This study investigates the ideological legitimation strategies embedded in English academic discourse on language standardization, with a focus on sociolinguistics textbooks. Grounded in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the research applies Theo van Leeuwen’s (2007) model of legitimation, which categorizes legitimation into authorization, moralization, and rationalization. The analysis draws on carefully selected textbook extracts, chosen based on authorial credibility, publication by high-ranking academic presses, educational recognition, and recency. Using qualitative discourse analysis alongside quantitative frequency calculations, the study identifies and interprets the use of twelve subtypes of legitimation. Findings show a dominance of impersonal authorization and means-oriented rationalization (each 15%), reflecting a tendency to justify language ideologies through institutional norms and technical procedures. Expert authority and moral evaluation (12.5% each) are also prevalent, reinforcing scholarly ethos and ethical judgments. The discourse exhibits a blend of descriptive neutrality and normative positioning, challenging prescriptivist ideologies while simultaneously legitimizing progressive academic values. Ultimately, the study highlights the ideological nature of even those texts that aim for objective analysis, showing that critiques of standard language ideologies are themselves constructed through strategic legitimation. The paper concludes that sociolinguistics textbooks serve not only as educational tools but also as vehicles for ideological negotiation.
Chyad et al. (Wed,) studied this question.