Pragmatics in the Late Twentieth Century: Countering R-Ecent Historiographic Neglect1
Pragmatics4:4.461 - 489 InternationalPragmatics Association
PRAGMATICS IN THE LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY: COUNTERING R-ECENTHISTORIOGRAPHIC NEGLECT1
Jon F. Pressman
1. Introduction
As an unavoidableconsequence of the marketplacephenomenon that typifies the 'factionalization' contemporaryacademy (Bourdieu 1988[1984]), the of the socialand behavioralsciences into sub-disciplines,academic specializations, theoretical schools, and methodologicalminorities can causegrave problems for the historiography2of suchdisciplines. The studyof pragmaticsin the late twentiethcentury suffers from such a historiographic crisis. Divided into linguistic and anthropological linguistic orientations,the former is essentiallyunaware of the insightsstemming from the latter, severalexceptions notwithstanding (e.g., Verschueren1994). In taking stock of the theoreticalinfluences that haveshaped contemporary pragmatics, clearly some relevant approacheshave receivedlittle attention, or have been overlooked entirely, by the linguisticfaction" One such omissionis the intellectuallineage initiated by Roman Jakobsonand followed up by his student,Michael Silverstein.The contributionsmade by thesetwo individuals,and by studentswho have continuedin this lineage,warrant reconsiderationhistoriographically if for nothing more than bringing sociocultural considerationsto bear on linguistic pragmatic problems. As one prominent anthropologicallinguist has observed, "pragmatic studies within linguistics and philosophyare stronglyinfluenced by the theoreticaland methodologicalconcerns of those disciplines,which have very little interest or expertisein the study of culture" (Duranti 1994:11).This paper attemptsto redressthis historiographicomission by enumerating on the recent contributions of Jakobson, Silverstein, and two of Silverstein'sstudents. Recently,Steve Caton (1993)has argued that "it is not unreasonableto date the beginningof a modern linguisticpragmatics from the publication in 1957of Roman Jakobson's'Shifters, verbal categories,and the Russian verb"' (1993: 335 fn.6)"
1 I am grateful to Regina Bendix, Ward Goodenough, John Lucy, and an anonymous reviewer for detailed comments on an earlier version of this paper. Any oversights or miscontruals are my own.
'historiography' 2 The term is broadly construed herein to indicate the activity of textual exegesis where the text under interpretation has become a commodified entity in this marketplace. The amount of time that has passedsince a text became available is irrelevant, as is the complete versus incomplete statusof the author's oeuvre. 462 Jon F. Pressntan
Pragmaticsin its socioculturalapplication3 has its intellectualorigins in the semiotic philosophiesof CharlesPeirce (1931) and CharlesMorris (1938)and yet, Jakobson's contributions to this now pervasivemode of inquiry in anthropologicallinguistics should not be overlooked.Jakobson (7976,1977), in fact, hasdiscussed Peirce's influence with tremendousgratitude and lamentsthe fact that he was the first linguistwho utilizedthe theories of this 'pathfinder' in the scienceof language.oBorrowing certain semiotic ideasfrom the writingsof Peirce,especially his tripartite distinctionof icon, index,and 'parole,' symbol,as well as the Saussureandistinction between 'langue' and the most significantpoint of Jakobson's1957 article is to demarcateprecisely the extentto which information about parole is encodedin grammar,referential indexes or'shifters'cited as the linguisticsigns responsible for this phenomenon.5Even though he never formally advanceda theory of pragmatics,it is in his 1957 paper that Jakobson (1896-1982) ushered in what would become the defining concern of anthropologicallinguistic pragmaticsin later years.This was an insistencethat the context-sensitiveor pragmatic function of speech have the same scholarlyattention paid to it as the referential function of speechhad for some time before. Jakobsonmust equallyget creditfor reawakeningin linguisticsan interestin the functional analysisof the speechevent, and it is his 1960paper, "Closingstatement: linguisticsand poetics,"where we find his clearestconception of this approach,the so- called 'means-end'model of the Prague Linguistic Circle, as describedin his 1971 [1963]paper. Whereas much of previoustheory had listedgeneral sociological functions of languageuse (e.g.,Bthler 1990[1934]), the role of linguisticsign therein unclear, Jakobson proposed to begin with an analysisof the speech situation, placing the linguisticsign within it, and derivingan exhaustivetypology of functionsas they relate to the constituentfactors of the situation.What Jakobsonreferred to as "the pragmatic approach to language"(1971, [1968]: 703) was this positingof a basic set of functions involved in the communicativeact. That is, the referential,emotive, conative,phatic, poetic, and metalingualfunctions within a given speechsituation vary in their relative importance and expressivesalience, but are always present in the situation. In advancingsuch a functionalism,Jakobson showed that linguisticforms covary as the relationsamong componentsof the speechevent changeand are modified. Regarded as a pioneer of this functionalist approach in the analysis of the speech act, subsequentlyfollowed up by anthropologicallinguists Dell Hymes (1968 11962),I974a [1970],,1974b,7975) and Michael Silverstein(I975a, I976b, 1985a),Jakobson brought to structural linguisticsa model for demonstratingthat contextualfactors necessarily impinge on languageform itself. Jakobson'sfactor-function characterization of the
3 What Jane Hill (L992) has referred to as the "anthropologicalcritique of pragmatics" (1992:67).
o For a detailed discussion of Jakobson's intellectual dependenceon Peirce, I refer the reader to Bruss (1978), Gorl€e (1992), Liszka (1981), and Petrilli (L992).
'duplex 5 So-called because these signs' simultaneously shift their focus at the level of messageand code. Pragmaticsin thelate 20th cenrury 463 speechevent inaugurateda new perspectivein the anthropologyof language,supplying the basisfor a pragmaticorientation that would, in later years,yield dramatic results in anthropologicalfieldwork and ethnolinguisticscholarship.o The aim of this paper is to outline the bedrock of a modern pragmaticsinherent in Jakobson's1960 and later works,Tspecifically in his exegesisof the factor-functionapproach to the speechact. In what follows, I will trace linear movementsalong shared intel'lectual- theoreticaltraditions of the late twentieth century,influential trends which recreated and modified thesetraditions. As an exercisein intellectualhistory, this paper will chart Jakobson'sfunctionalist orientation on the speechact through Silverstein's(b. 1945) retoolingof suchunder the aegisof pragmatics,culminating with a discussiontouching on the recent work of severalof Silverstein'sstudents, Charles Briggs (b. 1953) and Greg Urban (b. 1949),both of whom havemade contributionsto ethnolinguisticsfrom sucha pragmaticorientation. Silverstein's approach warrants attention insofar as he has integratedtheoretical claims laid out separatelyby Jakobsonin his 1957 and 1960 papers.Silverstein's formulation of pragmaticssynthesizes Jakobson's 1957 notion of speechindexicality with his 1960functional diagram of the speechevent, two concepts Jakobsonnever himself connected.Further, Silverstein's(1985b) article presentsthis integrationin ethnolinguisticcontext, and both Briggsand Urban rely on this approach in their own studies. On a more generallevel, this paper seeksto addressa problem in intellectual historiography.One of the unfortunatecircumstances that accruesto many instances of historiographyof the social and behavioralsciences is the widespreadneglect of researchthat does not follow suit with prevailingnotions of what constitutessuch a exercise,or what type of content ought to be included in such a historiographical project. Aggrevating the problem is the stance endorsed by some historians of intellectual property that various approaches to empirical phenomena may be discountedand judged ineffectual on grounds that the property in historiographic questiondiffers too profoundly with their own theoreticalor methodologicalagenda. Thesescholars concentrate on largeportions of somehistoriographic achievement, yet includein their discussiononly thoseideas that corroboratethe historiographicobject from a priviligedposition. Well-informed proponents may be placated,chalking up such neglectto a type of historiographicideology, however it is difficult to ignore oversights that misrepresentseminal portions of the history. As I explainedabove, the situationis particularlyproblematic in pragmatics,a field of studyconsisting of both linguisticand anthropologicallinguistic groupings, the influenceof the former supersedingthat of the latter only in membershipcount, not in the ability to accountfor patterned,linguistic phenomena. For example,among the
'ethnolinguistic' 'anthropological 6 In the present paper, I will be utilizing the term and linguistic' in a synonymous manner.
7For this statement to be valid, Jakobson's1956 paper, "Metalanguageas a linguistic problem," must be included in this 1960 and later rubric. The major portion of the the 1956 article is reiterated, quite literally, in this 1960 paper, and so this does not really cause any overt chronological discrepancies. 464 JonF. Pressntun
four major historiographictexts on pragmaticspublished in the last ten to fifteen years by linguists(i.e., Gazdar 7979;Leech 1983;Levinson 1983; and Mey \993), the overall neglectafforded anthropological linguistic insights by their counterparts,particularly the work of Silverstein,attests to the chronic lack of disseminiation,and even intentional disregard,that characterizesthe contemporaryhistoriographic period. Without realizing it, one prominent historiographerepitomized the problem when he speculated"who would regard his [Silverstein's]output as in a particular way pioneering where pragmatics is concerned" (Koerner 1994: personal communication). This paper, althoughnot initially conceivedas such,offers an elaborateresponse to this opinion. Emulatinga techniqueused by Koerner (1990,I99I), we can draw the following filiation to illustrate my point: Jakobson- Silverstein* Briggs, Urban. In this way, Jakobsonian functionalism, and its successioninto pragmatics of a decidedly ethnolinguisticcharacter will be the dominant interest presented in this paper. Individually,each of thesescholars has made original and poignantcontributions to the 'lineage' general interests of linguisticsand anthropologicallinguistics; the being imposed here, stemmingtrom Jakobsonand includingSilverstein, Briggs, and Urban exists as one among rrsnlr each involving these individuals.The role or effect of educationalmentoring will be addressedherein. However, what primarily concernsus are the patterns of usage and processualstages in the prolongation of theoretical claims,and how such claims are believedvalid in light of ethnolinguisticobservation. Publicationsby Darnell (I974, 1990),Hymes (1983), and evenSilverstein (1986, 1989, 1991)himself detail the need for an ongoinghistoriography of the languagesciences, and have given inspiration to this paper as a contribution to the history of anthropologicallinguistics. What is presentedhere is but one take on the relatively recent contributionsof Jakobsonto Silversteinand more tangentially,to Briggs and Urban" The decisionto tbcuson thesefbur individuals(Jakobson, Silverstein, Briggs and Urban) should not be taken to imply neglecttowards a myriad of other scholarsthat could have been includedin the presentdiscussion. Ethnolinguists such as Benveniste, Boas, Bauman, Friedrich, Gumperz, Hymes, Kurylowicz, Newman, Sapir, Sebeok, Sherzer,Voegelin, and Whorf, among a great many others,have all effected or been effectedby one or more of thesefour scholars.This paper will emphasizethe mentor- student arrangementin which the student has a temporal and proximal link to his mentor. Such a situationis uniquelysignificant in the intellectualdevelopment of the student,and therefore necessarilyexcludes many of the aforementionedindividuals. The relationshipamong these four scholarsto be discussedherein is predicated on linear arrangements,and I will restrict myself to these four. Historiographyutilizing both linear and non-linearperspectives, or a combinationof the two, havetheir relative strengthsand drawbacks"I do not wish to enumeratethese here nor to discussthe ideologicalramitlcations of privileginglinearity and direct contact.In this paper, linear relationswill be drawn on to demonstratethe effect mentoringand the inspiration of one's teachershave had on the developmentof certain ethnolinguisticconcerns, and those academic affiliations and temporal/proximalinfluences that facilitated such developments. Pragntatics in the late 20th cenrury 465
2" Jakobson'sfunctionalism
Much of what will be discussedherein, under the generalrubric of functionalism,owes its inception to Jakobson,and has been reworked by Silverstein.BSilverstein studied under Jakobsonin the late sixtiesand early seventiesat Harvard University where Jakobson was Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures and of General Linguistics,eand has elaboratedalong semiotic-functional lines much of what Jakobson first conceptualizedwhen he himselfcombined Peircean semiotics with his own Prague Schoolstructuralism. Silversteinian pragmatics, as will be made more clear, took an impetusfrom Jakobson'sappropriation of Peirce'ssemiotic analysis of the sign and "althoughJakobson...had already analyzedref'erential categories of grammar as 'indexical,' it was Silversteinwho suggestedthat this sign-categorymight be usefully appliedto the study of nonreferentialuses of language"(Caton 1990:159). Equally importantto Jakobsonwas the fact that structuralism,of the type advocatedby his PragueSchool colleagues,was viewed as being comprisedof aggregatefunctions. "Structurein its proper sense...isa set of functionsorganizing atomized empirical reality" (Nov6k 1932in Steiner 1978:360). Structure,then, is predicatedon a set of tunctionsbound through internal interconnections into sucha structure.Specifically, the Structuralistssaw language as an instrumentof communication,consisting of a number of tunctionswhrch differed accordingto the goal for which theywere utilized.However, as long as the Structuralistsanalyzed these functions trom 'natural' languageuse, the multiplicity of functions served by languageprevented them from arriving at any definite number of frrnctions.Only by suspendingthis 'natural attitude' (i.e., by bracketingoff all the socialand psychologicalconditions of the act of communication, and taking into accountonly the act itself) did the PragueStructuralists arrive at the functionalinvariants of language(Steiner 1978: 381 fn.48). The first among the membersof the Circle to take this stepwas Karl Btihler (1990119341) who reducedthe speechevent to its three basiccomponents (speaker, listener, and topic) and ascribed to them three basicfunctions (expressive, appellative, and presentational).Biihler's preliminarytypology of the functionsof languagewas more fully elaboratedby Jakobson(1960), and it is his typology that has achievednotable status in the anthropologicalliterature (cf. Hymes 1968[1962]; Silverstein 1985a). Although Silversteinhas ostensiblydetined the field of pragmaticsby his own originalcontributions, there is a detinitelink to be seenwith the theoriesof his former teacher.One of the most productivetracks taken by Silverstein(and, in time, his own
8 For insight into one of this indirect influences,Hill and Mannheim (1992) rliscussSilverstein's use of Whorf.
e Silverstein received his doctorate from Harvard's Department of Linguistics in 1972, and immediatelysecured a faculty position in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago. He is currently the Samuel N. Harper Professor in the Departments of Anthropology, Linguistics, Psychology,and in the Committee on Ideas and Methods at the University of Chicago. 466 Jon F. Pressntan
students) has been the application of Jakobson'smultifunctional perspective of the communicativeevent to specific,ethnolinguistic problems. Such problems bear out the reality of some of what Jakobson put forth, combining linguistic theory with an appraisal of context-sensitivelanguage use. To achievethis via empirically-grounded 'etic' research,Silverstein had to amend to Jakobson's framework of the speechevent and its interactingcomponents an'emic'perspective. Emic, in this sense,demarcates a move from the strictly theoretical to the ethnological, from linguistic to ethnolinguistic.That is, "any pragmatic form is a signal that can be used both in effectingspecific contextual changes and in describingthem. And the descriptioncan focus on any of the componentsof the speech event: speaker, hearer, audience, referent, channel,signal, time, locus,or somerelationship between these" (Silverstein 1981b:15). WhereasJakobson was a theoreticallinguist, never engagingin fieldwork in the anthropologicalsense, and focusinghis attention primarily on Slavic languagesand litertures, Silversteinand his Chicagostudents (Briggs and Urban) have been much more ethnographically-oriented,expanding the domainof researchby focusing,in large part, on non-Westernsocieties and languages.Such interestshave much to do with Silverstein'sinsistence that "distinct pragmatic meaningsyield distinct analysesof utterances,thereby severing our dependenceon referenceas the controllingfunctional mode of speech"(1976b: 21). The socialends accomplished by the pragmaticfunction of language are just as important as the propositional ends manifested by the referentialfunction. An exampleof this pragmaticfunction is illustratedby the'mother- in-law' languageof Dyirbal which involvesa speciallexicon, referentially identical with the standardlexicon, that must be used in the presenceof one's mother-in-law."lJse of this speciallanguage signals no changein referentialcontent (what is being said),but only a changein situationalor pragmaticcontext (to whom one is speaking)"(Mertz 1985:6). Recent ethnolinguisticscholarship has, in part, dedicateditself to describing pragmatic function, and recently monographsextolling the pragmatic dimensionsof languageand the interaction these dimensionsobtain with referentiality have been produced by a younger generationof anthropologicallinguists (e.g., Errington 1988; Hanks 1990), many of whom could be included in the Silversteinianintellectual lineage,l0having had Silversteinas their intellectualmentor while working towardsthe doctorate in Anthropology at the University of Chicago. Their descriptions of pragmatics (referential and nonreferential indexical signification) within an ethnographicsurround augment Jakobsonian'invariant'functionalism with Silverstein's claim that "various indexical systemsare superimposedone on another in any 'in phenomenal linguisticsignal and are play'to different degrees,over the realtime courseof using language"(Silverstein 1987a 32). Silverstein'sown linguisticwork on Worora, an Australian aboriginallanguage
10Other ethnolinguistswho could be included in the lineage,in addition to Briggs and Urban, include the following. Dates in parenthesis indicate the year they received their doctorate from the University of Chicago's Department of Anthropology: J. Joseph Errington (1981), Richard Parmentier (1981), William Hanks (1983), Bruce Mannheim (1983), and Steve Caton (1984). hagmatics in the late 20th cennry 467 of the Northern Kimberley coast(1986), Dyirbal, an Australianaboriginal language of the CairnsRain Forest(I976a,1981a),11 and the Wasco-Wishramdialect of Chinook, an AmericanIndian languageof the Northwestcoast (1972,1974, I976a, 1978,,1985a), atteststo a concern with expandingthe traditionallyheld belief that the referential function of speechbe the basisfor linguistictheory.l2 For example,in his work on case-marking,Silverstein has demonstraledthat referentialindexical features, as well as purely referential ones,are to be taken into considerationwhen seekingto explain the patterns differentiating noun-phrasestypes in language(cf. Lucy I992a: 96-99, I992b: 68-71). In simplified terms, Silverstein'sinterpretation of noun-phrasetypes arguesfor a 'hierarchical'model in which thoseforms that depend on the immediate contextof speechfor their explicationbe marked differently than those that do not. Specitically,regular'splits'of case marking between nominative-accusative and ergative- absolutiveparadigms are shown"to be readilycharacterizable in terms of the resultant ordering of referential features" (Lucy 1992a:68). In organizing these features in 'referential space,'13Silverstein (1981a, 1985c, 1987b) presents a cline of extensional reference"fbr what the gradually more extensivegroups of denotational categories differentiallyinclude by way of characterizingpotential referents" (1987b: 147). What this meansis that there is a gradualand uniform changein the conditionsof reference as one moves in either direction along this cline. At one extreme end of the cline, denotationalcategories denote indexically and alwaysrefer to entitiesthat are the very conditionsfor usingany tokensof languageat all, alwayspresupposable in the acts of reference.These are the necessarilyconstituted roles of speakerand addressee.At the other end, reference heavily depends on the presuppositionof syntacticosemantic category types in morphosyntacticstructure, organized in linguistically-stipulated utteranceformations. These types,'segmentable natural kind things,'are "intensional categoriesthe interrelatedstructure of which correspondsto the set of all possible distinct morphosyntacticpatterns in a language" (Silverstein 1987b: 153) whose referentialcomponents for accomplishingextensionalization are much lessdependent on indexicalityfor explanation.Thus, the indexicalfactor is most important at the one end, in the region of personal deictics, and the semanticosyntactically-based intensionalizationsare most important at the other end,constituted by abstractentities of extension. From this data, Silverstein(1987b) presentsthe argument that it is on the indexicalend of the cline that the self-referentialquality of speech,that is, the ability of forms to refer to their own relationshipin the speechsituation, is demonstrated.
tl Silverstein's Dyirbal data comes from Dixon (1972).
1?When listing lhe various languageswith which Silverstein has worked, American English (1984, 1985d, 1987c) features prominently. However, because this paper focuses exclusively on his ethnolinguisticstudies, I have chosen not to discussherein this facet of Silverstein'scontribution.
13I refer the reader to Silverstein'stwo-dimensional figure of such,originally printed in (1981a),and subsequentlyreprinted in (1985c, 1987b). 468 Jon F" hessntan
Referencing the act of speaking itself through the use of personal deictics, self- referentiality is made possibleby the pragmatic function (indexicality).In such an interpretation,Silverstein not only demonstratesthe relationshipthat the pragmatic f'unctionof languagehas with its referentialcounterpart, but points to an interesting phenomenonwhereby native speakersare, for the most part, unawareof this indexical level. Silversteinoffers an explanationwhen he explainsthat
there is a marked difference in the nature of characterizability conditions on extendable objects. And it is this seeminglyless obviously transparentinvolvement of factors of indexicality...that makes the experience of extending entities with syntacticosemantic] 'centered' [intensional categories...appearto be less in the pragmaticsof the communicative event, more a 'objectively 'out matter of applying languageto a decenteredand categorizable'universe there,' that exists - in some sense- independentof such pragmatic eventsof communicating about it. (1987b:157)
Silverstein'sinterest in accountingfor the relationshipbetween actual language use and nativespeaker awareness of suchlanguage use (1976b, 7979,, 1981b) relies heavily on 'metapragmatics,' what he has called the referring to and predicating about the pragmaticfunction of language.Metapragmatics, in this way, is the reconstructionof an indexical signallingevent, the picking out of and supplyinginformation about a pragmatic act. Metapragmatics"is a description of an indexical signalling event" (Silverstein 1987b: 159).11As such, the metapragmatic function is based on referentiality and operates concurrently with the pragmatic one. "Without a metapragmaticfunction simultaneouslyin play with whatever pragmatic function(s) there may be in discursiveinteraction, there is no possibilityof interactionalcoherence, since there is no framework of structure...inwhich indexicalorigins or centeringsare relatable one to another as aggregated contributions to some segmentable, accomplishable,event(s)" (Silverstein 1993:37). The coincidenceof thesetwo functions is describedby Silversteinas "the unavoidabilityand transparencyof metapragmatic reference" (1981a: 241). That metapragmaticreference should be unavoidable and transparent to the native speakeris, in some part, predicatedon the 'marked' nature of the noun-phraseto foregroundthe event of speaking.The linguisticideology of the native speaker,as will be explained,highlights awareness of the referentialfunction of languagewhile hindering awarenessof the indexicalfunction. Such an ideologyof reference(Silverstein 1979) is causedby the inclinationof nativespeakers to "objectiff on the basis of analogiesto certain pervasivesurface-segmentable linguistic patterns, and act accordingly" (Silverstein 1979 202). In other words, Silverstein makes a distinction between the linguist's trained analysisof language and the 'secondary rationalizations'of nativespeakers. Inherently includedin the act of speakingby virtue of the personaldeictics, the transparencyand unavoidable coincidenceexperienced by the native speaker of metapragmaticcode to its pragmatic object code arisesfrom having to functionally
ra 'denotationally This correlateswith what Silverstein(1993) has called explicit' metapragmaticsign function. However, it also holds true for'denotationally implicit'or'virtua[' metapragmaticfunctioning. Pragnzatics in the late 20th century 469 differentiatea "plurifunctional'sign. Both indexicaland referentialsign modalitiesare united,even laminated,in one signtoken. Specifically,the personaldeictics denote by virtue of the fact that they unavoidablyindex their denotata, which are therefore characterizableas the pragmatic conditionspresupposed by these forms. Silverstein (1987b)contends that
the indexical presuppositions, hence pfagmatics, of the use of each of these forms, are precisely what are extendable by them; hence, the indexical function is transparently represented in the characterizability conditions, that is, the conditions for extensional use of the denotational category.At the same time, it is clear that the very form that is the indexical signal is the signal that refers to what is indexed; hence, to isolate the indexical sign is to isolate the referential sign. and there is unavoidable coincidence of these two modalities. So we might see the denotational content of these [personal deictic] categoriesas a transparent and unavoidably coincident metapragmaticsfor their own indexical conditions of occurrence,their pragmatics. They are, in effect, INDEXICAL DENOTATIONALS, the denotational content of which is transparently metapragmatic with respect to its denotational coincident pragmatic content. (1987b:162)
More will be said about metapragmaticsas a prominent semiotic-functionalconcern, especiallyin its serviceto the ethnolinguisticwork of Briggsand Urban, but realizethat Silverstein'sclaim of metapragmatictransparency and unavoidabilityis grounded in linguisticscholarship; such scholarship forms the basistrom which to advancesemiotic- functional observations.Such claims have been utilized by Silverstein'sstudents in differentways, both prescriptively(Briggs 1986), and with guardedoptimism (Errington 1985,1988). Clearly, Silverstein's claims establishing the unavoidableand transparent nature of metapragmaticfunctioning take an impetus from Jakobson'spositing of a metalingualfunction, where languagehas as its object the code itself. This paper is most concernedwith this avenue of Silverstein'swork, and mentions his linguistic studiesof case-markingonly to show that empirical researchunderlies his semiotic- functionalarguments. Suchstipulations, deriving eventually from Silverstein'sown fleldwork data, are usefulin ethnolinguisticscholarship insofar as they provide the neophyte researcher 'model' with at leasta partial of what to expectregarding native languageideologies. Such ideologies,as "any sets of beliefs about languagearticulated by users as a rationalizationor justification or perceivedlanguage structure and use" (Silverstein 1979: 193), are articulated by native speakersthrough several semiotic-functional factors,as identified by Silverstein(1981b).1s For example,one of the identified factorsencapsulating native linguisticideology is what Silversteincalls "unavoidable referentiality" (198lb: 5) Unavoidable referentiality is an inherent quality of plurifunctionalsigns by which the referential-and-predicationalmode of suchsigns are more salientto native descriptionthan their concomitantindexical mode. Specifically, 'unavoidability' it is this factor that can be correlated to the of metapragmatic
rsFor an enumeration of Silverstein'sother factors that impinge on native linguistic ideologies,see Lucy (1992a: 117-126). 470 Jon F" Pressntan reference,as describedabove. However, in Silverstein'sconceptualization, language function as analyzedby the trained anthropologicallinguist is to be kept distinctfrom native awarenessof this function.As seenhere, though, certain semioticphenomena can be calquedfrom the level of languagefunction onto the level of native speaker awareness.For example, the unavoidability and transparencyof metapragmatic reference of language use finds expressionin speaker awarenessas unavoidable referentiality"Besnier (1993), in describingaffect producing devices in Tuvaluan, contendsthat speakersare more aware of lexical devices(e.g., "hurry!") for marking affective meaning than of intonation and stressbecause the former are singular in purpose,and thereforemore availableto explanation.The latter, Besnierexplains, "are less readily identifiable as the vehicle through which these emotional states are communicated"(1993: 194), having to be superposedon the syntacticstructure of a sentencewhose primary purposeis to communicatereferential meaning. What remainsto be seenis how the emphasison native languageideologies by Silverstein(1979, 1981b)has had an impact on the ethnolinguisticscholarship of his students.This will be accomplishedfurther in the paper, but first we must backtrack slightlyand focuson thoseaspects of Jakobson'sfunctionalist typology that influenced Silverstein'spragmatics. Jakobson'sstipulation regarding language reflexivity, as emphasizedin his'poetic'and'metalingual'functions,prefaced Silverstein's pragmatics and metapragmatics,and having familiarized ourselveswith some of Silverstein's agenda,it is necessaryto see someearlier influenceson his subsequentwork.
3. Jakobson's reflexivity
When the overallorientation of a speechsituation is directedtowards the message,that is, directed towards the communicatedexpression, the poetic function is said to be dominant.From Jakobson'sfunctionalist perspective, the purposeof the poeticfunction is to focusthe messageon itselfand in this respect,the poeticfunction is 'introversively' or reflexively semiotic.Reflexivity is intrinsic to the poetic functioning of language becausethe messageitself is being indexedon by virtue of a poetic configuration.By identiffing poetry as introversivesemiosis, as a reflexiveactivity, Jakobson shows how a laying down of patterned text in syntagmaticand paradigmaticarrangements can comment on the message.Here the basic semiotic activities of selection and combination are being manipulated to create the poetically-structuredverbal interaction. The poetic function of languageis implicatedin all languageuse in the regular structuring of meaning into utterancesand texts.Because language is structural,the poetic function is alwaysoperating. This processis made explicitwhen formal units are considered on their combinatory positions within the sequential order of linear discourse.Thus, the fundamentalpoetic principle is sequentialmeasure, or meter, in terms of which the linear signalcan be measuredoff into quantifiableunits. Elements within the sameutterance in sequentially-definablepositions are equivalentinsofar as they can be metaphoricallycompared and contrasted.It is stressedthat any linguistic hagnatics in the late 20th century 477 form can serve as the basisfor poetic structure,defined with respectto the principle of meter. Silverstein(1984) has pushed this type of analysisand demonstratedthat poeticstructure is immanentin the realtimework of everyday,dyadic conversation. This harksback to Jakobson'sinsistence that the definition of the poetic function is purely formal and operational,possessing no inherentaesthetic quality, and made manifestin everydaydiscourse as it is in formal performance(Friedrich 1986). 'poetry' What has been come to be known as (by our culture's ethnocentric evaluationof such)has a particularpoetic structure,but not all poetic structurecomes under the definition of what our culture calls poetry. The units relevant to poetic structurescan be at any level of language,so that there are word-measuredpoetic structures, phrase-measured,those measured over whole sentences, etc. The Jakobsonianconceptualization of a poeticfunction in languagebecomes a prerequisite to any analysisof cross-culturallanguage use, availing the researchera meansby which to comparativelystudy metrical arrangement.However, the poetic function existsonly as one among many within an interactionalmatrix of the sort envisionedby Jakobson (1960).To seethis, a synopsisof his furrctionaltypology of the entire speechevent must be forthcomlng. As a structuralist,Jakobson was able to theoreticallyoutline the constituent elements of, and place in a proper perspective,speech interaction, therefore accomplishinga descriptionof a social-scientificphenomenon that had long eluded a complete characterization.This is not to imply that what resulted was a tinished typology;certainly the Jakobsonianmodel could have and did undergo successive revisionsby other scholars(cf. Hymes 196811962]; Silverstein 1985a). Briggs (1986) has done an outstandingjob in his book, Leaming How to Ask, of positing both the advantagesand shortcomingsof theseanalyses, and so that is not our task here. What will be accomplishedby the followingdiscussion is a summationof Jakobson'sdetailed model of explanationthat would later inspire applicationfrom an ethnographicand comparativeperspective in the work of Silverstein,Briggs, and Urban. The first of the factorsin any speechact focuseson the 'addresser'and involves "thespeaker's attitude towards what he is speakingabout" (Jakobson 1960: 354). It has 'emotive' been termed the function due to the expressivestyle of the utterance(s) involved.It is important to seethat in positinga purely emotivefunction, Jakobson was not being reductionisticand emphasizinga nonlinguisticaspect of language,but extremelyattentive to the details;the emotiveaspect according to him tlavorsall of our utterancesto someextent and is inherenteven when seeminglyabsent. Moving on, the secondof the six factorsof any utterancehighlights to whom the utteranceis directed, 'conative'function the'addressee.'Thisfactor hasa insofaras languageis beingused to achievea result in an addressee,in accordancewith the addresser'swishes. Third, the 'referential'function which coincideswith the 'context'factor operateswithin the interactionas the someoneor somethingspoken of, or more purposefully,the entity in the external world to which a linguistic expressionrefers. However, for the 'contact' interactionto work properly, a channelor is the fourth factor that must be presentas the accompanyinginterpersonal communicative stance serving a 'phatic' or socrally-bindingfunction. 472 Jon F. hessman
Fifth, the 'code' is the factor of the speechevent necessaryas a gamut of interpretiveconventions which enablesexpression and responseto that expression.It is the linguisticraw material mutual intelligibleto both speakerand addressee.The 'metalingual' function which correspondsto the code is the intent of a speechevent towardsa direct elucidationof the code.And finally sixth,the 'message'factor is the communicatedexpression itself and an explicationof this message(which indirectly and tacitly makes referenceto the nature of the code as well) is the goal of the 'poetic' function.As the relativeimportance of the six factorsare ever changingin the course of socialinteraction, so too is the relativehierarchy of the functions. It hasbeen arguedby Mannheim (1986)that four of the functionsJakobson has 'extroversively' posited are semiotic,in that the object of the messageis outside the medium: The contextwhich is the object of reference,the addresseeas the object of the conativefunction, the addresseras the objectof the emotivefunction and the social relationship between participants in the speech event as the object of the phatic function.As mentionedpreviously, two are 'introversively'or 'reflexively'semiotic, in that their object is the sign activity itself: The metalingualfunction questionsthe messageas to the nature of the linguisticcode, focusing on the generic conditionsof the sign activity.The poetic function focuseson the particularmessage form, utilizing the principle of equivalence to select from the syntagmatic and paradigmatii possibilitiesto recastthe messageinto another one. Jakobsonstates, "the selectionis produced on the base of equivalence,similarity or dissimilarity,synonymity and antonymity,while the combination,the build-upof the sequence,is basedon contiguity. The poetic function projectsthe principleof equivalencefrom the axisof selectioninto the axis of combination.Equivalence is promoted to the constitutivedevice of the sequence"(Jakobson 1960: 358). Jakobsonmakes the argument that like the poetic function, the metalingual function "also makes a sequentialuse of equivalentunits when combining synonymic expressionsinto an equational sentence"(Jakobson 1960: 358). This is only true, however, in terms of grammatical concordance.He explains that "poetry and metalanguage...arein diametrical opposition to each other: In metalanguagethe sequenceis usedto build an equation,whereas in poetrythe equationis usedto build a sequence"(Jakobson 1960: 358). The two differ in yet another way. Recall that "metalanguagemakes explicit, aware, and discursivereference to the nature of the linguisticcode. Verbal art makesimplicit, subliminal,and non-discursivereference to the code in the processof tocusingon the message"(Mannheim 1986:52). This is the seminaldifferentiation from the standpointof ref'erence:Whereas metalanguage seeks to propositionallyexplain the code,the poetic functionseeks to interpret and translate the message. Jakobson's insights regarding reflexivity, as important as they were on an individual basis, were never integrated into his larger speech-actschemata. His extroversivefunctions remained virtually apart from his introversiveones, and his model of speechinteraction was in this senseincomplete. However, Jakobson'sunfinished project was to be taken up by Silversteinwho demonstratedthat reflexivityis immanent and pervasivein sociallinguistic interaction. In the courseof this synthesis,Silverstein hagntatics in the late 20th century 473 was to redefine in Jakobson'smodel those features that presentedobstacles. Thus, Jakobson'sreliance on lingua-structuralmeaning was to be enhancedwith Silverstein's socialpragmatic insights. For Jakobson's(1960) model, this would entail the addition of a rndexically-constituted,functional explanation of the speechevent.
4. Silverstein'sfunctionalisms
As discussedpreviously, one of Silversteinmost insightful contributions in the intellectuallineage under discussionwas the positingof a 'metapragmatics'( I976b', 1985a),or the describingof the pragmaticuse of language.Metapragmatics, as the metalinguisticreporting that describespragmatic language use, utilizes the samebasic code (or grammar) to describeor characterizethis pragmatics.It is essentiallyspeech aboutcontext-related speech, using language to communicateabout the activityof using language.In accomplishingthis, metalanguage relies on language'sown reflexiveability. Jakobson(1960) has laid the groundworkin ascribingthe metalingualfunction, speech focused towards the explication of the code. In the Silversteinianregimentation, metalinguisticactivity is fundamentallymetapragmatic, that is, tor him most reflexive languagedeals with the appropriateuse of language. In his recent paper, "Metapragmaticdiscourse and metapragmaticfunction," Silverstein(1993) has taken up the notion of entextualization,l6and dissectedit into its constituentparts, making its role in discursiveinteraction more discernible.It is importantto sketchhis distinctions,along functional lines, so that Jakobson's(1960) continuinginvolvement in his thinking is revealed.Within discourse,according to Silverstein(1993), three levels of interactionalsemiosis may be saidto be in play at any given moment. First, there is the 'discursiveinteraction,' the sociocultural use of languagethat seems"to have a coherenceas a dynamicevent that maps presupposed causeonto entailedeffect" (1993: 36). Second, there is the construingof thisinteraction 'interactional as an entextualizableentity, an text,' attributingto the facts of discourse some cohesivestructure (cf. Silverstein1985a: 140). As explainedin the previous section,the metapragmaticsof any piece of discoursenecessarily interacts with the pragmaticsof that speechso
to achieveor accomplishthe laying down of (at leastone) interactional text in and by discursive interaction thus requires that in addition to the paired indexical semiotic functions of presuppositionand entailmcnt, the functional modality of pragmaticsthat discursiveinteraction literally consists ol there be simultaneously in play another functional modality, that of metapragmatics...thatat least implicitly models the indcxical-sign-in-contextrelationships as event-segmentsof inleractional text. (1993: 36)
In eftect,the metapragmaticfunction defines indexicals as interpretableevents of such- and-suchtype. This understandingof discursiveinteraction as eventsof such-and-such
roBauman and Briggs (1990, 1992) have also elaborated on this term and its applications. 414 Jon F. Pressntan type is the creation of interactionaltext. When consideringthis process,it is obvoius that metapragmaticfunction is as pervasive(and necessary)in languageuse as is the pragmaticfunction. Here Jakobson'sinsistence that "we practicemetalanguage without realizingthe metalingualcharacter of our statements"(1985 [1956]:117) has undergone further elaborationby Silverstein. Finally, a third level posited in the entextualizationschemata is that of 'denotational text' where referring-and-predicatingare understoodas the central, purposive functions of discursiveinteraction. When reterence-and-predicationis privilegedto the exclusionof alternatefunctions, a denotationaltext is beingcreated. It is stressedhere that the denotationaltext is but one model of discursivecoherence, and any interpretationof what actuallyhappened as a denotationaltext stems an analysisof discourseoperating under a metapragmaticrequirement "that every indexical be referable to a text-sentencethat correspondsto some syntacticstructure of denotationallyevaluated morphosyntactic form" (1993:37). Before discussing the effects of privilegingsuch reference-and-predicational denotation as the primary function of language,which leads directly to the critiquethat Silverstein(1985b, 1987a) has lodged againstJakobson's factor-tunction approach, the validityof positingthe entextualization processas actuallyconforming to what happensin discoursemust be assessed. Participantsin discursiveinteraction entextualize insofar as they have in mind accessible'cognitive'representationsof what is goingon from particularinterpretative perspectives.This meansthat while indexicalityis a relationshipof sign-tokensto their contextualsurround, cognitive models of what is generatedby and in indexicalityof behavioraltorms are probably generally in the form of textualinterpretations of various sorts,highly inf'luenceable by systemsof discursiveknowledge. As speakersand hearers, 'presuppose' we do not literally and 'entail.'These are semioticrelationships between signsand their indexicalcontexts. As Silverstein(1993) is quick to point out, there are logical relations of presuppositionand entailmentat the level of metapragmatic propositionsabout signals-in-context.To the extent that one believes that our interactionalintentionality is composedof suchpropositional attitudes, then one might 'presuppose' saythat speakersand hearersalso and 'entail.'The objectof the present paper is not to trace the theoreticalunderpinnings of entextualization,and so, I will discontinuesuch discussionat this time. I emphasize,though, that Silverstein's 'cognitive' pragmaticsdelve far into the sideof discursivephenomenon. When consideringthe aforementionedproblem of privileging reference-and- predication as the overwhelmingfunction of language,Silverstein (1985b, I987a) divergeswith his mentor,demonstrating that Jakobson's (1956, 1960) conceptualization 'pragmatic' of functionalismwas only in assigningtunctions to the speechsituation. What is most interestingabout Silverstein'sreconfiguration is the fact that had Jakobsonincorporated his earlierstipulations on the indexicaldimension of language (1951),rnto his conceptualizations of speech-actfunctionalism (1956,1960), Silverstein's critrqueof suchmay havebeen unnecessary.So as not to frame the critiqueas being directedsolely at Jakobson,Silverstein's (1985b, 1987a) complete claritication of the 'function' role of in language-centeredtheories will be addressed,positing two problematicfunctionalisms that are both intrinsicallydetlcient in terms of his own Pramtatics in the late 20th century 475
'pragmaticfunctionalism"' The first view on human languagethat falls short in terms of his pragmatic 'structural functionalistperspective is what Silverstein(1985b, 1987a) has called functionalism.'In this view, tormal linguisticstructure is abstractedand divorcedfrom the actualitiesof speechperformance. It is completelycentered towards referentiality in that this theory about language,having the sentenceas its ideal, positsa "formally completeobject of linguisticstudy, in which form...canbe systematicallyrelated to meaning"(1987a: 1t3), and the referentialrelationships that developherein are constant, identifiablewithout knowledgeof actual usage.It becomesincreasingly apparent that what it at stake if this structuralfunction of languageis endorsedis the actual 'synthetic,' contextual knowledge of any speech event; in its place is sort of a universally-applicable,propositional knowledge of referenceand predicationguided by 'structural' the genericmatrix of grammaticalconstraints. It is in this sense,positing "a particularkind of functional explanationthat situatesthe central linguistic cognitive processin autonomousgrammatical structure" ( 1987a:22), independentof any factsof actuallinguistic usage. This functionalismof language'isnothing more than a highlystructured system which seeksto impose a symbolic template on speech.Derived from the work of Saussureand Leonard Bloomfield,in this 'formalist'approach to language,surface lexicalforms, individually or in grammaticalconstruction, have been privilegedso that, 'function' taken as a set, they "specifythe of the lexeme or expressionin the total grammaticalsystem of the language"(1985b: 208). Thus, the delimitationof the totality of grammaticalforms to be analyzedis, implicitly, restrictedto the referential-and- predicationalview of language.Reference, in this sense,is takento mean signunits in grammatical arrangements,the meaning of which is a descriptive or referring proposition."It is this referentialfunction of speech,and its characteristicsign mode, the semantico-referentialsign, that has fbrmed the basis for linguistic theory and linguisticanalysis in the Westerntradition" (Silverstein1976b: 14). For Silverstein, referenceworks in conjunctionwith indexicality,an aspectof languageforgotten in this conceptualization. The secondtheory on languagethat fallsshort of a pragmaticfunctionalism is whatSiiverstein has called'illocutionary' or'speech-act functionalism.' In thisapproach, advocatedby philosophersof languagesuch as Austin, Searle,and Grice, function is seen"as the purposive,goal-oriented use of speech...byintentional individuals in specific situationsof discourse,each usage constituting a speechact" (1987a:23).In opposition to the asocial, unconsciouspredication of the first functionalism,illocutionary functionalismposits a consciousand purposivebehavior. The problem, though, that arisesin this conceptionhas to do with the receptionor perlocutionaryeffects rendered with respectto the illocutionarydesire. Specifically, we cannotuniquely associate any givenillocution with a particular perlocutiontor two reasons. First,"illocutionary function indicating devices are not necessarilyexplicit clause- levelmaterial" (1987a: 29).In otherwords, some designations of illocutionaryfunctions in English,for example,cannot be realizedby a uniquelyapparent performative at the level of code. That is, there existsa "host of such linguisticdevices, usages of which 476 Jon F. Pressnrcn have metapragmaticdescriptions as conventionalcommunication types, but...have no clause-levelrealization" (1987a: 30). Within the English language, this problem translatesinto an overabundanceof metapragmaticillocutionary functions that do not find realization in actual performatives. The second problem similarly deals with the absence of a one-to-one relationship between illocution and perlocutionary reception. Too few illocutions explicitlyfail to designatewithin situationalcontexts perlocutionary effects that may be rnultiply interpreted.For example,in the illocutionaryphrase, "Do you havethe time?," a perlocutionaryeffect in the mind of the hearer might take the form of a demand or of an informational question, but there is, in the mind of the sender, a unique illocutionary intent being specified.The overall problem, then, with the illocutionary function of languagestems from the fact that the degreeof precisionwith which the illocutionary function operatesin relation to perlocutionaryreception is not accurate enoughto rule out occasionalmisunderstandings within the speechevent. There is no recoursetowards clarificationin this functionalism;a comprehensivemodel must be able to account for, and resolve,such a problem. Silversteinincludes among those guilty of prescribinga model of speech-act functionalism,Jakobson (1960) with his factor-functiontypology of the speechevent, as well as the ethnographyof speakingapproach of Hymes (1974),and much of the pragmaticsadvocated by the strictly linguisticfaction, as discussedin the introductory section.What bothers Silversteinabout all of theseapproaches is the fact that they all see the activity of speakingas basedon the individual'sproposition-like classification model predicatedon extensionalreference. Such a modelof langaugeuse seems to ask "when and how is it sociallyappropriate/correct/effective to refer-and-predicatewith such-and-suchforms in such-and-suchcontext" (1987a:24)? This accountof language is essentiallya diagram built from a structural analysisof a maximally appropriate referring-and-predicatingevent, constructed without everquestioning the ability of such an abstractedschema to adequatelydescribe, for example, indexical systems.This account is basically "an idealization of how lexical expressionspropositionally or referentially function in grammaticalpatterns that underlie how certain utterances can...functionin achievingeffective referring-and-predicating results" (Silverstein 1987a: 25). Silverstein( insistenceof the plurifunctionalityof the linguisticsign, that is, the superpositionof both referentialand nonreferentialfunctions in one sign,denies that reference-and-predicationbe the singular,functional reading. For him, the samesignal servesin many functionalsystems simultaneously. Hymes(\974 is particularlyproblematic in thisrespect, insisting that the [1970])'stylistic') pragmatic(what he calls and the referentialfunctions of languageare never co-occcurrent."What is stylisticin a given context cannot at the same time be referential, although the same feature may serve different functions in different contexts"(1974 [1970]: 161).Elsewhere, Hymes lumps both referentialand stylistic functions into a categoryof 'structural'functions, and makesthis distinct from a 'use' functions cateqory.He contendsthat
'structural' funclions have to do with the basesof verbal features and their organization. the Pragntatics in the late 20th cennry 477
relations among them, in short, with the verbal means of speech, and their conventional 'Use' meanings,insofar as those are given by such relationships. functions have to do with the organization and meaning of verbal features in terms of nonlinguistic contexts. The two are rnterdependent,but it is useful to discriminate them. It seemslikely that rules of co-occurrence can be considered to have to do with structural functions. and rules of alternation with use functions. (Hymes 1974: 439)
Hymes' dichotomization of structural from use functions reminds of Jakobson's invarianttypology of the speechact into its six componentswhere everyfactor can be seento conform to a prefabricatedfunction. However, Silverstein (1987a) has praised both Jakobson(1960) and Hymes (1974)for emphasizingindexicality in language.A footnotein one of Silverstein'sarticles (1979) assesses the extentto which the indexical function has been incorporated in their work. "Now-classicstatements of at least portionsof this [indexical]point of vieware Jakobson (1971 [1957]: 130-47); (1960) and Hymes(1974 [196a]: 3-27); (I974 [1972]:29-66).The first of theseis explicitlysemiotic and formally analytic;the perspectiveof the other three is clearlyfunctional. but not especiallysemiotic, in light of the resultsof the first. This rapprochementis a more recentdevelopment in many later studies- includingmy own - influencedby the ones cited"(1979:239 fn.I1). In this quote canbe discernedSilverstein's own view as to how he enters into the lineage under present discussion.lTWhereas Jakobson(1957) demonstratesan initial awarenessof what would later become,in part, the indexical groundof Silversteinianpragmatic functionalism, he did not includethese stipulations of the nature of the sign with his speech-actfunctionalist model (1960). That is, Jakobsondid not inform his 1960article with the formal-semioticanalysis as it was laid out in his 1957publication. Similarly, Hymes (191411964),1974 |9121) fails to realize that indexicalitynecessarily connects structural and use functions,thereby dissolving suchan analyticaldistinction. From a certainperspective, Silverstein accomplishes what Jakobsonand Hymes did not: The inclusion of speechindexicality in a speech-act functionalisttemplate. What Silverstein calls 'pragmatic functionalism' seeks to explain linguistic structuresby their occurrence in, and by their serving as indexes of, particular presupposed communicative contexts of use. The advantage that pragmatic functionalismholds over structural and illocutionary functionalism is its indexical orientation.Indexicality is the missingcomponent in such problematicfunctionalisms insofaras it links the elementsof speechwith the existentialreality that is copresent with any utterance in the first, and in the second serves to solidify a unique correspondencebetween intent and eftectin verbalaction. "The indexicalor pragmatic realm of function is, in a sense,the most elementarysign function in language"It
17I do not overly concern myself with teh work of Hymes in this paper, although hc has had an indirect mentoring effect on Silverstein. For example, they share an ethnolinguistic interest in Chinookan, and Hymes was teaching at Harvard around the same time that Silverstein was an undergraduatethere (AB 1965). An interesting hitoriographic aside concerning Hymes is that, like / Silversteinin his "Shifters, linguistic categories,and cultural description" paper (1976b), he too has I dedicatedone of this more celebratedpapers (196811962l) to Roman Jakobson. 478 JonF. Pressnnn bespeaksthe simpletact of the situatednessof languageuse as a socialaction in some context" (Silverstein1985b: 225). Further, when undertakingethnolinguistic analysis, Silversteinadvocates a method directed towards discerning"the pragmaticsof metapragmaticusage" ( i985a: 138).This methodentails not only the identificationof this languages'smetapragmatic construction types, but equallyinvolves a pragmatic interpretationof suchtypes as they are systematicallydistributed in discourse.
5. Ethnolinguistic studiesof Warao and Shokleng
The conceptof metapragmatics,as institutedby Silverstein,has been responsiblefor spurringon late twentiethcentury ethnolinguistic research to a profounddegree, and it is not farfetchedto argue that such a theoreticalconception is Silverstein'smost importantcontribution to the historicalline underconsideration. He himselfadmits to the importanceof suchwhen he statesthat
I am particularly concerned with the metapragmaticusages of different languages,because I believe that in this functional mode we will find an empirical entree into the conceptual understandingof languagethat each societyof speakersbrings to bear on the activity of actually using it, and hence, on its constituted norm. In other words, there is a necessaryrelationship between the way in which metapragmatic constructions of languagescode the pragmatics of speaking, and the idcological and cognitivc strategies that speakers employ in culturally- conceptualizcd situations of speaking.(1985a: 138)
Metapragmaticshas an impacton contemporaryanthropological scholarship insofar as recent years have seen the emergenceof ethnographygrounded in enunciating,to a certain extent, native pragmaticideology (e.g., Errington 1985;Hanks 1993;Mertz 1993).In this way, metapragmaticsmay be includedin the analyticarsenal of the ethnolinguist.For example,what the informant indicatesas the pragmaticsof a particular language is, in fact, the indigenousideological representation of such pragmatics.Such a metapragmaticsseryes to illustratethis point, and recentscholarship fbcusingon the ideologiesof languageuse (Kroskrity et al. 1992)is essentiallypart of a larger ethnolinguisticproject. This sectionwill highlight the work of Briggs and Urban because,apart from their placementin the lineagehaving had Silversteinas a mentor,their ethnolinguistic work has focused on South Amerindian languages,one of my own professional interests. Anthropological linguisticsin native South America has of late seen an increasedinterest (Urban and Sherzer1988: 283), and althoughthe pragmaticmodel is one of many now being applied,it deservesattention as a new approachto a culture areathat haslong been occupiedsolely by historicaland structurallinguists. The acivent of pragmaticshas produced some interesting findings linking language structure and use to its cultural context,and it is this recent,anthropological linguistic scholarship on South Amerindianlanguages that will receiveattention. As a disclaimer,what follows is the most rudimentaryof discussions,aimed at introducingthe readermost generally to the manner by which the pragmatic-ethncllogicalnexus has been demarcatedby hagmaticsin thelate 20th cenrury 479
Briggsand Urban. Specificinsights and individualcontributions fleshed out in Briggs' and Urbani work are far too numerousand complexto be adequatelyaddressed herein. Briggs has shown that ethnographicevents such as disputes,mythological narratives,and ritual wailing,all of which are the proper provenanceof anthropology, can yield important tLndingswhen looked at with an eye towardsmetapragmatics. Havingstudied at the Universityof Chicago'sDepartment of Anthropologyin the late seventiesand earlyeighties,rs Briggs'ethnological interests are quite diverse,rncluding Mexrcanoverbal art (1985a, 1985b,1988a), fieldwork methodology(1984, 1986), ethnolinguisticstudies utilizing Warao, an indigenouslanguage of Venezuela(1988b, 7992a,,I99Zb, L993a, 1994), and analysesof ideological and authoritative forces immanentin discursivephenomena (1993b, 1993c). What followsis a brief synopsisof how Briggs has applied the pragmatic and metapragmatic paradigm in his ethnolinguisticstudies of Warao. Although Briggs has expandedthe theories of Jakobsonand Silverstein,his strengthseems to be in rigorouslyapplying vrhat he has learnedtrom his mentor(s) to the ethnologicalcontext. In this way, I will not be discussingBriggs' refinement of the theoreticallineage in which I haveincluded him, but with his exegesisof theory as it relatesto ethnolinguistics. Much of Briggs'scholarship centers on configuringJakobson's poetic function towardsa betterunderstanding of whatMcDowell (1986) has called 'folkloric semiosis.' "Folkloricsemiosis transpires in the contextof a face-to-faceconfrontation among the personnel.In folkloric semiosissender and receiverare not clnlycopresent, but also typicallylocated within a proxemic range tacilitatingdirect verbal and nonverbal interaction"(1986: 263)" To furtherclarify this relationship, Briggs (1gBUb, I992a,1993) has enlistedSilverstein's metapragmatic orientation in recent studieson the Warao language.For example,the Warao conductdispute mediation events in respclnseto intra-and inter-familial conflict. Briggs (1988b) demonstrates the simultaneityby which metapragmaticfeatures in narrativesinterpret the situationthat gave rise to the conflict,regulate the ongoinginteraction, and seekto determinethe mannerin which communitymembers will relateafter the eventhas concluded. Briggs has found that the importanceof competingmodes of talking and assocratedways of relatingprovides us with insightas to why Warao narrativescan piay sucha crucialrole in conflictand mediation.Narratives do not simplyfocus attention on events.Narrative resourcesare utilized in creatingevents out of experience. Poeticallyorganized in complexways, they provide narratorswith powerful tools for embeddinginterpretations in actionto suchan extentthat why somethinghappened seemsto tlow naturallyfrom a descriptionof what took place."The poetic dimension also calls attention to the narratingevcnt, creatinga powerful iconic relationship betweenwhat is said to have taken place and what is happeningat the moment" (1988b:485). In anotherethnographically-oriented paper, Briggs ( 1993)addresses the problem
lEBriggs received his doctorate in Anthropology in 19U1from thc University of Chicago. 480 Jon F. Pressman of multiple performancesof the 'same'text. Briggs analyzes three renditionsof a single Warao narrativeby the sameperson in order to showhow participants'understandings of each performanceplay a role in differentiatingthe performanceevents. Silverstein (1993) has discussedthe 'calibration' (i.e., relationship)of metapragmaticsignaling event to entextualizedor reported event-structureand Briggs employs this concept, focusingon the degreeto which eachof three performancetypes treats the relationship betweennarrated (reported or entextualized)events and narrating (signaling)events. The first type is the monologic performancewhich emphasizesthe integrity of the narratedevent, and the'disjoint'or separaterelationship the narratingevent has to the narrated one. The secondtype, that of dialogicperformance, emphasizes the link of narrated to narrating event by way of an explicit metapragmaticswhich spells out exactlyhow the two eventsare to be united.The final type is the acquisition-oriented performance that, in focusing on the pedagogicalinstruction of social interaction, emphasizesthe processof producing a narrative,and so the calibration is reflexive, designatinga relationshipin which metapragmaticsignaling and entextualizedelements form part of the same discursiveand interactionalunit. In his concludingremarks, Briggs insists that his own ethnolinguisticstudies of Warao have endeavored to demonstrate, most generally, that "metapragmaticsdoes not simply enable us to disambiguatereference or to calibrateinferential processes - metapragmaticsprovides essentialmeans of connectingdiscourse with lived experience"(7993:207). Like Briggs,the ethnolinguisticwork of Greg Urban (1981,7984,1985a, 1985b, 1986a,1986b, 1989, 1991, 1993) emphasizes a similarinterest in metapragmatics,most ostensibly,with demonstrating its applicability to the study of South Amerindian mythology.Urban receivedhis doctoratefrom the Universityof Chicago'sDepartment of Anthropology in 1,978,and was one of Silverstein'sfirst studentsto systematically apply his mentor's work on pragmaticsto an anthropologicalcontext, specifically the mythologyof Brazil'sShokleng Indians. Because Urban's overallargument has received steadytreatment, in bits and pieces,over a long period of time (1981-1993),what is presentedin the tollowingaccount is a generaldiscussion of his oeuvre.Specitic articles will be consideredonly in relation to what are some of more Urban's general claims, and hence,will not be discussedindividually. Unlike the work of Briggswhich ranges over a variety of ethnolinguistictopics, Urban has focusedquite extensivelyon the application of metapragmaticsto variousaspects of mythologicdiscouse.le For Urban, in socialanthropological terms, discourse is that which functionsas social glue, binding individualsto collectivenorms. From this understandingfollows what Urban (1991) calls the 'discourse-centeredapproach to culture,' the primary tenant of which is that "culture is localizedin concrete,publicly accessiblesigns, the
1eUrban diverges from this general interest in his (1981) paper, which seeks to apply agent-and- patient-centricity concepts to mythology, and his (1985a)paper, which is a strictly linguistic discussion of ergativity and accusativityin Shokleng. In both, though, the parallel to Silverstein'swork on noun- phrase categorization is apparent. His (1988) paper is slightly less ethnolinguistic because it deals exclusivelywith pronouns in English discourseon the subject of nuclear war. Additionally, in his (1992) paper, Urban provides a synopsisof Peirce'shand in all of this. Pragmatics in the late 20th cenrury 481 most important of which are actuallyoccurring instances of discourse"(1991: 1)" Subsequently,Urban understandsmythology not as the mental object advocatedby lrvi-Strauss (1955),20but as concrete, unfolding discourse. This mythology-as- discourseapproach has severaladvantages, not the least of which is the ability of the myth,insofar as it containsinstances of discourseas reported speech,to embodya kind of 'theory'about the relationshipbetween speech and action.Urban describesit in this manner:
ln a text, the speech that is reported typically has some relationship to other action that is reported, for example, the speechmay be about action that has taken place or will take place, it may be a command, it may be a lie, and so on. By studying these relationships, one gains accessto what might be termed the 'ethno-metapragmatictheory' the text embodies,that is, how the relationship between speech and action is conceptualizedby the users of the language. (1984:310)
As a semioticsystem, language enables its usersto speakabout speechas well as about other types of action. In order that it be be ef.fectivefor social ends, some kind of regimentationmust take place whereby the culture in which it is based can appropriatethis discoursefor its collectiveneeds. "Minimally, this would consistin a setof normativemodels which represent the consequencesof usingdiscourse in certain waysin various types of social situations.The collectivesocial benefits or detriments could be brought, however dimly, into awareness"(Urban 7993: 242). Myths are capableof playingthis normativerole because,as replicative narratives, they depict the outcomes of metapragmatic activities. In myth, language is embedded in a representationof social situationsand processes.Insofar as the myth enters into an indexicalrelationship with the world through what Urban (1993)has called 'aesthetic' representation,myth is simultaneouslya metapragmaticand a pragmaticdevice, serving to "encodea vision of the relationshipbetween speech and social action, but also to prescribethat relationshipnormatively to those who listen to it" (Urban 1984: 325). Insofaras a myth containsinstances of reported speech,it necessarilyalso encodesa visionof languageuse, of how speechis embeddedin socialaction and how it relates to nonlinguisticactions. Urban contentsthat:
Such an 'ethnometapragmatic' vision is open to scrutiny by any observer. If it is open to scrutiny,however, it is also accessiblefor manipulation by the myth-tellers themselves.who can shapethe metapragmaticimage embeddedin the text to suit their own purposes.Consequently, insofar as the myth-tellers have the maintenanceof the status quo among their goals, there is a natural tendency for myths to take on the design characteristicsof a pragmatic device used for prescribing relationships between speechand action. (1984:327)
In this manner, myths encodethe object of the pragmaticlesson as part of their aestheticstructure. In addition, the metapragmaticmessage is housed within the
'structural' 20In his formulation of mythology, Lrvi-Strauss borrowed certain ideas from Jakobson. SeeMoore and Olmstead (1954), Mounin (1974), and Turner (1977) for a discussionof this. 482 Jon F. Pressnnn aestheticzone which is already situatedwithin the domain of discourse.What Urban contendsfor Shoklengmythology is iterated in Warao mythology(Briggs 1993a),and as it may be in the mythologyof still other South Amerindian groups (e.g.,Pressman 1ee1).
6. Conclusion
Metapragmaticinquiry of the sort describedabove by Briggsand Urban, in either its theoretical thrust (Jakobson-tSilverstein) or in its ethnologicalthrust (Silverstein-* Briggs,Urban), are both otfspringof the intellectuallineage (Jakobson * Silverstein-* Briggs,Urban) that hasbeen consideredin this paper.Metapragmatics, as it hasgrown out of the Jakobsonianparadigm, beginning ostensibly as a meansof understandingthe linguisticsignal, has evolvedfrom this purely linguisticmodeling to includebroader semiotic activity,now a meansby which to conceptualizeand explain the appropriate functioning of these signs in pragmatic usage.Silverstein's recasting of Jakobson's factor-tunctionapproach to the speechevent to includeelements of indexicality,as well 'native'viewpoint as his insistencethat the linguistmust considerthe in interactional contexts,has produced this (meta)pragmaticaccount of communicativecoherence and ability, as well as discreditingwhat Briggs(1992b) has called "the myth of the linguist as hero," the idea that the linguistis purportedlythe only individualwho has anything of relevanceto say about language.It is the dialecticthat emergesbetween informant and ethnolinguist,operating in a hotbed of ideologicalimport, that stands to offer contrastive,and ultimatelythe most rewarding,insights. With Silverstein'sformulation of pragmaticsin the early seventies(depicted in this paper as his connectingJakobson's 1957 conclusions with his 1960ones), the study of human communication was able to be rigorously discerning while addressing ethnographicdiversity and variation.Many of today'sleading linguistic anthropologists begantheir careersas studentsof Silverstein,and he was able to impart to them in his lectures and private sessions(Caton 1988: 253) an understandingof languagein its myriad functional agendas.Taking what he had learned in decadespast from an immigrant Slavicistat Harvard, Silversteinhas brought to the Universityof Chicagoan anthropology of language that eschewsstructural rigidity and seeks to illuminate language'scomprehensive grounding in, and anchoringto, the ethnographiccontext. Nevertheless,the historical movement from structuralism to pragmatics is exceedinglycomplex, and in no way has this paper sought to addressall possible dimensionsof this history. Rather, the object herein was to present one particular historyas it was hammeredout by severalprominent scholars of languageduring the early sixtiesup to the present.The choiceto focuson Jakobson,Silverstein, Briggs, and Urban was predicatedas much by their general neglectin the field of linguistic pragmaticsin past years,as by the recent interestthese individuals have receivedfrom the anthropologicalfaction (e.g., Lucy 1993).Remembering that Jakobson'sfactor- function criteria underwent careful reanalysisin light of Silverstein'sethnolinguistic interest,and in the subsequentethnological studies of Briggsand Urban, this history, hagmaticsin thelate 20th cenrury 483 in turn, will inform a new generationof scholars,many of whom are currently students of Briggsand Urban. Jakobsonwas certainlyaware of the disciplinaryhistory leading up to his particular moment within the linguisticsciences, and Silverstein,Briggs, and Urban of theirs in the anthropologicallinguistic tradition. The present work has documentedthe exchangeof ideas not only from the disciplinesof linguisticsto anthropologicallinguistics, but from scholar to scholar in the context of academic affiliationand theoreticalconcern. As Silversteinhas demonstrated,"pragmatics as a field is the studyof the way indexicalfeatures of forms as usedpresuppose and create the very parametersof the event of communication,which is itself intersubjectively validated as purposive interlocutor activity through a socially shared system of meanings"(1985a: 134). Pragmatics as a field of study,then, must walk the fence betweenlinguistics and anthropology,keeping a foot in each, cautious of stumbling head-over-heelsinto one or the other, and attentiveto a historicaltrajectory peopled by scholarsrepresenting both.
References
Bauman,Richard (1977) VerbalArt as Perfornmnce.Prospect Hcights, Ill.: Waveland Press.
Bauman, Richard, and Charles Briggs (1990) Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on languageand social life. Anrutal Review of Anthropologt 19:59-88.
Bauman,Richard (1992)Genre, intertextuality,and socialpower. Journal of Lingistic Anthropologt 2(7): 13r-r72.
Besnier,Niko (1993) Reported speechand affect on Nukulaelae Atoll. In Jane Hill and Judith Irvine (eds.),Responsibility and evidencein oral discourse.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 161-181.
Bourdieu,Pierre (1988) [1984]Honto Academicus,Peter Collier (trans.).Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Briggs, Charles (1984) lrarning how to ask: Native metacommunicative competence and thc . incompetenceof fieldworkers.LanEtage in Society13(1): 1-28.
Briggs,Charles (1985a) Treasure tales and pedagogicaldiscourse in Mexicano New Mexico. Journal of Anterican Folklore 98(389): 287 -314.
Briggs,Charles (1985b) The pragmaticsof proverb performancesin New Mexican Spanish.Anterican Anthropologrst87 (4): 793-8I 0.
Briggs, Charles (1986) Learning How to Ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of thc inten,iew in social scientificresearch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Briggs,Charles (1988a) Contpetencein Perfomnnce: The Creativits,of Tradition in Mexicano Verbal Art. 484 Jon F. hessman
Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress.
Briggs, Charles (1988b) Disorderly dialoguesin ritual impositions of order: The role of metapragmatics in Warao dispute mediation. Ant hropological Linguistics 30(3I 4): 448-491.
Briggs, Charles (1992a)"Since I am a woman, I will chastisemy relatives":Gender, reported speech,and the (re)production of social relations in Warao ritual wailing. Anrcrican Ethnologist l9(2):337-36I.
Briggs, Charles (I992b) Linguistic ideologies and the naturalization of power in Warao discourse. Pragmatics 2(3): 387 -404.
Briggs, Charles (1993a) Generic versusmetapragmatic dimensions of Warao narratives:Who regiments performance? In J Lucy (ed.), Reflexive Language: Reported speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,179-212.
Briggs, Charles (1993b) Metadiscursive practices and scholarly authority in folkloristics. Journal of Anterican Folklore 106(422\: 387-434.
Briggs, Charles (1993c) "I'm not just talking to the victims of opression tonight - I'm talking to everybody": Rhetorical Authority and Narrative Authenticity in an African-American Poetics of Political Engagement. Iournal of Narrative and Life History 3(1): 33-78.
Briggs, Charles (1994) The sting of the ray: Bodies, agency,and grammar in Warao curing. Journal of Anterican Folklore 107(423): 139-166.
Bruss, Elizabeth (1978) Peirce and Jakobsonon the nature of the sign. In R. Bailey, L. Matejka and P. Steiner (eds.), The Sign: Seniotics Around the World, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,81-98.
Biihler, Karl (1990) [1934]. Theoryof Language: The RepresentationalFunction of Language, D. Goodwin (trans.). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Caton, Steve (1987) Contributions of Roman Jakobson.Annual Reviewof Anthropologt 16:223-260.
Caton, Steve (1990) Speech styles,status, and speakerawareness. Seniotica 80 (ll2): 153-160.
Caton, Steve (1993) The importance of reflexive language in George H. Mead's theory of self and communication. In J. Lucy (ed.), ReflexiveLanguage: Reported Speechand Metapragnmtics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,315-337.
Darnell, Regna (1974) Readings in the History of Anthropology. New York: Harper and Row.
Darnell, Regna (1990) Edward Sapir: Linguist, Anthropologist, Huntanisr. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dixon, R.M.W. (1972) The Dyirbal Language of Northern Queensland Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, Alessandro (1994) Front Grammar to Politics: Linguistic Anthropologt in a Western Samoan Wllage. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Errington, J. Joseph (1985) On the nature of the sociolinguisticsign: Describing the Javanesespeech hagmatics in the late 20th cenrury 485
levels" In E Mertz and R. Parmentier (eds.), Seniotic Mediotion: Socioculrural and Prychological Perspectit,es.Orlando: Academic Press, 287-310.
Errington, J. Joseph (1988) Structure nnd Style in Javanese:A Seniotic View of Linguistic Etiquette. Philadelphia:University of PennsylvaniaPress.
Friedrich, Paul (1986) The Longuage Parallax: Linguistic Relativismand Poetic Indeterninacy. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Gazdar, Gerald (1979) hagnratics: Intplicanre, Presuppositionand Logical Fornt New York: Academic Press.
Gorl6e.Dinda (1992) Translation after Jakobson after Peirce.In E. Tarasti (ed.), Centerand Periphery in Representationsand Institutions.Imatra: International Semiotics Institute, 55-82.
Hanks, William (1990) Referential Practice: Language and Liv,ed Space onrcng the Maya. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Hanks, William (1993) Metalanguage and pr€gmaticsof deixis. In J. Lucv (ed.), ReflexiveLanguage: ReportedSpeech and Metapragnmtics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 127-157.
Hill, Jane (1992) Anthropological Linguistics. In W. Bright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics,Vol. L Oxford: Oxford University Press, 65-68.
Hill, Jane and Bruce Mannheim (1992) [.anguage and worldvi ew.Annual Review of Anthropologt 2I: 381- 406.
Hymes,Dell (1968) 11962lThe ethnography of speaking. In J. Fishman (ed.), Readings in the Sociologt of Language,99-138.
Hymes,Dell (1974) [19641Towards ethnographiesof communication. ln Foundationsin Sociotlinguistics: An ethnogrophicapproacl. Piladelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 3-27.
Hymes,Dell (1974) [1970] Linguistic theory and gunctions of dpeech. ln Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographicapproacft. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 145-178.
Hymes, Dell (197a) l977l Studying the interaction of language and social life. In Foundations m Sociolingistics:An ethnographicapproacft. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 29-66.
. Hymes, Dell (1974) Ways of Speaking. In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds.), Explorarions in the Erhnographt,of Speaking.Chmbridge: Cambridge University Press, 433-451
Hymes,Dell (1975) The Pre-War Prague School and Post-War American Anthropological Linguistics. In K. Kocrner (ed.), Zre Transforntntional-Generative Paradigm and Modern Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,359-380.
Hymes, Dcll 11983)Essalu in the Hisrory of Lingtistic Anthropologt. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jakobson,Roman (1960)Closing statement: --'----o---Linguistics and poetics.r--'---- In T. Sebeok(ed.), \--'"--'''-'---'--o---'o-Sry/e in language. Cambridge:MIT Press,350-377. I 486 Jon F. Pressntan
Jakobson, Roman (1965) Quest for the essenceof language.Diogenes 5I:21-37"
Jakobson, Roman (1971) [1957] Shifters,verbal categories,and the Russian verb. In SelectedWitings II: Word and language. The Hague: Mouton, 130-147.
Jakobson,Roman (197i) [19631Efforts toward a means-endsmodel of languagein interwar continental linguistics. In Selected Witings II, pp. 522-526. The Hague: Mouton.
Jakobson, Roman (1971) [19681 l:nguage in relation to other communication systems.ln Selected Writings. The Hague: Mouton, 697-708.
Jakobson, Roman (1976) A few remarks on structuralism.MLN 91: 1534-1539.
Jakobson,Roman (1977) A few remarkson Peirce,pathfinder in the scienceof language.MLN 92: 1026- 1032
Jakobson,Roman (1985) [1956]Metalanguage as a linguistic problem. In S. Rudy (ed.),SelectedWitings VII: Contributions to Contparative Mythologt, Srudies in Linguistics and Philologt, 1972-1982. Berlin: Mouton, ll3-121.
Koerner, Konrad (1990) Wilhelm Von Humboldt and North American ethnolinguistics.H/.r/oriographia Linguisrica l7 (l l2): 11 1-128.
Koerner, Konrad (1991) Towards a history of modern sociolinguistics.Anrcrican Speech66(1): 57-'70.
Kroskrity, Paul, et al. (eds.) (1992) Special issueon languageidcologies. Pragnratics 2(3). lrech, Geoffrey (1980) Principles of Pragnntics. Lontlon: Longman.
Levi-Strauss,Claude (1955) The structural study of myth.Journal of Anrcrican Folklore 681270),:428-444.
Levrnson, Stephen (1983) h'agnmtics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liszka, Jak6b (1981) Peirceand Jakobson:Towards a structuralistreconstruction of Peirce.Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 27(l): 4l-6I.
Lury, John (I992a) Language Div,ersity and Thought: A Reforntulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hl,pothesis.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lucy. John (1992b) Granintatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Srudy of the Linguistic Relativity Hl,pothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lury, John (1993) Reflexive language and the human disciplines. In J. Lucy (ed.), Reflexit,eLanguage: Reported Spcech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 9-32.
Mannheim, Bruce (1986) Popular song and popular grammar: Poetry and metalanguage"Word 37(I-2): 45-75.
May, Jacob (1993) Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
McDowell, John (1986) Folkloristics. In T. Sebeok (ed.), EncyclopedicDictionary of Semiotics, Volunte h'ogmatics in the late 20th cenntry 487
1. Berhn:Mouton de Gruytcr, 26I-267.
Mertz., Elizabeth ( 1985)Beyond symbolicanthropology: Introducing semiotic mediation. In E. Mertz and R. Parmenticr (eds.),Seniotic Mediation: Socioculturaland PsychologicalPerspectives. Orlando: Academic Press,l-19.
Mertz, Elizabeth (1993) lrarning what to ask: Metapragmatic factors and methodological reification. In J. Lucy (cd.), Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metaprngnntics. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 159-174.
Moore, Omar and David Olmstead (1954) Language and Professor lrvi-Strau ss.Anrcrican Anthropologist 54:116-1 19"
Morris, Charles (1938) Foundations of the theory of signs.Intemational Encyclopediaof Unifed Sctence, Volunrc1, no. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mcrunin.Gcorges (1974) lrvi-Strauss' use of linguistics.In I. Rossi (ed.),The Unconsciousin Culrure. New York: E.P. Dutton, 31-52.
Pcirce,Charles (1931) CollectedPupers, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Petrilli,Susan (1992) Translation, semiotics and ideology.TTR 5(l):223-264.
Pressman,Jon F. (1991) Feathersof Blood and Fire: The mythological origins of Avian Coloration. In R. Reina and K. Kensingcr (eds.), The Gift of Birds: Feuthen+'orkof Native South Anrcrican Peoples. Philadelphia:Thc University Museum, 78-91.
Silverstern,Michael (19'72)Chinook Jargon: Languagecontact and the problem of multilevel generative systems,I,II, Langtqgc .{8: 378-406,596-625.
Silverstein,Michael (1974)Dialectal developments in Chinookan tense-aspectsystems, an arcal-historical analysis.IJAL 40, 4(2).
Silverstcin,Michael (1975a) Linguistics and anthropology. In R. Bartsch and T. Vennemann (eds.), Lingtisticsand NeighboringDisciplines. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, I57-170.
Silverstein,Michacl (197-5b)I-a semiotique Jakobsonienneet I'anthropologie sociale.L'Arc 60: 45-49.
Silverstein,Michael (1916a) Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. Dixon (cd.), Grantntatical ' categories in Ausn'alian languages.Canbcrra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, ll2-171.
Silverstcin,Michael (1976b) Shifters,linguistic categories,and cultural description. In K. Bassoand H. Selbv(eds.), Meaning in Anthropologv.Albuqucrque: University of New Mexico Press,11-55.
Silvcrstein.Michael (19'11)Cultural prercquisites to grammatical analysis.In M. Saville-Troike (ed.), Lingtistics nnd Anrhropolog1,. yyurnington: Georgetown Univcrsity Press,139- 15 1.
Silverstcin,Michael (1978) Deixis and deducibility in a Wasco-Wishram passive of evidence. In A. Woodbury et al (eds.). Proceedingsof the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Sociery. Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistics Society, 238-253. 488 Jon F" Pressntan
Silverstein, Michael (1979) l,anguage structure and linguistic ideology. In P. Clyne et al (eds.), Ifte elentents:A parasession on linguistic units and levels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 193-207"
Silverstein,Michael ( 1981a)Case-marking and the nature of language.ALtsrralian Journal of Linguistics l:227-244.
Silverstein,Michael (1981b) The limits of awareness.WorkingPapersin Sociolinguislics,no.84. Austin: Southwestern Educational Laboratory.
'poetry' Silverstein, Michael (1984) On the pragmatic of prose: Parallelism, repetition, and cohesive structure in the time course of dyadic conversation.In D" Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning,forn4 and use in contert: Linguistic applictttions. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 181-199.
Silverstein,Michael (1985a)The culture of languagein Chinookan narrative texts;or, On sayingthat...in Chinook. In J. Nichols and A. Woodbury (eds.), Gramnnr inside and outside the clause:Sonte approaches ftont the field. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 132-171.
Silverstein, Michael (1985b) The functional stratification of language and ontogenesis.In J. Wertsch (ed.), Culntre, contnntnication, ond cognition: Vygotskianperspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 205-235.
Silverstein,Michael (1985c) Noun phrasecategorical markednessand syntacticparametricization. In S. Choi et al. (eds.), Proceedingsof the Second Eastern States Conferenceon Linguistics. Buffalo: SUNY Press,337-361.
Silverstein,Michael ( 1985d)language and the culture of gender:At the intersection of structure, usage, and idcology. In E. Mertz and R. Parmenlier (eds.),Sentiotic JVediation:Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives,ll9 -257.
Silverstein,Michael (1986a) Classifiers,verb classifiers,and verbal categories.In D. Feder et al. (eds"), h'oceedings of the Tw,elfth Annual Meeting of the Berkelq Lrnguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley LrngursticsSociety, 497-514.
Silverstein, Michael (1986b) The diachrony of Sapir's synchronic linguistic description; or, Sapir's 'cosmographical' lingui.stics. In W. Cowan et al (eds.), New Perspectivesin Language, Culture, and Personality: Proceedings of the Edward Sapir Centenary Conference. Phlladelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 67 -106.
'function': Silverstein, Michael (1987a) The three facesof Preliminaries toa psychologyof language.In M. Hickmann (ed.), Social and Functional Approaches Io Language and Thought. Orlando: Academic Press, 17-38.
Silverstein, Michael (1987b) Cognitive implications o[ a referential hierarchy. In M. Hickmann (ed.), Social and Functional Approaches to Language and Thoughr. Orlando: Academic Press, 125-164.
'standard'in Silverstein,Michael ( 1987c)Monoglot America: Standardizationand metaphorsof linguistic hegemony. ln Working Pnpers and Proceedings of the Center for Psychosoual Srudies 13: l-24.
Silverstcin, Michael (1989) "Singularly like our ideal of a scientist." In M. Ritchie Key and Henry Hoenigswald (eds.), General and Anterindian Ethnolinguistics:In Remenbrance of Stanly Newnnn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruvter. 45-63. hngnntics in the late 20th cennry 489
Silverstein,Michacl (1991) Problems of Sapir'shistoriography. Historiographia Linguistica 28 (1): 181- 204.
Silverstein,Michael (1993) Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In J. Lury (ed.), ReflexivcLanguagc: RaportedSpeech and Metapragntatics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,33-58.
Steiner,Peter (1978) The conceptualbasis of Praguestructuralism. In L. Matejka (ed.), Sound,sign and nreaning:Quinquagenary of the PragueLinguistic Circle.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,351- 338s.
Turner, Tcrcnce (1977) Narrative structure and mythopoesis: A critique and reformulation of structuralistconccpts of myth, narrativeand poetics.Arethusa 10(1): 103-163.
Urban, Greg (1981) Agent - and patient-centricityin myth. Journal of Anterican Folklorc94(373):323- 344.
Urban, Greg ( 198-1)Speech about speechin speech about action. Jcrurnalof Anrcrican Folklore 971385): 310-328.
Urban, Grcg (1985a) Ergativity and accusativityin Shokleng 1G€,).Inrernational Jotn'nal of Anterican Lingutstics51(2): 164-187.
Urban, Greg (1985b) The semiotics of two speechstyles in Shokleng. In E. Mertz and R" Parmentier (eds.),Senriotic Mediation: Sociocultural and PsychologicalPerspectives. Orlando: Academic Press, 311- 328"
Urban, Greg (1986a)Ceremonial dialoguesin South America.Anrcricon Anthropologisr 88(2): 371-386.
Urban, Greg (1986tr)The semiotic function of macro-parallelismin the Shokleng Origin Myth. In J. Sherzcrand G. Urban (eds.),Nativ'e South Anterican Discourre.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 15-57.
Urban. Greg (1988) The pronominal pragmaticsof nuclear war discourse.MLtltilingta 7(U2):67-93.
Urban, Greg (1989) The "I" of Discourse. In B. Lre and G. Urban (eds.),Scniotics. Self, and Society Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter, Z7-51.
Urban, Grcg (1991)A Discottrse-CenteredApproachtoCulture: Native SouthAnterican Myths and Rituals" Austin: University of Texas.
,Urban, Greg (1992) Semiotics and anthropological linguistics. In W. Bright (ed.), Internarional Enqclopedia of LinEdstics, Vol. 3, Oford: Oxford University Press.
Urban,Creg (1993)The representedfunctions of speechin Shoklengmyth. In John Lucy (ed.),Reflexive LangLtage:Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridgc University Press, 241-260.
Urban, Greg and Joel Sherzer (1988) The linguistic anthropology of native South America. Annual Reviewof Anthropologt 17: 283-307"
Verschuercn,Jef (199.1)The pragmatic perspeclive. In J. Verschueren, Jan-Ola Ostman, ancl Jan Blommaert (eds.), Handbook of pragnntics: Manual. AmsterdamPhiladelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany, 1-22.