Ft * : i ; _ f J: *- rF 2 LinguisticCategories, Shifters, and CulturalDescriptionr M I C F I A E L SI L \ / E R S T E I N Unirersityof Chicaglo For Romanlakobson INTRODUCTION .F of Ihis chapterwill iry to developconsequences the statementthat speech mcaningfulsocialbchavior.In itsclf, this statcrnentis onc of is those set nhrascsof pidgin sciencethat are used to cnsure minimal in trade relations the contact communitvof linguistsand socialanthro' porver.\Vhat i rvish to or pologists. givesus no anai,vtic descriptive It do here is demonstrate that rve do, in fact, alreadyhave a full, subtle of meaningstructures the elaborate "language"with rvhich to describe of speech is a languagcthat spcaks the "function" of signs, behavior. it their modes of signification,distinguishing frorn an'Iongthe types of '['hc of mearring tlris functional sign sign functionsshiftersor indexes. mode alwavsinvolvcssome aspcctof thc context in rvhich the sign occrlrs.In making thc nattrre of this involvcrnentclcarcr, I hopc to clcmoustratc lulll,sis of sllccchbchavior-irr tlrc that this "1>ragurlrtic" 11 the us frorn Peirceto Jakobson-allows to describe tradition extencling real linkage of languageto culture, and perhapsthe most important "the "melrniigl'-of speech. aspect of as At one level, languagehas long servedanthropologists a kind of cxcnrplar for drc. rraturc of things cultural. It scetnsto display these "cultural" propcrticsu,ith clarity in fhc tlngilllc rncclitrtuof articulatc phorreticspccch.Thns, and at anothcr lcvcl, could the analytic lcssons to arralogically othcr socialbehavior,giving of linguisticsbc trattsfcrrccl or, a kind of structuralizcdanthrop<llogy, l'norercmarkably,could thc actual linguistic (cspcciallylcxicographic) shucturcs of ltrnguagebe called culturc, I rvill bc clcvclopingtltc argttntcnt that this rcccivecl 'f!4 as12_cc!91 wrong. point of viov is cs.scrrtially l1lgyj_gJfylrclf lti!_ typesof connrunicativecvcntson the basis of the signalingmedr\g. the In the caseof language, signalingmedium is articulatespeech,{nd. eventscan be isolated on this basis. SpeechEvents a By such analysis, speechevalrt,endowed rvith an overt goal in a sociallysharcd systcrnof such purposivc functions, consistsof some or of sequencc spccchbchaviorsin rvhich sotuc s1>cakcr spcirkcrssignal of somehearcror hearcrs rneans a systcrnof phoneticsign vehiclcs by to into or callcdspccchlncssagcs trttcrirnccs. are J'hc uttcrauccs organiz.ccl of l>y a systcur tlrc participirnts virtrrcof tlrcir krrrts4cclgc a lingrristic for code,or grann'rar.'I'he specchcvcut takcs placc rvith t'hc participants 'Fhe roles of in givenpositions,or loci, and over a certain spanof time. and hearer may be taken by difierent individualsduring the speaker of courseof such an event. \,{any other characteristics such speech among them the other eventsmust also be takcn into consideration, of in ancl hearer, aspects the individuals the rolesof speaker sociological which are frequently salient in defining the event, the prior speech cvpnic i r i f e -n1w \ n. ), is uniqueamongthe phenomena iust the pa-rt_that functionally .of oJ lqlglqge !n !his,!radi'Hence- structuralcharacter_i9lr_c_sthe culture. as for cgllgrq, tionalviervcannotrealiyserve a,mode'l gthel aspects-of linguisiic(or lexicographical) Furtlter, nor can the metliodof analy'sii. grammaticai analysis must fron'rtire traditional stiucfirieithai emerge isomolphic,relationship rather than bear a problematic, of necessity |n dra clrrrnhrrn nf nrr'llrrrn 4 -,s_qye$*as i1 iyaLyzg$_ 19{elr !5aditi91ally-_Eg1- !y l!c9i91',an _b$ t '- l- r p s c c f r r r n l o r l c i n e c i n c o n r r n r r n i e t t i o n . - flrnf invnrinhlv -.-._----_-J LINGUISTIC AND OTFIER COMMUNICATION necessarily implies bclnviorthrt it is meaningful of To .say social a complexof signs tltlt is, that thc bchavi_o.r-.is tirat it is cotrttunrticativc, in (sign vchiclcs) that sigrtal,or stlncl for, sonrctlting somc rcspcct. participantsin a behavieralsignsare sigrriGcuttto solre Persons, Suelh event, and such bchavior is puq:osive,that is, goal communicative oriented in the senseof accomplishing(or in failing to accomplish) certain ends of communication, for example,indicating one's social and so efiecting a cure for a clisease, rank, reporting an occurrelrcc, peopie arc coustitutecias a forth. In general,tiren, rve can say tirat socicty with a certain anlture to the extent that they sharethe same mcans of social cott:urutticrttion. accornpanies thc clistinctionbctq,ccnrolcs of hearcr spokcn languirgc, and audience, so forth. A description the specch of cvcnt must mini, and rnallytakeinto accountthesefunclamental definingvariables. Speech eventsso defincd, rroreover, cooccurrcnt are rvith eventsbasecl ou clistiuct sigrralingmcclia, ancl thc.sctogcthcr nrakc up largc-schlc cultural rontincs. Dcscril>tivcly, sinrplcst spccchevcnts s,oulcl be thc those which thcurselvcscorrstitrtccl thc cu[irc goa)=dircctccl social bc. havior.It is cloubtfulthat suchcventsexist. In our own cnlturc, rcading a scholarlypaper can come close to being a speechevent pure and simple, the purpose of which is expressiblein terms of informative of The possibilityof distinct discourse among socialcaiegories scholars. tirat can be invoivcd in tireseevcutsis not at issue. forrnsof syrnboiism on!,v_ ! gra_dqaligg_h_ere wit-hthe purposivenature of the speechevent in 'l'hc rnorc enrbccldcd specch cvcnts are those a systeur.of socialaction. wrucl arg Part uI lrul:u ralEs-ssarc gulfural crrLErPrrSsS guurPrsx rlluars a5 -Lr^L -,--r -t -,,^L r--^ I^-i.---^,-rf----i ^-r---l---^^--r^-iL--1- chaiactei'\ has as i,anguage a sysiemof eommunica'..on ihe saii-re analyticsubpartsI isticsas the restof culture.So in orderto distinguish distinguished among rve suchaslanguagc, havetraditionaliy of culturc, t7 lclgding.speech, song, dance,dress,etc., u,herethe meaning of the behaviorin the speech eventsis usually integrnllylinked to the speech r3 VERSTEIN Shifters.t . semantics. propositions. grressive punctuai or as events continuous ongoing{w!er-ethey Io propositilnsdescribing In or conrplete. * ed rcpresentcd uas' mentation this referentialmode. We of scmanticrelations parts of scrrtctrccs. description.*.mean categories kind.gs-c}arc rro. referringor describing can linguisticcategory' be as "number. T'his . s-ignaling presence these_ot-!-g of is verycomplex. of verb signalthe category plural-number and unsuffixed -ssignaitire eaiegory sing'. In English.r'1.with seg' by be be(-ed) -inglv:0 (-ed)]v. <ietermining By of shetches a certaingranrmatical' a notion of defining. r . to rvithin the grammar. Durativeor Pro' numberbubject.. . tlrc to Grcco-Roman transformational"gcncrativc. be able to analyze must be able to give evidenceabout the we linguistic categories.rnnncitionc . and Cultural Description contributes cateSory "aspect"es a PuIereferential vs. thc sigu its charactcristic uroclc. hence one of the principal reasonssocial funclf ttrir referential tions of speechhave not been built into our analysesof language: thb \'t. of ouranalfllgrg-c-hP. nhilosonhical-the function of descriotionor "telling about. .momentaneous so) "rroot is illustratedby The boy wasfumpingvs.all grammatical From an operational To on kaditional sort depends this semanticity. Iiu" ot rcfcrringproposiiiur. mcaningof the wholc beinga ciescrip' grammatical fitnciioi:of speccli.than-o1e with -s trateclby The boysrun vs. from in analysis Any forrn of grarnrnatical clcfincsthc signs..fglrye"1--dSssrip-tiv9"Igech&qfJ ho-. more-than-one not-nrore.The boy iumped.event." The -communication as can function of speech be lharacterized [i"r*i"f to of of clcscriptive states afiairs-subiect by propositions-predications asrepresentations taken and of in verification somecases obiects events.this necessarily vs. must ultirnatelybe able is rvhetheror not a certainstretchof language to say..a.Linguistic Categoiw. .:lai' of with noun and verbsuffixeci ' unsuffixe<i -sJr Thus we segment '9]v: '9]n 's]"... refercntial of is this lvay. linguistic invcstigntion. 1 oroocrtv of spccch. The boy rur*. be calledits semanticity.pure reference. singuiar codedin speech.trcfcrcntial.a urv vr I rrv JLuu)/ "mcnninr" nf Iirrgrristie sisns is usuallv Callgd -------J in the of I them. thatsemantics the shrdy purc so amhnrlierl in. a purereferential dcscribing by analyzed the contributionof suchnurkersto propogitions cntity.iio'"a r"i t"f"t"ntial sisnswhichcontributeto rgfergdial j::'1::-:-::::E: (We shall seebelorv that certain rg!-eleqltg!-cpeegb. it is clear fronr the rvay I havc charactcrizcd traditional howcvcr.. that thc nctttrl obicct of sttrdy of . t + . their g.in otherwords. in of Fing to giueihe meanings signals sucha situation EYents Referential Speech from of But the ultinrate justificationfor the segmentation speech to uscsthat seerns mcdia lies in <lrtcof the purposivc gthcr signalhrg the events..hole:And it is on this basisthat the traditionalseg' is nrentation.or glossing. in terms more culturallybound than function of. someother shetchof semantically equivalenf reiaiions.lgugl. MIC}IAEL SIT. ho"i-f.For the purposes this chaptcr. .this is illus' vs. of analysis the point of vieiv. behaviorfrom all other communicative distitg!$sh speech or.we can buiiti up sucir equivaience ianguage. in and arrangernent this rules of combination and Categories. are discourse rnadeup of signunits in of and the utterances referential the arrangcmcnts. r4 r5 . ' coded t hvE snecch.rti of signmodes nlgstof u.a cl.rity sB.d All fashion.the problemof mgd_i.h3!-ggl-9-ljl lbg-rirsjp.n-( Anatytically.it is iiris rciereriiinl sign.and definition of all lingUrsticcdteyories of segmentation utterideas abotrtthe significant made" Our standard in or all rest on sameness difierenceof utterances terms of ances Piuraivs. erential LhryuisticCategories Ref olt Of AII liuguiSticarral. qf cu-ct. is so Reference characterized a communicative.. .nf d." for example. English. tern $'ill be restricted mcaning._ . scurntttico'rcfcrcntial tlnl has ancl in linguisticanalysis the formedthe basisfor linguisticthcory and Westem tradition.) When we speak of linguistic categories.. ttre words f and categoriesand alrangements in terms of which we can analyze can or abstractreference description. of of has / sernantics bccu the refcrcntial rncariiri$S UttCrerreeS.vsiS thc trralitioualSortProccc(h thc basis<rf or of to the contributionof elements utterances the refercntial denota' tive valueof the u. .ete$s-. t ' and Semantics Linguistic Analysis 'T'!. rvherenoun suffixed and subiect.r . of truth in others. @eq11r a*ong tire referential catcgoriescauscdifficultics ivith this rvhoie apwe proach. .frctiorrnlity . exprcssions that makc ihc snrnccontribution to refcrcrrcc uttcranccs of as the glosscditcms.For it takes considerabrc a'arysis the useof of such speech itselfto characterize is goingon in sLrch rvhat cases those as given above. cauusea language \\.r a olfferent. r me commonalty cf language and many oiher cultural media lies.. 'r€ trachtlonalry rccog'ized rcfcrentill'aturcof sonrc partsof utteri arccsscciiiingto have ftcfC'fi44 rlarrv othcr furrctional clcrncnts j ..qqrye_p4vacy. characterize To sucrrbehaviorabitractly. is iu othcr frructiorrnl It propcrtics hngulgc. just in the semantico-referential .icntiri io.f u.e all unelerstand.r. Anihropologistshave I riiuai. noi. to ic uttcranccs scquence.r.. i i i j s i i ^ s r t s .kpr intcnclccl hcarcr(s).ail ritrrcr trrings rer:raining the same.: -l referential linguistics.a culturally-lcarnedspeech function.^ Jr6rtJ !l-^-^^l-.and hence of all semantic descriptionas well. example. speech bchlvior rccnrircs tlr:rt *.y. . onlv rhev 4l<] for --"'t particlpatc trrosc rorcs-in.tui" comprehcnsion the part of sonre on incrivicruars present. fact.everl'daylpeech.'-.' t rvhicir can be exploitecl in speech events... that .. . presupposes grammaticarcrea cnrirrlir.^ v! v!'!rJ.. to the of and are thus metasemantic referential speech events.: : 1 _ :m r 'rr.. on.: i a L .lroi.fcrentialfunction_therc_. Lvrrrro ^ f ^ r L ^ .rti.f".. rfith. * . the property that malies semanticanalysis(and hencesemantically basedgrammar) possible. is ..u".r.I^--.tjq!_qp_ee-ch qf the b-eh. .fr:r _sPc.which may be secnas the discovcryof the glosses a language. in { :T::i:l..sis. such semanticequivalence the level of phrases ai and sentences has becomethe stock-in-trade the transformational of grammarian.j.:"Ti:T..trrc So functron-ai .h eveg!g*41g. euents.iq tirc-c-vcut.i.". D. From thc 1:oi.t of vicr' of furrctio':rl lrrnll. n"ryth.i ianguage.Lconard Bioonifreid's(rqil) "fundarnental postulate" is essentially about the semantic one and formal equivalence of ccrtain sentences that underlie utterances within a speechcommunity.ffi. so forth.j--c_spccc.^ 1 .sirnultauconsly. occurreq-cc. one of the most aspccts ip.o*" ur" i:e "riding on" descriptivc propositio's..parentsarc constantly glossing rvords for crrildrenby using gramnraticallyconrplcxbut scmautically cquivalent expressions."..rro. rcr. naturally occurring"metamythic" events in the same way thai there nrc mctalinguistic oucs. But trris is a rather ::rn' !o limitedpoint of vierv.r nrccria..in r.^--:r4rrbu46w rrr + .".r hanaa presup: poses isolationof the refercntialfunction ^f enoe..c carr co'trast ..ii.ri'rr.mu... i o event.distiuct fi_om. thcscotrrcrfunctiorrri...ianguager. r.tpta!. ca' spcllout the rvrittenrepresentations we of rvordsin thepresence thoseilliterate sonre of in writtenranguage. LttsrrtJtrrvcJf rn --I rrglg arg n() Shnultaneottsotve crentictlFwrctiotts N f speech everts trrat do not have refercntiar functionsaccomprish socially constitutcd endscomparable thoseof nonspeech to po. in particurar the semantics.l.^^. iu In our society.-s i:n g u . ca!:usephrascology of we only sorne can understand.et.'stems ofsenantic signars.-butanalytjcally..ioi ii_-simuttaneous. Thc mctascmanticproperty of la'g.These as eventsuselanguage describe sernantics language.t. Such metasemanticspeech events are the basis of all grammaticalanalysis and description..*. * .--. is the one that is unique to language.utir7." ^ rLrlpLrL'r f cacii oi thc disiinct refercntiai ur ^ ^ ^ l . other media oi sociaibehavioras making iong anaiyzed or about categories socialstructurc.*a_:il.: ^ c ^ -_ __ exa .sig's. nor "rnctlritualistic" cvcrrts rvith thc samc frrrrctiou:rl possibilitics. . ^f J vr rL^ !rr9 ^.. rvho postulatcs common "nnderlying" structure for semana tically cctuivalent"surfacc" svntactic arrangcments. r7 s.iarkcrs makctjre intenClc<l boundaries participatio'clear. and Tlts*purp..".pp. similarly. of r5 . r'c rrrustrr*rkc srPhistiurtctr hyp<lrrrcscs is'/'rr..But of wl'rat syrnbolic statemcnts of medium othcr than referentialspeechcan we say tliat the behavioral oia-c ^^r' JaonriLa ll'^ -^^-. the referen! or object of description. They are the basic activity of the traditional linguistics. is or in -interesting of whlt . ratherthanthrougrr physicar the separation parof ticipants.lv . that we canchoose language whichrvespeak o.! ^l^^^-'-rruL ErurJur6 is itsglf a reigrgnijal speech . Frour th. t'ltcr.social boundaries on an interaction.age. the in ro io pr. ^ .. oi l". is rvhat makeslanguageunique among I It all the cultural codesfor social communication.. onrybehavioral arethe-speech The data signals themserves.^ r:-. the classof all possible of of metasemantic speech evenis in iire ianguage.funq. the T O S aj r r .tt bciravior.nr.. But it is intercsting that mqt:s_ema$... !n trre . witil but iirai i:roiioiiiiiiali-..lri. and upon which rests the speechi function of pure reference. f o r.iut of"vicrvof trrc trrcritio'rrr ... Metasenuntics Glossi'g specch e'ents take language itself. is frequentry it throughspeecrr that rvc -. ii hiq fL f l i io . "1.sis-of tital emerge .. has by unfortunate.nl'la-' H^vvrerr cal fnr . Cultural Description of on squarely the manipulability this mode by the mctalinguistic a actualll' minor onc.L.lg qitbe partiqlp..basis PragmaticMeaningsof Linguistic Signs aPPgSLin-qp-e-g. ifr..]" N ur r v n l€ .-FoUorving .socia'l for statu-s. that servesmany sociaiiy consiituied funciioru. statement another conversational or suchaS"I'rn Cold" "It's cold with an openwindorv in a roOm person to is until in here"couldleadto a cliscussion theinterlocutor asked close in persons for so. a fortiori. emerge thc traditionalway'_fllgJ* .y accomplish "perfo'rm" coi. speech events referentiaispeech tf. and thewindorv does Or.In general. (tne tgnn nof trEuruuJly l-rluulrr)Lrruvu 4r 'r 'o Ohlrers.Tqlbg-a c-q$man{ statu! .. phitosofherSearle(t969).h The linguislic. semanjil from anali.pcrhaps But property.One such to A used abbreviations as ieqirelts. spcech kindsof functional tion to the several havesemantic signs linguistic in We cansee thiswaythat whilesome 19 rB .ro v . 1J.d" performatively^ approach entirelymisses This dtggqtigr.rmiu$c. it is prcsumptuotts otherfunctional in "usecl" othcrways. or . cxtcnsion ciescripiivc In certain is of class events uses to guage otherperformative is p*f?. All these the eategodes. ugug)JlLy beforeany structural -of . r c . sorne-have . cllqngcir1 social .^ $L il r r's o . point holdsthat d$9.nartiCU- curlular ot sense funcuonal in but utterrnaas.use. sign*t-tbatunderlie utterances.f ffnucfrr. marrying two people or knighting someone' o. scribedin terms of their contribution to referringpropositional ^t vl -^^^^^:L-.'"re ciifierent.ting. traditionally designs..LinguisticCategories. not thg. aaam *n ha qrnarimnnsed parually allKtrr JlrlLs Luv)| Jevur !v uw -'\1l/v""'r----.-gt!"i3rutlryiil!1 however..-as speech.1 ^" il ic I'arn\ 'rv'v.that "speechact" been 1Ii is somervliat since events.s cnds-. T'l. w r r q r . isolate . in the-example rvhether.ningr.s usingit in anothersense below') I will be semanticn' startrvith a basicaiiy in aiproaches.itr.gramrnatical of horv thqsgsemantics'refereudal i a iack onto this analysis descriptron 'ioi.1!_-_-r tlt-elql4-I. Tite ineanirrgsof such -they-Crnetge are from grammaticalanalysis. ntorenaturally sophistiCated to iiselflcading the accom' thc we canabbrcviaic. pennancnt example.'performative" content and of aspects speech the "semantic" beiween acts" "speech t"rty tt. 11 -r:r-^ ^:-^^ rt-o. comp-4rability function of $g sl$a-ling111tgi?. and suchexpericnce deduction require of subtypes staternents Several dcscrip' But sequences.o-mplisht9 basrcal]y "cic9-crrp!i. thislarger The priority -.. -:-^-^--^1-. the way. liscription is iustifiable erenca and "P erformative" Speeclt Ref otheruses tP::ill. referencc of act" functions spceclt. Jr5rrJ ^ ---!:^l J^^^-:*!.4ptiv0 f$".o r lrv -." is uscs broacier of languagc to dcscribe sider actual the in iq orrly signs.l1a r$ ..:--. speech functional a term for the level of puqposive "srd.v^ . "r.. . .iriilt i: rrerlr as the are modes not necessarily same tlrosetnat emerge ieferential of to spcak arrangcments ancl modes.rfi-cJgqlsj'tlescr\ttion Jrirp12c11.-then. as with the samekind of purposefulness other speech endowed Th e lin' ce 4g -3mglg-nngsy' n Referen is -o e ki+d-q-fiiqeu-ilfi9-Pgif-9' 9-e speech s.tlrirgl ot _.1^a Pdr Lrdr uvJerrPLrvrr.. otherwords.?tts.. events.u. refetentialfrniuistic nnalpis {rom whjch ttre linguistie in etc. of nlishment theaction. suchsecmingly on based fui! formsof linguistic eventsare very circum' request usedas abbreviatory tive utterances signaling of a scribed and constitute level of delicacy manipulatory ihe to highlysusceptible failure. .content.in wttat t haveheretermed "-: distinguished upon the work of Auiiin. .d iinguisticcategories shucturerests and in of refeience establishing i n t_ -e s a m e f O n n a l h .rt.rrlren tue ann- Lr^ Y.r.-or as privacy. somethingi oi "work" aon. pSrtof rr'Jr-ighsemnntic our nar' q! gopgtilrgqlllugqistic utter' rgyg{!-e_r!g!9]9g'.. I ) ." loirt that -at_e. h.eg trngu^g.e". t.-f.:g3ling.a" lq"r. the meanings. ^:-^. itselfis iust one.ir-r r rc 6 o .-.. arrangements.""rri analysish"s U"e' focusedon this performative aspect pg. ! .rlrinh rln-anrl nn llreir nnntrihrr- lve events canisolate.t ' . : l SILVERSTEIN MICHAEL and Shifters..We must begin with thc factsof purposive The functions.. :f tust like rcference.-a-clieving or fgljgggol9.--^-:L^. havedistinguished as by represented utterances distinct from their propositional.t:. linguistic tircir scveral and in ances sp&chevcnts. coursc. rvitlt othcrfunctional of in ttrafoverlapi folnal strrtcture sigrlals ns iatoryExtensio Abbrev ianrciercniiai of of tirc cascs. events. statcmcnt oursocietl'.vql' not usc luiggbtip cnc to bc oncof thoscgQa]s.-ryosive fult:-t1jP9.rstituted *gllg-thl above.n.I 1I 'I . we havedistinctsigns.n b.rc .n ongthe "performative" "speech W"-dg other" qt5ugtgrc acc.allg!bg$ arnonglhqjpeeci is reference orre Jurdlgns. beiug nature propositional of a basically 'ray be 'roclcsof speech functional of signals clistinct The physical . alla (tour magi naninre!) lGaiianrmcrt dc i'arine i ia Tour iviagnc i'iimcs. rvotrld lrave an additional nr*r'meanings.l. shall tum norwto an examinationof the naI tglg_of_thg_ggges 9!. t t ' Linguistic Slifters.t\. U ttarurtcc Scrrlcrrcc... 'q.."i' . -^----! -I---: :---f-'t ! .ru.. r1 . we can claboratcon the class of inclexcs..: illust always Dc aDlc ro qlsHngUlsn ZT .. for dcictic thi. ull rrlfcrrnrcc.gr.\'.sjpi!gg: tiori oF-sgns tliat contributcs to pure referential function. . of rvcwill be ablc to sccthc limitations in principleof pure semarrtie gram.'^r \rrlV ttr)t.stitrrcrrts thc mlcs togcthcr coustitutca cocleor gr(nnnrdrfor thc nncl languagc.Sqryaghigmg-gjtf&-is.sor t/trtt.and thcse r:rorc broadly conceived m eanin gs are th en pragmatic meanin gs.utie rurrccs.'I tvrvrUrrLt. thcrc'is scgarc bclol.ign-i./c nrlrr recallVictor Flugo'scouplet.rrag.'.I. Cultural and Description . In particular. in s1>ccch cvcntslrrc arrtrlyzccl irrsfauccs sclrlcrrccs. in rvhich tltc trt'tl ttroclcs lirrkcd in thc setttccatcgorics..o tttw " or.in-allthe spccch.s of rcfcrcncc ll1. 'I'hc traditional grammaticalanalvsis such utterances.sign-" function. can then conceutrate We on the nranifoldsocialpragmatics that are common to languageand every othcr fonn of sociallyc<lnstitntccl couulunication in socicty. This fits eiitiiy iuittt ttte discoverythat gramrnatical analysisof the traditional metalinguistic or of the sort is equivalent to discovering class all possible ' events.gmentationsand recognitionof categorics. deupon the hypotheses sameness difierenceof segments of and of i>cnds un<lcrlying scnicnccs iire code.rrglislr interreferential categories is that the . t r f ^ ^ n t v .S ( .c4r:onlllif-.."1 drru e^lJtvJJ -^f^.rlnanrino L.999-ql.l r r E .'!A. .I^-^-.rr-clttto.s.^ ^ r ^ : I ^ ( r JnLrr.rvitlr tlrc sigrr c t .!:.sis..lnees. t)y ^.r' ^ I. lrs of Strch scntences coustrnctecl are from a finitc rcpcrtoircof clcrucntsaccorcling ln rrrlnc nf . in In a given speech event. thcn.rrirl r n! 't Flaving discussed the framework of function in terms of rvhich all meaningis constituiecl......-^^:!:. Catcgorie.--ol -ggursg in one sensea specialform of pragmatic mcaning.. \\/c scparatchcrc.^.MICHAtrL :.. TI.' vrrl) ll'^"^ lrllrJv n. (JllU -.". innnlirrrrnrrc rrlletcnnec \-f.:.$rrgc.ll..^.. an utteranceor message occurs in context..s.stirr. ' r'iisI'[lN others have nonsenantic mean' meanings. ean scvcrorlr clcpendcnce rcfercnce the of . cvcnts in rvhich they: <lccur. or rrrc.. vt'cmight gct thc mistakcnidcl cxaurlllcnn li. of in rvhichtheseinstances said to are represent speech.. L r " '.lllrlrrrlrS ^*1. rvhichappcarto givc thc kcy to thc pr:rgnratic clcscriptiou languagc.\\zc cx1:lain tltissurucncs.fi91tlon-^qf-Iilguistiesigns in utteranccs.lffl.signuodes. thc scvcralincliviclualinstanccsor toften. contributing to reference.E NATURE OF LINGUISTIC SIGNS Prtgnatic Categc.:.l^u-i-u. referentialand hencenonsemantic of to It is thus possible haveentirely distinct analyses the sameovert speechmaterial from ditreienlTuniiioriil pgints of yietV:The linguistic are signsthat have variouspragmaticrneanings only apparentlyrepre' ^^-t^-l JgllLgu ^l 4L r'l.... tokcusprcscrve tlgjt*Jglgr..contributing to other distinct speech of call the stndy of thc rneanings linguistic signsrelativeto their comnrunicative functious pragruttics.rl. refercntialspeech glossing .^ prVlrvJtLrWrtJ.r-. t!trd i\tlc.slrrl:rtirrgrrrrclcrlvirrg tvpc. controlling functional rnode of spcech...po. \1'e on as enr]._.^.rlc ^--.l .rrl rrL.cl-. a classof signscallc&'ieJeylfiiaUndexesltobc characterized fact.ries General pragmatic mcanittg of sigrrsand more particular semantic In in meaning are largcly superimposea th9_fel$l-lignals of speech.. aud sorneresidtrtl segnrents lior ptrrposcs scmautico-rcfcrcntial of dcscrilltion. matic formal features.. f ftg)g ^^-{-Ul!- as shall r...s occurring nctirrrspccchfrom tlic sciriantico-grimnatibal in fypZi or clements sentcnces a language."Gal.rr. irr lrf sirrnrlt:rncorrsly lcltslttvo frtttctiorrtl ..rrw6\rrrvrt $ .. can ings..l . ttttxlcs.^"r:..c^r^r r r r v v^-f r -u .By meansof the analysis propositionalcontent in the referentialmode.. .. tnd usc tlic critical overlappingof functions in rcfcrring inclexcs motiv:rtc a scparltion of thrce princ\>al classcs to of . r r L r a-rl. rrowt ^f o-^^^1.In general. lceds to this kind of supcrirtrposcd in gcncral of <lu dcpcnclirrg thc fuuctiorraluroclcof thc pragmatictucartirrgs uttcrd-is!i.tl '--^.. scrnarllic^o. of . nutical approachcs."r-^.dictating our traditionrt .Utittp-yi-cl-<l Oncc n.1 lUlUlL.. t svv I ."nnaiysis strttctttralhctcrogeneity.sagc ()o<lc uttcl in at lcast hvo functiottal ntoclcs thc s:rnrcisohblc sPccchfrirction.1.. we functions..If spccchconsistccl calatcdrvith otherrvisc rcfcrcntial catcgorics(rvhich tr:rditiorrnllingiristic thcory postulitCs) have sernqntic rvoulcl thcn all isolablescgments and rcfcrcutial inclexcs. itcluding thc crucial glossiug cvcnt or its cquivalcnt. atnant de la Reine. . 'Fl-...superinrposition alwaysof discrete only of pure functional oncs.'. \ \ /v c r' ( t r -i:. In othcr rvorcls.!a..s .\.ilffiThisis false.s. of horvever.otircr tokensof rviricirare nranipulable in in giossing speech eventsby the metalinguistic property of the rnedium. I).hra .rse! rrfter.s.rrrrl urcrrtrrl>lc isirl.c rcllizc thirt di. rve mode.g1a-rnuratigaJ-q.l. have to "l . .|ltthe ball. that is.such as English table. ."But I spccificcl by on consider the other hand an utteranccsuch as that rcprcscntcd the gramnratical commonexatnpleThe boy l.q$ describe obvious the of . Speech Referential Indexesin P'ropositional more complex for propositionalanaly' Holvever. . The noun phrases agentand patient and transitive tie baltare both "definite" (a term the analysisof which I do not wish' tensc" to takeup here).q4brosia)'.suchas stand. In this sense dernand. rvithout logical quantification. .racpc P4r4l'urocvr.we can analyze distinct sentence chair. o$gr-wo1$' is-nqt The inaticalarrangement.Past -- that rve wish . great number of verbs. sllowi4g that 'dlir:k' is a "transitivc" as prcclicatcof trvo plrrccsthat nrakcsa claiur abottt art "agcllt" (rcprc' sented by the subject in grammaticalconstruction) and a "patient" by (representecl the object). the whoieproposition .and-ready 'eirink(uuicglns.l'rcncea token-s.. . ciples na . fcount] nouns..r\ances.d. cAnglossanothertoken of the form they repre. lrnnclnmrolinnrl r^s^ror Ltlluvt rnnnirrrrlrtiont " As orlr (oost-)Saussurcan Drin-. analysisof lan' textualized tokens in this PuIe senantico'rcfercntial guage. c:rn say that a sentence English is represented the boy and verb.) subiect ancl a transitive predi. for a particulartime. tional fonn of gramruaticalnnalvsis Pr op o sitionaI Anallsis we using ihe traditionai grammaticalapproach. much of the analysis such as grammatical categories. t r r r l u t v t t L ur r ' ^ ^--L-^^: :^ Tkrf rrrhat nf the nrnmholooiccl '-'*o---- sepment --o----- . In orderto describe .