Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
of American Anthropologist
A G U S T I N F U E N T E S
BARBARA ROSE JOHNSTON
M I C H A E L S I LV E R S T E I N
CARLA M. SINOPOLI
BARBARA YNGVESSON
172
Fuentes et al.
others writing and publication projects, which I consider
the essence of good editorship; indeed, I am perhaps more
gratified by my shadow CV of acknowledgments in publications by students and colleagues than by my own publication record. I would hope that I can transfer that kind of
collaborative encouragement to my editorial role at American Anthropologist.
To my view, there has been a great turnaround in the
relations between the area of my charge, linguistic anthropology, and the other areas of our collective anthropological purview. Starting almost a half-century ago, great
figures central to midcentury anthropology, such as John
Gumperz and Dell Hymes, attracted to our disciplinary
conversation concern for the social life of language-in-use
as a kind of program and paradigm for reintegration of
language into studies of culture; with a political economy
edge, it has become a practice anthropology of discourse.
The conversation has since been strengthened and deepened in broader, semiotic, dialectical, and, indeed, political
economic turns. A hundred years ago, among the original Boasian four fields, anthropological linguistics had
already long been concerned with the grammatical, lexical, and historical-classificatory analysis of the languages
used by the peoples whom anthropologists at that time
studied, a philology of the oppressed in the colonial and
imperial order as we might see it, shading off into folk-
173
loristics, ethno- and prehistory, and issues of languageculture-race (i.e., ethnic and ethnonational identity).
These perduring anthropological issues remain part of our
charge, only recentered by the conceptual and theoretical
framings of our present-day disciplinary conversations, of
which there are so many interesting and fruitful areas to
explore.
So I very much want to emphasize that American Anthropologist should be a publication venue for linguistic anthropologists to reflect the ever-increasing reintegration of
thinking about anthropological problems of interest to students of other specialties through the focus of language
and discourse. Of course, there are now numerous journals across the range of the social sciences of language
anthropological linguistics, linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, and sociology of languagededicated to
discipline-specific findings and debate. But along with
these, I want to assert the importance of publication in this
journal as a way of keeping before the writerreadership the
centrality of language in sociocultural life and in the history (and prehistory) of social formations. I want to serve as
an editorial advocate for individual essays and reports, for
organized clusters of articles, and for other creative publication types in these pages that are inclusively dedicated to all
anthropology. Contact me at m-silverstein@uchicago.edu
with your ideas, please!
174
of contemporary archaeological research. Along with expanding the visibility of archaeology in the journal overall,
I also hope that we can expand the representation of different kinds of archaeologies, both as they are practiced within
the United States, where the majority of AAA members reside, and as they are practiced around the world by scholars
from a broad range of intellectual traditions.
I look forward to this opportunity to work with the
editorial board and with you. Please feel free to contact me
with any and all questions and suggestions at sinopoli@
umich.edu.