A vast literature exists on the concept of “linguistic ideology”. Scholars generally agree on defining it as a set of ideas people of a community hold about the role of language in such community. Nevertheless, scholars generally disagree on whether these ideas are explicit or implicit. Different views on this point imply different methodologies: the analysis of explicit considerations on language in the first case, the analysis of a much more multifarious material in the second case. However, excluding implicit ideas from the analysis is too restrictive. A better option is to distinguish between explicit beliefs and implicit assumptions. Whereas the first ones must be studied through socio- or ethno-logical methods, the second ones must be studied through semiotics: the discourses that are produced in a community are considered as signs of implicit assumptions such community holds about language. The study of linguistic ideology can be divided into three branches: meta-syntax, meta-pragmatics, and meta-semantics. The first one focuses on explicit beliefs and implicit assumptions speakers of a community hold about how discourses should be elaborated in such community. The second one focuses on beliefs and assumptions that, in a certain historical and socio-cultural context, people hold about the relation between language and action. The third one focuses on beliefs and assumptions that speakers of a community hold about the relation between language and its meaning. These three branches are all interested in variations: synchronic, diachronic, and metachronic. The paper proposes several micro-analyses of such variations in the meta- syntax, meta-pragmatics, and meta-semantics of present-day Italian linguistic ideology. Describing variations and denouncing decline in a certain linguistic ideology are separate operations, but they can both benefit from the conceptual instruments described in the paper.
Semiotic Ideology and its Metamorphoses
LEONE, Massimo
2010-01-01
Abstract
A vast literature exists on the concept of “linguistic ideology”. Scholars generally agree on defining it as a set of ideas people of a community hold about the role of language in such community. Nevertheless, scholars generally disagree on whether these ideas are explicit or implicit. Different views on this point imply different methodologies: the analysis of explicit considerations on language in the first case, the analysis of a much more multifarious material in the second case. However, excluding implicit ideas from the analysis is too restrictive. A better option is to distinguish between explicit beliefs and implicit assumptions. Whereas the first ones must be studied through socio- or ethno-logical methods, the second ones must be studied through semiotics: the discourses that are produced in a community are considered as signs of implicit assumptions such community holds about language. The study of linguistic ideology can be divided into three branches: meta-syntax, meta-pragmatics, and meta-semantics. The first one focuses on explicit beliefs and implicit assumptions speakers of a community hold about how discourses should be elaborated in such community. The second one focuses on beliefs and assumptions that, in a certain historical and socio-cultural context, people hold about the relation between language and action. The third one focuses on beliefs and assumptions that speakers of a community hold about the relation between language and its meaning. These three branches are all interested in variations: synchronic, diachronic, and metachronic. The paper proposes several micro-analyses of such variations in the meta- syntax, meta-pragmatics, and meta-semantics of present-day Italian linguistic ideology. Describing variations and denouncing decline in a certain linguistic ideology are separate operations, but they can both benefit from the conceptual instruments described in the paper.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
