Chapter Twenty Six

Chapter 26 — A Relational Anthropologist’s Guide to Linguistic Theory

The Four F’s in the Land of Language

Linguistic Anthropology has always been closer to relationality than any other subfield. It studies meaning as it emerges between people, not inside them. It treats language as a social act, a cultural inheritance, a relational technology.

But even here, the canon is a mix of kin, obstacles, nourishment, and inspiration.

The Four F’s reveal who moved toward relation, who clung to structure, who fed the field, and who lit the fire.

THE FOUNDATIONAL STRUCTURALISTS

Ferdinand de Saussure

Friend: No — language as system, not relation
Foe: Yes — structure over lived experience
Food: He built the table (semiotics)
Fornicate: Yes — the elegance of the sign is seductive

Relational verdict:
A necessary ancestor of the problem, not the solution.

Edward Sapir

Friend: Yes — language as worldview
Foe: Rarely
Food: He nourished the field with nuance
Fornicate: Yes — his writing is intoxicating

Relational verdict:
A gentle ancestor. He sees language as lived, embodied, cultural.

Benjamin Lee Whorf

Friend: Sometimes — linguistic relativity
Foe: Sometimes — determinism
Food: He brought the idea that language shapes thought
Fornicate: Yes — his hypotheses spark desire

Relational verdict:
A provocative cousin. Inspiring, but needs relational grounding.

Roman Jakobson

Friend: Yes — functions of language
Foe: Sometimes — formalism
Food: He fed the field with categories that still hold
Fornicate: Yes — poetic function is irresistible

Relational verdict:
A structuralist who accidentally built relational tools.

THE ETHNOGRAPHERS OF SPEAKING

Dell Hymes

Friend: Absolutely — communicative competence
Foe: No
Food: He nourished the field with ethnography
Fornicate: Yes — he inspires relational pedagogy

Relational verdict:
A major ancestor of Relational Linguistic Anthropology.

Richard Bauman

Friend: Yes — performance, genre, interaction
Foe: Rarely
Food: He brings the feast of performance theory
Fornicate: Yes — his work incites creativity

Relational verdict:
A key architect of relational meaning.

Charles Briggs

Friend: Yes — metadiscourse, power, authority
Foe: No
Food: He feeds the field with critical insight
Fornicate: Yes — his critique is electric

Relational verdict:
A fierce ally.

John Gumperz

Friend: Yes — contextualization cues
Foe: No
Food: He nourishes with interactional detail
Fornicate: Yes — his micro‑analysis is thrilling

Relational verdict:
One of the clearest relational thinkers in the canon.

LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION

Elinor Ochs & Bambi Schieffelin

Friend: Absolutely — language learned through relation
Foe: Never
Food: They feed the field with ethnographic richness
Fornicate: Yes — their insights spark joy

Relational verdict:
Core ancestors of relational anthropology. They show how people become people through language.

IDEOLOGY, POWER, AND THE SOCIAL BODY

Michael Silverstein

Friend: Yes — indexicality, ideology
Foe: Sometimes — dense, abstract
Food: He brings conceptual nourishment
Fornicate: Yes — indexical order is seductive

Relational verdict:
A brilliant but difficult ally.

Paul Kroskrity

Friend: Yes — language ideologies, identity
Foe: No
Food: He nourishes with Indigenous-centered work
Fornicate: Yes — his clarity inspires

Relational verdict:
A strong relational practitioner.

Alessandro Duranti

Friend: Yes — intentionality, agency
Foe: Rarely
Food: He brings philosophical depth
Fornicate: Yes — his writing is elegant

Relational verdict:
A bridge between phenomenology and relational linguistics.

Jane Hill

Friend: Yes — racism, mock Spanish
Foe: No
Food: She brings ethical clarity
Fornicate: Yes — her critique incites action

Relational verdict:
A moral compass in the field.

QUEER, GENDERED, AND RACIALIZED LINGUISTICS

Don Kulick

Friend: Yes — desire, identity, embodiment
Foe: No
Food: He nourishes with ethnographic intimacy
Fornicate: Yes — his work is provocative

Relational verdict:
A vital voice for relational identity work.

Mary Bucholtz

Friend: Yes — identity, youth culture
Foe: No
Food: She brings analytic richness
Fornicate: Yes — her frameworks inspire

Relational verdict:
A contemporary relational ally.

Norma Mendoza‑Denton

Friend: Yes — Latina gangs, identity, style
Foe: No
Food: She feeds the field with ethnographic brilliance
Fornicate: Yes — her work is electric

Relational verdict:
A powerhouse of relational ethnography.

Jan Blommaert

Friend: Yes — globalization, inequality
Foe: No
Food: He nourishes with sociopolitical clarity
Fornicate: Yes — his writing is incisive

Relational verdict:
A global relational thinker.

THE RELATIONAL PRACTITIONER

Dr. Pamela J. Innes

Friend: Absolutely — language revitalization, community partnership
Foe: Never
Food: She nourishes through care, continuity, and reciprocity
Fornicate: Yes — her praxis inspires

Relational verdict:
A living embodiment of relational anthropology in linguistic form.
Her work with Indigenous communities is accompaniment, not extraction.