Download Towards Linguistic Competence* Dell Hymes Three

Towards Linguistic Competence*
Dell Hymes
Three streams of activity
Problem s of linguistic discrim ination and inequality sim mer now, and may
com e to a boil in the next decade, yet m ost A m erican linguistics is irrelevant
to Am erican society. In this respect, this article m ight have as its subtitle,
’T he coming crisis in A m erican linguistics’.
T h e shape and outcom e of the crisis will depend on three stream s of activity
— on whether they converge, and if they do, when. O ne stream is w ithin social
science, and here I shall single out sociology; one is within linguistics; one
is within socio-political life.
S o c io lo g y . A general tren d in the social sciences is the attention to language
and com m unication. A nthropology has long included w ork th at dealt serious­
ly with language; indeed, in the U nited States m odem linguistics h as its origin
partly in anthropology. Psychologists have found that they can acquire suffi­
cient expertise in linguistic tools to use them , and have done so to th e extent
th a t they partly shape the developm ent of linguistics itself. Sociologists have
m ostly studied language in ways that did not require linguistics (movem ents
o f linguistic nationalism , language policy, language choice — societal o r indi­
vidual), and have discussed language w ithout particulars beyond w ords. (One
can study social m ovem ents, bureaucracies, and switching from Spanish to
English, and expatiate on the im portance of ’language’ and ’m eaning’, w ith­
o ut linguistics). T h a t b ranch of sociology know n as ’ethnom ethodology’ now
confronts some of the concrete features of speech, but its contribution rem ains
tied to program m atic assum ptions not all can share. It is not helpful to be told
again and again th a t ’indexicality’ makes every use of w ords irreparably pro­
blem atic (especially w hen this is an exaggeration), or, som ew hat contrarily,
th a t a conversational rule gleaned from English is effectively universal (es-
* Door de redaktie bekorte tekst van de lezing, gehouden op het ’Festival of the
Social Sciences’, voorjaar 1975, Amsterdam.
217
sg 76/4
pecially when this is not true). A m ajo r m otivation seems to be to expose so­
ciology, not social exploitation, and to reduce the m odem w orld-system to
transcribable encounters. N evertheless, th e re are valuable findings, an d some
indications of critical analysis of both linguistics and society. Still, no A m e­
rican sociology departm ent, so far as I know, has hired a linguist to aid in its
program of training. Such know ledgeable integration as occurs is d ue to the
valiant efforts of a few individual sociologists (e.g., Cicourel, Fishm an, G offm an, Grim shaw ). As with other disciplines, th e influence of linguistics seems
to be felt m ore readily in analogy than in analysis (Cf. G ouldner 1974).
Please note th at I m ake no plea fo r any school o f linguistics, and indeed, ask
sociologists not to adm ire and em ulate, but to criticize the theory an d social
ro le of linguistics. Sociologists should m ake use of linguistic tools fo r their
ow n purposes. In so doing, they can enlarge an d transform w hat we know as
language. T he question is: will a sufficient body of sociologists acquire and
use that com petence?
T h e im portance of this question becom es clea r w hen we consider th e other
tw o streams of activity.
L in g u istics. T hree efforts share attention at the center of the linguistic stage.
T h e older of the three efforts is th a t to establish a form al model o f gram m ar.
In the 1930s and 1940s an independent discipline of linguistics arose in the
U nited States around the developm ent of fo rm a l models in phonology, m or­
phology, and syntactic surface structure. In th e 1950s and 1960s, m odels of
syntax have been greatly deepened, and linked increasingly w ith semantics.
T h e fam ous nam e of course is Chom sky, b u t th e last decade has seen increa­
sing dissatisfaction with C hom sky’s m odels, an d outright rejection of them
by m any. A n outlook know n as ’generative sem antics’ has developed, consi­
dered by some successor to C hom sky’s m antle. M any associated w ith this
group reach out beyond the gram m ar of th e sentence tow ard social life,
through study of speech acts, deixis, conversational postulates, pragm atics,
an d the like, but on a m ethodological basis th a t precludes adequacy. On the
one hand, w ork is kept as m uch as possible w ithin the scope an d fo rm a t of
gram m ar. T he force of utterances as social acts (commands, requests, and
the like), fo r example, m ay be explained in term s of ’underlying’ verbs that
are postulated only to be deleted. A tru e analysis of utterances as m eans of
social acts would begin with social acts themselves. On the o th er hand, a
m ethodological bias inherited from C hom sky lim its sources of d ata to intro­
spection and personal experience, and encourages easy generalizing, even
universalizing, from these. U niversal foundations of interaction are announ­
ced that unwittingly project the m anners of m iddle-class A m erican conver­
sation between friendly equals.
218
Dell Hymes Tow ards Linguistic Competence
A third group of linguistics pursue analysis of variation along lines establishhed by L abov. T his w ork h as revitalized dialectology in th e U n ited States,
and has brought new insight to the identification of social groups am id the
apparent heterogeneity of u rban speech. T he em phasis on objective evidence,
and convergent lines of proof, is particularly healthy. Still, the m ethodology
is to be described as field work, m ore than as ethnography. T h e evidence
sought in the field is an answ er to questions w ithin a m odel of linguistic
change, not of speaking; an interview schedule is the usual instrum ent, and
social characteristics are confined usually to a few stand ard param eters. As
a result, only a portion of the socially organized characteristics of speech
come into view. One learns at an entirely new level of relevance an d accura­
cy w hether an d how often people use linguistic features, n o t m u ch about the
role of language in their lives.
This w ork does bring ethnicity and class into view, som etim es in a p en etra­
ting way. N one of the three efforts takes account of the culture-specific roles
of writing, an d literacy.
Somewhat to the side, located m ore in anthropology an d folklore, is w ork
called ’ethnography of speaking’, or ’ethnography of com m unication’. It in ­
volves active analysis of social relationships and events, and m akes patterns
and purposes of speech an explicit p art of social inquiry. Its lim ited results
so far are already a healthy corrective to facile generalization, an d open up
the basis fo r a system atic theory of speaking.
S o c io -p o litic a l life . The th ird stream of activity goes on outside th e academ y.
It consists o f th e gradual m obilization of ethnic and m inority groups around
questions of language. This process began in th e last decade w ith B lack E ng­
lish, and is underw ay now notably with regard to Spanish. I t is increasingly
evident in N ativ e A m erican (Indian) com m unities, and, in San Francisco,
among the Chinese. In 1968, indeed, the U nited States Congress passed a
Bilingual E ducation A ct, establishing the right of children to b e tau g h t in
their native language. As a result of a suit brought on behalf of Chinese­
speaking children in San F rancisco (L au vs. N ic h o ls ), th e U n ited States Su­
prem e C ourt affirm ed the A ct.1
T he m obilization around language goes on w ith little system atic know ledge
on which to draw , or in term s of which to be criticized an d assessed. Laym en,
social scientists, and linguists alike proceed largely on th e basis of received
attitudes an d stereotyped inform ation. T he elem entary, m ost b roadly u ni­
fying goal, is a place in schooling fo r a language n o t English. T h a t goal is
itself hard to w in in the U nited States, and of those w ho accept it, only some
have in m ind the fu rth er goal of com m unity m aintenance of a language not
English. M any w ho participate in bilingual education see it sim ply as a way
219
sg 76/4
to replace some other language with E nglish (or, say, w ith French, in th e case
of C ajun and Creole in Louisiana). F ew who participate have the opportunity
to transcend the class-linked perceptions and prejudices about language that
are p art of the cultural stratification of the country. T he language problem s
o f m inority and ethnic groups, indeed o f children and people generally, in­
clude the institutionalized form s of English itself, and the role th a t these
form s play in cultural hegemony. T here is little o r n o sign of critical analysis
of this p art of the total language situation from any side .
T h ere are three levels of aspiration, then, fo r the m obilization now u n d er way:
a place in schooling for a language not English; com m unity m aintenance of
a language not English; critical analysis of the to tal language situation, in ­
cluding the form s and uses of standard English itself. O f these three, only the
th ird would challenge radically the social order. O nly the first, m inimal-goal,
is at all strong. A nd it is in danger of being underm ined by a cross-cutting
educational goal, acquisition of money.
R esearch and know ledge may be in short supply, b u t given political pressure,
m oney sometim es is not. It can em erge as the dom inant factor. In a school
in C olorado, the availability of funds fo r bilingual education has led to the
appointm ent of a special aid, who visited classroom s, seeking children to fit
th e new program . T he criterion of selection was know ledge of Spanish; that
is, know ing Spanish = having a problem . O ne child picked out fo r assignment
to special education was son of a professor at the U niversity of C olorado. By
d in t of struggle, the father was able to have his son released from th e rem e­
dial class. H is son, of course, had no problem at all w ith language, o r any­
thing else; both English and Spanish w ere norm ally an d fluently used at home.
O ther children, w ith fathers not so know ledgeable and positioned, m ay not
be so fortunate.
Som etim es funds are obtained by com m unities on th e ir own initiative, only
to find a greater p art of the funds going to supervening organizations and
presum ed experts, w ho m ay actually exclude persons with appropriate trai­
ning and skills. A m ajor part of the m obilization m u st be for true com m unity
initiative and control. Still, it m ay be a m atter o f chance if appropriate aid
is available to a particular com m unity. A local te ac h er or official, w ith the
best of intensions, m ay have quite m istaken ideas as to the n atu re of w riting,
English, an Indian language, etc., reflecting the low level of know ledge of
these things that is general in the U nited States. T h e needs and desires of
m any com m unities are such, th at they press ahead in any case. In some parts
of th e country Indians are raising issues of language discrim ination at the
state level (e.g., the state of W ashington); state authorities then m ay look for
help in assessing the situation, but it is h ard to find.
A ction outstrips knowledge in response n o t only to pressure, but m an d ate of
220
Dell Hymes Towards Linguistic Competence
law. Such is the case w ith Spanish in N ew Y ork City. T h e school children in
certain grades m ust be tested fo r assignment to bilingual classes by th e begin­
ning of th e school year last fall. F o u r separate tests are required, fo r spea­
king, hearing, writing, and reading. T here has been no research on w hich to
draw to design and adm inister such tests fairly and accurately. Yet, because
of the law , no doubt tests will be given, and children assigned.
It is possible that ’bilingual’ education will be judged a failure before it has
been possible to discover w hat it m ight appropriately be.
If sociology, linguistics, and m obilization around issues of language proceed
on their present courses, at their present rates, then it seems likely th at we
will have studies of bilingual education, and the other facets of linguistic in­
equality, th a t come, like studies of riots, disasters, and events in the m onth
of M ay, afte r the fact. Social science and linguistics will have had little to
contribute in advance, either to challenged institutions or to insurgents seeking
remedy.
If one w ere to try to do som ething about the situation in the U nited States,
w hat should one try to do?
Five tasks can be singled out:
1 — rem edy the degree to w hich the U nited States is a te r ra in c o g n ita w ith
regard to quite elem entary inform ation as to varieties of language, and values
as to th eir use;
2 —study the processes by w hich something linguistic com es to h e recognized,
and defined as a problem ;
3 — provide a com parative and historical analysis of the developm ent of
cultural hegem ony through language in the U nited States;
4 —u n d ertake a critique of the assumptions and roles of linguistics, and social
science, w ith regard to language and speaking;
5 — reshape the study of language in accord w ith th e critique, and n ot only
as to w h at is done, but also as to who does it and fo r w hat ends.
I shall say som ething about each of these five tasks in turn.
Two pervasive needs
Let m e exem plify two pervasive, elem entary needs, one having to do with
varieties o f language, the other with values in language use. T h e two have an
im portant elem ent in com m on: both require a m ode of w ork th a t is ethno­
graphic.
(A) V a r ie tie s o f lan gu age. In a situation involving a language besides English,
most schools and scholars would assume that the num ber of ingredients (va­
rieties of language to be know n) is two. T he true num ber is often at least four.
In N ative A m erican com m unities, where the aboriginal language survives in
221
sg 76/4
a traditional form , there will also be a m ore widely used vernacular variety.
A local standard of English wil be found, but also a local vernacular English.
This last plays a significant social role. Som eone w ho has been away, and
who returns, m ust take up the ’Indian English’ again, o r be judged snobbish.
This vernacular variety m ay show distinctive, creative adaptions of English
m aterial to phonological, syntactic, and sem antic p attern s th at are Indian.
T here are dozens of these socially and linguistically significant varieties of
In d ian English in the U nited States. T here was not a published analysis of
any of them until last year; th e pioneer is W illiam L eap.2
N o t long ago a com parison of the Indian language, C hoctaw , and English,
was prepared to be useful in schools w ith Choctaw children. The com parison
was m ade betw een traditional standard C hoctaw and sta n d ard English, om it­
ting the vernacular varieties of th e tw o languages actually used by the chil­
d ren (cf. Leap, cited above). L ast fall a succesful doctoral dissertation was
subm itted fo r publication and considered fo r a prize. I t analyzed language
developm ent of P im a children in A rizona, interpreting th e results in term s
of norm s from English-speaking children in M aryland, w ithout regard to the
variety of English actually spoken locally by the Pim a, an d as if there w ere a
single scale fo r use of English anyw here in the country.
T his sort of issue arises w ith particular force now w ith regard to Spanish.
T here are three m ain groups of Spanish users in the country, Puerto Ricans,
C ubans, and Chicanos, and the differences am ong th e ir standard varieties
(and th eir attitudes about them) pose an initial problem . T h e im plem entation
o f bilingual education has led to fu rth e r problem s. A child whose English is
n o t standard m ay have been excused in the past on grounds of Spanish. N ow
some teachers are heard to tell Chicano children: ’I used to think your trouble
was th a t your language was Spanish. N ow I see th a t y o u don’t have any la n ­
guage at all’. (I owe this inform ation to E duardo H ernandez).
T he fact of the m atter is that Chicanos m ay experience as m any as fo u r v a­
rieties of Spanish alone. In A ustin, Texas, the local standard is n o rth e rn
M e x ic a n (called also ’Espanol form al, E. correcto, E. politico (polite), E.
bueno, E. bonito, Straight Spanish). T here are also P o p u la r Span ish (called
also M ejicano, E veryday Sp., Espanol, E. de E ast A ustin, E. mocho); so-called ’Spanglish’ (also called Tex-M ex, E. m ocho, E. revuelto, E. m ixtureado);
and C a lo (also called P achuco talk, B arrio language, Pachuquism os, H ab lar al
m odo loco, V ato language). (I owe this inform ation to L ucia Elias-Olivares).
A teacher m ay not accept the local standard as deserving th a t status (but co n ­
sider Castilian, or in some cases, Colom bian or some o th e r non-local variety,
as the only norm ). If the local standard is know n and accepted, other local
varieties still are likely to be ignored or condem ned; the child who uses them
’has no language’.3
222
Dell Hymes Tow ards Linguistic Competence
T he vernacular varieties of English spoken by black A m ericans are m uch
better known, b u t the situation as a whole is perhaps no better. T he difference
is in the variety th a t has received attention; th e full range rem ains obscured.
F o r some black scholars, the question is, why has there been so m uch attention
to the street vernacular to the exclusion of other varieties? W hy so m uch fas­
cination with the insult and obscenities of ’playing the dozens’, and so little
attention to the eloquence of the back preacher or m inister?4
Similar situations obtain fo r th e m any other languages to be found in the
U nited States. T h e tru e linguistic diversity of the country indeed is little re ­
cognized. C riteria fo r w orldwide com parison and typology o f national lan ­
guage situations have identified the U nited States as having s ix m ajor lan ­
guages: English, G erm an, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Y iddish (Ferguson 1966:
321).5 Most w ork w ith regard to these and the m any other im m igrant lan­
guages (apart from English) has been concerned w ith survival and change of
O ld W orld features, and acculturation to the N ew W orld environm ent and
English in specific details. Relatively little has been done to identify th e full
range of varieties in use (including characteristic varieties of English).6
By and large, we are pretty ignorant. Official statistics are of little or no use.
A ccording to the 1960 census, fo r example, there w ere only 1200 native spea­
kers of F rench in L ouisiana, because it was presum ed th a t a native-born
A m erican was a native speaker of English; only the foreign b o m were recor­
ded with a different m other tongue.7
Studies, including dissertations, are m ade on the basis on w hat people say, as
to the languages they use and how often they use them , b ut if th ere is one fact
established in sociolinguistics, it is th at people are often n ot able to answer
such questions accurately, and, m oreover, th a t often any answ er to such a
question is a statem ent o f identity. Self-report m ay tell us about people’s
values and aspirations; it cannot be relied on to tell us about w hat they do.
In addition, inform ation as to the o c c u rre n c e of a variety can be sought ac­
curately only in term s of a prior analysis of range of varieties actually found
in a com m unity an d their m odes of use. T he relation of varieties to situations
m ay include ’code-sw itching’ as a norm al style. F o r m any Chicanos, there
are three broad types of situation: use Spanish, use English, use both. Finally,
inform ation as to the occurrence of a variety (or style) by itself is inadequate.
H ere, as elsewhere in language, one deals w ith sign s, th a t is, w ith form m eaning covariation. Just as one cannot analyze the signs w ithin a language
adequately by distribution alone, w ithout regard to m eaning, so one cannot
analyze adequately the signs th a t a re languages th a t way. O ne m ust know
th eir meanings in relation to the m eanings of the contexts in w hich they occur.
T he necessary evidence of contrast am ong languages, varieties, styles (the test
of com m utation) can be gained only through ethnographic participation.
223
sg 76/4
V arieties associated w ith ethnic identity are b o th im portant and salient. A
full analysis w ould extend to varieties and styles associated w ith class and
institutional structure.
(2) V a lu e s in la n g u a g e use. M any schools an d persons seem to assum e th at
com m unicative problem s are either problem s of a language, or else of per­
sonality. Children do not know English, or do not know enough o f the right
kind of English, or else are ’shy’, ’difficult’, an d the like.
It is often not recognized th a t children m ay en ter a classroom w ith cultural
orientations tow ard appropriate uses of language that differ from those the
classroom assumes. N ative A m erican children, fo r example, often are cha­
racterized as ’shy’. Observing a classroom in Oregon, Susan Philips found
th at the Indian children did indeed talk less th an other children, in interaction
w ith the teacher, but talked just as m uch as oth er children in oth er situations.
A situation in w hich one person com m ands public rights to speak, an d can
com m and display of perform ance, is contrary to norm s obtaining in the com ­
m unity from w hich they come, w here rights to speak are typically equal in
public situations, and display of perform ance self-initiated. (A nd public
groups usually form a circle, rather than have one person in front).8
N otice th a t the problem is not a language other than English. T h e Indian
children com e to school as native speakers o f a variety of English. Rules of
language, as betw een teacher and children, a re sufficiently alike. It is rules
of speaking that are crucially different.
T h e issue of differences between hom e and school has been highlighted so­
m etimes by broad dichotomies. W e do not have to do simply w ith ’rich’ vs.
’im poverished’ verbal environm ents, how ever, or w ith polar orientations to ­
w ard m eaning (’elaborated’ and ’restricted’ codes), as tem pting as such dicho­
tomies m ay be. W e have to do with som ething elementary, yet various: dif­
ferences in use of language th at are differences in values and norm s of inter­
action. It is particularly im portant to note th a t the differences are n o t aligned
always in the sam e way. T he salient difference m ay be betw een A nglo and
non-A nglo oriented ethnicity; one non-A nglo orientation vis-à-vis another;
m iddle-class vis-à-vis working class; and com binations of these. In a given
case it m ay be m iddleclass parents vs. working-class oriented schools, o r Anglo
parents vs. ethnically oriented schools. Such cultural differences v ary on a
n u m b er of dimensions, and form a m ultiplicity o f types of situation, when
the U nited States as a whole is considered.
Obviously schools have long been aw are of cultural differences, and there
are m any program s concerned w ith them . W h at is often slighted is the ’in­
visible’ culture (to use Philips’ title) of everyday interaction, the expression
through norm s of speaking of values, traditional rights and duties between
persons, w hat G offm an once called the cerem onial sphere of deference and
224
Dell Hymes Tow ards Linguistic Competence
dem eanor.9 T eachers m ay be consciously respectful of explicitly religious
belief and practice, yet at equal o r greater cost profane an unseen cerem onial
order vested in individuals.
Clearly the needed knowledge m ay depend on ethnographic participation,
and pretty clearly, th e roster of ethnographers m ust com e to include teachers
and many others n o t norm ally counted as such.
Awareness of linguistic problems
Awareness, and accuracy of awareness, are fundam ental problem s fo r sociolinguistic research and theory. Labov, m ore than any one, has addressed
them .101 w ant to consider briefly the problem of awareness, and its accuracy,
in regard to institutions and agencies that act at a societal level. Such groups
tend to evaluate research in term s of its relevance to a perception of ’national
need’. This has always been so to a considerable extent, b u t seems to be in ­
creasing in tem po. Inform al com parison of the situation in several countries
at a recent m eeting led the Com m ittee on Sociolinguistics to resolve to m ake
the problem of ’linguistic problem s’ a focus of cooperative attention.
J. N eustupny has outlined a systematic m odel of linguistic problem s, from
individual behavior to societal planning.11 I w ant to consider h ere only the
process by w hich som ething comes to be defined societally as a ’linguistic
problem ’. F o r exam ple the G a s ta r b e ite r in G erm any are so defined; in the
U nited States th e m edical system depends in im portant p a rt on thousands of
doctors and interns whose native language is not English, b u t this is n ot de­
fined as problem . N o r is it generally defined as a problem th a t m any patients
cannot readily understand o r express themselves to th e m edical personnel
with whom they m ust deal, even if all concerned are native speakers of ’E ng­
lish’. Perhaps such aspects o f the m edical situation in the U nited States will
become a focus of political attention and come to be defined as a problem .
One can only observe th at distinctive varieties of English existed am ong black
citizens for generations before they becam e defined as a problem during the
height of the civil rights m ovem ent, and th a t varieties of Spanish have existed
am ong children in m any schools, becom ing defined as a problem only very
recently.
Such questions are fam iliar to sociologists (I am m yself indebted to R olf
K jolseth for discussion of them ), but have barely begun to im pinge upon the
consciousness o f linguists. W e m ust drive hom e th e issue. I t is m ore th an a
m atter of anticipating public consciousness and research support. It is a
question of influencing public consciousness through research. T here is a
theoretical as w ell as a practical reason. T he social study of language has been
little better th a n public opinion in recognizing th e fundam ental n atu re and
225
sg 76/4
unity of its subject m atter. Sociology of language tends to come to us as a
congeries of topics: billingualism, language nationalism , standardization, p id ­
gins and creoles, modes of address, etc. F o r the sake of a social science of
language, we m ust deepen ou r ability to see p articu la r topics as constellations,
throw n up by particular circum stances, b u t sharing fundam ental dimensions.
P articu lar constellations of interest m ust be seen as aspects of a single sub­
ject, the social organization of m eans of speech. Choice of language in one
setting m ay be analytically p art of the sam e field as choice of p ro noun in
another; the norm s governing both m ay be those of conveying degree of social
distance. Choice of whole language in one setting m ay be analytically p a rt of
the same field as choice of details of pronunciation in another; the norm s
governing both m ay be those of conveying ethnic identity. A nd so on.
Such a conception unites th e so-called ’m icro’ an d ’m acro’ levels of the so­
ciology of language. Some progress has been m ad e tow ard such unity,12 but
fa r from enough. Little progress has been m ade in affecting public and poli­
tical consciousness from such a basis. Progress depends on the stated goal,
an understanding of the ways in w hich m atters com e to be defined as ’lin­
guistic problem s’; th a t in tu rn depends on a critical understanding o f the
orientations tow ard language of the society in w hich defining o f problem s
goes on.
Analysis of hegemony
T h e future o f the sociology of language in the U nited States rests in large
p art on its contribution to problem s of education, since it is in education that
consciousness of language problem s com es m ost to the fore in th a t country.
A com parative perspective, and a system atic history, are badly needed. The
h eart of the problem is suggested by Fishm an (1972: 195, 1975: 1764):
’A true meeting of education and the sociology of language will enable both to
discover why proportionately so many dialect speakers did and do seem to become
readers and speakers of the standard language (and even of classical languages) in
other parts of the world whereas so few seem to accomplish this in the U.S........
today (Fishman and Lueders 1972)’13
T he h eart of the m atter, I suggest, is th a t language has been a central in stru ­
m ent of cultural-political hegem ony in th e U nited States. Class stratification
an d cultural assumptions about language converge in classrooms to rep ro ­
duce the social order. A latent function of the educational system is to instill
linguistic insecurity, to discrim inate linguistically, to channel children in ways
th a t have an integral linguistic com ponent, w hile appearing fair and open to
all, w hile being believed to provide equal opportunity to all. All have op p o r­
tunity to acquire m em bership in the privileged linguistic network. If they do
2 26
Dell Hymes Towards Linguistic Competence
not, it is their fault, not th a t o f the school.14
W hat is usually left out o f account, of course, is w hat th e child brings to the
school in linguistic com petence and m em bership; w hat p art of instruction is
instrum entally necessary fo r the child, w hat p art an instrum ent of class struc­
ture.
I cannot dem onstrate such an analysis, although it seems true fro m w hat I
have been able to learn. A m erican scholarship has not m uch addressed the
question. Language as an object of planning and policy has perhaps been
thought to be som ething to be found only in Belgium and other countries,
because in the U nited States there has been n o public agency o r debate. T he
w idespread sharing of dom inant cultural assum ptions about language has
rendered their particularity invisible.
T he do m inant assum ptions seem to include th e following:
a — everyone in the U nited States speaks only English, o r sh o u ld :
b — bilingualism is inherently unstable, probably injurious, and possibly u n ­
n atural;
c — foreign literary languages can be studied, but not foreign languages in
their dom estic varieties (it is one thing to study the F rench spoken in Paris,
an o th er to study the F rench spoken in L ousiana);
d — differences in language are of two kinds, right and wrong;
e — verbal fluency, noticeable style, are suspect, except as entertainm ent (it’s
w hat you m ean that counts).15
W e desperately need a critical social history of such assumptions, and of the
social p ractice that has em bodied them . Regarding assumptions, such history
w ould provide a sequel to L eonard’s study of eighteenth century doctrines.16
T he m ovem ent fo r w om en’s liberation is beginning to direct attention to the
history of certain assum ptions.17 Regarding social practice, there are studies
th a t address the role of education in th e history of the country.18 Such litera­
tu re does n o t address closely questions of either assum ption or p ractice as to
language. T here is fa r to go to unite these strains of inquiry, let alone provide
a basis fo r com parative analysis. Studies already m ade in other countries,
how ever, m ay be helpful fo r the com parative perspective they bring, throw ing
into relief the specific characteristics of the A m erican developm ent.19
It is easy enough to find evidence of efforts to m ake social realities fit go­
verning assum ptions. In sectors of society u n d er direct governm ental control,
notably Indian com m unities, a frank policy o f lin g u a c id e (as instrum ent of
ethnocide) was followed. H ere are excerpts fro m an official docum ent:
’These languages may be, and no doubt are, interesting to the philologist, but as a
medium for conveying education and civilization to savages they are worse than
useless; they are a means of keeping them in their savage condition by perpetuating
the traditions of carnage and superstition . . . .
2 27
sg 76/4
’To teach the rising generation of the Sioux in their native tongue is simply to teach
the perpetuation of something that can be of no benefit whatever to them .. . .
’I sincerely hope that all friends of Indian education will unite in the good work
of teaching the English language only, and discourage in every way possible the
perpetuation of any Indian vernacular’.20
T hrough the country school systems have been used to impose a norm of
hom ogeneity. T he policy has gone fa r beyond instruction in a com m on n a ­
tional lingua franca. In N ew Y ork City high schools, fo r example, it was re ­
quired th at one pass a speech test to graduate. T he test included details of
pronunciation: traces of phonetic habits, from Y iddish, Italian, English re ­
gional or working-class speech, or the like, were grounds fo r failure.
These are examples from personal inquiry. T he system atic history th at we
need would show, I think, a w idespread, consistent effort tow ard eradication
of linguistic diversity, bolstered by belief in the inferiority o f domestic varie­
ties of language other th an that officially enshrined in schools an d believed
to be m aintained by gram m arians, th e best writers, and a leading class.
The assumptions of linguistic and social science
T h e w ork we need would consist of thoroughgoing analyses of language si­
tuations. A cadre of scholars to provide such w ork is h ard ly to be found. O ne
can point to a few. Y et w hen a w orking conference on ’C om parative ethno­
graphic analysis of patterns of speech in the U nited States’ was held in J a ­
n u ary (sponsored by th e Com m ittee on Sociolinguistics o f the SSRC, with
assistance from the C om m ittee on Linguistics and the P ub lic Interest of the
LSA), the prim ary problem was not to choose w hom to invite, but to find any
one to invite. It was difficult to identify m ore th an a h an d fu l of people enga­
ged in linguistically inform ed research relevant to A m erican life.
Such w ork requires com m and of skills in both linguistic an d social inquiry
w hatever the disciplinary provenience of the investigator. T he dom inant
trends in sociology do not point m uch in the direction o f such joint com pe­
tence, n o r do the trends in linguistics. As fo r sociologists, perhaps they m ost­
ly think th at such w ork naturally w ould be done by linguists. Well, there are
m any linguists in th e U nited States, b u t they are m ostly n o t studying the life
o f language there. T o a great extent, indeed, the background and dom ain as­
sum ptions of linguists reinforce the cultural assum ptions indicated above,
rath e r than challenge them . T o a great extent, the dom inant assum ptions
deny or discourage the kind of sociolinguistic ethnography th at the language
situations of the U nited States require.
L et m e discuss ways in w hich assum ptions in linguistics converge w ith cultu­
ral assumptions, according to the five cultural assum ptions indicated above.
228
Dell Hymes Tow ards Linguistic Competence
th en consider th e current consciousness of the field, especially as to its own
history.
a — The average citizen, official, and the Census B ureau agree in assum ing
th at a native-born A m erican is, or should be, a speaker of English and only
English.
a ’ —The dom inant school of linguistics hasassum ed th a t the goals o f linguistic
theory can be achieved by study of only one’s own language, and indeed can
perhaps best be achieved (one’s intuitions will be pure) by monolinguals. F o r
m ost A m erican linguists, the native language of course is English. M ost lin­
guistics theory and linguistic teaching has been concerned with English.
b — Most A m ericans are suspicious of bilingualism.
b ’ — The dom inant school of linguistics assumes hom ogeneity. Influences
from other languages tend to be excluded (this has been a habit of long stan­
ding in structural linguistics, to be sure). W ith the exceptions of the late U riel
Weinreich, and of E inar H augen, no prom inent figure in A m erican linguistics
is associated w ith the study of bilingualism, and th e standing of b oth these
scholars may be due prim arily to other activities.
c —Most parents and schools assume that w hat should be taught and attended
to is the standard variety (w hether English of foreign); to attend to vernacular
varieties would be to inculcate or reinforce bad habits (and possibly, im m o­
rality).
c’ — The assum ption of form al gram m ar is th a t the goals of linguistic th eo ­
ry can be achieved through study of the standard language in its literary (w rit­
ten) form ; to attend to vernacular varieties is secondary and unecessary.
Just as folk conception treats vernaculars as corruptions of standards, so fo r­
m al linguistics treats vernaculars as low-level deviations.
d — Most A m ericans, parents, teachers, university scholars, assum ed th a t dif­
ferences of language are o f two kinds, right and wrong; it is assum ed th a t the
norm s of E nglish are know n, or, in case of doubt, can be decided by appeal to
authoritative gram m ars, dictionaries, and textbooks. It is the task of persons
concerned w ith language to exclude w hat is wrong, imprecise, vulgar, etc.,
so that language th a t is correct, precise, proper, etc., can clearly express m ea­
ning.
d ’ — The assum ption of form al gram m ar is th a t differences of language are
of two kinds, gram m atical and ungram m atical; it is assumed th a t th e norm s
of English are know n, or, in case o f doubt, can be decided by appeal to au th o ­
ritative patterns and canons o f gram m ar itself. It is the task of the linguist to
exclude w hat is wrong, ill-form ed, ungram m atical, so that data th a t is right,
well-formed, gram m atical, can clearly reveal structure. (I cannot b u t observe
th a t the curren t crop of form al gram m arians have m arked m ore utterances
as ’n ot in the language’ than any generation of prescriptivists before them ).
229
sg 76/4
e — V erbal fluency, noticeable style, are suspect, and in many circles, n ot p ro ­
perly masculine.
e’ —T he dom inant school of linguistics assumes fluency, rather than to investi­
gate its conditions, and has nothing against style. T here may be n o conver­
gence here. One observation w orth fu rth e r study, however, is th e preponde­
rance of w omen in the ’soft’ areas of linguistic inquiry, having to do w ith
acquisition and use of language in actual settings, while professional prestige
accrues m ainly to those who w ork in th e ’h a rd ’ areas of form al gram m ar,
w here use of logic and m athem atics, or appeal to them , and the im age of the
casual, brilliant m athem atical insight prevail. It m ay be th at th e study of
language in the U nited States (and elsewhere) has its own reflection of a cul­
tu ral allocation of verbal sensitivity to women.
T here are fu rth er reinforcem ents of traditional cultural views w orth noting.
T h e first generation of structural linguists in th e U nited States (comm only
b u t inaccurately called ’Bloom fieldians’) profoundly distrusted th e teachings
of the schools about language, and lay assum ptions about languages, writing,
an d the like. O ne of the purposes of the m ovem ent w hich founded linguistics
as a discipline was to change these things. Linguists shared in a critical at­
titude tow ard these aspects of their society. I f sometimes extrem e, it was
salutory.
In reviving the form al insights of traditional gram m ar, the generation of lin­
guists associated w ith Chom sky attacked the Bloom fieldian approach in to to
and discredited its critical attitude as well. Indeed, th e Chom skian approach
was found com fortably com patible w ith traditional teaching by m any. W ri­
ting is an im portant subject in this regard. T he first generation of linguists
stressed the disparity between conventional E nglish orthography an d actual
pronunciation, as an obstacle to children learning to read; the Chom skian
approach has found it reassuring th a t its ow n analysis of English agrees so
well with orthography. (Chomsky and H alle have gone so far as to in fer what
can only be counted a linguistic analogue of ’racial m em ory’, ascribing to the
underlying structure of English such entities as a fricative consonant [x]
(corresponding to the ’gh’ spelled in w ords such as ’right’) th at has n o t been
spoken in the standard language fo r centuries). A gain, the first generation
stressed phonetic skills, as indispensable m eans fo r recording scientifically
w hat is actually said. Chom skians have depreciated phonetic skills, which
have becom e alm ost a lost art. It is doubtful if a handful of leading gram ­
m arians today could transcribe anything actually spoken. All this reinforces
the folk view that the w ritten form is sufficient and correct, and of course
also disables linguists from addressing actual social conduct.
T he Bloom fieldian school stressed a cautious, inductive approach to the cha­
racteristics of individual languages, and characteristics of language in gene­
230
Dell Hymes Towards Linguistic Competence
ral; the value, chastening to prem ature generalization, of differences among
languages; the value of differences am ong languages fo r shedding light on
ways of life. All this appeared to the Chom skian fram e of m ind as hostility
to theory. T he participation of the school in ethnographic m odes of work was
dismissed as due either to exigencies of field w ork or the legacy of a crippling
behaviorism ; that an ethnographic m ode of w ork might be necessary fo r cer­
tain kinds of know ledge about language was not considered.
G eneric distrust of behavior and observation, as against intuitive insight and
m ethodological authority; the view that the only reality beyond language th at
m atters is in the m ind and brain (not in social life); the view th at w hat m at­
ters is w hat is true of all languages (universals), as a concom itant perhaps of
m ind (rather than th a t w hat is true of particular languages, as a concom itant
perhaps o f history and social life) — all these aspect of a Chom skian outlook
discourage sociolinguistic ethnography, discourage acquisition of the skills
needed fo r sociolinguistic ethnography, often enough m ake th e social order
appear invisible. Societal differences appear, not as points of leverage for
p enetration of social reality, but as indication that ’anything is possible’, that
social reality is ’a bloom ing buzzing confusion’.
T he reinforcem ent of cu ltural assumptions and prejudices, th e disarm ing of
linguistics with regard to serious problem s of social life, cannot be said to
have been intentional. C hom sky and others presum ably did n o t intend to
support the prejudicial role of traditional gram m ar in schools, the role of
traditional ideas about gram m ar and w riting in perpetuating cultural hege­
m ony and social subordination. Y et such is the effect: just as schools need
n ot find out how children and com munities actually use language, so, on this
view, neither need linguists.
M uch m ore could be said on this subject, but let me reiterate an essential
point: the use of linguistics in social science m ust include a critique. An u n ­
exam ined acceptance of fam iliar form s of linguistics would be m istaken and
misleading T here does indeed, exist a w idespread, rather consistent picture of
the developm ent and ch aracter of linguistics, deriving from the w idespread
success of the C hom skian outlook. M ost anything one reads, w hether in tex t­
books, learned journals, o r literary reviews, m ost of w hat is said in classroom
lectures, reflects this picture. It is a typical chronicle of the sort described by
K u h n in T h e S tru c tu re o f S c ie n tific R e v o lu tio n s , and to be assessed as such.
P a rt of the account derives from considering the virtues (in its own eyes) of
the dom inant approach, and ascribing opposites to preceding work, while ex­
plaining, m ore or less charitably ,the failure of predecessors to understand the
natu re of the subject. In short, the general picture of the history of their field
held by m ost linguists today is essentially a myth.
Sym pathy fo r earlier w ork is not a call to retu rn to it. T here are aspects of
231
sg 76/4
earlier w ork which we need to renew, b u t fo r a ’new parad ig m ’, one that is
tru ly a socially constituted study of language, earlier and current paradigm s
alike m ust be transcended. Indeed, fro m th e standpoint of a ’new paradigm ’,
Bloom field and Chom sky are alike in certain crucial assumptions.
Both Bloomfield and Chom sky have pursued an autonom ous linguistics. While
bo th have been concerned w ith psychology, both have refused to base lin­
guistics on psychology; it is psychology w hich is to learn from linguistics. In ­
deed, Chom sky can be seen as having perfected the th ru st of m odern lin­
guistics tow ard autonom y, by setting aside social factors at every turn, and
finding in the internal developm ent of linguistic m ethodology itself (through
form al universals) a prospect of far-reaching significance. (Chom sky’s view
of the significance of linguistics fo r m an, like his view o f the significance of
syntax fo r semantics, is interpretive).
B oth Bloomfield and Chom sky base analysis of structure on th e ’referential’
function alone, neglecting ’stylistic’ (expressive, social) function. Both Bloom­
field an d Chom sky define speech com m unity (the crucial social notion in
m o d em linguistics) as equivalent to a shared language, rendering the notion
o f com m unity dependent on the notion of a language, and in effect, red u n ­
dant. Such a definition is also useless fo r w ork with th e language situations
o f actual com munities.
O ne m ay think th a t recent theory goes beyond Bloom field in regard to notions
such as ’creative aspect’ of language use and ’com petence’. A close reading
of Bloom field’s ’A set of postulates fo r the science of language’ (1926) will
show th a t Bloom field states everything th a t is provided fo r by Chom sky’s
notion of ’creative aspect’ of language use, and perhaps a bit m ore (since
Bloom field does specify the relation betw een novel use an d situation as not
random , but socially constrained). A close reading of C hom sky’s use of ’com ­
petence’ will show that the social relevance prom ised by the term is not ac­
tually there. One would think a theory of com petence in linguistics would
refer to the ability of persons to use language. T h at is indeed the sense in
w hich I myself use the term : ’linguistic com petence’ is tak en to refer to the
actu al abilities of persons. In C hom sky’s use, and m uch psycholinguistics,
’com petence’ is defined as th a t p a rt of ability w hich consists of knowledge;
th a t p art of knowledge w hich consists of gram m ar; and th at p art of gram m ar
w hich is am enable to the form alized, referentially lim ited, model. A ctual
abilities are secondary to internal considerations of sim plicity and confor­
m ity. D efinite persons are abstracted fro m in behalf of a postulated ideal
speaker-hearer. T his is the anthropology of F euerbach, so to speak, n ot the
sociology o f M arx. L ike the definition o f ’speech com m unity’, the definition
of ’com petence’ is used, not to get at social life, b u t to set it aside.
232
Dell Hymes Tow ards Linguistic Competence
Towards a socially constituted linguistics
Of course there is some linguistically inform ed attention to language situa­
tions in th e U nited States. T he problem is th a t there is so little attention of a
certain kind.
T hree kinds of attention can be distinguished. T he first and oldest is a trad i­
tion of attention to the languages of ethnic and m inority groups of a sort th at
can be called n o b le sse o b lig e . Since T hom as Jefferson, leading A m ericans
have called fo r study of N ative A m erican languages ’before they die o u t’. F or
much of the tim e, the prem ise has been that the study of such languages is
salvage o f som ething from the past. The motives, w hen n ot sentim ental, are
often p urely scientific. T he linguist declares the inherent equality of all lan­
guages, a n d ignores the inequality of their speakers. H e does not in fact really
believe th a t the language he studies can be used in all th e sam e functions as
English — th a t would be ’unrealistic’. H e does not really exam ine th e selfserving n a tu re of the com m itm ent to equality in principle, the fact th a t the
good conscience it gives him is a form of w hat W illiam W illis has called
’scientific anti-racism ’: a com m itm ent to equality th a t extends as fa r as the
equality o f all the w orld’s culture, peoples, and languages fo r scientific stu­
dy, but n o t further. M any scholars have been com m itted to the preservation
of m aterials of their discipline, in effect, not to th e preservation of people.
This lim itation is being overcom e by a num ber of linguists, responding to the
heightened consciousness and m ilitancy of N ative A m erican peoples them ­
selves. T h e w ork poses new challenges that are difficult to m eet: training of
N ative A m ericans themselves to w ork in linguistics (som ething existing aca­
demic program s are poorly prepared to do); preparatio n of m aterials th at
com m unicate clearly to m em bers of the com m unity from w hich they come
(and w hich m ay not gain the scholar m uch scholarly credit); insight and ad ­
vice into th e revitalization of language, the prospects of obsolescent langua­
ges, the teaching of previously unw ritten languages in schools (for all of w hich
the usual academ ic training, and research, gives little guidance).
It rem ains th a t the study of N ative A m erican languages has h ad little sustai­
ned continuity, and is not sure of it now. T here is not yet a single chair in the
country devoted to the subject. I t is likely th a t only the political m obilization
of N ative A m erican com m unities themselves will provide the support needed
for continuity.21
M uch of the w ork with the languages of im m igrant groups has been of a simi­
lar sort, w axing and w aning w ithout sustained continuity. Such w ork has
suffered perhaps m ore than N ative A m erican w ork fro m th e dom inant as­
sum ptions of the society. W hereas N ative A m erican languages could at least
be regarded as som ething w orth scientific preservation fo r their exotic cha­
233
sg 76/4
racter, the im m igrant languages could at best be regarded as interesting fo r
their departures from their old-country models and th e ir curious adaptations
to the new country, where anything m ore than sentim ental attachm ent was
involved. A sense of the positive contribution of the im m igrant languages to
their com m unities, and to the country as a whole, is m ore likely now, and it
is indeed im portant to call attention to the role of such languages in shaping
the general language situation of the U nited States, as does J. L. D illard.22
T here is a great deal to be done, then, simply to deal adequately with the m o­
tives th at lead people to wish to preserve com ponents o f the diversity of la n ­
guage in the country, and to understand adequately th e processes affecting
them , and the roles th a t these varieties play.
A second kind of attention, associated w ith sociolinguistics itself, goes direct­
ly to varieties of language th a t are the focus of concern, and studies the p ro ­
cesses of change affecting them in novel and advanced ways. Such w ork has
been m ostly concerned so fa r w ith ’Black E nglish’. A s we have seen, it has
been m ostly a response to a definition of a problem by others, and m ight be
called a ’social problem ’ tradition. Social realities are addressed but after the
fact, and in term s of the problem the realities pose fo r existing institutions.
T hus (as noted above), the variety of English m ost distant from the conven­
tional standards has received the lion’s share of attention. The varieties of
English used by middle-class blacks, not being an educational problem, have
not been m uch studied — yet the selective use of ’b lack’ features by m iddleclass speakers is of great social and scientific interest. F inally, the ’social p ro ­
blem ’ tradition shares with the tradition of ’noblesse oblige’ interest a co n ­
centration on the language of subordinate groups. W h at is interesting, w hat
is a problem , is w hat is different from w hat is dom inant. T h e respect in w hich
the dom inant varieties of language are a problem to those who are subordi­
n ate does not com e in fo r m uch consideration.
T he third kind of attention — work, th at would truly deserve to be called ’so­
ciolinguistics’, o r ’sociology of language’ — would address the role of language
in the society as a whole, in a totalizing and critical w ay. W ith regard to the
language situations of subordinate groups, it w ould look n ot only ’back’, b u t
’fo rw ard ’; that is, it would study and help with w hat such groups wish to p re ­
serve of traditional m eans of speech, but also study an d help with the nontraditional m eans of speech w hich confront such groups and with w hich they
m ust deal. T he study of educational, bureaucratic an d other institutional
form s of language is as m uch a contribution to contem porary N ative A m eri­
can com m unities, fo r example, as study of the Indian languages themselves.
D ifferential access to such form s of language, discrim inatory use of them ,
are very real parts of the situation such com m unities confront.
Such w ork can be described as studying not only ’dow n’, b ut ’up’.23 T h at is,
234
Dell Hymes Towards Linguistic Competence
such w ork w ould study linguistic features and practices th a t are p a rt of class
relationships and cultural hegemony; it would address n o t only the ways in
which the language of the subordinate is a problem to institutions, but also
the ways in w hich the language of institutions is a problem in itself.
Such w ork w ould broach a truly general study of the language situations of
the U nited States. It would begin to constitute a tru e sociolinguistics. T he
central assum ption would be that every social group, activity, relationship m ay
give rise to characteristic verbal means. Of any facet of the society, one would
be prepared to ask:
a — W hat is involved in talking like an X?
b — W hat is involved in talking to do Y?
T hat is, w hat is the verbal concom itant of being, or being seen to be, a certain
kind of person, position? W hat is the verbal concom itant, of doing, or being
considered to do, a certain kind of activity, work, purpose? W hat is the distri­
bution of such verbal styles in the society? W ho has access, w ho lacks it, to
which? W ho has com m itm ent to which? W hat are the consequences fo r in ­
stitutional outcomes, genuine culture, personal identity and integrity? W hat
w ould be a rough assessment of the linguistic health of the society? W hat costs
and benefits result from the present distribution of linguistic abilities, the
present institutionalization of values, beliefs, and attitudes, regarding features
and uses of language?
(I have in m ind the possibility th a t for m any A m ericans, particularly perhaps
males in certain occupations, m uch of their daily speech is not a satisfaction
of genuine expression of identity, but a kind of verbal ’passing’. W here, fo r
whom, about w hat, is there verbal expressivity th at is satisfying, rew arding?
Uses of language that are felt to be integral to the self?)
Such an approach requires overcom ing the separation between questions of
language and questions of value that has characterized th e developm ent of
m odem linguistics in the U nited States (perhaps in a w ay sim ilar to the situa­
tion of m odem economics). V alues have been taken as obvious, taken fo r
granted, or else excluded on principle, so far as linguists themselves are
concerned. T he uses of language have been postulated as everywhere essen­
tially equivalent, rath er than investigated. Indeed, one of the central tenets of
the liberalism of m odern linguistics has been the essential equivalence in use
o f all languages studied by linguists, despite the abundant em pirical evidence
to the contrary. Some even think it the m ark of a radical to denounce atten ­
tion to differences of this sort. Inequality in speaking is to be overcom e, it
seems, by denying th at it exists. A m idst all the costs of inequality and exploi­
tation, language is privileged, on this view, and rem ains unscathed.
T here is a grain of tru th in this view, which I would call m ilitant, not radical.
T he potentialities of language are great. It is a resource capable of transcen­
235
sg 76/4
ding situations to a degree; it is a resource m ore within the control of people
th an m any others. T he possibilities of language should be developed politi­
cally. B ut the m ilitant view of equality does not see a need for developm ent;
it sees a need only fo r an end to prejudice. R eality is different. Language,
verbal m eans, like other resources of hum an life, becom e shaped to specific
ends. T h eir adaptation to some purposes lessens or precludes th eir ready
adaptation to others. They carry som ething of their history with them . I t is
utopian (in th e negative) sense) to imagine as an ideal for com m unicative
com petence andlanguage a state of society in w hich anyone can say anything
to anyone, in any way, a state in which there are no constraints on com m uni­
cation an d language. Social life, social order, w ould be impossible. W h at one
can do, thinking in term s of aspirations, is to envision the costs and benefits
of different form s of social order, including the costs and benefits of diffe­
ren t form s of com municative, linguistic order. I apologize for the obvious­
ness of w hat I have just said. M y excuse is th at it is a point of view w hich has
alm ost no support within the practice or theory of linguistics today.
These issues of background and dom ain assum ptions, then, pose great ob­
stacles to the developm ent of the sociolinguistics th a t is needed. W e have far
to go to gain acceptance of the fundam ental assum ptions of a socially consti­
tuted linguistics:
th at verbal means and the social m atrices in w hich they exist are interdepen­
dent;
th a t the organization of verbal m eans m ust be viewed from the vantage point
of social matrices;
th a t one m ust discover ways in w hich verbal m eans are organized in virtue
of social m atrices (using ’social m atrices’ here as a general term fo r activities,
institutions, groups, etc.).
It is here that the linguistic com petence we need m ay be dependent on th e con­
tribution of social scientists. T he term ’linguistic com petence’, indeed, is used
in two ways in my title. On the one hand, it refers to the object of study of a
true sociolinguistics: the actual linguistic abilities of definite persons in a de­
finite social life. O n the other hand, it refers to the abilities that scholars m ust
have, if they are to be able to study such com petence. ’Tow ard linguistic com ­
petence’, in this sense, refers to efforts tow ard a cadre of scholars com petent
to undertake such work.
T h e m ost promising prospect, I think, is the confluence of sociology, as a dis­
cipline in which the em pirical study of A m erican society is m ost developed,
and in w hich critical perspectives are considerably developed, on th e one
hand, w ith the w ork in the ethnography of speaking, w hich so fa r has been
m ostly lim ited to other societies. Let m e conclude w ith a few fu rth er com ­
m ents on the contribution of this last.
236
Dell Hymes Towards Linguistic Competence
T h e ethnography o f speaking has gone through tw o stages. T he first stage has
been the developm ent o f the perspective itself, draw ing on ideas o f Sapir and
Jakobson, so as to m ake the case fo r the qualitative study of the patterning
of verbal means, beyond gram m ar, and fo r the relativity, cross-culturally, of
th e role and m eaning of language. In other words, th e first concern has been
to m ake the case fo r a discipline based on the social constitution of language,
w ith respect both to structure and function.
T he second stage has been the undertaking of field studies explicitly devoted
to these two questions, of structure and function of m eans of speech. It is
striking that until the last decade cross-cultural differences in this regard had
been virtually ignored. It is a rare ethnography fro m w hich one can leam
m uch explicit about such m atters. T he usual com parative guides and collec­
tions are virtually useless. A set of papers based on field w ork devoted to these
questions has just appeared this year.24 Related papers and books are appea­
ring.
T he third stage, now broached, has several tasks:
(1) to go beyond accum ulation of case studies to com parative-typological
w ork; that is to sharpen term inology and dim ensions of description, so as to
place them within a generalized fram ew ork; (2) to apply the generalized fra ­
m ew ork to our own society, as p art of the developm ent of social theory; (3)
to apply the principles of a critical, reflexive perspective to its own work.
References
1 See Carlos N. Alcala, Beatriz Rivera, and Berta Thayer, ’The legal significance
of Lau, vs. N ich ols’, in Joshua Reichert and Miguel Trujillo (eds.), P erspectives
in contem porary N a tiv e A m erican and C hinese E ducation al Thought. Davis,
Calif.: D.Q.U. Press, 1974, pp. 90-111.
2 See his ’On grammaticality in Native American English: The evidence from
Isleta’, International Journal o f the S ociology o f Language, no. 2: 79-89 (1974).
Perhaps it is no coincidence that Leap has written also on linguistic imperia­
lism. (A fourfold situation similar to that at Isleta has been delineated for Cree
Indians in the Canadian province of Alberta by Regna Darnell, although wit­
hout the linguistic detail provided by Leap. See ’The bilingual speech communi­
ty: A Cree example’, in R. Darnell (ed.), L inguistic d iversity in Canadian society.
Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc., 1971, pp. 155-172).
3 The state of sociolinguistic research into New World Spanish, including research
in the United States, is surveyed by Lavendera (1974), with critical observations
on the state of ’sociolinguistics’ itself in Latin America. See Beatriz Lavendera,
’On sociolinguistic research in New World Spanish’, Language in Society 3 (2):
247-292 (1974).
4 Cf. Richard Wright’s review article, concerning English in black and white, by
Robbins Burling, and Language in the inner city, by William Labov, Language
in Society 4 (1) (1975). On an analogous Caribbean case, see Roger Abrahams,
237
sg 76/4
’The training of the man of words in talking sweet’, Language in S ociety 1 (1):
15-30 (1972). The state of studies of Black English is surveyed by Roger Abra­
hams and John Szwed, ’Black English: A review of the work’, A m erican A n ­
th ropologist 77.
5 See C. A. Ferguson, ’National sociolinguistic profile formulas’, in W. Bright
(ed.), Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 1966, 309-324.
6 The work as of two decades or so ago was surveyed by Haugen (Bilingualism
in the A m ericas: A bibliography an d research gu ide (American Dialect Society,
no 26) (University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1956). Haugen is
the source of the one rich study of a single language, The N orw egian language
in A m erica: a stu dy in bilingual behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennnsylvania Press, 1953; reissued, Indiana University Press, 1969. Efforts to de­
velop study of German are reflected in G. Gilbert (ed.), The G erm an language
in A m erica. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971. The maintenance of lan­
guages through schools, papers, churches, etc., has been surveyed for several
groups by Fishman (Language lo ya lty in the U n ited States. The Hague: Mou­
ton, 1966).
7 On the actual situation, see now Dorice Tentchoff, ’Cajun French and French
Creole: Their speakers and the question of identities’, in Steven DeSoso and
Jon Gibson (eds.), The culture of A cadian a: T radition and change in South
Louisiana. Lafayette, La: The University of Southern Louisiana, 1975. The 1960
census is discussed by Raven McDavid in W. Bright (ed.), Sociolinguistics. The
Hague: Mouton, 1966, p. 321.
8 See Susan Philips, The invisible culture. University of Pennsylvania dissertation,
1974, and her ’Participant structures and communicative competence’, in C. B.
Cazden, V. P. John, and D. Hymes (eds.), F unctions of language in the class­
room . New York: Teachers Colleges Press, 1972, 370-394.
9 ’The nature of deference and demeanor’, A m erican A n th ropologist 58: 473-502
(1956), reprinted in his Interaction ritual. Garden City, New York: Anchor
Books, 1967, 47-96.
10 I have elaborated certain of his ideas in ’Breakthrough into performance’, in
D. Ben-Amos and K. Goldstein (eds.), F olklore and C om m u nication. The
Hague: Mouton, 1975.
11 An unpublished paper, read at the University of Pennsylvania in October 1973.
12 The efforts of Joshua Fishman, John Gumperz and Einar Haugen are notable
in the United States.
13 Joshua Fishman, The sociology of language. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House,
1972; J. Fishman and Erika Lueders, ’What has the sociology of language to
say to the teachers? (on teaching the standard variety to speakers of dialectal
or sociological varieties)’, in C. Cazden, V. John, and D. Hymes (eds.), Func­
tions of language in the classroom . New York: Teachers College Press, 1972,
67-83.
14 See Annie Stein, ’Educational Equality in the U.S.: The Emperor’s clothes’,
Science and Society 36 (4),: 469-476 (1972).
15 On this last, cf. Richard A. Lanham, S tyle: an anti-textbook. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1974.
16 Sterling A. Leonard, The doctrin e o f correctn ess in English usage, 1700-1800.
University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature, 25. Madison, 1929,
reprinted by Russell and Russell, New York, 1962.
238
Dell Hymes Towards Linguistic Com petence
17 e.g. Ann Bodine, ’Androcentrism and prescriptive grammar: singular ’they’,
and sex-indefinite ’he’, and ’he or she’,’ Language in Society, 4 (2), (1975).
18 e.g. Martin Camoy (ed.), Schooling in a corporate society: the politica l econ o­
m y of education in A m erica. New York: McKay, 1972, and Camoy, E ducation
as cultural im perialism . New York: McKay, 1974; Michael Katz, Class, bureau­
cracy, and schools: the illusion o f educational change in A m erica. New York:
Praeger; Katz (ed.), S ch o o l reform : past and present. Boston: Little, Brown
1971); Katz, The irony o f early sch ool reform : educational innovation in m id ­
nineteenth century M assachusetts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968.
19 e.g. Georges Snyders, L a pédagogie en France aux X V IIe et X V IIIe siècles.
Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965.
20 J. D. C. Atkins, Commissioner (of the Bureau of Indian Affairs), in his pam­
phlet, C orrespondence on the su bject o f teaching the vernacular in Indian
schools, 1887-’88. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1888, pp. 17, 25, 26.
21 An analysis of the situation, and of misconceptions as to the nature of it, is
presented in my essay, ’The Americanist tradition’, presented at the second
Golden Anniversary symposium of the Linguistic Society of America, held in
Berkeley in November 1974; it is to appear in a volume edited by Wallace
Chanfe and published by Peter de Ridder.
22 J. L. Dillard, A ll-A m erica n English: A history o f the English language in A m e ­
rica. New York: Random House, 1975.
23 cf. Laura Nader’s article on ’studying up’ in R ein venting A n th ropology. New
York: Pantheon/Vintage, 1973/1974.
24 Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer (eds.), E xploration s in the ethnography o f
speaking. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
239