Burling
We have a harder time -Speaking and hearing as
Language and Culture
Four fields of Anthropology:
-Cultural Anthropology
-Archaeology
-Physical Anthropology
-Linguistic Anthropology
What is "language"?
-Symbolic communicative
behavior
-Spoken language as
quintessential
-Learned through
interaction
-Always changing
-Interacts with other parts of
culture
two forms of
communicative gestures:
gesture-calls and quotable
gestures.
Digital and analog
communication
Digital nature of
phonological code lets us
distinguish words.
Words, via grammar/syntax,
can become propositions:
things said about the
imagined or real; about the
past, present, or future.
Emotions (expressed in
gesture-calls) are more
limited 1. We can't use
gesture-calls to talk about
the past or future or
possibilities or to make
general claims about the
state of things--or at least
it's rather harder....
2.
lying with gesture-calls:
"Your words say one thing;
your face, another."
Nature vs Nurture
(Heredity vs Environment)
Paralinguistic
Gesticulation
Intonation
Charles Hockett's "design
features of language"
Thirteen features in all, but
only human language has
all thirteen of them...
13 design features of
language
1. Vocal-auditory channel
2. Rapid fading
3. Broadcast transmission
and directional reception
4. Interchangeability
5. Total feedback
6. Specialization
7. Semanticity
8. Arbitrariness
9. Discreteness ("digital
nature")
10. DISPLACEMENT
11. PRODUCTIVITY
12. TRADITIONAL
TRANSMISSION
13. DUALITY OF
PATTERNING (DOUBLE
ARTICULATION) (sort of a
combination of discreteness
and productivity).
1. Vocal auditory channel
key features (but sign
languages...)
-Animals have this design
feature too: birds, whales,
nonhuman primates...
2. Broadcast
transmission and
bidirectional reception
Sound goes out in all
directions from speaker;
hearer can (usually)
pinpoint the sound source.
Animals that communicate
with sound also count here.
3. Rapid fading
(transitoriness)
Messages are here and
then they are not. Once I've
finished saying something
(unless there is an echo),
that's it. Also applies to all
animal communications.
4. Interchangeability
Speaker can send and
receive the same signal. I
can say, "It's blue." You can
say, "It's blue." Some
animal calls are male- or
female-only.
5. Total feedback
You can hear what you say
when you say it.
6. Specialization
Sounds made to
communicate something, to
send a signal or message.
A dog pants? A dog barks?
7. Semanticity
Signs are tied to meanings.
Animal warning calls (vervet
monkeys) are limited (three
calls, fixed).
Human language has signs
fixed by convention(and so
fluid and changeable); also,
an unlimited number of
signs.
8. Arbitrariness
No necessary or causal link
between a sign and its
meaning (except
convention!).
Not the case with most
animal communication
(trained chimps?).
9. Discreteness
Sounds can be separated
into discrete units
(phonemes!).
10. Displacement
Talk about:
Other places
Other times
Other worlds, including
imaginary worlds
DECONTEXTUALIZATION
Chimps tend to focus on
what is present, as do very
early human language-
learners.
Grammar: Washoe?
Washoe, a trained chimp
(not pictured) could produce
simple sentences with
gestures. She could
sometimes generalize
("more").
11. Productivity
New utterances can be
spoken and understood:
"Charles Hockett is my
velcro newsletter." A truly
human accomplishment.
12. Traditional
transmission
Language is learned as part
of socialization (as we shall
see!). It is intimately bound
with culture and who we are
and what we become. The
other animals don't do this
either.
13. Duality of patterning
(Double articulation)
"combination of
discreteness and
productivity"
Phonemes can combine
with other phonemes to
make words, but such
combinations follow rules
specific to a given
language. These words can
then be combined via rules
into utterances (phrases
and sentences).
No other animal does this
at all.
Two further aspects of
human language
1. Play: refers to something
it is "not"; preverbal basis of
metasemantic rules in
language?
2. Metaphor: language and
knowledge grows partly
through the use of
metaphor...
Human play?
About learning how to
accomplish tasks (by
breaking them uptalking
while doing).
Early decontextualizaton
(along with language): eg,
toy.
What about metasemantic
rules?
Denotation is the act of
naming things in the world
using language. Play does
"not" denote what it denotes
(a bit of a paradox).
But denotation is only
possible in language, and it
relies on metasemantic
rules, which are rules about
semantics (meaning): "x
means y". So, it makes
sense to seek the roots of
this denotation at the
prehuman/preverbal level.
Metaphor
Metaphor is one important
example of figurative
language.
Figurative language can
become literal: "world".
Metaphors can lie at the
heart of much sociological
and anthropological theory
(Victor Turner's "root
metaphors"): "society as an
organism".
Back to Hockett's design
features
#1-9 Shared by all living
primates
#10-13 Only found in
human beings
#10-12 Might be just barely
possible in some trained
nonhuman primates....
Hockett's "blending" (sort of
like portmanteau words)
may have been the source
of human language.
Traveling to report
messages out of context
could have led to some sort
of displacement. Still,
others would have to know
that the message was
decontextualized....
What is semiotics?
"semiotics is concerned
with everything that can be
taken as a sign."
What is a sign?
Brands are signs. Paintings,
drawings, photos, Words,
music, gestures, Clothing,
Body decoration,
Architecture
A sign can be lots of
things
-A word, or a phrase, or an
entire story (written or
spoken)...
-A still image, or a film
segment, or an entire film...
-A musical note, or a
phrase, or a song...
-An item of clothing, or
several items together, or
an outfit, or a wardrobe...
- A piece of furniture, or a
"suite", or a household's
contents...
IN SHORT...
-A thing, or a collection of
things, made by people...
-A thing, or a collection of
things, not made by
people...
AS LONG AS...
It stands for something
else.
In this class...
We are mainly concerned
with one particular sign
system: language.
Language is the most
elaborate of sign systems,
but it is the main one that
rules our lives.
(We also deal with
paralinguistic phenomena
and, to a very limited
extent, what Burling calls
"gesture-calls".)
Saussure
Saussure's model of the
linguistic sign
Saussure's model
The focus here is on the
linguistic sign.
The linguistic sign is
composed of two bound
parts:
1. the signifier, or sound
pattern (this is not an actual
sound pattern, but rather a
mental impression we have
of a sound pattern)
2. the signified, or concept
(this is the general idea the
sound pattern makes
manifest in our heads)
NOTE: This model does not
involve "things in the
world"--ie, it is not saying
that a sign is composed of
a thing in the world and a
name for that thing.
In pictures...
The "thought bubbles" in
the picture on the right are
meant to indicate that both
parts of the sign (the
signifier and the signified)
are mental impressions.
They are wholly
psychological, non-material
forms.
Note: some people these
days say that the signifier
can have material life
in fact, it does when we
consider it as an actual,
spoken word and not simply
as a "word existing in our
head".
Relation and structure
For Saussure, a sign
cannot exist on its own. It
gets its meaning because it
exists in relation to other
signs and it is part of a
structured system. Not the
best metaphor possible...
Value
In a given sign, the signifier
is linked to its signified. But
the "extent" or "coverage" of
what is being signified
depends on how that sign
fits in with other signs in a
system (language).
The concept of "value"
allows us to consider the
"extent" or "coverage" of a
given sign. The value a
given sign depends on how
that sign relates to other
signs in a system
(language).
Mouton, sheep, mutton
In French, "mouton" refers
to both pictures. In terms of
the sign "mouton", its value
includes both signs.
In English, the top picture is
"sheep"; the bottom,
"mutton". In terms of the
sign "sheep", its value
includes the top picture but
not the bottom picture. In
terms of the sign "mutton",
its value includes the
bottom picture but not the
top picture.
NOTE: Again, I've put
pictures there to help us get
an idea of value, but we are
really talking about the
conceptual "reach" of signs
not about things in the
world.
Arbitrariness: sign
This mainly means that
there is no essential or
natural connection between
a signifier (sound pattern)
and a signified (concept).
The signifier "cat" (the
sound pattern we hear in
our head that sounds like
"cat") is tied by convention
to its signified (the concept
or idea of "cat"). This is very
true. (But it is also true that
a given signifier can refer to
more than one signified....)
However, there is nothing
"cat-like" about the sound
pattern "cat". The sign for
"cat" of course is different in
other languages: "miis" in
Yucatec Maya, for instance.
This is mainly what is
meant by the arbitrariness
of the sign.
Possible objections to the
arbitrariness of the sign?
1. Onomatopoeia
Onomatopoeia refers to
words that sound like the
things they represent.
Clearly some words are like
this: "the bee buzzed."
Still, (a) these words are
very few in number; and (b)
they vary according to
language
Possible objections to the
arbitrariness of the sign?
2. Interjections
Ouch! (in English)
Ae! (in French)
Other "pain" interjections?
"Surprise" interjections?
Arbitrariness: sign
system
But... different languages
cut up the world differently
(think back to the French
"mouton" which can mean
both "sheep" and "mutton"
in English).
So, there is an arbitrariness
about sign systems
(languages in this case)--an
arbitrariness that frees them
from reality to some
extent... or could make
them entirely autonomous
from reality.
Many believe that the
language we speak to a
greater or lesser extent
determines our reality.
(More on this later in the
semester....)
The linear nature of the
linguisticsignifier
Simply put, language
occurs in a sequence.
Other sign systems (art,
clothing, film, etc) can hit
you all at once or in various
sequences.
Not only is language linear,
but it is also rule-
governed....
Langue and parole
Langue = language
considered as a system
Parole = language "in use";
the main focus of this
course
Levinson
Whorf
!Grammar to some extent
conditions thought, leading
people to process and
organize experience in
certain directions and not
others
-Different languages do this
differently, and so peoples
habitual thought patterns
are likewise going to be
different.
Chomsky, Pinker, and
some
cognitive scientists
-Assume that not just the
ability to learn and use
language is innate, but also
that there are fundamental
aspects of grammar linked
to biology that all people
and all languages will share
Language acquisition
device or module in the
brain
-This is assumed to be true,
regardless of evidence to
the contrary.
Spatial arrangements in
various languages
-Relative systems
-Geocentric absolute
systems
-Object-centered intrinsic
system
-Note: any language must
have at least one; a
relative system entails an
intrinsic system (p. 61)
Given the facts, the Simple
Nativist claim that children
are simply learning local
names for preexisting
biologically based concepts
is simply false.
Basic color terms?
Berlinand Kay
-Early claims that
biologically motivated
perceptions led to the rise
of color terms in some sort
of universal evolutionary
sequence
-Problems are multiple: the
idea of color itself varies
cross-linguistically; what
Berlin and Kay call color
(basically an abstract hue-
brightnesssaturation sort of
model) is not universal (nor
is it necessarily anything
like our everyday treatment
of color semantically in
English).
-Examples? Zuni yellow;
Hanunoo colors; English
termsdoes an abstract
sense of color really
seems to exist only in
relation to plants and
animals or other qualities of
light and texture? (See the
work of John Lucy for more
here if interested.)
Semantic and conceptual
representations?
- Conceptual
representations: those
senses/ideas we hold or
that arise from experience
and are given expression in
the words or meaningful
bits of language we use to
communicate
-Semantic representations:
words or meaningful bits of
language that map more or
less well onto conceptual
representations
-Since semantic
representations are
demonstrably mostly if not
entirely nonuniversal (the
fact is that different
languages map out the
world differently),
conceptual representations
cannot be.
Back to spatial issues
-Again, empirical evidence
demonstrates that speakers
of languages that mark
spatial locations in absolute
terms (and that do not also
mark them in relative
terms), are demonstrably
better at knowing which
direction they are facing.
Levinsons conclusions
-His and others work on
semantic and more broadly
grammatical forms cross-
linguistically undermines
any notion that human
beings are born with a
language acquisition
device.
-Rather, children learn the
language from those in their
environment. Along with
learning the language, they
learn the associated
cognitive style.
-Given that languages map
out the world in radically
different ways, and given
that you can demonstrate
time and again that
language differences are
tied to cognitive differences,
Simple Nativism simply
cannot be true.
Linguistic Relativity
Whorf
Language and Thought
Our innate biological
potential is transformed by
culture: to make us who we
are to extend our abilities in
various and often different
ways to limit our
possibilities as well...
Benjamin Lee Whorf
Language conditions our
thinking. It leads us to think
"habitually" in certain ways
(like a record groove keeps
a needle moving along).
Tennis player
Benjamin Lee Whorf. Two
approaches here:
1. Look at word meanings
(much weaker influence)
2. Look at grammatical
forms (much stronger
influence)
Word meanings
Fire examples:
1. "empty"
2. "limestone"
From John Lucy's
Language Diversity and
Thought
Diagram in Whorf.pdf, week
3, slide 6.
What is it?
Different languages cut up
the world differently in two
main ways:
-They do this in terms of
words and domains
-They do this in terms of
grammar
Why do word meanings
have a weaker influence?
The main reason is that
individual words are things
we can focus on and think
about more easily than the
grammar of our language.
We can, in this case, see
that "empty" does not
always really mean "empty",
but rather can mean
"functionally empty": though
gas vapors may remain, we
aren't going to get any more
gas out of that drum.
Grammatical structure as
influencing thought
Let us first consider English
and Yucatec Maya.
English nouns tend to
emphasize "form" and
"function" (eg, "table" is
something with three or
more legs supporting a
surface running parallel to
the ground--a surface upon
which we can put things)
Yucatec Maya nouns tend
to emphasize "substance"
what something is made of
(eg, Yucatec Maya will give
different names to different
"tables" depending on what
they are made of:
wood, glass, plastic--often,
in fact, a wooden table
"over there" may be
referred to simply as "le
che'o'", or "that wood
grammatically?
there")
Grammar: the case of
nouns and Maya santos
(saints)
In English, we have two
main ways of thinking about
nouns:
Count nouns (eg, trees,
bricks, cars)
Mass nouns (eg, water, air,
anger)
Nominal classifiers
In Yucatec Maya, whenever
you want to count objects,
you have to qualify some
aspect of the object, using
what are called nominal
classifiers.
The two most common
nominal classifiers in
Yucatec Maya are
animate and inanimate.
Examples?
hun p'eh che' = one
inanimate wood, or one culture
log or one stick or "one
wooden table" or "one
wooden shelf"... really just
"one thing made of wood
that is not animate"
hun tul maak = one left you with no alternative
animate person, or one but to give it properties
person
Santos
Santo is the Spanish for
"saint". Among the Maya
the word refers almost
exclusively to statues and
paintings of Christ, Mary,
and saints. The traditional
Maya cross is also a
santo...
So, how is a santo treated
You can't say: hun p'eh
santo ("one inanimate
saint")
You must say: hun tul
santo ("one animate saint")
Why? What is
happening?
Fact: if you want to count
nouns in Maya, you've got
to specify what sort of
nouns you are counting.
Fact: traditionally, as today,
santos have been thought
of as more than mere
images or
icons--they contain spiritual
force/energy which
can do you good or bring
you harm
Result: santos are treated
grammatically as if they are
animate.
Grammar "locks in"
Even if you are one of those
Maya who don't believe
that santos possess power,
the Mayanization of the
Spanish word "santo" has
normally only granted to
human beings and
animals--ie, animate
entities.
Hopi and SAE ("Standard
Average European")
Whorf is interested in how
these two deal
grammatically with:
Time
Space
Matter
His focus is largely on
Time
Time as the intimate and
subjective "basic sense of
'becoming later and later.'"
At least, that is what he
sees time as being in the
objective world prior to our
or the Hopi's cultural and
linguistic treatment of it.
SAE?
Time:
Real plurals vs imaginary
plurals (Also, phases of
cycles)
Example? Cardinal
numbers applied to matter
are metaphorically
extended to apply to time:
"10 men" "10 days" and
"10 steps forward" and "10
strokes of a bell" (and "10
summers").
Mass nouns
Example? Mass nouns
("water", "air", "cheese") are
made quantifiable by
reference to containers ("a
glass of water", "a tank of
air", "a slice of cheese"); we
extend this treatment
metaphorically to time "a
glass of water" "a
segment of time" and "an
hour of happiness"
Three core verb tenses:
past, present, future
We cut up time with verbs:
I ate, I eat, I'll eat future).
Other metaphorical
extensions of space and
matter:
"I 'catch' your meaning."
"He 'traveled' through the
'darkest corners' of his
soul."
"She 'spun' a most
convincing tale."
"He 'brushed aside' all of
our arguments."
Hopi?
Time:
No imaginary plurals (eg,
no "10 days") Instead, "on
the tenth day" and "the
tenth day is later than the
ninth day"
No nouns for phases of
cycles (eg, no "summer" as
a noun), but rather adverbs
(eg, "while summer-phase
is occurring")
No mass nouns
Instead, a "built-in" sense of
units: not "a glass of water"
but "a water"; not "a piece
of meat" but "a meat"
No verb tenses
Instead, a speaker "reports"
an event (and so indicates
either past or present) or a
speaker "expects" an event
(indicating future). It's not
that Hopi can't tell you when
something happened or will
happen (or if it is currently
happening). It's just that
sharp cuts in the time
continuum are not made (as
they are with our core verb
tenses of past, present, and
Habitual thought?
Not just the words and the
grammar of a language, but
also the presence or
absence of metaphorical
bridges ("time" as an
"object", in our case) and
the more complex
relationships between
language and culture more
generally.
In brief: SAE habitual
thought
SAE tends to objectify time.
We treat time as if it were
an object in space that can
be cut up, measured,
saved, spent, wasted, taken
advantage of, etc.
Our use of diaries,
schedules, train time-tables,
interest charges, wage
labor, calendars, history,
books, etc, tends to seem
to be natural ways of
dealing with time. But this
"naturalness" is largely due
to the fact that we objectify
time in various grammatical
ways.
In brief: Hopi habitual
Hopi does not objtehctiofy
utimge.h Tthe Hopi
language treats time in
ways that are probably
better attuned to our actual
human experience of
"becoming later and later".
Much of traditional Hopi
ritual is focused on
"preparing" (both in outer
and inner terms)a cultural
fact with powerful
connections to Hopi
grammar. The "getting later"
view of time gives rise to
this emphasis on
"preparing" and
"accumulating" force or
energy--to bring about the
desired result of the rituals.
Example: the Hopi
ceremonial rain dance, with
"its short, piston-like tread,
repeated thousands of
times, hour after hour."
Lakoff & Johnson
Figurative language Vs
Literal language...
Literal language
In a basic sense, this
involves saying something
"literal" and meaning for it to
be taken "literally".
Example: "The cat is tired."
(The literal cat is literally
tired.)
Figurative language
This involves the use of
rhetorical tropesthings
like metaphors, metonyms,
irony, and so forth.
Poetry is often highly
figurative.
Talking about abstract
things tends to be highly
figurative, even if we don't
often realize it.
Example: "Life is a journey."
Example: "Society is an
organism."
Lakoff & Johnson:
Metaphors
"The essence of metaphor
is understanding and
experiencing one kind of
things in terms of another."
Metaphorical concept
Concepts themselves are
often understood in
metaphorical terms that
may not be obvious or even
conscious
When Lakoff & Johnson use
the word "metaphor", they
mostly mean "metaphorical
concept"
Concept & metaphorical
concept
Concept? -Metaphorical
concept?
Argument -ARGUMENT IS
WAR
Argument- AN ARGUMENT
IS A
BUILDING
L&J claim:
"Human thought processes
are largely metaphorical."
Metaphorical and Cultural
Coherence 1
communitys ways of taking
The most powerful
metaphors relate to deeply
held cultural values. Some
metaphors are more
coherent, indicating a better
fit with those values.
Metaphorical and Cultural
Coherence 2
Bodily experience and
metaphor: orientation
In English, we tend to
believe (and "feel") that
MORE IS UP (LESS IS
DOWN).
Metaphorical and Cultural
Coherence 3
UP: more, conscious,
happy, health, in control,
future, high status, good
DOWN: less, unconscious,
sad, sickness, being
controlled, past, low status,
bad.
Metaphors in the social
sciences?
Victor Turner, a symbolic
anthropologist
Theoretical traditions
themselves are highly
metaphorical
Society = body/organism
Society = machine
Society = battlefield.
HEATH
FOCUS:
Ways of taking meaning
from texts (and beyond)
Literacy events: when
reading and writing are
somehow integrated into life
Assumption 1: a
from the printed word and
using this knowledge are
interdependent with the
ways children learn tontalk
in their social interactions
with caregivers (pp 98-9)
Assumption 2: an old
distinction between oral
traditions and literate
traditions is not terribly
useful
Three communities (from
somewhere in the
Carolinas): Maintown
(middle class, suburban);
Roadville (working class,
white); Trackton (working
class, African American)
1. MAINTOWN
Book-reading with small
children works similarly to
the way it does in school:
what-questions
. Books as key parts of
the childs environment,
respected (at least in their
physical form!)
. Lots of questions asked
by caregiver; child answers;
child begins to predict the
sorts of questions that will
be asked (again, this looks
like
what you find in school)
. Books acknowledged as
possibly containing truth
and possibly containing
fiction; suspension of
reality encouraged; books
as entertainment; even
when no books are present,
book talk is there.
Preschoolers come up with
factual and fictional
narratives, often coding
them correctly (There once
was a puppy as
announcing a fictional
account)
. At three or so, children
are encouraged to be
mainly listeners when
parents are reading (they
still are playing around with
questions in their heads)
. What-questions lead to
what-explanations; these
form the basis of reason-
explanations (which are
likewise important in formal
education); reason-
explanations are like more
general theories about the
nature of thingsthe
whys rather than simply
the whats
The end result here is that
children in Maintown are
socialized into an
analytic/field-independent
cognitive style: they break
down a situation (the
whats) and find the
patterns underlying it (the
whys).
. The ways they are used
to interacting with their
parents when dissecting
texts are, well, similar to the
ways their teachers will
want to interact with them,
and this tends to help them
out early on in school as
well.
1. TRACKTON
. Babies held almost
continuously, constantly in
human interaction
. Toys mostly at
Christmas; regular
household objects for play
most of the time
. No reading materials
especially for children
(reading as adult-focused)
. Adults dont read to
children (no bed-time
stories)
. Childrens talk, once it
seems to be varied enough
and participatory (not
simply copying), is then
given attention by adults
. Children not asked
what-questions, but rather
what is that like?
(analogies on often
unspecified features)
where did that come
from? what do you want?
(learning, however, is felt
mostly to be the childs
responsibility)
-Storytelling from an early
age
-Verbal environment is
competitive, so the children
must work hard for attention
to their stories
-Open to fictionalizing
- Schools focus on what-
questions are new to these
children;
reasonexplanations, at
which these children are
much better, come rather
later in the school career
CONCLUSIONS?
-The American public
education system seems to
favor particular styles of
engaging with texts over
others.
- It tends to begin with
what-explanations, then
moves to reason-
explanation, and then
considers affective
expressions (peoples
emotional responses to
things).
- Maintown children are
exposed to literacy events
that foreshadow this
sequence.
- Roadville children get a
strong focus on what-
explanations, but are
discouraged from story-
telling that breaks with local
ideas of truth, prior to
school.
. Trackton children get a
strong focus on reason-
explanation (and analogical
thinking and affective
expression), but do not get
much in the way of what-
explanations prior to school.
. Schooling could be
organized to recognize
these different styles and
make the most of them for
all students.
Ochs and Schieffelin
Language Acquisition and
Socialization: Three
Developmental Stories and
Their Implications
[Note: at the beginning of
the associated audio file, I
say that Im not having you
read this article. Thats not
true. You are supposed to
read it. Its just that I was
using this recording for an
earlier version of the course
(one in which this article
was not in the textbook). I
think its an important
article, and Im glad they
put it in the second edition,
so we can read it there.]
Their perspective
Acquiring language is
deeply affected by the
process of becoming a
competent member of
society. Becoming a
competent member of
society is largely realized
through language.
Developmental stories
white, middle-class
American Kaluli (Papua
New Guinea) Samoan
3 facets of
communicative
interaction
1. the social organization of
the verbal environment of
the young child
2. the extent to which
children are expected to
adapt to situations or that
situations are adapted to
the child
3. the negotiation of
meaning by caregiver and
child
White, middle-class
Americans
infant is treated as a social
being from birth dyadic
protoconversations
common accommodations
are made for the child...
Accommodations to child
mother takes perspective of
the child "baby talk" register
toys and "child-sized"
objects "baby-proofing"
adult-child interactions are
largely in this "safe" world
separated from most adult-
adult interactions.
Further accommodations
to child
self-lowering strategies
helping the child to express
himself/herself
paraphrasing ambiguous
utterances.
Kaluli (PNG)
babies are thought to be
without sense and
deserving of pity
-no dyadic mother/child
communication
-no eye-gazing
Triadic exchanges
Cultural attitude
"one cannot know what
another thinks or feels" or...
at least one should not talk
about it
-this attitude reinforces the
parents' view that children
lack understanding.
Later on...
child is addressed by name
and given commands with
no verbal response
expected
"who are you?!"
"is it yours?!"
-exception: shriek as "'I'm
unwilling.'"
Verbal environment?
Even though infants are not
engaged in much
conversation, their verbal
environment is quite rich:
lots of people talking, many
times about the child and
what it's doing.
"Mother" and "breast"
Once the child uses these
two words, it is thought that
it is ready to begin learning.
"say like that" phrase used
to moderate/guide child in
social interactions
no baby talkall talk is
adult and focused on the
situation at hand.
Ambiguous utterances?
Other helps?
No attempt to interpret by
parents/adults: "what?",
"huh?"
No elaboration of child's
words; no scaffolding
No help outside of "say like
that"
Samoan
care-giving is integrated
into their highly stratified
society
1. from birth to about six
months, an infant is called
"pepemeamea" ("baby thing
thing")
2. baby stays mostly with
mother and her helpers
3. baby is talked about but
not talked to
4. baby is sung too, though
focus is mostly on baby's
physiological needs.
"pepe" ("baby")
once a baby starts crawling,
things change child starts to
be thought of as cheeky,
mischievous, and willful
(often shouting out "tae")
child is ordered around
("come", "don't!"), but not
talked to for the most part in
a dyadic sense.
Social stratification
Social stratification is there
from the start.
Triadic interactions:
1. child appeals to high-
ranking caregiver
2. high-ranking caregiver
orders someone lower to
deal with child's needs
3. lower-ranked person
deals with child's needs.
News and messages
High-ranking people expect
to get news and messages
delivered to them.
Children are encouraged to
speak in ways that help
train them to gather and
report news and messages.
Accommodation
Samoan children (unlike
Western children) are
expected to accommodate
themselves to the situation.
Whereas Western mothers
actively try to take on the
perspective of their infants
in communicating, Samoan
children are trained to be
highly sensitive to the
perspectives of people who
outrank them.
Ambiguous utterances
If you are higher-status and
say something
unintelligible, it's up to
others to try to figure out
what you said.
If you are a child or lower-
status, you must be the one
to clarify (others will ask
you "what?!").
-Samoan philosophical
views on intentionality.
"Choreographies"
While there are biological
constraints on behavior,
those constraints are rather
"loose".
We see instead the
importance of different
patterns, or
"choreographies", of
language acquisition and
socialization. Issues such
as eye-gaze, vocalization,
body alignment, and typical
structures of communicative
interaction all vary.
Caregiver register ("baby
talk")
This is part of the white,
middle-class "input" model
involving mainly the
caregiver-infant dyad.
Kaluli and Samoan are
different:
Kaluli? "bad/incorrect talk"
Samoan? "not appropriate
to direct expansive talk
toward lower-status
individuals, including small
children" (think of "foreigner
talk") So, "baby talk" is not
really mainly about teaching
language as teaching about
a kind of dyadic social
interaction.
Their suggested types of
parent-child orientations
Table slide 23,Ochs and
Schieffelin. Week 5
Final points
1. Language acquisition
and socialization go hand in
hand, and so we should
expect to see differences
among societies.
2. These differences are
part of wider attitudes
toward what children and
human beings are more
generally.
3. "Baby talk" register is
likely linked to other ideas
about human beings and
human nature that are not
universally shared.
4. Children will acquire the
ability to use language
whether or not they are
talked to by others from
their earliest days.
John DeFrancis
Details
Inclusivists: Writing
includes any system of
graphic symbols that is
used to convey some
amount of thought. (p. 130)
So, this could mean not just
words on a page but also
mathematical and musical
notation, the Nike swoosh,
a flag, the tree logo for
CSUF,etc.
Exclusivists: Writing
includes only those systems
of graphic symbols that can
be used to convey any and
all thought. (p.130). For
English, this would be the
alphabet proper, and
nothing else.
Writing systems
Partial writing systems:
convey only some
thought. (p. 131)
Full writing systems:
convey any and all
thought. (p. 131)
Spoken language
The key thing that defines
human beings
Based on phonemes which
are put together to form
morphemes (meaningful
stretches of sound); then
syntax
Writing systems: phonetic
and non-phonetic
The rebus principle:
pictographs used to
represent sounds
Even phonetic systems are
incomplete
Phoneticity
The phoneticity of a writing
system is the degree to
which it represents sounds
Think of the International
Phonetic Alphabet (the IPA)
as the best weve got
The Duality Principle: the number of speakers of
mix of phonetic and non-
phonetic elements in a
writing system
Phonemic writing systems;
syllabic writing systems;
logographic writing It depends on whom you
systems.
Graphemes
The basic units that make a
writing system work
Even a logographic
system, such as Chinese, is
not really logographic; it Linguistic
involves a large number of
syllabic graphemes to make
it manageable and
comprehensible.
Writing Yucatec Maya
Mexico
The Yucatan Peninsula
Map slide 3, Yucatec Maya.
Week 6.
Yucatec Maya
-An indigenous American
language
-A member of the Maya
Language Family
-More than 700,000 people
speak it today as their first
language.
The current situation
-Most native speakers of
Yucatec Maya live in poor,
rural areas
-Most have some schooling,
but most schooling is aimed
at teaching students to
read, write, and speak
Spanish
-Over time, it is likely the
Yucatec Maya will decrease
and the language may die.
Is Yucatec Maya worth
preserving?
ask...
Linguistic
anthropologists
Educated Maya activists
Poor, rural Maya
anthropologists?
Linguistic anthropologists
tend to value linguistic
diversity, minimally arguing
that there is a lot to be
learned about the
relationship between
language and culture by
studying as many
languages and cultures as
possible.
Anthropologists in general
tend to worry that the loss
of a group's language will
negatively affect other
aspects of its culture as
well.
Educated Maya activists?
These are Maya who have
either been taught, or have
taught themselves, to read
and write Maya.
They worry that the
language will be lost unless
more and more people start
to read and write it.
Many of these activists are
"purists", in that they seek
to establish a "pure" way of
writing Mayaaway of
writing the language that,
for instance, removes the
many Spanish words that
have, over the centuries,
found their way into
everyday spoken Maya.
Poor, rural Maya?
Most of the people who
speak Maya fall into this
category. They live away
from the cities and have
little education and few job
opportunities.
The Maya they speak
everyday contains some
Spanish loan words, but
this is not a "purity" problem
for them.
Very few of these people
know how to read or write
Maya at all.
They believe that, while it is
good that their children
speak Maya, they should
also learn to speak, read,
and write Spanish and,
ideally, English, to help
them move ahead in the
world.
The language issues
involve questions about:
Phonology - what letters
are used to represent which
sounds
Morphology - how words
are formed
Vocabulary - which
words are "canonical" or
"official"
Phonology
Since the Spanish
Conquest, a number of
alphabets have been used
to represent the sounds of
Yucatec Maya. Various
Colonial-era alphabets were
used in official documents
and in the
spelling of place-names and
peoples names.
Linguists have used a
number of ways over the
past century to represent
Maya sounds: the IPA
(International Phonetic use in their place. When
Alphabet), variations on they write books of fiction
the Colonial and more
recent alphabets,and, for
the hardcore, an
orthography devised by
University of Chicago
Linguist Norman McQuown.
Modern-day Maya activists
have drawn on a number of
sources to create what is
likely to be the new
Standard way of writing
Maya.
Orthographies
(Consonants)
Table slide 13, Yucatec
Maya, week 6.
Morphology
Although there are more or
less standard ways to set
the boundaries on Maya
words, many issues remain.
Example:
ta w otoch vs taw otoch vs
ta wotoch.
Vocabulary
This is the most politically
sensitive part, at least for
the educated Maya
activists.
Depending on where you
go, youll find poor, rural
speakers of Maya using a
greater or a lesser number
of Spanish loan words in
their speech. For most
Maya activists, this is
unacceptable.
Maya activists seek out
Spanish words in Maya
sentences and see if they
can find old Maya words or
invent new Maya words to
and poetry and the like,
they nearly always use this
pure Maya.
The problem, though, is
two-fold:
(1) very few people can
read Maya in the first place
(2) almost no one speaks
this pure Maya
What about linguistic
anthropologists?
If you take a Yucatec Maya
language course here in the
US, youre going to be
taught to speak the
language as most people in
Yucatan speak it.
In other words, there will,
here and there, be the odd
Spanish loan word.
Example, pointing, say, to
an airplane in the sky:
Je' le abyoono'.
All est un avin.
Theres an airplane.
There is no Maya word for
airplane, so you can see also form writing co-
that the Spanish word has
made its way into the Maya
sentence (and been
altered).
Actually, there is a pure
Maya word for airplane, majority of Maya
but no one uses it. SO, the
view in US universities is:
teach the language as the
people speak it.
What about educated
Maya activists?
As noted, they tend to favor
pure Maya, especially in operate more in Spanish-
terms of vocabulary.
Indeed, they often view
normal, everyday spoken
Maya as corrupt and prestigious language, they
decadent. Most of the know they cant speak
books they produce writing Spanish well, and so they
in pure Maya, however, feel they inferior in the
have the status of presence of those who do.
boutique items: nice to
look at, but few people can Many believe the Maya they
speak is corrupt and
read them.
impure (they know what
These activists work in the activists think, and they
colleges and universities in respect the activists
the Peninsula, and they opinions). So, not only do
these rural Maya feel bad
operatives to encourage for not being able to speak
and promote writing in Spanish well, they also feel
Maya (remember, though: bad for not being able to
pure Maya mostly). speak their own language
well (according, at least, to
What about the vast the standards of pure
Maya put forward by the
speakers? activists). At the end of the
As noted, they tend to be day, most rural Maya are
poor and rural. They often quite pragmatic. They want
use Maya as their first their children to learn
language of communication Spanish (and English, if
in daily life (something possible) to help with their
many of the activists do not economic advancement.
actually do, as they tend to They see little value in
learning (or having their
speaking environments). children learn) to read and
write in Maya.
Most feel inferior because
of this fact. They see
Spanish as a more