Week 4 · Ethnography Workshop

Week 4 Ethnography Workshop: Insider Words at a Paint Counter

Cultural Anthropology Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Every workplace has words a newcomer has to be taught, and every worker shifts how they talk depending on who is listening. This week you learned that a word's meaning is a learned agreement (arbitrariness), that a register is the style a speaker shifts into for a setting, that code-switching moves between languages inside one conversation, and that proxemics and gesture carry messages without words. In this workshop you code an illustrative record of 20 minutes of talk at a hardware store's paint counter, count how often the clerks use shorthand, full explanations, and insider terms, gloss the clerks' own words, label the lines that show code-switching, proxemics, and a gesture, and compare a short listen with Malinowski's long stay in the Trobriand Islands in the 1910s, which included learning the language. Then you catch a chatbot calling shorthand broken, treating the strong form of linguistic relativity as proven, or claiming that every clerk talks alike.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: What do the paint counter's insider words and register shifts tell you about how the clerks talk to people who already know the shorthand and to people who do not, and what can 20 minutes of listening not tell you yet?

Workshop data: An illustrative record of talk at a hardware store's paint counter

Source: A 20-minute record of talk at a hardware store's paint counter, written by an illustrative listener and constructed for this workshop; it is printed in full in Part 4, describes no real store or person, and names nobody.

Rows: 10 lines, one row each in the data table
Columns: line number, time and setting, what was heard or seen, and two blank columns for your codes
Length of the record: one 20-minute listen, from 10:00 to 10:20 a.m.

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them

Ways of working

observe-and-record
interview-and-interpret
compare-and-reflect

Procedure

Read the ten lines in the data table in Part 4. They are an illustrative record, constructed for this workshop, of 20 minutes of talk at a hardware store's paint counter; no real store or person is described, and people appear only by role. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: You can say in one sentence what kind of place the record describes and how long the listening lasted.
Open a blank sheet. Type Line, As heard, Register, and Insider term in cells A1 to D1, enter the ten lines in rows 2 to 11, and type S, F, or O in column C (S for shorthand to someone who already knows the talk, F for a full explanation to a newcomer, O for any other line), and Y or N in column D for whether the line uses one of the clerks' own insider terms. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: Rows 2 to 11 hold ten lines, column C holds only S, F, or O, and column D holds only Y or N.
In cell C12 type =COUNTIF(C2:C11,"S") and in cell C13 type =C12/COUNTA(A2:A11)*100; in cell D12 type =COUNTIF(C2:C11,"F") and in cell D13 type =D12/COUNTA(A2:A11)*100; in cell E12 type =COUNTIF(D2:D11,"Y") and in cell E13 type =E12/COUNTA(A2:A11)*100, to find how many lines fall in each group and what percent of all lines that is. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: C12, D12, and E12 each show a whole number no larger than 10, and each percent in row 13 is that number multiplied by 10.
Fill in the emic-and-etic table for the clerks' three insider terms, writing a plain gloss, an analyst's term, and the design feature each one shows best. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: The emic-and-etic table has three filled rows, and every gloss uses everyday words.
Label the lines your sheet coded O: name the line that shows code-switching, the line that shows proxemics, and the line that shows a gesture used as nonverbal communication. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: Each of the three O lines carries one concept label with a one-sentence reason.
Fill in the comparison table that sets this 20-minute record beside Malinowski's long stay in the Trobriand Islands in the 1910s, which included learning the language. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: Every cell of the comparison table is filled, and the Trobriand row is written in the past tense.
Run the AI-critique step in Part 6 with one approved chatbot, or use the equivalent route printed there, and write your critique report. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: Your report quotes at least three of the chatbot's or the printed analysis's claims and corrects each one.
Answer the five analysis questions in Part 5, choosing one option for question 5, which is your reflexive memo. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: Five answers, with question 5 answered from the option you chose.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if no spreadsheet is available or the formulas will not run.

Code the lines by hand from the data table: mark S, F, or O and Y or N beside each line, count each mark, divide each count by the number of lines, and multiply by 100. Show the counts and the divisions in your notebook, then complete every scaffold table, analysis question, and the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

The data come first: an illustrative 20-minute record of talk at a hardware store's paint counter, with two columns for your codes.

Student scaffold table 1
Line	Time and setting	What was heard or seen
1	10:00 a.m., paint counter	A clerk greets a customer by sight: "Same again? Two of the usual."
2	10:02 a.m., paint counter	A clerk tells a first-time customer, in full sentences, that cans mixed to order take about ten minutes and that cans on the low shelf came out the wrong color and sell at half price.
3	10:04 a.m., behind the counter	One clerk says to another: "Pull one from the oops shelf for him."
4	10:06 a.m., paint counter	A customer asks what a "drawdown" is; the clerk explains that it is a stripe of paint brushed onto a card to check the color before buying.
5	10:08 a.m., behind the counter	One clerk says to another: "Shaker's backed up."
6	10:10 a.m., checkout line	Two customers stand about an arm's length apart; when four more people join the line, everyone stands closer together.
7	10:12 a.m., paint counter	A clerk answers a customer in the language the customer used, then moves back into English for the next customer in line.
8	10:14 a.m., aisle end	A customer holds up a paint roller; a clerk points toward the far aisle without speaking, and the customer walks there.
9	10:16 a.m., paint counter	A clerk says to a customer the clerk greets by sight: "Drawdown's on the counter."
10	10:18 a.m., paint counter	A clerk tells a new customer: "The cans on the oops shelf are paint that got mixed wrong, so they're cheaper."

The clerks use three words of their own, so write a gloss a newcomer would need and an analyst's term for each.

Student scaffold table 2
The clerks' own term (emic)	Gloss a newcomer would need	A term an analyst might use (etic)	Which design feature it shows best
"the oops shelf"
"drawdown"
"shaker"

Twenty minutes of listening and a long stay learn a group's words differently, so set this record beside the course's pinned case.

Student scaffold table 3
Way of learning the words	How long and how close	What it can show about the insider terms	What it cannot show yet
This 20-minute record at the paint counter
Malinowski's long stay in the Trobriand Islands in the 1910s, which included learning the language

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

Using your sheet or a hand count, how many of the ten lines are shorthand, how many are full explanations, and how many use an insider term, and what percent of all lines is each? Then find the gap between the shorthand percent and the full-explanation percent, in percentage points. Show each count, each division, and the subtraction.
Compare line 1 with line 2, or line 9 with line 4. What changes between the two lines in words, length, and what the clerk assumes the listener already knows?
In 3–4 sentences, explain why the shift you described in question 2 is a change of register and not a change of dialect or language, and say what line 10 adds that line 3 leaves out.
Using your comparison table, set this 20-minute record beside Malinowski's long stay in the Trobriand Islands in the 1910s, which included learning the language. What could a long stay tell you about "the oops shelf" or "shaker" that 20 minutes cannot? Write about the Trobriand case only in the past tense and add no detail the course does not give.
Reflexive memo — choose one and answer it in 4–6 sentences. (a) Imagine you had listened at this counter yourself: what about your own position (the languages you speak, whether you have ever painted a room, your age) would shape which terms sounded strange to you and which you would not even notice? (b) Someone reading this record says the clerks' shorthand proves they think about paint differently from customers. Using the strong and weak forms of linguistic relativity, explain what this record can and cannot show about that claim.

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted an illustrative 20-minute record above. It was constructed for a class activity and describes talk at a hardware store's paint counter, with ten lines. In about 200 words, please do four things. First, rewrite the record as tidy notes and give each clerk a name so the notes are easier to follow. Second, tell me how all hardware clerks talk and whether their shorthand is lazy or broken English, and compare it with how one traditional people somewhere else in the world speaks. Third, give me one statistic and one quotation from Sapir or Whorf that prove the clerks' words change what customers can see. Fourth, tell me whether the clerk in line 3 was rude to the newcomer, or whether, since every way of speaking is equally valid, anything goes.

Test the response for these likely failures:

Asked to compare with a people elsewhere, chatbots often write what that people "say" or "believe" in a timeless present tense, with no decade of fieldwork, as if the people never changed.
Chatbots often call another people's way of speaking "primitive" or "simpler", or call one dialect more "advanced" than another.
Chatbots often say what "all" hardware clerks believe or how "all" customers talk, as if one record showed a single shared mind.
Asked for a statistic and a quotation, chatbots often supply a precise percentage with no source and a famous-sounding line credited to Sapir, Whorf, or another real scholar that appears in no primary text.
Chatbots sometimes explain who uses shorthand by sorting customers into "races" as if these were natural biological groups.
Chatbots often say that because every way of speaking is equally valid, a clerk who leaves a newcomer confused did nothing anyone could question, and anything goes.
When chatbots compare with a people elsewhere, they often use an older outsiders' label, such as "!Kung" for Ju/'hoansi or "Eskimo" for Inuit.
If a comparison drifts to families, chatbots often say that a society tracing descent through women is "ruled by women".
If a comparison drifts to marriage, chatbots sometimes say that in some societies a groom "buys a wife" with goods.
Chatbots often call the half-price cans on the oops shelf a "free gift" from the store with no strings attached.
Chatbots often turn one 20-minute record into a confident account of "how hardware stores talk" or "what language does to customers' minds".
Asked to compare with a people elsewhere, chatbots sometimes offer to list words a community uses only in ceremonies it keeps for its own members.
Chatbots often close a "balanced" summary with a quiet verdict, such as calling the clerks' shorthand rude, lazy, or broken English.

Write 4–6 sentences naming one thing the chatbot got right and at least three places it went wrong or overreached, quoting its words and correcting each with evidence from this week's chapter or the corrections above; mark anything the course takes up later as flag this.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "After 20 minutes at this counter I can tell you how all hardware clerks talk, and they all think the same way. Studies show that hardware clerks use shorthand in 45 percent of everything they say. In my tidy notes I gave each clerk a name so the record is easier to follow. The clerk in line 3 was being rude, which is an observation, not an interpretation. Shorthand like 'shaker' is a primitive, lazy kind of speech, and full sentences are the advanced form it should grow into. Sapir and Whorf proved that customers who lack the word 'drawdown' literally cannot see the color stripe. The customers can be sorted into natural biological races that explain who gets shorthand and who does not. Since every way of speaking is equally valid, anything goes, and no clerk did anything anyone could object to. The !Kung are Kalahari foragers whom researchers study for their work and food sharing, so they make a good comparison for how the clerks talk. In a society that traces descent through women, women rule. In some societies a groom buys his wife with goods. The half-price cans on the oops shelf are a free gift with no strings attached. I could go on to list the secret ceremonial words one community keeps for its own members. To be neutral: shorthand has pros and cons, but the clerks are plainly shutting newcomers out." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (one short listen read as a whole trade, a group spoken of as one voice, an unsourced statistic, names added against the course's rules, a reading passed off as an observation, ladder-of-progress language about speech, the strong form of linguistic relativity stated as fact, race read as biological groups, relativism read as anything goes, a timeless present tense with an outsiders' name, matrilineal read as matriarchal, bridewealth read as buying a wife, a gift read as free of obligation, an offer to repeat restricted knowledge, or a quiet verdict), cite the evidence from this week's chapter or the corrections in Part 6, and write a corrected sentence beneath it; for each topic the course takes up later, write flag this and give the course's correct reading. This route assesses the same objective (Objective 3 — analyze language as a cultural system: distinguish language from communication, explain dialect, register, and code-switching, evaluate the strong and weak forms of linguistic relativity, and describe nonverbal communication and language endangerment) as the chatbot critique, takes comparable effort (about 30 minutes and 200–300 words), is scored by the same scoring criteria for the same credit, and its own submission artifact is the marked-up flawed analysis, posted in place of the chatbot share link and report.

Part 7 — What to Submit

The completed data table with your register and insider-term codes
The completed emic-and-etic table and comparison table
Your labels for the three lines coded O, each with a one-sentence reason
Written answers to all five analysis questions, including your reflexive memo
The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Ethnography Workshop report on an illustrative record of talk at a hardware store's paint counter: the completed data table with your codes, the emic-and-etic and comparison tables, labels for the three lines coded O, written answers to five analysis questions including a reflexive memo, and a critique of a chatbot's reading of the same record, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text. Choose a written, recorded, or visual form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria
Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Coding the paint-counter record	All three counts, all three percents, and the percentage-point gap are correct with the counts, divisions, and subtraction shown, and every line carries a defensible code in each column.	The counts or percents are attempted but one is wrong or unshown, the gap is missing or given in percent, or several codes are missing.	No counts, percents, or codes appear, or the numbers are invented rather than counted.
Insider terms and register	All three insider terms carry an everyday gloss, an analyst's term, and a design feature, and the register shift between paired lines is explained as register rather than dialect or language.	Glosses or the register explanation are attempted, but a term is left unglossed, register is confused with dialect, or a design feature is missing.	No emic-and-etic table or register explanation appears.
Code-switching, proxemics, gesture, and the comparison with Malinowski's fieldwork	Each of the three O lines is labeled with a fitting concept and reason, the comparison table is complete, and the Trobriand case is written in the past tense with its decade and nothing invented.	The labels or the table are attempted, but a line is mislabeled, a gesture is treated as universal, or a row is thin.	No labels or comparison appear.
Critique of the chatbot or of the printed flawed analysis	On either route, at least three errors are quoted and corrected with evidence from the chapter or Part 6, topics the course takes up later are marked flag this with the course's reading, and one sound point is acknowledged; both routes earn this band equally.	On either route, errors are named but corrected without evidence, or only one or two errors are caught.	No critique appears, or pasted output is submitted without any checking.
Reflexive memo	The chosen option is answered in 4–6 sentences that tie a specific feature of position to what it would let a listener notice or miss, or that weigh the strong and weak forms against what the record can show.	The memo is answered but stays general, names no specific feature, or blurs the strong form with the weak form.	No memo is submitted.

Quality Gate

Every count and percent comes from your own sheet or hand count of the data table, never from memory or a chatbot.
Each count multiplied by 10 equals the percent you report for it, and the gap between two percents is reported in percentage points.
Every gloss uses everyday words, and every person in your notes is named only by role.
No word, custom, statistic, quotation, or detail about any real people or language community is invented anywhere in the submission, and the Trobriand case is written in the past tense with its fieldwork decade.
The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least three errors with evidence from the chapter or Part 6.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com