Non-referential_indexicality Indexicality

1 non-referential indexicality

1.1 sex/gender indices
1.2 affect indices
1.3 deference indices

1.3.1 t/v deference entitlement
1.3.2 japanese honorifics
1.3.3 affinal taboo index


1.4 hypercorrection social class index
1.5 multiple indices in social identity indexicality

non-referential indexicality

non-referential indices or pure indices not contribute semantico-referential value of speech event yet signal particular value of 1 or more contextual variables. non-referential indices encode metapragmatic elements of speech event s context through linguistic variations. degree of variation in non-referential indices considerable , serves infuse speech event with, @ times, multiple levels of pragmatic meaning. of particular note are: sex/gender indices, deference indices (including affinal taboo index), affect indices, phenomena of phonological hypercorrection , social identity indexicality.

examples of non-referential forms of indexicality include sex/gender, affect, deference, social class, , social identity indices. many scholars, notably silverstein, argue occurrences of non-referential indexicality entail not context-dependent variability of speech event, increasingly subtle forms of indexical meaning (first, second, , higher-orders)as well.

sex/gender indices

one common system of non-referential indexicality sex/gender indices. these indices index gender or female/male social status of interlocutor. there multitude of linguistic variants act index sex , gender such as:

word-final or sentence-final particles:many languages employ suffixation of word-final particles index gender of speaker. these particles vary phonological alterations such 1 explored william labov in work on postvocalic /r/ employment in words had no word final r (which claimed, among other things, index female social sex status virtue of statistical fact women tend hypercorrect speech more men); suffixation of single phonemes, such /-s/ in muskogean languages of southeastern united states; or particle suffixation (such japanese sentence-final use of -wa rising intonation indicate increasing affect and, via second-order indexicality, gender of speaker (in case, female))
morphological , phonological mechanisms: such in yana, language 1 form of major words spoken sociological male sociological male, , form (which constructed around phonological changes in word forms) used other combination of interlocutors; or japanese prefix-affixation of o- indicate politeness and, consequently, feminine social identity.

many instances of sex/gender indices incorporate multiple levels of indexicality (also referred indexical order). in fact, some, such prefix-affixation of o- in japanese, demonstrate complex higher-order indexical forms. in example, first order indexes politeness , second order indexes affiliation gender class. argued there higher level of indexical order evidenced fact many jobs use o- prefix attract female applicants. notion of higher-order indexicality similar silverstein s discussion of wine talk (see below) in indexes identity-by-visible-consumption [here, employment] inherent of social register (i.e. social gender indexicality).

affect indices

affective meaning seen encoding, or indexing of speakers emotions speech events. interlocutor of event decodes these verbal messages of affect giving precedence intentionality ; is, assuming affective form intentionally indexes emotional meaning.

some examples of affective forms are: diminutives (for example, diminutive affixes in indo-european , amerindian languages indicate sympathy, endearment, emotional closeness, or antipathy, condescension, , emotional distance); ideophones , onomatopoeias; expletives, exclamations, interjections, curses, insults, , imprecations (said dramatizations of actions or states ); intonation change (common in tone languages such japanese); address terms, kinship terms, , pronouns display clear affective dimensions (ranging complex address-form systems found languages such javanese inversions of vocative kin terms found in rural italy); lexical processes such synecdoche , metonymy involved in affect meaning manipulation; categories of meaning evidentiality; reduplication, quantifiers, , comparative structures; inflectional morphology.

affective forms means speaker indexes emotional states through different linguistic mechanisms. these indices become important when applied other forms of non-referential indexicality, such sex indices , social identity indices, because of innate relationship between first-order indexicality , subsequent second-order (or higher) indexical forms. (see multiple indices section japanese example).

deference indices

deference indices encode deference 1 interlocutor (usually representing inequalities of status, rank, age, sex, etc.). examples of deference indices are:

t/v deference entitlement

the t/v deference entitlement system of european languages famously detailed linguists brown , gilman. mentioned, t/v deference entitlement system speaker/addressee speech event determined perceived disparities of power , solidarity between interlocutors. brown , gilman organized possible relationships between speaker , addressee 6 categories:

the power semantic indicates speaker in superior position uses t , speaker in inferior position uses v. solidarity semantic indicates speakers use t close relationships , v more formal relationships. these 2 principles conflict in categories 2 , 5, allowing either t or v in cases:

brown , gilman observed solidarity semantic becomes more important power semantic in various cultures, proportion of t v use in 2 ambiguous categories changes accordingly.

silverstein comments while exhibiting basic level of first-order indexicality, t/v system employs second-order indexicality vis-à-vis enregistered honorification . cites v form can function index of valued public register , standards of behavior entailed use of v forms on t forms in public contexts. therefore, people use t/v deference entailment in 1) first-order indexical sense distinguishes between speaker/addressee interpersonal values of power , solidarity , 2) second-order indexical sense indexes interlocutor s inherent honor or social merit in employing v forms on t forms in public contexts.

japanese honorifics

japanese provides excellent case study of honorifics. honorifics in japanese can divided 2 categories: addressee honorifics, index deference addressee of utterance; , referent honorifics, index deference referent of utterance. cynthia dunn claims every utterance in japanese requires choice between direct , distal forms of predicate. direct form indexes intimacy , spontaneous self-expression in contexts involving family , close friends. contrarily, distal form index social contexts of more formal, public nature such distant acquaintances, business settings, or other formal settings.

japanese contains set of humble forms (japanese kenjōgo 謙譲語) employed speaker index deference else. there suppletive forms can used in lieu of regular honorific endings (for example, subject honorific form of taberu (食べる, eat): meshiagaru 召し上がる). verbs involve human subjects must choose between distal or direct forms (towards addressee) distinguish between either no use of referent honorifics, use of subject honorific (for others), or use of humble form (for self). japanese model non-referential indexicality demonstrates subtle , complicated system encodes social context every utterance.

affinal taboo index

dyirbal, language of cairns rain forest in northern queensland, employs system known affinal taboo index. speakers of language maintain 2 sets of lexical items: 1) everyday or common interaction set of lexical items , 2) mother-in-law set employed when speaker in distinct context of interaction mother-in-law. in particular system of deference indices, speakers have developed entirely separate lexicon (there 4 everyday lexical entries every 1 mother-in-law lexical entry; 4:1) index deference in contexts inclusive of mother-in-law.

hypercorrection social class index

hypercorrection defined wolfram use of speech form on basis of false analogy. decamp defines hypercorrection in more precise fashion claiming hypercorrection incorrect analogy form in prestige dialect speaker has imperfectly mastered. many scholars argue hypercorrection provides both index of social class , index of linguistic insecurity . latter index can defined speaker s attempts @ self-correction in areas of perceived linguistic insufficiencies denote lower social standing , minimal social mobility.

donald winford conducted study measured phonological hypercorrection in creolization of english speakers in trinidad. claims ability use prestigious norms goes hand-in-hand knowledge of stigmatization afforded use of lesser phonological variants. concluded sociologically lesser individuals try increase frequency of vowels frequent in high prestige dialect, ended using vowels more target dialect. hypercorrection of vowels example of non-referential indexicality indexes, virtue of innate urges forcing lower class civilians hypercorrect phonological variants, actual social class of speaker. silverstein claims, conveys index of linguistic insecurity in speaker not indexes actual social class (via first-order indexicality) insecurities class constraints , subsequent linguistic effects encourage hypercorrection in first place (an incidence of second-order indexicality).

william labov , many others have studied how hypercorrection in african american vernacular english demonstrates similar social class non-referential indexicality.

multiple indices in social identity indexicality

multiple non-referential indices can employed index social identity of speaker. example of how multiple indexes can constitute social identity exemplified ochs discussion of copula deletion: bad in american english can index speaker child, foreigner, medical patient, or elderly person. use of multiple non-referential indices @ once (for example copula deletion , raising intonation), helps further index social identity of speaker of child.

linguistic , non-linguistic indices important ways of indexing social identity. example, japanese utterance -wa in conjunction raising intonation (indexical of increasing affect) 1 person looks woman , looks man may index different affective dispositions which, in turn, can index gender difference. ochs , schieffilen claim facial features, gestures, other non-linguistic indices may specify general information provided linguistic features , augment pragmatic meaning of utterance.