Linguistic Anthi comprising four subfields: archaeology, physical (now later became known as'salvage anthropology, that is biological,)anthropology, linguistics(now linguistic the documentation of languages anthropology), and ethnology (now sociocultural ditions that seemed on the verge of disappearing. This nthropology ). This vision of anthropology differs enterprise-a struggle against time due to the great from the one found in the European tradition, where damage already done, by the end of the nineteenth inguistics and social anthropology remained rigidly century, to the indigenoroduced valuable information separate disciplines for most of the twentieth century, despite the emphasis on the use of native languages in on Native American traditions, but it had its method ieldwork among UK anthropologists, and the theor- ological and theoretical drawbacks, the most flagran etical and methodological influence of bronislaw of which was the inability to see or accept the Malinowski (1884-1942), who wrote about the im- cultural contact and colonization portance of linguistic research for an anthropological Through his writing and teaching, Boas brought understanding of human societies. In the 1950s, the scientific rigor to linguistic description and helped adoption of demolish a number of unfounded stereotypes about European preference for ' ethnology'over (cultural) the languages that were then called 'primitive. In an anthropology)for those studies that merged linguistic 1889 article entitled On alternating sounds boas and anthropological interests signaled the intellectual argued that the commonly held view that speakers of recognition, at least in some European academic American Indian languages were less accurate in their circles, of the importance of an 'ethnological side' of renunciation than ers of Indo-Euror istic studies( Cardona 1976), but the institutional languages was false and probably due to the lack of recognition of such a discipline within European linguistic sophistication of those who had first tried nthropology has been slow to come. European to describe indigenous languages. Consistent with his scholars with research interests similar to those of cultural relativism, Boas believed that each language North American linguistic anthropologists are thus should be studied on its own terms rather than more likely to be found in departments of linguistics, according to some preset categories based on the study foreign languages and literatures, folklore, communi- of other, genetically unrelated languages(e.g, Latin) cation, sociology, or psycholog In his 'lntroduction to the Handbook(1911), boas To understand the special role given to the study of provided an overview of the grammatical categories languages in the Boasian tradition, we must go back to and linguistic units necessary for the analysis of the time when anthropology became a profession in American Indian languages and argued against ove the USA, in the period between the last decades of the generalizations that would obscure differences across nineteenth and the first decades of the twentieth languages. He identified the sentence (as opposed to ntury. In that time the study of American Indian the word) as the unit for the expression of ideas, and nguages emerged as an essential part of anthro- listed a number of grammatical categories that are pological research. John Wesley Powell(1834-1902), likely to be found in all languages, while pointing out the founder of the Bureau of Ethnology, later renamed that the material content of words( the meaning of through grants from the US government, linguistic classify reality differently. One language might express eldwork, in the belief that by collecting vocabularies the semantic connections among words pertaining to nd texts from American Indian languages, it would the same semantic field by modifying one basic stem be possible to reconstruct their genetic relations and whereas another language might have words that are thus help in the classification of American Indian etymologically completely unrelated. As examples of tribes. Boas himself had become fascinated by the the latter type, Boas(1911)mentioned the different grammatical structures of Chinook and other words that are used in English for concepts centered s-nguages of the American northwest coast early on in around the idea of water'-lake, 'river, ' brook, his fieldwork, and seized the opportunity to work for rain, ' dew, wave, foam'-and four different words the bae and edit the Handbook of American Indian for concepts based on snow' in Eskimo. These guage(1911 examples were later taken out of context and the Although Boas, a diffusionist, was quite skeptical of number of words for snowin Eskimo(languages) the possibility of using languages for reconstructing grew larger and larger over the next decades in both genetic relations between tribesand was against any academic and popular publications correlation between language and race--he tried to was Edward Sapir(1884-1939)who, more than transmit to his students a passion for the details of any other of Boas's students, further developed Boas's guistic description and the conviction that interest in grammatical systems and their potential nguages were an important tool ieldwork, implications for the study of culture, and trained a new and(b) the study of culture, especially because the generation of experts of American Indian languages categories and rules of language are largely uncon- (e.g, Mary Haas, Morris Swadesh, Benjamin Lee scious and thus not subject to secondary rational- Whorf, Carl Voegelin). Unlike Boas, however, Sapir izations. Furthermore, Boas was committed to what was not a four-field anthropologist. He wrote andcomprising four subfields: archaeology, physical (now ‘biological’) anthropology, linguistics (now ‘linguistic anthropology’), and ethnology (now ‘sociocultural anthropology’). This vision of anthropology differs from the one found in the European tradition, where linguistics and social anthropology remained rigidly separate disciplines for most of the twentieth century, despite the emphasis on the use of native languages in fieldwork among UK anthropologists, and the theor￾etical and methodological influence of Bronislaw Malinowski (1884–1942), who wrote about the im￾portance of linguistic research for an anthropological understanding of human societies. In the 1950s, the adoption of the term ‘ethnolinguistics’ (reflecting the European preference for ‘ethnology’ over ‘(cultural) anthropology’) for those studies that merged linguistic and anthropological interests signaled the intellectual recognition, at least in some European academic circles, of the importance of an ‘ethnological side’ of linguistic studies (Cardona 1976), but the institutional recognition of such a discipline within European anthropology has been slow to come. European scholars with research interests similar to those of North American linguistic anthropologists are thus more likely to be found in departments of linguistics, foreign languages and literatures, folklore, communi￾cation, sociology, or psychology. To understand the special role given to the study of languages in the Boasian tradition, we must go back to the time when anthropology became a profession in the USA, in the period between the last decades of the nineteenth and the first decades of the twentieth century. In that time, the study of American Indian languages emerged as an essential part of anthro￾pological research. John Wesley Powell (1834–1902), the founder of the Bureau of Ethnology, later renamed Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE), supported, through grants from the US government, linguistic fieldwork, in the belief that by collecting vocabularies and texts from American Indian languages, it would be possible to reconstruct their genetic relations and thus help in the classification of American Indian tribes. Boas himself had become fascinated by the grammatical structures of Chinook and other languages of the American northwest coast early on in his fieldwork, and seized the opportunity to work for the BAE and edit the Handbook of American Indian Languages (1911). Although Boas, a diffusionist, was quite skeptical of the possibility of using languages for reconstructing genetic relations between tribes—and was against any correlation between language and race—he tried to transmit to his students a passion for the details of linguistic description and the conviction that languages were an important tool for (a) fieldwork, and (b) the study of culture, especially because the categories and rules of language are largely uncon￾scious and thus not subject to secondary rational￾izations. Furthermore, Boas was committed to what later became known as ‘salvage anthropology,’ that is the documentation of languages and cultural tra￾ditions that seemed on the verge of disappearing. This enterprise—a struggle against time due to the great damage already done, by the end of the nineteenth century, to the indigenous cultures of the Americas by European colonizers—produced valuable information on Native American traditions, but it had its method￾ological and theoretical drawbacks, the most flagrant of which was the inability to see or accept the effects of cultural contact and colonization. Through his writing and teaching, Boas brought scientific rigor to linguistic description and helped demolish a number of unfounded stereotypes about the languages that were then called ‘primitive.’ In an 1889 article entitled ‘On alternating sounds,’ Boas argued that the commonly held view that speakers of American Indian languages were less accurate in their pronunciation than speakers of Indo-European languages was false and probably due to the lack of linguistic sophistication of those who had first tried to describe indigenous languages. Consistent with his cultural relativism, Boas believed that each language should be studied on its own terms rather than according to some preset categories based on the study of other, genetically unrelated languages (e.g., Latin). In his ‘Introduction’ to the Handbook (1911), Boas provided an overview of the grammatical categories and linguistic units necessary for the analysis of American Indian languages and argued against over￾generalizations that would obscure differences across languages. He identified the sentence (as opposed to the word) as the unit for the expression of ideas, and listed a number of grammatical categories that are likely to be found in all languages, while pointing out that the material content of words (the meaning of lexical items) is language-specific and that languages classify reality differently. One language might express the semantic connections among words pertaining to the same semantic field by modifying one basic stem, whereas another language might have words that are etymologically completely unrelated. As examples of the latter type, Boas (1911) mentioned the different words that are used in English for concepts centered around the idea of ‘water’—‘lake,’ ‘river,’ ‘brook,’ ‘rain,’ ‘dew,’ ‘wave,’ ‘foam’—and four different words for concepts based on ‘snow’ in Eskimo. These examples were later taken out of context and the number of words for ‘snow’ in Eskimo (languages) grew larger and larger over the next decades in both academic and popular publications. It was Edward Sapir (1884–1939) who, more than any other of Boas’s students, further developed Boas’s interest in grammatical systems and their potential implications for the study of culture, and trained a new generation of experts of American Indian languages (e.g., Mary Haas, Morris Swadesh, Benjamin Lee Whorf, Carl Voegelin). Unlike Boas, however, Sapir was not a four-field anthropologist. He wrote and 8900 Linguistic Anthropology