Items Vol. 26 No. 2 (1972)

Page 1


VOLUME 26 . NUMBER 2 . JUNE 1972 230 PARK AVENUE路 NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

ELEANOR BERNERT SHELDON ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL TilE BOARD OF DIRECn)R!-> of the Socia ! Science Research Council at its meeting on March 24, 1972 elected Eleanor Bernert Sheldon, Sociologist and Execllti ve \~ 颅 sociate at Russell Sage Foundation since EIG I, Pre~ident of the Social Science Research Council. The appointment will take effect on September I. The new President of the Council has extensi ve experience in social science research, teaching, and administration, in academic, pri vate, and public institutions. Her highly productive career in sociological and demographic research has been continuous since she received the A.B. degree from the Uni versity of N orth Carolina in 1942. A year as Assistant Demog-rapher in the 'Washington office of the Princeton Uni versity Office of Population Research was followed by two years with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in studies of rural farm migration, published hy the Department of Agriculture. Her active participation in research continued as a graduate student (William Rainey Harper Fellow) at the University of Chicago, where she was Associate Director of the Chicago Community Inventory, 191750, and co-author of the Chicago (;onllllllllity Fact Booh. This volume was published in 1949, the year in which she was awarded the Ph.D. in sociology. She was first associated with the Social Science Research Council in the spring of 1950, when she collaborated with the late Louis ''''irth, then chairman of the Council's Committee on Organization for Re~earch, in a study of prohlel1l ~ in the administration of social science research in universities. Her association with the Council continued in New York until 1954, as participant and author in the program cosponsored by its Committee on Census Monographs and the Bureau of the Census, for which she prepared A merica's Children (1958). As Social Scientist

ELEANOR BERNERT SHELDON on the staff of the United Nations Population Division during 1951-52, she served as co-editor of The Determinants and Consequences of Popll/atioll T rends (1953). Eleanor Sheldon's teaching career began as a Lecturer in Sociology at Columbia University in 1951 - 52, following a year as Research Associate at its Bureau of Applied 13

Social Research. From 1955 to 1961 she was Research Associate and Lecturer in Sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and also at its School of Nursing (19))7-61) . Since joining the Russell Sage Foundation in 1961 she has held Visiting Profe!>sor路 ships in Sociology at Columbia University (I 9G9-7 I) and the University o f California, Santa Barbara (1971). As a member of the Russell Sage Foundation staff, rvJrs. Sheldon has a distinguished record of research on questions of significance for both social science and

social policy, and of professional service in advisory or consultati"e capacities to many governmental and private agencies. She directed the Foundation's program on social indicators. Two volumes ba~ed on her studies have been published by the Foundation : Pupils (lnd Schools in New Yorh City (with Raymond A. Glazier, 1965), and Indicators of Social Change: COllcepts and Measuremenls (co-edited with 'Vilbert E. Moore, 196R). She is the author also of numerous contributions to other published volumes and professional journals.


THE TERi\f " sociolinguistics" began to gain currency about ten years ago. The subsequent decade has seen a great deal of activity. There have been general symposia; symposia on major topics; notable major research efforts; the launching of series of working papers; books of readings, increasingly specific to the field; textbooks: even a series of collected papers of middle-aged men who find themselves senior ~cholars ; and journals. The present meeting is in a way a culmination of the decade's activity. 'Vhere do we stand? How far have we progressed? In some ways, very far. In one fundamental regard, I think, simply to a threshold. We are all familiar with the gap that can exist between public concerns and the competence of scientists. The energetic activity in sociolinguistics is nourished in important part by the obvious relevance of much of its subject matter, joining other academic fields in which concern for education , children, ethnic l'e!ations, and governmental policies find expression. However, there are scientific as well as practical needs. If relevance to social problems were not recognized, sociolinguistic research would still be needed for the sake of an adequate theory of language. Some of what is done under the TIlbric of sociolinguistics may be justified only in the '. Thc author is Professor of Folklorc and Linguistics at thc l 1l1i\crsity of Pcnnsylvania. a mcmhcr or thc hoard of directors of thc "ocial Scicnce Research Council , and chairman of its Committee on 'iociolinguistics, which, with support providcd hy thl' i'lational Scicnce Foundation, cosponsorcd with Gcorgetown Univcrsity its 231'11 Anllua1 Round fable on Languagcs and Linguistics, ;\Iarch )(i- I R. 1972. This a rticlc is a condensed \crsion of thc papcr hc prescnted at thc mccting. T hc full \ crsion will be published in Roger W . Shu), cd .. ~()ci()I; II ' gllislics: Cllrrent Trends /lnd Prospecls (Georgetown Unhersity ) Iono. graph Serics on Languagcs and Linguistics, :'\0. 25 . 1972). h)' Georgetown Unh'ersity Press, with whose permission this \ cl'sioll is p l' illted hcrc. The othl'r members of thc Committce on Sociolinguistics a rc Charks ,\. Ferguson, Stanford Uni versity; AllclI n. (.I'imshaw, Illdiana l inhcl" sit )'; John .1. Gllmperz. Unhersit ), of California, Berkl'll'); William n. Labo\', Uni vcrsit y of Pennsyhania : .1/1111, Da\'id JCIIII(,SS. rhe idea of a collfcrcllce Oil the statc of the field of sociolinguistics was concch ('d by Charles Ferguson. chairman of the committee 1!l1i3- 70.



that something is better than nothing, when need is great. But in the present state of sociolinguistics, I would maintain (I) that the scientific as well as the practical side of linguistics stands in need; (2) that scientific and practical needs converge; and U~) that steps taken during the past decade have brought us to the threshold of an integTated approach to linguistic description. As to (1). witness the current disarray with regard to ar?;uments in syntax and semantics and to the place of semantics. intonation , and even phonology and lexicon in a model of grammar itself. as issues of empirical adequacy and validity are pressed against the dominant "intuitionist" approach-and as other, contextually oriented traditions of work are gTadually reinvented or grud?;ingly rediscovered. As to (2), note that findings about the organization of variation and the structure of speech acts- both are central to linguistic theory-contribute to the scientific basis that successful practice needs. At the same time, facts of practical experience (e.g., the organization of ling'uistic features in terms of verbal repertoires; the role of social meaning as a determinant of acceptability and the "creative aspect of language use"; the effects of personal identity. mle, and setting as constraints on competence) point to severe limitations of present linguistic theory and stimulate efforts to overcome them. As to (3). if we take "integrated" to encompass the structure of sentences within the structure of discourse, of referential meaning within the meanings of speech acts, and of dialects and languages within the organization of verbal repertoires and speech communilies, then we can see a convergence implicit in much of the best recent work and envisage a unity it can attain. ()RIE:\TATIO~S


The term sociolinguistics means many things to many people, and of course no one has a patent on its defiVOLU\tF


Xl';\ IUER


nition. Indeed, not everyone whose work is called sociolinguistic is ready to accept the label, and those who use the term include and emphasize different things. Nevertheless, three main orientations can be distinguished, orientations that can be labeled: the social as well as the linguistic; socially realistic linguistics; socially constituted linguistics. Let me characterize each of these in relation to linguistic theory. The social as well as the linguistic. Here may be placed ventures into social problems involving language and the use of language, which are not seen as involving a challenge to existing linguistics. American linguistics does have a tradition of practical concerns-one can mention Sapir's semantic research for an international auxiliary language, Bloomfield's work in the teaching of reading, Swadesh's literacy work, the "Army method" of teaching foreign languages. The salient examples today involve American cities and developing nations and concern problems of education, minority groups, and language policies. For the most part this work is conceived as application, lacking theoretical content, or else as pursuing theoretical concerns that are in addition to those of normal linguistics, or perhaps even wholly unrelated to them. When sociolinguistics serves as a legitimizing label for such activity, it is, as said, not conceived as a challenge to normal linguistics; linguists who perceive such a challenge in the label tend to eschew it. Socially realistic linguistics. 1 This term is apt for work that extends and challenges existing linguistics with data from the speech community. The challenge, and indeed the accomplishment, might be summed up in the two words, variation and validity. An outstanding example is the work of William Labov, whose orientation toward linguistics is represented in his recently published papers. The expressed theoretical concerns are not distinct from those of normal linguistics, e.g., the nature of linguistic rules and of sound change, but the method of work and the findings differ sharply. Here might also be classified work in which dependence of the analysis of meaning and speech acts on social context is recognized. Socially constituted linguistics. This orientation is less developed than the first two but represents, I think, the fundamental challenge to which sociolinguists have come. The phrase "socially constituted" is intended to express the view that social function gives form to the ways in which linguistic features are encountered in actual life. With this assumption, an adequate approach must begin by identifying social functions and discover the ways in which linguistic features are selected and 1 lowe this tenn to Maxine Bernstein, in whose dissertation in progress (at the University of Pennsylvania) I encountered it.



grouped together to serve them. Such a point of view cannot leave normal linguistic theory unchallenged (as does the first orientation), nor limit its challenge to reform, because its own goals are not allowed for by normal theory and cannot be achieved by "working within the system." A socially constituted linguistics shares the practical concerns of other orientations; it shares concern for social realism and validity; but even if it could wait for the perfection of a "linguistic theory" of the normal sort, it could not then use such a theory. Many of the features and relationships with which a socially constitu ed linguistics must deal would never have been taken up in that kind of theory. (That is why, indeed, "linguistic theory" of the normal sort is not a "theory of language," but only a theory of grammar.) A socially constituted linguistics is concerned with social as well as referential meaning, and with language as part of communicative conduct and social action. Its task is the thoroughgoing critique of received notions and practices, from the standpoint of social meaning, that is, from a functional perspective. Such a conception reverses the structuralist tendency of most of the twentieth century, toward the isolation of referential structure, and the posing of questions about social functions from that standpoint. The goals of social relevance and social realism can be fully accomplished only from the standpoint of the new conception, for much of what must be taken into account, much of what is thereorganized and used-in actual speech can only be seen, let alone understood, when one starts from function and looks for the structure that serves it. I have given examples to support this thesis in earlier papers. Here let me merely mention the following instances: From a comprehensive functional standpoint, a phonetic feature such as aspiration appears to be a true phonological universal, specialized to referential function in some languages, and to stylistic function in others (hence not of indifference to general theory in its role in English). Recognition of a social-identifying function motivates an independently controllable articulation otherwise left unintelligible. The status of a sentence as a speech act depends upon the rights and obligations, roles and statuses, of the participants. Unless one extends the rules governing a verbal summons in English to include nonverbal acts (a knock, a telephone ring), a significant generalization is lost; similarly, the function of deixis in San BIas Cuna is served by a set of forms that includes lip pointing. Speech probably serves to mark sex-role status in every community, but linguists hitherto have discovered 15

it only when intrusive in a normal grammatical description. Some consistent ways of speaking make use of the resources of more than one language (e.g., the Dutch of Surinam blacks, who impose a norm that is grammatically and lexically standard, but phonologically creole). In some communities distinct languages can be described as lexically distinct with a common grammar and phonology (Kupwar approaches this). The semantic structure represented by a choice of pronoun in one community may be expressed by a choice of dialect in another, and choice of language in still a third, so that analysis of the function from a universal standpoint cannot stay with one part of language, or even within the category language. In sum, if our concern is social relevance and social realism, we must recognize that there is more to the relationship between sound and meaning than is dreamt of in normal linguistic theory. In sound there are stylistic as well as referential features and contrasts; in meaning there is social as well as referential import; in between there are relationships not given in ordinary grammar but there for the finding in social life. It is not that phenomena pointing to a more general conception of the relationship between sound and meaning have not long been noted, and often enough studied with insight and care. Expressive language, speech levels, social dialects, registers, functional varieties, code- and style-switching are familiar and essential concepts; and the interlocked subjects of stylistics, poetics, and rhetoric have flourished in recent years. Anything that can be accomplished in theory and method for a socially constituted linguistics must incorporate and build on that work, which has done much to shape what I write here. But the tendency has been to treat such phenomena and such studies as marginal or as supplementary to grammar. The hegemony of grammar as a genre and that of the referential function as its organizing basis have been preserved. The essence of a functional approach is to take function as problematic, not for granted; to assume as part of a universal theory of language that a plurality of functions are served by linguistic features in any act and community; to require validation of the relationships between features and functions, and of their organization into varieties, registers, ways of speaking, ethnographically within the community; and to take functional questions-a functional perspective-as having priority, that is, as being fundamental, both in general theory and in specific accounts, to whatever can be validly said as to structure, competence, universals, etc. Such a perspective was present in the structuralism of the period before World War II and has never been 16

wholly lost. In Anglo-American circles it has begun to come to the fore in work under the aegis of sociolinguistics in recent years. Salient examples include the work of Labov on "sociolinguistic structure," of John Gumperz on verbal repertoire, of Basil Bernstein on codes, of Joshua Fishman on domains, of Norman Denison and R. B. Le Page on multilingualism, and of Susan ErvinTripp on sociolinguistic rules. What is important here is the element in each work that contributes to a general methodological perspective. Such work goes beyond the recognition and analysis of particular cases to suggest a mode of organization of linguistic features other than that of a g1'ammar. The common implication which I want to emphasize and elaborate is, in its weaker form, that such alternative modes of organization exist; and, in its stronger form, that one or more such al ternative modes of organization may be fundamental. THE SPEECH COMMUNITY There is a second point, linked to the first, and owing its full recognition to much the same body of work: a conception of the speech community not in terms of language alone (especially not just one language, and a fortiori not just one homogeneous language). Many linguists, although they would find the wording odd, might accept a definition of the object of linguistic description as the organization of features within a community. From the present standpoint the wording is not odd, but vital. The two points just stated in negative terms can now be put positively:

(1) The organization of linguistic features within a speech community is in terms of ways of speaking within a verbal repertoire. (2) Membership in a speech community consists in sharing one (or more) ways of speaking. The often stated foundation of linguistic theory, that in a speech community some utterances are the same, differing only in "free" variation, and that the goal of theory is to explain what counts as contrast and what does not, has perhaps served the development of linguistics well in its purely "referential" interpretation. One bird of function in the hand, so to speak, may have been preferable to entering the bush to cope with two. But, to elaborate the figure, it appears that neither bird will fly without the other, even that neither is itself a whole bird. To pursue the figure no doubt too far, the bird in the hand proves to be a featherless monopteron, to be restored only out of the ashes of conventional grammar. The true foundation of theory and method is that in a speech community some ways of speaking are the same, that some of the persons talk the same way. VOLUIIIE




A community, then, is to be characterized in terms of a repertoire of ways of speaking. Ways of speaking are to be characterized in terms of a relationship between styles, on the one hand, and contexts of discourse, on the other. The formal concept underlying speech styles is what Ervin-Tripp has called rules of eooccm-renee. The formal concept of relating speech styles to contexts of discourse is called by her rules of alternation. The speech styles defined by rules of co-occurrence draw on the linguistic varieties present in a community, from whose resources they select and group features in sometimes complex ways. The relationships dubbed rules of alternation are in the first instance considerations of appropriateness, and of marked and unmarked usage. The recognition of Ervin-Tripp of speech styles themselves as the elements of a further system of rules is comparable in nature and importance to the earlier recognition of grammatical transformations (as rules operating on rules). The study of the structure of relationships among speech styles opens up the possibility of a generative approach; and it makes the study of social meaning as embodied in roles, activities, and situations integral to the explanation of the meanings of the speech styles themselves. Linguistics of course does not itself command analysis of social role, activities, and situations. Of this, two things can be said. First, such analysis is necessary. There really is no way that linguistic theory can become a theory of language without encompassing social meaning, and that signifies 路becoming a part of the general study of communicative conduct and social action. Second, this step is dictated by the development of linguistics itself. Having begun its structural course at the far side of meaning, with a focus on phonology, linguistics has proceeded through successive foci on morphology, syntax, semantics, and now performative and speech acts. There is no way to analyze speech acts adequately without ethnography; no language is a perfect metalanguage for the acts that can be performed with it. The study of speech acts can indeed be a center of a socially constituted linguistics, but its own logic broaches the general study of the vocabulary of action, in communities and in social science. Again, if we take seriously Chomsky's implicit call for linguistics to concern itself with the "creative aspect" of language use, and with the basis of the ability to generate novel yet appropriate sentences, we again are forced into analysis of setting as well as syntax. For appropriateness is not a property of sentences, but of a relationship between sentences and contexts, especially with regard to the property of "creativity"-whether that is saying something new in a familiar setting or something familiar in a setting that JUNE


is new. At every turn, it almost would seem, linguistics is wrestling with phenomena and concepts that turn out to entail relationships, only one pole of which is within linguistics' usual domain. The true generalizations can never be captured except from a perspective that encompasses both poles. To bring out this point one may say that a socially constituted linguistics has as a goal a kind of explanatory adequacy complementary to that proposed by Chomsky. Chomsky'S type of explanatory adequacy leads away from speech, and from languages, to relationships possibly universal to all languages and possibly inherent in human nature. It is an exciting and worthwhile prospect. The complementary type of adequacy leads away from what is common to all human beings and all languages toward what particular communities and persons have made of their means of speech. It is comparative and evolutionary in a sociocultural, rather than biological, sense. It sees as in need of explanation the differential elaboration of means of speech, and of speech itself. At a surface level it notices gross contrasts in speech activity, from great volubility to great taciturnity; gross contrasts in elaboration of message form; gross contrasts in the predominance of traditional and of spontaneously encoded utterance; gross contrasts in the complication, or simplification, of the obligatory surface structure of languages themselves. These contrasts, and the typologies to which they point, no doubt find their explanation at a deeper level. Rules of conduct in relation to roles and settings; the role of a language variety in socialization or in boundary maintenance; values, conceptions of the self, and beliefs as to the rights and duties one owes to others as fellow members of a community-all will be found to have a place. The general problem, then, is to identify the means of speech and ways of speaking of communities; to find, indeed, where are the real communities, for language boundaries do not give them, and a person or a group may belong to more than one; to characterize communities in terms of their repertoires of these; and through ethnography, comparative ethnology, historical and evolutionary considerations, to explain something of the origin, development, maintenance, obsolescence, and loss of ways of speaking and types of speech community-of the face speech wears for human beings before they learn that it is language, a thing apart, and the property of linguists. This complementary goal of explanatory adequacy comes not, it must be admitted, from the internal logic of linguistics, but from an external aspiration. Chomsky's type of explanatory adequacy, to be sure, would seem to owe much to his own concern to understand the human mind and to revitalize rationalist philosophy.


He has made his concern an effective goal for many in linguistics, philosophy, and psychology. The concern that motivates explanation directed toward ways of speaking and speech communities mayor may not find a similar response. This concern, put simply, is with human liberation. If linguistic research is to help as it could in transcending the many inequalities in language and competence in the world today, it must be able to analyze inequalities. In particular, a practical linguistics so motivated would have to go beyond means of speech and types of speech community to a concern with persons and social structure. If competence is to mean anything useful (we do not really need a synonym for grammar), it must refer to the ahilities actually possessed by persons. A salient fact about a speech community, realistically viewed, is the unequal distribution of abilities, on the one hand, and of opportunities for their use, on the other. This appears to be an old story in mankind, e.g., a cursory look at the globe discloses that definition of women as communicatively second-class citizens is widespread. When, where and what they may speak, the conceptions of themselves as speakers with which they are socialized, show again and again that from the community point of view they at least are not "ideal speakers," though they may on occasion be ideal hearers. The goal of explanatory adequacy with regard to speech communities as comprising ways of speaking will be quite enough, I suppose, for most linguists to consider, let alone to accept. Yet, I believe, if linguistics is to realize its potential for the well-being of mankind, it must go even further and consider speech communities as comprising not only rules, but also sometimes oppression, sometimes freedom, in the relation between personal abilities and their occasions of use. CONCLUSION What, then, is the scope of sociolinguistics? Not all I have just described but, rather, that part of it which linguists and social scientists leave unattended. The final "goal" of sociolinguistics, I think, must be to preside over its own liquidation. The flourishing of a hybrid term such as sociolinguistics reflects a gap in the disposition of established disciplines with respect to reality. Sometimes new disciplines do grow from such a state of affairs, but the recent history of the study of language has seen the disciplines adjacent to a gap grow themselves to encompass it. Some can recall a generation ago


when proper American linguists did not study meaning, and ethnographers had little linguistic method. A study of meaning in another language or culture (say, grammatical categories or kinship terms) could qualify as "ethnolinguistic" then. Today of course semantics is pursued in both linguistics and ethnography, and a mediating interdisciplinary label is unnecessary; "semantics" itself will usually suffice. Let us hope for a similar history for sociolinguistics. In one sense the issue again is the study of meaning, only now, social meaning. In 1934, Sapir wrote: "The social psychology into which the conventional cultural and psychological disciplines must eventually be resolved is related to these paradigmatic studies as an investigation into living speech is related to grammar. I think few cultural disciplines are as exact, as rigorously configura ted, as selfcontained as grammar, but if it is desired to have grammar contribute a significant share to our understanding of human behavior, its definitions, meanings, and classifications must be capable of a significant restatement in terms of a social psychology which . . . boldly essays to bring every cultural pattern back to the living context from which it has been abstracted in the first place . . . back to its social matrix." 2 Sapir had begun to rethink the nature of language, culture, and society from a standpoint he sometimes called "psychiatric," or "social psychology," and which today we might more readily label the standpoint of social interaction, or communicative conduct: the standpoint, as I would see it, of sociolinguistics. Obviously Sapir's intellectual lead did not prevail after his death in 1939, although its influence can be traced in many quarters. Such a fact must humble expectation. But a decade ago I did venture to predict: "It may be that the development of these foci of interest [semantic description, sociolinguistic variation] will lead historians of twentieth-century linguistics to say that whereas the first half of the century was distinguished by a drive for the autonomy of language as an object of study and a focus upon description of structure, the second half was distinguished by a concern for the integration of language in sociocultural context and a focus upon the analysis of function." 8 2 Edward Sapir, "The Emergence of the Concept of Personality in a Study of Cultures," Journal of Social Psychology, 5:408-410, 1934. 8 Dell Hymes, ed., Language in Culture and Society, New York: Harper 8c Row, 1964, page 11.





COMMITTEE BRIEFS BIOLOGICAL BASES OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR David C. Glass (chairman), Paul T. Baker, Peter B. Dews, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Daniel X. Freedman, Gardner Lindzey, Gerald E. McClearn, Stanley Schachter, Richard F. Thompson; staff, David Jenness Members of the committee met on April 27 with members of the teaching faculty of the forthcoming Summer Training Institute on Psychophysiology for Social Scientists to select 12 predoctoral and 6 postdoctoral students as participants. As announced in the March 1972 issue of Items, the training institute will be held at the Massachusetts Mental Health Center, Boston, June 19 - August II, with support from the National Institute of Mental Health. About 100 applications were received. Those selected were: Predoctoral: Robert S. Bundy, Michigan State University; Karen S. Fagen, New York University; George Fein, City University of New York; Joanne L. Hager, Cornell University; Gilbert H. Herdt, Sacramento State College; David S. Krantz, New York University; John F. Merryweather, Northern Illinois University; John J. Rakosky, University of Missouri; Larry W. Scherwitz, University of Texas at Austin; Brett Silverstein, Columbia University; Alan D. Sirota, Pennsylvania State University; and Michael N. Sweetnam, University of Pennsylvania. All are candidates for the Ph.D. degree in psychology, except Mr. Herdt who is a candidate in anthropology. Postdoctoral: Charles S. Cleeland, Assistant Professor of Neurology, University of Wisconsin Medical School; Wade E. Craighead, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University; Victor A. Harris, Assistant Professor of Psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo; Bernard Korol, Associate Professor of Psychiatry, St. Louis University Medical School; William G. McAdoo, Jr., Assistant Professor of Psychology, Indiana University School of Medicine; and Matisyohu Weisenberg, Assistant Professor of Behavioral Sciences and Community Health, University of Connecticut. Gunn N. M. Johansson, Research Assistant at the Psychological Laboratories, University of Stockholm, and Anthony R. Mawson, Visiting Research Associate in Sociology, University of London, were invited to attend the institute as guests at the postdoctoral level, without stipend. A number of alternates were also chosen in the two categories. The faculty members of the training institute are: David Shapiro, Senior Associate in Psychiatry (Psychology), Massachusetts Mental Health Center (Institute Director); Bernard Tursky, Professor of Political Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook (Institute Codirector); Robert Edelberg, Professor of Psychiatry, Rutgers Medical School; J. Alan Herd, Associate Professor of Physiology, Harvard Medical School; David T. Lykken, Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology, University of Minnesota; Gary E. Schwartz, Assistant Professor of Personality Psychology, Harvard University; and Leslie H . Spaiser, Instrumentation Engineer, Massachusetts Mental Health Center. JUNE


EXCHANGES WITH ASIAN INSTITUTIONS John F. Fairbank (chairman), Albert Feuerwerker, Donald G. Gillin, Frederic Wakeman, C. Martin Wilbur; staff, John Creighton Campbell At the committee's meeting on February 28, three appointments were made in the last year of its special program of fellowships for advanced graduate students and young postdoctoral scholars for research on materials at the Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica, Taipei: Britten Dean, Associate Professor of East Asian History, Stanislaus State College, Turlock, California, for research on SinoAmerican diplomatic relations, 1870-94; Charles A. Litzinger, Ph.D. candidate in Chinese history, University of California, Davis, for research on anti-Christian agitation in China, 1870-85; and Kwang-Ching Liu, Professor of History, University of California, Davis, for research on the Confucian as patriot and pragmatist: the rise of Li Hung-chang, 1862-75. SOCIOLINGUISTICS Dell Hymes (chairman), Charles A. Ferguson, Allen D. Grimshaw, John J. Gumperz, William D. Labov; staff, David , Jenness During the spring the committee cosponsored two major conferences with support provided by the National Science Foundation-the Georgetown University Round Table, on which a report by the committee's chairman appears on preceding pages, and a conference on the ethnography of speaking held on April 20-23 at the University of Texas at Austin, in association with its Departments of Anthropology and Linguistics and the Center for Intercultural Studies in Folklore and Oral History. Joel Sherzer and Richard Bauman represented those departments in planning the conference. The first session of the conference was chaired by Nicholas Hopkins, University of Texas, and dealt with Typologies and Taxonomies. Four papers, by Victoria R. Bricker, Tulane University; Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Joel Sherzer, and Brian Stross, all of the University of Texas, were discussed by Charles Ferguson. The second session, on Community Ground Rules: Norms and Values, was chaired by Rudolf Troike, University of Texas. Papers were presented by Keith Basso, University of Arizona; Gary H. Gossen, University of California, Santa Cruz; Elinor Keenan, Cambridge, England; Susan Philips, Warm Springs Indian Reservation; and Karl Reisman, Brandeis University. Their papers were discussed by Rolf Kjolseth, University of Colorado. Verbal Genres in Social Interaction was the subject of the third session, which was chaired by David Roth, University of Texas. Papers were presented by Dan Ben-Amos and by Judith Irvine, both of the University of Pennsylvania; Ben Blount, and Mary Sanches, University of Texas; and Harvey Sacks, University of California, Irvine. Erving Goffman, University of Pennsylvania, served as discussant. 19

The fourth session, chaired by Henry Selby, University of Texas, dealt with Scenes and Roles. The authors of the papers presented were Richard Bauman; Regna Darnell, University of Alberta; Dale Fitzgerald, University of California, Berkeley; Michael Foster, National Museums of Canada; and Anne Salmond, University of Auckland. Their papers were discussed by John Szwed, University of Pennsylvania. The final session, which was open to interested members of the University of Texas faculty and graduate students, was concerned with Competence, Diversity, and the Defi-

nition of Speech Community. Edgar Polo me of the University was chairman. Papers were presented by his colleagues, Roger D. Abrahams and David DeCamp; by Dell Hymes; and by Gillian Sankoff, University of Montreal. The discussants were Allen Grimshaw of the committee and Roger W. Shuy, Georgetown University. In addition to authors and discussants of papers, the conference was attended by Jean Jackson and Michele Rosaldo, both of Stanford University, and David Jenness. The papers and proceedings are being edited by Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer for publication by Cambridge University Press in 197; ~ tf:.(., fht. f,ftc C'>Cr:J{,.,J,V>.<J / .. ' 7V. f d~....,.or7~ o(

PERSONNEL RESEARCH TRAINING FELLOWSHIPS The Committee on Social Science Personnel-Murray G. Murphey (chairman), H. M. Blalock, Jr., Milton C. Cummings, Jonathan L. Freedman, Laura Nader, Jerome Rothenberg, and Karl E. Taeuber-on March 28-29 voted to offer 15 new appointments, I predoctoral and 14 postdoctoral: Richard R. Beeman, Assistant Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania, for postdoctoral training in cultural anthropological theory and the techniques of ethnohistory and demography Harry W. Blair, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Bucknell University, for postdoctoral training at Cornell University in agricultural economics John P. Bongaarts, Ph.D. candidate in physiology and biomedical engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, for postdoctoral training at the University of Chicago in mathematical sociology Elizabeth Clayton, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Missouri - St. Louis, for postdoctoral training at Harvard Law School in property and comparative law Brenda Danet, Lecturer, Communications Institute and Department of Sociology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for postdoctoral training at the University of Pennsylvania in sociolinguistics Melvyn A. Hammarber~, Assistant Professor of American Civilization, UniverSIty of Pennsylvania, fqr postdoctoral training at the University of Michigan in mathematical statistics and sampling techniques Douglas .J. Herrmann, Ph.D. candidate in experimental psychology, University of Delaware, for postdoctoral training and research at Stanford University on human learning and mathematical modeling of conceptual behavior Marvin Lazerson, Assistant Professor of Education, Harvard University, for postdoctoral training in child psychology and statistical techniques Richard B. Millward, Professor of Psychology, Brown University, for postdoctoral training at the University of Edinburgh in linguistics and semantics Benjamin I. Page, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Stanford University, for postdoctoral training in economic theory and research methods Patrick Peebles, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Chicago, and Visiting Assistant Professor of History and Asian Studies, University of British Columbia, for postdoctoral training at the University of Michigan in quantitative methods and statistics and research on 20


applications of quantitative techniques to South Asian history Linda K. Pritchard, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Pittsburgh, for training and research at the University of California, Berkeley, in sociology of religion Frederic L. Pryor, Associate Professor of Economics, Swarthmore College, for postdoctoral training at the University of California, Berkeley, in social anthropology Kenneth H. Shapiro, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Stanford University, for postdoctoral training at the University of Michigan in anthropological approaches in research on the economic behavior of peasants Margaret Todaro Williams, Assistant Professor of History, University of Southern California, for postdoctoral training in social psychology, psychological testing methods, and survey research techniques GRANTS FOR RESEARCH IN METHOD AND THEORY Under this new program, first offered in 1971-72, the Committee on Social Science Personnel at its meeting on March 28-29 awarded grants to the following 6 social scientists: Robert E. Gallman, Professor of Economics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for a quantitative, aggregative study of American economic growth in the nineteenth century Arthur S. Goldberger, Professor of Economics, University of Wisconsin - Madison, for research on statistical methods for causal modeling in the social sciences Fred I. Greenstein, Professor of Government, Wesleyan University, for research on strengths and weaknesses of alternative ways of observing and characterizing the political thinking of adults and children Robert E. Hall, Associate Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for the development of theory and methods for research on the economic behavior of individuals Adam przeworski, Associate Professor of Political Science and Sociology, Washington University, for research on party systems, electoral mobilization, and the stability of capitalist societies Myron Rush, Professor of Government, Cornell University, for research on theory of political succession: identification of necessary elements in the transfer of supreme power and comparison of their manifestation in different political systems and over time VOLU1IrE




GRANTS FOR AFRICAN STUDIES The Joint Committee on African Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Philip D. Curtin (chairman), Clement Cottingham, L. Gray Cowan, Walter W. Deshler, Renee C. Fox, William A. Shack, and Robert F. Thompson-at its meeting on March 16-17 awarded 10 grants for research relating to Africa south of the Sahara: Ralph A. Austen, Assistant Professor of African History, University of Chicago, for research in Europe and Cameroon on the Duala: economic, social, and political transformation of an African people trading as "middlemen," c. 1700-1940 Rene A. Bravmann, Assistant Professor of Art History, University of Washington, for research mainly in Upper Volta on the artistic interactions between the Bobo, the Bwaba, and the Muslim Mande-Dafing of Bobo-Dioulasso Kenneth W. Grundy, Associate Professor of Political Science, Case Western Reserve University, for research in England on international relations in Southern Africa: the role of an "intrusive" European power Kaba Lansine, Instructor in History, University of Minnesota, for research in Paris and Mali on African traders and their role in national movements in Mali,

Kang Chao, Professor of Economics, University of Wisconsin - Madison, for research in the United States on the Chinese consumer goods industry Alexander Eckstein, Professor of Economics, University of Michigan, for research in the United States on growth cind structural transformation of the Manchurian economy, 1920-60 Chi-m!ng Hou, Professor of Economics, Colgate UniverSity, for research in the United States and Taiwan on the fiscal system and economic development in China, 1840-1937 Arthur MacEwan, Assistant Professor of Economics, Hal'路 vard University, for research in the United States, China, and Cuba on hierarchical control and mass participation in the socialist economies of China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union Ramon H. Myers, Professor of Economics, University of Miami, for research in the United States on family farm organization in traditional Chinese agriculture and its implications for cooperative farming in contemporary China Carl Riskin, Assistant Professor of Economics, Columbia University, for research in the United States on class structure and economic growth in China from the late nineteenth century to 1955 Yeh-chien Wang, Assistant Professor of History, Kent State University, for research in the United States on money and prices in China, 1644-1935


Marion D. deB. Kitson, Associate Professor of Sociology, Simmons College, for research in Sierra Leone on Mende oral literature C. Gregory Knight, Assistant Professor of Geography, Pennsylvania State University, for research in Nigeria on a unified model of a man-environment system Suzanne Miers, Associate Professor of History, Ohio University, for research in England, Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria on the results of the suppression of slavery and the slave trade in two East and two West African societies, 1890-1920 Kingsley Ogedengbe, Assistant Professor of History, Luther College, for research in London and Nigeria on Chief Ogedengbe, Kakamfo Ilesha: his career as a military leader and statesman Harold E. Scheub, Assistant Professor of African Lan路 guages and Literature, University of Wisconsin - Madison, for comparative research in Swaziland, Uganda, and Nigeria or Ghana on oral-narrative performance in diverse African cultures 'William F. Steel, Assistant Professor of Economics, Vanderbilt University, for research in Ghana on employment, labor migration, and the labor absorption potential of its industry GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON THE ECONOMY OF CHINA At a meeting on March 26 the Subcommittee on Research on the Chinese Economy-Dwight H. Perkins (chairman), Robert F. Dernberger, Albert Feuerwerker, John Gurley, and K. C. Yeh-made its recommendations to the Joint Committee on Contemporary China (of the American Council of Learned Societies and Social Science Research Council) concerning the first grants under the new program announced in Items, December 1971. The Joint Committee approved awards to the following 7 scholars: JUNE


GRANTS FOR EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES The Joint Committee on Eastern Europe, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies (which administers its program)-Irwin T. Sanders (chairman), Morton Benson, Adam Bromke, Paul L. Horecky, H. L. Kostanick, Ivo J. Lederer, John Mersereau, Jr., and Egon Neubergerat its meeting on December 17-18, 1971 awarded grants for research to the following 21 scholars: Bohdan R. Bociurkiw, Professor of Political Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, for comparative analysis of church and state relations in the Communist countries of Eastern Europe since World War II Scott McNeil Eddie, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Toronto, for research on the terms and patterns of trade between Hungary and Austria, 18821913

Thomas A. Eekman, Professor of Slavic Languages, University of California, Los Angeles, for comparative studies in Slavic literature, particularly in poetics Robert L. Farlow, Assistant Professor of Political Science, M uskingum College, for research on Romanian foreign policy: the nature of partial alignment Stefania Fiszman-Stanislawska, Downsview, Canada, Ph,D. in East European history, Institute of Social Sciences, ' ,Varsaw, for a comparative study of the foreign policies of Poland and Czechoslovakia during World War II Aleksander Gella, Professor of Sociology, State University of New York at Buffalo, for research on social stratification in Eastern Europe Trond Gilberg, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, for research on political socialization in Romania Galia Golan, Assistant Professor of Political Science and of Russian Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for research on problems of Communist ntle in Eastern Europe 21

Antonina F. Gove, Assistant Professor of Slavic Languages and Literature, Vanderbilt University, for research on the Slavic Akathistos Hymn Roger E. Kanet, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Kansas, for research on political integration in the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance Wladyslaw W. Kulski, Professor of Russian Affairs, Duke University, for research on Polish路German relations, 1967-72 Solon Victor Papacosma, Assistant Professor of History, Kent State University, for research on the 1909 COUI) d'etat in Greece: military and political change Robin A. Remington, Research Associate, Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for research on Yugoslav constitutional amendments and the nationality question Andrew Rossos, Assistant Professor of History, University of Toronto, for research on problems of Czech and Slovak politics, 1848-1970 Alexander M. Schenker, Professor of Slavic Linguistics, Yale University, for research on Czech influences on literary Polish Maurice D. Simon, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Williams College, for research on higher education and social change in Socialist Poland George J. Staller, Professor of Economics, Cornell University, for research on the development of Czechoslovak industry, 1920-70 Tymon Terlecki, Professor of Polish Literatures, University of Chicago, for research on Stanislaw Wyspianski Rudolf L. Tokes, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Connecticut, for research on the Communist Party and the Hungarian Left Irene P. Winner, Cambridge, Mass., Ph.D. in anthropology, University of Michigan, for research on the aesthetic theories of the Prague Linguistic Circle Stephen G. Xydis, Professor of Political Science, Hunter College, City University of New York, for research on relations between the United States and Greece GRANTS FOR SOVIET STUDIES The Joint Committee on Soviet Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies (which administers its program)-Herbert S. Levine (chairman), Mark G. Field, W. A. Douglas Jackson, Peter Juviler, and Robert M. Slusser-at its meeting on February 26 awarded grants for research in the social sciences and humanities relating to Revolutionary Russia and the Soviet Union to the following 14 scholars: Sula Benet, Professor of Anthropology, Hunter College, City University of New York, for research on longevity in the Caucasus Robert W. Campbell, Professor of Economics, Indiana University, for research on the economic history of modern Russia Ilse D. Cirtautas, Associate Professor of Turkic, University of Washington, for research on the Uzbek Qiziqci Barbara E. Clements, Assistant Professor of History, University of Akron, for research on Aleksandra Mikhailovna Kollontai Stephen F. Cohen, Assistant Professor of Politics, Princeton University, for research on the transformation of Soviet Russia, 1929-39 Walter D. Connor, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Uni-


versity of Michigan, for research on social stratification and mobility in the Soviet Union Charles A. Duval, Jr., Assistant Professor of History, New Mexico State University, for research on the Bolshevik Secretariat, 1917-19 Alexander Erlich, Professor of Economics, Columbia University, for research on Marxian theories of economic growth and their relevance for Soviet industrialization Kazimierz Grzybowski, Professor of Political Science, Duke University, for research on the Soviet law of war Arnold P. Krammer, Assistant Professor of History, Rockford College, for research on Soviet relations with Israel, 1947-53 Louis Menashe, Associate Professor of History, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, for research on the origins and composition of the Petrograd Soviet, 1917 Elliott D. Mossman, Assistant Professor of Russian Literature, University of Pennsylvania, for research on Boris Pasternak Marshall D. Shulman, Professor of Political Science, Columbia University, for research on aspects of the Soviet approach to strategic arms control Robert C. Tucker, Professor of Politics, Princeton University, for research on Stalin and Russian Communism: history and personality GRANTS FOR STUDY OF EAST EUROPEAN LANGUAGES The Joint Committee on Eastern Europe (of the American Council of Learned Societies and SSRC) at its meeting on December 17-18, 1971 made 22 grants for study of the following languages: Albanian Ann Bookman, graduate student, anthropology, Harvard University Jack Stauder, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Northeastern University Bulgarian Christopher Marshall, graduate student, anthropology, Cornell University Czech Ronald W. Vroon, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, University of Michigan Hungarian Thomas D. Arkwright, graduate student, linguistics, McGill University Joseph W. Gluhman, Assistant Professor of Art History, Wheaton College William J. Novak, graduate student, geography, University of Texas at Austin Macedonian Victor A. Friedman, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, University of Chicago Polish Walter C. Bisselle, Assistant Professor of Social Science, Boston University George D. Duvall, graduate student, Institute for Comparative and Foreign Area Studies, University of Washington Mary Ann Gembicki, graduate student, history, Columbia University David S. Mason, graduate student, political science, Indiana University VOLUME




Gerald Pi rug, graduate ~tudent, Slayic langllages and literatllres, Yale Uni\"' RlIIl/ania1/

Lllisa A. lao, gradllate ~tllde1lt, Romance langllage~, Harvard University Z<lenek Salzmann, Assuciate Professor 01 Alllhropology, University of i\Ia ~ sachllsetts l\fary LOllise 'Nagener, gradllate stlldent, history, Ohio State University

Deborah J. Durfee, graduate ~t\l(lent, East European history, Indiana University Craig N. Packard, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, Ohio State University Harold B. Segel, Professor of Slavic Li teratures, Columbia University Speros Vryonis, Jr., Professor o[ Hi story, Uni\'ersity of California, Los Angeles stovall

Serbo-Croa t ian

Ste\'en Arnone, gradllate student, ecunomics, UniYer\it) of 'ViscullSin - Madison

Bess Ann Brown, graduate student, Uralic ami Altaic studies, Indiana University

PUBLICATIONS TI/(, lkllflvi()ral and S()cial Sciences: Outloo/{ and NeNls.

Report by the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Commillee under the auspices of the Committee on Science and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, and the Committee on Problems and Policy, Social Science Research Council. Englewood Cliffs, N ..J.: PrenticeHall, Inc., December 1969. 335 pages. $7.95. A1lthmpology, edited by Allan H . Smith and John L. Fischer. Report of the Anthropology Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Clifls, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., November 1970. 158 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95. Eco1lomics, edited by Nancy D. Ruggles. Report of th e Economics Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N ..J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., November 1970. 190 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, .$2,45. (;eogrnph)" edited by Edward J. Taaffe. Report of the Geography Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N .J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., May 1970. 15'1 pages. Cloth, $5.95 ; paper, $2.45. HlstOJ)' as Social Science, edited by David S. Landes and Charles Tilly. Report of the History Panel of the Behavioral ami Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N ..J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., ;\Iarch 1971. 160 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95. iUat/wllllltiral Sri('/1("('.\' and Social ScicncI:s, editell by William H. Kruskal. Report of the Mafhematical Sciences Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Smvey Committee. Englewood Clins, N ..J.: PrenticeHall, Inc., November I 97(). 92 pages. Cloth onl y, $4.95. Political Science, edited by Heinz Eulau and .lames G . 'Marcil. Report of the Political Science Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Nm'embel' 1969. 160 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95. P.~1'chiatry as a Behavioral Science, edited by David .. \ . 路Hamburg. Report of the Psychiatry Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cli ffs, N .J. : Prentice-Hall, I nc., .I uly 1970. 127 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95. P.~1'C"olog)', edited b) Kenneth E. Clark and George A. :\oIilJer. Report of the Psychology Panel of the Be路 havioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, K T.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., March 1970. 157 pag-e~. Cloth , S5.95 ; paper, S1.95. Sociology, edited by Neil .J. Smelser and James A. Da\'is . .Il l'\'


Report of the Sociology Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N ..J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. , November 1969. 187 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95. China: j\1anagcment of a Revolutio1lary Socicty, edited b) John M. H. Lindbeck. Product of a conference sponsored by the Subcommittee on Chinese Government and Politics, Joint Committee on Contemporary China, August 18-22, 1969. Seattle: University of Washington Press, July 1971. 406 pages. Cloth, $12.50; paper, $4.95. The City in Communist China, edited by John "Vilson Lewis. Product of a conference cosponsored by the Subcommittees on Research on Chinese Society and on Chinese Government and Politics, Joint Committee on Contemporary China, December 28, 1968 - January 4, 1969. Stanford: Stanford University Press, April 1971. 'lfi2 pages, $12.95. Crises and Scqucnces in Polit ical DCTll'lo/nllcnt, by Leonard Binder, James S. Coleman, Joseph LaPalombara, Lucian W. Pye, Sidney Verha, and Myron Weiner. Studies in Political Development 7, sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, November 1971. 337 pages. $8.00. Economic Organization in Chinese Societ)', edited by ,V. E. 'Villmott. Product of a conference held by the Subcommittee on Research on Chinese Society, Joint Committee on Contemporary China, with the aid of the former Committee on the Economy of China, August 16-22, I !)69. Stanford: Stanford University Press, April 1972. '172 page~ . ,.,16.S0. The Foreign Trade of Mainland Chinll, by Feng-hwa :\Iah . Sponsored by the former Committee on the Economy ot China. Chicago and New York: Aldine . Atherton, October 1971. 287 pages. $9.75. T hi' JVI ach inc-Btl i fding Industl,)' in C Olll/llUn ist China , by e1ll1-Yuan Cheng. Sponsored by the former Committee on the Economy of China. Chicago and New York : AIdine路 Atherton, September 1971. 356 pages. $9.75. PI'oplc of the United States in the Twcntieth Century, by Irene B. Taeuber and Conrad Taeuber. Sponsored b y the fonner Committee on Population Census ;\'f onographs in coppel;ation with the Bureau of the Census. "Vashington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, ;\hy 1972. 108路1 pages. $5.75. Pidgin ization lind Cl'l'olization of Languagl's, edited hy Dell Hymes. Product of a conference cosponsored by the Committee on Sociolinguistics and the University of the ' ,Vest Indies, April 9-12, 1968. Cambridge: Camhridge l ni \'ersity Press, Septemher 1971. 538 pages. $23.50.

GRANTS TO MINORITY SCHOLARS FOR RESEARCH ON RACISM AND OTHER SOCIAL FACTORS IN MENTAL HEALTH modest amounts for clerical and technical assistance, travel, collection of data, and other research expenses. Requests for renewals will be entertained but will be reviewed in competition with all current applications. Social and behavioral scientists interested in applying for support are invited to write to the Council describing brielly but explicitly the nature of the proposed research, the data to be used and the method of obtaining and analyzing them, and the significance of the research problem in respect to the field of racism and other social factors in mental health. In addition, the preliminary inquiry should include the applicant's age, occupation or current activity, and academic degrees held. These inquiries should be made as early as possible so that completed applications can be submitted to the Council by October I, 1972. Awards will be announced in December 1972 and may be taken up an y time in the calendar year 1973. It is expected that successful applicants will meet at Council expense during the course of the research year with members of the committee of social and behavioral scientists appointed to admini ster the program. Inquiries should be addressed to: Social Sciellce Research Council Fellowships and Grants, 2~O Park henue, New York, N _ Y. 10017

A new program of grants to enable scholars from minority groups to undertake research on relations between racism or other social factors and mental health is being initiated immediately by the Social Science Research Council. This program is made possible by a gran t to the Council from the Maurice Falk Medical Fund. Research projects may focus on social structures and processes or on adaptations of the individual. Factors contributing to mental health and mental illness in the individual and in the society may be examined, as ,reB as all aspects of intervention for prevention, cure, and rehabilitation. Other appropriate topics for research include social organization for treatment of mental illness, and the mental health consequences of soci al action to resist isolation, estrangement, or oppression. Eligible to apply are scholars from minority populations, especially American Indians, Blacks, Chicanos, and Puerto Ricans. Applicants should have earned the Ph.D. degree in a social or behavioral science. Special consideration will be given to imaginative research proposals submitted hy younger scholars who have the Ph.D. degree and are just beginning research careers. Awards ranging up to $ 10,000 may provide for part-time maintenance in lieu of salary for up to 12 months, and

SENIOR FULBRIGHT-HAYS PROGRAM FOR 1973-74 The Commi ttee on International Exchange of Persons announces that applications for senior Fulbright-Hays awards for research and lecturing during 1973-74· in about 80 countries are now being accepted. Social scientists who are U.S. citizens and have a doctorate or college teaching experience may obtain application forms from: Senior Fulbright-Hays Program, 2101 Constitution ;h -enue, \\',I',hing-lon, D.C. 20418. .\ leaflet on openings in anthropology, psychology, and sociology is available from that office on request, as are leaflets on opportunities in economics, American history, law, and political science. July I , 1972 is the deadline for

appl ying' for resea rch awards, and it is the 'iuggesled date lor filing for lectureships. "ienior Fulbright-Hays awards generally consist of a maintenance allowance in local currency to cover normal li ving costs of the grantee and family while in residence ahroad, ami round-trip travel for the grantee (transportation is not provided for dependents). For lecturers going to most non-Europeall countries, the award includes a dollar supplement, subject to the availability of funds, 01' carries a stipend in dollars and foreign currency, the amount depending on the assignment, the lecturer's qualifications, ~ alary , and other faclors.








Incorporated in the State of lllinois, December 27, 1924, for the purpose of advancing research in the social scie7lces Directors, 1972:







W .

















Officers and Staff:











Acting President; BRYCE WOOD, Executive Associate; ELEANOR C. ISBELL, Staff A.I.Iociates: .JOli N CREIGII ro, Co \ ~II'IIEI.I .• ROIII'RT F. BORIJr.JI, l\TJLI.lA~I R . Filwn ria I Secretary