CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Anthropological
between language and

linguistics
culture

is
and

the
the

study

of

relations

the

relations

between human

biology, cognition and language. This strongly overlaps the field of linguistic
anthropology,

which

is

the

branch

of

anthropology

that

studies

humans through the languages that they use.

Anthropological linguistics has had a major impact in the studies of such
areas as visual perception (especially colour) and bioregional democracy, both of
which are concerned with distinctions that are made in languages about
perceptions of the surroundings.
Conventional

linguistic

anthropology

also

has

implications

for sociology and self-organization of peoples. Study of the Penan people, for
instance, reveals that their language employs six different and distinct words
whose best English translation is "we".[citation

needed]

Anthropological linguistics

studies these distinctions, and relates them to types of societies and to actual
bodily adaptation to the senses, much as it studies distinctions made in languages
regarding the colours of the rainbow: seeing the tendency to increase the diversity
of terms, as evidence that there are distinctions that bodies in this
environment must make, leading tosituated knowledge and perhaps a situated
ethics, whose final evidence is the differentiated set of terms used to denote "we".

CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION
A. Definition of Anthropological Linguistic
Anthropological
linguistics,
study

of

the

relationship

between language and culture; it usually refers to work on languages that have
no

written

records.

In

the

United

States

close

relationship

between anthropology and linguistics developed as a result of research by

anthropologists into the American Indian cultures and languages. Early
students in this field discovered what they felt to be significant relationships
between the languages, thought, and cultures of the Indian groups. The issue
of the relatedness of language and culture is still a controversial one, and it is
now thought by many scholars that the relationship is not as close as was first
suspected. Anthropologists currently draw on linguistic techniques primarily
for the analysis of such areas as kinship systems, botanical taxonomies,
and colour terms, but a number of anthropologists are still engaged in
fieldwork centring on language description.
Anthropological linguistics are much more interested in typology than
in OT and the Minimalist Program. When a linguistics department sees fit to
offer a course in morphology or historical linguistics there is an excellent
chance that it will be taught by the resident anthropological linguist. There is
also a decent chance that s/he has spent several semesters lobbying to have it
fit into the departments course schedule.
B. Theory of Anthropological linguistics
Anthropological Linguistic is an interdisciplinary field of science that
studies the relationship between language and culture in a society (bdk.Tobin,
1990: 4). Anthropological Linguistics view language and culture are like two
sides of a coin, which one can not exist without the other, or at least,
describing the one ignoring the other is a job that is certainly not complete.
Said that because the language from the perspective of anthropology is part of
the culture. By contrast, culture is generally inherited more carefully through
language; it means the language is the main vehicle for inheritance, as well as

cultural development. Duranti even expressly said that describe a culture as

well as describing the language.
Wierzbicka (1991) also examined the relationship between language
and culture in the context of cultural discourse which is a new approach in the
study of cross-cultural communication. The formulation of the new approach
is based on assumptions, which by Wierzbicka (1991) formulated as follows.
1. In different societies, and different communities, people speak differently.
2. Reviews These differences in ways of speaking are profound and
systematic.
3. Reviews These differences reflect different culture, values, or at least
different hierarchies of value.
4. Different way of speaking, different communicative styles, can be
explained and made sense of, in terms of Independently established
different culture, values and culture priorities.
The presumption raised by the above-mentioned Wierzbicka The real
has been a real picture of the empirical and theoretical relationship between
language and culture, which is based on three key words, namely: (1) public /
guyub, whether or guyub guyub said culture; (2) how to interact; and (3)
cultural values. Guyub different shows different ways to interact, which also
showed the value of different cultures. This is in line with Saville-Troike
(1984: 35), who said: "There is no doubt, however, that there is a correlation
between the form and content of a language and the beliefs, values, and needs
present in the culture of its speakers "
The relationship between language and culture is raised also
conceptually-theoretically, that is not only named as varied, but mainly
interpreted differently. Foley use the term Anthropological linguistics '
anthropology linguistic which assesses the language from the perspective
anthroplology to locate and determine the meaning behind its use. The concept
of Anthropological linguistics equated with the concept of linguistic
anthropology by Duranti (1997: 1). In addition to the two terms, in before the
1940s, in Europe also known as term ethnolinguistics. By citing the opinion
Cardona, Duranti (1997: 2) explains that the term ethnolinguistics in English
commensurate with the term tnolinguistica in Russian, ethnolinguistique in

