MATERIALES Y METODOLOGÍA
3.2. Técnicas de Caracterización
The study of language ideologies evolved from linguistic paradigms related to language shift, language planning, and linguistic anthropology, and provided a means for interpreting notions about language and for analyzing the collective sociolinguistic behavior of a given group (Blackledge 2000: 26). As an analytical resource, language ideologies opened a new chapter for the study of language. With it came an emphasis on the perceptions that individuals held about language and discourse and about how these connect to social phenomena, a notion that had previously been marginalized in the study of language. As Paul Kroskrity contends “this surgical removal of language from context produced an amputated ‘language‘ that was the preferred object of the language sciences for most of the twentieth century“ (2000: 5).
Although the initial research focus in language ideologies was related to equating a given language with a given speech community and establishing links between national or regional groups and their linguistic practices, the research focus shifted in the latter half of the 20th century to include nuances, such as social positioning, bias, and variability, that discern language use and beliefs connected to power relations and political agendas in societies (e.g. Blackledge 2000; Blommaert 1999; Blommaert and Verschueren 1998; Gal 1998; Gal and Woolard 1995; Kroskrity 1998). With the shift in research focus, a diversity of work manifested with a range of definitions of the term “language ideologies”. These definitions each highlight different foci illustrating the application of the proposed concept. In this dissertation, I steer away from notions of language such as that proposed by de Saussure6 (Meisel and Saussy 1959), which implies linguistic homogeneity within a
6
In Course in General Linguistics, de Saussure acknowledged in ‘parole’ that individual language systems are partly idiosyncratic. However, the existence of ‘langue’ was superimposed and understood as “a grammatical system that has a potential existence in each brain, or, more specifically, in the brains of a group of individuals” (Meisel and Saussy 1959:14). From this follows the assumption that a linguistic community is bound by a common language system, which by definition means that a language community consists of a group of individuals united by a shared language. Here the connection between language and community is a contingent fact that stems from conventions or agreement. This synchronic system assumes members of a given linguistic community to be unified by factual linguistic homogeneity.
given community of speakers. I also depart from definitions such as that put forward by Alan Rumsey7 (1990), which imply that language ideologies within a given social group can be viewed as homogeneous. Instead, I adopt Woolard’s formulation of language ideologies as, “representations, whether explicit or implicit, that construe the intersection of language and human beings in a social world“ (Woolard 1998: 3), as this definition calls attention to the heterogeneity of ideological positions in a given context and implies that these representations can approximate conscious awareness.
While many definitions of language ideology have been proposed, here I will quote two that emphatically restore the importance of the contextual factors. An early definition by Michael Silverstein describes language ideologies as “sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use“ (Silverstein 1979: 193). In this definition, Silverstein mentions the explicit expression of language ideology as a voiced rationalization pertaining to the social context8. Another definition that brings out the contextual features more explicitly is one proposed by Judith Irvine. She defines language ideologies as “the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests“ (Irvine 1989: 255). While the foci of these definitions are different, both seem to contain an element of local cultural knowledge as pertinent although they do not in themselves spell this out.
As indicated in the above definitions, the research foci may vary when studying language ideologies. Thus, unlike Silverstein’s early definition that mentions explicit
expression, Jaworski and Coupland (2004: 36-37) focus on the implicit assumptions,
where language is used against a backdrop of ideological assumptions that are evaluative and prescriptive in nature. In their definition, implicit assumptions make reference to correctness, appropriateness, permissibleness, and other similar evaluative words (ibid). They argue that these assumptions are “part of the specific socio-cultural frames, with particular histories, tied in to particular power struggles and patterns of dominance“ (ibid: 37). This statement suggests that the perceptions are connected to contentious issues related to power and dominance as socioculturally situated in their particular histories, signaling the prominent position of language ideologies on language use.
The influential position of language ideologies in relation to language use is one focal dimension in the literature, highlighting power relations and patterns of dominance. For example, Blommaert (2006: 510) argues that language ideology is connected to the exercise of power and dominance whereas Woolard (1998: 6-7) mentions that language ideology is used to obtain (and maintain) power. In addition, Gal (1998) points out that the power in language ideologies resides in the ability to ascribe value to the practices of language forms used by one group over those used by another. On power relations, Seargeant (2009: 27) argues that language ideologies “reproduce hierarchies within
7
“Shared bodies of commonsense notions of the nature of language in the world” (Rumsey 1990: 346).
8
While this definition is one of the earliest, a predecessor to research on what is now known as language ideologies was Hymes’ work on the ethnography of communication (1974). It was his work that suggested that an ethnographic account include a speech community’s own theory of language use (ibid: 31).
societies“. Examples of the semiotic processes (cf. Irvine and Gal 2000) that can lead to indexing and hierarchical relationships are provided in 3.2.
On dominance, a term important to the present discussion is hegemony (Gramsci 1971), a concept developed from the notion of dominance. It has come to be associated with dominant discourse, which may be invisible and taken-for-granted, that creates symbolic power controlled by the state. Gramsci, however, does not believe that the control of a dominant position can be maintained over time without the consent of a formal political entity. He views hegemony as being related to both domination and integration. In other words, hegemony is about the process of a dominant group exercising power over an entire society, which requires making alliances with subordinated groups (Fairclough 1995). In Simon (1982: 21), the term is succinctly summarized as ‘the organization of consent‘. This consent pertains to certain ways of viewing the world and making sense of it, which may necessitate adopting an ideology that appears as a natural, common sense choice. Some will opt for the common sense view while others will not, thus creating struggles and at different levels in society, including local (for example, family, workplace), national (for example, educational policy), and international (for example, multinational corporations). While hegemony is a discernible process, it is not stable or colossal. Rather, it shifts, being produced and reproduced, and is characterized by contradiction, opposing identities in populations, as well as counter hegemonies (Blommaert 1999, Gal 1998). In an increasingly globalized world, however, hegemonic discourse at the level of nation-state may no longer be the main actor – if it is an actor.
The instrumental use of language ideologies in shaping language use also extends to definitions that focus on linguistic differentiation. For example, Gal and Irvine (1995) define this as
[T]he ideas with which participants frame their understanding of linguistic varieties and the differences among them, and map those understandings onto people, events, and activities that are significant to them ... we call these conceptual organizations ideologies because they are suffused with the political and moral issues pervading the particular sociolinguistic field, and because they are subject to the interests of their bearers‘ social position.
(1995: 970, emphasis in original) This definition conceptualizes language ideologies as a structure from which to understand linguistic differences, also known as variation. A clear example of such differentiation is present in the ideological motivations behind Standard English in the United States and Britain. For instance, in the U.S. Standard English evolves around lexical and morphosyntactic structures related to the concept of a mainstream, non-ethnic, middle-class speaker, whereas in the U.K. Standard English is associated more closely with the phonological features of a highly educated upper class speaker. In both cases, there is an attempt to erase (cf. Irvine and Gal 2000) the ethnic differentiation, but through different motivations. These examples illustrate the varying ideological bases upon which a standard language can be formed, as constructed in the interest of a particular group (Kroskity 2000). In addition, previous research reveals that these varying ideological
positions may result in a given form being accepted as standard language in one variety, but not in another.
While the definitions presented thus far all have different foci, they also share a commonality: the tradition of language ideological research having a close affinity to monolingual language ideologies where one ideology is dominant. In more recent years, however, the literature shifts in focus to language ideologies and discourse practices as being both context-dependent and cluster-oriented. For example, Kroskrity (2004: 498) describes language ideologies as “beliefs, or feelings, about languages as used in their social world“. This view suggests that language ideologies are context dependent. Moreover, grounding them in social experience means that the experiences are not uniformly distributed or homogeneous. This view to language ideologies is in opposition to views that conceptualize language ideologies as single shared perceptions of language in a homogeneous community. A theoretical focus on multiplicity presumes the existence of different language ideologies within a speech community. A benefit to adopting multiplicity for the study of language ideology is that it permits a focus on potential conflicts, their formulation, and the implementation of a dominant language ideology, for example (Kroskrity 2000: 12-13). Whether a language ideology is contentious or neutral, the point is that a focus on the dimension of interest can stimulate perspectives on sociocultural analysis through rethinking cultural explanations relevant to the association of local practices and interests in specific discourse (Kroskrity 2000: 8-12). Thus, while members of a group share language ideologies with similar interests, the same ideologies are not shared by an entire speech community. This multiplicity dimension also means that an individual can be guided by more than one language ideology, and even conflicting ones (see, for example, Briggs 1996; Gal 1993; Urciuoli 1991, 1996).
In short, the literature shows a broad range of notions about language ideologies as different researchers emphasize different foci. What is clear from the definitions and notions presented here is that language ideologies inform the beliefs of language use and may have an impact on users‘ social actions. Because language ideologies are connected to the beliefs and experiences of both individuals and groups as related to their social contexts, this suggests that multiple language ideologies are likely to be present within an individual as well as within different speech communities. Following this view leads to the conclusion that it is beneficial to view language ideologies as multiple since this view acknowledges the different interests connected to language ideologies that inform the linguistic and social behavior of both individuals and groups. This view also explains the presence of shared and/or conflicting language ideologies. As to prevailing language ideologies, the power relations and patterns of dominance in a given social context will guide this. Because the role of language ideologies is so closely tied to social context, this aspect also merits attention and thus is the focus of the next section.