Language Policy

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 139–159 | Cite as

Ethnography of language policy

  • David Cassels JohnsonEmail author
Original Paper


While theoretical conceptualizations of language policy have grown increasingly rich, empirical data that test these models are less common. Further, there is little methodological guidance for those who wish to do research on language policy interpretation and appropriation. The ethnography of language policy is proposed as a method which makes macro–micro connections by comparing critical discourse analyses of language policy with ethnographic data collection in some local context. A methodological heuristic is offered to guide data collection and sample data are presented from the School District of Philadelphia. It is argued that critical conceptualizations of educational language policy should be combined with empirical data collection of policy appropriation in educational settings.


Language policy Bilingual education Ethnography No Child Left Behind Discourse analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Lawrence Erlbaum and Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse, 13(2), 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, S. J. (2006). Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen J. Ball. London and New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  4. Baltodano, M. P. (2004). Latino immigrant parents and the hegemony of Proposition 227. Latino Studies, 2, 246–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bekerman, Z. (2005). Complex contexts and ideologies: Bilingual education in conflict-Ridden areas. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: Key topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Canagarajah, S. (2006). Ethnographic methods in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Language policy: Theory and method. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: A resource for teachers and administrators. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Pubs.Google Scholar
  9. Crawford, J. (2002). Education chief: Keep bilingual option open. Retrieved from
  10. Davis, K. A. (1999). Dynamics of indigenous language maintenance. In T. Huebner & K. A. Davis (Eds.), Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  11. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  12. Fishman, J. A. (1964). Language maintenance and language shift as fields of inquiry. Linguistics, 9, 32–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fishman, J. S. (1979). Bilingual education, language planning and English. English World-Wide, 1(1), 11–24.Google Scholar
  14. Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  15. Fishman, J. A. (1994). Critiques of language planning: A minority languages perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 15, 91–99.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (1977). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality volume 1: An introduction. New Yok: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Freeman, R. D. (1998). Bilingual education and social change. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  20. Freeman-Field, R. D. (2004). Building on community bilingualism. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  22. Haugen, E. (1983). The implementation of corpus planning: Theory and practice. In J. Cobarrubias (Ed.), Progress in language planning.Google Scholar
  23. Hornberger, N. H. (1988). Bilingual education and language maintenance. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532. Special Issue on Language Policy.Google Scholar
  25. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, D. C. (2007). Language policy within and without the School District of Philadelphia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, D. C. (2009a). Implementational and ideological spaces in bilingual education Language policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, D. C. (2009b). The relationship between applied linguistic research and language policy for bilingual education. Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, D. C., & Freeman, R. (2009). Appropriating language policy on the local level: Working the spaces for multilingual education. In O. Garcia & K. Menken (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in classrooms: Teachers as change agents. Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. King, K. (2001). Language revitalization processes and prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  31. Levinson, B. A. U., & Sutton, M. (Eds.). (2001). Policy as practice: Toward a sociocultural analysis of educational policy. London: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Levinson, B. A. U., Sutton, M., & Winstead, T. (2007). Education policy as a practice of power: Ethnographic methods, democratic options. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Ethnography in Education Research Forum. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  33. Palmer, D., & Lynch, A. (2008). A bilingual educaion for a monolingual test? The pressure to prepare for TAKS and its influence on choices for language of instruction in Texas elementary bilingual classrooms. Language Policy, 7(3), 217–235. Google Scholar
  34. Pennycook, A. (2002). Language Policy in Education: Critical Issues. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policy and docile bodies: Hong Kong and Governmentality. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Pubs.Google Scholar
  35. Pennycook, A. (2006). Postmodernism in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Ramanathan, V. (2005). Rethinking language planning and policy from the ground up: Refashioning institutional realities and human lives. Current Issues in Language Planning, 6(2), 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ricento, T. (1998). Language and politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and realities. In T. Ricento & B. Burnaby (Eds.), National language policy in the United States. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Pubs.Google Scholar
  38. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and Planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schiffman, H. S. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Shulman, S. (2006). Undermining science: Suppression and distortion in the Bush administration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Shuy, R. (2001). Discourse analysis in the legal context. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2003). Legal discourse and decisions, teacher policymaking and the multilingual classroom: Constraining and supporting Khmer/English biliteracy in the united states. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(3&4), 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stritikus, T. (2002). Immigrant children and the politics of English-only. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.Google Scholar
  45. Stritikus, T., & Wiese, A. M. (2006). Reassessing the role of ethnographic methods in Education policy research: Implementing bilingual education policy at local Levels. Teachers College Record, 108, 1106–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  47. Tollefson, J. W. (Ed.). (2002). Language policies in education: Critical issues. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Toppo, G. (2005, August 24). Is bilingual education report being downplayed? USA Today. Retrieved 25 March 2009, from
  50. Wiese, A. M. (2001). To meet the needs of the kids, not the program: Teachers constructing policy, program, and practice in a bilingual school. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  51. Wiley, T. G. (2002). Assessing language rights in education: A brief history of the US context. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Wiley, T. G., & Wright, W. E. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education Policy and politics in the “age of accountability”. Educational Policy, 18(2), 142–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  54. Wright, W. E. (2005). Evolution of federal policy and implications of No Child Left Behind for language minority students. Tempe, AZ: Language Policy Research Unit, Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching and LearningWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations