDP) supported by Arcadia Trust in the United Kingdom (2002–2016), and the Documenting Endangered Languages (DEL) interagency initiative of the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Endowment of the Humanities (2005–). Language documentation concerns itself with principles and Methods for the recording and analysis of primary language and cultural materials, and Metadata about them, in ways that are transparent and accountable, and that can be archived and disseminated for current and future generations to use. Some researchers have emphasized standardization of data and analysis and “best practices,” while others have argued for a diversity of approaches that recognize the unique and particular social, cultural, and linguistic contexts within which individual languages are used. Methods and practices for training in language documentation have also been explored.

Reviewed by: Quantitative historical linguistics: A corpus framework by Gard B. Jenset and Barbara McGillivray Dirk Geeraerts Quantitative historical linguistics: A corpus framework. By Gard B. Jenset and Barbara McGillivray. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Pp. xiii, 229. ISBN 9780198718178. $88 (Hb). The early twenty-first century has witnessed a major shift toward quantitative approaches in the methodology of linguistics. Specifically, whereas quantitative methods have long been a staple of sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic research, the past two decades have seen their expansion toward descriptive and theoretical grammar. In usage-based approaches to language in particular, like cognitive and probabilistic linguistics, a ‘quantitative turn’ has occurred that applies the statistical testing of hypotheses to data derived from text corpora. The central inspiration for Gard B. Jenset and Barbara McGillivray’s book is the observation that this turn toward quantitative corpus studies has not yet penetrated historical linguistics to the same extent as some other subfields of linguistics. It accordingly sets out to introduce ‘the framework for quantitative historical linguistics’. The seven chapters fall roughly into two parts. In Chs. 1 to 3, a general argumentation in support of quantitative historical linguistics is developed, whereas Chs. 4 to 7 deal with the implementation of the ensuing program. The discussion of ‘why’ thus leads naturally to a discussion of ‘how’. Two threads run through the first part of the text: a specification of the kind of quantitative historical linguistics that the authors intend to propagate, and an argumentation in favor of the model in question. Important features of this argumentation are a description of the actual situation in historical linguistics and a conceptual defense of the approach against potential objections. Organizationally, Ch. 1 introduces both threads, Ch. 2 develops the first thread, and Ch. 3 the second. With regard to the first thread, the first chapter introduces the authors’ notion of quantitative research in historical linguistics by means of a double contrast. On the one hand, quantitative research differs from the conventional use of evidence in historical linguistics that rests on example-based categorical judgments about the existence of specific linguistic phenomena but does not look into probabilistic, distributional data about trends of variation and change of the phenomenon in question. On the other hand, quantitative historical research needs to go beyond raw frequencies, in the sense that the multidimensional nature of language requires a multivariate statistical approach. In the second chapter, this conception is further developed in terms of the distinction between corpus-based and corpus-driven approaches. Whereas the former turn to corpora primarily for illustration and confirmation, the latter use corpus data at two stages of the empirical process: corresponding to the distinction between exploratory and confirmatory statistics, quantitative distributional evidence is initially used to generate hypotheses, and subsequently for testing them. With regard to the second thread, the text provides quantitative data (appropriately, one could say) to the effect that such a method is less entrenched in historical linguistics than other fields of linguistics. This argumentation rests on a comparison of the 2012 volume of Language with six journals with a (not necessarily unique) focus on language change, such as Diachronica, Folia Linguistica Historica, and Language Variation and Change. As an explanation for the observation that historical linguistics seems to be lagging behind, the book invokes early negative experiences with glottochronology, plus the influence of structuralist and generative theories (though this is of course a factor that is not specific to historical linguistics). At the same time, it is demonstrated how the rise of quantitative linguistics goes hand in hand with the growing availability of electronic corpus materials—a trend that obviously creates an opportunity for historical linguistics just as for the other branches of linguistics. [End Page 190] Next to the ‘the time is ripe, we shouldn’t lag behind’ argument, the plea for quantitative corpus research in historical linguistics includes a ‘nothing is wrong with it’ type of argumentation, in the form of a systematic rejection of potential objections. Section 3.7 skillfully refutes counterarguments from convenience, from redundancy, from scope limitations, from principle, and from pseudoscience. Crucially, it is argued that a quantitative approach is not incompatible with a categorial...

This book provides an overview of approaches to language and culture, and it outlines the broad interdisciplinary field of anthropological linguistics and linguistic anthropology. It identifies current and future directions of research, including language socialization, language reclamation, speech styles and genres, language ideology, verbal taboo, social indexicality, emotion, time, and many more. Furthermore, it offers areal perspectives on the study of language in cultural contexts (namely Africa, the Americas, Australia and Oceania, Mainland Southeast Asia, and Europe), and it lays the foundation for future developments within the field. In this way, the book bridges the disciplines of cultural anthropology and linguistics and paves the way for the new book series Anthropological Linguistics .

Code-switching, a phenomenon in which speakers alternate between two or more languages within a conversation, has garnered attention in the field of linguistics, particularly in the context of language acquisition. In the English language context, code-switching practices are becoming increasingly common, especially in multilingual communities worldwide. This study aims to investigate the impact of code-switching on the acquisition of English language, focusing on a sociolinguistic perspective. The sociolinguistic approach allows for a better understanding of the social and cultural contexts in which code-switching occurs, as well as its effects on language learning. This research utilizes a qualitative approach by analyzing data from interviews and observations within multilingual communities. Findings indicate that code-switching can influence various aspects of language acquisition, including vocabulary mastery, sentence structure, and pragmatic understanding. Additionally, code-switching practices can enrich language learning experiences by introducing speakers to language variations and different social contexts. The findings of this study provide valuable insights for language education practitioners and learners to comprehend the phenomenon of code-switching in the context of English language acquisition.

Macquet's article, Objectivity in (CA 5:47-55), once more raises all-important issue: What is anthropology? Since CA began, it has only too often been brought home to its readers that there still is no generally acceptable answer to this question. two main alternatives appear to be as follows: 1) Anthropology is study of non-literature societies and their cultures. conception is justified by fact that non-literate societies can be studied only by means of specially devised techniques and changed general attitude of student crossing cultural barriers. If this is accepted, then linguistic (and/or anthropological is confined to study of languages of non-literate societies, languages of peoples who have no writing. 2) Anthropology is study of Man, of human society in general, whatever degree of literacy achieved by it. Linguistic anthropology (anthropological linguistics) then becomes that part of study of which deals with semantic taxonomies, relationship between language and world view, language in regard to personality and social structure, verbal and speech surrogates (cf. CA 1:89)in a word, language and speech in their cultural context, sociolinguistic and sociocultural factors in functioning and development of language. (It is a pleasure to observe that sociolinguistic approach is steadily gaining ground and more linguists are abandoning tactic of isolationcf. CA 3:84, 91, 139, 142.) It is most important to distinguish. as clearly as possible between taxonomy and meta-taxonomy of a given science. In our case there is additional danger of emotional connotations which always cling to venerable terms. Abstracting oneself from terms and definitions, one could not fail to agree with Maquet when he claims that . . existence of a particular discipline dedicated exclusively to study of non-Western cultures reflected Victorian sense of superiority of 19th-century Europe... (CA 5:51) and that The parts of cultures which remain influenced chiefly by traditional patterns will no longer be studied as if they existed in isolation, in a sort of timeless present, but rather as parts of modern, literate, and industrial global society which they now belong (CA 5:54). Although descriptive work will go on, primitive non-literates will be a steadily diminishing scientific subject, as the study of Man becomes study of all kinds of man (cf. CA 3: 85).

This book starts from the assumption that linguistic anthropology is a distinct discipline that deserves to be studied for its past accomplishments as much as for the vision of the future presented in the work of a relatively small but active group of interdisciplinary researchers. Their contributions on the nature of language as a social tool and speaking as a cultural practice have established a domain of inquiry that makes new sense of past and current traditions in the humanities and the social sciences and invites everyone to rethink the relationship between language and culture. To say that linguistic anthropology is an interdisciplinary field means that it draws a great deal from other, independently established disciplines and in particular from the two from which its name is formed: linguistics and anthropology. In this chapter, I will introduce some aspects of this intellectual heritage – other aspects will be discussed in more depth later in the book. I will also begin to show how, over the last few decades, the field of linguistic anthropology has developed an intellectual identity of its own. It is the primary goal of this book to describe this identity and to explain how it can enhance our understanding of language not only as a mode of thinking but, above all, as a cultural practice, that is, as a form of action that both presupposes and at the same time brings about ways of being in the world.

PurposeThe purpose of this study to identify the role of women in political agenda at Azad Jammu Kashmir. The political parties are always considered main gatekeepers to women’s political representation. Existing scholarship highlights the significance of centralized political institutions (parties) with structured set up for the effective representation of women at different levels. However, the functioning of these institutions is greatly influenced by the social and cultural context of a country in which they operate.Design methodology/approachThis paper mainly analyzes social and cultural practices and those informal ways that operate within the exited democratic government setup and creates serious obstacles for women’s effective political representation at the party level. For this purpose, a qualitative research methodology is used to get the full insight of the issue at hand. The authors conducted 25 in-depth interviews with women members of three different political parties.FindingsThe results revealed that both (social context and political structure) have a significant impact on women’s nature and level of participation in the political processes in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.Originality valuePrevailing social and political context of Pakistan does not support a truly democratic and centralized political system. Parties are weak entities with the less democratic organizational structure, which ultimately have a negative impact on women’s political representation.