Revisiting Theory and Method in Language Ideology Research

It is now some decades since the study of “linguistic ideology” was first proposed (Silverstein 1979), and the time is ripe for taking stock. This article considers some developments in this field as it has emerged and, in some respects, become normalized. Yet, normalized can mean backgrounded , taken for granted—perhaps obscuring important theoretical issues and methodological challenges. I revisit what is entailed by “ideology”; the debate between explicit and implicit sources of evidence (and why this binary is itself problematic); issues of ideological multiplicity and dominance; and questions such as: Must ideology be internally consistent? Why turn to semiotics, and should “language ideology” then be re‐labeled “semiotic ideology”? Are ideologies big programs, distinct from local metapragmatic activity? I address these questions while making methodological recommendations about research sites, contrasts and boundaries, attention to flows and connections, and a “centerpiece” method for tracing ideological work. An extended example concerning sociolinguistic variation in Maryland illustrates the discussion.