Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:57:54.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inalienability in social relations: Language, possession, and exchange in Amazonia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2011

Christopher Ball
Christopher Ball
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College, Department of Anthropology, Hanover, NH 03755christopher.ball@dartmouth.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article describes inalienability in the Wauja (Arawak) language in the context of Brazilian Upper Xinguan culture. Wauja grammar encodes a distinction between alienable and inalienable possession that marks kin, body parts, and other terms and that largely but not perfectly overlaps with a local cultural category of emblematic possessions. I analyze how grammatical and cultural aspects of inalienable possession combine in discourse and exchange to contribute to the social identities of possessors. I present an ethnographic account of the role of inalienability in Wauja grammar and discourse in the disruption and repair of social relationships between groups in Upper Xinguan ritual. I argue for a mutually reinforcing relationship between grammatical categories and sociocultural meaning. I suggest that attention to language and possession, in addition to language and identity, is important for cross culturally comparative sociolinguistic analysis of such connections. (Inalienable possession, grammatical categories, discourse, exchange, Upper Xingu, Wauja (Arawak), ethnolinguistic identity)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , June 2011 , pp. 307 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Aikhenvald, Alexandra (1999). The Arawak language family. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra A. (eds.), The Amazonian languages, 65–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Appadurai, Arjun (1988). The social life of things. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. (1961). Philosophical papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ball, Christopher (2007). Out of the park: Trajectories of Wauja (Xingu Arawak) language and culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Ball, Christopher (2011). As spirits speak: Interaction in Wauja exoteric ritual. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 97(1), to appear.Google Scholar
Bally, Charles (1926/1996). The expression of concepts of the personal domain and indivisibility in Indo-European languages. In Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation, 31–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barcelos Neto, Aristóteles (2002). A arte dos sonhos: Uma iconographia Ameríndia. Lisboa: Museu Nacional de Etnologia/Assírio e Alvim.Google Scholar
Barcelos Neto, Aristóteles (2004). Apapaatai: Rituais de máscaras no Alto Xingu. São Paulo: University of São Paulo dissertation.Google Scholar
Barcelos Neto, Aristóteles (2009). The (de)animalization of objects: Food offerings and subjectivization of masks and flutes among the Wauja of Southern Amazonia. In Granero, Fernando Santos (ed.), The occult life of things: Native Amazonian theories of materiality and personhood, 128–51. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basso, Ellen (1973). The Kalapalo Indians of Central Brazil. New York: Holt, Reinhardt and Winston.Google Scholar
Brightman, Robert (1993). Grateful prey: Rock-Cree human animal relationships. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary, & McGregor, William (1996). Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. In Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation, 3–31. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbera Mori, Angel (2005). A posse nominal em línguas arawak do sul e arawak central: uma abordagem descritiva. Estudos Lingüísticos 34:236–68.Google Scholar
Facundes, Sidney (2000). The language of the Apurinã people of Brazil. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo dissertation.Google Scholar
Fausto, Carlos (2007). Feasting on people: Eating animals and humans in Amazonia. Current Anthropology 48(4):497–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fausto, Carlos (2008). Donos demais: Maestria e domínio na Amazônia. Mana 14(2):329–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gell, Alfred (1999). The art of anthropology. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Granadillo, Tania (2004). Nominal possessives in the Ehe dialect of Kurripako: Morphology, phonology & semantics. Coyote Papers: Working papers in Linguistics 13:31–39.Google Scholar
Gregor, Thomas (1977). Mehinaku: The drama of daily life in a Brazilian Indian village. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Simon (1992). Ritual as intellectual property. Man 27:225–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Simon (1993). The commerce of cultures in Melanesia. Man 28:139–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (2006). Explaining alienability contrasts in adnominal possession: Economy vs. iconicity. Online: http://email.eva.mpg.de/~haspelmt/2006swl.pdf (accessed April 2010).Google Scholar
Kockelman, Paul (2007). Inalienable possessions and personhood in a Q'eqchi'-Mayan community. Language in Society 36(3):343–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kockelman, Paul (2009). Inalienable possession as grammatical category and discourse pattern. Studies in Language 33(1):25–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno (2001). Gabriel Tarde and the end of the social. In Joyce, Patrick (ed.), The social in question: New bearings in history and the social sciences, 117–32. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1968). Structural anthropology. London: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maine, Henry Sumner (1861/1986). Ancient law. New York: Dorset Press.Google Scholar
Mauss, Marcel. (1925/1990). The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Menezes Bastos, Rafael José de (1989). Exegeses Yawalapiti e Kamayurá da criação do Parque Indígena do Xingu e a invenção da saga dos irmãos Villas Bôas. Revista de Antropologia 30/32:391–426.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne (1996). Multiple reflections of inalienability in Mohawk. In Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mujica, Mitzila (1992). Aspectos fonológicos e gramaticais da língua Yawalapiti (Aruak). Dissertação (Mestrado em Lingüística) UNICAMP, Brazil.Google Scholar
Munn, Nancy (1986). The fame of Gawa: A symbolic study of value transformation in a Massim society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna (1988). On alienable and inalienable possession. In Shipley, William (ed.), In honor of Mary Hass: From the Haas festival conference on Native American linguistics, 557–609. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmentier, Richard (1997). The pragmatic semiotics of cultures. Semiotica 116:1–113.Google Scholar
Payne, David L. (1981). A classification of Maipurean (Arawakan) languages based on shared lexical retentions. In Desmond, Derbyshire & Geoffry, Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 3, 355–499. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Karl (1968). Primitive, archaic and modern economies. Ed. by Dalton, George. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Richards, Joan (1973). Dificuldades na análise de possessão nominal na língua Waurá. Série Lingüística 1:11–29.Google Scholar
Sahlins, Marshall (1965). On the sociology of primitive exchange. In Banton, Michael (ed.), The relevance of models for social anthropology (ASA mongraphs 1), 139–236. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Santos-Granero, Fernando (2009). The occult life of things: Native Amazonian theories of materiality and personhood. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeger, Anthony (1981). Nature and society in Central Brazil: The Suyá Indians of Mato Grosso. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1976). Shifters, verbal categories and cultural description. In Basso, Keith H. & Selby, Henry A. (eds.), Meaning in anthropology. Albuquerque, NM: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23:193–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Milton (1984). Man's glassy essence. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Tarde, Gabriel (1893/1999). Monadologie et sociologie. Paris: Institut Synthélabo.Google Scholar
Urban, Greg (1981). The semiotics of tabooed food: The Shokleng case. Social Science Information 20(3):475–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veblen, Thorstein (1898). The beginnings of ownership. The American Journal of Sociology 4(3):352–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo (2001). GUT feelings about Amazonia: Potential affinity and the construction of sociality. In Rival, Laura & Whitehead, Neil (eds.), Beyond the visible and the material: the Amerindianization of society in the work of Peter Rivière, 19–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable possessions: The paradox of keeping while giving. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar