The Consequences of Language
Chapter 10.What Is the Relationship Between Language Structure and Communication?
This chapter presents the wide range of approaches made by structuralists in the analysis of texts.(Each section
introduces a perspective and an example of an analysis).
1. Introduction
Each of the perspectives presented in this chapter has contributed to the analysis of language and
culture by proposing a specific perspective on the nature of language and then a demonstration of
this perspective through the analysis of a text, dialog or component of language. The chapter
does by no means exhaust the various approaches taken in this vein, but does provide a
representative sampling of the types of approaches.
2. French Structuralism
Claude Lévi-Strauss has taken a structuralist approach to the analysis of culture and applied it
both to the analysis of kinship systems and the grammar of myth. His approach is not easy to
grasp, which has lead to a wide range of criticisms of them (Leach, Geertz, and Harris), but it is
useful because an understanding of this approach helps to clarify the basic principles underling a
structural approach and in the process reveals the potential of structural analysis and its
limitations and it.
Fundamental Tenets of Structuralism
The approach used by Claude Lévi
A semiological system consists of contrasting signs
Strauss is often referred to simply as
in a closed system.

The operation of this structural system is below the
structuralism for several reasons. First it is
level of parole ( discursive or declarative)
knowledge, but not the level of awareness.
structuralist because it adheres to the
 The goal of structuralism is the recovering of the
fundamental tenets of structuralism. That is,
underlying system and ignoring of the analysis of the
parole.
it approaches cultural systems from a
 The name given to the methodology involved in
semiological perspective - that underlying a
uncovering the properties of a semiological system is
“reconstructive science” (Habermaas) which differs
cultural phenomenon like kinship or myth is
from positivist science.
a common underlying (closed) system of
oppositions. For Claude Lévi-Strauss, these oppositions are binary, though this need not be the
case for other semiological systems. Second, It is called structuralism because many are
unaware of its affinity with other semiological systems like phonology, the lexicon or syntax.
We prefer the term French Structuralism for Claude Lévi-Strauss’ approach both to distinguish it
from other structuralist approaches and to show its similarity to them.
2.1 The framework. In this regard, I find his approach to myth, as opposed to kinship, more
revealing, more interesting, and more understandable. We all recognize that in the elements of
language (phonology, lexicon and syntax) go into the construction of a myth
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 2
The science of the concrete. Levi-Strauss proposes that humans do not ordinarily think in a
rational linear sense associated with western science with its abstract concepts like gravity,
intermolecular force and the like. The science of the concrete, CLS says, does not involve
abstract concepts but can manipulate such concepts when they are embodied in a physical object.
In this way of thinking, slyness could be portrayed by a fox, doom by a vulture, reliability by the
plodding tortoise1, and so forth. Thus, even though CLS draws a distinction between the science
of the concrete and the science of the abstract, he does not value one higher than the other. The
significance of the embodiment of abstract concepts is that it allows for the manipulation of these
abstract concepts through the telling of a story about the objects in which they are embodied.
This kind of relationship is essentially the working of metaphor. Such stories constitute, form
CLS’ perspective, myth. Thus a myth tells a story at two levels, one at the level of parole and
the other at the level of langue.
The level of awareness. When we read or listen to a myth at the level of parole, we encounter a
story with actors, a plot and a resolution. When we encounter the same myth at the structural
level we are not conscious of what is going on, but sense, according to CLS, a set of
relationships ( to be found in the gross constituent units.) being juxtaposed. Furthermore, these
relationships are not the product of the conscious mind, but the workings of the mind at the
structural level, or as CLS put it, people don’t think in myths, but rather myths think themselves
out through people.2
Research Issues for the Science of the Concrete. The relations that recur in myth are concerns
about the nature of human beings that concern us all. The most important of these is the Culture
v. Nature opposition, and that concerns the uniqueness of human beings and what makes us
different from other animals. We are aware that we are animals (nature) but very unique animals
because we have culture.
 Incest and Marriage. As cultural beings we, unlike animals, have (extended) families and
therefore practice exogamy to avoid incest and build alliances with our in-laws’ families
through the exchange of our children through marriage.
 Born from one v. born from two. As cultural beings we are also concerned about our origins.
Most societies have a myth3 about how humans came into being. This usually involves a
first man who reproduced to populate the world. This myth creates a problem in that the first
1
We note that in Cameroon in West Africa, the turtle is regarded as a trickster.
2
Nous ne pretendons donc pas montrer comment les hommes pensent dans les mythes mais comment les
mythes se pensent dans les hommes, et à leur insu." We don't suggest therefore that men think in myths but that
myths work themselves out in the minds of men unconsciously.
3
We are using the term myth in CLS’ sense of the word, that is a text that contains both a parole level and a
structural level of meaning. CLS is not concerned with the truth value of a myth, only the sorts of meaning that it
contains.
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?

Chapter 10, Page 3
form of reproduction was asexual unlike the current mode which is sexual.4 Note also that
even if a second sex is introduced, it is hard to escape the likelihood of incest in the early
stages of populating the world.5 Often one finds in myths that the first couple are brother
and sister, in which case their reproduction involves incest.
Death v. Eternal Life. As cultural beings we are aware of and terrorized by the thought of
our own death. Most societies have developed “myths” to deal with this which usually
involve eternal life. This opposition also finds its way into the structural component of myth.
Each of these topics represents a serious (subconscious) concern for humans and it is these
concerns that CLS claims are embedded into the structural component of a myth. Furthermore,
the research questions posed by the science of the concrete are essentially the same as those
posed by (western) scientists of the abstract.
The Units (signs). Every semiological system consists of a specific type of sign within a closed
system. In the lexical system it is the word. In the representational system, it is the phoneme or
letter. In the structural system it is the gross constituent unit. Like other semiological signs the
gross constituent unit is below the level of discursive knowledge, but not the level of awareness.
Now the concepts of culture, nature, incest and the like are abstract notions, and inaccessible to
the science of the concrete. Rather, this science requires that these concepts need to be
embedded into real objects and hence the fox for slyness mentioned above, but also the
juxtaposition of two entities such as a domestic and a tame animal or a cultivated plant and a
wild plant or a cooked and a raw fish to illustrate the culture/nature opposition. From this
perspective it is easy to see why totemism, the metaphoric use of animals, is so common in myth.
2.3 The methodology.
In a reconstitutive science, such as in linguistics, the goal is to “reconstitute” the grammar of a
given language that is in the heads of the users. In such a science, according to Habermaas, there
are two interdependent levels of theory: 1) the theory or grammar of a language; and 2) the
theory of language, also known as the metatheory. The metatheory states what is common to all
languages (also know as linguistic universals and universal grammar). A grammar of a language
states how a sentences are produced and understood for a given language. These levels are
interdependent so that the grammar of each language must be consistent with the metatheory. If
it is not, then either the grammar or the metatheory needs to revised. The interdependence of
grammar and metatheory derives from the rationalist presumption (chapter 5?) that language is
acquired by an existing structured mind predisposed to language (the universal grammar) which
4
We note in passing that the “Western scientific” view is strikingly parallel in that the first life forms
reproduced asexually.
5
In the Judeo-Christian origin, for example, with whom did the children of Adam and Eve beget their
children?
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 4
enables the acquisition of a grammar of a language, which is, as a consequence, consistent with
the universal grammar.
The operation of French Structuralism follows the same methodology. The metatheory
holds that all myths contain an underlying structural opposition of GCUs which contain elements
of the research issues. Work on the metatheory will involve an elaboration of the research
issues, the nature of the GCUs and their insertion into myths. Work on the individual myth
involves separating the relevant (at this level) from that is irrelevant. (necessary v contingent) by
identifying specific (pairings and patternings of) GCUs and showing how they relate to the
metatheory and by comparing these with a set of related myths, looking for the same patterning
of (pairs of) GCUs. The GCUs will often be paired and the parings will often be analogous to
the other myths, though this does not mean involving the same totemic devices. One of the best
examples of this is his paper on Four Winnebago Myths.
2.4 The Thebesian legends
1.
a.
b.
2.
3.
a.
b.
4.
a.
5.
a.
6.
a.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Kadmos seeks sister (Europe) who has been ravaged and carried off by Zeus.
[Zeus disguised as white bull. Makes Europe queen of Crete.]
[Kadmos told by oracle in Delphi to forget sister, she's ok. Also told to follow white cow and found city.
(Thebes. Kadmos needs water for sacrifice, sends soldiers one after the other to fetch water. The dragon son of
god Ares eats all the soldiers]
Kadmos kills the dragon.
Spartoi arise from dragon's teeth and kill one another. (Kadmos told to throw stone among Spartoi to causes
the Spartoi to fight among themselves.)
[ Five Spartoi survive and they help Kadmos build Thebes].
[Oedipus sent to another family grows up without knowing prophesy or who real parents are.]
Oedipus unknowingly kills his father Laios, King of Thebes, on a mountain pass.
[Later Oedipus comes to Thebes where a Sphinx is guarding and imprisoning the city of Thebes.]
Oedipus kills Sphinx (riddle of the Sphinx). (The Sphinx commits suicide once Oedipus answers riddle)
[Oedipus is welcomed as king into Thebes.]
Oedipus unknowingly marries his mother Jokaste (Queen of Thebes).
[Oedipus learns of the truth of the prophesy. Jokaste commits suicide and Oedipus blinds himself.]
Eteokles (son of Oedipus) kills his brother Polyneikes
Antigone (daughter of Oedipus) buries her brother despite prohibition
9. Labdakos (father of Laios = 'lame'
Laios (father of Oedipus = 'left footed'
Oedipus = 'swollen foot'
11.
The following account is drawn from Edmund Leach’s (19xx) account of CLS’ analysis of the
Greek collection of myths known as the Thebsian legends which contains the well known story
of Oedipus. In the following synopsis, the numbered lines are GCUs identified by CLS. Those
not numbered were ruled out on the basis that a) they did not form a pattern within the myth and
b) they did not fit other myths. They have been included to help tell the parole level of the story.
Analysis
Having identified the GCUs, CLS then noted that they could be assigned to one of two sets of
oppositions, one dealing with incest (the over v. undervaluation of kinship) and one dealing with
humans and monsters.
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
I Overvaluation of Kinship
1 Kadmos' (over) concern for
his sister (Europe)
6 Oedipus' incest with his
mother
8 Antigone's (over) concern for
her brother.
II Undervaluation of Kinship
3 Spartoi (brothers) kill
themselves.
4 Oedipus kills father.
7 Eteokles kills his brother
Polyneikes
III Culture over Nature
2 Kadmos kills dragon
(half god half animal).
5 Oedipus kills sphinx
(half woman half lion)
Chapter 10, Page 5
IV Nature over Culture
9 Labadakos (grandfather of
Oedipus) = lame.
10 Laios (father of Oedipus)
= left-sided.
11 Oedipus = Swollenfooted
To understand the last column, CLS notes that many human origin theories involve
autochthonous (coming from the earth) first humans. Such is the case, for example with the
Judeo-Christian view. He adds that it is generally the case that autochthonous people walk with
a limp and that it is not a mere coincidence that Oedipus, his father and grandfather all have
names that reflect this fact. From this persistence of lameness, reflecting autochthony, that CLS
can say that the GCUs in this column reflect the persistence of nature over culture in contrast to
the preceding column where humans have conquered nature in the form of mythical monsters.
I Overrating of Kinship <is to> II its Underrating
Here CLS sees GCUs representing the
< as >
culture/nature question in two ways: in the
III Denial of autocho<is to> IV the persistence
thonous
origin
of autochthony
domain of kinship (columns I and II) and in
the domain of autochthony (columns III and
IV). Since the order of the appearance of the GCUs is not a significant aspect of CLS’ theory,
the presentation of the question does not lead to a resolution of the problem, but it does constitute
a statement of it.
"how to find a satisfactory transition between this theory and the knowledge that human
beings are actually born from the union of man and woman. Although the problem obviously
cannot be solved, the Oedipus myth provides a kind of logical tool which relates to the
original problem -- born from one or born from two -- to the derivative problem: born from
different or born from the same. By a correlation of this type, "the overrating of blood
relations is to the "underrating of blood relations" is to the "impossibility to succeed in it".
Although experience contradicts theory, social life validates cosmology by its similarity of
structure. Hence, cosmology is true. (CLS, Structural Anthropology: 216)
Commentary. As we have noted, numerous writers have offered criticisms of CLS and perhaps
the reader shares some of these reservations. Nevertheless, the approach is quite useful in
pointing out the basis of a structural approach. These are:
 A semiological system consists of contrasting signs in a closed system.
 The operation of this structural system is below the level of parole ( discursive or
declarative) knowledge, but not the level of awareness.
 The goal of structuralism is the recovering of the underlying system and ignoring of the
analysis of the parole.
 The name given to the methodology involved in uncovering the properties of a semiological
system is “reconstructive science” (Habermaas) which differs from positivist science in
that it involves the interaction of two levels of analysis, the theory and the metatheory.
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 6
3. Semiotics
Another structuralist approach to the study of language was initiated by Charles S. Peirce, a
brilliant mathematician with an eclectic approach to the world who wrote at about the same time
as Saussure, but whose eight volumes of papers were published much later. Peirce added to the
analysis of the sign the concept of a referent and a recognition of three different types of signs, 1)
iconic, those which bear some resemblance to their referent (a drawing), 2) indexical, those
which indicate their referent (smoke is an
Pierce, C.S. . Collected Papers. Cambridge,
Mass: Harvard University Press. 1965-6.
index of fire) and 3) symbolic, those which
have no recognizable association with their
referent.
Sebeok, Thomas. The Structure of Cheremis
Charms. In Hymes 1964: 356-71.
This line of thinking has been picked up
and developed by Thomas Sebeok and applied to areas of poetry. In an analysis of Cheremis
charms, Sebeok (1964) pointed out that the structural design, including their syntax, was
substantially different from ordinary language.
4. Cognitive Anthropology
1. Goodenough
a.
Goodenough: a description of a culture should properly specify what it is that a
stranger to a society would have to know in order appropriately to perform any
role in any scene staged by the society.
b.


[Note parallel to Chomsky.] (87)
The Intended objective of these efforts is eventually to provide the ethnographer with public, non-intuitive
procedures for ordering his presentation of the people he is studying.
To order ethnographic observations solely according to an investigator's preconceived categories obscures the
real content of culture: how people organize their experience conceptually so that it can be transmitted as
knowledge from person to person and from generation to generation.
The principles by which people in a culture construe their world reveal how they segregate the pertinent from
the insignificant, how they code and retrieve information, how they anticipate events, how they define
alternative courses of action and make decisions among them.
Consequently a strategy of ethnographic description that gives a central place to the cognitive processes of the actors
involved will contribute reliable cultural data to problems of the relations between, language, cognition, and
behavior; it will point up critical dimensions for meaningful cross-cultural comparison; and finally, it will give us
productive descriptions of cultural behavior, descriptions which, like the linguist's grammar, succinctly state what
one must know in order to generate culturally acceptable acts and utterances appropriate to a given social- ecological
context.
