Anthropological Linguistics

WILLIAM A. FOLEY

Anthropological linguistics is the subfield of linguistics (and anthropology) concerned

with the place of language in its wider social and cultural context, its role in forging and
sustaining cultural practices and social structures. While Duranti (2001) denies that a true
field of anthropological linguistics exists, preferring the term linguistic anthropology to
cover this subfield, I regard the two terms as interchangeable. With some cogency, Duranti
(2001) argues that due to current concerns of mainstream linguistics with the explicit
analysis of the formal structures of language in contrast to anthropologys broader approach
of looking at how humans make meaning through semiotic systems in cultural practices,
this subfield is properly included within anthropology rather than linguistics. However,
I beg to differ, believing that the current historical divisions of academic turf are just that
historical and contingentand subject to change, and I would be loath to institutionalize
such divisions by insisting on rigidly labeled compartments. The current disciplinary
concerns of linguistics do not reflect its earlier history in which it was firmly enjoined to
anthropology (Boas, 1940; Sapir, 1949; Haas, 1977, 1978). It is my firm hope that, over time,
this more inclusive view will reassert itself, and hence my preference is to use both terms
to cover this subfield, although, as titled, I will stick with the label anthropological linguistics
in this article.
Anthropological linguistics needs to be distinguished from a number of neighboring
disciplines with overlapping interests; first, its close sister, sociolinguistics. Anthropological
linguistics views language through the prism of the core anthropological concept, culture,
and as such seeks to uncover the meaning behind the use, misuse, or non-use of language,
its different forms, registers, and styles. It is an interpretive discipline, peeling away at
language to find cultural understandings. Sociolinguistics, on the other hand, views
language as a social institution, one of those institutions within which individuals and
groups carry out social interaction. It seeks to discover how linguistic behavior patterns
with respect to social groupings and correlates differences in linguistic behavior with the
variables defining social groups, such as age, sex, class, race, and so on.
While this distinction is neither sharp nor absolute, it is useful and perhaps an example
might help in establishing this. Consider the variable pronunciation of the progressive/
gerundive ending, so that running can be pronounced [rnIy] or [rnIn] (informally
described as dropping the g, i.e., runnin). If we approach this variable from a sociolin-
guistic perspective, we will note the correlation between each pronunciation and particular
social groupings, for example, the higher frequency of the [In] variant with male speakers,
and [Iy] with female speakers; or, again, the higher frequency of the [In] variant with
speakers of a working- or lower-class background, while higher frequencies of [Iy] are
correlated with middle- and upper-class backgrounds. Such would be a typical sociolin-
guistic approach (see, e.g., Labov, 1972). However, an anthropological linguistic approach,
while taking note of all these correlations, would ask a further fundamental question: what
do speakers mean when they use an [In] versus an [Iy] variant? Of course, the answer
may vary in different contexts, but one possible answer, following Trudgill (1972), is that
the use of [In], considering its link to the social variables of maleness and the working
class, could be an assertion of a strong masculine self-identity. Trudgill (1972) points out

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Edited by Carol A. Chapelle.

2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0031
2 anthropological linguistics

that male, middle-class speakers in Norwich, Britain, often use variables like [In] to stake
exactly this claim, regarding the values perceived to be associated with working-class life,
such as toughness, struggles against the odds, and physical labor, as indicative of enhanced
masculinity.
Because anthropological linguistics seeks to uncover the meaning behind the uses of
language within culture, it also presents some overlap with semantics and pragmatics,
particularly the latter. Again, without insisting on sharp boundaries, I would like to dis-
tinguish among these along the following lines. Semantics (Kearns, 2000; Reimer, 2010) is
that subfield of linguistics that studies the meanings of signs, their interrelations and
combinations, while pragmatics (Cummings, 2005), albeit a bit hazy in its own delimita-
tions, investigates how speakers create meaning in context in ongoing acts of language
use. In view of its definition offered above, anthropological linguistics can be contrasted
with these two other fields by the central role that culture and cultural practices play in
its descriptions. Consider the word wampuy from the Yimas language of New Guinea,
which can be described semantically as polysemous, with the meanings heart, care, desire.
A pragmatic description will investigate its various uses in differing contexts to determine
what extended meanings it can take on in appropriate contextual frames. But an anthro-
pological linguistic description would go farther and explore how this word is central in
indigenous conceptualizations of morality and cultural practices of reciprocal gift exchange.
Linguistic expressions and metaphors for culturally valorized practices related to gener-
osity and exchange are built on this word (see Kulick, 1992 for similar data). Finally, a detailed
anthropological linguistic study will uncover the cultural beliefs and practices which account
for why this word has the polysemous meanings it does; what, for instance, connects
heart with care in indigenous ideology?
Humans are by definition social beings and, as emphasized by Geertz (1973), largely
fashioned by culture. Culture is transmitted and society reproduced by ongoing interaction
between persons. What people do in such ongoing interactions is make meanings, and
this process is what we call communication. Cultural practices, then, are nothing other
than processes of communication that have become recurrent and stable and hence trans-
mitted across generations, and in so doing, they become pre-reflective practical ways of
doing things, a habitus (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990). Anthropological linguistics, then, studies
how humans employ these communicative cultural practices, or semiotic practices, as
resources to forge large and small, transient or permanent social groups. In an insightful
overview, Enfield and Levinson (2006) argue that all such communicative practices occur
at three levels. The first is an individual-based interaction engine. This is where concerns
of anthropological linguistics overlap with cognitive psychology. The interaction engine
consists of the cognitive and biological abilities that underlie our capacity to communicate,
such as the capability to interpret the intentions and mental states of others (the so-called
Theory of Mind; Carruthers & Smith, 1996). Such substrates make all human commu-
nication possible. The second is the interpersonal interaction matrix. This is an emergent
level of behavior formed by coordinated practices of social actors, much of it culturally
shaped and habitual, although there are clearly panhuman aspects as well. Examples
include turn-taking in conversations and other mechanisms studied in conversational
analysis (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Sacks, 1992; Sidnell, 2001). Finally, level three is the
sociocultural level proper. Included here are the culturally mandated routines or rituals
in which particular types of linguistic practices are selected and sanctioned, such as
courtroom summations, divination rituals, political oratory, or barroom chitchat. This is
the conventional domain for the notions of register and genre, although the interpersonal
moves which actually construct a particular register are features of level two, and the
cognitive underpinnings which allow us to interpret the intentions of the speaker in using
a particular register belong to level one.
 anthropological linguistics 3

We can usefully look at much of the research work done in anthropological linguistics
under the banners provided by this schema of the three levels. The breadth of work in
this subfield is enormous, and space will only permit the exploration of a few key illustra-
tive areas. Perhaps the most persistently fascinating area within it has been the question
of linguistic relativity, whether features of the language we speak influence our cognition.
This is a question that spans levels one and three: whether deeply sedimented features of
our conventional publicly shared language developed and transmitted over generations
(level three) influence the way we cognize the world, make inferences, or remember infor-
mation (level one). While this has been an area of vigorous speculation over the centuries,
nothing amounting to serious empirical work emerged until recently, and here the focus
will be on some pioneering work on the language and cognition of space. Earlier work on
spatial cognition assumed it to be strongly informed by innate, presumably biologically
based, universals, so that it is essentially the same in all languages and cultures. Given
these universal conditions and our ecological niche as terrestrial, diurnal creatures, it is
claimed that we are predisposed to conceive of space in relativistic and egocentric terms,
projecting out from the anatomical patterns of our bodies. Thus, the coordinates through
which spatial orientation are established are projected from ego, the deictic, central reference
point for all spatial reckoning, along two horizontal axes and one vertical. The vertical
one, drawn from our upright position or, perhaps, the experience of gravity establishes
the UPDOWN axis; the horizontal axes are FRONTBACK, derived from the anatomically
asymmetrical division of the body into two halves, and LEFTRIGHT, from the symmetrical
division. The location of objects in space, then, is always determined relative to the
orientation of the speaker: if we are standing eye to eye across from each other, my left is
your right. There are no fixed, absolute angles used in human spatial orientation.
Recent research has shown these assumptions to be unfounded. Languages (and speakers)
actually differ as to whether they employ this speaker-centered relative system of LEFT
RIGHT, FRONTBACK, or an absolute system based on fixed parameters of geographical
space like the cardinal directions or landward/seaward or upriver/downriver. Such abso-
lute systems are in fact very common and occur in Aboriginal Australia, Oceania, and
Mesoamerica. A particularly striking example is Guugu-Yimidhirr, of northeastern Australia.
This language completely lacks all spatial terms which are relative to body orientation;
in particular there are no terms for locating the position of objects in space equivalent to
FRONT, BACK, LEFT, RIGHT (e.g., the latter two terms can only be used to refer to the
left and right hands and perhaps other symmetrical body parts, like eyes, legs, etc.). Rather,
the language heavily employs four words, corresponding roughly to the four cardinal
directions. The astounding thing about languages like Guugu-Yimidhirr is that these
absolutely based terms are habitually used by speakers to describe location or motion. It
is as if in response to the question Wheres the salt? I responded, Its there, to the east.
In the relativistic, egocentric spatial universe of the English speaker, this is likely to provide
little enlightenment and lead to a puzzled look or worse, but this is exactly how a Guugu-
Yimidhirr speaker would respond.
Levinson (2003) is a careful, empirical study investigating the core claim of linguistic
relativity with respect to Guugu-Yimidhirr, amongst other languages: does the system of
spatial categories in that language influence the way its speakers cognize space, as deter-
mined by tests that probe spatial reasoning and memory tasks? A number of experiments
were carried out testing Dutch speakers in these tasks, who have a relative system of
LEFTRIGHT, FRONTBACK like English with Guugu-Yimidhirr speakers, and in each
case, there were marked differences in the response of the two groups to stimuli. Such
results strongly suggest differences in cognition, as measured by differences in memory
and reasoning, and these are closely correlated to the different linguistic systems for talk-
ing about space in the languages of the two groups of subjects. For instance, in a simple
4 anthropological linguistics

