Annurev An 20 100191

Annual Reviews
www.annualreviews.org/aronline
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 06/21/06. For personal use only.
Annu.Rev. Anthropol. 1991. 20:75-95

Copyright 1991by AnnualReviewsInc. All rights reserved
THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF
TEACHING AND LEARNING
Catherine Pelissier
Departmentof Anthropology,MichiganState University, East Lansing, MI48824
KEY WORDS: anthropology and education, modesof education, communicationstyle,
socialization, modesof thought
As the study of culture, a phenomenon

that is socially rather than genetically
constructed and transmitted, anthropology assumesflexible individuals capable of teaching and learning. Learning and teaching are fundamental, implicitly or explicitly, to humanadaptation, socialization, culture change,and,
at the broadest level, the productionand reproduction of culture and society.
Broadly conceived to encompassa range of possible forms, contents, and
contexts, then, teaching and learning--the social processes involved in constructing, acquiring, and transforming knowledge--lie at the heart of anthropology.
The Americansubfield "Anthropology and Education" is embodiedin the
Council on Anthropologyand Education, in its publication, the Anthropology
and EducationQuarterly, and in numeroustexts and anthologies on the topic
(43, 57, 104a, 119, 120, 123, 135a). Its interests are wide in scope: The
culture of classrooms, cultural congruencebetween school and home,bilingual education, modesof education, methods appropriate to the study of
educational phenomena,and the teaching of anthropology are only a few. Its
endeavorhas been both theoretical and applied, with special concern in recent
decades with the differential school achievementof various populations (25,
79, 96, 97, 122, 131).
The concern with teaching and learning, however, predates the official
formation of the subfield in 1968 (29, 45a, 84) and has taken manyforms.
75
0084-6570/91/1015-0075502.00
Annual Reviews

76
PELISSIER
Rather than attempt an exhaustive review of the history and various permutations of the anthropology of teaching and learning, this review touches
selectively on somekey topics; namely, modesof thought, cross-cultural and
everyday cognition, socialization, communicationstyle, and modesof education.
I focus on two issues throughout the review. The first concerns the use of
various dichotomiesin discussions (or constructions) of differences between
"us" and "them," and between forms of education. These dichotomies often
express value judgements (certain ways of teaching/speaking/thinking are
considered more abstract/sophisticated/better
than others) and power inequalities (whether it be the powerof representation, or the powerto impose
specific policies or programs). Insofar as the "us" side of the dichotomyis
usually the "better" one, "we" (Westerners, adults, males, membersof the
middleclass, etc) tend to be the beneficiaries of such constructions (30).
second issue concerns the place of practice and activity in discussions of
learning and teaching. In recent years, as Ortner (98) has pointed out,
anthropology has increasingly taken up a numberof approaches that maybe
groupedunder the rubric of "practice," the central problemof whichis "that
of trying to understand howthe system constructs actresses and actors and
howthese agents realize and transform the system" (19). Such approaches
build on Giddenss (34) call for the mutual consideration of structure and
action. In this review, I point both to howcertain approachesto the anthropology of teaching and learning have been overly static and deterministic, and to
recent movements
in the direction of practice, activity, and agencyconsidered
in the context of structure.
MODES OF THOUGHT
Anthropologists interest in howcultural others think and see the world is
reflected in part in a concern with modesof thought. Discussionsof modesof
thought pivot aroundseveral theoretical perspectives: evolutionism, the great
divide (between,for example,literate/preliterate and abstract/concrete), functionalism, and structuralism.
While Darwinis credited with the developmentof evolutionary theory in
biology, Spencer, Tylor, and Morgan(although not the first to do so) are
credited with the application of evolutionary frameworksto social and mental
phenomena.Tylors (132) stages of savagery, barbarism, and civilization are
well known,as are Morgans(91) further divisions of savagery and barbarism
into lower, middle, and upper stages. In a social evolutionary framework,
culture evolves through stages, along with which, it can be inferred, the
intellect evolves. Social and mental evolution are thus parallel, and influence
each other though a kind of feedback mechanism.Judgmentsof superiority
Annual Reviews

TEACHING& LEARNING
77
(of Westernmodesof thought) on the one hand, and deficiency or irrationality

(of "primitive" modes),on the other (31), were part and parcel of evolutionary frameworks that employed the comparative method, whereby existing
"primitives" were held to represent our ancestors. It is significant, however,
that Tylor, a proponentof "psychic unity," or the notion that mindsfunction
in similar waysunder similar conditions, stressed what was acquired, rather
than inherited, in his definition of culture as "that complexwhole which
includes knowledge,belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man[sic] as a memberof society" (132, p. 1). The
implication here was that all groups are capable of "evolving"to a "civilized"
state.
Writing in the tradition of Frenchsociology, Levy-Bruhl(73, 74) disagreed
with evolutionism, invoking instead a great divide theory in which "primitive" mentality was not a precursor to "civilized" mentality but wasrather of
an entirely different order. In keeping with the Durkheimiannotion of social
facts as things, Levy-Bruhlargued that collective representations--sets of
beliefs and practices characteristic of particular societies--rather than individuals, were the object of analysis. Levy-Bruhl used the former, culled
from missionary and travel reports, to argue that "primitive" mentality was
both mystical and pre-logical, meaningthat ideas and images are not separated from the emotions that they invoke, and that connections are made
betweenphenomena
that "civilized" mentality separates, such as animate and
inanimate objects. At the most fundamentallevel, then, "primitive" mentality
is "oriented in another direction than our own"(74, p. 69).
Boas (6) argued against both evolutionism and the equation of race and
culture, culture and thought. Boass thoughts are best summarizedin the
context of his arguments with Levy-Bruhl. He argued against Levy-Bruhl on
two points: methodologically, on the groundsthat inferences about individual
mental functioning cannot be made on the basis of collective beliefs and
practices; and in terms of content, on the groundsthat ethnocentrismleads to
misunderstandings of, and thus false claims about, cultural contexts. Boas
disputed four assumptionsabout "primitives": that they cannot control their
emotions, that they suffer from short attention spans, that they cannot think
logically, and that they demonstratea lack of originality. In contrast, he
claimed that humanintelligence--"the ability to form conclusions from premises and the desire to seekfor causal relations" (6, p. 134)--is a universal. His
emphasis, then, was on cultural contexts, and he was concerned with understanding cultures in terms of themselves, rather than in relation to grand
theoretical frameworks.
L6vi-Strauss (71) also argued against valuations of "primitive" and "civilized" thinking, claiming instead that each modeof thought, or classification,
represents a strategy for makingrational sense of nature. "Primitive" as well
Annual Reviews

78
PELISSIER
as "civilized" people, then, are concerned with objective knowledgeand

engage in ordering elements in their worlds. The difference lies in what
people use to classify and order their worlds. Whilethe "primitive" bricoleur
uses a set of generic "tools" that are applied to a variety of projects, the
engineer of Westernculture uses "tools" specifically designed for the project
at hand. The bricoleur is limited by what is concretely available and thus
practices a "science of the concrete," while the engineer strives to go beyond
what is given to infer structural relations betweenobjects.
While attempting to avoid evolutionary frameworks, L6vi-Strauss clearly
invokes a great divide, as an outline constructed by Goody(39) illustrates
(Table 1). Writing, necessary for "the capitalization or totalization of knowledge," which in turn was necessary for the developmentof complex Western
civilization, provides another key distinction betweenthese two approachesto
the world (72). A great divide frameworkis also evident in the workof other
scholars on "open" and "closed" systems in both Africa and the Pacific (35,
46, 47), as well as in contemporary distinctions made in our ownsociety
between experts and lay people, and between classes, ethnic groups, and
genders (see references 5, 67, and 70 for examplesand critiques).
Malinowski(78), writing from a functionalist perspective, eschewedboth
evolutionary and great divide frameworks, offering instead a synchronic
interpretation based on the functions of various phenomena
in society. Magic,
for instance, functions in both the psychologicaland group life of "primitives"
to movepeople and objects in order to accomplishpractical activities: to get
canoes built, fish caught, food harvested. Moreover,he argued, while "primitives" practice magic,they are not entirely mystical: Theyare awareof natural
phenomenaand cause-effect relations; they never confuse the two; and they
never rely on magic alone while often relying solely on practical knowledge-in short, they practice what mightbe called science (the observation of natural
phenomena,and the application of logical and rational approaches to the
world).
Table 1 Brief outline of the great divide invoked by L6viStrauss (from 39)
Domesticated
Wild
"hot"
modem
science of the abstract
scientific thought
scientific knowledge
engineer(ing)
abstract thought
using concepts
history
"cold"
neolithic
science of the concrete
mythical thought
magical thought
bricoleur(-age)
intuition, imagination, perception
using signs
atemporality; myths and rites
Annual Reviews

TEACHING& LEARNING
79
A somewhatdifferent tack was taken by people in linguistic anthropology.

Claimingthat the structure of languagedetermines(or at least reflects) the
structure of thought (the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; 109, 110, 144a), Whorf
(144) argued that the analysis of "primitive mentality" is a cultural, rather
than a psychological, issue. Since languageand thought are directly related to
each other, the analysis of language--a phenomenonsubject to systematic
and scientific inquiry--provides the analysis of thought. Whorfclaimed that
the issue in discussions of "primitives" was not evolution but ethnocentrism.
He decried superficial analyses of languagethat wereoften used to indicate a
lack of abstract thought among"primitives" (e.g. the Eskimoshave words for
different kinds of snow, but no word for the general category "snow"),
claiming instead, on the basis of his own research on Native American
languages, that "primitives" are often as "rational," if not moreso, than we
are. (Hopi, for instance, contains moredistinctions betweencause and effect
than does English, and its distinctions are more sophisticated.)
The above approaches to modes of thought form a body of debate and
argumentconcerningevolution, the great divide, inferiority and superiority,
and the proper object of analysis. Whatthey share, however,is not only the
anthropological endeavor to gain insight into cultural others, but also a
somewhatstatic view of the social world. The emphasisis on social facts and
collective representations, social (or language)structures or functions, all
whichplace society or culture "out there." Thestructure of the language, the
collective representations, and so on, are complete phenomenathat are "in
place," determining the worlds and activities of people whofind themselves
in those places; little attention is givento notions of either social construction
or humanagency. As such, these approaches contribute to one side of the
tension in anthropology betweenstructure and action, betweensocial worlds
and minds. Workon modes of thought, however, lays the groundworkfor
muchof the workon cross-cultural cognition, to whichI nowturn. Whilethis
work, too, suffers from a somewhatstatic approach to the social world,
scholars have increasingly emphasizedactivity and practice.
CROSS-CULTURAL AND EVERYDAY COGNITION

The major concern in the study of cross-cultural cognition, which draws on
issues of importanceto both psychologyand anthropology, is with whether or
not people in other cultures, classes, ethnic groups, or genders think like
(white, male) Westerners. Do they, for example, have the capacity for
abstract thought, and can they generalize across contexts? A tension has
existed historically between claims that individuals in different cultural
groups actually possess different capacities, and claims that what we really
see cross-culturally are simply various manifestations of universal capacities.
Followingfrom the kinds of value confusions often generated by great divide
Annual Reviews

80 PELISSIER
and evolutionary thinking, one of the enduring concerns has been with
whether or not "their" thinking is as advancedas "ours."
In studies of cross-cultural cognition, the "us-them"dichotomieshave been
examinedin terms of, for example, classification, concept formation, memory and recall, discrimination, logical problemsolving, and transfer. In other
words, cognition is divided into specific capacities or properties, and the
concern is with the degree to which an individual (as representative of
particular group) has these capacities or properties.
Markeddifferences in performance on intelligence tests amongdifferent
groups of people have prompted investigations of phenomenathat may have
an impact on cognition, or at least on performance. Schooling and literacy-often considered as representative of Westernization have been the most
salient examples of such phenomena.Luria (77), for example, found that
literate peasants exhibited greater ability for decontextualized and abstract
thought than did peasants whowere not exposedto literacy or other training
programs. Discussions of the impact of schooling and literacy on the
generalization of rules and the transfer of skills across contexts, and on
strategies for organization and classification, are repeated throughout the
literature on cross-cultural cognition (14, 18, 64, 105, 124).
Greenfield &Bruner (41), concerned with the intersection of biology and
culture, focus on the tools, or technologies (10) provided by schooling;
schooling in turn provides environmentsthat "push" cognitive growth further
than other environments. Included here are leaps from both concrete to
abstract thought and from collective to individualistic orientations. The disengagementfrom the everyday world fostered by the decontextualized nature
of schooling allows individuals to movebeyond the limits imposedby the
more restricted environments in which nonschooled (read "primitive")
otherwise "culturally deprived" (read "lower class" or ethnic minority) individuals live. The connections between the great divide and evolutionary
approaches discussed in the previous section and the dichotomiesand evolutionary leaps discussed here are noteworthy. In this case, fundamental(dichotomous)differences can be overcomeby certain (evolutionary) developments, such as those provided by schooling.
Recent work in cross-cultural cognition has entailed a move beyond a
concern with cognitive properties as static phenomena
that people do or do not
have in their heads, to a concern with practice and activity--with the embeddednessof cognitive skills in particular interactive contexts rather than in
isolated minds. One underlying assumptionof this approach is that cognitive
skills are inextricably tied to the practices and activities that invokethem(15,
118). This approach also reflects a concern with the methodological and
theoretical problemsassociated with the application of Western-style tests in
non-Westerncontexts, and with the use of tests or tasks per se (15-17, 37, 59,
61, 65, 92, 115, 118).
Annual Reviews

TEACHING& LEARNING 81
Researchers are increasingly emphasizing everyday experience as a phenomenonof interest in its ownright, and replacing tests with experiments
designed to build on and replicate real life practices. The workof Laveand
her colleagues (67, 68) on peoples uses of mathin real life situations like
grocery shopping and dieting, and Scribners (116) work on the dairy industry, demonstrate the interest and importance of everyday activity. Experiments used in the study of cross-cultural and everyday cognition, moreover, drawon detailed ethnographicanalyses of whatit is that people actually
do, and of the skills connectedwith these activities (15, 62, 68, 118). The end
result is a mutually informative combinationof observation and experiment
rather than a situation in whichobservation or experimentis used exclusively
(9, 116).
Muchof the research on cross-cultural and everyday cognition draws on
Vygotskys(133, 134) workon the social developmentof cognitive skills (see
also 136, 137). Keyto his approachis the claim that higher mental functions
are social before they are internalized by the individual, and that they become
internalized by meansof social interactions. Onefocus in research building on
a Vygotskianapproach is on howneophytes are guided by those with greater
expertise; this is often referred to as "scaffolding"(after Bruner), occurring
the "zone of proximal development,"or that space betweenwhat someonecan
do alone and what they can do with guidance--in short, their potential (11,
41, 107, 138).
The collection of articles on everyday cognition edited by Rogoff & Lave
(108) illustrates the increasing emphasison cognitive practices, as opposed
capacities. The focus of inquiry, Rogoffstates, is on "the purposes for which
people engage in activities and the pragmatic considerations involved in
peoples solutions to problems"(106, p. 8). Put simply, the goal of doing
mathproblemin the grocery store is not doing mathbut getting the grocery
shoppingdone (67). Not only the task at hand, but also the larger social and
cultural order within whichthe task is embedded,must be considered in any
analysis of particular cognitive activities. This focus on what-it-is-that-isbeing-done-here entails both a moveaway from "us-them" dichotomies, as
embodiedin notions of static cognitive properties, and towards greater emphasis on practice and activity.
SOCIALIZATION
Unlike work in modesof thought and the earlier studies of cross-cultural
cognition, the emphasisin studies of socialization is not on properties of
minds or world views but on the acquisition and reproduction of ways of
being in the world. Central to the culture and personality school of the 1930s
and 1940s, and strongly influenced by Freudian psychoanalytic theory, stud-
Annual Reviews

82 PELISSIER
ies of socialization form a major strand in the anthropological study of
learning and teaching.
By and large, studies of socialization have focused less on the acquisition
of particular skills (although these are often mentioned) and more on the
acquisition of cultural norms,values and beliefs, and rules for interacting with
others. The central concern has been with howinfants and children are taught
to "think, act, and feel appropriately"; education, broadly conceived,is seen
as the meansby which individuals are recruited to be membersof a culture,
and by whichculture is maintained(121). In addition to journal articles and
chapters in larger ethnographies (28, 89), the question of howone becomes
memberof a particular social group has been, since the 1920s, a major focus
of a large body of anthropological work.
The culture and personality school, concerned with the relationship betweencultural and psychological variables, and with the validity of supposedly universal stages in development(or, more broadly, theories about human
nature), provides the backdropfor the most famoussocialization studies. The
WhitingsSix Cultures project, whichcomparedchild rearing practices across
cultures, is representative of a culture and personality approachthat relied on
interviews and systematic observation of specific variables (90, 139, 140,
142). Other early work focused on the use of projective tests (such
Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Tests), and on the comparison of
psychological and ethnographic analyses (21, 36, 103).
MeadsComingof Age in Samoa(82) is a particularly well-knownstudy
socialization. In the context of debates concerningbiological versus cultural
determinism(32), Meadset off for Samoa,a culture drastically different from
that in which psychological theories of humandevelopmentwere emerging,
to see if stormyadolescenceis a cultural universal. Her research resulted in
the first monograph-lengthstudy of teaching and learning which focused,
moreover,on teaching and learning outside of a school setting (24). In it,
Meademphasized the stages of life through which Samoanspass, and what
was expected at each life stage; she also showedhowthese expectations were
acquired and fulfilled by means of interactions with peer groups, older
relatives, and the church.
The emphasison child rearing practices and on the socialization processes
uniqueto each life stage is typical of earlier socialization studies. Whitings
(141) work on the Kwomaand Meads (82, 83) work on Samoa and
Manusprovide classic examplesof this approach. Someof the Case Studies in
Education and Culture, edited by the Spindlers in the 1960s and 1970s,
provide other examples (54, 143). Bateson, Mead, and Macgregors work
the Balinese (3, 85), which used photographs taken by Bateson, is a more
innovative exampleof a socialization study. Recently, Briggss (8) innovation
has been to include both childhood socialization and her ownsocialization as
Annual Reviews

the adopted daughter of an Utku family in the Canadian Arctic. Her work
provides a particularly detailed analysis of sanctions in socialization.
A distinction can be madebetweenstudies of socialization that focus on
howpeople learn to be membersof traditional cultural groups and those that
look at the juxtapositionof traditional and Westerncultures, mostoften as it is
embodiedin a school. Again, the Case Studies in Education and Culture,
manyof which focus on Western-style schools in non-Westerncontexts and
on different, often conflicting, approaches to education, provide good examples of the latter (33, 42, 48, 58, 99, 104, 145). Howards(49) work
Rotuma provides another example of this concern, and anticipates more
recent work on differences between communicationstyle and approaches to
learning in non-Western or minority groups, on the one hand, and those
favored in Western school systems, on the other.
In both types of study, however,the emphasisis on the norms, beliefs, and
activities of various cultures, and on howpeople learn them. Particular
emphasis is placed on roles, and on the teaching and learning methods
embeddedin child rearing practices (e.g. modelingand sanctions).
Studies of languageand socialization represent a somewhatdifferent strand
in ongoingsocialization studies. This research relates the acquisition of
language to the acquisition of culture; in other words, it examines how
children are socialized to use language, and howthey are socialized through
language(113, 114). In the context of anthropologysendeavorto gain insight
into the production and reproduction of culture and society, language is,
according to Schieffelin & Ochs, "a critical resource for those whowish to
understand the nature of culture and howcultural knowledgeand beliefs are
transmitted both from generation to generation and in everyday interaction"
(114, p. 183).
There are numerousexamples of work focused on language and socialization. Schieffelin (111, 112), for example,analyzes howKaluli children learn
particular relationships. The relationship ade, which involves requests and
responses between brothers and sisters based on appeal, is, along with
assertion, a majorinteractional strategy amongthe Kaluli. Children learn the
content and meaning of this term in the course of specific interactions;
language events are the mediumof learning and the mediumof expression for
the ade relationship. The patterning of certain language routines repeatedly
engaged in by children and caregivers and the sociocultural knowledgeacquired and actualized in the course of such routines have been examinedin a
variety of other cultural settings as well (20, 93, 135; see also 95).
Languagesocialization studies provide a dimension of insight often underdevelopedin the more traditional studies discussed above. In the latter,
culture is for the mostpart given, and its norms,values, beliefs, and practices
are "placed" into membersheads. While these studies go beyond the modes-
Annual Reviews

84
PELISSIER
of-thought question "Howdo exotic others think?" to ask "Howdo they come
to think that way?," the process for the most part is one-way, movingfrom
culture to passive individual.
In providing a moreexplicit place for active participants, the research on
languageand socialization adds to the insights provided by earlier approaches
to socialization. As Schieffelin &Ochsstate, "the child or the novice (in the
case of older individuals) is not a passive recipient of sociocultural knowledge
but rather an active contributor to the meaningand outcomeof interactions
with other membersof a social group" (114, p. 165). This approach builds
the perspectives of social-construction theorists such as Berger &Luckmann
(4), amongothers, and on those of students of face-to-face interaction (80,
see 111, 113). The emphasisis on actual interactions. Whatcaregivers do by
wayof instruction, including verbal instruction, modeling, and sanctions, is
no moreimportant than the contributions and interpretations of children and
novices; the two, in fact, are inseparable. This approach is similar to the
interactional approach of Mehan&Griffin (88), which allows us to examine
not only the activities of agents of socialization (and to extend the concept of
agent to include others besides "teachers"), but also those of the socialized.
Together, these approaches represent a move away from "one-way" conceptions of socialization to conceptions that emphasizea dialectic between
agency and structure.
COMMUNICATION STYLE
Studies of the social organization of language and communication---of how
different cultural groups go about the business of interacting and of thinking
about and acquiring knowledgehave not been restricted to traditional cultures but have also focusedon ethnic and class minorities in Westerncultures.
Particular emphasishas been placed on schooling, since there maybe differences betweenpatterns of language use favored in school settings and those
learned at home(114). Such cultural incongruities between home/community
and school may be connected with the often poor school performance of
minority and working-class students.
The predicament of speakers of different languages has prompted much
work on the topic of bilingual education (127-130). Mymainconcern in this
section, however, is with research conducted on the less obvious variations
amongEnglish speakers, or on what may be referred to as ~invisible"
(because of its taken for granted nature) culture (101).
Mehan(86, 87) notes the importance of rules for the organization
communication, and discusses their connection with the content of communication. In his analyses of the interactions betweenstudents and teachers
in elementaryschool classrooms, he derives not only the structures of lessons
Annual Reviews

