| Theorists propose that language policy has three components---language management, language practices, and language ideologies of speech community members (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997; Lo Bianco, 2005; Spolsky, 2004, 2009), yet, these theorists do not specify methods for identifying language ideologies. Furthermore, no research to date has attempted to identify the language ideologies of multiple stakeholders using direct methodological approaches which minimize researcher inference. This dissertation uses survey and corpus data to present a description of language ideologies expressed by important educational stakeholders in Arizona.;A survey investigation elicited data from politically active voters (N = 703), language managers (N = 51), and teachers (N = 540). A factor analysis of survey data was conducted yielding a solution of five language ideology factors accounting for 53.46% of the variance: Pro-Monolingualism, Pro-Multilingualism, Multiple languages as a problem, Language as a tool, and Language as an intelligence standard. In addition, survey responses were used to explore ideological variation related to ten demographic variables (e.g., gender, age group, home language, party membership, years teaching) using inferential statistics. Stakeholder group, gender, and political ideology significantly differentiated groups of voters across all five language ideologies.;In addition, a corpus-based analysis was conducted to identify language ideologies in a body of language management texts (1,406,482 words) posted online by the Arizona Department of Education. Collocates modifying core language concepts (e.g., language) in the corpus discourse were used as variables in a factor analysis. The analysis yielded five factors interpreted as language ideologies. The solution accounted for 47.48% of the variance in the data and the five language ideologies were interpreted as: Written language as measurably communicative, Language acquisition as systematically metalinguistic and monolingual, Academic language as standard and informational, Language acquisition as process of decoding meaning, and Nativeness of language skills as marking group variation. In addition, significant differences were found among levels of language policy register and targeted language across several of the language ideologies.;This study suggests methodological approaches and tools that can be used in future language ideology research as well as conclusions about the ideological context for contemporary language policy development in Arizona. |
