Page 20 Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL

An Historical Perspective on7, No. 2 Fall-Winter 2000-2001

Contemporary Linguistic AnthropologyAlessandro Duranti

UCLA

Introduction1

A recent review of a several populartextbooks in cultural anthropology hasconfirmed my suspicion that there is asignificant gap between what linguis-tic anthropology means to me and whatit means to my colleagues in culturalanthropology (and probably in othersub-fields as well). One easy explana-tion of this gap would be to say that theauthors of these textbooks are simplyuninformed of what linguistic anthro-pologists have been doing in the last 20-25 years. But this could be easily shownto be only partly accurate.

For one thing, in at least some of thechapters I have examined so far, sec-tions are often dedicated to recent de-bates, such as Ebonics, or topics suchas language and gender, which showthat our colleagues in cultural anthro-pology do follow at least some of whatgoes on in our field. Furthermore, thecriticism might be unfair because mostof the chapters on language I have ex-amined seem conceived as a mini-in-troduction to linguistics rather than tolinguistic anthropology. This is shownby the considerable space usually oc-cupied by basic information on lan-guage structure (e.g. phonology, mor-phology, syntax) and the coverage oftopics like animal communication, typi-cally found in introductory linguisticstextbooks (but not as part of mainstreamlinguistics or contemporary linguisticanthropology).

Finally, it would be too easy to blamecultural anthropologists for this gapwithout seriously considering the pos-sibility of failure on the part of linguis-tic anthropologists to communicatemore effectively across disciplinaryboundaries. I believe that to the extentto which we are committed to a holisticview of anthropology, we should pro-vide teaching tools and accessible re-view pieces for our colleagues in otherfields. My efforts in this direction inthe past have been rewarded2 and I thinkwe should continue to provide useful

surveys, introductions and encyclope-dia entries. But I also think it is impor-tant to provide an historical analysis ofmajor theoretical and methodologicaltrends. Stephen Murray's AmericanSociolinguistics: Theorists and TheoryGroups (1998) is a step in this direc-tion, but the author's lack of termino-logical rigor3 and his reluctance to syn-thesize movements and trends beyondthe work of small groups make it diffi-cult to use, especially by non-special-ists.

Our colleagues in other fieldshave not fiilly recognized thefundamental changes within

linguistic anthropologybeginning in the 1960s.

Paradigm shiftsAfleT a recent Teview of the history

of linguistic anthropology and its con-temporary trends (Duranti 2001a), Ihave come to the conclusion that sincethe 1880s, there has been at least onemajor paradigm shift (and perhaps two)in the study of language from withinanthropology in the U.S. These shiftsare represented by various names bywhich the study of languages is calledwithin anthropology. The first shift tookplace in the early 1960s and has con-tinued to develop in ways that could beinterpreted as the signs of a subsequentshift in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

I should point out that I am usingthe term "paradigm" to mean somethingrelated to but different from that foundin Kuhn (1962). Simply stated, by"paradigm shift" I mean a change inwhat phenomena are studied, with whatmethods and with what goals. I do notassume that the rise of a new "para-digm" implies the end of the immedi-ately prior one. I assume that it is pos-sible for several paradigms to co-existand even for individual researchers toshift back and forth from one paradigm

to the other (for this reason, Kuhn'sconcept of "scientific revolution" doesnot fully apply here). The co-existenceof two or more paradigms might be asource of confusion for those outsideof a specific field.

My hypothesis is that the impact ofthe fundamental changes within linguis-tic anthropology that have taken placestarting in the 1960s has not been fullyrecognized by our colleagues in otherfields, who often continue to think oflinguistic anthropologists as if theywere still operating within the first para-digm. Support for this hypothesis canbe found by comparing the organiza-tion, topics and theoretical perspectiveof the chapters on language in culturalanthropology textbooks with the topics,issues and theoretical concepts that cur-rently constitute the bulk of research inlinguistic anthropology. As I will ar-gue below, the emphasis on descriptivelinguistics, the interest in language as aclassificatory tool and the recurrent ref-erence to the "Sapir-WhorfHypothesis"are all indications of a conception of thescope of the field and its basic assump-tions that are part of the first paradigm.

The Boasian Tradition and the Birthof Anthropological Linguistics

Linguistic anthropology as practicedin the U.S. (and Canada) is part andparcel of the Boasian tradition of four-field anthropology. This tradition, asfar as I know, is not found anywhereelse in the world and certainly not inEurope, where linguists until recentlyhave not been part of anthropology de-partments. Instead, in the U.S., linguis-tics in the modern sense of the termstarted from within anthropology. Thefirst issues of the American Anthropolo-gist are full of articles on (especially)American Indian languages, and Boas'Introduction to the Handbook of Ameri-can Indian Languages (1911) can beconsidered the modern manifesto for thestudy of non-Indo-European languages.It has influenced several generations oflinguists in the U.S. and abroad.

Boas writings and teachings estab-lished what I consider the first paradigmfor the study of language within anthro-pology. It is a paradigm that originatedwith the support of John Wesley Powell

Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL 7, No. 2 Fall-Winter 2000-2001 Page 21

at the Bureau of (American) Ethnology,and it was meant to collect informationon American Indian languages as a toolfor the classification of American In-dian tribes in the US. Through Boasand others, it became an important partof "salvage anthropology," a project thatcontinues today with efforts to docu-ment and revitalize endangered lan-guages (Grenoble & Whaley 1998;Moore 1999).

Most of the work done within thisfirst paradigm was (and still is) dedi-cated to what we call now descriptivelinguistics. In this paradigm, linguisticanalysis is an important tool for cultural(and historical-genetic) analysis. Overtime, this view of linguistics within an-thropology turned into an either ac-cepted or forced upon "service mental-ity," whereby the presence of the lin-guist was justified as long as he or sheprovided basic fieldwork training for(cultural) anthropology students (Pike1963; Voegelin & Harris 1952). Withthe expansion of linguistics departmentsin the U.S. during the 1960s and 1970s,this function of the linguist in the an-thropology department became less cru-cial. It is thus not surprising that sev-eral departments in the 1970s and 1980sdecided not to replace their linguistsafter they retired or moved to other in-stitutions. A reversal of this change hasbeen seen in the last decade.

Boas1 students and the generationimmediately following saw themselvesprimarily as "linguists," and this ex-plains the term "anthropological lin-guists" that they adopted for themselvesin the 1950s (see Duranti 2001 for adiscussion of the meaning of variousterminological choices). Like all lin-guists then and most linguists today,they elicited linguistic expressions fromnative speakers in order to describegrammars and lexicons of up to thenunwritten languages. This had two ef-fects. One was that some of these schol-ars found a home in linguistics depart-ments (e.g. Mary Haas), and the otherwas that their mission of collecting in-formation and documenting AmericanIndian languages was adopted by lin-guists with very little or no training inanthropological history and theory.Given these trends, eventually, "anthro-

pological linguistics became largelyidentified with descriptive (and oftenhistorical) linguistics of non-Indo-Eu-ropean languages with no indigenoustradition of writing (see the definitiongiven by Hoijer 1961). Therefore, itwas identified with a non-theoreticalapproach to the study of language, withone important exception: the misnamed"Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis—the twoscholars never collaborated on a jointdefinition—also known as "linguisticrelativity." There are at least two popu-lar versions of this "hypothesis": (i) dif-ferent languages provide differentconceptualizations of reality; (ii) lin-guistic categorization has an impact onspeakers' thinking (and acting) in theworld. Whereas no linguist would haveany qualms with the first version, whichis routinely experienced by any trans-lator, the second version has been highlycontroversial, especially since the1960s. Berlin and Kay's (1969) studyof color terms was the harshest (al-though still controversial) blow to therelativists (Hill & Mannheim 1992;Gumperz & Levinson 1996; Levinson2000).

First Paradigm Shift: LinguisticVariation and the Ethnography ofCommunication

In the early 1960s a new paradigmappeared which redefined what kindsof linguistic phenomena one shouldstudy, how they should be studied andthe theoretical perspective throughwhich to think about language. The newperspective had two main foci of re-search interests: (i) social variation inlanguage use, and (ii) language use incommunicative events. The two re-search interests were united in JohnGumperz and Dell Hymes' collabora-tion (1964, 1972), resulting in theschool known as "the Ethnography ofCommunication."

During the early period of this newparadigm, two important terminologi-cal changes also took place: First,Hymes argued for the term "linguisticanthropology" over "anthropologicallinguistics," to stress that the fieldshould assume anthropological con-cerns (Hymes 1964). Second, the termsociolinguistics was introduced by Wil-

liam Labov for his study of languagevariation in urban communities, andadopted as a general term for the studyof language use, as shown by the factthat Gumperz and Hymes' 1972 collec-tion was entitled Directions inSociolinguistics: The Ethnography ofCommunication.

The last few years have produceda new mixture of linguistic and

cultural anthropologists who areattracting scholars from related

fields, including applied linguis-tics, communication, discourse

analysis, second languageacquisition and education.

This second paradigm sharply dif-ferentiates itself from the first in twoimportant ways: (i) linguistic expres-sions are studied in context, meaningthat researchers pay special attention toat least some of the attributes of the situ-ations in which language is used. (Thisis a radical departure from the almostexclusive reliance on elicitation thatcharacterized the first paradigm fromBoas to Berlin and Kay's survey of in-dividual color terms and beyond.) (ii)Speaking itself is studied as a culturalactivity, with its own organization to bedescribed through ethnography (seeHymes 1972a and his Speaking Model).

These are major shirts with respectto the first paradigms for a number ofreasons. One is the emphasis on whatspeakers jjo. with language (see connec-tions with speech act theory, i.e. Austin1962; Searle 1969). Another is the fo-cus on social units (e.g. speech com-munities, speech events and speech situ-ations) as opposed to grammatical units(e.g. the word, the sentence). A third isthe importance of an ethnographic un-derstanding of the interactions in whichlanguage is used, e.g. in order to de-scribe communicative competence(Hymes 1972b). A fourth reason is theattempt to take variation seriously andmake sense of it through a theory of"relevant context."

A consequence of this shift was thetemporary abandonment of linguisticrelativity, at least in its popular version.Its identification with ways of classify-

Page 22 Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL7,No.2 Fall-Winter 2000-2001ing experience—the infamous multi-plication of the words of 'snow' in Es-kimo from four to one hundred andmore—is a primary example of this (seeMartin 1986 for an analysis of thismyth).

In a paradoxical twist of fate, whilestressing the need to relocate the fieldwithin anthropology, Hymes (1964) si-multaneously set the stage for fullertheoretical and methodological au-tonomy for ethnographers of speakingfrom the rest of anthropology. The con-centration on ritual encounters as op-posed to grammar and lexicon (ErvingGoffman had a noticeable influence onthose operating within this paradigm)freed them from the old "service men-tality." At the same time, it exposedthem to two risks: the overlap with re-search areas usually studied by culturalanthropologists and the associatedabandonment of their most valued good,namely, their expertise in languagestructures (in both a synchronic anddiachronic perspective).

These two risks have unfolded ininteresting ways in the last few years,producing a new generation of youngscholars who are a mixture of linguis-tic and cultural anthropologists, and at-tracting other scholars from relatedfields, including applied linguistics,communication, discourse analysis,second language acquisition and edu-cation. This has been made possible fora number of reasons, one being morerecent theoretical developments.

Recent Developments or ParadigmThree?

One of the important contributionsof the second paradigm is the focus onlanguage in context. Context is used toexplain variation (why people's pronun-ciation or lexical choice changes acrosstime and space), and is also the objectof ethnographic description (e.g. com-municative events). Rather than beingstudied as isolated forms (as done in thefirst paradigm), linguistic expressionsare embedded within larger activities orevents. A further development of thisnew interest in context is the focus onlanguage as context. The use of lan-guage is seen as constituting (some-times actually "creating") the contexts

in which it occurs or the entities that issupposed to refer to (e.g. social iden-tity, social relationships). Although thisidea is already found in Hymes' (1972a)concept of "speech event" (an eventlargely defined by speech, e.g. an oralexamination, an interview) and Blomand Gumperz' (1972) notion of "meta-phorical shift" (a type of code switch-ing that brings about a change in con-text), it becomes a leading and perva-sive concept in the linguistic anthropol-ogy of the 1980s and 1990s. It is also aresearch focus that eventually contrib-utes to the separation of linguistic an-thropologists from quantitativesociolinguists for whom context is stillan independent variable (see Duranti2001b; Goodwin and Duranti 1992).

Cultural anthropology textbooks[need to reflect] a fuller under-

standing of the role that lan-guage plays in the context of our

daily life.^ — ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ • — ^ _ _ ^ ^

My view is that one can make senseof most of the work done within lin-guistic anthropology since the mid-1970s as an attempt to sharpen the ana-lytical tools for the study of context andits relevance to an understanding of howlanguage is used by social actors. Inparticular, it is the challenge to definecontext and make it into an object ofstudy that motivates three importantareas of contemporary research: perfor-mance, indexicality and participation(Duranti 1997:14-21).

Performance originated in differenttraditions. Chomsky (1965) used it in-stead of Ferdinand de Saussure's (1966)notion of parole, Bauman (1975) andHymes (1975) used it as a creative andemergent mode of using language, andAustin (1962) implied it as the domainof 'doing things with words' in his no-tion of performative. More recently,feminist theorists have extended thenotion of performance to performativityto account for the ways in which gen-der is discursively produced (Hall1999). The main point here is that lan-guage is considered a domain of actionin which agency is constantly an issueas opposed to a system of predefinedrules that are separate from social life.

Whether one looks at MichaelSilverstein's (1976) elaboration ofJakobson's notion of "shifter" andPeirce's notion of "index," or ElinorOchs' (1979) argument that "transcrip-tion is theory" (a position that predatesClifford and Marcus' (1986) invitationto rethink the process of writing cul-ture), what we have seen in the lasttwenty five years is increased attentionpaid to the mechanisms through whichspeakers and analysts use language asa resource for the constitution of thevery social reality they are trying todescribe. The notion of indexicality isone way of making sense of the histo-ricity and context-ness of language(Hanks 1990,1999).

In the last two decades we have alsoseen an increased attention to the de-tails of face-to-face encounters, inspiredin part by interactional sociology,ethnomethodology and conversationanalysis (Heritage 1984). In addition,new recording technologies (video inparticular) have allowed us to collectaudio-visually rich data that can beplayed again and again, and thus be sub-mitted to more systematic scrutiny byourselves and by others (Duranti 1997:chapter 5). The attention to detail hashelped us deconstruct the speaker-hearer dyad and refine Goffman's(1981) intuitions about participationframeworks. By looking at languageuse in classrooms, neighborhoods andworkplaces, linguistic anthropologistshave shown that the ways in whichproblem-solving, conflict and narrativeactivity are organized are much morecomplex than what is usually assumedby those who interpret language as"content" or as a series of monologic"stories."

More generally, there has been inrecent research in linguistic anthropol-ogy a radical—albeit often too im-plicit—criticism of the elicitation tech-niques used by grammarians and eth-nographers. Michael Silverstein's(1981) work on the limits of awarenessas well as the myriad empirical studiesof the social organization of verbal per-formance in ritual and mundane en-counters (e.g., Hill and Irvine 1993) areevidence of this trend. Some of thesechallenge past and current ideas about

Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL7fNo.2 Fall-Winter 2000-2001 Page 23

gender roles (Goodwin 1990) and nar-rative structure (Ochs & Capps 1996,2001). In the context of these new stud-ies, the very notion of linguistic rela-tivity needs to be reassessed. We needto explore further Whorf's original in-tuitions about how linguistic categori-zation is analogically transferred toother cognitive realms (Lucy 1992a,1992b). We also need to rethink rela-tivity in terms of the new research onlanguage ideology (Schieffelin,Woolard, Kroskrity 1998; Kroskrity2000) and in terms of how access to lin-guistic resources presupposes and em-bodies access to other kinds of resourcesin economic, intellectual and moralspheres.

Instead of having to choose betweentaking for granted or ignoring altogetherthe "power of language," linguistic an-thropologists have developed analyti-cal tools that allow us to look closely atwhat language does versus what speak-ers qua social actors do. If we attemptto understand this distinction, includ-ing its validity and the implicit rethink-ing of the concepts of intentionality andagency that it requires, we get a clearerpicture of language structure and lan-guage use that we need to present to ourstudents. Linguistic forms would beshown to get their meaning from thehistorical and moment-by-moment con-structed context of their use.

ConclusionsI have presented here a hypothesis

about what I see as an intellectual gapbetween the discussion of language inanthropology textbooks and the greatbulk of research within contemporarylinguistic anthropology. I have sug-gested that to a great extent culturalanthropology textbooks remain withinthe logic, topics and issues identifiedwithin what I call the first paradigm inlinguistic anthropology. This startedover a century ago with Boas' programfor a four-field anthropology and con-tinues today with the study of endan-gered languages and with comparativestudies of isolated (i .e. taken out of con-text) linguistic forms (e.g. color termi-nology). What is particularly missingthen in much of contemporary treatmentof language within cultural anthropol-

ogy textbooks is a fuller understandingof the role that language plays in thecontext of our daily life. For this un-derstanding to occur we need specificconceptual tools. In their study of per-formance, indexicality and participationlinguistic anthropologists have devel-oped and refined such tools. Studentsin cultural anthropology and other sub-fields should be exposed to current workin linguistic anthropology and thusgiven a chance to test their power toexplain how and why language playssuch an important part in our lives.

Notes1 This essay briefly expands on someof the discussion found in Duranti(2001b). A more detailed discussion ofparadigm shifts in linguistic anthropol-ogy will be presented in a forthcomingpaper entitled "Three Paradigms for theAnthropological Study of Language inthe U.S."

2 For example, when I organized a spe-cial "educational" session at the 1998AAA Meetings in which I invited 28colleagues to talk (for 7 minutes each)about the latest perspectives on "lan-guage matters," many colleagues fromother fields, especially cultural anthro-pology, enthusiastically attended thesession, enduring 3 hours and 45 min-utes of non-stop talk. (The proceedingsof that session, expanded to include 74authors, were published as a special is-sue of the Journal of Linguistic Anthro-pology, Duranti 1999, and as a book,Duranti 2001a.)

3 For example, despite the fact that thebook is called "AmericanSociolinguistics," the first sentence ofthe first chapter reads: "This study ofpostwar anthropological linguistics inNorth America..." (Murray 1998:1).The ambiguity about the focus andboundaries of the study unfortunatelyremain throughout the book, which endswithout a concluding statement aboutgeneral trends.

ReferencesAustin, J. L.

1962 How to Do Things with Words.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bauman, Richard1975 Verbal Art as Performance.American Anthropologist 77:290-311.

Berlin, Brent, and Paul Kay1969 Basic Color Terms: Their Uni-versality and Evolution. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Boas, Franz1911 Introduction. In Handbook ofAmerican Indian Languages. FBoas, editor, Vol. BAE-B 40, Part I.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian In-stitution and Bureau of AmericanEthnology.

Blom, J. P, and J. J. Gumperz.1972 "Social Meaning in LinguisticStructures: Code-Switching in Nor-way," in Directions inSociolinguistics: The Ethnographyof Communication. Edited by J. J.Gumperz and D. Hymes, pp. 407-434. New York: Holt.

Chomsky, Noam1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syn-tax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus1986 Writing Culture: The Poeticsand Politics of Ethnography. Berke-ley: University of California Press.

Duranti, Alessandro1997 Linguistic Anthropology. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.2001a Key Terms in Language andCulture. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Duranti, Alessandro2001b Linguistic Anthropology:

History, Ideas, and Issues. In 2001c,pp. 1-38.2001c Linguistic Anthropology: A

Reader. A. Duranti, ed. Maiden,MA: Blackwell.

Duranti, Alessandro, ed.1999 Language Matters in Anthro-pology: A Lexicon for the New Mil-lennium. Special Issue of the Jour-nal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9.[Reprinted as Duranti 2001a]

Goffman, Erving1981 Footing. In Forms of Talk. E.Gofrman, ed. Pp. 124-57. Philadel-phia: University of PennsylvaniaPress.

Goodwin, Charles, and AlessandroDuranti

1992 Rethinking Context: An Intro-duction. In Rethinking Context: Lan-

Page 24 Teaching Anthropology: SACC Notes VoL 7, No. 2 Fall-Winter 2000-2001guage as an Interactive Phenom-enon. A. Duranti and C. Goodwin,eds. Pp. 1-42. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Goodwin, Marjorie Harness1990 He-Said-She-Said: Talk as So-cial Organization among Black Chil-dren. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Uni-versity Press.

Grenoble, Lenore A., and Lindsay J.Whaley.eds.

1998 Endangered Languages: Cur-rent Issues and Future Prospects.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Gumperz, John J., and Dell Hymes, eds.1964 The Ethnography of Commu-nication. American Anthropologist66, 6, part II.

1972 Directions in Sociolinguistics:The Ethnography of Communica-tion. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.

