In the beginning of mid 1950’s scholars constructed a new methodology ‘Cognitive’ or ‘Ethnoscience’ or ‘New ethnography’, which emerged as a critic to the then existing traditional ethnography, questioning basically the methods of it. These scholars argued on the basis that there is no one method which is followed by anthropologists and every one studied and wrote in his or her own way. As a result ethnographies varied in their information and could not be compared. In order to make it more scientific and the descriptions in these ethnographies more accurate they argued for some new methodology, which is outlined with emic perspective.
Post the modern phase in anthropological research i.e. of Geertz, Turner and Schenider, a move from finding a more scientific form of inquiry in anthropological research , anthropologists turned for inspiration to Linguistic theory. In 1954, a major breakthrough happened when, Kenneth L. Pike published an essay, Language in relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour. He acquired idea from relation between sounds (phonetic) and meaningful units of sound (phenomic). Phenotics is the study of sounds that humans can produce while phenomics (phonology) focuses on the sounds differentiated on the basis of contrasts with other sounds. Through his study he proposed that, at universal level, the things which could be observed by an outsider formed the etic category. The emic formed the level of meaningful contrast within a specific language known to insiders.
After his work anthropologist tried to built the concepts of emic and ‘etic’. In 1960’s along with Whorf, Edward Sapir was also interested in the relation of language and human thoughts, they both formulated the Sapir-Whorf’ hypotheses in which they explained that, language is not just way of communicating but also fabricated people’s thinking of the world. This link between language and perception was borrowed to connection between culture and language.
The major differences between Etic and Emic metodologies of data collection
Etic
An etic view of a culture is the perspective of an outsider looking in. For example, if an American anthropologist went to Africa to study a nomadic tribe, his/her resulting case study would be from an etic standpoint if he/she did not integrate themselves into the culture they were observing. Some anthropologists may take this approach to avoid altering the culture that they are studying by direct interaction. The etic perspective is data gathering by outsiders that yield questions posed by outsiders. One problem that anthropologists may run in to is that people tend to act differently when they are being observed. It is especially hard for an outsider to gain access to certain private rituals , sexual behavior etc which may be important for understanding a culture.
Emic
An emic view of culture is ultimately a perspective focus on the intrinsic cultural distinctions that are meaningful to the members of a given society, often considered to be an ‘insider’s’ perspective. While this perspective stems from the concept of immersion in a specific culture, the emic participant isn’t always a member of that culture or society. Studies done from an emic perspective often include more detailed and culturally rich information than studies done from an etic point of view. Because the observer places themselves within the culture of intended study, they are able to go further in-depth on the details of practices and beliefs of a society that may otherwise have been ignored. However, the emic perspective has its downfalls. Studies done from an emic perspective can create bias on the part of the participant, especially if said individual is a member and emotionally connected of the culture they are studying, thereby failing to keep in mind how their practices are perceived by others and possibly causing valuable information to be left out. The emic perspective serves the purpose of providing descriptive in-depth reports about how insiders of a culture understand their rituals.
| Emic | Etic |
|---|---|
| The primary technique of data collection is interviewing. | The primary method of data collection is observation. |
| Mastering of local language and long duration stay is necessary for grasping native perspective. | Mary acquaintance of language is necessary to converse with local people. Sometimes even this is not required because of availability of interpreters. short time study. |
| The meaning of words, texts , narration discourse and behavior are of utmost importance. | The patters of behavior are analyzed. |
| Methodology consist of determination of certain contrasting responses to a given cultural context and subjecting them to semantic analysis. | Methodology begins with observation of body motions and actonemes. |
| Cross cultural comparisons can be made only after converting native terms into generalized terms. | Cross cultural comparisons can be made directly. |
| Induction is the primary strategy | Always moves from induction to deduction and particular to general. |
| Best example : Malinowski field work in Trobrianders islands. |
Language, Culture, and Ideology (Sapir–Whorf hypothesis)
Another important strand of sociolinguistic research which can be traced to the influence of American anthropological linguists is the quest for a solution to the conundrum of the relationship between language, culture, and thought. Edward Sapir and his pupil Benjamin Lee Whorf developed the hypothesis that language influences thought rather than the reverse. The strong form of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis claims that people from different cultures think differently because of differences in their languages. So, native speakers of Hopi perceive reality differently from native speakers of English because they use different languages, Whorf claimed. Few sociolinguists would accept such a strong claim, but most accept the weaker claim of linguistic relativity, that language influences perceptions, thought, and, at least potentially, behavior.
Sapir’s interest in language was wide-ranging. He was fascinated by both psychological and cultural aspects of language functioning. The newly emerging concept of the “phoneme” was of special interest to him, and his seminal paper “The Psychological Reality of the Phoneme” [Sapir, 1933, 247–265], is an unsurpassed study showing that the phoneme is not just a theoretical fiction created by linguistic analysts, but represents a cognitive construct that is so strong that it leads individuals to assert the existence of sounds that are not present, and deny the existence of sounds that are present. In another paper, “A Study in Phonetic Symbolism” [Sapir, 1929, 225–239], he investigates the relationship between pure sounds and peoples’ semantic associations with them. Taking nonsense syllables, Sapir was able to show that people associate high vowels with small sensory phenomena and low vowels with large phenomena. Only recently have acoustic phoneticians returned to this problem in investigating the psycho-acoustic abilities of individuals to judge the length of the vocal tract of other speakers based solely on the sound of their voices.
Sapir also did pioneering work in language and gender, historical linguistics, psycholinguistics and in the study of a number of native American languages. However, he is best known for his contributions to what later became known as the Whorfian Hypothesis, also known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Sapir maintained that language was “the symbolic guide to culture.” In several seminal articles, the most important of which may be “The Grammarian and his Language” [Sapir, 1924, 149–155], he develops the theme that language serves as a filter through which the world is constructed for purposes of communication.
This work was carried forward by Sapir’s student Benjamin Lee Whorf, who devoted much of his research to the study of Hopi. Whorf took Sapir’s notion of language’s interpenetration with culture to a much stronger formulation. Whorf’s writings can be interpreted as concluding that language is deterministic of thought. Grammatical structures were seen not just as tools for describing the world, they were seen as templates for thought itself [Whorf, 1956; Whorf, 1956, 87-101]. To be sure, Whorf’s views on this matter became stronger throughout his life, and are the most extreme in his posthumous writings. The actual formulation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was not undertaken by either Sapir or Whorf, but rather by one of Whorf’s students, Harry Hoijer [1954].