Formality and Informality in Communicative Events
Abstract
This paper examines the analytical utility of the concept of “formality” in social‐cultural anthropology, particularly the ethnography of communication. A survey of literature indicates that “formality” actually incorporates several distinct descriptive dimensions that do not necessarily correlate. Separating these dimensions facilitates the comparison of social occasions, viewed in terms of their communicational structure. The occasions compared here are political meetings among Wolof (Senegal), Mursi (Ethiopia), and Ilongots (Philippines). It is suggested that formality in communicative events can serve not only the force of tradition or the coercive power of a political establishment, but also creativity and change. [formality, political meetings, ethnography of communication, sociolinguistics, situational analysis]
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Irvine listed four further qualities of formality that appear cross-culturally valid: increased code structuring; code consistency; invocation of positional identities; and emergence of a central situational focus.
“Irvine listed four further qualities of formality that appear cross-culturally valid: increased code structuring; code consistency; the invocation of positional identities; and the emergence of a central situational focus”
From Studies in<i>dhāraṇī</i>literature II: Pragmatics of<i>dhāraṇī</i>s (2014) · cites this paper as Irvine 1979
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chin, J., Desai, S., Lin, S. (.-H., & Mejia, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637365 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Studies in<i>dhāraṇī</i>literature II: Pragmatics of<i>dhāraṇī</i>s
Davidson, R. M. (2014) · Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies · doi:10.1017/s0041977x13000943 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Irvine, J. T.
- Affiliations
- Brandeis University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Irvine, Judith T.
- ORCID
- Irvine, Judith T.
- Venue
- American Anthropologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1979-12
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 773-790
- ISSN
- 0002-7294 (ISSN-L)
- 1548-1433
- OpenAlex
- W2127488293
- Cited by
- 390
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 24.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Anthropologist (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Language and Culture
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Anthropological Studies and Insights
- Keywords
- formality, informality, political meetings, ethnography of communication, communicative events, Wolof, Mursi, tradition, political power, situation analysis
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
