Introduction

Human beings have been articulating or verbalizing apparently for as long as they exist. Human beings have been utilizing language from the inception of time to encode knowledge, pass that encoded knowledge on to subsequent generations, for communication purposes, and the foremost reason is to entertain ourselves. Human civilization’s survival depends on the conservation or protection of the languages of the world. The languages of the world form an overarching or broad memory system of species of human, bearing sheath of thought (in their words). In philosophies and religions all over the world, there exists a perception that the arrival or origin of language and advent of sapient survival or life twine together (Danesi, 2012). The definition of language was defined by one of the ancient Greek philosophers as the capability of the brain that had converted the humans from an insentient or insensate brute into a rational, cogent, and sentient brute. Generally, Linguistic Anthropology emphasizes language not merely as a grammatical system, but also as an anthropological occurrence or phenomenon, i.e., as a mean to understand how human beings believe as a part of living all together in groups as well as how language catenate together with social activities, concepts, and forms, for example, how peoples of distinct religion communicate with each other.

Linguistic anthropology is a multifaceted discipline that is purely devoted to the study of dialects and vernaculars (language) from an anthropological point of view. Languages were regarded as a practical, cosmopolitan sign system by the linguistic anthropologists for several years that helps in the constitution or construction of society as well as in the proliferation of particular cultural practices (Duranti, 2008). Linguistic Anthropology is a field or discipline of anthropology that arise with an attempt or strive to document those languages that are in danger or jeopardized languages. Over the past few centuries, this field has grown to encompass and comprehend most of the features of the structure of language and its use (Duranti, 2004). This branch of anthropology also helps in exploring how language forms and build communications, establishes social identity as well as group membership, create and systemize large-scale ideologies and cultural beliefs, and also produces a common as well as prevalent cultural presentation and portrayal of social and natural worlds. This discipline reaches out in every direction to produce a sense of purpose of language in every word’s sense. This field goes beyond examining or analyzing the structure as well patterning of a dialect or linguistic for examining the factors or contexts and circumstances in which a dialect is employed. This branch also looks at the beginning of language; how it is learned; how the language changes. This field also concerns about how words are used (or silences) to control conditions/situations or for exerting power or to influence other peoples, and how peoples react to distinct accents as well as ways of speaking. It also looks at ideas peoples have about languages or dialects and how these languages should be used. It wonders whether those words which people employ for things influence the manner people to experience them, and it wonders whether using distinct languages leads to the different perspective of humans as they view the world distinctly from one another (Ottenheimer, 2).

Anthropological linguistics will be represented as the study or analysis of language or dialects as a cultural or racial resource and vocalizing as a racial practice. This branch of anthropology formed partly upon the structuralist linguist’s work, while provides a distinct perspective on their study’s object, language, and finally casts a new object. Linguistic anthropologists begin from the supposition that there are dimensions of dialects or speaking that can be captured by examining and studying what peoples or humans do with the language, by matching vocables (words), gestures as well as silences, with the factors in which the production of signs occurs. A denouement or outcome of this schemed or the programmatic position has been the invention of several means in which speaking or verbalizing is a social deed and is subject to the restraints of social activities (Duranti, 1997).