On the Disassembly Line: Linguistic Anthropology in 2014

Graber, Kathryn E.

doi:10.1111/aman.12232

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One discourse among linguistic anthropologists ambivalently remarks that we have moved away from the specificities of language toward “ever more sophisticated cultural interpretation” (Hill :2; cf. Reyes :370) or that we have increasingly come nearer to sociocultural anthropology (Graber :359), if (shaken well and up) with a twist (Silverstein :119). In this review essay I have attempted to frame both these chronotopic propositions in a different light.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic Anthropology in 2015: Not the Study of Language

Nakassis

2016

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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]

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic Anthropology in 2015: Not the Study of Language

Nakassis

2016

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This ‘figure of personhood’, as Agha calls it, was de‐emphasised in varieties of liberalism that founded their political and economic visions not in individual autonomy, but in other values, for instance, solidarity (Freeden 2009). On the other, as ‘persons may be distributed in more ways than one’ (Graber 2015: 357), the liberal subject ‘lives’ through other figures of personhood, such as the professional self, which refract and encode particular liberal values in relation to relevant traits of the subject (cf. Lempert 2012).…”

Section: ‘An Information Sports Champion’mentioning

confidence: 99%

Liberalism in fragments: oligarchy and the liberal subject in Ukrainian news journalism

Fedirko

2021

Soc Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the place of liberal subjectivity in the professional culture of Ukrainian journalists to analyse how ideas originating in contexts of hegemonic liberalism at the core of the global capitalist system, are taken up on its postsocialist margins. I outline how certain Anglo‐American notions of good journalistic practice, which encode traits of liberal subjectivity, are borrowed and elaborated by a Western‐funded movement for an anti‐oligarchic liberal media reform in Ukraine. These ideals are then taken up within oligarch‐controlled media, a context that the reformers see as inimical to liberalism. Through an ethnographic portrait of an editor‐censor at a major oligarch‐owned TV channel in Ukraine, I analyse how these professional ideals simultaneously uphold oligarchic patronage and extend the reach of liberal politics in Ukraine. This reveals how in the force field of global capitalism both the reformers and those whom they seek to reform are part of the same, contradictory and fractured, liberal formation. I propose that to better understand cases like this, we need to learn to see liberalism in fragments: as always partial and incomplete and as constituted by multiple elements.

show abstract

Symbiotic modeling: Linguistic anthropology and the promise of chiasmus

Pelkey¹

2016

Reviews in Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reflexive observations and observations of reflexivity: such agendas are by now standard practice in anthropology. Dynamic feedback loops between self and other, cause and effect, represented and representamen may no longer seem surprising; but, in spite of our enhanced awareness, little deliberate attention is devoted to modeling or grounding such phenomena. Attending to both linguistic and extra-linguistic modalities of chiasmus (the X figure), a group of anthropologists has recently embraced this challenge. Applied to contemporary problems in linguistic anthropology, chiasmus functions to highlight and enhance relationships of interdependence or symbiosis between contraries, including anthropology's four fields, the nature of human being and facets of being human.

show abstract

On the Disassembly Line: Linguistic Anthropology in 2014

Cited by 6 publications

References 84 publications

Linguistic Anthropology in 2015: Not the Study of Language

Linguistic Anthropology in 2015: Not the Study of Language

Liberalism in fragments: oligarchy and the liberal subject in Ukrainian news journalism

Symbiotic modeling: Linguistic anthropology and the promise of chiasmus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About