In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

188language, volume 62, number 1 (1986) On psychology: Kroeber 1921 (p. 363-4): ? haven't much to tell about psychoanalysis ... The educated public is still much more suspicious of the subject than in the East . . . And the uneducated want healing, spiritualism, direct stimulation by insistence, suggestions how to be successful ... This has always struck me as significant: my first and to date best patient was a New Yorker ... Freud's theorizing tricks irritate me as intensely as ever, but he certainly is an astounding observer ... On the psychological side ... I think symbolism interests me most ... I try to pile up long series of dreams before I give any interpretation. It is fascinating to watch the symbolism grow bolder and clearer ...' Congratulations and thanks to Victor Golla! [Received 22 June 1985.] Introduction to sociolinguistics, I: The sociolinguistics of society. By Ralph Fasold. (Language in society, 5.) Oxford & New York: Blackwell, 1984. Pp. xiii, 335. Cloth $45.00, paper $14.95. Reviewed by Joshua A. Fishman, Yeshiva University, New York This introductory text is a welcome sign ofthe maturation of sociolinguistics, but also a clear indication of its continuing problems. It is the first of two volumes, and is the more sociological one; the second, yet to be published, will be the more linguistic. In addition to treating most of the central macrosociolinguistic topics (societal multilingualism, diglossia, language attitudes, language choice, language maintenance and shift, language planning and standardization —and, finally, vernacular language education), it also deals with a number of methodological issues (qualitative formulae, statistics, quantitative analysis) and regularly provides guides to additional reading, as well as thoughtprovoking questions at the end of each chapter. In general, the text is well written and well organized (although there are some occasional puzzling or contradictory formulations). Coverage of the relevant literature is generally adequate and even-handed. No favorites are followed slavishly, and no whipping boys are ridiculed or damned with faint praise. Furthermore, Fasold's own contributions are clearly differentiated from those of others. The weakest chapters are certainly the ones on statistics and quantitative methods. While F is to be congratulated for attempting to present these approaches and tools to students of linguistics (most of whom are much in need of training in these areas), the result is a 'once over lightly' treatment, which may yet do more harm than good. I wonder whether F will have a similar single-chapter treatment of linguistics in his forthcoming companion volume on 'The sociolinguistics of language'. I think not. It is bad enough for another generation of linguists to grow up without taking serious course work in social research methods and statistical techniques. It is possibly even worse to enable them to believe and pretend that they have received such training on the basis of excessively brief presentations, full of all sorts of questionable formulations and omissions that are directly attributable to the brevity of the discussion. It is a dereliction of our duty toward the new generation of sociolinguists to let them get away with less than several courses (at least two years' worth) in REVIEWS189 this sensitive methodological area; and even then, such areas as instrument construction and research design—including the bringing together of ethnographic and quantitative procedures—will remain without proper coverage. I do not think we can afford to educate yet another generation with no more than a teaspoon of familiarity in the areas of research design and data analysis. By doing so, we foster the continuation of the methodological ignorance that has now plagued a generation of sociolinguistic interest, particularly in societal phenomena. Even more serious is F's division of the sociolinguistic enterprise into two separate volumes: this one with virtually no linguistics, and the one to come probably with no sociology. This would be bad enough if all students of the sociolinguistic enterprise were to take a full-year sequence in this area, in which the present text and its presumed sequel could be studied in turn. That would not really be the intellectually most satisfying solution to the problem, which is precisely that of integrating—not separating—the two foci that make up the total sociolinguistic enterprise; but it would be a step forward. As...

pdf

Share