社會語言學是研究語言與社會多方面關繫的學科，它從社會科學的不同角度，諸如社會學、人類學、民族學、心理學、地理學和歷史學等去考察語言。自20世紀60年代發端以來，社會語言學已經逐漸發展成為語言學研究中的一門重要學科，引發眾多學者的關注和探究。
“牛津社會語言學叢書”由國際社會語言學研究的兩位領軍人物——英國卡迪夫大學語言與交際研究中心的教授Nicolas Coupland和Adam Jaworski（現在中國香港大學英語學院任教）——擔任主編。叢書自2004年由牛津大學出版社陸續出版以來，推出了一繫列社會語言學研究的專著，可以說是彙集了這一學科研究的新成果，代表了當今國際社會語言學研究的高水平。
我們從中精選出九種，引進出版。所選的這些專著內容廣泛，又較貼近我國學者研究的需求，涵蓋了當今社會語言學的許多重要課題，如語言變體與語言變化、語言權力與文化認同、化與語言邊緣化、語言與族裔、語言與立場（界位）、語言與新媒體、語用學與禮貌、語言與法律以及社會語言學視角下的話語研究等等。其中既有理論研究，又有方法創新；既有框架分析建構，又有實地考察報告；既體現本學科的前沿和縱深，又展現跨學科的交叉和互補。
相信《牛津社會語言學叢書·交際界位研究：社會語言學視角》的引進出版能為從事社會語言學研究的讀者帶來新的啟示，進一步推動我國語言學研究的發展。

Contributors
1 Introduction： The Sociolinguistics of Stance
2 Stance， Style， and the Linguistic Individual
3 Stancein a Colonial Encounter： How Mr Taylor Lost His Footing
4 Stance and Distance： Social Boundaries， Self-LaminaLion， and Metalinguistic Anxiety in White Kenyan Narratives about the African Occult
5 Morallrony and Moral Personhood in Sakapultek Discourse and Culture
6 Stance in a Corsican School： Institutional and Ideological Orders and the Production of Bilingual Subjects
7 From Stance to Style： Gender， Interaction， and Indexicality in Mexican Immigrant Youth Slang
8 Style as Stance： Stance as the Explanation for PatteFns of Sociolinguistic Variation
9 Taking an Elitist Stance： Ideology and the Discursive Production of Social Distinction
10 Attributing Stance in Discourses of Body Shape and Weight Loss
Index

《牛津社會語言學叢書·交際界位研究：社會語言學視角》：
his volume is a sociolinguistic exploration of one of the fundamental properties of communication: stancetaking. Stancetaking-taking up a position with Fespect to the form or the content of one's utterance-is central because speaker positionality is built into the act of communication. Although.some forms of speech and writing are more stance-saturated than others， there is no such thing as a completely neutral position vis-et-yis one's lin8uistic productions， because neutrality is itself a stance. To take a simple example， when we choose a verb of saying to introduce speech rep- resented as another's， our choices entail stances toward that speech， from neutrality （"said"） to doubt （"alleged"）; every choice js defined in contrast to other semantic options..By the same token， speech cannot be affectively neutral; we can indeed convey a stance of affective neutrality， but it will of necessity be read in relation to other possible emotional orientations we could have displayed.
Epistemic and affective stances are both socially situated and socially consequential， as will be explored below. Speech is always produced and interpreted within a sociolinguistic matrix: that is， speakers make sociolinguistically inflected choices and display orientations to the sociolinguistic meanings associated with forms of speech. Thus sociolinguistics has much to offer to the study of stancetaking.
The study of stance in the contemporary literature is wide-ranging and quite heterogeneous （see Englebretson 2007）， and has a robust history in a number of analytic traditions， ranging from corpus-linguistic treatments of authorial stance as connected to particular academic genres， to critical discourse analyses of embedded stances in political， cultural， and persuasive texts， to studies of stancecaking as an interactional and discursive phenomenon， to the analysis of stance-saturated linguistic forms as they are used to reproduce （or chaltenge） social， political， and moral hierarchies in different cultural contexts. The aim of this volume is to map out the sociolinguistics of stance， bringing together analyses that allow us to explore both what the study of stance has to offer sociolinguistic theory， and to define the territory occupied by sociolinguistic approaches to stance as it overlaps with and is distinct from the territory occLrpied by other approaches. This introduction is therefore not intended to be an encyclopedic overview of' research on stance in all of the research traditions in which it has been used; nor is it intended to be an exhaustive review of research on stance in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. The goal is at once more modest and more focused: to identify dimensions of stance research that are particularly salient for sociolinguistics， and to situate the sociolinguistic focus on stance in relation to related concepts and currents ot analysis within sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. With respect to these existing analytical traditions， I will argue that the concept of stance is a uniquely productive way of conceptualizing the processes of indexicalization that are the link between individual performance and social meaning.
Taken as a whole， the lines of research discussed below are concemed with positionality: how speakers and writers are necessarily engaged in positioning themselves vis-a-vis their words and texts （which are embedded in tustories oflinguistic and textual production）， their imerlocutors and audiences （both actual and virtual/projected/ imagined）， and with respect to a context that they simultaneously respond to and con-struct linguistically. One of the primary goals of a sociolinguistic approach to stance is to explore how the taking up of particular kinds of stances is habitually and convention- ally associated with particular subject positions （social roles and identities; notions of personhood）， and interpersonal and social relationstups Oncluding relations of power） more broadly. Secondly， a sociolinguistics of stance has a crucial role to play in theorizing the relationship between acts of stance'and the sociocultural field: in particular the role these acts play in social （and sociolinguistic） reproduction and change.
As an emergent property of interaction， stance is not transparent in either the linguistic or the sociolinguistic， but must be inferred from the empirical study of interactions in social and historical context. A particular linguistic stance （or a set of stances taken over time） may index multiple selves and social identrties; conversely， it may index a single social identity， a personal identity that endures over time （referred to in Johnstone， this volume， as an ethos of self） or a privileged， "core" self （McIntosh， this volume）. Speaker stances are thus performances through which speakers may align or disalign themselves with and/or ironize stereotypical associations with particular linguistic forms; stances may thus express multiple or ambiguous meanings. This makes stance a crucial point of entry in analyses that focus on the complex ways in which speakers manage multiple identities （or multiple aspects of identity）. The focus on process also foregrounds multiplicities in the audiences indexed by particular linguistic practices， and on the social dynamics and consequences of audience reception， uptake， and interpretation.
……

社會語言學是研究語言與社會多方面關繫的學科，它從社會科學的不同角度，諸如社會學、人類學、民族學、心理學、地理學和歷史學等去考察語言。自20世紀60年代發端以來，社會語言學已經逐漸發展成為語言學研究中的一門重要學科，引發眾多學者的關注和探究。
“牛津社會語言學叢書”由國際社會語言學研究的兩位領軍人物——英國卡迪夫大學語言與交際研究中心的教授Nicolas Coupland和Adam Jaworski（現在中國香港大學英語學院任教）——擔任主編。叢書自2004年由牛津大學出版社陸續出版以來，推出了一繫列社會語言學研究的專著，可以說是彙集了這一學科研究的最新成果，代表了當今國際社會語言學研究的最高水平。
我們從中精選出九種，引進出版。所選的這些專著內容廣泛，又較貼近我國學者研究的需求，涵蓋了當今社會語言學的許多重要課題，如語言變體與語言變化、語言權力與文化認同、化與語言邊緣化、語言與族裔、語言與立場（界位）、語言與新媒體、語用學與禮貌、語言與法律以及社會語言學視角下的話語研究等等。其中既有理論研究，又有方法創新；既有框架分析建構，又有實地考察報告；既體現本學科的前沿和縱深，又展現跨學科的交叉和互補。
相信叢書的引進出版能為從事社會語言學研究的讀者帶來新的啟示，進一步推動我國語言學研究的發展。