Hymes Ethnography

download Hymes Ethnography

of 39

  • date post

    14-Apr-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    220
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Hymes Ethnography

  • 7/28/2019 Hymes Ethnography

    1/39

    L - Q s L \ ^

    7

    U U L

    JL |

    L

    7

    B D D R O F f l f l f f l i n G S S E C O R D E D

    D Jj J .The University of Georgia

    WAVELAND

    PRESS, INC.

  • 7/28/2019 Hymes Ethnography

    2/39

  • 7/28/2019 Hymes Ethnography

    3/39

    R

    9 4 0 e

    nf t

    l .

    2 .

    A

    5.

    Introduction 2 s

    Franz Boas, Introduction to the Handbook o f j f American Indian Languages 9Edward Sapir, The Unconscious Patterning o f

    Behavior in Society 29Edward Sapir, Language 43Benjamin Lee Wliorf, The Relation o f HabitualThought and Behavior to Language 64

    George Herbert Mead, The Problem o f Society: How We Become Selves 85George Herbert Mead, Relation o f Mind to Response and Environment 95

    nf t

    9 5 0 s - 1 9 / O sn

    / Introduction 104 '\/jL Harry Hoijer, The Sap ir-Whorf Hypothesis 113

    /8.) Charles O. Frake, The Ethnographic Study ofCognitive Systems 125

  • 7/28/2019 Hymes Ethnography

    4/39

    \/io . Brent Berlin, Speculations on the Growth o fEthnobotanical Nomenclature 152

    11. Michael Silverstein, Shifters, Linguistic Categories,and Cultural Description 187

    ^12 . Erving Goffman, On Face-Work: An Analysis ofRitual Elements in Social Interaction 222

    v4 -3 . Dell H. Hymes, The Ethnography o f Speaking 248

    ^/'14 . John J. Gumperz, Linguistic and Social Interactionin Two Communities 283

    y/15. Susan M. Ervin-Tripp, Sociolinguistics 30016. Roy Turner, Words, Utterance, and Activities 367

    R E C I I 0 H Ss - 9 9 U s

    '21 .

    22 .V

    ^ 23.

    iA .

    \J

    Introduction 388Jane H. Hill, The Grammar o f Consciousness andthe Consciousness o f Grammar 398

    John A. Lucy, Whorfs View o f the LinguisticMediation o f Thought 415

    Eugene Hunn, Ethnoecology: The Relevance o f

    Cognitive Anthropology fo r Human Ecology 439Paul Kay, Brent Berlin, and William Merrifield,Biocultural Implications o f Systems o f Color

    Nam ing 456

    Elinor Ochs and Bambi B. Schieffelin, Language Acquisitions and Socialization: Three Developmenta

    Stories and Their Implications 470Michael Silverstein, Language and the Culture o fGender: A t the Intersection o f Structure, Usage, an

    Ideology 513Ben G. Blount, Parental Speech and Language Acquisition: An Anthropological Perspective 551Charles L. Briggs and Richard Bauman, Genre,

    Intertextuality, and Social Power 567

    Contents

  • 7/28/2019 Hymes Ethnography

    5/39

    The Ethnography of SpeakingDell H. Hymes

    i

    I N T R O DUC T I O N

    The role of speech in human behavior has always been honored in anical principle, if sometimes slighted in practice. The importance of its

    been decla im ed (as by M alin owsk i [1 935]) , su rveyed w ith in sightfulin Sapir [1933]), and accepted as a principle of field work (see cHymes 1959).

    That the study of speech might be crucial to a science of man h

    rec urr en t anthro pologica l theme. Boas (1911) came to see langu agekind with ethnological phenomena generally (he interpreted ethnoloscience of mental phenomena), but revealing more of basic processmore out of awareness, less subject to overlay by rationalization. Som

    pologists ha ve seen language, and hen ce lingu istic s, as basic to a scienbec au se it prov ides a lin k between th e biolog ical and sociocultura l lehave seen in modern linguistic methodology a model or harbinger of

    '\i methodology for studying the structure of hum an behavior.k American anthropology has played an important part in the pr| linguistics in this country, thro ug h the careers of Boas, Sapir, Bloom

    V \ their students, and through the opportunities offered by Am ericlanguages. It has contributed to the development of particular technconcepts, and has used linguistics as a tool for other lines of researcrespects, anthropologys involvement with linguistics has come to be sby psychology. H av in g ass im ilated m odern advances in linguistics,

    ^ chologists have contributed studies of considerable relevance andj) recent years. One need cite only the work of Charles Osgood, Geor

    and Roger Brown. Hybridization between linguistic concepts, and ie t nologies of the com puters and exp erime ntal psychology, is prod ucinr/ 7 the most rapidly gro win g sector in the study of speech, one w

    \ ? b j anthropology mu st keep informed liaison.Indeed, diffusion of the tools of modern linguistics may be a hallm

    # j-seco nd half of this century. In the course of such diffusion, presumV I things will hold tr ue : 1. the discipline of linguistics will continue to

    u s\/(! studies of the history, structu re, and use of languages; 2. in other d (linguistic concepts and practices will be qualified, reinterp reted , subsu

    ' 'perhaps sometimes re-diffused in changed form into linguistics; 3.

    ( /

    248

  • 7/28/2019 Hymes Ethnography

    6/39

    will remain the discipline responsible for coordinating knowledge about verbalbehavio r fro m the vie w poin t of la nguage itself.

    In any event, the joint share of linguistics and psychology in the burgeoningstudy of verbal behavior seems vigorous and assured. Has anthropology a shareapart from some of its practitioners becoming linguists and psychologists, andapart from its traditional role as an intellectual holding company under theaegis of culture? Is the role of prime collaborator of linguistics among the

    sciences now to pass to psychology? Sheer weight of numbers may determine.It would be of no importance were it not for the value to linguistics andanthropology of a strengthening, not a relaxing, of mutual concern.

    In one regard, there is no danger of lapse. Modern linguistics is diffusingwidely in anthropology itself among younger scholars, producing work of compete nce th a t ra nges fro m his to rical and desc riptive studies to pro blems ofsemantic and social variation. Most such work is on well-defined linguistic

    pro ble m s; its th eoreti cal basis is estab lish ed , its meth odolo gy well gro unded,and its results important, especially for areas in which languages rapidlydwindle in numb er. T he re is no need to detail the contribution which such work

    makes to anthropological studies, nor to argue its permanent value to linguisticsproper. I f anyth in g, th e trad itiona l bonds betw een linguistics and anth ropolo gyin the United States are more firmly rooted now than a decade ago.

    What may lapse is an opportunity to develop new bonds, through contributions to the study of verbal behavior that cpllaboration between anthropologyand linguistics can perh aps alone provide. Th is is more tha n a m atter of puttinglinguistics to work in the study of other scientific problems, such as cognitive

    behavio r or express ive behavio r. T h e ro le of sp ee ch in both is im portant, andhas engaged anthropological attention: the cognitive problem in association

    with the name of Whorf, the expressive problem more recently under the heading of paralinguistics. But to pursue these problems, and to try to give themfirm anthropological footing, is to broach the study of a new problem area, one

    of which little accoun t is taken.There are indeed several underdeveloped intellectual areas involving speech

    to which anthropology can contribute. All are alike in that they need freshtheoretical thought, methodological invention, and empirical work, and haveroots in anthropologys vocation as a comparative discipline. Among these areasare the revitalizatiorPof dialectology (perhaps under the heading of sociolinguistics ) ; the plac e of language in an e volutionary the ory of cu lture ; the.

    sema ntic typology of lan gu ag es; and the truly com para tive study .of ve rba l .a ttiFortunately, "air those mentioned have begun to attract attention. For theanthropological study of behavior there is another area of importance, one that

    1 Tow ards the fi rs t of these , see Gum perz (1961) ; towards the other three , see respectively, Hymes (1961c., 1961a, and 1960a [for the typology at the close of the latter]).Such developments will require rapprochement with established philological disciplines,which control much of the essential data.

  • 7/28/2019 Hymes Ethnography

    7/39

    1I seems general, central, an d neglected. I t can be called the ethnogr\ ypeaking. '\ \" In one sense this are a fills the gap between w ha t is usually d esc(grammars, and what is usually described in ethnographies. Both use sp(evidence of other patterns; neither brings it into focus in terms of patt erns. In ano th er sense, th is is a que stion of w hat a child in te rn al iz espeaking, beyond rules of grammar and dictionary, while becoming fledged member of its speech community. Or, it is a question of wha

    eigner must learn about a groups verbal behavior in order to parappropriately and effectively in its activities. The ethnography of speaconcerned with the situations and uses, the patterns and functions, of sas an activity in its own right.

    W hat the con tent of this area may be in detail, wha t a description a system might be likethese things are hard to state, although I shall

    j it in this paper . Fie ld studies devoted to th e to pic hard ly exist , nor haI been much attention to what the theory and method of such studies wo! Occasional information can be gleaned, enough to show tha t the patteI functions of speaking can be very different from one group to anothe

    ;; speech enters into socialization and education, for example, may diffe|j ingly. But the evidence is not enough to itemize all variables, or to t| system. Hence the orientation of what follows must be toward the fiel that is nece