Language is never neutral. The words we use, the languages we privilege, and the voices we silence shape how we see the world and how our students find their place within it. This hub brings together my posts exploring the subtle (and not-so-subtle) ways ideology shapes language education, from textbook content to classroom practices and linguistic landscapes.
Whether you are a teacher, researcher, or simply curious about how language and power intersect, what follows will help you reflect critically on the ideologies embedded in language education.
What is ideology in language education?
Ideology is a system of ideas, beliefs, and values that shapes how people interpret and engage with the world around them. In language education, it primarily concerns the beliefs about languages, their speakers, and language learning that influence educational policies, teaching practices, and materials, often implicitly shaping which languages and identities are valued or marginalised. More broadly, in critical theory uses the term to refer to the taken-for-granted assumptions and beliefs that serve to justify and maintain existing power structures within society.
Definitions of ideology in the literature
Eagleton (1991)
In his 1991 book Ideology: An introduction, Terry Eagleton describes ideology as a system of values, ideas, and images that, although rooted in material social relations, are perceived as universal truths (paraphrased summary, but see p. 13). He notes that “ideology is not just a body of ideas, but a material practice as well: it consists in the ways in which people ‘live’ their relations to reality, and is thus rooted in the material social life of societies.” (p. 28). Adopting a critical outlook, he remarks that “Ideology, broadly speaking, is a set of discourses which, by actively promoting the values and interests of dominant groups in society, defends the social status quo.” (p. xiii).
Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. Verso.
Fairclough (2010)
“I shall take ideologies to be significations/constructions of reality (the physical world, social relations, social identities) which are built into various dimensions of the forms/meanings of discursive practices, and which contribute to the production, reproduction or transformation of relations of domination”.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Longman.
Silverstein (1979)
“I use the term ‘linguistic ideology’ to mean sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use.” (p. 193)
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. R. Clyne, W. F. Hanks, & C. L. Hofbauer (Eds.), The Elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels (pp. 193–247). Chicago Linguistic Society.
Woolard (1998)
“Representations, whether explicit or implicit, that construe the intersection of language and human beings in a social world are what we mean by ‘language ideology’”
Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (eds), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–50). Oxford University Press.
Blommaert (2006)
“Language ideologies thus involve both beliefs and conceptions about language, its nature, structure and use, and they are often linked to social and political interests and processes.” (p. 5)
Blommaert, J. (2006). Language ideology. In J. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 1–25). John Benjamins.
Monolingual and standard language ideologies
Normative monolingualism
Normative monolingualism, alternatively called the monolinugal habitus (Gogolin) or the monolongual fallacy (Phillipson) refers to the deeply ingrained assumption that monolingualism is the default and desirable norm within educational systems and society, even in contexts where multilingualism is the reality. Normative monolingualism, the term captures how schools and teachers often unconsciously privilege a single dominant language while disregarding or marginalising learners’ home languages. This ideologically driven practice shapes policies, classroom practices, and materials, making linguistic diversity invisible and framing other languages as problems rather than resources, thereby reinforcing linguistic and social hierarchies.
Standard language ideology
The standard language ideology is the belief that there is one “correct,” “neutral,” and superior variety of a language that should be used in education, public life, and formal communication. This ideology frames standardised varieties as inherently more legitimate or valuable while positioning other dialects, sociolects, and languages as inferior, incorrect, or in need of correction. Scholars such as Ian Cushing have shown that standard language ideology is deeply tied to social power structures, maintaining linguistic hierarchies and often serving to marginalise speakers of non-standard varieties in educational and social contexts.
Why does ideology matter?
Ideology can shape our language choices. It can also be sedimented in the materials we use in class, the school environment (schoolscape) or the language choices we make. This can have powerful positive effects, but can also subtly sustain unjust practices. This is particularly the case when monolingual or standard language ideologies shape the way we teach and learn languages.
Implicit Messages
Every textbook image, classroom poster, or sign communicates what (and whose) language is valued. For example, textbooks can carry “liquid racism” through choices about whose stories and identities appear as I argue here. Similalry, schoolscapes often invisibilize minority languages and their speakers.
Identity & Inclusion
Ignoring learners’ home languages sends a message: “your linguistic identity doesn’t belong.” Acknowledging a home language can instill a sense of pride, as it becomes an object of respect and wider acceptance. Similarly, multilingual signage supports engagement and noticeable increases in students’ willingness to participate.
Pedagogy & Learning
Monolingual-only practices strip learners of cognitive scaffolding that multilingualism can provide. In contrast, making linguistic diversity visible fosters clarity, comprehension, and deeper learning.
Language is never just about words; it’s about people.
Or rather, it’s about who gets to speak and who is silenced.
Featured posts
The posts in this curated collection focus on questions of ideology in language education.
Every Language Is Someone’s World: Reflections on International Mother Language Day 2026
On International Mother Language Day, the real question is not which language we speak first, but what kinds of linguistic worlds we choose to protect.
Research Engagement Among Language Teachers for Refugees and Migrants in Greece
How do language teachers working with refugees and migrants engage with research?
Critical Applied Linguistics, Language, and Power in Education: Call for Papers
The European Journal of Education and Language Review [EJELR], which I co-edit, invites papers that critically engage with language education and its informing disciplines.
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.
Recommended reading
Apple, M. W. (2018). Ideology and curriculum (4th ed.). Routledge.
A foundational text exploring how educational curricula and materials transmit ideology and sustain power structures.
Blommaert, J. (2006). Language ideology. In J. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1–25). John Benjamins.
A comprehensive overview of language ideologies, summarising key theoretical perspectives.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford University Press.
Explores how English language teaching can inadvertently reproduce ideologies of linguistic imperialism.
Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. Verso.
A clear, accessible yet critical overview of ideology from a cultural theory perspective.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Longman.
Examines how language shapes and is shaped by power and ideology, with practical tools for analysis.
Gogolin, I. (1997). The ‘monolingual habitus’ as the common feature in teaching in the language of the majority in different countries. Per Linguam, 13(2), 38–49.
Introduces and explains the concept of the “monolingual habitus” and its implications in multilingual education.
Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (Eds.). (2009). Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. Routledge.
A collection exploring how public signage and visual language environments shape linguistic ideologies and identities.
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. R. Clyne, W. F. Hanks, & C. L. Hofbauer (Eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels (pp. 193–247). Chicago Linguistic Society.
Classic text introducing the concept of linguistic ideology as beliefs about language that rationalise perceived structures and uses.
Over to you
Understanding language ideology is not an abstract academic exercise. It is essential for:
- Teaching for inclusion: Recognising whose voices and experiences are missing in our materials and practices.
- Critical reflection: Helping educators identify the assumptions embedded in everyday teaching.
- Advocacy: Equipping teachers to challenge policies and practices that marginalise learners.
Continue the Conversation
I welcome your thoughts on these issues. Have you encountered ideological tensions in your teaching or policy work? How do you address them?
You can comment on individual posts, share them with colleagues, or contact me to continue the discussion.
Stay Updated
If you find these discussions valuable, consider subscribing to my mailing list to receive updates on new posts exploring language, ideology, and justice in education.