TEACHING& LEARNING
85
but also the waysthese structures are enacted in interaction. In so doing, he

makes the crucial point that students must master both content and the
interactional rules for discussing content--they have to knowwhento speak
and howto formulate their utterances. This ability is what Hymes(51) and
others refer to as communicativecompetence,the ability to use language in
socially appropriate manners. In this perspective, we find that content and
process are inseparable.
Wefind also that groups that have different communicative competencies--that organize their communicationin ways different from those prevalent in the mainstream school system in the West--may have trouble
succeeding in the context of mainstream classrooms. Philips (100, 101)
analyzed this phenomenon
with regard to one group of Native Americans(see
also 22, 55). She foundthat participant structures (the organizationof talk and
interaction, including the particular uses of verbal and nonverbalchannelsof
communication) amongthe WarmSprings Indians in Oregon differ in fundamental ways from those prevalent in the Angloschool system. The differences are major, concerning what is considered socially appropriate behavior
(e.g. howone takes a turn at talk, whois the leader). It is because of these
differences, Philips claims, that Native Americansare perceivedas "silent" or
unintelligent. This perception, or social fact, moreover,is a negotiated social
reality; it is not somethingthat resides in the Native Americansand their
culture or somethingthat resides in the Angloteachers and theirs, but rather is
an artifact of the interaction betweenthemin a particular setting.
Philipss work was followed up by Erickson &Mohatt (27), whoexamined
differences betweentwo classrooms of Odawastudents in Ontario, one with a
Native teacher, the other with an Angloteacher. They noted differences that
included forms of address, the use of different kinds of talk (orders, calling
out, questioning), and the use of space. Significantly, over the course of
the school year the Angloteacher beganto interact in moreNative ways, producing "mixed forms," or combinations of Native and Anglo interactional
styles.
In another cultural setting, membersof the Kamehameha
Early Education
Programcomparedthe organization of talk in reading groups in school with
that in the homesof Native Hawaiianstudents in an attempt to understandthe
problems they were having on tests of reading comprehension (1, 2).
home,Hawaiiansengage in a form of talk called "talk story," characterized
by overlapping speech, in which turns at talk are not allocated by a leader.
This differs from the waytalk is organizedin reading group lessons in school,
in whicha teacher allocates turns at talk, and in whichoverlappingspeech is
negatively sanctioned. In a similar vein, Heath (44, 45), working in the
southern United States, found differences in patterns of language use among
white working-class, black working-class, and black and white mainstream
Annual Reviews

86
PELISSIER
populations; again, the patterns of language use expected in mainstream

educational and work institutions differed from those practiced in the two
working-class communities(see reference 12 for further discussion of these
works).
Research on communicativestyle can help to dispel someof the stereotypes
of nonmainstreamgroups, stereotypes that often draw on the kind of dichotomies discussed above, in the section on modesof thought. Manyof the
dichotomiesearlier used to discuss cultural others (although still used in some
quarters) have been repatriated, as it were, and applied to various groups in
Western culture. Particularly salient here are dichotomies betweenabstract
and concrete thought and elaborated and restricted speech codes.
Because of the importance of school achievement in Western society, a
major issue in muchof the work on communicationstyle is power. As Hymes
put it, "Everything depends, not on the presence of variation in speech there
is alwaysthat--but on whetherand to what extent, difference is invested with
social meaning" (51, p. xxv). In manycases, he claims, the issue is not
deprivation but repression (51). Differenceper se, then, is not automatically
problembut provides the opportunity to create one (23, 26, 52).
Questionsof agencyare also present in this literature. Erickson (23, 25),
for example, refers to Piestrups (102) work, which demonstrated that the
same linguistic difference between teacher and students made a big (and
negative) difference in someclassrooms over the course of the school year,
while in others the difference diminishedand becameless of an issue. The key
factor here was whether or not the differences were made salient by the
teacher. Students, although clearly in asymmetricalrelationships with their
teachers, are neverthelessactive participants in the structuring of this relationship (see also 60). Again, however, those in power--usually not the students~define what is happening and what it means(25). It is they whoapply
such labels as deprivation, stupidity, and so on.
Overall, the approach taken in studies of communicative style is interactional. Manyof these studies maybe characterized (after Mehan)
"constitutive" ethnographies, insofar as they focus on "the structuring of
structure" (86)---on howsocial facts, or structures, are constructed, actualized, and transformedin ordinary day-to-day activity, particularly in face-toface interaction (81). Studies of communicative
style, then, do not suffer from
determinism,but rather illustrate a "practice" approach that takes into consideration the relationships betweenstructure and agency.
MODES
OF
EDUCATION
As indicated above, the organization of communicationis integral to the

organization of learning and teaching, both of which are in turn embeddedin
Annual Reviews

larger cultural contexts. Indeed, manyauthors have looked to broad cultural
contexts and structures to explain phenomenasupposedly characteristic of
certain kinds of learning and teaching contexts, such as the relative absenceof
questioning. Ochss (94) observations about questioning in Samoabetween
children and their caretakers provide a good example. The relative lack of
questioning is connected by Ochs with Samoannotions of status: Low-status
people (including children) are supposedto listen, not ask questions. To ask
questions is to act above ones station, thereby challenging the statuses of
both listener and speaker (see also 126). Borofsky(7) makesa similar point
about Pukapukans.Status rivalry, a major theme in Polynesian politics and
social organization (38), renders it inappropriate to acknowledgeignorance
publicly. To ask a lot of questions is to imply a lack of knowledge,whichis a
form of losing face.
Other researchers workingin what maybe called "traditional" societies
have also pointed to the connections betweencommunicationstyle and larger
social-structural patterns. Philipss (101) workwith the WarmSprings Indians
provides a good example, as does the Scollons (114a) work amongNative
Alaskans. In both cases--and in contrast to the case of Polynesian society-the organization of communication
is related to the egalitarian nature of the
cultures in question. The connectionsbetweensocial structures in large-scale
industrial societies and what happensin interaction (including educational
interchanges) continue to be of concern in work on the ethnography of
communication(42a, 53; F. Erickson, personal communication).
Anotherapproach in the anthropologyof teaching and learning has entailed
a focus on the general characteristics of and differences between modesof
education, rather than on the cultural embeddedness
of certain organizations
of interaction and knowledgeacquisition. Borofsky (7) provides a bridge
betweenthese two approaches:He connects the relative lack of questioning in
Pukapukanlearning and teaching events to Polynesian status rivalry but also
identifies these events as "informal" educational events in whichquestioning
is infrequent becausethe context of learning is tied to the doingof the activity
and the answers to questions are immediately available in the environment
(see also 117).
The interest in modesof education has focused to a large extent on the
:characteristics of and .differences betweenschool-basedand non-school-based
teaching and learning. These two contexts have often been dichotomized as
"formal" and "informal" education, based on a numberof characteristics
supposedly unique to each form, including, for example, the use of language
vs activity as the majorvehicle of instruction, and the creative vs conservative
outcomesof "formal" vs "informal" teaching and learning. In short, "formal"
educationis characterized by deliberate teaching and learning, taking place in
contexts removedfrom occasions of use and emphasizing the acquisition of
Annual Reviews

88
PELISSIER
principles and skills that can be generalized across contexts. "Informal"

education, in contrast, is characterized as something that does not happen
deliberately but rather in the course of activity, emphasizingconcrete skills
and informationthat usually do not involve general principles or the ability to
generalize across contexts (13, 66, 117; see also reference 125 for an emphasis on an incidental-intentional dichotomyas opposed to a formal-informal
one).
Someexamplesof what is typically taken to be "informal" learning maybe
found in the socialization studies discussed above. Learning howto be a
Samoan,or a Tikopean,or a Talensi happens, for the most part, in the course
of everydayactivity. People do not learn howto build canoes, for instance, in
a course on canoe building in whichthey are lectured about the principles of
canoeconstruction; rather, they learn it experientially, by helping out in the
building of a canoe intended for use, not for purposes of education. Skills,
then, as well as normsand roles, are learned in the doing.
Recent studies of apprenticeship~an often-used example of "informal"
education--point to the conceptual confusions embeddedin the usual distinctions madebetween"formal" and "informal" education and are the focus
of mydiscussion in this section. In his analysis of learning howto be a
blacksmith amongthe Kpelle in Gbarngasuakwelle, Lancy (63) claims that
there are "formal" as well as "informal" aspects to the processes involved.
"Formal" aspects of "informal" education are also evident in Micronesian
navigation training (35). Althoughsignificant parts of navigationtraining take
place at sea, during actual navigational events, perhaps equally large parts
occur in what might look like a Micronesianversion of a classroom: Apprentice navigators gather in a hut (a separate location) and sit in a circle around
stones that represent the stars in the sky (learning about things not immediately present) (see also 75, 76).
In her workon apprenticeship amongLiberian tailors, Lave(66; J. Lave, in
preparation) discusses some of the problems from which much work on
"formal" and "informal" education suffers. She points out that muchof the
research on "informal" education brings with it a Western focus on the
importanceof teachers, and that in the process we neglect learning. In fact,
those whostudy apprenticeship have often claimed that little active teaching
occurs (69). In the case of Liberian tailors, moreover, a focus on learning
results in a portrait of "informal" education in which learning is highly
structured (although not in pedagogicalways), in whichthere are sequences
the learning process, and in whichskills are acquired actively, rather than in a
passive,, purely imitative and haphazard way.
Sequencesin the learning process for tailors do not reproduce production
sequences (J. Lave, in preparation; 69). Although apprentices and master
tailors are in a formal contractual relationship, it is not teaching and learning
Annual Reviews

that organize activity, but the activity of tailoring that organizes teachingand
learning (J. Lave, in preparation). The sequence of articles tailors learn
construct movesfrom the less complicated(and less socially important) to the
more complicated (and more socially loaded). Within each article, the sequencemovesfrom the outside in, from the finishing touches to the beginning
of production (e.g. tailors learn to sew hemsand buttons on trousers before
they learn to cut trousers out). This learning sequencereflects the concernsof
tailoring, rather than educational concerns: A mistake made whenhemming
trousers is less costly than one madewhencutting them out. The impact of
economicand other concerns--in other words, the cost of error, whether
financial or social---on the sequenceof learning is clear in other apprenticeship contexts (13, 35, 50, 56). In all cases, it seemsthat activity provides
opportunities for learning, rather than the reverse.
The less formalized apprenticeship of midwiferyin Yucatan(56) provides
further evidence of these points. As with tailoring, apprentice midwivesin
Yucatando not begin by learning howto deal with a birth from beginning to
end; rather, they start with participation in the easier and more routine
activities of labor support and prenatal massage,and only gradually begin to
participate in the moredifficult and culturally significant activities, such as
delivery of the placenta. It is the business of doinga birth that organizes the
opportunities to learn; the safety benefits of such an organization are also
clear.
In myownresearch (in preparation) on welfare rights groups (groups that
train membersto be advocates for one another in confronting the welfare
bureaucracy), I havefound that apprentice advocates begin by participating in
relatively easy tasks that do not involve the bureaucracy directly, such as
answeringquestions over the phonefor other welfare recipients. Onlylater do
they participate in official hearings at the welfare office. Not only do the
hearings require a great deal of knowledge(in terms of both policy and
strategy), but there is also a great deal moreat stake---e.g, the quantity of
foodstampsor rent moneythat the plaintiff will get.
One often-mentioned contrast between "formal" and "informal" modesof
teaching and learning concerns the use of language--specifically, the claim
that in "formal"educational settings languageis the major vehicle of instruction, while in "informal"settings activity is the majorvehicle (the focus is on
doing the activity, rather than on talking about it). Jordan (56) counters this
stereotype by pointing to the important role of talk in midwiferypractice-most notably, the role of storytelling in diagnostic and decision-making
events. Learningto talk like a midwifeis part of what learning to be a midwife
is all about; learning the skills and learning howto act like a midwifeare
inseparable. Similarly, apprentice advocatesin welfare rights groupslearn not
just welfare policy but also attitudes and ideologies; they learn howto act like
Annual Reviews

90 PELISSIER
advocates. Joint interpretation of policy and decision-makingregarding what
kinds of actions to take in particular cases entail a great deal of storytelling.
The difference, according to Lave &Wenger,is one between "talking about a
practice and talking within it" (69, p. 30).
The importanceof learning an identity, in addition to skills, is underscored
by Lave &Wenger(69) in their discussion of Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP), whichthey use as a conceptual frameworkfor gaining insight into
howpeople becomefull participants in, and in the process participate in
reproducing, communitiesof practice. In this framework,learning js not so
muchacquiring particular skills as it is increasing participation in a community of practitioners; one movesfromperipheral to full participant. The concept
of LPPprovides a shift in focus "from the individual as learner to learning as
participation in the social world, and fromthe concept of cognitive process to
the moreencompassingview of social activity" (69, p. 4). In focusing on the
various avenues and structures of participation and access in any given
communityof practice, LPPoffers a frameworkfor looking at all forms of
learning, and for moving beyond dichotomies such as "Ibrmal" and "informal".
The work conducted on apprenticeship and the concept of LPP serve to
reinforce the importance not only of activity, but of agency as well. As
opposed to a conception in which skills and identities moveinto peoples
heads, here we have a conception in which people moveinto communitiesof
practice. Not only dichotomies between "formal" and "informal" education,
then, but also those between agency and structure maybe avoided.
CONCLUSION
Onegoal of this review has been to underscorethe need to rethink someof the
dichotomies we continue to use in discussions of teaching and learning, not
only because of the ethnocentrism and hierarchy often hidden (or not hidden)
within them, but also because they are often inaccurate. One has to wonder
about portrayals of people wholearn in concrete contexts of activity ("informal" education) and consequentlyexhibit an inability to form generalizations ("concrete" thought). The dichotomies described in the sections above
on modesof thought, cross-cultural cognition, and modesof education seem
to reinforce each other in waysthat clearly do not benefit the subjects of such
characterizations.
The concept of Legitimate Peripheral Participation, with its emphasison
communities of practice, provides an opportunity to movebeyond manyof
the static and hierarchical dichotomies discussed throughout this review,
including those attending the distinction between concrete "primitive" and
abstract "civilized" thought, as well as those attending the division between
Annual Reviews

TEACHING
& LEARNING 91
"formal"and "informal"education. Its emphasison practice, activity, and
identity speaks likewise to issues of humanaction and agency. Such an
approachbuilds on the recent trend towardinvestigations of practice and
agencyin studies of socialization andcross-cultural andeverydaycognition.
As with workon communicativestyle, the concept of LPPavoids structural
determinism.
In focusingon boththe increasingparticipationin, andthe reproduction
of,
communitiesof practice--and these are coupled phenomena--LPP
also addresses a key concernof the anthropologyof learning and teaching, namely,
the productionandreproductionof culture andsociety. Althoughless explicit
in discussions of modesof thought and cognition than in discussions of
socialization, communicative
style, and modesof education, the concernwith
the reproductionof culture andsociety is deeply embedded
in the anthropology of learning and teaching, as it is in anthropology as a whole. The
movements
in the anthropologyof teaching and learning towards the considerationof practice, activity, andagencyin the contextof structurecontribute to this continuingendeavor.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thankthe following individuals for their comments

and insights: Eufracio
Abaya,DougCampbell,Michael Ennis-McMillan,Fred Erickson, Rita Gallin, Peg Graham,
JeanLave, and AnnMillard. A very special thanksto Susan
Irwin.
Literature Cited
1. Au, K. H. 1980. Participation structures
in a reading lesson with Hawaiianchildren. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 11(2);91-115
2. Au, K. H., Jordan, C. 1981. Teaching
reading to Hawaiianchildren: finding a
culturally appropriatesolution. In Culture and the Bilingual Classroom, ed.
H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, K. H. Au,
pp. 139-52. Rowley, MA:Newbury
3. Bateson, G., Mead, M. 1942. Balinese
Character: A Photographic Analysis.
NewYork: Spec. Publ. NYAcad. Sci.
Vol.2
4. Berger, P. L., Luckmann,T. 1966. The
Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.Garden City, NewYork: Doubleday
5. Bernstein, B. B. 1972. A critique of the
concept of compensatoryeducation. In
Functions of Language in the Classroom, ed. C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, D.
Hymes, pp. 135-51. NewYork: Teachers College Press
6. Boas, F. 1938/1965. The Mindof Primitive Man. NewYork: Free Press
7. Borofsky, R. 1987. Making History:

Pukapukan and Anthropological Constructions of Knowledge. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press
8. Briggs, J. L. 1970. Never inAnger: Portrait of an Eskimo Family. Cambridge,
MA:Harvard Univ. Press
9. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The Ecology
of HumanDevelopment: Experiments by
Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press
10. Bruner, J. S., Oliver, R. R., Greenfield,
P. M., Hornsby, J. R., Kenney,H. J., et
al. 1966. Studies in Cognitive Growth.
NewYork: Wiley
11. Burton, R. R., Brown,J. S., Fischer, G.
1984. Skiing as a modelof instruction.
See Ref. 108, pp. 139-50
12. Cazden, C. B. 1988. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and
Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
13. Childs, C. P., Greenfield, P. M. 1980.
Informal modesof learning and teaching: the case of Zinacantecoweaving.In
Advances in Cross-Cultural Psychology,
Annual Reviews

92
PELISSIER
ed. N. Warren, 2:269-316. NewYork:

Academic
14. Cole, M., DAndrade, R. 1982. The influence of schooling on concept formation: somepreliminary conclusions. Q.
Newsl. Lab. Comp.Hum. Cognit. 4(2):
19-26
15. Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J. A., Sharp,
D. W. 1971. The Cultural Context of
Learning and Thinking: An Exploration
in Experimental Anthropology. New
York: Basic Books
16. Cole, M., Hood, L., McDermott, R. P.
1978. Concepts of ecological validity;
their differing implications for comparative cognitive research. Q. Newsl.
Inst. Comp. Hum. Dev. 2:34-37
17. Cole, M., Scribner, S. 1974. Culture
and Thought. New York: Wiley
18. Cole, M., Sharp, D. W., Lave, C. 1976.
The cognitive consequences of education. Urban Rev. 9:218-33
19. Collier, J. F., Yanagisako,S. J. 1989.
Theory in anthropology since feminist
practice. Crit. Anthropol. 9(2):27-37
20. Demuth, K. A. 1986. Prompting routines in the language socialization of
Basothochildren. See Ref. 113, pp. 5179
21. DuBois, C. 1960. The People ofAIor: A
Social-Psychological Study of an East
Indian Island. Cambridge, MA:Harvard
Univ. Press
22. Dumont,R. V. Jr. 1972. Learning English and howto be silent: studies in
Sioux and Cherokee classrooms. In
Hymes, pp. 344-69
23. Erickson, F. 1984. School literacy, reasoning and civility: an anthropologists
perspective. Rev. Educ. Res. 54(4):52546
24. Erickson, F. 1986. Qualitative research
on teaching. In Handbookof Research
on Teaching, ed. M. C. Wittrock, pp.
119-61. NewYork: MacMillan. 3rd ed.
25. Erickson, F. 1987. Transformation and
school success: the politics and culture
of educational achievement. Anthropol.
Educ. Q. 18:335-55
26. Erickson, F. D., Bekker, G. J. 1986. On
anthropology. In The Contributions of
the Social Sciences to EducationalPolicy and Practice: 1965-1985. Berkeley:
McCutchan
27. Erickson, F., Mohatt, G. 1982. Cultural
organization of participation stia~ctures
in two classrooms of Indian students.
See Ref. 122, pp. 132-74
28. Firth, R. 1936. We, the Tikopia: A
Sociological Study of Kinship in Primi
tive Polynesia. London:George Allen &
Unwin
29. Fortes, M. 1938. Social and psychological aspects of education in Taleland.

Africa 11(4): 1 54 (Suppl.)
30. Frake, C. O. 1985. Cognitive maps of
time and tide amongmedieval seafarers.
Man 20(2):254-70
31. Frazer, J. G. 1890/1955. The Golden
Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion.
NewYork: St. Martins. 3rd ed.
32. Freeman, D. 1983. Margaret Mead and
Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of
an Anthropological Myth. Cambridge,
33. Gay, J., Cole, M. 1967. The New
Mathematics and an Old Culture: A
Study of Learning amongthe Kpelle of
Liberia. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston
34. Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of
Society. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
35. Gladwin, T. 1970. East is a Big Bird:
Navigation and Logic on Puluwat Atoll.
Cambridge, MA:Harvard Univ. Press
36. Gladwin, T., Sarason, S. B. 1953. Truk:
Man in Paradise. New York: Viking
Fund Publ. Anthropol. No. 20
37. Glick, J. 1974. Culture and cognition:
some theoretical and methodological
concems. See Ref. 120, pp. 373-81
38. Goldman, I. 1970. Ancient Polynesian
Society. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
39. Goody, J. 1977. The Domestication of
the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
40. Greenfield, P. M. 1984. A theory of the
teacher in the learning activities of
everyday life. See Ref. 108, pp. 11738
41. Greenfield, P. M., Bruner, J. S. 1969.
Culture and cognitive growth. In Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, ed. D. A. Goslin, pp. 633-57.
Chicago: Rand McNally
42. Grindal, B. T. 1972. Growing Up in
TwoWorlds: Education and Transition
amongthe Sisala of Northern Ghana.
NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
42a. Gumperz,J. J., Hymes,D., eds. 1964.
The ethnography of communication.
Am. Anthropol. 66(6):1-34
43. Hansen, J. F. 1979. Sociocultural Perspectives on HumanLearning: An Introduction to Educational Anthropology.
EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
44. Heath, S. B. 1983. Ways with Words:
Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
45. Heath, S. B. 1984. Linguistics and
education. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 13:
251-74
45a. Henry, J. 1963. Culture Against Man.
New York: Random House
46. Horton, R. 1967. African traditional
Annual Reviews
TEACHING & LEARNING
47.
48.

49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
thought and Western science. Africa

32:50-71, 155-87
Horton, R., Finnegan, R., eds. 1973.
Modes of Thought: Essays on Thinking
in Western and Non-WesternSocieties.
London: Faber & Faber
Hostetler, J. A., Huntington, G. E.
1971. Children in AmishSociety: Socialization and CommunityEducation. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Howard,A. 1970. Learning to be Rotuman:Enculturation in the South Pacific.
NewYork: Teachers College Press
Hutchins, E. 1991. Learning to navigate. In Situated Learning, ed. S. Chaiklin, J. Lave. NewYork: City Univ.
Press. In press
Hymes,D. 1972. Introduction. In Functions of Languagein the Classroom, ed.
C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, D. Hymes,
pp. xi-lvii. NewYork: Teachers College
Press
Hymes, D. 1981. Ethnographic monitoring. See Ref. 130, pp. 56-68
Hymes,D. 1986. Modelsof the interaction of languageand social life. In Directions in Sociolinguistics, ed. J. J.
Gumperz, D. Hymes, pp. 35-71. New
York: Basil Blackwell
Jocano, F. L. 1969. Growing up in a
Philippine Barrio. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston
John, V. P. 1972. Styles of learning-styles of teaching: reflections on the
education of Navajo children. In Functions of Languagein the Classroom, ed.
C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, D. Hymes,
pp. 331~43. NewYork: Teachers College Press
Jordan, B. 1989. Cosmopolitical obstetrics: someinsights from the training of
traditional midwives. Soc. Sci. Med.
28(9):925-44
Kimball, S. T., cd. 1974. Culture and
the Educative Process: An Anthropological Perspective. NewYork: Teachers
College Press
King, A. R. 1967. The School at
Mopass: A Problem of Identity.
New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Labov, W. 1972. Languagein the Inner
City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn.
Press
Labov, W. 1982. Competing value systems in the inner-city schools. In Children In and Out of School: Ethnography
and Education, ed. P. Gilmore, A. A.
Glatthorn, pp. 148-71. Washington,
DC: Cent. Appl. Linguist.
Laboratory of Comparative HumanCognition. 1978. Cognition as a residual
category in anthropology. Annu. Rev.
Anthropol. 7:51-69
93
62. Laboratory of Comparative Human

Cognition. 1979. Whats cultural about
cross-cultural cognitive psychology?
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 30:145-72
63. Lancy, D. F. 1980. Becominga blacksmith in Gbarngasuakwelle. Anthropol.
Educ. Q. 11(4):266-74
64. Lave, J. 1977. Cognitive consequences
of traditional apprenticeship training in
West Africa. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 8(3):
177-80
65. Lave, J. 1980. Whatsspecial about experiments as contexts for thinking. Q.
Newsl. Lab. Comp.Hum. Cognit. 2(4):
86-91
66. Lave, J. 1982. A comparative approach
to educational forms and learning processes. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 13(2):18187
67. Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
68. Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., de la Rocha,
O. 1984. The dialectic of arithmetic in
grocery shopping. See Ref. 108, pp. 6794
69. Lave, J., Wenger, E. 1991. Situated
Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press. In press
70. Leacock, E. B. 1972. Abstract versus
concrete speech: a lhlse dichotomy. In
Hymes, pp. 111-34. NewYork: Teachers College Press
71. L6vi-Strauss,
C. 1966. The Savage
Mind. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
72. L6vi-Strauss, C. 1969. "Primitive" peoples and "civilized" peoples. In Conversations with ClaudeLdvi-Strauss, ed.
G. Charbonnicr, pp. 21-31. London:
Jonathan Cape
73. Levy-Bruhl, L. 1923/1966. Primitive
Mentality. Boston: Beacon
74. Levy-Bruhl, L. 1926. How Natives
Think. London: George Allen & Unwin
75. Lewis, D. 1972. We, the Navigators.
Honolulu: Univ. Hawaii Press
76. Lewis, D. 1978. The Voyaging Stars.
NewYork: Norton
77. Luria, A. R. 1976. Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Formations. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Univ.
Press
78. Malinowski, B. 1925/1954. Magic, Science and Religion, and Other Essays.
Garden City, NJ: Doubleday
79. McDermott, R. P., Gospodinoff, K.
1981. Social contexts for ethnic borders
and school failure. See Ref. 130, pp.
212-30
80. McDermott, R. P., Gospodinoff, K.,
Aron, J. 1978. Criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of ac-
Annual Reviews

94
PELISSIER
tivities and their contexts. Semiotica

24:245-75
81. McDermott, R. P., Roth, D. R. 1978.
The social organization of behavior: interactional approaches. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 7:321-45
82. Mead, M. 1929/1961. The Coming of
Age in Samoa. London: Cape
83. Mead, M. 1930. Growing up in New
Guinea: A ComparativeStudy of Primitive Education. New York: William
Morrow
84. Mead, M. 1943/1963. Our educational
emphasis in primitive perspective. In
Educationand Culture, ed. G. Spindler,
pp. 309-20. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston
85. Mead, M., Macgregor, F. C. 1951.
Growth and Culture: A Photographic
Study of Balinese Childhood. NewYork:
Putnams
86. Mehan,H. 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom.
87. Mehan, H. 1980. The competent student. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 11(3):131-52
88. Mehan,H., Griffin, P. 1980. Socialization: the view from classroom interactions. Sociol. Inq. 50(3 4):357-98
89. Middleton, J. 1970. From Child to
Adult: Studies in the Anthropology of
Education. Garden City, NY: Natural
History Press
90. Minturn, L., Lambert, W. W. 1964.
Mothers of Six Cultures: Antecedents of
Child Rearing. NewYork: Wiley
91. Morgan, L. H. 1877. Ancient Society.
New York: Holt
92. Newman, D., Griffin, P., Cole, M.
1984. Social constraints in laboratory
and classroom tasks. See Ref. 108, pp.
172-93
93. Ochs, E. 1982. Talking to children in
Western Samoa. Lang. Soc. 11:77-104
94. Ochs, E. 1984. Clarification and culture. In Georgetown University Round
Table on Languages and Linguistics
1984, ed. D. Shiffrin, pp. 325-41.
Washington, DC: Georgetown Uniw
Press
95. Ochs, E., Schieffelin B. B. 1983. Acquiring Conversational Competence.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
96. Ogbu, J. U. 1978. Minority Education
and Caste: The American System in
Cross-Cultural Perspective. NewYork:
Academic
97. Ogbu,J. U. 1987. Variability in minority school performance: a problem in
search of an explanation. Anthropol.
Educ. Q. 18:312-34
98. Ortner, S. B. 1984. Theoryin anthropology since the sixties. Comp.Stud. Soc.
Hist. 26(1):126-66
99. Peshkin, A. 1972. Kanuri Schoolchildren: Education and Social Mobilization

in Nigeria. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
100. Philips, S. U. 1972. Participant structures and communicative competence:
WarmSprings children in community
and classroom. In Functions of Language in the Classroom, ed. C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, D. Hymes, pp. 37094. NewYork: Teachers College Press
101. Philips, S. U. 1983. The Invisible Culture: Communicationin Classroom and
Communityin the WarmSprings Indian
Reservation. NewYork: Longman
102. Piestrup, A. 1973. Black dialect interference and accommodationof reading instruction in first grade. (Monogr.
No. 4). Berkeley: Lang. Behav. Res.
Lab.
103. Rabin, A. I. 1965. Growing Up in the
Kibbutz. NewYork: Springcr
104. Read, M. 1968. Children of Their Fathers: Growing up Among the Ngoni of
Malawi. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston
104a. Roberts, J. I., Akinsanya, S. K., eds.
1976. Schooling in Cultural Context:
Anthropological Studies of Education_
New York: McKay
105. Rogoff, B. 1981. Schooling and the developmentof cognitive skills. In Handbook ~f Cross-Cultural Psychology, ed.
H. C. Triandis, A. Heron, Vol. 4. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
106. Rogoff, B. 1984. Introduction: thinking
and learning in social context. See Ref.
108, pp. 1-8
107. Rogoff, B., Gardner, W. 1984. Adult
guidance of cognitive development. See
Ref. 108, pp. 95-116
108. Rogoff, B., Lave, J., eds. 1984. Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context. Cambridge, MA:Harvard
Univ. Press
109. Sapir, E. 1968. Language. In Selected
Writings of Edward Sapir, ed. D. G.
Mandelbaum, pp.
7-32. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
110. Sapir, E. 1968. The status of linguistics
as a science. In Selected Writings of Edward Sapir, ed. D. G. Mandelbaum,pp.
160-66. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
111. Schieffelin,
B. B. 1981. HowKahdi
children learn what to say, what to do
and how to feel. PhDthesis. Columbia
Univ.
112. Schieffelin, B. B. 1981. Asociolinguistic analysis of a relationship. Discourse
Processes 4(2): 18%96
113. Schieffelin, B. B., Ochs, E., eds. 1986.
Language Socialization
Across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Annual Reviews

TEACHING
114. Schieffelin, B. B., Ochs, E. 1986. Language socialization. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 15:163-91
l14a. Scollon, R., Scollon, S. B. K. 1981.
Narrative, Literacy and Face in lnterethnic Communication. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex
115. Scribner, S. 1976. Situating the experimentin cross-cultural research. In The
Developing Individual in a Changing
World, ed. K. F. Riegel,
J. A.
Meacham, Vol. 1. Chicago: Aldine
116. Scribner, S. 1984. Studying working intelligence. See Ref. 108, pp. 9-40
117. Scribner, S., Cole, M. 1973. Cognitive
consequences of formal and informal
education. Science 182:553-59
118. Scribner, S., Cole, M. 1981. The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press
119. Spindler, G. D., ed. 1955. Education
and Anthropology. Stanford: Stanford
Univ. Press
and Cultural Process: Toward an Anthropology of Education. NewYork:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston
121. Spindler, G. D. 1974. The transmission
of culture. See Ref. 120, pp. 279-309
122. Spindler, G. D., ed. 1982. Doing the
Ethnography of Schooling: Educational
Anthropology in Action. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston
and Cultural Process. Prospect Heights,
IL: WavelandPress. 2nd ed.
124. Stevenson, H. W. 1982. Influences of
schooling on cognitive development. In
Cultural Perspectives on Child Development, ed. D. A. Wagner, H. W.
Stevenson, pp. 208-24. San Francisco:
Freeman
125. Strauss, C. 1984. Beyond"formal" versus "informal" education: uses of psychological theory in anthropological research. Ethos 12(3):195-222
126. Sutter, F. 1980. Communalversus individual socialization at home and in
school in rural and urban Western
Samoa. PhDthesis. Univ. Hawaii
127. Trueba, H. T., ed. 1987. Success or
Failure?: Learning and the Language
Minority Student. NewYork: Newbury
128. Trueba, H. T. 1989. Raising Silent
Voices: Educatingthe Linguistic Minorities for the 21st Century. NewYork:
Newbury
129. Trueba, H. T., Barnett-Mizrahi, C.,
eds. 1979. Bilingual Multicultural Education and the Professional:
From
Theory to Practice. Rowley, MA:Newbury
130. Trueba, H. T., Guthrie, G. P., Au, K.
H., eds. 1981. Culture and the Bilingual
& LEARNING
95
Classroom: Studies in Classroom Ethnography. Rowley, MA: Newbury

131. Trueba, H. T., Spindler, G., Spindler,
L., eds. 1989. Whatdo Anthropologists
Have to Say About Dropouts? New
York: Falmer
132. Tylor, E. B. 1871/1929. Primitive Culture, Vol. 1. London: J. Murray
133. Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and
Language. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press
134. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mindin Society:
The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, ed. M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner, E. Souberman.
135. Watson-Gegeo, K. A., Gegeo, D. W.
1986. Calling-out and repeating routines
in Kwaraaechildrens language socialization. See Ref. 113, pp. 17-50
135a. Wax,M. L., Diamond,S., Gearing, F.
O., eds. 1971. Anthropological Perspectives on Education. New York:
Basic Books
136. Wertsch, J. V. 1979. From social interaction to higher psychological processes: a clarification and application of
Vygotskys theory. Hum. Dev. 22:1-22
137. Wertsch, J. V. 1985. Vygotsky and the
Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge,
138. Wertsch, J. V., Minick, N., Ares, F. J.
1984. The creation of context in joint
problem-solving. See Ref. 108, pp.
151-71
139. Whiting, B., ed. 1963. Six Cultures:
Studies of Child Rearing. NewYork:
Wiley
140. Whiting, B. B., Whiting, J. W. M.
1975. Children of Six Cultures: A Psycho-Cultural Analysis. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press
141. Whiting, J. W. M. 1941. Becoming a
Kwoma: Teaching and Learning in a
New Guinea Tribe. New Haven: Yale
Univ. Press
142. Whiting, J. W. M., Child, I. L., Lambert, W. W., et al. 1966. Field Guide
for a Study of Socialization (Six Cultures
Ser., Vol. 1.). NewYork: Wiley
143. Williams, T. R. 1969. A Borneo Childhood: Enculturation in DusunSociety.
NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
144. Whorf, B. L. 1956. A linguistic consideration of thinking in primitive communities. In Language, Thought and
Reality: Selected Writings, ed. J. B.
Carroll, pp. 65-86. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
144a. Whorf, B. L. 1956. The relation of
habitual thought and behavior to language. See Ref. 144, pp. 134-59
145. Wolcott, H. F. 1967. A Kwakiutl Village
and School. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston



Annurev An 20 100191

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Annurev An 20 100191

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Annual Reviews

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu.Rev. Anthropol. 1991. 20:75-95

As the study of culture, a phenomenon

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

(of Westernmodesof thought) on the one hand, and deficiency or irrationality

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

as "civilized" people, then, are concerned with objective knowledgeand

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

A somewhatdifferent tack was taken by people in linguistic anthropology.

CROSS-CULTURAL AND EVERYDAY COGNITION

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

but also the waysthese structures are enacted in interaction. In so doing, he

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

populations; again, the patterns of language use expected in mainstream

As indicated above, the organization of communicationis integral to the

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

principles and skills that can be generalized across contexts. "Informal"

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

I thankthe following individuals for their comments

7. Borofsky, R. 1987. Making History:

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

ed. N. Warren, 2:269-316. NewYork:

29. Fortes, M. 1938. Social and psychological aspects of education in Taleland.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

thought and Western science. Africa

62. Laboratory of Comparative Human

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

tivities and their contexts. Semiotica

99. Peshkin, A. 1972. Kanuri Schoolchildren: Education and Social Mobilization

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Classroom: Studies in Classroom Ethnography. Rowley, MA: Newbury

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991.20:75-95. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi