wp home > junior year writing > sourcebook for instructors > carreiro
Another Student Paper from English 297H: Tutoring Writing
Nicole Carreiro’s essay, “A Closer Look at Linguistic Anthropology,” was written in response to the same assignment as R. J.’s above: from English 297H: Tutoring Writing in the Fall 2006. The course was taught by Haivan Hoang.
A Closer Look at Linguistic Anthropology
By Nicole Carreiro
Anthropology is the study of human groups and their respective cultures. Linguistic Anthropology is a sub-field in which the main concentration is on language and its discourses on macro and micro levels. Members of this working community analyze language from various perspectives and for diverse reasons; for example, some elect to examine dominant linguistic ideologies in a given society while others focus on how language serves as a medium for communication, to whom, how, and to what extent. The following will discuss the conventions of writing used by linguistic anthropologists in a rather specific area of this sub-field—the area which question how individuals judge their own identities based on the system of language in their own cultures and surrounding cultures. Readers of this essay, ideally, will learn how to recognize some of the field’s predominant reasons for inquiry and writing, as well as how to be critical of the content matter and how it is presented. This essay will pull examples from successful articles written by influential members of the field that will demonstrate some conventions of the discipline and the values that motivate them to contribute to their fields.
To best delve into this particular sort of linguistic anthropology, first some background should be given: primarily, to explain why the field is so vast, impressive, and important. Linguistic Anthropologists study just about every culture around the world, primitive or modern for a more whole understanding of the power behind language constructs. Many inquire as to whether or not language may be credited for supporting the way each one of these structures work and change. Often, these structures render some human groups in worse shape than others—this many time being the key motivation for many anthropologists. Many will choose to focus on the influence of language on social constructs such as gender, race, class, and other marginalizing aspects of society. I believe many feel extensive work could help close the divide between those worse off and those who are not affected. So writers in this field take time, do the research, and write these analytical/persuasive essays because they feel they can help change or lessen just how much an individual’s own psyche will be influenced by his own society’s vernacular or what the dominating parallel society’s ideal expectations may be.
Another reason for study is that rectification of language is used for many negative means: persuasion, propaganda, labeling, etc. By researching and exposing many of these problematic effects, anthropologists use their findings for more positive reasons and outlets: education, reform, activism, and the promotion of equality and understanding. In society, many are aware of gross inequalities, but how often do they look at the language used to fuel them; for example, when first being introduce to this discipline, the example of double standards in the relationships between adolescents was given as somewhat of an easy entry into the complicated field. We examined such questions: Why don’t our rational minds notice the common irregularities between terms describing the same actions? Why is it that a girl who dates three guys is pegged a “whore”, a negative connotation yielding detrimental effects on her self-esteem, while a guy who dates three girls is hailed a “pimp”? Questions like these are looked at in this sub-field because many are enthralled by the prospect of exposing how common uses of language do push stereotypes which are damaging to the individual and/or the masses.
Jane H. Hill, a member of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Arizona, wrote “Language, Race, and White Public Space”. Hill’s article exemplifies the structure of writing in this discipline that can be modeled. In having to deal with presenting complex ideas and data, she breaks up her essay into sections in consideration of her readers whom she should assume may be totally foreign to these ideas. So, she opens with a definition of white public space, giving more than dynamic for them to consider before they begin reading the intense subject matter. Intense foci like for example, why African Americans and Latinos often adapt their own dialects to sound more “white” to not be discriminated against or judged. The importance of this issue is staggering and thus Hill presents her analysis in sections.
She begins with a background into the study of racism in Anthropology and how it offers further study of racism in language discourse. The organization of Hill’s essay, again, is the main factor to stress because in this field, many times, writers will have to present information in a way that guides the audience into fully understanding the context. Some of her categories and sections offer titles that state what will be discussed: for example, “‘Spanish Accent’” and “‘Mock Spanish’”: Linguistic Order and Disorder in White Public Space”. For the last one, Hill has a sub-section, “Puerto Rican Linguistic Marginalization: Disorderly Order.” From all of this, we see the organization allows readers to see not only the complexity of the matter, but, also, how complex this field may be for its members when having to write about the discourse of language on a wide scale.
What is undeniable from Hill’s work is the importance of the matter she is observing which, I feel, strengthens the discipline’s ideals. Hill doesn’t just drum out countless facts; she uses audience-friendly prose to convey her reasons for inquiry; in this case, the damage it may have on individuals who feel they have to act according to the laws governed by the unmarked “white” space while, also, trying to manage staying true to themselves and their communities. Hill conveys to the writer the struggle, “the most poignant of the intricate ambiguities of this duality are that worries about being “disorderly” are never completely absent from the intimacies of the inner sphere, and people who successfully negotiate outer sphere order are vulnerable to the accusation that they are “acting White” betraying their friends and relatives”( Hill 681).
A writer who can introduce an innovating concept while giving a detailed argument for the studies she has conducted is setting herself up to appear as a credible researcher and critical thinker. Also, she is becoming a more active member of the field’s community by offering new ideas for further debate. I feel Emily Martin, from John Hopkins, does this with her essay, “The Egg and The Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles”—another great case of writing in this field. Martin refers to the language used in science texts and journals as evidence to support her theory that masculinity and femininity (gender roles) are conveyed in the descriptions around “sperm” and “egg”. She argues the underlying sexist use of describing biological terms is clear from her research and collected data from science texts. She explores why the subtle use of words will for the most part fail to strike students who read them- perhaps, illustrating how pervasive and invisible discriminating language may be for some within a society that may be used to it—perhaps, the same society with flagrant double standards?
Audiences will vary: some will be interested in the subject matter while others may find it offensive or over-exaggerated. Writers in this discipline, in being aware of this, should work to present their inquiry and ideas in ways that will surprise readers and motivate them to read more. Martin states the reason for her analysis in the beginning. It’s interesting to note how this is in contrast, for example, to the plots of novels or movies, where the climax is something the reader/viewer enjoys guessing or predicting. Rather, this “up-front” technique is important because, in this field, the subject matter is meant to be taken seriously and should not be fancied as being delivered like with the power of a punch line; but, rather, I’d say a punch in the exact direction the reader should face and find new ways to look at language. Martin begins by stating, “I am intrigued by the possibility that culture shapes how biological scientists describe what they discover about the natural world… In the course of my research, I realized that the picture of egg and sperm drawn in popular as well as scientific accounts of reproductive biology relies on stereotypes central to our cultural definitions of male and female”(Martin 485). Being clever, she states her goal with strong prose: “Part of my goal in writing this article is to shine a bright light on the gender stereotypes hidden within the scientific language of biology. Exposed in such a light, I hope they will lose much of their power to harm us” (Martin 486). Her astuteness and responsible presentation of the inquiry is worth appreciating by those who may be inspired to join this discipline. In particular, the use of the words “harm us” can show readers how signal may hook an audience. To relate back to audience, women members, I imagine, will be immediately intrigued as to what the harm may be from how language is used in science texts, and how it may helps them put them in positions of inferiority to men.
Linguistic anthropologists must have an independent thinking of the issue that they must incorporate when forming a plan for better results, or new inquiry. These personality traits will probably be evident in the writing. Martin’s essay flows with countless quotes from scientific texts to support her argument, and while quoting them she remains open-minded and assertive—an important mindset and crucial front for anthropologists to keep in mind and enact. In this case, Martin pulls everything together, the clever analogies and the data, to express her overall concern for the stereotype’s effects on society. She finishes with a declaration for members of her field and the public alike to keep in mind. “Even if we succeed in substituting more egalitarian, interactive metaphors to describe the activities of egg and sperm…we would still be guilty of endowing cellular entities with personhood. More crucial, then, than what kinds of personalities we bestow on cells is the very fact that we are doing it at all. This process could have the most disturbing social consequences” (Martin 501).
Due to its evolving nature in different cultures, language must be scrutinized and updated recurrently; hence, the continuing mechanism of this discipline can characterized as always evolving; which, of course, is a positive and negative thing (albeit this paper’s tone may suggest the latter which is unfortunate). Still, it is unlikely linguistic anthropologists will run out of areas to study and contribute. Because of the vast numbers of cultures in our world, and even the vast diversity one may see in his own “small” world, language’s causal relationships in cultures will always be rediscovered and then studied further. Linguistic Anthropologists may write for their field’s communities in ways that tackle norms and inequalities, or they might offer new ways to look at the importance of language in a primitive culture; nonetheless, all ways in which they contribute are similar in that they must be clear about the inquiry and provide data and analysis to justify it. Like Emily Martins and Jane H. Hill, they should add to their field’s inquiries and research that will matter and can be argued as being important and vital. Readers of essays written in this discipline should be able to acknowledge that the work they are reading serves a purpose in conveying some impact of language on the social and individual psyche.
Works Cited
Hill, Jane. “Language, Race, and White Public Space.” American Anthropologist. vol.100 (3) (1999). 680-689.
Martin, Emily. “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based On Stereotypical Male-Female Roles.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. vol. 16 no. 3 (1991) 485- 501.
Nicole Carreiro is presently a junior studying Anthropology and Journalism. She is originally from Fall River, Massachusetts and hopes to be a freelance journalist.
Updated September 3, 2008
