ANT LEC Notes - Week 8-14 + Final Study Guide PDF

**[Week 8]** ======================== **Introducing Linguistics Anthropology** ---------------------------------------- Why Linguistic Anthropology - - - - - - - - - - - What\'s the point - - 1. - 2. - - - - - - - - - - -...

**[Week 8]** ======================== **Introducing Linguistics Anthropology** ---------------------------------------- Why Linguistic Anthropology - - - - - - - - - - - What\'s the point - - 1. - 2. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What are you really saying - - - What is Linguistic Anthropology - Three Sets Of Questions - - - - - - - - - - - Wednesday lecture: **How are meanings created?** ----------------------------- How we think about language (study) and how we approach it has changed severely over time In the past, linguistic anthropologists wanted to study all languages as they study Greek and Latin - these two languages were considered superior **Historical Linguistics** Historical linguistics was born out of studying how languages are related to one another and how they have differed over time Historical linguists are able to find out when similar languages (e.g. Spanish and French) began to 'split up' They then form language groups e.g. Bantu For historical linguists, it is the comparison between languages that they are interested in They do not care much about how languages are actually used **Ferdinand De Saussure** He declared that the study of linguistics needed to change its focus to the use of language in the now He is considered the father of modern-day linguistics He likened language to chess: - - - He also likened language to music: - - - - de Saussure makes two main arguments regarding what linguistics ought to study: 1. 2. de Saussure believes that there is no direct correlation between words and the objects they consider However, we are able to connect the sounds produced during speech with mental concepts in our head He emphasises that by knowing the structure of a language, we are able to do so This is similar to the constructivist approach of emotions de Saussure believes that every word is made up of two things: signifier (sound image) and signified (mental concept) Only when these two are connected then a word can function as a sign (as a word symbolising an object) **How does someone make sense of sounds?** We must learn how to connect the signifier and signified However, de Saussure believes that this is only a conventional relationship de Saussure argued that we need to figure out the system that underlies the mess (speech) i.e. the structure and rules that allow people to communicate Words are symbolic: they are arbitrary de Saussure believes that words derive their meaning from: 1. 2. Meanings are derived from the position of a word in the structure of language **Shortfalls of de Saussure** He did not focus at all about the usage of language e.g. having an accent, how it indicates culture He drew a clear circle around language de Saussure is interested in a perfectly-spoken language, with a perfect accent, in a place where culture is homogenous However, this is not possible because language is culturally-tied inherently - it only exists through culture e.g. difference between pop and soda de Saussure laid the foundation for a lot of how we think about and study language New variations of Saussurian principles emerge all the time e.g. Noam Chomsky However, linguistic anthropologists wished to go further than the findings of de Saussure **Indexicality** This is a concept that helps us pinpoint the ways in which language and social relations interact It complicates the Saussurian sign relation: - - - - This complication was introduced by Charles S. Peirce Indexicality allows us to understand how languages (linguistic forms) point to aspects of social or cultural context and identities **Semiosis** Pierce believed that a sign consists of (tripartite theory of the sign): - - - Pierce believed that there were 3 types of signs if we (linguists) pay attention to WHO is interpreting the sign 1. A sign that refers to its object by similarity (it resembles/represents what it stands for) e.g. a map Words can be iconic e.g. animal sounds like woof However, iconic words are conventional 2. Signs that "point to" something, either in a temporal or contextual way This allows us to understand how slangs, accents, dialects indicate meaning E.g. mercury thermometer 3. A sign that refers to its object by virtue of convention or habit Most words are in this group These signs' meanings have to be learned **Language Ideology** Language ideology is the evaluation (what someone thinks) as a result of Indexicality **[Week 9]** ======================== **Animal Communication** ------------------------ Is language uniquely human? Or are animals capable of communicating like and with humans? It has been thought that humans use of language distinguishes them (in terms of superiority, cognition, etc.) from animals, and even from their closest non-human primates Growth in research on animal communication has led to the following questions: - This is; do they have the cognitive capacity to develop language (one similar in complexity to human language) If they do not have this capacity, can they acquire this language It is true that animals communicate through scent, posture, colour, facial expressions, etc. - but does this qualify as 'language'? - Animals certainly communicate, but is this system of communication the same (in terms of complexity) as human language? The argument is that not just any form of communication qualifies as language Scholars have found that animal communication is symptom-based and stimulus bound Animals communicate in 'the here and now' This communication is instinctive and is merely done as a response to ongoing activities **Hockett's Design Features** The linguist Charles Hockett came up with a list of 13 design features of language Design features are the characteristics of language that distinguish it from other communicative systems These features distinguish human language from animal language A significant number of the features were quickly disputed (that is to say that; they were also found present in animal communication systems) Therefore, it is evident that animal communication systems are actually a lot more complex than what humans originally thought If a system lacks even one of those features, it is not (human) language but MERELY communication There still remained 5 features that makes (human) language distinct They are commonly considered to indicate that animals communicate, but do not approach the complexity of human language Based on the following 5 features, it is certain that human language is very distinct to animal language However, this does not mean that animal language is not complex as well e.g. whales communicating using sonar waves Though, animals do not use superior cognitive capabilities to communicate 1. Arbitrariness is unique to human language It requires a lot of cognitive function to be able to make use of language Animal communication is mainly iconic or indexical hence, these are not arbitrary (learned) Consider (dancing) bees or vervet monkeys; they make use of an arbitrary system of communication Therefore, this feature does not distinguish human and animal language 1. For the case of vervet monkeys, in a study done on baby vervet monkeys they proved to respond incorrectly to some of the vocalisations Therefore, it was evident that they hadn't yet LEARNED the proper responses Hockett argued that at least some aspect of a communication system should be learned from other users Rather than purely innate or instinctive, a language is learned from others However, as proved by the baby vervet monkeys, animals do also make mistakes Therefore, this feature does not distinguish human and animal language 1. Speakers can create an infinite number of novel sentences, that nobody has ever used before, and others an still understand them Animals, Hockett argues, do not have the capacity to string signs or vocalisations together to create new calls or signs Humans can create new words or combine words to create novel signs and animals cannot Productivity is an elusive element that is unique to human language as no research has ever seen animals combine words or create new words in a syntax-like manner Therefore, this feature does distinguish human and animal language 1. Displacement means that as humans, we can talk about things that are not necessarily in 'the here and now' (the present) We can talk about the past or future, imagined events, abstract concepts, etc. Animal communication systems are focused on the present Unless excellently conditioned, animals cannot process things not present Displacement allows humans to lie Therefore, this feature does distinguish human and animal language It is one of the most evident examples of the uniqueness of human language 1. Humans have a capability to talk about language (language can be used to talk about language) This function of language is known as metalanguage In the wild, we do not see e.g. dogs barking about barking Therefore, this feature does distinguish human and animal language Wednesday's lecture **Do animals have the capacity for language?** ---------------------------------------------- The question to ask is: with enough exposure, can animals actually learn human language? The truth is, animals cannot actually understand human language They are just really well conditioned animals, and they are quite privy to conditioning There is no evidence to suggest that animals have the capacity for language Gua and Vicky: - - - - - - Koko, the gorilla: - - Drawbacks of the above experiments: - - - Project Nim: Nim Chimpsky was a chimp that was raised as a human child that learned sign language quite rapidly. Drawbacks: - - - - - - Kanzi, the bonobo: - - - - - Conclusion; we (anthropologists/researchers) are simply hopeful that the chimps would be able to use language, however there is no evidence to suggest this While these animals have a remarkable memory, there is no evidence to suggest they understand any syntax --- different notes, same lecture (should be around the same notes) --- Question from PowerPoint: - - - - - - \_ Washoe the chimpanzee was taught ASL in the 1970s. She learnt over 130 signs, which her teachers claimed she used without being prompted. They were raised as a human child. They also claimed Washoe demonstrated productivity, making sentences, and even producing new words. Also suggested that the human language is unique to humans. They are only not memorizing the word or shapes, but also capable of making sentences. **The Water-Bird Example:** - - - - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. It was conditional because Nim understood that if this happens, that happens, or this sign means they might be rewarded by their scholar. - - - - - Are animals capable of learning the human language is still a great question. ### **Reading notes (1) - Week 9** Can Animals Learn Language Like Humans Do? by Tim Brinkhof \"\...the way in which a particular species communicates isn\'t universal, but predicated on evolution and further modified by conspecific social interaction.\" **Summary** The reading is an article about some of the research that has been done into language use about animals. Although animals do not seem to use language intelligently, they do employ methods of communication (sometimes verbal) of varying complexity to survive and navigate their environment. **Talking to Animals** - - - - - - **Language vs. Communication** - - - ### **Reading notes (2) - Week 9** Do Animals Use Language by Donna Jo Napoli \"\...we have to say that animals do not use language, even though they communicate with one another in ways that share some of its characteristics\" **Summary** The chapter offers five characteristics of human language and applies it some observations of communication among animal species. As no animal communication embodies all five characteristics, it concludes that animals do not use language. It briefly discusses communication among bees, birds, whales, dolphins, and primates, as well as some instances where animals were taught to communicate with humans. **Five Characteristics of Human Language** 1. - 2. - 3. - 4. 5. - 5. - **Animals Don\'t Use Language** - **\[Not\] The Bees** - - - **Birdsong** - - **Whale and Dolphin Songs** - - **Chimpanzee Noises** - **Teaching Animals to Speak** - - - - Week 10 ======= **You Are What You Speak** -------------------------- The connection between language and thought: - - - Why so few conclusive studies? - Linguistic Determinism: - Franz Boas: - - - - Edward Sapir: main figure in linguistic anthropology, truly fascinating thinker, he provided a strong idea of language relativity. He emphasized equality of language and having complex thoughts. \" We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.\" Benjamin Lee Whorf: - Hopi language of Indigenous Peoples: - Comparison between English and Hopi: - - Hopi: - - - - Looking at the grammatical categories: - - - Whorf argued that, those grammatical expressions Hopis view of the world, habitually inclined to pay attention to how habitually correct your The habitual nature of their practice. It doesn\'t mean our cognition is changed to understand and conceptualize anything else. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: - 1. - - 2. - - Wednesdays lecture: **How to Study Linguistic Relativity** Remember, linguistic relativity is the proposal that the language we speak influences or shapes the way we view the world This relationship is based on predisposition rather than it being deterministic Linguistic relativity remains controversial because of its supposed implications There are 3 questions which require answering when investigating linguistic relativity 1. 2. 3. **Semiotic Relativity** This 'angle' examines language in general It asks what impact our access to language has on our thinking Does having any language influence thinking? How do the cognitive processes of humans who know at least one language differ from animals/humans who never learned a language? Tests and studies in this category include looking at non-human communication (animals) and child development (language acquisition among children) Knowing a language, and particularly the ability to use conventional symbols and complex grammatical structures, has an identifiable cognitive effect Animals: - - - Children: - - - - **Structural Relativity** The main line of enquiry here is: how does speaking one or more specific languages (e.g. Hopi vs. English) influence thinking? How do specific structures within a particular language, such as grammatical categories, influence thinking or behaviour? Tests and studies in this category focus on how morphosyntactic configurations of meaning affect thinking Tests are usually comparative across languages Grammatical categories: - - - Semantic domains: - - - Spatial frames of reference: - - - - **Discursive Relativity** The main line of enquiry here is: does using language in a particular way influence thinking? Discursive relativity has a lot to do with the words we use to talk about things Discursive relativity has a lot to do with media, or metaphors Can language use (rather than linguistic structure) have an impact on cognition? Week 11 ======= **Language and Worldviews** --------------------------- If you were raised speaking a different language/without a language, would you perceive the world differently? How much do we rely on language to perceive the world - how much does language shape how we think? Early debates focused only on the influence of language on thought, and vice-versa e.g. Aristotle and Plato However, anthropologists consider a triad of culture, language, thought. These 3 influence each other and these allow us to perceive each other The linguistic anthropologist approach is not deterministic, it is one of influence Language gives us a predisposition when we make judgements about the world However, this predisposition can be challenged and escaped **The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis** This is the proposal that the particular language we speak influences, NOT determines, the way we think about reality Shortcomings of this hypothesis: - - - - Therefore, this hypothesis only becomes a problem when observed under a 'deterministic' light This is why anthropologists look at (mutual) influence, not determinism There exists a mutually influential relationship among language, culture and thought, but language shapes culture and thought more than people might realise **Franz Boas** He argued very strongly against dominant theories at the time e.g. there were certain languages that were more complex than other, hence more primitive to deriving more complex thoughts He concluded that structural differences in language are not indicative of our ability to think He also thought that language and culture are so inherently intertwined, that language must be deeply understood first in order to understand cultural practices Therefore, for Boas language wasn't the focus of his analysis, it was a means to try understand culture **Whorf, Sapir and Hopi** Edward Sapir was a student of Franz Boad Argued that humans are all equally capable of complex thought "We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation." Benjamin Lee Whorf is one of the main scholars referenced by linguistic anthropologists He was a student of Sapir He wanted to find out why fires are started - began as a fire prevention officer A very famous example he used was the 'empty gasoline drums' He concluded that language shapes people's behaviour (and thought) Whorf studied the Hopi language - - - Whorf examined grammatical categories such as verbs - - - - - Does that mean that Hopi cannot conceptualise time? - - **Sapir-Whorf "Hypothesis"** Grammatical categories of particular languages will lead speakers to think about things in different ways In popular thinking, this hypothesis is believed to be deterministic - the individual cannot think outside of their language However, Whorf never intended for this to be his argument - he argued for linguistic relativity NOT linguistic determinism **[Wednesday]** **How to Study Linguistic Relativity** -------------------------------------- Remember, linguistic relativity is the proposal that the language we speak influences or shapes the way we view the world This relationship is based on predisposition rather than it being deterministic Linguistic relativity remains controversial because of its supposed implications There are 3 questions which require answering when investigating linguistic relativity 1. 2. 3. **Semiotic Relativity** This 'angle' examines language in general It asks what impact our access to language has on our thinking Does having any language influence thinking? How do the cognitive processes of humans who know at least one language differ from animals/humans who never learned a language? Tests and studies in this category include looking at non-human communication (animals) and child development (language acquisition among children) Knowing a language, and particularly the ability to use conventional symbols and complex grammatical structures, has an identifiable cognitive effect Animals: - - - Children: - - - - **Structural Relativity** The main line of enquiry here is: how does speaking one or more specific languages (e.g. Hopi vs. English) influence thinking? How do specific structures within a particular language, such as grammatical categories, influence thinking or behaviour? Tests and studies in this category focus on how morphosyntactic configurations of meaning affect thinking Tests are usually comparative across languages Grammatical categories: - - - Semantic domains: - - - Spatial frames of reference: - - - - **Discursive Relativity** The main line of enquiry here is: does using language in a particular way influence thinking? Discursive relativity has a lot to do with the words we use to talk about things Can language use (rather than linguistic structure) have an impact on cognition? Discursive relativity has a lot to do with media, or metaphors Week 12 ======= If the language we speak impacts the way we view the world, is the way we learn language also culturally mediated? What is the difference between acquisition versus socialisation **Language Acquisition: how do we become competent speakers?** -------------------------------------------------------------- What defines our linguistic competence (speaking in a linguistically correct way e.g. correct grammar, conjugation, etc.) and communicative competence? How do we acquire language? How do we learn to use language? Is language acquisition part of biological predisposition (nature) or is it learned (nurture)? **B. F. Skinner** They argued that children learn through: association, limitation, reinforcement Therefore, language is solely acquired through nurture Skinner argued that there is nothing that biologically develops that helps with language We may be predisposed to learn language, but we can only speak it when we use input Objections: - - just learn through input, they can make novel sentences - **Noam Chomsky** Chomsky concluded that it is not about input at all, rather children have an innate capability to acquire language (innatist) It advances as a child grows (and children encounter more language), just as the body develops when we get more nutrients This is a process that happens automatically (instinctive) without any prompt (active input) from our environment A major basis of his argument was that: - - Children can then deduce the grammatical conventions that make up a language to use speech more effective Chomsky's argument was very similar to de Saussure; speech is messy, language is structure and rules (a system) And even still, we all have an innate language device that allows us to form rules out of speech, to deduct the system form the messiness we hear Chomsky noted that children: - - - Chomsky argued that instead of this 'predisposition' being limited to the environment, it is constrained by the Language Acquisition Device (LAD): this is a set of tools provided at birth that focuses specifically on the acquisition of language Universal Grammar (UG) is the basis upon which all human languages build, and which the LAD is pre-wired to detect The LAD looks out for aspects of UG The argument is that between the age of 2-7, children are able to hear languages and try understand them before the age of 2 but the LAD becomes active until the age of 7 After this, it is not easy to effortlessly learn a new language The above can be referred to as the critical period Chomsky also implores Linneberg's concept of the 'Critical Period' as proof that language is a product of innate predisposition Criticisms: - - - - - - **[Wednesday]** The critical period raises an important argument for the nature vs. nurture argument If language is nature-based, then exceeding the critical period would not allow language to be learned at all If language is nurture-based, then exceeding the critical period would have no effect on language, and the child would still be able to learn language The most ethical way to study the critical period is through feral children e.g. Genie The conclusion is that language acquisition is tied to maturing one's cognitive capabilities (e.g. memorisation, etc.) It cannot solely be attributed to either nature or nurture, but it is certainly supported by the nature side - however, this is not agreed upon In totality, language development is likely linked to our overall development, our sagacity for symbolic representation or even social needs **Language Socialisation** -------------------------- The qs is, then, is the social environment completely devoid of meaning for language acquisition and socialisation? If no, how does the social (environment) impact language learning? How does the innate human capacity to learn a language intersect with the culturally and linguistically specific factors of a child's upbringing? **Language Ideologies as an Analytical Tool** Language ideologies are the attitudes, opinions, beliefs or theories we have about language They are formed by a cultural and historical background Research on language ideologies focused on the 'caregiver register' as the basis for comparison. Research was done (1984) in 3 main regions/populations: North American, Kaluli and Samoan: NORTH-AMERICAN - - - - - KALULI - - - - SAMOA - - - - - Importantly, all the children studied learned their mother tongue fluently - all children acquired the language, and had no problem with it These practices are a reflection of language ideologies within their societies and cultures Therefore, the 'caregiver register' is not a given and is merely a sociological phenomenon Societies differ in their expectations of what children can and should communicate E.g. in Kaluli and Samoa, the children were being socialised into the norms of the societies and cultures they grew up in This research differs from both Skinner and Chomsky, it presents a totally new perspective It shows that children take a very active role in constructing a language that is most useful for their needs, and appropriate to their social status, within a particular social context **Conclusions** It is evident that language acquisition and socialisation are inherently connected, they go hand-in- hand From this, it can be said that: - - - Therefore, language acquisition is not just about an innate capacity to learn language, but goes together with becoming a competent member of society **Other Language Socialisation aspects** [Throughout the lifespan:] Language socialisation does not end with childhood, it happens throughout one's lifetime It is not limited to one language or just childhood E.g. when you land a new job, you need to learn the language expectations for that job [In North America:] Shirley Brice Heath - - - - How do different socialization practices reflect in other aspects of a child\'s development? Three communities socialize their children differently into literacy, which differently impacts their school performance later on. This cannot be explained on some basis of \"race.\" Mainstream education is often alianed with upper-middle class practices. **[Week 13]** ========================= **Language and Race (1 of 2)** ------------------------------ The "folk theory" outlines race as a biological fact. It defines race to be a basic category of human biological variation, combined with the idea that each human being can be assigned to a race. However, there are several objections contesting this theory: - - - - These objections render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations arbitrary and subjective. Therefore, the "folk theory" traces back to outdated theories that emerged in more racialised histories. **Race as a Social Category** Anthropology aligns with the truth that race is not based in biology. As a social category, then, race is real: it influences people's life trajectories and identities. However, it is better to consider it as a process for racialisation and not a primordial biological essence. The concept of race provides anthropologists with insights into the cultural and social meanings people ascribe to perceived or actual biological differences, such as skin colour or hair type. Furthermore, parameters of racial classification are not a biological given. - - - - Note that, by limiting race to a social construct this does not mean that race is not real. However, it proves that race is inherently tied to discussions of power and inequality. E.g. if someone in authority assigns power/value to a certain race/characteristic, it becomes grounds for discrimination. **Standard Language Ideology** Language can be easily used as a means to discriminate against people. We tend to be convinced that there exists a 'standard' language that is more correct, proper, etc. It is not an apolitical view, but one that is tied to history and society. The Standard Language Ideology, as outlined by Lippi-Green, refers to "a bias toward an abstracted, idealized, homogenous spoken language which is imposed and maintained by dominant bloc institutions and which names as its model the written language, but which is drawn primarily from the spoken language of the upper-middle class." There is an inherently better variety of a language that keeps the language together, it is a symbol of national unity. When people refuse to learn the standard language, this is a divisive idea. There is an institutional attribution of value to one language over another. Note that, there is never anything actually better for this language. It is just a matter of whether or not it was spoken by those in power in the past. Therefore, those able to speak this 'better' language are assumed to speak without an accent. The opposite is true for the vernacular level of English. [Education is central in this process] The question then is why are people so susceptible to the notion of a standard language? **Language Subordination Model** This was invented by Lippi-Green. It is accompanied by the accommodation theory. **[Wednesday's Notes ]** **Language and Race (2 of 2)** ------------------------------ **Accommodation Theory** On who is the communicative burden? Who is expected to \"fix\" their language to be understood? Who is expected to make the effort for the interaction to run smoothly? Who accommodates whom? The accents we hear go through our language ideology filters. Who can reject the communicative burden? **African-American English** Some of the ideologies surrounding African-American (Black) English are that it is... - - However; - - - - Consider the following popular cases of rule-governed Black English: - - - state of being - - sentence - common even in Shakespearean works - - - - English - Therefore, the idea that these misconceptions are illogical are language ideologies Throughout history, there's misconceptions became stigmatised In truth, all dialects and language varieties (of English) are equally logical and grammatical Lippi-Green claimed that "the real problem with Black English... is a general unwillingness to accept the speakers of that language and the social choices they have made as viable and functional." Therefore, language ideologies such as these (of Black English) 'naturalise' racial categories That is; the ideologies make them seem as naturally given categories, rather than social categories shaped through socio-historical processes Status assigned to standard English is arbitrary and merely a function of politics **Racism in Language** For sure there is overt-racism e.g. using discriminative words But what about covert racism? How does racism enter our everyday talk? Racism is not just a quality of individuals, but rather a product of institutions From young, we are exposed to certain discourses and ideologies (by authority powers e.g. the media) which shape our thinking In public spaces, who is expected to monitor or fix their speech? This demonstrates the distinction between unmarked and marked language use For example, consider Spanish and English: - - - - - Whites' linguistic heterogeneity is not viewed as a 'disorder' - they are not literally 'speaking Spanish'. Instead, they are simply being 'natural': funny, relaxed, colloquial This heterogeneity is not permitted to e.g. Puerto Ricans Again, such language ideologies are stereotypes naturalise racial categories **Covert Racist Discourse** We will consider Mock Spanish to illustrate this Most often in everyday speech, movies, commercials, etc. people will use phrases like "Hasta la vista", "no problemo", "mañana" Jane Hill says that this is not naturalising racism due to its direct indexicality but due to its indirect indexicality The direct indexicality is that using such phrases is funny and cosmopolitan However, the indirect indexicality elevates whiteness, and racialises Spanish speakers Without awareness of (racist) stereotypes, Mock Spanish jokes would not be funny Therefore, in order to make sense of Mock Spanish, interlocutors require access to very negative racialising representations Cover racism, then, racialises its subordinate group(s) through indirect indexicality **Racism Enacted through Language** For sure there is racism enacted through language within actual interactions e.g. using discriminative words, behaviour, etc. However, there is another way to do this: linguistic profiling For example, consider Baugh's study of rental market - - ### **Reading Notes (1) - Language and Gender (Laura M. Ahearn)** **Summary:** This reading explores the relationship between language and gender, dismantling myths about universal gendered communication styles and emphasizing the cultural and situational variability of gendered language use. It critiques traditional assumptions about men and women\'s speech, highlights significant research, and examines how societal norms shape linguistic practices. **Key Points:** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - **Key Terms:** - - - ### **Reading Notes (2) - Dude, You're a Fag: Adolescent Male Homophobia (Chapter 3)** **Summary:** This chapter examines the use of \"fag\" as a disciplinary mechanism among adolescent boys at River High, revealing how it shapes masculinity. The term's usage is fluid and context-dependent, extending beyond homophobia to encompass broader notions of gendered behavior and social power. **Key Points:** - - - - - - - - - - - - - **Key Terms:** - - - **[Week 14]** ========================= **Language and Gender (1 of 2)** -------------------------------- There is an evident link between language and gender. There are a couple ways to investigate this: - - - **Gender as a Social Construct** From the moment we are (or before we are) born, we are ascribed to a certain gender category - either boy or girl. This is shaped by culture and it remains true even in the current state of more awareness regarding gender fluidity. E.g. consider gender reveal parties. Therefore, sex and gender are concepts that are influenced by cultural and social norms and practices. Sex is considered to be based on biology, it determines whether one is male or female based on chromosomes. Therefore, it is binary. Gender, on the other hand, is built upon a set of culturally and historically specific practices that amplify, simplify and give meaning to perceived or actual biological differences. 1. 2. 3. 4. Many people are convinced that gender is innately cultural, its boundaries and frameworks will differ between various cultural contexts. Sex, as believed by anthropologists, is a spectrum. It is not binary, it is not a clearly defined dichotomous categorisation, but instead people can lie anywhere on the spectrum. They believe that biological sex is not determined by one single characteristic, but by things such as: physical appearance, chromosomes, hormones, etc. The argument for this spectrum, then, is that there are different compositions that make up someone's biological sex. Despite majority of people following on the ends of the dichotomous category of male/female, we cannot ignore the 'in between'. How is it possible for gender to be a construct? For people who align with their gender inscription, this idea may seem strange as their behaviour seems 'natural' as per the societal predisposition of gender (due to the fact that gender is learned). It is the opposite for those who do not align with their gender inscription. **The Role of Language in the Reproduction of Gendered Ideologies: Markedness and Indirect** **Indexicality** Markedness is the idea that there are linguistic differences that are marked in relation to the Standard Language. These are marked because they deviate from the default. Markedness asks \"what is being taken for granted?\" or \"What is the implied default here?\" Not about prestige necessarily, but about what is considered the \"default.\" \"Masculine ways\" of speaking are often considered the unmarked way, the default and normal way of speaking. For example; in popular media, formal, white-collar jobs (like a scientist and engineer) or award winners (like Nobel Prize) are assumed to be male. In order to denote a female winner, marked language (e.g. "female scientist") must be used. Grammatical categories and pronouns - use of he, she, they? Use of \"you/these guys\"? The current standard practice is to use "they" as a neutral pronoun, however it is still an example of marked language. All of these above examples demonstrate how language reproduces gendered ideologies. However, the reality is that it is not a must to use a gendered pronoun for a verb conjugation to make sense. In fact, it is not a given in all languages to distinguish between male and female pronouns. Kiswahili, for example, makes no gender distinction in personal pronouns. An objection to this is that Swahili is not as grammatically complex. However, on the contrary, Swahili is just as grammatically complex as any other language - if not more! Indirect indexicality asks: \"how might certain styles, forms or discourses be pointing to gendered norms or codes (reproduce gendered inequalities)?\" **[Tuesdays, final lecture ]** **Language and Gender (2 of 2)** -------------------------------- As we shall see below, there will be 3 questions which this topic shall answer. These are: Do men and women speak alike or differently? - - - If the realities of language and gender are so varied, why are these ideologies so recognisable to us? - Why should we care if one or more of our gendered language ideologies might be inaccurate or at least overly simplistic? - **Do men and women speak differently?** Deborah Tannen wanted to understand what the differences were between men and women speaking. She thought that by collecting information and analysing it, she would be able to help men and women better communicate with each other. Deborah Tannen\'s difference between \"rapport talk\" and \"report talk\": - - - "Rapport talk" was typical of women. Women are focused on building a rapport, a communication, a connection with people they speak with. "Report talk" was typical of men. Men, instead of trying to build a connection, were more focused on reporting factual, direct pieces of information. Drawbacks of Tannen's research: - - - Questions in Monday\'s poll were proven to not hold ground. These are also supported by other studies. The results were; - - These 'other' studies illustrate that particular behaviours are learned. They are nothing to do with an innate predisposition. In conclusion, the only way to challenge these stereotypes (of Tannen's research) are to conduct studies of specific contexts, and start from the interactions rather than assuming gender differences. **How to study language and gender?** Focus not on pre-existing differences but on actual practice, to then see if there are differences that fall along gender lines. Consider gossiping to illustrate the link between language and gender, as studied by Penelope Eckert: - - - - - - Therefore, Eckert's study concluded that gossip was not a gendered practice based on nature predisposition, but it was due to being socialised into a gendered practice. Consider another researcher, Deborah Cameron, who also studied the link between language and gender: - - - Cameron concluded that her student could not have known this was gossip as the student themself was a man, hence they simply believed that the young men were engaging in heteronormative practices. But, instead, they were actually gossiping - they were engaging in everything that gossip is characteristic of. **Language, Gender, and the Power of Discourse** What ideas of masculinity do we hold? - - The violence of discourse: - - - - Dude, you\'re a fag - - - Anthropology, then, is not just the study of feminism or the LGBTQ+ community. It looks at the impact of language on masculinity, and the impact of discourse on toxic masculinity. **[(My own notes for tuesdays lecture) ]** Language and gender MARKEDNESS: - - - - - - INDIRECT INDEXICALITY: - - Do men and women speak differently? - - - - - - - - - - - - - How to study language and gender? - - - - Gossip - - - - - - - - - Deborah Cameron - - - - - - - - - - - Toxic Masculinity - - - - - - - - - - - - To Conclude - - - - - - - - FINAL STUDY GUIDE ================= #### **Hockett's Design Features** - - - - - - - #### **Animal Communication vs. Human Language** - - - - - #### **Historical Linguistics** - - - #### **Ferdinand de Saussure and Theory of the Sign** - - - - - #### **Communicative Competence** - - - - #### **Linguistic Competence** - - #### **Peirce's Model of the Sign** - - - - - - #### **Language Ideology** - - #### **Indexicality** - - #### **Linguistic Relativity and Determinism** - - #### **Franz Boas** - #### **Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis** - - #### **Whorf's Hopi Study** - - #### **Three 'Angles' for Studying Linguistic Relativity** 1. 2. 3. #### **Spatial Frames of Reference** - - #### **Metaphors** - - #### **Language Acquisition and Language Socialization** - - #### **Nature vs. Nurture in Language Acquisition** - - #### **B.F. Skinner** - - #### **Noam Chomsky and Theoretical Concepts** - - #### **Critical Period** - - #### **The Case of Genie** - - #### **Theory of Mind and False Belief Test** - - #### **Deb Roy's Study** - - #### **Caregiver Register** - - #### **Race (Anthropology's View)** - - #### **Discussions Surrounding AAE** - - #### **Racism in Language** - - #### #### **Standard Language Ideology** - - #### **Anthropological Understandings of Gender** - #### **Characteristics of Gender** 1. 2. 3. #### **Markedness** - - #### **Deborah Tannen's Study** - - -