Language shift from German–Hungarian bilingualism to the exclusive use of German is occurring in the community discussed. Young women are further along in the direction of this change than older people and young men. The linguistic contrast between German and Hungarian is shown to represent the social dichotomy between a newly available worker status and traditional peasant status; thus the choice of language in interaction is part of a speaker's presentation of self. Young women's stated preferences concerning this social dichotomy and their changing marriage strategies indicate that their greater use of German in interaction is one aspect of their general preference for the worker's way of life it symbolizes. Rather than simply isolating a linguistic correlate of sex, the present study suggests that women's speech choices must be explained within the context of their social position, their strategic life choices and the symbolic values of the available linguistic alternatives (language and sex roles; interactional analysis; social determinants of language shift; European bilingualism).

The present issue presents the continuation of work begun at a symposium on child discourse held at the meetings of the American Anthropological Association in 1974. The papers presented there were subsequently published (Mitchell-Kernan & Ervin-Tripp icy). These papers on social discourse all dealt with children's sociolinguistic skills applied to conversation. Among the topics we explored together, the sequencing and function of children's discourse was a problem of particular interest and complexity. Therefore, following the first symposium, the participants planned another for the purpose of discussing sequencing in child discourse. The papers presented at the second symposium, held at the 1975 meetings of the American Anthropological Association, are included here in revised form. These papers indicate the complexity of the issues related to the structure of children's discourse. Sequencing, for instance, appears to be more than a matter of linguistic rules, or even a matter of turn-taking between speakers. Rather, the choice of linguistic forms, of speech acts or routines, like the choice of whether to speak or to communicate in some other way, seems to be determined by interactional strategies as well as linguistic rules. Interactional strategies, in turn, reveal assumptions that speakers appear to hold about the nature of the participants and the most appropriate and effective way to use language in interactions with them. A consensus concerning the importance and implications of interactional strategies can be discerned in these papers, and this is the central theme of this volume.

Comparative analysis demonstrates salient stylistic, contextual and content features of two genres of dispute discourse in a Fiji Indian village. Specific strategies of persuasion are examined, as well as explanations for their effectiveness in influencing the course of community conflicts.

Over the past ten years the study of language in its social context has become a mature field with a substantial body of method and empirical results. As a result of this work we are arriving at new insights into such classical problems as the origin and diffusion of linguistic change, the nature of stylistic variation in language use, and the effect of class structure on linguistic variation within a speech community. Advances in sociolinguistics have been most evident in the study of co-variation between social context and the sound pattern of speech. The results reported in numerous monographs have laid the basis for substantial theoretical progress in our understanding of the factors that govern dialect variation in stratified communities, at least in its phonological aspect. The formulation of theories of the causes of phonological variation that go beyond guesswork and vague generalities appears at last to be possible. Therefore, we offer the following discussion, based on the material that is now available, as a contribution to the development of an explanatory theory of the mechanisms underlying social dialect variation. Although we shall state our views strongly, we know that they are far from definitive. We present them, not as positions to be defended at all costs, but as stimuli to further theoretical reflection in a field that has been, thus far, descriptively oriented.

Despite considerable recent research on child discourse, there has been little controlled cross-cultural work. Numerous valuable studies of children's speech events in specific societies are available, but comparisons are largely anecdotal and informal. Similarly, several analytical schemata have been developed to deal with particular types of discourse in particular societies (see, for example, Sinclair & Coulthard 1975; Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974 Brenneis & Lein 1977; Watson & Boggs 1977), but their applicability in other contexts has not been tested. Comparative research is necessary both to test the generality of interpretations of child discourse based on research in one society and to explore the cross-cultural utility of analytical methods.

In 1972 Labov described the basic sociolinguistic question as the one ‘posed by the need to understand why anyone says anything’ (1972:207). Clearly the aim is very different from that of specifying the form of a grammar that generates all and only the well-formed sentences of a language. The goal is a theory of utterances. Moreover, the ‘why’ question can also be read as ‘what for’. What does anyone say anything for? I think we can safely say that this question places sociolinguistic analysis in a functional framework. If sociolinguistics looks for answers to the ‘why’ of saying something, it is seeking functional explanations.

Children in Hawaii who have some Polynesian ancestry have been observed to engage frequently in a pattern of verbal disputing that is characterized by the forceful use of ‘Not!’ as an outright contradiction by one speaker of another. This paper describes the pattern and its development from early childhood into adolescence and the context of relationships in which it develops.

Ongoing change in Wolof noun classification is traced by comparing nineteenth-century linguistic evidence with modern sociolinguistic data. On the rural scene, the noun class system today displays competing generalizations, associated with different social groups. Upwardly mobile middle-aged men of high caste tend to reduce the system, whereas other speakers tend to elaborate it. The source of both tendencies can be found in Wolof cultural assumptions relating social rank to norms of verbal conduct. In particular, an idea that linguistic ‘error’ can be appropriate for high-ranking persons underlies the reductionist tendencies of upwardly mobile speakers. Although the two tendencies compete on one level, on another they combine to form a more general systemic trend toward the incorporation of social features into Wolof syntax. (Sociolinguistic change, noun classification, norms for performance, ‘appropriate error’, criteria for inference of change; Wolof language of Senegal.)

Beginning with a consideration of some commonsense and professional conceptions of what a formal situation might comprise, this paper goes on to ask the question: where along a linear array which has its poles in exemplars of formal and informal speech-exchange systems, can classroom talk be placed? Its answer is given in part in the form of rules for the taking of turns in classrooms, these being modifications of those, already established in the literature, for natural conversation. These rules allow for and require that formal classroom situations be constructed so as to involve differential participation rights for parties to the talk depending on their membership of the social identity-class ‘student/teacher’. The analyses which follow examine some of the applications and violations of these rules found in audio and video recordings of naturally occurring classroom talk (and transcripts thereof) for their orderliness as orientations to these rules. It is argued that the rules provide a systematic basis for the ‘feelings’ of ‘formality’ that researchers and participants have of such situations and that a decision as to the ‘formality’ or otherwise of a social situation can be predicated on the degree of pre-allocation involved in the organization of turns at talk in the situation. (Configuration and distance in interaction, conversational analysis, turn-taking systems, classroom language, sociology of education; British and Australian English).

Black English is increasingly recognized as a systemic, ‘rule-governed’, form of language (lect), like any other, at least among scholars. There is less adequate understanding of the meaning of Black English to those who use it. Such understanding requires ethnographic study of the place of Black English in the verbal repertoire of the community in which it is used. There has been some work in this area, but much of it has focused on aspects of Black English of interest for linguistic theory, e.g. the possibility of creole origins as a constraint on variability. Such studies have tended not to recognize the full scope and complexity of Black English. The aspects given attention have been those most exotic and remote from conventional English (for criticism on this point, see Abrahams (1972) and Wright (1972) ). While such studies have increased recognition and acceptance of Black English, the model in terms of which they have done so has been implicitly the ‘other culture’ model. There has been an appeal to the acceptance of cultural difference associated in our minds with Ruth Benedict's studies of Patterns of Culture, Margaret Mead's studies in Samoa and New Guinea, etc. This ‘other culture’ model is inadequate to the situation of the Black Community. There is partial truth to it; respect for the ways in which Black Americans may differ from ‘mainstream’ expectations is necessary. But social policy and action, especially in regard to education, cannot be based on so partial a truth. This became clear when well-meaning scholars attempted to introduce elementary school readers that used vernacular Black English. There was great protest from many in the Black community itself.

The historical present, the use of the present tense to refer to past events, is a feature of narrative which has long been recognized. The object of this analysis is the use of the historical present tense specifically in narratives which occur in everyday conversational interactions. This usage will be referred to as the conversational historical present to distinguish it from the use of this tense in other genres such as travelogues and jokes. In the analysis of the occurrence of the conversational historical present, it was found that features of the relationship between the speaker and the audience had a strong influence. This is true not because the use of the linguistic feature itself is socially stratified, but rather because it functions as one of a set of features which appear in a specific type of narrative and is therefore governed by norms of interaction which constrain the social behavior involved in the recounting of such narratives. The fact that the use of the conversational historical present is an interactional variable in this respect has had important theoretical and methodological implications for the analysis which is reported here. The basic theoretical point is that in the study of the conversational historical present one sees a perfect example of the relationship between linguistic structure and language use.

A great deal of interest has developed in the last few years in studying children's linguistic routines in interaction as a means toward understanding child cognitive development (see for example Mitchell-Kernan & Ervin-Tripp 1977). In this study we hope to extend the parameters of this line of research to include cross- cultural investigation. We also hope to shift the focus of investigation away from concentration on children's routinized usage of linguistic form to concentration on children's strategies in their total communicative behavior, both linguistic and non-linguistic.

Sociolinguistic studies over the past ten years have demonstrated time and again how linguistic behavior changes as a person's social position changes, and how language is thus an excellent indicator of social status and social change.

Adaptations to a partner perceived to be conversationally incompetent can be heard in speech to children, the hard-of-hearing, foreigners, speakers with certain speech defects, the aged, and hospital patients. These adaptations may be controlled partially by the actual performance of partners in conversations, through influences on perceived ability. The first half of this paper describes specific changes in children's conversational abilities in early childhood, which in turn may serve to alter how their partners judge their abilities to understand. The second half of the paper addresses the evidence regarding the level and types of changes in adult speech to children as the child's ability changes.

This paper, like the research on which it is based, grew out of an interest in the conditions and circumstances which enable children to tell long and involved stories of their own creation. For several years we have been collecting narratives from part-Hawaiian children five to twelve years of age in a variety of circumstances. These include both individual children and self-selected peer groups talking to each other and with one of us around school or in their own neighborhoods (see Watson-Gegeo & Boggs 1977; Watson 1975; Boggs 1972). The description by Sutton-Smith and his collaborators (1975: 82), which parallels some of our experiences, provides a useful introduction to the questions addressed in this paper:

If you keep asking children to make up stories for you and show some delight at the stories they tell; and if you keep coming back and asking for more stories, then the stories get better and better.

Linguists and psychologists have noted the potential value of studying speech errors since the 1890s (Meringer & Mayer 1895; Freud 1938; Fromkin 1973; MacKay 1972). The reasoning has been that involuntary errors may lay bare certain aspects of the speech production system which are hidden in normal, errorless speech. Today we are closer than ever before to realizing this hope, because (a) we have more complete samples and analyses of spontaneous errors (Fromkin 1973; MacKay 1970; Garrett 1975) and (b) because of considerable success in recent years in attempts to elicit errors of varying complexity in the laboratory (MacKay 1971; Baars & Motley 1974; Motley & Baars 1976). This paper reports some extensions of the experimental approach, extensions which apparently enable us to elicit almost any arbitrary error at any level of complexity.

Maintenance of dialect differences despite loss of communicative isolation points up the need to analyze the role of dialect-standard alternates in signalling social identity and in contributing to conversational inference. Such analysis should focus on conversational interaction and on the processes by which situated interpretations are arrived at and used as frames for interpreting what follows. An Afro-American sermon and a disputed speech by a Black political leader to a mixed audience are analyzed. Dialect alternants serve to signal switching between contrasting styles in both. In the sermon, the audience shares with the speaker a knowledge of the structure of the activity and of the rules for both styles. In the speech, the activity lacks a predictable structure, only the style can frame interpretation, and most of the audience do not share its rules. Conversational inference is shown to depend not only on grammar, lexical meanings and conversational principles, but also on constellations of speech variants, rhythm, and prosody. Such constellations may persist as symbols of shared cultural background. (Dialectology, conversational and discourse analysis; Afro-American speech styles; urban United States.)