The Substantive Universals in the Relationship betweenLanguage Ideology and Language Education
While we need to problematize the notions of development and sustainable 
development, we are also faced by a particular challenge related to language: what models of 
language in the world are we using to understand the role of language education in development? I 
shall discuss a range of possible understandings of English in the world in order to see how they 
relate to questions of development
Language Ideology: Issues and Approaches
This special issue of hagmarl'cs derives from a day-long symposium on "l^anguage Ideology: Practice and Theory" held at the annual meeting of the American Anthropology Association in Chicago, November 1991.1 The organizing premise of the symposium was that language ideology is a mediating link between social structures and forms of talk, if such static imagery for some very dynamic processes can be forgiven. Rather than casting language ideology as an epiphenomenon, a relatively inconsequential overlay of secondary and tertiary responses (Boas 1911; Bloomfield 1944),, the symposium started from the proposition that ideology stands in dialectical relation with, and thus significantly influences, social, discursive, and linguistic practices. As such a critical link, language ideology merits more concerted analytic attention than it has thus far been given. In this first attempt to bring form to an area of inquiry, we have adopted a relatively unconstrained sense of "language ideology." Alan Rumsey's definition, based on Silverstein (1979), is a useful starting point: linguistic ideologies are "shared bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of language in the world "(1990: 346). We mean to include cultural conceptions not only of language and language variation, but of the nature and purpose of communication, and of communicative behavior as an enactment of a collective order (Silverstein 1987: l-2). I use the terms "linguistic" and "language" ideology interchangeably, although in the articles that follow one might detect differences in their uses, perhaps varying with the degree to which the authors focus on formal linguistic structures or on representations of a collective order. In order to build toward a general understanding of the cultural variability of language ideology and its role in social and linguistic life, the symposium brought
Legal Ideology and Linguistic Theory: Variability and Its Limits
Publisher Summary This chapter focuses on the principles governing indexicality, type–token relationships, and the relation of pragmatics to semantics are important in understanding the influence of legal ideology on legal practice. The language of semiotics gives us a precise tool for discussing the role of context. Indexicality actually bridges several associated gaps that are given in traditional linguistic ideology. Whorf posits a dependency relationship between the actual structure of language and the way speakers view their language. While Hart's analysis finds creativity at the fringes, in process, it locates the primary source of legal creativity in rules. Hart distinguishes two basic sorts of rules–primary rules of obligation and secondary rules. In contrast with Hart, the legal realists and the sociological school of jurisprudence see social context as central in shaping legal systems. They also refute to varying degrees the notion that law can be understood as essentially rational or principled.