Language as Social Action ANTH 070:514 Fall 2006 Professor Laura Ahearn Class time: Fri, 12:35-3:35 Office: 308 RAB WebCT website: http://webct.rutgers.edu Phone: 732-932-5298 Faculty website: E-mail: [email protected] http://anthro.rutgers.edu/faculty/ahearn.shtml Office hours: Tues., 11:30 – 12:30, at Au Bon Pain on College Ave.; Thurs., 2:00-3:00 in my office (or by appt.)

“Linguistics without anthropology is sterile; anthropology without linguistics is blind.” --Charles Hockett (1916 – 2000), Professor of Linguistics and Anthropology, Cornell University

COURSE DESCRIPTION

Linguists often study language as a closed, formal system, relatively autonomous from culture, social relations, and vectors of power. The purpose of this course is to explore a very different framework, one that places language within a social, cultural, and political matrix of relations. Linguistic anthropologists view language as a form of action through which social relations, cultural forms, ideologies, hierarchies, and identities are constituted. 2

EXPECTATIONS

The reading load – I’m warning you right off – will be quite heavy. Please complete at least the required readings, if not the recommended readings, before the class for which they are assigned. Let me know if the reading load seems too heavy, but since this is a graduate seminar, I am assuming you all are willing and able to get through (whether by meticulous word-for-word analysis or quick skimming) copious amounts of material. There will be times when we will split the readings among class members in order to reduce the reading load, and I always list the readings in order of importance so that you can prioritize them accordingly.

The readings are organized around key topics, any one of which could be the subject of a course in itself. Many of the topics have spawned enormous literatures of their own but are represented only minimally in the reading assignments. Other equally interesting and important topics (e.g., translation, metalanguage, semiotics) are virtually absent here because of time constraints. I would be happy, however, to guide you toward supplementary reading materials on topics that interest you.

The backgrounds of the students in this class will be extremely varied, which will present us as a class with both a resource and a challenge. Don’t assume that you don’t belong in the class just because you have never heard of a theorist other students or I mention. By the same token, when you do mention a theorist not assigned for the course, do more than just name-drop; be generous with your knowledge and clarify who the person is, what relevance s/he has for our discussion, etc. In this way, we can all learn from one another.

REQUIREMENTS

(1) Every week you will be required either to post a one- to two-page commentary on the readings or respond to other students’ commentaries before our class meets. The class will be split in half, and each group will alternate writing commentaries and responses. Commentaries should be posted by Thursday at 5:00 p.m. each week, and responses should be posted by 10:00 a.m. on Friday (but ideally even earlier) each week on WebCT’s Discussion Board (http://webct.rutgers.edu). I will be telling you exactly how to do this in class. The benefits of this are multiple. First, you will have read the assignment and will have digested it enough to generate some questions and reactions. Second, you will be able to read and/or respond to your classmates’ commentaries before you come to class each week, thereby jump-starting discussion. Third, you will have your commentaries and responses (and everyone else’s) to look back on as you work on your papers. A good commentary summarizes the main points of the reading, compares and contrasts it to other works the class has read, and then offers the reader’s own assessment, reactions, and questions. These are not formal papers, so feel free to write them in an informal, first-person register. Each of you will find a comfortable “voice” in which to write your commentaries; don’t worry if there is significant variation in tone and content among the commentaries – that’s a good thing!

(2) In pairs, you will facilitate three class discussions. I mean ‘facilitate’ in its most basic sense, ‘to make easy.’ Thus, I expect the facilitators to prepare discussion questions and activities that will engage and instruct the other class participants. I do not expect or desire mini-lectures.

You will also be expected to contribute to discussions in class on a weekly basis. As this is an advanced seminar, a large part of the responsibility for making it work will fall on each of your shoulders. Make sure, therefore, that you come to class having done the reading carefully. This does not mean, however, that you need to understand the readings fully before class starts; I urge you to ask (or start new discussion threads on WebCT’s Discussion Board) about any uncertainties you may have. Also feel free to bring up any relevant readings or observations from outside the class assignments, as long as you explain these fully. Because this class explores language in its social contexts, you all will have plenty of opportunities to enrich the class by observing and commenting upon linguistic interactions in your everyday lives.

I hope we will all work toward creating an atmosphere in which everyone will feel comfortable contributing their thoughts and questions, but if you are the type of person who rarely speaks up during 3 discussions, please come to see me early on in the term, and we can devise some other way(s) of allowing you to participate, either in writing, or by meeting with me individually.

(3) An exercise in conversation analysis will involve tape recording a naturally occurring conversation (with the permission of the participants, of course), then transcribing a thirty-minute segment of it. The transcript of this exercise is due October 30th. No written analysis of the transcript will be required, but some of you may choose to analyze a larger portion of the conversation for your final paper.

(4) Your final paper will require an extended analysis of a body of linguistic data – your own from previous fieldwork, the conversation recorded for the initial class exercise, or data from another linguistic anthropologist. Further information about the paper will be provided early in the semester. A two-page prospectus for a final paper, along with a bibliography, will be due on November 6h. I urge you all to come in to talk to me about your final papers well before then, however. The earlier you start on the project, the better. A first draft of the final paper will be due November 21st. You will make a fifteen-minute presentation on your topic at a special class session sometime during the week of November 27th, and the final draft will be due in my box by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, December 15th.

Your grade will be determined as follows:

Conversation transcription 15% Oral presentation of final paper topic 20% Class participation, including discussion facilitation, commentaries, and responses 25% Final paper (including prospectus and draft) 40%

(Penalties will be applied to all assignments that are handed in late.)

Due dates to put on your calendar right now:

Weekly commentary or response Post commentary every Thursday by 5:00 p.m. and response by Friday, 10:00 a.m. Transcript due Monday, October 30th, 4:00 p.m. Prospectus due Monday, November 6th, 4:00 p.m. Draft of final paper due Tuesday, November 21st, 4:00 p.m. Oral presentation on paper topic Week of November 27th at time and place TBA Final paper due Friday, December 15th, 4:00 p.m.

Required Texts

Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Abbreviated below as LA.) Duranti, Alessandro. 1994. From Grammar to Politics: Linguistic Anthropology in a Western Samoan Village. University of California Press. (Abbreviated below as FGP.) Bakhtin, M.M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. (Abbreviated below as DI.) Ahearn, Laura M. 2001. Invitations to Love: Literacy, Love Letters, and Social Change in Nepal. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 4

Urciuoli, Bonnie. 1996. Exposing Prejudice: Puerto Rican Experiences of Language, Race, and Class. Boulder: Westview.

Recommended Texts

Jaffe, Alexandra. 1999. Ideologies in Action: Language Politics on Corsica. NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Duranti, Alessandro (ed.). 2001. Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [Required articles from this volume will be scanned and posted in case you choose not to buy the whole book.]

Course texts are available for purchase at the Co-op Bookstore (1-800-929-2667) on the Douglass campus and are also on reserve at the Douglass Library. All readings not in these books are available through the library’s electronic reserve service. They will also be available through WebCT. To gain access to the electronic reserves, go to IRIS (http://www.iris.rutgers.edu), click on the “Reserves” button on top of the screen, type in “Ahearn,” and click on “Instructor.” If you have any problems gaining access to the readings, please let me know. You will be expected to have read the assignment listed for each class period before class begins. Be prepared to discuss the reading assignment, ask questions about it, or debate the issues raised in it.

READING ASSIGNMENTS

*Asterisks denote readings not in any of the course texts but available through library reserve and on WebCT.

Week 1 (September 8) – INTRODUCTION

Week 2 (September 15) – SOME APPROACHES THAT TREAT LANGUAGE AS SOCIAL ACTION Required reading: Duranti, LA, Preface, Acknowledgments, Ch. 1, “The scope of linguistic anthropology,” Ch. 10, “Conclusions” *Duranti, Alessandro. 2001. “Linguistic anthropology: history, ideas, and issues.” In A. Duranti (ed.), Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp.1-38. *Duranti, Alessandro. 2003. “Language as culture in U.S. anthropology.” Current Anthropology 44(3):323-347. *Du Bois, John W. 2001. “Grammar.” In Duranti, Alessandro (ed.), Key Terms in Language and Culture. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 87-90. *Ohio State University. 1998. “What do you know when you know a language?” In Ohio State University Department of Linguistics, Language Files, pp.8-11.

Recommended reading: * Goodwin, Marjorie H. 1990. “Talk as social action.” In He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1-26. *Urban, Greg. 1991. “An approach to culture and language.” In A Discourse-Centered Approach to Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1-28.

Week 3 (September 22) – LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY; THE SO-CALLED “SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS” Required reading: Duranti, LA, “Language in culture: the Boasian tradition” and “Linguistic relativity,” pp. 52-69. *Whorf, Benjamin. 1956[1939]. “The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language.” In J.B. Carroll (ed.), Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge: MIT Press. 134-159. *Sapir, Edward. 1985[1933. “Editor’s preface” and “Language.” In D.G. Mandelbaum (ed.), Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Personality. Berkeley: University of California Press, 3-6, 7-32. 5

*Sapir, Edward. 1985[1929]. “The status of linguistics as a science.” In D.G. Mandelbaum (ed.), Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Personality. Berkeley: University of California Press, 160-166. *Sapir, Edward. 1985[1924]. “The grammarian and his language.” In D.G. Mandelbaum (ed.), Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Personality. Berkeley: University of California Press, 150-159. *Hill, Jane H. and Bruce Mannheim. 1992. “Language and world view.” Annual Review of Anthropology 21:381-406.

Recommended reading: *Cohn, Carol. 1987. “Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals.” Signs 12(4):687-718. *Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. “Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time.” Cognitive Psychology 43:1-22. *Lucy, John A. 1996. “The scope of linguistic relativity: an analysis and review of empirical research.” In J.J. Gumperz and S.C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 37-69. *Cameron, Deborah. 1999. “Linguistic relativity: Benjamin Lee Whorf and the return of the repressed.” Critical Quarterly 41(2):153-156. *Martin, Laura. 1986. “‘Eskimo words for snow’: a case study in the genesis and decay of an anthropological example.” American Anthropologist 88:418-23. Lucy, John A. 1992. Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Week 4 (September 29) – METHODS, INCLUDING CONVERSATION ANALYSIS Required reading: Duranti, LA, Ch. 8, “Conversational exchanges” and Ch. 9, “Units of participation”; also skim Ch. 5, “Transcription: from writing to digitized images,” and Appendix, “Practical tips on recording interaction” *Goffman, Erving. 1981. “Footing.” In E. Goffman, Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 124-157. *McDermott, R.P. and H. Tylbor. 1995. “On the necessity of collusion in conversation.” In Tedlock, Dennis and Bruce Mannheim, eds. The Dialogic Emergence of Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 218-236. *Sheldon, Amy. 1990. “Pickle fights: gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Processes 13(1):5-31. (Notice transcription format.) *Eckert, Penelope. 1993. “Cooperative competition in adolescent ‘girl talk,’ ” pp.32-61. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. (Notice transcription format.)

Recommended reading: *Jakobson, Roman. 1960. “Linguistics and poetics.” In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, Cambridge: MIT Press, 350-77. *Goodwin, Marjorie H., “Emotion within situated activity.” In A. Duranti (ed.), Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp.239-257. *Irvine, Judith T., “Formality and informality in communicative events.” In A. Duranti (ed.), Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 189-207.

Week 5 (October 6) – LANGUAGE AND POWER I: BAKHTIN Required reading: Bakhtin, DI, 259-422. [Read 259-331 with care, skim rest.]

6

And either: *Wilce, James M., Jr. 1998. “The kalimah in the kaleidophone: ranges of multivocality in Bangladeshi Muslim's discourses.” Ethos 26(2):229-257.

or: *Hill, Jane H. 1995. “The voices of Don Gabriel: responsibility and self in a modern Mexicano narrative.” In Tedlock, Dennis and Bruce Mannheim, eds. The Dialogic Emergence of Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 97-147.

Recommended reading: *Steinglass, Matt. 1998. “International man of mystery: the battle over Mikhail Bakhtin.” Lingua Franca, April 1998, 33-41. *Wilce, James M. 2000. “The poetics of ‘madness’: shifting codes and styles in the linguistic construction of identity in Matlab, Bangladesh.” Cultural Anthropology 15(1):3-34. *Stewart, Susan. 1983. “Shouts on the street: Bakhtin’s anti-linguistics.” Critical Inquiry 10: 265-82.

Week 6 (October 13) – LANGUAGE AND POWER II: BOURDIEU Required reading: * Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, US: Harvard University Press. Editor’s “Introduction,” “General Introduction,” Ch. 1, “The production and reproduction of legitimate language,” and Ch. 7, “On symbolic power,” 1-65; 163-170. *Thompson, John B. 1984. “Symbolic violence: language and power in the writings of Pierre Bourdieu.” In Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 42-72.

Recommended reading: *Gramsci, Antonio. 1971 [1929-1935]. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. (Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, ed. and tr.) New York: International, pp. 324-5, 348-51, 419-25, 242-46, 52-60, 5-23. *Gramsci, Antonio. 1985 [1929-1935]. Selections from Cultural Writings. (David Forgacs and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, ed., William Boelhower, tr.) Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 25-31, 122-3, 164-95, especially the portions from notebook 29. Williams, Raymond. 1977. Marxism and Literature. London: Oxford University Press.

7

Week 7 (October 20) – LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES [I will be in Madison at a conference this week; Chelsea Booth has agreed to help facilitate the discussion.]

VIDEO IN CLASS: “AMERICAN TONGUES”

Required reading: *Woolard, Kathryn A. 1998. “Introduction: language ideology as a field of inquiry.” In Schieffelin, Bambi, et al. (eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-47. *Kroskrity, Paul V. 2000. “Regimenting languages: language ideological perspectives.” In Paul V. Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, pp. 1-34. *Kulick, Don. 1998. “Anger, gender, language shift, and the politics of revelation in a Papua New Guinean village.” In Schieffelin, Bambi, et al. (eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 87-102. Recommended reading: *Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Paul R. Clyne, William F. Hanks, and Carol Hofbauer (eds.), The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 193-247. *Friedrich, Paul. 1989. “Language, ideology, and political economy.” American Anthropologist 91:295-312. Jaffe, Alexandra. 1999. Ideologies in Action: Language Politics on Corsica. NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Schieffelin, Bambi, Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul Kroskrity (eds.). 1998. Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paul V. Kroskrity (ed.). 2000. Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Week 8 (October 27)– LANGUAGE, RACE, AND ETHNICITY Required reading: *Smitherman, Geneva. 1998 [1977]. “ ‘It bees dat way sometime’: sounds and structure of present-day Black English.” In V. Clark, et al., eds., Language: Readings in Language and Culture. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp.328-343. *Jane H. Hill. 1998. “Language, Race, and White Public Space.” American Anthropologist 100(3):680-689. Urciuoli, Bonnie. 1996. Exposing Prejudice: Puerto Rican Experiences of Language, Race, and Class. Boulder: Westview.

Recommended reading: *Mitchell-Kernan, Claudia. 2001. “Signifying and marking: two Afro-American speech acts.” In A. Duranti (ed.), Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp.151-164. Morgan, Marcyliena. 2002. Language, Discourse and Power in African American Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baugh, John. 2000. Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic Pride and Racial Prejudice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mufwene, Salikoko S. et al. (eds.). 1998. African American English: Structure, History and Use. New York: Routledge.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 30TH – TRANSCRIPTS DUE IN MY BOX BY 4:00 P.M.

Week 9 (November 3) – LANGUAGE, GENDER, AND SEXUALITY 8

Required reading: *Maltz, Daniel N. and Ruth A. Borker. 1982. “A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication.” In John J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity, Cambridge: University Press, 196-216. *Cameron, Deborah. 1998. “Performing gender identity: young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity.” In J. Coates (ed.), : A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell. *Freed, Alice. 2003. “Epilogue: reflections on language and gender research.” In Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.), The Handbook of Language and Gender. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 699-721. *Cameron, Deborah and Don Kulick. 2003. “Preface” and “Chapter 1: Making connections.” In D. Cameron and D. Kulick, Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. ix-xvi; 1-14. *Bucholtz, Mary and Kira Hall. 2004. “Theorizing identity in language and sexuality research.” Language in Society 33, pp.469-515.

Recommended reading: Cameron, Deborah and Don Kulick. 2006. The Language and Sexuality Reader. New York: Routledge. Holmes, Janet and Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.). 2003. The Handbook of Language and Gender. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Benor, Sarah, et al. (eds.). 2002. Gendered Practices in Language. Palo Alto: Center for the Study of Language and Information, . Livia, Anna and Kira Hall (eds.). 1997. Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender, and Sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bergvall, Victoria L., et al. (eds.). 1996. Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice. New York: Longman. Hall, Kira and (eds.). 1995. Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. New York: Routledge. Leap, William. 1995. Beyond the Lavender Lexicon. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6TH – PROSPECTUS FOR FINAL PAPER DUE IN MY BOX BY 4:00 P.M.

Week 10 (November 10) – LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND SOCIALIZATION Required reading: *Elinor Ochs and Bambi B. Schieffelin. 2001 [1984]. “Language acquisition and socialization: three developmental stories and their implications.” In A. Duranti, Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 263-301. *Shanker, Stuart. 2001. “What children know when they know what a name is.” Current Anthropology 42(4):481-513. *Jacobs-Huey, Lanita. 2006. “ ‘We are like doctors’: socializing cosmetologists into the discourse of science.” In L. Jacobs-Huey, From the Kitchen to the Parlor: Language and Becoming in African American Women’s Hair Care, 29-46.

Recommended reading: *MacWhinney, Brian. 1998. “Models of the emergence of language.” Annual Review of Psychology 49:199-227. *Ochs, Elinor and Bambi Schieffelin. n.d. “Language socialization: an historical overview.” To appear in Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 8: Language Socialization, ed. by Patricia Duff and Nancy Hornberger. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 9

*Ochs, Elinor and Bambi Schieffelin. 1995. “The impact of language socialization on grammatical development.” In Paul Fletcher and Brian MacWhinney (eds.), The Handbook of Child Language. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 73-94. *Tomasello, Michael. 2002. “Things are what they do: Katherine Nelson’s functional approach to language and cognition.” Journal of Cognition and Development 3(1):5-19.

Week 11 (November 17) – LITERACY PRACTICES Required reading: *Barton, David and Mary Hamilton. 1998. “Understanding literacy as social practice.” In Barton, David and Mary Hamilton (eds.), Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. New York: Routledge, pp. 3-22. Ahearn, IL, Ch. 1, “Invitations to love,” Ch. 3, “Key concepts and their application,” Ch. 7, “Developing love: sources of development discourse in Nepali love letters,” Ch. 8, “The practices of reading and writing,” and Ch. 9, “Wearing the flower one likes: Sarita and Bir Bahadur’s courtship”

Recommended reading: Besnier, Niko. 1995. Literacy, Emotion, and Authority: Reading and Writing on a Polynesian Atoll. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boyarin, Jonathan. 1993. The Ethnography of Reading. Berkeley: University of California Press. Barton, David, Mary Hamilton, and Roz Ivanič. 2000. Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context. New York: Routledge.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST – DRAFTS OF FINAL PAPER DUE IN MY BOX BY 4:00 P.M.

**ORAL PRESENTATIONS ON FINAL PAPER TOPICS AT SPECIAL MEETING, WEEK OF NOV. 27TH ** (TIME, DATE, AND LOCATION TBA)

Week 12 (December 1) – AGENCY, RESISTANCE, AND ACCOMMODATION IN LANGUAGE Required reading: *Ahearn, Laura M. 2001“Language and Agency.” Annual Review of Anthropology, Volume 30. October 2001, 109-137. Duranti, Alessandro. 1994. FGP. Read Chapters 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 closely; skim 3 and 4.

Recommended reading: *Duranti, Alessandro. 2006. “The social ontology of intentions.” Discourse Studies 8(1):31- 40. *Duranti, Alessandro. 2004 Agency in Language. In Duranti, A. (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp.451-473. *Gal, Susan. 1995. “Language and the ‘arts of resistance.’” Cultural Anthropology 10(3):407-424.

Week 13 (December 8) – PERFORMANCE AND PERFORMATIVITY; DOING THINGS WITH WORDS Required reading: Duranti, LA, Ch. 7, “Speaking as social action” *Bauman, Richard. 2001 [1975]. “Verbal art as performance.” In A. Duranti (ed.), Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 165-188. *Bauman, Richard. 2002. “Disciplinarity, relflexivity, and power in Verbal art as performance: a response.” Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 115(455):92-98. 10

*Ahearn, Laura M. 1998. “‘A Twisted Rope Binds My Waist’: Locating Constraints on Meaning in a Tij Songfest.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Volume 8(1), 1998, 60-86. *Austin, J.L. 1961. “Performative utterances.” In Philosophical papers, Oxford: University Press, 233-52. *Searle, John. 1976. “A classification of illocutionary acts.” Language in Society 5: 1-23.

Recommended reading: *Hymes, Dell. 1981. “Breakthrough into performance revisited.” In Hymes, Dell, “In Vain I Tried to Tell You”: Essays in Native American Ethnopoetics, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 200-259. *Martin [Ahern], Emily. 1979. “The problem of efficacy: strong and weak illocutionary acts.” Man 14: 1-17. *Rosaldo, Michelle Z. 1982. “The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy.” Language in Society 11: 203-37. Butler, Judith. 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge.

**FINAL PAPER DUE IN MY BOX BY 4:00 P.M., FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15TH**