About

Anthony K. Webster is a scholar trained in both linguistics and anthropology, focusing on ethnopoetics and linguistic anthropology. His work explores the intersection of language and culture, particularly through the lens of Navajo poetry. Webster's research addresses the challenges readers face in fully understanding Navajo poetry, even when it is presented in English, highlighting the cultural and linguistic expectations that shape interpretation. His book, Intimate Grammars: An Ethnography of Navajo Poetry, delves into these issues, offering insights into the complexities of Navajo poetic expression and the ways in which cultural context influences comprehension. Webster's contributions emphasize the importance of recognizing the nuanced linguistic and cultural frameworks that inform Native American literary traditions.

Research topics

• Sociology
• Philosophy
• Linguistics
• Psychology
• Literature
• Communication
• Anthropology
• History
• Art
• Geography
• Social psychology
• Epistemology
• Aesthetics

Selected publications

• Playing in the Slipstream

  American Indian Culture and Research Journal · 2025-03-03

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Commentary

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Dialogues: anthropology and literature

  Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute · 2024-03-19 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access

  The relationship between anthropology and literature has attracted renewed theoretical energy in recent years (Brandel 2020; Debaene 2014; Fassin 2014; Reed 2018; Wulff 2016), developing and deepening connections with, for example, anthropological theories of art (Reed 2011), religion (Furani 2012), subjectivity (Olszewska 2015), and ethics (Bush 2017), as well as with allied fields and traditions, including postcolonial theory (Sadana 2012), Bourdieuan sociology (Dalsgård 2021), media theory (Rosen 2022), and ordinary language philosophy (Brandel 2023). Among the most fruitful trends in current research has been a revitalized emphasis on the possibilities for collaboration between writers and anthropologists, which has generated critical debate on the ethical and political limits of conventional methodologies (Schielke & Shehata 2021). The following set of conversations reflect and refract these trends in different ways, while proposing further openings for future work, particularly around questions of translation, creativity, care, and particularity. Each of these dialogues took place between anthropologists and writers with long-standing relationships, as members of collaborative research teams, co-authors, companions, mentors, and fieldwork interlocutors. Their differences in form reflect their range of commitments and approaches to the study of creative language practices. Participants were provided with an initial set of orienting questions and provocations, including about what brought the groups together, about the basis for the comparisons they draw between their work, and a reflection on whom they write for and why. They were edited and assembled with the help of one of the editors, Adam Reed. This series of conversations took place over the phone and voice messages between fiction writer Siddratul Muntaha Jillani, from the village Noora I Sharif in Sindh, and Kiran Nazir Ahmed, an anthropologist, from the city of Islamabad, Pakistan. They became friends when Kiran was doing her fieldwork in 2013, thus they know each other well. This conversation explores questions such as what are the parallels and contrasts between fiction writing and ethnographic writing? Who does each write for and why? Ahmed translated this series of conversations from Urdu into English and edited it for clarity of thought, checking the final product for Jillani's approval. Siddratul Muntaha Jillani (SMJ) Kiran Nazir Ahmed (KNA) When you asked me to ponder these questions, my first thought was I'd take a week or so, and respond. But then I realized that when we do that, we end up doing everything else, and not that thing that we're supposed to do. We unconsciously push it aside, thinking we'll do it later in a much better way. But the questions and answers have their own dynamic; the more spontaneous thoughts are, the better it is. It of a in it and we it up to you answers with you anthropologists and fiction do you as the parallels or study the of and do fiction fiction writers write about fiction writers are they are writing about and anthropologists are they are a they while anthropologists are not they are or you one of that an what the fiction writer the fiction writer about the while the in a way. The write about the the of that the of the fiction which the writer has with her other you and The first one and the other This these have connections with each I my when we to the of we a the form of to that what brought me it was as I on the other this into and about as with such me a of the as and writer as the this the Fassin to between and as in and or The what has or in the that which has to and from it on of and it the of while a between the fiction writers have creative to they anthropologists are to what they the not that anthropologists from what they are more to it the in this this an a of what you a of their with a the they the are better the their own one I to write about a city in I was that Urdu fiction and has about that in and I have have it own I have been more to the and to the each writer and writing about the their and their are a and the you that for anthropologists, that an writer the they about and a of this anthropologists are fiction writer not a about own with the first first know the first of relationship