Many scholars and researchers doing sociolinguistics will agree that “Every language is a social product, and every society constitutes itself through language” (Coulmas 2001:563). In other words, many sociolinguists share the conviction that language should be accounted for in its social context for the simple reason that we live in reality instead of virtually. And Roger W. Shuy has set us an excellent example. Throughout his whole life, Shuy, “a living monument to the power of language in everyday life” (p. x), has attached great importance to investigating language issues in real-life encounters, insightfully claiming “that possibilities for linguistic research are everywhere, as language is used wherever we turn” (2). What is more important and more admirable is that Shuy has shown that sociolinguists can and should contribute to advancing social progress in various areas through their own research work. In other words, sociolinguistic researchers should have a social commitment to use their “linguistic ‘tool bag’ (his well-known term) to shed some light on real-world problems” (577). This finds expression in the volume under review, in which many chapters are contributed by his former students. The diversity of the topics covered provides insight into how language and various aspects of social life are closely linked together. This book should be of much interest and great value to those interested in language in society.

The volume is organized into six parts and 31 chapters. In the Introduction, the editors briefly review the honoree's research work and describe the contents of each chapter. Part I, “Language and the fabric of society,” contains five chapters dealing with engendered dialects, sign languages, language politics, language planning for education, and bilingual education. Contributed by Walt Wolfram, Ceil Lucas, Reynaldo F. Macías, Anna Shnukal, and Wolfgang Wölck & Peter H. Nelde, these chapters express a more or less common concern that the number of world languages is getting smaller and smaller. Given the threatened status of indigenous languages, sociolinguistic researchers having a social commitment should make earnest and continuous endeavors to honor and preserve linguistic diversity. However, this is no easy matter. As shown by Wölck & Nelde (94–109), for example, even the introduction of bilingual education in some areas for the purpose of defending local dialects turned out to be unsatisfactory. One source of pressure is English, growing as an international language. The acquisition of English is even regarded as requisite for a better career. The dominant position of English as a global language in the 21st century is beyond doubt (cf. Bruthiaux 2002). However, as insightfully pointed out by Trudgill 2002, English can also be an endangered language in the sense that many of its varieties are threatened by cultural homogenization, inattention to linguistic diversity, or disrespect to local dialects.

Part II, “Language and cultural belief systems,” touches upon some areas of language that usually go unnoticed, including the study of folk beliefs (Dennis R. Preston), the relationship between literacy and religion (Marcia Farr), colonial memory embodiment (Paul Stoller), and “the greening of language studies” (John Robert Ross). Part III is devoted to “Features of language in communication.” Its first chapter is “Indirectness at work” by Deborah Tannen, who demonstrates empirically that “indirectness does not necessarily evidence lack of self-confidence or powerlessness” (210). According to Tannen, there is no necessary connection between the way one talks and the inner psychological state it reveals: “Ways of speaking do not in and of themselves communicate psychological states such as authority, security, or confidence” (206; emphasis in original). Tannen is fully aware of the dangers of indirectness when it comes to communication between subordinates and higher-ups, in the sense that the person in power may fail to understand the nonliteral or implied meaning intended by his or her subordinates. Another point made by Tannen is that it is simply a matter of preconception that men are necessarily direct and women are necessarily indirect in real-life interaction. Actually, both directness and indirectness are relative concepts rather than absolute ones. We agree with Tannen that indirectness is “a fundamental and pervasive aspect of conversational style” (210), and that cross-cultural, ethical, and geographical factors should be taken into account in analysis.

Reading this chapter reminds one of the relationship between indirectness and politeness, which remains a topic of concern and controversy. One widely accepted view is that politeness is the major motivation for indirectness, and Tannen here appears to equate indirectness with politeness (207). As argued by Sifianou 2001, however, this is not the case; rather, it is formality and distance that motivate indirectness. Indirectness, as we see it, does not necessarily entail politeness, because “highly indirect strategies, such as hints, are not intrinsically polite” (Escandell-Vidal 1996:633), and because different cultures, or even different members of a culture, may entertain different conceptualizations of indirectness and politeness. There exists a danger that some scholars are prone to quick generalizations, representing the whole of a culture on the basis of only a small portion of research results from a small group of subjects, gleaned with such unreliable methodologies as discourse completion tests, interviews, and questionnaires. As a matter of fact, recent work (e.g. Eelen 2001) has shown that the study of politeness, which is for us an eternal topic of human concern, is still inadequate in terms of ontology, epistemology, and methodology. The definition and conceptualization of politeness remain a source of confusion, for instance.

At least the following points should be borne in mind when we attempt to account for various key issues pertaining to politeness studies. First, every person probably has more than one discourse system at his or her disposal, and he or she will resort to different discourse systems when communicating with different people; if one chooses an inappropriate discourse system, miscommunication or impoliteness may ensue. Second, what people say they do may not necessarily be consistent with what they do in practice. Therefore, the best policy we might adopt, in our endeavor to provide a full-fledged picture of the complexities of politeness in real-life interaction, is to collect data from naturally occurring speech. Only in this way can we draw convincing conclusions. We should be on guard against fitting our theoretical assumptions or presuppositions to empirical evidence; we must come from practical fieldwork to theoretical construction. Besides, conclusions drawn from one area may not necessarily be suitable for another, even if these areas belong to the same culture; regional divergences within a culture can never be overlooked.

The other essays in Part III are “Standard language and linguistic conventions” (Kenneth S. Goodman), “Reflections of language heritage” (Donna Christian), “When you means I: Manual and nonmanual gestures and shifting participation frameworks” (Evelyn McClave), “Just in English” (Bruce Fraser), and “On anaphora and methodology” (Ralph Fasold).

Part IV, “Places of language use in society,” focuses on varied settings where language use is studied. Richard M. Frankel examines cockpit crew conversations, while Bethany K. Dumas analyzes warning labels and industry safety information standards. Nora C. Leibold tackles pragmatics as “the grammar of rhetoric” (338) through the analysis of political argumentative discourse. Weiping Wu adopts a data-centered approach in an overview of the developing field of language and law, and Ronald Butters argues that intercultural taboos such as sex and violence can affect the outcome of a murder case.

Part V, containing six chapters, is entitled “Language in education.” Carolyn Temple Adger and Walt Wolfram, drawing on “naturally occurring talk in five elementary schools” (394), argue against the relatively established home/school language dichotomy in favor of functional distinctions between standard English and vernacular English. Yetta Goodman and Debra Goodman's chapter reports part of “a longitudinal study of the dialect of six African-American students during their oral reading and retelling of stories and articles over a seven-year period” (409), arguing that “students of all ages are versatile at shifting styles and code switching influenced by a wide range of contextual differences” (431). This point is echoed in Belle Tyndall's paper, which examines the use in compositions of past tense forms by two groups of high school students in the Caribbean. The papers by Stephen R. Cahir, Peg Griffin, and Joy Kreeft deal with “specific types of instructional sequences and strategies” (12). The late Stephen R. Cahir provides an interdisciplinary perspective on classroom management of transitions. Peg Griffin discusses collaboration in classroom teaching, and Joy Kreeft Peyton touches on dialogue journal writing in various contexts. The last two chapters in this part are “A holistic view of foreign language planning” (Kari Sajavaara), and “Old tools, new uses: A VARBRUL analysis of class placement” (Barbara M. Horvath).

Part VI deals with “Language of the young and old.” The first two articles concern how children develop their pragmatic skills in child-adult interactions. It is increasingly recognized that naturalistic, multiparty, or even multigenerational settings are helpful to children in terms of language learning, language socialization, and pragmatic development (cf. Blum-Kulka & Snow 2002). For instance, as shown by Rosa Graciela Montes and by Debra Jervay-Pendergrass respectively, clarification questions on the part of the mother and past events told by the child help the child to construct much longer and more complex utterances and to develop narrative competence. The final chapter of this part and of this book, by Heidi Hamilton, is “Dealing with declining health in old age: Identity construction in the Oppen family letter exchange.” There is no index, but one would have been desirable.

To sum up, this volume convincingly demonstrates that language and society are inseparable, as evidenced in its diversified perspectives, data, and methodology; after all, language in action is language in society, and vice versa. At the same time, the book is unified in the sense that all the contributors endeavor to make use of their sociolinguistic knowledge to resolve real-world issues. It is admirable that these chapters display social commitment; all live up to Trudgill's (2002:137) call that sociolinguistic researchers have the duty to apply their linguistic knowledge to help resolve specific social problems. It pays to bear in mind that we do not, and should not, study language in society for the sake of language per se, but for the sake of maintaining human equality, helping people learn how to maintain harmonious relations with one another, protecting languages in danger, providing good education for the younger generation, minimizing social injustice, and, ultimately, building a better world to live in.