Linguistic anthropology is a novel contribution to the study of language. Anthropological linguists may not necessarily be speaking several languages. Relatively, linguists study the language by investigating how it is formed and how it works, the history and development of such language as well as its relationship to other fundamental components of people’s culture. Linguists have formed a segment of anthropology on two grounds. First, language is the basis of any culture in the sense that people begin by being entitled to one dialect to prescribe certain norms and values accustomed to them. Secondly, to explore ethnographic fieldwork, anthropologists sometimes had to start by inscribing their customized dictionaries and grammars of a certain language (Whorf, 1941; Goodwin, 1994). This paper, therefore, explores how linguistic anthropology is a novel contribution to the study of language.
What makes studying language through linguistic anthropology unique and different from linguistic?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The distinguishing factor of studying language through linguistic anthropology is not only the interest in language use, but also the concentration on language as a collection of symbolic resources. Language as a set of symbolic resources would imply that it enters the formation of the social fabric and the specific representation of definite or probable worlds. This type of concentration causes linguistic anthropologists to tackle some of the issues and aspects that are central in anthropological research in innovative ways. Linguistic anthropologists have been emphasizing a perspective of language as a collection of practices (Agar, 1994). This plays a critical role in facilitating the ideational and material sections of human existence. Consequently, bringing about specific states of being in the world. It is such a dynamic outlook of language that gives linguistic anthropology its distinct place in the constitution of language in general.
Considering greetings, for instance, in several societies these take the form of questions on someone’s individual health. For example in English, one would greet, “how are you?” In some societies, greetings may incorporate questions concerning an individual’s whereabouts. For example, the pan-Polynesian “what are you up to?” as reviewed by Goodwin (1994). Therefore, studying language in the lens of linguistic anthropology would be unique as routine exchanges are examined further to determine if they reveal something concerning the users, their ancestors, and humanity in general.
Studying language through linguistic anthropology is unique because of how things are viewed. Linguistic anthropology regards speakers as social actors, and language as both a resource for and an outcome of the social interaction. It also views speech communities as real and at the same time fictional entities whose borders are consistently being redefined and bargained through many acts of speaking (Whorf, 1941). Linguistic anthropologists begin from the assumption that there are ways of speaking that can only be understood by understanding what individuals really with language, by silences, harmonizing words and body signals within the context in which those signs are made. Therefore, linguistic anthropology helps us to see how speaking a language leads to a social action, which has implications on our ways in day-to-day life, and eventually for humanity.
How have historical forces shaped the discipline and led us to a new understanding of language?
Linguistic anthropologists’ search for the appropriate dimensions of human understanding has stimulated the need for observing the historical forces that shape the discipline. Some social theorists as denoting a division between the interactions studied and the societal forces surrounding such exchanges have construed much attention to the specifics of face-to-face exchanges. For example, the Indians were forced to drop their culture and language to embrace the American language. In this case, the prevailing politics assumed a level of political responsibility of fighting to preserve the Indian languages.
There are some thoughts those assets that the evolution of humanity happened in three levels of primitivism, barbarism, and civilization. Many scholars have proposed the idea as a historical framework that shaped linguistic anthropology. Culture, language, mind, and race have been holistically considered to indicate that the concepts were linked in as much that they are reliant on the stage at which any specific culture had reached (Agar, 1994). For example, the primitive mind at the stage of primitivism would lead to a primitive culture, which would speak a primitive language. Today, the way we see and interpret a world is reliant on a certain type of language being used. In fact, there are specific cultural activities that determine the language used and the purposes of those languages in social life (Goodwin, 1994). For instance, people who talk English in some cultures are assumed to be civilized and have been closely associated with the Whites. Therefore, linguistic anthropology has led to a new understanding of language that constitutes the society and its cultural depictions.
In conclusion, language is the most variable and most robust intellectual tool created by humans. It has the ability to mirror upon the world, not excluding itself. Linguistic anthropology brings the dimension of giving cultural descriptions because of the way speakers are allowed to express what is being done by words in day-to-day life. The aspect of linguistic anthropology gives the interpretations of the events that the speaker communicates. Indeed, in many ways, the micro-level phenomena distinguishable through recordings and transcriptions are connected to specific histories such as the background of the relationship of people in the past. Linguistic anthropology intends to be holistic, that is, in its way of considering all aspects of language, but also its structure, theories, and history .
References
Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation . William Morrow & Company.
Goodwin, C. (Sep. 1994). Professional vision. American anthropologist , 96 (3), 606-633. Blackwell Publishing.
Whorf, B. L. (1941). The relations of habitual thought and behavior to language. Language, Culture, and Personality: Essays in Honor of Edward Sapir (pp. 75-93). Menasha, WI: Sapir Memorial Publication .
