"implicit metapragmatic strategies" are one way of speaking about "norms" and can be addressed from a variety of angles - Politeness Theory, for instance, can be seen as a description of several codified implicit metapragmatic strategies (see Gino Eelen (2000) A Critique of Politeness Theories). Another angle is that of theorized indexicality (the language-ideological angle, simply put), and here here, Goffman's "Frames" (and attached to it notions such as footing and entregisterment) can be very inspiring, especially when read through the angle of Agha (2007, Language and Social Relations). Agha stresses the "emblematic" function of certain "frame/register triggers" - particular formal patterns (a word, an intonation contour, a syntactic pattern, a code switch etc) invoke an entire set of expected follow-ups, where "expected" stands for normatively patterned and ordered (also therefore: mutually ratified) discourse in such a way that recognizably meaningful exchanges are enabled. Let's take an example. Two relative strangers at a reception are talking about a joint acquaintance, first in superficial and polite terms restricted to standard descriptive utterances such as "he's quite a force in our field", "he has a very good reputation", until the moment where one of them says "to be honest, he's a bastard"; this, then opens a space in which tone, contents and even variety can change from formal to informal, from superficial to anecdotal gossip, etc. There has been a shift in implicit metapragmatic strategy, one can say.

Hi Ali

my books and articles on critical discourse analysis may provide some thoughts and reflections.

fingers crossed. 

ali 

Hi Ali

my books and articles on critical discourse analysis may provide some thoughts and reflections.

fingers crossed. 

ali 

Dear Dr. Rahimi, thanks for your response. I'll check over the relevant papers of yours. Best. 

Ali.

Following Bakhtin language is "heteroglot from top to bottom". You can cope with this internal diversity, hybridity, bivalence etc only if a monitoring system is available. The third monitoring means "implicit metapragmatic strategies" marks different languages through a difference in signaling the pragmatic context, e.g. in using two different voices for two languages.

"implicit metapragmatic strategies" are one way of speaking about "norms" and can be addressed from a variety of angles - Politeness Theory, for instance, can be seen as a description of several codified implicit metapragmatic strategies (see Gino Eelen (2000) A Critique of Politeness Theories). Another angle is that of theorized indexicality (the language-ideological angle, simply put), and here here, Goffman's "Frames" (and attached to it notions such as footing and entregisterment) can be very inspiring, especially when read through the angle of Agha (2007, Language and Social Relations). Agha stresses the "emblematic" function of certain "frame/register triggers" - particular formal patterns (a word, an intonation contour, a syntactic pattern, a code switch etc) invoke an entire set of expected follow-ups, where "expected" stands for normatively patterned and ordered (also therefore: mutually ratified) discourse in such a way that recognizably meaningful exchanges are enabled. Let's take an example. Two relative strangers at a reception are talking about a joint acquaintance, first in superficial and polite terms restricted to standard descriptive utterances such as "he's quite a force in our field", "he has a very good reputation", until the moment where one of them says "to be honest, he's a bastard"; this, then opens a space in which tone, contents and even variety can change from formal to informal, from superficial to anecdotal gossip, etc. There has been a shift in implicit metapragmatic strategy, one can say.

Sociolinguistic rules are said to be regarded as norms, however, conversational discourse (exchange patterns) is one of the most unpredictable areas of human expression, therefore examples are sometimes, if not all the time somewhat artificial. Discourse is subjectively dis-course.

Jan and Jorge,

these are helpful and insightful comments.  Are you familiar with Paul Hopper's notion of emergent grammars and generalized emergence theory in language?  In my field (information systems and organizational modeling for data and information systems development and implementation) the notion of the dis-course, around meanings and agreements so one can encode and 'enshrine' those in formal systems is a critical issue. Data models for instance are not only representations of 'things' or entities (in our terminology) having 'attributes' but these models also encode rules of action and organizational norms.  In surfacing these agreements, rules, & norms analysts have to both explore and parse organizational documents AND conduct live interviews engaging in real discourse.  Hence the notion of the "switching moment" Jan illustrates, or more importantly the ability to both recognize these switches when they have occurred AND, in doing the analysis, being able to a) create or b) seek out such moments to surface hidden meanings and assumptions is critical for design and implementation of information systems.   Real language is, of course, inherently transactional.  If one accepts a Habermassian view that one goal  (communicative action) may be (should be?) that of understanding and communication with parties seeking to present truthful informative exchanges to reach understanding/agreement. it is in these exchanges when language and speakers refer to all previous language, utterances and agreements as background to shape and understanding particular to THAT discursive exchange.  My question is:   Do you know of models or techniques for tracking these "emergent regularities" (Hopper's term) or ways to capture/encode these 'switching moments'?   

1. Hopper P. Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society. 1987;13:139-57.

2. Hopper P. Emergent Grammar and the a priori Grammar Postulate. In: Tannen D, editor. Linguistics in Context: Connecting Observation and Understanding. Advances in Discourse Processes. XXIX. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing; 1988. p. 117-34.

3. Hopper P. The emergence of the category ‘Proper Name’ in discourse. In: H. Davis, Taylor T, editors. Redefining Linguistics. London: Routledge; 1990. p. 149-62.

4. Weber T. The emergence of linguistic structure: Paul Hopper's emergent grammar hypothesis revisited. Language sciences. 1997;19(2):177-96.