Silverstein 1976

8/4/2019 Silverstein 1976

1/24

Ft * : i ; _ fJ: * - rF

2Shifters, inguisticCategories,andCulturalDescriptionrM I C F I A E L S I L \ / E R S T E I N

Unirersityof Chicaglo

For Romanakobson

INTRODUCTION.FIhis chapterwill iry to developconsequencesf the statement hat

speechs mcaningfulsocialbchavior. n itsclf, this statcrnent s onc ofthoseset nhrascs f pidgin science hat are used to cnsureminimaltrade elationsn the contactcommunitvof linguistsand socialanthro'pologists. t givesus no anai,vtic r descriptive orver. Vhat i rvish odo here s demonstratehat rve do, in fact, alreadyhave a full, subtle"language"with rvhich o describe he elaboratemeaningstructures fspeech ehavior. t is a languagc hat spcaks f the "function" of signs,their modesof signification,distinguishing rorn an'Iong he typesofsign unctionsshiftersor indexes.['hc mearring f tlris functionalsignmode alwavs nvolvcssome aspcctof t hc context in rvhich the signoccrlrs. n making thc nattrreof this involvcrnentclcarcr, I hopc toclcmoustratchat this "1>ragurlrtic"ulll,sis of sllccchbchavior-irr tlrc

1 1


2/24

tradition extenclingrorn Peirce o Jakobson-allows s to describe hereal linkage of language o culture,and perhaps he most importantaspectof "the "melrniigl'-of speech.

At one level, anguage as ong served nthropologists s a kind ofcxcnrplar or drc. raturcof things cultural. t scetns o display hese"cultural" propcrticsu,ith clarity in fhc tlngilllc rncclitrtu f articulatcphorreticspccch. hns, and at anothcr cvcl , could the analytic cssonsof linguisticsbc trattsfcrrccl rralogicallyo othcrsocialbehavior, ivinga kind of structuralizcd nthropy irtrrcof tlrcirkrrrts4cclgcf a lingrristiccode,or grann'rar.'I'he specch vcut takcs placc rvith t'hc participantsin givenpositions, r loci, and overa certainspanof time. Fhe rolesofspeaker nd hearer may be taken by difierent individualsduring thecourseof such an event. ,{any other characteristics f such speecheventsmust also be takcn into consideration, mong hem the othersociologicalspects f the individualsn the rolesof speaker nclhearer,which are frequently salient n defining the event, he prior speechcvpnic i r i f nnw\ t ' l rp sccfrrrnl or lc inecin conrrnrrniett ion f l rnf invnr inhlv- . 1 ) , . - - - - . - . _ - - - - _ - Jaccornpaniespokcn anguirgc,hc clistinctionbctq,ccn olcs of hearcrand audience,nd so orth.A description f the specch vcnt must mini ,rnally ake nto account hese unclamental efining ariables.

Speech vents odefincd, roreover, re cooccurrcnt vith eventsbaseclou clistiuctsigrralingmcclia,ancl thc.sc ogcthcr nrakc up largc-schlccultural rontincs. Dcscril>tivcly,hc sinrplcst spccchevcnts s,oulcl bethose which thcurselvcscorrstitrtccl thc cu[irc goa)=dircctcclocial bc.havior. t is cloubtful hat suchcventsexist. n our owncnlturc, rcadinga scholarlypaper can come close o being a speech vent pure andsimple, the purpose of which is expressible n terms of informativediscoursemongsocialcaiegories f scholars. he possibility f distinctforrnsof syrnboiism irat canbe nvoivcd n tireseevcuts s not at issue.! gra_dqaligg_h_eren!,v_it-h he purposivenature of the speechevent ina systeur.of ocialaction. l'hc rnorc enrbccldcd pecch vcnts are those

- L r ^ L - , - - - r - t - , , ^ L r - - - ^ I ^ - i . - - - ^ , - r f - - - - i ^ - r - - - l - - - - - ^ ^ - - r ^ - - i L - - 1 -wrucl arg Part uI lrul:u ralEs-ssarcgulfural crrLErPrrSsS5 guurPrsx rlluarslclgding.speech, song,dance,dress,etc., u,here he meaning of thespeech ehavior n the speech vents s usually ntegrnlly inked to the

r37


3/24

t + . ,. t

MIC}IAEL SIT.VERSTEINpresencef these_ot-!-g-ignaling gd_i.a.natytically, he problemofFing to giue he meanings f signalsn sucha situations verycomplex.

Shifters,LinguisticCategoiw, and Cultural Descriptiongrressives.punctuai aspect"esa PuIe eferential ateSoryontributesIo propositilnsdescribingvents s continuousr ongoing{w!er-e hey"rroot necessarilyo) vs.momentaneousr conrplete.n English, hisis illustratedby The boy was umpingvs.The boy iumped,with seg'mentation e(-ed) -inglv:0 (-ed)]v, e* ed rcpresentcdy uas'

Any forrn of grarnrnatical nalysisn this referentialmode, fromGrcco-Romano transformational"gcncrativc,lcfincs hc signs, lrcCategories,nd their rules of combination nd arrangernentn thisfashion. ll of ouranalfllg g-c-hP.lgugl,,d fglrye"1--dSssrip-tiv9"Igech&qfJho-. ho"i-f,*.iio'"a r"i t" f"t"ntial sisns-whichcontribute o rgfergdialj::'1::-:-::::E:@eq11r rg!-eleqltg!-cpeegb.,ete$s-.We shall seebelorv that certaina*ong tire referential catcgoriescauscdifficultics ivith this rvhoieap-proach.) When we speakof linguistic categories,we ,meancategorieslf ttrir referentialkind; hence one of the principal reasonssocial func-tions of speechhavenot been built into our analyses f language: hbsignmodes f nlgstof u,h3!-ggl-9-ljl lbg rirsjp.rityf sB.gs-c}-u-ct.rtiarc rro.t cfcrcntial.

Semanticsnd Linguistic Analysis'T' ! ,a cl,,r '1,,nf d.a "mcnninr" nf I irrgrrist ie sisns is usuallv CallgdI rrv JLuu)/ vr urv -------Jsemantics. t is clear fronr the rvay I havc charactcrizcd traditional

, linguistic invcstigntion, owcvcr, that thc nctttrl obicct of sttrdy of/ sernantics asbccu the refcrcntial rncariiri$Sf UttCrerreeS,f ttre wordsf and categoriesand alrangements n terms of which we can analyzeI them.For hepurposesf thischaptcr,he ern $'ill be restrictedn

this vay, o hatsemanticss the shrdy f purc efercntial caning,amhnrlierl in .rnnncitionc coded hv snecch- T'his oroocrtv of spccch,. . . r . - r - - . ' . - - t - E _ - - . . 1abstract eferencer description, anbe called ts semanticity.From an operational oint of vieiv,all grammatical nalysis f thekaditional sort depends n this semanticity. o be able to analyzelinguistic categories, e must be able to give evidenceabout thescmantic elations f partsof scrrtctrccs.e must ultirnatelybe ableto say,n otherwords, vhetheror not a certainstretchof languagessemantically quivalenf vithin the grammar,o someother shetchofianguage. y


4/24

I ^ - - . . ^ - - : - + - . * . ^ f ^ rL ^ - ^ D . . ! ^ l ^ ^ ^ - ' - -r4rrbu46w rrr Lvrrrrov! v!'!rJ, rruL ErurJur6 is itsglf a reigrgnijal speechevent.Metasenuntics

Glossi'g specch e'ents take language tself, in particurar thesemantics .;i anguage, s the referen! or objectof description.Theseeventsuse anguageo describehe sernantics f language, nd are husmetasemantic referential speech events.Such metasemanticspeecheventsare the basisof all grammaticalanalysis nd description,andhenceof all semantic escription swell. Theyare the basicactivityofthe traditional linguistics,which may be secnas the discovcryof theglosses f a language, f the classof all possiblemetasemantic peechevenis in iire ianguage.Lconard Bioonifreid's rqil) "fundarnentalpostulate" s essentially ne about the semantic nd formal equivalenceof ccrtain sentenceshat underlie utterances ithin a speechcommu-nity. similarly, suchsemanticequivalence i the level of phrases ndsentences as become he stock-in-trade f the transformational ram-marian, rvho postulatcs common "nnderlying"structure or seman-tically cctuivalent surfacc"svntacticarrangcments.But it is intercsting that mqt:s_ema$.j--c_spccc.hveg!g*41g.*a_:il,tpta!.occurreq-cc-u everl'daypeech, a culturally-lcarned peech unction.In our society,parentsarc constantlyglossing vords or crrildrenbyusing gramnratical ly onrplcxbut scmautically quivalent expressions,exprcssionshat makc hc snrnccontribution o refcrcrrcc f uttcranccsas the gl osscd tcms.Thc mctascmanticproperty of la'g.age, the property that maliessemanticanalysis andhencesemantically ased rammar) possible,sthe one that is uniqueto language, nd upon which rests he speechifunction of pure reference.t is rvhat makes anguageunique among Iall the cultural codes or social communication.Anihropologistshave Iiong anaiyzed iiuai, n"ryth, r other media oi sociaibehavioras makingsyrnbolicstatemcnts bout categories f socialstructurc.But of wl'ratmedium othcr than referentialspeech an we say liat the behavioraloia-c ^^r ' Jaonr iLa l l ' ^ -^^- ; - - . ^ f rL^ ^ . ' - . . ^ ! l -^ -^^ l - . ^^ . rn - - - -J vr !rr9 Jr6rtJ Lt tsrrtJtrrvcJf I rrglg ar g n( )naturally occurring metamythic" events n the sameway thai therenrc mctalinguistic oucs, nor "rnctlritualistic" cvcrrtsrvith thc samcfrrrrctiou:rlossibilitics,t is u othcr frructiorrnlropcrtics f hngulgc,r5

rvhicir can be exploitecl in speechevents, thatlanguage nd many oiher cultural media ies.- ' i o

. r - tme commonalty cf

ShnultaneottsotvecrentictlFwrctiottsspeech verts trrat do not haverefercntiarunctionsaccomprishsociallyonstitutcdnds omparableo those f nonspeechuents. o,example,t is frequentryhroughspeecrrhat rvc-.et socialoundarieson an nteraction,ather han-hrougrrhe physicareparationf par-ticipants. o characterizeucrrbehaviorabitractly,*. noi. that wecanchoosehe anguagen which vespeako o, o pr..tui" compre-hcnsionn the partof sonrencrivicruarsresent;\,e auusea languageall unelerstand,ut witil i:roiioiiiiiial-,iarkcrsirai makc jre intenClc


5/24

t , ) . : l' . I 1 I ' I , I M ICHAEL SILVERSTEIN

, comp-4rabilityof unctionof $g sl$a-ling111tgi?,eforeanystructuralliscription is iustifiable

Shif ers,LinguisticCategories, ndCultural Descriptionsquarely n the manipulability f this modeby the mctalinguisticproperty. ut referencctself s iustone,pcrhapsctualll' minoronc,,n ong he "performative"r "speech ct" functions f spceclt.W"-dgnot uscbasrcal]ycic9-crrp!i,vql'uiggbtip qt5ugtgrc9 acc,o-mplish-ther"t,rmiu$c,rfi-cJgqlsj'tlescr\ttionrirp12c11,so bconcof thosc Qa]s,ncttrafoverlapin folnal strrtcturef sigrlalsvitltothcr unctional nds-.

Abb evatoryExtensiosIn certain ascs,f coursc,irccxtcnsionf ciescripiivcciercniiaian-guageo otherperformativesess p*f?,t:,Onesuch lass f eventssconversationalbbreviationssedas eqirelts. statemento anotherpersonn a roOmwith anopenwindorv uch S I'rn Cold" r "It's coldin here"couldead o acliscussionntil the nterlocutors askedo closethewindorv nddoes o.Or, ntorenaturallyor sophistiCatedersonsnoursocietl', ecanabbrcviaic,hc statcmcntiself cadingo theaccom'nlishmentf theaction.Severalubtypesf staternentsequire uchexpericncenddeductionbased n fui! forms f inguistic equences.ut such ecminglycscrip'tive utterances sedas abbreviatoryequesteventsare very circum'scribed nd constitute levelof delicacy f manipulatoryignalinghighlysusceptibleo failure. n general,he pointholds hat d$9.4ptiv0referencesorre rnonglhqjpeeci urdlgns,not thg.basis$".allg!bg$

PragmaticMeaningsof Linguistic SignsThe linguislic. sign*t-tbatunderlie utterances,-then, PPgSLin-qp-e-g,.hthat servesmany sociaiiyconsiituied funciioru. Tite ineanirrgs f suchsigns,-as-they-Crnetgefrom grammaticalanalysis, re traditionally de-

scribedn termsof their contribution o referringpropositional peech,^t -^^^^^:L-. ^ ---! :^l J^^^-:*! .1^- T' l .o -.nl ' la-' cal fnr , rc . rrl ren tue ann-v l ugug)J lLy a Pd r Lrdr uvJerrPLrvrr . r lr v H^vvrerrsiderheactual roacierscs f anguagcs o dcscribelt-elql4-I.-f,:g3ling."q! gopgtilrgqlllugqisticigns, rrly Srtof rr'Jr-ighqsemnnticn our nar'rgyg{!-e_r!g!9]9g'.We mustbeginwith thc factsof purposive tter'ancesn sp&chevcnts,nd solateircir scveralunctions.he inguistic. : --. L^.,^ ,1.1.$;-^$Li- ' ]" n,-o.- i -rc . ,r l r inh r ln-anrl nn l l rei r nnntrihrr-J r 5 r r J r r c Y v u r J l r a r v L N l r r s o w l r r r vq r r r r . 6otion o the severalindsof functional pcechventsvecan solate.We canseen thisway hatwhilesomeinguistic igns ave emantic

Ref renca and "P erformative"Speeclttust ike rcference,owever,theruses:f tP::ill.,-gt!"i3rutlryiil!1coi.rstitutedwork" aon.; ifr.y accomplishi "perfo'rm" omethingirvhether.-a-clievingrivacy, s n the-examplebove,-orgllg-thl.socia'ltatu!qitbe partiqlp..?tts,r Tqlbg-a c-q$man{gljgggol9,lg.a" lq"r.tlrirgl ot _.e".ting pennancntllqngcr1social tatu-s,orexample,marrying two people or knighting someone'ffnucfr .""rri analysish"s U"e' focusedon this performativeaspecto,ftrngu^g.use,n wttat havehere ermed g,-ryosive"-: fult:-t1jP9.eg.u.itr.-FoUorving pon the workof Auiiin, sorne-haveistinguishedbeiween'performative"aspectsf speechnd the "semantic"ontent-:-^-^--^1-. ^:-^..--^-:L^.1 ^" i l ic I'arn\ Ohlrers- nart iCU-(tne tgnn no f trEuruuJly l-rluulrr)Lrruvu 4r 'r 'o 'rv'v,t"rty tt . phitosofherSearle t969),havedistinguishedspeech cts"representedy utterances sdistinct rom their propositional.content.

1Ii is somervliatnfortunate,y the way, hat "speechact" asbeen"srd.s a term for the evelof puqposiveunctionalspeech vents,

inceI will beusingt in another enseelow')- All these iproaches,n otherwords, tart vitha basicaiiy emanticn'refetential rniuistic nnalpis {rom whjch ttre linguistie eategodes,he.gramrnaticalrrangements,tc.,emergen thc traditionalway'_fllgJ*iack onto this analysis descriptron f horv hqsg emantics'refereudaldtggqtigr,..n b.

'ioi.d" performatively^his approach ntirelymissestf," loirt that referentiaispeech vents-at_e,fortiori, speech vents,endowed ith the same ind of purposefulnesssotherspeech vents.Referene s -o e ki+d-q-f iqeu-ilfi9-Pgif-9'g 9-e3mglg-nngsy'Th e lin';"1;;r.rt.iriilt tital emergerom anali,sis-ofpeechi: s. semanjilieferentialmodes renot necessarilyhesame s lrose nat emergererlrotherunctionalmodes,nclt isprcsumptuottso spcak f arrangcmentsof abasicallyropositionalature eiug usecl"n othcrways.The physical ignals f clistinctunctionalroclcsof speechray be. . 11 -r:r-^ ^:-^^ rt-o., aaam *n ha qrnarimnnsed in the same fOnnalparual ly al lKtrr Jl r lLs Luv)| Jevur !v uw -' \1l /v"" ' r----.-; _- . , ! - 1!_-_-rutterrnaas,ut themeanings,n this arger ense t funcuonal urlular-..ningr,'"re ciifierent,"r,d h.n.. wehavedistinctsigns. he priorityof refeiencen establishinginguisticcategoriesnd shucture estsr B 19


6/24

MICHAtrL : . ^ . r ' i i s ' [ lNmeanings,contributing to reference, thershave nonsenantic mean'ings,contributing to otherdistinct speech unctions. n general,we cancall the stndy of thc rneanings f linguistic signs elative o their com-nrunicative functious pragruttics,and thcse r:rorc broadly conce ivedmeanngs a e th en pragmatic meanings.Sqryaghigmg-gjtf&-is, -ol ggursgin one sensea special orm of pragmatic mcaning, \ ._.999-ql.sjpi!gg:tiori oF-sgns tliat contributcs to pure referential function. This fitseiitiiy iuittt ttte discovery hat gramrnatical analysisof the traditionalsort s equivalent o discoveringhe class f all possiblemetalinguistic rglossingefercntial peech vents. ,l ,',"i ' ...,,.r-.t t '

Prtgnatic Categc,riesGeneral pragmaticmcanittgof sigrrsand more particular semanticmeaning are argcly superimposean th9_fel$l-lignals of speech.nfact, thcrc'is a class f signscallc&'ieJeylfiiaUndexeslto c characterizedbclol, in rvhich tltc trt'tl troclcs rc lirrkcd n thc setttccatcgorics, cg-urcrrtrr l>lcrrrr lsir l ;r l .r lcirrnrl t :rncorrslyrr rf cl tsl tv o rtttct iorrt lt t txlcs,

^ - - , . - . . I ^ - ^ - . ! : . . 1 , . . , , . . ' ^ r I ) , , ^ . . ^ . . . : . . : , ' - ^ * 1 , ' l l ' ^ " ^ n , r l n a n r i n o $ h a S " ' r i l ' nJ l l U l U l U l L ; l f f l . l l , \ r r l V t t r ) t . t ) y ! A . l l l r l r r r l r S v r r l ) l r l l r J v L . r r w 6 \ r r r v r t ( . r . . L r . r r r t !at lcast hvo functiottalntoclcsn thc s:rnrcsohblc sPccch rirction, orcxaurlllcnn li,rrglislr cictic hi.s r t/trtt, vt'cmight gct thc mistakcn dclthat the .superinrpositions always f discreteeferential ategoriesnter-calatcd vith otherrviscunctionaloncs. f spccch onsistcclnly of purercfcrcntial catcgorics rvhich tr:rditiorrnl ingiristic thcory postulitCs)and rcfcrcutial inclexcs,hcn all isolable cgmentsvoulcl ave sernqnticmeanings,aud sorne esidtrtl segnrentsvotrld lrave an additional nr*r'-maticmode. his s alse,s ve hall ..,;;;.';;;.;;;;;l;ilffi-referentialand hencenonsemanticormal features.

It is thus possible o haveentirely distinct analysesf the sameovertspeechmaterial from ditreienlTuniiioriil pgints of yietV:The linguisticsigns hat have various ragmatic neanings re only apparently epre'^ ^ - t ^ - l ^ l r ' l . o "o , , r f ^ ^ n t t ^ f o - ^ ^ ^ 1 . i - nnn l i r r r r n r r c r r l le t c nnec \ - f , / c n r l r rJ g l l L g u 4L t t t w r t r r r o w vrecallVictor Flugo'scouplet, Gal, atnantde a Reine,alla (tour mag-naninre!) Gaiianrmcrtdc 'arine ia Tour iviagnc i'i imcs."nnaiysisin gcncral ceds to this kind of supcrirtrposcdtrttctttral ctcrogeneity,dcpcnclirrg lu hc fuuctiorral roclcof thc pragmaticucartirrgs f uttcr-rurrccs.ncc n,c rcllizc thirt di.stirr,cl-;ru.gr.utietto.Utittp-yi-cl-cnds pon the hypotheses f samenessnd difierenceof segments fun


7/24

". MIC I { AEL SILVERSTEINsentence-bound,ontext-independentypes rom utterance-bound,on-textualized okens in this PuIe senantico'rcfercntial nalysisof lan'guage.Where this propertyof speech ignals s not found, the iradi-tional fonn of gramruatical nalvsis rcaksdorvn.

P opo sitionaI Anallsisusing ihe traditionaigrammaticalapproach, e can analyze nv sen-

tence the signsof rvhich are purely referential, hat is, rvhere okens nmctaiinguisticusagccan bc saici o rcprcsciii ireeiscly lic samc iiider-lying tvpe.we can analyze s distinctsentence lements greatnumberof ti" ttoonr of a language, uchas English table, chair, man (in several"senses")1a reatnumber of verbs, uchas stand, un, eat; and a num-ber of apparentgrammaticalcategories,uch as number' and 'aspect',which I discussed bove. So predicationsof timeless ruths codedbysentencesvith such elcncnts are readily analyzablcas such, e.g.,Uni'corns drink anbrosid. (T'hc verb here is "tenseless"; hat is, doesnotrefer o the prcscntbut to all tintc.)

This examplehas a plural noun.phrase ubiectancla transitivepredi-cate vith verband massobiectnoun, and t codeshe universal roposi'tion that ali unicorns astensc"verb token, how are rve to give the meaning (and henceanalyze) theunderlyingcategorial yPes?qdrly;the form hft is to be segmented s hft]v* Past (: hif]v+Present : walklv * Past walklv Present).Under suchan analysis,wecangloss he stemhit andgive ts "senses" sgramnratically omplex-^r.^J,racpc Tkrf rrrhat nf the nrnmholooiccl sepment Past that rve wishP 4 r 4 l ' u r o c v r . ' - ' * o - - - - - - o - - - - - - - - -lo aitributeo thc scntencendcrlyinglte utterancc? hilc it is pcr'fectlyeasibleo segmentuch category sa resiclualf thc grammati'' cal analysis, s we c:ln see n the proportion ust above, o givc asemantico-referentialeaningn termsof glossings impossible; nd),et here s clearlya contributiono reference ot explicable y gram-inatical rrangement.he g4tqgorygfp-q5-tqns3,U o$gr-wo1$' is-nqt; rcprggcltednttle6rye9l-fu?:qfq::e{er-qr+ti+lqjgrroken-s,rxl.l'rcnceasUcf 6rnantigo-relereniialqalyliS .pqiy-erl,q$o describehis obvious, categoryf lrngurgr. (That this fact hasnot hinderedhe descriptiont ur of languageserely ttestshe kuth that the natives'heories o notalwayseil us what the natives rereallydoing,nor do they preventobviousolutionshat arestrictlv ut of theoreticalounds')

!r'.d.exics!resuq|ositionf Bef renee"l , In order o describehe meaning f this kind of categor,v,ehave o,l .t f I make ertain bservationsbouthe class f tokens f "tense" n utter-t r._.r\ances. 'hese ontributeo propositionsy describinghe time of an'' ,, event;hat s, he whoieproposition akes ome iainrObe verifiablefor a particular ime. In thissenseuchsign okens re eferential.But


8/24

l vl CI - IAEL SILVERSTEINmore specifically,he past tense okens efer to a time t, that is as'sertedly rior to the time t"nat which he utterance oniaiuinghem sspoken.n othern'orcls,cnrporal atcgorics,ndpast ensen particu-lar, comparehe time for rvhicli he proposition f a referential peechevent s asserting omething ith the time of the referentialpeecheventtself.So he referential eaningf anycategorialype tense'towhichwe want to assignhe severalolposing,cfcrctttill iu-dexcs, r shiftcrs,arc what fakobson tqlZ) etlls "c1t1pl-cx_IgJlS,"pcrat'irrg at- he lcvclso-f-cc-rgiq-q!_dcssagcirnuitarrcous-l-y.he segnrentationof scntcnccsn tlic r";r;ti.";.f;a;i"lr--a; r"rai to thc iccoguitionof this semantic esiclue, nanalyzabley the methodsdepending n thgmetalinguistic roperty,but constituting distinctkind of superimposedlinguistic ype that fits tongue-in-groovevith pure semantic ategories.Such categories s tense unite in a single segmentable ign vehicle areferential or quasi-semanticmeaning and an indexical or pragmatic^- ^ 'T'L- -^f--^-*f^I . ' . I . , - ^f ^ "1, l l ro- , l -^a-,{. n- }},avlls. l rr e rerervrrLr4r t9a.u-Y,,Yl-.1. :_rr: r. !vrr_t-lvrug-Yerr-svye-r. ruJ^-"*._.-: :-: -ta-. -:9Y'y___posiqJn-i ir pi'g"i.i19-ia!i-.,Ail languagesncorporate heseduplex signs, eferential ndexes. h"yare pervasivecntcgories,whieh anchor, as it were- the semantico-rcfcrcntial nloclc of signs, hose rvhich rcprcsentpure propositionalcapabiliticsof hngulgc, in thc actull s1>cccltvcnt of rcfcrcncc, >ymaking lrc propositiorrnl cfcrcucc lcpcnclcr:tu tlrc snitable rrclexirrgof thc spccch ituirtiorr.Not ouly is t cusc such a cluplcxcategory, utalso.sfatus-, hich, follorving Whorf. indicates the truth value for thez1

Shifters, tin5i,stic Categories, and CulturalDescription ' ,speakern a refcrcntialeventof the proposition ncodcdby the seman-tico-grammaticalelements;deixis, rvhich indicates the spatio-temporalrclationsof somepresupposedcferent n thc speech vcnt to spcaker,hearer, r othcr referent; nd so forth. A very rrrge art of the Wlrorfianoeuvre 1956), n fact, can now be seenas a first attempt to draw outthe Boasian mplications f how pure referential semantic) categoriesand duplex (referential-indexical) nes combine differently from lan-guage o language o accomplish ultimately isofunctional referentialspeechevents.Q{_ope la,!&Uagg cgomplishes.inu-tt9-J1ng_e_g.y!!hfulg]9;gt"_tSgljql ildgl _(f_o-r-xample,ens.e),.another..accompJishesvith \,1 c9m!-inat!.gn--qfqgrlanlic ategor.ylus eferential ndex (for example,a . r na | r o l^ s , . c \ \X /1 . , ' - t l . : . . , . , . 1 f 1 . . ^ 1 . , , . 1 +1 . ^ +1 , ^ , . - ^ ! : ^ . . I ] ^ - . . . : - ^ l ^ - . , l: _ t__"J r " " t__ l * . - ' ] , . : : . : : , 1 :_ .1 Y v r r v r t r l r r r r J w t r r . t LA L \ r L r r v l r r ev r v L l !d l lL l r l t l r l v t "by iwith which to nrake his clear,and his rvritings avehad thc slcl fate of 'bcing nrisrcprcscntccln thc "poptrlar"anthropologicalitcraturc for agcncratiou,unr'ler he guisc of sonrcvagrrc relativity" takcn literally,rathcr han as hc mctal:horicrrlcliornof the thcn-bcgirrrringfornic agi.

Itu/rrs l [-]s:crA considcration f suchcluplcxsignsbringsup thc rgucstion f horvthc ndcxical rrxlc f suchscgnrcntablclcurcnts f uttcranccss to bcclcscribcd,hat is, o bc givena systcnraticccount n tcrmsof sign ypesanri meauir:gs.We iravesecrr irat tire particuiariy uciexicai spcctof.thc rrrcaningof sucltj]Iiitcrs ir_rvolvcs prysyp.gqsjtiqnq"f*t}-c--"cxis:it9tl9j_l'_oj,jl.cog11Jiyg.fogug=on,;or3g p-qqi6qalqe n the domain o!).variab-lesf tlg^qpgegh ituation. On the onc i:and, the referential cori-tribution of a shifterdepends n the specific alueof one or more of thevariables eing realized;on the other hand, the specificvalue beingrcalizedduring somespecificutterance permits the category o occur asc chif ter nF t lro l cnaniEn onr*J PVWUTW JVr t.We can summarizehese conversepropertiesof implication betweencontextual ariableand indexical token by a general unction we cancalla rule of useor n$ellrn$$ealin We e'.an-ayhat a n:le*o:luse*is_a_gcrlggl 9!f!ra111!q11!r_ci4gs_tf_irctua!hifter tokcns occurring.in the,c.l,1gs*9f_1c,!g.11__q2cc_c.l1gg1[-c1t-s.n this scnsc, hc spccificnlly nclexicalaspcctof a .shiftcr oken can be saicl o rcprcsent omc irrclcxical 'ypc,tlrat s,sourc nclcrlyingcncral ign hl t strnds u thc srmc rclatiop oits tokens-permittinc us to analvze hem as "the same"-as the usual

(Ii

z5


9/24

MIC} IAEL SIL VERST EINsort of general emantico-referentialign. t is clear hat the sensesnwhich i" h"u" sign ypesn thesewo modes requitedifierent,a factnot ahvays asy o grasp,or the onc cleperrclsn rulesof use or definition of tire typc, lrcotlrcrou thc rnctalinguisticpcrationsf glossingspccchvcllts r thccclttivllctrt.

Shif ers,LinguisticC ategor es, nd CulturaI Descrptiotttivecase. ut in both modes f a shifter, he description anProceedonlybydefining ign ypes or occu:ringokens.n thereferentialmode,tfris s "..on plirli.d iiltough traditional eferentially asedinguisticanalysis,hich srvcsshiftcrsrs csicluals,rr tlrc irrclcxicalroclc,t islccornplishc


10/24

M r U l l . a l l ! L . J l L Y l i , l \ J ^ ! l r r

this sense, s Peircenotecl, hcre s exemPlificcllre progrcssivcelation-shipof inclusionof thc thrccsignmoclcs.lcons

I do not deal here cxtensivclv ith iconism n language, ince,nter'esting houghthe subjectbe, it is argely eripl'reralo our concernwiththe culturalcontextualization f language. t the formal eveiof singleunits,however,all languages re seen o containonotnatopoeias,hichduplicate he thing signaled n the physicalmedium of sound.Thus,bziz,to a speaker f English, s an onomatopoeiahat meansnoisethatgounclsike thc sign vchiclc" uscd particularly o describe ees' light,high*pecdsaws utting throughwoocl, nd so forth. It is usuaiiyassim-ilatcclasa lcxical itcru to thc phorrctnic attem of thc langtrage' incernonosyllablesrr Iir-rglish cquirc a volel, it is writtcn out as buzi,prono,i,rccdb.(z(:)] or [baz:].'fhisassimilations frequentlyound ororrouutoltoci:ts,it' irtg t rcrtrrtrkablclricty to thosc n cliffcrcntrrrr'glrilgcs:ri


11/24

MIC} IAEL SILVERSTEIN

From the point of viervof pragmatic nalysis, ehave o recognizesuchnonreferentialndexical ontributions f speech ehavior, egard-lessof the ciominant peech ventoccuning. he$ YaIigus-ndq5lg3l.-clcmcnts f languagco t'tto onstituting istinct--s-pCechygqtq'tgyrrie nuction,rtty:.tirct.tc,qt b,qlnvlQrilIly!:cJ rqlcit-tj,tlly--qYqllquyjt!-- r i -relgrellalsPgggn tl-1ggUif'gq!'of,d f!!gl?ng9!, 9! !e !e!94 q-b-o:s'pure inae=C*t T"rt"*r "f uttiiancei are describable vith rules of use,;"tai:* ;'reTerential-ina.*.r. gut the rules'of-ost do-"oi ip*ify "referent ndependentof thosecreatedby other elements f the utter'ance, for thcsc inclcxes rc not rcfcreniial. The "meaning" of theseindexes s purely pragrnaticand does not intersect vith semantico-referential meaningexemplifiedn s1'rnbols.

N onreferential I ndexei Su.l indcxcs as do r:ot contribute to the refercntialspeecheventisignal he structureof the speecir ontext.Someof the most nterestingJioithese indexcs,certainly or the sociaianthropologist, re those hat'inclex eattrrcsof thc personsc f the spccchcvent.For cxample,sexindexesor somc anguages re fornrallysysternatic ategories r othcrobvious featurcs. In ihc Muskogcan anguagcs f the southeastcrnUniteil Statcs, uchasKoasati Flaas1944), herewasa suffix (or itsctlnnologieal eqr+ivalerrt) jurt appcarcd (rvith charactcristicpJrOnolOg:icnl altcrrr:rtionsn shnpcs) rr tlrc inflcctccl crb fonttsof cvcry ton''quotative uttcrancc spokcnby a socially cmalc incliviclual. rr dircct'quotation,swcmight *peci, hesex f heoriginalpeakers ndex': --! !-. *=.-.---,^ t '! + ia innnrlcrr l +^ epe rhnt the referent ial value Of thel c a r ly P f t i s t r l v q j l l ' lL lJ r l r r P wr r d r r L rv ov v r r r 4 lutteiance,and of the virb especially,s exactiy he same,whether ornot the form has he s'uffix. he suffixmakesnc referentialcontnbution,but rather its presence r absence rovides he categorial nformationabout the sociological exof the speaker. oi oniy 1'firstpersorr" 'ormsof verbs, n utterances eferring to spcaker,but verb forms of all "per-sons,, ake this suffix,and the rcfcrentialcontcntof the speechn bothsuffix-bearingnd suffixlessonns s unaffccted.A more cornplex ases reporterJ;r sapir (1929) or Yana,a languageof California, n which there s one form of aii maior woids in utter-ancesspoken by sociologicalmale to sociological nale,-and anotherform for all otirercombinations.,Theruo ormsare ypically elatedby

3o

Shifters,Linguistic Categories,and Cultutal D escriptionthe opiration of phonologicalchangesn the one form and not in theother. And thesepairs of related fonns can function referentially inexactly he sameway; he only difierencen utterances ontaining hemis in ihe pragmatic uitability or ccrtainclasses f spcakcrand hearcr.'['hcsccsscntiallymorpltological ncl phonological uccluttisnrsof sexindexingmustbe functionallyabslractedrom utterances nd describedby rulesof use, or example, oasati p(9 (x),y,z,V]+s,G6,t,1,...)twill takeup the characterization f the Yana case urther below, in dis-cussingule mechanisms.

