See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334151754

Chapter 7 Language Ideologies: Emergence, Elaboration, and Application.

Chapter proofs. . In Nancy Bonvillain (ed.) Handbook of Linguistic
Anthropology, pp. 95-108. New York: Routl...

Chapter · July 2019

CITATIONS READS
0 398

1 author:

Paul Kroskrity
University of California, Los Angeles
72 PUBLICATIONS   1,339 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

New Ways of Understanding Endangered Language Communities View project

Language Ideological Assemblages Through Time View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Kroskrity on 01 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 7
language Ideologies
Emergence, Elaboration, and Application

Paul V. Kroskrity

1 Introduction
Simply stated, "language ideologies" are the "beliefs, feelings, and conceptions about language
structure and use which often index the political economic interests of individual speakers,
ethnic and other interest groups, and nation-states" (Kroskrity 2010:192). While this recent
definition suggests the dual focus on the linguistic awareness of speakers and on their position-
ality within socioeconomic systems that display various kinds of social inequality, it does not
reveal the contested emergence of this orientation in the late twentieth century. As used by
linguistic anthropologists today, the concept oflanguage ideologies first emerges in the work of
Michael Silverstein, who defined what he called "linguistic ideologies" as "sets ofbeliefs about
language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure
and use" (1979: 193). Silverstein argued that linguists needed to recognize the role of speakers'
partial aware ness of their language in order to understand such historical linguistic changes as the
development of the Javanese honorific system or the loss of second-person pronouns like "thee"
and "thou" in English. He argued persuasively that these and many other linguistic develop-
ments could not be accounted for by explanations based solely on linguistic structures. Adequate
explanations could only be effected by appealing to speakers' awareness of linguistic form and
their necessarily social interpretations of those fom1s. This claim does not seem so controversial
today but at the time Silverstein made the case for including linguistic ideologies as an addi-
tional linguistic level to which linguists must attend, it refuted the theory and practice of most
linguistic and anthropological linguistic models of the day. The founder of American anthropol-
ogy, Franz Boas (1911 :69), had categorically dismissed what he regarded as the "misleading and
disturbing factors of secondary explanations" of members of a language community. Preferring
his "direct method" of analyzing linguistic categories and bypassing native interpretation, Boas
ignored the social context oflanguage in favor of reading linguistic forms as direct evidence of
cultural cognition. In twentieth- century linguistics, under the influence of either Bloomfield or
Chomsky, an emphasis on linguistic structures, whether surface or "deep," provided no room
for considering speakers, their metalinguistic awareness, or their social worlds.
While Silverstein opened the door to the consideration of social forces on speakers' beliefs
and practices regarding language, scholars still needed to connect the theme of awareness to

95
Paul V. Kroskrity

considerations of the material world, including the role of economic value and pervasiveness of
social inequality. Addressing both linguistic and cultural anthropologists, Judith Irvine (1989)
argued that academic and Euro-American folk models of language have all too often linked
it exclusively with the "thought" worlds of mental representation and not enough with the
distribution of economic resources and political power in the material worlds of speakers. She
argued effectively for recognizing this comparatively neglected side oflanguage and developed
a useful and more socially oriented definition of language ideology as "the cultural system of
ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political
interests" (Irvine 1989:255).
Before elaborating on the history suggested by these definitions, it is useful to delimit further
the subject of this essay and to distinguish it from similar approaches. The theoretical notion
of "language ideologies" - a default plural for reasons to be explained later -includes a body
of research that simultaneously problematizes speakers' consciousness and awareness of their
language, as well as their positionality (in political economic systems) in shaping their beliefs,
expressed feelings, and evaluations oflinguistic forms and discursive practices (Kroskrity 2000).
Though a language ideologies approach is similar to Critical Discourse Analysis (e.g. Fairclough
1995, Wodak and Meyer 2001) in attempting to connect language with power and social
inequality (Blommaert and Bulcaen 2000), it differs from CDA in its emphasis on awareness,
its recognition of multiple and contesting ideologies, and on its prefetTed use of ethnographic
approaches to collecting and interpreting data. Because of the significant differences in these
attempts to understand language, power, and social inequality, I will devote this chapter exclu-
sively to the approach that is clearly centered in linguistic anthropology: language ideologies.

2 Historical Perspectives
Tal,ing Silverstein's 1979 article as the inception of a "language ideologies" approach allows
us to observe two significant historical patterns. One, briefly mentioned above, is the com-
paratively long hist01y, including most of the twentieth century, in which speakers' linguis-
tic awareness, along with the social worlds that influenced their awareness, was dismissed by
anthropologists and linguistic scientists. A second observation concerns the rapid acceptance,
within less than three decades, of a language ideologies approach as it moved from a marginal
concern to one now clearly identified as a mainstream approach, even one that has crossed over
into cultural anthropology (Cody 2010:200).
Why were speakers' understandings of their own linguistic practices so marginalized within
anthropology? Much of this has to do with the Boasian agenda for language in the then newly
emerging discipline of anthropology. While Boas must be credited with insisting on the inclu-
sion of linguistics in US anthropology as both an effort to professionalize the field and, in his
view, to access the native perspective, he was almost exclusively concerned with description and
analysis of languages as categorization systems and with historical linguistics rather than with
understanding culturally contexted speech. For him, native analyses of linguistic structure so
lacked any understanding of the grammatical patterns recognizable to professional linguists that
they were a kind of linguistic "false consciousness."What Boas failed to see was that any cultural
"distortion" oflinguistic facts was a noteworthy contribution useful to an ethnography of com-
munication. But his preoccupation with linguistic structures as the loci of the cultural minds of
natives led him to dismiss local notions about language as unworthy of anthropological attention.
In the linguistics of the early and mid twentieth century, a similar marginalization amounted
to a proscription of not only speakers' linguistic ideologies but also their social worlds. Both
Leonard Bloomfield's (1933) paradigmatic rejection of all meaning, and certainly of the

96
 Language Ideologies

"secondary responses" of speakers, and Chomsky's (1965) concoction of an ''ideal speaker-

hearer" worked to professionally proscribe any concerns for actual speakers, their linguistic ide-
ologies, and the social meanings of their languages. Thus even though the mainstream paradigm
of twentieth-century linguistics swung ±rom behavioralist to cognitivist, the shift had no impact
on rethinking language as a social phenomenon or speakers as cultural actors.
In part, as a reaction to the asocial formalism. that Chomskyan linguistics represented,
fields like correlational sociolinguistics (e.g. Labov) and the ethnography of communication
(e.g. Gumperz and Hymes) provided a critical counterpoint and introduced the possibility of
studying language, especially its actual use by speakers, as a sociocultural phenomenon. These
approaches opened new horizons in exploring the social foundations of language use and in
rethinking linguistic anthropology as a field of anthropology and not just a "service" disci-
pline for other suhfields. But the early fonnulations of these movements initially provided few
resources tor inclusion of speakers' language beliefs and practices as part of political economic
systems. In actual practice, the ethnography of communication tended to valorize the study of
language use hut its "speech event" model encouraged an apolitical, broad-brush depiction of
speech norms that often ignored their social distribution, or the larger political economic con-
text. While correlational sociolinguistics clearly observed the speech variation associated with
socioeconomic class, William Lahov, its most famous practitioner, explicitly denigrated the
importance of attending to speakers' linguistic ideologies. Based on a detailed study of a New
York City English speaker, "Steve K.," Labov concluded "that a profound shift in social exper-i-
ence could not alter the socially detem1ined pattern of linguistic var-iation" (Lahov 1979:329).
Lahov's objectivist model relied solely on phonological criteria and ignored lexical choice and
grammar, while his dismissal of speakers' ideologies mistakenly viewed their own analyses, say
about talking like the "working class," as competing with his expert perspective rather than as
an ethnotheory that attends to alternative criteria for its own purposes. Even when scholars in
these traditions did devote considerable attention to local language ideologies, depicting local
ideologies in spectacular tenns- as in Gossen's (1974) exploration of Chamula metalanguage-
they were presented as cultural givens rather than understood as connected to political eco-
nomic factors.
At a time when most models of meaning, including Chomsky's linguistic semantics and
anthropology's ethnoscience, reduced linguistic meaning to denotation, or "reference," and
predication, Silverstein (1979) recognized the need for alternative approaches and turned
to semiotic models of communication based on the theories of C.S. Peirce (1931-58). For
researchers, a key theoretical advantage of semiotic models was their capacity to recognize
the multiple meanings of linguistic signs that emerged from "indexical" connections between
those signs and the social contexts of their usage. This theoretical orientation, especially as
fommlated by Jakohson (1957, 1960) and later translated into a functional trope by Hymes
(1964 ), helped to create the foundation for the ethnography of communication and its quest to
explore language use and relate it to topics, institutions, settings, genres, and other aspects of
their sociocultural worlds. Over time the initial zeal to explore language use in rnicro-contexts
grew more sophisticated and confronted the mapping oflinguistic forms onto patterns of social
stratification, including national political economic systems. Hymes (1974:26, 33) called for the
inclusion of a speech community's local theories of speech and the study of its "communica-
tive economy." John Gumperz (e.g. Blom and Gumperz 1972:43; Gumperz 1982:39) often
considered the "social meaning" of dialect choices for speakers within the context of their social
networks and the larger political economic context.
As linguistic anthropologists became more and more successful into the 1980s in defining
language as a sociocultural phenomenon that required attention not just to linguistic theory but

97
Paul V. Kroskrity

also to social and cultural theories, linguistic anthropologists, like their sociocultural colleagues,
became increasingly concerned with practice theory and with the agency of social actors, as
well as with syncretic attempts to wed Marxist materialism with a W eberian idealism (01tner
1984:14 7), in an attempt to achieve an analytical balance in the representation of human agency
within social systems (Giddens 1979), often characterized by pervasive inequality. As Marxist
and other political economic perspectives became staples of sociocultural theory in the US and
in Europe (Bourdieu 1977, 1984), they also inspired some of the earliest works in the linguistic
anthropological tradition of language ideologies, as a way of integrating these concerns with
the now legitimated interests in speakers' awareness of linguistic systems. The works included
Susan Gal's (1979) Language Shift and "Language and Political Economy" (Gal 1989), Jane
Hill's (1985) "The Grammar of Consciousness and the Consciousness of Grammar," Judith
Irvine's (1989) aforementioned "When Talk Isn't Cheap: Language and Political Economy,"
and Kathryn Woolard's (1985) "Language Variation and Cultural Hegemony." These works
adumbrated many of the key concerns that have since flourished through the remainder of the
twentieth century and into the present, producing a series of important anthologies devoted
to language ideological work (Schieffelin, Woolard, and Kroskrity 1998; Blommaert 1999c,
Kroskrity 2000, and Gal and Woolard 2001). More recently, with the language ideological
perspective more widely adopted, anthologies have appeared that specialize in the Pacific and
Native American regions (Makihara and Schieffelin 2007, Kroskrity and Field 2009).

3 Critical Issues and Topics

In previous overviews (Kroskrity 2000, 2010), I have analyzed four and five key aspects of this
approach but, in this condensed treatment, I will focus on what may be regarded as the three
main planks of the language ideologies approach: positionality, awareness, and rnultiplicity.
The first of these attributes, positionality, is the understanding that language ideologies rep-
resent the perception of language and discourse that is constructed in the interest, or from the
perspective, of an economically positioned social or cultural group. Members' notions of what
is 'tme', 'morally good', or 'aesthetically pleasing' about language and discourse are grounded
in social experience and often demonstrably tied to their political economic interests. These
notions often underlie attempts to use language as the site at which to promote, protect, and
legitimate those interests. Nationalist programs of language standardization, for example, may
appeal to a modem metric of communicative efficiency, but such language development efforts
are pervasively saturated by political economic considerations, since the imposition of a state-
supported hegemonic standard will always benefit some social groups over others (see Woolard
1985, 1989; En'ington 1998, 2000; Silverstein 1996; Collins 1996). State policies and practices
regarding the promotion or suppression of multilingualism are differentially evaluated by lin-
guistic minm'ities, like Puerto Ricans in NYC (Urciuoli 1996, Zentella 1997) or zealots of the
"English-only" movement (Schmidt 2007), who both see their emblematic languages as threat-
ened. What positionality refutes is the myth of the sociopolitically disinterested language user
or the possibility of unpositioned linguistic knowledge. Though interests are rendered more
visible when they are embodied by overtly contending groups - as in the stmggle for airtime
on Zan'lbian radio (Spitulnik 1998), the disputes ofWarao shamans (Briggs 1998), the political
debates in Corsica about the institutional status or cultural role of the Corsican language (Jaffe
2003, 2007), the competing discourses linked to Mexico's vacillating language policies toward
indigenous languages (Messing 2007), or the confrontations of feminists with the traditional
grammarian defenders of the generic 'he' (Silverstein 1985), one can also extend this empha-
sis on grounded social experience to seemingly homogeneous cultural groups by recognizing

98
 Language Ideologies

that cultural conceptions "are partial, contestable, and interest-laden" (Woolard & Schieffelin
1994:58). Even overtly shared language practices, such as Arizona Tewa kiva speech (Kroskrity
1998), can represent the constmctions of particular elites who obtain the required complic-
ity (Bourdieu 1991: 113) of other social groups and classes. Rather than accepting linguistic
conservatism as an irreducible, cultural given, a language ideological approach asks how does
this perspective become widely accepted, how do indexical connections to political power and
religious authority promote culturally dominant beliefs?
Rosina Lippi-Green's (1997) English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination
explicitly emphasizes language ideologies in her examination of contemporary educational and
other institutionalized policies and practices, by demonstrating the class-based interests behind
what she calls, following Milroy & Milroy (1999), the standard language ideology. She defines it
as "a bias toward an abstracted, idealized, homogenous spoken language which is imposed and
maintained by dominant bloc institutions and which names as its model the written language,
but which is drawn primarily from the speech of the upper, middle class" (Lippi-Green 1997:64).
This language ideology promotes 'the language subordination process,' which amounts to a pro-
gram oflinguistic mystification undertaken by dominant institutions designed to simultaneously
valorize the standard language and other aspects of 'mainstream culture' while devaluing the
nonstandard and its associated cultural forms. For example, so-called 'double negatives' (as in
"He does not have no money") may seem repulsive embodiments of ignorance to those attuned
to the norms of the standard and yet the supposed deficiency is not traceable to any logical flaw
that obscures its 'meaning' but rather comes from its association with a class of speakers who
use it and the fact that it is granmutically proscribed by state-supported educational institutions.
For Lippi-Green, in accord with a language ideological stance, the proclaimed superiority of
Standard English rests not on its stmctural properties or its communicative efficiency but rather
on its association with the political economic influence of affluent social classes who benefit
from a social stratification that consolidates and continues their privileged position.
The second attribute oflanguage ideologies is their multiplicity. Language ideologies are prof-
itably conceived as multiple because of the plurality of meaningful social divisions (class, gender,
clan, elites, generations, and so on) within sociocultural groups that can produce divergent
perspectives expressed as indices of group membership. Language ideologies are thus grounded
in social experience that is never uniformly distributed throughout polities of any scale. Thus,
in Hill's (1998) study of Mexicano (Nahuatl) linguistic ideologies, when older Mexicano speak-
ers in the Malinche Volcano area of Central Mexico say the Mexicano equivalent of "Today
there is no respect," tlus nostalgic view is more likely to be voiced by older men. Although
both genders recog1lize the increased 'respect' o11ce signaled by a tradition of using Nahuatl
honorific registers and other polite fonns, 'successful' men are more likely to express tlus sense
of linguistic deprivation of earned deference. Mexicano women, on the other hand, are more
likely to express ambivalence; having seen their own lot in life improve during this same period
of declining verbal 'respect,' some women are less enthusiastic in supporting a symbolic return
to practices of forn1er times (Hill 1998: 78-79).
Another very revealing application of multiplicity is the exploration of internal diversity as a
driving force in linguistic change. In Errington's (1998, 2000) research on the complementary,
if not contradictory, language ideologies underlying the development of standard Indonesian,
he exa1nines the conflicted efforts of the Indonesian government to domesticate exogenous
modernity and modenuze domestic traditions. Though often viewed as a success story in tem1s
of'the national language problem', standardized Indonesian does not readily conform to anum-
ber of facile claims by scholars and policy makers who share an instmmentalist ideology oflan- ·
guage development in nationalism. Gellner (1983), for exan1.ple, sees development of a national

99
Paul V. Kroskrity

standard language as a key element in making the tramformation to nationalism. Representing a

nonideological development perspective, he portrays standardized Indonesian as an "ethnically
uninflected, culturally neutral language" that is both universally available to its citizens and itself
subject to development by the state.
But Errington demonstrates that though the Indonesian state's New Order attempts to efface
the derivativeness of national high culture and national language by erasure of its ethnic and class
sources, the language itself provides a key exan1ple of an apparent contradiction. Recent lexi-
cal change displays a proliferation of both archaic or archaized terms traceable to Old Javanese
and Sanskrit, as well as the incorporation of almost one thousand tenns from English. This dual
development of the lexicon can hardly be defended as 'communicatively efficient' or as contrib-
uting to some neutral language widely available to all as an emblem of national identity. Rather,
it represents continuity with a supposedly abandoned linguistic past in which exemplary elites
rule through a language over which they have specialized control. And since knowledge of the
local prestige charismatic languages Gavanese and Sanskrit) and the prestige international lan-
guage, English, is socially distributed, this standardizing project joins other nationalist projects
in both creating and legitimating a state-endorsed social inequality.
Another trend in this emphasis on multiplicity is to focus on contestation, clashes, or dis-
junctures in which divergent ideological perspectives on language and discourse are juxtaposed,
resulting in a wide variety of outcomes (e.g. Briggs 1996). In one such exarnple from Alexandra
Jaffe's research on language politics in Corsica (1999a, b), she examines the ideological debate
regarding the translation of French literature into Corsican - a language that has undergone
language shift and has lost many functions to the state's official, written language- French. The
contestation that emerges is between instrumentalists who see such translations as acts of pro-
motion or enhancement for the symbolic value of Corsican and romanticists who adopt a more
classic language and identity perspective. For them, such translations are a perversion of lan-
guage and identity relationships because the act of translation suggests a common or colonized
identity rather than an expression of a uniquely Corsican identity. In Jaffe's analysis, as in others
that use this strategy, contestation and disjuncture disclose critical differences in ideological per-
spectives that can more fully reveal their distinctive properties as well as their scope and force.
Multiplicity is also an attribute that makes language ideological approaches especially appro-
priate for studying cultural contact and social transformation. In such cases the goal is not to
identify and describe a single dominant ideology but rather to exalnine ideological contact,
contention, and transformation. Many California Indian groups, as exemplified by theW estern
Mono of Central California, had indigenous language ideologies that valued multilingualism
and linguistic syncretism, but did not strongly elevate particular languages as emblems of tribal
identity (Kroskrity 2009a). Many of these groups were hunter-gathering communities that
moved to more ideal locations seasonally and they typically maintained strong relations with
neighboring groups that resulted in widespread intermarriage and multilingualism. Though
these communities were more likely to emphasize the practical value oflanguages as economic
tools rather than as vehicles of group identity prior to Euro-American domination, the influence
of nationalist language ideologies from above provided a model for linking a single language
with group identity that contributed symbolic resources tor the ethnonationalist movements of
the late twentieth-century postcolonial period (Kroskrity 2009a).
A similar pattern of influence between the language ideologies of a nation state and those of
an indigenous group has been observed by Makihara (2007) for indigenous people ofRapa Nui-
a Polynesian island that is part of the Chilean state. Though, in everyday speech, community
members seem to prefer a linguistic syncretism of Spanish and their indigenous language, the
community's growing interest in being recognized not merely as Chilean citizens but as an

100
 Language Ideologies

indigenous people with special rights has led it to marshal linguistic and other resources for the
cause. On the model of official Chilean Spanish, a puristic Rapa Nui register has been adopted
and deployed by political activists who call attention to their distinctive identities through its use
in public contexts. But not all instances of language ideological contact result in transmission,
influence, or synthesis. In her study of the interaction of 'new' and native Gaelic speakers in the
Western Isles of Scotland (McEwan-Fujita 2010), the author observes how the very disparate
language ideologies of these different leamers result in afl:ect-laden stance displays that render
their interaction dysfunctional for language learning and can hardly be viewed as promoting
Gaelic language revitalization. In the case of Galician, in northwestern Spain, the clash of new
and traditional speakers of the language has resulted in confi:ontation and contestation over
issues of ownership, legitimacy, and authenticity (0' Rourke and Ramallo 2013), showing the
power oflanguage ideologies to divide as well as to unify.
The third characteristic of language ideologies, speakers' awareness, is simply the observation
that mernbers may display varying degrees of aw<rreness of local language ideologies. While
Silverstein's (1979) definition, quoted above, suggests that language ideologies are often explic-
itly articulated by members, researchers also recognize ideologies of practice that must be read
from actual usage. This research suggests a correlational relationship between high levels of dis-
cursive consciousness and active contestation of ideologies and, contrastively, between practical
consciousness, or taken-for-granted beliefs and feelings about language, and relatively unchal-
lenged, highly naturalized, dominant ideologies (Kroskrity 1998).
The types of social settings in which language ideologies are produced and commented upon
constitute another source of variation in awareness. Silverstein (1998: 136) developed the notion
of ideological sites "as institutional sites of social practice as both object and modality of ideological
expression." Such sites are often the loci of religious or secular institutional rituals in which spe-
cific beliefs are inscribed. In part because of the institutional focus on language as constitutive of
the law, studies of US court rooms and law school classrooms (Mertz 2007), as well as Hopi Tribal
Courts (Richland 2008) and Tongan courts (Philips 2000) provide especially revealing sites for
language ideologies. In cases where the government monopolizes state resources, sites of ideologi-
cal production and explication are one and the same. Under the influence ofUjamaa, the socialist
ideology of the Tanzanian state, explicit state language ideologies promoted Swahili and encour-
aged bilingual writers to develop new genres of Swahili literature (Blommaert 1999b), designed
to develop indigenous forms and exclude foreign literature. Having a monopoly on publishing,
the state could use controlled media to explicate endorsed language ideologies and then publish
only those works that exemplified those ideologies. Lacking comparable support for indigenous
languages in the US, indigenous language activists have strategically exarnined language ideolo-
gies as a fundamental part of revitalization programs. Loether (2009), in his study of Shoshoni
language renewal, discusses the need for language planners to 'manipulate' local language ide-
. ologies in order to create a better environrnent for successful language revitalization. Ideologies
to discard include those involving indexing the Shoshoni language exclusively to a traditional
past, to images of inferiority, or to assumptions that having Shoshoni 'blood' will ensure rapid
acquisition of the heritage language. In a study of a variety of Southwestern tribal cotmnunities
experiencing language shift to English, researchers have noticed a new ideological development
in which indigenous language speakers both revalorize their heritage languages and re-ideologize
English as a 'dead' language-one which lacks the beauty, vitality, and world-view of indigenous
languages. The researchers conclude, "Replacing the labels of' dying,' 'moribund,' and' obsolescent'
for Native languages with the perspective that it is English that is dead may well be a strong step
fmward in Native communities' work toward reestablishing the heritage language and culture as
dominant" (Gomez de Garcia, Axelrod, and Lachler 2009:122).

101
Paul V. Kroskrity

Awareness is also a product of the kind of linguistic or discursive phenomena that speak-
ers, either generically or in a more culturally specific manner, can identify and distinguish
(Silverstein 1981). Nouns, our 'words for things,' display an unavoidable referentiality that
makes them more available for folk awareness and possible folk theorizing than, say, a rule for
marking 'same subject' as part of verb morphology. ln my own analysis (Kroskrity 1993, 1998)
of the contact history of the Arizona Tewa, a consistent pattern of indigenous purism can be
established as both a local language ideology of the group and an established fact of language
contact. But this program of purism is selectively imposed on linguistic phemonena that are
more word-like, while grammatical difl:usion from Apachean and Hopi seem.s to have evaded
Tewa folk scrutiny (Kroskrity 1998). The importance of attending to awareness as a dimension
of ideology is both the reversal of a longstanding scholarly tradition of delegitimating common
people's views of language - a tradition extending back at least as far as Locke and Herder
(Bauman & Briggs 2003) - and the recognition that when speakers rationalize their language
they take a first step toward changing it (Silverstein 1979). As Coupland & Jaworski (2004:37)
have powerfully stated: "The concept oflanguage ideology is the final rejection of an innocent,
behavioral account of language and the focus of the strongest claim that sociolinguistics must
engage with metalinguistic processes in the most general sense."

4 Current Research Topics

In the last two decades, as language ideological approaches have flourished, some of the key
thernes they have been used to investigate include: 1) "the historical production and reproduc-
tion oflanguage ideologies" (Blommaert 1999a:1); 2) the exploration of social identities of vari-
ous sorts (national, ethnic, professional, gender, indigenous) that are produced through language
ideologies; and 3) language ideological involvement in processes of subordination, marginaliza-
tion, and counterhegemonic responses to such forces. Regarding the historical production and
reproduction, Irvine and Gal (2000) have dernonstrated the way colonial politics helped to
produce language ideologies and ideologies oflinguistic differentiation in Mrica and Macedonia
that variously rationalized the inferiority of speakers of click languages or that read multilingual
adaptations as a linguistic chaos in need of regimenting along the lines of European national-
isms. Also taking the long view, Collins (1999) situates the Ebonies controversy in the historical
context of evolving US national language ideologies surrounding the increasing valorization
of Standard English and stigmatization of minority languages and nonstandard varieties. This
historical emphasis assumes a reflexive turn as many European and Euro-American language
philosophers and foundational academic figures (Herder, Locke, Schoolcraft, the Grimms, and
Boas) are examined from a language ideological perspective by Bauman & Briggs (2004) in their
influential book, Voices of lvlodernity.
Language ideological research has been instrumental in the fmther exploration of how
speakers and communities marshal linguistic resources to express traditional indigenous Kaska
(Canadian Yukon) identities in the modern world (Meek 2007) or newly (re-)emergent eth-
nolinguistic identities such as Rapa Nui (Makihara 2007) or Catalonian (Digiacm=lO 1999).
But for many groups, local ideologies valorize hybridity as expressed through code-switching.
For example, in the Puetto Rican comrnunity ofEl Barrio in New York City's East Harlem
(Zentella 1997) speaking both Spanish and English in the form of intra-sentential code- switch-
ing is a valued expression of their status as bilingual 'Nuyoricans.' And multilingual practices can
also be hybridized to create new "Desi" identities for South Asian immigrants to California's
Silcon Valley (Shankar 2008a, b). And much as linguistic ideologies have been employed to sup-
pmt and create identities, they can also be used to marginalize, suppress, convert, and appropriate

102
 Language Ideologies

identities. Notable achievements in this area are Kuipers's (1998) study of the Indonesian sup-
pression of"subversive" Sumbanese rhetorical forms, Errington's (2000), and Schiefielin's (2000,
2007) studies of missionary and colonial suppression oflocal identities. Studies of' crossing' (e. g.
Rampton 1995) and 'styling' (e.g. Bucholtz 1999; Cutler 1999) also powe1fully demonstrate
the language ideological construction of linguistic otherness that motivates such acts of identity
appropriation, creation, and hybridization. Often the process oflanguage ideological construc-
tion of one's own identity is embedded in the construction of oppositional others. In Stasch's
(2007) study of how members of a Papuan cmrununity construct Indonesian, he represents the
ambivalent view of that conununity with the demonization of some aspects ofindonesian soci-
ety and the admiration of others. Other topics have also received recent attention and are likely
to contribute to future research as well. These will be discussed below.

5 Research Methods
Most language ideological research, especially among anthropologists, has been concerned
more with theoretical development and refinement than with research methods. This is in
part because most of those who do language ideological research have used a wide variety of
conventional methods: participant observation, formal and informal interviewing, life history,
person-centered ethnography, conversational analysis, historical linguistics, ar1d textual analysis.
Since researchers read language ideologies both from actual practice and from speakers' metalin-
guistic and metadiscursive responses in interviews, many researchers will collect data using two
or more of the above methods. This is especially necessary for those studies in which research-
ers are concerned with discerning and refining the typology of speakers' awareness (Silverstein
1981, 1993; Kroskrity 1998) in order to understand the influence of structure and agency. The
one exception to this general pattern of not developing specific methodological works for lan-
guage ideological research is JefVerschueren's (2012) volmne that ofiers a rigorous pragmatics-
oriented approach to studying language ideologies in written works.

6 Future Directions
In the past decade several language ideological trends have emerged that indicate productive
directions for future research. Several of these can be briefly identified here. One of these is the
language ideological deconstruction of linguistic racism (e.g. Bucholtz & Trechter 2001; Meek
2006; Barrett 2006; Reyes & Lo 2009). Within this literature, Jane Hill (2008) has expanded
upon earlier work (Hill 1999) by using language ideological emphases on awareness to account
tor contrasts between stark linguistic racism (e.g. use of racial epithets) and "covert" forms of
linguistic racism displayed in everyday usage by non-Hispanics of "mock Spanish." Though a
speaker's use of this register is often associated with his or her attempt to be jocular or to convey
a colloquial stance and not with attempts to be intentionally "racist," Hill nevertheless reveals
a consistent pattern of pejoration that is indexically tied to negative stereotypes of Mexican-
Americans and other Hispanics as lazy, immoral, drunken or othenvise undesirable. In her argu-
ment, American English speakers' linguistic ideologies of personalism and referentialism dilute
and deflect attention away from the verbal harm done to others as a consequence of their propa-
gation of de£1matory images of Chicano/a "others." This indirection coupled with the alterna-
tive ideological emphasis combines to explain why such "covert racist" practices fly below the
radar of awareness for many spealcers who would find overt racist speech reprehensible.
Another trend is the application oflanguage ideological approaches to situations oflanguage
shift and to those attempts at reversing this process that are typically called language renewal and

103
 Paul V. Kroskrity

linguistic revitalization (Bunte 2009; Cavanaugh 2004, 2009; Nevins, 2004, 2013; LeMaster
2006; Meek 2007, 2010; Perley 2011; Reynolds 2009; Smith-Hefner 2009; Kroskrity and Field
2009). Because language ideological approaches can treat the interaction of multiple ideologies
and not merely attend to the beliefs and practices of dominant groups, they are particularly
useful in the analysis of dynamic situations involving cultural contact, socioeconomic change,
evolving gender relations, and even the hegemonic influence of states on linguistic and cultural
minorities.
Another relatively new interest is centered in language and the mass media. In part because
the n1ass media represent powerful sources of persuasion and influence that can reach a vast
audience and because their operation can reproduce forms of social inequality, they are an
important site for language ideological research. A sample of the many topics treated in tllis lit-
erature are: the media globalization of Standard Spanish (Paffey 2010), the reproduction of racial
stereotypes in computer game discourse (Ensslin 2010), personalist language ideologies in US
media discourse (Hill 2007), media discourses about language shift in Corsica (Jaffe 2007), and
changing forms of mass mediated speech-making by politicians in Madagascar (Jackson 2013).
In addition to these topics, it is also appropriate to give brief mention to other topics like lan-
guage ideologies of specific professions (law, medicine, academia), of translation, and of verbal,
visual, and musical aesthetics (Kroskrity 2009b, Black 2012).

Related Topics
4 The Social Imaginary, Unspoken in Verbal Art (Mannheim); 8 Social Subordination and
Language (Huayhua); 11 Language Socialization and Marginalization (Garcia-Sanchez); 14
Discursive Practices, Linguistic Repertoire, and Racial Identities (Baugh); 15 Language and
Racialization (Chun, Lo); 19 Language and Political Economy (McElhinny); 20 Language,
Immigration, and the Nation-State froaR Pujolar); 21 Language and Nationalism (Haque); 22
Language in the Age of Globalization (J acquemet); 24 Discrimination via Discourse (W odak);
25 Racism in the Press (;Van Dijk); 26 Legal Discourse (Conley); 3,:r'The Politics of Language
Endangerment (Meek). . ·c;
References
Barrett, R. (2006). Language Ideology and Racial Inequality: Competing Functions of Spanish in an
Anglo-owned Mexican Restaurant. Language in Society 35:163-204.
Bauman, R. & C.L. Briggs (2003). Voices of Modernity: Lcmguage Ideologies and the Politics of Ineqt<ality.
Cambridge University Press.
Black, S. (2012). Laughing to Death: Joking as Support amid Stigma for Zulu-speaking South Africans
Living with HlV.joHmal ofLi11gt1istic Anthropolo,gy 22:87-108.
Blom, J.P. & ].]. Gumperz (1972). Social Meaning in Linguistic Structures: Code-switching in Norway.
InJ.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds), Directions in Socioling~<istics 407-434. Holt, Rinehatt & Winston.
Blommaert,J. (1999a). The Debate is Open. In]. Blommaert (ed.), pp. 1-38. Mouton de Gruyter.
- - . (1999b). State Ideology and Lans~<age in Tanzania. Rudiger Koppe Verlag.
Blonm1aert,j. (ed.) (1999c). Lang~<age Ideological Debates. Mouton de Gruyter.
Blommaert,J. & C. Bulcaen (2000). Critical Discourse Analysis. Anmtal Review cifAnthropolo_gy 29: 447-466.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Lang~<age. Henry Holt.
Boas, F. (1911). Introduction. In F. Boas (ed.), Handbook cif North American Indian Lmzgttages, pp. 1-83.
) Bt<lletin of the Bt<reatl cif Ameriwn Ethnology, vol. 40.
Bourdieu, Pi·€W!'~ 977) Ot<tli11e ~r a Theory of' Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P~. \! 98')1 Distinction. A Social CritiqHe q{ the }~<dgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Langt~age Cllld Symbolic Po1/ler. Harvard University Press.

104
 Language Ideologies

Briggs, C.L. (1996). Conflict, Language Ideologies, and Privileged Arenas of Discursive Authority in
Warao Dispute Mediation. In C.L. Briggs (ed.), Disorderly Discourse: Narrative, Conflict, and Inequality,
pp. 204-242. Oxford University Press.
- - . (1998). "You're a Liar- You're Just Like a Woman!": Constructing Dominant Ideologies of
Language in Warao Men's Gossip. In B.B. Schieffelin et al. (eds), pp. 229-255.
Bucholtz, M. (1999). You da man: Narrating the Racial Other in the Linguistic Production of White
Masculinity.]ouma1 of Sociolinguistics 3(4):443-460.
Bucholtz, M. & S. Trechter (eds) (2001). Discourses of flflhiteness. Special issue of journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 11(1).
Bunte, P.A. (2009). "You Keep Not Listening With Your Ears": Ideology, Language Socialization, and
Paiute Identity. In P. Kroskrity & M. Field (eds), pp. 172-189.
Cavanaugh, JR. (2004). Remembe1~ng and Forgetting: Ideologies ofLanguage Loss in a Nmthern Italian
Town. journal ~(Linguistic Anthropology 14:24-38.
- - .(2009). Lil'ing Memory: The Social Aesthetics of Lal!guage in a Northern Italian Town. Wiley- Blackwell.
Cody\ ~(2010). Linguistic Anthropology at the End of the Naughts: A Review of2009. American
Anthropologist 112:200-207.
Collins,]. (1996). Socialization to Text: Stmcture and Contradiction in Schooled Literacy. In M. Silverstein
& G. Urban (eels), NatHml HistOJ1es of Discourse,203-228. University of Chicago Press.
- - . (1999). The Ebonies Controversy in Context: Literacies, Subjectivities, and Language Ideologies in
the United States. In J. Blommaert (ed.), 201-234. Mouton de Gruyter.
Coupland, N. & A. Jaworski (2004). Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Metalanguage: Reflexivity, Evaluation,
and Ideology. In A. Jaworski, N. Coupland & D. Galasinski (eds), Metalanguage: Social and Ideological
Perspectiues, pp. 15-51. Mouton de Gruyter.
Cutler, C.A. (1999). Yorkville Crossing: White Teens, Hip Hop, and African American English. Journal
~f Sociolinguistics 3(4):428-442.
Digiacommo, S.M. (l999). Language Ideological Debates in an Olympic City: Barcelona 1992-1996. In
La11guage Ideological Debates, J. Blommaett (ed.), pp. 105-142. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.
Ensslin, A. (201 0) "Black and White": Language Ideologies in Computer Game Discourse .In Sally Johnson &
Tomrnaso M. Milani (eels), Language Ideologies and Media Discourse: Texts, Practices, Politics,
pp. 205-222. Continuum.
Errington,]. (1998). Indonesian('s) Development: On the State of a Language of State. In B.B. Schieflelin
et al. (eds), pp. 271-284.
- - . (2000). Indonesian('s) Authority. In P.V. Kroskrity (ed.) pp. 205-227.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Longmans.
Gal, S. (1979). Language Shift: Soci,Jl Determinants ~f Lan,guage Change in Bilingual Austria. Academic Press.
Gal, S. (1989). Language and Political Economy. Annual Review q(Anthropology 18: 345-367.
Gal, S. & K. Woolard (2001). Langu'[ges and Publics: T1te A1aking ~f Authot1ty. St. Jerome Publishing.
Gellner, E. (1983). On Nations and Nationalism. Cornell University Press.
l. ) Giddens, Anthurry.Q 979} Central Problems in Social The01}'· Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gomez de Garcia, J., M. Axelrod & J. Lachler (2009). "English is the Dead Language." In P. Kroskrity &
M. Field (eds), pp. 99-122.
Gossen, Gtry-H.(1974) To Speak With a Heated Heart: Chamula Canons of Style and Good Perfomtance.
In Explorations in the Ethnography <if Speaking, Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer (eds), pp. 389-4l3.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
)
Gumperz, Jcl'm"J.Q 982) Discourse Strategies. Cambt~dge: Cambridge University Press.
Hill, J.H. (1985). The Grammar of Consciousness and the Consciousness of Grammar. American Ethnolo,~ist
12:725-737.
- - . (1998). "Today There is No Respect": Nostalgia, "Respect", and Oppositional Discourse in
Mexicano (Nahuatl) Language Ideology. In 13.13. Schieffelin et al. (eds.) pp. 103-122.
- - . (1999). Language, Race, and the White Public Space. American Anthropologist 100:680-689.
- - . (2007). Crises of Meaning: Personalist Language Ideology in US Media Discourse. In Sally Johnson &
Astrid Ensslin (eds), Language in the Media, pp. 70-88. Continuum.
- - . (2008). The Languc[ge <if Evet}'day vVhite Racism. Wiley-Blackwell.
Hymes, D.H. (1964). Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication. In JJ. Gumperz &
D.H. Hymes (ed,), The Ethno,~raphy of Communication, pp. 1-34. American Anthropologist 66(6), Pa1t 2.
- - . (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. University of Pennsylvania Press.
lrvine,J.T. (1989).When Talk Isn't Cheap: Language and Political Economy. Americmt Ethnologist 16: 248-267.

105
 Paul V. Kroskrity

Irvine, J.T. &. S. Gal (2000). Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation. In P.V. Kroskrity (ed.),
pp. 35-83.
Jackson, Jenrri-fer-(2013) Political Orato1y mtd Cartooning: An Ethnography of Democratic Process. Blackwell
Jaffe, A. (l999a). Ideologies in Action: Language Politics in Corsica. Mouton de Gruyter.
- - . (1999b). Locating Power: Corsican Translators and their Critics. In J. Blomrnaert (ed.) ,pp. 1-38.
- - . (2003). Misrecognition Unmasked?: "Polynomic" Language, Expert Statuses and 01tho-graphic

-- '" '
Practices in Corsican Schools. Pragmatics 13: 515-537 .
.A (2007). Corsican on the Airwaves: Media Discourse in a Context of Language Shift. In Sally Johnson and
Astrid Ensslin (eds), Language in the !vfedia, pp. 149-172. Continuum.
Jakobson, R. (1957). The Framework ~f Lan,guage. University of Michigan Press.
- - . (1960). Concluding Statement: Linguistics and Poetics. In T. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language,
pp. 350-373. MIT Press.
Kroskrity, P.V. (1993). Language, History, and Identity: Etlmolinguistic Studies of the Arizona Tewa. University
of Arizona Press.
- - . (1998). Arizona Tewa Kiva Speech as a Manifestation of a Dominant Language Ideology. In
Schieffelin, Woolard, and Kroskrity (eds), pp. 103-123. New York: Oxford University Press.
- - . (2000). Regimenting Languages. In P. Kroskrity (ed.), pp. 1-34. School of American Research.
- - . (2009a). Embodying the Reversal of Language Shit1:: Agency, Incorporation, and Language
Ideological Change in the Western Mono Community of Central California. In P.V. Kroskrity &. M.
Field (eds), pp. 190-210.
- - . (2009b). Narrative Reproductions: Ideologies of Storytelling, Authoritative Words, and Generic
Regimentation.Journal ~(Ling11istic Anthropology .1 9:40-56.
- - . (ed.) (2000). Regimes <if La11gt1age: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. School of American Research.
Kroskrity, P.V. &. M.C. Field (eds) (2009). Native Arnerican Language Ideologies: Belid's, Practices, and StruJ<,~les
in Indian Count!}'· University of Arizona Press.
) Kroskrity, P..a.Hl- V.(201 0) Language 'Ideologies- Evolving Perspectives. In Language Use and Society (Handbook
of Pragmatics Highlights). Jurgenjaspers (ed.), pp. 192-211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kuipers, Jerd" C. Q998) From Miracles to Classrooms: Changing Forms of Erasure in the Learning of Ritual
Speech. In La11guage, Identity, and lviarginality in Indonesia:The Changing Nature of Ritual Speech on the
!~land ~(Sumba, pp. 125-148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
C
Labov, W~"' 979) Locating the Frontier between Social and Psychological Factors in Language
Variation. In Itzdividual DifJerewes in Language Abilities and Behavior, CharlesJ. Fillmore, William S.-Y.
Wang, and Daniel Kempler (eds), pp. 327-339. New York: Acadernic Press.
LeMaster, B. (2006). Language Contraction, Revitalization, and Irish Women. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 16:211-228.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimilwtion in the United States.
Routledge.
Loether, C. (2009). Language Revitalization and the Manipubtion ofLanguage Ideologies: A Case Study.
In P.V. Kroskrity &. M.C. Field (eds), pp. 238-255.
McEwan-Fujita, E. (2010). Ideology, Affect, and Socialization in Language Shift and Revitalization:
The Experiences of Adults Learning Gaelic in the Western Isles of Scotland. La11guage in Society
39:27-64.
Makihara, M. (2007). Linguistic Purism in Rapa Nui Political Discourse. In M. Makihara & B. Schieffelin
(eds), pp. 46-69.
Makihara, M. & B. Schieftelin. (eds) (2007). Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and the Sociocultural
Tran~formation of Pacific Societies. Oxford University Press.
Meek, B.A. (2006). And the Injun Goes "How!": Representations of American Indian English in White
Public Space. Language in Society 35:93-128.
- - . (2007). Respecting the Language of Elders: Ideological Shift and Linguistic Discontinuity in a
Nmthern Athapascan Community. ]ozmwl of Li1tguistic Anthropology 17:23-43.
- - . (2010). We Are Our Language: An Ethnography ~f Language Retdtalization in a Northem Athabaskan
Comm11nity. University of Arizona Press.
- - . (2007). The Lan,~uage ~fLaw School: Learning "To Talk Like a Lawyer". Oxford University Press.
Mettz, E~ C2,_007) The Language <if Law School: Learning "to Talk Like a Lawyer". New York: Oxford
University Press.
Messing, J. (2007). Multiple Ideologies and Competing Discourses: Language Shift in Tlaxcala, Mexico.
Lansuage in Society 36: 555-577.

106
 Language Ideologies

Milroy, J. & L. Milroy (1999). Authority in Langua<~e: Investigating Lm1gua,~e Prescription and Standardisation.
Routledge.
Nevins, M. E. (2004). Learning to Listen: Confronting Two Meanings ofLanguage Loss in the Contemporary
White Mountain Apache Speech Communiry.Journal cifLinguistic Anthropology 14:269-288.
- - . (2013). Lessonsfrom Fort Apache: Beyond Lang11age Endaugenuent and lviaintenance. Wiley-Blackwell.
~O'Rourke, B~ and F~ Ramallo.(2013) Competing Ideologies of Linguistic Authority
amongst Speakers in Contemporary Galicia. Language in Society 42:287-305.
l ) Ortner, Sl>e1'1j'" B.(] 984) Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and
Histo1y 26:126-166.
Paffey, D~ (2010). Globalizing Standard Spanish: The Promotion of 'Panhispanisms' by Spain's
Language Guardians. In Sally Johnson & Tommaso M. Milani (eds), Lar~guage Ideologies and Media
Discourse: Texts, Practices, Politics. pp. 41-60. Continuum.
Peirce, C.S. (1931-58). Collected Papers cifCharles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press.
Perley, Be~ C. (2011). Defying Maliseet Language Death: Emergent Vitalities of Language, Culture
and Identity in Eastern Canada. University of Nebraska Press.
Philips, S. (2000). Constructing a Tongan Nation-state through Language Ideology in the Courtroom. In
P.V. Kroskrity (ed.), pp. 229-257.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossi11g: Language and Etlmicity among Adolescents. Longman.
Reyes, A. & A. Lo (2009). Beyond Yellow English. Oxford University Press.
Reynolds, J.F. (2009). Shaming the Shift Generation: Intersecting Ideologies of Family and Linguistic
Revitalization in Guatemala. In P.V. Kroskrity & M.C. Field (eds), pp. 213-237.
Richland, J.B. (2008). Arg11ing with Tradition: The Language <if Latl' in Hopi Tribal Crurt. University of
Chicago Press.
Schieffelin, B.B. (2000). Introducing Kaluli Literacy: A Chronology oflnfluences. In P.V. Kroskrity (ed.),
pp. 205-227.
- - . (2007). Found in Translating: Reflexive Language across Time and Texts in a Bosavi, PapuaNew
Guinea. In M. Makihara & B. Schieffelin (eds) pp. 140-165
Schieffelin, B.B., K.A. Woolard & P.V. Kroskrity (eds) (1998). Language Ideologies, Practice 1111d Theory.
Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R~ (2007). Defending English in an English Dominant World: The Ideology of the "Official
English" Movement in the United States. In Alexandre Duchene & Monica Heller (eds), Discourses cif
Endangerment, pp. 197-215. Continuum.
Shankar, S. (2008a). Speaking Like a Model Minority: "FOB" Styles, Gender, and Racial Meanings among
Desi Teens in Silicon Valley. )o11rnal q(Unguistic Anthropology 18:268-289.
- - . (2008b). Desi Land: Teen Culture, Class, and Success in the Silicon Valley. Duke University Press.
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In P. Clyne, W. Hanks & C. Hofbauer
(eds), J11e Elements, pp. 193-248. Chicago Linguistics Society.
- - . (1981). The Limits of Awareness. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics, no. 84. Southwest Educational
Development Library. [Reprinted in A. Duranti (ed.) Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader, pp. 382-402.
Blackwell.].
Silverstein, Mirlr:rl:+. ~ 985)Language and the Culture of Gender: At the Intersection of Structure, Usage,
and Ideology. In Semiotic Mediation, Elizabeth Mertz and Richard]. Parmentier (eds), pp. 219-259.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
- - . (1993). Metapragmatic Discourse and Metapragmatic Function. In]. Lucy (ed.), Reflexive Language:
Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, pp. 33-58. Cambridge University Press.
) Silverstein, M~.[1996) Monoglot A Standard in America: Standardization and Metaphors ofLinguistic
Hegemony. In The 1\;fatrix of La11guage: Contemporary Lil(guistic Anthropology, Donald Brenneis and
Ronald, K.S. Macaulay (eds), pp. 284-306. Boulder, CO: Wesrview Press.
- - . (1998). The Uses and Utility ofldeology: A Commentary. In B.B. Schieffelin eta!. (eds):l23-145.
Smith-Hefi>er, NJ. (2009). Language Shift, Gender, and Ideologies of Modernity in Central Java,
Indonesia. jotmtal of Ling11istic Anthropology 19:5 7-77.
Spitulnik, D. (1998). Mediating Unity and Diversity: The Production ofLanguage Ideologies in Zambian
Broadcasting. In B.B. Schieffelin eta!. (eds), pp. 163-188.
Stasch, R. (2007). Demon Language: The Otherness of Indonesian in a Papuan Community. In
M. Makihara & B. Schieffelin (eds), pp. 96-124.
/\ c ) Urciuoli, Bomtie{L 99~) Exposing Prejudice: Puerto Rican Experiences cif Lmtguage, Race, and Class. Boulder,
CO: Press.

107
 Paul V. Kroskrity

Verschueren, J. (2012) Ideoloc~Y ill Language Use: Pragmatic Guidelines for Empirical Research. Cambridge
University Press.
Wodak, Rrtt;h.& Mreh:rel,Meyer (2001). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage.
Woolard, K.A. (1985).""Language Variation a~d Cultural Hegemony: Toward an Integration of
Sociolinguistics and Social Theory. American Ethnologist 2:738-748.
- - . (1989). Double Talk: Bilingualism and the Politics ofEthnidty in Catalonia. Stanford University Press.
Woolard, K~.& Ba'l'l'tb11Schieffelin.1994. Language Ideology. Annual Revie11• of Anthropology 23:55-82.
Zentella, A. C. (19'97). Growing Up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Blackwell.

Further Reading
Hill, .J=.~H. (2008). The Language of Everyday H'hite Racism. Wiley-Blackwell.
In this book the author develops an approach to linguistic racism that utilizes language ideological themy.

Kroskrity, P~,V. (ed.) (2000). Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. School of American
Research. "L
A collection qf research on language ideologies that moves the field toward a more "reflexive" examination qf academic
and liVestenr language ideologies.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States.
Routledge.
A collection of interesting applications of a language ideological approach to various US institutions -from legal to
Disney animated films. A useful introduction to the politics of language standardization.

Schieffelin, B.B., K.A. Woolard & P.V. Kroskrity (eds) (1998). Language Ideologies, Practice and Theory.
Oxford University Press.
Thefoundational collection qf articles on the then eme1ging research area ~f language ideologies.

108

View publication stats