Readers may be a bit incredulous as they begin reading Katie Carmichael and Paul E. Reed’s (hereafter, the authors) Language and Place. Most students in an introductory linguistics course – indeed, most laypersons who have noted various English dialects – understand that place is instrumental in developing and maintaining dialects. And researchers have long commented on place and dialect. As cited in Language and Place, Labov’s (Reference Labov1963) classic study of Martha’s Vineyard concludes that place identity is crucial in predicting who uses centralized variants and who does not. Wolfram’s (Reference Wolfram1969) work in Detroit also identifies place as essential. Further, Eckert (Reference Eckert1989) notes that attachment (or lack thereof) to place is important for clarifying who identifies as a ‘jock’ and who identifies as a ‘burnout’ in a high school. Indeed, place has been central in a popular understanding of dialect and in sociolinguistics research, so readers may wonder if the field needs a detailed and virtually exclusive treatment of place. However, the authors make an extremely compelling case for a renewed interest in and a multidisciplinary approach to place theory in sociolinguistic research.

The authors’ premises are simple and compelling. Previous sociolinguistic work clearly acknowledges a fundamental role of place in the development, diffusion, and maintenance of marked dialect features, but given the burgeoning work in place theory in related (or allied) disciplines (e.g., human geography, landscape architecture, sociology), sociolinguists would do well to prioritize place in new sociolinguistic research. This is particularly true with English dialects given an increase in mobility of speakers, new immigration patterns, and a growing use of social media. The authors note that previous work at times has had a binary view of place: speakers are either in or out of a given place. But given increased mobility and the technological ability to stay connected, a more nuanced, robust, and multidisciplinary approach to place theory is warranted. Dialect features can be maintained despite physical separation, and this relates directly to speakers’ sense of place and identity even if they are no longer physically present where the English variety is spoken.

Language and Place is a relatively short work (around 108 pages) and is part of the Cambridge Elements series. Despite its brevity, the book provides the reader (particularly the sociolinguist) with important factors to consider, most notably how place (perhaps more aptly known as home to speakers) shapes identity and linguistic preferences. Chapters 1 and 2 give a brief overview of the notion of place. Chapter 3 gives readers an admirable and extensive overview of how place has been considered in sociolinguistic research. Chapter 4 notes how work on place in linguistics could be extended further by incorporating research from allied disciplines. The authors are careful not to dismiss or disparage previous work on place in sociolinguistics. However, they do note that just as linguistics has carefully quantified factors such as gender, age, and socioeconomic level, the same ‘rigor’ can be applied to place in sociolinguistic research despite the inherent ‘subjectivity of place attachment and place identity’ (35).

Chapters 5 and 6 present case studies from the authors’ previous work on English varieties, and they detail how attachment to place is quantified in this research. Though their methodologies differ, the two studies demonstrate an underlying reality about dialects: attachment to and conceptualization of place (i.e., home) correlates with the maintenance or rejection of marked local features. In Chapter 5, Carmichael presents her previous and ongoing work on the English dialect in post‑Katrina New Orleans. Carmichael notes that gentrification and Hurricane Katrina have shifted the linguistic landscape in New Orleans. Her research focuses on the area of Chalmette, just outside downtown New Orleans, and this research illustrates how allegiance to or rejection of place determines if strongly marked features such as nonrhoticity, raised thought, and split short‑a (40), markers of what is known at the ‘Yat’ dialect, are realized in speech. Reed’s Chapter 6 on Appalachian English, particularly East Tennessee and Hancock County, focuses on rootedness – a very useful term not only in quantification but also conceptualization. As Reed notes, a speaker’s high ‘rootedness’ score shows attachment to place and thus correlates with a higher percentage of local features: monophthongization of /aɪ/, frequency of rising pitch accents, and aspects of the Southern Vowel Shift (70). Reed elucidates how he quantified this concept of rootedness by having speakers rate their own degree of rootedness.

Chapters 7 and 8 summarize the text and again posit that place be given a more central role in sociolinguistic research. The authors correctly and insightfully note that while sociolinguistics can benefit from other disciplines regarding place, these allied disciplines could also benefit from considering and incorporating sociolinguistics research into their work on place and identity. At the very least, sociolinguistics should be given ‘a seat at the’ (24) when there are discussions about place and identity.

Space does not allow a complete overview of the concepts in this smartly written work (e.g., mobility, insider vs. outsider, urban vs. rural, pride vs. stigma). However, one concept does bear some closer examination: nostalgia. This concept is mentioned throughout the work, usually in opposition to angst. Speakers (particularly ‘rooted’ speakers) in New Orleans and Hancock County express a nostalgic fondness for a place and time when their community’s distinctiveness was echoed in the voices of neighbors. Given the real or imagined homogenization of modern cities, there is considerable nostalgia for bygone traditions and a growing angst that such traditions are fading, including prominent linguistic features (which are increasingly maintained in a ‘performative’ fashion). The maintenance and revitalization of features is a way to combat this loss of place and identity even if done performatively. Nostalgia is an extremely powerful emotion, and the authors were right to note its fundamental role, and the authors are to be commended for their call for research into how nostalgia and similar emotions drive perceptions of English dialects and place in today’s fast‑changing society.

This text is not groundbreaking, but it does draw attention to an important element of linguistics research. The text may be useful in an undergraduate linguistics course, but the jargon and numerous citations early in the text might be off‑putting for beginners. However, it would be a wonderful supplemental reading for a university‑level course in sociolinguistics or a world Englishes course. Seasoned linguists will encounter familiar themes and a notable reconceptualization of place. Researchers in allied disciplines, such as architecture, human geography, and sociology, would benefit tremendously by the brief but important overview of place and its implications in sociolinguistics in general and in two English dialects in particular.

The book is open access and has an accompanying video in which the authors discuss their book. In addition, there are accompanying high‑quality sound files on the Cambridge University Press website for this book. These are useful for anyone interested in how these English dialects sound. There are few weaknesses in the text. However, a few more linguistic features of both New Orleans and Appalachian English could have been given in addition to those noted above, though this was not the main point of the book. The back and forth between the two authors’ sections could be a little disconcerting for some readers. Despite these minor quibbles, the text is a solid treatment of place. The historical backgrounds for both New Orleans and Tennessee are informative and crucial to an understanding of these English dialects and their popular perception.

The authors’ arguments for greater emphasis on place identity in research are well founded, particularly the point that place theory should supplement (not dislodge) work on social class and covert prestige. The case studies are models in how to apply place theory in sociolinguistic analysis. Incorporating such theory assists in clarifying why some speakers would choose to maintain linguistic features that are ‘stereotyped and caricatured’ even though keeping these features could result in the speakers’ ‘marginalization’ (62–63).