| Abstrakt: |
Language ideologies both reflect and (re)create our understandings of language. This article focuses on language ideological discourses where language is overtly the subject of discussion, yet other social concerns are subtly expressed in the background. What is discussed in a public language ideological debate beyond language itself? Who are the participants in such a debate? The case study that we have chosen to examine is the public debate in Estonian media on the meanings of the word liiderlik (a loanword from German liederlich, meaning 'debauched'; and a newer loan from English leader + adjective suffix lik, meaning 'leader-like') that took place in March and April 2023. We use argumentation analysis as a methodological tool to explore the debate from the perspective of how arguments are constructed to express language ideologies. Our aim is to highlight the non-linguistic social concerns that become associated with language in such a debate and are presented as language issues. The article reveals that language professionals - such as linguists, language editors, language teachers, and journalists - play a prominent role in the debate. Whereas most of them adopt the standpoint that word meanings should be standardized in a normative dictionary, some linguists advocate for the opposing view that meanings cannot be fixed. The analysis shows that there is a lot at stake for the participants in the debate: ensuring mutual understanding, the functioning of society, the quality of higher education and science, the survival of the nation and the state, and even the future of humanity. With this article, we aim to bridge the gap between linguists and other language professionals, showing that while their concerns are vital, framing them as language issues can lead to entrenched, outdated discourses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
