Language and Political Economy Author(s): S. Gal Reviewed work(s): Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 18 (1989), pp.

345-367 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155896 . Accessed: 07/09/2012 11:51
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1989. 18:345-67 Copyright ? 1989 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

LANGUAGE AND POLITICAL ECONOMY

S. Gal
Departmentof Anthropology,RutgersUniversity, New Brunswick,New Jersey08903

INTRODUCTION
The increasing rapprochement two historically distinct approachesto the of analysis of culture was announcedin the 1981 special issue of the American Ethnologist: Symbolic and cognitive anthropologywere found to be complementary and converging, in part because of their central concern with language and the construction of meaning, and a shared reliance on the traditions of linguistic structuralism. In retrospect, the silences in these critical essays were as significant as their positive contributions-silences with respect to anotherset of affinities in the same intellectualfield. Missing from the critical overviews (though not from some of the empirical studies) was a recognition of an emerging concern with the symbolic, linguistic aspects of power, domination, and global political economy, reflecting a move as much by neo-Marxistscholars toward symbolism and discourse, as by symbolic anthropologiststowards questions of power (e.g. 8, 153, 154). Equally invisible was the parallel interestamong some studentsof language, culture, and cognition in the constructionof power and political hierarchyin everyday and ritual talk, and the linguistic as well as symbolic aspects of world-wide political economic processes (e.g. as in 15, 19, 70, 73, 137; also 51). Indeed, one of the goals set by Hymes in the early 1970s for the ethnographyof speaking was to understandthe "origins and foundations of inequality among speakers" (97:19; 95). Hymes noted the need to study apparentlydissimilarlinguistic processes such as "bilingualism,creolization, as linguistic nationalism, pidginization, [and] standardization" interrelated "within the history of European expansion and the emergence of a world 345 0084-6570/89/1015-0345$02.00

346

GAL

history"(96:80). As a result of these affinities, and a simultaneousreadingof recent European social theory, a conversation of sorts has emerged among language-orientedstudies-whether symbolic or sociolinguistic-through a common focus on economy, power, and domination. My aim in this essay is to point to a set of themes in currentanthropological and linguistic researchthat can be read as investigations of the links among language structure,languageuse, and political economy. Some of this work is explicitly inspiredby an arrayof (neo) Marxistconcepts, some is not. Much of it is in the tradition of a "socially constituted linguistics" (96) or of interpretativeapproaches, both grounded in ethnography and careful descriptions of local linguistic practices. This diverse work by no means constitutes a well-defined or fully self-conscious research area. (For recent reviews of related literaturesee 27, 29, 52, 100, 140.) Before turningto the themes, I outline briefly some of the intellectual sources of this research.

BACKGROUND
At the most abstractlevel, the currentconcern with language and political economy can be seen as yet anothermove in dismantlingstructuralism,that set of powerful and productiveconceptual oppositions for the study of language and culture that has often been attributedto Saussure but parts of which, in various guises, are considerablyolder in the Western intellectual tradition (41, 101, 177). For Saussure, the central linguistic opposition of languelparole was linked to a whole series of dichotomies, including social/ individual, synchrony/diachrony,conceptual/material,structure/agency.In each case Saussurearguedfor studyingthe systematicityof the first term:By strictly separatingthe linguistic sign from the materialworld, he emphasized the referentialfunction of language, its capacity to denote or representthe world. He drew attention to patternspresumed to hold for the entire social group, not individual variations; synchronic structures and not historical change or individual innovations. Although the projectof rethinkingthese foundationaloppositions and their pervasive intellectualeffects is now widespreadin social and literarytheory, I discuss these developments from a much narrowerperspective. One might well characterizethe last two decades of sociolinguistic researchas a series of challenges to the first two of these dichotomies, drawing on parallel but distinct linguistic traditions (70a, 96, 175). But both the separationof the linguistic sign from the material world and the relation of linguistic or sociolinguistic structureto individual and group strategies in that world are most relevant here, and also most problematic. Indeed, the conceptual/ material divide was, for a time, reproducedas a division of labor within anthropologyas a whole when "idealists"specializing in culturaland linguis-

LANGUAGE POLITICAL & ECONOMY

347

tic phenomenawere thoughtby some to have little in common with "materialists" investigating economy and ecology. Because these dichotomies, in the form of debates aboutbase and superstructure, structural determination versus human agency, and local versus global forces, have also troubledstudentsof political economy interested in cultural, symbolic, and ideological matters, they have offered a site for collaboration, mutual challenge, and synthesis (59, 157). Here, I would like to introduce two points of contact whose implications for substantive, historical problems are explored in detail in the next sections. 1. Two well-studied links between language and the material world are denotation and what has usually been called reflection, correlation, or indexicality. Studies of ethnoscience, worldview, and ideology rely on denotaof tion, while the demonstration a correlationamong speakers'social identity (class, gender, ethnicity), social situation, and linguistic behavior was an early contributionof sociolinguistics. Speakerswere sometimes describedas following rules for linguistic performancein the structured speech events that were early objects of analysis. But in general, sociolinguistics directedattention away from denotationto other functions of language. And the indexical view, as well as the notion of structuralrule, has long been the subject of controversy (70a). The fundamentalinsight of Austin, Kenneth Burke, and Jakobson-that speakingis an act-locates talk on a par with other activities, and not simply as a reflection or comment on them. Thus, the contextual surroundcame to be seen not only as a constrainton speaking, but also as, in part, produced by talk. Ethnomethodologists and conversational analysts arguedthat linguistic interaction,ratherthan pointing to some anteriorsocial world that it reflects, actually produces and thus constitutesthe social order. Ethnographiesof speaking have attemptedto unify structure/agencyalong with the materialand conceptual. The language of disputes (27) provides an excellent set of examples. Studies of disputes demonstratethe constitutive natureof talk, as the strategiesand intentionsof speakersshape the structure and outcome of events, even while the speakers are constrained by their relative power and status, and by rules of interaction,all of which may in turn be reshapedby successful strategies(see also 44, 134, 171). Thus talk is not just a reflection of social organization;talk is a practice that is one of social organization's central parts. This literature argues that, in maintaining or and changing local power relations, talk unites structure agency over time. As Irvine (101) has recently suggested, these views need not be mutuallyexclusive. Because language is irreduciblymultifunctional, with many kinds of (Peircian) sign relations, it can be seen as denotational, indexical of social structure, and simultaneously as constitutive of it (128). Yet the unity of talk and action, structure and agency, achieved by sociolinguistic studies does not yet locate linguistic practicesas partsof larger

348

GAL

systems of inequality, encompassing states as well as local communities. To do so, scholars have turnedto parallel attemptsin political economic studies to conceptualize the role of culturalpractices. The currentinterestin culture by anthropologistsworking on political economy was stimulated by a dissatisfaction, in the 1970s, with the abstractionand determinismof French structuralMarxism, dependency theory, and argumentsabout modes of production. A renewed interest in the role of human agency in the development of capitalism (most forcefully voiced by British historians)focused attention on questions of consciousness, culture, and language (77, 149). A somewhat similar critique from a more anthropological viewpoint was initiated by Bourdieu (22). Although the definition of language as "practicalconsciousness" has an impeccable pedigree in Marxist thought (121), most classical analyses had relegatedlanguage, along with othermental phenomenasuch as little more world-view, or ideology, to the realm of mere "superstructure," and than a distortedreflection of the more important determiningpolitical and especially economic processes of the "base."This image was firmly rejected by British Marxist culturalcritics and historians, especially Williams (177), who drew on the earlier work on language by Volosinov (172) and on Gramsci's notion of "culturalhegemony" to provide a more complex understandingof the relationbetween cultureand power in capitalism. Cultural hegemony, like Bourdieu's similarconcept of symbolic domination,attempts to explain how and why subordinategroups accept as legitimatethe power of the dominant, so that coercion is coupled with consent. As developed by subsequenttheorists, hegemony also implies the possibility of resistance, or subversive practices and contradictory consciousness among subordinate groups. Although problematicin several respects (1, 112), the notion of cultural hegemony has been useful in studies of language. If speech variationis seen as a cultural practice alongside others, then sociolinguistic evidence can be broughtto bear in theoreticalcontroversiesabout the workings of power and authority in the reproductionof capitalism. But authorized or hegemonic linguistic practicesare not simply forms, they also carryculturaldefinitionsof social life that serve the interests of dominant classes. Indeed, dominant groups are themselves shaped and constrainedby such conceptions. A set of kindred notions, proposed by otherwise very diverse theorists, point to this general idea. The capacity of language to denote, to representthe world, is accounts and not consideredtransparent innocent, as in many anthropological of worldview, but is fundamentallyimplicated in relations of domination. Whether the term is hegemony, symbolic domination (22), oppositional culture (177), subjugateddiscourse (55), or heteroglossia (10), the central of insight remains:Controlof the representations reality is not only a source of social power but thereforealso a likely locus of conflict and struggle. Thus,

LANGUAGE & POLITICALECONOMY

349

these notions help navigate between a radical distrust of language as conspiratorialdistortion and a relativist confidence in its neutrality. Scholars of language have suggested that resistanceto dominantrepresentations occurs in two ways: when devaluedlinguistic strategiesand genres are practiceddespite denigration, and when these devalued practicespropose or embody alternate models of the social world (102, 114, 179). 2. A quite different but complementaryintegrationof political economy with studies of language use and language structureinvolves the units of analysis and the sorts of social relations examined. Sociolinguistics made a radical break with structuralistlinguistics by studying ways of speaking within sociocultural contexts, rather than linguistic competence or a homogeneous language. The object of inquirywas the systematicdiversity of a speech communitythat sharedinterpretative norms, but not linguistic forms. Within sociolinguistics, local communitystudies are the basis for an essential comparative endeavor: Typologies have provided clarification of key concepts and indispensableevidence of human diversity (or universals) in ways of speaking. Furthermore,other kinds of comparativework, such as Gumperz's (70) seminal correlationof societal complexity with linguistic distance in the community's repertoire, suggested that linguistic variation is not independent of global economic processes. But the assumptionsaboutpolitical economy one adopts are crucial in such analyses. The concept of "speech community," as an analytic unit, brought with it the assumptionsof an anthropologythat, both in its politics and its poetics, isolated local populationsin time and space. Comparisonwas either typological or evolutionary. By now this model has received considerable criticism from anthropologists-inspired by the culturalhistory of Wolf and Mintz, by dependency and world-system theorists, and/or by Marxists of various stripes-for its inability to encompass the dynamic interrelationsof local populations with the larger political economic structuresof regions, states, and global capitalism. Ethnographicstudies within these frameworks have attemptedto understandthe role of culture in relations of dependency and in the "formationof anthropologicalsubjects at the intersectionof . . . global and local histories"(149:164). Similarly, recent sociolinguistic studies have explored the role of language in colonization, capitalist expansion, state-formation,class relations, and political economic dependence. Thus the units of study in the research reviewed below are less likely to be speech communities than, for instance, speakers in institutions who do not share interpretativerules; local populations of speakers viewed in relation to the policies or discourses of states; and contrastinggroups of speakers differentially located within a political economic region. The problem, then, is to mediate between the terms of yet another dichotomy: the (micro) study of face-to-face discourse strategies, and studies of macrohistorical processes; on

350

GAL

the one hand the relatively well-understood role of, say, conversational inferences or participantstructuresin interpersonalpower relations, and, on the other, the exercise of institutional power in which language is also a constitutive element (152).

LANGUAGE AND INEQUALITY

The social dialectological literature,especially Labov's (109) classic studies of New York phonological variables, has provided ample documentationfor the view that features of language are correlated with (they index) social stratification,includingclass, gender, and ethnic differences. A recentreview (100) showed thatmany of Labov's findings may be generalizedto otherparts of the world. The same forms that signal status often also signal situational style in non-Westernsocieties as well as Westernurbancenters, althoughthe principlesof stratification theirlinguistic markersare diverse. The review and also stressed the importantpoint that linguistic correlatesof social stratification are often not arbitrary,but mediated by cultural conceptions. Speech styles reflect culturallyconstructedoppositions between categories of speakers, as has been suggested for gender and statusin several societies (reviewed in 20, 64, 78) and for class in New York (136). Yet even with these refinements, the correlationalapproach,thoughindispensable,cannotexplain some of its best-known findings: Variantsused most frequentlyby the lowermiddle or working class are stigmatized most drastically by working-class speakers themselves, who hypercorrectin formal situations, indicating considerable linguistic insecurity. I return to these results after describing the several approaches to language and social inequality that do not rely on correlations. In the 1960s and 1970s Bernstein posited an indirect yet causal relation between what he called codes and the productionof social inequality (17). Despite many revisions, his influentialdefinitions may be summarizedbriefly: Bernstein hypothesized a "restrictedcode" characteristicof the working class that relies greatly on situational context and implicit, local understandingsamong speakers. It is elliptical, formulaic, and relatively simple in syntactic structure,rarelydisplaying underlyinglogical relationsin surface code" was defined as more grammar.In contrast,the middle-class "elaborated independent of situation and of shared presuppositions, syntactically complex, and logically explicit. Class differences in family role relations (positional or person-centered)were posited as the causes of the linguistic differences. Otherscholarslinked the emergence of an elaboratedcode in language evolution to the rise of literacy. A considerableliteraturehas since emerged on this controversial issue, as part of the orality/literacydebate (31). The elaborated code was argued to be inherently more appropriateto school-

LANGUAGE & POLITICALECONOMY

351

ing, administration,and science because of its ties to literacy, its autonomy from the situation, and its explicit logic. The posited inability of workingclass speakersto express themselves in the elaboratedcode was hypothesized by some to produce working-class children's school failure and their relegation to the sorts of low-level jobs that requiredonly restrictedcodes. These formulationsinspiredattackand furtherresearch:Bernstein's notion of class was criticized as essentialist and static rather than relational (18). Linguistic analyses showed that samples of restricted code harbored no inherent logical defects that could account for school failure. Indeed, their telegraphic and elliptical quality was more easily explained by standard conversationalanalysis (65). Ratherthanlack of a code by a class of speakers, the issue was redefined as the relation of code choice to problem-solving strategy and social context. Especially importantwas the power imbalance between interviewersand minorityor working-classchildren (93, 103, 110). The restricted/elaborated dichotomy was unpacked, showing that it held a number of different oppositions (e.g. implicit/explicit, personal/impersonal, universal meanings/contextspecific meanings) that are analyticallyseparable and not always correlatedin other cultures (147). Even in the industrialized West, communicationamong scientists, for instance, is likely to rely heavily on sharedbackgroundknowledge, while conveying universalmeanings (97). The implicit/explicitdistinctionis a crucial one because it highlights different means of accessing background assumptions. Most importantly, all interpretationis fundamentallyreliant on context and participants'background knowledge; codes differ as to what is presupposedin each (70a). Thus, each code is better suited to different social contexts and expectations. But critics charged that this position ignored the implications of code use for access to social privilege (94, 129). It was clear that, however well adaptedto theirown social environments,restrictedcode and the subordinatelanguages, dialects, and ways of speakingthathad been groupedwith it were not equally effective in the school context and for the goals set by schools. At the same time, ethnographicstudies of interactionin schools demonstratedthat, far from being a decontextualizedspace suited to an autonomous code, Western-style schools had strong pragmatic, linguistic, and interactionalexpectations and presuppositions.School discourse was found to have rigid, definable structures, including exercise of power by teachers through question-answer-evaluationsequences (30, 40, 124, 161). Given what were now seen as the complex communicative competences that all on childrenbroughtto school, researchconcentrated exploringthe differences between the children's means for making sense, based on the cultural and linguistic practices of their local communities, and the school's strikingly different communicative requirements (35, 36, 82, 142). Other research showed that school success and failure were created not simply by what

352

GAL

studentsbroughtto school, or failed to bring, but by institutionalprocesses of power and collusion visible in school materialsand in the micro-management of school interactions(122, 148). In contrast to Bernstein's approach, all of these studies conceptualize sociolinguistic skills as forms of access to valuable roles and resources differentially attainable through "gate-keeping" institutions such as the code" school. The link to class becomes clear when the notion of "elaborated and the practice of schooled literacy are themselves placed in historical and political economic context. Literacy in the modem era is not simply a technical skill but a socially embeddedpractice with a changing relationship to schooling, to culturalvalues, and to class interests (37). As to "elaborated code," Gouldner (68) has argued that the attributesassociated with it are centralvalues for the "new class" of professionals, technologists, and managers that has emerged in the last century to compete successfully with the traditionalentrepreneurial bourgeoisie for dominantposition in Westerncapitalist and later socialist societies. It is exactly on the basis of its own supposedly special and superior forms of talking and knowing-which it defines as decontextualized, autonomous, rational, and therefore universal and value-free-that this new class justifies its claims to power. (For other critiques of modem rationalitysee 76, 119.) Schools are not the only institutionsthat guardaccess to materialresources through verbal interactionjudged on what are only seemingly universalistic criteria.The work by Gumperzand his colleagues on discourse strategies(34, 36, 46, 71, 72, 85, 125, 156) focuses on generalcommunicativeprocesses as they operate in speech events such as job interviews, meetings of various kinds, counseling sessions, and examinationsin medical, legal, bureaucratic, research, and business institutions that pervade urbanized sectors of industrializedsocieties (see also 27, 32, 43, 50). In such events, communication frequently involves people who come from different cultural or class backgrounds.Thus, although they may share what is ordinarilymeant by a common language, they do not share the largely unconscious and automatic contextualizationcues evident in prosody, formulaicexpressions, and surface knowlsyntax. With such cues speakerssignal assumptionsaboutbackground structure,and the sequencingof informaedge, expectationsaboutparticipant are tion for argumentand persuasion. Misunderstandings heard by those in control of the institutions not as linguistic differences but as indications of personalqualities, and thus as objective groundsfor rejectionand devaluation of those attemptingaccess. This research suggests that communication strategies in institutions or organizations,besides providingaccess to resources, are centralto a historical process compellingly characterizedby Foucault (54). The speech events studied, along with the ubiquitousexaminationanalyzedby Foucault, arejust

LANGUAGE & POLITICALECONOMY

353

the sorts of "techniques" thathave become the generalizedand diffuse means of exercising power through judgment, categorization, surveillance, and documentationof individuals and populations. Foucault argues that they are associated with the rise of psychiatric, medical, bureaucratic, and penal institutionsrun by professionals. Going further,detailed sociolinguistic analyses provide a way of graspinghow generalfeaturesof talk-syntax, pragmatics, sequencing, even silence-change as they are turnedto the purposes of institutions. Unlike Foucault, such studies often focus on human agency and provide an understandingof the interactionalprocesses by which evaluation and surveillance are accomplished. They show, as well, how institutions constrainthe options of speakers, and how speakersuse the microstructures of interactionto reproduce,and on occasion transform,not only the bureaucratic institutions,but also theirown often stigmatizedsocial identities(34, 72, 125, 130). Because linguistic practices provide access to material resources, they become resources in their own right. In studies of local-level politics, ethnographershave long noted the importanceof oratoryand verbal skill in the acquisition of power (e.g. in Oceania: 19, 134, 147, 152). Special kinds of verbal skills form central components in many professions in advanced capitalism as well. In fact, linguistic practices, for instance in school, are often the forms of access to othervaluablelinguistic practices, such as literacy (130). Languagemay also constitutea resourcein a more narrowlyeconomic sense as well, when linguistic practices or speech acts (e.g. condolences on a greeting card) are produced and sold as commodities (101, 139, 155). Bourdieu has provided a systematic extension of this general approachin of his reinterpretation sociolinguistic evidence. Not simply an analogy or homology of language and economy (150), Bourdieu's theory suggests that linguistic practices are a form of capital-symbolic capital-that is a constitutive partof political economy, convertibleto economic and social capital (21, 23, 24). The value of a linguistic variety, its standing in a "linguistic market,"depends on its ability to give access to desired positions in the labor market, which ability derives, in turn, largely from its legitimationby formal institutionssuch as a school system supportedby the state. Although control of this legitimated prestige variety is differentially distributedin stratified societies, even those who do not control the legitimated variety accept its authority, its correctness, its power to persuade, and its right to be obeyed. This acceptance is what Bourdieu calls symbolic domination, a form of ''unconsciously inculcated"consent by subordinateclasses and groups to the legitimacy of those in power. Thus, Bourdieu agrees that linguistic forms have no power in themselves, they only reflect the power of the groups they index. But he adds that the educational system succeeds in legitimating a particularlinguistic variantexactly by denying this, by creatinga misrecogni-

354

GAL

tion of the variant's imposition, presentingit instead as an inherentlybetter form. The linguistic insecurity of working-class and minority speakers and their hypercorrectionare the results of symbolic domination. The power of Bourdieu's analysis comes in partfrom its ability to integrate in sociolinguistic evidence with his largertheoryof social reproduction a class society. However, Woolard(179) has arguedthatstudies of populationsusing nonstandard variants and minority languages reveal flaws in Bourdieu's formulation. They have all shown that choice among these forms signals social relations between speakersas defined by the opposing values of status and solidarity (25, 60, 71, 91, 131, 180). Despite the authorityof dominant forms, local social networksuse materialand emotional sanctionsto exercise strong controls on speakers, constrainingthem to symbolically demonstrate local solidarity by maintaining the local linguistic variants. Thus, the sociolinguistic evidence argues for a less totalizing conception of societal reproductionthan Bourdieu's view, one that emphasizes the active, though often self-defeating, resistanceof subordinate groupsthroughsolidarity-based linguistic practices. Indeed, it may also be useful to reinterpret syntactic the complexity of Bernsteinian codes in these terms. Flemish working-class speakers used less complex syntactic structuresin interviews with a stranger from a nearby university than when talking among themselves (168). Thus, simplification is not a result of cognitive deficits, still less of shared background knowledge with the interviewer. It can be read as resistance to the values associated with that fine example of the "new class," the university researcher. Otherfindings also argue againstBourdieu'sview that consensus aboutthe legitimacy of dominant linguistic variantsis common, and school-based. A single language or variety has never been universally accepted as the authorized form in various parts of Great Britain (132), and in states of the Europeanperipheryand the ThirdWorldthe situationis even more problematic (e.g. 39, 61). Nor does Bourdieu consider that even in Europe, the of reproduction dominationmay hinge as much on the very heterogeneityand of fragmentation nonstandard practices, and theirconsequentinabilityto unite against a dominantpractice, as simply on symbolic domination (164). Yet Bourdieu's notion that a standardgains authoritythroughmisrecognition is important.In this light, linguistic prescriptivism,ideas about literacy, and the writing of grammarsand dictionariesbecome especially interesting. First, such explicit linguistic ideologies affect linguistic structure-not always directly, but as Silverstein has argued, throughmore tacit assumptionsabout the natureof language and in tandem with internallinguistic processes (100, 108, 132, 158-160). Second, this raises the importanthistorical question of how some discursive practices or ways of speaking become privileged;how, if at all, one among several linguistic ideologies comes to be inscribed in

LANGUAGE POLITICAL & ECONOMY

355

institutions. In 19th centuryEngland, radical, propertylessopponents of the state considered their own attempts to write grammarsand adopt Latinate forms an "act of class warfare"(162:25). Indeed, Parliamentsuccessfully rejectedpetitions for universalsuffrageon the basis of their "rough" linguistic style. Thus, terms for judging language-its vulgarity, complexity, elegance, mannerliness, roughness-certainly constituted a cultural system, but one forged in political conflict (162). Similarly, the Quakers' convictions about proper language in an earlier period constituted not only religious but also political protest (13). The deeply held conceptions that mediate between identity and speech deserve attentionnot only as culturalconstructions,but also as part of political struggles (159, 182).

LANGUAGE, NATIONALISM, COLONIALISM

The creation and imposition of standardlanguages is related not only to inequality but also, as a more traditional approach has stressed, to the construction of national identity. The mass of literatureon ethnicity and nationalismhas often includedlanguage as one of its subjects, in partbecause of 18th century European theories positing the desirable, indeed inherent, primordialunity of language, nation, and state. In contrast, within sociolinguistics, cross-culturalevidence, especially from small-scale, non-European view. The exploration societies, has led to a radicalcritiqueof this Herderian of the many possible relationshipsbetween social and linguistic boundaries has been a central research problem (e.g. 58, 87, 98, 126). In an influential attempt to rethink the language/nationalismquestion in historical and global terms, Anderson (5) has rejected both the traditional Herderian view and more recent theories positing that symbols such as language are epiphenomena,manipulatedby elites who are in competitionto form nation-states and to exploit economically (or develop and integrate) regions over which they hold political control. Relations among elites and between elites and masses are central for Anderson, too, but he locates the link between language and nation not in the sharingof a language per se but ratherin the unifying effects of print. Nationalistconsciousness is the sharing of an "imagined community" created in local newspapers, novels, and through local ways of speaking. Striking examples of "imaginedcommunities," and the similar notions of invented traditionand "amnesiaof genesis" (23), emerge from recent social histories of languages and ways of speaking, even if they are writtenfrom quite differentpoints of view (e.g. 4, 39, 53, 81, 104, 111, 113, 135, 173, 176; bibliographyin 29). These histories can be read as narrativesof a language group searching for a state, or of a state searching for national identity through linguistic unity. Some document the historical situations in which nation-states function with multiple official

356

GAL

languages. A recurrent theme is the way official languages are legitimatedby veiling the conflictual historical processes that created them. In the more complex processes of ThirdWorldsituations,colonial and local languagesare among the symbolic materials out of which national identities are created. factors in languageplanningand standardization Linguistic and attitudinal are importantresearchtopics. But currentefforts at language planningmust also be seen as a form of political conflict in which sociolinguistic surveys and the growing scholarly literatureon language planning can be valuable weapons, both for separatistgroups and for the centralizing state (111, 167). The historical ironies of the French case, a state acquiringa language, are well documented and instructive:In the decades after the Revolution what was being called the revolutionary"language of the people" was in fact, a foreign language for well over half of those living within the state's territory; later the "language of liberty and equality" was imposed on most of the population, sometimes with considerable brutality. While replacing the stigmatized dialects and provincial languages, French itself was simultaneously differentiatinginto class varieties supportedby educationalstratification-in fact the model of Bourdieu's increasingly integratedlinguistic market. Nineteenth century French writers and government officials explicitly equatedthe Breton, Occitan, and Basque-speakingprovinceswith the African colonies of France, all of which had to be conqueredand civilized with the "languageof reason"(3, 23, 88, 174). These culturalconstructsand historical details are, of course, peculiarto the Frenchsituation;but they draw attention to the following two general points: First, the characteristicform of linguistic change in the modern era has been the coming together of languages, or rather their speakers, not only geographically(throughnew means of travel and communication)but within political economic systems of dependency and inequality. The dispersion of populations and the peopling of the world, which are modeled in the genetic theory of language change, have long been replaced by other large-scale historical processes such as colonization, state and class formation, the expansion of capitalism, and transnationallabor migration (91, 95). Second, the linguistic aspects of these processes have, in many cases, changed a relatively egalitarian linguistic diversity, based on small-scale languages whose speakers believe their own language to be superior, into stratifieddiversity:Local languages are abandonedor subordinated "world to become differentilanguages"in diglossic relations;newly adoptedstandards ated into class-stratifiedvarieties and ways of speaking (see above); world languages develop divergent forms among the elites of former colonies. Indeed, entirely new languages-pidgins, creoles, or other syncreticcodesare formed and often stigmatized, as speakersof differentlanguages interact and form new classes in various colonial and neocolonial urbancenters and institutions. The linguistic aspects of some of these processes, such as

LANGUAGE & POLITICALECONOMY

357

pidginization, creolization, and bilingualism, have large literaturesof their own (reviewed in 6, 45, 49, 133). Here I focus on recent studies that explicitly examine the culturallymediated relationshipbetween linguistic or interactionaldetail and political economic developments. It is in such integrative studies that micro and macro perspectives are combined and the unit of analysis is often much broaderthan a single speech community. For example, Sankoff (152) showed thatin New Guineathe shift from a relatively egalitarianbilingualismto linguistic and social stratification occurredas a result of colonial contact. The superposedpidgin language, Tok Pisin, itself emerged at thattime as a languageof commandin coastal colonial institutions, and later profoundly affected the forms of interactionin inland villages. But in a familiarirony, Tok Pisin is now heardby its speakersas a unifying national symbol. Otherrecent studies of bilingualism and language shift have examined the interactionof local practices and histories with the policies of states whose actions are constrainedby their positions in regional and world economic systems (42, 84, 90, 92, 180, 183). Comparisonshave also been framedregionally. For example, my study of three bilingual populationsin Europesuggested that their significantlydifferent code-switching practiceswere symbolic responsesto theirdifferingpolitirelations cal economic positions in the long-standingsystem of core-periphery on the Europeancontinent (61; see also 26, 89). Sociolinguistic studies can provide subtle evidence of local consciousness that challenges political economic theories. At the same time, viewing ways of speaking as part of speakers' responses to macrohistoricalprocesses provides new avenues for understandinglinguistic differentiationand language contact. Considerablymore is known aboutpurely linguistic constraintson borroweffects, linguistic convergence, and other contactphenomena ing, substratum than abouttheir social aspects, despite the indispensablefoundationsprovided by the work of Ferguson, Gumperz, Haugen, and Weinreich. Yet social theories are essential because there is evidence that the linguistic constraints hypothesizedthus far can be overriddenby social pressures(80, 163). Useful here is the notion that not only code-switching and language choice, but grammaticalprocesses as well can be interpretedas symbolic expressions of identity or relations of domination and thus as constitutive parts of political economic relations. In effect, this suggests a socio-symbolic approach to language contact. Current research highlights a number of apparently widespread sociosymbolic processes (181): In some cases, minoritybilingual speakersinitiate differentiating but self-distorting linguistic changes that serve to more obviously mark their own language as distinct from the dominant one. Another kind of symbolic response is instancedby stress shift in Mexicano, Mexicaused as a way of nativizing Spanishborrowingsto producea "purer" no that, according to local linguistic ideology, has increased value in some

358

GAL

social circumstances (92). Still another kind of response is the defensive elaboration of honorifics and high registers exactly as a dominant power attempts to impose its own language for high functions (4, 91). These and other examples point to the existence of symbolicallydrivenlinguistic creativity, even in obsolescent languages. They also show the subversivereworking of dominantlinguistic forms by subordinategroups; in short, the forging of new forms, and identities, out of the alreadysymbolically weighted linguistic materialsat hand (42, 63, 87, 127). In a series of studies, Hill & Hill (89-92) have developed this approach, integratinga dependency theory of political economy with a symbolic analysis of languagecontact in Mexico. In a region where peasantsand workersparticipate complex ways both in a reciprocityin based local economy and in the peripheralindustrialcapitalism of modem Mexico, their two languages are similarlyintertwined.There are materialand social reasons for speakers to conceptualize the languages as separate, but equally compelling symbolic reasons for what Hill & Hill characterizeas a "syncreticproject"in which linguistic elements from all partsof the grammars of both languages are combined and recombined, producingtexts markedby Bakhtinian heteroglossia. Historical studies of colonial linguistic contact have made comparable points about the construction of new and syncretic linguistic genres, especially in local political discourse (79, 145). Indeed, current research is attemptingto write the sociolinguistic history of colonial contact. Often the goal is to recover the kinds of social relations that gave rise to current languages or varieties: how much mutualintelligibility and bilingualism was demanded and what category of people became bilingual in given colonial situations. Out of these studies have emerged complex picturesof pre-contact linguistic diversity and linguistic hierarchy,for instancein the Inca and Aztec empires. Also important are the role of grammarwriters in restricting or creating contact between speakers;the effect on colonial language policy of conflicts among colonizers; and linguistic problemsin the metropole(48, 81, 83, 118, 146, 151). Similar insights into the intertwiningof local and global linguistic history are provided by the differing reactions of colonized populations to Western (and Arabic) literacy. The great success of colonizers in legitimating Western writing practices in some parts of the world contrasts with situationswhere literacy was adamantlyresisted or rejected as part of a principled native stance, grounded in local conceptions about the political power of oral traditions (47, 75, 123, 147).

GENRES AND IDEOLOGIES

In contrastto my focus thus far on linguistic form, I turnnow to several lines of research that emphasize the relation of political economy to the denotational function of language. One way of studying such relations is

LANGUAGE POLITICAL & ECONOMY

359

through a concept of ideology. These approaches implicitly draw on the Whorfian tradition in assuming that language is a "reality creating social practice" (56; 61), but they envision a struggle for definitions of reality between groups with different positions in a political economy. Ideology is thus defined not as a neutralsystem of ideas but ratheras the way in which meaning, and thus language, serves to sustain relations of domination(164, 172). One example is provided by the philosophical critique of language embedded in the influential writings of the FrankfurtSchool. For example, Marcuse saw language, especially in the mass media, as mystificationin the service of totalizing social systems such as capitalism. His analysis presents offical language as a vehicle of subordinationthat hypnotically "induces people to do, to buy, and to accept," disarming and absorbing attempts at protest, and preventingreadersfrom thinkingof alternativesto existing social reality (119:86). Habermas's (76) much more extended discussion of language in relation to a sociology of knowledge implicitly shares this pessimism. With Gricean logic (but for quite different purposes), Habermas "ideal speech situation"in comparisonto which we proposes a counterfactual can see that actualcommunicationin currentWesternsociety is systematically distorted and used to manipulate, threaten, and oppress. For Habermas, the possibility of open discussion without coercion or restrictionpromises a basis for reaching the kind of truth in social science that is based on the logic of argument, neither value-laden nor falsely claiming to be value-free. In its transcendental aims, Habermas'sproject, while touching on issues discussed here, diverges from the substantivestudy of language and political economy (97). However, there are more empirically oriented linguistic approachesthat take a similarlyOrwellianstance towardslanguage. Most often, they examine mass media texts about public events, looking at tense, modality, lexical choice, and transformational processes such as passivization, negation, and nominalization. They argue that because choices made by speakers and writers systematically distort the events they purportto describe, tending to favor ruling-class interests, readers are manipulatedand thereby controlled (56, 57, 106, 107, 129). Unlike those rooted in the FrankfurtSchool's tradition, most of the studies that view "language as ideology" leave the notions of ideology, class, and social controlundertheorized. Moreover, they sometimes seem to assume thatthereis an unproblematical realitythatit is the linguist's responsibility to reveal; but, as a means of social action and representation,language cannot be contrastedwith reality, since it partially constructs what is real in society (164). Indeed, this is precisely why it is importantto show the way differentchoices of syntax, lexicon, and sequencing produce differentperspectiveson events. Some ethnographically oriented discourse analyses also aim to do this (66). In contrastto the "language as

360

GAL

ideology" studies, however, they rightly focus more on the role of social of context in the production and interpretation communicative choices; yet they fail to explore the political implications. In the analysis of mass media, the two approaches have sometimes been integrated by critics of popular of culture. They analyze not just the linguistic or semiotic structure texts, but also the large organizationsthat produce them (155, 170). On the reception side, they have attemptedto study the context-boundinferences of consumers. Indeed, what seem on the basis of textual analyses to be distorting, debasing, or oppressing images are sometimes used by consumers in subversive ways (144). In anotherdirectionof research, several historicallyseparateapproachesin anthropology-interpretative, sociolinguistic-though somewhat different in their stance toward data, nevertheless all study the performance of oral genres. That polysemous term "discourse"unites these newer works (117). Often invoking Foucault, they emphasize the profound, if decentralized, of power exercised by dominantrepresentations reality. Many of these studies center on the analysis of gender, along with language and political economy. Some theorists, impressed with the totalizing effects of official discourse, have suggested that subordinate groups are silenced altogether,either literally unequippedto speak in certaincontexts (21) or voluble but unableto articulate the alternateviews that stem from theirdifferentstructural positions in society (7). Yet, in looking closely at the expressive genres-songs, speeches, poems, conversations-of working-class and minority speakers in core and peripheral capitalism (11, 16, 38, 115, 178), women in a wide range of societies (2, 64, 105, 120, 165), and local elites facing the early phases of capitalist penetration(69, 86, 145), ethnographershave found evidence of what they interpretas resistance or counter-hegemonicdiscourses. For example, in the linguistic details of songs and poems performedby women and powerless men, several researchershave found ideals aboutpersonalrelations that are antitheticalto the official views expressedby dominantmen (2, 165). It is the simultaneousattentionto linguistic structure,propositionalcontent, and context of performancethat, when placed in a political economic context, uncovers the ways groups formulatea voice in opposition, or reveals heteroglossia in a single text. It may be, as Bourdieuargues, that such opposition is of always subjectto the logic and standards the dominant,but it exists actively nonetheless. Many of the ethnographic studies suggest that the same institutions that legitimate the political economic domination of one class or create the space for the expression gender simultaneouslyand contradictorily of opposing discourses. Certainly, not all expressive genres embody opposition. Nevertheless, these studies suggest that many different kinds of dominated groups either openly challenge or subtly subvertdominantvalues and perspectivesthrough

LANGUAGE POLITICAL & ECONOMY

361

the aesthetics and performanceof oral genres. As in the parallel analysis of nonstandardlinguistic variants, the forms of expressive genres are often linked to cultural conceptions about the groups that perform them, conceptions that are themselves part of the contested discourse. One question raised by this work concerns the interactionaland historical processes by which dominant discourses are sustained. Another concerns the different levels of consent, accommodation, resistance, and opposition to dominant ideas and practices that the studies document. It would be important to investigate how these levels are relatedto the explicitness, directness, verbal articulateness,contexts of performance(public, private), and other sociolinguistic featuresof the genres thatappearto express them. New analyticaltools are emerging (concepts such as decenteringand recontextualizingdiscourse, or the notion of intertextuality) with which to analyze how speakersappropriate the words of others for their own purposes (10, 12, 14, 67). What is called dominantdiscourse is itself rarely monolithic, but rathera field of competition for power among elites. Studies framed in these terms draw on theoriesof rhetoric(28, 138, 141) and on semiotic tools from literary analysis and folklore. Several recent studies have analyzed nationalpolitical events. For example, they have linked the rhetoricalstructureof talk about nationalism, or the constructionof public controversies, to the political and economic context of the historical moment that the rhetoricboth constructs and changes (62, 74, 115, 116, 166, 182). A broaderissue emerges here: Is there a systematic relationshipbetween forms of public discourse (or public (99, 147) or silence) and ideals of leadership-e.g. egalitarian/hierarchical other principles of political economic organization? Finally, anthropologistshave become self-conscious about their own contributionsto dominantdiscourse. They have examined the linguistic/literary conventions by which the authority of ethnographictexts is created (33). Instead of realist ethnographies that subsume the voices of "informants" within that of the anthropologist,critics have called for new modes of text But productionthatare dialogic, heteroglossic, and multi-authored. more is at stake here than the conventions of ethnographicwriting. That ethnographies are co-productions is an importantpoint; but so is the understandingthat verbalencounter.Who can claim to speak for ethnographyis a power-charged other members of the group, and who remains silent, and what, among contested culturalmeanings, it is possible and strategicto say all depend on power relations within the society as well as the contexts of force and encounteritself is embedded economic dependencyin which the ethnographic (9, 105, 110, 143). Translation is another powerful technique, used by anthropologistsas well as missionaries and colonized people, to isolate and it recontextualizethe discourseof others. Like realistrepresentation, bears the and marknot only of the literaryskills of individualtranslators ethnographers,

362

GAL

but also of the institutionalized relations of power between speakers of different languages (9, 95). But these are only two instances-others include languagecensuses, and attitudesurveys-of the problematgrammar-writing, ic role of sociolinguistic and linguistic practicein the creationof linguistic and hence political and economic domination.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My thanks to Csaba Pleh for his helpful suggestions, and to Catherine Newling for bibliographicassistance. I also thank the many colleagues who kindly sent me pre-publicationmanuscripts.
Literature Cited
1. Abercrombie, N. S., Hill, S., Turner, B. S. 1981. The Dominant Ideology Thesis. London:George Allen & Unwin 2. Abu-Lughod, L. 1986. Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press 3. Achard, P. 1980. History and the politics of language in France:a review essay. Hist. WorkshopJ. 10:175-83 4. Anderson, B. 1966. The languages of Indonesianpolitics. Indonesia 1:89-116 5. Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso 6. Appel, R., Muysken, P. 1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold 7. Ardener, S. 1975. Perceiving Women. London: Malaby 8. Asad, T. 1979. Anthropology and the analysis of ideology. Man 14:607-27 9. Asad, T. 1986. The concept of cultural translationin British social anthropology. See Ref. 33, pp. 141-64 10. Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: Univ. Texas Press 11. Basso, K. H. 1979. Portraits of the "Whiteman":Linguistic Play and Cultural Symbols among the Western Apache. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 12. Bauman, R. 1982. Conceptions of folklore in the developmentof literarysemiotics. Semiotica 39(?/2):1-20 13. Bauman, R. 1983. Let Your Words Be Few: Symbolismof Speakingand Silence among 17th Century Quakers. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press 14. Bauman, R. 1987. The decentering of discourse. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc., 86th, Chicago 15. Bauman, R., Sherzer, J. 1974. Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press 16. Bennett, A. T., Pedraza, P. Jr. 1984. Discourse, consciousness and literacy in a Puerto Rican neighborhood. In Language and Power, ed. R. Kramarae,M. Shulz, W. M. O'Barr,pp. 243-59. Beverly Hills: Sage 17. Bernstein, B. 1975. Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. New York: Shocken 18. Bisseret, N. 1979. Education, Class Language and Ideology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul 19. Bloch, M. 1975. Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Societies. London: Academic 20. Borker, R. 1980. Anthropology: social and culturalperspectives. In Womenand Language in Literature and Society, ed. S. McConnell-Ginet,R. Borker, N. Furman, pp. 26-44. New York: Praeger 21. Bourdieu, P. 1977a. The economics of linguistic exchanges. Soc. Sci. Inf. 16:6:645-68 22. Bourdieu, P. 1977b. Outlineof a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 23. Bourdieu, P. 1982. Ce Que Parler Veut Dire. Paris: Fayard 24. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction:A Social Critiqueof the Judgmentof Taste. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv. Press 25. Brown, P., Levinson, S. 1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, ed. E. N. Goody, pp. 56-289. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press 26. Brenneis, D. 1987. Talk and transformation. Man 22:499-5 10 27. Brenneis, D. 1988. Language and disputing. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 17:22137

LANGUAGE & POLITICAL ECONOMY 28. Burke, K. 1950. A Rhetoricof Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall 29. Burke, P., Porter, R. 1987. The Social History of Language. Cambridge:Cambridge Univ. Press 30. Cazden, C. B., John, V. P., Hymes, D. 1972. Functions of Language in the Classroom. New York: Teachers College 31. Chafe, W., Tannen, D. 1987. The relation between written and spoken language. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 16:383407 32. Cicourel, A. 1985. Text and discourse. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 14:159-85 33. Clifford, J., Marcus, G. E., 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press 34. Collins, J. 1987. Conversation and settings. Disknowledge in bureaucratic course Process. 10:303-19 35. Collins, J. 1988. Hegemonic practice: literacy and standardlanguage in public education. Work.Pap. Proc. Cent. Psychosoc. Stud. 21:1-26 36. Cook-Gumperz, J. 1986. The Social Construction of Literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 37. Cook-Gumperz, J. 1986. Literacy and schooling: an unchangingequation?See Ref. 36, pp. 16-44 38. Coplan, D. B. 1987. Eloquent knowledge: Lesotho migrants' songs and the anthropology of,experience. Am. Ethnol. 14:383-422 39. Cooper, R. L. 1982. Language Spread: Studies in Diffusion and Social Change. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press 40. Coulthard,M. 1977. An Introductionto Discourse Analysis. London: Longmans 41. Coward, R., Ellis, J. 1977. Language and Materialism: Developments in Semiology and the Theoryof the Subject. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul 42. Dorian, N. C. 1989. InvestigatingObsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. London: Cambridge Univ. Press 43. Drew, P. 1985. Analyzing the use of language in courtroom interaction. See Ref. 169, Vol. 3, pp. 133-47 44. Duranti, A. 1988. Intentions, language and social action in a Samoancontext. J. Pragmat. 12:13-33 45. Edwards, J. 1985. Language, Society and Identity. London: Basil Blackwell 46. Erickson, F., Shultz, J. 1982. The Counselor as Gatekeeper: Social Interaction in Interviews. New York: Academic 47. Ewald, J. 1988. Speaking, writing and authority:explorations in and from the

363

48.

49. 50. 51. 52.

53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.

59. 60. 61. 62.

63. 64.

65. 66.

Kingdom of Taqali. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 30:199-223 Fabian, J. 1986. Language and Colonial Power: The Appropriationof Swahili in the Former Belgian Congo, 1880-1938. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press Fasold, R. 1984. The Sociolinguistics of Society. New York: Basil Blackwell Fisher, S., Todd, A. D. 1986. Discourse and Institutional Authority: Medicine, Education and Law. Norwood: Ablex Fishman, J. 1972. Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays. Rowley: Newbury House Fishman, J. 1985. Macrosociolinguistics and the sociology of language in the early 80s. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 11:11327 Fishman, J. 1986. Ideology, Society and Language: The Odysseyof Nathan Birnbaum. Ann Arbor: Karoma Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House Foucault, M. 1980. PowerlKnowledge. New York: Pantheon Fowler, R. 1985. Power. See Ref. 169, Vol. 4, pp. 61-82 Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., Trew, T. 1979. Language and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Frake, C. 0. 1980. The genesis of kinds of people in the Sulu archipelago. In Language and CulturalDescription: Essays by Charles 0. Frake, pp. 311-32. Stanford:Stanford Univ. Press Friedrich, P. 1989. Language, ideology and political economy. Am. Anthropol. 91:In press Gal, S. 1979. Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria. New York:Academic Gal, S. 1987. Codeswitching and consciousness in the European periphery. Am. Ethnol. 14:4:637-53 Gal, S. 1988. Bart6k's funeral: the representation of Europe in Hungary. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc., 87th, Phoenix Gal, S. 1989. Lexical innovation and loss: the use and value of restricted Hungarian. See Ref. 42. In press Gal, S. 1990. Between speech and silence: the problematics of research on language and gender. In Toward a New Anthropology of Gender, ed. M. diLeonardo. Berkeley: Univ. California Press Gazdar, G. 1979. Class, 'codes' and conversation. Linguistics 17:199-211 Giv6n, T. 1979. Syntax and Semantics: Discourse and Syntax, Vol. 12. New York: Academic

364

GAL
knowledge: discourse and ideological transformationamong the Shuar. Am. Ethnol. 15:216-38 Hewitt, R. 1986. White Talk, Black Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Higonnet, P. 1980. The politics of linguistic terrorismand grammaticalhegemony during the French Revolution. Soc. Hist. 5:1:41-69 Hill, J. H. 1983. Languagedeathin UtoAztecan. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 49:3:25876 Hill, J. H. 1985. Grammar consciousof ness and consciousness of grammar. Am. Ethnol. 12:725-37 Hill, J. H., Hill, K. C. 1980. Mixed grammar,purist grammarand language attitudesin modem Nahuatl. Lang. Soc. 9:321-48 Hill, J. H., Hill, K. C. 1986. Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of Syncretic Language in CentralMexico. Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press Hill, C., Varenne, H. 1981. Family language and education:the sociolinguistic model of restricted and elaborated codes. Soc. Sci. Inf. 20:187-228 Huspek, M. 1988. Language analysis and power: a review article. Semiotica 723/4):341-60 Hymes, D. 1961. Functions of speech: an evolutionaryapproach.In Anthropology and Education, ed. F. Gruber, pp. 55-83. Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics. Philadelphia:Univ. Pennsylvania Press Hymes, D. 1980. Speech and language: on the origins of inequality among speakers. In Language in Education: Ethnolinguistic Essays, ed. D. Hymes, pp. 19-61. Washington, DC: Cent. Appl. Linguist. Hymes, D. 1984. Linguisticproblemsin defining the concept of "tribe."In Language in Use, ed. J. Baugh, J. Sherzer, pp. 7-27. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall Irvine, J. T. 1979. Formality and informalityin communicativeevents. Am. Anthropol. 81:773-90 Irvine, J. T. 1985. Status and style in language. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 14: 557-81 Irvine, J. T. 1989. When talk isn't cheap: language and political economy. Am. Ethnol. 16:248-67 Jameson, F. 1981. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press Jewson, J., Sachs, J., Rohner, R. P.

67. Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press 68. Gouldner, A. 1979. The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class. New York: Oxford Univ. Press 69. Gray, C. 1986. The power of names, the power of images: language and domination in the Thai royal temple system. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc. 85th, Philadelphia 70. Gumperz, J. J. 1962. Types of linguistic communities. Anthropol. Linguist. 4: 28-40 70a. Gumperz, J. J. 1972. Introduction.See Ref. 73, pp. 1-25 71. Gumperz, J. J. 1982a. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 72. Gumperz, J. J. 1982b. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge:Cambridge Univ. Press 73. Gumperz,J. J., Hymes, D. 1972. Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Speaking. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston 74. Gusfield, J. R. 1981. The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Drivingand the Symbolic Order. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press 75. Guss, D. M. 1986. Keeping it oral: a Yekuana ethnology. Am. Ethnol. 13: 413-29 76. Habermas,J. 1979. Communication and the Evolutionof Society. Boston: Beacon 77. Hall, S. 1980. Culturalstudies: two paradigms. Media, Cult. Soc. 2:57-72 78. Halliday, M. 1976. Anti-languages.Am. Anthropol. 78:570-84 79. Hanks, W. 1987. Discourse genres in a theory of practice. Am. Ethnol. 14:66892 80. Heath, J. 1984. Language contact and languagechange. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 13:367-84 81. Heath, S. 1972. Telling Tongues: Language Policy in Mexico Colony to Nation. New York: Teachers College 82. Heath, S. 1983. Wayswith Words:Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 83. Heath, S., Laprade, R. 1982. Castilian colonization and indigenous languages: the cases of Quechua and Aymara. See Ref. 39, pp. 118-147 84. Heller, M. 1988. Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter 85. Heller, M., Freeman, S. 1987. First encounters:the role of communicationin the medical intake process. Discourse Process. 10:369-84 86. Hendricks, J. W. 1988. Power and

87. 88.

89. 90. 91.

92.

93.

94. 95.

96. 97.

98.

99. 100. 101. 102. 103.

LANGUAGE & POLITICALECONOMY

365

104. 105.

106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115.

116.

117. 118.

119. 120. 121. 122.

123.

of a text: oral culture, literacy and print 1981. The effect of narrativecontext on in early New Zealand. See Ref. 29, pp. verbal style of middle class and lower 161-98. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. class children. Lang. Soc. 10:201-16 Press Katriel, T. 1986. TalkingStraight:Dugri Speech in Israeli Sabra Culture. Cam- 124. Mehan, H. 1979. LearningLessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. bridge: CambridgeUniv. Press Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv. Press Keesing, R. 1985. Kwaio women speak: 125. Mehan, H. 1983. The role of language the micropolitics of autobiographyin a and the language of role in institutional Solomon Island society. Am. Anthropol. decision making. Lang. Soc. 12:18787:27-39 212 in Kress, G. 1985. Ideological structures 126. Merlan, F. 1981. Land, language and discourse. See Ref. 169, Vol. 4 pp. 27social identity in Aboriginal Australia. 42 Mankind 13:2:133-48 Kress, G., Hodge, D. 1979. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge and 127. Mertz, E. 1989. Sociolinguistic creativity: Cape Breton Gaelic's linguistic Kegan Paul "tip." See Ref. 42. In press Kroch, A. 1978. Toward a theory of 128. Mertz, E., Parmentier,R. 1985. Semiotsocial dialect variation. Lang. Soc. ic Mediation:Socioculturaland Psycho7: 17-36 logical Perspectives. New York: AcaLabov, W. 1972a. Sociolinguistic Patdemic terns. Philadelphia:Univ. Pennsylvania 129. Mey, J. 1985. Whose Language? A Press Study in LinguisticPragmatics. AmsterLabov, W. 1972b. Language in the Indam: John Benjamins ner City. Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsyl130. Michaels, S. 1986. Narrativepresentavania Press tions: an oral preparation for literacy Laitin, D. 1989. Linguisticrevival:poliwith first graders. See Ref. 36, pp. 94tics and culture in Catalonia. Comp. 116 Stud. Soc. Hist. 31:297-317 131. Milroy, L. 1980. Language and Social Lears, T. J. J. 1985. The concept of Networks. Baltimore: University Park cultural hegemony: problems and possi132. Milroy, J., Milroy, L. 1985. Authority bilities. Am. Hist. Rev. 85:567-93 in Language: Investigating Language Leith, D. 1983. A Social History of EnPresciption and Standardization. Longlish. London: Routledge and Kegan don: Routledge and Kegan Paul Paul Lim6n, J. 1983. Western Marxism and 133. Muhlhausler, P. 1986. Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. London: Basil folklore: a critical introduction.J. Am. Blackwell Folklore 85:567-93 Lim6n, J. 1986. Mexican speech play: 134. Myers, F., Brenneis, D. 1984. Dangerous Words:Language and Politics in the history and the psychological discourses Pacific. New York: New York Univ. of power. Presentedat Annu. Meet. Am. Press Anthropol.Assoc., 85th, Philadelphia Luong, H. V. 1988. Discursive practices 135. Niederhauser, E. 1977. A Nemzeti KeletMozgalmak Megujuldsi and power structure: person-referring Europdban. Budapest: Akademiai forms and sociopolitical struggles in co136. Nunberg, G. 1980. The speech of the lonial Vietnam. Am. Ethnol. 15:239-54 New York City upper class. In StanMacDonnell, D. 1986. Theories of Disdards and Dialects in English, ed. T. course. London: Basil Blackwell Shopen, J. M. Williams, pp. 150-74. Mannheim, B. 1984. Una naci6n accorCambridge, MA: Winthrop ralada: southern Peruvian Quechua language planning and politics in historical 137. O'Barr, M., O'Barr, J. 1976. Language and Politics. The Hague: Mouton perspective. Lang. Soc. 13:291-310 Marcuse, H. 1964. One-Dimensional 138. Paine, R. 1981. Politically Speaking: Cross-CulturalStudiesof Rhetoric. PhilMan. Boston: Beacon adelphia: ISHI Martin, E. 1987. The Woman in the 139. Papson, S. 1986. From symbolic exBody. Boston: Beacon change to bureaucratic discourse: the Marx, K., Engels, F. 1970. The German Hallmark greeting card. Theory Cult. Ideology, ed. C. J. Arthur. New York: Soc. 3:2:99-111 International 140. Parkin, D. 1984. Political language. McDermott, R., Roth, D. 1978. The soAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 13:345-65 cial organization of behavior: in141. Perelman, Ch., Lolbrechts-Tyteca, L. teractional approaches.Annu. Rev. An1968. The New Rhetoric. Notre Dame: thropol. 7:321-45 Univ. Notre Dame Press McKenzie, D. F. 1987. The sociology

366

GAL
Hofbauer, pp. 193-247. Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc. 159. Silverstein, M. 1985. Language and the culture of gender: at the intersectionof structure,usage and ideology. See Ref. 128, pp. 219-60 160. Silverstein, M. 1987. Monoglot "standard" in America. Work. Pap. Proc. Cent. Psychosoc. Stud. 13:1-24 161. Sinclair, J., Coulthard, M. 1975. Toward an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford Univ. Press 162. Smith, 0. 1984. The Politics of Language 1791-1819. Oxford: Clarendon 163. Thomason, S. G., Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press 164. Thompson, J. 1984. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press 165. Trawick, M. 1988. Spirits and voices in Tamil songs. Am. Ethnol. 15:193-215 166. Urban,G. 1986. Rhetoricof a war chief. Work. Pap. Proc. Cent. Psychosoc. Stud. 5:1-25 167. Urla, J. 1988. Ethnic protest and social planning:a look at Basque language revival. Cult. Anthropol. 3:379-94 168. Van den Broeck, J. 1977. Class differences in syntactic complexity in the Flemish town of Maaseik. Lang. Soc. 6:149-81 169. Van Dijk, T. A. 1985a. Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 1-4. New York: Academic 170. Van Dijk, T. A. 1985b. Discourse and Communication: New Approachesto the Analysis of Mass Media Discourse and Communication.Berlin: de Gruyter 171. Varenne, H. 1978. Culture as rhetoric: of patterningin the verbal interpretation interactionbetween teachers and administrators in an American high school. Am. Ethnol. 5:635-50 172. Volosinov, V. N. 1973. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York: Seminar 173. Wardhaugh, R. 1987. Languages in Competition. London: Basil Blackwell 174. Weber, E. 1976. Peasants into Frenchman. Stanford:Stanford Univ. Press 175. Weinreich, U., Labov, W., Herzog, M. 1968. Empiricalfoundationsfor a theory of language change. In Directions in Historical Linguistics, ed. W. Lehmann, Y. Malkiel, pp. 97-195. Austin: Univ. Texas Press 176. Williams, R. 1961. The Long Revolution. Westport:Greenwood 177. Williams, R. 1977. Marxismand Literature. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press

142. Philips, S. U. 1983. The Invisible Culture: Communicationin Classroom and Community the WarmSpringsIndian on Reservation. New York: Longmans. 143. Polier, N., Roseberry,W. 1989. Tristes tropes: Postmodern anthropologists encounter the other and discover themselves. Econ. Soc. 18:245-64 144. Radway, J. 1984. Reading the Romance: Women,Patriarchyand Popular Literature. Chapel Hill: Univ. North Carolina Press 145. Rafael, V. 1988. ContractingColonialism: Translationand Christian Conversion in Tagalog Society under Early Spanish Rule. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press 146. Rickford, J. 1986. Social contact and linguistic diffusion. Language 62:2: 245-90 147. Rosaldo, M. 1973. I have nothing to hide: the language of Ilongot oratory. Lang. Soc. 2:193-223 148. Rose, J. 1985. State and language:Peter Pan as written for the child. In Language, Gender and Childhood, ed. C. Steedman, C. Urwin, V. Walkerdine, pp. 88-112. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul 149. Roseberry,W. 1988. Political economy. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 17:161-85 150. Rossi-Landi, F. 1983. Language as Workand Trade:A Semiotic Homology for Linguistics and Economics. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey 151. Samarin, W. J. 1984. The linguistic world of field colonialism. Lang. Soc. 13:4:435-55 152. Sankoff, G. 1980. The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia:Univ. Pennsylvania Press 153. Sapir, J. D., Crocker, J. C. 1977. The Social Use of Metaphor: Essays on the Anthropologyof Rhetoric. Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press 154. Schneider, J. 1978. Peacocks and penguins: the political economy of European cloths and colors. Am. Ethnol. 5:413-47 155. Schudson, M. 1987. The validation of popularculture:sense and sentimentality in Academia. Crit. Stud. Mass Commun. 4:51-68 156. Scollon, R., Scollon, S. 1981. Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication.Norwood: Ablex 157. Silverman, D., Torode, B. 1980. The Material Word: Some Theories of Language and Its Limits. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul 158. Silverstein, M. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In The Elements, ed. P. R. Clyne, W. Hanks, C.

LANGUAGE & POLITICALECONOMY

178. Willis, P. 1977. Learning to Labour: How WorkingClass Kids Get Working Class Jobs. Westmead: Saxon House 179. Woolard, K. A. 1985. Language variation and cultural hegemony: toward an integration of sociolinguistic and social theory. Am. Ethnol. 12:738-48 180. Woolard, K. A. 1989a. Double Talk: Bilingualism and the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press

367

181. Woolard, K. A. 1989b. Language convergence and language death as social processes. See Ref. 42. In press 182. Woolard, K. A. 1989c. Sentences in the language prison; the rhetoricalstructuring of an American language policy debate. Am. Ethnol. 16:268-78 183. Wright, P. 1986. Language shift and the redefinitionof social boundariesamong the Carib of Belize. PhD thesis. City Univ. N.Y. Grad. Cent.