Editing Indexicality (section)

=== Non-referential indexicality ===
Non-referential indices or "pure" indices do not contribute to the semantico-referential value of a speech event yet "signal some particular value of one or more contextual variables."<ref name=shifters/> Non-referential indices encode certain metapragmatic elements of a speech event's context through linguistic variations. The degree of variation in non-referential indices is considerable and serves to infuse the speech event with, at times, multiple levels of [[pragmatics|pragmatic]] "meaning".<ref name=indexicalorder>Silverstein, Michael. "Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life". Elsevier Ltd., 2003.</ref> Of particular note are: sex/gender indices, deference indices (including the affinal taboo index), [[Affect (linguistics)|affect]] indices, as well as the phenomena of [[phonological]] [[hypercorrection]] and social identity indexicality.

====Indexical order====
In much of the research currently conducted upon various phenomena of non-referential indexicality, there is an increased interest in not only what is called first-order indexicality, but subsequent second-order as well as "higher-order" levels of indexical meaning. First-order indexicality can be defined as the first level of pragmatic meaning that is drawn from an utterance. For example, instances of deference indexicality, such as the variation between informal ''tu'' and formal ''vous'' in French, indicate a speaker/addressee communicative relationship built upon the values of ''power'' and ''solidarity'' possessed by the interlocutors.<ref name=BrownGilman>Brown, R., Gilman, A. "The pronouns of power and solidarity, IN: Sebeok, T.A. (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960.</ref> When a speaker addresses somebody using the V form instead of the T form, they index (via first-order indexicality) their understanding of the need for deference to the addressee. In other words, they perceive or recognize an incongruence between their levels of power and/or solidarity and employ a more formal way of addressing that person to suit the contextual constraints of the speech event.

Second-Order Indexicality is concerned with the connection between [[linguistics|linguistic]] variables and the metapragmatic meanings that they encode. For example, a woman is walking down the street in [[Manhattan]] and she stops to ask somebody where a McDonald's is. He responds to her talking in a heavy "[[Brooklyn]]" [[Accent (sociolinguistics)|accent]]. She notices this accent and considers a set of possible personal characteristics that might be indexed by it (such as the man's intelligence, economic situation, and other non-linguistic aspects of his life). The power of language to encode these preconceived "stereotypes" based solely on accent is an example of second-order indexicality (representative of a more complex and subtle system of indexical form than that of first-order indexicality).

==== Sex/gender indices ====
One common system of non-referential indexicality is sex/gender indices. These indices index the gender or "female/male" social status of the interlocutor. There are a multitude of linguistic variants that act to index sex and gender such as:

*''word-final or sentence-final particles'': many languages employ the [[suffix]]ation of word-final particles to index the gender of the speaker. These particles vary from phonological alterations such as the one explored by [[William Labov]] in his work on postvocalic /r/ employment in words that had no word final "r" (which is claimed, among other things, to index the "female" social sex status by virtue of the statistical fact that women tend to hypercorrect their speech more often than men);<ref name=wake>Wake, Naoko. Indexicality, Gender, and Social Identity.</ref> suffixation of single phonemes, such as   /-s/  in Muskogean languages of the southeastern United States;<ref name=shifters/> or particle suffixation (such as the Japanese sentence-final use of ''-wa'' with rising intonation to indicate increasing affect and, via second-order indexicality, the gender of the speaker (in this case, female))<ref name=wake/>
*''morphological and phonological mechanisms'': such as in [[Yana language|Yana]], a language where one form of all major words are spoken by sociological male to sociological male, and another form (which is constructed around phonological changes in word forms) is used for all other combination of interlocutors; or the Japanese prefix-[[affixation]] of o- to indicate politeness and, consequently, feminine social identity.<ref name=o>Kamei, Takashi.Covering and Covered Forms of women's language in Japanese.'Hitotsubashi JOurnal of Arts of Sciences' 19:1-7.</ref>

Many instances of sex/gender indices incorporate multiple levels of indexicality (also referred to as ''indexical order'').<ref name=indexicalorder/> In fact, some, such as the prefix-affixation of o- in Japanese, demonstrate complex higher-order indexical forms. In this example, the first order indexes politeness and the second order indexes affiliation with a certain gender class. It is argued that there is an even higher level of indexical order evidenced by the fact that many jobs use the ''o-'' prefix to attract female applicants.<ref name=o/> This notion of higher-order indexicality is similar to Silverstein's discussion of "[[#wine talk|wine talk]]" in that it indexes "an identity-by-visible-consumption<ref name=indexicalorder/> [here, ''employment'']" that is an inherent of a certain social register (i.e. social gender indexicality).

==== Affect indices ====
Affective meaning is seen as "the encoding, or indexing of speakers emotions into speech events."<ref name=affect>Besnier, Niko. Language and Affect. Annual Reviews, Inc., 1990.</ref> The interlocutor of the event "decodes" these verbal messages of affect by giving "precedence to intentionality";<ref name=affect/> that is, by assuming that the affective form intentionally indexes emotional meaning.

Some examples of affective forms are: [[diminutives]] (for example, diminutive affixes in [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] and [[Amerindian language]]s indicate sympathy, endearment, emotional closeness, or antipathy, condescension, and emotional distance); [[ideophones]] and [[onomatopoeias]]; [[Expletive attributive|expletives]], exclamations, [[interjections]], curses, insults, and [[imprecations]] (said to be "dramatizations of actions or states"); [[Intonation (linguistics)|intonation]] change (common in tone languages such as Japanese); address terms, kinship terms, and pronouns which often display clear affective dimensions (ranging from the complex address-form systems found languages such a [[Javanese language|Javanese]] to inversions of vocative kin terms found in Rural [[Italy]]);<ref name=affect/> [[lexicon|lexical]] processes such as [[synecdoche]] and [[metonymy]] involved in effect meaning manipulation; certain categories of meaning like [[evidentiality]]; [[reduplication]], [[Quantifiers (linguistics)|quantifiers]], and comparative structures; as well as [[inflectional morphology]].

Affective forms are a means by which a speaker indexes emotional states through different linguistic mechanisms. These indices become important when applied to other forms of non-referential indexicality, such as sex indices and social identity indices, because of the innate relationship between first-order indexicality and subsequent second-order (or higher) indexical forms.  (See multiple indices section for Japanese example).

==== Deference indices ====
Deference indices encode deference from one interlocutor to another (usually representing inequalities of status, rank, age, sex, etc.).<ref name=shifters/> Some examples of deference indices are:

=====T/V deference entitlement=====
The [[T–V distinction|T/V deference entitlement system]] of [[European languages]] was famously detailed by linguists Brown and Gilman.<ref name=BrownGilman /> T/V deference entitlement is a system by which a speaker/addressee speech event is determined by perceived disparities of 'power' and 'solidarity' between interlocutors. Brown and Gilman organized the possible relationships between the speaker and the addressee into six categories:
# Superior and solidary
# Superior and not solidary
# Equal and solidary
# Equal and not solidary
# Inferior and solidary
# Inferior and not solidary
The 'power semantic' indicates that the speaker in a superior position uses T and the speaker in an inferior position uses V. The 'solidarity semantic' indicates that speakers use T for close relationships and V for more formal relationships. These two principles conflict in categories 2 and 5, allowing either T or V in those cases:
# Superior and solidary: T
# Superior and not solidary: T/V
# Equal and solidary: T
# Equal and not solidary: V
# Inferior and solidary: T/V
# Inferior and not solidary: V
Brown and Gilman observed that as the solidarity semantic becomes more important than the power semantic in various cultures, the proportion of T to V use in the two ambiguous categories changes accordingly.

Silverstein comments that while exhibiting a basic level of first-order indexicality, the T/V system also employs second-order indexicality vis-à-vis 'enregistered honorification'.<ref name=indexicalorder /> He cites that the V form can also function as an index of valued "public" register and the standards of good behavior that are entailed by use of V forms over T forms in public contexts. Therefore, people will use T/V deference [[entailment]] in 1) a first-order indexical sense that distinguishes between speaker/addressee interpersonal values of 'power' and 'solidarity' and 2) a second-order indexical sense that indexes an interlocutor's inherent "honor" or social merit in employing V forms over T forms in public contexts.

=====Japanese honorifics=====
Japanese provides an excellent case study of [[honorifics]]. Honorifics in Japanese can be divided into two categories: addressee honorifics, which index deference to the addressee of the utterance; and referent honorifics, which index deference to the referent of the utterance. Cynthia Dunn claims that "almost every utterance in Japanese requires a choice between direct and distal forms of the predicate."<ref name=japanese>Dunn, Cynthia. "Pragmatic Functions of Humble Forms in Japanese Ceremonial Discourse. 'Journal of Linguistic Anthropology', Vol. 15, Issue 2, pp. 218–238, 2005</ref> The direct form indexes intimacy and "spontaneous self-expression" in contexts involving family and close friends. Contrarily, distal form index social contexts of a more formal, public nature such as distant acquaintances, business settings, or other formal settings.

Japanese also contains a set of humble forms (Japanese ''kenjōgo'' 謙譲語) which are employed by the speaker to index their deference to someone else. There are also [[suppletive]] forms that can be used in lieu of regular honorific endings (for example, the subject honorific form of {{Nihongo3|to eat|食べる|taberu}}: {{Nihongo|2=召し上がる|3=meshiagaru}}. Verbs that involve human subjects must choose between ''distal'' or ''direct'' forms (towards the addressee) as well as a distinguish between either no use of referent honorifics, use of subject honorific (for others), or use of humble form (for self). The Japanese model for non-referential indexicality demonstrates a very subtle and complicated system that encodes social context into almost every utterance.

=====Affinal taboo index=====
[[Dyirbal language|Dyirbal]], a language of the [[Cairns]] [[rain forest]] in [[Northern Queensland]], employs a system known as the affinal taboo index. Speakers of the language maintain two sets of lexical items: 1) an "everyday" or common interaction set of lexical items and 2) a "mother-in-law" set that is employed when the speaker is in the very distinct context of interaction with their mother-in-law. In this particular system of deference indices, speakers have developed an entirely separate lexicon (there are roughly four "everyday" lexical entries for every one "mother-in-law" lexical entry; 4:1) to index deference in contexts inclusive of the mother-in-law.

====Hypercorrection as a social class index====
[[Hypercorrection]] is defined by Wolfram as "the use of speech form on the basis of false analogy."<ref>Wolfram, W. Phonological Variation and change in Trinidadian English-the evolution of the vowel system. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969.</ref> DeCamp defines hypercorrection in a more precise fashion claiming that "hypercorrection is an incorrect analogy with a form in a [[prestige (sociolinguistics)|prestige]] dialect which the speaker has imperfectly mastered."<ref>DeCamp, D. 'Hypercorrection and Rule Generalization. 1972</ref> Many scholars argue that hypercorrection provides both an index of "social class" and an "Index of [[Linguistic insecurity]]". The latter index can be defined as a speaker's attempts at self-correction in areas of perceived linguistic insufficiencies which denote their lower social standing and minimal social mobility.<ref name=hyper>Winford, Donald. 'Hypercorrection in the Process of Decreolization: The Case of Trinidadian English. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1978.</ref>

Donald Winford conducted a study that measured the phonological hypercorrection in creolization of English speakers in Trinidad. He claims that the ability to use prestigious norms goes "hand-in-hand" with knowledge of stigmatization afforded to use of "lesser" phonological variants.<ref name=hyper/> He concluded that sociologically "lesser" individuals would try to increase the frequency of certain vowels that were frequent in the high prestige [[dialect]], but they ended up using those vowels even more than their target dialect. This hypercorrection of vowels is an example of non-referential indexicality that indexes, by virtue of innate urges forcing lower class civilians to hypercorrect phonological variants, the actual social class of the speaker. As Silverstein claims, this also conveys an "Index of [[Linguistic insecurity]]" in which a speaker not only indexes their actual social class (via first-order indexicality) but also the insecurities about class constraints and subsequent linguistic effects that encourage hypercorrection in the first place (an incidence of second-order indexicality).<ref name=indexicalorder/>

William Labov and many others have also studied how hypercorrection in [[African American Vernacular English]] demonstrates similar social class non-referential indexicality.

====Multiple indices in social identity indexicality====
Multiple non-referential indices can be employed to index the social identity of a speaker. An example of how multiple indexes can constitute social identity is exemplified by Ochs discussion of [[copula (linguistics)|copula]] deletion: "That Bad" in American English can index a speaker to be a child, foreigner, medical patient, or elderly person. Use of multiple non-referential indices at once (for example copula deletion and raising intonation), helps further index the social identity of the speaker as that of a child.<ref name=Ochs>Ochs, Elinor. "Indexicality and Socialization". In J. Stigler, R. Shweder & G. Herdt (eds.) 'Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development'. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.</ref>

Linguistic and non-linguistic indices are also an important ways of indexing social identity. For example, the Japanese utterance ''-wa'' in conjunction with raising intonation (indexical of increasing affect) by one person who "looks like a woman" and another who looks "like a man" may index different affective dispositions which, in turn, can index gender difference.<ref name=wake/> Ochs and Schieffilen also claim that facial features, gestures, as well as other non-linguistic indices may actually help specify the general information provided by the linguistic features and augment the pragmatic meaning of the utterance.<ref>Ochs, Elinor and Shieffelin, Banbi. "Language has a heart". 'Text 9': 7-25.</ref>

===={{anchor|oinoglossia}}{{anchor|wine talk}}Oinoglossia (wine talk)====
For demonstrations of higher (or rarefied) indexical orders, Michael Silverstein discusses the particularities of "life-style emblematization" or "convention-dependent-indexical iconicity" which, as he claims, is prototypical of a phenomenon he dubs "[[wine]] talk". Professional wine critics use a certain "technical vocabulary" that are "metaphorical of prestige realms of traditional English gentlemanly [[horticulture]]."<ref name=indexicalorder/> Thus, a certain "lingo" is created for wine that indexically entails certain notions of prestigious social classes or genres. When "yuppies" use the lingo for wine flavors created by these critics in the ''actual context'' of drinking wine, Silverstein argues that they become the "well-bred, interesting (subtle, balanced, intriguing, winning, etc.) person" that is iconic of the metaphorical "fashion of speaking" employed by people of higher social registers, demanding notoriety as a result of this high level of connoisseurship.<ref name=indexicalorder/> In other words, the wine drinker becomes a refined, gentlemanly critic and, in doing so, adopts a similar level of connoisseurship and social refinement. Silverstein defines this as an example of higher-order indexical "authorization" in which the indexical order of this "wine talk" exists in a "complex, interlocking set of institutionally formed macro-sociological interests."<ref name=indexicalorder/> A speaker of English metaphorically transfers him- or herself into the social structure of the "wine world" that is encoded by the ''oinoglossia'' of elite critics using a very particular "technical" terminology.

The use of "wine talk" or similar "fine-cheeses talk", "perfume talk", "Hegelian-dialectics talk", "particle-physics talk", "DNA-sequencing talk", "semiotics talk" etc. confers upon an individual an identity-by-visible-consumption indexical of a certain macro-sociological elite identity<ref name=indexicalorder/> and is, as such, an instance of higher-order indexicality.