Anthropology 150

Anthropology and Language

Language is in many ways the quintessential expression of culture. Language is learned,

shared, and transmitted. All humans have the capacity for language, but the language spoken by

each cultural group is in many respects unique. Just as children can learn any culture, so too are

they born with an innate ability to learn any language.

More than this, however, language is essential to culture. Culture is based on symbols. In

order to learn, to share, to transmit cultural knowledge, we need to communicate. Our

Communication, in turn is based on symbols, of which language is one manifestation. That is,

language forms a subset of a more broadly conceptualized capacity for symbolic expression.

If we want to describe a building, we do not have to show someone a building, we can use

words to paint a picture. If we want to tell someone how to build a better mousetrap, we don’t

need build it in front of their eyes, but we can talk about it. In can describe the mousetrap using

words to build the picture for us.

Language as culture

Language is the quintessential cultural product: it must be learned, it must be shared, and it

must be transmitted. Just as all humans have the capacity for culture, all humans have the

capacity for language. The brains of human young are wired so that they begin to learn language

even before they can speak. And any human child can learn any language ever devised by any

group of people, from Tagalog to mathematics. Yes, anyone can learn math.

Although all humans have the capacity for language, the particular language that you learn

is variable, and an essential element of enculturation is teaching language to the young.

The capacity for language is the product of millions of years of evolution. Our remote

ancestors millions of years ago lacked the capacity for the sophisticated manipulation of symbols

and the capacity for vocalizing the many sounds that go into our spoken language.

Two primary factors led to selection for the ability to manipulate symbols and to speak.

First, the primary selective advantage that our species had over others is the ability to plan. As

we’ll talk about in some detail next week, between 8 and 4 million years ago, species ancestral to

our own were faced with an environment that was changing dramatically. Food was no longer

readily available, and wasn’t to be found in large amounts. In order to survive our ancestors, who

were a bit like gorillas and chimps today, had to be able to plan. They had to be able to think

abstractly, to remember where resources were located, and when they were available. They had to

be able to think spatially and to model the landscape in their minds.

Secondly, they had to be able to cooperate. As we’ll see, humans, like all other primates,

live in groups. They do this primarily for defense. What distinguishes us and our near relatives,

however, is that we not only band together for defense, but we cooperate in getting food. This

became especially important about about 4 million years ago, when our ancestral line split off

from Chimps and gorillas. Our ancestors, who were only about 4 ft tall and still very ape-like,

began to scavenge carcasses. They began to eat meat, again as a response to changing

environmental circumstances. In order to get these carcasses, they had to be able to drive off other

predators, such as big cats and hyenas. That required coordinated group action.

Just about the time that this adaptive strategy emerges, we can see archaeologically that

the human brain changes. The areas related to speech begin to enlarge, and the brain is re-

organized. Soon after that, humans started make stone tools, and to hunt. Soon after that, they

are hunting large animals that required more sophisticated strategies and greater cooperation

within the group in order to survive. In association, we see changes in the way that the human

mouth is shaped, the placement of the larynx, and changes in the way that the tongue is held in

place. These changes gave our ancestors the capacity to make a wider range of sounds and to

develop more sophisticated sound patterns in order to communicate.

Just when fully modern capacities emerged is a matter of debate. Some think that it was

only recently, say in the last 150,000 years, when our own sub-species, Homo sapiens sapiens

appeared. Others think that our ancestral species, such as homo erectus probably had speech

capabilities somewhat like our own.

The How and the Why of Language

The evolutionary scenario explains why we communicate, but the cultural dimension of

language is how we communicate.

Human language needs to be learned because it is so complex, but also because it is so

arbitrary.

The Belgian linguist Ferdinand De Saussure emphasized the arbitrary nature of language

in his work on semiotics, the study of signs. A sign consists of two parts: the signifier and and the

signified. The link between the two does not exist in nature, it is established via culture. That is,

the link between the signifier and the signified exists only because people agree that it does.

There is no necessary link between the word “cow” (the signifier) and the bovine in the

field (the signified). The cow can just as easily be called “Vaca”, or even “Ralph.”

You can express the same concept by any symbol, and the unity of the symbol, the link

between the signifier and the signified exists only because people agree that it does. In short, a

sign is a culturally constructed symbol.

The difference between our language and the systems of communication used by most

other animals is that ours is symbolic. Symbols have no inherent meaning.

Non-human systems of communication

Most other animals rely heavily upon signals and calls. These systems are both limited

and immediate. Signal/call systems are also closed, meaning that there is no means to generate

new forms or new meanings. Bird songs, whale calls, dog barks are examples. The repertoire is

limited and refers to something that is happening at the moment, sometimes an emotional or

physical state; being wounded or the presence of a predator for instance.

Non-human primates have more sophisticated vocal systems, which are call systems, or

gesture-call systems. Vocal signals are a large part of this system, but it is often combined with

physical movements that give added meaning. These systems can be considered cultural to the

extent that they go beyond signals to include symbols. Most of these systems are closed, however.

That is, there is a one-to-one correspondence between signifier and signified and the system can’t

be expanded. That is, there are no rules for generating new meanings by combining or modifying

existing symbols.

In our use of language today we incorporate elements of the gesture-call system. It is said

by many that in English, 90% of emotional information is transmitted not by the words we speak,

but by our body language and our tone of voice. We not only use facial gestures and arm

movements to give emphasis to speech, but we also vary the quality of our voice, something that

is called paralanguage. We also use vocal characterizers, sounds such as laughing and crying .

We use Vocal qualifiers, variations in pitch and loudness, Finally, we used vocal segregates,

things like oh and uh uh, or ‘like wow’ to give added emphasis.

We have a lot of evolutionary baggage that we carry with us everyday, leftover, if you will

of the history of our species. But humans have taken symbolic communication to new level.

Non-human ape capabilities for language

Other Primates, such as chimps, gorillas, and even orangutans have been taught sign

language. In the case of chimps, those who learned the language display the ability to manipulate

it; they can make up new phrases. In one case, a female chimp even taught ASL to her offspring.

But you can’t infer from these studies that other primates have a symbolic capacity equal

to humans. No other primate has proved capable of inventing a system of symbols, they have to

be taught the system. Other primates can’t talk. Even if they could understand the symbols

involved, they lack the physical ability to vocalize as humans do.

Levels of analysis

The anthropological analysis of communication and language takes places at many levels.

The lower levels might be thought of as the basic elements of study: the nuts and bolts of

linguistic analysis. The higher levels are both more abstract and more philosophical.

From low to high, the levels of analysis are phonology, morphology, syntax, grammar,

sociolinguistics, and phenomenology.

Phonology – the study of speech sounds. Basic units of sound are called phonemes. A phoneme

is defined as the minimal unit of speech that is distinguished. Are s and z distinguished for

instance, or are they considered to be the same. Is a vowel sound hard or soft. It is voiced with

the lips or deep down in the throat. You need to know these things if you want to learn a

language.

morphology – the study of the forms of language, how the units of language are combined. The

basic units of meaning in a language are called morphemes. A morpheme, then is the basic units

of meaning.

Morphemes are distinct from phonemes. In most languages the basic units of meaning,

morphemes consist of combinations of phonemes

Words are morphemes. Walk and talk are morphemes in English.

Other types of sounds can be morphemes as well, however. By putting an ‘s’ or an ‘ed’ on the

end of these words we change their meaning.

In that case ‘s’ and ‘ed’ are morphemes. They can’t stand alone however, so we call them bound

morphemes.

syntax — refers to the arrangement of words in phrases and sentences. Do you put the subject

first in the sentence or the verb? Do adverb and adjectives come before or after the word that

they modify?

We study these things because you need to know them in order to understand a language. You

also need to know them if you are going to determine the relationship between languages.

Language and social interaction

Socio-linguistics: Language can be used to erect barriers between groups, to signal identity.

Examples:

Male and female speech patterns. Choice of words and patterns of inflection are strongly linked

to culturally constructed gender roles.

Standard English vs. BEV (Black English Vernacular). White Americans and African Americans

often use very different vocabularies and social constructions. The syntax of Black English

Vernacular incorporates elements of West African grammar and syntax that have been passed on

from generation to generation for over 100 years. While BEV was previously considered to be

“sub-standard” English, it is now recognized as a distinct and legitimate dialect with a rich

cultural tradition.

Standard English vs Spanglés: similar to BEV, many Americans of Spanish-speaking ancestry

combine elements of English and Spanish in their language and speech.

None of these linguistic systems is superior to any other, but there are differences between

groups that reflect cultural heritage. When one of those groups is more powerful males vs.

females, whites vs. blacks, the less powerful group may be stigmatized. Language then becomes

both a means of establishing identity, but also a means of political and economic power.

Language becomes a tool of identity. You signal which group you belong to by the language that

Cultural Heritage

Language is very closely tied to cultural heritage and to identity. Many languages are on

the verge of extinction and speakers of those languages seek to preserve them as a means of

preserving both their culture and their identity.

Native American languages are very good examples. Kwakiutl is a language spoken

among the Native Americans of the Northwestern US and Pacific Canada. The Kwakiutl are one

fo the groups originally studied by Franz Boas in the 1800s. In the mid-20th century their

language was on the verge of extinction, but they enlisted the aid of anthropologists to begin

teaching the language in local Kwakiutl schools. The Kwakiutl view the survival of the language

as important to the maintenance of identity and the survival of the culture.

Phenomenonology: The linguistic analysis of phenomenology consists of asking the question, to

what extent does language shape our experience of the world? The answer to the question is in

part a consideration of and debate over linguistic determinism.

Linguistic Determinism: A Definition

We use language as a tool for communication, but also as a means of thought. It is through

language that we ponder the world and ourselves. But in the process does language impact how

we think and how we view the world?

Linguistic Determinism refers to the idea that the language we use to some extent determines the

way in which we view and think about the world around us. The concept has generally been

divided into two separate groups - 'strong' determinism and 'weak' determinism. Strong

determinism is the extreme version of the theory, stating that language actually determines

thought, that language and thought are identical. Although this version of the theory would attract

few followers today - since it has strong evidence against it, including the possibility of translation

between languages - we will see that in the past this has not always been the case. Weak

determinism, however, holds that thought is merely affected by or influenced by our language,

whatever that language may be. This version of determinism is widely accepted today.

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Does language reflect the world, or is it a filter through which we view the world? This

question was posed by the anthropological linguist Edward Sapir, an early student of Franz Boas.

It was picked up by his student Benjamin Whorf.

According to Whorf, when two language systems have radically different vocabularies and

grammars, their speakers live in wholly different thought-worlds. Sapir stated that:

'Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as

ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has

become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one

adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental

means of solving specific problems of communication and reflection. The fact of the matter is that

the "real world" is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group.'

Sapir 1929

Whorf used the example of Hopi concepts of time. According to Whorf, English tense

structures encourage English speakers to think of time as a divisable rod that starts in the past

passes thought he present, and ends in the future. Hence the English language’s past, present, and

future tenses.

Whorf, originally a 'fire prevention engineer' by trade, spent a lot of his time studying the

language of the Hopi Indians of Arizona, who make no distinction in their language between past,

present and future tenses. In English we distinguish between past and present tenses by structures

such as 'I see the girl', 'I saw the girl' and 'I will see the girl'. These constructions are not possible

in Hopi, not in many other Native American languages. This apparently made quite an impression

on Whorf, who imagined that the scientists of the day and the Hopi must see the world very

differently. Hopi grammar does not locate events with reference to time. It has no equivalent

of past, present and future tenses. Does this means that the Hopi cannot indicate than an event

happened in the past? NO. Whorf himself stated that, 'The Hopi language is capable of

accounting for and describing correctly all observable phenomena of the universe'. Another

characteristic of the Hopi tongue is that there is just a single word - 'masa'ytaka' - for everything

that flies, including insects, aeroplanes and pilots.

But in English our verbal structures encourage us to think of time as a commodity. We

spend time, we lose time, we gain time. Hopi language encourages people to think of time

differently. Time is something that you experience.

Does these linguistic constructions result in fundamentally different world views?

Probably not. Consider the counter example: a study of color terminology by Brent Berline and

and Paul Kay (1969). Berlin and Kay's color study (1969) found universal focus colors and

differences only in the boundaries of colors in the spectrum. They found that regardless of

language or culture, eleven universal color foci emerge. Underlying apparent diversity in color

vocabularies, these universal foci remain recognizable. Even in languages which do not

discriminate to eleven basic colors, speakers are nonetheless able to sort color chips based on the

eleven focus colors.

Davies' cross-cultural color sorting test (1998) found an obvious pattern in the similarity of

color sorting behavior between speakers of English which has eleven basic colors, Russian which

has twelve (they distinguish two blues), and Setswana which has only five (grue=green-blue).

Davies concluded that the data showed strong universalism.