Revisiting Theory and Method in Language Ideology Research

It is now some decades since the study of “linguistic ideology” was first proposed (Silverstein 1979), and time ripe for taking stock. This article considers developments in this field as it has emerged and, respects, become normalized. Yet, normalized can mean backgrounded, taken granted—perhaps obscuring important theoretical issues methodological challenges. I revisit what entailed by “ideology”; debate between explicit implicit sources evidence (and why binary itself problematic); ideological multiplicity dominance; questions such as: Must ideology be internally consistent? Why turn to semiotics, should “language then re-labeled “semiotic ideology”? Are ideologies big programs, distinct from local metapragmatic activity? address these while making recommendations about research sites, contrasts boundaries, attention flows connections, a “centerpiece” method tracing work. An extended example concerning sociolinguistic variation Maryland illustrates discussion.