recall experiment a table facing north was laid out with a line-up of three toy animals, all
facing one direction, say east and to the right. The subject was asked to remember it, and
it was then destroyed. He was then led into another room, with a table facing south and
asked to reproduce the alignment. If he does this task absolutely, he will set up the line
facing east, but this time to the left. If, on the other hand, he does it relatively, the line will
be set up facing right, but to the west. Results for this test were in line with predictions
from the hypothesis of linguistic relativity: nine out of 15 of Guugu-Yimidhirr subjects
preserved the absolute eastward alignment of the array, while 13 of 15 Dutch control
subjects preserved the relative rightward alignment.
Ways of expressing politeness in language is another domain in which researchers
in anthropological linguistics have been active. Politeness is essentially a field in which
cultural ideologies about personhood and social roles (level three) are enacted in prescribed
rituals and formulas of social interaction between persons (level two). The person may be
inscribed (Gergen, 1990) in social relationships (level two), but the kind of person he or
she can be is determined by macronotions of what are their proper rights and obligations
and how these are articulated in the wider sociocultural sphere (level three). Politeness
forms in language are the recognition of differential rights and duties amongst the inter-
actants in a social encounter. Typically, those of higher rank are recognized as such through
the use of politeness forms by those in lower rank. Rank is mainly established by rights
and duties: those of higher rank have rights over those of lower rank, who, in turn, often
have duties to those in higher rank, although in many cases higher rank can bring con-
comitant duties as well. Consider the elaborate ritual of greetings among the Wolof of
Senegal (Irvine, 1974) and how their cultural ideology of social inequality is enacted in its
performance. A clue is provided by an insightful Wolof proverb about greetings: When
two persons greet each other, one has shame, the other has glory (Irvine, 1974, p. 175).
Wolof is a stratified Muslim society, and greeting rituals are used as a way of negotiating
relative social status amongst the interlocutors. The basic dichotomy in Wolof society is
between nobles and commoners. The local ideology associates lower status with both
physical activity (i.e., movement, and speech activity). Higher-status people are associated
with passivity. Because of this, it is the lower-status person who initiates the greeting
encounter, by moving toward the higher-status person and beginning the ritual greeting.
As a consequence, any two persons in a greeting encounter must place themselves in
an unequal ranking and must come to some understanding of what this ranking is; the
simple choice of initiating a greeting is a statement of relatively lower status. The form of
a greeting encounter is highly conventionalized. It consists of salutations, questions about
the other party and his household, and praising God. The more active, lower-status person
poses questions to the higher-status one, who in a typical higher-status, passive role
simply responds, but poses none of his own. In addition to the typical speech acts per-
formed and their roles in turn-taking, the interactants are also ideally distinguished in
terms of the nonsegmental phonological features of their speech. Correlated to the activity
associated with lower status, the greeting initiator will speak a lot, rapidly, loudly, and
with a higher pitch. The recipient of the greeting, on the other hand, being more passive
and detached, will be terse, responding briefly and slowly to questions posed in a quite
low-pitched voice. The distinct linguistic practices associated with the interlocutors in a
Wolof greeting encounter are linked to the kinds of persons they are. The greeting ritual
both enacts the cultural ideology of inequality amongst persons in Wolof and reproduces
it every time it is enacted. The linguistic forms used, polite or otherwise, index the kind
of persons the interactants are, just as they construct and reconstruct this ideology at every
mention.
A final area of research to illustrate the typical concerns of anthropological linguists is
the cultural performance of verbal art, or more specifically, culturally valued genre types.
 anthropological linguistics 5

