The Expanding Boundaries of Linguistic Anthropology: 2010 in Perspective

Monaghan, Leila

doi:10.1111/j.1548-1433.2011.01326.x

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As has been noted in past year‐in‐review articles, a constellation of topics (including but not limited to language ideologies, language socialization, linguistic relativity, and stylistic variation) has become more or less canonical in linguistic anthropology (Cody ; Monaghan ). Below, I discuss some of the ways that current scholarship benefits from reappraisals of and revisions to these established research frameworks—gaining, that is, by not taking such topics for granted.…”

Section: Expansions and Refinementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic Anthropology in 2012: Language Matter(s)

Black¹

2013

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I discuss the accomplishments of scholars of language and culture in 2012 and the questions raised by those accomplishments. I review matters of language—expansions and refinements of existing research topics, including linguistic relativity, language socialization, sociolinguistic variation, and language ideologies. I then consider a trend of research on topics of embodiment, materiality, and the senses, discussing the matter (in the physics sense) of language. I then use the term engagement to comment on developments in research on language endangerment, language circulation and shift, language and health, language and education, and language and social justice. This is rooted in the notion that language makes a difference (or matters) in cultural practice. I conclude with a brief discussion of the ontology of language, the epistemology of linguistic anthropology, and the roles of scholars of language and culture in anthropology as a whole.

show abstract

Section: Expansions and Refinementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic Anthropology in 2012: Language Matter(s)

Black¹

2013

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Paja Faudree (2009) points out, language and race are an ongoing theme in current work in linguistic anthropology. Much of the activism that I found in linguistic anthropology in 2010 was centered on the recognition of language rights of ethnic groups in Arizona and elsewhere (Monaghan 2011).…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

22. Pragmatics, linguistic anthropology and history

Monaghan¹,

Andersen²,

Aijmer³

2011

Pragmatics of Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If we take the study of pragmatics to be the study of the relationship between language and context, linguistic anthropology, the study of the relationship between language and culture, can be seen as an exemplar of work in pragmatics. A review of the field, however, shows how contested notions of language and context can be. Alessandro Duranti (2003) described the historical development of what he saw as three distinct but sometimes temporally and ideologically overlapping paradigms in linguistic anthropology.[T]he first paradigm, initiated by Boas, was mostly devoted to documentation, grammatical description, and classification (especially of North American indigenous languages) and focused on linguistic relativity, the second paradigm, developed in the 1960s, took advantage of new recording technology and new theoretical insights to examine language use in context, introducing new units of analysis such as the speech event … The third paradigm … [focuses] on identity formation, narrativity, and ideology (Duranti 2003: 323).In order to understand linguistic anthropologists, Duranti took a step back and placed current discourses within the larger context of the community, specifically within a larger historical context. However, when one looks at writings since the 1960s in linguistic anthropology (the general study of language within anthropology) and the ethnography of communication (often the study of linguistic genre and competence in specific settings), the majority of it does not focus on historical approaches to language but instead limits the contexts of language use to specific examples of performances, speech events.In my work with the New Zealand Deaf community (Monaghan 1993(Monaghan , 1996(Monaghan , 1997a(Monaghan , 2003a and my work on international Deaf culture (Monaghan 2003b; Monaghan et al. 2003), however, I have taken a historical approach. The material has demanded it. Deaf communities often exist despite great opposition to them. At the heart of the struggles over Deaf culture is usually the question of what language should be used. Because Deaf people in New Zealand and elsewhere are acutely aware that they are congregating despite opposition, the stories that they tell about themselves, the performed narratives that construct their culture on an ongoing basis, are about connecting with past events.Section 2 of this chapter examines theoretical approaches developed since the 1960s (and thus part of Duranti's second and third paradigms). The ethnography of communication, language and identity studies, performance studies, and converBrought to you by | Nanyang Technological University Authenticated Download Date | 6/17/15 2:09 AM

show abstract

“…Yet while theories of relations between language and society, and between society and history, have been well developed, the relation between language and history has been less theorized. Linguistic anthropology has more fully theorized the intersection of semiotics and temporality (e.g., Parmentier 1987Parmentier , 1994Parmentier , 2007Silverstein 1993;Urban 1996;Inoue 2004;Agha 2007;Lempert and Perrino 2007;Hanks 2010;Monaghan 2011;Faudree 2012). But even here, linguistic anthropologists have frequently engaged lightly with history per se, focusing on describing semiotic events and processes in synchronic social time rather than describing how they unfold embedded in broader historical trajectories and specific historical contexts, which often remains categorized as the domain of the discipline of history.…”

Section: The Language-society-history Nexus and The Development Of LImentioning

confidence: 99%