Hello. I think this is an interesting question - one certainly worth asking/answering. I think you could do just about what you want with them if you establish your own ground rules - explain how YOU understand them working together. These two concepts, of course, come from different traditions: language ideologies from linguistic anthropology and language attitudes from social psychology of language and/or perceptual dialectology. In a nutshell. There is certainly a LOT of overlap between them - both conceptually and in practice. Both seek to understand everyday speakers' beliefs about and feelings towards ways of speaking - their own and others' ways of speaking. In practice, attitudes (not always such a comfortable notion for some of us discourse analysts) point to more individual perceptions which, needless to say, map onto social identities. It's at this point that they connect with the kinds of collective/cultural narratives about social groups which we might think of as ideologies, right? For me, the key is that both attitudes and ideologies about languages invariably tell us more (or as much) about people's beliefs about speakers (i.e. social groups) than they do about any linguistic "facts" or "realities". What's more, both language attitudes and language ideologies are matters of metalanguage; where they usually express explicit beliefs about language use, there are other reflexive language practices which also encode/express all sorts of understandings, feelings and beliefs about language, too. As I say, I think much of what's needed here is just a clear, confident defining of (your) terms, because in practice (i.e. the practices of everyday life) the boundaries are simply not clear. We draw these distinctions and create these labels for our own academic conveniences most of the time.  

Hello. I think this is an interesting question - one certainly worth asking/answering. I think you could do just about what you want with them if you establish your own ground rules - explain how YOU understand them working together. These two concepts, of course, come from different traditions: language ideologies from linguistic anthropology and language attitudes from social psychology of language and/or perceptual dialectology. In a nutshell. There is certainly a LOT of overlap between them - both conceptually and in practice. Both seek to understand everyday speakers' beliefs about and feelings towards ways of speaking - their own and others' ways of speaking. In practice, attitudes (not always such a comfortable notion for some of us discourse analysts) point to more individual perceptions which, needless to say, map onto social identities. It's at this point that they connect with the kinds of collective/cultural narratives about social groups which we might think of as ideologies, right? For me, the key is that both attitudes and ideologies about languages invariably tell us more (or as much) about people's beliefs about speakers (i.e. social groups) than they do about any linguistic "facts" or "realities". What's more, both language attitudes and language ideologies are matters of metalanguage; where they usually express explicit beliefs about language use, there are other reflexive language practices which also encode/express all sorts of understandings, feelings and beliefs about language, too. As I say, I think much of what's needed here is just a clear, confident defining of (your) terms, because in practice (i.e. the practices of everyday life) the boundaries are simply not clear. We draw these distinctions and create these labels for our own academic conveniences most of the time.  

Hi Ali, it may be worth looking at the following discussion: http://appappling.blogspot.com/2013/03/language-attitude-vs-language-ideology.html

Verschueren's ideology in language use may be a big help too: https://books.google.com/books?id=ncT8sR5U6K0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Hello Ali,

We have a text about ideology and discursive chain, where we discuss about  State as previous evidence to subject, as previous evidence to the struggle between two forces,as space, the ground for such struggle, so as to produce-reproduce subjects (and attitudes) as "natural" evidence.

The file is attached

Best regards,

Dionéia

In my view, language ideologies can be defined as socially constructed ‘realities’ in relation to language, and language attitudes, as people’s evaluative concepts directed to a linguistic phenomenon.  (I briefly discuss language-attitude theories in my ELF7 conference paper.)  Language attitudes may reflect a certain language ideology, especially when the ideology operates in a society, as it were, at a subconscious level.

I think it's important to make the basic distinction between ideology and attitudes. Ideology is a system of ideas, and intellectual concept, that is based on some social, political and economic foundation. Attitudes are more of an affective than an intellectual concept and involve feelings and values. It is an approach to something, a way of seeing it with those affective factors influencing it (rather than political or economic factors influencing it). There is, of course, as some have pointed out in this thread, an overlap in the literature on language

Hello Ali,and everyone in discussion!

Despite the right of scholars to mutually substitute the notions I would rather differentiate them:

 ‘language ideology’ being an optimum theoretical system of beliefs and ideas to manage language; fundamentals which might be realized or not realized; a sort of prestage;

‘language attitude’ enters the stage itself , it is a set of concretized ways of language management.   

Ali, check the (oldest?) definitions of attitude in Allport (1954) and Harding at al. (1954); you'll probably need them in the literature review. Also you may want to consider R.C. Gardner 'Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation' of 1986, for the same reason 

Answers are interesting,but I want to know what do we mean by language ideologies-is it ideologies of language or for language and also the attitude- the attitude towards language/

Dear all, many thanks for your answers, which are all illuminating for me in regards to understanding these two notions. They way I handled these terms in my thesis bears close resemblance to what Crispin and Tomo discussed above. I also see language ideologies as more socially constructed over time, and argue that holders of language ideologies display collective behaviors and share common beliefs about language in general and its structure and function in particular. I consider language attitudes to be more subjective, specific and individual, though. Additionally, in my opinion, while language attitudes are mutable, language ideologies tend to be deep-seated and perceived as common sense; that's why, they, especially the dominant ones, are rarely questioned by individuals. I agree with Eva's point as well in that the literature I've consulted indicates that researchers often emphasize the affective dimension of language attitudes whereas language ideologies are largely approached from a cognitive aspect, which describes language ideologies as a set of entrenched beliefs and notions about language shared by a socio-cultural group, whether small or big.   

A language is a lot more than a list of words and expressions. It implies a human group speaking it, and that human group means: ideologies, attitudes, habits, religious beliefs, social relations etc. A society is a complex body, and so the language(s) spoken in that society. We may of course debate whether the appropriate term, in this context, is ‘ideology’ or rather ‘attitude’. I think both are relevant to the discussion, and other aspects too.

Language ideology is the expresión of beliefs, views, thinking or percepcions about the world including persons, groups, nations and ourselves (cognition, discourse, society, Van Dijk). Attitude is basically a psychological concept. It has to be with the way  we react towards things or events in life (Jung) or in which a persona expresses or hinders ideology. Both conceps are related because attitude may be an expresión of ideology, when the speech act we verbalize  —as a consequence of our attitude towards  some social events or practices—  is sincere.