See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263528392

Language and Ideology — Language in Ideology

Article in Journal of Language and Politics · April 2007

DOI: 10.1075/156921507781509581

CITATION
S READS

24 2,625

1 author:

Ruth Wodak
Lancaster University
421 PUBLICATIONS 38,416 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ruth Wodak on 05 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Journal of Language and Politics 6:1

© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
This electronic file may not be altered in any way.
The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to
be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is
accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute.
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com
 Language and Ideology —
Language in Ideology

Ruth Wodak
Lancaster University

This issue comprises papers which all address the relationship of language,
politics and ideology in different ways and with different methodologies. On the
one hand, ‘neo-liberalism’ is defined as a specific ideological (economic)
discourse which penetrates both the market as well as everyday lives; on the
other, language is seen as intricately connected with ideological means without
being ideological per se. Communication and language can be ideological but do
not need to be; language can be political but does not need to be.
Thus, Anton Pelinka claims that “[p]olitics is not only parties and
parliaments or war and peace — politics is everything, at least potentially.
Everything is politi- cal — potentially. But everything is not seen politically.
And not everything is the product of politics. The degree of political
participation varies with the social and political changes. … Language reflects
power structures — and language has an impact on power structures. Language
can be seen as an indicator of social and therefore political situations — and
language can also be seen as a driving force di- rected at changing politics and
society. Language is an in-put as well as an out-put factor of political systems: It
influences politics — and is influenced by politics…. Language can be an
instrument for or against enlightenment, for or against eman- cipation, for or
against democracy, for or against human rights. Language can be used by
totalitarian regimes and it can be used as a mean of resistance against these
regimes.” (See Pelinka in this issue, 129–131). Hence, language is intricately
related to beliefs, opinions and ideologies (see van Dijk 1998; Wodak and Weiss
2004; Wodak 2006).
The concept of ‘ideology’ is probably one of the most complex of all the
terms mentioned above. In the modern debate on ideology, two main
argumentative strands or tendencies can be distinguished. One position argues
that ideologies as false theories about reality can be overcome and replaced by
scientific theories and/or scientifically founded agency (Popper’s Critical
Rationalism, partly also Althusser and Habermas); another (dialectical) position
assumes that ideology is
Journal of Language and Politics 6:1 (2007), –5.
ISSN 1569–2159 / E-ISSN 1569–9862 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
2 Ruth Wodak

an unavoidable moment of all thinking and acting (e.g. Adorno).1 One might
also recur to Mannheim (1929), who attempts to relate ‘ideology’ with certain
ways of ‘thinking’ (der Seinsverbundenheit des Denkens) and Habermas, who
draws an analogy between ideologies on the collective level and rationalizing
(rationaliza- tions) on the individual level (1968). In the Lexikon der Politik
(1995: 390) one can find an interesting definition which links Mannheim’s and
Habermas’ approaches: perceptions and opinions about the social and political
realities of societies, which aim at truths and generalizations, although they
contain untruths, half truths or unfinished systems of thoughts and beliefs.
Giddens (2001: 691) ties the dimen- sions of both inequality and power into a
definition of ‘ideology’, whereas Thomp- son (1984) emphasizes the Marxian
focus on ‘false consciousness’. National Social- ism is a good example of the
latter, as well as Stalinist communism. Moreover, as is well-known, many
studies of these two grand (meta)-narratives have illustrated the characteristics
of totalitarian ideologies on the levels of discourse and com- munication (see
Maas 1984, Wodak and Kirsch 1995).
However, according to Woolard (1992) and Silverstein (1992), basic
problems appear in the analysis of texts and discourses when relating ‘ideology’
mainly to definitions which include the Marxian notion of ‘false consciousness’
(see also papers by Phelan and Holborow in this issue). Hence, three
elaborations of this concept are of interest, and draw on discourse theories:
Eagleton’s (2000) exten- sive discussion, Billig’s notion of ‘ideological dilemmas’
(1991) and Kienpointner’s approach (1999). Eagleton (2000: 8), for example,
enumerates 16 different defini- tions of ‘ideology’, from false consciousness to
opinions and visions. He continues, later on, with his own approach, which might
be of help to understand ‘ideologies’ as situated in discourses, as certain
argumentative patterns, certain topoi, and the impact of these on
listeners/viewers and readers. This implies the importance of context
dependency of such meanings, because certain arguments, discourse frag- ments,
and topoi are understood very differently in different historical periods and
socio-political contexts. Ideologies are therefore not to be equated with one or
more quasi static discourses, but with intended or non-intended meanings, with
illocutionary and perlocutionary forces. Such a context-dependent view of ideol-
ogy seems adequate, since when analyzing certain speeches or other genres, we
tend to detect ideological dilemmas, basic contradictions and different readings
due to different contexts and to different audiences.
The papers in this volume all differentiate the many aspects of the
ideological and political potential of language in various contexts and genres;
simple equa- tions, such as ‘all language is ideological’ or ‘every use of
language serves ideo- logical or political aims’ are proven wrong. Moreover, the
contradictions between some critical analysis and socio-political actions and
phenomena are illustrated, mainly through the critic of previous research on
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Language and Ideology — Language in Ideology 3

‘nuclear language’ which sug-

© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
4 Ruth Wodak

gests that the power of nuclear weapons is mystified and mitigated as to be

accept- able — whereas political debates and diplomatic negotiations illustrate
that many states effectively reject nuclear power in spite of the ‘nuclear
language’: Interna- tional relations theory overdetermines proliferation but few
states possess nuclear arms. Matthew Woods’ article thus maintains the
linguistic construction of ‘pro- liferation’ accounts for the international non-
nuclear order. The paper argues that scholars seem to attend to how words
distort rather than create reality. Woods proposes a different kind of
‘constructivism’.
Sean Phelan and Marnie Holborow both focus on the concept of ‘neo-liber-
alism’. While Phelan traces neo-liberalist discourses in editorials of newspapers,
Holborow investigates the relationship of the dominance of English and its
impact on the new world order. Phelan takes the stock market floatation of
Telecom Eire- ann in July 1999 which remains — as he suggests — “the biggest
privatisation in the history of the Irish state” as his point of departure. By
applying Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis framework (Fairclough 2003),
he examines editorials both before and after the company’s initially ‘successful’
floatation in six Irish broadsheet newspapers. The results of the analysis point to
a plurality of neo-lib- eral discourses and styles, which can be partly understood
in terms of the ‘media field’ identity of the different newspapers — thus, Phelan
opposes a monolithic no- tion of ‘neo-liberalism’ and introduces context-
dependent readings and meanings of neo-liberalist ideology.
Holborow does not take the view for granted that the English language itself
constructs the hegemonic order of global capitalism. The article discusses the
way in which language and ideology interconnect but argues — in contrast to
much research (see Fairclough 2000) — that the ideology of neo-liberalism
cannot be adequately described as a discourse. Instead, Holborow claims, it is an
ideology with specific historical roots and which, as a dominant ideology, makes
itself felt in language, although not without contradictions. Through an empirical
study of call centers, Holborow concludes that there is not simple relationship
between lan- guage and ideology (neo-liberalism): language and ideology are
not the same and that it is in the dynamic of their interconnection that world
views are both made and contested.
Mikael Nygard’s aim is to analyze changing partisan constructions of unem-
ployment security in Finland during the 1990s. He analyzes a corpus of 143
texts comprising partisan statements on un/employment policies by using
Perelman’s (1971/1958) rhetorical design. The focus lies on justification,
argumentation and legitimation: what kinds of rhetorical argumentation were
used in order to legiti- mate these reformulations of policies and political
programmes? The results show that partisan constructions of unemployment
benefits changed during the Mid– 90s, indicating that elements of the so-called
workfare rhetoric became rooted in
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Language and Ideology — Language in Ideology 5

the Finnish political discourse. The political elites also seem to have adopted a
narrower interpretation of the concept of social right for unemployed people (see
also Wodak and Weiss 2002).
Finally, Claudia Zbenovich’s paper discusses linguistic forms and pragmatic
features of verbal interaction in interviews with Russian politicians in the last
de- cade of the 20th century. This genre of political interview emerged in Russia
after the fall of the Soviet Union. The study offers a comparative analysis of the
‘talk’ and ‘agonistic’ interview styles. These two counter-types of political
discourse dramati- cally illustrate some inherent features of the recent Russian
culture of communica- tion and illustrate the huge socio-political changes
occurring in Russia nowadays. Freedom of opinion and freedom of press are
threatened in Russian everyday life and in the public sphere (see interview by
the vice-president of Reporters sans frontières, Rubina Möhring with the
Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaja who was assassinated on the 7th of
October 2006; http://oe1.orf.at/highlights/67066. htm2); the linguistic changes
indicate some of these salient developments.

Notes

. See Huegli and Luebcke (1991: 282); and also Endruweit and Trommsdorff (1989: 281).

2. Interview was downloaded 13th January 2007.

References

Billig, M. 1991, Ideologies and Opinions. London, Sage.

Eagleton, T. 2000. Ideologie. Eine Einführung. Stuttgart/Metzler.
Endruweit, G. and Trommsdorff, G. (eds). 1989. Wörterbuch der Soziologie. Stuttgart, Enke.
Fairclough, N. 2000. The Language of New Labour. London, Routledge.
Fairclough, N. 2003. Analyzing Discourse. London, Routledge.
Giddens, A. (ed.). 2001. Sociology. Introductory Readings. London, Polity.
Habermas, J. 1968. Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt/Main, Suhrkamp.
Huegli, A. and Luebcke, P. (eds). 1991. Philosophielexikon. Reinbeck, Rowohlt.
Kienpointner, M. (ed.). 1999. Ideologies of Politeness. Special Issue Pragmatics, Vol.9/1.
Maas, U. 1984. Als der Geist der Gemeinschaft eine Sprache fand. Sprache im Nationalsozialismus.
Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Mannheim, K. 1995 (8th ed.). Ideologie und Utopie. Frankfurt/Main, Klostermann.
Silverstein, M. 1992. The uses and utility of ideology: Some reflections. Special Issue Pragmatics
2(3), 311–335.
Thompson, J.B. 1984. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Berkeley, UBP.
Van Dijk, T.A. 1998. Ideology. London, Sage.
Wodak, R. 2006. Images in/and news in a globalised world. In: I. Lassen, J.

© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
6 Ruth Wodak

Strunck, T. Vestergaard (eds). 2006. Mediating Ideology in Text and Image. Ten Critical Studies.
Amsterdam: Benjamins (DAPSAC Series), 1–16.
Wodak, R. and Kirsch, F.P. (eds). 1995. Totalitäre Sprache — Langue de bois — Language of
Dic- tatorship. Vienna, Passagen.
Wodak, R. and Weiss, G. 2004. Visions, ideologies and utopias in the discursive construction
of European identities: Organizing, representing and legitimizing Europe. In: M. Pütz et
al. (eds). 2004. Communication Ideologies: Language, Discourse and Social Practice.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 225–252.
Wodak, R. and Weiss, G. (eds). 2002. Discourses on un/employment. Special Issue TEXT Vol.
22–23.
Woolard, K. 1992. Language ideology: Issues and approaches. Special Issue Pragmatics 2(3),
235–251.

© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 Language and Ideology — Language in Ideology 7

© 2007.
© 2007. John
John Benjamins
Benjamins Publishing
PublishingCompany
All rights reserved
Company All rights reserved
View publication stats