^ - ' - ^t - - - - ^ l ^ - ^ - r : - t : - J ^ - - : ^ ^ 1 - ^ J - : " f ^ . . - l i -l lxacuv tfts samg sorf uf, uullftrItrlcrll lal ulut^lLdr lrrvsv ro rvurru rr rcleferencendexes, here speechsignalsnequalitiesof status, ank, agc,sex,and the like. For example,we may take thoseof |avanese,ePortedby Geertz (tq6o) and more lucidly by Uhlenbeck (r97o) and Home(ry67;+B), whereone of the modesof contrast s betrveen vocabu-lary setand certaingrammatical estrictions the varietycalledkrtmc)usecl asicallyby lower-to-higheror high,to-highon these scales,vhileother,"unmarked" vocabularytems and all constructions r3rkr) areuscd n the opposite ases.t is intcrcsting hat most vocabularytemsand virtually all constructions o not have thesealternate orms,1'etthe powerof the alternationwas apparcntly ery great in traditionaliavaneseociety. iereagain, he propositionai onteni oi iire utterancesrvith corresponding rrmr/jckr vocabulary s iust the same,while thedefcrcncehey inclexbetwecnspea-kernd ltcarcr cliffers'The rulcs ofrusc lscd ott tltc parrttttctcrsor clcfCrcncCtrc nlrval,sof t'hc forrns p ( H ( x ) , L ( y ) , . . . ) ,p ( L ( x ) , I { ( y ) , . . . ) n c l oo n .

These deferencendexes requently and especially ntersect with thereferential ndexes alled "first and secondPersonPronouns" n the, . - - - - - - l - : - T ' L ^ : - - l t l . - - - ^ ^ ^ t a ' ^ ^ l , ^stanqard lltelature, glvmg, as lor cxamPls llr lllal alru, rrLrrrrrsJe \vuw^v19Zo),upwards f a scoreof setsof segnrentablepronouns"for useasreferentialpersonal ndex plus pure deferencender combined nto onenrrnaranr . . , - r^^- a^ t oaa* T- *^n, , l ono"ooec / cea Rrnwn qn d Ci lmensry4rvrrL ourr4vv vdre6vr/ . r r r u .4r . Jr9fu), functionally nalogousmarkingof social cferencen pronominalindexess accomplishedby skewingotherwise eferential catcgories f'person'and 'number'. These specialeftects,pragnutic ntetaplrcrs (tobe dealtwith below), are to be distinguishedrom a distinct indexicaln.'nrFccinn nf cnaial .{efercnnc rvith nniorre forme] sisnals-" . ' " - - - - - l - -.\ distinctnonreferentiaiifurcation f lexical tems nto comple-mentaryndexicaletswaswidespreadn Aushalian boriginal peech

l l


12/24

M I C H A E L S I L V E R S T E I Ncommunities.As described y Dixon (ry74 ry72) for Dyirbal, a lan'gtagcof the Cairns Rain Forest n Northern Queensland,here s an"evcrl'day" ct of lexical tcrns,aud a "mothcr-in-larv" et, vhichhad tobe uscdby a speaker nly in the presence f his classificatorynother-in-law or equivalentaffine. n other rvords, he mother-in-law ocabularytotally distinct fronr the everydayone, ndexes he specifiedaffinal rela'tion bctrveen peaker x) and some audience"-not the sociallydefinedaddresseef)-in the spcech ituation.As such, he srvitch n vocabu'lary serves san affinal aboo ndex n the speech ituation,maintainingand creating ociological istance.

It is nteresting hat the grammatical tructuren the traditionalsenseremains xactly he samen thesewo kindsof situations.What changesis the entire set of nongrammaticalexical tems. Moreover,since heratioof everydayo nrother-in-larvocabularys approximately4:r, thestrictly scmanticcontcnt of propositions oded n everyday ocabularyn'ill rcquirc rnoreclaboratcgrammatical onstructions nd many morelcxical tcms o coclc n urotlrcr-inllnv ocabttlary. cnrantic ontentwas^,-, . ' . ' r . , r l l . r c/r i /^r. , lv rr,r l rrr.r.r l i rr:rnl t t : t l lnr l rrrrrtr i r ' : r l i rrrt l i rrr i l rcr t l rr lglossirrg ossibilitics>ackancl ortlt, unclcr hc santcgrantlltar, anbccxploitccl, swas lortcby Dixon, to iustifysemantic escription. ut tirepfinciptc of this bcirrg a purc inclcxicaldcvicc, nclcpcr:dcntof tiresemantico-refercntialoutent,makes he general orm o f the rule of usesp( rx.] Af (x,y') ,y,2,{LrJ,. .) , whereAf (x,y') expresseshe relation'shipbctwcenspcakcr nd "auclicnce" nd Lr(:Lt) reprcsentshe dis-junet set of lexieal tenrs-

So therc is a distinction betrveenlefe-{glijial_ilde.. s,. uch ,as epse,.and nonreferential nes,such- s he dfsjulct.sgts"*qf-fo-rmsjo-.codQ.-s-o:.ciological elations of pasolae in-the-.speech.ituation. Some phe-nomena,however,appear to bc interestingborderline cases etweenshiftersand pure inciexcs.n Javanese, here he basic ciistinctionoivocabularynto krrrnc ancl lrkr scts s a pure deferenccndex, here sanothcr,lcss crvasive istinctionbctwcena sct of lcxical onns (krcure. r \ t ^ t - - - , . - - - l - - - - l ^ - - - - l ! ^ - l L - - - - - - ^ - C - - ^ - rrygyei) snowrng ccrerelrcc ur sPcaKsr LU sulll.c sxalLsu lltllrlarr rsrtrlslr|..This sct of forms, coded n stemshaving o do with partsof the body,pcrsonalactivitics,arrcl o forth, occttrs n both krrmr nrrd rkr stylcs.It constitutcs rr nclcpcrtclcrrtxisof lcxicalcltoice, ut onewhich nter-sccts vith thc sr:cakcr-ltcarcr cfcrctrccwhcn the hcarcr is also thc

Shifters,LinguisticCategories,andCulturalDescription .lfocusedefercnt (that is , sp(x,y,y,...)).Sincc the lexicalalternantshave he samebasicpropositional alle in krcmc iggyelor plain styles,understrict semanticanalysis e should rvant to dcscribc his speaker-referentdeference witch as a pure indexicalone.But especiallyn thecase f speaking bout the addressee,here he references perforceofan indexicalsort, the two systems rcmc : r3cko, rcmo lgel : fplain]seenro merge.The actual facts of any given instanceprobably rest ulti.matelyon the distinctionbetween ndexicallypresupposednd indexicallycreated eferent anotheraxis of classification .

I ndexical P esuppositionIn all cases f indexes,we have conshucted ndexicalsign typesbyrulesof use.These rules of use state the rela tionship f mutually im-pliedexistence f signvehicle oken and certa inaspects f tire contextof cliscourse.or all of the shifterswe cxamined n the sectionon refer-cntial inclcxcs, vc coulcl urthcmrorc say that thc asp,ect f _tlt-c*lp_p,.clt

{llqtiqrl tlil! -!t-!g_lyp!trt;od"tyl thc sign tokclr.'l'hat is, ,r.Si-tgl-:11'..f!,"+tokcrq.iq nintqrprcgblc rcf_crcntially.rvithout-thcknowlcdgc9_{so1.n9-aspect f the.silu:rtion.A plrticularly clcar cascof such prcsul>positions thc opcration ofdeictics,n English, or example, his and tlrat in the singular. Wl'rcnwc usea token of the full noun phrase this table ot that fable (rvithstrcsscclull vowel n both words), pointing out therebysorneparticu-lar object the referent of the token of table must be identifiable, must"exist" cognitively, or the deictic tself to be interpretable, he properuseof the token of the deicticpresupposeshe physicalexistenie of inactu-I 6lecihich-aa; propeity 9-igga*ea-9-Uy abla,or"if iii:sup

poscs priori6gment of referentialdGiourse*trict, has specifiedsuch arciereni.Oiherwise he useof the rieictic token is inappropriate; t isuninterpretable nclconfusing. There s a relatednounphrase ncoqpo-rlting reduccd-vowcl deictic" form, with rcduccdstrcssand distincti n ln ' r a l ia - aa l la * . . ^ ^ l f ^ - ^ ^ - J ^ : ^ ! : ^ - l ^ C- : ! ^ - ^ c ^ - ^ - ^ ^y ar r v r r r , uJ eu tv l r r v t t uc r u l lu ug l t r r lLg lg t t r I g t t L ;g , ll u p lgs up-positionof referentbeing nvolved,and no prior discourse ecessary.)If rvcuse hc wrongcleictic or the rcfercnt, or risc he dcictic rvith thetu'rongcxical noun (onc that cloes ot properly clcscribc rr obiect incorrcctpositiou for thc dcictic), again coufusiou csults,or corrcction

i,Lr;t,-+, n- ,; .r. .

\2

I1

t 3 ^ ; . /4I -, t t i , t t. L .i ); . rvi :. ,. . . ' - 'l \ t - . t . -r i -r . : ,1' :). ,i , 1., .t.". . ,.., ru l,{r


13/24

--/

MICI {AEL SIL VERST EINby he nterlocutor:Oh, youmeanhat other ablel"or "This snot atable,t's a chair!"The useof the deictic, hen, s maximallypresupposing,n that thecontextual onditions re requiredn someappropriateonfigurationfor proper ndexical eferencevitha deictic oken. 'h3eel"eld-P1!!9Ig91otl t!S-lififj-e-r-qs sirniJ-cr.omc spcct f tlrecqtrtcxt pcllcdsut-in'.tfi ig,9f pie is fi*e.l and pres pp 94 iu-pldgl lo-r-fte19felcd4'qgn--t iu"tior tq be m-_ade.nd in th is sense,eferencetself s oncemoreseen o be an act of creation, f Changinghe contextualasis orfurtherspeecir vents.Recaii hai one of ihe ways tr w'irichilie pre-supposition f the deictic canbe satisfieds to havereferred o theentity n question.

Indexical Creativity

iilo o-flS.- reinfoiieC-Thej-eiceivedo95r]1e!ti9"l q!1petkgla!-d

But tlrere is a general qeative or petformafive aspect o the use ofpure nclcxical okcnsof ccrtainkincls,which cdn be saidnot so mucl'tio cl',"nge tire context, as to r:qakc xplicit and overtstqUg-$lgof i]19gngQltl-glcnJs.By thc vcry usc of arr i'clcxical token,,"hi;h d"ti*; its indexical value from the rules of use setting up theindexical ypes, ve have brought nto sharpcognitive eiief part of thecontextof -speech.In somecases,he occurrence f the speech ignal st[p onl]r ovcrt sign Of t[e colrtcxtlal p4rameter, crifiable, crhaps, yOther,cooccurrirtg cfiavi


14/24

locativcdeictics,euse second crsonPronominalsfirstpersonronominals

Jlll lrcri, IJIILBUISLLU cttugiv' l rldt v''v v*'v*' -' - -' ' I

to descrlp-tion,.td on thc otherhand,they have nottreferentialvalues'that structurc the tactors of tlre speechsituation' Ifgj-$ljtSled'Sai;So:.f-f?Orffii*tU.*'cpri'iti'ui't yoclc fq1ec9l1'rvl1i!-c-titg'!1991{;;;o!Gjqr,_"f tf* i.iii-,node o-f-'rarkingqualig r ineeltlali$6By analysis f the ,urf".. t"itgoii"t oi ryceclt'we nright scgmcnt ircpronominals ssemantico.grarimaticalisiduals,and then attempt toipecify l're ragmaticmeaning f the orms'But inasmuch s rvomodesareunitedhere n onesurfaceategory,t would akeconsiderably oreanalysiso seehat two clistinctuies'of seare nvolved' ascd n twodist inct funct ionsof thefornrs.Ata funct iona l leve l , then, thereartwo ndexes hichhappeno berepresentedy the-sameurfacendexi'..i*eoty, on"" ,hjfitr,one ot'This unctional1iO:y::-lf:distinctnessf the two modesmustalways e ne sHrflngPorrrl ur Lrrsisolation f the pragmatic ategoriesn language'and must rest ulti-,*,.ty onase'siiive-analysisf he speech-eventunctionof utterances'a taskwhich s essentiallyocial nthropological'

ldefdrencendexesf sPeaker'

Referential, resupposingndexes ontribute o propositional escrip'tion n discourse,ut onliby rkingasastarting oint hevalue f some;;;*l u"rinft., as or il,c corirp'tatio'of tinre cfercncen tense"r"g;ri.t. Nonrcicrcntiai rcsupposiugnclcxcscflcct n spcech

heexistcncef sonre pecific aloei-ofco'textual ariables,uchas theil;;;; Jtnlif ,,1,1i.n.. n motrrer-i'-lawexical tcms.Referential,Lr*tiu"rypcrfornrativcnclexesoDtributeo propositionalescription:- -!j^-.-...-..+,'.I i,r.r' lrlitiort fttnction as th c sigrul fo r th e existenceofln ( l l scot r l s ( ; r d t l r r rr lsp.e.h.eucnt eaturcs, s rr tlrc cltoiccof 1:ronornitlals,vlticlrassignlrce'uerrtotes of speaker, earer,aucliencc, nd referent o certaiu indi'1uiau"t, in the maximd} case. FinallR nonreferentiat rel+tively pe|formativeindexessemeasindepenrJentspeechsignalsestabl ishingth{prrn*","tt of the interaction themselves, s in deferenceorms' whicf{ine f fec tes tab ] i s l rover t l yt l i esoc ia l rela t ionso f the ind iv idua ]s in thdroles of speakcraDclhlarer, spcakcrand auclience, r speakerandreferent.

F unctional Aggrgation in IndexicalFormsTheTlraiexamplecitedabovcinwlrichsocialdeferenceindexesare

united with prono4irylr.-eJerqnliel ldgle! po11! up.the^fact that eve!-illSlcxicr! .rrcguii.t tttiiitt pilgtluiigt'liy---ryulqifurrctional'On tlre oncir*f,,fr" proiominals rauc,liscouist-referentialalues hat contribute

36

PresuPP0stngN l I C H A E L S I L V E R S T E I N

creativePerformative)

referential

nonreferential

l\ef are ntial tnalogv t D scourscTlresituationisevennroreirrtercstirrgirrt l rccaseofpragrlaticmeta.

phor, .onn.ctecl with pronourinalshifters rcfcrring to thc hearer(rp(*,r,r,. . .)), a pl lenomcnonound n many anguagcs'.Insteadfdlistinet orms inclexing hc quality of speaker'hearerocial clations,thc "sccortdpcrsolt" ixonuutt incorporatc skcrvingof otlrcrrviscsc-mantic categoriesseeBeuveniste95o; 1956)'To analyzc,the.scata'we haveto iistinguish tws kinds of

'exteniion or analogy of rejerentialcategoriesn discourse.The so'calledpronouns frequently seem o incolporate categoriesof'person'an.l 'nu'mber',so thai we iend to speakol'lt* and secondi.rron singularand plural" for prononrinal ornrs. ,Third pcrson"pro-r)ourls anbc true sn5stitutes, upinric devicesirat obvirrtc he necdfnr renplition of a f,Jl, lexicallycomplex eferringnoun phrase (thus'rv r r w l / v r r r . v ^Theman satdown.He . . ' ) . In ihe referentialmode, hey act as negative--r--- ^- L^^,^- .-^-* inr 'nnnlc i . cnpech events-|ndexesrnneverrnoexlngsPeaKtrluI l I9i1lgIyal l rvrre..wBut ,'firstancl econd Jrrtn" fornrs re efcrentialnclexes,he contri-bution o cliscourseeferencef which comes boutby functionallydistinctulcsof usclsuch ontrs lvc tlo arraPltoric:ropcrtics'


15/24

"t

M I C H A E L S I L V E R S T E I NWhen we usea "third person" pronoun, he singularor plural num-

ber is derived by the rules of anaphora rom the semantic 'number'specification f the noun phraset replaces.n this puresemanticmode,plural 'number' signalsmore-than-onef rvhatever ntity is referred oby the lexicalstemsof the noun in question.Bnt somcoccttrrencesfplural numbcr catcgorydcrivc scconclarilynly irt thc lcvcl of discourscreferencc y a kind of sumrningup of inrliviclual crrranticallystablishedenti t ies ihus,Engl ish,/aclc ndl i l lwentup ahi l l .They. . . ). I t is atthis second evel of refercnce hat the first and secondpersonpro-nominal inriexes et iheir apparent singuiar"and "piurai" iorms.ForEnglish we'+'I' + 'I'; the form rve s an nclex hat refers o anclpresup-poses speaker nd at leastone other ndividual n the referential peechevent, p(x,y,x&w,we,8,t,1,... ). Similarly, econd erson lural efersto and indexes earerand at least one otherpersona, or example,Rus-sian sp(x,y,y&v,vy,Gn,t,l,...).Oniy by the summationof the indi-vidual referents n discourse. vhich are referentially ndexedby suchpionominais,doci theii tingulii' or 'plnral'rCfCrentialvalirC meige.With tiris analysisof the distinctionbctwccn anaphoricancl uon-anaphoric rouonrinal ndcxcs "pcrsou"),auclof scmlnticll ly birsccl(cardinal "uumbcr") vs. cliscoursc$asedsummccl "nuurbcr") rcfcr-encc to cluantity, t is possiblc o scc he nrture of thc skcrvingsn so-callccl ironorific ccortd crson1)rorrouus."

PragmaticMetaphors f Cramnntical ategoriesFor some anguages, ussian or cxample, r French, wc can indexthe samekind of speaker-hearereferencehat is indicatedeisewhereby vocabularysrvitch (see Friedrich 1966;Ervin-Tripp r97r), whenaddressing singleaddressee,y using he "secondpersonplural" (vy, ,

. \ - r l ^ - r L - - r L ^ a a ^ : - - - - l - - r , / r - - a - - \ ' T - ^ ! L ^ - - - - ^ - l ^ ! L ^ ^ ^ - ^ - ! : ^ l. yousJ ralngr Lrlal r Lu s Surgural \L/, Lu), l l l ul l rs l \Y(, lus, LrrE rsurarrl ru r/cardinal umbercategory n its summed iscoursese,either efers o Ipluraladdresseesr referso a single ddressee,oncomitantlyndexing r,i the deferencef speakero hearer. n some anguages,or example'Italian, he deferentialecond ersonndexuseswhat s otherwisehe

r r . r . l , r , t - - t t ^ - t - t ' - \ r r - - ^ - - - ! - - l l ^ - - t ^ - - ^ - L : - ^ J - ^ l ^ - ^ - t : ^ ltnrro slngular (rcmtnlnc/ Pronomrnal rorm rur s:ulll,1?}ltrq.rErjEr-sllua-t-iq4.lilg and-gocial ndeaiSrg.n other words, hird singular eminine

Shifters, inguistic ategories,ndCulturalDescriptionanaphoric,or nonpersonal ronoun, either replaces third singularfemininesemanticnoun or referS o and indexes singularaddresscervhile ndexing deference f speaker o hearer.some anguages, uch asGermanand Worora (Northirn Kirnberley,WesternAustralia), srvitchboth person r- 3) andnnmber rg.- pl.) to exPrcslhi sdefcrence,In those anguagcs-with 'clual'numbcr catcgory,morc high)y rnarkcdthan plural', d.l"t.n.* is indicatcdalong he axisof tlttrnbcrby srvitchto duil-number adclresseendex. This occurs, or example, n Yokutsof southcentralCalifornia (Nervrran1944)and Nyangurfrata f north'ern west Australia (o'Grady tg6+).(curiousiv, in both these ian-guages,he rleferencemust bc accordcd o a gcncalogically pccificd'l.r*n", mother-in-larv nd equivalent n the first, mother'sbrother andequivalent n the second.)What unitesall of theseseemingly sofunctionalusagess the uni'directionality, in everycase,of switch fron "secondpersonPlonoun"r^ .'+},.i-i l " f.n- av-anlcrl ttcinorrlrr rrrrnhertt to ttnltrraltt (o r ttdualtt).!v l r r r lu r lav 1ar v i l t , v v : : v s " l : : b : l : ' ' : - ' : ' - : : :: rl - -- \ !'or both concomitantly.T'hcrc is a kincl of mctlrphor bascd on tltecliscoursc-rcfcrcntialalucof tlrc catcgorics,t would sccm. tr--tltconccasc, t is shift out of tlrc rcalur of scconclPcrsolluclclrcss,vhcrc anindiviclual s inclcxecln thc spcech ituation lcc'to-face, o thc rcalmof ariaphora, vhercan alreacly strrblishcclntity is un


16/24

MICHAEL SIL VERST EiNpendence n semanticcatcgorics,r evcn refcrentialones,as he defin-ing segmentation f speechcquiringanalysis.

Functiornl and F ormdl Analo uesIrr cachof thcsccascs, hlvc bcen claiminga kinclof functional corn-p:rrallilify of thc 1>rrrrrllclornratious.Rulcs of usc arc nonns bctwccnthc contcxtualvariablcs ndsomc onnal fcatureof thc message.fo be'functiondlly dnalogous, hen, indexes must be describedby rules of

use that specify analogous ontextsunder analogous peech events.(Obviously, he utterance ractions n different anguagesan hardly bea- ^ aa la j ln l . a a l i l . a \ \ I / l - - - ; "1^ . . ^ " eaa ' - ln L^ - ^ ^ ^ . - ' . 1 ;o l . i - - . - ^ ln ,wr rvvtrr rv uv quwurrrrJrrurbgous socially constituted tasls, we can speak of cross-linguistic om-parability.So the claim of functionalanalogy rom a heuristicpoint ofvicrv mrkcs hypothcscsabout thc socialparameters f s1>eechvcnts.Iirorn a thcorcticalpoirrtof viclv t clcpcnds pon thc rcsults f social:tutlrrollol ogy or a friunovorkof clcscription f socill cirtcgorics,or thcstnrcturalsignifioruccof tirc pattcnr of iuclcxical pcech omls iu thegivcu socicty.Urrivcrsals f functional significatiou hus arc thc trcccs-sarymeans or creatinga rcal science f language ragmatics-that s,for cstablishing he ctlu:ography f speech-just as witliin the semanticmodc,univcrsalhy1>othcscsboutphoncticsanci cfcrcncc rc thc ncccs.saryempiriealeorrelaesof scnraniieo-grammaiiCaiuaiysis.

On the other hand, ormallyanalogousndexicals ependupon cross-systemiclpecification of equiya]ence f meslqge ractionq, n the carsg fthe pragmatic metaphors llustratedabove, here s formal comparabilityin the expression f deferencehrough the pronominal categories hem-selves,which can be isolated n the referential mode n everyone of thelanguagesn question. Note horv the formal analysisn one mode de--enrlc nn icnfrrnnl innrl i trr in nlhere re rrr4e nrenl innprl ohmrp \ T$p lon-

, gu , , g eguages ll use formally similar categorialsubstitutions,definable n thescmartico-rcfcrcntiirl rodc, o indcx dcfcrcntialacldrcss.rom a formalDointof vicr v. thcu, wc sccksolnewav of charactcrizing s structurallvanllogous hc rncssrrgcractions crvinga.s nclcxcs. ut auy such struc-tural spccifica,tioulcllcrtcls pon nllysis of fonns, vhich tsclf rcstsoufindingsonresofirnctior:al asisor comparison. ltimately, hen, cross-linguistic onlal analogyand fuuctional analogy re, ikc phoneticand4o

-., fters, inguistic ategoies, ndCulturalD esuiptiont !

thateferential rameworks n the semanticmode, inked ashypothcsesserve o justify a particularanalysis.F ormal Distinctions Signaling Functional O nes

The parallcl onnal-functional nalogy f all thc pragmaticmctaphorsfor spcakcrJrcarcrlefcrcnccsau cxccptional asc.Ordirlarily,givcnsonrcsocial arametersonstitutcd u nonspcech rounds nd ndcxed n somclanguage, ve might want to ask rvhetheror not these are indexed insomeother anguagend, f so,ho!v.The sex ndexes f several mericanIndian anguages entionedabove resomewhat iverseunctionally, utaii tbrmaiiy overiap n ai:parcntpironoiogicai iranges t tire encisofwords, n particularof inflectedverbs. he Thai pronominal systcm orfirstand seconclcrsons-inclcpcnclcntvordshat indcx in complexwaysthc various ncqualitics rcsultiug in dcfcrencc-incluc lcsanrong thcgrourrclsf rlcfcrcnccistinction f sociologicnlcx .So hc scvcrirl mcri-can rrcliun ystcnls ccur o isol:r tc lrc socill vnrinblcof scx, ndcxing trvith a unique ornralset of changcs. T'hc ethnographic ccorcl shb-lishcs he grcrt salicncc f thc distiuction, t lcast n thc societics pcak-ing Muskogean anguagcs,but its cultural position has not bcenestablished.) he Thai (and othcr Southeast sian) systcms ssirnilatcthc social arilblc of scx o tltc functionalcharactcrizatiorr f incqualitynlore generaily,making a pointed ethnographic tatcrnenton equiva-lencesof stratification.t is alwaysnecessary,s this exampledemon-strates, o take the functional perspectiven tsms ol rules of use to beable o see n what way suchpragnratictems fit into systematic ocio-logicalpatterns, f which linguistic onesare a maior part.

Fornul Characterizationof IndexesFrom the formal point of vierv, he signvehicles hat function in anindcxical roclc recxtrcmclyvariccl. s wc notccl vhcrrdealirrgwitl-r hc

. t - : . ' ^ ^ ' ' C' ' ' . ^ r i ^ ' . ^ r r ^ . - ' .^ . ' ^ . ' ' ' i l ^ 1 .^ f ^ ^ ' . ^ . r : ^ ^ - ^ f ^ . ^ '' l i ^ l[ J t l v . r ! ) f t ] r l U l I ( r I l U t l a l r r E t l . I S V , J ! Y r L L l r vl J ! l I l < l r r l l W _ l ! l W l U r r ! r . l l 6 r r { r l r r r r d fcarr tsclfscrvc san nclcx.Wc havcsccn ocabulary, ffixcs, honologicalrnlcs, rncl yucrctistic.rouoruirutl atcgoricscrviug nclcxicalturctioirsrvithinuttcrances.ndcxical dcviccs uchas anaphoricpronoul'ts,mell-tionedabove,vhich naintaindiscoursecfercncen certainsurfrce truc.

4r


17/24

I \T IC I IAEL SILVBRSTEINtural configurations,are formally defined only over at least two nounphrases, requently found in distinct semantico-referentialentences.Intonation pattems and stress hiftsare urther kinds of features hat are -characteristicallyndexes, hough I havenot dealt rvith them directlybyexample.And syntacticconstructions, uch as the distinctionbctrveen"active" and "passive" orms of utterances, r thc English "1>etforma'tive" construction [V] 7ou [X], are virtually ahvays ragmaticunits,formally isolableon functional grounds. n other words, he rangeofpossible ormal elements hat can serveas speechndexes,according oour h'aditional semantico-grammatical nderstanding, nciudes the en-tire range of languageJeveindexing, discourse-sequenceevel, sentencelevel, word and affix level, and phonologicalalternations that can becharacterizedby rules, including intonation and other nonsegmentalgradient devices.The description of all these occurring pragrnatic formal featuresofspeech resents vastproblem for our traditional deasof what agrammar(G) is. From the point of viervof a semantico-referentialrammar, twould appear hat everypragmatic ndex is a kind of "shuctura! id-igA,llwhere the constructions annot be analyzed ccording o semantico.rcfcrcntial cornbinatory egularities, 'his rvoulcl nakcby far the grcatcrbulk of a clcscription f spccch nto a list of sucir"icliotns."Tirc unde-sirabilityof suchan alternatives manifest, iven he kindsof rcgularitiesof pragmatic unction excmplifiecl bove.

So someattempt to patch up haditional grammarcannotserveas aprincipled descriptionof the pragmatics f languagc-a fact that nostcontemporaryinguistic heorists avcnot yet aPPrcciatccl.or tlte char-acterizationof pragmatics s dependent n semantico-referentialnaly'sis-the "performative" approach riiscusseci bove-becomes ioiaiiyhopeless ncewe consider hat only a portion of the indexicals n speecbare shifters,with connection to the semanticallybasedgrammer n the

I I - 1 . , , - c - ^ t ^ , - - - - . r L - - ^ - - : - J ^ - ^ f ! L ^ : . . J ^ . ' - . ^ - o . i ' . c l f " n a -spgecn runcuol l (J r lclcrglrutr. I l l t r lculalrlLtsl vl LIls luusaeD 4r v ,uJL ruuvtionallyndependentf referencessuch.The question,hen,becomes ne of how to represent peech s heapparently ontinuousormal medium t is, while at the same imepreservinghe pragmaticdistinctionamong(r ) the pure referentialr r . - - - ! : ^ - - - - - r ^ f - ^ - - : - - f - ^ - . . . L : ^ L . . . i . - n f i a a . a f o t a o -tuncuon or sellrautrc asPegL uI lrrsarrruE,, llvur wrlrerr Jwur4rruw-rw^wae.r

tial systemserive heir analyzability, nd on whichone acetof refer-entialspeechcts ests; z) the shifter unction, r indexical-referential42

Slifters,Linguistic Categories,ndCultural Descriptionaspect f meaning,onstitutecly rulcsof uscat t]rc cvclof discoursc,.Lr"n.", and (3i thepurenrlexicalunctions,ening ither unctionalmodesndependent f reference,or w'hichno'rcferential ulesof useareconstituted.n (z) w-e avea point of overlap ehveen r) andl3);hence thcir cluplcxr"t.,r..B't a formaldescriptivcpragmaticgi;io*or" must ntegratcernantics,alidasa spccializ.ecl:rode,nto ninclusivcystctn.

PR AG M ATIC S A ND C U LTU R AL D ESC R IPT IO NI have analytically separatedunctional modes of speechbehavior'

furthershowing he modes f meaning o constitutcd n linguistic signs'I want now to characterize riefly the integration of these nodes in asystematic ragmatics f languagi, ndicatinghow this purports o be a*or. ,a"guatJ descriptiveparadigm or speechanti othcr communica'tive behavior.This will lead naturaily to a considerationof the rela'iionship of such pragmatic description to broader ethnographic or"cultural" description.

Futtctionol Alternativesn ltlrles of UseRulesof use or both shiftcrsanclother, uonreferentialndcxesshorv

thc existeotial cl4tioqshipof contextualvariablcs o somgovcrt utter-ance raction. i,e tJ.s oi ur. iot s1'tifiets pecify he refcrent (z) aswell, consonant vith the fact that such catcgorics ontributC_o rcfcr'ential spcechevcnts. t rvoulcl ccm that formall,v, he third _variablc(correspondlngo z) in nonreferentialulesof useshouldbe the func- i' r t , ! - r ^- r:L- --.1-:^L : . Loi-- inrlevprl fnr evcmnlC ;bonally dgtermmec Klng gr Ellrlty wururr rr uvrrr6 'rvv'rvst isome ociologicalomain, uch skinship, ex, ank; ome patial on- 'figuration,,i.h ", the proxemic"onfigurationf personsn ihe speech,e.J.eni;nd so orih. Intther words, ot only eferentialpeech vents,Uur"it other ypesaswellhave ulesof use hat specifyhe functionaldomain u., *hi.h the particularragmaticmodeof meanings beingrealized.onot onlyclo vespccifyules f use or sp(x,y,z',-' ) wherez. is .,referent,"bui also p(x,y,2i,...) n'here r s a variable f func'r i^-^ -^-o ---^-^11., JoG.al h' , lhe toncre of sneech events.L lu l l J l t l v l s b l r r v r qu / r s v u^ r v u ' - " t r - - - - f - - -- -under u.h " generalization,he "rulesof use"wespecify

or shifters,the ,duplex"catigories, ustbe furtheranalyzednto whatare ndeed

IiII

47


18/24

MICHAEL SrL V! , . :E rN

twoelementary-functiona-l-mgdqs'nesuch.functiqnal'yode' iefer'."iirf,';tft-tioti"ui" z' specihed; nother functionai mode. s non'-"referential, ith somevariable t- o be specified,uchaszt "tegpgla]Darameter," n "privacy'boundai1t,"nd so forth' In shifters'an ele'Ir;"a* ,tr"r.nti"t fu'ction ancla disti'ct elementaryndexicalunc';;;; ;;i;"t i' thc sarne urfacepeechategory'ut if rveexaminethemcarefully, vecanseehat thc reierent 'is frequently f_a ifierentJo,orin rom'ihe ndexed r.Deictics, swesaw,PresuPPosehereferenti*t pr"uiousdiscourse,or exarnple,swell as the sgeaker t hearerlocation,and refer o the locusof thepresupposedeferent elative othatof sPeakerr'freirer'

.-rT1 '" ' i I " " ' '. :

Shifters, Linguistic Categories,dttd I'ulturdL D escrPuonalreadydiscussed bove.we can speak of the "referential functionz"

'of actual signs n the sense f the contribution they make to achievinga valid inst-ancef function, of describing. imilarly, we can speakofthe ,.sociallyseriating function2" of actual signs n the senseof the .contribution they maie to the function, of def ing hierarchies vithinsocialcategories. pcech s multifunctionaJ, n-,tlre sense-.!!1!-it-can"simul-tanco-uslybeusedtogo*1$tq!ccl ist inctkindsofevents.Speechisnrultifunctionrl, in 1|'g s.nrJ ttrat aBg-arent-elernentrf- surface form.,.iu^uu incorporate_ryeaningsof. .u.rrt*_4iqthct in-dexical_tyBes.hisa;""6i n6tft *i iuditionai notions of,grammatical function, an in'stanceof function3,alwaysultimately specifiedn terms of the contri'bution of elements o the semantico-referential ystem'Theanalysisofspeeclractsisthusagenerai izationoftheanalysisofscnuutico-rcfcrcntillsystcrns, roviclirrg or mcaning clatio-ns nd lan'guagcuscsclistinct rom thoseof thc traclitioDally nalyzcdsort' In a,loaihcroatical nalogy, t is thc more gcneralstructttreof rvhich the pre-viouslyexplored yPe'tums out to bc a specialcasc'More particularly'the speechacts foi semantico-referential igns unctionl exclusively nreferentiaispeech venis-abbreviaiory xiensions n


19/24

M I C I I A E L S I L V E R S T E I Nanceof formal integration in terms of phrase, vord, and affix structure,espeCiallyor referentialsegments,he shiftersand semanticelements'Tiis would seem o indicati that the traditionalgrammatical ules (G)must be incorporated nto pragmatics G'), that is, that at least some.speechacts consist of rules showingthe contextual dependence f tra-,ditional grammatical ules or generating urface orms.

This is further confirmedby hvo pragmatic examples have alreadymentioned.One is the srvitchof semantico-referentialangnage,whichern seweasan index. {ere the wholeset of rulesof the traditionalsort:^ ^ r. . - ^L:^- ^C . i -' t ro. 'o.-- rl .a ornmmol inol nnmnaienna' nf snenker-l ) 4 l u l rwLrvt l v^-uruv^hearer,anci audience.so obviouslyour pragmaticdescriptionshouldshow the selection of rules GL, not just an infinite set of messages{0L,},asa function of contextual ariables. he second ases the Yanamdle vs. female indexing. Flere phonological ules,which shorv theregularities f shape n pairsof forms for the maiority of rvords n the 'language,characterize he context'sensitive ndexing, rather than anyaffixation or other segrnentalmaterial. We u,ould want to characterizethe indexinghere as the depc ndence f the implementationof certainphonological ules upon the variablcs f spcaker-hcarcrociological ex.Any phonologicrl nclcxcs f this sort,suchns tlrosc utrkirrggcogmplri-r r , r , . t 1 - - - . - - l , - - - - , - l - ^ ^ - -m I : - - ! - . - t ^ . . - . ' - . r . . . . - . . ^ ! 1 . , , . : . ' - : 1 . ' - l ' ,ca l Q ld lect o f tn c S l )c i lKcr , u f c t : t 55- i t u l i l a t ( . ( r l ' ( r r vL)r , r r rLrrL rr ! r r r r r r r . r r r /trcatcci.

So a grammarof spcech ctsG' consists f rulesof use hat map thevaiiablci of speechevents nto rulesgeneratingutterances.Mlth tliiacharacterization, vc have moved frorn thc hcuristic clcvice f direCtiyrelatingcontextualvariables o "surfacc" uttcrancc ractions-detailing,irr othcr worcls, hc dcfinitiou of an irrdcx-to constrtrcting p-ragmatlcr..,rh::: !!.^t r' .:,rlrirre t!ra rn!::finrr !r{rlr-r-' .tl!r nr-'rt:trcttt strrtctrrfal -COtf-J /J LLr r l t r t c r l v ^ l r r u r r r J L r r v . " . . . ' : - r :tinuityof surfaccornrand ts rnultifunctionalr,zature. or any givenutteranceraction, heremaybe many.sPeechetswhichmotivatetsraracpnnp i. o cneech pvent ihrt is nnv trfterance fraction mav bg a' - _ - - r _ - _ - - - - , - " J ' rconstituentof pragmatic tructuresn severalmodes, r a constituent nsomemode and not a constituent n others.Reference,n particular,the functionl which has heretoforemotivatedall our deasabout utter'anceconstituenclr motivatesonly one such Pragmaticstructure, at the^n'. nf ..,lrinh arc eccenlirllv rrrleq of rrse se,lectinp G- The shifter s reouir edistinct unctional2ulesof G', though hey function, lso n referen"tial events.46

Shifters, Linguistic Cate goies, and Cultutal D escr ptiottMultifunctionality and P agtndticSfiategy

There s a structure o a pragmaticglammarso constitttted,he de'tails of which are now ohly partially clear.speechacts are ordered, orexample,a reflection of pragmatic markedness elatiorx among func-tionai, meaningsof utterance fractions.For exanrPle, herc is a hier-archical relation among all the kinds of sociologicalvadables eadingto cleferencenclexes,vhich can be formally dcscribedby intrinsic ordcr'ing of the speechacts characterizing heir usc (see Ervin'Tripp t97tI d- - t - . r - r - - - ^ r - - . : - - ! : ^- \ A - l f . . - ! L 6 - 1 L - -o ^ . n * r rL e . j l n a c c rp l n -IOf l lgw'cnarf gl laraclgl lzi tLI9lr / | .clllu lur l rrw^r Lrrvrw q'v rrrq^' \vs'tionsof speech-eventunction,of utteranceractions,o hat featuresof utterancesontributenormally o some unctional,mode, essap-propriateiy,houghpossibly,o others. ragmaticmetaPhors entioned.bou. "t.-. casen point,basicallyemanticategoricseingcxtended,as t were,illingout "holes" n the pragmatic tructure.The muitifunctionaiity f apparent tterances eanshat there s a ,kindsf pragmaticndeterminacyf utterancesakenout of context, nd fthe posiiUitltyor strategic scs f languagen thc contextof speechIcvens. Qqt-qlegntgLLwg- rqg onlv*!ta qJ*c-qaurrg-e --ft-c-cLcen-tialI"'oig tl-Slgjglltbirt&lltg-llul-llilg-ot l1!!,"-tr.LgSr"..tiricll.'!r:S-'lli't Icrccl>tionsor siri rcrs,;;Jcir rifiiy-"cou "iiii".." /rcicitioriri.!\r, 'i{ \csp,c-ciallyri cgn qxgWhcre-riclcxciac re.lafvelycrc,ljyg or pcrforma--t*e, tk{g g-!-b g-pr4 mat =qrglgt=ggnu y !1,,u-ttcr4ncesYLf 1atlrnanipqlqtdfu d-e !9d!vidual"s,n .an inJerastiqn.his leads o suchphenomena s pia{matic contr diclion;o1 "dr$lg!gd-'. .be!a$-o1s,wlriehplayupon 1ry9 _I_J!_o_r-e9-mnrunicatiYQedia signSling ontra'.{iet-oryrdexic;ilmsanings!o !!ry-g,c_c!v-e,rt_{tc cot19q51911tq$-$g-e-q'r r ' - r - - t - : - l - I - - - - - ^ ^ - - - - . - ^ ^ : . - - : . - - l ^ . , ^ . . . ' i l l ' ; - l l r a c o m aor uPgn cont_raqlctury lllgllly PlssuPPv)rtl5 .r_f.{!l::\_Y: rrrr'r'rnedium.Similarly,here s residual enanticity,he semantico'Iefelen-tial meaningwhicha speaker an claimafter the fact for potentiailyL: -L I - . - -^ -- - ! : ^^ l l - , ^ t ^ -^^A . - - ^^L 1 '1 ' , , c * ra nharanter i c f i n


20/24

' i l

I

I \ , I IC I IAEL SILVERSTEiNmdtic nonindexicdlity,on the analogyof diplomatic nonreCognitionnforeign policy, allorvs he hearer to respond o speechas though it con' ,lstituteda semantico-referentialvenf all the while understanding om-pletely the distinct function2 of the indexeswhich overlap n surfaceform.pragmatic ontradictionand imputed ndexicality re alike n depend-ing on the unavoidably igh,functional2potentialof utterances. esid:*ual semanticity and diplomatic .Fonindgxical_ityre alike in .dependingon the universalmetasemantlcqwaqen,e,s-sf-p,gop!e, hereby he s.eman-tico-referential unctionl of spgechs t!9 9ffi9ia11yr ove*ly recogniieilone, the one o which actorsmay reireat with full socialapproval. Thispointwasmade everalimcs ySapir,)."!!_g-[ry-P!!WsLc*itratcgics,anipulatiollP"'.1gT+g$q911ij[8l+Vll-!r-.ehlu.,.9r''d.c:pcrid iifi:tre-Fit analysis,r.rPg-Lrhqlharcclundcrstanding f no.rmg.-fo.2inclcxicai iern.nts n qrccqlihlti, O6viriiiSly,omc ndivicltiili arc bctterat thcsepragmatic_stratcgicsltan othcrs,iust as sourc :rdiviclttalstavea moreexplicitand accuratc onccption f the pragmatics f their ownl ^ - ' - - -^ -^ r . . , ^ - ,1^ . . , , I ' n l l rnr drn l . r rn ' c l , i l l c r rn rn ln lnr ll : l l ! 6L l i l 5 ,u . L wvrrr rwr

MetopragnruticsIf strategy equirespurposivemanipulationof pragmatic ules, hen itmay also equirean overt conceptualizat ionf speecheventsand con-stitueni speech cts.Suchcharacterfzatiqnf the pSqgpatiq tructureof -languages metapragna_f1;5mueh as the eharaeterjzation f semaltico.grammatical tructure s metasenrantics.he distinctionbetrveenhese

two realms s vast,howcver.Whilc languagc s a Purc rcfercntial ne-dium sewes s ts own metalanguagen metasemanticeferential spe.echevents, here can be no metapragmaticspeechevents n which useofspeechn a given unctional modee:.piicateshe pragmatic Euctureofthat 'rery. unctional urode. !-re -49t4p-ragrnatic.--ebaractcriz,atio-n-oJg qc hni sqogi src. -ccrcnti lcy;q!lJl-ylrr"l f o#f .ji,'1"1*the oD,lectso_t,e!-cllPll-o,ll-.o oDvrously llc cxtclrt fo wurcll a raug,uaBuhas semantic exical items which accurately efer to the indexed varia-bles, to the constituents of speech,and to puqposive unction is onemeasure f the limits of metapragmaticdiscussion y a speaker f thatlq n orrnoe

48

Shifters,Linguisticategories,ndCulturalDescription ;Limits to M etapragrnatie Avarvness

But more importantly, it would appeax hat the nature of the indexi-cal elements themselves,along form'al.tunctionall dimensions, limitsmetapragmaticawareness f languageusers. ndexes vere characterizedassegmental s. nonsegmental,hat is affix, rvord, phrasevs. some otherfeatureof utterances;as rg1felgntialjs,n'q4referefiial-fhaljs*slrft-qf-y-S-nonshifter ind-e6 and as re_lqtiv-ely--pr-es]lppg-sjpgs. relativ_e1y-_p_fe.g!i_v_g*-o5pedgrmative. It is very easy o obtain accuratepragmatic informa:tion in the form of metapragrnatic eferential speech or segmental,referential, relatively presupposingn'dexes. t is extremelydifficult, ifnot impossible,o makea nativesptakerawareof nonsegmcntal, on-rcfcrential, clativclycreativc ormal fcatures, vhich rave no.metaprag-maticreality for hi,ur. nclcxes f the first type,wlrich arc susccptible faccuratcconscionscluractcriz.ation, .rc,of cottrsc,closcsl in thcirforuml-furrctional,1>ro1>crticso scilantico-rcfcrcntialscgnrcnts, orrvhichmetasemanticmanipulation s possiblc.Noticc oncc again that

: ^ ^ - ^ ^ ^ l - / ^ ^ ^ - . t { ^ - . . ^ \ ^ - ^ ! l - . - ^ ^ ^ - - ^ ^ : ^ l ^ ^ . - ^ ! : ^ - ^ ll l l cL i l sg l l l i l l l L l ( ; SP(;g(- l l uvg i l L ) \ Jr . ; g a{rruvG/ a{ l ( j L t tLr) a J l JUUlar , sqt la t l u r l : { rsortof mctapragnraticvcnt.Thc cxtcnt to rvhichsigns evc propcrticsakin o thoseof strictlyscgnrcrrtal,cinailtico-rcfcrcntial llcs, n fact, sobviously lneasurc f the eascwith rvhich ve can gct accuratemeta-pragmatic haracterizationsf them from native speakers.nyeslgqtio"_of the triply distinct fqJq4-fuggtiglek_slegren-lg f ,speech,-o-p._the,qt!g5_,-,--LJ-liq!4_fqggll-c_s_-lg!9_{pJe-!ati-ye-lserv.stl_oxin .a f-unstionall framervo-rk.I tlrinl that every ieldworkerhas rad such experiences, hre a care-ful sortingout of kinclsof pragmaticeffectsultimately ust cannot relyon the metapragnraticestimonyof nativeparticipants. That so-calledgcnerative emanticistsnsiston the validity of their orvn f intuitions"aboutpragmaticsn Cedankenforschungenimply attests o the unfor-tunatenaivetdand narrowness f most co-ntemporaryinguists on mat-| ^ . . ^ 6 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ L ^ L ^ ^ * , ^ r i ^ - ^ - J ^ C ^ , , r r a - ^ t l ^ ^ - ^ ^ , - ^ l : ^ $ 1 , ^ ^ * , \ T - r L ^ .r r r J v r J l r v ev r l v uJ ur Y 4L lv r t c r r u vr Dy J r v r r r d r t ! P r dS r r r d r r 9 L tLwty , I tt l L r r Ecourse f invcstigatingWasco-Wishram Chinookan), for example,attcurptecio systcmaizc with infonnauts hc diuriuntivc-nugrncutativcconsonantismsvhich are ubiquitous n speechacts of endearment/repulsion elt by speakersoward eferent,without referentialcontribu-tion. They form a pragmatic metaphor on the more "physical" speaketest i i .net inn nf cize relaf i rrp ln o clonrj lorrl -rhc alaccin crrnaolpanramol ia

49


21/24

,M I C H A E L S I L V E R S T E I N i

problemof smallelephants nd he ike. Theseeftects reentirelypho' tnological,most consonantsarticipatingn pairs(or n-tuples) vhichalternateby phonological ules egardlessf their position n lexicalitems.A lexical tem thusappearsn overt orm with trvoor moresetsof consonants,or example,he nominal adjectivesor size, he para- idigm elaborated xample,- -qbaix superaugmentative),' -g(')aix i(augmentative),- -k'uaicquasi-diminutive),- -k"uaic'diminutive) ii- -k"orit'| super-dirninutive).pon equestor rcpctition f a exical iitem with suchcffects hat had occurredn discourse,nformatttsn- ivariabiy avea lexicailynonnai orm-the pragmaticaiiyunmarkcd" iform. So equesting repetition f iia-muqbal herbelly [which think iis hugeand repulsive, y theway]',one gets'td-muq'al. "But you ust lsaid'-muqbal' idn't you; that means reatbig one,no?" "No, it'sitanruq'al." . . . "W'ell, horvcloyou say her greatbig belly'?""Iagait,itantuq*al 'It's large,her belly']."Notice hat the lastqucstions in 'te.ryreted-s-a eo.uestor an nterlinguistic etasemanticquation.he ,pragmatic arker f rulesor augmentativeonsonantismeing eyond ,studiedmanipulation. :

Irtfo.fahrnomnliaf .o*irdl flems iA certain mountof referenceo pragmaticst the evelof speecheventspurposiveunctionr) is accomplishedn everyanguagef rvhichI am arvare y quotation raming erbs, he equivalentsf Englishphrasesuchashe said to him),he told (if ) to him, he askedof him),heordered im, andso orth. t is emarkableowmanyanguagesave

only constructionsxpressinghe irst ervof these,vhich erveo name ,ltheentire, ndifterentiatedetof speechvents. ramed y such erbs,p'1'',,rhinh ipqorihe eertein sneeclrevents. end the inflections of rv.hichde- i' rl r l v r r s e r v ^scribe the participants, we find reported speech, the messages ur'. t r r t , . , , f - , - - - - r : - - - - ^ ^ ^ L ) ) lPoftedly usec. I nere N a wnole range or qeYlcesor rcPurulrguPsssuevents, rom exactquotation through ndirect quotation throughpseudo-quotation,paraphrase,nd descriptiveeference,he subtleties f which

I cannotexplorehere.Additionall;r, anguagesncorporateexical temswhich in certaincon'

r , - r ! r f - - - - ^ r l - - ^ - - - - ^ L ^ - . ^ ^ ! ^ l . - , L : ^ L ^ r ^ 1 , ^ -strucuons rerer to, I l lat ls , naulg, t trg JPsccrr svull l ul vylrleu.{ LU\sufonns an uttcrancc fraction. have alreacly dumJ:ratedheir dcscrip'tion above (see Reference and "Performative lSpeech,"pp. r8-r9

Shifters, Linguistic C ate gories, nd Cultur dI D esctiptionabove). n English, or example, hese tems fit into thc schema /we[V] you [X], where he verb V is inflectcd or prcscut,nonprogrcssive(punctual) tense-aspect.hey actually narne hc socially constitutedJecclr cventof rvhich hcy fonn an nttcrancc raction: clvistcn, dub,s;entence,nd so forth, particularly sociallysalient routines u'hich areprimarily inguistic eventsbehaviorally.Th.y are referential, creative(or perfonnativc) n


22/24

M I C H A E L S ^ -structureof implicit referential ategoriesllotvs, or every exi: .nincludes a pragmatic esidue-an indexicalcomponentmotiva' .. .rnlyat the level Of speech cts,actual discourseeference eing only onesuchmode. (Certainkinds of lexicalcontent n the discourse-r'eferencemode have been characterized y linguists as ad hoc "selectional"restrictionson thc cooccurrencef lexical tems')

So such exical tcms as so-called inship termsor personal ames nany societycan hardly be characterizedy a "semantic"analysis.t isthe pragrnatic on:ponetrt hat makcs l:em exical ten'rs o beginwith;it iJ the pragmatic unctionss hat make them anthropologicallym-portant, as Schneider, mong others,have never ceased ointing outlsee sehneider1965;g68: and chapter8 in this volume). Further,so-called folk taxonomiesof nominal lexical items, again "semantically"analyzedby a proccclure f ostensiveeference,ssentiallyipped fromthe tontexi of speech,give us no cultural insight. For the rvhole prag-matic problem of why these lexical abbreviations form a euituraldomain, rather than someother collection, vhy hese exical tems occurat all, rather than someother semanticcornbinations,emainsentirelyto be expioreri. he so-caiic


23/24

1a'i;*M ICHAEL SIL VERST EIN

of language,or example,hat rvhich s const itutedy its inilexicalmpde, can similarly depend upon metapragmaticusesof speech tselfin only very imited areas.Othenvise t depends Ponsensitive bserva-tion and comparative llumination of functionall,2 speechacts andspeech vents or the indexicalmode to be understood.If languages unique n having a true symbolicmode, hen obviouslyothercultural mediamust be rnoreakin to ihe combined conicand n-

dexicalmocles f meaningfulncss.n gencral,hen, rvecan concludehat"culturalmeaning" of behavior s so imited, except or speech, nd see- - - . 7 L - . - - 1 s - ^ - - : L L : - - ^ - - - - : - - ^ . . - - - l r : - l - - - - - - - ^ L : ^ l ^ ^ ^ - : ^ ! i ^ - ^ la cuLLuTClLSY$L;ItPLLU|LA5 a ll las5lvg, UrUltrPry Pri.r6rrraLrs usJurllrLrvrr vthorv hc socialcategories f groupsof peopleare constituted n a criss-crossing, requently contradictory, ambiguous,and confusingset ofpragmaticmeaningsof many kinds of behavior.

If there can be such apparentvaguenessbout pragmaticmeaning,then one might be temptedto see n actualbehavior he oniy level ofintegration,of orderliness,n culture.But for the socialanthropologist,as for the linguist, regularitiesof pragmatic orm and functionz willultimately define the orderliness nd integrationof such meaningsys-tems. \/e need invoke "symbolism" for a ce rtain modality of speechalone; hc vast csiclue f languagc s culturc,anclculturc s pragrnati

SlmkeWelIBef reUsing L'envoi)We mustbe carcful ow rveuse ermsike "sign," symbol,"seman-ticr""meaning,"functionr"andothcr cxicaltcrns cfcrringo entiticsof sernioticheory. havc ricd o bc consistentn usagcn thischapter,

rvhich cccssitatccl,or cx;rurplc,siug ubscriptstt ccrtniucrnrs. his: - ! ^ - J ^ - l ^ ^ - ^ f , . 1 ^ ^ . . . - . - ! : ^ ^ - ^ f , . - ^ . - r : . , 1 t , . . . ^ ! : ^ . . ^ C . . - , , ^ ^ . . . , , "s l . a + l ' al l l l L t t L lL l l ud lL r t l l J L l l la t r lL IU l r ' lu lu lL ! l t r ( l l t t l r lL t l \ r r r l v r \ r J ( l5v l l t l l J L tr L L r r esolccriterionof judgnrentof the argumcnthere hat culture s, with theexception f a smail part of ianguage, ut a congeries f iconic'indexicaisJstems f meaningfulness f behavior.Usageof the same erms by others should be similarly scrutinizedfor actual referentiai content, rvhich may differ considerably n termsof theunderlying theory. We must not be carriedawayby the rhetorical-that is, pragmatic-force of scientific argumentation, wherein, con-tradietorilyenough, ies its solepower -as atural eommunication-hischapter,alas,being another token of the type.54

Shifters,Linguistic Categoies, and Cultural D escription'N O T E

r. This study eplaccs ongeroneof the same itle discussedt thc Schoolof Amcri'can Research .-inrr "Meaning in Cultural Anthropology." That rvork was a clraftfor tbe operring cctions f a hrger work in progrcss n the anthropology.of anguagc.This wori


24/24

t.

KFrdl - IzF+zGq l

F-|{zbzF-J)Fr{F-t!ibErd,*

\./H \r'-vr--\/\1 J

F

\4,,, F:* b Eu ) v(h t*

arJi-r.H

H

Hq)H

;n

X

zcn-i

z7)iXl-l

tno

a-

} i-f$I.ix

d \\):i--ii

t 7 \FL-J L-Ja r 1U r iJ

v')l \\,\.i 7

Silverstein 1976

Documents

Transcript of Silverstein 1976