‘operational as to have testable consequences. This problem ttdressed to some extent in Grace A. DeLagune's Speech fp Function and Deselopment (Bloomington, Ind. Indiana Ue versity Pres, 1963), W. Morris's Signs, Symbols and La (guage (New York: ‘George Braziller, Ine, 1955), and Bp Skinner's Verbal Behavior (New York: Appleton-Centuye its), 1987, “Accounts of the language man has taught chimpanzees omy be found in B. T. Gardner and RA. Gardner, “Tetching Sgn Language to a Chimpanzee,” Science 165:661-72 (1960) David Premack, "Language in Chimpanzee?” Solneg 173:808-29 (I9TI); Ann Premack snd Davi Premack, "Teale ing Language to an Ape,” Scent American 297:14,929 (1973), and Volume 3 of Allan M. Schrier and Fred Stoll (eds), Behavior of Nonhuman Primates (New York: Actemie Press, 1971). Data in the present artile were taken fom my book Intelligence in Ape and Man, which stugeles withthe relation between symbots inside and outside of language [ANGUAGE AS A PART OF CULTURE* Michael Silverstein there nothing more dangerous than to imagine that Language iga procen runeing pwralel and erally eoresponding to octal ocern and thatthe function of langage Ht to reflect orto Enotes the mec reaty of man inn secondary Bow of verbal uvaents. Th fact thatthe main Fonction oflnguage isnot o express ‘hovsht, not to duplicate mental processes, but rather to ply an facie pragtatic pat tr nomen Pekar, ‘Thos in hs ptery Function tis one ofthe chief cultural forces and an adnet 1 Bedi actin. Indeed, san Sndispenable ingredient ofall ‘concerted hut aeton® it wel to observe that whather or nt thought neces ‘tll, tha is epost the Bow of Ingungo lel spot vaya Indicative af thought. We have seen tat the typical Hingis ‘lementabeewsonept docs nt follow from tthe! he useto ‘hich language puts alvays or even ny conceptual, We ae Tt a team Lie wx wroch conerued rth concepts cx sucha with concrete parculttis and specifi elation ee soma ‘what a though dynamo capable of generating enough power to ‘un an elevator were operated alot exclusively ta fond an let ‘ool iio of the publi Cond Carlson Ther Magi London: len ngage, Ina othe Sey of yech 9logical iavestigation, and even from our own lnnguage Sey distinct uses of speech ultimately show thatthe stuctaneaf Janguage as itemerges frm the ssrumption of propoitonsi {only one way of looking at the phenomenon of spat though, in our own society, itis the way dictated by guy {intellectual tradition. When linguistic Function itself Beco, the problem for investigation, then the true realm of te anthropology of language is entered Functions of speech overlap in any given behavioral evento speaking. In this chapter, we will gradvally buildup 4 notion (Of how there i a systematic overlap of functions, which eve tly Ingulstlcapproachesmust deal withthroghan themost attempt ata full specification ofthe meaning of for, Along ‘with ets of reference or describing, speech consists of com comitant acts of “indexing” or marking and creating the very boundaries of the communication sel, without describing them necessarily in the referential way: the roles of speaker hearer, audience, and so on; the socially recognized attribute ‘af persons; the time, place, and gccasion of communiation the goal of the speech event itself; and many’ other factors ‘Al ofthese aspects of the meaningfulness of speech behay- for are missed by the traditional Kind of enalysi~the kinda analysis that, for example, goes into our usual language tet books, It'is only in recent years that the uniqueness language im its referential functions snd the fundamentally “cultural” mature of uses of language have become clei enough to attempt systematic anthropological formation, ‘Let us then begin with some characterlzaions of professed goals before moving onto the substantive analysis ‘To explain social behavior, anthropologist speak in terms of | “speech event”). In terms of soclal behavior, meaning fs what Is communicated cach time one member af society bchaves in fartain ways toward someone (a “cultural event’), For exam ple, think’ of all the ways, linguistic and oalintustic, in Thich the meaning of “deference” is communicated by one parson to another. ‘One approach, which has dominated linguistics and gives certain kinds of results, explains only the fact that spesch Iihavior communicates describing of referential meanings, This approach hypothesizes that a grammar i a closed, ab siraet conceptual device, Such a grammar assocates propos. tional meaning (akin to logiesl propositions) with an abstract ‘ammatial form (a sentence) in such a way that there i iirect relationship presumed between abstract sentence and Speech behavior. ‘This is what is meant by Malinowski i laking of duplicating mental reality (propositions about, ormy ! description of, th world) by verbal eauivalents (he see Sterying ech So also Sapir talks othe “pea lng to clonest” Gan of on abunct eneocs) eoxmail concept (an clement in a mental proposition). Obviouy Sapir, the taditon of Wngusi, els tht th ll Righer form of linguistic behavon ince he compares ti arian cad preci cerice la csay ea tno, We have called this the approach o “propositional itmguase. q he ote proach, whichis more strictly uted by ll we now know about speech behavior, sees that is ipossbl to-altrbte exactly proportionality to the wast maorty of utterances in everyday social interaction. (Let us say tha itterances ate propositional when thelr directly related sem tences produced by the grammar are proposition.) Speed Ubchavioe which may even be formally indistinguisheble fom fully propositional utterances intengrades with al other form of behavior and communicates native facts about society tha fre presupposed and brought into relief by the very event of speaking. This is what Malinowski means by the pragiate part of speech behavior and why he calls it one of the chi cultural forees. Social behavior in geneeil communicates ne Live facts about society realized in the actual efrcumstances the events at hand. This is what Sapir means to include in the ‘concrete particularities ofthe speech event; that they requle themental amperage of «doorbell, n hs metaphor, fs tue oly hhecause they are usually unrecognized by native speakers ata ‘conscious level ‘The rules by which a speech act presuppotes or creates certain elements of the native system of cultural concepts characterize the “function” of speech. Malinowski's assertion, then, is thatthe Function of speech is not primarily propa: tional: the very behavior of speaking (as opposed tothe closed, abstract grammatical system) contributes ts own "meaning" € the sentences underlying utterances, This seeming paradox i be resolved only by broadening our view of what a "grammar 4s, for to study, speech only for its sententil and, hence, propositional value —which we overly recognize as unique in ‘ur European tadition—is to appreciate only a fraction ofthe meaning of speech behavior lisan cesoribe the relationship of Unguistio form to totalsentence wsten a8 You went aay happy. English wa messages coresponding to this sentence in situations a the golng away ofthe here atleast and perhaps of og else as well sto be predicated. We sty thet the Bog broom ume hae ea ng erg {o the person or persons to whom he or she i uteri tesage containing the pronoun, It doesnot dsingang Re tween one hearer and the hearer slong with ether persone Contrast the same kind of sentence in another language fg cxample, French, Hw do we any the equivalent proposal Vous vou en tts alle content and tu fone ale conten both ways of saying this, given only the formation eo in the analysis ofthe Boglish sentence. The second of tha, French sentences can be nse only fora wnigue beaten for more than one, and there are other weys in whi contrasts with the fist of these sentences Tn fac, there are various kinds of cultural facts, such wy whether or not the speaker and the hearer are of the sane By sr0up, are of the sme age, have the same slats, have inten twined personal histries,and o forth, tht determine whichaf the two forms ofthis proposition isthe xentence underlying the correct utterance under the circumstances. In other worl ‘we must know several things about the relationships between natively analyzed values of age, kin status, and so on, Bi speaker Aand hearer B in French society, before we cay determine ifthe sentences underlying the messages represent true or false propositions. The ineaning of the sentences ‘depends not onlyon the identity ofthe heater in the speach situation asthe person referred to in the proposition but ala ‘on the various relationships tha hold-—to « mesaber of Frene society-—between speaker and hearer. Exactly the same ma be said ofthe German usage of sentences with Dis. Dhrand Se and of the Russian ty v. There are thus sentences the meanings of which can be formulated only by reference to corect use of corresponding ressages, determined by the values of socil variables rept sented in the speech situation, ‘These social variable ae recognized (explicitly or implicitly) im the society of people who speak with these forms. Such sentences contain’ wel ge 04 Part of Cate ur Ips which code the fat ofthe socal world into fetes Gifrm (words, grammatical categories, tune ef toca uncition, ste, and itonation) that mesh witheke fen, tea" chiacterie wth abtat propstinaa nae Ne can formulate the dependency ss ler of mee) ae afindesicel sen, relating uch acoso the oc ean fe oles of speaker and heer, eatve stauror ee ah fot the desc elements of manage oer fo to spech dstint from rte lating undishg en ee Mona! charset. nonindesiel efor eRe hs with notion of ruleh of use hat dterninethe ne ol sich indxial elements of sentences thaw iene ey ee Bil mntin the tion of the closes hounded sone of a iat” or abtract linguist dice, withont sop ts Gera lc Spc aS tno set Bones referental signs indie relcentak ead Aourlrenval india signs, the sey een The examples of rules fuse mom obvioas Lo a native agaker of + language invlve ategorcr ocho St Honours and syntactic markers of sl for coemee de Af cho vs. whom in English apech lave) oa at Yerbulary items (or example obscene wv nonseee | set bony pars and funtion), These al he ee Be proverticn of being. "egmental™isoleble ste ot Speech—and “referential” that I they make oy pane sep sions a the same time as they ine soral abies | sch station, Native speakers can eqvenie teen Evidence about the use ofthese kinds of inden et esos ther kinds of index devices among thai pee Tacent that dents a certs eponal apbtoging ea sf the speaker, or crn intonation panes ees ee hat ident their socal clas or the paul ade es ff which they ave interacting with us by meant ofeach tes Kzample, delivering sermon) ‘These mile eheeete oy bperes ae just as amenable to desertion iin he yond Framework asthe categories just mentioned. That ine eee Afthe sound sytem of language usualy pute thereat Zam of fates on which we can secure horse eos Hom native participants. People ean perhens dueling,hemo “ol” bt thy od un th pene et esha cet Gh fase tsvockte ways of speaking with cal face Tee ieee ne al pacer iat fos es Sea ‘ale an female forms of spec Real em theese ed Ii ha preventer se ee 26f g Shea Daca eee! oe Ast oe of the parapet tan thon foal heavens ck at tal perce oe Sa ome i a oabronenigh ait nts enenie gece a ocr tanh ee re a cs le ee Sal ar tocar us peel odenen aoe ala orci ene hasnt Te aloes eae conoiapacti matte ina Sikri rm ed op ee analy fam depends on or epee ‘olla inne Coe a ig te te ho soc en of bth sparen Bi cis pchng ws ple nnd oon ar he cool enter Si of the difference of etvage form, ae Bit Scny a eciee fo evr Musionas Hence of the American southeat, for example, the distinction Seen male and female speakers manifested inthe forms of reek esse ior onc meng in anything else, then a sufi add tothe verb fora Hpale speaker and a series of phonological changes, for which BBL cows cpr, cues canbe tte, tek lace ge pia oie wae ier eerie Bs tatcerteesby apf he weae The phoecloe ie fie pane depnd eon the eta Irage ar nke ra et pope costes of eer Be sno ered specs re soc abled Be ting sal wom fre or bs ltr, Ate lor of Is scare rae ince ce eo Fale ge aie eee ees reece ieee eee a taraar sah ination emits tht the of he tee Sees al feo of pater cola pay Tales of tse of the language, speci the Toto of eee Fete eee aie aed Pema ce tn to rm ng athe See Peete Se pat muy ck ancl gma eee eee oe frig Geom eac e tfom ba ere oe fal. The contains popes he ee yeaa ace iesre ep sscead te cmson fs rears ‘Tietmeen ety of purer ean pipe10 snicuae.svengg carted on in an adequate way until we tackle the ethnogeegg ‘description of the canons of usc of the messages corespongi to sentences. Neformulating this result, we may say srammar is openended, not closed, and «part ofthe stateng ofthe total meaning of s sentence sa statement of the wlegah Use that determine the indexial-or "pragmatic" effect of ye message features. ‘This means, again, that if we al fe “function” of asentence the way in which the corespondly message depends on the content of situation, then the det nation of the function of the sentence, independent of ip propositional value, is a necessary step ia any Tinguiste analysis. ‘Thus, a theory of rules of use, in terms of social variableg of the speech situation and dependent message form, is ay integral part of the grammatial description of the abstact sentences underlying them, Rules of uye depend on eng fraphie description, thats, on analysis of cultural behavior people ina society. Thus, at one level, we can atayae Sentences as the embadiment of propositions, or of “semantic ‘meanings more narrowly; at another Level, which ts elwvaya implied in any valld grammatical description, we must analyse ‘messages as linguistic behavior, embodying eulturl incaning ‘more broadly So the relationship between grammar language) and culture Is nota kind of mirror effect, whereby there is only structural analogy (isomorphism) between thexe two objects of sient Aesertption (the position, apparently, of such theorists as the influential social anthropologist LéviStraves. ‘The relation tip is eather one of part-towhole: valid description ofa language by (functional) grammar demands description of the rules of use in spocch situations that structure, and are structured by, the varlables of culture. Thus could Maino: ski assert, and Sapit agree, that specch behavior is part and parcel of cultural behavior more generally. ‘The viewpoint ofthis paper is developed in greater technical etal nM. Silverstein, “Shifters, inguistie Categories, and Fre 1964), along with some of the most important contribu tions t shaping the field, Also see Hymes" development of a ewpoint close to my own in his Foundations in Socolingulo- Tice An Ethnographic Approach (Philadelphia: University af Pennsylvania Press, 1974). The papers jn J. Gumpere and D. Hymes (eds), Direction i Socilingutsties: The Ethnography {Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Ines 1972}, and Joshua A. Fishman (ed), Advances the Sociology of Language, Vols. 1 and (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Human ties Press, Inc, 1971-72), present specific analyses which can bye seen in light ofthe overall theory sketched here, along with up-to-date bibliography. For lively topical discussions and eviews of important works, one should look tothe Issues of the new journal Language i Soctety (Cambridge University Press). "To get a sense of recent diseussion of the “meaning” of Tanguage, on which al else rests, see the many tealtents-— philosophical, linguistic, psychological—in D. Steinberg and I. Jakobovits eds), Semantice (New Yorks Cambridge Univer: sity Press, 1974), most of which are distinctly traditional in atlook