This essay argues that the pervasive twentieth century understanding of meaning -a sign stands for an object -is incorrect. In its place, it o¤ers the following definition, which is framed not in terms of a single relation (of standing for), but in terms of a relation (of correspondence) between two relations (of standing for): a sign stands for its object on the one hand, and its interpretant on the other, in such a way as to make the interpretant stand in relation to the object corresponding to it own relation to the object. Using this definition, it reanalyzes key concepts and foundational arguments from linguistics so far as they relate to anthropology and psychology.

Stance may be understood as the semiotic means by which we indicate our orientation to states of affairs, usually framed in terms of evaluation (e.g., moral obligation and epistemic possibility) or intentionality (e.g., desire and memory, fear and doubt). Using data from Q'eqchi'‐Maya and English, stance is operationalized in terms of complement‐taking predicates and the grammatical category of status. Using frameworks from Goffman and Jakobson, it is argued that these lexical and grammatical domains disambiguate principals from animators (here called the commitment event and the speech event, respectively). It is argued that stances may be crosslinguistically grouped and ordered as a function of the degree to which the commitment event subsumes, or coincides with, the narrated event. And it is argued that “subjectivity in language” is not the issue; rather, research should focus on the intersection of a crosslinguistic account of commitment events and community‐specific understandings of a speaker's contribution to event construal.

This essay outlines some common properties of channels, infrastructure, and institutions. It analyzes the tense relation between channels and codes, on the one hand, and circulation and interpretation, on the other. It compares the assumptions and interventions of three traditions: cybernetics (via Claude Shannon), linguistic anthropology (via Roman Jakobson), and actor‐network theory (via Michel Serres). By developing the relation between Serres's notion of the parasite and Peirce's notion of thirdness, it theorizes the epi‐function served by the menagerie of entities who live in and off infrastructure: enemies and noise, meters and sieves, pirates and exploits, catalysts and assassins. By extending Jakobson's duplex categories (shifters, reported speech, proper names, metalanguage) from code‐sign relations to channel‐signer relations, it describes four reflexive modes of circulation that any network may involve: source‐dependent channels, signer‐directed signers, self‐channeling channels, and channel‐directed signers. And it relates the commensuration of value to the enclosure of disclosure. [media, infrastructure, circulation, translation, enclosure.]

The commodity is analyzed from a semiotic stance. Rather than systematically unfold a subject-object dichotomy (via Hegel's history as dialectic), it systematically deploys a sign-object-interpretant trichotomy (via Peirce's logic as semiotic). Rather than conflate economic value and linguistic meaning through the lens of Saussure's semiology, it uses Peirce's semiotic to provide a theory of meaning that is general enough to include commodities and utterances as distinct species. Rather than relegate utility and measure to the work of history (as per the opening pages of Marx's Capital), these are treated as essential aspects of political economy. And rather than focus on canonical 19th-century commodities (such as cotton, iron, and cloth), the analysis is designed to capture salient features of modern immaterial commodities (such as affect, speech acts, and social relations). [commodity, semiotics, value, measurement, labor] S ince the signing of peace accords in 1996, bringing to a ceremonial end several decades of civil war, Guatemala has seen hundreds of nongovernmental organizations spring up, attempting to meet the challenges of post-civil war society: overpopulation, deforestation, illiteracy, damaged infrastructure, nonexistent democracy, and-as evinced in the explosion of vigilante justice in rural villages-a growing sense not only of state illegitimacy but of impotence.One of these organizations is Project Eco-Quetzal, founded in 1990 by German ecologists with the goal of protecting the numerous bird species that reside in Guatemala's remaining cloud forests. Since the peace accords, the project has grown and diversified considerably, its goals now including the promotion of alternative crafts, biomonitoring, intensive farming, soil conservation, sustainable development, disaster preparedness, literacy, health care, and conflict resolution. In other words, as it expands and transforms, its functions extend into those domains where the state cannot reach-a sphere that continually seems to grow rather than shrink.At the center of the project's interventions is the village of Chicacnab, located in the department of Alta Verapz. 1 As per the project's initial goals, given the village's relatively high altitude and remote location, it provides the perfect setting for the existence of cloud forest. And such a cloud forest provides the perfect setting for a high density of endangered avifauna.In 2000, there were some 80 families living in Chicacnab, with a total population of around 600 people. While all villagers engage in corn-based agriculture, very few villagers have enough land to fulfill all of their subsistence needs. For this reason, many women in the village are dedicated to chicken husbandry, most men in the village engage in seasonal labor on plantations (up to five months a year in some cases), and many families engage in itinerant trade (women weaving baskets and sewing textiles for the men to sell).