Nature of Language PDF

108 CHAPTER SIX LANGUAGE How does human language differ from forms of communication in other animals? ·Are some languages superior to others? ·What is the relationship between language and culture? ·How do people communicate without using words? The Nature of Language Perhaps the most distinctive fe...

108 CHAPTER SIX LANGUAGE How does human language differ from forms of communication in other animals? ·Are some languages superior to others? ·What is the relationship between language and culture? ·How do people communicate without using words? The Nature of Language Perhaps the most distinctive feature of being human is the capacity to create and use language and other sym-bolic forms of communication. It is hard to imagine how culture could even exist without language.Such fundamental aspects of any culture as religion, family relationships, and the management of technology would be virtually impossible without a symbolic form of com-munication. Our very capacity to adapt to the physical environment-which involves identifying usable re-sources, developing ways of acquiring them,and finally forming groups to exploit them-is made possible by language. It is generally held that language is the major vehicle for human thought, since our linguistic cate-gories provide the basis for perception and concept for-mation. Moreover, it is largely through language that we pass on our cultural heritage from one generation to the next. In short, language is such an integral part of the human condition that it permeates everything we do. For excellent introductions to the anthropological study of language, see Fromkin and Rodman (1993)and Salzmann (1993). The term language, like so many others that we think we understand, is far more complex than we might imagine. Language, which is found in all cultures of the world, is a symbolic system of sounds that,when put together according to a certain set of rules, conveys meanings to its speakers. The meanings attached to any given word in all languages are totally arbitrary.That is,the word cow has no particular connection to the large bovine animal that the English language refers to as a cow. The word cow is a no more or less reasonable word for that animal than would be kaflumpha, sporge, or four-pronged squirter. The word cow does not look like a cow,sound like a cow, or have any particular physical con- nection to a cow. The only explanation for the use of the word is that somewhere during the evolution of the English language someone decided that the word cow would be used to refer to a large domesticated animal that gives an abundant quantity of milk. Other lan-guages use totally different, and equally arbitrary, words to describe the very same animal. Diversity of Language Given the very arbitrary nature of languages,it should come as no surprise that there is enormous linguistic diversity among human populations. Even though lin-guists do not agree on precisely how many discrete lan-guages exist, a reasonable estimate would be six thou-sand (Diamond 1993). The criterion used to establish such estimates is mutual unintelligibility. That is, lin-guists assume that if people can understand one an-other, they speak the same language; if they are unable to understand one another, they speak different lan-guages. The application of this criterion is not as straightforward as it might appear, however, because there are always differing degrees of intelligibility.Nevertheless, despite our inability to establish the precise number of discrete languages found in the world today, the amount of linguistic diversity is vast.(Exhibit 6-1 illustrates the world's major language families.) looking ahead For an example ofhow anthropological insights about language differences in the United States can contribute to the settling of a court dispute, see Applied Perspective 2 at the end of this chapter. Communlcation-Human Versus Nonhuman Communication is certainly not unique to humans,for most animals have ways of sending and receiving mes- amoebae seem to chemically send and re-ceive crude messages by discharging small amounts of carbon dioxide. sages. Various bird species use certain calls to commu-nicate a desire to mate; honeybees communicate the distance and direction of sources of food very accu-rately through a series of body movements; certain antelope species give off a cry that warns of impending danger; even Communication among primates, of course, is con-siderably more complex. Certain nonhuman primate species, such as gorillas and chimpanzees, draw on a relatively large number of modes of communication, in-cluding various calls as well as such nonverbal forms of communication as facial expressions, body movement,and gestures. Yet despite the relative complexity of communication patterns among nonhuman primates,these patterns differ from human patterns of communi-cation in some significant ways. For example, since ani-mal call systems are to a large extent genetically based,they are rigidly inflexible to the extent that each call al-ways has the same form and conveys the same meaning. Open and Closed Communication Systems. Chimpan-zees make one sound when they have found a plentiful source of food, another when threatened, and a third when announcing their presence. Each of these three sounds is unique in both form and message. And each sound (call) is mutually exclusive. That is, the chim-panzee cannot combine elements of two or more calls in order to develop a new call. To this extent we speak of nonhuman forms of communication as being closed systems of communication. Humans, on the other hand,operate with languages that are open systems of com-munication, since they are capable of sending messages that have never been sent before. Language enables humans to send literally an in-finite array of messages, including abstract ideas,highly technical information, and subtle shades of meaning.Starting with a limited number of sounds, human lan-guages are capable of producing an infinite number of meanings by combining sounds and words into mean-ings that may have never been sent before. To illustrate,by combining a series of words in a certain order, we can convey a unique message that has, in all likelihood,never been previously uttered: “I think that the woman named Clela with the bright orange hair left her leather handbag in the 1951 Studebaker that was involved in a hit-and-run accident later in the day." This productive capacity of human language illustrates how efficient and flexible human communication can be. LANGUAGE· CHAPTER SIX 109 chimps and gorillas is closed in contrast to the open sys-tem used by humans is perhaps an oversimplification.Some linguistic scholars (e.g,, Noam Chomsky 1972)have posited that since human language is so radically different from other forms of animal communication,humans must be endowed with certain genetically based mental capacities found in no other species. As we have learned more about the communication sys-tems of nonhuman primate, however, a growing num-ber of scholars have questioned this theory by claiming that certain species like chimpanzees and gorillas have a latent capacity for language. A major limitation to the development of language among gorillas and chimps is physical, for they do not possess the vocal equipment for speech. In an ef-fort to circumvent this physical limitation, recent researchers have taught American Sign Language to chimpanzees and gorillas with some startling find-ings. In four years, Allen and Beatrice Gardner(1969)taught a chimp named Washoe to use 130 different signs. Of even greater significance is that Washoe was able to manipulate the signs in ways that previously had been thought possible only by humans.For example,Washoe was able to combine several signs to create a new word (having no sign for the word duck, she referred to it as waterbird), thereby “opening up” her sys-tem of communication. In another important research effort in nonhuman communication, a gorilla named Koko by age four was able to use over 250 different signs within a single hour To suggest, as has been done in the past, that the communication system of such nonhuman primates as Even though this chimp has been trained to use American Sign Language, the differences between this form of communication and human language are vast. 110 CHAPTER SIX · LANGUAGE Major Language Families of the World Source: Adapted with permission from H.J deBlij and P.O.Muller,Human Goography: Culture,Soricty,and Space(New York: John Wiley&Sons,1986) pp.184-85. and, like Washoe, was able to name new objects by com bining several different signs. In addition, Koko was able to express her feelings and actually scored between 80 and 90 on a nonverbal IQ test. These recent developments in communication stud ies among nonhuman primates would suggest that chimps and gorillas do in fact have more advanced powers of reasoning than had been believed earlies Some researchers have used this evidence to suppors the notion that chimpanzee and gorilla linguistic abibi.ties differ from those of humans only in degreeoo i kind. In other words, we should not think in texws od LANGUAGE ·CHAPTER SEX closed versus open systems of communication, but rather in terms of some systems being more open than others. Even if this is the case, however, it is important to remember that degree of the difference between hu-man and nonhuman forms of communication remains immense. 111 Displacement. Human communication differs from other animal communication systems in at least two other important respects. One such feature of human language is its capacity to convey information about a thing or an event that is not present.This characteris tic, known as displacement, enables humans to speak of 112 CHAPTER SIX · LANGUAGE purely hypothetical things, events that have happened in the past, and events that might happen in the future.In contrast to other animals, which communicate only about particular things that are in the present and in the immediate environment, humans are able through language to think abstractly. Another feature of human communication that distinguishes it from nonhuman forms of communication is that it is transmitted largely through tradition rather than through experience alone. Even though our propensity (and our physical equipment) for language is biologically based, the specific language that any given person speaks is passed on from one generation to another through the pro-cess of learning. Adults in a linguistic community who already know the language teach the language to the children. The Structure of Language Every language has a logical structure. When people en-counter an unfamiliar language for the first time,they are confused and disoriented, but after becoming fa-miliar with the language, they eventually discover its rules and how the various parts are interrelated. All lan-guages have rules and principles governing what sounds are to be used and how those sounds are to be combined to convey meanings. Human languages have two aspects of structure: a sound (or phonological)structure and a grammatical structure. Phonology in-volves the study of the basic building blocks of a lan-guage, called phonemes, and how these phonemes are combined. The study of grammar involves identifying recurring sequences of phonemes, called morphemes,the smallest units of speech that convey a meaning.The descriptive linguist, whose job is to make explicit the structure of any given language, studies both the sound system and the grammatical system of as many different human languages as possible. Phonology The initial step in describing any language is to deter-mine the sounds that are used. Even though humans have the vocal apparatus to make an extraordinarily large number of sounds, no single language uses all possible sounds. Instead, each language uses a finite number of sounds, called phonemes,which are the minimal units of sound that signal a difference in one. Similarly, the word artists contains three mor-phemes: the root word art; the suffix ist, meaning one who engages in the process of doing art; and the plural suffix [s].Some of these meaning. The English language contains sounds for twenty-four consonants, nine vowels,three semivowels,and some other sound features for a total of forty-six phonemes. The number of phonemes in other lan-guages varies from a low of about fifteen to a high of one hundred. Clearly, the twenty-six letters of the English alphabet do not correspond to the total inventory of phonemes in the English language. This is largely because English has a number of inconsistent features. For example, we pronounce the same word differently (as in the noun and verb forms of lead),and we have different spellings for some words that sound identical, such as meet and meat. To address this difficulty, linguists have developed the International Phonetic Alphabet,which takes into account all of the possible sound units (phonemes)found in all languages of the world. The manner in which sounds are grouped into phonemes varies from one language to another. In En-glish, for example, the sounds represented by [b] and [v] comprise two separate phonemes. Such a distinc-tion is absolutely necessary if an English speaker is to differentiate between such words as ban and van or bent and vent. The Spanish language,however,does not dis-tinguish between these two sounds. When the Spanish word ver (to see) is pronounced, it would be impossible for the English speaker to determine with absolute pre-cision whether the word begins with a [v] or a [b].Thus, whereas [v] and [b] are two distinct phonemes in English, they belong to the same sound class (or phoneme) in the Spanish language. Morphemes Sounds and phonemes, while linguistically significant,usually do not convey meaning in and of themselves.The phonemes [r],[a], and [t] taken by themselves convey no meaning whatsoever.But when combined,they can form the word rat, tar or art, each of which conveys meaning. Thus, it is possible for.two or more phonemes to be combined to form a morpheme. Even though some words are made up of a single morpheme, we should not equate morphemes with words. In our example, the words rat, tar, and art, each made up of a single morpheme, cannot be subdivided into smaller units of meaning. In these cases, the words are in fact made up of a single morpheme. The majority of words, however, in any language are made up of two or more morphemes. The word rats, for example, con-tains two morphemes, the root word rat and the plural suffix [s], which conveys the meaning of more than morphemes, like art, tar,and rat, can occur in a language unattached. Since they can stand alone, they are called free morphemes.Other morphemes, such as the suffix ist, cannot stand alone,for they have no meaning except when attached to other morphemes.These are called bound morphemes (see Exhibit 6-2). 112 CHAPTER SIX · LANGUAGE Grammar LANGUAGE CHAPTER SIX when people send linguistic messages by combining sounds into phonemes,phonemes into morphemes,and morphemes into words, they do so according to a highly complex set of rules. These rules,which are unique for each language, make up the grammar of the language and are well understood and followed by the speakers of that language.These grammatical systems,which constitute the formal structure of the language.consist of two parts (1) the rules governing how morphemes are formed into words (morphology)and (2) the principles guiding how words are arranged into phrases and sentences (syatax). In some languages,meanings are determined primarily by the way morphemes are combined to form words(morphological features), while in other languages meanings are deter-mined primarily by the order of words in a sentence (syntactical features). 113 Morphemes Make Up Words The word toasters is made up of the morphemes toast, er, and s.Which morphemes are free and which are bound? The distinction berween morphology and syntax can be illustrated by looking at an example from the En-glish language. From a grammatical point of view,the statement "Tom fix Mary phone'does not make much sense.The order of the words in the statement(ie,the symtax) is correct, but clearly some revisionin the wzy that the words themselves are formed (ie, morphol-agy) is required for the statement to make grammatical sense.For example,since the English langaage requires information about verb tense,we must specify whether Tom fixed, is fixing, or will fix the phone. The English grammar system also requires information about the mumber of phones and the nature of the relatonship between the phone and Mary. To make this statement grammatical, we can add an ed to fis ans to phane,and an-'s to Mary. The revisd statement(Tom fixed Mury's phones"),which is now grammatically corect,tells us that Tom has already fixed to or more phones that belong co Mary. Whereas the English grammut system requires sense,mumber,and relationship be specifiedocher lan- thas guage systems require other types of information For cxample,in Latin,a noun must have the proper case ending to indicate its role (Le,subject,direct object,etc.)within the sentence. In some langaages,soch as Spanish, the ending on a noun determies the nocn's gender (masculinity or femininity). In the Nazjo Lznguage,certain verbs such as "to handle"will tke differ-ent forms depending on the size and shape of the ob ject being handled. Thas,every langange has its om systematic way of ordering morpbemes within a word to give Enguistic meaning Symtax,on the other hand,refers to the zspect of grammar thas governs the arrangement of words and phrases into semaroces. In our original evaple ("Tom Ex Mary phone"),the sywtas is corect because the words are in proper seguence.The stemet wold be wocly meangless if the words were cedered Fit Tem phone Mary"because the puarts of speech are not im proper relationship to obe anccher.Moreover,in En-glish,adjectives gemeraly precede the mous they de scribe (sach as whine borse'),wihbereas in Spurish ad-jectives generally fellow the aoons chey desorbe (such as 'cahalo blanco'). The ceder of the wonds,then.de Bervines,at keast in purt, the mearing coeneyed in a given lingange. CHAPTER SIX 114 LANGUAGE CROSS-CULTURAL MISCUE Dwho ostensibly speak the same language. Although both New Yorkers ifficulties in communication can arise even between two people and Londoners speak English, there are sufficient differences between American English and British English to cause communication miscues.Speakers of English on opposite sides of the Atlantic frequently use dif-ferent words to refer to the same thing. To illustrate, Londoners put their trash in a dust bin, not a garbage can; they take a lift to the twen-tieth floor of a building, not an elevator; and they live in flats, not apart-ments. To further complicate matters, the same word used in England and the United States can convey very different meanings. For example,in England the word homely (as in the statement “I think your wife is very homely”) means warm and friendly, not plain or ugly; for the British, the phrase “to table a motion” means to give an item a prominent place on the agenda rather than to postpone taking action on an item, as it means in the United States; and a rubber in British English is an eraser,not a condom. These are just a few of the linguistic pitfalls that North Ameri-cans and Britishers may encounter when they attempt to communicate using their own versions of the “same” language. Are Some Languages Superior to Others? Until the turn of the century, European linguists were convinced that Western languages were superior to all others in terms of elegance, efficiency,and beauty. It was generally assumed that small-scale, non-Western cultures characterized by simple technologies had equally simple languages. In short, preliterate people were thought to have primitive languages with a dimin-ished capacity for expressing abstract ideas. Now,how-ever, anthropological linguists,following the lead of Franz Boas, hold such a view to be untenable. Based on studies of American Indian languages, linguists have demonstrated time and again that people from techno-logically simple societies are no less capable of express-ing a wide variety of abstract ideas than are people liv-ing in high-technology societies. To illustrate this point, we can compare the English language with that of a traditionally technologically simple society-the Navajo people of the American Southwest. It is true that Navajo speakers are unable to make certain grammatical distinctions commonly made in English. For example, Navajo does not have separate noun forms for singular and plural (such as are found in English with the -s in dogs or the -ren in children);the third person pronoun is both singular and plural and gender nonspecific (it can be translated he,she,it,or they, depending on the context); and there are no ad-jectives, because the role of the adjective to describe nouns in English is played by the verb. Although the Navajo language does not make the same grammatical distinctions as does the English lan-guage, in other areas it can express certain information with considerably more precision and efficiency than English. According to Peter Farb (1968:56), making a vague statement such as “I am going” is impossible in the Navajo language. Owing to the structure of this lan-guage, the verb stem would include additional informa- How Culture Influences Language tion on whether the person is going on foot, by horse-back, in a wagon, by boat, or in an airplane.If the se-lected verb form indicates that the person is going on horseback, it is necessary to further differentiate by verb for whether the horse is walking, trotting, gallop-ing, or running. Thus, in the Navajo language a great deal of information is conveyed in the single verb form that is selected to express the concept of going. To be certain, the grammatical systems of the English and Navajo languages are very different. The English lan-guage can convey all of the same information, but it re-quires a far larger number of words. Nevertheless,it is hardly reasonable to conclude that one is more effi-cient at expressing abstract ideas than the other. Language and Culture For the cultural anthropologist, the study of language is important not only for the practical purpose of communicating while doing fieldwork but also because a close relationship exists between language and culture.It is widely accepted today that it would be difficult, if not ímpossible, to understand a culture without first un-derstanding its language, and it would be equally im-possible to understand a language outside its cultural context. It is for this reason that any effective language teacher will go beyond vocabulary and grammar by teaching students something about such topics as eat-ing habits, values, and behavior patterns of native speakers. This important relationship between lan-guage and culture was recognized many decades ago by the father of modern American cultural anthropology,Franz Boas:... the study of language must be considered as one of the most important branches of ethnological study,because, on the one hand, a thorough insight into ethnology cannot be gained without a practical knowl-edge of the language, and, on the other hand, the fun-damental concepts illustrated by human languages are not distinct in kind from ethnological phenom-ena; and because, furthermore, the peculiar charac-teristics of language are clearly reflected in the views and customs of the peoples of the world. (1911:73) Although little research has been designed to explore how culture influences the grammatical system of a lan- CHAPTER SIX LANGUAGE seal floating on a piece of ice, as well as a number of terms for seals of different age and sex. 115 guage, there is considerable evidence to demonstrate how culture afects vocabulary.As a general rule, the vo-cabulary found in any language will tend to emphasize those words that are considered to be adaptively impor-tant in that culture. This notion, known as cultural em-phasis, is reflected in the size and specialization of vocabulary. In Standard American English, we find large num-bers of words that refer to technological gadgetry (e.g.,tractor, microchip, and intake valve) and occupational specialties (e.g., teacher, plumber, CPA, and pediatri-cian) for the simple reason that technology and occu-pation are points of cultural emphasis in our culture.Thus, the English language helps North Americans adapt effectively to their culture by providing a vocabu-lary well suited for that culture. Other cultures have other areas of emphasis. Based on field research con-ducted in the 1880s, Franz Boas noted that the Eskimos of Canada had large numbers of words for snow,ice,and seals, all three of which played a vital role in Es-kimo adaptation to the environment and, indeed, in their survival. To illustrate, Boas reports that in addition to a general term for seal, the Eskimo language con-tains specific words referring to a seal basking in the sun and a 116 The Nuer.A particularly good example of how culture influences language through the elaboration of vocabu-laries is provided by the Nuer, a pastoral people of the Sudan, whose daily preoccupation with cattle is re-flected in their language (EvansPritchard 1940). The Nuer have a vast vocabulary used to describe and iden-tify their cattle according to certain physical features such as color, markings, and horn configuration. The Nuer have ten major color terms for describing cattle:white (bor), black (car), brown (lual), chestnut (dol),tawny (yan), mouse-gray (lou), bay (thiang), sandy-gray (lith), blue and strawberry roan (yil), and chocolate (gwir). When these color possibilities are merged with the many possible marking patterns, there are more than several hundred combinations. And when these several hundred possibilities are combined with termi-nology based on horn configuration, there are poten -tially thousands of ways of describing cattle with consid-erable precision in the Nuer language. This highly complex system of terminology is directly related to the prominence of cattle in Nuer society. According to Evans-Pritchard (1940), cattle are used in a number of important ways.First,they serve a vital eco-nomic function in Nuer society (as they do in most CHAPTER SIX LANGUAGE Although the N avajo and English languages have vastly different structures,these N avajo speahers can express abstract ideas every bit as effectively as native English speakers. other pastoral societies) by providing the people with milk, blood, and meat on certain occasions. Second,cows are used to create and maintain social relation-ships between people. For a Nuer marriage to be legiti-mate, cows must be transferred from the lineage of the groom to the lineage of the bride. Third, cows not only influence the relationship between people but also serve as a link with the people's dead ancestors. Cows are used as sacrificial animals to get the attention of an-cestor ghosts; in fact, it is impossible to communicate with the dead without frequent references to cattle.Fourth,every Nuer man takes as one of his names the name of an ox given to him at birth or at his initiation.Men are frequently called by names that refer to the physica features of these oxen, and most age-mates prefer to be addressed by this oxname. (For this reason,Evans-Pritchard [1940:18]notes that aNuer genealogy sounds very much like an inventory of a family's cattle.)And fifth, the names and traits of cows as well as the oxnames of men are frequently the subject of songs, poems, and stories. We could cite numerous other uses to which cattle are put, indicating their prominence within the Nuer culture. But suffice it to say that cattle are a dominant interest of the Nuer, or in Evans-Pritchard's own words: They are always talking about their beasts. I used sometimes to despair that I never discussed anything with the young men but livestock and girls, and even the subject of girls led inevitably to that of cattle. Start on whatever subject I would, and approach it from whatever angle, we would soon be speaking of cows and oxen, heifers and steers, rams and sheep,he-goats and she-goats, calves, and lambs, and kids....Consequently he who lives among the Nuer and wishes to understand their social life must first master a vocabu-lary referring to cattle and to the life of the herd.(1940:18-19) Cultural Emphasis in the United States-One Example.In relatively small-scale cultures such as the Eskimos or the Nuer,where most people's lives revoive around bunting or herding, areas of cultural emphasis are quite obvious.In middle-class American culture,how-ever,which tends to be more complex occupationally, it is not always easy to identify a single area of cultural em-phasis. Nevertheless, sports tends to be one area of life in US.culture that can be shared by people from a wide variety of occupational or class backgrounds. Con sequently,as Hickerson points out, we have many collo quialisms in American English that stem from the game of baseball,our “national pastime": He made a grandstand play. ·She threw me a curve. She fielded my questions well. You're way off base. You're batting 1000(500,zero) so far. What are the ground rules? I want to touch all the bases. He went to bat for me. He has two strikes against him. That's way out in left field. He drives me up the wall. He's a team plaver (a clutch player). She's an oddball(screwball,foul ball). It's just a ballpark estimate (1980:118). How Language Influences Culture A major concern of linguistic anthropology since the 1930s has been the question of whether language in-fluences or perhaps even determines culture.Thene is 8o consensus among ethnolinguists,but some have sug gested that language is more than a symbolic inventory of experience and the physical world and that it actually shapes our thoughts and perceptions.This notion was stated in its most explicit form by Edward Sapir: The fact of the matter is that the real world is to a large extent unconsciously buikt up an the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds,not merely the same world with different labels attached. (1929:214) The Sapir-Whoorf Hypothesis.Draw ing on Sapir's origi-nal formulation, Benjamia Lee Whorf,a student of Sapir's, conducted ethnolinguistic research among the Hopi Indians to determine if diflferent linguistic struc-tures produced different ways of viewing the world.Whorf's observations convinced him that linguistic LANGUAGE CHAPTER SIX 117 structure was in fact the causal xatiable for differen views of the world. This notion that different cuhtures see the world differentiibecause of their different lis guistic categories has come to be known as the Sapir Whorf bypothesis. Both Sapir and Whor were positing the notion that language does infiuence the way people see the world.That is, language is more than a vehicle for communi-cation; it actualiy establishes mental categories that pre-dispose people to see things in a certain way.l.for ex-ample, my language has a single word-aunt-that nefers to my mother's sister, myfather's sister, my moth-er's brother's wife, and my father's brother's wife, it is likely that I will peroeive all of these family members as genealogicaliy eguivalent and conseguentiy will behave toward them in essentialiy the same way.Thus,Sapir and Whorf would suggest that both perception and the resulting behavior will be determined lby the linguistic categories we use to group some things under one heading and other things under another lheading. Testing the Hypothesit. Since Sapir and Whorfs original formulation, a number of ethnolinguists have attempted to test the hypothesis.One study (Ervin-Tripp 1964)concluded that the very content of what is said CHAPTER SIX LANGUAGE 118 all significant sociocultural variables (such as religion,parental education, family income) with the other half,who spoke both Navajo and English. Since both groups were identical on all important variables except lan-guage, it would be logical to conclude that whatever perceptual differences emerged between the two groups could be attributed to language. Having a thorough knowledge of the Navajo language,Casagrande understood that Navajo people,when speaking about an object, are required to choose among a number of different verb forms depending on the shape of the object. When asking a Navajo speaker to hand you an object, you use one verb form if the ob-ject is long and rigid like a stick and another verb form if it is long and flexible like a rope. Based on this Navajo linguistic feature, Casagrande hypothesized that children speaking only Navajo would be more likely to dis-criminate according to shape at an earlier age than the English-speaking children. English-speaking children would be more likely to discriminate according to other features such as size or color. This hypothesis was tested by having both groups of children participate in a num-ber of tasks. The children were shown two objects (a yeliow stick and a blue rope) and then asked to tell which of these two objects was most like a third object (a yellow rope). In other words, both groups of chil-dren were asked to categorize the yellow rope accord-ing to likeness with either the yellow stick or the blue rope. Casagrande found that the children who spoke only Navajo had a significantly greater tendency to cate-gorize according to shape (yellow rope and blue rope)than the bilingual children who were more likely to categorize according to color. by bilin-gual people will vary according to which language is be-ing spoken. Working with bilingual japanese-American women in San Francisco, Ervin-Tripp (1964:96) found that the responses to the same question given at differ-ent rimes by the same women varied significantly de-pending on the language used.To iliustrate,when asked in English to finisb the statement "Real friends should... ," the respondent answered,"be very frank";when asked the same question in Japanese at a different time, she answered "help each other."Or,when asked.When my wishes conflict with my family-.. ,”the response in English was "I do what I want"; but in Japan-ese, the response was, "It is a time of great unhappi-ness."In other words, when the question was asked in Japanese,the bilingual respondent was more likely to give a "typical" Japanese response, and when ques tioned in English, she was more likely so give a "typical"American response. This is the type of evidence that has been presented to support the validity of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, since it strongly suggests thatthe lan-guage influences or channels perceptions as well as the content of verbal utterances. One very creative attempt at testing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was conducted by Casagrande (1960),using a matched sample of Navajospeaking children. Half of the sample,who spoke only Navajo,were matched on According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,then,lan-guage establishes in our minds categories that force us to distinguish those things we consider similar from those things we consider different. Language,in other words, is a coercive force that causes people to see the world in a certain way. If this is the case, the speakers of different languages will construct reality differently. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,the power of language can also be seen in the way people use their native tongue by choosing one word over another when describing a concept. For example, language frequently can be used to make good things seem bad or, more fre-quently, to make bad things appear better than they really are. This is accomplished through the use of eu-phemisms, an indirect form of language used to con-ceal something inadequate, unpleasant, or embarrass-ing. For example, English speakers in the United States use certain cuphemisms to lend an air of respectability In certain bilingual populations, such as these JapaneseAmericans,how a question is answered often will depend on the language in which it is asked. to some fairly ordinary trades, for as Thomson (1994:83) reminds us:... ratcatchers are fond of calling themselves “exterminating engineers" and hairdressers have long since showed a preference for “beautician.”The -ician end-ing, in fact, has proved very popular, doubtless be-cause it echoes “physician” and thus sounds both pro-fessional and scientific. In the late nineteenth century undertakers had already begun to call themselves “fu-neral directors," but starting in 1916 ennobled them-selves even further by battening on the newer eu-phemistic coinage, “mortician." Meanwhile a tree trimmer became a “tree surgeon" (that love of medi-cine again) and a press agent became a “publicist" or,even more grandly, a “public relations counsel." Drawbacks to the Hypothesis. The problem with the SapirWhorf hypothesis-and the reason that it re-mains a hypothesis rather than a widely accepted fact-is one of causation. Whorf and Sapir were linguistic de- C HAPTER SIX L A N G U A G E 1 1 9 CROSS-CULTURAL For decades, a major focus of U.S. foreign policy has been on what we call the Middle East, an area that is largely Islamic in religion and Arabic in culture and language. In recent years, the U.S. government has sent Marines to Lebanon, had its embassy taken over in Tehran,en-gaged in retaliatory air strikes on Libya, and responded to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Because of its close political, economic, and social ties to the state of Israel, the United States has been at loggerheads with most of the Arab world. All too often the American people-and far more seriously, our diplomatic community-seem to be reacting to events in the Middle East with only a minimal understanding of Arabic culture. Linguistic style is one area where Americans often misinterpret Arabic cultures. Whereas some cultures (such as the Japanese) engage in linguistic understatement, Arabic speakers generally go to the opposite ex-treme through such linguistic conventions as exaggeration, overasser-tion, and repetition. For example, sometimes messages sent in Arabic are given more dramatic force by repeating certain pronouns; highly graphic metaphors and similes are commonly found in everyday speech;and to dramatize a point, Arabs frequently string together a long litany of adjectives modifying a single noun. Because of differences in commu-nication styles, what we would consider to be a strongly worded state-ment might seem weak and unassertive to an Arab. Or, a very strongly worded statement in Arabic might seem absolutely fanatical to an Ameri-can. It is important to bear in mind that in the Arabic world, very strongly worded statements-which have a psychologically cathartic function-are not taken literally as an accurate description of the speaker's real thoughts or intentions. Understanding such a linguistic style is particularly relevant in the diplomatic/political realm, where an overreaction to a strongly worded threat could lead to armed conflict and the loss of lives. terminists who posited that language of important ways. Yet problems arise when attempting to demonstrate that determines culture.In fact,Sapir suggested that language determines culture,or vice versa, in any definitive way. What does seem people are virtual prisoners of their language obvi-ous, however, is that all people, being constantly bom-barded with sensory when he stated that "human beings... are very stimuli, have developed filtering systems to bring order to all of these incoming much at the mercy of the particular language sensa-tions. Sapir and Whorf have suggested that the filtering system is language, which has become the medium of expression which provides a set of lenses that highlight some perceptions and deemphasize for their society" (1929:209). Others, however, others. taking the oppo-site position, have suggested that language simply reflects,rather than determines, culture.To be certain,language and culture influence each other in a number Whatever may be the precise effect of language on cul-ture, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has served to focus at-tention on this important relationship. For an interest-ing discussion of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and how it applies to language use in the United States, see Thompson(1994). Sociolinguistics Anthropological linguistics has devoted much of its time and energy to the study of languages as logical sys-tems of knowledge and communication.Recently,how-ever, linguists have taken a keen interest in how people actually speak with one another in any given society.Whereas the earlier linguists tended to focus on uni-form structures (morphology, phonology, and syntax),sociolinguists concentrate on variations in language use depending on the social situation or context in which the speaker may be operating. In much the same way that entire speech communi-ties adapt their language to changing situations,so too do the individuals in those speech communities.Bilin-gualism and multilingualism are obvious examples of the situational use of language. A Hispanic junior high school student in Miami, for example,may speak En-glish in the classroom and Spanish at home. But fre-quently people who are monolingual will speak differ-ent forms of the same language depending on the social situation. To illustrate, the language that a col-lege sophomore might use with a roommate would be appreciably different from that used when talking to his grandparents; or the choice of expressions heard in a football locker room would hardly be appropriate in a job interview. In short, what is said and how it is said are frequently influenced by such variables as the age,sex,and relative social status of the speakers. The major focus of sociolinguistics is the relationship between language and social structure. What can we tell about the social relationships between two people from the language they use with each other? The analysis of terms of address can be particularly useful in this re- The form of the English language that this U.S. teenager uses when speaking to her grandmother is quite different from the form she would use when talking to her peers. gard.Professor Green,for example, could be addressed as Dr.Green,Ma'am,Professor,Ms.Green,Elizabeth,Darling, Doc, Prof, or Beth, depending on who is doing the addressing. One would not expect that her mother or husband would refer to her as Ma'am or that her stu-dents would call her Beth. Instead we would expect that the term of address chosen would reflect appropriately the relative social status of the two parties. That is, in middle-class American society, the reciprocal use of first names indicates a friendly, informal relationship be-tween equals; the reciprocal use of titles followed by last names indicates a more formal relationship between people of roughly the same status; and the nonrecipro-cal use of first names and titles is found among people of unequal social status. We would also expect that the same person might use different terms of address for Professor Green in different social situations. Her hus-band,for example, might call her Beth at a cocktail party, Darling when they are making love,and Elizabeth when engaged in an argument. Diglossia The situational use of language in complex speech communities has been studied by Charles Ferguson (1964)who coined the term diglossia. By this term, Fer-guson was referring to a linguistic situation where two varieties of the same language (e.g., standard form, di-alect, or pidgin) are spoken by the same person at dif-ferent times and under different social circumstances. 120 CHAPTER SIX · LANGUAGE LANGUAGE Ferguson illustrates the concept of diglossia by citing 121 examples from a number of linguistic communities throughout the world, including the use of classical or Koranic Arabic and CHAPTER SIX local forms of Arabic in North Africa and the Middle East,the coexistence of standard German and Swiss German in Switzerland, and the use of both French and Haitian Creole in Diglossia Haiti. In all of the ists a long-standing connection between High Form appreciably with it important cultural meanings.For example,in Low Form all ered to be “high" and the other “low" (see Table 6- Religious services Marketplace 1).education, and, to some degree, religion. The high litical Political speeches Instructions to subordinates speeches in legislative bodies, in university lec-forms are likely Legislative proceedings Friendly conversations to be found in the marketplace;when with friends and University lectures Folk literature News broadcasts Radio/TV programs Newspapers Cartoons Poetry Graffiti relatives; and in various forms of pop Source: Charles A. Ferguson, “Diglossia," in Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics, ed. Dell Hynes(New York:Harper & Row,1964),pp.429-439. culture, such as folk literature, television and radio pro-grams, cartoons, and graffiti. It is generally agreed that high forms of the language are superior to low forms, and frequently the use of the high form is associated with the elite and the upwardly mobile. This general superiority of the high form is at least partially the result of its association with religion and the fact that much of the literature ofthe language is written i the high form. Dialects. It is not at al uncommon for certain dialects in complex speech communities to be considered sub-standard or inferior to others. Such claims are made on social or political rather than linguistic grounds.That is, minority dialects are often assigned an inferior status by the majority for the purpose of maintaining the po-litical,economic, and social subordination of the minority.People who are not from the South regard cer-tain “Southernisms” such as “you'all” (as in the statement, “You'all come by and see us now") as quaint or colorful regional expressions at best or inferior and inappropriate incursions into Standard American En-glish at worst. A more obvious example would be major-ity attitudes toward the nonstandard English dialect used by Black Americans in northern ghettos.Clearly,such usages as “You be going home” or “Don't nobody go nowhere” will never be used by major network news -casters. Although such expressions are considered to be inferior by the speakers of Standard English, the use of these 120 CHAPTER SIX · LANGUAGE forms demonstrate logically consistent grammati-cal patterns and in no way prevent the expression of complex or abstract ideas. Nonstandard English should not be viewed as simply a 122 series of haphazard mistakes in Standard English. Rather it is a fully effcient lan-guage with its own unique set of grammatical rules that CHAPTER SIX LANGUAGE are consistently applied. Thus, in linguistic terms, the grammar and phonology of ghetto English are no less efficient than the language of the rich and powerful (see Hecht,Collier,and Ribeau ). looking ahead Anthropological linguists can help resolve problems arising from minority dialects in the public schools. For an example,see Applied Perspective 1 at the end of this chapter. Nonverbal Communication To fully comprehend how people in any particular cul-ture communicate, we must become familiar with their nonverbal forms of communication in addition to their language. Nonverbal communication is important be-cause it both helps us interpret linguistic messages and frequently carries messages of its own. In fact, it has been suggested that as much as 70 percent of all mes-sages sent and received by humans are nonverbal in nature. Like language, nonverbal forms of communication are learned and, as such, vary from one culture to an-other. Even though some nonverbal cues have the same meaning in different cultures, an enormous range of variation in nonverbal communication exists between cultures. In some cases, a certain message can be sent in a number of different ways by different cultures. For ex-ample, whereas in the United States we signify affirma-tion by nodding the head, the very same message is sent by throwing the head back in Ethiopia, by sharply thrusting the head forward among the Semang of Malaya, and by raising the eyebrows among the Dyaks of Borneo.Moreover,cross-cultural misunderstandings can occur when the same nonverbal cue has different meanings in different cultures. To illustrate,the hand gesture of making a circle with the thumb and forefinger, which means OK in the United States,signifies “money” in Japan, indicates “worthlessness”or “zero” in France, and is a sexual insult in parts of South America. Humans communicate without words in a number of important ways, including hand gestures, facial expres-sions, eye contact, touching, space usage, scents,gait,and posture. A thorough discussion of these and other aspects ofnonverbal communication, based on the re- 120 CHAPTER SIX · LANGUAGE The same gesture often carries different meanings in different lan-guages. Beware! D on't do this in þarts ofSouth America. It doesn't mean “O K.” cent literature, would certainly take us beyond the scope of this textbook. A brief examination of three of the more salient types of nonverbal communication-hand gestures, eye contact, and touching-will help convey the importance of this form of human communication. Hand Gestures Consider how many hand gestures we use every day. We cup our hand behind the ear as a nonverbal way of communicating that we cannot hear. We thumb our noses at those we don't like. We can thumb a ride on the side of the highway. We can wave hello or goodbye.We tell people to be quiet by holding our forefinger ver-tically against our lips. We give the peace sign by hold-ing up our forefinger and middle finger. And we send a very different message when we flash half of the peace sign. Some of the hand gestures used widely in the United States are also used and understood in Europe,which should come as no surprise, given our strong European heritage. Nevertheless, as Morris (1979) re-minds us, a number of nonverbal hand gestures used in Western Europe have not been diffused across the At-lantic. For example, stroking the face between the cheek bones and the chin with the thumb and forefinger is a nonverbal way of saying “You look ill or thin”in the southern Mediterranean; pulling down on the lower eyelid with the forefinger means “Be alert" in parts of Spain,Italy, France, and Greece; and in Italy,pulling or flicking one's own ear lobe is a way of calling into question a man's masculinity (“You are so effemi-nate that you should be wearing an earring"). inattentive,impolite,and aloof. Eye Contact The use of eye contact also varies widely from one cul-ture to another. In the United States, a certain degree of eye contact is used to convey respect and attentive-ness in normal conversation. In some cultures,how-ever, people are taught from an early age that direct eye contact is threatening, disrespectful, or rude. Accord-ing to Morsbach (1982:308), for example, Japanese avoid direct eye contact in normal conversation by fo-cusing somewhat lower, around the region of the LANGUAGE ·CHAPTER SIX 123 Adam's apple. Other cultures, on the other hand,insist on even more direct eye contact than might be ex-pected in the United States.As Edward T.Hall reminds us, “Arabs look each other in the eye when talking with an intensity that makes most Americans highly uncomfortable" (1966:161). In such cultures, the some-what lower level of eye contact typically found in the United States could be viewed as Touching Touching is perhaps the most personal and intimate form of nonverbal communication. Humans communi-cate through touch in a variety of ways or for a variety of purposes, including patting a person on the head or back, slapping, kissing, punching, stroking, embracing,tickling,shaking hands, and laying-on hands. Every culture has a well-defined set of meanings connected with touching. That is, each culture defines who can touch whom, on what parts of the body, and under what circumstances. Some cultures have been described as high-touch cultures, while others are low-touch. Some studies (Montagu, 1972; Sheflen, 1972; and Mehrabian,1981)have suggested that Eastern Europeans, Jews, and Arabs tend to be high-touch cultures, while such Northern European cultures as Germans and Scandinavians tend Bowing is an important mode of nonverbalcommunication for these Japanese businessmen. 124 CHAPTER SIX· LANGUAGE to be low-touch cultures. The difference between high-and lowtouch cultures can be observed in public places, such as subways or elevators. For example,Londoners (from a low-touch culture) traveling in a crowded subway are likely to assume a rigid posture, studiously avoid eye contact, and refuseto even ac-knowledge the presence of other passengers.The French (from a high-touch culture), on the other hand,have no difficulty leaning and pressing against one an-other in a crowded Parisian subway. Language is perhaps the most characteristic feature of Homo sapiens.Humans can send and receive a near infinite number of messages (both verbally and non-verbally) that convey meaning. Some of these meanings are abstract while others are concrete. To be certain, some other animal species have a limited capacity for symbolic communication. H umans, however, have developed this symbolizing ca-pacity to such a degree that it serves as the single most distinctive hallmark ofour humanity. Language and Communication Systems If,in fact, language is such a fundamental feature of our humanness,it should come as no surprise that it can have important implications for our every-day lives. This is particularly true when attempting to communicate across cul-tures. It is virtually impossible for anyone in the Western world today to avoid communicating-or attempting to communicate-with people from different cultural backgrounds. W hether we are Peace Corps volunteers in N igeria, mis-sionaries in Samoa, or machinery sales representatives from Toledo trying to make a sale in Singapore, it is absolutely imperative that we have an under-standing of the communication patterns of the people with whom we are interact-ing. Even if we never leave our home communities, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that we could avoid interacting with linguistically different people even ifwe wanted to. Aa civil rights case heard by a federal district court.n anthropological linguist serves as an expert w itness in When language may have a bearing on the outcome of a court case, anthro-pologists (or more precisely, sociocultural linguists) may be brought in to give expert testimony. In 1979, a federal court in Ann Arbor, Michigan con-cluded that black students from a public elementary school were being de-nied their civil rights because they were not being taught to read, write, and speak Standard English as an alternative to their dialect of Black English Vernacular (BEV). The presiding judge ruled that since the school system failed to recognize and use BEV as the basis for teaching Standard English,the black children were put at a disadvantage for succeeding in school and,consequently, in life as well (Chambers 1983). To a very large degree, this precedentsetting court decision rested on es- tablishing the basic premise that BEV actually exists as a bona fide lan-guage. It was popularly held -and indeed implicitly built into the reading curriculum in the Ann Arbor schools-that the language of black students was nothing more than slang, street talk, or a pathological form of Stan-dard English. But as William Labov, a sociolinguist from the University of Pennsylvania, was able to (1) the differences that exist between BEV and Standard English are gov-erned by linguistic rues rather than being the result of errors in Standard English; (2) BEV is as capable of expressing a wide range of abstract and complex ideas as is Standard English; and (3) the BEV that is spoken by children in Ann Arbor is the same as the BEV spoken in New York, Wash-ington, Chicago, and Los Angeles. On the basis of Labov's testimony, the federal court concluded that lan-guage is a vital link between a child and the education the child receives.Children who speak the same language as the language of instruction learn more effectively than those who speak a nonstandard version of the lan-guage of instruction. It should be pointed out that the court did not rule that children had to be taught in BEV. Rather the court ordered that the local schools were to acknowledge the fact that language used at home and in the community can pose a barrier to student learning when teachers fail to recognize it, understand it, and incorporate it into their instructional methods. Labov's contribution, however, went well beyond his testimony as an ex-pert witness in federal court. Part of the judge's ruling ordered the Ann Arbor schools to develop strategies to inform the teachers how best to teach Standard English to children who enter the schools speaking BEV. Af-ter spelling out in considerable detail the linguistic features of BEV, Labov (1983:29-55)went on to show how this linguistic system interferes with learning Standard English and how this can be taken into account when developing new methods for teaching reading. Here is a situation, then,in which the data and insights from linguistic anthropology can make practical contributions to both civil rights litigation and instructional programming. THOUGHT Q UESTIONS 1.Why did the judge in this court case rule that black children were being placed at a disadvantage? 2. How was Labov able to argue that BEV was a bona fide language in its own right? 3.What practical contributions did Labov make to the area of language use in public education? 4.Of the various roles played by applied anthropologists that were dis-cussed in chapter three, which best describes Labov's role(s) in this case study? cultural anthropologist's study of a linguistic misunderstanding betw een Native Americans and government bureaucrats serves as the basis for settling a court case. establish to the satisfaction of the court, BEV is a full-fledged linguistic system with its own grammatical rules, phonology,and semantics. In other words, Labov's testimony demonstrated that Although we often describe the United States as a cultural and linguis-tic “melting pot,” the country continues to be the home of a number of eth-nically and linguistically diverse peoples. Even though most people living in the United States speak some English, that in itself does not ensure smooth crosscultural communication. In fact, the literature in the fieldof CHAPTER SIX · LANGUAGE cross-cultural communications is filled with examples of cultural miscommunication. One well -described case in point is the misunderstanding that occurred between six Bannock -Shoshoni Native American women from the Fort Hall reservation and officials at the Social Service Agency in Pocatello,Idaho (Joans 1984). This breakdown in communication involved the issue of social service payments. The six Native American women were accused in court of with-holding information from the agency and failing to report money they had received. To be eligible for supplemental security income (SSI), the women were required to report all forms of income. Several of the women had received several thousand 125 LANGUAGE CHAPTER SIX dollars of rent money from small landhold-ings. They rented the land in January of one year but were not paid until the following December, at which time they reported the income.The agency maintained that the money should have been reported as soon as the property was rented (January) rather than when the income was re-ceived. When agency officials learned of the unreported income, they stopped the SSI payments to the women and insisted that they return the money already paid to them. The women claimed that they did not under-stand the instructions, given in English, concerning the reporting of in-come. The agency claimed that the women knew full well about the regula-tions and simply chose to ignore them. When the case came to court, the central issue was whether or not the women understood what was expected of them. Barbara Joans, an anthropologist at a local university, was brought in to try to resolve the issue. She reasoned that since the verbal exchanges between the six women and the agency officials had been conducted in English, she would design a study that would determine the extent to which the six Native American women understood the English language.To do this, she constructed a three-tiered English proficiency exam. Level one tested how well the women understood everyday questions such as Where is the gas station? Are you too hot? How much is the loaf of bread?Level two tested how well the women understood jokes, double entendres,mixed meanings, and puns. The third level consisted of government/bureau cratic language dealing with such subjects as police operations and the workings of the town council. The findings of this study demonstrated that the women all understood level one English; only one of the women could follow the conversation using level two English; and none of the six Native American women understood level three English. Over the course of about three months,anthropologi st Joans had frequent contact with the women in their homes,at the reservation trading post, in the lawyer's office, and in her own office.Based on this contact, Joans concluded that even though the women and the agency personnel all spoke English, they used the language very differ-ently. On the basis of these findings, the judge ruled that, owing to the dif-ference in language usage, the women did not 125 LANGUAGE CHAPTER SIX understand what was ex-pected of them and thus did not need to return any of the money. Since the women did not understand the SSI instructions, the judge ordered that they were not to be held responsible for their failure to report rent monies before they received them. The judge added that in the future the agency officials would have to use a Bannock-Shoshoni interpreter when they went to the reservation to describe program requirements. Thus,Joans used her CHAPTER SIX LANGUAGE 127 knowledge of language usage, derived from anthropological research,to resolve a problem of miscommunication across cultures. THOUGHT Q UESTIONS 1.This case study revolves around a misunderstanding between Native Americans and government bureaucrats. Was this misunderstanding the result of cultural differences, class differences,or differences in power?Explain. 2. Is the United States more of a "melting pot” or a "salad bowl." Explain. 3.When such culturally distinct groups as Native Americans come up against mainstream institutions, miscommunicatio frequently occurs.With what other social institutions (other than welfare agencies) could miscommunications occur with Nativ American populations? Summary lated to the cultural emphasis that North Americans give to that particular part of their technology. 1.Language-and the capacity to use symbols-is per-haps the most distinctive hallmark of our humanity. 2. Though nonhumans also engage in communication,human communication systems are unique in several important respects. First, human communication sys-tems are open-that is, they are capable of sending an infinite number of messages. Second, humans are the only animals not confined to the present, for they can speak of events that have happened in the past or might happen in the future. And third, human communica-tion is transmitted largely through tradition rather than experience alone. 3. All human languages are structured in two ways.First, each language has a phonological structure com-prising rules governing how sounds are combined to convey meanings.Second,each language has its own grammatical structure comprising those principles governing how morphemes are formed into words (mor-phology) and how words are arranged into phrases and sentences(syntax). 6.According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,language is thought to influence perception. Language,accord-ing to Sapir and Whorf, not only is a system of commu-nicating but also establishes mental categories that af-fect the way in which people conceptualize the real world. 7. Sociolinguists are interested in studying how people use language depending on the social situation or con-text in which they might be operating. 8. As important as language is in human communi-cation, the majority of human messages are sent and received without using words. Human nonverbal com-munication-which, like language, is learned and cul-turally variable-can be made in such ways as facial expressions, gestures, eye contact, touching, and posture. Key Terms 4.Des nce language to the extent that the pite vocabulary in any language tends to consid emphasize those words that are erable adaptively important in that culture. Thus, the highly specialized struct vocabulary in Ameri-can English ural relating to the automobile is variati directly reons in the many langu ages of the world, there is no evide nce to suppo rt the claim that some langu ages are less efficie nt at expre ssing abstra ct ideas than others. 5. Cultur es can influe bound morpheme closed system of communication cultural emphasis of a language diglossia displacement free morpheme grammar morph open system ology of communication nonver phonology bal syntax co Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis mmuni cation Suggested Readings Farb,Peter.Word Play:W hat H appens W hen People Talk.New York: Knopf, 1974.A highly readable account of linguis-tics for the nonspecialist. Fromkin,Victoria,and Robert Rodman.An Introduction to Language.New York:CBS College Publishing,1993.A spritely introduction to the field of anthropological linguistics. Hecht,Michael L.,Mary Jane Collier,and Sidney Ribeau.African American Communication:Ethnic Identity and Cul-tural Interpretation.Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Sage Publica-tions, 1993. This volume explores AfricanAmerican styles of communication, ethnic identity, language competence,and the relationship between African Ameri-cans and white Americans.The book is designed to help the reader better understand African-American commu-nication patterns in their proper cultural context. Hickerson,Nancy P. Linguistic Anthropology.N ew York:Holt,Rinehart & Winston, 1980.A readable, nontechnical in-troduction to the field of anthropological linguistics,with chapters on historical linguistics,the classification of languages,descriptive linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and language and culture. Hymes,Dell. Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Lin-guistics and Anthropology.N ew York:Harper & Row,1964. A classic collection of sixty-nine articies in the general area of language and culture compiled for both scholars and serious students of anthropological linguistics. Lehmann,Winifred P. H istorical Linguistics,An Introduction (2d ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.An introduction to the general principles of historical lin-guistics, this small volume analyzes the classification of languages,methods used in gathering and analyzing his-torical linguistic data,and how languages change. Salzmann,Zdenek.Language,Culture,and Society:An Introdur-tion to Linguistic Anthropology.Boulder,Colo: W estsiew Press, 1993. A comprehensive,up-to-date introduction to anthropological linguistics, this text looks at phonology.the origins of language,the social context of language.nonverbal communication,and the ehnography of communications, among other topics. Trudgill,Peter (Ed.). Applied Sociolinguistics. London:Acade-mic Press, 1984. A collection of nine essays by sociolin-guists designed to demonstrate the range of real-world activities to which sociolinguistic data can be of interest.including education, psychology, the law, and the media Wardhaugh,Ronald.An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford Basil Blackwell, 1986.Designed as a beginning text im sociolinguistics, this volume deals with such topics as dialects and regional variations, speech communities language change, gender differences,the relationship between language and culture,and language policy.