214

Language Ideology

Author(s): Kathryn A. Woolard and Bambi B. Schieffelin

Source: Annual Review of Anthropology , 1994, Vol. 23 (1994), pp. 55-82

Published by: Annual Reviews

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2156006

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Annw Rev. Anthropol. 1994. 23:55-82 Copyright C 1994 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY

Kathryn A. Woolard

Department of Sociology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093

Bambi B. Schieffelin

Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York, New York 10003

KEY WORDS: language politics, literacy, language and colonialism, language contact, linguis-

tics

INTRODUCTION

The terms ideology and language have appeared together frequently in recent

anthropology, sociolinguistics, and cultural studies, sometimes joined by and,

sometimes by in, sometimes by a comma in a trinity of nouns. We have had

analyses, some of them very influential, of cultural and political ideologies as

constituted, encoded, or enacted in language (100, 239, 298). This review is

differently, and (on the surface) more narrowly, conceived: our topic is ideolo-

gies of language, an area of scholarly inquiry just beginning to coalesce (185).

There is as much cultural variation in ideas about speech as there is in speech

forms themselves (158). Notions of how communication works as a social

process, and to what purpose, are culturally variable and need to be discovered

rather than simply assumed (22:16). We review here selected research on

cultural conceptions of language-its nature, structure, and use-and on con- ceptions of communicative behavior as an enactment of a collective order

(277:1-2). Although there are varying concerns behind the studies reviewed,

we emphasize language ideology as a mediating link between social structures and forms of talk.

Ideologies of language are significant for social as well as linguistic analy-

sis because they are not only about language. Rather, such ideologies envision

0084-6570/94/1015-0055$05.00 55

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

56 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

and enact links of language to group and personal identity, to aesthetics, to

morality, and to epistemology (41, 104, 186). Through such linkages, they

often underpin fundamental social institutions. Inequality among groups of

speakers, and colonial encounters par excellence, throw language ideology into high relief. As R. Williams observed, "a definition of language is always,

implicitly or explicitly, a definition of human beings in the world" (320:21).

Not only linguistic forms but social institutions such as the nation-state,

schooling, gender, dispute settlement, and law hinge on the ideologization of

language use. Research on gender and legal institutions has contributed impor-

tant and particularly pointed studies of language ideology, but they are re-

viewed elsewhere (see 81, 213).

Heath (135) observed that social scientists have resisted examining lan-

guage ideology because it represents an indeterminate area of investigation with no apparent bounds, and as reviewers we note this with wry appreciation

even as we find that the resistance has worn down. Although there have been

recent efforts to delimit language ideology (138a, 327), there is no single core

literature. Moreover, linguistic ideology, language ideology, and ideologies of language are all terms currently in play. Although different emphases are

sometimes signaled by the different terms, with the first focusing more on

formal linguistic structures1 and the last on representations of a collective order, the fit of terms to distinctive perspectives is not perfect, and we use them interchangeably here.

At least three scholarly discussions, by no means restricted to anthropol-

ogy, explicitly invoke language or linguistic ideology, often in seeming mutual unawareness. One such group of studies concerns contact between languages

or language varieties (118, 133, 135, 152, 219, 249, 285). The recently bur-

geoning historiography of linguistics and public discourses on language has produced a second explicit focus on language ideologies, including scientific ideologies (173, 256, 268). Finally, there is a significant, theoretically coherent

body of work on linguistic ideology concentrating on its relation to linguistic structures (214, 237, 258, 275). Beyond research that explicitly invokes the term ideology are numerous studies that address cultural conceptions of lan- guage, in the guise of metalinguistics, attitudes, prestige, standards, aesthetics, hegemony, etc. There is an emerging consensus that what people think, or take

for granted, about language and communication is a topic that rewards investi- gation, and the area of study is in need of some coordination.

We note a particularly acute irony in our task of delimiting this emerging field. One point of the comparative study of language ideology is to show the

cultural and historical specificity of visions of language, yet as reviewers we

See Silverstein (279:312, footnote) for an account of why this should be.

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 57

must decide what counts as language. We run the risk of excluding work in

which language does not seem focal precisely because the group studied does

not compartmentalize and reify social practices of communicating, does not

turn Humboldt's energeia (activity) of language into ergon (product) as does

the European-American tradition (41, 155, 198, 203, 258). Our purpose is not

to distinguish ideology of language from ideology in other domains of human

activity. Rather, the point is to focus the attention of anthropological scholars

of language on the ideological dimension, and to sharpen the understanding of

linguistic issues among students of ideology, discourse, and social domination.

WHAT IS LINGUISTIC IDEOLOGY?

Linguistic/language ideologies have been defined as "sets of beliefs about

language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived

language structure and use" (275:193); with a greater social emphasis as

"self-evident ideas and objectives a group holds concerning roles of language

in the social experiences of members as they contribute to the expression of

the group" (135:53) and "the cultural system of ideas about social and linguis-

tic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests"

(162:255); and most broadly as "shared bodies of commonsense notions about

the nature of language in the world" (258:346). Some of the differences among

these definitions come from debates about the concept of ideology itself.

Those debates have been well reviewed elsewhere (9, 31, 78, 100, 298, 327),

but it is worthwhile to mention some of the key dimensions of difference.

The basic division in studies of ideology is between neutral and critical

values of the term. The former usually encompasses all cultural systems of

representation; the latter is reserved for only some aspects of representation

and social cognition, with particular social origins or functional or formal

characteristics. Rumsey's definition of linguistic ideology is neutral (258). For

Silverstein, rationalization marks linguistic ideology within the more general

category of metalinguistics, pointing toward the secondary derivation of ide-

ologies, their social-cognitive function, and thus the possibility of distortion

(275). Ideological distortion in this view comes from inherent limitations on

awareness of semiotic process and from the fact that speech is formulated by

its users as purposive activity in the sphere of interested human social action.

In critical studies of ideology, distortion is viewed as mystification and is

further traced to the legitimation of social domination. This critical stance

often characterizes studies of language politics and of language and social

class.

A second division is the siting of ideology. Some researchers may read

linguistic ideology from linguistic usage, but others insist that the two must be

carefully differentiated (164). While metalinguistic discourse, as Silverstein

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

58 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

suggested, is a sufficient condition for identifying ideology, Rumsey's "com-

monsense notions" (258) and Heath's "self-evident ideas" (135) may well be

unstated assumptions of cultural orthodoxy, difficult to elicit directly. Al-

though ideology in general is often taken as explicitly discursive, influential

theorists have seen it as behavioral, pre-reflective, or structural, that is, an

organization of signifying practices not in consciousness but in lived relations

(see 78 for a review). An alertness to the different sites of ideology may

resolve some apparent controversies over its relevance to the explanation of

social or linguistic phenomena.

The work we review here includes the full range of scholars' notions of

ideology: from seemingly neutral cultural conceptions of language to strate-

gies for maintaining social power, from unconscious ideology read from

speech practices by analysts to the most conscious native-speaker explanations

of appropriate language behavior. What most researchers share, and what

makes the term useful in spite of its problems, is a view of ideology as rooted

in or responsive to the experience of a particular social position, a facet

indicated by Heath's (135) and Irvine's (162) definitions. This recognition of

the social derivation of representations does not simply invalidate them if we

recognize that there is no privileged knowledge, including the scientific, that

escapes grounding in social life (205). Nonetheless, the term ideology reminds

us that the cultural conceptions we study are partial, contestable and contested,

and interest-laden (151:382). A naturalizing move that drains the conceptual of

its historical content, making it seem universally and/or timelessly true, is

often seen as key to ideological process. The emphasis of ideological analysis

on the social and experiential origins of systems of signification counters this

naturalization of the cultural, in which anthropology ironically has participated

(9). Some of the work reviewed here may seem to be simply what anthropol-

ogy "has always been talking about anyway" as culture now in the guise of ideology (31:26), but the reconceptualization implies a methodological stance

(279). The term ideology reminds analysts that cultural frames have social

histories and it signals a commitment to address the relevance of power rela-

tions to the nature of cultural forms and ask how essential meanings about

language are socially produced as effective and powerful (9, 78, 241).

APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY

Language ideology has been received principally as an epiphenomenon, an

overlay of secondary and tertiary responses (34, 36), possibly intriguing but relatively inconsequential for the fundamental questions of both anthropology

and linguistics. But several methodological traditions and topical foci have

encouraged attention to cultural conceptions of language. We review work in

several areas: ethnography of speaking; politics of multilingualism; literacy

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 59

studies; historiography of linguistics and public discourse on language; and

metapragmatics and linguistic structure. There are many connections among

these, but the work tends to form different conversations, varying in the social

and linguistic themes they foreground. Our bibliography is a representative

sampling of the research done in these areas. To illustrate some of the social

variation in conceptions of language, and in the institutions and interests to

which they are tied, we reach back to earlier studies that were not conceived in

the frame of ideological analysis, but which we believe can be rethought

profitably in relation to the concerns outlined above.

ETHNOGRAPHY OF SPEAKING

The ethnography of speaking has long given attention to ideology as neutral,

cultural conceptions of language, primarily through description of vernacular

speech taxonomies and metalinguistics (24, 121, 242). The ethnography of

speaking was chartered to study ways of speaking from the point of view of

events, acts, and styles, but Hymes (158) suggested that an alternative focus on

beliefs, values and attitudes, or on contexts and institutions would make a

different contribution. This alternative enterprise has been taken up more

recently. Language ideology has been made increasingly explicit as a force

shaping the understanding of verbal practices (21, 46, 91, 138b, 210, 272,

303). Genres are now viewed not as sets of discourse features, but rather as

"orienting frameworks, interpretive procedures, and sets of expectations"

(128:670; see also 23, 42, 43). Local conceptions of talk as self-reflexive

action have been explored for a variety of genres such as oratory (210),

disputes (38, 116, 186, 188, 196), conflict management (253, 315), and also as the foundation of aesthetics in such areas as music (90).

Ethnographers of speaking have studied the grounding of language beliefs

in other cultural and social forms. For example, language socialization studies

have demonstrated connections among folk theories of language acquisition,

linguistic practices, and key cultural ideas about personhood (49, 63, 138, 187,

217, 231-234, 262,267,284).

The eventual critical response of the ethnography of speaking (158) to

speech act theory (13, 270) stimulated thought about linguistic ideology. Speech act theory is grounded in an English linguistic ideology, a privatized

view of language emphasizing the psychological state of the speaker while

downplaying the social consequences of speech (308:22; cf 244, 255, 275).

This recognition triggered taxonomic studies of conceptualizations of speech

acts in specific linguistic communities (308, 318), research on metapragmatic

universals (309, 310), and numerous ethnographic challenges to the key as- sumptions of speech act theory (74, 150, 178, 221). Ethnographers of Pacific

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

60 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

societies identified the centrality of intention to speech act theory as rooted in

Western conceptions of the self, and argued that its application to other socie-

ties obscures local methods of producing meaning (75, 76, 230, 292a).

As is true of cultural anthropology in general, ethnographers of speaking

have increasingly incorporated considerations of power in their analyses, again

leading to a more explicit focus on linguistic ideology. Bauman's (22) histori-

cal ethnography of language and silence in Quaker ideology was an important

development, because it addressed a more formal, conscious, and politically

strategic form of ideology. Silence has been recognized as carrying a paradoxi-

cal potential for power that depends greatly on its varying ideologization

within and across communities (103). Advocating a view of linguistic ideol-

ogy as interactional resource rather than shared cultural background, Briggs

finds social power achieved through the strategic use not just of particular

discursive genres, but of talk about such genres and their appropriate use (41).

Speakers in multilingual communities have marshaled purist language ideolo-

gies to similar interactional ends (146; see discussion of purism below.) Eth-

nographers have also seen the role of language ideology in creating power in

other guises and moments: the display of gender and/or affect (26, 28, 143,

163, 175, 188, 232), the strategic deployment of honorifics (3), the regulation

of marriage choices (167), and the display of powerful new social affiliations

and identities introduced through missionization (187, 254, 314).

LANGUAGE CONTACT, COMPETITION, AND POLITICS

Research on self-conscious struggles over language in class-stratified and

especially multilingual communities has treated language ideologies as so-

cially, politically, and/or linguistically significant, even when the researcher's

primary interest may be in debunking such ideologies (64, 84, 277).

The identification of a language with a people has been given the most

attention (95, 160, 302). It is a truism that the equation of language and nation

is a historical, ideological construct (61, 69, 118, 127, 201), conventionally

dated to Herder and eighteenth century German romanticism, although the

famous characterization of language as the genius of a people can be traced to the French Enlightenment and specifically Condillac (1, 179, 235). Exported

through colonialism to become a dominant model around the world today, the

nationalist ideology of language structures state politics, challenges multilin-

gual states, and underpins ethnic struggles to such an extent that the absence of

a distinct language can cast doubt on the legitimacy of claims to nationhood

(33:359; 4, 32, 51, 61, 87, 95, 115, 140, 171, 176, 202, 238, 243, 299, 305,

307, 317, 319,323,325).

Ironically, movements to save minority languages are often structured

around the same notions of language that have led to their oppression and/or

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 61

suppression (5, 6, 32, 80, 169, 206, 305), although traditional or emergent

views that resist this hegemonic construction have been documented (10, 57,

105, 306). The equation of one language/one people, the Western insistence on

the authenticity and moral significance of the mother tongue, and associated

assumptions about the importance of purist language loyalty for the mainte-

nance of minority languages have all been criticized as ideological red her-

rings, particularly in settings where multilingualism is more typical and where

a fluid or complex linguistic repertoire is valued (10, 176, 194, 206, 238, 273,

282). Modern linguistic theory itself has been seen as framed and constrained

by the one language/one people assumption (194).

Although the validity of the nationalist ideology of language has often been

debated or debunked, less attention traditionally has been given to under-

standing how the view of language as symbolic of self and community has

taken hold in so many different settings. Where linguistic variation appears to

be simply a diagram of social differentiation, the analyst needs to identify the

ideological production of that diagram (162). Recent studies of language poli-

tics have begun to examine specifically the content and signifying structure of

nationalist language ideologies (127, 277, 285, 326).

Peirce's semiotic categories have been used to analyze the processes by

which chunks of linguistic material gain significance as representations of

particular populations (104). Researchers have distinguished language as an

index of group identity from language as a metalinguistically created symbol

of identity, more explicitly ideologized in discourse (105, 168, 302). Irvine

(162) finds that Wolof villagers construe linguistic differentiation as iconically

related to social differentiation, distinguishing inter- and intra-lingual variation

and devising a migration history for a particular caste to match their linguistic

difference. Here we see how linguistic ideology can affect the interpretation of

social relations.

Mannheim (204) also notes different cultural ideologies of different kinds

of linguistic variation in southern Peru. Endogenous variation in Quechua,

which is seen simply as natural human speech, is not socially evaluated by

speakers. But in Spanish, which is regarded as pure artifice, phonological

markers and stereotypes are common and lead to hypercorrection among sec-

ond-language speakers. In this case, linguistic ideology drives linguistic

change along different paths.

Language varieties that are regularly associated with (and thus index) par-

ticular speakers are often revalorized-or misrecognized (37) not just as

symbols of group identity, but as emblems of political allegiance or of social,

intellectual, or moral worth (37, 72, 79, 101, 102, 120, 149, 195, 207, 277,

325). Although the extensive body of research on linguistic prestige and lan-

guage attitudes grew up in a social psychological framework (109), the in-

trapersonal attitude can be recast as a socially-derived intellectualized or be-

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

62 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

havioral ideology (Bourdieu's habitus) (37, 107, 119, 144, 149, 153, 200, 251,

311, 324, 325, 328). Such meanings affect patterns of language acquisition,

style-switching, shift, change, and policy (120, 251). Moreover, symbolic

revalorization often makes discrimination on linguistic grounds publicly ac-

ceptable, whereas the corresponding ethnic or racial discrimination is not (156,

193, 197, 219, 326). However, simply asserting that struggles over language

are really about racism does not constitute analysis. Such a tearing aside of the

curtain of mystification in a "Wizard of Oz theory of ideology" (9) begs the

question of how and why language comes to stand for social groups in a

manner that is socially both comprehensible and acceptable. The current pro- gram of research is to address both the semiotic and the social process.

Communities not only evaluate but may appropriate some part of the lin-

guistic resources of groups with whom they are in contact and in tension,

refiguring and incorporating linguistic structures in ways that reveal linguistic

and social ideologies (146). Linguistic borrowing might appear superficially to indicate speakers' high regard for the donor language. But Hill (148) argues

that socially-grounded linguistic analysis of Anglo-American borrowings and

humorous misrenderings of Spanish reveals them as racist distancing strate-

gies that reduce complex Latino experience to a subordinated, commodity

identity. The commodification of ethnolinguistic stereotypes, ostensibly posi-

tive, is also seen in the use of foreign languages in Japanese television adver-

tising (124). The appropriation of creole speech, music, and dress by white

adolescents in South London, who see only matters of style (again, commodi-

fied), is in tension with black adolescent views of these codes as part of their

distinctive identity (143). Basso (20) classically describes a Western Apache

metalinguistic joking genre that uses English to parody "Whiteman" conversa-

tional pragmatics, in a representation of and comment on ethnolinguistic dif-

ferences and their role in unequal relations. In the Javanese view, learning to

translate (into high Javanese from low) is the essence of becoming a true adult

and a real language speaker, and Siegel (273) argues that Javanese metaphori-

cally incorporates foreign languages into itself by treating other languages as if

they were low Javanese. Whether a code is a language or not depends on

whether its speakers act like speakers of Javanese. Encounters with the lan-

guages of others may trigger recognition of the opacity of language and

concern for delineating and characterizing a distinctive community language (259).

Linguistic ideology is not a predictable, automatic reflex of the social

experience of multilingualism in which it is rooted; it makes its own contribu-

tion as an interpretive filter in the relationship of language and society (211). The failure to transmit vernaculars intergenerationally may be rationalized in

various ways, depending on how speakers conceptualize the links of language,

cognition, and social life. For example, Nova Scotian parents actively discour-

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 63

age children from acquiring a subordinated vernacular, because they believe it

will somehow mark their English (211); Gapun parents blame their children's

dissatisfaction and aggression as the roots of the loss of the vernacular (187);

and Haitian parents in New York City believe their children will speak Kreyol

regardless of the input language (263; cf 329).

Beliefs about what is or is not a real language, and underlying these beliefs,

the notion that there are distinctly identifiable languages that can be isolated,

named, and counted, enter into strategies of social domination. Such beliefs,

and related schemata for ranking languages as more or less evolved, have

contributed to profound decisions about, for example, the civility or even the

humanity of subjects of colonial domination (93, 166, 204, 216, 236). They

also qualify or disqualify speech varieties from certain institutional uses and

their speakers from access to domains of privilege (37, 57, 68, 120, 191, 288).

Language mixing, codeswitching, and creoles are often evaluated as indicating

less than full linguistic capabilities, revealing assumptions about the nature of

language implicitly based in literate standards and a pervasive tenet that

equates change with decay (25, 120, 127, 174, 224, 251, 265). Written form,

lexical elaboration, rules for word formation, and historical derivation are

often seized on in diagnosing real language and ranking the candidates (111,

165, 235, 287). Grammatical variability and the question of whether a variety

has a grammar play an important part (80). The extension of the notion of

grammar from the explicitly artifactual product of scholarly intervention to an

abstract underlying system has done nothing to mute the polemics (222).

Language Policy

Macrosocial research on language planning and policy has traced distinctive

ideological assumptions about the role of language in civic and human life (2,

18, 19, 33, 228, 285, 322, 326) and distinctive stances toward the state regula-

tion of language, for example, between England and France (65, 118, 136, 139,

201). Cobarrubias has sketched a taxonomy of language ideologies underlying

planning efforts: assimilation, pluralism, vernacularization, and internationali-

zation (4, 51). At an even more fundamental level, Ruiz (257) distinguishes

three fundamental orientations to language as resource, problem, or right (see

also 152), and commentators on bilingual and immigrant education have noted

such orientations conflated within these programs (117, 135). The model of

development is pervasive in post-colonial language planning, with paradoxical

ideological implications that condemn languages, like societies, to perennial

status as underdeveloped (32, 87, 110).

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 101 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

64 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

DOCTRINES OF CORRECTNESS, STANDARDIZATION, AND PURISM

Since Dante's time, the selection and elaboration of a linguistic standard has

stood for a complex of issues about language, politics, and power (289). The

existence of a language is always a discursive project rather than an estab-

lished fact (259). Standard languages and/or their formation had been studied

earlier by philologists, Prague School functional linguists, and applied lin-

guists (52, 96, 134), but the emphasis on the ideological dimension has given

rise to new analyses of language standardization (172), with the concept of a

standard treated more as ideological process than as empirical linguistic fact

(16, 65, 112, 194, 219).

Notions of better and worse speech have been claimed to exist in every

linguistic community (35), but this claim has been disputed (132). There is

more agreement that codified, superposed standard languages are tied not only

to writing and its associated hegemonic institutions, but to specifically Euro-

pean forms of these institutions (35, 131, 132, 172, 219, 277, 286). In the

vernacular belief system of Western culture, language standards are not recog-

nized as human artifacts, but are naturalized by metaphors such as that of the

free market (172, 277). Ideological analysis addresses questions such as how

doctrines of linguistic correctness and incorrectness are rationalized or how

they are related to doctrines of the inherent representational power, beauty, and

expressiveness of language as a valued mode of action (276:223; 18). Moral

indignation over nonstandard forms derives from ideological associations of

the standard with the qualities valued within the culture, such as clarity or

truthfulness (70, 118, 145, 172, 276:241; 293).

Purist doctrines of linguistic correctness close off non-native sources of

innovation, but usually selectively, targeting only languages construed as

threats (316; cf 142, 297). The linguistic effects of purism are not predictable,

and similarly, its social meaning and strategic use are not transparent (99,

171). An apparently purist linguistic conservatism among the Tewa may de-

rive not from resistance to contact phenomena at all, but from the strength of

theocratic institutions and of ritual linguistic forms as models for other do-

mains of interaction (182, 183, 184). In contrast, an ideology of the sanctity of language in an ultraorthodox Jewish community leads to the restriction of the

Hebrew language to sacred contexts (113). Mexicano vernacular purist ideolo-

gies are deployed paradoxically to enhance the authority of those who are least

immersed in the vernacular and most enmeshed with the larger economy (146,

149). Some Spanish loanwords sound more authentic to non-elite members of

the Gallego speech community in Spain, who dissociate themselves from the

linguistically pure forms that smack of institutional minority politics (5, 6).

Such complex relations among social position, linguistic practice, and purist

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 65

ideologies illustrate the importance of problematizing ideology rather than

assuming that it can be read from one of the other two elements.

Orthography

In countries where identity and nationhood are under negotiation, every aspect

of language, including its phonological description and forms of graphic repre-

sentation can be contested (226, 265). Even where nationhood is as classically

well-established as it is in France, orthographic battles flare. Thus, ortho-

graphic systems cannot be conceptualized simply as reducing speech to writ-

ing, but rather they are symbols that carry historical, cultural, and political

meanings (62, 96, 154, 169, 300). In some creoles, for example, supporters of etymological orthographies appeal to an historical connection to the prestige

of the colonizing language. Those favoring a phonemic approach argue that a

more objective mode of representing the sounds allows wider access to liter- acy and helps establish the language as respectable in its own right (44, 141,

199, 265,321).

LITERACY

Ideologies of literacy have complex relations to ideologies of speech and can

play distinctive, crucial roles in social institutions. Even the conceptualization

of the printed word can differ importantly from that of the written (7, 313). Derrida's (71) deconstruction of a Western view of speech as natural, authen-

tic, and prior to the mere lifeless inscriptions of alien, arbitrary writing, has

brought considerable attention to ideas about the spoken and written word. Eighteenth century Japanese elite notions of language also included a phono-

centric ideology stressing the primacy, immediacy, and transparency of speech

over writing (259). Javanese do not share the view of the original voice as the

authentic (273). Not all commentators on Western ideology find the oral bias Derrida describes. Harris (131) argues that a scriptism founded in European

literate experience is smuggled into the apparent oral bias of contemporary

linguistic concepts, from the sentence through the word to the phoneme.

Mignolo (216) asserts that the supremacy of the oral in Plato's Phaedrus was inverted and the ideology of the alphabetic letter was established in Renais-

sance Europe. Tyler (301) sees a Western visualist ideological emphasis on transparent, referential discourse as rooted in the primacy of text and the suppression of speech.

Anthropological studies of literacy (e.g. its introduction in oral societies or its use in schooling) recognized belatedly that it is not an autonomous, neutral

technology, but rather is culturally organized, ideologically grounded, and historically contingent, shaped by political, social, and economic forces (53, 56, 58, 60, 97, 138, 161, 223, 266, 269, 290-292). Research now emphasizes

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

66 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

the diversity of ways in which communities "take up" literacy, sometimes

altering local forms of communication or fundamental concepts of identity

(15, 27, 29, 30, 37a, 77, 88, 114, 138, 214a, 252, 264). Considerations of

power significantly affect literacy strategies. In Gapun, views of language as a

powerful means to transform the world are extended to literacy in Tok Pisin,

which is thought to enable acquisition of valuable cargo (189). In contrast,

Yekuana do not extend their view of speech to literacy. Spoken words are

transformative and magical, but inscription destroys their power (122). For

Chambri (108) and Yekuana, "fixity" in writing is the source of danger;

printed words are not responsive to social circumstances. Maori convictions

that there is an authoritative oral text captured only weakly by a written treaty

are an ironic Platonic counterpoint to European-origin New Zealanders' search

for a true text among multiple written translations of the treaty in which the

government is rooted (208). Textual exegesis depends fundamentally on ide-

ologies of language, or ideas about the ways texts are created and are to be

understood. Contrasting approaches to locating scriptural truth can be found

within the Judeo-Christian religious tradition (170).

The definition of what is and what is not literacy is always a profoundly

political matter. Historical studies of the emergence of schooled literacy and

school English show the association between symbolically valued literate

traditions and mechanisms of social control (56, 60, 137). Analyses of class-

room interaction further demonstrate how implicit expectations about written

language shape discriminatory judgments about spoken language and student

performance (37, 55, 215). The nineteenth century foundation of English as a

university discipline created a distinction between reading as aristocratic and

leisurely and writing as work. Composition as skill training for employment is

the dirty work of English departments, with consequences for gender politics

(58).

Transcription, or the written representation of speech, within academic

disciplines and law, for example, relies on and reinforces ideological concep-

tions of language (73:71; 83, 120, 159, 262, 295). In studies of child language,

for example, use of standard orthography forces a literal interpretation on

utterances that might otherwise be seen as objects of phonological manipula-

tion (229). On the other hand, folklorists and sociolinguists who have recorded

dialects of English reveal their linguistic biases when they use non-standard

orthography (sometimes called eye dialect) to represent the speech of blacks

and Appalachians more than that of other groups. Given the ideology of the

value of the letter, non-standard speakers thus appear less intelligent (82, 245,

246). In the American legal system the verbatim record is an idealist construc-

tion, prepared according to the court reporter's model of English, against

which incoming speech is filtered, evaluated, and interpreted. It is considered

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 67

information if a witness speaks ungrammatically, but not if lawyers do, and

editing is applied accordingly (312).

HISTORICAL STUDIES

Although there has been a notable linguistic turn in historical studies in recent

decades, Bauman noted that much of the work was linguistically naive and not

grounded in an investigation of the social and ideological significance of

language in people's own conceptions of the nature of language and its use

(22:16). Since then, there has been a wave of historical examinations of ideolo-

gies of language, including dominant national ideologies, elite debates, and

colonial expressions. Western states, and particularly France, England, and the

United States, predominate in this literature, but there also has been some

attention to Asia (16, 18, 65, 94, 98, 173, 180, 218, 219, 259, 281, 283).

Closely linked are critical histories of linguistics and of the philosophy of

language (8, 45, 106, 280), which join more traditional intellectual histories

(1). In the late eighteenth through the mid-nineteenth century in Western

Europe, language became the object of civil concern as new notions of public

discourse and forms of participation (and exclusion) were formulated by new

participants in the public sphere (17, 22, 65, 67, 69, 118, 126, 145, 192, 276,

313). Much of the historical research focuses on normative ideas about rheto-

ric rather than grammar, but demonstrates how closely linked these topics

were. Political conceptualizations of language rather than meditations on an

autonomous language dominated French and American debates in the seven-

teenth through the nineteenth century (8, 12). Hegemonic English ideology

drew its political and social effectiveness from a presupposition that language revealed the mind, and civilization was largely a linguistic concept (283, 294).

The nineteenth century debate over language in the United States essentially

was a fight over what kind of personality was needed to sustain democracy

(50). The emergence of a compartmentalized democratic personality corre-

sponded to the acceptance of style-shifting and a range of linguistic registers

(see also 14, 18, 94, 123, 180, 281).

Colonial Linguistics

"Language has always been the companion of empire," asserted the sixteenth

century Spanish grammarian Nebrija (161, 225). Some of the most provoca-

tive recent work on linguistic ideology, clearly tracing the links among linguis-

tic, ideological, and social forms, comes from studies of colonialism. Which

language(s) to use in colonial administration was not always obvious, and each

choice had its own ideological motivations and practical consequences. An

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

68 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

indigenous vernacular might be selected, for example, to protect the language

of the colonizers from non-native versions considered distasteful (272).

European missionization and colonization of other continents entailed con-

trol of speakers and their vernaculars. Recent research on colonial linguistic

description and translation has addressed the ideological dimension of diction-

aries, grammars, and language guides, demonstrating that what was conceived

as a neutral scientific endeavor was very much a political one (248).

In what Mignolo (216) calls the colonization of language, Europeans

brought to their tasks ideas about language prevalent in the metropole, and

these ideas, though themselves shifting in different historical moments, blink-

ered them to indigenous conceptualizations and sociolinguistic arrangements

(165, 177, 216, 260). As with many other colonial phenomena, linguists con-

structed rather than discovered distinctive varieties (166), as Fabian (89) ar-

gues for Swahili and Harries (130) for Tsonga. Cohn argues that British

grammars, dictionaries, and translations of the languages of India created the

discourse of Orientalism and converted Indian forms of knowledge into Euro-

pean objects (54:282-283; cf 224).

Perceived linguistic structure can always have political meaning in the

colonial encounter. Functional or formal inadequacy of indigenous languages

and, therefore, of indigenous mind or civilization was often alleged to justify European tutelage (89). On the other hand, a sixteenth century grammar as-

serted that Quechua was so similar to Latin and Castilian that it was "like a

prediction that the Spaniards will possess it" (216:305; see also 166, 248).

Because of the availability of documents, much of this historical research

has explored the linguistic ideologies of colonizers rather than of indigenous

populations. But some work seeks to capture the contradictions and interac-

tions of the two (59, 128, 204, 216). Tongan metapragmatics of speech levels

indicate a reanalysis of society that incorporates European-derived institu-

tional complexes into Tongan constructions of social hierarchy (240). The

structure and focus of a seventeenth century instructional manual on Castilian

written by a Tagalog printer contrast sharply with Spanish missionaries' gram-

mars of Tagalog, showing the different political interests behind translation for

the Spanish and indigenous Filipinos (247).

Historiography of Linguistics

The close intertwining of public and scholarly conceptualizations of language

in the West and its colonies through the nineteenth century leads directly to

critical studies of Western philosophy of language and of the emergence of professional linguistics (1, 45, 98). Contributors to Joseph & Taylor's collec-

tion (173) examine intellectual as well as political prejudices that framed the growth of linguistic theory, from Locke through Saussure to Chomsky, and the

role of linguistic ideas in specific social struggles (cf 227). Of particular

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 69

relevance to our topic, Attridge (11) deconstructs Saussure's linguistics as

hostile to and suppressing evidence that the language user and language com-

munity intervene, consciously or unconsciously, to alter the language system.

Attridge suggests that Saussure sees language as open to external change by

humanly uncontrollable forces, but rejects the influence of history as intellec-

tual construct. A number of studies of the nineteenth century show how philol-

ogy and emerging linguistics contributed to religious, class, and/or nationalist

projects (65, 67, 235).

Professional, scientific linguistics in the twentieth century has nearly uni-

fornly rejected prescriptivism, but many authors argue that this rejection hides

a smuggled dependence on and complicity with prescriptive institutions for the

very subject matter of the field. Rather than registering a unitary language,

linguists helped to form one (66:48; 131, 132). Sankoff (261) argues that

contemporary positivist linguistic methodologies that invoke a scientific ra-

tionale are imposed ideologically by the same interests that propagate norma-

tivism and prescriptivism. The idealism of modern autonomous linguistics has

come under concerted ideological scrutiny (37, 157, 173, 320; cf 68, 227).

More anthropologically-oriented linguistics also has been analyzed ideo-

logically. For example, the concept of diglossia has been criticized as an

ideological naturalization of sociolinguistic arrangements (205a). Rossi-Landi

(256) critiques linguistic relativism as bourgeois ideology, seeing in the theory

a manifestation of guilt for the savage destruction of American Indians. The

idealism of linguistic relativity transforms linguistic producers into consum-

ers, and enables the illusion that the theoretical exhibition of the structures of a

language saves the world view of the extinct linguistic workers (cf 57, 151).

Schultz (268) argues that contradictory strategies in Whorf's writings arose in

response to the constraint of the American folk ideology of free speech.

Although his ideas paralleled those of Bakhtin, Whorf had to first convince his

audience that linguistic censorship existed.

IDEOLOGY, LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE, AND LANGUAGE CHANGE

As noted earlier, modem linguistics has generally held that linguistic ideology and prescriptive norms have little significant-or, paradoxically, only perni- cious-effect on speech forms (although they may have some less negligible

effect on writing) (35; cf 84, 92, 125, 181). Prescriptivism does not directly

transform language, but it does have an effect. Silverstein argues that a grasp

of language ideology is essential for understanding the evolution of linguistic

structure (276:220). Important sociolinguistic changes can be set off by ideo-

logical interpretation of language use, although because they derive only from

a larger social dialectic, such changes are likely to take an unintended direc-

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

70 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

tion, as in the historical case of second person pronoun shift in English. To the

extent that speakers conceptualize language as socially purposive action, we

must look at their ideas about the meaning, function, and value of language in

order to understand the extent and degree of systematicity in empirically

occuring linguistic forms (cf 47, 129, 209, 212).

In analyses of gender in English, TN pronoun shift, and Javanese speech

levels, Silverstein shows that rationalization not only explains but actually

affects linguistic structure, or rationalizes it by making it more regular. To

understand one's own linguistic usage is potentially to change it (275:233).

Imperfect, limited awareness of linguistic structures, some of which are more

available to conscious reflection than are others, leads speakers to make gener-

alizations that they then impose on a broader category of phenomena, chang-

ing those phenomena (see also 181). Structure conditions ideology, which then

reinforces and expands the original structure, distorting language in the name

of making it more like itself (37, 258).

Errington (86) observes that although it is standard in sociolinguistic analy-

sis to look for relations between structural change and communicative func-

tion, it is more controversial to invoke a notion of native speaker awareness as

an explanatory link. Labov differentiates mechanisms of change from below

and above the level of speakers' awareness. He argues that subconscious

changes are extensive and systematic, while conscious self-correction, which

he labels ideology, leads to sporadic and haphazard effects on linguistic forms

(190:329). But several authors note that correlational sociolinguistic models

gloss over the actual motivating force of linguistic change, which often lies in

social evaluations of language (85, 162, 261).

Errington (86) argues that Labov's generalization is most applicable to

phonological variation, which may not be mediated by speakers' under-

standings of their conscious communicative projects. More pragmatically sali-

ent classes of variables are recognized by speakers as crucial linguistic media-

tors of social relations, and speakers' awareness makes these variables more

susceptible to rationalization and strategic use (85, 240). Because such aware-

ness and use drive linguistic change, these variables require a fundamentally

different, participant-oriented analysis (86).

Irvine (162) notes that the formal linguistic characteristics of Hallidayan

anti-languages, such as inversion, are not arbitrary and that they suggest the

mediation of ideological conceptualizations of linguistic structures. Similarly,

subordinate languages in contact situations can acquire both functional and

formal properties of anti-languages. Speakers of moribund varieties of Xinca,

for example, go "hog-wild" with glottalized consonants, which are exotic from

the point of view of the dominant Spanish language (48). This is a Silverstein-

ian distortion that makes a code more like itself, in this case, importantly, a self

that is most distinctive from its socially dominant counterpart.

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 71

Silverstein and others give examples from European languages, especially

English, that reveal a tendency to see propositionality as the essence of lan-

guage, to confuse the indexical function of language with the referential func-

tion, and to assume that the divisions and structures of language should-and

in the best circumstances do-transparently fit the structures of the real world

(39, 162, 181, 212, 237, 250, 274, 275, 278). A focus on the surface segment-

able aspects of language, a conception of language focusing on words and

expressions that denote, is widely attested (32, 57, 112, 220,277). But Rumsey

(258) argues that it is not characteristic of Australian aboriginal cultures,

which do not dichotomize talk and action or words and things, and Rosaldo

(255) similarly asserts that Ilongots think of language in terms of action rather

than reference. Hill (147) describes a counter-hegemonic ideology of language

among Mexicano women that emphasizes not reference but performance and

the proper accomplishment of human relationships through dialogue. See ref-

erence 151 for further discussion.

VARIATION AND CONTESTATION IN IDEOLOGY

Therbom (296:viii) characterizes ideology as a social process, not a posses-

sion, more like "the cacaphony of sounds and signs of a big city street than.. .the text serenely communicating with the solitary reader or the

teacher...addressing a quiet, domesticated audience." The new direction in

research on linguistic ideology has also moved away from seeing ideology as a

homogeneous cultural template, now treating it as a process involving strug-

gles among multiple conceptualizations and demanding the recognition of

variation and contestation within a community as well as contradictions within

individuals (104, 258, 279, 308). Warao strategically deploy conflicting mod-

els for language use as resources for interactional power (40, 41). German speakers in Hungary frame language and identity differently at different mo-

ments, to resist also-changing official state ideologies (105). English has an

entirely different significance to New York Puerto Ricans depending on

whether they think of it as spoken by white Americans, by black Americans, or

by Puerto Ricans (304). Where casual generalization contrasts English and French linguistic attitudes as if they were uniform cultural attributes inhering at the state and individual level, historical studies show that such apparently

characteristic national stances emerge conjuncturally from struggles among

competing ideological positions (139, 201, 249).

CONCLUSION

It is paradoxical that at the same time that language and discourse have

become central topics across the social sciences and humanities, linguistic

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

72 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

anthropologists have bemoaned the marginalization of the subdiscipline from

the larger field of anthropology. The topic of language ideology is a much-

needed bridge between linguistic and social theory, because it relates the

microculture of communicative action to political economic considerations of

power and social inequality, confronting macrosocial constraints on language

behavior (P Kroskrity, personal communication). It is also a potential means of

deepening a sometimes superficial understanding of linguistic form and its

cultural variability in political economic studies of discourse.

Many populations around the world, in multifarious ways, posit fundamen-

tal linkages among such apparently diverse cultural categories as language,

spelling, grammar, nation, gender, simplicity, intentionality, authenticity,

knowledge, development, power, and tradition (104). But our professional

attention has only begun to turn to understanding when and how those links

are forged-whether by lay participants or their expert analysts-and what

their consequences might be for linguistic and social life. A wealth of public

problems hinge on language ideology. Examples from the headlines of United

States newspapers include bilingual policy and the official English movement; questions of free speech and harassment; the meaning of multiculturalism in

schools and texts; the exclusion of jurors who might rely on their own native-

speaker understanding of non-English testimony; and the question of journal- ists' responsibilities and the truthful representation of direct speech. Coming to

grips with such public issues means coming to grips with the nature and

working of language ideology.

Research on topics such as pronouns, politeness, and purism has begun the

difficult program of considering whose interests are served by linguistic ideol-

ogy taking the form that it does, relating notions of linguistic ideology as

rooted in linguistic structure and cognitive limitations to understandings of

ideology as rooted in social practices and interests (258:356). It is the attempt

to link these two aspects of ideology, and to tie social and linguistic forms

together through ideology, that is both most provocative and most challenging.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Susan Gal for encouragement to write this essay. We also wish to

thank participants in the session on Language Ideologies at the 1991 American

Anthropological Association Meeting and members of the Center for Trans-

cultural Studies Working Group on Language. Their research and conversa-

tions helped shape our vision of the field. Kathryn Woolard is grateful to the

National Endowment for the Humanities and the Spencer Foundation for

support while preparing the review, and to Alex Halkias, Natasha Unger, and

Begoiia Echeverria, who helped with bibliographic work in various stages.

Bambi Schieffelin thanks Paul Garrett for bibliographic assistance and Molly

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 73

Mitchell for editorial help. This essay is dedicated to Ben, whose wonderful

sense of time helped organize this project.

Any Annual Review chapter, as well as any article cited in an Annual Review chapter, may be purchased from the Annual Reviews Preprints and Reprints service.