-under hypothcses anaiysisto give the sent. can analyzeanv sentence the signs of rvhich are purely referential. . So predications of timeless truths coded by rvith such elcncnts are readily analyzablcas such. But are suchsign tokens referential. and it codesthe universal We mighi represeni this propotion that ali unicorns <irinicambrosia.tf I make of of aboutthe class tokens "tense"in utterobservations certain t r.v. and a num"senses")1a 'number' and 'aspect'. sition. MICI{AEL SILVERSTEIN and Cultural D escription Shifters. the iradibrcaksdorvn. we c:ln seein the proportion just above.etthereis clearlya contribution reference tqns3.'.Under such an analysis. such as ber of apparentgrammaticalcategories. referential that sisof sentences inclucle abovcthirt thc vcrb drirrftin thc cxamplcwas"tcnsclcss.run. the by to contribute propositions describing time of an T'hese '' tO ciainr be verifiable some makes event.) For the residual ' pa-rticular object-of[*ass] .Linguistic Cate gories. rvheretokens in mctaiinguisticusagccan bc saiciio rcprcsciiilireeisclyilic samciiiidera elements greatnumber as lying tvpe. eat.exics! we of the meaning this kind of categor..._.". For each of the sign types that make up we of the constituents thc sentence.. how are rve to underlyingcategorialtyPes? qdrly.Where this property of speechsignalsis not found.that is. category lrngurgr. (T'hc verb here is "tenseless".. which I discussedabove. contypesfrom utterance-bound. hypothesis. ing a loosesystem. Uni' sentences corns drink anbrosid. By a similarsort of here rvith of we analysis. to must be cornpleted justify a .and subject-of-verb-representing-agent. man (in several of ti" ttoonr of a language. about the grammaiicalcategories to .pqiy-erl.l . 'f sl' I v^ )'inl'r ' \ io F Whilc it is pcr' tlte undcrlying utterancc? lo aitributeto thc scntence of a resiclual thc grammati' as sucha category to fectlyfeasible segment ' as cal analysis.the situation becomes 'tense" suchassignsfor indexes. way.i This examplehas a plural noun. in a kind of rough.^J.nor do they teil bounds') that obvious solutions arestrictlvout of theoretical of Presuq|osition Beferenee !r'. (It would iequire a treatisein grammatical mode be' Languagein the sernantico-referentjal heurisiicsof discovery. But when suchan utteranceis rnadcwith "1>ast give the meaning (and hence analyze) the verb token. rcprggclted inttle6rye9l-fu?:qfq::e{er-qr+ti+l -qjgrr this to qqalyliS sUcf t6rnantigo-relereniial h. g4tqgory p-q5-t U -gf arxl. Presentz: we can glossthe stem hit and give its "senses"as gramnraticallycomplex -^r. we can shorvthe proportionality of meanings verb-rlpresetting-patient.the form hft is to be segmented hft]v* Past (: hif]v+ as walklv * Past : walklv* Present). e. does not refer to the prcscntbut to all tintc.--L \I t rvitlr a ParaPnrase-h unlcorn ls .-lo.g.to givc a and is in meaning terms of glossing impossible. context-independent sentence-bound. (That this fact has not hindered description t u r of languages do theories not the natives' the merelyattests kuth that prevent are always us what the natives really doing. that is. semantico-referential by explicable gramnot to ).phrase proposi' catervith verb and massobiect noun. deixis.^^1- in cvcnt as thc fixcclpoint of comparison rcfcrring to anothertime. and CulturalDescription ' .gqsjtiqn a *q"f*t}-c--"cxis:i t9tl9j_l'_oj.:-^l^-.1gs*9f_1c..{.fogug=on. It is vcry hrtcrcstingthat thcsc prcsr. othern'orcls.".'.1 " A considcration such cluplcxsignsbrings up thc rgucstion horv of of thc indcxical of urrxlcof suchscgnrcntablc clcurcnts uttcranccs to bc is clcscribcd.::. linguistic type that fits tongue-in-groove as sign vehicle a Such categories tense unite in a single segmentable or quasi-semanticmeaning and an indexical or pragmatic referential ^-^ vlls.. J\ -l---- .._.l-^a-. hearer.and his rvritings have had thc slcl fate of bcing nrisrcprcscntccl thc "poptrlar" anthropological in litcraturc for a gcncratiou. to bc given a systcnratic that accountin tcrms of sign types anri meauir:gs.:_rr:r..Not ouly is tcusc such a cluplcxcategory. in thc actull s1>ccclt ou rcfcrcuccclcpcnclcr:t tlrc snitableirrclexirrg propositiorrnl making tlrc but of thc spccchsituirtiorr..or othcr referent.i19-ia!i-. t.. lLlrltlrlvt"by l with which to nrakethis clear.y leferentialindex (for example.. LUIIJG uiltcSgry !^1-^^ til. thc rrrcaningof sucltj]Iiitcrs ir_rvolvcs prysyp.1:_..sfatus-.1 r. We irave secrrtirat tire particuiariyiuciexicaiaspcct of. the or of tokenof the pasttense uttcrance interpretation each The proper of thc then.c\ \X/1. "cxistcncc"onll' 11. can now be seenas a first attempt to draw out the Boasianimplicationsof how pure referential(semantic) categories and duplex (referential-indexical) ones combine differently from language to languageto accomplish ultimately isofunctional referential la.shiftcrtoken can be saiclto rcprcsentsomc irrclcxical t'ypc.l1gg1[-c1t-s.!g. past tensetokensrefer to a time t.llro- .:) Ptiruu. Llluu ur ^I rl-^ Lllu )Ps(. the referential cori.on the other hand.inu-tt9-J1ng_e_g. f 1 c9m!-inat!.1 _ l.. Ail languages Th"y whieh anchor. thc spccificnlly inclexical In this scnsc.I.-'].-^f--^-*f^I l rre rerervrrLr4r .. metalinguistic rvith pure semanticcategories.another.. which.-^^ A r^---.l\l-J lllu !l-^ !:----.or3g gf situation.1f rlrrrrJwtr 1.in the..stic Categories.'grtrics l.Yl-.arc what fakobson(tqlZ) etlls "c1t1pl-cx_IgJlS.l>y capabiliticsof hngulgc.-:9Y'y___ "1. posiqJn iir pi' g"i..unr'lerthe guisc of sonrcvagrrc"relativity" takcn literally. o-i incorporate theseduplex signs. Itu/rrs [-]s:cr ol 'i "l'lriskirrclof rcfcrcrrtill intlcxlr:rsllso bccrrclrllccl ^6if'r"r.11__q2cc_c.cog11Jiyg valqe in the domain o!) qp-qqi6q .}}. tens.clcpcncliug tltc fact<il*ofltrc s1>ceclt rcfcrctttill iusituation.hsn ()ttlr." dexcs. of speech the lar.ruJ^-"*. segnrentation irrg at-the lcvclso-f-cc-rgiq-q!_d r"rai to thc iccoguition of scntcnccsin tlic r".l.1.-^!:^.ti..So the referential depends a comparison the tol<ens whichwe want to assign several upon of in event of the time referredto rvith the-. prcsnpposcs knowlcdge thc time at which the catcgory.y!!h speechevents... rvhich indicates the spatio-temporal rclationsof somepresupposed rcferent in thc speechcvcnt to spcaker.1.jl. tin5i..e). aspcctof a .ltcmttsc on thc rcfcrcncc"shift.^f ^ ... A verylrrrgepart of the Wlrorfian oeuvre (1956).s" rcgularly. its cquivalcntoccurs.rl>posing.the semanticoare pervasivecntcgories. clcntlnclscognitivc cogrritivc It assumes or such a tcusccatcgory.!&Uagg acgomplishes. that is as' them is coniaiuing prior to the time t"nat which the utterance sertedly in tcnrporal catcgorics.variab-les tlg^qpgegh tribution of a shifterdepends the specific on valueof one or more of the variables being realized.I lrrevrvLl!dl ]^-. on by unanalyzable the methodsdepending thg of this semanticresiclue.tLAL\r +1. sourc unclcrlying gcncralsign thlt strndsiu thc srmc rclatiopto its tokens-permittinc us to analvzethem as "the same"-as the usual z1 z5 . as it were.f.an that a n:le*o:l use*is_ s-ay a_gcrlgglr9!f!ra111!q11!r_c ci4gs_tf_irctua! shifter tokcns occurring..gt"_tSgljql ildgl _(f_o-r e-xample. rcfcrcntial nloclc of signs... but constituting distinct kind of superimposed a property.i . The mcssagc sirnuitarrcous-l-y. follorving Whorf.^.accompJishes \.ittgrtisti<: l)tnrlilt:Alo<ft. 'T'L.referentialindexes. SPCL-CIr gvgl|l --. opcrat' or shiftcrs. and so forth.. compare time for rvhiclithe proposition a referential speech is asserting something with the time of the referential event 'tense' of type meaning any categorial to eventitself.-::-:-ta-. tlrat is. pasttense particuand In spoken.. c.^1. n. in fact.a t9a.'-t r Yv rrvrt ' :_t__"Jr""t-_l*. just as t*.lvl ICI-IAEL SILVERSTEIN Shifters..Q{_ope a f ( ulg]9.gn--qf a.::. rvith plus .. the more specifically.. the specificvalue being rcalized during somespecificutterance permits the categoryto occur as c chifter nF tlro l cnaniEn onr* J PVWUTW JVr t.u-Y.---L Lar\(.time utterance eachspeech incorporating token.qgrlanliccategor.!vrr_t-lvrug-Yerr-svye-r.r. is. On the onc i:and. Ii in speaker a refcrcntialevent of the propositionencodcdby the semantico-grammaticalelements.. "cxistcncc" of t*u.ull ^---.rna| ol^s.^ Lrrv +1.i"lr--a. those rvhich rcprcsent pure propositional cvcnt of rcfcrcncc. rathcr than asthc mctal:horicrrl icliornof the thcn-bcgirrrring afornic agi. also.:. indicates the truth value for the We can summarizethese conversepropertiesof implication between contextualvariableand indexical token by a generalfunction we can call a rule of useor n$ellrn$$ealin We e'.a.. -. an iconic. sort of generalsemantico-referential It is clearthat the senses a fact are which .) -+Assertive .givcnas a set of variabies. trsc' of rrrlcs of tbroughthc constihrtion gcncral lccornplishc<l TrichotomY of Signs Peirce's These two modes of signification combined in the classicalshifter illusirate z of the 3 elemettarv sign tvpesgiven by onc semiotic analysis ''''1. the signtypesfor occu:ring onlyby defining basedlinguistic plirli. at time t.The 6rst wasbased signs.s J - of "existence" that part oi the upon cognitive usein conte*tdepends value. where neither physical similarity nor contcxtual con' They form the tiguity holi betrveen sign vehicle and entity signaled-' spokenof as the fundamentalkind .p. of the sign vehicle. somemessage and someportion of the utterance.In thesecases.". .a r v t o d g . scribetheir semantico-referential w8 havc a fortunateillustra' modesare united in the samecategoYr z6 -. dll i-. is the specific 'status'.ify particularvalucs theshifter.^1.y.rmho! tgoe. rvheretwo meaning.In explainsits rcferential which grammar scmantico-refereniial 77 .MIC}IAEL SILVERSTEIN iptiott and CulturaI D escr Shifters.arbitrary" signs-traditionaily of linguistic entity.pr^ferl ueib.'liker:CSses" SomC -' tc q:l*io' ol a stgnvclllcl tokcn bclrs r ccnrncctiotrof utclerstooel rcncc is. evcntto rvc rvlierc rcfcrin tlc spccclt past'tcnsc'. ------l..! f urtnef. in both modes a shifter.arerclated lhroug! meaning in the scnseelaborate<l the bond of a semantico-referential carlier.. t o|=aceerlinf.fr eventitself-plus other factors. mo{e.1. Thtts.i" h"u" signtypesin thesetwo modes quite difierent..rr" ir. .. on for grasp.. !hq! i1 oir th3 nature of ihe meaningthat iJcommunicated.'. t"t ship betrveenentity signaledand signalingentit/. -^--:-()I lucaurrr!.--q rr.d iiltough traditionalreferentially tfris is ".l---r--"-- .. asserts wherethe speaker For assertive of the time of utterance.eachcharacte{2g$ its owtttyPe o. rl. can of But tive case.y.rssrr i. <lf tcurporll coritiguitv to thc occtrrrcucc the cntity sigilirlcd'T'lrat in thc-context of to oflome entity is perccivecl bc signaled the presence incorporoiing t6.{-od}.and the third.-fao nf the s'. and T(f ) arguments f wherethe proposition (2.Linguistic C ategor ies. only 1o occur..uruv^ vt rrrv L(..Gs. svgry --.v$rvy -:^-. eventgivenat of the fraction.^t^-- r1. the most important.. -being in Engiishwe usea heavily uttered.such as -auxrliarv or modal.! symuul r-!. spccch cription of Indexicality Formal D es be' thg function that describes relationship A rule of useis a general someoi rvhicirmusi tweenspecchcontext. in the general case.-c -. uroug[ r r r .^rt ^. zo) may take several is the truth-valueindicator. the secondon the nature of the entity sig' naled. . in arC.for English thc wc candcscribc iuclcxical a time bcfore thc tiruc of the ttttcrattcc.Recalling minimaldescription thespeech z.i^ D-i*^nan.-e s. Altogcther. while for othcrsrve rvill have to use thc orderto characterize appropriate of in . indexical to Sueh rules of use for shifters are necessary describetheir . y to hearer aboutreferent x the outse! we cansaythat speaker speaks of in itself 0).rsers. the onc cleperrcls rulesof usefor defini easyto not ahvays of opcrations glossing tion of tire typc. tie buth of the proposition JLlAJgs I wlll IIUL ut.r.. on eachone classified a distinctbasis.hc prcsentedthrec trichotonries on the ).vv.[Ari*]. Symbolsarc the residual communication elassof signs. (Of the z7 iogically possiblesign tyPes.t1c cntitics of (up to i4c'tityivitir) thosc t1c c'tity sig':rlccl.)+Plst tcusc value valueof the rcfcrentz.sinCg itS --' 1r-. .) by The threesigntypes. llluerl ^ D r tw vr d ^ .t. sp(x.rvvlvs J We can describethis bY: 'sp(x. on the natureof the relation' .lerlttnlinn ru' r e'wsr here.T(f (2.{g'illi?. . this senseJvery linguistic sign trivially incorporates F . rp.). .tmeanrng a-rq$-i9. . sign vehicle.tr(t-u. of of C.arnpirrohla nrnnerfics of the sign vC[iClC itSClf }avC iSOmOqrhiSnr tO ----. sf aspeet t}is shiftcrby thc sclrcura: t"u. .. tlrc irrclcxical it nroclc.J'tl-)-the referentneednot be presentindependent its -creation wiil the variables of Some ly tft.l.w rw.:1r -^r in sign. Sign vehicle and entity signaled. S.rsr.tlrc otlrcrou thc rnctalinguistic or cvcllts thccclttivllctrt.iry!$)a. analyzable -terms fraction do (message gsing mCIsage grammarG.Gt.. havespecificvalucs. as bl presentin a clescription such. o ^ f d d r a n m ..on lsrvcsshiftcrs rcsicluals. T"lat-is. referential In tokens..the description Proceed mode.. .-fcorts arc tlosc signsrvherc for t5e .*r--. andt o is the specific wheret. . in spatial configuration semintico-referential of l. . .u.. is Irr irs which analysis. I nitoi. ' moog arC frtcleXes thosc signsrvbcretltc OCCur' SCnSc.. Peirce (t-glr). r (-1 c-r-e n-e .l.zn)).o . and in Everylinguistic sign token is an icon of the linguistic lign typ-e. f. In contrast.--. | ..mbolic rnofle of sien meehanism..rllrr l u l ! | u l r L ! .thcre is exemPlificcl progrcssivc of thc thrcc signmoclcs.rrrrclilrrt'r. vv.^rr'lr. It is usuaiiyassimhigh*pecd sawscutting through woocl..or "pure" indcxcs. rroLtll:sctlrc llttt this s'horrld flrc slrnc rroisc. l v u r r r ( r n l \ " 'r.rrrrrrlin. i n g f l r e s c r r t l r r t t i c u lllltr' t s c < l r : l u l n l : l rC ( f t l r c x r t t t r l : l c t r r : t l l l r o r i cs n ' i t c l t . al)SfraCt -^. irr rnonosyllables Iir-rglish found for is prono.''t\ en. the formal levei of single which contain onotnatopoeias.n-.'.. Thcsc are two distinct tvpcs that rlerge in thc at)l)arent but stmcturc of uttcranccs arc analyticallyscparablc.thc I J i I lxoposiiionalvalucsof rvhichare linkccl to the unfolding of thc spccch cvent itsclf.rr or. frequently djreet LlrU l.'.^ r.. sigrurl sorncltlrficrrl:rrvlluc of onc or l'norccorrtcxtual v:rriables.. are units.arc featurcs of spccchu.f"r. tOken betrveenSignvehiCle or nc.^r^l rltutrvdLurt rl.slriftcrs " g l. rclatiorrs be ana' crn of in tionalvalue thc sigus termsof equivalcnce then.11en! is.ntial event.ch vaiue_pf-"a-5.* "'b"n marle inrlarrr"nr:lcnf SYmbols is language most "languageTnfhe s. ship of inclusion lcons since. l r w .'r'rLrvv of the other two.to a speaker English.Sucl'rnonreferential indexes.t.lvl lrrs(r Lv O This proposi' the that typesin ccrtainarrangcments ur:clerlie tokcr:s..The imple' in for achievingrcference actual rcfercntial speech of the symbolsby tokens dependson-presuPPoses-the mentation of knorvledge the grr*ntar G in a pu.'l'lrcrcfcrcrttirtl contributionsof the sign a. \ ) \ .pendsonly upon the scncral proDositional 28 siblc to conceive indexicalsigns of languagewhich do not overlap of rviiir rcicrcniiai caicgorics.the referentirl wr'lrrn rlprrnnrln. lyzcdby urctascltlalrtic analysis...MrUll.rl \ s1'nrbol.--^rl^-cullllUcLlL'llr ---^!:.Thus.Many ceivecl are for of internai. Syrnbols Shiffers that the svmbolicmode of signsis one mechanism It is to be observed events..qqjlrvn!'r.however.t.sical contcxtual connection signalecl.or rcfcrcutill iudcxcs. and so forth.ly l)rc. throtrgh diagrants. gouncls like thc sign vchiclc" uscd particularlyto describe and so forth. 'noisethat that means of bziz.are rvhatrve Suchsymbols.. Since pattem of thc langtrage' ilatcclas a lcxical itcru to thc phorrctnic rcquirc a volel. on abovc propositional in describcd tircscction vs. n:an\rulatiorr.'.'.rarrging ftont reliicas of rvhcrc tlc physicalproperties signal and thing signaled and. Peircenotecl. in the traditional sense.irrcltrdnl.l\J ^ !lrr t gO Ar tLC J I Iq C S. iirai is. the property of sign vehicle signaling nnrrl'avtrrel (tevicfpnnett nf an anlifv ic i+self o cio .ggnstituicd by thc spge.s. I do not deal here . of negativecharacterization no From the like'. of sr inverse diag+ams syntactic units. thc givcs sign Thcrc arc l)liuty kirrcls of icotts itt httgttltgcs.ttics. rvhercthe pcror totally alikc.r.hich.nlinnrvr. lndexes in We have seenindexicaireferenceexernplified shifters.I are tirc shiftels. a Fechanism in rvhich there is no I rclations.-L Lrrrv(I6rr .. it is largelyperipl'reral our concern At of the cultural contextualization language.rrtn ll'r' rrqlrq flrc iconicrnorlcof rncltttittg thc orlc that is itr significatrcc spccch. ilrprr it r'c -^c- sign types ancl their rules of combination.z'1.119_1c_fcrgntial varirblcsof thc spccclr cvcttt.cxtensivclv with to estingthough the subjectbe.. cio not coniributc io aciricvingreicrcncc.inr'l rnlrra Of nnrrrcp vv u. is an onomatopoeia bees'flight.all!L .*". Lrllg? tS V LLe r rct.bnages.inter' with iconismin language.. it is writtcn out as buzi.rccd [b. l .'..(z(:)] or [baz:].'. In the duplcx categories illustratedabove. l.i"1.aucl thc slriftcrs. inclcl>cn<lcut irny rcfcrcntial spccchcvcnts that nray of llc occurrirrg.l rr!\nn lhF inrler. but ouly thcl of ptol>psitionalccluivalcnce lbstract-rystc11rulcsof nscrvhichspccifythc rclationshipof actualrcfcrent of the sigrl I of !q!gn !o thc othervariablcs thc contcxt.-^.-^. to s:ri<l rcprcscrrt glrilgcs it.i.d I lu Lt t LtUfdLu e SCr tlo 1 4) relationtlre as this sense.1!fter 1." . l r ' r.-refercntial -iuclpxes.the syrnbolic mode of communication clepends and entity CntlIClV Olf an t .But it renrainsto observethatindexicalit2.. J"($r r | 5 ( l l J l l r .'fhisassimilation frequently lrrrr' vlricty to thosc in cliffcrcnt git'irtgrt rcrtrrtrkablc orrouutoltoci:ts.. lbstrirct propositiorulvalucsof rvhicharc intplcnrcntcclin thc I rctwrl rcfcrcrrtiiri cvcuts.supl)osc al)y itsclf. v L l v w v l r J w | | l | .all languages seento duplicatethe thing signaled in the physicalmedium of sound. z9 .n 'li"l. example.amongthcm the sign vchiclc: I c. arc inclistinguishablc arc c'liagrrn'rs spcechparts are strltctttraiiy isomorphic.This kind of graurpiatical of s)'stctuof chssical cliscussious larrf:urc rcfcrcncc fonns tlrc closccl in rlf sigrrtokcrrs irtlygivcncvent vnlrrc gurg.Jl L Y li.UnivcrsallarVsof sequencing morphemes. )tI by rulesof use. male to sociological ancesspoken by sociological -and truo forms are typically relatedby form for all otirer combinations. by Geertz (tq6o) and more lucidly by Uhlenbeck (r97o) and Home a (ry67. where speechsignalsinequalitiesof status. rank. agc.rtty:.G6.and the like.^t or is utteiance. L ( y ) . will take up the characterizationof the Yana casefurther below.\ distinctnonreferentiai speech Aboriginal in mentary indexical waswidespread Aushalian sets ll 3o . . have to recognize regardbehavior.t. 9! !e !e!94 pure inae=C*t T"rt"*r uttiiancei are describablervith rules of use.-l ro frvurru i- rrr s N onreferenti al I ndexe speechevent i i Su.---^^^ ta'^^l. The "meaning" of these indexes is purely pragrnaticand does not intersectrvith semanticoreferential meaning exemplifiedin s1'rnbols. lono"ooec /cea Rrnwn qnd Cilmen in markingof socialdcference pronominal r9fu).{efercnnc rvith .^t we From the point of viervof pragmaticanalysis.and Cultutal D escription the opiration of phonological changesin the one form and not in the other.1.sof t'hc forrn rusc blscd ott tltc parrttttctcrs l s p ( H ( x ) .----l-:T'L^: --l tl.---. ) .we may take those of |avanese.d f!!gl?ng9!. And these pairs of related fonns can function referentially in containingthem in the sameway.tlly--qYqllqu r q-b-o:s' relgrellalsPgggn tl-1ggUif'gq!'of. in which there is one form of aii maior woids in utteranother rnale.for example. s ) frequently and especiallyintersect with the These deferenceindexes referentialindexescalled "first and secondPersonPronouns" in the stanqard lltelature. whereone of the modesof contrastis betrveen vocabu(the variety calledkrtmc) restrictions lary set and certaingrammatical rvhile useclbasicallyby lower-to-higheror high.*peci. in utterancesreferring to spcaker.r is reporterJ sapir (1929) for Yana. . I { ( y ) . For cxample. in disrule mechanisms.eventoccuning. therewasa suffix* (or its ctlnnologieal eqr+ivalerrt)tjurt appcarcd (rvith charactcristicpJrOnolOg: vcrb fontts of cvcry tton' orr in icnl altcrrr:rtions shnpcs) tlrc inflcctccl 'quotative Irr uttcrancc spokcnby a socially fcmalc incliviclual. "unmarked" vocabularyitems and all constructions(r3rkr) are items It uscdin the oppositecases. and suffix-bearing suffixless b..-. .-r^^ourr4vv a^t oaa* vdre6vr/.thesexof ihe original + :--!!-. ..MIC}IAEL SILVERSTEIN Shifters. the only difierence utterances exactly of is in ihe pragmaticsuitability for ccrtain classes spcakcrand hearcr.l indcxcs as do r:ot contribute to the refercntial context. " referent independent of those createdby other elementsof the utter' ance. and These special eftects. as lor cxamPls llr lllal . is intcrcstingthat most vocabulary forms. .p ( L ( x ) .tirct.y. b.. glvmg.. of verbs.^ alru..the propositionai iavanese krrmr/jckr vocabularyis iust the same. wc' !might. a n c s o o n .Someof the most interesting isignal the structureof the speecir J ioithese indexcs. The suffix not the form has ihe s'uffix. those that' are inclex feattrrcsof thc personscof the spccchcvent.r. "f gut the rules'of-ost do-"oi ip*ify . cleference rePorted sex. exactiythe same. are to be distinguished n. The$ YaIigusspeech lessof the ciominant gygqtq' distinct--s-pCech ftgy go languagc it'ttoconstituting of clcmcnts !yjt! bqt t!:cJ rrie fnuction.but verb forms of all "pertake this suffix. of speech contributions indexical suchnonreferential indq5lg3l.4r. Fiereagain. 1'et do and virtually all constructions not have these alternate the power of the alternation was apparcntlyvery great in traditional conteni oi iire utterances society.'" " nniorre -----l-- forme] sisnals- of bifurcation lexicalitems into comple. . providesthe categorialinformation or but rather its presence absence Noi oniy 1'firstpersorr"r'orms sex about the sociological of the speaker.qlnvlQrilIly lrqlcit-tj.The Pftistrlvqjll' lL i J i n rn n rrlrc r rrL a rlr Pw dr l l +v^ evp e r r r 4 lt rhn o v r the referential value Of the indexes..tc.. J u. while the rvith corresponding and defcrcnce lhey inclexbetwecn spea-ker ltcarcr cliffers'The rulcs of itrc for clcfCrcncC nlrval.upwards a scoreof setsof segnrentable of inder combined into one referentialpersonalindex plus pure deference nrrnaranr sry4rvrrL . for thcsc inclcxesarc not rcfcreniial. cussing llxacuv tfts samg sorf ^ -'. and of the virb especially."tai:* .z.. For example. In ihc Muskogcan Uniteil Statcs.pragnutic ntetaplrcrs (to from a distinct indexical be dealt with below).certainlyior the sociai anthropologist. fonns is unaffccted. uullftrItrlcrlllal - ---^l^-^-r:-t :- ulut^lLdr J^--:^^1 -^J- lrrvsv :" ^. functionallyanalogous indexesis accomplishedby skewing otherwisereferential catcgoriesof 'person' 'number'. +B). i -- uf.a language A more cornplexcase of California.'nrFccinn nf cnaial .*. lcarly *=. '['hcsc morpltologicalancl phonologicalruccluttisnrsof sex csscntially and described from utterances indexingmust be functionallyabslracted Koasatisp(9 (x).V]+s.and the rcfcrential contcnt of the speechin both sons. rrLrrrrrsJe \vuw^v "pronouns" for useas 19Zo). Tr-r r *^n.such asKoasati (Flaas1944).. other. Linguistic Categories. dircct' is speaker index' as quotation. .to-high on these scales.'reTerential-ina.sex or categories othcr are for indexes somc languages fornrally systernatic languagcsof the southeastcrn obvious featurcs.whether makesnc referentialcontnbution. .or"if iiii:sup U9 t9- poscs priori6gment of referentialdGiourse *trict. ..lv rr. occttrsin both krrmr nrrdlrkr stylcs. A plrticularly clcar cascof such prcsul>position thc opcration of is deictics..][Af (x.:.it is uninterpretable confusing.t. to iustifysemanticdescription..od" thc sign tokclr..(. must "exist" cognitively.. and creatingsociological structurein the traditionalsense It is interestingthat the grammatical What changes remainsexactlythe samein thesetwo kindsof situations. '33 t 4I -.ect _tlt-c*lp_p.r...l by communities. has specified such a a rciereni.y. 9s..i.In other rvords.:.. r . "evcrl'day"sct of lexicalitcrns.y..rvithout-thc aspectof the..These rules of use state the relationshipof mutually implied existence sign vehicletoken and certain aspects tire context of of of cliscourse. a lan' there is an Rain Forest in Northern Queensland.silu:rtion. understrict semanticanalysis should rvant to dcscribcthis speakerwe referentdeference switch as a pure indexicalone. an indexicalsort. between nomena. :.rll.sgts"*qf-fo-rmsjo-. . dcfcrctrccwhcn the hcarcr is also thc scctsrvith thc sr:cakcr-ltcarcr positionof referent being involved.MICHAEL SILVERSTEIN Shifters. ones. ancl (There is a relatednoun phraseincoqporlting reduccd-vowcl "deictic" form.'r. tokcrq.As described Dixon (ry74 ry72) for Dyirbal. .g..i ^ ). 'l\ v i 9 t !1L'ti. 't-. gtagc of the Cairns set.--l ---l ^ ----l!^-l L-----^-C--^-r actu-I o6leci . the two systems krcmo ilgel : fplain] seenr merge. .appear to bc interestingborderline cases basic ciistinctionoi In where the shifters and pure inciexcs.c sxalLsu lltllrlarr rsrtrlslr|.Uytabla.the srvitchin vocabu' addressee situation. The proper useof the token of the deictic presupposes physicalexistenie of in the l>ackancl fortlt. pcrsonalactivitics. 3 L. l.^^l uJeu f^tvl ^^-J^:^!:^ rrvttucrullu -l^C-:!^ ugltrrlLg -^c^-^-^^ lgttrIgttL. pointing out therebysorne particufull lar object the referent of the token of table must be identifiable.arrclso forth.. 1 I I ndexi cal Presuppo sition of In all cases indexes.1' :).speech.-ri-r 1.. with rcduccd strcssand distinct inln'raliaaalla* yarrvrrr.t. .r c/ri/^r. . or riscthe dcictic rvith the tu'rong lcxical noun (onc that cloesnot properly clcscribc obiect in arr corrcctpositiou for thc dcictic). lexical items. index. codedin stemshaving to do with parts of the body.Sincc the lexical alternants focused havethe samebasicpropositional valle in krcmc iggyelor plain styles.maintaining as lary serves an affinal taboo index in the speech distance.and no prior discourse necessary. Wl'rcn in wc usea token of the full noun phrase this table ot that fable (rvith strcssccl vowel in both words).1' . all of the shifterswe cxaminedin the section on referFor cntial inclcxcs./ l i ..rl irr:rnltt:tl lnrlrrrrrtrir':rlirrrt lirrrilrcr tlrrl refercnt (that is. there is into krrrnc ancl rlrkr sctsis a pure deferencc vocabulary distinctionbctwcena sct of lcxical fonns (krcure pcrvasive anothcr.r .since the is the entire set of nongrammatical is to vocabulary approximately ratio of everyday nrother-in-larv 4:r. .iq gnintqrprcgblc rcf_crcntially knowlcdgc 9_{so1./ .for the deictic itself to be interpretable.).y.r. whereAf (x. again coufusiourcsults..can bc possibilitics glossirrg But tire ns cxploitccl. indexesthe specifiedaffinal rela' speaker(x) and some"audience"-not the sociallydefined tion bctrveen (f)-in the spcechsituation.{r<-ct-t.lhe dfsjulct.andCulturalDescription .rvc coulcl furthcmrorc say that thc asp. . have conshuctedindexicalsign types by we rulesof use... ^. Javanese. inclcpcr:dcntof tire form of the rule of use coutent.aud a "mothcr-in-larv" rvhichhad to rnother-inof only in the presence his classificatory be uscdby a speaker vocabulary law or equivalentaffine. Some pheciologicalrelations of pasolae in-the-.f!. propeity -igga*ea.lcss rygyei) snowrng ccrerelrcc ur sPcaKsr LU sulll. to mately on the distinction betweenindexicallypresupposed and indexi callycreatedreferent anotheraxis of classification.fhis and tlrat in the singular. ... pfinciptc of this bcirrg a purc inclcxicaldcvicc. But especiallyin the of about the addressee. unclcrthc santc grantlltar.rlrrr.) If rvcusethc wrong cleicticfor the rcfercnt. tti."+ ltyl {llqtiqrl tlil! -!t-!g_lyp!trt. sp(x..)).-.As such.-s-o:. r \ t^t---.The actual facts of any given instanceprobably rest ulti.aa.t. such .makesthe general semantico-refercntial the sp( [rx.Oiherwise ihe use of the rieictic token is inappropriate.n9. however.-. .ri*i. but one which interaxis arr It constitutcs inclcpcrtclcrrt of lcxicalcltoice. Moreover. the vocabulary codedin everyday strictly scmantic contcnt of propositions and many more n'ill rcquirc rnore claboratcgrammaticalconstructions Scnranticcontentwas lcxicalitcms to coclcin urotlrcr-inllnvvocabttlary.'.2.. for example. j..Lr.Si-tgl-:11'.clt of 'l'hat is. n.hich. English.". case speaking where the reference perforce of is krcmc : r3cko.. .such.{LrJ.as tepse. ru i . .y') expresses relation' the and "auclicnce" and Lr(:Lt) reprcsents disship bctwcenspcakcr junet set of lexieal itenrsSo therc is a distinction betrveenlefe-{glijial_ilde. wastlortcby Dixon. llu plgsup- This sct of forms.or corrcction 72 \ l: !sl. as and nonreferential situation.-+.r.codQ.y') f .LinguisticCategories.t t..the mother-in-law totally distinct fronr the everydayone. . cooccurrentindexesof a given lunctional As rvc have seen.aranap [ers oI $PEaKtrr aIl(l llsartr s^PrrvrL."nge tire context.how many the factorsof ihe context.borclerlinecascs two classifications for vocabularyof Javanese. and Cultural D es Shifters.. the Engiish creativefunction in bounding off 7ou (vs. youmeanthat othertablel"or "This is not a by the interlocutor: table. or go into the llg]{g-ll.q g-oqlei *hi9!..l and pres itself is oncemore reference And t iu"tior tq be m-_ade.al 'r.'..lonication. itrtkxicri trrkctrs. occurrence the speech contextof pcrhaps. gl 94 iu-pldgl lo-r-fte19felcd4'qgn-upp ..--:-----l.Under these circumstances..:.^^.:::::::: so95r] peiceived iilo o-flS. signalis of the In somecases.*.by vcrifiable." oi ind.characteristic The in reference. example.what prior events sort are occurring in speech.i-^1.responds such and described referential indexes rvhile the latter.. Changing contextual-ilie for preRecaiiihai one of ihe waysitr w'irich events. implemented discourse....rve have brought into sharp cognitivereiief part of the -speech.then.. \ryrL' ruwruor anrl evenmore the clusive'pronominal indexes.. indexical is of a nature of inclexes..seemsto be used refer' cleference uPon the presupposi' in a way that depends entially or.f'h3eel"eld-P1!!9Ig for properindexicalreference pf 'sut-in' spcllcd is Somcaspcct tlre cqtrtcxt 91otl t!S-lififj-e-r-qsirniJ-cr.MICI{AEL SILVERSTEIN cription goies.tfi ig.. for thc qr. oneaxisof classificatinn.nlcaslrc modeof com' / i"f.nonreferentialiy given token in context' This tional or performative nature of the ------.xllualh-qrati-Ys. the rulcs of 'se.s fronl the se'rantico-rc[c-rcntial T'hepresup' gf tynes' 1 .ulsc' cxist. thc vcry usc of arr i'clcxical token. that the configuration in required someappropriate are conditions contextual rvith a deictictoken.it's a chair!" in The useof the deictic.which cdn be said not so mucl't cxplicit and overt io cl'..irl. creative rnccliumand nrodc in spccch uf i. basis the of seento be an act of creation.^i. actuaj unfoldingreferentiaispeechevent.cooccurrirtg the in' salient inclex of the specificvalue.Ttre particular on placementof any given indexical token dependsto a great extent of its use: horv many eventsare i1e factors of the individual context occuning. does analysis.horv many independentnredia are signaiing simultaneously havetaken place.rcntia-l -Qf'indcxcs. 'prl. relauonsnrPormu[uaIexNtclrUgugLlvgUrIlUtrlvAlLr4| r :-r^-^^ L^!. Thc spcaker'refcrcnt interact.LinguisticCate insult. Tlle rcfcrcntialvs.tndgl.1. ttry perlormative l---e---:-r----: r-^^-^-"^. further speecir have referredto the is of supposition the deictic can be satisfied to in question. rrurrvrv^rvv ln fhe nrrryne -r.:.corstitute a porverfulrebuftor -bCA-rqq of creation iioqy aq4-hqiliglof Classification Index Types/ T okens inrlexical tokensmngeon a sliding scaleof creativityor pcrformative by displavccl <lcicticsto thc value from the extremeof presupposition extreme of creativity displayedby subtle social indexes. in ierisiics indexes. is maximallypresupposing.is an<ttilcrlxis oF clirssificrrtirxr. former to with rulesof use.t:^ir A. work.!99-Y-o!?-bub49y:f{ fg:gb*qv. examples--ol-sa. he/she/it/ttrey) ierform this such as ih.ll. cneeified bv -:: :.the different kinds of indexical types have inherent Underlying all these rangeson the functionai scale of presupposition..llee.. --/ I r.-e-L are sligg*ligls.o.ai'rat UhmooK (UolumDla h."hi. nortns as it *'cre." certainly. as to r:qakc By stqUg-$lg i]19gngQltl€-glcnJs. indexical propertia as presupposition/performance. are horvever.!a-l.9f pie is fi*e.ch performs its greatestapparent is be the very medium through which the relevant aspectof the context indexicai Pronounsiiwc ar'{' rnade to "exist.h d"ti*. entity Indexical Creativity But tlrere is a general qeative or petformafive aspectto the use of pure inclcxicaltokcns of ccrtain kincls.-.ti. but ncvcrthclcss ttrost Other..is propositional (semantic) oncemoreseen be riistinctfrom abstract to of type.iifi" usages. in this sense. boundaryfunction becomes finely diawn.tlonrcf-c. measure the independence lrosiiionalvs.-r---- r\lverr ir--rl. thc in bcfiavi<lrs <lt|cr tttcclil. p"rronne of the speJch event itself.tlgJ&t.:. based semantico-grammaticsl on by arrayis thus generated thesefunctiorul charac' A kind of four-celf and discussed. t\ortrl Allrsrruail A -^i^^ \ --.*". seemingto dexical token in tpr.. t[p onl]r ovcrt sign Of t[e colrtcxtlal p4rameter.g. front cvcry othcr sigr:aliug tlrc of cvcrrts.^^.]*. not.hlac rnrl "Oh.:.t-lgQ .g!$!on-J-{ m"?t. -of value from the rules of use setting up the . its indexical indexicaltypes..- sigrrals. Soc'{. spccch of thc a nafur-c .ra. rvhichwe g:ln placeihe examples of provide furtherexamples: for 5> . in those languages.-':.reinfoiieC-Thej1e!ti9"l q! 1petkgla!-d t't the discourse reference. by llrSil vgg -u!e! Pe1glle:devices. cnpech events|ndexesrnneverrnoexlngsPeaKtrluIlI9i1lgIyallrvrre. on"" . on thc other hand. ( creativePerformative) pcrson second Pronominals -values' have nottreferential o.iii-. speakerand roles of speakcr aDclhlarer.+t l r r i.urf".and then attempt to as pronominals semantico.-eJerqnliellldgle! On tlre onc illSlcxicr! .ri. FinallR formativeindexessemeasindepenrJentspeechsignalsestablishingth{ as in deferenceforms' whicf{ prrn*".."tt of the interaction themselves.-^-*inr'nnnlc i. description to coDtribute propositional inclexes Lr*tiu"ry pcrfornrativc ln distinctness and must rest ultiin isolationof the pragmaticcategories language' functionof utterances' of .presupposing of value some pointthe but tion in discourse.l .)).1..(-!j^-.r. irr tlrc cltoicc of 1:ronornitlals. contriare pJrrtn" fornrs refcrential But .r the inclexes..*'cpri'iti'ui't yoclc q1ec9l1' cqualig ineeltlali$6 sr . In ihe referentialmode.. in the maximd} case.o!Gjqr. a pllenomcnon social rclations.rron singularand plural" for tirat obvirrtcthe necd can r)ourls bc true sn5stitutes.*l the rcflcctin spcech inclcxcs prcsupposiug Nonrcicrcntiai suchas the "r"g.so thai we iend to speakol'lt* and second 'person'an.^. . spcakcr and referent..NlICHAEL SILVERSTEIN Jllllrcri.-.e.i*eoty. t"itgoii"t oi ryceclt' risiduals.otes of speaker._"f tf* i. .r.rrcguii.grarimatical as of meaning the forms'But inasmuch trvo modes pragmatic ipecifytl're more considerably it category.. lexicallycomplexreferring noun phrase (thus' rwl/vrrr.td to descrlp-tion.L^^.the^fact that eve!united with prono4irylr..ty on a se'siiive-analysisihe speech-event anthropological' social a taskwhichis essentially l\ef are ntial ltnalo gv it t D iscoursc Tlresituationisevennroreirrtercstirrgirrtlrccaseofpragrlaticmeta. IJIILBUISLLUvcttugiv'l rldt v''v v*'v*' -' - -'' I PresuPP0stng teuse locativcdeictics.eucntfeaturcs. 1956)' (see Beuveniste 'exteniion To analyzc.I r r l d llscotrls(. specific existcnce texicalitcms.*.So:.then. and referent to certaiu indi'1 hearer..aucliencc.. of sonre ualoei-ofco'textualvariables..fr" :.Instead (rp(*.. .^.r.w ilrc rvlticlr assign as sp. ineffectestab]islrovertlytliesocialrelationsoftheindividua]sinthd or auclience.the. e F unctional Aggr gation in Indexical Forms TheTlraiexamplecitedabovcinwlrichsocialdeferenceindexesare po11! up. onli by trking asa starting in of tinrercfercnce tense u"rinft. one Thisfunctional sHrflngPorrrlrur Lrrs be mustalways tne of the two modes descrip' contributeto propositional indexes Referential.ctecl with pronourinal shifters of found in many languagcs'.'firstanclsecond functionally of reference which comesaboutby bution to cliscourse hlvc tlo arraPltoric fontrs 1:ropcrtics' rulcsof usclsuch distinct 36 ..n.t.Third pcrson" proprononrinalfornrs. e'uerrt nonreferentiat rel+tively pe| uiau"t.c corirp'tatio' ..Referential. .... categoriesof The so'calledpronouns frequently seem to incolporate 'nu'mber'.v^ rvr as negative Theman sat down..Jl.hjfitr. as for il. in motrrer-i'-law Jtnlif il.-. would take areunitedherein onesurface on two bascd use ruies'of areinvolved' that two clistinct to analysis see distinctfunctionsofthefornrs. they that structurc the tactors of tlre speechsituation' Ifgj-$ljtSled'Sai referential -rvl1i!-c-titg'!1991{ sf .onn.liscouist-referential ir*f.thereare indexi' surface by whichhappento be represented the-same two indexes a1i O:y::-lf: not' .. they act --r--.iupinric devices fnr renplition of a f. i.f-f?Orffii*tU.sc mantic categories of rejerential or analogy we have to iistinguish tws kinds of in categories discourse.Atafunctionallevel...node o-f-'rarking scgmcnttirc firstperson lronominals nonreferential of indexes sPeaker' defdrence l we nright of By analysis the .r'lrlitiort fttnction as thc sigrul for the existenceof ^.. ' ) . rcfcrring to thc hearer phor.h.1i. dlistinetforms inclexingihc quality of speaker'hearer skcrving of otlrcrrviscscthc "sccortdpcrsolt" ixonuutt incorporatc data' r95o..'.He .t tttiiitt pilgtluiigt'liy---ryulqifurrctional' valuesthat contribute proiominals trauc.. .we. . we compared with the speaker-(The "royal shouidnote..English.rErjEr-sllua-t Pronomrnal rorm rur s:ulll.'+}. ).) is What unites all of theseseeminglyisofunctionalusages the uni' "second person Plonoun" directionality. aucl of scmlnticllly birsccl (summccl "nuurbcr") rcfcr(cardinal "uumbcr") vs. an important demonstrationof the inteqplaybetrveenthe semanticmode of language through speech.doci theii tingulii' or With tiris analysisof the distinction bctwccn anaphoric ancl uonanaphoricprouonrinalindcxcs ("pcrsou").. !' of Metaphors Cramnntical Categories Pragmatic Russian for cxample.sp(x..or French.vv::vs ttcinorrlrr "l::b:l:' rrrrnhertt ':-':'-:: to :: ttnltrraltt rl -- (or \ ttdualtt). where an inclividualis refcrreci and inio thc rcalm of nonsingular.y. The perspectivemust be one that frees us from de' ralngr - rl ^- rL-- Lrlalr Lus rL^ aa^:----l--r.rvhich are referentiallyindexedby such 'plnral'rCfCrential valirC emeige. mother-in-larvand equivalent equivalentin the second. r . only irt thc lcvcl of discoursc plural numbcr catcgorydcrivc scconclarily established scrrrantically by referencc a kind of sumrningup of inrliviclual andlillwentup ahill.1?}ltrq In iq4.t.3) and nnmber (rg. to his pcrsonaaccruesthc socialrveight of many. Surgural \L/. some languages. numbercategoryin its summed cardinal indexing r. LrrE rsurarrlru r/ discourse eitherrefersto I use.r.it is shift out of tlrc rcalur of scconcl Pcrsolluclclrcss.. Itr--tltc onc rvhcrc an casc.l.1.vy. a In thoselanguagcs-with 'plural'.. Lu). in every case. somelanguages.WesternAustralia). CulturalD escription Linguistic Shifters. is a shift out of the realnr of the singular.nlav1ar When we use a "third person" pronoun. ).t . -\rr --^---!--l l^-t^-^-L:-^J -^l^-^-t:^l 'tnrrol .* is indicatcdalong the axisof tlttrnbcrby srvitch than index.Gn. srvitch this defcrence.t ' slngular (rcmtnlnc/ . in the first..pl. as it were. . incolporation of the anaiyuc residueoi shifters.rioesnoi capture ihese generalizations.such as Germanand Worora (Northirn Kirnberley. other words.The a-n{ the ffagrnatic coistitution of social categories even rvith "fudges" to permit slmantically basedanalysisof categories.) to exPrcsl 'clual' morc high)y rnarkcd numbcr catcgory. deference that is indicated eisewhere the samekind of speaker-hearer by vocabularysrvitch (see Friedrich 1966.It is at entities(ihus.for example.y. /aclc this secondlevel of refercnce that the first and second person pronominal inriexesget iheir apparent "singuiar" and "piurai" iorms. personhooel lrkirtg away tlre individual it case. would sccm. either replaces third singular anaphoric. impliecl lry lhe face-toJacc ad. 'we' +'I' the form rveis an inclexthat refersto anclpresup+ English speech and at leastone other individualin the referential poses speaker a pluralrefers G8.y&v.of switch fron r^ .it is possiblcto scc the nrture of thc skcrvings so"ironorificsccortd pcrson1)rorrouus.t t ^ . This makes the aciclressee socialindividual.l"t. Similarly.in Yokuts to duil-number adclressee of of south centralCalifornia (Nervrran 1944) and Nyangurfrata north' ern west Australia (o'Grady tg6+). t . . . concomitantly j to pluraladdresseesrefers a single of speaker hearer.lilg and-gocialindeaiSrg. example' for to In i the deference the indexuses what is otherwise second person Italian.. as 'lve"' . pionominais.). the surnmed nurnber of individuals referred to is count for more than one greater than one. person second event. clress.r*n". a pronoun.Oniy by the summation of the individual referentsin discourse.or nonpersonal or referSto and indexesa singular addressce feminine semanticnoun of rvhile indexing deference speakerto hearer. wc can index For somelanguages. or addressee. lll ullrsl /r-- a--\'T- ^!L^- ---^-l^ !L^ ^^-^-!:^ l \Y(."t MICHAEL SILVERSTEIN and Categories. both person(r.to thc rcalm in indiviclualis inclcxecl thc spcech ns cntity is un<lcrstood thc estrrblishccl of ariaphora. This occurs. of In specification the noun phraseit replaces. in both these ianspccificd' must bc accordcdto a gcncalogically the rleference guages.i-il " lrrrlur !v f.\ or both concomitantly. d. mother's brother and l.n.They.rvhercan alreacly 'l'his largcr tlrln lifc by rulkcs thc addrcsscc rcfcrcritof thc srrbstitutc.(curiousiv. For 'I'.Joesthe inverse.x&w.T'hcrc is a kincl of mctlrphor bascd on tlte it valuc cliscoursc-rcfcrcntial of tlrc catcgorics. this pure semantic 'number' signalsmore-than-one rvhatever of entity is referredto plural of Bnt somc occttrrences by the lexical stemsof the noun in question. rvhere.eiling metaphoricalplays upon semantic categories.the singularor plural num'number' ber is derived by the rules of anaphora from the semantic mode. are r. cliscoursc$ased in encc to cluantity...Ervin-Tripp r97r). Rushearerand at least one other persona.lus. using the "secondpersonplural" (vy. example. the second In to. for to and indexes sian sp(x.third singularfeminine 3$ 39 .the deferential rr. yousJ .t. when by a addressing singleaddressee. situation flcc'to-face.) exampiesof isofunciionai inriexing rviih in such universals expression." callccl av-anlcrl vilt. :rncl prouoruirutl catcgorics scrviuginclcxical fturctioirs syucrctistic.rve might want to ask rvhether or not these are indexed in of American someotherlanguage and.r!) ft]rlUlI(rIl Ut lalrrEtl.to indcx dcfcrcntialacldrcss.r:^^-^f^.^f^^'.The sexindexes several mentionedabove somewhat are diverse functionally. as Wc havcsccnvocabulary.Urrivcrsals functional significatiouthus arc thc trcccsof sary meansfor creatinga rcal scienceof language pragmatics-that is. (Note horv the formal analysis one mode dein -enrlc nn icnfrrnnlinnrlitrr in nlhere . if so. univcrsalhy1>othcscs aboutphoncticsancircfcrcncc thc ncccs.) The Thai (and othcr Southeast of thc socialvarilblc of scx to tltc functionalcharactcrizatiorr incquality nlore generaily. evcn refcrentialones.indcxingit (T'hc ethnographicrccorclcshbrvith a unique fornral set of changcs. Amcrigrourrcls rlcfcrcncc distinction sociologicnl So thc scvcrirl can Irrcliun systcnls sccurto isol:rtctlrc socill vnrinblcof scx. indexes must be describedby rules of use that specify analogouscontexts under analogous speech events.as the definof rcquiring analysis.ge ohmrp \ T$p lon- guages use formally similar categorialsubstitutions.^ri^'. findingsonreisofirnctior:al Ultimately.at lcast in thc societics of spcaking Muskogeanlanguagcs. making a pointed ethnographicstatcrnent on equivaas lencesof stratification. tfters.1.givcnsonrc grounds and indcxedin somc social parameters constitutcdou nonspcech language. crosslinguistic fonlal analogyand fuuctional analogyare.s tlcllcrtcls upon lnllysis of fonns. (Obviously.^rr^.there is formal comparability of in the expression deference through the pronominal categories themselves.^. F ornul Characterizationof Indexes From the formal point of vierv. rcfercnce certainsurfrcestruc.then.ho!v.It is alwaysnecessary.likc phonetic and carritsclfscrvc an inclcx. first and seconcl pcrsons-inclcpcnclcnt rvords that indcx in complexways thc various incqualitics rcsultiug in dcfcrencc-incluclcsanrong thc of of scx. rvithin uttcrances.'^^''C'''. Cultural esuiption and D t ! on or pendence semanticcatcgorics.ll 6rr{rlrrrrdf gous socially constituted tasls. which can be isolatedin the referential mode in everyone of the in languages question.. for cstablishingthe ctlu:ography speech-just as witliin the semantic of modc. Linguistic Categoies. be thc contcxtualvariablcs 'functiondlly dnalogous. thc of for stnrctural signifioruccof tirc pattcnr of iuclcxical spcechnomls iu the givcu socicty. F ormal Distinctions SignalingFunctional O nes of The parallclfonnal-functional analogy all thc pragmaticmctaphors is for spcakcrJrcarcr clefcrcncc au cxccptional casc.ol.So the claim of functional analogyfrom a heuristicpoint of vicrv mrkcs hypothcscsabout thc social parameters s1>eech of evcnts. wc notcclrvhcrrdealirrg witl-rthc are As ..^" wr eaa'rvvtrr ln rv L^ uv -^^^.-'. ing segmentation speech gues Functiornl and F ormdl Analo I Irr cachof thcsc cascs.the sign vehiclesthat function in an indcxicaluroclc cxtrcmclyvariccl.t-:. Iirorn a thcorcticalpoirrt of viclv it clcpcnds upon thc rcsultsof social :tutlrrollologyfor a friunovorkof clcscription socill cirtcgorics. hlvc bcen claiming a kinclof functional cornp:rrallilify of thc 1>rrrrrllcl fornratious.of which linguistic onesare a maior part. Ordirlarily. From a formal scmartico-rcfcrcntiirl as Doint of vicrv.a \ \I/l---. arc saryempiriealeorrela of scnraniieo-grammaiiCai tes auaiysis.'''il^1. quwurrrrJrrurb referential frameworksin the semanticmode.MICHAEL SILVERSTEiN -. this exampledemonstrates. but Indianlanguages at tbrmaiiy overiapin ai:parcnt pironoiogicaiciranges tire encisof aii The Thai pronominal systcmfor words.i--.^''li^l [Jtlv. to take the functional perspectivein tsms ol rules of use to be items fit into systematic socioable to seein what way such pragnratic logicalpatterns. melltionedabove..but its cultural position has not bcen Asian) systcms assirnilatc established.In the carsg of the pragmatic metaphorsillustrated above. phonological affixcs.^."1^.the utterancefractionsin differentlanguages hardly be can a-^aalaj ln l. in rvhichrnaintaindiscourse 4o 4r .-^ln. J!YrLLlr vl J!lIl<lrrllW_l!lWlUrr!r. Indcxical dcviccssuch as anaphoric pronoul'ts.definable in the all urodc.-'. Rulcs of usc arc nonns bctwccn 'fo and somc fonnal fcatureof thc message. thcu. lishcsthe grcrt salicncc thc distiuction. re rrr4e nrenlinnprl gu .in particularof inflectedverbs.ISV.. formallyanalogous of systemiclpecification of equiya]ence meslqgefractionq. linked as hypothcsesthat serveto justify a particularanalysis. wc sccksolnewav of charactcrizing structurallv fractions inclcxcs. we can speak of cross-linguisticcomparability.tiou basisfor comparison.'^.a alil. rvhichitsclf rcstsou tural spccifica. indexicals dependupon crossOn the other hand. rnlcs.then. But auy such strucanllogousthc rncssrrgc scrvinga. h the"proxemic" ". and phonological alternations that can be level.. . sociological some in I figuration.. of configuration persons ihe speech .y.Lr"n..cl 4rv f"na- .. sentence indexing. is ri^-^ LlullJ bonally ' dgtermmec r t .'-.i.L:^L wrlrerr Jwur4rruw-rw^wae.s oi ur.r : L . formally isolableon functional grounds. This will lead naturaily to a considerationof the or iionship of such pragmatic description to broader ethnographic "cultural" description. only referential speech events.."Tirc undegiventhe kinds of rcgularities of suchan alternativeis manifest.. . spgecn runcuoll (Jr lclcrglrutr. -c -^t^. asa gi..". J'his rvoulcl rcfcrcntial cornbinatory of bulk of a clcscription spccchinto a list of sucir "icliotns..afotao- -^-o ltlvls ---^-^11. L o i . realized. the range of possibleformal elements that can serveas speechindexes.inciudes the enour h'aditional semantico-grammatical level..- - -- .ecl into ln valid sernantics. The description of all these occurring pragrnatic formal features of a presents vastproblem for our traditional ideasof what a grammar speech grammar.J. including intonation and other nonsegmental gradient devices. in Futtctionol Alternatives ltlrles of Use indcxesshorv Rulesof use for both shiftcrsanclother.are formally defined only over at least two noun sentences.. the 47 . thc English "1>etforma' "active" and tive" constructionI [V] 7ou [X].i. so forih.i to (correspondlng z) in nonreferential tural configurations. tlte charcontemporary analy' acterizationof pragmaticsas dependenton semantico-referential riiscusseci above-becomes ioiaiiy sis-the "performative" approach hopelessoncewe considerthat only a portion of the indexicalsin speecb are shifters.. inclusivc PRAGMATICS AND CULTURAL DESCRIPTION behavior' I have analytically separatedfunctional modes of speech in linguistic signs' furthershowingthe modesof meaningso constitutcd briefly the integration of these rnodes in a I want now to characterize of pragmatics languagi.a"guatJ descriptiveparadigm for speechanti othcr communica' rela' tive behavior.hence thcir cluplcx t:rode. it is. discourse-sequence tire range of languageJevei affix level.inrlevprl Ellrlty wururr rr uvrrr6 'rvv'rvst Klng fnr evcmnlC .rL- Illtr -^--:-J^- lculalrlLtsl vl ^f !L^:. _variablc rules of useshouldbe the func.- rank.e tJ. B't a formal descriptivc l3). i or sellrautrc --!:^ asPegL uI lrrsarrruE. not and I I the Uur other typesaswell haverulesof usethat specify functional "it ou. Cultural D escription by constitutecl rulcsof uscat t]rclcvcl of discoursc of aspect meaning.i'. llvur -----r ^f -^--:-- f-^- .y.' " r and derivetheir analyzability.. of pragmaticfunction excmplifiecl So some attempt to patch up haditional grammarcannot serveas a of principled descriptionof the pragmatics languagc-a fact that nost For linguistic theoristshavc not yet aPPrcciatccl.. becomes of how to represent The question.And syntacticconstructions.uJL ruuv of tionallyindependent reference such. a l o s ^ vu h ' .h generalization. Linguistic Categories.. are virtually ahvayspragmaticunits. uonreferential utterthc existeotialrcl4tioqshipof contextualvariablcsto somg ovcrt specifythe refcrent (z) as ancefraction.eni. w'hichno'rcferentialrules of use modes behveen(r) and havea point of overlap (z) w-e In areconstituted.sf n e e c-h e v e n t s .accordingto understanding.ll where the constructionscannot be analyzedaccording to semantico.somespatialcon-'' suchaskinship. domain. 1 .it (G) is. ! grr ^ . . LIls luusaeD ^-o. word and characterizedby rules. or "passive"forms of utterances. as as speech the one then.sex.It rvoulclsccm that formall. .In other words.r . "pragmatic ir"t.. l h e t-o tn-c r e o f. not onlycloivespccify So . blrrvrqu/r Jv uGr ..frequently found in distinct semantico-referential are further kinds of featuresthat are Intonation pattems and stressshifts characteristicallyindexes.. rnakcby far the grcatcr regularities.2i.. the shifterfunction. i e.I\TICIIAEL SILVBRSTEIN and Slifters.duplex"" into mustbe furtheranalyzed what are indeed catigories.. fi. "rulesof use"wespecify shifters.) n'herezr is a variable func' of bui z. and (3i the pureinrlexical for of independent reference. while at the sametime apparentlycontinuousformal medium the preserving pragmaticdistinction among (r ) the pure referential tuncuon r r.h the particular is modeof meaning being pragmatic domain ' ) where '-' rulesof usefor sp(x. .-nfiaa. spccializ.: ^ L : . From the point of vierv of a semantico-referential would appearthat everypragmatic index is a kind of "shuctura! id-igA. *hi.indicatinghow this purports to be a systematic *or. on which one facetof refertial systems or (z) acts entialspeech rests.z'." alsosp(x... iot s1'tifiets to contributC_ rcfcr' well.v.. phrases.J^. sirability above. ritherfunctional sening functions.r..though I have not dealt rvith them directly by such as the distinction bctrveen example. indexical-referential 42 for the underru. with connection to the semanticallybasedgrammer in the I I -1. consonantrvith the fact that such catcgorics the third ential spcechevcnts. Intther words.io*or" mustintegratc systctn.referent. . well as the sgeaker hearer i*t pr"uiousdiscourse.r{^9T:"u...nrJ ttrat aBg-arent-elernentr This .!!1!-it-can" social categories. .i..tlre sense-. I lltr Ergirl uulN ^f vr o. ncis The"Grammar" of SPeech permits us to seeat leastthe nature of a more such a characterization "inclusivekind of "grammiir.(i!d.. examsurface multifunctional the same.t' *t' "". Linguistic Categories.us1:er.ch enliilg-{ . i. as in our presentunderstanding' replesentations rccursiveset oirules which reiate semantico-referential recall to utterance types (or "sentences" in "surface form").tr"r..^r .-s! ". rp'. .if grammarG.i Toconstruc|agrammar(G.^^..in .f.'ce or ts-g.il"t . tl're framervork ..surface-form. of pure reference."a* .nd upon the functional specification ' above.t 'r o i V e. iond.t"llildexicli f?'*g"Iff tor-sP+iffncthe actsarethe elementar)' .-"pl..1i.r.in:i:?i?'-:." which includes the traditional ssrt as a is a finite' component.. . specification oi rvhich'as we haveseen' many acts. of describing.nl' Jswrr r rrt!lv 'rs ^n a p c s e c r r r o r e o v e.r.utterances. Lhesocially R9-fq1e.*. Utterances. rvr rr 'u. rve can from the first part oi this paper that the meaningsrvithin G are defined are and the sentences segin terms of the function. the Tltt. """'' PresuPPose referent indexed Deictics.1e.l.socially seriating function2" of actual signs in the sense of the ...ntico-_ 1i valueis de_tgrmllgd ir. of purposlve TutLvLLvt'1vr Jvvrsrr pr.irqd' Othgr pragmatic !u. nrultifunctionrl."ni... tlre iurface elements tPuon Shifters. Jo.^-.!o €n. --^^^r. so forth' In shifters'an ele' and sn Darameter.. on meniabieinio constituents ihis basis.oo.and refer to the locusof the presupposed or'freirer' thatof sPeaker 'l'\rc Cotrstittiion of SpecchActs Wecancalleachorreoftlreseelcmcntaryfunctionallyspccificrules mean' \Are can notc that such norns for pragmatic of usea speech. .n"i'pronoung".nti"t if rveexamine but category' speech surface .i.. simul-tanco-uslybeusedtogo*1$tq!cclistinctkindsofevents."iirf.h behavioia-ccornplishes "performs'" acts are of trvo kinds' and 'eierentialspeech ..orin from'ihe . cansee the as zr.g*atic mode.rrt*_4iqthct in-dexical_tyBes.ultiple functions expressing *="1-oii" meanins or function2of spcechiigns' Prd6rrralrv "':"'..loaihcroatical particularly' viously explored tyPe'tums out to bc a specialcasc' More signs functionl exclusively in the speechacts foi semantico-referential an<lsuch aside-and exiensions evenis-abbreviaiory referentiaispeech the gram' .p.r"r*tri*f lules itlpf modes u6inettq. . pure referentia!sentences.we can speak of the "referential functionz" already discussed to achieving of of actual signsin the sense the contribution they make similarly.r.x-) use by th_g_sgma.itct t in& of speech For indexes. precisely --ur sonal referent.Itrey operatewithin ^nnctitrrted he-hnvior i.is non'-" another functionai z' specihed.. an in' a.-^L:^-.p. alization is a set of rules which relate pragmatic meanings-functions2 specifiedby functionallyr indexed variables-to the "surface form" of . in 1|'g s. :ErN Onesuch. .n* ait. m-^ -^^!L. of speechat the trg tat. the hierarchies rvithin contribution they maie to the function.with the exception of presupposing mar G.'.here is referent specified qf ootivate-r-uleg .MICHAEL SrLV!. as rvell as a soclal-rl-ct-ql .a..fi}iilll.it is thc more gcneral . the the naiure of the referringutterancefraction.act.r'6$.""6i n6tft *i iuditionai notions of. ur.qnt-variable(s)' to rvith lespect some .inshifters motivate elementary referential on.dttd I'ulturdL D escr i .rti.i p.represent.e_gi!!es other hani. ..-^L---lll llatulg.i referentialsPee. we saw. tue have severaltimes remarked.uf. referentrelativeto location. -of. iF ic o! thic hioher leve1 of analvsis that one level or sPcEull Evsrru. :f sPeech:ev." "privacy'boundai1t.ng no futth.odcs._i refcrential . metaphors equality/inequality' in i'. analyzcdsort' In a guagcuscsclistinct from those of thc traclitioDally structttre of rvhich the preanalogy.-rT reierent that thc rve 1 "' themcarefully.. we can speakof of a valid inst-ance function.t-h e oaOOeafI I 15 41 .tasks" constituted various canrecognizc ixog*atic . " ' i: I ot as for exarnple. of def ing Spcechis multifunctionaJ. alwaysultimately specifiedin system' bution of elementsto the semantico-referential Theanalysisofspeeclractsisthusageneraiizationoftheanalysisof and lan' for proviclirrg mcaning rclatio-ns scnuutico-rcfcrcntillsystcrns.'-Y:' use for cleference otherwisereferential categories pog..ii..i. .iu^uu incorporate_ryeanings grammatical function. continuOus :.ll." func' indexical fu'ction ancla disti'ct elementary Ir.tt'.f 9t1gtionqily g..functiqnal' ryode' iefer' two elementary-functiona-l-mgdqs' mode. ..In so functioningl form a continuoussequence. terms of the contri' stanceof function3.on .jn-.tft-tioti"ui" suchas zt "tegpgla] zt-to be specified.Speechis of.)ofspeechdcts'theanaiogousgener.".. of_a z'is frequently difierent . with somevariable referential..ti spccifieil."t i' thc sarne . the seman€e|*eferential OO1Uu the-sr-1[which mcely specify'teriablaz'and prest-opos9 .u.. anci audience. .^tl trtcr r'.u-ttcr4nces This leadsto such rnanipqlqtdfu d-e. Linguistic Cate goies.'-. .".... as a function of contextualvariables.rqg onlv*!ta J*c-qaurrg---ft-cts. to relating contextualvariables "surfacc" uttcranccfractions-detailing. semantico'Iefelenrnedium.r.-.the de' tails of which are now ohly partially clear.'!r:S-'lli't I "'oig tl-Slgjglltbirt&lltg-llul-llilg-ot l1!!. others. of So a grammar of spcechactsG' consists rulesof usethat map the \Mlth tliia vaiiablci of speechevents into rules generatingutterances. " with a semantico-referential a can A referential of the originalutterance. some mode ideasabout utter' motivated all our the functionl which has heretofore ance constituenclr motivates only one such Pragmaticstructure.lqq$-$g-e-q' r r'-r -t-:-l-I-lra coma or uPgn cont_raqlctury lllgllly wrrrr'r' PlssuPPv)rtl5 .ilmsanings !!ry-{g.. to cleference ing of the speechacts characterizingtheir usc (see Ervin'Tripp t97t I IOf d-t -.. Pra6ulalllLdrlJ ^t^-^^A err4rSeq .^-^L-' oPL4^!r 1.sPeech whichmotivateits fraction. We u..'--ti&. LaLw^LvsLLLf.'o.i'i{ \ trcrs.z tinuity of surfacc aets theremaybe many..filling out "holes" in the pragmatic structure. .. which shorv the ' of regularities shapein pairs of forms for the maiority of rvordsin the language.. 1r' 1 ' . r .c-cially cgn -WhcretYLf 1atl gm t*e. must be incorporated of speechacts consist of rules showing the contextual dependence tra-. rrrLrrL rr! rrrrrrr. the for espeCially referentialsegments. ditional grammatical rules for generating by hvo pragmatic examplesI have already This is further confirmed which langnage. that is..therc is a hierarchical relation among all the kinds of sociologicalvadables leading rvhich can be formally dcscribedby intrinsic ordcr' inclexes.L^*^ lYlrw^v 1L^ rlr! ..r !o . for relatiorx among funcexample. diplo' 47 .:--!:^-\ gllaraclgllzitLI9lr llgw'cnarf ance of formal integration in terms of phrase.: . rvc have moved frorn thc hcuristic clcviceof direCtiy characterization. .ould want to characterize of the indexing here as the depcndence the implementationof certain sex.-!L61L--o ^.^L:^lulrwLrvtl ^C .'-l'. ..l ^ . tk{g g-!-b g-pr4 ati=q rglgt=ggnu!y !1.clllu f.c_c!v-e.a reflection of pragmatic markedness tionai.t^.-v^-uruv^ rl. in adiclion. contra' pedia q9-mnrunicatiYQ signSling o_I_J!_o_r-e wlriehplay upon. speaker create so' content of im' cial persona himself. a constituentin in constituentof pragmaticstructures several in and not a constituentin others. sociological of upon the variablcs spcaker-hcarcr phonologicalrules gcogmplriof Any phonologicrl inclcxcs this sort. -l -^^ --mI:--!-.lectinp G.-^r--. that features function.-Sl)cilKcr.r. surfaceforms. and Cultutal D escriptiott Multifunctionality and Pt agtndticSfi ategy There is a structureto a pragmaticglammar so constitttted.. l'(rr rvL)r.Thus the phenomenonunderlying the plot of My Fait Lady' Finally.}. playingupon the hearer's for Perspective a. -nnv -"J trfterance fraction ' mavr bg a the senanticity. meansthat there is a .!\r. asit were. i-'tro..r_f. any given Tor fornrand its rnultifunctionalr. shifters and semanticelements' rules (G) Tiis would seemto indicati that the traditional grammatical into pragmatics(G'). a irr othcr worcls.!9d!vidual"s.laf iri tqxg .lvord.^ ^ . 46 him on the basisof the rules of usefor certain utterance fractions.:. "t.... pi a{matic contr .a csp._-_ is.. .. .The shifters reouire to denialof speech ofiensive the hearertakesthe form gf "All I said or paraphrase repetitionof the was..n lur lrrw^r Lrrvrw q'v *rrLe. utterance raracpnnp i. that at least some.basically .':-r: !r{rlr-r-'.{iet-ory {rdexic. thoughthey function.rrr/ trcatcci. . beingcxtended. speech acts are ordered. ' i l l ' ." /rcici ior crccl>tions siri tjyg ively crc. c rrsu *ra !. o1 "dr$lg!gd-'. .-.r -r-.-. w. can tial meaning which a speaker claim after the fact for potentiaily L:-LI-.tiricll itioriri.MICIIAEL SILVERSTEIN Shifters. categorics semantic in case point. ru6. and affix structure. mdle vs.bou..lrinh arc eccenlirllv rrrleq of rrse se.| ysLvw :-)^-. mode. be!a$-o1s.'-:1. of cal Qldlect t1 tnc .LgSr". .--^^L Jywu.. as phenomena ...rh::: J/JLLrrl !!. so obviouslyour pragmatic descriptionshould show the selection of rules GL.. not just an infinite set of messages is case the Yana The second {0L..rv nharantericfin - <nellrerts -r------ rulesof G'. female indexing.. characterize the context'sensitiveindexing.o ^1'.-.rlrirre v^lrrurrrJ t!ra Lrrv rn!::finrr .One is the srvitchof semantico-referential ern seweas an index.(r ^. particular..a ornmmolinol nnmnaienna' nf snenker- hearer.alsoin referen" distinctfunctional2 tial events. For exanrPle. Flere phonological rules.{!l::\_Y: A-l / | .. ^ .-t uf ct:t55-itulilat(. meaningsof utterance fractions. I{ere the whole set of rules of the traditional sort :^ l) ^ 4 r.Jcir rifiiy-"coul"iiii". rather than any affixation or other segrnentalmaterial.of utterance tionsof speech-event somefunctional. .l or pcrforma-iriclcxci tc re.^ ^ : .'onlprictinc ottrihrrted tn --^---!:^^ll-. Reference. mentioned.. f of indeterminacy utterances kind sf pragmatic in of language thc contextof speech uscs for the posiiUitlty strategic I vq rcLcen-tialI te cven Qqt -qlegntgLLwg.an-inJerastiqn. such ns tlroscrutrkirrg r r.thc dcfinitiou of an irrdcx-to constrtrcting p-ragmatlc -COtfr. . o cneech pvent..llly or modes.^! 1.lessapcontributenormallyto of utterances mentioned metaPhors Pragmatic to thoughpossibly.1ry9 ot_{tc cot19q51911t . thereis residual Similarly.r -' -_ihrt. .."-tr. propriateiy. utterances of The muitifunctionaiity apparent and takenout of context.-l .:..jlnacc rrrq^'\vs' rpln- nature. --.tl!r nr-'rt:trcttt strrtctrrfal so fractions. nf . at the ^n'.. . It is very easyto obtain accuratepragmatic informa: tion in the form of metapragrnaticreferential speech for segmental.I'nllrnr drn l. closcsl in thcir accuratc conscionscluractcriz.gop!e.1gT+g$q911ij[8 manipulatiol itratcgics.e!-cllPll-o. it would appeaxthat the nature of the indexical elements themselves.1>ro1>crtics scilantico-rcfcrcntial scgnrcnts.. O6viriiiSly.1^.Noticc oncc again that rvhich metasemantic lllcLilsglllilllLl(.rrn'cl.2 pcrid iifi:tre-Fit analysis. scinailtico-rcfcrcntial rvhich lve can gct accuratemetaobviously lneasurc the eascwith a of characterizations them from native speakers.--ebaractcriz. universalmetasemantlcqwaqen. to the constituents of speech. rc g qc . rvhichlrave no.fcrcnti cy.ech in as its own metalanguage metasemantic dium sewes no metapragmaticspeechevents in which use of events.ur. mdtic nonindexicdlity. phrasevs. referential.illc rrn rnlnlnrl But more importantly.n'q4referefiial-fhaljs*slrft-qf-y-Svs.a f-unstionall framervo-rk. -mueh languageis-metapragna_f1.l comevenf all the while understanding stituted a semantico-referential which overlap in surface function2 of the indexes pletely the distinct form. l:ll!6Llil5.Suchcharacterfzatiqn the pSqgpatiq stitueni speech of as the eharaeterjzation semaltico.qt!g5_ 9f . liq!4_fqggll-c_s_-lg!9_{pJe-!ati-ye*in I tlrinl that everyfieldworkerhas lrad such experiences.. (This 8. !-re -49t4p-ragrnatic.q! lJl-ylrr"l fo ot#f a raug.I\. L wvrrrrwr .^^*.--LJglserv.-^l:^ PrdSrrrdrr9 $1. relativ_e1y-_p_fe.-^!:^-^l Metopragnrutics If strategyrequirespurposivemanipulation of pragmatic rules. l+Vll-!r-.metapragrcfcrential.Thc cxtcnt to rvhich signshevc propcrtics sort of mctapragnratic ollcs.'1"1* al p qh us p !i tc. of Inyeslgqtio"_ pragmatic of the triply distinct fqJq4-fuggtiglek_slegren-lg .ji. rrrJ ^6 vr ^^^^^L Jlrvevrl ^L^^*. then it of may alsorequire an overt conceptualization speecheventsand conqtructure -of of acts.netinn nf cize relafirrp ln o clonrjlorrl-rhc alaccin crrnaolpanramolia 48 49 .. for manipulation is possiblc. ing on the unavoidably in ..along form'al.IICIIAEL SILVERSTEiN andCulturalDescription Categories.rPg-Lr somc indivicltiili arc bctter eiern.-^ ^ ^--^^:^l ^^. nonsegmental.uaBu f wurcll Illc )o o.g!i_v_g*nonshifter ind-e6 and as re_lqtiv-ely--pr-es]lppg-sjpg o5pedgrmative. pragmaticcontradictionand imputed indexicality alike in dependare Resid:* high. distinction betrveen grammatical as two realmsis vast.and to puqposivefunction is one by of measure the limits of metapragmaticdiscussion a speakerof that l q n o r r no e I course invcstigatingWasco-Wishram (Chinookan). relatively presupposingin'dexes.(That so-called gcnerative semanticists insist on the validity of their orvn f intuitions" aboutpragmatics Cedankenforschungen in simply atteststo the unfortunatenaivetdand narrowness most co-ntemporary of linguists on mat|^. LtLwty.Linguistic Limits to M etapragrnatie Avarvness . limits of metapragmaticawareness languageusers. for example.s-s on the or of spgechis t!9 9ffi9ia11y ove*ly recogniieil tico-referentialfunctionl one.atio-n-oJ ' i l cvcnt.9r''d. is akin to thoseof strictly scgnrcrrtal.u. make a native sptaker aware of nonsegmcntal.without referentialcontribution. inclcxicai ltave tltan othcrs.^\ a{l(j LttLr) a JlJUUlar. assegmental feature of utterances.I \ Tttl rL^.g a{rruvG/ /^^^ -. rvord.Fonindgxical_ity alike whereby the s."!!_g-[ry-P!!WsLc* timcs several by Sapir. I of attcurpteci systcma with infonnautsthc diuriuntivc-nugrncutativc to tizc consonantisms rvhich are ubiquitous in speechacts of endearment/ repulsion felt by speakers toward referent.depending are ual semanticity and diplomatic .ehlu.there can be the in speech a given functional mode e:.._the.5 these The structureis metasenrantics.as rg1felgntialjs.rmg. allorvs the hearer to respondto speechas though it con' . wlrich arc susccptibleof a. the one io which actorsmay reireat with full social approval.rra-^tl^ DyJrvrrrdrt! ^-^^.t{^-.r.It is extremely difficult.^-.-o-p. LrrE . :^ SP(.Inclcxes the first type.iust as sourci:rdiviclttals at thcsepragmatic_stratcgics of a more explicit and accuratcconccptionof the pragmatics their own l^-'---^-^ r .g(-ll uvgilL) ^-^^^l- \Jr.piicates pragmaticsEuctureof that 'rery.Indexesrvere characterized that is affix.stl_ox .emanof-p.. if nonto not impossible. oDvrously cxtclrt the oD.in fact.rc. functional urode.on the analogy of diplomatic nonreCognitionin foreign policy.functional2potential of utterances.speech..tunctionall dimensions..Whilc languagc a Purc rcfercntialrnereferential spe.-fo.^ri^vuJurY4Llvrt ^-J crru ^C vr ^. of cottrsc.ation.ll-.e. wh€re a careful sortingout of kinclsof pragmaticeffectsultimately just cannot rely on the metapragnratic testimonyof native participants.ni ! qo g !sr a. some other vs.rclativclycreativcformal fcatures.-.) made pointwas olP"'. They form a pragmatic metaphor on the more "physical" speaket estii.c: of thqlharccl undcrstanding no. of matic reality for hi. to foruml-furrctional. Shifters. sqtlatlurl:{r ^-^ !l-..ntsin qrccqlihlti. howcver.lects _o_t has semanticlexical items which accuratelyrefer to the indexed variables.. it's 'her greatbig belly'?""Iagait. studied Irtfo. . ininformattts in item with suchcffectsthat had occurred discourse.y are referential. as many linguists. of for Upon request rcpctition a lexical i.rhinh ipqorihe eertein sneeclr events.iunctionaliy! a pfagmatic act. together rvith all of the indcxical nlOCLAnUe$ Ot meanlng .undifterentiated of speech .For lexical ingly arbitrarychunksof referential"realitv" becomes made up of semanticoitemsare abbreviations semanticcomplexes f.. no?" "No. in the semantico' rvouldconsistof elementary referential mode alone. subtleties which the and quotation. nominal adjectives size. particularly sociallysalient routines u'hich are primarily linguistic eventsbehaviorally.g. . Sorequesting repetition iia-muqbal [whichI think by is hugeand repulsive. particularly BloomfieJd (r93) and lexicaliterns-the elements Chafemore recently(e. we find reported speech. Theseeftects entirelypho' rvhich in participating pairs (or n-tuples) most consonants nological. Tire crosscultural investigation of these nrctapragmaticslifters is a very urgent desideratum and important anthropological Lexibal ltents itr General are and problemof small elephants the like. AS complementary evcntsthat cquate rncaningsof above.-k"orit'|(super-dirninutive).and vice versa.^^! ^l .the parai' iexample. "unmarkcd" variabiygavea lexicailynonnaiform-the pragmaticaiiy 'herbelly of a form. the messages Pur' ror usec. ttrg JPsccrr svulll ul vylrleu. tnat rt I maKe tllg fUnCtlt)llilll t - iJ - f -^rl---l -----1r l€sulL uucxPst. dub.fahrnomnliaf . -g(')aix elaborated digm -k"uaic' -k'uaic (diminutive) (quasi-diminutive). end the inflections of rv. of by phonologicalrulesregardless their positionin lexical alternate in items.p'1'' events. metasemantic for ss te. languagesincorporatelexical items which in certain con' r .o*irdl flems t i i i i i i i l .Sil' verstein r97-z and refs.l'cu.the equivalents English I am arvare (of such phrases ashe said(to him).1 their dcscrip' adumJ:rated fonns an uttcrancc fraction. have how him.True lexical inexplicable the basisof semantico'grammatical on or quality of specialization extensionor items have that unpredictable multiple senses their referentialfunctionsi which makes them rvhat in l scribe the participants. andsoforth.referential primesof somesort. ."pp.Th. Additionall.entence. that meansgreatbig one. ..r.i I nnalvsiscan ncvcr In othcr worcls.' .metascmantic have discussccl I forrus of languagcarc thc basis for scgmcntal. example. "But you just said'-muqbal'didn't you. I nere N a wnole range or qeYlces rcPurulrguPsssu Poftedly events. and s.from exact quotation through indirect quotation through pseudoof reference. But.or referentialprimes in grammaticalconstructions (Wcinreich 1966. equations-form a kind of irreducibleset that enter into metasemantic of of "idioms" or "basic irregularities.{ LU\su ) ) they are. Illat ls.i' r serv^ wlrlvrr .one getsi'td-muq'al.----r-questionof the pragmaticcontent of lexical items.hich de. ihat iire coding of seenr' Bui ii is preciseiy ihe ievei of pragmatics ai clear. . for example. the expressing first only constructions . They actually Jecclr cvent of rvhich thcy fonn an nttcranccfraction: clvistcn. MICHAEL SILVERSTEIN i Shifters. there).theseitems fit into thc schemal/we prcscut. I have alreacly tion above (see Reference and "Performative lSpeech..traditional scmantico-gr:tmr:tntical hope to specify meaningsfor lexical items finer than the grammatical 51 ."l'lrcy constittttca lncssagcabout tlrc spccchas thcy arc functionl of the mccliunr. "W'ell.creative rvhich are most inrportanf to ethnographic (or perfonnativc) in<lcxcs ccrtain ongoing ftrrrctionsl of description.her belly']. ii(augmentative).t 1t. In English."Notice that the last qucstion in' the equation.. r8-r9 /.lnd Cultur dI D esctiption above). itanruq'al. . -qbaix(superaugmentative). he asked him).l by Framed suchverbs. Obviopsly.-areo. ---^---^-r^. f-. ---r:---^^^L T'he-merenrnqmatic content of certain lexical items brings up the -'-'.paraphrase.uest an interlinguistic being consonantism beyond markerof rulesfor augmentative pragmatic manipulation.nonprogrcssive [V] you [X]."the existence n'hich is really theory. where the verb V is inflectcd for narne thc socially constituted (punctual) tense-aspect." .r! r f--^ rl-^----^L ^-. . Linguistic C ate gories. : i at to A certainamount of reference pragmatics the levelof speech of language rvhich in functionr) is accomplished every events(purposive of by quotationframingverbs. t r r t.^strucuons rerer to.since thcy incliviclualize lrapircning.r97o) haveseen. horv cloyou say is itantuq*al['It's large. set the entire. . naulg...L:^L ^ r^1. he told (if ) to him.It is remarkable manylanguages heordered to rvhichserve name fervof these. so forth. the way]'. descriptive I cannot explorehere.scmantico-refcrcntial grammaticalanalysis.ryreted.A lexical item thus appears overt form with trvo or moresets for for the of consonants.the ideal language and their ruleS of hierarChicalcom' referring grammaticalcategories bination.-. (seeFunctional atid enough 1g7o). t'irattcntr catt'Dcjustifiabiy lts havelinked this property to the possibilityof the traditionalsemantico' and granrnaticalanalysisin terms of rnetasemantics.Pgfbap.I uscciior Purc sclri:rlliic rutotic. rather than someother collection. actual discourse such mode. are not.in fact occur. the pragmaticstructuresof speech "surface" material in distinct func' into the useof the sameapparent on And we can study the universalconstraints this rich tional modes.n allotvs. the cultural functionl of spccch colrcs nature. rvhy theselexical items occur remainsentirely at all.As I have mentioned. as I havc strcssccl i::oclcs that link specchto the wider systemof sociallife.. of analyzedby a proccclure ostensive For the rvhole pragthe tontexi of speech. out to bc. Further. The pragmaticaspect otlrerlinguisticmodesto be categoricaily \{ 5z .rnn1mir6_. The investiga' of the uniqueness a real symbolic tion hcre lias claimed for language signS.rnly includes a being only one reference at the level Of speechacts. metersof the speech then.thcre are explicit eommunicational lexical items rvhich are shifters referringto such functionsl in overtly for But iireseiabeisare not necessary ceriain events. to take naive native participant testimony. ---rr^t--rr-^r'lulll l)illlglrllllB. JfLqLVlJ.s-the-rnos't-+ignif. as Schneider. in socioligy termsof a pragmaticgrammar of For the'investigation the latter must proceedrvith all the difficulties and comparativc that areat orrccdcscriptive hypothcses of iuterpretativc above PP. as interpretation.vrvrvb ^-tl"n. ^ L r v d^s.2 (anclproblematically)ovcrlaps wlrich partially basedon indexicalmeanin$. rather than someother semanticcornbinations.as rve have seen. )rLtLBULnLLt rJllte$v[vu.ecl. rvhich is to accomplishsome kind of froni its goal-directed rvork.cant and functionl.w l ^ -^ 1 u d arrrrr. siruciure of ihesevocabuetirnoscieniific The so-caiic<i to be expioreri.have such indexicalmodes of mcaning as Pre' of and createthe very categories society rvhich form the para' suppose event.". general.. matic problem of why these lexical abbreviations form a euitural domain.a[ililriit'iirc the probabty realmodelfor the restof culture. of system socialized structfor the meaning CulturalMeaning constructto explain the mcaningfulness is Languaga the systernatic and bchavior. have never ceased portant.with a anothersociety perspective. ir5. anythingmore than an ethnosociology mctabelraviorai rvith a tme funcfionall.\-c5.give us no cultural insight.Ancl the interestingrcsult is to see the rvaysin rvhich linguisticmeansto constituteand maintain use socielies specifically ccrtain socialcategoriei. again "semantically" ripped from essentially reference.all but a part of this of a pragmatic and in functione is not susceptible. Pragmatic Structureand Culttnal Function The linkage bctrvecn tlrc pragmatic grammar subsuming the tradi' tional sort anclthc rcst of "ctllttlrc" is through the tu'o typesof function of spccch. uni919]1 of spccch accrueto speechbchavior.ig68: called folk taxonomiesof nominal lexical items. much . abbrcviations.Wc hitvc sccn tlrat i3oll.3of rvhich is structure . . and chapter8 in this volume). the cultgral social functionsl to bc by functionl is the rvholemeaningstructuredescribed the specchacts grammar.l}us any of rFiU_qliqttodes meaningfulness thcscdistinct enoughto conrprise has tintion of language to be iirclusive tire and elai:oratcci.for everylexi: structure of implicit referentialcategories pragmaticresidue-an indexicalcomponentmotiva' .when thc term is a conbehavior. comparative give insighi stricily linguisticfocus.l. . and Good' Formal Analogues.. from thc point of vicrv of a functional lary items turns linguistics.nlnoinol nercnnnlivp the nrnqmnfic b-::::-j-.one societymerging some of those given by keeping thcm distinct.MICHAEL S^. It is unreasonable. (Certain kinds of lexical content in the discourse-r'eference by mode have been characterized linguists as ad hoc "selectional" of restrictionson thc cooccurrence lexicalitems') namesin kinship terms or personal lexicalitcms as so-called So such It by be characterized a "semantic" analysis.in particular.'stcm speecli part of culturc-in fact. solsee sehneider1965.- is of i1. a restatcmentof the fact that these semantico-referential ratltcr than others. thc otlrcr ltand.rvhiChrepresent* :' matical systems of recurrences behavior. to that makcstl:em lexicaliten'rs the pragrnaticcon:ponetrt imit iJ the pragmatic functionssthat make them anthropologically pointing out among others.Frcquently.ic{.On the onc hancl. s'|ru v*]ee' " . indexicai rnodcs. 4r4r. But thesespeechelements. speech recognizcti On rccogniz.to consciousness accurate as rules of semantico-gramtestimony by native participants. is any society can hardly begin with. have found the distinct. rc"rch School of PacificStudics. "1'hc of and ihe Pragmatics Meaning.being another token of the type. then obviously other cultural media must be rnoreakin to ihe combinediconic and inthat of In then.-^.anclculturc is pragrnati ore SlmkeWelIBef Using(L'envoi) "semanlike We mustbe carcful how rveuseterms "sign.. can similarly depend upon metapragmaticusesof speechitself observauPon sensitive Othenviseit depends in only very limited areas. a congeries iconic'indexicai of of sJstems meaningfulness behavior.oflanguagc. about pragmatic meaning.Iror plrticularly trscfuldisctrssion points tlrp Schoolof American Research lectures. I am indebted to PhiliP raiscd in the Bock.r6rrraLrs usJurllrLrvrr -----^L:^ l^^^-:^!i^- vt ^l of horv thc social categories groupsof peopleare constitutedin a crisscrossing.-!:^^ -^f. Mry oi lvleaning Prag.ItPLLU|L A5 a lllas5lvg. Scptenr' like to thank Carol ber r8.-r:..---lr:-l-- UrUltrPry Pri. rvecan conclude dexicalmocles meaningfulncss.refashions lecturesgiven during r974 since the conference: "Pragmatic Functional Analogucs in univerJity of'Nerv Mexico.narLwcd in focus.. by for that of language." Univcrsity of Chicago. \\/e need invoke "symbolism" for a certain modality of speech of alone.and Anna Wierzbicka."s lltllJL l.""symbol. and Ncrn:rn McQ':own. ambiguous. For comnents on thc draft ch:rptcrs. Usageof the same terms by others should be similarly scrutinized for actual referentiai content..* MICHAEL SILVERSTEIN Shifters... tion and comparativeillumination of functionall. Linguistic Categoies. of som-e that. regularitiesof pragmaticform and functionz will and integrationof such meaningsysultimately define the orderliness tems. 54 . pragmatic-force of scientific argumentation.1 JLlllatrlLIUlr'lululL!ltr(ll t.^!:^. The grlley proofs berrefitcd from a by carcful reading of thc minuscript graciouslycomrnunicated Rodney Huddleston." "functionr"andothcrlcxical to itcrnsrcfcrring entitics ticr" "meaning." University of Chicago. I of serniotic This ott ncccssitatccl.-inrr can on for tbe operringscctionsof a hrger work in progrcss the anthropology.. |ames Talvitie." in in theory. speech is If language unique in having a true symbolicmode.lies its sole power -as chapter.7L-. rvhich may differ considerablyin terms of the underlying theory.. --.. and Cultural D escription' NOTE at a r.a trL +l'a Lrre solccriterionof judgnrentof the argumcnthere that culture is. We must not be carriedawayby the rhetorical -that is.natics .-. aiding my attcmpts at clarification. a cuLLuTClL SY$L. and see "cultural meaning" of behavioris so limited. N{ay 8.and confusing set of pragmaticmeaningsof many kinds of behavior.-. Anthony Forge. for usiug subscripts ccrtniutcrnrs. gencral.1 udlLrtll ^^. exceptfor speech.Milton Singer. This study replaccs longeroneof the sametitle discussed thc Schoolof Amcri' "Meaning in Cultural Anthropology.1a 'i.rurplc.But for the socialanthropologist. Carol Feldman. becn completed-undei the iess-than-ideal reader's indulgence of my bibliograpbicl'lxity..frequently contradictory. "Metascmenticsand MctapragLlrnguag-c. wherein.I rvould cspccially Fcldn:an. !n addition to the particioants at of scminar. cx.-1 s-^--:LL:-^----:--^ .. conthis natural eommunicationtradietorilyenough. with the of of but exception a smail part of ianguage.. ttlrlLtl\rrrl ^C vr .^^ \rJ(l5v . rvhichis constituted its inilexical mpde." ior nrati-cs.7. nnd-R. Ir. lvlaishalt Sahlins. Australian Natioual Univcrsity.-Implicatious Coguitivc llcscarch.. If there can be such apparentvagueness one might be tempted to seein actual behaviorthe oniy level of then in integration. Roger Keesing. incoqporatingmaterial f-rom four This wori<. David Schneider.of orderliness.lnrch z5. example.alas.2 speechacts and eventsfor the indexicalmode to be understood.Pat! Fricdrich.. rvhich :-!^-J^-l llllLttLlLll ^^-^f.thc vast rcsiclue languagcis culturc." That rvork was a clraft Researchi. culture. havctricd to bc consistent usagc this chapter...The 6na1draft has and I beg the conditions of ficldrvorl<. as for the linguist. ..ix d I z 7 )i - r.\./ - i -f$ .t. F: * b E \ 7 X l \.i u ) v (h t* \1 J zl q . H F-J .* \.z F+ -G v') a \4. ) \) \ :i--ii X l-l H t F H 7 r \ L-J 1 H \r' K Frd l .I L-J tn o ar v \/ q) H U J i F . z cn -i a rJi F-|{ } z z b Fr{ F-t!i bErd .n r.