Week 5 Reading

The Socially Charged Life of Language

Introduction

All words carry a "taste" that reflects various contexts, including profession, genre, social tendencies, and temporal settings. Mikhail Bakhtin asserts that language is not merely a neutral conduit for communication but a means that expresses socially embedded practices. Conversely, social interactions are also linguistically charged, as every form of interaction is mediated by language, including verbal and nonverbal communication. This section introduces three illustrative examples to demonstrate this intricate relationship between language and social context.

Example 1: Getting Stoned in San Francisco

In the academic year of 1995–1996, an anti-drug elective class at a large high school in the San Francisco Bay Area trained students as peer educators to perform skits on the dangers of drugs and tobacco. This diverse class included students from various genders, class ranks, ethnicities, and racial groups. As the day approached for their first performance, the students sought guidance from their teacher, Priscilla, regarding how to respond if questioned about their own marijuana use. The following exchange highlights their linguistic creativity:

  • Priscilla: Remember, you're role models.

  • Al Capone: You want us to lie?

  • Calvin: Since you're not coming to school stoned - (students laugh)

  • Brand One: What do you say?

  • Priscilla:

  • Calvin: Weeded.

  • Kerry: Justified.

  • Brand One: I say high. Bombed. Blitzed.

  • Brand One: That's kinda tight.

This lively interaction demonstrates how language shapes social identity, especially within youth culture.

Example 2: Losing a Language in Papua New Guinea

In the remote village of Gapun, Papua New Guinea, residents faced a linguistic crisis with the extinction of the Taiap language. In 1987, there were at most 89 speakers of Taiap left, yet children under ten were not speaking the language actively. Linguistic anthropologist Don Kulick reported that local adults attributed the language shift to the children's behaviors, stating, "We haven't done anything. We try to get them to speak it, we want them to. But they won't. They're bikhed [big-headed, strong-willed]." This points to social dynamics affecting language retention, emphasizing linguistic shifts beyond simply social or economic factors.

Example 3: The Pounded Rice Ritual in Nepal

In a 1993 wedding procession in Junigau, Nepal, the Pounded Rice Ritual illustrated the interplay of marital customs and language use. During the ceremony, the groom, Khim Prasad, was instructed to request pounded rice from his bride, Indrani Kumari, using different forms of address to navigate their social hierarchy:

  1. The first request utilized a polite form (tapāt) yet yielded little rice. It was interpreted as an ineffectual request indicative of higher status addressing lower status.

  2. The second attempt employed a more informal term (timi) from a more egalitarian perspective, but still resulted in minimal compliance.

  3. Finally, using the lowest form (ta), traditionally reserved for children or inferior beings, led to a complete offering of rice.

This scenario demonstrates not only how language indexes social status and relationships but also showcases its role in performing social conduct and adhering to cultural traditions.

Analysis of Examples

The aforementioned examples reflect that satisfactory explanations of linguistic events cannot solely rely on linguistic or cultural analysis in isolation. Instead, the forthcoming chapters will utilize linguistic anthropology's tools to elucidate broader sociocultural issues, engaging with pertinent questions related to:

  • The interconnectedness of language with cultural values and social power dynamics.

  • The creation and reproduction of differences along gender, ethnicity, race, age, or wealth lines through language.

  • The understanding that language can be a means of conceptual unity or a marker of diversity.

  • The influence of linguistic forms on cognitive processes and worldviews.

  • The impact of language ideologies on perceptions of self and others, interrogating concepts of "good" language.

Fundamental Principles of Linguistic Anthropology

Language is inherently social and a form of social action, where speaking operates as a cultural resource (Duranti 1997:2). Reflecting on the philosopher J.L. Austin's insights, we recognize that our language choices are profoundly influenced by our social contexts. Bakhtin encapsulates this well, insisting that language’s essence cannot be understood divorced from its social contexts; rather, these contexts and linguistic practices constitute each other.

Misguided Views

Historically, the reductionist view of language, popularized by figures like Ferdinand de Saussure and Noam Chomsky, suggests that language is merely a set of structural rules devoid of social implications. However, linguistic anthropology rejects this by examining the integration of grammar with social relations, politics, and emotion, reinforcing that grammar is merely one aspect of language's social life (Bakhtin 1981:293).

Understanding Language Knowledge

To grasp language comprehensively, linguistic anthropologists challenge traditional notions of linguistic competence (systematic knowledge) and performance (practical application), stressing that knowledge of a language transcends mere grammatical rules. According to Cipollone et al. (1998:8-11), five key components enhance our understanding of a language’s full capacity:

  1. Phonology: Understanding and producing meaningful sounds.

  2. Morphology: The internal structure of words, including affixation that alters meaning.

  3. Syntax: Sentence structure, encompassing phrase and clause formation.

  4. Semantics: The meanings of words and sentences in context.

  5. Pragmatics: Language usage in social contexts, focusing on culturally appropriate interactions.

Exploring Language as Social Action

Linguistic anthropology highlights the critical distinctions and intersections within language, culture, and social relations. It demonstrates that despite diverse methodologies, the exploration of language as social action requires a multifaceted understanding of its linguistic implications on society. The subsequent chapters aim to provide deeper insights into research methods and methodologies conducive to analyzing language as an active and socially mediated phenomenon.