Woolard Schieffelin Language Ideology

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

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY

Kathryn A. Woolard

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

Bambi B. Schieffelin

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

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

tics

INTRODUCTION

The terms ideology and language have appeared together frequently in recentanthropology, sociolinguistics, and cultural studies, sometimes joined by and,sometimes by in, sometimes by a comma in a trinity of nouns. We have hadanalyses, some of them very influential, of cultural and political ideologies asconstituted, encoded, or enacted in language (100, 239, 298). This review differently, and (on the surface) lnore narrowly, conceived: our topic is ideolo-gies of language, an area of scholarly inquiry just beginning to coalesce (185).There is as much cultural variation in ideas about speech as there is in speechforms themselves (158). Notions of how communication works as a socialprocess, and to what purpose, are culturally variable and need to be discoveredrather than simply assumed (22:16). We review here selected research cultural conceptions of language--its nature, structure, and use--and on con-ceptions of communicative behavior as an enactment of a collective order(277:1-2). Although there are varying concerns behind the studies reviewed,we emphasize language ideology as a mediating link between social structuresand forms of talk.

Ideologies of language are significant for social as well as linguistic analy-sis because they are not only about language. Rath.er, such ideologies envision

0084-6570/94/1015-0055505.00 55

www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews

http://www.annualreviews.org/aronline

56 WOOLARD & SCHIEFFELIN

and enact links of language to group and personal identity, to aesthetics, tomorality, and to epistemology (41, 104, 186). Through such linkages, theyoften underpin fundamental social institutions. Inequality among groups ofspeakers, and colonial encounters par excellence, throw language ideologyinto high relief. As R. Williams observed, "a definition of language is always,implicitly or explicitly, a definition of human beings in the world" (320:21).Not only linguistic forms but social institutions such as the nation-state,schooling, gender, dispute settlement, and law hinge on the ideologization oflanguage use. Research on gender and legal institutions has contributed impor-tant and particularly pointed studies of language ideology, but they are re-viewed elsewhere (see 81,213).

Heath (135) observed that social scientists have resisted examining lan-guage ideology because it represents an indeterminate area of investigationwith no apparent bounds, and as reviewers we note this with wry appreciationeven as we find that the resistance has worn down. Although there have beenrecent efforts to delimit language ideology (138a, 327), there is no single coreliterature. Moreover, linguistic ideology, language ideology, and ideologies oflanguage are all terms currently in play. Although different emphases aresometimes signaled by the different terms, with the first focusing more onformal linguistic structures~ and the last on representations of a collectiveorder, the fit of terms to distinctive perspectives is not perfect, and we usethem interchangeably here.

At least three scholarly discussions, by no means restricted to anthropol-ogy, explicitly invoke language or linguistic ideology, often in seeming mutualunawareness. One such group of studies concerns contact between languagesor language varieties (118, 133, 135, 152, 219, 249, 285). The recently bur-geoning historiography of linguistics and public discourses on language hasproduced a second explicit focus on language ideologies, including scientificideologies (173,256, 268). Finally, there is a significant, theoretically coherentbody of work on linguistic ideology concentrating on its relation to linguisticstructures (214, 237, 258, 275). Beyond research that explicitly invokes theterm ideology are numerous studies that address cultural conceptions of lan-guage, in the guise of metalinguistics, attitudes, prestige, standards, aesthetics,hegemony, etc. There is an emerging consensus that what people think, or takefor granted, about language and communication is a topic that rewards investi-gation, and the area of study is in need of some coordination.

We note a particularly acute irony in our task of delimiting this emergingfield. One point of the comparative study of language ideology is to show thecultural and historical specificity of visions of language, yet as reviewers we

1See Silverstein (279:312, footnote) for an account of why this should be.



LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY 57

must decide what counts as language. We run the risk of excluding work inwhich language does not seem focal precisely because the group studied doesnot compartmentalize and reify social practices of communicating, does notturn Humboldt’s energeia (activity) of language into ergon (product) as doesthe European-American tradition (41,155,198, 203,258). Our purpose is notto distinguish ideology of language from ideology in other domains of humanactivity. Rather, the point is to focus the attention of anthropological scholarsof language on the ideological dimension, and to sharpen the understanding oflinguistic issues among students of ideology, discourse, and social domination.

WHAT IS LINGUISTIC IDEOLOGY?

Linguistic/language ideologies have been defined as "sets of beliefs aboutlanguage articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceivedlanguage structure and use" (275:193); with a greater social emphasis "self-evident ideas and objectives a group holds concerning roles of languagein the social experiences of members as they contribute to the expression ofthe group" (135:53) and "the cultural system of ideas about social and linguis-tic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests"(162:255); and most broadly as "shared bodies of commonsense notions aboutthe nature of language in the world" (258:346). Some of the differences amongthese definitions come from debates about the concept of ideology itself.Those debates have been well reviewed elsewhere (9, 31, 78, 100, 298, 327),but it is worthwhile to mention some of the key dimensions of difference.

The basic division in studies of ideology is between neutral and criticalvalues of the term. The former usually encompasses all cultural systems ofreprcscntation; the latter is reserved for only some aspects of representationand social cognition, with particular social origins or functional or formalcharacteristics. Rumsey’s definition of linguistic ideology is neutral (258). ForSilverstein, rationalization marks linguistic ideology within the more generalcategory of metalinguistics, pointing toward the secondary derivation of ide-ologies, their social-cognitive function, and thus the possibility of distortion(275). Ideological distortion in this view comes from inherent limitations awareness of semiotic process and from the fact that speech is formulated byits users as purposive activity in the sphere of interested human social action.In critical studies of ideology, distortion is viewed as mystification and isfurther traced to the legitimation of social domination. This critical stanceoften characterizes studies of language politics and of language and socialclass.

A second division is the siting of ideology. Some researchers may readlinguistic ideology from linguistic usage, but others insist that the two must becarefully differentiated (164). While metalinguistic discourse, as Silverstcin




suggested, is a sufficient condition for identifying ideology, Rumsey’s "com-monsense notions" (258) and Heath’s "self-evident ideas" (135) may well unstated assumptions of cultural orthodoxy, difficult to elicit directly. Al-though ideology in general is often taken as explicitly discursive, influentialtheorists have seen it as behavioral, pre-reflective, or structural, that is, anorganization of signifying practices not in consciousness but in lived relations(see 78 for a review). An alertness to the different sites of ideology mayresolve some apparent controversies over its relevance to the explanation ofsocial or linguistic phenomena.

The work we review here includes the full range of scholars’ notions ofideology: from seemingly neutral cultural conceptions of language to strate-gies for maintaining social power, from unconscious ideology read fromspeech practices by analysts to the most conscious native-speaker explanationsof appropriate language behavior. What most researchers share, and whatmakes the term useful in spite of its problems, is a view of ideology as rootedin or responsive to the experience of a particular social position, a facetindicated by Heath’s (135) and Irvine’s (162) definitions. This recognition the social derivation of representations does not simply invalidate them if werecognize that there is no privileged knowledge, including the scientific, thatescapes grounding in social life (205). Nonetheless, the term ideology remindsus that the cultural conceptions we study are partial, contestable and contested,and interest-laden (151:382). A naturalizing move that drains the conceptual its historical content, making it seem universally and/or timelessly true, isoften seen as key to ideological process. The emphasis of ideological analysison the social and experiential origins of systems of signification counters thisnaturalization of the cultural, in which anthropology ironically has participated(9). Some of the work reviewed here may seem to be simply what anthropol-ogy "has always been talking about anyway" as culture now in the guise ofideology (31:26), but the reconceptualization implies a methodological stance(279). The term ideology reminds analysts that cultural frames have socialhistories and it signals a commitment to address the relevance of power rela-tions to the nature of cultural forms and ask how essential meanings aboutlanguage are socially produced as effective and powerful (9, 78, 241).

APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY

Language ideology has been received principally as an epiphenomenon, anoverlay of secondary and tertiary responses (34, 36), possibly intriguing butrelatively inconsequential for the fundamental questions of both anthropologyand linguistics. But several methodological traditions and topical loci haveencouraged attention to cultural conceptions of language. We review work inseveral areas: ethnography of speaking; politics of multilingualism; literacy




studies; historiography of linguistics and public discourse on language; andmetapragmatics and linguistic structure. There are many connections amongthese, but the work tends to form different conversations, varying in the socialand linguistic themes they foreground. Our bibliography is a representativesampling of the research done in these areas. To illustrate some of the socialvariation in conceptions of language, and in the institutions and interests towhich they are fled, we reach back to earlier studies that were not conceived inthe frame of ideological analysis, but which we believe can be. rethoughtprofitably in relation to the concerns outlined above.

ETHNOGRAPHY OF SPEAKING

The ethnography of speaking has long given attention to ideology as neutral,cultural conceptions of language, primarily through description of vernacularspeech taxonomies and metalinguistics (24, 121, 242). The ethnography speaking was chartered to study ways of speaking from the point of view ofevents, acts, and styles, but Hymes (158) suggested that an alternative focus beliefs, values and attitudes, or on contexts and institutions would make adifferent contribution. This alternative enterprise has been taken up morerecently. Language ideology has been made increasingly explicit as a forceshaping the understanding of verbal practices (21, 46, 91, 138b, 210, 272,303). Genres are now viewed not as sets of discourse features, but rather as"orienting frameworks, interpretive procedures, and sets of expectations"(128:670; see also 23, 42, 43). Local conceptions of talk as self-reflexiveaction have been explored for a variety of genres such as oratory (210),disputes (38, 116, 186, 188, 196), conflict management (253,315), and also the foundation of aesthetics in such areas as music (90).

Ethnographers of speaking have studied the grounding of language beliefsin other cultural and social forms. For example, language socialization studieshave demonstrated connections among folk theories of language acquisition,linguistic practices, and key cultural ideas about personhood (49, 63, 138, 187,217, 231-234, 262, 267,284).

The eventual critical response of the ethnography of speaking (158) speech act theory (13, 270) stimulated thought about linguistic ideology.Speech act theory is grounded in an English linguistic ideology, a privatizedview of language emphasizing the psychological state of the speaker whiledownplaying the social consequences of speech (308:22; cf 244, 255, 275).This recognition triggered taxonomic studies of conceptualizations of speechacts in specific linguistic communities (308, 318), research on metapragmaticuniversals (309, 310), and numerous ethnographic challenges to the key as-sumptions of speech act theory (74, 150, 178, 221). Ethnographers of Pacific




societies identified the centrality of intention to speech act theory as rooted inWestern conceptions of the self, and argued that its application to other socie-ties obscures local methods of producing meaning (75, 76, 230, 292a).

As is tree of cultural anthropology in general, ethnographers of speakinghave increasingly incorporated considerations of power in their analyses, againleading to a more explicit focus on linguistic ideology. Bauman’s (22) histori-cal ethnography of language and silence in Quaker ideology was an importantdevelopment, because it addressed a more formal, conscious, and politicallystrategic form of ideology. Silence has been recognized as carrying a paradoxi-cal potential for power that depends greatly on its varying ideologizationwithin and across communities (103). Advocating a view of linguistic ideol-ogy as intcractional resource rather than shared cultural background, Briggsfinds social power achieved through the strategic use not just of particulardiscursive genres, but of talk about such genres and their appropriate use (41).Speakers in multilingual communities have marshaled purist language ideolo-gies to similar interactional ends (146; see discussion of purism below.) Eth-nographers have also seen the role of language ideology in creating power inother guises and moments: the display of gender and/or affect (26, 28, 143,163, 175, 188, 232), the strategic deployment of honorifics (3), the regulationof marriage choices (167), and the display of powerful new social affiliationsand identities introduced through missionization (187, 254, 314).

LANGUAGE CONTACT, COMPETITION, AND POLITICS

Research on self-conscious struggles over language in class-stratified andespecially multilingual communities has treated language ideologies as so-cially, politically, and/or linguistically significant, even when the researcher’sprimary interest may be in debunking such ideologies (64, 84, 277).

The identification of a language with a people has been given the mostattention (95,160, 302). It is a truism that the equation of language and nationis a historical, ideological construct (61, 69, 118, 127, 201), conventionallydated to Herder and eighteenth century German romanticism, although thefamous characterization of language as the genius of a people can be traced tothe French Enlightenment and specifically Condillac (1, 179, 235). Exportedthrough colonialism to become a dominant model around the world today, thenationalist ideology of language structures state politics, challenges multilin-gual states, and underpins ethnic struggles to such an extent that the absence ofa distinct language can cast doubt on the legitimacy of claims to nationhood(33:359; 4, 32, 51, 61, 87, 95, 115, 140, 171, 176, 202, 238, 243, 299, 305,307, 317,319, 323,325).

Ironically, movements to save minority languages are often structuredaround the same notions of language that have led to their oppression and/or




suppression (5, 6, 32, 80, 169, 206, 305), although traditional or emergentviews that resist this hegemonic construction have been documented (10, 57,105, 306). The equation of one language/one people, the Western insistence onthe authenticity and moral significance of the mother tongue, and associatedassumptions about the importance of purist language loyalty for the mainte-nance of minority languages have all been criticized as ideological red her-rings, particularly in settings where multilingualism is more typical and wherea fluid or complex linguistic repertoire is valued (10, 176, 194, 206, 238, 273,282). Modern linguistic theory itself has been seen as framed and constrainedby the one language/one people assumption (194).

Although the validity of the nationalist ideology of language has often beendebated or debunked, less attention traditionally has been given to under-standing how the view of language as symbolic of self and community hastaken hold in so many different settings. Where linguistic variation appears tobe simply a diagram of social differentiation, the analyst needs to identify theideological production of that diagram (162). Recent studies of language poli-tics have begun to examine specifically the content and signifying structure ofnationalist language ideologies (127,277,285, 326).

Peirce’s semiotic categories have been used to analyze the processes bywhich chunks of linguistic material gain significance as representations ofparticular populations (104). Researchers have distinguished language as index of group identity from language as a metalinguistically created symbolof identity, more explicitly ideologized in discourse (105, 168, 302). Irvine(162) finds that Wolof villagers construe linguistic differentiation as iconicallyrelated to social differentiation, distinguishing inter- and intra-lingual variationoJ~d devising a migration history for a particular caste to match their linguisticdifference. Here we see how linguistic ideology can affect the interpretation ofsocial relations.

Mannheim (204) also notes different cultural ideologies of different kindsof linguistic variation in southern Peru. Endogenous variation in Quechua,which is seen simply as natural human speech, is not socially evaluated byspeakers. But in Spanish, which is regarded as pure artifice, phonologicalmarkers and stereotypes are common and lead to hypercorrection among sec-ond-language speakers. In this case, linguistic ideology drives linguisticchange along different paths.

Language varieties that are regularly associated with (and thus index) par-ticular speakers are often revalorized---or misrecognized (37)--not just symbols of group identity, but as emblems of political allegiance or of social,intellectual, or moral worth (37, 72, 79, 101, 102, 120, 149, 195, 207, 277,325). Although the extensive body of research on linguistic prestige and lan-guage attitudes grew up in a social psychological framework (109), the in-trapersonal attitude can be recast as a socially-derived intellectualized or be-



havioral ideology (Bourdieu’s habitus) (37, 107, 119, 144, 149, 153,200, 251,311, 324, 325, 328). Such meanings affect patterns of language acquisition,style-switching, shift, change, and policy (120, 251). Moreover, symbolicrevalorization often makes discrimination on linguistic grounds publicly ac-ceptable, whereas the corresponding ethnic or racial discrimination is not (156,193, 197, 219, 326). However, simply asserting that struggles over languageare really about racism does not constitute analysis. Such a tearing aside of thecurtain of mystification in a "Wizard of Oz theory of ideology" (9) begs thequestion of how and why language comes to stand for social groups in amanner that is socially both comprehensible and acceptable. The current pro-gram of research is to address both the semiotic and the social process.

Communities not only evaluate but may appropriate some part of the lin-guistic resources of groups with whom they are in contact and in tension,refiguring and incorporating linguistic structures in ways that reveal linguisticand social ideologies (146). Linguistic borrowing might appear superficially indicate speakers’ high regard for the donor language. But Hill (148) arguesthat socially-grounded linguistic analysis of Anglo-American borrowings andhumorous misrenderings of Spanish reveals them as racist distancing strate-gies that reduce complex Latino experience to a subordinated, commodityidentity. The commodification of ethnolinguistic stereotypes, ostensibly posi-tive, is also seen in the use of foreign languages in Japanese television adver-tising (124). The appropriation of creole speech, music, and dress by whiteadolescents in South London, who see only matters of style (again, commodi-fled), is in tension with black adolescent views of these codes as part of theirdistinctive identity (143). Basso (20) classically describes a Western Apachemetalinguistic joking genre that uses English to parody "Whiteman" conversa-tional pragmatics, in a representation of and comment on ethnolinguistic dif-ferences and their role in unequal relations. In the Javanese view, learning totranslate (into high Javanese from low) is the essence of becoming a true adultand a real language speaker, and Siegel (273) argues that Javanese metaphori-cally incorporates foreign languages into itself by treating other languages as ifthey were low Javanese. Whether a code is a language or not depends onwhether its speakers act like speakers of Javanese. Encounters with the lan-guages of others may trigger recognition of the opacity of language andconcern for delineating and characterizing a distinctive community language(259).

Linguistic ideology is not a predictable, automatic reflex of the socialexperience of multilingualism in which it is rooted; it makes its own contribu-tion as an interpretive filter in the relationship of language and society (211).The failure to transmit vernaculars intergenerationally may be rationalized invarious ways, depending on how speakers conceptualize the links of language,cognition, and social fife. For example, Nova Scotian parents actively discour-



age children from acquiring a subordinated vernacular, because they believe itwill somehow mark their English (211); Gapun parents blame their children’sdissatisfaction and aggression as the roots of the loss of the vernacular (187);and Haitian parents in New York City believe their children will speak KreyNregardless of the input language (263; cf 329).

Beliefs about what is or is not a real language, and underlying these beliefs,the notion that there are distinctly identifiable languages that can be isolated,named, and counted, enter into strategies of social domination. Such beliefs,and related schemata for ranking languages as more or less evolved, havecontributed to profound decisions about, for example, the civility or even thehumanity of subjects of colonial domination (93, 166, 204, 216, 236). Theyalso quality or disqualify speech varieties from certain institutional uses andtheir speakers from access to domains of privilege (37, 57, 68, 120, 191,288).

Language mixing, codeswitching, and creoles are often evaluated as indicatingless than full linguistic capabilities, revealing assumptions about the nature oflanguage implicitly based in literate standards and a pervasive tenet thatequates change with decay (25, 120, 127, 174, 224, 251,265). Written form,lexical elaboration, rules for word formation, and historical derivation areoften seized on in diagnosing real language and ranking the candidates (111,165, 235, 287). Grammatical variability and. the question of whether a varietyhas a grammar play an important part (80). The extension of the notion grammar from the explicitly artifactual product of scholarly intervention to anabstract underlying system has done nothing to mute the polemics (222).

Language Policy

Macrosocial research on language planning and policy has traced distinctiveideological assumptions about the role of language in civic and human life (2,18, 19, 33,228, 285,322, 326) and distinctive stances toward the state regula-tion of language, for example, between England and France (65, 118, 136, 139,201). Cobarrubias has sketched a taxonomy of language ideologies uilderlying

planning efforts: assimilation, pluralism, vernacularization, and internationali-zation (4, 51). At an even more fundamental level, Ruiz (257) distinguishesthree fundamental orientations to language as resource, problem, or right (seealso 152), and commentators on bilingual and immigrant education have notedsuch orientations conflated within these programs (117, 135). The model development is pervasive in post-colonial language planning, with paradoxicalideological implications that condemn languages, like societies, to perennial

status as underdeveloped (32, 87, 110).




DOCTRINES OF CORRECTNESS, STANDARDIZATION,AND PURISM

Since Dante’s time, the selection and elaboration of a linguistic standard hasstood for a complex of issues about language, politics, and power (289). Theexistence of a language is always a discursive project rather than an estab-lished fact (259). Standard languages and/or their formation had been studiedearlier by philologists, Prague School functional linguists, and applied lin-guists (52, 96, 134), but the emphasis on the ideological dimension has givenrise to new analyses of language standardization (172), with the concept of standard treated more as ideological process than as empirical linguistic fact(16, 65, 112, 194, 219).

Notions of better and worse speech have been claimed to exist in everylinguistic community (35), but this claim has been disputed (132). There more agreement that codified, superposed standard languages are tied not onlyto writing and its associated hegemonic institutions, but to specifically Euro-pean forms of these institutions (35, 131, 132, 172, 219, 277, 286). In thevernacular belief system of Western culture, language standards are not recog-nized as human artifacts, but are naturalized by metaphors such as that of thefree market (172, 277). Ideological analysis addresses questions such as howdoctrines of linguistic correctness and incorrectness are rationalized or howthey are related to doctrines of the inherent representational power, beauty, andexpressiveness of language as a valued mode of action (276:223; 18). Moralindignation over nonstandard forms derives from ideological associations ofthe standard with thc qualities valued within the culture, such as clarity ortruthfulness (70, 118, 145,172, 276:241; 293).

Purist doctrines of linguistic correctness close off non-native sources ofinnovation, but usually selectively, targeting only languages construed asthreats (316; cf 142, 297). The linguistic effects of purism arc not predictable,and similarly, its social meaning and strategic use are not transparent (99,171). An apparently purist linguistic conservatism among the Tewa may de-rive not from resistance to contact phenomena at all, but from the strength oftheocratic institutions and of ritual linguistic forms as models for other do-mains of interaction (182, 183, 184). In contrast, an ideology of the sanctity language in an ultraorthodox Jewish community leads to the restriction of theHebrew language to sacred contexts (113). Mexicano vernacular purist ideolo-gies are deployed paradoxically to enhance the authority of those who are leastimmersed in the vernacular and most enmeshed with the larger economy (146,149). Some Spanish loanwords sound more authentic to non-elite members ofthe Gallego speech community in Spain, who dissociate themselves from thelinguistically pure forms that smack of institutional minority politics (5, 6).Such complex relations among social position, linguistic practice, and purist




ideologies illustrate the importance of problematizing ideology rather thanassuming that it can be read from one of the other two elements.

Orthography

In countries where identity and nationhood are under negotiation, every aspectof language, including its phonological description and forms of graphic repre-sentation can be contested (226, 265). Even where nationhood is as classicallywell-established as it is in France, orthographic battles flare. Thus, ortho-graphic systems cannot be conceptualized simply as reducing speech to writ-ing, but rather they are symbols that carry historical, cultural, and politicalmeanings (62, 96, 154, 169, 300). In some creoles, for example, supporters etymological orthographies appeal to an historical connection to the prestigeof the colonizing language. Those favoring a phonemic approach argue that amore objective mode of representing the sounds allows wider access to liter-acy and helps establish the language as respectable in its own right (44, 141,199, 265,321).

LITERACY

Ideologies of literacy have complex relations to ideologies of speech and canplay distinctive, crucial roles in social institutions. Even the conceptualizationof the printed word can differ importantly from that of the written (7, 313).Derrida’s (71) deconstruction of a Western view of speech as natural, authen-tic, and prior to the mere lifeless inscriptions of alien, arbitrary writing, hasbrought considerable attention to ideas about the spoken and written word.Eighteenth century Japanese elite notions of language also included a phono-centric ideology stressing the primacy, immediacy, and transparency of speechover writing (259). Javanese do not share the view of the original voice as theauthentic (273). Not all commentators on Western ideology find the oral biasDerrida describes. Harris (131) argues that a scriptism founded in Europeanliterate experience is smuggled into the apparent oral bias of contemporarylinguistic concepts, from the sentence through the word to the phoneme.Mignolo (216) asserts that the supremacy of the oral in Plato’s Phaedrus wasinverted and the ideology of the alphabetic letter was established in Renais-sance Europe. Tyler (301) sees a Western visualist ideological emphasis transparent, referential discourse as rooted in the primacy of text and thesuppression of speech.

Anthropological studies of literacy (e.g. its introduction in oral societies orits use in schooling) recognized belatedly that it is not an autonomous, neutraltechnology, but rather is culturally organized, ideologically grounded, andhistorically contingent, shaped by political, social, and economic forces (53,56, 58, 60, 97, 138, 161,223,266, 269, 290-292). Research now emphasizes




the diversity of ways in which communities "take up" literacy, sometimesaltering local forms of communication or fhndamental concepts of identity(15, 27, 29, 30, 37a, 77, 88, 114, 138, 214a, 252, 264). Considerations power significantly affect literacy strategies. In Gapun, views of language as apowerful means to transform the world are extended to literacy in Tok Pisin,which is thought to enable acquisition of valuable cargo (189). In contrast,Yekuana do not extend their view of speech to literacy. Spoken words aretransformative and magical, but inscription destroys their power (122). ForChambri (108) and Yekuana, "fixity" in writing is the source of danger;printed words are not responsive to social circumstances. Maori convictionsthat there is an authoritative oral text captured only weakly by a written treatyare an ironic Platonic counterpoint to European-origin New Zealanders’ searchfor a true text among multiple written translations of the treaty in which thegovernment is rooted (208). Textual exegesis depends fundamentally on ide-ologies of language, or ideas about the ways texts are created and are to beunderstood. Contrasting approaches to locating scriptural truth can be foundwithin the Judeo-Christian religious tradition (170).

