Over the course of more than three decades, efforts to integrate theories of political economy
with verbal culture have produced some of the most generative inquiries into the social meaning
of discursive form. Beginning in the 1960s, sociolinguists developed what became known as the
“ethnography of speaking,”1 with the aim of considering verbal skills
and performance as aspects of a socioeconomic system whose resources are apportioned
according to a hierarchical division of labor. Critical of the more formalist and universalist
language paradigms of Leonard Bloomfield and Noam Chomsky, these theorists argued that
speaking is a socially and culturally constructed activity that is meaningful precisely in its
relationship to specific systems of material organization. By the 1970s, sociologists were
extending these insights to broader political theory by proposing that linguistic competence be
considered a form of “capital” that is distributed in “linguistic
markets.”2 Through pioneering interdisciplinary efforts, inquiries into the
competences of individual speakers gradually yielded to analyses of situated calculations that
individuals make in exchange—calculations of quantities and kinds of return, of symbolic
and economic capital, of alternative representations. Meaning was becoming as much a matter of
value and power as it was an expression of relationships between, as Ferdinand de Saussure once
proposed, a “sound pattern” and a “concept.”3 Indeed,
in recent work in linguistic and cultural anthropology, studies of meaning have been linked even
more intentionally to political economy by scholars who locate signs within social and material
contexts. Words are things that circulate as signs through social, symbolic, and economic
trajectories4 and are refracted through linguistic markets that are multiple and
shifting.5 Building on earlier social anthropology, these studies suggest that, even
within one tightly knit social community, exchange becomes meaningful only at the intersection of
multiple systems of value.