Living Language. Laura M. Ahearn

Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу Living Language - Laura M. Ahearn страница 16

Living Language - Laura M. Ahearn

Скачать книгу

many things with words. Linguistic anthropologists use the term “multifunctional” to refer to all the different kinds of work that language does. One of the first scholars to analyze the various functions of language was Roman Jakobson, a Russian linguist who helped form what became known as the “Prague School” of linguistic theory. Jakobson (1960) identifies six “constitutive factors” in any speech event, and then attaches a corresponding function to each of these constitutive factors. All functions are always present in each speech event, Jakobson argues but, in certain cases, one function may predominate over the others. Figure 1.4 is a slightly modified version of Jakobson’s own model (1960:150, 154).

      Figure 1.4 Jakobson’s model of the multifunctionality of language.

      Source: Thomas A. Sebeok, Style in Language, pp. 150, 154, 350–377, © 1960 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, by permission of The MIT Press.

      Your best friend hears that you have just received upsetting news, so she immediately sends you a text that says: “So sorry that I can’t even find the words to tell you.” While the text message conveys some information, and therefore has a referential function, according to Jakobson’s model, the message would probably best be interpreted as being predominantly oriented toward the speaker’s emotions (expressive function) as well as toward the addressee (conative function). The alliteration and the multimodality of the emoticon are examples of the poetic function that Jakobson believed was present even in the most mundane of interactions. By reaching out to you in order to reinforce the channel that connects you socially, your friend also activated the phatic function of language. And the “language about language” aspect of the message could be said to be an example of Jakobson’s metalinguistic function

      (what linguistic anthropologists call metapragmatic discourse [Silverstein 1993; cf. Agha 2007; Lucy 1993]).

      Figure 1.5 Cartoon playing off the language ideology that considers French a romantic language.

      Grosz, Chris/Cartoon Stock.

      Language Ideologies

      Language ideologies10 are the attitudes, opinions, beliefs, or theories that we all have about language. Susan Gal and Judith Irvine consider such ideologies “to be neither true nor false. They are positioned and partial visions of the world” (Gal and Irvine 2019:2). We may or may not be conscious of them, and they may or may not square with scholars’ views about language (which are also, of course, language ideologies). Language ideologies can be about language in general (e.g., “Language is what separates humans from other species”), particular languages (e.g., “French is such a romantic language!” – see Figure 1.5 for a cartoon making fun of this language ideology), particular linguistic structures (e.g., “Spanish is complicated as it has two forms of the verb ‘to be’”), language use (e.g., “Never end a sentence with a preposition”) – or about the people who employ specific languages or usages (e.g., “People who say ‘ain’t’ are ignorant,” or, “People who live in the United States should speak English,” or, “Women are more talkative than men”). Scholars working within this fast-growing, exciting area of language ideology study, for example, how socially and politically influenced attitudes toward an endangered language can affect the likelihood of its survival (e.g., Jaffe 1999; Kulick 1998; Shaul 2014), or how teenagers and adults embrace or reject ways of speaking that link them with various racial, ethnic, or gendered identities (e.g., Briggs 1998; Bucholtz 2001; Cameron 1997; Cavanaugh 2012; Cutler 2003; Gaudio 2001; Kroskrity 2000a ).

      1 Language ideologies almost always serve the interests of a specific social or cultural group. In other words, in the uneven social terrain that exists in all communities, language ideologies come to express the judgments and stereotypes of particular segments of each community. There are benefits to be had from certain language variants being deemed “standard” while others are labeled “sub-standard dialects” or “slang.” Such labels and judgments are social rather than linguistic in nature, for every single person has an accent, and all dialects are rule-governed.

      2 Language ideologies in any given society are best conceived of as multiple because all societies consist of many different divisions and subgroupings. There will, therefore, be many different ideas about language in any single community. Moreover, people can belong to many different social groups simultaneously and may therefore hold multiple (sometimes contradictory) language ideologies.

      3 People may be more or less aware of their own or others’ language ideologies. Certain types of ideas about language use or linguistic structures tend to be more accessible to people, while others are less so (Silverstein 1979, 2001). At times, language ideologies become the subject of public debate, as happened during the 1996–1997 Ebonics controversy, and these occurrences can be very illuminating to study. Just as interesting and potentially even more powerfully influential, however, are the language ideologies that people do not realize that they hold.

      4 People’s language ideologies mediate between social structures and forms of talk. This bridging of micro-level speech and macro-level social structures is one of the most important contributions a study of language ideologies can make.

      In many respects, therefore, attention to language ideologies can help scholars in linguistic and cultural anthropology (and beyond) understand how both language and culture shape and are shaped by human actions. To understand this recursive relationship further, we turn now to the concept of practice.11

      Practice

      Consider Marx’s famous words in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past” (Marx 1978[1852]:595). In place of the word “history” in this remark, one could easily substitute “language,” “society,” or “culture,” and the statement would remain equally insightful. At the core of what is known as “practice

Скачать книгу