and in the you to and and you what you are and and are you are the the a has the that you that you and you an with a that you you an in of this you with I you my and not the a to When I my fieldwork with fiction I was was place or I But the first phone conversation with you and the of it as a of I the as it and of conversations became a I that has a it a research a for as a a thing I about you as an that when But you with the that the to It was you and you and then you my you that you into they not you that that when I you conversations with it to me you were in you and me you I this anthropology as a and the to you as a a the the and the are the and you as a it the of own work, I was you and the it When a writing the the first that of the and the the writer what it or it the they have for they with the this not I that the has a The not my not my not in a to a is. the and when I was writing this were that I or been the around But were for which I I this on this in this when you in a and you know and they are from this this when a has the they have this the one that they their own are the and and are we have of were I I and not on to what anthropology from creative as a form of writing and as a form of about the what creative writing from anthropologists from fiction anthropologists that they what they this the what of do they what the of the over their of of the But are other that a fiction their write about write about the of and not the writers to what they their The to their the they have for their this fiction have a different of to they to The fiction to that writers about the from anthropologists, of of have they these this that fiction from The such that or you it to and on that this I was you the you it But the not in you it it in the it the that or what you it a for you to when a to to write a the you write it and the to that, I a and I and write about the first or first But then you have to to the which we that language not the one you from other around you one that you from the one you with and these you the to and writing in and they and then the thing own This you to and as This the as research to and a of and writing the of that This they up The you into the more they for the other you or are not They their and you writing a of and and a you to the it or the you to to the of the and it to This with me in my as an the ethnographic it to and take the form it to you and to a or a it does take you in an a it from to then the of I one we write for Each ethnographic or about or it a the we to these with do we write these and whom do we write other do you the of the you have that in when writing? When I write for I do have the in and I that this this or not to that that a that this or not the other when I writing I do have it in and a of to thinking to they are to this of writing But when I write for the I have the in when writing a you have that in the or the to this the this so, we write for we and to But I that we write for and we that that and the we are that the we the this asked you write a in about a you were to a about I I write the that the of the that the writer not the one I I more on it to that or I more in the and the writer on the each set of to a different the each has a of and when to my they each it when to Islamabad, in this and we have this in I I been to Islamabad, I it for different I know you the as as it was in on a each in their own and each to their their to This in the of the that what the of they to to this or This a of we write that most not But each has one a relationship with that the have more and I the for a writer to not the to it or The thing for the writer to with me you about this this not to write what the to you in then you write what you have to write the of it I my in when I But are different that you have to to a writing in the the one in or the and then the that you have to you each has own and own the to the in you in the you are writing to not of the and of the you have to to one that which you as to work, and you it to a I that that spontaneous the has as well as the have their own you have to which does it to to and the in own then it this when we to the of the and and we to in a take of and are about of what it for it in a in other we are to the as a to an it in a then we not to the relationship has to I anthropologists and fiction writers to about of of the of and that for each of This what me to on fiction writers write for Each to a different of what it to a you and the possibilities of this I anthropology and fiction writers have the of to of and when you as we and when we we a of a end with that Urdu that it we from a place of we're these are this This between literature and anthropology on translated that what and they as well or to and between while they and into the of a they the of with such that they of the of such a translated fiction which the of a the to a to in in this one of the first a from the of an or The of the to this into the between translation, and to and a in a other to her own into a fiction that the of and that to The that the of the from The of was on in to the The and in the the and in the her of the of a in to further a me the of of to up and up of and I was It on this the to the with a on a the collaborative which the and her into a and language and the it and have they this a which we and translation, and practices. This from a of the and to about the of and the English of of and that was which edited in and with into We and the theory that to the limits between these and the of on we are between English and we in on in and and the into The of and and that of their English translation, as of in was in a which to the and a with to the of and in while the possibilities this an for as the of The not between the between the and to and was and for to the that they are in this it does not to this of the as and of a I to this and as well as the that their into a and we to their of I reflect on this It to me and which the of in and The between literature and anthropology the study of the which the of a about as the in we the it an or it to reflect and and a This the of or other to the to the in the to their own in ways, and from we of as with or and the voice for the of the of what of the this to the one to are these in the one or in in the in much to in the much in the a writer and I with for in my own and in with the of the their into other I have to that the between the and to was the ethnographic of the from it her own up with the voice of her I know the and of that it was in the was a of her The to the of the voice of the to the of the of and the voice was a product of and But it was an of her own her The and in a to which in the The between first and about the take from own and from the to me the of the between their own and of other and in a relationship between the and the which in of the of into the of translation, or the the of it to the or was an to to do with this I with about I to me up of these a in a voice that the clarity of in to the and of the of that one in a of in I of this voice in of years for me to what voice from the voice and of her in an this this the of fiction to from and to an of This an of from the literature which to and the or of the as it was for example, in from a with the of for in up the of the from the of the The and in the and it was this that they with the and they were these and are writers the from and different of a language to this from a one in in which and to a more of and in the of into the her an and the of the This language in a the are that with brought about that The a that of the in a one and in with, the I what about the first in a first that in to and in so, me that when This not a the of the that the to the of the into the and does not from the of in with other and that are was not to that her was a of the it that the that in the not are the of the the the of from the and the in the But in a and the that was a and that the of and that in the to the the of of the the between the the and the and this the as and the not the language of and that to a to that which not to approaches to and fiction and in the with a on the between and other the and the and on the of a brought me to reflect on a language the The of the range from and to the the in the The of to an and with The to while the to from to and the one on the the one the that an between as well as the to it on that a between the and the The of fiction and to and to on the from which it anthropologists the relationship between the they and the writers and of literature in the following The and of the of fieldwork and and the of the and of the of anthropological a and the product a as well as of literature are the of ethnographic and the of The and of anthropology are these are and own and the theory that I that anthropologists to this relationship from the of writers and of and the of these as and practices. for a of one of the to the form of into the with other a of with language in a a form of the I was these the has that to the of in are the final a I I in in of following a as as or I their I in of the that I as a of a with the and as their over the and on a of that in This of to answers a of or writing or in and the in this a The about the between and literature to me the this to and a I of the that of for her of the about the in to in a me or the of to a a of a on a for or was a and then the and for The between and between and between and in the The one more the I an with I know well about a and place in the and and the of the an in what this has it to to take the other as an or does not the of to and as in to I this much in of and of the for in the of The the the They brought They the and for the to from the and of to the me me my and with the in the I to an the of and with and with a with to the and to The to with have with the of in the of and the limits of and thinking about the the we and the theories that translation, and anthropology I these to to to I and other this the of the ordinary The of are the of their The of this as an to what are to as the The of the and the of the an into the place and was to the and to to the of and of The and of in were to their in were in of language to the and of that from each other to with the of and the that they that in This the into the postcolonial the of with of The of to these possibilities most of the in an form that an and a not This which and with of as The of language and as in the of I to the and possibilities that that of an of literature and between the and translation, and into to write in they to are they example, the of the a are into their This form a into anthropologists to the in They these in the of a the of of a which a different of the The translation, and anthropology theories and I take up are of between and the to and between a better for this and between of and in a me to the or of have been writers between and while I between and we this the as I in the I was and to I in and of of I the which literature their in with on to translation, and writing a I to each in or the possibilities that and and of a to the of the and this they with literature and other these are that an to have and as of and which it to into their for as and anthropologists the of of in a The between not a a and a of as the and I when as a to the other I that when I I an up or a which are from a that we of the as it to the to what the or to a to in of to write about in her and in a a as a The this to with in the of the It a a of and in the a that we are not we other that the of translation, or and into own practices. you have translated over from into including and of and the which was translated or edited to the we the and own does thinking a of literature for It to me that what about the of writing we have been about translation, writing that on that the of the does not are with in a of the about this to in that the and final are creative and of the a of that on with asked about the which on the of a the of which to her an to on the of the in the of and my and on as a of form to I about it for the The of and became or I the I a or the in then into I a of what I with the and English in with the of the in of a when was a that took place over and we conversations with for a while the was to and which I it the that became a in the of this was a that and I that from the which I to write in they are as a a of the in which the in which not and are a of the does one a for the of the and years later I to her to what to the was that it thought the in her initial we it of or else, with initial and But each on a a I the in ways, a and This in over and with the we of these a about and the of the other we up the of the as an art the of questions, the we to what the other has to do with and the of what to or The of the this of and that from the the I does thinking an for a we or as a of this an and of the of the end of the the of set in the not to this of and the that the end of more But what the end of the not a future has has been an for not of in a as in The for example, that and the that, for the and other the with the of the and the end of an of But the of in with the from the a of a a language of religion and between and the this in to the are the of their and The of the end of the in this ethnographic I was an that in which I into the of my own which the of it about of the to and the of their ethnographic to the in a of and explores the they have to and and a this has a in recent years of the of fiction I to not the of the the of the that to in and the The we not to a The relationship between literature and anthropology that on an of does thinking a of literature for an I literature the the of a of writing literature with a and the more ordinary and of literature study the and to and as well as the of the form in This or into a form with from and over and the to the of a to of and other of a to the of the I around the we the of the the It language into It the end of the The language to and The in in that while you or a of The or to their They a that does not a which to writing own We know the But does it the into writing and language This to an into of language to such as the which that the was the and the was with and the was are from the that and what they into This to other of and fiction that the of the This of not The I the of to have and the of in the are the which that Their of the which an to the an it to the it was a of religion or a to the was the and the The has with the to to the of in the of the fiction into the The to fiction a I of the of a of fiction a with and The following a of a conversation between and It a of an between the of The conversation in when was to a It was first that that a of of in The conversation has and on for the of conversations in and and The conversations have place in the in in in most This a of a series of a series of dialogues that and have been on and week and have to with each The of the the in and We this as as on that in a of we anthropologists and to know about art & the this a of a and as such it conversations and to future we about what do you anthropology does and it to creative writing the writers on I what does anthropology do I I a and anthropologists a of thinking about that much in what anthropologists do that they to and and they to a about other about or about the and you know my own in that of anthropology and what was the to the language and which a that language and as that do and other of and the to that the place that most for of that which was the my was much a of was was in and art in the that language in creative and I with this their their their of they are the possibilities for the future the one to the the one with language for of and in the of anthropology and anthropologists do of the anthropology that I I was most in was anthropology that was with and with of art and the and I you know one of the about with in the and with much I when we first and then I thought that that that it was a of a of and of writers and I was in the that are more more when I first with and it been I for to the that language English in creative of for of to about to on on the as it or as it as it were and you know of what I to do or I to that to literature I and to to it and to draw to it what do you of the of in of this the and and and does that with of writing a I I I it I it on the the I it on what they are to do on what their what their about of I you know I it I it to to about it I what you do different what does and I that the that you with language the that you of of and the different does into a different of and the I you you connections with language and I other I they do that not what doing and I it I on and the and you know I what do you on the well I I I what you do different what a different does not to the of connections and the I I that and this you know this of that of I one to about what one of the of anthropology to do of and what they about what they are doing and when I it it I approaches the I it that have different about these of and to of I well not that what do you of the

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Whorf, Navajo Poetry, and Ethnopoetic Dialoging

  Journal of Anthropological Research · 2024-10-29 · 1 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  This paper engages something of the legacy of Benjamin Lee Whorf in Americanist anthropology. The first part of the paper critiques Whorf for erasing the dialogue that constituted the epistemological foundations of his ethnographic and linguistic writings. It contrasts that critique by complimenting Whorf’s moral optimism and his desire to pursue cross-cultural and cross-linguistic understanding. The paper then moves to an ethnopoetic dialoging and highlights the ways that, by making visible something of the transcripts concerning Navajo poetry and poetics, it reveals how knowledge about particular poems came into being. Included in such interactions is the awareness that the anthropologist is not outside such critiques. The paper concludes by highlighting Whorf’s concerns with “carelessness” in relation to his contemporary F. Scott Fitzgerald and to the work of Leo Marx. That discussion returns to the issue of understanding, and the possibility of a more humane world as posited by some Navajo poets.

  PublisherDOI

• "I Want People to Really See It": On Poetry, Truth, and the Particularities of Blackhorse Mitchell's "The Beauty of Navajoland"

  Journal of the Southwest · 2024-03-01 · 1 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Further reading

  Manchester University Press eBooks · 2024-06-04

  book-chapterOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  This book talks about the mass displacement of civilians, estimated to be 14 to 15 million, in the twentieth-century Europe during the First World War. It looks at the causes and consequences of the refugee crisis and its aftermath, and the attempts to understand its significance. Key sites of displacement extended from Belgium to Armenia, taking in France, Italy, Austria-Hungary, East Prussia, the Russian Empire, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey and Serbia. The German army's occupation of Belgium, France, Poland and Lithuania prompted the mass flight of refugees, as did Russia's invasion of East Prussia in 1914. Jewish, Ruthenian and Polish civilians in the Habsburg Empire fled their homes or were deported by the military to distant locations. Following Italy's attack on Austria-Hungary in May 1915, the Habsburg authorities ordered around 100,000 Slovenian subjects of the empire to leave. The Austrian and Bulgarian invasion of Serbia brought about a humanitarian catastrophe as civilians and the remnants of the Serbian army sought safety elsewhere. However, mass flight of civilian refugees did not begin in 1914 nor did it come to an end in 1918. Muslim refugees fled to the relative safety of Anatolia in order to escape violent persecution by Bulgarian and other forces during the Balkan Wars on 1912-13. There were complex movements of population between Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey before 1914. The complex process of repatriation and resettlement affected soldiers and civilians alike and rarely took place in stable or peaceful circumstances.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• 17 Verbal art

  2023-08-21

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  This chapter outlines some of the important linguistic and cultural issues concerning Native American verbal art. While not attempting to be exhaustive, this chapter does attempt to highlight a variety of verbal artistic traditions. After providing a definition of verbal art and discussing some of the ethical issues concerning documenting verbal art, the chapter turns to an overview of various topics related to verbal art. Topics include the importance of performance for thinking about verbal art (1), the question of locally understood genres (2), poetic structuring (3), the ways speech play provides key poetic devices (4), and the evaluative criteria by which verbal art is interpreted (5). Particular focus is placed on concerns with punning, ideophony, poetry, song, narratives, placenames, and parallelism (of various kinds). At the end of the chapter is an extended bibliography for further readings.

  PublisherDOI

• A Verdant Ethnography: Henry Green, Navajo Poetry, and Dialogical Ethnopoetics

  Anthropologica · 2023-09-28

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  The endeavour here is to write an ethnography with a sense of living. Using the literary work and theories of Henry Green, as well as concerns with dialogical anthropology, a discourse-centred approach to language and culture (conjoined here as a dialogical ethnopoetics), and Navajo rhetorical practices, I present an aggregate of transcripts from several conversations with Navajo poets over the years. It is the transcripts that give life to ethnography. The first part places this endeavour in an intellectual context; the much longer second part gives the verdant ethnography. A verdant ethnography is predicated on an empirical foundation (transcripts), but also on an obliqueness as well (the stuff of talk).

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• 14 Native North America: Notes towards a dialogical ethnopoetics

  De Gruyter eBooks · 2022 · 3 citations

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Sociology
  • History
  • Sociology
  PublisherDOI

• Reflections on Joel Sherzer (1942–2022): A “Circumstantial” Special Issue

  Anthropological linguistics · 2021-12-01

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Reflections on Joel Sherzer (1942–2022): A “Circumstantial” Special Issue Anthony K. Webster The most powerful of my memories are only half true. —Elizabeth Bowen “Out of a Book” (1950:264) I first encountered Joel Sherzer through his writing.1 It was my first year in graduate school at New Mexico State University. I was taking the department seminar that introduced new students to the kinds of things done in the department. Each week a different faculty member came and spoke with the class and each week we read a couple of articles that oriented us to the topic. The week my M.A. advisor Scott Rushforth came to the class, we read the introduction from Greg Urban’s A Discourse-Centered Approach to Culture (1991) and Joel Sherzer’s (1987a) article, “A Discourse-Centered Approach to Language and Culture.” It was Sherzer’s concern with verbal art, not as something on the way to something more important, but as the central concern for, let us call it, linguistic anthropology, that struck my fancy then and led to my interest in ethnopoetics (which was the focus of my M.A. thesis; see Webster 1999). This was 1995. Two years later, as I was trying to decide where to go for my Ph.D., one of the places I applied to was the University of Texas at Austin. Sherzer’s work, especially his work on verbal art, had continued to wield a profound influence on me. I had been taken, as well, by the volume that Sherzer had edited with Anthony Woodbury (also at UT Austin) on Native American Discourse: Poetics and Rhetoric (1987). And so, for someone interested in verbal art, the University of Texas at Austin seemed an ideal place to go for my Ph.D. in the nineties. I was excited when I received the letter that I had been accepted at UT Austin. I first met Joel Sherzer in the spring (April) of 1997. I had driven with a friend from Las Cruces, N.M., to Austin to attend SALSA V (the Symposium about Language and Society–Austin). The goal was to see whether or not UT Austin was a good fit for me. I remember Sherzer being excited to meet me and excited about my then plan for my dissertation research. It was his enthusiasm that made a lasting impression on me and I felt that he would be a good advisor. And so, before I left to go back to Las Cruces, I let him know that I would be attending UT Austin. For many graduate students in linguistic anthropology [End Page 331] and linguistics at UT Austin, one of the singular events for us was to take a course called “Speech Play and Verbal Art” cotaught by Sherzer and Anthony Woodbury2—the two of them sitting at opposite ends of the classroom in E. P. Schoch, the building that once housed the Department of Anthropology, each with a distinctive teaching style. And Sherzer was a good advisor. When, after my original dissertation plan had fallen through, I met with Sherzer to talk about my new plan to change field sites and to work on contemporary Navajo poetry, he told me that it was a much better dissertation project than my original project. He was, of course, right, and my work with Navajo poets has gone on for the past twenty plus years (see Belin et al. 2021). I cannot imagine, now, not having done that work. But it was his confidence in me, at a moment when I seemed lost, that was most welcome, most encouraging. Sherzer’s work, for me, always seemed the kind of linguistic anthropology that I wanted to do. It was, first of all, discourse-centered in the particular way that Sherzer meant this turn of phrase. In my reading of Sherzer’s (1987a, 1990a, 1994) discourse-centered approach to language and culture, it emerges out of or merges with concerns from the ethnography of speaking and ethnopoetics. This shows the legacy of Sherzer’s own training—he was a student of Dell Hymes’s at the University of Pennsylvania and was a part of that initial cohort of...

  PublisherDOI

• “Let Them Know How I Was or Something Like That, You Know”: On Lingual Life Histories, Remembering, and Navajo Poetry

  Journal of Anthropological Research · 2021 · 3 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Sociology
  • Literature
  • History

  In this article, I present something of the ways that a young Navajo poet, Kay, tells me her lingual life history in an interview I did with her in February 2001. I also place it in conversation with a poem, “The Yards of Darkness,” she read twice at an open mic at Diné College. I then follow the contours of the transcript with Kay as it leads to a moment of confrontation—of my expectations and her life experiences. This gives us a glimpse at a way to think about Kay’s lingual life history, her engagements with languages. The particularity of Navajo poetry, for Kay, comes from a space of anger and sadness—which is, also, its secret. I conclude by reflecting on the nature of anthropology as it is suggested in an engagement with lingual life histories and the importance of such an approach.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Rex Lee Jim

  Diné College

  2 shared

• Leighton C. Peterson

  2 shared

• Rusty Barrett

  University of Kentucky

  2 shared

• Linda C. Garro

  1 shared

• Juan Luis Sánchez Rodríguez

  Universidad de Salamanca

  1 shared

• Paul V. Kroskrity

  1 shared

• Timothy Kubal

  Moffitt Cancer Center

  1 shared

• Paul Brooke

  1 shared