Representing the language of the 'other': African American Vernacular English in

ethnography
Author(s): Tamara Mose Brown and Erynn Masi de Casanova
Source: Ethnography , June 2014, Vol. 15, No. 2 (June 2014), pp. 208-231
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24467145

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Ethnography

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Article Ethno graphy
Ethnography
2014, Vol. 15(2) 208-231
Representing the © The Author(s) 2013
Kepnnts ana permissions:

language of the 'other': sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1 177/14661381 12471 I 10

African American eth.sagepub.com

i>SAGE
Vernacular English in
ethnography
Tamara Mose Brown
Brooklyn College, USA

Erynn Masi de Casanova

University of Cincinnati, USA

Abstract
Ethnography is often described as the translation of culture, yet there has been
discussion of actual linguistic translation in ethnography. Many ethnographers enga
research across divides of language that require them to make decisions about how
represent the language of their informants. The privileging of academic Standard En
creates dilemmas for ethnographers whose subjects speak stigmatized languages. B
on an analysis of 32 book-length ethnographies about African Americans (reviewe
the American Journal of Sociology between 1999 and 2009), this article answers t
questions of how ethnographers typically deal with language difference in their te
particularly when research takes place across dialects of the same language, and w
language matters in the production of ethnographic texts.

Keywords
ethnography, language, linguistics, AAVE, African American Vernacular English, B
English, anthropology, culture, representation, insider/outsider

A history of ethnographic understanding - a nonprogressive, nondismissive history -

would be a story of serious, failed translations. (James Clifford 1997: 360)

This article builds on the literature on ethnographic methodology and reflex

ethnography by calling attention to the treatment of the language of resear
subjects, identifying patterns in such treatment, and suggesting how an awarene

Corresponding author:
Tamara Mose Brown, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Department of Sociology, 2900 Be
Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11210, USA.
Email: tbrown@brooklyn.cuny.edu

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Mose brown and Casanova 209

and inclusion of linguistic bou

written accounts. Language is
research are categorized in so
US and the world system, ling
superior and inferior. Based o
phies of African Americans in
ing with the English dialect
display varied levels of attent
resenting socially devalued di
sentation that ethnographers
and others can help ethnograp
tion and inequality that exist
more fully in the practice of et
our goals of presenting people
social research that will hold u

Why look at translation

If ethnographers have tended
unexamined (as we show in th
language now? First, how we
accounts. As sociologist Christ

Social scientists share with journ

tested the moment it is published
and whose own accounts are at
account is a translation for wh
(Churchill 2005: 7)

Although Churchill is discuss

of the situation', the same co
writer of an ethnographic ac
work of translation or transc
brackets, the readers of that
tions, in which translated tex
truthfulness or faithfulness
difficult to assess the translat
pher writing about fieldwork
pants' speech in Standard Eng
unexaminable, yet the decisio
quential for readers' understand
also socially and culturally relev
by social scientists (Heath 197

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
210 Ethnography 15(2)

Second, the representation o

measure of how 'in' the resea
If an ethnographer presents
the research participants, th
used in the field and how i
writer is not a native speaker
methodological challenges, o
dialect of the study particip
'has as much or more to do w
into their [the participants']
ethnographic report' (Chur
there is a two-fold aberration
the spoken words of the part
ethnographer's own reality
are simultaneously negotiat
Contemporary ethnograph
represent 'others' - people wh
terms of race, socioeconom
ology encourages us to be
researchers have taken thes
graphic practice.3 Ethnogra
must consider the ethical is
populations. As the socioling
teaches us, 'There can be n
social world, without a deta
life' (Davies and Mehan 200
adapt vernacular speech su
to the rules of Standard En
this translation and represe
and subsequent thinkers th
through the tension of diffe
originality of the presence
Indeed, ethnographers of m
'others'. In studying ethnog
even the most reflexive resea
sent the language of their re
discuss how they translate or
unique challenges they may e

African American Vernacul

The language divides crossed
subtle, and yet equally as sign
a completely different lang

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mose Brown and Casanova 211

used by some African America

anthropological literature, inc
Paris 2009), African Americ
(Cutler 2003), Hip Hop Nati
(Labov 1972, 1982; Spears 198
cally-driven 'Ebonics' (Fordham
American Vernacular English (
(Bailey 2001; Chun 2001; Dayto
Davies and Mehan analyze so
grammatical structures, highli
interaction, and social institution
manipulations of language and
Language, then, must be made
make sense of everyday inter
example, we can see how the m
ing its speakers.
Many linguists have demonstr
through its unique structure.
methods, sociolinguistics, and
1972 Language in the Inner Cit
laid out the grammar of Black E
rooted in the southern Unite
Labov's, had demonstrated the
based on her previous resear
Linguist John Baugh (1983), st
Los Angeles, wrote about the
Americans who have limited contact with other dialects.
Labov discusses the ways in which the institutional and residential segregation
of African Americans has contributed to the continuous development of AAVE as
an 'elegant form of expression' (Labov 2010: 24). He also illustrates, as do both
Bailey and Baugh, how AAVE is used to unify an oppressed group through dis
tinctive syntax, grammatical markers, and semantic content. The changes in this
language over time have been more rapid in some parts of the US, and are affected
by verbal interactions with other English dialects outside the community (Labov
2010). Labov (2010) argues that these changes over time, as inner city youth inter
act more with varieties of 'White' English, will bring about the demise of AAVE
dialect and the linguistic community it creates, which he sees as preferable to the
continued injustice of residential segregation that maintains and innovates AAVE.
The idea of community identity through language stems from earlier studies by
anthropologist Roger Abrahams (1962, 1972), who illustrated how the everyday
life of African Americans contributes to their cultural and place-based identities,
and advocated for ethnographers to use the analysis of language in their studies.
With the wealth of research on language as resistance and the unique structures of
AAVE, it is astonishing that 25 out of 30 ethnographers researching African

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
212 Ethnography 15(2)

American communities in o
choosing not to discuss thei
of participants' AAVE speec
sample do little to discuss th
the sociolinguistic choices o
analysis that was eventuall
important as it clarifies fo
the researcher and particip
researchers have a privilege
who are relatively subordin
ethnographies we reviewed
their publications. This negle
call for more language reflex
how social class is reproduc
Basil Bernstein's work). Altho
writing and the similarity of
tion of habitus, Basil Berns
and teacher/student relatio
pant through language fram
nication' (Sadovnik 2001: 61
perpetuate inequality.
Urban ethnographers parti
their participants when the
ance and a means of markin
inequality, urban ethnograp
participate in the same raci
Appendix 1 for location of
avoiding inaccurate translatio
as we explain in this article
rapher represents the 'other'

Native speakers and the in

Much has been made in the

vantages of the researcher
1979; Duneier 1991; Jacobs-
distinct insider/outsider d
researchers may be simultane
in nationality, for example
themselves insiders simply b
culture; however, their prese
No one is ever entirely an
researcher in an outsider's p
ics with their participants. C

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mose Brown and Casanova 213

speakers researching members

Portuguese speakers doing fieldw
than if their first language wer
speaking AAVE in their commun
their African American research
insider positioning - being a 'na
jects - untangle the knot of ho
English) academic writing?
There has been a great debate in
over what constitutes a native spe
or refers to a discrete category
Recent literature has focused on t
speaker for social interaction an
work questions simplistic assum
ings or usage of their 'own' lang
Roberts and Harden 1997). Our
doubt on the notion that native sp
will place more importance on la
Likewise, in the ethnographies of
clear correlation between the au
use of AAVE and their level of a
discuss the salience of language in
fieldnotes and interview notes evolved into books. In the rare cases that attention
was paid to 'translation' from AAVE to Standard English (or the decision not to
translate), both black and non-black researchers formed part of the more linguis
tically-aware group of writers. Thus, African American researchers who are 'native'
speakers of AAVE tend not to discuss language in greater detail than writers who
are not 'insiders'. Leaving research to 'native speakers' does not automatically
resolve the difficulties in translation or diminish the need for the type of linguistic
awareness that this article proposes.

Methods

To examine the patterns in representation of 'other' languages, we focu

book-length ethnographies that had come to light in the past decade. To
that the books we chose were of scholarly interest and had attracted atte
their respective fields, we used the criteria of having been reviewed in the 'f
journal of the field. We selected book-length ethnographies of African Am
in the US that were reviewed in the American Journal of Sociology (AJS
1999 to 2009. AJS is the top-ranked sociology journal in the United Stat
books drawn from the AJS reviews had to meet the criteria of focusin
population that was primarily made up of African Americans. Edited v
were excluded from our study.4

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 214 Ethnography 15(2)

Once the list of reviewed

works for further analysi
tions, including whether AA
ation on the distinctive ch
literature); whether explici
participants' speech in the
terms was present); what reg
whether the author was po
language. The answers to th
descriptive statistics identify

Results

Table 1 shows how authors of African American ethnographies talk (or don't
about language. Of the ethnographies, 50 percent show the participants speaking
African American Vernacular English: exemplifying the grammar, syntax, an
pronunciations associated with this dialect of English. Yet only 16 percent of
ethnographies included any discussion of how language was transcribed in the tex
with some of these citing Black English as a standard used to present particip
authentically. While more than 90 percent of the ethnographies contain larg
tions of text representing participants' speech (verbatim quotes or narratives), it
surprising that only two ethnographies contain a dedicated language section w
AAVE grammar, words and pronunciation are addressed in detail. Most of
authors did not inform readers of their own proficiency as AAVE speaker
listeners).5
These findings suggest that, in general, ethnographers of African American life
are giving short shrift to AAVE and its representation in the text, and only min
imally addressing transcription of participants' language. The exclusion of such
discussions calls into question the researcher's competency as a cultural and lin
guistic translator, creating a lack of transparency in authors' decisions. We turn
now to discussions of several of the reviewed ethnographies, which were analyzed

Table I. Treatment of language in African American ethnographies.

Discussion of writing respondents' speech 16% (5)

Special section devoted to language 6% (2)

Author identifies as African-American 37.5% (12)

Author identifies as white 31% (10)

Source: Book-length ethnographies of African Americans reviewed in American

Journal of Sociology, 1999-2009 (N = 32). The remaining three book-length eth
nographies from the sample did not include any mention of the categories in the
table.

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Mose Brown and Casanova 215

in depth, in order to illustrate s

divides.

Clearing up the language pro

Mary Pattillo-McCoy's book, B
Black Middle Class (2000), vivid
neighborhood she calls 'Grovela
three years. The author, herself
lives in many ways, yet maintai
discusses. Toward the beginnin
half describing how she writes
the footnotes discussing the cl
Vernacular English (2000: 230-
class black participants' use of
English and Black English d
addresses the issue of languag
senting participants' speech by
scholarly literature.
Throughout the book, Pattill
and how code-switching (one's
English) allows Groveland resid
ized by Standard English and
author is clear about how she w

My practice in rendering field not

fillers (e.g. W, 'y°u know'), as
in speech. I do try to re-create
contractions and notations that
sound (e.g. 'sayin' for 'saying', '
English into Standard English (P

Pattillo-McCoy provides ex
depended on the interactional
AAVE with her participants,
more about how she felt her
study. One section of the bo
language is important for uni
She gives an example of how her
in their community and how th
selves (Pattillo-McCoy 2000: 9
to show how language divides ar
blacks inhabit, even African A
(Pattillo-McCoy 2000: 9). The p

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 216 Ethnography 15(2)

related to her findings. This

linguistic boundaries in eve
the sociolinguistic literatur
regarding transcribing part

Translation and transcrip

In sociologist Loïc Wacquan
Boxer (2003), multiple lang
dialogue take place, some o
research site is a Chicago b
ticipants, thus presenting h
pant observation and autoet
interviews in English. Parti
presented as speaking AAV
examined, Wacquant (2003:
to the discussion of how he
Labov's and Abrahams' wor
if he were artificially conver
Wacquant acknowledges th
over time, although he admit
complicates this note-takin
of his skills, is the differenc
versus taking direct notes. Th
AAVE in real time as he woul
which dialogue comes from
added after the fact and fr
in French, Wacquant's nativ
the French version of the b
translated for the French ver
or nonstandardized characte
language conversion were e
English version. How is par
readers? French syntax is dif
the author remedy such dis
ations of text and language m
cultural translator within the social sciences.
Throughout the English version of the book, Wacquant (who speaks fluent
English with a French accent) does not phonetically transcribe his own speech in
the way that he does that of his African American participants. For example, he
transcribes one participant saying during a training session, 'Com'on, one mo', one
mo'... ' (Wacquant 2003: 66). While this is what Wacquant heard, he does not
follow the AAVE standard, which would maintain the silent 'e' in written form on
the word 'come'. This is not a syntax or grammar issue, but rather an unnecessary

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Mose Brown and Casanova 217

non-standardized transcripti
then, that Wacquant would
accent, maintaining the pho
does not do this. By includin
story being told, the author e
leged position as a writer of
Occasionally, Wacquant prese
legitimacy as an AAVE 'insider
himself as both the privileg
raphers tend to study, and thu
read as lacking humility when
ence between them and their
In their co-authored book An
and sociologist Pierre Bourdi
being represented by the dom
researcher, as potentially ha
ital that is fraught with colon
complexities of such vernacu
privileged researcher and the
such as Standard English) a
English. Yet how can a distinct
syntax, grammar, and seman
how do AAVE semantics, gra
made aware of the back-and-
'reality' being presented in an
out reflexive consciousness a
of language to one or two pa
the ethnographies we exami
trained or expected to addres

Speaking of the American

Another example of minimal
Fall of a Modern Ghetto by
demolition and evacuation
Chicago. Venkatesh spent ye
personnel, community leader
American, yet the reader le
AAVE in the book. In the in
that must be carefully heard
tilled with rigor and then m
this capacity to represent the
tages of ethnographic metho
ously. In the human voices h

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
218 Ethnography 15(2)

narratives, language was used

South Asian-American and gr
not a long-time resident of
his positionality as it relate
Linguistic differences duri
inclusion might have further
and added to the study's ri
discussion of representing re
larger social context of the s
tics and AAVE. This neglec
words and grammatical struc
grasp of his position/location
how the ethnographer positio
the data/evidence. The read
occurring between research
ticipants' vocabulary (i.e. 'ju
ing') are read as class and iden
the mechanics of the autho
does a disservice to the resear
devalued language (AAVE),
guage should be read. It woul
chose to write his narratives
or translated his own speech,

Presenting the 'other Blac

William W. Falk's book, Roo
Community (2004), present
male researcher who lived
depictthe life of African Am
family's story of living in
then visited for several years
the book using a dedicate
Language'. While minimal,
a dialect known as Gullah
Georgia) that is familiar to h
site, Colonial County. He di
effort to 'allow the reader
acknowledges to the reader
slightly further, Falk describ
Ί have not quoted "uhs" and
truly pensive moments' (20
important to the story being
this is important beyond th

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Alose Rrown and Casanova 219

One of the pitfalls of Falk's lan

describing how Gullah or Geeche
varied Caribbean and African
raphers, we were left wondering
ing Gullah were seen by Falk a
book and could have been addr
explaining how culture influen
The representation of partic
appear to be consistent, which
when transcribing patois or AAV
shows more consistency with St
not always the case, especially
family. In fact, Falk spends m
Southerner (although not nati
the study's demographics at th
guage in which he chose to pr
placed in a subordinated positio
of in-depth explanation of th
generation.

The 'so what?' question

Why should ethnographic rese
explain their decisions about
texts? Our claims in this arti
widely-read ethnographic writin
tice, not simply generating a ne
calls for awareness have been
anthropology. We can think of
does it matter?': one we have d
inadequate or tangential, and t
these final explanations relate to
First, there are ethical (and s
writing about language in the
have more power and status th
propped up by the privileging o
Because US researchers belong
by virtue of their use of acade
represent language minorities'
hierarchies at play. We have mad
also has been made elsewhere:
with the power dynamics betwe
to study 'down', focusing on
about differences in language i

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
220 Ethnography 15(2)

in gender, race, or class; yet

We are calling for greater
guage of 'other' groups. That
embellish, or 'clean up' the
other stigmatized language
fieldwork context and its rep
potential consequences of t
ficult and worth tackling.
Second, the question of w
tension in intellectual deba
ethnographic practice and
1997; Gubrium and Holstei
related to this debate delve
able from individuals' perc
single event or moment, a
experience. A possible answ
of the links between langu
and whether an objective s
We could go back to the me
beginning with Geertz's cla
structions of other people's c
to' (2001 [1973]: 59-60). How
sentation of language in eth
transparency in such repre
our argument (that langua
whether a focus on represen
retreat from reality. Our
turned up practical problem
a lack of clarity about how la
tactics, such as altering spelli
did not produce a differen
practice, rather than a fres
its participants. The author
reality exists -that is, these
to language as a constituting
tions related to the practice
tions of (subjective or objec
A third reason for ethnogr
do with the unique contribut
especially good at giving v
often, as mentioned above, m
(1997) might call one of the c
topics, or questions pursued i
show the people and their p

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mose Brown and Casanova 221

ascribe to aspects of their ever

quotes from individual particip
Pattillo-McCoy's final chapters of Black Picket Fences or the afterword of
Duneier's Sidewalk (written by a key informant). In most works of ethnography,
though, participants' voices are captured in interviews and conversations held in
the field. Part of getting it right means accurately representing these voices, and
more broadly, being thoughtful about how speech is presented textually. Since
capturing the voices of participants in natural social settings is a major advantage
of ethnographic methods, and an irreplaceable contribution to our understanding
of society, part of doing good research is explaining how these voices were captured
and (if applicable) manipulated as they were placed into a text written primarily in
Standard English. Another part of doing good research involves consciously avoid
ing romanticization or exoticization of these voices and the language they use.
Writers of ethnographic texts are already making these decisions, but they are
doing so without informing the reader about how they are handling the presenta
tion of people's voices. If one of the primary things that ethnography is good for is
giving voice, then we should be responsible for describing that process in detail,
especially when we are not linguistic insiders in the communities we study.
Fourth, attention to language (not just in the sense of awareness, but in an
explicit discussion in the final text of how speech is represented) increases the
rigor of ethnographic practice. Because of the nature of participant observation,
which involves what Geertz (1998) unforgettably referred to as 'deep hanging out',
ethnographers are sometimes suspected by others in the social science community
as not being particularly rigorous in their research process. The written interpret
ations that ethnographers produce bear similarities to journalistic writing and even
fiction (a fact that the debates over realism and representation discussed above
serve to highlight). Social scientists with a more positivist orientation sometimes
look askance at ethnography, evaluating it according to standards of quantitative
research (Becker 2001 [1996]). Ethnographers thus often have an uphill battle in
terms of explaining their values of 'accuracy and precision and breadth' (Becker
2001 [1996]: 329) and defending ethnography as a rigorous method of inquiry
applicable in many academic disciplines. If sloppy writing reflects sloppy thinking,
then forgetting to mention language - despite its intrinsic and well-documented
links to individual identity and social status - can draw criticism from outside the
ethnographic community, and rightly so. Getting the details right in written reports
of fieldwork is what allows readers to trust us as authors (and authorities), and
helps buttress our claims to veracity and accuracy. If we translate our participants'
language, and have good (logical and ethical) reasons for doing so, then we should
be up-front about it. If we don't manipulate that language, we should still explain
how the spoken word is represented textually and describe the significance of lan
guage divides - including those between researcher and researched - in our research
settings. While some might criticize linguistic reflexivity of the type we are calling
for as over-the-top, an added burden on the researcher, or something that
will make ethnographic writing less accessible for non-specialists, we disagree.9

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
222 Ethnography 15(2)

Even including a few sentenc

ethnographic texts would be an
neglect linguistic matters entir
fieldwork and writing will he
research methods within the
tends to be marginalized; for
in the American Journal of
graphic books.)
Together, the third and four
stress that greater inclusion of
regard to linguistic represent
underlining its commitment
not talking about language in t
ethnographic research. We are
graphic practices related to
representing verbal commun
Incorporating linguistic awar
of everyday language and its
will help legitimize ethnograph
palpable language divides (esp
and alter or translate particip
ize the legitimacy of the ethno
kers and leave ourselves open
scientists, and participants th
rigor of the research process
onstrates the truth of our ac
argument for the practice of e
voice and rigor.

Moving forward
Language matters because it
categories that maintain soci
and writing across linguistic
inequality and have choices, a
lisher, about how to present t
and 'less than'. In searching
typically deal with linguistic d
participants, we focused on eth
United States. There was a div
same national language as eth
research subjects' language in
sion fraught with ethical, tec

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mose Brown and Casanova 223

Less than 16 percent of the aut

acknowledged the significance o
This means that, in most cases,
decision not to translate, but
representation of the language
researchers whose texts demo
axes of difference, such as gend
Of course, most ethnographers
not this concern appears in the
or her salt has obsessed over
language of the informants]
challenge exists even in cultu
linguistic boundaries, and intr
Standard English. By placing
aiming for greater transparen
some of these power dynamics
accurate or useful our translatio
voice and demonstrate rigor.
Ethnographers should be cau
academic public without a cri
is being said by participants, an
of sociolinguistic analysis. Oth
researcher is committing wh
the participants who have lim
research has shown that langu
communities where many Afr
died by urban ethnographers,
et al. 2001; Mahiri 2004). Without a concrete explanation of AAVE use as it
occurs, readers of such work miss out on understanding the development of com
munity through language as a cultural code. AAVE language is constructed within
the framework of the researcher's and (imagined) reader's own language, which is
typically presented as Standard English or what some scholars call White English,
and is thus also a racialized language (Chun 2001). This conventional framing of
language blurs the line between the reader's sense of participants' linguistic per
formance and linguistic competence, further creating a racialized or classed 'other'.
The work of translation and transcription was generally made invisible in the final
text. This invisibility leads to questions about the representation of the language of
research subjects, many of whom are members of vulnerable or oppressed groups.
We are not suggesting that ethnographers begin writing about the intricate
lexicon and syntax of every translated encounter, since that would clearly misplace
sociologists and social/cultural anthropologists in the discipline of linguistics.
We are arguing that for a majority of social scientists whose research crosses lin
guistic boundaries, to simply write without any mention of the literature, theory
and insights of sociolinguistics can be limiting for both the analysis and the reader.

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 224 Ethnography 15(2)

It can jeopardize the rigor of

voices of the people we repre
discuss what methods are us
significantly different from
open to allowing for such ana
methods of transcription and
reading. In addition, we feel
ning of the ethnographic text,
While there are various conv
ing references to the existing
and lay bare the process of cul
should also acknowledge the
demic) Standard English, whi
the US (Ortiz 2009). The reco
onstrate the researcher's awar
both between and within cultu
of ethnographic practice. Ma
raphy and exacerbated in rese
to more in-depth analyses of h
boundaries or bridges among themselves, or between themselves and the
researcher.
It is also important to note that at least some of the exclusion of issues of
language by ethnographers may be due to the constraints placed on authors by
the publishing industry. As Cicourel writes, 'practical aspects of personal, career,
and interpersonal conditions demand that we do not dwell on reflexive thoughts
indefinitely despite our concern with how they can affect the success of research and
our careers' (Cicourel 2003: 372). The institutional and market demands of pub
lishing can place specific limitations on how one writes up, translates, or transcribes
their data. For example, publishers may not allow for a glossary of terms or
detailed discussion of translation methods, or seek to avoid excessive technical
detail for books aimed at a non-academic audience. There are also book-length
limitations that the publisher places on the author, which we and many of our
colleagues have experienced firsthand. With that said, however, authors could dis
cuss with their editors the value of considering language as part of the larger ana
lysis of the social group, rather than succumbing to the trade-off of ignoring it
completely to meet the publisher's demands.
Future research could focus on this plight by interviewing ethnographic authors
to discover what publishing constraints, if any, have impacted their research as it is
presented to a larger audience. In addition, ethnographers could interview each
other to learn about power dynamics and language representation in their work,
from the field to the writing process. Why not talk to each other about this seem
ingly taboo topic? Lastly, ethnographers may consider the effects of using profes
sional transcription services. While many ethnographers claim that they themselves
transcribe all of their fieldwork, it is common to use professional services and

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mose Brown and Casanova 225

graduate students or research

services impact the issue of p
transcribed in Standard Engl
reflect non-standard English, or
ist to transcribe AAVE in a p
interpreter or a 'native speake
of other languages), how does
interpreter is used? How does t
lation? These are questions th
raphy, thereby creating a more
language and even the specifi
opportunity for the training of
another based on observation, o
them up, and then compare the
conversation of how one re
another's, and may reveal ho
the participants' voice, but als
As ethnographers, we (the au
our work, and after surveying
participants' language, we are
language. When we neglect th
and communities of those wh
choose to write participants' w
privilege based on class, race,
more linguistic reflexivity in
2007; Hanks 2005), yet that ca
guage difference and representa
rigorous linguistic reflexivity
voices, is one path to more fu
dynamics at play in ethnograp

Acknowledgements
We are especially grateful to Ph
Jooyoung Lee, and Gregory Smith
this article. We are indebted to A
Thanks also to the audience of a
this article were initially presented
for their substantive comments.

Notes

1. Linguistic anthropologist Michael Agar has insightfully compared the entire e

graphic research process to learning a second language (Agar 2008); the similar
especially marked for those conducting research across divides of language.
2. 'Native speaker' is a contested term that we discuss later.

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 226 Ethnography 15(2)

3. Recently, we have drawn atte

researcher-subject relations in
2009). Here we extend upon the
by suggesting that the logic be
incorporated into the written te
4. We had originally hoped to in
journal of the American Anthr
ciplinary method of inquiry sh
However, there were no book-l
American Anthropologist during
international orientation of anth
urban ethnography to sociologi
5. We also conducted content an
reviews published from 1999-2
(Masi de Casanova and Mose Brown, manuscript in progress; Masi de Casanova,
2010). This complementary analysis also found minimal attention to language and lin
guistic boundaries in English-language books based on fieldwork in Spanish-speaking,
Portuguese-speaking, and other non-English contexts, despite the fact that many of the
authors were anthropologists. We see this as an important comparison case, since these
studies cross divides between languages rather than within a single language. The findings
show that even these more pronounced linguistic differences between the language of
participants and the language of the final text are not addressed by authors.
6. Pattillo-McCoy uses the term Black English, which is synonymous with AAVE.
7. For an example of this pronunciation, video recordings of his presentations show how the
English word 'the' becomes 'de' for Wacquant (YouTube, accessed 18 March 2010).
8. It should be noted that Venkatesh does reflect on the topic of his position vis-à-vis the
research participants in more recent works that were not in our sample.
9. Kasinitz (2011: 950), for example, complained of the 'self-reflexive paralysis that
ensnared many talented researchers in recent years'. He is certainly not the only scholar
to worry about ethnographers becoming 'imprisoned' by reflexive concerns.

References

Abrahams R (1962) Playing the dozens. Journal of American Folklore 75: 209-20.
Abrahams R (1972) Stereotyping and beyond. In: Abrahams RD and Troike RC
Language and Cultural Diversity in American Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pre
Hall, pp. 19-29.
Agar M (2008) A linguistics for ethnography. Journal of Inter cultural Communication
Alim SH, Ibrahim A and Pennycook A (2009) Global Linguistic Flows: Hip Hop Cultu
Youth Identities, and the Politics of Language. New York: Routledge.
Atkinson Ρ (1990) The Ethnographic Imagination. New York: Routledge.
Baca Zinn M (1979) Field research in minority communities: Ethical, methodological
political observations from an insider. Social Problems 27(2): 209-219.
Bailey G (2001) The relationship between African-American Vernacular English and w
vernaculars in the American South. In: Lanehart S (ed.) African American English:
of the Art. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 53-92.
Baugh J (1983) Black Street Speech: Its History, Structure, and Survival. Austin: Univer
of Texas Press.

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mose Brown and Casanova 227

Baugh J (1999) Out of the Mouths

Malpractice. Austin: University of
Becker HS (2001 [1996]) The episte
Contemporary Field Research: Per
Waveland Press, pp. 317-330.
Benjamin W (2000 [1923]) Task of
Baudelaire's Tableaux Parisiens,
Studies Reader. New York: Routle
Bourdieu Ρ and Wacquant L (199
University of Chicago Press.
Chun Ε (2001) The construction of
African American Vernacular Engl
Churchill Jr CJ (2005) Ethnograph
Cicourel AV (1980) Language and s
Sociological Inquiry 50(3/4): 1-30.
Cicourel AV (2003) On contextualizi
Linguistics 24(3): 360-373.
Clifford J (1997) Routes: Travel and
MA: Harvard University Press.
Clough PT (1998) The End(s) of Eth
Peter Lang.
Cutler C (2003) 'Keepin' it real': White hip-hoppers' discourses of language, race, and
authenticity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 13(2): 211-233.
Davies A (2003) The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Trowbridge: Cromwell Press Ltd.
Davies Ρ and Mehan Η (2007) Aaron Cicourel's contributions to language use, theory,
method, and measurement. Text and Talk 27(5/6): 595-610.
Dayton Ε (1996) Grammatical categories of the verb in African-American Vernacular
English. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Available at: http://reposi
tory.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI9712915.
Denzin NK (1997) Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Devault M (1999) Liberating Method: Feminism and Social Research. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Duneier M (1991) Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Dyson AH (2003) The Brothers and Sisters Learn to Write: Popular Literacies in Childhood
and School Cultures. New York: Teachers College Press.
Falk WW (2004) Rooted in Place: Family and Belonging in a Southern Black Community.
Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Fordham S (1999) Dissin' 'the Standard': Ebonics as guerrilla warfare at Capital High.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly 30(3): 272-293.
Gee JP, Allen A and Clinton Κ (2001) Language, class, and identity: Teenagers fashioning
themselves through language. Linguistics and Education 12(2): 175-194.
Geertz C (1998) Deep hanging out. New York Times Review of Books, 22 October. Available
at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1998/oct/22/deep-hanging-out/.
Geertz C (2001 [1973]) Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture.
In: Emerson RM (ed.) Contemporary Field Research: Perspectives and Formulations,
2nd edn. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, pp. 55-75.

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 228 Ethnography 15(2)

Gubrium JF and Holstein J A

Oxford University Press.
Gumperz J (1968) The speech
A Reader. Cambridge: Cambr
Gutiérrez Rodriguez Ε (2006) T
transversal understanding. I
Project·. Under Translation, J
sal/0606/gutierrez-rodriguez/e
Hammersley M (1992) What's W
York: Routledge.
Hanks WF (2005) Pierre Bou
Anthropology 34: 67-83.
Heath SB (1978) Social history
84-92.
Jacobs-Huey L (2002) The natives are gazing and talking back: Reviewing the problematics
of positionality, voice, and accountability among 'native' anthropologists. American
Anthropologist 104(3): 791-804.
Kasinitz Ρ (2011) The best of (ethnographic) times is now. Sociological Forum 26(4):
950-951.
Katz J (1997) Ethnography's warrants. Sociological Methods and Research 25(4): 391—423.
Kirkland D and Jackson A (2008) Beyond the silence: Instructional approaches and stu
dents' attitudes. In: Scott J, Straker DY and Katz L (eds) Affirming Students' Right to
Their Own Language: Bridging Educational Policies and Language I Language Arts
Teaching Practices. Champagne/Urbana, IL: NCTE/LEA, pp. 136-154.
Kirkland DE and Jackson A (2009) 'We real cool': Τ ο ward a theory of black masculine
literacies. Reading Research Quarterly 44(3): 278-297.
Kramsch C (1997) The privilege of the nonnative speaker. The Modern Language Association
of America 112(3): 359-369.
Labov W (1972) Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov W (1982) Objectivity and commitment in linguistic science: The case of the Black
English trial in Ann Arbor. Language in Society 11: 165-202.
Labov W (1998) Co-existent systems in African-American Vernacular English. In: Mufwene
SS, Rickford JR, Bailey G and Baugh G (eds) African American English: Structure,
History, and Use. New York: Routledge, pp. 10-153.
Labov W (2001) Applying our knowledge of African American English to the problem of
raising reading levels in inner-city schools. In: Lanehar S (ed.) African American English:
State of the Art. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 299-318.
Labov W (2010) Unendangered dialect, endangered people: The case of African American
Vernacular English. Transforming Anthropology 18(1): 15-28.
Medgyes Ρ (2001) When the teacher is a non-native speaker. In: Celce-Murcia M (ed.)
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, pp. 429—442.
Mahiri J (ed.) (2004) What They Don't Learn in School: Literacy in the Lives of Urban Youth.
New York: Peter Lang.
Masi de Casanova Ε (2010) Ethnographic border crossings: Translating Latin American
lives. Presentation given at the Eastern Sociological Society Annual Meeting, Boston,
MA.

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mose Brown and Casanova 229

Masi de Casanova Ε and Mose Br

tion, translation in ethnograph
Merton RK (1972) Insiders an
American Journal of Sociology
Mose Brown Τ and Masi de Cas
shapes fieldwork and research
42-57.
Mufwene SS, Rickford JR. Bailey G and Baugh J (eds) (1998) African American English:
Structure, History, and Use. New York: Routledge.
Ortiz R (2009) La Supremacia del Inglés en las ciencias sociales. Buenos Aires: Siglo
Veintiuno Editores.
Paikeday TM (2003) The Native Speaker is Dead! Brampton, ON: Lexicography Inc.
Paris D (2009) They're in my culture, they speak the same way': African American language
in multiethnic high schools. Harvard Educational Review 79(3): 428-447.
Pattillo-McCoy M (2000) Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril among the Black Middle
Class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Piller I (2002) Passing for a native speaker: Identity and success in second language learning.
Journal of Sociolinguistics 6(2): 179-206.
Roberts JT and Harden Τ (1997) Native or non-native speakers teachers of foreign lan
guages? Old and new perspectives on the debate. The Irish Yearbook of Applied
Linguistics 17: 1-28.
Sadovnik AR (2001) Profiles of famous educators: Basil Bernstein (1924-2000). Prospects
31(4): 607-620.
Spears A (1982) The Black English semi-auxiliary come. Language 58(4): 850-872.
Venkatesh SA (2002) American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wacquant L (2000) Corps et âme: Canets ethnographiques d'un apprenti boxeur. Marseilles
and Montreal: Agone, Comeau & Nadeau.
Wacquant L (2003) Body and Soul: Notebooks of an Apprentice Boxer. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Whorf BL (1987) Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf
ed. Carroll JB. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Author Biographies
Tamara Mose Brown is Assistant Professor of Sociology and Program Director of
Caribbean Studies at Brooklyn College, CUNY. She is author of Raising Brooklyn:
Nannies, Childcare, and Caribbeans Creating Community (NYU Press, 2011).

Erynn Masi de Casanova is Assistant Professor of Sociology and Faculty Affiliate

of the Departments of Romance Languages and Literatures and Women's,
Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Cincinnati. She is author of
Making Up the Difference: Women, Beauty, and Direct Selling in Ecuador
(University of Texas Press, 2011).

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 230 Ethnography 15(2)

U.S. Region

€0
■■
EastEast
Coast: 33%Coast: 33%

■■
Midwest:
Midwest:
34% 34%

■■
South:
South:
13% 13%

■West Coast: 20%

Appendix I. Ethnographies of African Americans by region of the US.

Appendix 2

African American ethnographies: reviewed in American Journal

of Sociology, 1999-2009
Anderson Ε (1999) Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the
Inner City. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Anyon J (1997) Ghetto Schooling: A Political Economics of Urban Education
Reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Banks I (2000) Hair Matters: Beauty, Power and Black Women's Consciousness.
New York: New York University Press.
Bartkowski JP and Regis HA (2003) Charitable Choices: Religion, Race, and
Poverty in the Post-Welfare Era. New York: New York University Press.
Buford May RA (2001) Talking at Trena's: Everyday Conversations at an
African American Tavern. New York: New York University Press.
Buford May RA (2008) Living through the Hoop: High School Basketball, Race,
and the American Dream. New York: New York University Press.
Chetkovich C (1997) Real Heat: Gender and Race in the Urban Fire Service. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Cohen CJ (1999) Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS & the Breakdown of Black
Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Duneier M (1999) Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Falk WW (2004) Rooted in Place: Family and Belonging in a Southern Black
Community. Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Ferguson AA (2000) Bad Boys: Public Schools in the Making of Black
Masculinity. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Gavanas A (2004) Fatherhood Politics in the United States: Masculinity,
Sexuality, Race and Marriage. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mose Brown and Casanova 231

Grazian D (2003) Blue Chica

Clubs. Chicago, IL: Universit
Gregory S (1998) Black Cor
Community. Princeton, NJ: Pr
Lee J (2002) Civility in the
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Un
Lewis AE (2003) Race in th
Classrooms and Communities
McRoberts OM (2003) Street
Urban Neighborhood. Chicag
Newman Κ (1999) No Shame
New York: Random House.
Owen Β (1998) 'In the Mix': Struggle and Survival in a Women's Prison. Alban
NY: State University of New York Press.
Owens ML (2007) God and Government in the Ghetto: Politics of Church-Sta
Collaboration in Black America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pattillo-McCoy M (1999) Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril Among th
Black Middle Class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pattillo-McCoy M (2007) Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class
the City. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pellow DN (2002) Garbage Wars: The Struggle for Environmental Justice in
Chicago. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rouse, CM (2004) Engaged Surrender: African American Women and Islam.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sterk CE (1999) Fast Lives: Women Who Use Crack Cocaine. Philadelphia, P
Temple University Press.
Stockdill BC (2003) Activism against AIDS: At the Intersections of Sexualit
Race, Gender and Class. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Vale LJ (2002) Reclaiming Public Housing: A Half-Century of Struggle in Thr
Public Neighborhoods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Venkatesh S (2000) American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modem Ghetto
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wacquant L (2003) Body and Soul: Notebooks of an Apprentice Boxer. Oxford
Oxford University Press.
Wells AS and Crain RL (1997) Stepping Over the Color Line: African-Americ
Students in White Suburban Schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wright RT and Decker SH (1997) Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Stre
Culture. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.
Young AA (2004) The Minds of Marginalized Black Men: Making Sense
Mobility, Opportunity, and Future Life Chances. Princeton, NJ: Princet
University Press.

This content downloaded from

89.215.123.18 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:16:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms