Eckert (2012) describes variationist sociolinguistic studies as carried out in three waves representing distinct theoretical viewpoints. Each wave has been concerned with identity in some form, though the theoretical framework used to examine it differs in each case. Studies carried out in the first wave of variationist study take linguistic variation as their starting point and attempt to correlate patterns in variation with patterns in social structure such as social class or generational group. A canonical first-wave study is Labov’s (1966) study of variation in New York department stores. In second-wave studies, the focus shifts to a more ethnographically informed micro-analysis of particular communities, whilst still drawing correlations between social group identity and linguistic variation, for example, Labov (1963) and Milroy (1980). Within studies conducted in the first-wave framework, identity is seen as a somewhat static concept, unlike second-wave (and third-wave) variationist studies, which see identity as the fluid and dynamic construct described in the sociological review, above. Such studies see language as one of many resources mobilised in the construction of identity, and attempt to understand the place of linguistic variation within the identity practices engaged in by participants.
Instead of conceptualising a particular variant as meaning that a participant is, for example, working class, third-wave studies see linguistic variation as ultimately unspecified. The meaning of variation is constructed by speakers as they engage in social manoeuvring or identity construction (Eckert 2012). Even sociolinguistic variables which have previously been considered ‘stable’ in meaning can take on a wide range of meanings across different groups through interaction. For example, the variable cited in Eckert (2008), DH-stopping, is explored in Labov (1966, 2001) as a ‘stable’ variant associated with class divisions. Eckert (2008) suggests that DH-stopping can, and continues to, take on new indexical meanings in different communities such as becoming associated with the German farming community in Wisconsin (Rose 2006), or the Cajun renaissance in Louisiana (Dubois & Horvarth 1998).
A particularly fruitful line of research within second- and third-wave variationist perspec- tives has been conducted using the community of practice framework. Drawing on work by Lave & Wenger (1991), and Wenger (1998), community of practice is defined by Eckert & McConnell-Ginet (1992) as:
[A]n aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in an endeavor. Ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values, power relations
– in short, practices – emerge in the course of this mutual endeavour.
The implication is that a community of practice is a group of people characterised by meaning- ful engagement with one another. Over the course of time the group develops shared practices including ways of speaking. Sociolinguistic studies conducted in the community of practice framework have demonstrated that different communities make use of different linguistic practices as one means of differentiation from other groups (Eckert 2000; Moore 2003; Alam 2007; Mendoza-Denton 2008; Drager 2009; Alam & Stuart-Smith 2011; Lawson 2011; Jones 2012). Many of these studies are conducted in adolescent communities. The reasons for this research interest in adolescents are multiple. Firstly, adolescence is a socially interesting life stage, described by Eckert (2000, 15) as a ‘social hothouse’. More specifically, adolescence is a liminal stage between childhood and adulthood important for the construction of self and one’s relationship with the world (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 2003). Secondly, this socially interesting time also coincides with the biological changes brought about by the onset of puberty, leading to both a social and physical/psychological transition period (Kirkham & Moore 2013).
The interest of adolescents to the study of language change has long been recognised (Eckert 1988; Kerswill 1996; Labov 2001; Tagliamonte & D’Arcy 2009). Many studies describe an ‘adolescent peak’ where adolescents use an innovative variant more than any other age group in a community (Trudgill 1974; Ash 1982; Cedergren 1988; Tagliamonte & D’Arcy 2009). The implication of this is that studies of adolescent language variation can give an insight into the most recent developments in a particular variety. While discussions such as Labov (2001) demonstrate that adolescents are particularly innovative in their use of variants, micro studies such as Eckert (2000) indicate that not all adolescents are innovative, but rather certain individuals, or groups of individuals. Work on variation conducted within the identity informed framework, such as community of practice studies described above, can be extremely informative in describing who are the innovative individuals or groups in a community, and why sound innovations might be adopted and spread (Labov 2010, 189). The role identity plays in sociolinguistic variation is clearly widespread and significant. Identity is not only of relevance to variation in first language contexts, but is also relevant to structuring variation in second language contexts, as demonstrated in Rindal’s (2010) study of Norwegian learners of English.
Work into language and identity conducted within the variationist framework is heavily informed by the interaction between habitus and reflexivity discussed above. Bourdieu (1991) describes how the habitus in relation to the linguistic market place can lead to the adoption or rejection of certain linguistic features. Detailed ethnographic work such as that conducted using the community of practice model can show how this functions at the small group level. Similarly, such studies indicate who are the ‘reflexivity winners’ and ‘losers’ referred to in Adkins (2003), i.e who has the social resources necessary to make a move towards linguistic innovation, and who does not.