8 P Bourdieu. The production and reproduction of legitimate language', ch. 1 in this volume, p. 49.
9 Bourdieu’s argument here is similar to that developed by the sociolinguist Dell Hymes, who maintains that Chomsky's notion of competence is too narrow and must be expanded to lake account of social and circumstantial factors. See D. Hymes, Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach (London: Tavistock, 1977). pp, 92-7 and passim,
10 Austin’s classic text. How to Do Things with Words (English publication 1962). was not published in French until 1970, and the theory of speech acts was quite extensively discussed by French philosophers and linguists in the 1970s* See. for example, O. Ducrot. Dire er ne pas dire (Paris: Hermann. 1972) and Le dire et le J/f (Paris: Minuit. 1984); and
A. Berrendonner. Elements depragmatique Unguistique (Pans: Minuit, 1981).
11 J. L Austin. How to Do Things with Words, second edition, ed. J, O. Urmson and Marina Sbisa (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), Lecture II.
12 See J. Habermas, ‘Toward a theory of communicative competence', in H. P. Dreitzel (ed*). Recent Sociology, no. 2 (New York: Macmillan, 1970), pp. 114-48; ‘What is universal pragmatics?’, in Communication and the Evolution of Society, tr. T. McCarthy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1979), pp. 1-68; and The Theory of Communicative Action, vol, 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, tr, T. McCarthy (Cam’ bridge: Polity Press, 1984), ch. 3.
13 For a discussion of this and related criticisms, see ‘Symbolic violence: language and power in the writings of Pierre Bourdieu', in J.B. Thompson, Studies in rhe Theory of Ideology (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984), pp, 42-72.
14 See A. Schutz, The Phenomenology of the Social World, tr. G. Walsh and F, Lehnert (London: Heinemann. 1972), In this context Bourdieu refers most frequently to phenomenology and its development by social philosophers such as Schutz and Sartre. But his argument could be developed mutatis mutandis with regard to the work of sociologists and anthropologists as diverse as Peter Berger, Harold Garfinkel, Aaron Cicoure! and Clifford Geertz,
15 This point is developed at some length in P. Bourdieu, J-C. Cham-boredon and J-C. Passeron, Le metier de sociologue: preables ^pist^mo-logiques (Paris and The Hague: Mouton. 1968) and P. Bourdieu, Homo Academicus, ch. L
16 Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, pp. 69-70.
17 See P. Bourdieu, ‘Quelques proposes des champs’, in his Questions de sociologie (Paris: Minuit, 1980), pp. 113-20.
18 See P. Bourdieu and L. Boltanski. ‘Formal qualifications and occupational hierarchies: the relationship between the production system and the reproduction system', tr. R. Nice, in E. J, King (ed.). Reorganizing Education: Management and Participation for Change (London and Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977), pp. 61-9.
19 Bourdieu. The Logic of Practice, p. 120.
20 Ibid., p. 122.
21 See P. Bourdieu, ‘The field of cultural production, or: the economic world reversed', tr. R. Nice, Poetics, 12 (1983). pp. 311-56.
22 Bourdieu is sharply critical of the kind of rational action theory developed by Jon Elster; see The Logic of Practice, pp. 46ff.
23 See P. Guiraud, Le Francois populaire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965).
24 See W. Labov, Sociolingitistic Patterns (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972). pp. 301-4. See also R. Lak off, Language and Woman's Place (New York: Harper & Row, 1975).
25 La R^publique des Pyrenees (9 September 1974); relevant parts of the text are reproduced in P. Bourdieu and L. Boltanski, *Le fetichisme de la langue', /Acres de la recherche en sciences sociales, 4 (July 1975), pp, 2-32. The example is also discussed in this volume, pp. 68-9.
