‘Motivational relevancies'

In this final chapter we raise methodological issues concerning social theory and sociolinguistics — as a complement to the introductory chapter where Coupland offers an exhaustive account of what sociolinguistic theory ‘is’ vis-à-vis social theory, arguing against the general perception that sociolinguistics is a theory-deficit discipline. In support of this response, all the contributors to this book engage with the writings of social theorists of various persuasions to suggest that social theory continues to inform socio-linguistic analysis and findings. However, while both social theorists and sociolinguists may share the domain of social life as their object of study, the ways in which they go about studying social phenomena can be characteristically different. ¹ Wilson and Roberts, in particular, as commentators on the chapters in this volume, take this opinion farther by adopting a reflexive position on the theoretical and practical usefulness of social theory for our understanding of sociolinguistic practice. For instance, Roberts singles out reproduction theory as offering some presuppositions, as does postmodern theory, on issues of ethnicity and identity, but it is in the local context of production, and in the history of particular interaction orders, she suggests, that social explanation lies. In a similar way, Wilson urges us to consider how social forces interact with cognitive processes in creating interactionally-based worldviews. Many of the contributors to this volume (for example Erickson, Heller, Potter/Edwards, Rampton, Sarangi) show that the determinism of grand theory cannot do justice to the range of flexible on-line positions and options which the study of social interaction provides.