Аңдатпа
First, let us thank the discussants for their time and careful attention to our work.Here, we record some responses and reflections on their commentaries, in turn.Leda Berio asks: What about power?Many things are meant by the term "power".We will assume that power is not simply "the ability to pursue and attain goals through mastery of one's environment" (Mann 1986: 6), but rather is a more coercive and potentially oppressive social capacity: "the permanent, institutionalized power of some over the material life chances of others" (Mann 1986: 38; see also Wrong 1979 Chapter 2).The institutionalization of power in this sense is often associated with state apparatus, which, through institutions such as the police and military, claims a "monopoly on the legitimate use of force", as Weber defined it.But of course, power is not only the domain of modern, militarized, state organizations but is inherent to social relations in the most ancient sense.It is widely held that the distribution of power is achieved by various forms of discourse (propaganda, popular culture, media bias, default idioms, etc.), which give rise to hegemony (Gramsci 1971;Litowitz 2000), the situation in which people "spontaneously consent" to an established set of power relations, including forms of inequality.This suggests a causal connection between the human possession of language and the unique capacity for exerting social control at scale.But we would not draw a straight line from discourse to social domination or oppression, as Rousseau did in the Origins of Inequality, or as a subsequent host of approaches collectively known under the rubric "critical", e.g.critical discourse analysis, critical sociolinguistics, and so on, have done.Rather, to understand how power is related to language, we would insist on an analysis of the underlying causal anatomy of language use.Our account in Consequences of Language suggests the direction we would take.We would ask not just how a dominant ideology can be discerned in the analysis of symbols, but we would ask how linguistic practices enable people to hold others accountable, and to resist and reframe attempts to do so.This, we would suggest, has two main parts.The first is the infrastructure of social interaction that allows us to channel, filter, and direct the flow of mutuallyoriented action.In Consequences of Language, we laid out the elements of this