<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Introduction: Language ideologies-again? New insights from a flourishing field

Naomi Truan, Esther Jahns

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Naomi Truan, Esther Jahns. Introduction: Language ideologies-again? New insights from a flourishing field. European Journal of Applied Linguistics., 2024, 10.1515/eujal-2024-0021. hal-04571779

HAL Id: hal-04571779

https://hal.science/hal-04571779

Submitted on 8 May 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Introduction: Language ideologies-again? New insights from a flourishing field

Naomi Truan, Esther Jahns

► To cite this version:

Naomi Truan, Esther Jahns. Introduction: Language ideologies-again? New insights from a flourishing field. European Journal of Applied Linguistics., 2024, 10.1515/eujal-2024-0021. hal-04571779

HAL Id: hal-04571779

https://hal.science/hal-04571779v1

Submitted on 8 May 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Naomi Truan* and Esther Jahns

# Introduction: Language ideologies—again? New insights from a flourishing field

https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2024-0021

**Abstract:** Originally defined as “any sets of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use” (Silverstein 1979: 193), language ideologies now seem to be “everywhere” (Cava-naugh 2019). Indeed, while language ideological research has moved “from a mar-ginalized topic to an issue of central concern” (Kroskrity 2004: 501), and despite the abundance and regularity of new scholarly work, both theoretically and methodo-logically, language ideologies are still not very well framed. The Special Issue on ‘Language Ideologies: Old Questions, New Perspectives’ aims at offering diverse in-sights on language ideologies with a focus on methodological and theoretical ques-tions. In this introduction in particular, we briefly map out the field by focusing on what distinguishes language ideologies from other close phenomena such as lan-guage attitudes. We also describe the methods used to access language ideologies. Finally, we introduce the ten papers that constitute this Special Issue.

**Keywords:** language ideologies, language attitudes, reflexivity, critical sociolinguis-tics

**Abstract:** Ursprünglich definiert als „jede Art von Glaubenssätzen über Sprache, die von Sprecher*innen als Begründung oder Rechtfertigung der wahrgenommenen Sprachstruktur und des Sprachgebrauchs geäußert werden“ (Silverstein 1979: 193, unsere Übersetzung), scheinen Sprachideologien heute „überall“ zu sein (Cava-naugh 2019). Obwohl sich die sprachideologische Forschung „von einem marginalen zu einem zentralen Thema“ (Kroskrity 2004: 501, unsere Übersetzung) entwickelt hat und trotz der Vielfalt und des zahlreichen Erscheinens neuer wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten, sind Sprachideologien sowohl theoretisch als auch methodisch immer noch nicht gut eingeordnet. Die Sonderausgabe zum Thema „Sprachideologien: Alte Fragen, neue Perspektiven“ soll verschiedene Einblicke in Sprachideologien bieten, wobei der Schwerpunkt auf methodologischen und theoretischen Fragen liegt. In

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<footnote>*Corresponding author: Dr. Naomi Truan, Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, 2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands, E-Mail: n.a.l.truan@hum.leidenuniv.nl</footnote>

<footnote>Dr. Esther Jahns, Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg, Institut für Germanistik, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany, E-Mail: esther.jahns@uni-oldenburg.de</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Naomi Truan* and Esther Jahns

# Introduction: Language ideologies—again? New insights from a flourishing field

https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2024-0021

**Abstract:** Originally defined as “any sets of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use” (Silverstein 1979: 193), language ideologies now seem to be “everywhere” (Cavanaugh 2019). Indeed, while language ideological research has moved “from a marginalized topic to an issue of central concern” (Kroskrity 2004: 501), and despite the abundance and regularity of new scholarly work, both theoretically and methodologically, language ideologies are still not very well framed. The Special Issue on ‘Language Ideologies: Old Questions, New Perspectives’ aims at offering diverse insights on language ideologies with a focus on methodological and theoretical questions. In this introduction in particular, we briefly map out the field by focusing on what distinguishes language ideologies from other close phenomena such as language attitudes. We also describe the methods used to access language ideologies. Finally, we introduce the ten papers that constitute this Special Issue.

**Keywords:** language ideologies, language attitudes, reflexivity, critical sociolinguistics

**Abstract:** Ursprünglich definiert als „jede Art von Glaubenssätzen über Sprache, die von Sprecher*innen als Begründung oder Rechtfertigung der wahrgenommenen Sprachstruktur und des Sprachgebrauchs geäußert werden“ (Silverstein 1979: 193, unsere Übersetzung), scheinen Sprachideologien heute „überall“ zu sein (Cavanaugh 2019). Obwohl sich die sprachideologische Forschung „von einem marginalen zu einem zentralen Thema“ (Kroskrity 2004: 501, unsere Übersetzung) entwickelt hat und trotz der Vielfalt und des zahlreichen Erscheinens neuer wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten, sind Sprachideologien sowohl theoretisch als auch methodisch immer noch nicht gut eingeordnet. Die Sonderausgabe zum Thema „Sprachideologien: Alte Fragen, neue Perspektiven“ soll verschiedene Einblicke in Sprachideologien bieten, wobei der Schwerpunkt auf methodologischen und theoretischen Fragen liegt. In

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<footnote>*Corresponding author: Dr. Naomi Truan, Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, 2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands, E-Mail: n.a.l.truan@hum.leidenuniv.nl</footnote>

<footnote>Dr. Esther Jahns, Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg, Institut für Germanistik, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany, E-Mail: esther.jahns@uni-oldenburg.de</footnote>
dieser Einleitung geben wir einen kurzen Überblick über das Feld, indem wir uns darauf konzentrieren, was Sprachideologien von anderen ähnlichen Phänomenen wie Spracheinstellungen unterscheidet. Wir beschreiben auch die Methoden, die für den Zugang zu Sprachideologien verwendet werden. Schließlich stellen wir die zehn Beiträge vor, aus denen dieses Sonderheft besteht.

**Schlüsselwörter:** Sprachideologien, Spracheinstellungen, Reflexivität, kritische Soziolinguistik

**Resumen:** Originalmente definidas como "cualquier conjunto de creencias sobre la lengua articuladas por los usuarios como racionalización o justificación de la estructura y el uso percibidos del lenguaje" (Silverstein 1979: 193), las ideologías lingüísticas parecen estar ahora "en todas partes" (Cavanaugh 2019). De hecho, mientras que la investigación ideológica del lenguaje ha pasado de ser "un tema marginado a una cuestión de interés central" (Kroskrity 2004: 501), y a pesar de la abundancia y regularidad de nuevos trabajos académicos, tanto teórica como metodológicamente, las ideologías del lenguaje todavía no están muy bien enmarcadas. El número especial sobre "Ideologías lingüísticas: Viejas preguntas, nuevas perspectivas" pretende ofrecer diversas perspectivas sobre las ideologías lingüísticas centrándose en cuestiones metodológicas y teóricas. En esta introducción, en concreto, configuramos brevemente el campo centrándonos en lo que distingue a las ideologías lingüísticas de otros fenómenos cercanos, como las actitudes lingüísticas. También describimos los métodos utilizados para acceder a las ideologías lingüísticas. Por último, presentamos los diez artículos que constituyen este número especial.

**Palabras clave:** ideologías lingüísticas, actitudes lingüísticas, reflexividad, sociolinguística crítica

**Résumé:** Définies à l'origine comme « tout ensemble de croyances sur la langue articulées par les utilisateurs et utilisatrices comme une rationalisation ou une justification de la structure et de l'utilisation perçues de la langue » (Silverstein 1979 : 193, notre traduction), les idéologies linguistiques semblent maintenant « partout » (Cavanaugh 2019). En effet, alors que la recherche sur les idéologies linguistiques est passée « d'un sujet marginalisé à une question de préoccupation centrale » (Kroskrity 2004 : 501, notre traduction), et malgré l'abondance et la régularité des nouveaux travaux universitaires, tant sur le plan théorique que méthodologique, les idéologies langagières ne sont toujours pas très bien encadrées. Le numéro spécial « Idéologies linguistiques : Vieilles questions, nouvelles perspectives » vise à offrir des perspectives diverses sur les idéologies linguistiques en mettant l'accent sur les questions méthodologiques et théoriques. Dans cette introduction en particulier, nous dressons une brève carte du domaine en nous concentrant sur ce qui distingue les
dieser Einleitung geben wir einen kurzen Überblick über das Feld, indem wir uns darauf konzentrieren, was Sprachideologien von anderen ähnlichen Phänomenen wie Spracheinstellungen unterscheidet. Wir beschreiben auch die Methoden, die für den Zugang zu Sprachideologien verwendet werden. Schließlich stellen wir die zehn Beiträge vor, aus denen dieses Sonderheft besteht.

**Schlüsselwörter:** Sprachideologien, Spracheinstellungen, Reflexivität, kritische Soziolinguistik

**Resumen:** Originalmente definidas como "cualquier conjunto de creencias sobre la lengua articuladas por los usuarios como racionalización o justificación de la estructura y el uso percibidos del lenguaje" (Silverstein 1979: 193), las ideologías lingüísticas parecen estar ahora "en todas partes" (Cavanaugh 2019). De hecho, mientras que la investigación ideológica del lenguaje ha pasado de ser "un tema marginado a una cuestión de interés central" (Kroskrity 2004: 501), y a pesar de la abundancia y regularidad de nuevos trabajos académicos, tanto teórica como metodológicamente, las ideologías del lenguaje todavía no están muy bien enmarcadas. El número especial sobre "Ideologías lingüísticas: Viejas preguntas, nuevas perspectivas" pretende ofrecer diversas perspectivas sobre las ideologías lingüísticas centrándose en cuestiones metodológicas y teóricas. En esta introducción, en concreto, configuramos brevemente el campo centrándonos en lo que distingue a las ideologías lingüísticas de otros fenómenos cercanos, como las actitudes lingüísticas. También describimos los métodos utilizados para acceder a las ideologías lingüísticas. Por último, presentamos los diez artículos que constituyen este número especial.

**Palabras clave:** ideologías lingüísticas, actitudes lingüísticas, reflexividad, sociolinguística crítica

**Résumé:** Définies à l'origine comme « tout ensemble de croyances sur la langue articulées par les utilisateurs et utilisatrices comme une rationalisation ou une justification de la structure et de l'utilisation perçues de la langue » (Silverstein 1979 : 193, notre traduction), les idéologies linguistiques semblent maintenant « partout » (Cavanaugh 2019). En effet, alors que la recherche sur les idéologies linguistiques est passée « d'un sujet marginalisé à une question de préoccupation centrale » (Kroskrity 2004 : 501, notre traduction), et malgré l'abondance et la régularité des nouveaux travaux universitaires, tant sur le plan théorique que méthodologique, les idéologies langagières ne sont toujours pas très bien encadrées. Le numéro spécial « Idéologies linguistiques : Vieilles questions, nouvelles perspectives » vise à offrir des perspectives diverses sur les idéologies linguistiques en mettant l'accent sur les questions méthodologiques et théoriques. Dans cette introduction en particulier, nous dressons une brève carte du domaine en nous concentrant sur ce qui distingue les
idéologies linguistiques d'autres phénomènes proches tels que les attitudes à l'égard des langues. Nous décrivons également les méthodes utilisées pour accéder aux idéologies linguistiques. Enfin, nous présentons les dix articles qui constituent ce numéro spécial.

**Mots-clés:** idéologies langagières, attitudes langagières, réflexivité, sociolinguistique critique

# 1 Mapping out the field: Language ideologies—everywhere?

While it may now seem that we see them “everywhere” (Cavanaugh 2019), language ideologies have originally belonged to the edges of linguistic inquiry. Long overlooked and possibly deemed irrelevant compared to ‘proper’ objects of linguistics such as language structure and language use, it is only with and thanks to linguistic anthropology that language ideologies have finally become an object of attention. Taking the risk of being repetitive after so much scholarly work drawing on the same famous definition, we still believe that the original citation is worth being read one more time:

> ideologies about language, or linguistic ideologies, are any sets of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use (Silverstein 1979: 193)

In our view, a key aspect of early language ideological work is the emphasis on the “total linguistic fact” (Silverstein 1985: 220)—the idea that language ideologies are not only something that happens ‘next to’ language structure and use, but is deeply ingrained in them, thus making the binary opposition between what would belong to the realm of ‘language’ vs ‘the social world’ sterile.

Twenty-five years after Silverstein's definition, Kroskrity observes that the research field has moved “from a marginalized topic to an issue of central concern” (2004: 501). Language ideological research has indeed become a burgeoning field. With the welcome opening to sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, and metapragmatics, this sustained interest leads to a diversification of approaches, thus contributing to a broader picture. When research fields become an object of investigation for various, partially disconnected (sub)disciplines, however, this also brings challenges such as a proliferation of concepts and approaches—a phenomenon that one of the authors of our Special Issue, Martin Stegu, tackles in his paper.

So the question we may ask twenty years after Kroskrity—and forty-five after Silverstein—is, are there still (new) things to say about language ideologies? Have
idéologies linguistiques d'autres phénomènes proches tels que les attitudes à l'égard des langues. Nous décrivons également les méthodes utilisées pour accéder aux idéologies linguistiques. Enfin, nous présentons les dix articles qui constituent ce numéro spécial.

**Mots-clés:** idéologies langagières, attitudes langagières, réflexivité, sociolinguistique critique

# 1 Mapping out the field: Language ideologies—everywhere?

While it may now seem that we see them “everywhere” (Cavanaugh 2019), language ideologies have originally belonged to the edges of linguistic inquiry. Long overlooked and possibly deemed irrelevant compared to ‘proper’ objects of linguistics such as language structure and language use, it is only with and thanks to linguistic anthropology that language ideologies have finally become an object of attention. Taking the risk of being repetitive after so much scholarly work drawing on the same famous definition, we still believe that the original citation is worth being read one more time:

> ideologies about language, or linguistic ideologies, are any sets of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use (Silverstein 1979: 193)

In our view, a key aspect of early language ideological work is the emphasis on the “total linguistic fact” (Silverstein 1985: 220)—the idea that language ideologies are not only something that happens ‘next to’ language structure and use, but is deeply ingrained in them, thus making the binary opposition between what would belong to the realm of ‘language’ vs ‘the social world’ sterile.

Twenty-five years after Silverstein’s definition, Kroskrity observes that the research field has moved “from a marginalized topic to an issue of central concern” (2004: 501). Language ideological research has indeed become a burgeoning field. With the welcome opening to sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, and metapragmatics, this sustained interest leads to a diversification of approaches, thus contributing to a broader picture. When research fields become an object of investigation for various, partially disconnected (sub)disciplines, however, this also brings challenges such as a proliferation of concepts and approaches—a phenomenon that one of the authors of our Special Issue, Martin Stegu, tackles in his paper.

So the question we may ask twenty years after Kroskrity—and forty-five after Silverstein—is, are there still (new) things to say about language ideologies? Have
we not covered the field already, now that it has become more established? We argue that quite the contrary: As language ideologies have become so popular, they may also have lost of their substance, as Cavanaugh (2019) critically observes:

> If language ideologies were everywhere, what was the value of mapping their particular con-
tours within specific communities, which required the difficult methodological and analytical
work of aligning micro-details of everyday linguistic practice as found in transcripts, for in-
stance, with political movements, national and colonial histories of inequality, or economic
structures?

Together with Cavanaugh (2019) who invites us to not lose sight of what is at the core of language ideologies, namely power, we take the danger of language ideological research losing ground as a starting point for a renewed analysis of not only what language ideologies do to people but how, we, as linguists, navigate and perpetuate them as well.

We thus take this Special Issue as an opportunity to conceptualize language
ideologies in transition, and to relate this to both the research object and the re-
search field as a whole, which, as you will see in the epilogue, Jürgen Spitzmüller
offers to metaphorically conceptualize as a church devoted to various practices. The
reason why we launched a call for papers for the 20th AILA World Congress in Lyon
(2023) is indeed the diffuse feeling that despite—or maybe because of—the abun-
dance and regularity of new scholarly work, language ideological research can still
benefit from a methodological and theoretical sharpening.

This Special Issue aims to tackle some of these questions and to give new per-
spectives on how language ideologies can be researched, and which topics belong to
this field. The three following questions are guiding our reflection:

1. What are language ideologies (in contrast to...)?

2. How can they be investigated?

3. Why should they (still) be investigated?

In the remaining pages of this introduction, we will attempt at sketching a few chal-
lenges, with the hope that the papers collected in this Special Issue of the *European
Journal of Applied Linguistics* will provide at least partial answers to these burning
questions. Specifically, we will address two contentious points: the distinction be-
tween language ideologies and language attitudes, and the shift from quantitative to
qualitative methods and back in the research on language attitudes and ideologies.
we not covered the field already, now that it has become more established? We argue that quite the contrary: As language ideologies have become so popular, they may also have lost of their substance, as Cavanaugh (2019) critically observes:

> If language ideologies were everywhere, what was the value of mapping their particular con-
tours within specific communities, which required the difficult methodological and analytical
work of aligning micro-details of everyday linguistic practice as found in transcripts, for in-
stance, with political movements, national and colonial histories of inequality, or economic
structures?

