Despite the relevance of language use in expert testimony, researchers have rarely scrutinized the linguistic and interactional processes of constructing an expert identity. This study, rather than reifying the concept of expert and leaving it as an unproblematic legal argument, examines how this institutional identity emerges in and through discursive interaction between the prosecuting attorney and a physician (who is also the defendant) in trial cross-examination. Using Goffman's notion of footing, the article examines how both prosecutor and defendant mobilize direct and indirect quotes, repetitive parallelism, epistemic modality, counterfactuals, evidentiality, sequencing, and specialized tokens of the medical register to contextualize shifting into and departing from an expert identity. I would like to thank the Office of Social Science Research at the University of Illinois at Chicago for financial help. Don Lance (as always) and Richard Cameron provided detailed comments and guidance throughout the course of writing. Thanks are due to Wayne Kerstetter, Mike Maltz, Pat McAnany, Joe Peterson, and Sarah Ullman for comments at an early presentation. Finally, I deeply appreciate the very detailed comments of Elizabeth Mertz and W. M. O'Barr, which I have tried to incorporate as much as possible.

This issue of Language in Society has been designed to explore the relevance of the concept of Community of Practice (CofP) – as presented by Lave & Wenger 1991 and by Wenger 1998 – to research in sociolinguistics, with a particular focus on its value in language and gender research. The contents of the issue grew out of a symposium at the Sixth International Conference on Language and Social Psychology, held at the University of Ottawa in May 1997. I invited the contributors whose work is represented in this issue to join me in exploring the usefulness of the CofP framework in relation to their own research.

This article explores how members of small work groups use audible and visible actions to coordinate conversational interaction. The analysis of this activity context includes some methods for re-engaging turn-by-turn talk after it has lapsed, as well as some methods for making relevant a lapse in talk, and dis-engaging it, once it has been engaged. In addition, the actions positioned at conversational boundaries, both pre-re-engaging and post-dis-engaging, show the members' orientation to phases of lapse and phases of turn-by-turn talk. This study is part of a larger dissertation project (Szymanski 1996). I thank Rebecca Simon and her third-graders for welcoming me into their classroom. I also gratefully acknowledge Gene Lerner, John Gumperz, Leslie Jarmon, and Jürgen Streeck for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article.

School students (15–16 years) in six regions of Wales were recorded telling stories in their local English dialects. Some of these narratives were used as samples representing the main English dialect regions in Wales. Comparable groups of students (n = 169) and a group of teachers (n = 47) rated the audio-recorded speakers on a number of scales of affiliation, status, and Welshness. Statistical analysis of their ratings, employing cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling, made it possible to detect some of the competing or additive effects of dialect and narrative features. Judgments of “Welshness” of the speaker/narratives were grounded in the regional dialect properties; but other judgments, such as the likability of the speakers, tended to draw on features of both dialect and narrative. In addition, comparison of students and teachers revealed differences in their evaluations of particular dialect communities and the characteristics of the narratives. The findings illustrate the importance of approaching the analysis of dialect variation within the broader context of speech and discourse performance.

This article provides an introduction to this issue of Language in Society by exploring the relationship of the concept of Community of Practice (CofP) to related terms and theoretical frameworks. The criterial characteristics and constitutive features of a CofP are examined; the article points out how a CofP framework is distinguished from other sociolinguistic and social psychological frameworks, including social identity theory, speech community, social network and social constructionist approaches.

This study, drawing on data from a large sociolinguistic interview corpus for three Acadian communities of Atlantic Canada, concerns codeswitches involving verbs of opinion or belief (e.g. guess, think, imagine, believe) in French-English bilingual discourse. The codeswitch itself serves to underscore the speaker's stance as to the truth of the proposition – and, in some cases, to indicate a degree of uncertainty not nuanced by corresponding French language forms. Variation in usage is related to intensity of language contact at the levels of the community and of the individual.

The explanatory model of cross-cultural miscommunication, or crosstalk, is extended here through a multi-feature, multi-dimensional analysis of Soviet and American speakers' discourse in two three-hour audio/video “spacebridge” meetings. The study demonstrates that variation between speakers' uses of co-occurring sets of lexical and syntactic features can contribute to crosstalk. Crosstalk is shown to be functionally motivated by interlocutors' different constructions of the speech-event context and norms of interpretation.

A factor analysis of lexical and syntactic features in spacebridge participants' discourse identifies two main dimensions of stylistic variation; use of the sets of co-occurring features that constitute these dimensions are interpreted as performing different discourse functions, and thereby indexing different aspects of the speech-event context. Soviet floor turns that exhibit the greatest stylistic divergence from American stylistic behavior and expectations are shown to correlate with communicative breakdowns in the spacebridges, and thereby to contribute to crosstalk. The analysis suggests that, at some level, stylistic contextualization cues are quantitatively “analyzed” in real time by discourse participants, and it demonstrates some of the explanatory potential of quantitative modeling of complex indexical processes such as stylistic accommodation, divergence, and opposition. I wish to thank Doug Biber, Elinor Ochs, and Barbara Johnstone for invaluable feedback on this study.

This article proposes the adoption of Goffman's concept of “framing” to characterize irony across its forms; the suggestion that this framing is achieved by a shift of footing reveals links between verbal irony and other forms of talk. Examination of irony in conversation shows how the shift of footing allows for detachment, enabling the ironist to make evaluations in response to perceived transgressions with reference to common assumptions. It is both the construction of an ironic turn and its placement in a sequence that make for the discernible shift of footing, and thus the visibility of the frame; with irony, conversational expectations of what constitutes a next turn are fulfilled on the level of form, but undermined on the level of content. This analysis shows the extent to which irony is affiliative, and reveals its hitherto unacknowledged subtlety of effect and range of attitude. I am most grateful to David Britain, Anita Pomerantz, Ad Putter, and Andrew Spencer for helpful discussions and useful comments on an earlier version of this article. Paul Drew, David Good, and Rachael Harris also read versions of my work, when it formed part of a Ph.D. thesis on conversational misunderstandings, and offered invaluable guidance. I am, in addition, deeply indebted to an anonymous referee from Language in Society whose observations on an earlier draft prompted me to reconsider my presentation of certain issues, particularly with regard to the work of John Haiman. Many ensuing improvements in clarity are owed to this referee. The study would have been impossible without the conversational data; the extent of my debt to those who supplied them will be evident to anyone reading this. My thanks to all.

Drawing on data gathered during fieldwork in an Indo-Guyanese village (1994–96), this article shows that the gender patterns for variable pronominal usage are strikingly stable over time. In both this study and one conducted by John Rickford more than twenty years ago, women, compared with men, use more basilectal variants in the category of 1sg. subject (mi vs. ai), but fewer in the category of 3sg. objects (am vs. shi/ii/it). Rather than explain this variation as a “leveling out” (Rickford 1979), it is here suggested that variants must be understood in terms of their contribution to an unfolding interactional engagement. The conclusion remarks on the continuing confusion among sociolinguists regarding the analytical relevance of gender as an external constraint on variation. A more developed understanding of these issues depends on recognizing the way in which language variation serves as an indirect and constitutive index of gender.

Sociologists typically assume that immigrants' acquisition of English as a second language follows the opportunities and motivations to become proficient in English, while many linguists argue that second language acquisition may be governed by maturational constraints, possibly biologically based, that are tied to the age at onset of language learning. In this article, I use U.S. census data to investigate the relationship between age at onset of second language learning and levels of English language proficiency among foreign-born adults in the United States. The overarching conclusion is that proficiency in a second language among adults is strongly related to age at immigration. Part of that relationship is attributable to social and demographic considerations tied to age at entry into a new country, and part may be attributable to maturational constraints. Many colleagues, spread across several disciplines, provided valuable comments on this research. Among them were Cynthia Fisher, Nancy Garrett, Susan Gonzo, John Hagan, Charles Hirschman, Tim F. Liao, Michael Long, John Mardeen, Madonna Harrington Meyer, C. Gray Swicegood, and Jack Veugeler.

Speakers from a semi-rural community within the Jamaican Creole continuum were asked what kind of linguistic entity they believe the Creole to be, where it is in use, whom they understand to be its users, and which domains they deem appropriate and inappropriate for its use. A language-attitude interview schedule yielding an Attitude Indicator Score (AIS) was developed for use in this community. This schedule contained two sets of questions, attitude and description questions, which were designed to capture information concerning overt and covert language attitudes. Results show respondents' attitude systems to be multi-valued: They were generally ambivalent in their attitudes toward Jamaican Creole, but they judged it appropriate or inappropriate for use in different contexts according to their social distance from or solidarity with an interlocutor. Gender grading and an age × gender effect were found. This paper is considerably expanded from a presentation made at NWAV 24, October 12–15, 1995. Fieldwork for this study was supported by a grant from the University of Michigan, Program in Linguistics. For their advice and insightful comments, I thank Lesley Milroy, John Rickford, an anonymous reviewer, and William Bright. My deepest thanks go to members of the Gordon Town community, particularly the principal and students of the Gordon Town All-Age School, who shared with me their facilities, their ideas, and their interest in the topic. Ken Guire, James Lepkowski, and Rose Venzuela provided assistance in the statistical analysis of data. After all this support and more, any errors and shortcomings of this study are the sole responsibility of this author.

Gendered linguistic practices emerge as people engage in social practices that construct them not only as girls or boys, women or men – but also as, e.g., Asian American or heterosexually active. Adequate generalizations about gendered language use and explanations of such generalizations require understanding the place of particular linguistic practices in the life of what Lave & Wenger 1991 and Wenger 1998 call a Community of Practice: a group whose joint engagement in some activity or enterprise is sufficiently intensive to give rise over time to a repertoire of shared practices. Eckert's ethnographic/sociolinguistic workin pre-adolescent and adolescent communities of practice illustrates ways in which gender and other aspects of identity are co-constructed. We use these and other sociolinguistic data to suggest some of the many different kinds of generalizations, emerging from studies of language and gender, that look to communities of practice.

This is almost two books in one. More than 100 pages are devoted to a critical review of approaches to the study of facts and descriptions. This review includes the sociology of scientific knowledge, philosophy of science, and constructionist approaches (e.g. Robert Merton, Harry Collins, Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper); ethnomethodology (Harold Garfinkel, Melvin Pollner); conversation analysis (Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, Gail Jefferson, John Heritage); semiology (Ferdinand de Saussure, Roland Barthes); post-structuralism (Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault); and post-modernism (Donna Haraway, Jean-François Lyotard). Potter is a skillful teacher, and I learned much from his discussion of these perspectives. However, even 100 pages are not enough for a thorough description and critique of such a wide range of perspectives; Potter leaves the reader wanting more – which is a pretty good place to leave a reader.

This new textbook has upper-level undergraduate and graduate students for a focal audience. But as Duranti makes clear in his preface and first chapter, he aims neither at a synoptic presentation of the field's major paradigms, nor at a comprehensive review of its interdisciplinary significances. Duranti's selective foregrounding of topics and linkages makes for only a partial fit between this book's substance and the expectation of a “textbook treatment” which its title might raise. His purpose is instead to present the first accessible, generalized treatment of (culturally contextualized) conversation analysis at the juncture of ethnography and formal language description. As such, it is a welcome addition to the pedagogic literature.

The first goal of this article is to present a description of the linguistic features that distinguish the genderlects of Russian. Although there exist some data on interruptions and other kinds of gender-specific discourse behavior in Russian, they are not discussed here, because the variables that govern gender differences in linguistic behavior are too numerous and inconclusive, and Russian data that bear on such behavior remain at this point too meager. Rather, what is discussed here are the structural features of Russian genderlects. This focus leads to a second goal, a theoretical one: to explore how genderlect phenomena can be explained in the Transactional Discourse Model (TDM), a broadly generative, pragmatically based discourse model that is sensitive to the factors that control the occurrence of gender-specific features in speech.

The introduction of practice theory into sociolinguistics is an important recent development in the field. The community of practice provides a useful alternative to the speech-community model, which has limitations for language and gender researchers in particular. As an ethnographic, activity-based approach, the community of practice is of special value to researchers in language and gender because of its compatibility with current theories of identity. An extension of the community of practice allows identities to be explained as the result of positive and negative identity practices rather than as fixed social categories, as in the speech-community model. The framework is used here to analyze the linguistic practices associated with an unexamined social identity, the nerd, and to illustrate how members of a local community of female nerds at a US high school negotiate gender and other aspects of their identities through practice. My thanks to Janet Holmes, Chris Holcomb, Stephanie Stanbro, and members of the Ethnography/Theory Group at Texas A&M University for comments on and discussion of the ideas in this article.

With the death of Charles Albert Ferguson (“Fergie” to his friends, colleagues, and students) on September 2, 1998, in Palo Alto, California, at the age of seventy-seven, the field of sociolinguistics lost a scholar of unusual depth, breadth, integrity, and kindness.

This unusual and ambitious book attempts to define a field both more narrow and more broad-ranging than linguistic anthropology: the field of “language and culture studies.” Like a number of other recent works, including Duranti 1997, Bonvillain 1997, Salzmann 1998, and even the edited volume of Brenneis & Macaulay 1996, this book is intended to introduce an often misunderstood field to a new generation of students. Each of these books begins with a discussion of how to title the field (anthropological linguistics? linguistic anthropology?) and how to justify the material included and excluded. While acknowledging kinship with sociolinguistics, formal linguistics, ethnography of speaking or ethnolinguistics, discourse analysis, and cultural studies, each book mentions studies belonging to these subfields but does not situate them at the center. The basic issue appears to be what these authors regard as fundamental questions; to fall within linguistic anthropology, the questions have to be anthropological. In other words, the aim is usually to uncover some aspect of a society through close examination of its language. Studies of language for its own sake might be interesting, important, even essential; but these tend not to be the focal issue in the works mentioned above.

This article examines the distribution of speech acts based on the word sore ‘sorry’ in Bislama, the creole language spoken in Vanuatu. Three functions of these “apology” routines are identified and analyzed within the framework of politeness theory. Women are shown to use sore more frequently over all than men; they are also found to use sore to express empathy with the referent/addressee. Empathy is expressed in men's speech in other ways. The asymmetric distribution of sore is shown to make sense, given wider societal beliefs about and attitudes toward appropriate behaviors for women and men. Given a strict definition of a “community of practice,” it is clear that this shared speech behavior does not mean that women in this speech community can be said to form a community of practice. Analyses based on the speech community and intergroup distinctiveness are more useful in understanding this variation. This article has benefited from discussions with other members of the Language and Gender panel at the 6th ICLASP meeting, University of Ottawa, May 1997, especially Janet Holmes. Some of the data were also presented at the Second British Roundtable on Social Theory in Sociolinguistics, University of Wales, Cardiff, July 1997; discussions there with Ben Rampton and John Heritage were very helpful. My early thoughts were shaped in conversations with Herbert Morris and Gillian Sankoff. None of the aforementioned necessarily agree with the analysis presented here. Many thanks to the Wenner-Gren Foundation for their generous support in the field (#5742).

The strength of this large volume is its diversity: There is a wealth of papers covering different sociolinguistic and pragmatic topics from different perspectives. The range is such that few researchers in the area of the social use of language will not want, sooner or later, to refer to one of the articles in this book. All of them are by established researchers, but some give overviews of earlier research and important issues, while others report on specific pieces of sociolinguistic research.