The definition of what is and what is not literacy is always a profoundlypolitical matter. Historical studies of the emergence of schooled literacy andschool English show the association between symbolically valued literatetraditions and mechanisms of social control (56, 60, 137). Analyses of class-room interaction further demonstrate how implicit expectations about writtenlanguage shape discriminatory judgments about spoken language and studentperformance (37, 55, 215). The nineteenth century foundation of English as university discipline created a distinction between reading as aristocratic andleisurely and writing as work. Composition as skill training for employment isthe dirty work of English departments, with consequences for gender politics(58).

Transcription, or the written representation of speech, within academicdisciplines and law, for example, relies on and reinforces ideological concep-tions of language (73:71; 83, 120, 159, 262, 295). In studies of child language,for example, use of standard orthography forces a literal interpretation onutterances that might otherwise be seen as objects of phonological manipula-tion (229). On the other hand, folklorists and sociolinguists who have recordeddialects of English reveal their linguistic biases when they use non-standardorthography (sometimes called eye dialect) to represent the speech of blacksand Appalachians more than that of other groups. Given the ideology of thevalue of the letter, non-standard speakers thus appear less intelligent (82, 245,246). In the American legal system the verbatim record is an idealist construc-tion, prepared according to the court reporter’s modal of English, againstwhich incoming speech is filtered, evaluated, and interpreted. It is considered




information if a witness speaks ungrammatically, but not if lawyers do, andediting is applied accordingly (312).

HISTORICAL STUDIES

Although there has been a notable linguistic turn in historical studies in recentdecades, Bauman noted that much of the work was linguistically naive and notgrounded in an investigation of the social and ideological significance oflanguage in people’s own conceptions of the nature of language and its use(22:16). Since then, there has been a wave of historical examinations of ideolo-gies of language, including dominant national ideologies, elite debates, andcolonial expressions. Western states, and particularly France, England, and theUnited States, predominate in this literature, but there also has been someattention to Asia (16, 18, 65, 94, 98, 173, 180, 218, 219, 259, 281, 283).Closely linked are critical histories of linguistics and of the philosophy oflanguage (8, 45, 106, 280), which join more traditional intellectual histories(1).

In the late eighteenth through the mid-nineteenth century in WesternEurope, language became the object of civil concern as new notions of publicdiscourse and forms of participation (and exclusion) were formulated by newparticipants in the public sphere (17, 22, 65, 67, 69, 118, 126, 145, 192, 276,313). Much of the historical research focuses on normative ideas about rheto-ric rather than grammar, but demonstrates how closely linked these topicswere. Political conceptualizations of language rather than meditations on anautonomous language dominated French and American debates in the seven-teenth through the nineteenth century (8, 12). Hegumonic English ideologydrew its political and social effectiveness from a presupposition that languagerevealed the mind, and civilization was largely a linguistic concept (283, 294).The nineteenth century debate over language in the United States essentiallywas a fight over what kind of personality was needed to sustain democracy(50). The emergence of a compartmentalized democratic personality corre-sponded to the acceptance of style-shifting and a range of linguistic registers(see also 14, 18, 94, 123,180, 281).

Colonial Linguistics

"Language has always been the companion of empire," asserted the sixteenthcentury Spanish grammarian Nebrija (161,225). Some of the most provoca-tive recent work on linguistic ideology, clearly tracing the links among linguis-tic, ideological, and social forms, comes from studies of colonialism. Whichlanguage(s) to use in colonial administration was not always obvious, and eachchoice had its own ideological motivations and practical consequences. An




indigenous vernacular might be selected, for example, to protect the languageof the colonizers from non-native versions considered distasteful (272).

European missionization and colonization of other continents entailed con-trol of speakers and their vernaculars. Recent research on colonial linguisticdescription and translation has addressed the ideological dimension of diction-aries, grammars, and language guides, demonstrating that what was conceivedas a neutral scientific endeavor was very much a political one (248).

In what Mignolo (216) calls the colonization of language, Europeansbrought to their tasks ideas about language prevalent in the metropole, andthese ideas, though themselves shifting in different historical moments, blink-ered them to indigenous conceptualizations and sociolinguistic arrangements(165, 177, 216, 260). As with many other colonial phenomena, linguists con-structed rather than discovered distinctive varieties (166), as Fabian (89) gues for Swahili and Harries (130) for Tsonga. Cohn argues that Britishgrammars, dictionaries, and translations of the languages of India created thediscourse of Orientalism and converted Indian forms of knowledge into Euro-pean objects (54:282-283; cf 224).

Perceived linguistic structure can always have political meaning in thecolonial encounter. Functional or formal inadequacy of indigenous languagesand, therefore, of indigenous mind or civilization was often alleged to justifyEuropean tutelage (89). On the other hand, a sixteenth century grammar as-serted that Quechua was so similar to Latin and Castilian that it was "like aprediction that the Spaniards will possess it" (216:305; see also 166, 248).

Because of the availability of documents, much of this historical researchhas explored the linguistic ideologies of colonizers rather than of indigenouspopulations. But some work seeks to capture the contradictions and interac-tions of the two (59, 128,204, 216). Tongan metapragmatics of speech levelsindicate a reanalysis of society that incorporates European-derived institu-tional complexes into Tongan constructions of social hierarchy (240). Thestructure and focus of a seventeenth century instructional manual on Castilianwritten by a Tagalog printer contrast sharply with Spanish missionaries’ gram-mars of Tagalog, showing the different political interests behind translation forthe Spanish and indigenous Filipinos (247).

Historiography of Linguistics

The close intertwining of public and scholarly conceptualizations of languagein the West and its colonies through the nineteenth century leads directly tocritical studies of Western philosophy of language and of the emergence ofprofessional linguistics (1, 45, 98). Contributors to Joseph & Taylor’s collec-tion (173) examine intellectual as well as political prejudices that framed thegrowth of linguistic theory, from Locke through Saussure to Chomsky, and therole of linguistic ideas in specific social struggles (cf 227). Of particular




relevance to our topic, Attridge (11) deconstmcts Saussure’s linguistics hostile to and suppressing evidence that the language user and language com-munity intervene, consciously or unconsciously, to alter the language system.Attridge suggests that Saussure sees language as open to external change byhumanly uncontrollable forces, but rejects the influence of history as intellec-tual construct. A number of studies of the nineteenth century show how philol-ogy and emerging linguistics contributed to religious, class, and/or nationalistprojects (65, 67, 235).

Professional, scientific linguistics in the twentieth century has nearly uni-formly rejected prescfiptivism, but many authors argue that this rejection hidesa smuggled dependence on and complicity with prescriptive institutions for thevery subject matter of the field. Rather than registering a unitary language,linguists helped to form one (66:48; 131, 132). Sankoff (261) argues contemporary positivist linguistic methodologies that invoke a scientific ra-tionale are imposed ideologically by the same interests that propagate norma-tivism and prescripfivism. The idealism of modem autonomous linguistics hascome under concerted ideological scrutiny (37, 157, 173,320; cf 68, 227).

More anthropologically-oriented linguistics also has been analyzed ideo-logically. For example, the concept of diglossia has been criticized as anideological naturalization of sociolinguistic arrangements (205a). Rossi-Landi(256) critiques linguistic relativism as bourgeois ideology, seeing in the theorya manifestation of guilt for the savage destruction of American Indians. Theidealism of linguistic relativity transforms linguistic producers into consum-ers, and enables the illusion that the theoretical exhibition of the stl-uctures of alanguage saves the world view of the extinct linguistic workers (cf 57, 151).Schultz (268) argues that contradictory strategies in Whorf’s writings arose response to the constraint of the American tblk ideology of free speech.Although his ideas paralleled those of Bakhtin, Whorf had to first convince hisaudience that linguistic censorship existed.

IDEOLOGY, LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE, AND LANGUAGECHANGE

As noted earlier, modem linguistics has generally held that linguistic ideologyand prescriptive norms have little significant--or, paradoxically, only pemi-cious-~effect on speech forms (although they may have some less negligibleeffect on writing) (35; cf 84, 92, 125, 181). Prescriptivism does not directlytransform language, but it does have an effect. Silverstein argues that a graspof language ideology is essential for understanding the evolution of linguisticstructure (276:220). Important sociolinguistic changes can be set off by ideo-logical interpretation of language use, although because they derive only froma larger social dialectic, such changes are likely to take an unintended direc~




tion, as in the historical case of second person pronoun shift in English. To theextent that speakers conceptualize language as socially purposive action, wemust look at their ideas about the meaning, function, and value of language inorder to understand the extent and degree of systematicity in empiricallyoccuring linguistic forms (cf 47, 129, 209, 212).

In analyses of gender in English, T/V pronoun shift, and Javanese speechlevels, Silverstein shows that rationalization not only explains but actuallyaffects linguistic structure, or rationalizes it by making it more regular. Tounderstand one’s own linguistic usage is potentially to change it (275:233).Imperfect, limited awareness of linguistic structures, some of which are moreavailable to conscious reflection than are others, leads speakers to make gener-alizations that they then impose on a broader category of phenomena, chang-ing those phenomena (see also 181). Structure conditions ideology, which thenreinforces and expands the original structure, distorting language in the nameof making it more like itself (37, 258).

Errington (86) observes that although it is standard in sociolinguistic analy-sis to look for relations between structural change and communicative func-tion, it is more controversial to invoke a notion of native speaker awareness asan explanatory link. Labov differentiates mechanisms of change from belowand above the level of speakers’ awareness. He argues that subconsciouschanges are extensive and systematic, while conscious self-correction, whichhe labels ideology, leads to sporadic and haphazard effects on linguistic forms(190:329). But several authors note that correlational sociolinguistic modelsgloss over the actual motivating force of linguistic change, which often lies insocial evaluations of language (85, 162, 261).

Erfington (86) argues that Labov’s generalization is most applicable phonological variation, which may not be mediated by speakers’ under-standings of their conscious communicative projects. More pragmatically sali-ent classes of variables are recognized by speakers as crucial linguistic media-tors of social relations, and speakers’ awareness makes these variables moresusceptible to rationalization and strategic use (85,240). Because such aware-ness and use drive linguistic change, these variables require a fundamentallydifferent, participant-oriented analysis (86).

Irvinc (162) notes that the formal linguistic characteristics of Hallidayananti-languages, such as inversion, are not arbitrary and that they suggest themediation of ideological conceptualizations of linguistic structures. Similarly,subordinate languages in contact situations can acquire both functional andformal properties of anti-languages. Speakers of moribund varieties of Xinca,for example, go "hog-wild" with glottalized consonants, which are exotic fromthe point of view of the dominant Spanish language (48). This is a Silverstein-ian distortion that makes a code more like itself, in this case, importantly, a selfthat is most distinctive from its socially dominant counterpart.




Silverstein and others give examples from European languages, especiallyEnglish, that reveal a tendency to see propositionality as the essence of lan-guage, to confuse the indexical function of language with the referential func-tion, and to assume that the divisions and structures of language should--andin the best circumstances do--transparently fit the structures of the real world(39, 162, 181,212, 237, 250, 274, 275,278). A focus on the surface segment-able aspects of language, a conception of language focusing on words andexpressions that denote, is widely attested (32, 57, 112, 220, 277). But Rumsey(258) argues that it is not characteristic of Australian aboriginal cultures,which do not dichotomize talk and action or words and things, and Rosaldo(255) similarly asserts that Ilongots think of language in terms of action ratherthan reference. Hill (147) describes a counter-hegemonic ideology of languageamong Mexicano women that emphasizes not reference but performance andthe proper accomplishment of human relationships through dialogue. See ref-erence 151 for further discussion.

VARIATION AND CONTESTATION IN IDEOLOGY

Therbom (296:viii) characterizes ideology as a social process, not a posses-sion, more like "the cacaphony of sounds and signs of a big city streetthan...the text serenely communicating with the solitary reader or theteacher...addressing a quiet, domesticated audience." The new direction inresearch on linguistic ideology has also moved away from seeing ideology as ahomogeneous cultural template, now treating it as a process involving strug-gles among multiple conceptualizations and demanding the recognition ofvariation and contestation within a community as well as contradictions withinindividuals (104, 258, 279, 308). Warao strategically deploy conflicting mod-els for language use as resources for interactional power (40, 41). Germanspeakers in Hungary frame language and identity differently at different mo-ments, to resist also-changing official state ideologies (105). English has entirely different significance to New York Puerto Ricans depending onwhether they think of it as spoken by white Americans, by black Americans, orby Puerto Ricans (304). Where casual generalization contrasts English andFrench linguistic attitudes as if they were unitbrm cultural attributes inheringat the state and individual level, historical studies show that such apparentlycharacteristic national stances emerge conjuncturally from struggles amongcompeting ideological positions (139, 201,249).

CONCLUSION

It is paradoxical that at the same time that language and discourse havebecome central topics across the social sciences and humanities, linguistic




anthropologists have bemoaned the marginalization of the subdiscipline fromthe larger field of anthropology. The topic of language ideology is a much-needed bridge between linguistic and social theory, because it relates themicroculture of communicative action to political economic considerations ofpower and social inequality, confronting macrosocial constraints on languagebehavior (P Kroskrity, personal communication). It is also a potential means deepening a somefimcs superficial understanding of linguistic form and itscultural variability in political economic studies of discourse.

Many populations around the word, in multifarious ways, posit fundamen-tal linkages among such apparently diverse cultural categories as language,spelling, grammar, nation, gender, simplicity, intentionality, authenticity,knowledge, development, power, and tradition (104). But our professionalattention has only begun to turn to understanding when and how those linksare forged--whether by lay participants or their expert analysts--and whattheft consequences might be for linguistic and social life. A wealth of publicproblems hinge on language ideology. Examples from the headlines of UnitedStates newspapers include bilingual policy and the official English movement;questions of free speech and harassment; the meaning of multiculturalism inschools and texts; the exclusion of jurors who might rely on their own native-speaker understanding of non-English testimony; and the question of journal-ists’ responsibilities and the truthful representation of direct speech. Coming togrips with such public issues means coming to grips with the nature andworking of language ideology.

Research on topics such as pronouns, politeness, and purism has begun thedifficult program of considering whose interests are served by linguistic ideol-ogy taking the form that it does, relating notions of linguistic ideology asrooted in linguistic structure and cognitive limitations to understandings ofideology as rooted in social practices and interests (258:356). It is the attemptto link these two aspects of ideology, and to tie social and linguistic formstogether through ideology, that is both most provocative and most challenging.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Susan Gal for encouragement to write this essay. We also wish tothank participants in the session on Language Ideologies at the 1991 AmericanAnthropological Association Meeting and members of the Center for Trans-cultural Studies Working Group on Language. Their research and conversa-tions helped shape our vision of the field. Kathryn Woolard is grateful to theNational Endowment for the Humanities and the Spencer Foundation forsupport while preparing the review, and to Alex Halkias, Natasha Unger, andBegofia Echeverria, who helped with bibliographic work in various stages.Bambi Schieffelin thanks Paul Garrett for bibliographic assistance and Molly




Mitchell for editorial help. This essay is dedicated to Ben, whose wonderfulsense of time helped organize this project.

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

1-800-347-8007; 415-259-5017; emaih [email protected]

Literature Cited

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

2. Adams KL, Brink DT, eds. 1990. Perspec-tives on Official English: The Campaign forEnglish as the Official Language in theUSA. Berlin: Mouton de C, ruyter

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

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

5. Alvarez C. 1990. The institionalization ofGalician: linguistic practices, power andideology in public discourse. PhD thesis.Univ. Calif., Berkeley

6. Alvarez-CAccamo C. 1993. The pigeonhouse, the octopus and the people: theideologization of linguistic practices inGaliza. Plurilinguismes 6:1-26

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

8. Andresen J. 1990. Linguistics in America1769-1924: A Critical History. London:Routledge

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

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

11.Attridge D. 1988. Peculiar Language. Lon-don: Methuen

12.Auroux S. 1986. Le sujet de la langue: laconception politique de la langue sous l’an-cien rrgime et la rrvolution. See Ref. 45,pp. 259-78

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

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

15. Baker C, Freebody P. 1986. Repre-sentations of questioning and answering inchildren’s first school books. Lang. Soc.15:451-84

16.Balibar R. 1991. La rrvolution franqaise etl’universalisation du fran~ais national enFrance. Hist. Eur. Ideas 13(1/2):89-95

17. Balibar R, Laporte D. 1984. Le fran~aisnational Paris: Hachette

18.Baron DE. 1982. Grammar and GoodTaste: Reforming the American Language.New Haven, C~T: Yale Univ. Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

25. Brbel-Gisler D. 1981. La langue creoleforcejugul~e. Paris: L’Harmattan

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

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

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

29. BesnierN. 1991. Literacy and the notion ofperson on Nukulaelae Atoll. Am. Anthro-pol. 93(2):570-87

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

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

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



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

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

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

35. Bloomfield L. 1970. Literate and illiteratespeech. In A Bloomfield Anthology, ed. CHockett, pp. 147-56. Bloomington: Ind.Univ. Press

36. BoasE 1911. Introduction to the Handbookof American Indian Languages. In Bulletinof the Bureau of American Ethnology, ed. FBoas, pp. 1-83. Washington, DC: Gov.Print. Off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Busse W, Trabant J, eds. 1986. Les iddo-logues. Sdmiotique, theories et politiqueslinguistiques pendant la rdvolution francaise. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

46. Calame-Griaule G. 1986. Words and theDogon World. Philadelphia: Inst. Stud. Hu-man Issues

47. Cameron D. 1990. Demythologizing so-ciolinguistics: why language does not re-flect society. See Ref. 173, pp. 7%96

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

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

nicative style in Japanese. In LanguageSocialization across Cultures, ed. BBSchieffelin, E Ochs, pp. 213-50. NewYork: Cambridge Univ. Press

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

5 I. Cobarrubias J. 1983. Ethical issues in statusplanning. See Ref. 52, pp. 41~86

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

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

54. Cohn B. 1985. The command of languageand the language of command. SubalternStud 4:276-329

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

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

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

58. Collins J. 1993. The troubled text: historyand language in basic writing programs. InKnowledge, Culture and Power: Interna-tional Perspectives on Literacy Policiesand Practices, ed. P Freebody, A Welch,pp. 16246. Pittsburgh: Univ PittsburghPress

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

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

61. Coulmas F, ed. 1988. With Forked Tongues:What Are National Languages Good For?Arm Arbor, MI: Karoma

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

63. Crago M. 1988. Cultural context in cornmunicative interaction of lnuit children.PhD thesis. McGill Univ., Montreal

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

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

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




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

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

69. de Certeau M, Julia D, Revel J. 1975. Unepolitique de la langue: la r~volution fran-9aise et les patois. Paris: Gallimard

70. DecrosseA. 1986. Grn~ologie du franqais:purism et langue savante. In Etats delangue, ed. M-P Gruenais, pp. 161-200.Paris: Fondation Diderot/Fayard

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

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

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

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

75. Duranti A. 1992. Intentions, self and responsibility. In Responsibility and Evi-dence in Oral Discourse, ed. JA Hill, JTIrvine, pp. 24-47. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

82.Edwards J. 1992. Transcription of dis-course. In International Encyclopedia ofLinguistics, ed. W Bright, pp. 367-71. NewYork: Oxford Univ. Press

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

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

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

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

86. Errington JJ. 1988. Structure and Style inJavanese: A Semiotic View of LinguisticEtiquette. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press

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

88. Ewald J. 1988. Speaking, writing andauthority: explorations in and from thekingdom of Taqali. Comp. Stud. Soc. tlist.39:199-223

89. Fabian J. 1986. Language and ColonialPower: The Appropriation of Swahili in theFormer Belgian Congo 1880-1938. Cam-bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

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

91. Fold S, Schieffelin BB. 1981. Hard words:a functional basis for Kaluli discourse. InGeorgetown University Round Table onLanguages and Linguistics 1981, ed. DTannen, pp. 35030. Washington, DC:Georgetown Univ. Press

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

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

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

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

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

97. Forstorp P-A. 1990. Receiving and re-sponding: ways of taking from the Bible. InBible Reading in Sweden: Studies Relatedto the Translation of the New Testament1981, ed. G Hansson, pp. 149-69. Uppsala:Almqvist & Wiksell

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

99. Frangoudaki A. 1992. Diglossia and thepresent language situation in Greece. Lang.Soc. 21(3):36541

100.Friedfich P. 1989. Language, ideology andpolitical economy. Am. Anthropol. 91(2):295-312

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

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

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




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

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

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

106.Gal S. 1993. Lost in a Slavic sea: linguistictheories and expert knowledge in the mak-ing of Hungarian identity. Presented at92nd Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc.,Washington, DC

107.Garcia O, Evangelista I. 1988. Spanish lan-guage use and attitudes: a study of two NewYork City communities. Lang. Soc.17(4):475-511

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

115.Gold DL. 1989. A sketch of the linguisticsituation in Israel today. Lang. Soc. 18:361-88

116.Goldman L. 1983. Talk Never Dies: TheLanguage of Hull Disputes. London: Tavis-tock

117.Grillo RD. 1985. Ideologies & Institutionsin Urban France: The Representation ofImmigrants. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

130.Harries P. 1988. The roots of ethnicity:discourse and the politics of language con-struction in South-East Africa. Afr. Affairs87(346):25-52

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

138a. Heath SB. 1989. Language ideology. InInternational Encyclopedia of Communi-cations, 2:393-95. New York: OxfordUniv. Press

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

139.Heath SB, Mandabach E 1983. Languagestatus decisions and the law in the UnitedStates. See Ref. 52, pp. 87-105

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

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

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

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

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

145.Higonnet E 1980. The politics of linguisticterrorism and grammatical hegemony dur-ing the French revolution. Soc. Hist. 5(1):41~59

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

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

148.Hill JH. 1993. Ha~ta la vista, baby: AngloSpanish in the American Southwest. Crit.Anthropol. 13:145-76

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

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

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

152.Hornberger N. 1988. Language planningorientations and bilingual education inPeru. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 12(1):14-29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

172.Joseph JE. 1987. Eloquence and Power:The Rise of Language Standards andStandard Languages. New York: BasilBlackwell

173.Joseph JE, Taylor TJ, cds. 1990. Ideologiesof Language. New York: Routledge

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

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

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

177.Klor de Alva JJ. 1989. Language, politicsand translation: colonial discourse andclassic Nahuatl in New Spain. In TheArt ofTranslation: Voices from the Field, ed. RWarren, pp. 143--62. Boston: NortheasternUniv. Press

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

179.Koepke W, ed. 1990. Johann GottfriedHerder. Language, History and the En-lightenment. Columbia, SC: CamdenHouse

180.Kramer MP. 1992. Imagining Language inAmerica: From the Revolution to the CivilWar. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

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

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

183.Kroskrity PV. 1994. Arizona Tewa publicannouncements: form, function, linguisticideology. Anthropol. Linguist. 35:In press

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

185.Kroskrity PV, Schieffelin BB, WoolardKA, eds. 1992. Special Issue on LanguageIdeologies. Pragmatics 2(3):235453

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

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

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

189. Kulick D, Stroud C. 1990. Christianity,cargo and ideas of self. Man (NS) 25:7048

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

191.Labov W. 1982. Objectivity and commit-ment in linguistic evidence. Lang. Soc. l 1:165-201

192.Landes JB. 1988. Women and the PublicSphere in the Age of the French Revolution.Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press

193.Leibowitz AH. 1976. Language and thelaw: the exercise of political power throughthe official designation of language. InLanguage and Politics, ed. W O’Barr, JO’Barr, pp. 449-66. The Hague: Moutonde Gruyter

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

195.Lim6n J. 1982. E1 meeting: history, folkSpanish and ethnic nationalism in a Chi-cano student community. In Spanish in the,United States, ed. J Amastae, L El~as-Oli-vares, pp. 301-32. New York: CambridgeUniv. Press

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

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

198.Lucy JA. 1993. Reflexive language and thehuman disciplines. Iu Reflexive Language:Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed.JA Lucy, pp. 9-32. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press

199.Ludwig R, ed. 1989. Les creoles fran~aisentre l’oral et l’dcrit. T~ibingen, Germany:Gunter Narf Verlag

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

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

202.Maguire G. 1991. Our Own Language: AnIrish Initiative. Philadelphia: MultilingualMatters

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

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

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



edge. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace,Jovanovich

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

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

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

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

209.Meeuwis M, Brisard F. 1993. Time and theDiagnosis of Language Change. AntwerpPap. Linguist. 72. Antwerp: Univ. AntwerpPress

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

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

212.Mertz E. 1993. Learning what to ask:metapragmatic factors and methodologicalreification. In Reflexive Language: Re-ported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. JALucy, pp. 159-74. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press

213 Mertz E. 1994. Legal language: pragmat-ics, poetics and social power. Annu. Rev.Anthropol. 23:435-55

214.Mertz E, Parmentier RJ, eels. 1985. Semi-otic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psycho-logical Perspectives. Orlando, FL: Aca-demic

214a.Messick B. 1993. The Caligraphic State:Textual Domination and History in a Mus-lim Society. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

215.Michaels S, Cazden C. 1986. Teacher/childcollaboration as oral preparation for liter-acy. See Ref. 266, pp. 132-54

216.Mignolo WD. 1992. On the colonization ofAmerindian languages and memories:Renaissance theories of writing and thediscontinuity of thc classical tradition.Camp. Stud. Sac. Hist. 34(2):301-30

217.Miller PJ, Ports R, Fung H, Hoogstra L,Mintz J. 1990. Narrative practices and thesocial construction of self in childhood.Am. Ethnol. 17(2):292-311

218.Miller RA. 1982. Japan’s Modern Myth:The Language and Beyond New York:Weatherhill

219.Milroy J, Milroy L. 1985. Authority in Lan-guage: Investigating Language Prescrip-tion and Standardisation. London: Rout-ledge & Kegan Paul

220.Moore RE. 1993. Performance form andthe voices of characters in five versions ofthe Wasco Coyote Cycle. In Reflexive Lan-guage, ed. JA Lucy, pp. 213-40. Cam-bridge Univ. Press

221.Morgan MH. 1991. Indirectness and inter-pretation in African American women’sdiscourse. Pragmatics 1(4):421-51

222.Morgan MH. 1994. Theoretical and politi-cal arguments in African American Eng-lish. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:325-45

223.Miihlhtiusler P. 1990. ’Reducing’ Pacificlanguages to writing. See Ref. 173, pp.189-205

224.Musa M. 1989. Purism and correctness inthe Bengali speech community. See Ref.171, pp. 105-12

225.Nebrija A. 1946. Gramatica Castellana.Madrid: Edic. Junta Ccntenario

226.Neu-Altenheimer I, Marimoutou J, Bag-gioni D. 1987. Nrvrose diglossique etchoix graphiques. Lengas 22:33-57

227.Newmeyer FJ. 1986. The Politics of Lin-guistics. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

228,Nunberg G. 1989. Linguists and the officiallanguage movement. Language 65(3):57%87

229.Ochs E. 1979. Transcription as theory. InDevelopmental Pragmatics, ed. E Ochs,BB Schieffelin, pp. 43-72. New York: Aca-demic

230.Ochs E. 1984. Clarification and culture. InGeorgetown University Round Table onLanguages and Linguistics 1984, ed. DSchiffrin, pp. 325-41. Washington, DC:Georgetown Univ. Press

231.Ochs E. 1988. Culture and Language De-velopment. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press

232.Ochs E. 1992. Indexing gender. In Rethink-ing Context, ed. ADuranti, C Goodwin, pp.335-58. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press

233.Ochs E, Schieffelin BB. 1984. Languageacqdisition and socialization: three devel-opmental stories and their implications. InCulture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self andEmotion, ed. R Shweder, R Levine, pp.276-320. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press

234.Ochs E, Schieffelin BB. 1994. The impactof language socialization on grammaticaldevelopment. In Handbook of Child Lan-guage, ed. P Fletcher, B MacWhinney.New York: Basil Blackwell. In press

235.Olender M. 1992. The Languages of Para-dise: Race, Religion, and Philology in theNineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard Univ. Press

236.Pagden A. 1993. European Encounters




with the New World: From Renaissance toRomanticism. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.Press

237.Parmentier RJ. 1986. Puffery and pragmat-ics, regulation and reference. Worl~ Pap.Proc. Cent. Psychosoc. Stud 4. Chicago:Cent. Transcult. Stud.

238.Pattanayak DP. 1988. Monolingual myo-pia and the petals of the Indian lotus: domany languages divide or unite a language?In Minority Education: From Shame toStruggle, ed. T Skutnabb-Kangas, J Cum-mins, pp. 379-89. Clevedon, England:Multilingual Matters

239.Pecheux M. 1982. Language, Semanticsand Ideology. London: Macmillan

240.Philips S. 1991. Tongan speech levels:practice and talk about practice in the cul-tural construction of social hierarchy. Pac.Linguist. Set C I 17:369-82

241.Philips S, 1992. A Marx-influenced ap-proach to ideology and language: com-ments. See Ref. 185, pp. 37746

242.Philipsen G, Carbangh D. 1986. A bibliog-raphy of fieldwork in the ethnography ofcommunication. Lang. Soc. 15:387-98

243.Posner R. 1993. Language conflict in Ro-mance. In Trends in Romance Linguisticsand Philology, Vol. 5: Bilingualism andLinguistic Conflict in Romance, ed, R Pos-net, JN Green, pp. 41-76. Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter

244.Pratt ML. 1981. The ideology of speech-acttheory. Centrum (NS) 1:5-18

245.Preston DR. 1982. ’Ritin fowklower daun’rong. J. Am. Folk. 95(377):304-26

246.Preston DR. 1985. The Li’l Abner syn-drome: written representations of speech.Am. Speech 60(4):328-36

247.Rafael V. 1988. Contracting Colonialism:Translation and Christian Conversion inTagalog Society under early Spanish Rule.Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press

248.Raison-Jourde E 1977. L’6change in6galde la langue: La p6n6tration des techniqueslinguistiques dans une civilisation de l’oral.Annales 32:639~59

249.Reagan TG. 1986. ’Language ideology’ inthe language planning process: two Afri-can case studies. S. Afr. J. Aft. Lang. 6(2):94-97

250.Reddy MJ. 1979. The conduit metaphor: acase of frame conflict in our language aboutlanguage. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. AOrtony, pp. 284-324. New York: Can~-bridge Univ. Press

251.Rickford J. 1985. Standard and non-stand-ard language attitudes in a creole contin-uum. See Ref. 323, pp. 145-60

252.Rockhill K. 1993. Gender, language, andthe politics of literacy. See Ref. 291, pp.156-75

253.Rodman WL. 1991. When questions areanswers. Am. Anthropol. 93(2):421-34

254.Rosaldo MZ. 1973. I have nothing to hide:the language of Ilongot oratory. Lang. Soc.2(2): 193-223

255.Rosaldo MZ. 1982. The things we dowith words: Ilongot speech acts and speechact theory in philosophy. Lang. Soc. 11:203 37

256.Rossi-Landi E 1973. Ideologies of Linguis-tic Relativity. The Hague: Mouton deGruyter

257.Ruiz R. 1984. Orientations in languageplanning. Natl. Assoc. Biling. Educ. J.8(2): 15-34

258.Rumsey A. 1990. Wording, meaning andlinguistic ideology. Am. Anthropol.92(2):346q51

259.Sakai N. 1991. Voices of the Post: TheStatus of Language in Eighteenth-CenturyJapanese Discourse. Ithaca, NY: CorncllUniv. Press

260.Samarin WJ. 1984. The linguistic world offield colonialism. Lang. Soc. 13:435-53

261.Sankoff D. 1988. Sociolinguistics and syn-tactic variation. In Linguistics: The Cam-bridge Survey, Vol. IV: Language: The So-cio-cultural Context, ed. FJ Newmeyer, pp.140-61. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press

262.Schieffelin BB. 1990. The Give and Take ofEveryday Life: Language Socialization ofKaluli Children. New York: CambridgeUniv. Press

263.Schieffelin BB. 1994. Codeswitching andlanguage socialization: some probable re-lationships. In Pragmatics: From Theory toPractice, ed. JF Duchan, LE Hewitt, RMSonnenmeier, pp. 20-42. New York: Pren-tice Hall

264.Schieffclin BB, Cochran-Smith M. 1984.Learning to read culturally. In Awakeningto Literacy, ed. H Goelman, A Oberg, FSmith, pp. 3-23. Exeter, NH: HeinemannEduc.

265.Schieffelin BB, Doucet RC. 1994. The"real" Haitian Creole: ideology, metalin-guistics and orthographic choice. Am. Eth-nol. 21(1):177-201

266.Schieffelin BB, Gilmore P, eds. 1986. TheAcquisition of Literacy: Ethnographic Per-spectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

267.Schieffelin BB, Ochs E. 1986. Lauguagesocialization. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 15:163-91

268.Schultz EA. 1990. Dialogue at the Mar-gins: Whorl Bakhtin, and Linguistic Rela-tivity. Madison: Univ. Wisc. Press

269.Scollon R, Scollon SB. 1981. Narrative,Literacy and Face in lnterethnic Commu-nication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

270.Searle J. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in thePhilosophy of Language. Cambridge:Cambridge Univ. Press

271. Deleted in proof272. Siegel J. 1987. Language Contact in a




Plantation Environment: A SociolinguisticHistory of Fiji. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press

273.Siegel JT. 1986. Solo in the New Order:Language and Hierarchy in an IndonesianCity. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press

274.Silverstein M. 1976. Shifters, linguisticcategories, and cultural description. InMeaning in Anthropology, ed. KH Basso,HA Selby, pp. 1135. Albuquerque: Univ.N. Mex. Press

275.Silverstein M. 1979. Language structureand linguistic ideology. In The Elements:A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Lev-els, ed. R Clyne, W Hanks, C Hofbauer, pp.193-247. Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.

276.Silverstein M. 1985. Language and the cul-ture of gender: at the intersection of struc-ture, usage and ideology. See Ref. 214, pp.219-59

277.Silverstein M. 1987. Monoglot "standard"in America. Work. Pal,. Proc. Cent. Psy-chosoc. Stud. 13. Chicago: Cent. Transcult.Stud.

278.Silverstein M. 1990. The skin of our teeth:registers, poetics, and the first amendment.Presented at 89th Annu. Meet. Am. Anthro-pol. Assoc., New Orleans

279.Silverstein M. 1992. The uses and utility ofideology: some reflections. See Ref. 185,pp. 311-24

280.Silverstein M. 1993. From the meaning ofmeaning to the empires of the mind: Og-don’s orthological English. Presented at92nd Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc.,Washington, DC

281.Simpson D. 1988. The Politics of AmericanEnglish 1776-1850. Oxford: Oxford Univ.Press

282.Skutnabb-Kangas T, Phillipson R. 1989."Mother tongue": the theoretical and sociopolitical construction of a concept. InStatus and Function of Languages andLanguage Varieties, ed. U Ammon, pp.450-77. Berlin: de Gruyter

283.Smith O. 1984. The Politics of Language1791-1819. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

284.Smith-Hefner NJ. 1988. The linguistic so-cialization of Javanese children in twocommunities. Anthropol. Linguist. 30(2):166-98

285.Sonntag SK, Pool J. 1987. Linguistic denialandlinguistic self-deniah American ideolo-gies of language. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan.11(1):46~5

286.Southworth FC. 1985. The social context oflanguage standardization in India. See Ref.323, pp. 225-39

287.Speicher BL, McMahon SM. 1992. SomeAfrican-American perspectives on BlackEnglish vernacular. Lang. Soc. 21(3):383-4O8

288.Spitulnik D. 1992. Radio time sharing and

the negotiation of linguistic pluralism inZambia. See Ref. 185, pp. 335-54

289.Steinberg J. 1987. The historian and theQuestione della Lingua. In The Social His-tory of Language, ed. P Burke, R Porter, pp.198-209. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press

290.Street BV. 1984. Literacy in Theory andPractice. New York: Cambridge Univ.Press

291.Street BV, ed. 1993. Cross-cultural Ap-proaches to Literacy. Cambridge: Cam-bridge Univ. Press

292.Street BV, Besnier N. 1994. Aspects ofliteracy." In Companion Encyclopedia ofAnthropology, ed. T Ingold, pp. 527-62.London: Routledge

292a.Stroud C. 1992. The problem of intentionand meaning in code-switching. Text 12(1):127-55

293.Swiggers E 1990. Ideology and the ’clarity’of French. See Ref. 173, pp. 112-30

294.Taylor C. 1987. Language and human na-ture. In Interpreting Politics, ed. MT Gib-bons, pp. 101-32. New York: New YorkUniv. Press

295.Tedlock D. 1983. The Spoken Word and theWork of Interpretation. Philadelphia: Univ.Penn. Press

296.Therborn G. 1980. The Ideology of Powerand the Power of Ideology. London: Verso

297.Thomas G. 1991. Linguistic Purism. Lon-don: Longman

298.Thompson JB. 1984. Studies in the Theoryof Ideology. Cambridge: Polity

299.Trosset CS. 1986. The social identity ofWelsh learners. Lang. Soc. 15:165-92

300.Twine N. 1991. Language and the ModernState: The ReJorm of Written Japanese.New York: Routledge

301.Tyler SA. 1987. The Unspeakable: Dis-c’ours’e, Dialogue and Rhetoric in the Post-modern World. Madison: Univ. Wisc. Press

302.Urban G. 1991. The semiotics of state-In-dian linguistic relationships: Peru, Para-guay, and Brazil. In Nation-States and ln-dians in Latin America, ed. G Urban, JSherzer, pp. 307-30. Austin: Univ. TexasPress

303.Urban G. 1993. The represented functionsof speech in Sholdeng myth. In ReflexiveLanguage, ed. JA Lucy, pp. 241-86.Austin: Univ. Texas Press

304.Urciuoli B. 1991. The political topographyof Spanish and English: the view from aNew York Puerto Rican neighborhood.Am. Ethnol. 18(2):295-310

305.Urla J. 1988. Ethnic protest and social plan-ning: a look at Basque language revival.Cult. Anthropol. I (4):379-94

306.Urla J. 1993. Contesting modernities: lan-guage standardization and the productionof an ancient/modern Basque culture. Crit.Anthropol. 13(2): 101-18




307.Urla J. 1993. Cultural politics in an age ofstatistics: numbers, nations and the makingof Basque identity. Am. Ethnol. 20(4):818-43

308.Verschueren J. 1985. What People SayThey Do With Words: Prolegomena to anEmpirical-Conceptual Approach to Lin-guistic Action. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

309.Verschueren J, ed. 1987. Linguistic Action:Some Empirical-Conceptual Studies. Nor-wood, NJ: Ablex

310.Verschueren J. 1989. Language on lan-guage: toward metapragrnatic universals.Pap. Pragmat. 3(2): 1-44

311.Wald B. 1985. Vernacular and standardSwahili as seen by members of the Mom-basa Swahili speech community. See Ref.323, pp. 123-44

312.Walker A. 1986. The verbatim record. InDiscourse and lnstitutional Authority, cd. SFisher, A Todd, pp. 205-22. Norwood, NJ:Ablex

313.Warner M. 1990. The Letters of the Repub-lic." Publication and the Public Sphere inEighteenth-Century America. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Univ. Press

314.Watson-Gegeo KA, Gegeo D. 1991. Theimpact of church affiliation on languagechange in Kwara’ae (Solomon Islands).Lang. Soc. 26(4):533-55

315.Watson-Gegeo KA, White GM, eds. 1990.Disentangling: Conflict Discourse in Pa-cific Societies. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniv. Press

316.Weinstein B. 1989. Francophonie: purismat the international level. See Ref. 171, pp.53-80

317.Weinstein B, ed. 1990. Language Policyand Political Development. Norwood, NJ:Ablex

318.Wierzbicka A. 1985. A semantic metalan-

guage for a crosscultural comparison ofspeech acts and speech genres. Lang. Soc.14:491-514

319.Williams G. 1988. Discourse on languageand ethnicity. In Styles of Discourse, ed. NCoupland, pp. 254-93. London: CroomHelm

320.Williams R. 1977. Marxism and Literature.Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press

321.Winer L. 1990. Orthographic stand-ardisation for Trinidad and Tobago: linguis-tic and sociopolitical consideration in anEnglish Creole community. Lang. Probl.Lang. Plan. 14(3):237~58

322.Wodak R, ed. 1989. Language, Power, andIdeology: Studies in Political Discourse.Philadelphia: Benjamins

323.Wolfson N, Manes J, eds. 1985. Languageoflnequality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

324.Woolard KA. 1985. Language variationand cultural hegemony: towards an integra-tion of sociolinguistic and social theory.Am. Ethnol. 12(4):738-48

325.Woolard KA. 1989. Double Talk: Bilin-gualism and the Politics of Ethnicity inCatalonia. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.Press

326.Woolard KA. 1989. Sentences in the lan-guage prison: the rhetorical structuring ofan American language policy debate. Am.EthnoL 16(2):268-78

327.Woolard KA. 1992. Language ideology:issues and approaches. See Ref. 185, pp.235-50

328.Woolard KA, Gahng T-J. 1990. Changinglanguage policies and attitudes in autono-mous Catalonia. Lang. Soc. 19:311-30

329.Zentella AC. 1994. Growing Up Bilingualin El Barrio. Cambridge, MA: Basil Black-well. In press



Documents

Woolard Schieffelin Language Ideology