Comparative analysis demonstrates salient stylistic, contextual and content features of two genres of dispute discourse in a Fiji Indian village. Specific strategies of persuasion are examined, as well as explanations for their effectiveness in influencing the course of community conflicts.

In 1972 Labov described the basic sociolinguistic question as the one ‘posed by the need to understand why anyone says anything’ (1972:207). Clearly the aim is very different from that of specifying the form of a grammar that generates all and only the well-formed sentences of a language. The goal is a theory of utterances. Moreover, the ‘why’ question can also be read as ‘what for’. What does anyone say anything for? I think we can safely say that this question places sociolinguistic analysis in a functional framework. If sociolinguistics looks for answers to the ‘why’ of saying something, it is seeking functional explanations.

Beginning with a consideration of some commonsense and professional conceptions of what a formal situation might comprise, this paper goes on to ask the question: where along a linear array which has its poles in exemplars of formal and informal speech-exchange systems, can classroom talk be placed? Its answer is given in part in the form of rules for the taking of turns in classrooms, these being modifications of those, already established in the literature, for natural conversation. These rules allow for and require that formal classroom situations be constructed so as to involve differential participation rights for parties to the talk depending on their membership of the social identity-class ‘student/teacher’. The analyses which follow examine some of the applications and violations of these rules found in audio and video recordings of naturally occurring classroom talk (and transcripts thereof) for their orderliness as orientations to these rules. It is argued that the rules provide a systematic basis for the ‘feelings’ of ‘formality’ that researchers and participants have of such situations and that a decision as to the ‘formality’ or otherwise of a social situation can be predicated on the degree of pre-allocation involved in the organization of turns at talk in the situation. (Configuration and distance in interaction, conversational analysis, turn-taking systems, classroom language, sociology of education; British and Australian English).

The historical present, the use of the present tense to refer to past events, is a feature of narrative which has long been recognized. The object of this analysis is the use of the historical present tense specifically in narratives which occur in everyday conversational interactions. This usage will be referred to as the conversational historical present to distinguish it from the use of this tense in other genres such as travelogues and jokes. In the analysis of the occurrence of the conversational historical present, it was found that features of the relationship between the speaker and the audience had a strong influence. This is true not because the use of the linguistic feature itself is socially stratified, but rather because it functions as one of a set of features which appear in a specific type of narrative and is therefore governed by norms of interaction which constrain the social behavior involved in the recounting of such narratives. The fact that the use of the conversational historical present is an interactional variable in this respect has had important theoretical and methodological implications for the analysis which is reported here. The basic theoretical point is that in the study of the conversational historical present one sees a perfect example of the relationship between linguistic structure and language use.