Semiotic Anthropology

Author(s): Elizabeth Mertz

Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 36 (2007), pp. 337-353
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25064959
Accessed: 24-02-2016 07:22 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25064959?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Semiotic Anthropology
Elizabeth Mertz
Law and Anthropology, University ofWisconsin and American Bar Foundation,
Illinois 60611; email: eemertz@wisc.edu

Chicago,

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:337-53

Key Words

First published online as a Review inAdvance on

June 18, 2007

metalinguistic,

The Annual Review ofAnthropologyis online at

anthro.annualreviews.org
This article's doi:
10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094417
Copyright (c) 2007 byAnnual Reviews.
All rights reserved
0084-65 70/07/1021 -03 37$20.00

power,

indexicality,

C.S.

Peirce,

pragmatics

Abstract
semiotic
1970s
the present,
has
through
anthropology
in
in
but
also
has
its
shifted
the
grown
pro
importance
emphasis,
cess
a more
to
in the subfields
helping
push forward
general
change

From

the

of linguistic and sociocultural anthropology.This article explores

thatchange from thevantage of each of these key subfields,arguing
that core

concepts

of semiotic

anthropology
sociocultural
and

between

rapprochement

have

permitted

linguistic

a new

analyses?one

which permits each tomake betteruse of the insightsof theother. It

has also aided

anthropologists

in overcoming

stale conceptual

oppo

sitions.Five specificpoints of contact are explored: (a) indexicality

and social context; (b)metalinguistic structuring/linguistic
ideology,
pragmatics,

and

social

interaction;

(c) social

power,

history,

and

lin

guistic interaction; (d) agency, linguisticcreativity,and "real time";

and

(e) shifting

sites, units

of analysis,

and methods.

331

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

INTRODUCTION
A

Peirce's

survey of the past

30 years
a number

reveals
thropology
field. In this review

carry meaning,

an

of semiotic

in the

of shifts

shifts and

in endeavors

coda

im

I offer the

of this type: the oblig

futures.

into possible

atory gaze

of their more

In conclusion,

dimensions.

portant
usual

some

assessing

Rather

guage.

I take up the some

article,

what daunting challenge of describing these

per

asks

some

respect

Taking

a new

of

the signal doing the

communicating?
it be the wave of a hand, an architect's

whether

tech

nology, I undertook several brief Internet

searches
as a

term

of the

in

anthropology
to write
preparing

this article. I was not surprised to findmyself

repeatedly directed to a core textbyMilton
Singer,Mans GlassyEssence (1984). Although
the roots

of

in

semiotics

ar

anthropology

guably go back much further(not to men

tion

the far-reaching

a field unto itself),itwas Singer (1978) who

the use

urged

to demarcate

pology"
based

of the label

in renewed

"semiotic

an

anthro

semiotic
proach

work

would

meaning

context.

He

contrasted

Peircean frameworkwith one derived more

fromFerdinand de Saussure: "BothPeirce and
Saussure aimed to develop general theoriesof
however,

signs,_Peirce,
process
object,
Saussure

in terms of a triadic
and

interpr?tant

defined

the

defined

(or

the dyadic

relation

sign

of sign,

semiosis),

while

structure

of sig

nifier and signified" (Singer 1985, p. 550).

Singer noted thatby problematizing the rela
with their
tionship of signs and interpr?tants
Peirce

objects,
sues of social
the analysis

338

scholars

pushes
context more

of meaning.

to

integrate

systematically

angle.
at the

by drawing
is nearby. When
you

pyramid

of the

drawing
a connection

(the

triangle
is formed

a tri
look

sign

between

ve
the

actual pyramid (object) and an idea in your

of a pyra

(your "mental representation"

are many ways
that

head

There
create

drawing

sign vehicles
In this case, the

this relationship.
creates
(triangle)

a connection

with

tend

offer anthropology

an important tool for linking the analysis of

to social

to her whereabouts
A

felt

(1963),

that Peirce's

in

created

ap

on

for example,
drew
but
his
labeled
trademark
theory
"structural
Singer
anthropology")

now

representation

the object (pyramid)by virtue of an inherent

Peirce calls thiskind of connection
similarity.
iconic. [Lyons (1977) notes thatwritten signs

thework of Charles Sanders Peirce. (Claude

Levi-Strauss

(whatever

object

For example, imagine that a friend has left

a clue

can
to

attention

by
an

our minds).

mid).

approach

analytic

anthropological

between

sign vehicle
of creat

virtue

the sign stands for) and an interpr?tant(the

hicle),

as

of semiotics

tradition

something

a connection

ing

This

word.

spoken

idea or mental

semiotic

exercise

preliminary

or a

design,

semiotic

con

.is something

or
(Peirce
1974). We
capacity"
the "sign vehicle"
(or "representa

communicates

advantage

can be

meaning

the sign: "a sign..

which stands to somebody for something in

begin with

AND CORE

lan
beyond
on
focusing
language
us to consider
the vari

in which

through

signs
for an

but moves

than

of ways

veyed

how

the door

opens

se, Peirce

eties

men"),

BACKGROUND
CONCEPTS

then,

that includes

analysis

for studying

framework

is
into

signs

to be
create

as to

shape, whereas
more

spoken

connections

cases we
across

conventions
us

Let

iconic

in both

sound?and
varying

iconic

say, however,

find

somewhat

different
that

through

cultures.]

instead

of her

leaving a picture of a triangle,your friend

constructed

sign with

large

an

arrow

and

left it rightnext to the pyramid, pointing at

it. The

now

that you

connection

can make

between the sign vehicle (the sign with an

arrow) and the pyramid (object) is based on
on a contextual
contiguity,
In Peircean
terms, this is an

physical
tion.

connec
indexical

connection.
Finally,

the friend

could

write

a note

ex

plaining that she is at the pyramid. Here

the written

word

"pyramid"

Mertz

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

only

creates

connection with the object (the actual pyra

mid) because of a linguistic convention or
law?what

Peirce

denominates

symbolic

connection.

A great deal of standard linguisticand cul

turalanalysis inanthropologyhad typicallyfo

or conventional
on this kind of
symbolic
us to locate that
Peirce
meaning.
challenges
a broader
kind of analysis within
contextual
cused

framework that includes other kinds of im

of cultural meaning.

portant

anchoring

ticular,

anthropologists

been

have

In par

examining

the complicatedmechanisms bywhich more

contextuallydependent formsofmeaning (the
indexical or "pragmatic" level) interactwith
more

less contextual,

conventional

kinds

of

or semantic
level, fo
(the symbolic
meaning
on
content
cused more
than form).
language

of theAmerican Ethnologist.After complain

arcane

the

ing about

of Peircean

character

terminology,Leach took Singer to task for

Saussure

characterizing

as repre

and Peirce

of opposing
rather than compati
Leach
then further took excep

sentatives

ble positions.
tion to the

that 'cultures
[or
"Chicago
dogma
are
of
selves]
systems
symbols and meanings'"
and memorably
"I cannot believe
concludes,

that the way of escape from the jungle of

Parisian

structuralism..

.lies through

groves

of academe thatwere planted in Columbia

and Chicago sometime before 1934" (Leach
1985, p. 156). Singer disagreed with Leach's
characterization,

saying

that the anthropology

facultyat Chicago in the 1970s did not share

a
and that few of his
dogma
mer
have
Chicago
colleagues
to 'semiotic
anthropology,'"

or for

"present

converted

been

one ex
1971 on the semantic/pragmatic
noting
in
his
distinction.)A furthercomplication is intro
ception
colleague Michael Silverstein
duced by the need to incorporate analysis of
(Singer 1985).Taking a differentstance than
did Leach, Fernandez (1986) noted inhis re
that derive from language-internal
meanings
or syntax.
view of Singer's book that he detected the
such as grammar
formal structures
The question of contextualmeaning had
seeds of a new
of Saus
possible
synthesis

(SeeMorris

not been

ignored

in other

sure

traditions. Notably,

of Singer's
ideas?
on indexi
emphasis
and Leach
did agree on one
cality. Fernandez
criticism of Singer's work, which was
that it
at times
to drift into
a the
seemed
using

particularly

as abstract
langue (language
and parole
the
(spoken
language,
or instantiation
in "real
realization
of
langue
the core insights of Saus
time"). However,

ory of "national

tinction

between

structure)

sure's work

remained

an abstract,
proach

static

that was

on

focused

as

language

ap
synchronie
a number
from

system?a
criticized

of angles
1973, arguing
(see, e.g., Volosinov
to
is
it
that
misleading
conceptualize
language
structure as distinct from
and
usage
ongoing

change). The

Prague School linguists also

to Saussure

took exception

ing the importance

's approach,
a diachronic

of using

stress
per

spective to study linguisticchange over time

Qakobson 1971). In the late 1970s, anthropol
ogists such as Singer urged the field to take
another look at the tools offered by Prague
School,
had

Peircean,

focused

ing, context,

and

other

systematically
and history.

on

traditions

that

issues of mean

Singer's proposal led to a testy but in

teresting

exchange

with

Leach

in the pages

in some

and Peirce

Saussure (1959) himself had proposed a dis

in Singer's

equately
within

nation

overly

broad

that did not

character"

account

for pluralism

states,

painting

ad

and

diversity
"culture" with

strokes.

Although thefield developed subsequendy

in somewhat
found

in

different

Singer's

than

directions

early

foray, key

those

concepts

from Peirce andMorris did indeed continue

to find their places in the tradition that

developed from the late 1970s until today.

In addition, the potential new synthesis of
Saussurean,

Peircean,

School,

Prague

and

other perspectives discerned by Fernandez

has borne productive fruit.For more detailed
discussions
concepts

of important
used

Peircean

in semiotic

and

anthropology,

other
see

Chandler (2007); Lee (1997), Lee & Urban

(1989); Mertz
(1985); Parmentier (1985,
1994, 1997); Sebeok (1978); and Silverstein
www.annualreviews.org

SemioticAnthropology

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

339

(1976). Calls for a new kind of semiotic ap

proliferated
anthropology
during
a
the 1980s, including
focus on the
proposed
in society
crucial
role of semiotic mediation

(Mertz & Parmentier 1985; the original

proposal for this focuswithin this particular

group of scholarsoriginatedwith JohnLucy).

Scholars in this growing tradition drew on
the insightsof a number of differentschools
of thought,fromPeirce and Saussure through
the Prague School (1929), Whorf (1956),
Sapir (1970), Vygotsky (1962), and Bakhtin
(1981)/Volosinov (1973). A core figure in
was

this movement

Michael

Silverstein,

linguistic anthropologist who had studied

with Jakobson and whose work synthesized
a number

of

and

otics,

in

traditions

cultural

semi

linguistics,
(see,

anthropology

e.g.,

Silverstein 1979, 1981, 1985, 1993). Of

course many

of

development

semiotic
as was

just

anthropology,
"symbolic

have

scholars

approaches
the case

within
in

the

so often

anthropology"

associated,

to the

contributed

paradigm
with
the work

ideal-typically,

as the Peircean

locates Geertz

in

proach

of

Geertz (1977, 1983).

another

well-known

work

the labels

is meant

cut-and-dried

to surface

indications

since

1970s:

the

list

"semiotic

and

semiotic

day,

the concepts

otic"

continue

of "symbolic"

to have

and

considerable

courses,
than

genealogies.
to culture"

proach

should

of meaning

analysis
ation

spoke

and urged

of "political,

and

symbols

and

social

semantic

dimensions

also argued

symbolic

and historical

context,

ample,

the "operational"

meaning

that derives

aspect
from

ap

of culture,
of

for ex

of symbolic
actual

use (Turner 1973,1974). Boon (1982) actually

340

in semiotic

rather
an en

this program's

examining

self-description:
and

semiotic

anthropologists
other systems

and

language

communication

of

formation

contribute

transmission,

culture...

ogy, subcultural

and ethnic

gender,

relations,
as well

expression,

to

and trans
such

[including]

aspects of society as power

see

we

Here

ideol

as class,

identity. (http://www.

an

anthropological

linguistics

program explicidy including the studyof so

cial

as an

context

intrinsic
as

as well

analysis,

stratifica

symbols'

their spe

website/linguistic.htm)

consider

stressing,

"symbolic

anthropology?indeed

It isworth

pology."

"semi

for the importance

change
now

chass.utoronto.ca/anthropology/backup_

tory realities" (Geertz 1977, p. 30). Turner,

although he spoke frequently of analyzing
nevertheless

who

among

or foci

specialties,

the reproduction,

that the cultural

economic,

sea

colleagues
or
anthropology"

calls itself"Linguistic and Semiotic Anthro

overlap?

include

signals

tire subdivision of the Department of An

thropology at theUniversity ofToronto that

this

of a "semiotic

of a deeper

many

anthropology"

of human

as well they should, given their intellectual

Geertz

handy

cialties; and anthropology departmentswith

in this

To

of real divisions.

as

serve

here

the familiarwork of Singer and Parmentier

to semiotic"
of "symbolic
more
as a heuristic
than as a

map

orga

of a very subde shiftin emphasis that isworth

tracking.As I proceeded with the Internet
search described above, I rapidlymoved from

the formula

article,
here

constructs

social

structures.

semiotic

with

But

to connect

the Lele

among

nization

Linguistic

conceptual

be

Mary

bolic anthropology, drew on her own field

FROM SYMBOLIC TO SEMIOTIC

ANTHROPOLOGY
other

compar

(L?vi-Strauss

(1966),
Douglas
in earlier
sym
figure

Saussurean).

study how

Like many

when

and L?vi-Strauss

ing Geertz
more
ing

part

carefully

of

linguistic

explaining

that

the focusof concern isnot limitedto language

per

se. On

the other

sociocultural

side, many

anthropologists are explicidy including the

study of language
search

programs

In the domain
as

symbolic

and

discourse

as semiotic
once

mapped

in their

re

anthropologists.
more
commonly

anthropology,

there

certainly

had been frequent discussion of language,

but proceeding from different foundations

Mertz

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(for examples, see Dolgin

linguistic
otic

accompanying
today's semi
traces the details
of lan

analysis

anthropology
"on

usage

guage

et al. 1977). The

by a focus on pragmatics and indexicality

[seeMorris (1971) for a seminal discussion of
see also Verschueren

pragmatics;

and

(1999)

Duranti (1997); and see Basso & Selby (1976)

for a collection of essays that bridges dif
ferent

approaches].
strands from

unites

that issues

history,

a number

social

structure,

together.
then, at the substantive

cognition,
can all
detail,

result of this move

to

they have
developed
society,
of analyzing
with
greater
capable

we

some

to

separate,

wrenched

However,

on

purchase

only
with,

begin

be
be

them

apart analytically.
this in an effort to gain

done

having

can

arenas

these

an

moved

In

with

"integrity"!)
structure
indexical
and

linguistic

particular,

and meaning

sociocultural

has

anthro

pologists to a fertileshared ground, inwhich

to retain
precision

it is possible

about

the op

eration of languagewhile also lookingmore

broadly

at the social

and

terrain.

cultural

In

an early article, Silverstein (1976) refocused

the field's

pragmatic
and

scholars
programs,

on

attention
and

culture.

integrative

ranging

only cursory
justice. For
example,
to the traditions discussed
above,

from

aspects

subsequent

discussion
with

the importance

indexical
In

has

seemingly

ranging

from

of

of the
language
an

decades,
emerged

diverse

to

Saussure

the emerging

Sapir,

synthesis integratesmany rich insightsfrom

conversation
sociolinguistics,
about
and ethnomethodology
of
(see,
structuring
language

(CA),
analysis
the contextual
e.g., Gumperz

1972, Sacks et al. 1978, Sche

work of scholars who had
The
gloff 1972).
pioneering

performed

of lan

ethnographies

guage socialization (Ochs 1988, Schieffelin

1990) could now be brought into an analytic
that

also

research

encompassed

among
research

sociolinguistics

around

struggles

sexuality,

citizenship,

that also

examined

race,

and other

gender,

issues?could

be unpacked in detailed linguistic accounts

(see,

local, national,

e.g.,

Agha

2006,

and other
Briggs

&

accessible
became
anthropology
increasingly
to sociocultural
but perhaps
anthropology,
at the
its connections
price of diminishing
with

we face the difficulttaskof putting themback

together
focus on

do

in addition

He

subject,

overwhelming

important

Mantini-Briggs 2000,Herzfeld 1985).

Duranti (2003) notes the trade-off in
volved in this new integration: Linguistic

of these great
the confluence
sophistication
arenas of human
life and interaction.
(From

cause

I can

contexts

and

perspective,
as
understood

economic

threads in thisdeveloping discussion, towhich

identity?the

As anthropologists have worked to build a

semiotic paradigm for studying language,

one

with

are many

There

of power

analyses

associated

on politics, law, and hegemony (Gal 2005;

Woolard 2004; Mertz 1994, 2007; Brenneis
& Myers 1984, Briggs 1996).The politics of

Reconfiguring Language/Society/
Culture:
Indexicality, Social
Contexts, and Cultural Meaning

concepts

formerly

framework

the semiotic.

culture,

dynamics

to

1982, Labov

"real time"

and metalanguage
Let us look inmore

be treated

so

of traditions,

structure,

ideology,

also

analysis

of linguistic

culture,

usage,

newer

This

anthropology

anthropology.

in part

driven

the ground,"

cognitive

to

more

traditional

observes

that

some

linguistic
of the

approaches.
anthropolo

at this new intersection

do not
gists working
have the training in technical
that
linguistics
was more
common
in earlier
of
generations
Duranti
However,
linguistic anthropologists.
notes
newer
the vibrant
of
the
generativity

approach, which he creditswith revitalizing

the field of anthropological linguistics and
bringing issuesof language and discourse into
the heart

in sociocultural

of work

anthropol
review of the liter
enlightening
three phases
of
ature, Duranti
distinguishes

ogy.

In

research,

an

which

characterizes
lier phase

he

somewhat

as distinct
that focused

controversially
(a) an ear

paradigms:
on
language

as lexicon

and grammar,and on thediffering

world views
www.annualreviews.org

SemioticAnthropology

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

341

and constellations

form associated

of language

with differentlanguages/cultures;(b) a phase

thatbegan in the 1960s, spurredby thebirthof
of speak

and the ethnography

sociolinguistics

ing (hereDuranti emphasizes the influenceof

Gumperz and Hymes) and characterized by
across

a shift to
variations
analyzing
rather
than
communities

speech

grammars

just

[Duranti also discusses furtherdevelopments

in this second phase thatrefocused thefield's
on

attention

performance,

socializa

language

tion, indexicality(via theSilversteinianframe

work), and participation]; and finally (c) a re
cent

in which

phase

as "an

is viewed

language

interactional achievement filledwith indexi

cal values (including ideological ones)" (2003,
p. 3 3 3). In thismost
matic

recent

we

phase,

see a dra
so

of research

parameters
is now seen as providing
that language
analysis
one
cornerstone
to
important
understanding
broadening

are

reproduced
across
history

media

and

(written

texts,

semiotic

various

through

occurs

This

and transformed.

the Internet),

speech,

with fascinatingvariations and interlinkingin

within

fluences

units

communities

and between

and

of sociocultural

organization.
thus far paints a very rosy pic
ture of the new
emerg
scholarly
synthesis
semiotic
anthropology.
ing in and through
is that simple.
of course, nothing
However,
larger
This

For

article

the newer

example,

cheerfully
of the local or

the importance
that is so central

acknowledges

to eth

of talk

ganization

and CA

nomethodological
rating

scholarship

of features

analysis

research,
such

as

incorpo

turn-taking

(see, e.g., Conley & O'Barr 1998;Matoesian

2001,1993; Philips 1984).However, someCA
scholars

way

taken strenuous

have

the newer

research

exception
sometimes moves

to the

issues

(see Travers

of social

2006;

structure

and

for a moderate

power

approach

on thisquestion, seeMaynard 2006). Scholars

such as Travers

view

the new

semiotic

anthro

pological approach as violating of one of their

fundamentalmethodological tenets, which
requires

34*

researchers

to focus

on

the local

In

subscribe.

par

this view,

of power
and
of wider
importation
questions
is an improper
social stratification
imposition
own frameworks
and ques
of the researchers'
to this
One frequent
response
position
in fact CA
scholars are
is to question whether

tions.

not also importingframeworksfrom outside

un

in a more

the participants'

situation?but

for an argument

that language

examinedway (Conley 2006; see Yovel 2000

always

imports

normativity,albeit in disguised ways).

we

Thus,

should

semiotic

thetic

certainly

model

aware

be

of

in achieving

a syn

that incorporates

some

involved

the controversies

of the strengths of multiple, quite diverse

traditions.
the

the other

On

in an

analysis
and structure,

hand,

examination

newer

veloped

a coherent

permits

anthropologists

by anchoring
of indexical
have

approaches

de

framework

analytic
to

take

that

account

of

grammar; the local organization of talk;flows

and constructions of identity and cultural
social

ideas;

and other

stratification;
life, which

sociocultural

often

had

aspects
been

of

ana

lyzedusing seeminglyobdurate theoreticaldi

visions.

If indeed

vation

performed

and obser
the ethnography
have
under diverse models

human

complicated

of multifaceted,

aspects

important

captured

existence,

to find ways

it seems

then

to

the differ

integrate
important
to the
ent
that
"parts of the elephant"
degree
we can.
in
this
way, anthropol
By proceeding

ogy can avoid the search for "linguisticmagic

bullets" againstwhich Briggs (2002) rightfully

warned

us, turning

to a more

instead

produc

tivemeeting place thatbegins from a view of

languages

as

"loci

of heterogeneity,

agency,

and creativity"(p. 493).

out

of thebounds of the local situation to look at

broader

to which

meanings

themselves

ticipants

use

how identities,institutions,and communities

created

teractionally

in

and Context

Structure

Revisited:

Structure,
Pragmatics, Metalinguistic
Linguistic Ideology, and Social
Interaction

This
otic

section

examines

anthropology

whereas

the

on

section

the

impact

sociocultural
that

Mertz

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

follows

of

semi

analysis,
reverses

direction

recent

asks how

and

Matoesian 2001, Philips 1998). Local interac

developments
re

have

impacted
linguistic
anthropological
to a semiotic
search. As noted above, themove

approach
cus on

in a Peircean-inspired

grounded
indexicality

been

influentialin bringing renewed attention to

linguisticanalysiswithin the broader field of
sociocultural anthropology.One fascinating

by-productof thisinteresthas been thevariety

of anthropological questions and social theo
ries that have

some

found

common

in

ground

the studyof indexicality(and see Preucel 2006

for an

into

extension

archeology).

otic framework

sociocultural

semi
anthro

pushes
to achieve
about
greater precision
at both the micro
and
the role language
plays
as
macro
as
well
levels in human
interaction,
pologists

about how

these

connect

levels might

another. Along

the way,

this work

with

one

has required

a fairlycontinual questioning and reworking

in an effort to take

of "context"

of the concept

account of both sociocultural and linguistic

concerns (Duranti & Goodwin 1992).
One

ogy

of semiotic

contribution

anthropol
is the set of analytic
tools

to this process

itoffersfor tracking the complex layeringof

at work

contexts

we

example,
tion

in any social

can

thority through

the

vis-?-vis
studying

For

shifting loca
au
layers of social

examine

of a speaker

interaction.

a concept

"footing,"

absorbed by semiotic anthropologists from

Goffiman's (1981) work. A speakermay be lo
as

cated

simply
real author

whose

someone

ample,
by another
not

be

is someone

source

the person

sible for the speech

(as, for ex

else

delivering
And even

person).
the ultimate

principal?i.e.,

of an utterance

the animator

written

speech

the author may

or
of authority,
respon

ultimately

in question

exam
(say, for

ple, the board of directorsof an organization

that hired

speechwriter

to write

speech,

and also a spokesperson to deliver it).Close

examination of how the indexical anchoring
of footingworks in settings such as courts
and legislatures,along with analyses of other
linguistic
into

processes,

the way

larger

can
social

provide
issues

a window
are

in the management

orders

of talk during

trialscan now be linkedwith institutionaland

fo

has

and pragmatics

tional

enacted

in particular speech situations (Hirsch 1998,

in a way

contexts

other

that gives

insight

into

both (for an example of how footing plays a

role in other institutionalsettings, see Agha
2005).
A similarlyuseful window into layers of
context

the micro

from

to the macro

level

level is provided by semiotic anthropolog

on

research

ical

on

and

performance

the

impact of audience on talk (Bauman 1986,

Bauman & Briggs 1990, Brenneis 1987,
Duranti & Brenneis 1986). Performance and
are both

audience
amine
and

indexical

context.

social

see the intimate

guage
we

of audience

to examine

between

and obvious

and

ways

from

as
that
inter

the

we

are drawn

relationships,

the insti

speaker,

their social

lan

Furthermore,

usage.

emerges

meaning

pragmatic
action

and

speech
us to

allow

also

They

the subde

discover

between

interconnection

structure

us to ex

that require

issues

connections

tutional setting inwhich theyare interacting,

the cultural
in

contexts

play, and many

have

long been

and

other

shared

aspects

the special

assumptions
of setting

that

of socio

province

cultural

anthropologists.
In recent years, research

in semiotic

an

thropology has focused on metalinguistic

structureand linguisticideology as key points
at which

structure

context

and

(both

linguis

tic and social) meet (Schieffelin et al. 1998,

Silverstein& Urban 1996). Analysis of these
points

meeting
cultural

analysis

can

tools for social

provide
in
of how language mediates

ongoing social practices, from the daily and

to wider

local

social

struggles

as those

such

over national identityor political power (see,

e.g.,Gal 1998). Silverstein (1993) has formu
lated a rich account of how metalinguistic
activity is structured,including the complex
modes
actually

of calibration
comprehend

to
for speakers
required
one another. This
sub

account
exacting
low the minute-to-minute

de

our

and

metalinguistic

derstanding

allows
processes

processes

of language

us

bring
into regular

www.annualreviews.org

to fol

by which
our un
contact

SemioticAnthropology

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

343

our

with

of awareness,

degrees

we

of what

are, with

cial

our

institutional,
examining
contexts. The
semiotic

fitting

into interactional

teractions
sense

contexts. We

social

are

texts, which
at a

doing

(andmetapragmatic) level.
As we

amore

approach

varying
in
ongoing
make

has

metalinguistic
and

explicit

institu

an

playing

language

important

metalinguistic

between
the everyday details
role, mediating
social and polit
of our interactions
and wider
merit

could

is a very

on

article

fruitful current

area

its own

for research

speakers'

& Yovel 2000): For example, towhat degree

mobilized,
consciously
ideologies
as a less conscious,
to
posed
operating

to which

in the
degree

views

evident ideas and objectives a group holds"

(p.

the

whereas

53),

in Joseph

authors

&

Taylor (1990) analyze explicit discussions

Woolard
of language produced by linguists.
(1989) provides an overarching definition:
or
whether
"Representations,
explicit
construe
of
that
the intersection
plicit,
in a social world
guage and human beings
we mean

what

A New

'language

im
lan
are

(p. 3).

ideology'"

Social Power,
and Linguistic Interaction

turn now

to ask about

this rapprochement

the other

between

on

to semiotics

of this turn

and so

one

obvious

ing of linguistic
ticated

344

also move

of

and

social

analyses
beyond,

the open

tomore

anthropology

analyses

texts. These
can

effect has been

take
the

cultural

account

Matoesian

also con

on Foucault?note

gruencewith Postone 1993). Ithas alsomoved

linguistic

to examine

anthropologists

the sit

in orga
of language
practices
to "lived
(see,
space"
responding

character
and

e.g.,Hanks

1990,Haviland 2000).
the most

Perhaps
movement

toward

striking

the

semiotic,

result

of

in both

this
lin

is the
guistic and sociocultural
anthropology,
an entrenched
to overcome
way it has helped

(and not particularlyuseful) division between

idealist

and more ma
approaches
symbolic
ethno
forms of analysis.
Influential
research
that might
formerly have

or

terialist

graphic
been categorized

it takes

(because
italism

simplistically
seriously

analysis

of cap

the impact
now

also
regularly
of the semiotic
dimen

and class divisions)

incorporates

as materialist

sions of global and local capitalism (Comaroff

& Comaroff 1991, 1999). Linguistic research
thatmight have stopped after parsing local
now

frequendy
at work
processes

considers

how

fit into wider

the
insti

to take one
particular

institutional

context,

see

Collins & Blot 2003 andWortham & Rymes

2003 on language in educational settings).

anthro

pological analyses of language? As we have

noted,

2006

Kockelman

linguistic

ciocultural anthropology:What has been the

impact

on DuBois,

tutional structuring(see Irvine 1989; and just

side of

linguistic

1997

1993 on Giddens, Gal 1991 on Bourdieu, and

meanings

D?tente:

History,
We

by

it

DuBois

nizing

as "self

ideology

because

framework,

to a
is capable
of speaking
variety
from
of different social-theoretic
frameworks,

taken

they incorporate

linguistic

inter

and meaning

power

level up,

uated

speakers' explicit articulation of beliefs into

their definition of "ideology."Heath (1989),
for example,

of how

the resulting

was formulatedfrom the linguistic ground

as op

for-grantedbackdrop?Woolard (1998) notes

that scholarsworking on linguistic ideology

vary

of anthropological
con
systematic

e.g., Chandler

we

are

global

indexicality

(see

are also
to ask about
brought
awareness
(see Mertz
metalinguistic

ideology,

on

and

Schieffelin et al. 1998). In studying linguis

tic

focus

(1903) toGiddens (1976) toBourdieu

to
Foucault (1991) and others (see,
(1977)

ical struggles.The topic of linguisticideology

an entire

sideration

and

to a more

analysis

act. And

exchange,

linguistic
national,

the window

opened

linguistic

tionalized level,we findbroader ideologies of

of

surroundings

sophis
con

of,

immediate

but
so

Analyzing
Linguistic
Time"

Contingency: Agency,
Creativity, and "Real

Another fascinatingmeeting place for linguis

tic and sociocultural analyses is in the issue of

Mertz

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to

in both lan
conceptualize
contingency
and
To
what
guage
society/culture.
degree do
room for
individual
have
speakers
creativity,
as
are
of
operating
they
against the backdrop
structure
To
and
presuppositions?
linguistic

how

agency as we live
our
set
by
surrounding
how can we as schol

do any of us have

what
within

degree
the boundaries

contexts?
ars use

Furthermore,

our own

the contingent,

predictable,

interaction

human

to capture

categories

structure

and

the actual

in their constructions

agency

of self.

(1997) takes this to another level, un

the way

packing

that performative

language

similarlyconstitutes notions of peoplehood,

now
of

at a national

intersection

and

social

contingent
&
work, Hill

In often-cited

histories.

at the

level,

structure

indexical

Irvine

(1993 a) use linguisticanalysisof responsibility

the un

and

flow of

strate the limitationsof asocial models of the

talk, the realization

of

evidence

self. The

in spoken

to demon

discourse

of semiotics

marriage

ogy within

in "real time"?

(or not)

erring

Lee

language

and psychol
owes

analysis

to

much

roots in thework ofVygotsky (1962; see also

Semiotic anthropology has moved to an
un
Wertsch
and
1985;Hickmann 1985).Another im
increasingly complex
sophisticated
this
forwork in language and
of
As
noted
foundation
above,
portant
process.
derstanding
is
the
tradition
this has been aided by Silverstein's (1993)
psychology
emanating from
in
research
Lee
framework
for
the
Whorf
(1956; see
by Benjamin
emerging
analyzing
of metapragmatic

tricacies
tional

text, and

similar

a number

which

ing upon

interac

structure,

of scholars

have

builtwith very interestingresults.This frame

work

permits

gent,

us

to examine

"real time"

language

contin

the way
use

interacts

with

regularities of linguistic,cultural, and social

structures?a

task, given the

very challenging
two
to
different
of
these
character
inputs
quite
a somewhat
communication.
From
different
but quite

perspective,

compatible

how we

She

has also challenged us (1996) to think care

fullyabout how the semioticsoftime,whether
"real"

or otherwise,

interact with

culture

and

politics.
Another

road

that

semiotic

anthropolo

gists have taken into this thorny issue is the

the

"self"?of

themselves

operate

study
ple

of

that peo

the way

at the intersection

studies

among

the way

signs

of

both mediate

adolescents

of

identity

an

evolv

ing sense of self and forge a continuing

indexical

nities,
people

connection
social

statuses,

are at once

the social

with

particular

and

in constant

structures

around

histories.

commu
Young

interaction
them, while

further

of semiotic
anthropol
advantage
for today's sociocultural
anthropologists
is that it supports more
flexible
and expan

ogy

sive

to

approaches
can do our

for

and

how

the study
Although
a cru
communities
remains

of smaller-scale
task

where

defining

research.

sociocultural

it

anthropology,

has become increasinglydifficultto limitour

to more

fieldwork

sites. A

traditional

semi

otic focus gives us useful analytical tools for

the world
of global
interconnec
examining
texts and other
more
tions, where
potentially
forms of communication
arm's-length
come
as
as face-to-face
important

can be
linguistic

interaction.

agency and structure(Crapanzano 1993,Lee

1997, Lee & Urban 1989). Shaw (1994), for

example,

and
to

Globalization

cial

concep

relationship.

Shifting Sites, Units of Analysis,

Methods:
From Entextualization

we

Greenhouse

(2002) has written powerfullyabout semiotic

to
approaches
reconfiguring
tualize the structure-agency

also Lucy 1992a,b, 1993a).

scaffold

processes?a

with
ex

Recent

decades

have

seen

blossoming

of fruitfulanthropological frameworks for

text and
studying
text. In a much-cited

textuality
article

in social
on

the

con

subject,

Bauman & Briggs (1990) explained founda

tional

concepts

for

developing

a more

pro

cessual approach to studying textuality (see

also Briggs & Bauman 1992, Silverstein &
Urban

1996). These

cess by which

concepts

trace

the pro

segments of text become

www.annualreviews.org

SemioticAnthropology

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

345

or
segmented
removed from

extractable
one

into a new

and put

tion),

with

(entextualization),

context

(decontextualiza
context

tualization). Silverstein (1996) distinguishes

cial

and markets,

the "text artifact"

as

such

printed
of more

the varieties
with

ob
(the physical
on a
words
and
page)
text associated
abstract

text artifacts.

these

For

we

example,

story (i.e., what

particular
printed
means
in a denotational
as

or

this story

semantic

to the interactional

sense),

text (what

the
opposed
or
a
act of
in
does
this
story
reciting
reading
to the
social
of
sense). This
approach
study
us to examine
texts
the dynamic
pro
permits
cess
invoke
which
fea
interpreters
through
tures of texts while
and
their
creating
shaping
contexts
the semiotic
frame
of use. Again,
us to think about the indexi
work encourages
cal and contextual
focus extends
connections

ofmeaning.
This
anchoring
to the examination
of contextual
texts themselves

among

of "intertextuality,"

concept

with

the

in ear

suggested

lierwork by the famed semioticianKristeva

(1986).With this richerview inmind, semi
otic

have

analyses

understanding
act with
history

been

of how

and politics

a better

to reach

able
textual

inter

traditions

(see, e.g., Messick

us
a
this approach moves
beyond
Clearly,
narrow
of text as written
doc
understanding
an
ument.
It thereby facilitates
of
expansion
a
research, carried out within
anthropological
to different media. This
coherent framework,
provides

us with

for study

tools

important

ing the linkages in an increasinglyglobalized

world,

which

dia. This
alytical

often move

approach

also

between

connections

of capitalist

expansion

that anthropologists

me
through diverse
an
aids us inmaking
wider

and the local

more

typically

processes
situations
studied.

Worth (1977), forexample, argued thatthe

semiotic analysisoffilm should include amore

at the
and empirical
approach,"
"ethnographic
newscasts
same time
to
scholars
study
urging
as well
as
as well
as movie
theatres, pictures
paintings,
erature. He

all books
would

rather

than canonical

undoubtedly

have

lit

agreed

between
the one

and political

it is at a cru

global

hand,

and

norms,

on

aesthetics
so

local

the other

hand.
In creative
thropological

adaptations

of traditional

methods,

scholars

an
as

such

Merry (2005) have performed multi-sited

or "deterritorialized" ethnography,following
the flow of human rightsdiscourse at global
and local levels. [Merry's (1990) earlier re
search in legal anthropology had previously

as a
of discourse
the way for analyses
paved
ex
core vehicle
of legal consciousness,
again
em
both
of
the
the
amining
shape
language

ployed and themany social contexts in play]

Hirsch (2006) shows us how we can also find
many layersof global semiotics atwork within
a

court

single

Law

proceeding.

has

proved

fruitfulfocus for these kinds of inquiries, lo

cated as it is at a vital semioticmeeting point
state power

between

and

local

struggles,

be

tween thepull of global norms and capital and

the push of people's
needs.
Bowen

and

provided
the many

1992).

on

cial, artistic,

can

speak of the denotationaltextassociated with

nexus

semiotic

atten

serious

as

art, situated

that an

(1984)

argument
pay more

should

thropologists
tion to tourist

(recontex

between
ject,

346

Jules-Rosette's

everyday

understandings
for example,
has
account
of
ethnographic

(2005),

an

exciting
semiotic
layers

sense

make

of

takes us from
cases
way

to

law and

society

their pluralism
of values. He
court
law to individual

statutory

village

toward

of

citizens in Indonesia

within which Muslim

pointing

disputes,

the many

the

along

and dimensions

spheres

(including global ones) involved.We find

similarly rich ethnographies of local/global
legal processes in work by Coutin (2003)
on Salvadoran immigrants in the United
States, Lazarus-Black (1994) on Antigua and
(1997) on the British

Barbuda, andMaurer
Islands,

Virgin

among

others.

SEMIOTIC ANTHROPOLOGY
THE NEW MILLENIUM

IN

cross-currents

that

As
cut

is

clear

from

the

the categories
through
at many
themes
converge

above,

these

junctures.

Mertz

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

five

When

viewed

a vast terrain
they open
as well as
inquiry,
pointing

together,

anthropological

for
to

for example,
has issued a well-aimed
"a theory of cross-cultural
(mis-)

Darnell,
call

for

analytic tools thatcan help us in investigating communication" (2005, p. 168). Echoing

are in the midst
earlierwork byOchs (Keenan 1977),Darnell
of an excit
this terrain. We
are
in
time
which
many anthropologists
points to the limitsofGrice's (1975) maxims,
ing
are
or
that
issues
limitations
of
collabora
(whetherknowing
essentially
unknowing)
across
norms
in
tors in thedevelopment of a highlyproductive differences
metapragmatic
new

cultures.

synthesis.

the development
irony that underlies
as a field is that, de
of semiotic anthropology
One

on

its focus

spite

issues,

the field

communication,

itself can be quite difficult to understand

(Spitulnik 2003 comments briefly on this).
new

Powerful
cesses

to

approaches

of communication
but

emerged,

pro

examining

and translation

accessible

approaches isfrequentlyhard to come by And

yet, the field is energetically developing an
that can help

apparatus

analytical

us

to com

prehend better how, when, and why people

re
or talk past one another. This
a
re
tool
for
could provide
powerful

understand
search

thinkinghow thefield of semiotic anthropol

ogy itselfbuilds barriers to translation and
to

communication?how

struggle,

for exam

ple, with the often-conflictinggoals of preci

sion (which pushes us to develop specialized
The effectof au
vocabulary) and accessibility.
dience

on

ined

inmany

where,

talk, so thoroughly
is also relevant
settings,

exam

text and

and why we

when,

attempt

to how,

to convey

The question of the limitsand possibilities

across

of communication
a

issue

social

in current

times.

Our

pressing
to say about
has
this question.
something
we
to see whether
be interesting
would
use

our

own

For

translations.

to create

tools

example,

language
tact situations
relevant

issues;

contain

could we

more

the

and on

socialization

is

boundaries

field
It
can

on
of
insights
take this one step fur

ther and ask how such insightsmight inform

our

own

practices

communicate

as scholars

and translate

attempting
across
disciplinary

to

and other divides?

A growing number of anthropologists
have explored this issue of translation.

raising
of academic

language.

He

urges

incommensurable

kinds

of

knowledge.
And,
of

one

indeed,

to

efforts

can

exam

find many

translate

ples
anthropological
to other
One
audiences.
of
understandings
the most
difficult aspects would-be
transla
tors face is how to use reflexive tools that are

frequendy employed in thedisciplinewithout

analytic and/or episte
at
When
mological
ground.
anthropologists
aca
to
out
the
of
tempt
point
positionality
important

abandoning

observation

itself,

for example,

they

place in jeopardy the scientific validity of

their findings
for a broader
audience.
of other double
there are a myriad
binds

And
con

fronting translation effortsof this kind (see

Mertz 2007 for a description of the diffi
culties

2003

myriad

academics,

translation

into managerialist

fundamentally

on

language

the

contest
the decontextualization
and
possible,
measurement
of highly
context-dependent,

U.S.

con

about

become more
that anthropologists
reflexively
aware of these issues so that
they can, where

effective

literatures

study these
that can help to

tools

as

themselves

pologists
concerns

demic

our own work.

have

"enhanc[e] the possibility of dialogue" across

sharp social divisions (p. 169). Brenneis
(2004) turns the question back on anthro

issues

have

of these

translation

who

Anthropologists
she argues,

of interdisciplinary

translation

where

legal language is involved; and Briggs

for an analysis

of translation

problems

inVenezuelan public health initiatives).In an

innovativeeffort,
Hirsch (2006) has written an
account
logical

both from
observer

tim, presenting

her position

as

anthropo
as a vic

and from

her place

complex

perspective

on

the

legal response to the killing of her husband

and others in theU.S. Embassy bombing in

Kenya.

Hirsch

of different

takes
audiences,

seriously
rather

www.annualreviews.org

the demands
than

assuming

SemioticAnthropology

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

347

that anthropological

can

understandings

be

transparentlyshiftedintopublic domains (see

Silverstein2003 foran argument thatthisshift
as a "transformation"

be labeled

than as

rather

a "translation").
is an

Here

arena

has

thropology

in which

semiotic

to create

the potential

yet

an
an

other importantbridge for the fields of lin

guistic and sociocultural anthropology (aswell
areas

as other
tween
cial

the

and

of social

science)?a

generated

learning

worlds

cultural

bridge

thropological

research,

on

hand.

us

around
on

the one

be

the so

about

by

hand,

one

Ironically,

into the way we

"better"

communicate.

of despair:
translation

to fail,
by virtue

Why
when

of the

This

alteration.

without

if

so

through

In fact, semi

source for
otic anthropology
is also a powerful
an
of human
communication,
impure model
our messages
are
in which
always
strongly
to their social
contexts.
In this
connected
to communi
sense, anthropological
attempts
are no different than
cate with various
publics
any other effort to communicate.
(Although,
situ
in a way that we are uniquely
of course,

ated to explain, every such effortdiffersfrom

lead

a
try to achieve
it seems doomed

systems

cial

as

purity,

others,

strength

can

imagined
could move

realms

paradoxical

an

of the semiotic edge in anthropology is the

way itpermits us to trackdouble binds built
to a sense

any communication

and

the public's understanding of those worlds,

the other

on

rests

of commu

nication throughwhich itwill have to oper

ate?This way of thinking,however, in turn

to

degrees

and

is to accept

with

varying

in interesting

ways.) Perhaps one of themost difficulttasks

then,

ahead,

that we

some

humil

no

immu
special
we
from
the
that
processes
analyze?and
nity
care and reflection
to move with
appropriate
ity the fact

into

the prosaic,

have

unexalted

icality, metapragmatics,
impure
which

worlds

of
and

ideology,
meeting

language-context
else on

other

places
must

the planet

everyone

index

in
live

(and speak!).

STATEMENT

DISCLOSURE

author is not aware of any biases thatmight be perceived as affecting the objectivityof

The

this review.

statement

(This

is, of course,

necessarily

itself a translation.)

LITERATURE CITED
A.

Agha

2005. Voice,

footing,

enregisterment.

J. Ling. Anthropol.

15:38-59

Agha A. 2006. Language and Social Relations.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
BakhtinMM. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination, transi.C Emerson, M Holquist. Austin: Univ.
Tex.

Press

Basso K, SelbyH, eds. 1976.Meaning inAnthropology.

Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. Press
Bauman

R.

1986. Story, Performance,

and Event:

Contextual

Studies

of

Oral Narrative.

New

York:

Cambridge Univ. Press

Bauman R, Briggs C. 1990. Poetics and performance as criticalperspectives on language and
social life.Annu. Rev.Anthropol. 19:59-88
Boon J. 1982. Other Tribes, Other Scribes: SymbolicAnthropologyin theComparative Study of
Cultures, Histories,

Religions,

and Texts. Cambridge,

UK:

Cambridge

Univ.

Press

Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline ofa Theory ofPractice.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Bowen J. 2003. Islam, Law and Equality in Indonesia:An AnthropologyofPublic Reasoning.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Brenneis

D.

1987.

community.

Brenneis D.
88
348

Performing

Am.

Ethnol.

passions:

aesthetics

and politics

in an occasionally

egalitarian

14:235-50

2004. A partial view of contemporary anthropology.Am. Anthropol. 106:580

Mertz

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BrenneisD, Myers F, eds. 1984.DangerousWords: Language andPolitics in thePacific.New York:

N.

Press

Y Univ.

Briggs C,
Univ.
Briggs

C.

Briggs

C.

1996. Disorderly
Press

ed.

2002.

Linguistic

Anthropol. 104:481-98
2003. Why

Discourse:

magic

can't

teach

people

Inequality.

of a modernist

in the making

bullets

nation-states

Conflict, and Social

Narrative,

to be
healthy:

Oxford:

Oxford

anthropology.
and

power

Am.

pragmatic

miscalculation in public discourses on health.Med. Anthropol.Q. 17:287-321

and social power.J. Ling.Anthropol.2:131-72
BriggsC, Bauman R. 1992.Genre, intertexuality,
2000.
C.
and the threatto civil society: race, cultural
"Bad
mothers"
Briggs C, Mantini-Briggs
social
the
of
and
institutionalization
reasoning,
inequality in aVenezuelan infanticidetrial.
25:299-354

LawSoc.Inq.

Chandler D. 2007. Semiotics:The Basics. London: Roudedge

Chandler N. 1997. The problemofpurity:a studyin theearlythoughtofW.E.B.DuBois. PhD diss.
Univ. Chicago
Collins J, Blot R. 2003. Literacy and Literacies: Texts,Power, and Identity.Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Comaroff J,Comaroff J. 1991. Of Revelationand Revolution:Christianity,
Colonialism,and Con
sciousnessinSouthAfrica,Vol. I. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Comaroff J,Comaroff J. 1999.Occult economies and the violence of abstraction:notes from
the South African postcolony.Am. Ethnol. 26:279-303
Conley J. 2006. Power is as power does. Law Soc. Inq. 31:467-75
Conley J,O'Barr W. 1998.JustWords: Law, Language, and Power. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press

Coutin S. 2003. LegalizingMoves: Salvadoran Immigrants'Strugglefor U.S. Residency.

Ann Arbor:
Univ. Mich.

Press

V.

Crapanzano
R.
Darnell

1993. Text,

2005.

Linguistic

anthropology

50:151-72
Dolgin J,Kemnitzer D, Schneider D.
Symbols

and

Meanings.

and

transference,

New

York:

See Lucy
indexicality.
some
in Canada:
personal

1993b,

pp.

reflections.

293-314
Can. J.
Ling.

A Reader in theStudy of
1977. SymbolicAnthropology:
Columbia

Univ.

Press

Douglas M. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis ofConceptsofPollution and Taboo. London:
Roudedge
DuBois WEB.
1903 (1999). The Souls ofBlack Folk.New York: Bardeby
Duranti A. 1997. LinguisticAnthropology.
New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Duranti

A.

2003.

as culture

Language

in U.S.

anthropology.

Curr. Anthropol.

44:323-35

Duranti A, Brenneis D, eds. 1986. The Audience as Co-Author. Spec. Issue Text 6(3)
Duranti

A, Goodwin

C,

eds.

1992.

Rethinking

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Fernandez

J. 1986. Review

Foucault M.
Gal

o?Mans

Context:

Language

Glassy Essence. Am. Anthropol.

as an Interactive

Phenomenon.

88:768-69

1991. Governmentality. In The Foucault Effect:Studies in Governmentality,ed.

G Burchell, C Gordon, P Miller, pp. 87-104. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
S.

of research on
and gender.
speech and silence: the problematics
language
at the Crossroads
in
Feminist
the
Postmodern
Era.
ed.
ofKnowledge:
Anthropology

1991. Between

In Gender

M. DiLeonardo, pp. 175-203. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press

Gal S. 1998.Multiplicity and contestation among linguistic ideologies. See Schieffelin et al.
1998, pp. 317-31
Gal S. 2005. Language ideologies compared:metaphors of public/private.J. Ling Anthropol.
15:23-37

www.annualreviews.org

SemioticAnthropology

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

349

Geertz

C.

Geertz

C.

York: Basic Books

Interpretation
of Cultures. New
Further Essays
in Interpretive
1983. Local Knowledge:
Anthropology.

1977. The

New

York:

Basic

Books

Method. New York: Basic Books

Giddens A. 1976.New Rules ofSociological
Goffman E. 1981.Forms ofTalk. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Greenhouse

C.

1996. A Moments

C.

2002.

Notice:

Time Politics Across Cultures.

Ithaca, NY:

Cornell

Univ.

Press
Greenhouse

Introduction:

Altered

states,

altered

et al. 2002,

lives. See Greenhouse

1-35

pp.

Greenhouse C, Mertz E,Warren K, eds. 2002. EthnographyinUnstablePlaces: EverydayLives

inContextsofDramatic Political Change. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
P.

Grice

In Speech Acts,

and conversation.

1975. Logic

York: Academic
Gumperz
Hanks W.

J. 1982. Discourse
1990. Referential

Strategies.
Practice:

Chicago Press
JB. 2000.

Haviland

gesture

Pointing,

New

ed. P Cole,

JMorgan,

New

Chicago:

Univ.

York:

Language

spaces,

Univ.
Press
Cambridge
and Lived Space among theMaya.

pp. 41-58.

and mental

maps.

In

and Gesture: Window

Language

intoThoughtandAction, ed.D McNeill, pp. 13^-6. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Vol. II, ed.
Heath S. 1989. Language ideology. In InternationalEncyclopediaofCommunication,
E Barnouw,

339-95.

pp.

New

York:

Oxford

Univ.

Press

Manhood: Contestand Identityin a CretanMountain Village.

1985. The Poetics of

Herzfeld M.
Princeton,

NJ:

Univ.

Princeton

Press

Hickmann M. 1985.Metapragmatics in child language. See Mertz & Parmentier 1985,

pp. 177-201
Hill J, IrvineJ. 1993a. Introduction. See Hill & Irvine 1993b, pp. 1-23
Hill J, Irvine J, eds. 1993b. Responsibilityand Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge

Univ.

Press

Hirsch S. 1998.Pronouncingand Persevering:Gender and theDiscourses ofDisputing inanAfrican

Islamic

Court. Chicago:

Univ.

Princeton,

Princeton

Press

Chicago

Moment ofGreatestCalamity: Terrorism,Grief, and a Victims Questfor

Hirsch S. 2006. In the
Justice.

NJ:

Univ.

Press

IrvineJ. 1989.When talk isn'tcheap: language and political economy.Am. Ethnol. 16:248-67
JakobsonR. 1971. Selected
Writings,Vol. II {Wordand Language). The Hague: Mouton
Joseph J,Taylor T, eds. 1990. IdeologiesofLanguage.New York: Routledge
Jules-Rosette B. 1984. TheMessages ofTouristArt: An African SemioticSystem inComparative
Perspective.

New

York:

Plenum

Keenan (Ochs) E. 1977.The universalityof conversational implicatures.In Studies inLanguage

Variation:

Semantics,

Syntax, Phonology,

Pragmatics,

Social Situations,

Ethnographic

Approaches,

ed. R Fasold, R Shuy, pp. 255-68.Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press

Kockelman P. 2006. A semiotic ontology of the commodity.J. Ling. Anthropol. 16:76-102
Kristeva

J. 1986. Word,

dialogue,

and

the novel.

In The Kristeva

Reader,

ed. TMoi,

pp.

35-61.

New York: Columbia Univ. Press

Patterns.Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Labov W. 1972. Sociolinguistic
Lazarus-Black M. 1994. LegitimateActs and Illegal Encounters:Law and Society inAntigua and
Barbuda.
Leach

E.

Washington,
1985. Review

DC:
of Mans

Smithson.
Glassy

Inst. Press
Essence:

explorations

in semiotic

anthropology.

Am.

Ethnol. 12:154-56
Lee B. 1997. TalkingHeads: Language,Metalanguage, and theSemioticsofSubjectivity.
Durham,
NC: Duke Univ. Press
3$o

Mertz

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

New York:Mouton
Lee B, Urban G, eds. 1989. Semiotics,Self, and Society.
New York: Basic Books
L?vi-Strauss C. 1963. StructuralAnthropology.
Lucy J. 1992a. Grammatical Categories and Cognition:A Case Study of theLinguisticRelativity
Hypothesis.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Lucy J. 1992b, Language Diversity and Thought:RethinkingtheLinguisticRelativityHypothesis.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
LucyJ. 1993a. Reflexive language and thehuman disciplines. See Lucy 1993b, pp. 9-32
Lucy J, ed. 1993b.ReflexiveLanguage: ReportedSpeech andMetapragmatics. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Vol. I. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Lyons J. 1977. Semantics,

Matoesian

G.

1993. Reproducing

Rape: Domination

through

Talk

in the Courtroom.

Chicago:

Univ.

Chicago Press
Matoesian G. 2001. Law and theLanguage ofIdentity:Discourse in theWilliam Kennedy Smith
Trial. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Maurer B. 1991 .Recharting theCaribbean:Land, Law, and Citizenship in theBritishVirgin Islands.

Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press

Maynard D. 2006. Bad news and good news: losingvs finding thephenomenon in legal settings.
31:477-97

LawSoc.Inq.

Merry S. 1990. GettingJustice and Getting Even: Legal ConsciousnessamongWorking-Class

Americans.
Merry

Chicago:
S. 2005. Human

Mertz

E.

Univ.
Rights

Chicago
and Gender

Press
Violence:

Translating

International

Law

into Local Justice.

Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Mertz E. 1985. Beyond symbolic anthropology: introducingsemioticmediation. SeeMertz &
Parmentier 1985, pp. 1-19
1994. Legal

language:

pragmatics,

poetics,

and

social

power.

Annu.

Rev. Anthropol.

23:435-55
"
Like a Lawyer. Oxford: Oxford
Mertz E. 2007. The Language ofLaw School:Learning to liThink
Press

Univ.

Mertz E, ParmentierR, eds. 1985. Semiotic

Mediation: SocioculturalandPsychological
Perspectives.
Orlando:
Mertz

Academic

E, Yovel

awareness.

J. 2000. Metalinguistic

ed. JVerschueren,

J Blommaert,

Bulcaen.

In International
pp.

Handbook

1-26. Amsterdam:

ofPragmatics

2000,

John Benjamins

Messick B. 1992. The Calligraphic State: Textual Domination andHistory in aMuslim Society.
Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
Morris CW. 1971.Writings on theGeneral Theory ofSigns.The Hague: Mouton
1988. Culture

E.

Ochs

and

Language

Development:

Language

Acquisition

ina Samoan Village. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Parmentier

R.

1985.

Signs'

place

in medias

res: Peirce's

concept

and

Language

of semiotic

Socialization

mediation.

See

Mertz & Parmentier 1985, pp. 23-48

Parmentier R. 1994. Signs in Society:Studies in SemioticAnthropology.Bloomington: Indiana
Univ.

Press

Parmentier R. 1997. The Pragmatic SemioticsofCultures.Berlin:Mouton

Peirce CS. 1974. CollectedPapers,Vol. II, ed. C Hartshorne, PWeiss. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ.
Philips

S.

Press
1984. The

social

organization

of questions

and answers

in courtroom

discourse.

Text

4:223-46
Philips S. 1998. Ideologyin theLanguage of
Judges:How JudgesPracticeLaw, Politics,and Courtroom
Control.Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
www.annualreviews.org

SemioticAnthropology

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

351

Postone

1993. Time, Labor

M.

and Social Domination:

New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

S. 1929. Melanges
linguistiques
Prague
1:7-29
Trav. Cercle Ling. Prague

A Reinterpretation
aux

d?dies

des

congres

premier

Critical

ofMarxs

Theory.
slaves.

philologues

Preucel R. 2006. ArcheologicalSemiotics.

Maiden, MA: Blackwell
Sacks H, SchegloffE, JeffersonG. 1978. A simplest systematicsfor the organization of turn
In Studies

for conversation.

taking

in the

Organization

of Conversational

Interaction,

ed.

J Schenkein, pp. 1-55.New York: Academic

Sapir E. 1970. SelectedWritings ofEdward Sapir: Language, Culture, and Personality, ed.
D Mandelbaum. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
de Saussure F. 1959. Course inGeneral Linguistics.New York: Phil. Libr.
E.

Schegloff

on

1972. Notes
ed. D

Interaction,

a conversational

Sudnow,

pp.

practice:
New

73-119.

York:

In Studies

place.

formulating
Free

in Social

Press

SchieffelinB. 1990. The Give and Take ofEverydayLife: The Language Socialization ofKaluli
Children.New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
SchieffelinB,Woolard K, KroskrityP, eds. 1998.Language Ideologies:Practice and Theory.New
York:

Univ.

Oxford
ed.

SebeokTA,

Press

1978. Sight, Sound,

and Sense,

Indiana

Bloomington:

Press

Univ.

1994.The semioticmediation of identity.Ethos 22:83-119

SilversteinM. 1976. Shifters,linguisticcategories and cultural description. See Basso & Selby
1976, pp. 11-55

Shaw T.

Silverstein

M.

structure

1979. Language

and

linguistic

ideology.

In The Elements:

A Parasession

onLinguisticUnits and Levels, ed. P Clyne,W Hanks, C Hofbauer. pp. 193-247. Chicago:
Soc.

Ling.

Chicago

1981. The

M.

Silverstein

Austin
M.

Silverstein

1985.

pp. 219-59
M.

Silverstein

1996.The

SilversteinM.
M.

semiotic

and

Language

2003.
ice.

In

Pap.

the culture

Socioling.

of gender.

84, Southwest.

See Mertz

and metapragmatic

discourse

1993. Metapragmatic

pp.33-58

Silverstein

limits of awareness. Work.

&

Educ.

Lab.,

Parmentier

1985,

See Lucy

1993b,

function.

secret livesof texts.See Silverstein& Urban 1996, pp. 81-105

transduction,

Translation,

Cultures:

Translating

on
skating "glossando"
on Translation
and Anthropology,

transformation:

Perspectives

thin
ed.

P Rubel, A Rosman. pp. 75-105. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

SilversteinM, Urban G, eds. 1996.Natural Histories ofDiscourse.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
SingerM. 1978. For a semiotic anthropology. See Sebeok 1978, pp. 202-31
Bloomington: Indiana
SingerM. 1984.Man sGlassyEssence:ExplorationsinSemioticAnthropology.
Univ.

Press
1985. Comments

Singer M.

on

semiotic

anthropology.

Am.

Ethnol.

12:549-53

SpitulnikD. 2003. Comment. Curr.Anthropol.44:339-40

Travers

M.

from

Turner V.

2006. Understanding
a conversation
analyst.

Turner V.
Cornell
VerschuerenJ.

talk in legal settings: what

Soc. Inq. 31:447-65

law and

society

studies

can

learn

Law

1973. Symbols inAfrican ritual.Science 179:1100-5

1974.Dramas, Fields, andMetaphors: SymbolicAction inHuman Society.Ithaca,NY:
Univ.

Press

1999. Understanding

Pragmatics.

London:

Arnold

Volosinov V. 1973.Marxism and thePhilosophyofLanguage, transi.L Matejka, ITitunik. New

York:

552

Seminar

Mertz

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1962.

LS.

Vygotsky

MIT

Press

Thought

and Language,

ed./transl.

E Hanfmann,

G Vakar.

MA:

Cambridge,

and theSocial Formation of

Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
Wertsch J. 1985. Vygotsky
Press

Whorf BL. 1956. Language, Thought,and Reality.Boston:MIT Press

Woolard K 1998. Introduction:Language ideology as a field of inquiry.See Schieffelinet al.
1998, pp. 3-47
K.

Woolard

Is the past a foreign

2004.

country? Time,

modern Spain. J. Ling. Anthropol. 14:57-80

Worth

S.

1977. Toward

an

Ethnographic

Semiotic.

language

origins,

Introductory Lecture

at

act

and

and

the nation

conference

in

early

on "Utilisation

deUethnologiepar le cinema/Utilisation
du Cinema par L'ethnologie."Paris: UNESCO
Wortham S, Rymes B, eds. 2003. LinguisticAnthropologyofEducation.Westport, CT: Praeger
Yovel

J. 2000. What
promises."

is contract

Northwest.

Univ.

law
Law

"about"?
Rev.

Speech

theory

critique

of "skeletal

94:937-61

www.annualreviews.org

SemioticAnthropology

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.34 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:22:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

353