16 The Limits of Awareness Michael Silverstein In the couge of id work lings, js ke other anropoogis spend 2 pest = teat tng ltening to people alk stout wit they ae doing. The seul it fou comps of speech about speach, a "netacorps” a wee that cons spore ste same sme that sens fo talk about, or characterize, specch 3b 4 ‘Reaingfal socal action. In reply to oer queries or spontanconaly people wl UTsuipve staements about whe has said orca sy what whom, when, why, ah ‘hs os ie sven aha nh an ie pen of ra ki om, Whe, why and where Bu aking abst “saying foe hte ot worse abo 6° Shampleof sayings nd sich nesanguag, forthe analyst of xorg mach parc ofthe problem a part of he solvion. Asis edly apparent al our efor Etfeendaw "womeiou ative models frm antvopologer® mods” of "no theont"and sdclogts” from cojectve ssa seal” ae atempts co come fbr wich the metslanguagev.langusgstlaonsip o fe more genes ore {fer anguge vo ccon ol hops tha what discs hte wl be cen no ar Subbed and technical tcamentwhowe levee bounded by linguie aed Stic debates ut as contibson to general snthtopoogial theory nd met ‘lol, sing the data of speech. And Furth {ope sat my tle in ers a “mis isnot taken ar prey negative, bt ater a characterising relative ene sl ‘ite dfcaly. Forte porn wish nae that extemal dif a imposible, to make a ate speaker tke account of tone eadi-dceribe ck tFopech ts action cat (she hs no ability to describe foros in his or her ove thine. And want to demonsete by examples wha mesons of esch og playa oi in hs lao. ‘Let me now introduce the word “peagmatic® for how speech forms are used af cffectiv ation in spciiable cultural contents. One dimension ofthe “measig” of rey spec foe pragma, exactly hike any soil action. fom a serie oat Gf wew, all such meanings can be described ae cules inking cetain coll ‘Sonsied fester of the speech siteation with certain fem of speech. To ge {HC Unis oF awareness 383 those rues, or walk about then i co engage in “racta-pragmaic™ discourse, we should say. So che statement, Tn our sci, when & proper religions or juiary functionay so empowered sincerely uters ta man and women, l pronounce you hosband and wifey he ltter are marred," is a metapragmatic eran describing, ‘heelfecsive we ofthis formula. Whether ornocitisa corer statment of une, not at sue i is in any case intended a4 Gesription of some pragmatic meaning ‘ation, ‘can now formulate my hypothesis 2 follows, For the native speaker, the ease or Aialty of accurate metapragmatic characterization ofthe use of the forms of his ocr own language seems to depend on certain general semiotic properties ofthe te in question. ‘That is, the basc evidence we have lor awareness of the ragmatc dimension of language use, soscepaibiliy to conscious naive tesimony, ' snivrslly bounded by cerain characteristics of che form and. contextually” pendent function of the pragmatic markers in speech. I into. here. 40 state the dimensions T'have 0 far isolated in fil based data, drawn fom fpy own and from others’ field work, and then to ty to explain them: Ta each ave, we will be ineested in seeing why native speakers are able or unable 0 sharacerire the contestal appropitenes of spechy sd t0 manipulate tor the laveatgater. Let me tart with a sucess story, reported in number ofp cations about the | Djsha language of North Queensland, Avstrls, by Re MW. Dixon Deal as {wo disjoint (non-overlapping) ses of vocabulary seme, one that Dixon cals te “everday” et of words, and the the, of eonestaly-specificueage, that he calls the motherin- lw" set. Asis widespread ia Australia, when ¢ person speaks within ‘anhot ofa classfiatory “motherinlaw”~ the deal ofthe kinteckoning need ‘0 concern us here ~ he must use all and ony the vocabulary item ofthe special “ocher in-law" set, and none of thos inthe “everyday” et of res, Urteranes it ster syle have exactly the same over grammatical putes, however Now we should understand thata speakers nor neces ealkng abou, o tele to the Inotherin-law, when using the special motherivlaw vocabulary ts jst tha the te ofthis set of vocabulary items is obligatory ia the context where speaker and sucience are in a specie kin relationship, regardless ofthe topic of eiourse, We ‘wall say th, in any given appropeat instanceof speaking the vocabulary ems sed have two independent kindof meaning relations: (a) a oneatindependeat worsens,” in verms of how the Dibalpan rele to persons, things, eve, and bail watements wing these words in grammatical scrangements an () 2 conte Aependent "indesica” value, tha indeates whether or nota classifiatory mother inlaw i present asan audience inthe speech event. Note that every vocabulary tem in Djicbal mse be specified on both these dimensions. [Now sit eure ont the number of vocabulary ers inthe everyday seis about ‘oue o¢ five cimes that inthe mocherinlaw st, ad a0 cher sms 19 be a many to-one relationship in terms of refering to any particular entity as shown in (1. ‘Whete in everyday vocabulary, there ae five separate words (of masculine gene? class) for various lice and tick, inthe motherinlaw vocabulary there is ony one fem, that can refer tothe sume total range of things asthe whole set of everyday ‘tas, Smilasiy whete the everyday vocabulary has se separate woeds (of she ele ore gender cis) for loya vines of diferent species and stages of growth, the304 cua sense (1 Nocaulary sein “Every” syle aad i “Mather” syle {WE UNITS oF anaes 285 4 natural human larguage) led him eo ask, foreach item of vocabulary im the ‘acious everyday sets he gunrated in che fis stage, how ove would say hay snd Seu 2 ithe ater nw sie here cosrcton meaning "ea oe in Dal a this third sap, he induced precisely the diferences of lon, otal vale he suspected. The one it of everyday vocabulary that showed on o- ‘one ranslatabiity in stage one and two sill had thi character, se shown ine, while the othe itm in cach sch se showed complex motherin aw constnteng it various grammatical tructares of motherin law words wd to indoors cece songext independent referential distinctions. This last kind of data showed sou, _ afb, moreover, just as we would expect for attempes a fallen — San ote Serimindin) “hig ayia alam dra edie loys vine™ alam ganbay —“lya vine fp. flor op vin bat unano lam dineay ren oya ne” balem gogur “young sbots of dingy” tem Bupa thin ova vine (2) Tpit eckaon peste or equal lations (0) “a mt ma’ wiyaman Slalpayiae™ sn voc oe oem, ow hen co Dela ter hin ene [eediferen mumbo of men heen ferential opposton diigo a — ‘an “ehno-lasficatory” realm, then there mus be different word-aenaes, a differ ee "Moshe Seructural contrition each an of everyday v. motkeri-law vocabulary make a fo seatences containing thers. Ad yet, 5 shown in (2), fom the point of view of ingarte “tla pata pise ofc italics ina Stanton of dour equals as aia —* ‘tes nthe yep nd theinlaw sph comes bur ee le Ce [Sinlaag ending motrin a alt or as means Frm nan ote 1 bom alae Iagmic remedy = "Marin" (9 tmnt aun Presence of affine: “Breryday” #*Motherinlave” (no es yes) Siinganje + wuyuwuyuban [redup. “do to excess or iteratively (6, to. may pose fain + nll toga? io er = = Sep is Mea 1 mus sues here hat the native abily accurately and explicit to forme E> sets of ue, the native ably to elk about uence prope fe patie fscotoxs, is cra to Dion's energie. Hee shown the speaker ars ee | de pragacqivalence of reering withthe specie toms of eveay so a th egte or general cams of mathrinlaw Spe and they ve eee ok ‘vnc of context signaled by these vocaboany switches, Al, thy nee fhe sre of reference at shown by the backcvanion of ane ee ora elton. And fly, sey are aware of ways to male mothe law ye veeg ‘tal prec, which ne the custom in sing tsp, Bu can fs sage thes old on he tI wat cla at ther ae tne corals ht Fy neces, though perhaps not safcieny ee in thn nwsteners ete ably of exer ve: meter aylr of we for eons meen FSscusion. The it cal their avoidable fromthe scsond ck oe SB sre nd et sli prpesinl ualy e e f Sonor of we. (See yb) incasonlly wo lk about utranes that are equialen i referential fein ‘corn of He wed oy eration proceso flows Bison asked how to say the se thing 05 some gen everyday uteranee the mecherindaw syle a4 shown in (a) "Bala bagel nad’ wan ‘uiguya™ (Hw does one sy, Bala bapgl cin (he cu 7) Dj Uoter law sl} Ths stage of elation yields many o-oe relat ofvarious se of everyday vocabulary items one motheriv-law te ‘sxampl io (a) or verbs of “eliag” Such ets were gathered wgede in od fs om separately-elted word equvalenrs. nthe second stage of ea Dison asked speaker: how to say the same thing ab some gen moter cence, wing the everyday se, Tis stage, remackably ied one Equivalence, a shown in (38) he motherin law fem usu yieling ever ‘em Buon and no other. Fal, isons hypothe that bo of $y must have dnt but compauble worsens totes Gedo fo386 1) Semitic propane of ese pagans forme Is)" Unstable reread n olin the apt of he sna haters no the emma pftion natin we eve ey eed ssi a ees Inno rereneal postin, ey "formal ela ronan for herer (rach ows vi Russian 1, ‘German Si di bux aor metic mares of saci economi clas afliaion of speaker ef W. Labor ‘Saline Pacer, Pepa, 1972) 0) Contos segnentby she peagmatc snl can be ied 0 onions (© Bethe ata oes epee ss vet mening as ofthe wets Brebh dy cee “olson han wat wang dwn the sect : ‘onions pene The man War wang own eet, Was wang Down esse The se Me swords The Man ve, Wlking, Down, The, Sees [ice amd pei ta hr no 4 "horesiv pect exrested by “Ee ay” (Obseve shee is no “The man wing ‘wall down the Steet a Retaie prepositions ecto instenes of x raga stinks ed ples ort ome dependently reriiabl context ator o “Fah demonsrie than ht (presppoing sgt oc ound of some ex. eget wobec, oe pers rece omporay Fst en hopologial mackerel or eon aflation of paker the "ad Yad” « nh clea and pltencs makers (Rope vs "Prof Brown”) ‘Unaoidabl eee the popety of those pragmatic elfeatve coment: depen) Sas that ae auomaiclywenfcd by sealing the elenenss of Spec ha ety or desi Reeence, or natemen-ac that aspect of te ‘Teanngftoss of spech which eles speaking wo alge cleus of propane ‘ons imately rested tote oxo of uch and fab. la grea oat whol ‘renern view of grammar i bred on tht kind of meaningless, che detailed {apston of which wl oo ene ino here. Ba wilt ht he enfin sr awealled gamma categorie, seence abd constocton types and lex feo word wi cus ya oli come ro tie innguage asa system of refesece sn his manner Now if i dentying the wer ncefcons (or constcns) of sech tat have some sentiable ragmate ‘foster that ener tnt prgmaic oppostions = we thereby ao inl wer ceacions ht fon sai of reeence, hee pragmatic weeance-fatons a “unvoiably referential Ths, one ofthe wellknown pragiate systems of aay Eropean languages ease (roy) deferenceso-hearer ws soldatiy-with heart byte sera of we pomomina rm ny econ or thid person plural” "ond pron single” gy reach ows va Rasan£) YB, Gesan Si dh hn tase fora he ae sine the ery units fret tyo picking {TELM OF AWARENESS 387] ‘out, the bearer in s speci event. The deference ve solidarity system is thus unavoidably ceferental. We can coatraston this dimension such pragmatic alterna tions a5 certain North American English phonetic markers of social taication laolated by Labov in many famous ties, where the signal of socio-economic class afilation ofthe speaker reside in suble pronanciation fects within certain phon ‘nc categories, which operate independent of aay segmentation of speech bythe ‘terion of reference. To be sre, we know from various psychological experiments of Wallac amber and oes th hse mater ae realy udersond by ate sgakers of English, inasmuch asthe experimental subject categorie the speakers ‘of such alternate pronunciations quite realy. Bu, in lain the relevne peg ‘atic signals, we do not thereby solate waite of language tat play role in th system of reference. In the Diihal ease under consideration, the alternation ceryday vs, motherinlaw forms in normal usage const of 2 kind of woct by-word substirabiliy. The very lexical elements of reference to things and event axe precisely isolated (up to but not including their grammatical inflections) in eli th papa hace wows seumentablty is the property of those pragmatic signals that canbe “dented as continous stretches of actual speech, segmentabl as overt meaningel ‘nits of de utterances in which they oecuz Thus any wordt, prefix or sufi, ‘word, continuous phrase, or even whole sentence is continously segmentble element. In any urterance, sch units of language ae celzed as continuous stches of overt signal behavior Note that this erierion rose cuts that of unavoidable ‘cferentaiy. For example, take any statement of the sentence The man ws wk ‘ng dow the tec, a a referential event, one that simply ates ths asa propos! sion. If we had recordings of such fluent executions, we woul find that he whole luerance, “The man was walking down the see,” would be, inoue sense, con finuously sgentable; it would be realized in a continuous temporal tech of speech behavior So alo would be the phrases, “The man,” "Was walking down ‘he ste” "Was walking." "Down the sreet,"*“The steet” So also woul be the word, “The,” *Man," "Was," “Walking,” "Dawn,” "The “Steet So also would be the sufix ing” oa “walking " However sil under the hypothesis of referential (or propositional) meaning, the single referential unit expressing the Progressive "sect, the complex of forms “was ing” iv not continuously segmentale ies 3 "neta > “diinatie”) pig tn natn > a orb Peserereeinicg Sohece tla MoPSC ten > gra > oh Ene es pe ist ager oe Saas ay 1 ws oF aware 389 Novice that is moc a question of where consonants sad vowels occur in words, nor what the words refer, nor what rammatelorits or laste ae instantiated inthe words. The augmentative-neutal-diminative changes operate on the sounds of ‘Wasco: Wishram wherever they happen t0 oscur in forty subject only to cain ‘el conto o consonn caters hat ee the fea of ston (6 Grado ound fxs (ugesttve > ental > diminive) Cansonats vied sop sins > woes > poral’ (b> p> a ‘ponstrident affticates > strident (X > ¢} " ‘ecg inn Bg ec 9) Snr vars koe ot >I) tral Tail > abogsaa (gp > 4°) ow: ow > mil (a >=) suid > high fe > fpr ieee veratrine ete ps eee ne tem ce dere oe me ti 1 Anenped econ amon aug of soe her proche with big bly" crs pomaeons iamed' et fom -opeat by formas, ten eapercordigg Flin nog sug herp” gen tama quae Here was the opportunity to bring the consultant to conscious awareness of the hanges! So {asked fora repetition, and, as you may guess by now, che consalant ‘epeated” iamug"" the neuteal form. "But you jus said -maghal’ didnt you? ‘That means ‘reat big one, no?" I isst. "No its Gamug"l" laying the tape‘ecorng back was of no aval Eremuly, [ask forthe form: Wel tow do you Syren big belly?" “Oh, gat maga —ths ast expression ing fly ‘Skit or deserve pase ther bell age” oe "she as bg bel” (and ‘ote the neta orm of the word for lane” aswel What subject ro concious tmaipulaton the referer desire component of Wesco Wishes, but th ‘Menta neutal-dimiutine wedatons ae Beyond hs Kod of metapecgmasc “faracteration. This parca comune whose name an no Tonge see Shear enya was oe ofthe more sce mater ings on aoe ‘Xcanow she cul ele for example tht all he forms produced with dimine- ‘heels “sounded kinda cue: bet the fst could nor grap the metapeaptic {Erk ofprodsctngthem on danandthoegh her sponcancoer peck was plete wh cals. This faire of metapragmati cation is quite ling, in sontas tthe Deb ca of mother inlaw swtches (rn contra omy owe aby to lst mother {Seer ceryay forms among the Worore of sorte Austra) Fot hee we Inc Jaling ith peaphatic forms of opeich tht systematically contrast along al {hrc dnenstons we have so fr sen Fist, rca the augmentive-neatal~ Uminatvealternaons operate on certain sound proper or fetes) of om ‘tas aad of ome voce wherver snd whenever they ocur in fee positions ‘tech Son ing the gar othe acai, wee sing oo en Fp bur phonaogicl fetes of some ofthe sagen we ate a0 ost ‘hoy aay us of langage tha hemselves have referent vale So he pad los of form here ae ot unavondably referent they operate om userancesie fom tht are completly independent ofthe units of reference Second he pope fferuladon ofthe radation in terme of feature ofthe sounds in speech ha {Gear inde conten hreand-there in the coure of speaking In ach forms ‘apmencacve) “ggilag” v. (diminutive) "Heaksfal," the frst, thid fourth, {the and final sound segments undergo feature change: te rest ofthe shape of the sem emai the same. S0 the {cgmentable. Third the alternation of form here are eset the unig ipa of ‘Slaker aticae toward what is talked about in using such an augmentative ot ‘Erinucive (neal) form, the speaker commoniests his atitude to the heae, ndehisatitude becomes contest realy with effects on how the interaction the proceeds. You don' tla salacious tary about someone who hast been refered { diminatvel, atthe risk ofofeading the pio speaker!) Suc forms presspose. {herly the constitution of a speech stustion with speaker and hearer, something {unranted jst bythe fact of speech occurring. Basically, then, the augmencative eatral- diminutive shife ae highly creative elements of Kish, Twat to claim that hese formal and fancional ferences ia ther cases area leas n part characteristic of the causes ofthe difference in the way the pragmatics ff lanmages are avalable for conscious metapragmatc discourse, But we are not {ninbed. T want boely to present two more dimensions of contrast of pragmatic foo, dimensions { have called decontextalized deducbiity and meiapragnatic frotsparoney The fest thee dimensions preente, in shorthand, referential, Scgmemabity, and presupposition, deal with whether of not a naive can gE frnlence of accurate meapragmatic awareness. These lat two dimensions deal ‘Dich how native speakers treat the forms in metapragmatic discourse Tons of frm ere ate clearly not continues | _ ie wars or anos a1 | “The fourth dimension, contextualized dedusibiliy, can best be approached by 2uking the following question. Given the occurence of some prepmatie form, htt ‘wopesition expressible in Language follows from the fact tht the pacticular [agmatic form has occured? Ina Topical seaie, we would ath, what ropostion formulae in language sealed by the occurence ofthis form, Independent of anything in the context of speaking inked to (indexed by) the foam? (C483) (8) A fourth dimension of metaprapmati conta (ct (4) above | | | (6) Decontstaied deducilns what propostion formulae inthe lnguae,& ‘led olows atc) by the toate oecarenc of pega fom? Eg Tn Ela tly een nn prs By brother nal awe oboe It Eigist, «uly rebrng nox phrase The presen King of France ets ‘Tere naa Keg of France, Suppose, for example, that the pragmatic form in question isan instanceof the efering item, "My brother." at contrasted pagmatcally with the forty “I have “brother” Ifthe form “ny brother.” coerstly refers to someone, dhe fortis lastance of correct seference we can deuce that I have a brother, Noe that any ‘xcurtence ofthe statement, “have a brothen” entail no stch consequence, aia ‘be perfectly false, andthe hearer of such a form can say, "Are you sure?” of “Went that formerly your sister?" or some such. Philosopher talk sways bout Rustll's tla example, “The present King of France bay" and why tod. They speak interns ofthe “presuppositions” of any utterance of thie form, of what propositions ‘use tru in Order for she properition coded inthis utterance to have any trth tale, The eux ofthe examples the noun phaser resent King of ance, ft 38 se can now reformulate i, fom any valid instance of relecring with this phrase, picking out an actually exining eny, the proposition “There exist now 2 King of Rance is dodacble a tre. And thi of course, was not true even in Rese dey, So there can be no valid instsnce of «way refering form, “The preseat King of ‘rane; foe f there were, by the pragmatce of English the proposition about thee | now beng 2 King of France would be enaled | Sach examples from English serve t introduce a rather aie parallel fom Wasco ‘Wisram tested in my Held records. This involves what can be called the “evden {il passive” form ofthe ver, s pragmatic sltemant for saying tha thee i evidence In the station of dicoare, the speaker's Knowledge that leads hi oh to ‘ink shar someone or something has been the abject of someones action. Let rhe ‘aula is properties in terms of what we have senso fa inthe other examples, The evidential passive form iss particular confgucation ofthe trative verb wih 2 special suffix x. It contasts with several other posible verbal formations that have che sume, or slated refereal effect. Note that fora typical tase vb, ‘och a “to bol,” we can havea regular straightforward “active” form, as shove in (9) ke English “he boiled them long ego," "ni-<-d-ver"; a socalled “antipas- Sie form, like English “he was doing boiling long ago," “nigle-éxm-l, that dae not tl us what were the objets of his endeavors ust that he was engaged in ‘ome activity; an indefinite agent™ form, lke English "somebody baled them lang ago" "abg-dardem"; a “coletve agent form, like English “they boiled3a owe stversten We uns oF wanes 393 them long ago," “ni tkt-u-Sxm", wed by contemporary Wasco-Wishramn speakers (00) ication feel pie fume in about the same way as the English nonanaphoric or gens "they": and a "Transitional pasive” for, lke English “they became boled™ or “they go bled" snid.a dim {1G Wonder how yous hat no snap’sdaom = | made fem ims btn 3m, you could ny be for (©) Conventions os inthe Waco Wiha verbal paradigms (es sg" Sgmid a ecemly ated sei SE de pam hsb nt vg, mite ei: arene ‘ibn i ei umal hes die fing a on™ ae inde Agens gy she eam” “emboda bel hem og 507 Gem Pid, mae hy. | Collective Agen iy “dy am heya bol thems ang azo" Transtional Pasiversi= dy att “thes became old ng ago” vidal Psi es “Ramee “hey mst ave Ben ote Adeiionally, when the speaker ses some evidence in what he or she understands be the results of some activity, se ean use the “evident : eng Rhema than. salebag™etemaa “ber? I passive” ue ‘which Translate a "they must have been bole” (because, fr example (she se thatthe ae all mushy, or (s)he eases that they ae sof, or whatever. oS ‘Clearly this form i isolable jst by isolating the parts of wterances we ae ingested in from the point of view of reference; i consists of nothing but transitive verb form inflected only witha pefx for the undergoer ofthe activi, plus 2 uff vi that oars in a number of formations, with much the sine 4 Feferential value as the English dectic word “where.” So we would say that te particular evidential passive construction is unavoidably eeleretal. Next, since the parila frtn of sn evidential passive, by contrast with all the other farms mad og amit heme, 2 mg hemid urtody made me {Sr conl sy, ugg i a a or ca. “hap "tamin Ob, peson— the way yu can tel person, ‘he okie she was yng trent uttered 36. continuous usiein speech, and hence the evidential passives ot {continsoulysegmenable pasmati form. If we bad tne, {cold demons gy, ESE iow thie gives consultants «gent deal of cly in ditinguishing the evident ae Ca ce = forms rom form hat mean "ter i.” But by proper eng here we ow ee labo ah bee svn we ae looking oy we can gt constants ofc on thi prc for Ae Ms 9k - ero {> our thd erterion of prsopposition, we shuld note that aby valid us of (Ge ‘Like yo se web, she ‘vides panve preippones that in he contest of use shere il ideed be = teen eye fone Sone ‘Sidene ofa nonlin son, avaiable to both speaker and Beare This re cy Se het en ey {ontional coquiement seems tobe fry able ike the English exampe ws OE ‘ih and tae" inodaced above. - Coe tami her eyesore lahiibemt ‘We atin fly good shape the, insofar as guarantees of metapapmatic aware af niin abet tet ade er reas ave concerned: Ba win we ak conslsans about the se ofthese form, WHE Stet hey Frey a ‘we engage them in metpeagmatie conversation, we ind that they tll us about the presupposed contextual requirements, as we would expect, and then give the “meat 3" ofthese forms asthe dedaced proposition which must be rue if the evden passive i validly used! Let ws look at some field records, transcribed from eo ‘nuous tape ecordings, with al bu the actaal forms under dacusion waned ‘nto English the work proceeded patly in English and partly in Kiks) Tn the first cas, in (10a), Iam trying to talk about the evidential passive of {orm “case someone tox)" which, asa morphologic! causative s about 5B 4 rane verb as one can gt star from a form gathered eae ina ext, T es hs emi The coma alc hand” lyn anne ver or, caning “Fe hey recent hen se oes eas Ses cllesive objec, nmnitg"ayria” “Tad the bunch on seers Se ingot he hang of he ew have evel a de et cs she aan ofr Sing ter she conl te ras "ae ‘sin I then at fo the ie peroneal pane am Gj eng “pooh made mee nug"tsyonin The fom undcated Wy Ore398 secnse saves st nine ip mtorr mo ohn wh “eel exacts ofthe propped contest for ix occurence ~ {tok ike she was crying er ee shows ~and thon nem ofthe dedoed pon thre ih srry th eet wae of he ea rote or -aluginrt. they made heey Les” ; PAA‘ yecond case of this sort, shown in (106), involves the verb for. “pinching,” ving cab the ga ipuor ake for the evidential posive with a frst person, "Tm pinched ‘SRaptgatgic™ Note thar the consultant responds with the form, and eves the “Teluced proposition in the same breath — “srxaptyatKi,.seapiatk ‘thy fiat pincled te" explaining thatthe reaning slike” tis. Now, pressing fo {he coneetness or incorrctnest ofthe evidential passive, T repeat dhe form, andthe ‘Sonslant says this could be used ifthe speaker shows the presopposed evidence ‘STyou show where you was pinched” Again, from the point of view of nae Spetker metapragmacc awacenss, the evidential passive is characterized in tems of ii presupposition of evidence im dhe context of speaking, and the deduced fl tropostignal fom which must be trae fhe form iso be used correct. _muncapipante batman iwe besnesaptynosk twas (106 Coe ieee poe Piro Taher MS an ES SSocepyeki aemapate-—Hesmfab apathy je iene hat nce MS. abe Gar “Somebody pinched me ke. MS You could sy soaptyatie how cs: SSB you show whee you war pinched Tom the behind e Ms ae “On the bind. voce ot papi asain et cicigleenter a Ea sa ee i ie a ret Ne eed ee arene eee eS ae peared ets ge volunteers“ “Seomaat have been bumped ato Sure enough, the consultant cha i ee el = 2 i aim clr ae et tcuve” form, bot iterative “T as pinching er” {Tnsaneap'vantk) and aomterative "Jus pinched her” (insanxapliyat), the inves J te verb stem used. The occurence ofan vide {We ux oF awareness el sili igs [hey probably cine and umped io i wile back” And the ‘consulates once again the premsppored evidence hws where is Deen sonia 8 0% i hese i be [H0e) Cs: ao 0 yo cam sty you imped no meting ae Ms: ob How tone fim gn to? fon“ at bumped ai nt might cose a eg alg bdo gt peopel MS: sit digha or gra? ba mag we as! ee ete ME SRE Coalfyoatony 7 LLgrx "ems have been a ildiqux? ilddqu, into” aan co | hag a hey proba cae ‘nd bumped a sie bc™ Ms Soe dws, SE Bae cbeld yon ay Beene? Gomme Tht etme Sin _ hates pamoe hoe mening “ Wco-Wishram canbe pied inter of (fhe pesppned ender fa use inthe comet of sealing, an (he omen of oes cae te ae rel ore arc ewe id cn ae ne sows the heres (oc ‘ete deve hat “Smebnyci uchar och othe ojo tat shows te nether” And rom the aie spate ps of wt ted “Sti oposton themes” he om has rable to concons E meaprapmavc doar, |e final dinero of metpeamarcawarnes Iwill css ees metaprag Ppt rnpeeny shown ly Ts she dee of memes ee oy _Resprgmat anc hat cold be une oak sors papa form; an he Spe Too iol Tha, raga orm apa angparr 0 cnet, nmmetapregmace doors decebing ome tee of see ante «pen con dpe herr fore unr Secu: Coser ie oa perch “tea of pean ging slau any noing te sures Becoming ean ijl he flowing “hn «fw nore ints” Now cones esi st Fon acer tr te ech ven ial I prose oop ang so = Te aerance Yost «Tew mote minutes" may inde fancion pragma ia‘xa the same way a he erance I promi ro wp aking oon” nha hey Bech communist he speakers commitment to case and desir afer 2 shat inca ain men of ening he od wae ae {osip ling soon,” smerapragmatall taepaen, where the fs wean, “Sam few more mimic” ioe, Fo if sed to desi what wet cain at ‘pes even what acon, in ter words tape that Sependedon speech we ould answer a native speakers, "He promised to top talking soon,” duplicatngin the description the effective pragmatic forms of the second uterance at is0e (Observe that this same mecapragmutic description could be used forthe fest ur nce, "Justa few more minutes,” as wll as several other possible deritions, sch 15 "He indicated thatthe lotr would not contin muck Tonge and orth, Bt in each ofthese lat instances of metapragmatic characterisation, dere im radial diference berween the form of the deseription snd the form of the particular effective pragmatic signal In shor, when we sek the forms of posible metaprag- matic deserpcons ro which it issuscepible, the ueerance "Just afer more mutes” shows litle metapragati transparency. é (11) A ih climenson of meapegmaticconrat ef. and 8 above: {e) Mespragmsti oaparency: peegmasi for is 9 the eet tha in meting ‘mati dacoure dering tr nate pakers dpa te fom det sa {omit top elling son, tered 2 commitment f the speaker top ‘ign tc [sf more mts ced fo pec ane pape. Now obvious given some occurrence of speech, some event instantiated a8 2 lective speech signal in a certain content, there age many ways in which ana Speaker can answer the question, "What happened?” ot "What went on?” He oe she in describe the event asa whol, there i some means of refering to this totaly, Ineo she can describe the presupposed contex (as we have ste}; he of she c describe the signal, in she most obvious cae, that of so-called "direct quotation jst dpicating it and in less obvious cases, socalled “indice quocaion,” dup tng certain aspects of the signal. Or the native speaker can characterize the 4 angels) ia the contexe effected by the apesch signal in answer fo the question “What happened?” Bat for analytic purposes, the pragmatic meaning of any signal sed in speech must be a statement of the presupposed and created contextual factors, thats, 4 desceipsion of what mus independently be so about the conte the occurrence ofthe elective action. So any tanspacent pragmatic form is signal ‘hatcan be used both in effecting specific conteatal changes and in describing hem. ‘And the description can focur om any ofthe components of the speech event speak, ears, audience, eferen,chann signal, ime, locus, or some relationship eevee these, And we woud, ina fine-grained discussion ofthe mater, hae to diferencia ‘among these factors by thee potential contsbation o transparency, something we ‘do ot have space for in this discussion, but which emerges by example in the material now tobe presented ears oF AwaRenEs 27 I we lok atthe last et of data, on Eni “directives” as analyed by Susan vin Tepp, we find chat there sre mimerous dete form, pragma signal fot ting someone to do romething? (02) Kinds of deine werancs in Amen Engl (a) Need stomcrr “Vil ned ounce and specie.” (8) Inpernves Younis) peste reparstorycoraandand (6). Bredéndimperavs "Why dere ou open she mda?” (G)_Permision dete May I have change for dal” (e) Reger queso "e Dean Leber i" (6) mete ery que ny ere” Asis shown ia (12), these include (a) statements of what the speaker esis, sone ‘objec ofthe addresses action, such s "a routine elture and specie,” of some ‘tion on the pat ofthe addressee, "Il need you to put your finger on the kno” ‘They also include b) out eadiionally-anaiyzed “imperatives” which commanicte jus the action the addreste isto cary ut; a5 well ak () embedded imperatives which ave usually of the “Why don’ you..?" qaestonsform with embedded "sreaication ofthe action the addressee is fo do, but having since sess and ination contours terminating in falling intend of Fevclorshing. pitch (ond hence disnct from an interrogate form). Other forms calleced include two itercogatve spss, (d) question of permission forthe speaker to accomplish some. ‘hing, and () questions of a secmingly informational content. Finally there ae {f) ‘ins which are ststements about the conext ured with deci fore, Thee i to be sure, 2 finer subdivision possible on linguistic and thee grounds, but this classification of Ecvin-Tripp's will do for our purposes (13) Chars fective Te Nesta Discourse Consesints” Obwios** Sci ectres : sation Comply No Comply SAP epee mo! —mane encase yes sbrkinuten SAE tnpernive noone acone Jer rd aria eas (© Enbedied no age encase yer o diferent Ieper fs tak exes, a ‘comple A Remision yes apr Soper anfar le) Regus” es tower pone nom compliance iaeence Hit yes frei pose non comlianes, ieee) Eetiaigs oe soles te gee gaye ci on _ aera ees mae = ear etl Tp arn Sn [What are the characteristics of-use that Evio"Tripp has discovered for these fo siferene kinds of directives in (Berkeley?) American English? We seein (15) thatSee ee el a ee Taree acs seoe ae ee aie es Sate cee nie ets Nee er ea Tee Rees lene cia ee inperamnnaed near ome ce e sisal bene ee Seacoast Se ee toe ak eee foe ome ee rots geal bce tcl Rov iad ea oe Se a a ge Pc ee sia ee oe alana hart BRA elie ar espa rete see te a ea ee ra ree Fe a mea ea | misstated cee Den eee te cence ined eerste ee tc ta re ome oben sit eb lua Scie martes Se a spent many so Se se raed oe A ory me co Geo ee ee ee er eS nora pra mare peer a eNa tine earl etar nas Pench seer eee ene Ces fat sep dc et seen ea cee seen rane sealer oe ce a ar ne al inca rene, mae Se eo eee i pe ee cavar maar eect igam mle Sec eran Seeah teres tal ea hiacamect ne Socata re ine moet ee ori eden aca ota entireties eee acral stor re oe el ie ee se oa coe seer ie gr go eee ip eda enon eee ER aetna dey Ege pee eee ees as sea i itr ies ong fo ata a, cs het Te us oF AWARENESS 399 Sogo taegecremaneee siieeicaneel senor ea icy cease es to ele enterica let ha ecerameg.acmiona pee ES oyet siseieeereseceaerg Sta seme al etapa eaten i ein eeery ns Teeiece eats nel eae sole ois nrdmenanatmeereion SE bins onaeaenmeny gn use ants acer eine SREP site otha auld umes oe SS eee ce SSeS ioe inas eee heat iene totter Soren Sen ee Scien irene hn oe Popes ich hoseninat seammeceg ees iniheietaaraag memernse ae Seiten na ee Ronee nin ebaeees Sou oirmacueesmaces wpe eet eats me hh hte SER ecco ‘seks understanding ofthe copie bass ofthe many fanctoat of langage The © ste areas what ethodelogel esos might be ured he about the eae ‘oft phenomena in general dont have pace to develop thee ipl oa ay egy and coment ysl with eran that you wil no dou ke _-we toad organ But nk what flows can doses na +, Who who developed ll be themes of Bostan linguistics to thie sh lon, inguiel no the le Boatin problem, he nature of aneatons ‘the cltral universe impli and expicn language In psig evened she _ toon ofa “ayprrypic" og a we tow sy dee af “undeying” seater 1 strech es behind the very seperate form of peck Tints secure of referential categories costed the real atonal lass ot “itsorymodalus implemented nfl propesitonal speech, he highest ancgn ‘Hlinguage ro the Basan way of thinking uy theme speaks faced wth hat rere venation to an inet ad get enirnment trying Coin f° response or erent “uk abou the fecal proper ahs or he tat language in pci sation, hoplealy the meryof cle spn =o" on as we now say “surface lez forms ofthe language Te nave -pakertendsoceasn from the mineading sac analogs fost hy Feceneal fashion, he or she states te relrenal eect is egmeting fe400 ena savin ccloral universe. Whort is thus contrasting naive awareness of the suggestive referential pattern of suctace lexical forms, with the linguists awareness of the ‘eyplrypic semantic structure behind those surface fons, achieved by excruciating ‘analysis ina comparative framework, He claims that insofar ns reference ic ‘cerned, che natives awareness focused on continuously sgmentabe "Tesica” i his tems} ais, which presappose the existence of things "out there” tha eoze pond to these unis one-to-one on each referential use of spesch. OF cours, the ative ison partially core, and i generally inaccurate fn sor her “awarentae ‘What we have done bere ito gencealze Whot's observation for che whole range of fantions of speech, etree being just one function that is cles atthe cee of the whole ethno linguiie sytem. We have claimed that we can bese guarantes ative speaker awareness fr referential segmental, presapposing functional forms inhisorher language. And wecan bound the kind oferidence the native speaker xs {ive us in terms of deducble referentil propositions about functional forms ma {mally transparent vo description as space events "The cares well Husrated by the gradual recognition of mon-eferetial aspects of “meaning” in langage within our own tradition ofingusties and related di lines, Jat as we would expect our Western pllosophial theories of language = what [lke to eal our naive native thnothcorescal tradition ~ have radionally Stated from word refesenc, in parcula fom proper names, which native spake feel to be concrete, pounting out an absolute reality “ou there” Sach theories bave ted to generalize the notion of how language means from this maximally avare ‘etapragatie sensibly. With the advent of Frege, nd of Sausur, the domain of fnalysis war brosdened to propositional reference and to stactral analysis referential systems, culminating inthe explicit undetying structure methodology ‘of Chomsky. Ae the same time, ordinary language pllosophy with Austin ally ‘scoped certain lexical items ~ segmental, referential, prsupposing, deduct the non zferentl functions of one's own language. I snot by chance that thes pesformatves, such as frome, cristo, dub, te. were dcovered ust by the Tingustcally nave native speakers of Oxford; they saty sll our criteria Bu vunforeanately, accurate though they may be for certain of out mote transparent perch fonctions in English, they cannot merely be tated as a universal set to be fered out by inaccratetiansaion techniques inthe most remote comers of th lobe, as some of our collegues are wont todo. Indeed, they represen ony a a) fraction ofthe foetoning of our language though a fraction thats easly sce ible of native swarenes. The forther we get from these kinds of functional deen of language, the less we can guarantee awareness onthe pat ofthe native speakers-" fccurate meeapragmaticfesimony that ean be ken at fae value. Hence for de ‘est, the more we have wo depend yponcross-cukural analysis and the accumulate 4 {echnical insight based upon thi for naive speaker metapragmatic testimony at ‘Boing tobe necessarily acura forthe general analysis of language “Ther isa eens in which ove generalisation of Whos pinepe, now formulae | in terms of limited metapragmatic awarenes, has a wider relevance for socal § anthropology. AB many of us are beginning to realize, the linguistic models ta have boon applied to cultural phenomena have usually been motivated wit linguistics ull pesisely by the facts of the pre referential system that i nique _ “us or AWARENESS 401 to language among all he meaning social codes. think, however, that we can show how the other fonctions of language ae always being asinated to elerence inerms of native speaker awareness snd ae infact subject to concious metapros Imac testimony only to the extent that they are asimlable to reference, or “ride slong on" referee structure. Thus, how vastly mare complicated ste the tsi res of native pactiipantsin a society, how fraught with danger ove taking a face false any statements by participants about various pragmatcally-mesningfal fcton. If we were to generalize fomn the experience with language repored heey then we would suspect that most of what is of attest ro the soil anthropologist beyond ative participant testimony as to is “meaning.” Bur, beyond this purely negative statement, we woud alto expec that, more general te limite to prag- rte awareness of socal action are ako definable, constrained and veioicaly. fase Thi, [want to ly before you, ithe program for social anthropology, to unde stand te properties of ideologies and ethnotheores, that seem to gide participants insocal systems as pct and parce of those social systems, which must be sen at ‘meaningful. The salient aspect of the soca facts mening the central manifestation ‘of meaning is pragmatic abd metapeagmaticspech; and the most obvious Feature of -agmatc speech i eerence. We are nove beginning to sce the eror in tying f0 Invetigate ce salient by projetion from she obviocs ores Thi pperoawanscigf a care oral seni 1977 Forshie reining, flowing he fethors eg ower change ave bon ade da vor bn ne, ‘Sethe inal soe fhe rind esting pape bon Gen seed Ed} Djebae MeW Don (97H A Mobo o emmaic Depo fn DD. Steg and A Jka ee Seman An tray Bankr Poop Lins ond Finca pp 4563) Cami Corde Unray Pe sed RAW Dron 190) ‘ie Dye loge of Neth Ques PD daca, ivy of Ln 2 Klukauo Wats Cano © Sap (91D Dini i pm Conca lin Wir Frns Booed Hanboot of Amana ada gue ip ) Bilin th aren of Armen Eley, Vl 40, Par nod M. Serf note, {96074 Ale hi Slvr 1979). Dee nd Doty in Wacoal Pree of eee Proc fhe Berle Linas Secry 4.28 5. Amer Engl Sean Evin ep 970 eS Tre The State of Aerial Diets, Lene Sty 55-36 (ts wei sed pope eB and A. Gian (196) The Posuns of Powe and Solis Jo A Sibel ed, Se Lanna po 253-70) Camp, MA: MIT Pro TLE Lambert, BC Hodzon, RC. Cacs tad Fleur (960 clonal Ree toast Spe Lagann furl of lmormal an Sol being” eats, W se, Ranke amd ©. Toke (996). Jud. Pesoaliy ough Spe: 8 FreukCarada Exape Jal of Cnmamssion 10305 21K Brow and 9 Fd {O81} Ads Rian Engh eur of Amaral an Saclay 62375-8,