Language+Ideology

**Definition **
One of the most widely cited definitions is from Michael Silverstein: “sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use” (1979, p. 193). Language ideology is believed to work on a level of "tacit knowledge"-- behind the scenes, in the taken for granted assumptions of everyday language use. This means, for some, a language ideology may lie in the terms and presuppositions of metapragmatic discourse, not just in its assertions.

Language ideology is an important concept for apprehending "shared bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of language in the world" (Rumsey, 1990, p. 346).

Inoue (2004) provides another way to understand this concept: “discourse about speech or language use, or reflexive meta-level statements about language use” (p. 17)
 * Discourse about speech (e.g., “women’s language” in Japan becomes an object)
 * Reflexive in that they point backwards, stabilize and produce boundaries (excluding some forms over others)
 * Consists of metapragmatic statements: These include a range of “reflexive social practices of language use” (p. 18), ranging from dictionary entries to everyday evaluation, including scholarly theories of language use.


 * Language Ideology in Language and Social Interaction (LSI) Studies**

Language ideology is an important concept in the study of intercultural communication, critical cultural communication, linguistic anthropology, and sociolinguistics. Woolard and Schieffelin (1994) indicate that language ideology is a concept that refers to an area of study that is interested in cultural conceptions of language—“its nature, structure, and use," and of "communicative behavior as an enactment of a collective order” (p. 55). As a field of study comprising the use of three related terms: linguistic ideology, language ideology, and ideologies of language, which Woolard and Schieffelin use interchangeably (they still acknowledge that each may entail a slightly different methodological emphasis), it begins to coalesce in the early 1990s. Woolard and Schieffelin (1994) emphasize language ideology as a "mediating link between social structures and forms of talk" (p. 54). This definition of language ideology follows, according to the authors, what R. Williams observed about language: "a definition of language is always implicitly or explicitly, a definition of human beings in the world” (as cited in Woolard and Schieffelin, 1994, p. 2). Much scholarship was done on this term in the 1990s, and now it is a useful way of encompassing associations between language and communication. Poststructuralist critiques contributed to the emergence of this concept at this particular moment in academic history.

A student of language ideologies or ideologies of language may find that definitions of the concept vary. Woolard and Schieffelin (1994) point out that this has to do with differences in approaches to ideology (critical or neutral) and language (as synchronic or diachronic system). Although scholars (see Kroskrity, 2000; Joseph & Taylor, 1990; Woolard 1992, 1998) have formulated different notions of ideology—ranging from the “seemingly neutral cultural conceptions of language to strategies for maintaining social power, from unconscious ideology read from speech practices by analysts to the most conscious native-speaker explanations of appropriate language behavior” (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994, p. 58), they share a common view of ideology as derived from or responsive of a particular social position. In short, ideology in the sense of this concept reminds researchers of the partial nature of cultural conceptions and that they have social histories. Importantly, language ideology has the capacity to restrict what counts as language, and “the terms, techniques, and modalities of hearing and citing” (Inoue, 2004, p. 39).

Language ideology is often linked to other concepts or phenomena. Woolard and Schieffelin (1994) organize language ideology along three scholarly conversations: language varieties, public discourses on language, and its relationship to linguistic structures (p. 56). For example, Irvine and Gal (2009) discuss linguistic differentiation in conjunction with language ideologies. They maintain that three semiotic processes are at play when people construct ideological representations of linguistic difference: iconization, fractcal recursivity, and erasure (pp. 403-404). These processes mediate how people construct senses of identity in relation to images of the “Other.”

Lippi-Green (2004) discusses language prejudice and its relationship to a standard language ideology, or a “bias toward an abstracted, idealized non-varying //spoken// language that is imposed and maintained by dominant institutions” (p. 293). In this vein, ideology is understood as a framework for critical language studies, an approach that follows the Foucalidian notion of discourse as “disciplined” (p. 239). In this approach, for example, Lippi-Green shows how language discrimination against speakers of particular varieties of English in America are perpetuated through dominant institutions such as the popular media and standardized education.

Ideology from a communication perspective means attending to the way language-in-use invokes a complex system of power structures (Mumby, 1989). Language ideology is about the relationships we draw between words and social life. It invokes reflection and helps to illuminate points of resistance. It matters for communication scholarship interested in the way power functions in a particular discourse community and the types of relationships/boundaries we draw between social groups and language use.

include component="comments" page="page:Language Ideology" limit="10"


 * References**

Inoue, M. (2006). //Vicarious language: Gender and linguistic modernity in japan//. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Irvine, J., & Gal, S. (2009). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), //Linguistic anthropology: A reader// (2nd ed., pp. 402–434). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell (an imprint of John Wiley & Sons Ltd).

Lippi-Green, R. (2004). Language ideology and language prejudice. In E. Finegan & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), //Language in the USA: Themes for the twenty-first century// (4th ed., pp. 289–304). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kroskrity, P. V. (2000). //Regimes of language: ideologies, polities, and identities//. James Currey Publishers.

Joseph, J. E., & Taylor, T. J. (Eds.). (1990). //Ideologies of language// (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.

Mumby, D. K. (1989). Ideology & the social construction of meaning: A communication perspective. //Communication Quarterly//, //37//(4), 291-304.

Rumsey, A. (1990). Wording, meaning, and linguistic ideology. //American anthropologist//, //92//(2), 346-361.

Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. //The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels//, 193-247.

Woolard, K. A. (1992). Language ideology: Issues and approaches. //Pragmatics//, //2//(3), 235–249.

Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. Kroskrity (Eds.), //Language ideologies: Practice and theory// (1st ed., pp. 3–47). New York: Oxford University Press.

Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. //Annual Review Of Anthropology//, //23//(1), 55-82.