These are examples of the kinds of analyses we need in elucidating the
articulation of language and culture together. Language and culture are
not separate. We must break the frame that might appear to see them as
separate, when in fact they are indissolubly connected. We found the same
in considering arguments about the nature of language,finding that it is
born in the context of cultural praxis, rather than in brains as isolates. A
mindful anthropology aims to look into this process and this context and
seeks to ascertain and understand it, simultaneously from outside in and
inside out.
When we speak of cultural praxis, we are speaking about powers of
communication, not just utterances as‘action’but talking as‘interaction’.
Everett argued strongly that language is a cultural tool, meaning that it is
used for cultural purposes. We can also argue that it isfirst and foremost a
social tool, used to enhance and to develop social relations within a speech
community, as sociolinguists from John Gumpertz onward have always
argued. This being so, what capacity does spoken language exhibit that
enables it to function as a supremely widespread social tool? From here, we
can proceed to a further question: Is it‘Intelligence’that is involved, or
something more specific?
In his treatment of the issue of the origins of language, Everett proffers
the idea of generalized intelligence as an alternative to Chomsky’s theory of
a specific capacity for language. While Chomsky’s suggestion seems too
specific, intelligence may seem too unspecific or vague. Theories that have
relied on a notion of differences in‘intelligence’between specific categories
of people have also generally been set aside in social science arenas since the
work of H. J. Eysenck, who used various tests to produce graphs of
hypothesized group differences of intelligence (e.g., Eysenck 1979 ,The
Structure and Measurement of Intelligence, Springer Verlag). Intelligence,
then, while clearly a valid notion in general terms, is not a very precise
concept that can be applied to capacities for language. We argue instead,
that a very general human propensity and capacity has to do with the
recognition and production ofpatterns. Pattern-making,finding patterns,
cultures as patterns, these are elements that language depends on for its
emergence and propagation. In language learning sounds can be picked up
and mimicked. To do this, and to remember utterances beyond the
moment of mimesis itself, requires the storage of information in a retrie-
vable form, and this is made easier if pattern recognition is superimposed
on imitation. It also implies a generative ability to apply the pattern across
cases. Take, for example, the problem for an English-language speaker
76 BREAKING THE FRAMES