摘要：OVERVIEW.This volume establishes a new perspective by bringing together scholars with a range of approaches to endangered languages, thus living up to its name: the very act of bringing these authors together provides a new perspective on the connections between documentation, sociolinguistics, and language revitalization. Specifically, it illustrates how language documentation can and should be informed by sociolinguistic considerations if it is to help promote language revitalization. The question, then, is what should documen-tation consist of. While the authors propose different answers to this question, there is a certain amount of consistency among them, and a picture emerges from this volume of the factors that are considered most relevant. Table 1 summarizes the factors mentioned in each chapter. ('Mentioning' may consist of actual reporting on that factor for the commu-nity in question, or of recommendations that such factors should be considered.)In this table we see reflections of two distinct meanings of the term sociolinguistic. The first refers to the study of demographic characteristics of a community (e.g., language density, history of contact), while the second refers to the quantitative study of variation among different forms (e.g., pronunciations, lexical variants) within a language, often re-ferred to as the 'variationist approach.' These may also be contrasted under the labels mac-ro- and microsociolinguistcs. Both kinds of sociolinguistics are essential to the perspective endorsed by Flores Farf¨¢n & Ramallo. However, in Table 1, where factors are listed by decreasing frequency of mention in the six chapters, it is clear that the factors related to the first meaning (grouped here under 'community level,' 'educational,' and 'attitudinal') are more widely discussed than the variationist or individual-related factors (grouped here under 'stylistic' and 'individual'). Indeed, only two chapters, those by Reiter and Grenoble, make any specific reference to the need to consider individual-level or variationist differ-ences
