Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:26:24.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Talking about doing: lexicon and event1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Michael Agara
Michael Agara
Affiliation:
Narcotic Addiction Control Commission, New York City
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sociolinguists have not much attended to participants' terminology for events. For this, the usual ethnosemantic focus on relationships of inclusion within a taxonomic structure is insufficient. Stage-process relationships and case-grammar notions of agent, object, instrument and result are used to account for the conceptual structure encoded in a set of addict's argot terms. It is suggested that the addict's argot functions as a needed, standardized terminology, not just for concealment. (Ethnosemantics, cognitive anthropology, case grammar, generative semantics, argots.)

Type
Articles: Sources of structure in ethnographic semantics
Information
Language in Society , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , April 1974 , pp. 83 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abrahams, R. & Bauman, R. (1970). Sense and nonsense on St Vincent: speech behavior and decorum in a Caribbean community. AmA 73. 762–72.Google Scholar
Agar, M. (1973 a). Cognition and events. In Sanchez, M. and B. Blount (eds), Ritual, reality and innovation in language use (in preparation).Google Scholar
Agar, M. (1973 b). Ripping and running. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Burke, K. (1945). A grammar of motives. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Conklin, H. C. (1972). Folk taxonomy. New Haven: Yale University, Dept. of Anthropology.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. and Harms, R. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt. 1–90.Google Scholar
Fought, J. (1972 a). Review of Goffman 1971. LinS I. 266–71.Google Scholar
Frake, C. O. (1964 a). Notes on queries in ethnography. In Romney, A. K. and D'Andrade, R. G. (eds), Transcultural studies in cognition (AmA 66(3), Pt 2). Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. 132–45.Google Scholar
Frake, C. O. (1964 b). A structural description of Subanun religious behavior. In Goodenough, W. (ed), Explorations in cultural anthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill. 111–29.Google Scholar
Frake, C. O. (1972). Struck by speech. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (eds), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 109–29.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public; microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Language in social groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hammel, E. A. (ed.) (1955). Formal semantic analysis. (AmA 67 (5), Pt 2). Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction; toward ethnographies of communication. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (eds), The ethnography of communication. (AmA 66 (6), Pt 2). Washington D.C.: American Anthropological Society.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues 23 (2). 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (eds), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 35–71.Google Scholar
Metzger, D. & Williams, G. (1963). A formal ethnographic analysis of Tenejappa Ladino weddings. AmA 65. 1076–1101.Google Scholar
Sherzer, J. (1970). La parole chez les Abipone. L'Homme 10. 42–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturtevant, W. C. (1964). Studies in ethnoscience. In Romney, A. K. and D'Andrade, R. G. (eds), Transcultural studies in cognition. (AmA 66 (3), Pt z). Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. 99–131.Google Scholar
Tyler, S. A. (ed.) (1969). Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Werner, O. (in press). Some new developments in ethnosemantics. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed,), Current directions in linguistics, vol. 12. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar