Ryan Schram's Anthrocyclopaedia

Anthropology presentations and learning resources

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: start » 3621 » 2024 » 3
3621:2024:3

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
3621:2024:3 [2024/01/15 23:01] – Ryan Schram (admin)3621:2024:3 [2024/01/16 00:11] (current) – Ryan Schram (admin)
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== ======+====== Week 3—Communication as event ======
  
 ===== Week 3—Communication as event ===== ===== Week 3—Communication as event =====
Line 5: Line 5:
 **Main reading:** Irvine (2012) **Main reading:** Irvine (2012)
  
-**Other reading:** Ansell (2009); Berman (2020); Goodwin (2006); Harkness (2017); Hymes (1974); Irvine (1996); Jakobson ([1957] 1984)+**Other reading:** Ansell (2009); Berman (2020); Goodwin (2006); Harkness (2017); Hymes (1974); Irvine (1996); Jakobson (1960)
  
 In this week, we delve more deeply into foundations of a social study of language, and especially what anthropology has to offer this study. Anthropologists join with sociolinguists on very general questions of language and society, but anthropology is based on ethnography, so its study of communication is to create ethnographies of communication. It’s a pretty compelling and counterintuitive idea: You can observe and document people communicating if you attend to every thing they do when they interact with each other. In this week, we delve more deeply into foundations of a social study of language, and especially what anthropology has to offer this study. Anthropologists join with sociolinguists on very general questions of language and society, but anthropology is based on ethnography, so its study of communication is to create ethnographies of communication. It’s a pretty compelling and counterintuitive idea: You can observe and document people communicating if you attend to every thing they do when they interact with each other.
Line 11: Line 11:
 The ethnographic study of “speech events” and other communicative events has deep roots (Hymes 1974; see also Duranti 1997, sect. 9.2). We will learn about it through the work of Judith Irvine on Wolof griots (Irvine 1996, 2012). This is interesting because Irvine herself represents a new generation of linguistic anthropology (see Silverstein and Urban 1996; Silverstein 2022). Whereas earlier scholars were mainly interested in linking speech events to social systems and processes, Irvine and her cohort wanted to question whether the “context” of a speech event (the time, place, people, and social forces) was static or easily separable from the communicative actions in an event. In important ways, they argue, communicative action creates its own context. Put another way, speech makes sense and has its full force in a context, a here and now of people in a community, but the context for communication itself has to be communicated. The ethnographic study of “speech events” and other communicative events has deep roots (Hymes 1974; see also Duranti 1997, sect. 9.2). We will learn about it through the work of Judith Irvine on Wolof griots (Irvine 1996, 2012). This is interesting because Irvine herself represents a new generation of linguistic anthropology (see Silverstein and Urban 1996; Silverstein 2022). Whereas earlier scholars were mainly interested in linking speech events to social systems and processes, Irvine and her cohort wanted to question whether the “context” of a speech event (the time, place, people, and social forces) was static or easily separable from the communicative actions in an event. In important ways, they argue, communicative action creates its own context. Put another way, speech makes sense and has its full force in a context, a here and now of people in a community, but the context for communication itself has to be communicated.
  
-Possible topics to tackle together in the class wiki are:+Possible topics to tackle together in the [[3621:2024:contributions_to_an_online_knowledge_base|class wiki]] are:
  
   * speech community   * speech community
Line 49: Line 49:
  
  
-Jakobson, Roman. (1957) 1984. “Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb.” In //Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies, 1931-1981//, edited by Linda R. Waugh and Morris Halle, 41–58. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822885.41.+Jakobson, Roman. 1960. “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” In Style in Language, edited by Thomas Sebeok, 350–77. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. https://monoskop.org/images/8/84/Jakobson_Roman_1960_Closing_statement_Linguistics_and_Poetics.pdf.
  
  
3621/2024/3.1705388486.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/01/15 23:01 by Ryan Schram (admin)