Among several current approaches to morphology, Natural Morphology is characterized by three general assumptions. First, linguistic signs are based on a general semiotic understanding of language as a cognitive tool specific to human beings. This is couched within C. S. Peirce’s conception of signs as organized according to their constructional properties and manners of referring to their interpretation as diagrams, indexes, and symbols. Second, this semiotic basis provides the heuristic means to assess the naturalness of morphological coding in terms of, among others, diagrammaticity and indexicality. Third, by referring to a semiotically defined morphological naturalness, one can assess the normalcy of a historically given linguistic system as a result of dynamic and partially conflicting systemic and extra-systemic forces (external evidence coming from such areas as language history, acquisition, pathology, or sociolinguistics. This complex picture grasps the speakers’ natural behavior as semiotic animals producing and interpreting complex signs, and at the same time, the impact of the linguistic systems reflecting different interacting and conflicting forces.

The idea of social class is complicated by the multidimensional nature of culture. North American sociolinguistics began the quantitative turn in the study of language variation. Labov used a number of classes and styles to observe linguistic variation in cities. Every social group has its own characteristics of speech, as predicted by the complex systems model, and groups follow the logic of scale dependency. Sociolinguistic study can be improved by complexity science.

Indexicality and enregisterment are terms introduced by Silverstein (1976, 2003) and Agha (2003, 2007) as part of an ideological approach to linguistic variation and change. This chapter explains these terms, discusses how they have been used in research into the historical sociolinguistics of English, and evaluates the potential of this approach for further research in the history of English. The chapter begins with an explanation of the terminology and the research contexts in which it has been used. It then goes on to note the difficulties of applying an approach which was first used in ethnographic research to historical contexts. Three types of historical evidence are identified as providing evidence for historical indexicality and enregisterment: metalinguistic and metapragmatic comments; dialect literature and literary dialect; and ego-documents. For each of these, a review of research in English historical linguistics using such data is provided.

This chapter explores the language of dialect writing in the history of English. It surveys the complexities underlying the social and linguistic interactions between (non-)standard varieties with examples of literary dialect and dialect literature written between 1500 and 1900 that are now available in the Salamanca Corpus. It is shown that such evidence provides useful insight into the history of forms that remain underexplored, while it vividly reflects changing ideologies about dialect variation. In this regard, this chapter draws on third-wave sociolinguistic models to illustrate that the combination of frameworks such as enregisterment and indexicality with quantitative analysis of dialect writing can prove beneficial in reconstructing linguistic ideas about dialects and ascertaining shifting indexicalities, while it informs our understanding of the social meaning of dialect variation in the past.

This chapter introduces the study of language ideologies and the relationship between language, social belonging, and social order, particularly in the context of late modernity. It approaches linguistic categories as discursively constructed rather than naturally occurring. This frames language as a key lens for understanding human social organisation, emphasising that ideas about language reflect and co-construct broader social and political ideologies. Through a discussion of sociolinguistic and linguistic anthropological theories, the chapter critiques essentialist views of language. It introduces concepts such as social indexicality, standard language, prestige, and centring institutions to explore how language acquires social meaning and status. The chapter also examines the material dimensions of language, including the role of writing, sound, and tangible artefacts such as grammars and dictionaries in shaping linguistic ideologies and language categories. It lays the foundations for understanding languages as dynamic, constructed phenomena embedded in specific historical, cultural, and material contexts.

In this chapter we will disco≠≠≠ver that language variation is a normal characteristic of speech on all language levels: in the sounds of accents, words, in grammar but also in discourse. When speaking, we always face alternative choices, and these are determined by our regional and social backgrounds and by the context of situation. We will discuss the concept of the sociolinguistic variable in more detail and find that variation is rule-conditioned and systematic. We focus on all actors and factors involved: the social dimension of variation (individuals, groups, communities) and its social correlates (region, class, gender, ethnicity, education). Last but not least, we will look at the spread of innovative features and trace patterns of diffusion from individual speakers, the point of origin of change, throughout wider society (via processes such as actuation, diffusion, and embedding).

In this chapter we trace the development of the field from its beginnings to the present. Before the start of sociolinguistics proper in the early 1960s, regional dialectologists had already made considerable efforts to explore the spatial dimension of language variation, using different methodologies to collect data on regional dialects. The impact of the so-called sociolinguistic turn is discussed with reference to Labov’s early work (on the island of Martha’s Vineyard and in New York City), and some principal findings and methods of early work in the field are introduced. We will take a first look at the subsequent waves of variationist sociolinguistics, social network theory and communities of practice, which entail a focus on individual speakers and their social grouping and ordering as well as their orientation and affiliation with other speakers in indexical relationships. The chapter concludes with some recent developments and a presentation of current research themes.

The chapter establishes the role of context in an analysis. This is done by defining context, presenting a context continuum that can be used to understand an object of study, and introducing the types of conditions that shape understandings of discourse. Six different approaches to studying context are discussed in this chapter: systemic functional linguistics, the SPEAKING model, frames, indexicality, contextualization cues, and next-turn proof procedure. After reading this chapter, readers will understand what context is and why it is important; be able to study context using different models and constructs; and know how discourse and context work together to create meaning.

This chapter gives an overview of the relation between indexicality, deixis, and space in gesture from a semiotic and a linguistic point of view. Directive pointing gestures are not the only type of cospeech gestures that contributes to deixis. Iconic gestures that form part of the multimodal utterance may instantiate the targets to be pointed at and function as the deictic object of the deictic relation. In turn they may be interpreted as signs that stand for something else. A Peircean approach combined with a Bühlerian one, as suggested in this chapter, not only allows for a tertium comparationis with respect to the modality of the deictic and indexical signs under investigation. It also provides us with tools for representing semiotic processes like complex sign concatenation (e.g. deixis at signs vs. deixis at non-signs; deixis at metonymies or metaphors) as well as the collaborative creation of deictic space (sphere-like, map-like, screen-like; separated or shared) in multimodal interaction. The proposed schema of four semiotic subfields of space substantiates the view that space has to be thought of as a dynamic process of semiosis, not as a static entity.

This chapter reviews the study of variation in gesture and its theoretical underpinnings in the field of gesture studies. It questions the use of culture, language, or nationality as the default unit of analysis in studies of gesture variation. Drawing on theoretical developments in sociolinguistics and recent anthropologial analyses of gesture, it argues for the possibility that social factors and divisions other than linguistic/cultural boundaries may provide a more robust and comprehensive theoretical account for variation in gesture.