In_linguistic_anthropology Indexicality

1 in linguistic anthropology

1.1 adaptation of peircean semiotics
1.2 referential indexicality (deixis)
1.3 non-referential indexicality

1.3.1 sex/gender indices
1.3.2 affect indices
1.3.3 deference indices

1.3.3.1 t/v deference entitlement
1.3.3.2 japanese honorifics
1.3.3.3 affinal taboo index


1.3.4 hypercorrection social class index
1.3.5 multiple indices in social identity indexicality


1.4 indexical order

1.4.1 oinoglossia ( wine talk )

in linguistic anthropology

the concept of indexicality introduced literature of linguistic anthropology michael silverstein in foundational 1976 paper, shifters, linguistic categories , cultural description. silverstein draws on tradition extending peirce jakobson of thought sign phenomena propose comprehensive theoretical framework in understand relationship between language , culture, object of study of modern sociocultural anthropology. framework, while drawing heavily on tradition of structural linguistics founded ferdinand de saussure, rejects other theoretical approaches known structuralism, attempted project saussurean method of linguistic analysis onto other realms of culture, such kinship , marriage (see structural anthropology), literature (see semiotic literary criticism), music, film , others. silverstein claims [t]hat aspect of language has traditionally been analyzed linguistics, , has served model these other structuralisms, part functionally unique among phenomena of culture. indexicality, not saussurean grammar, should seen semiotic phenomenon language has in common rest of culture.

silverstein argues saussurean tradition of linguistic analysis, includes tradition of structural linguistics in united states founded leonard bloomfield , including work of noam chomsky , contemporary generative grammar, has been limited identifying contribution of elements of utterances referential or denotative value of whole , is, contribution made word, expression, or other linguistic element function of forming propositions — predications descriptive of states of affairs . study of reference , predication yields understanding of 1 aspect of meaning of utterances, semantic meaning, , subdiscipline of linguistics dedicated studying kind of linguistic meaning semantics.

yet linguistic signs in contexts of use accomplish other functions pure reference , predication — though simultaneously, though signs functioning in multiple analytically distinct semiotic modalities @ once. in philosophical literature, discussed examples identified j.l. austin performative functions of speech, instance when speaker says addressee bet sixpence rain tomorrow , , in saying, in addition making proposition state of affairs, enters socially constituted type of agreement addressee, wager. thus, concludes silverstein, [t]he problem set when consider actual broader uses of language describe total meaning of constituent linguistic signs, part of semantic. broader study of linguistic signs relative general communicative functions pragmatics, , these broader aspects of meaning of utterances pragmatic meaning. (from point of view, semantic meaning special subcategory of pragmatic meaning, aspect of meaning contributes communicative function of pure reference , predication.).

silverstein introduces components of semiotic theory of charles sanders peirce basis pragmatics which, rather assuming reference , predication essential communicative functions of language other nonreferential functions being mere addenda, instead attempts capture total meaning of linguistic signs in terms of of communicative functions. perspective, peircean category of indexicality turns out give key pragmatic description of language.

this theoretical framework became essential presupposition of work throughout discipline in 1980s , remains in present.

adaptation of peircean semiotics

the concept of indexicality has been elaborated in literature of linguistic anthropology since introduction silverstein, silverstein himself adopted term theory of sign phenomena, or semiotics, of charles sanders peirce. implication of general metaphysical theory of 3 universal categories, peirce proposed model of sign triadic relationship: sign stands in respect or capacity. thus, more technically, sign consists of

a sign-vehicle or representamen, perceptible phenomenon representing, whether audibly, visibly or in other sensory modality;
an object, entity of whatever kind, whatever modal status (experienceable, potential, imaginary, law-like, etc.), represented sign; and
an interpretant, idea in mind of perceiving individual, interprets sign-vehicle representing object.

peirce further proposed classify sign phenomena along 3 different dimensions means of 3 trichotomies, second of classifies signs 3 categories according nature of relationship between sign-vehicle , object represents. captioned silverstein, these are:

icon: sign in perceivable properties of sign vehicle have isomorphism (up identity with) of entity signaled. is, entities likenesses in sense.
index: sign in occurrence of sign vehicle token bears connection of understood spatio-temporal contiguity occurrence of entity signaled. is, presence of entity perceived signaled in context of communication incorporating sign vehicle.
symbol: residual class, sign not related object virtue of bearing qualitative likeness it, nor virtue of co-occurring in contextual framework. these form class of arbitrary signs traditionally spoken of fundamental kind of linguistic entity. sign vehicle , entity signaled related through bond of semantico-referential meaning permits them used refer member of whole class or category of entities.

silverstein observes multiple signs may share same sign-vehicle. instance, mentioned, linguistic signs traditionally understood symbols, , analyzed in terms of contribution reference , predication, since arbitrarily denote whole class of possible objects of reference virtue of semantic meanings. in trivial sense each linguistic sign token (word or expression spoken in actual context of use) functions iconically, since icon of type in code (grammar) of language. functions indexically, indexing symbol type, since use in context presupposes such type exists in semantico-referential grammar in use in communicative situation (grammar understood element of context of communication).

so icon, index , symbol not mutually exclusive categories — indeed, silverstein argues, understood distinct modes of semiotic function, may overlaid on single sign-vehicle. entails 1 sign-vehicle may function in multiple semiotic modes simultaneously. observation key understanding deixis, traditionally difficult problem semantic theory.

referential indexicality (deixis)

in linguistic anthropology, deixis defined referential indexicality — is, morphemes or strings of morphemes, organized closed paradigmatic sets, function individuate or single out objects of reference or address in terms of relation current interactive context in utterance occurs. . deictic expressions distinguished, on 1 hand, standard denotational categories such common nouns, potentially refer member of whole class or category of entities: these display purely semantico-referential meaning, , in peircean terminology known symbols. on other hand, deixis distinguished particular subclass of indexicality in general, may nonreferential or altogether nonlinguistic (see below).

in older terminology of otto jespersen , roman jakobson, these forms called shifters. silverstein, introducing terminology of peirce, able define them more referential indexicals.

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.

indexical order

in of research conducted upon various phenomena of non-referential indexicality, there increased interest in not called first-order indexicality, subsequent second-order higher-order levels of indexical meaning. first-order indexicality can defined first level of pragmatic meaning drawn utterance. example, instances of deference indexicality such variation between informal tu , more formal vous in french (see t/v deference indexes) indicate speaker/addressee communicative relationship built upon values of power , solidarity possessed interlocutors. when speaker addresses using v form instead of t form, index (via first-order indexicality) understanding of need deference addressee. in other words, perceive/ recognize incongruence between level of power and/or solidarity , , of interlocutor , employ more formal way of addressing person suit contextual constraints of speech event.

second-order indexicality concerned connection between linguistic variables , metapragmatic meanings encode. example, woman walking down street in manhattan , stops ask mcdonald s is. responds talking in heavy brooklyn accent. notices accent , considers set of possible personal characteristics might indexed (such man s intelligence, economic situation, , other non-linguistic aspects of life). power of language encode these preconceived stereotypes based solely on accent example of second-order indexicality (representative of more complex , subtle system of indexical form of first-order indexicality).

michael silverstein has argued indexical order can transcend levels such second-order indexicality , discusses higher-order indexicality in terms of calls oinoglossia or wine talk .(for discussion see below)

oinoglossia ( wine talk )

for demonstrations of higher (or rarefied) indexical orders, michael silverstein discusses particularities of life-style emblematization or convention-dependent-indexical iconicity which, claims, prototypical of phenomenon dubs wine talk. professional wine critics use technical vocabulary metaphorical of prestige realms of traditional english gentlemanly horticulture. thus, lingo created wine indexically entails notions of prestigious social classes or genres. when yuppies use lingo wine flavors created these critics in actual context of drinking wine, silverstein argues become well-bred, interesting (subtle, balanced, intriguing, winning, etc.) person iconic of metaphorical fashion of speaking employed people of higher social registers, demanding notoriety result of high level of connoisseurship. in other words, wine drinker becomes refined, gentlemanly critic and, in doing so, adopts similar level of connoisseurship , social refinement. silverstein defines example of higher-order indexical authorization in indexical order of wine talk exists in complex, interlocking set of institutionally formed macro-sociological interests. speaker of english metaphorically transfers him- or herself social structure of wine world encoded oinoglossia of elite critics using particular technical terminology.

the use of wine talk or similar fine-cheeses talk , perfume talk , hegelian-dialectics talk , particle-physics talk , dna-sequencing talk , semiotics talk etc. confers upon individual identity-by-visible-consumption indexical of macro-sociological elite identity , is, such, instance of higher-order indexicality.