Итог полностью

subjected to the dominant norms (like those which obtain in dealings with the law. medicine or the school) to those most uninhibited by these laws (like those constituted in prisons or juvenile gangs). The assertion of linguistic counter-legitimacy, and. by the same token, the production of discourse based on a more or less deliberate disregard of the conventions and proprieties of dominant markets, are only possible within the limits of free markets, governed by their owm laws of price formation, that is. in spaces that belong to the dominated classes, haunts or refuges for excluded individuals from which dominant individuals are in fact excluded, at least symbolically, and for the accredited holders of the social and linguistic competence which is recognized on these markets. The slang of the ‘underworld’, as a real transgression of the fundamental principles of cultural legitimacy, constitutes an important assertion of social and cultural identity which is not only different from but opposed to it. and the vision of the world which it expresses represents the limit towards which (male) members of the dominated classes tend in linguistic exchanges within the class and, more particularly, in the most controlled and sustained of these exchanges, like those in cafes, which are completely dominated by the values of force and virility, comprising one of the rare principles of effective resistance, together with politics, against the dominant manners of speech and action.

Internal markets differ from each other according to the tension which characterizes them and. by the same token, according to the degree of censorship which they impose, and we may put forward the hypothesis that the frequency of the most affected or stylized forms (of slang) decreases in proportion to the decrease of tension in markets and the linguistic competence of speakers. This is minimal in private and familiar exchanges (first of all in exchanges within the family), where independence with regard to the norms of legitimate speech is marked above all by a more or less complete freedom to ignore the conventions and properties of the dominant speech form. And it no doubt reaches a maximum in the (more or less exclusively masculine) public exchanges w'hich call for a veritable stylistic quest, like the verbal sparring and ostentatious attempts to outdo one another that occur in some cafe conversations.

In spite of the enormous simplification which it presupposes, this model brings out the extreme diversity of discourses that are created practically in the relation between the different linguistic competences which correspond to the different combinations of characteristics belonging to producers and the different classes of markets. But furthermore, it allows one to draw up a programme of methodic-

al observation and io highlight the most significant cases which illustrate the whole range of linguistic productions of the speakers most deprived of linguistic capital: whether they are. first, the forms of discourse offered by the virtuosi on the free markets which are the most tense (i.e. public), and notably slang; second, the expressions produced for the dominant markets, i.e. for the private exchanges between dominant and dominated speakers, or for formal situations, and which can take either the form of speech which is embarrassed or broken through the effect of intimidation, or the form of silence, very often the only form of expression left to dominated speakers; and finally, the discourses produced for familiar and private exchanges. for example between women. These last two categories of discourse are always excluded by those who. in characterizing linguistic productions solely by the characteristics of the speakers, ought logically to include them tn ’popular speech'.