Hall, Kira1999 Performativity. Journal of Lin-guistic Anthropology 9(1-2): 184-7.[Reprinted in Duranti 2001c]

Hanks, William F.1990 Referential Practice: Languageand Lived Space Among the Maya.Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

1999 Indexicality. Journal of Linguis-tic Anthropology 9.124-6. [Re-printed in Duranti 2001c]

Heritage, John1984 Garfinkel and Ethnometho-dology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hill, Jane H., and Kenneth C. Hill1986 Speaking Mexicano: Dynam-ics of a Syncretic Language in Cen-tral Mexico. Tucson: University ofArizona Press.

Hill, Jane H. and Judith T. Rivine, eds.1993 Responsibility and Evidence inOral Discourse. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Hill, Jane H., and Bruce Mannheim1992 Language and World View.Annual Review of Anthropology21:381-406.

Hoijer, Harry1961 Anthropological Linguistics. In

Trends in European and AmericanLinguistics 1930-1960. C.Mohrmann, A. Sommerfelt and J.Whatmough, eds. Pp. 110-25.

Utrecht and Antwerp: SpectrumPublishers.

Hymes, Dell1964 General Introduction. In Lan-guage in Culture and Society: AReader in Linguistics and Anthropol-ogy. D. Hymes, ed. Pp. xxi-xxxii.New York: Harper & Row.1972a Models of the Interaction ofLanguage and Social Life. In Direc-tions in Sociolinguistics: The Eth-nography of Communication. J.J.Gumperz and D. Hymes, eds. Pp. 35-71. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.1972b On Communicative Compe-tence. In Sociolinguistics. J.B. Prideand J. Holmes, eds. Pp. 269-285.Harmondsworth: Penguin.1975 Breakthrough into Perfor-mance. In Folklore: Performanceand Communication. D. Ben-Amosand K.S. Goldstein, eds. Pp. 11-74.The Hague: Mouton.

Kroskrity, Paul V, ed.2000 Regimes of Language: Ideolo-gies, Politics and Identities. SantaFe, NM: School of American Re-search Press.

Kuhn, Thomas1962 The Structure of ScientificRevolutions. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Levinson, Stephen C.2000 YelT Dnye and the Theory ofBasic Color Terms. Journal of Lin-guistic Anthropology 10(1).

Lucy, John A.1992a Grammatical Categories andCognition: A Case Study of the Lin-guistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

1992b Language Diversity and Cog-nitive Development: A Reformula-tion of the Linguistic Relativity Hy-pothesis. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Martin, Laura1986 Eskimo Words for Snow: ACase Study in the Genesis and De-cay of an Anthropological Example.American Anthropologist 88:418-423.

Moore, Robert E.1999 Endangered. Journal of Lin-guistic Anthropology 9:65-8.

Murray, Stephen O.1998 American Sociolinguistics:Theorists and Theory Groups.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.

Ochs, Elinor1979 Transcription as Theory. InDevelopmental Pragmatics. E. Ochsand B.B. Schieffelin, eds. Pp. 43-72.New York: Academic Press.

Ochs, Elinor, and Lisa Capps1996 Narrating the Self. Annual Re-view of Anthropology 25:19-43.

2001 Living Narrative. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Pike, Kenneth L.1963 The Teaching of LinguisticAnthropology: Choices in CourseDesign. In The Teaching of Anthro-pology. D.G. Mandelbaum, G.W.Lasker, and E.M. Albert, eds. Pp.315-31: American AnthropologicalAssociation. Memoir 94.

Saussure, F. de1966. Course in General Linguistics.

Edited by Charles Bally and AlbertSechehaye in collaboration withAlbert Riedlinger. Translanted andwith an introduction by WadeBaskin. New York: McGraw Hill.

Schieffelin, Bambi B., KathrynWoolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity, eds.

1998 Language Ideologies: Practiceand Theory. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Searle, John R.1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in thePhilosophy of Language. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Silverstein, Michael1976 Shifters, Linguistic Categories,and Cultural Description. In Mean-ing in Anthropology. K.H. Basso andH.A. Selby, eds. Pp. 11-56. Albu-querque: University of New MexicoPress.1981 The Limits of Awareness.Sociolinguistic Working Paper No.84. Austin: Southwest EducationalDevelopment Laboratory.

Voegelin, Charles F., and Zellig S.Harris1952 Training in anthropological lin-guistics. American Anthropologist54:322-7. TA