- 138. Pragmatics 5:2.

129 InternationalPrasmatics Association

CONSTRUCTINGLANGUAGESAND PUBLICS: AUTHORITY AND REPRESENTATION

SusanGal and Kathrvn A. Woolard

1. Introduction suchas namedlanguages, Cultural categories of communication, dialects, standards, speechcommunitiesand genres,are constructedout of the messyvariability of spokeninteraction.Suchboundedand naturalizedrepresentations are the products of experts and expert knowledge as well as of more widely-shared linguistic These representations ideologies. are enactedand reproducedin familiar linguistic practices:Translation, the writing of grammars and dictionaries,the policing of in national standards, the creationof linguisticand folklore collections correctness or academies. The work of linguisticrepresentation produces not only individualized and "hearers"as the agentsof communication, "speakers" but also larger,imagined and emergent social groupings, including our focus here, "publics." Such processes are crucial aspects representational of power, figuring among the means inequality, for establishing imposingsocialhierarchy, and mobilizingpolitical action. The essays in this collectioninvestigate the public construction of languages, the linguistic construction of publics, and the relationship between these two processes. Using both historical and ethnographic approaches,they examine empiricalcases rangingfrom westernindustrialto Asian and 'small scale'societies. The papers were first presented at a sessionof the American Anthropological 92nd meeting,held in WashingtonD.C., November 1993,and have a Association's longer history of developmentin the discussions of a working group on languageat the Center for TransculturalStudiesin Chicago.lIn turn, thosediscussions grew out of the 1992 special issue of Pragmafi'cs on "LanguageIdeologies;"itself a result of an AAA symposium .2 All of theseactivitieshave been rooted in the interest in the

1 Many thanksto Ben Lee, Director of the Center,for support of the workshop, and to the participants for many of the ideascontainedin this introduction.Two participantsin the Arq,A session, ElizabethMertz and Hy Van Luong, have not had time to revisetheir papersfor this We wish to thank our discussants publication. for the session, William Hanksand Don Brenneis, for veryhelpfulinsights thesefinal versions, that shaped although theytoo decided not to submit their commentsfor this issue.Finally, we are greatlyindebtedto Kari Robinson.Her generous of time and energyin the final phases investment of editorialwork provedindispensable. collectionalsogaverise to a lgg4workshop on languageIdeologyorganized by Paul Kroskrity and sponsored by the School for American Research. A volume of that group's papers is now in preparation underthe editorship of Kroskrity.The present collectionhasbenefited from the influence whose of the SAR workshop, andconversations membership overlapsignificantly 2 Thut earlier

130

Susan Gal andKathryn A. Wootarul

relationships amonglanguage, politicaleconomy, and ideology that had emergedin a seriesof AAA sessions in the late 1980s. The immediate point of departure for these essayson the historical constructionof languages and publicsis the largerprojectof understanding language ideologies, and the ways in which they mediate between social structure and linguisticpractices(Woolard 1992).Inthe simplest fbrmulation,language ideologies are cultural conceptionsof the nature, form and purpose of language,and of communicative behavior as an enactmentof a collectiveorder (Silverstein1987; Rumsey 1990;Irvine 1989).These are phenomenathat, under a variety of labels, linguisticanthropologists and scholars in relatedfields havelong noted and studied. The current reformulation emphasizesthe social positioning, partiality, and contestability of practical and discursiveideologies,as well as the way they reflexively(re)shape linguisticand socialstructures. (See Woolard 1992;Woolard and Schieffelin 1994for a discussion.) The papersgatheredhere exploretwo relatedquestions: First, how different imagesof linguisticphenomenagain socialcredibilityand political influence,both wrthin the academicdisciplines of language(linguistics, folklore, philology) and in larger socialfields; and, secondly, the role of linguisticideologyand practicesin the making of political authority. We will take up these two themes in turn in this introduction, aimingto make explicitsomeof the questions, critiques and arguments that fonn the backgrclund to these concerns.

2. Authoritative representations of language An ongoing project in the field of sociolinguistics is the critique of the conceptson which its growth in the 1960s was founded. For instance, despite its evident usefulness in theorizingthe functionaldiversityof codeswithin linguisticrepertoires, the notion of speechcommunityhas directedattentionto consensus and sharingof interpretations within a boundedsocialunit, while neglecting processes of conflict, competition,exclusion, boundaryrelationships and differentiation, which are at the center of current socialscientific investigations of identityformation (Rickford 1986; Irvine 1987;Irvine and Gal 1994). In the presentcollection, several paperscontributeto this critical exploration of the analytical categorieswe work with - including not only sociolinguistic concepts, but much older notionsas well - by locatingtheir historicalsourcesin discursive fields and particularsocialand often politicalprocesses. The notionsof "oral literature"(Bauman),and "genealogical relationship" (Irvine) are most fully discussed in this perspective.3 In examiningthe scholarlyproduction of basic units of analysissuch as "languagefamily" and "folklore" or "oral literature,"these papers do for linguistic

with those of the group at the Center for Transcultural Studies. 3 But ou, workshop discussionsfrequently turned to many other current ideas. For instance, Olender's (1992) description of the ubiquitous linkage made in the 19th century between religion and languagesounded exotic cnough to us to throw into ironic relief our own continuing obsession with language and power.

Constructtng languagesand publics

131

anthropologythe reflexlve task that has become familiar in the humanities and social sciences.Inspired in part by Foucault, but also by the new history and - their disciplines ask how - throughwhat practices sociology of science, scholars their objects of study. have constitutedthemselves by inventing (not discovering) as terms in our title signalsa The choice of "representation" and "construction" of the "realworld," categories lessasaspects commitment to understanding scholarly parts of sociallife. and more as parts of culture,often ideologically-loaded of a disciplinemight work as cultural Not content to note that the categories thesepapersdescribein detail the relationshipbetween capitalfor its practitioners, the psyche, e.g.about the individual, linguistic ideasand other culturalconceptions, sexuality, national provenance,or Christian morality. They attempt to specify,as well, the social location and historical context of the exponentsof the different linguisticviews. As Silversteinnotes, however,the aim is not thereby to discredit such concepts,but rather to get a better sense of the way in which linguistic ideologies have real historical effects. Thus, when Bauman shows the textual assumptions, and justificationsthrough which Henry Rowe Schoolcraft strategies, he is not createda body of "Chippewafolklore" out of a seriesof oral interactions, which light on practices of entextualization Schoolcraft. Rather,he sheds dismissing legacywhich of Schoolcraft's createan apparentlyunified "object"of study, aspects are still often taken for granted. Or, when Irvine showsthat some 19th century were entangledwith assumptions philologicalcategorizations of Alrican languages about sexualityand family relations, she is not simply debunking the theory of but rather showinghow it is, like all genealogical relationshipsamong languages, productof its historical moment. asa principled comprehensible scholarly discourse, Again, Silversteinis not interestedin presentingOgden and Richards' project of but rather in showinghow the great popularity BASIC English as crackpotscience, of applied science by the politicalstructuring of the movementwas made possible and languagenot in the academyso much as in the public sphere." papersin this issue sharea numberof other generalstrategies. The historical schema, they eachfind, in their historical Rather than a singleepochalconceptual period, competingimagesof whatever aspectof languageis the focus of analysis. battleswithin folk notions of language That is, they attend to debatesand discursive or presuppositions of the participantsbut that reveal not only sharedassumptions the Often, as in the papersby Gal and Silverstein, also alternativecommitments. and those who will later studentsof language, fights are between professionalizing Thus part of the battle has to do with the definition of be defined as amateurs. legitimate inquiry. The papers suggestthat imagesof linguistic phenomena gain or when they createtieswith other arguments of aesthetic about aspects credibility of language in particularargues,representations moral life. And, as Silverstein phenomena gain social authority - in tact may only be thinkable - from the speak. institutional locationsfrom which their proponents established as Frequently,one position in such debatesis subsequently of languageis seen as natural, obvious, objective.That is, one characterization

For a very useful set of arguments showing that a constructivist stance towards knowledge doesnot necessarily imply a denial of reality, nor an embraceof relativism, see Ceorge lrvine (ed.) 1993.

'

132

Susan Gal and Kathryn A. Woolard

emanatingnot.from any particularsocialposition but rather from the phenomenon itself' A careful recuperationand contextualization of suchdebateshasthe salutary effect of dislodging, for readers, theselater assumptions of naturalness. showing the earlier positionalityof a regime of representation that now seemssimply a matter of "letting hature speak foi itself'.is especially important when, as otlen happens, the establishmentof a natural phenorn.non'is not only warrant fbr a scholarly discipline,but is also called on to legitimateand authorizepolitical programs. A familiar example will provide brief illustration. By the end of the lgth century' and in contrastto well-established earlier views,languages were conceived to be natural entities,out there to be discovered, the produit oT human nature, to be sure,but independentof jndividualvoluntaryacts, and thereforenot the creation of any self-conscious human will or intervention(Taylor 1990).Exactlybecause they were understood to be prior to intentional human political'activity,they could be called on to justiff and legitimatepolitical actions,such as the formation of nationstates'The victorian IinguistMax Mtiller, for example, commentedhimself that in his times, "the scien:. languagehas been called in to settle some of the most 9f perplexingsocialand political questions," acting"in favour of nationsand languages against dynastiesand treaties'i lcited in Croile y l9g9: 67; see also Irvine, this volume). As Daston and Galison (1992) have recentlyargued, our current notjon of "objectivity" comprises a number of cJistinct ways in which the ,'personal,, is systematicallycensored, deniecl, extirpated f.or the project of scientific .or observationand analysis' The detinitionof a phenomenon as independentof human will, as in the exampleabove,createsone kind of objectivjty. Ano;her kind depends on the attempt to escapefrom an individual or socially-iocatable perspective;it invokesa view from nowhere(Nagel 1986).This aperspectival objectivity,discussed in severalof our papers' is iniereitingly relatect to the categoryof the public. 3. Publics If the tirst strategyin-thesepapersfocuses on the different sources of authority for diverse definitions.of Ianguige phenomena,then the secondstrategyanalyzesthe ways in which beliefs about linguages and habitual engagementin particular linguistic practices create or buttress the legitimac/ "of specit)c political arrangements. Needlessto say,the two are often rerated.s We are interestecl in the catego-ry of the "public"as a form of language-based political legitimation. Discussionof "publics" hu, ."r.ntly been reinvigorated in American social theory by the translaiion and republicationof Habermas,searly work, Tlrc stnrctttraltransformatiotto{the public ,pirrr, (19g9 [1962]). our aim here is not to add to the large literature of criticismurouno this text (see "*pii.ution'and e'g' Landes 1988;Robbins 1990;calhoun lggz). we nore, instead,that very little
Indeed' one canpoint to a general analytical ploy.Ideorogies thatappear to be aboutlanguage can be read as coded storiesor "displacet.Ltl" about poliiicar,religiousor scientificsystems; ideologies that seem.lo. b. about religion,politicatttreory, humansubjectivity or science can be reinterpreted as implicit entailmenK*or ioeotoiies, or rhe precipitates of widespread llquase linguistic practices(Silverstein1994; I_ee1993).

{ -

Constructing lunguagesand publics

733

of thiscommentary hasbeensociolinguistically or semiotically informed.How might such language-oriented perspectives clarify ongoingdebates,and how could we of linguistic rework the notion of "public" to advanceour own understanding ideologies I In the presentcontext, the category of "public"is perhapsbestthoughtof as authority. One of the bestone in a spectrumof tbrms of sociolinguistically-created known torms might be that describedby Bourdieu for standardFrench, whose rooted in, rather speakers' power is "misrecognized" as legitimately and perceived than merelyindexedby, their controlof linguistic structures. Another is exemplary asa quasi-natural Javanese usage, which Erringtonreportshereto be misrecognized ideology of language attributeof elitehood. While theseand manyother examples link sociopolitical systems to the formal structural properties of a code,Habermas's process,a fbrm of verbal notion of public sphere valorizesa communication who gathertcl discuss interaction: mattersof common Groups of private individuals are decidedon the politicalconcern, bearingon stateauthority. and whosedebates This is what basisof reasonrather than the relativestatuses of the interactants. of mixed companies, Kant characterized approvinglyas the "conversation consisting people or women not merelyof scholars and subtlereasoners but alsoof business storytelling namelyarguing," andjesting...another entertainment, [whohave]besides (cited in Calhoun 7992'). The "public opinion" produced by such critical talk has authority exactly by virtue of being ruled by reason, "openness" and political equality.It was conceived to be as free from the private status-given interestsof the participants as from the coercivepowers of the state and the economy. Habermaspresents phenomenon, this as a historically specific emergingnot just as an ideology, and everyday practicesin the but also as a set of institutions western Europe of the 17thand 18thcenturies. of the "public" For him, the category is explicitlya product of an emergingbourgeois,urban society- based on an traffic in commodities and news- spurredby earlycapitalist increased long-distance trade. The institutionsthat supportedit includerJ not only newspapers and the increasing use of print, but also coffeehouses, salons, and voluntary associations of innumerablekinds that provided the forums tbr reasclned debate.Clearly this is a differentsense of "public"than that characteristic of the ancientworld or of feudal Europe;and it requireda reconceptualization of the "private"as the spherefor the "State" formation of individuals. and "society" were understood as entitiessetagainst each other, just as private interestwas set againstthe public opinion of a new who did not fit into the feudal orders. category of bourgeois "citizens" This portrait of the earlv bourgeoispublic sphere has been criticizedon grounds.It is at least as much an idealizedand nostalgicimage with numerous which Habermasaims to crtticizewhat he considers a debasement of 20th century publicdiscourse, overly dependent on massmedia and the "cultureindustry," as it study.And there has been much controversy is a historical sincethe work's initial publicationabout the actual historical processes involved. The institutional and were quite different in England,France,Germanyand the U.S., changes ideological and the dating,locationand evendefinitionof the processes continueto be matters of controversy.Many question whether there were ever, any'rvhere, egalitarian, politicallysignificant,public forums based on the rule of debate and reason. Feminists have pointed out that 18th and 19th century public forums were means of exclusion rather than universal openness, and that the discursive construction of

134

Susan Gal nnd Karhryn A. Woolard

the public/privatesplit was enabledby its association with a genderdichotomythat restrictedwomen by definition (Landes 1988;Fraser 1990).Finally, many scholars have suggested that there have been, since as early as the 17th century,multiple publics:Proletarian, regional, religious, often in competition, contesting eachother as well as the state. But for our more modest purposeshere, thesecriticisms only add to the potentialinterestof the concept. Indeed,all of the papersin this collection that deal with the construction of publicsimplicitlytake one or anotherof thesecritiquesas therr startingpoint. First, many of them (see especiallyGal, lre, Hill and Errington) note a negativelogic by which the public, as an ideologicalconstruct,works to legitimate politicaiaction.One themethat hasbeendeveloped in Habermasian studies is that publics derive their authority from being in a sense anonymous (most notably Warner 1990). They supposedly or potentially include"everyone" but abstract from each person's interest-bearing and privately-detined characteristics.By this reasoning, publicscan representeveryonebecause they are no-one-in-particular. This disinterested,disembodiedpublic, a form of aperspectivalobjectivity, was constructedagainst the personifiedand embodied legitimacyof the absolutist monarch, whose authority was often enacted exactlythrough spectacleand selfdisplay. But many of the papershere identifyand explorean authorityof authenticity (Hill, Errington,Gal, Bauman,Urla) that exists simultaneously with this authority of anonymityin the public sphere.6 Although the projectionof authenticity (in the sincereindividualor the particularistic community)can opposethat of anonymity as a form of legitimation,it does not necessarily do so. The relationshipis often far more complex" Strategicgiimpsesof authenticitymay actually subservethe authority of the impersonal,clinchingthe force of public discourse(see especially Hill and Errington tbr illustrations), or on the other hand the voice-from-nowhere may be constructed as the most authentic of voicescompeting for recognition as the embodimentof a particularcommunity(seeGal and Urla; cf. Baumanfor a related process in the construction of oral literature). Further,thesepapersassume that a publicneednot be a countable, face-toface grclup.The critique of sociolinguistics discussed earlier has recognizedthe limitations and distortions that resultfrom takingface-to-face communication as the prototypeof all communication. To be sure,when we unpackcentralconcepts such as "speaker,4tearer" and "audience", recognizing their internalcomplexity, a focuson face-to-face interactionprovidesa subtle understanding of interpersonalpower dynamics(see, e.g. Got-tman 1979).But such analyses have had much less to say about the ways in which linguisticpracticescontributeto the reproductionand legitimationof hierarchyin largersocialinstitutions suchas the state,or about the ways in which speech communitiesare linked to broader political economic structures (see Cal 1989for a review).Similarly, within this frameworkit has been difficult to analyzeadequatelythe processes of mass-me.diated communicationthat

" W e t h a n k B i l l H a n k s very much for highlighting this point in his comments on the AAA session.See also Flieselman 1993 and Cmiel 1990for discussion of this relationship in American historv.

Constructing languagesnnd publics

135

often connectdisparatecommunities and that are increasingly of interestin social theory. The papersin this issueattempt to extendthe notion of public in order to address someof thesequestions. of Habermashimselfattributedthe disintegration the public sphereto the advent of a mass-mediated culture industry,and he has beenaccused of mistakenly basinghis later theoryof communicative action on the model of face-to-face interaction. But we can follow Habermas's lead beyond his own confines, and examincversions of "the public"as folk notionsabout groupness, interest,and communication.Public at this level is a mobile concept, as is demonstrated by the ditferentfoci of the papershere:e.g.,proto-publicas a realm of discursive with practicesactuallyconstitutedby the state for communication citizens (Errington);a leakyzone of discourse distinguished from the private,with littleret'erence to the state(Hill): a readingpublicor audience as market (Bauman). This broader approach to publicity enables analyses of mass mediated communication and encourages of speech The notion of a re-thinking community. publicneednot evenrely on the idea of a concrete or spectatorship, readcrship but ratheron the projectionor imagination of groupsor subjectivities in print or other massmedia. The process by which suchprojectionoccursseems closely relatedto a very general semioticpropertyof language that is presentas much in tace-to-face as in other communication: The possibility of decontextualization and strategic voicesand genresto createimagesof continuityand recontextualization of linguistic with times,places discontinuity and peoplenot present in the immediateinteraction. (1979)notion of footing,Gumperz's(19t12) cues,and Goffman's contextualization this property.As Briggsand Bauman (1992) Bakhtin's(1981)voicingall address havepointedout, the gap betweenan earlier contextand the recontextualization can be denied or highlighted, with different effects.Strategies that minimize intertextualgaps can contribute to constructiclns of histclry,authenticity and community. The impersonality, projection,and intertextuality discussed above are widely implicated in political authorityand in the authoritative modelsof the language Warner (1990)arguesthat the legitimacy disciplines as well. For instance, of 18th Americanrepublicanism wasbased century on the notionof disinterested individuals who could claim to represent the people because the decontextualized anonymity of print allowedthem to be no-one-in-particular (routinelypublishing unsignedor patentlypseudonymous articles).Ben Lee here tbllows this line of argument, semiotically analyzing the AmericanDeclaration of Independence and Constitution and drawingout the implicationsfor new forms of subjectivity as well as new fclrms of legitimation. Other papers show parallels in the ideology of language standardization. The standardlanguage, usuallybest instantiated in print, defines (andlegitimates) precisely a politicalterritory,sometimes because it is not spoken by any actualgroup (Gal), and as in the caseof Indonesian, is "devoidof ethnic inflection"(Errington). As anotherexample,Anderson's(1991 U983]) notion of the nation as an "imaginedcommunity" plays on this same logic clf non-face-to-face social groups defined through simultaneousreadings as "all of us." The idea of the "Volk" originating in Gerrnanphilosophy and folklorestudies accomplishes the samething: Collections of tales whose authorswere deliberately eliminatedto produce the

136

Susan Gal and Kathryn A" Woolard

authentic folk who are everyonebecauseno-one.Indeed, as Hacking (1992) has recently argued, it was in the same late 18th century German philosophy that language"went public," not in the strictlyHabermasian sense, but rather as part of the related belief that language is primarily for interpersonalcommunication, secondarily for internal thought, rather than vice versa. We might see Ogden's orthological English, examined in Silverstein's paper, as an attempt to cure the pathologiesof thought and social life that were held to derive from this ordered re l a t ion. Finally, the papers allow us to considerthe generalizability of a concept of a public.' Habermas located the emergence of an idea of a public in a particular period and set of conditionsof European history.A public is not simply the result of a collection of structural features, as for instance,the introduction of print. Rather, it is an idea,an idea that, while moveable, highlymalleableand borrowable, is hardly inevitable. We need to considerthe dynamicsthat played a part in the production of publicsunder particularhistoricalconditions, the extentto which they may be identifiable in other circumstances, and what their effectsmight be in such other settings. As Schieffelinshows,the Kaluli cannot be said to think in terms of publics, in any of the forms discussed here. Yet they have experienced significantchanges in forms of sociolinguistic authority, and the emergenceof a new impersonal or anonymoussource of authoritativeevidence, the book. (Schieffelin's paper is one of the few in this collection to examine closely the reflexive effect of linguistic ideologiesof authority on formal linguisticstructures). Errington examinesanother public arena of discourse that is decidedlynot Habermas's bourgeoispublic sphere, but rather a zone of state-to-citizen communicationunder constructionby a postcolonial state. State-sponsoredIndonesian linguistic strategies of objectivity reminiscent of the classicpublic are syncretically entwined with more traditional Javanese ways of indexingauthority sociolinguistically. Although Irvine's paper addresses the construction of languages rather than of publics,she offers a passing glimpseof anotherpossible construction of that idea in EnlightenmentFrance,one that perhapscompetedwith the ultimately dominant nation-based, state-bounded, exclusionary and hierarchizing public. In phrasinghis quest as one for a "universalsociety"basedin the ability to "converse" with "fellow citizens"of other continents, Deg6randosketched a very differentbasisfor imagined community that nonetheless sharessome of the key featuresof the public. Such an observationhints at interestinglinks betweenalternateconstructions of the public and the alternative visions of family underpinningthe varying models of African languages Irvine analyzes. Urla examines more directly a self-conscious attempt to construct an alternative/oppositional public sphere, and highlights the linguistic strategies usedwithin that enterprise. If we are to understand the waysin which the rdeology of publics creates political authority, it is necessaryto locate the phenomenon more preciselyin time, space and everydaypractice.These papers contribute to that effort by examiningsometimesself-consciously contrastingand

' Many thanks again to Bill Hanks who, in his oral comments on the papers, forcefully raised this issue of generalizability, as well as of the detachability of the dynamics of the production of publics from European historical conditions.

Consmtcfing languages and publics

131

limitingcases.

References Anderson, Benedict (1991 [1983]) Inngined contnrunities: Reflections on the origtn and spread oi nalionalisnt. London: Verso. Bakhtin, M.M. (1981) The dinlogic imagination. Ausrin: University of Texas Prcss. Briggs,C.L., and R. Bauman (1992) Gcnre, intertcxtuality and social power. Journal of Linguisric Ant hropologt 2:2.13| - 172. Calhoun, Craig (ed.) (1992) Habernns and the public sphcre.Cambriilge: MIT Press. Cmiel, Kenneth (1990) Dentocratic eloquence: The fight over popttlar speech in nineteenth century Anteica. Berkeley: University of California Press. Crowley, Tony (1989) Standard English and the polirics of language. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Daston, L., and P. Galison (1992) The image of objectivity. Rcpresentations 40:8i-128. Errington, Joseph J. (1994) Indonesian('s) authority. Paper presente<lto Advancecl Seminar on l-anguageIdeology, School for American Research,Santa Fe NM. Fraser, Nanry (1990) Rethinking the public spherc: A contribution ro rhe critique of actually existing democraoy. Social Text 2526:56-80. Fliegelman, Jay (1993) Declaing independence:Jefferson, nantal performance.Stanford: Stanford Univcrsi ty Press. language, unti the culrure of

Gal, Susan (1989) l-anguage and political economy. Annual Rev'iewof Anthropologt 18:345-367. Goffman, En'ing (1979) Footing. Sentiorica 5:l-29. Gumperz, John J. (1982) Discourse strategies.Cambri<Jge: Cambri<lge University Press. Habermas,Jurgen (1989 [1962])The strucnrral transforntation of the public sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press. Hacking,Ian (1992) How, why, when, and where did languagego public/ Contnton Knowledge1:2.'7491. Irvine,Judith T. (1987) Domains of description in the ethnographyof speaking:A rctrospectiveon the speech community. In R. Bauman, J.T. Irvine and S.U. Philips (eds.), Pe(orntance, speech comntunityand genre. Chicago: Center lor PsychosocialStudies, 13-24. Irvine, Judith T. (1989) when talk isn'r cheap. Anrcrican Ethnologist 16:2.248-67. Irvine,J.T., and S. Gal (1991) language icleologiesand linguistic differentiation. Paper presenred to Advanced Seminar on Language Ideology, School for American Research, Santa Fe NM. [an<les,Joan ( 1988) Wonren and the public spherein the nge of the French Revolution lthaca: Cornell

138

Susnn Gal and Kathnn A. Woolard

Univcrsity Press. l-.ee, Bcnjamin (1993) Melalanguagesand subjectivitics. In J. Lucy (ed.),Reflexir."e Language:Reported specchand ntctttpragmntics. Gtmbridgc: Cambridge University Press,365-392. Levine, George (ed.) (1993) Rtalism and representation:Essa1uon the problmt of realism in relation to science,literaturt: and culture. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Nagcl, Thomas (198{r) The vrav+,ft'ont now,here. New York: Oxford. Ofcnder, Maurice (1992) Thc lunguagesof paradise: Rnce, religron and philologt in the nineteenth c(ntunj. Cambridgc N4A: Han'artl University Press. Ricklbrd, John (1986) Thc: nccd lbr ncw approachcs to social class analysis in sociolinguistics. Langtage in Contntunication 6:3.215-221. Robbins, Bruce (cd.) (199t)) Thc phantom public sphere. Special section of Social Text 25126. Rumsey,Alan ( 199t))Wording, mcaning and linguistic idcology.l nterican Anthropologist92:2.346-61. Silverste in. Michael (1987) N'krnoglot"standard"in Amcrica. Working Paper Proceedingsof Center for PsvchosocialStudics, 13" Chrcago: C-enterfclr Transcultural Studies. Silvcrstein,Michacl (1994) Whorfianism and thc linguistic imagination of nationality. Paper presentcd to Advanccd Seminar on Language Ideology, School for American Research, Santa Fe NM, Taylor. Talbot T. (1990) \!'hich is to bc mastcr'JInstitutionalization of authority in the scienceof languagc. In J.E. Joseph & T.i. Taylor (eds.), Idcologiesof language. lnndon and New York: Routlcdgcr.9-26. Warner, Michacl (1990) Letrtrs of the republic.Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Woolard, Kathryn A. (1992) L,anguagc ideology: lssues and approaches. In P. Iftoskrity, B. Schicflclin & K. Woolard (ccls.),Pragtmrics; Speciul issue on Language ldeologies,2:3.235-250. Woolard. K.A., and B.B. Schicl'fclin( 199.1) l:nguage ideokrgv. Annual Rcviewof Anthropctlogt23:5582