DOI 10.

1515/ijsl-2013-0002    IJSL 2013; 219: 7 – 21

David Cassels Johnson and Thomas Ricento

Conceptual and theoretical perspectives in
language planning and policy: situating the
ethnography of language policy
Abstract: In this article we examine the theoretical and conceptual history of Lan-
guage Planning and Policy (LPP) and situate the ethnography of language policy
within the historical trajectory of the ield. This is ofered as a reprise to Ricento’s
(2000a) overview of the ield, in which he examined the theoretical and concep-
tual contributions up to 2000. We review that piece, focusing on the three major
epochs that Ricento identiies, and then examine developments within LPP over
the past decade, including theoretical and empirical contributions from ethnog-
raphies of language policy.

Keywords: language planning; language policy; ethnography; critical language

policy; history

David Cassels Johnson: Washington State University. E-mail: johnsondc@wsu.edu

Thomas Ricento: University of Calgary

1 Early language planning scholarship

Beginning in the 1960s, language scholars interested in solving the language
problems of new, developing and postcolonial nations were recruited to help
develop grammars, writing systems, and dictionaries for indigenous languages,
eforts which formed the groundwork for the ield of language planning. Einar
Haugen introduced the term language planning in 1959, deining it as “the activity
of preparing a normative orthography, grammar, and dictionary for the guidance
of writers and speakers in a non-homogeneous speech community” (Haugen
1959: 8). What Haugen describes here would become known as corpus planning,
which includes activities related to the manipulation of the forms of a language.
While many language planners and scholars engaged in developing the form(s)
of languages, others focused on how a society could best allocate functions and/
or uses for particular languages, otherwise known as status planning (a distinc-
tion introduced by Kloss [1969]).

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
8    D. C. Johnson and T. Ricento

Much of this early work focused on typologies and language planning pro-
cesses, an inluential example being Haugen’s (1966, 1983):
1. selection of a norm (i.e. selecting a language variety for a particular
context);
2. codiication – development of an explicit, usually written, form;
3. implementation – attempt to spread the language form;
4. elaboration – continued updating of the language variety to “meet the
functions of a modern world. (Haugen 1983: 273)

Haugen identiied selection and implementation as status planning and codiica-

tion and elaboration as corpus planning. Others, for example Fishman (1979),
have noted the close relationship between the two: “[S]tatus planning without
concomitant corpus planning runs into a blind alley. Conversely, corpus planning
without status planning is a linguistic game, a technical exercise without social
consequence” (Fishman 1979: 12). Haugen’s language planning steps were pro-
posed as both a theoretical model of language planning and a practical roadmap
for those interested in actually planning languages, and other models and road-
maps followed, many elaborating on Haugen’s original formulation (e.g. Karam
1974; Rubin 1971, 1977).
Ricento characterizes early language planning work in the following
ways:
1. The goals of language planning were oten associated with a desire for
uniication (of a region, a nation, a religious group, a political group, or
other kinds of groups), a desire for modernization, a desire for eiciency, or
a desire for democratization;
2. Language was characterized as a resource with value, and as such, was
subject to planning;
3. Status and corpus planning were viewed as ideologically neutral (although
not without complications);
4. Languages were abstracted from their sociohistorical and ecological
contexts (ahistoricity and synchrony). (Ricento 2000a: 199–200)

Relecting similar trends across academic disciplines, the attempt to divorce the
purportedly objective science of language planning from the ideological and so-
ciopolitical realities of language use became problematic. For example, Tauli
(1974) asserted that languages could be categorized objectively according to use-
fulness or eiciency: “The eiciency of a language . . . can be evaluated from the
point of view of economy, clarity, redundancy, etc. with objective scientiic oten
quantitative methods” (Tauli 1974: 51). Ineicient languages include “ethnic lan-
guages” that Tauli described as primitive, archaic, and not constructed “method-

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
   9
Situating the ethnography of language policy 

ologically according to plan” (Tauli 1974: 51). Such proclamations suggested a hi-
erarchy of languages for language planning – with ethnic and/or indigenous
languages on the bottom and more carefully planned languages, like colonial lan-
guages, on the top. Similarly, if less forcefully, Kloss argued that certain lan-
guages were more suitable for national development (Kloss 1968).
Tauli’s formulations were controversial amongst his contemporaries (e.g.
Jernudd and Das Gupta 1971) and out of step with linguistic theory claiming that
all languages were created equal. Still, the ideological nature and sociopolitical
ramiications of language planning were only hesitantly and theoretically consid-
ered, even up until the early 1980s. For example, Cobarrubias (1983) acknowl-
edged the ideological nature of language planning but resisted the notion of an
analysis that includes an ideological dimension: “[L]anguage-status decisions
are afected by ideological considerations of powerful groups and counteracting
forces. However, we should not saddle the theory with ideological consider-
ations” (Cobarrubias 1983: 6). Haugen disagreed, arguing that any theory of lan-
guage planning must “take a stand on diicult value judgments” (Haugen 1983:
276) but wondered exactly how that would work or which values to adopt; for
example, which languages to cultivate, and what types of language education to
favor.

2 Expanding frameworks and conceptualizations

in the 1970s and 1980s
Ricento (2000a) divides the intellectual history of the ield into three stages:
(1)  Classic language planning theory as explained above, (2) Critical language
policy as explained below, and (3) an intermediary stage, lasting from the early
1970s to the late 1980s. It is diicult to neatly or cohesively characterize the work
during this era, as interests became more difuse, extending beyond the corpus/
status distinction, and many language planning scholars, including those who
were active in the irst era, began to question the viability of earlier models of
language planning. This was a time in which positivistic linguistic paradigms
were increasingly being challenged across disciplines. Work in critical linguis-
tics  (Fowler et  al. 1979) and sociolinguists (Hymes 1972) questioned earlier ap-
proaches that attempted to divorce linguistic data from sociocultural context
and these two related, yet distinct, areas of research have helped shape the ield
of LPP.
Hymes did not write much about language policy speciically (for an excep-
tion see Hymes 1996 [1975]) but a look at the nature of the ield today reveals how

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
10    D. C. Johnson and T. Ricento

integral his work has become. Hymes’ (1972) notion of communicative compe-
tence is foundational to the ield of sociolinguistics in general, and therefore, the
ield of LPP; however, it is also directly observable in work which, for example,
analyzes the interaction between language planning and communicative acts
(Hornberger 1988; King 2001). As well, the ethnography of speaking (Hymes 1962)
is an antecedent to ethnographic studies of language policy, including the eth-
nography of language policy.
Inspired by Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics, work in critical lin-
guistics (Fowler et al. 1979) questioned traditional linguistic theory that posited
ideal listener-speakers existing without any sociocultural context. The focus on
the social is primary in critical linguistics and language is viewed as a way to
understand and critique the relationship between language and power, espe-
cially how power motivates, or is embedded in, language use (see review in Kress
2001). This line of work led to Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough 1989) which
has itself become inluential in LPP.
The critical movement in linguistics and sociolinguistics rubbed of on the
ield of language planning. This would eventually be explicitly developed into
critical language policy in the 1990’s but between these two eras, there were at
least three important developments: (1) the focus shited away from language
planning being understood solely as something imposed by governing bodies to
a broader focus on activity in multiple contexts and layers of language planning
and policy; (2) attention to language planning for schools increased, including
the introduction of acquisition planning by Cooper (1989) to the original status/
corpus distinction; and (3) there was increased focus on the sociopolitical and/
or  ideological nature of language planning and policy. The growing aware-
ness that early language planning models were inadequate gave way to critical
analyses (e.g. Tollefson 1986; Wolfson and Manes 1985; Luke et al. 1990) that fo-
cused on the sociopolitical impact and/or ideological orientations of language
policies.
While it could be argued that critical language policy really took of with
Tollefson’s (1991) book, Planning language, planning inequality, some of the ideas
integral to this theoretical orientation were evident in Ruiz’ (1984) article. Ruiz
presented a very inluential framework for identifying the orientations of lan-
guage planning in education (speciically) – language as resource, language as
right, language as problem. Striking a decidedly post-structuralist tone, Ruiz
argues that “Orientations are basic to language planning in that they delimit the
ways we talk about language and language issues . . . they help to delimit the
range of acceptable attitudes toward language, and to make certain attitudes
legitimate. In short orientations determine what is thinkable about language in
society” (Ruiz 1984: 2).

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
   11
Situating the ethnography of language policy 

As the title to his book suggests, Language planning and social change, Cooper
(1989) was also acutely interested in the sociopolitical aspect of language plan-
ning: “Language planning, concerned with the management of change, is itself
an instance of social change” (Cooper 1989: 164). Cooper conceptualizes lan-
guage planning as activities that move upwards as well as downwards: “Micro-
level, face-to-face interactional circles can both implement decisions initiated
from above and initiate language planning which snowballs to the societal or
governmental level. In short, I believe it an error to deine language planning in
terms of macrosociological activities alone” (Cooper 1989: 38). Cooper also added
acquisition planning to the status and corpus planning distinction, an additional
category meant to capture language teaching and other educational activities de-
signed to increase the users or uses of a language. Cooper’s original deinition
speciically referred to an “increase” but subsequent adopters of the term have
used acquisition planning to capture any sort of change (an increase or decrease).
While there was certainly growing interest in educational contexts, the inclusion
of acquisition planning to the established status/corpus dichotomy gave educa-
tional language policy a sort of oicial status within the ield and, since then, it
has become an important area of research and scholarship.

3 Critical language policy

Critical language policy emerged both as a response to earlier language planning
work and as a natural byproduct of the increasingly critical bent within linguis-
tics, applied linguistics, and sociolinguistics. Tollefson (1991) distinguishes be-
tween what he calls the neo-classical approach – which positions itself as scien-
tiically neutral and is dominated by an interest in the individual – and the
historical-structural approach, which instead focuses on the social and historical
inluences that give rise to language policies. Language policy is expressly politi-
cal and ideological in Tollefson’s conceptualization with the underlying assump-
tion that a language policy or plan serves the interests of dominant groups:
“[L]anguage policy is viewed as one mechanism by which the interests of dominant
sociopolitical groups are maintained and the seeds of transformation are devel-
oped. . . . The historical-structural model presumes that plans that are success-
fully implemented will serve dominant class interests” (Tollefson 1991: 32, 35).
Tollefson (2006) articulates the aims of what he calls Critical language-policy
(CLP): (1) it is critical of traditional apolitical LPP approaches and instead “ac-
knowledges that policies oten create and sustain various forms of social inequal-
ity, and that policy-makers usually promote the interests of dominant social
groups” (Tollefson 2006: 42); (2) it seeks to develop more democratic policies

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
12    D. C. Johnson and T. Ricento

which reduce inequality and promote the maintenance of minority languages;

and (3) it is inluenced by critical theory.
The notion that language policies are mechanisms of power is central to ex-
aminations of ideology in language policy. Referencing earlier language planning
frameworks, Ricento explains the necessity of examinations of ideology in lan-
guage policy: “[L]anguage policies can never be properly understood or analyzed
as free-standing documents or practices; to ignore the role of ideology, or to rele-
gate it to a bin of ‘extraneous’ variables, too fraught with ambiguity to be useful
in empirical research, is to engage in an ideological subterfuge of the worst sort”
(Ricento 2000b: 7). Examples include Wiley’s (1996) and Lo Bianco’s (1999)
exploration of English-only ideologies in the United States, Tollefson’s (1991)
work on the connections between ideologies of power and the modern state,
Lippi-Green’s (1997) analysis of how ideology informs language attitudes, and
therefore (oten unoicial) language policy, and work on the connection between
ideology and language policy in education (e.g. Freeman, 1996; Giroux 1981;
McGroarty 2002; Ricento 1998; Shohamy 2006; Tollefson 1986).
The second part of Tollefson’s deinition – research that seeks to develop,
or  at least document, more democratic policies for minority and indigenous
languages – is especially evident in scholarship that examines indigenous and
minority language maintenance and education (e.g. Hill and May [this issue] on
Māori in New Zealand; Hornberger [1988] on Quechua in South America; McCarty
[2002] on Navajo in the USA) and bottom up language planning and policy devel-
opment (e.g. Freeman 2004; Hornberger 1996; Johnson 2010a; Johnson and Free-
man 2010). While much of the critical work has focused on the ways language
policies marginalize minority languages and minority language users, Horn-
berger has long argued that national multilingual language policies can open
ideological and implementational spaces for bilingual education throughout the
world (Hornberger 2000, 2002, 2009). In turn, bilingual education has been a
powerful ally to the maintenance and/or revitalization of indigenous and minor-
ity languages (e.g. Freeman 1998, 2004; Hornberger 2006, 2008; Hornberger and
Johnson 2007; Martin-Jones 2010).
The third part of Tollefson’s deinition – the inluence of critical theory – is
not as salient in the ield, or perhaps just not as explicit. Nevertheless, the in-
tellectual remnants of critical social theory have become integral, whether explic-
itly cited or not; this can be seen, for example, in the inluence of neo-Marxists
such as Habermas (1975); Bourdieu (1991), with his critical analysis of language,
and Foucault, with his notion of governmentality (1991). Foucault’s (1972, 1990
[1976]) sense of discourse, especially, and work in critical discourse analysis
(Fairclough 1989; Wodak 1996) has had a signiicant impact (Johnson 2009;
Schmidt Sr. 2002; Wodak 2006; Ricento 2003, 2005). For example, Pennycook’s

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
   13
Situating the ethnography of language policy 

(2002, 2006) study of language policy and governmentality reveals a method for
uncovering how policies create inequality that takes the focus of of “the state as
an intentional actor that seeks to impose its will on the people, and instead draws
our attention to much more localized and oten contradictory operations of pow-
er” (Pennycook 2006: 65). The locus of power is not just contained in the policy
text alone nor is it imposed solely by the will of the state, but is enacted (or, per-
haps performed) by educational practitioners.
Critical language policy scholarship has helped illuminate ideologies en-
meshed in language policies, and presents a rich picture of language policy de-
velopment as one aspect amongst many socio-political processes which may
perpetuate social inequality; however, like the critical theories underpinning it,
it  has also been criticized for being too deterministic, underestimating the
power of human agency (see Ricento and Hornberger 1996), and not capturing
the processes of language planning (see Davis 1999). Nevertheless, critical lan-
guage policy theory continues to be inluential and integral and is not at odds
with other orientations (like the ethnography of language policy) that fore-
ground agency and bottom-up language planning and policy. Indeed, a balance
between structure and agency – between critical conceptualizations that focus
on  the power of language policy and ethnographic and other qualitative work
that focuses on the power of language policy agents – is precisely what the ield
needs.

4 LPP in the 21st century: the emergence of the

ethnography of language policy
The irst decade of the 21st century has been a productive period for both theo-
retical developments in LPP and, especially, empirical studies of language policy
processes around the world. These studies show that macro-level language poli-
cies can be instruments of power that marginalize minority and indigenous lan-
guages and language users (McCarty 2009; Olson 2007; Shohamy 2006); however,
they can also open spaces for multilingualism and multilingual education (Horn-
berger 2006, 2009). Likewise, while local language policies can open spaces for
multilingual education and minority language development (Freeman 2004;
Johnson 2010a; Johnson and Freeman 2010), they also can close such spaces
(Baquedano-López 2004; Johnson 2009, 2010b). A long-standing inding in the
ield is that schools alone are not enough to reverse language shit, and although
multilingual language policies help create ideological spaces for minority lan-
guage development, they still are not always able to overcome either dominant

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
14    D. C. Johnson and T. Ricento

societal discourses or local beliefs and practices that favor particular (espe-
cially colonial) languages, monolingual education, or prescriptive and outdated
language instruction (Bekerman 2005; de los Heros 2009; McKay and Chick
2001).
The connections between oicial policy and language practices are not pre-
dictable, especially considering the ideological inconsistencies found in many
policies (Jafe 2011; Johnson 2010b). One of the major indings of the past decade
is that while some educational practitioners fall prey to the dominant discourses
perpetuated by language policy (Baltodano 2004; Menken and Shohamy 2008),
language policy agents still have power when interpreting and appropriating
(even restrictive) language policy (Freeman 2004; Hornberger and Johnson 2007;
Johnson 2010a; Ramanathan 2005; Skilton-Sylvester 2003; Stritikus 2002;
Stritikus and Wiese 2006). In a collection (Menken and García 2010) that high-
lights the agency of teachers in the policy process, Mohanty et. al. (2010: 228)
argue that “Teachers are not uncritical bystanders passively acquiescent of the
state practice; in their own ways, they resist and contest the state policy. . . . It is
quite clear that the agency of the teachers in the classrooms makes them the inal
arbiter of the language education policy and its implementation.”
With roots going back to the 1980s, Hornberger and Johnson (2007) intro-
duced the ethnography of language policy as a method for examining the agents,
contexts, and processes across multiple layers of what Ricento and Hornberger
(1996) metaphorically referred to as the language policy onion. Hornberger and
Johnson (2011) argue that ethnographies of language policy can (1) illuminate
and inform various types of language planning – status, corpus and acquisition
– and language policy – oicial and unoicial, de jure and de facto, macro and
micro, corpus/status/acquisition planning, national and local language policy;
(2) illuminate and inform language policy processes – creation, interpretation
and appropriation; (3) examine the links between the LPP layers, from the macro
to the micro, from policy to practice; and (4) open up ideological spaces for
creating multilingual language policies that promote social justice and sound
educational practice. Indeed, we have seen an accelerating trajectory of ethno-
graphic work on language policy with notable books and edited volumes on re-
claiming the local in language policy (Canagarajah 2005), imagining multilingual
schools (García et al. 2006), schools saving Indigenous languages (Hornberger
2008), the negotiation of language policy in schools (Menken and García 2010),
and a new collection devoted to ethnographic work on language policy (McCarty
2010).
While not considered, or described as “ethnographies of language policy”,
ethnographic work that has explored language planning and/or policy includes
Hornberger’s (1988) study of Quechua language planning in Peru, Davis’ (1994)

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
   15
Situating the ethnography of language policy 

study of multilingual education in Luxembourg, Freeman’s study of dual lan-

guage planning at Oyster bilingual school in the USA (Freeman 1996, 1998), Jafe’s
(1999) work on Corsican language policy in France, and King’s (2001) study of
Quichua language revitalization in the Ecuadorian Andes. More recent work has
focused more explicitly on language policy processes, including Bekerman’s
(2005) study of a Hebrew-Arabic dual language school, McCarty’s (2002) work on
Navajo language maintenance and education, Ramanathan’s (2005) research on
English-Gujarati language policies and practices in three higher education insti-
tutions in the city of Ahmedabad, Martin-Jones’ (2011, this issue) study of Welsh,
Hill and May’s ethnographic work on Māori in New Zealand (Hill and May 2011,
this issue), Hult’s look at English language policy in Sweden (Hult 2007), John-
son’s ethnography of language policy on bilingual education in the School Dis-
trict of Philadelphia (2009, 2010a, 2010b), and the multiple ethnographic studies
that emerged ater the anti-bilingual education initiative (proposition 227) was
passed in California, USA (Baltodano 2004; Stritikus 2002).
The empirical indings from ethnographies of language policy have proved
an essential part of our understanding of policy processes all over the world
and  results of these studies provide a theoretical and conceptual orientation
that  combines the macro and the micro, ofer a balance between policy power
and  interpretative agency, and are committed to issues of social justice, par-
ticularly pertaining to the rights of indigenous and minority language speakers.
Indeed, the ethnography of language policy can both provide thick descrip-
tions  of, and contribute to, policy processes to validate and promote lan-
guage diversity as a resource in schools and society (see Johnson and Freeman
2010).
This issue focuses on ethnography of language policy but there have cer-
tainly been other important theoretical developments over the past decade, in-
cluding the incorporation of the ecology of language to LPP (Hornberger 2002;
Hornberger and Hult 2008; Hult 2010), discourse analysis of language policy
(Hult 2010; Johnson 2009, 2011; Ricento 2005; Wodak 2006), and linguistic land-
scape analysis and LPP (Shohamy and Gorter 2009). The expanding theoretical
frameworks for LPP study continue to provide a more robust foundation for re-
search as well as ofer intriguing new ways of discovering the previously undis-
covered. Furthermore, it is not just the frameworks but empirical data collection
in varied LPP sites which has grown, further illuminating the range of LPP pro-
cesses and practices and forcing the ield to reconsider the domains in which
language policies obtain, including families (King et al. 2008), medical and
health care (Candlin and Candlin 2003; Ramanathan 2010), call centers (King
2009; Rahman 2009); the media (Pietikäinen and Piirainen-Marsh 2009), churches
(Baqeudano-López 2004) and many others.

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
16    D. C. Johnson and T. Ricento

5 Future directions
In 1996 Ricento and Hornberger (1996) argued that LPP research had not accounted
for policy activity across the multiple layers of the LPP onion and, similarly,
Ricento (2000a) called for a conceptual framework that will link together “the
patterns of language use in deined contexts and the efects of macro-sociopolitical
forces on the status and use of languages at the societal level. . . . The develop-
ment of such a framework will lead us to the next – as yet unnamed – phase of
language policy and planning research and scholarship” (Ricento 2000a: 209).
We argue that the empirical research on LPP processes, especially over the past
decade, has helped reveal more and more layers of the LPP onion and a variety of
theoretical and conceptual perspectives – ecology of language, ethnography of
language policy, critical discourse analysis – have proved useful. The ethnogra-
phy of language policy has been proposed as a method that combines a focus on
structure and agency, the macro and the micro, policy and practice. It may be that
the next phase of LPP research and scholarship, however, is not characterized by
one particular theory or method but by interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity
that integrate the varied theories and methods to meet the needs of the context in
which data is collected. Presented with an increasingly rich body of LPP work,
researchers of language policy have many more options than they did even ten
years ago.

References
Baltodano, M. P. 2004. Latino immigrant parents and the hegemony of Proposition 227. Latino
Studies 2. 246–253.
Baquedano-López, Patricia. 2004. Traversing the center: the politics of language use in a
catholic religious education program for immigrant Mexican children. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly 35(2). 212–232.
Bekerman, Z. 2005. Complex contexts and ideologies: bilingual education in conflict-ridden
areas. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 4. 1–20.
Bourdieu, Pierre. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Oxford: Polity.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh (ed.). 2005. Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Candlin, Christopher N. & Sally Candlin. 2003. Health care communication: a problematic site
for applied linguistics research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 23. 134–154.
Cobarrubias, Juan. 1983. Language planning: the state of the art. In Juan Cobarrubias & Joshua
A. Fishman (eds.), Progress in language planning: international perspectives, 3–26.
Berlin: Mouton.
Cooper, Robert L. 1989. Language planning and social change. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
 Situating the ethnography of language policy    17

Davis, Kathryn A. 1994. Language planning in multilingual contexts: policies, schools and
communities in Luxembourg. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Davis, Kathryn A. 1999. Dynamics of indigenous language maintenance. In Thom Huebner &
Kathryn A. Davis (eds.), Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in the
USA, 67–97. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
de los Heros, Susana. 2009. Linguistics pluralism or prescriptivism? A CDA of language
ideologies in Talento, Peru’s oicial textbook for the irst-year of high school. Linguistics
and Education 20. 172–199.
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and power. London & New York: Longman.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1979. Bilingual education, language planning and English. English
World-Wide 1(1). 11–24.
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New
York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, Michel. 1990 [1976]. The history of sexuality. Vol. 1. New York: Vintage.
Foucault, Michel. 1991. Governmentality. In Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon & Peter Miller (eds.),
The Foucault efect: studies in governmentality, 87–104. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Fowler, Roger, Bob Hodge, Gunther Kress & Tony Trew. 1979. Language and control. London:
Routlege & Kegan Paul.
Freeman, Rebecca D. 1996. Dual-language planning at Oyster Bilingual School: “It’s much more
than language.” TESOL Quarterly 30: 557–582.
Freeman, Rebecca D. 1998. Bilingual education and social change. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Freeman, Rebecca D. 2004. Building on community bilingualism. Philadelphia: Caslon.
García, Ofelia, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas & Maria Torres-Guzmán (eds.). 2006. Imagining
multilingual schools: languages in education and glocalization. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Giroux, Henry. 1981. Ideology, culture and the process of schooling. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1975. Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.
Haugen, Einar. 1959. Planning for standard language in modern Norway. Anthropological
Linguistics 1(3). 8–21.
Haugen, Einar. 1966. Linguistics and language planning. In William Bright (ed.),
Sociolinguistics, 50–71. Berlin: Mouton.
Haugen, Einar. 1983. The implementation of corpus planning: theory and practice. In Juan
Cobarrubias & Joshua A. Fishman (eds.), Progress in language planning: international
perspectives, 269–289. Berlin: Mouton.
Hill, Richard & Stephen May. 2011. Exploring biliteracy in Māori-medium education: an
ethnographic perspective. In Teresa L. McCarty (ed.), Ethnography and language policy.
New York & London: Routledge.
Hornberger, Nancy H. 1988. Bilingual education and language maintenance. Dordrecht,
Holland: Foris Publications.
Hornberger, Nancy H. (ed.). 1996. Indigenous literacies in the Americas: language planning
from the bottom up. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hornberger, Nancy H. 2000. Bilingual education policy and practice in the Andes: ideological
paradox and intercultural possibility. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 31(2).
173–201.

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
18    D. C. Johnson and T. Ricento

Hornberger, Nancy H. 2002. Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: an
ecological approach. Language Policy 1(1). 27–51.
Hornberger, Nancy H. 2006. Voice and biliteracy in indigenous language revitalization:
contentious educational practices in Quechua, Guaraní and Māori contexts. Journal of
Language, Identity and Education 5(4). 277–292.
Hornberger, Nancy H. (ed.). 2008. Can schools save indigenous languages? Policy and practice
on four continents. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hornberger, Nancy H. 2009. Multilingual education policy and practice: ten certainties
(grounded in Indigenous experience). Language Teaching 42(2). 197–211.
Hornberger, Nancy H. & David Cassels Johnson 2007. Slicing the onion ethnographically: layers
and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly 41(3).
509–532.
Hornberger, Nancy H. & David Cassels Johnson 2011. The ethnography of language policy. In
Teresa L. McCarty (ed.), Ethnography and language policy, 273–289. London and New
York: Routledge.
Hornberger, Nancy H. & Francis M. Hult. 2008. Ecological language education policy. In Bernard
Spolsky & Francis M. Hult (eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics, 280–296.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hult, Francis M. 2007. Multilingual language policy and English language education in Sweden.
Philadelpha, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
Hult, Francis M. 2010. Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and
time. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 202. 7–24.
Hymes, Dell. H. 1962. The ethnography of speaking. In Thomas Gladwin & William C. Sturtevant
(eds.), Anthropology and human behavior, 13–53. Washington DC: Anthropological Society
of Washington.
Hymes, Dell H. 1972. On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & Janet Holmes (eds.),
Sociolinguistics: selected readings, 269–293. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Hymes, Dell H. 1996 [1975]. Report from an underdeveloped country: toward linguistic
competence in the United States. In Dell Hymes (ed.), Ethnography, linguistics, narrative
inequality: toward an understanding of voice, 63–105. London: Taylor & Francis.
Jafe, Alexandre. 1999. Ideologies in action: language politics on Corsica. Berlin & New York:
Mouton.
Jafe, Alexandre. 2011. Critical perspectives on language-in-education policy: the Corsican
example. In Teresa L. McCarty (ed.), Ethnography and language policy. London & New
York: Routledge.
Jernudd, Björn & Jyotirindra Das Gupta. 1971. Towards a theory of language planning. In Joan
Rubin & Björn Jernudd (eds.), Can language be planned? Sociolinguistic theory and
practice for developing nations, 195–215. Hawaii: The University Press of Hawaii.
Johnson, David Cassels. 2009. Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy 8. 139–
159.
Johnson, David Cassels. 2010a. Implementational and ideological spaces in bilingual education
language policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 31(1).
61–79.
Johnson, David Cassels. 2010b. The relationship between applied linguistic research and
language policy for bilingual education. Applied Linguistics 31(1). 72–93.
Johnson, David Cassels. 2011. Critical discourse analysis and the ethnography of language
policy. Critical Discourse Studies 8(4). 267–279.

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
 Situating the ethnography of language policy    19

Johnson, David Cassels & Rebecca Freeman (2010). Appropriating language policy on the local
level: working the spaces for bilingual education. In Kate Menken & Ofelia García (eds.),
Language policy in the classroom: teachers as change agents, 13–31. New York & London:
Routledge.
Karam, Francis X. 1974. Toward a deinition of language planning. In Joshua Fishman (ed.),
Advances in language planning, 103–124. Berlin: Mouton.
King, Kendall. 2001. Language revitalization processes and prospects: Quichua in the
Ecuadorian Andes. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
King, Kendall (ed.). 2009. Global connections: language policies and international call centers.
[Special issue]. Language Policy 8(1).
King, Kendall A., Lyn Fogle & Aubrey Logan-Terry. 2008. Family language policy. Language and
Linguistics Compass 2(5). 907–922.
Kloss, Heinz. 1968. Notes concerning a language-nation typology. In Joshua A. Fishman,
Charles A. Ferguson & Jyotirindra Das Gupta (eds.), Language problems of developing
Nations, 69–86. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kloss, Heinz. 1969. Research possibilities on group bilingualism: a report. Quebec:
International Center for Research on Bilingualism.
Kress, Gunther. 2001. From Saussure to critical sociolinguistics: the turn towards a social view
of language. In Margaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor & Simeon J. Yates (eds.), Discourse
theory and practice: A reader, 29–38. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Lippi-Green, Rosina. 1997. English with an accent: language, ideology and discrimination in the
United States. London: Routledge.
Lo Bianco, Jo. 1999. The language of policy: what sort of policy making is the oicialization of
English in the United States. In Thom Huebner & Kathryn A. Davis (eds.), Sociopolitical
perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA, 39–65. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Luke, Allan, Alec McHoul & Jacob Mey. 1990. On the limits of language planning: class, state,
and power. In Richard Baldauf & Allan Luke (eds.), Language planning and education in
Australasia and the South Paciic, 25–44. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Martin-Jones, Marilyn. 2011. Languages, texts and literacy practices: an ethnographic lens on
bilingual vocational education in Wales. In Teresa L McCarty (ed.), Ethnography and
language policy, 231–253. New York: Routledge.
McCarty, Teresa L. 2002. A place to be Navajo: Rough Rock and the struggle for self-
determination in indigenous schooling. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McCarty, Teresa L. 2009. The impact of high-stakes accountability policies on Native American
learners: evidence from research. Teaching Education 20(1). 7–29.
McCarty, Teresa L (ed.). 2010. Ethnography and language policy. New York & London: Routledge.
McGroarty, Mary. 2002. Evolving influences on educational language policies. In James W.
Tollefson (ed.), Language policies in education: critical issues, 17–36. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McKay, Sandra & Keith Chick. 2001. Positioning learners in Post-Apartheid South Africa
schools: a case study of selected multicultural Durban schools. Linguistics and Education
12(4). 393–408.
Menken, Kate & Elana Shohamy (eds.). 2008. No Child Let Behind and U.S. language education
policy. [Special Issue]. Language Policy 7(3).
Menken, Kate & Ofelia García (eds.). 2010. Negotiating language policies in schools: educators
as policymakers. New York &London: Routledge.

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
20    D. C. Johnson and T. Ricento

Mohanty, Ajit, Minati Panda & Rashim Pal. 2010. Language policy in education and classroom
practices in India: is the teacher a cog in the policy wheel? In Kate Menken & Ofelia García
(eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: educators as policymakers, 211–231. New
York & London: Routledge.
Olson, Kate. 2007. Lost opportunities to learn: the efects of education policy on primary
language instruction for English learners. Linguistics and Education 18. 121–141.
Pennycook, Alastair. 2002. Language policy and docile bodies: Hong Kong and
governmentality. In James W. Tollefson (ed.), Language policies in education: critical
Issues, 91–110. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pennycook, Alastair. 2006. Postmodernism in language policy. In Thomas Ricento (ed.), An
introduction to language policy: theory and method, 60–76. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Pietikainen, Sari & Arja Piirainen-Marsh (eds.). 2009. Media, multilingualism and language
policing. [Special issue]. Language Policy 8(3).
Rahman, Tariq. 2009. Language ideology, identity and the commodiication of language in the
call centers of Pakistan. Language in Society 38(2). 233–258.
Ramanathan, Vaidehi. 2005. Rethinking language planning and policy from the ground up:
refashioning institutional realities and human lives. Current Issues in Language Planning
6(2). 89–101.
Ramanathan, Vaidehi. (ed.). 2010. Language policies and health. [Special Issue]. Language
Policy 9(1).
Ricento, Thomas. 1998. National language policy in the United States. In Thomas Ricento &
Barbara Burnaby (eds.), Language and politics in the United States and Canada: myths
and realities, 85–112. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ricento, Thomas 2000a. Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and
planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2). 196–213.
Ricento , Thomas (ed.). 2000b. Ideology, politics and language policies: focus on English.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ricento, Thomas. 2003. The discursive construction of Americanism. Discourse & Society 14(5).
611–637.
Ricento, Thomas. 2005. Problems with the language-as-resource discourse in the promotion of
heritage languages in the U.S.A. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(3). 348–368.
Ricento, Thomas & Nancy H. Hornberger. 1996. Unpeeling the onion: language planning and
policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly 30(3). 401–427.
Rubin, Joan. 1971. A view towards the future. In Joan Rubin & Björn Jernudd (eds.), Can
language be planned? Sociolinguistic theory and practice for developing nations,
307–310. Hawaii: The University Press of Hawaii.
Rubin, Joan. 1977. Bilingual education and language planning. In Bernard Spolsky & Robert L.
Cooper (eds.), Frontiers of bilingual education, 282–294. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Ruiz, Richard. 1984. Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal 8(2). 15–34.
Schmidt Sr., Ronald. 2002. Racialization and language policy: the case of the U.S.A.
Multilingua 21. 141–161.
Shohamy, Elana. 2006. Language policy: hidden agendas and new approaches. London & New
York: Routledge.
Shohamy, Elana & Duck Gorter (eds.). 2009. Linguistic landscape: expanding the scenery. New
York & London: Routledge.
Skilton-Sylvester, Ellen. 2003. Legal discourse and decisions, teacher policymaking and the
multilingual classroom: constraining and supporting Khmer/English biliteracy in the

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
 Situating the ethnography of language policy    21

United States. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 6(3/4).

168–184.
Stritikus, Tom. 2002. Immigrant children and the politics of English-only. New York: LFB
Scholarly Publishing LLC.
Stritikus, Tom & Ann-Marie Wiese. 2006. Reassessing the role of ethnographic methods in
education policy research: implementing bilingual education policy at local levels.
Teachers College Record 108(6). 1106–1131.
Tauli, Valter. 1974. The theory of language planning. In Joshua Fishman (ed.), Advances in
language planning, 49–67. The Hague: Mouton.
Tollefson, James W. 1986. Language policy and the radical let in the Philippines: the New
People’s Army and its antecedents. Language Problems and Language Planning 10.
177–189.
Tollefson, James W. 1991. Planning language, planning inequality: language policy in the
community. London: Longman.
Tollefson, James W. 2006. Critical theory in language policy. In Thomas Ricento (ed.), An
introduction to language policy: theory and method, 42–59. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Wiley, Terrence. 1996. English-only and standard English ideologies in the U.S. TESOL Quarterly
30. 511–535.
Wodak, Ruth. 1996. Disorders of discourse. London: Longman.
Wodak, Ruth. 2006. Linguistics analyses in language policies. In Thomas Ricento (ed.), An
introduction to language policy: theory and method, 170–193. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wolfson, Nessa & Joan Manes (eds.). 1985. Language of inequality. Berlin: Mouton.

Brought to you by | Washington State University

Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM
 Brought to you by | Washington State University
Authenticated | johnsondc@wsu.edu author's copy
Download Date | 2/15/13 9:46 PM