ABSTRACT
Discourse analysts start by selecting indexicals —identifying signs that might be important signals about the social action occurring, signs that could play a central role in contextualization. Signs only come to have clear meanings as relevant context emerges, and this happens as indexical signs come consistently to presuppose aspects of the context. “Metapragmatics” refers to the signs and processes that describe how language performs action. “Metalanguage” is language referring to and characterizing language. Explicit or implicit metapragmatic discourse indicates how participants and analysts should interpret key indexicals, making certain metapragmatic models the most plausible ones for construing the social action occurring in a discursive interaction. The process of entextualization describes how an account of social action emerges over the course of an interaction, as indexical signs and metapragmatic models come to buttress each other. If signs had univocal functions, discourse analysis would be easy—the analyst could simply consult a key that identifies what each type of sign means.
