The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Language Diversity and Social Action: A Third Locus of Linguistic Relativity
Open accessAbstract
The classic version of the linguistic relativity principle, formulated by Boas and developed especially in the work of Whorf, suggests that the particular lexicogrammatical patterns of a given language can influence the thought of its speakers. A second version of the argument emerged in the 1970s and shifted the focus to the indexical aspect of language: any given language includes a particular set of indexical signs, and these essentially shape the contexts produced in speaking that language. In this article, we propose a third locus of linguistic relativity. Our argument is based on recent work in conversation analysis that has shown how the resources of a given language provide the tools for accomplishing basic actions in interaction. To develop our argument, we consider the way in which the resources of three different languages (Caribbean English Creole, Finnish, and Lao) are deployed by speakers to agree with a prior assessment while at the same time claiming greater epistemic authority over the matter assessed. Our case study indicates that the language-specific tools used to accomplish this action (the lexicogrammatical resources) introduce collateral effects and in this way give the action a local spin or inflection.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Austin, J. L. (1975) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 · Cited by 21,496
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974) · Language · doi:10.2307/412243 · Cited by 11,350
Hutchins, E. (1995) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 · Cited by 10,801 · cited 1×
“However, research on the distributed nature of cognition calls this into question (see research described in Clark 2007; Goodwin 2000, 2003, 2006; Hutchins 1995, 2006; Lave 1988; Lave and Wenger 1991, inter alia, showing the ways in which thinking happens through artifacts/tools and configurations…”
BackgroundThe Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977) · Language · doi:10.2307/413107 · Cited by 5,150
Action and embodiment within situated human interaction
Goodwin, C. (2000) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00096-x · Cited by 3,073
Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension
Clark, A. (2008) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333213.001.0001 · Cited by 2,201
“Cultural” Concepts and the Language‐Culture Nexus
Silverstein, M. (2004) · Current Anthropology · doi:10.1086/423971 · Cited by 677 · cited 1×
“This is not the goal of Levinson’s book; as Hanks (2006) points out in his review, the lack of sustained ethnographic attention is reflective of the fact the book is not really directed to anthropology. colleagues (e.g., Silverstein 1976, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1987, 2003, 2004).”
BackgroundAgency: The Relation between Meaning, Power, and Knowledge
Kockelman, P. (2007) · Current Anthropology · doi:10.1086/512998 · Cited by 196
Cited by
Dialog as interpersonal synergy
Fusaroli, R., Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., & Tylén, K. (2014) · New Ideas in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.03.005 · Cited by 337
Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (2016) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12251 · Cited by 252
Enfield, N. J., & Sidnell, J. (2017) · doi:10.1017/9781139025928 · Cited by 90
Self-citationEdwards, T. (2014) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.005 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J.
- Venue
- Current Anthropology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2012-06
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 302-333
- ISSN
- 0011-3204 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5382
- OpenAlex
- W1898485322
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 122.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
