Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Discursive Approaches to Language Policy pp 105–127Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

A Critical Integrated Approach to Language Policy as Discursive Action: Strengths, Challenges, and Opportunities

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter describes in detail the methodology of a critical language policy study that integrates multiple methods to analyze the discursive construction of the English-Only movement in the USA. Proponents of English Only, a political movement, contend that English is threatened and needs official protection. The reproduction of language ideology, which is essential to an analysis of English-Only arguments, leads to the valuation of some languages and speakers over others, thereby contributing to inclusion and exclusion within US society. Drawing on the discourse-historical approach (DHA) (Reisigl and Wodak, The discourse historical approach. In: Wodak R and Meyer M (eds) Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2nd ed. Sage, Los Angeles, pp. 87–121, 2009; Wodak, The discourse-historical approach. In Wodak R and Meyer M (eds), Methods of critical discourse analysis, Sage, London, pp. 63–94, 2001; Wodak, Linguistic analyses in language policies. In: Ricento T (ed), An introduction to language policy: theory and method, Blackwell, Malden, pp. 170–193, 2006) to develop an eclectic, multi-methodological framework for the discursive analysis of language policy as a multi-layered and ideological phenomenon, I combine data sets and methods in this study to emphasize the construction of English in relation to other languages in US public life. In doing so, I adopt Wodak’s (Linguistic analyses in language policies. In: Ricento T (ed), An introduction to language policy: theory and method, Blackwell, Malden, pp 170–193, 2006) methodology for the analysis of language policies to examine how languages are supported in their public validity, their functionality, and their dissemination. The primary aim of this chapter is to consider the strengths, challenges, and opportunities associated with a multi-methodological, integrated, and eclectic approach to language policy as both social and discursive action.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.us-english.org/view/5

  2. 2.

    As a starting point, topoi can be defined as content-related warrants or conclusion rules that connect an argument with a conclusion (Wodak 2001, p. 74).

  3. 3.

    http://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/resolution-english-only

  4. 4.

    See Lawton (2011) for a more detailed description of the overall sample.

  5. 5.

    Due to space considerations, examples from the quantitative analysis will not be included in this chapter. It should be noted, however, that this provided an important starting point for the analysis of the qualitative questionnaire data.

  6. 6.

    These findings cannot be generalized to the whole of the USA since, due to the availability of resources, this case study was conducted in the state of Maryland, which typically elects representatives from the Democratic Party and has not supported proposed Official English legislation.

References

  • Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackledge, A. (2005). Discourse and power in a multilingual world. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason. London: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, J. (2001). A nation divided by one language. Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk.

  • Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: textual analysis for social research. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, S. B. (1992). Why no official tongue? In J. Crawford (Ed.), Language loyalties: A source book on the official English controversy (pp. 20–31). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, R. (2011). Language policy and ideology in the United States: A critical discursive analysis of the ‘English Only’ movement. PhD Thesis, Lancaster University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, R. (2013). Speak English or go home: The anti-immigrant discourse of the American “English Only” movement. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 7(1), 100–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, S. (2001). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, T. L. (2004). Dangerous difference: A critical-historical analysis of language education policies in the United States. In J. Tollefson & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? (pp. 71–93). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlenko, A. (2002). “We have room for but one language here”: Language and national identity in the US at the turn of the 20th century. Multilingua, 21(2/3), 163–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 87–121). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricento, T. (2003). The discursive construction of Americanism. Discourse and Society, 14, 611–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffman, H. (2006). Language policy and linguistic culture. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, C. (2001). The politics of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt Sr., R. (2000). Language policy and identity politics in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt Sr., R. (2006). Political theory and language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt Sr., R. (2007). Defending English in an English-dominant world: The ideology of the official English movement in the United States. In M. Heller & A. Duchene (Eds.), Discourses of endangerment: Interest and ideology in the defense of languages (pp. 197–215). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein, M. (1984). The value of objectual language. Paper presented at symposium the division of labor in language and society. American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting. Denver, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In D. Brenneis & R. Macaulay (Eds.), The matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology (pp. 284–306). Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson, J. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 42–59). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, T. G. (1999). Comparative historical perspectives in the analysis of US language policies. In T. Heubner & K. Davis (Eds.), Political perspectives on language planning and language policy (pp. 17–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, T. G. (2000). Continuity and change in the function of language ideologies in the United States. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics and language policies: Focus on English (pp. 67–85). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, T., & Lukes, M. (1996). English-Only and standard English ideologies in the U.S. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 511–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. (2006). Linguistic analyses in language policies. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 170–193). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zentella, A. C. (1997). The hispanophobia of the official English movement in the US. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 127, 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Community College of Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Rachele Lawton

Authors
  1. Rachele Lawton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Languages and Social Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom

    Elisabeth Barakos

  2. Department of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom

    Johann W. Unger

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lawton, R. (2016). A Critical Integrated Approach to Language Policy as Discursive Action: Strengths, Challenges, and Opportunities. In: Barakos, E., W. Unger, J. (eds) Discursive Approaches to Language Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53134-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53134-6_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-53133-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-53134-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation