Abstract
China’s central government has been promoting the use of Putonghua as the standard spoken language for more than half a century, soon after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. In the domain of education, Putonghua is set to be the medium of instruction in schools. This chapter focuses upon the relationship between national language ideologies which underlie the Putonghua Promotion Policy and local language ideologies which feed teachers’ ‘practised language policy’ (Bonacina, Lan Policy 11:213–234, 2012), and aims to reveal how Bakhtin’s notion of heteroglossia (The dialogic imagination: four essay, University of Texas Press, Austin, 2008) can be combined with critical discourse studies to investigate conflicting language ideologies saturated in teachers’ discourses in a multilingual society. This integrated perspective is illustrated by an analysis of a WeChat interview with two primary school teachers on their views on language use in the classroom and their language policy creation and appropriation in Guangzhou, China. Heteroglossia provides insights into the sociopolitical tension in which every utterance is embedded between centripetal forces skewed towards unification of language and centrifugal forces towards decentralisation in language, and it helps understand the stratified diversity in language at both formal and discursive levels (Bailey, Heteroglossia and boundaries. In: Heller M (ed), Bilingualism: a social approach, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 257–274, 2007; Bailey, Heteroglossia. In: Martin-Jones M, Blackledge A, and Creese A (eds), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism, Routledge, London, pp. 499–507, 2012; Busch, Lang Educ 24(4): 283–294 2010; Busch 2012). Translanguaging (García and Wei, Translanguaging: language, bilingualism, and education, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2014) and discursive strategies (Wodak et al., The discursive construction of national identity, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2009) hence can fit in with the framework of heteroglossia and serve to look into multilingual practices and discourses drawn upon by teachers to present their views which reflect, reproduce, or resist particular language ideologies. This integrated approach contributes to revealing the conflicts between national and local language ideologies, through juxtaposing what it is said and how it is said in teachers’ multilingual discourses on their appropriation, creation, and negotiation of language policies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
In this extract, a dot indicates a short pause within or between utterances. Language varieties other than Putonghua are in italics and boldface. The omitted words or phrases in the original Chinese speech that have to be completed in English translation for understanding are bracketed. Several Chinese characters’ pronunciations in Cantonese are indicated by the International Phonetic Alphabet symbols in order to show the differences in their Cantonese pronunciations, in contrast to their similar pronunciations in Putonghua. Numbers refer to the line number of the English translation, letters to that of the Chinese transcription.
References
Androutsopoulos, J. (2011). From variation to heteroglossia in the study of computer-mediated discourse. In C. Thurlow & K. Mroczek (Eds.), Digital discourse (pp. 277–298). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Asker, A., & Martin-Jones, M. (2013). “A classroom is not a classroom if students are talking to me in berber”: Language ideologies and multilingual resources in secondary school English classes in Libya. Language and Education, 27(4), 343–355.
Auer, P. (1995). The pragmatics of code-switching: A sequential approach. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages (pp. 115–135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Auer, P. (1998). Introduction: Bilingual conversation revisited. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation (pp. 1–24). London: Routledge.
Auer, P. (2010). Code-switching/mixing. In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone, & P. E. Kerswell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 460–478). London: Sage.
Bakhtin, M. M. (2008). The dialogic imagination: Four essay. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bailey, B. (2007). Heteroglossia and boundaries. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A social approach (pp. 257–274). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bailey, B. (2012). Heteroglossia. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 499–507). London: Routledge.
Blackledge, A. (2005). Discourse and power in a multilingual world. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2014). Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 1–20). London: Springer.
Blommaert, J. (2013). Complexity, accent, and conviviality: Concluding comments. Applied Linguistics, 34(5), 613–622.
Blommaert, J. (2014). From mobility to complexity in sociolinguistic theory and method. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 103. Tilburg University.
Bonacina, F. (2012). Researching “practiced language policies”: Insights from conversation analysis. Language Policy, 11, 213–234.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Busch, B. (2009). Reflecting social heteroglossia and accommodating diverse audiences: A challenge to the media. In A. Galasinska & M. Krzyżanowski (Eds.), Discourse and transformation in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 43–58). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Busch, B. (2010). School language profiles: Valorizing linguistic resources in heteroglossic situations in South Africa. Language and Education, 24(4), 283–294.
Busch, B. (2014). Building on heteroglossia and heterogeneity: The experience of a multilingual classroom. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 21–40). London: Springer.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and identity in educational settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 20–35.
Fairclough, N. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in transdisciplinary research. In A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis (pp. 53–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). London: Sage.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
García, O. (2010). Languaging and ethnifying. In J. A. Fishman & O. García (Eds.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Disciplinary and regional perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 519–534). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gkaintartzi, A., Kiliari, A., & Tsokalidou, R. (2015). “Invisible” bilingualism – “invisible” language ideologies: Greek teachers’ attitudes towards immigrant pupils’ heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(1), 60–72.
Heller, M. (1992). The politics of code-switching and language choice. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 13, 123–142.
Heller, M. (1995). Code-switching and the politics of language. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages (pp. 158–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heller, M. (1999). Alternative ideologies of la Franco phonie. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 3(3), 336–359.
Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 509–532.
Hornberger, N. H., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging in today’s classrooms: A biliteracy lens’. Theory into Practice, 51(4), 239–247.
Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kivits, J. (2005). Online interviewing and research relationship. In C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods (pp. 35–50). Oxford: Berg.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.
Orgad, S. (2005). From online to offline and back: Moving from online to offline relationships with research informants. In C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods (pp. 51–66). Oxford: Berg.
Probyn, M. (2015). Pedagogical translanguaging: Bridging discourses in South African science classrooms. Language and Education, 29(3), 218–234.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 87–121). London: Sage.
Rutter, J., & Smith, W. G. H. (2005). Ethnographic presence in a nebulous setting. In C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods (pp. 81–92). Oxford: Berg.
Sanders, T. (2005). Researching the online sex work community. In C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods (pp. 67–80). Oxford: Berg.
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465–478.
Sebba, M. (2007). Spelling and society: The culture and politics of orthography around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. London: Longman.
Wei, L. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–1235.
Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–13). London: Sage.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009a). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1–33). London: Sage.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.) (2009b). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.) (2015). Methods of critical discourse Studies (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Wodak, R., De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as field of inquiry. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–50). Oxford: Oxford University.
Zhan, B. (詹伯慧) (2000). 广东粤方言概要 (An outline of Yue dialects in Guangdong), 广州:暨南大学出版社. Guangzhou: Jinan University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Huang, J. (2016). Heteroglossic Practices and Language Ideologies: Combining Heteroglossia with Critical Discourse Studies to Investigate Digital Multilingual Discourses on Language Policies. In: Barakos, E., W. Unger, J. (eds) Discursive Approaches to Language Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53134-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53134-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-53133-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-53134-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)