Reviewed by I. M. Laversuch Nick, University of Cologne

This book offers a superbly written exploration of ‘the ways in which ideas and beliefs about language permeate the social life of groups, communities and societies and how such ideas and beliefs are called upon to justify and legitimate actions that have consequences for people’s opportunities and for their relationships with each other’ (11). Sadly, however, as soon as the authors begin to apply their theory to reality, the excellence of this work dissipates.

While it is understood that this investigation is qualitative in nature, one, nevertheless, expects clear answers to basic questions (e.g. the precise number of participants, the exact context of interviews). Without such answers, it is virtually impossible to critically appraise or appreciate the conclusions drawn. Though disappointing, these oversights are negligible in comparison to the following methodological flaw.

As the authors describe, the historical focus is divided into five conjunctive periods: ‘the present-day situation, the communist era; the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, the interwar period, and the late nineteenth century, and the years prior to the First World War’ (50). What is conspicuously absent here is the period during World War II. Given the unquestionable importance of this period for the border regions of the Czech Republic and Hungary and the people residing there, this omission is inexplicable, especially given the number of times their respondents make direct reference to this period. Without direct examination of National Socialism in these regions, much of the historical impetus for the emergence of anti-German ideology, discourse, and language policy after the war is lost. The aim here is neither to excuse nor condone the institutionalized discrimination which many ethnic Germans suffered after World War II. Instead, the point is to reiterate an essential observation that the authors themselves make in their theoretical discussion: ‘texts are produced under particular historical conditions from which they cannot be released’ (19).

The violation of this tenet is one weakness of the applied portion of this work, .in addition to its unclear organization and cumbersome rhetorical style. The chapters which report the study methodology and results were weakened by a repetitive presentation of the interview material, unsystematic analysis of documentary evidence, and many inadequately founded conclusions. It is unclear whether these problems are attributable to one of the book’s two authors; it is clear, however, that the disparate quality between the theoretical and applied sections is so extreme and systematic that two separate evaluations are needed. As a theoretical treatise on the discourse of language and language ideology, this reference is an unqualified triumph, but as an example of modern ethnolinguistic research, it is an unfortunate disappointment.