Volume 17, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the potential of integrating Bourdieu’s notions of field and capital in discursive analyses of language policy. The paper presents an analysis of a debate in a committee session of the Slovene parliament, where different actors negotiated about the contents of a language policy strategy. The study draws on nexus analysis by focussing on the situated nature of discursive actions in particular settings, and presents a historical ethnography which combines analysis of transcripts with interviews and a detailed examination of policy documents. The analysis uncovers the efforts of actors to legitimize their authority and achieve their goals with the support of capital accumulated in different fields, and focusses particularly on the dynamics involved in translating the value of sources of capital across the borders of different fields.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
    1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barakos, Elizabeth , and Johann W. Unger
    eds. 2016Discursive Approaches to Language Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave. doi: 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑53134‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53134-6 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bourdieu, Pierre
    1984Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1986 “The forms of capital.” InHandbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by John G. Richardson , 241–258. New York: Greenwood.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1993The Field of Cultural Production. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Craig, Geoffrey
    2013 “How Does a Prime Minister Speak? Kevin Rudd’s discourse, habitus, and negotiation of the journalistic and political fields.” Journal of Language and Politics12 (4): 485–507. doi: 10.1075/jlp.12.4.01cra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.12.4.01cra [Google Scholar]
  7. Fairclough, Norman
    1994 “Conversationalization of public discourse and the authority of the consumer.” InThe Authority of the Consumer, edited by Russell Keat , Nigel Whiteley , and Nicholas Abercrombie , 235–241. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Flowerdew, John
    2012Critical Discourse Analysis in Historiography: The Case of Hong Kong’s Evolving Political Identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230336841
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230336841 [Google Scholar]
  9. Forchtner, Bernhard , and Christian Schneickert
    2016 “Collective learning in social fields: Bourdieu, Habermas and critical discourse studies.” Discourse and Society27 (3): 293–307. doi: 10.1177/0957926516630892
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516630892 [Google Scholar]
  10. Galasinska, Aleksandra , and Michał Krzyżanowski
    eds. 2009Discourse and Transformation in Central and Eastern Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230594296
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594296 [Google Scholar]
  11. Geiger, R. Stuart , and Ribes, David
    2011 “Trace Ethnography: Following Coordination through Documentary Practices.” InProceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, Koloa, Kauai, HI, 1–10. Retrieved fromwww.stuartgeiger.com/trace-ethnography-hicss-geiger-ribes.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Habermas, Jürgen
    1989The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Heer, Hannes , Walter Manoschek , Alexander Pollak , and Ruth Wodak
    2008The Discursive Construction of History: Remembering the Wehrmacht’s War of Annihilation. Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hornberger, Nancy H.
    2005 “Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education.” Modern Language Journal89 (4): 605–609.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hult, Francis M.
    2010 “Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and time.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language202: 7–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2015 “Making Policy Connections across Scales Using Nexus Analysis.” InResearch Methods in Language Policy and Planning, edited by Francis M. Hult , and David C. Johnson , 217–232. Maiden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Jenkins, Richard
    2007 “The meaning of policy/policy as meaning.” InPolicy Reconsidered: Meanings, Politics and Practices, edited by Susan M. Hodgson , and Zoe Irving , 21–36. Bristol: The Policy Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jessop, Bob
    2014 “Repoliticising depoliticisation: theoretical preliminaries on some responses to the American fiscal and Eurozone debt crises.” Policy and Politics42 (2): 207–223. doi: 10.1332/030557312X655864
    https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655864 [Google Scholar]
  19. Johnson, David C. , and Eric J. Johnson
    2015 “Power and agency in language policy appropriation.” Language Policy14 (3): 221–243. doi: 10.1007/s10993‑014‑9333‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-014-9333-z [Google Scholar]
  20. Johnson, David C.
    2011 “Critical discourse analysis and the ethnography of language policy.” Critical Discourse Studies8 (4): 267–279. doi: 10.1080/17405904.2011.601636
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2011.601636 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2013Language Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137316202
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137316202 [Google Scholar]
  22. Källkvist, Marie , and Francis M. Hult
    2016 “Discursive mechanisms and human agency in language policy formation: negotiating bilingualism and parallel language use at a Swedish university.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism19: 1–17. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2014.956044
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.956044 [Google Scholar]
  23. Koller, Veronika , and Peter Davidson
    2008 “Social exclusion as conceptual and grammatical metaphor: a cross-genre study of British policy-making.” Discourse and Society19 (3): 307–331. doi: 10.1177/0957926508088963
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088963 [Google Scholar]
  24. Krzyżanowski, Michał , and Ruth Wodak
    2011 “Political strategies and language policies: the European Union Lisbon strategy and its implications for the EU’s language and multilingualism policy.” Language Policy10 (2): 115–136. doi: 10.1007/s10993‑011‑9196‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-011-9196-5 [Google Scholar]
  25. Krzyżanowski, Michał
    2013 “Policy, policy communication and discursive shifts: Analyzing EU policy discourses on climate change.” InAnalysing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice, edited by Piotr Cap , and Urszula Okulska , 101–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.50.05krz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.05krz [Google Scholar]
  26. 2014 “Values, imaginaries and templates of journalistic practice: A critical discourse analysis.” Social Semiotics24: 345–365. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2014.930607
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2014.930607 [Google Scholar]
  27. Levinson, Bradley , Margaret Sutton , and Teresa Winstead
    2009 “Educational Policy as a Practice of Power: Theoretical Tool, Ethnographic Methods, Democratic Options.” Educational Policy23 (6): 767–795. doi: 10.1177/0895904808320676
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808320676 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lipsky, Michael
    2010Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (30th anniversary expanded edition). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hilgers, Mathieu , and Éric Mangez
    2014 “Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social fields.” InField Theory: Concepts and Applications, edited by Mathieu Hilgers , and Éric Mangez , 1–36. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Maton, Karl
    2005 “A question of autonomy: Bourdieu’s field approach and higher education policy.” Journal of Education Policy20 (6): 687–704. doi: 10.1080/02680930500238861
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500238861 [Google Scholar]
  31. Reisigl, Martin , and Ruth Wodak
    2015 “The discourse-historical approach.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Studies, edited by Ruth Wodak , and Michael Meyer , 23–61. London: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Savski, Kristof
    2016 “Analysing voice in language policy: plurality and conflict in Slovene government documents.” Language Policy15 (4): 505–524. doi: 10.1007/s10993‑015‑9388‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-015-9388-5 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2017 “Language policy at times of instability and struggle: The impact of fluctuating will and competing agendas on a Slovene language strategy.” Current Issues in Language Planning18 (3): 283–302. doi: 10.1080/14664208.2016.1265280
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2016.1265280 [Google Scholar]
  34. . In press. “Monolingualism and prescriptivism: the ecology of Slovene in the 20th Century.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Scollon, Ron , and Suzanne Scollon
    2004Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Scollon, Ron
    1998Mediated Discourse as Social Interaction: A Study of News Discourse. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2001aMediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203420065
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203420065 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2001b “Action and text: towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter)action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by Ruth Wodak , and Michael Meyer , 139–183. London: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2008Analyzing Public Discourse: Discourse Analysis in the Making of Public Policy. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Unger, Johann W.
    2013The Discursive Construction of the Scots Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.51
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.51 [Google Scholar]
  41. Van Leeuwen, Theo
    1993 “Genre and field in critical discourse analysis: a synopsis.” Discourse and Society4 (2): 193–223. doi: 10.1177/0957926593004002004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002004 [Google Scholar]
  42. Vaughan, Diane
    2004 “Theorizing disaster: Analogy, historical ethnography and the Challenger accident.” Ethnography5 (3): 315–347. doi: 10.1177/1466138104045659
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138104045659 [Google Scholar]
  43. Wodak, Ruth , and Michael Meyer
    2015 “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by Ruth Wodak , and Michael Meyer , 1–22. Los Angeles: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Wodak, Ruth
    2000 “From conflict to consensus? The co-construction of a policy paper.” InEuropean Union Discourses on Un/employment: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Employment, Policy-making and Organizational Change, edited by Peter Muntigl , Gilbert Weiss , and Ruth Wodak , 73–114. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dowi.12.05wod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dowi.12.05wod [Google Scholar]
  45. 2011The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230316539
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230316539 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2015The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: SAGE. doi: 10.4135/9781446270073
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446270073 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wodak, Ruth , Rudolf de Cillia , Martin Reisigl , and Karin Liebhart
    2009The Discursive Construction of National Identity (2nd edition). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): capital; field; language policy; parliamentary discourse
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error