Bucholtz and Hall: System and Identity

  • Feifei Zhou


Influenced by new constructivist social theories and responding to so-called post-1960s late-modernity social changes, some branches of sociolinguistics have embraced a dynamic study of language and identity to see how identity is discursively constructed through individual choices of speech. Nikolas Coupland comments with the following words:


  1. Bucholtz, M. (1999). “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society, 28(2), 203–223.Google Scholar
  2. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Theorizing identity in language and sexuality research. Language in Society, 33(4), 469–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2008). All of the above: New coalitions in sociocultural linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 401–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2003). Language and sexuality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Pablé, A., Haas, M., & Christie, N. (2010). Language and social identity: An integrationist critique. Language Sciences, 32(6), 671–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sacks, H. (1984). On doing “being ordinary”. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 413–429). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Taylor, T. J., & Cameron, D. (1987). Analysing conversation: Rules and units in the structure of talk. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Feifei Zhou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishLingnan UniversityHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations