Individuals can do a broad variety of things with their words and enjoy different degrees of this capacity. What moderates this capacity? And in cases in which this capacity is unjustly disrupted, what is a good explanation for it? These are the questions I address here. I propose that speech capacity, understood as the capacity to do things with your words, is a structural property importantly dependent on individuals' position in a social structure. My account facilitates a non‐individualistic explanation of cases in which speech capacity is undermined due to speaker's perceived social identity, e.g. episodes of silencing. Instead of appealing to interlocutors' implicit bias against speaker's identity, a structural approach refers to the positions interlocutors occupy in the social structure and the discursive conventions operating upon those positions. I articulate my proposal drawing on the notion of affordances . Each position within a social structure is associated with its own range of speech affordances . Thus, speech capacity is a function of the probability distribution of speech affordances across positions in the structure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saray Ayala (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: