Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T20:37:35.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the unity of types: Lao gambling, ethno-metapragmatics, and generic and specific modes of typification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2021

Charles H. P. Zuckerman Open the ORCID record for Charles H. P. Zuckerman [Opens in a new window]
Charles H. P. Zuckerman*
Affiliation:
The University of Sydney, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Charles H. P. Zuckerman, Department of Linguistics, Building A20, The University of Sydney, NSW2006Australiacharles.zuckerman@sydney.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Luang Prabang, Laos, pétanque players distinguish two types of gambling: ‘gambling for beer’ and ‘gambling for money’. They readily and vividly contrast these types in abstraction but are more circumspect about identifying actual games as instances of one kind or another. In this article, I trace how players use these types in two modes of typification—as generics and specifics—and articulate a new way to approach similar salient and ideologically weighty ‘ethno-metapragmatic terms’, which can appear messy and unwieldy. I argue that pulling apart these modes of typification clarifies how and why people use such terms for social action, and where anyone studying them—or the types that are thought to underly them—should begin. (Generic reference, specific reference, typification, social types, explicit/implicit, metapragmatics, linguistic anthropology, Laos)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 50 , Special Issue 4: The Generic , September 2021 , pp. 557 - 582
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

*

Kimberly Ang, Nick Enfield, Susan Gelman, Judith Irvine, Didem Ikizoglu, Webb Keane, Michael Lempert, Scott MacLochlainn, Bruce Mannheim, Janet McIntosh, Michael Prentice, Kamala Russell, Joshua Shapero, Michael Silverstein, Chelsie Yount-Andrè, and two anonymous reviewers all helped me think through various aspects of this article. Jack Sidnell and John Mathias both read and discussed several drafts. I thank them, as well as the editors and editorial staff at Language in Society, for their tremendous help. The research presented here was conducted with the support of a Wenner-Gren Dissertation Fieldwork Grant, a Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowship, and the University of Michigan. None of it would have been possible without the friendship, generosity, and patience of countless people in Luang Prabang, for which I am extremely grateful.

References

REFERENCES

Agha, Asif (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Agha, Asif (2015). Tropes of slang. Signs and Society 3(2):306–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret (1957). Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anscombe, Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret (1979). Under a description. Noûs 13(2):219–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret (2011). Human life, action and ethics: Essays by G. E. M. Anscombe. Ed. by Geach, Mary & Gormally, Luke. Exeter: Andrews UK Limited.Google Scholar
Bauman, Richard (2002). The ethnography of genre in a Mexican market: Form, function, variation. In Eckert, Penelope & Rickford, John (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation, 57–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Howard S. (2008). Outsiders. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Brenneis, Donald (1984). Grog and gossip in Bhatgaon: Style and substance in Fiji Indian conversation. American Ethnologist 11(3):487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn (2007). Accent, (ing) and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech 82(1):32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, James G. (1995). Gifts and commodities: Exchange and western capitalism since 1700. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat (1991). The origins of genericity. Linguistics 29(1):79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick, Hilary Parsons (2011). Making immigrants illegal in small-town USA. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 21:E35–E55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick, Hilary Parsons, & Wirtz, Kristina (2011). Racializing discourses: A special issue of Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 21:E2–E10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul (1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language & Social Interaction 31(3–4):295–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebretson, Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro (1994). From grammar to politics: Linguistic anthropology in a Western Samoan village. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. (2007). A grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. (2013). Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J., & Sidnell, Jack (2017). The concept of action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Grant (1990). Lao peasants under socialism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gal, Susan, & Irvine, Judith T. (2019). Signs of difference: Language and ideology in social life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold, & Sacks, Harvey (2005). On formal structures of practical actions. In Garfinkel, Harold (ed.), Ethnomethodological studies of work, 165–98. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Susan A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Susan A.; Coley, John D.; Rosengren;, Karl S. Hartman, Erin; Pappas, Athina; & Keil, Frank C. (1998). Beyond labeling: The role of maternal input in the acquisition of richly structured categories. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 63(1):1–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, Erving (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1979). Footing. In Goffman, Erving (ed.), Forms of talk, 124–59. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan; Gelman;, Susan A. & Mylander, Carolyn (2005). Expressing generic concepts with and without a language model. Cognition 96(2):109–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, Nelson (1972). Seven strictures on similarity. In Goodman, Nelson (ed.), Problems and projects, 437–47. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Hampton, James A. (2009). Stability in concepts and evaluating the truth of generic statements. In Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff: Concepts of generics and mass terms, 80–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harkness, Nicholas (2014). Songs of Seoul: An ethnography of voice and voicing in Christian South Korea. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
High, Holly (2014). Fields of desire: Poverty and policy in Laos. Singapore: NUS Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Jane H. (1995). The voices of Don Gabriel. In Tedlock, Dennis & Mannheim, Bruce (eds.), The dialogic emergence of culture, 97–147. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane H. (2008). The everyday language of white racism. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Jane H., & Hill, Kenneth C. (1986). Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of syncretic language in Central Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Hutton, Christopher (1990). Abstraction and instance: The type-token relation in linguistic theory. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith (1993). Insult and responsibility: Verbal abuse in a Wolof village. In Hill, Jane H. & Irvine, Judith (eds.), Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse, 105–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jayyusi, Lena (1984). Categorization and the moral order. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Keane, Webb (2011). Indexing voice: A morality tale. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 21(2):166–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koven, Michele (2016). Essentialization strategies in the storytellings of young Luso-descendant women in France: Narrative calibration, voicing, and scale. Language & Communication 46:19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred; Pelletier, Francis Jeffry; Carlson, Gregory N.; Meulen, Alice ter; Chierchia, Gennaro; & Link, Godehard (1995). Genericity: An introduction. In Carlson, Gregory N. & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (eds.), The generic book, 1–124. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lempert, Michael (2012a). Indirectness. In Paulston, Christina Bratt, Kiesling, Scott F., & Rangel, Elizabeth S. (eds.), The handbook of intercultural discourse and communication, 180–204. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lempert, Michael (2012b). Discipline and debate: The language of violence in a Tibetan Buddhist monastery. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lempert, Michael (2013). No ordinary ethics. Anthropological Theory 13(4):370–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, Sarah-Jane, & Lerner, Adam (2016). Generic generalizations. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Winter 2016. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Online: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/generics/; accessed June 29, 2020.Google Scholar
Lucy, John A. (1993). Metapragmatic presentationals: Reporting speech with quotatives in Yucatec Maya. In Lucy, John A. (ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics, 91–125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannheim, Bruce; Gelman, Susan A.; Escalante, Carmen; Huayhua, Margarita; & Puma, Rosalía (2010). A developmental analysis of generic nouns in Southern Peruvian Quechua. Language Learning and Development 7(1):1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathias, John (2019). Sticky ethics: Environmental activism and the limits of ethical freedom in Kerala, India. Anthropological Theory 20(3):253–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merlan, Francesca, & Rumsey, Alan (1991). Ku Waru: Language and segmentary politics in the Western Nebilyer Valley, Papua New Guinea. (Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language 10.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Meredith, & Gelman, Susan A. (2016). Generic reference is less marked than specific reference in children's gestures. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 40(1):65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ni, Yibin (1996). The interpretation of English noun phrases with particular regard to generic reference. London: University of London PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor (2012). Experiencing language. Anthropological Theory 12(2):142–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmentier, Richard J. (1985). Times of the signs: Modalities of history and levels of social structure in Belau. In Mertz, Elizabeth & Parmentier, Richard J. (eds.), Semiotic mediation: Sociocultural and psychological perspectives, 131–54. Orlando, FL: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (2009). Generics: A philosophical introduction. In Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff: Concepts of generics and mass terms, 3–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philips, Susan U. (1998). Language ideologies in institutions of power: A commentary. In Schieffelin, Bambi, Woolard, Kathryn A., & Kroskrity, Paul V. (eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory, 211–25. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pino, Marco (2020). Challenging generalisations: Leveraging the power of individuality in support group interactions. Loughborough University. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/2134/11953755.v1.Google Scholar
Pressman, Jon F. (1998). Classification and counter-classification of language on Saint Barthélemy. Language in Society 27(4):459–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1979). Philosophical papers, vol. 2: Mind, language and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reyes, Angela (2011). ‘Racist!’: Metapragmatic regimentation of racist discourse by Asian American youth. Discourse & Society 22(4):458–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor, & Mervis, Carolyn B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7(4):573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Daniel V. (1990). Language in the discourse of the emotions. In Lutz, Catherine A. & Abu-Lughod, Lila (eds.), Language and the politics of emotion, 162–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan (2014). Language and human sociality. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, Paul, & Sidnell, Jack (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology, 400–422. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2009). Prolegomena to the analysis of action(s) in talk-in-interaction. Paper presented at the LISO, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack (2017). Action in interaction is conduct under a description. Language in Society 46(3):1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, Keith & Selby, H. A. (ed.), Meaning in anthropology, 11–56. Santa Fe: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1981) The limits of awareness. Sociolinguistic Working Paper 84.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In Lucy, John A. (ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics, 33–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23(3/4):193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (2005). Axes of evals: Token versus type interdiscursivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15:6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (2010). ‘Direct’ and ‘indirect’ communicative acts in semiotic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 42(2):337–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (2014). Denotation and the pragmatics of language. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, Paul, & Sidnell, Jack (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology, 128–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth (2006). On ethnomethodology, feminism, and the analysis of categorial reference to gender in talk-in-interaction. The Sociological Review 54(3):467–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tardif, Twila; Gelman, Susan A.; Fu, Xiaolan; & Zhu, Liqi (2012). Acquisition of generic noun phrases in Chinese: Learning about lions without an ‘-s’. Journal of Child Language 39(1):130–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Gregory A. (2014). Labeling in interactional practice: Applying labeling theory to interactions and interactional analysis to labeling. Symbolic Interaction 37(4):458–82.Google Scholar
Urban, Greg, & Silverstein, Michael (eds.) (1996). Natural histories of discourse. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Waugh, Linda R. (1982). Marked and unmarked: A choice between unequals in semiotic structure. Semiotica 38:299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzel, Linda (2018). Types and tokens. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Online: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/types-tokens/.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A., & Lerner, Gene H. (2020). Referring to somebody: Generic person reference as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics 161:46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (2009). Philosophical investigations. Trans. by Anscombe, G. E. M.. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wortham, Stanton, & Reyes, Angela (2015). Discourse analysis beyond the speech event. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, Charles H. P. (2016). Phatic violence? Gambling and the arts of distraction in Laos. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 26(3):294–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, Charles H. P. (2018). Good gambling: Meaning and moral economy in late-socialist Laos. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Charles H. P. (2020). ‘Don't gamble for money with friends’: Moral-economic types and their uses. American Ethnologist 47(4):432–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, Charles H. P. (2022). ‘Friends who don't throw each other away’: Friendship, pronouns, and relations on the edge in Luang Prabang, Laos. In Djenar, Dwi Noverini & Sidnell, Jack (eds.), Signs of deference, signs of demeanour: Interlocutor reference and self-other relations across Southeast Asian speech communities. Singapore: NUS Press, to appear.Google Scholar