de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
English
 
Help Guide Disclaimer Contact us Login
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Language, culture, and mind: Trends and standards in the latest pendulum swing

MPS-Authors
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons51

Enfield,  N. J.
Human Sociality and Systems of Language Use, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Language and Cognition Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, External Organizations;

Fulltext (public)

Enfield_JRAI_2013.pdf
(Publisher version), 155KB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Enfield, N. J. (2013). Language, culture, and mind: Trends and standards in the latest pendulum swing. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 19, 155-169. doi:10.1111/1467-9655.12008.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-000F-F098-C
Abstract
The study of language in relation to anthropological questions has deep and varied roots, from Humboldt and Boas, Malinowski and Vygotsky, Sapir and Whorf, Wittgenstein and Austin, through to the linguistic anthropologists of now. A recent book by the linguist Daniel Everett, language: the cultural tool (2012), aims to bring some of the issues to a popular audience, with a focus on the idea that language is a tool for social action. I argue in this essay that the book does not represent the state of the art in this field, falling short on three central desiderata of a good account for the social functions of language and its relation to culture. I frame these desiderata in terms of three questions, here termed the cognition question, the causality question, and the culture question. I look at the relevance of this work for socio-cultural anthropology, in the context of a major interdisciplinary pendulum swing that is incipient in the study of language today, a swing away from formalist, innatist perspectives, and towards functionalist, empiricist perspectives. The role of human diversity and culture is foregrounded in all of this work. To that extent, Everett’s book is representative, but the quality of his argument is neither strong in itself nor representative of a movement that ought to be of special interest to socio-cultural anthropologists.