Linguistic anthropology

Linguistic anthropology is the interdisciplinary study of how language influences social life. It is a branch
of anthropology that originated from the endeavor to document endangered languages, and has grown over
the past century to encompass most aspects of language structure and use.[1]

Linguistic anthropology explores how language shapes communication, forms social identity and group
membership, organizes large-scale cultural beliefs and ideologies, and develops a common cultural
representation of natural and social worlds.[2]

Contents
Historical development
First paradigm: Anthropological linguistics
Second paradigm: Linguistic anthropology
Third paradigm: Anthropological issues studied via linguistic methods and data
Areas of interest
Identity and intersubjectivity
Socialization
Ideologies
Heritage language ideologies
Social space
Race, class, and gender
Race and ethnicity
Class
Gender and sexuality
Ethnopoetics
Endangered languages: Language documentation and revitalization
See also
References
Further reading
External links

Historical development
Linguistic anthropology emerged from the development of three distinct paradigms. These paradigms set the
ways of approaching linguistic anthropology: the first, now known as "anthropological linguistics", focuses
on the documentation of languages; the second, known as "linguistic anthropology", engages in theoretical
studies of language use; the third, developed over the past two or three decades, studies issues from other
sub-fields of anthropology with linguistic tactics. Though they developed sequentially, all three paradigms
are still practiced today.[3]
First paradigm: Anthropological linguistics

The first paradigm is known as anthropological linguistics. The field is devoted to themes unique to the sub-
discipline: documentation of languages that were then seen as doomed to extinction, with special focus on
the languages of native North American tribes. It is also the paradigm most focused on linguistics.[3] The
themes include:

Grammatical description,
Typological classification and
Linguistic relativity

Second paradigm: Linguistic anthropology

The second paradigm can be marked by the switch from anthropological linguistics to linguistic
anthropology, signalling a more anthropological focus on the study. This term was preferred by Dell Hymes,
who was also responsible, with John Gumperz, for the idea of ethnography of communication. The term
linguistic anthropology reflected Hymes' vision for the future, where language would be studied in the
context of the situation, and relative to the community speaking it.[3] This new era would involve many new
technological developments, such as mechanical recording.

Hymes had many revolutionary contributions to linguistic anthropology, the first of which was a new unit of
analysis. Unlike the first paradigm, which focused on linguistic tools like measuring of phonemes and
morphemes, the second paradigm's unit of analysis was the "speech event". A speech event is an event
defined by speech occurring during it (ex. a lecture, debate). This is different from a speech situation, where
speech could possibly occur (ex. dinner). Hymes also pioneered a linguistic anthropological approach to
ethnopoetics. Hymes had hoped that this paradigm would link linguistic anthropology more to anthropology.
However, Hymes' ambition backfired as the second paradigm marked a distancing of the sub-discipline from
the rest of anthropology.[4][5]

Third paradigm: Anthropological issues studied via linguistic methods and

data

The third paradigm, which began in the late 1980s, refocused on anthropology by providing a linguistic
approach to anthropological issues. Rather than focusing on exploring language, third paradigm
anthropologists focus on studying culture with linguistic tools. Themes include:

investigations of personal and social identities

shared ideologies
construction of narrative interactions among individuals

Furthermore, like how the second paradigm made use of new technology in its studies, the third paradigm
heavily includes use of video documentation to support research.[3]

Areas of interest
Contemporary linguistic anthropology continues research in all three of the paradigms described above:
documentation of languages, study of language through context, and study of identity through linguistic
means. The third paradigm, the study of anthropological issues, is a particularly rich area of study for
current linguistic anthropologists.
Identity and intersubjectivity

A great deal of work in linguistic anthropology investigates questions of sociocultural identity linguistically
and discursively. Linguistic anthropologist Don Kulick has done so in relation to identity, for example, in a
series of settings, first in a village called Gapun in northern Papua New Guinea.[6] He 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. ("indexical" points to meanings beyond the immediate
context.)[7] 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). To speak Tok Pisin is to index a
modern, Christian (Catholic) identity, based not on *hed* but on *save*, an identity linked with the will and
the skill to cooperate. In later work, Kulick demonstrates that certain loud speech performances in Brazil
called *um escândalo*, Brazilian travesti (roughly, 'transvestite') sex workers shame clients. The travesti
community, the argument goes, ends up at least making a powerful attempt to transcend the shame the larger
Brazilian public might try to foist off on them, again by loud public discourse and other modes of
performance.[8]

In addition, scholars such as Émile Benveniste[9], Mary Bucholtz and Kira Hall[10] Benjamin Lee[11], Paul
Kockelman[12], and Stanton Wortham[13] (among many others) have contributed to understandings of
identity as "intersubjectivity" by examining the ways it is discursively constructed.

Socialization

In a series of studies, linguistic anthropologists Elinor Ochs and Bambi Schieffelin addressed the
anthropological topic of socialization (the process by which infants, children, and foreigners become
members of a community, learning to participate in its culture), using linguistic and other ethnographic
methods.[14] They discovered that the processes of enculturation and socialization do not occur apart from
the process of language acquisition, but that children acquire language and culture together in what amounts
to an integrated process. Ochs and Schieffelin demonstrated that baby talk is not universal, that the direction
of adaptation (whether the child is made to adapt to the ongoing situation of speech around it or vice versa)
was a variable that correlated, for example, with the direction it was held vis-à-vis a caregiver's body. In
many societies caregivers hold a child facing outward so as to orient it to a network of kin whom it must
learn to recognize early in life.

Ochs and Schieffelin demonstrated that members of all societies socialize children both to and through the
use of language. Ochs and Schieffelin uncovered how, through naturally occurring stories told during
dinners in white middle class households in Southern California, both mothers and fathers participated in
replicating male dominance (the "father knows best" syndrome) by the distribution of participant roles such
as protagonist (often a child but sometimes mother and almost never the father) and "problematizer" (often
the father, who raised uncomfortable questions or challenged the competence of the protagonist). When
mothers collaborated with children to get their stories told, they unwittingly set themselves up to be subject
to this process.

Schieffelin's more recent research has uncovered the socializing role of pastors and other fairly new Bosavi
converts in the Southern Highlands, Papua New Guinea community she studies.[15][16][17][18] Pastors have
introduced new ways of conveying knowledge, new linguistic epistemic markers[15]—and new ways of
speaking about time.[17] And they have struggled with and largely resisted those parts of the Bible that speak
of being able to know the inner states of others (e.g. the gospel of Mark, chapter 2, verses 6–8).[18]

Ideologies
In a third example of the current (third) paradigm, since Roman Jakobson's student Michael Silverstein
opened the way, there has been an efflorescence of work done by linguistic anthropologists on the major
anthropological theme of ideologies,[19]—in this case "language ideologies", sometimes defined as "shared
bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of language in the world."[20] Silverstein has demonstrated
that these ideologies are not mere false consciousness but actually influence the evolution of linguistic
structures, including the dropping of "thee" and "thou" from everyday English usage.[21] Woolard, in her
overview of "code switching", or the systematic practice of alternating linguistic varieties within a
conversation or even a single utterance, finds the underlying question anthropologists ask of the practice—
Why do they do that?—reflects a dominant linguistic ideology. It is the ideology that people should "really"
be monoglot and efficiently targeted toward referential clarity rather than diverting themselves with the
messiness of multiple varieties in play at a single time.[22]

Much research on linguistic ideologies probes subtler influences on language, such as the pull exerted on
Tewa, a Kiowa-Tanoan language spoken in certain New Mexican pueblos and on the Hopi Reservation in
Arizona, by "kiva speech", discussed in the next section.[23]

Other linguists have carried out research in the areas of language contact, language endangerment, and
'English as a global language'. For instance, Indian linguist Braj Kachru investigated local varieties of
English in South Asia, the ways in which English functions as a lingua franca among multicultural groups in
India.[24] British linguist David Crystal has contributed to investigations of language death attention to the
effects of cultural assimilation resulting in the spread of one dominant language in situations of
colonialism.[25]

Heritage language ideologies

More recently, a new line of ideology work is beginning to enter the field of linguistics in relation to
heritage languages. Specifically, applied linguist Martin Guardado has posited that heritage language
ideologies are "somewhat fluid sets of understandings, justifications, beliefs, and judgments that linguistic
minorities hold about their languages."[26] Guardado goes on to argue that ideologies of heritage languages
also contain the expectations and desires of linguistic minority families "regarding the relevance of these
languages in their children’s lives as well as when, where, how, and to what ends these languages should be
used." Although this is arguably a fledgling line of language ideology research, this work is poised to
contribute to the understanding of how ideologies of language operate in a variety of settings.

Social space

In a final example of this third paradigm, a group of linguistic anthropologists have done very creative work
on the idea of social space. Duranti published a groundbreaking article on Samoan greetings and their use
and transformation of social space.[27] Before that, Indonesianist Joseph Errington, making use of earlier
work by Indonesianists not necessarily concerned with language issues per se, brought linguistic
anthropological methods (and semiotic theory) to bear on the notion of the exemplary center, the center of
political and ritual power from which emanated exemplary behavior.[28] Errington demonstrated how the
Javanese *priyayi*, whose ancestors served at the Javanese royal courts, became emissaries, so to speak,
long after those courts had ceased to exist, representing throughout Java the highest example of "refined
speech." The work of Joel Kuipers develops this theme vis-a-vis the island of Sumba, Indonesia. And, even
though it pertains to Tewa Indians in Arizona rather than Indonesians, Paul Kroskrity's argument that speech
forms originating in the Tewa kiva (or underground ceremonial space) forms the dominant model for all
Tewa speech can be seen as a direct parallel.
Silverstein tries to find the maximum theoretical significance and applicability in this idea of exemplary
centers. He feels, in fact, that the exemplary center idea is one of linguistic anthropology's three most
important findings. He generalizes the notion thus, arguing "there are wider-scale institutional 'orders of
interactionality,' historically contingent yet structured. Within such large-scale, macrosocial orders, in-effect
ritual centers of semiosis come to exert a structuring, value-conferring influence on any particular event of
discursive interaction with respect to the meanings and significance of the verbal and other semiotic forms
used in it."[29] Current approaches to such classic anthropological topics as ritual by linguistic
anthropologists emphasize not static linguistic structures but the unfolding in realtime of a " 'hypertrophic'
set of parallel orders of iconicity and indexicality that seem to cause the ritual to create its own sacred space
through what appears, often, to be the magic of textual and nontextual metricalizations,
synchronized."[29][30]

Race, class, and gender

Addressing the broad central concerns of the subfield and drawing from its core theories, many scholars
focus on the intersections of language and the particularly salient social constructs of race (and ethnicity),
class, and gender (and sexuality). These works generally consider the roles of social structures (e.g.,
ideologies and institutions) related to race, class, and gender (e.g., marriage, labor, pop culture, education) in
terms of their constructions and in terms of individuals' lived experiences. A short list of linguistic
anthropological texts that address these topics follows:

Race and ethnicity

Alim, H. Samy, John R. Rickford, and Arnetha F. Ball. 2016. Raciolinguistics: How Language
Shapes Our Ideas about Race. Oxford University Press.
Bucholtz, Mary. 2001. "The Whiteness of Nerds: Superstandard English and Racial
Markedness." Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11 (1): 84–100. doi:10.1525/jlin.2001.11.1.84
(https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fjlin.2001.11.1.84).
Bucholtz, Mary. 2010. White Kids: Language, Race, and Styles of Youth Identity. Cambridge
University Press.
Davis, Jenny L. 2018. Talking Indian: Identity and Language Revitalization in the Chickasaw
Renaissance. University of Arizona Press.
Dick, H. 2011. "Making Immigrants Illegal in Small-Town USA." Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology. 21(S1):E35-E55.
Hill, Jane H. 1998. "Language, Race, and White Public Space." American Anthropologist 100
(3): 680–89. doi:10.1525/aa.1998.100.3.680 (https://doi.org/10.1525%2Faa.1998.100.3.680).
Hill, Jane H. 2008. The Everyday Language of White Racism. Wiley-Blackwell.
García-Sánchez, Inmaculada M. 2014. Language and Muslim Immigrant Childhoods: The
Politics of Belonging. John Wiley & Sons.
Ibrahim, Awad. 2014. The Rhizome of Blackness: A Critical Ethnography of Hip-Hop Culture,
Language, Identity, and the Politics of Becoming. 1 edition. New York: Peter Lang Publishing
Inc.
Rosa, Jonathan. 2019. Looking like a Language, Sounding like a Race: Raciolinguistic
Ideologies and the Learning of Latinidad. Oxford University Press.
Smalls, Krystal. 2018. "Fighting Words: Antiblackness and Discursive Violence in an American
High School." Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 23(3):356-383.
Spears, Arthur Kean. 1999. Race and Ideology: Language, Symbolism, and Popular Culture.
Wayne State University Press.
Urciuoli, Bonnie. 2013. Exposing Prejudice: Puerto Rican Experiences of Language, Race,
and Class. Waveland Press.
 Wirtz, Kristina. 2011. "Cuban Performances of Blackness as the Timeless Past Still Among
Us." Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 21(S1):E11-E34.

Class
Fox, Aaron A. 2004. Real Country: Music and Language in Working-Class Culture. Duke
University Press.
Shankar, Shalini. 2008. Desi Land: Teen Culture, Class, and Success in Silicon Valley. Duke
University Press.
Nakassis, Constantine V. 2016. Doing Style: Youth and Mass Mediation in South India.
University of Chicago Press.

Gender and sexuality

Bucholtz, Mary. 1999. " 'Why be normal?': Language and Identity Practices in a Community of
Nerd Girls". Language in Society. 28 (2): 207–210.
Fader, Ayala. 2009. Mitzvah Girls: Bringing Up the Next Generation of Hasidic Jews in
Brooklyn. Princeton University Press.
Gaudio, Rudolf Pell. 2011. Allah Made Us: Sexual Outlaws in an Islamic African City. John
Wiley & Sons.
Hall, Kira, and Mary Bucholtz. 1995. Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially
Constructed Self. New York: Routledge.
Jacobs-Huey, Lanita. 2006. From the Kitchen to the Parlor: Language and Becoming in African
American Women's Hair Care. Oxford University Press.
Kulick, Don. 2000. "Gay and Lesbian Language." Annual Review of Anthropology 29 (1): 243–
85. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.243
(https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.anthro.29.1.243).
Kulick, Don. 2008. "Gender Politics." Men and Masculinities 11 (2): 186–92.
doi:10.1177/1097184X08315098 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1097184X08315098).
Kulick, Don. 1997. "The Gender of Brazilian Transgendered Prostitutes." American
Anthropologist 99 (3): 574–85.
Livia, Anna, and Kira Hall. 1997. Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender, and Sexuality. Oxford
University Press.
Manalansan, Martin F. IV. " 'Performing' the Filipino Gay Experiences in America: Linguistic
Strategies in a Transnational Context." Beyond the Lavender Lexicon: Authenticity, Imagination
and Appropriation in Lesbian and Gay Language. Ed. William L Leap. New York: Gordon and
Breach, 1997. 249–266
Mendoza-Denton, Norma. 2014. Homegirls: Language and Cultural Practice Among Latina
Youth Gangs. John Wiley & Sons.
Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity Among Adolescents. Longman.
Zimman, Lal, Jenny L. Davis, and Joshua Raclaw. 2014. Queer Excursions: Retheorizing
Binaries in Language, Gender, and Sexuality. Oxford University Press.

Ethnopoetics

Endangered languages: Language documentation and revitalization

Endangered languages are languages that are not being passed down to children as their mother tongue or
that have declining numbers of speakers for a variety of reasons. Therefore, after a couple generations these
languages may no longer be spoken.[31] Anthropologists have been involved with endangered language
communities through their involvement in language documentation and revitalization projects.

In a language documentation project, researchers work to develop records of the language - these records
could be field notes and audio or video recordings. To follow best practices of documentation, these records
should be clearly annotated and kept safe within an archive of some kind. Franz Boas was one of the first
anthropologists involved in language documentation within North America and he supported the
development of three key materials: 1) grammars, 2) texts, and 3) dictionaries. This is now known as the
Boasian Trilogy.[32]

Language revitalization is the practice of bringing a language back into common use. The revitalization
efforts can take the form of teaching the language to new speakers or encouraging the continued use within
the community.[33] One example of a language revitalization project is the Lenape language course taught at
Swathmore College, Pennsylvania. The course aims to educate indigenous and non-indigenous students
about the Lenape language and culture.[34]

Language reclamation, as a subset of revitalization, implies that a language has been taken away from a
community and addresses their concern in taking back the agency to revitalize their language on their own
terms. Language reclamation addresses the power dynamics associated with language loss. Encouraging
those who already know the language to use it, increasing the domains of usage, and increasing the overall
prestige of the language are all components of reclamation. One example of this is the Miami language
being brought back from 'extinct' status through extensive archives.[35]

While the field of linguistics has also been focused on the study of the linguistic structures of endangered
languages, anthropologists also contribute to this field through their emphasize on ethnographic
understandings of the socio-historical context of language endangerment, but also of language revitalization
and reclamation projects.[36]

See also
Ethnolinguistics
Evolutionary psychology of language
Identity (social science)
Ideology
Language contact
Linguistic insecurity
List of important publications in anthropology
Miyako Inoue
Semiotic anthropology
Sociocultural linguistics
Sociolinguistics
Sociology of language
World Oral Literature Project
Feral Child

References
1. Duranti, Alessandro (ed.), 2004: Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (https://books.google.c
 om/books?id=3jMmmQjssaEC), Malden, MA: Blackwell.
2. Society for Linguistic Anthropology. n.d. About the Society for Linguistic Anthropology (http://w
ww.linguisticanthropology.org/about/) (accessed 7 July 2010).
3. Duranti, Alessandro. 2003. Language as Culture in U.S. Anthropology: Three Paradigms.
Current Anthropology 44(3):323–348.
4. Bauman, Richard. 1977. "Verbal Art as Performance." American Anthropologist 77:290–311.
doi:10.1525/aa.1975.77.2.02a00030 (https://doi.org/10.1525%2Faa.1975.77.2.02a00030).
5. Hymes, Dell. 1981 [1975] Breakthrough into Performance. In In Vain I Tried to Tell You: Essays
in Native American Ethnopoetics. D. Hymes, ed. Pp. 79–141. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
6. Kulick, Don. 1992. Language Shift and Cultural Reproduction: Socialization, Self and
Syncretism in a Papua New Guinea Village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In Meaning
in Anthropology. K. Basso and H.A. Selby, eds. Pp. 11–56. Albuquerque: School of American
Research, University of New Mexico Press.
8. Kulick, Don, and Charles H. Klein. 2003. Scandalous Acts: The Politics of Shame among
Brazilian Travesti Prostitutes. In Recognition Struggles and Social Movements: Contested
Identities, Agency and Power. B. Hobson, ed. Pp. 215–238. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
9. Benveniste, Emile. 1971. Problems in general linguistics. Miami: University of Miami Press.
10. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach.
Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.
11. Lee, Benjamin. 1997. Talking Heads: Language, Metalanguage, and the Semiotics of
Subjectivity. Durham: Duke University Press.
12. Kockelman, Paul. 2004. Stance and Subjectivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(2),
127–150.
13. Wortham, Stanton. 2006. Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and
academic learning. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
14. Ochs, Elinor. 1988. Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language
socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, Elinor, and Bambi Schieffelin. 1984. Language Acquisition and Socialization: Three
Developmental Stories and Their Implications. In Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self,
and Emotion. R. Shweder and R.A. LeVine, eds. Pp. 276–320. New York: Cambridge
University.
Ochs, Elinor, and Carolyn Taylor. 2001. The “Father Knows Best” Dynamic in Dinnertime
Narratives. In Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. A. Duranti, ed. Pp. 431–449. Oxford.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Schieffelin, Bambi B. 1990. The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization of
Kaluli Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Schieffelin, Bambi B. 1995. Creating evidence: Making sense of written words in Bosavi.
Pragmatics 5(2):225–244.
16. Schieffelin, Bambi B. 2000. Introducing Kaluli Literacy: A Chronology of Influences. In Regimes
of Language. P. Kroskrity, ed. Pp. 293–327. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
17. Schieffelin, Bambi B. 2002. Marking time: The dichotomizing discourse of multiple
temporalities. Current Anthropology 43(Supplement):S5-17.
18. Schieffelin, Bambi B. 2006. PLENARY ADDRESS: Found in translating: Reflexive language
across time and texts in Bosavi, PNG. Twelve Annual Conference on Language, Interaction,
and Culture, University of California, Los Angeles, 2006.
19. Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In The Elements: A
Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. R. Cline, W. Hanks, and C. Hofbauer, eds. Pp.
193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
20. Rumsey, Alan. 1990. "Word, meaning, and linguistic ideology." American Anthropologist
92(2):346–361. doi:10.1525/aa.1990.92.2.02a00060 (https://doi.org/10.1525%2Faa.1990.92.2.
02a00060).
21. Silverstein, Michael. 1985. Language and the Culture of Gender: At the Intersection of
Structure, Usage, and Ideology. In Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological
Perspectives. E. Mertz and R. Parmentier, eds. Pp. 219–259. Orlando: Academic Press.
22. Woolard, Kathryn A. 2004. Codeswitching. In Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. A.
Duranti, ed. Pp. 73–94. Malden: Blackwell.
23. Kroskrity, Paul V. 1998. Arizona Tewa Kiva Speech as a Manifestation of Linguistic Ideology. In
Language ideologies: Practice and theory. B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard, and P. Kroskrity,
eds. Pp. 103–122. New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Braj B. Kachru (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=TTW-AQAAQBAJ&pg=PR7). Hong Kong University Press. ISBN 978-962-209-665-3.
25. David Crystal (2014). Language Death (https://books.google.com/books?id=_8K0BAAAQBAJ&
pg=PA50). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-43181-2.
26. Guardado, Martin. 2018. " Discourse, Ideology and Heritage Language Socialization: Micro
and Macro Perspectives (https://books.google.ca/books?id=EZFdDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontc
over#v=onepage&q&f=false). New York & Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
27. Duranti, Alessandro. 1992. "Language and Bodies in Social Space: Samoan Greetings."
American Anthropologist 94:657–691. doi:10.1525/aa.1992.94.3.02a00070 (https://doi.org/10.
1525%2Faa.1992.94.3.02a00070).
28. Errington, J. Joseph. 1988. Structure and Style in Javanese: A Semiotic View of Linguistic
Etiquette. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
29. Silverstein, Michael. 2004. " 'Cultural' Concepts and the Language-Culture Nexus." Current
Anthropology 45(5):621–652.
30. Wilce, James M. 2006. Magical Laments and Anthropological Reflections: The Production and
Circulation of Anthropological Text as Ritual Activity. Current Anthropology. 47(6):891–914.
31. The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Austin, Peter., Sallabank, Julia.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2011. ISBN 9781139068987. OCLC 939637358 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/oclc/939637358).
32. Woodbury, Anthony C. (2011), "Language documentation", The Cambridge Handbook of
Endangered Languages, Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–186,
doi:10.1017/cbo9780511975981.009 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fcbo9780511975981.009),
ISBN 9780511975981
33. Hinton, Leanne (2011), "Revitalization of endangered languages" (https://www.cambridge.org/c
ore/product/identifier/9780511975981%23c88215-15-1/type/book_part), in Austin, Peter K.;
Sallabank, Julia (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, Cambridge
University Press, pp. 291–311, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511975981.015 (https://doi.org/10.1017%
2Fcbo9780511975981.015), ISBN 9780511975981, retrieved 2019-10-08
34. Hornberger, Nancy H.; De Korne, Haley; Weinberg, Miranda (2016-01-02). "Ways of Talking
(and Acting) About Language Reclamation: An Ethnographic Perspective on Learning Lenape
in Pennsylvania" (https://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol30/iss1/1). Journal of Language,
Identity & Education. 15 (1): 44–58. doi:10.1080/15348458.2016.1113135 (https://doi.org/10.1
080%2F15348458.2016.1113135). ISSN 1534-8458 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1534-845
8).
35. Leonard, Wesley Y. (2012-09-10). "Reframing language reclamation programmes for
everybody's empowerment". Gender and Language. 6 (2): 339–367. doi:10.1558/genl.v6i2.339
(https://doi.org/10.1558%2Fgenl.v6i2.339).
36. Granadillo, Tania Orcutt-Gachiri, Heidi A., 1970- (2011). Ethnographic contributions to the
study of endangered languages. University of Arizona Press. ISBN 9780816526994.
OCLC 769275666 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/769275666).

Further reading
Ahearn, Laura M. 2011. Living Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Blount, Ben G. ed. 1995. Language, Culture, and Society: A Book of Readings. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland.
Bonvillain, Nancy. 1993. Language, culture, and communication: The meaning of messages.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brenneis, Donald; and Ronald K. S. Macaulay. 1996. The matrix of language: Contemporary
linguistic anthropology. Boulder: Westview.
Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, Alessandro. ed. 2001. Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Giglioli, Pier Paolo. 1972. Language and social context: Selected readings. Middlesex:
Penguin Books.
Salzmann, Zdenek, James Stanlaw and Nobuko Adachi. 2012. Language, culture, & society.
Westview Press.

External links
Society for Linguistic Anthropology (http://linguisticanthropology.org/)

Downloadable publications of authors cited in the article

Alessandro Duranti's publications (https://web.archive.org/web/20060714032825/http://www.ss

cnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/duranti/publish.htm)
Joel Kuipers' publications (https://web.archive.org/web/20060720173030/http://home.gwu.edu/
~kuipers/)
Elinor Ochs' publications (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/ochs/publish.htm)
Bambi Schieffelin's publications (http://homepages.nyu.edu/~bs4/)
James Wilce's publications (http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jmw22/cv/index.html)

The Jurgen Trabant Wilhelm von Humboldt Lectures (7hrs)

https://webtv.univ-rouen.fr/permalink/c1253a18f7e5ecnge8dp/

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linguistic_anthropology&oldid=950441428"

This page was last edited on 12 April 2020, at 03:14 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.