Editing Linguistic anthropology (section)

===Ideologies===
In a third example of the current (third) paradigm, since [[Roman Jakobson]]'s student [[Michael Silverstein]] opened the way, there has been an increase in the work done by linguistic anthropologists on the major anthropological theme of [[ideologies]],<ref name=Silverstein1979>Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In ''The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels''. R. Cline, W. Hanks, and C. Hofbauer, eds. Pp. 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.</ref>—in this case "[[language ideology|language ideologies]]", sometimes defined as "shared bodies of [[commonsense]] notions about the nature of language in the world."<ref name=Rumsey>Rumsey, Alan. 1990. "Word, meaning, and linguistic ideology." ''American Anthropologist'' 92(2):346–361. {{doi|10.1525/aa.1990.92.2.02a00060}}.</ref> Silverstein has demonstrated that these ideologies are not mere [[false consciousness]] but actually influence the evolution of linguistic structures, including the dropping of "[[thee]]" and "[[thou]]" from everyday [[English language|English]] usage.<ref>Silverstein, Michael. 1985. Language and the Culture of Gender: At the Intersection of Structure, Usage, and Ideology. In ''Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives''. E. Mertz and R. Parmentier, eds. Pp. 219–259. Orlando: Academic Press.</ref> Woolard, in her overview of "[[Code-switching|code switching]]", or the systematic practice of alternating linguistic varieties within a conversation or even a single utterance, finds the underlying question anthropologists ask of the practice—Why do they do that?—reflects a dominant linguistic ideology. It is the ideology that people should "really" be monoglot and efficiently targeted toward referential clarity rather than diverting themselves with the messiness of multiple varieties in play at a single time.<ref>Woolard, Kathryn A. 2004. Codeswitching. In ''Companion to Linguistic Anthropology''. A. Duranti, ed. Pp. 73–94. Malden: Blackwell.</ref>

Much research on linguistic ideologies probes subtler influences on language, such as the pull exerted on Tewa, a Kiowa-Tanoan language spoken in certain New Mexican pueblos and on the Hopi Reservation in Arizona, by "kiva speech", discussed in the next section.<ref>Kroskrity, Paul V. 1998. Arizona Tewa Kiva Speech as a Manifestation of Linguistic Ideology. In ''Language ideologies: Practice and theory''. B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard, and P. Kroskrity, eds. Pp. 103–122. New York: Oxford University Press.</ref>

Other linguists have carried out research in the areas of [[language contact]], [[language endangerment]], and '[[English as a global language]]'. For instance, Indian linguist [[Braj Kachru]] investigated local varieties of English in South Asia, the ways in which [[English as a lingua franca|English functions as a lingua franca]] among multicultural groups in India.<ref>{{cite book|author=Braj B. Kachru|title=Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TTW-AQAAQBAJ&pg=PR7|year=2005|publisher=Hong Kong University Press|isbn=978-962-209-665-3}}</ref> British linguist David Crystal has contributed to investigations of [[language death]] attention to the effects of cultural assimilation resulting in the spread of one dominant language in situations of colonialism.<ref>{{cite book|author=David Crystal|title=Language Death|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_8K0BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA50|year=2014|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-107-43181-2}}</ref>