1-800-347-8007; 415-259-5017; email: arpr@class.org

Literature Cited

1. Aarsleff H. 1982. From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the Study of Language and Intel- lectual History. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

2. Adams KL, Brink DT, eds. 1990. Perspec- tives on Official English: The Campaignfor English as the Official Language in the USA. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

3. Agha A. 1994. Honorification. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:277-302

4. Akinnaso FN. 1991. Toward the develop- ment of a multilingual language policy in Nigeria. Appl. Linguist. 12(1):29-61

5. Alvarez C. 1990. The institionalization of Galician: linguistic practices, power and ideology in public discourse. PhD thesis. Univ. Calif., Berkeley

6. Alvarez-Caccamo C. 1993. The pigeon house, the octopus and the people: the ideologization of linguistic practices in Galiza. Plurilinguismes 6:1-26

7. Anderson B. 1983. Imagined Communi- ties: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso

8. Andresen J. 1990. Linguistics in America 1769-1924: A Critical History. London: Routledge

9. Asad T. 1979. Anthropology and the analy- sis of ideology. Man 14:607-27

10. Attinasi JJ. 1983. Language attitudes and working class ideology in a Puerto Rican barrio of New York. Ethnic Groups 5(1- 2):55-78

11. AttridgeD. 1988. Peculiar Language. Lon- don: Methuen

12. Auroux S. 1986. Le sujet de la langue: la conception politique de la langue sous l'an- cien r6gime et la r6volution. See Ref. 45, pp. 259-78

13. Austin JL. 1962. How To Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

14. Bailey RW. 1991. Images of English: A Cultural History of the Language. Ann Ar- bor: Univ. Mich. Press

15. Baker C, Freebody P. 1986. Repre- sentations of questioning and answering in children's first school books. Lang. Soc. 15:45 1-84

16. Balibar R. 1991. La r6volution francaise et l'universalisation du francais national en France. Hist. Eur Ideas 13(1/2):89-95

17. Balibar R, Laporte D. 1984. Le fran,ais national. Paris: Hachette

18. Baron DE. 1982. Grammar and Good Taste: Reforming the American Language. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press

19. Baron DE. 1990. The English Only Ques- tion: An Official LanguageforAmericans? New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press

20. Basso K. 1979. Portraits of "the White- man": Linguistic Play and Cultural Sym- bols Among the Western Apache. Cam- bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

21. Basso K. 1988. Speaking with names. Cult. Anthropol. 3(2):99-131

22. Bauman R. 1983. Let Your Words Be Few: Symbolism of Speaking and Silence Among Seventeenth-Century Quakers. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

23. Bauman R, Briggs CL. 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on lan- guage and social life. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 19:59-88

24. Bauman R, Sherzer J, eds. 1974. Explora- tions in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cam- bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

25. Bebel-Gisler D. 1981. La langue creole force jugulie. Paris: L'Harmattan

26. Bell AR. 1990. Separate people: speaking of Creek men and women. Am. Anthropol. 92(2):332-45

27. Besnier N. 1989. Literacy and feelings: the encoding of affect in Nukulaelae letters. Text 9(1):69-92

28. Besnier N. 1990. Language and affect. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 19:419-51

29. Besnier N. 1991. Literacy and the notion of person on Nukulaelae Atoll. Am. Anthro- pol. 93(2):570-87

30. Bledsoe CH, Robey KM. 1993. Arabic lit- eracy and secrecy among the Mende of Sierre Leone. See Ref. 291, pp. 110-34

31. Bloch M. 1985. From cognition to ideol- ogy. In Power and Knowledge, ed. R Far- don, pp. 21-48. Edinburgh: Scottish Aca- demic Press

32. Blommaert J. 1994. The metaphors of de-

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

74 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

velopment and modernization in Tanzanian language policy and research. In African Languages, Development and the State, ed. R Fardon, G Furniss, pp. 213-26. London: Routledge

33. Blommaert J, Verschueren J. 1992. The role of language in European nationalist ideolo- gies. See Ref. 185, pp. 355-75

34. Bloomfield L. 1944. Secondary and tertiary responses to language. Language 20:44-55

35. Bloomfield L. 1970. Literate and illiterate speech. In A Bloomfield Anthology, ed. C Hockett, pp. 147-56. Bloomington: Ind. Univ. Press

36. Boas F. 1911. Introduction to the Handbook of American Indian Languages. In Bulletin of the Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, ed. F Boas, pp. 1-83. Washington, DC: Gov. Print. Off.

37. Bourdieu P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

37a. Boyarin J, ed. 1993. The Ethnography of Reading. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

38. Brenneis D, Myers F, eds. 1984. Dangerous Words: Language and Politics in the Pa- cific. New York: New York Univ. Press

39. Briggs CL. 1986. Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

40. Briggs CL. 1988. Disorderly dialogues in ritual impositions of order: the role of metapragmatics in Warao dispute media- tion. Anthropol. Linguist. 30:448-91

41. Briggs CL. 1992. Linguistic ideologies and the naturalization of power in Warao dis- course. See Ref. 185, pp. 387-404

42. Briggs CL. 1993. Genric versus metaprag- matic dimensions of Warao narratives: Who regiments performance? In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Meta- pragmatics, ed. JA Lucy, pp. 179-212. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

43. Briggs CL, Bauman R. 1992. Genre, in- tertextuality, and social power. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 2(2):131-72

44. Brown B. 1993. The social consequences of writing Louisiana French. Lang. Soc. 22:67-101

45. Busse W, Trabant J, eds. 1986. Les ideo- logues. Semiotique, theories et politiques linguistiques pendant la re'volution fran-

Vaise. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 46. Calame-Griaule G. 1986. Words and the

Dogon World. Philadelphia: Inst. Stud. Hu- man Issues

47. Cameron D. 1990. Demythologizing so- ciolinguistics: why language does not re- flect society. See Ref. 173, pp. 79-96

48. Campbell L, Muntzel MC. 1989. The struc- tural consequences of language death. See Ref. 72, pp. 181-96

49. Clancy P. 1986. The acquisition of commu-

nicative style in Japanese. In Language Socialization across Cultures, ed. BB Schieffelin, E Ochs, pp. 213-50. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

50. Cmiel K. 1990. Democratic Eloquence: The Fight Over Popular Speech in Nine- teenth Century America. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

51. Cobarrubias J. 1983. Ethical issues in status planning. See Ref. 52, pp. 41-86

52. Cobarrubias J, Fishman JA, eds. 1983. Pro- gress in Language Planning: International Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

53. Cochran-Smith M. 1984. The Making of a Reader Norwood, NJ: Ablex

54. Cohn B. 1985. The command of language and the language of command. Subaltern Stud. 4:276-329

55. Collins J. 1986. Differential treatment in reading instruction. In The Social Con- struction of Literacy, ed. J Cook-Gumperz, pp. 117-37. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press

56. Collins J. 1991. Hegemonic practice: liter- acy and standard language in public educa- tion. In Rewriting Literacy: Culture and the Discourse of the Other, ed. C Mitchell, K Wesler, pp. 229-53. New York: Bergin & Garvey

57. Collins J. 1992. Our ideologies and theirs. See Ref. 185, pp. 405-16

58. Collins J. 1993. The troubled text: history and language in basic writing programs. In Knowledge, Culture and Power: Interna- tional Perspectives on Literacy Policies and Practices, ed. P Freebody, A Welch, pp. 162-86. Pittsburgh: Univ Pittsburgh Press

59. Comaroff J, Comaroff J. 1991. Of Revolu- tion and Revelation: Christianity, Coloni- alism and Consciousness in South Africa, Vol. 1. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

60. Cook-Gumperz J. 1986. Schooling and lit- eracy: an unchanging equation? In The So- cial Construction of Literacy, ed. J Cook- Gumperz, pp. 16-44. Cambridge: Cam- bridge Univ Press

61. Coulmas F, ed. 1988. WithForked Tongues: What Are National Languages Good For? Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma

62. Coulmas F 1990. Language adaptation in Meiji Japan. See Ref. 317, pp. 69-86

63. Crago M. 1988. Cultural context in com- municative interaction of Inuit children. PhD thesis. McGill Univ., Montreal

64. Crawford J. 1992. Hold Your Tongue: Bil- ingualism and the Politics of "English Only." Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

65. Crowley T. 1989. Standard English and the Politics of Language. Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press

66. Crowley T. 1990. That obscure object of desire: a science of language. See Ref. 173, pp. 27-50

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

LANGUAGE IDI)EOLOGY 75

67. Crowley T. 1991. Proper English? Read- ings in Language, History and Cultural Identity. London: Routledge

68. Davies A. 1984. Idealization in sociolin- guistics: the choice of the standard dialect. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984, ed. D Schiffrin, pp. 229-39. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press

69. de Certeau M, Julia D, Revel J. 1975. Une politique de la langue: la revolution fran-

Vaise et les patois. Paris: Gallimard 70. Decrosse A. 1986. G6n6ologie du francais:

purism et langue savante. In Etats de langue, ed. M-P Gruenais, pp. 161-200. Paris: Fondation Diderot/Fayard

71. Derrida J. 1974. Of Grammatology. Transl. GC Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press

72. Dorian NC, ed. 1989. Investigating Obso- lescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

73. Du Bois JW. 1991. Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics 1(1):71-106

74. Du Bois JW. 1992. Meaning without inten- tion: lessons from divination. In Responsi- bility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, ed. JH Hill, JT Irvine, pp. 48-71. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

75. Duranti A. 1992. Intentions, self and re- sponsibility. In Responsibility and Evi- dence in Oral Discourse, ed. JA Hill, JT Irvine, pp. 24-47. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

76. Duranti A. 1993. Intentionality and truth: an ethnographic critique. Cult. Anthropol. 8(2):214-45

77. Duranti A, Ochs E. 1986. Literacy instruc- tion in a Samoan village. See Ref. 266, pp. 213-32

78. Eagleton T. 1991. Ideology: An Introduc- tion. London: Verso

79. Eckert P. 1980. Diglossia: separate and un- equal. Linguistics 18:156-64

80. Eckert P. 1983. The paradox of national language movements. J. Multiling. Mul- ticult. Dev. 4(4):289-300

81. Eckert P, McConnell-Ginet S. 1992. Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 21:461-90

82. Edwards J. 1992. Transcription of dis- course. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, ed. WBright, pp. 367-7 1. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

83. Edwards J, Lampert MD, eds. 1993. Talk- ing Data: Transcription and Coding in Dis- course Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

84. Emonds J. 1985. Grammatically deviant prestige dialect constructions. In A Fest- schrift for Sol Saporta, ed. M Brame, H

Contreras, F Newmeyer, pp. 93-129. Seat- tle: Noit Amrofer

85. Errington JJ. 1985. On the nature of the sociolinguistic sign: describing the Java- nese speech levels. See Ref. 214, pp. 287- 310

86. Errington JJ. 1988. Structure and Style in Javanese: A Semiotic View of Linguistic Etiquette. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press

87. Errington JJ. 1992. On the ideology of In- donesian language development: the state of a language of state. See Ref. 185, pp. 417-26

88. Ewald J. 1988. Speaking, writing and authority: explorations in and from the kingdom of Taqali. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 39:199-223

89. Fabian J. 1986. Language and Colonial Power: TheAppropriation of Swahili in the Former Belgian Congo 1880-1938. Cam- bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

90. Feld S, Fox A. 1994. Music and language. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:25-53

91. Feld S, Schieffelin BB. 1981. Hard words: a functional basis for Kaluli discourse. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1981, ed. D Tannen, pp. 350-70. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press

92. Ferguson CA. 1983. Language planning and language change. See Ref. 52, pp. 29- 40

93. Filgueira Alvado A. 1979. Capacidad in- telectual y actitud del indio ante el castel- lano. Rev. Indias 39:163-85

94. Finegan E. 1980. Attitudes Towards Lan- guage Usage: A History of the War of Words. New York: Teacher's College Press

95. Fishman JA. 1989. Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters

96. Fodor I, Hagege C, eds. 1983-1990. Lan- guage Reform: History and Future in 5 Volumes. Hamburg: Buske Verlag

97. Forstorp P-A. 1990. Receiving and re- sponding: ways of taking from the Bible. In Bible Reading in Sweden: Studies Related to the Translation of the New Testament 1981, ed. G Hansson, pp. 149-69. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell

98. Foucault M. 1970. The Order of Things. New York: Random House

99. Frangoudaki A. 1992. Diglossia and the present language situation in Greece. Lang. Soc. 21(3):365-81

100. Friedrich P. 1989. Language, ideology and political economy. Am. Anthropol. 91(2): 295-312

101. Gal S. 1987. Codeswitching and conscious- ness in the European periphery. Am. Ethnol. 14(4):637-53

102. Gal S. 1989. Language and political econ- omy. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 18:345-67

103. Gal S. 1991. Between speech and silence:

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

76 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

the problematics of research on language and gender. In Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge, ed. M di Leonardo, pp. 175- 203. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

104. Gal S. 1992. Multiplicity and contention among ideologies. See Ref. 185, pp. 445- 50

105. Gal S. 1993. Diversity and contestation in linguistic ideologies: German speakers in Hungary. Lang. Soc. 22(3):337-359

106. Gal S. 1993. Lost in a Slavic sea: linguistic theories and expert knowledge in the mak- ing of Hungarian identity. Presented at 92nd Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc., Washington, DC

107. Garcia 0, Evangelista I. 1988. Spanish lan- guage use and attitudes: a study of two New York City communities. Lang. Soc. 17(4):475-5 11

108. Gewertz D, Errington F. 1991. Twisted His- tories, Altered Contexts. Cambridge: Cam- bridge Univ. Press

109. Giles H, Hewstone M, Ryan EB, Johnson P. 1987. Research on language attitudes. In Sociolinguistics: An International Hand- book of the Science of Language and Soci- ety, ed. U Ammon, 1:585-97. Berlin: Mou- ton de Gruyter

110. Gilliam AM. 1984. Language and "devel- opment" in Papua New Guinea. Dialect. Anthropol. 8(4):303-18

111. Gilman S. 1986. Jewish Self-Hatred: Anti- Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press

112. Glinert L. 1991. The "back-to-the future" syndrome in language planning: the case of modern Hebrew. In Language Planning: Focusschrift in Honor of Joshua A. Fish- man, ed. DF Marshall, pp. 215-43. Amster- dam: Benjamins

113. Glinert L, Shilhav Y 1991. Holy land, holy language: a study of an ultraorthodox Jew- ish ideology. Lang. Soc. 20(1):59-86

114. Goddard C. 1990. Emergent genres of re- portage and advocacy in Pitjantjatjara print media. Aust. Aborig. Stud. 2:27-47

1 15. Gold DL. 1989. A sketch of the linguistic situation in Israel today. Lang. Soc. 18: 361-88

1 16. Goldman L. 1983. Talk Never Dies: The Language of Huli Disputes. London: Tavis- tock

117. Grillo RD. 1985. Ideologies & Institutions in Urban France: The Representation of Immigrants. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

118. Grillo RD. 1989. Dominant Languages: Language and Hierarchy in Britain and France. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

119. Gross JE. 1993. The politics of unofficial language use: Walloon in Belgium, Tamaz- ight in Morocco. Crit. Anthropol. 13(2): 177-208

120. Gumperz JJ. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

121. Gumperz JJ, Hymes D, eds. 1972. Direc- tions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rine- hart & Winston

122. Guss D. 1986. Keeping it oral: a Yekuana ethnology. Am. Ethnol. 13(3):413-29

123. Gustafson T. 1992. Representative Words: Politics, Literature and the American Lan- guage 1776-1865. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

124. Haarman H. 1989. Symbolic Values of For- eign Language Use: From the Japanese Case to a General Sociolinguistic Perspec- tive. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

125. Haas W. 1982. On the normative character of language. In Standard Languages: Spo- ken and Written, ed. W Haas, pp. 1-36. Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press

126. Habermas J. 1989. The Structural Trans- formation of the Public Sphere. Transl. T Burger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

127. Handler R. 1988. Nationalism and the Poli- tics of Culture in Quebec. Madison: Univ. Wisc. Press

128. Hanks WF. 1987. Discourse genres in a theory of practice. Am. Ethnol. 14(4):668- 92

129. Hanks WF. 1993. Metalanguage and prag- matics of deixis. In Reflexive Language, ed. JA Lucy, pp. 91-126. Cambridge: Cam- bridge Univ. Press

130. Harries P. 1988. The roots of ethnicity: discourse and the politics of language con- struction in South-East Africa. Afr Affairs 87(346):25-52

131.Harris R. 1980. The Language Makers. London: Duckworth

132. Harris R. 1987. The Language Machine. London: Duckworth

133. Haviland JB. 1989. Mixtecs, migrants, multilingualism, and murder. Work. Pap. Proc. Cent. Psychosoc. Stud. 25. Chicago: Cent. Transcult. Stud.

134. Havranek B. 1964. The functional differen- tiation of the standard language. In A Pra- gue School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style, ed. PL Garvin, pp. 3-16. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press

135. Heath SB. 1977. Social history. In Bilin- gual Education: Current Perspectives. Vol. 1: Social Science, pp. 53-72. Arlington, VA: Cent. Appl. Linguist.

136. Heath SB. 1980. Standard English: biogra- phy of a symbol. In Standards and Dialects in English, ed. T Shopen, J Williams, pp. 3-31. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop

137. Heath SB. 1981. Toward an ethnohistory of writing in American education. In Writing: The Nature, Development and Teaching of Written Communication, ed. MF White- man, 1:25-45. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 77

138. Heath SB. 1983. Ways with Words. Cam- bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

138a. Heath SB. 1989. Language ideology. In International Encyclopedia of Communi- cations, 2:393-95. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

138b. Heath SB. 1991. Women in conversation: covert models in American language ideol- ogy. In The Influence of Language on Cul- ture and Thought, ed. R Cooper, B Spolsky, pp. 199-218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

139. Heath SB, Mandabach F 1983. Language status decisions and the law in the United States. See Ref. 52, pp. 87-105

140. Heller M. 1985. Ethnic relations and lan- guage use in Montreal. See Ref. 323, pp. 75-90

141. Hellinger M. 1986. On writing English-re- lated Creoles in the Caribbean. In Focus on the Caribbean, ed. M Gorlach, J Holm, pp. 53-70. Amsterdam: Benjamins

142. Herzfeld M. 1982. Ours Once More: Folk- lore, Ideology, and the Making of Modern Greece. Austin: Univ. Texas Press

143. Hewitt R. 1986. White Talk Black Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press

144. Hidalgo M. 1986. Language contact, lan- guage loyalty, and language prejudice on the Mexican border. Lang. Soc. 15(2):193- 220

145. Higonnet P. 1980. The politics of linguistic terrorism and grammatical hegemony dur- ing the French revolution. Soc. Hist. 5(1): 41-69

146. Hill JH. 1985. The grammar of conscious- ness and the consciousness of grammar. Am. Ethnol. 12(4):725-37

147. Hill JH. 1992. "Today there is no respect": nostalgia, "respect" and oppositional dis- course in Mexicano (Nahuatl) language ideology. See Ref. 185, pp. 263-80

148. Hill JH. 1993. Hasta la vista, baby: Anglo Spanish in the American Southwest. Crit. Anthropol. 13:145-76

149. Hill JH, Hill KC. 1986. Speaking Mexi- cano: Dynamics of Syncretic Language in Central Mexico. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press

150. Hill JH, Irvine JT. 1992. Introduction. In Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Dis- course, ed. JH Hill, JT Irvine, pp. 1-23. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

151. Hill JH, Mannheim B. 1992. Language and world view. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 21:381- 406

152. Hornberger N. 1988. Language planning orientations and bilingual education in Peru. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 12(1):14- 29

153. Hornberger N. 1988. Language ideology in Quechua communities of Puno, Peru. An- thropol. Linguist. 30(2):214-35

154. Hornberger N. 1994. Five vowels or three?: Linguistics and politics in Quechua lan- guage planning in Peru. In Language Pol-

icy and Language Education, ed. JW Tollefson. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press

155. Humboldt W. 1988. On Language. Transl. P Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

156. Hurtado A, Rodriguez R. 1989. Language as a social problem: the repression of Span- ish in South Texas. J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 10(5):401-19

157. Hymes D. 1971. On linguistic theory, com- municative competence, and the education of disadvantaged children. In Anthropo- logical Perspectives on Education, ed. M Wax, SA Diamond, FO Gearing, pp. 51-66. New York: Basic

158. Hymes D. 1974. Foundations in Sociolin- guistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press

159. Hymes D. 1981. "In Vain I Tried to Tell You." Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press

160. Hymes D. 1984. Linguistic problems in defining the concept of "tribe." In Lan- guage in Use, ed. J Baugh, J Sherzer, pp. 7-27. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

161. Illich I, Sanders B. 1988. ABC: TheAlpha- betization of the Popular Mind. San Fran- cisco: North Point

162. Irvine JT. 1989. When talk isn't cheap: language and political economy. Am. Eth- nol. 16(2):248-67

163. Irvine JT. 1990. Registering affect: hetero- glossia in the linguistic expression of emo- tion. In Language and the Politics of Emo- tion, ed. CA Lutz, L Abu-Lughod, pp. 126- 61. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

164. Irvine JT. 1992. Ideologies of honorific lan- guage. See Ref. 185, pp. 251-62

165. Irvine JT. 1993. Mastering African lan- guages: the politics of linguistics in nine- teenth-century Senegal. Soc. Anal. 34:27- 46

166. Irvine JT. 1993. The family romance of colonial linguistics: gender in 19th-century representations of African languages. Pre- sented at 92nd Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc., Washington, DC

167. Jackson JE. 1983. The Fish People: Lin- guistic Exogamy and Tukanoan Identity in Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cam- bridge Univ. Press

168. Jacquemet M. 1992. "If he speaks Italian, it's better": metapragmatics in court. Prag- matics 2(2):111-26

169. Jaffe A. 1993. Obligation, error, and authenticity: competing cultural principles in the teaching of Corsican. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 3(1):99-114

170. Janowitz N. 1993. Re-creating Genesis: the metapragmatics of divine speech. In Re- flexive Language, ed. JA Lucy, pp. 393- 405. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.

171.Jernudd BH, Shapiro MJ, eds. 1989. The

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

78 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

Politics of Language Purism. Berlin: Mou- ton de Gruyter

172. Joseph JE. 1987. Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages. New York: Basil Blackwell

173. Joseph JE, Taylor TJ, eds. 1990. Ideologies of Language. New York: Routledge

174. Jourdan C. 1991. Pidgins and creoles: the blurring of categories. Annu. Rev. Anthro- pol. 20:187-209

175. Katriel T. 1986. Talking Straight: Dugri Speech in Israeli Sabra Culture. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

176. Khubchandani LM. 1983. Plural Lan- guages, Plural Cultures: Communication, Identity, and Sociopolitical Change in Con- temporary India. Honolulu: Univ. Hawaii Press

177. Klor de Alva JJ. 1989. Language, politics and translation: colonial discourse and classic Nahuatl in New Spain. In TheArt of Translation: Voices from the Field, ed. R Warren, pp. 143-62. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press

178. Kochman T. 1986. Strategic ambiguity in black speech genres. Text 6(2):153-70

179. Koepke W, ed. 1990. Johann Gotifried Herder: Language, History and the En- lightenment. Columbia, SC: Camden House

180. Kramer MP. 1992. Imagining Language in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

181.Kroch AS, Small C. 1978. Grammatical ideology and its effect on speech. In Lin- guistic Variation: Models and Methods, ed. D Sankoff, pp. 45-55. New York: Aca- demic

182. Kroskrity PV. 1992. Arizona Tewa Kiva speech as a manifestation of linguistic ide- ology. See Ref. 185, pp. 297-310

183. Kroskrity PV. 1994. Arizona Tewa public announcements: form, function, linguistic ideology. Anthropol. Linguist. 35:In press

184. Kroskrity PV. 1993. Language, History, and Identity: Ethnolinguistic Studies of the Arizona Tewa. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press

185. Kroskrity PV, Schieffelin BB, Woolard KA, eds. 1992. Special Issue on Language Ideologies. Pragmatics 2(3):235-453

186. Kulick D. 1992. Anger, gender, language shift and the politics of revelation in a Papua New Guinean village. See Ref. 185, pp. 281-96

187. Kulick D. 1992. Language Shift and Cul- tural Reproduction: Socialization, Self and Syncretism in a Papua New Guinean Village. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

188. Kulick D. 1993. Speaking as a woman: structure and gender in domestic arguments in a New Guinea village. Cult. Anthropol. 8(4):510-41

189. Kulick D, Stroud C. 1990. Christianity, cargo and ideas of self. Man (NS) 25:70-88

190. Labov W. 1979. Locating the frontier be- tween social and psychological factors in linguistic variation. In Individual Differ- ences in Language Ability and Language Behavior, ed. CJ Fillmore, D Kempler, WS- YWang, pp. 327-39. New York: Academic

191. Labov W. 1982. Objectivity and commit- ment in linguistic evidence. Lang. Soc. 11: 165-201

192. Landes JB. 1988. Women and the Public Sphere in theAge of the French Revolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press

193. Leibowitz AH. 1976. Language and the law: the exercise of political power through the official designation of language. In Language and Politics, ed. W O'Barr, J O'Barr, pp. 449-66. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter

194. Le Page RB. 1988. Some premises con- cerning the standardization of languages, with special reference to Caribbean Creole English. Int. J. Sociol. Lang. 71:25-36

195. Lim6n J. 1982. El meeting: history, folk Spanish and ethnic nationalism in a Chi- cano student community. In Spanish in the United States, ed. J Amastae, L Elfas-Oli- vares, pp. 301-32. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

196. Lindstrom L. 1992. Context contests: de- batable truth statements on Tanna (Vanu- atu). In Rethinking Context, ed. A Duranti, C Goodwin, pp. 101-24. Cambridge Univ. Press: Cambridge

197. Lopez DE. 1991. The emergence of lan- guage minorities in the United States. In Language and Ethnicity: Focusschrift in Honor of Joshua A. Fishman, ed. JR Dow, pp. 131-44. Amsterdam: Benjamins

198. Lucy JA. 1993. Reflexive language and the human disciplines. In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. JA Lucy, pp. 9-32. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

199. Ludwig R, ed. 1989. Les creoles franCais entre l'oral et l'&rit. Tiubingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag

200. Luhman R. 1990. Appalachian English stereotypes: language attitudes in Ken- tucky. Lang. Soc. 19:331-48

201. Mackey VWF. 1991. Language and the sov- ereign state. Hist. Eur Ideas 13(1/2):51-61

202. Maguire G. 1991. Our Own Language: An Irish Initiative. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters

203. Mannheim B. 1986. Popular song and popular grammar, poetry and metalan- guage. Word 37(1-2):45-75

204. Mannheim B. 1991. The Language of the Inka Since the European Invasion. Austin, TX: Univ. Texas Press

205. Mannheim K. 1985. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowl-

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 79

edge. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich

205a. Martin-Jones M. 1989. Language, power and linguistic minorities: the need for an alternative approach to bilingualism, lan- guage maintenance and shift. In Social An- thropology and the Politics of Language, ed. RD Girllo, pp. 106-25. London: Rout- ledge

206. McDonald M. 1989. We are not French: Language, Culture, and Identity in Brit- tany. London: Routledge

207. McDonogh G. 1993. Stop making sense: language, humor and the nation-state in transitional Spain. Crit. Anthropol. 13(2): 177-208

208. McKenzie DF. 1987. The sociology of a text: oral culture, literacy and print in early New Zealand. In The Social History of Language, ed. P Burke, R Porter, pp. 161-97. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

209. Meeuwis M, Brisard F. 1993. Time and the Diagnosis of Language Change. Antwerp Pap. Linguist. 72. Antwerp: Univ. Antwerp Press

210. Merlan F, Rumsey A. 1991. Ku Waru: Lan- guage and Segmentary Politics in the West- ern Nebilyer Valley, Papua New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

211. Mertz E. 1989. Sociolinguistic creativity: Cape Breton Gaelic's linguistic "tip." See Ref 72, pp. 103-16

212. Mertz E. 1993. Learning what to ask: metapragmatic factors and methodological reification. In Reflexive Language: Re- ported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. JA Lucy, pp. 159-74. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

213 Mertz E. 1994. Legal language: pragmat- ics, poetics and social power. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:435-55

214. Mertz E, Parmentier RJ, eds. 1985. Semi- otic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psycho- logical Perspectives. Orlando, FL: Aca- demic

214a.Messick B. 1993. The Caligraphic State: Textual Domination and History in a Mus- lim Society. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

215. Michaels S, Cazden C. 1986. Teacher/child collaboration as oral preparation for liter- acy. See Ref. 266, pp. 132-54

216. Mignolo WD. 1992. On the colonization of Amerindian languages and memories: Renaissance theories of writing and the discontinuity of the classical tradition. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 34(2):301-30

217. Miller PJ, Potts R, Fung H, Hoogstra L, Mintz J. 1990. Narrative practices and the social construction of self in childhood. Am. Ethnol. 17(2):292-3 11

218. Miller RA. 1982. Japan's Modem Myth: The Language and Beyond New York: Weatherhill

219. Milroy J, Milroy L. 1985. Authority in Lan- guage: Investigating Language Prescrip- tion and Standardisation. London: Rout- ledge & Kegan Paul

220. Moore RE. 1993. Performance form and the voices of characters in five versions of the Wasco Coyote Cycle. In Reflexive Lan- guage, ed. JA Lucy, pp. 213-40. Cam- bridge Univ. Press

221. Morgan MH. 1991. Indirectness and inter- pretation in African American women's discourse. Pragmatics 1(4):421-51

222. Morgan MH. 1994. Theoretical and politi- cal arguments in African American Eng- lish. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:325-45

223. Muihlhausler P. 1990. 'Reducing' Pacific languages to writing. See Ref. 173, pp. 189-205

224. Musa M. 1989. Purism and correctness in the Bengali speech community. See Ref. 171, pp. 105-12

225. Nebrija A. 1946. Gramatica Castellana. Madrid: Edic. Junta Centenario

226. Neu-Altenheimer I, Marimoutou J, Bag- gioni D. 1987. N6vrose diglossique et choix graphiques. Lengas 22:33-57

227. Newmeyer FJ. 1986. The Politics of Lin- guistics. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

228. Nunberg G. 1989. Linguists and the official language movement. Language 65(3): 579-87

229. Ochs E. 1979. Transcription as theory. In Developmental Pragmatics, ed. E Ochs, BB Schieffelin, pp. 43-72. New York: Aca- demic

230. Ochs E. 1984. Clarification and culture. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984, ed. D Schiffrin, pp. 325-41. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press

231. Ochs E. 1988. Culture and Language De- velopment. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

232. Ochs E. 1992. Indexing gender. In Rethink- ing Context, ed. A Duranti, C Goodwin, pp. 335-58. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

233. Ochs E, Schieffelin BB. 1984. Language acquisition and socialization: three devel- opmental stories and their implications. In Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self and Emotion, ed. R Shweder, R Levine, pp. 276-320. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

234. Ochs E, Schieffelin BB. 1994. The impact of language socialization on grammatical development. In Handbook of Child Lan- guage, ed. P Fletcher, B MacWhinney. New York: Basil Blackwell. In press

235. Olender M. 1992. The Languages of Para- dise: Race, Religion, and Philology in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard Univ. Press

236.Pagden A. 1993. European Encounters

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

80 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

with the New World: From Renaissance to Romanticism. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press

237. Parmentier RJ. 1986. Puffery and pragmat- ics, regulation and reference. Work Pap. Proc. Cent. Psychosoc. Stud. 4. Chicago: Cent. Transcult. Stud.

238. Pattanayak DP. 1988. Monolingual myo- pia and the petals of the Indian lotus: do many languages divide or unite a language? In Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle, ed. T Skutnabb-Kangas, J Cum- mins, pp. 379-89. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters

239. Pecheux M. 1982. Language, Semantics and Ideology. London: Macmillan

240. Philips S. 1991. Tongan speech levels: practice and talk about practice in the cul- tural construction of social hierarchy. Pac. Linguist. Ser C 117:369-82

241. Philips S. 1992. A Marx-influenced ap- proach to ideology and language: com- ments. See Ref. 185, pp. 377-86

242. Philipsen G, Carbaugh D. 1986. A bibliog- raphy of fieldwork in the ethnography of communication. Lang. Soc. 15:387-98

243. Posner R. 1993. Language conflict in Ro- mance. In Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology, Vol. 5: Bilingualism and Linguistic Conflict in Romance, ed. R Pos- ner, JN Green, pp. 41-76. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

244. Pratt ML. 1981. The ideology of speech-act theory. Centrum (NS) 1:5-18

245. Preston DR. 1982. 'Ritin fowklower daun 'rong. J. Am. Folk. 95(377):304-26

246. Preston DR. 1985. The Li'l Abner syn- drome: written representations of speech. Am. Speech 60(4):328-36

247. Rafael V. 1988. Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in Tagalog Society under early Spanish Rule. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press

248.Raison-Jourde F. 1977. L'echange inegal de la langue: La penetration des techniques linguistiques dans une civilisation de l'oral. Annales 32:639-69

249. Reagan TG. 1986. 'Language ideology' in the language planning process: two Afri- can case studies. S. Afr J. Afr Lang. 6(2): 94-97

250. Reddy MJ. 1979. The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. A Ortony, pp. 284-324. New York: Cam- bridge Univ. Press

251. Rickford J. 1985. Standard and non-stand- ard language attitudes in a creole contin- uum. See Ref. 323, pp. 145-60

252. Rockhill K. 1993. Gender, language, and the politics of literacy. See Ref. 291, pp. 156-75

253.Rodman WL. 1991. When questions are answers. Am. Anthropol. 93(2):421-34

254. Rosaldo MZ. 1973. I have nothing to hide: the language of Ilongot oratory. Lang. Soc. 2(2): 193-223

255.Rosaldo MZ. 1982. The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Lang. Soc. 11: 203-37

256. Rossi-Landi B 1973. Ideologies ofLinguis- tic Relativity. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter

257. Ruiz R. 1984. Orientations in language planning. NatL Assoc. Biling. Educ. J. 8(2):15-34

258. Rumsey A. 1990. Wording, meaning and linguistic ideology. Am. Anthropol. 92(2):346-61

259.Sakai N. 1991. Voices of the Past: The Status of Language in Eighteenth-Century Japanese Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press

260. Samarin WJ. 1984. The linguistic world of field colonialism. Lang. Soc. 13:435-53

261. Sankoff D. 1988. Sociolinguistics and syn- tactic variation. In Linguistics: The Cam- bridge Survey, Vol. IV: Language: The So- cio-cultural Context, ed. FJ Newmeyer, pp. 140-61. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

262. Schieffelin BB. 1990. The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization of Kaluli Children. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

263. Schieffelin BB. 1994. Codeswitching and language socialization: some probable re- lationships. In Pragmatics: From Theory to Practice, ed. JF Duchan, LE Hewitt, RM Sonnenmeier, pp. 20-42. New York: Pren- tice Hall

264. Schieffelin BB, Cochran-Smith M. 1984. Learning to read culturally. In Awakening to Literacy ed. H Goelman, A Oberg, F Smith, pp. 3-23. Exeter, NH: Heinemann Educ.

265. Schieffelin BB, Doucet RC. 1994. The "real" Haitian Creole: ideology, metalin- guistics and orthographic choice. Am. Eth- nol. 21(1):177-201

266. Schieffelin BB, Gilmore P, eds. 1986. The Acquisition of Literacy: Ethnographic Per- spectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

267. Schieffelin BB, Ochs E. 1986. Language socialization. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 15: 163-91

268. Schultz EA. 1990. Dialogue at the Mar- gins: Whorf, Bakhtin, and Linguistic Rela- tivity. Madison: Univ. Wisc. Press

269. Scollon R, Scollon SB. 1981. Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Commu- nication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

270. Searle J. 1969. SpeechActs: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

271. Deleted in proof 272. Siegel J. 1987. Language Contact in a

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 81

Plantation Environment: A Sociolinguistic History of Fiji. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

273. Siegel JT. 1986. Solo in the New Order: Language and Hierarchy in an Indonesian City. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press

274. Silverstein M. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Meaning in Anthropology, ed. KH Basso, HA Selby, pp. 11-55. Albuquerque: Univ. N. Mex. Press

275. Silverstein M. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units andLev- els, ed. R Clyne, W Hanks, C Hofbauer, pp. 193-247. Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.

276. Silverstein M. 1985. Language and the cul- ture of gender: at the intersection of struc- ture, usage and ideology. See Ref. 214, pp. 219-59

277. Silverstein M. 1987. Monoglot "standard" in America. Work. Pap. Proc. Cent. Psy- chosoc. Stud. 13. Chicago: Cent. Transcult. Stud.

278. Silverstein M. 1990. The skin of our teeth: registers, poetics, and thefirst amendment. Presented at 89th Annu. Meet. Am. Anthro- pol. Assoc., New Orleans

279. Silverstein M. 1992. The uses and utility of ideology: some reflections. See Ref. 185, pp. 311-24

280. Silverstein M. 1993. From the meaning of meaning to the empires of the mind: Og- don's orthological English. Presented at 92nd Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc., Washington, DC

281. Simpson D. 1988. The Politics ofAmerican English 1776-1850. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press

282. Skutnabb-Kangas T, Phillipson R. 1989. "Mother tongue": the theoretical and so- ciopolitical construction of a concept. In Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties, ed. U Ammon, pp. 450-77. Berlin: de Gruyter

283. Smith 0. 1984. The Politics of Language 1791-1819. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

284. Smith-Hefner NJ. 1988. The linguistic so- cialization of Javanese children in two communities. Anthropol. Linguist. 30(2): 166-98

285. Sonntag SK, Pool J. 1987. Linguistic denial and linguistic self-denial: American ideolo- gies of language. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 11(1):46-65

286. Southworth FC. 1985. The social context of language standardization in India. See Ref. 323, pp. 225-39

287. Speicher BL, McMahon SM. 1992. Some African-American perspectives on Black English vernacular. Lang. Soc. 21(3):383- 408

288. Spitulnik D. 1992. Radio time sharing and

the negotiation of linguistic pluralism in Zambia. See Ref. 185, pp. 335-54

289. Steinberg J. 1987. The historian and the Questione della Lingua. In The Social His- tory ofLanguage, ed. P Burke, R Porter, pp. 198-209. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

290. Street BV. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

291. Street BV, ed. 1993. Cross-cultural Ap- proaches to Literacy. Cambridge: Cam- bridge Univ. Press

292. Street BV, Besnier N. 1994. Aspects of literacy. In Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology, ed. T Ingold, pp. 527-62. London: Routledge

292a.Stroud C. 1992. The problem of intention and meaning in code-switching. Text 12(1): 127-55

293. Swiggers P 1990. Ideology and the 'clarity' of French. See Ref. 173, pp. 112-30

294. Taylor C. 1987. Language and human na- ture. In Interpreting Politics, ed. MT Gib- bons, pp. 101-32. New York: New York Univ. Press

295. Tedlock D. 1983. The Spoken Word and the Work of Interpretation. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press

296. Therborn G. 1980. The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology. London: Verso

297. Thomas G. 1991. Linguistic Purism. Lon- don: Longman

298. Thompson JB. 1984. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity

299. Trosset CS. 1986. The social identity of Welsh learners. Lang. Soc. 15:165-92

300. Twine N. 1991. Language and the Modern State: The Reform of Written Japanese. New York: Routledge

301.Tyler SA. 1987. The Unspeakable: Dis- course, Dialogue and Rhetoric in the Post- modern World. Madison: Univ. Wisc. Press

302. Urban G. 1991. The semiotics of state-In- dian linguistic relationships: Peru, Para- guay, and Brazil. In Nation-States and In- dians in Latin America, ed. G Urban, J Sherzer, pp. 307-30. Austin: Univ. Texas Press

303. Urban G. 1993. The represented functions of speech in Shokleng myth. In Reflexive Language, ed. JA Lucy, pp. 241-86. Austin: Univ. Texas Press

304. Urciuoli B. 1991. The political topography of Spanish and English: the view from a New York Puerto Rican neighborhood. Am. Ethnol. 18(2):295-310

305. Urla J. 1988. Ethnic protest and social plan- ning: a look at Basque language revival. Cult. Anthropol. 1(4):379-94

306. Urla J. 1993. Contesting modernities: lan- guage standardization and the production of an ancient/modern Basque culture. Crit. Anthropol. 13(2):101-18

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

82 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

307. Urla J. 1993. Cultural politics in an age of statistics: numbers, nations and the making of Basque identity. Am. Ethnol. 20(4):818- 43

308. Verschueren J. 1985. What People Say They Do With Words: Prolegomena to an Empirical-Conceptual Approach to Lin- guistic Action. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

309. Verschueren J, ed. 1987. LinguisticAction: Some Empirical-Conceptual Studies. Nor- wood, NJ: Ablex

310.Verschueren J. 1989. Language on lan- guage: toward metapragmatic universals. Pap. Pragmat. 3(2):1-44

311.Wald B. 1985. Vernacular and standard Swahili as seen by members of the Mom- basa Swahili speech community. See Ref. 323, pp. 123-44

312. Walker A. 1986. The verbatim record. In Discourse and InstitutionalAuthority, ed. S Fisher, A Todd, pp. 205-22. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

313. Warner M. 1990. The Letters of the Repub- lic: Publication and the Public Sphere in Eighteenth-Century America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

314.Watson-Gegeo KA, Gegeo D. 1991. The impact of church affiliation on language change in Kwara'ae (Solomon Islands). Lang. Soc. 26(4):533-55

315. Watson-Gegeo KA, White GM, eds. 1990. Disentangling: Conflict Discourse in Pa- cific Societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

316. Weinstein B. 1989. Francophonie: purism at the international level. See Ref. 171, pp. 53-80

317. Weinstein B, ed. 1990. Language Policy and Political Development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

318. Wierzbicka A. 1985. A semantic metalan-

guage for a crosscultural comparison of speech acts and speech genres. Lang. Soc. 14:491-514

319. Williams G. 1988. Discourse on language and ethnicity. In Styles of Discourse, ed. N Coupland, pp. 254-93. London: Croom Helm

320. Williams R. 1977. Marxism andLiterature. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press

321. Winer L. 1990. Orthographic stand- ardisation for Trinidad and Tobago: linguis- tic and sociopolitical consideration in an English Creole community. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 14(3):237-68

322. Wodak R, ed. 1989. Language, Power, and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Philadelphia: Benjamins

323. Wolfson N, Manes J, eds. 1985. Language of Inequality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

324. Woolard KA. 1985. Language variation and cultural hegemony: towards an integra- tion of sociolinguistic and social theory. Am. Ethnol. 12(4):738-48

325. Woolard KA. 1989. Double Talk: Bilin- gualism and the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

326. Woolard KA. 1989. Sentences in the lan- guage prison: the rhetorical structuring of an American language policy debate. Am. Ethnol. 16(2):268-78

327.Woolard KA. 1992. Language ideology: issues and approaches. See Ref. 185, pp. 235-50

328. Woolard KA, Gahng T-J. 1990. Changing language policies and attitudes in autono- mous Catalonia. Lang. Soc. 19:311-30

329. Zentella AC. 1994. Growing Up Bilingual in El Barrio. Cambridge, MA: Basil Black- well. In press

This content downloaded from �������������165.123.34.86 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:25:58 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms