Speaking Spanish in the US. Janet M. Fuller
Chapter 4
To define language ideologies, explain how language ideologies connect language to social meanings and power, and examine various language ideologies related to Spanish in the US.
In this book we are particularly interested in the ways in which language, and Spanish in the US in particular, is tied up with social identities, culture and power. In previous chapters we made reference to the inaccurate assumption that people who speak Spanish don’t know English, as well as to the portrayal of Spanish and Spanish-speakers as out of place in the US or even a threat to national identity. Where do these ideas come from and what assumptions undergird them? Why do people assign different kinds of social meaning to different languages and different ways of using language? How are these notions tied to broader social processes and how do they reproduce social hierarchies? In this chapter we address these questions through an examination of language ideologies, which at the simplest level can be defined as ideas about language structure and use (Errington, 2000). As we will see, there are also other, more complex, definitions.
Language ideologies can be about language in general, specific languages, specific language varieties or specific ways of using language. An example of a language ideology relevant to Spanish in the US is the idea that each nation ‘naturally’ has a single language and that the presence of multiple languages causes divisions (we discuss this ideology in more depth later in this chapter). Another common set of beliefs about language is the standard language ideology, which imagines that there is a single correct and unvarying way of speaking that is ‘better’ than ‘non-standard’ varieties, which are often denigrated as illogical or sloppy. The standard language ideology is inconsistent with a basic premise within the field of linguistics: all languages and language varieties are equally systematic and there is no objective linguistic reason for any variety or language to be considered ‘better’ than another.
If no variety is really better than the others, how does one way of speaking get chosen as the standard? Typically, the variety of the socio-economic elite, which is generally also the one associated with written language norms, is selected as the standard (Lippi-Green, 2012; Piller, 2015). Clearly, then, beliefs about the value or correctness of different language varieties and practices aren’t only about language; they are also about other things, such as the status of the speakers of those varieties. Language ideologies are also shaped by other non-linguistic issues including societal understandings of national belonging (e.g. who is a ‘real’ American), the perceived intelligence or cultural ‘value’ of different groups, as well as other ideas about the people who speak different languages and language varieties (Woolard, 1998). Further, language ideologies don’t just reflect ideas about people, groups or social and political issues; they also have an impact on them. For example, language ideologies undergird discussions and debates about whether English should be the official language of the US, whether someone is ‘really’ Latinx if they don’t speak Spanish, what language(s) should be taught in schools, and if it is ‘ok’ to combine English and Spanish in conversation.
In the following sections we provide an introduction to the study of language ideologies and the ideological processes that give language social meaning. In addition to examining how language ideologies work, we show how they are inseparable from questions of power as well as how they allow linguistic difference to serve as a mechanism for maintaining social inequality. In the second half of the chapter we present some key language ideologies related to Spanish in the US. As we’ll show, language ideologies are both reflected and reinforced in various kinds of public discourse and language policies, and they have ‘real-world’ impact.
Within the fields of sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology, scholars emphasize that ideas and beliefs about language are a bridge between language and the social world. Language ideologies are what give social meaning to particular ways of using language and they allow us to judge people based on the way they speak. This notion is reflected in Woolard’s (1998: 3) definition of language ideologies as ‘representations, whether explicit or implicit, that construe the intersection of language and human beings in a social world,’ as well as Irvine’s (1989: 255) definition of language ideology as ‘the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests.’
Another important element of Irvine’s definition is her description of language ideologies as ‘cultural systems.’ In this way, she makes it clear that language ideologies are not just individual opinions or impressions held by individual people; instead, different language ideologies are related to each other, and they are tied to societal values and norms. In other words, we don’t come up with ideas about language completely on our own, in isolation from the world. Quite the opposite, people’s beliefs about language (and other things) are shaped by our families and our communities, as well as the institutions and socio-economic and political structures with which we interact. Further, language ideologies can vary from society to society and culture to culture.
By pointing out that language ideologies are intertwined with ‘moral and political interests,’ Irvine makes it clear that they are not inconsequential opinions or preferences; rather, they benefit particular people or groups of people. As we noted above, when the standard language ideology portrays the way that the educated elite or dominant groups speak as better than other ways of speaking, this is not simply a neutral aesthetic preference; it reflects the higher status and power of the dominant group. But it’s not just that that the dominant group’s socio-economic or political status plays a role in determining that their way of speaking will be seen as better; the standard language ideology also plays a role in helping the dominant group maintain that status. People who speak ‘standard’ varieties are portrayed as intellectually and morally superior to speakers of ‘non-standard’ varieties – who are portrayed as ignorant or lazy – and they are offered more educational and professional opportunities (we return to this issue later in the chapter). For this reason, research on language ideologies emphasizes that they are part of the production and reproduction of social inequality. In other words, linguistic and social practices do not merely reflect social norms but also perpetuate and shape them.
Hegemony and Symbolic Domination
The concept of hegemony is a useful one for thinking about the role of language ideologies in the reproduction of social inequality and power. The basic definition is a simple: hegemony means that one entity (usually a social group or nation state) is dominant over another. The concept of hegemony also references the cultural and/or ideological influence of the dominant group in shaping broader societal norms and beliefs. With language ideologies, we are concerned not only with the way that certain ideologies help establish or sustain the hegemony of certain groups, but also with the hegemony of certain ways of thinking about language.
Hegemonic ideologies aren’t always stated explicitly; in many cases they are naturalized and taken for granted (Kroskrity, 2004). Naturalization implies that an idea is not recognized as a specific cultural value or viewpoint, but is instead seen as common sense, an inevitable truth or something inherent to the human experience. For example, in the US there is widespread acceptance of the one nation-one language ideology (i.e. the notion that each nation is defined by single language and vice-versa) and of the hegemony of English. These ideologies are largely taken for granted, such as in the ‘Welcome to America: Now SPEAK ENGLISH!’ bumper sticker shown in Figure 4.1. Nowhere in the bumper sticker’s text is there an explicit claim that nations should have just one language,