Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol

engrossing is Goodwin’s (1996) rich integration of different channels of behavior (syntactic production, intonation, body movement, display of awareness of a world beyond the immediate and ongoing) in a dynamic reconceptualization of Goffman’s notion of participation framework as it operates in situations of disruption (of initially unknown magnitude) of routines—in an airport control tower.

Sociologists can profit from this book because of sociologically relevant questions posed, answers given, and because of passing observations. Lerner’s (1996) thoughtful and suggestive work on how and why interlocutors complete utterances of speakers without being asked initially suggests as functions of such completion (1) agreement, (2) preemption of disagreement, (3) collaboration, and (4) heckling (p. 244). Lerner later argues that an early opportunistic completion may be intended to initiate or sustain a special alignment with a speaker such as affiliation (pp. 263–264). Sorjonen (1996) suggests that repeats and the Finnish particles niin and joo variously function as (1) interrogatives, (2) exclamations, (3) requests for confirmation (p. 279 ff.), (4) challenges, and (5) expressions of ritualized disbelief. There are obvious parallels to English. She also has some observations on sweetening recommendations of others when the recommender suspects that an unwanted invitation or request may be forthcoming. Schieffelin (1996, p. 442 ff.) shows how the invention and introduction of an evidential construction to refer to printed religious material, translatable as ‘‘known from this source/not known before,’’ not only has granted authority to written text when there is no basis in fact for doing so but also has been associated with the introduction of higher status for a new role of interpreter of Christianity in a society where prior stratification rested on different bases (and, not incidentally, also to a lowering of the status of women in a previously more egalitarian society).

Social conflict as process: conflict talk as language in use in social context: Early studies of intragroup conflict were largely experimental (often involving researcher-instigated disputes in dyads), usually nonattentive to particulars of subjects’ talk, and, in part because of these two features, likely to overestimate the proportion of disputes that are in some way ‘‘resolved’’ (Corsaro and Rizzo 1990; Goodwin 1996). These writers and others have suggested that many pioneer stu-

dents of conflict talk (and social conflict more generally; for an early modern commentary, see Bernard 1950) were concerned with the disruptive consequences of disputation and thus tended to underestimate more positively valued outcomes, such as the creation of social organization and socialization of conflict participants (long ago identified by Simmel and others). In recent years researchers have, with great profit, turned increasingly to texts of actual disputes.

Students of processes of social conflict have more frequently than most other social scientists sought to formalize the regularities they have discovered in this phenomenon in propositions (see Coser 1956; Mack and Snyder 1957; Williams 1947; Williams et al. 1964). Taking into account the interaction of the sociological variables (affect, power, valence) and considerations of continua such as intensity, hostility, and violence and matters of external threat and internal cohesion as manifested in a range of studies of conflict talk, the author has formulated preliminary propositions. Space limitations constrain discussion of various sorts of propositions or of how sets of propositions permit the forecasting of patterns of conflict talk. Consider, however, the following:

Many disputes include instances of assignment of blame or responsibility (see Fillmore 1971). A discourse rule for this behavior might look like the following:

1.Rule for assigning blame (responsibility). If A asserts that B should and could have

performed a behavior X1 but willfully did not or that B should and could have

avoided performing a behavior X2 but nonetheless wilfully performed it, A is

heard as blaming B for the nonoccurrence

or occurrence of X1 or X2, respectively (Grimshaw, 1992 p. 312).

The influence of power on the availability of aggressive, uncompromising, and sometimes hostile modes of talk in conflict is similar to its influence and constraint on other selection of ways of talking:

2.Ceteris paribus, selection of more ‘‘confrontational’’ modes of conflict talk (e.g., threats or insults and increased amplitude or physiological rage displays, threatening kinesic posture, or gestures)

is directly related to increasing relative power (Grimshaw 1992, p. 315).

It is interesting to note that in talk where the parties are proxy military representatives of superpowers discussing matters of very high valence, confrontational modes generally are avoided (Grimshaw 1992). A growing literature on conflict talk demonstrates that the behavior of interest is simultaneously immensely complicated and has a rich potential for new understandings both of social conflict itself and of discourse more generally. This is true even though records of critically important conflict-talk events on the group and international levels have not been available for study (Grimshaw 1992).

Language, Writing, Literacy, and Literature.

Recent events have demonstrated the continuing importance of what Geertz (1963) labeled ‘‘primordial sentiments’’ and shown that feelings about language are central among those sentiments. The range of sociological and sociologically relevant ways in which both language in general and writing and literacy in particular permeate and/or pervade human cultural and social structures and relations, as well as conceptions of identity and of self on the individual level, defies easy summary or description. People go to court in defense of their mother tongue; people have also fought in the streets and burned themselves alive over language issues. Becoming literate in any language can be primarily an instrumental acquisition; in some instances, it can have profound effects on both individual personalities and social organization (see, particularly, J. Goody 1987). The ‘‘invention’’ and development of national languages can have reverberating effects through previously atomized collectivities (Anderson 1990); when printed material becomes available, it can have critical impacts both on change in general (Eisenstein 1979) and on the development of national communities and identities (Anderson 1983).

Sociologists of literature have shown how national literatures can reveal cultural and social values (e.g., Moore 1971); sociologists who study both contemporary life and that in past times are becoming increasingly aware of the rich data in personal documents from journals to correspondence. It is even possible to hear the question, ‘‘Who wants citizens to be literate, and to what

ends?’’ (the implication is that social control may be as much a goal as is the enrichment of individual lives [see Kress and Hodge 1979]). Related interests have drawn a number of investigators to study of how written materials affect their readers, a question that has been addressed both by methods that project the ‘‘interruption’’ or ‘‘interrogation’’ of written and/or spoken texts (Silverman and Torode 1980) and by those of psycholinguistics or cognitive science.

Language and personal and social identity:

This introduction to matters of language in use in social contexts should not be closed without mention of a dimension of social life increasingly recognized by sociological social psychologists as well as sociolinguists. This section includes brief reviews of two studies that focus on this use of language in identity matters and closes with a listing of suggestive but previously unexamined questions.

Constitution of morally relevant categories of people: T. Labov (1980) has been concerned with specifying how ascriptions of morality are made in conversational discourse and about whom (i.e., which persons and collections of persons) they are made. She has concluded that a task prior to the location of evaluation and obligation in talk is the specification of how people are located in talk and how morally relevant categories of people are constituted.

According to Labov (1980), all types of ‘‘collections of people’’ (a term ‘‘used to designate any plurality of people which can be referred to in talk or systematically inferred from the talk’’) are potentially relevant in moral matters; since there is a potentially infinite number of such collections, it is imperative to develop procedures for reducing the number to be examined in any given investigation, that is, to discover principled bases for classifying collections. She does this by first developing discovery procedures for locating collections and then gathering the collections into sets bounded by common identifying dimensions.

Labov (1980) observes that references in talk to collections of people often occur in the form of common nouns, proper names, and pronouns. What people are often unaware of, she argues, are collections of ‘‘hidden people,’’ that is, ‘‘those collections of people not immediately evident in

the surface talk, but systematically retrievable.’’ Collections are hidden in five ways:

1.In references to social organization(s), incidents, and specific categories (e.g., in the case of academic settings, belong- ing-to-department-people, participating-in- defense-people, and faculty people).

2.Social characterizations, that is, collections defined by verbs of activity or specific attributes (e.g., candidate-attacking-people or candidate-defending-people or identification by gender, academic rank, features of personal appearance, voice quality, etc.) She (p. 135) notes that some activities, such as guessing, telling, and thinking, since they are features of all people, are nondiscriminating and thus analytically without value.

3.Ellipsed individuals or collections (i.e., where there is shared knowledge of past characterizations).

4.Collections concealed in references to time or place.

5.Plurals hidden in singulars.

Collections can conveniently be labeled as ‘‘feature plus people,’’ for instance, ‘‘doing research on language and identity people’’ or ‘‘reading encyclopedia articles people,’’ to make ‘‘explicit in a standardized way what features of the people are being considered’’ (emphasis added). It is precisely such explicitness that is needed forthe specification of identities and their boundaries.

Labov realizes that the identification of collections used by individual speakers is not sufficient to permit an understanding of how discussion of moral matters is accomplished in talk, and she continues by raising several critical questions. The general question is, ‘‘How do analysts (and interlocutors) know that coconversationalists are talking about a ‘same’ collection?’’ There is no easy answer to this question; collections to which reference is being made change in the course of a single speaker’s utterance, overlap across utterances, shift across utterances because the original speaker’s identification was unclear or because a hearer- become-speaker misheard or deliberately Misunderstood (Grimshaw 1980b) the original identification, are layered, subsumed, expanded (Labov’s

notion of layering is loosely akin to both the linguistic and Goffman’s [1981] more specialized uses of the term ‘‘embedding’’), and so on. Resolution of these complexities is a requirement for coherent and cohesive discourse. Labov proposes the ‘‘notion of ‘category consensus’ for a situation where the relevance of a given collection of people is shown interactional support’’ and ‘‘which occurs as co-interactants ratify the use of specific collections of people.’’ Category consensus is not always achieved; like other varieties of consensus, it is often the subject of challenge, negotiation, and metadiscussion. This is, of course, what the study of identity(ies) is about.

Exploitation of referential ambiguity in pronominal usage: A complication is introduced by the use of definite or indefinite articles such as ‘‘reading-the- Borgatta-encyclopedia people’’ versus ‘‘reading- an-encyclopedia people.’’ This introduces the possibility of the use of referential ambiguity in language as an interactional resource. The question of how collectivities (both categories and groups) are constituted and bounded and how that boundedness may be explicitly or implicitly signaled in spoken or written discourse provides a venue for additional demonstration of the value for sociology of examination of language in use. Personal and other pronouns are a useful resource in boundary work; their referential ambiguity also provides a resource exploitable for including and excluding both those present and those absent from relevant social collectivities (Grimshaw 1994a).

The fact that there are times when hearers or readers don’t know to what person or set of persons reference is being made can be weighted with social implication when it is not clear, for example, who is being scolded or praised, positively or negatively or neutrally characterized, or invited or rejected. Uncertainty can persist even in the presence of apparently disambiguating specifications such as ‘‘you all,’’ ‘‘all of you,’’ ‘‘the n of us’’ (when the collection address includes n-plus persons), and ‘‘the four of them.’’ Hearer-readers ordinarily are able to make inferences that are correct or close enough that they can sustain conversation (or reading) without continuously finding it necessary to stop to resolve ambiguities. It is also true, of course, that ambiguities may go unrecognized, be recognized but not resolved, or even be intentionally exploited. Unresolved ambiguities can be in-

consequential, but they may occasionally have delayed consequences of considerable importance (e.g., when ‘‘uninvited’’ guests turn up or unintended ‘‘insults’’ are repaid with interest).

Most readers will be far more familiar with the language–identity connection in which people participate whenever they talk with others. Except under extreme circumstances (ongoing or pending disaster) or service situations in which interactants are treated more as part of the scene than as other humans, the first thing people do when a partner in interaction speaks (in person, on the telephone, or in writing) is to ‘‘place’’ that person in terms of background (in which one usually includes age, education, ethnicity and national origin, gender, occupation, regional provenance, social class, and, depending on situation, other achieved and ascribed attributes). This sensitivity to the link between how people speak and who they are is further demonstrated by the ways in which the speech of others is imitated in ‘‘poshing up’’ (Goffman 1979) and in the production, with varying degrees of friendliness, condescension, and hostility, of ‘‘mock’’ Spanish or black English or other real or imagined languages (Hill).

Note, for example, the insertion of foreign words and phrases (insertion of not-currently-in- use-code speech: (1) foreign words and phrases, e.g., āp kē bād, buenos dias, je ne sais pas, obrigado, paz, CΠACÍΒO, was gibts (2) technical terms and phrases, such as ‘‘deep structure,’’ ‘‘diglossia,’’ ‘‘dope,’’ ‘‘gigabyte,’’ ‘‘identity,’’ ‘‘S and M,’’ ‘‘solenoid,’’ and (3) phonological variants and regional dialect lexical items or, more comprehensively, code switches in which a different language, dialect, or register is employed for an extensive stretch of talk. How are such insertions and switches to be interpreted? Readers will be able to construct scenarios in which the following are or are intended to be conveyed: ‘‘I am one of you,’’ ‘‘I am not one of you, but I am attuned and sympathetic to you,’’ ‘‘I and those of my auditors who understand what I have just said are different (superior to?) from those who did not understand,’’ ‘‘I and those who understand my metaphorical use of a variant are different from (superior to) those who processes it nonmetaphorically’’ (e.g., ‘‘humorous’’ employ of socially disvalued variants).

Questions of language in use and matters of identity (and thus of stratification, life chances,

social conflict, and so on) are inextricably interrelated and intertwined; neither can be fully comprehended without attention to the other.

APPLIED SOCIOLINGUISTICS, SOCIAL AMELIORATION, AND THEORY BUILDING

The increased interest in SL/SOL has been accompanied by and contributed to by growing public exposure to and interest in language as a social problem. Consider in the last decade of the twentieth century in the United States alone issues of free speech (‘‘hate crime’’ versus political correctness, arrests for public ‘‘cursing’’) in both public discourse and on private computers, the ‘‘English as official language’’ movement and accompanying disputes about ‘‘rights’’ to non-English ballots or other government documents, and the public hue and cry about ‘‘Ebonics.’’ Public concern about propriety in language use is not a new phenomenon (see Kamensky 1997).

Work on ‘‘real’’ problems in a variety of institutional areas has benefited from a growing body of theory, to which it has in turn contributed. Again a distinction can be made between micro and macro concerns. Micro sociolinguistic research has been done on how communication fails in classrooms, courtrooms, and clinics; macro studies have examined how the speaking of socially disvalued language varieties is associated with educational failure, differential treatment in the judicial system, and unsuccessful interaction with medical services delivery systems. Ameliorative programs have ranged from bilingualism in education to the English as official language movement, from the provision of interpreters in the courtroom to attempts to simplify legal language, and from attempts to teach prospective doctors to become better interviewers and listeners to trying to get doctors to use less technical language. Bitter controversies have raged over how the ways children talk are related to educational success and failure; the Ebonics dispute is one instance among many (see Labov 1982). Some investigators have argued that some language varieties are not suited for abstract, critical, logical, and propositional thought; others, that the success and failure of persons who speak in different ways are determined by the political preferences about language varieties of gatekeepers such as teachers and employers.

Recent years have seen the development of the role of the ‘‘language scientist’’ as an expert witness (e.g., Rieber and Stewart 1990); SL considerations are sometimes deeply involved in such testimony. Many of these programs and much of this work initially grew out of concerns with language varieties associated with ethnicity (in the United States, different varieties of Spanish and, particularly, Black Vernacular English (BVE]). There has also been more explicit attention paid to problems of communication across classes, age groups, and, particularly, gender; Tannen’s (1990) book on gender differences in talk spent many months on best-seller lists.

On a more explicitly macro level, language planning and language policy have become more visible arenas of government activity in both rich countries, which must deal with visiting or immigrant workers who speak unfamiliar languages, and poor countries, which must make decisions about which competing languages are going to receive official status and support or about which orthography to employ for previously unwritten languages. (The latter is a decision that is likely to have political as well as economic implications.) They must in some cases decide whether high literacy (often seen as an index of modernism) will ultimately contribute to their economies (or other values) as much as or more than would other investments (on outcomes of increases in literacy in industrial [izing] and less developed countries, respectively, see Graff 1979; Goody 1987). Both rich and poor countries must deal with native multilingualism; they have done it with varying success in Belgium, Canada, Finland, India, Indonesia, the former Soviet Union, Spain, Switzerland, and a number of countries in Africa (see McRae 1983, 1986, 1997, for excellent studies on Switzerland, Belgium, and Finland, respectively).

REFERENCES

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann 1966 The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Bernard, Jessie 1950 ‘‘Where is the Modern Sociology of Conflict?’’ American Journal of Sociology 56:11–16.

Bernstein, Basil 1975 Class, Codes, and Control. vol. 3:

Towards a Theory of Educational Transmission. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Blom, Jan-Petter, and John J. Gumperz 1972 ‘‘Social Meaning in Linguistic Structure(s): Code-Switching in Norway.’’ In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, eds.,

New Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Boden, Deirdre 1994 The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron 1977 Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture, trans. Richard Nice. London: Sage.

Brown, Penelope, and Steven C. Levinson 1978 ‘‘Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.’’ In E. Goody, ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman 1960 ‘‘The Pronouns of Solidarity.’’ In T. A. Sebeok, ed., Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

——— 1989 ‘‘Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies.’’ Language in Society 18:159–212.

Burke, Peter J. 1994 ‘‘Segmentation and Control of a Dissertation defense.’’ In A.D. Grimshaw et al., What’s Going on Here? Complementary Studies of Professional Talk. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Chafe, Wallace, ed. 1980 The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Chilton, Paul, ed. 1985 Language and the Nuclear Arms Debate: Newspeak Today. London: Frances Pinter.

Chomsky, Noam 1966 Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York: Harper and Row.

Anderson, Benedict R. O’G 1983 Imagined Communities: Reflections an the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

——— 1990 Language and Power: Exploring Political Cultures in Indonesia. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and Paul Drew 1979 Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.

——— 1968 Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

———, and Morris Halle 1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.

Cicourel, Aaron V. 1980a ‘‘Three Models of Discourse Analysis: The Role of Social Structure.’’ Discourse Processes 2:101–131.

——— 1980b ‘‘Language and Social Action: Philosophical and Empirical Issues.’’ Sociological Inquiry 40:1–30.

———1981 ‘‘Notes on the Integration of Microand Macro-Levels of Analysis.’’ In K. Knorr-Cetina and A. V. Cicourel, eds., Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Microand Mac- ro-Sociologies. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

———1994 ‘‘Theoretical and Methodological Suggestions for Using Discourse to Recreate Aspects of Social Structure.’’ In A. D. Grimshaw et al., What’s Going on Here? Complementary Studies of Professional Talk. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Collins, Randall 1981a ‘‘On the Microfoundations of Macrosociology.’’ American Journal of Sociology

86:984–1014.

——— 1981b ‘‘Micro-Translation as a Theory-Building Strategy.’’ In K. Knorr-Cetina and A. V. Cicourel, eds., Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Microand Macro-Sociologies. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Cook-Gumperz, Jenny, and John J. Gumperz 1994 ‘‘The Politics of a Conversation: Conversational Inference in Discussion’’ In A. D. Grimshaw, et al., What’s Going on Here? Complementary Studies of Professional Talk. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Corsaro, William A. 1981 ‘‘Communicative Processes in Studies of Social Organization: Sociological Approaches to Discourse Analysis.’’ Text 1:5–63.

——— 1985 Friendship and Peer Culture in the Early Years. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

———, and Thomas A. Rizzo 1990 ‘‘Disputes in the Peer Culture of American and Italian Nursery School Children.’’ In A. D. Grimshaw, ed., Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Coser, Lewis A 1956 The Functions of Social Conflict. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

Czarniawska, Barbara 1997 Narrating the Organization:

Dramas of Institutional Identity. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Dorval, Bruce, ed. 1990 Conversational Organization and Its Development. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Edgerton, Robert B. 1985 Rules, Exceptions, and Social Order. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 1979 The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Feld, Steven, and Carroll Williams 1975 ‘‘Toward a Researchable Film Language.’’ Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication 2:25–32.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1971 ‘‘Verbs of Judging: An Exercise in Semantic Description.’’ In C. J. Fillmore and D. T.

Langendoen, Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

——— 1994 ‘‘Humor in Academic Discourse.’’ In A. D. Grimshaw et al., eds., What’s Going on Here? Complementary Studies of Professional Talk. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Firth, Raymond 1972 ‘‘Verbal and Bodily Rituals of Greeting and Parting.’’ In J. S. La Fontaine, ed., The Interpretation of Ritual: Essays in Honour of A. L. Richards. London: Tavistock.

Fischer, John L. 1965 ‘‘The Stylistic Significance of Consonantal Sandhi in Trukese and Ponapean.’’ American Anthropologist 67:1495–1502.

——— 1966 ‘‘Syntax and Social Structure: Truk and Ponape.’’ In W. Bright, ed., Sociolinguistics: Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference, 1964. The Hague: Mouton.

Fox, Barbara A., Makoto Hayashi, and Robert Jasperson 1996 ‘‘Resources and Repair: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Syntax and Repair.’’ In E. Ochs, et al., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Geertz, Clifford 1963 ‘‘The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States.’’ In C. Geertz, ed., Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa. New York: Free Press.

Goffman, Erving 1971 Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.

——— 1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Goody, Esther N. 1978 ‘‘Towards a Theory of Questions.’’ In E. N. Goody, ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Goody, Jack 1987 The Interface between the Oral and the Written. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, Charles 1996 ‘‘Transparent Vision.’’ In E. Ochs et al., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, Marjorie Harness 1990 He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Graff, Harvey J. 1979 The Literacy Myth: Literacy and Social Structure in the Nineteenth-Century City. New York: Academic Press.

Grimshaw, Allen D. 1969 ‘‘Language as Obstacle and as Data in Sociological Research.’’ Items 23:17–21.

——— 1973a ‘‘Rules in Linguistic, Social and Sociolinguistic Systems and Possibilities for a Unified Theory.’’ In R. S. Shuy, ed., Twenty-Third Annual Round Table.

Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics (1972). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

———1973b ‘‘On Language in Society: Part I.’’ Contemporary Sociology 2:575–585.

———1974a ‘‘On Language in Society: Part II.’’ Contemporary Sociology 3:3–11.

———1974b ‘‘Sociolinguistics.’’ In I. de Sola Pool and W. Schramm, eds., Handbook of Communication. Chicago: Rand McNally.

———1980a ‘‘Social Interactional and Sociolinguistic Rules.’’ Social Forces 58:789–810.

———1980b ‘‘Mishearing, Misunderstandings and Other Nonsuccesses in Talk: A Plea for Redress of SpeakerOriented Bias.’’ Sociological Inquiry 40:31–74.

———1981 ‘‘Talk and Social Control.’’ In M. Rosenberg et al., eds., Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology. New York: Basic Books.

———, ed. 1982 Sound-Image Records in Social Interaction Research. Special issue of Sociological Methods and Research 11.

———1987a ‘‘Sociolinguistics versus Sociology of Language: Tempest in a Teapot or Profound Academic Conundrum?’’ In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, and K. J. Mattheier, eds., Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

———1987b ‘‘Micro-Macrolevels.’’ In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, and K. J. Mattheier, eds., Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

———1987c ‘‘Disambiguating Discourse: Members’ Skill and Analysts’ Problem.’’ Social Psychology Quarterly 50:186–204.

———1989 Collegial Discourse: Professional Conversation among Peers. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

———, ed. 1990 Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

———1992 ‘‘Research on the Discourse of International Negotiations: A Path to Understanding International Conflict Processes?’’ Sociological Forum 7:87–119.

———1994a ‘‘Referential Ambiguity in Pronominal Inclusion: Social and Linguistic Boundary Marking’’ In A.D. Grimshaw et al., eds., What’s Going on Here? Complementary Studies of Professional Talk. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

———1994b ‘‘What We Have Learned: Some Research Conclusions and Some Conclusions about Research.’’ In A. Grimshaw et al., eds., What’s Going on Here?

Complementary Studies of Professional Talk. Norwood,

N.J.: Ablex

———, Peter J. Burke, Aaron V. Cicourel, Jenny CookGumperz, Steven Feld, Charles J. Fillmore, Lily Wong Fillmore, John J. Gumperz, Michael A. K. Halliday, Ruqaiya Hasan, and David Jenness, eds., 1994 What’s Going on Here? Complementary Studies of Professional Talk. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

———, Steven Feld, and David Jenness 1994 ‘‘The MAP: An Ethnographic History of the Project and a Description of the Data.’’ In A. Grimshaw et al., eds.,

What’s Going on Here? Complementary Studies of Professional Talk. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Gumperz, John J., and Dell Hymes, eds. (1972 [1966]) 1986 Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Habermas, Jürgen 1981–1984 The Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hall, Edward T. 1966 The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

——— 1974 Handbook for Proxemic Research. Washington, D.C.: Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication.

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994 ‘‘So You Say ‘Pass’ . . .

Thank You Three Muchly.’’ In A. D. Grimshaw et al.,

What’s Going on Here? Complementary Studies of Professional Talk. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Hasan, Ruqaiya 1994 ‘‘Situation and the Definition of Genres.’’ In A. D. Grimshaw et al., What’s Going on Here? Complementary Studies of Professional Talk. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Hill, Jane H. 1999 ‘‘Language, Race, and White Public Space.’’ American Anthropologist 100: 680–689.

Hymes, Dell 1966 ‘‘Two Types of Linguistic Relativity (with Examples from Amerindian Ethnography).’’ In W. Bright, ed., Sociolinguistics: Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference, 1964. The Hague: Mouton.

Ibrahim ag Youssouf, Allen D. Grimshaw, and Charles S. Bird 1976 ‘‘Greetings in the Desert.’’ American Ethnologist 3:797–824.

Kamensky, Jane 1997 Governing the Tongue: The Politics of Speech in Early New England. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kendon, Adam 1977 1990 Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

———, and Andrew Ferber 1973 ‘‘A Description of Some Human Greetings. In R. P. Michael and J. H. Crooks, eds., Comparative Ecology and Behavior of Primates. London: Academic Press.

Kress, Gunther, and Robert Hodge 1979 Language as Ideology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Labov, Teresa G. 1980 The Communication of Morality: Cooperation and Commitment in a Food Cooperative. Unpublished dissertation. New York: Columbia University.

Labov, William 1968 ‘‘A Proposed Program for Research and Training in the Study of Language in Its Social and Cultural Settings.’’ New York: Columbia University (mimeograph).

———1972a ‘‘Some Principles of Linguistic Methodology.’’ Language in Society 1:97–120.

———1972b Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

———, ed. 1980 Locating Language in Time and Space. New York: Academic Press.

———1982 ‘‘Objectivity and Commitment in Linguistic Science: The case of the Black English Trial in Ann Arbor.’’ Language in Society 11:165–201.

———1986 ‘‘Language Structure and Social Structure.’’ In S. Lindenberg, J. S. Coleman, and S. Nowak, eds., Approaches to Social Theory. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

———, and David Fanshel 1977 Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.

Lemert, Charles C. 1979 Sociology and the Twilight of Man: Homocentrism and Discourse in Sociological Theory. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Lerner, Gene H. 1996 ‘‘On the ‘Semi-Permeable’ Character of Grammatical Units in Conversation: Conditional Entry into the Turn Space of Another Speaker.’’ In E. Ochs et al., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mack, Raymond W., and Richard C. Snyder 1957 ‘‘The Analysis of Social Conflict—Toward an Overview and Synthesis.’’ Journal of Conflict Resolution 1:212–248.

Maynard, Douglas W. 1984. Inside Plea Bargaining: The Language of Negotiation. New York: Plenum.

McRae, Kenneth D. 1983 Conflict and Compromise in Multilingual Societies: Switzerland. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

———1986 Conflict and Compromise in Multilingual Societies: Belgium. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

———1997 Conflict and Compromise in Multilingual Societies: Finland. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Moore, T. Inglis 1971 Social Patterns in Australian Literature. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ochs, Elinor, Patrick Gonzales, and Sally Jacoby 1996

‘‘‘When I Come Down I’m in the Domain State’: Grammar and Graphic Representation in the Interpretive Activity of Physicists. In E. Ochs et al., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

———, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, eds. 1996 Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rieber, Robert W., and William A. Stewart, eds. 1990

The Language Scientist as Expert in the Legal Setting: Issues in Forensic Linguistics. Vol. 606 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996 ‘‘Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.’’ In E. Ochs, et al. eds, Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Schieffelin, Bambi B. 1996 ‘‘Creating Evidence: Making Sense of Written Words in Bosavi.’’ In E. Ochs et al., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Silverman, David, and Brian Torode 1980 The Material Word: Some Theories of Language and Its Limits. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Sorjonen, Marja-Lenna 1996 ‘‘On Repeats and Responses in Finnish Conversations.’’ In E. Ochs et al., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, Deborah 1990 You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation. New York: Morrow.

Watson-Gegeo, Karen A., and Geoffrey M. White, eds. 1990 Disentangling: Conflict Discourse in Pacific Societies. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.

Wertsch, James, and Hugh Mehan, eds. 1988 Discourse of the Nuclear Arms Debate. Special issue of Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 7.

Whalen, Jack 1991 ‘‘Conversation Analysis.’’ In E. Borgatta and M. Borgatta, eds., Encyclopedia of Sociology, vol. 4. New York: Macmillan.

Williams, Robin M., Jr. 1947 The Reduction of Intergroup Tensions. New YorK: Social Science Research Council.

———, John P. Dean, and Edward A. Suchman 1964

Strangers Next Door: Ethnic Relations in American Communities. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Wong Fillmore, Lily 1994 ‘‘The Role and Function of Formulaic Speech in Conversation.’’ In A. D. Grimshaw et al., eds., What’s Going on Here? Complementary Studies of Professional Talk. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

ALLEN D. GRIMSHAW