See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248687792

Sebastian M. Rasinger, Quantitative research in

linguistics. London: Continuum, 2008. Pp viii, 230. Pb
$39.95

Article in Language in Society · September 2009

DOI: 10.1017/S0047404509990340

CITATIONS READS

2 1,873

1 author:

Gatis Dilāns
Ekonomikas un kultūras augstskola
17 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gatis Dilāns on 10 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Language in Society 38, 1–15. Printed in the United States of America

BOOK NOTES

Language in Society 38 (2009). Printed in the United States of America

doi:10.1017/S0047404509990327

Siobhan Chapman, Language and empiricism after the Vienna Circle. Houndsmills,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Pp. v, 191. Hb $85.00.
Reviewed by Robin Reames
Rhetoric, Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15202, USA
rreames@andrew.cmu.edu

In Language and empiricism after the Vienna Circle, Siobhan Chapman

identifies the early 20th century Vienna Circle (Carnap et al.) as the philo-
sophical antecedent of empirical studies of “natural” language. While the
influence of this philosophical movement is more immediately identifiable in
its positive form as the logical positivism of “the standard view of language,”
its negative, albeit indirect, impact is far more significant, according to Chap-
man. This negative influence came in the form of an intellectual resistance
to the Vienna Circle, which gave rise to both the “intuitive” or “introspective”
form of J. L. Austin’s theory of speech acts, and the empirical form of socio-
linguistics.
It is the indirect influence of the Vienna Circle on empirical studies of lan-
guage that, Chapman stresses, is her more novel contribution. Through an anal-
ysis of the lesser-known work of proto-sociolinguist Arne Naess, Chapman
demonstrates how a common ancestry in Vienna leads to both the introspective
(Austin) and the empirical (Naess) approaches to resisting logical positivism in
language while also justifying their methods on the basis of their “scientific”
validity. Despite their wide divergences in assumptions, methods, and conclu-
sions, this common “scientism” indicates an incompletely acknowledged com-
mon ancestry in the Vienna Circle.
Chapman describes the inductive method of Naess’s Oslo School of lin-
guistic philosophy as gathering through street interviews oral responses to the
question “What is the common characteristic of that which is true?” (p. 115).
While the purpose of this research was demonstrably to ascertain common-
sense notions of “truth,” Chapman points out that the lasting value of Naess’s
work is realized not in its challenge to traditional philosophical notions of
truth, but in its challenge to philosophical methodology. It is both this dissat-
isfaction with the philosophical assumptions about truth and anti-empirical
© 2009 Cambridge University Press 0047-4045/09 $15.00 1
 B O O K N OT E S

methods that unite Naess with Austin as a fellow critic of the Vienna
Circle. While, by contrast, the true work of the linguist in Austin’s theory
takes place in the “armchair” – through intuiting and imagining ordinary
language use – Chapman nevertheless argues that this represents a relative
“scientism,” given that it marks a preference for “ordinary language philoso-
phy” over metaphysical speculations about language. Despite the obvious
contrasts, then, between this and the sociolinguistic method of Naess’s Oslo
School, Chapman parallels the underlying views of language represented
by these two contemporary and competing responses to the Vienna Circle’s
logical positivism.
The main significance of this work lies Chapman’s identification of a disci-
plinary coherence in both the language philosophy of the Vienna Circle and
sociolinguistics. By foregrounding the work of Arne Naess, Chapman shows
that linguistic empiricism bears an integral disciplinary link to philosophy.
By proposing a primarily philosophical source for a sociolinguistic approach,
Chapman contributes to an expansion of sociolinguistics from a linguistic meth-
odology to a philosophical critique.
(Received 23 October 2008)

Language in Society 38 (2009). Printed in the United States of America

doi:10.1017/S0047404509990339

C. T. Adger, Walt Wolfram, and D. Christian, Dialects in schools and

communities. 2nd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.
Pp ix, 226. Pb. $39.95 Hb. $79.95.
Reviewed by Desiree Villarroel
Multilingual & Multicultural Studies, New York University
New York City, NY, 10003, USA
Dv476@nyu.edu

The second edition of Dialects in schools and communities is a “reconsidered

and expanded … updated report of the state of language variation and education
in the United States” (p. ix). The volume incorporates recent scholarship on dia-
lects and language variation that resulted partially from the conversation pro-
voked by the initial publication of this classic nearly a decade ago. Perhaps
more relevant now than when initially published owing to the U.S. No Child
Left Behind Act and the assessment era’s de facto policy of upholding a stan-
dard English, the book offers educators tangible means, in the form of instruc-
tional techniques, strategies, and even lessons, to support students who speak a
stigmatized dialect of English.
The authors begin their argument by asserting that everyone speaks a
dialect of a language, yet it is the social and political positioning of each
2 Language in Society 38:4 (2009)
 B O O K N OT E S

dialect within groups that makes this overt or inconspicuous depending on

whether one belongs to the dominant group or not. The social construction of
language within speech communities is what hierarchizes the status of dia-
lects, as opposed to the innate linguistic merit of the language variety.
The theme that language status and prestige are constructed by power rela-
tionships is the spine of the work. Its heart, though, is the social justice position
that dialect difference is not deficit but simply difference. The authors take on
the deficit position “that speakers of dialects with vernacular forms have a
handicap – socially and cognitively – because the dialects are illogical, sloppy or
just bad grammar” (p. 17). By their describing variations in linguistic systems
including phonology, grammar, and vocabulary that are dependent upon social,
historical, geographic, and political factors, a more comprehensive understanding
of language variety in America and its schools begins to form in the opening
chapters.
Chapter 3 more directly shifts the focus to the classroom by first discuss-
ing elements of social interaction. Differences in language rituals, modes of
conversational politeness and figurative language use between speakers of
dialects can cause problems in the social crucible of the classroom. How
teachers respond to the disconnect between home and school speech commu-
nities is a critical point for the authors and, according to them, where the most
progress and learning can occur. This idea is more fully formed in chapters 5,
6, and 7, which are concerned with pedagogical practices and are largely de-
pendent on a teacher’s expert understanding of language difference and ability
to exploit it.
The crux of the book is, strangely, at the beginning of chapter 5, entitled
“Oral language instruction.” The discussion would have flowed more logically
if included in chapter 4, which reflects on the perceptions of language stan-
dards whether perpetuated through assessment or at the tangled intersection
of language and learning disability. Nonetheless, the opening 10 pages are
an exceedingly cogent and well-articulated synthesis of the reconciliation of
vernacular dialect and social reality and its ramifications for policy programs
and curriculum. The conclusion reached is that “resolving the Standard English
debate involves balancing the inevitability of dialect diversity, the benefits of
language standardization and the sociopolitical realities that lead to negative
evaluations of nonstandardness and vernacular speaking groups.” Key to
this balance is the level of an individual’s motivation and desire to exercise
language choice.
Dialects in schools and communities is just as relevant now as it was on its
initial publication and is a required read for any decision maker in a multilingual
or multidialectical classroom.
(Received 8 November 2008)

Language in Society 38:4 (2009) 3

 B O O K N OT E S

Language in Society 38 (2009). Printed in the United States of America

doi:10.1017/S0047404509990340

Sebastian M. Rasinger, Quantitative research in linguistics. London: Continuum,

2008. Pp viii, 230. Pb $39.95.
Reviewed by Gatis Dilans
Division of Bicultural-Bilingual Studies, University of Texas
San Antonio, TX 78249-1644, USA
gatis.dilans@utsa.edu

Intended for both undergraduate and graduate students, this textbook presents a
concise, clear, and well-illustrated introduction to the quantitative analysis of lan-
guage. It is comprehensive and example-based, and it covers the basics of quanti-
tative analysis of linguistic data and explores how this differs from qualitative
approaches. At the same time, the book is also practical, helping the reader under-
stand how to conceptualize, construct, and implement a quantitative investigation
in linguistics. The book comprises eight chapters organized in two parts.
Part I (chapters 2–4) leads the reader through the fundamentals of quantitative
research such as methodological premises and organization, variables and
measurement, operationalization, causality, reliability and validity, hypothesis test-
ing and theories, design and sample, and data coding. Chapter 2 outlines and illus-
trates the difference between quantitative and qualitative approaches and data
treatments. It also discusses different types of variables and the question of causality,
and introduces the concepts of reliability and validity. Examples from psycholin-
guistic research and phonological studies of dialect differences are provided. The
studies help to emphasize the concept of the linguistic variable, which may have to
do with frequency, speed, or variation among such elements as phonemes, words, or
utterances. In quantitative sociolinguistic research, linguistic variables are correlated
with sociodemographic variables such as socioeconomic class or gender. Chapter 3
effectively explains and illustrates various research designs (in relation to possible
applications) and sampling techniques. It also includes brief advice on understand-
ing rights and wrongs of conducting research with human subjects. Chapter 4 closes
part I with a more elaborate discussion of questionnaire design and coding.
While part I is aimed at providing enough information so the reader could
plan and design a quantitative study, part II (chapters 5–9) goes one step further
and begins explaining what is to be done once the stages of planning, design,
and data collection are completed. Chapter 5 examines ways of describing data
using sums and frequencies, as well as their presentation through graphs, charts,
and scatter-plots. Chapter 6 introduces basic means of data description and
discusses the concept of normal distribution. This is followed by an introduction
to probability, significance, and a range of statistical analyses in chapter 7.
Chapter 8 is devoted to hypothesis testing, and chapter 9 deals with not normally
distributed data to be tested by such non-parametric measures as the Spearman
4 Language in Society 38:4 (2009)
 B O O K N OT E S

rank correlation test, Kendell’s tau test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and Mann-
Whitney U test.
Overall, this excellent primer is a useful resource for a student needing to or think-
ing about starting a quantitative project in linguistics. It gives an efficient and clearly
explained grounding in quantitative methodology, design, basic questionnaire con-
struction, data description, and analysis, as well as providing suggestions on how to
test hypotheses by running statistical tests with Excel. (Chapter 10 contains appendi-
ces with solutions for Excel.) The book will definitely capture students’ interest and
inspire them to move on and try using more complex statistical software such as
SPSS or R in replicating and/or constructing innovative quantitative studies.
(Received 8 January 2008)

Language in Society 38 (2009). Printed in the United States of America

doi:10.1017/S0047404509990352

Mark Sebba, Spelling and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Pp. xix, 189. Hb $96.00.
Reviewed by Francesca Di Silvio
Linguistics, Georgetown University
Washington, D.C., 20057, USA
disilvif@georgetown.edu

As a representation of the sounds of spoken language, orthography has always been

of interest to linguists. In this book, Sebba critiques approaches that disregard the
concerns of language users in treating orthography solely as a means of phonemic
transcription, and proposes a focus on the social symbolic meaning of orthography.
In the first chapter, Sebba presents an account of orthography as an aspect of liter-
acy, necessarily situated in social practice. According to a sociocultural model
of orthography, the literacy practices of the community influence the type of orthog-
raphy that emerges, in contrast to a traditional autonomous model that defines or-
thography as an ideologically neutral technology. The second chapter illustrates
orthography as social practice through the examination of variant spellings in graf-
fiti, advertising, and electronic media, less regulated spaces where orthographic
choices are used to construct identity, mark boundaries, and display opposition to
the mainstream. Sebba describes how recognizable deviations from local spelling
conventions convey social meaning, as in the frequent substitution of <k> for stan-
dard <c> and <qu> in Spanish graffiti to symbolize otherness and politics of differ-
ence as related to the orthographic preference for <k> in Basque.
To make the case for orthography as social practice beyond the subcultural con-
text, Sebba next examines the role of social factors in the development and use of
orthographic systems. In chapter 3, he discusses how new writing practices are
introduced to previously unwritten languages by bilinguals modeling another
culture with a written tradition. With case studies of Manx and Sranan, Sebba
Language in Society 38:4 (2009) 5
 B O O K N OT E S

shows how expert intervention tends to shape orthographies on the existing stan-
dard, often with lamentable consequences for the survival of the indigenous lan-
guage. Chapter 4 includes case studies of Haitian, Sranan, and Malay/Indonesian
in a discussion of “postcolonial” orthographies that use particular orthographic
practices to symbolize political allegiances and reject unwanted ideologies, such
as the reassignment of <u> for uniquely Dutch <oe> in Sranan. Chapter 5 deals
with problems of representation, transcription, invariance, and dialect differentia-
tion in developing orthographies for nonstandard language varieties, demonstrat-
ing how conflicting orthographic choices can be highly personal, as in the practice
of Jamaican Creole writers, and political, as in Galician debates about language.
Sebba turns in chapter 6 to the subject of orthographic reform and discourses
of reform movements in languages with established writing systems. In cases
of disputes ranging from German to Portuguese-Brazilian and Tatar, suggested
revisions to existing orthography evoke tremendous outcry because of the sym-
bolic associations of script and spelling. While lobbyists for reform advance a
modernizing discourse of technological advancement, opponents use a compet-
ing historical discourse of cultural continuity, and as Sebba notes, successful
orthographic reform is rare. The concluding chapter links central themes of
identity, iconicity, interlinguality, and authority to show how orthography
reflects and creates social meaning. With clear organization and use of sample
writings and language case studies, Sebba succeeds in elaborating the complex
issues surrounding orthography and makes a strong argument for a sociocultural
approach to its study.
(Received 19 January 2009)

Language in Society 38 (2009). Printed in the United States of America

doi:10.1017/S0047404509990364

Jeremy Munday (ed.), Translation as intervention. London & New York:

Continuum, 2007. Pp xvi, 165. Hb $150, Pb $39.80.
Reviewed by Amin Karimnia
Language Department, Islamic Azad University Fasa Branch
Fasa, Fars, 7461713591, Iran
aminkarimnia@yahoo.com

This volume, edited by Geremy Munday, brings together the contributions of

nine researchers on various aspects of translation as intervention. The data
come from different cultures and disciplines, and the contexts include Canada,
the European countries, the United States, India, China, South Africa, and the
Arab countries.
Readers can find reflections on and analyses of the translator’s perspective in
the first two chapters. Chapter 1 sheds some light on the role of translator as
an “intervenient” being. The second chapter elaborates on the notion of voice.
6 Language in Society 38:4 (2009)
 B O O K N OT E S

The translator addresses the readers in a certain voice, or combination of voices.

The translator chooses to write in “my voice,” “your voice,” or “his voice.” The
following two chapters discuss intervention in translation studies in India and
China, respectively. The former is concerned with the significance of the target
language choice as the most important intervention in the translation process. The
latter examines the question of representational justice in translation. The author
challenges the injustice in the selection of source texts and justice in the determi-
nation of translation strategies and in the development of translation concepts
appropriate to the non-Western translation studies.
Jef Verschueren, in chapter 5, is concerned with a pragmatic perspective on
translation. His emphasis is on the significance of a dynamic view of context for
translation. Basil Hatim, in chapter 6, examines intervention at text and discourse
levels. He believes the translator must find ways to project appropriate pragmatic
and semiotic values. The last three chapters are concerned with endeavors to
intervene in the translation process by participants other than translators. The
translators/interpreters are, then, less intervenient and more intervened on.
All the chapters are well written and contribute to a better understanding of the
nature of intervention in translation. Some of the issues discussed are similar in
certain ways but differ depending on the political and social contexts. Some chap-
ters offer a very specific analysis of intervention in translation; others offer a more
general view. On the whole, this edited volume provides interesting contributions
toward a better understanding of translation as intervention.
(Received 19 January 2009)

Language in Society 38 (2009). Printed in the United States of America

doi:10.1017/S0047404509990376

Andy Kirkpatrick, World Englishes: Implications for international communication

and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Pp. x, 257. Hb $39.00.
Reviewed by Kanavillil Rajagopalan
State University at Campinas, Brazil
rajagopalan@uol.com.br

The idea of English having “suddenly appeared as a pure language untouched by

others” (p. 39) is a myth. There is in fact a great deal of “variation and impurity”
even within (who would have thought?) British English. Such is the tone adopted
by Kirkpatrick to impress upon his readers that the English language is no mono-
lith; rather, we should be speaking in terms of “World Englishes,” in the plural.
Kirkpatrick is certainly not the first to make the claim that the English is a host of
languages bearing some semblance to one another. And he recognizes that there is
already a plethora of books on the market. What makes his book different is that
“it aims to describe selected varieties of World Englishes and then discusses the
Language in Society 38:4 (2009) 7
 B O O K N OT E S

implications of these varieties for English language learning and teaching in

specific contexts” (p. 1).
The book is presented in 13 chapters, divided into three parts: Part A, “The frame-
work,” comprises three chapters. Part B, “Variation and varieties,” is made up of eight
chapters, occupying the lion’s share of the book. Finally, Part C, “Implications,” is
composed of two chapters. The three chapters that make up Part A lay down the basic
sociolinguistic concepts and key linguistic terms used in the rest of the book and ad-
dress the question of models of World Englishes. Kirkpatrick argues that the tripartite
classification of Englishes made from a language teaching perspective – namely,
ENL (English as a Native Language), ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL
(English as a Foreign Language) – though helpful in some contexts, is problematic
especially because of the idea that “ENL is innately superior to ESL and EFL
varieties” (28). Kachru’s “three-circles” model is recommended as a way out. There
is, finally, a brief discussion of the political debate over the spread of English.
Part B takes the reader through “the powerful variety of American English”
through Australian English (fondly characterized as “a younger cousin”) to the
subcontinent of South Asia, voices from Africa, Englishes from Southeast Asia
(queried as to whether they can be classified as “colonial descendants”), emerging
Englishes from Hong Kong and China to, finally, English as a lingua franca. Part
C, by the author’s own admission the meatiest part of the book, summarizes its
key themes and ends by offering the reader some implications for English lan-
guage teaching. The pluses and minuses of choosing an “exonormative native
speaker model” versus an “endonormative nativised model” are pitted against the
idea of choosing a “lingua franca approach,” the author’s own preferred alterna-
tive. The book comes with an accompanying audio CD and corresponding tran-
scripts in the form of an appendix, as well as the customary author and subject
indexes. This volume is introductory and as such useful to beginners.
(Received 21 January 2009)

Language in Society 38 (2009). Printed in the United States of America

doi:10.1017/S0047404509990388

Young-Ju Rue and Grace Qiao Zhang, Request strategies: A comparative

study in Mandarin Chinese and Korean. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2008.
Pp. xv, 311. Hb $158.00.
Reviewed by Weiwen Lan
Linguistics & TESOL, University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, TX, 76013, USA
weiwen.lan@mavs.uta.edu

This study examines request strategies, detailing the relation between strategies and
two social variables, Power and Distance (familiarity), in Chinese and Korean work-
places. Chapter 1 is an overview of the study: the definition of request, the motivation
8 Language in Society 38:4 (2009)
 B O O K N OT E S

and purpose for the study, and the methodology using the Cross-Cultural Speech Act
Realization Project (CCSARP). Chapter 2 reviews ancillary theories: speech acts,
conversation analysis, politeness, face issues in Chinese and Korean, and the modi-
fied conventions of the CCSARP. Chapter 3 illustrates how the request strategies in
both languages are coded in the CCSARP. It is the implementation of the CCSARP
in these two non-Western languages that marks the significance of the study.
The data were collected from role-plays and naturally occurring conversations.
These two genres were chosen so as to “complement each other in terms of
exhaustiveness and authenticity” (p. xvi), but they also found non-matching
results between the two scenarios. The role-plays were constructed from two
social variables, and the three degrees permuted (+/–/ = ) into nine situations.
Chapters 4 and 5 examine the request strategies in each scenario, using both
qualitative and quantitative analyses. Codings in the two settings were analyzed
and frequencies were charted. The authors also compared the impact of social
factors on strategies chosen by the Chinese and Koreans. The results show intri-
cate relations between request strategies and social factors. Overall, Chinese are
more indirect than Koreans and more sensitive to familiarity, while Koreans are
sensitive to both power and familiarity.
Chapter 6 discusses general findings. The most indirect speech acts in role-
play were used for [–P/ = P, –D], [+P, –D] in Chinese and [ = P, –D], [+P, +D] in
Korean. That means that in familiar contexts, Chinese speakers tended to use
indirect strategies regardless of power, while the Koreans used indirect strategies
when they were equal to and familiar with the other ([ = P, –D]), or when superior
to and unfamiliar with the other ([+P, +D]). The two groups showed different
attitudes in choosing strategies to function appropriately in their community.
Direct speech acts, on the other hand, were used most frequently toward equal
acquaintances [ = P, = D] in both languages. The direct strategies were also adopted
more in natural conversations, with high distribution in Korean because its honor-
ific system can “mitigate the illocutionary force of a direct request act” (297).
Chapter 7 examines sequential turn-taking in different scenarios. Observation
suggests that Chinese used longer, more complex negotiation sequences than
Koreans. Overall, the Chinese were more indirect in negotiations.
The last chapter restates the findings about the similarities and differences
between the two languages. Similarities exist, including using more indirect strat-
egies in role-play than in conversations. Speakers in both languages also favored
external modifications, regardless of power or familiarity. A major difference be-
tween them involved internal modifications. The Koreans used honorific devices
extensively (60%), while the Chinese used far fewer (16%), but used other inter-
nal modifications more. In conclusion, the book offers a thorough linguistic anal-
ysis of request strategies in the Chinese and Korean work place, and promotes
better understanding of cross-cultural communication.
(Received 10 February 2009)

Language in Society 38:4 (2009) 9

 B O O K N OT E S

Language in Society 38 (2009). Printed in the United States of America

doi:10.1017/S004740450999039X

Sally Johnson and Astrid Ensslin (eds.), Language in the media: Representa-
tions, identities, ideologies. London: Continuum, 2007. Pp. xi, 314. Pb £25.00.
Reviewed by Georgina Turner
Social Sciences, Loughborough University
Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, England
G.Turner2@lboro.ac.uk

According to its editors, this book attempts “to map out a fresh approach to
language in the media” (p. 3). Specifically, it is concerned with (a) the language used
in media texts to talk about language itself, and (b) the language used by producers
or consumers when discussing those texts, and how the two help to construct our
understanding of language.
The book is divided into four sections. John Heywood & Elena Semino open
“Metaphors and meanings” by outlining British press metaphors for communica-
tion, and consider the implications of those that oversimplify or sensationalize the
speech acts they describe. Lesley Jeffries also focuses on British newspapers in
her analysis of journalists’ constructions of a prototypical apology in their decon-
struction (and rejection) of Tony Blair’s Iraq intelligence “apology.” Jane Hill
then turns our attention to U.S. media, whose personalist handling of moral panics
often benefits powerful elites by focusing on intention rather than outcome.
Section 2, “National identities, citizenship and globalisation,” moves to west-
ern Europe, beginning with Sally Johnson’s multimodal analysis of a Der Spiegel
front cover and its invocation of national identity in the context of Germany’s
spelling reform debate. Tommaso Milani examines press coverage of motions
to introduce language testing to the naturalization process in Sweden, finding a
reliance on presuppositions that misrepresent migrants and the links between
language and citizenship. Kristine Horner closes the section by highlighting
sociolinguists’ increasing focus on language ideologies and considers their inter-
twining with nationalist ideologies in Luxembourgish print media.
Section 3 turns to broadcast media and multilingualism, starting with Alexandra
Jaffe’s analysis of Corsican television and radio’s handling and construction of multi-
lingualism, and the way audiences react to dominant and minority registers. Focusing
on code-switching and the extremes of competence and status in a radio satire, Helen
Kelly-Holmes & David Atkinson consider how Ireland’s media talk in, and about, the
Irish language, before Simon Gieve & Julie Norton offer an insightful (and useful)
framework for analyzing television and apply it to identify strategies used in British
programming to deal with conversations between native and non-native speakers.
Section 4, “Youth, gender and cyber-identities,” includes analyses concerned
with new media, ranging from Crispin Thurlow’s examination of English-language
newspaper discourse about “Generation Text” and the anxious condemnation
10 Language in Society 38:4 (2009)
 B O O K N OT E S

of young people’s use of new media on linguistic and moral grounds; through
Deborah Cameron’s look at surprisingly essentialist weblog responses to a piece
of software that claims to determine an author’s gender using linguistic factors; to
Astrid Ensslin’s theoretical framework for approaching aesthetic metalanguage,
which she puts to work on the online phenomenon of hyperpoetry.
The book closes with an essay from Adam Jaworski considering some of the
fundamental notions thrown out by the preceding chapters and that unite them;
centrally, discourses suggestive of (more) authentic linguistic practices and the
marginalization of others. In sum, this collection includes some interesting data
approached from various starting points, yet remains coherent and largely acces-
sible throughout: a useful guide to this emerging field of enquiry.
(Received 10 February 2009)

Language in Society 38 (2009). Printed in the United States of America

doi:10.1017/S0047404509990406

Deborah Cameron, The myth of Mars and Venus. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2007. Pp. vii, 196. Hb $19.95, Pb $11.41.
Reviewed by Jinjun Wang
School of Foreign Languages, Yunnan University
Kunming 650091, Yunnan, P. R. China
jjwangkm@yahoo.com.cn

The relationship between communication and gender has long been of interest
to scholars. For some, the idea that “men are from Mars and women are from
Venus,” which suggests that men and women speak different languages, has been
an unquestioned article of faith. This new book by Deborah Cameron tries to ex-
plain why this widely accepted idea is mistaken, and to demonstrate why from
different perspectives. On the basis of scientific evidence, Cameron sets out to
dispel the myth and tell a much more complicated story.
Chapter 1 indicates Cameron’s main purpose in writing the book, which is to chal-
lenge many stereotypical ideas about gender and language and the major ways they
are argued for. She points out that more sophisticated methods are needed in order to
explain the similarities and differences between men and women in language use. In
Chapter 2 the author puts these myths into their contexts by analyzing examples, in
order to deflate these widespread beliefs. In chapter 3, after analyzing many scholars’
findings, Cameron argues that many common generalizations about the way men and
women communicate are only partially true. Chapter 4 describes approaches that ex-
plain the different performance of “Mars” and “Venus” in childhood and adolescence
on the basis of Darwinian theories of natural selection, as well as the cross-cultural
communication approach, which holds that the different activities and social norms of
boys’ and girls’ peer groups lead to girls and boys having different rules for talking.
Chapter 5 discusses the myth of male/female misunderstanding by analyzing men’s
Language in Society 38:4 (2009) 11
 B O O K N OT E S

and women’s respective communication features. It is held that as men and women
spend their formative years in separate social worlds, or because men and women have
different innate characteristics inherited from their prehistoric ancestors, they com-
municate differently and have difficulty understanding each other. Chapter 6 explains
the idea that sex differences in language and communication are innate from the
perspectives of brain structure, genes, and evolutionary theory. Chapter 7 examines
in detail the way men and women communicate in public settings. In chapter 8, in
opposition to the myth that each gender is doing what comes naturally, Cameron ar-
gues that identity and style should be taken into consideration. Taking this idea further
in chapter 9, she counters the idea that gendered communication styles are “normal”
or “natural” with the idea that people perform difference in discourse. In sum,
Cameron believes that we should “look beyond the myth of Mars and Venus” (181)
when dealing with male–female communication problems.
This is a thoroughly readable and fascinating book, which deserves the atten-
tion scholars, staff, and students interested in gender and language. It precisely
reviews widespread myths and candidly points out that they are myths, from a
variety of different perspectives.
(Received 12 February 2009)

Language in Society 38 (2009). Printed in the United States of America

doi:10.1017/S0047404509990418

Andrea Mayr (ed.), Language and power: An introduction to institutional

discourse. London; New York: Continuum, 2008. pp. vi, 204. Pb. $36.15.
Reviewed by Mark Andrew Thompson
Rhetoric, Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
mathomps@andrew.cmu.edu

This volume offers an approachable entry to the field of institutional discourse, de-
fined by the authors as the institutional use of language in the assertion and mainte-
nance of institutional power. Operating in a variety of Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA) frameworks, the four contributors to this book (Mayr, David Machin, Gill
Abousnnouga, and Tony Bastow) seek to confront “the hegemonic rise of specific
institutional discourses” (p. 3) in a way that illustrates practical, CDA-based meth-
odology in use. They focus on universities, prisons, the media, and the military.
The authors draw upon a Foucauldian sense of discourse that sees language as a
vector through which knowledge and power are able to regulate social relations. In
this sense, strategic use of language can both represent the world in a particular way
and set parameters on the ways in which a particular topic can be talked about. By
looking at instances in which such discourses serve to legitimize certain institutional
practices, the authors’ CDA projects attempt to reveal underlying ideologies which
organize and direct institutional agendas.

12 Language in Society 38:4 (2009)

 B O O K N OT E S

Language and power is organized by the particular institution being studied,

and employs a variety of multimodal, CDA-based methods of analysis for visual
and textual artifacts. The authors rely heavily on Systemic Functional Linguistics
(SFL) for analytical grounding but combine this approach with a variety of other
analytical tools and approaches. Fortunately, the authors have included an intro-
duction that gives both a useful summary of CDA and its methodological assump-
tions, and an approachable overview of SFL and the way it is employed throughout
the book. Specific methodologies are explained in great detail in each chapter,
providing a valuable resource to those with minimal CDA experience.
For example, a chapter examining the ways in which discourses of personal
responsibility permeate rehabilitation programs in prison (thus eliding wider sys-
temic causes of crime) analyzes both the materials of the rehabilitation program
and transcriptions of prisoners and instructors as they participate in the program.
In this case, the author looks at nominalization, transitivity, modality, and lexical
cohesion as they relate to the systematic construction of a particular social relation-
ship between prison inmates and larger social/institutional structures. In another
chapter, corpus linguistics is blended with a more traditional CDA approach in the
examination of military speeches, looking at the repeated use of we as a means
of asserting mutual obligation between speakers and audiences. In all cases, the
authors “show their work,” which makes this volume as much a study in CDA
methods as it is an introduction to institutional discourse.
Further underscoring its pedagogical potential, the book concludes with a “how
to” section for setting up projects and conducting research within the field of
institutional discourse. This final chapter, aimed primarily at students doing
advanced undergraduate work, covers literature review, data collection, and data
analysis, and, when combined with the methods outlined in this book, would
certainly prove useful in classrooms inclined to take on the topic of institutional
discourse from a CDA perspective.
(Received 15 February 2009)

Language in Society 38 (2009). Printed in the United States of America

doi:10.1017/S004740450999042X

Frances Christie and James R. Martin, (eds.). Language, knowledge, and

pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives. London:
Continuum, 2007. Pp. xiii, 267. Pb $49.95, Hb $180.00.
Reviewed by Mary J. Schleppegrell
School of Education, University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
mjschlep@umich.edu

Bernsteinian sociologists and Hallidayan linguists engage in dialogue here, using

the tools of their theories to develop a common metadiscourse about education
Language in Society 38:4 (2009) 13
 B O O K N OT E S

(see also Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness, Frances Christie (ed.), Con-
tinuum, 1999). Their focus is the status of knowledge, furthering attention to
Bernstein’s notion of horizontal and vertical discourses. Horizontal dis-
courses construe everyday knowledge, while vertical discourses are the discourses
of education, construing knowledge that is systematically and more or less
explicitly structured. Vertical discourse has either horizontal or hierarchical
knowledge structures. With hierarchical knowledge structures, “new theories
that emerge subsume and integrate past theories and aim for greater abstraction
and generalizability,” while with horizontal knowledge structures, “new theories
that emerge are considered incommensurable with existing theories.” Readers
may take issue with these dichotomizing metaphors, as discussants in this volume
do, but Bernstein’s aim was “to make visible knowledge as an object, one with its
own properties and powers that are emergent from, but irreducible to, social prac-
tices and which, indeed, help shape those practices” (p. 25).
The book has three sections: “Theoretical foundations,” “Fields of discourse –
disciplines of discourse,” and “Research prospects – exploring uncommon
sense.” Christie’s first chapter establishes the dialogue, asking “What forms of
knowledge should be taught?” and “What are the most appropriate teaching prac-
tices?” The following chapters by Karl Maton, Johan Muller, James R. Martin,
and Rob Moore develop the constructs and contributions of the sociological and
linguistic perspectives. The linguists explore the linguistic technology that en-
ables (and reveals) horizontal and hierarchical discourses, while the sociologists
are concerned with the distribution of knowledge.
Bernstein’s explanation of why particular social groups do less well in schools,
that “the group in question may not readily be able to recognize and/or realize the
code required for achievement” (17), has often been misread as deficit theory.
Maton and Muller suggest that by recognizing different forms of knowledge, we
can think more clearly about access to knowledge. They suggest that our view of
knowledge is over-ideologized, focusing more on the “whose” than on the “what.”
The status of science, they argue, is not just due to the interests it serves, but also
comes from its epistemic power. They urge us to explore the forms of knowledge
from which pedagogical discourse is created, and not just forms of pedagogical
communication.
In section 2, systemic functional linguists explore pedagogical issues. Claire
Painter describes how language that enables vertical discourse, such as general-
izations independent of immediate contexts and logical reasoning from a textual
premise, is made available to some children through discourse at home. Christie
and Mary Macken-Horarik’s interest is in bringing “verticality” to English peda-
gogy, going beyond “personal growth” and “cultural studies” models through ex-
plicit attention to the linguistic tools needed to interrogate texts, including control
of nominal group expansion, thematic nonfinite clauses, elaboration, and lexical
and grammatical metaphor. Peter Wignell analyzes how knowledge structures can
evolve over time, becoming more or less hierarchical, through exploration of the
14 Language in Society 38:4 (2009)
 B O O K N OT E S

evolution of concepts such as “value” in the social sciences. Kay L. O’Halloran

shows how mathematics and science are different knowledge structures that com-
plement each other as science applies information generated by mathematics.
Section 3 breaks with the typical structure of an edited volume as Christie, Martin,
Maton, and Muller engage in lively dialogue about these issues, demonstrating the
dynamism of both theories and their recognition that these are not fixed concepts.
Those who are concerned with the ways disciplines construe knowledge and the
implications of this for curriculum structure and pedagogy are invited to engage
in and contribute to the discussion.
(Received 18 February 2009)

Language in Society 38:4 (2009) 15

View publication stats