Editing Linguistic anthropology (section)

===Social space===
In a final example of this third paradigm, a group of linguistic anthropologists have done very creative work on the idea of social space. Duranti published a groundbreaking article on [[Samoan language|Samoan]] [[greetings]] and their use and transformation of social space.<ref name=Duranti1992>Duranti, Alessandro. 1992. "Language and Bodies in Social Space: Samoan Greetings." ''American Anthropologist'' 94:657–691. {{doi|10.1525/aa.1992.94.3.02a00070}}.</ref> Before that, Indonesianist Joseph Errington, making use of earlier work by Indonesianists not necessarily concerned with language issues per se, brought linguistic anthropological methods (and [[semiotic]] theory) to bear on the notion of the exemplary center, the center of political and ritual power from which emanated exemplary behavior.<ref>Errington, J. Joseph. 1988.  ''Structure and Style in Javanese: A Semiotic View of Linguistic Etiquette''. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.</ref> Errington demonstrated how the [[Java]]nese [[priyayi]], whose ancestors served at the Javanese royal courts, became emissaries, so to speak, long after those courts had ceased to exist, representing throughout Java the highest example of "refined speech." The work of Joel Kuipers develops this theme vis-a-vis the island of [[Sumba]], [[Indonesia]]. And, even though it pertains to [[Tewa people|Tewa]] Indians in [[Arizona]] rather than Indonesians, [[Paul Kroskrity]]'s argument that speech forms originating in the Tewa [[kiva]] (or underground ceremonial space) forms the dominant model for all Tewa speech can be seen as a direct parallel.

Silverstein tries to find the maximum theoretical significance and applicability in this idea of exemplary centers. He feels, in fact, that the exemplary center idea is one of linguistic anthropology's three most important findings. He generalizes the notion thus, arguing "there are wider-scale institutional 'orders of interactionality,' historically contingent yet structured. Within such large-scale, macrosocial orders, in-effect [[ritual]] centers of [[semiosis]] come to exert a structuring, [[Value (personal and cultural)|value]]-conferring influence on any particular event of discursive [[Social interaction|interaction]] with respect to the meanings and significance of the verbal and other semiotic forms used in it."<ref name=Silverstein2004>Silverstein, Michael. 2004. {{"'}}Cultural' Concepts and the Language-Culture Nexus." ''Current Anthropology'' 45(5):621–652.</ref> Current approaches to such classic anthropological topics as ritual by linguistic anthropologists emphasize not static linguistic structures but the unfolding in realtime of a {{"'}}hypertrophic' set of parallel orders of [[iconicity]] and indexicality that seem to cause the ritual to create its own sacred space through what appears, often, to be the [[Magic (paranormal)|magic]] of textual and nontextual metricalizations, synchronized."<ref name=Silverstein2004/><ref>Wilce, James M. 2006. Magical Laments and Anthropological Reflections: The Production and Circulation of Anthropological Text as Ritual Activity. ''Current Anthropology''. 47(6):891–914.</ref>