From the Ethnographic Study of Cognitive Systems Frake
SEGREGATES
CONTRAST SETS
TAXONOMIES
ATTRIBUTES
2. Keesing
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
5. Ethnomethodology
1. Garfunkel and the theory and
its Contributions
2. Cicourel
Chapter 10, Page 7
Towards Ethnographies of Communication: The Analysis of
Communicative Events (Excerpts from D. Hymes,
`Introduction: toward ethnographies of communication'.
American Anthropologist, 1964 88.6-2:12-25
6. The Ethnography of Communication
Dell Hymes approached the topic of language and culture from the perspective of the
ethnography. Here we understand the ethnography as a report by an anthropologist upon return
from the field about what he or she has seen there. Underlying the ethnography are the
theoretical orientation (materialist, idealist, ...), the principle of participant observation and the
idea of providing an emic (insider’s) as opposed to an etic (outsider’s) account of what was seen
in the field.
6.1 Emics and Etics.
An emic account is one in terms of features relevant in the behavior in question;
an etic account, however useful as a preliminary grid and input to an emic (structural) account,
and as a framework for comparing different emic accounts, lacks the emic account's validity.
As an ethnography, the ethnography of communication identifies the communicative event
as its focus, bearing in mind that the event is the product of an activity in a context by agents
with a purpose. This approach breaks with the structuralist tradition which focuses on the
structures which contribute to the construction of the event In addition, Hymes points out “a
message implies the sharing (...) of
(1) a code or codes in terms ow which the message is intelligible to
(2) participants, minimally an addressor and addressee (..), in
(3) an event constituted by its transmission and characterized by
(4) a channel or channels [e.g. graphic, acoustic, visual],
(5) a setting or a context, [a classroom, restaurant, dormitory room]
(6) a definite form or shape to the message [often called a genre or a style],
(7) a topic and comment [i.e., saying something about something.
Hymes 1972:26
In this account, the first component, the codes, represents the main focus of structural linguistics
to which Hymes has expanded the domain of interest. Hymes adds that while any of these
components could be the focus of an ethnography of communication, the components are often
interrelated: the setting, such as a dark room may favor an acoustic channel; certain types of
participants will be more likely to appear in some social settings than others; and some forms
will be more appropriate in some social settings than others.
6.2. Frake.
Like other ethnographies, ethnographies of communication differ in a variety of ways. I have
chosen Frake’s How to ask for a drink in Subanum, an Filipino community, as a good
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 8
representative of such ethnographies. In describing his approach to the ethnography of speaking
he notes that one “cannot provide rules specifying exactly what message to select in a given
situation.... The task of an ethnographer of speaking is to specify what the appropriate
alternatives are in a given situation and what the consequences are of selecting one alternative
over another.” (1979:88)
Frake begins by establishing a context of drinking where he focuses on the festive as
opposed to the informal gathering. The festive gathering is marked by a festive meal (which
requires a meat side dish), an occasioning event, multi family participation and beer. The
drinking of beer, unlike the consumption of any other beverage, occurs only during a festivity
and must occur as part of any festivity. It occupies a crucial position as a focus of formal social
gatherings. The period of festivity includes all relevant events between and including arrival and
departure of participants.
Part of the festive gathering involves beer-drinking sessions. During these sessions people
sit around one or more beer jars. Individuals take turns drinking beer from the jar through a
straw. Because water is added to the jar after each turn, the beer weakens with each round.
Frake observed that the drinking sessions consisted of several discourse stages:
 Invitation-Permission: Provider of jar initiates by inviting someone to taste. The invited
speaker squats before the jar and asks for permission to taste and addresses others in gathering
(order of addressing and form of address have implications. The taster can invite next person
to drink (but normally is the host.
 Jar Talk: During this phase the focus on discussing the quality of the beer provided by the
host, emphasizing the quantity and quality of the responses that the speaker can elicit from his
comments of the beer. Some invitees will be will be encouraged and some will be out.
 Discussion: The discussion phase begins with trivial gossip but the topics gradually become
more serious as community concerns are introduced. These matters are deliberated by the
participants and important factor of a successful outcome is based on verbal skill.
 Display of verbal art. Allows individuals to display their verbal art and helps to ensure that
the festivity will end with good feelings.
Frake points out that the discussion carries a social function, for it provides an opportunity
for inter-family communication on matters of mutual concern. To understand point, we need to
understand Subanum social organization where there are no positions of official authority like
mayor or judge. Subanum society consists of a series of families (or lineages) where authority
usually resides in the elders recognized for their wisdom. In such societies, decisions are carried
out, not through threat of force, but through a consensus developed within the family, or in the
case of inter-family matters during the drinking sessions are brought up for discussion. The
development of a consensus in the resolution of these matters is highly dependent on one’s
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 9
verbal skills, not only with regard to logic and reason, but with respect to the speaker’s esteem,
established significantly through verbal skills and the speakers argued position in the matter,
which leads Frake (1979:93) to conclude, “the most skilled in 'talking from the straw' are de
facto leaders of the society.”
During the jar talk stage, individuals may be indirectly encouraged to stay or leave ostensibly
because of their verbal performance, but more importantly because they are involved in the
matter to be discussed. In addition, according to Frake, “The strategy of drinking talk is to
manipulate the assignment of role relations among participants so that, ...,one can maximize his
share of the encounter resources (drink and talk), thereby having an opportunity to assume an
esteem-attracting and authority-wielding role.”
In this ethnography, Frake provided most of the detailed on the event situated in the setting
of Subanum festive drinking, but in the process he has brought in several other components: the
participants, the form of the language (genre) used, especially with respect to verbal art, and
topic and comment, though little was said in this area. Frake also illustrated the importance of
the interrelationship between these components, something that Hymes regards as a key
component of the ethnography of speaking. Interestingly, nothing was said about the code - the
grammar of Subanum (or the channel) which would have been the sole topic of a structuralist
linguist analysis.
But it is also important to recognize that this ethnography did not go into the analysis of any
specific interaction and concentrated mainly on the structure of Subanum festive drinking. Thus,
for example, while one learned that verbal performance was central to Subanum life, one did not
get a clear idea of how this was accomplished.
7. A Discourse Oriented Approach to Language and Culture
I VIEW CULTURE as symbolic behavior, patterned
Also within the structuralist
organizations of, perceptions of, and beliefs about the world in
symbolic terms. 285 LANGUAGE includes grammar, but
framework, but attempting to break from
goes beyond grammar. As a sign system, language has the
it comes the “discourse oriented approach interesting property of being both unmotivated and arbitrary
(purely symbolic in semiotic terms) and motivated (iconic and
to language and culture” from Joel
indexical in semiotic terms). 296
Sherzer (1987:297) who notes that,
“increasingly, contemporary research in linguistic anthropology takes discourse as its starting
point, theoretically and methodologically.”
CONTEXT is to be understood in two senses here:
In Sherzer ‘s view discourse is a level
first the social and cultural backdrop, the ground
rules and assumptions of language usage and second,
language use, “related to, but distinct from
the immediate, ongoing, and emerging actualities of
grammar” and is akin to Wharf’s “fashions of
speech events.
speaking in that it encompasses patternings like
the Hopi conceptualization of time given in chapter five.
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 10
IT IS DISCOURSE which creates, recreates, modifies, and fine tunes both culture and language and their
intersection, and it is especially in verbally artistic discourse such as poetry, magic, verbal dueling, and political
rhetoric that the potentials and resources provided by grammar, as well as cultural meanings and symbols, are
exploited to the fullest and the essence of language-culture relationships become salient 296
7.1 An example from Kuna (Panama) poetic and magical discourse. Sherzer illustrates his
approach by showing how a grammatical category can be used to achieve a magical effect To
understand this point, Sherzer points out four possible (optional) verbal suffixes.
Suffix Meaning
Example
Translation
-kwici standing, in a vertical position
sunmak-kwici `talking-standing'
-mai
lying, in a horizontal position
kan-mai
`sleeping-lying'
-sii sitting)
maskun-sii
`eating-sitting'
-nai
perched, in a hinging position
ua so-nai
`fishing-perched'
These suffixes are used in a magical curing chant. In this ritual, the chanter addresses the spirit
of a dangerous snake while holding a real snake. As the says the words of the chant, the chanter
guides the real snake through the motions described in the chant, with the understanding that the
spirit snake is doing the same. At a crucial point in the chant the snake, euphemized as a vine:
kali mokimakke-mai-ye
`the snake is dragging in horizontal position (mai)
kali piknimakkewa-mai-ye
`the snake is turning over in horiz pos' (mai)
During the next line (a magical formula): the snake is raised in the air.
unni na pa onakko' anti sokekwiciye
‘simply indeed I raise` I am saying.’
Followed by a repetition of the earlier couplet but with the replacement of the suffix -mai with nai. Not only is this the substitution of a single morpheme, but when the morphemes are
compared, by a single phoneme, and when the phonemes are compared, a single feature (the
replacement of a bilabial nasal with an alveolar nasal).
kaliti mokimakken-nai-ye
kali piknimakken-nai-ye
`the snake is dragging in vert pos'
`the snake is turning over in vert pos'
Thus with a minimally perceptible change in the chant’s poetry (an n for an m) the meaning has
changed dramatically and according to Sherzer (299) “through this packing of a maximum of
meaning into a minimum of form, grammar becomes poetry and poetry becomes magic. 299
7.2 An Example from Kuna political discourse.
The speeches associated with the inauguration of a new community leader, are “typically
bristling with intersecting and overlapping metaphors.” Sherzer recorded one such speech which
used the same positional suffixes reported above, “ in conjunction with a complex of metaphors,
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 11
largely drawn from the Kuna plant and animal world, in order to represent Kuna political
structure.
 CHIEFS ARE -nai hanging because they are perched in their hammocks in the center of the
gathering house where they chant myths in public performances.
 CHIEF'S SPOKESMEN are -kwici standing, because they stand when they make speeches or sii (sitting) because they sit on benches surrounding the chiefs..
 ORDINARY VILLAGERS are -sii (sitting) because they sit on benches behind the chiefs and
spokesmen
Both examples illustrate how a grammatical feature of a language can be used by a community to
achieve meaningful, even magical effects. But rather than seeing this as an effect of the
language on the thought of the Kuna people, Sherzer sees this grammatical property as a resource
which the Kuna have been able to use successfully for their own purposes.
7.4 Kuna oral narrative.
Among the other examples, Sherzer reports on an example of a Kuna narrative style in which
the organization by describing one individual’s experiences and then another until the story is
told. This kind of narrative is somewhat disorienting to the westerner who is accustomed to a
timely progression of events.6 As a result, the narrative seems to jump back and forth in space
and time. “One feature of this narrative that non-Kuna find particularly strange is the fact that
the pepper plant is growing before the boy dies and that the boy is later found buried under the
plant, as if his burial had caused the plant to grow.” 305
7.5 Summary.
On the basis of these examples and others, Sherzer concludes that:
 discourse and especially the process of discourse structuring is the locus of the languageculture relationship” Furthermore, “discourse is also an embodiment of language. Grammar
provides a set of potentials. Since these potentials are actualized in discourse, they can only
be studied in discourse. (306).
 discourse and especially the process of discourse structuring is the locus of the languageculture relationship.
In other words, discourse for Sherzer is in the domain of parole, and as such introduces
actions, agents, creativity, though these remain unexplored. Furthermore, he draws on the
langue/parole dialectic by showing that significance of specific examples of parole (discourse),
such as the magical chant or the narrative by seeing how the users draw creatively from the
resources provided by the language structure. His statement that “discourse is the is the broadest
and most comprehensive level of linguistic form, content, and use” (306 ), however, suggests
that the langue/parole relationship is not fully distinguished.
6
There are exceptions, such as Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughter House Five which follows a narrative pattern quit
similar to that reported by Sherzer.
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 12
8. Pragmatics
8.1 Austin’s How to do things with words. In 19xx, John Austin a philosopher at xxx, delivered
a series of lectures at xxx with the deceptively simple title of “How to do things with words.”
These essays ushered in the field of pragmatics, when Austin noted that not all language
statements are descriptions (locutionary acts) which add new information to the sentence.
(saying something about something) but are acts which accomplish something as a result of
saying them. These statements, Austin called performatives.7
Performatives are words, which when found in statements known as illocutionary acts,
actually accomplish something, given of course that the certain conditions are met.
Locutionary Acts
Illocutionary Acts
The book is red.
John saw that his dog needed to go for a walk.
The man got in his car and sped off.
I now pronounce you man and wife.
I bet you a dollar that I can do this.
We the jury find the defendant innocent.
Illocutionary acts are neither true nor false. Rather they work or don’t work or in Austin’s
words are ‘happy’ or ‘unhappy.’ This of course depends on the conditions surrounding the
statement. For example, not anyone can name a boat; one has to be asked by the owner of the
boat to do this. We also need a boat. Austin provided a more detailed list of things necessary for
an illocutionary act to go right. ,
 must be an accepted conventional procedure
 particular persons must be appropriate for the invocation of the act
 procedure must be executed correctly and completely
 person must have those thoughts and feelings requisite of the act
 must actually conduct themselves subsequently.
The violating of these conditions (the bride and groom are already married, the speaker does not
have the authority to marry people) results in an infelicity which makes the performance
unhappy.
Types of Acts Illocutionary acts:
By bringing our attention to
 giving or answering a question,
performatives, Austin made us aware of a  giving some information or an assurance or a warning
new dimension of language. First, we see  announcing a verdict or an intention
 pronouncing a sentence,
something of the magic of language in
 making an appointment or an appeal or a criticism
 making an identification or giving a description.
that words actually have power. As such
they have a connection to spiritual events such as the magic described above or the biblical “Let
there be light.” Second Austin made us aware of a much richer conception of communication in
which people were not simply describing the events around them but actually getting things
7
Austin also added a third type of speech act which he termed ‘perlocutionary.’ This is the act of
“attempting or purporting or successfully achieving an illocutionary act” and is typically marked by verbs such as:
convince; persuade; urge; surprise; humiliate.
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 13
done. Bourdieu (19xx) noted that Austin’s conditions, almost always are associated with the
institution (chapter 2), an observation which promises to enrich our understanding of the
institution as the central unit of social analysis.
8.3. Searle What is a Speech Act.
John Searle expanded
the frame work of
Austin by exploring
the formal make up of
illocutionary acts using
How to Promise
S = Speaker; H = Hearer; p = proposition; T = Statement; A = Future Act
1. Normal input and output conditions obtain.
2. S expresses that p in the utterance of T
3. In expressing that p, S predicates a future act A of S
4. H would prefer S's doing A to his not doing A, and S believes H would prefer his
doing A to his not doing A
5. It is not obvious to both S and H that S will do A in the normal course of events.
6. S intends to do A.
6'. S intends that the utterance of T will make him responsible for intending to do A.
7. S intends that the utterance of T will place him under an obligation to do A
8. S intends that the utterance of T will produce in H a belief that conditions (6) and
(7) obtain by means of the recognition of the intention to produce that
belief, and he intends this recognition to be achieved by means of the
recognition of the sentence as one conventionally used to produce such
beliefs.
9. The semantical rules of the dialect spoken by S and H are such that T is correctly
and sincerely uttered if and only if conditions obtain (1)- (8).
what he called
constitutive rules.
Like Austin, Searle
noted that a sentence
may contain an
optional proposition
and an obligatory
illocutional component, though the illocutional component may be implied by the context.
state, assert, describe, remark; comment;
Searle then focused on the illocutional (speech act)
warn;
promise;
aspect of the sentence. For example, Searle would take a
command, order, request;
specific verb like “to promise” and ask what are the
criticize, censure, approve;
apologize;
necessary conditions that are involved in making the act
welcome.
possible, some of which are specific to the verb to promise
and others more widely distributed. What is so striking about this line of investigation is the
revealed complexity of performatives. The analysis of to promise should be seen as part of a
larger project to examine the “differences between the various types of illocutionary acts could
be simply resolved through a structural analysis...”
It is tempting to think of the task of learning vocabulary as simply one of learning a signifier
and a signified, however, when looking at the constitutive rules for a verb like to promise, we
have to recognize that much more is involved, especially in the area of if - then statements and
one’s social relationships. That is the study of how children learn performatives might provide
important insights into the process of language learning and into the nature of performatives.
But the most important aspect of studying performatives is to recognize that they represent a new
domain of human interaction, that they introduce a type of symbolic communication that makes
things happen by saying them.
8.3. The Conversational Implicature of H.P. Grice. (cf. H.P. Grice Logic and Conversation )
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 14
H. P. Grice explored an area of language known as conversational implicature. This has to do
with how people come to understand statements which are note fully explicit. Take for example
the following hypothetical example offered by Grice (19xx).
A: How is C getting on in his job [at the bank]?
B: Oh quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasn’t been to prison yet.
The implicature in B is that C is likely to or is doing something that, if caught, will land him in
prison. Although some ways of speaking are more direct than others, almost all involve some
degree of implicature. Grice then proposed the cooperative principle which states that speakers
expect their messages to honestly represent their intentions and that the other can comprehend
the intent from the message.8
Grice notes that the CP is broader than just
This line of thinking needs to be expanded. For
example it may relate to intentionality, and for that
matter the basis of customary law.
language and is part of human interaction. What I
find so fascinating is that the CP appears to arise as a logical necessity of having to live with and
interact with others. If we were not to agree to the CP then it would follow that implicature
would not be possible and communication would be quite limited, or in Grice’s words, “if you
expect to get something out of the conversation, you expect the CP to be in place.” Given that
the CP is universal to humans, it thus appears to be a constructed as opposed to an innate
principle.
Specif Maxims: that can be derived from the CP
Because the CP is quite general, Grice
1. Quality: make contribution 1) as informative and
2) not more informative than required.
proposed several maxims containing more
1. Quality: don’t say 1) what you believe to be false
specific statements that can be derived from the
and 2) that for which you lack adequate
evidence.
CP. These maxims can be used to account “for
2. Relation: Be relevant
any implicatures that might depend on the
3. Manner: 1) avoid obscurity of expression; 2) avoid
ambiguity; 3) be brief; 4) be orderly.
presence of one rather than another of these
singular terms in the sentence utters.” Needless to say, there may be other maxims, but uses
these to show how implicature works.
Returning to our example, we ask how the CP helps us to derive the implicature q: © is
likely to steal money.) from B’s statement p: © hasn’t been to prison yet.)?
First we note that, following the CP, both A and B believe that B has said something that
statement q is relevant to their discussion about C. Furthermore, maxim 1 states that p is
informative; 2 that it is true and informed; 3) that it is relevant and 4) that it is comprehensible by
A. Given this permits A to address the question of “what does C’s work at the bank have to do
8
Grice stated the Cooperative Principle as follows: Make your conversational contribution such as is
required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are
engaged.
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 15
with going to prison?” Given the common background which A and B share, A should easily
come up with the implicature.
To calculate a conversational implicature is to calculate what has to be supposed in order to
preserve the supposition that the CP is being observed, and since there may be various
possible specific explanations, a list of which may be open...
Variations. The normal situation or course
would be to converse without violating any of the
conversational maxims as was the case in our first
example (and A in the sidebar). B's statement must
(A) No maxims violated
A: I am out of petrol [gas].
B: There is a garage around the corner.
(B) Two maxims are in conflict and one has to
be broken.
A. Where does C live?
B: Somewhere in the south of France.
(C) A maxim is violated for the purpose of
producing a conversational implicature that
the sender does not wish to say directly.
Letter of recommendation: Dear A, ... C’s
command of English is excellent, and his
attendance at tutorials has been regular. Yours,
etc. B.
be relevant to A's statement so that A concludes that
one can buy petrol at the garage. However
sometimes maxims are broken for good reason.
Grice mentions a common situation (B) when two
maxims are in conflict and one has to be broken. B
doesn’t have the requested information and can either provide the wrong information or be
vague. B chooses vagueness as the best option. A third example (C) involves breaking a maxim
to lead to an implicature which the sender does not want to say directly. By saying nothing
about Mr. X's ability, the writer is conveying the implicature that X has no other positive
attributes. This type of white lie violates a maxim but saves face (see Goffman below) for it
allows B. to respond honestly to A while not directly saying anything negative about C, thus
preserving their relationship..
These maxims can be further violated as in the outright lying, but it is important to remember
that even lying cannot be successful were the CP not in place and that were lying to dominate
messages that the CP would be undermined and communication more difficult cases like B and
C rely on the existence.
9. Face work and politeness
9.1. Erving Goffman’s Face Work.
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 16
Along the lines of Grice’s work Definitions
 Wrong face: when information is brought forth in some way that
with the cooperative principle
cannot be integrated...
 Out of face: when participant is without “having a ready line of the
having to do with the necessary
kind of participants are supposed to take.
conventions of living together,
 Poise: capacity to conceal any tendency to become shamefaced during
encounters with others.
Goffman introduced the
 Save face: process of sustaining an impression that face has not been
lost.
concept of face which he
 Give face: (Chinese usage) helping someone else improve face.
defines as “the positive social
Line: a specific type of face in a specific situation.
value a person effectively
claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact.” 306
Although the definitions of “positive social value” will differ from community, Goffman claims
that the concept of face and the desire to maintain one’s own face are universal and terms the
effort one gives to maintaining face he terms “facework..” The motivating force behind
facework is “the desire to maintain one’s own self respect,” which because of the strong
emotions that are associated with matters of face, represents a real need.
The desire to maintain self respect involves the assessment of others, much of facework has to
do with maintaining what Goffman calls a ritual equilibrium with others. The word ritual not
emphasizes the almost spiritual obligation behind facework and that “one’s face is a sacred thing.”
Maintaining this ritual equilibrium helps to explain why we feel obliged to “save the feelings and
face of others present.” For example given another’s loss of control, we find that “others may
protectively turn away from him to give him time to assemble himself.”
The ritual equilibrium is disrupted by the face threatening act: something that lowers the face
of the other. Maintaining ritual equilibrium involves two types of techniques which 1) aim to
avoid face-threatening encounters or 2) measures to restore the equilibrium after it has been
disturbed . Goffman termed these techniques “avoidance” and “corrective measures.”
Avoidance involve techniques of avoiding events that will damage face
 Total avoidance: Avoiding those who might damage face.
 Defensive measures: With respect to topics that might force the individual to make statements detrimental to
one’s face, one can attempt to avoid such topics, shift the topic or suppress or hedge on opinions which are
detrimental to face in the situation.
 Protective maneuvers: The individual can show respect and politeness; show discretion about feelings on
topics that might embarrass others; use euphemisms and white lies; be courteous; joke; neutralize offending
activities by explaining them in advance.
The Corrective Process: A threat to face occurs when someone does something to disrupt the ritual equilibrium.
This is often a very emotional process. The normal corrective process involves the following stages.


the challenge where the participants call attention to the misconduct;
the offering: whereby a participant, typically the offender, is given a chance to correct for the offence and reestablish the expressive order (an apology or an excuse, ..)
 the acceptance (or not) by the offended of offering;
 gratitude by the offender which reestablishes the ritual equilibrium.
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 17
The final reestablishment of equilibrium depends on the agreement of both the offended and
offender that the face threat has been resolved. Of course, corrections are not always made, but
these alternatives rarely restore the equilibrium. have high costs. For example:

the offender ignores the challenge and continues the face-threatening activity - this can be seen as face-saving to
the offender but it does not restore the equilibrium;
 the offender denies challenge - this increases the face threat by challenging the other’s claim;
 the offender challenges the offended, by storming off - this also further disrupts the equilibrium.
In contrast to the sacred ritual of face-saving, Goffman introduces a profane version of face
work whose aim is self-serving rather than equilibrium restoring. Nevertheless, the successful
working of this secular version depends on the existence of the ritual version. For example, one
can ‘fish for complements’ by pretending modesty, knowing full well that ritual face work will
lead the other to restore equilibrium by countering the modesty with praise. One can do more,
like arrange for favorable events to appear or falsely claiming injury to face, which calls for the
other to engage in corrective measure.
Insights. Goffman’s face provides two important perspectives on the theory of subject, 1) the
characterization of a dimension of self as an image to be presented and 2) that the role of the
subject as an agent or player with the responsibility to maintain ritual equilibrium. The first
perspective is similar to the concept of an inner and outer self suggested by Mead and Berger &
Luckmann in that there is the real me inside which I reveal only as I see fit (when I am in
control) and then there is the public me, consisting of my face, and which I attempt to manage.
The existence of self, Berger and Luckmann argue, is made possible by the process of (symbolic)
objectivization, whereby through the use of objects (primarily language signs) we can project
ourselves into the external world for others to appropriate and interpret. But it also opens up an
interesting connection with Grice’s cooperative principle. As social beings we have a need to be
together and apparently a need to maintain a ritual equilibrium of face.
The second perspective elaborates the nature of agency and points out that it is often focused
on things like maintaining equilibrium and not totally free to do what it wants. Both of these
perspectives go beyond the structuralist view of presenting and analyzing static structures.
The concept of face and the desire to maintain equilibrium also helps us to understand why
we have greetings and leave takings. As Goffman notes, “greetings of course serve to serve to
clarify and fix roles that the participants will take during the occasion. This is well brought out
in our presentation of the greeting system used by the Wolof. Leave takings can also do this, but
in addition leaving somebody is a face-threatening act and leaves one to wonder if in the process
of leaving the equilibrium has been broken. This may help to explain why the two most common
ways of taking leave are either the assurance that this rift is temporary (see you later, au revoir,
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 18
hasta mañana) or a blessing to show that the ritual equilibrium is still en effect (Farewell
(literally ‘travel well’, via con Dios (go with God)).
9.2. Brown and Levinson’s Politeness.
Penelope Brown and Steven Levinson have taken Goffman’s concept of face and modified it in
two ways: first inserting it into structuralist framework which involves both the emphasis of
language universals and language rules as the basis of explanation; and secondly, dividing the
concept of face into two components, negative face and positive face. Positive Face is the same
as Goffman’s face, while negative face consists of the wish by individuals to act without the
constraints imposed by society. We noted earlier that Goffman’s (positive) face resembled G.H.
Mead’s me which is the public, socialized self. To this, we can add the parallel of Brown and
Levinson’s negative face resembling Mead’s I, the private, impulsive self.
Unlike Goffman, Brown and Levinson do not emphasize the interpersonal dimension of face
and the importance of maintaining the ritual equilibrium, but they do emphasize the importance
of the face threatening act, the FTA, but now both one’s positive and negative face can be
threatened..









First Distinction: Kinds of face threatened
Speaker threaten’s Hearer’s Negative Face
Speaker threaten’s Hearer’s Positive face
[imposition]
 Speaker’s negative evaluation of hearer
Speaker puts pressure on hearer to act (orders,
(disapproval, criticism, disagreement)
requests);
 Speaker’s indifference to hearer’s positive face;
Speaker offers suggestions and advice (remindings,
 Speaker’s irreverence toward hearer;
threats and warnings);
 Speaker introducing bad news about hearer or
Speaker puts hearer in debt (offers, promises)
good news about Speaker;
Speaker expresses desire or envy of hearer’s
 Speaker’s raising divisive topics (politics);
possessions which lead hearer to think that he has to
 Speaker’s non-cooperation; wrong terms of
protect them: complements, envy, expressions of
address
strong emotion (hatred, anger, lust).
Second distinctions: Threats to Hearer’s face versus threats to Speaker’s
Those that offend Speaker’s negative Face
Those that damage Speaker’s positive face
Speaker expressing thanks;
 Speaker’s apologies;
Speaker acceptance of hearer’s thanks;
 Speaker’s acceptance of a complement;
Speaker’s excuses;
 Speaker’s breakdown of physical control:,
Speaker’s acceptance of offers;
 Speaker-humiliation
Speaker’s response to hearer’s faux pas; unwilling
 Speaker’s confessions
promises and offers
An important contribution from Brown and Levinson is the recognition that FTAs are often
necessary. All of use have encountered situations where we have had to tell others that they have
behaved badly, that their work is inferior, that we no longer love them, or in other words, to
consider doing a face threatening act. Brown and Levinson have provided an account of the
strategy involved in doing these FTAs. Our reluctance to do these things is the recognition that
these are FTAs
Positive Redress
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 19
Don’t do the FTA
Brown and Levinson have introduced a taxonomy
Without redressive action
of strategies which people use in these situations.
Do
On
the
Record
Of course, it is sometimes possible not to do the
FTA
With
positive
FTA, or at least postpone it. Usually, this option
redressive
politeness
leads to other complications that are even more
action
negative
distasteful so that usually we do decide to do the
politeness
FTA, how here we have a choice of doing it
Off Record
directly (on record) or indirectly (off record) using
the mechanism of implicature described by Grice. An off record FTA is indeed less threatening,
but it runs the risk of not being understood, or even if it is, the act is more easily ignored, for the
other can claim that no such FTA was issued. The on record FTA has the advantage of clarity,
and because of this it is more threatening.9 Accompanying the on-record strategy is the
possibility for redress, that is to show deference to Hearers positive face (honor) or negative face
(privacy). Redress need not be undertaken if the social distance between the self and other
(boss/worker; teacher/student) is such that FTAs are seen as offered as a matter of course.
Computing the Weightiness of an FTA. The
preceding paragraph suggested that part of the
A. Wx = D(S,H) + P (H,S) + Rx
B. Weight of the FTE
C. Social Distance between S and H for the
purposes of that act and as determined by such
things as the frequency of interaction and the
kinds of material and nonmaterial goods
exchanged....
D. Power differential (Weber’s sense). Degree to
which H can impose his own plans and own
face at the expense of S’s plans and face.
E. Ranking of imposition of the act.
decision of how to carry out a FTA depends on
the degree of seriousness (weight) of the FTA).
Brown and Levinson offer a tentative formula for
determining the weight of any FTA and note that
the variables D, P and R can vary not only for
different acts, but for different individuals and for
different social settings.
Politeness, like the concept of face it is built on offers a real insight about the ways in which
people interact and why. It opens the potential for studying concepts of face cross culturally. I
am reminded of a FTA common to the Bandi people in Liberia for whom the FTA “Look at
you.” is regarded as an extremely serious FTA and could lead to a fine. Interestingly this FTA is
off record, at least formally, because it requires an implication to arrive at the meaning of the
FTA. In fact, I am not completely certain what the implicature is, but I think it is something like,
9
A case can be made for the on-record strategy, because unlike the off-record strategy it can be said to be
non-manipulative. “Look, let me be straight with you - talk with you as a friend.. You really messed up this job.”
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 20
“Look at the fool you are making of yourself.” There are also indications that there may be
different weights according to the dimensions of positive and negative face (Li Qing, 2000).
Finally, following Bourdieu’s observation that Austin’s and Searle’s work with speech acts
might be even more insightful were the conditions of felicities be associated with the institution,
we note the same for face. That is, the weighting of face, may be more easily understood in the
context with specific institutions than with a general formula.
10. Narrative Structure.
William Labov, whom we encountered earlier in the formulation of sociolinguistics, has also
been an innovator in other areas of linguistics as well, including his contribution to narrative
structure. This development arose in part from Labov’s work with children in the inner city,
currently known as African Americans. Part of the ideology (see chapter xx) at that time was
concept called the culture of poverty (Bereitter and Engleman) who claimed that these children
spoke poorly and did poorly in school because this culture of poverty held them back. Labov, as
wee shall see in chapter yy, was able to demonstrate using his analysis of narrative structure that
the speech of these children was as well organized and articulate (if not more so) than their
suburban counterparts.
The Overall Structure of narrative
2. Abstract: Summary of the whole story at the beginning. Optional
3. Orientation: Identification of the time, place, persons and the activity or situation. (Can be at
the beginning or interspersed in the text.)
4. Complicating Action:
5. Evaluation: the means used by the narrator to indicate the point of the narrative why the
story is being told and what the narrator is getting at.
6. Result or resolution
7. Coda: Signaling that the narrative is finished. May also contain general observations or
show the effects of the events of the narrator. Bring the narrator and the audience back to the
point where they entered the narrative.
8.
This narrative structure is illustrated in the following new story.
Story Structure
Abstract
Orientation
Evaluation
US troops ambushed in Honduras
TEGUCIGALPA
UNITED STATES troops in Honduras were put on high alert after at least six
American soldiers were wounded, two seriously, in a suspected leftist guerrilla
ambush yesterday, United States officials said.
Six or seven soldiers were wounded when at least three men, believed to be leftist
guerrillas, used high-powered weapons in an ambush of bus carrying 28 passengers
20 kilometers north of the capital Tegucigalpa United States embassy spokesman
Terry Kneebone said.
The bus was carrying the soldiers from a pleasure trip at a beach on the Atlantic
Coast.
Time
Structure
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Complicating
Action
Resolution
Coda
Chapter 10, Page 21
“It was a surprise attack" Southern Command spokesman Captain Art Haubold
said in Panama City.
"The US forces did not return fire. They kept going to get out of the area as quickly
as possible."
A Teguicigalpa radio station said an unidentified caller said the leftist group
Morazanista Patriotic Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the attack. NZPA-Reuter
10. Interactional Analysis:
Deborah Tannen does “anthropologically oriented.. discourse analysis” and “sociolinguistics” at
Georgetown University. She traces her theoretical orientation to Robin Lakoff’s work on
(conversational style) and John Gumpers work on (interactional sociolinguistics) which
maintains that:
 roles are not given but are created in social interaction;
 context is not given but is constituted by talk and action;
 nothing that occurs in interaction is the sole doing of one party but rather is a “joint
production,” the result of the interaction of individuals’ ways of speaking...

linguistic features (such as interruption, volume of talk, indirectness, and so on) can never be
aligned on a one-to-one basis with interactional intentions or meanings, in the sense that a
word can be assigned a meaning. No language has meaning except by reference to how it is
“framed” (Bateson 1972, Goffman 1974) or contextualized (Becker 1979, 1984; Gumperz
1982a).
At the heart of Tannen’s work is the question dominance and power and its relationship to
differences in style that work to the disadvantage of members of groups that are stigmatized in
our society and to the advantage of those who have the power to enforce their interpretations.
Again, following Gumperz, she considers an important part of her work “to confront and
counteract the social inequality that results form negative stereotyping of minority cultural
groups.”p9 Because dominance and power are closely associated with issues of gender, Tannen
has conducted much of her research in that area and published both popular and professional
books on this topic because she argues that “What is required to effect change is an
understanding of the patterns of human behavior as they exist today, an appreciation of the
complexity of these patterns, and a humane respect for human beings”
She describes her methodology, derived from Gumpers, as beginning with the taping of
naturally occurring conversations, 2) then identifying segments in which trouble is evident, then
3) looking for culturally patterned differences in signaling meaning that could account for the
trouble. She will often playing the recording, or segments of it back to participants in order to
solicit their spontaneous interpretations and reactions, and also, perhaps later, soliciting their
responses to the researcher’s interpretations; and play segments of the interaction for other
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 22
members of the cultural groups represented by the speakers in order to discuss patterns of
interpretations. 6
One of the most exciting aspects of her work is this ethnological approach to discourse,
namely that of actually observing what is going on in encounters by people of different social
rank and power or of different cultural backgrounds. This methodology differs from pure
sociolinguistic research which looks for sociolinguistic variables but not their meaning and from
narrative structural analysis which looks for the structure of a text, for Tannen, analyzing a text is
to answer the question of what is really going on? For example, in analyzing systematic
differences in women’s and men’s characteristic styles (cf. You Just Don’t Understand) she
found that these styles often put women in a subordinate position in their interactions with men.
For example, she found that
 in lecturing/listening situations: men lecture, women listen;
 in conflict situations: women are inclined to avoid conflict which puts them at a
disadvantage;
 in conversations, men often end up interrupting women because “men who approach
conversation as a contest are likely to expend effort not to support the other’s talk but to lead
the conversation in another direction perhaps one in which they can take center stage by telling
a story or joke or displaying knowledge.
She is also famous for her analysis of a
thanksgiving dinner involving two
1. Topic: a) prefer personal topics, b) shift topics abruptly, c)
introduce topics without hesitance, d) persist if new topic is not
picked up, reintroduce it, repeatedly if necessary.
2. Genre: a) tell more stories, b) tell stories in rounds, c) internal
evaluation is preferred over external. Evaluation < Labov’s
Narrational analysis. Internal (in the story); external: stated
explicitly)
3. Pacing: a) faster rate of speech, b) inner-turn pauses avoided
(silence is regarded as lack of rapport), c) faster turn taking, d)
cooperative overlap and participatory listenership.
4. Expressive paralinguistics: a) expressive phonology, b) pitch
and amplitude shifts, c) marked voice quality, d) strategic
within-turn pauses.
different culture types, one from the
East Coast, and the other from the west
cost. She found that the discourse style
from the New York area is more intense
than the West Cost type (see sidebar).
While it may not be too surprising to
find that miscommunication was more
likely to occur among speakers using different discourse styles, she also found that discourse
features like interruptions and overlaps can be regarded as disruptive and rude by speakers of
one style (West Cost) can actually be seen as facilitating and friendly to speakers of another style
(East Coast).
11. Summary
Questions for Study and Review
The Consequences of Language: The relationship between Language and Communication?
Chapter 10, Page 23
1. The following folktale was told by Wofo Govina Otto on January 22, 1979 in Lome Togo
from Benin, and recorded by Zinta Contrad (19xx). As far as we know Mr. Otto has never heard
of CLS. Nevertheless, the story lends itself rather nicely to a structural analysis.
Heina, Leopard, and Goat
1.
Listen to the tale. (Let the talk come.)
Positive
politeness
Negative It
politeness
strategies:
2.
The tale strategies:
flew until it fell on Goat. (THE ONE WHO SAYS EEEEE)*
fell on
Hyena.
It fell
Leopard
(THAT'S
RIGHT!)
They were there, theyBewere
there until oneindirect
Notice, attend
to Hon
(his/her
interests,
wants,
needs, goods)
direct/conventionally
day
Goat married
GoatH)
came and took Leopard in Question,
marriage.
Exaggerate
(interest,
approval,Leopard.
sympathy with
hedge
3.
When Goat married Leopard, it was Goat who would go to the market to do the
Intensify trading.
interest to HWhen she returned from the market, she usually Be
pessimistic
brought back things for
Use ingroup
markers
Minimize the size of in~position on H
heridentity
husband.
4. agreement
Meanwhile, a friend craved Goat. Leopard's friend is Hyena.
Hyena craved Goat
Seek
Give deference
and
wanted
to
kill
her.
In
spite
of
Hyena's
craving
for
goat
meat,
Hyena never
Avoid disagreement
Apologize
could find a way to get any. Hyena thought a while, wondered how he was going to
Presuppose/raise/assert
common ground
Impersonalize S and H:' avoid
get Goat.
Joke
pronouns
and place.
'you'
5.
He went out, came back, and told Leopard he had seen Goat's
shit '1'
some
shit
very tasty.
He <Hyena>
wondered
how
hea take
...
Assert or Goat's
presuppose
S'swas
knowledge
of and concern
for H's
wants aloud ...
State
thecould
FTA as
general
rule
how he take Goat's shit from her stomach? Leopard asked. "Really?" Hyena said,
Offer, promise
Nominalize
"Yes!" Leopard said he <Hyena> was lying. Hyena said it was true, he saw it
Be optimistic
Go doubt
on record
incurring a debt, or as
himself. Goat's shit is very tasty. Why did he <Leopard>
himas<Hyena>?
(LEOPARD
ALREADY
Include both
S and HHAS
in the
activityBEEN TRICKED HYENA!) That's right. not indebting H
6. (or ask
Hyena
out and returned ... went out and returned after buying tiger nuts ...
Give
for)went
reasons
(THAT'S IT) the black nuts. He brought the black tiger nuts and gave them to
Assume or
assert reciprocity
Leopard
to eat. (TO EAT AND SEE FOR HIMSELF) Leopard ate the nuts and discovered
Give giftshow
to Hgood
(goods,
sympathy,
cooperation)
they
tasted.understanding,
Leopard said,
"Ooooooh! Did I have these things here all
this time and not know it? Well, okay we'll see." (LEOPARD ATE THE TIGER NUTS
THINKING HE WAS EATING THE GOAT'S SHIT) Leopard said he was ready to eat Goat's
shit. (LEOPARD ATE THE TIGER NUTS.) Leopard ate the tiger nuts.
Off-record
7.
Nowstrategies:
then, soon afterward, Hyena returned to Leopard, asking him what they could
do to get more nuts. Leopard asked, what did he usually do to make the shit so
Those violating
conversational
see
tasty? Grice's
Hyena told
him to get maxims,
a club ...
a Chapter
big club 3~
... a very big club. The
first of
nut
he hits will notViolate
be tasty.
second one won't Violate
be tasty
either.
It's
Violate maxim
Relevance
maxim The
of Quality
maxim
of Manner
the third one that will beUnderstate
tasty ... and the fourth one ...Be(THE
THIRD ONE WILL
Give hints/clues
ambiguous
KILL HER)!) Yes, that's the tasty one. So, Leopard went to carve a club - he
Give association
went toclues
carve a club. He Overstate
carved a hardwood club; he carvedBeitvague
very well with a
Presuppose
Use tautologies
Over~generalize
good handle on it.
8.
In the meantime, while Goat
at the market, her childrenDisplace
overheard
Usewas
contradictions
H Hyena and
Leopard conversing. Goat's children were in the house
Be ironic
Be incomplete; use ellipsis
(LISTENING) listening to the conversation. They heard what was being said. (WELL, IS IT
UseBAD
metaphors
NOT FROM CHILDREN YOU NORMALLY HEAR
NEWS?) It's from children alright. (RIGHT!)
The children got up, left their father
in a hurry
prrrr1 and went to tell their mother at
Use rhetorical
questions
the market (GOAT), Goat who was at the market. Goat asked whether indeed, this was all
true. Oh! Goat headed back but stopped to buy honey - buy honey. ... She poured it in
a calabash, put the calabash on her head, and returned home.
9.
When
she arrived, her husband greeted her, saying "Agoo!" (HE WELCOMED HER.) He
Suggested
Readings
welcomed her and she responded, "Yoooo." She asked him to help her remove the
load from her head. Her husband, Leopard, helped her unload, but while he was
helping her, the woman <Goat> shook the container and poured the contents on him
Erving Goffman
On Face-Work: An analysis of Ritual Social Interaction. Goffman, Interaction
- all over him. He asked, what was it she poured on him? She told him not to
worry.onIt
was somthing
very good.1967
She told him to lick it and see. He licked
Ritual: Essays
Face-to
face Behavior.
it and found it very tasty. He asked what it was. She said it was Hyena's
urine. (OH! IT'S ALL OVER' <laughter> HE' GOING TO KILL HYENA NOW!)
10.
Yes indeed! (OH!) She said it was Hyena's urine. He asked whether it was true
that it's Hyena's urine? She said, "Yes indeed! Isn't it sweet?" She said she
bought it as she was coming home from the market. He said, "Oh well, if Hyena's
urine tastes this good, all is well."
11.
Hyena hadn't arrived yet. He had gone home to prepare (FOR GOAT) ... for Goat
herself. Leopard said to Goat. "Have you heard what Hyena said about you? He
brought her some of the tiger nuts, what remained of them.
12.
(THAT WAS GOAT'S SHIT!) Yes, her shit! And if he hit her, more shit would come
out! She said, "is that so? Nonetheless, it is Hyena's urine that is sweeter
than my shit." Goat and Leopard then conspired against Hyena (THEY WERE
CONSPIRING AGAINST HYENA U-U-U-U-U).
13.
They were talking when Hyena arrived. Hyena sat down and chatted for awhile.
Leopard went behind Hyena - and then said yudi! (AI!) They started to beat
Hyena. Goat lashed at him - she lashed at him! Urine was running out of his
bottom while Leopard licked it, saying "It's not sweet!" Goat said, "Just
continue. It'll get sweet."
14.
Goat said it was not enough yet. They beat Hyena until he was dead
kranananananananana! Finally, Hyena was dead. They took Hyena, singed his hair,
cooked him and ate him.
15.
That is why they say, in this world (DON'T SEEK EVIL FOR YOUR BROTHER ...) don't
seek evil for your brother, just do things your own way and be mindful of what
goes on around you. For if you wish evil on your friend, you will meet his end.