Chapter5

L anguage I de ol o g i e s

Jonathan Rosa and Christa Burdick

Introduction

How do linguistic form and function interact? What is the relationship between linguis-
tic structures and societal structures? How does language change take place? How do
linguistic practices in different modalities shape one another? How is language linked
to forms of societal power? What is the status of language vis--vis other forms of com-
munication? These are just some of the long-standing questions that have been richly
reinvigorated over the last several decades through the development of the concept of
language ideologies. In this chapter we seek not only to chart this development, high-
light its contemporary iterations, and point to potential future uses, but also to frame
the stakes of a language ideologies perspective. Specifically, we show how a focus on
language ideologies can disrupt presumptions about the discrete, empirically objective,
and self-presenting naturethe always already recognizabilityof linguistic forms that
undergird a great deal of scholarship on language. Indeed, a potential unintended inter-
pretation of the now canonical insight that ideas about language are never simply about
language is that ideas about language are not about language at all. Such interpretations
are often rooted in questionable distinctions between the study of language and cul-
ture, thereby relegating a focus on language ideologies to those concerned with the lat-
ter rather than the former. In contrast, we hope to show here how a focus on language
ideologies is not just relevant but crucial in efforts toward understanding the nature of
linguistic forms and practices.
Purportedly non-ideological approaches to the study of language characteristically
take for granted the nature and meanings of linguistic signs. From this viewpoint, lin-
guistic forms are objective phenomena, and the goal of language analysis is to under-
stand their fundamental structure. In contrast, language ideologies approaches locate
the meaningfulness of linguistic signs in relation to other signs in particular histori-
cal, political, and economic contexts, and interrogate from what perspectives a given
sign comes to take on particular value. This involves a rejection of the notion that some


104 Jonathan Rosa and Christa Burdick

perspectives on language are objective while others are ideological. Any view of lan-
guage is ideological because it reflects a specific perspective and emerges within a par-
ticular context. Such an approach requires a reconsideration of foundational analytical
categories, including the notion of language itself as an objective way of drawing bound-
aries between linguistic practices. Far from an abstract theoretical exercise in decon-
struction or relativism, a focus on language ideologies can shed new light on the joint
(re)production and (trans)formation of social and linguistic structures in context.
We begin by tracing the theorization of language ideologies by linguistic anthro-
pologists and fellow analysts of language and culture; we then show how insights about
language ideologies are deployed in contemporary research, and we conclude by point-
ing to emergent conceptualizations of language ideologies. Throughout the chapter we
emphasize the pivotal status of language ideologies as part of what Silverstein (1985b)
has formulated as the total linguistic fact, consisting of the dialectic relationship
between linguistic structures as practiced in social contexts whose meanings are medi-
ated by culturally situated perspectives. Thus, we aim to show how a focus on language
ideologies is not simply a fad or minor concern, but rather a foundational site from
which to apprehend the dynamic nature of language and semiotic practice more broadly
in sociallife.

Historical Overview:From
Language Attitudes and Secondary
Rationalizations toIdeologies

It should come as no surprise that research on language ideologies has grappled with a
range of presumptions about the nature of language on the one hand, and ideology on
the other. These presumptions include the notion that language forms should be studied
apart from ideas about them, as well as the conceptualization of ideologies as inherently
distorting phenomena that can and should be avoided in scholarly research. In order to
combat these presumptions, linguistic anthropologists have synthesized insights from
various intellectual approaches, including structuralism, pragmatism, interactional
sociolinguistics, and the ethnography of communication, to conceptualize language
ideologies as powerful, multi-scalar phenomena that link social and linguistic struc-
tures (Kroskrity, 2004). This multi-scalar perspective is reflected in the combination of
Silversteins definition of language ideologies as a set of beliefs about language articu-
lated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and
use (1979:193), with that of Irvine, who formulates language ideologies as the cultural
system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of
moral and political interests (1989:225). Silverstein and Irvine show how a focus on
language ideologies can facilitate the joint analysis of language structure and use and
moral and political interests. Wortham combines these approaches in his pragmatic


Language Ideologies105

conceptualization of language ideologies as models that link types of linguistic forms

with the types of people who stereotypically use them (2008: 43). These ideologi-
cal linkages between types of linguistic forms and types of people who stereotypically
use them are key components of processes of enregisterment that have gained increas-
ing attention in recent linguistic scholarship across a range of disciplines (Agha, 2007;
Adams,2009).
Prominent historical figures in US-based anthropology, linguistics, and sociolinguis-
tics, such as Boas, Bloomfield, and Labov, continually note(d) and disavow(ed) what
we might now call language ideologies. For Boas (1911), it was simultaneously crucial
to take into account native points of view and to recognize that the analytical import
of language as a cultural system stems from the fact that it is minimally affected by such
secondary rationalizations. Boas referred to language users conceptions of their lin-
guistic practices as secondary rationalizations because he argued that language pat-
terns are independent of local ideas about them. For Bloomfield, local conceptions of
language are merely a part of the linguists data (1933:22). He suggested that an ideo-
logical distinction, such as that between what might be conceptualized as a correct and
an incorrect form from some perspectives (e.g., am not vs. aint), is only one of
the problems of linguistics, and since it is not a fundamental one, it can be attacked only
after many other things are known (1933:22). Thus, for Bloomfield, language ideologies
were not of primary concern. Unlike Boas and Bloomfield, Labovs work foregrounds
the importance of social attitudes toward language (1964:241). This is particularly evi-
dent in the sustained attention to linguistic insecurity throughout his career (1984:28).
However, in Labovs theorization of linguistic change, he suggests that the most conse-
quential mechanisms of change are not subject to speakers awareness (1979). In Labovs
variationist paradigm, correlations between linguistic variables and demographic cat-
egories are naturally occurring social facts rather than ideologically mediated processes;
linguistic practices index preexisting identities rather than dynamically reproduce, cre-
ate, and potentially transform them. The dismissive view of language ideologies in these
influential scholars work is reflected in the marginalization or complete erasure of cul-
turally specific conceptions of language in the fields of linguistics and sociolinguistics.
In sociolinguistics and social psychology, the study of language attitudes (Baker,
1992; Garrett, Coupland, and Williams, 2003; Garrett, 2010) shares many concerns
with research on language ideologies. This work typically involves the use of experi-
mental and survey methods, such as matched-guise tests and interview questionnaires,
to track views of language. Research on language attitudes is often linked to applied
efforts, including language planning (Ruiz, 1984), securing linguistic human rights
(Skutnabb-Kangas, 2006), and challenging standard language hegemony in everyday
institutional contexts (Lippi-Green, 1997). However, an important distinction between
traditional work on language attitudes and language ideologies is the formers tendency
toward locating attitudes at the subjective level and then taking the overt expression of
views regarding language at face value as direct reflections of deeply held beliefs rather
than modes of performativity in particular cultural settings. That is, language attitudes
research tends to focus exclusively on referentialitythe denotational content of what


106 Jonathan Rosa and Christa Burdick

is said about languagerather than looking at the multiple potential functions of lan-
guage ideologies and the linguistic practices through which they are articulated.
In much of the work on language attitudes there is the suggestionalternately implicit
and explicitthat changing these attitudes is the means to more socially just ends. For
example, it is often implied that if attitudes toward nonstandard language varieties were
to change, then the social circumstances and forms of stigmatization faced by speakers
of these varieties would improve. However, this perspective neglects the fact that some
speakers of what are widely recognized as stigmatized varieties can be simultaneously
derided for their language practices and yet elevated to the highest positions of politi-
cal and economic power. Silverstein (2003) has argued that former President George
W. Bushs perceived linguistic shortcomings powerfully contributed to his broader
political messagenamely, that he was an approachable regular guy as compared
to more eloquent and less relatable competitors, Al Gore and John Kerry. Thus, from a
language ideologies perspective, it is crucial to track the expression and implications of
language attitudes ethnographically. The failure to do so contributes to the trouble-
some linguistic tendency toward equating the valorization of minoritized language vari-
eties with improvements in the social circumstances of their users. Language ideologies
scholarship has been particularly critical of this problematic tendency in the context of
language preservation efforts (Hill, 2002; Perley, 2012), which often invoke questionable
metaphors of death, resurrection, and value, thereby positioning linguists as saviors and
contributing to the marginalization of so-called endangered languages.
Careful ethnographic attention to language ideologies can disrupt these presump-
tions about the relationship between language and power. Gal (1995a) shows how
influential research on language and resistance has characteristically reproduced ques-
tionable ideas about the ways that language can be interpreted as a sign of power. For
example, she points to the presumption that for subordinate individuals, public pre-
sentations of self are dissimulations in which they must acquiesce to existing power
relations and dominant norms. Gal suggests that this presumption has led to the
problematic classification of speech as relatively authentic or inauthentic based
on essentialized ideas about a given persons true characteristics and practices. This
is reflected in Labovs (1973) faulty distinction between careful and relaxed speech,
which positions some language practices as more authentic than others and overlooks
the fundamental Goffmanian (1959) insight that every interaction is necessarily a per-
formance; careful and relaxed are not objective qualities of speech itself, but rather
performative categories of speech that are construed through language ideologies.
Moreover, theories of performativity have shown that identity and authenticity should
be understood as phenomena that are produced in particular historical and institutional
contexts, rather than naturally occurring characteristics that emanate from ones true
nature (Butler 1990). Returning to the earlier discussion of language and power, the
broader point here is that powerlessness must not simply be equated with dissimulation
and empowerment with authenticity. For example, research on ideologies of accent has
shown how the inability to escape authenticity is a central mechanism of linguistic dis-
empowerment (Lippi-Green, 1997), as well as the ways in which linguistic authenticity


Language Ideologies107

can become commoditized and profitable, often by invoking stigmatizing stereotypes.

Shankar (2012, 2015) shows how ideologies of linguistic authenticity are central to
modes of population management. In the context of her research focused on language,
race, and advertising, ideas about linguistic authenticity problematically participate in
the transformation of Asian Americans from model minorities to model consumers.
Based on this research, we must be careful not to equate authenticity with empower-
ment. Conversely, in societal realms such as electoral politics, the alignment of com-
municative dissimulation and empowerment is a common characteristic of the cultural
logics surrounding presidential style. Building on previous research by Silverstein
mentioned earlier, Lempert and Silverstein (2012) argue that George W.Bushs alleged
linguistic gaffes and bloopers were in fact strategic dissimulations that allowed him to
cultivate power by erasing his elite background and presenting himself as an approach-
able everyman. In this example, linguistic dissimulation operates as a platform for
political empowerment. Thus, the relationship between linguistic practices and power
depends on the language ideologies that exist in particular cultural contexts.
Similarly, Gals (1995b) work on language and gender has shown how stereotypes
equating femininity with silence and subordination, and masculinity with speech and
dominance, are belied by countless contextsfrom religious confession to psychiat-
ric evaluations to police interrogationsin which silence is often an index of empow-
erment and speech is an index of disempowerment. She calls for a reconsideration of
language and power based on the language ideologies through which the meaningful-
ness of communicative practices is interpreted in particular contexts. Such an analysis
challenges naturalized ideas about the relationship between particular language prac-
tices and power, as well as the presumption that domination and subordination cor-
respond to distinct subject positions that any given individual experiences in absolute
and continuous ways. Building from these insights regarding language and power,
Gonzlez (2005) shows how Latina/o students draw on seemingly contradictory lan-
guage ideologies in their strategic performances of identity in specific educational con-
texts. From a conventional language attitudes perspective, these students alternately
negative and positive evaluations of the Spanish language might suggest that they suffer
from misrecognition, internalized discrimination, or self-hate. However, by approach-
ing their expressions of language ideologies and articulations of linguistic insecurity
as situated presentations of self in particular interactional and institutional settings,
it becomes possible to consider contested ways in which they are engaging withand
potentially reconfiguringexisting power dynamics rather than simply reproducing
them (Zentella 2007). This approach also avoids the problem of celebrating the valo-
rization of stigmatized languages and varieties as a straightforward exercise in agency
and empowerment. For example, Rosa (2014) shows how Latina/o students understood
as capable of speaking unaccented English and Spanish valorize Spanglish language
practices while simultaneously deriding their Spanish-dominant peers. These insights
demonstrate the importance of tracking the complex ways in which modes of performa-
tivity and presentations of self participate in processes of linguistic empowerment and
subordination.


108 Jonathan Rosa and Christa Burdick

By shifting from a view of language attitudes as marginal factors in sociolinguistic

analysis to language ideologies as central mediating forces through which language is
made meaningful in culturally specific ways, language ideologies scholarship has made
crucial contributions to the analysis of the relationship between linguistic and social
structures. Recalling Silversteins and Irvines respectively micro-and macro-oriented
definitions of language ideologies described earlier, the following section shows how
these perspectives have been productively integrated in recent language ideologies
research that has connected semiotic practices across interactional, institutional, and
political-economic scales.

Core Issues and Topics inthe

Present:Identities, Institutions,
and Questions of Materiality

As scholars have demonstrated, talk about language is never just about language
(Kroskrity, 2000; Schieffelin etal., 1998; Woolard, 1998; Woolard and Schieffelin, 1994).
Rather, metalinguistic and metapragmatic commentary serves to connect language use
and social structure, and in fact leads to linguistic change, as Silverstein (1979, 1985a)
has shown in his analysis of changing gender pronouns in the United States and else-
where. Kroskrity (2000) has described language ideologies as a cluster concept, con-
sisting of four overlapping dimensions:(1)language ideologies serve the interests of
certain groups; (2)language ideologies are always multiple; (3)members may display
varying degrees of awareness of language ideologies; and (4)language ideologies medi-
ate between social structures and forms of talk. Taking these four layers of language ide-
ologies as a point of departure, this section provides a general review of recent work in
the area of language ideologies, focusing particular attention on scholarship regarding
language and identity, institutions, and materiality.

Reconceptualizing Language and Identity

Ideas about language are always partial, just as all views come from somewhere
(Haraway, 1991, cited in Urla, 2012b). Language ideologies scholarship has sought to
examine the ways in which our common-sense notions about language are always situ-
ated, biased, and the result of historical and contemporary processes. How is it, there-
fore, that certain languages are said to be more or less logical, correct, or elegant
than others? How are certain speakers seen to embody such characteristics merely
through their speech? These conceptions of language and people often undergird deci-
sions about what languages to protect, promote, or abandon; they are also motivated
by political and economic interests that benefit certain groups and disadvantage others.


Language Ideologies109

National languages, for example, are often taught and promoted with an eye toward
national unity, progress, and modernity, much like scholars of nationalism pointed to
language as a central organizing factor through which national identity (and the nation
itself) was formed (Anderson, 1991; Blommaert and Verschueren, 1998; Gellner, 1983).
Such projects, however, assume the superiority of the chosen national language over
others, and simultaneously erase multilingual realities in the discursive construction of
the nation (Errington, 1998, 2000; Silverstein, 1996). Erringtons (1998, 2000)analyses
of the promotion of standard Indonesian as a national language demonstrate the con-
structed, yet power-laden dimensions of the connection of language to the nation-state.
In his account, despite the fact that Indonesian lacks a clear traditional ethnic speech
community, it is seen as a highly effective national language for its connections to the
rhetoric of development. Yet, the success of national standard Indonesian is contingent
on its ideological distinction from Javanese, which serves as a reference for a territorial-
ized ethnic identity (Errington, 1998:281).
In contexts of language shift, decline, and revitalization, social movements demand-
ing revitalization and political recognition have emerged throughout Europe and else-
where. Such movements constitute important sites for the contestation of national
language ideologies as well as the promotion of locally held, plural ideologies of lan-
guage (Jaffe, 1999b; McEwan-Fujita, 2010; Meek, 2010; Urla, 2012a). In Jaffes (1999b)
ethnography of the Corsican revitalization movement through which Corsican speak-
ers sought to gain political recognition in the face of the French national language,
members of the movement constantly contested, negotiated, and disagreed about the
form the movement would take, as well as the kind of Corsican to be promoted.
Despite the linguistic hegemony of national standardized languages, recent work on
the relationship between language and identity demonstrates the ways in which lan-
guage and communication are critical aspects of the production of a wide variety of iden-
tities expressed at many levels of social organization (Kroskrity, 2001:106). Linguistic
identities co-naturalize other social identities such as gender (Hoffman, 2008; Queen,
2005)and ethnicity (Makihara, 2007; Shankar, 2008), as well as national identities, in
significant ways. More than this however, authors have shown that the linguistic con-
struction and construal of identity is never uncontested, nor are constructed identities
static or monolithic. Thus, language does not simply reflect preexisting identitiesit
actively participates in the construction, reproduction, and transformation of identity.
Promising work in the realm of language and race has expanded on the long-standing
anthropological tradition of seeking to denaturalize racial categories from both linguis-
tic and broader cultural perspectives (Alim and Smitherman, 2012; Bucholtz, 2001, 2011;
Hill, 2008; Meek, 2006; Roth-Gordon, 2011; Shankar, 2008). Attempting to understand
the ways in which racialized identities are assumed to sound a certain way has become a
central concern in the study of language ideologies. As Bucholtz (2011) has explored in
her ethnography of a California high school, styles, linguistic and otherwise, allow stu-
dents to embody racialized identities in various ways. For example, although acting and
talking white are normatively associated with a lack of style or an absence of culture,
Bucholtz (2011) demonstrates the ways in which white high school students engage in


110 Jonathan Rosa and Christa Burdick

both linguistic and semiotic practices that construct contingent identities along racial,
ethnic, and gendered lines. Conversely, Lo and Reyes show how a stubborn commit-
ment to the distinctiveness paradigm in sociolinguistics contributes to the erasure of
Asian American linguistic practices that disrupt the ideology that group x speaks lan-
guage x, a distinguishable speech variety from language y spoken by group y (2009:6).
These cases exemplify how language ideologies can play a central role in shaping con-
ceptions of racial authenticity, which involve associating some groups with emblematic
racialized linguistic forms and other groups with a lack thereof (Chun, 2011). Urciuoli
(2011) suggests that this dynamic relationship between markedness and unmarkedness
is a characteristic component of racializing discourses.
Alim and Smithermans (2012) account of Barack Obamas controlled and strategic
style-shifting, and perhaps more important, mainstream media reactions to Obamas
language use, demonstrate the strongly held racial ideologies that extend into percep-
tions of language. As Alim and Smitherman (2012:3)have suggested, we need to language
race or, in other words, to examine the politics of race through the lens of language.
They show how Obama derives profound value from the same linguistic practices that
are often viewed as deficiencies in African American children. Specifically, Alim and
Smitherman argue that Obamas dexterous style-shifting between African American
and mainstream varieties of English is central to his political success. Conversely, Hills
(1998) analysis of mock Spanish shows how White Americans are able to cultivate
social cache from the adaptation and public use of Spanish, while Latinas/os face pro-
found stigmatization for their public Spanish language use. Dick and Wirtz (2011), Dick
(2011), and Urciuoli (2009) argue that these maneuvers reflect the ways that racializ-
ing discourses often work based on forms of indirect indexicality and interdiscursivities
that allow racially unmarked persons to reproduce modes of racial stigmatization while
maintaining the semblance of color-blindness or racial egalitarianism.
These attributions and recognitions of identity are contingent on semiotic processes
of differentiation through which particular social identities become recognizable.
As Irvine and Gal (1995, 2000)have powerfully demonstrated, it is only through the
semiotic processes of rhematization/iconization, fractal recursivity, and erasure that
social and linguistic categories can be recognized and regimented in the first place.
Rhematization/iconization involves the process by which a linguistic feature comes to
be iconic of an entire group. As such, rhematization/iconization can help to conceptu-
alize the processes through which elements of language are ideologically attached to
models of personhood, becoming emblematic in their own right. The second aspect of
semiotic differentiation, fractal recursivity, involves the projection of an opposition,
salient at some level of relationship, onto some other level (Irvine and Gal, 2000:38).
It is these oppositions, Irvine and Gal claim, that create and reproduce identity. Finally,
the process of erasure simplifies the sociolinguistic field by erasing difference, render-
ing invisible some persons or activities that do not fit a given ideological understand-
ing (2000:38).
We might think of ideologies surrounding the distinction between Northern and
Southern US language and culture as an example of differentiation that demonstrates


Language Ideologies111

these semiotic processes. The North/South distinction exemplifies rhematization/

iconization, for example, in the way that language is stereotypically slower in the South
than the North and the South is stereotypically associated with a slower pace of life than
the North. Thus, slowness becomes an emblem that stereotypically links language and
social life through rhematization/iconization. The North/South distinction demon-
strates fractal recursivity by distinguishing between linguistic and cultural practices
that are more and less Southern and Northern. That is, the North/South distinction can
be refracted across scales, such that some Northern places and linguistic practices are
perceived as Southern and vice versa. Lastly, the North/South distinction is organized
by the erasure of vast linguistic and cultural heterogeneity within the North and South,
respectively. These semiotic processes powerfully structure ideologies of language and
identity.
The understanding that language ideologies mediate interrelated semiotic processes
of communication and identity formation allows for a more precise examination of how
ideas about language are constructed and circulated by social groups, nations, and indi-
viduals. Building on these foundational concepts, anthropologists have sought to better
understand the productive effects of language ideologies in the delineation of commu-
nities, the production of borders, and the ideologization of identities (Das, 2008; Park,
2009; Rosa, 2014). This focus on language ideologies makes it possible to identify the
situated local perspectives from which particular claims about language and identity
are advanced, as well as to envision alternative realities in which boundaries that prob-
lematically circumscribe languages and identities can be reimagined and reconstituted
(Canagarajah, 2005; Makoni and Pennycook, 2007; Urciuoli,1995).

Institutional Formations
In addition to tracking the iterative nature of language ideologies, their sites of pro-
duction have become equally important in understanding the relationship of social
structures, power, and language. As Silverstein (1998:138)has suggested in his analysis
of rituals and ritual centers, the site of institutionalized ritual and ritualization, then,
provides an essential place where societies and social groups in effect articulate the ide-
ological. As he notes, it is in institutions that ideological forms are ordained or trans-
formed with respect to the linguistic codes they regiment, through indexical grounding
(1998: 138). The sites themselves, in which ideologies are (re)produced, circulated,
or authorized, are centers of powerful meta-pragmatic commentary. Philips (1998,
2000)has also emphasized the importance of exploring the sited-nessparticularly
the multi-sited-nessof ideologies. She notes the necessity of language ideological
research that is grounded in institutions, without which it would be impossible to ask
how language ideologies are socially ordered across institutions, where there are and
are not commonalities across institutions in the language ideologies they promulgate,
and how language ideologies are transformed as they move from one setting to another
(Philips 1998:222).


112 Jonathan Rosa and Christa Burdick

Scholars have addressed the production, implementation, and management of

standards and modes of indexicality attached to particular institutional frameworks
and cultural domains, including courtrooms (Haviland, 2003; Mertz, 1998; Philips,
2000), electoral politics (Lempert and Silverstein, 2012; Makihara, 2007), governmen-
tal agencies (Blommaert, 2009; Duchne, 2008; Leeman, 2004), and religious settings
(Baquedano-Lpez, 2004; Fader, 2009; Keane, 2007). These authors emphasize the
importance of carefully tracking the institutional actors, perspectives, procedures, and
categorizations involved in the apprehension of linguistic practices. Carr (2009, 2010,
2011)has elaborated on these insights to show how language plays a central role in the
recruitment to and enactment of institutional identities, as well as the conceptions
of expertise that endow particular actors with the capacity to recognize, classify, and
respond to institutional subjects.
Educational institutions have often been the focus of language ideologies research
(Davis, 2012 Heller, 1999). This includes research on language ideologies in elemen-
tary and secondary schools settings, as well as within the academy, past and pres-
ent (Bauman and Briggs, 2000, 2003; Irvine and Gal, 1995; Milroy, 2001). In his work
on language ideologies in educational contexts, Wortham has shown how schools
are important sites for establishing associations between educated and uneducated,
sophisticated and unsophisticated, official and vernacular language use and types
of students (2008:43). In mainstream US educational settings, linguistic practices are
often construed through monoglossic ideologies that promote socialization to the lan-
guage that ideally express[es] the spirit of [the] nation and the territory it occupies
(Gal, 2006:163; Garca and Torres-Guevara, 2010). Monoglossic ideologies reify notions
such as Standard English and academic language by representing them as discrete,
empirically identifiable linguistic categories that can be taught and assessed (Flores and
Rosa, 2015). These representations are contradicted by infinite variation across institu-
tions, but monoglossic ideologies erase this diversity by promoting the notion that there
is a single standard variety. The embrace of these ideologies contributes to the stigma-
tization of students who are framed as incapable of demonstrating particular kinds of
language proficiency based on imagined linguistic ideals. These modes of stigmatiza-
tion are deceptively presented as innocent linguistic classifications, such as native
speaker, English Language Learner, and Long Term English Learner. Each of these
categories privileges monoglossic perspectives over heteroglossic ones by positioning
linguistic practices associated with normative monolingualism as communicative ideals
(Bonfiglio, 2010; Flores and Garca, 2013; Flores, Kleyn, and Menken,2015).
These various accounts underscore the importance of attending to the specific insti-
tutional contexts in and across which language ideologies take shape. Afocus on insti-
tutions can provide insights into the rituals through which language ideologies are
reproduced, the social roles that participate in these processes of reproduction, and the
modes of authority required for their ritual efficacy. Inter-institutional investigations
can also point to the ways that the intersubjective contestation of language ideologies is
organized by contrasting conceptions of language within differing institutional contexts.
Analyses of distinctive ideological frameworks across institutions can reveal the ways in


Language Ideologies113

which conceptions of language participate in the reproduction of structural inequality,

as well as the potential for alternative, more inclusive institutional approaches to lin-
guistic diversity.

Merging Language and Materiality

Institutional analyses, as well as the long-standing interest in the political economy of
language, have contributed to the increased focus on issues of materiality in language
ideologies research. What are the material consequences of language ideologies? How
can the study of language ideologies help to overcome divisions between materiality and
ideology? While linguistic anthropologists and sociolinguists have long been concerned
with such issues (Gal, 1979, 1989; Irvine, 1989), recent contributions have foregrounded
relations between processes of commodification, materiality, and language in analy-
ses that explore issues such as the complex material consequences of sounding local
(Cavanaugh,2005).
Just as language practices have been found to be the subject of hierarchies of prestige
and power, they are also caught up in projects of material valuation. Although schol-
ars had previously determined that political economies impact the linguistic choices
people make (Gal, 1987, 1989; Woolard, 1985), that language practices are related to per-
ceptions of class (Labov, 1973), and that language constitutes a form of symbolic capi-
tal (Bourdieu, 1977, 1991), recent scholarship has renewed the interest in language and
political economy by attending to contemporary forms of global capitalism.
While research has increasingly yielded productive discussions of the commodifica-
tion of culture (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2009; Dvila, 2001; Ydice, 2003), the reconfig-
uration of language to the exigencies of global markets has only been recently addressed
(Duchne and Heller, 2012; Heller, 2010; Shankar and Cavanaugh, 2012). Research
reviewed by Shankar and Cavanaugh (2012) under the title of language and materiality
has conceptualized the semiotic objectification of language (Cavanaugh, 2005; Keane,
2003; Shankar, 2006), in which words, accents, and other forms and practices are com-
moditized, such that they can take on material value, or may even be recontextualized
through marketing. However, interrelations between commodities and language are
not entirely new. Rather, as Agha (2011) has shown, registers of language, what he calls
commodity registers, work together with commodities to produce value, and to estab-
lish both the emblematic characteristics and the material trappings of valuable life-
styles. Such lifestyles, complete with their enregistered language and emblematic words,
accents, or phrases, can be endlessly recontextualized and circulated (Blommaert, 2010;
Lee and LiPuma, 2002). The materialization of language in late capitalism is also con-
tingent on the production of authenticity (Cavanaugh, 2007; Coupland, 2003), and
authentic linguistic objects are meaningful only through the management of indexical
relations (Heller, 2011; Jaffe, 1999a; Shandler, 2006), which are often structured by chro-
notopes that bring a particular emplaced past into relation with the present (Bakhtin,
1981; Cavanaugh and Shankar, 2014). As Heller (2011) demonstrates in her ethnographic


114 Jonathan Rosa and Christa Burdick

study in a francophone community in Ontario, Canada, language and cultural commod-

ification are organized by carefully structured renderings of such markers of authenticity
as a maple leaf, plaid flannel, or a carefully scripted French phrase, which can simultane-
ously index recognizable authenticity as well as commodifiable profitability.
In their recent volume entitled Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit,
Alexandre Duchne and Monica Heller (2012) chart the shifting ideologies around lan-
guage, particularly languages in decline and minoritized languages. As they note, lan-
guage is no longer understood solely in terms of national pride, inherently valuable for
its connection to national identity. Rather, language is also understood as economically
valuable, subject to promotion, management, and standards of efficiency, alongside
other objectifiable commodities. Research on language commodification has sought to
identify the global economic processes that render language available to commodifica-
tion (Duchne and Heller, 2012), in which language has been operationalized as a tech-
nical skill in the workplace (Duchne, 2009; Heller, 2003). The economic management
of language also extends into arenas of revitalization, where language preservation is
reframed in terms of economic viability rather than rights-based national discourses
(McEwan-Fujita, 2005; Silva and Heller, 2009; Urla, 2012b). As opposed to seeing this as
the end of valuations of language within national tropes, these authors demonstrate the
tensions in which national discourses remain intertwined with profit-based discourses
of economic distinction (Duchne and Heller, 2012). Indeed, as Gal (2011) has recently
shown, ideological framings of pride and profit, like all language ideologies, are rela-
tionally constituted. Thus, discourses of profit are reproduced alongside national tropes
of local discourses of pridedemonstrating how ties between identity, place, and lan-
guage are contingent and co-constructed.
Research on language ideologies has sought to examine the intersections of language
use, social structure, and ideas about language in such a way as to track the links and rela-
tionships between language and social power. While identity, differentiation, and institu-
tions have constituted significant loci through which scholars have come to understand
language within cultural contexts, recent turns toward locating language squarely within
the realm of the material can allow the lens of ideology to turn toward contemporary
issues of globalization, neoliberalism, and commodification. These recent developments
are gestures toward exciting future research on language ideologies.

Perspectives forthe
Future:Reconsidering Agents, Objects,
and Scales of Language Ideologies

The initial theorization and continued honing of the language ideologies concept has
paved the way for emergent questions focused on issues such as the scales and onto-
logical statuses of entitieslinguistic and otherwiseassociated with the enactment of


Language Ideologies115

language ideologies. That is, are language ideologies necessarily created, articulated, and
mobilized by people, whether individuals or groups? How might nonhuman entities,
such as institutions, technologies, and other seemingly inanimate objects, enact lan-
guage ideologies in consequential ways? In short, what entities can have language ideol-
ogies? Conversely, what is the ontological status of linguistic forms targeted by language
ideologies? It is clear that there can be varying ideologies about a given form, but in what
ways might these ideologies create the very forms that they purport to construe? What
is the relationship between the functions of language ideologies on inter-subjective and
inter-institutional scales, as well as in varying spatial and temporal and contexts? On a
more applied level, how might considerations of ideological agents, objects, and scales
shape efforts toward disrupting and eradicating stigmatizing ideas about language
through the promotion of critical language awareness (Alim,2010)?
Linguistic anthropologists have contributed to the so-called ontological turn by
building from theorizations of language ideologies to semiotic ideologies more broadly
(Keane, 2003; Kockelman, 2013). This involves a consideration of semiotic actors and
their statuses vis--vis processes of causality and contingency. Note that the term
actors here does not necessarily pertain to biographical individuals, but rather enti-
ties endowed with the capacity to act in much broader terms. For future research, this
approach might lead to the analysis of new typologies of language ideologies based on a
broader range of entities understood to enact conceptions of language. For example, in
what ways are language ideologies built into the design of emergent technologies, from
voice recognition programs to digital orthographies? How do these technologies rec-
ognize language, and how do their users embrace or reject their language ideologies?
These questions point to the need for new conceptualizations and methodologies that
move beyond approaches in which language ideologies are exclusively understood as
ideas explicitly expressed by people.
This disruption of presumptions about agents of language ideologies is paral-
leled by an emergent reconsideration of the objects of language ideologies. In par-
ticular, Inoues (2006) theorization of the listening subject has called into question
approaches that treat language ideologies as construals of self-evident linguistic forms.
Rather than seeking to empirically document linguistic forms as produced by a given
language user and then tracking the ideologies through which these forms are inter-
preted, Inoue redirects analytical attention to the role of the listener in the produc-
tion of linguistic forms. Specifically, she shows how the male listening subject within a
particular political, economic, and historical moment played a crucial role in the pro-
duction of the category of Japanese womens language. By redirecting her analysis
to the listening subject, Inoue demonstrates how linguistic practice can become over-
determined, such that the forms that are perceived from one ideological perspective
might not be perceived at all from another ideological positionality. Reyes (2014) has
drawn on Inoues insights to interrogate the recently introduced and widely embraced
sociolinguistic category of superdiversity, which posits increasingly diverse modes
of linguistic practice associated with new migration patterns. However, Reyes suggests
that this speaker focus neglects a thorough conceptualization and interrogation of the


116 Jonathan Rosa and Christa Burdick

listening subject:how change may not in fact begin with speaking subjects (migrants)
but may be brought into being by listening subjects (those authorized to speak about
migrants) and whatever anxieties and desires motivate the circulation of representa-
tions of speakers (2014:368). By shifting attention from speaking subjects to listen-
ing subjects, it becomes possible to understand how some populations are stigmatized
and perceived as linguistically other or inferior regardless of the linguistic prac-
tices they produce. On the one hand this presents new ways of challenging stigmatiz-
ing language ideologies, while on the other it raises questions about the limitations
surrounding critical language awareness and the ability to shape the perception and
interpretation of ones linguistic practices. If ones practices can be perceived as defi-
cient regardless of the extent to which they might seem to mirror standardized norms
(Flores and Rosa, 2015), then how might the focus on learning to navigate differing
linguistic norms among advocates of critical language awareness obscure the nonlin-
guistic structures that shape perceptions of languageuse?
The relationship between linguistic structures and broader societal structures is a
central component of emergent language ideologies research focused on the organiz-
ing properties of scale. This research is largely inspired by Irvine and Gals theorization
of linguistic and social differentiation discussed earlier, as well as conceptualizations of
language and identity across spatial, temporal, and mediatized scales (Wortham and
Reyes, 2015). Building on her previous work concerning linguistic and social differen-
tiation, Gal (2012) has more recently proposed the notion of axes of differentiation
in order to grasp the systematic ways in which distinctions are mapped across socio-
linguistic scales. While Gal focuses on pride and profit as one such axis linking lan-
guage and political-economic structures, axes of differentiation can frame dimensions
of relationality across a range of social and linguistic scales (e.g., ideological binaries
associated with categories such as race, gender, sexuality, class, and geography). Work
on chronotopes (Silverstein, 2005), or space-time constructions, as well as mediatiza-
tion in a digital era (Agha, 2007), has also taken up the analysis of scale as a theme for
future research on language ideologies. Harkness (2014) shows how attention to scale
can be mobilized to understand chronotopic linkages between embodied practices
and conceptions of modernity. Specifically, he analyzes the semiotic processes through
which the voice becomes a site for anxieties and enactments of modernity in contempo-
rary South Korea. Meanwhile, Bonilla and Rosa (2015) argue that dimensions of space,
time, and bodily materiality are renegotiated through the communicative participation
in digital protests surrounding state-sanctioned violence enacted on racialized popula-
tions. Collectively, these projects gesture toward the ways that considerations of scale
can powerfully contribute to future research focused on relations between linguistic and
social structures across contexts.
These emergent analyses of agents, objects, and scales of language ideologies high-
light exciting future pathways for analysis. By widening the analytical purview from lan-
guage ideologies to semiotic ideologies, we are able to consider a much broader range of
entities associated with cultural conceptions of language. And by redirecting analytical
focus from speaking subjects to listening subjects, it becomes possible to denaturalize


Language Ideologies117

presumptions about the objective, empirical nature of linguistic signs. Lastly, by attend-
ing to relationships among language ideologies across scales, it becomes possible to
track the processes through which language ideologies shape social and linguistic struc-
tures. These conceptual and methodological innovations point to the ongoing robust-
ness of language ideologies research, and the potential for this research to generate new
scholarly insights about the nature of language and sociallife.

Conclusion

Ideology is a fraught concept that is frequently used in a pejorative way to ascribe bias
and a lack of analytical integrity. In this chapter we have sought to show how the cre-
ation of language ideologies as a central concern in studies of language and culture can
productively reject the notion that some perspectives are ideological while others
are scientifically objective. Language ideologies studies show us how views of language
and culture are situated within particular cultural contexts, and how within any given
moment these contexts are structured across intersubjective and institutional scales.
This critical conception of language ideologies not only merges linguistic and social
analysis in highly productive ways, but also speaks to applied concerns regarding the
potential for language to participate in processes of marginalization. Scholars coming
at language ideologies from diverse vantage points are poised to mobilize this concept
in the creation of both new theorizations of language and new interventions seeking to
disrupt stigmatizing linguistic commonsense. Widespread interest in language ideolo-
gies across intellectual divides highlights the potential for this concept to reinvigorate
long-standing discussions and spark new conversations linking the analysis of social
and linguistic structures.

References
Adams, M. (2009). Enregisterment:ASpecial Issue. American Speech 84(2):115117.
Agha, A. (2007). Language and Social Relations. NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Agha, A. (2007). Recombinant Selves in Mass Mediated Spacetime. Language &
Communication 27:320335.
Agha, A. (2011). Commodity Registers. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 21(1):2253.
Alim, H. S. (2010). Critical Language Awareness. In N. H. Hornberger and S. McKay (eds.),
Sociolinguistics and Language Education (pp. 205231). Bristol, UK:Multilingual Matters.
Alim, H. S., and G. Smitherman. (2012). Articulate While Black:Barack Obama, Language, and
Race in the U.S. Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.
Anderson, B. (1991 [1983]). Imagined Communities:Reflections on the Origins and Spread of
Nationalism. NewYork:Verso.
Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes to Language. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination:Four Essays. Austin:University of TexasPress.


118 Jonathan Rosa and Christa Burdick

Baquedano-Lpez, P. (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):212232.
Bauman, R., and C. L. Briggs. (2000). Language Philosophy as Language Ideology:John Locke
and Johann Gottfried Herder. In P. Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of Language (pp. 139204).
Santa Fe, NM:School of American Research.
Bauman, R., and C. L. Briggs. (2003). Voices of Modernity:Language Ideologies and the Politics
of Inequality. NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Blommaert, J., and J. Verschueren. (1998). The Role of Language in European Nationalist
Ideologies. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, and P. V. Kroskrity (eds.), Language
Ideologies:Practice and Theory (pp. 189210). NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Blommaert, J. (2009). Language, Asylum, and the National Order. Current Anthropology
50(4):415441.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge:Cambridge University
Press.
Boas, F. (1911). Introduction to the Handbook of American Indian Languages. Bulletin of the
Bureau of American Ethnology (pp. 183). Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office.
Bonfiglio, T. (2010). Mother Tongues and Nations: The Invention of the Native Speaker
NewYork:de Gruyter.
Bonilla, Y., and J. Rosa. (2015). #Ferguson: Digital Protest, Hashtag Ethnography, and the
Racial Politics of Social Media in the United States. American Ethnologist 42(1):417.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The Economics of Linguistic Exchanges. Social Science Information
16(6):645668.
Bourdieu, P., and J. B. Thompson. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power Cambridge, MA:
Harvard UniversityPress.
Bucholtz, M. (2001). The Whiteness of Nerds:Superstandard English and Racial Markedness.
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(1):84100.
Bucholtz, M. (2011). White Kids: Language, Race and Styles of Youth Identity.
Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble:Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. NewYork:Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (ed.). (2005). Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice. Mahwah,
NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carr, S. (2009). Anticipating and Inhabiting Institutional Identities. American Ethnologist
36(2):317336.
Carr, S. (2010). Enactments of Expertise. Annual Review of Anthropology 39:1732.
Carr, S. (2011). Scripting Addiction: The Politics of Therapeutic Talk and American Sobriety.
Princeton, NJ:Princeton UniversityPress.
Cavanaugh, J. R. (2005). Accent Matters: Material Consequences of Sounding Local in
Northern Italy. Language and Communication 25(2):127148.
Cavanaugh, J. R. (2007). Making Salami, Producing Bergamo:The Transformation of Value.
Ethnos:Journal of Anthropology 72(2):149172.
Cavanaugh, J. R., and S. Shankar. (2014). Producing Authenticity in Global
Capitalism:Language, Materiality, and Value. American Anthropologist 116(1):5164.
Chun, E. (2011). Reading Race beyond Black and White. Discourse and Society
22(4):403421.
Comaroff, J. L., and J. Comaroff. (2009). Ethnicity, Inc. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.


Language Ideologies119

Coupland, N. (2003). Sociolinguistic Authenticities. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(3):417431.

Das, S. N. (2008). Between Convergence and Divergence:Reformatting Language Purism in
the Montreal Tamil Diasporas. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 18(1):123.
Dvila, A. M. (2001). Latinos, Inc.:The Marketing and Making of a People. Berkeley:University
of CaliforniaPress.
Davis, C. P. (2012). Is Jaffna Tamil the Best? Producing Legitimate Language in a Multilingual
Sri Lankan School. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 22(2):6182.
Dick, H. P. (2011). Making Immigrants Illegal in Small Town USA. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 21(S1):E35E55.
Dick, H. P., and K. Wirtz. (2011). Racializing Discourses. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology
21(S1):E2E10.
Duchne, A. (2008). Ideologies across Nations:The Construction of Linguistic Minorities at the
United Nations. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Duchne, A. (2009). Marketing, Management and Performance: Multilingualism as
Commodity in a Tourism Call Centre. Language Policy 8(1):2750.
Duchne, A., and Heller, M. (2012). Language in Late Capitalism:Pride and Profit. NewYork:
Routledge.
Errington, J. (1998). Indonesian(s) Development: On the State of a Language of State. In
B. B. Schieffelin et al. (eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory (pp. 271284).
NewYork: Oxford.
Errington, J. (2000). Indonesian(s) Authority. In P. V. Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of Language
(pp. 205227). Santa Fe, NM:School of American ResearchPress.
Fader, A. (2009). Mitzvah Girls:Bringing Up the Next Generation of Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn.
Princeton, NJ:Princeton UniversityPress.
Flores, N., and O. Garca. (2013). Linguistic Third Spaces in Education: Teachers
Translanguaging across the Bilingual Continuum. In D. Little, C. Leung, and P. Van
Avermaet (eds.), Managing Diversity in Education: Languages, Policies, Pedagogies
(pp. 243256). Bristol, UK:Multilingual Matters.
Flores, N., and J. Rosa. (2015). Undoing Appropriateness: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and
Language Diversity in Education. Harvard Educational Review 85(2):149171.
Flores, N., T. Kleyn, and K. Menken. (2015). Looking Holistically in a Climate of
Partiality:Identities of Students Labeled Long-Term English Language Learners. Journal of
Language, Identity, and Education 14(2):113132.
Gal, S. (1979). Language Shift:Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria.
NewYork:AcademicPress.
Gal, S. (1987). Codeswitching and Consciousness in the European Periphery. American
Ethnologist 14(4):637653.
Gal, S. (1989). Language and Political Economy. Annual Review of Anthropology 18:345367.
Gal, S. (1995a). Language and the Arts of Resistance. Cultural Anthropology 10(3):407424.
Gal, S. (1995b). Language, Gender, and Power: An Anthropological Overview. In K. Hall
and M. Bucholtz (eds.), Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self
(pp. 169182). NewYork:Routledge.
Gal, S. (2006). Contradictions of Standard Language in Europe:Implications for the Study of
Practices and Publics. Social Anthropology 13(2):163181.
Gal, S. (2012). Sociolinguistic Regimes and the Management of Diversity. In M. Heller and
A. Duchne (eds.), Language in Late Capitalism:Pride and Profit (pp. 2237). NewYork:
Routledge.


120 Jonathan Rosa and Christa Burdick

Gal, S., and J. T. Irvine. (1995). The Boundaries of Languages and Disciplines:How Ideologies
Construct Difference. Social Research 62(4):9671001.
Garca, O., and R. Torres-Guevara. (2010). Monoglossic Ideologies and Language Policies in
the Education of U.S. Latinas/os. In E. G. Murillo, Jr., S. A. Villenas, R. T. Galvn, J. S. Muoz,
C. Martnez, and M. Machado-Casas (eds.), Handbook of Latinos and Education:Theory,
Research, and Practices (pp. 182194). NewYork:Routledge.
Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to Language. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Garret, P., N. Coupland, and A. Williams. (2003). Investigating Language Attitudes: Social
Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity, and Performance. Cardiff:University of WalesPress.
Gellner, E. (1983). On Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY:Cornell UniversityPress.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. NewYork:Doubleday.
Gonzlez, N. (2005). Children in the Eye of the Storm: Language Ideologies in a Dual
Language School. In A. C. Zentella (ed.), Building on Strength:Language and Literacy in
Latino Families and Communities (pp. 162174). NewYork:Teachers CollegePress.
Harkness, N. (2014). Songs of Seoul:An Ethnography of Voice and Voicing in Christian South
Korea. Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress.
Haviland, J. B. (2003). Ideologies of Language:Some Reflections on Language and U.S. Law.
American Anthropologist 105(4):764774.
Heller, M. (1999). Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography.
London:Longman.
Heller, M. (2003). Globalization, the New Economy, and the Commodification of Language
and Identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4):473492.
Heller, M. (2010). The Commodification of Language. Annual Review of Anthropology 39:101.
Heller, M. (2011). Paths to Post-Nationalism:ACritical Ethnography of Language and Identity.
NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Hill, J. H. (1998). Language, Race, and White Public Space. American Anthropologist
100(3):680689.
Hill, J. H. (2002). Expert Rhetorics in Advocacy for Endangered Languages: Who Is
Listening, and What do they Hear? Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12(2):119133.
Hill, J. H. (2008). The Everyday Language of White Racism. Malden, MA:Wiley-Blackwell.
Hoffman, K. E. (2008). We Share Walls: Language, Land, and Gender in Berber Morocco.
Malden, MA:Wiley-Blackwell.
Inoue, M. (2006). Vicarious Language: Gender and Linguistic Modernity in Japan.
Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress.
Irvine, J. T. (1989). When Talk Isnt Cheap: Language and Political Economy. American
Ethnologist 16:248267.
Irvine, J. T., and S. Gal. (2000). Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation. In P. V.
Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of Language (pp. 3583). Santa Fe, NM: School of American
ResearchPress.
Jaffe, Alexandra. (1999a). Packaged Sentiments: The Social Meanings of Greeting Cards.
Journal of Material Culture 4(2):115141.
Jaffe, A. (1999b). Ideologies in Action: Language Politics on Corsica. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Keane, Webb. (2003). Semiotics and the Social Analysis of Material Things. Language &
Communication 23(34):405425.
Keane, W. (2007). Christian Moderns: Freedom and Fetish in the Mission Encounter.
Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress.


Language Ideologies121

Kockelman, P. (2013). Agent, Person, Subject, Self: A Theory of Ontology, Interaction, and
Infrastructure. NewYork:Oxford.
Kroskrity, P. V. (ed.). (2000). Regimes of Language:Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe,
NM:School of American ResearchPress.
Kroskrity, P. V. (2001). Identity. In A. Duranti (ed.), Key Terms in Language and Culture
(pp. 106109). Oxford:Blackwell.
Kroskrity, P. V. (2004). Language Ideologies. In A. Duranti (ed.), Companion to Linguistic
Anthropology (pp. 496517). Malden, MA:Blackwell.
Labov, W. (1964). The Reflection of Social Processes in Linguistic Structures. In J. Fishman
(ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Language (pp. 240251). The Hague:Mouton.
Labov, W. (1973). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia:University of PennsylvaniaPress.
Labov, W. (1979). Locating the Frontier between Social and Psychological Factors in Linguistic
Variation. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, and W. Wang (eds.), Individual Differences in
Language Ability and Language Behavior (pp. 327329). NewYork:AcademicPress.
Labov, W. (1984). Field Methods of the Project on Linguistic Change and Variation. In
J. Baugh and J. Sherzer (eds.), Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics (pp. 2852).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:PrenticeHall.
Lee, B., and E. LiPuma. (2002). Cultures of Circulation: The Imaginations of Modernity.
Public Culture 14(1):191213.
Leeman, J. (2004). Racializing Language: A History of Linguistic Ideologies in the U.S.
Census. Journal of Language and Politics 3(3):507534.
Lempert, M., and M. Silverstein. (2012). Creatures of Politics:Media, Message, and the American
Presidency. Bloomington:Indiana UniversityPress.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an Accent:Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the
United States. London:Routledge.
Lo, A., and A. Reyes. (2009). Introduction:On Yellow English and Other Perilous Terms. In
A. Reyes and A. Lo (eds.), Beyond Yellow English:Toward a Linguistic Anthropology of Asian
Pacific America (pp. 317). NewYork:Oxford.
Makihara, M. (2007). Linguistic Purism in Rapa Nui Political Discourse. In M. Makihara
and B. Schieffelin (eds.), Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural
Transformations in Pacific Societies (pp. 4669). NewYork:Oxford.
Makoni, S., and A. Pennycook. (2007). Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Clevedon,
UK:Multilingual Matters.
McEwan-Fujita, E. (2005). Neoliberalism and Minority-Language Planning in the Highlands
and Islands of Scotland. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 171:155171.
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.
Language in Society 39:2764.
Meek, B. A. (2006). And the Injun Goes How!:Representations of American Indian English
in White Public Space. Language in Society 35:93128.
Meek, B. A. (2010). We Are Our Language:An Ethnography of Language Revitalization in a
Northern Athabascan Community. Tucson:University of ArizonaPress.
Mertz, E. (1998). Linguistic Ideology and Praxis in U.S. Law School Classrooms. In
B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, and P. V. Kroskrity (eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice
and Theory (pp. 149162). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Milroy, J. (2001). Language Ideologies and the Consequences of Standardization. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 5(4):530555.


122 Jonathan Rosa and Christa Burdick

Park, J. S. (2009). The Local Construction of a Global Language:Ideologies of English in South

Korea. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Perley, B. (2012). Zombie Linguistics: Experts, Endangered Languages, and the Curse of
Undead Voices. Anthropological Forum:AJournal of Social Anthropology and Comparative
Sociology 22(2):133149.
Philips, S. U. (1998). Ideology in the Language of Judges:How Judges Practice Law, Politics, and
Courtroom Control. NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Philips, S. U. (2000). Constructing a Tongan Nation-state through Language Ideology
in the Courtroom. In P. V. Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of Language (pp. 229257). Santa Fe,
NM:School of American ResearchPress.
Queen, R. (2005). How Many Lesbians does it Take :Jokes, Teasing, and the Negotiation
of Stereotypes about Lesbians. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15:239257.
Reyes, A. (2014). Linguistic Anthropology in 2013:Super-New-Big. American Anthropologist
116(2):366378.
Roth-Gordon J. (2011). Discipline and Disorder in the Whiteness of Mock Spanish. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology 21(2):211229.
Rosa, J. (2014). Learning Ethnolinguistic Boders:Language and Diaspora in the Socialization
of U.S. Latinas/os. In R. Roln-Dow and J. G. Irizarry (eds.), Diaspora Studies in Education:
Toward a Framework for Understanding the Experiences of Transnational Communities
(pp. 3960). NewYork:Peter Lang Publishing.
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in Language Planning. NABE Journal 8(2):1534.
Schieffelin, B. B., K. A. Woolard, and P. V. Kroskrity (eds.). (1998). Language Ideologies:Practice
and Theory. NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Shandler, J. (2006). Adventures in Yiddishland: Postvernacular Language and Culture.
Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress.
Shankar, S. (2006). Metaconsumptive Practices and the Circulation of Objectifications.
Journal of Material Culture 11(3):293317.
Shankar, S. (2008). Speaking like a Model Minority:FOB Styles, Gender, and Racial Meanings
among Desi Teens in Silicon Valley. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 18:268289.
Shankar, S. (2012). Creating Model Consumers:Producing Ethnicity, Race, and Class in Asian
American Advertising. American Ethnologist 39(3):578591.
Shankar, Shalini. (2015). Advertising Diversity:Ad Agencies and the Creation of Asian American
Consumers. Durham, NC:Duke UniversityPress.
Shankar, S., and J. R. Cavanaugh. (2012). Language and Materiality in Global Capitalism.
Annual Review of Anthropology 41:355369.
Silva, Emanuel, and Monica Heller. (2009). From Protector to Producer:The Role of the State
in the Discursive Shift from Minority Rights to Economic Development. Language Policy
8(2):95116.
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In P. Clyne, W. Hanks,
and C. Hofbauer (eds.), The Elements (pp. 193248). Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.
Silverstein, M. (1985a). Language and the Culture of Gender. In E. Mertz and R. Parmentier
(eds.), Semiotic Mediation (pp. 219259). NewYork:AcademicPress.
Silverstein, M. (1985b). On the Pragmatic Poetry of Prose. In D. Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning,
Form and Use in Context (pp. 181199). Washington, DC:Georgetown UniversityPress.
Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot Standard in America. In D. Brenneis and R. Macaulay
(eds.), The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 284306).
Boulder, CO:WestviewPress.


Language Ideologies123

Silverstein, M. (1998). The Uses and Utility of Ideology:ACommentary. In B. B. Schieffelin,

K. A. Woolard, and P. V. Kroskrity (eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory
(pp. 2345). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Silverstein, M. (2003). Talking Politics:The Substance of Style from Abe to W. Chicago:Prickly
ParadigmPress.
Silverstein, M. (2005). Axes of Evals:Token vs. Type Interdiscursivity. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 15(1):622.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2006). Language Policy and Linguistic Human Rights. In T. Ricento
(ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method (pp. 273291). Malden,
MA:Blackwell.
Urciuoli, B. (1995). Language and Borders. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:525546.
Urciuoli, B. (2009). Talking/Not Talking about Race: The Enregisterments of Culture in
Higher Education Discourses. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 19(1):2139.
Urciuoli, B. (2011). Review Essay:Semiotic Properties of Racializing Discourses. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology 21(S1):E113E122.
Urla, J. (2012a). Reclaiming Basque Language, Nation, and Cultural Activism. Reno:University
of NevadaPress.
Urla, J. (2012b). Total Quality Language Revival. In A. Duchne and M. Heller (eds.),
Language in Late Capitalism:Pride and Profit (pp. 7392). NewYork:Routledge.
Woolard, K. A. (1985). Language Variation and Cultural Hegemony:Toward an Integration of
Sociolinguistic and Social Theory. American Ethnologist 2:738748.
Woolard, K. A. (1989). Double Talk: Bilingualism and the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia.
Stanford, CA:Stanford UniversityPress.
Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language Ideology as a Field of Inquiry. In
B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, and P. V. Kroskrity (eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice
and Theory (pp. 347). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Woolard, K. A., and B. B. Schieffelin. (1994). Language Ideology. Annual Review of
Anthropology 23:5582.
Wortham, S. (2008). Linguistic Anthropology of Education. Annual Review of Anthropology
37:3751.
Wortham, S., and A. Reyes. (2015). Discourse Analysis beyond the Speech Event. New York:
Routledge.
Ydice, George. (2003). The Expediency of Culture:Uses of Culture in the Global Era (Durham,
NC:Duke University Press).
Zentella, A. C. (2007). Dime con quin hablas, y te dire quin eres:Linguistic (In)Security
and Latina/o Identity. In J. Flores and R. Rosaldo (eds.), A Companion to Latina/o Studies
(pp. 2538). Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishing.