Talk:Linguistic anthropology

Media:Example.ogg

Article Checklist for "Linguistic anthropology"

Workgroup category or categories	Anthropology Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developed article: complete or nearly so
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	No
Checklist last edited by	Richard J. Senghas 13:40, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

Original Authorship

Note: The original form of this CZ article has been written by James Wilce, who wrote the version that first appeared on Wikipedia.[1] He has moved the article here to CZ, in its original form ready for further development.

Style

What if we applied CZ:CZ4WP#Get_ready_to_rethink_how_to_write_encyclopedia_articles.21 (and the links that points to) to this? ---Stephen Ewen 14:57, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm not sure exactly which style issues in those articles you are most concerned about here. Is one of them voice/register? If so, I find this prose at a level appropriate for university readers, as called for in the articles you mention. Also, the narrative structure of the article is built sensibly on the chronological trajectory of the discipline, highlighting how it emerged and then can be seen to fall within three discernible paradigms (a useful way of characterizing that history, in my opinion), highlighting the key *kinds* of contributions of the subdiscipline and the names of scholars associated with those concepts. I think most of the initial wikifying process (links, referencing & typeface conventions) will help make it more readable to those outside the (sub)discipline. Do you have other particular style concerns that should be addressed before approval? ---Richard J. Senghas 00:33, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

I find the article to be very inaccessible for the university level person who really needs an introduction to the topic. It is too jargon-laden, too much elucidation rather than a narrative (which often show more than they tell), and reads to me like a summary of the field written for graduate students who are already largely familiar with other anthropological sub-disciplines. One of my (not) favorite quotes is, "It is the ideology that people should "really" be monoglot and effeciently (sic) targeted toward referential clarity rather than diverting themselves with the messiness of multiple codes in play at a single time." Most readers (assuming they get that far) will think, Translation please?

By narrative, I have something like this in mind, although this was done as just a quick sketch:

Linguistic anthropology is the study of the relationship between language and culture. As one of the four primary fields within American anthropology, it developed during the 19X0s as anthropologists studied the relationship between language, thought, and cultural transmission among North American native people groups. While such study remains an important focus of linguistic anthropologists, many today have applied their perspective to the study of kinship patterns and naming categories among diverse people groups. [Show several Examples]. Throughout all their work, lingusitc anthropologists are guided by a fundamental question: Do differing people groups understand the world differently from one another because of cultural and structural differences in their languages? They seek to understand how peoples' understandings of the world may be encoded in their talk and texts.

I see no reason to rush this to approval -- or perhaps you can share the reason if there is one?

Stephen Ewen 02:14, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Sources

I think I got all of the sources. Feel free to re-adjust the format. --Joe Quick (Talk) 19:35, 9 April 2007 (CDT)