Content uploaded by Patrick Studer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patrick Studer on Sep 13, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Prague Papers
on Language, Societ y and Interaction
Edited by
Jiří Nekvapil, Tamah Sherman and Petr Kaderka
Vo l. 3
Erzsébet Barát / Patrick Studer / Jiří Nekvapil (eds)
Ideological
Conceptualizations
of Language
Discourses of Linguistic Diversity
Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche
Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the
Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is
available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
Zugl.: Ort, Univ., Diss., Habil., Jahr
ISSN 1866-878X
ISBN 978-3- 631-61459-4 (Print)
E-ISBN 978-3-653-03514-8 (E-Book)
DOI 10.3726/ 978-3-653-03514-8
© Peter Lang GmbH
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften
Frankfurt am Main 2013
All rights reserved.
Peter Lang Edition is an Imprint of Peter Lang GmbH.
Peter Lang – Frankfurt am Main · Bern · Bruxelles · New York ·
Oxford · Warszawa · Wien
All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any
utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without
the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to
prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions,
translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in
electronic retrieval systems.
www.peterlang.de
Contents
Contributors ..................................................................
Acknowledgments ............................................................
Introduction
Approaching the study of language use and ideology: An introduction . .
Erzsébet Barát, Patrick Studer and Jiří Nekvapil
Part I: Language minorities in their socio-historical making
Local- global- glocal: Trends in the creation of linguistic prestige and ideology
John B. Trumper and Marta Maddalon
Dutch, Flemish, or Hollandic? Social and ideological aspects of linguistic
convergence and divergence during the United Kingdom of the Netherlands
(1815–1830) ....................................................................
Rik Vosters
Part II: Economic migration and language ideologies
Language ideologies for constructing inclusion and exclusion: Identity and
interest in the metalinguistic discourse of cross-border workers in Luxem-
bourg ............................................................................
Julia de Bres
Language ideologies and linguistic practices: The case of multinational
companies in Central Europe ................................................
Jiří Nekvapil and Tamah Sherman
Ideology and language: Assumed and authentic linguistic practices of Por-
tuguese migrants in workspaces on Jersey ..................................
Jaine Beswick
Part III: Management of language diversity
Ideological positioning in legal discourses on European multilingualism:
Equality of languages as an ideology and a challenge ......................
Vít Dovalil
vii
xi
1
11
35
57
85
119
147
Language(s) as the key to integration? The ideological role of diglossia in
the German-speaking region of Switzerland ................................
Mi-Cha Flubacher
Management of language ideologies in informal language planning episodes
Patrick Studer
The differentiation of linguistic and cultural diversity: A critical analysis
of ideological investments of migrants’ desire for belonging ..............
Erzsébet Barát
Part IV: Critique of ‘ideology’
In dialogue with Ivana Marková: Linguistics and social representations
Patrick Studer
Index ............................................................................
171
193
217
249
279
Contents
vi
Management of language ideologies
in informal language planning episodes
Patrick Studer
Introduction
This paper is concerned with the ways ideologies relating to multilingualism and
linguistic diversity influence action and interaction, emphasising the relevance of
performance style as an analytic criterion for analysis (Harré & Moghaddam 2003: 3).
It particularly deals with social contexts in which language becomes something that
needs to be ‘managed’ or ‘planned’, both conceptually and linguistically. The paper
is based on the more mundane or everyday forms of political reasoning on language,
that is, on situations that have, so far, received relatively little attention in research.
It analyses unofficial and informal forms of language planning taking place among
peers, in this case a group of undergraduate university students from various subject
areas who volunteered to take part in this research project. Presenting excerpts from
afocus group discussion with undergraduate university students, the paper looks at
how social actors not holding political office spontaneously conceptualise language
within broader discursive-ideological contexts when they do not feel socially exposed
or threatened. The paper particularly identifies and analyses stretches of interaction
that reflect typical ideological behaviour involving perspective-taking patterns in
informal and semi-formal speech (e.g. Jovchelovitch 2002; 2007: ch. 4, on position-
ing Davies & Harré 1990; Drew & Heritage 1998: 13).
Starting from the assumption that discourses of multilingualism in society moti-
vate specific, often contradictory, representations by interlocutors (cf. Studer 2012),
the present paper interprets spontaneous conceptualisations of language in interaction
as outcomes from encounters between individuals representing different ideologies
and positions. In doing so, the paper seeks to analyse how performance style inter-
relates with and potentially influences the nature of responses and reactions when
interlocutors are solicited to comment on problematic and potentially contradictory
cognitions. Performance style, in this context, is understood as a personalised way
of handling potentially controversial interactive encounters in terms of agreement,
overt/covert disagreement or refusal to acknowledge the other side. The underlying
theoretical assumption of this analysis is that ideological-discursive contexts steer
people’s conceptualisations of and contributions to language planning in critical
ways.
In summary, the questions addressed in this paper are the following: (1) How is
multilingualism conceptualised during spontaneous speech, and which concepts are
problematised? (2) How are potentially contradictory conceptualisations of language
managed argumentatively and rhetorically in terms of agreement, disagreement, or
refusal to acknowledge the other side? (3) Which conceptualisations are offered for
negotiation and how is the interaction managed by the participants? In answer to
these questions, a theoretical model will be proposed which is based on linguistic
social psychology and, in particular, social representation theory. The paper argues
that the social psychological approach offers a fruitful way of revealing processes
underlying both formal and informal language planning.
Social Representations of Ideology as a Methodological Paradigm
When in this paper reference is made to ideology, it refers to a social psychological
understanding of the term as a research paradigm in linguistically oriented social
psychology (notably Billig 1982; Billig et al. 1988). According to this understand-
ing, ideology is closely connected to the existence of social contradictions. Billig
(1982: 34–60), in one of his early studies, proposes a Marxist re-interpretation of
ideology as a ‘concealment of contradictions’. According to this interpretation,
Billig not only recognises ideology fundamentally as (linguistic) action but equally
as rational and knowledge-based activity aimed at concealing the legitimacy of the
‘other side’ – the view opposing another – and thus at achieving hegemony in
adebated belief system. Billig thus sets the ground for the development of a social
psychology of ambivalence which is founded on the tensions between accommo-
dation, extremism and the rhetoric of ‘balance’, and which is aimed at revealing
relations ‘between social beliefs and the operation of power in society’ (Billig et al.
1988: 28).
What distinguishes the social psychological approach from the traditional Fou-
caultian understanding of discourse is not only its insistence on ideology as a distinct
‘object’ phenomenon for study, but essentially its perspective, which locates dis-
course within the individual rather than the individual within discourse. Thus, a social
psychological perspective of ideology re-orients our attention towards the subject
position as the point of origin of social processes (Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999:
123), and, hence, towards a focus on micro-interactive environments as the locus
where ideologies are jointly and actively constructed. Billig’s (1997) action-oriented
view of social processes further allows for a view of ideology which constantly
changes its form and appearance, while being shaped by social and historical con-
texts.
For linguistic social psychologists, ideology is most interesting when it pervades
and is adopted by society as something which represents and promotes a certain
Patrick Studer
194
way of everyday life. This ‘lived’ideology is clearly distinguished from formal ideo-
logical theories of different schools of thought (Billig et al. 1988: 27). While the
coexistence of ideologies at these different levels motivates the study of the links that
exist between formal ideological systems and informal common sense (Billig et al.
1988: 25), the focus of social psychology lies on the content, structure and processes
of common sense itself. This emphasis on common sense reflects a broader debate
in philosophy that started with Antonio Gramsci, who located ideological struggles
in common sense, that is, in a contradictory corpus of beliefs, actions and practices.
Common sense as a research paradigm, today, is most actively represented by the
school of thought surrounding Serge Moscovici, the founder of Social Representa-
tions Theory (henceforth SRT). Ideology can be conceptualised, according to Mosco-
vici (1984), by taking account of communication processes between two universes,
the consensual (common-sense) and the reified (scientific) universe. Ideology in
common sense, as Voelklein and Howarth (2005: 445–6) argue, emerges in the
process of reification where certain social representations are positioned as ‘expert’
knowledge and are infused with ideological power through legitimisation of their
dominant and dominating position over alternative representations.
The underlying theoretical framework for the analysis presented here is discur-
sive and socio-psychological in the above sense, perceiving people as individual
participants in, and contributors to, ideologically-infused discourses. The adopted
perspective highlights an emic view of objects, that is, it emphasises individual per-
formance style and the importance of subject-positioning within discourse in as
much as it is meaningful to participants who engage in interaction (Potter 2003: 787;
in conversation analysis cf. Drew & Heritage 1992). Such a perspective is capable
of revealing the repertoire of actions we have acquired for specific contexts and the
ways in which we vary our actions when we communicate with others. In linguistic
social psychology, these variations are not only believed to be critical in the develop-
ment of interaction itself, but are seen as equally relevant to the construction of ideo-
logy. People not only construct ideologies variably when they interact, attending to
what they believe to be ‘object reality’, but they do so in rational ways, developing
and referring to (scientific and common-sense) concepts deemed adequate for the
description of the phenomenon that is subjected to negotiation. A social psycho-
logical perspective in linguistic analysis thus helps us focus our attention on the
rational-conceptual behaviour ‘in terms of people’s descriptions, glosses, catego-
ries, orientations’ (Potter 2003: 787), that is, on behavioural patterns surrounding
clusters of concepts which have a figurative or metaphorical character. These behav-
ioural patterns can be understood to represent broader underlying conceptual-ideo-
logical practices pertaining to social groups or milieus.
Within this broader framework, the analysis summarised here applies SRT as
amethodological paradigm for discourse analysis (e.g. Jovchelovitch 2002, 2007).1
Management of language ideologies in informal language planning episodes 195
SRT proposes an understanding of social representations both as activity (the process
of representing) and product (an elaborated idea, a designed object, etc.). Thus,
representations can be seen as embedded in a communication system which is
defined in terms of a ‘triple genitive’(Bauer & Gaskell 1999: 167), that is, in terms
of a (social) subject, an object (a thing represented, concrete or abstract), and a pro-
ject (the context of a social group within which the representation makes sense).
When members from different social groups come together, they need to establish
common ground, which involves the negotiation of meaning of different represen-
tations that relate to the subject matter of the encounter. SRT as a methodological
paradigm provides a suitable approach to grasp the ways in which representations
are negotiated by participants, thus offering an instrument that can reveal ideologi-
cal clashes that underlie negotiation.
SRT centres on the division between scientific knowledge and common-sense
knowledge (especially when scientific knowledge transforms into common-sense),
assuming that both types of knowledge are rational. At the core of this assumption
lies the process of anchoring and objectification, which entails the transformation
process from science to common sense involving the use of typical content
(i.e. knowledge based on common-sense traditions, experiments and observations).
While anchoring refers to the act of locating the prototypicality of abstract (scien-
tific) knowledge, objectifying refers to efforts at adapting this prototypical know-
ledge to the specific situation in question. This process involves reflexivity, which
includes an awareness of one’s own constructive efforts in arriving at a consensual
agreement about some thing or object. The discursive and social representational
perspective therefore emphasises the tension between reflection and ‘automatic’,
or unreflected, cognitive behaviour, especially when we try to make sense out of
abstract knowledge (e.g. pure science, objective reality). This awareness of one’s
own constructive efforts entails the experience of alternatives in the form of con-
flicting representations of an issue of common concern. The different perspective
of the ‘other’ thereby presents a challenge to interactants. Ideology in this context
can be seen as a function of communicative behaviour, ‘levelling out’contradictory
phenomena relating to opposed social beliefs (Bauer & Gaskell 1999: 173; cf. rele-
vance of ideology in SRT in Moscovici & Marková 1998: 385; Moscovici 1984;
Wetherell & Potter 2007: 259; Potter 1998: 252; Davies & Harré 1990; on concep-
tual contradiction cf. Studer 2012).
Patrick Studer
196
1The perspective taken here approaches social representations from a discursive psychological angle,
acknowledging the problematic relationship between SRT and discursive social psychology addressed
in various articles (e.g. Marková 2000, in response to Potter & Edwards 1999). I agree with Mar-
ková’s position, which treats discursive social psychology as complementary to SRT rather than as
aseparate methodological paradigm.
This methodology motivates a focus on discourse as a reflection of social actors’
ability to vary in the ways they perform actions, that is, in the ways they apply con-
versational rhetoric to position themselves in discourse. The approach to gathering
empirical data is guided by settings that facilitate spontaneous and natural interac-
tion in informal contexts. It is in such settings that data can be collected which can
reveal how social actors attend to rational contradictions or general inconsistencies
when they construct, or are confronted with, so-called ideological particularisations
(Marková 2003; Billig et al. 1988). Particularisation in SRT is understood as a com-
munication process in which particular content, situational and contextual, is fixed
as general content through anchoring and objectification. This means that a (scien-
tific) concept is never represented as free from a particularised context in everyday
interaction, but is, in the process of negotiation, connected to a generalising label of
aspecific social milieu. This generalising label is allocated a place within the hier-
archy of related labels. Anchoring, as proposed by Billig (1993), however, should
not be understood as categorisation in a cognitive sense, but as a concept developed
jointly in the process of social interaction. In relation to multilingualism as the
subject of informal discussion, particularisation may materialise in the form of the
responses of discussants to their peers with reference to general truths and com-
monsense knowledge which is adapted to fit the specific situation and context at
hand. In the complex process of particularisation, ideology can be best understood
as a mediator between the common-sense and scientific universes, accounting for
those interactive efforts that are aimed at revealing or concealing social positioning
within discourse (Moscovici 1984; Moscovici & Marková (1998: 385).
Social representational analysis with such a specific focus on the interactive con-
struction and management of ideology demands special attention to contradictions
(cf. Wetherell & Potter 2007: 259) and ideological and social conflicts as they
manifest themselves in interaction (Potter 1998: 252). In fact, Bauer and Gaskell
(1999: 173) claim that ideology can only be studied in relation to a social milieu
which it contradicts: ‘[A] representation may be classified as ideological if its
anchors and objectifications can be shown to contradict the project of a particular
social milieu [social group] and thus to sustain a relationship of dominance […].’
Marková (2000, 2002), in her analysis of nineteenth and twentieth century philoso-
phy, would be likely to subscribe to Bauer and Gaskell’s claim. The line of thought
of researchers such as Davies and Harré (1990) and Billig et al. (1988: 8) further
stress that social dilemmas emerge as a consequence of contrary themes embodied
in common sense itself. Thus, social sense is understood as being fundamentally
dilemmatic, while contrary themes of common sense represent the materials through
which people can argue and think about their lives. In relation to the subject of this
paper, multilingualism, opposition between beliefs and practices or actions can
take a multitude of forms of expression. For example, the idea of multilingualism
Management of language ideologies in informal language planning episodes 197
facilitating integration and communication across linguistic and cultural bound-
aries may go against the experience of how multilingualism works in various
contexts – as a cause of fragmentation rather than integration. Or the promotion
of multilingualism as an added value to society may oppose experiences of prac-
tices where different cultural and linguistic traditions are diminished or treated as
irrelevant.
The methodological framework proposed here allows us to focus on social
actors’ variable language behaviour in instances where particularisation is acted
out by interactants using linguistic resources such as basic metaphors, tropes and
common-sense truths, and, particularly, lay-psychological assumptions clustering
around conflict (e.g. Wetherell & Potter 2007: 259; Sarbin 1986; Edward & Potter
1993; Billig 1988). These actions in turn cluster around issues of factuality, othering,
recognition of and knowledge about others, as well as the ideological hierarchy of
concepts. The focus on social actors’ language behaviour, therefore, reveals how
interactants spontaneously attempt to incorporate particular information into their
argument using ‘scientific’terms, how they mystify, naturalise and legitimise exclu-
sion (cf. Howarth 2006; also Jovchelovitch 2002: 1), and how they treat themselves
and others as agents with stake, accountability and power (cf. Jovchelovitch 2007:
138; Potter & Wetherell 1995: 82). Such behaviour provides the basic repertoire
for framing social actors’ positions in discourse that follow distinctive evaluative
practices (cf., generally, Potter 1998, 2003; Harré & Gillet 1994), and they can serve
various communicative functions. Interactants may vary in the degree to which they
use language to display their interestedness or disinterestedness towards some-
thing, or to avoid contradiction, to aid or remedy previous contributions, to resolve
conflicts, and so on (cf. the Discursive Action Model of Edwards & Potter 1993;
Edwards et al. 1993).
In summary, when we set out to explore ideology in spontaneous and informal
interaction using linguistic social psychology, and in particular SRT, research
attention can be fruitfully directed to ways in which participants attend to ideo-
logical contradictions or inconsistencies in discourse when they engage in social
representational activity, that is, attention is directed to how participants perform
actions and reveal underlying ideological practices of formal ideological systems
(summarised in Table 1).
Table 1: Analytic levels in the study of ideological conceptualisations of language
Ideological practice Linguistic action Contradiction Representation
Common-sense Agreeing, disagreeing, Inconsistency between Clusters of concepts with
ideological practice accommodating, common-sensical figurative and metaphorical
representing formal suggesting, etc. beliefs, practices character; the process of
ideological systems and actions anchoring and objectification
Patrick Studer
198
Focus Group Discussion
The data used for this investigation were based on focus group discussions with
bachelor’s and master’s degree students from various areas of study that were held
simultaneously in three locations of Europe (Vienna, Prague, Bern).2In this paper,
Iwill present results from the analysis of the focus group meeting at the University
of Bern. All participants in the focus group in Bern, five female and four male stu-
dents, had high or first language competence of Swiss German (i.e. the language
in which the focus group was conducted). Some participants had a first or second
generation migrant background. Of the nine participants, six were studying either
language or linguistics as their major or minor subject; some students studied his-
tory, religion, or political science. Only one student did not conduct his studies
within the humanities, but was registered at the faculty of law, while another student
studied informatics as her minor subject. Most of the students were in their early
to mid-twenties; one student – Serena – was an older student who had returned to
university after taking some years out working and starting a family. Table 2 below
contains the list of participants, including their pseudonyms and information con-
cerning their studies. The participants have been listed in the order in which they
were seated in a half-moon shaped lecture room where the discussion took place,
facing each other and the moderator.
Table 2: List of participants in seating order and with sociolinguistic information
Name Sex Level, year Major, minor
Linda F BA, third year History of Art, Linguistics
Josh M BA, second year Linguistics, Religion
Peter M MA, research Linguistics, History
Florian M BA, second year Law
Brigitte F BA, third year Religion, Political Science
Gregor M MA, research History
Katie F BA, first year Linguistics
Emma F MA, research Linguistics
Serena F BA, second year Linguistics, Informatics
The rationale underlying the discussions was such as to allow for the discursive
psychological analysis of social representations of ideology (cf. Puchta & Potter
2002, 2004; Potter 1998). In the course of the discussions, the students were presen-
Management of language ideologies in informal language planning episodes 199
2The focus groups were conducted in the framework of Work Package 4 within the LINEE research
project (Languages in a Network of European Excellence, Project no. CIT4-2006-28388, co-funded
by the European Commission in the Sixth Framework Programme, 2006–2010). Co-researchers
in the Bern focus group were Mi-Cha Flubacher and Felicia Kreiselmaier, whose help is acknow-
ledged here.
ted with prompts to which they were asked to give their spontaneous impressions.
These prompts reflected primary topics that were determined by the moderator as
relevant to the issue of multilingualism. The topics included in the discussion were
the following (introduced in the order presented here): multilingualism and identity,
multilingualism and integration/exclusion, and the perception of EU multilingualism
policy. The order determined for the discussions was chosen to facilitate a discussion
moving from the personal-individual level to the public sphere and, eventually,
to the specific European level. The discussion was intended as an open-ended group
conversation with minimal interference by the moderator. However, some structur-
ing regarding time and transfer between topics was pre-arranged so as to facilitate
the treatment of all thematic areas in approximately equal terms. We particularly
followed Chen’s (2007) suggestions to divide questions along the following dimen-
sions: opening, introduction, transfer, key questions, specific questions, closing
questions, and final questions.
The present paper focuses particularly on the first thematic part of the meeting,
multilingualism and identity, which was selected for close analysis so as to reveal
not only at which point in the discussion ideology first became a topic, and in which
context, but to show how participants subsequently dealt with ideology in a group
when they were asked to discuss multilingualism in relation to their personal lives.
The first thematic part of the discussion consisted of the following loose components:
introductory remarks including the introduction of group members (opening and
introduction), questions relating to multilingualism in participants’ lives (transfer),
and the presentation of an evaluative prompt (key and specific questions).
‘The More Languages You Know, the More of a Person You Are’
The Slavic proverb in the above title, which reflects the motto of the first Framework
Strategy for Multilingualism (2005), was shown to participants on a card following
the introductory round and was intended to confront participants with a statement
that was likely to trigger evaluative responses. Ideology, it was assumed, would
appear as part of the evaluative practices reflected in the participants’ spontaneous
behaviour. Table 3 below summarises three turn sequences leading up to the first
ideological intervention by the group; the fourth turn sequence, which is mentioned
in Table 3, will be analysed in greater detail in the subsequent analysis. For ease
of presentation, the turns have been summarised as interpretative statements by indi-
vidual group members, and they have been presented relative to the participant’s
behaviour (agreement or disagreement with the speaker of the previous turn and the
overall evaluation of the proverb by the speaker). Moderator interventions have been
highlighted separately in grey and identified as ‘Mod’.
Patrick Studer
200
The participants spontaneously offered the following interpretations: language
skills were understood to equal intellectual capacities, cultural ‘completeness’, eco-
nomic profit, enhanced communication skills or, generally, an ideal state of being.
At a first intervention of the moderator, the group made some effort at finding pos-
itive connotations in the statement, such as language skills as something natural in
society, language skills as a reflection of the amount of human contact a person has,
or language skills reflecting life opportunities. In the fourth turn sequence, finally,
the group’s discussion escalated in ideological positioning of individuals within the
group and in criticising the very practice of discussing this proverb in the framework
of the focus group.
The various interpretations offered by individual group members were performed
in ways which varied in evaluation of the cognitive attitude towards the object of
discussion, i.e. the proverb. This was partly due to a proverb being shown to the group
which motivated an evaluative discussion as it contained a statement indirectly
praising knowledge of several languages as something everybody should aspire to.
The proverb prompted participants to define their identity in terms of ideology and
positioning within an ideological framework. In terms of evaluation, negative reac-
tions, on the whole, were offered much more consistently than positive responses,
with the moderator actually having to push the group into considering positive sides
of the proverb. The performance style of the participants also differed in terms of the
strength of the evaluations offered by group members. Indeed, the discussion began
Management of language ideologies in informal language planning episodes 201
Table 3: Turn sequences leading up to ideological conflicts
Agreement/ Evaluation
Speaker Interpretations of the proverb disagreement (positive
or negative)
1Mod Thoughts on the proverb? Neutral
Emma Ability to speak languages means higher intellectual ability Strongly
negative
Florian Ability to speak languages means higher cultural completeness Agreement “
Peter Language learning means general benefit/profit Agreement “
Emma The more languages you speak the more you communicate Agreement “
Gregor Ability to speak languages portrayed as ideal state Agreement “
2Mod. Any positive reactions?
Serena Multilingualism as a natural thing in families Positive
Linda The more human contact you have, the more language you use Agreement “
Serena Languages mean opportunities Agreement “
3 Mod. The fewer languages you speak the less of a person you are?
Linda The proverb connects language ability to personality Agreement Negative
4Peter This discussion is an academic exercise, proverb is Disagreement Strongly
meaningful to people who do not possess language skills Positive
and ended with a provocation in which a speaker confronted the group with a strong
position. It is in these strong evaluative statements – turns 1 and 4 – where ideo-
logical contradictions and conflicts appeared which were attended to by the speaker.
It may not be surprising to note that in both cases where strong evaluations were
offered, the turn sequences tended to be longer and more elaborate than in the weaker
contributions. In the following, turn sequence 1, and particularly turn sequence 4,
will be analysed in greater detail with regard to ideological conceptualisations of
language by the various members of the group.
‘A Dangerous Statement’ – Opening the Floor for Ideological Debate
Turn sequences 1 and 4 seem to constitute an interconnected stretch of interaction
which is interrupted by moderator interventions in sequences 2 and 3. The first
sequence opens the floor for the participants’ attention to ideology as a factor in
the evaluation of the proverb: Extract 1 (lines 248–266).
The beginning of sequence 1 provides an example in which strong negative evalu-
ation by one member of the group – Emma – is accepted by peers as a persuasive
message on the complex subject of discussion since various members of the group
take the opportunity to respond to and accept it. The responsiveness of the group
seems partly understandable since Emma’s negative evaluation of the proverb as
dangerous (line 256) simultaneously contains potential criticism of the members
of the group who might approve such a proverb (Ithink there are people in the group
who think… line 254). By juxtaposing herself and the rest of the group, Emma pro-
vokes others to react. The immediate reaction to the critical intervention by Emma,
as shown by Florian, but also by other members of the group, seems to reflect the
group’s desire to reach an agreement on the subject matter harmoniously. None of
the speakers following the initial criticism of Emma is overtly challenged by other
members of the group; however, the criticism does not go unnoticed and is addressed
subtly, for example by Florian. Florian offers understanding of the ‘other side’ –
those approving of the proverb – by legitimising their thinking in a certain way and
seeing little harm in thinking the way those people do. But, rather than insisting
on representing the ‘other side’, Florian takes his legitimisation back immediately
and accommodates to the ‘dangerous claim’ of Emma (but it’s not that I agree with
this in any way or so, lines 262–3), signalling that his explanation offered does not
embody a value judgement, but simply a neutral analysis of the meaning of the
proverb. Up to this point in the discussion, we are unaware of the potential ‘danger’
of the proverb in ideological terms, and other members of the group simply hasten
to acknowledge that there does seem to be a problem with the proverb without
actually elaborating on the problem in greater detail.
Patrick Studer
202
Management of language ideologies in informal language planning episodes 203
‘We, the Hyper Critical’ – in Defence of the ‘Unskilled’
After the initial intervention by Emma, members of the group take a restricted
approach at negotiating meaning. Speakers take turns and add points to the argu-
ment offered by the previous speaker, usually in agreement with the dominant view
of Emma or the moderator. The moderator’s interventions to encourage positive
evaluations of the proverb prove largely unsuccessful in stimulating a lively discus-
sion. Following the moderator’s reversal to a more problematic interpretation of the
proverb, Peter comes in with the role of advocatus diaboli by framing the proverb
within the ideological context of an interest group representing academic-scientific
ideologies versus those who represent common-sense ideologies (see Extract 2, line
304 ff.). Ideology in this sequence of interaction is introduced with the representa-
tion of the ongoing activity, i.e. the focus group discussion itself, through the critical
eyes of the opposing group or social milieu which is not commonly associated with
language skills (unskilled workers, farmers). In doing so, Peter names the activity
of the current group discussion as politically correct and civilised academic talking,
as would be expected from future academics, taking a position for those who are
academically not privileged or are academically disadvantaged. This move within
the discussion, which is initiated and subsequently defended by the same member
of the group, relativises and juxtaposes language concerns in the context of realities
outside the focus group. The introduction of the critical perspective of the ‘opposing’
group is used by the group member to position himself within the group and to
express criticism of the way the other group members themselves engage in the aca-
demic-scientific discussion of language. In criticising his peers from the position of
the ‘other’ group, Peter draws the image of the disadvantaged as living in ‘blissful
Patrick Studer
204
Management of language ideologies in informal language planning episodes 205
ignorance’, grounding them in place, time, and social status (farmers from the
country of Emmental). In other words, Peter mystifies the idyllic countryside of
Emmental and farming, restoring the integrity of ‘other’ group. As a result, Peter
creates a mutual exclusion and extreme opposition between the ideological images
of student talk versus farmer talk. Thus, the intervention of the group member entails
both a symbolic contradiction by the ‘unskilled’ social milieu as well as a personal
disagreement with the focus group’s manner of discussion. Interestingly, Florian,
the subsequent speaker, tries to take up this position and legitimise it by embedding
it in personal experience, but he seems to fail at this stage to respond to the com-
plexity of the message of Peter.
Responding to the Ideological Challenge
The close analysis of the conversation further reveals how other members of the group
respond to the ideological move and how they position themselves relative to it.
Although the desire for agreement and harmony appears to be strong in the group,
disagreement and a refusal to accept being positioned ideologically is addressed both
emotionally and rationally during the conversation. The group members develop
an appreciation of language skills that is intended to reconcile the apparent contra-
diction between admiration for competitiveness, i.e. economic and social advantages
connected to certain language skills, and the respect for and knowledge about the
equality of all language use. This reconciliation process is a complex negotiation
of meaning in which members of the group expose and face their own and others’
inconsistent and ambivalent behaviour toward the subject of discussion and each
other.
Initially, Peter, who proposed the discrepancy and challenged the group simulta-
neously, is largely ignored by his peers as they continue to praise multilingualism,
or the knowledge of several languages, as an economic and personal asset. The con-
versation trickles along until the moderator intervenes another time, asking the
group about the actual point of this proverb. As the group seems to ignore this call
for more critical comments, and continues in the previous vein (everybody takes
you more seriously; people show an interest in you, lines 343–5), Peter interrupts
Florian a second time to make his point more explicit: Extract 3 (lines 346–349).
With this second intervention, Peter objectifies his criticism. Whereas in his
first comment, Peter takes position for the ‘other’ group (farmers in Emmental), his
second comments clearly position himself, along with his ‘other’ group, against his
peers. Peter attaches a strong value judgment to his peers’ comments. He suggests
that if one accepts the proverb as truthful, then one subscribes to an ideology that
categorises people into those who have language skills and those who have none, and,
by implication, into those who have academically not been successful. Reinforcing
Patrick Studer
206
his earlier criticism of the group, Peter claims moral righteousness and positions
himself and his view in opposition to academics. This more explicit comment by
Peter brings the discussion to a momentary pause which requires moderator inter-
vention in which the floor is passed on to another speaker.
This final phase of the discussion of this proverb subsequently evolves into a re-
luctant ideological defence of the group’s initial unreflected appraisal of language
skills. As can be seen from the responses in the excerpt below, the innocence of the
argument has disappeared and all subsequent speakers are compelled into position-
ing themselves relative to what was said. Katie’s response, the first who takes the
floor from the moderator, becomes somewhat incoherent. While attempting to main-
tain her appreciation in relation to the proverb (Ihave some kind of admiration when
Imeet someone … line 350 f.), Katie tries to accommodate to the previous speaker
by directly praising language skills of other group members. Thus, while attempt-
ing to display sufficient sensitivity to the issue, Katie takes position by refusing to
acknowledge the claim of Peter that those who praise multilingualism simultaneously
value the ‘other group’negatively. In other words, she does not seem to agree with the
assumption that her attitudinal behaviour might reflect any underlying ideology and
finally positions herself through her repeated emphasis on admiration of language
skills (there is an element of admiration there when I meet someone … line 359).
Management of language ideologies in informal language planning episodes 207
Gregor, at last, comes to Katie’s aid, completing her argument and defence against
the ideological challenge. Acknowledging and referring to the social milieus pre-
viously introduced by Peter, he draws an image of a disadvantaged group, that
of sixty- to seventy-year-old men from the country with only basic education and
limited opportunities vis-à-vis young urban university students.
Patrick Studer
208
Underlying Ideological Practices
The analysis of the above stretches of interaction opens up interesting avenues
of research. The analysis shows that it is possible to categorise linguistic action,
contradictions and representations according to ideological practices that occur
during informal language planning episodes. It allows us to trace ideological prac-
tices underlying group interaction when tackling language-related ideological con-
cepts. It shows clearly that ideological practices have a powerful impact on the turns
conversation takes.
The analysis reveals that the conversation is framed from an early point in ideo-
logical terms, with the participants taking position against potential writers or ‘fol-
lowers’ of the proverb, while the proverb is considered dangerous ‘folk wisdom’.
The group is seen to perform academic talking and to attempt at explaining the
proverb in scientific terms (folk against the academic world). At that point Peter
intervenes and attacks the other group members as representing academic interest
groups, taking side of the non-academic ‘milieu’ for who the proverb could very
well make sense. Peter has been shown to adopt the critical practice of those outside
the academic world by characterising the ‘other group’, using a number of familiari-
sation strategies, such as the image of farming and countryside life. On the weak
response to this intervention, Peter becomes even more explicit, objectifying dis-
respect and categorisation of individuals. Thus, the group is forced into responding
to the criticism. Some members of the group refuse being positioned ideologically,
underlining the co-existence of admiration for language skills and knowledge about
the danger of discrimination, thus emphasising that one can very well respect the
‘other’ group while respecting academic peers. Table 4 summarises the different
actions relating to the studied interaction sequence in detail. It represents the dif-
ferent layers in which background ideological practices may manifest themselves
at the linguistic surface – in complex linguistic action, contradicting the position
of an imagined or real ‘other’, embedded in structured and common-sensical repre-
sentations.
Table 4: Ideological practices and linguistic actions
Ideological practice Linguistic action Type of contradiction Representation
Critical practice of Criticising peers for Scientific vs. Characterisation of ‘other’
non-academic mem- adopting an academic common sense group/empowerment
bers of society (Peter) ideology of argument interpretation of others (anchoring)
Disagreeing with peers Disrespectful attitude towards
‘others’ (objectification)
(Peer reaction) Refusing Affective vs. cognitive Respect for ‘other’ group AND
‘ideologisation’ attitudinal practice respect for peers (coexistence)
Management of language ideologies in informal language planning episodes 209
Conclusion
The results of the study point in several directions: the analysis of the data seems to
corroborate the assumption that people engage in distinctive ideological practices
in discourses on language that reveal underlying ideological debates. These debates
seem to represent concerns that spring from contrary themes reflecting broader ethi-
cal tensions of contemporary societies (cf. the discussion of liberalism in Jovchelo-
vitch 2007; earlier discussions in Rutherford 1990; Moscovici 1984; Tajfel 1978).
Within the context of language planning, these tensions centre on the competition
for advancement or superiority of particular languages and language skills (admi-
ration for those who have access to knowledge) and the knowledge of the danger
and discriminatory power of such admiration. The analysis offers a categorisation
framework for the types of actions found in instances of informal language planning
episodes. Basing the analysis on the close reading of one longer episode across
several turns, the study shows how language as an object of policy-making is ide-
ologically constructed and subsequently addressed by the group.
The analysis summarised here shows that focus group discussions are a suitable
way of categorising linguistic actions occurring during language planning episodes
according to ideological practices. These actions and practices not only seem un-
avoidable in social contact but are seen to have a tremendous impact on the turns
aconversation takes. They account for some of the inconsistent behaviour as much
as for the ways in which agreement and disagreement are achieved rationally and
emotionally. Psychologically oriented discourse analysis helps not only pointing
out the importance of such activity during language planning interaction, but also
potentially contributes to understanding how this is done in talk and, indirectly, how
people can be sensitised to a reflexive approach to language policy-making.
Appendix
The transcribed excerpts below contain the analysed interactions in the original lan-
guage German. Although the discussion took place in Swiss German (non-standard
German), the transcript as presented here has been standardised (standard German)
for ease of reading. The transcription loosely follows HIAT (Ehlich 1992).
Patrick Studer
210
Management of language ideologies in informal language planning episodes 211
Patrick Studer
212
Management of language ideologies in informal language planning episodes 213
Patrick Studer
214
References
Bauer, M. W. & Gaskell, G. (1999) Towards a paradigm for research in social representations.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 29(2), 163–185.
Billig, M. (1982) Ideology and Social Psychology: Extremism, Moderation, and Contradiction.
New York: St. Martin’s.
Billig, M. (1991) Ideology and Opinions. Studies in Rhetorical Psychology. London: Sage.
Billig, M. (1993) Studying the thinking society: Social representations, rhetoric, and attitudes.
In G. M. Breakwell & D. V. Canter (eds) Empirical Approaches to Social Representations.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–62.
Billig, M. (1997) From codes to utterances: Cultural studies, discourse and psychology. In M. Fer-
guson & P. Golding (eds) Cultural Studies in Question. London: Sage, 205–226.
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D. & Radley, A. (1988) Ideological
Dilemmas. A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking. London: Sage.
Cheng, K.-W. (2007) A study on applying focus group discussion on education. Reading Improve-
ment 44(4), 194–198.
Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity. Rethinking Critical Dis-
course Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Davies, B. & Harré, R. (1990) Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour 20(1), 43–63.
Davies, B. & Harré, R. (1999) Positioning and personhood. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhøve (eds)
Positioning Theory. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell, 32–52.
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (eds) (1992) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, D. & Jonathan, P. (1993) Language and causation: A discursive action model of descrip-
tion and attribution. Psychological Review 100(1), 23–41.
Edwards, D., Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1993) A model of discourse in action. American Behav-
ioral Scientist 36(3), 383–401.
Ehlich, K. (1992) HIAT – a transcription system for discourse data. In J. Edwards & M. Lampert
(eds) Talking Data – Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 123–148.
Harré, R. & Gillet, G. (1994) The Discursive Mind. London: Sage.
Harré, R. & Moghaddam, F. (2003) The Self and Others. Positioning Individuals and Groups in
Per sonal, Political, and Cultural Contexts. Wesport: Praeger Publishers.
Howarth, C. (2006) A social representation is not a quiet thing: Exploring the critical potential
of social representations theory. British Journal of Social Psychology 45, 65–86.
Jovchelovitch, S. (2002) Re-thinking the Diversity of Knowledge: Cognitive Polyphasia, Belief
and Representation. London: LSE Research Online.
Jovchelovitch, S. (2007) Knowledge in Context. Representations, Community and Culture. London:
Routledge.
Marková, I. (2000) Amédée or how to get rid of it: Social representations from a dialogical per-
spective. Culture and Psychology 6(4), 419–60.
Marková, I. (2003) Dialogicality and Social Representations. The Dynamics of the Mind. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moscovici, S. (1984) The phenomenon of social representations. In R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici
(eds) Social Representations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 3–69.
Management of language ideologies in informal language planning episodes 215
Moscovici, S. & Marková, I. (1998) Presenting social representations: A conversation. Culture
and Psychology 4, 371–410.
Potter, J. (1998) Discursive social psychology: From attitudes to evaluative practices. European
Review of Social Psychology 9, 233–266.
Potter, J. (2003) Discursive psychology: Between method and paradigm. Discourse and Society
14(6), 783–794.
Potter, J. & Edwards, D. (1999) Social representations and discursive psychology: From cognition
to action. Culture and Psychology 5, 447–458.
Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1995) Discourse analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harré & L. Van Langenhove
(eds) Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage, 64–92.
Puchta, C. & Potter J. (2002) Manufacturing individual opinions: Market research focus groups
and the discursive psychology of evaluation. British Journal of Social Psychology 41, 345–363.
Puchta, C. & Potter, J. (2004) Focus Group Practice. London: Sage.
Rutherford, J. (1990) Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Sarbin, T. R. (1986) The narrative as a root metaphor for psychology. In T. R. Sarbin (ed.) Nar-
rative Psychology. The Storied Nature of Human Conduct. New York, Westport, London:
Prager, 3–21.
Studer, P. (2012) Conceptual contradiction and discourse on multilingualism. In P. Studer & I. Werlen
(eds) Linguistic Diversity in Europe: Trends and Discourses (Contributions to the Sociology
of Language 93). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 115–35.
Tajfel, H. (1978) Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour. Studies in Social Psychology of Inter-
group Relations. London: Academic Press.
Wetherell, M. & Potter, J. (2007) Practical politics and ideological dilemmas. In J. Potter (ed.)
Discourse and Psychology. Vol. II. London: Sage, 256–281.
Voelklein, C. & Howarth, C. (2005) A review of controversies about Social Representations
Theory: A British debate. Culture and Psychology 11(4), 431–454.
Patrick Studer
216
Prague Papers on Language, Society and Interaction
Prager Arbeiten zur Sprache, Gesellschaft und Interaktion
Edited by/Herausgegeben von Jiří Nekvapil, Tamah Sherman and Petr Kaderka
Vol./Bd.1 Nekvapil, Jiří / Sherman, Tamah (eds./Hrsg.): Language Management in Contact
Situations. Perspectives from Three Continents. 2009.
Vol./Bd.2 Wilson, James: Moravians in Prague. A Sociolinguistic Study of Dialect Contact
in the Czech Republic. 2010.
Vol./Bd.3 Barát, Erzsébet / Studer, Patrick / Nekvapil, Jiří (eds./Hrsg.): Ideological Concep-
tualizations of Language: Discourses of Linguistic Diversity. 2013.
www.peterlang.de