This chapter draws a context-driven distinction between two key archetypes of how language policy is done. The first archetype is institutional language policies, which I describe as characterised by the existence of a universal mandate (non-optional membership) and a pre-existing structure of authority (i.e. a hierarchy which is explicitly legislated). The most clear-cut example of this is the modern nation-state, whose power derives from the universal acceptance of the legitimacy of its power to impose measures across a particular geographic area, and from the existence of a set of codified principles by which such power is exercised. The second archetype is community language policies, which occur in social structures where individuals participate in a semi-stable way and which often have a distinct, explicit identity, but in which policies operate in a less predetermined manner. Rather than being legislated, authority to establish and enforce policy is assumed by individuals and is thus open to more negotiation, as is the mandate for any policy to be made in general.

This chapter addresses the study of orthography from a sociopolitical historical perspective, including a literature review and a case study focused on the politics of spelling in mid-nineteenth-century Spain. Scholars working with a sociopolitical historical approach to orthography realize that language and power are intertwined. Thus, orthographic processes (such as the selection of a script, the codification of a writing system, or the reform of specific spelling norms) are no longer understood as ideologically neutral scientific endeavors but rather as historically situated political activities. Examples offered in the chapter show that orthographies are powerful instruments of inclusion and exclusion, gatekeeping devices that exacerbate and naturalize social inequalities, and ideological mechanisms that reinforce (or challenge) a given political entity. The case study exemplifies the political nature of orthography by examining the spelling system that was made official in Spain in 1844 (and that, with minor changes, remains as today’s standard) as the result of a historical struggle between social actors with different political agendas and different amounts of power to influence the outcomes of the debate. In short, this chapter explains that orthographies are practical and symbolic tools strategically used to impose, maintain or resist particular social identities or politico-economic orders.

This chapter outlines how the discourse analysis of print media can be used to examine language attitudes and discusses the main strengths and limitations of this method. One significant strength lies in the fact that the printed press is an important means by which ideas about language are (re)produced. Analyses of the metalanguage used in the press can therefore be particularly revealing about language attitudes in a given society. An example of a limitation is the fact that print media texts vary enormously in terms of their context and audience. This makes a restricted practice of discourse analysis problematic, but equally too broad a practice may become effectively meaningless. The chapter provides an overview of the main discourse analytical approaches that have been applied to language attitude studies, and then narrows the focus to examine critical discourse analysis (CDA) in particular, outlining its strengths and limitations, giving examples of how it can be used to analyse and interpret data, and discussing key practical issues in planning and designing CDA research. The chapter concludes with a case study evaluating attitudes towards French using a corpus of language columns in French newspapers, thereby exemplifying the main points made in the chapter.

Each individual represents a complex network of social relationships, starting with primary socialization by parents or caretakers (Duff, 2010; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2008). As we grow up, we get socialized into more and more social groups, including families, friendships, sports teams, religious organizations, or professional associations. These relationships shape our identity throughout our lives. Some aspects of our identity are determined for us; others we control. Some aspects are relatively constant, since societies and social groups strive for stability (i.e., preferring little or slow change); others are malleable. We present our selves in different ways across various interactional contexts (e.g., professional identity at work, familial at home). Studying another language provides a unique opportunity to reflect on our various selves, because our identities are often renegotiated when we encounter new cultures and navigate new social expectations. To delve into these issues, this chapter examines identity as a complex and dynamic phenomenon, considers the relationship between language and identity, and suggests ways for addressing these issues in the L2 classroom.