-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1994. 23:55-82Copyright 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 recentanthropology, sociolinguistics, and cultural
studies, sometimes joined by and,sometimes by in, sometimes by a
comma in a trinity of nouns. We have hadanalyses, some of them very
influential, of cultural and political ideologies asconstituted,
encoded, or enacted in language (100, 239, 298). This review
differently, and (on the surface) lnore 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 speechforms themselves (158).
Notions of how communication works as a socialprocess, and to what
purpose, are culturally variable and need to be discoveredrather
than simply assumed (22:16). We review here selected research
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 structuresand forms of talk.
Ideologies of language are significant for social as well as
linguistic analy-sis because they are not only about language.
Rath.er, such ideologies envision
0084-6570/94/1015-0055505.00 55
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
56 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN
and enact links of language to group and personal identity, to
aesthetics, tomorality, and to epistemology (41, 104, 186). Through
such linkages, theyoften underpin fundamental social institutions.
Inequality among groups ofspeakers, and colonial encounters par
excellence, throw language ideologyinto 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 oflanguage 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 investigationwith no apparent bounds, and as reviewers we
note this with wry appreciationeven as we find that the resistance
has worn down. Although there have beenrecent efforts to delimit
language ideology (138a, 327), there is no single coreliterature.
Moreover, linguistic ideology, language ideology, and ideologies
oflanguage are all terms currently in play. Although different
emphases aresometimes signaled by the different terms, with the
first focusing more onformal linguistic structures ~ and the last
on representations of a collectiveorder, the fit of terms to
distinctive perspectives is not perfect, and we usethem
interchangeably here.
At least three scholarly discussions, by no means restricted to
anthropol-ogy, explicitly invoke language or linguistic ideology,
often in seeming mutualunawareness. One such group of studies
concerns contact between languagesor language varieties (118, 133,
135, 152, 219, 249, 285). The recently bur-geoning historiography
of linguistics and public discourses on language hasproduced a
second explicit focus on language ideologies, including
scientificideologies (173,256, 268). Finally, there is a
significant, theoretically coherentbody of work on linguistic
ideology concentrating on its relation to linguisticstructures
(214, 237, 258, 275). Beyond research that explicitly invokes
theterm 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 takefor 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 emergingfield. One point of the comparative study of language
ideology is to show thecultural and historical specificity of
visions of language, yet as reviewers we
1See Silverstein (279:312, footnote) for an account of why this
should be.
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 57
must decide what counts as language. We run the risk of
excluding work inwhich language does not seem focal precisely
because the group studied doesnot compartmentalize and reify social
practices of communicating, does notturn Humboldts energeia
(activity) of language into ergon (product) as doesthe
European-American tradition (41,155,198, 203,258). Our purpose is
notto distinguish ideology of language from ideology in other
domains of humanactivity. Rather, the point is to focus the
attention of anthropological scholarsof language on the ideological
dimension, and to sharpen the understanding oflinguistic issues
among students of ideology, discourse, and social domination.
WHAT IS LINGUISTIC IDEOLOGY?
Linguistic/language ideologies have been defined as "sets of
beliefs aboutlanguage articulated by users as a rationalization or
justification of perceivedlanguage structure and use" (275:193);
with a greater social emphasis "self-evident ideas and objectives a
group holds concerning roles of languagein the social experiences
of members as they contribute to the expression ofthe 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 aboutthe nature of language in the world"
(258:346). Some of the differences amongthese 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
criticalvalues of the term. The former usually encompasses all
cultural systems ofreprcscntation; the latter is reserved for only
some aspects of representationand social cognition, with particular
social origins or functional or formalcharacteristics. Rumseys
definition of linguistic ideology is neutral (258). ForSilverstein,
rationalization marks linguistic ideology within the more
generalcategory 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 awareness of semiotic
process and from the fact that speech is formulated byits users as
purposive activity in the sphere of interested human social
action.In critical studies of ideology, distortion is viewed as
mystification and isfurther traced to the legitimation of social
domination. This critical stanceoften characterizes studies of
language politics and of language and socialclass.
A second division is the siting of ideology. Some researchers
may readlinguistic ideology from linguistic usage, but others
insist that the two must becarefully differentiated (164). While
metalinguistic discourse, as Silverstcin
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
58 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN
suggested, is a sufficient condition for identifying ideology,
Rumseys "com-monsense notions" (258) and Heaths "self-evident
ideas" (135) may well unstated assumptions of cultural orthodoxy,
difficult to elicit directly. Al-though ideology in general is
often taken as explicitly discursive, influentialtheorists have
seen it as behavioral, pre-reflective, or structural, that is,
anorganization of signifying practices not in consciousness but in
lived relations(see 78 for a review). An alertness to the different
sites of ideology mayresolve some apparent controversies over its
relevance to the explanation ofsocial or linguistic phenomena.
The work we review here includes the full range of scholars
notions ofideology: from seemingly neutral cultural conceptions of
language to strate-gies for maintaining social power, from
unconscious ideology read fromspeech practices by analysts to the
most conscious native-speaker explanationsof appropriate language
behavior. What most researchers share, and whatmakes the term
useful in spite of its problems, is a view of ideology as rootedin
or responsive to the experience of a particular social position, a
facetindicated by Heaths (135) and Irvines (162) definitions. This
recognition the social derivation of representations does not
simply invalidate them if werecognize that there is no privileged
knowledge, including the scientific, thatescapes grounding in
social life (205). Nonetheless, the term ideology remindsus that
the cultural conceptions we study are partial, contestable and
contested,and interest-laden (151:382). A naturalizing move that
drains the conceptual its historical content, making it seem
universally and/or timelessly true, isoften seen as key to
ideological process. The emphasis of ideological analysison the
social and experiential origins of systems of signification
counters thisnaturalization 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 ofideology (31:26), but the
reconceptualization implies a methodological stance(279). The term
ideology reminds analysts that cultural frames have socialhistories
and it signals a commitment to address the relevance of power
rela-tions to the nature of cultural forms and ask how essential
meanings aboutlanguage are socially produced as effective and
powerful (9, 78, 241).
APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY
Language ideology has been received principally as an
epiphenomenon, anoverlay of secondary and tertiary responses (34,
36), possibly intriguing butrelatively inconsequential for the
fundamental questions of both anthropologyand linguistics. But
several methodological traditions and topical loci haveencouraged
attention to cultural conceptions of language. We review work
inseveral areas: ethnography of speaking; politics of
multilingualism; literacy
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 59
studies; historiography of linguistics and public discourse on
language; andmetapragmatics and linguistic structure. There are
many connections amongthese, but the work tends to form different
conversations, varying in the socialand linguistic themes they
foreground. Our bibliography is a representativesampling of the
research done in these areas. To illustrate some of the
socialvariation in conceptions of language, and in the institutions
and interests towhich they are fled, we reach back to earlier
studies that were not conceived inthe frame of ideological
analysis, but which we believe can be. rethoughtprofitably 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 vernacularspeech taxonomies and metalinguistics (24,
121, 242). The ethnography speaking was chartered to study ways of
speaking from the point of view ofevents, acts, and styles, but
Hymes (158) suggested that an alternative focus beliefs, values and
attitudes, or on contexts and institutions would make adifferent
contribution. This alternative enterprise has been taken up
morerecently. Language ideology has been made increasingly explicit
as a forceshaping 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-reflexiveaction
have been explored for a variety of genres such as oratory
(210),disputes (38, 116, 186, 188, 196), conflict management
(253,315), and also the foundation of aesthetics in such areas as
music (90).
Ethnographers of speaking have studied the grounding of language
beliefsin other cultural and social forms. For example, language
socialization studieshave 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) speech act theory (13, 270) stimulated thought about
linguistic ideology.Speech act theory is grounded in an English
linguistic ideology, a privatizedview of language emphasizing the
psychological state of the speaker whiledownplaying the social
consequences of speech (308:22; cf 244, 255, 275).This recognition
triggered taxonomic studies of conceptualizations of speechacts in
specific linguistic communities (308, 318), research on
metapragmaticuniversals (309, 310), and numerous ethnographic
challenges to the key as-sumptions of speech act theory (74, 150,
178, 221). Ethnographers of Pacific
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
60 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN
societies identified the centrality of intention to speech act
theory as rooted inWestern 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 tree of cultural anthropology in general, ethnographers of
speakinghave increasingly incorporated considerations of power in
their analyses, againleading to a more explicit focus on linguistic
ideology. Baumans (22) histori-cal ethnography of language and
silence in Quaker ideology was an importantdevelopment, because it
addressed a more formal, conscious, and politicallystrategic form
of ideology. Silence has been recognized as carrying a paradoxi-cal
potential for power that depends greatly on its varying
ideologizationwithin and across communities (103). Advocating a
view of linguistic ideol-ogy as intcractional resource rather than
shared cultural background, Briggsfinds social power achieved
through the strategic use not just of particulardiscursive 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 inother guises and moments:
the display of gender and/or affect (26, 28, 143,163, 175, 188,
232), the strategic deployment of honorifics (3), the regulationof
marriage choices (167), and the display of powerful new social
affiliationsand identities introduced through missionization (187,
254, 314).
LANGUAGE CONTACT, COMPETITION, AND POLITICS
Research on self-conscious struggles over language in
class-stratified andespecially multilingual communities has treated
language ideologies as so-cially, politically, and/or
linguistically significant, even when the researchersprimary
interest may be in debunking such ideologies (64, 84, 277).
The identification of a language with a people has been given
the mostattention (95,160, 302). It is a truism that the equation
of language and nationis a historical, ideological construct (61,
69, 118, 127, 201), conventionallydated to Herder and eighteenth
century German romanticism, although thefamous characterization of
language as the genius of a people can be traced tothe French
Enlightenment and specifically Condillac (1, 179, 235).
Exportedthrough colonialism to become a dominant model around the
world today, thenationalist ideology of language structures state
politics, challenges multilin-gual states, and underpins ethnic
struggles to such an extent that the absence ofa 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
structuredaround the same notions of language that have led to
their oppression and/or
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 61
suppression (5, 6, 32, 80, 169, 206, 305), although traditional
or emergentviews that resist this hegemonic construction have been
documented (10, 57,105, 306). The equation of one language/one
people, the Western insistence onthe authenticity and moral
significance of the mother tongue, and associatedassumptions 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 wherea fluid or complex linguistic repertoire is valued
(10, 176, 194, 206, 238, 273,282). Modern linguistic theory itself
has been seen as framed and constrainedby the one language/one
people assumption (194).
Although the validity of the nationalist ideology of language
has often beendebated or debunked, less attention traditionally has
been given to under-standing how the view of language as symbolic
of self and community hastaken hold in so many different settings.
Where linguistic variation appears tobe simply a diagram of social
differentiation, the analyst needs to identify theideological
production of that diagram (162). Recent studies of language
poli-tics have begun to examine specifically the content and
signifying structure ofnationalist language ideologies
(127,277,285, 326).
Peirces semiotic categories have been used to analyze the
processes bywhich chunks of linguistic material gain significance
as representations ofparticular populations (104). Researchers have
distinguished language as index of group identity from language as
a metalinguistically created symbolof identity, more explicitly
ideologized in discourse (105, 168, 302). Irvine(162) finds that
Wolof villagers construe linguistic differentiation as
iconicallyrelated to social differentiation, distinguishing inter-
and intra-lingual variationoJ~d devising a migration history for a
particular caste to match their linguisticdifference. Here we see
how linguistic ideology can affect the interpretation ofsocial
relations.
Mannheim (204) also notes different cultural ideologies of
different kindsof linguistic variation in southern Peru. Endogenous
variation in Quechua,which is seen simply as natural human speech,
is not socially evaluated byspeakers. But in Spanish, which is
regarded as pure artifice, phonologicalmarkers and stereotypes are
common and lead to hypercorrection among sec-ond-language speakers.
In this case, linguistic ideology drives linguisticchange along
different paths.
Language varieties that are regularly associated with (and thus
index) par-ticular speakers are often revalorized---or
misrecognized (37)--not just 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-
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
62 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN
havioral ideology (Bourdieus 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, symbolicrevalorization 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
languageare really about racism does not constitute analysis. Such
a tearing aside of thecurtain of mystification in a "Wizard of Oz
theory of ideology" (9) begs thequestion of how and why language
comes to stand for social groups in amanner 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 linguisticand social ideologies (146).
Linguistic borrowing might appear superficially indicate speakers
high regard for the donor language. But Hill (148) arguesthat
socially-grounded linguistic analysis of Anglo-American borrowings
andhumorous misrenderings of Spanish reveals them as racist
distancing strate-gies that reduce complex Latino experience to a
subordinated, commodityidentity. 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
whiteadolescents in South London, who see only matters of style
(again, commodi-fled), is in tension with black adolescent views of
these codes as part of theirdistinctive identity (143). Basso (20)
classically describes a Western Apachemetalinguistic 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
totranslate (into high Javanese from low) is the essence of
becoming a true adultand a real language speaker, and Siegel (273)
argues that Javanese metaphori-cally incorporates foreign languages
into itself by treating other languages as ifthey were low
Javanese. Whether a code is a language or not depends onwhether its
speakers act like speakers of Javanese. Encounters with the
lan-guages of others may trigger recognition of the opacity of
language andconcern for delineating and characterizing a
distinctive community language(259).
Linguistic ideology is not a predictable, automatic reflex of
the socialexperience 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 invarious ways,
depending on how speakers conceptualize the links of
language,cognition, and social fife. For example, Nova Scotian
parents actively discour-
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 63
age children from acquiring a subordinated vernacular, because
they believe itwill somehow mark their English (211); Gapun parents
blame their childrensdissatisfaction and aggression as the roots of
the loss of the vernacular (187);and Haitian parents in New York
City believe their children will speak KreyNregardless 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, havecontributed to
profound decisions about, for example, the civility or even
thehumanity of subjects of colonial domination (93, 166, 204, 216,
236). Theyalso quality or disqualify speech varieties from certain
institutional uses andtheir speakers from access to domains of
privilege (37, 57, 68, 120, 191,288).Language mixing,
codeswitching, and creoles are often evaluated as indicatingless
than full linguistic capabilities, revealing assumptions about the
nature oflanguage implicitly based in literate standards and a
pervasive tenet thatequates change with decay (25, 120, 127, 174,
224, 251,265). Written form,lexical elaboration, rules for word
formation, and historical derivation areoften seized on in
diagnosing real language and ranking the candidates (111,165, 235,
287). Grammatical variability and. the question of whether a
varietyhas a grammar play an important part (80). The extension of
the notion grammar from the explicitly artifactual product of
scholarly intervention to anabstract underlying system has done
nothing to mute the polemics (222).
Language Policy
Macrosocial research on language planning and policy has traced
distinctiveideological 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
uilderlyingplanning efforts: assimilation, pluralism,
vernacularization, and internationali-zation (4, 51). At an even
more fundamental level, Ruiz (257) distinguishesthree fundamental
orientations to language as resource, problem, or right (seealso
152), and commentators on bilingual and immigrant education have
notedsuch orientations conflated within these programs (117, 135).
The model development is pervasive in post-colonial language
planning, with paradoxicalideological implications that condemn
languages, like societies, to perennialstatus as underdeveloped
(32, 87, 110).
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
64 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN
DOCTRINES OF CORRECTNESS, STANDARDIZATION,AND PURISM
Since Dantes time, the selection and elaboration of a linguistic
standard hasstood for a complex of issues about language, politics,
and power (289). Theexistence of a language is always a discursive
project rather than an estab-lished fact (259). Standard languages
and/or their formation had been studiedearlier by philologists,
Prague School functional linguists, and applied lin-guists (52, 96,
134), but the emphasis on the ideological dimension has givenrise
to new analyses of language standardization (172), with the concept
of 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
everylinguistic community (35), but this claim has been disputed
(132). There more agreement that codified, superposed standard
languages are tied not onlyto writing and its associated hegemonic
institutions, but to specifically Euro-pean forms of these
institutions (35, 131, 132, 172, 219, 277, 286). In thevernacular
belief system of Western culture, language standards are not
recog-nized as human artifacts, but are naturalized by metaphors
such as that of thefree market (172, 277). Ideological analysis
addresses questions such as howdoctrines of linguistic correctness
and incorrectness are rationalized or howthey are related to
doctrines of the inherent representational power, beauty,
andexpressiveness of language as a valued mode of action (276:223;
18). Moralindignation over nonstandard forms derives from
ideological associations ofthe standard with thc qualities valued
within the culture, such as clarity ortruthfulness (70, 118,
145,172, 276:241; 293).
Purist doctrines of linguistic correctness close off non-native
sources ofinnovation, but usually selectively, targeting only
languages construed asthreats (316; cf 142, 297). The linguistic
effects of purism arc 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 oftheocratic institutions and of ritual linguistic
forms as models for other do-mains of interaction (182, 183, 184).
In contrast, an ideology of the sanctity language in an
ultraorthodox Jewish community leads to the restriction of
theHebrew language to sacred contexts (113). Mexicano vernacular
purist ideolo-gies are deployed paradoxically to enhance the
authority of those who are leastimmersed in the vernacular and most
enmeshed with the larger economy (146,149). Some Spanish loanwords
sound more authentic to non-elite members ofthe Gallego speech
community in Spain, who dissociate themselves from
thelinguistically pure forms that smack of institutional minority
politics (5, 6).Such complex relations among social position,
linguistic practice, and purist
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 65
ideologies illustrate the importance of problematizing ideology
rather thanassuming that it can be read from one of the other two
elements.
Orthography
In countries where identity and nationhood are under
negotiation, every aspectof language, including its phonological
description and forms of graphic repre-sentation can be contested
(226, 265). Even where nationhood is as classicallywell-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 politicalmeanings (62, 96, 154, 169, 300). In some
creoles, for example, supporters etymological orthographies appeal
to an historical connection to the prestigeof the colonizing
language. Those favoring a phonemic approach argue that amore
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 canplay distinctive, crucial roles in social
institutions. Even the conceptualizationof the printed word can
differ importantly from that of the written (7, 313).Derridas (71)
deconstruction of a Western view of speech as natural, authen-tic,
and prior to the mere lifeless inscriptions of alien, arbitrary
writing, hasbrought 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 speechover writing (259).
Javanese do not share the view of the original voice as
theauthentic (273). Not all commentators on Western ideology find
the oral biasDerrida describes. Harris (131) argues that a
scriptism founded in Europeanliterate experience is smuggled into
the apparent oral bias of contemporarylinguistic concepts, from the
sentence through the word to the phoneme.Mignolo (216) asserts that
the supremacy of the oral in Platos Phaedrus wasinverted and the
ideology of the alphabetic letter was established in Renais-sance
Europe. Tyler (301) sees a Western visualist ideological emphasis
transparent, referential discourse as rooted in the primacy of text
and thesuppression of speech.
Anthropological studies of literacy (e.g. its introduction in
oral societies orits use in schooling) recognized belatedly that it
is not an autonomous, neutraltechnology, but rather is culturally
organized, ideologically grounded, andhistorically contingent,
shaped by political, social, and economic forces (53,56, 58, 60,
97, 138, 161,223,266, 269, 290-292). Research now emphasizes
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
66 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN
the diversity of ways in which communities "take up" literacy,
sometimesaltering local forms of communication or fhndamental
concepts of identity(15, 27, 29, 30, 37a, 77, 88, 114, 138, 214a,
252, 264). Considerations power significantly affect literacy
strategies. In Gapun, views of language as apowerful 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 aretransformative and magical, but inscription
destroys their power (122). ForChambri (108) and Yekuana, "fixity"
in writing is the source of danger;printed words are not responsive
to social circumstances. Maori convictionsthat there is an
authoritative oral text captured only weakly by a written treatyare
an ironic Platonic counterpoint to European-origin New Zealanders
searchfor a true text among multiple written translations of the
treaty in which thegovernment is rooted (208). Textual exegesis
depends fundamentally on ide-ologies of language, or ideas about
the ways texts are created and are to beunderstood. Contrasting
approaches to locating scriptural truth can be foundwithin the
Judeo-Christian religious tradition (170).
The definition of what is and what is not literacy is always a
profoundlypolitical matter. Historical studies of the emergence of
schooled literacy andschool English show the association between
symbolically valued literatetraditions and mechanisms of social
control (56, 60, 137). Analyses of class-room interaction further
demonstrate how implicit expectations about writtenlanguage shape
discriminatory judgments about spoken language and
studentperformance (37, 55, 215). The nineteenth century foundation
of English as university discipline created a distinction between
reading as aristocratic andleisurely and writing as work.
Composition as skill training for employment isthe dirty work of
English departments, with consequences for gender politics(58).
Transcription, or the written representation of speech, within
academicdisciplines 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 onutterances that might
otherwise be seen as objects of phonological manipula-tion (229).
On the other hand, folklorists and sociolinguists who have
recordeddialects of English reveal their linguistic biases when
they use non-standardorthography (sometimes called eye dialect) to
represent the speech of blacksand Appalachians more than that of
other groups. Given the ideology of thevalue 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 reporters modal of
English, againstwhich incoming speech is filtered, evaluated, and
interpreted. It is considered
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 67
information if a witness speaks ungrammatically, but not if
lawyers do, andediting is applied accordingly (312).
HISTORICAL STUDIES
Although there has been a notable linguistic turn in historical
studies in recentdecades, Bauman noted that much of the work was
linguistically naive and notgrounded in an investigation of the
social and ideological significance oflanguage in peoples 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, andcolonial expressions. Western states, and
particularly France, England, and theUnited States, predominate in
this literature, but there also has been someattention 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
oflanguage (8, 45, 106, 280), which join more traditional
intellectual histories(1).
In the late eighteenth through the mid-nineteenth century in
WesternEurope, language became the object of civil concern as new
notions of publicdiscourse and forms of participation (and
exclusion) were formulated by newparticipants 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
topicswere. Political conceptualizations of language rather than
meditations on anautonomous language dominated French and American
debates in the seven-teenth through the nineteenth century (8, 12).
Hegumonic English ideologydrew its political and social
effectiveness from a presupposition that languagerevealed the mind,
and civilization was largely a linguistic concept (283, 294).The
nineteenth century debate over language in the United States
essentiallywas 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
sixteenthcentury 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. Whichlanguage(s) to use in
colonial administration was not always obvious, and eachchoice had
its own ideological motivations and practical consequences. An
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
68 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN
indigenous vernacular might be selected, for example, to protect
the languageof 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 linguisticdescription and translation has
addressed the ideological dimension of diction-aries, grammars, and
language guides, demonstrating that what was conceivedas a neutral
scientific endeavor was very much a political one (248).
In what Mignolo (216) calls the colonization of language,
Europeansbrought to their tasks ideas about language prevalent in
the metropole, andthese 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)
gues for Swahili and Harries (130) for Tsonga. Cohn argues that
Britishgrammars, dictionaries, and translations of the languages of
India created thediscourse 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 thecolonial encounter. Functional or formal inadequacy of
indigenous languagesand, therefore, of indigenous mind or
civilization was often alleged to justifyEuropean 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 aprediction
that the Spaniards will possess it" (216:305; see also 166,
248).
Because of the availability of documents, much of this
historical researchhas explored the linguistic ideologies of
colonizers rather than of indigenouspopulations. But some work
seeks to capture the contradictions and interac-tions of the two
(59, 128,204, 216). Tongan metapragmatics of speech levelsindicate
a reanalysis of society that incorporates European-derived
institu-tional complexes into Tongan constructions of social
hierarchy (240). Thestructure and focus of a seventeenth century
instructional manual on Castilianwritten by a Tagalog printer
contrast sharply with Spanish missionaries gram-mars of Tagalog,
showing the different political interests behind translation forthe
Spanish and indigenous Filipinos (247).
Historiography of LinguisticsThe close intertwining of public
and scholarly conceptualizations of languagein the West and its
colonies through the nineteenth century leads directly tocritical
studies of Western philosophy of language and of the emergence
ofprofessional linguistics (1, 45, 98). Contributors to Joseph
& Taylors collec-tion (173) examine intellectual as well as
political prejudices that framed thegrowth of linguistic theory,
from Locke through Saussure to Chomsky, and therole of linguistic
ideas in specific social struggles (cf 227). Of particular
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 69
relevance to our topic, Attridge (11) deconstmcts Saussures
linguistics 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 byhumanly
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 nationalistprojects (65, 67, 235).
Professional, scientific linguistics in the twentieth century
has nearly uni-formly rejected prescfiptivism, but many authors
argue that this rejection hidesa smuggled dependence on and
complicity with prescriptive institutions for thevery subject
matter of the field. Rather than registering a unitary
language,linguists helped to form one (66:48; 131, 132). Sankoff
(261) argues contemporary positivist linguistic methodologies that
invoke a scientific ra-tionale are imposed ideologically by the
same interests that propagate norma-tivism and prescripfivism. The
idealism of modem autonomous linguistics hascome 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 anideological naturalization of sociolinguistic
arrangements (205a). Rossi-Landi(256) critiques linguistic
relativism as bourgeois ideology, seeing in the theorya
manifestation of guilt for the savage destruction of American
Indians. Theidealism of linguistic relativity transforms linguistic
producers into consum-ers, and enables the illusion that the
theoretical exhibition of the stl-uctures of alanguage saves the
world view of the extinct linguistic workers (cf 57, 151).Schultz
(268) argues that contradictory strategies in Whorfs writings arose
response to the constraint of the American tblk ideology of free
speech.Although his ideas paralleled those of Bakhtin, Whorf had to
first convince hisaudience that linguistic censorship existed.
IDEOLOGY, LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE, AND LANGUAGECHANGE
As noted earlier, modem linguistics has generally held that
linguistic ideologyand prescriptive norms have little
significant--or, paradoxically, only pemi-cious-~effect on speech
forms (although they may have some less negligibleeffect on
writing) (35; cf 84, 92, 125, 181). Prescriptivism does not
directlytransform language, but it does have an effect. Silverstein
argues that a graspof language ideology is essential for
understanding the evolution of linguisticstructure (276:220).
Important sociolinguistic changes can be set off by ideo-logical
interpretation of language use, although because they derive only
froma larger social dialectic, such changes are likely to take an
unintended direc~
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
70 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN
tion, as in the historical case of second person pronoun shift
in English. To theextent that speakers conceptualize language as
socially purposive action, wemust look at their ideas about the
meaning, function, and value of language inorder to understand the
extent and degree of systematicity in empiricallyoccuring
linguistic forms (cf 47, 129, 209, 212).
In analyses of gender in English, T/V pronoun shift, and
Javanese speechlevels, Silverstein shows that rationalization not
only explains but actuallyaffects linguistic structure, or
rationalizes it by making it more regular. Tounderstand ones own
linguistic usage is potentially to change it (275:233).Imperfect,
limited awareness of linguistic structures, some of which are
moreavailable 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 thenreinforces and
expands the original structure, distorting language in the nameof
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 asan explanatory link.
Labov differentiates mechanisms of change from belowand above the
level of speakers awareness. He argues that subconsciouschanges are
extensive and systematic, while conscious self-correction, whichhe
labels ideology, leads to sporadic and haphazard effects on
linguistic forms(190:329). But several authors note that
correlational sociolinguistic modelsgloss over the actual
motivating force of linguistic change, which often lies insocial
evaluations of language (85, 162, 261).
Erfington (86) argues that Labovs generalization is most
applicable 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 moresusceptible to
rationalization and strategic use (85,240). Because such aware-ness
and use drive linguistic change, these variables require a
fundamentallydifferent, participant-oriented analysis (86).
Irvinc (162) notes that the formal linguistic characteristics of
Hallidayananti-languages, such as inversion, are not arbitrary and
that they suggest themediation of ideological conceptualizations of
linguistic structures. Similarly,subordinate languages in contact
situations can acquire both functional andformal properties of
anti-languages. Speakers of moribund varieties of Xinca,for
example, go "hog-wild" with glottalized consonants, which are
exotic fromthe 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 selfthat is most distinctive
from its socially dominant counterpart.
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 71
Silverstein and others give examples from European languages,
especiallyEnglish, 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--andin 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 andexpressions 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 ratherthan reference. Hill (147) describes a
counter-hegemonic ideology of languageamong Mexicano women that
emphasizes not reference but performance andthe 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 streetthan...the text serenely communicating with the
solitary reader or theteacher...addressing a quiet, domesticated
audience." The new direction inresearch on linguistic ideology has
also moved away from seeing ideology as ahomogeneous cultural
template, now treating it as a process involving strug-gles among
multiple conceptualizations and demanding the recognition
ofvariation and contestation within a community as well as
contradictions withinindividuals (104, 258, 279, 308). Warao
strategically deploy conflicting mod-els for language use as
resources for interactional power (40, 41). Germanspeakers in
Hungary frame language and identity differently at different
mo-ments, to resist also-changing official state ideologies (105).
English has entirely different significance to New York Puerto
Ricans depending onwhether they think of it as spoken by white
Americans, by black Americans, orby Puerto Ricans (304). Where
casual generalization contrasts English andFrench linguistic
attitudes as if they were unitbrm cultural attributes inheringat
the state and individual level, historical studies show that such
apparentlycharacteristic national stances emerge conjuncturally
from struggles amongcompeting ideological positions (139,
201,249).
CONCLUSION
It is paradoxical that at the same time that language and
discourse havebecome central topics across the social sciences and
humanities, linguistic
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
72 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN
anthropologists have bemoaned the marginalization of the
subdiscipline fromthe larger field of anthropology. The topic of
language ideology is a much-needed bridge between linguistic and
social theory, because it relates themicroculture of communicative
action to political economic considerations ofpower and social
inequality, confronting macrosocial constraints on languagebehavior
(P Kroskrity, personal communication). It is also a potential means
deepening a somefimcs superficial understanding of linguistic form
and itscultural variability in political economic studies of
discourse.
Many populations around the word, 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 professionalattention has only
begun to turn to understanding when and how those linksare
forged--whether by lay participants or their expert analysts--and
whattheft consequences might be for linguistic and social life. A
wealth of publicproblems hinge on language ideology. Examples from
the headlines of UnitedStates newspapers include bilingual policy
and the official English movement;questions of free speech and
harassment; the meaning of multiculturalism inschools 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 togrips with such public issues means coming
to grips with the nature andworking of language ideology.
Research on topics such as pronouns, politeness, and purism has
begun thedifficult program of considering whose interests are
served by linguistic ideol-ogy taking the form that it does,
relating notions of linguistic ideology asrooted in linguistic
structure and cognitive limitations to understandings ofideology as
rooted in social practices and interests (258:356). It is the
attemptto link these two aspects of ideology, and to tie social and
linguistic formstogether through ideology, that is both most
provocative and most challenging.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank Susan Gal for encouragement to write
this essay. We also wish tothank participants in the session on
Language Ideologies at the 1991 AmericanAnthropological 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
theNational Endowment for the Humanities and the Spencer Foundation
forsupport while preparing the review, and to Alex Halkias, Natasha
Unger, andBegofia Echeverria, who helped with bibliographic work in
various stages.Bambi Schieffelin thanks Paul Garrett for
bibliographic assistance and Molly
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 73
Mitchell for editorial help. This essay is dedicated to Ben,
whose wonderfulsense 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; emaih [email protected]
Literature Cited
1. AarsleffH. 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 Campaign forEnglish as the Official Language in
theUSA. Berlin: Mouton de C, ruyter
3. Agha A. 1994. Honorification. Annu. Rev.AnthropoL
23:277-302
4. Akinnaso FN. 1991. Toward the develop-ment of a multilingual
language policy inNigeria. Appl. Linguist. 12(1):29-61
5. Alvarez C. 1990. The institionalization ofGalician:
linguistic practices, power andideology in public discourse. PhD
thesis.Univ. Calif., Berkeley
6. Alvarez-CAccamo C. 1993. The pigeonhouse, the octopus and the
people: theideologization of linguistic practices inGaliza.
Plurilinguismes 6:1-26
7. Anderson B. 1983. Imagined Communi-ties: Reflections on the
Origin and Spreadof Nationalism. London: Verso
8. Andresen J. 1990. Linguistics in America1769-1924: 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 andworking class
ideology in a Puerto Ricanbarrio of New York. Ethnic Groups
5(1-2):55-78
11. Attridge D. 1988. Peculiar Language. Lon-don: Methuen
12. Auroux S. 1986. Le sujet de la langue: laconception
politique de la langue sous lan-cien rrgime et la rrvolution. See
Ref. 45,pp. 259-78
13. Austin JL. 1962. How To Do Things withWords. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ.Press
14. Bailey RW. 1991. Images of English: ACultural History of the
Language. Ann Ar-bor: Univ. Mich. Press
15. Baker C, Freebody P. 1986. Repre-sentations of questioning
and answering inchildrens first school books. Lang.
Soc.15:451-84
16. Balibar R. 1991. La rrvolution franqaise etluniversalisation
du fran~ais national enFrance. Hist. Eur. Ideas 13(1/2):89-95
17. Balibar R, Laporte D. 1984. Le fran~aisnational Paris:
Hachette
18. Baron DE. 1982. Grammar and GoodTaste: Reforming the
American Language.New Haven, C~T: Yale Univ. Press
19. Baron DE. 1990. The English Only Ques-tion: An Official
Language for Americans ?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 AmongSeventeenth-Century Quakers. New York:Cambridge
Univ. Press
23. Bauman R, Briggs CL. 1990. Poetics andperformance 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. Brbel-Gisler D. 1981. La langue creoleforcejugul~e. Paris:
LHarmattan
26. Bell AR. 1990. Separate people: speakingof Creek men and
women. Am. Anthropol.92(2):332-45
27. Besnier N, 1989. Literacy and feelings: theencoding of
affect in Nukulaelae letters.Text 9(1):69-92
28. Besnier N. 1990. Language and affect.Annu. Rev. AnthropoL
19:419-51
29. BesnierN. 1991. Literacy and the notion ofperson on
Nukulaelae Atoll. Am. Anthro-pol. 93(2):570-87
30. Bledsoe CH, Robey KM. 1993. Arabic lit-eracy and secrecy
among the Mende ofSierre 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-
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
74 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN
velopment and modernization in Tanzanianlanguage policy and
research. In AfricanLanguages, Development and the State, ed.R
Fardon, G Furniss, pp. 213-26. London:Routledge
33. Blommaert J, Verschueren J. 1992. The roleof language in
European nationalist ideolo-gies. See Ref. 185, pp. 355-75
34. Bloomfield L. 1944. Secondary and tertiaryresponses to
language. Language 20:44-55
35. Bloomfield L. 1970. Literate and illiteratespeech. In A
Bloomfield Anthology, ed. CHockett, pp. 147-56. Bloomington:
Ind.Univ. Press
36. BoasE 1911. Introduction to the Handbookof American Indian
Languages. In Bulletinof the Bureau of American Ethnology, ed.
FBoas, pp. 1-83. Washington, DC: Gov.Print. Off.
37. Bourdieu P. 1991. Language and SymbolicPower. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ.Press
37a. Boyarin J, ed. 1993. The Ethnography ofReading. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
38. Brenneis D, Myers F, eds. 1984. DangerousWords: Language and
Politics in the Pa-cific. New York: New York Univ. Press
39. Briggs CL. 1986. Learning How to Ask: ASociolinguistic
Appraisal of the Role of theInterview in Social Science
Research.Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
40. Briggs CL. 1988. Disorderly dialogues inritual impositions
of order: the role ofmetapragmatics in Warao dispute media-tion.
Anthropol. Linguist. 30:448~91
41. Briggs CL. 1992. Linguistic ideologies andthe 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 ReflexiveLanguage:
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 consequencesof writing Louisiana
French. Lang. Soc.22:67-101
45. Busse W, Trabant J, eds. 1986. Les iddo-logues. Sdmiotique,
theories et politiqueslinguistiques pendant la rdvolution
francaise. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
46. Calame-Griaule G. 1986. Words and theDogon 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. 7%96
48. Campbell L, Muntzel MC. 1989. The struc-tural consequences
of language death. SeeRef. 72, pp. 181-96
49. Clancy P. 1986. The acquisition of commu-
nicative style in Japanese. In LanguageSocialization across
Cultures, ed. BBSchieffelin, E Ochs, pp. 213-50. NewYork: Cambridge
Univ. Press
50. Cmiel K. 1990. Democratic Eloquence:The Fight Over Popular
Speech in Nine-teenth Century America. Berkeley: Univ.Calif.
Press
5 I. Cobarrubias J. 1983. Ethical issues in statusplanning. See
Ref. 52, pp. 41~86
52. Cobarrubias J, Fishman JA, eds. 1983. Pro-gress in Language
Planning: InternationalPerspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
53. Cochran-Smith M. 1984. The Making of aReader. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex
54. Cohn B. 1985. The command of languageand the language of
command. SubalternStud 4:276-329
55. Collins J. 1986. Differential treatment inreading
instruction. In The Social Con-struction of Literacy, ed. J
Cook-Gumperz,pp. 117-37. Cambridge: Cambridge UnivPress
56. Collins J. 1991. Hegemonic practice: liter-acy and standard
language in public educa-tion. In Rewriting Literacy: Culture and
theDiscourse of the Other, ed. C Mitchell, KWesler, 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: historyand language in
basic writing programs. InKnowledge, Culture and Power:
Interna-tional Perspectives on Literacy Policiesand Practices, ed.
P Freebody, A Welch,pp. 16246. Pittsburgh: Univ PittsburghPress
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-cracy: 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. With Forked Tongues:What Are National
Languages Good For?Arm Arbor, MI: Karoma
62. Coulmas F. 1990. Language adaptation inMeiji Japan. See Ref.
317, pp. 69-86
63. Crago M. 1988. Cultural context in cornmunicative
interaction of lnuit children.PhD thesis. McGill Univ.,
Montreal
64. Crawford J. 1992. Hold Your Tongue: Bil-ingualism and the
Politics of "EnglishOnly." Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
65. Crowley T. 1989. Standard English and thePolitics of
Language. Urbana: Univ. Ill.Press
66. Crowley T. 1990. That obscure object ofdesire: a science of
language. See Ref. 173,pp. 27-50
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 75
67. Crowley T. 1991. Proper English? Read-ings in Language,
History and CulturalIdentity. London: Routledge
68. Davies A. 1984. Idealization in sociolin-guistics: the
choice of the standard dialect.In Georgetown University Round Table
onLanguages and Linguistics 1984, ed. DSchiffrin, pp. 229-39.
Washington, DC:Georgetown Univ. Press
69. de Certeau M, Julia D, Revel J. 1975. Unepolitique de la
langue: la r~volution fran-9aise et les patois. Paris:
Gallimard
70. DecrosseA. 1986. Grn~ologie du franqais:purism et langue
savante. In Etats delangue, ed. M-P Gruenais, pp. 161-200.Paris:
Fondation Diderot/Fayard
71. Derrida J. 1974. Of Grammatology. Transl.GC Spivak.
Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniv. Press
72. Dorian NC, ed. 1989. Investigating Obso-lescence: Studies in
Language Contractionand Death. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press
73. Du Bois JW. 1991. Transcription designprinciples for spoken
discourse research.Pragmatics 1(1):71-106
74. Du Bois JW. 1992. Meaning without inten-tion: lessons from
divination. In Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, ed.JH
Hill, JT Irvine, pp. 48-71. Cambridge:Cambridge Univ. Press
75. Duranti A. 1992. Intentions, self and responsibility. In
Responsibility and Evi-dence in Oral Discourse, ed. JA Hill,
JTIrvine, pp. 24-47. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. 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 E 1983. The paradox of nationallanguage movements. J.
Multiling. Mul-ticult. Dev. 4(4):289-300
81. Eckert P, McConnell-Ginet S. 1992. Thinkpractically and look
locally: language andgender as community-based practice.Annu. Rev.
Anthropol. 21:461-90
82. Edwards J. 1992. Transcription of dis-course. In
International Encyclopedia ofLinguistics, ed. W Bright, pp. 367-71.
NewYork: 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 deviantprestige dialect
constructions. In A Fest-schrifi 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 thesociolinguistic
sign: describing the Java-nese speech levels. See Ref. 214, pp.
287-310
86. Errington JJ. 1988. Structure and Style inJavanese: A
Semiotic View of LinguisticEtiquette. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn.
Press
87. Errington JJ. 1992. On the ideology of In-donesian language
development: the stateof a language of state. See Ref. 185,
pp.417-26
88. Ewald J. 1988. Speaking, writing andauthority: explorations
in and from thekingdom of Taqali. Comp. Stud. Soc.
tlist.39:199-223
89. Fabian J. 1986. Language and ColonialPower: The
Appropriation of Swahili in theFormer 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. Fold S, Schieffelin BB. 1981. Hard words:a functional basis
for Kaluli discourse. InGeorgetown University Round Table
onLanguages and Linguistics 1981, ed. DTannen, pp. 35030.
Washington, DC:Georgetown Univ. Press
92. Ferguson CA. 1983. Language planningand 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 ofWords. New York: Teachers College Press
95. Fishman JA. 1989. Language and Ethnicityin Minority
Sociolinguistic Perspective.Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters
96. Fodor I, Hagrge C, eds. 1983-1990. Lan-guage Reform: History
and Future in 5Volumes. Hamburg: Buske Verlag
97. Forstorp P-A. 1990. Receiving and re-sponding: ways of
taking from the Bible. InBible Reading in Sweden: Studies Relatedto
the Translation of the New Testament1981, 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 thepresent language
situation in Greece. Lang.Soc. 21(3):36541
100.Friedfich P. 1989. Language, ideology andpolitical 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:
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
76 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN
the problematics of research on languageand gender. In Gender at
the Crossroads ofKnowledge, ed. M di Leonardo, pp. 175-203.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
104.Gal S. 1992. Multiplicity and contentionamong ideologies.
See Ref. 185, pp. 445-50
105.Gal S. 1993. Diversity and contestation inlinguistic
ideologies: German speakers inHungary. Lang. Soc. 22(3):337-359
106.Gal S. 1993. Lost in a Slavic sea: linguistictheories and
expert knowledge in the mak-ing of Hungarian identity. Presented
at92nd Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc.,Washington, DC
107.Garcia O, Evangelista I. 1988. Spanish lan-guage use and
attitudes: a study of two NewYork City communities. Lang.
Soc.17(4):475-511
108.Gewertz D, Errington F. 1991. TwistedHis-tories, Altered
Contexts. Cambridge: Cam-bridge Univ. Press
109.Giles H, Hewstone M, Ryan EB, JohnsonP. 1987. Research on
language attitudes. InSociolinguistics: 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 theJews. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ.Press
112.Glinert L. 1991. The "back-to-the future"syndrome in
language planning: the case ofmodern Hebrew. In Language
Planning:Focusschrifi in Honor of Joshua A. Fish-man, ed. DF
Marshall, pp. 215-43. Amster-dam: Benjamins
113.Glinert L, Shilhav Y. 1991. Holy land, holylanguage: 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 printmedia. Aust. Aborig. Stud. 2:27-47
115.Gold DL. 1989. A sketch of the linguisticsituation in Israel
today. Lang. Soc. 18:361-88
116.Goldman L. 1983. Talk Never Dies: TheLanguage of Hull
Disputes. London: Tavis-tock
117.Grillo RD. 1985. Ideologies & Institutionsin Urban
France: The Representation ofImmigrants. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ.Press
118.Grillo RD. 1989. Dominant Languages:Language and Hierarchy
in Britain andFrance. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
119.Gross JE. 1993. The politics of unofficiallanguage 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.Gurnperz JJ, Hymes D, eds. 1972. Direc-tions in
Sociolinguistics: The Ethnographyof Communication. New York: Holt,
Rine-hart & Winston
122.Guss D. 1986. Keeping it oral: a Yekuanaethnology. Am.
Ethnol. 13(3):413-29
123.Gustafson T. 1992. Representative Words:Politics, Literature
and the American Lan-guage 1776-1865. Cambridge: CambridgeU~fiv.
Press
124.Haarman H. 1989. Symbolic Values of For-eign Language Use:
From the JapaneseCase to a General Sociolinguistic Perspec-tive.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
125.Haas W. 1982. On the normative characterof 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. TBurger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
127.Handler R. 1988. Nationalism and the Poli-tics of Culture in
Quebec. Madison: Univ.Wise. Press
128.Hanks WF. 1987. Discourse genres in atheory 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.
Affairs87(346):25-52
131.Hams 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,
LiteraryStructure, 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 Dialectsin English, ed. T Shopen, J Williams,
pp.3-31. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop
137.Heath SB. 1981. Toward an ethnohistory ofwriting in American
education. In Writing:The Nature, Development and Teaching
ofWritten Communication, ed. MF White-man, 1:25--45. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 77
138.Heath SB. 1983. Ways with Words. Cam-bridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press
138a. Heath SB. 1989. Language ideology. InInternational
Encyclopedia of Communi-cations, 2:393-95. New York: OxfordUniv.
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 E 1983. Languagestatus decisions and the
law in the UnitedStates. 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 onthe Caribbean, ed. M Gorlach, J Holm,
pp.53-70. Amsterdam: Benjamins
142. tlerzfeld M. 1982. Ours Once More: Folk-lore, Ideology, and
the Making of ModernGreece. 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 onthe Mexican border. Lang. Soe. 15 (2):
193-220
145.Higonnet E 1980. The politics of linguisticterrorism and
grammatical hegemony dur-ing the French revolution. Soc. Hist.
5(1):41~59
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)
languageideology. See Ref. 185, pp. 263-80
148.Hill JH. 1993. Ha~ta la vista, baby: AngloSpanish in the
American Southwest. Crit.Anthropol. 13:145-76
149.Hill JH, Hill KC. 1986. Speaking Mexi-cano: Dynamics of
Syncretic Language inCentral Mexico. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
150.Hill JH, Irvine JT. 1992. Introduction. InResponsibility and
Evidence in Oral Dis-course, ed. JH Hill, JT lrvine, pp.
1-23.Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
151.Hill JH, Mannheim B. 1992. Language andworld view. Annu.
Rev. Anthropol. 21:381-406
152.Hornberger N. 1988. Language planningorientations and
bilingual education inPeru. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan.
12(1):14-29
153.Hornberger N. 1988. Language ideology inQuechua 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. JWTollefson. 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. Languageas a social problem:
the repression of Span-ish in South Texas. Z Multiling.
Multicult.Dev. 10(5):401-19
157.Hymes D. 1971. On linguistic theory, com-municative
competence, and the educationof disadvantaged children. In
Anthropo-logical Perspectives on Education, ed. MWax, SA Dimnond,
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 TellYou. " Philadelphia:
Univ. Penn. Press
160.Hymes D. 1984. Linguistic problems indefining the concept of
"tribe." In Lan-guage in Use, ed. J Baugh, J Sherzer, pp.7-27.
Englewo~)d Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
161.Illich I, Sanders B. 1988. ABC: The Alpha-betization of the
Popular Mind. San Fran-cisco: North Point
162.Irvine JT. 1989. When talk isnt cheap:language and political
econmny. 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 ofcolonial linguistics:
gender in 19th-cen turyrepresentations 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 inNorthwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cam-bridge Univ.
Press
168.Jacquemet M. 1992. "If he speaks Italian,its better":
metapragmatics in court. Prag-matics 2(2): 111-26
169.Jaffe A. 1993. Obligation, error, andauthenticity: competing
cultural principlesin the teaching of Corsican. J.
Linguist.Anthropol. 3(1):99-114
170.Janowitz N. 1993. Re-creating Genesis: themetapragmatics 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
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
78 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN
Politics of Language Purism. Berlin: Mou-ton de Gruyter
172.Joseph JE. 1987. Eloquence and Power:The Rise of Language
Standards andStandard Languages. New York: BasilBlackwell
173. Joseph JE, Taylor TJ, cds. 1990. Ideologiesof Language. New
York: Routledge
174.Jourdan C. 1991. Pidgins and creoles: theblurring of
categories. Annu. Rev. Anthro-pol. 20:187-209
175.Katriel T. 1986. Talking Straight: DugriSpeech 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. HawaiiPress
177.Klor de Alva JJ. 1989. Language, politicsand translation:
colonial discourse andclassic Nahuatl in New Spain. In TheArt
ofTranslation: Voices from the Field, ed. RWarren, pp. 143--62.
Boston: NortheasternUniv. Press
178.Kochman T. 1986. Strategic ambiguity inblack speech genres.
Text 6(2): 153-70
179.Koepke W, ed. 1990. Johann GottfriedHerder. Language,
History and the En-lightenment. Columbia, SC: CamdenHouse
180.Kramer MP. 1992. Imagining Language inAmerica: From the
Revolution to the CivilWar. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press
181.Kroch AS, Small C. 1978. Grammaticalideology 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 Kivaspeech as a
manifestation of linguistic ide-ology. See Ref. 185, pp.
297-310
183.Kroskrity PV. 1994. Arizona Tewa publicannouncements: form,
function, linguisticideology. Anthropol. Linguist. 35:In press
184.Kroskrity PV. 1993. Language, History,and Identity:
Ethnolinguistic Studies of theArizona Tewa. Tucson: Univ. Ariz.
Press
185.Kroskrity PV, Schieffelin BB, WoolardKA, eds. 1992. Special
Issue on LanguageIdeologies. Pragmatics 2(3):235453
186.Kulick D. 1992. Anger, gender, languagestfift and the
politics of revelation in aPapua New Guinean village. See Ref.
185,pp. 281-96
187.Kulick D. 1992. Language Shift and Cul-tural Reproduction:
Socialization, Self andSyncretism in a Papua New GuineanVillage.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press
188.Kulick D. 1993. Speaking as a woman:structure and gender in
domestic argumentsin a New Guinea village. Cult. Anthropol.8(4)
:510-41
189. Kulick D, Stroud C. 1990. Christianity,cargo and ideas of
self. Man (NS) 25:7048
190.Labov W. 1979. Locating the frontier be-tween social and
psychological factors inlinguistic variation. In Individual
Differ-ences in Language Ability and LanguageBehavior, ed. CJ
Fillmore, D Kempler, WS-Y Wang, pp. 327-39. New York: Academic
191.Labov W. 1982. Objectivity and commit-ment in linguistic
evidence. Lang. Soc. l 1:165-201
192.Landes JB. 1988. Women and the PublicSphere in the Age of
the French Revolution.Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
193.Leibowitz AH. 1976. Language and thelaw: the exercise of
political power throughthe official designation of language.
InLanguage and Politics, ed. W OBarr, JOBarr, pp. 449-66. The
Hague: Moutonde Gruyter
194.Le Page RB. 1988. Some premises con-cerning the
standardization of languages,with special reference to Caribbean
CreoleEnglish. Int. J. Sociol. Lang. 71:25-36
195.Lim6n J. 1982. E1 meeting: history, folkSpanish and ethnic
nationalism in a Chi-cano student community. In Spanish in
the,United States, ed. J Amastae, L El~as-Oli-vares, pp. 301-32.
New York: CambridgeUniv. 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. InLanguage and Ethnicity: Foeussehrifl inHonor of
Joshua A. Fishman, ed. JR Dow,pp. 131-44. Amsterdam: Benjamins
198.Lucy JA. 1993. Reflexive language and thehuman disciplines.
Iu Reflexive Language:Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed.JA
Lucy, pp. 9-32. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press
199.Ludwig R, ed. 1989. Les creoles fran~aisentre loral et
ldcrit. T~ibingen, Germany:Gunter Narf Verlag
200.Luhman R. 1990. Appalachian Englishstereotypes: language
attitudes in Ken-tucky. Lang. Soc. 19:331-48
201.Mackey WF. 1991. Language and the sov-ereign state. Hist.
Eur. Ideas 13(1/2):51-61
202.Maguire G. 1991. Our Own Language: AnIrish Initiative.
Philadelphia: MultilingualMatters
203.Mannheim B. 1986, Popular song andpopular grammar, poetry
and metalan-guage. Word 37(1-2):45-75
204.Mannheim B. 1991. The Language of thelnka Since the European
Invasion. Austin,TX: Univ. Texas Press
205.Mannheim K. 1985. Ideology and Utopia:An Introduction to the
Sociology of Knowl-
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 79
edge. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace,Jovanovich
205a. Martin-Jones M. 1989. Language, powerand linguistic
minorities: the need for analternative 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 intransitional Spain. Crit. Anthropol. 13(2):177
208
208.McKenzie DF. 1987. The sociology ofa text: oral culture,
literacy and print inearly New Zealand. In The Social Historyof
Language, ed. P Burke, R Porter, pp.161-97. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ.Press
209.Meeuwis M, Brisard F. 1993. Time and theDiagnosis of
Language Change. AntwerpPap. Linguist. 72. Antwerp: Univ.
AntwerpPress
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
Gaelics linguistic "tip." SeeRef. 72, pp. 103-16
212.Mertz E. 1993. Learning what to ask:metapragmatic factors
and methodologicalreification. In Reflexive Language: Re-ported
Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. JALucy, pp. 159-74. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniv. Press
213 Mertz E. 1994. Legal language: pragmat-ics, poetics and
social power. Annu. Rev.Anthropol. 23:435-55
214.Mertz E, Parmentier RJ, eels. 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/childcollaboration as
oral preparation for liter-acy. See Ref. 266, pp. 132-54
216.Mignolo WD. 1992. On the colonization ofAmerindian languages
and memories:Renaissance theories of writing and thediscontinuity
of thc classical tradition.Camp. Stud. Sac. Hist. 34(2):301-30
217.Miller PJ, Ports R, Fung H, Hoogstra L,Mintz J. 1990.
Narrative practices and thesocial construction of self in
childhood.Am. Ethnol. 17(2):292-311
218.Miller RA. 1982. Japans Modern 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 andthe voices of characters
in five versions ofthe 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 womensdiscourse. 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.Miihlhtiusler P. 1990. Reducing Pacificlanguages to writing.
See Ref. 173, pp.189-205
224.Musa M. 1989. Purism and correctness inthe Bengali speech
community. See Ref.171, pp. 105-12
225.Nebrija A. 1946. Gramatica Castellana.Madrid: Edic. Junta
Ccntenario
226.Neu-Altenheimer I, Marimoutou J, Bag-gioni D. 1987. Nrvrose
diglossique etchoix 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 officiallanguage
movement. Language 65(3):57%87
229.Ochs E. 1979. Transcription as theory. InDevelopmental
Pragmatics, ed. E Ochs,BB Schieffelin, pp. 43-72. New York:
Aca-demic
230.Ochs E. 1984. Clarification and culture. InGeorgetown
University Round Table onLanguages and Linguistics 1984, ed.
DSchiffrin, 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.
ADuranti, C Goodwin, pp.335-58. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press
233.Ochs E, Schieffelin BB. 1984. Languageacqdisition and
socialization: three devel-opmental stories and their implications.
InCulture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self andEmotion, ed. R Shweder, R
Levine, pp.276-320. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press
234.Ochs E, Schieffelin BB. 1994. The impactof language
socialization on grammaticaldevelopment. 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 theNineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard
Univ. Press
236.Pagden A. 1993. European Encounters
www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews
-
80 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN
with the New World: From Renaissance toRomanticism. New Haven,
CT: Yale Univ.Press
237.Parmentier RJ. 1986. Puffery and pragmat-ics, regulation and
reference. Worl~ Pap.Proc. Cent. Psychosoc. Stud 4. Chicago:Cent.
Transcult. Stud.
238. Pattanayak DP. 1988. Monolingual myo-pia and the petals of
the Indian lotus: domany languages divide or unite a language?In
Minority Education: From Shame toStruggle, ed. T Skutnabb-Kangas, J
Cum-mins, pp. 379-89. Clevedon, England:Multilingual Matters
239.Pecheux M. 1982. Language, Semanticsand 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. Set C I 17:369-82
241.Philips S, 1992. A Marx-influenced ap-proach to ideology and
language: com-ments. See Ref. 185, pp. 37746
242.Philipsen G, Carbangh D. 1986. A bibliog-raphy of fieldwork
in the ethnography ofcommunication. Lang. Soc. 15:387-98
243.Posner R. 1993. Language conflict in Ro-mance. In Trends in
Romance Linguisticsand Philology, Vol. 5: Bilingualism
andLinguistic Conflict in Romance, ed, R Pos-net, JN Green, pp.
41-76. Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter
244.Pratt ML. 1981. The ideology of speech-acttheory. Centrum
(NS) 1:5-18
245.Preston DR. 1982. Ritin fowklower daunrong. J. Am. Folk.
95(377):304-26
246.Preston DR. 1985. The Lil Abner syn-drome: written
representations of speech.Am. Speech 60(4):328-36
247.Rafael V. 1988. Contracting Colonialism:Translation and
Christian Conversion inTagalog Society under early Spanish
Rule.Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
248.Raison-Jourde E 1977. L6change in6galde la langue: La
p6n6tration des techniqueslinguistiques dans une civilisation de
loral.Annales 32:639~59
249.Reagan TG. 1986. Language ideology inthe language planning
process: two Afri-can case studies. S. Afr. J. Aft. Lang.
6(2):94-97
250.Reddy MJ. 1979. The conduit metaphor: acase of frame
conflict in our language aboutlanguage. In Metaphor and Thought,
ed. AOrtony, pp. 284-324. New York: Can~-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, andthe politics of
literacy. See Ref. 291, pp.156-75
253.Rodman WL. 1991. When questions areanswers. 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 dowith words: Ilongot speech
acts and speechact theory in philosophy. Lang. Soc. 11:203 37
256.Rossi-Landi E 1973. Ideologies of Linguis-tic Relativity.
The Hague: Mouton deGruyter
257.Ruiz R. 1984. Orientations in languageplanning. Natl. Assoc.
Biling. Educ. J.8(2): 15-34
258.Rumsey A. 1990. Wording, meaning andlinguistic ideology. Am.
Anthropol.92(2):346q51
259. Sakai N. 1991. Voices of the Post: TheStatus of Language in
Eighteenth-CenturyJapanese Discourse. Ithaca, NY: CorncllUniv.
Press
260. Sa