Linguistic Anthropology in 2015: Not the Study of Language

Abstract

The thesis of this essay is that linguistic anthropology is not the study of language. Rather, "language" functions as a permanently problematic, if indispensable, object for linguistic anthropological analysis and thought. This is because, as I suggest, the critical intervention of linguistic anthropology over the last 40 years has been its ethnographic focus on indexicality, in particular, the ways that indexical processes undermine language as an autonomous object, entangling it with other semiotic modalities and thereby displacing it beyond its putative borders.Reviewing linguistic anthropological scholarship from 2015, I argue that it is the study of this displacement and its more general semiotic implications-and the entangled and mutually informing analytics that have been developed to theorize them, for example, language ideology, entextualization, interdiscursivity, chronotope-that centers the field. Focusing on a set of such analytics, I illustrate how recent linguistic anthropological scholarship has elaborated the reflexive, dialectical nature of social life, theorizing what I call total semiotic facts. I explore these dialectics by discussing three thematic clusters that occupied the attention of the field in 2015: diversity and authenticity, political economy, and mass mediation. [linguistic anthropology, indexicality, language ideology, chronotope, superdiversity, authenticity, political economy, mass mediation, year in review] RESUMEN La tesis de este ensayo es que la antropología lingüística no es el estudio del lenguaje. Más bien, el "lenguaje" funciona como un objeto para el análisis y la conceptualización antropológico lingüística, permanentemente problemático, si bien indispensable. Esto es debido, como lo sugiero, a que la intervención crítica de la antropología lingüística durante losúltimos cuarenta años ha sido su foco etnográfico en la indexicalidad, en particular, los modos que los procesos indéxicos socavan el lenguaje como un objeto autónomo, entrelazándolo con otras modalidades semióticas y por lo tanto desplazándolo más allá de sus bordes putativos. Revisando la investigación antropológica lingüística de 2015, argumento que es el estudio de este desplazamiento y sus implicaciones semióticas más generales-y la analítica entrelazada y mutuamente informativa que ha sido desarrollada para teorizarlos, por ejemplo, ideología del lenguaje, entextualización, interdiscursividad, cronotopo-lo que centra el campo. Enfocándome en una serie de tal analítica, ilustro cómo la investigación antropológica lingüística reciente ha elaborado la naturaleza reflexiva, dialéctica de la vida social, teorizando lo que llamo hechos totales semióticos.Exploro estas dialécticas discutiendo tres grupos temáticos que ocuparon la atención en el campo en 2015: diversidad y autenticidad, economía política, y meditación masiva. [antropología lingüística, indexicalidad, ideología del lenguaje, cronotopo, superdiversidad, autenticidad, economía política, meditación masiva, año en revisión]

Linguistic Anthropology in 2018: Signifying Movement

“…Yet there is much value in focusing on mobility and movement to understand our contemporary world. This is particularly the case for linguistic anthropology, a discipline that does not approach language as “a coherent, autonomous object of analysis” but strives to understand language through its endless “dialectical displacement” (Nakassis , 331). Linguistic anthropology's commitment to Boasian “reckless empiricism” (Rodseth )—that is, embracing the total natural environment in which language is socioculturally grounded—constantly guides its followers toward contexts that challenge the notion of structurally isolated beingness of language, sites where language lives on in incessant flux, militating against static autonomy and dispersing into deep embeddedness in sociocultural practice.…”

Linguistic Anthropology in 2016: Now What?

“…A focus on scale draws attention to the entanglements of language with other analytical frames. As Nakassis () argued, not studying language entails a semiotic analysis of culture in which language may be a prominent, but not singular, area of investigation. We may do well to push this reconceptualization a step further and craft an even broader conception of ethnography in which the study of language is undertaken in conjunction with media and circulation.…”

“…If our subfield remains a viable avenue for addressing inequalities, spanning the Boasian project of linguistic and cultural relativism to the regimentation of a monoglot standard in the United States (Silverstein ), to the systematic study of power through ethnographic research across the globe, this seems like a good moment to take stock and reformulate an agenda. Especially if linguistic anthropology is “not the study of language,” as Constantine Nakassis () provocatively wrote in his review of our field in 2015, then in 2016 it is fitting to ask: What can a return to the study of language offer us? Now what?…”

Faut-il se débarrasser des « idéologies linguistiques »?

“…La question qui sert de titre à cet essai se veut, à dessein, provocante -d'autant que la notion d'idéologies linguistiques est largement utilisée en anthropologie linguistique comme en sociolinguistique, et fait l'objet de nombreux volumes, chapitres de manuels, etc. Dans un récent article dressant le bilan de l'année 2015 en anthropologie linguistique, Nakassis (2016) en fait l'un des thèmes principaux de la discipline, et depuis peu une revue francophone publiée au Canada (Circula, Revue d'idéologies linguistiques) lui est consacrée. Curieusement cependant, compte tenu de l'apport de la réflexion en français autour de la notion d'idéologie, et notamment à partir des travaux de Louis Althusser, c'est par l'Amérique du Nord que ce concept semble revenir en sociolinguistique francophone, et plus généralement européenne -nous disons « semble », car s'il revient, c'est souvent sous une forme détachée du programme de recherche dans lequel le terme a été initialement promu.…”