French, ethnolinguistic in German, etnolingstica in Spanish, and

etnolingiustica in Portuguese. This description indicates that the term
ethnolinguistic never been very popular in Europe, that is when it is in the
United States known as linguistic anthropology.
This latter term is widely used refers to an interdisciplinary science
between language and culture, namely: linguistic anthropology (linguistic
anthropology) (Duranti, 1997) and linguistic anthropology (Anthropological
linguistics) (Foley, 1997). There is no more detailed explanation about the
differences coverage of the second term to the interdisciplinary field of
science. There is only a brief description proposed by Duranti (1997: 1-2)
which says that the linguistic anthropology the term is used with the same
meaning as the term linguistic anthropology (see also Robins, 1992: 489-490).
By citing the opinion Hymes, Duranti (1997: 2) says that linguistic
anthropology assess speech and language in the context of anthropology.
Based on the opinion of Hymes, Duranti then formulate the notion of
linguistic anthropology as the study of language as a source of cultural and
recite the speech as an act of culture. Duranti also confirmed that linguistic
anthropology 'is not synonymous' with language study conducted by scientists
anthropology. Although focused on the study of the language, but Duranti
(ibid.) Puts linguistic anthropology as part of anthropology.
In contrast to Duranti, Foley (1997: 3) uses the term linguistic
anthropology. If Duranti (1997: 1) consider linguistic anthropology used
varies with linguistic anthropology, then Foley (1997: 3), the other argued, and
explicitly says: "Anthropological linguistics is that subfield of linguistics ..."
According to him, the linguistic anthropologists view and study the language
from the perspective of anthropology, culture, and language to find the
meaning behind its use. Foley also said that linguistic anthropology is a
discipline that is interpretive further peeling language to find an understanding
of culture (cultural understanding).
Professor Good (in speeches or lectures) gave the name to the field of
interdisciplinary study between language and culture as Anthropological
Linguistic. The concept of Anthropological Linguistic has been used by

Alijahbana (1977) by following the idea of Humboldt who said that language
is not just a communication tool. Alisjahbana shows the relationship of
language and culture by saying that language is the embodiment of culture.
Suharno (1982)) using a similar term cultural linguistic understanding with
Anthropological Linguistic proposed by Alisjahbana. If Alisjahbana more
focused studies on language planning, the focus Suharno charge cultural
linguistic concepts on the introduction of new models in the study of
language. Suharno says: "The term Cultural Linguistics .... showed something
new .... The dimakksudkan with something here is the field of attention and
expectation of doing pioneering of new horizons of language study, which is
based culture .. .. "
Anthropological

Linguistic

is

intended

in

this

study

Foley

commensurate with the concept of linguistic anthropology, namely as part of

linguistics. Indeed Anthropological Linguistic is an interdisciplinary field of
science that examines the relationship between the structure of language
kovariatif with the culture of a society. If it is associated with the opinion of
Wierzbicka (1994: 1), then the Anthropological Linguistic closely linked to
the question: "Why does every ethnic group use traditional language or a
variety of different, and in a different way?" This question boils down to the
effort of explanation, which explains the reason for the selection of , kind
(genre), the variety or diction in a speech by one ethnic group. The
explanation was related to the meaning of an utterance, particularly related to
the ritual utterances with respect to their views on the world of native
speakers.
The concept of Anthropological Linguistic is also used by Palmer
(1996) as a cultural linguistics. Palmer (1996: 36) argues that Anthropological
Linguistic is a name that is likely to contain a broader sense in terms of
language and culture. Further, he said that the Anthropological Linguistic
involves the realm of language and culture, according to tradition Boas,
etnosemantik, and ethnography of speaking.
The relationship between the analysis of language to culture also noted
Lee, as quoted by Palmer, that the grammar containing formation experience.

Grammar is directly related to the scheme impression, cognitive models, and

views on the world. Even Palmer expressly says that phonology is culture.
The Palmer outlook implies that the language used by a speech community is
a reflection of cognition (awareness, feelings, experiences, and perceptions of)
them. Such a view is in line with Barker who said: "Understanding the culture
means exploring how meaning is generated through practices symbolic
meaning of language. This is the domain of semiotics .... ".

CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION
Anthropological

linguistics,

study

of

the

relationship

between language and culture; it usually refers to work on languages that have no
written

records.

In

the

United

States

close

relationship

between anthropology and linguistics developed as a result of research by

anthropologists into the American Indian cultures and languages. Early students in
this field discovered what they felt to be significant relationships between the
languages, thought, and cultures of the Indian groups. The issue of the relatedness
of language and culture is still a controversial one, and it is now thought by many
scholars that the relationship is not as close as was first suspected.
Anthropologists currently draw on linguistic techniques primarily for the analysis
of such areas as kinship systems, botanical taxonomies, and colour terms, but a
number of anthropologists are still engaged in fieldwork centring on language
description.

REFERENCES
Becker, A.L. daa Yengoyan, A.A. (eds). 1979. The Imagination of Reality: Essays
in the Southeast Asian Coherence Systems. New Jersey: ABLEX
Publishing Coorporaton.
Barker, Ch. 2004. Cultural Studies, Teori & Praktik (Terjemahan oleh Nurhadi).
Yogyakarta: Kreasi Wacana.
Duranti, A. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Foley, W. A. 1997. Anthropological
Blackwell Publishers.

Linguistics: An

Introduction.Oxford: