Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
‘Critical discourse analysis and the ethnography of language policy’ by David Cassels Johnson
The author analyzes the agreeable relationship between ethnography and critical discourse analysis (CDA) for the study of language policy. He examined how critical discourse analysis (CDA) combined with ethnography procures a foundation for discerning how particular policies are recontextualized in particular contexts, how such recontextualization is related to more widely circulating policy text and discourse, and what this means for language policy agents. Hence, to understand more the topic, we need to define first one of the main subjects of this paper, which is critical language policy.
Critical language policy (CLP) emerged (Tollefson, 1991) as an alternative to earlier language planning paradigms that attempted to analyze language as an entity devoid of socio-cultural context. CLP conceptualizes language policy as a mechanism of power with the ability to marginalize (especially) minority languages and minority language users: ‘[L]anguage policy is viewed as one mechanism by which the interests of dominant sociopolitical groups are maintained and the seeds of transformation are developed’ (Tollefson, 1991, p. 32).
The continuous problem of language policy makers in connecting macro and micro, and between macro-level policy texts and discourses and microlevel language use, has been hardy solve for several years, as language policies instead of uniting citizens, only create social inequality and establish hegemony in language use. Because of this phenomenon, Critical language policy seeks to develop more democratic policies that reduce inequality and promote the maintenance of minority languages. Critical discourse analysis also coincides with the aims of Critical language policy, as they both commit to social justice.
However, Critical language policy has also been criticized for being too deterministic… (see Ricento & Hornberger, 1996), not considering language policies as potential instruments of social justice that can develop implementations and ideological space for minority and indigenous languages (Hornberger & Johnson, 2010). Critical language policy didn’t perceive the concept of ethnography of language policy.
Hornberger and Johnson (2007) introduced the ethnography of language policy as a method for examining the agents, contexts, and processes across the multiple layers of creation, interpretation, and appropriation of policy. Ethnography reveals how language policy agents make sense of their policy environment, how their interpretation of macro-level policies impacts appropriation, how they engage in their language policy development, and how local language policy development interacts with macro-level policy text and discourse because it focuses on the perspectives, beliefs, and practices of participants. Through ethnography, the balance between policy power and interpretative agency that is committed to issues of social justice is created, which particularly pertains to the rights of indigenous and minority language speakers.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.