1887
image of A corpus-driven exploration of U.S. language planning and language ideology from 2013 to 2018
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Language planning is influenced by ideological stances, and exports those ideologies through the policy making process. Residing beneath policy documents lies a language policy of the texts themselves, policing their structure and linguistic forms by which ideologies are managed. Thus, a careful collection of such documents should offer rich grounds for analysis, to leverage claims of ideology against empirically founded patterns, and offer rigorous comparison across actors, genres, and policy areas.

We conducted a corpus-driven exploration of all bills from Congressional sessions 113 to 115 (33,968 documents, 85,612,752 words), and describe the collocational character of U.S. language policy, the semantic preferences of those collocations, and discuss the exposed ideological structure of these bills. By utilizing such a large corpus, this study responds to two issues in corpus-aided language policy analysis: (1) a paucity of very large corpora analyses; (2) further utilizes corpus-driven methods to naively investigate ideologies in status planning.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.19108.dia
2020-06-16
2020-07-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ackermann, Kirsten, and Yu-Hua Chen
    2013 “Developing the Academic Collocation List (ACL) – A Corpus-Driven and Expert-Judged Approach.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes12: 235–47. 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  2. Agha, Asif
    2005 “Voice, Footing, Enregisterment.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology15 (1): 38–59. 10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.38
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.38 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anthony, L.
    2018AntConc (version 3.5.3). Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. www.laurenceanthony.net/software
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Paul
    2012 “Acceptable Bias? Using Corpus Linguistics Methods with Critical Discourse Analysis.” Critical Discourse Studies9 (3): 247–56. doi:  10.1080/17405904.2012.688297
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2012.688297 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid KhosraviNik, Michał Krzyżanowski, Tony McEnery, and Ruth Wodak
    2008 “A Useful Methodological Synergy? Combining Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics to Examine Discourses of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK Press.” Discourse & Society19 (3): 273–306. doi:  10.1177/0957926508088962
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baldauf, Richard B.
    2006 “Rearticulating the Case for Micro Language Planning in a Language Ecology Context.” Current Issues in Language Planning, 7 (2&3): 147–170. 10.2167/cilp092.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/cilp092.0 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bednarek, Monika, and Helen Caple
    2014 “Why Do News Values Matter? Towards a New Methodological Framework for Analysing News Discourse in Critical Discourse Analysis and Beyond.” Discourse & Society25 (2): 135–58. doi:  10.1177/0957926513516041
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926513516041 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Viviana Cortes
    2004 “If You Look at...: Lexical Bundles in University Teaching and Textbooks.” Applied Linguistics25 (3): 371–405. 10.1093/applin/25.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen
    1994 “Corpus-Based Approaches to Issues in Applied Linguistics.” Applied Linguistics15 (2): 169–89. doi:  10.1093/applin/15.2.169
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.2.169 [Google Scholar]
  10. Braley, Bruce L. H.R.946 – 111th Congress (2009–2010): Plain Writing Act of 2010
    2010.
  11. Cheng, Winnie, Chris Greaves, John M. Sinclair, and Martin Warren
    2009 “Uncovering the Extent of the Phraseological Tendency: Towards a Systematic Analysis of Concgrams.” Applied Linguistics30 (2): 236–52. doi:  10.1093/applin/amn039
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn039 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen-Eliya, Moshe, and Iddo Porat
    2011 “Proportionality and the Culture of Justification. The American Journal of Comparative Law59 (2): 463–490. 10.5131/AJCL.2010.0018
    https://doi.org/10.5131/AJCL.2010.0018 [Google Scholar]
  13. Curdt-Christiansen, Xiao Lan
    2016 “Conflicting Language Ideologies and Contradictory Language Practices in Singaporean Multilingual Families.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development37 (7): 694–709. 10.1080/01434632.2015.1127926
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1127926 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fairclough, Norman
    2001Language and Power. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2003Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203697078
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2013Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315834368
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fitzsimmons-Doolan, Shannon
    2014 “Using Lexical Variables to Identify Language Ideologies in a Policy Corpus.” Corpora9 (1): 57–82. doi:  10.3366/cor.2014.0051
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2014.0051 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gablasova, Dana, Vaclav Brezina, and Tony McEnery
    2017 “Collocations in Corpus-Based Language Learning Research: Identifying, Comparing, and Interpreting the Evidence.” Language Learning67 (S1): 155–79. doi:  10.1111/lang.12225
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12225 [Google Scholar]
  19. Holborow, Marnie
    2007 “Language, Ideology and Neoliberalism.” Journal of Language and Politics6 (1): 51–73. 10.1075/jlp.6.1.05hol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.6.1.05hol [Google Scholar]
  20. Hornberger, Nancy H.
    2006 “Frameworks and Models in Language Policy and Planning.” InAn Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, ed. byThomas Ricento, 24–41. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hutton, Chris
    2009Language, Meaning and the Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748633500.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748633500.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Irvine, Judith
    2012 “Language Ideology.” Anthropology. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/obo/9780199766567‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0012 [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson, David Cassels
    2009 “Ethnography of Language Policy.” Language Policy8 (2): 139–59. doi:  10.1007/s10993‑009‑9136‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-009-9136-9 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2013Language Policy. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137316202
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137316202 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jones, Peter E.
    2007 “Why There Is No Such Thing as ‘Critical Discourse Analysis.’” Language & Communication27: 337–68. 10.1016/j.langcom.2006.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2006.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kaplan, Robert B., and Richard B. Baldauf
    1997Language Planning from Practice to Theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kheirkhah, Mina, and Asta Cekaite
    2015 “Language Maintenance in a Multilingual Family: Informal Heritage Language Lessons in Parent–Child Interactions.” Multilingua34 (3): 319–46. 10.1515/multi‑2014‑1020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2014-1020 [Google Scholar]
  28. KhosraviNik, Majid
    2010 “The Representation of Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Immigrants in British Newspapers: A Critical Discourse Analysis.” Journal of Language and Politics9 (1): 1–28. 10.1075/jlp.9.1.01kho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.9.1.01kho [Google Scholar]
  29. Kochenov, Dimitry, and Fernand de Varennes
    2015 “Language and Law.” InResearch Methods in Language Policy and Planning: A Practical Guide, ed. byFrancis M. Hult and David Cassels Johnson, 56–66. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lippi-Green, Rosina
    2012English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United States. New York: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9780203348802
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203348802 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mautner, Gerlinde
    2007 “Checks and Balances: How Corpus Linguistics Can Contribute to CDA.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Studies, edited byRuth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 154–79. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. McKay, Sandra Lee
    1996Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. Cambridge: University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Menken, Kate
    2013 “Restrictive Language Education Policies and Emergent Bilingual Youth: A Perfect Storm with Imperfect Outcomes.” Theory Into Practice52 (3): 160–168. 10.1080/00405841.2013.804307
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.804307 [Google Scholar]
  34. Millar, Jeff
    2013 “An Interdiscursive Analysis of Language and Immigrant Integration Policy Discourse in Canada.” Critical Discourse Studies10 (1): 18–31. doi:  10.1080/17405904.2012.736696
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2012.736696 [Google Scholar]
  35. Niemi-Kiesiläinen, Johanna, Päivi Honkatukia, and Minna Ruuskanen
    2007 “Legal Texts as Discourses.” InExploiting the Limits of Law: Swedish Feminism and the Challenge to Pessimism, ed. byÅsa Gunnarsson, Eva-Maria Svensson, and Margaret Davies, 69–87. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Partington, Alan
    2004 “Utterly Content in Each Other’s Company.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics9 (1): 131–56. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.07par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.07par [Google Scholar]
  37. Ricento, Thomas
    2000 “Historical and Theoretical Perspectives in Language Policy and Planning.” Journal of Sociolinguistics4 (2): 196–213. 10.1111/1467‑9481.00111
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00111 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2006An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ricento, Thomas, and Nancy Hornberger
    1996 “Unpeeling the Onion: Language Planning and Policy and the ELT Professional.” TESOL Quarterly30 (3), 401–427. doi:  10.2307/3587691
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587691 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ricento, Thomas, and Wayne E. Wright
    2008 “Language Policy and Education in the United States.” InEncyclopedia of Language and Education, ed. byNancy H. Hornberger. Springer, Boston, MA. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑30424‑3_21
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_21 [Google Scholar]
  41. Shohamy, Elana G.
    2006Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203387962
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203387962 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2008 “Language Policy and Language Assessment: The Relationship.” Current Issues in Language Planning9 (3): 363–73. 10.1080/14664200802139604
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200802139604 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2010 “Cases of Language Policy Resistance in Israel’s Centralized Educational System.” InNegotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policymakers, ed. byKate Menken, and Ofelia García, 182–97. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Spolsky, Bernard
    2004Language Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Spolsky, Bernard, and Elana G. Shohamy
    2000 “Language Practice, Language Ideology, and Language Policy.” Language Policy and Pedagogy: Essays in Honour of A. Ronald Walton, 1–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Stubbs, Michael
    1995 “Collocations and Semantic Profiles: On the Cause of the Trouble with Quantitative Studies.” Functions of Language2 (1): 23–55. 10.1075/fol.2.1.03stu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.2.1.03stu [Google Scholar]
  47. Subtirelu, Nicholas Close
    2013 “‘English... It’s Part of Our Blood’: Ideologies of Language and Nation in United States Congressional Discourse.” Journal of Sociolinguistics17 (1): 37–65. doi:  10.1111/josl.12016
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12016 [Google Scholar]
  48. Thomas, Wayne, and Virginia Collier
    2002A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students’ Long Term Academic Achievement: Final Report: Project 1.1Berkeley, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence (CREDE).
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Tollefson, James
    2006 “Critical Theory in Language Policy.” InAn Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, ed. byThomas Ricento, 42–59. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. van Dijk, Teun
    1998Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. van Splunder, Frank
    2016 “Language Ideologies Regarding English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education: Insights from Flanders and Finland.” InDiscursive Approaches to Language Policy, ed. byElisabeth Barakos, and Johann W. Unger, 205–230. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑53134‑6_9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53134-6_9 [Google Scholar]
  52. Widdowson, Henry G.
    1998 “The Theory and Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Applied Linguistics19 (1): 136–151. 10.1093/applin/19.1.136
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.136 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wiley, Terrence G., and Ofelia Garcia
    2016 “Language Policy and Planning in Language Education: Legacies, Consequences, and Possibilities.” The Modern Language Journal100 (S1): 48–63. 10.1111/modl.12303
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12303 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wodak, Ruth
    2011 “Complex Texts: Analysing Understanding, Explaining and Interpreting Meanings.” Discourse Studies13 (5): 623–33. www.jstor.org/stable/24049953
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2017 “The ‘Establishment’, the ‘Elites’, and the ‘People’: Who’s Who?” Journal of Language and Politics16 (4): 551–65. 10.1075/jlp.17030.wod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17030.wod [Google Scholar]
  56. Wodak, Ruth, and Salomi Boukala
    2015 “(Supra)National Identity and Language: Rethinking National and European Migration Policies and the Linguistic Integration of Migrants.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics35: 253–273. 10.1017/S0267190514000294
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000294 [Google Scholar]
  57. Woolard, Katheryn A., and Bambi B. Schieffelin
    1994 “Language Ideology.” Annual Review of Anthropology23 (1): 55–82. 10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415 [Google Scholar]
  58. Xiao, Richard, and Tony McEnery
    2006 “Collocation, Semantic Prosody, and near Synonymy: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” Applied Linguistics27 (1): 103–29. 10.1093/applin/ami045
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami045 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.19108.dia
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.19108.dia
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: language ideology; legal text; corpus linguistics; language policy and planning
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