The main purpose of this paper is to relate recent findings regarding the evolution of basic color term systems to current research in linguistic variation and language change. More specifically it is to provide in the area of lexical semantics a demonstration of the hypothesis that all linguistic change has its roots in synchronic heterogeneity of the speech community (cf. Weinreich, Labov & Herzog (1968: 188) for a general statement of this position, also many empirical demonstrations already reported, such as those by Labov (1972) and Wang (1969) in phonology and by Bickerton (1973) in syntax). Before taking up this topic, I summarize some recent revisions in the basic color term theory itself. (Ethnographic semantics, color terms, language variation, evolutionary universals in linguistic change.)

Studies of address forms have almost always concentrated on a single set of rules, as they would be used by one idealized speaker. We proposed instead to examine the use of address pronouns in Italy as a function of the classical sociological parameters of age, sex and social class. A modified version of the Brown and Gilman questionnaire was administered in interviews with 117 Italian adults. Results indicate a powerful age—class interaction in overall degree of formality. Young upper class Ss are by far the least formal of the social groups — a particularly interesting finding, since Brown and Gilman's original study was drawn entirely from this population. Lower class youth are the most formal, with older Ss falling in between. Most Italians are likely to expect to receive the same address form that they give; the only clearly functional non-reciprocal relationships involve differences in age rather than status. The relationship of the results to political measures are also discussed. Several issues are examined from the point of view of sociolinguistic ‘ideals’ tapped by the questionnaire, vs. actual behavior in social settings. (Address forms (T/V pronouns); social class, age, and sex differences; Italy (Rome).)

The authors investigate Robin Lakoff's dual claim that women use tag questions in more conversational situations than do men and that such questions signify an avoidance of commitment, causing the speaker ‘to give the impression of not being really sure of himself, of looking to the addressee for confirmation, even of having no views of his own’. They find that in an at least one genuine social context, men did, and women did not, use tag questions, both formal and informal, so the claim is open to serious doubt. (Sex differences in speech; sociolinguistic method.)

This paper examines the stylistic use of language by West Indian men. A verbal duel is explored and related to an opposition between two West Indian value systems. The concept of ‘vertical code switching’, such as in diglossia, is found to be inadequate to account for the verbal behavior. More significant is a type of ‘horizontal’ switching which involves phonological and suprasegmental features. (Multilingualism, creole languages, code and style switching, ‘lente’ and ‘allegro’ speech, ethnography of communication; San Andrés Island, Colombia.)

The conservatism of modern Icelandic is a bromide so well worn that it is refreshing now and then to be reminded that Icelandic has in fact changed from that Old Norwegian which the settlers brought with them in the ninth century, and that it is not, in the words of a recent writer, ‘eine versteinerte Sprachform’ (Décsy 1973: 48). One striking change, which involves phonological, morphological, syntactic, and sociolinguistic problems, is that of the dual and plural pronouns of the first and second persons. Succinctly stated: ON vit ‘we’ dual and pit ‘you’ dual have become við ‘we’ plural and pið ‘you’ plural, while ON vér ‘we’ plural and pér ‘you’ plural have become ‘we’ honorific and ‘you’ honorific. A systematic shift of meaning has affected both pronouns, eliminating the dual meaning in favor of the plural, and the plural in favor of the honorific singular.

Volume 4, Number i, page 120: Intonation edited by D. Bolinger should be listed on page 122. The notice following Syntactic theory I edited by F. W. Householder refers to both the Bolinger and the Householder books.

Volume 4, Number 2, page 232, line 7: “a stolid German-speaking area” should read “a solid German-speaking area”.