Certain social roles, typically those of higher social status, are marked by their control of
particular, also highly valued, genres; think of how a priest is determined by his control
of the liturgy, or the shaman by her spells, or even a successful barrister by her stirring
summation oratory. The study of genres is clearly a core specialty of this subfield and
belongs squarely to level three, the sociocultural matrix. Genres are prototypical cultural
practices; they are historically transmitted, relatively stable frameworks for orienting the
production and interpretation of discourse. In a word, they are institutionalized. The
capacity to produce and detect genres as models for discourse comes from their framing
devices (Bateson, 1974) or contextualization cues (Gumperz, 1982), such as once upon
a time for a fairy tale or citations for an academic paper. Such framing devices work to
the extent that genres are not so much inherent in the text forms themselves, but in the
frameworks and interpretive procedures that verbal performers and their audience use to
produce and understand these texts. Genre classifications are not rigidly definable in terms
of formal text types, but are the result of applying (sometimes conflicting) interpretive
procedures indexed by the framing devices employed.
Framing devices are features of the poetic function (Jakobson, 1960) of language, formal
linguistic principles for the enaction of diverse genre types, such as line final rhyme for
certain genres of English poetry, like sonnets. Various types of framing devices include
special formulas or lexical items, tropes like metaphor or metonymy, paralinguistic features,
like drums or singing, and, most importantly, parallelism. This last is recurring patterns
in successive sections of text and can be found at all levels of the linguistic system, pho-
nology (rhyme and rhythm), grammatical (repeated phrases or clauses), and lexical (paired
words). Genres do not exist as abstract categories, but only as schemes of interpretation
and construction, which are enacted in particular performances. Genres can be recontex-
tualized from earlier contexts to new ones with a greater or lesser shift in their interpreta-
tion. This opens a gap between the actual performance and the abstract generic model we
might have of it from earlier performances. This gap can be strategically manipulated by
performers to convey comments about current social happenings or valuations of cultural
traditions (Briggs & Bauman, 1992).

SEE ALSO: Analysis of Identity in Interaction; Culture; Ethnicity; Intercultural

Communication; Linguaculture; Politeness; Pragmatics in the Analysis of Discourse and
Interaction

References

Atkinson, J., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversational
analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bateson, G. (1974). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Boas, F. (1940). Race, language and culture. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Briggs, C., & Bauman, R. (1992). Genre, intertextuality and social power. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology, 2, 13172.
Carruthers, P., & Smith, P. (Eds.). (1996). Theories of theories of mind. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics: A multidisciplinary approach. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh
University Press.
Duranti, A. (2001). Linguistic anthropology: History, ideas and issues. In A. Duranti (Ed.),
Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 138). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
6 anthropological linguistics

Enfield, N., & Levinson, S. (2006). Introduction: Human sociality as a new interdisciplinary field.
In N. Enfield & S. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction
(pp. 135). Oxford, England: Berg.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gergen, K. (1990). Social understanding and the inscription of self. In J. Stigler, R. Shweder, &
G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 569606).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Haas, M. (1977). Anthropological linguistics: History. In F. Wallace (Ed.), Perspectives in anthro-
pology 1976 (pp. 3347). Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Haas, M. (1978). Language, culture and history. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Irvine, J. (1974). Strategies of status manipulation in the Wolof greeting. In R. Bauman &
J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 16791). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language
(pp. 35077). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kearns, K. (2000). Semantics. London, England: Macmillan.
Kulick, D. (1992). Language shift and cultural reproduction: Socialization, self and syncretism in a
Papua New Guinea village. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Levinson, S. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Reimer, N. (2010). Introducing semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Sapir, E. (1949). Selected writings. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sidnell, J. (2001). Conversational turn-taking in a Caribbean English Creole. Journal of Pragmatics,
33, 126390.
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of
Norwich. Language in Society, 1, 17995.

Suggested Readings

Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Enfield, N., & Levinson, S. (Eds.). (2006). Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction.
Oxford, England: Berg.
Foley, W. (1997). Anthropological linguistics: An introduction. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Hanks, W. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.