Together with Cavanaugh (2019) who invites us to not lose sight of what is at the core of language ideologies, namely power, we take the danger of language ideological research losing ground as a starting point for a renewed analysis of not only what language ideologies do to people but how, we, as linguists, navigate and perpetuate them as well.

We thus take this Special Issue as an opportunity to conceptualize language
ideologies in transition, and to relate this to both the research object and the re-
search field as a whole, which, as you will see in the epilogue, Jürgen Spitzmüller
offers to metaphorically conceptualize as a church devoted to various practices. The
reason why we launched a call for papers for the 20th AILA World Congress in Lyon
(2023) is indeed the diffuse feeling that despite—or maybe because of—the abun-
dance and regularity of new scholarly work, language ideological research can still
benefit from a methodological and theoretical sharpening.

This Special Issue aims to tackle some of these questions and to give new per-
spectives on how language ideologies can be researched, and which topics belong to
this field. The three following questions are guiding our reflection:

1. What are language ideologies (in contrast to...)?

2. How can they be investigated?

3. Why should they (still) be investigated?

In the remaining pages of this introduction, we will attempt at sketching a few chal-
lenges, with the hope that the papers collected in this Special Issue of the *European
Journal of Applied Linguistics* will provide at least partial answers to these burning
questions. Specifically, we will address two contentious points: the distinction be-
tween language ideologies and language attitudes, and the shift from quantitative to
qualitative methods and back in the research on language attitudes and ideologies.
## 2 Language ideologies vs/and/or language attitudes?

Albeit being a relatively new field, language ideological research has given rise to regular terminological debates, the main one being centered around the distinction between *language attitudes* and *language ideologies* (Kircher & Zipp 2022: 7), and this, despite numerous publications where both terms appear together in the title (Young 2014; Morek 2018). Both *language attitudes* and *language ideologies* share a common interest in how lay representations of language(s)—“folk realms” (Blommaert 2006: 511)—are articulated. Both also recognize that these views on language(s) permeate our social world, without us necessarily being aware of it (Garrett 2010: 1).

Very roughly, language attitudes are “psychological constructs” (Garrett 2010: 20) that relate to affect (Thurstone 1931), but also to thought and behavior (Allport 1954). A common definition is that language attitudes are “predispositions to respond to (speakers of) specific languages/speech styles and language situations with a certain type of (language) behaviour” (Vandermeeren 2006: 1319). Language ideologies, which may comprise *media ideologies* (Gershon 2010), and are sometimes referred to as *ideologies of communication* (Spitzmüller 2022: 209), (reflexively) carry an ideological load with them, one that lets us see them as “positioned and partial visions of the world” (Gal & Irvine 2019: 2). What makes *ideologies* (at least) terminologically distinct from *attitudes* is “the connection with power, politics, interest, and social action” (Gal & Irvine 2019: 13). Further, ideologies entail the potential for “an alternative” (Gal & Irvine 2019: 13); they co-exist next to other ideologies with the recognition that ideologies function in comparison to one another.

From these definitions, we may be tempted to roughly locate attitudes within behaviors, while ideologies would be somehow ‘floating’ around—a very problematic vision, as ideologies “penetrat[e] ordinary practices and actions” (Gal & Irvine 2019: 13). A possible solution is then to suggest that language attitudes and ideologies may differ regarding their primary level of analysis. Attitudes may have sometimes be seen as mostly concerned with individuals, while ideologies would rather pertain to social groups. In other words, we can have (or express) language attitudes on our own, but we share ideologies within a social group. But this may be a too simple picture, as “the investigation of attitudes [also occurs] at the level of social groups, rather than the level of the individual case in, say, interactive sequences of talk” (Garrett 2006: 1251).

As Garrett (2006) points out, attitudes are thus also examined at the level of the social group, but it is possible to investigate (only) the attitude of an individual toward a specific linguistic phenomenon. By generalizing, it may then become possible, from the study of these attitudes, to access the underlying ideologies in a given
## 2 Language ideologies vs/and/or language attitudes?

Albeit being a relatively new field, language ideological research has given rise to regular terminological debates, the main one being centered around the distinction between *language attitudes* and *language ideologies* (Kircher & Zipp 2022: 7), and this, despite numerous publications where both terms appear together in the title (Young 2014; Morek 2018). Both *language attitudes* and *language ideologies* share a common interest in how lay representations of language(s)—“folk realms” (Blommaert 2006: 511)—are articulated. Both also recognize that these views on language(s) permeate our social world, without us necessarily being aware of it (Garrett 2010: 1).

Very roughly, language attitudes are “psychological constructs” (Garrett 2010: 20) that relate to affect (Thurstone 1931), but also to thought and behavior (Allport 1954). A common definition is that language attitudes are “predispositions to respond to (speakers of) specific languages/speech styles and language situations with a certain type of (language) behaviour” (Vandermeeren 2006: 1319). Language ideologies, which may comprise *media ideologies* (Gershon 2010), and are sometimes referred to as *ideologies of communication* (Spitzmüller 2022: 209), (reflexively) carry an ideological load with them, one that lets us see them as “positioned and partial visions of the world” (Gal & Irvine 2019: 2). What makes *ideologies* (at least) terminologically distinct from *attitudes* is “the connection with power, politics, interest, and social action” (Gal & Irvine 2019: 13). Further, ideologies entail the potential for “an alternative” (Gal & Irvine 2019: 13); they co-exist next to other ideologies with the recognition that ideologies function in comparison to one another.

From these definitions, we may be tempted to roughly locate attitudes within behaviors, while ideologies would be somehow ‘floating’ around—a very problematic vision, as ideologies “penetrat[e] ordinary practices and actions” (Gal & Irvine 2019: 13). A possible solution is then to suggest that language attitudes and ideologies may differ regarding their primary level of analysis. Attitudes may have sometimes be seen as mostly concerned with individuals, while ideologies would rather pertain to social groups. In other words, we can have (or express) language attitudes on our own, but we share ideologies within a social group. But this may be a too simple picture, as “the investigation of attitudes [also occurs] at the level of social groups, rather than the level of the individual case in, say, interactive sequences of talk” (Garrett 2006: 1251).

As Garrett (2006) points out, attitudes are thus also examined at the level of the social group, but it is possible to investigate (only) the attitude of an individual toward a specific linguistic phenomenon. By generalizing, it may then become possible, from the study of these attitudes, to access the underlying ideologies in a given
community. Even when linguists propose to refocus on the discursive materiality of language attitudes/ideologies, for instance through *expressions of language attitudes* (Spracheinstellungsäußerungen) (Tophinke & Ziegler 2006) (also see Ziegler and Angenendt, this Special Issue), they do not mean that because they happen at the interactional level (which would be the level of attitudes), the investigated phenomena would be disconnected from broader mechanisms of exclusion and power (Cavanaugh 2020) (that characterize ideologies).

Sociolinguists are interested in the intersection between micro and macro levels, while also recognizing the need to go “beyond the binarism” (Spitzmüller 2022). In this sense, attitudes and ideologies may be regarded as closely interwoven levels of analysis—or scales, to speak with Blommaert (2007). In the introduction to the recent Special Issue on “Language Ideologies and Social Positioning: Structures, Scales, and Practices”, Spitzmüller, Busch, and Flubacher (2021) precisely argue that focusing on a micro/macro distinction is not helpful, as these do not emerge “as readymade platforms for social practice, as if social life simply unfolded in more or less intimate, proximate, local, grounded or contained situations” (Carr & Lempert 2016: 8). Going further, these oppositions and maybe the scales themselves may be better understood as “ideological constructs” (Truan & Oldani 2021: 5). The micro and macro levels then serve as analytical tools we, researchers, may need to (re)create to see how institutions, nations, and “Big D Discourse”<fnref n="1" /> (Gee 2015) become entangled in interactions seemingly not directly connected to the machinery of power.

As expanding on these terminological matters would go beyond the scope of our introduction, we would like to propose that the ideological differentiation between *language ideologies* and *language attitudes* may be more the expression of different scholarly traditions (see Stegu, this Special Issue) rather than purely distinct units or levels of analysis. A renewed emphasis on issues of power in language ideological research is indeed one of the reasons why we feel drawn to *language ideologies* (Truan accepted), which, in our view, enables us to go beyond “speakers’ views of language”:

> But seeing language ideologies as simply speakers’ views of language evacuates the concept of its explanatory power to understand beliefs as part of how systems of power are organized. (Cavanaugh 2020: 55)

Precisely when we understand language ideologies as discourses on language that “mediat[e] between the social practice of language and the socioeconomic and poli-

<footnote n="1">1 Coming from a discourse tradition, “Big D Discourse” refers to “the ways in which people enact and recognize socially and historically significant identities”, a larger context in which the “little d- discourse”, (everyday) language in use, takes place (Gee 2015).</footnote>
community. Even when linguists propose to refocus on the discursive materiality of language attitudes/ideologies, for instance through “*expressions of language attitudes*” (*Spracheinstellungsäußerungen*) (Tophinke & Ziegler 2006) (also see Ziegler and Angenendt, this Special Issue), they do not mean that because they happen at the interactional level (which would be the level of attitudes), the investigated phenomena would be disconnected from broader mechanisms of exclusion and power (Cavanaugh 2020) (that characterize ideologies).

Sociolinguists are interested in the intersection between micro and macro levels, while also recognizing the need to go “beyond the binarism” (Spitzmüller 2022). In this sense, attitudes and ideologies may be regarded as closely interwoven levels of analysis—or scales, to speak with Blommaert (2007). In the introduction to the recent Special Issue on “Language Ideologies and Social Positioning: Structures, Scales, and Practices”, Spitzmüller, Busch, and Flubacher (2021) precisely argue that focusing on a micro/macro distinction is not helpful, as these do not emerge “as readymade platforms for social practice, as if social life simply unfolded in more or less intimate, proximate, local, grounded or contained situations” (Carr & Lempert 2016: 8). Going further, these oppositions and maybe the scales themselves may be better understood as “ideological constructs” (Truan & Oldani 2021: 5). The micro and macro levels then serve as analytical tools we, researchers, may need to (re)create to see how institutions, nations, and “Big D Discourse”<fnref n="1" /> (Gee 2015) become entangled in interactions seemingly not directly connected to the machinery of power.

As expanding on these terminological matters would go beyond the scope of our introduction, we would like to propose that the ideological differentiation between *language ideologies* and *language attitudes* may be more the expression of different scholarly traditions (see Stegu, this Special Issue) rather than purely distinct units or levels of analysis. A renewed emphasis on issues of power in language ideological research is indeed one of the reasons why we feel drawn to *language ideologies* (Truan accepted), which, in our view, enables us to go beyond “speakers’ views of language”:

> But seeing language ideologies as simply speakers’ views of language evacuates the concept of its explanatory power to understand beliefs as part of how systems of power are organized. (Cavanaugh 2020: 55)

Precisely when we understand language ideologies as discourses on language that “mediat[e] between the social practice of language and the socioeconomic and poli-

<footnote n="1">1 Coming from a discourse tradition, “Big D Discourse” refers to “the ways in which people enact and recognize socially and historically significant identities”, a larger context in which the “little d- discourse”, (everyday) language in use, takes place (Gee 2015).</footnote>
tical structures within which it occurs” (Cavanaugh 2020: 52), we become able, in
our view, to locate language ideologies precisely at the intersection between see-
mingly ‘nonpolitical’ practices and the racist, sexist, classist, ableist hegemonic “sys-
tems of power” (Cavanaugh 2020: 55) we, as sociolinguists and applied linguists,
want to help dismantle.

3 Research methods: Going beyond the binarism

The binarism of language attitudes and language ideologies as two approaches involved with the evaluation of language, varieties, and speech patterns is also reflected in the binarism concerning methods. As the research on language attitudes developed out of social psychology (Bell 2014: 255), its methods have been so far mostly restricted to quantitative ones, with Lambert’s famous ‘matched-guise-tests’ as the most prominent tool, and questionnaires asking for rating speakers according to categories like competence, attractiveness, solidarity etc. as the preferred method (Lambert 1967; Preston 2013). Language ideologies, in contrast, are mainly researched through qualitative methods with a focus on interviews (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain 2009; König 2014; Truan & Oldani 2021), which may be explained by their origins in “ethnographically oriented studies of language use” and linguistic anthropology (Goodwin & Duranti 1992: 1).

However, the development of languages ideologies “from a marginalized topic to an issue of central concern” (Kroskrity 2004: 501) entailed also the extension of methods, both within the field of qualitative methods, but also beyond its boundaries. The integration of methodologies, also known as mixed methods (Dörnyei 2007; Soukup 2015; Kircher & Hawkey 2022), is considered appropriate to account for the similarities concerning research interests and topics of the different fields interested in the evaluation of languages, varieties, and their speakers.

In order to tackle the ideologies that are implicitly embedded in discourse or explicitly uttered, quantitative studies make use of questionnaires (Duchêne, Humbert & Coray 2018; Vogl 2018) or corpora (Vessey 2017). Qualitative investigations have extended their methods to language biographies (Busch 2016), allowing for a speaker-centered approach (Erdoğan-Öztürk, this Special Issue) and thus including affect and emotion into the analysis, but also to frame analysis (Tark, this Special Issue), specific types of interviews like playback interviews (Grosser, this Special Issue), or the linguistic positioning task (Jahns in press).

The latter is a qualitative method developed to reveal language ideologies through interviews including a task on linguistic choices that was inspired by Perceptual Dialectology, a subfield of Folk linguistics. Even though Perceptual Dialectology has its origins in variationist sociolinguistics and therefore combines mainly
tical structures within which it occurs” (Cavanaugh 2020: 52), we become able, in
our view, to locate language ideologies precisely at the intersection between see-
mingly ‘nonpolitical’ practices and the racist, sexist, classist, ableist hegemonic “sys-
tems of power” (Cavanaugh 2020: 55) we, as sociolinguists and applied linguists,
want to help dismantle.

3 Research methods: Going beyond the binarism

The binarism of language attitudes and language ideologies as two approaches involved with the evaluation of language, varieties, and speech patterns is also reflected in the binarism concerning methods. As the research on language attitudes developed out of social psychology (Bell 2014: 255), its methods have been so far mostly restricted to quantitative ones, with Lambert’s famous ‘matched-guise-tests’ as the most prominent tool, and questionnaires asking for rating speakers according to categories like competence, attractiveness, solidarity etc. as the preferred method (Lambert 1967; Preston 2013). Language ideologies, in contrast, are mainly researched through qualitative methods with a focus on interviews (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain 2009; König 2014; Truan & Oldani 2021), which may be explained by their origins in “ethnographically oriented studies of language use” and linguistic anthropology (Goodwin & Duranti 1992: 1).

However, the development of languages ideologies “from a marginalized topic to an issue of central concern” (Kroskrity 2004: 501) entailed also the extension of methods, both within the field of qualitative methods, but also beyond its boundaries. The integration of methodologies, also known as mixed methods (Dörnyei 2007; Soukup 2015; Kircher & Hawkey 2022), is considered appropriate to account for the similarities concerning research interests and topics of the different fields interested in the evaluation of languages, varieties, and their speakers.

In order to tackle the ideologies that are implicitly embedded in discourse or explicitly uttered, quantitative studies make use of questionnaires (Duchêne, Humbert & Coray 2018; Vogl 2018) or corpora (Vessey 2017). Qualitative investigations have extended their methods to language biographies (Busch 2016), allowing for a speaker-centered approach (Erdoğan-Öztürk, this Special Issue) and thus including affect and emotion into the analysis, but also to frame analysis (Tark, this Special Issue), specific types of interviews like playback interviews (Grosser, this Special Issue), or the linguistic positioning task (Jahns in press).

The latter is a qualitative method developed to reveal language ideologies through interviews including a task on linguistic choices that was inspired by Perceptual Dialectology, a subfield of Folk linguistics. Even though Perceptual Dialectology has its origins in variationist sociolinguistics and therefore combines mainly
quantitative methods in order to investigate the perception of regional variation, it
also “seeks to include what nonlinguists think about linguistic practices, including
what they think where variation comes from, where they think it exists, and why
they think it happens” (Cramer 2016: 1). It can be seen therefore as another disci-
pline or set of methods engaged in the evaluation of language use. The linguistic
positioning task is thus one example of how various fields engaged with the evalua-
tion of varieties and speech patterns can enrich each other by adopting methods
beyond the boundaries of the original (sub)discipline.

4 Presentation of the papers

While we do not aim at resolving all these questions once and for all, we do hope
that our readers will see this Special Issue as more than a collection of empirical
case studies on language ideologies. Rather, while the papers tackle classical “sites
of ideological work” (Gal & Irvine 2019: 111) such as heteroglossic contexts (Truan,
Grosser, Haukås & Tishakov, Bunk, Jahns, Erdoğan-Öztürk) or school settings (Tark,
Hovens), they also provide new tools to study language ideologies, such as reflecting
on our own biases of native speakerism and monolingualism as linguists (Truan),
introducing different types of interviews (Haukås & Tishakov, Grosser), combining
interviews and corpus research (Bunk), testing new methods (Tark), or the often
overlooked role of affects and emotions in language ideologies (Erdoğan-Öztürk,
Jahns).

As we reflect on the composition of the papers, however, an evident bias due to
our positionality and personal research interests invariably emerges: All papers
have a direct connection to the German-speaking world, either in terms of literature
received, examples chosen (Truan), or biographies/trajectories of the participants
(Bunk, Erdoğan-Öztürk, Hovens, Jahns, Tark, Ziegler and Angenendt), with the pos-
sible exception of Haukås and Tishakov, who do not cite any German-speaking
source despite Haukås originally specializing on German. This apparent focus on
German and/or Germany is undoubtedly indebted to the bilingual call of papers we
submitted on the request of the organization team of the 20th AILA World Congress
in Lyon, who wanted to promote a plurality of languages. We would like to invite
the readers, however, to see this seemingly homogenous focus as an advantage,
both in that it may help them discover German-based or German-inspired studies,
and in that it partially helps decenter the dominant Anglo-Saxon perspective
(although it remains a perspective from the Global North).

Our Special Issue starts with Part I on *Language ideologies going meta: The-
ories of language ideologies*’ with two papers. In the opening reflection on the
many terms flourishing around *language ideologies*, **Martin Stegu** notes that lan-
quantitative methods in order to investigate the perception of regional variation, it
also “seeks to include what nonlinguists think about linguistic practices, including
what they think where variation comes from, where they think it exists, and why
they think it happens” (Cramer 2016: 1). It can be seen therefore as another disci-
pline or set of methods engaged in the evaluation of language use. The linguistic
positioning task is thus one example of how various fields engaged with the evalua-
tion of varieties and speech patterns can enrich each other by adopting methods
beyond the boundaries of the original (sub)discipline.

4 Presentation of the papers

While we do not aim at resolving all these questions once and for all, we do hope
that our readers will see this Special Issue as more than a collection of empirical
case studies on language ideologies. Rather, while the papers tackle classical “sites
of ideological work” (Gal & Irvine 2019: 111) such as heteroglossic contexts (Truan,
Grosser, Haukås & Tishakov, Bunk, Jahns, Erdoğan-Öztürk) or school settings (Tark,
Hovens), they also provide new tools to study language ideologies, such as reflecting
on our own biases of native speakerism and monolingualism as linguists (Truan),
introducing different types of interviews (Haukås & Tishakov, Grosser), combining
interviews and corpus research (Bunk), testing new methods (Tark), or the often
overlooked role of affects and emotions in language ideologies (Erdoğan-Öztürk,
Jahns).

As we reflect on the composition of the papers, however, an evident bias due to
our positionality and personal research interests invariably emerges: All papers
have a direct connection to the German-speaking world, either in terms of literature
received, examples chosen (Truan), or biographies/trajectories of the participants
(Bunk, Erdoğan-Öztürk, Hovens, Jahns, Tark, Ziegler and Angenendt), with the pos-
sible exception of Haukås and Tishakov, who do not cite any German-speaking
source despite Haukås originally specializing on German. This apparent focus on
German and/or Germany is undoubtedly indebted to the bilingual call of papers we
submitted on the request of the organization team of the 20th AILA World Congress
in Lyon, who wanted to promote a plurality of languages. We would like to invite
the readers, however, to see this seemingly homogenous focus as an advantage,
both in that it may help them discover German-based or German-inspired studies,
and in that it partially helps decenter the dominant Anglo-Saxon perspective
(although it remains a perspective from the Global North).

Our Special Issue starts with Part I on *Language ideologies going meta: The-
ories of language ideologies*’ with two papers. In the opening reflection on the
many terms flourishing around *language ideologies*, **Martin Stegu** notes that lan-
guage ideologies intersect with related terms such as *language attitudes*, *folk linguistics*, and *language awareness*. Are these distinctions theoretically funded, or do they reflect diverse scientific sub-communities?

Following this reflective stance, **Naomi Truan** critically intervenes in language ideological research. An apparent disconnect pervades our field, Truan argues: While language ideological research precisely tackles representations and assumptions about language and its users, we as linguists still implicitly perpetuate biases through an implicit emphasis on native speakers and monolingualism. Drawing on research on gender-inclusive language as well as her own empirical study on L2 speakers of German, Truan shows why integrating a higher variety of language users is necessary in order to avoid the *erasure* or *invisibilization* (Irvine & Gal 2000) of multilinguals.

Part II, *'Using interviews to research language ideologies'*', offers two fully new perspectives on how to use interviews in language ideological research. Recognizing that interviews remain a privileged source for investigating language ideologies (see section 3), **Åsta Haukås** and **Therese Tishakov** offer an ethical and methodological reflection on how to tackle interview questions differently. In particular, they show the potential offered by sharing interview questions beforehand, inviting the linguists' community to further assess how their research design may impact how and which language ideologies come into play.

**Florian Grosser**'s contribution presents a method that is a welcome addition to the toolbox of language ideology research: playback interviews, which enable to elicit participants' retrospective commentary on linguistic practices. The paper explores the use of playback interviews in interactional-sociolinguistic research, examining both the communicative aspect of the interview and its analytical exploration. It grounds its approach in semiotic concepts from linguistic anthropology, such as citation, reflexivity, and interdiscursivity.

Part III on *'Language ideologies and variation'* gathers three papers. **Oliver Bunk** foregrounds the underrepresented link between language ideologies and linguistic structure. Focusing on language patterns on different linguistic levels (phonology, discourse-pragmatics, lexicon), Bunk shows that standard language ideology and related ideologies contribute to linguistic pressure in bilinguals, leading to a different use of markers of formal speech between mono- and bilinguals.

Through a biographical approach, **Yasemine Erdoğan-Öztürk** explores how female Turkish-German bilinguals who have been raised in Germany experience 'returning' to Turkey linguistically. Analyzing her interviews through the lens of affect reveals how (standard) language ideologies as well as individual linguistic biographies lead to feelings of unbelonging due to perceived linguistic difference.

**Evelyn Ziegler** and **Vanessa Angenendt** present a study on attitudes toward the regional vernacular of the German Ruhr region (Ruhrdeutsch). Using stance
guage ideologies intersect with related terms such as *language attitudes*, *folk linguistics*, and *language awareness*. Are these distinctions theoretically funded, or do they reflect diverse scientific sub-communities?

Following this reflective stance, **Naomi Truan** critically intervenes in language ideological research. An apparent disconnect pervades our field, Truan argues: While language ideological research precisely tackles representations and assumptions about language and its users, we as linguists still implicitly perpetuate biases through an implicit emphasis on native speakers and monolingualism. Drawing on research on gender-inclusive language as well as her own empirical study on L2 speakers of German, Truan shows why integrating a higher variety of language users is necessary in order to avoid the *erasure* or *invisibilization* (Irvine & Gal 2000) of multilinguals.

Part II, *'Using interviews to research language ideologies'*', offers two fully new perspectives on how to use interviews in language ideological research. Recognizing that interviews remain a privileged source for investigating language ideologies (see section 3), **Åsta Haukås** and **Therese Tishakov** offer an ethical and methodological reflection on how to tackle interview questions differently. In particular, they show the potential offered by sharing interview questions beforehand, inviting the linguists' community to further assess how their research design may impact how and which language ideologies come into play.

**Florian Grosser**'s contribution presents a method that is a welcome addition to the toolbox of language ideology research: playback interviews, which enable to elicit participants' retrospective commentary on linguistic practices. The paper explores the use of playback interviews in interactional-sociolinguistic research, examining both the communicative aspect of the interview and its analytical exploration. It grounds its approach in semiotic concepts from linguistic anthropology, such as citation, reflexivity, and interdiscursivity.

Part III on *'Language ideologies and variation'* gathers three papers. **Oliver Bunk** foregrounds the underrepresented link between language ideologies and linguistic structure. Focusing on language patterns on different linguistic levels (phonology, discourse-pragmatics, lexicon), Bunk shows that standard language ideology and related ideologies contribute to linguistic pressure in bilinguals, leading to a different use of markers of formal speech between mono- and bilinguals.

Through a biographical approach, **Yasemine Erdoğan-Öztürk** explores how female Turkish-German bilinguals who have been raised in Germany experience 'returning' to Turkey linguistically. Analyzing her interviews through the lens of affect reveals how (standard) language ideologies as well as individual linguistic biographies lead to feelings of unbelonging due to perceived linguistic difference.

**Evelyn Ziegler** and **Vanessa Angenendt** present a study on attitudes toward the regional vernacular of the German Ruhr region (Ruhrdeutsch). Using stance
analysis based on narrative interviews, they demonstrate how *Ruhrdeutsch*, a pres-
tigious variety in the 18th century that has lost prestige since, is gaining popularity
again, as it now indexes a region that speakers feel connected to instead of being a
marker of (low) social class. Beyond the investigation of this German variety, the
paper operationalizes how a *stance* approach can be used effectively in language
ideological research. It also highlights the importance to study stances over multiple
generations to see how language ideologies change over time.

Finally, Part IV focuses on ‘*Language ideologies in educational settings*’ with two papers investigating language ideologies in schools and another zooming into the situation in German university classes. In a paper informed by historical reflections, the current public discourse around German in the Netherlands, and statistics on the number of German learners, *Daan Hovens* offers explanations for the decreasing number of students learning German in Dutch schools. The concept of *proximity* serves as an analytical tool to understand how geographical proximity (discourses about German being a ‘neighbor language’) interacts with perceived socio-economic relevance (e.g. Germany being more important for the Netherlands than vice versa).

Dennis Tark describes how frame analysis can be successfully used to shed
light on discriminatory actions in multilingual school settings. Tark shows how
through this method attitudes and beliefs about multilingualism of prospective tea-
chers can be revealed and therewith promotes its further use in teacher training.

Finally, **Esther Jahns** discusses how the language use in German university classes can trigger a form of language anxiety for students with different social and linguistic backgrounds. Jahns shows that language anxiety does not only arise in multilingual contexts, but that language ideologies prevailing in the educational context intertwined with students lived experience (of languages) can as well trigger strong emotions that might hinder participation or even lead to silence.

For a different perspective on how the papers can be articulated, **Jürgen Spitzmüller**'s epilogue offers a thought-provoking, overarching reflection of what brings the contributions in this Special Issue together—or maybe not. As he suggests that the vast field of language ideologies may metaphorically be regarded as a church, he also reminds us that “an inclusive account, as charming as it might be, bears the risk of blurring instructive differences, the contours of our field, and our own perspectives”. Being able to delineate the field is thus, strategically, a question of visibility.

Language ideological research has played a crucial and often underestimated
role in showing how the way people sanction ways of speaking not only affects
language issues, but more profoundly the people affected by these ideologies. As
they intersect with (perceived) race, class, and gender (Newman & Wu 2011; Alim
& Smitherman 2012; Charity Hudley et al. 2018; Oldani & Truan 2022; Cushing 2023;
Dixon-Smith 2023), language ideologies are a prime example of how ways of speak-
ing are never only about language.
analysis based on narrative interviews, they demonstrate how *Ruhrdeutsch*, a pres-
tigious variety in the 18th century that has lost prestige since, is gaining popularity
again, as it now indexes a region that speakers feel connected to instead of being a
marker of (low) social class. Beyond the investigation of this German variety, the
paper operationalizes how a *stance* approach can be used effectively in language
ideological research. It also highlights the importance to study stances over multiple
generations to see how language ideologies change over time.

Finally, Part IV focuses on ‘*Language ideologies in educational settings*’ with two papers investigating language ideologies in schools and another zooming into the situation in German university classes. In a paper informed by historical reflections, the current public discourse around German in the Netherlands, and statistics on the number of German learners, *Daan Hovens* offers explanations for the decreasing number of students learning German in Dutch schools. The concept of *proximity* serves as an analytical tool to understand how geographical proximity (discourses about German being a ‘neighbor language’) interacts with perceived socio-economic relevance (e.g. Germany being more important for the Netherlands than vice versa).

Dennis Tark describes how frame analysis can be successfully used to shed
light on discriminatory actions in multilingual school settings. Tark shows how
through this method attitudes and beliefs about multilingualism of prospective tea-
chers can be revealed and therewith promotes its further use in teacher training.

Finally, *Esther Jahns* discusses how the language use in German university classes can trigger a form of language anxiety for students with different social and linguistic backgrounds. Jahns shows that language anxiety does not only arise in multilingual contexts, but that language ideologies prevailing in the educational context intertwined with students lived experience (of languages) can as well trigger strong emotions that might hinder participation or even lead to silence.

For a different perspective on how the papers can be articulated, **Jürgen Spitzmüller's** epilogue offers a thought-provoking, overarching reflection of what brings the contributions in this Special Issue together—or maybe not. As he suggests that the vast field of language ideologies may metaphorically be regarded as a church, he also reminds us that “an inclusive account, as charming as it might be, bears the risk of blurring instructive differences, the contours of our field, and our own perspectives”. Being able to delineate the field is thus, strategically, a question of visibility.

Language ideological research has played a crucial and often underestimated
role in showing how the way people sanction ways of speaking not only affects
language issues, but more profoundly the people affected by these ideologies. As
they intersect with (perceived) race, class, and gender (Newman & Wu 2011; Alim
& Smitherman 2012; Charity Hudley et al. 2018; Oldani & Truan 2022; Cushing 2023;
Dixon-Smith 2023), language ideologies are a prime example of how ways of speak-
ing are never only about language.
This Special Issue highlights the renewed importance of studying language ideologies as a core subject of linguistics. As a number of contributions to this Special Issue show, language ideologies are, in fact, “everywhere” (Cavanaugh 2019)—not in the sense that they would be theoretically so loose that we cannot identify them clearly, but because language ideologies are so pervasive and powerful that they still deserve new methodological and theoretical approaches almost half a century after Silverstein’s definition (1979).

**Acknowledgment:** We would like to thank Oliver Bunk and Matthias Hüning for their insightful comments on a previous version of this paper. Needless to say, all possible errors remain ours.

## Bibliography

Alim, H. Samy & Geneva Smitherman. 2012. *Articulate while Black: Barack Obama, Language, and Race in the U.S.* Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Allport, Gordon Willard. 1954. The historical background of modern social psychology. In Gardner Lindzey (ed.), *Handbook of social psychology*, vol. 1: Theory and method, 3–56. Oxford: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Bell, Allan. 2014. *The Guidebook to Sociolinguistics*. Malden/Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

Blommaert, Jan. 2006. Language Ideology. In Keith Brown (ed.), *Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics* (Second Edition), 510–522. Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/03029-7.

Blommaert, Jan. 2007. Sociolinguistic Scales. *Intercultural Pragmatics* 4. 1–19. https://doi.org/10/bd36q8.

Busch, Brigitta. 2016. Language biographies – approaches to multilingualism in education and linguistic research. In Brigitta Busch, Aziza Jardine & Angelika Tjoutuku (eds.), *Language biographies for multilingual learning*, vol. 24, 5–18. Cape Town: PREAESA Occasional Papers.

Carr, E. Summerson & Michael Lempert. 2016. Pragmatics of Scale. In E. Summerson Carr & Michael Lempert (eds.), *Scale: Discourse and Dimensions of Social Life*, 1–21. Oakland: University of California Press.

Cavanaugh, Jillian R. 2019. Language Ideology Revisited. *Items. Insights from the Social Sciences*. https://items.ssrc.org/sociolinguistic-frontiers/language-ideology-revisited/. (30 March, 2023).

Cavanaugh, Jillian R. 2020. Language ideology revisited. *International Journal of the Sociology of Language* (263). 51–57. https://doi.org/10/ggz9hz.

Charity Hudley, Anne H., Christine Mallinson, Mary Bucholtz, Nelson Flores, Nicole Holliday, Elaine Chun & Arthur Spears. 2018. Linguistics and race: An interdisciplinary approach towards an LSA statement on race. *Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America* 3(1). 8. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v3i1.4303.

Cramer, Jennifer. 2016. Perceptual Dialectology. In *Oxford Handbook Topics in Linguistics*, vol. 1, 1–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/978019935345.013.60.

Cushing, Ian. 2023. “Miss, can you speak English?”: raciolinguistic ideologies and language oppression in initial teacher education. *British Journal of Sociology of Education*. Routledge 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2023.2206006.

Dixon-Smith, Steve. 2023. Youth language practices and ideologies of race and class in a UK university: A raciolinguistic perspective. In *The Routledge Handbook of Language and Youth Culture*. Routledge.
This Special Issue highlights the renewed importance of studying language ideologies as a core subject of linguistics. As a number of contributions to this Special Issue show, language ideologies are, in fact, “everywhere” (Cavanaugh 2019)—not in the sense that they would be theoretically so loose that we cannot identify them clearly, but because language ideologies are so pervasive and powerful that they still deserve new methodological and theoretical approaches almost half a century after Silverstein’s definition (1979).

**Acknowledgment:** We would like to thank Oliver Bunk and Matthias Hüning for their insightful comments on a previous version of this paper. Needless to say, all possible errors remain ours.

## Bibliography

Alim, H. Samy & Geneva Smitherman. 2012. *Articulate while Black: Barack Obama, Language, and Race in the U.S.* Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Allport, Gordon Willard. 1954. The historical background of modern social psychology. In Gardner Lindzey (ed.), *Handbook of social psychology*, vol. 1: Theory and method, 3–56. Oxford: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Bell, Allan. 2014. *The Guidebook to Sociolinguistics*. Malden/Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

Blommaert, Jan. 2006. Language Ideology. In Keith Brown (ed.), *Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics* (Second Edition), 510–522. Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/03029-7.

Blommaert, Jan. 2007. Sociolinguistic Scales. *Intercultural Pragmatics* 4. 1–19. https://doi.org/10/bd36q8.

Busch, Brigitta. 2016. Language biographies – approaches to multilingualism in education and linguistic research. In Brigitta Busch, Aziza Jardine & Angelika Tjoutuku (eds.), *Language biographies for multilingual learning*, vol. 24, 5–18. Cape Town: PREAESA Occasional Papers.

Carr, E. Summerson & Michael Lempert. 2016. Pragmatics of Scale. In E. Summerson Carr & Michael Lempert (eds.), *Scale: Discourse and Dimensions of Social Life*, 1–21. Oakland: University of California Press.

Cavanaugh, Jillian R. 2019. Language Ideology Revisited. *Items. Insights from the Social Sciences*. https://items.ssrc.org/sociolinguistic-frontiers/language-ideology-revisited/. (30 March, 2023).

Cavanaugh, Jillian R. 2020. Language ideology revisited. *International Journal of the Sociology of Language* (263). 51–57. https://doi.org/10/ggz9hz.

Charity Hudley, Anne H., Christine Mallinson, Mary Bucholtz, Nelson Flores, Nicole Holliday, Elaine Chun & Arthur Spears. 2018. Linguistics and race: An interdisciplinary approach towards an LSA statement on race. *Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America* 3(1). 8. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v3i1.4303.

Cramer, Jennifer. 2016. Perceptual Dialectology. In *Oxford Handbook Topics in Linguistics*, vol. 1, 1–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/978019935345.013.60.

Cushing, Ian. 2023. “Miss, can you speak English?”: raciolinguistic ideologies and language oppression in initial teacher education. *British Journal of Sociology of Education*. Routledge 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2023.2206006.

Dixon-Smith, Steve. 2023. Youth language practices and ideologies of race and class in a UK university: A raciolinguistic perspective. In *The Routledge Handbook of Language and Youth Culture*. Routledge.
Dörnyei, Zoltan. 2007. *Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Duchêne, Alexandre, Philippe N. Humbert & Renata Coray. 2018. How to ask questions on language? Ideological struggles in the making of a state survey. *International Journal of the Sociology of Language* 2018(252). 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2018-0014.

Gal, Susan & Judith T. Irvine. 2019. *Signs of Difference: Language and Ideology in Social Life*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Garrett, Peter. 2006. Attitude Measurements/Messung von Einstellungen. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds.), *Soziolinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft*, vol. 2, 1251–1260. Second completely revised and extended edition. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Garrett, Peter. 2010. *Attitudes to Language* (Key Topics in Sociolinguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844713.

Gee, James Paul. 2015. Discourse, Small d, Big D. In *The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction*, 1–5. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi016.

Gershon, Ilana. 2010. Media Ideologies: An Introduction. *Journal of Linguistic Anthropology* 20(2). 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1395.2010.01070.x.

Goodwin, Charles & Alessandro Duranti. 1992. Rethinking context: an introduction. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), *Rethinking Context. Language as an Interactive Phenomenon*, 1–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Irvine, Judith T. & Susan Gal. 2000. Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation. In Paul V. Krokrity (ed.), *Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities*, 35–84. Santa Fe/New Mexico: School of American Research Press.

Jahns, Esther. in press. "Das ist dann schon total cool zu sagen, so Machanot!" – Revealing speakers' justifications for linguistic choices. In Susanne Wagner & Ulrike Stange-Hundsdörfer (eds.), *(*Dia*)lects in the 21st century: Selected papers from Methods in Dialectology XVII (Mainz, 2022) (Language Variation Series). Berlin: Language Science Press.

Kircher, Ruth & James Hawkey. 2022. Mixed-Methods Approaches to the Study of Language Attitudes. In Lena Zipp & Ruth Kircher (eds.), *Research Methods in Language Attitudes*, 330–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108867788.026.

Kircher, Ruth & Lena Zipp. 2022. An Introduction to Language Attitudes Research. In Ruth Kircher & Lena Zipp (eds.), *Research Methods in Language Attitudes*, 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

König, Katharina. 2014. *Spracheinstellungen und Identitätskonstruktion. Eine gesprächsanalytische Untersuchung sprachbiographischer Interviews mit Deutsch-Vietnamesen*. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1524/9783110352245.

Krokrity, Paul V. 2004. Language Ideologies. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.), *A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology*, 496–517. Malden/Oxford/Carlton: Blackwell.

Lambert, Wallace E. 1967. A social psychology of bilingualism. *Journal of Social Issues* (23). 91–109.

Liebscher, Grit & Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain. 2009. Language attitudes in interaction. *Journal of Sociolinguistics* 13(2). 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00404.x.

Morek, Miriam. 2018. „Der redet halt so komisch.“ Mehrsprachigkeit, Spracheinstellungen und Sprachideologien in Gesprächen unter Dortmunder Schülerinnen und Schülern. In Markus Denkler, Dietrich Hartmann & Heinz H. Menge (eds.), *Dortmund – sprachliche Vielfalt in der Stadt*, 239–277. Wien u.a.: Böhlau.

Newman, Michael & Angela Wu. 2011. “Do you sound Asian when you speak English?”: Racial identification and voice in Chinese and Korean Americans’ English. *American Speech* 86(2). 152–178. https://doi.org/10/brjqrk.
Dörnyei, Zoltan. 2007. *Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Duchêne, Alexandre, Philippe N. Humbert & Renata Coray. 2018. How to ask questions on language? Ideological struggles in the making of a state survey. *International Journal of the Sociology of Language* 2018(252). 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2018-0014.

Gal, Susan & Judith T. Irvine. 2019. *Signs of Difference: Language and Ideology in Social Life*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Garrett, Peter. 2006. Attitude Measurements/Messung von Einstellungen. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds.), *Soziolinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft*, vol. 2, 1251–1260. Second completely revised and extended edition. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Garrett, Peter. 2010. *Attitudes to Language* (Key Topics in Sociolinguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844713.

Gee, James Paul. 2015. Discourse, Small d, Big D. In *The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction*, 1–5. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi016.

Gershon, Ilana. 2010. Media Ideologies: An Introduction. *Journal of Linguistic Anthropology* 20(2). 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1395.2010.01070.x.

Goodwin, Charles & Alessandro Duranti. 1992. Rethinking context: an introduction. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), *Rethinking Context. Language as an Interactive Phenomenon*, 1–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Irvine, Judith T. & Susan Gal. 2000. Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation. In Paul V. Krokrity (ed.), *Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities*, 35–84. Santa Fe/New Mexico: School of American Research Press.

Jahns, Esther. in press. "Das ist dann schon total cool zu sagen, so Machanot!" – Revealing speakers' justifications for linguistic choices. In Susanne Wagner & Ulrike Stange-Hundsdörfer (eds.), *(*Dia*)lects in the 21st century: Selected papers from Methods in Dialectology XVII (Mainz, 2022) (Language Variation Series). Berlin: Language Science Press.

Kircher, Ruth & James Hawkey. 2022. Mixed-Methods Approaches to the Study of Language Attitudes. In Lena Zipp & Ruth Kircher (eds.), *Research Methods in Language Attitudes*, 330–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108867788.026.

Kircher, Ruth & Lena Zipp. 2022. An Introduction to Language Attitudes Research. In Ruth Kircher & Lena Zipp (eds.), *Research Methods in Language Attitudes*, 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

König, Katharina. 2014. *Spracheinstellungen und Identitätskonstruktion. Eine gesprächsanalytische Untersuchung sprachbiographischer Interviews mit Deutsch-Vietnamesen*. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1524/9783110352245.

Krokrity, Paul V. 2004. Language Ideologies. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.), *A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology*, 496–517. Malden/Oxford/Carlton: Blackwell.

Lambert, Wallace E. 1967. A social psychology of bilingualism. *Journal of Social Issues* (23). 91–109.

Liebscher, Grit & Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain. 2009. Language attitudes in interaction. *Journal of Sociolinguistics* 13(2). 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00404.x.

Morek, Miriam. 2018. „Der redet halt so komisch.“ Mehrsprachigkeit, Spracheinstellungen und Sprachideologien in Gesprächen unter Dortmunder Schülerinnen und Schülern. In Markus Denkler, Dietrich Hartmann & Heinz H. Menge (eds.), *Dortmund – sprachliche Vielfalt in der Stadt*, 239–277. Wien u.a.: Böhlau.

Newman, Michael & Angela Wu. 2011. “Do you sound Asian when you speak English?”: Racial identification and voice in Chinese and Korean Americans’ English. *American Speech* 86(2). 152–178. https://doi.org/10/brjqrk.
Oldani, Martina & Naomi Truan. 2022. Navigating the German school system when being perceived as a student 'with migration background': Students' perspectives on linguistic racism. *Linguistics and Education* 71. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2022.101049.

Preston, Dennis R. 2013. Language with an Attitude. In J.K. Chambers & Natalie Schilling (eds.), *The Handbook of Language Variation and Change*, 157–182. 2nd edition. Malden/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Paul R. Cline, William F. Hanks & Carol L. Hofbauer (eds.), *The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels Including Papers from the Conference of Non Slavic Languages of the USSR*, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Silverstein, Michael. 1985. Language and the Culture of Gender: At the Intersection of Structure, Usage, and Ideology. In Elizabeth Mertz & Richard J. Parmentier (eds.), *Semiotic Mediation*, 219–259. San Diego: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-491280-9.50016-9.

Soukup, Barbara. 2015. Theory and application: Mixing methods in the study of language attitudes. In Alexei Prikhodkine & Dennis R. Preston (eds.), *Responses to Language Varieties: Variability, processes and outcomes* (IMPACT: Studies in Language, Culture and Society), 55–84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.39.03sou.

Spitzmüller, Jürgen. 2022. Beyond the binarism: locating past, present and future sociolinguistic research on ideologies of communication. *Sociolinguistica* 36(1–2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1515/soci-2022-0001.

Spitzmüller, Jürgen, Brigitta Busch & Mi-Cha Flubacher. 2021. Language ideologies and social positioning: the restoration of a “much needed bridge.” *International Journal of the Sociology of Language*. 2021(272). 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2020-0094.

Thurstone, Louis L. 1931. The measurement of social attitudes. *The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology*. US: American Psychological Association 26(3). 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070363.

Tophinke, Doris & Evelyn Ziegler. 2006. Neue Perspektiven in der dialektologischen Einstellungs-forschung. *Dialekt im Wandel: Perspektiven einer neuen Dialektologie* 71. 203–222.

Truan, Naomi. accepted. „In Deutschland wird es weniger diskutiert“: Sprachideologien über ges-chlechtergerechte Sprache aus der Sicht von L2-Sprechenden des Deutschen. *Linguistische Berichte*.

Truan, Naomi & Martina Oldani. 2021. The view from within: Gendered language ideologies of multi-lingual speakers in contemporary Berlin. *Journal of Sociolinguistics* 25(3). 374–397. https://doi.org/10/gjv9sg.

Vandermeeren, Sonja. 2006. Research on Language Attitudes/Spracheinstellungsforschung. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds.), *Soziolinguistik. Ein internatio-nales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft*, vol. 2, 1318–1332. 2. completely re-vised and extended edition. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Vessey, Rachelle. 2017. Corpus Approaches to Language Ideology. *Applied Linguistics* 38(3). 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv023.

Vogl, Ulrike. 2018. Standard language ideology and multilingualism: Results from a survey among Eur-opean students. *European Journal of Applied Linguistics* 6(2). 185–208. https://doi.org/10/gkx2q5.

Young, Andrea S. 2014. Unpacking teachers’ language ideologies: attitudes, beliefs, and practiced lan-guage policies in schools in Alsace, France. *Language Awareness*. 23(1–2). 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.863902.
Oldani, Martina & Naomi Truan. 2022. Navigating the German school system when being perceived as a student ‘with migration background’: Students’ perspectives on linguistic racism. *Linguistics and Education* 71. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2022.101049.

Preston, Dennis R. 2013. Language with an Attitude. In J.K. Chambers & Natalie Schilling (eds.), *The Handbook of Language Variation and Change*, 157–182. 2nd edition. Malden/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Paul R. Cline, William F. Hanks & Carol L. Hofbauer (eds.), *The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels Including Papers from the Conference of Non Slavic Languages of the USSR*, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Silverstein, Michael. 1985. Language and the Culture of Gender: At the Intersection of Structure, Usage, and Ideology. In Elizabeth Mertz & Richard J. Parmentier (eds.), *Semiotic Mediation*, 219–259. San Diego: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-491280-9.50016-9.

Soukup, Barbara. 2015. Theory and application: Mixing methods in the study of language attitudes. In Alexei Prikhodkine & Dennis R. Preston (eds.), *Responses to Language Varieties: Variability, processes and outcomes* (IMPACT: Studies in Language, Culture and Society), 55–84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.39.03sou.

Spitzmüller, Jürgen. 2022. Beyond the binarism: locating past, present and future sociolinguistic research on ideologies of communication. *Sociolinguistica* 36(1–2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1515/soci-2022-0001.

Spitzmüller, Jürgen, Brigitta Busch & Mi-Cha Flubacher. 2021. Language ideologies and social positioning: the restoration of a “much needed bridge.” *International Journal of the Sociology of Language*. 2021(272). 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2020-0094.

Thurstone, Louis L. 1931. The measurement of social attitudes. *The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology*. US: American Psychological Association 26(3). 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070363.

Tophinke, Doris & Evelyn Ziegler. 2006. Neue Perspektiven in der dialektologischen Einstellungs-forschung. *Dialekt im Wandel: Perspektiven einer neuen Dialektologie* 71. 203–222.

Truan, Naomi. accepted. „In Deutschland wird es weniger diskutiert“: Sprachideologien über ges-chlechtergerechte Sprache aus der Sicht von L2-Sprechenden des Deutschen. *Linguistische Berichte*.

Truan, Naomi & Martina Oldani. 2021. The view from within: Gendered language ideologies of multi-lingual speakers in contemporary Berlin. *Journal of Sociolinguistics* 25(3). 374–397. https://doi.org/10/gjv9sg.

Vandermeeren, Sonja. 2006. Research on Language Attitudes/Spracheinstellungsforschung. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds.), *Soziolinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft*, vol. 2, 1318–1332. 2. completely revised and extended edition. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Vessey, Rachelle. 2017. Corpus Approaches to Language Ideology. *Applied Linguistics* 38(3). 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv023.

Vogl, Ulrike. 2018. Standard language ideology and multilingualism: Results from a survey among European students. *European Journal of Applied Linguistics* 6(2). 185–208. https://doi.org/10/gkx2q5.

Young, Andrea S. 2014. Unpacking teachers’ language ideologies: attitudes, beliefs, and practiced language policies in schools in Alsace, France. *Language Awareness*. 23(1–2). 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.863902.