Language ideology: Difference between revisions
including judgments beyond ranking of languages |
adding more about sociolects and other ideologically marked language features |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Linguistics}} |
{{Linguistics}} |
||
In [[sociolinguistics]] and [[linguistic anthropology]], a '''language''' or '''linguistic ideology''' is a systematic construct about how particular ways of using [[language]]s carry or are invested with certain moral, social, and political [[Value (personal and cultural)|value]]s, giving rise to implicit assumptions that people have about ''a'' language or about [[language]] in general. A common type of language ideology are Standard Language Ideologies, the belief that [[diglossia|language homogeneity]] is beneficial to society, such as that expressed by the ''[[English-only movement]]'' in the [[United States]]. |
In [[sociolinguistics]] and [[linguistic anthropology]], a '''language''' or '''linguistic ideology''' is a systematic construct about how particular ways of using [[language]]s carry or are invested with certain moral, social, and political [[Value (personal and cultural)|value]]s, giving rise to implicit assumptions that people have about ''a'' language or about [[language]] in general. A common type of language ideology are Standard Language Ideologies, the belief that [[diglossia|language homogeneity]] is beneficial to society, such as that expressed by the ''[[English-only movement]]'' in the [[United States]]. In general, differing social speech styles are judged as aspects of social identity and status. Hence, language ideologies involve interpretations and judgments about vocabulary, grammar, accent, and other vocal features used by speakers. Written language practices are also shaped by language ideologies, as can be seen in the many [[sociolect|sociolects]] that develop online. |
||
| ⚫ | Language ideologies encompass all the explicit and implicit attitudes about language that define what is perceived as [[standard language|"proper" speech]]. Like other forms of [[ideology]], language ideologies are often politically significant and deeply shape how speakers understand social life, as the assumptions that they involve imply a result without any necessary examination of the facts. While research in [[sociolinguistics]] generally holds that all languages are equal in their communicative and expressive abilities, language ideologies may privilege a given [[Variety (linguistics)|language variety]], language or even linguistic family above all others, claiming it to be intrinsically better for some or all purposes. |
||
==Introduction== |
==Introduction== |
||
| ⚫ | Language ideology refers specifically to the perceptions held by people about language and, more importantly, how those perceptions are projected onto speakers. [[University of Michigan]] Professor of [[Anthropology]] Judith Irvine defines a language ideology as "the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests".<ref name="Irvine1989">Irvine, J. (1989). When talk isn't cheap: language and political economy. American Ethnologist 16(2):248-67.</ref> Walt Wolfram and Natalie Schilling-Estes define language ideology as "ingrained, unquestioned beliefs about the way the world is, the way it should be, and the way it has to be with respect to language".<ref name=Wolfram2006>Wolfram, W. & Schilling-Estes, N. (2006). American English: Dialects and Variation, second edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.</ref> This includes assumptions about the merits of |
||
| ⚫ | Language ideologies encompass all the explicit and implicit attitudes about language that define what is perceived as [[standard language|"proper" speech]]. Like other forms of [[ideology]], language ideologies are often politically significant and deeply shape how speakers understand social life, as the assumptions that they involve imply a result without any necessary examination of the facts. While research in [[sociolinguistics]] generally holds that all languages are equal in their communicative and expressive abilities, language ideologies may privilege a given [[Variety (linguistics)|language variety]], language or even linguistic family above all others, claiming it to be intrinsically better for some or all purposes. |
||
| ⚫ | Language ideology refers specifically to the perceptions held by people about language and, more importantly, how those perceptions are projected onto speakers. [[University of Michigan]] Professor of [[Anthropology]] Judith Irvine defines a language ideology as "the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests".<ref name="Irvine1989">Irvine, J. (1989). When talk isn't cheap: language and political economy. American Ethnologist 16(2):248-67.</ref> Walt Wolfram and Natalie Schilling-Estes define language ideology as "ingrained, unquestioned beliefs about the way the world is, the way it should be, and the way it has to be with respect to language".<ref name=Wolfram2006>Wolfram, W. & Schilling-Estes, N. (2006). American English: Dialects and Variation, second edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.</ref> This includes assumptions about the merits of homogeneous language within a society, the perceived beauty of certain languages, whether certain languages or dialects are seen as intelligent or unintelligent, and other notions about the value of certain ways of speaking. These aspects are all studied in the field of sociolinguistics, but the idea of language ideology is a relatively recent area of inquiry, which is primarily explored in [[linguistic anthropology]]. |
||
The study of language ideology is important to many fields of research, including [[anthropology]], [[sociology]], and [[linguistics]]. Especially now that [[anthropology]] rejects the idea that [[culture]] or cultures represent homogeneous isolated entities, language ideology has become a useful model for understanding how human groups are organized, despite cleavages in belief and practice. For example, multiple languages are spoken in any given human society<ref>Woolard, K.A. and B. Schieffelin. (1994) Language Ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:55-82</ref>. Therefore a theory of linguistics that regards human societies as monolingual would be of limited use. Instead, speakers of different languages or dialects may share certain beliefs, practices, or conflicts involving a language, set of languages, or language in general. That is to say, speech communities may be regarded as “organizations of diversity”<ref name=Irvine2006>Irvine, J. (2006). Speech and Language Community. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd Edition. Pp. 689-96. Elseivier. </ref>) with language ideologies providing that organization. |
The study of language ideology is important to many fields of research, including [[anthropology]], [[sociology]], and [[linguistics]]. Especially now that [[anthropology]] rejects the idea that [[culture]] or cultures represent homogeneous isolated entities, language ideology has become a useful model for understanding how human groups are organized, despite cleavages in belief and practice. For example, multiple languages are spoken in any given human society<ref>Woolard, K.A. and B. Schieffelin. (1994) Language Ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:55-82</ref>. Therefore a theory of linguistics that regards human societies as monolingual would be of limited use. Instead, speakers of different languages or dialects may share certain beliefs, practices, or conflicts involving a language, set of languages, or language in general. That is to say, speech communities may be regarded as “organizations of diversity”<ref name=Irvine2006>Irvine, J. (2006). Speech and Language Community. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd Edition. Pp. 689-96. Elseivier. </ref>) with language ideologies providing that organization. |
||
==Examples== |
==Examples== |
||
Perhaps one of the most common ways that language ideologies are overtly expressed are when parents, teachers or other authorities suggest corrections to speech practices<ref>Olivo, W. (2003), "Quit Talking and Learn English!": Conflicting Language Ideologies in an ESL Classroom. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 34: 50–71.</ref>. Such [[metapragmatics|metapragmatic]] commentary reveals values attached to particular linguistic forms, as well as the judgments about how people should use language in society. Concepts about the effects of language vary widely among social groups and correct use of [[speech acts]], [[politeness]], or [[phonology]] acceptance of these values, although this is usually not fully conscious<ref>The Limits of Awareness. Silverstein, M. (1981) Working Papers in Sociolinguistics, No. 84. Austin: Southwestern Educational Laboratory</ref>. |
|||
Standard Language Ideology – As defined by Rosina Lippi-Green, Standard Language Ideology is "a bias toward an abstract, idealized homogeneous language, which is imposed and maintained by dominant [[institutions]] and which has as its model the written language, but which is drawn primarily from the spoken language of the upper middle [[Social class|class]]".<ref name=Green1997>Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge.</ref> This represents a belief in standard, uniform way of speaking, which is thought to be a better way of communicating, and also that this is the normal way that language exists. As James W. Tollefson notes, however, “linguists agree that variation is normal and intrinsic to all spoken language, even to standard varieties”.<ref name=Tollefson1999>Tollefson, J.W. (1999). Language Ideology and Language Education.</ref> Thus the idea that a standard language, such as [[General American|Standard American English]], has homogenous [[phonology]] is an idealization, based not on the reality of the language, but instead on the ideas about what language should be. |
Standard Language Ideology – As defined by Rosina Lippi-Green, Standard Language Ideology is "a bias toward an abstract, idealized homogeneous language, which is imposed and maintained by dominant [[institutions]] and which has as its model the written language, but which is drawn primarily from the spoken language of the upper middle [[Social class|class]]".<ref name=Green1997>Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge.</ref> This represents a belief in standard, uniform way of speaking, which is thought to be a better way of communicating, and also that this is the normal way that language exists. As James W. Tollefson notes, however, “linguists agree that variation is normal and intrinsic to all spoken language, even to standard varieties”.<ref name=Tollefson1999>Tollefson, J.W. (1999). Language Ideology and Language Education.</ref> Thus the idea that a standard language, such as [[General American|Standard American English]], has homogenous [[phonology]] is an idealization, based not on the reality of the language, but instead on the ideas about what language should be. |
||
| Line 20: | Line 25: | ||
==Implications== |
==Implications== |
||
Language ideology has wide implications for society including moral and political assumptions about how to best deal with language in society, and thus for a |
Language ideology has wide implications for society including moral and political assumptions about how to best deal with language in society, and thus for a polities' language policy. |
||
Standard Language Ideologies often negatively affect the ability of [[minority language]] speakers to succeed in education because the teacher's perception of what constitutes proper language, and therefore intelligence, could be biased against the language or dialect spoken by the student. One of the examples of the effect that standard language ideology has on everyday life in modern America is the "linguistic profiling."<ref name=Rice2006>Rice, P. (2006). Linguistic Profiling: The sound of your voice may determine if you get that apartment or not. Press Release: Washington University in St. Louis. [http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6500.html]</ref> John Baugh, the inventor of the term "[[linguistic profiling]]" has determined that many people can recognize the caller's ethnic dialect on the phone, and if the voice is identified as African-American or Mexican-American, the caller might be a subject to racial discrimination.<ref name=Rice2006 /> |
Standard Language Ideologies often negatively affect the ability of [[minority language]] speakers to succeed in education because the teacher's perception of what constitutes proper language, and therefore intelligence, could be biased against the language or dialect spoken by the student. One of the examples of the effect that standard language ideology has on everyday life in modern America is the "linguistic profiling."<ref name=Rice2006>Rice, P. (2006). Linguistic Profiling: The sound of your voice may determine if you get that apartment or not. Press Release: Washington University in St. Louis. [http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6500.html]</ref> John Baugh, the inventor of the term "[[linguistic profiling]]" has determined that many people can recognize the caller's ethnic dialect on the phone, and if the voice is identified as African-American or Mexican-American, the caller might be a subject to racial discrimination.<ref name=Rice2006 /> |
||
| Line 37: | Line 42: | ||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
*Woolard, K.A. and B. Schieffelin. (1994) Language Ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:55-82. |
|||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
Revision as of 08:49, 1 April 2011
| Part of a series on |
| Linguistics |
|---|
 Portal |
In sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology, a language or linguistic ideology is a systematic construct about how particular ways of using languages carry or are invested with certain moral, social, and political values, giving rise to implicit assumptions that people have about a language or about language in general. A common type of language ideology are Standard Language Ideologies, the belief that language homogeneity is beneficial to society, such as that expressed by the English-only movement in the United States. In general, differing social speech styles are judged as aspects of social identity and status. Hence, language ideologies involve interpretations and judgments about vocabulary, grammar, accent, and other vocal features used by speakers. Written language practices are also shaped by language ideologies, as can be seen in the many sociolects that develop online.
Introduction
Language ideologies encompass all the explicit and implicit attitudes about language that define what is perceived as "proper" speech. Like other forms of ideology, language ideologies are often politically significant and deeply shape how speakers understand social life, as the assumptions that they involve imply a result without any necessary examination of the facts. While research in sociolinguistics generally holds that all languages are equal in their communicative and expressive abilities, language ideologies may privilege a given language variety, language or even linguistic family above all others, claiming it to be intrinsically better for some or all purposes.
Language ideology refers specifically to the perceptions held by people about language and, more importantly, how those perceptions are projected onto speakers. University of Michigan Professor of Anthropology Judith Irvine defines a language ideology as "the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests".[1] Walt Wolfram and Natalie Schilling-Estes define language ideology as "ingrained, unquestioned beliefs about the way the world is, the way it should be, and the way it has to be with respect to language".[2] This includes assumptions about the merits of homogeneous language within a society, the perceived beauty of certain languages, whether certain languages or dialects are seen as intelligent or unintelligent, and other notions about the value of certain ways of speaking. These aspects are all studied in the field of sociolinguistics, but the idea of language ideology is a relatively recent area of inquiry, which is primarily explored in linguistic anthropology.
The study of language ideology is important to many fields of research, including anthropology, sociology, and linguistics. Especially now that anthropology rejects the idea that culture or cultures represent homogeneous isolated entities, language ideology has become a useful model for understanding how human groups are organized, despite cleavages in belief and practice. For example, multiple languages are spoken in any given human society[3]. Therefore a theory of linguistics that regards human societies as monolingual would be of limited use. Instead, speakers of different languages or dialects may share certain beliefs, practices, or conflicts involving a language, set of languages, or language in general. That is to say, speech communities may be regarded as “organizations of diversity”[4]) with language ideologies providing that organization.
Examples
Perhaps one of the most common ways that language ideologies are overtly expressed are when parents, teachers or other authorities suggest corrections to speech practices[5]. Such metapragmatic commentary reveals values attached to particular linguistic forms, as well as the judgments about how people should use language in society. Concepts about the effects of language vary widely among social groups and correct use of speech acts, politeness, or phonology acceptance of these values, although this is usually not fully conscious[6].
Standard Language Ideology – As defined by Rosina Lippi-Green, Standard Language Ideology is "a bias toward an abstract, idealized homogeneous language, which is imposed and maintained by dominant institutions and which has as its model the written language, but which is drawn primarily from the spoken language of the upper middle class".[7] This represents a belief in standard, uniform way of speaking, which is thought to be a better way of communicating, and also that this is the normal way that language exists. As James W. Tollefson notes, however, “linguists agree that variation is normal and intrinsic to all spoken language, even to standard varieties”.[8] Thus the idea that a standard language, such as Standard American English, has homogenous phonology is an idealization, based not on the reality of the language, but instead on the ideas about what language should be.
A current example of language ideology in action would be the debate in the United States over Spanish speaking immigrants. The political justifications for an official language in the U.S. are based on the embedded principles described by both language ideology and nationalistic ideology.
While Spanish-speaking immigrants' use of heritage language is currently seen as a problem in the United States, at the same time middle class English speakers are encouraged to learn foreign languages, including Spanish. According to Pomerantz, language ideologies in the US "function to construct expertise in Spanish as a resource for the professional advancement of middle and upper-middle class foreign language learners, while simultaneously casting it as a detriment to the social mobility of heritage language users (i.e., U.S. Latinos)".[9]
These assumptions are reinforced by the way that language is taught, through the use of textbooks, dictionaries and grammar lessons.[8]
Implications
Language ideology has wide implications for society including moral and political assumptions about how to best deal with language in society, and thus for a polities' language policy.
Standard Language Ideologies often negatively affect the ability of minority language speakers to succeed in education because the teacher's perception of what constitutes proper language, and therefore intelligence, could be biased against the language or dialect spoken by the student. One of the examples of the effect that standard language ideology has on everyday life in modern America is the "linguistic profiling."[10] John Baugh, the inventor of the term "linguistic profiling" has determined that many people can recognize the caller's ethnic dialect on the phone, and if the voice is identified as African-American or Mexican-American, the caller might be a subject to racial discrimination.[10]
See also
- Ideology
- Language planning
- Language policy
- Linguistic Anthropology
- Linguistic rights
- Metapragmatics
- Linguistics
- Sociolinguistics
- Standard language
References
- ^ Irvine, J. (1989). When talk isn't cheap: language and political economy. American Ethnologist 16(2):248-67.
- ^ Wolfram, W. & Schilling-Estes, N. (2006). American English: Dialects and Variation, second edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
- ^ Woolard, K.A. and B. Schieffelin. (1994) Language Ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:55-82
- ^ Irvine, J. (2006). Speech and Language Community. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd Edition. Pp. 689-96. Elseivier.
- ^ Olivo, W. (2003), "Quit Talking and Learn English!": Conflicting Language Ideologies in an ESL Classroom. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 34: 50–71.
- ^ The Limits of Awareness. Silverstein, M. (1981) Working Papers in Sociolinguistics, No. 84. Austin: Southwestern Educational Laboratory
- ^ Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge.
- ^ a b Tollefson, J.W. (1999). Language Ideology and Language Education.
- ^ Pomerantz, A. (2002). Language ideologies and the production of identities: Spanish as a resource for participation in a multilingual marketplace. Multilingua 21:275-302.
- ^ a b Rice, P. (2006). Linguistic Profiling: The sound of your voice may determine if you get that apartment or not. Press Release: Washington University in St. Louis. [1]
External links
- Do You Speak American: PBS special
- What Do You Know About Language? Language Myths Survey by Penn State University