Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
Annu.Rev. Anthropol.1997. 26:47-71
Copyright? 1997 byAnnual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
RELIGIOUSLANGUAGE
WebbKeane
Departmentof Anthropology,University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19104
KEYWORDS:textandcontext,intentionality,
agency,interaction,
languageideology
ABSTRACT
47
0084-6570/97/1015-0047$08.00
48 KEANE
Languageis one medium by which the presence and activity of beings that
are otherwiseunavailableto the senses can be made presupposable,even com-
pelling, in ways that are publically yet also subjectively available to people as
membersof social groups. However, no single set of formal or pragmaticfea-
tures is diagnostic of religious as opposed to other markeduses of language,
such as poetic or ceremonialspeech. Rather,differentreligious practicesseem
to select from among the entire spectrum of linguistic possibilities (Murray
1989, Sherzer 1990, Tedlock 1983). They suspend or alter certain aspects of
everydayways of speaking (even when religious language is taken to be prior
to the everyday) in responseto problemsposed by theirparticularotherworlds
and their assumptionsaboutthe everyday.Religious language is deeply impli-
cated with underlying assumptions about the human subject, divine beings,
and the ways their capacities and agencies differ. At the same time, religions
face chronic dilemmas posed by the tensions between transcendenceand the
situatedand concretenatureof verbalpractices. So much dependson these as-
sumptionsand tensions that much religious debate dwells on linguistic forms
(Bauman 1990; Bowen 1989, 1993; Ferguson 1985; Samarin 1973). The re-
view begins with one common denominatoramong many varieties of religious
language, the problems raised by interactionwith invisible beings. It then ad-
dresses linguistic form and pragmatics. The final two sections consider the
emerging scholarly interest in entextualizationand the dilemmas posed for
practitionersby otherworldlyauthorityand agency.
Invisibilityand Interaction
Thatthe peculiarityof certainspeech situationscan supportreligious interpre-
tation is famously evident in Augustine's conversion to Christianity
(Augustine 1961, pp. viii, 6-10). Upon hearingthe words "takeand read,take
and read"(tolle lege, tolle lege) spoken in a "sing-song"voice by an unseen
child from the other side of a wall, Augustine understoodthem to be a com-
mandfromGod. Openingthe Bible, he took the words he encounteredto be an-
othermoment of communication.Two featuresof the speech situationpermit-
ted this. First, the invisibility of the speaker allowed Augustine to wonder
about the true source of the words. Second, the fact that words written in one
context can be takenup and read in anotherallowed him to see himself as their
addressee.This episode illustratesthe importanceboth of participantroles and
of the tension between text and context in understandingthe efficacy of relig-
ious language. Moreover,the repetitivenessand assonance that drew Augusti-
ne's attentionto the child's utterancehint at the power of linguistic form as
well.
Such speech situationsare made possible by generalpropertiesof language
that allow otherwise nonperceptiblebeings to play a role in human societies,
50 KEANE
dresses knows exactly what is happeningand why" (1989, p. 266). Such meta-
pragmaticmeans may help effect communicationwith the spiritworld or per-
mit a textual world to direct concrete actions (Atkinson 1989, Bell 1987,
Bowen 1993, Gill 1981, Hanks 1996a, Malinowski 1965, Sherzer 1990, Tam-
biah 1970). Some Gayo spells center on passages from the Qur'an that de-
scribe events in which certain powers were grantedto charactersin the text
(Bowen 1993). By reciting these passages, the speakermay obtainthose pow-
ers in turn.This appearsto work by recontextualizingnarrativesas metaprag-
matic statements:Their linguistic form remains the same, but their function
shifts. Ratherthanbeing construedas accounts of actions thatwere carriedout
in the past, the words are taken as reportson and directives for the action they
themselves carryout in the moment of speaking.
The problem of presence is often compoundedby anotherfeatureof other-
worldly beings. If these beings are sufficiently transcendent,then the ordinary
means by which people speak of or to entities in the world of everyday experi-
ence may be ruled out in principle. Some traditions, fearing hubris or blas-
phemy, index the transcendenceof divinity by enjoining name avoidance or
circumlocution(Janowitz 1989, 1993). Reflexive referenceto the very prohi-
bition itself-e.g. the "unspokenname"(Keane 1997a, p. 131)-may serve to
refer to a deity. As fully developed-for example, in negative theology and
many mystical traditions-the concept of transcendenceleads to the dilemma
that even to say that the divine lies beyond discourse is alreadyto reduce it to
discursive form, which should thereforebe eschewed (Clooney 1987, Lopez
1990, Sells 1994, Wright 1993; cf Katz 1992). The divine may be avoided not
just as an object of discourse. According to some Jewish traditions,the power
of the divine name lies in the fact that,because the deity Himself uttersit, it is
"themost importanttoken"of divine speech (Janowitz 1989, p. 85; 1993). The
prohibitionon speakingthe divine name thuspreventshumanbeings frompre-
sumingto take on a speakingpartreservedfor God. Prohibitionmay also serve
not only to protectthe speakersfrom otherworldlydangers,it may also serve to
bound off an entire sacredcode from the effects of secularcontexts (Kroskrity
1992). To protectthe statusof Hebrewin Israel,where it is also the languageof
secularaffairs, UltraorthodoxJews will not speak it outside liturgicalsettings
(Glinert & Shilhav 1991, Kantor 1992). From a pragmaticperspective, this
preservesthe presuppositionthat any actual instance of speakingHebrewwill
in fact be sacred.
Most religious traditions,however, do requirepractitionersto engage with
the invisible world in some respect, andthey providethe linguistic means to do
so. Whatin theirown speech activities enablespeople to have interactionswith
divine or spirit beings? Wherein lies the efficacy of religious language? An-
swering these questions requires examination of formal characteristics of
52 KEANE
Form
Some of the richest work on religious language can be divided into thatwhich
focuses on meaning and that which focuses on form, though the two are usu-
ally closely linked. Studies that focus on meaning, especially as conveyed by
metaphor(Calame-Griaule1986; Fernandez1982, 1986; Wagner 1986; Wei-
ner 1991; Witherspoon1977), tend to stress the richness andpolyvalent quali-
ties of religious language (althoughoften only accordingto semanticcontent).
Conversely, studies of form often ascribeto rituallanguage a certainsemantic
poverty. Here I concentrateon questions of form, which have been more cen-
tral to those interestedin verbal practicesper se.
It is unusualfor religious languagenot to bearsome formalmarksof its spe-
cial character.Even the so-called plain speech of Quakersis recognizableby
certainstylistic features(Bauman 1990, Irvine 1982, Maltz 1985; cf Coleman
1996). In herpioneeringwork, Reichard(1944) soughtthe "compulsive"force
of Navajo prayer in its formal patterns. Developing the theme, Gill (1981)
claimed thatit is a generalcharacteristicof the languageof prayerthatits repe-
tition and formal elaborationare far out of proportionto the message, con-
struedas denotation.One evident function of this elaboration,he proposes, is
to signal a special frame of interpretation.Virtually any means, including
changes in phonology, morphology, syntax, prosody, lexicon, and entire lin-
guistic code can frame a stretchof discourse as religious. Shifts in phonology
can mimic shifts in language code. I have observedIndonesianChristianstake
on Arabic-inflectedpronunciationsto index the religious (albeit not Muslim)
characterof a speech event. Linguistic form is multifunctional,however, and
such devices are likely to entail more thanjust a shift of frames.For example,
when practitionersof local religions in the Indonesianbackcountrytake words
from the prayersof their Muslim neighbors,they are also tryingto tap into the
power held by politically dominantgroups and to claim some of the status as-
sociated with spatially distantsources of knowledge (Atkinson 1989, Metcalf
1989, Tsing 1993).
A useful summary of characteristicscommonly found in ritual speech is
providedby Du Bois (1986). Du Bois's list can be divided into featuresof per-
formanceand of text, and an associatedbelief thatritualspeech replicateshow
the ancestorsspoke. The performancefeaturesconsist of markedvoice quality,
greater fluency relative to colloquial speech, stylized and restricted intona-
tional contours, gestalt knowledge (speakers often learn texts as a whole and
cannot recite them in parts), personal volition disclaimer (crediting a tradi-
RELIGIOUS
LANGUAGE 53
tional source for one's words), avoidance of first and second personpronouns,
and mediation through several speakers. Du Bois argues that these features
tend to shift apparent control over speech from the individual proximate
speaker,who is bodily present at the moment of speaking, to some spatially,
temporally, or ontologically more distant agent (see also Urban 1989). This
shift of control and thus responsibilityis reinforcedby the textual features,in-
cluding the use of a ritualregister(differentlexical items for the same words in
colloquial and ritual speech), archaisticelements (including words and gram-
matical forms that speakers believe to be archaic), elements borrowed from
other languages, euphemism and metaphor, opaqueness of meaning, and
semantic-grammaticalparallelism (the latter having inspired an especially
large literature,e.g. EB Basso 1985, Boyer 1990, Fox 1975, 1988, Gossen
1974, Jakobson 1960, Keane 1997a, Kratz 1994, Kuipers 1990, Sherzer 1990,
Urban 1991).
Boyer (1990) proposed to explain the special forms taken by ritual speech
on the grounds that listeners always assume that those forms are somehow
caused by their divine sources and are thus evidence of the workings of forces
that are otherwise imperceptible.Du Bois's survey of ritualspeech, however,
suggests that the authorityritual speech holds for its hearersneed not require
us to attributeimplicit theories of causality to them. The formal properties
listed above have such effects as playing down the indexical groundingof ut-
terances in the context of the specific speech event, increasingthe perceived
boundedness and autonomouscharacterof certain stretchesof discourse, and
diminishingthe apparentrole of the speaker's volitional agency in producing
them. The resultingdecenteringof discourse (Bauman& Briggs 1990; Silver-
stein & Urban 1996a, p. 15), can encouragethe perceptionthatthe words come
from some source beyond the presentcontext. For example, each recitationof
Zuni prayershould be an exact repetitionof words "accordingto the first be-
ginning"(Bunzel 1932a, p. 493). But the participants'sense that such prayers
do indeed repeatprimordialwords need not rely merely on their acceptanceof
some explicit doctrine.Rather,the decenteringeffects producedby the formal
propertiesof prayershelp supportthis belief as an intuitionthat is reinforced
by each performance.
A second influentialapproachfocuses on sociopolitical effects of linguistic
form. One version of this approachbuilds on Durkheim's observation(1915;
cf Briggs 1988, Kratz 1994) that ritualform can create a unified congregation
by regimentingvocal andbodily movements and,by its emotionaleffects, may
transformindividuals' subjective states (Davis 1985, George 1996, Goodman
1972, Lawless 1988, Maltz 1985, Nelson 1985, Pitts 1993, Roseman 1991, Ti-
ton 1988). Anotherapproachlooks at how linguistic form can restrictaccess to
the circulationof discourse (Briggs 1993, McDowell 1983, Urban 1996; cfKH
54 KEANE
Basso 1990). To the extent that their use demands esoteric knowledge, relig-
ious speech genres or lexicons can become scarceresources(Bledsoe & Robey
1986, Carpenter1992, Frisbie 1980a, Irvine 1989, Lindstrom1990). Theirdis-
tinctive aesthetic and semantic characteris then sometimes projected onto
those who command them. Those who customarily speak refined or sacred
words may themselves be creditedwith essential qualities of refinementor sa-
credness (Bourdieu 1991, Buckley 1984).
If those who emphasize metaphorare often inclined to see religious lan-
guage as richerthan ordinaryspeech, anotherapproachsees it as more impov-
erished. Bloch (1975, 1989) claimed that the formal structureof ritual speech
leads to diminished propositional meaning and in other ways restricts the
range of what can be said (cf Rappaport1979). By these effects, highly formal
speech comes to serve the perpetuationof authority.Bloch has drawn criti-
cism, both for his account of language and for the conclusions he draws from
it, even from some who concur with aspects of his thesis (Boyer 1990,
McDowell 1983). Formality,redundancy,and repetitionare not incompatible
with semantic meaning (Briggs 1988, Janowitz 1989). As Gill (1981) pointed
out, formality only looks noncreative when we take texts in isolation rather
than as componentsof largeractions. In a fundamentalchallenge to Bloch, Ir-
vine (1979) showed that he had groupedtogethera heterogeneousset of prop-
erties under the rubricof formality, conflating linguistic properties,kinds of
events, and aspects of social order,when demonstrablyformalityof one does
not necessarily follow from the other.Thus, rigid poetic canons may correlate
with political hierarchy but leave performers powerless (Metcalf 1989),
whereas flexible speech normsin relatively egalitariansocieties may reinforce
individualdifferences of social status(Atkinson 1989). We need to be careful,
then, aboutwhat aspect of society is being correlatedwith the formalityof its
ritual speech (Brenneis & Myers 1984).
Few would be willing to claim that the linguistic and pragmaticproperties
of ritual speech are without effect. A third approachhas been to link these
propertiesto the actionsthatritualspeech is supposedto undertake.In an influ-
ential paper, Silverstein (1981) arguedthat ritual speech is persuasive in part
because of the mutuallyreinforcingways in which its form, at multiplelinguis-
tic levels, serves as a metapragmaticfigure for the accomplishmentof the suc-
cessive stages of the action being undertaken.For example, the sequence of
verbs in Navajo prayers moves from plea for expected future actions to de-
scription of actions taking place to descriptionof result of accomplished ac-
tions (Gill 1981; cf Vitebsky 1993). Thus, over the course of the actualtime of
the speech event the portrayalof time by the grammaticaltense system shifts,
until finally the outcome is implicitly taken to be something already accom-
plished.
RELIGIOUS
LANGUAGE 55
Intentionalityand Responsibility
The means by which humanbeings communicatewith invisible beings tend to
reflect underlyingassumptionsaboutthe natureof these beings, of the human
subject, and of the social relations between them (Buckley 1984, Bunzel
1932a, Gossen 1974, Rosaldo 1982). In some traditionsprayersare shapedby
humandeference towardthe beings addressed(Robson 1994); others, like the
Zuni, "donot humblethemselves before the supernatural;they bargainwith it"
(Bunzel 1932b, p. 618). Some forms of speech seek to persuade, flatter, or
please the listener (Calame-Griaule1986) or influence the spirits by display-
ing the speaker's privileged knowledge of their names or origins (Atkinson
1989, Bowen 1993, Lambek 1981, Sherzer 1990). It is precisely the assump-
tions about the participantsimplicit in linguistic form that are often at issue
when religious reformersseek to transformor forbid certainspeech practices.
One complaintby reformersis that if God is all-powerful,then cajoling words
56 KEANE
are arrogant,and magical words-to the extent that they seek to act directly
upon their addressee-a denial of divine agency. Another complaint is that
persuasive words that seem to be addressed to offerings, sacralia, or altars
therebyinappropriatelyimputesubjectivityto an inanimatelistenerand are ef-
fectively a form of fetishism (Keane 1996).
Similar concerns about the role of speakersas agentive, volitional, and in-
tending subjectsanimatedebates in the academicstudy of language.Religious
language raises difficulties, for example, for the view that the meaning of ut-
terances depends on the listener's construalof the speaker's intentions(Grice
1957, Sperber& Wilson 1995). Do shamans or worshippersnecessarily ad-
dress beings from whom they expect recognition of their intentions?Do glos-
solalia (Goodman 1972, Samarin1972), the use of a languageunknownto the
addressee (Bauman 1990), or other esoteric or unintelligible speech (Hinton
1980) communicatean intention,and if so, whose? Must I imputeintentionsto
spirits when seeking signs from them in return?In collective worship, must
every participantsharethe same intentionsor assumptionsaboutwhat is hap-
pening?
Religiouspracticeshaveplayeda centralrole in scholarlyeffortsto understand
languageas a formof action(Malinowski1965;cf Lienhardt1961, p. 238), nota-
bly under the influence of Austin's concept of speech acts (Austin 1975; see
Ahem 1979; Du Bois 1992; Finnegan 1969; Gill 1981, 1987; Rappaport1979;
Tambiah1979;Wheelock1982).Modelsof actiontypicallyrequiresome account
of actors'intentions;for example,in the case of language,those of speakers',as is
evidentin Searle's(1969) versionof speechact theory.In response,ethnographic
counterexamples-largely drawn from ritual contexts-have been adduced
againstthemodelsof speechthatgive centralplaceto the intentionalityof individ-
ual speakers(Duranti1993, Rosaldo 1982). In his debatewith Searle, Derrida
(1982) stressedthe degreeto which languageis independentof the intentionsof its
speakers.WhatDerridacalls the iterabilityof languagemeans thatbecause any
given utterancemustdrawon a preexistinglinguisticsystemandthuscanneverbe
fully determinedby or confinedto the specificcircumstancesin whichit is uttered,
it is alwaysvulnerableto being takenout of context,being citedratherthanused,
takenin jest ratherthanin seriousness,and so forth.Derridacan be criticizedfor
overlookingthe social characterof speech,becauseover the courseof a given in-
teractionparticipantstendto worktogetherto limitthe possible interpretations of
theirutterances(Borker1986, Brenneis1986, Duranti& Brenneis1986, Tedlock
& Mannheim1995). In manyreligiousspeech situations,however,the possibili-
ties for such interactivework arehighlyrestricted:Becausethe spiritsarenot full
coparticipantsin the shapingof meaningin the sameway othersortsof conversa-
tion partnersare, the ambiguitiesdue to language'siterabilitycan be especially
prominent.
RELIGIOUS
LANGUAGE 57
Entextualizationand Contextualization
As the question of authorshipdemonstrates,there is a wide range of forms by
which speech can manifest the presence of divine or spiritbeings in concrete
events or cast particularcircumstances as instances of eternal or originary
truths.This variationcan be seen in terms of agency, as shown above, and it
can also be viewed in relationto the definition and transformationof context
(Schieffelin 1985, Wheelock 1982). The emphasison the textualaspects of rit-
ual is, more specifically, part of a growing scholarly interest in the particular
ways by which the transformationof context comes about, and a move away
from an earlier anthropologicaltendency to privilege "face-to-face"interac-
tion and oral performance(Blackburn1988, Boyarin 1993). A key concept is
entextualization,"theprocess of renderingdiscourse extractable,...[so that] it
can be lifted out of its interactionalsetting"(Bauman& Briggs 1990, p. 73; cf
Silverstein& Urban 1996b). This process can be affected by anythingthatem-
phasizes the internalcohesion and autonomyof a stretchof discourse,permit-
RELIGIOUSLANGUAGE 63
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authority:Reading and Writingon a Poly- Briggs CL. 1993. Generic versus metaprag-
nesian Atoll. Cambridge: Cambridge matic dimensions of Warao narratives:
Univ. Press Who regiments performance? See Lucy
Blackburn SH. 1988. Singing of Birth and 1993, pp. 179-212
Death: Texts in Performance. Philadel- Buckley T. 1984. Yoruk speech registers and
phia: Univ. Penn. Press ontology. Lang. Soc. 13:467-88
Bledsoe CH, Robey KM. 1986. Arabic literacy Bunzel RL. 1932a. Introductionto Zuni cere-
and secrecy among the Mende of Sierra monialism. Rep. Bur. Am. Ethnol., 47th,
Leone. Man 21:202-26 1929-1930. Washington, DC: Smithson.
Bloch M. 1975. Introduction.In Political Lan- Inst. Press
guage and Oratory in TraditionalSociety, Bunzel RL. 1932b. Zuni ritual poetry. Rep.
ed. M Bloch, pp. 1-28. New York: Aca- Bur. Am.Ethnol., 47th, 1929-1930. Wash-
demic ington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Bloch M. 1989. (1974). Symbols, song, dance, Calame-GriauleG. 1986. (1965). Wordsand
and features of articulation:Is religion an the Dogon World. Philadelphia: Inst.
extreme form of traditional authority?In Study Hum. Issues
Ritual, History, and Power: Selected Pa- Carpenter D. 1992. Language, religion, and
pers in Anthropology, pp. 19-45. Lon- society: reflections on the authorityof the
don/AtlanticHighlands,NJ: Athlone Veda in India. J. Am. Acad Relig. 60(1):
Boddy J. 1994. Spiritpossession revisited: be- 57-78
yond instrumentality.Annu. Rev. Anthro- Clooney FX. 1987. Why the Veda has no
pol. 23:407-34 author: language as ritual in early
Borker RA. 1986. "Moved by the spirit":con- M1ma sa and post-modern theology. J.
structing meaning in a BrethrenBreaking Am. Acad Relig. 55(4):659-84
of Bread service. See Duranti& Brenneis Coleman S. 1996. Words as things: language,
1986, pp. 317-37 aesthetics and the objectification of Prot-
Bourdieu P. 1991. Language and Symbolic estantevangelicalism. J. Mater. Cult. 1(1):
Power, ed. JB Thompson. Transl. G Ray- 107-28
mond, M Adamson. Cambridge,MA: Har- Davis GL. 1985. I Got the Wordin Me and I
vard Univ. Press Can SingIt, YouKnow:A Studyof the Per-
Bowen JR. 1989. Salaitin Indonesia: the social formed African-AmericanSermon. Phila-
meaning of an Islamic ritual. Man (NS) delphia:Univ. Penn. Press
24:600-19 DerridaJ. 1982. (1972). Signatureevent con-
Bowen JR. 1993. Muslims Through Dis- text. In Margins of Philosophy. Transl. A
course: Religion and Ritual in Gayo Soci- Bass, pp. 307-30. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
ety. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Press
Boyarin J. 1993. Voices around the text: the Du Bois JW. 1986. Self-evidence and ritual
ethnographyof readingat Mesivta Tifereth speech. In Evildentiality: The Linguistic
Jerusalem. In The Ethnography of Read- Coding of Epistemology, ed. W Chafe, J
ing, ed. J Boyarin, pp. 212-37. Berkeley: Nichols, pp. 313-36. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Univ. Calif. Press Du Bois JW. 1992. Meaning without inten-
Boyer P. 1990. Tradition as Truthand Com- tion: lessons from divination. See Hill &
munication: A Cognitive Description of Irvine 1992, pp. 48-71
TraditionalDiscourse. Cambridge:Cam- DurantiA. 1993. Truth and intentionality:an
bridge Univ. Press ethnographic critique. Cult. Anthropol.
Boyer P. 1994. The Naturalness of Religious 8(2):214-45
Ideas: A Cognitive Theory of Religion. DurantiA, Brenneis DL, eds. 1986. The audi-
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press ence as co-author. Text 6(3):239-347
Brenneis DL. 1986. Shared territory: audi- DurkheimE. 1915. The ElementaryForms of
ence, indirection and meaning. See Du- the Religious Life.Transl.JW Swain. Lon-
ranti& Brenneis 1986, pp. 339-47 don: George Allen & Unwin
Brenneis DL, Myers FR. 1984. Introduction. DusenberyVA. 1992. The word as Guru:Sikh
In Dangerous Words:Language and Poli- scripture and the translation controversy.
tics in the Pacific, ed. DL Brenneis, FR Hist. Relig. 31(4):385-402
Myers, pp. 1-29. New York: New York Favret-SaadaJ. 1980. Deadly Words: Witch-
Univ. Press craft in the Bocage. Transl. C Cullen.
Briggs CL. 1988. Competence in Perform- Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press
ance: The Creativityof Traditionin AMleyi- Ferguson CA. 1985. The study of religious
cano VerbalArt.Philadelphia:Univ. Penn. discourse. In Language and Linguistics:
Press TheInterdependenceof Theory,Data, and
68 KEANE
JamesW. 1902. The Varietiesof Religious Ex- forming the Ramacritmanas of Tulsidas.
perience: A Study in Human Nature. New Berkeley: Univ. Calif Press
York: Longman Green Malinowski B. 1965. (1935). Coral Gardens
JanowitzN. 1989. Poetics of Ascent: Theories and Their Magic (2): The Language of
ofLanguage in a RabbinicAscent Text.Al- Magic and Gardening.Bloomington:Indi-
bany, NY: SUNY Press ana Univ. Press
Janowitz N. 1993. Re-creating Genesis: the Maltz DN. 1985. Joyful noise and reverentsi-
metapragmatics of divine speech. See lence: the significance of noise in Pente-
Lucy 1993, pp. 393-405 costal worship. In Perspectives on Silence,
KantorH. 1992. Currenttrendsin the seculari- ed. D Tannen, M Saville-Troike, pp.
zation of Hebrew. Lang. Soc. 21:603-9 113-37. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Katz ST, ed. 1992. Mysticism and Language. McCreeryJL. 1995. Negotiating with demons:
New York: Oxford Univ. Press the uses of magical language. Am. Ethnol.
Keane W. 1995. The spoken house: text, act, 22(1): 144-64
and object in eastern Indonesia. Am. Eth- McDowell JH. 1983. The semiotic constitu-
nol. 22:102-24 tion of Kamsa ritual language. Lang. Soc.
Keane W. 1996. Materialism, missionaries, 12:23-46
and modernsubjects in colonial Indonesia. Meigs A. 1995. Ritual language in everyday
In Conversion to Modernities: The Glob- life: the Christianright.J. Am.Acad. Relig.
alization of Christianity, ed. P van der 63(1):85-103
Veer, pp. 137-70. New York:Routledge Metcalf P. 1989. WhereAre YouSpirits? Style
Keane W. 1997a. Signs of Recognition: Pow- and Theme in Berawan Prayer. Washing-
ers and Hazards of Representation in an ton, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Indonesian Society. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Mueller T. 1981. A linguistic analysis of glos-
Press solalia: a review article. Concordia Theol.
Keane W. 1997b. From fetishism to sincerity: Q. 45:185-91
on agency, the speaking subject, and their Murray DW. 1989. Transposing symbolic
historicity in the context of religious con- forms: actor awareness of language struc-
version. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. In press tures in Navajo ritual. Anthropol. Ling.
Kratz CA. 1994. Affecting Performance: 31(3-4): 195-208
Meaning, Movement, and Experience in Nelson K. 1985. The Art of Reciting the
Okiek Women's Initiation. Washington, Qur'an (Mod. Middle East Ser. No. 11).
DC: Smithson. Inst. Press Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
Kroskrity PV. 1992. Arizona Tewa kiva Peacock JL, Tyson RW. 1989. Pilgrims of
speech as a manifestationof linguistic ide- Paradox: Calvinism and Experience
ology. Pragmatics 2:297-309 among the Primitive Baptists of the Blue
KuipersJC. 1990. Power in Performance: The Ridge. Washington, DC/London: Smith-
Creation of Textual Authority in Weyewa son. Inst. Press
Ritual Speech. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Peek PM. 1994. The sounds of silence: cross-
Press world communicationandthe auditoryarts
Lambek M. 1981. Human Spirits: A Cultural in African societies. Am. Ethnol. 21(3):
Account of Trancein Mayotte. Cambridge: 474-94
CambridgeUniv. Press Pitts WF. 1993. Old Ship of Zion: The Afro-
Lawless EJ. 1988. Handmaidens of the Lord: Baptist Ritual in the African Diaspora.
Pentecostal WomenPreachers and Tradi- New York/Oxford:Oxford Univ. Press
tional Religion. Philadelphia:Univ. Penn. Prell R. 1989. Prayer and Community: The
Press Havurah in American Judaism. Detroit:
LienhardtG. 1961. Divinity and Experience: Wayne State Univ. Press
TheReligion of the Dinka. Oxford:Claren- Rabin C. 1976. Liturgy and language in Juda-
don ism. See Samarin 1976, pp. 131-55
LindstromL. 1990. Knowledge and Power in Rafael VL. 1992. (1988). ContractingColoni-
a South Pacific Society. Washington,DC: alism: Translationand Christian Conver-
Smithson. Inst. Press sion in Tagalog Society underEarly Span-
Lopez DS. 1990. Inscribingthe Bodhisattva's ish Rule. Durham, NC/London: Duke
speech: on the Heart Sutra 's mantra.Hist. Univ. Press
Relig. 29:351-72 RappaportRA. 1979. The obvious aspects of
Lucy JA, ed. 1993. Reflexive Language: Re- ritual. In Ecology, Meaning, and Religion,
ported Speech and Metapragmatics.Cam- pp. 173-221. Berkeley: North Atlantic
bridge: CambridgeUniv. Press Books
LutgendorfP. 1991. The Life of a Text: Per- Reichard GA. 1944. Prayer: The Compulsive
70 KEANE
Word.Monogr. Am. Ethnol. Soc. 7. New SperberD, Wilson D. 1995. Relevance: Com-
York:Augustin municationand Cognition. Oxford:Black-
Robson SO. 1994. Speaking to God in Java- well. 2nd ed.
nese. I'Homme 132, 34(4):133-42 Staal F. 1990. Rules WithoutMeaning: Ritual,
Rosaldo MZ. 1982. The things we do with Mantrasand the HumanSciences. Toronto
words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act Studies in Religion, Vol. 4. New York:
theory in philosophy. Lang. Soc. 11: Lang
203-37 St. Augustine. 1961. Confessions. Transl. RS
Roseman M. 1991. Healing Soundsfrom the Pine-Coffin. Harmondsworth, UK: Pen-
Malaysian Rainforest: Temiar Music and guin
Medicine. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford: Stock B. 1996. Augustinethe Reader: Medita-
Univ. Calif. Press tion, Self-Knowledge,and the Ethics of In-
RosenbergBA. 1970. TheArt of the American terpretation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Folk Preacher. New York: Oxford Univ. Univ. Press
Press Stromberg PG. 1993. Language and Self-
SamarinWJ. 1972. Tongues of Men and An- Transformation:A Study of the Christian
gels: TheReligious Language ofPentecos- Conversion Narrative. Cambridge: Cam-
talism. New York: Macmillan bridge Univ. Press
SamarinWJ. 1973. Protestantpreachersin the Sullivan LE. 1988. Icanchu's Drum: An Ori-
prophetic line. Int. Yearb. Sociol. Relig. entation to Meaning in South American
8:243-57 Religions. New York: Macmillan
SamarinWJ, ed. 1976. Language in Religious Szuchewycz B. 1994. Evidentiality in ritual
Practice. Ser. Socioling., Georgetown discourse: the social constructionof relig-
Univ./Cent. Appl. Ling. Rowley, MA: ious meaning. Lang. Soc. 23:389-410
Newbury House Tambiah S. 1970. Buddhism and the Spirit
Schieffelin EL. 1985. Performance and the Cults in North-East Thailand Cambridge:
cultural construction of reality. Am. Eth- CambridgeUniv. Press
nol. 12(4):707-24 TambiahS. 1979. A performativeapproachto
SchipperKM. 1974. The written memorial in ritual.Proc. Br. Acad. 65:113-69
Taoist ceremonies. In Religion and Ritual Tedlock D. 1983. The Spoken Wordand the
in Chinese Society, ed. AP Wolf, pp. Work of Interpretation. Philadelphia:
309-24. Palo Alto: StanfordUniv. Press Univ. Penn. Press
Searle J. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Tedlock D, MannheimB, eds. 1995. TheDia-
Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: logic Emergence of Culture. Urbana/Chi-
CambridgeUniv. Press cago: Univ. Ill. Press
Sells MA. 1994. Mystical Languages of Un- Thomas PL, Afable PO. 1994. Kallahaninvo-
saying. Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago cations to the dead. I'Homme 132, 34(4):
Press 89-99
Shelton AJ. 1976. Controlling capricious Titon JT. 1988. Powerhousefor God: Speech,
gods. See Samarin 1976, pp. 63-71 Chant, and Song in an Appalachian Bap-
SherzerJ. 1990. VerbalArt in San Blas: Kuna tist Church.Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
Culture Through Its Discourse. Cam- Trix F. 1993. Spiritual Discourse: Learning
bridge:CambridgeUniv. Press with an Islamic Master. Philadelphia:
Silverstein M. 1976. Shifters, linguistic cate- Univ. Penn. Press
gories, and cultural description. In Mean- Tsing AL. 1993. In the Realm of the Diamond
ing in Anthropology, ed. KH Basso, H Queen: Marginality in an Out-of-the-Way
Selby, pp. 11-56. Albuquerque:Univ. N. Place. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
M. Press Press
Silverstein M. 1981. Metaforces of power in Tylor EB. 1873. Primitive Culture, Vol2. Lon-
traditionaloratory.Lect. Dep. Anthropol., don: Murray.
Yale Univ., New Haven, CT UrbanG. 1989. The "I"of discourse. In Semi-
Silverstein M. 1996. The secret life of texts. otics, Self, and Society, ed. B Lee, G Ur-
See Silverstein & Urban 1996b, pp. ban, pp. 27-51. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter
81-105 Urban G. 1991. A Discourse-Centered Ap-
Silverstein M, Urban G. 1996a. The natural proach to Culture:Native SouthAmerican
history of discourse. See Silverstein & Ur- Myths and Rituals. Austin: Univ. Tex.
ban 1996b, pp. 1-17 Press
Silverstein M, Urban G, eds. 1996b. Natural Urban G. 1996. Metaphysical Community:
Histories of Discourse. Chicago: Univ. The Interplay of the Senses and the Intel-
Chicago Press lect. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
RELIGIOUSLANGUAGE 71