Non-Referential Indexicality

First, Second, and Higher Orders of

Non-Referential Indexicality

Seminar 2. Non-Referential Uses of Language

Tasks and Questions

1. Define the term “sign”. What is the essence of a hot debate about the nature of signs?

2. Analyze theories of signs by F. de Saussure and Ch. S. Peirce. What advantages and disadvantages of each theory can you name?

3. What is the essence of Ch. S. Peirce’s triadic mental or mind-like process?

4. What does Ch. S. Peirce mean by the “ground” of a sign?

5. Why is indexicality sometimes seen as an alternative way to understanding reference?

6. What are the three central trichotomies of sign elaborated by Ch. S. Peirce? Dwell on the most famous of them.

7. Explain the difference between indexical and referential meaning. Give examples.

Issues Discussed:

1. Non-referential indexicality

2. First, second, and higher orders of non-referential indexicality

3. Non-referential indexical phenomena

Non-referential indices or “pure” indices do not contribute to the semantico-referential value of a speech event yet “signal some particular value of one or more contextual variables” [9]. Non-referential indices encode certain metapragmatic elements of a speech event’s context through linguistic variations. The degree of variation in non-referential indices is considerable and serves to infuse the speech event with, at times, multiple levels of pragmatic “meaning” [8]. Of particular note are: sex/gender indices, deference indices (including the affinal taboo index), affect indices, as well as the phenomena of phonological hypercorrection and social identity indexicality.

In much of the research currently conducted upon various phenomena of non-referential indexicality, there is an increased interest in not only what is called first-order indexicality, but subsequent second-order as well as “higher-order” levels of indexical meaning. First-order indexicality can be defined as the first level of pragmatic meaning that is drawn from an utterance. For example, instances of deference indexicality such as the variation between informal “tu” and the more formal “vous” in French (see T/V deference indexes) indicate a speaker/addressee communicative relationship built upon the values of 'power' and 'solidarity' possessed by the interlocutors [2]. When a speaker addresses somebody using the V-form instead of the T-form, they index (via first-order indexicality) their understanding of the need for deference to the addressee. In other words, they perceive an incongruence between their level of ‘power’ and/or ‘solidarity’, and that of their interlocutor and employ a more formal way of addressing that person to suit the contextual constraints of the speech event.

Second-order indexicality is concerned with the connection between linguistic variables and the metapragmatic meanings that they encode. For example, a woman is walking down the street in Manhattan and she stops to ask somebody where a McDonalds is. They respond to her talking in a heavy “Brooklyn” accent. She notices this accent and considers a set of possible personal characteristics that might be indexed by it (such as the man’s intelligence, economic situation, and other non-linguistic aspects of his life). The power of language to encode these preconceived “stereotypes” based solely on accent is an example of second-order indexicality (representative of a more complex and subtle system of indexical form than that of first-order indexicality).

Michael Silverstein has also argued that indexical order can transcend levels such as second-order indexicality and discusses higher-order indexicality in terms of what he calls “oinoglossia” or "wine talk" [8].

Дата добавления: 2014-12-23