Introduction

Identity has concerned variationists since the inception of the quantitative paradigm. Labov's discovery that use of centralised diphthongs related to a positive orientation towards the island of Martha's Vineyard demonstrated that ‘one cannot understand the development of a language change apart from the social life of the community in which it occurs’ (Labov 1963: 275). Understanding the connection between centralised (ay) (in price words) and fishermen, up-islanders and island-loyal youngsters required an examination of the local sites, practices and conflicts which constitute social meaning. That is to say, explaining this linguistic pattern was dependent upon an understanding of identity and identity practices and their relationship to the local social order.

Since 1963, identity has continued to be a central concern in variationist research; however, there is ongoing contention in the field about the way in which identity is defined and the function of identity in the explanation of language variation and change. This chapter will chart the role of identity in variationist work and consider the relevance of the concept to contemporary sociolinguistic analyses. I propose that a major part of what we might call variationists' current identity crisis has been caused by the tendency to define identity differently according to where one's work sits in the variationist paradigm. In recent times, as variationists unpack what they mean by identity, there has been increasing interest in the social meaning of variation, and the social and linguistic ‘levels’ at which meaning and identity are situated.