Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1994. 23:55-82 Copyright © 1994by AnnualReviewsInc. All rights reserved

Kathryn A. Woolard

Department Sociology, of University California,SanDiego,La Jolla, California92093 of Bambi B. Schieffelin
Department of Anthropology, New York University, literacy, New York, New York 10003 linguis-

KEYWORDS: language politics, tics

language and colonialism,

language contact,

INTRODUCTION The terms ideology and languagehave appeared together frequently in recent anthropology,sociolinguistics, and cultural studies, sometimes joined by and, sometimesby in, sometimes by a comma a trinity of nouns. Wehave had in analyses, some themvery influential, of cultural and political ideologies as of constituted, encoded, or enacted in language (100, 239, 298). This review differently, and (on the surface) lnore narrowly, conceived:our topic is ideologies of language, an area of scholarly inquiry just beginningto coalesce (185). There is as much cultural variation in ideas about speech as there is in speech forms themselves (158). Notions of howcommunicationworks as a social process, and to what purpose, are culturally variable and need to be discovered rather than simply assumed (22:16). Wereview here selected research cultural conceptions of language--its nature, structure, and use--and on conceptions of communicativebehavior as an enactment of a collective order (277:1-2). Althoughthere are varying concerns behind the studies reviewed, we emphasizelanguage ideology as a mediating link betweensocial structures and formsof talk. Ideologies of language significant for social as well as linguistic analyare sis because they are not only about language., such ideologies envision 55



and enact links of language to group and personal identity, to aesthetics, to morality, and to epistemology (41, 104, 186). Throughsuch linkages, they often underpin fundamentalsocial institutions. Inequality amonggroups of speakers, and colonial encounters par excellence, throw language ideology into high relief. As R. Williamsobserved, "a definition of languageis always, implicitly or explicitly, a definition of human beings in the world" (320:21). Not only linguistic forms but social institutions such as the nation-state, schooling, gender, dispute settlement, and law hinge on the ideologization of language use. Researchon gender and legal institutions has contributed important and particularly pointed studies of language ideology, but they are reviewed elsewhere (see 81,213). Heath (135) observed that social scientists have resisted examininglanguage ideology because it represents an indeterminate area of investigation with no apparent bounds, and as reviewers we note this with wry appreciation even as we find that the resistance has worn down.Althoughthere have been recent efforts to delimit languageideology(138a, 327), there is no single core literature. Moreover,linguistic ideology, languageideology, and ideologies of language are all terms currently in play. Although different emphasesare sometimessignaled by the different terms, with the first focusing more on formal linguistic structures ~ and the last on representations of a collective order, the fit of terms to distinctive perspectives is not perfect, and we use them interchangeably here. At least three scholarly discussions, by no meansrestricted to anthropology, explicitly invokelanguageor linguistic ideology, often in seeming mutual unawareness. One such group of studies concerns contact between languages or language varieties (118, 133, 135, 152, 219, 249, 285). The recently burgeoning historiography of linguistics and public discourses on language has produceda secondexplicit focus on language ideologies, including scientific ideologies (173,256,268). Finally, there is a significant, theoretically coherent bodyof workon linguistic ideologyconcentrating on its relation to linguistic structures (214, 237, 258, 275). Beyond research that explicitly invokes the term ideology are numerous studies that address cultural conceptions of language,in the guise of metalinguistics, attitudes, prestige, standards, aesthetics, hegemony, etc. There is an emergingconsensus that what people think, or take for granted, about languageand communication a topic that rewards investiis gation, and the area of study is in need of some coordination. Wenote a particularly acute irony in our task of delimiting this emerging field. Onepoint of the comparativestudy of language ideology is to showthe cultural and historical specificity of visions of language, yet as reviewers we
1 See Silverstein (279:312, footnote) for an account of why this should be.

the point is to focus the attention of anthropologicalscholars of languageon the ideological dimension. and social domination. 100.155. 298. and thus the possibility of distortion (275). with a greater social emphasis "self-evident ideas and objectives a group holds concerning roles of language in the social experiences of members they contribute to the expression of as the group" (135:53) and "the cultural systemof ideas about social and linguistic relationships. and to sharpen the understanding of linguistic issues among students of ideology. Rumsey’s definition of linguistic ideologyis neutral (258). Our purpose is not to distinguish ideology of language from ideology in other domainsof human activity. WHAT IS LINGUISTIC IDEOLOGY? Linguistic/language ideologies have been defined as "sets of beliefs about languagearticulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use" (275:193). but it is worthwhileto mentionsomeof the key dimensionsof difference. Some the differences among of these definitions come from debates about the concept of ideology itself. Whilemetalinguistic discourse. discourse.Annual Reviews www. rationalization markslinguistic ideology within the moregeneral category of metalinguistics. with particular social origins or functional or formal characteristics. Werun the risk of excluding work in which language does not seem focal precisely because the group studied does not compartmentalize and reify social practices of communicating. Someresearchers mayread linguistic ideologyfrom linguistic usage. together with their loading of moraland political interests" (162:255). 203. 78. The basic division in studies of ideology is betweenneutral and critical values of the term. For Silverstein.annualreviews. the latter is reserved for only someaspects of representation and social cognition. their social-cognitive function. as Silverstcin .This critical stance often characterizes studies of language politics and of language and social LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 57 must decide what counts as language. but others insist that the twomustbe carefully differentiated (164). pointing towardthe secondary derivation of ideologies. 327). In critical studies of ideology. 31. Ideological distortion in this view comesfrom inherent limitations awarenessof semiotic process and from the fact that speech is formulated by its users as purposiveactivity in the sphere of interested human social action. A second division is the siting of ideology.258). Those debates have been well reviewed elsewhere (9.198. distortion is viewedas mystification and is further traced to the legitimation of social domination. Rather.does not turn Humboldt’s energeia (activity) of language into ergon (product) as does the European-American tradition (41. and most broadly as "shared bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of languagein the world" (258:346). The former usually encompasses cultural systems of all reprcscntation.

But several methodologicaltraditions and topical loci have encouragedattention to cultural conceptions of language. Someof the work reviewed here mayseem to be simply what anthropology "has always been talking about anyway"as culture nowin the guise of ideology (31:26). 36). is a sufficient condition for identifying ideology. literacy .an overlay of secondary and tertiary responses (34. a facet indicated by Heath’s (135) and Irvine’s (162) definitions. that is. A naturalizing move that drains the conceptual its historical content. The term ideology reminds analysts that cultural frames have social histories and it signals a commitment address the relevance of powerrelato tions to the nature of cultural forms and ask howessential meaningsabout languageare socially producedas effective and powerful(9. Analertness to the different sites of ideology may resolve someapparent controversies over its relevance to the explanation of social or linguistic phenomena. politics of multilingualism. difficult to elicit directly. that escapes groundingin social life (205). Rumsey’s "commonsensenotions" (258) and Heath’s "self-evident ideas" (135) maywell unstated assumptionsof cultural orthodoxy. the term ideology reminds us that the cultural conceptionswe study are partial. including the scientific. APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY Languageideology has been received principally as an epiphenomenon. The emphasisof ideological analysis on the social and experiential origins of systemsof signification counters this naturalization of the cultural. and interest-laden (151:382). makingit seemuniversally and/or timelessly true. Wereview work in several areas: ethnographyof speaking.annualreviews.Annual Reviews 58 WOOLARD SCHIEFFELIN & suggested. Althoughideology in general is often taken as explicitly discursive. 241). and what makesthe term useful in spite of its problems. This recognition the social derivation of representations does not simply invalidate themif we recognizethat there is no privileged knowledge. from unconscious ideology read from speech practices by analysts to the most conscious native-speaker explanations of appropriate language behavior. Nonetheless. pre-reflective. contestable and contested. What most researchers share. The work we review here includes the full range of scholars’ notions of ideology: from seeminglyneutral cultural conceptions of language to strategies for maintaining social power. an organization of signifying practices not in consciousnessbut in lived relations (see 78 for a review). in whichanthropology ironically has participated (9).is a view of ideologyas rooted in or responsive to the experience of a particular social position. influential theorists haveseen it as behavioral. 78. is often seen as key to ideological process. possibly intriguing but relatively inconsequential for the fundamentalquestions of both anthropology and linguistics. or structural. but the reconceptualization implies a methodologicalstance (279).

262. 186. and metapragmatics and linguistic structure.315). 270) stimulated thought about linguistic ideology. and sets of expectations" (128:670.languagesocialization studies have demonstrated connections among folk theories of language acquisition. This recognition triggered taxonomicstudies of conceptualizations of speech acts in specific linguistic communities (308. 221).Annual Reviews www. 63. values and attitudes. 42. rethought profitably in relation to the concernsoutlined above. a privatized view of language emphasizing the psychological state of the speaker while downplayingthe social consequences of speech (308:22. The eventual critical response of the ethnography of speaking (158) speech act theory (13.annualreviews. and also the foundationof aesthetics in such areas as music(90). 178. 272. we reach back to earlier studies that werenot conceived in the frame of ideological LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 59 studies. acts. and in the institutions and interests to whichthey are fled. but Hymes (158) suggestedthat an alternative focus beliefs. or on contexts and institutions wouldmakea different contribution. For example. 150. ETHNOGRAPHY OF SPEAKING The ethnographyof speaking has long given attention to ideology as neutral. research on metapragmatic universals (309. linguistic practices. 242). 138b. 318). disputes (38. 187. but which we believe can be. cf 244. varying in the social and linguistic themes they foreground. Local conceptions of talk as self-reflexive action have been explored for a variety of genres such as oratory (210). Our bibliography is a representative samplingof the research done in these areas. 310). see also 23. and styles. This alternative enterprise has been taken up more recently. and key cultural ideas about personhood (49. Genres are nowviewednot as sets of discourse features. Languageideology has been madeincreasingly explicit as a force shaping the understanding of verbal practices (21. historiography of linguistics and public discourse on language. 303).284). Ethnographersof Pacific . 116. primarily through description of vernacular speech taxonomies and metalinguistics (24. 267. 188. 138. cultural conceptionsof language. and numerous ethnographic challenges to the key assumptionsof speech act theory (74. interpretive procedures. Ethnographersof speaking have studied the groundingof language beliefs in other cultural and social forms. Speechact theory is groundedin an English linguistic ideology. 210. but the worktends to form different conversations. There are manyconnections among these. 121. conflict management (253. 46. To illustrate some the social of variation in conceptionsof language. 43). 255. 217. The ethnography speaking was chartered to study ways of speaking from the point of view of events. but rather as "orienting frameworks. 196). 91. 231-234. 275).

87.annualreviews. 143. 61. COMPETITION. 140. 254. 163. ethnographers of speaking have increasingly incorporated considerations of powerin their analyses. Silence has been recognizedas carrying a paradoxical potential for powerthat depends greatly on its varying ideologization within and across communities(103). 69. 188. 202. 84. 176.) Ethnographers have also seen the role of language ideology in creating powerin other guises and moments:the display of gender and/or affect (26. AND POLITICS Research on self-conscious struggles over language in class-stratified and especially multilingual communitieshas treated language ideologies as socially.Briggs finds social powerachieved through the strategic use not just of particular discursive genres. 95. 171. 4. The identification of a language with a people has been given the most attention (95. 232). conscious. but of talk about such genres and their appropriate use (41). Advocatinga view of linguistic ideology as intcractional resource rather than shared cultural background. see discussion of purismbelow. 127.160. and the display of powerfulnewsocial affiliations and identities introduced through missionization (187. 292a). 76. and arguedthat its application to other societies obscures local methodsof producing meaning (75. the a nationalist ideology of languagestructures state politics. politically. It is a truism that the equation of languageand nation is a historical. 323. Speakers in multilingual communitieshave marshaledpurist language ideologies to similar interactional ends ( 60 WOOLARD SCHIEFFELIN & societies identified the centrality of intention to speechact theory as rooted in Westernconceptionsof the self. although the famouscharacterization of languageas the genius of a people can be traced to the French Enlightenmentand specifically Condillac (1. 314). 175.325). conventionally dated to Herder and eighteenth century Germanromanticism. 32. 235).319. again leading to a moreexplicit focus on linguistic ideology. 305. challenges multilingual states. movements save minority languages are often structured to around the samenotions of language that have led to their oppression and/or .because it addressed a more formal. and/or linguistically significant. 51. 238. As is tree of cultural anthropology in general. 179. and politically strategic form of ideology.Annual Reviews www. Exported through colonialism to become dominantmodelaround the world today. 243. 307. 28. 302). LANGUAGE CONTACT. 299. 230. and underpinsethnic struggles to such an extent that the absenceof a distinct language can cast doubt on the legitimacy of claims to nationhood (33:359. 115. evenwhen researcher’s the primary interest maybe in debunkingsuch ideologies (64. ideological construct (61. 201). the strategic deployment honorifics (3). the regulation of of marriage choices (167). 277). 317. Ironically. Bauman’s (22) historical ethnography of language and silence in Quaker ideology was an important development. 118.

195. 273. of of intellectual.285. 325). In this case. 207. 32. Although validity of the nationalist ideologyof languagehas often been the debated or debunked. 206. moreexplicitly ideologized in discourse (105.Annual Reviews www. Endogenous variation in Quechua. 120. is not socially evaluated by speakers. 101. but as emblems political allegiance or of social. 72. which is regarded as pure artifice. distinguishinginter. 238. the Westerninsistence on the authenticity and moral significance of the mothertongue. Researchers have distinguished language as index of group identity from language as a metalinguistically created symbol of identity. 306). 169. 80. 168. 6. 176. or moral worth (37.annualreviews. and associated assumptions about the importanceof purist language loyalty for the maintenance of minority languages have all been criticized as ideological red herrings. Althoughthe extensive body of research on linguistic prestige and language attitudes grew up in a social psychological framework(109). 149. 326). Where linguistic variation appears to be simply a diagramof social differentiation. 206. Here wesee how linguistic ideologycan affect the interpretation of social relations. Recentstudies of languagepolitics have begunto examine specifically the content and signifying structure of nationalist language ideologies (127. 302). 282). Peirce’s semiotic categories have been used to analyze the processes by which chunks of linguistic material gain significance as representations of particular populations (104). 105. phonological markers and stereotypes are common lead to hypercorrection amongsecand ond-languagespeakers. particularly in settings wheremultilingualismis moretypical and where a fluid or complex linguistic repertoire is valued (10.and intra-lingual variation oJ~ddevisinga migrationhistory for a particular caste to match their linguistic difference. Mannheim (204) also notes different cultural ideologies of different kinds of linguistic variation in southern Peru. 57.277. the analyst needsto identify the ideological production of that diagram(162). 194. Language varieties that are regularly associated with (and thus index) particular speakers are often revalorized---or misrecognized(37)--not just symbols LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 61 suppression (5. The equation of one language/onepeople. although traditional or emergent views that resist this hegemonic construction have been documented (10. which is seen simply as natural human speech. linguistic ideology drives linguistic changealong different paths. 305). the intrapersonal attitude can be recast as a socially-derived intellectualized or be- . Modern linguistic theory itself has been seen as framedand constrained by the one language/one people assumption (194). 102. Irvine (162) finds that Wolof villagers construelinguistic differentiation as iconically related to social differentiation. 79. less attention traditionally has been given to understanding how the view of language as symbolic of self and communityhas taken hold in so many different settings. 277. But in Spanish.

Suchmeaningsaffect patterns of language acquisition.whosee only matters of style (again. In the Javaneseview. 311. shift. Encounterswith the languages of others maytrigger recognition of the opacity of language and concern for delineating and characterizing a distinctive community language (259). 107. The commodification ethnolinguistic stereotypes. 153. 144. Moreover. ostensibly posiof tive. 149. 119. commodity identity. commodifled). Linguistic ideology is not a predictable. it makesits own contribution as an interpretive filter in the relationship of languageand society (211). in a representation of and comment ethnolinguistic difon ferences and their role in unequal relations. 325. 328). The current proand gramof research is to address both the semiotic and the social process.Annual Reviews www. simply asserting that struggles over language are really about racism does not constitute analysis. is in tension with black adolescent views of these codes as part of their distinctive identity (143). is also seen in the use of foreign languagesin Japanesetelevision advertising (124). 324.Nova Scotian parents actively discour- .annualreviews. 326). and dress by white adolescents in South London. and policy (120. Linguistic borrowing might appear superficially indicate speakers’ high regard for the donor language. change. symbolic revalorization often makesdiscrimination on linguistic groundspublicly acceptable. Whether a code is a language or not depends on whether its speakers act like speakers of Javanese. Communities only evaluate but mayappropriate somepart of the linnot guistic resources of groups with whom they are in contact and in tension. style-switching. Sucha tearing aside of the curtain of mystification in a "Wizardof Oz theory of ideology" (9) begs the question of how and why language comes to stand for social groups in a mannerthat is socially both comprehensible acceptable. The appropriation of creole speech. 251. automatic reflex of the social experienceof multilingualismin whichit is rooted. 219. dependingon howspeakers conceptualize the links of language. 251).200. cognition. 197. But Hill (148) argues that socially-grounded linguistic analysis of Anglo-American borrowingsand humorousmisrenderings of Spanish reveals them as racist distancing strategies that reduce complex Latino experience to a subordinated. music. However. and Siegel (273) argues that Javanese metaphorically incorporates foreign languagesinto itself by treating other languagesas if they were low Javanese. 193. Basso(20) classically describes a WesternApache metalinguistic joking genre that uses English to parody"Whiteman" conversational pragmatics. whereasthe corresponding ethnic or racial discriminationis not (156. learning to translate (into high Javanese from low) is the essence of becoming true adult a and a real languagespeaker. refiguring and incorporatinglinguistic structures in waysthat reveal linguistic and social ideologies (146). The failure to transmit vernaculars intergenerationally maybe rationalized in various ways. For example. and social 62 WOOLARD SCHIEFFELIN & havioral ideology (Bourdieu’s habitus) (37.

285. to perennial status as underdeveloped (32.and counted. 224. 120. 68. 216. 118. cf 329). pluralism. 326) and distinctive stances towardthe state regulation of LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 63 age children from acquiring a subordinated vernacular. 120. problem.Such beliefs. 18. 19. 87. 135).Annual Reviews www. and commentators bilingual and immigranteducation have noted on such orientations conflated within these programs(117. 166. and internationalization (4. 287). Ruiz (257) distinguishes three fundamental orientations to languageas resource. for example. The extension of the notion grammar the explicitly artifactual product of scholarly intervention to an from abstract underlying system has done nothing to mutethe polemics(222).and underlyingthese beliefs. 251. .annualreviews. 139. have contributed to profounddecisions about. and historical derivation are often seized on in diagnosing real language and ranking the candidates (111. Language mixing. They also quality or disqualify speechvarieties from certain institutional uses and their speakers from access to domainsof privilege (37. rules for word formation. 127. because they believe it will somehow mark their English (211). 235. Grammatical variability and. named. 174. Written form. and related schemata for ranking languages as more or less evolved.288).betweenEnglandand France (65. Cobarrubiashas sketched a taxonomy language ideologies uilderlying of planningefforts: assimilation. 201). like societies. 136. for example.and creoles are often evaluated as indicating less than full linguistic capabilities. 191. the notion that there are distinctly identifiable languagesthat can be isolated. revealing assumptions about the nature of language implicitly based in literate standards and a pervasive tenet that equates change with decay (25. lexical elaboration. with paradoxical is ideological implications that condemn languages. the question of whethera variety has a grammar play an important part (80).265).228. Beliefs about whatis or is not a real language. Gapunparents blame their children’s dissatisfaction and aggressionas the roots of the loss of the vernacular (187). 204. 165. 110). 236).the civility or even the humanityof subjects of colonial domination (93. 33. enter into strategies of social domination. Language Policy Macrosocialresearch on language planning and policy has traced distinctive ideological assumptionsabout the role of languagein civic and human life (2. vernacularization.322. The model development pervasive in post-colonial language planning. 51). and Haitian parents in New YorkCity believe their children will speak KreyN regardless of the input language(263.or right (see also 152). codeswitching. At an even more fundamentallevel. 57.

Notions of better and worse speech have been claimed to exist in every linguistic community (35). 172. an ideologyof the sanctity languagein an ultraorthodox Jewish community leads to the restriction of the Hebrew language to sacred contexts (113).Annual Reviews www. DOCTRINES OF CORRECTNESS. An apparently purist linguistic conservatism among Tewamaydethe rive not from resistance to contact phenomena all. cf 142. politics. but to specifically European forms of these institutions (35. languagestandards are not recognized as human artifacts. 96. but from the strength of at theocratic institutions and of ritual linguistic forms as modelsfor other domainsof interaction (182. 131. but are naturalized by metaphorssuch as that of the free market (172. Ideological analysis addresses questions such as how doctrines of linguistic correctness and incorrectness are rationalized or how they are related to doctrines of the inherent representational power. In the vernacular belief systemof Westernculture. 286). 112.annualreviews. There moreagreementthat codified. 6). targeting only languages construed as threats (316. 277. and power(289). 293). 184). In contrast. with the concept of standard treated more as ideological process than as empirical linguistic fact (16. The existence of a language is always a discursive project rather than an established fact (259).beauty. and applied linguists (52. 277). Moral indignation over nonstandard forms derives from ideological associations of the standard with thc qualities valued within the culture. such as clarity or truthfulness (70. Mexicano vernacular purist ideologies are deployedparadoxically to enhancethe authority of those whoare least immersedin the vernacular and most enmeshedwith the larger economy (146. Purist doctrines of linguistic correctness close off non-native sources of innovation. and expressiveness of language as a valued modeof action (276:223. and purist . superposedstandard languages are tied not only to writing and its associated hegemonic institutions. 118. 276:241. 134). 183. SomeSpanish loanwords sound more authentic to non-elite members of the Gallego speech community Spain. PragueSchool functional linguists. 145. the selection and elaboration of a linguistic standard has stood for a complexof issues about language. 297). its social meaningand strategic use are not transparent (99. 194. but the emphasison the ideological dimensionhas given rise to new analyses of languagestandardization (172). 18). 171). AND PURISM Since Dante’s time. 65. and similarly. 219). 149). whodissociate themselves from the in linguistically pure forms that smackof institutional minority politics (5. but this claim has been disputed (132). linguistic 64 WOOLARD SCHIEFFELIN & STANDARDIZATION. Standard languages and/or their formation had been studied earlier by philologists. 219. The linguistic effects of purismarc not predictable. 132. Such complex relations among social position.172. but usually selectively.

Harris (131) argues that a scriptism foundedin European literate experience is smuggledinto the apparent oral bias of contemporary linguistic concepts. Derrida’s (71) deconstruction of a Westernview of speech as natural. and historically contingent. has brought considerable attention to ideas about the spoken and written word. Anthropological studies of literacy (e. 138. 269. 290-292).321). Mignolo (216) asserts that the supremacy the oral in Plato’s Phaedruswas of inverted and the ideology of the alphabetic letter was established in Renaissance Europe. 265).org/aronline LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 65 ideologies illustrate the importance of problematizing ideology rather than assuming that it can be read fromone of the other two elements. 60. social. but rather is culturally organized. Eventhe conceptualization of the printed wordcan differ importantly from that of the written (7. and prior to the merelifeless inscriptions of alien. Orthography In countries whereidentity and nationhoodare under negotiation.g. orthographic battles flare. 313). referential discourse as rooted in the primacyof text and the suppression of speech. 96. 169. its introductionin oral societies or its use in schooling)recognizedbelatedly that it is not an autonomous.223. 199. and economic forces (53. Not all commentators Westernideology find the oral bias on Derrida describes.supporters etymologicalorthographies appeal to an historical connectionto the prestige of the colonizing language.266. orthographic systems cannot be conceptualized simply as reducing speech to writing. Research now emphasizes . 154. transparency of speech and over writing (259). for example. Thus. arbitrary writing. every aspect of language. and political meanings (62. 97. shapedby political. 58. 161. 141. 300). from the sentence through the word to the phoneme. but rather they are symbolsthat carry historical. Those favoring a phonemicapproach argue that a moreobjective mode representing the sounds allows wider access to literof acy and helps establish the languageas respectable in its ownright (44. 56. In somecreoles.annualreviews. Eighteenth century Japanese elite notions of language also included a phonocentric ideology stressing the primacy. authentic. ideologically grounded. neutral technology. Javanese do not share the viewof the original voice as the authentic (273). Evenwherenationhoodis as classically well-established as it is in France. LITERACY Ideologies of literacy have complex relations to ideologies of speech and can play distinctive. including its phonologicaldescription and formsof graphic representation can be contested (226. immediacy. Tyler (301) sees a Western visualist ideological emphasis transparent. 265. crucial roles in social institutions. cultural.Annual Reviews www.

295). for example. Yekuanado not extend their view of speech to literacy. 88. Textual exegesis depends fundamentally on ideologies of language. which is thought to enable acquisition of valuable cargo (189). 29. 77. 55. 30. Onthe other hand.annualreviews. Contrasting approachesto locating scriptural truth can be found within the Judeo-Christianreligious tradition (170). or ideas about the ways texts are created and are to be understood. 138. 27. 214a. Maori convictions that there is an authoritative oral text capturedonly weaklyby a written treaty are an ironic Platonic counterpoint to European-originNew Zealanders’ search for a true text among multiple written translations of the treaty in whichthe governmentis rooted (208). 120. Given the ideology of the value of the letter. Spoken words are transformative and magical. non-standard speakers thus appear less intelligent (82. or the written representation of speech. prepared according to the court reporter’s modal of English. "fixity" in writing is the source of danger. 159. but inscription destroys their power(122). For Chambri(108) and Yekuana. 137). 262. within academic disciplines and law. In the American legal systemthe verbatim record is an idealist construction. viewsof languageas a powerful meansto transform the world are extended to literacy in Tok Pisin. against whichincomingspeechis filtered. In studies of child language. Analyses of classof roominteraction further demonstratehowimplicit expectations about written language shape discriminatory judgments about spoken language and student performance(37. 246).org/aronline 66 WOOLARD SCHIEFFELIN & the diversity of ways in which communities "take up" literacy. folklorists and sociolinguists whohave recorded dialects of English reveal their linguistic biases whenthey use non-standard orthography(sometimescalled eye dialect) to represent the speech of blacks and Appalachians more than that of other groups. It is considered . 215). Transcription. 264).Annual Reviews www. for example.relies on and reinforces ideological conceptions of language(73:71. and interpreted. 83. Historical studies of the emergence schooled literacy and of school English showthe association between symbolically valued literate traditions and mechanisms social control (56. sometimes altering local forms of communication fhndamental concepts of identity or (15. Composition skill training for employment as is the dirty work of English departments. In Gapun. 114. evaluated. In contrast. with consequencesfor gender politics (58). The nineteenth century foundation of English as university discipline created a distinction betweenreading as aristocratic and leisurely and writing as work. 252. 245. The definition of what is and what is not literacy is always a profoundly political matter. 37a. use of standard orthography forces a literal interpretation on utterances that might otherwise be seen as objects of phonological manipulation (229). 60. Considerations powersignificantly affect literacy strategies. printed words are not responsive to social circumstances.

192. 22. Which language(s) to use in colonial administration was not alwaysobvious. 219. whichjoin moretraditional intellectual histories (1). 313). 65.281). Bauman noted that muchof the work was linguistically naive and not groundedin an investigation of the social and ideological significance of language in people’s ownconceptions of the nature of language and its use (22:16). 106. 280).but demonstrates howclosely linked these topics were.and the United States.and civilization waslargely a linguistic concept(283. 65. and editing is applied accordingly(312). In the late eighteenth through the mid-nineteenth century in Western Europe. predominatein this literature. Since then. and social forms. 281. comesfrom studies of colonialism.180. 126." asserted the sixteenth of century Spanish grammarianNebrija (161. clearly tracing the links among linguistic. The nineteenth century debate over language in the United States essentially was a fight over what kind of personality was needed to sustain democracy (50). elite debates. 145. The emergenceof a compartmentalized democratic personality corresponded the acceptanceof style-shifting and a range of linguistic registers to (see also 14. 12). 98. 18.225). England. 173.Annual Reviews www. there has been a waveof historical examinations ideoloof gies of language. 283). Closely linked are critical histories of linguistics and of the philosophyof language(8. Westernstates. 259. 118. 294). 94. 276. An . and each choice had its ownideological motivations and practical consequences. and particularly France. LANGUAGEIDEOLOGY 67 information if a witness speaks ungrammatically. Much the historical research focuses on normativeideas about rhetoof ric rather than grammar. Political conceptualizations of language rather than meditations on an autonomouslanguage dominated French and American debates in the seventeenth through the nineteenth century (8. languagebecamethe object of civil concern as newnotions of public discourse and forms of participation (and exclusion) were formulated by new participants in the public sphere (17. and colonial expressions. ideological. 94. HISTORICAL STUDIES Although there has beena notable linguistic turn in historical studies in recent decades.annualreviews. 69. including dominantnational ideologies. Hegumonic English ideology drewits political and social effectiveness from a presuppositionthat language revealed the mind. 123. 180.but not if lawyers do. 18. 67. Colonial Linguistics "Languagehas always been the companion empire. Someof the most provocative recent workon linguistic ideology. 45. but there also has been some attention to Asia (16.

248). Europeans brought to their tasks ideas about language prevalent in the metropole. Contributors to Joseph &Taylor’s collection (173) examineintellectual as well as political prejudices that framedthe growthof linguistic theory. Perceived linguistic structure can always have political meaningin the colonial encounter.annualreviews. therefore. for example. thoughthemselvesshifting in different historical moments.204. linguists constructed rather than discovered distinctive varieties (166). Historiography of Linguistics The close intertwining of public and scholarly conceptualizations of language in the Westand its colonies through the nineteenth century leads directly to critical studies of Western philosophy of language and of the emergenceof professional linguistics (1. dictionaries. Functional or formal inadequacy of indigenous languages protect the language of the colonizers from non-nativeversions considereddistasteful (272). blinkered them to indigenous conceptualizations and sociolinguistic arrangements (165. As with manyother colonial phenomena. Recentresearch on colonial linguistic description and translation has addressed the ideological dimension dictionof aries. Europeanmissionization and colonization of other continents entailed control of speakers and their vernaculars. The structure and focus of a seventeenth century instructional manualon Castilian written by a Tagalogprinter contrast sharply with Spanish missionaries’ grammars of Tagalog. 216). Tonganmetapragmaticsof speech levels indicate a reanalysis of society that incorporates European-derivedinstitutional complexesinto Tonganconstructions of social hierarchy (240).see also 166. Onthe other hand. a sixteenth century grammar asserted that Quechua so similar to Latin and Castilian that it was "like a was prediction that the Spaniardswill possess it" (216:305. and these ideas.and language guides. demonstrating that what was conceived as a neutral scientific endeavorwas very much political one (248).org/aronline 68 WOOLARD SCHIEFFELIN & indigenous vernacular might be selected. as Fabian (89) gues for Swahili and Harries (130) for Tsonga. grammars. 128. Of particular . the and role of linguistic ideas in specific social struggles (cf 227). 177.muchof this historical research has explored the linguistic ideologies of colonizers rather than of indigenous populations. cf 224). But somework seeks to capture the contradictions and interactions of the two (59. from Lockethrough Saussure to Chomsky. Becauseof the availability of documents.Annual Reviews www. a In what Mignolo (216) calls the colonization of language. Cohn argues that British grammars. 260). 216.showing different political interests behindtranslation for the the Spanish and indigenous Filipinos (247). and translations of the languagesof India created the discourse of Orientalism and converted Indian forms of knowledgeinto European objects (54:282-283. 45. 98). of indigenousmindor civilization was often alleged to justify Europeantutelage (89).

cf 84.320.annualreviews. Sankoff (261) argues contemporary positivist linguistic methodologies that invoke a scientific rationale are imposedideologically by the sameinterests that propagate normativism and prescripfivism. but it does have an effect. 125. 227). although because they derive only from a larger social dialectic. andenablesthe illusion that the theoretical exhibitionof the stl-uctures of a languagesaves the world view of the extinct linguistic workers(cf 57. consciously or unconsciously. but many authors argue that this rejection hides a smuggled dependence and complicity with prescriptive institutions for the on very subject matter of the alter the languagesystem. Whorf to first convincehis his had audiencethat linguistic censorshipexisted. Moreanthropologically-oriented linguistics also has been analyzed ideologically.Annual Reviews www. 151).org/aronline LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 69 relevance to our topic. The idealism of linguistic relativity transforms linguistic producers into consumers. A number studies of the nineteenth century showhowphilolof ogy and emerging linguistics contributed to religious. 181). Important sociolinguistic changescan be set off by ideological interpretation of languageuse. the concept of diglossia has been criticized as an ideological naturalization of sociolinguistic arrangements (205a). Attridge (11) deconstmcts Saussure’s linguistics hostile to and suppressing evidence that the languageuser and language communityintervene. The idealism of modem autonomous linguistics has comeunder concerted ideological scrutiny (37. 131. IDEOLOGY. scientific linguistics in the twentieth century has nearly uniformlyrejected prescfiptivism. Rather than registering a unitary language. 92. Silverstein argues that a grasp of languageideologyis essential for understandingthe evolution of linguistic structure (276:220). Rossi-Landi (256) critiques linguistic relativism as bourgeoisideology. For example. such changesare likely to take an unintendeddirec~ . modem linguistics has generally held that linguistic ideology and prescriptive normshave little significant--or. 235). and/or nationalist projects (65. CHANGE LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE. 157. Schultz (268) argues that contradictory strategies in Whorf’s writings arose response to the constraint of the Americantblk ideology of free speech. but rejects the influence of history as intellectual construct. linguists helped to form one (66:48. 67. Prescriptivism does not directly transformlanguage. 132). 173. seeing in the theory a manifestation of guilt for the savage destruction of American Indians. paradoxically. only pemicious-~effect on speech forms (although they mayhave someless negligible effect on writing) (35. Professional. cf 68. Attridge suggests that Saussure sees language as open to external change by humanly uncontrollableforces. class. AND LANGUAGE Asnoted earlier. Although ideas paralleled those of Bakhtin.

This is a Silversteinian distortion that makes codemorelike itself. To understand one’s ownlinguistic usage is potentially to change it (275:233). Speakersof moribundvarieties of Xinca. Labovdifferentiates mechanisms change from below of and above the level of speakers’ awareness. leads to sporadic and haphazardeffects on linguistic forms (190:329). which he labels ideology. we must look at their ideas about the meaning. whichthen (see reinforces and expandsthe original structure. . But several authors note that correlational sociolinguistic models gloss over the actual motivatingforce of linguistic change. as in the historical case of secondperson pronoun shift in English. Erfington (86) argues that Labov’s generalization is most applicable phonological variation. whichoften lies in social evaluations of language(85. it Errington(86) observesthat althoughit is standard in sociolinguistic analysis to look for relations betweenstructural change and communicative function.go "hog-wild"with glottalized consonants.annualreviews. it is morecontroversial to invoke a notion of native speaker awareness as an explanatory link. participant-orientedanalysis (86). for example. and speakers’ awarenessmakesthese variables more susceptible to rationalization and strategic use (85. importantly. Morepragmatically salient classes of variables are recognizedby speakers as crucial linguistic mediators of social relations. distorting language in the name of making morelike itself (37. changing those phenomena also 181).a self a that is most distinctive fromits socially dominant counterpart. To the extent that speakers conceptualize language as socially purposive action. whichare exotic from the point of view of the dominantSpanish language(48).Annual Reviews www. such as inversion. Becausesuch awareness and use drive linguistic change. In analyses of gender in English.function.240). Structure conditions ideology. Irvinc (162) notes that the formal linguistic characteristics of Hallidayan 70 WOOLARD SCHIEFFELIN & tion. and value of languagein order to understand the extent and degree of systematicity in empirically occuringlinguistic forms (cf 47. leads speakers to makegeneralizations that they then imposeon a broader category of phenomena. T/V pronounshift. or rationalizes it by makingit moreregular. someof whichare more available to consciousreflection than are others. 129. Silverstein showsthat rationalization not only explains but actually affects linguistic structure. which may not be mediated by speakers’ understandings of their conscious communicative projects. while conscious self-correction. 162. Similarly. 212). and Javanese speech levels. are not arbitrary and that they suggest the mediationof ideological conceptualizations of linguistic structures. these variables require a fundamentally different. 258). subordinate languages in contact situations can acquire both functional and formal properties of anti-languages. limited awarenessof linguistic structures. Imperfect. He argues that subconscious changes are extensive and systematic. in this case. 209. 261).

57.addressing a quiet. more like "the cacaphonyof sounds and signs of a big city street than. to confusethe indexical function of languagewith the referential function. English has entirely different significance to NewYork Puerto Ricans depending on whetherthey think of it as spokenby white Americans. LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 71 Silverstein and others give examplesfrom Europeanlanguages. especially English. 162. to resist also-changingofficial state ideologies (105).or by Puerto Ricans (304). nowtreating it as a process involving struggles amongmultiple conceptualizations and demandingthe recognition of variation and contestation within a community well as contradictions within as individuals (104.278).Annual Reviews www. Wherecasual generalization contrasts English and Frenchlinguistic attitudes as if they wereunitbrmcultural attributes inhering at the state and individual level. VARIATION AND CONTESTATION IN IDEOLOGY Therbom (296:viii) characterizes ideology as a social process. is widelyattested (32. German speakers in Hungary frame language and identity differently at different moments.. a conception of language focusing on words and expressions that denote. and to assumethat the divisions and structures of languageshould--and in the best circumstances do--transparently fit the structures of the real world (39. 112. and Rosaldo (255) similarly asserts that Ilongots think of language terms of action rather in than reference.. domesticated audience.212. 274. 41). 201.. Hill (147) describes a counter-hegemonic ideology of language amongMexicanowomen that emphasizes not reference but performance and the proper accomplishment human of relationships through dialogue. historical studies showthat such apparently characteristic national stances emergeconjuncturally from struggles among competingideological positions (139. 277).annualreviews.. 220.249). that reveal a tendencyto see propositionality as the essence of language. not a possession. 250. 308). See reference 151for further discussion. linguistic . A focus on the surface segmentable aspects of language." The new direction in research on linguistic ideology has also moved awayfrom seeing ideology as a homogeneous cultural template. 181. Waraostrategically deploy conflicting models for language use as resources for interactional power( black Americans. CONCLUSION It is paradoxical that at the same time that language and discourse have become central topics across the social sciences and humanities. 237. But Rumsey (258) argues that it is not characteristic of Australian aboriginal cultures. which do not dichotomize talk and action or words and things. 279. 275.the text serenely communicatingwith the solitary reader or the teacher.

and to tie social and linguistic forms together through ideology.annualreviews. the exclusion of jurors whomight rely on their ownnativespeaker understanding of non-English testimony. power. and purism has begun the difficult program considering whoseinterests are served by linguistic ideolof ogy taking the form that it does. KathrynWoolard grateful to the is National Endowment for the Humanities and the Spencer Foundation for support while preparing the review. spelling. development. Wealso wish to thank participants in the session on Language Ideologies at the 1991American Anthropological Association Meeting and membersof the Center for Transcultural Studies WorkingGroup on Language. politeness.nation. Their research and conversations helped shape our vision of the field. personal communication). authenticity. knowledge. whohelped with bibliographic work in various stages. Many populations around the word. questions of free speech and harassment. intentionality. Coming to grips with such public issues means coming to grips with the nature and working of language ideology. Natasha Unger. The topic of language ideology is a muchneeded bridge between linguistic and social theory. and to Alex Halkias. relating notions of linguistic ideology as rooted in linguistic structure and cognitive limitations to understandings of ideologyas rooted in social practices and interests (258:356). and the question of journalists’ responsibilities and the truthful representation of direct speech. that is both most provocative and most challenging. simplicity. grammar. confronting macrosocial constraints on language behavior (P Kroskrity. the meaningof multiculturalism in schools and texts. gender. because it relates the microculture of communicative action to political economicconsiderations of powerand social inequality. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Wethank Susan Gal for encouragementto write this 72 WOOLARD SCHIEFFELIN & anthropologists have bemoaned marginalization of the subdiscipline from the the larger field of anthropology. Examplesfrom the headlines of United States newspapersinclude bilingual policy and the official English movement. But our professional attention has only begun to turn to understanding whenand howthose links are forged--whether by lay participants or their expert analysts--and what theft consequences might be for linguistic and social life. Research on topics such as pronouns. and tradition (104).Annual Reviews www. posit fundamental linkages among such apparently diverse cultural categories as language. and Begofia Echeverria. A wealth of public problems hinge on language ideology.It is the attempt to link these two aspects of ideology. is also a potential means It deepening a somefimcssuperficial understanding of linguistic form and its cultural variability in political economic studies of discourse. BambiSchieffelin thanks Paul Garrett for bibliographic assistance and Molly . in multifarious ways.

1988. Fromcognition to ideology. 1981. Anderson B. Portraits of "the Whiteman": Linguistic Play and Cultural Symbols Among the Western Apache. Balibar R. See Ref. 1984. 1-800-347-8007. Bell AR. AndresenJ. Mich.London: Methuen 12. Perspectives on Official English: TheCampaign for English as the Official Languagein the USA. whose wonderful senseof timehelped organize project. 92(2):332-45 27. Press 21. 12(1):29-61 5. 1983. Linguist. Peculiar Language. Bauman 1983. Bauman Sherzer J. AarsleffH. 1990. AghaA. In Powerand Knowledge. Anthropol. 1990. 1994. Anthropol. Soc. PhDthesis. Baker C. CT: Yale Univ. The metaphors of de- . 1986. The English Only Question: AnOfficial Language Americans for ? NewHaven. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. The pigeon house. London:Verso 8. AurouxS. BesnierN. ruyter de 3. Attinasi JJ. Annu.C~T:Yale Univ. Annu. MA:Harvard Univ. pp. Bloch M.1991. Separate people: speaking of Creek menand women. London: Routledge 9. Text 9(1):69-92 28. Le sujet de la langue: la conceptionpolitique de la languesous l’ancien rrgime et la rrvolution. Attridge D. Baron DE. ArAnn bor: Univ. Man 14:607-27 10. Honorification. Basso K. Alvarez C. 45. 291. 259-78 13.1993. Hist. Besnier N. 1986. Press 25. Basso K. Lang.Press 15. 19:59-88 24. Speakingwith names. R Fardon. Cambridge. Plurilinguismes 6:1-26 7. NewHaven. 1962. Baron DE.. may be purchasedfrom the AnnualReviewsPreprints and Reprints service. Rev. FromLocke to Saussure: Essayson the Study of Language Inteland lectual History. NewYork: CambridgeUniv. 1990. AsadT. Press 14. 110-34 31. 1988. 1990. La langue creole forcejugul~e. Anthropol. Minn. 21-48. tions in the Ethnography Speaking. Let Your WordsBe Few: R. 1983.ed. Anthropology the analyand sis of ideology.annualreviews. Adams KL. Towardthe development of a multilingual languagepolicy in Nigeria. Minneapolis:Univ. RobeyKM.Berlin: Mouton C. Rev. Literature Cited 1. as well as any article cited in an AnnualReviewchapter. Brink DT. 1982. Paris: L’Harmattan 26. 1990. 1990.Am. Freebody P.1991. Linguistics in America 1769-1924: A Critical History. Le fran~ais national Paris: Hachette 18. AnthropoL 19:419-51 29. Grammar and Good Taste: Reformingthe AmericanLanguage. Languageattitudes and working class ideology in a Puerto Rican barrio of NewYork.Literacy and feelings: the encoding of affect in Nukulaelaeletters. Symbolism of Speaking and Silence Among Seventeenth-Century Quakers. Press 20. 15:451-84 16. pp. Ideas 13(1/2):89-95 17. 1994. 1985. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Language and affect. Laporte D. 93(2):570-87 30.Annual Reviews www. 1989. Eur. Representations of questioning and answeringin children’s first school books. the octopus and the people: the ideologization of linguistic practices in Galiza. 415-259-5017.Cult. Brbel-Gisler D. eds. Anthropol. powerand ideology in public discourse.La rrvolution franqaise et l’universalisation du fran~ais national en France. performance critical perspectives on lanas guageand social life. Appl. Bauman Briggs CL. Arabic literacy and secrecy amongthe Mendeof Sierre Leone. See Ref. Alvarez-CAccamo C.Rev.Camof bridge: CambridgeUniv. Balibar R. Am. 1991. BlommaertJ. Univ. Calif. 1993. 3(2):99-131 22. HowTo Do Things with Words. this AnyAnnualReviewchapter. Press 23. emaiharpr@class. Berkeley 6. This essay is dedicatedto Ben. eds. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press 32. AnthropoL 23:277-302 4. 1974. Annu. Austin JL. Besnier N. Poetics and R. ExploraR. 1991. Literacy and the notion of person on Nukulaelae Atoll. Bledsoe CH. 1982. Images of English: A Cultural History of the Language. Press 19. Press 2. 1979. Ethnic Groups5(12):55-78 11. 1990. pp. The institionalization of Galician: linguistic LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 73 Mitchellfor editorial help. Bailey RW. Akinnaso FN.

Off. ed. Cultural context in corn municative interaction of lnuit children. Briggs CL." Reading. Of Revolution and Revelation: Christianity. E Ochs. 1993.Ethical issues in status J. 1983. pp. 1992. 1984. P Freebody. The command language of and the language of command. Pittsburgh: Univ Pittsburgh Press 59. Learning Howto Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisalof the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. 317. 1986. speech. The Making of a Reader. With ForkedTongues: What Are National Languages GoodFor? Arm Arbor. Cochran-Smith M. 229-53. JA Lucy. Press 43. C Mitchell. F Boas. Clancy P. CrawfordJ. 1986. 355-75 34. CampbellL. 41~86 52. See Ref. Collins J. Lang. planning. intertextuality. 27-50 velopmentand modernization in Tanzanian language policy and research. NewYork: Bergin & Garvey 57. 52. Calif.1989. J Cook-Gumperz. Washington. Trabant J. Colonialism and Consciousnessin South Africa. ChicagoPress 60. Introduction to the Handbook of American Indian Languages. 1990.Annual Reviews www. 387 404 42. Boyarin J. Sdmiotique. Cameron D. 1944. Literate and illiterate L.. Cohn B. BB Schieffelin. Univ. 16246. 1990. Blommaert VerschuerenJ. Briggs CL. pp. pp. A Welch. See Ref. pp. Berkeley: Univ. In Knowledge. pp. 173. Our ideologies and theirs. CoulmasF. In African Languages. See Ref. and social power. K Wesler. New York: CambridgeUniv. Hold Your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of "English Only. 30:448~91 41. Calif. of languagein European nationalist ideologies. Language 20:44-55 35. NewYork: New York Univ. 1989. Philadelphia: Inst. Anthropol. Language adaptation in Meiji Japan. The role J. 1990. Print. C Hockett. Bourdieu P. In Bulletin of the Bureauof American Ethnology. 2(2): 131-72 44. Les iddologues. The structural consequencesof language death. CrowleyT. Stud. MyersF. Press 38. Press 50. Genric versus metapragmatic dimensions of Warao narratives: Whoregiments performance? In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. pp. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. ed. 179-212. In Language Socialization across Cultures. BoasE1911. eds. Cmiel K. pp.theories et politiques linguistiques pendant la rdvolution fran caise. pp. 1988. 22:67-101 45. CobarrubiasJ. Hegemonic acy and standard languagein public education. See Ref. ed. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. ed. In A Bloomfield Anthology. Demythologizing sociolinguistics: whylanguage does not reflect society. McGill Univ. MA:Addison-Wesley 65. and R Fardon. Press 37a. Norwood. pp. pp. Secondaryand tertiary responses to language. 1992. ed. 173. BaumanR. 405-16 58. Briggs CL. pp. pp. 1992. Press 36. StandardEnglish and the Politics of Language. ComaroffJ.annualreviews. eds. In The Social Construction of Literacy. Cook-Gumperz 1986. Differential treatment in reading instruction. 213-50.Development the State. Briggs CL. 1990.See Ref. Culture and Power: International Perspectives on Literacy Policies and Practices. Linguist. Schooling and litJ. Democratic Eloquence: The Fight Over Popular Speech in Nineteenth Century America. ComaroffJ. 1984. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press practice: liter56. Dangerous Words: Languageand Politics in the Pacific. 1991. Briggs CL. ed. pp. 185. Press 66. HumanIssues 47. Press 40. 185. Press 5 I. 1991. ed. 69-86 63. 147-56. Linguistic ideologies and the naturalization of powerin Waraodiscourse. 1992. Ill. Cambridge: Cambridge UnivPress 61. Vol. Collins J. Words and the Dogon World. eds. 1986. Disorderly dialogues in ritual impositions of order: the role of metapragmatics in Waraodispute mediation. pp. cracy: an unchangingequation? In The Social Constructionof Literacy. 37. Linguist. 1991. ed. CoulmasF. Collins J. 1986. 213-26. Anthropol. 72. Languageand Symbolic Power. Amsterdam:John Benjamins 46. 1993. The social consequences of writing Louisiana French.NJ: Ablex 54. pp. BrownB. FishmanJA. See Ref. 7%96 48. Bloomington: Ind. The Ethnographyof Reading. Busse W. ed. Cambridge.J. pp. 16-44. Collins J. 1992. Press 39. London: Routledge 33. Bloomfield 1970. 117-37. 1-83. 1986. The troubled text: history and languagein basic writing programs. 185. That obscure object of desire: a science of language. Soc. 1988. PhDthesis. 1993. ed. pp. Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives. Chicago:Univ. 1993. MA:Harvard Univ. Genre. Berkeley: Univ. G Furniss. Muntzel MC. See Ref. Crowley T. MI: Karoma 62. Cobarrubias 1983. The acquisition of commu- . DC: Gov. 181-96 49. Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter 53. 1985. ed. Montreal 64. See Ref. Brenneis D. 74 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN nicative style in Japanese.Urbana: Univ.Subaltern Stud 4:276-329 55. Calame-Griaule G. Crago M. J CookGumperz. 1988. BloomfieldL. In RewritingLiteracy: Cultureand the Discourse of the Other.

Errington JJ. Press Power:The Appropriation Swahili in the of 72. pp. F Newmeyer. Ewald J. Indias 39:163-85 Univ. 1993. ings in Language. Structure andStyle in Schiffrin. 1985. Derrida J. Transl.Friedfich P.ideology and York: OxfordUniv. In 80. pp. a functional basis for Kaluli discourse. pp. Davies A. Forstorp P-A. Eagleton T. DC: Javanese: A Semiotic View of Linguistic GeorgetownUniv. pp. Words. In Responsi Tannen.Am. 1991. 1991.Annual Reviews www. 1983. Annu. 90. 2975. 1987. writing and langue. 70. Receiving and reequal. Betweenspeech and silence: . London:Routledge 85. D tion: lessons fromdivination.1986. 24-47. 48-71. Talk295-312 ing Data: Transcriptionand Codingin Dis101. gender as community-based practice. 1986. Investigating ObsoFormer Belgian Congo 1880-1938. Frangoudaki A. Hillsdale. ed.Lang. EckertP. Multo the Translation of the NewTestament ticult. AnthropoL18:345-67 103. 1980. Foucault M.annualreviews. Duranti A. Duranti A. of Stud. Camlescence: Studies in Language Contraction bridge: Cambridge Univ. Speaking. 1994. ed. Meaningwithout intenLanguages and Linguistics 1981. Idealization in sociolinsociolinguistic sign: describing the Javaguistics: the choiceof the standarddialect. 1992. Crowley T. pp. pp. MBrame. Lan78. 1984. 1974. EmondsJ. Transcription design 91. 1991. Transcription of dispresent languagesituation in Greece. 23:25-53 73. 1989. DecrosseA. See Ref. In International Encyclopedia of Soc. See Ref. 1989. 1970. 367-71. Linguistics 18:156-64 sponding:waysof taking fromthe Bible. WBright. nese speech levels. Filgueira Alvado A.ed. authority: explorations in and from the Paris: Fondation Diderot/Fayard kingdom Taqali. 1992. Une 87. pp. History and Cultural tle: Noit Amrofer Identity. McConnell-Ginet 1992. In Pragmatics 1(1):71-106 Georgetown University Round Table on 74. The paradox of national Bible Reading in Sweden:Studies Related language movements. 93-129. Ferguson CA. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 89. ed. 21:461-90 99. 1989. 21(3):36541 Linguistics. JT telectual y actitud del indio ante el castelIrvine. Anthropol. 1979. tlist. Press 69. Language and Ethnicity 77. Anthropol. Clevedon. Grn~ologiedu franqais: 417-26 purism et langue savante. England: Multilingual Matters 213-32 96. 1975. JT Irvine. DC: bility and Evidencein Oral Discourse. Soc. In Responsibility and Evi93. LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 75 67. Cambridge:Cambridge lano. Lampert MD. Philadelphia: Univ. DuBois JW. pp. 1981. self and re 40 sponsibility. 39:199-223 GCSpivak. H omy. Think S. Revel J. Proper English? ReadContreras. In Etats de 88. Multiling. Rev. 266. EdwardsJ. 35030. 1983-1990. ed. pp. Fodor I. Dorian NC. 1990. DuBois JW. 71. Press and Death. course. Press Annu. Intentionality and truth: guage Usage: A History of the War of an ethnographiccritique. Dev. 1988. Errington JJ. Errington JJ. Language. Comp. Washington. Finegan E. NJ: Erlbaum ness in the European periphery.Gal S. 4(4):289-300 1981. Fold S. Almqvist & Wiksell practically and look locally: languageand 98. ed.pp. The Order of Things. Edwards J. 1988. Codeswitching consciousand course Research. Penn. Press political economy. Of Grammatology. Press and languagechange. New York: Teacher’s College Press 8(2):214-45 95. Duranti A. 149-69. Language planning CambridgeUniv. 1992. M-PGruenais. FishmanJA.J. GeorgetownUniv. OchsE. Paris: Gallimard of a language of state. 84. 1986. tion in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. de Certeau M. Press 94. 52. Fox A. 161-200. 1985. Hard words: principles for spokendiscourse research. Washington. 287In GeorgetownUniversity RoundTable on 310 Languages and Linguistics 1984. Capacidadindence in Oral Discourse. Hamburg:Buske Verlag 79. Onthe nature of the 68. ed. Attitudes TowardsLan76. 91(2): 83. ed. Anthropol. Musicand language. See Ref. Anthropol. Rev. Cult. 1992. Onthe ideology of Inpolitique de la langue: la r~volution frandonesian language development: the state 9aise et les patois. 185. Gal S. 229-39. 214. Languageand Colonial Univ. Schieffelin BB. Am. Ideology: An Introducguage Reform: History and Future in 5 tion. Rev. NewYork: RandomHouse Annu. Julia D. In A Fest102. See Ref. Eckert E 1983. pp. Hagrge C. 1992.Gal S. Diglossia and the 82. JA Hill. Press JH Hill. Languageand political econschrifi for Sol Saporta.Ethnol.eds. New 100. Literacy instrucin Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective.Diglossia: separate and un97.London: Verso Volumes. 1991. D 86. Feld S.. Uppsala: 81. ed. Rev. Grammatically deviant 14(4):637-53 prestige dialect constructions. Eckert P. G Hansson. Fabian J. Cambridge: 92. 1993. eds. Seatpp. Intentions. 1980. Press Etiquette.

Gustafson T. Pap. Chicago: Cent. 1977. Assoc. Talk Never Dies: The Language Hull Disputes. U Ammon. Jewish Self-Hatred: AntiSemitism and the Hidden Languageof the Jews. Amsterdam: Benjamins 113. In Language Planning: Focusschrifi in Honorof Joshua A. 1993. ed. Press 128. ed. Symbolic Values of Foreign Language Use: From the Japanese Caseto a GeneralSociolinguistic Perspective. Literary Structure. Hewstone M.Anthropol. Aust. Press 135. 13(2): 177-208 . 1972. Proc. 1988. ed.GoddardC. 1988. pp. Ethnol. The "back-to-the future" syndrome languageplanning: the case of in modern Hebrew. Work. York: Holt. RineNew hart & Winston 122. DC 107. 185. Cambridge. 1990.Harries P. 1982. The politics of unofficial language use: Walloonin Belgium.Gilliam AM. 1983. EvangelistaI. Onthe normative character of language. Ryan EB. In Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language Sociand ety. and murder. Standard English: biography of a symbol.Gumperz 1982. migrants. Errington F. ed. 1992. and Style. 1981. A sketch of the linguistic situation in Israel today. AnthropoL 8(4):303-18 111.Stud. TwistedHistories. Calif. Language and "development" in Papua NewGuinea. Wise.HandlerR. Keepingit oral: a Yekuana ethnology.Gal S. Soc. Berkeley: Univ. Dominant Languages: Language and Hierarchy in Britain and France. 13(3):413-29 123. Haas W. Grillo RD. 215-43.. 1991.1985. holy language: a study of an ultraorthodox Jewish ideology. ed. In Standard Languages:Spoken and Written. Tamazight in Morocco. Gal S. 14(4):66892 129. pp. 53--72. UK:Manchester Univ. Lang. JJ. Anthropol. 134. London:Tavisof tock 117. ed. Discourse genres in a theory of practice. Press 119.Havranek 1964. pp. GalS. Developmentand Teaching of Written Communication.Holyland. Psychosoc. 1989. Diversity and contestation in linguistic ideologies: German speakers in Hungary. London: Duckworth 133. 1991. Arlington. Hillsdale.Heath SB. Washington.Gross JE. pp. Discourse Strategies.J Williams. Press 130. pp. 1987. Mdi Leonardo. Hymes eds.Giles H. PL Garvin. DirecD. 20(1):59-86 114. DC:’Georgetown Univ. Aborig. 1:585-97. 1986. Literature and the American Language 1776-1865. 44550 105.Haviland JB. Ideologies &Institutions in UrbanFrance: The Representation of Immigrants. 91-126.Crit. Fishman. Social history. Metalanguage and pragmatics of deixis. Press 118. 1993. pp. Press 109. Mixtecs. MA:Winthrop 137. The Language Machine. JA Lucy. Soc.Gold DL.1984.GewertzD. Am. Am. Transl. 17(4):475-511 108.Meet.GoldmanL. Press 112.Madison:Univ. 1980. 1: Social Science. 3-31. 1980. NJ: Erlbaum the problematics of research on language and gender. tiation of the standard language. Presented at 92nd Annu. Vol. Shilhav Y. Ethnol. 1987. Multiplicity and contention amongideologies. DFMarshall. GilmanS. Press 121. Haarman 1989. Affairs 87(346):25-52 131. tions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication.Researchon languageattitudes. In Genderat the Crossroadsof Knowledge. MFWhiteman. Harris R. MA:MITPress 127. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. 1987.In A Prague School Reader on Esthetics. GarciaO. Soc. Cambridge: Cambridge U~fiv. London: Duckworth 132. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ.Hanks WF. T Shopen. 1993. 124. Cambridge. 1989. 25. NewYork: CambridgeUniv. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. 175203. See Ref. 1:25--45. Berlin: Mouton Gruyter de 125. ed. HabermasJ. Soc. Lang. 1986. Washington. Stud.Heath SB. 1989.Spanishlanguageuse and attitudes: a study of two New York City communities. 1988.Lost in a Slavic sea: linguistic theories and expert knowledgein the making of Hungarianidentity.annualreviews. 1989. 22(3):337-359 106. Lang. 2:27-47 76 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN 120.Gurnperz JJ.In Standardsand Dialects in English. Appl. The functional differenB. 1993. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. 136. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Hams R. pp. Press 126. multilingualism. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 110. Press 104.GussD. Transcult. Afr. In Bilingual Education:Current Perspectives. 18: 361-88 116.Hanks WF. T Burger.Annual Reviews www. Cent. 1-36. 3-16. 1992. Heath SB. Altered Contexts. In Writing: The Nature.Glinert L. Dialect. The roots of ethnicity: discourse and the politics of languageconstruction in South-EastAfrica. WHaas. 1991. Toward ethnohistory of an writing in American education. Stud. Nationalismand the Politics of Culture in Quebec. Representative Words: Politics. Johnson P. Glinert L. In Reflexive Language. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.Press H. VA:Cent. Lang. Grillo RD. Emergentgenres of reportage and advocacy Pitjantjatjara print in media. Linguist. Am. Manchester. pp. The Language Makers.

5(1): 41~59 146. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Rev. 126pp. 1985. Soc.Jernudd BH. Lang. FO NewYork: Basic 158. Thepolitics of linguistic E terrorism and grammatical hegemony during the Frenchrevolution. M. guistics: An Ethnographic Approach. 1986. Multicult. 13:145-76 149. Press 168. ed. In LanguagePolIDEOLOGY 77 icy and Language Education. 1989. Dev. pp.J Sherzer. 185. Mastering African languages:the politics of linguistics in nineteenth-century Senegal. ed. Annu. 393405. Press 138a. DC 167. and the Makingof Modern Greece. See Ref. Anthropol. it’s better": metapragmatics court. Probl. pp. 1988. See Ref. Languageideology in Quechuacommunities of Puno. Language as a social problem: repression of Spanthe ish in SouthTexas. 171."Today there is no respect": nostalgia. Philadelphia: Univ.Jacquemet 1992. 323. In The Influence of Language Culon ture and Thought. 61. 1985. Language planning orientations and bilingual education in Peru.Hill JH. 1993.HumboldtW. Ariz.Hurtado A. Rodriguez R. pp. eds. Anthropol. In press 155.HymesD.Hill JH. pp. Women conversation: in covert modelsin Americanlanguageideology. 1982. Englewo~)d Cliffs.In Focuson the Caribbean. tlerzfeld M. 1992. In Anthropological Perspectives on Education. Press 151. Hidalgo M. Mannheim 1992. Shapiro MJ. The grammar consciousof ness and the consciousness of grammar. Foundations in SociolinD.Janowitz N. Five vowels or three?: N.Hellinger M. 16(2):248-67 163. On Language. In Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. and authenticity: competing cultural principles in the teaching of Corsican. Assoc. MandabachE 1983. 1989. Austin: Univ. 1992. Texas Press 143. 52. 51-66.Hill JH. Languageand B. error.Hill JH.Irvine JT. Press 164. Crit. J Holm. 1991.Am. 1984.Hymes 1974. Transl.Hornberger 1994.Irvine JT. LANGUAGE 138. pp." In Language in Use. Press 138b. and language prejudice on the Mexican border. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. The family romanceof colonial linguistics: gender 19th-century in representations of African languages.Irvine JT. Ethnol. "’ Philadelphia:Univ.San Francisco: North Point 162. Plan.Annual Reviews www. See Ref. ed. 34:2746 166. J Baugh. R Cooper.. JW Tollefson. Hill KC. ABC: Alphabetization of the PopularMind. 251-62 165. Z Multiling.Illich I. The .ed. 1-23.Registeringaffect: heteroglossia in the linguistic expressionof emotion.annualreviews. 75-90 141. Onwriting English-related Creoles in the Caribbean. M Wax. Am.Heath SB. 1986.Hornberger N. Heath SB.Anthropol. Lang. NJ: Prentice-Hall The 161. "respect" and oppositional discourse in Mexicano (Nahuatl) language ideology. Introduction.Higonnet 1980. Amsterdam: Benjamins 142. Gearing. 1989. L Abu-Lughod.Jackson JE.Hymes 1971. NewYork: Oxford Univ. 263-80 148. 1989. Language status decisions and the law in the United States. Anal. JH Hill. CALutz. 1993. ed. Speaking Mexicano: Dynamicsof Syncretic Languagein Central Mexico. JT lrvine. Peru. Washington. In International Encyclopedia of Communications. world view. MGorlach. 3(1):99-114 170.and the education of disadvantaged children. In Reflexive Language.Ideologiesof honorific language. 12(1):1429 153. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Hist. 1986. In Language the Politics of Emoand tion. When talk isn’t cheap: language and political econmny. 1990. P Heath. ed. J. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. 12(4):725-37 147. Languageideology. 1983.Heller M. Press 159. 1988. Onlinguistic theory.Hill JH. Am. 2:393-95. Re-creating Genesis: the metapragmatics of divine speech. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv Press. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv.Penn.ed. Heath SB. pp. Pragin matics 2(2): 111-26 169. Anthropol. Linguistic problems in defining the concept of "tribe. Soc. Press. 53-70. ed. Languagecontact. JA Lucy. 1993.Hymes 1981. Ethnol. SandersB. Irvine JT. Berlin: Mouton Gruyter de 139. Press 156. baby: Anglo Spanish in the AmericanSouthwest. 1992. White Talk Black Talk. Lang.HornbergerN. 30(2):214-35 154. comD.Irvine JT. Anthropol.Irvine JT.Jaffe A. Ha~tala vista. "If he speaks Italian. Linguist. 1993. "In Vain I Tried to Tell D. Linguistics and politics in Quechualanguage planning in Peru. municative competence.SA Dimnond. 185. 1988. 1986. You. The Fish People: Linguistic Exogamy Tukanoan and Identity in Northwest Amazonia. 87-105 140. See Ref. 1983. 10(5):401-19 157. Ideology. 15 (2): 193220 145. 21:381406 152. B Spolsky.Hewitt R. 199-218. Press 160.Presented at 92ndAnnu.Meet. Obligation. Linguist. pp. Ways with Words.pp. pp. Press 150. 1988. pp. Ours OnceMore:Folklore. 7-27. Soe. Tucson:Univ. Ethnic relations and language use in Montreal. language loyalty. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv Press 144. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Heath SB.Hill JH. 1993.

Ideology and Utopia: K. NY:Cornell Univ. 101-24.pp.Jourdan C. Text 6(2): 153-70 179. Kroskrity PV. TX: Univ. pp. Women and the Public Spherein the Age of the FrenchRevolution. R Warren. Christianity. Press 176. cargo and ideas of self. Language and the sovereign state. Fishman.Lim6nJ. CambridgeUniv. Our OwnLanguage: An Irish Initiative. In Individual Differences in LanguageAbility and Language Behavior.pp. Annu. Appalachian English stereotypes: language attitudes in Kentucky. JosephJE. Ithaca. The Language of the B. 1993. See Ref. 8(4) :510-41 . Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. 1978. Pragmatics 2(3):235453 186. 1992. l 1: 165-201 192.Princeton. An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowl- Politics of Language Purism.Mannheim B. Imagining Languagein America:Fromthe Revolution to the Civil War. 131-44. Lang. function. 1988. Amsterdam:Benjamins 198. pp. 1990. In Languageand Ethnicity: Foeussehrifl in Honorof Joshua A. lnka Since the European Invasion. Taylor TJ. Khubchandani LM. 297-310 78 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN 189. History.Leibowitz AH. 1986. NewYork: Cambridge Univ.Linguist.1991. NewYork: Routledge 174. Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages.Kochman 1986. Plural Cultures: Communication. 1992. Columbia. SC: Camden House 180. Les creoles fran~ais entre l’oral et l’dcrit. Woolard KA. NewYork: Basil Blackwell 173. Small C. 1982. 71:25-36 195.Mannheim 1991. Ideas 13(1/2):51-61 202. Somepremises concerning the standardization of languages. 1979. CJ Fillmore.Katriel T. 1991. MackeyWF. T~ibingen. In Languageand Politics. ed. 1989. 1993.politics and translation: colonial discourse and classic Nahuatl in New Spain.Lindstrom L. 1992.Kroskrity PV. DKempler. Reflexive language and the human disciplines. cds. Pidgins and creoles: the blurring of categories. LucyJA. pp. Labov W. 45-55. JR Dow. Language. andIdentity: EthnolinguisticStudies of the Arizona Tewa. Press 181. Honolulu: Univ. Spanish in the. Press 178. Stroud C. Language. Special Issue on Language Ideologies. Texas Press 205. 449-66. gender. 1994. Kroskrity PV. Austin. Hist.Lang. Self and Syncretism in a Papua New Guinean Village. 20:187-209 175. ed.LudwigR. JA Lucy. In TheArtof Translation: Voices from the Field. Tucson:Univ. Sociol. 1987. Press 196. ed. Arizona TewaKiva speechas a manifestationof linguistic ideology. Anthropol. In RethinkingContext. NewYork: Academic 191. Locating the frontier between social and psychological factors in linguistic variation. Anger. ed. pp. Hawaii Press 177. ed. Talking Straight: Dugri Speechin Israeli SabraCulture.Le Page RB. folk Spanish and ethnic nationalism in a Chicano student community. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. 1988. 1990. E1 meeting: history. Identity. Objectivity and commitmentin linguistic evidence. 1993. Kramer MP. 327-39. eds. 1976. Klor de Alva JJ. 1990.Luhman R. Ideologies of Language. C Goodwin.annualreviews. New York: CambridgeUniv. Cult. 1991. 9-32. 1991. Word37(1-2):45-75 204. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Grammatical ideology and its effect on speech. 1989. Kulick D.LabovW. Man (NS) 25:7048 190. Popular song and popular grammar. D Sankoff. Schieffelin BB. Anthropol. Lang. ed. Maguire G.Landes JB. Anthropol.Kulick D. Johann Gottfried Herder.Annual Reviews www. 143--62. with special reference to CaribbeanCreole English. 1986. language stfift and the politics of revelation in a Papua New Guineanvillage. and Sociopolitical Change Conin temporary India.L El~as-Olivares.Kroch AS. Language. Int. 1992. linguistic ideology. Ariz. Arizona Tewapublic announcements: form. Press 185. pp. Strategic ambiguity in T.Lopez DE.Kulick D. Press 199. Kulick D. J O’Barr. 1990. The emergence of language minorities in the United States. Soc. 185. ed. Language and the law: the exercise of political powerthrough the official designation of language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 172. Press 188. NJ: Princeton Univ. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter 194. poetry and metalanguage. In Linguistic Variation: Modelsand Methods. J Amastae. J. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters 203. Press: Cambridge 197. NewYork: Academic 182.Kroskrity PV. 35:In press 184. black speech genres. 185. Soc. See Ref. 1992. Plural Languages. Press 193.WSY Wang. In UnitedStates. History and the Enlightenment. pp.Joseph JE. ed. ADuranti. 1982. pp. 1992. Mannheim 1985. Eur. 301-32. ed.Koepke W.Germany: Gunter Narf Verlag 200. WO’Barr. Iu Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Speaking as a woman: structure and gender in domesticarguments in a New Guineavillage. Context contests: debatable truth statements on Tanna(Vanuatu).Rev. 19:331-48 201.ed. 1983. LanguageShift and Cultural Reproduction:Socialization. 281-96 187. pp.

MilroyJ. Gramatica Castellana. 1982. Narrative practices and the social construction of self in childhood. Baggioni D. pp. ADuranti. European Encounters .annualreviews. pp.See Ref. Madrid:Edic. 17(2):292-311 218.MessickB. 23:325-45 223. Ethnol. Berkeley:Univ. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Anthropol. Anthropol. The impact of language socialization on grammatical development. Press 215. and Identity in Brittany. In Rethinking Context. Indirectness and interMH. MertzE. Merlan F.Pagden A. pp.Neu-Altenheimer I. Teacher/child collaborationas oral preparationfor literacy. ed. 72. See Ref. 105-12 225. CazdenC. Linguists and the official G. Stop making sense: G. Culture and LanguageDevelopment. Nrvrose diglossique et choix graphiques. E Ochs. The sociology of a text: oral culture. Purism and correctness in the Bengali speech community. San Diego: Harcourt. 276-320. 106-25. 1984. DC: GeorgetownUniv. 1992. Ku Waru: LanA. ed. In Developmental Pragmatics. JA Lucy. Calif. C Goodwin. Press 211.Nebrija A. ed. MilroyL. Legal language: pragmatics. In The Social History of Language. Language 65(3): 57%87 229. In Social Anand thropology and the Politics of Language.Culture.Morgan 1991. The Languagesof Paradise: Race.Rev.ed. 1993. RDGirllo. Meeuwis Brisard F. London:Routledge & KeganPaul 220. We are not French: Language. Religion. 1988. In Reflexive Language. Cambridge LANGUAGE edge. Onthe colonization of Amerindian languages and memories: Renaissance theories of writing and the discontinuity of thc classical tradition. ed.13(2): 177 208 208. R Porter. Press 213 Mertz E. Press 234. Japan’s ModernMyth: The Language and Beyond New York: Weatherhill IDEOLOGY 79 219. R Levine. eels. Press 231. 1990. In press 235. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Mertz E. FL: Academic 214a. MertzE. Linguist. guageand Segmentary Politics in the Western Nebilyer Valley. 1984. Annu. pretation in African American women’s discourse. 1993. 1979. Lengas 22:33-57 227. ’Reducing’Pacific languages to writing. ed. Pragmatics1(4):421-51 222. 1989. MignoloWD. Authority in Language: Investigating LanguagePrescription and Standardisation. Antwerp Press 210. 159-74. pp. Washington. Learning what to ask: metapragmaticfactors and methodological reification. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. language movement. Anthropol. Press 232. Martin-Jones M. Olender M. McDonaldM. P Fletcher. humorand the nation-state in transitional Spain. pp. 1946. 1989. pp. Rumsey 1991. ed. Nunberg 1989. MichaelsS. 1986. 43-72. 1994. Brace. pp. 1985. New York: Academic 230.Miller RA. Clarification and culture. Ochs E. Timeand the M. MA: Harvard Univ. pp. McKenzie DF. In Reflexive Language:Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Transcription as theory. pp. 1994. Sociolinguistic creativity: CapeBretonGaelic’s linguistic "tip. 1985. 132-54 216. 213-40. Junta Ccntenario 226. Schieffelin BB. Parmentier RJ. ed. Performance form and the voices of characters in five versions of the Wasco CoyoteCycle. Theoretical and political arguments in African American English. Press 236. Press 233. Language acqdisition and socialization: three developmental stories and their implications. ChicagoPress 228. The Caligraphic State: Textual Domination History in a Musand lim Society. 335-58. poetics and social power. Self and Emotion. 1987. Newmeyer 1986. London:Routledge 207. Orlando. MintzJ. 34(2):301-30 217. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. 1994. 1990. MorganMH. Camp. 1989. languagemaintenance shift. London:Routledge 206. pp. Press 209. Moore RE. See Ref. Ochs E. 1993. OchsE. Press 221. In Handbookof Child Language. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.Annual Reviews www. BBSchieffelin. 171. Antwerp Pap. 1992. 161-97. Schieffelin BB. New York: Basil Blackwell. MusaM. and Philology in the Nineteenth Century. 1993. Jovanovich 205a. language.Miihlhtiusler P. Hist.Miller PJ. Ports R. Am. 173.Ochs E. 72. Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984. pp. MarimoutouJ. Chicago:Univ. 23:435-55 214. Indexing gender. 1989. power and linguistic minorities: the need for an alternative approachto bilingualism. ed.Rev. R Shweder." See Ref. 325-41. Diagnosis of Language Change. JA Lucy. Hoogstra L. In Culture Theory: Essays on Mind. 1987. guistics. The Politics of LinFJ. 103-16 212. Antwerp:Univ. 1992. D Schiffrin. 266. Cambridge.Stud. Language. literacy and print in early New Zealand. Sac. Fung H. OchsE. 189-205 224.McDonogh 1993. OchsE. Papua NewGuinea. Annu. Crit. 1993. B MacWhinney. pp. P Burke.

Lauguage socialization. The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization of Kaluli Children. Lang. 20-42.pp. ed. London: Macmillan 240. 1982. Vol. Transcult. 1991. In Metaphorand Thought. Norwood. Ithaca. Norwood. pp. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter 257. 13:435-53 261. 1991. pp. 1986. SankoffD. Stud.Rosaldo MZ. Stud 4. language. Rafael V. Learning to read culturally. In Linguistics: TheCambridge Survey. 80 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN 254. Biling. Parmentier RJ. 1987. 1986. Standard and non-standard languageattitudes in a creole continuum. 1981. Siegel J. Schieffelin BB. RosaldoMZ. Rockhill K. 5: Bilingualism and Linguistic Conflict in Romance. Schieffelin BB. Exeter. The linguistic world of field colonialism. 1979. Lang.NJ: Ablex 267.NJ: Ablex 270. Natl. Languageconflict in Romance. In Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology. pp. In Pragmatics:FromTheoryto Practice. The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language. 1986. 265. Press 248. Proc. Ithaca. 291. 2(2): 193-223 255. Annu. The "real" Haitian Creole: ideology. Press 263. Folk. Tongan speech levels: practice and talk about practice in the cultural construction of social hierarchy. 1992. 15: 163-91 268. Schultz EA. Schieffelin BB. 1990. Puffery and pragmatics. 1984. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 262.Ruiz R. 15:387-98 243. Chicago: Cent. 1982. Press 269. Am. and Linguistic Relativity. Rossi-LandiE 1973. RM Sonnenmeier. 21(1):177-201 266. Ochs E. 93(2):421-34 .1981. Soc. 11: 203 37 256. metalinguistics and orthographic choice. 1991. Language. Press 271. Gender. Assoc. Worl~Pap. The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Orientations in language planning. CT: Yale Univ. meaning and linguistic ideology. Anthropol. Monolingual myopia and the petals of the Indian lotus: do many languagesdivide or unite a language? In Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle. Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. Press 251. Am. Schieffclin BB. LE Hewitt. 1988. Literacy and Face in lnterethnic Communication. JN Green. Am. 95(377):304-26 246. NewYork: Prentice Hall 264. 92(2):346q51 259. 156-75 253.Rumsey A. A Oberg. pp. Posner R. NY:Cornell Univ. I have nothing to hide: the languageof Ilongot oratory. SamarinWJ. Lang. The Li’l Abner syndrome: written representations of speech. NY:Corncll Univ. Cent.Rodman WL. 1993. The ideology of speech-act theory. ed. Vol. T Skutnabb-Kangas. Scollon R. 1990. NewYork: Can~bridge Univ. IV: Language: SoThe cio-cultural Context. Searle J. 145-60 252. Lang. Dialogue at the Margins: WhorlBakhtin. Psychosoc. J. Afr. 140-61. Pattanayak DP. Soc.Speech Acts: AnEssayin the Philosophy of Language. In Awakening to Literacy. 1984. ’Ritin fowklowerdaun ’rong. Preston DR. A Ortony. 1984. Whenquestions are answers. Aft. Soc. Carbangh 1986. ’Languageideology’ in the language planning process: two African case studies.annualreviews. Speech 60(4):328-36 247. 284-324. ed.Philips S. GilmoreP. Cochran-Smith M. 41-76.Rickford J. Centrum(NS) 1:5-18 245. Narrative. LanguageContact in a with the NewWorld: FromRenaissance to Romanticism. F Smith. See Ref. Deletedin proof 272. Am.1973. net. Lang. Pecheux M. 1994. 1990.Philips S. ReaganTG. Schieffelin BB. 1985. 1988. Wording. NH:Heinemann Educ. The Acquisition of Literacy: Ethnographic Perspectives. R Posed. 1994. 323. H Goelman. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. 3-23. 1985. 379-89. 1993. eds. ReddyMJ. Clevedon. Philipsen G. Sakai N. Pratt ML. JF Duchan. pp. Anthropol. England: Multilingual Matters 239. A Marx-influenced approach to ideology and language: comments. 185. 238. S.6(2): 94-97 250. pp. pp. and the politics of literacy. Wisc. Educ. Pac.J Cummins. Linguist. See Ref. A bibliogD. Ideologies of Linguistic Relativity. Doucet RC. Codeswitchingand language socialization: someprobable relationships. Raison-Jourde E 1977. 1969. pp. NewHaven.Preston DR. Scollon SB. Am. ed. Schieffelin BB. FJ Newmeyer. Annales 32:639~59 249. Ethnol. Semantics and Ideology. Press 260. 8(2): 15-34 258. Press 237. 37746 242. Set C I 17:369-82 241. 1988. Madison: Univ. J. 1986. NewYork: Cambridge Univ. ed. Anthropol. See Ref. J. Rev. raphy of fieldwork in the ethnography of communication. Voices of the Post: The Status of Languagein Eighteenth-Century Japanese Discourse. regulation and reference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 244.Annual Reviews www. Soc. Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in TagalogSociety under early Spanish Rule. L’6change in6gal de la langue: La p6n6tration des techniques linguistiquesdansune civilisation de l’oral.

Am. Chicago:Cent. Press 296. Am. Work. Austin: Univ. In Meaning in Anthropology. Urciuoli B. 193-247.Ethnicprotest and social planning: a look at Basquelanguage revival. Contesting modernities: language standardization and the production of an ancient/modern Basqueculture. Assoc. T Ingold. Plan. Phillipson R. Cross-cultural Approaches to Literacy. ed.Text 12(1): in 127-55 293. and the first amendment. Linguist. Psychosoc. Urla J. 1993. 335-54 289. Fromthe meaningof meaningto the empires of the mind: Ogdon’s orthological English. The Politics of American D. UrbanG. Proc. Street BV. ed. pp. C Hofbauer. McMahon 1992.R Porter. Silverstein M. ed. MT Gibbons. SonntagSK. ed. Mex. Besnier N. Anthropol. Linguistic Purism. Crit. Texas Press 304. Wisc. 1984. 1992. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Penn. 1985. 225-39 LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY Plantation Environment:A Sociolinguistic History of Fiji. See Ref. The Ideology of Power and the Powerof Ideology. Languagestructure and linguistic ideology. Silverstein M. Press NJ.Theuses and utility of ideology: somereflections. 1989.. Shifters. Pal. Siegel JT. 1994. Linguistic denial andlinguistic self-deniah American ideologies of language. 219-59 277. Berlin: de Gruyter 283. U Ammon. Probl. 1991. pp. Presented at 92nd Annu. See Ref. 112-30 294. Soc. Solo in the NewOrder: Languageand Hierarchy in an Indonesian City. Cambridge: Polity 299. Press 282.Stud. Smith O. Language the culand ture of gender:at the intersection of structure. Philadelphia: Univ. The Unspeakable: Disc’ours’e. Texas Press 303. The semiotics of state-Indian linguistic relationships: Peru. Twine N. Press 295. 1979. pp. NewYork: Routledge 301. Ethnol. Trosset CS. 284. Simpson 1988. ed. Stud.UrbanG. The political topography of Spanish and English: the view from a NewYork Puerto Rican neighborhood. 323. Press 273. "Mothertongue": the theoretical and so ciopolitical construction of a concept. pp. Therborn G. pp. J Sherzer. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Silverstein M. African-American perspectives on Black English vernacular. Madison:Univ. 1987. DC 281. In Interpreting Politics. Monoglot"standard" in America.1990.Thomas 1991. 1988. See Ref.Meet. Press 302. Washington. Urla J. 1983. Southworth 1985. London:Verso 297. Press 290. The linguistic socialization of Javanese children in two communities. 21(3):3834O8 288. pp. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. 276. Oxford: Oxford Univ. poetics.Silverstein M. Paraguay. 1986. N. New Orleans 279. pp. Language and humannature. NewYork: Cambridge Univ. Dialogue Rhetoricin the Postand modernWorld. In Reflexive Language. don: Longman 298. 1987. 278. 198-209. 1992. 527-62. 1980. Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Silverstein M. Lang. pp. 1991. 214. 1986. Austin: Univ. English 1776-1850. Cent. ed.Stroud C. 1987.Annual Reviews www. WHanks. 30(2): 166-98 285. Thompson 1984.. The social context of FC. In Nation-States and lndians in Latin America. 185.Ideologyand the ’clarity’ E of French. Soc. ed." In Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology. 101-32. Lang. Some SM. Press 274. Lang. Skutnabb-KangasT. 307-30.Tyler SA. 1976. Aspects of literacy. Theskin of our teeth: registers. P Burke. Transcult. Street BV. The Politics of Language 1791-1819. Am. Spitulnik D.Meet. 1992. 311-24 280. London: Routledge 292a. 185. Languageand the Modern State: The ReJormof Written Japanese.Anthropol. Steinberg J. Anthropol. pp. 15:165-92 300. of Ideology. ed. Silverstein M. In TheSocial History of Language. NewYork: NewYork Univ. usage and ideology. Taylor C. 241-86. linguistic categories. See Ref. Speicher BL. and Brazil. Press 275. 18(2):295-310 305. Swiggers 1990.Anthropol. In Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties.Street BV. JA Lucy. 1991. and cultural description.annualreviews.Anthropol. Studies in the Theory JB. 11(1):46~5 286. HASelby. 1993. R Clyne. 1993. 450-77. 13. Press 291. 13(2): 101-18 . pp. The social identity of Welshlearners. Cult. Radio time sharing and 81 the negotiation of linguistic pluralism in Zambia. Smith-Hefner 1988. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Tedlock D. Assoc. Press 292. The Spoken Word and the Workof Interpretation. 1135. 1987. languagestandardizationin India. Albuquerque: Univ. The problemof intention and meaning code-switching. KHBasso. 1987. LonG. ed. Presented at 89th Annu.Pool J. I (4):379-94 306. G Urban. The represented functions of speech in Sholdeng myth. NewYork: Oxford Univ. 1993. pp. 173. Literacy in Theory and Practice.Silverstein M.. See Ref. Lang. 1984. The historian and the Questionedella Lingua.pp. pp. Soc. In The Elements: A Parasessionon Linguistic Units and Levels.

19:311-30 329. 1990.WoolardKA. 14(3):237~58 322. Am. S Fisher. ed. See Ref. Press 321. Philadelphia: Benjamins 323. at the international level. Lang. Gegeo D.Woolard KA. pp. pp. 205-22. Language on language: toward metapragrnatic universals. EthnoL 16(2):268-78 327. eds. Soc. and Oxford: Oxford Univ. 1985. 1991. 254-93. Watson-Gegeo KA. NJ: Ablex 310. Walker A.Wald B. Ethnol. 1989. WolfsonN. N Coupland. Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse.Winer L. Double Talk: Bilingualism and the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia. 1977. 1989. and R. 1985. Norwood. 1985. The Letters of the 82 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN guage for a crosscultural comparison of speech acts and speechgenres. Woolard KA. Gahng T-J. Sentences in the languageprison: the rhetorical structuring of an Americanlanguage policy debate. 12(4):738-48 325. Discourse on language and ethnicity. Zentella AC. Orthographic standardisation for Trinidadand Tobago: linguistic and sociopolitical consideration in an English Creole community. Verschueren J. A semantic metalan- . 1985. 171. Press Weinstein B. Am. 1989.Cultural politics in an age of statistics: numbers. 1986. 1992. Cambridge.Annual Reviews www. NJ: Ablex 313. Marxism Literature. Williams G. MA:Harvard Univ. GrowingUp Bilingual in El Barrio. In Discourseandlnstitutional Authority. 1990. Lang. Wierzbicka A. Language oflnequality. Urla J.ed.annualreviews. Vernacular and standard Swahili as seen by membersof the Mombasa Swahili speech community. Verschueren ed. 20(4):81843 308. Norwood.Power. Plan. 1993. In Styles of Discourse. 1989. Language. Woolard KA. SomeEmpirical-Conceptual Studies. Lang. 323. 1990. ManesJ. WarnerM. A Todd. Norwood. 53-80 317. Soc. 1994. CA: Stanford Univ. Linguistic Action: J. Stanford. 26(4):533-55 315. The verbatim record. Press 314. Lang. Probl. Ablex NJ: 309. Disentangling: Conflict Discourse in Pacific Societies. What People Say They Do With Words: Prolegomena to an Empirical-Conceptual Approach to Linguistic Action. Francophonie: purism 316. WilliamsR. Norwood. Pap.See Ref. See Ref. pp. 1985. Language ideology: issues and approaches. 235-50 328. Am. Soc. Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter 324. Press 326. Wodak ed. 1988. 1987. The impact of church affiliation on language change in Kwara’ae (Solomon Islands).3(2): 1-44 311. pp.nations and the making of Basqueidentity.Watson-GegeoKA.Ethnol. Language variation and cultural hegemony: towards an integration of sociolinguistic and social theory. Weinstein B.NJ: Ablex 318. Lang. CA: Stanford Univ. White GM. Verschueren J. cd. 14:491-514 319. 123-44 312." Publication and the Public Spherein Eighteenth-Century America. 1989. 1990. In press 307. Pragmat. Cambridge. London: Croom Helm 320. Changing languagepolicies and attitudes in autonomousCatalonia. 1990. Woolard KA. pp.MA: Basil Blackwell. LanguagePolicy and Political Development. 185. Stanford.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful