This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ELSEVIER Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28
Desemanticizing pragmatics *
6051 s. Drexel Ave., Apt. #2N, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Received No,lember 1995; revised version July 1996
This paper starts with a 'metatheoretic' discussion on the sociohistoric conditions of 'pragmatics' as a discourse genre, and identifies a complex set of antinomies in modem studies of language, in relation to which pragmatics is situated. Then, the paper investigates how such antinomies are manifested in the speech act theories of logico-linguistic and ethnographic approaches in terms of referential representation and social action, and suggests the possibility of reconstructing a theory of speech acts which may integratively reformulate both referential and social interactional facets of the problem.
1. Contextual considerations
N o theory of pragmatics ca~ entirely avoid addressing the problems o f referential representation and social action. ~ In other words, a pragmatic theory is evidently a linguistic and social theory at once. This explicitly dual nature o f pragmatic theories points to the possibility of 'pr~.gmatics' that it m a y develop a ' t h e o r y ' (i.e., makingexplicit of modus operandi) wtfich integratively reformulates our current ' h u m a n scientific' understandings of referential representation and social action into one coherent whole. Such a possibility, however, is constituted within a space of 'pragmatics' as a discourse genre, which, like any other 'scientific' inquiries, is constrained (though not determined) by sociohistoric, discursive conditions in which it has situated itself (cf. Kuhn, 1962; Foucault, 1966; G o o d m a n , 1979; Bourdieu, 1980). The integration of this metatheoretic point into our pragmatic inquiries would help us to
e' I am grateful for questions and comments received from William F. Hanks, Isamu Kawaguchi, Michael Silverstein and an anonymous reader for the Journal of Pragmatics. I am, of course, solely responsible for the result. l Reference and modalized predication are, of course, kinds of speech acts, and indexically presuppose and entail ('create') ontic 'realities'. power-relations and group-identities (cf. Putnam, 1975; Hanks, 1990). Yet, their characteristics are such that one will benefit from differentiating them from other kinds of speech acts, which are more robu,;tly and focally social-indexical. This is an empirically-based, nona priori, theoretic decision. 0378-2166/97/$17.00 © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved PH S0378-2 166(96)00078-1
w. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28
avoid the interrelated problems of universalist pragmatics, to wit: (1) 'ethnocentric projections' of analysts' own cultural categories onto other communities; (2) 'Universalism', which holds that there is some (biological, linguistic, psychological, social, etc.) foundations which are immune from historic contingencies ('natural') and on which cultural strata rest (cf. Sahlins, 1976; Geertz, 1973: 33-83; 1984); (3) 'decontextualism', which undervalues the theoretical significances of 'context', 'historicity', 'contingency' and 'process' (Geertz, 1973: 3-30); (4) Scientism, which conceptualizes social sciences as theoretical caiques of natural sciences and logicomathematics (cf. Putnam, 1973); and (5) physicalism and Realism, which equate the real with the physical, conceptualized to exist wholly independent of the observer (cf. Putnam, 1990: 3-29; 1992). It is crucial to realize, however, that the integration does not necessarily mean the espousal of (1) 'Culturalism' (closely associated with certain forms of pragmatism, Neo-Wittgensteineanism; cf. Gellner, 1959), which holds that the ways of life of natives are the ultimate source of 'rightness' or 'truths' (cf. Rorty, 1979), and which forecloses the possibility of critique of 'Culture' or ideology (Geertz, 1973: 193-233; Ricoeur, 1986); (2) 'absolute relativism' or 'absolute historicism', which is theoretically self-defeating or inconsistent between theory and practice (cf. D'Amico, 1989; Putnam, 1992); (3) the doctrine of 'the cultural arbitrary', which may obscure the sociohistoric motivations of cultural orders; or (4) cultural and, when 'ontological relativity strikes at home', individual solipsism (cf. Putnam, 1992). Rather, such integration highlights the necessity of careful analyses of varied degrees of correspondence between discourses of pragmatics as a genre, on one hand, and their sociohistoric, contextual surrounds, which are presupposable independent of 'pragmatic' discourses, and which can be shown to be relatable, either positively or negatively, and to varied degrees, to 'pragmatic' discourses, from the perspectives of metatheoretic discourses. In carrying out such a 'meta-analysis', moreover, we should try to minimize the possibilities of self-authorization of our own pragmatic theories through genealogical constructions of histories of the discourse genre in such a way that our theories appear to be the 'Hegelian culmination' of all previous attempts whose values are measured in relation to our own theories, which are presented as the perfected versions of previous, imperfect ones. Rather, we should aim at the sophistication of our current theories through the reflective recognition of sociohistoric conditions of our genre, some facets of which we may see more clearly in the historicizable, 'prior-to-now' moments of our genre in vitro, than in our own time in vivo (cf. Stocking, 1982: 1-12). The discourse genre of 'pragmatics', at least after Morris' reformulation of Peirce's pragmaticism, strongly evokes the remainder of the semiotic triad, syntax and semantics, and pragmaticians have constituted the discourse genre largely as the residual category of the trichotomy (cf. Levinson, 1983: 1-53). The sociohistoric conditions of syntactico-semantics, ever since 'structuralism' came to be recognized as a serious socio-philosophical discourse genre, have been scrutinized by historically-oriented analysts, often antagonistic in intent, yet sometimes producing analyses which, we have to admit, contain some truths. For instance, Williams (1977: 21-44; 1989: 31-80), a 'non-infrastructural determinist' Marxist, and Charles Taylor (1985: 215-292), an 'Anglo-American' philosopher, concur in noting that the
calendrical paraphernalia. Einfiihlung or correspondance. Gumperz. primordial and 'psychic' or psychological intentionality. clocks. Though a 'linguistic community'. as factors which are countable as background contexts of the rises of structuralism. and essentialize 'language' in its socioculturally indexical. 1991). 1979. Anderson. and 'continental philosophic (post)structuralists'. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 3 modem studies of language may be conceptualized in terms of ergon-valorizing 'objectivism' and energeia-valorizing 'expressivism' (cf.W. which corresponds to a smaller speech community. etc.and power-indexing capacity. Of course. Furthermore. These antinomies have institutionalized repercussions. authority. t]ae circulation of linguistic. hence the impact of Quine's radical translation) and espouse the thesis of denotational effability. who emphasize the impossibility of translation. forcefully brought home by the legitimation of 'mother tongues' and the diversity of world languages. the expansion and lglobalization of commerce. Bakhtin. etc. who essentialize 'language' as a referential code (as translatability is maximized in some aspects of references and modalized predications. standardization (schooling. maps. espouse the anti-theses of ineffability and radical relativity. 1992). is distinct from a 'speech (sociocultural) community'. Bourdieu. That is. the problem of 'translation'. de Man. Clifford and Marcus. while negatively valorizing non-standard varieties as . Putnam. and Williams points to the sociohistoric conditions of urbanization. (b) pragmatic regularities (e. 1982) and realist literature (cf. discourse genres. and symbolic-romanticism. on one hand. 'non-natural' linguistic signs. value-. is showing 'wise' ambivalence between them (cf. which tries to capture the ever vanishing moments of original semiosis ol the fundamental monad of communication in agentive engagement. literary criticism (cf. Bloomfield. which is constituted by virtue of its members' sharing (a) cultural categories. the increased copresence of various ethnicities in metropolis. referentialist and rationalist cognitive psychology a~d formal-structural linguistics standing against the increasingly relativistic and anti-rationalist cultural anthropology (cf. and rank-shifts a discourse genre (linguistic variety). Volo~inov.g. such as a nation-state.. geographic. Havrfinek. the characteristics of sociohistoric conditions to which Williams pointed have been part of larger processes called 'modernity' (and various modes of 'anti-modernity'). the nationalist tropological equation of these two has been naturalized by recurring discursive interactions which presuppose and thus re-constitute such a trope. on the other. the trope 'reifies' our nationalist misrecognition that a denotational code naturally needs to be mappable to a speech community (nation-state) in a oneto-one correspondence. 1927. 1964. 1981. 1978). print capitalism. 1968). 1973).: cf. which is constituted by virtue of its members' sharing a denotational code. anchored on the anti-theses of pre-linguis~:ic. 1986). White. up to the status of 'full language' (standardized and written variety). such as dictionaries. Rorty. urban alienation and the sentiment of deracination. registers) and (c) the (relatively) consciously accessible (Durkheimean) norms towards/against which members interpret their behaviors (cf. seems to have polarized 'structuralists' into 'formal-structuralists'. while philosophy.. constitutive parts of which are nationalism. 1978) and history (cf. in its post-analytic modalities. anchored on the thesis of arbitrary. as witness the polarization of human sciences in the United States. the universalist. encyclopedias.
Peirce. between the poles of linguistic formalism. As part of such a 'frozen dialectic'. which I find necessary for avoiding a framework based on 'type vs. naturalist. 'symbolic'. 1932: 134-155). We may note that this antinomic discursive configuration seems to be homologous with antinomies we detect between the super-standardized 'logical syntax' and 'ordinary language'. linguistic structural-types and other 'happenings'. Thus. superposed variety towards/against which social groups orient their behaviors. intension-extension 'correspondence' theorist. 1983) reductionistic. on one hand. conversational regularities. the Grice-Searlean 'universal pragmatics' and anthropological-linguistic emphasis on 'cultural diversity' and unique particulars. 1975). such as deictic regularities. which appear ('dehumanizingly' or 'techno-scientifically') neutral and objective to our nationalist consciousness. the post-Saussurean and post-Fregean syntactico-semantics have constituted themselves as system-internal formal-structuralist (vs. 'Indexical legisigns' are behavioral ('extensional') regularities. in their modalities of Saussure-Chomskianism and Tarski-Davidsonianism. 'sinsign' and 'legisign' are used in their classic Peircean senses (cf. and. 1984). Sahlins. 1976. conventionalist (vs. ethnography of speaking. Sadock. It is in such contexts that the discourse genre of 'pragmatics' has constituted itself. the Saussure-Chomskian linguistics (whose abstract theorizations have been facilitated by the entailments of standardization) and the Labovian sociolinguistics/discourse analysis. the trope is played out by the constantly presupposed and entailed oppositions between the top and center of standardization. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 something less than 'full language'. oscillating between the poles of reference-and-modalized-predication (representation) and non-referential praxiology (action in a universe of cause and effect). 'Indexical sinsigns' are extensional singularities. cognitive representationalism and pragmatism.4 W. 1969. pragmaticism and praxiological semiotics. and the periphery of standardization. for example. teleological functionalist: cf. referentialist (vs. the former tries to integrate as many as possible of indexical legisigns2 (event-types) regularly associable 2 'Indexical'. (which have situated themselves in conscious opposition to Chomskianism). token' or 'regularity vs. a crude version of which is Tractarian 'picture theorist'). Malinowski-Jakobsonian multi-functionalist). A denotational code thus becomes a group-identity index of discourse participants (members of a nation-state) and varieties of the denotational code appear to be hierarchized in terms of their deviations from a standard. on the other. intensionalist (vs. discourse genres. Searle. discourse genre-. but also for their utility for explicitly making the three-way distinction. onto which 'dialects' and 'folk-talk' are projected and which appears ('liberatingly' or 'vulgarly') polyphonous and spontaneous. linguistic registers. the first syntactically (cf. Thus. in the Platonic senses). . and between the poles of formal structuralism and pre-linguistic psychologism. That is. 1974) and the second psycho-logically (cf. Nichols. Austin's (1962) discovery of 'explicit primary performatives' has led to the developments of two distinct approaches towards the problem of 'speech acts'. such as tokens of event-. centering around the notion of 'speech acts'. I employ them not only for my contention that it is high time for the coming-together of 'pragmatics' and (neo)pragmatism. Though I suspect that some of us may be repelled by the awkwardness of these terms. 1979. event-types. etc. Putnam. 'Symbolic legisigns' ('intensional regularities') can be subdivided into two kinds: linguistic structural types and cultural stereotypes ('cultural categories') (cf. singularity (or actuality)' dichotomy.
and semiotic mechanisms which have given rise to. It is the consequence of not seeing such crucial differences. I think. it seems fair to say. Austin. the four domains which are. and perlocute the senses at the level of discourse by re-presenting themselves as indexical icons of the illocutionary senses through the uses of fixed. to be theoretically distinguished. varying and only relatively (in)determinate degrees.w. that neither approach can explain why (1) the syntactic operations which delete segments in performative clauses or (2) the logical calculations which derive 'what is meant' or 'primary illocutionary force' from 'what is said' or 'secondary illocutionary force'. such as Wittgenstein. The formation of this discourse genre. 19831. by way of maximizing what we can learn from these theories. have t. In the following section. it seem s to me that explicit primary performatives are idiosyncratic in that they transparently map (1) verba dicendi in linguistic structure. help us to see more clearly the crucial aspects in which explicit primary performative speech acts are distinct from other speech acts: (1) they explicitly predicate illocutionary senses encoded in the linguistic structure of which they are tokens. (2) what is pragmatically referred to and predicated about. I think. non-explicit speech acts. was achieved mainly by contextualizing the 'traditional' metaphysics. these two approaches to speech acts. while 'indirect speech acts' have only the second of these in smaller. that both approaches theoretically reduce the uses of various linguistic 'form-orders' (Bloomfield. Ryle. and their consequences. mixing at least two semiotically distinct levels of analysis. Social actions in representationalist theories Most of what goes under the name of 'pragmatics' in contemporary linguistics and (post)analytic philosophy often makes a genealogizing gesture to the 'Ordinary Language School' philosophers. especially relatively regular. their presuppositions. 2. prototypically Is I [vP V'metapragmatic(to) you S]] where V' is unmarked for tense and aspect. on one 3 'Intention' is not used in its technical. . ritual formulae. are not 'perlocutionary compulsiw. respectively.'ness-preserving' and reduce it by some particular degree. The consequences of these two reductionisms. 1984) to explicit primary performative constructions/speech acts. I shall try to elucidate the genealogical origins of. Grice and Searle (cf. More generally. intentional 3 'illocutionary forces' categorizable independent of linguistic structure and formalism p e r se. Levinson. (3) the entailed contexts of interaction and (4) the conscioasly accessible end of interaction.ecome a salient and insurmountable problem (cf. Note. and (2) they have the maxima of automatized mappability between syntactic types and interactional significances. non-explicit yet primary ('indirect') speech acts. 1983). Strawson. the latter tries to formulate a psychological schema of pre-linguistic. On the other hand. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 5 with (symbolic) linguistic legisigns into syntactic descriptions which otherwise formalize symbolic legisigns only. which we shall follow below. but in the sense of 'agentively consciously accessible metapragmatic model of the purposive telos of discursive interaction'. phenomenological sense akin to 'aboutness'. As a result. note 8). however. which is only a specific subcategory of the former (cf. Levinson.
The developments in (post)analytic philosophy (cf. since referential practices require not only contribution from syntacticosemantics. 1959--60. The former tried to show that 'metaphysical problems' arose from our abstract and opaque 'philosophical language'. axioms and derivational rules. 1967: 233-234). whose connection with our 'ordinary language' should be explicitly shown. the Aufbau 'collapsed' (at least partly) due to these two assumptions. Urmson and Warnock. composed of "(a) free association . the Oxbridge analysts rejected. 1976) that 'meaning is use'. that is. Garfinkel. the solution to metaphysical problems (cf. Putnam. 1961). which makes the very same fatal assumptions of the homogeneity of symbolic elements. This theoretical choice seems to have been guided by a metatheoretic principle which we may call 'the avoidance of doxa': 4 Characteristically. NPs are treated as if they were all deictics.. (1) the homogeneous conceptualizations of both symbolic structure and indexicality caused by not noting the significance of careful crosslinguistic analyses of linguistic structures and ethnographic researches on linguistic practices and (2) the Tractarian isomorphism between 'language' (logical syntax and verifiable sentences) and 'world' (verifying eventualities).. Rorty. and the Carnapian Aufbau and the Russellian logical atomism. the ordinary language philosophers purported to study 'language' as ordinarily used in its complexity. . or which must be grounded on our 'ordinary language'.6 w. The latter. 1967). 4 the homogeneity of indexical elements 5 and an isomorphism between symbolic and indexical domains by reductively assimilating the former into the latter (cf. Taking a course antithetical to the logical syntacticians. Here. it is important to note that.picture-theoretic reduction.. 1987).. and not to be taken pejoratively (cf. Searle 1969: 146-149). Hampshire. on the other hand. which were to be replaced with an ideal language made of empirically verifiable statements and logically valid definitions.or equivalent . both the Ordinary Language School and the logical syntacticians were engaged in the programs of 'pseudo-problematization' of metaphysics (cf. (c) use of the dictionary" (Urmson. The fatal assumptions are. Urmson. the analytic machinery of modern linguistics and any explicit social theorization. but also from 'pure' indexicality.again. 1972). that (1) correspondences between a symbolic language and indexical sinsigns are too complex to warrant logico-syntactic . (b) the reading of relevant documents . 1967. In different ways. Koyama /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 hand. then. tried to show that 'metaphysical problems' arose from our muddled and opaque 'ordinary language'. 6 'Ad hoc' and 'commonsensical'are used in the ethnomethodologicalsenses. especially in view of some speech act theories. on the other (cf. 1975) have shown. the sociohistoric continuity of usage and cultural stereotypes ('cultural categories') to varying degrees. 'demythologizing' and reductionistically functionalist thesis (cf. any Characteristically. in effect. however. if not achieve.. such a variation largely depending on which type of NP is used (cf. 1967). the careful studies of which would contribute to. We must not be spurred by its 'failure' to an opposing. Sahlins. Schlick. and used an introspective method of ad hoc and commonsensical 6 kind. In operationalizing their program. Silverstein. indexical legisignsare reduced to indexical sinsigns ('happenings').. whose singularityand uniquenessalone we are advisedto appreciate.
1991: 17). one finds an essentially Husserlian phenomenological orientation in the 'ordinary language' program. 1974). ential significances. if one essentializes linguistic semiosis from the combinations of (1) and (3)." (ibid. and temporally and logically precede. as is shown all too often by the barbarous idiom found in the writings of philosophers . 1969: 19. speech and even linguistic structure. (2) continuous segmentability and (3) the relative presupposability of indenpendently verifiable contextual factor(s). the problercLatics of referential mechanisms which guarantee the felicitous speech acts of referriag and modalized predicating (part of which. we have to admit. and we are to use the most presuppositionless intuition. it posits interactional significances as something transparently translatable (reducible) to refer.W. Thus. to sufficiently characterize XYZ. It is at this point that the diverging directions within the program of 'linguistic phenomenology' show their multiplicity. and Austin himself once acknowledged. is constituted by forrnal-distributional morphosyntax) is not addressed. As a result.. the primordiality of pre-linguistic intentions of 'transcendental ego-consciousness' (of. albeit uniquely developed in language and unique in its functioning. analysts have to add some 'flesh' to this core.. an 'ego-consciousness' which we might call XYZ for short. the 'doxa-free' program to the hori~'on of agentive ego-consciousness of primordial and 'transcendental' (unanimous within a community) kind. Now. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 7 "Austin always insisted that during the work so far described all theorizing should be excluded . third. Derrida. one is naturally led to a rationalist and presuppositionalist theory of communication. which says "whatever can be [interactionally] meant can be [referentially] said" (Searle.. holislic conceptualization of 'meaning'. Thus. 1989a: 174-175. and fourth (especially in Grice and Searle). agentive intuition of users. second in its methodological reliance on the introspective. brack. ets mine). Kristeva. Premature theorizing can blind us to the li~aguistic facts. if not exclusively of analysts (cf. guide. notwithstanding the very point of departure for speech act theories that referential function. as (a) referential function. Grice. the principle of 'avoidance of doxa' binds. premature theorizers bend their idiom to suit the theory. agentively graspable communicative intuition sharable by a speech community. as opposed to interactional (phatic. however. 1967). Habermas. is that from which our notions of rationality are easily hypostatizable.e. is just one of the communicative functions. first in its search for presuppositionless methodology (cf. more presupposable than. agentive and introspective interpretation is overdetermined by at least three variables of (1) the unavoidability of referentiality. conative and part of poetic and metalinguistic) functions.. as Silverstein (1981) demonstrates from his field study. Nor . In addition. the preanalytic. 1967. note lhe Searlean doctrine of "the principle of expressibility". emotive. to agentive awareness. and characterizes XYZ primarily by these aspects appearing most doxa-free to agentive awareness.] by the axiom of 'the avoidance of doxa' and the methodological primacy of introspective. : 234) As Apel (1991) rightfully observes. This thesis implicitly reduces interactional significances to agentive intention. paradoxically it may appear. which appears. reflective interpretation on linguistic semiosis. That is. i. Here.. the degree to which linguistic semiosis is accessible to conscious. and (b) the focus on presupposability directs an analyst's attention away from the entailing ('creative') aspect of linguistic semiosis. Rorty.
as we can surely intend to do so and they are the only means by which what is primarily done in speech can be said explicitly and in simplex manner. which indicates that. Searle's 'illocutionary point') actions. as Sadock (1978) points out. promise. XYZ must be equipped with. referentially-centered intentional act. if not uniquely characterizable by. ask.. is either dismissed as irrelevant or reduced into the explanandum of highly complex rationalizing operations. etc. which are characterized by their appearance to our ego-consciousness as irrational. teleological interpretation of an up-coming segment of interaction is posited as something which predetermines the interactional significance of the segment. in which the agentive. such as Gricean calculations. Note that this characterization is nothing but a hypostatization of part of our sharable cultural stereotype associated with the 'metapragmatic' (see note 8) verb pal" excellence. seemingly 'pointless' (cf. 1981. in the English lexical semantics of verbs of . i. especially the contextual indeterminacy of interactional significances of discourse. compel the psycho-logical theorists (as well as the ego-conscious part of us. but also Grice's suffers from the very same problem of teleological determinism. for Grice's theory to be operationalizable. Moreover. e. in syntactically reductionistic speech act theories. unconscious. This last. as we shall see. not only Searle's theory. Thus.. the interactional 'meaning' of a discourse must be somehow pre-fixed before an actual calculation takes place. whether consciously accessible or not. Levinson. seems to sufficiently characterize XYZ.8 W. insofar as it identifies 'communication' with intentional acts. Thus. so anything which is not primafacie characterizable as intentionally purposive.g. This much of theoretical consubstantiation of our primary intuition of what communication is all about. That is. insofar as referential function and agentive intentionality appear to be the most doxa-free dogmas. by (1) a cognitive capacity 'underlying' reference and modalized predication. 1979. command. the consequential entailment of interaction is psychologically 'pre-fixed' by an agent's teleological and intentional tour de force (cf.. mean-. accounted for by psycho-logical speech act theories. not face-maximizing or apparently inexplicable. Koyama /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 is non-referential indexicality. (1) the cognitive capacity of intentionality which is subcategorized into the classes either transparently (in Austin's theory) or opaquely (in Searle's) mappable to (prototypic) moods and (fully elaborately lexicalized) verba dicendi. to be sure) to rationalize ('explain' or 'calculate') them. (2) which is formalizable and representable by the hierarchical constituency structures of linguistic segments which 'underlie' (or at least transparently translate) our interactional capacity to 'do things with words'. inclusive of linguistic structure and unintended happenings. intentional. given the powerful machinery of unbounded Gricean calculations. Hancher. 1986). That is.e. is in a stark contrast with the (mostly implicit) characterizations of XYZ. of our reflective interpretations on linguistic semiosis. intentions to declare. and (2) that of reference and modalized predication (a) to which the interactional significances of speech acts are transparently (in Austin's theory) or opaquely (in Searle's) translatable and (b) which are meaningful only to the extent that they can be consciously. Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs. purposively intended. if you pardon this oxymoron. any 'what-is-meant' is calculable from a given 'what-is-said'.
Some serious problems with the descriptions of XYZ by the psycho-logical theorists undermine the empirical accountability of the intentionalist theories. we need to rigorously investigate. unique significance of what-is-communicated. syntactico-semantic) in this context (cf. or primary illocutionary force.onto the actuality of communication via theoretical consubstantiation: 'meaning. we can identity a set of indexical sinsigns as a 'figure' clearly demarcated :From the background of other indexical sinsigns (cf. his theory does not address the defeasibilIy of an agent's intentional 'model of interaction' and the 'dynamics' of interactions. (2) (pragmatic) interpretationsof (pragmatic) discursive interactions. (1) (pragmatic) speech about (pragmatic) speech. However. That is.. That is. in the intentionalist theories. Polanyi. or 'indexical sinsigns' in the Peircean jargon. Donnellan.. respectively. as so theorized. Duranti.lournal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 9 communicating.g. a sign is at the n+lth order in respect of its pointing to another sign. as the output of communication. Given that 'indexical' (vs. Thus. Such a construction of a 'figure' or 'interactional text' out of unregimented 'mass' of inde~:ical sinsigns may be achieved by having indexical sinsigns discriminatively point to a delimited set of indexical sinsigns.. first of all. 'cohesiveness' or 'textuality'. what I meant was . 1978)..' (cf. to comprehend the problem of intentionality.'. and. XYZ has to use something akin to telepathy for intentional telementation. interaction must be first of all identifiable as an individttable unit. Koyama /. 1993). however. as in 'What do you mean?'. and agentive intentions about the consequencesof discursive interactions. it is only when interaction has 'unity'. and characterizes a sign (at the n+lth order) indexically pointing to an indexically functioning sign (at the nth order): e. one intended as '*Pi' by the speaker and complicitly 'taken-up' as '*Pi' by the interlocutor).w. Mean it! '. To begin with. 'Don't just say it. autonomous speaker's intention as the input to communication and the pre-fixed. As the ethnography of speaking tradition has amply demonstrated (cf. 'Metapragmatic' is a subcategory of (Jakobsonian) 'metalinguistic'. it appears a mystery that the speaker can actually intentionally communicate with the addressee. Bar-Hitlel. 'No.. due to the irretrievable gap posited between the solitary. the nature of this 'model of interaction'. such as the agentive understandings of the discourse genre of ongoing interaction.s point to the theorization of this issue. to be sure. the intentionalist theory of communication projects our cultural stereotypes associated with the lexico-semantic label mean.at the nth order in respect of its being pointed . interaction can be conceptualized as mere 'happenings'. They miss the point that the speaker has to compel the interlocutor to comply with 'the model of interaction' which she intends to actualize] Then. However. because the speaker's intending alone is not sufficient for the achievement of a 'fully consummated' speech act (i. the determination of the socioculturally identifiable significances of which is played out by discourse participants. such as between verbal and gestural signs or ~etweenverbal signs (in which case. this cultural stereotype and the hypostatized theory are far from being universally shared and valid. (3) mutual co-indexingof sinsigns. 1954). 1982. shared by the speaker and addressee. symbolic) is synonymous with 'pragmatic' (vs. we may say that such regimenting indexicals are functioning 'metapragmatically '8 at the n+lth order in relation to regi7 The Searlean notion of 'IFID' dot. 1958). in order to be endowed with such significances.e. simultaneously. Rosaldo. First.
such as cultural stereotypes or 'illocutionary senses'. relative to other linguistic types. which are thus delimited from the rest of contextual 'mass'. 9 Grice (1989b). thus. or symbolic legisigns. one can ascribe a 'sociocultural significance' to it by evoking presupposable symbolic legisigns. Then. and we m a y speak of ' m e t a p r a g matic f r a m e ' or 'interactional text': a cohesively united ' t e x t ' of indexical sinsigns which can be e n d o w e d with a socioculturally identifiable significance. the pre-fixability of 'illocutionary type'. one has to make a primary reference to pragmatic regularities. 9 Yet another problem is that X Y Z does not have a cognitive capacity not only to formulate ' m e t a s e m a n t i c ' sentences (i. *p. or pragmatically. as her grammatical capacity is limited to to by the other). who was bewitched by explicit p r i m a r y performatives. ad infinitum .e. rather than to linguistic structure or cultural stereotypes.. which is in competition with other m e t a p r a g m a t i c frames and. Another problem with the intentionalist theories is that X Y Z must have an iibermenschlich cognitive capacity to intend her interlocutor to recognize her intention that he recognizes her intention that . X Y Z must have the capacity to actually undergo (rather than 'have a mental schema of the selfreferential type "(a) A intends that B recognize *p and intends (a)" ') infinite number of intendings in order to achieve a single piece of speech act. are transparently metapragmatically characterizable. operates by the same principle. which is. As the 'architecture' of interactional textuality is constituted by metapragmatics. Thus. or ' p r i m a r y p e r f o r m a t i v e s ' .. Alternatively. As is well known. Note that the individuation of a referent by referring. impossible. indexical iconization between sinsigns and symbolic legisigns. 'analytic' or 'law-like' descriptions of cultural stereotypes or grammatico-semantic units). or ' w h a t is socioculturally meaningfully done'. verba dicendi metapragmatically denote the kinds of (pragmatic) speech. the semantic contents (designata) and denotata. tropological voicing: i. count as 'to intend *p'. however. such as indexical legisigns. to specify them. Griceans and schema theorists. m a y be called a ' m y t h ' . such as deictics. we may say that shifters and verba dicendi. discourse genres. are (largely) metapragmatically characterized. that is. of the (Jakobsonian) shifters. then. By pointing at a set of indexical sinsigns. strictly ('logically') speaking. which 'theoretically' allows the Quinean infinite atomization or indeterminacy. points to the notion of 'threshold level' above which a finite number of intendings 'practically'. as in 'interaction rituals' ( G o f f m a n .. an idea shared by the Searleans. as an agentively accessible teleological m e t a p r a g m a t i c frame of ' w h a t will have been done'. .e.. Similarly. whose illocutionary forces appear pre-fixable due to a particularly effective. That is. metapragmatics organizes and regiments such indexicals into a cohesive unit(y) ('text'). 1967). In other words.. In this conceptualization. conversational 'structures'. p r e s u m a b l y inherited from Austin. as in 'explicit p r i m a r y p e r f o r m a tives'. defeasible.. 'A sufficient degree of determinacy in context' appears to be a key notion both in referential and non-referential pragmatics. both on the planes of 'reference' (Hallidayan 'referential text' of 'what is said') and 'action' ('interactional text' of 'what is done'). the architecture m a y re-present itself as an indexical icon of presupposable signs.10 w. but also to use the tokens of nonmetapragmaticaUy characterizable types. not to mention referents. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 m e n t e d indexicals functioning at the nth order. as linguistic types. 'intention' can be theorized as p a r t of the g a m e of fixing a determinate interactional text between discourse participants.
has d!fficulty explicating the phenomena of diachronic reference continuity and tl~e indexical rigidity of individuation based on Kripkean baptismal speech acts. though he seems to take a rather dim view of the roles of linguistic structure in referential practices. ~° ( T e c h n i c a l l y s p e a k i n g . However. 1993) and which constrain the organizations of this latter. .tructureand its contribution to the former. but does not elaborate on the specific relationships between this and the organizations of linguistic ~'.s p r e a d p h e n o m e n a o f l i n g u i s t i c i d e o l o g i z a t i o n such as ~0 Here. on the basis of his theory of 'descriptive backing' C identifiability'). (2) there are two kinds of semantic intensions.w. e i t h e r r e f e r e n t i a l l y or i n l e r a c t i o n a l l y . he does not note that any use of an NP type involves both 'attributive' (symbolic) and 'referential' (indexical) components and that the de~:ree to which such a use involves each component depends on NP type and discursive contexts. (2) Searle (1969: 31) posits 'propositional content'. so that the p r o p e r m e t a l i n g u i s t i c c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s o f verba dicendi cann o t b e g i v e n b y a n y t h e o r y w h i c h fails to take into a c c o u n t the e n t i r e t y o f s e m a n t i c o grammar. Second. (4) therefore.. the domain of 'semantics' as such is actually further restricted to the confine of linguistic structure alone. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 11 the descriptors o f s p e e c h acts a!tone. though being able to explain the phenomena of diachronic reference alternations. X Y Z does n o t h a v e a c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t y not to i n t e n d . (6) notwithsta~lding. Austin. This is. as S a u s s u r e . a n d the l i n g u i s t i c structure is. the designata of some segments in linguistic structure are metapragmatically characterizable (e. Searle ( 1969: 162-174) develops a descriptive. (3) there is a pragmatic domain of reference which has textuality. for example. a thesis e m p i r i cally d i s p r o v e d b y the w i d e . ':hough positing 'constatives' and then 'rhetic acts'. Third. too.ion for thematic convenience. situated in (or around) the analytic tradition of philosophy. I am sacrificing analytic preci'. deictics. Searle (1979) does not relate the notions of characterizability and presupposability to his analysis of the Donnellanean 'attributive' and 'referential' uses of definite expressions. which are one of the four main components of linguistic structure (cf. did have the theories of reference and modalized predication as such: (1) Austin (1962). how heterogeneous elements in linguistic structure variously but systematically contribute to referring (cf. Van V~lin. proper names. uniqueness (more broadly. is replaced with correspondences between intention and denotation. e v e n m e t a p r a g m a t i cally c h a r a c t e r i z a b l e t y p e s are n o t p r o p e r l y l i n g u i s t i c a l l y f o r m a l i z a b l e .g. and does have a sophisticated theory of reference and modalized predication. linguistic structural senses and cultural stereotypes. a significant contribution towards the proper theorization of semantics as symbolic and pragmatics ~Lsindexical.) F i n a l l y . Searle (1969: 72-96) notices that felicitous reference presupposes the existence. and he theorizes the former use as the case where denotation and intended reference ('primary aspect') match and the latter as the one where denotation matches c~escriptive backing ('secondary aspect').entional' and 'maxim-observing/flouting conversational' 'implicatures'). As a result. discourse connectives). X Y Z ' s c o n s c i o u s n e s s is t r a n s p a r e n t l y a c c e s s i b l e to anything w h i c h m a y a n d does take place in h e r m i n d .:train the organization of linguistic structure are not addressed. (_~)Grice differentiates 'what is said' (propositional meaning) from 'what is implicated' (inclusive of 'com. M a r t i n e t a n d B r 0 n d a l l e x p l i c i t l y insisted. which appears as 'p' in F(p). it seems to be the case that (I) even propositions are not trnth-evaluable without the pragmatic fixing of referents unless they are completely metasemantic. respectively.. as a result of which the similarity of these types is missed. operates beyond sentential boundaries and contributes to the fi Kingof referents. Thus. quantifiability) and identifiability (characterizability) of referenl(s). un systdrne oft tout se tient. did not consider how linguistic structures are deployed in reference and modalized predication to be an important question. cluster theory of references by proper names. we must recognize. since f o r m a l i z a b i l i t y p r i m a r i l y d e r i v e s f r o m s y s t e m a t i c i t y a n d s y s t e m i c i t y . Grice treats the last of these as conventional implicatures just because their denotations do not directly participate in propositions. Silverstein. a n d m o r e g e n e r a l l y . First. the problem of reference entailment and maintenance mechanisms. which. Searle and Grice. (5) however. Finally. 1987) and how speech acts of referring con. Thus.
as the serious theorization of semantics leads to the realization of extensional. his 'principle of expressibility') and underdeveloped with regard to non-referential aspects of interaction. as Saussure and Sapir noted. the ' o b j e c t i v i s m ' of post-Saussurean linguistics. symbolic capacity should be studied on its own terms. If one essentializes linguistic semiosis from the combinations of (1). further articulated and refined by Bloomfield and C h o m s k y . which is tacitly presupposed. Hockett. let us explore another direction. when theorizing on 'literal (referential) meaning' does emphasize 'background context'. General Semantics). 1980). and characterizes X Y Z primarily by these three. or worse. a referentialist ideologization of communication. where the axioms of linearity and arbitrariness entail compositionality (i. it should be noted that Searle (1979. Searle. That is. and any p h e n o m e n a of tacit knowledge.s e m a n t i c categories. Such a disparity seems to be consonant.H e a r e r ' .e. such as some suprasegmentals. pragmatic anchoring of intentional structure. which distortingly reflect indexical legisigns and sinsigns. as witness Lyons (1977) and 'Generative Semantics'). one can never arrive at the level of abstraction where linguistic structure can be posited. Arabic m o r p h o ( p h o ) n e m i c s .g r a m m a r in discursive interactions. X Y Z is even deprived of a capacity to identify the t~ For analytic precision. while his theory of non-referential interaction has become even more intentionalistic since the 70s. who is essentially deprived of c o m m u n i c a t i v e capacity. she cannot actually use her arbitrarily c o m p l e x l y and infinitely generatable. again. Note that. Nor can she c o m m u n i c a t e nonreferentially. unless one abstracts away socio-individual indexicality from what one may observe in discursive interactions. which shows that linguistic structural regularities cannot be analyzed by the analytic machinery developed to deal with indexical (behavioral) regularities and singularities (cf. referentially unitized s e m a n t i c o . For it is in this structural-phenomenological approach. sometimes called the 'Ideal S p e a k e r . posits the XYZ. one is naturally led to. (3) and (2) continuous segmentability. Koyama /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 the Labovian 'stereotypes'.e. 12 Moreover. especially in the formal-distributionally. etc. but of a slightly different kind from the first: i. overlappingly or discontinuously realizable g r a m m a t i c o . presumably due to the problem of 'indirect speech acts' and quasi-Gricean solutions he has adopted (cf. or at least non-inconsistent. 1954). with our observation that Searle's theory of speech acts is referentially-focused (cf.) . segmentability and hierarchical projectibility of segments) of linguistic ' m a t e r i a l ' that the surface segmentability of signs is most salient and presupposable. But more fundamentally. As a result.12 w. non-semantico-pragmatically anchored kinds o f IA and IP approaches (cf. i2 As a theory-internal critique. 11 Having finished a brief reconstruction of consequences of theoretical constructions primarily based on the pre-theoretic intuition of (1) the unavoidability of reference and (3) the relative presupposability of independently verifiable contextual factors. except that of parsing. by reducing linguistic semiosis into ideally continuous referential segmentation not going beyond the level of sentence.. The theoretical soundness of this move can be seen in the undeniable. (This does not mean. since it is one of the fundamental assumptions of modern linguistic theory that linguistic structure is referentially regimented. the linguistic autonomists. crucial difference between the 'garden variety' segments of linguistic structure (symbolic legisigns) and deictics (mostly indexical legisigns). this is completely irrelevant. as Chomsky pointed out to positivistic empiricists a long time ago. 1979). however. syntactic autonomists ( ' w o r s e ' . Thus note the general problematicity of 'discontinuous constituents' in this approach.. that the organization of structure of symbolic legisigns is not constrained by indexical extensions..
reducing ind. such syntactic theories enormously complicate and irregularize the otherwise straightforward descriptions of symbolic regularities in exchange for some 'significant generalizations' obtaining between pragmatics and syntax (cf. I think. ambivalently falls in the middle of the syntactic and psycho-logical theories: "The first thing to notice about these itists [of Austinean taxonomy of iUocutionaryforces into verdictives. but also non-lexicalized speech acts are a priori excluded from XYZ's cognitive capacity. Not only are independent capacities collapsed into one curious amalgam of an extended morphosyntactico-semantics absorbing pragmatics. Sadock. Thus.. we notice that Austin's own speech act theory..e. the naetapragmatic descriptors of the discursive interactions in which sentential types are tokened started to appear in the descriptions of sentential types under the guise of 'prefixed performative clause'.le cognitive capacity 'underlying' reference and modalized predication. a Whorfianism which projects the lexical semantics of English verba dicendi (mixed with cultural stereotypes) onto the theory which .exposilivesand behabitives(cf. eo ipso a classificationof kinds of illocutionaryacts . of a significant class of linguistic segments such as deictics. Thus. 1974)." (Searle. whether consciously accessible or not.. the syntactic speech act theories posit an XYZ who has a sinl. but also the planes of reference and non-referential interaction are sometimes erased. bracketsmine) Thus. 'what we do with words'. Austin. It is their realization of this problem. theme/rheme-markers.. in Austin's version of speech act theory. 1993). just as phonology is constrained by phonetics (cf. characteristically perhaps. hypostatized pre-linguistic intentionality. unfortunately. by a 'structural-functi. which may be easily accounted for. But. not to mention denotata and referents. the deadlock of the lexical semantics of a particular language felicitously prevents one from imprudently diving into the hypothetical. as a result of which the post-Fregean and post-Saussurean distinctions between not only semantics (sens/Sinn) and referential pragmatics (r~fdrent/Bedeutung). mood/modality-markers.zxical legisigns into the 'garden variety' descriptions of symbolic legisigns. modeled after performative constructions. so it becomes a prey tc. Austin's theory is a theory of 'speech acts' as such. Austin seems to assume that a classificationof different verbs i. which is formalizable and representable by the hierarchical constituency structures of linguistic segments which 'underlie' (or at least transparently translate) our interactional capacity to 'do things with words'. whereas the syntactic speech act theories purport to be the theories of morphosyntax. whose semiotic uniqueness was unnoticed. 1962: Lecture XII)] is that they are not classifications of illocutionary acts but of English illocutionary verbs. however. as in syntactic ones. etc. Having thus seen the two post-Austinean approaches to the problem of 'speech acts'. which has led some syntacticians to try integrating pragmatics into their linguistic theories by.commissives. Since mappability between syntactic types (symbolic legisigns) and indexical legisigns is in principle neither transparent nor determinate. respectively. Van Valin. 1975: 32. exercitives. in the direction towards semantics and reference. quote/report-markers. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 13 semantic contents.anal' theory which conceptualizes morphosyntax as being constrained (but not determined) by pragmatics. i.w.
3.) Thus.e. should not obscure the basic difference between reference and interaction in terms of presupposing and entailing aspects of semiosis: i.lute contextualist' approaches to speech acts. and less entailing (i. authority. This is because interactional text (of 'what is done') unfolds itself in the order of 'here and now' of discursive interaction. Silverstein. structural-implicatural approaches seem to have reached an impasse. Silverstein. (To put it simplistically. but we always do something here and now when we talk. reference is more presupposing (i. we don't necessarily talk about what we are doing here and now. 1979). though anchored on the hic et nunc of interaction. but that we can reconstruct a better theory ('better' at least in this epistemic horizon in which we cannot help but operate) by recognizing their limits and limited validity. it should not lead us to either 'anti-theoretic empiricism'. the lesson which we can learn from these approaches is not that any attempts to construct a theory which is maximally presuppositionless necessarily fail.. 'interactional function' are irreducible to one another (sui generis) and required in any theory of speech acts. not 'here and now'. it more focally indexes something which can be presupposed to exist in the order of 'there and then'. or the non-referential significance of an interaction is exhausted by its effects.. Koyama /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 purportedly describes (and thus is supposedly iconic to) the actuality of what we do with words (cf. nor that ' a r m c h a i r ' theorization is useless (it is not. Extending the Jakobsonian notion of 'metalinguistic function'.e. and using the Peircean semiotic framework. and. As phenomenologists (not to mention constructivists) emphasize. an interaction is constrained by presupposable variables. This project. however. than interaction (cf. pace anti-theoretic empiricists and positivists). these theories have shown that the notions of 'intentionality'. the 'value-. possibly except when it is 'self-referential'. while leaving the connections between linguistic structures. as macro-sociologists (not to mention determinists) emphasize. 13 Based on the achievements of these theories. the former is essentially more presupposing and less entailing than the latter. we m a y now try to develop pragmatic theories which can adequately incorporate the entailing aspects of semiosis and interactional functions. which valorizingly focus on ' d y n a m i c interactions'. 'linguistic structure'. For example. ~3 This does not mean that a reference is accomplished only when a referent is presupposable. Now. a reference creates a 'reality'. thanks to the logicolinguistic theories. 1993). it less focally indexes something which is brought into being in the order of 'here and now'). Incorporation of ethnographic dimensions of speech acts If the logico-linguistic.. of discursive interaction). 'creative' aspects (hence their implicit devaluation of interactional function). we now understand that the theories which try to be maximally presuppositionless have a built-in bias towards the presupposable aspects of linguistic semiosis (hence their focus on referential function) and de-emphasize its entailing.14 w. Further. This. 'anti-representationalist' or 'abso. with its positivist cult of 'data' and 'statistically significant regularities'.e. we shall pursue in the following section. . does not. we have tried to re-conceptualize 'intentionality' as a kind of 'metapragmatic f r a m e ' of indexical sinsigns. while referential text (of 'what is said'). or 'anti-structuralist'. 'referential function'.and powerindexing' aspects of speech acts and 'infinite semiosis' (by which a given discursive interaction can be given an infinite number of interpretations in terms of its sociocultural significances).
With this in our mind. in that the former (a) explicitly denote their illocutionary senses in the linguistic structure and pedocute them. . incumbents) may include.tructure. they point out the complexities of 'voicing'. in the processes of 'voicing'. Hill and Irvine (1993)~ Rumsey (1989). The works of Goffman (1979). what we need is a comprehensive. 1979). First.W. in addition to (b) having 'formulaicized' and automatized (cf. should have been distinguished from other speech act:L such as 'indirect speech acts' and 'hints' (ErvinTripp. have seen. such . in social limbo. and. let us underline what has turned out problematic in the speech act theories. ifrom which. 1976). the description of the referent(s) of the speaker (i. they anchored 'what we do with words' into 'explicit primary performatives'. even if intention is ascribable to the animator. on one hand. the positing of the deictic NPs in the performative clause is hypothesized).~ presupposable independent of the particular discursive interaction at issue. Given our metatheoretic considerations on the sociohistoric conditions of 'pragmatics'. Thus. Note the strong efficacy. as opposed to 'principal'. in fact. Goffman. in retrospect. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 15 denotations and references. while the latter have the second property only to some limited degrees (cf. coherent and consistent social linguistic theory which can do justice to these two different moments of speech acts in their own terms.. (2) the ascription of a presupposable symbolic legisign (illocutionary sense) omo an interactional text by explicitly denoting it. where the illocutionary sense denotes the event-type. which are used as primes to define the felicity conditions (or as the invariant referents of the hypothetical covert participant deictics. on the other. in determining the sociocultural significances of a discursive interaction. clearly show the shortcomings of this assumption. Havrfinek. power-relations and group-identity formations a'ad (con)textualizations. Ducrot (1984). and describe how they are interrelated. 1988). Moreover. the ascription of intention to the 'animator'. Clark. (cf. and discursive interaction. explicit primary performatives idiosyncratically do the following things at once: (1) the metapragmatic framing (interactional textualization) of indexical sinsigns through the explicit metapragmatic denotation of 'what is being done'. at least by implicit assumptions. or at least require reference to. both approaches reduce speech event participant incumbents (speech event participant referents). of evoking the legisigns which ar. Secondly. as opposed to roles (cf. That is.e. into Speaker and Hearer (or the referents of 'I' and 'you' in the performative prefix in the syntactically reductionist theories). 1964) indexical relationships between signs and their sociocultural contexts of uses. 'author'. 1979). other individual/aggregate(s)/collective(s). is not necessary warranted. That is. as we. Levinson.ts verba dicendi (linguistic symbolic legisigns denoting speech types) in linguistic :. Vologinov (1973). by which the reported/quoted speech of a narrated event (EN) character can be variously aligned with the reporting/quoting speech of a sign event (E s) participant. which. etc. the groupidentities and power-relations of the E s participants are (re)constituted through their relationships with the characters and eventualities in E N. moreover. and (3) the ascription of a presupposable indexical legisign (event-type) onto an interactional text through the sinsigns' re-presenting themselves as an indexical icon of the event-type. which is highly presupposable in discursive interactions using the denotational code.
Such a reformulation may have the effect of 'breaking through' the impasse of the agentive intention-based theories of 'speech acts'. In this section. who frames and quotes part of a short 'non-fiction' written by the realist novelist Ibuse Masuji which describes interactions between the uses of the then emerging standard varieties and nominal honorifics circa 1910. the presuppositional evoking of contextual surrounds of the dyad contributes to the relatively determinate fixing of the interactional significance of E s: e. The implications of this line of research for approaches to speech acts must be clear: Since the fundamental notions of 'speaker' (S) and 'hearer' (H). which presupposingly evokes the institution of family.. The text-artifact I analyze is called Kei-go 'Honorifics'. the notion of 'speech act' must be redefined in relation to the categories involved in voicing and contextualization. Kripke. such as watasi. 'innuendo' (cf. written in a standard variety of Japanese by a native linguist. in a Japanese classroom.'. or in the use of 'Your mother' by a mother to refer to herself when addressing her child(ten) instead of T . Haviland. 1979). and (2) textualization (metapragmatic regimentation of indexicals) and contextualization (indexings of presupposed and entailed contexts). Nishida (1987). on which the logico-linguistic speech act theories largely rest. Note that this development is consonant with our current understandings of referential pragmatics. the evoking of social identities and power-status presupposable independently of particular E s. as in 'Your mother doesn't like it. the entailed effects in the contextual surrounds may be the 'perlocutionary point' of an ongoing interaction. we need to reconstruct a theory of speech acts which is based on (1) E s (discursive interaction itself and interactional texts of what has/will have been done in the interaction).. I shall try to exemplify the consequences of this 'ethnographic' reformulation of speech acts. 1972. focusing on voicing and contextualization.g. ore. the sociohistoric continuity of usage.g. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 Also. the use of 'Brother-in-law' register in Guugu Yimidhirr (cf. humor- . have turned out to be cultural stereotypic concepts about idealized speech events which are empirically shown to depend on the complex variables involved in voicing and contextualization. That is. none of which is completely accessible to agentive awareness. 1975). in a village in Hiroshima prefecture. which presupposingly evokes the institution of school. west of the Kyoto-Osaka metropolitan area of Japan. boku. these works point out the significance of 'contextual surrounds' of the addressor-addressee dyad which are presupposingly and entailingly indexed ('contextualized') by the E s. etc. by investigating an event reported by a novelist. On the other hand.. Putnam. and relationships between the two. Goffman. E N (referential text of what has/will have been said). in that (post)analytic philosophy has shown that the referential significances of discourse do not solely depend on the consciously accessible intention of 'the speaker' ('S'). as seen in the use of sen-sei 'teacher' by a teacher to refer to herself when addressing a student(s) instead of a first person deictic term. which have precluded the agentively unintended significance of interaction. 1979). socially shared cultural stereotypes and linguistic structure (cf.16 W. due to the involvement of pure indexicality anchored on E s. as when effects on sociocultural relationships between an E s participant and a bystander are the (often intended) targets of an interaction: e. That is. socially warranted and contested authority to fix reference.
Fukayasu county. "so-ya. The child of landed class parents called her parents 'o-tto-san' [f(athe. "welcome" in Kyoto/Osaka dialect]. "Yes. When the foreman asked him 'a-no isi wa huta-tu ni wari-yans-u-ka?' [a.= BP. when money came into their household.= 'break'(tr. p a g e 25): "Ibuse Masuji was born in Kamo village.' Thus.= CON. yet the social appellation of a persona could not be changed until s/he died . which Kurouzi-tsan learned.). it was said. Hiroshima prefecture in Meiji 31 (1898). -tu = NC [Oanimate].~ss of the expression]. 'a-rya nee.-re + wa = -'entity' + TOP (Note the sloppiness of pronunciation. ni = Adverbializer. and lived there until he entered the dormitory of Fukuyama Middle School in Meiji 45 (1912) . -ka = interrogative FP. that of the next class 'X-tsan'. the family of Kurouzi-tsan 'boldly made their children say 'o-tou-san' [f in standard] and 'o-hta-san' [m in standard] in an urbane fashion.~ FP ne. the village chief. war. war. "Ah. kos-i = 'come' ('subject' honorific)-GERUND. it's not good" in Kyoto/Osaka dialects. yans. Then. Kureuzi-tsan. hou = Comparative. which uses no/noo quite extensively].conative FP. next 'X-yan'. ga = NOM. noo = emotive FP. and his usage indiscriminately added unnecessaiy sounds to word-final positions. As to the intra-familial appellations of parents. Then. and the family of Tut-tsa started using. Spkr's considerateness. so-ya. a-rya war-an hou ga yok-ar-ou to omo-u ga nee'. This was an epochal event in my village. 'the whole family started to use Tokyo dialect. -ya = emotive/affirmative FP." "nee" [final vowel lengthened form of th.. on Kurouzi-tsan side. fought against each other. -no = GEN. -u = Nonpast.= COP(POL). cf. as he often went to a county office outside the village. on Tut-tsa side. mah.= proximad AD root.= COP(POL). [a.= COP(POL. -i. such as "nee. there were 'class distinctions in the appellations of parents by their children and the appellations of people in general. Kurouzi-tsan answered. 'o-tto-san' [f] and 'o-kka-san' [m]. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 17 ously entitled ' T h a t " T u t . -rya ~-.= . and the child of gentle people was called 'X-san'. irresolution. Irvine. a-rya = (repetition). and that of tenant farmers 'o-tot-tsa' [f] and 'o-kaka' [m]. -an = NEG. that of village councilors or influential men 'o-tot-tsan' If] and 'o-kaka-n' [m]. -u = Nonpast.. They can be also used vocatively with a softening effect in the recruitment of a person into the role of Adrs]. they borrowed Osaka dialect. isi = 'stone'. huta.= 'two'. -en = NEG. One day I carefully listened to Kurouzi-tsan telling directions lo the foreman of a road construction team.t s a n " fought against each other and I e n g a g e d m y s e l f in t r o u b l e d cogi~:ation on the t e r m i n o l o g y ' (abbreviations are listed in the A p p e n d i x . 1974). yas. 'the whole family started using urbane words. seems to have been influenced by Hiroshima dialect.= proximad AD root. wa = TOP. Note the straightforwardn. Under these circumstances. (thank you) very much" in Kyoto/Osaka dialects]. though the FP. Tut-tsa. regional). ne and nee index Spkr's consideration of Adrs.' Then. These were expressions like "o-kos-i-yas-u" [o.w.). and finally 'X-sa'.r)] and 'o-kka-san' [m(other)].= 'brighten'(intr. "ak-i-mah-en noo" [ak. noo. In this village. and a village councilor. ook-i 'big'-CON.t s a " and " K u r o u z i . that of landed farmers 'o-tou-yan' [f] and 'o-kaa-yan' [m].= nonproximal and nonproximad AD root. then 'Xtsa'. ook-i ni" [so. the parents made their children change them as a kind of status symbol. i. Tokyo dialect.= 'break'. like the family of Kurouzi-tsan. nee -. sophistication... reacting against this. ni = DAT. "(Do you want us to) break that stone into two?". idiosyncratically conative among the mostly emotive FPs.= GERUND. yok. so-ya = (repetition). yes.
. other producers.' After this incident. -sou = hearsay. etc. to = 'door'. beneath the false sophistication of the village chief's 'standard language' debunked was the intrusive. open the door! ".. a schema of cultural stereotypes is so constructed that the impolite 'standard language' is shown to have forcefully intruded into a peaceful home village speaking a dialect of halcyon days. ar. -u = Nonpast... ak-e-ro (repetition). -zya = COP). (2) what was said and done by the characters in the sign events narrated by Ibuse (and Nishida and this writer). though. that. etc.18 W. The Tokyo dialect of the burglar seems to have had a bit different color from the Tokyo dialect of Kurouzi-tsan . it is necessary to distinguish at least five levels of semiosis: (1) what was said and done in the sign events narrated by the characters in Ibuse's 'non-fiction' story. -ou = Dubitative. That is. 'Then. (I) suppose it would be better if (you) wouldn't break (it). nee = (conative) FP. focus on the first three of these.= be[~animate]. Note the brusque manner in which the message was delivered in the 'true' Tokyo dialect] over a sliding shutter. Thus. to = Quotative. "The burglar used Tokyo dialect outside the door". translation and brackets mine) In analyzing this text-artifact to reconstruct what was (or w e r e ) done in the sign events which are narrated by my 'translation/quotation'. out of which modern standard varieties were emerging around 1900 (cf. It is written that 'to o ak-e-ro' 'Open the door' was the first words of Tokyo dialect I've heard in my life . 1991).-da]" is evidentially quasi-quoted].. o = ACC. from the new nation-state's center.-da]-sou-zya (-da = affirmative COP... My grandfather reported to a policeman dispatched to our village.. used by burglars who were disseminated. and (5) what has/will have been said and done by this writer. and start with (3) what was said and done by Ibuse. ga = 'though'. I've heard' [Note the objectifying and factualizing use of the hearsay construction. along with 'the standard language'. (don't you think so?)". "Open. so the family of Kurouzi-tsan stopped using their Tokyo dialect.= 'open'. Let us. uh.. their addressees and other 'readers'... -ro = Imperative. This burglary took place in Meiji 43 (1910). Without much interpretive ingenuity. a quintessential realist novelist. in which the affirmative and authoritative "[s . imperative nature of 'the true Tokyo dialect'.. we may observe the following tropological analogizations which heavily deploy presupposable cultural stereotypes: Tokyo dialect : Hiroshima dialect :: urban : countryside :: burglar=intruder : intruded :: imperative : (non-imperative). conflictual and alienating .= 'think'. (3) what was said and done by Ibuse. who ritualistically literalizes the image of 'peaceful home village' located at the polar opposite of 'cantankerous. Such is a trope of modernism forcefully deployed by Ibuse. a burglar came to my house and said "ak-e-ro. etc. Note the extreme (and perhaps reportively exaggerated) indirectness and circumlocution of the expression under the circumstances]' The 'Tokyo dialect' which the family of the village chief picked up in the county office was only such.= Transitive.. Sanada. "That. (4) what was said and done by Nishida. one day.. -e.. Tokyo. omo. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 'good'. when Ibuse was a sixth grader . 1987: 82-84. Tut-tsa told everyone: 'Kurouzi's Tokyo dialect is a fake. for expository purposes and for the avoidance of interpretive conflict of interest. " (Nishida. to o ak-e-ro" [ak. [s.. other producers.
. as evaluated by Spkr. variety.. Gumperz. where what 'we' have lost with the coming of modernization and standardization.e. whick positively valorizes them in terms of 'communicability' and 'techno-scientific efficiency'. This points to how the personal indexicals function to reconstitute the social 'realities' (Lebenswelten) beyond the immediate dyad of 'S' and 'H'. i.e. we immediately realize that the appellation by which a child (Spkr) referred to her parents (qua Adrs) was construed to be indexical of Adrs' relative status vis-a-vis other parents. the sl:andard variety which Ibuse and the reader speak and the reader hears Ibuse and herself speaking aligns these two parties together in their footing at the top and center of the register hierarchy in the order of hic et nunc.. 1968). by virtue of their sharing of the common. a register which is posited as sharable between lbuse and the reader. the reader. Ivy. moved from a country village to a metropolis lTokyo). (2) 'respect' (son-kei: deference entitlement. but not shared by the characters in his narrated ev. the indexically suggested degrees of 'deference entitlement' (Goffman. a bit goofy and obsolescent.W. i. 1967: 47-95.~nt (except. disseminated by the Meiji oligarchs to negatively valorize the increasingly volatile urban labor movements (cf. worked hard and succeeded in acquiring his 'higher' status and standard varieties. Thus. 'superposed' register (cf. 'our natural.e. (3) 'non-singular' deictics instead of 'singular' deictics. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 19 metropolis'. 1985) and which many Japanese still buy today by commoditizing folksongs. and who. despite the basic regularities of verbal honorification consisting of (1) 'polite' (tei-nei: deference entitlement. of Ibuse's 'non-fictional' text-artifact. Spkr ~ Adrs). from which. Ref of 'subject' NP --~ Ref of non-'subject' NP) and of nominal honorifications by the uses of (1) beautificatory prefixes (demeanor of Spkr vis-a-vis Adrs).. and safe from the volatile yet undeniably (if only materially) comfortable effects of Westernization and modernization.e. an anti-modern. i. in opposition to the referentially-focused modernist ideologization. (2) sociocentric terms. the villagers. the reader gets aligned with Ibuse. nostalgizing culturalist ideology of huru-sato 'good old home village'. i. unscathed. 1982) which bystanders. nostalgizingly and condescendingly. Thus. Shils. which was. in contrast to the realist polyphony of the dialectal and pseudo-superposed varieties of speech made by the narrated event characters. i. but definitely heart-wanning. such as 'status terms'. where deictics are available. possibly. was still intact. owed to the family. as an individual becomes the animator. from that vantage point. the burglar).. in fact. humorously and comfortably nostalgizes the 'Japan' of yesterday. the reader. Also noteworthy is Ibuse's narration (except the quotes) in a standard (quasi-Tokyo). of Ibuse and other producers. Gluck. and the Ref in the E N. in which.e. native and national culture'. As we move to the second level of what was said and done by the characters in the sign events narrated by Ibuse (and Nishida and this writer). Spkr Ref of 'subject' NP) and (3) 'humble' (ken-zyou: deference entitlement. folktales and 'exotic pre-modern Japan' (cf. the image of 'dialects' is projected to the 'polyphonic' lower periphery and the 'remembered' past. 1995). and entextualizes with them interactional texts. who. (4) referentially opaque (instead . Note that this native culturalist ideologization of nonstandard dialectal varieties ideologizes the 'true' standard varieties as something deprived of 'fine character'. she simultaneously becomes the addressee. like most of his contemporary readers. not Hiroshima dialectal.
A theory equipped with the notions of indexicality. after the debunking of Kurouzi's fake Tokyo dialect due to the 'real' Tokyo dialect used by the burglar. suffixed to the proper first name of Kurouzi. 'elevatedness'. That is. translation and brackets mine). a speech community (which is indeed partially constituted by the sharing of the same metapragmatic orientations towards honorific registers) ideologically projects the properties of 'refinement'. 'Kurouzi's Tokyo dialect is a fake.= Hearsay. among others. Let us now finally move to the interactions between the first level of (1) what was said and done in the sign events narrated by the characters in Ibuse's 'non-fiction' story. sou-. crucially.and intra-culturally: e. .. the theory of politeness based on the Goffmanian notion of 'face' and the Gricean notion of agentive intentionally-based 'implicatures' has difficulty describing and explicating deferential speech acts where bystanders are contextualized. and (2) what was said and done by the characters in the sign events narrated by Ibuse (and Nishida and this writer). -dya = COP. or simply a direct manifestation of 'power'. where. and (5) 'respectful' second person and 'humble' first person deictics. a manifestation of insecurity. and other positive values onto linguistic types which are called 'honorifics'. fallen not only from the top and center of standard varieties in relation to dialectal varieties as his 'Tokyo dialect' was shown to be inauthentic. a part of symbolic capital as a substitute for economic capital (cf. indexing the fallen status of the village chief.y a n > -tsa > -sa > -0]. tou-kyou-ben = Tokyo dialect. [no = GEN. more importantly.g. (How a cultural ideology interprets such values. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 of transparent) head nouns modified by anaphorico-demonstratives. 1974). the members of a smaller unit being sometimes within and sometimes without the immediate dyad of discursive interactions. metapragmatics and speech community may theorize these speech acts as the indexical entailments of group-identities and power-status relationships in a speech community whose members share the same metapragmatic orientations towards the superposed registers of honorifics. dialectal). nise-mono = '(a) fake'. within a speech community which is partially constituted by the sharing of such a linguistic ideology. 1987: 84.20 W. I've heard. This indicates that this type of phenomena requires more extensive theorization on '(indexical) contextualization' and 'community'.) Thus. Irvine. as recognized by Brown and Levinson (1987:12). sou. Note that. this is mediated by Ibuse's 'voice'. wa = TOP. Second. the degrees to which smaller speech communities (such as families) 'possess' gradiently valorized 'honorific valuables' partially constitute the hierarchization of these smaller units in the speech community. but also from the position only second to the top and center of regional honorific title hierarchy to its very bottom: [-san > -tsan > . and the 'possessor' of such positively valorized valuables is socially valorized to the extent that she has these valuables in her repertoires. we cannot fail to see the disappearance of the honorific title. Tut-tsa told everyone: 'Kurouzi no tou-kyou-ben wa nise-mono da sou-dya'. varies inter.'] (Nishida. da = COP. none of which includes the notion of bystander. -tsan. First of all. which grounds Tut-tsa's referential practice 14 on the authoritative speech event in which someone 14 Needless to say. We shall focus on the final section of Ibuse's story. note the very effective use of the special hearsay marker.
moreover. but also what Kurouzi-tsan has done with his words. Inversely. 1989: 117-118). with whom he accuses Kurouzi-tsan of a deadly sin of linguistic forgery. yet apparently antagonistic. Fraser. such as the ones between Tut-tsa and Kurouzi-tsan. if only to exploit them. 1985). such as those which constitute an 'honorific hierarchy'. while the latter squarely locates Tut-ts a among the villagers. that is. that Tut-tsa himself was using a dubious Kyoto/Osaka dialect. 'loyal oppositional' status of conflictual sociologies in a discourse genre of 'American sociology' through. a village councilor. someone who is authentically at the top and center of social and register hierarchies. has passed her verdict on Kurouzi's speech genre and Kurouzi himself as a fake. relationship to another community (cf. 'discourse analysis'. in contrast to the use of the regional copula dya in the matrix. normative status of (neo)functionalisms and the anti-norm(ative). which. such as those which conform to the 'covertly prestigious' regularities (norms) which partially constitute a speech community. Koyama /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 21 who is stipulated to know the 'real' Tokyo variety. not a Hiroshima dialect. Tut-tsa rigidly determines the interactional significances of not only what he is doing with his words (raising himself 'up' and lowering his nemesis. has turned out to be a fake. a competition in which the former were behind the latter. now an infamy in the speech community). in opposition to Kurouzi-tsan. coupled with the presupposable status asymmetry between Tut-tsa. may stand in an oppositional. embedded sentence under the authority of some non-villager). when he and his family were in competition with Kurouzi and his family. Note. who is conversant with Tokyo and Tokyo dialect.W. a non-villager. as many sociolinguistic studies have shown.) . The first copula indexes the authenticity of the authority whose speech Tut-tsa says he is reporting (and notice that the stripping of a suffixal title from Kurouzi is done in the quasi-quoted. due to the metaphoric superimposition of 'the second city' status of Kyoto/Osaka vis-d-vis 'the Great Tokyo' (dai-tou-kyou) upon the 'speakers' of the dialects spoken in these regions. by using the special hearsay construction. the use of the standard variety copula da in the quasiquoted speech. and Kurouzi-tsan. First. 4. here. Thus. Conclusion By way of conclusion. may presuppositionally index sharable norms of interactions ('consensus'). (It may be ironic if the conscious theorizing behaviors of some proponents of 'conflictual sociology" again:~t the norm(ativity) of Parsonsism may have recreated the hegemonic. and 'pragmatics'. a village chief. This argues against the simplistic advocacy of homogeneously conflictual or consensual sociologies (cf. Tut-tsa appoints himself as the animator of the stipulated authority. seemingly consensual interactions. Seemingly conflictual interactions. voluntarily) or otherwise. most pertinently to 'social theory'. Woolard. purposively (intentionally. alternative or complicitly collaborative. they indicate that a given interaction may have both irreducibly conflictual and consensual ('normative') dimensions. worse yet. who used a 'Tokyo dialect'. from beyond the village. one might draw certain implications from these textual interpretations vis-gt-vis 'social theory'. Recall. complicitly collaborative antagonisms. Notice that. further. at least potentially.
~6 'Domination' is not used in its technical.22 w. That is. whose semantic contents and denotata. such as deixis).gratuitous to assume that only 'one thing' is going on at a given phase of interaction. post-Critical Theoretic sense). how (putative) macro-social regularities are contextually indexed and substantiated by micro-social events and thus (re)acquire their 'virtual reality'. This suggests that to interpret social significances of a speech event solely in terms of the asymmetry of power-relations between two (or more) speech communities (as 'dominant' and 'subordinate' 16 communities) might obscure the centrality of (re)formations of power-relations and group-identities within a subordinate community for its members. tokens of indexical legisigns. both what is referentially said and what is interactionally done in the speech events in which they are deployed. be they indexical or symbolic. or contribute to the fixing of. more generally. there is no conceptualmotivationfor the tokens of metapragmaticallycharacterizable types to point to both referential and interactional contexts (just as there is no such motivation for them to point to referentialcontext only. or 'evokability' as perduring regularities. Goffman. fail to investigate the complexity of interrelationships between dominant and subordinate communities. j5 Thus. when analyzed in conjunction with (hypothetically positable) macro-social contexts. dialectal and superposed (standard and honorific) varieties. the social significances of the former. the tokens of person indexicals and mood/modality markers ('shifters'). Kripke. our textual analyses show how micro-social events 'make sense'. are metapragmatically characterizable. 1987).is usually multiply and simultaneously embedded in several speech communities with partially overlapping or inclusively hierarchical extensions. consequently. and interactional texts (of 'what is done') are immanently . Putnam. proper names and suffixal titles). evidentials. a sign(ifying) event .or. theoretically homogenize these communities ('positive sociology' in its non-Popperian. That is. ~7 On the face of it. most pertinently to 'pragmatics'. contextualize and thus potentially change the latter as the sociocultural significances of these micro-social sign events and other social regularities indexed by them interact with. most pertinently to 'discourse analysis'. not to mention referents. while the latter. Third.) However. 1972. This points to dialectic interrelations between micro-social events and macro-social patterns. relatively transparently point to indexical contexts. the latter. or can be shown richly interpretable and interactionally cohesive (something akin to 'maximally humanized' in Vico's sense). as Calhoun (1995) observes and our examples demonstrate. which are characterized by their 'metapragmatic transparency'. when evoked. a speech event . and.e. as some pragmaticians and other social theorists seem to do (cf. Silverstein. and. constrain. relative to other linguistic types (cf. while seemingly focusing on the (re)formations of power-relations within the former community. Second. 17 ~5 It is. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 Moreover.that referential texts (of 'what is said') are projected from discursive interactions and anchored on them through (metapragmaticallycharacterizable)indexical components (shifters. inversely. 1975. a conflictual interaction in a speech community may index the norms which partially constitute another speech community. 1977). Gramscian sense. therefore. and potentially transform. such as standard varieties.. note that our textual analyses have focused on person indexicals (participant deictics. as well as (referentially implicit) indexing of bystanders: i. the former 'evoke' (presupposingly index).
which are m o r e or less properly analyzable b y e m p l o y i n g . be they linguistic .g. 1982)). as Silverstein (1992) argues. More fundamentally. notions w h i c h are prima facie m e t a p r a g m a t i c a l l y characterized. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 23 M o r e o v e r . interactional texts. relatively transparently index the sociocultural contexts o f the speech events in w h i c h they occur. inclusive vs. such as (1) boundary-imposing constraints on unbounded categorizations based on degree-of-likeness. deixis is to be conceptualized as figure of interaction transparently projected from the plane of interaction onto that of reference. without discrete categorizations. that the cognitivist tbeories usually fail to address the social indexical dimensions of reference ('sociolinguistic division of labor'). whose probability must be more than 0 according to prototype theories. and referential texts.:ts.W. (5) 'truth conditions of inclusion' (e. with a sufficient d e g r e e o f interpretive d e t e r m i n a c y to characterize the sociocultural significances o f a given discursive interaction. epistemico-ontically asymmetric relationship between interactional texts.c e n t e r e d social actions. ~8 Note.e. it is along the d i m e n s i o n s o f the tokens o f such m e t a p r a g m a t i c types that w e can reconstruct an interpretive m o d e l ( ' t e x t ' ) o f interaction f r o m a given referential text (which is easier to identify). which are 'always already' sociohistorically situated. 'power semantics'. mutatis mutandis. immanently entextualized in discursive interactions. (Of course. as m o s t r o b u s t l y seen in ' d i g l o s s i a ' . 'fruit that either is or is not an apple').conjointly and implicitly characterized by Saussurean. from which shifters are projected onto referential texts. Empirically. inscribed in discursive interactions. given that Alaska is not the most typical locale in North America. whose probabilities must be less than 1 according to them. projectedfrom discursive interactions. e x t e n d e d versions o f semantic analyses. such a misrecognition seems to be motivated by the cognitivists' unwillingness to note the significance of the.v a r i e t y ' pragmatics which focuses on the referential aspects o f speech a.or stereotypic . insofar as the latter does not try to theorize nonreferential speech acts by simply transferring the analytic modus operandi and habitus d e v e l o p e d to deal with referential speech acts. Osherson and Smith.g.) O f course. Thus. (cf. (3) logically empty categories (e.G r i c e a n . moreover.g. since referential texts are anchored on interactions. the transparent i:adexing of group-identities and power-relations via participant deictics and honorifics (cf. indicates that the tokens of metapragmatically characterizable types point to both referential and interactional contexts. it is o b v i o u s that the tokens o f dialectal and s u p e r p o s e d varieties. (para)scientific. . Then. exclusive first person deictics. as in logico-mathematical.. such an analysis o f non-referential speech acts as exemplified above is not altemative but c o m p l e m e n t a r y to the ' g a r d e n .. U . the existence of a perfect grizzly bear in Alaska must suffice to falsify the proposition that 'All grizzly bears live in North America'. 1981. p r o t o t y p e semantic. though it is not as focal and foregrounded as in non-referential. denotation and reference.. pointed out by Putnam (1975). (2) compositionality of categories. etc. juridical taxonomies .often explicitly defined. they cannot help but have a social indexical dimension. honorifics and g e n d e r e d registers. (Note that this account gives theoretically g r o u n d e d and e m p i r i c a l l y d e m o n s t r a b l e constraints on the potentially infinite interpretability o f l i n g u i s t i c a l l y . however. 18 or insofar as it does not i m p l i c i t l y or e x p l i c i t l y d e v a l u e the i m p o r t a n c e o f non-referential p r a g m a t i c s : i. whose problematic is displaced through a cognitivist misrecognition that it is an analytic philosopher's last-ditch attempt to rescue 'Aristotelian' theories of categorization from the 'revolutionary' Roschean prototypic theories.s e m a n t i c . Thus.. to cite the most obvious) indicates the validity of such theorization. 'apple that is not an apple'). insofar as they do not semanticize pragmatics. such as various p o s t . (4) logically universal categories (e. system-internal contrastive definitions and focality-based correspondences between semantic intension and extension .a theory of reference equipped only with 'prototypic' stereotypes based on degree-of-likeness cannot account for the discrete categorial aspects of semantics. s c h e m a and other cognitivist theories.
etc. Nietzscheand Mallarm6saw. social practice and social theory. the doctrine of cultural arbitrary and solipsism. Historicism. relationship with the new contexts of (meta)theorization. In the Peirceanjargon. perhaps only to bring in a new set of aporias (not just 'puzzles' which can be solved by 'normal scientific' procedures) which may be as difficult to displace as ours. non-dogmatically respecting and critically appreciating 'rival' (or even 'incommensurable') research programs. hopefully) cherish: steering between the Scylla of ethnocentrism.). consistency. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 Thus. and may not coincide with their interpretations reconstructible in vitro. discourse genres. other disciplines and 'radically' different cosmographic traditions. it is that aspect of sinsign which is not reducible to the tokenhoodof a type (cf. aspiring after comprehensiveness. taking a critical stance towards the 'basic' (or background) assumptions of our own theories. Peirce. however carefully. there will be a sense in saying. 1993). thoroughly and self-reflectively critically formulated they might be. Notwithstanding. modify our theorizations in relation to metatheories and sociohistoric contexts of (meta)theorizations. When such aporias emerge in our horizons of (meta)theorizations.accordingto Hacking(1990). 19 And in so doing and getting operationalized. if profitable. Scientism. and which will compel our (Bachelardian) critically self-reflective rationality to see the emerging fundamental inadequacies of our (meta)theories and deepen. and indexical sinsigns (both at the nth and n+lth orders) such as historic contingencies or the irreducible uniqueness of events (pace positivists for whom only statistically significant regularities count). and we can start reconstructing (or 'improving' from our renewed agentive perspectives) our theories of speech acts and metatheories of theorization. retrospectively from that vantage point. avoiding Whiggish historicizations. a linguistically-sophisticated social theory of practice may contribute to breaking through the antinomies which have characterized our time so long. indexical legisigns (shifters. that a certain 'progress' (or Taylorian 'epistemic gain') has been made. all this remains essentially (but not completely) indeterminate. expand or enrich our understandings of language. physicalism and Realism. registers. are essentially defeasible. in which they will be situated. Universalism. note 2).24 w. . as our agentively accessible understandings and intended consequences of these discursive interactions in which we (will) have been engaged. trying to understand and. decontextualism. a pragmatic theory which does justice to both referential and non-referential speech acts needs to incorporate morphosyntactico-semantics (symbolic legisigns). trying to figure out strategies to effectively mobilize our expertise to confront the pressing issues of our time. which our (meta)theories will have helped to create (however marginal or indirect such a contribution might be). but their irreducibilityinto the tokens of (statistic or nonstatistic) regularities. conversational regularities. At the present. Relativism. or 'double hermeneutic' (Giddens. does not mean merely the lack of absolute or a piori (pre)determinacy of events. which. analytic precision and empirical accountability. we can at least try to minimize the risk of being wrong-headed by trying to understand what we are doing and make explicit the metatheoretic virtues which orient 'our' theorizations and which 'we' (inclusive. through a dialectic. and the Charybdis of Culturalism. cultural stereotypes (symbolic legisigns). and 'deconstructing' closure by constantly reminding ourselves that our 19 '(Historic) contingency'. as used here.
1991. Bourdieu. J. . s o c i e t i e s a n d o t h e r h u m a n p r o c e s s e s and p r o d u c t s are a l w a y s i m p e r f e c t and thus i m p r o v a b l e .L. 1927. Yeoshua. Adrs)-marker referent(s) speaker topic-marker direction of deference entitlement References Anderson... American Speech 2(10): 432~. How to do things with words. La production et la reproduction de la langue 16gitime. However. we may need an (implicit) meta-meta-theory. Pierre. 1982. 2° Appendix: Abbreviations AD Adrs BP CON COP DAT FP GEN GERUND NC NEG NOM POL Ref Spkr TOP --~ = = = = = = = = --= = = = = = = = anaphorico-demonstrative addressee(s) beautificatory prefix. 1987 . Chicago.~pel. Mind 63: 359-376. van Gulick. 20 These virtues are often difficult to sustain simultaneously and we need to be engaged in complex acts of weighing one virtue against another. Paris: Arth~me Fayard. Benedict.. 1991 .~ic imagination: Four essays. Mikhail M. 1984 . 1995. The dialo.o ad infinitum. That is. Pierre. go. history and challenge of difference. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University F'ress. 'theoretically' speaking. Bourdieu. Levinson. Leonard.W. LePore and R. Austin. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. Bloomfield. Bar-Hillel. IL: University of Chicago Press. Bakhtin. Bloomfield. Oxford: Blackwell. Indexical expressions. Literate and illiterate speech. 23-58. 1962. Is intentionality more basic than linguistic meaning? In: E. Calhoun. Craig.or oconnective copula dative case-marker final particle genitive case-marker gerundivizer nominal classifier negative adjective nominative case-marker 'politeness'(Spkr --. Le sens pratique. Cambridge. Leonard. 31-55. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. In: Ce que parler veut dire: L'rconomie des 6changes tinguistiques. TX: University of Texas Press. 1981. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 25 t h e o r i e s . and obviously the stacking of 'meta-' can ~. MA: Harvard University Press. 1980.39. note 9). Language. since theorizing is a kind of human praxis. Critical social theory: Culture. Penelope and Stephen C. there is :~omethreshold level above which the stacking of 'meta' becomes superfluous (cf. Austin. . Karl-Otto. 1954. eds. London: Verso. Brown.
Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. Les mots et les choses: Une archrologie des sciences humaines. Historicism and knowledge. Princeton. Syntax and semantics. eds. Erving. D'Amico. Routledge: London. Jane H. Paris: Minuit. . Paris: l~ditions Gaillmard. The interpretation of cultures. Havr~inek. eds. MA: Harvard University Press. 1993 . Erving. Guugu Yimidhirr brother-in-law language. On metaphor. 381-386. descriptions and anaphora. Goffman. ed. The functional differentiation of the standard language. Distinguished lecture: Anti anti-relativism. Cambridge. Alessandro. Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Cole. London: Blackwell. Austin. Frame analysis. Ducrot. 1990. Words and things: A critical account of linguistic philosophy and a study in ideology. American Anthropologist 86(2): 263-278. de Man. In: Studies in the way of words. Hymes. Responding to indirect speech acts. Sills. Clifford.. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 60: i-xiv. Unruly practices: Power. IL: University of Chicago Press.T. In: Studies in the way of words. 24-47. 1964 . Robert.. Jiirgen. New York: Academic Press. Hancher. eds. International encyclopedia of the social sciences. Nelson. New York: Pantheon Books. 1967. NJ: Princeton University Press. Hill and J. The epistemology of metaphor. 1979. 1986. 1989. 1973. Cognition 22: 1-39. 47~i8.. John B. London: Gollancz. Irvine. In: P. In: S. Ervin-Tripp. and gender in contemporary social theory. MN: University of Minnesota Press.. Gluck.. 1989a . Remarks on ethnomethodology. 1968. Speaker reference. Nancy. In: J. Geertz. Foucault. Washington. Gumperz. Oswald. 1984. In: D.. CA: Stanford University Press. Hacking. Marcus. Clark. Den-ida. Cambridge. eds. 1979. Keith S. J. Cognitive Psychology 11 : 430-477. and forecast. Jacques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In: P. Interaction ritual. 171-180. Language in Society 8: 1-14. Minneapolis. Giddens. 1977. 1990. 1993. Goffman. Comments on John Searle: Meaning. 1989b . James and George E. eds. 17-29. Michel. ed. 9: Pragmatics. New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies. 1972 . Garfinkel. Stanford. 1991. Language in Society 8: 365-393. Footing. CA: University of California Press. Grice. Herbert H. The taming of chance. Sacks. Fraser. Grice.L. Bohuslav. Erving. Vol. Anthony. 1966.J. Hampshire. and style. A Prague School reader on esthetics. Hanks. 1979. Garvin. 9. Ian. Gellner.L. Cambridge. I 1-28. 1959-60. MA: Harvard University Press. 1979. 1986. Goffman. Paul. Semiotica 25: 1-29. La voix et la phrnomrne. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Meaning revisited. Referring as a collaborative process. Intentions. DC: Georgetown University Press. New York: Basic Books. Donnellan. 1989. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 Clark.. self. In: Le dire et le dit. 1976. ed. Chicago. H. In: J. H. Paul. New York: Macmillan.L. eds. Haviland. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Carol. Susan. Harold. 1967. 1985. van Gulick. The classification of cooperative illocutionary acts.. communication. Ernest. mrtalangage et performatifs. Langage. William F. and representation. Fact. Stuart. 1979. Gumperz and D. 1984. Duranti. Hill. Goodman. 1978. Language in Society 5: 25-66. 301-324. 3-16. John J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Michael. LePore and R. 1978. and Judith T. The speech community.. Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography..26 W. Geertz. Japan's modem myths: Ideology in the late Meiji period. and Danna Wilkes-Gibbs. New York: Harper and Row. Paul. Chicago. Herbert H. Habermas.. MA: Harvard University Press. Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse. Clifford. 283-303. Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication.. and responsibility. Vol. 1959. IL: University of Chicago Press.. Postwar Oxford philosophy. 1993. discourse. literary structure.. fiction. lrvine. Clifford. 117-148. In: E.
Ricoeur. IL: University of Chicago Press.. Saul. Vol. (C. Paul. John R. Discourses of the vanishing: Modernity. 1982. 1981. Expression and meaning. Music.. Rumsey. Kei-go. 473-492. Osherson. Bauman and J.. In: H. 1974.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cognition 2: 131-146. IL: University of Chicago Press. Hilary. 1986 . Stephen C. Sadock. Cognition 9: 35-58. Smith. ed. Drew and A. 1982. Levinson. Lyons. and Edward E. IL: University of Chicago Press. eds. Marshall. Language in Society 5: 27-45. MA: Northeastern University Press. John Searle and his critics. 1975. 215-271. Cambridge. Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics. IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. 1967. Pragmatics. Hyou-zyun-go w. Daniel N. Verschueren. 1979. Parasession on language in context. MA: Harvard University Press.. Wootton. eds. Annual Review of Anthropology 13:97-117. New York: Columbia University Press.~ ika ni sei-ritu si-ta ka? (How was the standard language constructed?) Tokyo: Sou-taku-sya. P. 1973. IL: University of Chicago Press. eds. Nichols. ed. 1987. Michael. 1990. Sanada. Reductionism and the nature of psychology. Searle. Putnam. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. MA: Harvard University Press. New York: Academic Press. Weiss and A. Hilary.) Cambridge. Sbish and J..W. The future of philosophy. Japan. NJ: Princeton University Press. Putnam. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chicago. ed. The essential inadequacies of speech act models of dialogue.. . Julia.. Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. Osherson. Syntax and semantics. Cognition 12: 299-318. Smith. Nishida. In: P. Rorty. 1991. phantasm. Jerrold M. The meaning of 'meaning'. Peirce. 1958. Hartshorne. 1932. The linguistic turn: Recent essays in philosophical method. LePore. Cambridge. Kristeva. 1976. Stephen C. 1978. Levinson.. Vol. Levinson.. 1988. Alan. Moritz. 9: Pragmatics. Renewing philosophy. Chicago. Koyama /Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 27 Hockett. Sadock. London: Blackwell. Semantics (two voltmes). 167-191.. Gradedness and conceptual combination. Chicago. Rorty. 242-253. Kuhn.. (Honorifics) Tokyo: Tou-kyou-dou. In: G.. 2. Realism with a l~uman face. 43-53. Johanna. 1974. Chicago. Cole. and Edward E. Chicago. Burks. and trans. 2: Mind.. Parret. Taylor. Naotoshi. Hilary. 1977. Rosaldo. 281-297. 1972. Language in Society 11 : 203-237. New York: Academic Press. Charles F.. Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order. Searle. Sherzer. Kripke. eds. In: B. On testing fcr conversational implicature. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman's concepts of participation. Judith T. ed. Geertz. Hilary. Ivy.M. MA: Harvard University Press. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. 1989. Daniel N. Cambridge.. M.. Michelle Z. The structure of scientific revolutions. Polanyi. Chicago. Stephen C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. Word 10: 210-231. eds. 1954. Irvine. Putnam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paris: Seuil. IL: University of Chicago Press. Charles S. La r6volution du langage po6tique.. Graczyk and C. Shinji. 1981. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle. 1969. Functional theories of grammar. Vol. Philosophical papers. 1975. In:. Speech acts. Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. 1974. 1991.. Wiltshire. 1984. Thomas S. Two models of grammatical description. Ernest and Robert van Gulick. 1992. Princeton. Richard M. 1983. language and reality. Schlick. Marilyn.. MA: Harvard University Press. Strategies of status manipulation in the Wolof greeting. Culture and practical reason. The things we do with words: llongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. In: P. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.H. In: R. Lectures on ideology and utopia. In: R. 1979. Rorty. Naming and necessity. John R. eds. John. 254-266. 161-227. Grammatical person and social agency in the New Guinea highlands. A classification of illocutionary acts. 1995. John R. 1967 . On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Sahlins.. Boston. 1962. Richard M. Jerrold M.. R. Putnam.
White. Kathryn A. J. Dordrecht: Reideel. 55-76. 1978. and evolution: Essays in the history of anthropology. Stocking.. Michael. Vol. Advances in role and reference grammar. 1985. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. Rorty. Austin. The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels. 232-238. F. J. 125-164. In: R. John R. 1993. Clyne. Silverstein.. Edward. 1977. Silverstein. In: P.28 W. 1982 . Woolard. eds.N. Jr. Bierwisch. Intentionality. Hofbauer. IL: University of Chicago Press. Race. eds. Mind 70: 256-257. Hanks and C.. Shils. eds. Charles. IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. John R. Williams. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1979.. Austin. 1992. Hickmann. Urmson.. London: Verso. The background of meaning. Marxism and literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1982 .. Urmson. ed. Auer. Language variation and cultural hegemony: Toward an integration of sociolinguistic and social theory. ed. Kiefer and M. Raymond.O. Searle. Amsterdam: Benjamins. The contextualization of language. Michael. 84.. Lucy.M.. Silverstein. TX: Southwestern Educational Laboratory. 143-173. In: The constitution of society.R. Cognitive implications of a referential hierarchy. Speech act theory and pragmatics. George W. Philosophical papers. Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function.. Robert D. 1983. 1993. Tropics of discourse: Essays in cultural criticism. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Cambridge. ed. 1967 .. Silverstein. W. DiLuzio and P. V. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hayden. and G. 1981. ed. Van Valin. American Ethnologist 12: 738-748. Vologinov. In: J. Baltimore.. Raymond. Michael. J. Chicago...A. 1961. Deference. 1: Human agency and language. 193-247. no. 1973 . . Taylor. In: M. J. Working papers in sociolinguistics.. culture. Jr.O. Chicago.. Koyama / Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1997) 1-28 Searle.L. Williams. 1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silverstein. 1987. The indeterminacy of contextualization: When is enough enough? In: A. 1989. Social and functional approaches to language and thought.L. 33-58. Michael. Michael. Chicago. 1980. Language structure and linguistic ideology. Austin. In: J. The limits of awareness. Searle. MA: Harvard University Press. Warnock. IL: University of Chicago Press. 221-232. The politics of modernism: Against the new conformists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics. Marxism and the philosophy of language.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.