Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-12T03:17:41.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Christina Bratt Paulston & G. Richard Tucker (eds.), The early days of sociolinguistics: Memories and reflections. (Publications in sociolinguistics, 2.) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1997. Pp. xii, 362.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2000

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz
Affiliation:
Communication, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha, WI 53141, wendy.leeds-hurwitz@uwp.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

As a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania in the 1970s, I took what everyone called the “Grandfathers” course, which provided an overview of the field through the work of individual scholars (Dell Hymes was the professor). It had a more proper title we all ignored, probably “History of linguistics.” Now, The early days of sociolinguistics provides an updated and more complete version of that course, except that it emphasizes sociolinguistics rather than all of linguistics; it presents substantial information about the development of the field, as seen through the eyes of one scholar after another. As we enter the new millennium, the discussion appropriately now includes “grandmothers” as well as “grandfathers.” This has the flavor of salvage linguistics: get the elders to report what they know before they die (or forget), in order to preserve the details for future generations. This goal is perhaps most obviously visible in the selection by Charles Ferguson. It is not a piece he actually contributed; rather, it is constructed from interviews conducted by his friends, colleagues, and students during his recuperation from a series of severe strokes (77). Given the centrality of Ferguson in the history of sociolinguistics – he is “identified by a majority of the contributors as the principal architect for the field” (321) – his inability to write his own summary of events justifies the remainder of the individual histories.

Type
REVIEWS
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press