RESEARCH

LINGUISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY OF EDUCATION

 
PUBLICATIONS
SYLLABI
        Linguistic anthropologists study the role language plays in culturally patterned behavior. Contemporary linguistic anthropology has become a particularly fertile field both in its theoretical insights and in its empirical contributions. The best contemporary linguistic anthropology has maintained a linguistic emphasis on theoretical systematicity and analytic rigor, while applying this to understand culturally-embedded verbal behavior (e.g., Hill & Irvine, 1992; Silverstein & Urban, 1996) -- showing empirically how the cultural contexts of language use intertwine with language's structural properties. 
        At the same time, other contemporary social scientists have become more interested in language. Cultural anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists and others have increasingly been using language and discourse as explanatory constructs in their theories of culture, identity, learning and other central human processes. Educational researchers also study the role language plays in identity development, learning and enculturation. But only some have taken advantage of contemporary work in linguistic anthropology. The sub-field "linguistic anthropology of education" uses insights and approaches from linguistic anthropology to explore educational processes -- asking questions like the following: How are teachers' and students' identities established and transformed in particular interactional contexts? How might ideologies about language influence classroom behavior and educational policy? How could social reproduction occur in part through language use in school? Are some educational practices "ritualized," as ritual is understood by contemporary semiotic theories? Research on these questions has of course been going on for some time. But I suggest that systematic use of concepts developed in contemporary linguistic anthropology can further contribute to educational research on these questions. 
        We can provisionally define the linguistic anthropology of education with reference to six characteristics. Sophisticated classic work that could be called linguistic anthropology of education shares many of these characteristics with contemporary work (e.g., Cazden, John & Hymes, 1972; Heath, 1983; Mehan, 1979; Philips, 1983). Nonetheless, contemporary linguistic anthropology has refined the traditional approach with respect to characteristics three and five. Contemporary work also goes significantly beyond most classic work with respect to characteristic four. 
        First, the linguistic anthropology of education studies language in use, not linguistic structure for its own sake. According to Duranti (1997), Hanks (1996) and others, linguistic anthropology does take advantage of linguists' discoveries about phonology and grammar, but it studies how structural categories are used in communicative practices. Linguistic anthropology of education studies speakers as social actors, not as repositories of linguistic competence. 
        Second, like cultural anthropology in general, the linguistic anthropology of education tries to understand participants' own point of view on their activities. In some cases, of course, participants do not consciously represent the categories that they use to organize their thought and action (Garfinkel & Sacks, 1970; Silverstein, 1985). Instead of imposing outsider categories, linguistic anthropology induces analytic categories that participants either articulate or presuppose in their action. 
        Third, linguistic anthropology of education does not simply study "Discourses"-with a capital "D," following Gee (1990)-as many in social theory and cultural studies do (after Foucault, 1972). As described by Duranti (1997), Silverstein (1992) and others, linguistic anthropology tries to address macrosociological questions raised in social theory by doing detailed analyses of language use in particular contexts, thus studying what Gee calls discourses with a little "d." 
        Fourth, contemporary linguistic anthropology of education studies emergent patterns of identity formation that are created (partly through language use) in particular contexts, instead of presupposing stable social groups and individual identities that are merely presupposed by speech. As described by Duranti (1997), Silverstein (1976, 1998) and others, linguistic anthropology studies how language use can constitute aspects of culture and identity. 
        Fifth, exemplary work in the linguistic anthropology of education systematically analyzes patterns of semiotic cues across particular segments of language use, instead of relying on isolated instances selected from the data. As described by Hymes (1996), Silverstein (1985), Wortham and Locher (1996, 1999) and others, linguistic anthropological analyses rely on "poetic" structures of semiotic cues that collectively presuppose a particular interpretation of a text. This contrasts with much classic and contemporary work in discourse analysis-which unsystematically extracts segments of discourse that support an analytic point. 
        Sixth, simply studying language in educational settings does not make one a linguistic anthropologist of education. Most studies of bilingualism, language learning and language minority students do not draw on the core theoretical insights and methodological techniques developed in linguistic anthropology, as these have been summarized in the first five points above. One can of course study the dynamics of multiple languages in educational settings from a linguistic anthropological perspective, and some linguistic anthropologists of education certainly do, but linguistic anthropology is only a small subset of empirical research on language. Thus the linguistic anthropology of education is a subset of what Hornberger (2000) and Spolsky (1999) call "educational linguistics." 

References

Cazden, C., John, V. and Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1972). Functions of Language in the Classroom. NY: Teachers College.

Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (Smith, A. M. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon.

Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structure of practical actions. In J. McKinney & A. Tiryakian (Eds.), 
Theoretical sociology. NY: Appleton Century Crofts.

Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies. New York: Falmer.

Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder: Westview.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. New York: Cambridge University.

Hill, J. H., & Irvine, J. T. (Eds.). (1992). Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse. New York: Cambridge University.

Hornberger, N. (2000). Educational linguistics as a field. In J. Walters & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Perspectives and issues in educational language policy. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hymes, D. (1996). Ethnopoetics and sociolinguistics. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality. Bristol: Taylor and Francis.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Philips, S. U. (1983). The invisible culture. New York: Longman.

Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In K. H. Basso & H. A. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology (pp. 11-55). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.

Silverstein, M. (1985). On the pragmatic "poetry" of prose. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form and use in context (pp. 181-199). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.

Silverstein, M. (1992). The indeterminacy of contextualization: When is enough enough? In A. DiLuzio & P. Auer (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 55-75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Silverstein, M. (1998). Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 401-426.

Silverstein, M., & Urban, G. (1996). The natural history of discourse. In M. Silverstein & G. Urban (Eds.), Natural histories of discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Spolsky, B. (Ed.). (1999). Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd./Pergamon.

Wortham, S. & Locher, M. (1996). Voicing on the news. Text, 16, 557-585.

Wortham, S. & Locher, M. (1999). Embedded metapragmatics and lying politicians. Language and Communication, 19, 109-125.