1932

Abstract

This review sketches a linguistic anthropology of images. While linguistic anthropology has not historically focalized images as a central theoretical object of concern, linguistic anthropologists’ research has increasingly concerned images of various sorts. Furthermore, in its critique of structuralist reductions of language, the field has advanced an analytic vocabulary for thinking about the image discourse. In this article, I review scholarship in linguistic anthropology on prototypic images to show how these advances (e.g., entextualization, performativity, perspective, and enregisterment) can be leveraged to theorize images more generally. In doing so, I argue against any hard distinction between language and image. I conclude by expanding out from a linguistic anthropology of images to what I call “a linguistic anthropology of,” a field characterized by an open-ended horizon of objects and modes of inquiry, all linked together linguistic anthropology.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-092147
2023-10-23
2024-06-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/anthro/52/1/annurev-anthro-052721-092147.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-092147&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Agha A. 2007. Language and Social Relations Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alpert E. 2019. Miraculous photos and beautiful skin: conativity, indexicality, and the art of the profile picture. Semiot. Rev. 7: https://www.semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/37
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Babcock J. 2022. Postracial policing, “mother tongue” sourcing, and images of Singlish standard. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 32:2326–44
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakhtin MM. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ball C. 2014. On dicentization. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 24:2151–73
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ball C. 2017. Realisms and indexicalities of photographic propositions. Signs Soc. 5:Suppl. 1S154–77
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barker M. 2019. Intersubjective traps over tricks on the Kazakhstani puppet stage: animation as dicentization. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 29:3375–96
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Barker M, Nakassis CV. 2020. Images: an introduction. Semiot. Rev. 9: https://semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/61
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bauman R, Briggs C. 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 19:59–88
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bender M. 2002. Signs of Cherokee Culture Chapel Hill: Univ. N. C. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Berger J. 1972. Ways of Seeing New York: Penguin
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Boone E 1994. Introduction: writing and recording knowledge. Writing Without Words E Boone, W Mignolo 3–26. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Briggs C, Bauman R. 1992. Genre, intertextuality, and social power. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 2:2131–72
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bucholtz M. 2011. Race and the re-embodied voice in Hollywood film. Lang. Commun. 31:3255–65
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bucholtz M, Lopez Q. 2011. Performing blackness, forming whiteness: linguistic minstrelsy in Hollywood film. J. Socioling. 15:5680–706
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Calder J. 2018. The fierceness of fronted /s/: linguistic rhematization through visual transformation. Lang. Soc. 48:31–64
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Calhoun K. 2019. Vine racial comedy as anti-hegemonic humor: linguistic performance and generic innovation. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 29:127–49
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Canut C. 2019. Tell me that I am not a Ciganin, damn your mother! The social and political consequences of enregisterment in Bulgaria. Signs Soc. 7:3398–426
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Chalfen R. 1974. Film as visual communication: a sociovidistic study in filmmaking PhD Diss. Univ. Pa. Philadelphia:
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chalfen R. 1975. Cinéma naïveté: a study of home moviemaking. Stud. Anthropol. Vis. Commun. 2:287–103
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Chalfen R. 1984. The sociovidistic wisdom of Abby and Ann: toward an etiquette of home mode photography. J. Am. Cult. 7:1/222–31
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chalfen R 1997. Afterword to revised edition. Through Navajo Eyes ed. S Worth, J Adair 275–341. Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Choksi N. 2018. Script as constellation among Munda speakers: the case of Santali. S. Asian Hist. Cult. 9:192–115
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chumley L. 2016. Creativity Class Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Davis C. 2021. Memes, emojis, and text: the semiotics of differentiation in Sri Lankan Tamil digital publics. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 31:3429–55
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Davis J. 2018. Talking Indian Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Debenport E, Webster A. 2019. From literacy/literacies to graphic pluralism and inscriptive practices. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 48:389–404
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Delfino J. 2021. White allies and the semiotics of wokeness: raciolinguistic chronotopes of white virtue on Facebook. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 31:2238–57
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Feld S, Williams C. 1975. Towards a researchable film language. Stud. Anthropol. Vis. Commun. 2:125–32
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gal S, Irvine J. 2019. Signs of Difference Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gershon I, Malitsky J. 2011. Documentary studies and linguistic anthropology. Cult. Theory Crit. 52:145–63
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Goffman E. 1976. Gender advertisements. Stud. Anthropol. Vis. Commun. 3:265–154
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Goodwin C. 1994. Professional vision. Am. Anthropol. 96:3606–33
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Goodwin C. 1996. Transparent vision. Interaction and Grammar E Ochs, E Schegloff, S Thompson 370–404. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Graham L. 2020. From “ugh” to babble (or Babel): linguistic primitivism, sound-blindness, and the cinematic representation of native Amazonians. Curr. Anthropol. 61:6732–62
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hardy K. 2014. Becoming Bhojpuri: producing cinema and producing language in post-liberalization India PhD Diss. Univ. Pa. Philadelphia:
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Harkness N. 2020. Glossolalia and the Problem of Language Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hillewaert S. 2015. Writing with an accent: orthographic practice, emblems, and traces on Facebook. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 25:2195–214
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hoffmann-Dilloway E. 2020. Figure (of personhood) drawing: scaffolding signing and signers in Nepal. Signs Soc. 8:135–61
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hoffmann-Dilloway E. 2021. Images and/as language in Nepal's Older and Vulnerable Deaf Person's Project. Semiot. Rev. 9: https://www.semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/69
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hymes D. 1964. General introduction. Language in Culture and Society D Hymes xxi–xxxii. New York: Harper & Row
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hymes D. 1996. Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality London: Taylor & Francis
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Inoue M. 2006. Vicarious Language Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Jakobson R. 1960. Closing statement: linguistics and poetics. Style in Language T Sebeok 350–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Jaworski A. 2015. Word cities and language objects: ‘love’ sculptures and signs as shifters. Linguist. Landsc. 1:1/275–94
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Keane W. 2009. Freedom and blasphemy: on Indonesian press bans and Danish cartoons. Public Cult. 21:147–76
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kirk G. 2016. Uncivilized language and aesthetic exclusion: language, power, and film production in Pakistan PhD Diss. Univ. Tex. Austin:
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Knowlton T. 2015. Inscribing the miraculous place: writing and ritual communication in the chapel of a Guatemalan popular saint. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 25:3239–55
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lefkowitz D. 2000. Dialects in the movies: intonation, ‘oral tradition’, and identity in Chris Eyre's Smoke Signals. . Tex. Linguist. Forum 43:129–40
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Lefkowitz D. 2003. Investing in emotion: love and anger in financial advertising. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 13:171–97
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Lefkowitz D. 2005. On the relation between sound and meaning in Hicks’ Snow Falling on Cedars. Semiotica 155:1, Part 415–50
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lefkowitz D. 2019. A discourse-centered approach to sound and meaning in Spike Lee's Chi-Raq. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 29:2231–38
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lopez Q, Bucholtz M. 2017.. “ How my hair look?”: linguistic authenticity and racialized gender and sexuality on The Wire. J. Lang. Sex. 6:11–29
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Lord P, Miller C, dir 2014. The Lego Movie Hollywood, CA: Warner Brothers
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Malitsky J. 2010. Ideologies in fact: still and moving-image documentary in the Soviet Union, 1927–1932. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 20:2352–71
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Meek B. 2006. And the Injun goes “How!”: representations of American Indian English in white public space. Lang. Soc. 35:193–128
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Meek B. 2020. Racing Indian language, languaging an Indian race. The Oxford Handbook of Language and Race HS Alim, A Reyes, P Kroskrity 369–97. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Mitchell WJT. 2015. Image Science Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Montoya T. 2013. Will making movies do the sheep any good? New interpretations of the Navajo Film Project. The Complete Sol Worth L Gross, J Ruby 19–36. Los Angeles: USC Annenberg Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Moore R 2015. Reinventing ethnopoetics. The Legacy of Dell Hymes P Kroskrity, A Webster 11–36. Bloomington: Univ. Indiana Press
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Murphy K. 2005. Collaborative imagining: the interactive use of gestures, talk, and graphic representation in architectural practice. Semiotica 156:1113–45
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Murphy K. 2015. Swedish Design Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Murphy K. 2017. Fontroversy! Or, how to care about the shape of language. Language and Materiality J Cavanaugh, S Shankar 63–86. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Murphy K. 2021. Transcription aesthetics. Semiot. Rev. 9: https://www.semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/68
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Murphy K. 2023. Multimodality. The New Wiley Blackwell Companion to Linguistic Anthropology A Duranti, R George, RC Riner 443–60. New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Murphy RP. 1978. Sociolinguistics in the movies: a call for research. Anthropol. Linguist. 20:226–33
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Nakassis CV. 2016. Doing Style Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Nakassis CV. 2017. Rajini's finger, indexicality, and the metapragmatics of presence. Signs Soc. 5:2201–42
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Nakassis CV. 2019. Poetics of praise and image-texts of cinematic encompassment. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 29:169–94
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Nakassis CV. 2020. Deixis and the linguistic anthropology of cinema. Semiot. Rev. 9: https://www.semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/65
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Nakassis CV. 2023a. Onscreen/Offscreen. Toronto: Univ. Toronto Press
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Nakassis CV. 2023b. Seeing, being seen, and the semiotics of perspective. Ethos https://doi.org/10.1111/etho.12386
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. Nakassis CV, Dean M. 2007. Desire, youth, and realism in Tamil cinema. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 17:177–104
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Nozawa S. 2013. Characterization. Semiot. Rev. 3: https://www.semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/16
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Pack S. 2012.. “ Uniquely Navajo?”: The Navajo Film Project reconsidered. Vis. Ethnogr. 1:21–20
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Padgett ES. 2021. Dirty pictures: performativity and the obscene image. Semiot. Rev. 9: https://www.semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/67/119
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Pardo R. 2013. Reality television and the metapragmatics of racism. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 23:165–81
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Pardo R. 2014. Looking forward/looking back: the production of television and the television audience at MTV Canada PhD Diss. Univ. Pa. Philadelphia:
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Peirce CS. 1932. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. 1–2 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Perrino S. 2002. Intimate hierarchies and Qur'anic saliva (tëfli): textuality in a Senegalese ethnomedical encounter. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 12:2225–59
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Peterson L. 2011. Reel Navajo: the linguistic creation of indigenous screen memories. Am. Indian Cult. Res. J. 35:2111–34
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Peterson L. 2013. Reclaiming Diné film: visual sovereignty and the return of Navajo film themselves. Vis. Anthropol. Rev. 29:129–41
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Peterson L 2017. Reflections on Navajo publics, “new” media, and documentary futures. Engaging Native American Publics P Kroskrity, B Meek 169–83. New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Queen R. 2015.. Vox Popular Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Reyes A. 2017. Inventing postcolonial elites: race, language, mix, excess. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 27:2210–31
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Reyes A. 2020a. Image into sequence. Semiot. Rev. 9: https://www.semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/66
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Reyes A. 2020b. Real fake skin: semiotics of skin lightening in the Philippines. Anthropol. Q. 93:4653–78
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Ross S. 2019. Being real on fake Instagram: likes, images, and media ideologies of value. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 29:3359–74
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Shankar S. 2015. Advertising Diversity Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Sidnell J. 2021. Technique and the threat of deethicalization. Signs Soc 9:3343–65
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Silverstein M 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. Meaning in Anthropology K Basso, H Selby 11–55. Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Silverstein M. 1993. Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. Reflexive Language J Lucy 33–57. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Silverstein M. 2004.. “ Cultural” concepts and the language–culture nexus. Curr. Anthropol. 45:5621–52
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Silverstein M. 2022. Language in Culture: Lectures on the Social Semiotics of Language Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Silverstein M, Urban G 1996. The natural history of discourse. Natural Histories of Discourse M Silverstein, G Urban 1–16. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Silvio T. 2010. Animation: the new performance?. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 20:2422–38
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Smalls K. 2020. Race, SIGNS, and the body: towards a theory of racial semiotics. The Oxford Handbook of Language and Race HS Alim, A Reyes, P Kroskrity 233–60. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Soh WY. 2020. Digital protest in Singapore: the pragmatics of political internet memes. Media Cult. Soc. 42:7/81115–32
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Swinehart K. 2012. The enregisterment of colla in a Bolivian (camba) comedy. Soc. Text 30:481–102
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Swinehart K. 2018. The road as a national chronotope in Bolivian cinema. Wide Screen 7:1 https://widescreenjournal.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/the-road-as-a-national-chronotope-in-bolivian-cinema.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Spitzmüller J. 2015. Graphic variation and graphic ideologies: a metapragmatic approach. Soc. Semiot. 25:2126–41
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Telep S. 2021. Performing whiteness, troubling blackness: Afropolitanism and the visual politics of black bodies in YouTube videos. . Signs Soc. 9:2234–62
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Urban G. 2015. Symbolic force: a corporate revitalization video and its effects. Signs Soc. 3:Suppl. 1S95–124
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Valentinsson M. 2022. Semiotic disruption and negotiations of authenticity among Argentine fans of anglophone media. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 32:2345–63
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Webster A. 2014. Cultural poetics (ethnopoetics). Oxford Handbook Topics in Linguistics Online Ed Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.34
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  106. Weidman A. 2021. Brought to Life by the Voice Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Wirtz K. 2014. Performing Afro-Cuba Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Wirtz K. 2020. Scopic regimentation of Cuban popular religious altars. Semiot. Rev. 9: https://www.semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/70
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Worth S. 1966. Film as non-art: an approach to the study of film. Am. Sch. 35:2322–34
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Worth S. 1978. Man is not a bird. Semiotica 23:1/25–28
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Worth S. 1981. Studying Visual Communication Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Worth S, Adair J. 1972. Through Navajo Eyes Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Wortham S, Mortimer K, Allard E. 2011. Homies in the new Latino diaspora. Lang. Commun. 31:3191–202
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Zuckerman C. 2023. Video footage and the grain of practice. HAU 13:1 In press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-092147
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-092147
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error