Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 24 - Linguistic anthropology and critical theory

  • from Part V - Interdisciplinary perspectives
  • Edited by N. J. Enfield, Paul Kockelman, Yale University, Connecticut, Jack Sidnell, University of Toronto
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology
    Published online:
    05 October 2014
    Print publication:
    11 September 2014, pp 603-625

  • Summary

    Speech-act theory's view of speech as social action at first inspired linguistic anthropologists, but later became a foil for defining their own approach to language. In subsequent decades the study of the poetic function was extended to a wider range of discursive practices, including forms of face-to-face conversation. Tannen was among the first to study systematically poetic performativity in conversational encounters. A recent attempt to address the performativity problem can be found in the stance literature. The poetic function involves a species of performativity that operates by means of emergent likenesses and differences among chunks of text. Verbal taboos appear as the apotheosis of a folk analysis of performativity wherein the pragmatic efficacy of discourse is felt to be localized in words and expressions. The indefeasibility of verbal taboos thus contrasts with the greater defeasibility of explicit performatives.