Sociolinguistics, broadly defined as “the study of language in its social contexts and the study of social life through linguistics” (Coupland & Jaworski 1997:1), turns out to be a very lively and popular field of study. Evidence for its popularity is that introductory textbooks and collections of original readings keep appearing on the desks of sociolinguistics students. Among the former we have, for instance, Holmes 1992, Mesthrie et al. 2000, Romaine 2000, and Wardhaugh 2002. Among the latter, we have Coupland & Jaworski 1997 at least. The introductory textbooks, which can serve as a second-hand synopsis of classic seminal work in the field, often cannot satisfy curious students, who feel it compulsory to do first-hand reading of the original works of influential authors.

Sociolinguistics: The essential readings comes to satisfy the curious students. As is suggested in the title, the 29 extracts this reader presents are essential readings, essential not in the sense that they are original, seminal articles from influential authors (though in fact they are), but in that they cover a variety of topics that form the discipline of sociolinguistics. What's more, the selections relating to each topic are themselves reports of primary research. For example, under the first topic heading, “History of sociolinguistics”, the editors present two extracts that are investigations of the genesis or origin of sociolinguistics instead of mere accounts of its chronological development. Roger W. Shuy explores the ancestry of sociolinguistics in terms of linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and linguistic geography. Louis-Jean Calvet reflects on the origins of sociolinguistics in France and in the former Soviet Union. Paulston & Tucker, in their editorial introduction to Part I, highlight the reasons for the origin of sociolinguistics, one of which is that “the field appears to have emerged partially in response to a number of well-articulated and compelling social issues” (p. 2). According to them, sociolinguistics appeared in North America as a natural outcome of the movement of social justice, and the postcolonial sensibility also informs Calvet's essay.

Ethnography of speaking, also referred to as “ways of speaking,” occupies space in almost every volume titled as sociolinguistics. Under this topic heading, Part II presents Dell Hymes's “Models of the interaction of language and social life,” in which a descriptive theory is developed in order to work out the components of communicative competence. Hymes argues that these components can be identified, examined, and analyzed just as the components of the structure of a language are. In this, he attempts to overcome Chomsky's abstract system of language and considers the social factors in language use, but he is still confined to the language ideology of mainstream linguistics. Hymes is too much an idealist to see that speech act intension does not necessarily match surface form. As Schiffrin (1994:185) points out, knowledge of these structures and functions is only part of our communicative competence. The ways that we organize and conduct our lives through language are ways of being and doing that are not only relative to other possibilities for communicating, but also deeply embedded within the particular framework by which we – as members of our own specific communities – make sense out of experience.

Valentina Pagliai's “Lands I came to sing” in the same part furthers Hymes's work, and pragmatic studies and gender studies, Part III and Part IV respectively, are schools that may have resulted from the ethnographic approach to communication (p.28). Pragmatics is not included in Coupland & Jaworski's sociolinguistics reader (1997), but it occupies the greatest space of this reader with six articles: three addressing narratives, one conversation, and two politeness. Roger Brown & Albert Gilman's “The pronouns of power and solidarity” is a much-cited article, and its inclusion will be convenient for students interested in power studies. As for the topic of language and gender, the editors present a selection from Robin Lakoff's Language and women's place, and an extract from Gender and discourse by Deborah Tannen.

Part V, “Language and variation,” best reflects the editorial principle stated in the Preface. Here one hard-to-find early work and two up-to-date research papers address this indispensable topic in sociolinguistics. William Labov's “Some sociolinguistic principles,” in which he spells out some of his working principles, was first published in 1969. It is followed by Walt Wolfram's “On the construction of vernacular dialect norms” and Barbara Johnstone's “The linguistic individual in an American public-opinion survey,” first published in 2000 and 1991 respectively. By this arrangement, together with the discussion questions at the end of each part, the editors provide students with a fuller picture of the progress of the discipline and provoke their thinking.

The next part, “Pidgins and creoles,” presents only one classic study on the sociological aspects of creole language, John E. Reinecke's “Trade jargons and creole dialects as marginal languages.” But, as the editors point out (289), there is a considerable literature on pidgins and creoles which discusses issues like language education and language planning. The three selections in Part X contribute to the topic of language policy and planning, and the two selections in Part XI to the issues of multilingualism, policies, and education.

Parts VII, VIII, and IX are devoted to the sociolinguistic situations of bilingualism and multilingualism, but each part has its own emphasis. The three articles under the heading of individual bilingualism focus on the education of bilingual individuals, for the editors believe that “bilingualism or multilingualism and innovative approaches to education which involve the use of two or more languages constitute the normal everyday experience” (301). This psychological emphasis on bilingualism shifts to the sociological literature of bilingualism in Part VIII, “Diglossia.” Here students can read Charles Ferguson's 1959 classic, and Joshua Fishman's “Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism” (1967). In “Toward the systematic study of diglossia” (1991), students have Alan Hudson's review of Ferguson's concept of diglossia and Fishman's treatment of diglossia and its impact, as well as Hudson's working definition. As for group multilingualism, the two articles in Part IX concern the question of whether the coexistence of many languages is likely to lead to strife and internal crisis. Joshua Fishman's “Empirical explorations of two popular assumptions” demonstrates that it is not multilingualism itself that causes civil strife. Paulston's “Linguistic minorities and language policies” discusses language as a social resource which is available to ethnic groups in their competition for access to the goods and services of a nation.

The editorial introductions in the volume are worth special comment. Every part begins with an introduction that does not merely summarize the selections in the part. Commenting on and critiquing the classic works, these introductions present the editors' own understanding of sociolinguistics and illustrate important concepts. The above-mentioned introduction to “History of sociolinguistics” is an example of the editors' orientation; the introduction to Part VIII provides students with a clearer illustration of the concept of diglossia. The editors not only provide a history of the term but also remind students of the disagreement and confusion about the meaning of diglossia.

A word about things to be desired: As sociolinguistics is also the study of social life through language, essential readings in sociolinguistics should include readings from critical discourse analysis. In the last 20 years of the half-century development of sociolinguistics, CDA has produced abundant volumes concerning theory and method, and there are already authors who consider it an essential part of a broadly conceived sociolinguistics (e.g. Fairclough 2000). The editors have made an attempt in Part I by choosing an article addressing critical theory, but they have not followed this line in their choice of readings in the other parts. If they had, the volume might have been more international and had more contributors from outside the United States.