Book contents
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors to Volume III
- General Preface
- Abbreviations
- General Editor’s Introduction
- Introduction to Volume III
- Part I The Transmission of English
- Part II Tracking Change in the History of English
- Part III Ideology, Society and the History of English
- 22 The Ideology of Standard English
- 23 Discourse of Prescriptivism
- 24 English Dictionaries from the Eighteenth Century Onwards
- 25 Networks, Coalitions and Language Change
- 26 Communities of Practice in the History of English
- 27 Indexicality, Enregisterment and the History of English
- Index
- References
26 - Communities of Practice in the History of English
from Part III - Ideology, Society and the History of English
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 October 2025
Edited by
Book contents
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors to Volume III
- General Preface
- Abbreviations
- General Editor’s Introduction
- Introduction to Volume III
- Part I The Transmission of English
- Part II Tracking Change in the History of English
- Part III Ideology, Society and the History of English
- 22 The Ideology of Standard English
- 23 Discourse of Prescriptivism
- 24 English Dictionaries from the Eighteenth Century Onwards
- 25 Networks, Coalitions and Language Change
- 26 Communities of Practice in the History of English
- 27 Indexicality, Enregisterment and the History of English
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter presents one of the most recent additions to the historical sociolinguistic toolkit, a community of practice (CoP). The discussion of definitions and delimitations of this concept places it in the ‘three waves’ of sociolinguistic research and builds comparisons and contrasts with two neighbouring frameworks: social networks and discourse communities. The focus moves on to the applications of CoPs in historical sociolinguistics. The dimensions of practice – joint enterprise (or domain), mutual engagement, and shared repertoire – are redefined for the purpose of historical sociolinguistics and illustrated with examples from studies which engage with the sociohistorical and cultural context of communication. We show how language change – or, indeed, resistance to change – may be observed through a CoP lens. Prolific contexts where the concept of a CoP has been fruitfully employed include letter writing, the production of manuscripts and early prints, professional discourse, trial proceedings, multilingual practices and online blogging.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The New Cambridge History of the English LanguageTransmission, Change and Ideology, pp. 751 - 773Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Alcolado Carnicero, José Miguel. 2023. A community of practice in the Mercers of the City of London: catching the third sociolinguistic wave with a multilingual medieval guild. International Journal of English Studies 23.2: 89–115.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan. 2016. Standardization. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics: Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2013. Writing, reading, language change: a sociohistorical perspective on scribes, readers, and networks in medieval Britain. In Wagner, Esther-Miriam, Outhwaite, Ben and Beinhoff, Bettina (eds.), Scribes as Agents of Language Change. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2021. Language change across a lifetime: a historical micro-perspective. Linguistic Vanguard 7.2: 1–8.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jennifer. 1982. Variation in an English Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo. 2016. A ‘third-wave’ historical sociolinguistic approach to late Middle English correspondence: evidence from the Stonor Letters. In Russi, Cinzia (ed.), Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 46–66.Google Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo. 2019. Spelling focussing and proto-standardisation in a fifteenth-century English community of practice. Studia Neophilologica 91.1: 11–30.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, Janet. 2013. The role of communities of practice in the emergence of Scottish Standard English. In Kopaczyk and Jucker (eds.), pp. 19–49.Google Scholar
Dayter, Daria. 2014. Self-praise in microblogging. Journal of Pragmatics 61: 91–102.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devitt, Amy. 1989. Standardising Written English: Diffusion in the Case of Scotland 1520–1659. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina. 2013. Mixing genres and reinforcing community ties in nineteenth-century Scottish correspondence: formality, familiarity and religious discourse. In Kopaczyk and Jucker (eds.), pp. 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. nd. Communities of practice, style and personae. https://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/csofp.html.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice: The Linguistic Construction of Identity in Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2012. Three waves of variation study: the emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 87–100.10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope and McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1998. Communities of practice: where language, gender, and power all live. In Coates, Jennifer (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 484–494.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, Valerie, Kleanthous, Irene and Wenger-Trayner, Etienne. 2016. Communities of practice as a social theory of learning: a conversation with Etienne Wenger. British Journal of Educational Studies 64.2: 139–160.10.1080/00071005.2015.1133799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio. 2013. The formation of the Royal Society as a community of practice and discourse. In Kopaczyk and Jucker (eds.), pp. 269–285.Google Scholar
Graham, Ruth 2019. The users of unparliamentary language in the New Zealand House of Representatives 1890 to 1950: a community of practice perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 149: 14–24.Google Scholar
Grund, Peter J. 2021. The Sociopragmatics of Stance: Community, Language, and the Witness Depositions from the Salem Witch Trials. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan M. and García-Vidal, Tamara. 2018. Style-shifting and accommodative competence in Late Middle English written correspondence: putting audience design to the test of time. Folia Linguistica Historica 39.2: 383–420.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Klaus. 2019. Approaching transition Scots from a micro-perspective: the Dunfermline Corpus 1573–1723. In Alcorn, Rhona, Kopaczyk, Joanna, Los, Bettelou and Molineaux, Benjamin (eds.), Historical Dialectology in the Digital Age. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 39–60.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet and Meyerhoff, Miriam. 1999. The community of practice: theories and methodologies in language and gender research. Language in Society 28: 173–183.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Kopaczyk, Joanna. 2013. Communities of practice as a locus of language change. In Kopaczyk and Jucker (eds.), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Kaislaniemi, Samuli. 2017. The early English East India Company as a community of practice: evidence of multilingualism. In Wagner, Esther-Miriam, Beinhoff, Bettina and Outhwaite, Ben (eds.), Merchants of Innovation: The Languages of Traders. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khazraie, Marzieh and Talebzadeh, Hossein. 2020. Wikipedia does NOT tolerate your babbling!: impoliteness-induced conflict (resolution) in a polylogal collaborative online community of practice. Journal of Pragmatics 163: 46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Brian W. 2019. Communities of Practice in Language Research: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kopaczyk, Joanna. 2013. The Legal Language of Scottish Burghs: Standardization and Lexical Bundles 1380–1560. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopaczyk-McPherson, Joanna. Forthcoming. Third-wave historical sociolinguistics and communities of practice. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. Camilo (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Second edition. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kopaczyk, Joanna and Jucker, Andreas H. (eds.). 2013. Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean and Wenger, Etienne. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leuckert, Sven. 2020. Rethinking community in linguistics: language and community in the digital age. In Jansen, Bettina (ed.), Rethinking Community through Transdisciplinary Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Limatius, Hanna. 2019. ‘I’m a fat bird and I just don’t care’: a corpus-based analysis of body descriptors in plus-size fashion blogs. Discourse, Context and Media 31: 1–11.10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Limatius, Hanna. 2020. Communities of Empowerment: Exploring the Discourse Practices of Plus-Size Fashion Bloggers. (Tampere University Dissertations 226). Tampere: Tampere University.Google Scholar
Markus, Manfred. 2001. Linguistic commercialism in and around the Paston and Cely Letters: an OED and corpus-based approach. Journal of English Linguistics 29.2: 162–178.Google Scholar
Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2000. Change from above or below? Mapping the loci of linguistic change in the history of Scottish English. In Wright, Laura (ed.), The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–170.10.1017/CBO9780511551758.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam and Strycharz, Anna. 2013. Communities of practice. In Chambers, J. K., and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Second edition. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 428–447.10.1002/9781118335598.ch20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, Lesley. 1987. Language and Social Networks. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley and Llamas, Carmen. 2013. Social networks. In Chambers, J. K., and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Second edition. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 409–426.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley and Milroy, James. 1992. Social network and social class: toward an integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society 21.1: 1–26.Google Scholar
Moore, Colette. 2019. Communities of practice and incipient standardisation in Middle English written culture. English Studies 100.2: 117–132.10.1080/0013838X.2019.1566848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevala, Minna. 2004. Address in Early English Correspondence: Its Forms and Socio-pragmatic Functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2015. What are historical sociolinguistics? Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 1.2: 243–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1995. Constraints on politeness: the pragmatics of address formulae in Early English correspondence. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 541–601.10.1075/pbns.35.28nevCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Nicodemus, Brenda, Formentelli, Maicol, Cagle, Keith M. and Pittman, Jay. 2021. Address practices of deaf undergraduate students and faculty: a study of language, identity, and community. Journal of Pragmatics 176: 110–123.10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostermann, Ana Cristina. 2003. Communities of practice at work: gender, practice and the power of habitus at an all-female police station and a feminist Crisis Intervention Center in Brazil. Discourse and Society 14: 473–505.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1998. Social factors and pronominal change in the seventeenth century: the Civil War effect? In Fisiak, Jacek and Krygier, Marcin (eds.), Advances in English Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 361–388.Google Scholar
Rogos, Justyna. 2013. Crafting text languages: spelling systems in manuscripts of the ‘Man of Law’s Tale’ as a means of construing scribal community of practice. In Kopaczyk and Jucker (eds.), pp. 105–122.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy. 2020. Transforming Early English: The Reinvention of Early English and Older Scots. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid M. 2008. The 1760s: grammars, grammarians and the booksellers. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (ed.), Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar Writing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 101–124.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid M. 2014. Eighteenth-century English normative grammars and their readers. In Rutten, Gijsbert, Vosters, Rik and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 129–150.Google Scholar
Timofeeva, Olga. 2013. ‘Of ledenum bocum to engliscum gereorde’: bilingual communities of practice in Anglo-Saxon England. In Kopaczyk and Jucker (eds.), pp. 201–223.Google Scholar
Timofeeva, Olga. 2016a. Alfredian press on the Vikings: a critical discourse approach to outgroup construction. Journal of English Linguistics 44.3: 230–253.Google Scholar
Timofeeva, Olga. 2016b. The Viking outgroup in early medieval English chronicles. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 2.1: 83–121.10.1515/jhsl-2016-0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timofeeva, Olga. 2017. ‘Aelfred mec heht gewyrcan’: sociolinguistic concepts in the study of Alfredian English. English Language and Linguistics 22.1: 123–148.10.1017/S1360674316000435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timofeeva, Olga. 2022. Sociolinguistic Variation in Old English: Records of Communities and People. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ahs.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Tyrkkö, Jukka. 2013. Printing houses as communities of practice: orthography in early modern medical books. In Kopaczyk and Jucker (eds.), pp. 151–175.Google Scholar
van der Wal, Marijke J. and Rutten, Gijsbert (eds.). 2013. Touching the Past: Studies in the Historical Sociolinguistics of Ego-Documents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ahs.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voeste, Anja. 2018. The self as a source: a peasant farmer’s letters from prison (1848–1852). Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 4.1: 97–118.10.1515/jhsl-2017-0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2008. Grammar writers in eighteenth-century Britain: a community of practice or a discourse community? In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (ed.), Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar Writing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 37–56.Google Scholar
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, Etienne, McDermott, Richard and Snyder, William M.. 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
Wenger-Trayner, Etienne and Wenger-Trayner, Beverly. 2014. Learning in a landscape of practice: a framework. In Wenger-Trayner, Etienne, Fenton-O’Creevy, Mark, Hutchinson, Steven, Kubiak, Chris and Wenger-Trayner, Beverly (eds.), Learning in Landscapes of Practice: Boundaries, Identity, and Knowledgeability. London: Routledge, pp. 13–30.10.4324/9781315777122-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werth, Alexander, Bülow, Lars, Pfenninger, Simone E. and Schiegg, Markus (eds.). 2021. Intra-individual Variation in Language. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110743036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this book
conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.