The language of a speech community can only act as an identity marker for all of its speakers if linguistic norms are widely shared and if a minimal number of language varieties are spoken. This article examines briefly how a linguistic norm came to serve the whole of Iceland and how a situation of relative linguistic homogeneity was maintained for centuries. Sociolinguistic theory tells us that the speech community that we can reconstruct for early Iceland should lead to the establishment and maintenance of local norms. However, Iceland, arguably monodialectal, was certainly characterized by long-term linguistic homogeneity and remained a society where nucleated settlements barely formed over a thousand-year period. Scholars have argued that a mixture of dialects leveled shortly after the settlement of Iceland in the ninth century (Settlement). Studies show that dialect leveling requires dialect mixing, the convergence of people on one place, and sustained linguistic contact between the speakers. The settlement pattern of Iceland is indicative of population divergence (not convergence) and there is limited evidence of sustained contact. It is therefore proposed that the dialect leveling might be linked instead with significant population movements and social upheaval in mainland Scandinavia in the immediate pre-Viking period. The variety of Norse that was taken westward across the Atlantic might itself already have been the result of several earlier stages of mixing and koineization. It is only by combining linguistic, historical, and archaeological knowledge that this problem of how one linguistic norm came to serve the whole of Iceland can be understood.

This issue revives the “Book Notes” section. Book notes are 500-word reports that summarize new books that may be of interest to some readers of Language in Society. This format will mean that more of the books we receive can be reviewed. Book notes are assigned to people who volunteer, and advanced graduate students are welcome to write book notes with a faculty member's supervision. Anyone interested in writing a book note should contact Jennifer Andrus at [email protected] for a list of available books. Books that are of general interest to Language in Society readers will still be considered for full critical reviews, which I will continue to commission. Readers should keep in mind that unsolicited reviews or book notes are rarely accepted. If there is a book you would like to review, please contact me first, at the same address.

This is a great book. In it, Shuy describes some of the applied linguistics consultancy work he has undertaken in the past twenty years, mostly involving legal cases and public institutions in the US. He sets out to show how linguistics is a valuable tool in the analysis of bureaucratic language, in the hopes that that through this, “the intersection of law and linguistics may be furthered” (x), and that more fellow linguists will become involved in similar consultancy. Shuy gives a clear exposition not only of what he and colleagues have done but also of how they have negotiated working relationships. He is particularly strong on the ethics of consultancy, and his clear exposition of how the consultancy relationship should be set up merits attention from people well beyond the area of language study. Shuy's case studies and ethical points would be good preliminary reading for students undertaking language project work (for more on ethics, see BAAL 1994).